UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MEMORANDUM

To: Public Information (MS 5030)
Plans Section, Office of Field Operations (MS 5231)

Public Information copy of DOCD

Control # - S-07670

Type - Supplemental Development Operations Coordinations Document

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

Operator - Anadarko Petroleum Corporation

Well No. 005

Not Found

Attached is a copy of the subject plan for public comments on issues that should be addressed in an Environmental Assessment.

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

Chiquita Hill
Plan Coordinator

G11075/GC/562 7568 FSL, 6940 FWL G11075/GC/562 WELL/NO. 005 Botm Lse/Area/Blk Surface Location Surf Lse/Area/Blk Site Type/Name Description -

Rig Type - Subject: From: May 9, 2014

# SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT OPERATIONS COORDINATION DOCUMENT

GREEN CANYON BLOCK 562 OCS-G 11075

OFFSHORE, LOUISIANA

PUBLIC

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
1201 Lake Robbins Drive The Woodlands, Texas 77380
Contact: Jill Fowler
Jill.fowler@anadarko.com (832) 636-1554

1 – Hard Copy Confidential
1 – CD Confidential 1 – Hard Copy Public Information
3 – CDs Public Information



### April, 2014

## ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT OP ERATIONS COORDINATION DOCUMENT GREEN CANYON BLOCK 562 OCS-G 11075

A. Plan Contents

B. General Information

C. Geological, Geophysical

D. Hydrogen Sulfide Information

E. Mineral Resource Conservation Information

F. Biological, Physical and Socioeconomic Information

G. Wastes and Discharge Information

H. Air Emissions Information

I. Oil Spill Information

J. Environmental Monitoring Information

K. Lease Stipulations

L. Related Facilities and Operations Information

M. Support Vessels and Aircraft Information

N. Onshore Support Facilities Information

O. Coastal Zone Management Act Information

P. Environmental Impact Analysis

Q. Administrative Information

## A PLAN CONTENTS

(a) Plan Information Form

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

(b) Location

Enclosed as Attachment A-2 is a well location plat at a scale of 1 inch = 2000 feet that depicts
the surface location and wate r depth of subsea well 005.

(c) Safety and Pollution Prevention Features

Safety features on the platform will include well cont rol, pollution prevention, safe welding procedures, and blowout prevention equipment as described in Title 30 CFR Part 250, Subparts C, D, E, G and O; and as further clarified by BOEM Notices to Lessees, a nd applicable regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Coast Guard. The appr opriate life rafts, life jackets, ring buoys, etc., as prescribed by the U.S. Coast Guard, will be maintained on the facility at all times.



### Per NTL 2008-G04, Anadarko proposes additional m easures for safety, pollution prevention, and early spill detection beyond those required by 30 CFR 250, as outlined in Anadarko’s Regional Oil Spill Response Plan. These additional measures include:

1. Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan 2. Operations Manual 3. Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan

Procedures for fuel transfers and well control prog rams are also detailed in the Regional Oil Spill Response Plan.

### (d) Storage Tanks and Production Vessels

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

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

(Api) Total Capacity of all Tanks for Facility Type

DP Lay Barge Fuel-Oil Strg Tank 4454.4 bbls 1 4454.4 bbls No. 2 Diesel 16 tanks total= 17,614.3 bbls

Fuel Oil Strg Tank 4061.3 bbls 1 4061.3 bbls No. 2 Diesel

Fuel Oil Strg Tank

3173.8 bbls 1 3173.8 bbls No. 2 Diesel

Fuel Oil Strg Tank

3772.6 bbls 1 3772.6 bbls No. 2 Diesel

Fuel Oil Strg Tank

717.7 bbls 1 717.7 bbls No. 2 Diesel

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

Settling Tank 183.0 bbls 3 549.0 bbls No. 2 Diesel

Settling Tank 305.7 bbls 1 305.7 bbls No. 2 Diesel

Service Tank 162.9 bbls 2 325.8 bbls No. 2 Diesel

Overflow Tank 44.0 bbls 1 44.0 bbls No. 2 Diesel

Overflow Tank 91.2 bbls 1 91.2 bbls No. 2 Diesel

Drain Tank 66.0 bbls 1 66.0 bbls No. 2 Diesel



### (e) Pollution Prevention Measures

Per NTL 2008-G04, Anadarko proposes additional m easures for safety, pollution prevention, and early spill detection beyond those required by 30 CFR 250, as outlined in Anadarko’s Regional Oil Spill Response Plan. These additional measures include:

1. Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan 2. Operations Manual 3. Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan

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

Production from Green Canyon Block 562 will be tran sported to Anadarko’s Marco Polo TLP in Green Canyon Block 608.

### The facilities are designed, installed and ope rated in accordance with current regulations, engineering documents incorporat ed by reference, and industry practice in order to ensure protection of personnel, environment and the facilit ies. When necessary, maintenance or repairs that are necessary to prevent pollution of offs hore waters shall be unde rtaken immediately.

The pollution prevention measures for the Marco Polo Facility include installation of curbs, gutters, drip pans, and drains on deck areas to collect all contaminants and debris.

The facility is designed to produce oil and gas. All equipment, such as separators, tanks and treaters, utilized for the handling of hydrocarbons are designed, installed and operated to prevent pollution. Necessary maintenance or repair work n eeded to prevent pollution of offshore waters shall be performed immediately. Curbs, gutters, drip pans and drains are installed in deck areas in a manner necessary to collect all contaminants not authorized for discharge. Any unexpected oil drainage will be piped to an operated and ma intained sump system which will automatically maintain the oil at a level sufficient to prevent discharge of oil into offshore waters. All gravity drains are equipped with a water trap or other means to prevent gas in the sump system from escaping through the drains. Sump pi les will not be used as proces sing devices to treat or skim liquids, but may be used to collect treated liquids from drip pans and deck drains and as a final trap for hydrocarbon liquid in the event of equi pment upsets. There will be no disposal of equipment, cables, chains, containers or other materials into offshore waters.

Supervisory and certain designated personnel on-board the facility are familiar with the effluent limitations and guidelines for overboard discharges into the receiving waters as outlined in the NPDES General Permit for the EPA Region IV.

Production safety equipment was de signed, and is installed, used, maintained, and tested in a manner to assure the safety and protection of the human, marine, and coastal environments in accordance with 30 CFR 250 Subpart H. Anadarko will perform all installation and production operations in a safe and workmanlike manner, and will maintain all equipment in a safe condition, thereby ensuring the protection of lease a nd associated facilities, the health and safety of all persons, and the preser vation and conservation of propert y and the environment. The appropriate life rafts, li fe jackets, ring buoys, etc., as prescr ibed by the U.S. Coast Guard, will be maintained on the facility at all times.

Any platform production facilities shall be protected with a basi c and ancillary surface system designed, analyzed, installed, tested, and mainta ined in operating condition in accordance with the provisions of API RP 14C, Recommended Pr actice for Analysis, Design, Installation and Testing of Basic Surface Safety System s for Offshore Production Platforms.

The Marco Polo TLP is a manned structure, and will be identified and reported in accordance with the requirements of the U.S. Coast Gu ard and BOEM/BSEE. The unit is a floating production system of the tension leg platform design using a conve ntional mooring system. It is considered a floating facility and is inspected and constructed to the requirements of 46 CFR Parts 107 and 108 as directed by 33 CFR 143.120.

The pipeline system will be installed by dynami cally positioned vessels that do not require anchors. No new nearshore or onshore pipe lines or facilities will be constructed.

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

Anadarko has previously approved we ll locations in Green Canyon Block 562

. Approval was granted to drill and complete the following well locations under the Initial Exploration Plan for Green Canyon Block 562 (Plan Control No. N-6366) approved on January 15, 1999:

Well Location Status of Well Location Potential Future Operations

A Used location to drill GC 562 #004
well. Well is on production

B Used location to drill GC 562 #001
well. Well is on production.

E Used location to drill GC 562 #003
well. Well is on production.

F Used location to drill GC 562 #002
well. Well is on production.



### Approval was granted to drill and complete th e following well locations under the Supplemental Exploration Plan for Green Canyon Block 562 (Pla n Control No. S-5864) approved on February 28, 2002:

Well Location Status of Well Location Potential Future Operations

E Used location to drill GC 562 #003
well. Well is on production.

F Used location to drill GC 562 #002
well. Well is on production.



### Approval was granted to drill and complete th e following well locations under the Supplemental Exploration Plan for Green Canyon Block 562 (Plan Control No. S-7589) approved on December 20, 2012:

Well Location Status of Well Location Potential Future Operations

AA Approved well location for future utility. Future drill location.

AAA Approved well location for future utility. Future drill location.

BB Will use location to drill GC 562
#005 well. Place well on production.

BBB Approved well location for future utility. Future drill location.U.S. Department of the Interior OMB Control Number: 1010-0151 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management OMB Approval Expires: 12/31/14



### OCS PLAN INFORMATION FORM

General Information
Type of OCS Plan: Exploration Plan (EP) 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
Install lease term pipelines

Hookup GC 562 005 and commence production

Description of Drilling Rig Description of Structure
Jackup Drillship Caisson Tension leg platform
Gorilla Jackup Platform rig Fixed platform Compliant tower

Semisubmersible Submersible Spar Guyed tower

DP Semisubmersible 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 4

### B GENERAL INFORMATION

(a) Applications and Permits

Prior to beginning development operations in Green Canyon Block 562, the following applications will be submitted for approval.

Application/Permit Issuing Agency Status Surface Commingling Application BSEE To be submitted Lease Term Pipeline Applications BSEE Submitted on 3/4/14; Pending approval Deepwater Operations Plan BOEM To be submitted
Conservation Information Document BOEM To be submitted

(b) Drilling Fluids

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

(c) Production

The following table provides information about each type of anticipated production from the wells covered under this plan:

Discussions regarding geologic information are consid ered proprietary and have been omitted from this section of the public copy DOCD.



### (d) Oil Characteristics

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

(e) New or Unusual Technology

Anadarko does not propose to use any new or u nusual technology to deve lop the well proposed in this plan. Best available and safest technologies as referenced in 30 CFR 250 will be incorporated as standard operational procedure.

(f) Bonding Statement

The bond requirements for the activities and facil ities proposed in this DOCD are satisfied by an
area-wide bond furnished and maintained accor ding to 30 CFR part 256, subpart I; NTL No. 2000-G16, “Guidelines for General Lease Sure ty Bonds,” and National NTL No. 2008-N07, “Supplemental Bond Procedures”.(g) Oil Spill Financial Responsibility (OSFR)

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

(h) 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.

(i) Suspensions of Production

Should a suspension of production become necessary to hold this lease, an application will be submitted
to BOEM in accordance with NTL 2000-G17.

(j) Blowout Scenario

The worst-case discharge scenario for this project is defined as an uncontrollable discharge to the seafloor during production operations. Mechanically speakin g, the scenario assumes that the wellhead fails allowing full wellbore fluid to move up the existing tubing, and a blowout occurs at the seabed. Green Canyon Block 562 Well #005 is addres sed in this blowout scenario since it is the location with the highest potential worst case discharge (WCD) within the block. The maximum oil discharge during production is
calculated to be 21,470 BOPD from the Green Canyon Block 562 Well #005.

Should a blowout occur, the formation types present in the GOM tend to bridge over in most cases. Additional well intervention and time requirements to drill a relief well pursuant to guidance provided in NTL No. 2010-N06 were discussed under the approved E xploration Plan (Plan Control No. S-7589). The following scenario summarizes the time taken to mobili ze a rig and drill a relief well as discussed under previously approved Plan No. S-7589:

An estimate of 7-21 days would be required to suspend operations on a deepwater GOM well and begin drilling the relief well. This assumes 0- 14 days to suspend current operations on an existing well and 7 days to mobilize and be ready to spud the relief well. The estimated time to drill the relief well to a blowout originating from the objective zones is 110 days for an estimated total of 117-131 days from time of blowout to fi nishing a relief well. The drilling days were based on the proposed days to drill the GC 562 #005 well through the objective sands (interval of WCD) with additional tim e added for ranging.

The time estimate provided for the plan well is inclusive of 'both' drilling 'and' completion operations. As a completion is not typically part of relief well operations no time has been included for completion operations in the relief well estimate. In addition, information and learning from the drilling of the original well may provide opportunities to optimize drilling performance for relief well opera tions and thus reduce the required drilling time. The maximum total volume during a blowout could potentially be 2,812,570 bbl. assuming 131 days for the maximum duration of a blowout, multiplied by the worst case daily uncontrolled blowout volume of 21,470 bbl.(k) Chemical Products

Anadarko does not propose to install a new surface or subsea development facility under this plan. Therefore, the oil characteristic tables require d by NTL No. 2008-G04 are not applicable.

### C GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL INFORMATION

(a) Geological Description

Discussions regarding geologic information are consid ered proprietary and have been omitted from this section of the public copy DOCD.

(b) Structure Contour Maps

Current structure maps drawn to the top of each productive hydrocarbon sand showing the entire lease blocks, the surface location of each well and locations of geological cross-sections, are enclosed as Attachment C-1.

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

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

.

(d) Geological Structure Cross-Sections

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

(e) Shallow Hazards Report

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

(f) Shallow Hazards Assessment

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

(g) High-resolution Seismic Lines

Not required per NTL No. 2008-G04.

(h) Stratigraphic Column

Not required per NTL No. 2008-G04.

(i) Time Vs. Depth Tables

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

### D HYDROGEN SULFIDE INFORMATION

The GC 562 #5 will penetrate and test stratigr aphic section from the seafloor through the objective zones entirely within GC 562. Similar sands have been penetrated by multiple wells in multiple fields in GC 518, 562, 561, 606, 608, 652, 653 and 654. The objective section has been penetrated in GC 653. None of these penetratio ns encountered any Hydrogen Sulfide within the supra or sub-salt section, and no Hydrogen Sulfide is expected to be encountered in this wellbore. Since no (H2S) was encountered in any of these wells we request the area be classified
as a "zone where the absence of H2s has been confirmed.”

Additionally, Green Canyon Bl ock 562 was previously determined to be H2S absent in the Initial Exploration Plan.

### E Mineral Resource Conservation Information

(a) Technology & Reservoir Engineering Practices and Procedures

Anadarko is researching possible ar tificial lift options in support of enhanced recovery methods for future development of this block. Artificial lift will greatly improve ultimate recovery for all wells connected to the K2 south system.

(b) Technology and Recovery Practices and Procedures

The well will be completed as conventional comp letions. As applicable, the well will be frac packed/gravel packed to maximize recovery.

(c) Reservoir Development

The wells will be monitored for performance and assessed for reservoir depletion to ensure recovery. Additional development drilling wi ll be taken into account to ensure maximum

recovery.

### F BIOLOGICAL, PHYSICAL, AND SO CIOECONOMIC INFORMATION

(a) Chemosynthetic Communities Report

Not applicable as wells have been and/or will be drilled and completed under an approved Exploration Plan. Chemosynthetic information for the propo sed lease term pipelines will be submitted with the pipeline application.

Analysis

No drilling will be conducted under this plan; therefore, features or areas that could support high-density chemosynthetic communities are not located within 2000 feet of the proposed muds and cuttings discharge location.

Features or areas that could support high-density chem osynthetic communities are not located within 250 feet of any seafloor disturbances.

(b) Topographic Features Map

The proposed activities are not within 1,000 feet of a no-ac tivity zone or within the 3-mile radius zone of an identified topographic feature. Therefor e, no map is required per NTL No. 2008-G04.

(c) Topographic Features Statement (Shunting)

Anadarko does not plan to drill more than two wells from the same surface location within the Protective Zone of an identified topographic feature. Therefor e, the topographic features statement required by NTL No. 2008-G04 is not applicable.

(d) Live Bottoms (Pinnacle Trend) Map

The activities proposed in this plan are not within 2 00 feet of any pinnacle trend feature with vertical relief equal to or greater than 8 feet. Ther efore, no map is required per NTL No. 2008-G04.

(e) Live Bottoms (Low Relief) Map

The activities proposed in this plan are not within 100 feet of any live bottom low relief features. Therefore, no map is required per NTL No. 2008-G04.

(f) Potentially Sensitive Biological Features

The activities proposed in this plan are not within 200 feet of any potentially sensitive biological features. Therefore, no map is required per NTL No. 2008-G04.

(g) Remotely Operated Vehicle (R OV) Monitoring Survey Plan

Green Canyon Block 562 is located within Deepwater Grid Area 13. This grid is considered to have “adequate ROV survey coverage”, and therefore, under the guidance set out in NTL No. 2008-G06, a Remotely Operated Vehicle 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 P of this plan further discusses potential impacts and mitigation measures related to threatened and endangered species.

(i) Archaeological Report

Green Canyon Block 562 is not located in an ar ea designated as having high archaeological potential and, as such, an Archaeological Repo rt is not required per NTL No. 2011-JOINT-G01. However, an Archaeological Report prepared by Fugro Geoservices, In c covering the proposed Green Canyon Block 562 well location was submitted with the Supplemental EP, Plan Control No. S-7589. The survey was conducted in accordance with the latest guidelines established by
the BOEMRE in 2011.

(j) Air and Water Qu ality Information

This DOCD does not propose activities for which th e State of Florida is an affected State. Therefore, the discussion required per NTL 2008-G04 is not applicable to this DOCD.

(k) Socioeconomic Information

The activities proposed in this pl an are not located offshore Florid a. Therefore, socioeconomic information required per NTL 2008-G04 is not applicable to this DOCD.

### G WASTE AND DISCH ARGE INFORMATION

The following estimates were prepared utilizing Anadarko’s experience with similar operations. Estimated maximum discharge rates are reflected below. Projected amounts may vary during the course of operations.

(a) Projected Generated Wastes

Type of Waste Composition Projected Amount Treatment/Storage/Disposal Cuttings containing synthetic-based
mud Cuttings coated with ester-based synthetic drilling muds N/A Re-use and/or transport to shore in tanks and/or cutting boxes to Fourchon, Louisiana and on to Newpark Base. Spent drilling fluids Drilling fluids/cuttingscontaining waterbased muds/fluids N/A Discharge overboard

Spent drilling fluids Drilling fluids/cuttingscontaining syntheticbased muds/fluids N/A Treated and discharge overboard

Water-based drilling fluids NaCl saturated, seawater, freshwater,
barite N/A Discharge overboard

Chemical product waste (well treatment fluids) Ethylene glycol
Methanol 100 bbls total
25 bbls total Transport to shore in barrels to Fourchon, Louisiana for pick up.

Completion Fluids Brine, spent acid, prop sand, debris 3,000 bbls/well Transport to shore in barrels to Fourchon, Louisiana and on to Newpark Base. Non-pollutant completion fluids Low density
uninhibited completion brines 5,000 bbls/well Discharge overboard

Workover fluids Brine, spent acid, prop sand, debris 3,000 bbls/well Transport to shore in barrels to Fourchon, Louisiana and on to Newpark Base. Trash Refuse generated during operations 94 bbls total Transport to shore in disposal bags by vessel to shorebase for pickup by municipal operations. Sanitary Wastes Treated human body

waste 44 bbls total Chlorinate and discharge
overboard Domestic Waste Gray water 5409 bbls total Chlorinate and discharge
overboard Deck drainage Platform washings
and rainwater 94 bbls total Treat for oil and grease and discharge overboard
Produced water Formation water N/A N/A Desalinization Unit Seawater 2516 bbls total Discharge overboard Wash water Drill water (fresh) N/A Discharge overboard Blowout preventer
fluid Blend (3% Stack Magic & Filtered Fresh Water) N/A Discharge at seafloorBallast water Seawater As needed Discharge overboard Bilge water Seawater 315 bbls total Discharge overboard through 15 ppm equipment
Excess cement at the seafloor Nitrified cement slurry N/A Discharge at seafloor

Fire water Seawater 8,050,958 bbls total Discharge overboard Cooling water Seawater 8,050,958 bbls total Discharge overboard
Produced Sand Formation Sand N/A N/A
Used oil Excess oil from engines 6.29 bbls total Transport in totes to shore for
incineration NOTE: Total amount assumes 1 well will take 30 days to complete operations

(b) Projected Ocean Discharges

Type of Waste Total Amount to be Discharged Discharge Rate Discharge Method

Sanitary Wastes 44 bbls 44 bbls/month Chlorinate and discharge
overboard Domestic waste 5409 bbls 5409 bbls/month Chlorinate and discharge
overboard Deck drainage 94 bbls 94 bbls/month Treat for oil and grease and discharge overboard Blowout preventer fluid N/A N/A Discharge at seafloor Desalinization Unit 2516 bbls 2516 bbls/month Discharge overboard Wash water N/A N/A Discharge overboard Ballast water As needed Not continuous Discharge overboard Bilge water 315 bbls 315 bbls/month Discharge overboard through 15 ppm equipment
Excess cement at the
seafloor N/A N/A Discharge at seafloor

Fire water 8,050,958 bbls 8,050,958 bbls/month Discharge overboard Cooling water 8,050,958 bbls 8,050,958 bbls/month Discharge overboard Spent drilling fluids/cuttings containing
water-based muds/fluids N/A 1,000 bbls/hr max Discharge overboard

Water-based drilling
fluids N/A 1,000 bbls/hr max Discharge overboard

Spent drilling fluids and cuttings containing synthetic-based mud N/A NA Treated and discharge overboard

Non-pollutant completion fluids 5,000 bbls/well 100 bbl/hour Discharge overboard

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



### (c) Modeling Report

The proposed activities under this plan do not me et the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requirements for an individual NPDES permit. Therefore, modeling re port requirements per NTL No. 2008-G04 is not applicable to this DOCD.

### H AIR EMISSIONS INFORMATION

(a) Screening Questions

Screen Procedures for DOCD’s Yes No Is any calculated Complex Total (CT) Emissi on amount (tons) associated with your proposed development 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)? X

Do your emission calculations include any emission reduction measures or modified
emission factors? X

Does or will the facility complex associat ed with your proposed development and production activities process production from eight or more wells? (See note 1) X

Do you expect to encounter H 2 S at concentrations greater than 20 parts per million (ppm)? X Do you propose to flare or vent natural gas in excess of the criteria set forth under 250.1105(a)(2) and (3)? X

Do you propose to burn produced hydrocarbon liquids? X Are your proposed development and production activities located within 25 miles from
shore? X

Are your proposed development and production ac tivities located within 200 kilometers of
the Breton Wilderness Area? X



### (b) Air Emissions Spreadsheets

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



### (c) Summary Information

Air Pollutant Plan Emission
Amounts 1 

### (tons) Calculated Exemption
Amounts 2 

### (tons) Calculated Complex Total Emission
Amounts 3 

### (tons) Particulate matter (PM) 5.30 3762.90 90.52 Sulphur dioxide (SO 2 

### ) 14.74 3762.90 413.94 Nitrogen oxides (NO
x 

### ) 956.14 3762.90 3219.85 Volatile organic compounds (VOC) 34.00 3762.90 97.34

Carbon monoxide (CO) 445.46 79469.02 735.61

The air emission calculations were calculated by:

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

### I OIL SPILL INFORMATION

(a) Oil Spill Response Planning

(i) OSRP Information

All the proposed activities and facilities in th is DOCD are covered by the Regional Oil Spill Response Plan (OSRP) approved on Septembe r 25, 2013 for Anadarko Pe troleum Corporation and its subsidiaries, Anadarko US Offshore Corporation and Anadarko E&P Company L.P. (Company Numbers 00981, 02219 and 00148, respectively) in accordance with 30 CFR Part
254.

(ii) Spill Response Sites

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

### Houma, Louisiana Harvey, Louisiana Venice, Louisiana Lake Charles, Louisiana Galveston, Texas Fourchon, Louisiana Harvey, Louisiana Venice, Louisiana Cameron, Louisiana Galveston, Texas

(iii) OSRO Information

Anadarko maintains a contract 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 is available on-line at: http://www.msrc.org/.

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 DOCD

Type of Activity Production Production

Facility Location (area/block) GC 680 GC 562

Facility Designation Platform A Well #005

Distance to Nearest Shoreline 120 Miles 113 miles

Storage Tanks (total) 5,735 bbls NA

Flowlines (on facility) 1,892 bbls NA

Lease Term Pipelines 1,743 bbls 48 BOPD

Uncontrolled Blowout 43,863 BOPD 21,470 BOPD

Total Volume 53,233 BOPD 21,518 BOPD

Type of Oil(s) Oil Oil

API Gravity 30 29.0



### Anadarko has determined that the worst-case scenario from the activities proposed in this Supplemental DOCD do not supersede the wors t-case scenario for Green Canyon Block 680.

Since Anadarko has the cap ability to respond to the worst-case spill s cenario included in our Regional OSRP approved on September 25, 2013, I hereby certify that Anadarko Petroleum Corporation has the capability to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst-case discharge, or a substantial threat of such a discha rge, resulting from the ac tivities proposed in our
DOCD.

(b) Oil Spill Response Discussion

For the purpose of NEPA analys is, the largest spill volume or iginating from the proposed activity would be an uncontro lled blowout of the well duri ng production operations at 21,470 BOPD with an API gravity of 29.0 o 

### . A discussion of the blowout scenario from this proposed activity is included with in this Supplemental DOCD under Section B.

Land Segment and Resource Identification Modeling

Trajectory of a spill and the probability of its impacting a land segment have been projected utilizing information in the BOEM Oil Spill Risk Analysis Model (OSRAM) for the Central Gulf of Mexico. Additional information may be referenced in the “Oil-Spill Risk Analysis:

### Contingency Planning Statistics for Gulf of Mexico OCS Activities” (OCS Report MMS 2004- 026), using the average conditional probability for 3, 10, and 30 day impacts.

Green Canyon Block 562 is lo cated within Launch Area 46. According to the BOEMRE OSRAM, the trajectory indicates a 3% probabili ty of potential impact to the shoreline in Cameron and/or Plaquemines Parish, Louisian a. The results are shown in Table I-2.

Cameron and/or Plaquemines Parish are identified as the most probable potential impacted parish or county within the Gulf of Mexico for this op eration. Cameron Parish is located in Louisiana
and includes Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Ref uge (NWR), East Cove Unit (a part of the Cameron Prairie NWR), Lacassine NWR, and Sabine NWR. Plaque mines Parish is also located in Louisiana and includes Delta NWR, Pass-a-L outre Wildlife Management Area (WMA), and
Bohemia State WMA.

Response

Anadarko will make every effort to respond to the worst-case discharge as effectively as possible. Response equipment available to respond to the worst-case discharge and the estimated time of a spill response from oil spill detecti on to equipment deployment on-site is included in Table I-3. The table estimates individual times needed for procurement, load out, travel time to the site and deployment. In the event of an actual incident equipment and times can vary.

For the purpose of response scenario discussion, an uncontrolled blowout of the well would be considered the largest potent ial spill volume at 21,470 BOPD. An ADIOS weathering model was run based on a similar type of oil expected to be produced from this well. Based on this information, approximately 24% (5,153 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% (1,074 bbls) of the total in itial worst case discha rge could be burned.

Although unlikely in a spill lasting thirty (30) da ys, potential shoreline impact in Cameron and/or Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana could occur de pending on environmental conditions (wind, currents and temperature) at the time of an in cident. Nearshore response may include the use of shoreline boom on beach areas, or protection/sorbent boom on vege tated areas. Surveillance and real time trajectories would aide in determining the most appropriate strategies to respond to a spill.

