UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MEMORANDUM

To: Public Information (MS 5030)

Plans Section, Office of Field Operations (MS 5231)

Public Information copy of Exploration Plan

Control # - S-07604

Type - Supplemental Exploration Plan

Lease(s) - OCS-G21817 Block - 768 Green Canyon Area

Operator - Anadarko Petroleum Corporation

Wells B and BB

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.

Michelle Griffitt
Plan Coordinator Description -

Rig Type - Subject: From: April 29, 2013

# SUPPLEMENTAL EXPLORATION PLAN S-7604

ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION

GREEN CANYON BLOCK 768 OCS-G 21817

PUBLIC COPY

RECORD OF CHANGE LOG

Submission Type Date Sent to
BOEMRE Summary of
Submission Page
Numbers Initial 2/20/2013 Initial plan submittal All Amendment 3/19/2013 Clarify drilling fluid info 63-64 Amendment 4/04/2013 Update NTL reference 82
Final 4/04/2013 Submit final EP All Amendment 4/15/2013 Revised support vessel
info 84

# PUBLIC

SUPPLEMENTAL EXPLORATION PLAN

GREEN CANYON BLOCK 768 OCS-G 21817

OFFSHORE, LOUISIANA

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
1 – CDs Public Information



### February, 2013

## SUPPLEMENTAL EXPLORATION PLAN LEASE OCS-G 21817
GREEN CANYON BLOCK 768

A. Plan Contents

B. General Information

C. Geological, Geophysical

D. Hydrogen Sulfide Information

E. Biological, Physical and Socioeconomic Information

F. Wastes and Discharge Information

G. Air Emissions Information

H. Oil Spill Information

I. Environmental Monitoring Information

J. Lease Stipulations

K. Support Vessels and Aircraft Information

L. Onshore Support Facilities Information

M. Coastal Zone Management Act Information

N. Environmental Impact Analysis

O. Administrative Information

## A PLAN CONTENTS

(a) Plan Information Form

Under this Supplemental Exploration Plan, Anadarko Pe troleum Corporation (Anadark o) proposes to drill and complete two wells total in Green Canyon Block 768. The well will be drilled using either a Dynamically Positioned (DP) Drillship or DP Semisubmersible drilling rig. Drilling and completion operations for the proposed
well locations will utilize a Subsea BOP stack. OCS Plan Information Form MMS-137 is enclosed as Attachment
A-1.

(b) Location

Enclosed as Attachment A-2 is a well location plat at a scale of 1 inch = 2000 feet that de picts the surface location and water depth of the proposed well.

(c) Safety and Pollution Prevention Features

Safety features on the drilling unit will include well cont rol, pollution prevention, sa fe 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 re gulations of the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Coast Guard. The appropriate life ra fts, life jackets, ring buoys, etc., as prescribed by the U.S. Coast Guard, will be maintained on the facility at all times.

(d) Storage Tanks and Production Vessels

The Green Canyon Block 768 wells will be drilled wi th a DP drillship DP semisubmersible unit.

Type of Facility Type Of Storage
Tank Tank Capacity Number Of Tanks Total Capacity Fluid Gravity

(Api) Total Capacity of
all Tanks for

Rig Type

Drillship Fuel Oil Storage
Tank 16,564 bbls 1 16,564 bbls No. 2 Diesel 6 tanks total= 36,595.9 bbls

Fuel Oil Storage
Tank 16,685.5
bbls 1 16,685.5 bbls No. 2 Diesel

Fuel Oil Settleing
Tanks 836.6 bbls 2 1,673.2 bbls No. 2 Diesel

Fuel Oil Day Tanks 836.6 bbls 2 1,673.2 bbls No. 2 Diesel

DP Semi Fuel Oil Hull
Tanks 4,541 bbls 2 9,082 bbls No. 2 Diesel 7 tanks total= 16,689 bbls

Fuel Oil Hull
Tanks 3,392 bbls 2 6,784 bbls No. 2 Diesel

Fuel Oil Deck Day
Tank 629 bbls 1 629 bbls No. 2 DieselFuel Oil Deck Settling Tank 164 bbls 1 164 bbls No. 2 Diesel

Fuel Oil Emergency
Generator 30 bbls 1 30 bbls No. 2 Diesel



### (e) Pollution Prevention Measures

The drilling rig utilized for these operations will comply with all applicable regula tions regarding pollution prevention and control. The rig ha s a Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (SOPEP), which is reviewed and approved annually by the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). The SOPEP is provided to assist employees in dea ling with an unexpected discharge of oil. Its primary purpose is to set in motion the necessary actions to stop or minimize the discharge of oil and to mitigate its effects. Effective planning en sures that the necessary actions are taken in a structured, logicalm and timely manner.

Pollution prevention measures includ e installation of curbs, gutters, drip pans, and drains on deck
areas to collect all contaminants and debris. Most deck drains and some of the joints at the edge of the rig floor go overboard or into the moon pool, respectively. To prevent ocean discharge from the drains there is a dedicated drip pan un der the rotary table. The pipe racks, mud pump room, sack store, and drill floor drains go to a holding tank, which is se rved by a dedicated oily water separator. The well test area, engine room , and other major machinery spaces drains all go to slops tanks, which are served by a large general-serv ice, oily water separa tor. The containment devices are temporary. They are not meant for perm anent storage of waste. On the rare occasion that they contain wastes, they are pumped, moppe d, or cleaned within a short period of time. The chances of damage to a containment structur e during such time as it contains wastes are exceedingly small.

(f) Additional Pollution Prevention Measures

No additional measures are proposed under this plan. The activities proposed in this plan are not
located offshore Florida.

### (g) Description of Previously Approved Lease Activities

Anadarko has previously approved well locatio ns in Green Canyon Block 768. Approval was granted to drill and complete the following two we ll locations under the Ini tial Exploration Plan (filed by Samedan Oil Corporation) for Gr een Canyon Block 768 (Plan Control No. N-7895) approved on October 24, 2003:

Well Location Status of Well Location Potential Future Operations

A Used location to drill GC 768 #SS001
well. Currently producing well.

B Used location to drill GC 768 #SS002
well. Currently producing well.



### Approval was granted to drill and complete th e following well location under the Supplemental DOCD for Green Canyon Block 768 (Plan Contro l No. S-6985) approved on April 27, 2007:

Well Location Status of Well Location Potential Future Operations

003 Used location to drill GC 768 #SS003
well. Currently producing well.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) Devel opment 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 deepwate r subsea development? Yes No
Description of Proposed Activities and Tentative Schedule (Mark all that apply)

Proposed Activity Start Date End Date No. of Days
Drill and Complete Well Location B

Drill and Complete Well Location BB

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 Ot her (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) Diamet er (Inches) Length (Feet)

Form BOEM- 0137 (December 2011 - Supersedes all previous editi ons of this form which may not be used.) Page 1 of 4OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM ( CONTINUED ) Include one copy of this page for each proposed well/structure Proposed Well/Structure Location

Well or Structure Name/N umber (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 we ll or structure, list the Complex ID or API No. Do you plan to use a subsea BOP or a surface BOP on a floa ting 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 mult iple 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 4OCS 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): 298,799 BOPD For structures, volume of all storage and pipelines (Bbls): n/a 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 GC 768 "BB" 

## x

x 

## n/a

x

G 218 


### Green Canyon

768



## 358'FNL

3408'FWL



# 2,300,208.37

9,883,801.63

27.2229219

90.9693098

5257' 

## N/A

### B GENERAL INFORMATION

(a) Applications and Permits

Prior to beginning exploration operations the follo wing application(s) will be submitted for approval:

Application/Permit Issuing Agency Status
Permits to Drill BSEE To be submitted

(b) Drilling Fluids

Type of Drilling Fluid Estimated Volume Per Well Water-based (NaCl saturated, seawater, freshwater, barite) for Pump and Dump 10,000 bbls per well**

Synthetic-based (internal olefin, ester) 10,000 bbls per well
Oil-based NA

* *The actual volume ordered out will be an estimated 10,000 bbls/well of mud. Once on location this volume will be cut back and mixed with seawater to different desired mud weights which will increase the volume that is discharged at the seafloor. The estimated volume that will be discharged at the seafloor will be approximately 32,000 bbls/well.

(c) New or Unusual Technology

Anadarko does not propose to use any new or unusual tec hnology to drill the well proposed in this plan.

(d) Bonding Statement

The bond requirements for the activities and facilities pr oposed in this EP are satisfied by an area-wide bond furnished and maintained according to 30 CFR pa rt 256, subpart I; NTL No. 2000-G16, “Guidelines for General Lease Surety Bonds,” and National N TL No. 2008-N07, “Supplemental Bond Procedures”.

(e) Oil Spill Financial Responsibility (OSFR)

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (Company Number 00981) has demonstrated oil spill financial responsibility for the facilities proposed in this EP according to 30 CFR Part 253, and NTL No. 2008- N05, “Guidelines for Oil Spill Financia l Responsibility for Covered Facilities”.

(f) Deepwater Well Control Statement

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (Company Number 0098 1) has the financial capability to drill a relief well and conduct other emergency well control operations if required.

(g) Blowout Scenario

Anadarko prepared this blowout scenario pursuant to guidance provided in NTL No. 2010-N06. The Green Canyon 768 #4 well (EP Location “B”) is addressed in this blowout scenario since it is the location with the highest potential worst case discharge (WCD ) rate for Green Canyon Block 768. A similar approach would be taken in the event of a blowout for the GC 768 “BB” well covered under this plan.Based on NTL No. 2010-N06 guidance, the maximum hydrocarbon discharge for Green Canyon Block
768 is calculated to be 

### 298,799 BOPD.

Purpose This information provides a generic blowout scenario , additional information regarding any potential oil spill, the measures Anadarko Petroleum will take to prevent a blowout, and if necessary, promptly respond to manage a blowout scenario if one occurs . The following information is pursuant with 30 CFR 250.213(g), 250.219, 250.250 and NTL No. 2010-N06.

Background This section has been developed to document the a dditional information requirements for Exploration Plans as requested by NTL No. 2010-N06.

Information Requirements
Blowout Scenario The GC 768 #4 well will be drilled to the sand objectiv es, as outlined in the Geological and Geophysical Information section of this Plan, utilizing a MODU rig with a marine riser and subsea BOP.

The Blowout Scenario assumes the we ll has reached its objective TD and a hydrocarbon influx occurs from the objective intervals, followed by a well control event. The sub sea BOP and marine riser fail, and
a blowout occurs at the seabed. The WCD scen ario assumes 12-1/4” open-hole across the objective intervals and 14” casing back to the mudline, as per the attached wellbore schematic (Attachment H-1).
The WCD scenario assumes simultaneou s flow from the objective zones.

Estimated Flow Rate of the Potential Blowout Category Supplemental EP Type of Activity Drilling Facility Location (area/block) Green Canyon Block 768 Facility Designation MODU Distance to Nearest Shoreline (miles) 127 Uncontrolled Blowout (volume per day) 298,799 bbls Type of Fluid(s) Crude Oil

a) Potential for the well to bridge over:

Mechanical collapse of the reservoirs in the open-hole section of the wellbore was not considered.

b) Measures to enhance the ability to conduct effective and early intervention in the event of a blowout:

The likelihood of surface intervention to stop a blowout is high and based on the following equipment specific to the MODU that has been contracted to do this drilling program:

 ROV Secondary BOP Control System: The BOP is confirmed to have a ROV Intervention Panel and circuits that have the following attributes:

 Hot stab is capable of closing one set of:

- Blind-Shear Rams (one set)

- Pipe Rams (one set)- Unlatch the Lower Marine Riser Package

 ROV hot stab to be function tested in conjunction with the Stump test and tested at the

same rate and pressure as the pump installed on the ROB used by the rig.

 BOP panels also can be operated by an ROV from an independent supply boat in the

event of a loss-of-rig scenario

 Deadman/Autoshear Function: The rig is equi pped with an automated sequence that closes

the blind shear rams in the even t of any of the following scenarios:



 Inadvertent disconnect of the LMRP

 Loss of both hydraulic pressure and electrical supply from the surface BOP control

system

No human interface is required once these systems are armed.

c) Availability of a rig to drill a relief well:

Per the preliminary Mutual Aid agreements that are being worked between E&P Operators in the Gulf of Mexico, Anadarko will select from the best rig option available in the Gulf of Mexico fleet if and when it is required for relief well work . As of January 30, 2013, there were over 20 additional rigs capable of operating under these conditi ons in the Gulf of Mexico. A rig that could

be used to drill a relief well is the Transocean Discoverer Clear Leader , which is a drillship capable of drilling in 12,000’ of water without any co nstraints. The rig is currently under contract to Chevron and is on location in Walker Ridge 677 working on the St. Malo North Prospect.

There are no nearby platforms from which to drill a relief well.

It is not feasible to drill a relief well from land.

d) Rig constraints:

A rig capable of drilling in 5,500’ of water with at least a 10k Stack is required for any relief well operation. The Transocean Discoverer Clear Leader drillship meets these requirements.

e) Time taken to mobilize a rig and drill a relief well:

An estimate of 7–21 days is required to susp end 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 re lief well. The estimated time to drill the relief well is 85 days, for a total estimated time of 92 –106 days from time of blowout to finishing therelief well.

f) Assumptions and calculations used in approved or proposed Oil Spill Response Plan:

 The Merlin reservoir simulator and Avalon nodal analysis programs were used to estimate the WCD for this well. Supporting input data can be found on Data Sheets 1, 2, and 3, and

Merlin and Avalon files are included as Electronic Attachments 1 and 2. At the seafloor, the estimated worst case discharge for the well is 298,799 BOPD based on the objective sand

intervals.

 The maximum total volume during a blowout could potentially be 31,672,694 bbls assuming 106 days for the maximum duration of a blowout, multiplied by the worst case daily uncontrolled blowout volume of 298,799 bbls.

g) Measures taken to reduce the likelihood of a blow-out:

 Well Design: Anadarko utilizes a systematic well design process for the planning and construction of a well operation. This pro cess taps into the vast depth of experience Anadarko possesses in the Deep Water drilling ar ena and involves a multi-team peer review of the well design, shallow hazards, and forma tion pressure hazards expected during drilling. This process minimizes the potential for an unplan ned well control event that could lead to a blowout. This process will also include a Registered Professional Engineer review and approval of the final casing design and cementing program.

A detailed pre-drill assessment of formation pr essure provided by Anadarko’s Geological and Geophysical team, along with third-party consulta nts, allows for a mud program that provides an overbalanced mud weight for the safe drilling of the well. For an exploration well, this may also include taking formation pressures to confirm the actual formation pressure during the well construction process to minimize the ri sk of an unplanned well control event. The pore pressure environment is understood due to the nearby offset wells.

The well construction process also requires a systematic review and management acceptance of the start-up preparation work for the rig and crews and the third-party technical audit work on the rig and the rig’s well control equipment. This measures the rig’s ability to handle an unplanned well control event, and it provides assurance the rig can su ccessfully mitigate a loss of well control event and prevent it from becoming a blowout scenario.

 Barrier Philosophy: For all well designs, Anadarko requires and uses a redundant barrier philosophy, which is two independent tested ba rriers including one mechanical barrier, across each flow path during well operations.

For the final casing string (or liner if it is the final string), there shall be two mechanical

barriers in addition to cement inside the wellbore.It is also standard practice to perform pressure tests, in accordance with the law, to confirm integrity on all relevant barriers.

In addition, all intermediate and production casing strings retu rned to the wellhead will be locked down prior to proceeding with subsequent wellbore construction.

 BOP and Well Control Equipment: The rig will have an 18-3/4” 15k psi BOP with primary and secondary BOP control systems. The BOP will have been completely recertified, compliant to OEM specifications, by a qualified third-party. Prior to commencement of operations, an independent third-party will verify the subsea BOP is designed for the specific equipment on the rig and the specific well design. [250.416(f)]

 BOP and Well Control Equipment Testing: To ensure effectiveness of the BOP and well control equipment, a testing program will be conducted prior to running the BOP and then during the well operations. This testing pr ogram will provide compliance with current federal regulations for pressure and function t esting. It will also provide periodic assurance on the performance of both primary and secondary BOP control systems including actual interface operations with the ROV and ROV panel.

 Well Control Training and Drills: Anadarko requires key nominated onshore and offshore positions, including rig contractor personnel, hold a WellCAP or equivalent well control training certificate, renewed every two years for the type of floating drilling operation being conducted. Anadarko also monitors compliance for its personnel with th e federal regulations and Sub-Part O for well control training.

A comprehensive program of well control dr ills will be conducted offshore to ensure readiness to identify and manage a well control situation; thereby minimizing the potential for

a well control event to lead to a blowout scenario.

h) Arrangements for drilling a relief well:

 Anadarko maintains a master agreement with Wild Well Control, Inc. for advice, management, engineering, well kick pre- a nd post-modeling, and resource support for an unplanned loss-of-well-control event. Wild Well Control, Inc. will be contacted and mobilized, if required, to support Anadarko’s operational team, both at onshore and offshore

locations.

 The conceptual relief well design is similar to the design of the GC 768 #4 well with respect to identical casing weights, grades, and setti ng points. A site clearance letter has been prepared that includes an assessment of the sp ecific seafloor and subsurface hazards for an area within a 2,000 ft radius of the primary location, within which a relief well could be drilled. There is negligible potential for hi gh-density chemosynthetic or other benthic communities within this 2,000 ft radius. Depe nding on the nature of the blowout scenario,well geometry, and total depth required to inte rsect the blowout, previously submitted surface

locations and/or additional surf ace locations will be submitted and reviewed to determine the most appropriate location of the relief well.

 Anadarko’s philosophy is to carry adequate inve ntory in stock to drill a complete well(s) from surface to TD. Back-up long-lead equivalent to the original well design will be carried in stock to allow a rapid response. This in cludes a spare deepwater subsea wellhead system, the large OD casing (36”, 28”, 22”, 18”, 16”), and required connectors. Smaller OD casing (13-5/8”, 11-7/8”, and 9-7/8”) is considered widely available on the ground in the GOM and would be resourced out of existing i nventory or from suppliers as required.

 Existing service agreements are in place for support services, including drilling fluids, casing running, cementing, ROVs, solids control, mud logging, directional drilling, LWD/MWD, logging, boats, and helicopters.

 Specialist services for range finding to drill the re lief well in close proximity to the original wellbore at the reservoir depth will be provide d through Vector Magnetics, LLC. Sperry Drilling/Halliburton and Schlumberger have in-house personnel to supplement Vector Magnetics, LLC, under our existing directional drilling agreements.

### C GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL INFORMATION

(a) Geological Description

Discussions regarding geologic information are consid ered proprietary and have been omitted from this public copy of the EP, along with the attachments.

(b) Structure Contour Maps

Current structure maps drawn to the top of each productive hydrocarbon sand showing the entire lease block, the surface locations 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 seismic lines are enclosed as Attachment C-2.

(d) Geological Structure Cross-Sections

Interpreted geological structure cross-sections show ing the location and depth of each proposed well are
enclosed as Attachment C-3.

(e) Shallow Hazards Report

A Shallow Hazards Report prepared by Fugro Ge oServices, Inc. for Green Canyon Block 768 was previously submitted with the Initia l Exploration Plan for the block.

(f) Shallow Hazards Assessment

Shallow Hazards Site Clearance Letters for the prop osed well locations in Green Canyon Block 768 are
enclosed as Attachment C-4.

(g) High-resolution Seismic Lines

High resolution seismic lines are enclosed as Attachment C-5.

(h) Stratigraphic Column

A generalized stratigraphic column depicting the wells from the seafloor to total depth is included as
Attachment C-6.

(i) Time Vs. Depth Tables

The proposed activities under this EP are not considered to be in areas where there is no well control. Therefore, a seismic travel time versus dept h table is not required per NTL No. 2008-G04.

### D HYDROGEN SULFIDE INFORMATION

The proposed GC 768 “B” well will only penetrate se ctions which were prev iously penetrated by three of the GC 768 wells within approximately 250’ of the surface lo cation of the proposed wells and had no recorded amounts of Hydrogen Su lfide. The objective intervals have been penetrated by all of the Ticonderoga Field we lls mentioned above, the closest being the Kerr McGee (Anadarko) GC 768-2 (API # 608114044700) well at a distance of 16,000’. None of these penetrations encountered any Hydrogen Sulfide. Since no (H 2 

### S) was encountered in any of these wells we reques t the area be classified as a "zon e where the absence of H2s has been
confirmed.”

