U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

OCS EIS/EA 

BOEM 2012-058 

Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Oil and Gas Lease Sale: 2012 

Central Planning Area Lease Sale 216/222 

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

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

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

OCS EIS/EA 

BOEM 2012-058 

Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Oil and Gas Lease Sale: 2012 

Central Planning Area Lease Sale 216/222 

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

Volume II: Chapters 5-8, Appendices, and Keyword Index 

Author 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

Published by 

New Orleans

January 2012 

Table of Contents iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Volume I 

Page 

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

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................xxiii

LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................................................xxvii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................................xxix

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

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

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

1.3. Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................................1-5

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

1.4. Prelease Process .....................................................................................................................1-12

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

1.6. Other OCS-Related Activities................................................................................................1-31

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

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

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

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

2.2.1.1. Alternatives for Proposed Central Planning Area Lease 

Sale 216/222.............................................................................................2-3

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

2.2.2. Mitigating Measures..................................................................................................2-5

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

2.2.2.2. Existing Mitigating Measures ..................................................................2-6

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

2.2.3.1. Issues to be Analyzed...............................................................................2-7

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

2.3. Proposed Central Planning Area Lease Sale 216/222..............................................................2-8

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

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

2.3.1.2. Summary of Impacts ................................................................................2-9

2.3.1.3. Mitigating Measures ..............................................................................2-32

2.3.1.3.1. Topographic Features Stipulation .......................................2-32

2.3.1.3.2. Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend and Low Relief) 

Stipulation ...........................................................................2-32

2.3.1.3.3. Military Areas Stipulation...................................................2-32

2.3.1.3.4. Evacuation Stipulation ........................................................2-33

2.3.1.3.5. Coordination Stipulation .....................................................2-33

2.3.1.3.6. Blocks South of Baldwin County, Alabama, 

Stipulation ...........................................................................2-33
iv Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

2.3.1.3.7. Protected Species Stipulation ..............................................2-33

2.3.1.3.8. Law of the Sea Convention Royalty Payment 

Stipulation ...........................................................................2-33

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

the Biologically Sensitive Topographic Features....................................................2-33

2.3.2.1. Description.............................................................................................2-33

2.3.2.2. Summary of Impacts ..............................................................................2-34

2.3.3. Alternative C—The Proposed Action Excluding the Unleased Blocks within 

15 Miles of the Baldwin County, Alabama, Coast..................................................2-34

2.3.3.1. Description.............................................................................................2-34

2.3.3.2. Summary of Impacts ..............................................................................2-34

2.3.4. Alternative D—No Action ......................................................................................2-35

2.3.4.1. Description.............................................................................................2-35

2.3.4.2. Summary of Impacts ..............................................................................2-35

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.1.1.2. Development and Production...................................................................3-9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.1.1.4.1. Pipelines ..............................................................................3-17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.1.1.6.2. Shallow Hazards..................................................................3-24

3.1.1.6.3. New and Unusual Technology ............................................3-25

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

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

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

3.1.2.2. Gas Processing Plants ............................................................................3-30

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

3.1.2.4. Disposal Facilities for Offshore Operations...........................................3-31
Table of Contents v

3.2. Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario—Accidental Events ...............................................3-32

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

3.2.1.1. Risk Analysis for Offshore Spills 1,000 bbl ........................................3-34

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

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

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

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

3.2.1.5.1. BOEM and BSEE Spill-Response Requirements and 

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.1.5.4. Onshore Response and Cleanup..........................................3-43

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

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

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

3.2.5. Chemical and Drilling-Fluid Spills .........................................................................3-54

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

3.3.1. OCS Program ..........................................................................................................3-57

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

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

3.3.4. Other Major Factors Influencing Coastal Environments.........................................3-68

3.3.5. Natural Events or Processes ....................................................................................3-75

3.3.5.1. Hurricanes ..............................................................................................3-75

3.3.5.2. Currents as Transport Agents.................................................................3-75

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

4.1. Proposed Central Planning Area Lease Sale 216/222..............................................................4-3

4.1.1. Alternative A—The Proposed Action .......................................................................4-7

4.1.1.1. Air Quality ...............................................................................................4-7

4.1.1.1.1. Description of the Affected Environment .............................4-8

4.1.1.1.2. Impacts of Routine Events ..................................................4-10

4.1.1.1.3. Impacts of Accidental Events..............................................4-14

4.1.1.1.4. Cumulative Impacts.............................................................4-17

4.1.1.2. Water Quality.........................................................................................4-20

4.1.1.2.1. Coastal Waters.....................................................................4-20

4.1.1.2.1.1. Description of the Affected Environment......4-20

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

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

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

4.1.1.2.2. Offshore Waters ..................................................................4-31

4.1.1.2.2.1. Description of the Affected Environment......4-31

4.1.1.2.2.2. Impacts of Routine Events.............................4-36

4.1.1.2.2.3. Impacts of Accidental Events ........................4-39

4.1.1.2.2.4. Cumulative Impacts .......................................4-42

4.1.1.3. Coastal Barrier Beaches and Associated Dunes.....................................4-45

4.1.1.3.1. Description of the Affected Environment ...........................4-45

4.1.1.3.2. Impacts of Routine Events ..................................................4-51
vi Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

4.1.1.3.3. Impacts of Accidental Events..............................................4-55

4.1.1.3.4. Cumulative Impacts.............................................................4-58

4.1.1.4. Wetlands.................................................................................................4-64

4.1.1.4.1. Description of the Affected Environment ...........................4-64

4.1.1.4.2. Impacts of Routine Events ..................................................4-71

4.1.1.4.3. Impacts of Accidental Events..............................................4-76

4.1.1.4.4. Cumulative Impacts.............................................................4-81

4.1.1.5. Seagrass Communities ...........................................................................4-87

4.1.1.5.1. Description of the Affected Environment ...........................4-87

4.1.1.5.2. Impacts of Routine Events ..................................................4-90

4.1.1.5.3. Impacts of Accidental Events..............................................4-92

4.1.1.5.4. Cumulative Impacts.............................................................4-94

4.1.1.6. Live Bottoms..........................................................................................4-96

4.1.1.6.1. Live Bottoms (Pinnacle Trend) ...........................................4-96

4.1.1.6.1.1. Description of the Affected Environment......4-96

4.1.1.6.1.2. Impacts of Routine Events...........................4-104

4.1.1.6.1.3. Impacts of Accidental Events ......................4-112

4.1.1.6.1.4. Cumulative Impacts .....................................4-122

4.1.1.6.2. Live Bottoms (Low Relief) ...............................................4-126

4.1.1.6.2.1. Description of the Affected Environment....4-127

4.1.1.6.2.2. Impacts of Routine Events...........................4-133

4.1.1.6.2.3. Impacts of Accidental Events ......................4-140

4.1.1.6.2.4. Cumulative Impacts .....................................4-149

4.1.1.7. Topographic Features...........................................................................4-154

4.1.1.7.1. Description of the Affected Environment .........................4-154

4.1.1.7.2. Impacts of Routine Events ................................................4-163

4.1.1.7.3. Impacts of Accidental Events............................................4-170

4.1.1.7.4. Cumulative Impacts...........................................................4-181

4.1.1.8. Sargassum ............................................................................................4-184

4.1.1.8.1. Description of the Affected Environment .........................4-184

4.1.1.8.2. Impacts of Routine Events ................................................4-187

4.1.1.8.3. Impacts of Accidental Events............................................4-189

4.1.1.8.4. Cumulative Impacts...........................................................4-191

4.1.1.9. Chemosynthetic Deepwater Benthic Communities..............................4-193

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

4.1.1.9.2. Impacts of Routine Events ................................................4-202

4.1.1.9.3. Impacts of Accidental Events............................................4-203

4.1.1.9.4. Cumulative Impacts...........................................................4-205

4.1.1.10. Nonchemosynthetic Deepwater Benthic Communities........................4-208

4.1.1.10.1. Description of the Affected Environment .........................4-208

4.1.1.10.2. Impacts of Routine Events ................................................4-211

4.1.1.10.3. Impacts of Accidental Events............................................4-212

4.1.1.10.4. Cumulative Impacts...........................................................4-214

4.1.1.11. Marine Mammals .................................................................................4-217

4.1.1.11.1. Description of the Affected Environment .........................4-217

4.1.1.11.2. Impacts of Routine Events ................................................4-224

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

4.1.1.11.4. Cumulative Impacts...........................................................4-230
Table of Contents vii

4.1.1.12. Sea Turtles............................................................................................4-231

4.1.1.12.1. Description of the Affected Environment .........................4-231

4.1.1.12.2. Impacts of Routine Events ................................................4-237

4.1.1.12.3. Impacts of Accidental Events............................................4-239

4.1.1.12.4. Cumulative Impacts...........................................................4-241

4.1.1.13. Alabama, Choctawhatchee, St. Andrew, and Perdido Key Beach 

Mice .....................................................................................................4-243

4.1.1.13.1. Description of the Affected Environment .........................4-244

4.1.1.13.2. Impacts of Routine Events ................................................4-247

4.1.1.13.3. Impacts of Accidental Events............................................4-248

4.1.1.13.4. Cumulative Impacts...........................................................4-249

4.1.1.14. Coastal and Marine Birds.....................................................................4-250

4.1.1.14.1. Description of the Affected Environment .........................4-250

4.1.1.14.2. Impacts of Routine Events ................................................4-262

4.1.1.14.3. Impacts of Accidental Events............................................4-267

4.1.1.14.4. Cumulative Impacts...........................................................4-272

4.1.1.15. Gulf Sturgeon.......................................................................................4-283

4.1.1.15.1. Description of the Affected Environment .........................4-283

4.1.1.15.2. Impacts of Routine Events ................................................4-290

4.1.1.15.3. Impacts of Accidental Events............................................4-293

4.1.1.15.4. Cumulative Impacts...........................................................4-295

4.1.1.16. Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat...........................................4-301

4.1.1.16.1. Description of the Affected Environment .........................4-302

4.1.1.16.2. Impacts of Routine Events ................................................4-305

4.1.1.16.3. Impacts of Accidental Events............................................4-308

4.1.1.16.4. Cumulative Impacts...........................................................4-311

4.1.1.17. Commercial Fishing.............................................................................4-314

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

4.1.1.17.2. Impacts of Routine Events ................................................4-320

4.1.1.17.3. Impacts of Accidental Events............................................4-322

4.1.1.17.4. Cumulative Impacts...........................................................4-325

4.1.1.18. Recreational Fishing.............................................................................4-328

4.1.1.18.1. Description of the Affected Environment .........................4-329

4.1.1.18.2. Impacts of Routine Events ................................................4-331

4.1.1.18.3. Impacts of Accidental Events............................................4-332

4.1.1.18.4. Cumulative Impacts...........................................................4-334

4.1.1.19. Recreational Resources ........................................................................4-336

4.1.1.19.1. Description of the Affected Environment .........................4-336

4.1.1.19.2. Impacts of Routine Events ................................................4-342

4.1.1.19.3. Impacts of Accidental Events............................................4-344

4.1.1.19.4. Cumulative Impacts...........................................................4-347

4.1.1.20. Archaeological Resources....................................................................4-349

4.1.1.20.1. Historic..............................................................................4-349

4.1.1.20.1.1. Description of the Affected Environment....4-349

4.1.1.20.1.2. Impacts of Routine Events...........................4-352

4.1.1.20.1.3. Impacts of Accidental Events ......................4-354

4.1.1.20.1.4. Cumulative Impacts .....................................4-355

4.1.1.20.2. Prehistoric..........................................................................4-359

4.1.1.20.2.1. Description of the Affected Environment....4-359

4.1.1.20.2.2. Impacts of Routine Events...........................4-360
viii Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

4.1.1.20.2.3. Impacts of Accidental Events ......................4-362

4.1.1.20.2.4. Cumulative Impacts .....................................4-362

4.1.1.21. Human Resources and Land Use .........................................................4-364

4.1.1.21.1. Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure .................................4-364

4.1.1.21.1.1. Description of the Affected Environment....4-365

4.1.1.21.1.2. Impacts of Routine Events...........................4-367

4.1.1.21.1.3. Impacts of Accidental Events ......................4-370

4.1.1.21.1.4. Cumulative Impacts .....................................4-373

4.1.1.21.2. Demographics....................................................................4-376

4.1.1.21.2.1. Description of the Affected Environment....4-376

4.1.1.21.2.2. Impacts of Routine Events...........................4-377

4.1.1.21.2.3. Impacts of Accidental Events ......................4-378

4.1.1.21.2.4. Cumulative Impacts .....................................4-379

4.1.1.21.3. Economic Factors..............................................................4-380

4.1.1.21.3.1. Description of the Affected Environment....4-381

4.1.1.21.3.2. Impacts of Routine Events...........................4-384

4.1.1.21.3.3. Impacts of Accidental Events ......................4-385

4.1.1.21.3.4. Cumulative Impacts .....................................4-386

4.1.1.21.4. Environmental Justice .......................................................4-388

4.1.1.21.4.1. Description of the Affected Environment....4-388

4.1.1.21.4.2. Impacts of Routine Events...........................4-392

4.1.1.21.4.3. Impacts of Accidental Events ......................4-395

4.1.1.21.4.4. Cumulative Impacts .....................................4-402

4.1.1.22. Additional Resources Considered due to the Deepwater Horizon 

Event ....................................................................................................4-408

4.1.1.22.1. Soft Bottoms......................................................................4-408

4.1.1.22.1.1. Description of the Affected Environment....4-408

4.1.1.22.1.2. Impacts of Routine Events...........................4-420

4.1.1.22.1.3. Impacts of Accidental Events ......................4-429

4.1.1.22.1.4. Cumulative Impacts .....................................4-436

4.1.1.22.2. Diamondback Terrapins ....................................................4-440

4.1.1.22.2.1. Description of the Affected Environment....4-440

4.1.1.22.2.2. Impacts of Routine Events...........................4-442

4.1.1.22.2.3. Impacts of Accidental Events ......................4-443

4.1.1.22.2.4. Cumulative Impacts .....................................4-445

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

Biologically Sensitive Topographic Features........................................................4-446

4.1.3. Alternative C—The Proposed Action Excluding Unleased Blocks within 

15 Miles of the Baldwin County, Alabama, Coast................................................4-448

4.1.4. Alternative D—No Action ....................................................................................4-450

4.2. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts of the Proposed Action .......................................................4-453

4.3. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources....................................................4-456

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

and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity......................................................................4-457
Table of Contents ix

Volume II 

Page 

LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................................................xi

LIST OF TABLES.....................................................................................................................................xiii

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.9. National Historic Preservation Act ........................................................................................5-10

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

5.11. Letters of Comment on the Draft Supplemental EIS and BOEM’s Responses .....................5-11

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

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

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

APPENDICES 

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

Appendix B Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis............................................................................ B-1

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

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

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

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

KEYWORD INDEX.....................................................................................................................Keyword-3 

List of Figures xi

LIST OF FIGURES 

Page 

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

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

Figure 1-2. Location of the Macondo Well (location of the Deepwater Horizon Event in 

Mississippi Canyon Block 252) in the Gulf of Mexico’s Central Planning Area................A-3

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

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

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

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

Figure 3-2. Infrastructure and Transitioning Pipelines from Federal OCS and Louisiana State 

Waters. .................................................................................................................................A-8

Figure 3-3. Air Quality Jurisdictional Boundary for BOEM and USEPA..............................................A-9

Figure 3-4. OCS-Related Service Bases in the Gulf of Mexico. ..........................................................A-10

Figure 3-5. Major Ports and Domestic Waterways in the Gulf of Mexico...........................................A-11

Figure 3-6. Oil-Spill Events (2008) in the Central Planning Area. ......................................................A-12

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

Western Planning Areas.....................................................................................................A-13

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

Depths. ...............................................................................................................................A-14

Figure 4-3. Seagrass Locations of the Northern Gulf of Mexico..........................................................A-15

Figure 4-4. Live Bottoms (Low Relief and Pinnacle Trend) in the Central and Eastern Planning 

Areas. .................................................................................................................................A-16

Figure 4-5. Perspective Sketch of the Submerged Landscape of a Pinnacle Province as 

Visualized from Sidescan Sonar and Remotely Operated Vehicle Information................A-17

Figure 4-6. Sketch of a Submerged Ridge............................................................................................A-18

Figure 4-7. Location of the 36 Fathom Ridge within the Alabama Alps Formation (A & B) and 

Oblique View of the 36 Fathom Ridge within the Alabama Alps (C)...............................A-19

Figure 4-8. Location of Roughtongue Reef (A & B) and Oblique View of Roughtongue 

Reef (C)..............................................................................................................................A-20

Figure 4-9. Location of Some Mapped Low-Relief, Hard-Bottom Areas and Pinnacles on the 

Alabama-Florida Continental Shelf. ..................................................................................A-21

Figure 4-10. Block-Like, Hard-Bottom Substrate North of the Head of De Soto Canyon.....................A-22

Figure 4-11. Location of Topographic Features in the Gulf of Mexico. ................................................A-23

Figure 4-12. Location of Known Chemosynthetic Communities in the Gulf of Mexico. ......................A-24

Figure 4-13. Summary of Sea Turtles Collected by Date Obtained from the Consolidated 

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

Area Command from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Incident Area Commands, Rehabilitation Centers, and 

Other Authorized Sources Operating within the Deepwater Horizon/BP Incident 

Impact Area through November 2, 2010............................................................................A-25
xii Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Figure 4-14. Summary of Avian Species Collected by Date Obtained from the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service as Part of the NRDA Process through November 30, 2010....................A-26

Figure 4-15. Locations of Oil- and Gas-Related Infrastructure and the Distribution of LowIncome Residents across Counties and Parishes in Texas and Louisiana based on 

U.S. Census Data from 2009..............................................................................................A-27

Figure 4-16. Locations of Oil- and Gas-Related Infrastructure and the Distribution of LowIncome Residents across Counties in Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida based on 

U.S. Census Data from 2009..............................................................................................A-28

Figure 4-17. Locations of Oil- and Gas-Related Infrastructure and the Distribution of Minority 

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

Census Data from 2009......................................................................................................A-29

Figure 4-18. Locations of Oil- and Gas-Related Infrastructure and the Distribution of Minority 

Residents across Counties in Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida based on U.S. 

Census Data from 2009......................................................................................................A-30

Figure 4-19. Location of All Deepwater Horizon Waste Disposal Sites................................................A-31

Figure 4-20. Distribution of the Gulf Coast Claims Facility’s Claimants and the Average Amount 

Paid to Each Claimant across Gulf of Mexico Counties and Parishes...............................A-32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LIST OF TABLES 

 Page 

Table 1-1. Emergency 30 CFR 250 Subpart D Interim Final Rule Provisions ...................................A-31

Table 1-2. Overview of the Assignment of Regulations between the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.........................A-36

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

and Spill .............................................................................................................................A-38

Table 3-1. Projected Oil and Gas in the Gulf of Mexico OCS............................................................A-38

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

Planning Area.....................................................................................................................A-39

Table 3-3. Deepwater Rig Counts, Day Rates, and Annual Drill Rates in the Gulf of Mexico ..........A-40

Table 3-4. Oil Spilled from Pipelines on the Federal OCS, 2002-2009..............................................A-40

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

Planning Area Waters from an Accident Related to Rig/Platform and Pipeline 

Activities Supporting a CPA Proposed Action Over a 40-Year Time Period....................A-41

Table 3-6. Properties and Persistence by Oil Component Group........................................................A-42

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

Accident Related to Activities Supporting a Proposed Action ..........................................A-43

Table 3-8. Primary Cleanup Options Used during the Deepwater Horizon Response........................A-43

Table 3-9. Pipelines Damaged after 2004-2008 Hurricanes Passing through the WPA and CPA......A-44

Table 3-10. Causes of Hurricane-Related Pipeline Spills Greater Than 50 Barrels..............................A-44

Table 3-11. Total Producing Wells, Total Oil, and Total Gas Production in the Nine Coastal 

Parishes of Louisiana in 2009 ............................................................................................A-45

Table 3-12. Designated Ocean Dredged-Material Disposal Sites in the Cumulative Impact Area.......A-46

Table 3-13. Projected OCS Sand Borrowing Needs for Planned Restoration Projects.........................A-48

Table 3-14. Vessel Calls at U.S. Gulf Coast Ports in 2004 and 2009 ...................................................A-48

Table 3-15. Designated Louisiana Service Bases Identified in Applications for Pipelines, 

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

Navigation Canal Bordered by Saline, Brackish Water, and Freshwater Wetlands .........A-49

Table 3-16. Coastal Impact Assistance Program Allocations for all Eligible States ($).......................A-50

Table 3-17. Coastal Impact Assistance Program Grants Status for Gulf of Mexico States ($).............A-50

Table 3-18. Hurricane Landfalls in the Northern Gulf of Mexico from 1995 through 2010 ...............A-51

Table 3-19. OCS Facility Damage after the 2004-2008 Hurricanes in the WPA and CPA ..................A-51

Table 4-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards...........................................................................A-52

Table 4-2. Estimated Abundance of Cetaceans in the Northern Gulf of Mexico...............................A-53

Table 4-3. Sea Turtle Taxa of the Northern Gulf of Mexico...............................................................A-54

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

and Their Relative Impacts to Birds based on Surveys and Modeling ..............................A-55
xiv Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Table 4-5. Relative Oiling Ranks for Various Avian Species Groupings Collected PostDeepwater Horizon Event in the Gulf of Mexico.............................................................A-57

Table 4-6. Birds Collected and Summarized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service PostDeepwater Horizon Event in the Gulf of Mexico.............................................................A-58

Table 4-7. Mississippi Department of Marine Resources: Summary of Fish Kills Observed 

along the Gulf Coast ..........................................................................................................A-62

Table 4-8. Economic Significance of Commercial Fishing in the Gulf of Mexico.............................A-62

Table 4-9. Top Species Caught by Recreational Fishers in the Gulf Coast States..............................A-63

Table 4-10. Percentage of Species Landings that are Ocean Based......................................................A-64

Table 4-11. Recreational Fishing Participation 2009 ............................................................................A-65

Table 4-12. Angler Trips in the Gulf of Mexico during Certain Months of 2009 and 2010.................A-66

Table 4-13. Angler Trips in the Gulf of Mexico by Location and Mode in 2009 .................................A-67

Table 4-14. Economic Impact of Recreational Fishing in the Gulf of Mexico in 2008 ........................A-68

Table 4-15. Fish Species Caught by Recreational Anglers during Certain Months of 2009 

and 2010.............................................................................................................................A-69

Table 4-16a. Employment in the Leisure/Hospitality Industry in Selected Geographic Regions...........A-70

Table 4-16b. Monthly Employment in the Leisure/Hospitality Industry during 2010............................A-71

Table 4-17a. Total Wages Earned by Employees in the Leisure/Hospitality Industry in Selected 

Geographic Regions...........................................................................................................A-72

Table 4-17b. Quarterly Wages in the Leisure/Hospitality Industry in 2009 and 2010............................A-73

Table 4-18. Total Tourism Spending in Gulf Coast States....................................................................A-74

Table 4-19. Coastal Travel, Tourism, and Recreation Estimates in 2004 .............................................A-74

Table 4-20. Number of Beaches and Beach Participation in Gulf States..............................................A-74

Table 4-21. Shipwrecks in the Gulf of Mexico’s Central Planning Area..............................................A-75

Table 4-22. OCS and Non-OCS Program Spill Rates...........................................................................A-76

Table 4-23. Classification of the Gulf Economic Impact Areas............................................................A-77

Table 4-24. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area 

TX-1...................................................................................................................................A-79

Table 4-25. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area 

TX-2...................................................................................................................................A-81

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

TX-3...................................................................................................................................A-83

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

LA1 ....................................................................................................................................A-85

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

LA-2...................................................................................................................................A-87

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

LA-3...................................................................................................................................A-89

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

LA-4...................................................................................................................................A-91
List of Tables xv

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

MS-1 ..................................................................................................................................A-93

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

AL-1...................................................................................................................................A-95

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

FL-1....................................................................................................................................A-97

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

FL-2....................................................................................................................................A-99

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

FL-3..................................................................................................................................A-101

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

FL-4..................................................................................................................................A-103

Table 4-37. Baseline Population Projections (in thousands) by Economic Impact Area....................A-105

Table 4-38. Baseline Employment Projections (in thousands) by Coastal Subarea............................A-106

Table 4-39. Liquid Waste Collected from the Deepwater Horizon Event ..........................................A-107

Table 4-40. Solid Waste Collected from the Deepwater Horizon Event ............................................A-108

Table 4-41. Deepwater Horizon Waste Destination Communities .....................................................A-109

Table 4-42. Gulf Coast Claims Facility — Deepwater Horizon Claimant Data by State (status 

report as of April 27, 2011)..............................................................................................A-110

Table 5-1. Scoping Comments ..........................................................................................................A-112

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Days ...................................................................................................................................C-18

CHAPTER 5 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Consultation and Coordination 5-3 

5. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

5.1. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

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

OCS oil and gas lease sale (CPA Lease Sale 216/222) scheduled under the Outer Continental Shelf Oil 

and Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017 (5-Year Program). This Supplemental EIS is being prepared 

because of the potential changes to the baseline conditions of the environmental, socioeconomic, and 

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

2010 (the period when oil flowed from the Macondo well in Mississippi Canyon Block 252 

[Figure 1-2]); (2) the acute impacts that have been reported or surveyed since that time; and (3) any new 

information that may be available since the publication of the Multisale EIS or the 2009-2012 

Supplemental EIS. The environmental resources include sensitive coastal environments, offshore benthic 

resources, marine mammals, sea turtles, coastal and marine birds, endangered and threatened species, and 

fisheries. This Supplemental EIS analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed action on the marine, 

coastal, and human environments. It is important to note that this Supplemental EIS was prepared using 

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

5.2. NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIS 

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

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

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

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

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

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

summarized in Chapter 5.3.2.

5.3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS 

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

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

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

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

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

Register. Scoping meetings were held in Louisiana, Texas, and Alabama. No meeting had more than 

15 attendees. The dates, times, locations, and public attendance of the scoping meetings for the Draft 

Supplemental EIS were as follows: 

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

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

Hilton New Orleans Airport Houston Airport Marriott 

New Orleans, Louisiana Houston, Texas 

9 registered attendees 16 registered attendees 

4 speakers 5 speakers 

Thursday, November 18, 2010 

1:00 p.m. CST until adjournment 

The Battle House Renaissance 

Mobile Hotel and Spa 

Mobile, Alabama 

13 registered attendees 

4 speakers 
5-4 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

5.3.1. Summary of Scoping Comments 

Comments (both verbal and written) were received from the NOI and the three scoping meetings from 

Federal, State, and local government agencies; interest groups; industry; businesses; the Seminole Tribe 

of Florida; and the general public on the scope of the Supplemental EIS, significant issues that should be 

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

received, which were appropriate for a lease sale NEPA document, were considered in the preparation of 

this Supplemental EIS. All speakers at the scoping meetings were generally supportive of the proposed 

lease sales and recognized the economic benefits of the OCS Program. Comments received from 

attendees included the following: 

 use currently available new information to evaluate impacts; 

 supported holding lease sales as soon as possible; 

 move expeditiously to complete the Supplemental EIS; 

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

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

 resume permitting of existing leases; 

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

 recommended that the Supplemental EIS incorporate all new regulations and 

requirements put in place post-Macondo; and 

 put no restrictions on drilling in deepwater areas. 

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

Intent 

In response to the NOI, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management received 11 individual letters by 

e-mail, 595 identical form e-letters from an advocacy website, and a package of 3 CD’s with over 20,000 

identical website-derived form letters from an advocacy group. Information submitted from written 

comments is summarized in Table 5-1, including the form letters submitted by the Consumer Energy 

Alliance. All scoping comments received that were appropriate for the lease sale NEPA document were 

considered in the preparation of this Supplemental EIS. Scoping comments appropriate for a lease sale 

NEPA document include scenario information; physical, biological, and socioeconomic resources to 

consider; impacting factors and impacts on resources; alternatives to be analyzed; and mitigation 

measures. Several comments received did not apply to scoping for this document including, but not 

limited, to scheduling and delays of remaining lease sales, expediting the completion of the Supplemental 

EIS, impacts from delay of the lease sales that had been scheduled as part of the 5-Year Program, 

categorical exclusions, and using this Supplemental EIS as a document to tier future lease sales for the 

2012-2017 lease sale program. All other comments described in Table 5-1 were considered in this 

document. 

5.3.3. Cooperating Agency 

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

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

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

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

either accept or deny such requests. 

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

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

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

cooperating agencies. The BOEM has accepted NOAA and USEPA (Region 6) as cooperating agencies. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-5 

5.4. DISTRIBUTION OF THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS FOR REVIEW AND 

COMMENT

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

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

these libraries is available on BOEM’s Internet website at http://www.boem.gov/EnvironmentalStewardship/Environmental-Assessment/NEPA/nepaprocess.aspx. To initiate a public review and 

comment period on the Draft Supplemental EIS, BOEM published a Notice of Availability in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 2011 (USEPA Notice of Availability publication date, July 1, 2011); all comments 

received were considered in the preparation of this Final Supplemental EIS. 

Federal Agencies 

Congress 

Congressional Budget Office 

House Resources Subcommittee on Energy 

and Mineral Resources 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

Department of Commerce 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Department of Defense 

Department of the Air Force 

Department of the Army 

 Corps of Engineers 

Department of the Navy 

 Naval Mine and ASW Command 

Department of Energy 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve PMD 

Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Geological Survey 

National Park Service 

Office of Environmental Policy and 

Compliance 

Office of the Solicitor 

Department of State 

Bureau of Oceans and International 

Environmental and Scientific Affairs 

Department of Transportation 

Coast Guard 

Office of Pipeline Safety 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 4 

Region 6 

Marine Mammal Commission 

State and Local Agencies 

Alabama 

Governor’s Office 

Alabama Highway Department 

Alabama Historical Commission and State 

 Historic Preservation Officer 

Alabama Public Service Commission 

Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources 

Department of Environmental Management 

South Alabama Regional Planning 

Commission 

State Docks Department 

State Legislature Natural Resources 

Committee 

State Legislature Oil and Gas Committee 

Florida 

Governor’s Office 

Bureau of Archaeological Research 

City of Gulf Breeze 

City of Panama 

City of Pensacola 

Department of Community Affairs 

Department of Environmental Protection 

Department of State Archives, History and 

Records Management 

Escambia County 

Florida Coastal Zone Management Office 

Sarasota County Coastal Resources 

State Legislature Natural Resources and 

Conservation Committee 

State Legislature Natural Resources 

Committee 

West Florida Regional Planning Council 

Louisiana 

Governor’s Office 

City of Grand Isle 

City of Morgan City 

City of New Orleans 

Department of Culture, Recreation, and 

Tourism 
5-6 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Department of Environmental Quality 

Department of Natural Resources 

Department of Transportation and 

Development 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

Houma-Terrebonne Chamber of Commerce 

Jefferson Parish Director 

Jefferson Parish President 

Lafourche Parish CZM 

Lafourche Parish Water District #1 

Louisiana Geological Survey 

South Lafourche Levee District 

St. Bernard Planning Commission 

State House of Representatives, Natural 

Resources Committee 

State Legislature, Natural Resources 

Committee 

Mississippi 

Governor’s Office 

City of Gulfport 

Department of Archives and History 

Department of Natural Resources 

Department of Wildlife Conservation 

Mississippi Development Authority 

State Legislature Oil, Gas, and Other 

Minerals Committee 

Industry 

Air Armament Center 

Alabama Petroleum Council 

American Petroleum Institute 

Area Energy LLC 

Baker Atlas 

Bellwether Group 

B-J Services Co 

BP Amoco 

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. 

Coastal Conservation Association 

Coastal Environments, Inc. 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 

Dominion Exploration & Production, Inc. 

Ecological Associates, Inc. 

Ecology and Environment 

Energy Partners, Ltd. 

EOG Resources, Inc. 

Escambia County Marine Resources 

Exxon Mobil Production Company 

Florida Petroleum Council 

Florida Propane Gas Association 

Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. 

Fugro Geo Services, Inc. 

Gulf Environmental Associates 

Gulf of Mexico Newsletter 

Horizon Marine, Inc. 

Industrial Vehicles International, Inc. 

International Association of Geophysical 

Contractors 

J. Connor Consultants 

John Chance Land Surveys, Inc. 

Marine Safety Office 

Midstream Fuel Service 

Mote Marine Laboratory 

Murphy Exploration & Production 

Newfield Exploration Company 

NWF Daily News 

Petrobras America, Inc. 

PPG Industries, Inc. 

Propane Market Strategy Newsletter 

Science Applications International 

Corporation 

Seneca Resources Corporation 

Shell Exploration & Production Company 

Stone Energy Corporation 

Strategic Management Services-USA 

T. Baker Smith, Inc. 

Texas Geophysical Company, Inc. 

The Houston Exploration Company 

Triton Engineering Services Co. 

W & T Offshore, Inc. 

Washington Post 

WEAR-TV 

Special Interest Groups 

1000 Friends of Florida 

Alabama Oil & Gas Board 

American Cetacean Society 

Audubon Louisiana Nature Center 

Bay County Audubon Society 

Citizens Assoc. of Bonita Beach 

Clean Gulf Associates 

Coastal Conservation Association 

Earthjustice 

Florida Chamber of Commerce 

Florida Institute of Oceanography 

Florida Marine Research 

Florida Natural Area Inventory 

Florida Public Interest Research Group 

Florida Sea Grant College 

Gulf Coast Environmental Defense 

Gulf County 

Gulf County Atlantic Fisheries 

Gulf Island National Seashore 

Hernando County Planning Department 

Hunt Oil 

Izaak Walton League of America, Inc 
Consultation and Coordination 5-7 

JOC Venture 

Louisiana State University 

Marine Mammal Commission 

Mission Enhancement Office 

Mississippi State University 

Mobile Bay National Estuary Program 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Nature Conservancy 

Nicholas State University 

Perdido Key Association 

Population Connection 

Portersville Revival Group 

Sierra Club 

South Mobile Communities Association 

Southeastern Fisheries Association 

The Conservancy 

The Conservation Fund 

The Daspit Company 

The Nature Conservancy 

Walton County Growth Management 

Ports/Docks 

Alabama 

Alabama State Port Authority 

Port of Mobile 

Florida 

Panama City Port Authority 

Louisiana 

Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission 

Greater Lafourche Port Commission 

Grand Isle Port Commission 

Plaquemines Port, Harbor and Terminal 

District 

Port of Baton Rouge 

Port of Iberia District 

Port of New Orleans 

Twin Parish Port Commission 

St. Bernard Port, Harbor and Terminal 

 District 

Mississippi 

Port of Gulfport 

State Port Authority 

5.5. PUBLIC HEARINGS

In accordance with 30 CFR 256.26, BOEM scheduled public hearings soliciting comments on this 

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

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

dates, times, and locations of the public hearings was included in the Notice of Availability for this 

Supplemental EIS. A copy of the public hearing notices was included with this Supplemental EIS that 

was mailed to the parties indicated above, posted on BOEM’s Internet website, and published in local 

newspapers. 

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

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 

1:00 p.m. CDT 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

Regulation and Enforcement 

1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard 

New Orleans, Louisiana 70123 

4 registered attendees 

0 speakers 

Thursday, August 11, 2011 

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

Renaissance Mobile Riverview Plaza 

Hotel 

64 South Water Street 

Mobile, Alabama 36602 

12 registered attendees 

2 speakers 

Tuesday, August 9, 2011 

1:00 p.m. CDT 

Houston Airport Marriott 

George Bush Intercontinental 

18700 John F. Kennedy Boulevard 

Houston, Texas 77032 

12 registered attendees 

5 speakers 
5-8 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

New Orleans, Louisiana, August 2, 2011 

There were no speakers at the public hearing held in New Orleans, Louisiana, on August 2, 2011. 

Houston, Texas, August 9, 2011 

Five speakers representing industry provided testimony at the public hearing held in Houston, Texas, 

on August 9, 2011. Industry representatives included Marc Lawrence of Global Geophysical, Andy 

Radford of the American Petroleum Institute, Walt Rosenbusch of the International Association of 

Geophysical Contractors, Richard Pool of Apache Corporation, and Bryan Anderson of Marine Robotics. 

All speakers offered support for proceeding with proposed CPA Lease Sale 216/222. Mr. Radford 

requests that BOEM update the baseline and potential effects of oil and gas leasing, agrees with BOEM’s 

conclusions in the Draft Supplemental EIS, and supports holding the proposed lease sale as soon as 

possible. Mr. Anderson stated that an orderly procession of the leasing process is essential to the marine 

industry. Messrs. Radford, Rosenbusch, Pool, and Anderson all support the selection of Alternative A. 

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

Chapter 5.11. 

Mobile, Alabama, August 11, 2011 

One speaker, Steve Russell, attended both public hearings and provided testimony for both the 

Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce and Offshore Alabama. Both groups supported offshore oil and gas 

activities and stated the importance of the continuation of lease sales. 

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

Chapter 5.11. 

5.6. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT

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

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

Consistency Determination (CD). To prepare the CD’s, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

reviews each State’s Coastal Management Plan (CMP) and analyzes the potential impacts as outlined in 

this Supplemental EIS, new information, and applicable studies as they pertain to the enforceable policies 

of each CMP. The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires that Federal actions that are 

reasonably likely to affect any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone be “consistent to 

the maximum extent practicable” with relevant enforceable policies of the State’s federally approved 

coastal management program (15 CFR 930 Subpart C). A consistency review will be performed by the 

affected States prior to the proposed lease sale, upon receipt of the CD’s. Based on the analyses, the 

BOEM Director makes an assessment of consistency, which is then sent to each State with the Proposed 

Notice of Sale. If a State concurs, BOEM can hold the lease sale. If the State objects, it must do the 

following under the CZMA: (1) indicate how BOEM’s presale proposal is inconsistent with their CMP 

and suggest alternative measures to bring BOEM’s proposal into consistency with their CMP; or 

(2) describe the need for additional information that would allow a determination of consistency. Unlike 

the consistency process for specific OCS plans and permits, there is no procedure for administrative 

appeal to the Secretary of Commerce for a Federal CD for presale activities. Either BOEM or the State 

may request mediation. Mediation is voluntary, and the DOC would serve as the mediator. Whether 

there is mediation or not, the final CD is made by DOI and it is the final administrative action for the 

presale consistency process. Each Gulf State’s CMP is described in Appendix B of the Multisale EIS 

(USDOI, MMS, 2007b). 

5.7. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

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

establishes a national policy designed to protect and conserve threatened and endangered species and the 

ecosystems upon which they depend. In accordance with Section 7 of the ESA, the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management consulted with NMFS and FWS on possible and potential impacts from the CPA 
Consultation and Coordination 5-9 

proposed action on endangered/threatened species and designated critical habitat under their jurisdiction. 

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

assessments included the lease sale area addressed in this Supplemental EIS. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

critical habitat under FWS jurisdiction. Under these existing consultations with FWS and NMFS, the 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management requested annual concurrence from both NMFS and FWS to 

ensure that current activities and any actual take remain consistent with the Terms and Conditions of the 

Biological Opinion. For 2010, NMFS emailed their concurrence to BOEMRE on December 3, 2009, and 

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

Following the DWH event, BOEMRE requested reinitiation of ESA Section 7 consultation with 

NMFS and FWS on July 30, 2010. The NMFS responded with a letter to BOEMRE on September 24, 

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

are not complete at this time, although BOEM is in discussions with both agencies. In the meantime, the 

current consultations remain in effect, and NMFS and FWS recognize that BOEM-required mitigations 

and other reasonable and prudent measures should reduce the likelihood of impacts from BOEMauthorized activities. Further, BOEM has determined, under Section 7(d) of the ESA, that the proposed 

action of this Supplemental EIS is not an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources, which has 

the effect of foreclosing the formulation or implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternative 

measures. Both BOEM and BSEE are developing an interim coordination program with NMFS and FWS 

while consultation is ongoing. The BOEM and BSEE will complete joint consultations given the 

proposed action that is covered in this Supplemental EIS is authorized by both bureaus. As both bureaus 

move ahead on the next 5-Year Program (2012-2017) and associated consultations, they will clarify 

language to avoid redundancy and unnecessary delay. 

5.8. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT

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

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

essential fish habitat. The NMFS published the final rule implementing the EFH provisions of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (50 CFR 600) on January 17, 2002. 

Certain OCS activities authorized by BOEM may result in adverse effects to EFH, and therefore, require 

EFH consultation. 

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

Regional Office in preparing a NMFS regional finding for the Gulf of Mexico region that allows this 

Agency to incorporate the EFH assessments into NEPA documents. This Agency consulted on a 

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

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

An EFH consultation for the CPA lease sales included in the 2002-2007 5-Year Program, using the 

2003-2007 Draft Multisale EIS as the NEPA document, was initiated in March 2002 by this Agency with 

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

of resource protection measures previously developed cooperatively by this Agency and NMFS in 1999 to 

minimize and avoid EFH impacts related to exploration and development activities in the CPA. In 

addition to routine measures, additional conservation recommendations were made. In May 2002, this 

Agency responded to NMFS, acknowledging receipt and agreement to follow the additional conservation 

recommendations. The EFH conservation measures recommended by NMFS serve the purpose of 

protecting EFH. Continuing agreements, including avoidance distances from No Activity Zones around 

topographic features and those for live-bottom pinnacle features, and circumstances that require projectspecific consultation, appear in NTL 2004-G05. 
5-10 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

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

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

identification from waters between 100 fathoms (600 ft; 183 m) and the seaward limit of the EEZ. 

Further programmatic consultation was initiated and completed for the lease sales addressed in the 

2007-2012 Multisale EIS. The NMFS concurred by letter dated December 12, 2006, that the information 

presented in the 2007-2012 Draft Multisale EIS satisfies the EFH consultation procedures outlined in 50 

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

mitigations, NMFS’s previous EFH conservation recommendations, and the standard lease stipulations 

and regulations are followed as proposed, NMFS agrees that impacts to EFH and associated fishery 

resources resulting from activities conducted under the 5- Year Program’s lease sales would be minimal. 

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

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

EFH consultation was also addressed in NMFS’s letter. The reinitiated consultations are not complete at 

this time, although BOEM, BSEE, and NMFS have had discussions and are working on a new 

consultation document for the 2012-2017 Multisale EIS. 

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

the most recent and best available information at the time, BOEM will also continue to closely evaluate 

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

documentation under NEPA and other statutes. 

5.9. NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT

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

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

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

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

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

A timeline of 30 days was provided and two responses were received. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

within the project area. Additionally, the STOF-THPO requested to be notified if cultural resources that 

are potentially ancestral or historically relevant to the Seminole Tribe of Florida are inadvertently 

discovered at any point during this process. No further responses were received beyond the 30-day 

timeline and no further requests for consultation were received. 

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

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

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

affected parties should such circumstances warrant further consultation. 

5.10. MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE DRAFT AND FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL 

EIS’S

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

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

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

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

and Final Supplement EIS’s, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management continued to update information 

and data relied on in this document and removed information determined to be irrelevant for this proposed 

action. None of the alterations between the Draft and Final Supplement EIS’s changed the conclusions 

herein. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-11 

5.11. LETTERS OF COMMENT ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS AND BOEM’S 

RESPONSES

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

Register by BOEMRE on July 1, 2011 (USEPA Notice of Availability publication date, July 1, 2011), 

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

Draft Supplemental EIS began on July 1, 2011. The comment period ended on August 16, 2011. 

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

Federal Agencies 

Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

National Park Service 

Environmental Protection Agency 

State Agencies and Representatives 

Alabama Department of Environmental 

Protection 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 

Local Agencies

No comments were received. 

Organizations and Associations 

American Petroleum Institute 

Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of 

Wildlife, OCEANA, Southern Environmental 

Law Center 

International Association of Geophysical 

Contractors 

SkyTruth 

Turtle Island Restoration Network 

West Florida Regional Planning Council 

Industry 

Anadarko 

ConocoPhilips 

General Public 

Viola L. Goldberg 

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

marked for identification purposes. The BOEM’s responses immediately follow each letter. 
5-12 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-13 
5-14 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-15 NMF S-1 
5-16 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS NMFS-2 NMFS-3 NMFS-4 NMFS-5 
Consultation and Coordination 5-17 NMF S-6 
5-18 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS NMFS-7 NMFS-8 
Consultation and Coordination 5-19 
5-20 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

NMFS-1 Comment noted. If the ASLM’s decision is to hold a lease sale under either Alternative A, B, 

or C, it will be announced in the Final Notice of Sale. 

NMFS-2 Clarifying language was added to this Supplemental EIS to include the suggested revisions. 

NMFS-3 Information was added to this Supplemental EIS to include the suggested revisions. 

NMFS-4 Information was added to this Supplemental EIS to include the suggested revisions. 

NMFS-5 Information addressing the May 27, 2011, NOAA announcement that the Atlantic bluefin 

tuna does not warrant species protection under the ESA at this time was added to Chapter 

4.1.1.16.3. 

NMFS-6 The text has been clarified in this Supplemental EIS. 

NMFS-7 Comment noted. The BOEM and BSEE are both in the process of finalizing an interim 

coordination program with NMFS and FWS, given that the proposed actions in the 

consultations cover activities both agencies will authorize. The BOEM will serve as the lead 

agency, with BSEE input. 

NMFS-8 Comment noted. As discussed in this Supplemental EIS, BOEM and BSEE will continue to 

comply with the terms and conditions of the 2007 Biological Opinion. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-21 NP S-1 
5-22 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

NPS-1 Comment noted. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-23 
5-24 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-25 USEP A-1 USEP A-2 USEP A-3 USEP A-4 USEP A-5 
5-26 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS USEP A-6 USEP A-7 USEP A-8 USEP A-9 USEP A-10 
Consultation and Coordination 5-27 USEP A-11 USEP A-12 USEP A-13 
5-28 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS USEP A-14 USEP A-15 USEP A-16 U SEPA- 1 7 USEP A-18 USEP A-19 
Consultation and Coordination 5-29 USEP A-20 USEP A-21 
5-30 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS USEP A-22 USEP A-23 USEP A-24 
Consultation and Coordination 5-31 USEP A-25 USEP A-26 USEP A-27 
5-32 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS USEP A-28 U SEPA- 29 
Consultation and Coordination 5-33 USEP A-30 USEP A-31 USEP A-32 
5-34 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS USEP A-33 U SEPA- 3 4 USEP A-35 
Consultation and Coordination 5-35 
5-36 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

USEPA-1 The BOEM developed the “Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis” (Appendix B) to assess 

impacts from a potential catastrophic spill event. In the assessment of accidental impacts in 

the impact analysis (Chapter 4), Appendix B was incorporated by reference, where 

applicable. Additionally, expanded discussions of the impact of a catastrophic event was 

included in the analysis if it was determined relevant. The purpose of this Supplemental EIS 

was to update analyses since the Multisale EIS and the 2009-2012 Supplemental EIS with 

any newly available information, including but not limited to the DWH event, and to 

determine if baseline conditions have changed since the publication of the previous EIS’s. 

The BOEM acknowledges that information regarding the DWH event is still being developed 

and compiled, primarily through the NRDA process, and that much of this information may 

not be available for years. In this Supplemental EIS, BOEM has identified pending research 

and its determination whether the pending information may be relevant to reasonably 

foreseeable significant impacts and may be essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives, 

consistent with CEQ regulations. 

USEPA-2 The assessment of chronic impacts specifically resulting from the DWH event is a process 

that may take many years of study and research. Although the findings, which are based on 

previous spills, have provided information on potential chronic effects, there are no 

completed studies that considered a spill of the volume of the DWH event. Chapter 4.1, 

“Incomplete or Unavailable Information,” has been expanded since the publication of the 

Draft Supplemental EIS. Where relevant information on reasonably foreseeable significant 

adverse impacts is incomplete or unavailable, the need for the information was evaluated to 

determine if it was essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives and, if so, was either 

acquired or, in the event that it was impossible or exorbitant to acquire the information, 

accepted scientific methodologies were applied in its place. In addition, individual resource 

analyses highlight where information was incomplete or unavailable. Where appropriate, 

BOEM subject-matter experts did reference to chronic impacts resulting from prior spills, 

such as the Exxon Valdez spill and the Ixtoc spill, in their accidental events analyses in 

Chapter 4 and in Appendix B. 

USEPA-3 Since publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS, BOEM subject-matter experts have 

incorporated relevant information and have updated this Supplemental EIS accordingly. The 

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

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

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

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

prepared and presented to the decisionmaker. 

USEPA-4 The structure of this Supplemental EIS was revised from the Multisale EIS and 2009-2012 

Supplemental EIS to better present the proposed action, alternatives, and impact assessment 

in a clear comparative form and to provide decisionmakers a clear choice among options. 

The proposed action here is a single lease sale, and the action alternatives are limited to a 

reduction in the scope of leases offered. The BOEM feels that issues are clearly defined and 

that information to determine a reasoned choice among the alternatives is clear. The BOEM 

also feels that reducing these impacts to a table would be potentially more confusing and 

repetitive. 

USEPA-5 Comment noted. If the ASLM’s decision is to hold a lease sale under either Alternative A, B, 

or C, it will be announced in the Final Notice of Sale 

USEPA-6 This Supplemental EIS updates information made available since the Multisale EIS and the 

2009-2012 Supplemental EIS, including but not limited to information relating to the DWH 

event. When these prior NEPA documents were finalized, a spill of the magnitude of the 

DWH event was not considered to be a reasonably foreseeable event. The likelihood of 

another event on this scale remains exceedingly low, made even more so by BOEM’s and 
Consultation and Coordination 5-37 

BSEE’s promulgation of new drilling and safety regulations and the ongoing endeavors to 

advance containment technologies. Two new appendices, however, were added to this 

Supplemental EIS to provide more information about potential impacts of a catastrophic spill: 

Appendix B, “Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis” and Appendix C, “BOEM-OSRA 

Catastrophic Run.” The summaries provided in Chapter 2.3.1.2 are for the analyses in 

Chapter 4 concerning routine impacts, impacts from accidental events described in the 

development scenario, and cumulative impacts. Clarifying language has been added to 

Chapter 2.3.1, indicating that catastrophic spill event impacts are discussed in Appendix B. 

USEPA-7 See the response to Comment USEPA-6. 

USEPA-8 As noted in the response to USEPA-6, the information referred to in Chapter 2.3.1.2 

(Summary of Impacts) is only intended to provide a summary of the potential impacts of 

routine and accidental impacts associated with the proposed action on wetlands. More 

detailed information is presented in Chapter 4.1.1.3. 

 The BOEM disagrees with USEPA’s comment that oil- and gas-related transportation is one 

of the greatest uses of federally maintained navigation channels along the central Gulf Coast. 

As noted in Chapter 4.1.1.4.2, OCS-related traffic is only a small portion (approximately 

9%) of the total commercial traffic in the Gulf, and the average contribution of the CPA 

proposed action to OCS-related vessel traffic in navigation canals is expected to be small 

(3-4%). Therefore, the total contribution of the CPA proposed action to total commercial 

traffic is from 0.2 to 0.4 percent. 

USEPA–9 This language has been clarified. In this Supplemental EIS, BOEM concludes that there is a 

potential for a low-probability catastrophic event to result in significant, population-level 

effects on affected sea turtle species. The BOEM has reinitiated consultation with NMFS and 

FWS, is complying with reasonable and prudent measures and the terms and conditions of an 

existing Biological Opinion, and is working on an interim coordination program with these 

agencies while consultation is ongoing to protect endangered species, including sea turtles. 

The NMFS has collected a number of sea turtles both before and after the DWH event, but to 

date has not provided a suspected cause of death for many or all of them. Given that current 

data indicate that the emergency berms in Louisiana were not effective in minimizing impacts 

from the DWH event and that the Presidential Oil Spill Commission counseled against future 

use of such berms (Oil Spill Commission, 2011a), BOEM does not expect that similar berms 

would be used as a response measure if a low-probability catastrophic event were to occur in 

the future. 

USEPA-10 The language has been clarified in this Supplemental EIS. 

USEPA-11 As noted in the response to USEPA-6, the information referred to in Chapter 2.3.1.2 

(Summary of Impacts) is only intended to provide a summary of the potential impacts of 

routine and accidental impacts associated with the proposed action on topographic features. 

More detailed information, including referenced studies, is presented in Chapter 4.1.1.22. 

The BOEM notes USEPA’s preference for Alternative B. If the ASLM’s decision is to hold a 

lease sale under either Alternative A, B, or C, it will be announced in the Final Notice of 

Sale.

USEPA-12 The impacts of routine events on water quality related to the proposed action are discussed in 

Chapters 4.1.1.2.1.2 and 4.1.1.2.2.2, as related to coastal and offshore waters, respectively. 

Information on the VGP is provided in those chapters. The VGP is also discussed in the 

cumulative impacts analyses in Chapters 4.2.1.2.1.4 and 4.2.1.2.2.4, as related to coastal and 

offshore waters, respectively. 
5-38 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

USEPA-13 Comment noted. The BOEM realizes that this paragraph may have been unduly confusing to 

the reader; therefore, the BOEM subject-matter expert has revised the text to clarify what the 

catastrophic-spill OSRA run was designed to do, as well as to provide a reference to 

Appendix C of the Supplemental EIS for more information regarding the catastrophic-spill 

OSRA run. At this point in time, there is no continuing model verification effort for a 

catastrophic-spill OSRA run unless or until new information warranting reevaluation 

becomes available. The BOEM subject-matter experts have applied the OSRA modeling run 

identified in Appendix C where appropriate in their individual resource analyses in 

Chapter 4, including what information is currently available on the impacts from the DWH 

event. 

USEPA-14 Comment noted. The information was revised to reflect that materials from maintenance 

dredging are primarily disposed of offshore in ocean dredged-material disposal sites. The 

reference to “disposal banks” was removed from the text. 

USEPA-15 Chapter 3.3.3 (“Dredged Material Disposal”) of this Supplemental EIS was revised to 

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

USEPA-16 Chapter 3.3.3 (“Dredged Material Disposal”) of this Supplemental EIS was revised to clarify 

that the ocean dredged-material disposal sites listed in Table 3-13 are those sites utilized by 

COE. 

USEPA-17 Comment noted. Information was removed from this Supplemental EIS in response to the 

suggested changes. 

USEPA-18 Comment noted. Information related to the Gulf Gateway Energy Bridge LNG terminal was 

deleted from this Supplemental EIS as it is in the process of being decommissioned. 

USEPA-19 Comment noted. The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet was removed from the list of federally 

maintained navigation channels. 

USEPA-20 The difficulties of responding to deepwater spills are identified and addressed within the spill 

response section in Chapter 3.2.1.5.2 and within the catastrophic spill analyses in 

Appendix B. The BOEM has identified several task forces to examine and implement, 

where advisable, the recommendations made by numerous groups subsequent to the DWH 

event; however, much of this work is still pending. Once the recommendations identified 

within the National Commission on the BP DWH Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling’s final 

report are assessed and potentially implemented, this information will be included in future 

NEPA documents. 

USEPA-21 Comment noted. See Chapter 1.5 (“Air Emissions”) for information on BSEE’s criteria for 

modeling. Clarifying language has also been added to Chapter 4.1.1.1.2 indicating that, 

during exploratory drilling operations (which, depending on the circumstances, may be 

classified as a temporary activity under BSEE’s air regulation at 30 CFR 250.302), air 

emissions may contribute to onshore air exceedances of the new short-term, 1-hour NOx and 

SOx NAAQS and, hence, may affect the onshore air quality. As noted in the response to 

USEPA-22, however, BSEE requires those operators subject to OCD modeling to 

demonstrate compliance with the new 1-hour NAAQS standards. 

USEPA-22 See language in Chapter 1.5 (“Air Emissions”) and in Chapter 4.1.1.1.2. If the estimated 

annual air emissions for facilities exceed the exemption level for a specific pollutant (i.e., a 

screening process), the operator is required to submit the source-specific modeling using the 

OCD model and air emission sources from individual facilities to BOEM/BSEE for air 

quality plan reviews. For those operators required to submit NOx OCD modeling, BSEE now 

requires the operator to conduct the OCD modeling to also ensure compliance with the new 
Consultation and Coordination 5-39 

short-term, 1-hour NOx NAAQS. Because USEPA has recently finalized the short-term 

NAAQS standards, BOEM plans to conduct a full impacts modeling study to look at annual 

and short-term standards. The BOEM has performed impacts modeling using the 2005 

emissions inventory and the ozone standard in place at that time. 

USEPA-23 The BOEM enforces air quality mitigation measures through Air Quality Reviews. The air 

quality regulations at 30 CFR 550.303 require air pollution control technology (including 

BACT) and the OCD modeling if the exemption level is exceeded. In air quality plans 

submittals, the air quality regulations require appropriate air quality mitigation measures, 

such as fuel use certifications and run time documentation for activities such as fuel 

combustion and flaring 

 Regulations provide for some limited volume, short duration flaring or venting of oil and 

natural gas upon approval by BSEE (2-14 days, typically). Through 30 CFR 250.1160, 

BSEE may allow operators to burn liquid hydrocarbons if they can demonstrate that 

transporting them to market or re-injecting them into the formation is not technically feasible 

or poses a significant risk of harm to the environment. 

USEPA-24 Comment noted. The suggested change has been made in this Supplemental EIS. 

USEPA-25 The USEPA has announced that the proposed 8-hour ozone standard will not be finalized at 

this time, pending completion of the regular 5-year NAAQS review. As described in 

Chapter 4.1.1.1.2, BOEM subject-matter experts have evaluated the potential impacts of the 

proposed action’s routine activities on onshore ozone levels (at the previous NAAQS 

standard of 0.08 ppm) and found only minimal contributions likely to result from the 

proposed action. As discussed in Chapter 1.5, based on modeling results, BSEE may require 

BACT and other control measures. 

USEPA-26 Comment noted. The section on “Air Emissions” in Chapter 1.5 describes the screening 

levels for modeling and the application of BACT. If any of the modeled concentrations 

exceed BOEM significance levels, regulations require the lessee to apply BACT and, if 

necessary, additional emission controls or emission offsets may be required. 

USEPA-27 The subject paragraph has been removed as it was confusing to readers. Impacts from spills 

on coastal water quality and proximity to shore are described in better detail in Chapter 

4.1.1.2.1.3 (“Impacts of Accidental Events”). The BOEM subject-matter experts had 

addressed the factors that USEPA cites in the Draft Supplemental EIS, and they do not feel 

that these factors were in any way minimized. 

USEPA-28 The BOEM subject-matter experts have included the scientifically credible information that is 

available and relevant to update their analyses in this Supplemental EIS, including certain 

sources in NOAA’s Deepwater Horizon: A Preliminary Bibliography of Published Research 

and Expert Commentary (NMFS, 2011e). Clarifying language, including Lavoie et al.’s 

(2011) recommendations on monitoring, are included in Chapter 4.1.1.3.4 of this 

Supplemental EIS. To date, preliminary monitoring results have not been made available to 

the public, and BOEM has identified what information remains incomplete or unavailable at 

this time, whether it is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and whether it can be 

obtained or if the costs of obtaining it are exorbitant. 

USEPA-29 Comment noted. The suggested change has been made in this Supplemental EIS. 

USEPA-30 The USEPA’s comment refers to “Summary and Conclusion, Page 4-74 through 4-80, 

paragraph one.” Please note, however, that on page 4-74 is the summary and conclusion for 

accidental events based on an analysis of potential accidental events from the proposed action 

and not from a catastrophic oil spill such as the DWH spill, which is analyzed in 
5-40 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Appendix B. The citations supporting the conclusions made in this paragraph are included in 

the bulk of the accidental events analysis on the preceding pages. The remaining text referred 

to by USEPA on pages 4-74 through 4-80 consists of the cumulative analysis of wetlands, 

which includes a discussion of oil-spill impacts generally, including from the DWH spill. 

The comment further states that the Draft Supplemental EIS concludes that impacts to 

seagrass communities “would be considered short term in duration and minor in scope” and 

that impacts to birds would be “negligible.” The BOEM subject-matter experts based these 

conclusions on the analysis of potential oil spills and cleanup activities associated with the 

proposed action and not with a catastrophic spill such as the DWH spill, which is addressed 

in Appendix B. 

 The USEPA has stated that it is unclear what additional information was used in drawing 

conclusions about potential impacts to wetlands, seagrass beds, and wildlife; that recent 

events have shown that spills from offshore drilling can have considerable impacts; and that 

the environmental impacts of potential spills need to be given due consideration in evaluating 

the proposed activities and emergency preparedness. The BOEM believes that potential 

impacts of the proposed activities, including accidental spills, have been adequately 

considered in this Supplemental EIS. For example, concerning the impacts to wetlands, 

Chapter 4.1.1.4.3 (“Impacts of Accidental Events”) includes an analysis of oil-spill impacts, 

along with an evaluation of cleanup methods. Numerous references are supplied supporting 

the conclusions provided in this Supplemental EIS. 

 In addition, BOEM subject-matter experts have included scientifically credible information 

that has become available since the publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS, where 

appropriate. The publication of the OSAT reports, previously unavailable at the time of the 

preparation of the Draft Supplemental EIS, also indicate that there may be less damaging 

treated oil reaching the wetlands. However, much of the NRDA data remain unavailable, 

along with other ongoing studies. The BOEM has identified where information remains 

incomplete or unavailable, whether it is relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse 

impacts, whether it is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives, and whether it can be 

obtained or whether the costs of doing so are exorbitant. 

USEPA-31 Comment noted. The information referenced by USEPA in Chapter 4.1.1.4.4 has been 

revised in response to this comment. 

USEPA-32 The reinitiated consultations are not complete at this time, although BOEM and BSEE are in 

discussions with both agencies. In the meantime, the current consultation remains in effect 

and recognizes that required mitigations and other reasonable and prudent measures should 

reduce the likelihood of impacts from BOEM- and BSEE-authorized activities. Further, 

BOEM has determined, under Section 7(d) of the ESA, that the proposed action is not an 

irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources, which has the effect of foreclosing the 

formulation or implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternative measures. The 

BOEM and BSEE are also developing an interim coordination program with NMFS and FWS 

while consultation is ongoing. As BOEM moves ahead on the next 5-Year Program (2012-

2017) and associated consultations, it will clarify language to avoid redundancy and 

unnecessary delay. 

USEPA-33 Comments noted. Additional information was added to Chapter 4.1.1.21.4.3 to address 

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

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

information following the DWH event. 

USEPA-34 As is stated in Chapter 5.9, letters were sent to coastal Tribes and SHPO’s on November 12, 

2011, requesting consultation on lease sales in both the CPA and WPA, which included 

proposed CPA Lease Sale 216/222. Only two responses were received, one of which was 
Consultation and Coordination 5-41 

from the Louisiana SHPO. The only tribe to respond was the Seminole, whose tribal interests 

do not extend into the CPA; therefore, they were not specifically identified in this 

Supplemental EIS. Letters also were sent to the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, The 

Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana, the Alabama Coushatta Tribe of Texas, the Choctaw Nation 

of Oklahoma, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, the Caddo Nation, the Jena Band of Choctaw 

Indians, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, and the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana 

in the belief that these tribes would likely have a historical interest in the Gulf Coast and 

could perhaps share information on Traditional Cultural Properties or traditional relationships 

with the Gulf of Mexico. 

USEPA-35 This comment does not seem to relate so much to a Section 106 issue as it does to 

environmental justice, which is addressed in Chapter 4.1.1.21.4. The Houma and the coastal 

tribes identified by USEPA are not federally recognized and are not accorded the same status 

for government-to-government consultation. While the Houma may well have been affected 

by the DWH event, hurricanes, and land subsidence, it is unlikely that they were 

disproportionately affected in comparison to other coastal ethnic groups such as Isleños, 

Cajuns, Vietnamese, African Americans, or other inhabitants of South Louisiana. The 

BOEM, through its public hearings, has actively sought public input into its NEPA processes 

and has specifically requested input for compliance with Section 106. 
5-42 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-43 FW S-1 FW S-2 FWS-3 FWS-7 FWS-4 FWS-5 FWS-6 FWS-8 FWS-9
5-44 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS FW S-11 FW S- 14 FW S-10 FW S-12 FW S-13 FWS-15 FW S-16 FWS-17 FW S-18 FW S-19 FWS-20 
Consultation and Coordination 5-45 FWS-20 FW S-21 F WS- 2 2 FWS-23 
5-46 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

FWS-1 A revision was made to the document to include FWS as one of the key agencies that BOEM 

conducted early key coordination related to this Supplemental EIS. 

FWS-2 The references have been deleted. 

FWS-3 The FWS comment was noted, and revisions were made to the referenced text. 

FWS-4 A revision was made to this Supplemental EIS to reflect the correct appendix, which is now 

Appendix D. 

FWS-5 The FWS comment was noted, and a revision was made to the text. 

FWS-6 Comment noted. The subject paragraph was deleted in response to other comments and due 

to the confusion it caused. As noted in Chapter 1.5, operators are required to submit 

modeling data when certain screening thresholds are exceeded. The BOEM Environmental 

Studies Program (ESP) funds studies to obtain information needed for NEPA assessment and 

for the management of environmental and socioeconomic impacts on the human, marine, and 

coastal environments that may be affected by OCS oil and gas development. The ESP studies 

were used by BOEM’s Gulf of Mexico OCS Region analysts to prepare this Supplemental 

EIS. In the absence of available ESP data, BOEM utilizes credible data from other State and 

Federal agencies where applicable. 

FWS-7 The FWS comment was noted, and a revision was made to the text. 

FWS-8 The BOEM subject-matter experts have used the relevant and scientifically credible 

information available at the time to prepare their analyses. Fraser and Ellis (2008) compared 

oil-spill frequency predictions in advance of a project with observed data during and after. 

For this proposed action, the predicted number of spills is based on the estimated range of 

crude oil volume to be handled as a result of the lease sale. Because nearly all of the spills 

are 1 bbl (based on historical data) and because the scenario includes such a wide range in 

oil production, BOEM’s ability to correctly predict spills resulting from the proposed action 

in a manner similar to Fraser and Ellis (2008) is not compatible with a single lease sale within 

the context of multiple lease sales over time in a single planning area. 

FWS-9 The text has been edited in multiple locations in this Supplemental EIS to indicate that the 

discussion is of reported spills, which may not include all spills. 

FWS-10 A discussion on manatee distribution and abundance is provided in the threatened and 

endangered species subsection in Chapter 4.1.1.11.1. 

FWS-11 Language in Chapter 4.1.1.11.2 indicates that coastal and nearshore support activities, such 

as marine debris and vessel strikes, could impact marine mammals, which includes manatees. 

In addition, Chapter 4.2.2.1.5 of the Multisale EIS provides a discussion of vessel strikes and 

manatees. 

FWS-12 Clarifying language has been added to this Supplemental EIS. 

FWS-13 Clarifying language has been added to this Supplemental EIS, and additional information is 

presented in Chapter 4.2.2.1.6 of the Multisale EIS. 

FWS-14 Clarifying language has been added to Chapter 4.1.1.13.2. 

FWS-15 Clarifying language has been added to Chapter 4.1.1.14.1. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-47 

FWS-16 Clarifying language has been added to Chapter 4.1.1.14.1. 

FWS-17 Additional language on the Mississippi sandhill crane and wood stork has been added to 

Chapter 4.1.1.14.1. 

FWS-18 Clarifying language has been added to Chapter 4.1.1.14.1

FWS-19 The language in this Supplemental EIS has been corrected. 

FWS-20 To date, the primary equipment need identified by BOEM that could greatly reduce spill 

duration and spill impacts is subsea containment equipment. To address this need, BOEM 

issued NTL 2010-N10, which provides that an operator should submit information 

demonstrating that it has access to and can deploy containment resources that would be 

adequate to properly respond to a blowout or other loss of well control while conducting 

activities that require approval of a permit to drill (APD/RPD, AST/RST, or ABP/RBP) and 

involve the use of a subsea BOP system, a floating drilling rig equipped with a surface BOP 

system, or a drilling rig on a floating platform. Having this equipment available and onsite 

within weeks instead of months, as was the case during the DWH spill, should greatly reduce 

the spill duration and associated spill impacts. These new requirements and details regarding 

this equipment are included in Chapter 3.2.1.5.1. Although these new regulatory programs 

and increased containment capabilities reduce both the risk of a catastrophic spill and the 

duration of such an event, Appendix B includes an analysis of the potential impacts of such a 

spill in the unlikely event that it occurs and is meant to be conservative in its approach. 

FWS-21 Clarifying language on the least tern has been added to Appendix B. A discussion of the 

endangered whooping crane, Mississippi sandhill crane, and wood stork has been added to 

Appendix B. 

FWS-22 The language has been corrected. 

FWS-23 A special OSRA run was conducted in order to estimate the impacts of a possible future 

catastrophic spill. Thus, the goal of this analysis was to emphasize a spill that continued for 

90 consecutive days. 

 The traditional OSRA run does use historical spill rates based on Anderson and LaBelle 

(2000) and earlier work. The Anderson and LaBelle (2000) study has recently been updated. 

Although it is still in draft form, the new information has been incorporated into Table 3-5. 

Future OSRA runs will use this updated historical spill rate information. 
5-48 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS ADEM-1 
Consultation and Coordination 5-49 

ADEM-1 Comment noted. If the ASLM’s decision is to hold a lease sale under either Alternative A, B, 

or C, it will be announced in the Final Notice of Sale. The BOEM may apply a number of 

lease sale mitigations and stipulations to minimize the impacts of oil and gas exploration and 

development. Chapter 2.2.2.1 discusses these mitigations and stipulations, including the 

Topographic Features Stipulation. Additionally, a number of site-specific mitigations for 

environmental protection and safety are routinely applied by BSEE at the post-lease stage. 

All exploration plans, development plans, and pipeline applications are thoroughly reviewed 

to determine what protective measure(s) should to be included as a condition of plan or 

permit approval. Mitigations and stipulations are developed as conditions warrant and are 

subject to a review and approval process. 
5-50 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS LADEQ-1 
Consultation and Coordination 5-51 
5-52 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

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

State, and local laws and regulations. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-53 
5-54 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS LADNR-1 LADNR-2 
Consultation and Coordination 5-55 

LADNR-1 The purpose of this Supplemental EIS is to evaluate any changes in baseline conditions, 

including those as a result of the DWH event and several hurricanes, and to determine if any 

of the impact conclusions presented in the Multisale EIS and the 2009-2012 Supplemental 

EIS need to be modified in light of these events. This Supplemental EIS is tiered from those 

EIS’s and includes any additional information available since their publication. The issues 

identified by LADNR in this comment (i.e., data sources, predictive techniques, and impact 

analyses; direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts; and mitigation of direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts) have been responded to thoroughly in Chapter 5 of those EIS’s, and 

those responses remain valid, as supplemented by the additional information and analyses 

included in this Supplemental EIS. As noted in Chapter 2, BOEM and BSEE may apply 

appropriate mitigations either as part of the lease sale, through stipulations, or at the postlease stage, respectively. 

LADNR-2 In comments on the Multisale EIS and the 2009-2012 Supplemental EIS, the State previously 

provided comments on the issue of onshore impacts associated with lease sales and the 

mitigation thereof. These comments have been responded to thoroughly in Chapter 5 of those 

EIS’s, and those responses remain valid, as supplemented by the additional information and 

analyses included in this Supplemental EIS. The BOEM and BSEE would like to reiterate 

that we are neither the permitting agency nor the applicant for onshore pipelines, canal 

dredging, dredged material placement, or infrastructure construction. The primary permitting 

agencies for these onshore activities are COE and the State. Nevertheless, these and other 

potential onshore impacting factors are accounted for in the routine and cumulative impact 

analyses for resources in Chapter 4, where relevant. 
5-56 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS W FRPC-1 
Consultation and Coordination 5-57 
5-58 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

WFRPC-1 Comment noted. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-59 
5-60 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS ANA D-1 ANA D-2 
Consultation and Coordination 5-61 ANA D-3 ANA D-4 
5-62 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS ANAD -5 ANAD-6 
Consultation and Coordination 5-63 ANA D-7 ANA D-8 
5-64 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

ANAD-1 Comment noted. The decision on which alternative will be selected will be made after the 

Supplemental EIS is finalized and, if the decision is to hold a lease sale under either 

Alternative A, B, or C, it will be announced in the Final Notice of Sale. 

ANAD-2 The proposed action of this Supplemental EIS is proposed CPA Lease Sale 216/222, and the 

impact analysis was conducted on this proposed action. The CPA Lease Sale 213 was 

analyzed in the Multisale EIS, the 20007-2009 Supplemental EIS, and an Environmental 

Assessment, and the determinations made at that time still apply to that action. The CPA 

Lease Sale 213 was held in 2010; therefore, the Federal action is complete and not subject to 

any additional prelease NEPA evaluation. It would be inappropriate to include previously 

completed lease sales in this Supplemental EIS, as there is no Federal action to be taken on 

those lease sales at this time. Nevertheless, while CPA Lease Sale 213 is complete and not 

subject to additional NEPA review at this time, BOEM acknowledges that this Supplemental 

EIS covers environmental concerns that may be equally applicable to other lease sales in the 

CPA, as it includes new information available since the preparation of prior NEPA 

documents and the DWH event. As such, the information in this Supplemental EIS may 

likewise be relevant to an analysis of potential environmental impacts of CPA Lease Sale 

213. 

ANAD-3 See the response to Comment ANAD-2. 

ANAD-4 See the response to Comment ANAD-2. 

ANAD-5 See the response to Comment ANAD-2. 

ANAD-6 See the response to Comment ANAD-2. 

ANAD-7 See the response to Comment ANAD-2. 

ANAD-8 See the response to Comment rANAD-2. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-65 
5-66 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS API-1 
Consultation and Coordination 5-67 API-2 API-3 
5-68 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS API-3 API-4 
Consultation and Coordination 5-69 API-5 API-6 
5-70 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS API-7 
Consultation and Coordination 5-71 API-8 
5-72 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

API-1 Comment noted. If the ASLM’s decision is to hold a lease sale under either Alternative A, B, 

or C, it will be announced in the Final Notice of Sale. 

API 1-2 The BOEM has updated this Supplemental EIS since the publication of the Draft 

Supplemental EIS in order to consider relevant new information that has become available 

since the Draft Supplemental EIS; this includes published information relating to the DWH 

event. The incorporation of relevant information is time consuming, as it must be obtained 

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

methodology, and data quality. As is necessary under every NEPA analysis, at some point 

the subject-matter experts had to finalize their analyses to allow time for this Final 

Supplemental EIS to be prepared and presented to the decisionmaker. 

API 1-3 The BOEM has updated this Supplemental EIS since the publication of the Draft 

Supplemental EIS in order to consider relevant new information related to the OSAT I and II 

reports. However, BOEM does not agree that this Supplemental EIS is the appropriate place 

to provide a summary of documents such as OSAT I and II. The full range of environmental 

consequences cannot be characterized at this stage by two documents that were specific to 

impacts to certain resources. The BOEM subject-matter experts have referenced the OSAT 

reports and other information, where relevant, in their individual resource analyses. The 

complete picture of the impacts of the DWH event will not emerge for several years, and this 

will be the result of much research. As such, BOEM subject-matter experts have identified 

where relevant information on significant adverse impacts remains incomplete or unavailable, 

have determined whether the information is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives, 

and if so, whether the information can be obtained or whether the costs of doing so are 

exorbitant. If the information could not be obtained, what scientifically credible information 

was available was applied using accepted scientific methodologies. 

API-4 Language has been added to the “Summary” and elsewhere in this Supplemental EIS, where 

appropriate, to clarify that the “Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis” is found in Appendix B. 

API 1-5 This Supplemental EIS provides detailed descriptions of the administrative and regulatory 

changes made by BOEMRE following the DWH event and oil spill (Chapter 1.3.1), which 

are in effect to minimize the risk of future blowouts and oil spills. This chapter describes the 

regulatory framework already in place, requiring that the OCS leasing process and all 

activities and operations on the OCS comply with other Federal, State, and local laws and 

regulations. Since these documents are generally applicable and readily available from 

BOEM or on the Internet, detailed descriptions are unnecessary and duplicative in this 

Supplemental EIS. All NTL’s are updated and fully described on BOEM’s website. Where 

relevant to the NEPA analysis, BOEM has included information on containment capabilities, 

including but not limited to, the Marine Well Containment Company and Helix Energy 

Solutions Group. 

API-6 Where the BOEM subject-matter experts felt it was appropriate, the document was revised to 

reflect newly available information or to clarify language. 

API-7 Chapter 4.1, “Incomplete or Unavailable Information,” has been revised. Where relevant 

information on reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts is incomplete or 

unavailable, the need for the information was evaluated to determine if it was essential to a 

reasoned choice among the alternatives and, if so, was either acquired or, in the event it was 

impossible or exorbitant to acquire the information, accepted scientific methodologies were 

applied in its place. In addition, individual resource analyses highlight where information 

was incomplete or unavailable. 

API- 8 Comment noted. Similar revisions have been made to Chapter 4.1 where appropriate. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-73 AP I ENCLOSURE 1 (API1) C OMMENTS 1-6 
5-74 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS API 1 COMMENTS 7-11 
Consultation and Coordination 5-75 API 1 COMMENTS 12-15 
5-76 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS API 1 COMMENTS 16-20 
Consultation and Coordination 5-77 API1 COMMENTS 21-23 
5-78 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

API 1-1 Comment noted. Please see Chapter 5.11 of the WPA Lease Sale 218’s Final Supplemental 

EIS for the letters of comment on the Draft Supplemental EIS and BOEMRE’s responses 

(USDOI, BOEMRE, 2011b). For any revisions to the WPA Lease Sale 218’s Final 

Supplemental EIS in response to public comments that were also appropriate for a CPA lease 

sale Supplemental EIS, BOEM attempted to carry forward these revisions to this CPA Lease 

Sale 216/222 Final Supplemental EIS. In addition to these document revisions, the subjectmatter experts updated this Supplemental EIS with newly available and relevant information 

since publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS on July 1, 2011. 

API 1-2 This Supplemental EIS provides detailed descriptions of the administrative and regulatory 

changes made by BOEM following the DWH event and oil spill (Chapter 1.3.1); these 

changes are in effect to minimize the risk of future blowouts and oil spills. This chapter 

describes the regulatory framework already in place, requiring that the OCS leasing process 

and all activities and operations on the OCS comply with other Federal, State, and local laws 

and regulations. Since these documents are generally applicable and readily available from 

BOEM or on the Internet, detailed descriptions are unnecessary and duplicative in this 

Supplemental EIS. All NTL’s are updated and fully described on BOEM’s website. Where 

relevant to the NEPA analysis, BOEM has included information on containment capabilities, 

including but not limited to, the Marine Well Containment Company and Helix Energy 

Solutions Group. 