Table I.3 provides an example of offshore a nd nearshore equipment, response times, and personnel to respond to a spill of 16,317 bbls, which is the estimated amount that would remain considering natural evaporation/ dispersion at 24 hours. This amount could be further reduced

### through the application of 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 Marine Well Containment Company (MWCC), which provides access to containment response capabilities and incl udes 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 fr om the remaining tanks onboard the drilling rig would be determined by marine surveyor s. Operations and Unified Command would
continue to assess the ade quacy 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. Rotate airc raft, spraying the leading edge of the spill and working back to the source. Monitor/sample for effectiveness (USCG SMART Team). Truck additional dispersants from CGA or MSRC stockpile if necessary.

c. Dispersants are most effective when 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. The FRU’s ha s approximately 200 barrels of on-board storage. Approval will be requested to decan t water after gravity separation, through a hose forward of the skimmer, to optimize temporary storage capacity. Auto boom will
be utilized to concentrate oil so th at 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 Wildlife 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 I–Oil Spill Information and Table I-3 of the EP.

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

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

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

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

ii. API Gravity 29.0  ̊

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

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

v. WCD Total for Production Operations for GC 562(> 10 miles from shore): 21,470 BOPDTable I-2

Trajectory by Land Segment

Following are the average conditional probabili ties (expressed as percent chance) that an oil spill starting at a particular la unch area will contact a land segment as included in the BOEM Oi l Spill Risk Analysis Model (OSRAM) for the Central Gulf of
Mexico. This information can be found on th e BOEM website using 3/10/30 day potentia l impact, as applicab le. The results are
listed below.

Area/Block OCS-G Launch
Area Land Segment and/or Resource Conditional Probability (%)

3 days 10 days 30 days

Green Canyon

Blocks 562

Drilling (113 miles from shore) G11075 LA 46

Central Planning

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

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

-- --

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

-- 1
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
3Table I-3WCD Scenario Production Activities – Based on a single well uncontrolled blowout (113 miles from shore)Green Canyon Block 56221,470 BOPD (initial volume)16,317 BOPD (after evaporation/dispersion)API Gravity 29.0oOffshore Equipment from Spill Detection to EquipmentDeployment Response Time:Green Canyon Block 562Offshore 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/HarveySTARSVOOHarvey1244026131FRUOperatorsUtility 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.5221214118Spill Team Area Responders (STARS) called out by Marine Spill Response Corporation (MSRC)Vessel of Opportunity=VOOEMS=Enterprise Marine ServicesK-Sea=K-Sea Operating PartnershipOffshore 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/VeniceSTARSVOOVenice0221215120Louisiana ResponderTransrec 350 + OSRV6,600' 44” Sea Sentry Boom5,280' 67” LAMOR10,567 4,000 1114 crewMSRC/Fort JacksonSTARSFort Jackson22222015118Koseq Skimming ArmsOperatorsVessel w/ storage/hull53,487 65 3 sets183CGA/LeevilleSTARSVOOLeeville02211214128Koseq Skimming ArmsOperatorsVessel w/ storage/hull35,658 249 2 sets122CGA/VeniceSTARSVOOVenice02211214128DBL 101OperatorsTugs-- 107,285 1204K-Sea/Atlantic Venice0242441148CTCo 2605OperatorsTug-- 20,000 161EMS/Amelia Amelia0244025130CTCo 5001OperatorsTug-- 47,000 161EMS/Amelia Amelia024402513010,000' Auto BoomVOO-- -- 4020 crewCGA/HarveySTARSHarvey.5212131175,000' Auto BoomVOO-- -- 2010 crewCGA/Lake CharlesSTARSCameron.521215.5119.55,000' Auto BoomVOO-- -- 2010 crewCGA/GalvestonSTARSGalveston0212191232,500' Auto BoomVOO-- -- 126 crewCGA/InglesideSTARSIngleside0212211272,500' Auto BoomVOO-- -- 126 crewCGA/PascagoulaSTARSPascagoula02121612022,400' BoomVOO-- -- 8025 crewAMPOL/New Iberia New Iberia0212171214,800' BoomVOO-- -- 189 crewAMPOL/Harvey Harvey021213117Spotter HeloSurveillance HeloHand Held Radios------------1130PHI/FourchonPHI/FourchonSTARSSpill SiteSpill SiteFourchon111.5111.5------222------333.5Total 180,971 184,299Nearshore Equipment from Spill Detection to Equipment Deployment Response Time: Green Canyon Block 562Nearshore 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 Houma00111103SWS 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.521210013Trinity SWSOperators21,500 249 14CGA/Morgan CitySTARSMorgan City.521213016R/V Grand BayOperators5,000 65 13CGA/VeniceSTARSVenice.522.58010.5R/V RW ArmstrongOperators5,000 249 13CGA/LeevilleSTARSLeeville.522.5709.5R/V Bastian BayOperators5,000 65 13CGA/Lake CharlesSTARSCameron.522.511.5014R/V Timbalier BayOperators5,000 65 13CGA/GalvestonSTARSGalveston022.512014.5Foilex 250 SkimmerStorage Bladder3,977 500 13MSRC/Fort JacksonSTARSFourchon222.56.5.59.5Foilex 250 SkimmerStorage Bladder3,977 500 13MSRC/Lake CharlesSTARSCameron222.58.5.511.5CTCo2603OperatorsTug-- 25,000 161EMS/Amelia Amelia0244020125CTCo 2604OperatorsTugs-- 20,000 161EMS/Amelia Amelia0244020125CTCo 2606OperatorsTugs-- 20,000 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 Amelia02440201252,000' 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 -- -- 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 66,218 112,981*Some equipment may be used offshoreup to approximately 25 miles from shoreI-3 (continued)

Operational Limitations of Response Equipment

 HOSS Barge–8 foot seas

 Fast Response Unit (FRU)–8 foot seas

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

 Boom–3 foot seas, 20 knot winds

 Dispersants–winds more than 25 knots, visibility less than 3 nautical miles or ceiling less than 1,000 feet

### J Environmental Monitoring Information

(a) Monitoring Systems

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

Anadarko subscribes to Wilkens Weather Se rvice 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 applic able regulations and guidance, including:

*NTL No. 2007-G02 – “Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species Observer Program”

*BSEE NTL No. 2012-G01 “Marine Tr ash and Debris Awareness and Elimination”, and

*JOINT NTL No. 2012-G01 “Vessel Stri ke Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting”

### K LEASE STIPULATIONS INFORMATION

One lease stipulation is att ached to Green Canyon Block 562.

Lease Sale # 118:

Military Area: Green Canyon Block 562 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.

### L RELATED FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS INFORMATION

(a) Related OCS Facilities and Operations

Subsea wells in GC 562 are tied back to the existing Marco Polo TLP in GC Block 608. The GC 562 SS005 will be equipped with a 15k subsea wellhead and subsea tree. The
subsea tree with be tied into the existing lease term pi peline system (S-14855/18456) to Marco Polo via a well jumper to a new P LET which will be connect ed to a new PLEMwhich will be connected to the existing West PLEM hub on existing pipeline S14855/18456. The pipeline will shut-in accordin g to the approved DWOP for GC 562. The maximum flow-rate the pipelines are designed for is 10,000 BOPD. The boarding
shut down valves will close in 45 seconds. The well will be controlled via a step out
umbilical. No modifications to the Marco Polo TLP are proposed as a part of this plan.

(b) Transportation System

Oil and gas from the GC 562 development de parts the Marco Polo TLP via the existing export pipelines. The oil export pipeline (S-14003) is operated by Enterprise Field Services, LLC and transports gas from the Ma rco Polo TLP to a subsea tie-in in GC 164. The gas export pipeline (S-14002) is operate d by Enterprises Field Services, LLC and transports gas from the Marco Polo TLP to a subsea tie-in in GC 235. No changes to the transportation system are proposed as a part of this plan.

(c) Produced Liquid Hydrocarbons Transportation Vessels

No produced liquid hydrocarbons are anticipated to be transported by means other than a pipeline for the activities propos ed as a part of this plan.

(d) Decommissioning Information

Subsequent to applicable lease expirations, abandonment activities will be conducted in accordance with all state and federal regulations.

### M Support Vessels and Aircraft Information

(a) General

Type Max. Total Fuel Tank Storage Capacity Max. No. in Area at any Time Trip Frequency or Duration

Supply Vessel 336,227 gallons 1 2 trips/week Helicopter 735.3 gallons 1 5 trips/week Crew Vessel 70,000 gallons 1 3 trips/week Pipe Lay Vessel 1,101,576 gallons 1 Duration of operation Tug Boat N/A N/A N/A Anchor Handling Vessel N/A N/A N/A

(b) Diesel Oil Supply Vessels

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

a. Size of fuel supply vessel: 230 feet

b. Carrying capacity of fu el supply vessel: 336,227 gallons
c. Frequency that fuel supply vessel will visit the
facilities: twice per week

d. Routes the fuel supply vessel will use to travel between the onshore support base and proposed facility: 6 miles from Port Fourchon to the mouth of Bayou Lafourche, then approximately 118
miles to GC 562.



### (c) Solid and Liquid Wastes Transporation

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

Produced
Sand Oil-contaminated
formation sand N/A N/A Transport in drums by
vessel to
shorebase for pickup. Waste - Port Fourchon, LA and on to Newpark Fourchon
Transfer Station #1 & #2. Newpark Transfer Station Morgan City. Newpark
Transfer Station Port Arthur.
USLL Galveston and Fourchon Transfer Station. If recycled, returned to vendor (Bariod or MI). Disposed of at Newpark (injection disposal facility) or
USLL (landfarm).

Chemical product waste (well

treatment fluids) Ethylene glycol

Methanol 100 bbls

25 bbls 100
bbls/month

25
bbls/month Transport to shore in
barrels for pick up Chemwaste in Sulphur, LA and Veolia Port Arthur, TX or to Newpark, Port Arthur as
non-hazardous waste. DisposedCompletion
fluids Brine, spent acid, prop sand, debris 3,000 bbls 3,000
bbls/well Transport to shore in
barrels for pick up Sent to Port Fourchon, LA and on to Newpark Fourchon
Transfer Station #1 & #2. Newpark Transfer Station Morgan City. Newpark
Transfer Station Port Arthur.
USLL Galveston and Fourchon
Transfer Station Disposed

Workover
fluids Brine, spent acid, prop sand, debris 3,000 bbls 3,000
bbls/well Transport to shore in
barrels for pick up Sent to Port Fourchon, LA and on to Newpark Fourchon
Transfer Station #1 & #2. Newpark Transfer Station Morgan City. Newpark
Transfer Station Port Arthur.
USLL Galveston and Fourchon
Transfer Station Disposed

Trash and
debris Refuse generated during operations 94 bbls 94
bbls/month Transport to shore in disposal bags by vessel to
shorebase for pickup by municipal operations Recycled Material in ARC, New Iberia, LA. Trash disposed of at SWDI landfill. Recycled
and/or disposed in
landfill.

Used oil Excess oil from engines 6.29 bbls 6.29
bbls/month Transport in
totes to shore for disposal American Recovery Fourchon,
LA Incinerated

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



### (d) Vicinity Map

A vicinity map is included in this section as Attachment M-1.GreenCanyonBlock562August2012EnvironmentalImpactAnalysisforSupplementalExplorationPlanPage2Figure1.LocationofGreenCanyon562.

### N ONSHORE SUPPORT FACILITIES INFORMATION

(a) General

Per NTL No. 2008-G04, the following tables reflect the onshore facilities Anadarko may utilize to provide supplies and service support for the activities proposed in this DOCD.

Name Primary Location Existing/New/Modified
Anadarko Service Base Fo urchon, Louisiana Existing

Name *Alternate Locations Existing/New/Modified Anadarko Service Base Galveston, TX Existing Anadarko Service Base Cameron, LA Existing Anadarko Service Base Lake Charles, LA Existing Anadarko Service Base Houma, LA Existing Anadarko Service Base Pascagoula, MS** Existing *In the unlikely event Anadarko’s primary service base cannot be utilized Anadarko will exercise the

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

**Helicopter base only

(b) Support Base

No support base construction or expans ion is planned for these activities.

(c) Waste Disposal



### Disposed wastes describe those wastes ge nerated by the proposed activity that are disposed of by means other than by release in to the water of the GOM at the site where they are generated. These wastes can be disposed of by offsite release, injection, encapsulation, or placement at either onshor e or offshore permitted locations for the purposes of returning them back to the environment.

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

Produced
Sand Oil-contaminated
formation sand N/A N/A Transport in drums by
vessel to
shorebase for pickup. Waste - Port Fourchon, LA and on to Newpark Fourchon
Transfer Station #1 & #2. Newpark Transfer Station Morgan City. Newpark
Transfer Station Port Arthur.
USLL Galveston and Fourchon Transfer Station. If recycled, returned to vendor (Bariod or MI). Disposed of at Newpark (injection disposal facility) or
USLL (landfarm).

Chemical product waste (well

treatment fluids) Ethylene glycol

Methanol 100 bbls

25 bbls 100
bbls/month

25
bbls/month Transport to shore in
barrels for pick up Chemwaste in Sulphur, LA and Veolia Port Arthur, TX or to Newpark, Port Arthur as
non-hazardous waste. DisposedCompletion
fluids Brine, spent acid, prop sand, debris 3,000 bbls 3,000
bbls/well Transport to shore in
barrels for pick up Sent to Port Fourchon, LA and on to Newpark Fourchon
Transfer Station #1 & #2. Newpark Transfer Station Morgan City. Newpark
Transfer Station Port Arthur.
USLL Galveston and Fourchon
Transfer Station Disposed

Workover
fluids Brine, spent acid, prop sand, debris 3,000 bbls 3,000
bbls/well Transport to shore in
barrels for pick up Sent to Port Fourchon, LA and on to Newpark Fourchon
Transfer Station #1 & #2. Newpark Transfer Station Morgan City. Newpark
Transfer Station Port Arthur.
USLL Galveston and Fourchon
Transfer Station Disposed

Trash and
debris Refuse generated during operations 94 bbls 94
bbls/month Transport to shore in disposal bags by vessel to
shorebase for pickup by municipal operations Recycled Material in ARC, New Iberia, LA. Trash disposed of at SWDI landfill. Recycled
and/or disposed in
landfill.

Used oil Excess oil from engines 6.29 bbls 6.29
bbls/month Transport in
totes to shore for disposal American Recovery Fourchon,
LA Incinerated

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

### O COASTAL ZONE MANAGEM ENT ACT INFORMATION

Issues identified in the Louisiana Coas tal Zone Management Program include the following: general coastal use guidelines, levees , linear facilities (pipelines); dredged soil deposition; shoreline modifications, surf ace alterations, hydrologic and sediment transport modifications, waste disposal; uses that result in the alteration of waters draining into coastal waters; oil, gas, or other mineral activitie s; and air and water quality.

Relevant enforceable policies were considered in certifying consistency for Louisiana.

### TEXAS COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The following is an evaluation that includes 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 268 miles from the Texas shoreline; therefore we expect no adverse impacts to CNRAs or beach access and use rights of the public. All activities 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 268 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 268 miles from shore; therefore there will be no effect on coastal waters.(Category 8) Development in Critical Areas

None of the proposed activities will occur in a 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. The proposed activities will occur approximately 2 68 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 268 miles from shore and are not expected to have any effect on marine fishery management or fishery migratory patterns within waters in the
coastal zone of Texas.

(Category 22)
Administrative Policies

The necessary information for 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 P, Environm ental Impact Analysis. The nearest proposed activities will be 198 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 P, Environm ental Impact Analysis. Little impact to the seafood industry can be expected due to th e activities occurring 198 miles from the Mississippi coast.

Goal 4: To conserve the air and waters of the state, and to protect, maintain and improve the quality thereof for public use, 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 H, Air Emissions Information, and Section P, 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 prev ent 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 I 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 F, Biologica l, Physical and Socioeconomic Information, and Section P, Environmental Impact Analysis.

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

Goal 7 is addressed in Section G, Waste Di scharges Information, Section I, Oil Spill Information, Section H, Air Emissions Inform ation, and Section P, 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 198 miles from the Mi ssissippi coast and are based out of a shorebase in Fourchon, Louisiana, local governments should not be affected.

### P ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

# Environmental Impact Analysis

Supplemental Development Operations Coordination Document
for Green Canyon Block 562 (OCS -G 11075 )
Offshore Louisiana

February 201 4

Prepared for:

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

Telephone: (832) 636

- 1694

Prepared by:

CSA Ocean Sciences Inc.

8502 SW Kansas Avenue

Stuart, Florida 34997 Telephone: (772) 219

- 3000Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page ii 

## Contents

Page



### Introduction

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

A. Impact

- Producing Factors

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

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

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

A.2 Physical Disturbance to the Seaf loor

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

A.3 Air Pollutant Emissions

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

A.4 Effluent Discharges

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

A.5 Water Intake

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

A.6 Onshore Waste Disposal

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

A.7 Marine Debris

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

A.8 Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

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

A.9 Accidents

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

A.9.1 Types of Accidents Evaluated

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

A.9.2 Small Fuel Spill

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

A.9.3 Crude Oil Spill (Worst Case Discharge)

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

A.9.4 Other Accidents Not Analyzed in Detail

............................................................................ 16



### B. Affected Environment

........................................................................................... 16

C . Impact Analysis

..................................................................................................... 19

C.1 Physical/Chemical Environment

................................................................................................... 19

C.1.1 Air Quality

......................................................................................................................... 19

C.1.2 Water Quality

.................................................................................................................... 21

C.2 Seafloor Habitats and Biota

.......................................................................................................... 22

C.2.1 Soft Bottom Benthic Communities

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

C.2.2 High

- Density Deepwater Benthic Communities

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

C.2.3 Designated Topographic Features

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

C .2.4 Pinnacle Trend Area Live Bottoms

.................................................................................... 27

C.2.5 Eastern Gulf Live Bottoms

................................................................................................ . 27

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

........................................ 27

C.3.1 Sperm Wha le (Endangered)

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

C.3.2 West Indian Manatee (Endangered)

................................................................................. 33

C.3.3 Endangered Mysticete Whales

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

C.3.4 Non

- Endangered Marine Mammals (Protected)

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

C.3.5 Sea Turtles (Endangered/Threatened)

............................................................................. 38

C.3.6 Piping Plover (Threatened)

............................................................................................... 41

C.3.7 Whooping Crane (Endangered)

........................................................................................ 43

C.3.8 Gulf Sturgeon (Threatened)

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

C.3.9 Smalltooth Sawfish (Endangered)

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

C.3.10 Beach Mouse (Endangered)

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

C.3.11 Elkhorn Coral (Threatened)

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

C.4 Coastal and Marine Birds

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

## Contents
(C ontinued)

Page

Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page iii C.4.1 Marine Birds

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

C.4.2 Shorebirds and Coastal Nesting Birds

............................................................................... 49

C.5 Fisheries Resources

...................................................................................................................... 51

C.5.1 Pelagic Communities and I chthyoplankton

...................................................................... 51

C.5.2 Essential Fish Habitat

........................................................................................................ 53

C.6 Archaeological Resources

............................................................................................................. 56

C.6.1 Shipwreck Sites

................................................................................................................. 56

C.6.2 Prehistoric Archaeologi cal Sites

........................................................................................ 57

C.7 Coastal Habitats and Protected Areas

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

C.8 Socioeconomic and Other Resources

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

C.8.1 Recreational and Commercial Fishing

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

C.8.2 Public Health and Safety

................................................................................................... 62

C.8.3 Employment and Infrastructure

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

C.8.4 Recreation and Tourism

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

C.8.5 Land Use

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

C.8.6 Other Marine Uses

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



### D. Environmental Hazards

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

D.1 Geologic Hazards

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

D.2 Severe Weather

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

D.3 Currents and Waves

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



### E. Alternatives

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

F. Mitigation Measures

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

G. Consultation

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

H. Preparers

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

I. References

............................................................................................................. 67Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page iv 

## List of Tables

Table Page

1 Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) applicable to this Envi ronmental Impact Analysis (EIA)

......................................................................................................................... 3

2 Matrix of impact

- producing factors and affected env ironm ental 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 d ays (Modified from: BOEM, 2012)

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

4 Benthic community data from stations near the lease area (Adapted from: Wei, 2006; Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009)

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

5 Federally listed endangered and threatened species potentially occurring in the
lea se area an d along the northern Gulf Coast

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

6 W ildlife refuges, wilderness areas, and State and National parks within the geographic range of the potential shoreline conta cts after 120 days (From: BOEM, 2012)

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



## List of Figures

Figure Page

1 Location of Green Canyon 562

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

2 Bathymetric map of the lease area showing the surface hole location of Green Canyon Block 562 Well #005

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

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

........................ 42Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page v 

## Acronyms and Abbreviations

ADIOS 2 Automated Data Inquiry for Oil Spills 2
Anadarko Anadarko Petroleum Corporation

BL PD barrels of liquid per day

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Managem ent
BOEMRE Bureau of Ocean Energy Managem ent, Regulation and Enforcement

BOP blowout preventer

BOPD barrels of oil per day

B.P. Before Present

BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforceme nt
CH 4 methane

CO carbon monoxide

CO 2 carbon dioxide

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CGA Clean Gulf Associates

DD Destin Dome

DOCD Development Operations Coordination

Document

DP dynamic position ing

DPS Distinct Population Segment

EEZ Exclusive Economic Z one
EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EIA Environmental Impact Analysis

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ESA Endangered Species Act

FAD fish

- attracting device Fugro F ugro GeoConsulting, Inc.

GC Green Canyon

GMFMC Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council

H 2 S hy drogen sulfide

HAPC Habitat Area of Particular Concern

HOSS high

- volume open sea skimmer

IPF impact

- producing factor

MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships MMC Marine Mammal Commission

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act

MMS Minerals Management Service

MP Main Pass

MSRC Marine Spill Response Corporation

MWCC Marine Well Containment Company
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

NO x nitrogen oxides

NO 2 nitrogen dioxide

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPS National Park Service

NRDA Natural Resource Damage Assessment

NTL Notice to Lessees and Operators

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

OBM oil

- based mud

OCS Outer C ontinental Shelf

OSRA Oil Spill Risk Analysis

OSRP Oil Spill Response Plan

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PM particulate matter

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

SBM synthetic

- based mud

SO x sulfur oxides

SWSS Sperm Whale Seismic Study

ST Sou th Timbalier

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USEPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VOC volatile organic compound

WCD worst case dischargeGreen Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 1 

## Introduction

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (Anadarko) is submitting a Supplemental D evelopment Operations Coordination Document ( S DOCD ) for Green Canyon (GC) Block 562 . The Supplemental DOCD will only cover placing Well #005 onto production and installation of lease term pipelines; no drilling will take place under th is Supplemental DOCD

.

The lease area is 113 miles ( 183 km) south of the nearest shoreline (Louisiana), 117 miles ( 189 km) from the onshore support base at Port Fourchon, Louisiana, and 152 miles ( 246 km)
from the helicopter support base at Houma, Louisiana ( Figure 1 ). Water depth at the proposed
well site range s from 1,196 to 1,224 m (3,925 to 4,015 ft)

. A dynamic positioning (DP) lay barge
will be used to install the lease

- term pipelines; there will be no anchoring impacts on the
seafloor

.

This Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) was prepared for submittal to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) in accordance with applicable regulations, including 30 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 550.212(o) and 550.227. The EIA is a project - and site

- specific analysis
of Anadarko ’s planned activities under this EP. This EIA complies with guidance provided in existing Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) issued by the former Minerals Management Service (MMS) and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOE MRE), including NTL 2008

- G04 and NTL 2014

- G03 . Potential impacts have been analyzed at a broader level in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS s ) for the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program (MMS, 2007a; BOEM, 2012 a ) and in multi

- le ase

- sale EISs for the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas (MMS, 2007b; BOEM, 2012b , 2013 ). The analyses from these documents are incorporated here by reference

.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 2

Figure 1. Location of Green Canyon Block 562

.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 3 All the proposed activities and facilities discussed in this SDOCD are covered by the Regional Oil Spill Response Plan (OSRP) approved on 25 September 2013 for Anadarko and its subsidiaries,
Anadarko U .S. Offshore Corporation and Anadarko E&P Company L.P. (Company Numbers 00981, 02219

, and 00148, respectively)

, in accordance with 30 CFR Part 254.

The OSRP details Anadarko’s plan for response to rapidly and effectively manage oil spills that may result from drilling and production operations. Anadarko has designed its response

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

to a worst case discharge (WCD) from a well blowout. Anadarko’s spill response program meets the response planning requirements of the relevant coastal s tates and a pplicable 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
sensitivities. 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 corresponding to the information required by

NTL 2008

- G0 4. The main impact

- related discussions are in Section A (Impact

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

Table 1. Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) applicable to this Environm ental Impact Analysis ( EIA ).

NTL Title Summary

2014- G03 Extension of Prior Notices to

Lessees Extends the effective date of NTLs 2008

- G04 and 2008

- G05 (and one other NTL) until 30 June 2014.

2012- N06 Guidance to Owners and Operators of Offshore Facilitie s 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) sce narios 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 Protec ted Species Reporting Recommends protected species identification manuals on all

G ulf of M exico vessels ; recommends that vessel operators and crews maintain a vigilant watch for marine mammals and slow down or stop their vessel to avoid striking protected species ; and requires operators to report sightings of any injured or dead protected species.

2012- JOINT

- G01 Revisions to the List of OCS Blocks Requiring Archeological Resources Surveys and Reports Provides new information about which Outer Continental S helf (OCS) blocks require archeological surveys and reports and required line spacing in each block. This NTL augments
NTL 2005-G07.Table 1. (Continued).

Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 4 NTL Title Summary

2010- N10 Statement of Compliance with Applicable Regulations and
Evaluation of Information Demonstrating Adequate Spill

R esponse 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 ope rator will conduct all activities in compliance with all applicable regulations, including the increased safety measures regulations (75 FR 63346). Informs operators that BOEMRE will be evaluating whether each operator has submitted adequate information d emonstrating that it has access to and can deploy containment resources to promptly respond to a blowout or other loss of well control.

2010- N06 Information Requirements for Exploration Plans, Development and Production Plans, and Development Operations

C oordination 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 scenar io 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 de pths greater than 300 m (984 ft). Prescribes separation distances of 610 m (2,000 ft) from each mud and cuttings discharge location and 76 m (250 ft) from all
other seafloor disturbances.

2009- G39 Biologically Sensitive Underwater
Features and Areas Guid ance for avoiding and protecting biologically sensitive features and areas (i.e., topographic features, pinnacles, low relief live bottom areas, and other potentially sensitive biological features) when conducting OCS operations in water depths less than 3 00 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 desig nated operators to enter into an agreement with the appropriate individual military command headquarters concerning the control of electromagnetic emissions and use of boats and aircraft in the applicable warning area or water test area before commencing

s uch traffic.

2008- G04 Information Requirements for Exploration Plans and Development Operations
Coordination Documents Guidance on the information requirements for OCS plans, including EIA requirements and information regarding compliance with the provisi ons of the Endangered Species Act
and Marine Mammal Protection Act.

2005- G07 Archaeological Resource Surveys and Reports Provides guidance on regulations regarding archaeological discoveries, specifies requirements for archaeological resource surveys and reports, and outlines options for protecting archaeological resources.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 5 

## A. Impac t- Producing Factors

Table 2 is a matrix of impact

- producing factors (IPFs) and potentially affected environmental resources adapted from Form BOEM

- 142. An “X” indicates that an IPF could reasonably be expected to affect a certain resource, and a dash (

-- ) indicates no impact or negligible impact. Where there may be an effect, an analysis is provided in Section C

. Potential IPFs for the proposed activity are listed below an d briefly discussed in the following sections.