### E BIOLOGICAL, PHYSICAL, AND SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION

(a) Chemosynthetic Communities Report

The seafloor disturbing activities proposed in this plan are in approximately 5,257 of water. The well will be drilled with a DP Drillship or DP Semisubmersible drilling unit.



### Maps

A map prepared using 3-D seismic data to depi ct bathymetry, seafloor and shallow geological features, and surface location of the propos ed well is included in Section A.

Analysis

Features or areas that could support high-density chemosynthetic communities are not located within 2000 feet of each proposed muds and cuttings discharge location.

Features or areas that could support high-density chemosynthetic communities are not located within 250 feet of any se afloor disturbances.

(b) Topographic Features Map

The proposed activities are not with in 1,000 feet of a no-ac tivity zone or within the 3-mile radius zone of an identified topographic feature. Th erefore, no map is requ ired 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 identifie d topographic feature. Theref ore, the topographic features statement required by NTL No. 200 8-G04 is not applicable.

(d) Live Bottoms (Pinnacle Trend) Map

The activities proposed in this pl an are not within 200 feet of any pinnacle trend feature with vertical relief equal to or greater than 8 f eet. 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 potentia lly sensitive biological features. Therefore, no map is required per NTL No. 2008-G04.(g) Remotely Operated Vehicle (R OV) Monitoring Survey Plan

Green Canyon Block 768 is located within Deepwater Grid Area 10. 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 Monitori ng 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 je opardize 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, effec tive May 14, 2007, and further outlined in Notice to Lessees (NTL) 2008-G04, lessees/operators are require d to address site-specific information on the presence of federally listed threatened or endangere d species and critical habitat designated under the ESA and marine mammals protected under the Mari ne Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) in the area of proposes activities under this plan. Currently there are no designated critical habitats fo r 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 Fede rally-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 Gulf of Mexico Lease Area Coastal

Marine Mammals

Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus E X ‐‐ None

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

Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus E X a
‐‐ None

Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus E X a
‐‐ None
Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae E X a
‐‐ None

North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis E X a
‐‐ None

Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis E X a
‐‐ 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 N of this plan further discusses potential impacts and mitigation measures related to threatened and endangered species.

(i) Archaeological Report

Green Canyon Block 768 is not located in an area designated as having high archaeological potential and, as such, an Archaeological Report is not re quired per NTL No. 2011-JOINT-G01. However, an Archaeological Report prepared by Fugro Geoservices, Inc covering the proposed Green Canyon Block 768 well locations is being submitted with this plan. The survey was conducted in ac cordance with the latest guidelines established by the
BOEMRE in 2011.

(j) Air and Water Quality Information

This EP does not propose activities for which the State of Flor ida is an affected State. Therefore, the discussion required per NTL 2008-G04 is not applicable to this EP.

(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 EP.

### F WASTE AND DISCH ARGE INFORMATION

The following estimates were prepared utilizing Anad arko’s experience with si milar drilling operations. Estimated maximum discharge rates are reflected below. Projected amounts may vary during the course of drilling operations.

(a) Projected Generated Wastes

Type of Waste Composition Projected Amount Treatment/Storage/Disposal Synthetic-based drilling fluids Synthetic-based drilling muds 10,000 bbls/well Re-use and/or transport to shore in DOT approved containers to Fourchon, Louisiana and on to base/transfer station. If recycled, returned to vendor (Bariod or MI). Cuttings wettedwith syntheticbased fluids Cuttings coated with synthetic drilling muds/fluids, including drilled out

cement 2,500 bbls/well Treated and discharge overboard *Note, an estimated 5-10% of cuttings may be transported to shore in tanks and/or cutting boxes and on to the base/transfer station if oil still remains

. Water-based drilling fluids Water based drilling muds (NaCl saturated, seawater, freshwater, barite) 32,000 bbls/well** Discharge overboard or at seafloor

Cuttings wetted
with water-based
fluids Cuttings coated with water-based drilling
muds/fluids 2,000 bbls/well Discharge overboard

Chemical product waste (well treatment fluids) Ethylene glycol
Methanol 500 bbls total
125 bbls total Transport to shore in DOT approved containers to Fourchon, Louisiana for pick up. Completion Fluids Brine, spent acid, prop sand, debris 3,000 bbls/well Transport to shore in DOT approved containers 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 DOT approved containers to Fourchon, Louisiana and on to Newpark
Base.

Trash and debris Refuse generated during operations 250 bbls total Transport to shore in disposal bags by vessel to shorebase for pickup by municipal operations. *Sanitary Wastes Treated human body

waste 750,000 gals total Chlorinate and discharge
overboard *Domestic Waste Gray water 750,000 gals total Chlorinate and discharge
overboard Deck drainage Platform washings
and rainwater 525,000 total Treat for oil and grease and discharge overboard
Produced water N/A N/A N/A Desalinization Unit Seawater 52,500 bbls total Discharge overboardWash water Drill water (fresh) 7,500 bbls total Discharge overboard Blowout preventer
fluid Blend (3% Stack Magic & Filtered Fresh Water) 19,821 gals total Discharge at seafloor

Ballast water Seawater 47,650 m3/year Discharge overboard Bilge water Seawater 47,550 bbls total Discharge overboard through 15 ppm equipment
Excess cement at
the seafloor Nitrified cement slurry 700 bbls/well Discharge at seafloor

Fire water Seawater 137,142 bb ls/day/well Discharge overboard Cooling water Seawater 137,142 bbls/day/well Discharge overboard
Produced Sand N/A N/A N/A
Used oil Excess oil from engines 538 bbls total Transport in DOT approved containers to shore for recycling *The rig is designed for maximum personnel capacity of 200 people. The discharge rates are based off of maximum personnel capacity but will generally not have this many personnel onboard during drilling and/or completion operations.

* *The actual volume ordered out will be an estimated 10,000 bbls/well of mud. Once on location this volume will be cut back and mixed with seawater to different desired mud weights which will increase the volume that is discharged at the seafloor. The estimated volume that will be discharged at the seafloor will be approximately 32,000 bbls/well (NOTE: there will be two wells for a total of 64,000 bbls).

(b) Projected Ocean Discharges Type of Waste Total Amount to be Discharged Discharge Rate Discharge Method

*Sanitary Wastes 750,000 gals 25 gals per person daily Chlorinate and discharge
overboard *Domestic waste 750,000 gals 25 gals per person daily Chlorinate and discharge
overboard Deck drainage 525,000/bbls 3500 bbls/day Treat for oil and grease and discharge Blowout preventer fluid 19,821 gals total 925 gals/week/well; Vents on a weekly
basis Discharge at seafloor

Desalinization Unit 52,500 bbls 350 bbls/day Discharge overboard Wash water 7,500 bbls 50 bbls/day Discharge overboard Ballast water 47,650 m3/year Not continuous Discharge overboard Bilge water 47,550 bbls 317 bbls/day Discharge overboard through 15 ppm equipment
Excess cement at the
seafloor 1,400 bbls 20 bbls/min Discharge at seafloor

Fire water 20,571,300 bbls 137,142 bbls/day Discharge overboard Cooling water 20,571,300 bbls 137,142 bbls/day Discharge overboard Cuttings wetted with
Water-based fluids 4,000 bbls 1,000 bbls/hr max Discharge overboard

Water-based drilling
fluids 64,000 bbls** 1,000 bbls/hr max Discharge at seafloor or
overboard Cuttings wetted with Synthetic-based fluids 5,000 bbls NA Treated and discharge overboard *Note, an estimated 5-10% of cuttings may be transported to shore in tanks and/or cutting boxes and on to the base/transfer station if oil still remains

.Non-pollutant completion fluids 10,000 bbls 100 bbl/hour Discharge overboard

*The rig is designed for maximum personnel capacity of 200 people. The discharge rates are based off of maximum personnel capacity but will generally not have this many personnel onboard during drilling and/or completion operations.

* *The actual volume ordered out will be an estimated 10,000 bbls/well of mud. Once on location this volume will be cut back and mixed with seawater to different desired mud weights which will increase the volume that is discharged at the seafloor. The estimated volume that will be discharged at the seafloor will be approximately 32,000 bbls/well (NOTE: there will be two wells for a total of 64,000 bbls).

(c) Modeling Report

The proposed activities under this plan do not meet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requirements for an individual NPDES permit. Th erefore, modeling report requirements per NTL No. 2008-G04 is not applicable to this EP.

### G AIR EMISSIONS INFORMATION

(a) Screening Questions

Screening Questions for EP’s Yes No Is any calculated Complex Total (CT) Emission amount (in tons) associated with your proposed exploration activities more than 90% of the amounts calculated using the following formulas: CT = 3400D 2/3 for CO, and CT = 33.3D for the other air pollutants (where D = distance to shore in miles)? No

Do your emission calculations include any emission reduction measures or modified
emission factors? No

Are your proposed exploration activities located east of 87.5 W longitude? No Do you expect to encounter H2S at concentrations greater than 20 parts per million (ppm)? No Do you propose to flare or vent natural gas for more than 48 continuous hours from any proposed well? No

Do you propose to burn produced hydrocarbon liquids? No

(b) Emissions Worksheets Air emissions worksheets have been prepared us ing a DP Drillship and DP Semisubmersible drilling units. Air emissions worksheets are available upon request

.

(c) Summary Information

The following tables summarize information regarding the peak year emissions generated from the Plan Emissions and Complex Total Emissions:

If drilled with a DP Semisubmersible:
Air Pollutant Plan Emission
Amounts 1 (tons) Calculated Exemption
Amounts 2 (tons) Calculated Complex
Total Emission
Amounts 3 (tons) Particulate matter (PM) 79.03 4229.10 79.03 Sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ) 362.57 4229.10 362.57 Nitrogen oxides (NO

x ) 2717.79 4229.10 2717.79 Volatile organic compounds (VOC) 82.41 4229.10 82.41 Carbon monoxide (CO) 598.57 85904.27 598.57

If drilled with a DP Drillship:
Air Pollutant Plan Emission
Amounts 1 (tons) Calculated Exemption
Amounts 2 (tons) Calculated Complex
Total Emission
Amounts 3 (tons) Particulate matter (PM) 78.27 4229.10 78.27 Sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ) 359.07 4229.10 359.07 Nitrogen oxides (NO

x ) 2691.62 4229.10 2691.62 Volatile organic compounds (VOC) 81.62 4229.10 81.62 Carbon monoxide (CO) 592.86 85904.27 592.86The air emission calculations were calculated by:

Jill Fowler Regulatory Analyst (832) 636-1554 jill.fowler@anadarko.com

### H OIL SPILL INFORMATION

(a) Oil Spill Response Planning

(i) OSRP Information

All the proposed activities and facilities in this EP are covered by the Regional Oil Spill Response Plan (OSRP) approved on August 24, 2012 for Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and its subsidiaries, Anadarko US Offshore Cor poration and Anadarko E&P Company L.P. (Company Numbers 00981, 02219 and 00148, respectivel y) 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 w ith 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.cleangul fassoc.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 Co rporation (MSRC) for spill response equipment. MSRC stages equipm ent 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 are available online at: http:// www.msrc.org/.

Anadarko is a member of the Helix Well Cont ainment Group (HWCG), a combination of the Helix Fast Response System (HFRS) and the co mmon equipment and services. This agreement
allows access to subsea well contai nment and well shut-in equipment.

Anadarko is also a member of the Marine Well Containment Co mpany (MWCC), which provides access to containment response capabilities and includes subsea dispersant injection equipment.

### (iv) Worst-Case Scenario Determination

Category Regional OSRP EP Type of Activity Exploratory Exploratory Facility Location (area/block) GB 346 GC 768

Facility Designation * GB 346 “A” GC 768 “B”

Distance to Nearest
Shoreline 118 miles 127 miles

Storage Tanks (total) N/A N/A Flowlines (on facility) N/A N/A Pipelines N/A N/A Uncontrolled Blowout 350,000 bopd** 298,799 bopd Type of Oil(s) Oil Oil API Gravity 30.1 o 32.2 o /30.9 o

* Note–for the OSRP exploratory worst case discharge scenario only the Area/Block is referenced in the OSRP. Exploratory drilli ng facility designations (proposed well location names) are typically not included in the OSRP.

** The volume denoted in the Regional OSRP is higher than the NTL No. 2010-N06 (256,700 bopd) and BOEMRE (321,108 bopd) calculations approved under EP Plan Control No. N-95 79. Anadarko elected to denote a higher volume in the Regional OSRP for planning purposes to de monstrate equipment respons e capabilities per previous discussions with Rusty Wright.



### Anadarko has determined that the worst-case scen arios from the activities proposed in this Supplemental EP do not supersede the worst-ca se scenario for Garden Banks Block 346.

Since Anadarko has the cap ability to respond to the worst-case spill s cenario included in our Regional OSRP, and since the worst-case scenario s determined for our EP does not replace the worst-case scenario in our Regional OSRP approved on August 24, 2012, I hereby certify that Anadarko has the capability to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst-case discharge, or a substantial threat of such a discha rge, resulting from the ac tivities proposed in our
EP.

(b) Worst-Case Discharge Volume Assumptions

Worst-case discharge (WCD) calculations and assump tions within this section utilized guidelines and requirements pursuant with NTL No. 2010-N 06. The following information summarizes the WCD scenario and assumptions for Green Canyon Block 768:

Discussions regarding geologic information are considered proprietary and have been omitted from this public copy of the EP , along with the attachments.

(c) 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 drilli ng operations at 298,799 BOPD with an API gravity of 32.2 o 

### . A discussion of the blowout scenario from this proposed activity is included within this Supplemen tal EP in accordance with NTL No. 2010-N06.

### 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 Oil Spill Risk An alysis 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 OC S Activities” (OCS Report MMS 2004-026), using the average conditional probability for 3, 10, and 30 day impacts.

Green Canyon Block 768 is lo cated within Launch Area 45. According to the BOEMRE OSRAM, the trajectory indicates a 4% probabili ty of potential impact to the shoreline in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. The results are shown in Table H-2.

Cameron Parish is identified as the most probable potential impacted parish or county within the Gulf of Mexico for this operation. Cameron Parish is located in Louisian a and includes Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), East C ove Unit (a part of the Cameron Prairie NWR), Lacassine NWR, and Sabine NWR.

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 detecti on to equipment deployment on-site is included in
Table H-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 vol ume at 298,799 BOPD. An AD IOS weathering model was run based on a similar type of oil expected to be produced from this well. Based on this information, approximately 14% (41,832 bbl s) of the initial volume would be evaporated/dispersed within 24 hours.

If approved and appropriate, 4 sorties (8,000 ga llons) from the Basler ai rcraft 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 du ring Deepwater Horizon, approximately 5% (14,940 bbls) of the total in itial worst case discharge could be burned.

Although unlikely in a spill lastin g thirty (30) days, potential shoreline impact in Cameron Parish, Louisiana could occur depending on e nvironmental conditions (wind, currents and temperature) at the time of an incident. Nearsh ore 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 H.3 provides an example of offshore a nd nearshore equipment, response times, and personnel to respond to a spill of 256,967 bbls, which is the estima ted amount that would remain

### considering natural evaporation/ dispersion at 24 hours. This amount could be further reduced through the application of aeria l and subsea dispersants, and in-situ burning provided such applications/actions were approved.

Anadarko’s contingency plan for de aling with this worst-case disc harge 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 con tinuous support for the duration of the event. Response resources are activated and supplemen ted 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 Helix Well Cont ainment Group (HWCG), a combination of the Helix Fast Response System (HFRS) and the co mmon equipment and services. This agreement
allows access to subsea well contai nment and well shut-in equipment.

Anadarko is also a member of the Marine Well Containment Co mpany (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 emer gency 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 sp illed and calculate add itional potential of oil flow. A continuous aerial surveillance program w ould be used to assess the growth of the
slick and the volume of oil on the water. Ob servations of the si ze of the slick on the water, combined with observations at the s ource, would be used to provide a constant update. Additional potential to release fuel from the remaining tanks onboard the dynamically positioned (DP) semi-submersible drilling rig would be determined by marine surveyors. Operations and Unifie d 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 tr ajectories. If oil is seaward bound, going away from land, discuss additiona l strategies with Unified Command.

7. If oil is moving in the direction of a shoreline and weather co nditions are favorable, request approval to u tilize dispersants.

### a. Prior to commencing application operati ons, conduct an on-site survey in consultation with natural resource specialists to determ ine if any threatened or endangered species are present in the projected application ar ea 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. Mobili ze MSRC contracted aircraft(s) if needed. Rotate aircraft, spraying the leading edge of the spill and working back to the source. Monitor/sample for effectiveness (U SCG SMART Team). Truck additional dispersants from CGA/MSRC stockpile to Houma, if necessary.

c. Dispersants are most effective when app lied as soon after discha rge as possible, since weathering of the oil decreas es dispersant effectiveness. The estimated window of opportunity for most effectiv e use of dispersants is w ithin 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 th e oil has been on the water for more than three days. Ultimat ely, 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 locati on 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 fo r long-duration, high-volume skimming. Based on average travel times, the HO SS 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 encount er 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 ac tivated 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 vess els 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) woul d arrive on-scene between approximately
17-25 hours of the initial release. These sk immers operate downstream of the HOSS barge and are used to recover pockets and streamers of oil that may move past the large stationary skimmer. Each FRU has 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. A 42" 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 onl y. 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, trajecto ries, 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 c ould be commenced again. Safety would remain the first priority.

10. Prepare Site-Specific Waste Management Pla n, Site Safety Plan, Decontamination Plans,
Communications and Medical Plans.

11. If oil becomes a threat to any shoreline, da ta from the aerial survei llance, weather reports, and trajectories would be used to direct onshore teams to deploy protection/containment boom with reference to Area Contingency Pl ans 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 Wildlif e Rescue and Rehabilitation Plan.

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

 Additional Oil Spill Remova l Organization (OSRO) personnel to relieve equipment operators

 Vessels for supporting offshore operations

 Field safety personnel

 Continued surveillance and m onitoring of oil movement

 Helicopter, video cameras

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

 Barge to transport recovered oil from offshore skimming system, and temporary storage barges to onshore disposal sites th at 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 tran sported from Houston to Houma or other potential command post locations

### - Communications equipm ent and technicians

 Logistics needed to s upport 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 cont ain, to the maximum extent practicable as defined in 30 CFR 254.6 and 30 CFR 250.26(d)(1), to the estimated wors t case discharge (WCD) associated with the proposed activity within 30 days. Deployment time for surface containment equipment is subject to availability and loca tion, 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 detail s on equipment and timing provided in Section H–Oil Spill
Information and Table H-3 of the EP.

The potential WCD will be further evaluated du ring the Application for Permit to Drill (APD) process, including the Well Containment Screen ing Tool (WCST) and associated subsea containment plan for enhanced planning purposes.