API 1-3 The discussion on unavailable information is discussed in Chapter 4.1. Chapter 4 contains 

the impact analysis, and BOEM feels that this is the best location to discuss this issue. 

API 1-4 Clarifying language on the current status of consultation has been incorporated into this 

Supplemental EIS where appropriate. 

API 1-5 This sentence has been clarified. The BOEM subject-matter experts have included analyses 

of the DWH event where appropriate, whether in their individual resource analyses in 

Chapter 4 or in Appendix B.

API 1-6 A general discussion on incomplete and unavailable information (Chapter 4.1) has been 

revised since the Draft Supplemental EIS. This revised version addresses API’s comment. In 

addition, clarifying language has been added where appropriate in the individual resource 

analyses in Chapter 4. 

API 1-7 Comment noted. Webb’s 1988 paper, referenced in this Supplemental EIS in Chapters 

4.1.1.3.3 and 4.1.1.3.4, is entitled “Establishment of Vegetation on Oil Contaminated 

Dunes.” The purpose of this study was to determine if dune vegetation could grow in oiled 

dunes. The discussion here is related to dunes and beaches and not to salt marshes. 

API 1-8 Clarifying language was added in Chapter 4.1.1.11.2. 

API 1-9 In the Draft Supplemental EIS, the “Gulf Sturgeon: 5-Year Review” (USDOI, FWS and 

USDOC, NMFS, 2009) was utilized; however, the authors referenced within that report were 

individually cited. Therefore, in this Final Supplemental EIS, citations to the “Gulf Sturgeon: 

5-Year Review” were modified to refer to the report as a whole rather than to the individual 

authors. 

API 1-10 Revisions have been made to the text. 

API 1-11 Revisions have been made to the text. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-79 

API 1-12 The API comment was noted, and revisions were made to the text regarding unnecessary 

information included with the “Impacts of Accidental Events” section. The PAH’s have a 

history of occurrence in Gulf sturgeon tissue. The PAH’s are insoluble in water but remain 

available in the bottom sediment. Various life stages of sturgeon are benthic feeders, making 

them more susceptible to uptake. Gulf sturgeon, being fish predators during parts of their life 

history, makes them more susceptible for at least bioconcentrating and possibly 

biomagnifying PAH’s in their tissues. 

 Since the publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS on July 1, 2011, BOEM subject-matter 

expert have incorporated relevant information and have updated this Supplemental EIS 

accordingly, including information from both OSAT reports, which were not available at the 

time the Draft Supplemental EIS was prepared. 

API 1-13 Comment noted. References to human consumption effects were removed from the Gulf 

sturgeon chapter. This Supplemental EIS has been updated to better describe the behavior of 

dispersed oil in relationship to effects on benthic habitat. Notably, the description 

acknowledges that generally, dispersed oil does not form an oil mat (usually emulsified and 

then easily biodegraded by existing microbial activity) on the bottom nor on the important 

benthic habitat used for forage by the Gulf sturgeon. 

API 1-14 Produced water was only briefly mentioned since OCS wells are generally far removed from 

Gulf sturgeon habitat and their known ranging areas. There has been little to no current 

information collected acknowledging the occurrence of Gulf sturgeon in these deeper OCS 

waters. 

 Pipeline installation in OCS waters is not expected to impact Gulf sturgeon due to proximity 

of the work to the areas of known documented Gulf sturgeon occurrence. The following 

language was provided in the Draft Supplemental EIS: 

Pipeline placement may have the greatest potential for impact to Gulf 

sturgeon and their critical habitat from OCS pipeline connections to state 

pipelines or the potential for the one OCS pipeline landfall associated with 

the proposed action. Typical methods to lay pipeline can result in bottom 

and sediment disturbance, burial of submerged vegetation, reduced water 

clarity, reduced light penetration, and the resulting reduction of seagrass 

cover and productivity. 

API 1-15 The API 1 comment was noted, and the revision was made to the text. 

API 1-16 Comment noted. The sentence was revised. 

API 1-17 Comment noted. Information was deleted to resolve the redundancy. 

API 1-18 This Supplemental EIS is not a decision document; therefore, there is no reasoning “for not 

selecting” Alternative D, the No Action Alternative. No decision has been made at this time 

on which alternative may be chosen following completion of this Supplemental EIS. That 

decision is up to the decisionmaker and, if the ASLM’s decision is to hold a lease sale under 

either Alternative A, B, or C, it will be announced in the Final Notice of Sale. The economic 

effect of the suspension of Gulf operations post-DWH are not the same as cancelling one 

lease sale. The suspension stopped ongoing operations, which resulted in economic costs to 

both the industry and government. These same impacts were not realized in the cancellation 

of previous lease sales and would not be expected in the event that this or other future lease 

sales are cancelled or postponed. Therefore, BOEM feels that the No Action Alternative 

discussion provided in Chapter 4 adequately describes the effect of the cancellation of 

proposed CPA Lease Sale 216/222. 
5-80 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

API 1-19 Comment noted. Additional language was added to Section 2.2.1.1 of Appendix B. 

API 1-20 Comment noted. The comment references hard-bottom habitats but discusses the information 

discussed in the next section, which is Deepwater Habitats. The Deepwater Habitats section 

discusses NTL 2009 G40. The Hard Bottom Shelf Habitats section discusses the hard-bottom 

features found on the continental shelf. Clarification of the water depth was added to the 

Hard Bottom Shelf Habitats section. 

API 1-21 Commend noted. Clarifying language was added to Appendix B to describe actions that may 

be required to identify and avoid archaeological resources that may be present within the 

proposed action area. 

API 1-22 Comment noted. Additional relevant and updated references were added to Appendix B. 

API 1-23 This language has been replaced and clarified in Appendix B. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-81 API 2-1 API 2-2 API 2-3 API 2-4 
5-82 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS API 2-5 API 2-6 API 2-7 
Consultation and Coordination 5-83 API 2-8 API 2-9 API 2-10 API 2-11 
5-84 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS API 2-12 AND 13 API 2-14 API 2-15 
Consultation and Coordination 5-85 API 2-15 (CONTINUED) 
5-86 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS API 2-15 (C ONTINUED) API 2-16 API 2-17 API 2-18 
Consultation and Coordination 5-87 API 2-19 API 2-20 API 2-21 API 2-22 API 2-23 
5-88 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS AP I 2-24 AP I 2-25 AP I 2-26 AP I 2-27 AP I 2-28 AP I 2-2 9 
Consultation and Coordination 5-89 API 2-30 API 2-31 API 2-32 
5-90 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS API 2-33 API 2-34 API 2-35 API 2-36 API 2-37 
Consultation and Coordination 5-91 API 2-38 API 2-39 API 2-40 API 2-41 API 2-42 API 2-43 
5-92 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS AP I 2-44 AP I 2-45 API 2-46 API 2-47 API 2-48 
Consultation and Coordination 5-93 AP I 2-49 
5-94 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS API 2-50 
Consultation and Coordination 5-95 API 2-51 
5-96 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS API 2-52 
Consultation and Coordination 5-97 API 2 -53 API 2-54 API 2-55 API 2-56 AP I 2- 57 API 2 -58 API 2-59 
5-98 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS API 2-60 API 2-61 API 2-62 AP I 2- 63 AP I 2- 64 AP I 2- 6 5 API 2-66 
Consultation and Coordination 5-99 API 2-67 API 2-68 API 2-69 
5-100 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS API 2-70 API 2-71 API 2 -72 API 2-73 API 2-74 
Consultation and Coordination 5-101 AP I 2-75 AP I 2-76 AP I 2-77 AP I 2-78 
5-102 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS AP I 2-79 AP I 2-80 
Consultation and Coordination 5-103 API 2-81 API 2-82 
5-104 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS AP I 2-8 3 AP I 2-84 AP I 2-8 5 
Consultation and Coordination 5-105 API 2-86 API 2-87 API 2-88 
5-106 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS AP I 2-89 AP I 2-90 AP I 2-91 AP I 2-9 2 
Consultation and Coordination 5-107 API 2-93 API 2-94 API 2 -95 AP I 2- 96 AP I 2- 9 7 AP I 2- 9 8 
5-108 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS AP I 2-99 AP I 2-100 AP I 2-1 01 AP I 2-102 AP I 2-103 
Consultation and Coordination 5-109 API 2-104 
5-110 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS API 2-105 API 2-106 
Consultation and Coordination 5-111 
5-112 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS AP I 2-1 07 AP I 2-108 
Consultation and Coordination 5-113 API 2-108 API 2-109 
5-114 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS API 2-110 AP I 2- 111 API 2-112 API 2-113 API 2-114 API 2-115 
Consultation and Coordination 5-115 API 2-116 
5-116 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS API 2-117 
Consultation and Coordination 5-117 API 2-118 API 2-119 
5-118 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-119 API 2-120 API 2 -121 
5-120 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-121 API 2-122 
5-122 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS API 2-123 API 2-124 API 2-125 API 2-126 
Consultation and Coordination 5-123 API 2-127 API 2- 128 API 2-129 API 2-130 API 2-131 
5-124 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS API 2-132 API 2-133 API 2-134 API 2-135 API 2-136 
Consultation and Coordination 5-125 API 2-137 API 2-138 API 2-139 API 2-140 API 2-141 
5-126 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS API 2-142 
Consultation and Coordination 5-127 
5-128 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

API 2-1 Since publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS on July 1, 2011, BOEM subject-matter 

experts incorporated newly available relevant information and updated this Supplemental EIS 

accordingly. 

API 2-2 Since publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS on July 1, 2011, BOEM subject-matter 

experts incorporated newly available relevant information and updated this Supplemental EIS 

accordingly. 

API 2-3 References to websites internally in the document have been deleted and moved to the 

bibliography. Those websites referenced have been verified and are accurate as of the date 

that this Supplemental EIS is published. 

API 2-4 If appropriate, those references were included when the document was prepared or updated 

since publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS on July 1, 2011. 

API 2-5 The OSAT reports (OSAT and OSAT-2) were not accessible by BOEMRE at the time the 

Draft Supplemental EIS was prepared. The BOEM subject-matter experts have reviewed the 

reports and have revised the Supplemental EIS as necessary to include these reports and other 

newly available relevant information. 

API 2-6 The references to the daily maps of spilled oil were removed as outdated from Chapters 

4.1.1.11 and 4.1.1.12. Where appropriate, references to the OSAT report were added to this 

Supplemental EIS. 

API 2-7 This Supplemental EIS has been updated to reflect the OSAT report results where 

appropriate. 

API 2-8 Comment noted. The BOEM subject-matter experts have included what information they 

deem relevant, including anecdotal information where appropriate. Clarifying language has 

been added, noting that additional information on anecdotal data during the DWH event are 

addressed in Chapter 4.1.1.21.4 (Environmental Justice). 

API 2-9 The BOEM reviewed summary statements available at the time, which included USEPA and 

State of Louisiana air monitoring data. Where relevant, additional information was included 

by BOEM subject-matter experts. 

API 2-10 The baseline years were established in 1977 for SO2 and in 1987 for NO2. However, the 

BOEM deleted the paragraphs referring to Tables 4-26 and 4-27 from this Supplemental EIS 

because the information was previously discussed in detail in the Multisale EIS, and this 

Supplemental EIS tiers from that document. 

API 2-11 The BOEM subject-matter expert believes no additional clarification on the referenced 

language is required. However, BOEM added comparative language to this Supplemental 

EIS regarding shoreline dioxin concentrations at the time of the in-situ burns to background 

concentrations in the rural U.S. 

API 2-12 Clarifying language was added to this Supplemental EIS.

API 2-13 See the response to Comment API 2-12. 

API 2-14 The short-term effects reportedly caused by the DWH event are anecdotal. The BOEM has 

revised this sentence to reflect “any long-term health effects.” 
Consultation and Coordination 5-129 

API 2-15 The sentence was in error and was deleted. The BOEM subject-matter experts have 

incorporated newly available relevant information, where appropriate, since publication of 

the Draft Supplemental EIS. 

API 2-16 The statement was revised to focus on aerial dispersant application. The BOEM subjectmatter experts have included what information they deem relevant, including anecdotal 

information on health complaints where appropriate. 

API 2-17 Comment noted. The sentence referenced by API has been deleted from this Supplemental 

EIS, as the impacts and causation have not been established. 

API 2-18 Comment noted. See the response to Comment API 2-17. 

API 2-19 Comment noted. The text has been revised to address USEPA’s health-based standards and 

public health concerns. 

API 2-20 The BOEM subject-matter experts included available information they deemed relevant in 

their resource analyses, including in this instance, research related to the Kuwait oil-field 

fires. The Kuwaiti oil-field fires are a primary instance where ambient air quality effects 

from oil burning have been further researched. Nevertheless, BOEM has revised language 

relating to the Kuwaiti oil-field fires within this Supplemental EIS to avoid potential 

confusion. 

API 2-21 The erroneous reference to Trapido (2010) has been deleted, and the correct references have 

been supplied. Chapter 4.1.1.21.4.3 was updated to incorporate supporting references and 

an explanation of how USEPA defined human health benchmarks. 

API 2-22 Comment noted. The subject-matter expert has updated this Supplemental EIS since 

publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS on July 1, 2011, and has added clarifying language 

and additional supporting material related to health effects from exposure to dispersants. 

API 2-23 Since publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS on July 1, 2011, the subject-matter experts 

have incorporated newly available relevant information and have updated this Supplemental 

EIS accordingly. The incorporation of newly available relevant information is time 

consuming, as it must be obtained and reviewed by subject-matter experts in the context of 

the source of the data, research methodology, and data quality. 

API 2-24 Updated information on the status of this study was included in Chapter 4.1.1.13.1. 

API 2-25 Information from the OSAT-2 report has been added to this Supplemental EIS. 

API 2-26 Clarifying language was added to Chapter 4.1.1.13.1. 

API 2-27 Citations have been provided in Chapter 4.1.1.14.1. 

API 2-28 The term was changed to “important” to avoid any confusion. 

API 2-29 Clarifying language and additional studies are included in Chapter 4.1.1.14.1. 

API 2-30 Additional language has been added to Chapter 4.1.1.14.1. 

API 2-31 The citation for BOEM’s original statement quoted in Comment API 2-31 is provided in this 

Supplemental EIS; however, BOEM has added clarifying language that it may be premature 

to report on certain specific populations. 
5-130 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

API 2-32 The BOEM subject-matter experts determined the information that was relevant for the 

individual resource analyses. New information that was available and deemed relevant has 

been used to finalize this Supplemental EIS. Where relevant, additional language has been 

added to Chapter 4.1.1.14.1 in response to this comment. 

API 2-33 Chapter 4.1.1.6.1.1, subsection titled “Baseline Conditions following the Deepwater Horizon

Event,” has been updated to reflect new information available since publication of the Draft 

Supplemental EIS. The conclusions drawn in the paragraphs were deduced from the 

direction of currents and the physical properties of seawater paired with visual observations. 

Samples of the coral and oil were collected and fingerprinted; however, the results have not 

been released to the public yet. 

API 2-34 The sentence referring to Haddad and Murawski (2010) has been removed from this 

Supplemental EIS and has been replaced with newly available data. 

API 2-35 This paragraph was removed from this Supplemental EIS since the cruise was not directly 

pertinent to topographic features; it was focused on the West Florida Shelf. 

API 2-36 Information was added to this Supplemental EIS to include the suggested revisions. 

API 2-37 The pages that describe the nepheloid layer at banks include the following: Bright et al., 

1976, pp. 50, 94, and 306; and Bright and Rezak, 1978, pp. III-31, III-47, and VI-33 (figure). 

The BOEM subject-matter expert’s statement is based on the descriptions of the nepheloid 

layer in relation to the crests of banks. 

API 2-38 No; although oil degrades over time, water currents would carry an underwater plume for 

many miles before it was degraded. If the sensitive habitats were continuous and if the oil 

plume traveled along the seafloor, the impacts would not be localized; rather, they would be 

widespread. It is a question of a matter of scale. 

API 2-39 The wording refers to “potential hard-bottom habitats.” The intended use of the word 

“potential” was meant to indicate that there remains some uncertainty as to the actual nature 

of the habitat in question. 

API 2-40 The BOEM subject-matter expert believes that this Supplemental EIS is accurate as written. 

The mucus helps prevent the oil from penetrating to the tissues beneath, so it restricts 

penetration. Penetration is also restricted because mucus contains wax esters and lipids 

(Shigenaka, 2001). 

API 2-41 No connection between the character of shallow gorgonians and Lophelia is intended. The 

statement was addressing another common deepwater coral, gorgonians. Resistance of 

shallow tropical corals (meaning scleractinians) suggests possible similar resistance in 

deepwater scleractinians. Then, resistance in shallow tropical gorgonians was cited, 

suggesting possible similar character of deepwater gorgonians. The paragraph was edited to 

clarify this data. 

API 2-42 The verbiage in this Supplemental EIS was adjusted accordingly. 

API 2-43 This is not a conclusion; rather, it is an illustration of the possible response to oil. The 

statement has been clarified in this Supplemental EIS. 

API 2-44 The BOEM subject-matter experts believe that this statement remains accurate. Although 

some corals are encrusting, with very low profile, those corals typically encrust on structure 

that has relief, i.e., protrudes up into the water column. Even encrusting corals can form 

structure, i.e., they build a reef. Only a few solitary corals actually live on soft sediment. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-131 

Other corals, by nature, must stick up into waters above the sediment boundary layer to 

successfully live by suspension feeding. Their very purpose is to glean particles from the 

water column. All these corals would be more susceptible to oil impacts from a subsea oil 

plume than would the adjacent sediment. 

API 2-45 Citations are given in this Supplemental EIS. As discussed, experiments with deepwater 

corals are not available at this time, and the results of studies following the DWH event are 

pending or not yet publicly available. The discussion is based on known reactions of 

shallow-water coral to oil exposure. Note that the discussion also suggests mechanisms by 

which impacts to corals may be negligible. 

API 2-46 See the response to Comment API 2-33. Also note that a clarifying sentence was added to 

Chapter 4.1.1.6.1.1, indicating that samples of coral and oil were collected and fingerprinted 

but that the data have not been released yet. 

API 2-47 The text has been edited in multiple locations to include information from the OSAT I report. 

As noted in the Supplemental EIS, subsea oil plumes travel with water currents and may be 

expected to lose oil via sedimentation in small quantities over a very wide area. Therefore, 

the sediment beneath a plume may show only very low levels of oiling. If such a plume were 

entrained in a bottom current, it would travel over sediment without mixing with sediment. 

However, when the plume encounters an obstruction, such as coral structure protruding above 

the seafloor, the turbulence induced would allow some contact of the oil with the obstruction. 

API 2-48 Clarifying revisions were made to the text. 

API 2-49 Comment noted. The text has been revised to address the USEPA’s health-based standards 

and the public health concerns. 

API 2-50 Comment noted. Chapter 4.1.1.21.4.3 was supplemented with information from the OSAT 

report related to benchmark information. 

API 2-51 The subject information has been reviewed by BOEM subject-matter experts, and it has been 

determined that these reports do not provide relevant information on toxicity to fish 

resources. 

API 2-52 The references have been updated where appropriate. 

API 2-53 The BOEM subject-matter experts have updated this section with information available since 

publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS. 

API 2-54 The language has been changed to indicate that the dispersant actually breaks down the oil 

fractions into smaller droplets that remain in the water column and that are more susceptible 

to biodegradation, thus reducing toxicity. However, depending on the type of oil and how 

thoroughly it is weathered prior to encountering sediment plumes, there still may a slight 

potential for sinking to the mid-water column or to the bottom. 

API 2-55 Newly available information regarding freshwater diversions and the potential for impacts 

from the DWH event has been included in Chapter 4.1.1.17.1. 

API 2-56 The reference to the Knowland Group study has been removed from this Supplemental EIS. 

A reference from the U.S. House of Representatives (2010) has been added; this reference 

provides a more comprehensive examination of the role of perceptions and media coverage 

on tourism activity. In addition, data on the actual levels of hotel occupancy that were 

observed following the DWH event were also added to this Supplemental EIS. 
5-132 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

API 2-57 Misperceptions can cause real effects in consumer activity and related economic responses. 

However, the role of misperceptions, particularly when considering the potential impacts of 

future spills, is difficult to predict. A study by Market Dynamics Research Group has been 

added to this Supplemental EIS; this study analyzes the role of perceptions following the 

DWH event. 

API 2-58 Updated language regarding the pace of permitting and drilling during and after the 

suspension has been added to this Supplemental EIS. 

API 2-59 Information related to the recovery of the recreational and commercial fisheries has been 

revised in Chapter 4.1.1.21.3. For additional information related to impacts to commercial 

and recreational fishing, refer to Chapters 4.1.1.17 and 4.1.1.18, respectively. Even though 

all Federal commercial fishing grounds have been reopened, there may still be effects to the 

extent that seafood demand was affected and to the extent that the fish populations in the Gulf 

of Mexico evolve following the spill and intervening factors. 

API 2-60 The subject-matter expert has updated this Supplemental EIS since the publication of the 

Draft Supplemental EIS and has added clarifying language and additional supporting 

material. Case studies included in this Supplemental EIS regarding past oil-spill events have 

demonstrated that, because of a lack of available financial substitutes, the various effects of 

an oil spill may be felt more acutely by lower income groups. The BOEM subject-matter 

expert believes that the information and evidence provided in this Supplemental EIS remains 

relevant to a discussion of potential impacts and has clarified language in this Supplemental 

EIS to indicate that available data may not be sufficient to form final conclusions at this time. 

API 2-61 The survey was conducted between July 19 and 25, 2010. There are no more recent surveys 

publicly available at the time of the preparation of this Final Supplemental EIS. 

API 2-62 The BOEM subject-matter expert believes that the language in this Supplemental EIS 

remains accurate. Eligible GCCF grounds for a claim are listed in this Supplemental EIS.

These claims include claims for removal and cleanup costs, real or personal property, lost 

earnings or profits, loss of subsistence use of natural resources, and physical injury/death 

directly or indirectly because of the DWH event (see Table 4-42 for a state-by-state break 

down). See Section 7, #74 from the GCCF Frequently Asked Questions (Gulf Coast Claims 

Facility, 2010b). 

API 2-63 The BOEM subject-matter expert believes the statement is accurate. Potential lingering 

impacts could be positive (such as improved oil-spill-response capacity) or negative (such as 

potential emotional distress in the areas with the greatest response efforts). As is the case 

with any large event, impacts may last beyond the spill or active cleanup efforts. 

API 2-64 There are no published studies at this time, although there have been statements in the press. 

The BOEM subject-matter expert has clarified language in this Supplemental EIS on waste 

locations and that “waste disposal locations were determined by the specializations of 

existing facilities and by contractual relationships between them and the cleanup and 

containment firms.” 

API 2-65 The survey was conducted during July 2010. There are no more recent surveys. 

API 2-66 The BOEM’s reliance on this report has been supplemented with more recent information. A 

number of new data sources regarding the observed impacts of the DWH event have been 

added. Since publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS on July 1, 2011, the subject-matter 

experts have incorporated newly available relevant information and have updated this 

Supplemental EIS accordingly. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-133 

API 2-67 The study by CoreLogic presented a forecast of the impacts of the DWH event on property 

values rather than an analysis of observed data. This Final Supplemental EIS clarifies this 

issue. The study did control for other variables since CoreLogic’s forecast analysis was 

based on losses relative to baseline expected property values. 

API 2-68 The pages cited by API relate solely to Gulf sturgeon. Chapter 4.1.1.16 addresses fish 

resources and EFH more generally and also the potential impacts to reproductive effects. 

API 2-69 Comment noted. Information from Fodrie and Heck (2011) is included in Chapter 

4.1.1.17.1. The BOEM notes that Fodrie and Heck also conclude, “The long-term impacts 

facing fishes as a result of chronic exposure and delayed, indirect effects now require 

attention.” The Supplemental EIS language quoted by the commenter remains valid. Water 

quality data, including data from the OSAT report, are discussed in Chapter 4.1.1.2. 

API 2-70 Updated information on fish kills in the CPA has been included in Chapter 4.1.1.16.1. As 

noted in this chapter, the cause of the fish kills has been listed as either unknown or due to 

low dissolved oxygen. No cause has been given for the low dissolved oxygen attributed to 

these fish kills. 

API 2-71 The BOEM has modified the quoted language to indicate that there may be other factors that 

affect physical toxicity, including the toxicity of the dispersant used.

API 2-72 Newly available information regarding freshwater diversions and the potential for impacts 

from the DWH event has been included in Chapter 4.1.1.17.1. 

API 2-73 Clarifying language can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.16.1. 

API 2-74 Updated information on fish catches, where relevant, has been included in Chapter 

4.1.1.17.1. The BOEM notes, however, that it is difficult to predict trends from a single year 

of data. 

API 2-75 A change was made to Chapter 4.1.1.21.4.3 to provide additional information related to the 

exposure of dispersed oil. 

API 2-76 Although some raw data from NMFS (primarily strandings and carcasses recovered) have 

been released to the public, the bulk of NRDA studies are ongoing for marine mammals, with 

no conclusions to date. 

API 2-77 A discussion of the UME is included in Chapter 4.1.1.11.1. 

API 2-78 Since publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS, the subject-matter experts have 

incorporated relevant information and have updated this Supplemental EIS accordingly. This 

Final Supplemental EIS has been updated to reflect the results of the OSAT reports where 

appropriate. 

API 2-79 This statement was based upon the referenced data included in Chapter 3.2.1: “Of the oil 

reservoirs sampled in the Gulf of Mexico OCS, the majority fall within the light-weight 

category, while less than one-quarter are considered medium-weight and a small portion are 

considered heavy-weight. Oil with an API gravity of 10.0 or less would sink and has not 

been encountered in the Gulf of Mexico OCS (USDOI, BOEMRE, 2010c).” 

API 2-80 The requested language occurs in several places in this Supplemental EIS. For example, the 

Coastal Response Research Center’s 2007 study’s conclusion that “mechanical methods for 

recovering submerged oil have limited effectiveness” is included in Chapter 3.2.1.5.2. 
5-134 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

API 2-81 The section referenced by API is a general description of offshore response and cleanup 

technology; it is not intended to address the fate of spilled oil. The fate of spilled oil is 

addressed in Chapter 4.1.1.2 (Water Quality). 

API 2-82 These statements, taken from Lubchenco et al. (2010), describe the oil as dispersed or 

weathered, which is why this report was quoted to support the statement on page 3-42 of the 

Draft Supplemental EIS, that dispersion increases the likelihood that the oil will be 

biodegraded both in the water column and at the surface. While noted, BOEM subject-matter 

experts believe that the additional references proffered by API are not appropriate for 

inclusion in a discussion that is focused on dispersant capability. 

API 2-83 This statement has been clarified in this Supplemental EIS, as has the reference. 

API 2-84 The BOEM subject-matter expert maintains that the statement related to the Johansen et al. 

(2001) study is a fair summary. The statement in this Supplemental EIS is further supported 

by Oil in the Sea (NRC, 2003, p. 108). 

API 2-85 The API comment was noted, and clarifying revisions were made to the text. 

API 2-86 The text was edited to include updated information based on the Federal Interagency 

Solutions Group (2010) analysis. This statement refers to oil not specifically collected at the 

time the well was capped. 

API 2-87 The text was edited to include the possibility of dissolution or biodegradation. 

API 2-88 Water currents and biodegradation regulate the lateral movement of subsea oil plumes 

(direction and distance). The API is correct that density controls its vertical movement and, 

thus, clarifying language was added in the text. 

API 2-89 The comment was noted and this text has been deleted. 

API 2-90 The reference has been added as appropriate. 

API 2-91 Updated information, including both Mr. Allen’s March 2011 presentation and the U.S. Coast 

Guard’s BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Incident Specific Preparedness Review, have been 

added to this Supplemental EIS. 

API 2-92 The U.S. Coast Guard’s BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Incident Specific Preparedness 

Review (January 2011) does include recommendations for ACP upgrades that would better 

identify and prioritize environmentally sensitive areas and provide protection strategies for 

these areas; however, the specifics mentioned in this Supplemental EIS are not included 

within the January 2011 document. A reference to Admiral Thad Allen’s press conference 

transcript (July 30, 2010) has been added to support the statement concerning damage to the 

marsh environment by hard boom during the DWH response. 

API 2-93 The volumes and distances for the artificial sand berms described in Chapter 3 are accurate 

as per COE-hosted weekly interagency coordination meetings during berm construction. The 

lengths of the approved plans are based on the actual COE permits, applications, and 

associated drawings. Appendix D will not be carried forward into the Final Supplemental 

EIS. 

API 2-94 There are no publicly available documents to cite. The request for concurrence was denied 

via an email from USCG to the State of Louisiana. The referenced sentence has been revised. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-135 

API 2-95 Many of these statements related to the artificial berms were based on the berms’ potential 

impacts as they were originally proposed prior to interagency coordination and not how they 

were ultimately constructed. Appropriate changes have been made to the description of the 

artificial berms in Chapter 4.1.1.3.4. The State did shift the berm project’s objectives from 

an oil barrier to barrier island restoration, as evidenced by the reallocation of funds. The 

berms that were under construction were built, but the remaining planned berms were not. 

The leftover funds from the $360 million were reallocated to fund barrier island restoration 

projects that have not yet been identified or constructed. 

API 2-96 This language has been clarified in this Supplemental EIS. 

API 2-97 Chapter 4.1.1.19.1 of this Supplemental EIS has been updated to clarify this language. 

API 2-98 Updated information on beach status, including if they are in active cleanup, is now 

referenced in Chapter 4.1.1.19.1. 

API 2-99 These additional factors are discussed in the cumulative impacts analysis of Chapter 

4.1.1.5.4 (Seagrass Communities). 

API 2-100 The document has been revised to remove the erroneous reference. 

API 2-101 The BOEM acknowledges in this Supplemental EIS that seagrass communities were 

contacted by oil and could be affected. Ongoing research and the monitoring of seagrass 

communities will determine long-term impacts of contact by oil, as well as impacts resulting 

from cleanup and recovery operations. 

API 2-102 Newly available information has been added to this Supplemental EIS, including relevant 

information from the OSAT reports. 

API 2-103 The BOEM subject-matter expert on this issue believes the statement is accurate as written. 

Lack of evidence, especially early in the investigations and NRDA process, does not preclude 

possible later discoveries of impacts. The statements here discuss possible impacts. 

API 2-104 The BOEM subject-matter experts have included newly available information since 

publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS and have updated this Supplemental EIS, as 

deemed appropriate. Where appropriate, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration’s ERMA data have been included in this Supplemental EIS. As noted in this 

Final Supplemental EIS, the NRDA process is ongoing and few data have been released to 

the public at this time. 

API 2-105 The BOEM subject-matter experts have reviewed the information provided to determine the 

information that was relevant for the individual resource analyses. New information that was 

available and deemed relevant has been used to finalize this Supplemental EIS. The BOEM 

now has access to some of the USCG and OSAT data, and these data have been included in 

this Supplemental EIS, where appropriate. 

API 2-106 The BOEM subject-matter experts have reviewed the information provided to determine the 

information that was relevant for the individual resource analyses. New information that was 

available and deemed relevant has been used to finalize this Supplemental EIS. For example, 

BOEM has included the OSAT reports, where appropriate, in this Supplemental EIS. The 

acronym SCAT (Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Team) implies that the area mapped has been 

or will be cleaned, and language in this Supplemental EIS has been clarified. 

API 2-107 The statement, based on SCAT data available at the time, was accurate as of publication of 

the Draft Supplemental EIS. The BOEM subject-matter experts have reviewed the 
5-136 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

information provided to determine the information that was relevant for the individual 

resource analyses. New information that was available and deemed relevant has been used to 

finalize this Supplemental EIS; this information includes the OSAT report. 

API 2-108 The BOEM subject-matter experts have reviewed the information provided to determine the 

information that was relevant for the individual resource analyses. New information that was 

available and deemed relevant has been used to finalize this Supplemental EIS. For example, 

BOEM has included the OSAT reports, where appropriate, in this Supplemental EIS. 

API 2-109 The BOEM subject-matter experts have reviewed the information provided to determine the 

information that was relevant for the individual resource analyses. New information that was 

available and deemed relevant has been used to finalize this Supplemental EIS. For example, 

BOEM has included the 2011 report cited by API, where appropriate, in this Supplemental 

EIS. Researchers from both Louisiana State University (Dr. Irv Mendelssohn) and Loyola 

University (Dr. David White) were also contacted concerning their past and current work in 

those areas, and the same information was provided. 

API 2-110 Comment noted. The information has been revised to reflect that the length of oiled shoreline 

increased not exponentially but by orders of magnitude, and a citation to the OSAT-2 report 

is provided in the table corresponding to the referenced statement. 

API 2-111 Comment noted. This Supplemental EIS has been revised to read “Bay Jimmy.” The 

appropriate changes have been made to this Supplemental EIS. 

API 2-112 As noted in Chapter 4.1.1.5.1, some heavy oiling did occur along the Gulf Coast. The 

BOEM subject-matter experts believe the quoted language remains accurate. 

API 2-113 See the response to Comment API 2-112. 

API 2-114 The subject-matter expert has elaborated on the methods and findings of Wang and Roberts 

(2010) and has also included the findings of OSAT-2. Since publication of the Draft 

Supplemental EIS, the subject-matter experts have incorporated newly available relevant 

information and have updated this Supplemental EIS accordingly. 

API 2-115 Comment noted. The BOEM is not a party to the Federal interagency group that issued the 

oil budget on the fate of oil from the DWH event. As new information becomes available, 

BOEM subject-matter experts have reviewed the information in the context of the source of 

the data, research methodology, and data quality, and the information will applied to 

subsequent NEPA documents. In addition to updated information on the oil budget, BOEM 

included credible scientific information that is available, where relevant, and has applied it 

using accepted methodologies to supplement the oil budget. 

API 2-116 The BOEM subject-matter experts have reviewed the information provided to determine the 

information that was relevant for the individual resource analyses. New information that was 

available and deemed relevant has been used to finalize this Supplemental EIS. The BOEM 

has reviewed this Supplemental EIS in light of the OSAT report and has included information 

from the OSAT report in this Supplemental EIS, as deemed necessary. 

API 2-117 Comment noted. This Supplemental EIS has been updated to reflect the OSAT report results 

and information that became available after publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS. In 

addition, information was added to refer the reader to Chapters 4.1.1.2.1.1 and 4.1.1.2.2.1

for a detailed description of the water quality in the GOM following the DWH event. 

API 2-118 Comment noted. We have not defined the terms cloud or plume, nor was BOEM attributing a 

specific definition from previous documents or other Federal agencies’ usage of these terms. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-137 

Therefore, BOEM believes the terms continue to be descriptive and is keeping the 

terminology as it currently is used in this Supplemental EIS. 

API 2-119 Comment noted. This topic has been thoroughly addressed and updated in Chapter 

4.1.1.2.2.1 since the publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS. For more information, please 

refer to Chapter 4.1.1.2.1.1. 

API 2-120 Comment noted. These subjects are addressed in Chapters 4.1.1.2.1.1 and 4.1.1.2.2.1, and 

BOEM subject-matter experts have included newly available information, where appropriate. 

API 2-121 Since publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS, the subject-matter experts have 

incorporated relevant information and have updated this Supplemental EIS accordingly. 

Kessler et al. (2011) and other relevant sources are cited in Chapters 4.1.1.2.1.1 and 

4.1.1.2.2.1. 

API 2-122 As noted in this Supplemental EIS (e.g., Chapter 4.1.1.2.2.1), both the nature of a blowout 

(including droplet size and ejection under pressure) and the use of subsea dispersants may 

allow oil and gas to become entrained in the water column or may allow the development of a 

subsurface cloud. 

API 2-123 See the response to Comment API 2-26. 

API 2-124 The BOEM subject-matter expert believes the statement remains accurate. It is known that 

the subsea oil was dispersed and that the presence of dispersants was measured in the subsea 

plume (OSAT, 2010). It is also known that the dispersed subsea plume traveled in the 

direction of the deepwater corals identified (OSAT, 2010). As noted in this Supplemental 

EIS, samples of the corals have been collected; however, the results of the analyses have yet 

to be released at the time of publication of this Supplemental EIS. 

API 2-125 The text has been edited to include relevant information from the OSAT report. 

API 2-126 The BOEM subject-matter expert believes the statement remains accurate. This 

Supplemental EIS makes it clear that typical GOM crude is lighter than water and is expected 

to rise rapidly to the sea surface unless it is broken into micro-droplets by dispersant oratomized by high-pressure discharge. As an oil plume travels laterally with water currents, 

however, several processes operate on it, including dispersion, dissolution, and 

biodegradation. Sedimentation is a fourth process that could occur. The text was edited to 

clarify that the sentence refers to subsea oil plumes (which, by definition, are composed of 

micro-droplets that are suspended in a neutral density layer of the water column). 

API 2-127 The BOEM subject-matter experts have reviewed the information provided to determine the 

information that was relevant for the individual resource analyses. New information that was 

available and deemed relevant has been used to finalize this Supplemental EIS. Where 

appropriate, BOEM subject-matter experts have included relevant data from the OSAT 

report. 

API 2-128 Since publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS, the subject-matter experts have 

incorporated relevant information and have updated this Supplemental EIS accordingly. The 

BR/B Brooks McCall data have been updated accordingly in this Supplemental EIS. 

API 2-129 Comment noted. Since publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS, the subject-matter experts 

have incorporated relevant information and have updated this Supplemental EIS accordingly. 

This Supplemental EIS has been updated to reflect the results of the OSAT reports, where 

appropriate. 
5-138 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

API 2-130 Since publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS on July 1, 2011, the subject-matter experts 

have incorporated relevant information and have updated this Supplemental EIS accordingly. 

This Supplemental EIS has been updated to reference Kessler et al. (2011) and other newly 

available information where relevant. 

API 2-131 Since publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS, the subject-matter experts have 

incorporated relevant information and have updated this Supplemental EIS accordingly. The 

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

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

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

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

prepared and presented to the decisionmaker. Relevant information from Hazen, Valentine, 

and other reports have been included in this Supplemental EIS. 

API 2-132 Several sections of this study are relevant to this statement. For a summary, see page 55 of 

the report cited by API. 

API 2-133 As the OSAT study did not specifically test for drilling muds in coastal waters or sediments, 

BOEM subject-matter experts believe this reference is not appropriate. 

API 2-134 Comment noted. The statement was revised to clarify that the greatest concentrations of oil 

on the seabed are expected to be near the wellhead and to decrease with distance from the 

source. 

API 2-135 Since publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS, the subject-matter experts have 

incorporated relevant information and have updated this Supplemental EIS accordingly. The 

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

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

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

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

prepared and presented to the decisionmaker. Chapter 4.1.1.2 has been updated to include 

information on water quality sampling after the DWH event. 

API 2-136 Since publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS, the subject-matter experts have 

incorporated relevant information and have updated this Supplemental EIS accordingly. The 

subject-matter expert feels that this discussion remains accurate. However, the discussion of 

dispersion and dispersants has been updated, where appropriate, in Chapter 4.1.1.2. 

API 2-137 As noted in this Supplemental EIS, information regarding possible impacts from the DWH 

event is continuing to be developed through the NRDA process and other avenues, and much 

of this data remain unavailable to the public at this time. Nevertheless, this Supplemental EIS 

discusses possible avenues of seafloor impacts and mechanisms that could disperse and 

degrade subsea oil plumes to reduce seafloor impacts to negligible effects. The BOEM 

subject-matter experts have also included discussions where potential impacts have been 

observed, but no definitive link to the DWH event has been confirmed. For example, the 

deepwater coral community that appeared visibly oiled 11 km (7 mi) from the Macondo well 

has been referenced in this Supplemental EIS, including in Chapters 4.1.1.9 and 4.1.1.10.

API 2-138 The statement has been deleted and updated information on sediment sampling has been 

included, where deemed appropriate, by BOEM subject-matter experts. 

API 2-139 Comment noted. The language has been revised to remove the suggestion that the addition of 

dispersants at the seafloor has resulted in large subsurface clouds of elevated methane 

concentrations. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-139 

API 2-140 This language has been clarified in this Supplemental EIS to state that the speed of 

degradation of the oil by bacteria is also related to the water temperature and type of bacteria 

involved. 

API 2-141 The information cited by API is contained in this Supplemental EIS, just following the quoted 

text. The BOEM believes the information remains appropriate, and no revisions are 

necessary. 

API 2-142 Please see Chapter 5.11 of the WPA Lease Sale 218’s Final Supplemental EIS for the letters 

of comment on the Draft Supplemental EIS and BOEMRE’s responses (USDOI, BOEMRE, 

2011b). For any revisions to the WPA Lease Sale 218’s Final Supplemental EIS in response 

to public comments that were also appropriate to a CPA lease sale Supplemental EIS, BOEM 

attempted to carry forward these revisions to this CPA Lease Sale 216/222 Final 

Supplemental EIS. In addition to these document revisions, the subject-matter experts 

updated this Supplemental EIS with newly available and relevant information since 

publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS on July 1, 2011. 
5-140 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS CONOC-1 
Consultation and Coordination 5-141 
5-142 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

CONOCO-1 Comment noted. The decision on which alternative will be selected will be made after 

this Supplemental EIS is finalized and, if the decision is to hold a lease sale under either 

Alternative A, B or C, it will be announced in the Final Notice of Sale. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-143 
5-144 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS IAGC-1 
Consultation and Coordination 5-145 

IAGC-1 Comments noted. The decision on which alternative will be selected will be made after this 

Supplemental EIS is finalized and, if the decision is to hold a lease sale under either 

Alternative A, B or C, it will be announced in the Final Notice of Sale. 
5-146 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-147 
5-148 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-149 
5-150 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS CBD-1 
Consultation and Coordination 5-151 CBD-2 CBD-3 
5-152 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS CBD-4 CBD-5 
Consultation and Coordination 5-153 CBD-6 CBD-7 
5-154 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS CBD-8 CBD-9 CBD-10 
Consultation and Coordination 5-155 CBD-10 (CON TINUED) CBD-11 
5-156 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-157 
5-158 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-159 CBD-12 
5-160 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS CBD-12 (CON TINUED) 
Consultation and Coordination 5-161 CBD-13 CBD-1 4 
5-162 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS CBD-1 5 CBD-16 
Consultation and Coordination 5-163 CBD-16 (CON TINUED) CBD-1 7 
5-164 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS CBD-1 8 CBD-1 9 
Consultation and Coordination 5-165 CBD-19 (CON TINUED) 
5-166 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS CBD-19 (CON TINUED) CBD-20 
Consultation and Coordination 5-167 CBD-20 (CON TINUED) CBD-21 
5-168 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS CBD-2 1 (CON T) CBD-2 2 CBD-23 
Consultation and Coordination 5-169 CBD-23 (CON TINUED) CBD-24 
5-170 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS CBD-24 (CON T) CBD-2 5 CBD-2 6 
Consultation and Coordination 5-171 CBD-26 CBD-27 CBD-28 CBD-29 
5-172 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS CBD-30 CBD-31 CBD-3 2 
Consultation and Coordination 5-173 CBD-33 CBD-34 CBD -35 
5-174 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS CBD -35 (CONTINUED) CBD -36 
Consultation and Coordination 5-175 CBD -37 CBD -38 CBD-39 CBD -40 
5-176 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS CBD -41 CBD -42 
Consultation and Coordination 5-177 CBD -43 CBD -44 CBD -45 
5-178 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS CBD -45 CBD -46 CBD -47 CBD -48 
Consultation and Coordination 5-179 CBD-4 8 (CONTINUED ) CBD-4 9 
5-180 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS CBD-49 CBD-50 CBD -51 CBD -52 
Consultation and Coordination 5-181 CBD-52 CBD-53 CBD-54 
5-182 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS CBD-55 
Consultation and Coordination 5-183 

CBD-1 The BOEM disagrees that the analyses and conclusions in the Multisale EIS and the 2009-

2012 Supplemental EIS are rendered obsolete due to the DWH event. The proposed action 

(i.e., the lease sale) remains the same, and much of the analysis in the Multisale EIS and the 

2009-2012 Supplemental EIS on the affected environment, impacts from routine events, 

accidental events that do not rise to the level of a catastrophic event similar to the DWH 

event, and cumulative impacts remain just as relevant today. The oil spill resulting from the 

DWH event was a catastrophic accidental event, not part of the proposed action. 

Nonetheless, significant new information available since the Multisale EIS and the 2009-

2012 Supplemental EIS, as well as the changes in baseline conditions as a result of the DWH 

oil spill, are adequately considered in this Supplemental EIS. In addition, BOEM has 

included a catastrophic spill analysis in Appendix B, in light of the DWH event. 

CBD-2 The BOEM’s consideration of appropriate mitigations and stipulations are already included 

for each action alternative as part of the OCSLA lease sale process. An EIS is a disclosure 

document and, based upon its findings, is often used in the development of mitigations and 

stipulations to reduce or eliminate impacts of the chosen action alternative. Consistent with 

this principle, BOEM considers mitigations and stipulations to minimize the impacts of oil 

and gas exploration and development and to improve safety throughout the leasing process. 

The ASLM, through authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior, may apply a number 

of lease sale mitigations and stipulations. Chapter 2.2.2.1 discusses these mitigations and 

stipulations, including the Topographic Features Stipulation, Military Areas Stipulation, 

Protected Species Stipulation, and Law of the Sea Convention Royalty Payment Stipulation. 

Additionally, a number of site-specific mitigations for environmental protection and safety 

are routinely applied at the postlease stage. All exploration plans, development plans, and 

pipeline applications are thoroughly reviewed to determine what additional protective 

measure(s) should to be included as a condition of plan or permit approval. Mitigations and 

stipulations are developed as conditions warrant and are subject to a review and approval 

process. 

CBD-3 Long-term monitoring is not an alternative to the proposed action, nor is it, on its own, a 

method for mitigating impacts of the proposed action or alternatives. Monitoring 

requirements are a result of consultations conducted with other Federal agencies, as well as 

BOEM’s long-term monitoring of OCS-related activities. The analyses in the Multisale EIS, 

the 2009-2012 Supplemental EIS, and this Supplemental EIS are based upon the best 

available scientifically credible information known to date. Where relevant information on 

reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts is incomplete or unavailable, the need for 

the information was evaluated to determine if it was essential to a reasoned choice among the 

alternatives and, if so, was either acquired or in the event it was impossible or exorbitant to 

acquire the information, accepted scientific methodologies were applied in its place. The 

BOEM has done so here, and, in light of the above, long-term monitoring is not an 

appropriate alternative for this Supplemental EIS. 

 This Supplemental EIS meets the requirements of NEPA in the development and 

consideration of alternatives. 

CBD-4 The Center for Biological Diversity commented that BOEM should consider an alternative 

suspending leasing until complete information about the damage caused by the DWH spill is 

available. This is essentially the same as the No Action Alternative (Alternative D), where a 

lease sale would not be held at this time; thus, the Center’s requested course of action has 

been analyzed in this Supplemental EIS. 

 The analyses in this Supplemental EIS considered changes to baseline conditions that may 

have occurred since the Multisale EIS and the 2009-2012 Supplemental EIS, including the 

DWH event. As acknowledged in this Supplemental EIS, credible scientific data regarding 

the potential short-term and long-term impacts of the DWH event is incomplete. In light of 
5-184 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

the absence of this information, BOEM considered what incomplete or unavailable 

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

analyzed. If essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives, BOEM considered 

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

if it cannot be obtained, applied acceptable scientific methodologies to inform the analysis in 

light of this incomplete or unavailable information. Information on many impacts of the 

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

years, and certainly not within the contemplated timeframe of this NEPA process. In its 

place, subject-matter experts have used the scientifically credible information available and 

scientific methodologies to evaluate impacts to the resources while this information is 

unavailable. 

CBD-5 See the response to Comment CBD-4. In accordance with Section 1502.22 of the CEQ 

regulations implementing NEPA, when an agency is evaluating reasonably foreseeable 

significant adverse effects on the human environment in an EIS and when there is incomplete 

or unavailable information, the agency shall always make clear that such information is 

lacking. However, NEPA does not require that all informational gaps be addressed before an 

EIS is completed and a decision is made. In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.22, where 

relevant information on reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts is incomplete or 

unavailable, the need for the information was evaluated to determine if it was essential to a 

reasoned choice among the alternatives, and if so, was either acquired or in the event it was 

impossible or exorbitant in cost to acquire the information, what scientifically credible 

information was available was applied using accepted scientific methodologies in its place. 

Language in Chapter 4.1, “Incomplete or Unavailable Information,” was clarified to prevent 

any misperceptions on this issue and the BOEM subject-matter experts in the individual 

resource analyses have identified where there is incomplete or unavailable information and 

explain whether it was relevant, could be obtained, and whether it was essential to a reasoned 

choice among alternatives, where appropriate. 

CBD-6 See the responses to Comments CBD-4 and 5. 

CBD-7 See the responses to Comments CBD-4 and 5. In addition, Appendix B was added to this 

Supplemental EIS to provide more information about general impacts of a catastrophic spill 

(Appendix B, “Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis”). However, it should be noted that the 

analysis in Appendix B was intended to be a general overview of potential effects of a 

catastrophic spill and to complement the substantive analyses in the main body of the 

Supplemental EIS itself. It was never envisioned to replace such analyses for individual 

resources in the main Supplemental EIS. As such, the “Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis” 

should be read with the understanding that further detail about oil impacts on a particular 

resource can be found in the main Supplemental EIS or previous relevant NEPA documents. 

CBD-8 See the responses to Comments CBD-4 through 7. The BOEM subject-matter experts, 

however, have clarified in this Supplemental EIS where incomplete or unavailable 

information may be essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives, if the information 

could be obtained or if the costs of obtaining it are exorbitant, and that what scientifically 

credible information is available was applied using accepted scientific methodologies. 

CBD-9 The Gulf of Mexico, including the CPA, is a dynamic environment that will be studied far 

into the future. There will never be a “final” assessment of baseline conditions in such an 

environment; any baseline would be constantly evolving. Nevertheless, BOEM has extensive 

experience in this environment, having held over 90 lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico, 

preparing over 50 lease sale EIS’s, and continuing to study this ever-changing environment. 

The types of basic information included in the “Description of the Affected Environment” for 

each resource has been developed over many years, and new information is added on a 

regular basis. In this Supplemental EIS, the subject-matter experts described new 
Consultation and Coordination 5-185 

scientifically credible information on changes in baseline conditions as a result of the DWH 

spill, and this information was taken into account in analyzing the impacts of the proposed 

action on the various resources. In addition, three new resources were added to this 

Supplemental EIS in consideration of the DWH spill. These included soft bottoms, 

Sargassum, and diamondback terrapins. It is BOEM’s opinion that the discussion of baseline 

conditions in this Supplemental EIS is robust and is, in fact, much more lengthy than 

recommended by NEPA guidelines. 

CBD-10 While the probability of a high-volume oil spill is still very low, particularly in light of 

improved safety requirements for OCS activities, BOEM has nonetheless conducted an 

analysis of the effects of accidental oil spills on environmental and socioeconomic resources. 

This analysis is included in Appendix B. The BOEM subject-matter experts, however, have 

clarified in this Supplemental EIS where incomplete or unavailable information may be 

essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives, if the information could be obtained or if 

the costs of obtaining it are exorbitant, and that what scientifically credible information is 

available was applied using accepted scientific methodologies. 

CBD-11 Climate change is a global phenomenon influenced by many activities worldwide. The 

BOEM’s policy is to address programmatic issues such as global warming at the 5-Year 

Program level rather than at the individual lease sale level. It is not possible to tease out the 

impacts of an individual lease sale on climate change. Global warming is addressed in the 

2007-2012 Five-Year Program EIS (USDOI, MMS, 2007a). 

CBD-12 This Supplemental EIS identifies new information on endangered species available since 

prior NEPA documents, including but not limited to, the numbers of strandings related to 

Unusual Mortality Events and increased strandings before and since the DWH event. For 

most of these strandings, NMFS has not identified or released the suspected causes of death 

or stranding. Where there remains incomplete or unavailable information on a resource, 

BOEM has identified it as such in Chapter 4, in compliance with NEPA. The status of the 

reinitiated consultation is addressed in this Supplemental EIS as well. Nevertheless, this 

lease sale does not in and of itself make an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of 

resources that would foreclose the development or implementation of any reasonable and 

prudent measures to comply with the Endangered Species Act. The BOEM will continue to 

comply with reasonable and prudent measures and the terms and conditions of the existing 

Biological Opinion, and BOEM is working with both NMFS and FWS to develop an interim 

coordination program while consultation is ongoing (see NMFS comments included above). 

CBD-13 See the response to Comment CBD-12. A lease sale does not in and of itself make an 

irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that would foreclose the development or 

implementation of any reasonable and prudent measures to comply with the Endangered 

Species Act. For example, additional mitigations and requirements to comply with the 

Endangered Species Act (including a Biological Opinion resulting from consultation) may be 

imposed for postlease activities. 

CBD-14 This Supplemental EIS supplements and updates information made available since the 

Multisale EIS and the 2009-2012 Supplemental EIS. At the time of these prior NEPA 

documents, a spill of the magnitude of the DWH event was not a reasonably foreseeable 

occurrence. Indeed, the likelihood of another event on this scale is exceedingly low, made 

even more so by BSEE’s promulgation of new drilling and safety regulations and the ongoing 

endeavors to advance containment technologies. Information that is currently available 

indicates that the resources in the CPA were not significantly impacted. One new appendix, 

however, was added to this Supplemental EIS to provide more information about general 

impacts of a catastrophic spill, similar to a spill of the size of the DWH event—Appendix B, 

“Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis.” 
5-186 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

CBD-15 The capacity of both government and industry to respond to oil spills, both from a regulatory 

and technological perspective, is continually being updated and improved. Many of these 

issues are outside of BOEM’s authority (e.g., USCG is responsible for response to and clean 

up of spills on the OCS). The BSEE believes that this Supplemental EIS has accurately 

depicted the containment capabilities and challenges identified during the DWH event and in 

developments made since that event. The BSEE has also been careful to point out that no one 

response technique is likely to be wholly effective and that a suite of response capabilities are 

likely to be deployed in the event of a future spill. Although the DWH event did highlight 

that certain containment capabilities were not as efficient in deep water or offshore as 

expected, e.g., the skimmers, significant strides have been made and continue to be made, in 

both regulatory and technical approaches. For the purposes of this NEPA analysis, BOEM 

has taken a conservative approach, has assumed for purposes of impact analysis that a 

catastrophic spill may occur, and has not relied on untested technological advances in oil-spill 

response in our analysis of impacts. This Supplemental EIS presents impact analyses that 

presume contact with oil and, where known, the effect of cleanup operations. 

CBD-16 Comment noted. See response to Comment CBD-15. Where information is available on the 

impacts of deploying oil-spill-response technologies (including in-situ burning and the 

application of dispersants), the subject-matter experts included this information in their 

analyses of the resources (Chapter 4.1.1). Where information is incomplete or unavailable, 

BOEM evaluated whether the information was relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant 

impacts, and if so, was it essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives (Chapter 4.1, 

“Incomplete or Unavailable Information”). 

CBD-17 The most recent data on strandings and recovered carcasses available during the preparation 

of this Supplemental EIS are included in this document. The BOEM has clarified in this 

Supplemental EIS that these numbers may underestimate the total number of individuals 

affected. It is also important to note that evaluations have not yet confirmed the cause of 

death, and it is possible that not all carcasses were related to the DWH oil spill. As noted in 

this Supplemental EIS, extrapolation from this raw data is not reliable at this point in time. In 

this case, BOEM has identified where relevant information on reasonably foreseeable 

significant adverse impacts is incomplete or unavailable and has evaluated the need for the 

information to determine if it was essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives, and 

if it was, either acquired the information or, in the event it was impossible or exorbitant to 

acquire the information, what scientifically credible information is available and what 

accepted scientific methodologies were applied in its place. 

CBD-18 The BOEM uses data on past OCS production and spills, along with estimates of future 

production, to evaluate the risk of future spills (Chapter 4.3.1.2 of the Multisale EIS). Data 

on the numbers, types, sizes, and other information on past spills, including those that are 

relevant to ultra-deepwater wells, were reviewed to develop the spill scenario for analysis in 

this Supplemental EIS. Past spill data used in the model indicate that there is no trend of 

increased number of spills based on exploration in deeper water prior to Macondo. The spill 

scenario provides the set of reasonable assumptions and estimates of future spills; the type, 

frequency, quantity, and fate of the spilled oil for specific scenarios; and the rationale for the 

scenario assumptions or estimates. Neither high-temperature/high-pressure conditions nor 

water depth are used to calculate the risk of future spills because these are postlease 

operational issues that cannot be reasonably predicted at the lease stage without site-specific 

information. In the postlease stage, applicants submit site-specific data on conditions, and 

BOEM technical staff reviews this data to determine whether conditions on approval, based 

on well data, are appropriate. The BOEM believes that the NEPA analysis in this 

Supplemental EIS is conservative, in that even with the oil-spill risk analysis showing that the 

risk of a spill remains low (whether in deep water or shallow water), for the purposes of 

impacts analysis, a potential spill was assumed and evaluated. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-187 

 Also, Anderson and LaBelle (2000) have recently been updated. Though it is still in draft 

form, the new information has been incorporated into Table 3-5 of this Supplemental EIS. 

Future OSRA runs will also use this updated historical spill rate information. 

CBD-19 See the response to Comment CBD-18. The OSRA model is a trajectory analysis, combined 

with the probability of spill occurrence. Past spill data used in the OSRA models, both for 

accidental spills and catastrophic runs, indicate that there is no trend of an increased number 

of spills based on exploration in deeper water prior to Macondo. For purposes of this 

Supplemental EIS, BOEM believes that it is appropriate to run the OSRA model for both 

low-probability catastrophic spills (Appendix B) and for other types of accidental events 

(Table 3-5) to frame the impacts analysis and better inform the decisionmaker. 

CBD-20 The statement regarding BSEE’s reliance on BOP’s is not an accurate assessment. The BSEE 

views the entire drilling process as a whole in the prevention of losses of well control and 

well blowouts, and this Supplemental EIS notes that no one component could reasonably be 

expected to be a 100 percent fail safe in all scenarios. The BOP’s should not be viewed in 

isolation, when they are one of only a number of technological devices and regulatory 

initiatives to prevent and, if necessary, contain and kill blowouts. The BSEE also directed 

significant energies on improving the way wells are designed and drilled to prevent the 

occurrence of a well control incident that would require the use of the BOP (Chapter 1.3.1). 

Even with all of these improvements on well design and drilling practices and the changes to 

increase the reliability of the BOP stacks, BSEE did not stop there. In addition to prevention, 

BSEE focused resources on improvements to containment capabilities as well. Therefore, 

BSEE is not putting an unreasonable amount of reliance on the BOP’s, viewed in the context 

of a number of overlapping and complementary initiatives to prevent and, in the unlikely 

event a loss of well control results in a spill, contain and kill the spill. The BSEE has 

addressed this problem from every possible angle with the intent of reducing the overall risk. 

CBD-21 See the response to Comment CBD-20. 

CBD-22 Although this Supplemental EIS introduces and evaluates new information on containment 

systems as they are relevant to the proposed action and alternatives and in light of the DWH 

event, containment is being reviewed in more detail on a per application for permit to drill 

(APD) basis. An APD is not approved unless the operator has demonstrated a capability to 

contain a subsea blowout. To date, containment has been successfully demonstrated by 

several operators through the postlease process. Currently, containment is being provided by 

the Marine Well Containment Corporation (MWCC) and the Helix Well Containment Group. 

All equipment and containment strategies utilized by these organizations are inspected and 

reviewed by experts at BSEE. At this time, MWCC is not utilizing floating risers similar to 

Petrobras. While BP did utilize this technology during the DWH event without incident, 

MWCC has decided to utilize proven riser systems deployed from mobile offshore drilling 

units. Free-standing risers systems similar to Petrobras will not be utilized for containment 

until such a time that MWCC and BSEE can fully evaluate the technology. Although 

independent experts are free to opine on equipment and containment strategies, BSEE 

remains the Federal agency with oversight authority for oil and gas development on the OCS, 

including requirements for the drilling, safety, and oil-spill response, and it must make its 

own informed decision on whether an operator is complying with BSEE’s containment 

requirements. In any event, this issue is outside of the purview of this document or NEPA 

generally. 

CBD-23 See the response to Comment CBD-14. The OSRA model is a trajectory analysis, combined 

with the probability of spill occurrence. Past spill data used in the OSRA models, both for 

accidental spills and catastrophic runs, indicate that there is no trend of an increased number 

of spills based on exploration in deeper water prior to Macondo. For purposes of this 

Supplemental EIS, BOEM believes that it is appropriate to run the OSRA model for both 
5-188 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

low-probability catastrophic spills (Appendix C) and for other types of accidental events 

(Table 3-5) to frame the impacts analysis and better inform the decisionmaker. 

CBD-24 See the responses to Comments CBD-14 and CBD-23. 

CBD-25 The CBD’s request that this Supplemental EIS be withdrawn until the OSRP review and/or 

certification processes have been made subject to public notice and comment has no 

precedence under NEPA. The regulations implementing the OSRP/certification requirements 

were the subject of notice and comment. Public notice and comment on individual OSRP 

submissions and certifications is not provided for in the statutes or regulations and raises a 

number of complicating factors (such as proprietary and personal contact information that 

must be included). Even if BSEE could subject the OSRP and certification processes to 

public notice and comment in the future, that is not a basis for withdrawing this Supplemental 

EIS now. Public notice and comment on the OSRP and certification process would be 

unlikely to result in information relevant to the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse 

impacts of the proposed action or the alternatives analyzed in this Supplemental EIS. If 

anything, public notice and comment would only be expected to further reduce the potential 

for impacts during the postlease process rather than increase the potential for heightened or 

new impacts. Thus, this Supplemental EIS remains conservative in its evaluation of potential 

impacts from oil spills and the potential for OSRP’s to reduce or minimize this potential. 

CBD-26 Appendix B is intended to be an overview of potential effects of a catastrophic spill, not 

specifically the DWH event. It was never envisioned to provide a site-specific analysis but 

instead to be a reference to the type of impacts associated with a catastrophic spill. A specific 

spill scenario is too speculative. The analysis contained in Appendix B best suits a situation 

where there are a wide range of scenarios associated with an unexpected and unlikely lowprobability event. 

 The best example for long-term impacts from a catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is 

the Ixtoc spill of 1979, which BOEM has incorporated where appropriate in this 

Supplemental EIS. The Exxon Valdez spill occurred in such vastly different conditions and 

circumstances in Alaska that it probably is a less reliable example of impacts and recovery 

from an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, although BOEM subject-matter experts may find the 

spill relevant to discussions of impacts of oil on individual resources. 

 Since publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS on July 1, 2011, the subject-matter experts 

have incorporated relevant information and have updated this Supplemental EIS accordingly. 

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

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

methodology, and data quality. As is necessary under every NEPA analysis, at some point 

the subject-matter experts had to finalize their analyses to allow time for the Final 

Supplemental EIS to be prepared and presented to the decisionmaker. 

CBD-27 See the response to Comment CBD-17. Available peer-reviewed modeling cited by CBD in 

their comment (e.g., Antonio et al., 2011) was incorporated into the text where appropriate. 

CBD-28 See response to Comment CBD-17. As noted in this Supplemental EIS, extrapolation from 

this raw data is not reliable at this point in time. Clarifying language has been added to 

Chapter 4.1.1.14.1, but it notes that the reference on the Exxon Valdez spill in the comment 

(Piatt et al., 1996) is dated 1996, which is 7 years after the Exxon Valdez spill, and it was 

published 15 years ago. The reference is cited as reporting that, “Due to direct losses and 

changes in the habitat, several populations of seabirds have not recovered, even though it has 

been more than 20 years since that catastrophic spill event.” As such, the text added reflects 

that several populations had not recovered when the article was published in 1996, about 

7 years since the catastrophic spill event, with citation of the reference. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-189 

CBD-29 See the responses to Comments CBD-17 and CBD-28. Also, please note that the year of the 

reference cited in the comment (Piatt et al., 1990) is given incorrectly (it is given as 1996 

instead of 1990 in the comment). This citation date is correct in Appendix B. 

CBD-30 Clarifying language has been added to Appendix B. 

CBD-31 Appendix B is a general analysis and is not specific to the DWH spill, but it is the most 

relevant example of a catastrophic spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Further, the commenter’s 

discussion of the timing of bluefin tuna spawning and larval stages to the DWH spill is an 

example of the possible effects from a long-term, population-level impact to one species and 

of the possible effects this may have on fisheries in the future. Sections 2.2.2.2, 3.2.2.2, 

4.2.2.2, and 5.2.2.2 of Appendix B discuss the possible impacts on fish, while Sections 

2.2.2.5, 3.2.2.6, 3.2.2.7, and 5.2.2.8 of Appendix B discuss the impacts on benthic habitat; 

Sections 2.2.3.2, 3.2.3.2, 4.2.3.2, and 5.2.3.2 of Appendix B discuss impacts on commercial 

fishing; and Sections 2.2.3.3, 3.2.3.3, 4.2.3.3, and 5.2.3.3 of Appendix B discuss impacts on 

recreational resources and fishing. Section 3.2.2.2 of Appendix B also states “early life 

stages of animals are usually more sensitive to oil than adults (Boesch and Rabalais, 1987; 

NRC, 2005)”; the analysis is consistent with the point that the commenter makes here. 

CBD-32 The BOEM agrees with CBD; the example of the areas closed to fisheries is an important 

impact, as exemplified by the areas closed as a result of the DWH spill. Appendix B

discusses these impacts in Sections 2.2.3.2, 3.2.3.2, 4.2.3.2, and 5.2.3.2 regarding impacts on 

commercial fishing and in Sections 2.2.3.3, 3.2.3.3, 4.2.3.3, and 5.2.3.3 regarding impacts on 

recreational resources and fishing. 

CBD-33 The quoted language is from the “Summary” in this Supplemental EIS and is based on the 

analysis of accidental events expected as a result of the proposed action, which is provided in 

Chapter 4.1.1.17.3. It is not based on an analysis of a catastrophic oil spill. Appendix B

includes the discussion of potential impacts from a low-probability, large-volume 

catastrophic oil spill on commercial fishing (Sections 2.2.3.2, 3.2.3.2, 4.2.3.2, and 5.2.3.2 of 

Appendix B). Clarifying language has been added to the “Summary” and to the resource 

summaries in Chapter 2 to indicate that a catastrophic spill analysis is provided in 

Appendix B.

CBD-34 A discussion of the UME is included in Chapter 4.1.1.11.1. 

CBD-35 See the response to Comment CBD-17. 

CBD-36 See the response to Comment CBD-17. It is important to note that evaluations underway by 

NMFS have not yet confirmed the cause of death, and it is possible that not all carcasses were 

related to the DWH event oil spill. As such, it would be premature to speculate on what role, 

if any, the shrimping industry and/or turtle excluder devices have on these strandings. 

CBD-37 While Appendix B (“Catastrophic Oil Spill Analysis”) does not discuss the full life history, 

habitats, and range of sea turtles, this Supplemental EIS does provide this information in 

Chapter 4.1.1.11 and discusses the impacts from an accidental event on these life cycles. 

The same is also incorporated by reference from the Multisale EIS and the 2009-2012 

Supplemental EIS, which provide a thorough background on sea turtles. 

Sea turtles are discussed in Sections 2.2.2.4, 3.2.2.4, 4.2.2.4, and 5.2.2.4 of Appendix B. 

Section 4.2.2.4 of Appendix B discusses the three species of sea turtle that nest in the U.S. 

Gulf of Mexico and the impacts that a catastrophic oil spill could have on nesting sea turtles. 

CBD-38 Sargassum is discussed in Section 3.2.2.5 of Appendix B for offshore habitats, as well as in 

Section 4.2.2.4 for sea turtles and finally in Section 5.2.2.7 for open water habitats. Sections 
5-190 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

4.2.2.6 and 5.2.2.7 discuss seagrass beds. Coral reefs are discussed in Sections 2.2.2.5, 

3.2.2.6, 3.2.2.7, and 5.2.2.6. Further, Section 3.2.2.4 for sea turtles also discusses coral reefs 

as important sea turtle habitat. Consistent with the discussions in these sections, BOEM 

agrees with the commenter that the destruction of these habitats from a catastrophic oil spill 

would be harmful to sea turtles. The BOEM agrees that declines in the food supply for sea 

turtles, which include invertebrates and sponge populations, could also affect sea turtle 

populations. Section 5.2.2.4 of Appendix B has been updated to reflect this change. 

CBD-39 Comment noted. Activities of the U.S. Coast Guard are not within BOEM’s jurisdiction. 

The sea turtle nest relocation program is discussed in Chapter 4.1.1.11.1. 

CBD-40 Chapter 4.1.1.11.2 discusses the impacts from routine events on sea turtles, which includes 

offshore activities. Chapter 4.1.1.11.3 discusses the impacts from accidental events on sea 

turtles. This chapter states, in regards to an accidental event at the lease sale site, “exposure 

to hydrocarbons persisting in the sea following the dispersal of an oil slick are expected to 

most often result in sublethal impacts (e.g., decreased health and/or reproductive fitness, 

increased vulnerability to disease) to sea turtles.” 

 In Appendix B, sea turtles are discussed in Sections 2.2.2.4, 3.2.2.4, 4.2.2.4, and 5.2.2.4. 

Section 2.2.2.4 discusses how sea turtles may be impacted near the site of a catastrophic 

event if they are near the blowout and within the initially released oil. Section 3 of this 

analysis is specific to a catastrophic oil spill that is growing in size. Section 3.2.2.4 states that 

sea turtles are more likely to be affected by a catastrophic spill in shallow water, citing the 

typical habitat for Kemp’s ridley, hawksbill, and green sea turtles. This is not to say that sea 

turtles could not or would not be affected by an oil spill in the open ocean. The BOEM 

agrees with the commenter that sea turtles travel through the open ocean. 

 It was not the intent in Appendix B and the main text of this Supplemental EIS to downplay 

the impacts of an offshore catastrophic oil spill on essential habitat for turtles in the open 

ocean convergence zones; rather, Appendix B only states that more sea turtles are likely to 

be affected in shallower waters. 

CBD-41 The BOEM agrees that catastrophic oil spills have the potential to affect sea turtles in many 

ways, including the following: (1) oil or dispersants on the sea turtle’s skin and body can 

cause skin irritation, chemical burns, and infections; (2) inhalation of volatile petroleum 

compounds or dispersants can damage the respiratory tract and lead to diseases; (3) ingesting 

oil or dispersants may cause injury to the gastrointestinal tract; and (4) chemicals that are 

inhaled or ingested may damage liver, kidney, and brain function, cause anemia and immune 

suppression, or lead to reproductive failure or death. 

Chapter 4.1.1.11.3 discusses impacts from accidental events on sea turtles. Sections 2.2.2.4, 

3.2.2.4, 4.2.2.4, and 5.2.2.4 of Appendix B furthers the discussion of the impacts on sea 

turtles. However, clarifying language on the commenter’s list of potential impacts has been 

added to Section 5.2.2.4 of Appendix B. 

CBD-42 Chapter 4.1.1.11.3 provides a general overview of the impacts from accidental events on sea 

turtles, while the effects of a catastrophic oil spill on sea turtles are further discussed in 

Sections 2.2.2.4, 3.2.2.4, 4.2.2.4, and 5.2.2.4 of Appendix B. Effects on nesting sites were 

discussed in Section 4.2.2.4 of Appendix B. The full life history of sea turtles are discussed 

in the Multisale EIS and the 2009-2012 Supplemental EIS, which were incorporated by 

reference, as well as in Chapter 4.1.1.11. Appendix B discusses sea turtle habitat (including 

Sargassum), seagrass beds, and coral reefs throughout the appendix. Appendix B has been 

updated, however, to reflect the examples and suggestions from this commenter, which 

improve upon the discussion on impacts to prey species and the effects on sea turtles. 

Information that is currently available on population impacts, including strandings and 
Consultation and Coordination 5-191 

mortalities both before and after the DWH event, have been included in this Supplemental 

EIS. 

CBD-43 Information was added to Appendix B to include the role of plankton in the marine 

environment. Phytoplankton and zooplankton do play a role in the marine environment. 

However, several laboratory and field experiments and observations in the past decades have 

shown that impacts to planktonic and microbial populations are generally short lived and do 

not affect all groups evenly, and in some cases stimulate growth of important species 

(Gonzalez et al., 2009; Graham et al., 2010; Hing et al., 2011; Dunstan et al., 1975, in 

Appendix B). 

CBD-44 Comment noted. This Supplemental EIS was revised in response to this comment. 

CBD-45 Results of foraminifera studies following the DWH event are not yet available, and there is 

no timeline available for when these studies are expected to be completed and released; as 

such, they could not be incorporated into this NEPA analysis. The BOEM subject-matter 

experts have identified areas such as this where information remains incomplete or 

unavailable, have determined whether it is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives, 

and if it could not be obtained or would require exorbitant costs to obtain it, and have used 

what scientifically credible information was available, using accepted scientific 

methodologies. 

CBD-46 Deepwater studies are being conducted as part of the NRDA process, but the data and 

conclusions have not been released to the public at this time. Remotely operated vehicles 

surveyed sites around the well after it was capped and collected benthic megafauna and 

mesopelagic/bathypelagic megaplankton distribution and abundance data using video and still 

photography (Putt, 2011; Benfield, official communication, 2011). Data collected following 

the capping of the well was compared with data collected in the area before the oil spill, and 

it will be compared with additional data collected during the NRDA process to determine if 

there were changes in the communities following the spill (Putt, 2011; Benfield, official 

communication, 2011). The BOEM subject-matter experts have identified areas such as this 

where information remains incomplete or unavailable, have determined whether it is essential 

to a reasoned choice among alternatives, and if it could not be obtained or would require 

exorbitant costs to obtain it, and used what scientifically credible information was available, 

using accepted scientific methodologies. 

CBD-47 Additional information on methane release and microbiological respiration has been included 

in this Supplemental EIS since publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS. This information 

is in the “Description of the Affected Environment” section for coastal and offshore water 

quality in Chapters 4.1.1.2.1.1 and 4.1.1.2.2.1, respectively. 

CBD-48 This Supplemental EIS does not state that corals are immune to oil, rather, the discussion 

states that the effects would vary depending on the level of exposure. The summary by 

Shigenaka supports the statement that corals have a high tolerance to oil. The full discussion 

in that section describes the types of possible negative effects that may result from contact 

with oil and that were named in the comment. This does not, however, change the fact that, 

because deepwater corals are relatively scarce in the Gulf of Mexico, BOEM subject-matter 

experts consider contact may be less likely for any specific spill event depending on size and 

location. Indeed, BOEM subject-matter experts included a discussion in Chapter 4.1.1.10 of 

the coral beds that were identified as visibly oiled less than 7 mi (11 km) from the Macondo 

wellhead. Additional information and discussion have been added to this chapter since 

publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS. 

CBD-49 The BOEM agrees with CBD and with the data from the Census of Marine Life. 

Appendix B is a general analysis and therefore does not include all species. It is also not 
5-192 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

specific to the DWH spill, but takes it, along with the Ixtoc spill, into account for informing 

what potential impacts may occur in the event of a catastrophic event. Since most data from 

the DWH spill have not yet been released on the effects to individual species or to 

biodiversity, BOEM has considered the effects from the Ixtoc spill and what scientifically 

credible information is available applied using scientifically accepted methodology. The data 

from the Ixtoc spill indicate that the impacts were relatively short term and did not 

significantly reduce the biodiversity of the Gulf of Mexico. However, BOEM agrees with the 

commenter that the overall ecosystem and the biodiversity in the Gulf of Mexico could be 

disrupted in the case of another catastrophic oil spill, and this is reflected in Appendix B.

CBD-50 Most of the MPA sites you refer to are coastal sites in State waters outside of BOEM’s and 

BSEE’s jurisdiction. The MPA’s that are located on the OCS are mentioned in Appendix B, 

and BOEM acknowledges that they may be threatened by or impacted by a catastrophic 

event. Nevertheless, the relevant impacts to the MPA’s from a catastrophic oil-spill event are 

more appropriately discussed in the individual resource analyses in Appendix B; the 

potential impacts from a catastrophic event are tied to the resource involved, rather than the 

legal status afforded any specific area. As such, the risk of contact from a spill to reach 

various portions of the coast is addressed and covers any specific sites such as the MPA’s 

mentioned. 

CBD-51 The microbial loop is an essential part of the marine ecosystem. The comments are noted and 

Appendix B has been updated. However, the study cited (Widger et al., 2011) does not 

support the argument of lasting effects to the spill on coastal microbial communities and 

pathogens. The study had only one pre-spill and one during spill time-point each, with no 

post-spill component to monitor trends. Further, the pathogens noted are commonly found in 

coastal waters after significant rain events and occur as a result of untreated freshwater 

reaching the coast (Stumpf et al., 2010; Wetz et al., 2008; Hsieh et al., 2007). The study 

(Widger et al., 2011) does not address the potential that the increase in microbial pathogens 

are a result of storm water run-off, and indeed it does not even address if there was a 

significant rain event upstream that could have carried these terrestrial-derived pathogens to 

the coastal zone. (The above references can be found in Appendix B.) 

CBD-52 Appendix B is a general overview of hypothetical impacts from a nonspecific hypothetical 

catastrophic spill and, thus, there are no specific locations or maps associated with it. 

CBD-53 The BOEM does not have access to the NRDA data that is being generated, as much of it has 

not been made publicly available. It may well be years before the results of NRDA are made 

available. While we do not dispute the other facts in the comment, they do not add value to 

the impact analysis for the proposed lease sale or Appendix B. The BOEM subject-matter 

experts have included relevant NRDA data that has been released to the public in their 

resources analyses in Chapter 4, such as the large number of water quality samples collected 

and analyzed, and the raw data on animals recovered after the DWH event. 

CBD-54 The BOEM agrees with CBD that Appendix B in no way is a complete list of all species and 

subspecies that may have been affected by the DWH oil spill or that may be affected by any 

future catastrophic events in the Gulf of Mexico. The Campagna et al. (2011) paper 

referenced by the commenter states that there are many unprotected species that were also 

likely affected, including bluefin tuna, several species of sharks, and several coral species. 

The BOEM agrees that, assuming a catastrophic spill, such impacts would be probable. 