• DP lay barge presence (including noise and lights)

• Physical disturbance to the seafloor

• Air pollutant emissions

• Effluent discharges • Water intake

• Onshore waste disposal

• Marine debris

• Support vessel and helicop ter traffic

• Accidents



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

The DP lay barge proposed in this SDOCD will be on site for an estimated 30 days. The physical presence of the vessel in the ocean can attract pelagic fishes a nd other marine life, as discussed

in Section C.5.1

.
Pipe laying operations produce noise that includes strong tonal components at low frequencies,
and in some cases infrasonic frequencies (MMS, 2000). S ound and vibration paths to the water
flow either t hrough the air or through the pipes being deployed (MMS, 2000). The DP lay barge
will also maintain exterior lighting for navigational and aviation safety in accordance with applicable Federal safety regulations.



## A.2 Physical Disturbance to the Seafloor

T he DP lay barge will not disturb sediments on the seafloor. The only disturbance of seafloor
sediments will occur when the lease

- term pipelines are placed on the bottom. These disturbances will be very small and localized.



## A.3 Air Pollutant Emissions

Air pollutant emissions are calculated in Supplemental DOCD Section H and are estimated to be insignificant. Offshore air pollutant emissions will result from operations of the DP lay barge, as well as service vessels and helicopters. These emissions occur mainly from combustion of diesel
fuel. The combustion of fuels occurs on diesel

- powered generators, pumps, or motors and from lighter fuel motors. Primary air pollutants typically associated with OCS activities a re suspended particulate matter (PM) , sulf ur 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 are below exemption levels set by the applicable regulations in 30 CFR 250.303. Based on this and the distance from shore, it can be concluded that the emissions will not significantly affect the air quality of the onshore area for any of the criteria pollutants. No further analysis or control measures are required.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental SDOCD Page 6 Table 2. Matrix of impact

- producing factors and affected environmental resources. X = potential impact; dash (

-- ) = no impact or negligible impact.

Environmental Resources Impact

- producing Factors DP Lay Barge Presence (inc l. 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 Environmen t 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 communitie s

-- -- (4)

-- -- (4)

-- -- -- -- -- X (6) Designated topographic features

-- -- (1)

-- -- ( 1)

-- -- -- -- -- -- Pinnacle trend area live bottoms

-- -- (2)

-- -- (2)

-- -- -- -- -- -- Eastern Gulf live bottoms

-- -- (3)

-- -- (3)

-- -- -- -- -- -- Threatened, E ndangered, 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 Habita t 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 h ealth and safety

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

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

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

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

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

WCD = worst case discharge.Green Canyon Block 562 February 20 14 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 7 Table 2 Footnotes and Applicability:

(1) Activities that may affect a marine sanctuary or topographic feature. Specifically, if the well, rig site, or any anchors will be on the seafloor within the following: (a) 4- mi le zone of the Flower Garden Banks, or the 3

- mi le zone of Stetson Bank; (b) 1,000

- m, 1

- mi le , or 3

- mi le zone of any topographic feature (submarine bank) protected by the Topographic Features Stipulation attached to an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lease; (c) E ssential Fish Habitat (EFH) criteria of 500 ft from any no

- activity zone; or (d) Proximity of any submarine bank (500

- ft buffer zone) with relief greater than 2 m that is not protected by the Topographic Features Stipulation attached to an OCS lease.

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

no

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

(2) Activities with any bottom disturbance within an OCS lease block protected through the Live Bottom (P innacle Trend ) Stipulation attached to an OCS lease.

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

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

- Relief) St ipulation attached to an OCS lease.

• The Live Bottom (Low

- Relief) Stipulation is not applicable to the lease area.

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

• No impacts on high

- density deepwater benthic communities are anticipated. There are no features indicative of high

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

any well production activities

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

• G reen C anyon Block 562 was determined to be H 2 S absent under the I nitial EP

. (6) All activities that could result in an accidental spill of produced liquid hydrocarbons or diesel fuel that you determine would impact these environmental resources. If the proposed action is located a sufficient distance from a resource that no impact would occur, the EIA can note that in a sentence or two.

• Accidental hydrocarbon spills could affect the resources marked (X) in the matrix, an d 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 s uch 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 archaeological site potential in the Gulf of Mexico.

(8) All activities that you determine might have an adverse effect on endangered or threatened marine mammals
or sea turtles or their critical habitats.

• IPFs that may affect marine mammals, sea turtles, or their critical habitats include dynamic positioning ( DP ) lay barge presence, support vessel and helicopter traffic, and accidents. See Section C

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

• Not applicable.Green Canyon Block 562 February 20 14 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 8 

## A.4 Effluent Discharges

Effluent discharges are summarized in Supplemental DOCD Section G

. All offshore discharges
will be in accordance with requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General P ermit No. GMG290000 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.

E ffluent discharges in accordance with the NPDES permit will include non

- co ntact cooling water, treated sanitary and domestic wastes, deck drainage, desalination unit brine, unco ntaminated
fresh water and sea water, and ballast water.



## A.5 Water Intake

Seawater will be drawn from the ocean for once

- through, non

- contact cooling of m achinery on
the DP lay barge

. Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires NPDES permits to ensure that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available to minimize adverse environ mental impact from impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms. The current NPDES General P e rmit No. GMG 290000 does not specify requirements for existing facilities (those that started construction before

16 July 2006)

. The DP lay barge ultimately selected for this project will be in compliance with all cooling water intake regulations

.



## A.6 Onshore Waste Disposal

Wastes generated during project activities are tabulated in S upplemental DOCD Section G

. Approximately 94 bbl of trash will be generated o ver the life of this project. The trash will be transported in disposal bags to shore where it will be picked up by municipal operators for final disposal in accordance with applicable regulations.



## A.7 Marine Debris

Anadarko will comply with all regulations relating to solid waste s handling and disposal, including the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78) Annex V requirements and USEPA and U.S. Coast Guard ( USCG ) regulations, as
well as those of the BOEM

. For e xample, 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 mar kings on equipment, tools

, and containers (especially drums), and other
material. USEPA and USCG regulations require operators to become proactive in avoiding accidental loss of solid waste items by developing waste management plans, posting
informational placards, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. In addition to the regulations in 30 CFR 250

, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforecement ( BSE E ) 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 yearl y marine trash and debris awareness training and certification process.Green Canyon Block 562 February 20 14 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 9 

## A.8 Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

Anadarko will use existing shorebase facilities at Port Fourchon, Louisiana, for onshore support for vessel activities. Air transportation (helicopters) will be based at facilities in Houma, Louisiana.

No terminal expansion or construction is planned at either location

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

- trip s per week

, an d the supply vessel will make two round

- trips per week. The
boats typically will move to the project area via the most direct route from the shorebase.

A helicopter will make approximately five round

- trips per week between the DP lay barge and the helipor t. The helicopter will be used to transport personnel and small supplies and will normally take the most direct route of travel between the shorebase and the lease area when air traffic and weather conditions permit. Helicopters typically maintain a mini mum altitude of

213 m (700 ft) while in transit offshore, 305 m (1,000 ft) over unpopulated areas or across coastlines, and 610 m (2,000 ft) over populated areas and sensitive habitats such as wildlife refuges and park properties. Additional guidelines and regulations specify that helicopters maintain an altitude of 305 m (1,000 ft) within 91 m (300 ft) of marine mammals (BOEM, 2012d).



## A.9 Accidents

A.9.1 Types of Accidents Evaluated

The analysis in this EIA focuses on two potential accidents:

• A small fuel spill, which is the most likely type of spill during OCS exploration activities; and

• the WCD for this SDOCD , which is an oil spill resulting from an uncontrolled blowout.

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

.

MMS ( 2007b) and BOEM ( 2012 b ) analyze three other types of accidents: chemical spills, vessel collisions, and loss of well control. These types of accidents are discussed briefly in
Section A.9.4

.



### A.9.2 Small Fuel Spill

Spill Size . According to the analys e s in MMS (2007b ) and BOEM ( 2012 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
diese l spills have been < 1 bbl, and this size is predicted to be the most common in ongoing and
future OCS activities in the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas. As the spill size increases, the incident rate declines dramatically (MMS, 2007b ; BO EMRE, 2011a; BOEM 2012 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 mo st likely cause of such a spill would be a hose rupture resulting in the loss of the contents of a fuel transfer hose, which is less than 3 bbl.

Spill Fate

. The fate of a small fuel spill in the lease area would depend on meteorological and oceanographic conditions at the time, as well as the effectiveness of spill response activities.Green Canyon Block 562 February 20 14 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 10 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 ( BOEM RE, 2011a ; BOEM, 2012 b).

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 a ). 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 wit h high suspended solids loads (National Research Council, 2003 a ) and would not be expected to occur to any appreciable degree in offshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Diesel oil is readily and completely degraded by naturally occurring microbes ( National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [ NOAA ] , 2006).

For purposes of this EIA, t he fate of a small diesel fuel spill was estimated using NOAA’s Automated Data Inquiry for Oil Spills 2 ( ADIOS2 ) model. This model uses the physical properties of oils in its database to predict the rate of evaporation and dispersion over time, as well as changes in the density, viscosity, and water content of the product spilled. I t is estimated that over 90% of a small diesel spill would be evaporated or dispersed within 2 4 hours. The area of
the sea surface with diesel fuel on it during this 24

- hour period would range from 0.5 to 5 ha (1.2 to 12 ac)

, depending on sea state and weather conditions.

The ADIOS2 results, coupled with spill trajectory information discussed belo w for a large spill,
indicate that a small fuel spill would not have any impacts on coastal or shoreline resources.
The lease area is 113 miles ( 183 km) from the nearest shoreline (Louisiana)

. Modeling results indicate that a spill in the lease area woul d 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
Anadark o’s response measures. Slicks from spills are expected to persist for relatively short periods of time ranging from minutes (<1 bbl) to hours (<10 bbl) to a few days (10 to 1,000 bbl) and rapidly spread out, evaporate

, and disperse into the water column ( BOEM, 2012b). Because of the distance of these potential spills on the OCS and the ir lack of persistence, it is unlikely
that a spill would make landfall prior to dissipation (BOEM, 2012b).

Spill Response



### A.9.3 Crude Oil Spill (Worst Case Discharge) . In the unlikely event the shipboard prevention p rocedures fail to prevent a fuel spill, response equipment and trained personnel would be activated so that any spill effects
would be localized and would result only in short

- term environmental consequences.

S upplemental DOCD Section H provides a detaile d discussion of Anadarko ’s response to a spill.

Spill Size

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

cases. Addition al well intervention and time requirements to drill a relief well pursuant to guidance provided in NTL 2010

- N06 were discussed under the approved Exploration Plan . The worst

- case discharge scenario for this project is defined as an uncontrollable discharge to the seafloor during production operations. Mechanica lly speaking, the scenario assumes that the wellhead fails allowing full wellbore fluid to move up the existing tubing, and a
blowout occurs at the seabed. GC 562 Well #005 is addressed in this blowout scenario since it is the location with the highest po tential WCD within the block. The maximum oil discharge during production is calculated to be 21,470 barrels of oil per day from GC 562 Well #005.Green Canyon Block 562 February 20 14 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 11 (Plan Control No. S

- 7589). The following scenario summarizes the time taken to mobilize a ri g and drill a relief well as discussed under previously approved Plan No. S

- 7589

.

An estimate of 7 to 21 days would be required to suspend operations on a deepwater G ulf of

Mexico well and begin drilling the relief well. This assumes 0 to 14 days to suspend current operations on an existing well and 7 days to mobilize and be ready to spud the relief well. The estimated time to drill the relief well to a blowout originating from the M10 through M20 hydrocarbon zones is 110 days

, for an estimated total of 1 17 to 131 days from time of blowout to completion of a relief well. The drilling days were based on the proposed days to drill GC 562
Well #005 through the objective sands (interval of WCD)

, with additional time added for ranging.

The time estimate provid ed for the plan well is inclusive of both “ drilling ” and “ completion ” operations. As a completion is not typically part of relief well operations

, no time has been included for completion operations in the relief well estimate. A ddition ally , information and learning s gained from drilling of the original well may provide opportunities to optimize drilling performance for relief well operations

, thereby reduc ing the required drilling time. The maximum total volume during a blowout could potentially be 2,81 2,570 bbl

, assuming 131 days for the maximum duration of a blowout, multiplied by the worst case daily uncontrolled blowout volume of 21,470 bbl

.
Historically, blowouts are rare events and most do not result in oil spills. Holand (1997) estimated a probability of 0.0021 for a deep drilling blowout during exploration drilling based on U.S. Gulf of Mexico data. An updated analysis using the SINTEF database estimates a blowout frequency of 0.0017 per exploratory well for non

- North Sea locations (International Association of Oil & Gas Producers, 2010). As noted by MMS (2007b), from 1992 to 2005, half of blowouts lasted less than half a day, and fewer than 10% of blowouts resulted in spilled oil. BOEM is in the process of updating these spill frequency estima tes to include the Macondo event; however, significant changes to the spill rates for the entire OCS are not anticipated ( BOEM RE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012 d ). As noted in the Introduction , the baseline risk of a catastrophic blowout is estimated to be once every 26 years (BOEMRE Interim Final Drilling Safety Rule, 75 FR 63365,

10 October 2010).

Included in S upplemental DOCD Section I are Anadarko ’s calculations and information as required by NTL 2010

- N06, including descriptions of measures to prevent a blowout, reduce the likelihood of a blowout, and conduct effective and early intervention in the event of a blowout.
Anadarko will also comply with NTL 2010 -N 10 and the Interim Final Drilling Safety Rule, which specif ies additional safety measures for OCS activities

.
Spill Trajectory

. The fate of a large oil spill in the lease area would depend on meteorological and oceanographic conditions at the time. The Oil Spill Risk Analysis (OSRA) model is a computer simulation of oil spill transport that uses realistic data for winds and currents to predict spill fate. Although this model has received some criticism recently (Earthjustice, 2011), it is still the most widely scientifically accepted model for estimating the fate of small fuel spills.
The primary criticism of the OSRA model results as provided in Ji et al. (2004) was that the
model did not evaluate the fate of a spill over time periods longer than 30 days, nor does it predict the fate of a release that continues over a period of weeks or months, as in the Maco ndo
incident. Also as noted by Ji et al. (2004), the OSRA model does not take into account the chemical composition or biological weathering of oil spills, the spreading and splitting of oilGreen Canyon Block 562 February 20 14 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 12 spills, or spill response activities. The model does not assume a particular spill size but has generally been used by the BOEM to evaluate contact probabilities for spills greater than 1,000 bbl.

To address this criticism

, a special OSRA run was conducted for the recent BOEM Western a nd
Central Gulf of Mexico Plannin g Area Supplemental EIS s ( BOEM RE, 2011a; 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 OSRA model run for this revised analysis was conducted for five hypothetical launch points
in the Western a nd Central 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.

The five launch point areas were as follows:

1. Central Gulf of Mexico shelf are a west of the Mississi ppi River (2 8.98660°

N latitude, 92.17851 ° W longitude);

2. Central Gulf of Mexico shelf area east of the Mississippi River ( 29.91388 ° N latitude,

88.15338 ° W longitude);

3. Central Gulf of Mexico slope area ( 27.31998 ° N latitude, 90.22203 ° W longitude);

4. Western Gulf of Mexico shelf area ( 27.55423 ° N latitude, 96.76627 ° W longitude); and

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

The results for Launch Point 3 , which are the most applicable to the project area and within the Central Planning Area , are presented in Table 3

.
OSRA is a preliminary risk assessment model. In the event of an actual oil spill, real

- time monitoring and trajectory modeling would be conducted using current and wind data available from the rigs and perm anent production structures in the area

. Satellite and aerial monitoring of the plume and real

- time trajectory modeling using wind and current data would continue on a daily basis to help position equipment and human resources throughout the duration of a ny major spill or uncontrolled release

.Green Canyon Block 562 February 20 14 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 13 Table 3. Conditional probabilities expressed as percent chance that an oil spill starting at Launch Point 3 will contact a certain parish, county, or coastline within 120 days (Modified from: BOEM, 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
Kened y, Texas

-- -- -- 8

-- -- -- 1

-- -- -- 9

-- -- -- 5 Kleberg, Texas

-- -- 1 6

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4

-- -- 1 6
Nueces, Texas

-- -- 1 6

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2

-- -- 1 2
Aransas, Texas

-- -- -- 5

-- -- -- 1

-- -- -- 3

-- -- -- 2 Calhoun, Texas

-- -- 1 6

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6

-- -- 1 4 Matagorda, Texas

-- -- 2 17

-- -- 3 4

-- -- -- 11

-- -- 1 6 Brazoria, Texas

-- -- 3 12

-- -- 1 3

-- -- 2 8

-- -- 1 5 Galveston, Texas

-- -- 3 10

-- -- 3 6

-- -- 2 5

-- -- 1 4 Jefferson, Texas

-- -- 1 4

-- -- 7 9

-- -- 1 1

-- -- -- 2 Cameron, Louisiana

-- -- 1 4

-- -- 11 12

-- 1 1 4

-- -- -- 4 Vermilion, Louisiana

-- -- 1 2

-- -- 5 6

-- 1 1 2

-- -- -- -- Iberia, Louisiana

-- -- -- 1

-- -- 4 4

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Terrebonne, Louisiana

-- 1 2 3

-- 4 12 14

-- -- -- 2

-- -- -- -- Lafourche, Louisiana

-- -- 1 1

-- 2 8 10

-- -- 1 2

-- -- -- -- Jefferson, Louisiana

-- -- -- 1

-- -- 2 2

-- -- 1 1

-- -- -- -- Plaquemines, Louisiana

-- -- -- 1

-- 2 10 12

-- -- 1 2

-- -- -- -- Jackson, Mississippi

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

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Baldwin, Alabama

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

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Bay, Florida

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

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Franklin, Florida

-- -- -- 1

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Monroe, Florida

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

-- -- -- 1

Miami

- Dade, Florida

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

-- -- -- --

“

-- ” = Values <1.0%. Areas where there is <0.5% chance of contact within 120 days are not shown.

Weathering

Weathering decreases the concentration of oil and produces changes in its chemical composition, physical properties, and toxicity. The more toxic, light aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbons are lost rapidly by evaporation and dissolution from a slick on the water surface. Evaporated hydrocarbons are degraded rapidly by sunlight. Biodegradation of oil on the water surface and in the water column by marine bacteria removes first the n

- alkanes and then the light aromatics from the oil. Other petroleum components are biodegraded more slowly.
Photo

- oxidation attacks mainly the medium and high molecular weight PAHs i n the oil on the
water surface. . Following an oil spill, several physical, chemical, and biological processes, collectively called weathering, interact to change the physical and chemical properties of the oil, influencing potential effects to marine organisms and ecosystems. The most important weathering processes include spreading, evaporation, dissolution, dispersion into the water column, formation of water

- in

- oil emulsions, photochemical oxidation, microbial degradation, adsorption to suspended PM , and stranding on shore or sedimentation to the seafloor (National Research Council, 2003 a ).Green Canyon Block 562 February 20 14 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 14 Spill Response

. BOEM has issued re c ent NTLs following the Macondo spill that clarify additional
oil spill preven tion and response planning requirements. These NTL s are summarized in Table 1

, and additional BOEM (201 2b) guidance is provided below.

NTL 2012

- N06 – Guidance to Owners and Operators of Offshore Facilities Seaward of the Coast Line Concerning Regional Oil Spill Response Plans : This NTL, effective 10 August 2012, provides clarification, guidance, and information on the preparation and submittal of regional OSRPs for owners and operators of oil handling, storage, or transportation facilities,
inclusive of pipelines, located seaward of the coastline. It states that lessees, designated operators, and pipeline right

- of

- way holders are responsible for preparation and submission of these plans. Some of the clarifications and recommended practices in the NTL ar e based on lessons learned from the Macondo oil spill response.

NTL 2010

- N10 – Statement of Compliance with Applicable Regulations and Evaluation of Information Demonstrating Adequate Spill Response and Well Containment Resources : This NTL, effective 8 November 2010, applies only to operators conducting operations using
subsea or surface blowout preventers ( BOPs ) on floating facilities. It requires lessees and
operators to submit a statement signed by an authorized company official with each well permi t application indicating that they will conduct all of their authorized activities in compliance with all applicable regulations, including the Increased Safety Measures Regulations at 75 FR 63346. The NTL also informs lessees that BOEMRE will evaluate
wh ether the operator has submitted adequate information demonstrating that it has access to and can deploy surface and subsea containment resources that would be adequate to promptly respond to a blowout or other loss of well control. The NTL notifies the o perator 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
Produc tion Plans, and Development Operations Coordination Documents on the OCS

Anadarko submitted a Regional OSRP

, which was approved on 25 September 2013

. The OSRP

prov ides a detailed plan for Anadarko to respond to rapidly and effectively manage oil spills that may result from drilling and production operations. The OSRP contains detailed information on “Quick Response” procedures

, including : : This NTL, effective 18 June 2010, explains the procedures for the lessee or operator to submit supplemental information for new or previously submitted EPs, Development and
Producti on 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 required by 30 CFR 254(b) and 254(h) ; ( 2) a description of their assumptions and
calcula tions used in determining the volume of the WCD required by 30 CFR 254.26; and (3) a description of the measures proposed that would enhance the ability to prevent a blowout, to reduce the likelihood of a blowout, and to conduct effective and early

interve ntion in the event of a blowout, including the arrangements for drilling relief wells and any other measures proposed. The early intervention methods of the third requirement could actually include the surface and subsea containment resourc es that

BOEM an nounced in NTL 2010

- N10, which states that BOEM will review to ensure that the measures are adequate to promptly respond to a blowout or other loss of well control.Green Canyon Block 562 February 20 14 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 15 • responsibilities of all An adarko and contract personnel to report any observed discharge from known or unknown sources;

• procedures to locate and determine the size of a discharge; and

• c ontact information for alerting the spill management team complete with names, phone numbers, an d locations.

In the event of a WCD , Anadarko has access to surface and subsea response/containment capabilities that could be implemented through various organizations under contract. Anadarko's primary spill response equipment provider is Clean Gulf Asso ciates (CGA).

CGA has four skimming vessels capable of operating in shallow waters

, nearshore areas

, and
offshore areas

. These vessels have o leophilic brush pack skimming systems operating in troug hs
built into the hulls ; below deck storage ; and marine el ectronics packages that includ e marine,
aircraft

, and company

- frequency radios, radar, moving map plotters

, GPS s , satellite phone s , and depth finders. In addition, there are three Marco skimmers and two Egmopol skimmers that can
be used for inland or near shore skimming. CGA also has 9 fast

- response vessels staged throughout the Gulf of Mexico equipped with Lamor side mounted skimmers with 249 b bl of
storage capacity

. The se vessels are designed to operate out to 200 miles offshore and are equipped with x- band radar and infrared oil de tection systems.

The CGA high

- volume open sea skimmer ( HOSS ) barge consists of a skimming system built into an oil recovery barge. There are four 1,000

- bbl recovered oil storage tanks built into the hull where oil can be sepa rated 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 acquired 11 sets of Koseq skimming arms and two Aqua Guar d skimmers. In addition, an

x- band radar/infrared tracking system is installed on the HOSS barge. Additional CGA equipment can be referenced on the website: www.cleangulfassoc.com/ equipment

.

Anadarko also has a contract with the Marine Spill Response Corporation (MSRC) for additional spill response equipment. MSRC has a dedicated fleet for the Atlantic/ Gulf of Mexico r egion and additional available equipment staged throughout the U

. S. MSR C stage d equipment throughout
the Gulf of Mexico includ es seven oi l spill response vessels

, 2 fast

- response vessels

, 5 oil spill

response barges, 5 platfo rm supply vessels, and 15 shallow water barges. Various equipment is
outfitted with x- band and infrared technology.

MSRC recently completed a large expansion of its resources and capability in the Gulf of Mexico, with particular focus on deepwater. The ex pansion is known as “Deep Blue.” Additional MSRC capabilities and a complete equipment listing are available online at: www.msrc.org/

.

Anadarko also is a member of the Marine Well Containment Company (MWCC). In the event of an incident, MWCC can provide a 15,000

- psi single ram capping stack and dispersant injection capability. MWCC can also install and operate the interim containment system, including sub sea flowlines, manifold, and risers. The interim system is engineered to be used in depths up to 3,048 m (10,000 ft) and has the capacity to contain 60,000 barrels of liquid per day (and

120 million standard cubic feet per day of gas) with potential for e xpansion.

See S upplemental DOCD Section I f or a detailed description of Anadarko ’s site

- specific response
to the WCD for this plan.Green Canyon Block 562 February 20 14 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 16 

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

Chemical Spills

. Chemicals are stored and used to condition drill muds during production and in well completions, stimulation, and workover procedures. The relative quantity of their use is reflected in the largest volumes spilled. Completion fluids are the largest quantity used and comprise the largest releases. Between 5 and 15 chemical spills are anticipated each year, with the majority being <50 bbl in size. The most common chemicals spilled are methanol, ethylene glycol, and zinc bromide. Additional production chemicals are needed in deepwater operations where gas hydrates tend to form. Spill volumes are anticipated to remain about the same, but spill frequency can be expected to decrease because of advances in subsea processing ( BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012 b).

Riser Disconnect SBM Spills

. In deepwater drilling, synthetic

- bas ed muds ( SBMs ) a re preferred over petroleum oil

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

. The synthetic base fluid used in SBMs are less toxic to the marine environment and have the potential to biodegrade. SBMs have been us ed in the Gulf of Mexico since the mid

- 1990s , and
between 5 and 20 SBM releases are anticipated each year as a result of offshore drilling programs. The majority of these releases are <50 bbl in size, but accidental riser disconnects may result in the release of medium (238 to 2,380 bbl) to large (>2,381 bbl) quantities of dril ling fluids. Riser disconnect accidents are of particular concern when SBMs are in use ( BOEMRE,
2011b ).

Vessel Collisions

. BOEM data show that from 1996 to 2009 there were 226 OCS

- related
collisions. Most collision mishaps are the result of service vessels colliding with platforms or vessel collisions with pipeline risers. Approximately 10 % of vessel collisions with platforms in
the OCS resulted in diesel spills , and in several collision incidents f ires resulted from hydrocarbon releases. To date, the largest diesel spill associated with a collision occurred in
1979 when an anchor

- handling boat collided with a drilling platform in the Main Pass leas e area, spilling 1,500 bbl. Die sel 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 ( 2012 b ), vessel collisions occasionally occur during routine operations. Some of these collisions have caused spills of diesel fuel or
chemicals. Anadarko will comply with all USCG - and BOEM

- mandated safety requirements to minimize the potential for vessel collisions.

H 2 S Release

. GC 562 was determined as “ H 2 S absent” under a previously approved Initial EP. Anadarko has requested that BOEM classify GC 562 as a "zone where the absence of H 2 S has
been confirmed.”