There will be no new or unusual technology deployed that has not been previously deployed for Gulf of Mexico oil spill prev ention, control, and/or cleanup.Table H-1

Worst Case Discharge Calculation (Based on Blowout during Drilling Operations)

Calculations for Uncontrolled Blowout> 10 miles from shore: Block 768

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

ii. API Gravity 32.2  ̊

iii. EP Location Used for NTL No. 2010-N06 WCD for GC 768 SEP well “B”

iv. Largest Anticipated WCD Rate during blowout 298,799 BOPD

v. WCD Total for Drilling Operations for GC 768 (> 10 miles from shore): 298,799 BOPDTable H-2

Trajectory by Land Segment

Following are the average conditional probabilities (expresse d as percent chance) that an oil spill starting at a particular launch area will contact a land segment as included in the BOEMRE Oil Spill Risk Analysis Model (OSRAM) for the Central Gulf of Mexico. This information can be found on the BOEMRE 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 768

Drilling (127 miles from shore) G21817 LA 45

Central Planning

Area Calhoun, TX Matagorda County, TX Brazoria County, TX Galveston County, TX Jefferson County, TX Cameron Parish, LA Vermilion Parish, LA Iberia, LA Lafourche Parish, LA Terrebonne Parish, LA Plaquemines Parish, LA --

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

-- --

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

-- 1
1
1
2
1
4
2
1
1
2
2Table H-3WCD Scenario Drilling Activities – Based on a singlewell uncontrolled blowout (127 miles from shore)Green Canyon Block 768298,799 BOPD (initial volume)256,967 BOPD (after evaporation/dispersion)API Gravity 32.2oOffshore Equipment from Spill Detection to EquipmentDeployment Response Time:Green Canyon Block 768Offshore EquipmentOwner/Location Initial StagingHours toStagingAreaTime toProcure(1)TimetoLoad Out(2)TravelTime(Staging/Spill)(3)TimetoDeploy(4)TotalEstimatedResponseTimeTypeDeratedCapacity(bbls)Storage(bbls)No. ofUnits/PersonsBasler Spray AircraftDC 3 Spray AircraftAero Commander--------122ASI/Houma Houma00111103HOSS BargeOperatorsTugs43,000 4,000 183CGA/HarveySTARSVOOHarvey1244026131Deep Blue ResponderLFF 100 Brush + OSRV6,600'44"Sea Sentry Boom660'67"LAMOR18,086 4,000 1114 crewMSRC/Fourchon Fourchon0221432138Gulf Coast ResponderTransrec 350 + OSRV5,280'44"Sea Sentry Boom2,640'67"LAMOR10,567 4,000 1114 crewMSRC/Lake Charles Lake Charles0221437143Louisiana ResponderTransrec 350 + OSRV2,640'44"Sea Sentry II Boom5,280'67"LAMOR10,567 4,000 1114 crewMSRC/Fort Jackson Fort Jackson0221434140FRUOperatorsUtility Boat4,251 200 161CGA/InglesideSTARSVOOIngleside0221221125FRUOperatorsUtility Boat4,251 200 161CGA/GalvestonSTARSVOOGalveston0221219123FRUOperatorsUtility Boat4,251 200 161CGA/Lake CharlesSTARSVOOCameron.5221215.5119.5FRUOperatorsUtility Boat4,251 200 161CGA/Morgan CitySTARSVOOMorgan City.5221214.5118.5FRUOperatorsUtility Boat4,251 100 161CGA/HarveySTARSVOOHarvey.5221213117FRUOperatorsUtility Boat8,502 400 2122CGA/LeevilleSTARSVOOLeeville.5221214118Offshore Equipment, cont.Owner/Location Initial StagingHours toStagingAreaTime toProcure(1)TimetoLoad Out(2)TravelTime(Staging/Spill)(3)TimetoDeploy(4)TotalEstimatedResponseTimeTypeDeratedCapacity(bbls)Storage(bbls)No. ofUnits/PersonsFRUOperatorsUtility Boat8,502 400 2122CGA/VeniceSTARSVOOVenice0221215120Koseq Skimming ArmsOperatorsVessel w/ storage/hull89,150 10,000 5 sets305CGA/GalvestonSTARSVOOGalveston02211218132Koseq Skimming ArmsOperatorsVessel w/ storage/hull53,490 6,000 3 sets183CGA/LeevilleSTARSVOOLeeville02211214128Koseq Skimming ArmsOperatorsVessel w/ storage/hull17,830 2,000 1 set61CGA/FourchonSTARSVOOFourchon02211213127Koseq Skimming ArmsOperatorsVessel w/ storage/hull35,660 4,000 2 sets122CGA/VeniceSTARSVOOVenice02211214128DBL 101OperatorsTugs-- 107,285 1204K-Sea/Atlantic Venice0242441148DBL 102OperatorsTugs-- 107,285 1204K-Sea/Atlantic Venice0242441148CTCo 2605OperatorsTug-- 20,000 161EMS/Amelia Amelia0244025130CTCo 5001OperatorsTug-- 47,000 161EMS/Amelia Amelia024402513010,000' 42" Auto BoomVOO-- -- 4020 crewCGA/HarveySTARSHarvey.5212131175,000' 42" Auto BoomVOO-- -- 2010 crewCGA/Lake CharlesSTARSCameron.521215.5119.55,000' 42" Auto BoomVOO-- -- 2010 crewCGA/GalvestonSTARSGalveston0212191232,500' 42" Auto BoomVOO-- -- 126 crewCGA/InglesideSTARSIngleside0212211272,500' 42" Auto BoomVOO-- -- 126 crewCGA/PascagoulaSTARSPascagoula0212161206,679' 44" Sea Sentry IIBoomVOO-- -- 2010 crewMSRC/Lake CharlesSTARS Lake Charles0212221261,980' 44" Sea Sentry IIBoomVOO-- -- 126 crewMSRC/Fort JacksonSTARSFort Jackson021222..5126.5Offshore Equipment, cont.Owner/Location Initial StagingHours toStagingAreaTime toProcure(1)TimetoLoad Out(2)TravelTime(Staging/Spill)(3)TimetoDeploy(4)TotalEstimatedResponseTimeTypeDeratedCapacity(bbls)Storage(bbls)No. ofUnits/Persons3,190' 44" Sea Sentry IIBoomVOO-- -- 2010 crewMSRC/PascagoulaSTARS Pascagoula02121912322,400' 42" BoomVOO-- -- 8025 crewAMPOL/New Iberia New Iberia0212171214,800' 42" BoomVOO-- -- 189 crewAMPOL/Harvey Harvey021213117Spotter HeloSurveillance HeloHand Held Radios------------1130PHI/FourchonPHI/FourchonSTARSSpill SiteSpill SiteFourchon111.5111.5------222------333.5Total 316,609 321,270Spill Team Area Responders (STARS) called out by Marine Spill Response Corporation (MSRC)Vessel of Opportunity=VOOEMS=Enterprise Marine ServicesK-Sea=K-Sea Operating PartnershipNearshore Equipment from Spill Detection to Equipment Deployment Response Time: Green Canyon Block 768Nearshore Equipment*Owner/Location Initial StagingHours toStagingAreaTime toProcure(1)TimetoLoad Out(2)TravelTime(Staging/Spill)(3)TimetoDeploy(4)TotalEstimatedResponseTimeTypeDeratedCapacity(bbls)Storage(bbls)No. ofUnits/PersonsBasler Spray AircraftDC 3 Spray AircraftAero Commander----122ASI/Houma Houma00111103Foilex 250 SkimmerStorage Bladder3,977 500 13MSRC/Lake Charles Cameron021215119Foilex 250 SkimmerStorage Bladder3,977 500 13MSRC/Fort Jackson Venice021413119SWS EgmopolOperators3,000 100 13CGA/GalvestonSTARSGalveston021210013SWS EgmopolOperators3,000 100 13CGA/Morgan CitySTARSMorgan City.521212015SWS MarcoOperators3,588 34 13CGA/LeevilleSTARSLeeville.521211014SWS MarcoOperators3,588 20 13CGA/Lake CharlesSTARSCameron.52128011SWS MarcoOperators3,588 34 13CGA/VeniceSTARSVenice.52121001356' Nearshore SkimmerOperators21,500 250 14CGA/Morgan CitySTARSMorgan City.521213016R/V Grand BayOperators5,000 65 13CGA/VeniceSTARSVenice.522.58010.5R/V RW ArmstrongOperators5,000 65 13CGA/LeevilleSTARSLeeville.522.5709.5R/V Bastian BayOperators5,000 65 13CGA/Lake CharlesSTARSCameron.522.511.5014R/V Timbalier BayOperators5,000 65 13CGA/GalvestonSTARSGalveston022.512014.5CTCo2603OperatorsTug-- 25,000 161EMS/Amelia Amelia0244020125CTCo 2604OperatorsTugs-- 20,000 161EMS/Amelia Amelia0244020125CTCo 2606OperatorsTugs-- 20,000 161EMS/Amelia Amelia0244020125CTCo 2607OperatorsTugs-- 23,000 161EMS/Amelia Amelia0244020125CTCo 2608OperatorsTugs-- 23,000 161EMS/Amelia Amelia0244020125Nearshore Equipment, cont.*Owner/Location Initial StagingHours toStagingAreaTime toProcure(1)TimetoLoad Out(2)TravelTime(Staging/Spill)(3)TimetoDeploy(4)TotalEstimatedResponseTimeTypeDeratedCapacity(bbls)Storage(bbls)No. ofUnits/PersonsCTCo 2609OperatorsTugs-- 23,000 161EMS/Amelia Amelia0244020125Aardvac 800 SkimmerStorage Bladder3,840 500 13MSRC/Pascagoula Pascagoula021213016WP-1 SkimmerStorage Bladder3,017 500 13MSRC/Pascagoula Pascagoula021213016GT 185Storage Bladder1,371 500 13MSRC/Pascagoula Pascagoula0212130162,000' Beach Boom -- -- 6 CGA/Galveston Galveston 0 1 2 8 2 131,000' Beach Boom -- -- 4 CGA/Ingleside Ingleside 0 1 2 10 2 152,000' Beach Boom -- -- 6 CGA/Pascagoula Pascagoula 0 1 2 6 2 1110,000' 18" BoomVOO-- -- 10/41Oil Mop/New Iberia New Iberia02114.539.510,000' 18" BoomVOO-- -- 10/41Oil Mop/Houston Houston12118.75313.7510,000' 18" BoomVOO-- -- 104 crewOil Mop/Port Arthur Port Arthur02117.25312.2510,000' 18" BoomVOO-- -- 104 crewOil Mop/Houma Fourchon.52113.538.510,000' 18" BoomVOO-- -- 104 crewOil Mop/Port Allen Port Allen02114.539.520,000' 18" BoomVOO-- -- 208 crewOil Mop/Belle Chasse Venice.5211361115,000' 18" BoomVOO-- -- 146 crewOil Mop/Gretna Gretna02114410Wildlife Support Trailer -- -- 1/ 2 crew CGA/Harvey Harvey .5 1 2 3 3 9Bird Scare Cannons -- -- 2 CGA/Venice Venice .5 1 2 3.25 2 8.25Bird Scare Cannons -- -- 1CGA/Galveston Galveston .5 1 2 8.25 2 13.25Bird Scare Cannons -- -- 1CGA/Ingleside Ingleside .5 1 2 10 2 15Bird Scare Cannons -- -- 2CGA/Lake Charles Cameron .5 1 2 5.25 2 10.25Bird Scare Cannons -- -- 2CGA/Pascagoula Pascagoula .5 1 2 5 2 10Bird Scare Cannons -- -- 2CGA/Harvey Harvey .5 1 2 4 2 9Spotter HeloSurveillance HeloHand Held Radios------------1130PHI/HoumaPHI/HoumaSTARSSpill SiteSpill SiteFourchon111.5111.5------1.51.52------2.52.53.5Total 74,446 137,298*Some equipment may be used offshoreup to approximately 25 miles from shoreH-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

### I Environmental Monitoring and Envi ronmental Mitigation Measures

(a) Monitoring

If required, Anadarko will monitor loop currents per NTL 2005-G05.

Anadarko subscribes to Wilkins Weather Service which provides real-time weather conditions such as tropical depressions, st orms 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 th e Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Anadarko will operate in accordance with applicable regulations, including:

NTL No. 2012-G02 – “Implementation of Se ismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species Observer Program”
BSEE NTL No. 2012-G01 “Marine Trash and De bris Awareness and Elimination”, and
JOINT NTL No. 2012-G01 “Vessel Strike A voidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting”

### J LEASE STIPULATIONS INFORMATION

Lease Sale # 175:

Military Area: Green Canyon Block 768 is loca ted within Military Warning Area W-92. Anadarko will contact the Naval Air Station, Air Operations Department, New Orleans,
Louisiana in order to coordi nate and control the electroma gnetic emissions during these proposed operations.

### K 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 10 trips/week Crew Vessel 50,000 gallons 1 3 trips/week

(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 133
miles to GC 768.

(c) Vicinity Map

A vicinity map is included in this section as Attachment K-1.

(d) Produced Liquid Hydrocarbons Transportation Vessels

Produced liquid hydrocarbons from future flow t ests on wells in Green Canyon Block 768 will be transported by barge. Flow tests will no t exceed 48 hours/well without further approval.

Transport Method Vessel Capacity Average Volume to be Loaded (per transfer) No. of Transfers (Yearly Average) Barge 50,000-130,000 bbls 30,000-40,000 bbls 1-2

Production from the well will be routed through portable surface well test equipment and safety controls aboard the rig. Gas will be flared and liquids (oil & water) will be collected in US Coast Guard approved tanks and a barge. The well will be produced / cleaned up and measured using various meters through portable surface well test equipment including a separator to a maximum rate of 17,500 bpd and 18,000 mcfpd. A three ph ase separator will be used to analyze water cut if present. All liquids (hydrocarbons and wate r) will then be transferred to a coast guard approved barge via tested & approved petroleum tr ansfer hose. We will have a Safe Breakaway Coupling (KLAW) installed between the hoses conn ecting the barge-end and the rig-end. If this device parts the KLAW is designed to contain all fluids from both hoses.(e) Solid and Liquid Wastes Transportation Type of
Waste Composition Total Projected
Amount Rate Transport
Method Name/Location of Facility Disposal
Method

Syntheticbased drilling
fluid or
mud Syntheticbased drilling
muds 20,000 bbls 10,000 bbls/well Re-use
and/or transport to shore in
DOT approved
containers. 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). Re-used and/or recycled; if can’t
be reused and/or recycled the waste is disposed of at Newpark (injection disposal facility) or USLL (landfarm).

Cuttings
wetted withsyntheticbased muds Cuttings coated with synthetic drilling muds, including
drilled out

cement 250-500 bbls 125-250
bbls/well*

*An estimated 5-10% of cuttings may be transported to
shore Re-use
and/or transport to shore in
DOT approved
containers. 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). Re-used and/or recycled; if can’t
be reused and/or recycled the waste is disposed of at Newpark (injection dipsosal facility) or USLL (landfarm).

Chemical product waste (well

treatment fluids) Ethylene glycol

Methanol 500 bbls

125 bbls 100 bbls/month

25 bbls/month Transport to
shore in
DOT approved
containers for pick up Chemwaste in Sulphur,
LA and Veolia Port Arthur, TX or to Newpark,
Port Arthur as nonhazardous waste. Can be returned to
vendor and/or used at another facility;
MEG is solidified and disposed of in
a landfill.
Methanol is
incinerated or used for fuels blending.

Completion
fluids Brine, spent acid, prop sand, debris 6,000 bbls 3,000 bbls/well Transport to
shore in
DOT approved
containers
and/or vessel
tanks 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 Unused brine can
be returned to
vendor and/or
stored for use on another job. Used brine and spent
acid is transferred to Newpark's Processing & Transfer facility for injection.
Workover
fluids Brine, spent acid, prop sand, debris 6,000 bbls 3,000 bbls/well Transport to
shore in
DOT approved
containers
and/or vessel
tanks 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 Unused brine can
be returned to
vendor and/or
stored for use on another job. Used brine and spent
acid is transferred to Newpark's Processing & Transfer facility for injection.Trash and
debris Refuse generated during operations 250 bbls 50 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 537.5 bbls 430 bbls/120 days Transport in
DOT approved
containers to
shore for pick up American Recovery Fourchon, LA Recycled



### *Total amount assumes 2 wells at 75 days/well! ! !

G r e e n C a n y o n B l o c k 7 6 8 N e a r e s t S h o r e l i n e H o u m a

P o r t F o u r c h o n M I S S I S S I P P I M I S S I S S I P P I

L O U I S I A N A L O U I S I A N A T E X A S T E X A S

1 2 7 M i l e s

1 3 9 M i l e s

1 6 5 M i l e s

8 8 ° 4 0 ' 0 " W 8 8 ° 4 0 ' 0 " W

8 9 ° 2 0 ' 0 " W 8 9 ° 2 0 ' 0 " W

9 0 ° 0 ' 0 " W 9 0 ° 0 ' 0 " W

9 0 ° 4 0 ' 0 " W 9 0 ° 4 0 ' 0 " W

9 1 ° 2 0 ' 0 " W 9 1 ° 2 0 ' 0 " W

9 2 ° 0 ' 0 " W 9 2 ° 0 ' 0 " W

9 2 ° 4 0 ' 0 " W 9 2 ° 4 0 ' 0 " W

9 3 ° 2 0 ' 0 " W 9 3 ° 2 0 ' 0 " W

9 4 ° 0 ' 0 " W 9 4 ° 0 ' 0 " W

9 4 ° 4 0 ' 0 " W 9 4 ° 4 0 ' 0 " W30°40'0"N30°40'0"N30°0'0"N30°0'0"N29°20'0"N29°20'0"N28°40'0"N28°40'0"N28°0'0"N28°0'0"N27°20'0"N27°20'0"N

0 5 0 1 0 0 2 5 K i l o m e t e r s

F i g u r e 1

. L o c a t i o n o f G r e e n C a n y o n B l o c k 7 6 8

. C o o r d i n a t e S y s t e m : G C S N o r t h A m e r i c a n 1 9 2 7

P a t h : V : \ J o b s \ 2 3 3 2 \ M X D \ T a s k 3 0

_ G C 7 6 8 \ 2 3 3 2

_ T 3 0

_ G C 7 6 8

_ F i g 0 1

. m x d 

# [

A u t h o r : D a t e S a v e d : 2 / 5 / 2 0 1 3 4 : 1 8 : 0 8 P M N a m e : 2 3 3 2

_ T 3 0

_ G C 7 6 8

_ F i g 0 1 D a t e : 2 / 5 / 2 0 1 3
T i m e : 4 : 2 0 : 5 9 P M U s e r : g o r e L e g e n d

B a t h y m e t r y
B l o c k o f I n t e r e s t

L e a s e B l o c k B o u n d a r y

0 5 0 1 0 0 2 5 M i l e s

### L 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 EP.

Name Primary Location(s ) Existing/New/Modified Anadarko Service Base Fourchon, Louisiana Existing Anadarko Service Base (Helicopter base) Houma, LA 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 expans ion 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 th e 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 th e purposes of returning them back to the
environment.

Type of
Waste Composition Total Projected
Amount Rate Transport
Method Name/Location of Facility Disposal
Method

Syntheticbased drilling
fluid or
mud Syntheticbased drilling
muds 20,000 bbls 10,000 bbls/well Re-use
and/or transport to shore in
DOT approved
containers. 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). Re-used and/or recycled; if can’t
be reused and/or recycled the waste is disposed of at Newpark (injection disposal facility) or USLL (landfarm).Cuttings
wetted withsyntheticbased muds Cuttings coated with synthetic drilling muds, including
drilled out

cement 250-500 bbls 125-250
bbls/well*

*An estimated 5-10% of cuttings may be transported to
shore Re-use
and/or transport to shore in
DOT approved
containers. 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). Re-used and/or recycled; if can’t
be reused and/or recycled the waste is disposed of at Newpark (injection dipsosal facility) or USLL (landfarm).

Chemical product waste (well

treatment fluids) Ethylene glycol

Methanol 500 bbls

125 bbls 100 bbls/month

25 bbls/month Transport to
shore in
DOT approved
containers for pick up Chemwaste in Sulphur,
LA and Veolia Port Arthur, TX or to Newpark,
Port Arthur as nonhazardous waste. Can be returned to
vendor and/or used at another facility;
MEG is solidified and disposed of in
a landfill.
Methanol is
incinerated or used for fuels blending.

Completion
fluids Brine, spent acid, prop sand, debris 6,000 bbls 3,000 bbls/well Transport to
shore in
DOT approved
containers
and/or vessel
tanks 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 Unused brine can
be returned to
vendor and/or
stored for use on another job. Used brine and spent
acid is transferred to Newpark's Processing & Transfer facility for injection.
Workover
fluids Brine, spent acid, prop sand, debris 6,000 bbls 3,000 bbls/well Transport to
shore in
DOT approved
containers
and/or vessel
tanks 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 Unused brine can
be returned to
vendor and/or
stored for use on another job. Used brine and spent
acid is transferred to Newpark's Processing & Transfer facility for injection.
Trash and
debris Refuse generated during operations 250 bbls 50 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 537.5 bbls 430 bbls/120 days Transport in
DOT approved
containers to
shore for pick up American Recovery Fourchon, LA Recycled

*Total amount assumes 2 wells at 75 days/well

### M COASTAL ZONE MANAGEM ENT ACT INFORMATION

### TEXAS COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The following is an evaluation that includes findi ngs 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. Th e proposed activities are located approximately 235 miles from the Texas shoreline; therefore we expect no adverse impacts to CNRAs or beach access and use rights of the public. All activities sh all 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 expans ion of existing facilities in the coastal zone are proposed in the attached plan, therefore, no adver se 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 n ecessary. The best practical techniques shall be utilized to prevent the release of pollutants or t oxic 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, th e proposed activities are 235 miles from shore; therefore no damages to natural resources are exp ected as the result of an unauthorized discharge
of oil into coastal waters.