Thus, Appendix B addresses impacts that are common among resources or species and 

addresses those impacts. In cases where the discussion requires, for purpose of impact 

analysis, a distinction between species, such distinction is made. Section 3.2.2.2 of 

Appendix B does discuss particular concern for whale sharks based on sightings after the 

DWH oil spill. Further, Chapter 4.1.1.16 does list many species of fish and sharks that could 

be impacted. Bluefin tuna and corals generally are likewise discussed in Appendix B. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-193 

CBD-55 Comment noted. Since publication of the Draft Supplemental EIS on July 1, 2011, the 

subject-matter experts have incorporated newly available relevant information and have 

updated this Supplemental EIS accordingly. 
5-194 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-195 SKY-1 SKY-2 SKY-3 
5-196 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS SKY-4 SKY-5 SKY-6 
Consultation and Coordination 5-197 
5-198 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

SKY-1 The BOEM believes that this Supplemental EIS has accurately depicted the containment 

capabilities and challenges identified during the DWH event and in developments made since 

that event. The BOEM has also been careful to point out that no one response technique is 

likely to be wholly effective and that a suite of response capabilities are likely to be deployed 

in the event of a future spill. Although the DWH event did highlight that certain containment 

capabilities were not as efficient in deep water or offshore as expected, e.g., the skimmers, 

significant strides have been made and continue to be made, in both regulatory and technical 

approaches. In addition to the techniques discussed in Chapter 3.2.1.5.2, all operators that 

submit applications for permits to drill in deep water must also now demonstrate their ability 

to deploy containment equipment to control and abate the source of an oil spill. This 

capability should greatly reduce the amount of time that a well could flow, which in turn, 

would reduce the amount of oil lost to the environment in the unlikely event that a future 

catastrophic event occurs. Operators must also submit a revised oil-spill response plan that 

shows not only this increased subsea containment and control capability but also 

improvements in mechanical and alternative spill-response capabilities. These improvements 

are being manifested through acquisition of state-of-the-art skimmers, ocean boom, burn 

boom, infrared cameras for night operations, and other improvements that will increase the 

efficiency of offshore spill-response systems. Strategies are also being put in place to 

decrease response time by placing more ocean boom on offshore vessels and by the 

development of systems’ approaches to respond in order to improve the encounter rate of oil. 

Additionally, BSEE and USCG are working closely together to address the spill-response 

issues that became evident during the DWH response. As a part of this effort, USCG and 

BSEE established workgroups to assess worst-case discharges of offshore oil-spill response 

plans by Captain of the Port zones and to conduct gap analysis of area contingency plans to 

provide assurances that equipment and strategies are adequate to mitigate risks from all 

potential sources of offshore oil spills. 

 The BOEM subject-matter experts have taken these advances and challenges into account in 

their analyses, where appropriate, and in the catastrophic spill event in Appendix B, which is 

meant to be conservative in its approach. 

SKY-2 See the response to Comment SKY-1. Economic and environmental damage resulting from a 

catastrophic spill such as the DWH spill event is analyzed in Appendix B. 

SKY-3 Appendix B, the catastrophic spill discussion, acknowledges and analyzes the potential 

impacts from a catastrophic spill in both shallow and deep water. Appendix B is 

conservative in its approach and does unduly rely on containment capabilities. In addition, 

all operators that submit applications for permits (APD) to drill in deep water must also now 

demonstrate their ability to deploy containment equipment to control and abate the source of 

an oil spill. For these applications, the operator must demonstrate well integrity utilizing a 

designated well containment screening program among other items within the APD. Based 

on the information submitted and the results of the BSEE Well Containment Screening Tool, 

BSEE will evaluate the well design. The BSEE will approve the well only if all elements of 

the review are acceptable and if the following conditions are met: (1) the well can be shut in 

with full wellbore integrity; (2) wellbore integrity cannot be demonstrated; however, the 

shut-in well will not result in an underground flow that broaches to the seafloor; or 

(3) wellbore integrity cannot be demonstrated and the shut-in well will result in an 

underground flow that broaches to the seafloor; however, the operator can demonstrate cap 

flow and collection capability. It is important to note that the above BSEE evaluation will not 

focus on requiring a predetermined surface collection flow capacity; it will instead rely upon 

the engineering flow analysis to determine the surface collection capacity (which is not the 

same as the operator’s estimated worst-case discharge). The BSEE will not grant an 

approved APD for wells whose calculated discharge rate, based upon the engineering flow 

analysis, is greater than the present surface collection capacity until the operators demonstrate 

that they have increased their surface collection capacity. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-199 

SKY-4 The analyses in this Supplemental EIS considered changes to baseline conditions that may 

have occurred since the Multisale EIS and the 2009-2012 Supplemental EIS, including the 

DWH event. As acknowledged in this Supplemental EIS, credible scientific data regarding 

the potential short-term and long-term impacts of the DWH event remains incomplete at this 

time and may not be available for years. In light of the absence of this information, BOEM 

considered what information was relevant and essential to its analysis of alternatives based 

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

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

exorbitant, and if it cannot be obtained, used what scientifically credible information was 

available, applied using acceptable scientific methodologies, to inform the analysis in light of 

this incomplete or unavailable information. Information on many impacts of the DWH event 

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

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

methodologies to evaluate impacts to the resources while this information is unavailable. 

Nevertheless, as noted in Chapter 4.1.1.2.2.1, thousands of water quality and sediment 

samples were collected and analyzed during and after the DWH event. The vast majority 

remained below USEPA benchmarks. As noted in that chapter, those that exceeded 

benchmarks were relatively close to the Macondo wellhead. As such, BOEM subject-matter 

experts believe the referenced statement remains accurate. 

SKY-5 The Gulf of Mexico, including the CPA, is a dynamic environment that will be studied far 

into the future. There will never be a “final” assessment of baseline conditions in such an 

environment; any baseline would be constantly evolving. Satellite imagery has helped inform 

the existing body of data generally on this dynamic environment, and it is useful during 

accidental events to identify potential sources and the geographic scope of the event. But at 

the present time, it remains difficult to impossible to use daily satellite images to separate out 

routine or unknown sources of pollution in the presence of so many natural seeps in the Gulf. 

The BOEM subject-matter experts routinely examine the literature in their respective fields, 

including externally and internally funded research. In this Supplemental EIS, the best 

available scientifically credible information has been included by BOEM subject-matter 

experts, including results or information gleaned from satellite imagery where appropriate. 

 With regard to monitoring of potential pollution streams during OCS exploration and 

production activities, USEPA regulates all waste streams generated from offshore oil and gas 

activities, primarily by general permits. The USEPA may not issue a permit for a discharge 

into ocean waters unless the discharge complies with the guidelines established under Section 

403(c) of the CWA. Monitoring requirements of these streams are identified by and enforced 

by USEPA. 

SKY-6 See the response to Comment SKY-5. 
5-200 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS TIRN-1 
Consultation and Coordination 5-201 TIRN-2 TIRN-3 TIRN-4 TIRN-5 TIRN-6 
5-202 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS TIRN-7 
Consultation and Coordination 5-203 
5-204 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS TIRN-8 TIRN-9 
Consultation and Coordination 5-205 TIRN-10 TIRN-11 TIRN-12 
5-206 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-207 
5-208 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-209 
5-210 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-211 
5-212 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-213 TIRN-13 
5-214 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

TIRN-1 The BOEM acknowledges that consultation has been reinitiated in light of the DWH event, is 

still underway, and may not be concluded prior to the printing of this Supplemental EIS. 

Because this is a lease sale that does not in and of itself make any irreversible or irretrievable 

commitment of resources that would foreclose the development or implementation of any 

reasonable and prudent alternative measures to comply with the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA), BOEM may proceed with publication of this Supplemental EIS and finalize a decision 

among the alternatives even if consultation is not complete, consistent with Section 7(d) of 

the ESA. The 2007 Biological Opinion remains in effect during the reinitiated consultation. 

The BOEM and BSEE will continue to comply with all reasonable and prudent measures and 

the terms and conditions under these existing consultations, along with implementing the 

current BOEM-imposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements. While 

consultation is ongoing, BOEM and BSEE are developing an interim coordination program 

with NMFS and FWS. 

TIRN-2 Protocols described in this Supplemental EIS are followed to protect sea turtles. In addition, 

BOEM remains subject to a 2007 Biological Opinion. The BOEM and BSEE will continue 

to comply with all reasonable and prudent measures and the terms and conditions of its 

existing consultations with NMFS. The BOEM has reinitiated consultation with NMFS, and 

BOEM and BSEE are developing an interim coordination program with NMFS while this 

reinitiated consultation is ongoing. Potential mitigation measures are discussed in the main 

text of this Supplemental EIS. The BOEM will continue to consult with NMFS and, during 

the postlease approval process, BOEM and BSEE may consider imposing additional 

mitigations or conditions of approval where appropriate to minimize or avoid impacts on sea 

turtles. 

TIRN-3 To the extent that the Turtle Island Restoration Network is requesting the creation of 

additional protected marine sanctuaries, NOAA’s National Marine Sanctuaries program has 

exclusive jurisdiction over the creation and protection of such areas. The BOEM does not 

have authority over the creation of marine sanctuaries. There are currently no specific sea 

turtle protected marine sanctuaries in the Gulf. For marine sanctuaries that have been 

designated by NOAA, BOEM complies with all No Activity Zones in place to protect those 

sanctuaries. In addition, across the Gulf, BOEM has sea turtle and marine mammal 

mitigations in place as described in this Supplement EIS. 

TIRN-4 The BOEM and BSEE continually evaluate offshore oil operations under its jurisdiction to 

ensure that our Nation’s offshore energy reserves are managed and developed in the most 

environmentally sound and safe manner possible. To this end, BSEE promulgated new 

regulations on drilling safety and new requirements for supplemental environmental 

management systems in light of lessons learned from the DWH event. With regard to 

BOEM’s continuing compliance with the Endangered Species Act and the status of the 

reinitiated consultation, please see the responses to Comments TIRN-1 and TIRN-2. New 

information on sea turtles that is available since previous NEPA documents has been included 

in this Supplemental EIS. 

TIRN-5 The BOEM already requires operators to monitor their activities as they relate to sea turtles 

and marine mammals, and it imposes additional mitigations as appropriate. For example, 

30 CFR 250.282, 30 CFR 550.282, and NTL 2007-G04 provide guidelines for monitoring 

procedures and vessel strike avoidance measures for sea turtles and other protected species. 

These mitigations and monitoring requirements are described in Chapter 4. 

TIRN-6 As discussed in this Supplemental EIS, BOEM’s analysis of routine activities related to the 

proposed action are expected to result in sublethal impacts that are not likely to rise to 

population-level effects. The BOEM admits that a low-probability, large-impact catastrophic 

spill similar to the DWH event, although exceedingly remote, has the potential to 

significantly impact sea turtles and potentially at a population level. Although a number of 
Consultation and Coordination 5-215 

turtle carcasses have been collected both before and after the DWH event, NMFS has not 

identified or released the causes of death for these turtles; therefore, it would be premature to 

link all of them to the DWH event at this point. Regulations, monitoring requirements, and 

mitigations, where applicable, are in place to minimize and avoid impacts to sea turtles 

wherever possible. In addition, BOEM has reinitiated consultations with NMFS, and BOEM 

and BSEE will continue to comply with all reasonable and prudent measures and the terms 

and conditions of the existing Biological Opinion to continue to protect sea turtles. 

TIRN-7 See the response to Comment TIRN-6. As noted above, NMFS has not identified a cause of 

death for most, if not all, of the turtles collected just before and after the DWH event. As 

such, BOEM can offer no opinion as to whether shrimp nets or turtle excluder devices played 

any role with the turtles collected. Information currently available on the impacts of oil 

exposure and the DWH event on turtles and the status of collected animals is included in 

Chapter 4. 

TIRN-8 Migration patterns of sea turtles are not well defined and, to date, NMFS has not identified 

any critical habitat for sea turtles in the Gulf of Mexico. As mandated by the Endangered 

Species Act, BOEM consulted with NMFS and FWS on possible and potential impacts from 

the CPA proposed action on endangered/threatened species and designated critical habitat 

under their jurisdiction. See the response to Comment TIRN-1 for the status of reinitiated 

consultation with NMFS. Operators are required to comply with the Endangered Species 

Act, and BOEM imposes additional mitigations and monitoring requirements as necessary to 

provide protections to sea turtles. 

TIRN-9 See the response to Comment TIRN-3. 

TIRN-10 See the response to Comment TIRN-4. 

TIRN-11 See the response to Comment TIRN-5. Studies and information on sea turtles are evolving, 

and the NRDA process is continuing to investigate potential impacts to sea turtles in light of 

the DWH event. 

TIRN-12 Comments on the 2012-2017 5-Year Program EIS are outside the scope of this Supplemental 

EIS. 

TIRN-13 See the response to Comment TIRN-1 for the status of the reinitiated consultation and 

compliance with the Endangered Species Act. The ongoing consultation under the 

Endangered Species Act does not prevent BOEM from meeting its obligations under NEPA 

in this Supplement EIS. 
5-216 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS GOLD-1 
Consultation and Coordination 5-217 

GOLD-1 Comment noted. 

CHAPTER 6 

REFERENCES CITED

References Cited 6-3 

6. REFERENCES CITED 

Abramson, D., I. Redlener, T. Stehling-Ariza, J. Sury, A. Banister, and Y. Park. 2010. Impact on 

children and families of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. National Center for Disaster Preparedness. 

Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY. 

Acevedo, R., R. Morelock, and R.A. Olivieri. 1989. Modification of coral reef zonation by terrigenous 

sediment stress. Palaios 4:92-100. 

Ackerman, J.T., J.Y. Takekawa, K.L. Kruse, D.L. Orthmeyer, J.L. Yee, C.R. Ely, D.H. Ward, 

K.S. Bollinger, and D.M. Mulcahy. 2004. Using radiotelemetry to monitor cardiac response of freeliving tule greater white-fronted geese (Anser albifrons elgasi) to human disturbance. Wilson 

Bulletin 116:146-151. 

Adams, J.A. 1960. A contribution to the biology and postlarval development of the Sargassum fish, 

Histrio histrio (Linnaeus), with a discussion of the Sargassum complex. Bull. Mar. Sci. of the Gulf 

and Caribbean 10:55-82. 

Adcroft, A., R. Hallberg, J.P. Dunne, B.L. Samuels, J.A. Galt, C.H. Barker, and D. Payton. 2010. 

Simulations of underwater plumes of dissolved oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, 

L18605, doi:10.1029/2010GL044689. 

Adriance, J. Official communication. Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries. Email regarding 

summer of 2011 fish kills in Louisiana. July 21, 2011. 

Aguilar-Perera, A. and A. Tuz-Sulub. 2010. Non-native, invasive red lionfish (Pterois volitans

[Linnaeus 1758]: Scorpaenidae), is the first recorded in the southern Gulf of Mexico, off the 

Northern Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Aquatic Invasions, Volume 5, Supplement 1:S9-S12. 

Aguilera, F., J. Méndez, E. Pásaro, and B. Laffon. 2010. Review on the effects of exposure to spilled 

oils on human health. Journal of Applied Toxicology 30:291-301, doi:10.1002/jat.1521. 

Alabama Coastal Area Board. 1980. Inventory of Alabama’s coastal resources and uses. Alabama 

Coastal Area Board Technical Publication. 169 pp. 

Alabama Dept. of Conservation and National Resources. 2010a. Alabama’s artificial reef program 

(maps). Internet website: http://www.outdooralabama.com/fishing/saltwater/where/artificial-reefs/. 

Accessed April 15, 2011. 

Alabama Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2010b. Fishing Alabama: WFF’s guiding 

principles and strategies (fishing regulations). Internet website: https://www.outdooralabama.com/

fishing/. Accessed April 15, 2011. 

Alabama Tourism Department. 2010. Travel economic impact report 2009. 36 pp. 

Alexander, S.K. and J.W. Webb. 1987. Relationship of Spartina alterniflora growth to sediment oil 

content following an oil spill. In: Proceedings, 1987 Oil Spill Conference. . . April 6-9, 1988. 

Baltimore, MD. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. Pp. 445-450. 

Alexander-Bloch, B. 2010. Vietnamese-American fishers fight for oil spill claim approval. The Times 

Picayune. Internet website: http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/12/vietnameseamerican_fishermen.html. Accessed February 16, 2011. 

Allen, T. 2010. Transcript press briefing by National Incident Commander Admiral Thad Allen. Press 

conference transcript, July 30, 2010. Internet website: 

http://www.restorethegulf.gov/release/2010/07/30/transcript-press-briefing-national-incidentcommander-admiral-thad-allen. Accessed November 17, 2011.

Allen, A. 2011. The controlled burning of oil during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Petroleum 

Association of Japan, 2011 Oil Spill Response Workshop, Tokyo, Japan, March 2, 2011. 31 pp. 
6-4 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Internet website: http://www.pcs.gr.jp/doc/esymposium/2011/4Mr_AlanAllen_PPT.pdf. Accessed 

November 17, 2011. 

Alonso-Alvarez, C., C. Perez, and A. Velando. 2007a. Effects of acute exposure to heavy fuel oil from 

the Prestige spill on a seabird. Aquatic Toxicology 84:103-110. 

Alonso-Alvarez, C., I. Munilla, M. Lopez-Alonso, and A. Velando. 2007b. Sublethal toxicity of the 

Prestige oil spill on yellow-legged gulls. Environment International 33:773-781. 

Alsop, F.J. III. 2001. Birds of North America. Smithsonian Handbook. New York, NY: 

DK Publishing. 1,008 pp. 

Alpert, L., L. Schild, and W. Stronge. 2008. Florida visitor study. Prepared for the Florida Dept. of 

Environmental Protection. Contract # BSO14. 7 pp. 

Alpert, L., R. Dow, J. Murley, and W. Stronge. 2005. Tourism in paradise: The economic impact of 

Florida beaches. Proceedings of the 14th Biennial Coastal Zone Conference. 6 pp. 

Altuf’yev, Yu. V., A.A. Romanov, and N.N. Sheveleva. 1992. Histology of the striated muscle tissue 

and liver in Caspian Sea sturgeons. J. Ichthyol. 32:100-116. 

American Association of Port Authorities. 2009. U.S. port ranking by cargo volume 2009. 2 pp. 

Internet website: http://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/Statistics/

2009US_PORTRANKINGS_BY_CARGO_TONNAGE.pdf. Accessed June 6, 2011. 

American Petroleum Institute (API). 1989. Effects of offshore petroleum operations on cold water 

marine mammals: A literature review. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. 385 pp. 

American Petroleum Institute (API). 2004. Development of a safety and environmental management 

program for offshore operations and facilities. Recommended Practice (RP) 75. 

America’s Wetland Resource Center. 2011. Controlling the river: Maintaining the Mississippi River for 

national commerce. Internet website: http://www.americaswetlandresources.com/background_facts/

detailedstory/LouisianaRiverControl.html. Accessed November 1, 2011.

Arismendez, S., R. Kalke, and P. Montagna. 2011a. Microtox® analysis of the effects of the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill on offshore benthic habitats: Abstract. In: Proceedings of the 40th Benthic Ecology 

Meeting, Mobile, AL. March 16-20, 2011. 

Arismendez, S., R. Kalke, and P. Montagna. 2011b. Microtox® analysis of the effects of the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill on offshore benthic habitats. Presentation given at the 40th Benthic Ecology 

Meeting, Mobile, AL, March 16-20, 2011. 

Amos, A.F. 1989. The occurrence of hawksbills (Eretmochelys imbricata) along the Texas coast. 

Proceedings of the 9th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-232. Pp. 9-11. 

Anchor Environmental CA, L.P. 2003. Literature review of effects of resuspended sediments due to 

dredging operations. Prepared for the Los Angeles Contaminated Sediments Task Force, Los 

Angeles, CA 140 pp. 

Anderson, C.M. and R.P. LaBelle. 2000. Update of comparative occurrence rates for offshore oil spills. 

Spill Science and Technology Bulletin 6(5/6):302-321. 

Anderson, D.W., F. Gress, and D.M. Fry. 1996. Survival and dispersal of oiled brown pelicans after 

rehabilitation and release. Marine Pollution Bulletin 32:711-718. 

Anton, A., J. Cebrian, C.M. Duarte, K.L. Heck, Jr., and J. Goff. 2009. Low impact of Hurricane Katrina 

on seagrass community structure and functioning in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin of Marine 

Science 85(1):45-59. 

Antonio, F.J., R.S. Mendes, and S.M. Thomaz. 2011. Identifying and modeling patterns of tetrapod 

vertebrate mortality rates in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Aquatic Toxicology 105(1-2):177-179. 
References Cited 6-5 

Armstrong, H.W., K. Fucik, J.W. Anderson, and J.M. Neff. 1977. Effects of oilfield brine effluent on 

benthic organisms in Trinity Bay, Texas. API Publication No. 4201. Washington, DC: American 

Petroleum Institute. 

Atauz, A.D., W. Bryant, T. Jones, and B. Phaneuf. 2006. Mica shipwreck project: Deepwater 

archaeological investigation of a 19th century shipwreck in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study 

MMS 2006-072. 116 pp. 

Aten, L.E. 1983. Indians of the upper Texas coast. New York, NY: Academic Press. 370 pp. 

Atkins, M., S. Mirza, J. Skinner, A. Mathew, and T. Edward. 2006. Pipeline damage assessment from 

Hurricane Ivan in the Gulf of Mexico. Minerals Management Service, Herndon, VA. TA&R 553. 

Atkins, M., T. Edward, D. Johnson, and M. Dance. 2007. Pipeline damage assessment from Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Herndon, VA. TA&R 581. 

Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions. 2004. Guidelines for marine artificial reef 

materials. Second edition. Number 121. 205 pp. Internet website: http://www.gsmfc.org/pubs/

SFRP/Guidelines_for_Marine_Artificial_Reef_Materials_January_2004.pdf. 

Atlas, R.M. and T.C. Hazen. 2011. Oil bioremediation: A tale of the two worst spills in U.S. history. 

Environmental Science and Technology 45:6709-6715. 

Aurell, J. and B.K. Gullett. 2010. Aerostat sampling of PCDD/PCDF emissions from the Gulf oil spill in 

situ burns. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National 

Risk Management Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC. 22 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.epa.gov/research/dioxin/docs/Gulfinsituburnemissionsampling.pdf. 

Austin, D., K. Coelho, A. Gardner, R. Higgins, and T. McGuire. 2002a. Social and economic impacts of 

outer continental shelf activities on individuals and families. Volume I: Final report. U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior, Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2002-022. 298 pp. 

Austin, D.E., A. Gardner, R. Higgins, J. Schrag-James, S. Sparks, and L. Stauber. 2002b. Social and 

economic impacts of outer continental shelf activities on individuals and families. Volume II: Case 

studies of Morgan City and New Iberia, Louisiana. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2002-023. 197 pp. 

Australian Maritime Safety Authority. 2003. Post spill monitoring: Background paper. Prepared by 

Wardrop Consulting and the Cawthron Institute for the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and the 

Marine Safety Authority of New Zealand. Canberra: Australian Marine Safety Authority, Canberra. 

ISBN: 0 642 70991 2. 

Australian Maritime Safety Authority. 2010. Oil spill dispersants: Top 20 frequently asked questions 

(FAQs). Internet website: http://www.amsa.gov.au/Marine_Environment_Protection/National_plan/

General_Information/Dispersants_Information/FAQ_Oil_Spills_Dispersants.asp. Accessed June 29, 

2010. 

Avens, H.J., K.M. Unice, J. Sahmel, S.A. Gross, J.J. Keenan, and D.J. Paustenbach. 2011. Analysis and 

modeling of airborne BTEX concentrations from the Deepwater Horizon spill. Environmental 

Science Technology 45(17) :7372–7379, doi:10.1021/es200963x. Internet website: http://

pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es200963x. 

Aversa, J. 2010. Oil spill’s economic damage may not go beyond Gulf. Internet website: http://

dailycaller.com/2010/06/28/oil-spills-economic-damage-may-not-go-beyond-gulf/. Accessed 

February 16, 2011. 

Avery, M.L., P.F. Springer, and N.S. Dailey. 1980. Avian mortality at man-made structures: An 

annotated bibliography (revised). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological 

Services Program. FWS/OBS-80/54. 
6-6 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 1994. Mitigating bird collisions with power lines: The state 

of the art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute, Washington, DC. 

Awbrey, F.T. and A.E. Bowles. 1990. The effects of aircraft noise and sonic booms on raptors: A 

preliminary model and a synthesis of the literature on disturbance. Prepared for Noise and Sonic 

Boom Impact Technology (NSBIT), Advanced Development Program Office, Human Systems 

Division, OL-AC HSD-NSBIT, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH. NSBIT Technical Operating 

Report No. 12. 

Baca, B.J., T.E. Lankford, and E.R. Gundlach. 1987. Recovery of Brittany coastal marshes in the eight 

years following the Amoco Cadiz incident. In: Proceedings of the 1987 International Oil Spill 

Conference. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. Pp. 459-464. 

Baca, B., G.A. Ward, C.H. Lane, and P.A. Schuler. 2005. Net environmental benefit analysis (NEBA) of 

dispersed oil on nearshore tropical ecosystems derived from the 20 year “TROPICS” field study. In: 

Proceedings of the International Oil Spill Conference. May 15-19, 2005. Miami Beach, FL. 

Bahr, L.M., Jr., J.W. Day, and J.H. Stone. 1982. Energy cost accounting of Louisiana fishery production. 

Estuaries 5(3):209-215. 

Bailey H. and P. Thompson. 2010. Effect of oceanographic features on fine-scale foraging movements 

of bottlenose dolphins. Marine Ecology Progress Series 418:223-233. 

Baird, P.H. 1990. Concentrations of seabirds at oil-drilling rigs. Condor 92:768-771. 

Bak, R.P. 1978. Lethal and sublethal effects of dredging on coral reefs. Marine Pollution Bulletin 

9(1):14-16. 

Bak, R.P.M. and J.H.B.W. Elgershuizen. 1976. Patterns of oil-sediment rejection in corals. Marine 

Biology 37:105-113. 

Baker, J.M., R.B. Clark, and P.F. Kingston. 1991. Two years after the spill: Environmental recovery in 

Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska. Institute of Offshore Engineering, Heriot-Watt 

University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, Scotland. 31 pp. 

Baker, J.M., M.L. Guzman, P.D. Bartlett, D.I. Little, and C.M. Wilson. 1993. Long-term fate and effects 

of untreated thick oil deposits on salt marshes. In: Proceedings of the 1993 International Oil Spill 

Conference. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. Pp. 395-399. 

Balsam, W.L. and J.P. Beeson. 2003. Sea-floor sediment distribution in the Gulf of Mexico. Deep Sea 

Research Part I. Oceanographic Research Papers 50(12):1421-1444. 

Balseiro, A., A. Espi, I. Marquez, V. Perez, M.C. Ferreras, J.F. Garcia Marin, and J.M. Prieto. 2005. 

Pathological features in marine birds affected by the Prestige’s oil spill in the north of Spain. Journal 

of Wildlife Diseases 41:371-378. 

Banks, P. 2011. Comprehensive report of the 2010 oyster mortality study in Breton Sound and Barataria 

Basins. Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries. 

Bankston, C.L. and M. Zhou. 1996. Go fish: The Louisiana Vietnamese and ethnic entrepreneurship in 

an extractive industry. National Journal of Sociology 10(1):37-55. 

Barker, K. 2011. Gulf counties tax receipts before and after the spill. ProPublica, April 13, 2011. 

Internet website: http://projects.propublica.org/tables/gulf-sales-tax-receipts. Accessed September 8, 

2011. 

Barkuloo, J.M. 1988. Report on the conservation status of the Gulf of Mexico sturgeon, Acipenser 

oxyrhunchus desotoi. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City, FL. 

Barnea, N., J. Michel, B. Bray, Z. Nixon, G. Imahori, and C. Moegling. 2009. Marine debris response 

planning in the north-central Gulf of Mexico. June 2009. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-31. 
References Cited 6-7 

Barras, J.A. 2006. Land area change in coastal Louisiana after the 2005 hurricanes—a series of three 

maps: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey. Open-File Report 2006-1274. Internet website: 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1274/. 

Barras, J.A. 2007a. Satellite images and aerial photographs of the effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

on coastal Louisiana. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey. Geological Survey Data Series 

281. Internet website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/2007/281. Accessed April 15, 2011. 

Barras, J.A. 2007b. Land area changes in coastal Louisiana after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

(Chapter 5). In: Farris, G.S., G.J. Smith, M.P. Crane, C.R. Demas, L.L. Robbins, and D.L. Lavoie, 

eds. Science and the storms: The USGS response to the hurricanes of 2005. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Geological Survey. Geological Survey Circular 1306. Pp. 97-112. Internet website: http://

pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1306/pdf/c1306_ch5_b.pdf. Accessed April 15, 2011. 

Barras, J.A. 2009. Land area change and overview of major hurricane impacts in coastal Louisiana, 

2004-08: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey. Scientific Investigations Map 3080, scale 

1:250,000, 6 p. pamphlet. 

Barras, J.A., S. Beville, D. Britsch, S. Hartley, S. Hawes, J. Johnston, P. Kemp, Q. Kinler, A. Martucci, 

J. Porthouse, D. Reed, K. Roy, S. Sapkota, and J. Suhayda. 2003. Historical and projected coastal 

Louisiana land changes: 1978-2050. USGS Open File Report 03-334. 

Barras, J.A., J.C. Bernier, and R.A. Morton. 2008. Land area change in coastal Louisiana: 1956 to 2006 

(abstract). In: Lavoie, D. and B. Rosen, eds. USGS Gulf Coast Science Conference and Florida 

Integrated Science Center Meeting: Proceedings with Abstracts, October 20-23, 2008, Orlando, FL. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, St. Petersburg, FL. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2008-1329. P. 22. 

Barringer, F. 2010. As mess is sent to landfills, officials worry about safety. The New York Times, 

June 14, 2010. Internet website: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/science/earth/15waste.html. 

Accessed July 1, 2010. 

Barry A. Vittor and Associates, Inc. 1985. Tuscaloosa Trend regional data search and synthesis study. 

Volume I: Synthesis report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico Regional OCS Office, Metairie, LA. OCS Study MMS 85-0056. 398 pp. 

Barry A. Vittor & Associates, Inc. 2009. Submerged aquatic vegetation mapping in Mobile Bay and 

adjacent waters of coastal Alabama in 2008 and 2009. Prepared for the Mobile Bay National Estuary 

Program. v + 16 pp. Internet website: http://www.mobilebaynep.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/

SAVfinal_Jan2010.pdf. 

Barstow, D., L. Dodd, J. Glanz, S. Saul, and I. Urbina. 2010. Regulators failed to address risks in oil Rig 

fail-safe device. The New York Times, June 20, 2010. Internet website: http://www.nytimes.com/

2010/06/21/us/21blowout.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1. Accessed January 28, 2011. 

Bartha, R. and R.M. Atlas. 1983. Transport and transformations of petroleum: Biological processes. In: 

Boesch, D.F. and N.N. Rabalais, eds. Long-term environmental effects of offshore oil and gas 

development. Abingdon, UK: Taylor and Francis. Pp. 287-342. 

Bass, A.S. and R.E. Turner. 1997. Relationships between salt marsh loss and dredged canals in three 

Louisiana estuaries. Journal of Coastal Research 13(3):895-903. 

Bassin, N.J. and T. Ichiye. 1977. Flocculation behavior of suspended sediments and oil emulsions. 

Journal of Sedimentary Research 47(2):671-677. 

Bateman, D.H. and M.S. Brim. 1994. Environmental contaminants in Gulf sturgeon of northwest Florida 

1985-1991. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City, FL. 23 pp. 

Baumann, R.H. and R.E. Turner. 1990. Direct impacts of outer continental shelf activities on wetland 

loss in the central Gulf of Mexico. Environ. Geo. Water Sci. 15(3):189-198. 
6-8 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Baumann, P.C., I.R. Smith, and C.D. Metcalfe. 1996. Linkages between chemical contaminants and 

tumors in benthic Great Lake fishes. J. Great Lakes Res. 22(2):131-152. 

Baxter II, L., E.E. Hays, G.R. Hampson, and R.H. Backus. 1982. Mortality of fish subjected to explosive 

shock as applied to oil well severance on Georges Bank. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 

Woods Hole, MA. Technical Report WHOI-82-54. 69 pp. 

Bea, R.G., N.W. Lai, A.W. Niedoroda, and G.H. Moore. 1983. Gulf of Mexico shallow-water wave 

heights and forces. In: Proceedings of the Offshore Technical Conference, Houston, TX, May 1983. 

OTC 4586. Pp. 49-62. 

Beale, C.M. 2007. The behavioral ecology of disturbance responses. International Journal of 

Comparative Psychology 20:111-120. 

Beauchamp, G. 2002. Higher-level evolution of intraspecific flock-feeding in birds. Behavioral Ecology 

and Sociobiology 51:480-487. 

Beauchamp, G. 2004. Reduced flocking by birds on islands with relaxed predation. Proceedings of the 

Royal Society of London B 271:1039-1042. 

Beauchamp, G. 2008. What is the magnitude of the group-size effect on vigilance? Behavioral Ecology 

19(6):1361-1368. 

Beauchamp, G. and G.D. Ruxton. 2008. Disentangling risk dilution and collective detection in the 

antipredator vigilance of semipalmated sandpipers in flocks. Animal Behavior 75:1837-1842. 

Beerkircher, L.R. 2009. Official communication. Email regarding seabird bycatch in longline fisheries. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

Behrens, E.W. 1988. Geology of a continental slope oil seep, northern Gulf of Mexico. American 

Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 72(2):105-114. 

Beiras, R. and L. Saco-Álvarez. 2006. Toxicity of seawater and sand affected by the Prestige fuel-oil 

spill using bivalve and sea urchin embryogenesis bioassays. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 

177:457-466. 

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow geese. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 54:36-41. 

Bell, W.B. 1972. Animal response to sonic booms. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 

51:758-765. 

Bellrose, F.C. 1980. Ducks, geese, and swans of North America: A Wildlife Management Institute book 

sponsored jointly with the Illinois Natural History Survey. Washington, DC: Stackpole Books. 

540 pp. 

Benfield, M. 2011. Official communication. BP spill paper. Presentation given at the Twenty-Sixth 

Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer Meeting, March 22-24, 2011. Sponsored by the U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 

Benson, J.B., W.W. Schroeder, and A.W. Shultz. 1997. Sandstone hardbottoms along the western rim of 

the De Soto Canyon, northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Gulf Coast Assoc. Geo. Soc. Trans. XLVII:43-48. 

Bent, A.R. 1926. Life histories of North American marsh birds. Smithsonian Institution, United States 

National Museum, Bulletin 135, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 

Berecz, E. and M. Balla-Achs. 1983. Gas hydrates. New York, NY: Elsevier. 343 pp. 

Berg, J. 2006. A review of contaminant impacts on Gulf of Mexico sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus 

desotoi. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City, FL.
References Cited 6-9 

Berman, A.E. 2005. The debate over subsidence in coastal Louisiana and Texas. Houston Geological 

Society. Internet website: http://www.hgs.org/en/art/?691. Posted November 24, 2005. Accessed 

October 5, 2010. 

Berns, D.M. 2003. Physiological responses of Thalassia testudinum and Ruppia maritima to 

experimental salinity levels. M.Sc. Thesis, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, FL. 71 pp. 

Biggs, D.C. and P.H. Ressler. 2001. Distribution and abundance of phytoplankton, ichthyoplankton, and 

micronekton in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Science 2001:7-29. 

Bindoff, N.L., J. Willebrand, V. Artale, A, Cazenave, J. Gregory, S. Gulev, K. Hanawa, Le Quéré, 

S. Levitus, Y. Nojiri, C.K. Shum, L.D. Talley, and A. Unnikrishnan. 2007. Observations; oceanic 

climate change and sea level. In: Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, 

K.B. Avery, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller, eds. Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 

Internet website: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5.html. 

Birchwood, R., S. Noeth, and E. Jones. 2008. Safe drilling in gas-hydrate prone sediments: Findings 

from the 2005 drilling campaign of the GOM gas hydrates Joint Industry Project (JIP). U.S. Dept. of 

Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Fire in the Ice. Methane Hydrate Newsletter. 

Winter 2008. Pp. 1-8. Internet website: http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/FutureSupply/

MethaneHydrates/newsletter/newsletter.htm. 

Birkett, S.H. and D.J. Rapport. 1999. A stress-response assessment of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico 

ecosystem. In: Kumpf, H., K. Steidinger, and K. Sherman, eds. The Gulf of Mexico large marine 

ecosystem: Assessment, sustainability, and management. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science, Inc. 

Pp. 438-458. 

Bittner, J.E. 1996. Cultural resources and the Exxon-Valdez oil spill: An overview. In: Proceedings of 

the Exxon-Valdez Oil Spill Symposium. American Fisheries Society Symposium 18:814-818. 

Blanchet, H. 2010. Official communication. Fish kill in Bay Joe Wise. Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and 

Fisheries. September 24, 2010. 

Block, B.A., H.D. Susanna, B. Blackwell, T.D. Williams, E.D. Prince, C.J. Farwell, A. Boustany, 

S.L.H. Teo, A. Seitz, A. Walli, and D. Fudge. 2001. Migratory movements, depth preferences, and 

thermal biology of Atlantic bluefin tuna. Science 293(5533):1310-1314. 

Bloomberg. 2010. Oil spill may cost $4.3 billion in property values. Internet website: http://

www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-11/bp-spill-may-cost-homeowners-4-3-billion-in-propertyvalues-along-shore.html. Accessed June 11, 2011. 

Blum, M.D. and H.H. Roberts. 2009. Drowning of the Mississippi Delta due to insufficient sediment 

supply and global sea-level rise. Nature Geoscience 2:488-491. Internet website: http://

www.deltas2010.com/blum2009.pdf. 

Boehm, P.D. 1983. Transport processes regarding hydrocarbon and metal pollutants in offshore 

sedimentary environments. In: Boesch, D.F. and N.N. Rabalais, eds. Long-term environmental 

effects of offshore oil and gas development. Abingdon, UK: Taylor and Francis. 

Boehm, P.D. and D.L. Fiest. 1982. Subsurface distributions of petroleum from an offshore well blowout. 

The Ixtoc I Blowout, Bay of Campeche. Environmental Science and Technology 16(2):67-74. 

Boehm, P., D. Turton, A. Raval, D. Caudle, D. French, N. Rabalais, R. Spies, and J. Johnson. 2001. 

Deepwater program: Literature review, environmental risks of chemical products used in Gulf of 

Mexico deepwater oil and gas operations. Volume I: Technical report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 

2001-011. 326 pp. 

Boesch D.F. and N.N. Rabalais, eds. 1987. Long-term environmental effects of offshore oil and gas 

development. Abingdon, Oxford, UK: Taylor and Francis. 
6-10 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Boesch, D.F., M.N. Josselyn, A.J. Mehta, J.T. Morris, W.K. Nuttle, C.A. Simestad, and D.J.P. Swift. 

1994. Scientific assessment of coastal wetland loss, restoration and management in Louisiana. 

Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue 20:1-103. 

Boland, G.S. 1986. Discovery of co-occurring bivalve Acesta sp. and chemosynthetic tube worms 

Lamellibrachia. Nature 323:759. 

Boland, G. 2011. Official communication. Email regarding mud used in “top kill.” U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Herndon, VA. 

August 24, 2011. 

Boland, G.S. and P.W. Sammarco. 2005. Observations of the antipatharian “black coral” Plumapathes 

pennacea (Pallas, 1766) (Cnidaria: Anthozoa), northwest Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Science 

23:127-132. 

Boland, G., G. Brewer, E. Cordes, A. Demopoulos, C. Fisher, C. German, and K. Sulka. 2010. 

Mississippi Canyon 252 incident NRDA Tier 1 for deepwater communities: Work plan and SOPs. 

June 27, 2010. 37 pp. Internet website: http://www.nature.nps.gov/environmentalquality/

OilSpillWorkplans/docs/2010_07_02_Deepwater_Communities_Signed.pdf. 

Bolden, S. 2010. Official communication. Information concerning the critical habitat and damage 

assessments of the Gulf sturgeon. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Fisheries, St. Petersburg, FL. 

Bologna, P.A.X. and K.L. Heck, Jr. 1999. Macrofaunal associations with seagrass epiphytes: Relative 

importance of trophic and structural characteristics. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and 

Ecology 242(1):21-39. 

Borrell, B. 2010. Oil spill threatens history. Archaeology 63(5), September/October. 

Borkhataria, R.R., P.C. Frederick, R. Hylton, A.L. Bryan, Jr., and J.A. Rodgers. 2008. A preliminary 

model of wood stork population dynamics in the southeastern United States. Waterbirds 31 (Special 

Publication 1):42-49. 

Bortone, S.A., P.A. Hastings, and S.B. Collard. 1977. The pelagic Sargassum ichthyofauna of the 

eastern Gulf of Mexico. Northeast Gulf Science 1:60-67. 

Boswell, R., T. Collett, D. McConnell, M. Frye, B. Shedd, S. Mrozewski, G. Guerin, A. Cook, 

P. Godfriaux, R. Dufrene, R. Roy, and E. Jones. 2009. Joint industry project Leg II discovers rich 

gas hydrate accumulations in sand reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S Dept. of Energy, National 

Energy Technology Laboratory, Fire in the Ice. Methane Hydrate Newsletter. Summer 2009. 

Pp. 1-5. Internet website: http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/FutureSupply/

MethaneHydrates/newsletter/newsletter.htm. 

Bourgeois, M. 2010a. Official communication. Email regarding fish kills in the MRGO. Louisiana 

Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries. August 23, 2010. 

Bourgeois, M. 2010b. Official communication. Email regarding oyster kill in Bay Jacques. Louisiana 

Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries. June 20, 2010. 

Boyd, R. and S. Penland, eds. 1988. A geomorphologic model for Mississippi Delta evolution. 

Transactions—Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies 38:443-452.

Boyd, R.S., J.M. Moffett, and M.C. Wooten. 2003. Effects of post-hurricane dune restoration and 

revegetation techniques on the Alabama beach mouse. Final report submitted to U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Auburn University, Alabama. 308 pp. 

Brassieur, R., C.E. Colten, and J. Edwards. 2000. Atchafalaya trace heritage area: Historic and cultural 

resources analysis. Atchafalaya Trace Commission, Baton Rouge, LA. 

Bricker, S., B. Longstaff, W. Dennison, A. Jones, K. Boicourt, C. Wicks, and J. Woerner. 2007. Effects 

of nutrient enrichment in the Nation’s estuaries: A decade of change. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, 

Silver Spring, MD. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 26. 328 pp. 
References Cited 6-11 

Briggs, K.T., S.H. Yoshida, and M.E. Gershwin. 1996. The influence of petrochemicals and stress on the 

immune system of seabirds. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 23:145-155. 

Bright, T.J. and Rezak, R. 1977. Chapter 6: Reconnaissance of reefs and fishing banks of the Texas 

continental shelf. In: Geyer, R.A., ed. 1977. Submersibles and their use in oceanography and ocean 

engineering. Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.

Bright, T.J. and R. Rezak. 1978. Northwestern Gulf of Mexico topographic features study: Final report. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, New Orleans OCS Office, New Orleans, LA. 

Study No. 1978-4. 692 pp. Internet website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/

4069.pdf. 

Bright, T.J., R. Rezak, A.H. Bouma, W.R. Bryant, and W.E. Pequegnat. 1976. A biological and 

geological reconnaissance of selected topographical features on the Texas continental shelf. Final 

report to the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, New Orleans OCS Office, New 

Orleans, LA. Contract # 08550-CT5-4. 

Britsch, L.D. and J.B. Dunbar. 1993. Land loss rates: Louisiana coastal plain. Journal of Coastal 

Research 9(2):324-338. 

Broder, J.M. 2010. Drillers fault study on moratorium losses. The New York Times. Internet website: 

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/drillers-fault-study-on-moratorium-losses/. Accessed 

December 12, 2010. 

Brody, S., S. Bernhardt, H. Grover, C. Spence, Z. Tang, and B. Whitaker. 2006. Identifying potential 

conflict associated with oil and gas exploration in Texas state coastal waters: A multi-criteria spatial 

analysis. Environmental Management 38:597-617. 

Brooks, J.M., ed. 1991. Mississippi-Alabama continental shelf ecosystem study: Data summary and 

synthesis. Volume I: Executive summary and Volume II: Technical summary. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study 

MMS 91-0062 and 91-0063. 43 and 368 pp., respectively. 

Brooks, J.M. and C.P. Giammona. 1990. Mississippi-Alabama marine ecosystem study: Annual report; 

Year 2. Volume I: Technical narrative. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 89-0095. 348 pp. 

Brooks, J.M. and R.M. Darnell. 1991. Executive summary. In: Brooks, J.M. and C.P. Giammona, eds. 

Mississippi-Alabama continental shelf ecosystem study: Data summary and synthesis. Volume I: 

Executive summary. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Regional Office, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS-91-0062. 43 pp. 

Brooks, J.M., M.C. Kennicutt II, and R.R. Bidigare. 1986. Final cruise report for Offshore Operators 

Committee study of chemosynthetic marine ecosystems in the Gulf of Mexico. Texas A&M 

University, Dept. of Oceanography, Geophysical and Environmental Research Group, College 

Station, TX. 102 pp. 

Brooks, J.M., C. Fisher, H. Roberts, B. Bernard, I. McDonald, R. Carney, S. Joye, E. Cordes, G. Wolff, 

and E. Goehring. 2009. Investigations of chemosynthetic communities on the lower continental 

slope of the Gulf of Mexico: Interim report 2. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2009-046. 360 pp. 

Internet website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/4/4877.pdf. 

Brown, J.S., D. Beckmann, L. Bruce, and S. Mudge. 2010. PAH depletion ratios document the rapid 

weathering and attenuation of PAHs in oil samples collected after the Deepwater Horizon incident. 

Presentation at the SETAC North America 31st Annual Meeting, Portland, OR, November 7-11, 2010. 

Bryant, W. and J.Y. Lui. 2000. Chapter 3: Geology. In: Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. Deepwater 

Gulf of Mexico environmental and socioeconomic data search and literature study. Volume I: 

Narrative report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000-049. Pp. 25-59. 
6-12 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Bryant, W., N. Slowey, S. DiMarco, D. Bean, and D. Berti. 2004. DeepSea furrows: Physical 

characteristics, mechanisms of formation and associated environmental processes. Final report 

prepared for Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America. 4 pp. 

Burdeau, C. and J. Collins. 2010. Gulf’s marshes showing new life: Worst fears about spill’s effect ease 

as plants sprout anew. The Columbus Dispatch, August 12, 2010. (Interviews with Louisiana Dept. 

of Wildlife and Fisheries, Matt Boasso; Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, Alexander S. 

Kolker; British Petroleum, Ivor Van Heerden; and U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Ben Sherman). Internet website: http://www.dispatch.com/live/

content/national_world/stories/2010/08/12/gulfs-marshes-showing-new-life.html?sid=101. Accessed 

April 2, 2011. 

Burger, J. 1977. Determinants of hatching success in diamond-back terrapin, Malaclemys terrapin. 

American Midland Naturalist 97:444-464. 

Burger, J. 1981. Behavioural responses of herring gulls Larus argentatus to aircraft noise. 

Environmental Pollution Series A, Ecological and Biological 24:177-184. 

Burger, A.E. 1993. Estimating the mortality of seabirds following oil spills: Effects of spill volume. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin 26:140-143. 

Burger, J. 1994. Immediate effects of oils spills on organisms in the Arthur Kill. In: Burger, J., ed. 

Before and after an oil spill: The Arthur Kill. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 

Pp. 115-130. 

Burns, K.A. and A.H. Knap. 1989. The Bahia las Minas oil spill. Hydrocarbon uptake by reef building 

corals. Marine Pollution Bulletin 20(8):391-398. 

Burns, K.A. and J.M. Teal. 1973. Hydrocarbons in the pelagic sargassum community. Deep Sea 

Research and Oceanographic Abstracts 20(2):207-211. 

Burns, K.A., S.D. Garrity, and S.C. Levings. 1993. How many years until mangrove ecosystems recover 

from catastrophic oil spills? Marine Pollution Bulletin 26(5):239-248. 

Burns III, G.H., C.A. Benson, T. Eason, J. Michel, S. Kelly, and B. Benggio. 1994. Recovery of 

submerged oil at San Juan, Puerto Rico 1994. International Oil Spill Conference. Internet website: 

http://www.iosc.org/papers/01798.pdf. 

Burns, K.A., S. Codi, M. Fyrnas, D. Heggie, D. Holdway, B. King, and F. McAllister. 1999. Dispersion 

and fate of produced formation water constituients in an Australian northwest shelf shallow water 

ecosystem. Marine Pollution Bulletin 38(7):593-603. 

Butler, R.G., A. Harfenist, F.A. Leighton, and D.B. Peakall. 1988. Impact of sublethal oil and emulsion 

exposure on the reproductive success of Leach’s storm-petrels: Short and long-term effects. Journal 

of Applied Ecology 25:125-143. 

Butler, J.A., R.A. Seigel, and B. Mealey. 2006. Malaclemys terrapin—diamondback terrapin. In: 

Meylan, P.A., ed. Biology and conservation of Florida turtles. Chelonian Research Monographs 

3:279-295. 

Byrd, G.V., J.H. Reynolds, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Persistence rates and detection probabilities of bird 

carcasses on beaches of Unalaska Island, Alaska, following the wreck of the M/V Selendang Ayu. 

Marine Ornithology 37:197-204. 

Byrne, C. 1989. Effects of the water-soluble fractions of No. 2 fuel oil on the cytokinesis of the Quahog 

clam (Mercenaria mercenaria). Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 42:81-86. 

Byrne, C.J. and J.A. Calder. 1977. Effect of the water-soluble fractions of crude, refined, and waste oils 

on the embryonic and larval stages of the Quahog clam Mercenaria sp. Marine Biology 40:225-231. 

Byrne, J.H. and J.L. Roberts, eds. 2009. From molecules to networks: An introduction to cellular and 

molecular neuroscience. 2nd ed. Elsevier: New York, NY. 
References Cited 6-13 

Byrnes, M.R., R.M. Hammer, B.A. Vittor, J.S. Ramsey, D.B. Snyder, K.F. Bosma, J.D. Wood, 

T.D. Thibaut, and N.W. Phillips. 1999. Environmental survey of identified sand resource areas 

offshore Alabama: Volume I: Main text. Volume II: Appendices. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, International Activities and Marine Minerals Division (INTERMAR), 

Herndon, VA. OCS Report MMS 99-0052. 326 pp. + 132 pp. appendices. 

Byron, D. and K.L. Heck, Jr. 2006. Hurricane effects on seagrasses along Alabama’s Gulf Coast. 

Estuaries and Coasts 29(6A):939-942. 

Caetano, M., M.J. Madureira, and C. Vale. 2003. Metal remobilization during resuspension of anoxic 

contaminated sediment: Short-term laboratory study. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 143:23-40. 

Caffey, R.H. 2009. Official communication. Preliminary estimates of economic damages to Louisiana 

fisheries and aquaculture sectors as a result of Hurricanes Ike and Gustav in September 2008. 

Unpublished data, updated September 28, 2008. 2 pp. 

Cagle, F.R. 1952. A Louisiana terrapin population (Malaclemys). Copeia 1952:74-76. 

Camilli, R., C.M. Reddy, D.R. Yoerger, B.A.S. Van Mooy, M.V. Jakuba, J.C. Kinsey, C.P. McIntyre, 

S.P. Sylva, and J.V. Maloney. 2010. Tracking hydrocarbon plume transport and biodegradation at 

Deepwater Horizon. Published online August 19, 2010. Science 8 October 2010: 

330:6001(201-204). doi:10.1126/science.1195223. 

Campagna, C., F.T. Short, A.A. Polidoro, R. McManus, B.B. Collette, N.J. Pilcher, Y.S. de Mitcheson, 

S.N. Stuart, and K.E. Carpenter. 2011. Gulf of Mexico oil blowout increases risks to globally 

threatened species. Bioscience 61:393. 

Campbell, T., L. Benedict, and C.W. Finkl. 2005. Regional strategies for coastal restoration along 

Louisiana barrier islands. Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue 44. Pp. 245-267. 

Camphuysen, K.C.J., M. Heubeck, S.L. Cox, R. Bao, D. Humple, C. Abraham, and A. Sandoval. 2002. 

The Prestige oil spill in Spain. Atlantic Seabirds 4:131-140. 

Camphuysen C.J., J. Chardine, M. Frederiksen, and M. Nunes. 2005. Review of the impacts of recent 

major oil spills on seabirds. In: Anonymous, ed. Report of the Working Group on Seabird Ecology, 

Texel, 29 March – 1 April 2005. Oceanography Committee, ICES CM 2005/C:05, Ref. ACME+E, 

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Copenhagen, Denmark. 

Canadian Wildlife Service and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. International 

recovery plan for the whooping crane. Ottawa, Canada: Recovery of Nationally Endangered 

Wildlife (RENEW) and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 

162 pp. 

Cardiff, S. 2006. Official communication. List of seabirds of the northern Gulf of Mexico. Avian 

Biologist, Louisiana State University Museum of Natural Sciences, Baton Rouge, LA. 

Carls, M.G., G.D. Marty, T.R. Meyers, R.E. Thomas, and S.D. Rice. 1998. Expression of viral 

hemorrhagic septicemia virus in prespawning Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) exposed to weathered 

crude oil. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55(10):2300-2309. 

Carlson, P.R., Jr. and K. Madley. 2007. Statewide summary for Florida. In: Handley, D.A., 

D. Altsman, and R. DeMay, eds. Seagrass status and trends in the northern Gulf of Mexico: 

1940-2002. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5287 

and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 855-R-04-003. Pp. 99-114. Internet website: http://

pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5287/. Accessed May 13, 2011. 

Carlson, P.R., Jr., L.A. Yarbro, K.A. Kaufman, and R.A. Mattson. 2010. Vulnerability and resilience of 

seagrasses to hurricane and runoff impacts along Florida’s west coast. Hydrobiology 649:39-53. 

Carney, R. 1993. Presentation at the Thirteenth Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer Meeting, 

December 4-6, 1993. Sponsored by the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 
6-14 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Carney, R.S. 1997. Workshop on environmental issues surrounding deepwater oil and gas development: 

Final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 98-0022. 164 pp. 

Carney, R.S. 1999. Status of environmental and physical oceanography information on the continental 

slope in the Gulf of Mexico—results of a workshop. In: McKay, M. and J. Nides, eds. Proceedings: 

Seventeenth annual Gulf of Mexico information transfer meeting, December 1997. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study 

MMS 99-0042. 419 pp. Internet website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/

3206.pdf. 

Carney, K.M. and W.J. Sydeman. 1999. A review of human disturbance effects on nesting colonial 

waterbirds. Waterbirds 22:68-79. 

Carney, R.S., R.L. Haedrich, and G.T. Rowe. 1983. Zonation of fauna in the deep sea. In: Rowe, G.T., 

ed. Deep-Sea Biology. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Pp. 371-398. 

Carpenter, E.J. and J.L. Cox. 1974. Production of pelagic Sargassum and a blue-green epiphyte in the 

western Sargasso Sea. Limnology and Oceanography 19(3):429-436. 

Carr, A. 1983. All the way down upon the Suwannee River. Audubon Magazine. April:80-101. 

Carr, A. 1987. New perspectives on the pelagic stages of sea turtle development. Conservation Biology 

1(2):103-121. 

Carr, A. and A.B. Meylan. 1980. Evidence of passive migration of green turtle hatchlings in Sargassum. 

Am. Soc. Ichthyologists and Herpetologists 2:366-368. 

Carr, R.S., D.C. Chapman, B.J. Presley, J.M. Biedenbach, L. Robertson, P. Boothe, R. Kilada, T. Wade, 

and P. Montagna. 1996. Sediment porewater toxicity assessment studies in the vicinity of offshore 

oil and gas production platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Science 53:2618-2682. 

Carson, R.T. and W.M. Hanemann. 1992. A preliminary economic analysis of recreational fishing losses 

related to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. A Report to the Attorney General of the State of Alaska. 16 pp. 

Cash, R.W., D. Naar, B. Donahue, R. Viso, and P. Gayes. 2010. Pulley Ridge: What newly mapped 

areas reveal about sea-level change. A presentation at the meeting of the Geological Society of 

America, March 15, 2010. Internet website: http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2010NE/finalprogram/

abstract_169166.htm. 

Casselman, B. 2010. Aging oil rigs, pipelines expose Gulf to accidents. The Wall Street Journal. 

December 14, 2010. Internet website: http://online.wsj.com/article/

SB10001424052748704584804575644463302701660.html. Accessed December 2010. 

Casselman, B. and D. Gilbert. 2011a. Drilling is stalled even after ban is lifted. The Wall Street Journal. 

Internet website: http://online.wsj.com/article/

SB10001424052970204204004576050451696859780.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories. Posted 

January 3, 2011. Accessed January 3, 2011. 

Castege, I., Y. Lalanne, V. Gouriou, G. Hemery, M. Girin, F. D’Amico, C. Mouches, J. D’Elbe, L. 

Soulier, J. Pensu, D. Lafitte, and F. Pautrizel. 2007. Estimating actual seabirds mortality at sea and 

relationship with oil spills: lesson from the “Prestige” oil spill in Aquitaine (France). Ardeola 

54:289-307. 

Castellanos, D.L. and L.P. Rozas. 2001. Nekton use of submerged aquatic vegetation, marsh, and 

shallow unvegetated bottom in the Atchafalaya River Delta, a Louisiana tidal freshwater ecosystem. 

Estuaries 24(2):184-197. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2010. Gulf oil spill 2010: Light crude oil information for 

health professionals. Internet website: http://emergency.cdc.gov/gulfoilspill2010/

light_crude_health_professionals.asp. Accessed October 28, 2011. 
References Cited 6-15 

Chabreck, R.H., T. Joanen, and S.L. Paulus. 1989. Southern coastal marshes and lakes. In: Smith, 

L.M., R.L. Pederson, and R.M. Kaminski, eds. Habitat management for migrating and wintering 

waterfowl in North America. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock. 

Chaisson, C. 2011. Official communication. Email regarding Port Fourchon post-moratorium status as 

of June 2011. Executive Director, Greater Lafourche Port Commission, Port Fourchon, LA. June 27, 

2011. 

Chan, E.I. 1977. Oil pollution and tropical littoral communities: Biological effects of the 1975 Florida 

Keys oil spill. In: Proceeding of the 1977 Oil Spill Conference, March 8-10, 1977, New Orleans, 

LA. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. 

Chapman, P.M., E.A. Power, R.N. Dexter, and H.B. Andersen. 1991. Evaluation of effects associated 

with and oil platform, using the sediment quality triad. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 

10:407-424. 

Chapman, F.A., S.F. O’Keefe, and D.E. Campton. 1993. Establishment of parameters critical for the 

culture and commercialization of Gulf of Mexico sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi. 

University of Florida, Dept. of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, Gainesville, FL. U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, FL. Project Final Report—NOAA No. 

NA27FD0066-01. 

Chermock, R.L. 1974. The environment of offshore and estuarine Alabama: Alabama Geological 

Survey Information Series 51. 135 pp. 

Chiappone, M. and K.M. Sullivan. 1994. Ecological structure and dynamics of nearshore hard-bottom 

communities in the Florida Keys. Bulletin of Marine Science 54(3):747-756. 

Chin, C.S. and J. Church. 2010. Field report: Fort Livingston, Grand Terre Island (September 9-10, 

2010. National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, Natchitoches, LA. Internet 

website: http://www.ncptt.nps.gov/2011/field-report-fort-livingston-grand-terre-island/. Accessed 

March 18, 2011. 

Cho, H.J. and C.A. May. 2008. Short-term spatial variations in the beds of Ruppia maritima

(Ruppiaceae) and Halodule wrightii (Cymodoceaccae) at Grand Bay National Estuarine Research 

Reserve, Mississippi, USA. Journal of the Mississippi Academy of Sciences 53(2-3):133-145. 

Cho, H.J., P. Biber, and C. Nica. 2009. The rise of Ruppia maritima in seagrass beds: changes in coastal 

environment and research needs. In: Drury, E.K. and T.S. Pridgen, eds. Handbook on 

Environmental Quality. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. 418 pp. 

Church, R.A. and D.J. Warren. 2008. Viosca Knoll wreck: Discovery and investigation of an early 

nineteenth-century sailing ship in 2,000 feet of water. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2008-018. 

41 pp. 

Church, R., D. Warren, R. Cullimore, L. Johnston, W. Schroeder, W. Patterson, T. Shirley. M. Kilgour, 

N. Morris, and J. Moore. 2007. Archaeological and biological analysis of World War II shipwrecks 

in the Gulf of Mexico: Artificial reef effect in deep water. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2007-015. 

387 pp. 

City of New Orleans. n.d. The New Orleans city assisted evacuation plan. Internet website: http://

www.nola.gov/~/media/Files/Emergency%20Prepardness/Emergency%20Preparedness%20

Documents/Assisted_Evac_Plan.ashx. Accessed February 17, 2011. 

Clapp, R.B., R.C. Banks, D. Morgan-Jacobs, and W.A. Hoffman. 1982. Marine birds of the southeastern 

United States and Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of 

Biological Services, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-82/01. 3 vols. 

Clark, R.B. 1982. The impact of oil pollution on marine populations, communities, and ecosystems: A 

summing up. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B 297:433-443. 
6-16 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Clark, R.B. 1984. Impact of oil pollution on seabirds. Environmental Pollution Series A 33:1-22. 

Clark, C.E. and J.A. Veil. 2009. Produced water volumes and management practices in the United 

States. Prepared by the Environmental Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory for the U.S. 

Dept. of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory under Contract 

DE-AC02-06CH11357. ANL/EVS/R-09/1. Internet website: http://www.evs.anl.gov/pub/

dsp_detail.cfm?PubID=2437. 

Clarke, D.G. and D.H. Wilber. 2000. Assessment of potential impacts of dredging operations due to 

sediment resuspension. DOER Technical Notes Collection. ERDC TN-DOER-EP. U.S. Dept. of the 

Army, Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. 

Clausen, C.J. and J.B. Arnold III. 1975. Magnetic delineation of individual shipwreck sites; a new 

control technique. Bull. of the Texas Archaeological Soc. 46:69-86. 

Cleveland, C. 2010. Deepwater Horizon oil spill. In: Hogan, C.M. and P. Saundry, eds. Encyclopedia 

of Earth. Washington, DC: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and 

the Environment. Internet website: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill?

topic=50364. Accessed May 18, 2011. 

Clugston, J.P. 1991. Gulf sturgeon in Florida prey on soft-bodied macroinvertebrates. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Research Information Bulletin No. 90-31. 2 pp. 

Clugston, J.P., A.M. Foster, and S.H. Carr. 1995. Gulf sturgeon, Acipenser onyrinchus desotoi, in the 

Suwannee River, Florida, USA. In: Gershanovich, A.D. and T.I.J. Smith, eds. Proceedings of the 

International Symposium on Sturgeons, September 6- 11, 1993, Moscow, Russia. 370 pp. 

Coastal Environments, Inc. (CEI). 1977. Cultural resources evaluation of the northern Gulf of Mexico 

continental shelf. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Office of 

Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Interagency Archaeological Services, Baton Rouge, LA. 

4 vols. 

Coastal Environments, Inc. (CEI). 1982. Sedimentary studies of prehistoric archaeological sites. 

Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Division of State Plans and Grants, 

Baton Rouge, LA. 

Coastal Response Research Center. 2007. Submerged oil—State of the practice and research needs. 

Prepared by the Coastal Response Research Center, Durham, NN. 29 pp. + app. Internet website: 

http://www.crrc.unh.edu/workshops/submerged_oil/submerged_oil_workshop_report.pdf. Accessed 

December 27, 2010. 

Cohen, Y., A. Nissenbaum, and R. Eisler. 1977. Effects of Iranian crude oil on the Red Sea octocoral 

Heteroxenia fuscescens. Environmental Pollution 12:173-186. 

Cole, K.L. and S.F. DiMarco. 2010. Low-frequency variability of currents in the deepwater eastern Gulf 

of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2010-015. 136 pp. 

Coleman, F.C., G. Dennis, W. Jaap, C. Koenig, and S. Reed. 2009. The Florida Middle Grounds: 

Habitat area of particular concern. Florida State University, Coastal and Marine Laboratory, 

St. Teresa, FL. Internet website: http://www.bio.fsu.edu/coleman_lab/florida_middle_grounds. 

Accessed April 17, 2011. 

Collard, S. 1990. Leatherback turtles feeding near a water mass boundary in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. 

Marine Turtle Newsletter 50:12-14. 

Collard, S.B. and A. Lugo-Fernandez. 1999. Coastal upwelling and mass mortalities of fishes and 

invertebrates in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico during spring and summer 1998. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study 

MMS-99-0049. 20 pp. 
References Cited 6-17 

Collett, T.S. 2002. Energy resource potential of natural gas hydrates. American Association of 

Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 86(11):1971-1992. 

Collins, M.A. 1995. Dredging-induced near-filed resuspended sediment concentrations and source 

strengths. Final Report D-95-2. U.S. Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers. 229 pp. 

Collins Center for Public Policy. 2010. Potential impacts of oil and gas explorations in the Gulf. A 

report to the Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida. 40 pp. 

Conan, G. 1982. The long-term effects of the Amoco Cadiz oil spill. Philosophical Transactions of the 

Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 297(1087). The long-term effects of oil 

pollution on marine populations, communities, and ecosystems. Pp. 323-333. 

Conant, T.A., P.H. Dutton, T. Eguchi, S.P. Epperly, C.C. Fahy, M.H. Godfrey, S.L. MacPherson, 

E.E. Possardt, B.A. Schroeder, J.A. Seminoff, M.L. Snover, C.M. Upite, and B.E. Witherington. 

2009. Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) 2009 status review under the U.S. Endangered Species 

Act. Report of the Loggerhead Biological Review Team to the National Marine Fisheries Service, 

August 2009. 222 pp. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/statusreviews/

loggerheadturtle2009.pdf/. Accessed July 17, 2011. 

Connor, M. 2010. US oil spill not sticking to bond issuers-Moody’s. Internet website: http://

www.xe.com/news/2010-11-22%2015:20:00.0/1539229.htm. Accessed December 8, 2010. 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). 1980. Video and photographic reconnaissance of Phleger and 

Sweet Banks, northwest Gulf of Mexico. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. Contract No. AA551-CT9-36. 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). 1988. Photodocumentation survey of Pulley Ridge Area Block 

799, eastern Gulf of Mexico. Report prepared for Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S., Inc, New 

Orleans, LA. 37 pp. 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). 1990. Synthesis of available biological, geological, chemical, 

socioeconomic, and cultural resource information for the south Florida area. U.S. Dept of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study 

MMS 90-0019. 727 pp. 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). 1992a. Mississippi-Alabama shelf pinnacle trend habitat 

mapping study. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 92-0026. 114 pp. + 2 plates. 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). 1992b. Preliminary report of potential effects of oil spilled 

from Texaco’s proposed pipeline from Platform A in Garden Banks Block 189 to the subsea tie-in 

with High Island Pipeline System’s (HIPS) existing pipeline in High Island Area Block A-377 

(modified route). Prepared for Texaco Pipeline, Inc., Jupiter, FL. 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). 1994. Analysis of potential effects of oil spilled from 

proposed structures associated with Oryx’s High Island Block 384 unit on the biota of the East 

Flower Garden Bank and on the biota of Coffee Lump Bank. Prepared for Oryx Energy Company, 

Jupiter, FL. 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., (CSA). 1997a. Radionuclides, metals, and hydrocarbons in oil and 

gas operational discharges and environmental samples associated with offshore production facilities 

on the Texas/Louisiana continental shelf with an environmental assessment of metals and 

hydrocarbons: Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of Energy, Bartlesville, OK. 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). 1997b. Gulf of Mexico produced water bioaccumulation 

study: Definitive component technical report. Prepared for the Offshore Operators Committee. 

258 pp. 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). 2000. Deepwater Gulf of Mexico environmental and 

socioeconomic data search and literature synthesis. Volume I: Narrative report. U.S. Dept. of the 
6-18 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study 

MMS 2000-049. 340 pp. 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). 2004a. Geological and geophysical exploration for mineral 

resources on the Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf: Final programmatic environmental 

assessment. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

New Orleans, LA. OCS EA/EIS MMS 2004-054. 466 pp. 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). 2004b. Gulf of Mexico comprehensive synthetic based muds 

monitoring program: Final report. Volume II: Technical. Prepared for SMB Research Group. 

358 pp. Internet website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/2/3051.pdf. 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). 2006a. Effects of oil and gas exploration and development at 

selected continental slope sites in the Gulf of Mexico. Volume II: Technical report. U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

Study MMS 2006-045. 636 pp. 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). 2006b. Effects of oil and gas exploration and development at 

selected continental slope sites in the Gulf of Mexico. Volume I: Executive Summary. U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

Study MMS 2006-044. 51 pp. 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA) and Martel Laboratories, Inc. 1985. Florida Big Bend seagrass 

habitat study: Narrative report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Mineral Management Services, Gulf of 

Mexico Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 85-0088. Contract No. 14-12-0001-30188. 

114 pp. 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA) and Texas A&M University, Geochemical and Environmental 

Research Group (GERG). 2001. Mississippi/Alabama pinnacle trend ecosystem monitoring: Final 

synthesis report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, 

USGS/BRD/CR-2001-0007 and Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2001-080. 415 pp. + apps. 

Cook, C.B. and A.H. Knap. 1983. Effects of crude oil and chemical dispersant on photosynthesis in the 

brain coral Diploria strigosa. Marine Biology 78:21-27. 

Corliss, J.B., J. Dymond, L. Gordon, J.M. Edmond, R.P. von Herzen, R.D. Ballard, K. Green, 

D. Williams, A. Bainbridge, K. Crane, and T.H. Van Adel. 1979. Submarine thermal springs on the 

Galapagos Rift. Science 203:1073-1083. 

CoreLogic. 2010. New CoreLogic data shows the potential impact of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill 

on coastal real estate. Internet website: http://www.corelogic.com/About-Us/News/New-CoreLogicData-Shows-the-Potential-Impact-of-the-BP-Deepwater-Horizon-Oil-Spill-on-Coastal-RealEstate.aspx. Accessed November 9, 2010. 

Coston-Clements, L., L.R. Settle, D.E. Hoss, and F.A. Cross. 1991. Utilization of the Sargassum habitat 

by marine invertebrates and vertebrates, a review. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, NOAA, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Beaufort Laboratory, Beaufort, NC. 

32 pp. 

Coulter, M.C., J.A. Rodgers, J.C. Ogden, and F.C. Depkin. 1999. Wood stork (Mycteria americana), the 

birds of North America online (A. Poole, ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; retrieved from 

the Birds of North America online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/409. 

Council on Environmental Quality. 2010. Report regarding the Minerals Management Service’s 

National Environmental Policy Act policies, practices, and procedures as they relate to Outer 

Continental Shelf oil and gas exploration and development, August 16, 2010. 41 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ceq/20100816-ceq-mms-ocsnepa.pdf. 
References Cited 6-19 

Cowan, F.B.M. 1990. Does the lachrymal gland of Malaclemys terrapin have a significant role in 

osmoregulation? Canadian Journal of Zoology 68:1520-1524. 

Cox, S.A., E.H. Smith, and J.W. Tunnell, Jr. 1997. Macronektonic and macrobenthic community 

dynamics in a coastal saltmarsh: Phase I. Prepared for Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept., Wildlife 

Division. TAMU-CC-9701-CCS. Corpus Christi, TX. 67 pp. 

Cox, J., C. Coomes, S. DiMarco, K. Donohue, G.Z. Forristall, P. Hamilton, R.R. Leben, and D.R. Watts. 

In Press. Study of deepwater currents in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEMRE 2010-041. 473 pp. 

Cranswick, D. 2001. Brief overview of Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas pipelines: Installation, potential 

impacts, and mitigation measures. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 2001-067. 19 pp. 

Creef, E. 2011. Official communication. Concerning updates on dredged material placement and 

volume. U.S. Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Operations Division, New Orleans District, 

New Orleans, LA. June 15, 2011. 

Cruz-Kaegi, M.E. 1998. Latitudinal variations in biomass and metabolism of benthic infaunal 

communities. Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. 

Culter, J.K., K.B. Ricthie, S.A. Earle, D.E. Guggenheim, R.B. Halley, K.T. Ciembronowicz, A.C. Hine, 

B.D. Jarrett, S.D. Locker, W.C. Jaap. 2005. Pulley Reef: A deep photosynthetic coral reef on the 

West Florida Shelf, USA. 1 p. Springer-Verlag. Coral Reefs (2006) DOI 10.1007/s00338-006-

0097-6. Internet website: http://isurus.mote.org/Keys/microbiology/CRPulfinal.pdf. Accessed 

December 17, 2010. 

Cummins, J.L. 2005. The federal role in restoring private forest land after Hurricane Katrina. 10 pp. 

Internet website: http://www.growthevote.org/afpa/HouseResourcesCommitteeTestimonyCummins.pdf. Accessed September 2006. 

Cutter, S.L., L. Barnes, M. Berry, C.G. Burton, E. Evans, E.C. Tate, and J. Webb. 2008. Community and 

regional resilience: Perspectives from hazards, disasters, and emergency management. CARRI 

Research Report 1. Oak Ridge, TN: Community and Regional Resilience Institute. 33 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.resilientus.org/library/FINAL_CUTTER_9-25-08_1223482309.pdf. Accessed 

February 16, 2011. 

Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the United States 1780’s to 1980’s. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 21 pp. 

Dale, D. and K. Santos. 2006. Gulf of Mexico habitat areas of particular concern. Internet website: 

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/pdfs/efhdocs/gom_efhhapc_poster.pdf. Accessed November 18, 2011. 

Dalton, M.S. and S.A. Jones, comps. 2010. Southeast regional assessment project for the National 

Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Geological Survey, Reston, VA. Open-File Report 2010–1213. v + 38 pp. Internet website: http://

serap.er.usgs.gov/docs/SerapOFR2010_1213.pdf. 

Dames & Moore, Inc. 1979. Mississippi, Alabama, Florida outer continental shelf baseline 

environmental survey; MAFLA, 1977/78. Volume I-A. Program synthesis report. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC. BLM/YM/ES-79/01-Vol-1-A. 278 pp. 

Dauterive, L.D. 2000. Rigs-to-Reefs policy, progress, and perspective. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 

2000-073. 8 pp. 

Davidson, C. 2010. The Gulf Coast cleans up: Oil spill seeps into many coastal concerns. EconSouth, 

third quarter. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta, GA. 5 pp. Internet website: http://

www.frbatlanta.org/documents/pubs/econsouth/10_q3_oil_spill.pdf. 
6-20 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Davis, H.C. 1958. Survival and growth of clam and oyster larvae at different salinities. Biological 

Bulletin, Marine Biological Laboratory 114(3):296-307. 

Davis, R.W. and G.S. Fargion, eds. 1996. Distribution and abundance of cetaceans in the north-central 

western Gulf of Mexico: Final report. Volume II: Technical report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 

96-0027. 355 pp. 

Davis, R.W., W.E. Evans, and B. Würsig, eds. 2000. Cetaceans, sea turtles and seabirds in the northern 

Gulf of Mexico: Distribution, abundance and habitat associations. Volume II: Technical report. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, USGS/BRD/CR-1999-

0006 and Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

Study MMS 2000-003. 346 pp. 

Davis, B., D.S. Etkin, M. Landry, and K. Watts. 2004. Determination of oil persistence: A historical 

perspective. In: Proceedings, Fifth Biennial Freshwater Spills Symposium. Internet website: http://

www.environmental-research.com/erc_papers/ERC_paper_19.pdf. 

Dawes, C.J., J. Andorfer, C. Rose., C. Uranowski, and N. Ehringer. 1997. Regrowth of seagrass 

Thalassia testudinum into propeller scars. Aquatic Botany 59:139-155. 

Dawes, C.J., R.C. Phillips, and G. Morrison. 2004. Seagrass communities of the Gulf Coast of Florida: 

Status and ecology. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research 

Institute and the Tampa Bay Estuary Program, St. Petersburg, FL. iv + 74 pp. Internet website: 

http://gulfsci.usgs.gov/gom_ims/pdf/pubs_fl.pdf. 

De Leon, M.T. and L.M. Smith. 1999. Behavior of migrating shorebirds at North Dakota prairie 

potholes. Condor 101:645-654. 

Dean, T.A. and S.C. Jewett. 2001. Habitat-specific recovery of shallow subtidal communities following 

the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Ecological Applications 11(5):1456-1471. 

DeCort, T. 2010. Official communication. Gas release estimate for Macondo. September 14, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Gulf 

of Mexico OCS Region, Resource Evaluation, New Orleans, LA. 

Defenbaugh, R.E. 1976. A study of the benthic macroinvertebrates of the continental shelf of the 

northern GOM. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. 

476 pp. 

Delaune, R.D. and A.L. Wright. 2011. Projected impact of Deepwater Horizon oil spill on U.S. Gulf 

Coast wetlands. Soil Science Society of America(SSAJ) 75(5):September-October 2011. 

DeLaune, R.D., W.H. Patrick, and R.J. Buresh. 1979. Effect of crude oil on a Louisiana Spartina 

alterniflora salt marsh. Environmental Pollution 20:21-31. 

DeLaune, R.D., R.P. Gambrell, J.H. Pardue, and W.H. Patrick, Jr. 1990. Fate of petroleum hydrocarbons 

and toxic organics in Louisiana coastal environments. Estuaries 132(1):72-80. 

Deleersnijder, E., J.M. Beckers, , and E.J.M. Delhez. 2006. The residence time of settling particles in the 

surface mixed layer. Environmental Fluid Mechanics 6:25-42. 

Deming, J. and J. Baross. 1993. The early diagenesis of organic matter: Bacterial activity. In: 

Engel, M. and S. Macko, eds. Organic geochemistry. New York, NY: Plenum. Pp. 119-144. 

den Hartog, C. and R.P.W.M. Jacobs. 1980. Effects of the “Amoco Cadiz” oil spill on an eelgrass 

community at Roscoff (France) with special reference to the mobile benthic fauna. Helgoländer 

Meeresunters 33:182-191. 

Dennis, G.D. and T.J.Bright. 1988. Reef fish assemblages on hard banks in the northwestern Gulf of 

Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science 43(2):280-307. 
References Cited 6-21 

Denson, C. 2010. Official communication. Fish kills in Mobile Bay. Alabama Dept. of Environmental 

Management. September 28, 2010. 

Det Norske Veritas (DNV). 2010. Energy report: Beaufort Sea drilling risk study. Prepared for Imperial 

Oil Resources Venture Limited. Rev. 6, March 2010. 