## B. Affected Environment

The lease area is in the central Gulf of Mexico, 113 miles ( 183 km ) from the nearest shoreline (Louisiana), and 117 miles ( 189 km ) from the onshore support base at Port Fourchon, Louisiana ( Figure 1 ).Green Canyon Block 562 February 20 14 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 17 Based o n the s ite c learance letter by Fugro GeoConsulting, Inc. (Fugro ) ( 201 4) the depth at wellsite # 5 is 1,22 3 m (4,01 4 ft) and the seafloor is smooth, featureless, and appears stable. A series of southwesterly trending surface faults with associated headscarps, very shallow buried
faults and seafloor and shallow marine slides are the notable seafloor and near seafloor features
identified within a 610 m (2

, 000 ft) radius around the proposed wellsite. Seafloor slopes associated with the surface faults scarps are inferred to be stable under present natural conditions and there is negligible potential for large

- scale slope failure events occurring during temporary occupation drilling operations. There is no evidence fluid expulsion features or high

- density deepwater benthic communities near the wellsite

.
According to Fugro (2014), several existing Anadarko pipelines are present within a 610 m (2,000 ft) radius of the proposed wellsite. The pipelines traverse south

- southeasterly and are located more than 457 m (1 ,500 ft) southeast of the proposed wellsite. Therefore, these existing pipelines would not impact drilling operations at the proposed wellsite. Ten sonar contacts were recorded within 610 m (2,000 ft) of the proposed wellsite with the closest located

aro und 198 (651 ft) northeast from the proposed wellsite.

A detailed description of the regional affected environment

, including meteorology, oceanography, geology, air and water quality, benthic communities, threatened and endangered species, biologically sensitive resources, archaeological resources, socioeconomic conditions, and other marine uses is provided in MMS ( 2007b) and BOEM (2012b, 2013 ) . These regional descriptions remain valid and are incorporated by reference. B rief descriptions of each potenti ally affected resource, including site

- specific and/or new information if available

, are presented in Section C

.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for SupplementalDOCD Page 18 Figure 2. Bathymetric map of the lease area showing the surface hole location of Green Canyon Block 562 Well #005

.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 19 

## C. Impact Analysis

This section 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 Western and Central
Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas (MMS, 2007b ; BOEM, 2012b, 2013 ). T he 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 d istance from shore

. Because of the distance from shore

- based pollution sources and the lack of sources offshore

, air quality at the wellsites is expected to be good. The attainment status of Federal OCS waters is unclassified because there is no provisio n in the Clean Air Act for classification of areas outside

s tate waters (MMS, 2007b)

.


### Impacts of Air Pollutant Emissions

Air pollutant emissions are the only routine IPF likely to affect air quality. Offshore air pollutant
emissions will result from the D P lay barge operations

, helicopters

, and service vessels. These emissions occur mainly from combustion or burning of diesel fuel. The combustion of fuels occurs primarily on diesel

- powered generators, pumps, or motors and from lighter fuel motors.

Prima ry 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 because of the prevailing atmospheric conditions, emission rates and heights, and resulting pollutan t concentrations. T he incremental
contribution to cumulative impacts from activities similar to Anadarko’s proposed activities is not significant and will not cause or contribute to a violation of any 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 SDOCD are not likely to contribute to violations of any NAAQS onshore.

Carbon di oxide (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 on temperature, rainfall, frequency of severe weather, oc ean acidification, and sea level rise (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007). Greenhouse gas emissions from this proposed project represent a negligible contribution to the total greenhouse gas emissions from reasonably foreseeable activities in the Gulf of Mexico area and would not significantly alter any of the climate change impacts evaluated in MMS ( 2007 a, b)

.

Because to the distance from shore, routine operations in the project area are not expected to have any impact on air quality conditions along the coast, including nonattainment areas. AsGreen Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 20 noted in MMS ( 2007b)

, emissions of air pollutants from routine activities in the Central Gulf of

Mexico Planning Area are projected to have minimal impacts to onshore air quality because of the prevailing atmospheric conditions, emission heights, emission rates, and the distance of
these emissions from the coastline

. The Air Quality Emissions Report (see S upplemental

DOCD Section H ) prepared in accordance with BOEM requirements shows that the projected emissions are below exemption levels; therefore, according to 30 CFR 250.303

, the emissions will not significantly affect the air quality of the onshore area for any of the criteria pollutants. No further analysis or control measures are required

.

The Br eton Wilderness Area, which is part of the Breton National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), is designated under the Clean Air Act as a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class I air quality area. The BOEM is required to notify the National Park Service ( NPS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS ) if emissions from proposed projects may affect the Breton Class I area. Additional review and mitigation measures may be required for sources within 186 miles ( 300 km) of the Breton Class I area that exceed emission limits agreed upon by the administering agencies (NPS, 2010). The lease area is approximately 155 miles ( 250 km) from the Breton Wilderness Area, so air quality impacts on the Wilderness Area are not expected

, but Anadarko will comply with any em issions requirements as directed by the BOEM

.


### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

Potential impacts o f a small spill on air quality are expected to be consistent with th os e analyzed
and discussed in MMS ( 2007b ) and BOEM (2012b,d, 2013 )

. The probability of a sma ll 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. S upplemental DOCD Section I include s a detailed discussion of the spill

response measures that would be employed

. Given the open ocean location of the lease area, the extent and duration of air quality impacts from a small spill would not be significant.

A small fuel spill would affect air quality near the spill site by introducing VOCs through evaporation. The ADIOS2 model ( see Section A.9.2 ) indicates that over 90% of a small diesel spill would be evaporated or dispersed within 24 hours. The sea surface area with diesel fuel on
it would range from 0.5 to 5 ha (1.2 to 12 ac) depending on sea state and weather conditions.

A small fuel spill would not affect coastal air quality because the spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up (see Section A.9.2 ).



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

Potential impacts of a large oil spill on air quality are expected to be consistent with th os e analyzed and discussed in MMS ( 2007b ) and BOEM (2012b,d, 2013)

.
A large oil spill (WCD) could potentially affect air quality by introducing VOCs through evaporation from the slick. The extent and persistence of impacts would depend on the meteorological and oceanographic conditions at the time and the effectiveness of spill response

measures. Real

- time wind and current data from the project area would be available at the time of a spill and would be used to assess the fate and effects of VOCs released. Additional air quality impacts could occur if response measures included in situ burning of the floating oil. Burning would generate a plume of black smoke and result in emissions of NO x , SO
x , CO, andGreen Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 21 PM, as well as greenhouse gases. However, in situ burning would occur only after authorization
from the USEPA.

Due to the lease area ’s location ( 113 miles [ 183 km ]) from the nearest shoreline (Louisiana)

, most air quality impacts would occur in offshore waters with minimal chance to affect onshore air quality.



### C.1.2 Water Quality

There are no site

- specific water quality data for the lease area. Due to the lease location in deep, offshore waters, water quality is expected to be good, with low levels of contaminants.

As noted in MMS ( 2007b), deepwater areas in the northern Gulf of Mexico are relatively homogeneous with respect to temperature, salinity, and oxygen. Kennicutt (2000) noted that the deepwater region has little evidence of contaminants in the dissolved or particulate phases of the water column. However, there are localized occurrences of natural seepage of oil, gas,
and brines in near

- surface sediments and up th rough the water column.

The lease area is located approximately 147 miles ( 236 km ) from the Macondo spill site. Based on the general circulation pattern seen in the Gulf of Mexico and satellite imagery, the surface
slick from that discharge did not extend over the lease area during the spill , and the existing water quality in the lease area is not expected to have been affected by the Macondo release.

IPFs potentially affecting water quality are effluent discharges and two types of accidents -

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



### Impacts of Effluent Discharges

Treated sanitary and domestic wastes , including those from support vessels, may have a slight transient effect on water quality in the immediate vicinity of these discharges. All NPDES pe rmit 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 DP lay barge will flow overboard without treatment. However, rainwater that falls
on the DP lay barge deck and other areas such as chemical storage areas and places where equipment is exposed will be collected and oil and water separated to meet NPDES permit requirements. Based on adherence to permit limits and applicable regulations, l ittle or no impact on water quality is anticipated.

Other discharges in acc ordance with the NPDES permit, such as desalination unit brine and uncontaminated cooling water, fire water, and ballast water are expected to be diluted rapidly

, resulting in little or no impact on water quality.



### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

Potential im pacts of a small spill on wate r quality are expected to be consistent with th os e analyzed and discussed in MMS ( 2007b ) and BOEM (2012a,b, 2013)

. The probability of a small spill would be minimized by Anadarko ’s preventative measures during routine operati ons , including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Anadarko ’s OSRP will potentially help mitigate and reduce the impacts. S upplemental DOCD Section I provides detailGreen Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 22 on spill response measures in addition to the summary information provided in this EIA

. Given the open ocean location of the lease area, the extent and duration of water quality impacts from a small spill would not be significant.

A small fuel spill in offshore waters would produce a slick on the water surface and increase the concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and their degradation products. The extent and persistence of impacts would depend on the meteorological and oceanographic conditions at the time and the effectiveness of spill response measures. However, 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 a ). The constituents of these oils are light to intermediate in molecular weight and can be readily degraded by aerobic microbial oxidation. Because the density of diesel is less than the density of seawater, diesel will not sink and pool on
the seafloor. Diesel dispersed in the water column can adhere to suspended sediments, but this general ly occurs only in coastal areas with high suspended solid loads (National Research Council, 2003 a ) 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 natu rally occurring microbes (NOAA, 2006).

A small fuel spill would not affect coastal water quality because the spill would not be expected

to make landfall or reach coastal waters due to both response efforts that would be undertaken
as well as natural atten uation (see Section A.9.2 ).



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

Potential impacts of a large oil spill on wate r quality are expected to be consistent with th os e analyzed and discussed in MMS ( 2007b ) and BOEM (2012b,d, 2013 ) . A large spill w ould affect

wate r quality by producing a slick on the water surface and increasing the concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and their degradation products. The extent and persistence of impacts would depend on the meteorological and oceanographic conditions at the time and the effectiveness of spill response measures. Most of the oil would be expected to form a slick at the surface, although new information from the Macondo spill indicates that plumes of submerged oil droplets can be produced when subsea dispersants are applied at the wellhead (Camilli et al., 2010; Hazen et al., 2010; Joint Analysis Group, 2010a,b,c). However, dispersants would be applied only after approval from the USEPA. Small droplets in the water may adhere

to suspended sediment and be removed from the wate r column (Operational Science Advisory

Team

, 2010).

Due to the lease area ’s location ( 113 miles or 183 km from the nearest shoreline [Louisiana] ), it is expected that most water quality impacts would occur in offshore waters, especially in the event of a spill lasting less than 30 days ( Table 3 ).



## C.2 Seafloor Habitats and Biota

W ater depth at the proposed project area is approximately 1,223 m (4,014 ft)

. The seafloor at the proposed project area is smooth, featureless, and appears stable. No table features seen during the site clearance survey were a series of southwesterly trending surface faults withGreen Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 23 associated headscarps , some very shallow buried faults

, and evidnence of seafloor shallow marine slides within a 610 m (2,000 ft) radius around the proposed project are (Fugro, 2014)

.

Based on the absence of hard bottom areas dete rmined by side

- scan sonar during the

site c learance s urvey , the seafloor is expected to consist mainly of soft bottom communities.
The s ite c learance s urvey did not identify any features that could support high

- density deepwater benthic communities within 610 m (2,000 ft) of the proposed project area

. No areas of gaseous sediments or possible hydrocarbon seepage were defined in the study area, and the potential for chem osynthetic communities is considered negligible ( Fugro, 201 4 ).



### 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 Benth ic Ecology Study (Wei, 2006;

Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009) can be used to describe typical benthic communities in the area.
Table 4 summarizes data from nearby station s in water depth similar to the proposed project

area.

Table 4. Benthic community data from stations near the proposed project area ( 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)

C7 1,066 273,585 3,293 1,022

C4 1,463 542,119 3,045 1,446

Meiofaunal and megafaunal abundances from Rowe and Kennicutt (2009); macroinfaunal abundance from

Wei (2006).

Densities of meiofauna (animals passing through a 0.5

- mm sieve but retained on a 0.062

- mm sieve) in water depths representative of the lease area ( 1,779 m [ 5,837 ft]) typically range from approximately 200,000 to 550,000 individuals/m 2 (Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009). Nematodes, nauplii, and harpacticoid copepods were the three dominant meiofauna l groups, accounting fo r about 90% of total abundance.

The benthic macroinfauna is characterized by small mean individual sizes and low densities, both of which reflect the meager primary production in Gulf of Mexico surface waters (Wei, 2006). Densities decrease exponentially with water dep th. Based on an equation presented by Wei (2006), macroinfaunal densities in the water depths of the lease area are expected to be about 2 ,800 individuals/m 2 or lower than the numbers for the closest locations
listed in Table 4

.
Polychaetes are typically the most abundant macroinfaunal group on the northern Gulf of

Mexico continental slope, followed by amphipods, tanaids, bivalves, and isopods. Wei (2006) recognized four depth

- dependent faunal zones (1 through 4), two of which are divided
ho r izontally. The lease area is in Zone 2E . This zone, with stations in water depths of

625 to 1,828 m ( 2,051 to 5,997 ft)

, had the polychaetes Litocorsa antennata, Aricidea suecica, Tharyx marioni and Paralacydonia paradoxa; and the bivalve Heterodonta sp. D as the mos t
abundant taxa.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 24 Megafaunal densities from nearby S tation C7 was 1 ,022 individuals/ha ( Table 4 ). Densities of

2 00 to 3,0 00 individuals/ha were reported from other stations located at a depth range similar

to that of the lease area. Common megafauna inclu ded motile groups such as decapods, ophiuroids, ho lothurians, and demersal fishes, as well as sessile groups such as sponges and

anemones.

Bacteria also are an important component in terms of biomass and cycling of organic carbon (Cruz

- Kaegi, 1998). Bacte rial biomass at the depth range of the proposed project area typically
is about 1 to 2 g C/m 2 in the top 15 cm of sediments (Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009).

The only IPFs affecting benthic communities from this project are the physical disturbance to the
seaflo or as the pipeline is placed and a large oil spill (WCD) resulting from a well blowout at the
seafloor. Effluent discharges at the surface and a small fuel spill would not affect benthic
communities because both would float and dissipate on the sea surfac e.



### Impacts of Physical Disturbance to the Seafloor

T he areal extent of impacts from the DP lay barge will be small compared to the size of the lease area itself, and such s oft bottom communities are ubiquitous along the northern Gulf of Mexico
continental slope (Gallaway, 1988; Gallaway et al., 2003; Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009). Pipe laying
activities will have no significant impact on soft bottom benthic communities in the region

.


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

The most likely effects of a subsea blowou t 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 area are a ssumed to largely be silt and clay ( Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009 ).

Discussions in MMS ( 2007a, 2008) and BOEM (2013) in dicat ed that oil spills would be unlikely to affect benthic communities beyond the immediate vicinity of the wellhead (i.e., due to physical

i mpacts of a blowout) because the oil would rise quickly to the sea surface directly over the spill location. However, during the Macondo spill, subsurface plumes were reported at a water depth of about 1,100 m (3,600 ft), extending at least 22 miles ( 35 km ) from the wellsite and persisting for more than a month (Camilli et al., 2010). The subsurface plumes apparently resulted from the use of dispersants at the wellhead (Joint Analysis Group, 2010c ; Spier et al.,

2013 ). While the behavior and impacts of subsurface plumes are not well known, a subsurface plume could contact the seafloor and affect benthic communities beyond the 300

- m (984

- ft) radius estimated by MMS (2007a, 2008)

, depending on its extent, trajectory, and persistence.
This contact could res ult 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 a ).



### C.2.2 High

- Density Deepwater Benthic Communities

As defined by NTL 200 9- G40, high

- density deepwater benthic communities are f eatures or areas that could support chemosynthetic communities, deepwater corals

, and other associated hard
bottom communities. Chemosynthetic communities were discovered in the central Gulf ofGreen Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 25 Mexico in 1984 and have been studied extensively (MacDonald, 2002). Deepwater coral communities are also known from numerous locations in the Gulf of Mexico (Brooke and Schroeder, 2007; CSA International, Inc., 2007). These communities occur almost exclusively on authigenic carbonates created by chemosynthetic communities.

The nearest known chemosynthetic community is located in GC 293 , approximately 23 miles ( 36 km) northwest of the lease area. The nearest dee pwater coral community is in GC 600
located 18 mil es ( 3 0 km) west of the lease area.

There are no features or areas that could support significant deepwater benthic communities within a 2,000

- ft radius around the proposed project area. Therefore, the potential for high

- density chemosynthetic communities within 2,000 ft of the proposed location s is
considered negligible ( Fugro, 201 4).

IPFs potentially affecting high

- density deepwater benthic communities include physical
disturbance of the seafloor and a large oil spill (WCD) from a well blowout at the seaf loor.

A small fuel spill would not affect benthic communities because the diesel fuel would float and dissipate on the sea surface.



### Impacts of Physical Disturbance to the Seafloor

T he areal extent of impacts from the pipeline will be small, and NTL 2009 -G 40 requires that high

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

- density chemosynthetic communities or deepwater corals communities be avoided

. Based on the Fugro (2014) report, there will be no impacts on chemosyn thetic or deepwater coral communities from this project

.


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

Previous analyses (MMS, 2007a, 2008; BOEM, 2012d ) concluded that oil spills would be unlikely to affect benthic communities beyond the immediate vicinity of the wel lhead (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), ext ending at least 22 miles ( 35 km ) from the wellsite and persisting for more than a month (Camilli et al., 2010). The subsurface plumes apparently resulted from the use of dispersants at the wellhead (Joint Analysis Group, 2010c). While the behavior and impacts of subsurface plumes are not well known, a subsurface plume could have the potential to contact high

- density deepwater benthic communities beyond the 300

- m (984

- ft) radius estimated by MMS (2007a, 2008)

, depending on its extent, trajectory, and persi stence. Oil plumes that contact sensitive benthic communities before degrading could potentially impact the resource (BOEM, 2012b). Potential impacts on sensitive resources would be an integral part of the decision and approval process for the use of dis persants , and such approval would be obtained from the USEPA prior to the use of dispersants

.
The biological effects and expected fate of the oil remaining in the Gulf of Mexico from the blowout are still unknown due to the depth and magnitude of this even t. Hazen et al. (2010) reported changes in plume hydrocarbon composition with distance from the source . I ncubation experiments with environmental isolates demonstrated faster than expected hydrocarbon biodegradation rates at 5°C. Based on these results, Hazen et al. (2010) suggested the potentialGreen Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 26 exists for intrinsic bioremediation of the oil plume in the deepwater column without substantial oxygen drawdown.

Potential impacts of oil on high

- density deepwater benthic communities are discussed in

MMS (2007 b). Although chemosynthetic communities live among hydrocarbon seeps, natural seepage is very constant and occurs at low rates compared to the potential rates of oil release from a blowout. In addition, seep organisms also require unrestricted access to oxygenated water at the same time as exposure to hydrocarbon energy sources (MacDonald, 2002). Oil droplets or oiled sediment particles could come into contact with chemosynthetic organisms or deepwater corals. As discussed by MMS (2007b), impacts could include loss of habitat, biodiversity, and live coral coverage; destruction of hard substrate; change in sediment characteristics; and reduction or loss of one or more commercial and recreational fishery habitats. Sublethal effects could be long

- lasting and affect the resilience of coral colonies to natural disturbances (e.g., elevated water temperature and diseases) (BOEM

, 2012d)

.
The potential for a spill to affect deepwater corals is indicated by preliminary findings from a n October 2010 survey of deepw ater coral habitats near the Macondo spill site (BOEMRE, 2010). Government and academic researchers were working at a site 1,400 m (4,600 ft) deep and approximately 7 miles (11 km) southwest of the Macondo wellhead when they observed dead and dying corals with sloughing tissue and discoloration. Much of the soft coral observed in an area measuring about 15 x 40 m (50 x 130 ft) was covered by what appeared to be a brown
flocculent substance (floc) . Out of 40 large corals, 90% were heavily affected and sho wed dead and dying parts and discoloration. Another site 400 m (1,312 ft) farther away had a colony of stony corals similarly affected and partially covered with a similar brown substance. B ased on hopanoid petroleum biomarkers from the floc, researchers concluded that it contained oil from the Macondo spill. The injured and dead corals were in an area where a subsea plume of oil had been documented during the spill in June 2010; corals elsewhere in the GOM outside the area affected by the plume did not appear to be experiencing higher mortality. The research team concluded that the observed coral injuries likely resulted from exposure to the subsurface oil plume (White et al.

, 2012). The study location is about 140 miles ( 225 km ) south west of the

activ ities discussed in this EIA.



### C.2.3 Designated Topographic Features

The block is not within or near a designated topographic feature or a no

- activity zone as
identified in NTL 2009

- G39. The nearest designated topographic feature is Diaphus Bank

52 miles ( 84 km) north

- northwest of the lease area in South Timbalier (ST) Block 317

.
There are no IPFs associated with either routine operations or accidents that could cause impacts to designated topographic features due to the distance from the lease area. A smal l fuel spill would float and dissipate on the surface and would not reach these seafloor features.

In the event of an oil spill from a well blowout, a surface slick would not contact these seafloor features. If a subsurface plume were to occur, impacts on these features would be unlikely due to the distance and the difference in water depth

. Near

- bottom currents in the region are predicted to flow along the isobaths (Nowlin et al., 2001) and typically would not carry a plume

up onto the continental shelf edge

.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 27 

### C.2.4 Pinnacle Trend Area Live Bottoms

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

NTL 2009

- G39, the nearest pinn acle trend is area is in Main Pass (MP) Block 290, which lies

168 miles ( 270 km) northe ast of the lease area.

There are no IPFs associated with either routine operations or accidents that could cause impacts to pinnacle trend area live bottoms due to the distance from the lease area. A small fuel spill would float on the surface and would n ot reach these seafloor features.

In the event of an oil spill from a well blowout, a surface slick would not contact these seafloor features. If a subsurface plume were to occur, impacts on these features would be unlikely due to the distance and the difference in water depth

. Near

- bottom currents in the region are predicted to flow along the isobaths (Nowlin et al., 2001) and typically would not carry a plume

up onto the continental shelf edge

.



### C.2.5 Eastern Gulf Live Bottoms

The lease area is not covered by the Live Bottom (Low

- Relief) Stipulation, which applies to Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area leases in water depths of 100 m (328 ft) or less. The nearest block covered by the live bottom stipulation, as defined by NTL 2009

- G39, is

Destin Dome (D D) Block 573, approximately 205 miles ( 330 km) northeast of the lease area.

There are no IPFs associated with either routine operations or accidents that could cause impacts to live bottom areas due to the distance from the lease area. A small fuel spill would float and dissipate on the surface and would not reach these seafloor features.

In the event of an oil spill from a well blowout, a surface slick would not contact these seafloor features. If a subsurface plume were to occur, impacts on these featur es 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 Threaten ed, Endangered, and Protected Species and Critical Habitat

This section discusses species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act ( ESA ) . In addition, it includes all marine mammal species in the region, which are protected
unde r the Marine Mammal Protection Act ( MMPA ).Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 28 Endangered or threatened species that may occur in the project area and/or along the northern
Gulf C oast are listed in Table 5 . The table also indicates the location of critical habitat (if designated in the Gulf of Mexico). Critical habitat is defined as (1) specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, if they contain physical or biological features essential to conservation, and those features may require special

m anagement considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species if the agency determines that the area itself is essential for

conservation. The National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS ) has jurisdiction for ESA

- listed cetaceans, sea turtles, and fishes in the Gulf of Mexico. The USFWS has jurisdiction for

ESA

- listed birds and the West Indian m anatee.

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
Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus E X a

-- None Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus E X a

-- N one 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 Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus E X

-- None West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus latir ostris E

-- X Florida (Peninsular)
Sea Turtles
Green turtle Chelonia mydas T, E b X X None Hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata E X X None Kemp ’ s ridley turtle Lepidochelys kempii E X X None Leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea E X X None Logger head turtle Caretta caretta T X X None Birds

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus T

-- X Coastal Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida (Panhandle)

Whooping Crane Grus Americana E

-- X Coastal Texas (Aransas National Wildlife Refuge )
Fishes

G ulf sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi T

-- X Coastal Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida (Panhandle)

Smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata E

-- X Southwest Florida and the Florida Keys
Invertebrates
Elkhorn coral Acropora palmate E

-- X Flow er Garden Banks
Terrestrial Mammals

Beach m ous e (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.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 29 As mandated by the ESA, BOEMRE consulted NMFS and the USFWS on possible and potential impacts from the proposed leasing in the Gulf of Mexico on endangered/threatened species and their designated critical habitat (MMS

, 2007a

, b)

. A B iological A ssessment was prepared for ea ch consultation. The formal ESA consultation with NMFS was concluded with receipt of the Biological Opinion on 3 July 2007 (NMFS, 2007). The Biological Opinion concludes that the proposed lease sales and associated activities in the Five

- Year Leasing Pla n for Western and Central Planning Areas 2007

- 2012 are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened and endangered species under NMFS jurisdiction or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. The informal ESA consultation with USFWS was concluded with a
letter dated 14 September 2007. The USFWS concurred with MMS’s determination that proposed actions of the current Five

- Year Leasing Plan were not likely to adversely affect threatened/endangered species or designated critic al 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 r esponded with a letter to BOEM RE 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 2b). The existing con sultation recognizes that BOEM

- required mitigations and other reasonable and pru dent measures should reduce the likelihood of impacts from all

BOEM

- authorized activities in the Gulf of Mexico.

Coastal endangered or threatened species that may occur along the northern Gulf Coast include
the West Indian manatee, Piping Plover, Whooping Crane, Gulf sturgeon, and four subspecies of
beach 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 species (Bald Eagle and Brown Pelican) are discussed in the MMS (2007b) and BOEM (2012b) are no longer listed as endangered or threatened . T hese are discussed in
Section C.4.2

, Shorebirds and Coastal Nesting Birds

.
There are five sea turtle and six marine mammal species known to occur within OCS and slope

wat ers of the Gulf of Mexico that are currently listed as endangered and threatened by the ESA.
The listed sea turtles include the l eatherback turtle , Kemp's ridley turtle , hawksbill turtle, loggerhead turtle, and green turtle. Listed marine mammal species include one odontocetes ( sperm whale) and five mysticetes (blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, North Atlantic right whale, and sei whale) ( Pritchard, 1997; Würsig et al., 2000 ). No critical habitat has been designated for these species in the Gulf of M exico.

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

The five endangered mysticete s listed previously also have been reported to occur in the Gulf of Mexico but are considered rare or extralimital there (Würsig et al., 2000). No critical habitat has been designated for these species in the Gulf of Mexico.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 30 

### C.3.1 Sperm Whale (Endangered)

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

. Resident populations of s perm whales occur within the
Gulf of Mexico ; a species description is presented MMS ( 2007b). Gulf of Mexico sperm whales are classified as an endangered species and a “strategic stock” (defined as a stock that may have
unsustainable human

- caused impacts) by NOAA Fisheries (Waring et al., 20 13 ). No critical
habitat for the sperm whale has been designated in the Gulf of Mexico.

In 2013, the NMFS conducted a status review to consider designating the Gulf of Mexico population of the sperm whale as a Distinct Population Segment (DPS) under the ESA. The designation would list the Gulf of Mexico population as a separate endangered or threatened population that is “significant to the species and faces additional unique threats to its survival.”

On 13 November 2013, NMFS concluded that the designation of a Gulf of Mexico DPS for sperm whales is not warranted (78 FR 68032).