(Category 6) Discharge of Municipal and Industria l Waste Water to Coastal Waters

No discharges from the proposed activities will o ccur in coastal waters. The proposed activities are 235 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 criti cal area; therefore no effects to Texas’ coastal zone are expected. The activity will not jeopardi ze 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 vi olation 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 pr oposed 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 ma terial is proposed; therefore no adverse effects to coastal waters, submerged lands, critical area s, 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 im pact 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 transpor tation 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 th e proposed activities are not expected to have significant impacts on onshore air quality becau se of the prevailing atmospheric conditions, emission heights, emission rates, and the dist ance of these emissions from the coastline. Theproposed activities will occur approximately 2 35 miles from shore and will be within the exemption limits set by BOEM, therefore, no im pacts 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 235 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 app licable agencies to make an informed decision on the proposed activities has been provided In conclusion, all activ ities 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 M ANAGEMENT ACT INFORMATION

As authorized by the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), The State of Mississippi developed a Coastal Management Pr ogram (CMP) to allow for the review of proposed Federal license and perm it activities affecting any coasta l use or resources, in or
outside of the Missi ssippi Coastal Zone.

The OCS related oil and gas exploratory a nd development activities having potential impact on the Mississippi Coastal Zone are based on the location of the proposed facilities, access to those sites, best practic al techniques for drilling locations, drilling equipment guidelines for the prevention of adverse environmental effects, effective environmental protection, emergenc y 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 reaso nable 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 base d out of Fourchon, Louisi ana. The activities will not provide any industrial expansion on the coastal area of Mississippi. Therefore Mississippi coastal areas will be cons erved for water dependent industry.

Goal 2: To favor the preservation of the coastal wetlands and ecosystems, except where a specific alteration of specific coasta l wetlands would serve a higher public interest in compliance with the public pur poses of the public trust in which the
coastal wetlands are held.

Goal 2 is addressed in Section N, Environm ental Impact Analysis. The nearest proposed
activities will be 200 miles fr om the Mississippi coast.

Goal 3: To protect, propagate and conserve the state’s seafood and aquatic life in
connection with the revitalization of the se afood industry of the State of Mississippi.

Goal 3 is addressed in Section N, Environm ental Impact Analysis. Little impact to the seafood industry can be expected due to th e activities occurring 200 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, fo r the propagation of wildlife, fish and aquatic life, and for domestic, agricultu ral, industrial, recreational and other legitimate beneficial uses.

Goal 4 is addressed in Section B, Gene ral Information, Sectio n G, Air Emissions Information, and Section N, Environmental Impact Analysis.

### Goal 5: To put to be neficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable the water resources of the state, and to p revent 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 OC S will be conducted in accordance with our Regional Oil Spill Response Plan refere nced in Section H of this plan.

Goal 6: To preserve the stat e’s historical and archaeological resources, to prevent their destruction, and to enhance these resources wherever possible.

Goal 6 is addressed in Section E, Biologica l, Physical and Socioeconomic Information, and Section N, Environmental Impact Analysis.

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

Goal 7 is addressed in Section F, Waste Discharges Information, Section H, Oil Spill Information, Section G, Air Emissions In formation, and Section N, Environmental Impact Analysis.

Goal 8: To assist local governments in the pr ovision of public facilities services in a manner consistent with the coastal program.

As the proposed activities ar e located 200 miles from the Mi ssissippi coast and are based out of a shorebase in Fourchon, Louisiana, local governments should not be affected.

### N ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

# Environmental Impact Analysis

SUPPLEMENTAL EXPLORATION PLAN

for Green Canyon Block 768 (OCS

- G 21817)

Offshore Louisiana

February 201 3

Prepared for:

Jill Fowler Regulatory Analyst
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
1201 Lake Robbins Drive The Woodlands, Texas 77380

Telephone: (832) 636

- 1 554

Prepared by:

CSA Ocean Sciences Inc.

8502 SW Kansas Avenue

Stuart, Florida 34997 Telephone: (772) 219

- 3000Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page ii 

## Contents

Pa ge



### Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 1

A. Impact

- Producing Factors

................................ ................................ ....................... 5

A.1 Drilling Rig Presence (including noise and lights)

................................ ................................ ........... 5

A.2 Physical Disturbance to the Seafloor

................................ ................................ .............................. 8

A.3 Air Pollutant Emissions

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 8

A.4 Effluent Discharges

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 8

A.5 Water Intake

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 8

A.6 Onshore Waste Disposal

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 9

A.7 Marine Debris

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 9

A.8 Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

................................ ................................ ............................ 9

A.9 Accidents

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 10

A.9.1 Types of Accidents Evaluated

................................ ................................ ........................... 10

A.9.2 Small Fuel Spill

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 10

A.9.3 Crude Oil Spill (Worst Case Discharge)

................................ ................................ ............. 11

A.9.4 Other Accidents Not Analyzed in Detail

................................ ................................ ............ 15



### B. Affected Environment

................................ ................................ ........................... 17

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

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 23

C.2.1 Soft Bottom Benthic Communities

................................ ................................ ................... 23

C.2.2 High

- Density Deepwater Benthic Communities

................................ ............................... 26

C.2.3 Designated Topographic Features

................................ ................................ .................... 28

C.2.4 Pinnacle Trend Area Live Bo ttoms

................................ ................................ .................... 28

C.2.5 Eastern Gulf Live Bottoms

................................ ................................ ................................ . 29

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

................................ ........ 29

C.3.1 Sperm Whale (Enda ngered)

................................ ................................ .............................. 31

C.3.2 West Indian Manatee (Endangered)

................................ ................................ ................. 34

C.3.3 Endangered Mysticete Whales

................................ ................................ ......................... 35

C.3.4 Non

- Endangered Marine Mammals (Protected)

................................ .............................. 36

C.3.5 Sea Turtles (Endangered/Threatened)

................................ ................................ ............. 39

C.3.6 Piping Plover ( Threatened)

................................ ................................ ............................... 42

C.3.7 Whooping Crane (Endangered)

................................ ................................ ........................ 44

C.3.8 Gulf Sturge on (Threatened)

................................ ................................ .............................. 45

C.3.9 Smalltooth Sawfish (Endangered)

................................ ................................ ..................... 45

C.3.10 Beach Mice (Endangered)

................................ ................................ ................................ . 46

C.3.11 Elkhorn Coral (Endangered)

................................ ................................ .............................. 47

## Contents
( C ontinued)

Page

Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page iii C.4 Coastal and Marine Birds

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 47

C.4.1 Marine Birds

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 47

C.4.2 Shorebirds and Coastal Nesting Birds

................................ ................................ ............... 50

C.5 Fisheries Resources

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 52

C.5.1 Pelagic Communities and Ichthyoplankton

................................ ................................ ...... 52

C.5.2 Essential Fish Habitat

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 54

C.6 Archaeological Resources

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 58

C.6.1 Shipwreck Sites

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 58

C.6.2 Prehistoric Archaeological Sites

................................ ................................ ........................ 59

C.7 Coastal Habitats and Protected Areas

................................ ................................ .......................... 60

C.8 Socioeconomic and Other Resources

................................ ................................ ........................... 63

C.8.1 Recreational and Commercial Fishing

................................ ................................ .............. 63

C.8.2 Public Health and Safety

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 64

C.8.3 Employment and Infrastructure

................................ ................................ ....................... 65

C.8.4 Recreation and Tourism

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 66

C.8.5 Land Use

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 67

C.8.6 Other Marine Uses

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 67



### D. Environmental Hazards

................................ ................................ ......................... 68

D.1 Geologic Hazards

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 68

D.2 Severe Weather

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 68

D.3 Currents and Waves

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 68



### E. Alternatives

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 68

F. Mitigation Measures

................................ ................................ ............................. 69

G. Consultation

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 69

H. Preparers

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 69

I. References

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 69Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013
Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page iv 

## List of Tables

Table Page

1 Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) referenced in 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 (Modifi ed from: BOEM, 2012b, Appendix C)

........................................................................ 13

4 Benthic community data from stations near the lease area in similar water depths sampled during the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Slope Habitats and
Benthic Ecology Study (Adapted from: Wei, 2006; Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009)

.................. 24

5 Federally lis ted endangered and threatened species potentially occurring in the
lease area and along the northern Gulf Coast

...................................................................... 30

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)

........................................................................................................... 61



## List of Figures

Figure Page

1 Location of Green Canyon Block 768

...................................................................................... 2

2 Bathymetric map of the lease area showing the surface hole locations of wells "B"
and "BB" in Green Canyon Block 768

................................................................................... 18

3 Location of selected environmental features in relation to the lease area.

........................ 43Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013
Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page v 

## Acronyms and Abbreviations

ADIOS2 Automated Data Inquiry for Oil Spills 2
Anadarko Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
bbl barrel

BHL bottom hole location

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 Safe ty and Environmental
Enforcement

CEI Coastal Environments, Inc.

CH 4 methane

CO carbon monoxide

CO 2 carbon dioxide

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CGA Clean Gulf Associates

DP dynamically positioned

EP Exploration Plan

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EIA Environmental Impact Analysis

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ESA Endangered Species Act

FAD fish

‐ attracting device

FR Federal Register

FRV fast response vessel Fugro Fugro Geoconsulting, Inc.

GPS global positioning system
GC Green Canyo n
GMFMC Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council

H 2 S 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

MMSCFD million standard cubic feet per day

MSRC Marine Spill Response Cor poration

MWCC Marine Well Containment Company
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality
Standards

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

NO x nitrogen oxides

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System

NPS National Park Service

NRDA Natural Resource Damage Assessment

NTL Notice to Lessee

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

OBM oil

‐ based mud

OCS Outer Continental Shelf

OSAT Operational Scientific Advisory Team

OSRA Oil Spill Risk Analysis

OSRB oil spill response barge

OSRP Oil Spill Response Plan

OS RV oil spill response vessel

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PM particulate matter
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

PSV platform supply vessel

SBM synthetic

‐ based mud

SHL surface hole location

SO x sulfur oxides

SWSS Sperm Whale Seismic Study

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 dischargeGreen Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 1 

## Introduction

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (Anadarko) is submitting a Supplemental Exploration Plan (EP)
for Green Canyon (GC) Block 768 (GC 768

. The EP includes two exploratory wells designated " B "
and " BB " . Both the surface hole locations (SHLs) and bottom hole locations (BHLs) for both wells
will be in Block GC 768. This E nvironmental I mpact Analysis (EIA) provides information on
the exploratory well s based on th e SHL s

.

The lease area is 127 miles (204 km) south west of the nearest shoreline, 139 miles (224 km) from the onshore support base at Port Fourchon , Louisiana, and 165 miles (265 km) from the helicopter base at Houma, Louisiana ( Figure 1 ). Water depth in t he project area is predicted to
be 1

, 602 m (5,257 ft) The drilling rig is yet to be determined but will be either a dynamically positioned (DP) drillship or a DP semisubmersible rig

.

This EIA was prepared for submittal to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management ( BOEM) in accordance with applicable regulations, and is a project

- and site

- specific analysis of Anadarko ’s planned activities

. As specified in the Notice to Lessees and Operators ( NTL ) 2008

- G04, an EIA is a project

- specific analysis that focuses on the impacts of a specific plan to the extent feasible. Potential impacts have been analyzed at a broader level in the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Outer Continental Shelf ( OCS ) Oil and Gas Leasing Program (MMS, 2007a) and in lease sale EISs for the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas (MMS, 2007b, 2008 ; BOEM, 2012a ) . The analyses from these documents are incorporated here by reference. Updated environmental basel ine information relative to the Macondo incident presented in the Final Supplemental EIS for Central Planning Lease Sale 216/222 (BOEM, 2012 b ) and the Final Supplemental EIS for Western Planning Area Lease Sale 218 (BOEMRE, 2011a) has also been incorporate d.

Statistics from offshore drilling in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico provide a reasonable basis for evaluating oil spill risk during exploratory drilling . According to Holand (1997), the average frequency of a loss of well control incident or " blowout " during exploratory drilling in the

U.S. Gulf of Mexico is 0.00593 blowouts per well drilled, or one blowout per 169 exploration wells drilled. Similarly, the MMS Safety and Environmental Management Program blowout incident rate for 1996 to 1999 was approximately five blowouts per 1,000 well starts, or one blowout per 200 well starts ( MMS, 2000 ). More recently, in its Final Supplemental EIS for the Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area, BOEM confirmed that " significant changes to the spill
rates for the entire OCS are not anticipated " (BOEM, 201 2 b ).Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis

- for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 2 Figure 1. Location of Green Canyon Block 768

.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 3 Historically, most blowouts have not resulted in oil spills . O f 151 well blowouts in the Gulf of Mexico from 1971 to 1995, only 18 (12%) resulted in oil spills , with a to tal combined volume of 1,000 barrels ( bbl ) of crude oil and condensate released (MMS, 200 0 ). Between 1964 and 1999, almost all offshore spills (94%) from drilling and production

- related operations on the OCS were less than or equal to 1 bbl in size ( Anderson and LaBelle, 2000). According to BSEE’s Final Drilling Safety Rule (75 Federal Register (FR) 63365 ) issued following the Macondo incident, the baseline risk of a catastrophic blowout is estimated to be about once every 26 years

.
All the pro posed activities and facilities dis c u s sed in this EP are covered by the Regional Oil Spill Response Plan (OSRP) approved on 2 4 August 2012 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 Code of Federal Regulations ( 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 respon se to spill s ranging from small operational spills

to a worst case discharge (WCD) from a well blowout. Anadarko’s spill response program meets the response planning requir ements of the relevant coastal states and applicable F ederal 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

sen sitivities. The OSRP descri bes 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.

Th is EIA is organized into Sections A through I co rresponding 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 Le ssees and Operators (NTLs) applicable to this Environmental Impact Analysis ( EIA )

.

NTL Title Summary

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 guides be carried on all Gulf of Mexico petroleum vessels and that vessel operators and crews maintain a vigilant watch for
marine mammals . Vessels are to slow down or stop to avoid striking protected species, and operators are required to report sighting s of any injured or dead protected species.

2011

- JOINT

- G01 Revisions to the List of OCS Blocks Requiring Arch a eological Resource Surveys and Reports Provides new information of which Outer Continental Shelf ( OCS ) blocks require arch a eological surveys and reports and required survey line spacing in each block. This NTL
augments NTL 2005

- G07.Table 1. (Continued).

Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan 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 co mpliance with all applicable regulations, including the increased safety measures regulations (75 FR 63346). Informs operators that BOEM will be evaluating whether each operator has submitted adequate information demonstrating that it has access to
and ca n 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). Pr escribes 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 biol ogically 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 agre ement 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 Re quirements 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.

BOEMRE = Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement; BSEE = Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan 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 l isted below and briefly discussed in the following sections.

• Drilling rig presence (including noise and lights)

• Physical disturbance to the seafloor

• Air pollutant emissions

• Effluent discharges • Water intake

• Onshore waste disposal

• Marine debris

• S upport vessel and helicopter traffic

• Accidents



## A.1 Drilling Rig Presence (including noise and lights)

T wo types of exploratory drilling rigs are available for this project : a DP drillship and a
DP semisubmersible . Both types of drilling rigs use a global positioning system (GPS) , specific computer software, and sensors in conjunction with their own propellers and thrusters to maintain position. Essentially, through satellite navigation

, the location of the vessel is precisely
monitored and th rusters positioned at various locations about the vessel’s hull are activated to provide any required station

- keeping adjustment. This allows operations at sea where mooring or anchoring is not feasible.

The drilling vessel for the well s proposed in this EP will be on site for an estimated 150 days total ( 75 days per well)

. The physical presence of the drilling rig in the ocean can attract pelagic fishes
and other marine life

, as discussed in Section C.5.1

.
Drilling operations produce noise that includes strong tonal components at low frequencies, and

in some cases infrasonic frequencies (MMS, 2000). Drilling noise from DP drillships and

DP semisubmersibles is not particularly intense and is strongest at low frequencies, averaging

10 to 500 Hz (Richardson et al., 1995). From a drilling rig , sound and vibration paths to the water flow either through the air or through the risers (MMS, 2000). Drilling rigs also maintain exterior lighting for navigational and aviation safety in accordance with applicable Federal safety regulations.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan 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 Drilling Rig 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 whale s

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 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) Shorebird s 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 Can yon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan 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

- mi zone of the Flower Garden Banks, or the 3

- mi zone of Stetso n Bank; (b) 1,000

- m, 1

- mi, or 3

- mi 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

- activi ty 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 any 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 th rough the Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation attached to an OCS lease.

• The Live B ottom (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

- Relie f) 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 hi gh

- density chemosynthetic communities or coral communities within 610 m ( 2,000 ft) of any drilling mud/cuttings discharge location.

(5) Exploration or production activities where H 2 S concentrations greater than 500 ppm might be encountered.

• GC 768 was c lassified as " H 2 S absent " under the initial EP dated 24 October 2001 in accordance with

30 CFR 250. 490(c )

. (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 su ch 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, 2012 c ) and is well beyond the 60

- m depth contour used by the BOEM as the seaward extent for prehistoric a rchaeological site potential in the Gulf of Mexico.

(8) All activities that you determine might have an adv erse effect on endangered or threatened marine mammals
or sea turtles or their critical ha bitats.

• IPFs that may affect marine mammals, sea turtles, or their critical habitats include drilling rig presence,
support vessel and helicopter traffic, and accidents. See Section C

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

• Not applicable.Green Can yon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 8 

## A.2 Physical Disturbance to the Seafloor

In water depths of 600 m (1,969 ft) or greater, DP drillships and DP semisubmersibles disturb only a very small area of the seafloor around the wellbore (SHL) where the bottom template and blowout preventer (BOP) are located. Depending on the specific well configuration, this area is generally about 0.25 ha (0.62 a c) (MMS, 2007 a )

.



## A.3 Air Pollutant Emissions

Air pollutant emissions are calculated in EP Section G and are estimated to be insignificant. Offshore air pollutant emissions will result from operations of the drilling rig, as well as service
vessels and hel icopters. 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 suspen ded particulate matter (PM), sulfur oxides (SO

x ), nitrogen oxides (NO
x ), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and carbon monoxide (CO).

The Air Quality Emissions Report prepared in accordance with BOEM requirements
demonstrates that the projected emissions a re below exemption levels set by the applicable regulations in 30 CFR 250.303 . Based on this and the distance to shore, it can be concluded that the emissions will not significantly affect the air quality of the onshore area for any of the criteria pollut ants. No further analysis or control measures are required.



## A.4 Effluent Discharges

Effluent discharges are summarized in EP Section F

. All offshore discharges will be in
accordance with requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
General Permit No. G M G 29 0000 issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA )

. Any d ischarges will be in compliance with the permit terms and monitored as required by the permit.

Water

- based drilling muds and cuttings will be released at the seafloor during the initial well
intervals before the marine riser that allows thei r return to the surface is set. Excess cement slurry will also be released at the seafloor during casing installation for the riserles s port ion of the drilling operations. S ynthetic

- based drilling muds (SBMs) will be collected on the rig and either reused by the vendor, or transported to Fourchon for recycling and/or disposal at an approved facility. Cuttings wetted with SBMs will be d ischarged to the seafloor in accordance with the NPDES permit.

Other effluent discharges in accordance with the NPDES permit will include excess cement,

n contact cooling water, treated sanitary and domestic wastes, deck drainage, desalination unit brine, u nco ntaminated freshwater and sea water, and ballast water.



## A.5 Water Intake

Seawater will be drawn from the ocean for once

- through, non contact cooling of machinery on the drilling rig. 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 P ermit No. GMG 290000 doesGreen Can yon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 9 not specify requirements for existing facilities (those that started construction before

16 July 2006)

. The DP drilling vessel ultimately selected for this project will be in compliance
with all coolin g water intake structure requireme nts.