Devers, W. 2010. Official communication. Email regarding Mississippi fish kill summary and Long 

Beach fish kill. Marine Fisheries Scientist, Mississippi Dept. of Marine Sciences. September 27, 

2010. 

Dezember, R. 2010. Safety eludes some oil workers. U.S. News, October 8, 2010. Internet website: 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703466104575530132869455658.html. Accessed 

October 13, 2011. 

Di Silvestro, R. 2006. When hurricanes hit habitat. National Wildlife Magazine. Aug/Sep 2006 

44(5):5 pp. 

Diaz, R.J. and A. Solow. 1999. Ecological and economic consequences of hypoxia. Topic 2 Report for 

the Integrated Assessment on Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA 

Coastal Ocean Program, Silver Spring, MD. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis 

Series No. 16. 45 pp. 

Diercks, A-R., R.C. Highsmith, V.L. Asper, DJ. Joung, Z. Zhou, L. Guo, A.M. Shiller, S.B. Joye, 

A.P. Teske, N. Guinasso, T.L. Wade, and S.E. Lohrenz. 2010. Characterization of subsurface 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons at the Deepwater Horizon site. Geophysical Research Letters 

37:L20602, doi:10.1029/2010GL045046. 

Digital Petrodata. 2010. Digital Petrodata. Internet website: http://www.scribd.com/doc/29413777/4-

2010-Digital-Petrodata-BLM-STATE-MMS-Oil-Gas-Lease-Sale-Auction-2010-April. Accessed 

November 30, 2010. 

Dinsdale, E.A. and V.J. Harriot. 2004. Assessing anchor damage on coral reefs: A case study in 

selection of environmental indicators. Environmental Management 33(1):126-139. 

Dismukes, D.E. 2010. Official communication. E-mail entitled GOM employment observations. 

Associate Director, Louisiana State University, Center for Energy Studies, Baton Rouge, LA. 

December 8, 2010. 

Dismukes, D. 2011. Official communication. Email regarding scenario projections. Associate Director, 

LSU Center for Energy Studies, Baton Rouge, LA. June 29, 2011.

Dismukes, D.E. In preparation-a. OCS-related infrastructure fact book. Volume I: Post-hurricane 

impact assessment. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation and 

Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEMRE 2011-043. 

Dismukes, D.E. In preparation-b. Fact book: Offshore oil and gas industry support sectors. U.S. Dept. 

of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

Study BOEMRE 2010-042. 

Dismukes, D.E., M. Barnett, D. Vitrano, and K. Strellec. 2007. Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas scenario 

examination: Onshore waste disposal. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 2007-051. 5 pp. 

Dloughy, J.A. 2010. Government gives notice on abandoned platforms: Rule tells industry to dismantle 

‘idle iron’ and plug old oil, gas wells. Houston Chronicle, September 15, 2010. Internet website: 

http://www.reefrelieffounders.com/drilling/2010/09/16/houston-chroniclegovernment-gives-noticeon-abandoned-platforms-rule-tells-industry-to-dismantle-idle-iron-and-plug-old-oil-gas-wells-dontblame-bp-alone-for-spill-hayward/. Accessed March 1, 2011. 

Dobbs, C.D. and J.M. Vozarik. 1983. Immediate effects of a storm on coastal infauna. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series 11:273-279. 
6-22 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Dodge, R.E. 1982. Effects of drilling mud on the reef-building coral Montastrea annularis. Marine 

Biology 71:141-147. 

Dodge, R.E., R.C. Aller, and J. Thomson. 1974. Coral growth related to resuspension of bottom 

sediments. Nature 247:574-577. 

Dodge, R.E., S.C. Wyers, A.H. Knap, H.R. Frith, T.D. Sleeter, and S.R. Smith. 1984. The effects of oil 

and oil dispersants on hermatypic coral skeletal growth (extension rate). Coral Reefs 3:191-198. 

Doe, K.G. and P.G. Wells. 1978. Acute toxicity and dispersing effectiveness of oil spill dispersants: 

results of a Canadian oil dispersant testing program (1973 to 1977). In: McCarthy, Jr., L.T., 

G.P. Lindblom, and H.F. Walter, eds. Chemical dispersants for the control of oil spills. Philadelphia, 

PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. Pp. 50-65. 

Doering, F., I.W. Duedall, and J.M. Williams. 1994. Florida hurricanes and tropical storms 1871-1993: 

An historical survey. Florida Institute of Technology, Division of Marine and Environmental 

Systems, Florida Sea Grant Program, Gainesville, FL. Technical Paper 71. 118 pp. 

Dokka, R. 2006. Modern-day tectonic subsidence in coastal Louisiana. Geology 34(4):281-284. 

Dokka, R.K., G.F. Sella, and T.H. Dixon. 2006. Tectonic control of subsidence and southward 

displacement of southeast Louisiana with respect to stable North America. American Geophysical 

Union, Geophysical Research Letters Volume 33, L23308. Internet website: http://

www.ngs.noaa.gov/CORS/Articles/2006GL027250.pdf. 

Donato, K.M. 2004. Labor migration and the deepwater oil industry. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2004-057. 

125 pp. 

Donato, K.M., D.T. Robinson, and C.L. Bankston III. 1998. To have them is to love them: Immigrant 

workers in the offshore industry. Paper read at the Annual Meeting of the Latin American Studies 

Association, Chicago, IL, September 1998. 18 pp. (unnumbered Xerox). 

Donohue, K., P. Hamilton, R. Leben, R.Watts, and E. Waddell. 2008. Survey of deepwater currents in 

the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Volume II: Technical report. U.S. Dept. ofthe Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans,LA. OCS Study MMS 2008-031. 

375 pp. 

Dooley, J.K. 1972. Fishes associated with the pelagic Sargassum complex, with a discussion of the 

Sargassum community. Contrib. Mar. Science. 16:1-32. 

Doran, K.S., N.G. Plant, H.F. Stockdon, A.H. Sallenger, and K.A. Serafin. 2009. Hurricane Ike: 

Observations of coastal change. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, Reston, VA. 

Open-File Report 2009-1061. vi + 35 pp. Internet website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1061/pdf/

ofr2009-1061.pdf. 

Douglass, S.L., T.A. Sanchez, and S. Jenkins. 1999. Mapping erosion hazard areas in Baldwin County, 

Alabama, and the use of confidence intervals in shoreline change analysis. Journal of Coastal 

Research SI (28):95-105. 

Dovel, W.L., A.W. Pekovitch, and T.J. Berggren. 1992. Biology of the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser 

brevirostrum Lesueur, 1818) in the Hudson River estuary. In: Smith, C.L., ed. Estuarine research in 

the 1980’s. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 

Drewitt, A.L. and R.H.W. Langston. 2008. Collision effects of wind-power generators and other 

obstacles on birds. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1134:233266. 

Driver, A. 2010. Helix readying Gulf oil spill containment system. Reuters. December 8, 2010. 

Internet website: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/08/spill-helix-idUSN0818292520101208. 

Accessed December 27, 2010. 

Duarte, C.M., J.J. Middelburg, and N. Caraco. 2005. Major role of marine vegetation on the oceanic 

carbon cycle. Biogeosciences 2:1-8. 
References Cited 6-23 

Dubois, S., C.G. Gelpi Jr., R.E. Condrey, M.A. Grippo, and J.W. Fleeger. 2009. Diversity and 

composition of macrobenthic community associated with sandy shoals of the Louisiana continental 

shelf. Biodiversity and Conservation 18(14):3759-3784. 

Ducklow, H.W. and R. Mitchell. 1979. Composition of mucus released by coral reef Coelenterates. 

Limnology and Oceanography 24(2):706-714. 

Dunne, R. and E. Miller. 2007. Post-release survival of oiled, rehabilitated waterfowl. In: Massey, J.G., 

ed. Proceedings of the Ninth International Effects of Oil on Wildlife Conference, Monterey, CA, 

2007, University of California at Davis Wildlife Health Center, Davis. 

Dunton, K.H., S.V. Shonberg, S. Herzka, P.A. Montagna, and S.A. Holt. 1998. Characterization of 

anthropogenic and natural disturbance on vegetated and nonvegetated bay bottom habitats in the 

Corpus Christi Bay National Estuarine Program Study Area. Volume II: Assessment of scarring in 

seagrass beds. CCBNEP-25B. 23 pp. 

Durako, M.J., M.O. Hall, F. Sargent, and S. Peck. 1992. Propeller scars in sea grass beds: An 

assessment and experimental study of recolonization in Weedon Island State Preserve, Florida. In: 

Web, F., ed. Proceedings, 19th Annual Conference of Wetland Restoration and Creation. 

Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, FL. Pp. 42-53. 

Eddleman, W.R., F.L. Knopf, B. Meanley, F.A. Reid, and R. Zembal. 1988. Conservation of North 

American rallids. Wilson Bulletin 100:458-475. 

Eggleton, J. and K.V. Thomas. 2004. A review of factors affecting the release and bioavailability of 

contaminants during sediment disturbance events. Environment International 30:973-980. 

Ehrhart, L.M. 1978. Choctawhatchee beach mouse. In: Layne, J.N., ed. Rare and endangered biota of 

Florida. Volume I: Mammals. Gainesville, FL: University Presses of Florida. Pp. 18-19. 

Eisler, R. 1987. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: A synoptic 

review. U.S. Dept of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. 

Laurel, MD. Biological Report 85 (1.11). Contaminant Hazard Reviews Report No. 11. 

Eleuterius, L.N. 1987. Seagrass ecology along the coasts of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. 

Florida Marine Research Publications, No. 42. Pp. 11-24. 

Elgershuizen, J.H.B.W. and H.A.M. De Kruijf. 1976. Toxicity of crude oils and a dispersant to the stony 

coral Madracis mirabilis. Marine Pollution Bulletin 7(2):22-25. 

Elliott-Smith, E., S.M. Haig, and B.M. Powers. 2009. Data from the 2006 International Piping Plover 

Census: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 426. 332 pp. 

Ellis, M.S., E.A. Wilson-Ormond, and E.N. Powell. 1996. Effects of gas-producing platforms on 

continental shelf macroepifauna in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico: Abundance and size structure. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 53:2589-2605. 

Ellwood, B.B., W.L. Balsam, and H.H. Roberts. 2006. Gulf of Mexico sediment sources and sediment 

transport trends from magnetic susceptibility measurements of surface samples. Marine Geology 

230:237-248. 

Elsner, J.B., T.H. Jagger, M. Dickinson, and D. Rowe. 2008. Improving multiseason forecasts of North 

Atlantic hurricane activity. American Meteorological Society 21:1210-1219. Internet website: 

http://myweb.fsu.edu/jelsner/PDF/Research/ElsnerJaggerDickinsonRowe2008.pdf. 

Ely, C.R., D.H. Ward, and K.S. Bollinger. 1999. Behavioral correlates of heart rates of free-living 

greater white-fronted geese. Condor 101:390-395. 

Emery, W.J., K. Cherkauer, B. Shannon, and RW. Reynolds. 1997. Hull-mounted sea surface 

temperatures from ships of opportunity. American Meteorological Society, Boston, MA. Journal of 

Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 14:1237-1251. 
6-24 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Energo Engineering. 2010. Assessment of damage and failure mechanisms for offshore structures and 

pipelines in Hurricanes Gustav and Ike. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Herndon, VA. TA&R 642. 

Energy Resources Co., Inc. (ERCO). 1982. Ixtoc oil spill assessment: Final report. 3 vols. Prepared for 

the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

Orleans, LA. Contract No. AA851-CTO-71. Study Nos. 1982-34, 1982-35, and 1982-37. 

Engel, J. and R. Kvitek. 1998. Effects of otter trawling on a benthic community in Monterey Bay 

National Marine Sanctuary. Conservation Biology 12(6):1204-1214. 

Engle, V.D., J.L. Hyland, and C. Cooksey. 2008. Effects of Hurricane Katrina on benthic 

macroinvertebrate communities along the northern Gulf of Mexico coast. Environmental Monitoring 

Assessment 150:193-209. 

English, C. 2010. BP Gulf spill: Mississippi Canyon Block 252 crude oil analysis. Wednesday, June 9, 

2010. Internet website: http://blog.restek.com/?cat=3. Accessed June 30, 2010. 

Enright, J.M., R. Gearhart II, D. Jones, and J. Enright. 2006. Study to conduct National Register of 

Historic Places evaluations of submerged sites on the Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf. U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 

OCS Study MMS 2006-036. 136 pp. 

ENSR Corporation. 2004. Assessment of Alabama beach mouse habitat flooding on the Fort Morgan 

Peninsula using FEMA digital flood insurance rate map (DFIRM) and the Coastal Hazard 

Assessment Program. 

Environmental Science & Research Limited. 1998. The effects of air pollution on New Zealand 

ecosystems: Review of national and international research: Technical report no. 1. Ministry for the 

Environment, New Zealand. 77 pp. Internet website: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/air/

research-review-jun98.pdf. Accessed February 12, 2007. 

Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, A.J. Chester, F.A Cross, J.V. Merriner, P.A. Tester, and J.H. Churchill. 1996. 

Beach strandings as an indicator of at-sea mortality of sea turtles. Bulletin of Marine Science 

59:289-297. 

 Erftemeijer, P.L.A. and R.R.R. Lewis III. 2006. Environmental impacts of dredging on seagrass: A 

review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52:1553-1572. 

Essink, K. 1999. Ecological effects of dumping of dredging sediments; options for management. 

Journal of Coastal Conservation 5(1):69-80. 

Etkin, D.S. 2009. Analysis of U.S. oil spillage. American Petroleum Institute, Regulatory and Scientific 

Affairs Department. 86 pp. API Publication 356. Internet website: http://www.api.org/ehs/water/

spills/upload/356-Final.pdf. 

European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission. 2010. Methodologies for assessing socioeconomic 

benefits of European inland recreational fisheries. EIFAC Occasional Paper No. 46. 

European Wind Energy Association. 2011. The European offshore wind industry key trends and 

statistics 2010. 3 pp. Internet website: http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/

00_POLICY_document/Offshore_Statistics/110120_Offshore_stats_Exec_Sum.pdf. 

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trust Council. 2010. Killer whales—recovery status. Internet website: http://

www.evostc.state.ak.us/Recovery/status_orca.cfm. Accessed June 2011 

Fabacher, D.L., J.M. Besser, C.J. Schmitt, J.C. Harshbarger, P.H. Peterman, and J.A. Lebo. 1991. 

Contaminated sediments from tributaries of the Great Lakes: chemical characterization and cancercausing effects in medaka (Oryzias latipes). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxic. 20:17-35. 

Fanning, K., K.L. Carder, and P.R. Betzer. 1982. Sediment resuspension by coastal waters: A potential 

mechanism for nutrient re-cycling on the ocean’s margins. Deep-Sea Research 29:953-965. 
References Cited 6-25 

Farmer, A. and F. Durbian. 2006. Estimating shorebird numbers at migration stopover sites. Condor 

108:792-807. 

Fauchald, K. and P.A. Jamurs. 1979. The diet of worms: A study of polychaete feeding guilds. 

Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 17:193-284. 

Fedde, M.R. and W.D. Kuhlmann. 1979. Cardiopulmonary responses to inhaled sulfur dioxide in the 

chicken. Poultry Science 58:1584-1591. 

Federal Register. 1997a. Hydrogen sulfide requirements for operations in the outer continental shelf. 

Final rule. 62 FR 17, pp. 3793-3800. Internet website: http://www.boemre.gov/federalregister/

PDFs/h2sfr.pdf. 

Federal Register. 1997b. Blowout preventer (BOP) testing requirements for drilling and completion 

operations. Proposed rule. July 15, 1997. 62 FR 135, pp. 37819-37824. Internet website: http://

www.boemre.gov/federalregister/PDFs/BOPTesting.PDF. 

Federal Register. 1998. Blowout preventer (BOP) testing requirements for drilling and completion 

operations. Final rule. June 1, 1998. 63 FR 104, pp. 29604-29608. Internet website: http://

www.boemre.gov/federalregister/PDFs/Bop.pdf. 

Federal Register. 1999. Rules and regulations, Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17: Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; removal of the American peregrine 

falcon from the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife and removal of the similarity of 

appearance provision for free-flying peregrines in the conterminous United States. Final rule. 

August 25, 1999. 64 FR 164, pp. 46542-46558. 

Federal Register. 2001. Rules and regulations, Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

50 CFR Part 17: Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final determinations of critical 

habitat for wintering piping plovers. Final rule. July 10, 2001. 66 FR 132, pp. 36037-36086. 

Federal Register. 2005. 30 CFR Parts 250 and 282: Oil and gas and sulphur operations in the outer 

continental shelf—plans and information. Final rule. 70 FR 167, pp. 51478-51519. Internet website: 

http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=PoRRmE/2/2/0&WAISaction=

retrieve. Accessed July 15, 2011. 

Federal Register. 2006a. Oil and gas and sulphur in the outer continental shelf (OCS)—Safety and 

Environmental Management Systems. Advanced notice of proposed rule. 71 FR 98, pp. 29277-

29280. Internet website: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/pdf/E6-7790.pdf. 

Federal Register. 2006b. Oil and gas and sulphur operations in the outer continental shelf—Incident 

reporting requirements. Final rule. 71 FR 73, pp. 19640-19646. Internet website: http://

www.boemre.gov/federalregister/PDFs/AC57-4-17-06.pdf. 

Federal Register. 2007. Rules and regulations, Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

50 CFR Part 17: Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; removal of the bald eagle from the 

federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife. Final rule. July 9, 2007. 72 FR 130, 

pp. 37346-37372. 

Federal Register. 2008. Record of decision for the final programmatic environmental impact statement 

for alternative energy development and production and alternate use of facilities on the outer 

continental shelf. January 10, 2007. 73 FR 7, pp. 1894-1895. 

Federal Register. 2009a. Safety and environmental management systems for outer continental shelf oil 

and gas operations. Proposed rule. 74 FR 115, pp. 28639-28654. Internet website: http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-06-17/pdf/E9-14211.pdf. 

Federal Register. 2009b. Renewable energy and alternate uses of existing facilities on the outer 

continental shelf. Final rule. April 29, 2009. 74 FR 81, pp. 19638-19871. 

Federal Register. 2009c. Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; reef fish 

fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Gulf reef fish longline restriction. May 1, 2009. 74 FR 83, pp. 20229-
6-26 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

20230. Internet website: http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=

KK4pFy/2/2/0&WAISaction=retrieve. Accessed May 18, 2011. 

Federal Register. 2009d. Rules and regulations, Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17: Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; removal of the brown pelican 

(Pelecanus occidentalis) from the federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife. Final rule. 

November 17, 2009. 74 FR 220, pp. 59443-59472. 

Federal Register. 2010a. Oil and gas and sulphur operations in the outer continental shelf—Safety and 

environmental management systems. Final rule. 75 FR 63610-63654. Internet website: http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-10-15/pdf/2010-25665.pdf. 

Federal Register. 2010b. Oil and gas and sulphur operations in the outer continental shelf—Increased 

safety measures for energy development on the outer continental shelf. Interim final rule. 75 FR 198, 

pp. 63346-63377. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-10-14/pdf/2010-

25256.pdf. 

Federal Register. 2010c. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS),Western and Central Planning Areas, Gulf of 

Mexico (GOM) oil and gas lease sales for the 2007-2012 5-Year OCS Program. November 10, 2010. 

75 FR 217, pp. 69122-69123. 

Federal Register. 2010d. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), Western and Central Planning Areas, Gulf of 

Mexico (GOM) oil and gas lease sales for the 2007-2012 5-Year OCS Program. November 16, 2010. 

75 FR 220, pp. 70023-70024. 

Federal Register. 2010e. Approval and promulgation of air quality implementation plans; Louisiana; 

Baton Rouge 8-hour ozone nonattainment area; determination of attainment of the 8-hour ozone 

standard. Final rule. 75 FR 174, pp. 54778-54779. Internet website: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/

2010/pdf/2010-22338.pdf. Accessed May 11, 2011. 

Federal Register. 2010f. Listing endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 90-day finding on a 

petition to list bluefin tuna as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Proposed 

rule. 50 CFR 223 and 224. Tuesday, September 21, 2010. 

Federal Register. 2010g Cancellation of oil and gas Lease Sale 215 in the Western Planning Area on the 

outer continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation and Enforcement. July 28, 2010. 75 FR 144, p. 44276. Internet website: 

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-18425.pdf. 

Federal Register. 2011a. Reorganization of Title 30: Bureaus of Safety and Environmental Enforcement 

and Ocean Energy Management. 30 CFR Chapters II and V. Direct Final Rule. Tuesday, 

October 18, 2011. 

Federal Register. 2011b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Endangered Species Act 

listing determination for Atlantic bluefin tuna. June 1, 2011. 50 CFR 223 and 224. 76 FR 105, 

pp. 31556-31570. 

Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. 2010. Gulf oil spill updates: July 21, 2010. Internet website: http://

www.frbatlanta.org/rein/rein-resources/econ-impacts/gulfspill/2010-07-21.cfm. Accessed December 

15, 2010. 

Feldman, S. 2009. China beats US to offshore wind development. Internet website: http://

solveclimate.com/news/20090403/china-beats-us-offshore-wind-development. Posted April 3, 2009. 

Accessed March 23, 2011. 

Fenner, D. and K. Banks. 2004. Orange cup coral Tubastraea coccinea invades Florida and the Flower 

Garden Banks, northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Coral Reefs 23(4):505-507. 

Fertl, D., A.J. Shiro, G.T. Regan, C.A. Beck, N. Adimey, L. Price-May, A. Amos, G.A.J. Worthy, and 

R. Crossland. 2005. Manatee occurrence in the northern Gulf of Mexico, west of Florida. Gulf and 

Caribbean Research 17:69-94. 
References Cited 6-27 

Fingas, M. 1995. Oil spills and their cleanup. Chemistry and Industry. Internet website: http://

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5255/is_n24/ai_n28664618/. Accessed December 23, 2010. 

Fingas, M., F. Ackerman, P. Lambert, K. Li, Z. Wang, J. Mullin, L. Hannon, D. Wang, A. Steenkammer, 

R. Hiltabrand, R. Turpin, and P. Campagna. 1995. The Newfoundland offshore burn experiment: 

Further results of emissions measurement. In: Proceedings of the Eighteenth Arctic and Marine 

Oilspill Program Technical Seminar, Volume 2, June 14-16, 1995, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 

Pp. 915-995. 

Fire in the Ice. 2009. Gulf of Mexico gas hydrate drilling and logging expedition underway. U.S. Dept. 

of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Methane Hydrate Newsletter. Spring 2009. 

Pp. 1-10. Internet website: http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/publications/Hydrates/

Newsletter/MHNewsSpring09.pdf#Page=1. 

Firmin, B. 2011. Official communication. Telephone conversation concerning raptors on the coast of 

the Gulf of Mexico. Biologist, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological 

Services Office, Lafayette, LA. 

Fischel, M., W. Grip, and I.A. Mendelssohn. 1989. Study to determine the recovery of a Louisiana 

marsh from an oil spill. In: Proceedings, 1989 Oil Spill Conference. February 13-16, 1989, San 

Antonio, TX. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. Pp. 383-387. 

Fisher, C.R. 1995. Characterization of habitats and determination of growth rate and approximate ages 

of the chemosynthetic symbiont-containing fauna. In: MacDonald, I.R., W.W. Schroeder, and 

J.M. Brooks, eds. 1995. Chemosynthetic ecosystems study: Final report. Volume 2: Technical 

report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 95-0022. Pp. 5.1-5.47. 

Fisher, C. 2010a. The final dive. Lophelia II: Oil seeps and deep reefs. November 3, 2010, dive log. 

NOAA Ocean Explorer. Internet website: http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/10lophelia/

logs/nov3/nov3.html. Accessed March 3, 2011. 

Fisher, C. 2011. Official communication. Oil spill impact on deep-water coral communities and future 

directions. Presentation given at the Twenty-Sixth Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer Meeting, 

March 22-24, 2011. Sponsored by the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 

Fisher, W.L., L.F. Brown, Jr., J.H. McGowen, and C.G. Groat. 1973. Environmental geologic atlas of 

the Texas coastal zone: Beaumont-Port Arthur area. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, 

Bureau of Economic Geology. 

Fisher, C.R., I. Urcuyo, M.A. Simpkins, and E. Nix. 1997. Life in the slow lane: Growth and longevity 

of cold-seep vestimentiferans. Marine Ecology 18:83-94. 

Flemer, D.A., B.F. Ruth, and C.M. Bundrick. 2002. Effects of sediment type on macrobenthic infaunal 

colonization of laboratory microcosoms. Hydrobiologia 485:83-96. 

Florida A&M University. 1988. Meteorological database and synthesis for the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 

OCS Study MMS 89-0064. 430 pp. 

Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection and U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. 2000. Final restoration plan/environmental assessment for the 

August 10, 1993 Tampa Bay oil spill. Volume 2: Human use and recreational injuries. 52 pp. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2008. FAQs: Sea turtles and hurricanes. Internet 

website: http://myfwc.com/Newsroom/Resources/News_Resources_SeaTurtlesAndHurricanes.htm. 

Accessed September 5, 2008. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2009. Florida’s wildlife: On the front line of 

climate change. Climate Change Summit Report. 40 pp. Internet website: http://www.ces.fau.edu/

floc/agenda.php. Accessed October 31, 2011. 
6-28 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2010a. FWC FWRI manatee mortality statistics, 

2010. Internet website. http://myfwc.com/media/1329325/

2010_cumulative_category_summary09jun_2011.pdf. Accessed July 11, 2011. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2010b. Index nesting beach survey totals (1989-

2010). Internet website: http://www.myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea-turtles/nesting/beach-surveytotals-1989-2010/. Accessed April 13, 2011. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2010c. A good nesting season for loggerheads in 

2010 does not reverse a recent declining trend. Internet website: http://www.myfwc.com/research/

wildlife/sea-turtles/nesting/2010/. Accessed April 13, 2011. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2010d. Saltwater fishing regulations. Internet 

website: http://myfwc.com/fishing/saltwater/regulations/. Accessed April 15, 2011. 

Fodrie, F.J. and K.L. Heck, Jr. 2011. Response of coastal fishes to the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster. PLoS 

ONE 6(7):e21609. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021609. 

Foley, B. 2010. Impact of fishing on shipwrecks: In: Archaeology in deep water. Woods Hole 

Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA. Internet website: http://www.whoi.edu/sbl/liteSite.do?

litesiteid=2740&articleId=4965. Accessed August 31, 2010. 

Ford, B., A. Borgens, W. Bryant, D. Marshall, P. Hitchcock, C. Arias, and D. Hamilton. 2008. 

Archaeological excavation of the Mardi Gras shipwreck (16GM01), Gulf of Mexico continental 

slope. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 2008-037. 313 pp. 

Fourqurean, J.W. and L.M. Rutten. 2004. The impact of Hurricane Georges on soft-bottom, back reef 

communities: Site-and species-specific effects in south Florida seagrass beds. Bulletin of Marine 

Science 75(2):239-257. 

Fowler, G.S., J.C. Wingfield, and P.D. Boersma. 1995. Hormonal and reproductive effects of low levels 

of petroleum fouling in Magellanic penguins (Spheniscus magellancus). Auk 112:382-389. 

Fox, D.A. and J.E. Hightower. 1998. Gulf sturgeon estuarine and nearshore marine habitat use in 

Choctawhatchee Bay, Florida. Annual Report for 1998 to the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National 

Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City, 

FL. 29 pp. 

Fox, D.A., J.E. Hightower, and F.M. Parauka. 2000. Gulf sturgeon spawning migration and habitat in 

the Choctawhatchee River System, Alabama-Florida. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

129:811-826. 

Fox, D.A., J.E. Hightower, and F.M. Parauka. 2002a. Estuarine and nearshore marine habitat use by 

Gulf sturgeon from the Choctawhatchee River System, Florida. American Fisheries Society 

Symposium 28:111-126. 

Fox, D.A., J.E. Hightower, and F.M. Parauka. 2002b. Estuarine and nearshore marine habitat use by 

Gulf sturgeon from the Choctawhatchee River System, Florida. American Fisheries Society 

Symposium 00:19-34. 

Frank, D.J., W. Sackett, R. Hall, and A. Fredericks. 1970. Methane, ethane, and propane concentrations 

in the Gulf of Mexico. American Association of Petroleum Geologist Bulletin 54:1933-1938. 

Fraser G.S. and J. Ellis. 2008. Offshore hydrocarbon and synthetic hydrocarbon spills in eastern Canada: 

The issue of follow-up and experience. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and 

Management 10(2):173-187. June 2008. 

Fraser, G.S., J. Russell, and W.M. von Zharen. 2006. Produced water from offshore oil and gas 

installations on the Grand Banks, Newfoundland and Labrador: Are the potential effects to seabirds 

sufficiently known? Marine Ornithology 34:147-156. 
References Cited 6-29 

Frater, B. 2010. Official communication. Email regarding possible impact of cleanup relating to the 

Deepwater Horizon incident on possible beach mouse habitat in Florida. Biologist, U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Office, Panama City, FL. October 19, 2010. 

Frater, B. 2011. Email regarding preliminary data for the impact of shoreline cleanup for the BP spill on 

beach mice. Restoration Specialist, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Deepwater 

Horizon NRDAR Field Office, Fairhope, AL. September 1, 2011. 

Frazier, D.E. 1967. Recent deltaic deposits of the Mississippi River: Their development and 

chronology. In: Sandridge, J.R., ed. Transactions Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, 

San Antonio, TX, 27:287-315. Internet website: http://search.datapages.com/data/gcags/data/017/

017001/pdfs/0287.pdf. 

Frederick, P.C. and J.C. Ogden. 1997. Philopatry and nomadism: Contrasting long-term movement 

behavior and population dynamics of white ibises and wood storks. Colonial Waterbirds 20:316-323. 

Frederick, P.C. and K.D. Meyer. 2008. Longevity and size of wood stork (Mycteria americana) colonies 

in Florida as guides for an effective monitoring strategy in the southeastern United States. 

Waterbirds 31 (Special Publication 1):12-198. 

Freese, L., P.J. Auster, J. Heifetz, and B.L. Wing. 1999. Effects of trawling on seafloor habitat and 

associated invertebrate taxa in the Gulf of Alaska. Marine Ecology Progress Series 182:119-126. 

French-McCay, D.P. 2004. Oil spill impact modeling: Development and validation. Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry 23(10):2441-2456. 

Frid, A. and L.M. Dill. 2002. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. 

Conservation Ecology 6:11. Internet website: http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art11/. 

Frithsen, J.B., R. Elmgren, and D.T. Rudnick. 1985. Responses of benthic meiofauna to long-term, lowlevel additions of No. 2 fuel oil. Marine Ecology Progress Series 23:1-14. 

Fritts, T.H., A.B. Irvine, R.D. Jennings, L.A. Collum, W. Hoffman, and M.A. McGehee. 1983. Turtles, 

birds, and mammals in the northern Gulf of Mexico and nearby Atlantic waters. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services, Washington, DC. 

FWS/OBS-82/65. 455 pp. 

Fry, D.M., J. Swenson, L.A. Addiego, C.R. Grau, and A. Kang. 1986. Reduced reproduction of wedgetailed shearwaters exposed to weathered Santa Barbara crude oil. Archives of Environmental 

Contamination and Toxicology 15:453-463. 

Fry, D.M., S.I. Fefer, and L. Sileo. 1987. Ingestion of plastic debris by laysan albatross and wedge-tailed 

shearwaters in the Hawaiian islands. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18(6B):339-343. 

Fucik, K.W., T.J. Bright, and K.S. Goodman. 1984. Measurements of damage, recovery, and 

rehabilitation of coral reefs exposed to oil. In: Cairns, J. and A.L. Buikema, Jr., eds. Restoration of 

habitats impacted by oil spills. Boston, MA: Butterworth Publishers. 1984. 

Fucik, K.W., K.A. Carr, and B.J. Balcom. 1995. Toxicity of oil and dispersed oil to the eggs and larvae 

of seven marine fish and invertebrates from the Gulf of Mexico. In: Lane, P., ed. The use of 

chemicals in oil spill response. STP 1252. Ann Arbor, MI. Pp. 135-171. 

Gabe, T., G. Falk, M. McCarty, and V.W. Mason. 2005. Hurricane Katrina: Social-demographic 

characteristics of impacted areas; November 4, 2005. Congressional Research Service Report for 

Congress. 35 pp. Internet website: http://gnocdc.s3.amazonaws.com/reports/crsrept.pdf. Accessed 

February 17, 2011. 

Gagliano, S.M. 1999. Faulting, subsidence and land loss in coastal Louisiana. In: Louisiana Coastal 

Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and Wetlands Conservation and Restoration 

Authority, Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana, Appendix B—Technical methods, 

Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, LA. 
6-30 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Gagliano, S.M. 2005a. Effects of earthquakes, fault movements, and subsidence on the south Louisiana 

landscape. Reprinted from The Louisiana Civil Engineer, Journal of the Louisiana Section of The 

American Society of Civil Engineers, Baton Rouge, LA. February 2005, 13(2):5-7, 19-22. Internet 

website: http://www.coastalenv.com/EffectofEarthquakeFaultMovementsandSubsidence.pdf. 

Gagliano, S.M. 2005b. Effects of natural fault movement on land submergence in coastal Louisiana. 

Proceedings, 14th Biennial Coastal Zone Conference, New Orleans, LA, July 17-21, 2005. 5 pp. 

Gallaway, B.J. 1981. An ecosystem of oil and gas development on the Texas-Louisiana continental 

shelf. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, 

Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-81/27. 89 pp. 

Gallaway, B.J. and G.S. Lewbell. 1982. The ecology of petroleum platforms in the northwestern Gulf of 

Mexico: A community profile. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of 

Biological Services, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-82/27. Bureau of Land Management, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Regional Office, New Orleans, LA. Open-File Report 82-03. xiv + 92 pp. 

Gallaway, B.J. and M.C. Kennicutt II. 1988. Chapter 2. The characterization of benthic habitats of the 

northern Gulf of Mexico. In: Gallaway, B.J., ed. Northern Gulf of Mexico continental slope study, 

final report: Year 4. Vol. II: Synthesis report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 88-0053. Pp. 2-1 to 

2-45. 

Gallaway, B.J., L.R. Martin, and R.L. Howard, eds. 1988. Northern Gulf of Mexico continental slope 

study, annual report: Year 3. Volume II: Technical narrative. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 87-0060. 

586 pp. 

Gallaway, B.J., J.G. Cole, and R.G. Fechhelm. 2003. Selected aspects of the ecology of the continental 

slope fauna of the Gulf of Mexico: A synopsis of the northern Gulf of Mexico continental slope 

study, 1983-1988. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2003-072. 44 pp. 

Ganning, B., D.J. Reish, and D. Straughan. 1984. Recovery and restoration of rocky shores, sandy 

beaches, tidal flats, and shallow subtidal bottoms impacted by oil spill. In: Cairns, J., Jr. and 

A.L. Buikema, Jr., eds. Restoration of habitats impacted by oil spills. Boston, MA. 

Gardner, J.V., L.A. Mayer, J.E. Hughes Clarke, and A. Kleiner. 1998. High-resolution multibeam 

bathymetry of East and West Flower Gardens and Stetson Banks, Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico 

Science 16:131-143. 

Gardner, J.V., P. Darnell, and K.J. Sulak. 2002a. Multibeam mapping of the pinnacles region, Gulf of 

Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey. Open File Report 02-006. Internet website: 

http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of02-006/. Accessed September 20, 2010. 

Gardner, J.V., J.D. Beaudoin, J.E. Hughes Clarke, and P. Dartnell. 2002b. Multibeam mapping of 

selected areas of the outer continental shelf, northwestern Gulf of Mexico—Data, images, and GIS. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey. Open File Report 02-411. Internet website: http://

geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of02-411/index.html. Accessed September 9, 2010. 

Garrison, E.G., C.P. Giammona, F.J. Kelly, A.R. Tripp, and G.A. Wolf. 1989. Historic shipwrecks and 

magnetic anomalies of the northern Gulf of Mexico: Reevaluation of archaeological resource 

management. Volume II: Technical narrative. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 89-0024. 241 pp. 

Garza, M.D., A. Prada, M. Marela and M.X. Vasquez Rodruguez. 2009. Indirect assessment of 

economic damages from the Prestige oil spill: Consequences for liability and risk prevention. 

Disasters 2009. 
References Cited 6-31 

Gaston, G.R., C.F. Rakocinski, S.S. Brown, and C.M. Cleveland. 1998. Trophic function in estuaries: 

Response of macrobenthos to natural and contaminant gradients. Marine and Freshwater Research. 

49:833-846. 

Gearhart II, R., D. Jones, A. Borgens, S. Laurence, T. DeMunda, and J. Shipp. In press. Impacts of 

recent hurricane activity in historic shipwrecks in the Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf. U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEMRE 2011-003. 

Gentner, B. and S. Steinback. 2008. The Economic contribution of marine angler expenditures in the 

United States, 2006. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/SPO-94. 

Gentner Consulting Group. 2010. Economic impacts of recreational fishing closures resulting from the 

Deep Horizon oil spill: Preliminary estimates. Internet website: http://www.keepamericafishing.org/

-/pdf/econimpactsgulfoil2.pdf. 

Geoscience Earth & Marine Services, Inc. 2005. Integrated study of the Great White Development Area, 

Blocks 813, 814, 857, and 858, Alaminos Canyon Area, Gulf of Mexico. Report for Shell Offshore, 

Inc. Project No. 0105-945d. 

Georgi, A. 1993. The status of Kootenai River white sturgeon. Report of Don Chapman Consultants, 

Inc. to Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee, Portland, OR. 

Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1980. Offshore petroleum resource development and marine mammals: 

A review and research recommendations. Marine Fisheries Review 42:1-12. 

Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin, eds. 1990. Sea mammals and oil: Confronting the risks. San Diego, 

CA: Academic Press, Inc. 282 pp. 

Getter, C.D., G. Cintron, B. Kicks, R.R. Lewis III, and E.D. Seneca. 1984. The recovery and restoration 

of salt marshes and mangroves following an oil spill. In: Cairn, J., Jr. and A.L. Buikema, Jr., eds. 

Restoration of habitats impacted by oil spills. Boston, MA: Butterworth Publishers, Ann Arbor 

Science Book. Pp. 65-104. 

Gibson, D.J., and P.B. Looney. 1994. Vegetation colonization of dredge spoil on Perdido Key, Florida. 

Journal of Coastal Research 10:133-134. 

Gilbert, D. 2011. New scrutiny slams near shore exploration. The Wall Street Journal. Internet website: 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204204004576050442684314836.html?

KEYWORDS=new+scrutiny+slams+near-shore+exploration. Posted January 3, 2011. Accessed 

January 4, 2011. 

Gill, J.A., K. Norris, and W.J. Sutherland. 2001. Why behavioural responses may not reflect the 

population consequences of human disturbance. Biological Conservation 97:265-268. 

Gitschlag, G.R., J.S. Schrripa, and J.E. Powers. 2000. Estimation of fisheries impacts due to underwater 

explosives used to sever and salvage oil and gas platforms in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

Study MMS 2000-087. 80 pp. 

Gittings, S.R., comp. 2006. Conservation science in NOAA’s National Marine Sanctuaries: Description 

and recent accomplishments. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. Marine Sanctuaries 

Conservation Series ONMS-06-04. 30 pp. Internet website: http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/

conservation/pdfs/accomplishments.pdf. 

Gittings, S.R., T.J. Bright, W.W. Schroeder, W.W. Sager, J.S. Laswell, and R. Rezak. 1992a. 

Invertebrate assemblages and ecological controls on topographic features in the northeast Gulf of 

Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science 50(3):435-455. 
6-32 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Gittings, S.R., G.S. Boland, K.J.P. Deslarzes, C.L. Combs, B.S. Holland, and T.J. Bright. 1992b. Mass 

spawning and reproductive viability of reef corals at the East Flower Garden Bank, northwest Gulf of 

Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science 51(3):420-428. 

Gittings, S.R., G.S. Boland, K.J.P. Deslarzes, D.K. Hagman, and B.S. Holland. 1992c. Long-term 

monitoring at the East and West Flower Garden Banks. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 92-0006. 

206 pp. 

Gittings, S.R., G.S. Boland, C.R.B. Merritt, J.J. Kendall, K.J.P. Deslarzes, and J. Hart. 1994. Mass 

spawning by reef corals in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. A Report on Project Reef Spawn 

’94. Flower Gardens Fund Technical Series Report Number 94-03. 

Gobert, A. 2010. OCS pipelines (DOT jurisdiction) that terminate onshore Louisiana. Excel spreadsheet 

provided by Angie Gobert, Field Operations, to Perry Boudreaux, Leasing and Environment, Gulf of 

Mexico Region, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement by e-mail on 

April 2, 2010. 

Godish, T. 1991. Air quality. 2nd ed. Michigan: Lewis Publishers, Inc. 422 pp. 

Goh, B.P.L. and C.S. Lee. 2008. A study of the effect of sediment accumulation on the settlement of 

coral larvae using conditioned tiles. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Reef Symposium. July 

7-11, 2008. Session No. 24. Fort Lauderdale, FL. 

Gómez Gesteira, J.L. and J.C. Dauvin. 2000. Amphipods are good bioindicators of the impact of oil 

spills on soft-bottom macrobenthic communities. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40(11):1017-1027. 

Gonzalez, A. 2010. U.S. gas boom orphans LNG. The Wall Street Journal. October 22, 2010. Internet 

website: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304023804575566570816389914.html. 

Accessed March 1, 2011. 

Good, B., J. Buchtel, D. Meffert, J. Radford, K. Rhinehart, and R. Wilson. 1995. Louisiana’s major 

coastal navigation channels. Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, LA. 35 pp. 

Internet website: http://dnr.louisiana.gov/crm/D%20R%20S%20Reports/General/La.%20Navigation

%20Channels/Channels_1.pdf. 

Gordon, J.C.D., D. Gillespie, L.E. Rendell, and R. Leaper. 1996. Draft report on playback of ATOC like 

sounds to sperm whales (Pheseter macrocephalus) off the Azores. Wildlife Conservation Research 

Unit, Dept. of Zoology, Oxford, UK. 

Gordon, S. 2011. Official communication. Email with slide presentation to the Mississippi Commission 

on Marine Resources (Mississippi Oyster Mortality), July 19, 2011. 

Gore, R.H. 1992. The Gulf of Mexico. Pineapple Press, Florida. 

Gosselink, J.G., C.L. Cordes, and J.W. Parsons. 1979. An ecological characterization study of the 

Chenier Plain coastal ecosystem of Louisiana and Texas. 3 vols. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Services. FWS/OBS-78/9 through 78/11. 

Gower, J. and S. King. 2008. Satellite images show the movement of floating Sargassum in the Gulf of 

Mexico and Atlantic Ocean. Nature Precedings: hdl:10101/npre.2008.1894.1. 

Gower, J., C. Hu, G. Borstad, and S. King. 2006. Ocean color satellites show extensive lines of floating 

Sargassum in the Gulf of Mexico. IEEE Trans. Deosci. Rem. Sens. 44(12):3619-3625. 

Graham, P. 1981. Status of white sturgeon in the Kootenai River. Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife, and 

Parks, Kalispell, MT. 

Gramling, R. 1984a. Housing in the coastal zone parishes. In: Gramling, R.B. and S. Brabant, eds. The 

role of outer continental shelf oil and gas activities in the growth and modification of Louisiana’s 

coastal zone. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and 

Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources, Lafayette, LA. Interagency Agreement NA-83-AA-D-CZ025; 

21920-84-02. Pp. 127-134. 
References Cited 6-33 

Gramling, R. 1984b. Offshore oil and gas activity and its socioeconomic and environmental influences. 

United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on Panama Canal/Outer Continental Shelf. 

Serial No. 98 37, p. 302. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Greater New Orleans, Inc. 2011. A study of the economic impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 

Green, A. 2008. Facing the facts: A literacy forecast for Texas. Texas Workforce Commission. 4 pp. 

Internet website: http://www.twc.state.tx.us/svcs/adultlit/facing_facts.pdf. 

Green, M.M., 2006. Coastal restoration annual project reviews, December 2006. Louisiana Dept. of 

Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, LA. 116 pp. Internet website: http://lacoast.gov/reports/apr/2006

%20Coastal%20Restoration%20Annual%20Project%20Reviews.pdf. 

Greenberg, J. 2011. OSV day rates. Workboat. May 2011, 68(5). 

Greene, C.R. 1986. Underwater sounds from the semisubmersible drill rig SEDCO 708 drilling in the 

Aleutian Islands. Section 1. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. API Publication 4438. 

69 pp. 

Greene, G., C. Moss, and T. Spreen. 1997. Demand for recreational fishing in Tampa Bay, Florida: A 

random utility approach. Marine Resource Economics 12:293-305. 

Grey, E.K., C. Taylor, S. Chiasson, L. Koplitz, D.A. Grimm, and J. Sinski. 2011a. Assessing the effects 

of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on blue crab, Callinectes sapidus, megalope: Abstract. In: 

Proceedings of the 40th Benthic Ecology Meeting, Mobile, AL, March 16-20, 2011. 

Grey, E.K., C. Taylor, S. Chiasson, L. Koplitz, D.A. Grimm, and J. Sinski. 2011b. Assessing the effects 

of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on blue crab, Callinectes sapidus, Megalope. Presentation given at 

the 40th Benthic Ecology Meeting, Mobile, AL, March 16-20, 2011. 

Grigg, R.W. 1977. Population dynamics of two gorgonian corals. Ecology 58:278-290. 

Grimm, D.E. and T.S. Hopkins. 1977. Preliminary characterization of the octocorallian and scleractinian 

diversity at the Florida Middle Ground. Proceedings, Third International Coral Reef Symposium, 

Miami, FL. 1:135-141. 

Guillen, G., G. Boland, D. Breeding, K. Deslarzes, A. Lugo-Fernandez, and B. Rogers. 1999. Proposed 

MMS oil spill mitigation policy dealing with the Flower Garden Bank (FGB). Flower Garden Oil 

Spill Mitigation Work Group, December 16, 1999 Submitted to Dennis Chew, LE Mitigation Team 

Member and NEPA Unit Chief. 

Gulf Coast Claims Facility. 2010a. Program statistics & overall summary, and state status reports. 

Internet website: http://www.gulfcoastclaimsfacility.com/reports. Accessed November 27, 2010. 

Gulf Coast Claims Facility. 2010b. Program frequently asked questions. Internet website: http://

gulfcoastclaimsfacility.com/faq#Q11. Accessed November 2010. 

Gulf of Mexico Alliance. 2009a. Gulf of Mexico Alliance water quality. Internet website: http://

gulfofmexicoalliance.org/issues/welcome.html. Last updated June 2, 2009. Accessed March 15, 

2010. 

Gulf of Mexico Alliance. 2009b. Gulf of Mexico Alliance priority issues. Internet website: http://

gulfofmexicoalliance.org/issues/welcome.html. Last updated June 2, 2009. Accessed March 15, 

2010. 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 2005. Generic amendment number 3 for 

addressing essential fish habitat requirements, habitat areas of particular concern, and adverse effects 

of fishing in the following fishery management plans of the Gulf of Mexico: shrimp fishery of the 

Gulf of Mexico, United States waters red drum fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, reef fish fishery of the 

Gulf of Mexico coastal migratory pelagic resources (mackerels) in the Gulf of Mexico and South 

Atlantic, stone crab fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, spiny lobster in the Gulf of Mexico and South 

Atlantic, coral and coral reefs of the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 

Tampa, FL. 
6-34 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 2010a. Federal fishing rules for the Gulf of 

Mexico. Internet website: http://www.gulfcouncil.org/fishrules.htm. Accessed August 5, 2010. 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 2010b. Supplemental recreational red snapper 

season to open October 1, 2010. Internet website: http://www.gulfcouncil.org/news_resources/Press

%20Releases/2010RedSnapperReopening.pdf. 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 2011a. Memo to Gulf Coast Ecosystem 

Restoration Task Force: Guidance for future restoration efforts. 6 pp. Internet website: http://

www.gulfcouncil.org/docs/Gulf%20Council%20oil%20spill%20restoration%20research%20

priorities.pdf. Accessed October 18, 2011. 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 2011b. Recreational fishing regulations for 

Gulf of Mexico federal waters. Internet website: http://www.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMFMCWeb/

downloads/rec_brochure_2010.pdf. 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1982. 

Fishery management plan for coral and coral reefs of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, April 

1982. Internet website: http://www.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMFMCWeb/downloads/Coral%20

FMP.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2011. 

Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Blog. 2010. Gulf Coast winners and losers. Internet website: http://

gulfofmexicooilspillblog.com/2010/11/14/gulf-of-mexico-oil-spill-blog-gulf-coast-economicwinners-and-losers/. Posted November 14, 2010. Accessed December 15, 2010. 

Guo, J., D.W. Hughes, and W.R. Keithly. 1998. An analysis of Louisiana Highway 1 in relation to 

expanding oil and gas activities in the Central Gulf of Mexico. In: Lafourche Parish and Port 

Fourchon, Louisiana: Effects of the Outer Continental Shelf Petroleum Industry on the Economy and 

Public Services, Part 1. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2001-019. 42 pp. 

Guzmán, H.M. and I. Holst. 1993. Effects of chronic oil-sediment pollution on the reproduction of the 

Caribbean reef coral Siderastrea siderea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 26(5):276-282. 

Guzmán, H.M., J.B.C. Jackson, and E. Weil. 1991. Short-term ecological consequences of a major oil 

spill on Panamanian subtidal reef corals. Coral Reefs 10:1-12. 

Guzmán, H.M., K.A. Burns, and J.B.C. Jackson. 1994. Injury, regeneration, and growth of Caribbean 

reef corals after a major oil spill in Panama. Marine Ecology Progress Series 105:231-241. 

Haab, T.C., J.C. Whitehead, and T. McConnell. 2000. The economic value of marine recreational fishing 

in the southeast United States: 1997 southeast economic data analysis; final report, July 2000. 

105 pp. Internet website: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/RecEcon/Publications/SE_vol2.pdf. 

Accessed April 4, 2011. 

Haab, T.C., R. Hicks, K. Schnier, and J.C. Whitehead. 2010. Angler heterogeneity and the speciesspecific demand for marine recreational fishing. Appalachian State University, Department of 

Economics Working Paper. Number 10-02. 43 pp. Internet website: http://econ.appstate.edu/

RePEc/pdf/wp1002.pdf. 

Haag, W.G. 1992. The Monte Sano site. In: Jeter, M.D., ed. Southeastern Archaeological Conference: 

Abstracts of the Forty-ninth Annual Meeting, Arkansas’ Excelsior Hotel, October 21-24, 1992. Little 

Rock, AR. 18 pp. 

Haby, M.G., R.J. Miget, and L.L. Falconet. 2009. Hurricane damage sustained by the oyster industry 

and the oyster reefs across the Galveston Bay system with recovery recommendations. A Texas 

AgriLife Extension Service/SeaGrant Extension Program Staff Paper. The Texas A&M University 

System, College Station, TX. TAMU-SG-09-201. 51 pp. 

Haddad, R. and S. Murawski. 2010. Analysis of hydrocarbons in samples provided from the cruise of the 

R/V Weatherbird II, May 23-26, 2010. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanographic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD. 14 pp. 
References Cited 6-35 

Hagerty, C.L. and J.L. Ramseur, coordinators. 2010. Deepwater Horizon oil spill: Selected issues for 

Congress. Congressional Research Service. 49 pp. Internet website: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/

misc/R41262.pdf. 

Haig, S.H. and C.L. Ferland. 2002. 2001 international piping plover census. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Corvallis, OR. 293 pp. 

Hale, L.F. and J.K. Carlson. 2007. Characterization of the shark bottom longline fishery, 2005-2006. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-554. 28 pp. 

Hale, L.F., L.D. Hollinsead, and J.K. Carlson. 2007. Characterization of the shark bottom longline 

fishery, 2007. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-564. 25 pp. 

Hale, L.F., S.J.B. Gulak, and J.K. Carlson. 2009. Characterization of the shark bottom longline fishery, 

2008. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-586. 23 pp. 

Hall, E.R. 1981. The mammals of North America: Volume II. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. 

Pp. 667-670. 

Hall, R.J., A.A. Belisle, and L. Sileo. 1983. Residues of petroleum hydrocarbons in tissues of sea turtles 

exposed to the Ixtoc I oil spill. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 19(2):106-109. 

Halley, R.B., A.C. Hine, B.D. Jarrett, D.C. Twichell, D.F. Naar, G.D. Dennis, and K. Ciembronowicz. 

2004. Pulley Ridge: The US’s deepest hermatypic coral reef? A poster by the U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Geological Survey and University of South Florida, College of Marine Science, 

St. Petersburg, FL. Internet website: http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/pulley-ridge/Pulley_Ridge.pdf. 

Hamdan, L.J. and P.A. Fulmer. 2011. Effects of COREXIT® EC9500A on bacteria from a beach oiled 

by the Deepwater Horizon spill. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 63:101-109, doi:10.3354/ame01482. 

Hamilton, P. and A. Lugo-Fernandez. 2001. Observations of high speed deep currents in the northern 

Gulf of Mexico. Geophysical Research Letters 28:2767-2870. 

Hamilton, P., J.J. Singer, E. Waddell, and K. Donuhue. 2003. Deepwater observations in the northern 

Gulf of Mexico from in-situ current meters and PIES: Final report. Volume II. Technical report. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Study MMS-2003-049. 95 pp. 

Hammer, D. 2011. Ken Feinberg reaches deal to pay subsistence claims for commercial fishermen who 

consume a portion of their catch. The Times Picayune. Internet website: http://www.nola.com/news/

gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2011/04/post_31.html. Accessed April 28, 2011. 

Handley, D.A., D. Altsman, and R. DeMay, eds. 2007. Seagrass status and trends in the northern Gulf of 

Mexico: 1940-2002. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2006-5287 and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 855-R-04-003. Internet website: http://

pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5287/. Accessed May 13, 2011. 

Haney, J.L, Y. Wei, and S.G. Douglas. 2004. A preliminary assessment of on-shore air quality impacts 

for the eastern Gulf Coast (Louisiana to Florida) using the 2000 Gulfwide Emissions Inventory: Draft 

report. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA, by ICF Consulting, San Rafael, CA. 

Hanski, I. 1999. Metapopulation ecology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 328 pp. 

Harbison, R.N. 1968. Geology of De Soto Canyon. Journal of Geophysical Research 73:5175-5185. 

Hardin, D.K., K.D. Spring, S.T. Viada, A.D. Hart, B.D. Graham, and M.B. Peccini. 2001. Chapter 7: 

Hard bottom communities. In: Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. and Texas A&M University, 

Geochemical and Environmental Research Group. 2001. Mississippi/Alabama pinnacle trend 

ecosystem monitoring: Final synthesis report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, 

Biological Resources Division, USGS BSR 2001-0007 and Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA, OCS Study MMS 2001-080. 415 pp. + apps. 
6-36 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Hargreaves, S. 2010. Drilling ban: Jobs at stake. Internet website: http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/24/

news/economy/drilling_jobs_at_stake/index.htm?postversion=2010062410. Accessed June 30, 2010. 

Harper, D.E., Jr. 1991. Macroinfauna and macroepifauna. In: Brooks, J.M., ed. 1991. MississippiAlabama continental shelf ecosystem study: Data summary and synthesis. Volume II: Technical 

narrative. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 91-0063. 862 pp. 

Harper, D.E., Jr., L.D. McKinney, J.M. Nance, and R.R. Salzer. 1991. Recovery responses of two 

benthic assemblages following an acute hypoxic event on the Texas continental shelf, northwestern 

Gulf of Mexico. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 58:49-64. 

Harrington, B. 1996. The flight of the red knot. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company 

Harris, R. 2010. Scientists find thick layer of oil on seafloor. National Public Radio (online). 

September 10, 2010. Internet website: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=

129782098. Accessed January 13, 2011. 

Harrison, P. 1983. Seabirds: An identification guide. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co. 448 pp. 

Harrison, P. 1996. Seabirds of the world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 317 pp. 

Hart, A.D., K.D. Spring, J.M. Brooks, B.J. Presley, and B.A. Vittor. 1989. Fate and effects of drilling 

fluid and cutting discharges in shallow, nearshore waters. Washington, DC: American Petroleum 

Institute. 

Hartung, R. 1995. Assessment of the potential for long-term toxicological effects of the Exxon Valdez oil 

spill on birds and mammals. ASTM (American Society for Testing Materials) Special Technical 

Publication. 

Harvey, J.T. and M.E. Dahlheim. 1994. Cetaceans in oil. In: Loughlin, T.R., ed. Marine Mammals and 

the Exxon Valdez. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pp. 257-264. 

Havrylkoff, J. 2010. Official communication. Email from Pascagoula Sturgeon Team. Post Katrina 

Gulf sturgeon opdate for Pascagoula sampling area. University of Southern Mississippi Gulf Coast 

Research Laboratory. October 1, 2010. 

Hayes, M.O., D.D. Domeracki, C.D. Getter, T.W. Kana, and G.I. Scott. 1980. Sensitivity of coastal 

environments to spilled oil, south Texas coast. Research Planning Institute, Inc. Report No. 

RPI/R/80/4/11-12. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Office of Marine Pollution Assessment, Columbia, SC. 89 pp. 

Hayman, P., J. Marchant, and T. Prater. 1986. Shorebirds: An identification guide to the waders of the 

world. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co. 412 pp. 

Hazen, T.C., E.A. Dubinsky, T.Z. DeSantis, G.L. Andersen, Y.M. Picento, N. Singh, J.K. Jansson, 

A. Probst, S.E. Borglin, J.L. Fortney, W.T. Stringfellow, M. Bill, M.S. Conrad, L.M. Tom, 

K.L. Chavarria, T.R. Alusi, R. Lamendella, D.C. Joyner, C. Spier, J. Baelum, M. Auer, M.L. Zelma, 

R. Chakraborty, E.L. Sonnenthal, P. D’haeseleer, H.N. Holman, S. Osman, Z. Lu, J.D. Van Nostrand, 

Y. Deng, J. Zhou, and O.U. Mason. 2010. Deep-sea oil plume enriches indigenous oil-degrading 

bacteria. Published online: Science Express August 24, 2010. Science 330:6001(204-208). 

Heath, A.G. 1995. Water pollution and fish physiology. 2nd edition. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc. 

359 pp. 

Heck, K.L., G. Hays, and R.J. Orth. 2003. Critical evaluation of the nursery role hypothesis for seagrass 

meadows. Marine Ecology Progress Series 253:123-136. 

Helicopter Safety Advisory Conference. 2009. HSCA 2009 safety statistics. Internet website: http://

www.hsac.org/Minutes/may2010/2009SAFETYSTAT.pdf. Accessed December 17, 2010. 

Helix Well Containment Group (HWCG). 2011. Capabilities. Internet website: http://www.hwcg.org/. 

Accessed October 20, 2011. 
References Cited 6-37 

Hell, J.W. and M.D. Ehlers, eds. 2008. Structural and functional organization of the synapse. New 

York, NY: Springer. 801 pp. 

Hemmerling, S.A. and C.E. Colten. 2003. Environmental justice considerations in Lafourche Parish, 

Louisiana. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2003-038. 348 pp. 

Hemmerling, S.A. and C.E. Colten. In preparation. Environmental justice: A comparative perspective in 

Louisiana. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and 

Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. Prepared under Contract No. 30951-

72404. 

Hemming, J.M., P.V. Winger, S.J. Herrington, W. Gierhart, H. Herod, and J. Ziewitz. 2006. Water and 

sediment quality integrity survey of threatened and endangered freshwater mussel habitat in the 

Ochlockonee River basin. Endangered Species Research 6:1-13. 

Heneman, B. and the Center for Environmental Education. 1988. Persistent marine debris in the North 

Sea, northwest Atlantic Ocean, wider Caribbean area, and the west coast of Baja California. Final 

report for the Marine Mammal Commission. Contract MM3309598-5. Washington, DC. Available 

from NTIS, Springfield, VA: PB89-109938. 161 pp. 

Henfer, L.M., B.O. Wilen, T.E. Dahl, and W.E. Frayer. 1994. Southeast wetlands: Status and trends, 

mid-1970’s to mid-1980’s. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 32 pp. 

Henningsson, S.S. and T. Alerstam. 2005. Barriers and distances as determinants for the evolution of 

bird migration links: The Arctic shorebird system. In: Proceedings; Biological Sciences, 2005. 

London: Royal Society of London 272(1578):2251-2258. 

Henriet, J.P. and J. Mienert. 1998. Gas hydrates; relevance to world marginal stability and climate 

change. Geological Society of London, England. Geological Society Special Publication No. 137. 

338 pp. 

Hernandez, F., S. Powers, and W. Graham. 2010. Seasonal variability in ichthyoplankton abundance and 

assemblage composition in the northern Gulf of Mexico off Alabama. Fishery Bulletin 

108(2):193-207. 

Hickerson, E.L., G.P. Schmahl, M. Robbart, W.F. Precht, and C. Caldow. 2008. The state of coral reef 

ecosystems of the Flower Garden Banks, Stetson Bank, and other banks in the northwestern Gulf of 

Mexico. In: Waddell, J.E. and A.M. Clarke, eds. The state of coral reef ecosystems of the United 

States and Pacific freely associated states: 2008. Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment’s 

Biogeography Team, Silver Spring, MD. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 73. 

NOAA/NCCOS. 569 pp. 

Hiett, R.L. and J.W. Milon. 2002. Economic impact of recreational fishing and diving associated with 

offshore oil and gas structures in the Gulf of Mexico: Final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 

2002-010. 98 pp. 

Hobaugh, W.C., C.D. Stutzenbaker, and E.L. Flickinger. 1989. The rice prairies. In: Smith, L.M., 

R.L. Pederson, and R.M. Kaminski, eds. Habitat management for migrating and wintering waterfowl 

in North America. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock. 

Hogan, J.L. 2003. Occurrence of the diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin littoralis) at South 

Deer Island in Galveston Bay, Texas, April 2001–May 2002. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological 

Survey, Austin, TX. USGS Open-File Report 03-022. 30 pp. 

Holand, P. 1999. Reliability of subsea BOP systems for deepwater application, phase II DW. SINTEF 

Report prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. TA&R 

Project 319. 118 pp. + apps. Internet website: http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/319/319AA.pdf. 

Holand, P. and P. Skalle. 2001. Deepwater kicks and BOP performance. SINTEF Report prepared for 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. TA&R Project 383. 108 pp. + apps. 
6-38 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Internet website: http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/383/383%20AB%20Final%20report%20

Deepwater%20Kicks%20and%20BOP%20Performance.pdf. 

Holder, Jr., S.W. and A. Lugo-Fernandez. 1993. Relationships between the Barataria Basin tidal prism 

and the basin’s barrier islands. In: Clipp, A., ed. Louisiana shoreline erosion: Emphasis on Grand 

Isle. Proceedings of a symposium held at Grand Isle, LA, March 3-5, 1993. Pp. 31-42.

Holdway, D.A. 2002. The acute and chronic effects of wastes associated with offshore oil and gas 

production on temperate and tropical marine ecological processes. Marine Pollution Bulletin 

44:185-203. 

Holliman, D.C. 1983. Status and habitat of Alabama Gulf Coast beach mice Peromyscus polionotus 

ammobates and P.p. trissyllepsis. Northeast Gulf Science 6(2):121-129. 

Hopkins, T.S., D.R. Blizzard, S.A. Brawley, S.A. Earle, D.E. Grimm, D.K. Gilbert, P.G. Johnson, 

E.H. Livingston, C.H. Lutz, J.K. Shaw, and B.B. Shaw. 1977. A preliminary characterization of the 

biotic components of composite strip transects on the Florida Middle Ground, northeastern Gulf of 

Mexico. Proceedings, Third International Coral Reef Symposium, Miami, FL. 1:32-37. 

Howard, R.K. and F.T. Short. 1986. Seagrass growth and survivorship under the influence of epiphyte 

grazers. Aquatic Botany 24(3):287-302. 

Hsu, S.A. 1979. An operational forecasting model for the variation of mean maximum mixing heights 

across the coastal zone. Boundary-Layer Meteorology 16:93-98. 

Hu, C. and F.E. Muller-Karger. 2007. Response of sea surface properties to Hurricane Dennis in the 

eastern Gulf of Mexico. Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 34, L07606, 

doi:10.1029/2006GL028935. 

Hua, J. 1999. Behavior of chemically dispersed oil in marine sediment. Journal of Marine Science and 

Technology 7(1):35-42. 

Hudson, J.H. and D.M. Robbin. 1980a. Effects of drilling mud on the growth rate of reef-building coral, 

Montastraea annularis. The R&D Program for OCS Oil and Gas Operations. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Geological Survey, Fisher Island Station, Miami Beach, FL. 

Hudson, J.H. and D.M. Robbin. 1980b. Effects of drilling mud on the growth rate of the reef-building 

coral, Montastraea annularis. In: Proceedings, Volume 2. Research on the Environmental Fate and 

Effects of Drilling Fluids and Cuttings, January 21-24, 1980, Lake Buena Vista, FL. 

Hudson, J.H. and D.M. Robbin. 1980c. Effects of drilling mud on the growth rate of the reef-building 

coral, Montastraea annularis. In: Geyer, R.A., ed. Marine Environmental Pollution. Elsevier 

Oceanography Series, 27A. Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company. Pp. 455-470. 

Hudson, J.H., E.A. Shinn, and D.M. Robbin. 1982. Effects of offshore oil drilling on Philippine reef 

corals. Bulletin of Marine Science 32(4):890-908. 

Huff, J.A. 1975. Life history of the Gulf of Mexico sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi, in the 

Suwannee River, Florida. Marine Resources Publication No. 16. 32 pp. 

Hughes, D.W., J.M. Fannin, W. Keithly, W. Olatubi, and J. Guo. 2001. Lafourche Parish and Port 

Fourchon, Louisiana: Effects of the outer continental shelf petroleum industry on the economy and 

public services, part 2. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2001-020. 51 pp. 

Hummell, R.L. 1990. Main Pass and the ebb-tidal delta of Mobile Bay, Alabama. Geological Survey of 

Alabama, Energy and Coastal Geology Division. Circular 146.

Hunt D. 2006. Official communication. Impacts of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina on bird habitat. U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeastern Louisiana Wildlife Refuges, Lacombe, 

LA. September 2006. 
References Cited 6-39 

Hyland, J.L. and E.D. Schneider. 1976. Petroleum hydrocarbons and their effects on marine organisms, 

populations, communities, and ecosystems. In: Sources, effects and sinks of hydrocarbons in the 

aquatic environment. Proceedings of the Symposium, Washington, DC. August 9-11, 1976. 

Arlington, VA: American Institute of Biological Sciences. Pp. 465-506. 

Hyland, J., D. Hardin, M. Steinhauer, D. Coats, R. Green, and J. Neff. 1994. Environmental impact of 

offshore oil development on the outer continental shelf and slope off Point Arguello, California. 

Marine Environmental Research 37:195-229. 

IEM. 2010. A study of the economic impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Part 1: Fisheries. 

Prepared for the Greater New Orleans Inc. Regional Economic Alliance. 55 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/docs/Economic%20Impact%20Study,%20Part%20I%20-%20Full%20

Report.pdf. 

Iledare, O.O. and M.J. Kaiser. 2007. Competition and performance in oil and gas lease sales and 

development in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico OCS region, 1983-1999. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2007-034. 

106 pp. 

Inoue, M., S.E. Welsh, L.J. Rouse, Jr., and E. Weeks. 2008. Deepwater currents in the eastern Gulf of 

Mexico: Observations at 25.5oN and 87oW. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2008-001. 95 pp. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007a. Summary for policymakers. In: Climate change 

2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. 

Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller, eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United 

Kingdom and New York, NY. 24 pp. Internet website: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/

syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf. 

International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited (ITOPF). 2002. Fate of marine oil spills. 

Technical Information Paper. London, United Kingdom. 8 pp. Internet website: http://

www.itopf.com/_assets/documents/tip2.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2010. 

International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited (ITOPF). 2010a. Weathering process. 

Internet website: http://www.itopf.com/marine-spills/fate/weathering-process/. Accessed January 4, 

2011. 

International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited (ITOPF). 2010b. Containment & recovery. 

Internet website: http://www.itopf.com/spill-response/clean-up-and-response/containment-andrecovery/. Accessed December 23, 2010. 

Irion, J.B. and R.J. Anuskiewicz. 1999. MMS seafloor monitoring project: First annual technical report, 

1997 field season. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Region, 

New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 99-0014. 63 pp. 

Irion, J.B. and D.A. Ball. 2001. The New York and the Josephine: Two steamships of the Charles 

Morgan Line. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 30(1):48-56. 

Irvine, G. 2000. Persistence of spilled oil on shores and its effects on biota. In: Seas at the millennium: 

An environmental evaluation. Volume III: Global issues and processes. Elsevier Science Ltd. 

Isphording, W.C. and G.C. Flowers. 1990. Geological and geochemical characterization. In: Stout, J. 

and L. Bryant, eds. Mobile Bay: Issues, resources, status, and management. U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Estuary-of-the-Month Seminar 

Series No. 15. Pp. 9-25. 

Israel, B. 2010. 5 years after Katrina, Gulf ecosystems on the ropes. Live Science. Internet website: 

http://www.livescience.com/environment/hurricane-katrina-gulf-coast-ecological-damage100827.html. Accessed August 27, 2010. 
6-40 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Izon, D., E.P. Danenberger, and M. Mayes. 2007. Absence of fatalities in blowouts encouraging in 

MMS study of OCS incidents 1992-2006. Drilling Contractor, July/August. Pp. 84-90. Internet 

website: http://drillingcontractor.org/dcpi/dc-julyaug07/DC_July07_MMSBlowouts.pdf. 

Jaap, W.C. and R. Halley. 2008. Pulley Ridge. In: Ritchie, K.B. and B.D. Keller, eds. A scientific 

forum on the Gulf of Mexico: The islands in the stream concept. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Sanctuary Program, Silver Spring, MD. 

Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series NMSP-08-04. Pp. 45-48. Internet website: http://

sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/conservation/pdfs/gom.pdf. 

Jaap, W.C. and P. Hallock. 1991. Coral reefs. In: Myers, R.L. and J.J. Ewel, eds. Ecosystems of 

Florida. Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida Press. Pp. 574-616. 

Jackson, J.B.C., J.D. Cubit, B.D. Keller, V. Batista, K. Burns, H.M. Caffey, R.L. Caldwell, S.D. Garrity, 

C.D. Getter, C. Gonzalez, H.M. Guzman, K.W. Kaufmann, A.H. Knap, S.C. Levings, M.J. Marshall, 

R. Steger, R.C. Thompson, and E. Weil. 1989. Ecological effects of a major oil spill on Panamanian 

coastal marine communities. Science 243:37-44. 

Jackson, L.E., J.C. Kurtz, and W.S. Fisher. 2000. Evaluation guidelines for ecological indicators. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/620/R-99/005. Internet 

website: http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/pubs/docs/resdocs/ecol_ind.pdf. 

Jarrett, B.D., A.C. Hine, A.C. Neumann, D. Naar, S. Locker, D. Mallinson, and W. Jaap. 2002. Deep 

biostromes at Pulley Ridge, southwest Florida carbonate platform. University of South Florida, St. 

Petersburg, FL. Internet website: http://rubicon-foundation.org/dspace/bitstream/123456789/8968/1/

AAUS_2000_8.pdf. 

Jefferson, T.A., S. Leatherwood, L.K.M. Shoda, and R.L. Pitman. 1992. Marine mammals of the Gulf of 

Mexico: A field guide for aerial and shipboard observers. Texas A&M University Printing Center, 

College Station, TX. 92 pp. 

Jenssen, B.M. 1994. Review article: Effects of oil pollution, chemically treated oil, and cleaning on the 

thermal balance of birds. Environmental Pollution 86:207-215. 

Jenssen, B.M. and M. Ekker. 1991. Effects of plumage contamination with crude oil disperant mixtures 

on thermoregulation in common eiders and mallards. Archives of Environmental Contamination and 

Toxicology 20:398-403. 

Jernelöv, A. and O. Lindén. 1981. Ixtoc I: A case study of the world’s largest oil spill. Ambio 

10(6):299-306. 

Ji, Z.-G., W.R. Johnson, C.F. Marshall, and E.M. Lear. 2007. Oil spill risk analysis: Gulf of Mexico 

outer continental shelf (OCS) lease sales, Central Planning Area and Western Planning Area, 2007-

2012, and Gulfwide OCS Program, 2007-2046. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Environmental Division, Herndon, VA. OCS Report MMS 2007-040. 59 pp. 

Jindal, B. 2010. Governor Jindal letter to President Obama and Secretary Salazar: Severe impacts of 

moratorium on deepwater drilling. Press Release, June 3, 2010. Internet website: http://

emergency.louisiana.gov/Releases/06032010-letter.html. Accessed January 13, 2011. 

Jochens, A.E., L.C. Bender, S.F. Di Marco, J.W. Morse, M.C. Kennicutt II, M.K. Howard, and 

W.D. Nowlin, Jr. 2005. Understanding the processes that maintain the oxygen levels in the deep 

Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2005-032. 129 pp. 

Jochens, A., D. Biggs, K. Benoit-Bird, D. Engelhaupt, J. Gordon, C. Hu, N. Jaquet, M. Johnson, 

R. Leben, B. Mate, P. Miller, J. Ortega-Ortiz, A. Thode, P. Tyack, and B. Würsig. 2008. Sperm 

whale seismic study in the Gulf of Mexico: Synthesis report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2008-006. 

341 pp. 
References Cited 6-41 

Johansen, O., H. Rye, and C. Cooper. 2001. DeepSpill JIP—field study of simulated oil and gas 

blowouts in deep water. In: Proceedings from the Fifth International Marine Environment Modeling 

Seminar, October 9-11, 2001, New Orleans, LA. 377 pp. 

Johnsgard, P.A. 1975. Waterfowl of North America. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. 

624 pp. 

Johnson, W.B. and J.G. Gosselink. 1982. Wetland loss directly associated with canal dredging in the 

Louisiana coastal zone. In: Boesch, D.F., ed. Proceedings of the Conference on Coastal Erosion and 

Wetland Modification in Louisiana: Causes, Consequences, and Options, Baton Rouge, LA. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/59. Pp. 60-72. 

Johnson, G.C., R.E. Kidd, C.A. Journey, H. Zappia, and J.B. Atkins. 2002. Environmental setting and 

water-quality issues of the Mobile River Basin, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4162. 61 pp. 

Johnston, J.B., D.R. Cahoon, and M.K. La Peyre. 2009. Outer continental shelf (OCS)-related pipelines 

and navigation canals in the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico: Relative impacts on wetland 

habitats and effectiveness of mitigation. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2009-048. 200 pp. 

Joint Analysis Group. 2010a. Review of R/V Brooks McCall data to examine subsurface oil. Internet 

website: http://www.noaa.gov/sciencemissions/PDFs/

JAG_Report_1_BrooksMcCall_Final_June20.pdf. Accessed October 14, 2010. 

Joint Analysis Group. 2010b. Review of preliminary data to examine oxygen levels in the vicinity of 

MC525#1. May 8 to August 9, 2010. Internet website: http://www.noaa.gov/sciencemissions/PDFs/

JAG_Oxygen_Report%20(FINAL%20090410).pdf. Accessed October 19, 2010. 

Jones, R.J. and A.J. Heyward. 2003. The effects of produced formation water (PFW) on coral and 

isolated symbiotic dinoflagellates of coral. Marine and Freshwater Research 54:153-162. 

Joye, S. 2010. Focusing in on oil, scientist’ log from September 5, 2010, aboard the R/V Oceanus in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico. Gulf Oil Blog, University of Georgia, Dept. of Marine Sciences. Internet 

website: http://gulfblog.uga.edu/2010/09/focusing-in-on-oil. Accessed September 15, 2010. 

Joye,S. I Leifer, I.R. MacDonald, J.P. Chanton, C.D. Meile, A.P. Teske, J.E. Kostka, L. Chistoserdova, 

R. Coffin, D. Hollander, M. Kastner, J.P. Montoya, G. Rehder, E. Solomon, T. Treude, and 

T.A. Villareal. 2011. Comment on “A persistent oxygen anomaly reveals the rate of spilled methane 

in the deep Gulf of Mexico.” Science 27 May 2011, 332(6033):1033. doi:10.1126/science.1203307. 

Internet website: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6033/1033.3.full. Accessed November 18, 

2011.

Kaplan, M.F. and C. Whitman. Unpublished. Measuring the economic impact of tourism and recreation 

industries on Gulf Coast communities—Relationship between OCS development and coastal 

resources (2008). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, New Orleans, LA. Contract No. 1435-01-99-CA-30951-18261. x + 164 pp. 

Kaplan, M.F., A. Laughland, and J. Mott. In preparation. OCS-related infrastructure fact book. Volume 

II: Communities in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEMRE 2011-044. 

Karl, T.R., J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson, eds. 2009. Global climate change impacts in the United 

States. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 180 pp. Internet website: http://

downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf. 

Keim, B. and R.A. Muller. 2009. Hurricanes of the Gulf of Mexico. Louisiana State University Press, 

Baton Rouge, LA. 

Kemp, G.P. 1986. Mud deposition at the shoreface: Wave and sediment dynamics on the Chenier Plain 

of Louisiana. Ph.D. dissertation. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. 148 pp. 
6-42 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Kemp, W.M. 1989. Estuarine seagrasses. In: Day, J.W., Jr., C.A.S. Hall, W.M. Kemp, and A. YanezArancibia, eds. Estuarine ecology. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. 558 pp. 

Kendall, J.J. and G. Rainey. 1991. Produced waters: Findings of recent studies in the coastal waters of 

Louisiana; session introduction. In: Geo-Marine, Inc., comp. Proceedings: Eleventh Annual Gulf of 

Mexico Information Transfer Meeting, November 1990. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gul of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 91-0040. 

524 pp. 

Kendall, J.J., E.N. Powell, S.J. Connor, and T.J. Bright. 1983. The effects of drilling fluids (muds) and 

turbidity on the growth and metabolic state of the coral Acropora cervicornic, with comments on 

methods of normalization for coral data. Bulletin of Marine Science 33(2):336-352. 

Kennedy, C.J., N.J. Gassman, and P.J. Walsh. 1992. The fate of benzo[a]pyrene in the Scleractinian 

corals Favia fragrum and Montastrea annularis. Marine Biology 113:313-318. 

Kennet, J.P. 1982. Marine geology. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 752 pp. 

Kennicutt II, M.C., ed. 1995. Gulf of Mexico offshore operations monitoring experiment, Phase I: 

Sublethal responses to contaminant exposure, final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 95-0045. 