The distribution of sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico is correlated with mesoscale physical features such as eddies associated with the Loop Current (Jochens et al., 2008). Sperm whale populations in the north

- central Gulf of Mexico are presen t there throughout the year (Davis et al., 2000). Results of a multi

- year tracking study show female sperm whales typically concentrated along the upper continental slope between the 200 - and 1,000

- m (656 - and 3,280

- ft) depth contours ( Jochens et al., 200 8 ). 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) consis ted of mixed

- sex groups comprising adult females and immatures, and groups of bachelor males. Typical group size for mixed gro ups was 10 individuals (Jochens et al., 2008). SWSS results show that sperm whales transit through the vicinity of the
lease are a. 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) (Jochens et al., 2008).

IPFs potentially affecting sperm whales include DP lay barge presence, noise, and lights; support vessel and helicopter traffic; and two types of accidents – a small fuel spill and a large oil spill (WCD). Effluent discharges are likely to have negligible impacts on sperm whales due to rapid dispersion, the small area of ocean affected, the intermittent nature of the discharges, and the mobility of these marine mammals. Compliance with NTL 2012

- BSEE

- G01 will minimize the potential for marine debris

- related impacts on sperm whales

.

C urre nt 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 ecosy stem change, and cable laying.

In the Gulf of Mexico , the impacts from many of these threats are identified as either low or
unknown (BOEM RE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012 b).Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 31 

### Impacts of DP Lay Barge Presence, Noise, and Lights

Noise from routine DP lay barge activiti es has the potential to disturb sperm whales. Sperm whales appear to have good low

- frequency hearing, but the available data do not indicate a consistent response to anthropogenic noise (Jochens et al., 2008). Noise intensity associated
with pipeline ins tallation is relatively weak, and the noise exposure of an individual animal
would be transient. There are other OCS facilities and activities near the lease area

, and the region as a whole has a large number of similar noise sources. Due to the limited scope and
short duration of the project, it would represent a small temporary contribution to the overall noise regime.

NMFS analyzed the potential for impacts of drilling

- related noise on sperm whales in its Biological Opinion for the Gulf of Mexico Oil a nd Gas Activities: Five

- Year Leasing Plan for Western and Central Planning Areas 2007

- 2012 (NMFS, 2007)

. The analysis noted that semisubmersible drilling rigs emit low sound source levels and concluded that drilling is not expected to produce amplitudes s ufficient to cause hearing or behavioral effects in sperm whales; therefore, these effects are insignificant (NMFS, 2007).

DP lay barge lighting and vessel presence are not identified as IPFs for sperm whales (MMS, 2007b; BOEM, 2012a,b ,d , 2013 ; NMFS

, 2007)

.


### Impacts of Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

Support vessel traffic has the potential to disturb sperm whales

, and there is also a risk of vessel strikes, which are identified as a threat in the recovery plan for this species (NMFS, 2010a ). Data

con cerning the frequency of vessel strikes are presented in MMS ( 2007b). To reduce the potential for vessel strikes, BSEE and BOEM issued NTL 2012

- JOINT

- G01 , which recommends protected species identification training and that vessel operators and crews maintain a vigilant watch for marine mammals and slow down or stop their vessel to avoid striking protected species, and requires operators to report sightings of any injured or dead protected species. When whales are sighted, vessel operators and crews are re quired to attempt to maintain a
distance of 91 m (300 ft) or greater whenever possible. Vessel operators are required to reduce vessel speed to 10 knots or less , when safety permits, when mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are obse rved near an underway vessel. Compliance with this NTL will minimize the likelihood of vessel strikes as well as reduce the chance for disturbing sperm
whales.

NMFS (2007) analyzed the potential for vessel strikes and harassment of sperm whales . With imp lementation of the mitigation measures in NTL 2012

- JOINT

- G01 , NMFS concluded that the likelihood of collisions between vessels and sperm whales would be reduced to insignificant levels. NMFS concluded that the observed avoidance of passing vessels by sper m whales is an advantageous response to avoid a potential threat and is not expected to result in any significant effect on migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering to individuals, or have any consequences at the population level

. W ith implementation of the vessel strike avoidance measures requirement to maintain a distance of 9 1 m ( 300 ft) from sperm whales, the NMFS concluded that the potential for harassment of sperm whales would be reduced to
discountable levels.

Helicopter traffic also has the potential to disturb sperm whales. Smultea et al. (2008) documented responses of sperm whales offshore Hawaii to fixed wing aircraft flying at anGreen Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 32 altitude of 245 m (800 ft). A reaction to the initial pass of the aircraft was observed duri ng 3 (12%) of 24 sightings. All three reactions consisted of a hasty dive and occurred at less than

360 m (1,180 ft) lateral distance from the aircraft. Additional reactions were seen when aircraft
circled certain whales to make further observations. Ba sed 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 , h elicopters 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., 200 8), the NMFS (2007) and BOEM (2012d) concluded that this altitude would minimize the potential for disturbing sperm whales. Therefore, no significant impacts are expected

.


### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

Potential spill impacts on marine mammals including s perm whales are discussed in MMS ( 2007b ), ( NMFS

, 2007)

, and BOEM (2012a,b,d, 2013)

. Oil impacts on marine mammals are discussed by Geraci and St. Aubin (1990). For this SDOCD , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to spill impacts on thes e 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
Anada rko ’s OSRP will mitigate and lessen the potential for impacts on sperm whales. Given the open ocean location of the lease area, the duration of a small spill and opportunity for impacts to occur would be very brief.

A small fuel spill in offshore waters would produce a slick on the water surface and increase the concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and their degradation products. The extent and persistence of impacts would depend on the meteorological and oceanographic conditions at
the time and the e ffectiveness of spill response measures. Section A.9.2 discusses the likely fate of a small fuel spill and indicates that over 90% would be evaporated or dispersed naturally
within 24 hours. The sea surface area with diesel fuel on it would range from 0. 5 to 5 ha (1.2 to

12 ac)

, depending on sea state and weather conditions.

Direct physical and physiological effects of exposure to diesel fuel could include skin irritation, inflammation, or necrosis; chemical burns of skin, eyes, and mucous membranes; inha lation of toxic fumes; ingestion of oil directly or via contaminated prey; and stress from the activities and noise of response vessels and aircraft (Marine Mammal Commission [ MMC ] , 2011 ). However,
due to the limited areal extent and short duration of wat er quality impacts from a small fuel spill, as well as the mobility of sperm whales, no significant impacts would be expected.



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

Potential spill impacts on marine mammals including sperm whales are discussed in MMS ( 2007b ), NMFS (2007)

, and BOEM (2012a,b,d, 2013 )

. For this SDOCD , there are no unique

site

- specific issues with respect to spill impacts on these animals.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 33 Impacts of oil spills on sperm whales can include direct impacts from oil exposure, as well as indirect impa cts 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. The level of impact of oil exposure depends on the amount, frequency, and duration of exposure; route of exposure; and type or condition of petroleum compounds or chemical dispersants (Waring et al., 2013). Complications of the above may lead to dysfunction of immune and reproductive systems, physiological stress, declining physical con dition, and death. Behavioral responses can include displacement of animals from prime habitat

, disruption of social structure

, changing prey availability and foraging distribution and/or patterns

, changing reproductive behavior/productivity, and changing movement patt erns or migration (MMC, 2011 ). Ackleh et al. (2012) hypothesized that sperm whales may have temporarily relocated away from areas near the Macondo spill in 2010.

In the event of a large spill, the level of vessel and aircraft activity associated with spill response could disturb sperm whales and potentially result in vessel strikes, entanglement, or other injury or stress. Response vessels would operate in accordance with NTL 2012

- JOINT

- G01 to reduce the potential for striking or disturbing these animals.



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

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 i n the warmer months (Wilson, 2003). A species description is presented in MMS ( 2007b) , BOEM (2013), and in the recovery plan for this species (USFWS, 2001).

IPFs potentially affecting manatees include support vessel and helicopter traffic and a large oil spill (WCD). A small fuel spill in the lease area would be unlikely to affect manatees, as the lease area is approximately 113 miles ( 183 km) from the nearest shoreline (Louisiana). As explained in

Section A.9.2 , a small fuel spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up

. Compliance with NTL 2012

- BSEE -G01 will minimize the potential for
marine debris

- related impacts on manatees.



### Impacts of Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

Support vessel traffic has the pot ential to disturb manatees

, and there is also a risk of vessel strikes, which are identified as a threat in the recovery plan for this species (USFWS, 2001).

To reduce the potential for vessel strikes, BSEE and BOEM issued NTL 2012

- JOINT

- G01 , which

recomm ends 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 injure d or dead protected species. Compliance with NTL 2012

- JOINT -G01 will minimize the likelihood of vessel strikes, and no significant impacts on manatees are expected.

Helicopter traffic also has the potential to disturb manatees. Rathbun (1988) reported th at 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) w hile in transit offshore,

305 m (1,000 ft) over unpopulated areas or across coastlines, and 610 m (2,000 ft) overGreen Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 34 populated areas and sensitive habitats such as wildlife refuges and park properties. In addition, guidelines and regulations specify that hel icopters 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 (W CD)

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 an d physiological effects can include skin irritation, inflammation, or necrosis; chemical burns of skin, eyes, and mucous membranes; inhalation of toxic fumes; ingestion of oil (and dispersants) directly or via contaminated vegetation; and stress from the a ctivities 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 a nimals from prime habitat

, disruption of social structure

, changing prey availability and foraging distribution or patterns

, changing reproductive behavior/productivity, and changing movement patterns or migration (MMC, 2011 ).

In the event that a large spi ll reached coastal waters where manatees were present , the level of vessel and aircraft activity associated with spill response could disturb manatees and potentially result in vessel strikes, entanglement, or other injury or stress. Response vessels woul d operate
in accordance with NTL 2012

- JOINT

- G01 to reduce the potential for striking or disturbing these
animals , and therefore no significant impacts are expected

.



### C.3.3 Endangered Mysticete Whales

Five endangered mysticete whales (blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, North Atlantic right whale, and sei whale) also have been reported from the Gulf of Mexico but are considered rare or extralimital there (Würsig et al., 2000). No critical habitat has been designated for these species in the Gulf of Mexico

.

Due to the rare occurrence of these whales in the Gulf of Mexico and the limited sco pe and duration of the project, it is highly unlikely that any endangered mysticete would come into contact with any project activities, either routine operations or acci dents

. NMFS did not include any of these mysticete whales as affected species in its Biological Opinion (NMFS, 2007)

. Potential impacts are analyzed in MMS ( 2007b ) and BOEM (2012a,b,d, 2013 ), and those analyses are incorporated by reference

. If any of t hese 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 additi onal species of marine mammals that may be found in the Gulf of Mexico. This includes two mysticete whales, the dwarf and pygmy sperm whales, four species of beaked whales, and

14 species of delphinids . All marine mammals are protected species under the MMPA. The

most common non

- endangered cetaceans in the deepwater environment are odontocetes such as the pantropical spotted dolphin, spinner dolphin, and C lymene dolphin. A brief summary is presented in the following subsections, and a dditional informati on on these groups is presented

in MMS ( 2007b) and BOEM (2012a,b,d, 2013)

.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 35 Mysticete 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 t he

100

- m (328

- ft) isobath (Davis and Fargion, 1996; Davis et al., 2000). Most sightings have been made in the DeSoto Canyon region and off western Florida, although there have been some in
the west

- central portion of the northeastern Gulf. The minke whale ( Balaenoptera

acutorostrata ) is considered rare in the Gulf of Mexico, with the only confirmed records coming from strandings (Würsig et al., 2000). Based on the available data, it is possible that Bryde’s
whales could occur in the lease area.

Dwarf and pygmy sperm whales

. At sea, it is difficult to differentiate dwarf sperm whales ( Kogia sima ) from pygmy sperm whales ( Kogia breviceps ), and sightings are often grouped together as Kogia spp. Both species have a worldwide distribution in temperate to tro pical waters. In the Gulf of Mexico, both species occur primarily along the continental shelf edge and in deeper waters off the continental shelf (Mullin et al., 1991; Waring et al., 2013 ). Either species could occur in the lease area.

Beaked whales . Fo ur species of beaked whales are known to occur in the Gulf of Mexico : Blainville’s beaked whale ( Mesoplodon densirostris ), Cuvier’s beaked whale ( Ziphius cavirostris ), Sowerby’s beaked whale ( Mesoplodon bidens ), and Gervais’ beaked whale ( Mesoplodon

europaeus ). Stranding records in the Gulf of Mexico suggest that Gervais’ beaked whale is the most common and Sowerby’s is extralimital. Due to the difficulties of at

- sea identification,
beaked whales in the Gulf of Mexico are identified either as Cuvier’s beaked whales or are grouped into an undifferentiated complex ( Mesoplodon spp. and Ziphius spp.). In the northern Gulf of Mexico, they are broadly distributed in water depths greater than 1,000 m (3,281 ft) over lower slope and abyssal landscapes (Davis et al., 2000). Any of these species could occur in the
lease area (Waring et al., 2013)

.

D elphinids . Fourteen species of delphinids are known from the Gulf of Mexico, including Atlantic spotted dolphin ( Stenella frontalis ), bottlenose dolphin ( Tursiops trun catus ), C lymene 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 C lymene dolphin.

Bottlenose dolphins

. The bottlenose dolphin ( Tursiops trunca tus ) is a common inhabitant of the northern Gulf of Mexico, particularly within continental shelf waters. There are two ecotypes of bottlenose dolphins, a coastal form and an offshore form, which are genetically isolated from each other ( Waring et al., 20 13 ). The offshore form of the bottlenose dolphin may occur within
the lease area. Inshore populations of coastal b ottlenose dolphins in the northern Gulf of

Mexico are separated into 37 geographically distinct population units, or stocks, for
management purposes by NMFS (Waring et al.

, 201 3) . NMFS has classified the Gulf of Mexico Northern Coastal Stock, Western Coastal Stock, and all 32 of the Bay, Sound, and Estuarine Stocks as strategic stocks (Waring et al., 2013). A “strategic ” stock is defined by the MMPA as a
marine mammal stockGreen Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 36 1. for which the level of direct human

- caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level;

2. which, based on the best available scientific information, is declining and is likely to be listed as a threatened specie s under the ESA within the foreseeable future; or

3. which is listed as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA, or is designated as depleted under the MMPA.

The strategic stock designation in this case was based primarily on the occurrence of an
“un usual mortality event” of unprecedented size and duration that has affected these stock areas. This unusual mortality event began in February 2010 and, as of late 2013, the event was still considered to be ongoing (Waring et al., 2013). Carmichael et al. (2012) hypothesized that the unusual number of bottlenose dolphin strandings in the northern Gulf of Mexico during this time may have been associated with environmental perturbations including sustained cold weather and the Macondo spill in 2010 as well as large volumes of cold freshwater discharge in the early months of 2011.

IPFs potentially affecting non

- endangered marine mammals include DP lay barge presence, noise, and lights; support vessel and helicopter traffic; and two types of accidents - a small fuel spill and a large oil spill ( WCD ) . Effluent discharges are likely to have negligible impacts on marine mammals due to rapid dispersion, the small area of ocean affected, the intermittent nature of the discharges, and the mobility of marine mammals. Compliance with NTL

2012

- BSEE

- G01 will minimize the potential for marine debris

- related impacts on marine
mammals.



### Impacts of DP Lay Barge Presence, Noise, and Lights

Noise from routine DP lay barge activities has the potential to disturb marine mammals. Most odontocetes (toothed whales and dolphins) use higher frequency sounds than those produced by OCS activities (Richardson et al., 1995). Noise intensity associated with pipeline laying is relatively weak, and the noise exposure of an individual animal would be transient. There are
other OCS facilities and activities near the lease area

, and the region as a whole has a large number of similar sources. Due to the limited scope and short duration of pipeline laying

activities , this project would represe nt a small temporary contribution to the overall noise regime

, and any short

- term impacts are not expected to be biologically significant to marine mammal populations.

DP lay barge lighting and vessel presence are not identified as IPFs for marine mammals in MMS ( 2007b, 2008 ), BOEMRE ( 2011a ), and BOEM ( 2012a,b,d).



### Impacts of Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

Support vessel traffic has the potential to disturb marine mammals

, and there is also a risk of
vessel strikes. Data concerning the frequency of v essel strikes are presented in MMS ( 2007b). To reduce the potential for vessel strikes, BSEE and BOEM issued NTL 2012

- JOINT

- G01 , which recommends protected species identification training and that vessel operators and crews maintain a vigilant watch for m arine 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 (3 00 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 toGreen Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 37 remain parallel to the animal’s course and avoid excessive speed or abrupt changes in direction until the cetacean has left the area. Vessel operators are required to reduce vessel speed to

10 knots or less when mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are observed near an underway vessel

, when safety permits. Compli ance 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 ür sig et al., 1998). However, while flying offshore, helicopters maintain altitudes above 213 m (700 ft) during transit to and from the working area. In addition, guidelines and regulations specify that helicopters maintain an altitude of 305 m (1,000 ft) within 91 m (300 ft) of marine mammals (BOEM, 2012a,d). Maintaining this altitude will minimize the potential for disturbing marine mammals , and no significant impacts are expected ( BOEM, 2012a,d ).



### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

Potential spill impacts on marine mammals are discussed in MMS ( 2007b ) and BOEM (2012a,b,

2013 ). O il impacts on marine mammals in general are discussed by Geraci and St. Aubin (1990).
For this DOCD , there are no unique site

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

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Anadarko ’s preventative measures , including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Anadarko ’s OSRP is expected to
lessen the potential for impacts on marine mammals. S upplemental DOCD Section I provides
detail on spill response measures, along with a summary of those measures in this EIA

. Given the open ocean location of the lease area, the limited duration of a small spill and response efforts, it is expected that an y impacts would be brief and minimal

.
A small fuel spill in offshore waters would produce a slick on the water surface and increase the concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and their degradation products. The extent and persistence of impacts would depend on the meteorological and oceanographic conditions at the time and the effectiveness of spill response measures. Section A.9.2 discusses the likely fate of a small fuel spill and indicates that over 90% would be evaporated or dispersed naturally
with in 24 hours. The sea surface area with diesel fuel on it would range from 0.5 to 5 ha (1.2 to

12 ac)

, depending on sea state and weather conditions.

Direct physical and physiological effects of exposure to diesel fuel could include skin irritation,
inflam mation, or necrosis; chemical burns of skin, eyes, and mucous membranes; inhalation of toxic fumes; ingestion of oil directly or via contaminated prey; and stress from the activities and noise of response vessels and aircraft (MMC, 2011 ). However, due to the limited areal extent and short duration of water quality impacts from a small fuel spill, as well as the mobility of marine mammals, no significant impacts would be expected.



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

Potential spill impacts on marine mammals are discussed in MMS ( 2007b ) and BOEM (2012a,b,

2013 ). For this SDOCD , there are no unique site

- specific issues

. Impacts of oil spills on marine mammals can include direct impacts from oil exposure, as well as indirect impacts due to response activities and materials (e.g., vessel traffic, no ise, and dispersants) (MMC, 2011 ). Direct physical and physiological effects can include skin irritation, inflammation, or necrosis;Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 38 chemical burns of skin, eyes, and mucous membranes; inhalation of toxic fumes; inge stion of oil (and dispersants) directly or via contaminated prey (or contaminated vegetation, in the case of manatees); and stress from the activities and noise of response vessels and aircraft. Complications of the above may lead to dysfunction of immune and reproductive systems, physiological stress, declining physical condition, and death. Behavioral responses can include displacement of animals from prime habitat

, disruption of social structure

, changing prey availability and foraging distribution and /or patterns

, changing reproductive behavior/productivity, and changing movement patterns or migration (MMC, 2011 ).

In the event of a large spill, the level of vessel and aircraft activity associated with spill response could disturb marine mammals and pot entially result in vessel strikes, entanglement, or other injury or stress. Response vessels would operate in accordance with NTL 2012

- JOINT -G01 to reduce the potential for striking or disturbing these animals , and therefore no significant impacts are exp ected

.



### C.3. 5 Sea Turtles (Endangered/Threatened)

F ive species of endangered or threatened sea turtles may be found near the lease area. Endangered species are the leatherback ( Dermochelys coriacea ), Kemp's ridley ( Lepidochelys kempii ), and hawksbill ( Eret mochelys imbricata ) turtles. The DPS of loggerhead turtle ( Caretta

caretta ) that occurs in the Gulf of Mexico is listed as threatened, although other DPSs are endangered. In March 2013, the USFWS proposed to designate critical habitat for this DPS
includ ing beaches in Jackson County, Mississippi; Baldwin County, Alabama; and Bay, Gulf, and Franklin Counties in the Florida Panhandle, as well as several counties in southwest Florida and the Florida Keys (78 FR18000). The green turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) is li sted as threatened, except for the Florida breeding population, which is listed as endangered. Species descriptions are presented in BOEM (2012a, 2013).

Leatherbacks and loggerheads are the most likely species to be present near the lease area as adults. Green, hawksbill, and Kemp’s ridley turtles are typically inner shelf and 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.

All five sea turtle species in the Gulf of Mexico are migratory and use different marine habitats according to their life stage. These habitats include high

- energy beaches for nesting fe males and emerging hatchlings and pelagic convergence zones for hatchling and juvenile turtles.

As adults, green, hawksbill, and loggerhead turtles forage primarily in shallow, benthic habitats. Leatherbacks are the most pelagic of the sea turtles, feedi ng primarily on jellyfish.

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

• Loggerhead turtles – Loggerheads nest in significant numbers along the Florida Panhandle (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commissio n, 2013a) and, to a lesser extent, from Texas through Alabama ( NMFS and USFWS, 2008 ). The nearest significant nesting area of loggerhead turtles is found in Louisiana, on beaches within the Breton NWR;

• Green and leatherback turtles – Green and leatherback turtles infrequently nest on Florida Panhandle beaches (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 201 3b,c );

• Kemp’s ridley turtles – The main Kemp’s ridle y nesting site is Rancho Nuevo Beach in Tamaulipas, Mexico (NMFS et al., 2011). Approximatel y 150 Kemp’s ridley turtles nested onGreen Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 39 Texas beaches in 2013 (Sea Turtle Restoration Project, 2013 ). Kemp’s ridley turtles typically do not nest anywhere near the project area, although there have been occasional reports of Kemp’s ridleys nesting in Alabam a (Share the Beach, 2013 ); and

• Hawksbill turtles – Hawksbills typically do not nest anywhere near the project area.

IPFs potentially affecting sea turtles include DP lay barge presence, noise, and lights; support vessel and helicopter traffic; and two type s of accidents – a small fuel spill and a large oil spill ( WCD ) . Effluent discharges are likely to have negligible impacts on sea turtles due to rapid dispersion, the small area of ocean affected, and the intermittent nature of the discharges. Compliance with NTL 2012

- BSEE

- G01 will minimize the potential for marine debris

- related impacts on sea turtles.



### Impacts of DP Lay Barge Presence, Noise, and Lights

Offshore DP lay barge activities produce a broad array of sounds at frequencies and intensities
that m ay be detected by sea turtles (Geraci and St. Aubin, 1987). Potential impacts may include behavioral disruption and temporary or permanent displacement from the area near the sound source. Certain sea turtles, especially loggerheads, may be attracted to offshore structures (Lohoefener et al., 1990) and, thus, may be more susceptible to impacts from sounds produced during routine operations. Helicopters and service vessels may also affect sea turtles due to machinery noise and/or visual disturbances. The most likely impacts would be short

- term behavioral changes such as diving and evasive swimming, disruption of activities, or departure from the area. Due to the limited scope and short duration of DP lay barge activities , these
short

- term impacts are not expected to be biologically significant to sea turtle populations.

Artificial lighting can disrupt the nocturnal orientation of sea turtle hatchlings (Witherington, 1997; Tuxbury and Salmon, 2005). However, hatchlings may rely less on light cues when the y are offshore than when they are emerging on the beach (Salmon and Wyneken, 1990). The NMFS (2007) concluded that the effects of lighting from offshore structures on sea turtles are insignificant.



### Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

Support vessel traf fic has the potential to disturb sea turtles

, and there is also a risk of vessel
strikes. Data show that vessel traffic is one cause of sea turtle mortality in the Gulf of Mexico (Lutcavage et al., 1997). While adult sea turtles are visible at the surfac e during the day and in clear weather, they can be difficult to spot from a moving vessel when resting below the water surface, during nighttime, or during periods of inclement weather. To reduce the potential for vessel strikes, BSEE and BOEM issued NTL 2012

- JOINT -G01 , which recommends protected species identification training and that vessel operators and crews maintain a vigilant watch for sea turtles and slow down or stop their vessel to avoid striking protected species, and requires
operators to repor t sightings of any injured or dead protected species. When sea turtles are sighted, vessel operators and crews are required to attempt to maintain a distance of 45 m (150 ft) or greater whenever possible. Compliance with this NTL will minimize the likeli hood of vessel strikes as well as reduce the chance for disturbing sea turtles (NMFS, 2007).

Helicopter traffic also has the potential to disturb sea turtles. However, while flying offshore, helicopters maintain altitudes above 213 m (700 ft) during transit to and from the working area. This altitude will minimize the potential for disturbing sea turtles, and no significant impacts are expected.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 40 

### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

Potential spill impacts on sea turtles are discussed in MMS ( 2007b ), (NMFS, 2007)

, and BOEM (2012a,b, 2013 ). For this SDOCD , there are no unique site

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

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Anadarko ’s preventative measures during fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Anadarko ’s OSRP is expected to

minimize potential impacts on sea turtles. S upplemental DOCD Section I provides detail on spill

response measures. Given the open ocean location of the lease area, the duration of a sm all 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

p ersistence of impacts would depend on the meteorological and oceanographic conditions at the time and the effectiveness of spill response measures. Section A.9.2 discusses the likely fate of a small fuel spill and indicates that over 90% would be evaporated or dispersed naturally
within 24 hours. The sea surface area with diesel fuel on it would range from 0.5 to 5 ha (1.2 to

12 ac)

, depending on sea state and weather conditions.

Direct physical and physiological effects of exposure to diesel fuel could i nclude skin irritation, inflammation, or necrosis; chemical burns of skin, eyes, and mucous membranes; inhalation of toxic fumes; ingestion of oil directly or via contaminated prey; and stress from the activities and noise of response vessels and aircraft (MMS, 2007b; BOEM, 2012b ,d, 2013 ) . However, due to the limited areal extent and short duration of water quality impacts from a small fuel spill, no significant impacts would be expected.

A small fuel spill in the lease area would be unlikely to affect sea turtle nesting beaches, as the
lease area is 113 miles ( 183 km ) from the nearest shoreline (Louisiana). As explained in

Section A.9.2 , a small fuel spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up

.


### Impacts of a La rge Oil Spill (WCD)

Impacts of oil spills on sea turtles can include direct impacts from oil exposure, as well as indirect impacts due to response activities and materials (e.g., vessel traffic, noise, and dispersants). Direct physical and physiological effects can include skin irritation, inflammation, or necrosis; chemical burns of skin, eyes, and mucous membranes; inhalation of toxic fumes and smoke (e.g., from in situ burning of oil) ; ingestion of oil (and dispersants) directly or via contaminated food; and stress from the activities and noise of response vessels and aircraft. Complications of the above may lead to dysfunction of immune and reproductive systems, physiological stress, declining physical condition, and death. Behavioral responses can in clude displacement of animals from prime habitat

, disruption of social structure

, changing food availability and foraging distribution and/or patterns

, changing reproductive behavior/productivity, and changing movement patterns or migration. In the unlike ly event of a spill, implementation of Anadarko ’s OSRP is expected to minimize the potential for these types
of impacts on sea turtles. S upplemental DOCD Section I provide s detail on spill response

measures.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 41 Studies of oil effects on loggerheads in a controlled setting (Lutcavage et al., 1995) suggest that sea turtles show no avoidance behavior when they encounter an oil slick

, and any sea turtle in an affected area would be expected to be exposed. Sea turtles’ diving behaviors also put them at risk. Sea turtles rapidly inhale a large volume of air before diving and continually resurface
over time , which may result in repeated exposure to volatile vapors and oiling (NMFS, 2007).