## A.6 Onshore Waste Disposal

Wastes generated during drilling are tabulated in EP Section F

. Approximately 50 bbl of trash will be generated each month of operations, or a total of approximately 250 bbl over the life of this project. Th e trash will be transported in disposal bags to shore where it will be picked up by municipal operators for final disposal in accordan ce with applicable regulations.



## A.7 Marine Debris

Anadarko will comply with all regulations relating to solid wastes handli ng 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 con tainers (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

, 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.



## A.8 Suppor t 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.

N o terminal expansio n 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 10 round

- trips per week between the drilling rig and the heliport. The helicopter will be used to transport personnel and small supplies and will n ormally
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 unpo pulated 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) withi n 91 m ( 300 ft) of marine mammals (BOEM, 2012 d ).Green Can yon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 10 

## 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

• t he WCD for this EP, which is an oil spill resulting from an uncontrolled blowout.

The following subsections summarize assumptions about the size s and fate s of these spills, as
well as Anadarko ’s spill response plans. Impacts are analyzed in Section C

.

MMS ( 2007b)

, BOEMRE (2011 a )

, and BOEM (2012 b ) analyze d 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 . Accor ding to the analys e s in MMS (2007b ) and BOEM (201 2 a ), 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 c ommon 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, 201 2 b ).
The median size for spills < 1 bbl is 0.0 24 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

i n the loss of the contents of a fuel transfer hose, which is less than 3 bbl.

Spill Fate

The water

- soluble fractions of diesel are dominated by two

- and three

- ringed polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH s ), which are moderately volatile (National Research Council, 2003). 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, 2003) an d 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). . 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 respo nse activities. However, g iven 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, 201 2 b )

.

For purposes of this EIA, t he fate of a small diesel fuel spill was estimated using NOA A’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 t ime, as well as changes in the density, viscosity, and water content of the product spilled. I t 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.Green Can yon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 11 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 127 miles (204 km) from the nearest shoreline. Modeling results discussed below indicate that a spill in the lease area w ould 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. MMS (2007b) similarly concluded that spi lls <1,000 bbl are not expected to persist as a slick on the surface of the water beyond a few days and are unlikely to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up. MMS (2007b) noted that this conclusion is supported by a previous analysis of three

- day trajectory model runs, previous weathering analyses, and historical records of spill incidents.

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 w ould be activated so that any spill effects
would be localized and would result only in short

- term environmental consequences.

EP Section 9b provides a detailed discussion of Anadarko ’s response to a spill.

Spill Size

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, a nd fewer than 10% of blowouts resulted in spilled oil. BOEM is in the process of updating these spill frequency estimates to include the recent Macondo event; however, significant changes to the spill rates for the entire OCS are not anticipated ( BOEMRE, 2011 a ; BOEM, 2012 d ). As noted in the Introduction , the baseline risk of a catastrophic blowout is estimated to be once every 26 years ( BSEE Final Drilling Safety Rule,

75 FR 63365). . In accordance with requirements of NTL 2010

- N06, Anadarko has estimated a WCD
for this EP as 298,799 barrels of oil per day (BOPD). An estimate of 7 to 21 days is required to suspend operations on a deepwater Gulf of Mexico well and begin dri lling a 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 is 85 days, for a
total estimated time of 92 to 106 days from time of blowout to finishing the relief well. The maximum total volume during a blowout could potentially be 31,672,694 bbl

, assuming

106 days for the maximum duration of a blowout

. The detailed analysis of this calculation can be
found in EP Se ction H

.

Included in EP Section H are Anadarko ’s calculations and information as r equired 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

- N 10 and the Final Drillin g Safety Rule, which specif ies additional safety measures for OCS activities.Green Can yon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 12 Spill Trajectory

To address this criticism

, a special OSRA run was conducted for the recent BOEM Western and
Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area Supplemental EIS s ( BOEMRE

, 2011 a ; BOEM, 2012 b ) 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 traject ory tracked for up to 120 days. . 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) mo del 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 m odel 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 d id 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, th e spreading and splitting of oil 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.

The OSRA model run for this r evised analysis was conducted for five hypothetical launch points
in the Central a nd Western Gulf o f Mexico Planning Areas

. These launch point s were deliberately located in area s identified as having a high possibility of containing large oil

reserves.

Th e five launch point areas were as follows:

1. Central Gulf of Mexico shelf are a west of the Mississip pi 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 lon gitude);

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. We stern Gulf of Mexico slope area ( 27.51367 ° N latitude, 94.51836 ° W longitude).

The results for Launch Point 3, the launch point nearest to the project 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 equ ipment and human resources throughout the duration of any major spill or uncontrolled release

.
Weathering . Following an oil spill, several physical, chemical, and biological processes, collectively called weathering, interact to change the physical and ch emical properties of the oil, influencing potential effects to marine organisms and ecosystems. The most important weathering processes include spreading, evaporation, dissolution, dispersion into the waterGreen Can yon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 13 column, formation of water

- in

- oil emulsions, pho tochemical oxidation, microbial degradation, adsorption to suspended particulate matter, and stranding on shore or sedimentation to the seafloor (National Research Council, 2003).

Table 3. Conditional probabilities expressed as percent chance that an oil s pill starting at Launch Point 3 will contact a certain parish, county, or coastline within 120 d ays (Modified from: BOEM, 201 2 b , 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 Dade, Florida

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1

-- -- -- --

"

— " = V alues < 1.0 % . A reas where there is <0.5% chance of contact within 120 days are not shown.

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 th e 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 compo nents are biodegraded more slowly.
Photo

- oxidation attacks mainly the medium and high molecular weight PAHs i n the oil on the
water surface.

Spill Response

. BOEM has issued re c ent NTLs following the Macondo spill that clarify additional
oil

- spill prevent ion and response planning requirements. These NTL s are summarized in Table 2

, and additional BOEM (2012 b ) guidance is provided below.Green Can yon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 14 This NTL, effective 10 August 2012, provides clarification, guidance, and information on the preparation and submittal of regio nal 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 prepara tion 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 2012

- N06

– Guidance to Owners and Operators of Offshore Facilities Seaward of the Coast Line Concerning Regional Oil Spill Response Plans:

NTL 2010

- N10

– Statement of Compliance with Applicable Regulations and Evaluation of Info rmation Demonstrating Adequate Spill Response and Well Containment Resources : This NTL, effective 8 November 2010, applies only to operators conducting operations using subsea or surface BOPs on floating facilities. It requires that lessees and operators must 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 evaluat e 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 t o 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

Anadar ko submitted a Regional OSRP which was approved on 24 August 2012. The OSRP provide s detailed plan s for Anadarko to respond to and 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 s upplemental information for new or previously submitted EPs, Development and
Production Plans , or D evelopment O perations C oordination D ocument s. The required supplemental information includes the following: ( 1) a description of the blowout scenario

as req uired 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
blowo ut, 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 require ment could actually include the surface and subsea containment resourc es 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.

• 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 discha rge; andGreen Can yon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 15 • c ontact 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 var ious 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 and offshore/nearshore

areas. These vessels have o leophilic brush pack skimming systems operating in troug hs built
into the hulls below deck storage and marine electronics packages including marine, aircraft and

company

- frequency radios, radar, moving map plotters

, GPS, satellite phone s , and depth
finders. CGA also off ers nine Fast Response Systems staged throughout the Gulf of Mex ico
available for offshore use.

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 storag e 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 HOS S barge is approximately 43,000 bbl

.

CGA is curre ntly adding to its equipment stockpile and has 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 we bsite: http://www.cleangulfassoc.com/

.

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. The equipment MSRC staged throughout the Gulf of Mexico includes 7 oil spill response vessels (OSRVs), 2 fast response vessels (FRVs), 5 oil spill response barges (OSRBs), 5 platform supply vessels (PSVs), 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 d eepwater. The expansion is known as " Deep Blue. " Additional MSRC capabilities and a complete equipment listing is available on

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

.
Anadarko also is a member of the Marine Well Containment Comp any (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 (BLPD) (and 120 million standard cubic feet per day [MMSCFD] of gas) with potential for expansion.

See EP Section H f or a detailed description of Anadarko ’s site

- specific response to the WCD for this plan.



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

MMS ( 2007b) discusses three other types of accidents: chemical spills, vessel collisions, and loss
of well control. The information from the EIS on these topics remains valid and is incorporated by reference into this document. These accidents are discussed briefly below along with aGreen Can yon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 16 hydrogen sulfide ( H 2 S ) release . T here are no other site

- specific issues for the dril ling of the well s proposed in this EP.

Chemical Spills

. Chemicals are stored and used to condition drill muds and during production and in well completions, stimulation, and workover procedures. The relative quantity of their use is reflected in the larg est 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 adva nces in subsea processing ( BOEMRE, 2011 a ; BOEM, 2012 b )

.
Riser Disconnect SBM Spills

. In deepwater drilling, SBMs a re preferred over petroleum oil

- based muds (OBMs) due to the superior environmental properties of SBMs

. The synthetic base fluid s used in SB Ms 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

- 1990 s , 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 dril ling fluids. Riser disconnect accidents are of particular concern when SBM s are in use ( BOEM RE , 201 1b ).

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. Approxi mately 10 % of vessel collisions with platforms in
the OCS resulted in diesel spills , and in several collision incidents

, f ires resulted from hydrocarbon releases. To date, the largest diesel spill associated with a collision occurred in
1979 when an ancho r

- handling boat collided with a drilling platform in the Main Pass leas e 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
collision s

. Human error account ed for approximately half of all reported vessel collisions from

2006 to 2009. As summarized in MMS (2007b ) and BOEM (201 2 b ), vessel collisions occasionally occur during routine operations. Some of these c ollisions 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.

Loss of Well Control

. A loss of well control is the uncontrolled flow of a reservoir fluid that may result in the release of gas, condensate, oil, drilling fluids, sand, or water. Loss of well control is a broad term that includes very minor up to the most serious well contr ol incidents, while blowouts are considered to be a subset of more serious incidents with greater risk of oil spill or human injury (MMS, 2007b). Loss of well control may result in the release of synthetic drilling
fluid or loss of oil. Anadarko has a ro bust system in place to prevent loss of well control.

M easures to prevent a blowout

, reduce the likelihood of a blowout, and conduct effective and early intervention in the event of a blowout are described in the NTL 2010

- 06 package submitted with the exp loration plan, as required

. The potential for a loss

- of

- well

- control event will be minimized by adhering to the requirements of applicable regulations such as the Final Drilling Safety Rule and NTL 2010

- N10 , which specify additional safe ty measures for

OCS activities.Green Can yon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 17 H 2 S Release

. Green Canyon Block 768 was classified as H 2 S absent under the initial EP dated

24 October 2003

. Based on this, no further discussion of H 2 S is warranted.



## B. Affected Environment

The lease area is in the western Gulf of Me xico, 127 miles (204 km) from the nearest shoreline,
and 139 miles (224 km) from the onshore support base at Port Fourchon , Louisiana ( Figure 1 ).

Based on the site clearance s urvey conducted by Fugro Geo consulting , Inc. (Fugro ) ( 2012) w ater depth at the wellsite s is anticipated to be 1

, 60 2 m (5,2 5 7 ft) ( Figure 2 ). There is no evidence of significant seafloor or subsurface faulting, fluid expulsion featu res, or high

- density deepwater
benthic communities near the wellsites ( F ugro , 2012 )

.

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
conditi ons, and other marine uses i s provided in recent lease sale EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008 ; BOEM, 2012a ). These regional descriptions remain valid and are incorporated by reference. General background information is presented below, and brief descriptions of eac h potentially affected resource, including site

- specific and/or new information if available

, are presented in

Section C

.
The Macondo spill resulted in impacts to water quality in the area of the spill. In addition to the
oil slick on the sea surface, plu mes of submerged oil droplets were produced when subsea dispersants we re applied at the wellhead (Camilli et al., 2010; Hazen et al., 2010; Joint Analysis Group, 2010a,b,c)

. Despite limited information on the water quality of deep water, it is clear
that condition s in the offshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico w ere altered by the Macondo event

. Various monitoring efforts and environmental studies are in progress, but it is not currently possible to precisely estimate the long

- term impacts the spill will ha ve on offshore water quality (BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012 a ).

The lease area is located approximately 189 miles (304 km) south west of the Macondo spill site. Based on an analysis of satellite imagery, the surface slick did extend over the lease area and
there is the possibility that water quality in the lease area was briefly affected. P rior to the
Macondo incident, water quality in deep, offshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico wa s expected to be good

, with low levels of contaminants (Kennicutt, 2000)

. Based on the information currently available, there is no reason to expect any long

- term change in water quality conditions in the
lease area from those predicted in the recent lease sale EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008; BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012a,b).Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 18 Figure 2. Bathymetric map of the lease area showing the surface hole location s of wells " B " and " BB " in Green Canyon Block 768

.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 19 

## C. Impact Analysis

This section analy z es the potential direct and indirect impacts of routine activities and accidents. Impacts have been analyzed extensively in recent lease sale EISs for the Central and Western
Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas (MMS, 2007b

, 2008 ; BOEMRE

, 2011 a ; BOEM, 2012 b ) as well as
the E nvironmental A ssessment for Gulf of Mexico deepwater operations and activitie s (MMS, 2000). The information in these documents is incorporated by reference. Potential

s ite

- 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 wellsite s 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)

.
As noted earlier, based on calculations made pursuant to applicable regulations, emissions from drilling activities are not expected to be significant as they are below exemption levels. Therefore, the only potential effects to air quality would be from routine air pollutant emissions,

a small fuel spill , and a large oil spill (WCD).

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for air quality presented in MMS (2007b, 2008) based on
additional information and in consideration of the Macondo oil spill event

. No substantial new
information was found that would alter the pote ntial impact s on air quality presented in previous lease sale EIS s ( BOEMRE

, 2011 a ; BOEM, 2012 b ).



### 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 drilling rig operations and 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 m otors. Primary air pollutants typically associated with OCS activities are suspended PM, SO
x , NO
x , VOCs,
and CO. Emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere from these activities are not projected to have significant effects on onshore air quality becaus e of the prevailing atmospheric conditions, emission rates and heights, and resulting pollutant concentrations. As described in recent lease sale EISs, the incremental contribution to cumulative impacts from activities similar to Anadarko’s proposed activ ities is not significant and will not cause or contribute to a violation of

any N ational A mbient A ir Q uality S tandard (NAAQS) (MMS, 2007b

, 2008). Since the BOEM completed the lease sale EISs, the USEPA has adopted a new short

- term NAAQS for nitrogen
dioxide (NO 2 ) . 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 propose d EP are not likely to c ontribute to violations of any NAAQS onshore.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 20 Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and methane ( CH 4 ) 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 CO 2 emissions from all OCS activities in the

2007

- 2012 leasing program are about 0.08% to 0.016% of the global CO 2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion. Greenhouse gas emissions may contribute to climate change, with important
effects o n 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 greenhous e 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 the lease sale EIS (MMS

, 2007b) or Programmatic EIS (MMS, 2007a).

Because of the distance fro m 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 noted in the lease sale EIS (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 Qu ality Emissions Report (see EP Section G ) 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 (NW R), 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 pro jects 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 le ase area is approximately 188 miles (303) from the Breton
Wilderness Area

, so air quality impacts on the Wilderness Area are not expected. Anadarko will comply with all BOEM r equirements regarding air emissions.



### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

Potential imp acts o f a small spill on air quality are expected to be consistent with th os e analyzed
and discussed in EISs prepared for recent lease sales (MMS, 2007b, 2008 ; BOEMRE, 2011 a ; BOEM, 2012 b ). 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. EP Section H 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 throu gh 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 area of the sea surface with diesel fuel on it would range from 0.5 to 5 ha (1.2 to 12 ac) dependin g on sea state and weather
conditions.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 21 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)

Pot ential impacts of a large oil spill on air quality are expected to be consistent with th os e analyzed and discussed in recent lease sale EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008 ; BOEMRE, 2011 a ; BOEM, 2012 b ).

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 o il. Burning would generate a plume of black smoke and result in emissions of NO x , SO
x , CO, and PM, as well as greenhouse gases. However, in situ burning would occur only after authorization
from the USEPA.

Because of the lease area location ( 127 miles [ 204 km ]) from the nearest shoreline, 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 a recent lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b), deepwater areas in the northern Gulf of Mexico are relatively homogeneous with respect to temperature, sali nity, 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 189 miles (304 km) f r om the Macondo spill site

. Based on the general circulation pattern seen in the Gulf of Mexico and satellite imagery, the surface
slick from t hat 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

In general, turbid water can be expected to extend between a few hundred meters and several
kilometers down c urrent from the discharge point for water

- based drill ing muds and cuttings

. SBMs will be collected on the rig and either reused by the vendor, or transported to

Port Fourchon for recycling and/or disposal in an approved facility. Cuttings wetted with SBMs will be discharged to the seafloor in accordance wi th the NPDES permit. A ll NPDES permit limitations and requirements will be met. There will be no persistent impacts on water quality
in the lease area ( National Research Council , 1983; Neff, 1987 ; Neff et al., 2000 ).Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 22 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, l ittle

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 drilling rig will flow overboard without treatment. However, rainwater that falls on the drilling rig 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 requ irements. Based on adherence to permit limits and applicable regulations, l ittle 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 wat er, 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 wate r quality are expected to be consistent with th os e analyzed and discussed i n recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008 ; BOEMRE, 2011 a ; BOEM, 2012 b ).
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. EP Section H provides
detail 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 e xtent and persistence of impacts would depend on the meteorological and oceanographic conditions at the time and the effectiveness of spill response measures. However, i t 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 PAH s , which are moderately volatile (National Research Council, 2003). 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 th e 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, 2003) 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 b ecause 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 ).Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 23 

### Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

Potential impacts of a large oil sp ill on wate r quality are expected to be consistent with th os e analyzed and discussed in recent lease sale EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008). A large spill w ould affect water quality by producing a slick on the water surface and increasing the concentrations of
petr oleum 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 fo rm 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 s and be removed from the water column (Operational Scientific Advisory Team [ OSAT ], 2010).

Because of the l ease area location ( 127 miles [ 204 km ] from the nearest shoreline)

, 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

W ater depth at the proposed project area is approximately 1,602 m (5,257 ft)

. The seafloor around the proposed wellsites is smooth and stable. The immediate regions around the proposed well locations show no evidence of seafloor instability within 610 m ( 2,000 ft) of the wellsites. No areas of possible hard bottom or microseepages were seen within 610 m (2,000 ft) of any of the wellsites (Fugro, 2012)

.
Based on the absence of hard bottom areas detected by side

- scan sonar during the site
clearance s urvey, 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 wellsites. No areas of gaseous sed iments or possible hydrocarbon seepage were defined in the study area, and the presence of chemosynthetic communities is considered negligible (Fugro, 2012).



### 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 collected at stations in water depths similar to the proposed drilling

area.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 24 Table 4

. Benthic community data from stations near the lease area and in greater water depths and more distant stations in more similar depths sampled du ring the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Slope Habitats and Benthic Ecology Study ( Adapted f rom: Wei, 2006 ; Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009).

Station Water Depth (m) Abundance

Meiofauna (individuals/m 2 ) Macroinfauna (individuals/m 2 ) Megafauna (individuals/ha)

B1 2,256 157,417 1,446 252

GKF 2,460 84,348 737

-- C4 1,446 273,585 3,045 743

MT4 1,403 246,058 3,262 1,548

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

, 60 2 m [5,257 ft]) typically range from approximately 117 ,000 to 290 ,000 individuals/m 2 (Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009). Nema todes, 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 p rimary 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 2,500 individuals/m 2

.
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
ho r izontally. The lease area is in Zone 3 W which includes the Alaminos Canyon, basin and

non basin sites as well as the base of the Sigsbee Escarpment with stations ranging in depth from
1, 600 to 3,008 m. The most abundant species in Zone 3W were the polychaetes Levinsenia uncinata, Paraonella monilaris

, and Tachytrypane sp. A ; the bivalve Heterodonta sp. B ; and the isopod Macrostylis sp.

Megafaunal densities from nearby s tations ranged from 191 to 1,600 in dividuals/ha

. 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 organ ic carbon (Cruz

- Kaegi, 1998). Bacterial biomass at the depth range of the lease area typically is about

1 to 2 g C/m 2 in the top 15 cm of sediments (Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009).