709 pp. 

Kennicutt II, M.C., J.M. Brooks, R.R. Bidigare, R.A. Fay, T.L. Wade and T.J. McDonald. 1985. Vent 

type taxa in a hydrocarbon seep region on the Louisiana slope. Nature (London) 317:351-353. 

Kennicutt II, M.C., J. Sericano, T. Wade, F. Alcazar, and J.M. Brooks. 1987. High-molecular weight 

hydrocarbons in the Gulf of Mexico continental slope sediment. Deep-Sea Research 34:403-424. 

Kennicutt II, M.C., P.N. Boothe, T.L. Wade, S.T. Sweet, R. Rezak, F.J. Kelly, J.M. Brooks, B.J. Presley, 

and D.A. Wiesenburg. 1996. Geochemical patterns in sediments near offshore production platforms. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 53: 2554-2566. 

Kenworthy, W.J. and M.S. Fonseca. 1996. Light requirements of seagrasses Halodule wrightii and 

Syringodium filiforme derived from the relationship between diffuse light attenuation and maximum 

depth distribution. Estuaries 19(3):740-750. 

Kenworthy, W.J., M.J. Durako, S.M.R. Fatemy, H. Valavis, and G.W. Thayer. 1993. Ecology of 

seagrasses in northeastern Saudi Arabia one year after the Gulf War spill. Marine Pollution Bulletin 

27:213-222. 

Kessler, J.D., D.L Valentine, M.C. Redmond, M. Du., E.W. Chan, S.D. Mendes, E.W. Quiroz, 

C.J. Villanueva, S.S. Shusta, L.M. Werra, S.A. Yvon-Lewis, and T.C. Weber. 2011a. A persistent 

oxygen anomaly reveals the fate of spilled methane in the deep Gulf of Mexico. Science Express. 

Internet website: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/01/05/science.1199697. Posted 

January 6, 2011. Accessed May 20, 2011. 

Kessler, J.D., D.L. Valentine, M.C. Redmond, and M. Du. 2011b. Response to comment on 

“A persistent oxygen anomaly reveals the fate of spilled methane in the deep Gulf of Mexico.” 

Science 27 May 2011, 332(6033):1033. doi:10.1126/science.1203428. Internet website: http://

www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6033/1033.4.full. Accessed November 18, 2011.

Khan, R.A. and P. Ryan. 1991. Long-term effects of crude oil on common murres (Uria aalge) 

following rehabilitation. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 46:216-218. 

Khodorevskaya, R.P., O.L. Zhravleva, and A.D. Vlasenko. 1997. Present status of commercial stocks of 

sturgeons in the Caspian Sea basin. Environ. Biol. Fish. 48:209-219. 

Kilpatrick, A.M., S.L. LaDeau, and P.P. Marra. 2007. Ecology of West Nile virus transmission and its 

impact on birds in the Western Hemisphere. Auk 124:1121-1136. 

King, W.E. 2007. Energy alternatives and the environment. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Herndon, VA. OCS Report MMS 2007-016. 46 pp. 
References Cited 6-43 

King, B.A. and F.A McAllister. 1998. Modelling the dispersion of produced water discharges. The 

APPEA Journal 38(Part I):681-691. 

Kingston, P.F. 1995. The Exxon Valdez and Braer oil spills; a comparison of their impacts on the marine 

environment. Deutsche Hydrographische Zeitschrift Supplement 5:59-72. 

Kingston, P.F., I.M.T. Dixon, S. Hamilton, and D.C. Moore. 1995. The impact of the Braer oil spill on 

the macrobenthic infauna of the sediments off the Shetland Isles. Marine Pollution Bulletin 

189:159-170. 

Kirk, J.P. 2007. Official communication. Information describing the latest unpublished sturgeon 

population estimates for Gulf sturgeon in the Pearl River. U.S. Dept. of the Army, Corps of 

Engineers, Engineering Research and Development Center. January 2007. 

Kirk, J.P. 2008. Gulf sturgeon movements in and near the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet. U.S. Dept. of 

the Army, Corps of Engineers, Engineering Research Development Center, Environmental Lab. 

ERDC/EL TR-08-18. 

Kirk, J.P. and H.R. Rogillio. 2007. Official communication. Information describing the latest 

unpublished sturgeon population estimates for Gulf sturgeon in the Pearl River. J.P. Kirk, U.S. Dept. 

of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS; and 

H.R. Rogillio, Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries, Lacombe, LA. 

Klasing, K., R. Donohoe, and J. Yamamoto. 2007. Dietary exposure to naphthalene in the Japanese quail 

(Coturnix coturnix japonica). In: Massey, J.G., ed. Proceedings of the Ninth International Effects of 

Oil on Wildlife Conference, Monterey, California, 2007, University of California at Davis Wildlife 

Health Center. 

Klein, M.L., S.R. Humphrey, and H.F. Percival. 1995. Effects of ecotourism on distribution of 

waterbirds in a wildlife refuge. Conservation Biology 9:1454-1465. 

Kleypas, J.A., J.W. McManus, and L.A.B. Meñtz. 1999a. Environmental limits to coral reef 

development: Where do we draw the line? American Zoologist 39:146-159. 

Knap, A.H. 1987. Effects of chemically dispersed oil on the brain coral, Diploria strigosa. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin 18(3):119-122. 

Knap, A.H., J.E. Solbakken, R.E. Dodge, T.D. Sleeter, S.J. Wyers, and K.H. Palmork. 1982. 

Accumulation and elimination of (9-14C) phenanthrene in the reef-building coral (Diploria strigosa). 

Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 28:281-284. 

Knap, A.H., T.D. Sleeter, R.E. Dodge, S.C. Wyers, H.R. Frith, and S.R. Smith. 1983. The effects of oil 

spills and dispersant use on corals: A review and multidisciplinary experimental approach. Oil and 

Petrochemical Pollution 1(3):157-169. 

Ko, J-Y. and J.W. Day. 2004a. A review of ecological impacts of oil and gas development on coastal 

ecosystems in the Mississippi delta. Ocean and Coastal Management 47(11-12):597-623. 

Ko, J-Y. and J.W. Day. 2004b. Wetlands: Impacts of energy development in the Mississippi Delta. 

Encyclopedia of Energy, Volume 6. Elsevier Inc. Pp. 397-408. Internet website: http://

www.lsu.edu/cei/research_projects/Wetlands_final.pdf. 

Kokaly, R.F., D. Heckman, J. Holloway, S. Piazza, B. Couvillion, G.D. Steyer, C. Mills, and 

T.M. Hoefen. 2011. Shoreline surveys of oil impacted marsh in southern Louisiana, July to August 

2010. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey Open File Report 2011-1022. 124 pp. 

Korschgen, C.E., L.S. George, and W.L. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on a 

migrational staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:290-296. 

Kou, W.W. 2010. Direct seismic indicators of gas hydrates in the Walker Ridge and Green Canyon 

Areas, deepwater Gulf of Mexico. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Search and 

Discovery Article #80112. Internet website: http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2010/

80112kou/ndx_kou.pdf. Posted October 22, 2010.
6-44 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Krapu, G.L., J.L. Eldridge, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and D.A. Buhl. 2006. Fat dynamics of Arctic-nesting 

sandpipers during spring in mid-continental North America. Auk 123:323-334. 

Kraus, R.T., R.L. Hill, J.R. Rooker, and T.M. Dellapenna. 2006. Preliminary characterization of a midshelf bank in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico as essential habitat of reef fishes. In: Proceedings of 

the 57th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, November 8-12, 2004, St. Petersburg, FL. 

Pp. 621-632. 

Kraus, R.T., C. Friess, R.L. Hill, and J.R. Rooker. 2007. Characteristics of the snapper-grouper-grunt 

complex, benthic habitat description, and patterns of reef fish recruitment at Sonnier Bank in the 

northwestern Gulf of Mexico. In: Proceedings of the 59th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, 

November 6-11, 2006, Belize City, Belize. Pp. 165-170. 

Krivor, M.C., J. de Bry, N.J. Linville, and D.J. Wells. In press. Archival investigations for potential 

colonial-era shipwrecks in ultra-deep water in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEMRE 2011-004. 158 pp. 

Krone, M.A. and D.C. Biggs. 1980. Sublethal metabolic responses to the hermatypic coral Madracis 

decactis exposed to drilling mud enriched with ferrochrome lignosulfonate. In: Proceedings, 

Volume 2. Research on the Environmental Fate and Effects of Drilling Fluids and Cuttings, 

January 21-24, 1980, Lake Buena Vista, FL. Pp. 1097-1100. (ERL,GB X167). 

Kruse, G.O. and D.L. Scarnecchia. 2002. Assessment of bioaccumulated metal and organochlorine 

compounds in relation to physiological biomarkers in Kootenai River white sturgeon. J. App. 

Ichthyol. 18:430-438. 

Kuhn, N.L., I.A. Mendelssohn, and D.J. Reed. 1999. Altered hydrology effects on Louisiana salt marsh 

function. Wetlands 19:3. 

Kushmaro, A., G. Henning, D.K. Hofmann, and Y. Benayahu. 1997. Metamorphosis of Heteroxenia 

fuscescens Plaunlae (Cnidaria: Octocorallia) is inhibited by crude oil: A novel short term toxicity 

bioassay. Marine Environmental Research 43(4):295-302. 

LA 1 Coalition. 2010a. LA 1 Coalition continues aggressive efforts to fund phase 2 of highway project 

in the wake of Tiger 2 grant results. Press Release. Internet website: http://la1coalition.org/images/

Oct21_10LA1NewsRelease.pdf. Accessed December 3, 2010. 

LA 1 Coalition. 2010b. One to One. Fall 2010 Newsletter. Internet website: http://

www.la1coalition.org/images/Fall2010webLA1news.pdf. 

LaCoast.gov. 2010a. CWPPRA projects. Internet website. http://www.lacoast.gov/projects/list.asp. 

Accessed January 13, 2011. 

LaCoast.gov. 2010b. Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act: Summary of wetland 

benefit for priority list projects. Internet website: http://www.lacoast.gov/reports/wva/CWPPRA%20

project%20benefits%202010-03-22.pdf. Posted March 22, 2010. Accessed May 24, 2010. 

LaCoast.gov. 2010c. The Calcasieu/Sabine Basin. Internet website: http://lacoast.gov/new/About/

Basin_data/cs/Default.aspx. Accessed September 29, 2010. 

LaCoast.gov. 2011. Atchafalaya Basin: Summary of basin plan. Internet website: http://lacoast.gov/

new/About/Basin_data/at/Default.aspx. Accessed January 28, 2011. 

Lack, D.L. 1968. Ecological adaptations for breeding in birds. London: Methuen. 409 pp. 

LaDeau, S.L., A.M. Kilpatrick, and P.P. Marra. 2007. West Nile virus emergence and large-scale 

declines of North American bird populations. Nature 447:710-714 and Supplementary Information, 

10 pp. 

Lambert, G., D.B. Peakall, B.J.R. Philogene, and F.R. Engelhardt. 1982. Effect of oil and oil dispersant 

mixtures on the basal metabolic rate of ducks. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and 

Toxicology 29:520-524. 
References Cited 6-45 

Lange, R. 1985. A 100-ton experimental oil spill at Halten Bank, off Norway. In: Proceedings, 1985 

Oil Spill Conference, February 25-28, 1985, Los Angeles, CA. Washington, DC: American 

Petroleum Institute. 

Lange, J.L., D.A. Schwartz, B.N. Doebbeling, J.M. Heller, and P.S. Thorne. 2002. Exposures to the 

Kuwait oil fires and their association with asthma and bronchitis among Gulf War veterans. 

Environmental Health Perspectives 110(11):1141-1146. 

Lassuy, D.R. 1983. Species profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements (Gulf of Mexico)—

brown Shrimp. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services, 

FWS/OBS-82/11.1. U.S. Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 15 pp. 

Lavoie, D., J.G., Flocks, J.L. Kindinger, A.H. Sallengaer, and D.C. Twichell. 2010. Effects of building a 

sand barrier berm to mitigate the effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on Louisiana marshes. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey. Open-File Report 2010-1108. 7 pp. Internet website: 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1108/pdf/of2010-1108.pdf. 

Leahy, J.G. and R.R. Colwell. 1990. Microbial degradation of hydrocarbons in the environment. 

Microbiological Reviews 54(3):305-315. 

LeBlanc, D.J. 1985. Environmental and construction techniques involved with the installation of a gas 

pipeline across Timbalier Island, Louisiana. In: Proceedings, Sixth Annual Gulf of Mexico 

Information Transfer Meeting, October 22-24, 1985. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 86-0073. 

Pp. 203-205. 

Leblanc, D. 2010. Official communication. Lack of ecological change in the beach mouse after the 

Deepwater Horizon event. Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Ecological Services Office, Daphne, AL. July 6, 2010. 

Lee, M.R. and T.C. Blanchard. 2010. Health impacts of Deepwater Horizon oil disaster on coastal 

Louisiana residents. Louisiana State University, Department of Sociology, Baton Rouge, LA. 

Lee, D.S. and M.L. Moser. 1998. Importance des Sargasses pelagiques pour la recherché alimentaire des 

oiseaux marins. El Pitirre 11(3):111-112. 

Leighton, F.A. 1993. The toxicity of petroleum oils to birds. Environmental Reviews 1:92-103. 

Lewis, J.B. 1971. Effect of crude oil and an oil-spill dispersant on reef corals. Marine Pollution Bulletin 

2:59-62. 

Lewis, A. and D. Aurand. 1997. Putting dispersants to work: Overcoming obstacles. 1997 International 

Oil Spill Conference. API 4652A. Technical Report IOSC-004. 

LGL Ecological Research Associates Inc. 1990. Characterization of the chemosynthetic fauna at Viosca 

Knoll Block 826. Report for Oryx Energy. 35 pp. + plates. 

LGL Ecological Research Associates, Inc. and Texas A&M University. 1986. Gulf of Mexico 

continental slope study: Annual report, year 2. Volume II: Primary volume. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Office, Metairie, LA. OCS Study 

MMS 86-0090. 220 pp. 

Lin, Q. and I.A. Mendelssohn. 1996. A comparative investigation of the effects of South Louisiana 

Crude on the vegetation of fresh, brackish and salt marshes. Marine Pollution Bulletin 32:202-209. 

Lindstrom, J.E. and J.F. Braddock. 2002. Biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons at low temperature 

in the presence of the dispersant Corexit 9500. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44 (8):739-747. Internet 

website: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0025326X Accessed January 28, 2011. 

Lirman, D., G. Deangelo, J. Serafy, A. Hazra, D. Smith Hazra, J. Herlan, J. Lou, S. Bellmund, J. Wang, 

and R. Clausing. 2008. Seasonal changes in the abundance and distribution of submerged aquatic 

vegetation in a highly managed coastal lagoon. Hydrobiologia 596:105-120. 
6-46 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Lissner, A.L., G.L. Taghon, D.R. Diener, S.C. Schroeter, and J.D. Dixon. 1991. Recolonization of deepwater hard-substrate communities: Potential impacts from oil and gas development. Ecological 

Implications 1(3):258-267. 

Littler, D.S. and M.M. Littler. 2000. Caribbean reef plants; an identification guide to the reef plants of 

the Caribbean, Bahamas, Florida and Gulf of Mexico. Offshore Graphics Inc., FL. Pp. 280-290. 

Liu, K-B. and M.L. Fearn. 2000. Holocene history of catastrophic hurricane landfalls along the Gulf of 

Mexico coast reconstructed from coastal lake and marsh sediments. In: Nig, Z.H. and 

K.K. Abdollahi, eds. Current stresses and potential vulnerabilities: Implications of global change for 

the Gulf Coast region of the United States. Baton Rouge, LA: Franklin Press. 

Liu, A. and A. Plyer. 2010. The New Orleans Index at Five: An overview of greater New Orleans—

from recovery to transformation. Washington: Brookings Institution and Greater New Orleans 

Community Data Center. 20 pp. Internet website: https://gnocdc.s3.amazonaws.com/NOIat5/

Overview.pdf. 

Llacuna, S., A. Gorriz, M. Durfort, and J. Nadal. 1993. Effects of air pollution on passerine birds and 

small mammals. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 24:59-66. 

Locker, S. 2008. Official communication. Information concerning the Sticky Mounds 185 km west of 

Tampa Bay, Florida. Unpublished cruise plan of the Florida Institute of Oceanography, R/V Bellows, 

for October 27-29, 2008. University of South Florida, Dept. of Marine Sciences, St. Petersburg, FL. 

Lohoefener, R., W. Hoggard, K. Mullin, C. Roden, and C. Rogers. 1990. Association of sea turtles with 

petroleum platforms in the north-central Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, Louisiana. OCS Study MMS 

90-0025. 90 pp. 

Lohr, K. 2010. Louisiana Gulf Coast businesses lament losses. National Public Radio. October 13, 

2010. Internet website: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130537922. 

Accessed November 12, 2010. 

Long, B.F. and J.H. Vandermuelen. 1983. Geomorphological impact of cleanup of an oiled salt marsh 

(Ile Grande, France). In: Proceedings, 1983 Oil Spill Conference, February 28-March 3, 1983, San 

Antonio, TX. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. Pp. 501-505. 

Longley, W.L., ed. 1994. Freshwater inflows to Texas bays and estuaries: Ecological relationships and 

methods for determination of needs. Texas Water Development Board and Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Department, Austin, TX. 386 pp. 

Longwell, A.C. 1977. A genetic look at fish eggs and oil. Oceanus 20(4):46-58. 

Loren C. Scott & Associates. 2008. The economic impacts of Port Fourchon on the national and Houma 

MSA economies. 31 pp. Internet website: http://www.portfourchon.com/site100-01/1001757/docs/

port_fourchon_economic_impact_study.pdf. 

Louisiana Bucket Brigade. 2010. Self-reported health and economic impact survey: An analysis of the 

Deepwater Horizon spill disaster in four coastal Louisiana parishes. March 3, 2011. Internet 

website: http://www.labucketbrigade.org/article.php?id=718. Accessed December 6, 2011. 

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force. 1993. Coastal Wetland Planning, 

Protection, and Restoration Act: Louisiana coastal wetlands restoration plan; main report and 

environmental impact statement. Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task 

Force, Baton Rouge, LA. 

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force. 2006. The 2006 evaluation report 

to the U.S. Congress on the effectiveness of Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration 

Act projects. Submitted by the Chairman of the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and 

Restoration Task Force, U.S. Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, New 

Orleans, LA. 73 pp. 
References Cited 6-47 

Louisiana Dept. of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism. 2010. Louisiana’s State parks, historic sites and 

preservation area. Internet website: http://www.crt.state.la.us/parks/iparkmap.aspx. Accessed 

April 14, 2011. 

Louisiana Dept. of Environmental Quality. 2004. Louisiana environmental inventory report, 2nd annual 

edition, April 2004. Baton Rouge, LA. 92 pp. 

Louisiana Dept. of Environmental Quality. 2010. Louisiana Administrative Code. Title 33: 

Environmental quality; Part III. Air. Chapter 21: Control of emission of organic compounds. 

Section 2108: Marine vapor recovery. Pp. 144-146. Internet website: http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/

portal/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=wEHlil1kyQ8%3d&tabid=1674. Accessed April 17, 2011. 

Louisiana Dept. of Health & Hospitals. 2008. Disease Cluster Investigation Program: Fact sheet. 

Louisiana Dept. of Health & Hospitals, Center for Environmental Health, Baton Rouge, LA. Internet 

website: http://new.dhh.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/page/563. Accessed in July 2011. 

Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources. 1998. Coast 2050: Toward a sustainable coastal Louisiana. 

Report of the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands 

Conservation and Restoration Authority. Baton Rouge, LA. 173 pp. Internet website: http://

www.coast2050.gov/products/docs/orig/2050report.pdf. 

Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources. 2009. Louisiana is proud to be a hub of industry. 6 pp. Internet 

website: http://dnr.louisiana.gov/assets/docs/hub-of-business_brochure.pdf. Accessed January 23, 

2011. 

Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources. 2010. Production information. SONRIS lite. Internet website: 

http://sonris-www.dnr.state.la.us/www_root/sonris_portal_1.htm. Accessed October 6, 2010. 

Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries. 2008a. The impact of Hurricane Gustav on the fisheries 

resources of Louisiana: Preliminary report. September 8, 2008. 4 pp. 

Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries. 2008b. The impact of Hurricane Ike on the fisheries resources 

of Louisiana: Preliminary report. October 2, 2008. 5 pp. 

Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries. 2009. L.D.W.F. fisheries recovery assessment will benefit 

commercial fishermen and seafood dealers. News Release, April 17, 2009. Internet website: http://

wlf.louisiana.gov/news/30198. Accessed May 18, 2011. 

Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries. 2010a. Oyster stock assessment report of the public oyster 

areas in Louisiana. Oyster Data Report Series No. 16. July, 2010. 

Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries. 2010b. Artificial reef program (maps). Internet website: 

http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/fishing/artificial-reef-program. Accessed April 15, 2011. 

Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries. 2010c. Louisiana fishing regulations 2010—recreational. 

48 pp. Internet website: http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/publication/31743-

recreational-fishing-regulations/2011_rec_fish.pdf. 

Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries. 2011. Frequently asked questions (FAQ). Whooping crane 

reintroduction in Louisiana; questions and answers about the environmental assessment and 

nonessential, experimental designation history and background. http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/

wildlife/faq

Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association. 2010. Impact of President Obama’s order halting 

work on 33 exploratory wells in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Internet website: http://

www.lmoga.com/Economic%20Impacts%20of%20Gulf%20Moratorium.pdf. Accessed July 7, 2010. 

Louisiana Sea Grant. 2006. Louisiana hurricane resources, barrier islands & wetlands. Internet website: 

http://www.laseagrant.org/hurricane/archive/wetlands.htm. Accessed September 29, 2010. 

Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium (LUMCON). 2008. Dead zone again rivals record size. Press 

Release, July 28, 2008. Internet website: http://www.gulfhypoxia.net/. Accessed May 4, 2009. 
6-48 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium (LUMCON). 2009. Gulf of Mexico dead zone surprisingly 

small in area, but severe. Press Release, July 24, 2009. Internet website: http://

www.gulfhypoxia.net/Research/Shelfwide%20Cruises/2009/Files/Press_Release.pdf/. Accessed 

August 24, 2009. 

Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium (LUMCON). 2010. 2010 Dead zone—one of the largest ever. 

LUMCON News. Internet website: http://www.lumcon.edu/Information/news/default.asp?

XMLFilename=201008021451.xml. Accessed August 10, 2010. 

Loya, Y. 1975. Possible effects of water pollution on the community structure of Red Sea corals. 

Marine Biology 29:177-185. 

Loya, Y. 1976a. Recolonization of Red Sea corals affected by natural catastrophes and man-made 

perturbations. Ecology 57:278-289. 

Loya, Y. 1976b. Effects of water turbidity and sedimentation on the community structure of Puerto 

Rican corals. Bulletin of Marine Science 26(4):450-466. 

Loya, Y. and B. Rinkevich. 1979. Abortion effect in corals induced by oil pollution. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series 1:77-80. 

Lu, L. and R.S.S. Wu. 2006. A field experimental study on recolonization and succession of 

macrobenthic infauna in defaunated sediment contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons. Estuarine, 

Coastal and Shelf Science 68:627-634. 

Lubchenco, J.L., M. McNutt, B. Lehr, M. Sogge, M. Miller, S. Hammond, and W. Conner. 2010. BP 

Deepwater Horizon oil budget: What happened to the oil? Internet website: http://

www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/PDFs/OilBudget_description_%2083final.pdf. Accessed 

September 8, 2010. 

Ludwick, J.C. and W.R. Walton. 1957. Shelf-edge, calcareous prominences in the northeastern Gulf of 

Mexico. Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 41(9):2054-2101. 

Lugo-Fernandez, A., D.A. Ball, M. Gravois, C. Horrell, and J.B. Irion. 2007. Analysis of the Gulf of 

Mexico’s Veracruz-Havana route of La Flota de la Nueva España. Journal of Maritime Archaeology

2(1):24-47. 

Lutcavage, M.E., P. Plotkin, B. Witherington, and P.L. Lutz. 1997. Human impacts on sea turtle 

survival. In: Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick, eds. The biology of sea turtles. Boca Raton, FL: CRC 

Press, Inc. Pp. 387-409. 

Luton, H.H. and R.E. Cluck. 2004. Social impact assessment and offshore oil and gas in the Gulf of 

Mexico. In: Proceedings, 24th Annual Conference, International Association for Impact Assessment, 

24-30 April 2004, Vancouver, Canada. 

Lyons, T.J. and W.D. Scott. 1990. Principles of air pollution meteorology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 

Inc. 225 pp. 

Lytle, J.S. 1975. Fate and effects of crude oil on an estuarine pond. In: Proceedings, Conference on 

Prevention and Control of Oil Pollution, San Francisco, CA. Pp. 595-600. 

Mac, M.J., P.A. Opler, C.E. Puckett Haecker, and P.D. Doran. 1998. Status and trends of the Nation’s 

biological resources: Volume 1 (pp. 1-436). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, Reston, 

VA. P. 391. Internet website: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/sandt/SNT.pdf. Accessed September 29, 

2010. 

MacDonald, I.R., ed. 1992. Chemosynthetic ecosystems study literature review and data synthesis, 

northern Gulf of Mexico: Volumes I-III. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 92-0033, 92-0034, and 92-0035. 

25, 218, and 263 pp., respectively. 
References Cited 6-49 

MacDonald, I.R., ed. 1998. Stability and change in Gulf of Mexico chemosynthetic communities: 

Interim report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 98-0034. 114 pp. 

MacDonald, I.R., ed. 2002. Stability and change in Gulf of Mexico chemosynthetic communities. 

Volume II: Technical report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2002-036. 465 pp. 

MacDonald, I.R., G.S. Boland, J.S. Baker, J.M. Brooks, M.C. Kennicutt II, and R.R. Bidigare. 1989. 

Gulf of Mexico hydrocarbon seep communities. II. Spatial distribution of seep organisms and 

hydrocarbons at Bush Hill. Marine Biology 101:235-247. 

MacDonald, I.R., N.L. Guinasso, Jr., J.F. Reilly, J.M. Brooks, W.R. Callender, and S.G. Gabrielle. 1990. 

Gulf of Mexico hydrocarbon seep communities. VI. Patterns in community structure and habitat. 

Geo-Marine Letters 10:244-252. 

MacDonald, I.R., N.L. Guinasso Jr., S.G. Ackleson, J.F. Amos, R. Duckworth, R. Sassen, and 

J.M. Brooks. 1993. Natural oil slicks in the Gulf of Mexico visible from space. Journal of 

Geophysical Research 98(C9):16,351-16,364. 

MacDonald, I.R., N.L. Guinasso, R. Sassen, J.M. Brooks, S. Lee, and K.T. Scott. 1994. Gas hydrates 

that breach the sea-floor and intersect with the water column on the continental slope of the Gulf of 

Mexico. Geology 22:699-702. 

MacDonald, I.R., W.W. Schroeder, and J.M. Brooks, eds. 1995. Chemosynthetic ecosystems study: 

Final report. Volume 2: Technical report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 95-0022. 319 pp. 

MacDonald, I.R., J.F. Reilly Jr., W.E. Best, R. Vnkataramaiah, R. Sassen, N.S. Guinasso Jr., and J. Amos. 

1996. Remote sensing inventory of active oil seeps and chemosynthetic communities in the northern 

Gulf of Mexico. In: Schumacher, D. and M.A. Abrams, eds. Hydrocarbon migration and its nearsurface expression. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 66:27-37. 

Mackar, R. 2010. NIH to launch Gulf oil spill health study. Environmental Factor: Your online source 

for NIEHS news. Internet website: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsletter/2010/october/

spotlight-launch.cfm. Accessed October 2010. 

Mackin, J.G. and A.K. Sparks. 1961. A study of the effect on oysters of crude oil loss from a wild well. 

Publications of the Institute of Marine Science 7:230-261. 

Macreadie, P.I., A.M. Fowler, and D.J. Booth. 2011. Rigs-to-reefs: Will the deep sea benefit from 

artificial habitat? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (e-view). doi:10.1890/100112. Internet 

website: http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/100112. Accessed September 22, 2011. 

Madge, S. and H. Burn. 1988. Waterfowl: An identification guide to the ducks, geese, and swans of the 

world. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. 298 pp. 

Magill, K. 2010. Local jobless rate remains lowest in La. Internet website: http://

www.houmatoday.com/article/20101123/ARTICLES/101129790. Accessed December 8, 2010. 

Maiaro, J.L. 2007. Disturbance effects on nekton communities of seagrasses and bare substrates in 

Biloxi Marsh, Louisiana. Master’s thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. 78 pp. 

Internet website: http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-07032007-101237/unrestricted/

Maiaro_thesis.pdf. 

Malins, D.C., S. Chan, H.O. Hodgins, U. Varanasi, D.D. Weber, and D.W. Brown. 1982. The nature and 

biological effects of weathered petroleum. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center, Environmental Conservation Division, Seattle, WA. 

43 pp. 

Malins, D.C., M.M. Krahn, M.S. Myers, L.D. Rhodes, D.W. Brown, C.A. Krone, B.B. McCain, and 

S-L. Chan. 1985. Toxic chemicals in sediments and biota from a creosote-polluted harbor: 
6-50 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

relationships with hepatic neoplasms and other hepatic lesions in English sole (Parophrys vetulus). 

Carcinogenesis 6:1463-469. 

Mallinson, D.J., A.C. Hine, S.D. Locker, and M.R. Hafen. 1998. The Florida Middle Ground: A 

complex product of geological, physical, and biological interactions. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Geological Survey, Center for Coastal Geology. Internet website: http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/wfla/

HTML/framework/ofr_f9.htm. 

Mallinson, D., B. Donahue, D. Naar, A. Hine, and S. Locker. 2006. Pleistocene and Holocene geologic 

controls on the Florida Middle Ground relict reef complex: A diverse benthic environment on the 

West Florida Shelf. 3th Ocean Sciences Meeting, February 2006, Honolulu HI. Internet website: 

http://www.agu.org/meetings/os06/os06-sessions/os06_OS26I.html. Accessed May 18, 2011. 

Mallman, E.P. and M.D. Zoback. 2007. Subsidence in the Louisiana coastal zone due to hydrocarbon 

production. Proceedings of the 9th International Coastal Symposium, Journal of Coastal Research SI 

50:443–449. Gold Coast, Australia. Internet website: http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/

ics2007/pdf/ICS085.pdf. 

Malme, C.I., P.W. Smith, and P.R. Miles. 1986. Characterization of geophysical acoustic survey sounds. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region, Los Angeles, CA. 

OCS Study 86-0032. 92 pp. 

Manville II, A.M. 2005. Bird strikes and electrocutions at power lines, communication towers, and wind 

turbines: State of the art and state of the science—next steps toward mitigation. In: Ralph, C.J. and 

T.D. Rich, eds. Bird conservation implementation in the Americas: Proceedings of the 3rd 

International Partners in Flight Conference, 2002. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191. 

Pp. 1051-1064. 

Manzella, S., J. Williams, B. Schroeder, and W. Teas. 2001. Juvenile head-started Kemp’s ridleys found 

in floating grass mats. Marine Turtle Newsletter 52:5-6. 

Marchent, S.R. and M.K. Shutters. 1996. Artificial substrates collect Gulf sturgeon eggs. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:445-447. 

Marine Resources Research Institute (MRRI). 1984. South Atlantic OCS area living marine resources 

study: Phase III; final report. Volume 1. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Washington, DC. Contract No. 14-12-0001-29185. Internet website: http://

www.gomr.boemre.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/4/4622.pdf. 239 pp. 

Marine Well Containment Company (MWCC). 2010. New oil spill containment system to protect Gulf 

of Mexico planned by major oil companies. Press Release, July 21, 2010. Internet website: http://

marinewellcontainment.com/press.php?pressid=1. Accessed December 27, 2010. 

Marine Well Containment Company (MWCC). 2011. Marine Well Containment Company interim 

system capping stack now usable in 10,000 feet of water. Press Release, June 14, 2011. Internet 

website: http://marinewellcontainment.com/pdfs/MWCC-10,000-Feet-Approval_061411.pdf. 

Accessed October 11, 2011. 

Market Dynamics Research Group. 2011. Oil spill research report: April 7, 2011. 55 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.crt.state.la.us/tourism/research/Documents/2010-11/

OilSpillReport_regional_nationwide20110407.pdf. 

Marshall, P.A. 2000. Skeletal damage in reef corals: Relating resistance to colony morphology. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series 200:177-189. 

Marszalek, D.S. 1981. Impact of dredging on a subtropical reef community, southeast Florida, USA. In: 

Proceedings of the Fourth International Coral Reef Symposium. Vol 1. May 18-22, 1981. Manila, 

Philippines. 
References Cited 6-51 

Martin, R.P. 1991. Regional overview of wading birds in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. In: 

Proceedings of the Coastal Nongame Workshop. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Region 4, and Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Pp. 22-33. 

Martin, R.P. and G.D. Lester. 1991. Atlas and census of wading bird and seabird nesting colonies in 

Louisiana: 1990. Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries, Louisiana Natural Heritage Program. 

Special Publication No. 3. 

Mascarelli, A. 2010. Deepwater Horizon: After the oil. Scientific American. Internet website: http://

www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=deepwater-horizon-after-the-oil. Posted September 1, 

2010. Accessed December 27, 2010. 

Mason, J. 2010. The economic cost of a moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration to the Gulf 

region. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. 

Mason, W.T. and J.P. Clugston. 1993. Foods of the Gulf sturgeon in the Suwannee River, Florida. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122(3):378-385. 

Massachusetts Technology Collaborative. 2005. A framework for offshore wind energy development in 

the United States. With the U.S. Dept. of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and GE 

Energy. 30 pp. Internet website: http://www.masstech.org/offshore/final_09_20.pdf. 

Matkin, C.O., E.L. Saulitis, G.M. Ellis, P. Olesiuk, and S.D. Rice. 2008. Ongoing population-level 

impacts on killer whales Orcinus orca following the “Exxon Valdez” oil spill in Prince William 

Sound, Alaska. Marine Ecology Progress Series 356:269-281. 

Matthews, J.R. and C.J. Moseley. 1990. The official world wildlife fund guide to endangered species of 

North America. Volume 2: Birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, mussels, crustaceans, snails, insects, 

and arachnids. Mississippi sandhill crane. Washington, DC: Beacham Publishing, Inc. 

Matthews, T. and B. Cameron, Jr. 2010. OCS regulatory framework for the Gulf of Mexico region. U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 

OCS Report MMS 2010-019. 24 pp. Internet website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PDFs/2010/

2010-019.pdf. 

Matthiessen, P. and J. P. Sumpter. 1998. Effects of estrogenic substances in the aquatic environment. In: 

Braunbeck, T., D.E. Hinton, and B. Streit, eds. Fish ecotoxicology. Birkhauser Verlag: Basel, 

Switzerland. 

Maze-Foley, K. and K.D. Mullin. 2006. Cetaceans of the oceanic northern Gulf of Mexico: 

Distributions, group sizes and interspecific associations. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8(2):203-213. 

McAuliffe, C.D. 1987. Organism exposure to volatile soluble hydrocarbons from crude oil spills—a 

field and laboratory comparison. In: Proceedings, 1987 Oil Spill Conference . . . April 6-9, 1988, 

Baltimore, MD. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. Pp. 275-288. 

McAuliffe, C.D., A.E. Smalley, R.D. Groover, W.M. Welsh, W.S. Pickle, and G.E. Jones. 1975. 

Chevron Main Pass Block 41 oil spill: Chemical and biological investigation. In: Proceedings, 1975 

Conference on Prevention and Control of Oil Pollution, March 25-27, 1975, San Francisco, CA. 

Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. 

McAuliffe, C.D., B.L. Steelman, W.L. Leek, D.E. Fitzgerald, J.P. Ray, and C.D. Baker. 1981a. The 

1979 southern California dispersant treated research oil spills. In: Proceedings 1981 Oil Spill 

Conference . . . March 2-5, 1981, Atlanta, GA. Washington DC: American Petroleum Institute. 

Pp. 269-282. 

McAuliffe, C.D., G.P. Canevari, T.D. Searl, J.C. Johnson, and S.H. Greene. 1981b. The dispersion and 

weathering of chemically treated crude oils on the sea surface. In: Petroleum and the Marine 

Environment. Proceedings of Petromar ’80. London: Graham and Trotman Ltd. 

McBride, R.A., S. Penland, M.W. Hiland, S.J. Williams, K.A. Westphal, B.J. Jaffe, and A.H. Sallenger. 

1992. Analysis of barrier shoreline change in Louisiana from 1853 to1989. In: Williams, S.J., S. 
6-52 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Penland, and A.H. Sallenger, eds. Atlas of shoreline changes in Louisiana from 1853 to 1989. U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey. Miscellaneous Investigation Series I-2150-A. Pp. 36-97. 

McCauley, R.D. and R.C. Harrel. 1981. Effects of oil spill cleanup techniques on a salt marsh. In: 

Proceedings, 1981 Oil Spill Conference . . . March 2-5, 1981, Atlanta, GA. Washington, DC: 

American Petroleum Institute. Pp. 401-407. 

McConnaughey, R.A., K.L. Mier, and C.B. Dew. 2000. An examination of chronic trawling effects on 

soft-bottom benthos of the eastern Bering Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:1377-1388. 

McCoy, M. and J. Salerno. 2010. Assessing the effects of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill on human 

health—workshop summary. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Pp. 43-74. 

McDonald, T.J., J.M. Brooks, and M.C. Kennicutt II. 1984. The effects of dispersant on incorporation of 

volatile liquid hydrocarbons into the water column. In: Allen. T.E, ed. Oil spill chemical 

dispersants: Research, experience, and recommendations. ASTM Committee F-20 on Hazardous 

Substances and Oil Spill Response. ASTM STP 840. 

McDonald, S.J., K.L. Willett, J. Thomsen, K.B. Beatty, K. Connor, T.R. Narasimhan, C.M. Erikson, and 

S.H. Safe. 1996. Sublethal detoxification responses to contaminant exposure associated with 

offshore production platforms. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 53:2606-2617. 

McGinnis, M.V., L. Fernandez, C. Pomeroy, S. Hitz, and C. Navarro. 2001. The politics, economics, 

and ecology of decommissioning offshore oil and gas structures. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Pacific OCS Region, Camarillo, CA. OCS Study MMS 2001-006. 98 pp. 

McGrattan, K.B., W.D. Walton, A.D. Putorti Jr., W.H. Twilley, J.A. McElroy, and D.D. Evans. 1995. 

Smoke plume trajectory from in situ burning of crude oil in Alaska—field experiments. In: 

Proceedings of the Eighteenth Arctic and Marine Oil spill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, 

Vol. 2, June 14-16, 1995, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 

McGrail, D. 1982. Water and sediment dynamics at the Flower Garden Banks. In: Norman, R., ed. 

Environmental studies at the Flower Gardens and selected banks: Northwestern Gulf of Mexico, 

1979-1981. Executive summary. Technical Report No. 82-8-T. Pp. 27-29. 

McIlgorm, A., H.F. Campbell, and M.J. Rule. 2009. Understanding the economic benefits and costs of 

controlling marine debris in the APEC region (MRC 02/2007). A report to the Asia-Pacific 

Economic Cooperation, Marine Resource Conservation Working Group by the National Marine 

Science Centre (University of New England and Southern Cross University). Coffs Harbour, NSW, 

Australia. APEC#209-MR-01.3. 95 pp. 

McKeithen, M.A. 2007. Testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: Hearing on oil 

and gas resources on the outer continental shelf and areas available for leasing in the Gulf of Mexico, 

January 25, 2007. Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources, Office of Mineral Resources. Internet 

website: http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/MarjoriesTestimonyFinal2.doc. Accessed 

February 16, 2011. 

McLaughlin, S.L. 1995. Roots, relics, and recovery: What went wrong with the Abandoned Shipwreck 

Act of 1987. Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & the Arts 19(3):149-198. 

McLelland, J.A. and R.W. Heard. 2004. Analysis of benthic macro-invertebrates from northern Florida 

shallow coastal area where Gulf sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi, are believed to forage. Final 

report to the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 27 pp. 

McLelland, J.A. and R.W. Heard. 2005. Analysis of benthic macro-invertebrates collected from Gulf 

sturgeon foraging grounds in northern Florida shallow coastal areas: Year 2. Final report to the U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 26 pp. 

MCS Advanced Subsea Engineering. 2010. Risk analysis of using a surface BOP. Prepared for the 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. TA&R Project 640. 113 pp. + apps. 

Internet website: http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/640/aa.pdf. 
References Cited 6-53 

McTigue, T.A. and R.J. Zimmerman. 1998. Use of infauna by juvenile Panaeus aztecus Ives and 

Panaeus setiferus (Linnaeus). Estuaries 21(1):160-175. 

Mechalas, B.J. 1974. Pathways and environmental requirements for biogenic gas production in the 

ocean. In: Kaplan, I.R., ed. Natural gases in marine sediments. Marine Science, Volume 3. New 

York, NY: Plenum Press. 

Meckel, T.A., U.S. tenBrink, and S.J. Williams. 2006. Current subsidence rates due to compaction of 

Holocene sediments in southern Louisiana. Geophysical Research Letters Volume 33, L11403. 

Internet website: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL026300.shtml. 

Melendez, J., J.J. Schubert, and M. Amani. 2006. Risk assessment of surface vs. subsurface BOPs on 

mobile offshore drilling units. Final project report prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service under the MMS/OTRC Cooperative Research Agreement 1435-01-04-

CA-35515. TA&R Project 540. 103 pp. Internet website: http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/540/

aa.pdf. 

Memphis State University. 1971. Effects of noise on wildlife and other animals. Prepared for the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Washington, DC, 

under contract number 68-04-0024. 

Mendelssohn, I.A. and M.W. Hester. 1988. Texaco USA: Coastal vegetation project, Timbalier Island. 

New Orleans, LA: Texaco USA. 207 pp. 

Mendelssohn, I.A., M.W. Hester, C. Sausser, and M. Fishel. 1990. The effect of a Louisiana crude oil 

discharge from a pipeline break on the vegetation of a southeast Louisiana brackish marsh. Oil and 

Chemical Pollution 7:1-15. 

Mendelssohn, I.A., M.W. Hester, and J.M. Hill. 1993. Effects of oil spills on coastal wetlands and their 

recovery. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 93-0045. 46 pp. 

Menzies, R.J., R.Y. George, and G.T. Rowe. 1973. Abyssal environment and ecology of the world 

oceans. Wiley-Interscience. 488 pp. 

Meo, S.A. 2009. Effect of duration of exposure to polluted air environment on lung function in subjects 

exposed to crude oil spill into sea water. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and 

Environmental Health 22(1):35-41. 

Mettee, M.F., T.E. Shepard, J.B. Smith, S.W. McGregor, C.C. Johnson and P.E. O’Neil. 2009. A survey 

for the Gulf sturgeon in the Mobile and Perdido Basins, Alabama. Geological Survey of Alabama. 

Open-File Report 0903. 94 pp. Internet website: http://www.gsa.state.al.us/gsa/eco/pdf/

OFR_0903.pdf. 

Meylan, A.B. and M. Donnelly. 1999. Status justification for listing the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys 

imbricata) as critically endangered on the 1996 IUCN Red List of threatened animals. Chelonian 

Conservation and Biology 3(2):200-204. 

Meylan, A. and D. Ehrenfeld. 2000. Conservation of marine turtles. In: Klemens, M.K., ed. Turtle 

conservation. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Pp. 96-125. 

Michel, J. 1992. Chapter 2. Oil behavior and toxicity. In: Hayes, M.O., R. Hoff, J. Michel, D. Scholz, 

and G. Shigenaka. An introduction to coastal habitats and biological resources for oil spill response. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Response and 

Restoration. NOAA Report No. HMRAD 92-4. Pp. 2-1 through 2-9. Internet website: http://

response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/678_Chapter2.pdf. 

Michot, T.C., C.W. Jeske, J.C. Mazourek, W.G. Vermillion, R.S. Kemmerer, and D. Baker. 2003. Atlas 

and census of wading bird and seabird nesting colonies in South Louisiana, 2001. BaratariaTerrebonne National Estuary Program Report No. 32. Thibodaux, LA. 93 pp. 
6-54 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Mikuska, T., J.A. Kushlan, and S. Hartley. 1998. Key areas for wintering North American herons. 

Colonial Waterbirds 21:125-134. 

Miller, B.K. and W.R. Fontenot. 2001. Birds of the Gulf Coast. Louisiana University Press, Baton 

Rouge. 132 pp. 

Mississippi Coalition of Vietnamese American Fisherfolk and Families. 2010. Mississippi Coalition 

preliminary report: Impact of BP oil spill on Vietnamese American communities and seafood 

industry. Internet website: http://www.mscenterforjustice.org/glomer/upload_repo/docs/MS%20

Coalition%20PrelimReport_FINAL_06%2004%2010.pdf. 20 pp. Accessed March 28, 2011. 

Mississippi Dept. of Marine Resources. 1999. Mississippi’s coastal wetlands. Distributed by Eric Clark, 

Secretary of State. 

Mississippi Dept. of Marine Resources. 2006. Coastal preserves. Internet website: http://

www.dmr.state.ms.us/coastal-ecology/preserves/cp-home.htm. Accessed September 29, 2010. 

Mississippi Dept. of Marine Resources. 2010a. Rigs-to-reef: Marine fisheries (artificial reef maps). 

Internet website: http://www.dmr.state.ms.us/Fisheries/Reefs/rigs-to-reef.htm. Accessed April 15, 

2011. 

Mississippi Dept. of Marine Resources. 2010b. Guide to Mississippi saltwater fishing: Rules and 

regulations; 2010-2011. 38 pp. Internet website: http://www.dmr.state.ms.us/publications/2010-

2011-reg-book.pdf. 

Mississippi Development Authority. Tourism Division. 2010. Fiscal year 2009 economic contribution 

of travel and tourism in Mississippi. 50 pp. Internet website: http://www.visitmississippi.org/

resources/FY2009_Economic_Contribution_Report_and_Cover.pdf. 

Mississippi Press. 2007. Sees salt dome as worst disaster since Katrina. News article. Internet website: 

http://www.gulflive.com/opinion/mississippipress/index.ssf?/base/opinion/119538457290590.xml. 

Accessed November 19, 2007. 

Mitchell, H. 2010. Official communication. Vulnerability of beach mice to damage of burrows by 

cleanup personnel. Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Ecological Services Office, Panama City, FL. 

Mitchell, R. and I. Chet. 1975. Bacterial attack of corals in polluted seawater. Microbial Ecology 

2:227-233. 

Mitchell, R., I.R. MacDonald, and K.A. Kvenvolden. 1999. Estimation of total hydrocarbon seepage into 

the Gulf of Mexico based on satellite remote sensing images. Transactions, American Geophysical 

Union 80(49), Ocean Sciences Meeting, OS242. 

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 2007. Wetlands. Hoboken, NY: John Wiley and Sons. 

Monaghan, P.H., C.D. McAuliffe, and F.T. Weiss. 1977. Environmental aspects of drilling muds and 

cuttings from oil and gas extraction operations in offshore and coastal waters. Presented at the 

Offshore Technology Conference, May 2-5, 1977, Houston, TX. Paper No. 2755-MS. 

Monaghan, P.H., C.D. McAuliffe, and F.T. Weiss. 1980. Chapter 15: Environmental aspects of drilling 

muds and cuttings from oil and gas operations in offshore and coastal waters. In: Geyer, R.A., ed. 

Marine Environmental Pollution, 1. Hydrocarbons. Elsevier Oceanography Series, 27A. 

Amsterdam. Pp. 412-432. 

Moncreiff, C.A. 2007. Statewide summary for Mississippi. In: Handley, D.A, D. Altsman, and 

R. DeMay, eds. Seagrass status and trends in the northern Gulf of Mexico: 1940-2002. U.S. Dept. 

of the Interior, Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5287 and 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 855-R-04-003. Pp. 73-76. Internet website: http://

pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5287/. Accessed May 13, 2011. 

Montagna, P.A. and D.E. Harper, Jr. 1996. Benthic infaunal long-term response to offshore production 

platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 53:2567-2588. 
References Cited 6-55 

Montagna, P. and T. Holmberg. 2000. Epibiont recruitment. In: McKay, M. and J. Nides. 2000. 

Proceedings: Eighteenth Annual Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer Meeting. December 1998. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Study MMS 2000-030. Pp. 347-352. 

Montagna, P.A. and J. Li. 1997. Modeling contaminant effects on deposit feeding nematodes near Gulf 

of Mexico production platforms. Ecological Modeling 98:151-162. 

Monterrey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. 2008. Florida’s ocean and coastal economies report: 

Phase II; facts and figures. 30 pp. 

Moody, R., S. Kerner, L. Biermann, J. Howard, and J. Cebrian. 2011. Temporal dynamics of nekton 

abundance in coastal fringing marshes: Impact of the oil spill? In: Proceedings of the 40th Benthic 

Ecology Meeting, March 16-20, 2011, Mobile, AL. 

Moore, J.J. 2006. State of the marine environment in SW Wales, 10 years after the Sea Empress oil spill. 

Prepared for Countryside Council for Wales. Marine Monitoring Report No. 21. 

Moore, D.R. and H.R. Bullis, Jr. 1960. A deep-water coral reef in the Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin of 

Marine Science 10(1):125-128. 

Moore, S.F. and R.L. Dwyer. 1974. Effects of oil on marine organisms: A critical assessment of 

published data. Water Research 8:819-827. 

Moridis, G.J., T.S. Collett, R. Boswell, M. Kurihara, M.T. Reagan, C. Koh, and E.D. Sloan. 2008. 

Toward production from gas hydrates: Current status, assessment of resources, and simulation-based 

evaluation of technology and potential. Society of Petroleum Engineers. Unconventional Reservoirs 

Conference, Keystone, CO, February 10-12, 2008. 43 pp. Internet website: http://

www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/publications/Hydrates/reports/G308_SPE114163_Feb08.pdf. 

Morita A., Y. Kusaka, Y. Deguchi, A. Moriuchi, Y. Nakanaga, M. Iki, S. Miyazaki, and K. Kawahara. 

1999. Acute health problems among the people engaged in the cleanup of the Nakhodka oil spill. 

Environmental Research 91:185-194.

Morrison, R.I.G. 1984. Migration systems of some New World shorebirds. In: Burger, J. and B.L. Olla, 

eds. Shorebirds: Migration and foraging behavior. Behavior of marine animals. Current 

Perspectives in Research 6:125-206. 

Morrison, R.I.G., R.E. Gill, Jr., B.A. Harrington, S. Skagen, G.W. Page, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and 

S.M. Haig. 2000. Population estimates of Nearctic shorebirds. Waterbirds 23:337-352. 

Morrison, R.I.G., R.E. Gill, Jr., B.A. Harrington, S. Skagen, G.W. Page, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and 

S.M. Haig. 2001. Estimates of shorebird populations in North America. Canadian Wildlife Service 

Occasional Paper No. 104, Ottawa, Ontario. 

Morrison, R.I.G., B.J. McCaffery, R.E. Gill, S.K. Skagen, S.L. Jones, G.W. Page, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and 

B.A. Andres. 2006. Population estimates of North American shorebirds. Wader Study Group 

Bulletin 111:67-85. 

Morton, R.A. 1982. Effects of coastal structures on shoreline stabilization and land loss—the Texas 

experience. In: Boesch, D.F., ed. Proceedings of the Conference on Coastal Erosion and Wetland 

Modification in Louisiana: Causes, Consequences, and Options. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program. FWS/OBS-82/59. 

Morton, R.A. 2003. An overview of coastal land loss: With emphasis on the southeastern United States. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey. USGS Open File Report 03-337. Internet website: 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-337/intro.html. Accessed May 11, 2010. 

Morton, R.A. 2008. Historical changes in the Mississippi-Alabama barrier-island chain and the roles of 

extreme storms, sea level, and human activities. Journal of Coastal Research 24(6):1587-1600. West 

Palm Beach (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208. 
6-56 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Morton, R.A., N. Buster, and M. Krohn. 2002. Subsurface controls on historical subsidence rates and 

associated wetland loss in south-central Louisiana. Transactions Gulf Coast Association of 

Geological Societies 52:767-778. 

Morton, R.A., J.C. Bernier, J.A. Barras, and N.F. Ferina. 2005. Rapid subsidence and historical wetland 

loss in the Mississippi Delta plain: Likely causes and future implications. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Geological Survey. Open-File Report 2005-1216. 116 pp. Internet website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/

2005/1216/ofr-2005-1216.pdf. 

Mosier, A.E. 1998. The impact of coastal armoring structures on sea turtle nesting behavior at three 

beaches on the East Coast of Florida. Unpublished Masters thesis, University of South Florida, 

St. Petersburg, FL. 112 pp. 

Moyers, J.E. 1996. Food habits of Gulf Coast subspecies of beach mice (Peromyscus polionotus spp.). 

M.S. Thesis, Auburn University, AL. 84 pp. 

Muller-Karger, F.E., F. Vukovich, R. Leben, B. Nababan, C. Hu, and D. Myhre. 2001. Surface 

circulation and the transport of the Loop Current into the northeastern Gulf of Mexico: Final report. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Study MMS 2001-102. 39 pp. 

Mullin, K.D. and W. Hoggard. 2000. Visual surveys of cetaceans and sea turtles from aircraft and ships; 

Chapter 4. In: Davis, R.W., W.E. Evans, and B. Würsig, eds. Cetaceans, sea turtles and birds in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico: Distribution, abundance and habitat associations. Volume II: Technical 

report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geologic Survey, Biological Resources Division, 

USGS/BRD/CR-1999-005 and Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000-003. 364 pp. 

Mullin, K.D. and G.L. Fulling. 2004. Abundance of cetaceans in the oceanic northern Gulf of Mexico, 

1996-2001. Marine Mammal Science 20:787-807. 

Muncy, R.J. 1984. Species Profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and 

invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico)—white shrimp. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

FWS/OBS-82/11.20. U.S. Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 19 pp. 

Murray, S.P. 1998. An observational study of the Mississippi/Atchafalaya coastal plume: Final report. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Study MMS 98-0040. 513 pp. 

Murray, S.P. and J. Donley. 1996. Mississippi River plume hydrography: Second annual report. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Study MMS 96-0022. 175 pp. 

Musick, J.A. and C.J. Limpus. 1997. Habitat utilization and migration in juvenile sea turtles. In: 

Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick, eds. The biology of sea turtles. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 

Pp. 137-163. 

Nalco. 2010. Oil dispersant expert testimony. Internet website. http://www.nalco.com/news-and-events/

4259.htm. Accessed December 27, 2010. 

National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE). 2003. Standard material requirements—methods 

for sulfide stress cracking and stress corrosion cracking resistance in sour oilfield environments. 

National Association of Corrosion Engineers. ANSI/NACE MR1075-2003. 44 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.techstreet.com/cgi-bin/detail?doc_no=NACE%7CMR0175_2003&product_id=1082002. 

National Geographic Society. 1999. Field guide to the birds of North America, third edition. 

Washington, DC: National Geographic. 480 pp. 

National Public Radio. 2011. A year after oil spill, tourism bounces back at some Florida beach towns. 

Internet website: http://www.npr.org/2011/04/18/135326540/a-year-after-deepwater-florida-sees-acomeback. Accessed September 8, 2011. 
References Cited 6-57 

National Research Council (NRC). 1983. Drilling discharges in the marine environment. Panel on 

Assessment of Fates and Effects of Drilling Fluids and Cuttings in the Marine Environment. Marine 

Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council. 

Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Pp. 18-21. 

National Research Council (NRC). 1985. Oil in the sea—inputs, fates and effects. Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press. 601 pp. 

National Research Council (NRC). 1989. Using oil spill dispersants on the sea. Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press. 335 pp. 

National Research Council (NRC). 1990. Decline of the sea turtles: Causes and prevention. Committee 

on Sea Turtle Conservation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 280 pp. 

National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Effects of trawling & dredging on seafloor habitat. 

Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 136 pp. 

National Research Council (NRC). 2003. Oil in the sea III: Inputs, fates, and effects (Committee on Oil 

in the Sea: J.N. Coleman, J. Baker, C. Cooper, M. Fingas, G. Hunt, K. Kvenvolden, J. McDowell, 

J. Michel, K. Michel, J. Phinney, N. Rabalais, L. Roesner, and R.B. Spies). Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press. 265 pp. 

National Research Council (NRC). 2005. Oil spill dispersants: Efficacy and effects. Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press. 377 pp. 

National Research Council (NRC). 2006. Review of recreational fisheries survey methods. Washington, 

DC: National Academy Press. 202 pp. 

National Response Team. 2010. Oil spill response strategies for coastal marshes during the Deepwater 

Horizon MC252 spill. 10 pp. Internet website: http://www.nrt.org/Production/NRT/NRTWeb.nsf/

AllAttachmentsByTitle/SA-1061NRT_Marsh_Cleanup_Options_DWH.06032010.pdf/$File/

NRT_marsh_cleanup_overview_6-15.pdf?OpenElement. Accessed December 23, 2010. 

National Wetlands Inventory Group. 1985. Status and trends of wetlands and deepwater habitats in the 

conterminous United States, 1950’s to 1970’s. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 50:440-448. 

Natural Resources Defense Council. 2010a. Disaster in the Gulf: Tracking oil washing ashore on 

beaches. Internet website: http://www.nrdc.org/energy/gulfspill/beaches.asp. Accessed April 18, 

2011. 

Natural Resources Defense Council. 2010b. Gulf Coast seafood consumption survey. Internet website: 

http://docs.nrdc.org/health/files/hea_10120702a.pdf. 7 pp. 

Natural Resource Defense Council and National Disease Clusters Alliance. 2011. Health alert: Disease 

clusters spotlight the need to protect people from toxic chemicals. Internet website: http://

www.nrdc.org/health/diseaseclusters/files/diseaseclusters_issuepaper.pdf. 

NaturalGas.org. 2010a. Offshore drilling. Internet website. http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/

extraction_offshore.asp. Accessed December 21, 2010. 

NaturalGas.org. 2010b. Background. Internet website: http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/

background.asp. Accessed August 25, 2010. 

Neal Adams Firefighters Inc. 1991. Joint industry program for floating vessel blowout control. Prepared 

for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. TA&R Project 150. Internet 

website: http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/150/150AA.pdf. 

Neff, J.M. 1987. Biological effects of drilling fluids, drill cuttings and produced waters. In: 

Boesch, D.F. and N.N. Rabalais, eds. Long-term environmental effects of offshore oil and gas 

development. London: Elsevier Applied Science. Pp. 469-538. 
6-58 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Neff, J.M. 1990. Composition and fate of petroleum and spill-treating agents in the marine environment. 

In: Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin, eds. Sea mammals and oil: Confronting the risks. San Diego, 

CA: Academic Press, Inc. Pp. 1-33. 

Neff, J.M. 2002. Bioaccumulation in marine organisms: Effect of contaminants from oil well produced 

water. Kidlington, Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd. 

Neff, J.M. 2005. Composition, environmental fates, and biological effects of water based drilling muds 

and cuttings discharged to the marine environment: A synthesis and annotated bibliography. 

Prepared for the Petroleum Environmental Research Forum and American Petroleum Institute. 

Duxbury, MA: Battelle. 83 pp. Internet website: http://www.perf.org/pdf/APIPERFreport.pdf. 

Neff, J.M., T.C. Sauer, and N. Maciolek. 1989. Fate and effects of produced water discharges in 

nearshore marine waters. Prepared for the American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC. 

Neff, J.M. and T.C. Sauer, Jr. 1991. Review: Findings of the American Petroleum Institute study on 

produced waters. In: Geo-Marine, Inc. Proceedings: Eleventh Annual Gulf of Mexico Information 

Transfer Meeting. November, 1990. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf 

of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 91-0040. 524 pp. 

Neff, J.M., S. McKelvie, and R.C. Ayers, Jr. 2000. Environmental impacts of synthetic-based drilling 

fluids. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000-064. 118 pp. 

Negri, A.P. and A.J. Heyward. 2000. Inhibition of fertilization and larval metamorphisis of the coral 

Acropora milepora (Ehrenberg, 1834) by petroleum products. Marine Pollution Bulletin 

41(7-12):420-427. 

Nelson, H.F. and E.E. Bray. 1970. Stratigraphy and history of the Holocene sediments in the SabineHigh Island Area, Gulf of Mexico. In: Morgam, J.P., ed. Deltaic sedimentation; modern and 

ancient. Special Publn. No. 15. Tulsa, OK: SEPM. 

Nelson, D.L. and M.M. Cox. 2008. Lehringer principles of biochemistry, fifth edition. W.H. Freeman. 

1,100 pp. 

Nelson, M. 2011. Gulf Coast tourism rebounds after BP oil spill. Associated Press article. Internet 

website: http://travel.usatoday.com/destinations/story/2011-09-10/Gulf-Coast-tourism-reboundsafter-BP-oil-spill/50317906/1. Accessed October 6, 2011. 

Netto, S.A., F. Gallucci, and G. Fonseca. 2009. Deep-sea meiofauna response to synthetic-based drilling 

mud discharge off SE Brazil. Deep-Sea Research II 56:41-49. 

Neumann, C.J., B.R. Jarvinen, and J.D. Elms. 1993. Tropical cyclones of the north Atlantic Ocean, 1871-

1992. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Asheville, NC. 

193 pp.. 

Newell, R.C., L.J. Seiderer, and D.R. Hitchcock. 1998. The impact of dredging works in coastal waters: 

A review of the sensitivity to disturbance and subsequent recovery of biological resources on the 

seabed. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 36:127-178. 

Newman, J.R. 1977. Sensitivity of the hose martin (Delichon urbica) to fluoride emissions. Fluoride 

10:73-76. 

Newman, J.R. 1980. Effects of air emissions on wildlife resources. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program, National Power Plant Team. FWS/OBS-80/40.1. 

32 pp. 

Newman, S.H., A. Chmura, K. Converse, A.M. Kilpatrick, N. Patel, E. Lammers, and P. Daszak. 2007. 

Aquatic bird disease and mortality as an indicator of changing ecosystem health. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series 352:299-309. 

Nicholls, J.L. and G.A. Baldassarre. 1990. Habitat associations of piping plovers wintering in the United 

States. Wilson Bulletin 102:581-590. 
References Cited 6-59 

Nicol, J.A.C., W.H. Donahue, R.T. Wang, and K. Winters. 1977. Chemical composition and effects of 

water extracts of petroleum and eggs of the sand dollar Melitta quinquiesperforata. Marine Biology 

40:309-316. 

Nisbet, I.C.T. 2000. Disturbance, habituation, and management of waterbird colonies. Waterbirds 

23:312-332. 

Nolan, B. 2010. Family business knocked to its knees by oil spill, moratorium. Internet website: http://

www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/09/family_business_knocked_to_its.html. 

Accessed December 12, 2010. 

Nolan, B. and A. Good. 2010. Moratorium in wake of Gulf oil spill idles much more than rigs, workers. 

Internet website: http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/07/

moratorium_in_wake_of_gulf_oil.html. Accessed July 6, 2010. 

Norris, F.H., S.P. Stevens, B. Pfefferbaum, K.F. Wyche, and R. L. Pfefferbaum. 2008. Community 

resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. American 

Journal of Community Psychology 41:127-150. 

Nowlin, W.D., Jr. 1972. Winter circulation patterns and property distributions. In: Capurro, L.R.A. and 

J.L. Reid, eds. Contributions on the physical oceanography of the Gulf of Mexico. Texas A&M 

University Oceanographic Studies, Vol. 2. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Co. Pp. 3-51. 

Nowlin, W.D., Jr., A.E. Jochens, R.O. Reid, and S.F. DiMarco. 1998. Texas-Louisiana shelf circulation 

and transport processes study: Synthesis report. Volume I: Technical report. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study 

MMS 98-0035. 502 pp. 

Nudds, T.D. 1983. Niche dynamics and organization of waterfowl guilds in variable environments. 

Ecology 64:319-330. 

Nudds, T.D. 1992. Patterns in breeding waterfowl communities. In: Afton, A.D., M.G. Anderson, 

C.D. Ankney, D.H. Johnson, J.A. Kadlec, and G.L. Krapu, eds. Ecology and management of 

breeding waterfowl. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Pp. 540-547. 

Nunley, M.J. 2010. Gulf sturgeon annual workshop meeting. Presentation: VR2W receiver deployment 

in the Gulf of Mexico. Science Applications International Corporation. 

Nyman, J.A. and W.H. Patrick, Jr. 1996. Effects of oil and chemical responses on fresh marsh function 

and oil degradation: Response implications. Office of the Governor, Louisiana Oil Spill 

Coordinators Office, Louisiana Applied Oil Spill Research and Development Program, Baton Rouge, 

LA. OSRADP Technical Report Series 95-11. 

Ocean Conservancy. 2011. Tracking trash: 25 years of action for the ocean. 43 pp. Internet website: 

http://act.oceanconservancy.org/pdf/Marine_Debris_2011_Report_OC.pdf. 

O’Conner, J.M. and R.J. Huggett. 1998. Aquatic pollution problems, North Atlantic coast, including 

Chesapeake Bay. Aquat. Toxicol. 11:163-190. 

Odenkirk, J.S. 1989. Movements of Gulf of Mexico sturgeon in the Apalachicola River, Florida. In: 

Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies. 43:230-238. 

Odess, D. 2010. Official communication. Teleconference regarding Section 106 in relation to response 

to the oil spill. 

OffshoreEnergyToday.com. 2010. USA: Coast Guard responds to wellhead allision. Oil no longer 

spewing in Barataria Bay. Offshore Energy Today.com, August 3, 2010. Internet website: http://

www.offshoreenergytoday.com/usa-coast-guard-responds-to-wellhead-allision-oil-no-longerspewing-in-bataria-bay/. Accessed July 27, 2011. 
6-60 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

offshoreWIND.biz. 2010. Japan plans to build 1,000MW offshore wind power by 2020. Internet 

website: http://www.offshorewind.biz/2010/05/10/japan-plans-to-build-1000mw-offshore-windpower-by-2020/. Posted May 10, 2010. Accessed March 24, 2011. 

Ogden, J.C., D.A. McCrimmon, Jr., G.T. Bancroft, and B.W. Patty. 1987. Breeding populations of the 

wood stork in the southeastern United States. Condor 89:752-759. 

Ogren, L.H. 1989. Distribution of juvenile and sub-adult Kemp’s ridley sea turtle: Preliminary results 

from 1984-1987 surveys. In: Caillouet, C.W. and A.M. Landry, eds. First International Symposium 

on Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation and Management, Texas A&M University; 

Galveston, TX, October 1-4, 1985. TAMU-SG-89-105. Pp. 116-123. 

O’Hara, P.D. and L.A. Morandin. 2010. Effects of sheens associated with offshore oil and gas 

development on the feather microstructure of pelagic seabirds. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60:672-678. 

Oil and Gas Journal. 2009. BP finds oil in multiple Lower Tertiary reservoirs. Internet website: http://

www.ogfj.com/index/article-display/5015598529/articles/oil-gas-financial-journal/volume-6/

Issue_10/Upstream_News/BP_finds_oil_in_multiple_Lower_Tertiary_reservoirs.html. Posted 

October 1, 2009. Accessed January 11, 2011. 

Oil Spill Commission. 2011a. Stopping the spill: The five-month effort to kill the Macondo well. Staff 

Working Paper No. 6. National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore 

Drilling. Internet website: http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Updated

%20Containment%20Working%20Paper.pdf. Posted November 22, 2010. Updated January 11, 

2011. 

Oil Spill Commission. 2011b. Response/clean-up technology research & development and the BP 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Staff Working Paper No. 7. National Commission on the BP 

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. Originally released November 22, 2010; updated 

January 11, 2011. 28 pp. Internet website: http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/sites/default/files/

documents/Updated%20Response%20RD%20Working%20Paper.pdf. Accessed February 11, 2011. 

O’Keefe, D.J. and G.A. Young. 1984. Handbook on the environmental effects of underwater explosives. 

U.S. Dept. of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, VA, and Silver Spring, MD. 

NSWC TR 83-240. 

Okuyama, H., Y. Majima, A.M. Dannenberg, Jr., M. Suga, B.G. Bang, and F.B. Bang. 1979. Qualitative 

histological changes produced in the tracheal mucosa of young chickens by the inhalation of sulfur 

dioxide in low concentrations. Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part C: Environmental 

Health Sciences 13(4):267-300. 

Olsen, K.M. and H. Larsson. 1995. Terns of Europe and North America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton 

University Press. 175 pp. 

Olsen, K.M. and H. Larsson. 1997. Skuas and jaegers. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 190 pp. 

Onuf, C.P. 1994. Seagrasses, dredging and light in Laguna Madre, Texas, U.S.A. Estuarine Coastal 

Shelf Science 39:75-91. 

Onuf, C.P. 1996. Biomass patterns in seagrass meadows of the Laguna Madre, Texas. Bulletin of 

Marine Science 58(2):404-420. 

Opaluch, J.J., T.A. Grigalunas, C.M. Anderson, S.C. Trandafir, and D. Jin. 2011a. Policies to affect the 

pace of leasing and revenues in the Gulf of Mexico. Part 2: Technical report, August 2009. In: 

Economic Analysis, Inc. and Marine Policy Center. Policies to affect the pace of leasing and 

revenues in the Gulf of Mexico: Final report, August 2009. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Herndon, VA. OCS Study BOEMRE 

2011-013. 191 pp. Internet website: http://www.boemre.gov/econ/PDFs/ExternalStudies/2011_013/

Part2.pdf. 

Opaluch, J.J., T.A. Grigalunas, C.M. Anderson, S.C. Trandafir, and D. Jin. 2011b. Policies to affect the 

pace of leasing and revenues in the Gulf of Mexico. Part 2: Technical report, December 2010. In: 
References Cited 6-61 

Economic Analysis, Inc. and Marine Policy Center. Policies to affect the pace of leasing and 

revenues in the Gulf of Mexico: Final report, December 2010. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Herndon, VA. OCS Study BOEMRE 

2011-014. 199 pp. Internet website: http://www.boemre.gov/econ/PDFs/ExternalStudies/2011_014/

Part2.pdf. 

Operational Science Advisory Team (OSAT). 2010. Summary report for sub-sea and sub-surface oil and 

dispersant detection: Sampling and monitoring. Unified Area Command, New Orleans, LA. 

Released December 17, 2010. Internet website: http://www.restorethegulf.gov/release/2010/12/16/

data-analysis-and-findings. Accessed March 14, 2011. 

Operational Science Advisory Team (OSAT-2). 2011. Summary report for fate and effects of remnant 

oil in the beach environment. Gulf Coast Incident Management Team, New Orleans, LA. Released 

February 10, 2011. Internet website: http://www.restorethegulf.gov/release/2011/03/01/osat-2-fateand-effects-oil-beaches. Accessed March 14, 2011. 

Orth, R.J., T.J.B. Carruthers, W.C. Dennison, C.M. Duarte, J.W. Fourqurean, K.L. Heck, Jr.,

A.R. Hughes, G.A. Kendrick, W.J. Kenworthy, S. Olyarnik, F.T. Short, M. Waycott, and 

S.L. Williams. 2006. A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. BioScience 56(12):987-996. 

Osenberg, C.W., R.J. Schmitt, S.J. Holbrook, and D. Canestro. 1992. Spatial scale of ecological effects 

associated with and open coast discharge of produced water. In: Ray, J.P. and F.R. Englehardt, eds. 

Produced water: Technological/environmental issues and solutions. New York, NY: Plenum Press. 

Pp. 387-402. 

Otvos, E.G. 1979. Barrier island evolution and history of migration: North central Gulf Coast. In: 

Leatherman, S., ed. Barrier islands from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the Gulf of Mexico. New York, 

NY: Academic Press. Pp. 219-319.

Oxford Economics. 2010. Potential impact of the Gulf oil spill on tourism. Prepared for the U.S. Travel 

Association. 27 pp. Internet website: http://www.ustravel.org/sites/default/files/page/2009/11/

Gulf_Oil_Spill_Analysis_Oxford_Economics_710.pdf. 

Oynes, C. 2006. Deepwater expansion continues in the Gulf of Mexico. Pipeline & Gas Journal 

231(6):58. 

Palinkas, L.A., A.J. Russell, M.A. Downs, and J.S. Petterson. 1992. Ethnic-differences in stress, coping, 

and depressive symptoms after the Exxon Valdez oil-spill. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 

180:287-295. 

Palka, D. and M. Johnson, eds. 2007. Cooperative research to study dive patterns of sperm whales in the 

Atlantic Ocean. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2007-033. 49 pp. 

Parauka, F. 2007a. Official communication. Post-Katrina recovery of Gulf sturgeon habitat. U.S. Dept. 

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Fisheries Resource Office, Panama 

City FL. 

Parauka, F. 2007b. Official communication. Information concerning the critical habitat, sampling 

programs, and damage assessments of the Gulf sturgeon. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Ecological Services, Fisheries Resource Office, Panama City FL. May 29, 2007. 

Parauka, F. 2008. Official communication. Gulf sturgeon population survey in the Escambia River, 

Florida. AFA News, Newsletter of the Alabama Fisheries Association, January 2007. 

Parker, P.L., G.P. Pfeiffer, R.E. Casey, C.S. Giam, J.S. Holland, E.T. Park, B.J. Presley, W.M. Sackett, 

N.P. Smith, C. Van Baalen, and D.E. Wohlschlang. 1975. Environmental assessment of the south 

Texas outer continental shelf. Chemical and biological survey component. Report to the U.S. Dept. 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Contract no. 08550-CT5-17. 

Parker, R.O., Jr., D.R. Colby, and T.P. Willis. 1983. Estimated amount of reef habitat on a portion of the 

U.S. South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico continental shelf. Bulletin of Marine Science 33:935-940. 
6-62 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Parnell, J.F., D.G. Ainley, H. Blokpoel, G. Cain, T.W. Custer, J.L. Dusi, S. Kress, J.A. Kushlan, 

W.E. Southern, L.E. Stenzel, and B.C. Thompson. 1988. Colonial waterbird management in North 

America. Journal of the Colonial Waterbird Society 11:129-169. 

Parr, A.E. 1939. Quantitative observations on pelagic Sargassum vegetation of the western North 

Atlantic. Bull. Bingham Oceanog. Coll. 6:1-94 

Parsons, J.J. 1972. The hawksbill turtle and the tortoise shell trade. In: Études de géographie tropicale 

offertes a Pierre Gourou. Paris, France: Mouton. Pp. 45-60. 

Parsons, K.C. 1994. The Arthur Kill oil spills: Biological effects in birds. In: Burger, J., ed. Before 

and after an oil spill: The Arthur Kill. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Pp. 215-237.

Parsons, G. and A. Kang. 2007. Valuing beach closures on the Padre Island National Seashore. 

University of Delaware, Graduate College of Marine Studies. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA 

Grant Number NA04NOS4190063. Project Number 06-090. 31 pp. 

Pashley, D.N. 1991. Shorebirds, gulls, and terns: Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama. In: Proceedings of 

the Coastal Nongame Workshop. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4, and 

Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Pp. 79-83. 

Patin, S.A. 1999. Environmental impact of the offshore oil and gas industry. East Northpoint, NY: 

EcoMonitor Publishing. Pp. 425. 

Patrick, S.R., D.R. Patrick, and S.W. Fardo. 1993. Energy conservation guidebook. Lilburn, GA: The 

Fairmont Press, Inc. 471 pp. Internet website: http://books.google.com/books?id=f45IIzt4DCIC&pg

=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=ship,+%22discharge+water+temperature%22&source=bl&ots=

CEHy0wpaMz&sig=BZam0pB-2mDwo4vO5zGM9jBsQWY&hl=en&ei=nMEpTYnqJsSBlAf_-

7joAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CC0Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=

false. Accessed January 10, 2011. 

Pattengill, C.V. 1998. The structure and persistence of reef fish assemblages of the Flower Garden 

Banks National Marine Sanctuary. Ph.D. Thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. 

Paull, C.K., B. Hecker, R. Commeau, R.P Freeman-Lynde, C. Neumann, W.P. Corso, S. Golubic, 

J.E. Hook, E. Sikes, and J. Curry. 1984. Biological communities at the Florida Escarpment resemble 

hydrothermal vent taxa. Science 226:965-967. 

PCCI Marine and Environmental Engineering. 1999. Oil spill containment, remote sensing and tracking 

for deepwater blowouts: status of existing and emerging technologies. Report prepared for the U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. TA&R Project 311. 66 pp. + apps. Internet 

website: http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/311/311AA.pdf. 

Peakall, D.B., P.G. Wells, and D. Mackay. 1987. A hazard assessment of chemically dispersed oil spills 

and seabirds. Marine Environmental Research 22:91-106. 

Peakall, D.B., R.J. Norstrom, D.A. Jeffrey, and F.A. Leighton. 1989. Induction of hepatic mixed 

function oxidases in the herring gull (Larus argentatus) by Pruhoe Bay crude oil and its fractions. 

Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 94C:461-463. 

Peake, D., G. Fargion, K. Mullen, and R. Pitman. 1995. Seabirds of the northwestern and central Gulf of 

Mexico. In: Abstracts of the Joint Meeting of the Wilson Ornithological Society and Virginia 

Society of Ornithology, Virginia, 4-7 May, 1995. 

Pearson, C.E., D.B. Kelley, R.A. Weinstein, and S.W. Gagliano. 1986. Archaeological investigations on 

the outer continental shelf: A study within the Sabine River valley, offshore Louisiana and Texas. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Reston, VA. OCS Study MMS 86-0119. 

314 pp. 

Pearson, C.E., S.R. James, Jr., M.C. Krivor, S.D. El Darragi, and L. Cunningham. 2003. Refining and 

revising the Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf region high-probability model for historic 

shipwrecks: Final report. Volumes I-III. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 
References Cited 6-63 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2003-060, 2003-061, and 

2003-062. 13, 338, and 138 pp., respectively. 

Peele, R.H., J.I. Snead, and W. Feng. 2002. Outer continental shelf pipelines crossing the Louisiana 

coastal zone: A geographic information system approach. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Region OCS Study, New Orleans LA. MMS 2002-038. 24 pp. 

Penland, S., L. Wayne, L.D. Britsch, S.J. Williams, A.D. Beall, and V. Caridas Butterworth. 2001a. 

Geomorphic classification of coastal land loss between 1932 and 1990 in the Mississippi River Delta 

Plain, southeastern Louisiana. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, Coastal and Marine 

Geology Program, Woods Hole Field Center, Woods Hole, MA. Open-File Report 00-417. 