Spilled oil reaching sea turtle nesting beaches could have 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 all (e.g., false crawls). Upon hatching and successfully reaching the water, hatchlings are subject to the same types of oil spill e xposure hazards as adults. Hatchlings that contact oil residues while crossing a beach can exhibit a range of effects, from acute toxicity to impaired movement and normal bodily functions (NMFS, 2007).

In the event of a large spill, the level of vessel and aircraft activity associated with spill response could disturb sea turtles and potentially result in vessel strikes, entanglement, or other injury or stress. Response vessels would operate in accordance with NTL 2012

- JOINT

- G01 to reduce the potential for striking or disturbing these animals, and therefore no significant impacts are expected

.
The extent and scope of the Macondo spill represents new information not assessed in the existing ESA Section 7 consultation under the current Five

- Year Program. As a result of this new information, BOEMRE reinitiated ESA Section 7 consultation on the existing Gulf of Mexico lease sale EIS with NMFS and the US FWS on 30 July 2010. NMFS responded with a letter to BOEMRE

on 24 September 2010 , and the USFWS responded wi th 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, 2012b)

. BOEMRE (2011a) and BOEM (2012b) reexamined the impacts analys es 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 spi ll. 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 sea turtles.



### C.3. 6 Piping Plover (Threatened)

The Piping Plover ( Charadrius melodus ) is a migratory shorebird that overwinters along the southe astern U.S. and Gulf of Mexico coasts. This threatened species is in decline as a result of hunting, habitat loss and modification, predation, and disease (USFWS, 2003). Critical overwintering habitat has been designated, including beaches in Texas, Loui siana, 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 (USFW S, 2010a). A species description is presented in
MMS ( 2007b) and BOEM (2013)

. A large oil spill (WCD) is the only IPF potentially affecting Piping Plovers. There are no IPFs associated with routine project activities that could affect these birds. A sma ll fuel spill in the lease area would be unlikely to affect Piping Plovers because a small fuel spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up (see explanation in
Section A.9.2 ).Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 42

Figure 3. Location of selected environmental features in relation to the lease area.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 43 

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

The lease area is 113 miles ( 183 km) from the nearest shoreline that is designed as critical
habitat for Piping Plovers ( Figure 3 ). The revised OSRA results (BOEM RE

, 2011a ; BOEM, 2012 )
summarized in Section A.9.3 ( Table 3 ) predict that during the spring there is a 4% probability that an oil spill from the lease area would reach a shoreline designated as critical habitat for the Piping Plover within 10 days. Plovers c ould 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 th e 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. Impac ts could also occur from vehicular traffic on beaches and other activities associated with spill cleanup. Anadarko has extensive resources available to protect and rehabilitate wildlife in the event of a spill reaching the shoreline, as detailed in the OS RP.



### 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 t he 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 (Who oping Crane Eastern Partnership, 2010).

A nonmigrating population has been reintroduced in central Florida, and another reintroduced population summers in Wisconsin and migrates to the southeastern U.S. for the winter. Whooping Cranes breed, migrate, winter, and forage in a variety of habitats, including coastal marshes and estuaries, inland marshes, lakes, ponds, wet meadows and rivers, and agricultural fields (USFWS, 2007). About 9,000 ha (22,240 ac) of salt flats on Aransas NWR and adjacent islands comprise the principal wintering grounds of the Whooping Crane. Aransas NWR is designated as critical habitat for the species

. A species description is presented in MMS ( 2007b ) and BOEM (2012a, 2013 ).

A large oil spill (WCD) is the only IPF potentially aff ecting Whooping Cranes. A small fuel spill in the lease area would also be unlikely to affect Whooping Cranes, due to the distance from

Aransas NWR. As explained in Section A.9.2 , a small fuel spill would not be expected to make
landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up

. 

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

A large oil spill is unlikely to affect Whooping Cranes as the lease area is approximately

3 83 miles ( 617 km) from its critical habitat designated in the Aransas NWR. T he revised

OSRA modeli ng (BOEM, 201 2b ) 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 1 7% probability of oil reaching that area in 120 days.

In the event of oil exposure, Whooping Cranes could physically oil themselves while foraging in oiled areas or secondarily contaminate themselves through ingestion of contaminated shellfish, frogs, and fishes . It is possible that some Whooping Crane deaths could occur. In the event of a spill

, Anadarko would work with the applicable State and Federal agencies to prevent impacts from a spill

.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 44 

### C.3. 8 Gulf Sturgeon (Threatened)

The Gulf sturgeon ( Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi ) is a threatened fish species that inhabits major rivers and inner shelf waters from the Mississippi River to the Suwannee River, Florida (Barkuloo, 1988; Wakeford, 2001). An anadromous fish that migrates from the sea upstream into coastal rivers to spawn in freshwater, it historically ranged from the Mississippi River to
Char lotte Harbor, Florida (Wakeford, 2001). Today, this range has contracted to encompass major rivers and inner shelf waters from the Mississippi River to the Suwannee River, Florida. Populations have been depleted or even extirpated throughout this range b y fishing, shoreline development, dam construction, water quality changes, and other factors (Barkuloo, 1988; Wakeford, 2001). These declines prompted the listing of the Gulf sturgeon as a threatened species in 1991. The best known populations occur in t he Apalachicola and Suwannee Rivers in Florida (Carr, 1996; Sulak and Clugston, 1998), the Choctawhatchee River in Alabama (Fox et al.

, 2000), and the Pearl River in Mississippi/Louisiana (Morrow et al., 1998). Critical habitat in the Gulf extends from Lake Borgne, Louisiana (St. Bernard Parish) , t o Suwannee Sound, Florida (Levy County) (NMFS, 2010 b) ( Figure 3 )

. A species description is presented in MMS ( 2007b) and in the recovery plan for this species (USFWS et al. , 1995)

.
A large oil spill (WCD) is the only IPF potentially affecting Gulf sturgeon. There are no IPFs associated with routine project activities that could affect these fish. A small fuel spill in the lease area would be unlikely to affect Gulf sturgeon because a small fuel spill would not b e expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up (see explanation in

Section A.9.2 ).



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

Potential spill impacts on Gulf sturgeon are discussed in MMS ( 2007b ), NMFS (2007) , and BOEM (2012a,b, 2013)

. F or this SDOCD , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to this species.

The lease area is approximately 173 miles ( 279 km) from the nearest Gulf sturgeon critical habitat. The revised OSRA modeling (BOEM, 201 2b ) predicts that a spill in the lease area has

1% or less probability of contacting any coastal areas inhabited by Gulf sturgeon within

30 or 120 days.

In the event of oil reaching Gulf sturgeon habitat, the fish could be affected by direct ingestion, ingestion of oiled prey, or the abso rption of dissolved petroleum products through the gills. Based on the life history of this species, subadult and adult Gulf sturgeon would be most vulnerable to an estuarine or marine oil spill, and would be vulnerable only from

1 September through 30 Ap ril when this species 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 ha ve 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

E SA on 1 April 2003. Its critical habitat consists of two units: the Charlotte Harbor Estuary Unit, which comprises approximately 89,621 ha (221,459 ac ) of coastal habitat, and the Ten Thousand Islands/Everglades Unit, which comprises approximately 250,506 ha ( 619,013 ac ) of coastalGreen Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 45 habitat. The two units are located along the southwestern coast of Florida between Charlotte Harbor and Florida Bay.

A large oil spill (WCD) is the only IPF potentially affecting smalltooth sawfish

. There are no IPFs

associate d with routine project activities that could affect these fish. A small fuel spill in the lease area would be unlikely to affect smalltooth sawfish because a small fuel spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up (see Section A.9.2 ).



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

Potential spill impacts on smalltooth sawfish are similar to those discussed for other coastal and estuarine species in MMS ( 2007b ), NMFS (2007 ), and BOEM (2012a, 2013 )

. For this SDOCD

, there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to smalltooth sawfish

.
In the event of oil reaching smalltooth sawfish habitat, the fish could be affected by direct ingestion, ingestion of oiled prey, or the absorption of dissolved petrole um products through the gills.



### C.3. 10 Beach M ous e (Endangered)

Four subspecies of endangered beach m ouse ( Peromyscus polionotus ) occur on the barrier
islands of Alabama and the Florida Panhandle : the Alabama, Choctaw h atchee, Perdido Key, and

St. Andrew beach m ous e. Critical habitat has been designated for all four subspecies ; Figure 3 shows the critical habitat combined for all four subspecies . Species descriptions are provided in MMS (2007b) and BOEM (2013)

.
A large oil spill (WCD) is the only IPF potentially affecting the beach m ous e. There are no IPFs associated with routine project activities that could affect these animals due to the distance from shore and the lack of any onshore support activities near their habitat. A small fuel spill in
the lease area would not aff ect the beach m ous e because a small fuel spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up (see Section A.9.2 ).



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

Potential spill impacts on the beach m ouse are discussed in MMS ( 2007 b, 2008 ), BOEMRE (2011a), and BOEM (2012a, 2013 ) . For this SDOCD , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to these species that were not analyzed in these documents.

The lease area is about 237 miles ( 381 km) southwest from the nearest beach mouse critical
habitat . The revised OSRA modeling summarized in Section A.9.3 predicts that a spill in the lease area has a 1% or less probability of reaching either the Alabama or Florida shorelines inhabited by the beach m ouse within 120 days.

In the e vent of oil contacting these beaches, the beach m ous e could experience several types of direct and indirect impacts. Contact with spilled oil could cause skin and eye irritation and subsequent infection; matting of fur; irritation of sweat glands, ear tis sues, and throat tissues; disruption of sight and hearing; asphyxiation from inhalation of fumes; and toxicity from ingestion of oil and contaminated food. Indirect impacts could include reduction of food supply, destruction of habitat, and fouling of nes ts. Impacts could also occur from vehicular traffic and other activities associated with spill cleanup. However, any such impacts are unlikely due to the distance from shore and response actions that would occur in the event of a spill.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 46 

### C.3.11 Elkhorn Co ral ( Threatened )

Elkhorn coral ( Acropora palmata ) is found primarily in shallow waters with temperatures ranging
between 26°C and 30°C (79 °F and 86°F) and significant water movement. Elkhorn coral was

once one of the most abundant coral species in waters ranging from 1 to 5 m (3.3 to 16 ft) deep in tropical and subtropical waters. In the northern Gulf of Mexico , e lkhorn coral has been found within the coral cap region of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary ( Flower
Garden Banks National Marin e 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 Bank s because of the water depth of the area. A lthough subsurface plumes were reported following the Macondo spill, these plumes resulted from the
use of subsea dispers ant 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 pelagic environment of the project area (Clapp et al., 1982a,b, 1983; Peake, 1996; Hess and Ribic, 2000). Seabirds spend much of their lives offshore over the open ocean, except during breeding season when they nest along the coast. In addition, other birds such as waterfowl, marsh birds, and 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 nesting birds, see Section C.4.2

.
Seabirds of the northern Gulf of Mexico were surveyed from ships during the Gu lfCet II program. Hess and Ribic (2000) reported that terns, storm

- petrels, shearwaters, and jaegers were the most frequently sighted seabirds in the deepwater area. From these surveys, f our ecological categories of seabirds were documented in the deepwa ter areas of the Gulf: summer migrants (shearwaters, storm petrels, boobies); summer residents that breed in the Gulf (Sooty Tern, Least Tern, Sandwich Tern, Magnificent Frigatebird); winter residents (gannets, gulls, jaegers); and permanent resident speci es (Laughing Gulls, Royal Terns, Bridled Terns) (Hess and Ribic, 2000). The GulfCet II study did not estimate bird densities; however, Powers (1987) indicate d that seabird densities over the open ocean typically are <10 birds/km 2

.

The distributions and re lative densities of seabirds within the deepwater areas of the Gulf of Mexico, including the project area, vary temporally (i.e., seasonally) and spatially. In GulfCet II studies, species diversity and densities varied by hydrographic environment and by t he presence and relative location of mesoscale features such as Loop Current eddies that may enhance nutrient levels and productivity of surface waters where these seabird species forage ( Hess and
Ribic

, 2000 ).

Common seabird species include Wilson’s 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 ( Puffinus lherminieri ). Seabirds
are distributed Gulf

- wide and are not specifically associated with the lease area.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 47 Trans

- Gulf migrant birds including shorebirds, wading birds, and terrestrial birds may also be present in the leas e area. Migrant birds may use offshore structures and rigs for resting, feeding, or as temporary shelter from inclement weather (Russell, 2005). Some birds may be attracted to offshore structures because of the lights and the fish populations that aggreg ate
around these structures.

IPFs potentially affecting marine and pelagic birds include DP lay barge presence, noise, and lights; support vessel and helicopter traffic; and two types of accidents – a small fuel spill and a large oil spill ( WCD ) . Effluent discharges are likely to have negligible impacts on the birds due to rapid dispersion, the small area of ocean affected, the intermittent nature of the discharges, and the mobility of these animals. Compliance with NTL 2012

- BSEE

- G01 will minimize the pot ential
for marine debris

- related impacts on birds.



### Impacts of DP Lay Barge 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). Mortality of migrant birds at tall towers and other land

- based structures
has been reviewed extensiv ely, and the mechanisms involved in rig collisions appear to be similar. In some cases, migrants simply do not see a part of the rig until it is too late. In other cases, navigation may be disrupted by noise (Russell, 2005). On the other hand, offshore structures are suitable stopover habitats for most trans

- Gulf migrant species, and most of the migrants that stop over on rigs probably benefit from their stay, particularly in spring (Russell, 2005). Due to the limited scope and short duration of activities described in this

SDOCD , any impacts on populations of either seabirds or trans

- Gulf migrant birds are not expected to be significant.

A recent study in the North Sea indicated that rig lighting causes circling behavior in various birds, especially on cloudy nights; a pparently the birds’ geomagnetic compass is upset by the red part of the spectrum from the lights currently in use (Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij, 2007). The numbers varied greatly, from none at all to some tens of thousands of birds p er night per rig, with an apparent effect radius of up to 3 miles (5 km). A study in the Gulf of Mexico also noted the phenomenon but did not recommend mitigation (Russell, 2005). Factors to consider in evaluating this impact in the Gulf of Mexico would include the lower incidence of cloudy and foggy days in the Gulf of Mexico versus the North Sea. In laboratory experiments,

Poot et al. (2008) found the magnetic compass of migratory birds to be wavelength dependent. Migratory birds require light from th e blue

- green part of the spectrum for magnetic compass orientation, whereas red light (visible long

- wavelength) disrupts their magnetic orientation. They designed a field study to test if and how changing light color influenced migrating birds
under field conditions. During field studies they found that nocturnally migrating birds were disoriented and attracted by red and white light (containing visible long

- wavelength radiation), whereas they were clearly less disoriented by blue and green light (containing less or no visible long

- wavelength radiation) (Poot et al., 2008)

. Due to the limited scope and short duration of activities proposed in this SDOCD

, lighting impacts, collisions

, or other adverse effects are unlikely, and no significant impacts are ex pected.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 48 

### Impacts of Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

Support vessels and helicopters are unlikely to significantly disturb pelagic birds in open offshore waters. It is likely that individual birds would experience, at most, only short

- term behavioral disruption

, and the impact would not be significant.



### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

Potential spill impacts on marine birds are discussed in MMS ( 2007b ) and BOEM (2012a,b,d,

2013 ). F or this SDOCD , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to sp ill impacts on
these animals.

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Anadarko ’s preventative measures during routine operations including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of
Anadarko ’s OSRP will reduce the pote ntial for impacts on marine and pelagic birds.

S upplemental DOCD Section I provides detail on spill response measures. Given the open ocean location of the lease area, the duration of a small spill and opportunity for impacts to occur would be very brief

.
A small fuel spill in offshore waters would produce a slick on the water surface and increase the concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and their degradation products. The extent and persistence of impacts would depend on the meteorological and ocean ographic conditions at the time and the effectiveness of spill response measures. Section A.9.2 discusses the likely fate of a small fuel spill and indicates that over 90% would be evaporated or dispersed naturally
within 24 hours. The sea surface area w ith 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 o f skin, eyes, and mucous membranes; and inhalation of toxic fumes. Due to the limited areal extent and short duration of water quality impacts from a small fuel spill, secondary impacts due to ingestion of oil via contaminated prey or reductions in prey abundance are unlikely. Due to the low densities of birds in open ocean areas, the small area affected, and the brief duration of the surface slick, no significant impacts on pelagic birds would be expected.



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

Potential spi ll impacts on marine and pelagic birds are discussed in MMS ( 2007b ) and BOEM (2012a,b,d, 2013 ) . For this SDOCD , there are no unique site

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

BOEM has reexamined the analys e s for coastal and marin e 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 , 2011a ; 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 frequently sighted seabirds in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico (>200 m). Powers (1987) indicates that seabird densities over the open ocean typically are <1 0 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 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 49 Data following t he Macondo spill provide d relevant information about the species of pelagic
birds that ma y be affected in the event of a large oil spill. Birds that have been treated for oiling include several pelagic species such as the Northern Gannet

, Magnificent Frigatebird, and Masked Booby ( USFWS , 201 1 ). The Northern Gannet is among the species with t he largest numbers of birds affected by the spill.



### C.4.2 Shorebird s and Coastal Nesting Birds

Threatened and endangered bird species (Piping Plover and Whooping Crane) have been discussed previously in Section C.3 . Various species of non

- endangered birds are also found along the northern Gulf C oast, including diving birds, shorebird s, marsh birds, wading birds, and
waterfowl. Gulf Coast marshes and beaches also provide important feeding grounds and nesting habitats. Species that breed on beaches, flats, dunes, bars, barrier islands, and similar habitats include the Sandwich Tern, Brown Pelican, Wilson’s Plover, Black Skimmer, Forster’s Tern, Gull

- billed Tern, Laughing Gull, Least Tern, Royal Tern , and Snowy Plover ( UFSWS , 2010b).
Additional information i s presented in MMS ( 2007b ) and BOEM (2012a, 2013 ).

The Brown Pelican ( Pelecanus occidentalis ) was delisted from Federal endangered status in 2009 (USFWS, 2010c). However, this species remains listed as endangered on the Louisiana list of Endangered Specie s (Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 2013), is listed as a species of greatest conservation need by the State of Mississippi (Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, 20 05 ), and a s a species of special concern by the State of Florida (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 201 3d )

. Brown Pelicans inhabit coastal habitats and forage within both coastal waters and waters of the inner continental shelf. Aerial and shipboard surveys, including GulfCet and GulfCet II, i ndicate 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, generally nesting on protected isl ands (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 southern 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 include support vessel and helicopter traffic and a large oil spill (WCD). A small fuel spill in the lease area would be unlikely to affect shorebirds or coastal nesting birds, as the lease area is 113 miles ( 183 km) from the
nearest shoreline (Louisiana) . As explained in Section A.9.2 , a small fuel spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up. Compliance with

NTL 2012

- BSEE

- G01 will minimize the potential for marine debris

- related impacts on shorebirds.



### Impacts of Support Vessel and Helicopter Tr affic

Support vessels and helicopters will transit coastal areas near 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 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 50 Vessel traffic may disturb some foraging and resting birds. Flushing distances vary between species and between individuals (Rodgers and Schwikert, 2002). The disturb ances will be limited to flushing birds away from vessel pathways; known distances are from 20 to 49 m (65 to 160 ft) for personal watercraft and 23 to 58 m (75 to 190 ft) for an outboard

- powered boat (Rodgers and Schwikert, 2002). Flushing distances may be similar or less for the support vessels to be used for Anadarko’s project, and some species such as gulls are attracted to boats. Support vessels will not approach nesting or breeding areas on the shoreline, so disturbances to nesting birds, eggs, and chicks are not expected. Vessel operators will use designated navigation channels and comply with posted speed and wake restrictions while transiting sensitive inland
waterways. Due to the limited scope and short duration of DP lay barge activities, any
short

- term impacts are not expected to be biologically significant to coastal bird populations.

Aircraft traffic can cause some disturbance to birds onshore and offshore. Responses are highly dependent on the type of aircraft, the bird species, the activi ties 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 disturba nces for some species (Bélanger and Bédard, 1989). However, Federa l Aviation Administration Advisory Circular No. 91

- 36D recommends that pilots maintain a minimum altitude of 610 m (2,000 ft) when flying over

noise

- sensitive areas such as wildlife refuges, parks, and areas with wilderness characteristics. This is greater than the distance (slant range) at which aircraft overflights have been reported to cause behavioral effects on most species of birds studied (Efroymson et al., 2000). With these guidelines in effect, it is likely that individual birds would experience, at most, only short

- term behavioral disruption.



### Impacts of Large Oil Spill (WCD)

Coastal birds can be exposed to oil as they float on the water surface, dive during foraging, or wade in oiled coastal waters. Oiled birds can lose the ability to fly, dive for food, or float on the water, which could lead to drowning (USFWS, 2010 d ). Oil interferes with the water repellency of feathers and can cause hypothermia in the right conditions. As birds groom themselves, they can ingest and inhale the oil on their bodies. Scavengers such as Bald Eagles and gulls can be exposed to oil by feeding on carcasses of contaminated fish and wildlife. While ingestion can kill animals immediately, more often it results in lung, liver, and kidney damage, which can lead to
deat h. Bird eggs may be damaged if an oiled adult sits on the nest.

As noted previously , the Brown Pelican was recently removed from the Federal endangered species list. Brown Pelicans are especially at risk from direct and indirect impacts from spilled oil within inner shelf and inshore waters, such as embayments . The range of this species is generally limited to these waters and surrounding coastal habitats. Brown Pelicans feed on mid

sized fish that they capture by diving from above (“plunge diving”) and then scooping the fish into their expandable gular pouch. This behavior makes them susceptible to plumage oiling if they feed in areas with surface oil or an oil sheen. They may also capture prey that has been physically contaminated with oil or has ing ested oil. Issues for Brown Pelicans include direct contact with oil, disturbance from cleanup activities, and long

- term habitat contamination. The Bald Eagle may also be at risk from direct and indirect impacts from spilled oil. This species often capt ures fish within shallow water areas (snatching prey from the surface or wading into shallow areas to capture prey with their bill) and so may be susceptible to plumage oiling and, as
with the Brown Pelican , they may also capture prey that has been physica lly contaminated with oil or has ingested oil.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 51 

## C.5 Fisheries Resources

C.5.1 Pelagic Communities and Ichthyoplankton

Biggs and Ressler (2000) reviewed the biology of pelagic communities in the deepwater
environment of the northern Gulf of Mexico. The biol ogical oceanography of the region is dominated by the influence of the Loop Current, whose surface waters are among the most oligotrophic in the world’s oceans. Superimposed on this low

- productivity condition are productive " hot spots " associated with entrainment of nutrient

- rich Mississippi River water and mesoscale oceanographic features. Anticyclonic and cyclonic hydrographic features play an important role in determining biogeographic patterns and controlling primary productivity in the
northern Gulf of Mexico (Biggs and Ressler, 2000).

Most fishes inhabiting shelf or oceanic waters of the Gulf of Mexico have planktonic eggs and larvae (Ditty, 1986; Ditty et al., 1988; Richards et al., 1989, 1993). Pelagic eggs and larvae become part of the planktonic community for various lengths of time (10 to 100 days, depending on the species) (MMS, 2007b).

IPFs potentially affecting pelagic communities and ichthyoplankton include DP lay barge presence, noise, and lights; effluent discharges; water intakes; and two types of accidents -

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



### Impacts of DP Lay Barge Presence, Noise, and Lights

The DP lay barge, as a floating structure in the deepwater environment, will act as a
fish

- attracting device (FAD). In oceanic waters , the FAD effect would be most pronounced for epipelagic fishes such as tunas, dolphin, billfishes, and jacks, which are commonly attracted to fixed and drifting surface structures (Holland et al., 1990; Higashi, 1994; Relini et al., 1994 ; MMS, 2000, 2007b , 2008 ). This FAD effect could possibly enhance the feeding of epipelagic predators by attracting and concentrating smaller fish species. Because the DP lay barge is a single, temporary structure, impacts on fish populations, whether beneficial or advers e, 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 mat ter, and chlorine, but should be diluted rapidly to undetectable levels within tens to hundreds of meters from the source. Minimal impacts on water quality, plankton, and nekton are anticipated.

Deck drainage may have a slight effect on the pelagic environment in the immediate vicinity of these discharges. Deck drainage from contaminated areas will be passed through an
oil

- and

- water separator prior to release, and discharges will be monitored for visible sheen. The discharges may have slightly elevated l evels of hydrocarbons but should be diluted rapidly to undetectable levels within tens to hundreds of meters from the source. Minimal impacts on water quality, plankton, and nekton are anticipated.

Other discharges in accordance with the NPDES permit, such as desalination unit brine and uncontaminated cooling water, fire water, and ballast water

, are expected to be diluted rapidly and have little or no impact on water column biota.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 52 

### Impacts of Water Intakes

Seawater will be drawn from the ocean for once

- through, non

- contact cooling of machinery

on the DP lay barge

. The DP lay barge ultimately selected for this project will be in compliance with all applicable cooling water intake regulations. The intake of seawater for cooling water will entrain plankton. The low intake velocity should allow most strong

- swimming juvenile fishes and smaller adults to escape entrainment or impingement. However, drifting plankton would not be able to escape entrainment with the exception of a few fast

- swimming larvae of

cert ain taxonomic groups. Those organisms entrained may be stressed or killed, primarily through changes in water temperature during the route from cooling intake structure to discharge structure and mechanical damage (turbulence in pumps and condensers). Du e to the limited scope and short duration of DP lay barge activities , any short

- term impacts of entrainment are not expected to be biologically significant to plankton or ichthyoplankton populations

.


### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

Potential spill impacts on fisheries resource s are discussed in MMS ( 2007b ) and BOEM (2012a,d,

2013 ). F or this SDOCD , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to spill impacts.

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Anadarko ’s preventative measures durin g routine operations

, including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of
Anadarko ’s OSRP will mitigate the potential for impacts on pelagic communities

, including ichthyoplankton. S upplemental DOCD Section I provides detail on s pill response measures. Given the open ocean location of the lease area, the duration of a small spill and opportunity for impacts to occur would be very brief.

A small fuel spill in offshore waters would produce a slick on the water surface and increase the concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and their degradation products. The extent and persistence of impacts would depend on the meteorological and oceanographic conditions at the time and the effectiveness of spill response measures. Section A.9.2 discusses the likely fate of a small fuel spill and indicates that over 90% would be evaporated or dispersed naturally
within 24 hours. The area of the sea surface with diesel fuel on it would range from 0.5 to 5 ha (1.2 to 12 ac)

, depending on sea state and weather conditions.

A small fuel spill could have localized impacts on phytoplankton, zooplankton, and nekton. Due to the limited areal extent and short duration of water quality impacts, a small fuel spill would be unlikely to produce detectable imp acts on pelagic communities.