IPFs potentially affecting benthic communities are physical disturbance to the seafloor, effluent discharges (drilling muds and cuttings), and a large oil spill (WCD) resulting 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 sur face.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 25 

### Physical Disturbance to the Seafloor

In water depths such as are encountered in the lease area, DP drillships or DP semisubmersibles disturb the seafloor only around the wellbore (SHL) where the bottom template and BOP are located. Depending upon the specific well configuration, this area is gene rally about 0.25 ha (0.62 ac).

T he areal extent of these impacts from the DP rig will be small compared to the lease area itself, and these type s oft bottom communities are ubi quitous along the northern Gulf of Mexico continental slope (Gallaway, 1988; Gallaway et al., 2003; Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009). Impacts
from the physical disturbance of the seafloor during this project will have no significant impact
on soft bottom benthic communities in the region

.


### Impacts of Effluent Discharges

Drilling muds and cuttings are the only effluents that are likely to affect benthic communities. During initial well interval(s) before the marine riser is set, cuttings and seawater

- based " spud

m ud " will be released at the seafloor. Excess cement slurry will also be released at the seafloor during casing installation for the riserless portion of the drilling operations. Cement slurry components typically include cement mix and some of the same c hemicals used in water

- based drilling muds (Boehm et al., 2001). The main impacts will be burial and smothering of benthic organisms within several meters to tens of meters around the wellbore. Soft bottom sediments disturbed by cuttings, drilling muds, and cement slurry will eventually be recolonized through larval settlement and migration from adjacent areas. Because some deep

- sea biota grow and reproduce slowly, recovery may require several years.

Discharges of washed SBM cuttings from the rig may aff ect benthic communities, primarily within several hundred meters of the wellsite. The fate and effects of SBM cuttings have been reviewed by Neff et al. (2000), and monitoring studies have been conducted in the Gulf of Mexico by Continental Shelf Associat es, Inc. (2004, 2006). In general, washed cuttings with adhering SBMs tend to clump together and form thick cuttings piles close to the drillsite. Areas of SBM cuttings deposition may develop elevated organic carbon concentrations and anoxic conditions ( Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2006). Where SBM cuttings accumulate in concentrations of approximately 1,000 mg/kg or higher, benthic infaunal communities may be adversely affected due to both the toxicity of the base fluid and organic enrichment (wi th resulting anoxia) (Neff et al., 2000). Infaunal numbers may increase and diversity may decrease as opportunistic species that tolerate low oxygen and high H 2 S predominate (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2006). As the base synthetic fluid is decom posed by microbes, the area will gradually return to pre

- drilling conditions. Disturbed sediments will be recolonized through larval settlement and migration from adjacent areas.

T he areal extent of impacts from drilling discharges will be small. Assumin g a typical effect
radius of 500 m (1,640 ft), the affected area around the wellsite would represent about 3% of the seafloor within a lease block. Soft bottom communities are ubiquitous along the northern Gulf of Mexico continental slope (Gallaway, 1988; Gallaway et al., 2003; Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009). Impacts from drilling discharges during this project will have no significant impact on soft bottom benthic communities in the region.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 26 

### Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

The most likely effects of a subse a blowout on benthic communities would be within a few
hundred meters of the wellsite. The MMS (2007b) estimat ed 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 ar ea are assumed to largely be silt and clay ( Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009 ).

Recent lease sale EISs (MMS, 2007a, 2008) i n dicat ed 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 ar e 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, 2003).



### C.2.2 High

- Density Deepwater Benthic Communities

As defined by NTL 2009

- G40, high

- density deepwater benthic communities are f eatures or areas that could support high

- density chemosynthetic communities, or features or areas that could support high

- de nsity deepwater corals and other associated high

- density hard bottom

communities. Chemosynthetic communities were discovered in the central Gulf of Mexico in 1984 and have been studied extensively (MacDonald, 2002). Deepwater coral communities are
also k nown 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 com munity site is approximately 33 miles (53 km)
north thwest of the lease area in G C 287 . The nearest identified deep water coral communities

are in G C 852

, 14 miles (23 km) west

- southwest of the lease area

.

The geohazards assessment of the lease area did no t identify any features that could support high

- density deepwater benthic communities within 610 m (2,000 ft) of the proposed drilling
mud /cuttings discharge locations (Fugro, 2012).

IPFs potentially affecting high

- density deepwater benthic communities inc lude physical disturbance of the seafloor, effluent discharges (drilling muds and cuttings), 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 d issipate on the sea surface.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 27 

### Physical Disturbance to the Seafloor

In water depths such as are encountered in the lease area, DP drillships or DP semisubmersibles disturb the seafloor only around the wellbore (SHL) where the bottom template and BOP are located. Depending upon the specific well configuration, this area is gene rally about 0.25 ha (0.62 ac).

T he areal extent of these impacts from the DP rig will be small , and NTL 2009

- G40 requires that high

- density deepwater benthic communities and f e atures o r areas that could support high

- density chemosynthetic communities, or deepwater corals communities be avoided

. Based on the Fugro (2012) report, there will be no impacts on chemosynthetic or deepwater coral communities from this project.



### Impacts of Effluent Discharges

The s ite c learance s urvey ( F ugro , 2012 ) did not identify any features that could support high

- density deepwater benthic communities within 610 m (2,000 ft) of the proposed drilling locations, and the presence of chemosynthetic commun ities in the lease area is considered

remote. Mo nitoring programs on the Gulf of Mexico continental slope have shown that benthic impacts from drilling discharges typically are concentrated within about 500 m (1,640 ft ) of the
wellsite , although detectable deposits may extend beyond this distance (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2004, 2006; Neff et al., 2005). Because of the water depth of the lease area, drilling discharges would be expected to result in thinner, more diffuse accu mulations on the seafloor than those documented in the literature. Although small amounts of cuttings particles may reach areas inhabited by high

- density deepwater benthic communities, the discharges are not expected to result in significant impacts to th ese communities.



### Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

Previous analyses (MMS, 2007a, 2008) 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) be cause 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 an d 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 subs urface 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. Potential impacts on sensitive resources wou ld 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 the magnitude of this event. Hazen et al. (2010) reported changes in plume hydrocarbon composition with distance from the source . I ncubation experiments with environmental isolates demonstrated fast er than expected hydrocarbon biodegradation rates at 5°C. Based on these results, Hazen et al. (2010) suggested the potential exists for intrinsic bioremediation of the oil plume in the deep water column without substantial oxygen drawdown.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 28 Potential impa cts 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 releas e 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 chemosy nthetic 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 comme rcial 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).

The potential for a spill to affect deepwater corals is indicated by preliminary findings from a recent (October 2010) survey of deepwater coral habitats near the Macondo spill site (BOEMRE, 2010). Government and academic researchers were working at a sit e 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 by 40 m (50 by 13 0 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 sim ilarly 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 plu me of oil had been documented during the spill in June, 2010; corals elsewhere in the Gulf of Mexico outside the area affected by the plume did not appear to be experiencing higher mortality. The research team concluded that the observed coral injuries
li kely resulted from exposure to the subsurface o il plume (White et al., 2012).



### 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 designate d topographic feature is Ship Shoal in

E wing Bank Block 945

, 56 miles (90 km) north of the lease area.

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 plu me 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.2.4 Pinnacle Trend Area Live Bottoms

The lease area is not covered by the Live Botto m (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation. As defined by

NTL 2009

- G39, the nearest pinnacle trend is Main Pass Block 290

, 207 miles (333 km) north east
of the lease area.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 29 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 di fference 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 cove red 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 Block 57 3 , approximately 246 miles (397 km) north east of the lease area

.
There are no IPFs associated with either routine operations or accidents that could cause impacts to eastern Gulf live bottom areas due to the distance from the lease area. A small f uel 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 th ese 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 prot ected
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act ( MMPA )

.
Endangered or threatened species that may occur in the project area and/or along the northern
Gulf C oast are listed in Table 5 . The table also indicates the location of critical habitat (if designated i n 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 ju risdiction 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 m anatee.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 30 Table 5

. Federally listed endangered and threatened species potentially occurring in the lease area and along the northern Gulf C oast.

Species Scientific Name Status Potential Presence Critical Habitat Designated
in Gulf of Mexico Lease
Area Coastal

Marine Mammals

Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus E X

-- None

West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus latirostris E

-- X Florida (Peninsular)

Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus E X a

-- None

Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus E X a

-- None Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae E X a

-- None North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis E X a

-- None

Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis E X a

-- 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 (A labama, Choctawhatchee, Perdido Key,
St. Andrew) Peromyscus polionotus E

-- X Alabama and Florida (Panhandle) beaches

Abbreviations: E = e ndangered; T = t hreatened.

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.

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 B iological A ssessment 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 a ssociated 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 aGreen Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 31 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

t hreatened/endangered species or designated critical habitat under USFWS jurisdiction. Following the Macondo spill

, BOEMRE requested to reinitiat e 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 t he USFWS responded with a letter to BOEMRE on 27 September 2010. At present, the NMFS and US FWS have placed th e 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 remain s in effect (BOEM, 201 2 b )

. 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 inc lude
the West Indian manatee, Piping Plover, Whooping Crane, Gulf sturgeon, and four subspecies of
beach m ouse . Critical habitat has been designated for all of these species as indicated in Table 5
and discussed in individual sections.

Two other coastal s pecies (Bald Eagle and Brown Pelican) are discussed in the MMS (2007b)
lease sale EIS are no longer listed as endangered or threatened . T hese are discussed in
Section C.4.2

, Shorebirds and Coastal Nesting Birds

.
The sperm whale and five species of sea tur tles are the only endangered or threatened species likely to occur at or near the lease area. No critical habitat has been designated for these species in the Gulf of Mexico.

Five endangered mysticete whales (blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, North A tlantic 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.



### C.3.1 Sperm Whale (En dangered)

The only endangered marine mammal likely to be present at or near the project area is the sperm whale ( Physeter macrocephalus )

. Resident populations of s perm whales occur within the
Gulf of Mexico ; a species description is presented in a recent lease sale EIS (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., 20 12 ). No critical habitat fo r the sperm whale has been designated in the Gulf of Mexico.

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 populati ons in the north

- central Gulf of Mexico are present there throughout the year (Davis e t 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,Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 32 and groups of bachelor males. Typical group size for mixed gro ups was 10 individuals (Jochens et al., 2008). SWSS results show that sperm wh ales 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 Me xico population (within the

95% utilization distribution) (Joche ns et al., 2008).

IPFs potentially affecting sperm whales include drilling rig 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 ma rine debris

- related impacts on sperm whales

.

C urrent threats to sperm whale populations worldwide are discussed in a final recovery plan for the sperm whale r ecently published by NOAA (NMFS, 2010 a ). 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, 2011 a ; BOEM, 2012 b )

.


### Impacts of Drilling Rig Presence, Noise, a nd Lights

Noise from routine drilling 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 drilling 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 no ise sources. Due to the limited scope and short duration of d rilling activities, this project 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 th at drilling is not expected to produce amplitudes sufficient to cause hearing or behavioral effects in sperm whales; therefore, these effects are insignificant (NMFS, 2007).

Drilling rig lighting and rig presence are not identified as IPF s for sperm whales in recent lease sale EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008 ; BOEM, 2012a, b ) or the NMFS (2007) Biological Opinion.



### 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 a recent lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b). To reduce the potential for vessel strikes, t he BSEE and BOEM issued

NTL 20 12

- JOINT

- G0 1 , which recommends protected species identification training and thatGreen Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 33 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 re quired 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

a s 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 20 12

- JOINT

- G01 , NMFS concluded that the
likelihood of collisions b etween 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 significan t 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 9 1 m ( 300 ft) f rom 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 o ffshore Hawaii to fixed wing aircraft flying at an
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 (1,18 0 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.

W hile 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 (2012 d ) concluded that t his 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 recent lease
sale EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008 ; BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012 a, b ) and by NM FS (2007) . Oil impacts on marine mammals are discussed by Geraci and St. Aubin (1990). For this EP , 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.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 34 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 condition s.

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 p rey; 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 recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008 ; BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012 a,b, d ) and by NMFS (2007)

. For this EP , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to spill impacts on these animals.

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, no ise, 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. 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 chan ging 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 sperm whales and potentially result in vessel strikes, entanglement, or other injury

or s tress. 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)

M ost 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 a recent lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b) 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 leas e area is approximately 127 miles (204 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 watersGreen Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 35 prior to breaking up

. Compliance with NTL 2012

- BSEE

- G01 wi ll 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 20 12

- JOINT

- G0 1 , which recommends protected species iden tification 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 this NTL 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 altitude s 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 populated areas and sensitive habitats such as wildlife refuges and park properties. In addition, guidelines and regulatio ns 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,

no ise, 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 (or conta minated 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 condit ion, 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 mo vement patterns or migration (MMC, 201 1 ).

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 s trikes, 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 Mys ticete 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 rareGreen Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 36 or extralimital there (Würsig et al., 2000). No critical habitat has been designated for these species in the Gulf of Mexico.

Because of the rare occurrence of these whales in the Gulf of Mexico and the limited sco pe and duration of the project, it is highly unlikely that any endange red 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 re cent lease sale EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008 ; BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012a,b, d )

, 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

, includ ing 2 species of mysticete whales, dwarf an d pygmy sperm whales, 4 species of beaked whales, and 1 4 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 below, and a dditional information on these groups is presented in a recent lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b).

Mysticete whale s . 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 a nd 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 (Würs ig 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 brevice ps ), 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 cont inental shelf (Mullin et al., 1991). Either species could occur in the
lease area.

Beaked whales . Four species of beaked whales are known from the Gulf of Mexico. They are Blainville’s beaked whale ( Mesoplodon densirostris ), Cuvier’s beaked whale ( Ziphi us 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 difficu lties 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 distri buted 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.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 37 D elphinids . Fourteen species of delphinids are known from the Gulf of Mexico, includin g Atlantic spotted dolphin ( Stenella frontalis ), bottlenose dolphin ( Tursiops truncatus ), Clymene dolphin ( Stenella clymene ), f alse killer whale ( Pseudorca crassidens )

, Fraser’s dolphin ( Lagenodelphis hosei ) , k iller whale ( Orcinus orca ) , m elon

- headed whale ( Peponocephala electra )

, p antropical spotted dolphin ( Stenella attenuata )

, p ygmy killer whale ( Feresa attenuata )

, short

- finned pilot whale ( Globicephala macrorhynchus ) , R isso’s dolphin ( Grampus griseus )

,
r ough

- toothed dolphin ( Steno bredanensis ) , s pinner dolphin ( Stenella longirostris ) , and s triped 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

IPFs potentially affecting non endangered m arine mammals include drilling rig 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 d ue 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. . Bottlenose dolphin populations in the northern Gulf of Mexico are separated by the NMFS into 37 geographically distinct population units, or stocks, for management purposes (Wari ng et al., 2012). NMFS (2013) has proposed to classify the Gulf of Mexico Northern Coastal Stock, Western Coastal Stock, and all 32 of the Bay, Sound, and Estuarine Stocks as strategic stocks, based primarily on the occurrence of an " unusual mortality

eve nt " of unprecedented size and duration (which began in February 2010 and is ongoing) that has affected these stock areas. 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.



### Imp acts of Drilling Rig Presence, Noise, and Lights

Noise from routine drilling activities has the potential to disturb marine mammals. Most odontocetes (toothed whales and dolphins) use higher frequency sounds than those produced by OCS drilling activities (Richardson et al., 1995). Noise intensity associated with drilling 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 drilling 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 si gnificant to marine mammal populations.

Drilling rig lighting and rig presence are not identified as IPF s for marine mammals in recent lease sale EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008 ; BOEMRE, 2011a ; 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 a recent lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b). To reduce the potential for vessel stri kes, BSEE and BOEM issuedGreen Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 38 NTL 20 12

- JOINT

- G0 1 , 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 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 t o 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 (W ü rsig 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 t his 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 recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008 ; BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012a,b )

, and oil impacts on marine mammals in general are discussed by Geraci and St. Aubin (1990). For this EP , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to spill impacts on these animals.

The probability of a fuel spill will b e minimized by Anadarko ’s preventative measures during 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. EP Section H provides detail on spill

response me asures , 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 offs hore 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 t ime 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.

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 qu ality impacts from a small fuel spill, as well as the mobility of marine mammals, no significant impacts would be expected.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 39 

### Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

Potential spill impacts on marine mammals are discussed in MMS (2000, 2007b

, 2008 ; BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012a,b )

. For this EP , 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, 201 1 ). 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) direct ly 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, physiologi cal 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
b ehavior/productivity, and changing movement patterns or migration (MMC, 201 1 ).

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, en tanglement, 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)

F ive species of endangered or threatened sea turtles may be found near the lease area. L eatherback ( Dermochelys coriacea ), Kemp's ridley ( Lepidochelys kempii ), and hawksbill ( Eretmochelys imbricata ) turtles are endangered . The loggerhead turt le ( Caretta caretta ) is currently a threatened species ; however, in March 20 10 , NMFS and USFWS proposed to list the Northwest Atlantic Ocean population of loggerhead turtles as endangered (75 FR 12598) . The green turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) is listed as threa tened, except for the Florida and Pacific c oast of
Mexico breeding population s , which are listed as endangered. Species descriptions are presented in MMS ( 2007b).

The extent and scope of the Macondo spill represents new information not assessed in the
exi sting 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 US FWS on 30 July 2010. The NMFS responded with a letter to
BOEMRE on 24 September 2010 , and the US FWS responded with a letter to BOEMRE on
27 September 2010. However, NMFS and the US FWS 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 remain s in effect (BOEM, 201 2 b )

.
BOEMRE (2011a) and BOEM (201 2 b ) reexamined the impacts analys e s 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 impact s 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 s ea turtles.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 40 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 near shore 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.

Sea turtle nesting in the northern Gulf of Mexico can be summarized by sp ecies as follows:

• Loggerhead turtles

– Loggerheads nest in significant numbers along the Florida Panhandle and, to a lesser extent, from Texas through Alabama (MMS, 2007 b ) . 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, 201 2 );

• Kemp’s ridley turtles

– The main Kemp’s ridley nesting site is Rancho Nuevo beach,

Tamau lipas, Mexico (NMFS et al., 2011 ). 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, 2010); and

• Hawksbill turtles

– Hawksbills typica lly do not nest anywhere near the project area.

IPFs potentially affecting sea turtles include drilling rig presence, noise, and lights; support vessel and helicopter traffic; and two types of accidents

– a small fuel s pill 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 Drilling Rig Presence, Noise, and Lights

Offshore drilling activities produce a broad array of sounds at frequencies and intensities that may be detected by sea turtl es (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 (Lohoef ener 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 drilling activities , these
short

- term impacts are not expected to be biologically si gnificant 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 a re 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 distur b 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 w eather, 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 20 12

- JOINT

- G0 1 , which recommend s protectedGreen Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 41 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 d ead 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.



### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

Potential spill impacts on sea turtles are discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008 ; BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012a,b ) and the NMFS Biological Opinion (NMFS, 2007)

. For this EP , 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. EP Section H 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% w ould 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.

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 respons e vessels and aircraft. 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 nes ting beaches, as the
lease area is 127 miles (204 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 Spi ll (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 stres s from the activities and noise of response vessels and aircraft. Complications of the above may lead to dysfunction of immune and reproductive systems,Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 42 physiological stress, declining physical condition, and death. Behavioral responses can include displ acement 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. EP Section H provide s detail on spill response measures.

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 e ffects on nesting sea turtles and egg development (NMFS, 2007). An oiled beach could affect nest site selection or result in no nesting at al l (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, entang lement, 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. 6 Piping Plover (Threatened)

T he 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 (USF WS, 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 a
recent lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b).

A large oil spill (WCD) is the only IPF potentially affecting Piping Plo vers. 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 c oastal waters prior to breaking up (see explanation in
Section A.9.2 )

.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 43

Figure 3. Location of selected environmental features in relation to the lease area.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 44 

### Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

Th e lease area is 127 miles (204 km) from the nearest shoreline s inhabited by Piping Plovers ( Figure 3 ). The revised OSRA results (BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012b) 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 woul d 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 prot ect 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 ; t his 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 non migrating 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 agricultura l 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 a recent lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b ; BOEM, 2012a ). 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 t he lease ar ea is approximately

345 miles ( 556 km) from its critical habitat designated in the Aransas NWR

. T he revised

OSRA modeling (BOEM, 201 2 b ) 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 c ontaminated 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 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 45 

### C.3. 8 Gulf Sturgeon (Threat ened)

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 migra tes 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 t he 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). T hese 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 e t 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) t o Suwannee Sound, Florida (Levy County) (NMFS, 2010 b ) ( Figure 3 )

. A species descripti on is presented in a lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b) and in the recovery plan for this species (USFWS and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, 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 recent lease sale EISs ( MMS, 2007b,

2008 ; BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012 b ) and by NMFS (2007)

. For this EP , there are no unique

sit e

- specific issues with respect to this species.