Penland, S., L. Wayne, L.D. Britsch, S.J. Williams, A.D. Beall, and V. Caridas Butterworth. 2001b. 

Process classification of coastal land loss between 1932 and 1990 in the Mississippi River Delta 

Plain, southeastern Louisiana. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, Coastal and Marine 

Geology Program, Woods Hole Field Center, Woods Hole, MA. Open-File Report 00-418. 

Pequegnat, W.E. 1983. The ecological communities of the continental slope and adjacent regimes of the 

northern Gulf of Mexico. Prepared by TerEco Corp. for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 398 pp. 

Pequegnat, W.E., B.J. Gallaway, and L. Pequegnat. 1990. Aspects of the ecology of the deepwater fauna 

of the Gulf of Mexico. American Zoologist 30:45-64. 

Perez, C., A. Velando, I. Munilla, M. Lopez-Alonzo, and D. Oro. 2008. Monitoring polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbon pollution in the marine environment after the Prestige oil spill by means of seabird 

blood analysis. Environmental Science and Technology 42:707-713. 

Perez, C., I. Munilla, M. Lopez-Alonso, and A. Velando. 2010. Sublethal effects on seabirds after the 

Prestige oil-spill are mirrored in sexual signals. Biological Letters 6:33-35. 

Perry, H.M. and T.D MaIlwain. 1986. Species profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements 

of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico)—blue crab. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Biological Report 82(11.55). U.S. Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers, 

TR EL-82-4. 21 pp. 

Peters, E.C., P.A. Meyers, P.P. Yevich, and N.J. Blake. 1981. Bioaccumulation and histopathological 

effects of oil on a stony coral. Marine Pollution Bulletin 12(0):333-339. 

Peters, E.C., N.J. Gassman, J.C. Firman, R.H. Richmond, and E.A. Power. 1997. Ecotoxicology of 

tropical marine ecosystems. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 16(1):12-40. 

Peterson, C.H., M.C. Kennicutt II., R.H. Green, P. Montagna, D.E. Harper, Jr., E.N. Powell, and 

P.F. Roscigno. 1996. Ecological consequences of environmental perturbations associated with 

offshore hydrocarbon production: A perspective on long-term exposures in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 53:2637-2654. 

Pezeshki, S.R., R.D. Delaune, J.A. Nyman, R.R. Lessard, and G.P. Canevari. 1995. Removing oil and 

saving oiled marsh grass using shoreline cleaner (Publication No. 4620). International Oil Spill 

Conference. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. Pp. 203-209. 

Pezeshki, S.R., M.W. Hester, Q. Lin, and J.A. Nyman. 2000. The effects of oil spill and cleanup on 

dominant U.S. Gulf Coast marsh macrophytes: A review. Environmental Pollution 108:129-139. 

Piatt, J.F. and P. Anderson, 1996. Response of common murres to the Exxon Valdez oil spill and longterm changes in the Gulf of Alaska marine ecosystem. American Fisheries Society Symposium 

18:720-737. 

Pine, W.E. and S. Martell. 2009. Status of Gulf sturgeon in Florida waters: A reconstruction of 

historical population trends to provide guidance on conservation targets. March 31, 2009, draft final 

report, project number NG06-004, University of Florida project number 00065323, contract number 

06108. 47 pp. 
6-64 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Pipelines International. 2010. Getting the job done in swamp, marsh and wetland terrain. December 

2010. Vol. 006, pp. 34-35. Internet website: http://pipelinesinternational.com/pdfs/

PIN_Dec10_web.pdf. 

Plyer, A. and R. Campanella. 2010. Coastal employment before the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil 

disaster.: Employment maps and data from 2008. Greater New Orleans Community Data Center. 

Internet website: https://gnocdc.s3.amazonaws.com/reports/GNOCDC_CoastalEmployment.pdf. 

Released July 20, 2010. 12 pp.

Poirier, O.A. and G.A. Thiel. 1941. Deposition of free oil by sediments settling in sea water. Bulletin of 

the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 25(12):2170-2180. 

Poirrier, M.A. 2007. Statewide summary for Louisiana. In: Handley, D.A, D. Altsman, and R. DeMay, 

eds. Seagrass status and trends in the northern Gulf of Mexico: 1940-2002. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5287 and U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 855-R-04-003. 61 pp. Internet website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5287/. 

Accessed May 13, 2011. 

Pond, S. and G.L. Pickard. 1983. Introductory dynamical oceanography, 2nd ed. New York, NY: 

Pergamon Press. 329 pp. 

Powell, E.N. 1995. Evidence for temporal change at seeps. In: MacDonald, I.R., W.W. Schroeder, and 

J.M. Brooks, eds. Chemosynthetic ecosystems study: Final report. Volume 2: Technical report. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Study MMS 95-0022. Pp. 8.1-8.65. 

Powell II, A. 2010. Barataria Bay oil spill enters cleanup mode. The Times Picayune, August 3, 2010. 

Internet website: http://blog.nola.com/news_impact/print.html?entry=/2010/08/

barataria_bay_oil_spill_enters.html. Accessed December 28, 2010. 

Poysa, H. 1983. Morphology-mediated niche organization in a guild of dabbling ducks. Ornis 

Scandinavica 14:317-326. 

Precht, W.F., R.B. Aronson, K.J.P. Deslarzes, M.L. Robbart, D.J. Evans, B. Zimmer, and L. Duncan. 

2008. Long-term Monitoring at the East and West Flower Garden Banks, 2004-2005: Interim report. 

Volume I: Technical report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, Louisiana. OCS Study MMS 2008-027. 123 pp. 

Prentki, R.T., C. Smith, O. Johansen, P. Daling, M. Moldestad, K. Skognes, and M. Reed. 2004. The 

MMS/SINTEF oil weathering model, further development and applications. Review version of paper 

presented at International Marine Environmental Modeling Seminar (IMEMS), Washington, DC, 

October 2004. Internet website: http://alaska.boemre.gov/reports/2005rpts/2005_020/Final%20

Report/Appendix%20E/prentki_OWM_Alaska.pdf. 

Press Register. 2010. Short-term spill impacts leave both winners and losers. Internet website: http://

blog.al.com/press-register-business/2010/11/short_term_spill_impacts_leave.html. Published 

November 14, 2010. Accessed June 14, 2011. 

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1997. Evolution, phylogeny, and current status. In: Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musivk, eds. 

The biology of sea turtles. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Pp. 1-28. 

Puder, M.G. and J.A. Veil. 2006. Offsite commercial disposal of oil and gas exploration and production 

waste: Availability, options, and costs. Argonne National Laboratory, Environmental Science 

Division. Internet website: http://www.evs.anl.gov/pub/doc/ANL-EVS-R-06-5.pdf. 

Pulsipher, A.G., O.O. Iledare, R.H. Baumann, D.E. Dismukes, and D.V. Mesyanzhinov. 1998. 

Environmental and safety risks of an expanding role for independents on the Gulf of Mexico OCS. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Study MMS 98-0021. 39 pp. 
References Cited 6-65 

Putt, R. 2011. Species composition, distribution, and abundance of planktonic, benthic, and demersal 

megafauna in the vicinity of MC252 during August 2010. In: Proceedings of the Gulf Oil Spill 

SETAC Focused Topic Meeting, April 26-28, 2011, Pensacola Beach, FL. 

Rabalais, N.N. 1990. Biological communities of the south Texas continental shelf. American Zoologist 

30:77-87. 

Rabalais, N.N., B.A. McKee, D.J. Reed and J.C. Means. 1991. Fate and effects of nearshore discharges 

of OCS produced waters. Volume III. Appendices. OCS Study MMS 91-0006. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 225 pp. 

Rabalais, N.N., R.E. Turner, and W.J. Wiseman, Jr. 2002. Gulf of Mexico hypoxia, A.K.A. “The Dead 

Zone.” Annual Review of Ecological Systems 33:235-263. 

Raimondi, P.T., A.M Barnett, and P.R. Krause. 1997. The effects of drilling muds on marine 

invertebrate larvae and adults. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 16(6):1218-1228. 

Ramseur, J.L. 2010. Oil spill in U.S. coastal waters: Background, governance, and issues for Congress. 

Congressional Research Service. Report for Congress 7-57, RL33705. April 30, 2010. 

Rappole, J.H. 2006. A guide to the birds of the southeastern states: Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and 

Mississippi. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. 

Rasmussen, E. 2008. Distance to the horizon, calculator. Erick’s Blog. Internet website. http://

www.erik-rasmussen.com/blog/2008/03/25/distance-to-the-horizon/. Posted March 25, 2008. 

Accessed December 30, 2010. 

Ravishankara, A.R. and J. Goldman. 2010. Air chemistry in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill area, NOAA 

WP-3D Airborne Chemical Laboratory Flights of 8 and 10 June 2010. Internet website: http://

www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/tropchem/2010gulf/NOAA_P3_Gulf_Mission_Report_final.pdf. 

Ray, J.P. 1998. Findings of the Offshore Operators Committee produced water bioaccumulation study. 

In: SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Production. June 7-10, 1998. Caracas, Venezuela. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc. 

Redden, J. 2009. Port Fourchon thrives despite the economy. Offshore Magazine. March 1, 2009. 

Internet website: http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/357201/articles/offshore/

supplements/port-of-fourchon/articles/port-fourchon-thrives-despite-the-economy.html. Accessed 

December 3, 2010. 

Reed, D.H. and K.R. Traylor-Holzer. 2006. Revised population viability analysis III for the Alabama 

beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates). Report to the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. June 2006. 24 pp. 

Reed, J. and S. Rogers. 2011. Final cruise report. Florida Shelf Edge Expedition (FLoSEE) Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill response: Survey of deepwater and mesophotic reef ecosystems in the eastern Gulf 

of Mexico and southeastern Florida. R/V Seaward Johnson and Johnson-Sea-Link Submersible. 

July 9 – August 9, 2010. Conducted by Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, Florida Atlantic 

University and NOAA Cooperative Institute for Ocean Exploration, Research, and Technology. 

Rees, M.A. 2010. Paleoindian and early archaic. In: Rees, Mark A., ed. Archaeology of Louisiana. 

Baton Rouge, LA: LSU University Press. Pp. 34-62. 

Regg, J.B., S. Atkins, B. Hauser, J. Hennessey, B. Kruse, J. Lowenhaupt, B. Smith, and A. White. 2000. 

Deepwater development: A reference document for the deepwater environmental assessment, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS (1998 through 2007). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 2000-015. 94 pp. 

Reible, D. 2010. After the oil is no longer leaking. The University of Texas, Austin. Environ. Sci. 

Technol. 44(15):5685–5686. 

Reimer, A.A. 1975. Effects of crude oil on corals. Marine Pollution Bulletin 6(3):39-43. 
6-66 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

RestoreTheGulf.gov. 2010a. Update: Rear Admiral Landry approves top kill procedure. Internet 

website: http://www.restorethegulf.gov/release/2010/05/26/update-rear-admiral-landry-approves-topkill-procedure. Accessed October 5, 2010. 

RestoreTheGulf.gov. 2010b. Grand Isle shoreline treatment recommendation report. Internet website: 

http://www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/imported_pdfs/external/content/document/2931/

737627/1/9JUN%20LAJF01-008-003-STR%20for%20Jeff%20Par-Grand%20Isle%20Beach.pdf. 

Accessed October 28, 2011. 

RestoreTheGulf.gov. 2011a. The ongoing administration-wide response to the deepwater BP oil spill. 

Reports from April 22, 2010, through January 13, 2011. Internet website: http://

www.restorethegulf.gov/release/2010/09/17/ongoing-administration-wide-response-deepwater-bp-oilspill. Accessed December 6, 2011. 

RestoreTheGulf.gov. 2011b. Fish and wildlife. Internet website: http://www.restorethegulf.gov/fishwildlife. Accessed on June 28, 2011 

RestoreTheGulf.gov. 2011c. Translations into the following languages: Cambodian, Croatian, Spanish, 

French, Korean, Greek, Laotian, Russian, Thai, and Vietnamese. Internet website: http://

www.restorethegulf.gov/. Accessed September 5, 2011. 

Reynolds, C.R. 1993. Gulf sturgeon sightings, historic and recent—a summary of public responses. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City, FL. 40 pp. 

Rezak, R. and T.J. Bright. 1979. Northwestern Gulf of Mexico topographic features study. Executive 

summary of the final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, New Orleans 

OCS Office, New Orleans, Louisiana. Study no. 1979-14. 

Rezak, R. and T.J. Bright. 1981. Northern Gulf of Mexico topographic features study: Final report to 

the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Contract No. AA551-CT8-35. 5 vols. 

Rezak, R., T.J. Bright, and D.W. McGrail. 1983. Reefs and banks of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico: 

Their geological, biological, and physical dynamics. Final Technical Report No. 83-1-T. 

Rezak, R., T.J. Bright, and D.W. McGrail. 1985. Reefs and banks of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico: 

Their geological, biological, and physical dynamics. New York, NY: Wiley and Sons. 259 pp. 

Rezak, R., S.R. Gittings, and T.J. Bright. 1990. Biotic assemblages and ecological controls on reefs and 

banks of the northwest Gulf of Mexico. American Zoologist 30:23-35. 

Rhodes, D.C. 1974. Organism-sediment relations on the muddy sea floor. Oceanography and Marine 

Biology: An Annual Review 12:263-300. 

Rhodes, D.C. and J.D. Germano. 1982. Characterization of organism-sediment relations using sediment 

profile imaging: An efficient method of remote ecological monitoring of the seafloor (RemotsTM 

System). Marine Ecology Progress Series 8:115-128. 

Rhodes, R.C., J.D. Thompson, and A.J. Wallcraft. 1989. Buoys-calibrated winds over the Gulf of 

Mexico. J. Atmos. and Ocean. Technology. 6(4):608-623. 

Rice, S.A. and C.L. Hunter. 1992. Effects of suspended sediment and burial on Scleractinian corals from 

west central Florida patch reefs. Bulletin of Marine Science 51(3):429-442. 

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, C.I. Mame, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine mammals and noise. San 

Diego, CA: Academic Press Inc. 

Richmond, E.A. 1962. The fauna and flora of Horn Island, Mississippi. Gulf Research Reports 

1(2):59-106. 

Ridgway, S.H. and D. Carder. 2001. Assessing hearing and sound production in cetacean species not 

available for behavioral audiograms: Experience with Physeter, Kogia, and Eschrichtius. Aquatic 

Mammals 27:267-276. 
References Cited 6-67 

Rigzone. 2010. Rig report: Offshore rig fleet by region. Internet website: http://www.rigzone.com/

data/. Accessed December 20, 2010. 

Rinkevich, B. and Y. Loya. 1977. Harmful effects of chronic oil pollution on a Red Sea Scleractinian 

coral population. In: Taylor, D.L., ed. Proceedings, Third International Coral Reef Symposium. 

Volume 2: Geology. Miami, FL. May, 1977. Pp. 585-591. 

Rinkevich, B. and Y. Loya. 1983. Response of zooxanthellae photosynthesis to low concentrations of 

petroleum hydrocarbons. Bulletin of the Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries 109-115. 

Ripley, S.D. and B.M. Beechler. 1985. Rails of the world, a compilation of new information, 1975-1983, 

(Aves: Rallidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 417. Washington, DC: Smithsonian 

Institute Press. 

Robbart, M.L., R.B. Aronson, K.J.P. Deslarzes, W.F. Precht, L. Duncan, B. Zimmer, and T. DeMunda. 

2009. Post-hurricane assessment of sensitive habitats of the Flower Garden Banks vicinity. U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 

OCS Study MMS 2009-032. 160 pp. 

Roberts, H.H. and T.W. Neurauter. 1990. Direct observations of a large active mud vent on the 

Louisiana continental slope. Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 74:1508. 

Roberts, H.H., P. Aharon, R. Carney, J. Larkin, and R. Sassen. 1990. Sea floor responses to hydrocarbon 

seeps, Louisiana continental slope. Geo-Marine Letter 10(4):232-243. 

Robydek, A. and M. Nunley. 2008. Determining marine movement and behavior of Gulf sturgeon in the 

Gulf sturgeon critical habitat of the Eglin Gulf Testing and Training Range (EGTTR) and Santa Rosa 

Island (SRI) complex. Science Applications International Corporation. Eglin Air Force Base Natural 

Resources Section. DOD Legacy Resource Management Program. 

Robydek, A. and M. Nunley. 2010. Determining marine movement and behavior of Gulf sturgeon in the 

Gulf of Mexico critical habitat of the Eglin Gulf Testing and Training Range (EGTTR) and Santa 

Rosa Island Complex. Presentation: 2010 Gulf Sturgeon Workshop meeting at Louisiana State 

University, Baton Rouge, LA. 

Rocke, T.E., T.M. Yuill, and R.D. Hinsdill. 1984. Oil and related toxicant effects on mallard immune 

defenses. Environmental Research 33:343-352. 

Rodgers, J.A., Jr., A.S. Wenner, and S.T. Schwikert. 1987. Population dynamics of wood storks in north 

and central Florida, USA. Colonial Waterbirds 10:151-156. 

Rogers. C.S. 1990. Responses of coral reefs and reef organisms to sedimentation. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series 62:185-202. 

Rogers, C.S. and V.H. Garrison. 2001. Ten years after the crime: Lasting effects of damage from a 

cruise ship anchor on a coral reef in St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. Bulletin of Marine Science 

69(2):793-803. 

Rogillio, H.E. 2007. Official communication. Information describing the latest unpublished sturgeon 

population estimates for Gulf sturgeon in the Pearl River. Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries. 

January 2007. 

Romano, F. and Landers, S. 2011. Preliminary results of a multiyear meiofauna survey of the northern 

Gulf of Mexico BP oil spill zone. In: Proceedings of the 40th Benthic Ecology Meeting, 

March 16-20, 2011, Mobile, AL. 

Romanov, A.A. and N.N. Sheveleva. 1993. Disrtuption of gonadogenesis in Caspian sturgeons. 

J. Ichthyol. 33:127-133. 

Rooker, J.R., S.A. Holt, M.A. Soto, and G.J. Holt. 1998. Postsettlement patterns of habitat use by 

Sciaenid fishes in subtropical seagrass meadows. Estuaries 21(2):318-327. 
6-68 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Roosenburg, W.M. 1994. Nesting habitat requirements of the diamondback terrapin: A geographic 

comparison. Wetland Journal 6(2):8-11. 

Roosenburg, W.M., K.L. Haley, and S. McGuire. 1999. Habitat selection and movements of the 

diamondback terrapin, Malaclemys terrapin, in a Maryland estuary. Chelonian Conservation and 

Biology 3:425-429. 

Rosman, I., G.S. Boland, and J.S. Baker. 1987. Epifaunal aggregations of Vesicomyidae on the 

continental slope off Louisiana. Deep-Sea Res. 34:1811-1820. 

Ross, S.T., R.J. Heise, W.T. Slack, and M. Dugo. 2001. Habitat requirements of Gulf sturgeon 

(Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) in the northern Gulf of Mexico. University of Southern Mississippi, 

Dept. of Biological Sciences and Mississippi Museum of Natural Science. Funded by the Shell 

Marine Habitat Program, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 26 pp. 

Roth, A.F. and D.M. Baltz. 2009. Short-term effects of an oil spill on marsh-edge fishes and decapod 

crustaceans. Estuaries and Coasts 32:565-572. 

Rowe, G.T. and M.C. Kennicutt II. 2001. Deepwater program: Northern Gulf of Mexico continental 

slope benthic habitat and ecology. Year I: Interim report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2001-091. 

166 pp. 

Rowe, G.T. and M.C. Kennicutt II, eds. 2009. Northern Gulf of Mexico continental slope habitats and 

benthic ecology study: Final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf 

of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2009-039. 456 pp. 

Rowe, G. and D.W. Menzel. 1971. Quantitative benthic samples from the deep Gulf of Mexico with 

some comments on the measurements of deep-sea biomass. Bulletin of Marine Science 

21(2):556-566. 

Roy, K.J. and S.V. Smith. 1971. Sedimentation and coral reef development in turbid water: Fanning 

Lagoon. Pacific Science 25:234-248. 

Rozas, L.P. 1992. Comparison of nekton habitats associated with pipeline canals and natural channels in 

Louisiana salt marshes. Wetlands 12(2):136-146. 

Rozas, L.P. and W.E. Odum. 1988. Occupation of submerged aquatic vegetation by fishes: Testing the 

roles of food and refuge. Oecologia 77:101-106. 

Rucker, J.B. and J.O. Snowden. 1989. Relict progradational beach ridge complex on Cat Island in 

Mississippi Sound. Trans. Gulf Coast Assoc. of Geol. Soc. 39:531-539.

Runcie, J., C. Macinnis-Ng, and P. Ralph. 2004. The toxic effects of petrochemical on seagrasses. 

Literature review. For Australian Maritime Safety Authority, Institute for Water and Environmental 

Resource Management, Sydney, Australia. 20 pp. Internet website: http://www.amsa.gov.au/

marine_environment_protection/national_plan/Contingency_Plans_and_Management/

Research_Development_and_Technology/Toxic_Effects_Seagrasses.pdf. 

Russell, R.W. 2005. Interactions between migrating birds and offshore oil and gas platforms in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico: Final report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2005-009. 327 pp. 

Russo, M. 1992. Variations in late archaic subsistence and settlement patterning in peninsular Florida. 

In: Jeter, M., ed. Southeastern Archaeological Conference: Abstracts of the forty-ninth annual 

meeting, Little Rock, AR. 

Rützler, K. and W. Sterrer. 1970. Oil pollution damage observed in tropical communities along the 

Atlantic seaboard of Panama. BioScience 20(4):222-224. 

Ryan, P.G. 1988. Effects of ingested plastic on seabird feeding: Evidence from chickens. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin 19(3):125-128. 
References Cited 6-69 

Ryan, P.G. 1990. The effects of ingested plastic and other marine debris on seabirds. In: Shomura, R.S. 

and M.L. Godfrey, eds. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 

April 2-7, 1989, Honolulu, HI. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154. Pp. 623-634. 

S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd.. 1997. Fate and behavior of deepwater subsea oil well blowouts 

in the Gulf of Mexico. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 

27 pp. Internet website: http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/287/287AA.PDF. 

S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd. 2000. Technology assessment of the use of dispersants on spills 

from drilling and production facilities in the Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf. Prepared for the 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Engineering and Research Branch, 

Herndon, VA. 19 pp. Internet website: http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/349/349AB.pdf. 

Sadiq, M. and J.C. McCain. 1993. The Gulf War aftermath: An environmental tragedy. Dordrecht: 

Kluwer Academic Publishers. 

Sager, W. 1997. Geophysical detection and characterization of seep community sites. In: MacDonald, 

I.R., ed. 1998. Stability and change in Gulf of Mexico chemosynthetic communities: Interim report. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Study MMS 98-0034. Pp. 49-60. 

Sager, W.W., W.W. Schroeder, J.S. Laswell, K.S. Davis, R. Rezak, and S.R. Gittings. 1992. MississippiAlabama outer continental shelf topographic features formed during the late Pleistocene-Holocene 

transgression. Geo-Marine Letters 12:41-48. 

Salmon, J., D. Henningsen, and T. McAlpin. 1982. Dune restoration and revegetation manual. Florida 

Sea Grant College. Report No. 48, September. 49 pp. 

Sammarco, P.W., A.D. Atchison, D.A. Brazeau, G.S. Boland, and D.F. Gleason. 2004. Expansion of 

coral communities within the northern Gulf of Mexico via offshore oil and gas platforms. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series 280:129-143. 

Sanders, H.L., J.F. Grassle, G.R. Hamson, L.S. Morse, S. Garner-Price, and C.C. Jones. 1980. Anatomy 

of an oil spill: Long-term effects from the grounding of the barge Florida off West Falmouth, 

Massachusetts. Journal of Marine Research 38:265-380. 

Santos, M.F.L., P.C. Lana, J. Silva, J.G. Fachel, and F.H. Pulgati. 2009. Effects of non-aqueous fluids 

cuttings discharge from exploratory drilling activities on the deep-sea macrobenthic communities. 

Deep-Sea Research II 56:32-40. 

Sapp, C.D. and J. Emplaincourt. 1975. Physiographic regions of Alabama. Geological Survey of 

Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Alabama Geological Survey special map 168. 

Sargent, F.J., T.J. Leary, D.W. Crewz, and C.R. Kruer. 1995. Scarring of Florida’s seagrasses: 

Assessment and management options. FRMI TR-1, Florida Marine Research Institute, St. Petersburg, 

FL. 37 pp. + app. 

Sassen, R. 1998. Origins of hydrocarbons and community stability. In: MacDonald, I.R., ed. Stability 

and change in Gulf of Mexico chemosynthetic communities: Interim report. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study 

MMS 98-00034. Pp. 71-76. 

Sassen, R., J.M. Brooks, M.C. Kennicutt II, I.R. MacDonald, and N.L. Guinasso, Jr. 1993a. How oil 

seeps, discoveries relate in deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Oil and Gas Journal 91(16):64-69. 

Sassen, R., H.H. Roberts, P. Aharon, J. Larkin, E.W. Chinn, and R. Carney. 1993b. Chemosynthetic 

bacterial mats at cold hydrocarbon seeps, Gulf of Mexico continental slope. Organic Geochemistry 

20(1):77-89. 
6-70 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Sathiakumar, N. 2010. Short-term physical effects: Oil spills. Presentation, School of Public Health, 

University of Alabama at Birmingham. Internet website: http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity

%20Files/PublicHealth/OilSpillHealth/NaliniSathiakumar-6-22-1110am.pdf. 

Saunders, J., A. Thurman, and R.T. Saucier. 1992. Preceramic(?) mound complexes in northeastern 

Louisiana. In: Jeter, M.D., ed. Southeastern Archaeological Conference: Abstracts of the FortyNinth Annual Meeting, Little Rock, AR. 

Sayre, A. 2010. Forecast: Louisiana will have slow job growth. Internet website: http://

www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9IMCA800.htm. Accessed December 12, 2010. 

Scaife, W.W., R.E. Turner, and R. Costanza. 1983. Coastal Louisiana recent land loss and canals 

impacts. Environmental Management 7(5):433-442. 

Schales, S. and D. Soileau. 2001. Official communication with Samuel Holder: Shell Key, Point au Fer 

,and their surrounding shell reefs, June 15. Both gentlemen were employed by the Louisiana Dept. of 

Wildlife and Fisheries at the time.

Schaum, J., M. Cohen, S. Perry, R. Artz, R. Draxler, J.B. Frithsen, D. Heist, M. Lorber, and L. Phillips. 

2010. Screening level assessment of risks due to dioxin emissions from burning oil from the BP 

Deepwater Horizon Gulf of Mexico spill. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44(24):9383–9389. Internet 

website: http://www.epa.gov/research/dioxin/docs/OilScreen25.pdf. 

Schiro, A.J., D. Fertl, L.P. May, G.T. Regan, and A. Amos. 1998. West Indian manatee (Trichechus 

manatus) occurrence in U.S. waters west of Florida. Presentation at the World Marine Mammal 

Conference, 20-24 January, Monaco. 

Schlager, W. 1981. The paradox of drowned reefs and carbonate platforms. Geological Society of 

America Bulletin 92(4):197-211. Internet website: http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/

abstract/92/4/197. 

Schmahl, G.P. and E.L. Hickerson. 2006. McGrail Bank, a deep tropical coral reef community in the 

northwestern Gulf of Mexico. In: Proceedings of 10th International Coral Reef Symposium. 

June 28-July 2, 2006, Okinawa, Japan. 

Schmahl, G.P., E.L.Hickerson, D.C.Weaver, and J.V.Gardner. 2003. High-resolution multibeam 

mapping of topographic features in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. In: Proceedings of the 

U.S. Hydro Conference, March 24-27, 2003, Biloxi, MS. 

Schmidt, K. 2010a. Despite fears following spill, local jobless rate holds steady. Internet website: 

http://www.reefrelieffounders.com/drilling/2010/09/25/daily-comet-despite-fears-following-spilllocal-jobless-rate-holds-steady/. Accessed December 12, 2010. 

Schmidt, K. 2010b. Still no employment impact from spill, drilling uncertainty. Internet website: http://

www.dailycomet.com/article/20101028/ARTICLES/101029226. Accessed December 10, 2010. 

Schofield, P.J. 2009. Geographic extent and chronology of the invasion of the non-native lionfish 

(Pterois volitans [Linneaus 1758] and P. miles [Bennett 1828]) in the western North Atlantic and 

Caribbean Sea. Aquatic Invasions 4(3):473-479. 

Scholz, D.K., J.H. Kucklick, R.G. Pond, A.H. Walker, A. Bostrom, and P. Fischbeck. 1999. Fate of 

spilled oil in marine waters: Where does it go? What does it do? How do dispersants affect it? An 

information booklet for decision-makers. American Petroleum Institute Publication Number 4691, 

43 pp. Internet website: http://www.cleancaribbean.org/ccc_doc/pdf/API_Fate_of_Spilled_Oil.pdf. 

Schroeder, W.W. 2000. Shelf hard bottom habitats. In: Schroeder, W.W. and C.F. Wood, eds. 

Physical/Biological Oceanographic Integration Workshop for DeSoto Canyon and Adjacent Shelf, 

October 19-21, 1999. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000-074. Pp. 67-71. 

Schroeder, W.W. 2002. Observations of Lophelia pertusa and the surficial geology at a deep-water site 

in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Hydrobiologia 471:29-33. 
References Cited 6-71 

Schroeder, D.M. and M.S. Love. 2004. Ecological and political issues surrounding decommissioning of 

offshore oil facilities in the southern California Bight. Ocean and Coastal Management 47:21-48. 

Schroeder, W.W., A.W. Shultz, and J.J. Dindo. 1988. Inner-shelf hardbottom areas, northeastern Gulf of 

Mexico. Trans. Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc. 38:535-541. 

Schroeder, W.W., M.R. Dardeau, J.J. Dindo, P. Fleisher, K.L. Heck Jr., and A.W. Shultz. 1989. 

Geophysical and biological aspects of hardbottom environments on the MAFLA shelf, northern Gulf 

of Mexico. Proceedings Oceans ’88 Conference. Pp. 17-21. 

Schummer, M.L. and W.R. Eddleman. 2003. Effects of disturbance on activity and energy budgets of 

migrating waterbirds in south-central Oklahoma. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:789-795. 

Schwartz, F.J. 1988. Aggregations of young hatchling loggerhead sea turtles in the Sargassum off North 

Carolina. Marine Turtle Newsletter 42: 9-10 

Schwartz, A. 2010. China beats U.S. to first offshore wind farm. Internet website: http://

www.fastcompany.com/1687492/china-beats-us-to-first-offshore-wind-farm. Posted September 8, 

2010. Accessed March 23, 2011. 

Scott-Denton, E. 2009. Official communication. Incidental seabird bycatch in fisheries in the Gulf of 

Mexico. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

Seni, S.J. and M.P.A. Jackson. 1983. Evolution of salt structures, east Texas diapir province, Part 2: 

Patterns and rates of halokinesis. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 

67(8):1245-1274. 

Shaffer, G.P., J.W. Day, S. Mack, G.P. Kemp, I. van Heerden, M.A. Poirrier, K.A.Westphal, 

D. FitzGerald, A. Milanes, C.A. Morris, R. Bea, and P.S. Penland. 2009. The MRGO navigation 

project: A massive human-induced environmental, economic, and storm disaster. Journal of Coastal 

Research 54:206-224. 

Shafir, S., J. Van Rijn, and B. Rinkevich. 2007. Short and long term toxicity of crude oil and oil 

dispersants to two representative coral species. Environmental Science and Technology 

41:5571-5574. 

Sharp, B.E. 1996. Post-release survival of oiled, cleaned seabirds in North America. Ibis 138:222-228. 

Sharp, J.M. and S.G. Appan. 1982. The cumulative ecological effects of normal offshore petroleum 

operations contrasted with those resulting from continental shelf oil spills. Philosophical 

Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B: Biological Sciences 297:309-322. 

Sheavly, S.B. 2007. National marine debris monitoring program: Final program report, data analysis 

and summary. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Ocean Conservancy. 

Grant Number X83053401-02. 76 pp. 

Shigenaka, G. 2001. Toxicity of oil to reef-building corals: A spill response perspective. U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NOS OR&R 8. 95 pp. Internet website: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/

book_shelf/1_coral_tox.pdf. 

Shinn, E.A., J.H. Hudson, D.M. Robbin, and C.K. Lee. 1980a. Drilling mud plumes from offshore 

drilling operations: Implications for coral survival. The R&D Program for OCS Oil and Gas 

Operations. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, Fisher Island Station, Miami Beach, FL. 

Shinn, E.A., J.H. Hudson, D.M. Robbin, and C.K. Lee. 1980b. Drilling mud plumes from offshore 

drilling operations. Implications for coral survival. In: Geyer, R.A., ed. Marine environmental 

pollution. Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company. Elsevier Oceanography 

Series, 27A. Pp 471-495. 
6-72 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Shinn, E.A., B.H. Lidz, and C.D. Reich. 1993. Habitat impacts of offshore drilling: Eastern Gulf of 

Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 93-0021. 73 pp. 

Shipp, R.L. and T.L. Hopkins. 1978. Physical and biological observations of the northern rim of the 

DeSoto Canyon made from a research submersible. N.E. Gulf Sci. 2(2):113-121. 

Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Technique (SCAT). 2011a. Louisiana – SCAT shoreline oiling as of 

most recent survey, March 8, 2011. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, ERMA (Environmental Response Management Application). 

Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Technique (SCAT). 2011b. Mobile – SCAT observation results: 

SCAT monitor and maintenance segment status and SCAT curring oiling conditions, March 7, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ERMA (Environmental 

Response Management Application). 

Short, F.T., R.G. Coles, and C. Pergent-Martini. 2001. Global seagrass distribution. In: Short, F.T. and 

R.G. Coles, eds. 2001. Global seagrass research methods. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier 

Science B.V. Pp 5-6, 20. 

Sibley, D.A. 2000. The Sibley guide to birds. National Audubon Society, Knopf, NY. 544 pp. 

Singh, T. 2010. China starts construction on world’s biggest offshore wind farm. Internet website: 

http://inhabitat.com/china-starts-construction-on-worlds-biggest-offshore-wind-farm/. Posted 

October 25, 2010. Accessed March 24, 2011. 

Skagen, S.K. and F.L. Knopf. 1993. Toward conservation of midcontinental shorebird migrations. 

Conservation Biology 7:533-541. 

Skagen, S.K., D.A. Granfors, and C.P. Melcher. 2008. On determining the significance of ephemeral 

continental wetlands to North American migratory shorebirds. Auk 125:20-29. 

Slack, T. 2008. Official communication. Information concerning the critical habitat and damage 

assessments of the Gulf sturgeon. Representing the Mississippi State Museum of Natural Science, 

Jackson, MS. Meeting held in New Orleans, LA, on January 27, 2008. 

Smith, M.F., ed. 1984. Ecological characterization atlas of coastal Alabama: Map narrative. U.S. Dept. 

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82/46 and Minerals Management Service, Gulf 

of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 84-0052. 189 pp. 

Smith, R.C., J.R. Bratten, J. Cozzi, and K. Plasket. n.d. The Emanuel Point ship archaeological 

investigations 1997-1998. Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL. Report 

of Investigations No. 68. 

Smith, J.P., H.L. Mairs, M.G. Brandsma, R.P. Meek, and R.C. Ayers, Jr. 1994. Field validation of the 

Offshore Operators Committee (OCC) produced water discharge model. Presented at the Society of 

Petroleum Engineers 69th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, 

September 25-28, 1994. SPE 28350. 

Smultea, M.A. and B. Würsig. 1995. Behavioral reactions of bottlenose dolphins to the Mega Borg oil 

spill, Gulf of Mexico 1990. Aquatic Mammals 21:171-181. 

South Alabama Regional Planning Commission. 2001. Fort Morgan Peninsula resource assessment. 

Alabama Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources, Mobile, AL. 26 pp. 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 2002. Fishery management plan for pelagic Sargassum 

habitat of the South Atlantic Region, including a final environmental impact statement, initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis, regulatory impact review, & social impact assessment/fishery impact 

statement: Second revised final. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Charleston, SC. 

Southall, B.L., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J.J. Finneran, R.L. Gentry, C.R. Greene, Jr., D. Kastak, 

D.R. Ketten, J.H. Miller, P.E. Nachtigall, W.J. Richardson, J.A. Thomas, and P. Tyack. 2007. 
References Cited 6-73 

Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: Initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals 

33:411-521. 

Southwest Research Institute. 1981. Ecological investigations of petroleum production platforms in the 

central Gulf of Mexico. Submitted to the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

New Orleans OCS Office, New Orleans, LA. Contract no. AA551-CT8-17. 

Spalding, E.A. and M.W. Hester. 2007. Effects of hydrology and salinity on oligohaline plant species 

productivity: Implications of relative sea-level rise. Estuaries and Coasts 30(2):214-225. 

Spies, R.B., J.S. Felton, and L. Dillard. 1982. Hepatic mixed-function oxidases in California flatfishes 

are increased in contaminated environments and by oil and PCB ingestion. Marine Biology 

70:117-127. 

Sports Fishing Institute. 1989. Marine fisheries by catch issues. Sports Fishing Institute, Washington, 

DC. Bulletin No. 405. 6 pp. 

St. Aubin, D.J. and V. Lounsbury. 1990. Chapter 11. Oil effects on manatees: Evaluating the risks. In: 

Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin, eds. Sea mammals and oil: Confronting the risks. San Diego, CA: 

Academic Press, Inc. Pp. 241-251. 

Stabile, J., J.R. Waldman, F. Parauka, and I. Wirgin. 1996. Stock structure and homing fidelity in Gulf 

of Mexico sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) based on restriction fragment length 

polymorphism and sequence analyses of mitochondrial DNA. Genetics 144:767-775. 

Stacy, M. 2011. Gulf Coast tourism officials ‘cautiously optimistic’. Associated Press article. Internet 

website: http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2011/04/

gulf_coast_tourism_officials_c.html. Accessed October 6, 2011. 

Stadelman, W.J. 1958. The effects of sounds of varying intensity on hatchability of chicken eggs. 

Poultry Science 37:166-169. 

State of Alabama. n.d. Oil & gas industry. Geological Survey of Alabama and State Oil and Gas Board 

of Alabama. Internet website: http://www.gsa.state.al.us/documents/oginfo/og_industry.pdf. 

Accessed February 17, 2011. 

State of Florida. Division of Historic Resources. 2010. The Emanuel Point shipwreck. Internet website: 

http://www.flheritage.com/archaeology/projects/shipwrecks/emanuelpoint/. Accessed August 11, 

2010. 

State of Louisiana. 2007. Integrated ecosystem restoration and hurricane protection: Louisiana’s 

comprehensive master plan for a sustainable coast. Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of 

Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA. Internet website: http://www.lacpra.org/index.cfm?md=

pagebuilder&tmp=home&nid=24&pnid=0&pid=28&fmid=0&catid=0&elid=0. Accessed April 7, 

2011. 

State of Louisiana. 2010. Election 2010: Constitutional amendments results. Internet website: http://

www.legis.state.la.us/election2010/amendments.htm. Accessed January 23, 2011. 

State University System of Florida Institute of Oceanography (SUSIO). 1977. Baseline monitoring 

studies: Mississippi, Alabama, Florida outer continental shelf, 1975-1976. Volume I: Executive 

summary. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, New Orleans, LA. Contract No. 

08550-CT5-30. 55 pp. 

Stehn, T. 2007. Official communication. Captive and wild whooping crane population sizes in 2007. 

Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Aransas National Wildlife 

Refuge, Texas. 

Stehn, T. 2011. Official communication. Wild and captive population numbers for whooping crane, 

2010. Biologist, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Aransas National Wildlife 

Refuge, TX. 
6-74 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Steidl, R.J. and B.F. Powell. 2006. Assessing the effects of human activities on wildlife. George Wright 

Forum 23:50-58. 

Stephens, B.P. 2009. Basement controls on subsurface geologic patterns and coastal geomorphology 

across the northern Gulf of Mexico: Implications for subsidence studies and coastal restoration. 

Transactions Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies 59:729-751. Internet website: http://

www.searchanddiscovery.net/abstracts/html/2009/gcags/abstracts/stephens.htm. 

Stephens, B.P. 2010a. Basement controls on subsurface geologic patterns and near-surface geology 

across the northern Gulf of Mexico: A deeper perspective on coastal Louisiana. American 

Association of Petroleum Geologists, Annual Conference and Exhibition, April 11-14, 2010, New 

Orleans, LA. Search and Discovery Article #30129. Internet website: http://

www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/2010/30129stephens/ndx_stephens.pdf. 

Stephens, B.P. 2010b. Basement controls on subsurface geologic patterns and coastal geomorphology 

across the northern Gulf of Mexico: Implications for subsidence studies and coastal restoration. 

Adapted from the presentation given to New Orleans Geological Society, July 14, 2010. 

Stephenson, R. 1997. Effects of oil and other surface-active organic pollutants on aquatic birds. 

Environmental Conservation 24:121-129. 

Stephenson, R. and C.A. Andrews. 1997. The effect of water surface tension on feather wetability in 

aquatic birds. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:288-294. 

Steyer, G.D., B.C. Perez, S.P. Piazza, and G. Suir. 2007. Potential consequences of saltwater intrusion 

associated with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In: Farris, G.S., G.J. Smith, M.P. Crane, C.R. Demas, 

L.L. Robbins, and D.L. Lavoie, eds. Science and the storms—the USGS response to the hurricanes of 

2005. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey. Geological Survey Circular 1306. Pp. 137-146. 

Internet website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1306/. Accessed April 17, 2011.

Steyer, G.D., C. Sasser, E. Evers, E. Swenson, G. Suir, and S. Sapkota. 2008. Influence of the Houma 

navigation canal on salinity patterns and landscape configuration in coastal Louisiana: An 

interagency collaboration: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2008-1127. 190 pp. 

Steyn, P. 2010. Exxon Valdez oil spill. Answers.com. Internet website: http://www.answers.com/topic/

exxon-valdez-oil-spill. Accessed November 23, 2010. 

Stone, R.B. 1974. A brief history of artificial reef activities in the United States. In: Proceedings: 

Artificial Reef Conference, Houston, TX. Pp. 24-27. 

Stone, G.W. 2001. Wave climate and bottom boundary layer dynamics with implications for offshore 

sand mining and barrier island replenishment in south-central Louisiana. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 

2000-053. 90 pp. 

Stoner, A.W. 1983. Pelagic Sargassum: Evidence for a major decrease in biomass. Deep-Sea Research 

Part A. Oceanographic Research Papers 30(4):469-474. 

Sturges. W., E. Chassignet, and T. Ezer. 2004. Strong mid-depth currents and a deep cyclonic gyre in the 

Gulf of Mexico: Final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS-2004-040. 89 pp. 

Sturm, D.J., J. Stout, and T. Thibaut. 2007. Statewide summary for Alabama. In. Handley, D.A., 

D. Altsman, and R. DeMay, eds. Seagrass status and trends in the northern Gulf of Mexico: 

1940-2002. Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5287. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

855-R-04-003. Pp. 87-97. Internet website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5287/. Accessed May 20, 

2011. 

Stutzenbaker, C.D. and M.W. Weller. 1989. The Texas coast. In: Smith, L.M., R.L. Pederson, and 

R.K. Kaminski, eds. Habitat management for migrating and wintering waterfowl in North America. 

Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech. University Press. Pp. 385-405. 
References Cited 6-75 

Suchanek, T.H. 1993. Oil impacts on marine invertebrate populations and communities. American 

Zoologist 33:510-523. 

Sulak, K. 1997. Official communication. Conversations regarding recent information and research 

concerning the Gulf sturgeon at the Seventeenth Annual Information Transfer Meeting held in 

December 1997 in New Orleans, LA. 

Sulak, K.J. and J.P. Clugston. 1998. Early life history stages of Gulf sturgeon in the Suwannee River, 

Florida. Transactions of American Fisheries Society 127:758-771 

Sulak, K.J. and J.P. Clugston. 1999. Recent advance in life history of Gulf of Mexico sturgeon, 

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi, in the Suwannee River, Florida, USA: A synopsis. Journal of Applied 

Ichthyology 15:116-128. 

Swann, L. 2010. Alabama and Mississippi estuarine habitats status and trends. Mississippi-Alabama Sea 

Grant Consortium and Auburn University. Internet website: http://www.masgc.org/ppt/

AL_MS_Habitat_Status_Trends_files/frame.htm. Accessed October 13, 2010. 

Swanson, C., F.D. McCay, S. Subbayya, J. Rowe, P. Hall, and T. Isaji. 2003. Modeling dredginginduced suspended sediment and the environmental effects in Mt. Hope Bay and the Taunton River 

for the proposed Weaver’s Cove Energy, LLC, Liquefied Natural Gas Import Terminal. Prepared by 

Applied Science Associates for Weaver’s Cove Energy, LLC. 

Swenson, E.M. and R.E. Turner. 1987. Spoil banks: Effects on a coastal marsh water-level regime. 

Estuarine Coastal Shelf Science 24:599-609. 

Swift, T.L. and S.J. Hannon. 2010. Critical thresholds associated with habitat loss: A review of the 

concepts, evidence, and applications. Biological Reviews 85:35-53. 

Swilling, W.R., Jr., M.C. Wooten, N.R. Holler, and W.J. Lynn. 1998. Population dynamics of Alabama 

beach mice (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates) following Hurricane Opal. Amer. Midland Nat. 

140:287-298. 

Systems Applications International, Sonoma Technology, Inc., Earth Tech, Alpine Geophysics, and 

A.T. Kearney. 1995. Gulf of Mexico air quality study: Final report. Volumes I-III. U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

Study MMS 95-0038, 95-0039, and 95-0040. 650, 214, and 190 pp., respectively. 

Szaro, R.C., P.H. Albers, and N.C. Coon. 1978a. Petroleum: effects on mallard egg hatchability. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 42:404-406. 

Szaro, R.C., M.P. Dieter, G.H. Heinz, and J.F. Ferrell. 1978b. Effects of chronic ingestion of south 

Louisiana crude oil on mallard ducklings. Environmental Research 17:426-436. 

Szmant-Froelich, A., V. Johnson, T. Hoehn, J. Battey, G.J. Smith, E. Fleischmann, J. Porter, and 

D. Dallmeyer. 1981. The physical effects of oil-drilling muds on the Caribbean coral Montastrea 

annularis. In: Volume I; Proceedings of the Fourth International Coral Reef Symposium, May 1981, 

Manilla, Philippines. 

Tacha, T.C., S.A. Nesbitt, and P.A. Vohs. 1992. Sandhill crane (Grus canadensis). In: Poole, A., ed. 

The birds of North America online. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Internet website: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/031. Accessed December 6, 2011. 

Tan, L., M. Belanger, and C. Wittnich. 2010. Revisiting the correlation between estimated seabird 

mortality and oil spill size. Journal of Marine Animals and Their Ecology 3(1):20-26. 

Taylor, H.A., M.A. Rasheed, and R. Thomas. 2006. Port Curtis post oil spill seagrass assessment, 

Gladstone-2006. DPI&F Information Series QI06046 (DPI&F, Cairns). 19 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.seagrasswatch.org/Info_centre/Publications/pdf/meg/

GladstonePostOilSpillReport2006_Final.pdf. 

Teal, J.M. and R.W. Howarth. 1984. Oil spill studies: A review of ecological effects. Environmental 

Management 8:27-44. 
6-76 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Teal, J.M., K. Burns, and J. Farrington. 1978. Analyses of aromatic hydrocarbons in intertidal sediments 

resulting from two spills of No. 2 fuel oil in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts. Journal of the Fisheries 

Research Board of Canada 35:510-520. 

Teal, J.M., J.W. Farrington, K.A. Burns, J.J. Stegeman, B.W. Tripp, B. Woodin, and C. Phinney. 1992. 

The West Falmouth oil spill after 20 years: Fate of fuel oil compounds and effects on animals. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin 24(12):607-614. 

Teas, W.G. 1994. Marine turtle stranding trends, 1986-1993. In: Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, 

D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar, comps. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea 

Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-351. 

Pp. 293-295. 

Telesnicki, G.J. and W.M. Goldberg. 1995. Effects of turbidity on the photosynthesis and respiration of 

two south Florida reef coral species. Bulletin of Marine Science 57(2):527-539. 

Tenaglia, K.M., J.L. Van Zant, and M.C. Wooten. 2007. Genetic relatedness and spatial associations of 

jointly captured Alabama beach mice (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates). Journal of Mammalogy 

88:580-588. 

Teo, S.L.H, A. Boustany, H. Dewar, M.J.W. Stokesbury, K.C. Weng, S. Beemer, A.C. Seitz, C.J. Farwell, 

E.D. Prince, and B.A. Block. 2007a. Annual migrations, diving behavior, and thermal biology of 

Atlantic bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus, on their Gulf of Mexico breeding grounds. Marine Biology 

151:1-18. 

Teo, S.L.H, A. Boustany, and B.A. Block. 2007b. Oceanographic preferences of Atlantic bluefin tuna, 

Thunnus thynnus, on their Gulf of Mexico breeding grounds. Marine Biology 152:1105-1119. 

Terres, J.K. 1991. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. New York, NY: Wing 

Books. 1,109 pp. 

Terrens, G.W. and R.D. Tait. 1996. Monitoring ocean concentrations of aromatic hydrocarbons from 

produced formation water discharges to Bass Strait, Australia. Presented at the Society of Petroleum 

Engineers International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment, New Orleans, LA, 

June 9-12, 1996. SPE 36033. Pp. 739-747. 

Teslik, L.H. and C. Menegatti. 2010. Oil spill will hurt U.S. economy, but not big enough to cause 

recession. The Washington Post. Internet website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/

article/2010/07/01/AR2010070105311_pf.html. Accessed July 3, 2010. 

Tetrahedron, Inc. 1996. Reliability of blowout preventers tested under fourteen and seven days time 

interval. Study report prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 

TA&R Project 253. 33 pp. Internet website: http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/253/AA.PDF. 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 1990. Texas colonial waterbird census summary. Texas Parks 

and Wildlife Department and the Texas Colonial Waterbird Society, Special Administrative Report. 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 1999. Seagrass conservation plan for Texas. Texas Parks and 

Wildlife, Resource Protection Division, Austin, TX. 79 pp. Internet website: http://

www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_r0400_0041.pdf. 

Thatcher, C.A., S.B. Hartley, and S.A. Wilson. 2011. Bank erosion of navigation canals in the western 

and central Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, National Wetlands 

Resource Center, Open-File Report 2010-1017 and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA, 

OCS Study BOEMRE 2010-039. 32 pp. + 2 apps. Internet website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/

1017_p/pdf/OF10-1017.pdf. 

The Encyclopedia of Earth. 2008. Gulf of Mexico large marine ecosystem. Internet website: http://

www.eoearth.org/article/Gulf_of_Mexico_large_marine_ecosystem?topic=49522. Updated 

December 28, 2010. Accessed January 11, 2011. 
References Cited 6-77 

The Federal Interagency Solutions Group. 2010. Oil budget calculator: Deepwater Horizon. Technical 

Documentation. A report to the National Incident Command by The Federal Interagency Solutions 

Group, Oil Budget Calculator Science and Engineering Team. November 2010. 217 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/PDFs/OilBudgetCalc_Full_HQPrint_111110.pdf. 

The Greater Lafourche Port Commission (TGLPC). 2010a. Map of waterfront property available at Port 

Fourchon. Internet website: http://www.portfourchon.com/site100-01/1001757/docs/

2010_7_1_waterfront.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2010. 

The Greater Lafourche Port Commission (TGLPC). 2010b. Map of non-waterfront property available at 

Port Fourchon. Internet website: http://www.portfourchon.com/site100-01/1001757/docs/

2010_7_1_nonwaterfront.pdf. Accessed December 3, 2010. 

The Greater Lafourche Port Commission (TGLPC). 2010c. Port Fourchon north expansion. Internet 

website: http://www.portfourchon.com/explore.cfm/northernexpansion/. Accessed December 3, 

2010. 

The Greater Lafourche Port Commission (TGLPC). 2010d. South Lafourche airport in “excellent 

condition:” Many improvements since Port Commission acquisition. Internet website: http://

www.portfourchon.com/explore.cfm/20100222airptrev/. Accessed December 3, 2010. 

The Heinz Center. 2010. Evaluation of erosion hazards. Prepared for the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. Contract EMW-97-CO-0375. 205 pp. 

The Knowland Group. 2010. The Knowland Group releases oil spill survey findings following Memorial 

Day. Internet website: http://www.hotelnewsresource.com/article46295.html. Accessed June 4, 

2010. 

The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 2004. OCS-related infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico fact book. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Study MMS 2004-027. 249 pp. 

The Louisiana Justice Institute. 2010. Briefing document: Impact of BP oil spill on African-American 

fisher communities in Louisiana. Internet website: http://www.louisianajusticeinstitute.org/files/all/

docs/Briefing_Document_Vol_1-Issue_1.pdf. Accessed March 28, 2011.

The Oil Drum. 2009. USA Gulf of Mexico oil production forecast update. Internet website: http://

www.theoildrum.com/node/5081. Posted February 9, 2009. Accessed January 4, 2011. 

The White House. 2010. Establishing the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. Office of the 

Press Secretary, Executive Order, October 5, 2010. Internet website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/

the-press-office/2010/10/05/executive-order-gulf-coast-ecosystem-restoration-task-force. 

Thistle, D. 1981. Natural physical disturbances and communities of marine soft bottoms. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series 6:223-228. 

Thompson, J.H. 1979. Effects of drilling mud on seven species of reef-building coral as measured in 

field and laboratory. Report to the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey from Texas A&M 

University, Department of Oceanography, College Station, TX. TA&R Project No. 20. Internet 

website: http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/020/20_aa.pdf. 

Thompson, J.H., Jr. and T.J. Bright. 1980. Effects of an offshore drilling fluid on selected corals. In: 

Proceedings: , Volume 2. Symposium on Research on Environmental Fate and Effects of Drilling 

Fluids and Cuttings, Lake Buena Vista, FL, January 21-24, 1980. Washington, DC: American 

Petroleum Institute. Pp. 1044-1078. (ERL,GB X227). 

Thompson, J.H., E.A. Shinn, Jr., and T.J. Bright. 1980. Effects of drilling mud on seven species of reefbuilding corals as measured in the field and laboratory. In: Geyer, R.A., ed. Marine environmental 

pollution. Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company. Elsevier Oceanography Series 27A. 

. Pp 433-453. 
6-78 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Thompson, M.J., W.W. Schroeder, and N.W. Phillips. 1999. Ecology of live bottom habitats of the 

northeastern Gulf of Mexico: A community profile. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, 

Biological Resources Division, USGS/BRD/CR-1999-0001 and Minerals Management Service, Gulf 

of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 99-0004. x + 74 pp. 

Thorhaug, A. 1988. Dispersed oil effects on mangroves, seagrasses, and corals in the wider Caribbean. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Coral Reef Symposium, Australia 2:337-339. 

Thorhaug, A., J. Marcus, and F. Booker. 1986. Oil and dispersed oil on subtropical and tropical 

seagrasses in laboratory studies. Marine Pollution Bulletin 17:357-631. 

Tiner, R.W. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: Current status and recent trends. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA. vii + 59 pp. 

Tkalich, P. and E.S. Chan. 2002. Vertical mixing of oil droplets by breaking waves. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin 44:1219-1229. 

Tokotch, B. 2010. Oil and coral fact sheet. 3 pp. Internet website: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/

deepwater_horizon/Oil-CoralOnePage.pdf. Accessed December 6, 2010. 

Tolbert, C.M. 1995. Oil and gas development and coastal income inequality: Case studies at the place 

level. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 94-0052. 75 pp. 

Tolbert, C.M. and M. Sizer. 1996. U.S. commuting zones and labor market areas: 1990 update. 

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Rural Economy Division. Staff Paper No. 

AGES-9614. 

Toll Road News. 2009. LA1 bridge to Gulf oil & gas is tolling. Internet website: http://

tollroadsnews.com/node/4305. Accessed December 3, 2010. 

Torres, J.L. 2001. Impacts of sedimentation on the growth rates of Montastraea annularis in southwest 

Puerto Rico. Bulletin of Marine Science 69(2):631-637. 

Torres, R., M. Chiappone, F. Geraldes, Y. Rodriguez, and M. Vega. 2001. Sedimentation as an 

important environmental influence on Dominican Republic reefs. Bulletin of Marine Science 

69(2):805-818. 

Traylor-Holzer, K. 2005. Revised population viability analysis for the Alabama beach mouse 

Peromyscus polionotus ammobates. Report to the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service from IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, MN. 31 pp. 

Traylor-Holzer, K., R. Lacy, D. Reed, and O. Byers. 2005. Alabama beach mouse population and habitat 

viability analysis: Final report. Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, MN. 

Trefry, J.H. 1981. A review of existing knowledge on trace metals in the Gulf of Mexico. In: 

Proceedings of a symposium on environmental research needs in the Gulf of Mexico (GOMEX). 

Volume II-B. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

Environmental Research Laboratory. Pp. 225-259. 

Trefry, J.H. and J.P. Smith. 2003. Forms of mercury in drilling fluid barite and their fate in the marine 

environment: A review and synthesis. In: Proceedings of the SPE/EPA/DOE Exploration and 

Production Environmental Conference, March 10-12, 2003, San Antonio, TX. Paper SPE 80571-MS. 

10 pp. 

Trefry, J.H., K.L. Naito, R.P. Trocine, and S. Metz. 1995. Distribution and bioaccumulation of heavy 

metals from produced water discharges to the Gulf of Mexico. Water Science and Technology 

32(2):31-36. 

Trefry, J.H., R.P. Trocine, M.L. McElvaine, R.D. Rember, and L. Hawkins. 2003. Concentrations of 

total mercury and methylmercury in sediment adjacent to offshore drilling sites. In: Proceedings of 

the SPE/EPA/DOE Exploration and Production Environmental Conference, March 10-12, 2003, San 

Antonio, TX. Paper SPE 80569-MS. 12 pp. 
References Cited 6-79 

Trivelpiece, W.Z., R.G. Butler, D.S. Miller, and D.B. Peakall. 1984. Reduced survival of chicks on oildosed adult Leach’s storm-petrels. Condor 86:81-82. 

Tuler, S., T. Webler, K. Dow, and F. Lord. 2009. Human dimensions impacts of oil spills: Brief 

summaries of human impacts of oil and oil spill response efforts. Social and Environmental Research 

Institute. Project funded by the Coastal Response Research Center. Internet website: http://

www.seri-us.org/projects/HDOil.html. 

Tuler, S., T. Weber, R. Lord, and K. Dow. 2010. A case study into the human dimensions of the 

DM-932 oil spill in New Orleans. Greenfield MA: Social and Environmental Research Institute. 

32 pp. 

Tunnell, J.W., Jr., Q.R. Dokken, M.E. Kindinger, and L.C. Thebeau. 1981. Effects of the Ixtoc I oil spill 

on the intertidal and subtidal infaunal populations along lower Texas coast barrier island beaches. In: 

Proceedings 1981 Oil Spill Conference, March 2-5, Atlanta, GA. Washington DC: American 

Petroleum Institute. Pp. 467-475. 

Turner, R.E. and D.R. Cahoon, eds. 1987. Causes of wetland loss in the coastal Central Gulf of Mexico. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Study MMS 87-0119 (Volume I: Executive Summary), 87-0120 (Volume II: Technical 

Narrative), and 87-0121 (Volume III: Appendices). 32, 400, and 122 pp., respectively. 

Turner, R.E., R. Costanza, and W. Scaife. 1982. Canals and wetland erosion rates in coastal Louisiana. 

In: Conference on Coastal Erosion and Wetland Modification in Louisiana: Causes, Consequences, 

and Options. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. 

FWS/OBS 82/59. 

Turner, R.E., J.M. Lee, and C. Neill. 1994. Backfilling canals to restore wetlands: Empirical results in 

coastal Louisiana. Wetlands Ecology and Management 3(1):63-78. 

Tuttle, J.R. and A.J. Combe III. 1981. Flow regime and sediment load affected by alterations of the 

Mississippi River. In: Cross, R.D. and Williams, D.L., eds. Proceedings, National Symposium: 

Freshwater Inflow Estuaries. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of 

Biological Services. FWS/OBS-81/104. Pp. 334-348. Internet website: http://

www.gomr.boemre.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3779.pdf. 

United Louisiana Vietnamese American Fisherfolks. 2010. Loss of subsistence use claim framework & 

template for Louisiana Vietnamese American fisherfolks & other Louisiana fisherfolks. 

United Nations Environment Programme. 2009. Marine litter: A global challenge. Nairobi, Kenya: 

United Nations Environmental Programme. 232 pp. Internet website: http://www.unep.org/pdf/

unep_marine_litter-a_global_challenge.pdf. 

Upton, H.F. 2010. Commercial fishery disaster assistance. Congressional Research Service. Report for 

Congress. RL 34209. Internet website: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34209.pdf. 

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1990. Coping with an oiled sea: an analysis of oil 

spill response technologies, OTA-BP-O-63, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

70 pp. Internet website: http://www.fas.org/ota/reports/9011.pdf. Accessed December 27, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. 2004. County typology codes. Internet website: 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/TypologyCodes/. Accessed September 20, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. 2010. Estimating the economic effect of the deepwater drilling moratorium on 

the Gulf Coast economy: Inter-agency report, September 16, 2010. Report presented at the 

Department of Commerce Testimony—111th Congress by Rebecca Blank, Under Secretary for 

Economic Affairs, U.S. Dept. of Commerce. 25 pp. Internet website: http://www.commerce.gov/

sites/default/files/documents/2010/november/blank091610_report.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Census Bureau. 2003. Language use and English-speaking ability: 2000. 

Internet website: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-29.pdf. Accessed July 2011.
6-80 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Census Bureau. 2010. American FactFinder: Profile of demographic 

characteristics; Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida. Data retrieved March 15, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2003. SeaWiFS Project—

detailed description. Internet website: http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaWiFS/BACKGROUND/

SEAWIFS_970_BROCHURE.html. Updated July 30, 2003. Accessed January 11, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007a. Report to Congress on the impact 

of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma on commercial and recreational fishery habitat of Alabama, 

Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. July 2007. 191 pp. + apps. Internet website: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2007/docs/HurricaneImpactsHabitat_080707_1200.pdf. Accessed 

December 30, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007b. Endangered Species Act Section 7 

consultation on the effects of the five-year outer continental shelf oil and gas leasing program 

(2007-2012) in the Central and Western Planning Areas of the Gulf of Mexico. Biological Opinion. 

June 29. F/SER/2006/02611. 127 pp. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008. Information and databases on 

fisheries landings. Internet website (latest data for 2008): http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/commercial/

landings/annual_landings.html. Accessed October 6, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010a. Essential fish habitat; a marine fish 

habitat conservation mandate for Federal agencies. South Atlantic Region. Internet website: http://

sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/pdfs/efhdocs/sa_guide_2010.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010b. Recovery plan for the sperm whale 

(Physeter macrocephalus). U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver 

Spring, MD. 165 pp. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010c. Information and databases on 

fisheries landings. Internet website (latest data for 2009): http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/commercial/

landings/annual_landings.html. Accessed September 25, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010d. Fisheries economics of the U.S. 

Internet website: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/fisheries_economics_2008.html. 

Accessed December 28, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010e. Recreational fisheries statistics 

queries. Internet website: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/recreational/queries/index.html. Queried 

December 1, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011a. 2010-2011 cetacean unusual 

mortality event in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/

health/mmume/cetacean_gulfofmexico2010.htm. Accessed October 10, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011b. Dolphins and whales and the Gulf 

of Mexico oil spill. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/oilspill/mammals.htm. 

Accessed September 18, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011c. Sea turtles and the Gulf of Mexico 

oil spill. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/oilspill/turtles.htm. Accessed 

August 25, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011d. Information and databases on 

fisheries landings. Internet website (latest data for 2010): http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/commercial/

landings/annual_landings.html. Accessed September 27, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011e. U.S. national bycatch report 

(Karp, W.A., L.L. Desfosse, and S.G. Brooke, eds). U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-117C. 508 pp. 
References Cited 6-81 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011f. Deepwater Horizon: A 

preliminary bibliography of published research and expert commentary. Internet website: http://

www.lib.noaa.gov/researchtools/subjectguides/dwh_bibliography.pdf. Accessed November 8, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 2007a. Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea); 5-year review: Summary 

and evaluation. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD, and 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Jacksonville Ecological 

Service Field Office, Jacksonville, FL. 79 pp. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/

seaTurtles/2007-Reviews/2007-leatherback-turtle-5-year-review-final.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 2007b. Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas); 5-year review: Summary and 

evaluation. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD, and 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Jacksonville Ecological 

Service Field Office, Jacksonville, FL. 102 pp. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/

SeaTurtles/2007-Reviews/2007-green-turtle-5-year-review-final.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 2007c. Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata); 5-year review: Summary 

and evaluation. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD, and 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Jacksonville Ecological 

Service Field Office, Jacksonville, FL. 90 pp. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/

SeaTurtles/2007-Reviews/2007-hawksbill-turtle-5-year-review-final.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 2007d. Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii); 5-year review: Summary 

and evaluation. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD, and 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Jacksonville Ecological 

Service Field Office, Jacksonville, FL. 50 pp. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/

SeaTurtles/2007-Reviews/2007-Kemps-ridley-turtle-5-year-review-final.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 2007e. Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta); 5-year review: Summary and 

evaluation. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD, and 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Jacksonville Ecological 

Service Field Office, Jacksonville, FL. 65 pp. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/

SeaTurtles/2007-Reviews/2007-Loggerhead-turtle-5-year-review-final.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 2008. Recovery plan for the northwest Atlantic population of the loggerhead sea 

turtle (Caretta caretta), second revision. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1997. Alabama coastal 

hazards assessment (CD-ROM). U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Coastal Service Center, Charleston SC. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2000. Shoreline 

assessment manual, third edition. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Office of Response and Restoration, Seattle, WA. HAZMAT Report 2000-1. 

120 pp. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/FWS_OSCP_05/

fwscontingencyappendices/N-Manuals-Response-Assessment/ShorelineAssessment_NOAA.pdf. 

Accessed February 13, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2005. NOAA attributes 

recent increase in hurricane activity to naturally occurring multi-decadal climate variability. NOAA 

Magazine. November 29, 2005. Internet website: http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/

mag184.htm. 
6-82 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2006. NOAA fact sheet, 

small diesel spills (500-5000 gallons) (Office of Response and Restoration). November 2006. 

Internet website: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/974_diesel.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. 2007. National Artificial Reef 

Plan: Guidelines for siting, construction, development, and assessment of artificial reefs. Internet 

website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/PartnershipsCommunications/recfish/

NARPREVISION_3_07_07_FINAL.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2008a. The Gulf of 

Mexico at a glance. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Ocean Service, Washington, DC. 34 pp. Internet website: http://gulfofmexicoalliance.org/

pdfs/gulf_glance_1008.pdf. Accessed February 27, 2009. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2008b. Interagency report 

on marine debris sources, impacts, strategies, and recommendations. Interagency Marine Debris 

Coordinating Committee, Silver Spring, MD. 62 pp. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2008c. NOAA responds 

to New Orleans barge collision oil spill. Internet website: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/

stories2008/20080724_oilspill.html. Accessed November 26, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010a. Using booms in 

response to oil spills. National Ocean Service. 4 pp. Internet website: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/

deepwater_horizon/NOAA_boom_fact_sheet.pdf. Last revised May 10, 2010. Accessed 

December 27, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010b. Administration’s 

Joint Analysis Group releases first scientific report on subsea monitoring data from Gulf spill: 

Provides snapshot of where oil is subsea in vicinity of the wellhead, June 23, 2010. Internet website: 

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100623_brooks.html. Accessed July 7, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010c. Second Federal 

analysis gives further clues about location and movement of subsurface oil, July 23, 2010. Internet 

website: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100722_jag.html. Accessed August 11, 

2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010d. No dead zones 

observed or expected as part of BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill: Report finds decreased, but 

stabilized levels of dissolved oxygen in Gulf areas with subsurface oil, September 7, 2010. Internet 

website: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100907_jag3.html. Accessed January 29, 

2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010e. Environmental 

Response Management Application (ERMA). Internet website: http://gomex.erma.noaa.gov. 

Accessed October 14, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010f. Corals that are 

candidates for listing under the ESA. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected 

Resources. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/invertebrates/corals.htm. 

Accessed December 1, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010g. NOAA’s oil spill 

response: Rehabilitated sea turtles released into Gulf of Mexico habitat. Internet website: http://

www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/PDFs/seaturtlesbpfactsheet_101910.pdf. Accessed October 18, 

2011: 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010h. NOAA’s oil spill 

response: Effects of oil on marine mammals and sea turtles. NOAA, May 12, 2010. Internet website: 

http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/1887_Marine-Mammals-Sea-Turtles-fact-sheet.pdf.
References Cited 6-83 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010i. Deepwater 

Horizon/BP oil spill response: Shoreline threat update; southern Florida, Florida Keys and east coast 

Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill, July 30, 2010. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Office of 

Response and Restoration. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010j. Deepwater 

Horizon/BP oil spill: Federal fisheries closure and other information. Internet website: http://

sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/deepwater_horizon_oil_spill.htm. Accessed September 21, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010k. Resources related 

to Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) maps. Internet website: http://

response.restoration.noaa.gov/resource_resourcetopic.php?RECORD_KEY(resourcetopics)=

resourcetopic_id&resourcetopic_id(resourcetopics)=37. Accessed December 3, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2011a. The Gulf of 

Mexico at a glance: The second glance. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2011b. Environmental 

Response Management Application (ERMA). Internet website: http://gomex.erma.noaa.gov. 

Accessed September 28, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2011c. Elkhorn coral 

(Acropora palmata). U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources. 

Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/invertebrates/elkhorncoral.htm. Accessed 

June 6, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2011d. Threats to marine 

turtles: Threats in the marine environment. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/

turtles/threats.htm. Accessed May 20, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2011e. Endangered 

species listing for Atlantic bluefin tuna not warranted. Internet website: http://

www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110527_bluefintuna.html. Posted May 27, 2011. Accessed 

June 9, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2011f. NOAA: All 

federal waters of the Gulf once closed to fishing due to the spill now open: More than 1,000 square 

miles opened today. Internet website: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/

20110419_gulfreopening.html. Posted April 19, 2011. Accessed May 13, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2011g. Deepwater 

Horizon/BP oil spill: Seafood surveillance data. Internet website: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/

deepwater_horizon_oil_spill.htm. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Hurricane 

Center. 2006. U.S. mainland hurricane strikes by state, 1851-2004. Internet website: http://

www.nhc.noaa.gov/paststate.shtml. Accessed October 24, 2006. 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. 2010. Creating an offshore wind industry in the United States: A strategic work 

plan for the United States Department of Energy, fiscal years 2011 – 2015. U.S. Dept. of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind & Water Power Program. September 2, 

2010. Internet website: http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/offshore/

offshore_wind_strategic_plan.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2006. Natural gas processing: The crucial 

link between natural gas production and its transportation to market. U.S. Dept. of Energy, Energy 

Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, Washington DC, January 2006. 
6-84 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2010a. Oil: Crude and petroleum products 

explained, use of oil. Internet website: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=

oil_use. Last updated May 25, 2011. Accessed October 12, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2010b. Crude and petroleum products 

explained, oil imports and exports. Internet website: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/

index.cfm?page=oil_imports. Last updated June 24, 2011. Accessed October 12, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2010c. Table 6.3. Natural gas imports, 

exports, and net imports, 1949-2009. Internet website: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/totalenergy/data/

annual/txt/ptb0603.html. Accessed October 12, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2010d. Natural gas explained, where our 

natural gas comes from. Internet website: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=

natural_gas_where. Last updated December 21, 2010. Accessed October 12, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2010e. Gulf of Mexico fact sheet. Internet 

website: http://www.eia.doe.gov/special/gulf_of_mexico/index.cfm. Updated December 30, 2010. 

Accessed April 27, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2011a. Natural gas consumption by end use. 

Internet website: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm. Last updated 

September 9, 2011. Accessed October 12, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2011b. Short-term energy and summer fuels 

outlook. Internet website: http://www.eia.gov/emeu/steo/pub/

contents.html#US_Crude_Oil_And_Liquids_Fuels. Posted April 12, 2011. Accessed April 27, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration. 2011. Gulf of Mexico oil 

spill update: Information current as of Monday, May 2, 2011. Internet website: http://www.fda.gov/

food/ucm210970.htm. Accessed May 2, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security. Coast Guard. 2010a. Polluting incidents in and around U.S. waters. 

A spill/release compendium: 1969-2008. Office of Investigations & Compliance Analysis (CG-545), 

Washington DC. Internet website: http://www.safety4sea.com/admin/images/media/pdf/2010.09.01-

Spill_Compendium.pdf. Accessed December 23, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security. Coast Guard. 2010b. Ballast water management. Internet website: 

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg522/cg5224/bwm.asp. Accessed October 28, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security. Coast Guard. 2010c. Deepwater Horizon response daily report, 

period 91. July 21, 2010. Coast Guard Unified Area Command. 

U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security. Coast Guard. 2010d. Deepwater Horizon response daily report, 

period 175. October 12, 2010. Coast Guard Unified Area Command. 

U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security. Coast Guard. 2010e. Barataria Bay oil spill. National Response 

Center. Incident report no. 948993. July 27, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2008. Disaster declared 

parishes in Louisiana because of Hurricane Gustav. Internet website: http://www.fema.gov/news/

eventcounties.fema?id=10468.

U.S. Dept. of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010a. Quarterly census of employment and wages for 

2001-2009. Internet website: http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Accessed December 1, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010b. Fact sheet: Employment in the oil and gas well 

drilling industry. Internet website: http://www.bls.gov/cew/oil_gas_drilling.htm. Accessed July 1, 

2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 2010. Keeping workers safe 

during oil spill response and cleanup operations: Gulf oil response and heat. Internet website: http://

www.osha.gov/oilspills/heatstress.html. Accessed January 12, 2011. 
References Cited 6-85 

U.S. Dept. of the Army. Corps of Engineers. 2002a. Ocean dumping report for calendar 2001: Dredged 

material. 205 pp. Internet website: http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/odd/Download_Sites/LC_files/

LC_2001.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Army. Corps of Engineers. 2002b. Diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin

(spp)). Internet website: http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/tessp/profile.cfm?Type=Freshwater%20

Turtles&Name=Diamondback%20Terrapin&View=Species. Accessed October 18, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Army. Corps of Engineers. 2004a. Louisiana coastal area (LCA), Louisiana: 

Ecosystem restoration study. Volume I: LCA Study—main report and Volume II: Programmatic 

environmental impact statement. U.S. Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, 

New Orleans, LA. 506 and 918 pp., respectively. Internet website: http://www.lca.gov/Library/

ProductList.aspx?Prodtype=0&folder=1118. Accessed March 18, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Army. Corps of Engineers. 2005a. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers response to 

Hurricanes Katrina & Rita in Louisiana. Environmental Assessment EA #433. Internet website: 

http://www.nolaenvironmental.gov/nola_public_data/projects/usace_levee/docs/original/

KatrinaRitaEAJune_8_06.pdf. Accessed September 2006. 

U.S. Dept. of the Army. Corps of Engineers. 2005b. Corps emergency permitting procedures due to 

hurricanes. Internet website: http://www.nolaenvironmental.gov/nola_public_data/projects/

usace_levee/docs/original/KatrinaRitaEAJune_8_06.pdf. Accessed December 1, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Army. Corps of Engineers. 2008. Maintenance dredging and disposal of dredged 

materials Mississippi and Louisiana portions of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway federally authorized 

navigation project: Draft environmental assessment, January 2008. Mobile District Office, Mobile, 

AL. 232 pp. Internet website: http://www.sam.usace.army.mil/pd/EAs/

GIWW_DRAFTEAforPUBLIC(2)jj.pdf. Accessed May 20, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Army. Corps of Engineers, 2009a. Louisiana coastal protection and restoration: Final 

technical report and comment addendum—programmatic cumulative effects analysis appendix. U.S. 

Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, Mississippi Valley Division. 49 pp. 

with annexes. Internet website: http://lacpr.usace.army.mil/FinalReport/Vol%20IV/Programmatic%

20Cumulative%20Effects%20Analysis.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Army. Corps of Engineers. 2009b. Corps hurricane response. Task Force hope status 

report newsletter, December 14, 2009. 8 pp. Internet website: http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/

hps2/pdf/Dec_14_2009.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Army. Corps of Engineers. 2009c. Louisiana coastal protection and restoration: Final 

technical report and comment addendum—main report. U.S. Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers, 

New Orleans District, Mississippi Valley Division. 265 pp. with attachments. Internet website: 

http://lacpr.usace.army.mil/default.aspx?p=LACPR_Final_Technical_Report. 

U.S. Dept. of the Army. Corps of Engineers. 2010. Draft supplemental environmental assessment for 

the beach erosion control and storm damage reduction project, Panama City Beach, Bay County. 

Mobile District, Planning and Environmental Division, Environmental Resources Branch, Coastal 

Environment Team. 27 pp. 

U.S. Dept. of the Army. Corps of Engineers. 2011a. Amount of dredged material ocean disposed by 

year in cubic yards by single district. Internet website: http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/odd/. Stated as 

current through 2008. Accessed January 27, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Army. Corps of Engineers. 2011b. United States of America ocean dumping report for 

calendar year 2008 dredged material. Headquarters, Washington DC. Internet website: http://

el.erdc.usace.army.mil/odd/file.htm. Stated as current through 2008. Accessed January 27, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 2010a. Increased safety measures for energy development on the outer 

continental shelf, May 27, 2010. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington, DC. 44 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=

33598. 
6-86 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 2010b. Salazar divides MMS’s three conflicting missions. Press Release. 

May 19, 2010. Internet website: http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Salazar-Divides-MMSsThree-Conflicting-Missions.cfm. Accessed October 4, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 2010c. Change of the name of the Minerals Management Service to the 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement. Secretarial Order No. 3302. 

Internet website. http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/loader.cfm?csModule=security/

getfile&PageID=35872. Posted June 18, 2010. Accessed October 4, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management. 1982. Ixtoc I oil spill economic impact study. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, New Orleans OCS Office, New Orleans, LA. 

Study no. 1982-33. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2010a. 

Modifications to suspension of deepwater drilling operations: Environmental assessment and finding 

of no significant impact (October 12, 2010). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Herndon, VA. 43 pp. Internet website: http://

www.boemre.gov/eppd/PDF/EAModificationsSuspension10122010.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2010b. 