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

Potential spill impacts on pelagic communities and ichthyoplankton are discussed in

BOEM ( 2012 a, b ,d, 2013 ). For this SDOCD , there are no unique site

- specific issues.

A large oil spill could a ffect water column biota including phytoplankton, zooplankton, ichthyoplankton, and nekton. A large spill that persisted for weeks or months would be more likely to affect these communities. While adult and juvenile fishes may actively avoid a large spil l, 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 beGreen Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 53 greater if local

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



### C.5.2 Essential Fish Habitat

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined as those waters and substra te 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 i n Fishery Management Plans developed by the regional Fishery Management Councils.

The BOEM (2012b) has reexamined the analysis for fish resources and EFH presented in MMS (2007a,b) in consideration of the Macondo event. No substantial new information was found that would alter the impact conclusions for fish resources and EFH presented in MMS (2007a,b).

The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) has prepared Fishery Management Plans for corals and coral reefs, 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 fishes, and shrimps. EFH for corals and coral reefs includes some shelf

- edge topographic
features on the Texas

- Louisiana OCS, the nearest of which is 48 miles ( 77 km) north of the lease

area

.
Highly migratory pelagic fishes, which occur as transients in the lease area, are the only remaining group for which EFH has been identified in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Species in this group, including tunas, swordfishes, billfishes, and sharks, are managed by NMFS. Highly migratory species with EFH at or near the lease area include th e following species and life stages (NMFS, 2009):

• Atlantic bluefin tuna (spawn, eggs

, larvae , adults )

• Bigeye thresher shark (all)

• Bigeye tuna (juveniles, adults)

• Blue marlin (juveniles, adults)

• Longfin mako shark (all)

• Longbill spearfish (juveniles, adults)

• Oceanic whitetip shark (all) • Silky shark (all)

• Skipjack tuna (spawn)

• Swordfish (larvae, juveniles, adults)

• Whale shark (a ll )

• White marlin (juveniles, adults)

• Yellowfin tuna (spawn, juveniles, adults)

R esearch indicates the central and western Gulf of Mexico may be important spawning habitat for Atlantic bluefin tuna, and NMFS (2009) ha s designated a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) for this species. The HAPC covers much of the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, including the
lease area ( Figure 3 ). The areal extent of the HAPC is approximately 300,000 km 2 (15, 83 0 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 April, May, and June (NMFS, 2009).Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 54 On 27 May 2011, after an extensive scientific review, NOAA announced that Atlantic bluefin tuna currently do not warrant species protection under the ESA

. However, NOAA did classify
the bluefin tuna as a species of concern, effectively placing the species on a watch list as the

a gency awaits new data on the impact of a stricter international management regimen

.

A new amendment to the original EFH Generic Amendment was finalized in 2005 (GMFMC, 2005). One of the most significant proposed changes in this amendment reduced the

exten t of EFH relative to the 1998 Generic Amendment by removing the EFH description and
identification from waters between 100 fathoms and the seaward limit of the Exclusive

Economic Zone ( EEZ )

. The Highly Migratory Species Fisheries Management Plan was amend ed

in 2009 to update EFH and HAPC to include the bluefin tuna spawning area ( NMFS , 2009).

There are current NTLs (2009

- G39 and 2009

- G40) that provide guidance and clarification of the regulations with respect to biologically sensitive underwater features a nd 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 ne w agreement is in place, the 1999 Programmatic Consultation with the elements described a bove will be followed ( BOEMRE , 2011a ; BOEM, 2012 ).

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

- Swanson Marine Reserve, Tortugas North and South Ecological Reserves, Pulley Ridge, and several individual reefs and banks of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico ( Figure 3 ). The nearest HAP C is Jakkula Bank

, located approximately 88 miles ( 141 km)

west- north west of the lease area.

IPFs potentially affecting EFH include DP lay barge presence, noise, and lights; effluent discharges; water intakes; and two types of accidents – a small fuel spill and a large oil spill (WCD).



### Impacts of DP Lay Barge Presence, Noise, and Light s

The DP lay barge, 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 jacks, which are commonly attracted to fixed and drifting surface structures (Holland et al., 1990; Higashi, 1994; Relini et al., 1994 ; MMS, 2000, 2007b, 2008 ). This FAD effect would possibly enhance feeding of epipelagic predators by attracting and concentrating smaller fish species. Because the DP lay barge is a single, temporary structure, any impacts on EFH for highly migratory pelagic fishes are considered minor.



### Impacts of Effluent Discharges

Other effluent discharges affecting EFH by diminishing ambient water quality include treated

sani tary and domestic wastes, deck drainage, and miscellaneous discharges such as desalination unit brine and uncontaminated cooling water, fire water, and ballast water. Impacts on water quality have been discussed previously. No significant impacts on EFH for highly migratory pelagic fishes are expected from these discharges.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 55 

### Impacts of Water Intakes

As noted previously, cooling water intake will cause entrainment and impingement of plankton, including fish eggs and larvae (ichthyoplankton). Due to the lim ited scope and short duration of DP lay barge activities , any short

- term impacts on EFH for highly migratory pelagic fishes are not expected to be biologically significant.



### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Anadarko ’s preventative measures during routine operations

, including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of
Anadarko ’s OSRP will help diminish the potential for impacts on EFH. S upplemental DOCD
Section I provides detail on s pill response measures. Given the open ocean location of the lease area, the duration of a small spill and opportunity for impacts to occur would be very brief.

Potential spill impacts on EFH are discussed in MMS ( 2007b ) and BOEM (2012a ,b ,d, 2013 )

. F or

t his SDOCD , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to spill impacts.

A small fuel spill in offshore waters would produce a slick on the water surface and increase the concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and their degradation products. The extent and persistence of impacts would depend on the meteorological and oceanographic conditions at the time and the effectiveness of spill response measures. Section A.9.2 discusses the likely fate of a small fuel spill and indicates that over 90% would be evaporated or dispersed naturally
within 24 hours. The sea surface area with diesel fuel on it would range from 0.5 to 5 ha (1.2 to

12 ac)

, depending on sea state and weather conditions.

A small fuel spill could have localized impacts on EFH for highly migratory pelagic fishes, including tunas, swordfishes, billfishes, and sharks. These species occur as transients in the
lease area. A spill would also produce short

- term impact on water quality in the HAPC for spawning bluefin tuna, which covers mu ch of the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. The affected area would represent a negligible portion of the HAPC, which covers approximately 115,830 mi 2 (300,000 km 2 ) of the Gulf of Mexico

.
A small fuel spill would not affect EFH for corals and coral reefs, as the nearest EFH is located

48 miles ( 77 km) north of the lease area. A small fuel spill would float and dissipate on the sea
surface and would not contact these features.



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

Potential spill impacts on EFH are discussed in MMS ( 2007b ) and BOEM (2012a,d, 2013 ) . For
this SDOCD , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to EFH.

An oil spill in offshore waters would temporarily increase hydrocarbon concentrations on the water surface and potentially the subsurface as wel l. 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 contaminated and result in persistent degradation of the seafloor habitat for managed demersal fish and shellfish species.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 56 T he lease area is within the HAPC for spawning Atlantic bluefin tuna (NMFS, 2009). A large spill could temporarily degrade the HAPC due to increased hydrocarbon concentrations in th e water column, with the potential for lethal or sublethal impacts on spawning tuna. Potential impacts would depend in part on the timing of a spill, as this species migrates to the Gulf of Mexico to spawn in April, May, and June (NMFS, 2009).

The topographic feature s located 48 miles ( 77 km) north of the lease area are designated as EFH under the corals and coral reefs management plan. An accidental spill would be unlikely to affect this area, since a surface slick would not reach these features due to t heir depth.



## C.6 Archaeological Resources

C.6.1 Shipwreck Sites

BOEM ( 2012 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 c onsideration of the Macondo oil spill

. Substantial new information that alters the impact conclusion for archaeological resources presented in MMS (2007b, 2008) has come to light as a result of BOEM

- sponsored studies and industry surveys. Specifically, e vidence of damage to significant cultural resources (i.e., historic shipwrecks) has been shown to have occurred because of an incomplete knowledge of seafloor conditions in lease areas >200 m (656 ft) deep that have been exempted from high

- resolution surve ys. Because significant historic shipwrecks have recently been discovered outside the previously designated high

- probability areas (some of which show evidence of impacts from permitted activities prior to their discovery), a survey is now required for ex ploration and development projects

.

The lease area is not on the list of OCS blocks with a high potential for historic shipwrecks (BOEM, 2012c)

. Fugro ( 2011, 201 2 ) site clearance letters in the original Supplemental EP
indicated no evidence of ship wrecks or other archaeological resources near the proposed
surface hole location s. No manmade features were identified within 610 m (2,000 ft) of the proposed wellsite or production activities in the site clearance survey (Fugro, 2014). Anadarko will abide by t he applicable requirements of NTL 2005

- G07, which stipulate that work be stopped at the project site should any previously undetected archaeological resource be discovered after work has begun until appropriate surveys and evaluations have been completed.

Because there are no shipwreck sites in the lease area, there are no routine IPFs that are likely to affect shipwrecks. I mpacts of a large oil spill (WCD) are the only IPF s 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 shipwrecks in the lease area, this impact would not be relevant.

Previous analyses (MMS, 2007a, 2008) concluded that oil spills would be unlikely to affect archaeological sites beyond the immediate vicinity of the wellhead (i.e., due to physical impacts of a blowout) because the oil would rise quickly to the sea surface directly over the spill location. However, during the Macondo spill, subsurface plumes were reported at a water depth ofGreen Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 57 approximately 1,100 m (3,600 ft), extending at least 22 miles ( 35 km ) from the wellsite and persisting for more than a month (Camilli et al., 2010). The subsurface plumes apparently resulted from the use of dispersants at the wellhead (Joint Analysis Group, 2010c). While the behavior and impacts of subsurface plumes are not well known, a subsurface plume could have the potential to contact shipwreck sites beyond the 300

- m (984

- ft) radius estimated by MMS (2007a, 2008)

, depending on its extent, trajectory, and persistence. If oil from a subsea spill should come into contact with wooden shipwreck s on the seafloor

, it could adversely affect their condition or preservation. Should there be any indication that potential shipwreck sites could be affected, in accordance with NTL 2005

- G07

, Anadarko will immediately halt operations, take steps to ensure that the site is not disturbed in any way

, and contact the BOEM Regional Supervisor, Leasing and Environment, within 48 hours of its discovery. Anadarko would cease all operations within 305 m (1,000 ft) of the site until the Regional Supervisor provides instructions on steps to take to assess the site’s potential historic significance and protect it.

A spill entering shallow coastal waters could conceivably contaminate an undiscovered shipwreck site. 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 90 m (295 ft), and possibly as much as 130 m (427 ft), lower than present sea level during the period 20,000 to 17,000 years Before Present (B.P.) (Nelson and Bray, 1970). Sea level in the norther n Gulf reached its present stand around 3,500 years B.P. (Pearson et al., 1986).

During periods that the continental shelf was above sea level, the area was open to habitation by prehistoric peoples. The advent of early man into the Gulf of Mexico region is currently accepted to be around 12,000 years B.P. (Aten, 1983). The sea

- level curve for the northern Gulf
of Mexico proposed by Coastal Environments, Inc. suggests that sea level at 12,000 years B .P. would have been approximately 45 to 60 m (148 to 197 ft) below present

- day sea level ( Coastal Environments, Inc

., 1977, 1982). On this basis, the continental shelf shoreward of the 45 - to
60

- m (148 - to 197

- ft) bathymetric contours has potential for prehistoric sites dating after 12,000 years B.P. Because of inherent uncertainties in both the depth of sea level and the entry date of prehistoric man into North America, MMS adopted the 60

- m (197

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

With a water depth between 1,196 to 1,224 m (3,925 to 4,015 ft)

, the lease area is well beyond
the 60

- m (197

- ft) depth contour used by the BOEM as the seaward extent for prehistoric archaeological site potential in the Gulf of Mexico. Because prehistoric archaeological sites are not found in the lease area, the only relevant IPF is a large oil spill (WCD). A small fuel spill would not affect prehistoric archaeological resources because the oil would float and dissipate
on the sea surface.



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

Because prehistoric archaeological sites are not found in the lease area, they would not be affected by the physical effects of a subsea blowout. The MMS (2007b) estimates that a severe subsurface blowout could resuspend and disperse sediments withi n a 300

- m (984

- ft) radius.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 58 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 prehistoric site along these shorelines

, it could coat fragile artifacts or site features and compromise the potential for radiocarbon dating organic materials in a site (although other dating methods are available and it is possible to decontaminate an oiled sample for radiocarbon dating). Coastal prehistoric sites could also be damaged by spill cleanup operations (e.g., by destroying fragile artifacts and disturbing the provenance of artifacts and site features).



## C.7 Coastal Habitats and Protected Areas

Coastal habitats in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico that may be affected by oil and gas activities
are described in MMS ( 2007b ), BOEM (2012a,b,d, 2013 ), and in a literature review by Collard and Way (1997). Coastal habitats inshore of the project area include barrier beaches and dunes,
wetland s, and submerged seagrass beds. M ost 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 IP F associated with routine activities in the lease area
that potentially may affect beaches and dunes, wetlands, seagrass beds, coastal wildlife refuges,
wilderness areas, or any other managed or protected coastal area is relate d to support vessel
traffic. The primary 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 fuel spill in the lease area would be unlikely to affect coastal habitats, as the lease area is

113 miles ( 183 km ) from the nearest shoreline (Louisiana) . As explained in Section A.9.2 , a small fuel spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up.



### Impacts of Support Vesse l Traffic

For OCS activities in general, support operations, including crew boats and supply boats, may have a minor incremental impact on coastal habitats. Over time with a large number of vessel trips, vessel wakes can erode shorelines along inlets, cha nnels, and harbors. Support operations, including crew boats and supply boats as detailed in S uppl e mental

DOCD Section M

, may have a minor incremental impact on coastal habitats or protected areas. Impacts will be minimized by following the speed and wak e restrictions in harbors and channels.



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

Potential spill impacts on coastal habitats are discussed in MMS ( 2007b ) and BOEM (2012a,b,d,

2013 )

. Coastal habitats inshore of the project area include barrier beaches and dunes, wetlands,
and submerged seagrass beds. For this SDOCD , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to coastal habitats.

The revised OSRA modeling summarized in Table 3 predicts that during winter there is a

17 % probability of oil from a spill i n 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 barri er beaches and wetlands, with submerged seagrass beds occurring in shelteredGreen Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 59 areas behind the barrier islands and in estuaries. NWRs and other protected areas along the
coast are discussed in MMS ( 2007b ), BOEM (2012b ), and Anadarko’ s OSRP . Coastal and ne ar coastal wildlife refuges, wilderness areas , and State and National parks within the geographic range of the potential shoreline contacts after 120 days are presented in Table 6

.

Table 6. W ildlife refuges, wilderness areas, and S tate and N ational 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 Isl and 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 Nationa l 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 Mar ine 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 Nat ional 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 Wild life 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 Be rnard 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 Refug e Apffel Park

Seawolf Park

Old Fort Travis Park Atkinson Island Wildlife Management Area

Ft. Anahu a c Park

Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge

Mc F addin National Wildlife Refuge

Jefferson County, Texas Mc Fa addin National Wildlife Refuge

Sea Ri m State ParkTable 6. (Continued).

Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 60 County or Parish, State W ildlife Refuge, Wilderness Area, or State/National Park Murphree Wildlife Management Area

Texas Point National Wildlife Refuge

Cameron Parish, Louisiana Sabine National Wildlife Refuge

Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge

Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge

Little Pecan Island Natura l 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, Lou isiana 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

w eathered oil, an oil

- and

- water mousse, or tarballs (MMS, 2007b). Oil is generally deposited on beaches in lines defined by wave action at the time of landfall. Oil that remains on the beach will thicken as its volatile components are lost. Thickened oil may form tarballs or aggregations that incorporate sand, shell, and other materials into its mass. Tar may be buried to varying depths under the sand. On warm days, both exposed and buried tarballs may liquefy and ooze. Oozing may also serve to expand the size of a mass as it incorporates beach materials. Oil on beaches may be cleaned up manually, mechanically, or both. Some oil can remain on the beach at varying depths and may persist for several years as it slowly biodegrades and volatilizes.

Wetlan ds 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 wi thin 4 years, and 85% within 10 years. Approximately 15% of the contacted wetlands are expected to be converted permanently to open

- water habitat. The critical concentration of oil is that concentration above which impacts to wetlands will be long

- term a nd recovery will take longer than two growing seasons, and which causes plant mortality and some permanent wetland loss. Critical concentrations of various oils are expected to vary broadly for wetland types and wetland plant species. Louisiana wetlands are assumed to be more sensitive to oil contact than elsewhere in the Gulf because of high cumulative stress (MMS, 2007b). In addition to the direct impacts of oil, cleanup activities in marshes may accelerate rates of erosion and retard recovery
rates, w hich have been reported to require from years to decades following a spill (MMS,
2007b ; BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012b ).Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 61 

## C.8 Socioeconomic and Other Resources

C.8.1 Recreational and Commercial Fishing

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for recreational and comme rcial fishing presented in

MMS (2007b, 2008) based on 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 , 2011a ; BOEM, 2012 b, 2013 ).

The main commercial fishing activity in deep waters of the northern Gulf of Mexico is pelagic longlining for tunas, swordfishes, and other billfishes (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2002). Pelagic longlining has occurred historically in the project area, primarily during spring and

summer. In August 2000, the Federal government closed two areas in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico to longline fishing (65 FR 47214, 1 August 2000). The lease is outside of the closure

areas.

Longline gear consists of monofilament line deployed from a moving vessel and generally allowed to drift for 4 to 5 hours (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2002). As the mainline is put out, baited leaders and buoys are clipped in place at regular intervals. It takes 8 to 10 hours to depl oy 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. Vessels typically are 10 to 30 m (33 to 98 ft) long, and their trips last from 1 to 3 weeks. The main Gulf of Mexico homeports for longlining vessels are in Louisiana (Dulac and Venice) and Florida (Destin, Madeira Beach, and Panama City).

It is unlikely that any commercial fishing activity other than longlining will occur in or near the project area. Benthic species targeted by commercial fishers occur on the upper continental slope, well inshore of the project area. Royal red shrimp ( Pleoticus robustus ) are caught by trawlers in water depths of approximately 250 to 550 m (820 to 1,804 ft). 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, Inc., 2002).

Most recreational fishing activity in the region occurs in water depths less than 200 m (656 ft) (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 1997, 2002). In deeper water, the main attraction to recreational fishers would be petroleum rig s offshore Texas a nd Louisiana. Due to the distance from shore, it is unlikely that recreational fishing activity is occurring in the lease area.

The only routine IPF potentially affecting fisheries is the DP lay barge presence , noise, and lights.

T wo types of potential a ccidents are also addressed below – a small fuel spill and a large oil spill (WCD).



### Impacts of DP Lay Barge Presence , Noise, and Lights

There is a slight possibility of pelagic longlines becoming entangled in the DP lay barge . For example, in January 199 9, a portion of a pelagic longline snagged on the acoustic Doppler current profiler of a drillship working in the Gulf of Mexico (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2002). The line was removed without incident. Generally, longline fishers use radar and are aware of offshore structures and ships when placing their sets. Therefore, little or no impact on pelagic longlining is expected.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 62 Because it is unlikely that any recreational fishing activity is occurring in the project area, no adverse impacts are anticipated. Other factors such as effluent discharges are likely to have negligible impacts on commercial or recreational fisheries due to rapid dispersion, the small area of ocean affected, and the intermittent nature of the discharges.



### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Anadarko ’s preventative measures during routine operations including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of
Anadarko ’s OSRP will potentially mitigate and reduce the potential for impacts. S upplemental

DOCD Section I 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 sea surface area with diesel fuel on it would range from 0.5 to 5 ha (1.2 to 12 ac)

, depending on sea state and weather conditions. Fishing activities could be interrupted due to the activities of response vessels operating in the lease area. A small fuel spill would not affect coastal water quality because the spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up (see Se ction A.9.2 ).



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

Potential spill impacts on fishing activities are discussed in MMS ( 2007b ) and BOEM ( 2012b,d

, 2013 ) . For this SDOCD , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to this activity.

Pelagic longlining activities in the lease area and other fishing activities in the northern Gulf of Mexico could be interrupted in the event of a large oil spill. A spill may or may not result in fishery closures, depending on the duration of the spill, the oceanographic and meteorological conditions at the time, and the effectiveness of spill response measures. Data following t he Macondo spill provide d information about the maximum potential extent of fishery closures in the event of a large oil spill in the Gulf of Mex ico (NMFS, 2010 c ). 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 public health and safety. Impacts of a small fuel spill and a large oil spill (WCD) are addressed below.



### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Anadarko ’s preventative measures during routine operations

, including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of
Anadarko ’s OSRP will potentially alleviate the potential for impacts. S upplemental

DOCD Section I 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 113 miles ( 183 km ) from the nearest shoreline (Louisiana)

, and nearly all of the diesel fuel would evaporate or disperse naturally within 24 hours. Response crews would be equipped with appropriate safety equipment to avoid injury andGreen Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 63 health effects. A small fuel spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up (see Section A.9.2 ).



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

In the event of a large spill from a blowout, the main safety and health concerns are those of the offshore personnel involved in the incident and those responding to the spill. The DP lay barge maintains a Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan as required under MARPOL 73/78.

Depending on the spill rate and duration, the physical/chemical characteristics of the oil, meteorological and oceanographic conditions at the time, and the effectiveness of spill response measures, the public could be exposed to oil on the water a nd along the shoreline, including skin contact or breathing VOCs . Crude oil is a highly flammable material

, and any smoke or vapors from a crude oil fire can cause irritation, and in large quantities may pose a health
hazard.

Data following t he Macondo sp ill provide d relevant information about the types of health issues that may occur in the event of a large oil spill (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010a). Wildlife cleaning and rehabilitation workers have reported concerns including scrapes and cuts, itchy or red skin or rash, and symptoms of headache or feeling faint, dizzy, or fatigued. Hand, shoulder, or back pain was also reported by some wildlife

- cleaning workers. Personnel working on offshore vessels or providing direct oversight to 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 Control and Prevention, 2010b). Another potential occupational hazard for spill response workers in general was heat stress from work in a hot and humid environment. Initial symptoms from cleanup workers who sought medical care in Louisiana were typical of acut e 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 expe cted to affect employment and infrastructure. The project involves pipe

- laying with support from existing shorebase
facilities in Louisiana . No new or expanded facilities will be constructed, and no new employees are expected to move permanently into the area. The project will have a negligible impact on socioeconomic conditions such as local employment, existing offshore and coastal infrastructure (including major sources of supplies, services, energy, and water), and minority and lower income groups. Impacts of a small fuel spill and a large oil spill (WCD) are addressed in the following subsections

.


### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Anadarko ’s preventative measures during routine operations

, including f uel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of
Anadarko ’s OSRP will potentially mitigate and reduce the potential for impacts. S uppl e mental

DOCD Section I provide s detail on spill response measures. Given the open ocean location of
th e lease area, the duration of a small spill and opportunity for impacts to occur would be very
brief.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 64 A small fuel spill that is dissipated within a few days would have little or no economic impact, as the spill response would use existing facilities, reso urces, and personnel.



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

Potential socioeconomic impacts of an oil spill are discussed in MMS ( 2007b ) and

BOEM (2012a,b,d, 2013 ) . For this SDOCD , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to employment and coast al 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 th e analys e s presented by MMS (2007b, 2008 ) and BOEM ( 2012 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 Report, 2010). The study indica tes that during the moratorium, the number of oil industry workers in the Gulf of Mexico fell by approximately 2,000 and may have indirectly caused a temporary loss of 8,000 to 12,000 jobs along the Gulf Coast. Total spending by drilling operators is esti mated 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 spendin g (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 inf ormation was found that would alter the potential impact s on recreation and tourism ( BOEMRE

, 2011a ; BOEM, 2012 b, 2013 ).

There are no known recreational uses of the lease area. Recreational resources and tourism in coastal areas would not be affected by an y routine activities due to the distance from shore. Compliance with NTL 2012

- BSEE

- G01 will minimize the chance of trash or debris being lost
overboard from the DP lay barge and subsequently washing up on beaches. Potential i mpacts of

a small fuel spill a nd a large oil spill (WCD) are discussed below.



### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Anadarko ’s preventative measures during routine operations

, including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, imple mentation of
Anadarko ’s OSRP will potentially help mitigate and reduce the potential for impacts.

S upplemental DOCD Section I provide s detail on spill response measures. Given the open ocean location of the lease area, the duration of a small spill and o pportunity for impacts to occur would be very brief.

A small fuel spill in the lease area would be unlikely to affect recreation and tourism. There are no known recreational or tourism activities occurring in the lease area, and as explained in
Section A. 9.2 , a small fuel spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 65 

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

Potential impacts of an oil spill on recreation and tourism are discussed in MMS ( 2007b ) and BOEM (2012a,b,d, 20 13 ) . For this SDOCD , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to these impacts.

Impacts on recreation and tourism would vary depending on the duration of the spill and its fate including the effectiveness of response measures. A large spill that reached coastal waters and shorelines could adversely affect recreation and tourism by contaminating beaches and wetlands, resulting in negative publicity that encourages people to stay away. Based on the revised OSRA modeling (BOEM, 201 2b ) as summar ized in Section A.9.3 ( Table 3 ), there is a

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

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

In addition to the analysis presented in MMS (2007b ) and BOEM (2012a,b,d, 2013 ) , recent and ongoing studies have explored the economic impacts of the Macondo spill including tourism and “brand” damage (IEM, 2010; Oxford Economics, 2010). The U.S. Travel Association has
estimated the economic impact of the Macondo spill on tourism across the Gulf Coast over a
three

- year period at $22.7 billion (Oxford Economics, 2010)

.



### C.8.5 Land Use

Land use along the northern Gulf C oast is discussed in MMS ( 2007b ) and BOEM (2012a,b,d,

2013 ) . 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 u se and, therefore, will not have any impacts. Levels of boat and helicopter traffic, as well as demand for goods and services including scarce coastal resources, will represent a small fraction of the level of activity occurring at the 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, during the Macondo spill, temporary staging areas were established in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida for spill response and cleanup efforts. In the event of a large spill in the lease area, similar temporary staging areas could be needed. These areas would eventually return to their origi nal use as the response is demobilized.



### C.8.6 Other Marine Uses

The lease area is located within Military Warning Area W- 92 and Anadarko will comply with BOEM req uirements and lease st ipulations to avoid impacts on military vessels and aircraft operating in or near the lease site

. There are existing wells and Anadarko pipelines within 610 m (2,000 ft) of the proposed wellsite ( Fugro, 201 4) and Anadarko will avoid these

.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 66 There are no IPFs from routine project activities that are likely to affect other marin e 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 brie f.



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

An accidental spill would be unlikely to significantly affect shipping or other marine uses. The
block is not located within any USCG

- designated fairway or shipping lane. In the event of a large spill requiring numer ous response vessels, coordination would be required to manage the vessel traffic for safe operations. Anadarko will comply with BOEM requirements and lease stipulations to avoid impacts on uses of the area by military vessels and aircraft.

In the event o f a large spill requiring numerous vessels in the area, coordination would be required to ensure that no anchoring or seafloor

- disturbing activities occur near the existing pipelines and flowlines.