The lease area is approximately 199 miles ( 320 km) from the nearest Gulf sturgeon critical
habitat. The revised OSRA modeling (BOEM, 201 2 b ) predicts that a spill in the lease area has

1% or less probability of contacting any coastal areas inhab ited 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 dissolve d 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 spec ies is foraging in estuarine and shallow marine habitats (NMFS, 2007).



### C.3.9 S malltooth S awfish (Endangered)

Smalltooth sawfish ( Pristis pectinata ) are found in the tropical and subtropical Atlantic Ocean.
In the W estern 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 ThousandGreen Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 46 Islands/Everglades Unit, which comprise s approximately 250,506 ha ( 619,013 ac ) of coastal
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 coast al 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 recent lease sale EISs ( MMS, 2007b, 2008 ; BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012a ) and by the NMFS (2007) in its Biological Opinion. For this EP , 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 petrole um products through the gills.



### C.3. 10 Beach Mice (Endangered)

Four subspecies of endangered beach m ouse ( Peromyscus polionotus ) occur on the barrier
islands of Alabama and the Florida Panhandle. They are the Alabama, Choctaw h atchee,
Perdido Key, and St. Andrew beach mice. 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 a rece nt lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b).

A large oil spill (WCD) is the only IPF potentially affecting beach mice. There are no IPFs associated with routine project activities that could affect these animals due to the distance
from shore and th e lack of any onshore support activities near their habitat. A small fuel spill in
the lease area would not affect beach mice 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 beach mice are discussed in recent lease sale EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008 ; BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012a ). For this EP , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to these species that we re not analyzed in these documents

.

The lease area is about 274 miles (440 km) south west 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 beach mice within 120 days.

In the event of oil contacting these beaches, beach mice could experience several types of direct and indirect impacts. Contact with spilled oil coul d 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

contaminat ed 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 activitiesGreen Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 47 associated with spill cleanup. However, any such impacts are unlikely du e to the distance from shore and response actions that would occur in the event of a spill.



### C.3.11 Elkhorn Coral (Endangered)

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

, e lkhorn 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. A lthough

su bsurface plumes were reported following the Macondo spill, these plumes resulted from the
use of subsea dispersant s 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 pelag ic 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 s uch as waterfowl, marsh birds, and shorebird s 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 shorebird s and coastal n esting 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 i n the deepwater area. From these surveys, f our 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, Sa ndwich Tern, Magnificent Frigatebird); winter residents (gannets, gulls, jaegers); and permanent resident species (Laughing Gulls, Royal Terns, Bridled Terns) (Hess and Ribic, 2000).

Common seabird species include Wilson’s S torm

- P etrel ( 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 ( Pu ffinus lherminieri ). Seabirds
are distributed Gulf

- wide and are not specifically associated with the lease area.

Relationships with hydrographic features were found for several seabird species, possibly due to effects of hydrography on nutrient levels and productivity of surface waters where birds forage.
The GulfCet II study did not estimate bird densities; however, Powers (1987) indicates that seabird densities over the open ocean typically are <10 birds/km 2

.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 48 Trans

- Gulf migrant bi rds 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 b e 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 drilling rig presence, noise, and lights; support vessel and helicopter tr affic; 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 Drilling Rig Presence, Noise, and Lights

Birds that frequent rig s 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, resulti ng in death or injury (Wiese et al., 2001; Russell, 2005). Mor tality 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 drilling activities described in this EP, any impacts on populations of either seabirds or trans

- Gulf migrant birds are not expected to be significant.

A study in the North Sea indicated that rig lighting causes circling behavior in various birds, especially on cloudy nights; a pparently the birds’ geomagnetic compass is upset by the red part of the spectrum from the lights currently in use ( Nederlandse Aardolie Maatsch appij, 2007 ). The numbers varied greatly, from none at all to some tens of thousands of birds per night per rig, with an apparent effe ct radius of up to 3 miles (5 km). A study in the Gulf of Mexico also noted the phenomenon but did not recommend mitigat ion (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 v ersus the North Sea. In laboratory experiments, Poot et al. (2008) found the magnet ic 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 desig ned 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

- wa velength 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 drilling activities proposed in this EP

, lighting impacts, collisions

, or other adverse effects are unlikely, and no significant impacts are expected.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 49 

### 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 recent EI Ss (MMS, 2007b, 2008 ; BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012 a,b )

. F or this EP , 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

routin e 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.

EP Section H provides detail on spill response measures. Given the open ocean lo cation 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.

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 i mpacts 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 sur face 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 recent EISs (MMS, 2007b,

2008 ; BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012 a,b )

. For this EP , ther e are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to spill impacts on these animals.

BOEM has reexamined the analys e s for coastal and marine birds presented in MMS (2007b, 2008) and determined that no new information was found that would alter the potential impact s on marine and pelagic birds ( BOEMRE, 2011 a ; BOEM, 2012 b ).

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 frequen tly sighted seabirds in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico (>200 m). Powers (1987) indicates that seabird densities over the open ocean typically are <10 birds/km 2 . 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 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 50 The recent Macondo spill provides 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 spe cies 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 Shorebird s and Coastal Nesting Birds

Threatened and endanger ed 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 C oast, including diving birds, shorebird s, marsh birds, wading birds, and

water fowl. 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, Wilson’s Plover, Black Skimmer, Forster’ s Tern, Gull

- Billed Tern, Laughing Gull, Least Tern, and Royal Tern (USFWS, 2010b). Additional information is presented in recent lease sale EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008 ; BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012a ).

The Brown Pelican ( Pelecanus occidentalis ) was delisted from Federal endangered status in 2009 (USFWS, 2010c). However, this species is listed as a species of greatest conservation need by the State of Mississippi (Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, 2011) and as a species o f special concern by the State of Florida (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 201 2 )

. Brown Pelicans inhabit coastal habitats and forage within both coastal waters and waters of the inner continental shelf. Aerial and shipboard surveys, in cluding
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 live s in the northern Gulf Coast, g enerally nesting on protected islands (USFWS, 2010 b ).

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 s outhern U.S., including coastal habitats along the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf C oast is inhabited by both wintering migrant and resident Bald Eagles (Johnsgard, 1990; Ehrlich et al., 1992).

IPFs potentially affecting shorebird s and coastal nesting birds incl ude support vessel and helicopter traffic and a large oil spill (WCD). A small fuel spill in the lease area would be unlikely
to affect shorebird s or coastal nesting birds, as the lease area is 127 miles (204 km) from the nearest shoreline. 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 Ves sel and Helicopter Traffic

Support vessels and helicopters will transit coastal areas n ear Port Fourchon and Houma, Louisiana, where shorebird s 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 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 51 Vessel traffic may disturb some foraging and resting birds. Flushing distances vary between species and between individuals (Rodgers and Schwike rt, 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

ne sting birds, eggs, and chicks is 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 drillin g 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 s pecies, 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 characteristic s. 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)

Data from the Macondo spill provide additional information about the species of coastal birds that may be affected in the event of a catastrophic spill of a similar nature and duration. This information supplements the analysis presented in the lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b). According to USFWS (2010d) and based on the latest reports, about 5,000 dead birds have been collected since the spill began, and about 1,900 of the dead animals were visibly oiled. In addition, over 2,000 oiled birds have been collected alive and about 1,200 released (NMFS, 2010 c ). According

to the USFWS (2011)

, bird species that have been treated for oiling include the following:

• Brown Pelican

• White Pelican

• Masked Booby

• Magnificent Frigatebird

• Laughing Gull

• Herring Gull

• Northern Gannet

• Black Crowned Night Heron

• Tri

- colored Heron

• Green Heron

• Cattle Egret

• Snowy Egret

• Reddish Egret

• Least Bittern • Common Tern

• Royal Tern

• Caspian Tern

• Sandwich Tern

• Forster ’ s Tern

• Black Tern

• Gull

- billed Tern

• Least Tern

• Black Skimmer

• Black Oystercatcher

• White Ibis

• Roseate Spoonbill

• Willet

• SanderlingGreen Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 52 • Dunlin

• Semipalmated Sandpiper

• Killdeer • King Rail

• Clapper Rail

• Virginia Rail

According to the USFWS (2010d), species with the largest numbers of dead oiled birds were Laughing Gull, Northern Gannet, Brown Pelican, Royal Tern, Black Skimmer, Least Tern, unidentified Gull, and unidentified Tern. There are no reports of Bald Eagle oiling.

While the Macondo spill had direct and indirect impacts to coastal and marine birds, it is premature to conclude impacts over a long period (BOEM, 20 12 b ). M odeling of Macondo spill related bird impacts is underway by NRDA

, but results have not yet been released.

Antonio et al. (2011) modeled bird

- mortality from the Macondo spill showing cumulative carcass numbers and mortality rate increasing exponen tially from the start of the Macondo spill until the mortality rate began to decline after the 97th day of the spill . Note that the collected animals would be a small subset of the total number of impacted birds and therefore, the collected animals would represent an underestimated measure of the overall impact of the
Macondo event (BOEM

, 2012 b ).

Coastal birds can be exposed to oil as they float on the water surface, dive during foraging, or
wade in oiled coastal wat ers. Oiled birds can lose the ability to fly, dive for food, or float on the water, which could lead to drowning (USFWS, 2010e). Oil interferes with the water repellency of feathers and can cause hypothermia in the right conditions. As birds groom thems elves, 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 lu ng, liver, and kidney damage, which can lead to death. Bird eggs may be damaged if an oiled adult sits on the nest.

As noted above, the Brown Pelican was recently removed from the Federal endangered species
list. Over 300 dead Brown Pelicans were collect ed in the Gulf following the Macondo spill, (USFWS, 2010d). These data indicate that Brown Pelicans may be particularly at risk of oiling in
the event of a catastrophic spill reaching coastal waters. Issues for Brown Pelicans include direct
contact with oil, disturbance by cleanup activities, and long

- term habitat contamination.



## 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 nort hern 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 prod uctivity in the northern Gulf of Mexico (Biggs and Ressler, 2000).Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 53 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).

I PFs potentially affecting pelagic communities and ichthyoplankton include drilling rig presence, noise, and lights; effluent disc harges; water intakes; and two types of accidents

- a small fuel spill and a large oil spill ( WCD).



### Impacts of Drilling Rig Presence, Noise, and Lights

The drilling rig, 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; Reli ni 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 drilling rig is a single, temporary structure, impacts on fish populati ons, 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 sl ight 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
discha rges 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 acco rdance 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.



### Impacts of Water Intakes

Seawater will be drawn from the ocean for once

- through, non contact cooling of machinery

on the drilling rig. R ig s considered for use for activities described in this EP are not " new "
facilit ies as defined by the NPDES permit and therefore are not subject to the cooling water intake regulations for Phase III facilities under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act

.
The intake of seawater for cooling water will entrain plankton. The low intake velocity should allow most strong

- swimming juvenile f ishes 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 k illed, primarily through changes in water temperature during the route from cooling intake structure to discharge structure and mechanical damage (turbulenceGreen Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 54 in pumps and condensers). Due to the limited scope and short duration of drilling 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 resource s are discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008 ; BOEM RE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012a, d )

. F or this EP , 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 th e unlikely event of a spill, implementation of
Anadarko ’s OSRP will mitigate the potential for impacts on pelagic communities

, including ichthyoplankton. EP Section H 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 p roducts. 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 imp acts on pelagic communities.



### Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

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 a ffect 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 greater if local

- scale currents retained planktonic larval assemblages (and the floating oil slick)
within the same water mass.



### C.5.2 E ssential 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.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 55 The BOEM (201 2 b ) has reexamined the analysis for fish resources and EFH presented in recent lease EISs (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).

T he Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) has prepared Fishery Management Plans for corals and coral reefs, shrimp s , 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). T he 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
f ishes, and shrimps. EFH for corals and coral reefs includes some shelf

- edge topographic
features on the Texas

- Louisiana OCS, the nearest of which are in GB 127, located approximately
119 miles ( 191 km) north of the lease area along the shelf edge south of Louisiana.

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 tuna (adults and juveniles )

• Bigeye thresher shark (all)

• Blue marlin (juveniles, adults)

• Longfin mako shark (all)

• Oceanic whitetip shark (all)

• Skipjack tuna (adults and spawn) • Swordfish (larvae, juveniles, adults)

• Tiger shark (adults)

• White marlin (juveniles, adults)

• Yellowfin tuna (s pawn, juveniles,
adults )

• Whale shark (all)

• Sailfish (adult)

• Silky shark (all)

Recent research indicates the central and western Gulf of Mexico may be important spawning habitat for Atlantic bluefin tuna, and NMFS (2009) has designated a Hab itat 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 km 2 (15,000 mi 2 )

. 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 Apr il, May, and June (NMFS, 2009).

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 ; however, effectively placing bluefin tuna 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 am endment 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 ExclusiveGreen Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 56 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 sensit ive underwater features and areas and benthic

communities that are considered EFH (MMS, 2009 a,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 a bove will be followed ( BOEMRE, 2011 a ; BOEM, 2012 b ).

Other HAPCs have been identified by the GMFMC (2005). These include the Florida Middle

Gr ounds, 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 64 miles (103 km) to the
north

- northwest of the lease area

.
IPFs potentially affecting EFH include drilling rig 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 Drilling Rig Presence, Noise, and Lights

The drilling rig, as a floating structure in the deepwater environment, will act as a n FAD. In oceanic waters, the FAD effect would be most pronounced for epipelagic fishes such as tunas, dolphin, billfishes, and j acks, 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

concen trating smaller fish species. Because the drilling rig 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 amb ient water quality include drilling muds and cuttings, 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 qual ity have been discussed previously. No significant impacts

on EFH for highly migratory pelagic fishes are expected from these discharges.



### 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 drilling 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 im pacts on EFH. EP Section H providesGreen Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 57 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 i n recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008 ; BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012a, d )

. F or this EP , 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

concentr ations 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 t he 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 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 impa ct on water quality in the HAPC for spawning bluefin tuna, which covers much of the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. The areal extent of the affected area would represent a negligible portion of the HAPC.

A small fuel spill would not affect EFH for corals and co ral reefs, the nearest EFH being the topographic feature s located approximately 119 miles (191 km) from the lease area along the shelf edge south of Louisiana. A small fuel spill would float and dissipate on the sea surface and
would not contact these feat ures.



### Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

Potential spill impacts on EFH are discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008 ; BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012a, d ). For this EP , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to EFH.

An oil spill in offshore wate rs would temporarily increase hydrocarbon concentrations on the water surface and potentially in 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 shrimp s , 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 c ontaminated and result in persistent degradation of the seafloor habitat for managed demersal fish and shellfish species.

T he lease area is within the HAPC for spawning Atlantic bluefin tuna (NMFS, 2009). A large spill could temporarily degrade the HAPC d ue 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 i n April, May, and June (NMFS, 2009).Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 58 The topographic features

, located in GB 127, 56 miles (90 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

The BOEM (201 2 b ) reexamined the analys e s for archaeological resources presented in

MMS (2007b, 2008), b ased 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 a s 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 ar eas >200 m (656 ft) deep that have been exempted from high

- resolution surveys. Since significant historic shipwrecks have recently been discovered outside the previously designated high

- probability areas (some of which show evidence of impacts from permit ted 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, 2012 c )

. Four sonar contacts interpreted as un identified debris on the seafloor lie within 610 m ( 2,000 ft ) of the proposed wellsites. There were no indications of wrecks or other archaeological resources detected during the site clearance survey (Fugro, 2012)

. Anadarko will abide by the applicable requirements of NTL 2005

- G07, which stipulate that work be stopped at the project site if any previously undetected archaeological resource is 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. I mpacts 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) estimate d that a severe subsurface blowout could resuspend and disperse
sediments within a 300

- m (984

- ft) radius. Because there are no historic sh ipwrecks 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 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
sh ipwreck 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 thei r condition or preservation.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 59 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 co ntact 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. A s 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 9 1 m ( 300 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 exposed 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. (CEI) suggests that sea level at 12,000 years B.P. would have been approximately 45 to 60 m (148 to 197 ft) bel ow the
present

- day sea level (CEI, 1977

, 1982). On this basis, the contine ntal 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, the MMS adopted the 60

- m (197

- ft) water depth as the seaward extent for archaeological site potential in Gulf of Mexico region

.

With a water depth between 2,076 to 2,118 m ( 6,810 to 6,950 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 surfa ce.



### 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 resus pend and disperse sediments within a 300

- m (984

- ft) radius.

Along the northern Gulf C oast, 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 prehis toric 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 sam ple 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).Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 60 

## 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 recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008 ; BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012a,b, d ) and in a literature review by Collard and Way (1997). Coastal habitats inshore of t he project area include barrier beaches and dunes, wetlands, and submerged seagrass beds. Generally, 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 man aged or protected coastal area relate to support vessel
traffic . The support bases at Port Fourchon and Houma, Louisiana

, are not in wildlife refuge s or wilderness area s . Potential impacts of support vessel traffic are addressed briefly below.

A small fu el spill in the lease area would be unlikely to affect coastal habitats, as the lease area is 127 miles (204 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 coas tal 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

t rips, vessel wakes can erode shorelines along inlets, channels, and harbors. Support operations, including crew boats and supply boats as detailed in EP Section K

, 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 recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008 ; BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012a,b, d ). Coastal habi tats inshore of the project area include barrier beaches and dunes, wetlands, and submerged seagrass beds. For this EP , there are no unique
site

- specific issues with respect to coastal habitats.

The revised OSRA modeling summarized in Table 3 predicts tha t 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
areas behind the barrier islands and in estuaries. NWRs and other protected areas along the
coast are discussed in a recent lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b) 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

.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 61 Table 6. W ildlife refuges, wilderness areas , and State and National parks within the geographic range of the potential shoreline contacts after 120 days (From: BOEM , 2012 b )

.

County or Parish , State W ildlife 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. Anahuc Park

Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge

Mc F addin National Wildlife Refuge

Jefferson County, Texas Mc F addin National Wildlife Refuge

Sea Rim State Park Murphree Wildlife Management Area

Texas Point National Wildlife RefugeTable 6. (Continued).

Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 62 County or Parish , State W ildlife Refuge, Wilderness Area, or State/National Park

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 tarbal ls (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 incorpor ate 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 mate rials. 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. Abou t 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

season s, 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 dec ades following a spill (MMS, 2007b ; BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012b ).Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 63 

## 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 o n additional information and in consideration of the Macondo spill.

N o new information was found that would alter the potential impact s on commercial fishing ( BOEMRE, 2011 a ; BOEM, 2012 b )

.
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 a rea, primarily during spring and

summer. I n 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 mon ofilament 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 hour s to deploy a longline and about the same time to retrieve it. Longlines are often set near oceanographic features such as fronts or downwellings, w ith the aid of sophisticated on

- board temperature sensors, depth finders, and positioning equipment. Vesse ls typically are 10 to 30 m (33 to 98 ft) long, and their trips last from about 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 occurs at 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 ) a re caught by trawlers in water depths of about 250 to 550 m (820 to 1,804 ft). Tilefish es (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, In c., 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 rig s offshore Tex as 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 drilling rig presence (including noise and lights)

. T wo types of p otential accidents are also addressed below

– a small fuel spill and a large oil spill (WCD).



### Impacts of Drilling Rig Presence

There is a slight possibility of pelagic longlines becoming entangled in the drilling rig. 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, long line 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 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 64 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 dis charges.



### 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 potent ially mitigate and reduce the potential for impacts. EP Section H provide s 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 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. Fish ing 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 recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008). For
this EP , 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 oce anographic and meteorological conditions at the time, and the effectiveness of spill response measures. The recent Macondo spill provides information about the maximum potential extent of fishery closures in the event of a large oil spill in the Gulf of M exico (NMFS, 2010 d ). At its peak on 12 July 2010, closures encompassed 217,821 km 2 (84,101 mi 2 ), 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 publi c 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. EP Section H provide s 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 127 miles (204 km) from the nearest shoreline (Louisiana) and nearly all of the diesel fuel would evaporate or disperse n aturally within 24 hours. Response crews would be equipped with appropriate safety equipment to avoid injury and
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 ).Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 65 

### I mpacts 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 drilling rig 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 po se a health
hazard.