Fact sheet: The workplace safety rule on safety and environmental management systems (SEMS). 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Gulf 

of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 2 pp. Internet website: http://www.doi.gov/news/

pressreleases/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=45791. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2010c. 

Technical Information Management System (TIMS). Accessed September 13, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2010d. 

BOEMRE issues guidance for deepwater drillers to comply with strengthened safety and 

environmental standards. Press Release and Document. December 13, 2010. 18 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.boemre.gov/ooc/press/2010/press1213.htm. Accessed December 27, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2010e. 

Loss of well control—statistics and summaries 2006-2010. Internet website: http://

www.boemre.gov/incidents/blowouts.htm. Updated November 19, 2010. Accessed December 15, 

2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2010f. 

BOEMRE website incident statistics and summaries 1996-2010. Internet website: http://

www.boemre.gov/incidents/IncidentStatisticsSummaries.htm. Specifically accessed the page Gulf of 

Mexico Region Spills  50 Barrels (2,100 gallons)—2007: http://www.boemre.gov/incidents/

SigPoll2007.htm. Accessed November 11, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2010g. 

BOEMRE website incident statistics and summaries 1996-2010. Internet websites: http://

www.boemre.gov/incidents/IncidentStatisticsSummaries.htm. Specifically accessed the page Gulf of 

Mexico Region Spills  50 Barrels (2,100 gallons)—2008: http://www.boemre.gov/incidents/

SigPoll2008.htm. Accessed November 30, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2010h. 

Questions, answers, and related resources. Internet website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/

offshore/egom/faq.html. Accessed October 5, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2010i. 

Summary OCS spills of 50 barrels (2,100 gallons) and greater, calendar year 1964-2009. Internet 

website: http://www.boemre.gov/incidents/spills1964-1995.htm. Accessed November 24, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2010j. 

Federal and academic scientists return from deep-sea research cruise in Gulf of Mexico: Scientists 
References Cited 6-87 

observe damage to deep-sea corals. Press Release. November 4, 2010. Internet website: http://

www.boemre.gov/ooc/press/2010/press1104a.htm. Accessed November 24, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2011a. 

Draft report: Update of oil spill occurrence rates for offshore oil spills. Received from Melinda 

Mayes on July 5, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2011b. 

Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas lease sale: 2011; Western Planning Area Lease Sale 218—final 

supplemental environmental impact statement. 2 vols. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 

OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2011-034. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1973. Amendments to lists of endangered fish and 

wildlife. Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations Part 17. 38 FR 106, p. 14678, June 4, 1973. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1977. Determination of critical habitat for 

Mississippi sandhill crane. Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations Part 17. Final rulemaking. 

42 FR 152, pp. 39985-39988, August 8, 1977. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations 

Part 17, endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; U.S. breeding population of the wood stork 

determined to be endangered. Final rule. 49 FR 40, pp. 7332-7335, February 28, 1984. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; determination of endangered status and critical habitat for three beach mice; final rule. 

Federal Register 50 FR 109, pp. 23872-23889. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985b. Critical habitat designation 

Choctawhatchee beach mouse. 50 CFR 1 §17.95. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Recovery plan for the Choctawhatchee, 

Perdido Key, and Alabama beach mouse. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Atlanta, GA. 45 pp. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Mississippi sandhill crane recovery plan, 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 42 pp. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Whooping crane recovery plan (second 

revision). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 92 pp. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Revised recovery plan for the U.S. breeding 

population of the wood stork. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 

41 pp. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants. 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12. December 31, 1998. 56 pp. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. National wetlands inventory: 1996 coastal 

Mississippi habitat data. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands 

Center, Lafayette, LA. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Fisheries resources annual report. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City, FL. 28 pp. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the Great Lakes, piping 

plover (Charadrius melodious). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Great Lakes—

Big Rivers Region. 141 pp. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004a. Hurricane Ivan wreaks havoc on southeast 

refuges 2004. Environmental Contaminants Program. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/

contaminants/DisplayNews.cfm?NewsID=3953873A-54D8-4997-A9EF22BA218F7275. Posted 

September 24, 2004. Accessed April 14, 2011. 
6-88 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004b. Preliminary assessment of Alabama beach 

mouse (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates) distribution and habitat following Hurricane Ivan. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, AL. 18 pp. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004c. Model evaluation for predicting hurricane 

effects on Alabama beach mouse habitat: Technical support to the Daphne Ecological Services Field 

Office, Vero Beach, FL. 17 pp. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005a. Preliminary assessment of Alabama beach 

mouse (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates) distribution and habitat following the 2005 hurricane 

season. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, AL. 18 pp. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; critical habitat for the Alabama beach mouse: Proposed rule. 50 CFR 17 RIN 1018-AU46. 

Federal Register 71:21. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Endangered Species Act Section 7 

consultation on the effects of the five-year outer continental shelf oil and gas leasing program (2007-

2012) in the Central and Western Planning Areas of the Gulf of Mexico. Biological Opinion, 

September 14. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; removal of the brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) from the federal list of endangered and 

threatened wildlife. Federal Register, Volume 74, pp. 59443-59472; 50 CFR 17, RIN 1018-AV28. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010a. Deepwater Horizon oil spill response (spill 

by the numbers section). Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/. Accessed 

September 27, 2010. (FWS oil spill response weekly update. Report for the week of Saturday, 

September 25 – Friday, September 30, 2010. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/) 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; 5-year status reviews of 10 southeastern species. Notice of initiation of reviews; request for 

information. 75 FR 68, pp. 18233-18234, April 9, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010c. Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations 

Part 17, endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 90-day finding on a petition to reclassify the 

U.S. breeding population of wood storks from endangered to threatened. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010d. FWS Deepwater Horizon oil spill response. 

Weekly bird impact data and consolidated wildlife reports. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/

home/dhoilspill/pdfs/Bird%20Data%20Species%20Spreadsheet%2011302010.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011a. Deepwater Horizon bird impact data from 

the DOI-ERDC NRDA database 12 May 2011. 6 pp. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/home/

dhoilspill/pdfs/Bird%20Data%20Species%20Spreadsheet%2005122011.pdf. Accessed July 11, 

2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011b. Species report. Internet website: http://

ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/SpeciesReport.do. Accessed on June 28, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1995. 

Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) recovery/management plan. Prepared by the Gulf 

Sturgeon Recovery/Management Task Team for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA; the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Ocean 

Springs, MS; and the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Dept of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Dept of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2006. 

National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. 168 pp. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 2009. Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi)—5-year review: Summary 

and evaluation. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Panama City 
References Cited 6-89 

Ecological Services Field Office, Panama City, FL, and U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Southeast Region, Office of Protected Species, St. Petersburg, FL. 49 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/gulfsturgeon_5yearreview.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Geological Survey. 1988. Report to Congress: Coastal barrier resource 

system. Recommendations for additions to or deletions from the Coastal Barrier Resource System. 

Vol. 18, Louisiana. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Geological Survey. 1998. Chandeleur Islands, La.—1992 submerged aquatic 

vegetation. Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: Map. Maintained by the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Geological Survey, National Wetlands Research Center.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Geological Survey. 2004. Seagrass habitat in the northern Gulf of Mexico: 

Degradation, conservation and restoration of a valuable resource. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Geological Survey, Gulf of Mexico Program, 855-R-04-001. Internet website: http://

gulfsci.usgs.gov/gom_ims/pdf/pubs_gom.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Geological Survey. 2005. Post Hurricane Katrina flights over Louisiana’s 

barrier islands. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, National Wetlands Research Center, 

Lafayette, LA. Internet website: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/hurricane/katrina_rita/katrina-posthurricane-flights.htm. Accessed May 19, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Geological Survey. 2010a. Summary of the water cycle. Internet website: 

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercyclesummary.html. Accessed October 4, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Geological Survey. 2010b. NAS—nonindigenous aquatic species. Pterois 

volitans/miles. Internet website: http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/collectioninfo.aspx?NoCache=8%

2F11%2F2009+10%3A53%3A53+AM&SpeciesID=963&State=&County=&HUCNumber=. 

Accessed October 18, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 1987. Programmatic environmental 

assessment: Structure removal activities, Central and Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas. U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 

OCS EIS/EA MMS 87-0002. 84 pp. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 1997. Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas lease 

Sales 169, 172, 175, 178 and 182: Central Planning Area—final environmental impact statement. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 97-0033. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2000. Gulf of Mexico deepwater operations 

and activities: Environmental assessment. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2000-001. 264 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PDFs/2000/2000-001.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2001a. Proposed use of floating production, 

storage, and offloading systems on the Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf, Western and Central 

Planning Areas—final environmental impact statement. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 

2000-090. 782 pp. Internet website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PDFs/2000/2000-090.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2001b. Gulf of Mexico oil and gas Lease Sale 

181: Eastern Planning Area—final environmental impact statement. 2 vols. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

EIS/EA MMS 2001-051. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2001c. Outer continental shelf oil & gas 

leasing program: 2002-2007—draft environmental impact statement, October 2001. 2 vols. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Herndon, VA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 

2001-079. 
6-90 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2005. Structure-removal operations on the 

Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf—programmatic environmental assessment. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

EIS/EA MMS 2005-013. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2006a. Planning area resources addendum to 

assessment of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources of the Nation’s outer 

continental shelf, 2006. MMS Fact Sheet RED-2006-02, July 2006. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Region, New Orleans, LA. 2 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.boemre.gov/revaldiv/PDFs/NA2006BrochurePlanningAreaInsert.pdf.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2006b. Deepwater Gulf of Mexico 2006: 

America’s expanding frontier. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 2006-022. 144 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/whatsnew/techann/2006/2006-022.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2007a. Proposed final program: Outer 

continental shelf oil and gas leasing program, 2007-2012 (April 2007). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Herndon, VA. 146 pp. Internet website: http://www.boemre.gov/5-

year/PDFs/MMSProposedFinalProgram2007-2012.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2007b. Outer continental shelf oil and gas 

leasing program: 2007-2012—final environmental impact statement. Volumes I and II. U.S. Dept. 

of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Washington, DC. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-003. 

Internet website: http://www.BOEMRE.gov/5-year/PDFs/MMSProposedFinalProgram2007-

2012.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2007c. Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas lease 

sales: 2007-2012; Western Planning Area Sales 204, 207, 210, 215, and 218; Central Planning Area 

Sales 205, 206, 208, 213, 216, and 222—final environmental impact statement. 2 vols. U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

EIS/EA MMS 2007-018. Internet website: http://www.gomr.BOEMRE.gov/PDFs/2007/2007-018-

Vol1.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2007d. Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas 

scenario examination: Pipeline landfalls. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 2007-053. 8 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PDFs/2007/2007-053.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2007e. Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas 

scenario examination: Exploration and development activity. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 2007-052. 

14 pp. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2007f. Final programmatic environmental 

impact statement for alternative energy development and production and alternate use of facilities on 

the outer continental shelf. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Herndon, VA. 

OCS EIS/EA 2007-046. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2007g. NTL 2007-G03: Marine trash and 

debris awareness and elimination. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. Internet website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/

regulate/regs/ntls/2007NTLs/07-g03.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2008a. Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas lease 

sales: 2009-2012; Central Planning Area Sales 208, 213, 216, and 222; Western Planning Area Sales 

210, 215, and 218—final supplemental environmental impact statement. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 

2008-041. 
References Cited 6-91 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2008b. Preliminary evaluation of in-place gas 

hydrate resources: Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 2008-004. 

Internet website: http://www.mms.gov/revaldiv/GasHydrateFiles/MMS2008-004.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2008c. NTL No. 2008-G05: Shallow hazards 

program. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

New Orleans, LA. Internet website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/regulate/regs/ntls/

2008NTLs/08-g05.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2009a. Petroleum spills from Federal outer 

continental shelf oil and gas facilities caused by major hurricanes, 2002 to 2008: Lili (2002), Ivan 

(2004), Katrina (2005), Rita (2005), Gustav (2008) and Ike (2008). September 24, 2009. Internet 

website: http://www.boemre.gov/incidents/PDFs/Hurricanes2002to2008.pdf. Accessed March 18, 

2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2009b. NTL No. 2009-G39: Biologicallysensitive underwater features and areas. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. Internet website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/

homepg/regulate/regs/ntls/2009NTLs/09-G39.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2009c. NTL No. 2009-G40: Deepwater 

benthic communities. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, New Orleans, LA. Internet website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/regulate/regs/

ntls/2009NTLs/09-G40.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2009d. Rigs to reefs policy addendum: 

Enhanced reviewing and approval guidelines in response to the post-Hurricane Katrina regulatory 

environment. Related document, OCS Report MMS 2000-073. Internet website: http://

www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/rigs-to-reefs/Rigs-to-Reefs-Policy-Addendum.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2009e. NTL 2009-G35: Sub-seabed disposal 

and offshore storage of solid wastes. Internet website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/

regulate/regs/ntls/2009NTLs/09-G35.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. National Park Service. 2005. November 2005 archeology e-gram. Internet 

website: http://www.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/egrams/0511.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. National Park Service. 2010a. Padre Island National Seashore: Current sea 

turtle nesting season; sea turtle nesting in Texas. Internet website: http://www.nps.gov/pais/

naturescience/current-season.htm. Accessed February 16, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. National Park Service. 2010b. Experience America’s best idea: National park 

getaways; Gulf Islands National Seashore, Florida & Mississippi. Internet website: http://

www.nps.gov/getaways/guis/. Accessed April 14, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Office of Public Affairs. 2010a. Salazar calls for new safety measures for 

offshore oil and gas operations; orders six month moratorium on deepwater drilling. May 27, 2010. 

Internet website: http://www.boemre.gov/ooc/press/2010/press0527.htm. Accessed November 16, 

2010. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Office of Public Affairs. 2010b. Readout of BOEMRE Director Bromwich’s 

meeting with shallow water drilling coalition. September 14, 2010. Internet website: http://

www.boemre.gov/ooc/press/2010/press0914.htm. Accessed November 16, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation. 2010. Gulf Coast ports surrounding the deepwater horizon oil spill. June 

2010. Research and Innovative Technology Administration. Internet website: http://www.bts.gov/

publications/bts_fact_sheets/2010_001/pdf/entire.pdf. Accessed August 31, 2010. 
6-92 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Coast Guard. 2003. Final environmental impact statement for the Port 

Pelican LLC deepwater port license application. Commandant, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Coast 

Guard, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. 2004. Louisiana 1 improvements: 

Golden Meadow to Port Fourchon. Revised Record of Decision. Internet website: http://

www.dotd.state.la.us/press/LA1_ROD_Addm.pdf. Accessed November 19, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation. National Transportation Safety Board. 1998. Safety recommendation 

M-98-124. Internet website: http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/1998/M98_124.pdf. Accessed 

October 2003. 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Maritime Administration (MARAD). 2009. Vessel calls snapshot, 2009. 

10 pp. Internet website: http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/

Vessel_Calls_at_US_Ports_Snapshot.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Maritime Administration (MARAD). 2010. Deepwater port licensing 

program: Pending applications. Internet website: http://www.marad.dot.gov/ports_landing_page/

deepwater_port_licensing/dwp_planned_ports/dwp_planned_ports.htm. Accessed September 30, 

2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Maritime Administration (MARAD). 2011. Cruise summary tables: 

North American cruises by departure port. Internet website: http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/

north_america_cruise_summary_data.xls. Accessed July 8, 2011. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000a. Environmental assessment of final effluent limitation 

guidelines and standards for synthetic-based drilling fluids and other non-aqueous drilling fluids in 

the oil and gas extraction point source category. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Water, Washington, DC. EPA-821-B-00-014. 184 pp. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000b. Sector notebook project: Oil and gas extraction. 51 pp. 

Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assistance/sectors/

notebooks/oilgaspt1.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Coastal condition report. EPA-620/R-01/005. Internet 

website: http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/downloads.html. Accessed August 24, 2009. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Exemption of oil and gas exploration and production 

wastes from federal hazardous waste regulations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Solid Wastes, Washington, DC. EPA530-K-01-004. 40 pp. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/

osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/oil/oil-gas.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004a. Final NPDES general permit for new and existing 

sources and new dischargers in the offshore subcategory of the oil and gas extraction category for the 

western portion of the outer continental shelf of the Gulf of Mexico (GMG290000). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 117 pp. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/region6/

water/npdes/genpermit/gmg290000finalpermit2004.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Coastal condition report II. EPA-620/R-03/002. Internet 

website: http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/2005/downloads.html/. Accessed August 24, 2009. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007a. Region 6 compliance assurance and enforcement, 

offshore and oil and gas NPDES permits. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6en/w/

offshore/home.htm. Accessed November 26, 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007b. National Estuary Program coastal condition report. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Research and Development, 

Washington DC. EPA-842/B-06/001. Internet website: http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/nep/

nepccr_index.cfmAccessed February 1, 2008. 
References Cited 6-93 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007c. USEPA Region 6 NPDES OCS general permit no. 

GMG290000. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6en/w/offshore/permit10012007.pdf. 

Accessed April 28, 2009. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007d. NPDES general permit for new and existing sources and 

new dischargers in the offshore subcategory of the oil and gas extraction category for the western 

portion of the outer continental shelf of the Gulf of Mexico (GMG290000). U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. 15 pp. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/Region06/water/npdes/genpermit/

gmg290000fedreg.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008a. Coastal condition report III. EPA/842-R-08-002. 

Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/nccr/. Accessed February 27, 2009. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008b. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES), vessel discharges, final vessel general permit. 5 pp. Internet website: http://

cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=350. Updated December 15, 2008. Accessed April 20, 

2009. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009a. Region 4 environmental assessment for the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting for eastern Gulf of Mexico offshore oil and gas 

exploration, development and production. Permit 904/P-09-001. 129 pp. Internet website: http://

www.epa.gov/region04/water/permits/documents/ea_12_09_09.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009b. Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) general permit no. GEG460000 for offshore oil and gas activities in the Eastern Gulf of 

Mexico. 186 pp. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/permits/documents/

draft_r4_ocspermit_v24fr_10152009.pdf. Accessed January 12, 2009. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010a. EPA response to BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Air 

data from the Gulf coastline. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/air.html. Accessed 

December 1, 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010b. Region 4 air permits. Internet website: http://

www.epa.gov/region4/air/permits/index.htm. Accessed November 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010c. Greenhouse gas reporting program. Internet website: 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html. Accessed February 1, 2011. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010d. Particulate matter. Internet website: http://

www.epa.gov/pm/. Accessed December 2, 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010e. Odors from the BP oil spill. Internet website: http://

www.epa.gov/BPSpill/odor.html. Accessed October 1, 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010f. BP’s analysis of subsurface dispersant use. Internet 

website: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants-bp.html. Accessed July 9, 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010g. Water quality standards for the State of Florida’s lakes 

and flowing waters. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/rules/florida/

factsheet.html. Accessed March 9, 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010h. Oil and gas NPDES permits. Internet website: http://

www.epa.gov/region04/water/permits/oil_gas.html. Last updated January 15, 2010. Accessed 

November 26, 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010i. Recovered oil, contaminated materials and liquid and 

solid wastes management directive, June 29, 2010 (Louisiana). 9 pp. Internet website: http://

www.epa.gov/bpspill/waste/wastemanagementdirective_la.pdf. Accessed August 31, 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010j. Recovered oil, contaminated materials and liquid and 

solid wastes management directive, June 29, 2010 (Mississippi, Alabama, Florida). 10 pp. Internet 
6-94 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

website: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/waste/wastemanagementdirective_msalfl.pdf. Accessed 

August 31, 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010k. Waste staging and decontamination areas in Alabama, 

Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi, June 28-October 4. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/

data/waste_facility_assessments.pdf. Accessed October 10, 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010l. Dispersant air sampling. Internet website: http://

www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersant-air-sampling.html. Accessed October 28, 2011. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010m. Dispersants toxicity testing—Phase II questions and 

answers; August 2, 2010. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants/qandaphase2.pdf. Accessed January 4, 2011. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011a. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. Last updated April 18, 2011. Accessed 

April 26, 2011. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011b. 8-hour ozone nonattainment area/state/county report. 

Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/gnca.html. Last updated April 21, 2011. 

Accessed April 26, 2011. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011c. General conformity: Regulatory actions. Internet 

website: http://www.epa.gov/air/genconform/regs.html. Accessed June 12, 2011. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011d. Questions and answers on dispersants. Internet website: 

http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants-qanda.html#chemicals. Accessed September 8, 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Dept. of Army, Corps of Engineers. 2003. Ocean 

Dredged Material Disposal Program: Regional implementation agreement. USEPA Region 6, 

USACOE Galveston District, USACOE New Orleans District. July 2003. Internet website: http://

www.epa.gov/region6/water/ecopro/em/ocean/ria.pdf. 

U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2007. Coastal wetlands: Lessons learned from past efforts in 

Louisiana could help guide future restoration and protection. Government Accountability Office, 

Washington DC. GAO 08-130. 62 pp. Internet website: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08130.pdf. 

U.S. House of Representatives. Committee on Energy and Commerce. Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Trade, and Consumer Protection. 2010. The BP oil spill and the Gulf Coast tourism: Assessing the 

impact. Internet website: https://hsdl.org/?view&doc=126706&coll=limited. 

U.S. Travel Association. 2010. Economic impact of travel and tourism. The Power of Travel Data 

Center. Internet website: http://poweroftravel.org/statistics. 

Valentine, J. 2010. Official communication. Media reports of fisheries closures offsetting population 

losses from the spill. Senior Marine Scientist & Associate Professor, Dauphin Island Sea Lab and 

University of South Alabama. November 18, 2010. 

Valentine, D.L., J.D. Kessler, M.C. Redmond, S.D. Mendes, M.B. Heintz, C. Farwell, L. Hu, 

F.S. Kinnaman, S. Yvon-Lewis, M. Du, E.W. Chan, F. Garcia Tigreros, and C.J. Villaneuva. 2010. 

Propane respiration jump-starts microbial response to a deep oil spill. Science Express. 9 pp. 

Internet website: http://ecosystems.mbl.edu/mbl_micro_eco/pdf/Valentine2010.pdf. Posted 

September 16, 2010. Accessed March 18, 2011. 

Vandermuelen, J.H. 1982. Some conclusions regarding long-term effects of some major oil spills. 

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Communities and 

Ecosystems 297(1087):335-351. 

Vandegrift, K.J., S.H. Sokolow, P. Daszak, and A.M. Kilpatrick. 2010. Ecology of avian influenza 

viruses in a changing world. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1195:113-128. 

Varanasi, U., J.E. Stein, L.L. Johnson, T.K. Collier, E. Casillas, and M.S. Myers. 1992. Evaluation of 

bioindicators of contaminant exposure and effects in coastal ecosystems. In: McKenzie, D.H., 
References Cited 6-95 

D.E. Hyatt, and V.J. McDonald, eds. Ecological indicators, Volume 1. Proceedings of an 

International Symposium, Fort Lauderdale, FL. 

Vashcenko, M.A. 1980. Effects of oil pollution on the development of sex cells in sea urchins. 

Biologische Anstalt Helgoland 297-300. 

Veil, J.A., M.G. Puder, D. Elcock, and R.J. Redweik, Jr. 2004. A white paper describing produced water 

from production of crude oil, natural gas, and coal bed methane. Prepared by Argonne National 

Laboratory, Argonne, IL, for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology 

Laboratory, Contract W-31-109-Eng-38. 79 pp. Internet website: http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/

dsp_detail.cfm?PubID=1715. 

Velando, A., D. Alvarez, J. Mourino, F. Arcos, and A. Barros. 2005a. Population trends and 

reproductive success of the European shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis on the Iberian Peninsula 

following the Prestige oil spill. Journal of Ornithology 146:116-120. 

Velando, A., I. Munilla, and P.M. Leyenda. 2005b. Short-term indirect effects of the ‘Prestige’ oil spill 

on European shags: Changes in availability of prey. Marine Ecology Progress Series 302:263-274. 

Vermillion, B. 2011. Official communication. Raptors on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Telephone 

conservation, Biologist, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, National Wetlands Research 

Center, Lafayette, LA. 

Visit Florida Research. 2010. Research. Internet website: http://media.visitflorida.org/research.php. 

Accessed December 10, 2010. 

Visser, J.M. and G.W. Peterson. 1994. Breeding populations and colony site dynamics of seabirds 

nesting in Louisiana. Colonial Waterbirds 17:146-152. 

Vittor, B.A. 2000. Benthic macroinfauna of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico OCS, near DeSoto Canyon. 

In: Schroeder, W.W. and C.F. Wood, eds. Physical/Biological Oceanographic Integration Workshop 

for the DeSoto Canyon and Adjacent Shelf, October 19-21, 1999. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000-074. 

168 pp. 

Vladykov, V.D. 1955. A comparison of Atlantic sea sturgeon with a new subspecies from the Gulf of 

Mexico (Acipenser ovyrhynchus desotoi). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 

12:754-761. 

Vladykov, V.D. and J.R. Greeley. 1963. Order Acipenseroidei. In: Fishes of the western North 

Atlantic. Memoirs of the Sears Foundation for Marine Research 1:24-60. 

Wallace, R.K. 1996. Coastal wetlands in Alabama. Auburn University, Marine Extension and Research 

Center, Mobile, AL. Circular ANR-831 MASGP-96-018. 

Wallace, B., J. Kirkley, T. McGuire, D. Austin, and D. Goldfield. 2001. Assessment of historical, social, 

and economic impacts of OCS development on Gulf Coast communities. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 

2001-026. 12 pp. 

Wang, F.C. 1988. Saltwater intrusion modeling: The role of man-made features. In: Turner, R.E. and 

D.R. Cahoon, eds. Causes of wetland loss in the coastal central Gulf of Mexico. Volume 2. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 

87-0120. Pp. 71-100. 

Wang, P. and T. Roberts. 2010. Ongoing beach cleanup of the BP oil spill—a superficial job, literally. 

University of South Florida, Dept. of Geology, Coastal Research Laboratory, Tampa, FL.. 15 pp. 

Internet website: http://news.usf.edu/article/articlefiles/2566-PW%202nd%20Beach%20report.pdf. 

Wang, D.W., S.A. Mitchell, W.J. Teague, E. Jarosz, and M.S. Hulbert. 2005. Extreme waves under 

Hurricane Ivan. Science 3009:896. 
6-96 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Wannamaker, C.M. and J.A. Rice. 2000. Effects of hypoxia on movements and behavior on selected 

estuarine organisms from the southeastern United States. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology 

and Ecology 249:145-163. 

Ward, G.A., B. Baca, W. Cyriacks, R.E. Dodge, and A. Knap. 2003. Continuing long-term studies of the 

TROPICS Panama oil and dispersed oil spill sites. In: Proceedings of the 2003 International Oil 

Spill Conference, April 2-10, 2003, Vancouver, British Columbia. 

Warham, J. 1990. The petrels: Their ecology and breeding systems. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 

440 pp. 

Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, and P.E. Rosel, eds. 2009. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico marine mammal stock assessments—2011. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS NE 219. 598 pp. 

Wartzok, D. and D.R. Ketten. 1999. Marine mammal sensory systems. In: Reynolds, J.E. and 

S.A. Rommel, eds. Biology of marine mammals. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. 

Pp. 117-175. 

Weatherly, G. 2004. Intermediate depth circulation in the Gulf of Mexico: PALACE float results for the 

Gulf of Mexico between April 1998 and March 2002. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OSC Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS-2004-013. 

51 pp. 

Weaver, D.C., G.D. Dennis, and K.J. Sulak. 2002. Northeastern Gulf of Mexico coastal marine 

ecosystem program: Community structure and trophic ecology of demersal fishes on the pinnacle 

reef tract: Final synthesis report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, USGS BSR-2001-

008 and Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study 

MMS 2002-034. 143 pp. 

Weaver, D.C., E.L. Hickerson, and G.P. Schmahl. 2006. Deep reef fish surveys by submersible on 

Alderice, McGrail, and Sonnier Banks in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. In: Emerging 

Technologies for Reef Fisheries Research and Management. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA. NOAA Professional Paper NMFS (5). 

Pp. 69-87. 

Webb, J.W. 1988. Establishment of vegetation on oil-contaminated dunes. Shore and Beach, October. 

Pp. 20-23. 

Webb, T. 2010. BP oil spill: Failed safety device on Deepwater Horizon rig was modified in China. 

The Observer. Internet website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/18/deepwaterhorizon-blow-out-preventer-china. Posted July 18, 2010. Accessed September 22, 2010. 

Webb, J.W., S.K. Alexander, and J.K. Winters. 1985. Effects of autumn application of oil on Spartina 

alterniflora in a Texas salt marsh. Environ. Poll. Series A. 38(4):321-337. 

Weinstein, B.L. 2010. The economic and fiscal consequences of the drop in shallow-water drilling 

permits: Impacts on the Gulf Coast and the Nation. Southern Methodist University, Maguire Energy 

Institute, Cox School of Business. September 2010. Internet website: http://pressdocs.cox.smu.edu/

maguire/Maguire%20Institute%20Shallow%20Water%20Report%209-10.pdf. Accessed 

November 28, 2010. 

Weir, R.D. 1976. Annotated bibliography of bird kills at man-made obstacles: A review of the state of 

the art and solutions. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa. 

Welsh, S.E., M. Inoue, L.J. Rouse, Jr., and E. Weeks. 2009. Observation of the deepwater manifestation 

of the Loop Current and Loop Current rings in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 

2009-050. 110 pp. 

Wells, R.J.D. and J.R. Rooker. 2004. Spatial and temporal habitat use by fishes associated with 

Sargassum mats in the NW Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science 74:81-99 
References Cited 6-97 

Wesseling, I., A.J. Uychiacoc, P.M. Aliño, T. Aurin, and J.E. Vermaat. 1999. Damage and recovery of 

four Philippine corals from short-term sediment burial. Marine Ecology Progress Series 176:11-15. 

West Engineering Services, Inc. 2002. Mini shear study. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service. TAR Project 455. 16 pp. Internet website: http://www.boemre.gov/

tarprojects/455/Final%20Report.pdf. 

West Engineering Services, Inc. 2004. Shear ram capability study. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service. TAR Project 463. Internet website: http://

www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/463/(463)%20West%20Engineering%20Final%20Report.pdf. 

West Engineering Services, Inc. 2006. Assess the acceptability and safety of using equipment, 

particularly BOP and wellhead components, at pressures in excess of rated working pressure. 

Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. TAR Project 566. 56 pp. 

Internet website: http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/566/566AA.pdf. 

Wetherell, V. 1992. St. Joseph Bay Aquatic Preserve management plan: Adopted January 22, 1992. 

Florida Dept. of Natural Resources and Bureau of Submerged Lands and Preserves Division of State 

Lands. 

Wheeler, N.M., S.B. Reid, K.J. Craig, J.R. Zielonka, D.R. Stauffer, and S.R. Hanna. 2008. Cumulative 

increment analysis for the Breton National Wilderness Area. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2008-058. 

White, D. 2010. Official communication. Marsh health in areas visited after the Deepwater Horizon

spill. Professor of Biological Sciences, Marsh Ecologist, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA. 

White, I.C. and J.M. Baker. 1999. The Sea Empress oil spill in context. International Conference on the 

Sea Empress Oil Spill, 11-13th February 1998, Cardiff, Wales. 

White, D.H., C.A. Mitchell, H.D. Kennedy, A.J. Krynitsky, and M.A. Ribick. 1983. Elevated DDE and 

toxaphene residues in fishes and birds reflect local contamination in the lower Rio Grande Valley, 

Texas. The Southwestern Naturalist 28(3):325-333. 

White House Press Briefing. 2010. Press briefing by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and National Incident 

Commander Thad Allen (July 1, 2010). Internet website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/press-briefing-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-and-national-incident-commander-thad-al. 

Accessed July 8, 2010. 

Whittle, K.J., R. Hardy, P.R. Mackie, and A.S. McGill. 1982. A quantitative assessment of the sources 

and fate of petroleum compounds in the marine environment. Philosophical Transactions of the 

Royal Society of London. B. 297:193-218. 

Wicker, K.M., R.E. Emmer, D. Roberts, and J. van Beek. 1989. Pipelines, navigation channels, and 

facilities in sensitive coastal habitats: An analysis of Outer Continental Shelf impacts, Coastal Gulf 

of Mexico. Volume I: Technical narrative. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 89-0051. 470 pp. 

Wiese, F.K., W.A. Montevecchi, G.K. Davoren, F. Huettmann, A.W. Diamond, and J. Linke. 2001. 

Seabirds at risk around offshore oil platforms in the north-west Atlantic. Marine Pollution Bulletin 

42:1285-1290. 

WikiHow. 2010. The how to manual. How to calculate the distance to the horizon. Internet website. 

http://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Distance-to-the-Horizon. Updated September 29, 2010. 

Accessed December 30, 2010. 

Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 2010. Offshore oil and gas in the US Gulf of Mexico. Internet 

website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_oil_and_gas_in_the_US_Gulf_of_Mexico. Accessed 

November 16, 2010. 

Wilber, D.H., W. Brostoff, D.G. Clarke, and G.L. Ray. 2005. Sedimentation: Potential biological effects 

from dredging operations in estuarine and marine environments. DOER Technical Notes Collection. 
6-98 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

ERDC TN-DOER-E20. U.S. Dept. of the Army, Engineer Research and Development Center, 

Vicksburg, MS. 

Wilber, D.H., G.L. Ray, D.G. Clarke, and R.J. Diaz. 2008. Responses of benthic infauna to large-scale 

sediment disturbance in Corpus Christi Bay, Texas. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and 

Ecology 365:13-22. 

Wilhelm, S.I., G.J. Robertson, P.C. Ryan, and D.C. Schneider. 2007. Comparing an estimate of seabirds 

at risk to a mortality estimate from the November 2004 Terra Nova FPSO oil spill. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin 54:537-544. 

Wilkinson, A. 2011. Seafood at risk: Dispersed oil poses a long-term threat. Scientific American. 

Internet website: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=seafood-at-risk-dispersed-oilposes-2011-04-20. Posted April 20, 2011. Accessed May 2, 2011. 

Wilkinson, E., L. Branch, and D.L. Miller. 2009. Connectivity of beach mouse habitat in hurricane 

impacted landscapes: The influence of predation risk, gap width, patch quality, and landscape context 

on gap crossing probability. 94th Endangered Species Act Annual Meeting, Albuquerque Convention 

Center, August 2-7, 2009, Albuquerque, NM. 

Williams, J.H. and I.W. Duedall. 1997. Florida hurricanes and tropical storms; revised edition. 

Gainesville, FL: The University of Florida Press. 146 pp. 

Williams, R., S. Gero, L. Bejder, J. Calambokidis, S.D. Krauss, D. Lusseau, A.J. Read, and J. Robbins. 

2011. Underestimating the damage: Interpreting cetacean carcass recoveries in the context of the 

Deepwater Horizon BP incident. Conservation Letters 0:1-6. 

Wilson, D.L., J.N. Fanjoy, and R.S. Billings. 2004. Gulfwide emission inventory study for the regional 

haze and ozone modeling efforts: Final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study 2004-072. 273 pp. 

Wilson, D.L., R. Billings, R. Oommen, and R. Chang. 2007. Year 2005 Gulfwide emission inventory 

study. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2007-067. 149 pp. 

Wilson, D.L., R, Billing, R. Oommen, B. Lange, J. Marik, S. McClutchey, and H. Perez. 2010. Year 

2008 Gulfwide emission inventory study. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

Study BOEMRE 2010-045. 

Winge, O. 1923. The Sargasso Sea, its boundaries and vegetation. Rep. Dan. Oceanog. Expd, 

1908-1910. 3 Misc. Pap. 2:1-34 

Wolfe, S.H., J.A. Reidenauer, and D.B. Means. 1988. An ecological characterization of the Florida 

Panhandle. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88(12) and 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 

88-0063. 278 pp. 

Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2006. The 2006 complete economic and demographic data source 

(CEDDS) on CD-ROM. 

Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2010. The 2011 complete economic and demographic data source 

(CEDDS) on CD-ROM. 

Wooley, C.M. 1985. Evaluation of morphometric characters used in taxonomic separation of Gulf of 

Mexico sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrynchus desotoi. In: Binkowski, F.P. and S.I. Doroshov, eds. North 

American sturgeons: Biology and aquaculture potential. Developments in Environmental Biology of 

Fishes 6. Junk, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 163 pp.

Wooley, C.M. and E.J. Crateau. 1985. Movement, microhabitat, exploitation and management of Gulf of 

Mexico sturgeon, Apalachicola River, Florida. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 

16:590-605. 
References Cited 6-99 

World Fishing Network. 2010. Louisiana/BP finalize multi-million dollar industry deal. Internet 

website: http://www.worldfishingnetwork.com/news/louisianabp-finalize-multi-million-dollarindustry-deal-24836.aspx. Accessed December 6, 2011. 

Wright, D.G. and G.E. Hopky. 1998. Guidelines for the use of explosives in or near Canadian fisheries 

waters. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2107. 

Würsig, B., T.A. Jefferson, and D.J. Schmidly. 2000. The marine mammals of the Gulf of Mexico. 

College Station: Texas A&M University Press. 232 pp. 

Wyers, S.C., H.R. Frith, R.E. Dodge, S.R. Smith, A.H. Knap, and T.D. Sleeter. 1986. Behavioral effects 

of chemically dispersed oil and subsequent recovery in Diploria strigosa. Marine Ecology 7:23-42. 

Yarwood, G., G. Mansell, M. Jimenez, and S. Lau. 2004. 2000 Gulf-wide emissions inventory—OCS 

on-shore impacts modeling (Texas), a preliminary look. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA. Novato, CA: ENVIRON International 

Corporation. September 1, 2004. 

Yender, R.A. and Michel, J., eds. 2010. Oil spills in coral reefs: Planning and response considerations. 

Second edition. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office 

of Response and Restoration. 82 pp. Internet website: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/

book_shelf/70_coral_full_report.pdf. 

Yoshioka, P.M. and B.B. Yoshioka. 1987. Variable effects of Hurricane David on the shallow water 

gorgonians of Puerto Rico. Bulletin of Marine Science 40(1):132-144. 

Zabala, J., I. Zuberogoitia, J.A. Martinez-Climent, and J. Etxezarreta. 2010. Do long lived seabirds 

reduce the negative effects of acute pollution on adult survival by skipping breeding? A study with 

European storm petrels (Hydrobates pelagicus) during the “Prestige” oil-spill. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin 62:109-115. 

Zabarenko, D. 2010. Special report: Watching grass grow in the Gulf and cheering! News Daily 

Environmental Correspondent. July 7, 2010. Interview with Dr. Mendelssohn. Wetlands Ecologist, 

Louisiana State University. Internet website: http://www.reuters.com/article/

idUSTRE66R4Z420100728. Accessed December 27, 2010. 

Zeller, T., Jr. 2010. Drill ban means hard times for rig workers. The New York Times. Internet website: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/business/18rig.html?_r=1. Accessed June 29, 2010. 

Zhang, Z. and D. McConnell. 2011. Rock physics modeling of the gas hydrate and free gas mixed 

system in Green Canyon 955, Gulf of Mexico, and implications for gas hydrate prospecting. U.S 

Dept. of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Fire in the Ice, January 2011. Pp. 15-19. 

Internet website: http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/FutureSupply/MethaneHydrates/

newsletter/newsletter.htm. Accessed March 18, 2011. 

Zieman, J.C. 1976. The ecological effects of physical damage from motor boats on turtle grass beds in 

Southern Florida. Aquatic Botany 2:127-139. 

Zieman, J.C. 1982. The ecology of the seagrasses of south Florida: A community profile. U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/25. 123 pp. 

Zieman, J.C. and R.T. Zieman. 1989. The ecology of the seagrass meadows of the west coast of Florida: 

A community profile. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 

85(7.25). 155 pp. 

Zieman, J.C., R. Orth, R.C. Phillips, G. Thayer, and A. Thorhaug. 1984. The effects of oil on seagrass 

ecosystems. In: Cairns, J., Jr. and A.L. Buikema, Jr., eds. Restoration of habitats impacted by oil 

spills. Boston, MA: Butterworth Publishers. 

Zingula, R.P. and D.W. Larson. 1977. Fate of drill cuttings in the marine environment. Presented at the 

Offshore Technology Conference, May 2-5, 1977, Houston, TX. Paper No. 3040-MS. 
6-100 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Zuberogoitia, I., J.A. Martinez, A. Iraeta, A. Azkona, J. Zabala, B. Jimenez, R. Merino, and G. Gomez. 

2006. Short-term effects of the Prestige oil spill on the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus). Marine 

Pollution Bulletin 52:1176-1181. 
CHAPTER 7 

PREPARERS

Preparers 7-3 

7. PREPARERS 

Gary D. Goeke, Chief, Regional Assessment Section 

Casey Rowe, Lead NEPA Coordinator, Senior Environmental Scientist 

Barry Obiol, NEPA Coordinator, Senior Environmental Scientist 

Bob Martinson, Headquarters’ Coordinator, Environmental Specialist 

Pat Adkins, Information Management Specialist 

Bruce Baird, Senior Environmental Scientist 

Tom Bjerstedt, Coordinator, Senior Physical Scientist 

Perry Boudreaux, Biologist 

Darice K. Breeding, Environmental Protection Specialist 

Sindey Chaky, Environmental Protection Specialist 

Dennis Chew, Marine Biologist 

Deborah Epperson, Protected Species Biologist 

Barret Fortier, Biologist 

Donald (Tre) W. Glenn III, Protected Species Biologist 

Mike Gravois, Geographer 

Larry M. Hartzog, Environmental Scientist 

Keely Hite, Environmental Specialist 

Christopher Horrell, Senior Marine Archaeologist 

Chin Hua Huang, Meteorologist 

Mark Jensen, Economist 

Jack Irion, Unit Supervisor, Marine Archaeologist 

Agatha Kaller, Marine Biologist 

Nancy M. Kornrumpf, Program Analyst 

Carla Langley, Geographer 

Daniel (Herb) Leedy, Supervisor, Biological Sciences Unit 

Jill Lewandowski, Marine Biologist 

Alexis Lugo-Fernandez, Oceanographer 

Harry Luton, Social Scientist 

Lissa Lyncker, Biologist 

Margaret Metcalf, Physical Scientist 

Deborah H. Miller, Technical Editor 

Megan Milliken, Environmental Protection Specialist 

David P. Moran, Biologist 

Maureen M. Mulino, Marine Biologist 

Michelle Nannen, Marine Biologist 

S. Erin O’Reilly, Physical Scientist 

Catherine A. Rosa, Environmental Assessment Program Specialist 

James Sinclair, Marine Biologist 

Kim Skrupky, Marine Biologist 

Kristen L. Strellec, Economist 

Kate Winters, Biologist 

CHAPTER 8 

GLOSSARY

Glossary 8-3 

8. GLOSSARY 

Acute — Sudden, short term, severe, critical, 

crucial, intense, but usually of short duration. 

Anaerobic — Capable of growing in the absence 

of molecular oxygen. 

Annular preventer — A component of the 

pressure control system in the BOP that forms 

a seal in the annular space around any object 

in the wellbore or upon itself, enabling well 

control operations to commence.

Anthropogenic — Coming from human sources, 

relating to the effect of humankind on nature. 

API gravity — A standard adopted by the 

American Petroleum Institute for expressing 

the specific weight of oil. 

Aromatic — Class of organic compounds 

containing benzene rings or benzenoid 

structures.

Attainment area — An area that is shown by 

monitored data or by air-quality modeling 

calculations to be in compliance with primary 

and secondary ambient air quality standards 

established by the USEPA. 

Barrel (bbl) — A volumetric unit used in the 

petroleum industry; equivalent to 42 U.S. 

gallons or 158.99 liters. 

Benthic — On or in the bottom of the sea.

Biological Opinion — The FWS or NMFS 

evaluation of the impact of a proposed action 

on endangered and threatened species, in 

response to formal consultation under 

Section 7 or the Endangered Species Act.

Block — A geographical area portrayed on 

official BOEM protraction diagrams or leasing 

maps that contains approximately 2,331 ha 

(9 mi2

).

Blowout — An uncontrolled flow of fluids below 

the mudline from appurtenances on a wellhead 

or from a wellbore. 

Blowout preventer (BOP) — One of several 

valves installed at the wellhead to prevent the 

escape of pressure either in the annular space 

between the casing and drill pipe or in open 

hole (i.e., hole with no drill pipe) during 

drilling completion operations. Blowout 

preventers on jackup or platform rigs are 

located at the water’s surface; on floating 

offshore rigs, BOP’s are located on the 

seafloor.

Bottom kill — A wild well-control procedure 

involving the intersection of an uncontrolled 

well with a relief well for the purpose of 

pumping heavy mud or cement into the wild 

well to stanch the flow of oil or gas (the well 

control strategy for the Macondo spill 

deployed in mid-July 2010 that resulted in the 

successful capping of the well. 

Cetacean — Aquatic mammal of the order 

Cetacea, such as whales, dolphins, and 

porpoises. 

Chemosynthetic — Organisms that obtain their 

energy from the oxidation of various inorganic 

compounds rather than from light 

(photosynthetic). 

Cofferdam containment dome — A vertically 

elongated box structure designed to fit loosely 

over the Macondo lower marine riser package 

to capture escaping oil at the surface (an early 

containment strategy for the Macondo spill 

deployed in May 2010). 

Coastal waters — Waters within the geographical 

areas defined by each State’s Coastal Zone 

Management Program. 

Coastal wetlands — forested and nonforested 

habitats, mangroves, and marsh islands 

exposed to tidal activity. These areas directly 

contribute to the high biological productivity 

of coastal waters by input of detritus and 

nutrients, by providing nursery and feeding 

areas for shellfish and finfish, and by serving 

as habitat for birds and other animals. 

Coastal zone — The coastal waters (including the 

lands therein and thereunder) and the adjacent 

shorelands (including the waters therein and 

thereunder) strongly influenced by each other 

and in proximity to the shorelines of the 

several coastal states; the zone includes 

islands, transitional and intertidal areas, salt 

marshes, wetlands, and beaches and extends 

seaward to the outer limit of the United States 

territorial sea. The zone extends inland from 

the shorelines only to the extent necessary to 

control shorelands, the uses of which have a 

direct and significant impact on the coastal 

waters. Excluded from the coastal zone are 
8-4 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

lands the use of which is by law subject to the 

discretion of or which is held in trust by the 

Federal Government, its officers, or agents. 

See also State coastal zone boundaries. 

Completion — Conversion of a development well 

or an exploratory well into a production well. 

Condensate — Liquid hydrocarbons produced 

with natural gas; they are separated from the 

gas by cooling and various other means. 

Condensates generally have an API gravity of 

50o

-120o. 

Continental margin — The ocean floor that lies 

between the shoreline and the abyssal ocean 

floor, includes the continental shelf, 

continental slope, and continental rise. 

Continental shelf — General term used by 

geologist to refer to the continental margin 

province that lies between the shoreline and 

the abrupt change in slope called the shelf 

edge, which generally occurs in the Gulf of 

Mexico at about 200-m (656-ft) water depth. 

The continental shelf is characterized by a 

gentle slope (about 0.1o

). This is different 

from the juridicial term used in Article 76 of 

the Convention on the Law of the Sea (see the 

definition of Outer Continental Shelf). 

Continental slope — The continental margin 

province that lies between the continental 

shelf and continental rise, characterized by a 

steep slope (about 3o

-6o). 

Critical habitat — Specific areas essential to the 

conservation of a protected species and that 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. 

Crude oil — Petroleum in its natural state as it 

emerges from a well, or after it passes through 

a gas-oil separator but before refining or 

distillation. An oily, flammable, bituminous 

liquid that is essentially a complex mixture of 

hydrocarbons of different types with small 

amounts of other substances. 

Deferral — Action taken by the Secretary of the 

Interior at the time of the Area Identification 

to remove certain areas/blocks from the 

proposed sale. 

Delineation well — A well that is drilled for the 

purpose of determining the size and/or volume 

of an oil or gas reservoir. 

Demersal — Living at or near the bottom of the 

sea. 

Deepwater Horizon (DWH) event — All actions 

stemming from the April 20, 2010, explosion 

and subsequent sinking of the Transocean 

drillship Deepwater Horizon, up to and 

including the Macondo well kill declaration on 

September 19, 2010.

Development — Activities that take place 

following discovery of economically 

recoverable mineral resources, including 

geophysical surveying, drilling, platform 

construction, operation of onshore support 

facilities, and other activities that are for the 

purpose of ultimately producing the resources.

Development Operations Coordination 

Document (DOCD) — A document that must 

be prepared by the operator and submitted to 

BOEM for approval before any development 

or production activities are conducted on a 

lease in the western Gulf. 

Development well — A well drilled to a known 

producing formation to extract oil or gas; a 

production well; distinguished from a wildcat 

or exploratory well and from an offset well. 

Direct employment — Consists of those workers 

involved the primary industries of oil and gas 

exploration, development, and production 

operations (Standard Industrial Classification 

Code 13—Oil and Gas Extraction). 

Discharge — Something that is emitted; flow rate 

of a fluid at a given instant expressed as 

volume per unit of time. 

Dispersant — A suite of chemicals and solvents 

used to break up an oil slick into small 

droplets, which increases the surface area of 

the oil and hastens the processes of weathering 

and microbial degradation. 

Dispersion — A suspension of finely divided 

particles in a medium. 

Drilling mud — A mixture of clay, water or 

refined oil, and chemical additives pumped 

continuously downhole through the drill pipe 

and drill bit, and back up the annulus between 

the pipe and the walls of the borehole to a 

surface pit or tank. The mud lubricates and 

cools the drill bit, lubricates the drill pipe as it 

turns in the wellbore, carries rock cuttings to 

the surface, serves to keep the hole from 

crumbling or collapsing, and provides the 

weight or hydrostatic head to prevent 

extraneous fluids from entering the well bore 
Glossary 8-5 

and to downhole pressures; also called drilling 

fluid. 

Economically recoverable resources — An 

assessment of hydrocarbon potential that takes 

into account the physical and technological 

constraints on production and the influence of 

costs of exploration and development and 

market price on industry investment in OCS 

exploration and production. 

Effluent — The liquid waste of sewage and 

industrial processing. 

Effluent limitations — Any restriction 

established by a State or the USEPA on 

quantities, rates, and concentrations of 

chemical, physical, biological, and other 

constituents discharged from point sources 

into U.S. waters, including schedules of 

compliance. 

Epifaunal — Animals living on the surface of 

hard substrate. 

Essential habitat — Specific areas crucial to the 

conservation of a species and that may 

necessitate special considerations. 

Estuary — Coastal semienclosed body of water 

that has a free connection with the open sea 

and where freshwater meets and mixes with 

seawater. 

Eutrophication — Enrichment of nutrients in the 

water column by natural or artificial methods 

accompanied by an increase of respiration, 

which may create an oxygen deficiency. 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) — The 

maritime region extending 200 nmi from the 

baseline of the territorial sea, in which the 

United States has exclusive rights and 

jurisdiction over living and nonliving natural 

resources. 

Exploration Plan (EP) — A plan that must be 

prepared by the operator and submitted to 

BOEM for approval before any exploration or 

delineation drilling is conducted on a lease in 

the Western Gulf. 

Exploration well — A well drilled in unproven or 

semi-proven territory to determining whether 

economic quantities of oil or natural gas 

deposit are present; exploratory well. 

False crawls — Refers to when a female sea turtle 

crawls up on the beach to nest (perhaps) but 

does not and returns to the sea without laying 

eggs. 

Field — An accumulation, pool, or group of pools 

of hydrocarbons in the subsurface. A 

hydrocarbon field consists of a reservoir in a 

shape that will trap hydrocarbons and that is 

covered by an impermeable, sealing rock. 

Floating production, storage, and offloading 

(FPSO) system — A tank vessel used as a 

production and storage base; produced oil is 

stored in the hull and periodically offloaded to 

a shuttle tanker for transport to shore.. 

Gathering lines — A pipeline system used to 

bring oil or gas production from a number of 

separate wells or production facilities to a 

central trunk pipeline, storage facility, or 

processing terminal. 

Geochemical — Of or relating to the science 

dealing with the chemical composition of and 

the actual or possible chemical changes in the 

crust of the earth. 

Geophysical survey — A method of exploration 

in which geophysical properties and 

relationships are measured remotely by one or 

more geophysical methods. 

Habitat — A specific type of environment that is 

occupied by an organism, a population, or a 

community. 

Hermatypic coral — Reef-building corals that 

produce hard, calcium carbonate skeletons and 

that possess symbiotic, unicellular algae 

within their tissues. 

Harassment — An intentional or negligent act or 

omission that creates the likelihood of injury 

to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as 

to significantly disrupt normal behavior 

patterns that include, but are not limited to, 

feeding or sheltering. 

Hydrocarbons — Any of a large class of organic 

compounds containing primarily carbon and 

hydrogen. Hydrocarbon compounds are 

divided into two broad classes: aromatic and 

aliphatics. They occur primarily in petroleum, 

natural gas, coal, and bitumens. 

Hypoxia — Depressed levels of dissolved oxygen 

in water, usually resulting in decreased 

metabolism. 

Incidental take — Takings that result from, but 

are not the purpose of, carrying out an 
8-6 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

otherwise lawful activity (e.g., fishing) 

conducted by a Federal agency or applicant 

(see Taking). 

Indirect employment — Secondary or supporting 

oil- and gas-related industries, such as the 

processing of crude oil and gas in refineries, 

natural gas plants, and petrochemical plants. 

Induced employment — Tertiary industries that 

are created or supported by the expenditures of 

employees in the primary or secondary 

industries (direct and indirect employment), 

including consumer goods and services such 

as food, clothing, housing, and entertainment. 

Infrastructure — The facilities associated with 

oil and gas development, e.g., refineries, gas 

processing plants, etc. 

Jack-up rig — A barge-like, floating platform 

with legs at each corner that can be lowered to 

the sea bottom to raise the platform above the 

water. 

Junk shot — A wild well-control procedure 

accompanying a top kill that introduces 

foreign objects into the drilling fluid (such as 

shredded rope, rubber, or golf balls) and that is 

designed to clog the openings or partial 

openings in a nonfunctioning blowout 

preventer (an early well control strategy for 

the Macondo spill in May 2010). 

Kick — A deviation or imbalance, typically 

sudden or unexpected, between the downward 

pressure exerted by the drilling fluid and the 

upward pressure of in situ formation fluids or 

gases.

Landfall — The site where a marine pipeline 

comes to shore. 

Lease — Authorization that is issued under 

Section 8 or maintained under Section 6 of the 

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and that 

authorizes exploration for, and development 

and production of, minerals. 

Lease sale — The competitive auction of leases 

granting companies or individuals the right to 

explore for and develop certain minerals under 

specified conditions and periods of time. 

Lease term — The initial period for oil and gas 

leases, usually a period of 5, 8, or 10 years 

depending on water depth or potentially 

adverse conditions. 

Lessee — A party authorized by a lease, or an 

approved assignment thereof, to explore for 

and develop and produce the leased deposits in 

accordance with regulations at 30 CFR 250. 

Lower marine riser package — The head 

assembly of a subsurface well at the point 

where the riser connects to a blowout 

preventer.

Macondo — Prospect name given by BP to the 

Mississippi Canyon Block 252 exploration 

well that the Deepwater Horizon rig was 

drilling when a blowout occurred on April 20, 

2010.

Macondo spill — The name given to the oil spill 

that resulted from the explosion and sinking of 

the Deepwater Horizon rig from the period 

between April 24, 2010, when search and 

recovery vessels on site reported oil at the sea 

surface until uncontrolled flow from the 

Macondo well was capped. 

Marshes — Persistent, emergent, nonforested 

wetlands characterized by predominantly 

cordgrasses, rushes, and cattails. 

Military warning area — An area established by 

the Department of Defense within which 

military activities take place. 

Minerals — As used in this document, minerals 

include oil, gas, sulphur, and associated 

resources, and all other minerals authorized by 

an Act of Congress to be produced from 

public lands as defined in Section 103 of the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976. 

Nepheloid — A layer of water near the bottom 

that contains significant amounts of suspended 

sediment. 

Nonattainment area — An area that is shown by 

monitoring data or by air-quality modeling 

calculations to exceed primary or secondary 

ambient air quality standards established by 

the USEPA. 

Nonhazardous oil-field wastes (NOW) — 

Wastes generated by exploration, 

development, or production of crude oil or 

natural gas that are exempt from hazardous 

waste regulation under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (Regulatory

Determination for Oil and Gas and 

Geothermal Exploration, Development and 

Production Wastes, dated June 29, 1988, 
Glossary 8-7 

53 FR 25446; July 6, 1988). These wastes 

may contain hazardous substances. 

Naturally occurring radioactive materials 

(NORM) — naturally occurring material that 

emits low levels of radioactivity, originating 

from processes not associated with the 

recovery of radioactive material. The 

radionuclides of concern in NORM are 

Radium-226, Radium-228, and other isotopes 

in the radioactive decay chains of uranium and 

thorium. 

Offloading — Unloading liquid cargo, crude oil, 

or refined petroleum products. 

Operational discharge — Any incidental 

pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, or 

dumping of wastes generated during routine 

offshore drilling and production activities. 

Operator — An individual, partnership, firm, or 

corporation having control or management of 

operations on a leased area or portion thereof. 

The operator may be a lessee, designated 

agent of the lessee, or holder of operating 

rights under an approved operating agreement. 

Organic matter — Material derived from living 

plants or animals. 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) — All 

submerged lands that comprise the continental 

margin adjacent to the United States and 

seaward of State offshore lands. 

Pelagic — Of or pertaining to the open sea; 

associated with open water beyond the direct 

influence of coastal systems. 

Penaeids — Chiefly warm water and tropical 

prawns belonging to the family Penaeidae. 

Plankton — Passively floating or weakly motile 

aquatic plants (phytoplankton) and animals 

(zooplankton). 

Platform — A steel or concrete structure from 

which offshore development wells are drilled. 

Play — A prospective subsurface area for 

hydrocarbon accumulation that is 

characterized by a particular structural style or 

depositional relationship. 

Primary production — Organic material 

produced by photosynthetic or chemosynthetic 

organisms. 

Produced water — Total water discharged from 

the oil and gas extraction process; production 

water or production brine. 

Production — Activities that take place after the 

successful completion of any means for the 

extraction of resources, including bringing the 

resource to the surface, transferring the 

produced resource to shore, monitoring 

operations, and drilling additional wells or 

workovers. 

Province — A spatial entity with common 

geologic attributes. A province may include a 

single dominant structural element such as a 

basin or a fold belt, or a number of contiguous 

related elements. 

Ram — The main component of a blowout 

preventer designed to shear casing and tools in 

a wellbore or to seal an empty wellbore. A 

blind shear ram accomplishes the former and a 

blind ram the latter.

Recoverable reserves — The portion of the 

identified hydrocarbon or mineral resource 

that can be economically extracted under 

current technological constraints. 

Recoverable resource estimate — An assessment 

of hydrocarbon or mineral resources that takes 

into account the fact that physical and 

technological constraints dictate that only a 

portion of resources can be brought to the 

surface. 

Recreational beaches — Frequently visited, 

sandy areas along the Gulf of Mexico 

shorefront that support multiple recreational 

activities at the land-water interface. Included 

are National Seashores, State Park and 

Recreational Areas, county and local parks, 

urban beachfronts, and private resorts. 

Refining — Fractional distillation of petroleum, 

usually followed by other processing (for 

example, cracking). 

Relief — The difference in elevation between the 

high and low points of a surface. 

Reserves — Proved oil or gas resources. 

Rig — A structure used for drilling an oil or gas 

well. 

Riser insertion tube tool — A “straw” and gasket 

assembly improvised during the Macondo spill 

response that was designed to siphon oil and 

gas from the broken riser of the Deepwater 
8-8 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Horizon lying on the sea bottom (an early 

recovery strategy for the Macondo spill in 

May 2010). 

Royalty — A share of the minerals produced from 

a lease paid in either money or “in-kind” to the 

landowner by the lessee. 

Saltwater intrusion — Saltwater invading a body 

of freshwater. 

Sciaenids — Fishes belonging to the croaker 

family (Sciaenidae). 

Seagrass beds — More or less continuous mats of 

submerged, rooted, marine, flowering vascular 

plants occurring in shallow tropical and 

temperate waters. Seagrass beds provide 

habitat, including breeding and feeding 

grounds, for adults and/or juveniles of many 

of the economically important shellfish and 

finfish. 

Sediment — Material that has been transported 

and deposited by water, wind, glacier, 

precipitation, or gravity; a mass of deposited 

material. 

Seeps (hydrocarbon) — Gas or oil that reaches 

the surface along bedding planes, fractures, 

unconformities, or fault planes. 

Sensitive area — An area containing species, 

populations, communities, or assemblages of 

living resources, that is susceptible to damage 

from normal OCS-related activities. Damage 

includes interference with established 

ecological relationships. 

Shear ram — The component in a BOP that cuts, 

or shears, through the drill pipe and forms a 

seal against well pressure. Shear rams are 

used in floating offshore drilling operations to 

provide a quick method of moving the rig 

away from the hole when there is no time to 

trip the drill stem out of the hole. 

Shunting — A method used in offshore oil and 

gas drilling and production activities where 

expended cuttings and fluids are discharged 

through a downpipe, which terminates no 

more than 10 m from the ocean floor, rather 

than discharged at the ocean surface. 

Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Team — 

The on-the-scene responders for post-spill 

shoreline protection who established priorities, 

standardized procedures and establish 

terminology.

Spill of National Significance — Designation by 

the USEPA Administrator under 40 CFR 

300.323 for discharges occurring in the inland 

zone and the Commandant of the CG for 

discharges occurring in the coastal zone, 

authorizing the appointment of a National 

Incident Commander for spill-response 

activity. 

State coastal zone boundary — The State coastal 

zone boundaries for each CZMA-affected 

State are defined at http://

coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/mystate/docs/

StateCZBoundaries.pdf. 

Structure — Any OCS facility that extends from 

the seafloor to above the waterline; in 

petroleum geology, any arrangement of rocks 

that may hold an accumulation of oil or gas. 

Subarea — A discrete analysis area. 

Subsea isolation device — An emergency 

disconnection and reconnection assembly for 

the riser at the seafloor.

Supply vessel — A boat that ferries food, water, 

fuel, and drilling supplies and equipment to an 

offshore rig or platform and returns to land 

with refuse that cannot be disposed of at sea. 

Taking — To harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect any 

endangered or threatened species, or to 

attempt to engage in any such conduct 

(including actions that induce stress, adversely 

impact critical habitat, or result in adverse 

secondary or cumulative impacts). 

Harassments are the most common form of 

taking associated with OCS Program 

activities. 

Tension-leg platform (TLP) — A production 

structure that consists of a buoyant platform 

tethered to concrete pilings on the seafloor 

with flexible cable. 

Top hat — A short cylindrical sleeve with a 

tapered apex designed to fit atop of the lower 

marine riser package and to capture oil and 

gas from the flowing Macondo well (a 

functional subsurface recovery strategy for the 

Macondo spill in June and July, before the 

well was capped on July 15, 2010). 

Top kill — A wild well-control procedure 

involving the pump-down under pressure of 

heavy drilling fluid to equalize pressure and to 

stop the flow of gas and oil exiting a blowout 
Glossary 8-9 

(an early well control strategy for the 

Macondo spill deployed in May 2010). 

Total dissolved solids — The total amount of 

solids that are dissolved in water.

Total suspended particulate matter — The total 

amount of suspended solids in water. 

Total suspended solids — The total amount of 

suspended solids in water. 

Trunkline — A large-diameter pipeline receiving 

oil or gas from many smaller tributary 

gathering lines that serve a large area; 

common-carrier line; main line. 

Turbidity — Reduced water clarity due to the 

presence of suspended matter. 

Unified Area Command — A system of satellite 

work, coordination, and remediation stations 

administered by the Unified Incident 

Commander during a spill of national 

significance. 

Unified Incident Command — Command and 

coordination center for the National Incident 

Commander.

Volatile organic compound (VOC) — Any 

organic compound that is emitted to the 

atmosphere as a vapor. 

Water test areas — Areas within the Eastern Gulf 

where Department of Defense research, 

development, and testing of military planes, 

ships, and weaponry take place. 

Weathering (of oil) — The aging of oil due to its 

exposure to the atmosphere, causing marked 

alterations in its physical and chemical 

makeup. 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A 

 

FIGURES AND TABLES

Figures and Tables A-3 

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

Locations of Major Cities. 

Figure 1-2. Location of the Macondo Well (location of the Deepwater Horizon Event in Mississippi Canyon 

Block 252) in the Gulf of Mexico’s Central Planning Area. 
Figure 2-1. Location of Proposed Stipulations and Deferrals. 
Figure 2-2. Economic Impact Areas in the Gulf of Mexico. 
Figure 2-3. Military Warning Areas and Eglin Water Test Areas Located in the Gulf of Mexico. 
Figure 3-1. Offshore Subareas in the Gulf of Mexico. 
WESTERN PLANNING AREA CENTRAL PLANNING AREA TEXAS LOUISIANA MISSISSIPPI 0 50 100 Kilometers State of Louisiana Pipeline 0 50 100 

Refinery Port Terminal Transitioning OCS Pipeline Figure 3-2. Infrastructure and Transitioning Pipelines from Federal OCS and Louisiana State Waters. 
Figure 3-3. Air Quality Jurisdictional Boundary for BOEM and USEPA. 
Figure 3-4. OCS-Related Service Bases in the Gulf of Mexico. 
Figure 3-5. Major Ports and Domestic Waterways in the Gulf of Mexico. 
Figure 3-6. Oil-Spill Events (2008) in the Central Planning Area (Dickey, official communication, 2010). 
Figure 4-1. Status of Ozone Nonattainment in Coastal Counties and Parishes of the Central and Western Planning Areas (USEPA, 
Figure 4-2. Coastal and Offshore Waters of the Gulf of Mexico with Selected Rivers and Water Depths. 
Figure 4-3. Seagrass Locations of the Northern Gulf of Mexico. 
A-16 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Figure 4-4. Live Bottoms (Low Relief and Pinnacle Trend) in the Central and Eastern Planning Areas. 
Figures and Tables A-17 

Figure 4-5. Perspective Sketch of the Submerged Landscape of a Pinnacle Province as Visualized 

from Sidescan Sonar and Remotely Operated Vehicle Information (Brooks and 

Giammona, 1990). 
A-18 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Figure 4-6. Sketch of a Submerged Ridge (Brooks and Giammona, 1990). 
Figures and Tables A-19 

Figure 4-7. Location of the 36 Fathom Ridge within the Alabama Alps Formation (A & B) (Gardner et al., 

2002) and Oblique View of the 36 Fathom Ridge within the Alabama Alps (C) (Weaver et al., 

2002). 
A-20 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Figure 4-8. Location of Roughtongue Reef (A & B) (Gardner et al., 2002) and Oblique View of 

Roughtongue Reef (C) (Weaver et al., 2002). 
Figures and Tables A-21 

Figure 4-9. Location of Some Mapped Low-Relief, Hard-Bottom Areas and Pinnacles on the Alabama-Florida 

Continental Shelf (Schroeder et al., 1988). 
A-22 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Figure 4-10. Block-Like, Hard-Bottom Substrate North of the Head of De Soto Canyon (Shipp 

and Hopkins, 1978). 
Figure 4-11. Location of Topographic Features in the Gulf of Mexico. 
Figure 4-12. Location of Known Chemosynthetic Communities in the Gulf of Mexico. 
Figures and Tables A-25 

238

289

494

598

660

815

1032

1073 1086 1107 1122 1125 1129 1129 1135 1144 1144

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

5/28/10

6/6/10

6/20/10

7/4/10

7/15/10

8/1/10

8/14/108/31/10

9/7/10

9/14/109/21/109/28/1010/4/1010/6/10

10/12/1010/27/10

11/2/10

Date

# Collected

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

50

% Change

Figure 4-13. Summary of Sea Turtles Collected by Date Obtained from the Consolidated Numbers of Collected 

Fish and Wildlife That Have Been Reported to the Unified Area Command from the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Incident Area Commands, 

Rehabilitation Centers, and Other Authorized Sources Operating within the Deepwater Horizon/BP 

Incident Impact Area through November 2, 2010. (Data on the Y-axis reflects the cumulative number 

of individual sea turtles collected by date [alive and dead] and data on the Z-axis reflects proportional 

change from one reporting date to the next. For the latest available information on oiled or affected 

sea turtles documented in the area, event response, and daily maps of the current location of spilled oil, 

see RestoreTheGulf.gov, 2011). 
A-26 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

4676

4943

5303

5697 5833

6359

6844

7267

7651 7835 8000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

9/14/20109/21/20109/28/201010/3/201010/6/2010

10/12/201010/20/201010/27/2010

11/3/2010

11/16/201011/30/2010

Date

# Collected

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

% Chang

e

Figure 4-14. Summary of Avian Species Collected by Date Obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as 

Part of the NRDA Process through November 30, 2010. (Data on the Y-axis reflects the cumulative 

number of individual birds collected, identified, and summarized by date; data on the Z-axis reflects 

proportional change from one reporting date to the next. The data used in this table are verified as per 

the Fish and Wildlife Service’s QA/QC processes. Disclaimer: All data should be considered 

provisional, incomplete, and subject to change. For more information, see USDOI, FWS, 2010). 
Figure 4-15. Locations of Oil- and Gas-Related Infrastructure and the Distribution of Low-Income Residents across Counties an

Louisiana based on U.S. Census Data from 2009 (USDOC, Census Bureau, 2010; Dismukes, in preparation). 
Figure 4-16. Locations of Oil- and Gas-Related Infrastructure and the Distribution of Low-Income Residents across Counties in M

Florida based on U.S. Census Data from 2009 (USDOC, Census Bureau, 2010; Dismukes, in preparation). 
Figure 4-17. Locations of Oil- and Gas-Related Infrastructure and the Distribution of Minority Residents across Counties and 

Louisiana based on U.S. Census Data from 2009 (USDOC, Census Bureau, 2010; Dismukes, in preparation). 
Figure 4-18. Locations of Oil- and Gas-Related Infrastructure and the Distribution of Minority Residents across Counties in Mi

Florida based on U.S. Census Data from 2009 (USDOC, Census Bureau, 2010; Dismukes, in preparation). 
Figure 4-19. Location of All Deepwater Horizon Waste Disposal Sites (USDOC, NOAA, 2011; USEPA and British Petro

Petroleum, 2011a and 2011b). 
Figure 4-20. Distribution of the Gulf Coast Claims Facility’s Claimants and the Average Amount Paid to Each Claimant across G

and Parishes (Gulf Coast Claims Facility, 2011). 
Figures and Tables A-33 

Table 1-1 

 

Emergency 30 CFR 250 Subpart D Interim Final Rule Provisions 

Regulation Summary Existing 

Requirement New Requirement Cost 

Requires the operator to evaluate 

the best practices according to 

API RP 65-Part 2 and submit a 

written description for the 

evaluation. 

Written description must include 

the mechanical barriers and 

cementing practices the operator 

will use for each casing string. 

30 CFR 

§250.415(f) 

Evaluate best 

practices in 

API RP 65-

Part2 

No evaluation 

required 

API RP 65 Part 2 addresses 

cementing practices and factors 

affecting cementing success. 

No meaningful cost 

Schematics of all control systems, 

including primary controls, 

secondary controls, and pods for 

the BOP system must be 

submitted. 

30 CFR 

§250.416(d) 

Submittal of 

schematics of 

all control 

systems for 

BOP stack 

Schematic of BOP 

system showing 

inside diameter of 

BOP stack, number 

and type of 

preventers, location 

of choke and kill 

lines 

Location of the controls must be 

included 

No meaningful cost 

Information that the 

blind-shear ram is 

capable of shearing 

the pipe 

Verification that the blind-shear 

rams installed in the BOP stack 

are capable of shearing the drill 

pipe in the hole under maximum 

anticipated surface pressure. 

Independent thirdparty certification 

will require a small 

cost per well 

Independent third party must be a 

technical classification society or 

an API licensed manufacturing, 

inspection, certification firm, or 

licensed professional engineering 

firm. 

30 CFR 

§250.416(e) 

Independent 

third party 

verification 

to ensure 

blind-shear 

rams are 

capable of 

cutting the 

drill pipe 

used 

No independent 

third-party 

certification 

required 

Independent third-party must not 

be the OEM. 

Will add moderate 

costs 

30 CFR 

§250.418(i) 

Submit 

qualifications 

of 

independent 

third parties 

with APD 

No independent 

third-party 

certification 

required 

Description of qualifications in 

accordance with §250.416 (e) 

No meaningful cost 
A-34 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table 1-1. Emergency 30 CFR 250 Subpart D Interim Final Rule Provisions (continued). 

Regulation Summary Existing 

Requirement New Requirement Cost 

PE will verify there are two 

independent barriers 

Small cost per well 

if performed by an 

independent third 

party 

No cost if PE 

certification is done 

in house 

30 CFR 

§250.420(a) 

(6) 

Professional 

Engineer 

verification 

of well casing 

and 

cementing 

program 

No PE verification 

required 

Verify the casing cementing 

design is appropriate for the 

purpose it was intended under 

expected wellbore conditions Assumed that some 

majors would 

verify in-house; 

smaller operators 

will use third party 

Estimated that 80% 

of wells already use 

dual mechanical 

barriers 

Installation of dual 

mechanical barriers 

is estimated to take 

21 hours 

30 CFR 

§250.420(b) 

(3) 

Dual 

mechanical 

barriers 

No requirement Operator must install dual 

mechanical barriers in addition to 

cement in the final casing string 

and document to BOEMRE. 

Dual float valves, or one float 

valve and a mechanical plug. 

Will add significant 

costs to regulation 

Perform a pressure 

test on all casing 

strings (except 

drive/structural) 

according to 

250.423 (a) 

Pressure tests are 

already required, no 

extra equipment 

time 

Each pressure test 

only takes a few 

minutes 

30 CFR 

§250.423(b) 

(2) 

Pressure test 

on the casing 

seal assembly 

No requirement to 

ensure proper 

installation of the 

casing in the subsea 

wellhead 

Additional pressure test for the 

intermediate and production 

casing strings on the casing seal 

assembly to ensure proper 

installation of the casing in the 

subsea wellhead. 

No meaningful cost 

Negative pressure 

test will take 90 

minutes for each 

required string of 

casing 

30 CFR 

§250.423(c) 

Negative 

pressure test 

No negative 

pressure test 

required 

Perform a negative pressure test to 

ensure proper installation of 

intermediate and production 

casing strings 

Will result in 

significant costs for 

the regulation 
Figures and Tables A-35 

Table 1-1. Emergency 30 CFR 250 Subpart D Interim Final Rule Provisions (continued). 

Regulation Existing 

Requirement Summary New Requirement Cost 

Required to maintain an ROV and 

trained crew on each floating rig 

on a continuous basis. 

All rigs are 

assumed to have an 

ROV on board. 

This regulation will 

not add additional 

costs. 

30 CFR 

§250.442(e) 

Maintain 

ROV and a 

trained crew 

ROV’s used for 

visual inspection 

every 3 days; 

250.446(b) 

ROV must be capable of shutting 

in the well during emergency 

situations 

Regulation does not 

require a timed test, 

therefore current 

ROV’s will be 

capable of 

performing all 

required functions. 

30 CFR 

§250.442(f) 

Provide an 

autoshear and 

deadman 

system for 

dynamically 

positioned 

rigs 

No 

autoshear/deadman 

system requirement 

All dynamically positioned rigs 

must have an autoshear and 

deadman system 

Industry standard 

for dynamically 

positioned rigs to 

have 

autoshear/deadman 

systems 

No meaningful cost 

30 CFR 

§250.442(g) 

Barriers on 

BOP control 

panels to 

prevent 

accidental 

disconnect 

functions 

No two-handed 

requirement 

Incorporate enable buttons on 

control panels to ensure 2-handed 

operations for all critical 

functions. 

No meaningful cost 

30 CFR 

§250.442(h) 

Label subsea 

BOP control 

panel 

No labeling 

requirement 

Clearly label all control panels, 

such as hydraulic control panels 

and ROV interface on the BOP 

No meaningful cost 

Develop and use a management 

system for operating the BOP 

system 

Written procedures for operating 

the BOP stack and LMRP 

30 CFR 

§250.442(i) 

Develop 

management 

system for 

BOP 

No management 

requirement 

Minimum knowledge 

requirements for personnel 

authorized to operate and maintain 

critical BOP components 

No meaningful cost 

30 CFR 

§250.442(j) 

Training for 

BOP 

equipment 

No training 

requirement 

Train BOP personnel in deepwater 

well control theory and practice in 

accordance with 30 CFR 250, 

Subpart O 

No meaningful cost 

30 CFR 

§250.446(a) 

Document 

maintenance 

and 

inspections to 

BOP system 

No documentation 

requirement 

BOP maintenance and inspections 

must meet or exceed provisions of 

Sections 17.10 and 18.10 

No meaningful cost 
A-36 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table 1-1. Emergency 30 CFR 250 Subpart D Interim Final Rule Provisions (continued). 

Regulation Existing 

Requirement Summary New Requirement Cost 

No initial test on the 

seafloor 

All ROV intervention functions 

must be tested during the stump 

test and one set of rams during the 

initial test on the seafloor 

Initial test on the 

seafloor is not 

industry standard 

ROV hot stabs must be function 

tested and capable of actuating at 

least 1 set of pipe rams, 1 set of 

blind-shear rams and unlatching 

the LMRP 

30 CFR 

§250.449(j) 

Subsea 

function test 

for ROV 

intervention 

on a subsea 

BOP stack 

Stump test for 

subsea BOP stack 

Operator must examine all surface 

and subsea well-control 

equipment to ensure that it is 

properly maintained and capable 

of shutting in the well during 

emergency operations 

ROV seafloor test 

is estimated to take 

about 24 hours 

Will add significant 

costs 

30 CFR 

§250.449(k) 

Autoshear/ 

deadman 

function test 

No required 

function test 

The autoshear and deadman 

systems must be function tested 

during the stump test and during 

the initial test on the seafloor. 

No meaningful cost 

30 CFR 

§250.451(i) 

Emergency 

activation of 

blind or 

casing shear 

rams 

No required action If the blind-shear or casing shear 

rams are activated in a well 

control situation, the BOP must be 

retrieved and fully inspected and 

tested 

Emergency 

situation only, will 

incur significant 

loss of rig time 

Approval required from District 

Manager before displacing killweight drilling fluid from the 

wellbore 

Submit reasons for displacing and 

provide detailed procedures of 

displacement process. 