## D. Environmental Hazards

D.1 Geologic Hazards

A wells ite clearance letter prepared by Fugro ( 201 4) concluded that the wellsite is free of any significant geological hazards and suitable for the proposed activities. See S upplemental

DOCD Section C for supporting geological and geophysical information.



## D.2 Sever e Weather

Under most circumstances, weather is not expected to have any effect on the proposed activities. Extreme weather, including high winds, strong currents, and large waves, was considered in the design criteria for the DP lay barge under considerat ion for this project . High winds and limited visibility during a severe storm could disrupt support activities (vessel and helicopter traffic) and make it necessary to suspend some activities on the DP lay barge for safety reasons until the storm or weath er event passes. In the event of a hurricane, procedures
as outlined in the Hurricane Evacuation Plan would be adhered to.



## D.3 Currents and Waves

Metocean conditions such as sea states, wind speed, ocean currents, etc. will be continuously
monitored. Und er most circumstances, physical oceanographic conditions are not expected to have any effect on the proposed activities. Strong currents (e.g., caused by Loop Current eddies and intrusions) and large waves were considered in the design criteria for the DP lay barge under consideration for this project. High waves during a severe storm could disrupt support activities (i.e., vessel and helicopter traffic) and make it necessary to suspend some activities on
the DP lay barge for safety reasons until the stor m or weather event passes.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 67 

## E. Alternatives

N o formal alternatives we re evaluated in this EIA for a Supplemental DOCD . However, various technical and operational options

, including the location of the wellsite and the selection of a DP lay barge unit, we re considered by Anadarko in developing the proposed action.



## F. Mitigation Measures

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

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

.



## G. Consultation

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



## H. Preparers

The EIA was prepared by CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. Contributors included

• M. John Thompson (Senior Scientist) ;

• Patrick Connelly (Project Scientist) ;

• Keith VanGraafeiland (GIS/Remote Sensing Specialist);

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

• LeslieAnn Weekes ( Technical Editor).



## I. References

Ackleh, A., G.E. Loup, J.W. Loup, B. Ma, J.J. Newcomb, N. Pal, N.A. Sidorovskaia, and C. Tiemann. 2012. Assessing the Deepwater Horizon oil spill impact on marine mammal population through acoustics: Endangered sperm
whales. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 131(3): 2,306

- 2,314. Aten, L.E. 1983. Indians of the upper Texas coast. N ew York, NY: Academic Press. 370 pp.
Barkuloo, J.M. 1988. Report on the conservation status of the Gulf of Mexico sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus
desotoi. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish Wildlife Service, Panama City, FL. 33 pp.
Bélanger, L. and J. Bédard. 1989. Responses of Staging Greater Snow Geese to Human Disturbance. J. Wildl

. Manage

. 53:713

- 719.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 68 Biggs, D.C. and P.H. Ressler. 2000. Water column biology, pp. 141

- 187. In: Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. Deepwater Program: Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Information Resources Data Search and Literature Synthesis. Volume I: Narrative Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000

- 049.
Brooke, S., and W .W. Schroeder. 2007. State of deep coral ecosystems in the Gulf of Mexico region: Texas to the Florida Straits, pp. 271

- 306. In: S.E. Lumsden, T.F. Hourigan, A.W. Bruckner, and G. Dorr (eds.)

, The State of Deep Coral Ecosystems of the United States. NOAA Tech. Memo. CRCP

- 3. Silver Spring, MD. 365 pp. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012a. Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2012

- 2017. Western Planning Area Lease Sales 229, 233, 238, 246, and 248. Central Planning Area Lease Sales 227, 231, 235, 241, and 247. Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2012

- 019. 3 vol.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

. 2012 b. Gulf of Mexico OCS O il 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 R egion, New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/EA

BOEM 20 12

- 058. 2 vol.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012 c. Archaeology Survey Blocks. Website accessed on 19 February

2014

. http://www.boem.gov/Environmental -S tewardship/Archaeology/surveyblocks

- pdf.aspx

. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012d. Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2012

- 2017. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2012

- 030. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2013. Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2013

- 2014. Western Planning Are Lease Sale 233. Central Planning Area 231. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statemen t. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2013

- 0118. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2010. Federal & Academic Scientists Return from Deep

- sea Research Cruise in Gulf of Mexico: Scientists Observe Damage to Deep

- sea Corals. Online news
dated 4 November 2010. Website accessed 19 February 2014

. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/st ories2010/20101104_coralcruise.html
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement . 2011a. Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale: 2011. Western Planning Area Lease Sale 218 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Depa rtment of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement

, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2011 -0 34

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

. Spills Statistics and Summaries

1996

- 2011

. W ebsite accessed 19 February 2014

. http://www.boem.gov/Environmental

Stewardship/Environmental

- Assessment/Oil

- Spill

- Modeling/spills

- 1996

- 2011.aspx Camilli, R., C.M. Reddy, D.R. Yoerger, B.A.S. Van Mooy, M.V. Jakuba, J.C. Kinsey, C.P. McIntyre, S.P. Sylva, a nd

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

. Science 330(6001):201

- 204

. Carmichael, R.H., W.M. Graham, A. Aven, G.Worthy, and S. Howden. 2012. Were multiple stressors a ‘perfect storm’ for northern Gulf of Mexico bottlenose dolphins ( Tursiops truncatus ) in 2011? PLoS ONE 7(7): e41155.

Carr, A. 1996. Suwannee River s turgeon, 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 H ealth H azard

E valuation. Website updated 24 August 2011, acc essed 19 February 2014

.
< http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/oilspillresponse/gulfspillhhe.html >
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2010b. Health Hazard Evaluation of Deepwater Horizon Response Workers, HETA 2010

- 0115. Interim Report #6A. 11p. Clapp, R.B., R.C. Banks, D. Morgan

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

- 82/01. 637 pp.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 69 Clapp, R.B., D. Morgan

- Jacobs, and R.C. Banks. 1982b. Marine birds of the southeastern United States and Gulf of
Mexico. Part II. Anserifor mes. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS

- 82/20. 492 pp.
Clapp, R.B., D. Morgan

- Jacobs, and R.C. Banks. 1983. Marine birds of the southeastern United States and Gulf of
Mexico. Part III. Charadriifor mes. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS

- 83/30. 853 pp.
Coastal Environments, Inc. 1977. Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf. Prepared for the U.S. Departme nt of the Interior, National Park Service, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Interagency Archaeological Services, Baton Rouge, LA. 4 vol.
Coastal Environments, Inc. 1982. Sedimentary Studies of Prehistoric Archaeological Sites. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Division of State Plans and Grants, Baton Rouge, LA.
Collard, S.B. and C. Way. 1997. Chapter 5 – The biological environment. In: Science Applications International Corporation (ed.), Northe astern 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 e nt 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 and OCS activity, interactions between the fishing and petrol eum 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.

Cruz

- Kaegi, M.E. 1998. Latitudinal variations in biomass and metabolis m 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 hard - bottom communities with emphasis on Lophelia coral. U.S. Departm ent of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2007

- 044. 169 pp. + app. Davis, R.W. and G.S. Fargion. 1996. Distribution and abundance of cetaceans in the north

- central and western Gulf of Mexico: Final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA.
Davis, R.W., J.G. Ortega

- Ortiz, C.A. Ribic, W.E. Evans, D.C. Biggs, P.H. Ressler, J.H. Wormuth, R.R. Leben, K.D. Mullin,
and B. Würs ig. 2000. 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: Technical report. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, USGS/BRD/CR

- 1999

- 0006 and U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000

- 003. 346 pp.
Ditty, J.G. 1 986. Ichthyoplankton in neretic waters of the northern Gulf of Mexico off Louisiana: Composition, relative abundance, and seasonality. Fish. Bull. 84(4):935

- 946. Ditty, J.G., G.G. Zieske, and R.F. Shaw. 1988. Seasonality and depth distribution of larval fishes in the northern
Gulf of Mexico above 26°00’N. Fish. Bull. 86:811

- 823. Earthjustice. 2011. Comments on Shell Exploration Plan S

- 7445 , Document ID: BOEM

- 2011

- 0006

- 0001,
Docket ID: BOEM

- 2011

- 0006, 6 February 2011 . 18 pp. Efroymson, R.A., W.H. Ros e, 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.

Ehrlic h, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1992. Birds in Jeopardy: The Imperiled and Extinct Birds of the United States and Canada, including Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA. 261 pp.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 201 3a

. Loggerhead nesting in Florida. Website accessed

17 February 2014

. http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea

- turtles/nesting/loggerhead/Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 70 Florida Fish and Wildl ife Conservation Commission. 201 3b

. Green turtle nesting in Florida. Website accessed

17 February 2014

. http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea

- turtles/nesting/green

- turtl e/

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 201 3c

. Leatherback nesting in Florida. Website accessed

17 February 2014

. http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea

- tur tles/nesting/leatherback/

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 201 3d . Florida's endangered species, threatened species, and species of special concern

. http://myfwc.com/media/1515251/Threatened_Endangered_Species.pdf
Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary. 2011. Cnidarian species. Website revised 1 9 February 201 4

, accessed 13 October 2011. < http://flowergarden.noaa.gov/about/cnidarianlist.html > Fox, D.A., J.E. Hightower, and F.M. Paruka. 2000. Gulf sturgeon spawning migration and habitat in the Choctawhatchee River system, Alabama

- Florida. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 129:811

- 826.
Fritts, T .H. and R.P. Reynolds. 1981. Pilot study of the marine mammals, birds, and turtles in OCS areas of the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program. FWS/OBS

- 81/36.
Fugro GeoConsulting, Inc

. 2011

. Wells i te Clearance Letters

. Proposed Wellsites GC 562

- AA and GC 562

- BB, Green Canyon Area. OCS -G- 11075. Letter Reports No. 27.2011

- 2460

- 1 and 27.2011

- 2460 -2 Fugro GeoConsulting, Inc. 2012. Wells i te Clearance Letters. Proposed Wellsites GC 562 -AAA and GC 562

- BBB. Block 562, Green Canyon Area. OCS -G- 11075. Letter Reports No. 27.2012

- 2482

- 1 and 27.2012

- 2482

- 2. Fugro GeoConsulting, Inc. 2014. Wellsite Clearance Letter. Proposed Wellsite GC 562

- BB, Block 562, Green Canyon Area. OCS -G- 11075. Letter Report No. 27.2011

- 2460

- 2. Gallaway, B. (ed.). 1988. Northern Gulf of Mexico continental slope study, final report: Year 4. Volume II: Synthesis report. Final report submitted to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA. Contract No. 14

- 12

- 0001

- 30212

. Gallaway, B.J., J.G. Cole, and R.G. Fechhelm. 2003. Selected Aspects of the Ecology of the Continental Slope Fauna of the Gulf of Mexico: A Synopsis of the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Slope Study, 198 3- 1988

. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA.

OCS Study MMS 2003

- 072. Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1987. Effects of offshore oil and gas development on marine mammals and turtles, pp. 587

- 617. In: D.F. Boesch and N.N. Rabalais (eds.), Long Term Environmental Effects of Offshore Oil and Gas Development. Elsevier Applied Science Publ. Ltd., London and New York.
Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1990. Sea M ammals and O il: C onfrontin g the R isks. Academic Press, San Diego. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 2005. Generic A mendment N umber 3 for a ddressing E ssential 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 Gulf of Mexico, spiny lobster in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, coral and coral reefs of the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, FL.
Hazen, T.C., E.A. Dubinsky, T.Z. DeSantis, G.L. Andersen, Y.M. Piceno, N. Singh, J.K. Jansson, A. Probst, S.E. Borglin, J.L. Fortney, W.T. Stringfellow, M. Bill, M.S. Conrad, L.M. Tom, K.L. Chavarria, T.R. 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. Holman, S. Osman, Z. Lu, J.D. Van Nostrand, Y. Deng, J. Zhou, and O.U. Mason. 2010. Deep

- sea oil plume enriches indigenous oil

- degrading bacteria. Science 330(6001):204

- 208

. Hess, N.A. and C.A. Ribic. 2000. Seabird ecology, pp. 275

- 315. In: R.W. Davis, W.E. Evans, and B. Würsig (eds.), Cetaceans, sea turtles, and seabirds in the northern Gulf of Mexico: Distribution, abundance and habitat associations. Volume II: Technical report. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, USGS/BRD/CR

- 1999

- 0006 and U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000

- 003. 346 pp. Higashi, G.R. 1994. Ten years of fish aggregating device ( FAD) design and 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.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 71 Holland, K.R., R.W. Brill, and R.K.C. Chang. 1990. Horizontal and vertical movements of yellowfin and bigeye tuna associated with fish aggregating devices. Fish. Bull. 88:493

- 507.

IEM. 2010. A Study of the Economic Impact of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Prepared for Greater

New Orleans, Inc. October 2010. Website accessed 19 Februar y 2014. http://gnoinc.org/wp

- content/uploads/Economic_Impact_Study_Part_I_

- _Full_Report.pdf http://gnoinc.org/wp

- content/uploads/Economic_Impact_Study_Part_II_

- _Moratoria_FINAL.pdf http://gnoinc.org/w p- content/uploads/Economic_Impact_Study_Part_III_

- _Public_Perception_FINAL.pdf

Inter

- Agency Economic Report. 2010. Estimating the effects of the deepwater drilling moratorium on the Gulf coast economy. September 2010. http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/reports/documents/drillingmoratorium.pdf
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland. 104 pp.
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers. 2010. Risk assessment data directory: Blowout frequencies.

OG P Report No. 434

- 2. Website accessed 19 February 2014. http://www.ogp.org.uk/pubs/434

- 02.pdf
Ji, Z

- G., W.R. Johnson, C.F. Marshall, and E.M. Lear. 2004. Oil

- Spill Risk Analysis: Contingency Planning S tatistics 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 Orlea ns, LA. OCS Study MMS 2008

- 006. 341 pp. Johnsgard, P.A. 1990. Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons of North America; Biology and Natural History. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington. 403 pp. Joint Analysis Group. 2010a. Joint Analysis Group (JAG) 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 17 February 2014

.
< 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 17 February 2014

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

Joint Analysis Group. 2010c. Joint Analysis Group (JAG) review of preliminary data to ex amine oxygen levels in the vicinity of MC252#1 May 8 to August 9, 2010. Website accessed 17 February 2014

.
< http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/files/JAG%20Report%20Brooks%20McCall%20final.pdf >

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

- 139. In: Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. Deepwater Program: Gulf of Mexico deepwater information resources data search and literature synthesis. Volum e 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 wi th petroleum platforms in the north

- central Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 90

- 0025. 90 pp. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. 2013. T racking List and Fact Sheets . Website accessed 17 February 2014

. http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/wildlife/rare

- animals

- fact

- sheets
Lutcavage, M.E., P.L. Lutz, G.D. Bossart, and D.M . Hudson. 1995. Physiologic and clinicopathologic effects of crude oil on loggerhead sea turtles. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 28:417

- 422. Lutcavage, M.E., P. Plotkin, B. Witherington, and P.L. Lutz. 1997. Human impacts on sea turtle survival,

pp. 3 87

- 409. In: Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick (eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. MacDonald, I.R. (ed.). 2002. Stability and Change in Gulf of Mexico Chemosynthetic Communities. Volume II: Technical Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2002

- 036. 456 pp.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 72 Marine Mammal Commission. 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 17 February 2014 .)

< http://www.mmc.gov/reports/workshop/pdf/longterm_effects_bp_oilspil.pdf > Minerals Management Service. 2000. Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Operations and Activities: Environmental Assessment. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region,

New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2000

- 001. Minerals Management Service. 2007a. Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 2007

- 2012 Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Herndon, VA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007

- 003. April 2007.
Minerals Management Service. 2007b. Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2007

- 2012. Western Planning Area Sales 204, 207, 210, 215, and 218; Central Planning Area Sales 205, 206, 208, 213, 216, and 222. Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Dept artment of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007

- 018. April 2007. Minerals Management Service. 2008. Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2009

- 2012; Central Planning Area Sales 208, 213, 216, and 222; Western Planning Area Sales 210, 215, and 218. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2008

- 041. September 2008.
Minerals Management Servic e. 2009a. NTL No. 2009

- G39: Biologically Sensitive Underwater Features and Areas. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA.
Minerals Management Service. 2009b. NTL No. 2009

- G40: Deepwate r Benthic Communities. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA.
Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks. 20 05 . Appendix VIII: Mississippi’s species of greatest

conservatio n need by ecoregion , pp. 375

- 380

. In: Mississippi's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy

2005

- 2015, Version 1. Website accessed 19 February 201 4

. http://www.mdwfp.com/media/63792/cwcs.pdf

M orrow, 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. N. Am. J. Fish Manage. 18:798

- 808. Mullin, K., W. Hoggard, C. Roden, R. Lohoefener, C. Rogers, and B. Taggart. 1991. Cetaceans on the upper continental slope in the north

- central Gulf of Mexico. OCS Study/MMS 910027. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Regional Office, New Orleans, LA. 108 pp.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007. Endangered Species Act, Section 7 Consultation – Biological Opinion.
Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Activities: Five

- Year Leasing Plan for Western and Central Planning Areas

2007

- 2012. 29 June 2007.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009. Final Amendment 1 to the Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan Essential Fish Habitat. Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Silver Spring, MD. June 200 9.

< 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 ). Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MD. December 2010. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/final_sperm_whale_recovery_plan_21dec.pd f

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

17 January 2014, updated 19 February 201 4

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

Nat ional Marine Fisheries Service. 2010 c

. Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill: size and percent coverage of fishing area closures due to BP oil spill. Website accessed 17 January 2014. http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/deepwater_horizon/size_percent_closure/index.html

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Recovery Plan for the
Northwest Atlantic Po pulation of the Loggerhead Sea T urtle ( Caretta caretta ), Second R evision. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/turtle_loggerhead_atlantic.pdf

National Marine Fishe ries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT). 2011. Bi

- National Recovery Plan for the Kemp‘s Ridley Sea Turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii ), Second Revision. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/kempsridley_revision2.pdfGreen Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 73 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2006. Fact Sheet: Small Diesel Spills (500

- 5,000 gallons). NOAA Scientific Support Team, H azardous Materials Response and Assessment Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Seattle, Washington. 2 pp.
National Park Service. 2010. Breton Wilderness 300 km Radius. Website accessed 19 February 2014

.
<

National Research Counci l . 2003 a . Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 182 pp. + ap p.

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/AirQuality/docs/Breton_WA300km.pdf >

National Research Council. 2003b. Ocean N oise and M arine M ammals. Ocean Studies Board, National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 204 pp. Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij . 2007. Green light to birds: Investigation
into the effect of bird

- friendly li ghting. Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij, Assen, The Netherlands.
Nelson, H.F. and E.E. Bray. 1970. Stratigraphy and History of the Holocene Sediments in the Sabine

- High Island Area, Gulf of Mexico. In: Morgam, J.P. (ed.) Deltaic Sedimentation; Modern and Ancient. Special Publn.

No. 15. Tulsa, OK: SEPM.
Nowlin, W.D., Jr., A.E. Jochens, S.F. DiMarco, R.O. Reid, and M.K. Howard. 2001. Deepwater Physical Oceanography Reanalysis and Synthesis of Historical Data: Synthesis Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2001

- 064.

528 pp. Operation al Science Advisory Team . 2010. Summary report for sub

- surface and sub

- sea oil and dispersant detection: Sampling and monitorin g. Prepared for Paul F. Zukunft, U.S. Coast Guard Federal On

- Scene Coordinator, Deepwater Horizon MC252. December 17, 2010. http://www.restorethegul f.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/OSAT_Report_FINAL_17DEC.pdf
Oxford Economics. 2010. Potential impact of the Gulf oil spill on tourism. Report prepared for the U.S. Travel
Association. Website accessed 29 September 2011. http://www.ustravel.org/sites/default/files/page/2009/11/Gulf_Oil_Spill_Analysis_Oxford_Economics_710.pd
f
Peake, D.E. 1996. Bird surveys, pp. 271

- 304. In: R.W. Davis and G.S. Fargion (eds.), Distribution and abundance of
cetaceans in the north

- central and western Gulf of Mexico, Final report. Volume II: Technical report. Prepared by the Texas Institute of Oceanography and the National Marine Fisheries Ser vice. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region Office, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study

MMS 96

- 0027. 357 pp. Pearson, C.E., D.B. Kelley, R.A. Weinstein, and S.W. Gagliano. 1986. Archaeological investigations on the Outer Continental Shelf: A study within the Sabine River valley, offshore Louisiana and Texas

. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Reston, VA. OCS Study MMS 86

- 0119. 314 pp. Poot, H., B.J. Ens, H. de Vries, M.A.H. Donners, M.R. Wernand, and J.M. Marquenie. 2008. Green light for nocturnally migrating birds. Ecology and Society 13 (2):47. Website accessed December 2, 2011. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art47/
Powers, K. 1987. Seabirds, pp. 194

- 201. In: J.D. Milliman and W.R. Wright (eds.), The Marine Environment of the U.S. Atlantic Continental Slope and Rise. Jones and Bartlett Publ., Inc. Boston/Woods Hole, MA. 275 pp. Pritchard, P.C.H. 1 997. Evolution, phylogeny, and current status.pp. 1

- 28. In: Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick ( eds. ), The Biology of Sea Turtles. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Rathbun, G.B. 1988. Fixed

- wing airplane versus helicopter surveys of manatees. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 4(1):71

- 75. Relini, M., L.R. Orsi, and G. Relini. 1994. An offshore buoy as a FAD in the Mediterranean. Bull. Mar. Sci. 55(2

- 3):1,099

- 1,105. Richards, W.J., T. Leming, M.F. McGowan, J.T. Lamkin, and S. Kelley

- Farga. 1989. Distribution of fish larvae in

re lation 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

Cur rent boundary in the Gulf of Mexico. Bull. Mar. Sci. 53(2):475

- 537.
Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego. 576 pp.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 74 Rodgers, J., Jr, and S. Schwikert. 2002. Buffer Zone Distances to Protect Foraging and Loafing Waterbirds from Disturbances by Personal Watercraft and Outboard

- Powered Boats. Conserv

. Biol

. 16:216

- 224. Rowe, G.T. and M.C. Kennicutt II. 2009. Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Slope Habitats and Bent hic 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. Interactions between migrating birds and offshore oil and g as platforms in the northern Gulf of Mexico: Final Report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2005

- 009. 348 pp. Salmon, M., and J. Wyneken. 1990. Do swimming loggerhead se a turtles ( Caretta caretta ) use light cues for
offshore orientation? Mar. Freshw. Behav. Phy. 17(4): 233

- 246. Sea Turtle Restoration Project. 2013 . Kemp’s ridley protection campaign. Website accessed 19 February 2014

. http://www.seaturtles.org/article.php?list=type&type=41

. Share the Beach. 201 3. Nesting season statistics. Website accessed 17 January 2014.
h ttp://www.alabamaseaturtles.com/nesting

- season

- statistics/
Smultea, M.A., J.R. Mobley, Jr., D. Fertl, and G.L. Fulling. 2008. An unusual reaction and other observations of sperm whales near fixed wing aircraft. Gulf

. Carib

. Res

. 20:75

- 80.
Solomon, G.M. and S. Janssen. 2010. Health Effects of the Gulf Oil Spill. JAMA 304(10):1,118

- 1,119

. Spier, C., W. T. Stringfellow, T.C. Hazen, and M

. Conrad. 2013. Distribution of hydrocarbons released during the 2010 MC252 oil spill in deep offshore waters. Envi ronmental Pollution 173: 224

- 230. Sulak, K.J. and J.P. Clugston. 1998. Early life history stages of G ulf sturgeon in the S uwannee River, Florida.

Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 127:758

- 771. Todd, V. L. G., W.D. Pearse, N.C. Tregenza, P.A. Lepper, and I.B. Todd. 2009. Diel echolocation activity of harbour porpoises ( Phocoena phocoena ) around North Sea offshore gas installations. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 66: 734

– 745. Tuxbury, S.M. and M. Salmon. 2005. Competitive interactions between artificial lighting and natural c ues 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, Atla nta, GA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the Great Lakes Piping Plover ( Charadrius melodus ). Fort Snelling, Minnesota. September 2003. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. International Recovery Plan: Whooping Crane ( Grus ame ricana ), Third Revision. Albuquerque, New Mexico. March 2007.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010a. All about piping plovers. Website accessed 18 February 2014

.
< http://www.fws.gov/plover/facts.html >
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010 b

. Beach

- nesting Birds of the Gulf

. Website accessed 18 February 201 4

.
< http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/DHBirdsOfTheGulf.pdf >

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010 c

. Find endangered species

. Website accessed 18 February 2014

.
<
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010 d. Effects of oil on wildlife and habitat. Website accessed 18 February 2014

.
< http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ >

http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/DHJICFWSOilImpactsWildlifeFactSheet.pdf >

U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. FWS Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Response. Bird Impact Data and Consolidated Wildlife Reports. Deepwater Horizon Bird Impact Data fro m the DOI

- E RDC NRDA Database

12 May 2011. Website accessed 19 February 201 4

. http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/Bird%20Data%20Species%20Spreadsheet%2005122011.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1995. Gulf Sturgeon Recovery/Management Plan. 170 pp. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/sturgeon_gulf.pdf > Wakeford, A. 2001. State of Florida conservation plan for Gulf sturgeon ( Acipencer oxyrinchus desotoi ). Florida Marine Research Institute Technical Report TR

- 8. St. Petersburg, FL.Green Canyon Block 562 February 2014 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental DOCD Page 75 War ing

, G.T., E. Josephson, K. Maze

- Foley, and P.E. Rosel ( eds .)

. 2013. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine
Mammal Stock Assessments – 2012. NOAA Tech

. Memo . NMFS NE 223. 419 p p. Wei, C

- L. 2006. The bathymetric zonation and community structure of dee p- sea macrobenthos in the northern Gulf of Mexico. M.S. thesis, Texas A&M University. Website accessed 29 September 2011.

< http://repository.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/4927 > White, H.K., P. Hsing, W. Cho, T.M. Shank, E.E. Cordes, A.M. Quattrini, R.K. Nelson, R. Camilli, A.W.J. Demopoulous, C.R. German, J.M. Brooks, H.H. Roberts, W. Shedd, C.M. Reddy and C.R. Fisher. 2012. Impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on a deep

- water coral community in the Gulf of Mexico

. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 109(50):20,303

- 20,308. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/23/1118029109.full.pd f+html?sid=56e8cdfe

- 2830

- 43f8

- 9d08

- 8eca0efd27e2
Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership. 2010. Technical Database

. Whooping Crane Recovery Reports

. Website
accessed 19 February 201 4

. 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.
Wilson, J. 2003. Manatees in Louisiana. Louisiana Conservationist. July/August 2003, pp. 4- 7. http://www.lamer.lsu.edu/p dfs/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

U niversity Press, Cambridge, England.
Würsig, B., S.K. Lynn, T.A. Jefferson, and K.D. Mullin. 1998. Behaviour of cetaceans in the northern Gulf of Mexico relative to survey ships and aircraft. Aquat

. Mamm

. 24: 41

- 50. Würsig, B., T.A. Jefferson, and D.J. Schmidly. 2000. The Marine Mammals of the Gulf of Mexico. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX. 232 pp.

### Q ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

(a) Proprietary Information

Proprietary copies of this plan contain inform ation not available to the public and include structure maps, seismic information, cross sections, depths of wells, etc.

(b) Bibliography

1. Initial DOCD, Green Canyon Block 562. 2. Shallow Hazards Report 3. Final Sale Package for Central Gulf of Mexico Sale Number 118.