Data from the recent Macondo spill provide 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 scrap es 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 t o o ffshore 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 Cont rol 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 a cute exposure to hydrocarbons or H 2 S , 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 drilling 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, servic es, energy, and water), and minority and lower income groups. 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 measure s 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. EP Section H provide s detail on spill response measures. Given the o pen 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 that is dissipated within a few days would have little or no economic impact, as the spill response would use e xisting facilities, resources, and personnel.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 66 

### Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

Potential socioeconomic impacts of an oil spill are discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008 ; BOEM, 2012a,b ). For this EP , there are no unique site

- specific issues with res pect 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 analys e s presented by MMS (2007b, 2008 ) and BOEM (201 2 b ), 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 Repo rt, 2010). The study indicates that during the moratorium, the number of oil industry workers in the Gulf of Mexico fell by about 2,000 and may have indirectly caused a temporary loss of 8,000 to 12,000 jobs along the Gulf Coast. Total spending by drilli ng 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 analys e s for recreation and tourism presented in MMS (2007b, 2008)
based on additional information and in consideration of the Macondo oil spill event. N o new information was found that would alter the potential impact s on recreation and tourism ( BOEMRE, 2011 a ; BOEM, 2012 b ).

There are no known recreational uses of the lease area. Recreational resources and tourism in
coastal areas woul d 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 drilling rig and subsequently washing up on beaches.



### 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 red uce the potential for impacts.

EP Section H provide s 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 lea se 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 wa ters prior to breaking up.



### Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

Potential impacts of an oil spill on recreation and tourism are discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008 ; BOEM, 2012a ). For this EP , there are no unique site

- specific issues with
respect to these impacts.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 67 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 an d tourism by contaminating beaches and wetlands, resulting in negative publicity that encourages people to stay away. Based on the
revised OSRA modeling (BOEM , 2012 b ) as summarized in Section A.9.3 ( Table 3 )

, there is a

17 % probability in winter of oil fr om a spill in the lease area reaching shorelines in Texas and a

14 % chance in spring of contacting shorelines in Louisia na within 120 days.

In addition to the analysis presented by MMS (2007b, 2008), recent and ongoing studies have explored the economic im pacts 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 bill ion (Oxford Economics, 2010)

.



### C.8.5 Land Use

Land use along the northern Gulf C oast is discussed in recent lease sale EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008 ; BOEM, 2012a,b ). There are no routine IPFs potential ly 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 traff ic, 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 shorebase s

.
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, d uring the Macondo spill, temporary stagin g 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 thei r original use as the response is demobilized.



### C.8.6 Other Marine Uses

The lease area is not located within any USCG

- designated fairway or shipping lane or Military Warning Area. Anadarko will comply with BOEM requirements and lease stipulations to avoid impacts on uses of the area by military vessels and aircraft.

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.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 68 

### Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

An accidental spill would be unlikely to significantly affect shippi ng 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. An adarko 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 a nchoring or seafloor

- disturbing activities occur near the existing pipelines and flowlines.



## D. Environmental Hazards

D.1 Geologic Hazards

The site clearance survey s conducted by Fugro (2012) conclude d that the wellsite s are free of any significant geolog ical hazards a nd are suitable for the proposed activities. See EP 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 drilling rig s under consideration for this project . High winds and limited visibility during a severe storm could disrupt support activities (v essel and helicopter traffic) and make it necessary to suspend some activities on the drilling rig 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 ad hered 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 activ ities. Strong currents (e.g., caused by Loop Current eddies and intrusions) and large waves were considered in the design criteria for the drilling rig s under consideration for this project . High waves during a severe storm could disrupt support activiti es (i.e., vessel and helicopter traffic) and make it necessary to suspend some activities on the drilling rig for safety reasons until the storm or weather event passes.



## E. Alternatives

N o formal alternatives we re evaluated in this EIA for an EP . Howeve r, various technical and operational options

, including the location of the wellsite s and the selection of a drilling unit, were considered by Anadarko in developing the proposed action.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 69 

## F. Mitigation Measures

The proposed action includes numerous mitiga tion measures required by laws, regulations, and

BOEM lease stipulations and NTLs. The project will comply with all applicable F ederal, S tate, and local requirements concerning air pollutant emissions, discharges to water, and solid waste disposal. All p roject activities will be conducted under guidance by Anadarko’s OSRP and will
include the measures described in EP Section H

.



## G. Consultation

No persons or agencies were consulted during the preparation of this EIA.



## H. Preparers

The EIA was prepared b y CSA Marine Sciences Inc. Contributors included

M. John Thompson (Senior Scientist); Neal Phillips, Ph.D. (Senior Scientist); Keith VanGraafeiland (GIS/Remote Sensing Specialist);

Kristen L. Metzger (Library and Information Services Director ) ; and

Kim Dunleavy (Technical Editor).



## I. References

Anderson, C.M. and R.P. LaBelle. 2000. Update of comparative occurrence rates for offshore oil spills. In: Spill Science & Technology Bulletin, Vol. 6, No. 5/6, pp. 303

- 321. Elsevier Science Ltd., PII: S1353

- 2561(01)

00049

- 4. U.S. Minerals Management Service, Herndon, VA. Antonio, F.J., R.S. Mendes, and S.M. Thomaz. 2011. Identifying and modeling patterns of tetrapod vertebrate mortality rates in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Aquatic Toxicology 105(1

- 2):1 77

- 179. 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. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:713

- 719. 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 Me xico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000

- 049.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 70 Boehm, P., D. Turton, A. Raval, D. Caudle, D. French, N. Rabalais, R. Spies, and J. Johnson. 2001. Deepwater program: Literature review, environmental risks of chemical products used in Gulf of M exico deepwater oil and gas operations. Volume I: Technical report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2001

- 011. 326 pp.
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. Silve r 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 vols.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

. 2012 b

. 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. 2 volumes. OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2012

- 058. Acces sed 19 January 2012. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012 c

. Archaeology Survey Blocks. Website accessed on 22 January 2013

. http://www.boem.gov/Environment al

- 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 Oc ean Energy Management. OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2012

- 030. 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. On line news
dated 4 November 2010. Website accessed 4 February 201 3

. 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 Envir onmental Impact Statement.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation a nd Enforcement Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS EIS /EA BOEMRE 2011

- 034. Accessed 22 January 2013

. http://www.boem.gov/BOEM

- Newsroom/Library/Publications/2011/2011

- 0 34

- v1.aspx Bureau of Ocean Energy Management , Regulation and Enforcement . 2011 b

. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement Spills

– Statistics and Summaries 1996

- 20 11

. W ebsite accessed

4 February 201 3

. http://www.boem.gov/search

- results.aspx?q=spills
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, a nd

J.V. Maloney. 2010. Tracking hydrocarbon plume transport and biodegradation at Deepwater Horizon

. Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1195223.
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. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041155. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041155

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 ongoing health hazard
evaluation. Website accessed 22 January 2013 , updated 24 August 2011.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2010b. Health Hazard Evaluation of Deepwater Horizon Response Workers, HETA 2010

- 0115. Interim Report #6A. 11 pp. Website accessed 4 September 2012. http://www.cd c.gov/niosh/topics/oilspillresponse/gulfspillhhe.html

Clapp, R.B., R.C. Banks, D. Morgan

- Jacobs, and W.A. Hoffman. 1982a. Marine birds of the southeastern United
States and Gulf of Mexi co. Part I. Gaviiformes through Pelicaniformes. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS

- 82/01. 637 pp. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/pdfs/interim_report_6.pdfGreen Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 71 Clapp, R.B., D. Morgan

- Jacobs, and R.C. Banks. 1982b. Marine birds of the southeastern United State s 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 an d 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. (CEI). 1977. Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Northern Gulf of Mexico C ontinental 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. (CEI). 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: Scie nce Applications International Corporation (ed.), Northeastern Gulf of Mexico C oastal and M arine E cosystem P rogram: Data S earch and

S ynthesis; Synthesis R eport. 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 Managem ent 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 P rogram: Bluewater fishing an d 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 Stu dy

MMS 2002

- 078.

Continental S helf Associates, Inc. 2004. Final Report: Gulf of Mexico C omprehensive S ynthetic B ased M uds

M onitoring P rogram. Report prepared for SBM Research Group, Houston, TX. October 2004. 3 volumes.
Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2006. Effects of oil and gas exploration and development at selected continental slope sites in the Gulf of Mexico. Volume II: Technical report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2006

- 045.

Cr uz

- Kaegi, M.E. 1998. Latitudinal variations in biomass and metabolism of benth ic infaunal communities.
Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
CSA International, Inc. 2007. Characterization of northern Gulf of Mexico deepwater h ard

- 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. Website accessed 4 February 201 3

. Vol I. http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3296.pdf

Vol. II. http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3297.pdf
Vol. III. http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3301.pdf

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. 200 0. Cetacean habitat in the northern Gulf of Mexico, pp. 217

- 2 53. 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: Technica l 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.
Webs ite accessed 4 Sept ember 2012. http://www.tamug.edu/marb/davisdocs/Deep

- Sea%20Res%202001%20Davis%20etal.pdf
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.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 72 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. E cological 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. Whe ye. 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. 201 2 . Florida's endan gered species and threatened species

. Webs ite accessed 22 January 201 3

. Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sa nctuary. 2011. Cnidarian species. Website a ccessed 4 September 2012, updated 22 August 2012

. http://myfwc.com/media/1515251/Threatened_Endangered_Species.pdf

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 Geo consulting , Inc. 201 3

. S ite clearance le tters for proposed exploration wellsites GC 768 B and BB
Block 768 (OCS

- G 21817) Green Canyon, Gulf of Mexico; Report Nos. 27.2012

- 2582

- GC Well B and

27.2012

- 2582

- GC 768 Well BB. Gallaway, B. (ed.). 1988. Northern Gulf of Mexico continental slope study, final report: Year 4. Volume II: Synthesis report. Final report submitted to the 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 Co ntinental 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 OC S Region, New Orleans, LA.

OCS Study MMS 2003

- 072.

G eraci, 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 Applie d Science Publ. Ltd., London and New York.
Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1990. Sea M ammals and O il: C onfronting the R isks. Academic Press, San Diego. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 2005. Generic A mendment N umber 3 for a ddressing E ssenti al F ish

H abitat R equirements, H abitat A reas of P articular C oncern, and a dverse e ffects of f ishing in the f ollowing

F ishery M anagement P lans of the Gulf of Mexico: S hrimp 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 Gu lf 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. Alus i, R. Lamendella,

D.C. Joyner, C. Spier, J. Baelum, M. Auer, M.L. Zemla, R. Chakraborty, E.L. S onnenthal, P. D’haeseleer,

H.N. Holma n, 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 DOI: 10.1126/science.1195979.
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 developm ent in Hawaii. Bull. Mar.

Sci. 55(2

- 3):651

- 666. Holand, P. 1997. Offshore Blowouts: Causes and Control. Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, TX. ISBN 0884155145.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 73 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 S pill. Prepared for Greater

New Orleans, Inc. October 2010. Website accessed 4 February 201 3

. 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/E conomic_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. Website accessed 4 September 2012. http://www.esa.doc.gov/Reports/estimating

- economic

- effects

- deepwater

- drilling

- moratorium

- gulf

- coast

economy 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. IAGP Report No. 434

- 2. March 2010. Website accessed 4 September 2012

. 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, Washin gton. 403 pp. Joint Analysis Group. 2010a. Joint Analysis Group (JAG) r eview of p reliminary d ata to e xamine s ubsurface oil in the vicinity of MC252#1 May 19 to June 19, 2010. Website accessed 4 September 2012

.

Joint Analysis Group. 2010b. Joint Analysis Group (JAG) r eview of R/V Brooks McCall d ata to e xamine s ubsurface

o il. Website accessed 4 February 201 3

. http://gomex.erma.noaa.gov/layerfiles/7229/files/JAG_Data_Report_2_Subsurface%20Oil_Final.pdf

http://www.noaa.gov/sciencemissions/PDFs/JAG_Report_1_BrooksMcCall_Final_June20.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 4 September 2012

.

Kennicutt, M.C. II. 2000. Chemical Oceanography, pp. 123

- 139. In: Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. Deepwater Program: Gulf of Mexico d eepwater 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. 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 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 74 Marine Mammal Commission (MMC). 201 1

. Assessing the long

- term effects of the BP Deepwater Horizon o il s pill

on m arine m ammals in the Gulf of Mexico: A statement of research needs

. Website accessed

22 January 2013

. 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. Gu lf 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. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Manage ment 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. N TL 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: Deepw ater Benthic Com munities. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexi co OCS Region, New Orleans, LA.
Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks. 2011. Mississippi’s species of greatest conservation need by ecoregion. Website accessed 4 February 201 3; begins on p. 375

. 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 G ulf sturgeon in the Pearl River system, Louisiana

- Mississippi. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 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 (NMFS). 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 Hi ghly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan Essential Fish Habitat. Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Silver Spring, MD. June 2009. Website accessed 4 September 2012

. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/EFH/Final/FEIS_Amendment_Total.pdf

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010 a. Final Recovery Plan for the Sperm Whale ( Physeter macrocephalus ).
Website accessed 4 September 2012

. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/final_sperm_whale_recovery_plan_21dec.pdf

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010 b . Gulf sturgeon ( Acipenser ox yrinchus desotoi ). Website accessed

4 September 2012, updated 14 March 2012

. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/gulfsturgeon.htm

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010 c . Sea turtles, dolphins, and whales and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
Website accessed 4 September 2012, updated 12 September 2011

. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/oilspill.htm

National Marine Fisheries Service . 2010 d

. Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill: size and percent coverage of fishing area closures due to BP oil spill. Website accessed 4 February 201 3. http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/deepwater_horizon/size_percent_closure/index.html
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2013. Draft marine mammal stock assessment reports (SARs). Updated January 23, 2013. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/draft.htmGreen Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 75 National Marine Fisheries Service , U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

, and SEMARNAT. 201 1 . Bi

- National Recovery Plan for the Kemp‘s Ridley Sea Turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii ), Second Revision. Nat ional Marine Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, Maryland. Website accessed 4 February 201 3

. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/kempsridley_revision2.pdf

National Oce anic 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 4 February 201 3

. http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/Permits/ARIS/docs/bretMap300.pdf

National Research Council. 1983. Drilling Discharges in the Marine Environment. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 180 pp.

National Research Counci l . 2003. Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 182 pp . + app. Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij . 2007. Green light to birds: Investigation into the effect of bird

- friendly lighting. Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij, Assen, The Netherlands.
Neff, J.M. 1987. Biological effects of drilling fluids, drill c uttings and produced waters, pp. 469

- 538.

In: D.F. Boesch and N.N. Rabalais (eds.), Long

- Term Effects of Offshore Oil and Gas Development. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London.
Neff, J.M., S. McKelvie, and R.C. Ayers, Jr. 2000. Environmental imp acts of synthetic based drilling fluids. Prepared by Robert Ayers & Associates, Inc. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000

- 064. 118 pp.
Neff, J.M., A.D. Hart, J.P. R ay, J.M. Limia, and T.W. Purcell. 2005. An assessment of seabed impacts of synthetic

- based drilling

- mud cuttings in the Gulf of Mexico. 2005 SPE/EPA/DOE Exploration and Production Environmental Conference, 7

- 9 March 2005, Galveston, Texas, USA. SPE 940 86. 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 Regio n, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2001

- 064.

528 pp. Operational Science Advisory Team (OSAT) Unified Area Command. 2010. Summary report for sub

- sea and
sub

- surface oil and dispersion detection: Sampling and monitoring. 131 pp.

Oxford Economics. 2010. Potential impact of the Gulf oil spill on tourism. Report prepared for the U.S. Travel

Association. Website accessed 4 September 2012.

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 nor th

- 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. http://www.ustravel.org/sites/default/files/page/2009/11/Gulf_Oil_Spill_Analysis_Oxford_Economics_710.pd
f

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 Louisian a 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 22 January 2013

. 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., I nc. Boston/Woods Hole, MA. 275 pp.Green Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 76 Rathbun, G.B. 1988. Fixed

- wing airplane versus heli copter 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. Reu n.
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.

R odgers, J., Jr, and S. Schwikert. 2002. Buffer Zone Distances to Protect Foraging and Loafing Waterbirds from Disturbances by Personal Watercraft and Outboard

- Powered Boats. Conservation Biology 16:216

- 224.
Rowe, G.T. and M.C. Kennicutt II. 2009. Nort hern Gulf of Mexico Continental Slope Habitats and Benthic Ecology Study. Final Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Managem ent Service, Gulf of Mexico

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2009

- 039. 456 pp.
Russell, R.W. 2005. Inte ractions between migrating birds and offshore oil and gas platforms in the northern Gulf of Mexico: Final Report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Managem ent 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? Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology 17(4): 233

- 246.

Share the Beach. 2010. Nesting season statistics. Website accesse d 4 September 2012. 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 ob servations of sperm whales near fixed wing aircraft. Gulf and Caribbean Research 20:75

- 80.
Solomon, G.M. and S. Janssen. 2010. Health Effects of the Gulf Oil Spill. Journal of the American Medical

Association. Website accessed 4 September 2012. http://www.asquifyde.es/uploads/documentos/Health

- Effects

- of

- the

- Gulf

- Oil

- Spill.pdf
Sulak, K.J. and J.P. Clugston. 1998. Early life history stages of G ulf stu rgeon in the S uwannee River, Florida.

Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 127:758

- 771. 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 La kes 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 W ildlife Service. 2010a. All about piping plovers. Website accessed 4 February 201 3

. http://www.fws.gov/plover/facts.html

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010 b

. Beach Nesting Birds of the Gulf

. Websi te accessed 4 February 201 3

. http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/DHBirdsOfTheGulf.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010 c . Species information, threatened and endangered an imals and plants.
Website accessed 4 February 2013

. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010d. Weekly bird impact data and consolidated wildlife reports. Website
accessed 4 February 2013

. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/

http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/collectionreports.html

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010 e . Effects of oil on wildlife and habitat. Website accessed 4 Februar y 2013

. http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/DHJICFWSOilImpactsWildlifeFactSheet.pdfGreen Canyon Block 768 February 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 77 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. FWS Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill R esponse. Bird Impact Data and Consolidated Wildlife Reports. Deepwater Horizon Bird Impact Data from the DOI

- ERDC NRDA Database

12 May 2011. Website accessed 4 February 2013

. http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/Bird%20Data%20Species%20Spreadsheet%2005122011.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1995. Gulf Sturgeon Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 170 pp. Website accessed 4 September 2012. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/sturgeon_gulf.pdf
Wakeford, A. 2001. State of Florida conservation plan for Gulf sturgeon ( Ac ipencer oxyrinchus desotoi ). Florida Marine Research Institute Technical Report TR

- 8. St. Petersburg, FL.
Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, K. Maze

- Foley, and P.E. Rosel (eds.). 2012. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine
Mammal Stock Assessments

- 2011. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS NE 221. 330 pp. http://nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm221/tm221.pdf

. 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

. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ( Early Edition) . doi: 10.1073/pnas.1118029109

. Website acces sed

2 2 January 2013

. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/23/1118 029109.full.pdf+html?sid=56e8cdfe

2830

- 43f8

- 9d08

- 8eca0efd27e2
Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership . 2010. About whooping cranes and their recovery. Website accessed

4 February 2013. 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 no rth

- west Atlantic. Mar. Poll. Bull. 42(12):1,285

- 1,290.
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 4 September 2012. http://repository.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/4927
Wilson, J. 2003. Manatees in Louisiana. Louisiana Marine Education Resources

. July/August 2003. 7 pp. Website
accessed 4 September 2012

. 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
rela tive to survey ships and aircraft. Aquatic Mammals 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.

### O ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

(a) Proprietary Information

Proprietary copies of this plan contain inform ation not available to the public and include structure maps, seismic information, cross sections, depths of wells, etc.

(b) Bibliography

Shallow Hazards Report Final Sale Package for Western Gulf of Mexico Sale Number 175.