30 CFR 

§250.456(j) 

District 

Manager 

approval for 

displacing 

kill-weight 

drilling fluid 

No approval 

requirement 

Follow procedures in 250.456 

No meaningful cost 

All ROV intervention functions 

must be tested during the stump 

test and 1 set of rams during the 

initial test on the seafloor 

ROV hot stabs must be function 

tested and capable of actuating at 

least 1 set of pipe rams, 1 set of 

blind-shear rams and unlatching 

the LMRP 

30 CFR 

§250.516(d) 

(8) 

Subsea 

function test 

for ROV 

intervention 

on a subsea 

BOP stack 

Stump test BOP 

stack before 

installation 

Operator must examine all surface 

and subsea well-control 

equipment to ensure that it is 

properly maintained and capable 

of shutting in the well during 

emergency operations 

Will add costs for 

well completions 

operations 
Figures and Tables A-37 

Table 1-1. Emergency 30 CFR 250 Subpart D Interim Final Rule Provisions (continued). 

Regulation Existing 

Requirement Summary New Requirement Cost 

All ROV intervention functions 

must be tested during the stump 

test and 1 set of rams during the 

initial test on the seafloor 

ROV hot stabs must be function 

tested and capable of actuating at 

least 1 set of pipe rams, 1 set of 

blind-shear rams and unlatching 

the LMRP 

30 CFR 

§250.616(h) 

(1) 

Subsea 

function test 

for ROV 

intervention 

on a subsea 

BOP stack 

Stump test BOP 

stack before 

installation 

Operator must examine all surface 

and subsea well-control 

equipment to ensure that it is 

properly maintained and capable 

of shutting in the well during 

emergency operations 

Will add costs for 

well workover 

operations 

Source: Federal Register, 2010. 
A-38 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table 1-2 

 

Overview of the Assignment of Regulations between the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

Current Part New Location Note*

Title 30—Mineral Resources 

Part 203 – Relief or 

Reduction in Royalty Rates

Retained in its entirety in 

BSEE, Chapter II.

The BSEE will oversee the administration of royalty relief 

awarded after lease issuance as an operational 

responsibility. However BOEM will set the terms and 

conditions of any future leases issued with royalty relief 

provisions. 

Part 219 – Distribution and 

Disbursement of Royalties, 

Rentals, and Bonuses

Moved in its entirety to 

BOEM, Chapter V, Part 

519.

The BOEM will perform revenue share calculations for 

OCS receipts shared under the Gulf of Mexico Energy 

Security Act (GOMESA). The ONRR will continue to 

distribute the revenue shares to Gulf producing States and 

Coastal Political Subdivisions. 

Title 30 Subchapter B—Offshore

Part 250 – Oil and Gas and 

Sulphur Operations in the 

Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS) 

Responsibilities divided 

between BOEM and 

BSEE.

Both bureaus have responsibilities that are related to 

operations on OCS leases. These responsibilities were 

divided between the two bureaus as detailed in Table B. 

Part 251 – Geological and 

Geophysical (G&G) 

Explorations of the OCS

Responsibilities divided 

between BOEM and 

BSEE.

The BOEM will be responsible for issuing the permits and 

notices and overseeing the activities under the approved 

permit, as these are prelease, resource assessment-related 

activities. The BSEE will be responsible for issuing 

permits for test drilling activities under their 

responsibilities for operations. Further details are 

provided in Table C. 

Part 252 – OC Oil and Gas 

Information Program 

Both BOEM and BSEE 

will have this part in its 

entirety.

Part 252 regulates how and when the date and information 

is released by the OCS Oil and Gas Information Program. 

Since both bureaus will collect, maintain, and use data and 

information collected under this program, both are 

responsible for managing the data and determining how 

and when the data and information are released. Further 

details are provided in Table D. 

Part 253 – Oil Spill 

Financial Responsibility for 

Offshore Facilities

Moved to BOEM in its 

entirety, Chapter V, Part 

553.

The BOEM is responsible for all activities related to 

financial assurance. Oil-spill financial responsibility 

requirements are mandated by the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990 that applies to oil handling activities at any offshore 

facility (whether or not involved in oil production) seaward 

of the coastline. Further details are provided in Table E. 

Part 254 – Oil-Spill 

Response Requirements for 

Facilities Located Seaward 

of the Coast Line

Retained in its entirety in 

BSEE.

All oil-spill related activities, except for financial 

responsibility, will fall under BSEE, under its 

responsibility for oil-spill response. Further details are 

provided in Table F. 

Part 256 – Leasing of 

Sulphur or Oil and Gas in 

the OCS

Responsibilities divided 

between BOEM and 

BSEE.

The BOEM has primary responsibility for leasing and 

leasing-related activities. Some responsibilities related to 

operations and production will be in both bureaus. 

Suspension-related requirements will go to BSEE. Further 

details are provided in Table G. 

Part 259 – Mineral Leasing: 

Definitions

Moved to BOEM in its 

entirety, Chapter V, Part 

559.

The BOEM is responsible for leasing activities. Further 

details are provided in Table H. 
Figures and Tables A-39 

Table 1-2 Overview of the Assignment of Regulations between the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and 

the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (continued). 

Current Part New Location Note*

Part 260 – OCS Oil and Gas 

Leasing 

Moved to BOEM in its 

entirety, Chapter V, Part 

560.

The BOEM is responsible for leasing activities. Further 

details are provided in Table I.

Part 270 – 

Nondiscrimination in the 

OCS

Both BOEM and BSEE 

will have this part in its 

entirety.

Both BOEM and BSEE are responsible for ensuring that 

lessees and operators comply with section 604 of the 

OCSLA of 1978, which provides that “no person shall, on 

the grounds of race, creed, color, national origin, or sex, be 

excluded from receiving or participating in any activity, 

sale, or employment, conducted pursuant to the provisions 

of the OCSLA.” Further details are provided in Table J. 

Part 280 – Prospecting for 

Minerals Other Than Oil, 

Gas, and Sulphur on the 

OCS

Moved to BOEM in its 

entirety, Chapter V, Part 

580.

This part regulates prospecting activities or scientific 

research activities on the OCS in Federal waters related to 

hard minerals on unleased lands or on lands under lease to 

a third party. These activities fall under BOEM 

responsibilities for managing the development of offshore 

resources and activities on unleased land or on lands leased 

to a third party. Further details are provided in Table K. 

Part 281 – Leasing of 

Minerals Other Than Oil, 

Gas, and Sulphur in the 

OCS 

Moved to BOEM in its 

entirety, Chapter V, Part 

581.

This part regulates leasing for minerals other than oil, gas, 

and sulphur in the OCS. Leasing activities are a BOEM 

responsibility. Further details are provided in Table L.

Part 282 – Operations in the 

OCS for Minerals Other 

Than Oil, Gas, and Sulphur

Responsibilities divided 

between BOEM and 

BSEE.

Both BOEM and BSEE have responsibilities for operations 

conducted under a mineral lease for OCS minerals other 

than oil, gas, or sulphur. These responsibilities were 

divided between the two bureaus as detailed in Table M. 

Part 285 – Renewable 

Energy and Alternate Uses 

of Existing Facilities on the 

OCS

Moved in its entirety to 

BOEM, Chapter V, Part 

585.

At this time, the renewable energy program will be 

managed under BOEM. At a later date, the renewable 

energy program will be reorganized and a determination 

will be made regarding what functions will be administered 

by which agency. 

Title 30 Subchapter C—Appeals

Part 290 – Appeal 

Procedures

Both BOEM and BSEE 

will have this part in its 

entirety.

Appeal procedures apply to decisions and orders issued by 

both BOEM and BSEE. Further details are provided in 

Table O. 

Part 291 – Open and 

Nondiscriminatory Access 

to Oil and Gas Pipelines 

under the OCS Lands Act

Retained in its entirety in 

BSEE.

This part deals with access to pipelines. All aspects of 

pipelines, including operations are under the responsibility 

of BSEE. Further details are provided in Table P. 

* Tables B through P are found in the Federal Register (2011). 
A-40 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table 2-1 

 

Presidential and Secretarial Inquiries Resulting from the Deepwater Horizon Event and Spill 

Initiator and Date Purpose Expected Outputs 

April 30, 2010 

President Obama 

Reported if additional precautions and 

technologies should be required to improve the 

safety of oil and gas operations on the OCS. 

The so-called “30-day Report” or 

“Safety Measures Report” was delivered 

to the Secretary on May 27, 2010 

(USDOI, 2010a). 

April 30, 2010 

Secretary Salazar 

Created OCS Safety Oversight Board (Board) to 

provide recommendations for improving and 

strengthening DOI’s overall management, 

regulation, and oversight of OCS operations, 

including undertaking further audits or reviews, 

and reviewing existing authorities and 

procedures. 

The Board delivered its report to the 

Secretary on September 1. It was made 

public with an implementation plan on 

September 8, 2010 (USDOI, 2010b). 

May 11, 2010 

Secretary Salazar 

Impaneled a review by the National Academy of 

Engineering (NAE) of the root causes of the 

Deepwater Horizon event and provide 

recommendations 

The NAE panel forecasts delivery of 

their final report that presents the 

Committee’s final analysis, including 

findings and/or recommendations, by 

June 1, 2011 (pre-publication version); a 

final published version will follow by 

December 30, 2011 (NAE and NRC, 

2011). 

May 21, 2010 

President Obama 

Created the National Commission on the BP 

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore 

Drilling to develop findings and 

recommendations within 6 months. 

The Commission delivered the Final 

Report to the President on January 11, 

2011 (Oil Spill Commission, 2011). 

May 25, 2010 

Secretary Salazar 

Requested that the DOI’s Office of the Inspector 

General investigate any deficiencies in 

BOEMRE policies and practices that may have 

contributed to the Deepwater Horizon event. 

The DOI’s Office of the Inspector 

General released its report on 

December 7, 2010 (USDOI, Office of 

the Inspector General, 2010). 

Table 3-1 

 

Projected Oil and Gas in the Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Proposed Action OCS Program 

(2007-2046) 

Western Planning Area 

 Reserve/Resource Production 

 Oil (BBO) 0.222-0.423 6.629-8.060 

 Gas (Tcf) 1.495-2.647 52.211-59.961 

Central Planning Area 

 Reserve/Resource Production 

 Oil (BBO) 0.801-1.624 21.933-24.510 

 Gas (Tcf) 3.332-6.560 90.155-102.761 

BBO = billion barrels of oil 

Tcf = trillion cubic feet 
Figures and Tables A-41 

Table 3-2 

 

Offshore Scenario Information Related to a Proposed Action in the Central Planning Area 

Offshore Subareas1

 0-60 m 60-200 m 200-400 m 400-800 m 800-1,600 m 1,600-2,400 m >2,400 m Total CPA2

Wells Drilled 

 Exploration and Delineation Wells 17-23 9-14 6-14 9-17 11-24 7-16 6-13 65-121 

 Development and Production Wells 62-85 23-33 76-132 65-102 58-112 37-73 20-39 338-576 

 Producing Oil Wells 14-19 6-9 38-66 32-52 30-58 19-38 10-21 149-263 

 Producing Gas Wells 40-55 14-20 28-48 22-36 20-39 13-26 7-13 144-237 

Production Structures 

 Installed 20-25 2-3 2-3 2-3 1-4 2-3 3 32-44 

 Removed Using Explosives 14-17 2 2 0-1 0 0 0 23-32 

 Total Removed 18-23 2-3 2-3 2-3 1-4 2-3 3 30-42 

Length of Installed Pipelines (km)3 50-850 NA NA NA NA NA NA 130-2,075 

Service-Vessel Trips (1,000's round trips) 22-27 3-5 5-9 5-8 19-69 34-52 49-50 137-220 

Helicopter Operations (1,000 operations) 714-1,185 71-169 36-169 36-169 36-226 36-169 75-154 1,004-2,241

1

 See Figure 3-1. 

2

 Subareas totals may not add up to the planning area total because of rounding.

3

 Projected length of pipelines does not include length in State waters. 

NA = not available. 
A-42 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table 3-3 

 

Deepwater Rig Counts, Day Rates, and Annual Drill Rates in the Gulf of Mexico* 

Rig Type Number of Rigs Loaded Day Rate 

Drillship 11 $1,000,000 

Deep Semisubmersible 21 $923,953 

Low Semisubmersible 4 $715,792 

MODU Total or Weighted Average 36 $924,060 

Platform 10 $400,000 

* Current to August 2010. 

Table 3-4 

 

Oil Spilled from Pipelines on the Federal OCS, 2002-2009 

Regulator Area Total Oil Spilled 

(bbl) 

Oil Spilled due to 

Hurricanes (bbl) 

Proportion of Total due to 

Hurricanes (%) 

BOEM Federal OCS 5,522 5,179 94 

DOT Federal OCS 5,667 3,272 58 

DOT State Waters 9,903 9,622 97 

Source: USDOI, BOEM and DOT data. 
Figures and Tables A-43 

Table 3-5 

 

Mean Number and Sizes of Spills Estimated to Occur 

in OCS Offshore Central Planning Area Waters from an Accident Related to Rig/Platform 

and Pipeline Activities Supporting a CPA Proposed Action Over a 40-Year Time Period 

Spill Rate Spill Size Group (Spills/BBO) 1

Number of Spills 

Estimated for 

a CPA Proposed Action 

Estimated 

Median Spill Size (bbl) 1

0-1.0 bbl 2,020 1,620-3,300 <0.024 

1.1-9.9 bbl 57.4 40-100 

10.0-49.9 bbl 10-30 

3.0 

17.4 

50.0-499.9 bbl 11.3 9-20 

500.0-999.9 bbl 1-3 

130 

1.63 

>1,000 bbl 1.13 1-2 2,200 

Notes: The number of spills estimated is derived by application of the historical rate of spills per volume 

crude oil handled (1996-2010) (USDOI, BOEMRE, 2011) to the projected production for a 

proposed action in the CPA (Table 3-1). The actual number of spills that may occur in the future 

could vary from the estimated number. A spill size group for ≥10,000 bbl was not included in this 

table, because the catastrophic Deepwater Horizon oil spill (4.9 million bbl) was the only spill in 

this size range during 1996-2010, and thus meaningful statistics (such as median spill size) could 

not be calculated. 

1

Source: USDOI, BOEMRE, 2011, and calculations based on data therein. The spill rates presented are a 

sum of rates for U.S. OCS platforms/rigs and pipelines. 
A-44 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table 3-6 

 

Properties and Persistence by Oil Component Group 

Properties and Persistence Light-weight Medium-weight Heavy-weight 

Hydrocarbon compounds Up to 10 carbon atoms 10-22 carbon atoms >20 carbon atoms 

API o >31.1o 31.1o-22.3 o <22.3 o 

Evaporation rate Rapid (within 1 day) and 

complete 

Up to several days; not 

complete at ambient 

temperatures 

Negligible 

Solubility in water High Low (at most a few mg/L) Negligible 

Acute toxicity High due to monoaromatic 

hydrocarbons (BTEX) 

Moderate due to diaromatic 

hydrocarbons 

(naphthalenes—2 ring 

PAH’s) 

Low except due to 

smothering (i.e., heavier oils 

may sink) 

Chronic toxicity None, does not persist due 

to evaporation 

PAH components 

components (e.g., 

naphthalenes—2 ring 

PAH’s) 

PAH components (e.g., 

phenanthrene, anthracene—

3 ring PAH’s) 

Bioaccumulation potential None, does not persist due 

to evaporation 

Moderate Low, may bioaccumulate 

through sediment sorption 

Compositional majority Alkanes and cycloalkanes Alkanes that are readily 

degraded (specify, as done 

for others) 

Waxes, asphaltenes, and 

polar compounds (not 

significantly bioavailable or 

toxic) 

Persistence Low due to evaporation Alkanes readily degrade, 

but the diaromatic 

hydrocarbons are more 

persistent 

High; very low degradation 

rates and can persist in 

sediments as tarballs or 

asphalt pavements 

Sources: Michel, 1992; Canadian Center for Energy Information, 2010. 
Figures and Tables A-45 

Table 3-7 

 

Estimated Number of Spills that Could Happen in Gulf Coastal Waters 

from an Accident Related to Activities Supporting a Proposed Action 

Size Category Assumed Size 

WPA 

Proposed Action 

CPA 

Proposed Action 

Total 15-34 49-126 

1 bbl 1 bbl 12-29 44-114 

>1 bbl and <50 bbl 3 bbl 1-2 2-5 

50 bbl and <1,000 bbl 150 bbl 1-2 2-6 

1,000 bbl 3,000 bbl <1-1 <1-1 

Note: The estimated number of spills is obtained from the count of coastal spills for 2001 

proportioned to reflect that OCS oil comprised 19 percent of the oil crossing into 

GOM coastal waters in 2001. Intrastate oil and refined product transport were not 

included. The low estimate in the range was obtained from Dickey (official

communication, 2006) and the high estimate was obtained from aggregated 

national data available on the Internet (USDOT, Coast Guard, 2001). 

Sources: Dickey, official communication, 2006; USDOT, Coast Guard, 2001; National 

Ocean Economics Program, 2006; USDOE, Energy Information Administration, 

2006. 

Table 3-8 

 

Primary Cleanup Options Used during the Deepwater Horizon Response 

Fresh Oil Sheens Mousse Tarballs Burn Residue 

On-Water 

Response 

Disperse, skim, 

burn 

Light sheens 

very difficult to 

recover, heavier 

sheens picked up 

with sorbent 

boom or sorbent 

pads 

Skim Snare boom Manual removal 

On-Land 

Response 

Sorbent pads, 

manual 

recovery, 

flushing with 

water, possible 

use of chemical 

shoreline 

cleaning agents 

Light sheens 

very difficult to 

recover, heavier 

sheens picked up 

with sorbent 

boom or sorbent 

pads 

Sorbent pads, 

manual recovery 

Snare boom, 

manual removal, 

beach cleaning 

machinery 

Manual removal 

Source: USDOC, NOAA, 2010a. 
A-46 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table 3-9 

 

Pipelines* Damaged after 2004-2008 Hurricanes Passing through the WPA and CPA 

Hurricane Total Damage 

Reports 

Pipe and 

Movement 

Platform 

Connection Riser Mudflow Outside Impact Unknown

Ivan 168 38 20 67 16 9 18 

Katrina 299 61 139 66 1 9 14 

Rita 243 31 94 89 0 8 21 

Gustav/Ike 314 14 2 273 2 7 16 

* Not discriminated by diameter. 

Sources: Energo Engineering, 2010; Atkins et al., 2007. 

Table 3-10 

 

Causes of Hurricane-Related Pipeline Spills Greater Than 50 Barrels 

Hurricane Amount Spilled (bbl) Cause 

Ivan 1,720 Mudflow 

Ivan 671 Movement 

Ivan 126 Platform 

Ivan 200 Platform 

Ivan 250 Platform 

Ivan 260 Platform 

Ivan 95 Movement 

Ivan 123 Movement 

Katrina 960 Movement 

Katrina 50 Platform 

Katrina 55 Riser 

Katrina 132 Mudslide 

Katrina 50 Movement 

Rita 75 Riser 

Rita 100 Outside Force 

Rita 862 Outside Force/Platform 

Rita 67 Platform 

Rita 108 Riser 

Ike 69 Movement 

Ike 108 Riser 

Ike 56 Platform 

Ike 1,316 Outside Force 

Ike 209 Riser 

Ike 268 Riser 

Source: USDOI, BOEM data. 
Figures and Tables A-47 

Table 3-11 

 

Total Producing Wells, Total Oil, and Total Gas Production in the Nine Coastal Parishes of Louisiana in 2009 

Parish Total Producing Wells Total Oil Produced (bbl) Total Gas Produced (Mcf) 

St. Bernard 114 666,757 12,662,442 

Plaquemines 1,734 16,870,508 74,737,520 

Jefferson 221 1,202,961 11,199,616 

Lafourche 539 5,769,795 35,366,426 

Terrebonne 569 5,984,437 93,070,163 

St. Mary 345 3,400,486 40,127,959 

Iberia 172 2,891,805 48,567,357 

Vermilion 249 3,062,983 63,928,992 

Cameron 323 3,278,189 57,276,938 

TOTAL 4,266 43,127,921 436,940,000 

Mcf = 1,000 ft3 

bbl = 42 U.S. gal 

Source: SONRIS lite database (Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources, 2010). 
A-48 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table 3-12 

 

Designated Ocean Dredged-Material Disposal Sites in the Cumulative Impact Area 

ODMDS Location Coordinates 

Name Latitude Longitude 

Water 

Depth Size Authorized Material, Last Time Used and Amount Disposed 

30°17'24"N 87°18'30"W 

30°17'00"N 87°19'50"W 

30°15'36"N 87°17'48"W 

Pensacola 

Nearshore 

30°15'15"N 87°19'18"W 

~36 ft, 

~11m 

2.48 mi2, 

642 ha, 

1,587 ac 

Medium-grained sand, <10% fines. 

1987; 157,100 yd3

30°08'50"N 87°19'30"W 

30°08'50"N 87°16'30"W 

30°07'05"N 87°16'30"W 

Pensacola 

Offshore 

30°07'05"N 87°19'30"W 

65-80 ft 

20-24m 

6 mi2, 

1,554 ha, 

3,840 ac 

Primarily fine-grained. 

2005; 63,000 yd3

30°10'00"N 88°07'42"W 

30°10'24"N 88°05'12"W 

30°09'24"N 88°04'42"W 

30°08'30"N 88°05'12"W 

Mobile 

30°08'30"N 88°08'12"W 

~46 ft, 

~14m 

4.8 mi2, 

1,243 ha, 

3,072 ac 

Dredged material meeting USEPA Ocean 

Dumping Criteria. 

2008; 2,235,993 yd3

30°12'06"N 88°44'30"W 

30°11'42"N 88°33'24"W 

30°08'30"N 88°37'00"W Pascagoula 

30°08'18"N 88°41'54"W 

38-52 ft, 

11.5-19m 

18.5 mi2, 

4,791 ha, 

11,840ac 

Suitable material from the Mississippi 

Sound and vicinity. 

2008; 1,489,100 yd3

30°12'00"N 89°00'30"W 

30°12'00"N 88°59'30"W 

30°11'00"N 89°00'00"W 

30°07'00"N 88°56'30"W 

30°06'36"N 88°57'00"W 

Gulfport West 

30°10'30"N 89°00'36"W 

~27 ft, 

~8.2m 

5.2 mi2, 

1,346 ha, 

3,328 ac 

Dredged material meeting USEPA Ocean 

Dumping Criteria. 

2005; 390,000 yd3

30°11'10"N 88°58'24"W 

30°11'12"N 88°57'30"W 

30°07'36"N 88°54'24"W Gulfport East 

30°07'24"N 88°54'48"W 

~30 ft, 

~9.1m 

2.47 mi2, 

640 ha, 

1,581 ac 

Meet USEPA Ocean Dumping Criteria. 

1996; 323,300 yd3

29°22'00"N 88°56'30"W 

29°23'00"N 88°54'30"W 

Mississippi 

River - Gulf 

Outlet 29°24'30"N 88°52'30"W 

20-40 ft, 

6-12m 

6.03 mi2, 

1,562 ha, 

3,859 ac 

Dredged material from the vicinity of 

Mississippi River Gulf Outlet. 

2005; 909,100 yd3

28°53'58"N 89°25'31"W 

28°53'45"N 89°25'09"W 

28°53'13"N 89°25'28"W 

Mississippi 

River - 

Southwest 

Pass 28°53'11"N 89°24'49"W 

8-106 ft, 

2.7-32.2m 

3.44 mi2, 

891 ha, 

2,202 ac 

Dredged material from the vicinity of the 

Southwest Pass Channel. 

2008; 6,890,400 yd3

29°13'30"N 89°53'30"W 

29°13'54"N 89°53'48"W Barataria Bay 

Waterway 

29°14'21"N 89°54'06"W 

8-20 ft, 

2.4-6.1m 

1,4 mi2, 

362 ha, 

896 ac 

Dredged material from the vicinity of 

Barataria Bay Waterway. 

1988; 775,000 yd3

28°58'09"N 90°29'30"W 

28°58'57"N 90°31'30"W 

Houma 

Navigation 

Canal (Cat 

Island Pass) 28°57'57"N 90°31'54"W 

6-30 ft, 

1.8-9.1m 

2.08 mi2, 

539 ha, 

1,331 ac 

Dredged material from the vicinity of 

Cat Island Pass, Louisiana. 

1997; 117,400 yd3
Figures and Tables A-49 

Table 3-12. Designated Ocean Dredged-Material Disposal Sites in the Cumulative Impact Area (continued). 

ODMDS Location Coordinates 

Name Latitude Longitude 

Water 

Depth Size Authorized Material, Last Time Used and Amount Disposed 

29°07'00"N 91°31'30"W 

29°08'00"N 91°29'00"W Atchafalaya 

Bar Channel 

29°09'00"N 91°27'00"W 

~16 ft, 

~4.8m 

9.14 mi2, 

2,367 ha, 

5,850 ac 

Dredged material from the bar channel of 

the Atchafalaya River. 

2008; 9,545,800 yd3

29°30'00"N 93°10'18"W 

29°30'51"N 93°10'00"W Calcasieu 

River & Pass 

29°30'00"N 93°09'27"W 

36-46 ft, 

11 to 14 m 

5.8 mi2, 

1,502 ha, 

3,712 ac 

Dredged material from the vicinity of the 

Calcasieu River and Pass Project. 

2008; 364,700 yd3

29°27'30"N 93°37'00"W 

29°27'30"N 93°36'45"W 

29°26'38"N 93°36'45"W 

Sabine-Neches 

Waterway No. 

1 & 2 

29°26'38"N 93°37'00"W 

25.7-42.6 ft, 

9-13m 

6.6 mi2, 

1709 ha, 

4,224 ac 

Dredged material from the Sabine-Neches 

area. 

2006; 1,524,200 yd3

29°35'52"N 93°41'45"W 

29°35'52"N 93°41'30"W 

29°35'00"N 93°41'30"W 

Sabine-Neches 

Waterway No. 

3 & 4 

29°35'00"N 93°41'45"W 

16.4-33 ft, 

5-10m 

8.9 mi2, 

2,305 ha, 

5,696 ac 

Dredged material from the Sabine-Neches 

area. 

2008; 1,691,900 yd3

29°20'22"N 94°37'11"W 

29°19'32"N 94°36'56"W 

29°19'23"N 94°37'06"W 

Galveston 

Harbor & 

Channel 

29°20'13"N 94°37'21"W 

33-51 ft, 

10-15.5m 

6.6 mi2, 

1,709 ha, 

4,224 ac 

Dredged material from the Galveston, 

Texas, area. 

2008; 2,395,800 yd3

28°54'28"N 95°13'40"W 

28°54'35"N 95°13'28"W 

28°55'07"N 95°14'01"W 

Freeport 

Harbor, New 

Work 

28°54'60"N 95°14'13"W 

54-61 ft, 

16.4-18.6m 

2.64 mi2, 

684 ha, 

1,690 ac 

Dredged material from the Freeport 

Harbor Entrance and Jetty Channels, 

Texas. 

1992; 46,800 yd3

28°24'27"N 96°16'04"W 

28°24'33"N 96°15'52"W 

28°25'10"N 96°16'30"W 

Matagorda 

Ship Channel 

28°25'04"N 96°16'42"W 

25-40 ft, 

7.5-12.2m 

0.56 mi2, 

145 ha, 

358 ac 

Dredged material from the Matagorda 

Ship Channel, Texas. 

2006; 336,700 yd3

27°50'10"N 96°59'17"W 

27°50'20"N 96°59'09"W 

27°50'48"N 96°59'57"W 

Corpus Christi 

Ship Channel 

27°50'38"N 97°00'05"W 

35-50 ft, 

10.6-15.2m 

0.63 mi2, 

163 ha, 

403 ac 

Dredged material from the Corpus Christi 

Ship Channel, Texas. 

2007; 954,600 yd3

26°32'11"N 97°13'44"W 

26°31'58"N 97°13'44"W 

26°31'58"N 97°14'42"W 

Port Mansfield 

26°32'11"N 97°14'42"W 

35-50 ft, 

10.6-15.2m 

0.42 mi2, 

109 ha, 

269 ac 

Dredged material from the Port Mansfield 

Entrance Channel, Texas. 

1986; 104,200 yd3

26°02'18"N 96°06'30"W 

26°02'18"N 97°07'26"W 

26°02'05"N 97°07'26"W 

Brazos Island 

Harbor 

26°02'05"N 96°06'30"W 

55-65 ft, 

16.7-19.8m 

0.42 mi2, 

109 ha, 

269 ac 

Dredged material from the Brazos Island 

Harbor Entrance Channel, Texas. 

1997; 350,900 

~ approximately. 

Sources: National Archives and Records Administration, 2010; U.S. Dept. of the Army, COE, 2011. 
A-50 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table 3-13 

 

Projected OCS Sand Borrowing Needs for Planned Restoration Projects 

Restoration Project Maximum Sand (yd3) Source (OCS Area and Block) (if known) 

Pelican Island (CWPPRA BA-35) ~5,500,000 West Delta (Sandy Point site) 

Raccoon Island (CWPPRA TE-48) 750,000 to 830,000 Ship Shoal 64 & 71 

Cameron Parish Shoreline ~10,000,000 Sabine Bank 

Point Au Fer Shoreline N/A N/A 

LCA Terrebonne Basin 

Raccoon Island ~8,340,000 Ship Shoal 88 & 89; South Pelto 12 & 13 

Whiskey Island ~7,720,000 Ship Shoal 88 & 89; South Pelto 12 & 13 

Trinity and East Islands ~16,260,000 Ship Shoal 88 & 89; South Pelto 12 & 13 

Timbalier Island ~10,700,000 Ship Shoal 88 & 89; South Pelto 12 & 13 

East Timbalier Island ~11,230,000 N/A 

LCA Barataria Basin 

Caminada Headland ~6,000,000 South Pelto 12 &13 

TOTAL ~76,500,000 

N/A = not available 

~ approximately 

Table 3-14 

 

Vessel Calls at U.S. Gulf Coast Ports in 2004 and 2009 

Vessel Type 2004 Percent of Total Calls in U.S. 2009 Percent of Total Calls in U.S. 

Tanker 52.4 55.8 

Container 7.0 9.0 

Dry Bulk 42.6 46.8 

RO-RO (Roll-on Roll-off) 7.0 9.9 

Gas 59.8 62.6 

Combo 56.2 75.6 

General 28.8 39.0 

All Types 31.2 34.1 

Source: USDOT, MARAD, 2009. 
Figures and Tables A-51 

Table 3-15 

 

Designated Louisiana Service Bases Identified in Applications for Pipelines, Exploration, 

and Development Plans between 2003 and 2008 and Miles of Navigation Canal Bordered 

by Saline, Brackish Water, and Freshwater Wetlands 

Number of Pipeline 

Applications with Designated 

Service Base 

Number of Exploration and 

Development Plans with 

Designated Service Base Shore Base 

2003-2008 Percent 2003-2008 Percent 

Miles 

Bordering Salt 

and Brackish 

Wetlands 

Miles 

Bordering 

Fresh 

Wetlands 

Fourchon 303 31.5 618 44.4 0** 0** 

Cameron 247 25.7 383 27.5 0 0 

Intracoastal City 102 10.6 94 6.7 6.4 0 

Venice 96 10.0 139 9.9 Miss. River 0 

Morgan City 68 7.1 52 3.7 Miss. River 0 

Leeville 37 3.9 18 1.3 0 0 

Grand Isle 29 3.0 2 0.1 0 0 

Dulac 20 2.1 8 0.6 1.7 0 

Berwick 14 1.5 19 1.4 Miss. River 0 

Lake Charles 12 1.2 1 0.1 3.4 0 

Freshwater City 10 1.0 18 1.3 0 0 

Houma 8 0.8 18 1.3 5.3 6.6 

Amelia 2 0.2 7 0.5 0 0 

Galliano 1 0.1 7 0.5 0 0 

Boothville 3 0.3 6 0.4 Miss. River 0 

Abbeville 7 0.7 0 0.0 0 0 

Grand Chenier 2 0.2 1 0.1 0 0 

Grand Total 961 99.9 1,391 99.8 16.8 6.6 

 *= compiled by BOEM staff using operator-designated service bases from OCS plans and pipeline applications. 

**= “0” indicates the service base has no surrounding wetlands in the category. 
A-52 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table 3-16 

 

Coastal Impact Assistance Program Allocations for all Eligible States ($) 

Recipient FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Total 

Alabama 25,551,607.04 25,551,607.04 19,728,257.36 19,524,845.48 90,356,316.92

State Share 16,608,544.58 16,608,544.58 12,823,367.28 12,691,149.56 58,731,606.00

County Share 8,943,062.46 8,943,062.46 6,904,890.08 6,833,695.92 31,624,710.92

Alaska 2,425,000.00 2,425,000.00 37,471,876.48 37,085,568.47 79,407,444.95

State Share 1,576,250.00 1,576,250.00 24,356,719.71 24,105,619.51 51,614,839.22

Borough Share 848,750.00 848,750.00 13,115,156.77 12,979,948.97 27,792,605.74

California 7,444,441.75 7,444,441.75 4,923,124.98 4,872,363.83 24,684,372.31

State Share 4,838,887.13 4,838,887.13 3,200,031.24 3,167,036.49 16,044,841.99

County Share 2,605,554.61 2,605,554.61 1,723,093.74 1,705,327.34 8,639,530.30

Louisiana 127,547,898.57 127,547,898.57 120,911,588.83 119,663,560.77 495,670,946.74

State Share 82,906,134.07 82,906,134.07 78,592,532.74 77,781,314.50 322,186,115.38

Parish Share 44,641,764.50 44,641,764.50 42,319,056.09 41,882,246.27 173,484,831.36

Mississippi 30,939,850.55 30,939,850.55 23,819,815.26 23,574,217.72 109,273,734.08

State Share 20,110,902.86 20,110,902.86 15,482,879.92 15,323,241.52 71,027,927.16

County Share 10,828,947.69 10,828,947.69 8,336,935.34 8,250,976.20 38,245,806.92

Texas 48,591,202.09 48,591,202.09 35,645,337.09 35,279,443.73 168,107,185.00

State Share 31,584,281.36 31,584,281.36 23,169,469.11 22,931,638.42 109,269,670.25

County Share 17,006,920.73 17,006,920.73 12,475,867.98 12,347,805.30 58,837,514.74

Table 3-17 

 

Coastal Impact Assistance Program Grants Status for Gulf of Mexico States ($) 

Recipient Total 

Allocation 

Amount 

Applied For 

Amount 

Awarded 

Amount 

Under Review 

Allocation 

Balance 

Alabama 90,356,316.92 26,371,168.00 17,665,845.59 8,705,322.41 63,985,148.92

State 58,731,606.00 13,408,368.07 10,576,735.04 2,831,633.03 45,323,237.93

County 31,624,710.92 12,962,799.93 7,089,110.55 5,873,689.38 18,661,910.99

Louisiana 495,670,946.74 167,570,557.69 151,147,595.40 16,422,962.29 328,100,389.05

State 322,186,115.38 114,414,404.38 109,013,629.00 5,400,775.38 207,771,711.00

Parish 173,484,831.36 53,156,153.31 42,133,966.40 11,022,186.91 120,328,678.05

Mississippi 109,273,734.08 41,527,869.50 32,065,439.00 9,462,430.50 67,745,864.58

State 71,027,927.16 33,239,105.50 30,083,154.00 3,155,951.50 37,788,821.66

County 38,245,806.92 8,288,764.00 1,982,285.00 6,306,479.00 29,957,042.92

Texas 168,107,185.00 25,091,736.63 22,005,691.30 3,086,045.33 143,015,448.36

State 109,269,670.25 19,627,047.36 18,627,047.36 1,000,000.00 89,642,622.89

County 58,837,514.74 5,464,689.27 3,378,643.94 2,086,045.33 53,372,825.47

Total GOM 863,408,182.74 260,561,331.82 222,884,571.29 37,676,760.53 602,846,850.91
Figures and Tables A-53 

Table 3-18 

 

Hurricane Landfalls in the Northern Gulf of Mexico 

from 1995 through 2010 

Event Year Impacted State Storm Name Intensity at Landfall 

1 1995 AL, FL Opal Hurricane Category 3 

2 1995 FL Erin Hurricane Category 2 

3 1997 LA, AL Danny Hurricane Category 1 

4 1998 FL Earl Hurricane Category 1 

5 1998 MS, AL Georges Hurricane Category 2 

6 1999 TX Bret Hurricane Category 3 

7 2002 LA Lili Hurricane Category 1 

8 2003 TX Claudette Hurricane Category 1 

9 2004 MS, AL Ivan Hurricane Category 4 

10 2005 LA, MS Cindy Hurricane Category 1 

11 2005 FL, AL Dennis Hurricane Category 3 

12 2005 LA, MS Katrina Hurricane Category 5 

13 2005 TX, LA Rita Hurricane Category 3 

14 2007 TX, LA Humberto Hurricane Category 1 

15 2008 LA Gustav Hurricane Category 2 

16 2008 TX, LA Ike Hurricane Category 4 

17 2008 TX Dolly Hurricane Category 1 

* No hurricane landfalls in the northern Gulf of Mexico in 2009 or 2010. 

Source: USDOC, NOAA, 2010b. 

Table 3-19 

 

OCS Facility Damage after the 2004-2008 Hurricanes in the WPA and CPA 

Platforms 

Storm Platforms Exposed to High Winds 

(≥73 mph) Destroyed Damaged 

Damaged 

Pipelines 

(≥10 in) 

Ivan (2004) 150 7 14 13 

Katrina (2005) 43 NR 40 

Rita (2005) 3,050* 69 NR 101 

Gustav (2008) 677 1 40 NR 

Ike (2008) 2,127 60 124 NR 

NR = not reported. 

*Combined totals for both Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

Statistics compiled from BOEM’s website and press releases. 
A-54 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table 4-1 

 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

 Primary Standards Secondary Standards 

Pollutant Level Averaging Time Level Averaging Time

9 ppm (10 mg/m3 Carbon Monoxide ) 8-hour (1) 

35 ppm (40 mg/m3

) 1-hour (1) 

None 

0.15 μg/m3 Lead (2) Rolling 3-Month Average Same as Primary 

1.5 μg/m3 Quarterly Average Same as Primary 

Nitrogen Dioxide 53 ppb (3) Annual (Arithmetic Average) Same as Primary 

100 ppb 1-hour (4) None 

Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 μg/m3 24-hour (5) Same as Primary 

15.0 μg/m3 Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Annual (6) (Arithmetic Average) Same as Primary 

35 μg/m3 24-hour (7) Same as Primary 

0.075 ppm (2008 std) 8-hour (8) Same as Primary 

0.08 ppm (1997 std) 8-hour (9) Same as Primary 

Ozone 

0.12 ppm 1-hour (10) Same as Primary 

0.03 ppm Annual (Arithmetic Average) 

0.14 ppm 24-hour (1) 

0.5 

ppm 

Sulfur Dioxide 3-hour (1) 

75 ppb (11) 1-hour None 

(1) Not to be exceeded more than once per year. 

(2) Final rule signed October 15, 2008. 

(3) The official level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm, equal to 53 ppb, which is shown here for the 

purpose of clearer comparison to the 1-hour standard. 

(4) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each 

monitor within an area must not exceed 100 ppb (effective January 22, 2010). 

(5) Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years. 

(6) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations from single or 

multiple community-oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 μg/m3

. 

(7) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each populationoriented monitor within an area must not exceed 35 μg/m3

 (effective December 17, 2006). 

(8) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.075 ppm (effective 

May 27, 2008). 

(9) (a) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. 

 (b) The 1997 standard—and the implementation rules for that standard—will remain in place for 

implementation purposes as USEPA undertakes rulemaking to address the transition from the 1997 ozone 

standard to the 2008 ozone standard. 

 (c) The USEPA is in the process of reconsidering these standards (set in March 2008). 

(10)(a) The USEPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard in all areas, although some areas have continuing 

obligations under that standard (“anti-backsliding”). 

 (b) The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly 

average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is 1. 

(11)(a) Final rule signed June 2, 2010. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the 

daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 75 ppb. 
Figures and Tables A-55 

Table 4-2 

 

Estimated Abundance of Cetaceans 

in the Northern Gulf of Mexico 

Species Common Name Estimated Number of 

Individuals 

Balaenoptera edeni Bryde’s whale 15 

Physeter macrocephalus Sperm whale* 1,665 

Kogia spp. Dwarf and Pygmy sperm whale 453 

Ziphius cavirostris Cuvier’s beaked whale 65 

Mesoplodon sp. Blainville’s and Gervais’ beaked whale 57 

Feresa attenuata Pygmy killer whale 323 

Pseudorca crassidens False killer whale 777 

Orcinus orca Killer whale 49 

Globicephala sp. Pilot whale, short-finned 716 

Peponocephala electra Melon-headed whale 2,283 

Grampus griseus Risso’s dolphin 1,589 

Tursiops truncatus Bottlenose dolphin 13,883 

Steno bredanensis Rough-toothed dolphin unknown 

Lagenodelphis hosei Fraser’s dolphin unknown 

Stenella frontalis Atlantic spotted dolphin unknown 

Stenella longirostris Spinner dolphin 1,989 

Stenella attenuate Pantropical spotted dolphin 34,067 

Stenella clymene Clymene dolphin 6,575 

Stenella coeruleoalba Striped dolphin 3,325 

*Endangered. 

Source: Waring et al., 2009. 
A-56 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table 4-3 

 

Sea Turtle Taxa of the Northern Gulf of Mexico 

Order Testudines (turtles) Relative Occurrence ESA Status 

Family Cheloniidae (hardshell sea turtles) 

Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) C T 

Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) C T/E 

Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) R E 

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) C E 

Family Dermochelyidae (leatherback sea turtle) 

Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) U E 

Population status in the northern Gulf is summarized according to the following categories: 

COMMON (C): A common species is one that is abundant wherever it occurs in the region (i.e., the 

northern Gulf). Most common species are widely distributed over the area. 

UNCOMMON (U): An uncommon species may or may not be widely distributed but does not occur 

in large numbers. Uncommon species are not necessarily rare or endangered. 

RARE (R): A rare species is one that is present in such small numbers throughout the region that it is 

seldom seen. Although not threatened with extinction, a rare species may become endangered if 

conditions in its environment change. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) status is summarized according to listing status under the following 

categories: 

ENDANGERED (E): Species determined to be in imminent danger of extinction throughout all of a 

significant portion of their range. 

THREATENED (T): Species determined likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. 
Table 4-4 Comparison of Oil Spills by Type, Location, Year, and Volume (in U.S. gallons) and Their Relative Impacts to Birds based on Su

Incident Type Location Year Volumeb,c Bird Surveysd Estimated Morta

Ixtoc Blowout Mexico 1979 145.6 million >3,000 No research or modExxon Valdez Tanker Alaska, USA 1989 10.8 million >30,000 100,000-645,000 Sea Empress Tanker Wales, UK 1996 22.1 million >4,500 No research or modM/V Citrus Tanker Alaska, USA 1996 Unknown >1,000 1,930 Erika Tanker France 1999 6.1 million >74,000 80,000-150,000 Prestige Tanker Spain 2002 19.2 million >9,000 115,000-300,000 Terra Nova Rig Newfoundland, CAN 2004 42,000 No survey 3,593-16,122 M/V Selendang Ayu Tanker Alaska, USA 2004 354,218 1,603 Pending** Black Sea Tanker Kerch Strait, RUS 2007 1.47 million >30,000 No research or modDeepwater Horizon Blowout Louisiana, USA 2010 210 million 8,000 Pending** a Since the Exxon Valdez oil spill in March 1989, but including the Ixtoc I blowout in the Bay of Campeche, Mexico (1979; Jernelöv, 2

in Helm et al. (2008) for additional information. Includes oil spills associated with tankers, barges, wells, rigs-platforms, and blowo

data are available. This list of spills is not exhaustive but reflects a representative cross-section of oil-spill events across the world o

a more comprehensive review of oil spills, locations, spill volumes, and bird mortality, refer to Burger (1993, Table 1), Castege et 

et al. (2008, Tables 1-6), and Tan et al. (2010, Table 1). b Volume estimates are in gallons. c Volume estimates were in some cases converted from figures cited in a specific reference using the conversion of metric tons to 

42 gal/bbl (Wilhelm et al., 2007, p. 540). In other cases, the figures were pulled from the Tables in Helm et al. (2008). NOTE: 

poor predictor of bird mortality associated with an oil spill (Burger, 1993), although it should be considered for inclusion in any m

mortality, preferably with some metric of species composition and abundance (preferably density) pre-spill (Wilhelm et al., 2007). d Figures cited in specific references usually as a part of the damage assessment process including beached-bird surveys, boat or sh

surveys to collect dead or oiled birds. It has been well documented that, in most cases, survey efforts to collect bird carcasses represtotal mortality for a given oil-spill event. That is, the recovery rate of oiled carcasses is biased low; Burger (1993) and Wiese and Jomethodologies, arrived at recovery rate estimates of only 20%. Piatt and Ford (1996) derived a recovery mean rate estimate of only 

based on 17 different studies spanning 21 years (1970-1991). e Final estimated mortality typically includes results from drift and carcass experiments plus modeling efforts to account for birds oil

detected; that is, a correction for detection and scavenging bias, deposition and persistence rates, and the effects of wind, currents, habitat. Refer to Flint and Fowler (1998), Flint et al. (1999), Castège et al. (2007), Wilhelm et al. (2007), Byrd et al. (2009), and 

additional information regarding biases associated with mortality estimates from carcass surveys only. f Most of the references used herein are from the peer-reviewed scientific literature. 
Table 4-4. Comparison of Oil Spills by Type, Location, Year, and Volume (in U.S. gallons) and Their Relative Impacts to Birds base

Modelinga (continued). * Literature searches on the Internet revealed only two avian-related references as a result of the Ixtoc I oil spill: Chapman, 1981 and 1

** Pending results of the NRDA process and litigation regarding damage claims against litigants; see also Helm et al., 2006 and 2008. 1 Jernelöv, 2010. 2 Helm et al., 2006. 3 Helm et al., 2008. 4 Ford et al., 1996. 5 Piatt and Ford, 1996. 6 Banks et al., 2008. 7 Law and Kelley, 2004. 8 Flint et al., 1999. 9 Cadiou et al., 2004. 10 Castège et al., 2004. 11 Castège et al., 2007. 12 Alonso-Alvarez et al., 2007. 13 Munilla and Velando, 2010. 14 Velando et al., 2005a. 15 Velando et al., 2005b. 16 Camphuysen et al., 2002. 17 Wilhelm et al., 2007. 18 Byrd et al., 2009. 19 Tan et al., 2010. 20 USDOI, FWS, 2010. 21 Oil Spill Commission, 2010.
Figures and Tables A-59 

Table 4-5 

 

Relative Oiling Ranks for Various Avian Species Groupings Collected Post-Deepwater Horizon Event 

in the Gulf of Mexicoa

Species Group # Representative Spp.1 # Collected # Oiled Oiling Rate (%  SE)2 Oiling 

Rank3 

Diving* 5 182 102 0.50  0.19 1 

Seabirds* 25 5946 2512 0.37  0.05 2 

Shorebirds* 13 97 24 0.13  0.06 6 

Passerines* 21 77 17 0.20  0.07 5 

Marsh/Wading* 21 424 117 0.24  0.05 4 

Waterfowl* 11 56 16 0.37  0.13 3 

Raptors* 6 16 3 0.05  0.05 7 

a Data obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as summarized a table dated November 30, 

2010. The data used in this table are verified as per the FWS QA/QC processes. Disclaimer: All data 

should be considered provisional, incomplete, and subject to change. For more information, see USDOI, 

FWS, 2010. 

* Species Group: As defined in the text of this Supplemental EIS. As of November 30, 2010, 8,000 

individuals of 102 species had been collected and identified by FWS. Six new species were added since the 

November 16th summary. NOTE: The Top 5 most-impacted species are all representative of the “seabirds” 

group, with an oiling rate (0.44) above the combined average of all species, including “unknowns” and 

“other” (0.27). 1

 Represents the actual number of birds identified to the species level for each of the Species Groups; reflects 

sample size for determining mean Oiling Rate. This number should be fairly representative of the suite of 

species available to be oiled. However, this number is dependent on efforts to correctly assign species to 

unidentified birds or unknowns, which is also a function of the search effort. The search effort has likely 

declined dramatically since the Deepwater Horizon was plugged/capped. 2

 Oiling Rate: For each species, an oiling rate was calculated by dividing the “total” number of oiled 

individuals (∑ alive + dead) /∑ of individuals collected for a given species/row. These rates were then used 

to calculate summary statistics. In general, it has been well documented that the number of birds collected 

after a spill event represents a small fraction of the total oiled population (direct mortality) due to various 

factors: species-specific differences in vulnerability to spilled oil; species-specific differences in 

distribution, habitat use, and behavior; species-specific differences in abundance; species-specific differences 

in carcass deposition rates, persistence rates, and detection probabilities; overall search effort and temporal 

and spatial variation in search effort; and carcass loss due to predation, habitat, weather, tides, and currents 

(Piatt et al., 1990a and 1990b; Ford et al., 1996; Piatt and Ford, 1996; Fowler and Flint, 1997; Flint and 

Fowler, 1998; Flint et al., 1999; Castege et al., 2007; Byrd et al., 2009; Flint et al., 2010). For example, Piatt 

and Ford (1996, Table 1) estimated a mean carcass recovery rate of only 17% for a number of previous oilbird impact studies. Burger (1993) and Wiese and Jones (2001) estimated recovery rates of 20%, with the 

latter study based on a drift-block design to estimate carcass recovery rate from beached-bird surveys. 

Note: Spill volume tends to be a poor predictor of bird mortality associated with an oil spill (Burger, 1993), 

although it should be considered for inclusion in any models to estimate total bird mortality, preferably with 

some metric of species composition and abundance (preferably density) pre-spill (Wilhelm et al., 2007). For 

this table, the value obtained for passerines and raptors is almost certainly biased high due to the small 

sample sizes (several cases where only 1-2 birds/species) for individual species and due to the influence of 

high estimates for oiling (100%). For the other Species Groups, e.g., shorebirds, the value obtained is likely 

biased low due the larger number of species with several instances where only one bird was collected and it 

did not meet the criteria to be designated as oiled. There was a significant difference (F = 20.80, df = 1, 12; 

P = 0.0006) in oiling rates among species. 3

 Oiling Rank: Reflects the relative rank of a given Species Group as a function of the mean Oiling Rate. As 

expected, diving birds and seabirds had the highest oiling rate of any of the Species Groups (King and 

Sanger, 1979; Wiens et al., 1984; Piatt et al., 1990a; Williams et al., 1995) due to their reliance on offshore 

habitat for foraging and as a substrate for resting, preening, and other maintenance behaviors. 
A-60 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table 4-6 

 

Birds Collected and Summarized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Post-Deepwater Horizon Event 

in the Gulf of Mexicoa, b

Visibly 

Oiled 

Not Visibly 

Oiled 

Unknown 

Common Name Species Group Oiling * Grand 

Total Dead Alive

Total

Dead Alive

Total

Dead Alive 

Total Oiling 

Rate1,2

American Coot Marsh/Wading 5 2 2 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.80

American 

Oystercatcher Shorebird 17 7 3 10 3 3 6 1 0 1 0.59

American Redstart Passerine 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

American White 

Pelican Seabird 17 2 0 2 2 6 8 7 0 7 0.12

Audubon's 

Shearwater Seabird 6 1 1 2 2 2 4 0 0 0 0.33

Barn Owl Raptor 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Barn Swallow Passerine 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00

Belted Kingfisher Passerine 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0.00

Black-crowned 

Night Heron Marsh/Wading 22 6 3 9 7 5 12 1 0 1 0.41

Black Oystercatcher Shorebird 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Black Skimmer Seabird 263 51 16 67 141 14 155 41 0 41 0.25

Black Tern Seabird 12 1 0 1 7 3 10 1 0 1 0.08

Black-bellied 

Whistling Duck Waterfowl 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0.00

Black-necked Stilt Shorebird 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0.00

Blue-winged Teal Waterfowl 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0.00

Boat-tailed Grackle Passerine 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0.00

Brown Pelican Seabird 911 136 210 346 225 146 371 194 0 194 0.38

Brown-headed 

Cowbird Passerine 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0.00

Bufflehead Waterfowl 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00

Canada Goose Waterfowl 4 0 1 1 1 2 3 0 0 0 0.25

Caspian Tern Seabird 20 7 2 9 5 4 9 2 0 2 0.45

Cattle Egret Marsh/Wading 32 1 1 2 21 4 25 5 0 5 0.06

Clapper Rail Marsh/Wading 128 27 5 32 63 12 75 21 0 21 0.25

Common Loon Diving 106 33 27 60 22 20 42 4 0 4 0.57

Common Moorhen Marsh/Wading 4 1 0 1 3 0 3 0 0 0 0.25

Common Nighthawk Passerine 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0.00

Common Tern Seabird 32 13 9 22 8 1 9 1 0 1 0.69

Common 

Yellowthroat Passerine 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0.00

Cooper's Hawk Raptor 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0.00

Cory's Shearwater Seabird 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0.00

Double-crested 

Cormorant Diving 25 2 1 3 13 7 20 2 0 2 0.12

Eastern Kingbird Passerine 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.50

Eastern Meadowlark Passerine 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00
Figures and Tables A-61 

Table 4-6. Birds Collected and Summarized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Post-Deepwater Horizon Event 

in the Gulf of Mexicoa, b (continued). 

Visibly 

Oiled 

Not Visibly 

Oiled 

Unknown 

Common Name Species Group Oiling * Grand 

Total Dead Alive

Total

Dead Alive

Total

Dead Alive 

Total Oiling 

Rate1,2

Eurasian CollaredDove Passerine 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

European Starling Passerine 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.50

Forster's Tern Seabird 52 16 8 24 13 9 22 6 0 6 0.46

Fulvous Whistling 

Duck Waterfowl 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0.00

Glossy Ibis Marsh/Wading 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0.00

Great Blue Heron Marsh/Wading 50 5 2 7 23 16 39 4 0 4 0.14

Great Egret Marsh/Wading 33 6 6 12 10 3 13 8 0 8 0.36

Great-horned Owl Raptor 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Greater Shearwater Seabird 28 7 4 11 12 4 16 1 0 1 0.39

Green Heron Marsh/Wading 18 2 0 2 9 6 15 1 0 1 0.11

Gull-billed Tern Seabird 8 0 0 0 2 4 6 2 0 2 0.00

Herring Gull Seabird 42 8 8 16 9 13 22 4 0 4 0.38

Horned Grebe Diving 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00

House Sparrow Passerine 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0.00

Killdeer Shorebird 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0.00

King Rail Marsh/Wading 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0.00

Laughing Gull Seabird 3339 968 341 1309 1341 365 1706 323 1 324 0.39

Least Bittern Marsh/Wading 6 0 0 0 4 2 6 0 0 0 0.00

Least Tern Seabird 110 45 6 51 40 6 46 13 0 13 0.46

Lesser Black-backed 

Gull Seabird 5 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 2 0.40

Lesser Scaup Waterfowl 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.00

Little Blue Heron Marsh/Wading 6 0 0 0 4 1 5 1 0 1 0.00

Long-billed 

Dowitcher Shorebird 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0.00

Magnificant 

Frigatebird Seabird 9 3 2 5 1 1 2 2 0 2 0.56

Mallard Waterfowl 31 5 4 9 15 7 22 0 0 0 0.29

Manx Shearwater Seabird 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00

Masked Booby Seabird 12 4 3 7 1 4 5 0 0 0 0.58

Mottled Duck Waterfowl 6 0 0 0 5 0 5 1 0 1 0.00

Mourning Dove Passerine 17 2 1 3 8 6 14 0 0 0 0.18

Neotropic 

Cormorant Diving 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 0.00

Northern Cardinal Passerine 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0.00

Northern Gannet Seabird 632 221 187 408 89 103 192 31 1 32 0.65

Northern 

Mockingbird Passerine 4 0 0 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 0.00

Osprey Raptor 11 2 1 3 5 3 8 0 0 0 0.27

Pied-billed Grebe Diving 47 14 24 38 5 3 8 1 0 1 0.81

Piping Plover Shorebird 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Purple Gallinule Marsh/Wading 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00
A-62 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table 4-6. Birds Collected and Summarized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Post-Deepwater Horizon Event 

in the Gulf of Mexicoa, b (continued). 

Visibly 

Oiled 

Not Visibly 

Oiled 

Unknown 

Common Name Species Group Oiling * Grand 

Total Dead Alive

Total

Dead Alive

Total

Dead Alive 

Total Oiling 

Rate1,2

Purple Martin Passerine 5 1 0 1 3 1 4 0 0 0 0.20

Red-breasted 

Merganser Waterfowl 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0.50

Reddish Egret Marsh/Wading 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0.50

Red-shouldered 

Hawk Raptor 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0.00

Red-tailed Hawk Raptor 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Red-winged 

Blackbird Passerine 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Ring-billed Gull Seabird 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.50

Rock Dove (pigeon) Passerine 19 2 2 4 4 9 13 2 0 2 0.21

Roseate Spoonbill Marsh/Wading 18 7 2 9 3 1 4 5 0 5 0.50

Royal Tern Seabird 348 116 66 182 95 49 144 22 0 22 0.52

Ruddy Duck Waterfowl 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00

Ruddy Turnstone Shorebird 18 1 3 4 8 5 13 1 0 1 0.22

Sanderling Shorebird 32 4 2 6 17 6 23 3 0 3 0.19

Sandwich Tern Seabird 90 26 19 45 23 13 36 9 0 9 0.50

Seaside Sparrow Passerine 6 4 0 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 0.67

Semipalm. 

Sandpiper Shorebird 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.50

Short-billed 

Dowitcher Shorebird 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Snowy Egret Marsh/Wading 30 10 8 18 7 3 10 2 0 2 0.60

Sooty Shearwater Seabird 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0.00

Sooty Tern Seabird 4 0 1 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 0.25

Sora Marsh/Wading 6 2 1 3 1 0 1 2 0 2 0.50

Spotted Sandpiper Shorebird 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Surf Scoter Waterfowl 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00

Tri-colored Heron Marsh/Wading 34 9 5 14 7 2 9 11 0 11 0.41

Virginia Rail Marsh/Wading 4 0 0 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 0.00

White Ibis Marsh/Wading 11 1 1 2 4 3 7 2 0 2 0.18

White-winged Dove Passerine 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0.00

Willet Shorebird 15 2 1 3 7 3 10 2 0 2 0.20

Wilson's Plover Shorebird 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0.00

Wilson's Storm 

Petrel Seabird 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0.00

Yellow-billed 

Cuckoo Passerine 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00

Yellow-crowned 

Night Heron Marsh/Wading 9 0 0 0 7 2 9 0 0 0 0.00

Unid. Blackbird Passerine 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0.00

Unid. Cormorant Diving 14 3 0 3 10 0 10 1 0 1 0.21

Unid. Dowitcher Shorebird 5 2 0 2 1 2 3 0 0 0 0.40

Unid. Duck Waterfowl 4 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 1 0.00

Unid. Egret Marsh/Wading 11 2 0 2 7 0 7 2 0 2 0.18
Figures and Tables A-63 

Table 4-6. Birds Collected and Summarized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Post-Deepwater Horizon Event 

in the Gulf of Mexicoa, b (continued). 

Visibly 

Oiled 

Not Visibly 

Oiled 

Unknown 

Common Name Species Group Oiling * Grand 

Total Dead Alive

Total

Dead Alive

Total

Dead Alive 

Total Oiling 

Rate1,2

Unid. Flycatcher Passerine 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00

Unid. Grackle Passerine 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00

Unid. Grebe Diving 6 4 0 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 0.67

Unid. Gull Seabird 253 79 3 82 131 7 138 33 0 33 0.32

Unid. Hawk Raptor 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Unid. Heron Marsh/Wading 14 5 0 5 6 1 7 2 0 2 0.36

Unid. Loon Diving 9 2 2 4 4 1 5 0 0 0 0.44

Unid. Mockingbird Passerine 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0.00

Unid. Owl Raptor 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Unid. Passerine Passerine 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Unid. Pelican Seabird 26 5 1 6 15 1 16 4 0 4 0.23

Unid. Pigeon Passerine 17 2 1 3 6 7 13 1 0 1 0.18

Unid. Rail 

Marsh/ 

Wading 4 1 0 1 3 0 3 0 0 0 0.25

Unid. Raptor Raptor 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Unid. Sandpiper Shorebird 4 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0.00

Unid. Shearwater Seabird 4 0 0 0 3 0 3 1 0 1 0.00

Unid. Shorebird Shorebird 3 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.67

Unid. Skimmer Seabird 6 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0.00

Unid. Sparrow Passerine 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 0.00

Unid. Swallow Passerine 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Unid. Tern Seabird 129 37 1 38 72 1 73 18 0 18 0.29

Unknown spp. 561 51 2 53 420 3 423 85 0 85 0.09

Other 119 33 4 37 58 16 74 8 0 8 0.31

Column Totals 8,000 2,024 1,011 3,035 3,108 948 4056 907 2 909 0.27

a Data obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as a summarized table dated November 30, 2010. 

The data used in this table are verified as per the FWS QA/QC processes. Disclaimer: All data should be 

considered provisional, incomplete, and subject to change. For more information, see USDOI, FWS, 2010. b As of November 30, 2010, 102 avian species had been identified through the Deepwater Horizon post-spill 

monitoring and collection process. Overall oiling rate across species including “others” and “unknowns” was 

0.27. Oiling rate for the Top 5 (see bold rows in table) most-impacted avian species was 0.44 and included 

representatives from only the seabird group. In descending order based on the number collected: laughing gull 

(3,339 collected, 0.39 oiling rate); brown pelican (911 collected, 0.38 oiling rate); northern gannet (632 collected, 

0.65 oiling rate); royal tern (348 collected, 0.52 oiling rate); and black skimmer (263 collected, 0.25 oiling rate). * Species Group: As defined in the text of this Supplemental EIS. 1 Oiling Rate: For each species, an oiling rate was calculated by dividing the “total” number of oiled individuals 

(∑ alive + dead) /∑ of individuals collected for a given species/row. In general, it has been well documented that 

the number of birds collected after a spill event represents a small fraction of the total oiled population (direct 

mortality) due to various factors: species-specific differences in vulnerability to spilled oil; species-specific 

differences in distribution, habitat use, and behavior; species-specific differences in abundance; species-specific 

differences in carcass deposition rates, persistence rates, and detection probabilities; overall search effort and 

temporal and spatial variation in search effort; and carcass loss due to predation, habitat, weather, tides, and 

currents (Piatt et al., 1990a and 1990b; Ford et al., 1996; Piatt and Ford, 1996; Fowler and Flint, 1997; Flint and
A-64 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table 4-6. Birds Collected and Summarized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Post-Deepwater Horizon Event 

in the Gulf of Mexicoa, b (continued). 

 Fowler, 1998; Flint et al., 1999; Castege et al., 2007; Byrd et al., 2009; Flint et al., 2010). For example, Piatt and 

Ford (1996, Table 1) estimated a mean carcass recovery rate of only 17% for a number of previous oil-bird 

impact studies. Burger (1993) and Wiese and Jones (2001) estimated recovery rates of 20%, with the latter study 

based on a drift-block design to estimate carcass recovery rate from beached-bird surveys. Note: Spill volume 

tends to be a poor predictor of bird mortality associated with an oil spill (Burger 1993), although it should be 

considered for inclusion in any models to estimate total bird mortality, preferably with some metric of species 

composition and abundance (preferably density) pre-spill (Wilhelm et al., 2007). 2 For additional information on oiling rates by Species Group and additional statistics, see Table 4-5.

Table 4-7 

 

Mississippi Department of Marine Resources: Summary of Fish Kills Observed along the Gulf Coast 

Date Area Dissolved Oxygen Fish 

May 5, 2010 Bayou Chicot, LA <1.0 mg/L 3.3 million juvenile menhaden* 

May 5, 2010 Lake Mars Boat Ramp, Belle Fontaine, MS 2 mg/L 1.9 million menhaden* 

May 11-12, 2010 Mississippi beaches 5-5.7 mg/L 27 hardhead catfish 

July 8, 2010 Bayou Caddy, MS 1.7 mg/L 97 with 11 species† 

August 1, 2010 Long Beach Harbor, MS NA 1,900 with 23 species‡ 

August 3, 2010 Mississippi Sound south of Deer Island NA 500,000 menhaden* (broken net)

August 5, 2010 Pass Christian Harbor, MS 6.7 mg/L NA 

* Abundance of menhaden are estimates from the kill site. 

† Species include trout, croaker, sheepshead, mullet, flounder, drum, catfish, and pinfish. 

‡ Species include brown shrimp, crabs, stingrays, kingfish, silver perch, shrimp, eel, lookdown, least puffer, 

lizardfish, cusk-eel, black cheek, tonguefish, bay whiff, and Atlantic spadefish. 

NA = not available. 

mg/L = milligrams per liter. 

Source: Devers, official communication, 2010.

Table 4-8 

 

Economic Significance of Commercial Fishing in the Gulf of Mexico 

State Landings Revenue Sales Impacts Job Impacts CFQ 

Alabama 44,317 445,449 9,750 0.33 

Florida 169,711 5,657,246 108,695 0.99 

Louisiana 272,884 2,033,587 43,711 2.50 

Mississippi 43,696 390,702 8,575 1.96 

Texas 176,098 2,013,272 42,541 0.32 

Total 706,706 10,540,256 213,272 -- 

CFQ = commercial fishing quotient. 

Source: USDOC, NOAA, 2010c. 
Figures and Tables A-65 

Table 4-9 

 

Top Species Caught by Recreational Fishers in the Gulf Coast States 

Number of Fish 

Species/Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Atlantic Croaker 4,186,990 3,589,525 3,488,464 4,342,264 2,659,716 3,905,810 3,979,556 4,245,495 5,331,132

Black Drum 1,509,119 1,586,284 1,523,614 1,686,081 1,115,153 1,346,737 1,233,862 1,728,173 1,672,719

Blackfin Tuna 50,581 35,051 38,601 73,301 60,501 64,825 83,375 92,763 91,581

Cobia 175,045 163,606 127,512 125,923 108,746 108,656 117,448 161,636 88,721

Dolphins 555,466 364,917 609,001 434,879 316,110 315,264 430,367 368,457 251,429

Gag 2,386,672 2,996,920 3,878,651 4,197,440 2,938,891 2,084,588 3,254,196 4,746,177 2,924,329

Gray Snapper 3,511,496 3,798,482 6,073,935 4,530,800 5,851,190 4,039,090 5,571,680 7,669,142 4,401,510

Great Amberjack 477,424 315,674 346,070 254,283 201,443 161,534 199,429 245,344 207,226

King Mackerel 575,699 488,142 398,234 447,247 380,793 967,378 429,562 376,508 596,232

Little Tuny 265,456 423,424 197,927 362,243 153,204 293,337 333,310 193,546 179,928

Pinfishes 14,675,911 11,664,212 8,848,476 13,813,893 10,274,164 10,324,881 11,762,014 15,942,884 11,591,996

Red Drum 8,261,019 7,351,899 8,587,461 8,387,639 7,492,498 9,838,039 9,030,204 9,700,431 8,063,967

Red Grouper 1,880,567 2,197,298 2,298,287 3,632,743 1,862,289 1,012,572 1,198,064 3,312,054 3,410,731

Red Snapper 2,654,554 3,196,853 2,934,322 3,217,643 2,732,425 3,527,145 3,872,259 2,624,982 2,910,337

Sand Seatrout 4,342,805 4,129,064 4,062,981 3,326,749 2,524,347 4,334,134 4,587,006 5,853,369 6,502,913

Sheepshead 3,126,988 3,253,252 3,945,716 4,669,176 3,961,753 2,992,718 2,397,513 3,229,301 3,189,143

Southern Flounder 902,531 622,566 911,039 917,938 692,293 738,351 802,929 691,132 757,326

Southern Kingfish 2,660,631 1,404,170 1,733,446 2,206,406 1,988,897 1,848,665 1,608,861 1,727,889 1,670,001

Spanish Mackerel 4,321,962 3,882,193 3,715,281 4,303,273 2,518,250 4,946,966 3,817,443 4,132,207 2,988,112

Spotted Seatrout 20,582,815 22,664,920 28,785,103 28,851,638 29,679,185 36,435,823 30,611,531 32,564,976 29,352,993

Striped Mullet 2,293,741 1,340,382 1,866,563 1,257,205 1,323,021 1,303,076 1,162,019 1,231,121 969,123

White Grunt 6,779,775 5,529,179 4,831,100 5,133,524 3,687,435 1,694,738 2,157,816 4,036,236 2,490,431

Pounds 

Species/Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Atlantic Croaker 677,890 287,934 490,887 306,179 280,489 553,449 600,690 598,106 508,967

Black Drum 2,341,032 2,531,258 2,857,730 3,057,965 1,922,411 2,531,999 2,276,953 2,907,574 2,870,621

Blackfin Tuna 526,547 294,526 580,484 830,021 525,045 863,090 286,572 868,698 660,264

Cobia 1,129,714 791,793 1,101,782 1,227,464 1,208,989 1,072,033 1,012,921 913,566 534,810

Dolphins 2,496,877 2,227,922 2,530,400 2,011,021 1,222,221 1,183,392 2,028,360 1,327,670 1,358,031

Gag 3,854,869 3,781,229 3,278,245 4,693,183 3,510,799 1,936,492 2,534,137 3,071,762 1,594,303

Gray Snapper 1,412,589 1,324,563 1,893,108 2,044,198 1,964,576 1,975,178 1,512,298 2,065,549 1,604,298

Great Amberjack 1,153,786 1,847,882 2,416,947 2,251,265 1,358,653 1,282,616 989,630 1,213,319 1,484,002

King Mackerel 2,865,226 3,043,569 2,763,371 2,434,372 1,635,507 3,374,852 2,606,005 1,894,691 3,324,003

Little Tuny 587,429 873,813 590,683 1,108,632 310,877 619,746 813,722 385,382 578,719

Pinfishes 1,560,872 1,677,357 1,739,776 3,811,171 1,215,008 742,368 1,683,034 3,510,949 2,831,692

Red Drum 13,419,400 11,575,766 13,113,186 14,290,334 10,242,490 14,215,737 13,988,083 13,910,457 11,898,383

Red Grouper 1,415,307 1,744,180 1,359,015 3,235,764 1,431,359 980,311 1,039,597 896,377 926,111

Red Snapper 3,737,264 4,369,698 3,921,340 4,162,485 3,322,074 3,232,025 3,769,388 3,128,771 3,613,267

Sand Seatrout 1,905,500 1,723,872 1,556,192 1,121,936 879,417 1,557,953 1,701,233 1,930,689 2,389,301

Sheepshead 4,385,765 3,775,195 5,002,901 6,487,492 5,288,789 4,013,009 3,836,123 4,670,992 4,388,254

Southern Flounder 1,082,858 630,928 823,083 834,794 645,835 780,468 810,986 749,674 851,999

Southern Kingfish 993,027 581,779 683,569 783,204 657,967 616,415 608,426 629,250 710,651

Spanish Mackerel 3,549,609 3,202,118 2,614,570 2,907,069 1,583,811 2,655,099 2,542,007 2,788,369 1,962,775

Spotted Seatrout 12,514,780 9,684,768 11,881,531 11,880,671 11,761,193 18,057,746 13,817,897 15,180,141 14,500,754

Striped Mullet 2,330,227 1,523,427 2,194,545 1,525,980 1,536,234 1,600,983 1,245,425 1,418,025 900,037

White Grunt 2,352,568 2,019,945 1,785,777 1,751,156 1,602,724 680,403 701,343 1,325,970 1,013,062

Notes: Fish that are released alive are included in the landings data but not in the weight data. 

This table presents the sum of fishing data for Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and West Florida. 

Source: USDOC, NOAA, 2010d. 
A-66 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table 4-10 

 

Percentage of Species Landings that are Ocean Based 

Number of Fish 

Species/Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Atlantic Croaker 14.44 10.97 13.76 27.27 10.77 11.41 12.42 6.85 5.54

Black Drum 10.11 9.76 11.49 11.39 16.10 9.48 4.41 4.66 5.41

Blackfin Tuna 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 96.64 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Cobia 64.14 72.50 74.56 79.25 83.60 86.83 81.25 73.28 71.72

Dolphins 98.92 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.72 99.49 99.21 100.00

Gag 82.69 75.01 76.77 81.08 83.59 71.17 63.72 71.40 61.45

Gray Snapper 49.48 32.43 41.52 42.93 36.45 49.40 40.26 48.61 32.00

Great Amberjack 96.21 99.63 99.51 99.74 99.18 98.85 100.00 99.44 100.00

King Mackerel 97.34 96.94 99.20 95.87 93.48 62.50 94.85 93.83 93.00

Little Tuny 97.84 96.08 99.76 99.80 99.10 92.75 87.64 86.66 87.22

Pinfishes 36.89 31.37 48.33 30.53 43.72 44.88 26.31 37.73 24.59

Red Drum 18.34 13.25 14.44 13.50 21.46 17.50 12.96 12.48 7.45

Red Grouper 98.33 99.38 98.22 97.36 98.12 98.60 97.14 91.04 83.08

Red Snapper 99.32 99.67 99.49 99.20 98.38 98.21 97.97 96.82 98.39

Sand Seatrout 22.81 14.26 11.90 24.40 19.24 23.00 21.26 13.97 12.28

Sheepshead 30.22 23.09 19.56 22.49 24.68 28.70 32.45 19.91 13.34

Southern Flounder 14.11 15.62 5.44 15.59 12.10 8.26 12.23 6.21 4.68

Southern Kingfish 48.30 43.11 33.38 29.19 26.33 39.34 28.73 36.84 18.05

Spanish Mackerel 69.03 53.39 68.10 73.05 63.10 67.63 55.73 70.40 51.93

Spotted Seatrout 23.52 25.12 20.03 18.99 22.97 20.61 23.59 17.20 15.36

Striped Mullet 18.47 13.28 13.20 13.04 28.14 38.07 15.12 21.97 9.98

White Grunt 79.12 86.20 85.07 87.96 91.14 90.42 78.79 85.87 69.51

Pounds 

Species/Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Atlantic Croaker 10.99 12.90 18.98 11.59 3.21 6.63 8.58 5.00 2.37

Black Drum 16.37 21.47 10.60 17.86 9.56 7.15 6.12 6.30 12.54

Blackfin Tuna 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 91.49 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Cobia 87.14 80.65 84.22 92.18 95.30 92.92 87.02 87.07 75.04

Dolphins 99.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.57 100.00

Gag 97.52 96.43 95.77 96.10 93.16 94.32 89.21 90.92 81.40

Gray Snapper 75.80 75.27 74.21 80.80 84.10 75.51 70.68 71.76 59.57

Great Amberjack 100.00 100.00 99.97 100.00 99.71 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

King Mackerel 99.08 96.50 99.46 98.06 98.58 82.52 96.19 97.61 96.20

Little Tuny 100.00 100.00 99.58 99.98 100.00 95.96 70.54 94.12 92.99

Pinfishes 41.84 34.38 56.40 26.93 48.10 54.05 19.22 25.85 22.79

Red Drum 18.82 15.84 16.08 19.52 15.07 15.14 14.94 10.93 7.22

Red Grouper 99.30 99.73 99.71 99.86 100.00 100.00 98.89 97.43 98.25

Red Snapper 99.85 99.83 99.81 98.32 99.45 98.97 96.89 98.31 98.53

Sand Seatrout 21.90 13.65 11.51 26.39 20.30 24.21 19.14 14.25 15.06

Sheepshead 43.70 30.20 26.82 26.65 34.75 39.45 47.43 23.60 13.88

Southern Flounder 16.88 16.23 6.27 14.58 9.26 7.55 9.00 6.98 3.98

Southern Kingfish 51.32 41.90 28.09 27.11 30.90 33.24 28.64 42.04 15.56

Spanish Mackerel 70.72 63.52 70.76 76.73 69.40 67.47 61.28 68.15 56.71

Spotted Seatrout 25.10 28.31 16.25 17.92 20.36 15.85 19.12 14.32 14.31

Striped Mullet 24.07 10.45 7.14 14.07 22.48 31.63 12.10 27.41 6.60

White Grunt 89.48 90.69 91.05 89.34 93.79 94.64 83.12 90.31 83.39

Notes: Fish that are released alive are included in the landings data but not in the weight data. 

This table presents the sum of fishing data for Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and West Florida. 

The NMFS divides fishing data into inland, State, and Federal categories. Ocean based is defined as the sum of State and Federal 

categories. 

Source: USDOC, NOAA, 2010d. 
Figures and Tables A-67 

Table 4-11 

 

Recreational Fishing Participation 2009 

State Coastal Noncoastal Out of State Total 

West Florida 1,551,478 0 1,670,603 3,222,081

East Florida 1,098,575 0 1,741,339 2,839,914

Alabama 205,365 151,379 208,775 565,519

Mississippi 125,048 36,496 50,328 211,872

Louisiana 668,576 108,086 139,120 915,782

Source: USDOC, NOAA, 2010d. 

State Resident Nonresident Total 

Florida 1,881 885 2,767 

Texas 2,308 218 2,527 

Alabama 600 206 806 

Mississippi 465 80 546 

Louisiana 590 112 702 

Source: USDOI, FWS, and USDOC, Census Bureau, 2006. 
A-68 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table 4-12 

 

Angler Trips in the Gulf of Mexico during Certain Months of 2009 and 2010 

2009 2010 

Jan/Feb Mar/April May/June July/Aug Jan/Feb Mar/April May/June July/Aug 

Total Trips 

Alabama 134,887 309,545 454,940 405,356 84,493 275,061 392,199 354,099

Florida 2,205,141 2,588,254 3,963,196 3,422,240 1,760,394 1,947,677 3,517,096 3,082,397

Louisiana 583,195 561,112 1,058,162 838,820 367,898 559,726 901,671 583,342

Mississippi 127,336 148,993 222,623 251,448 90,718 174,983 334,441 159,674

Total 3,050,559 3,607,904 5,698,921 4,917,864 2,303,503 2,957,447 5,145,407 4,179,512

Inland 

Alabama 90,030 201,215 271,504 225,383 90,030 55,150 147,288 237,353

Florida 1,432,011 1,579,247 2,227,167 2,077,674 1,432,011 1,445,472 1,307,968 2,101,879

Louisiana 568,870 552,088 990,311 718,606 568,870 357,404 546,930 880,636

Mississippi 121,012 145,411 201,851 241,075 121,012 90,067 171,824 326,780

Total 2,211,923 2,477,961 3,690,833 3,262,738 2,211,923 1,948,093 2,174,010 3,546,648

State 

Alabama 44,218 93,732 80,117 114,938 29,006 113,399 116,297 180,098

Florida 662,919 927,192 1,423,612 1,105,167 242,215 548,438 1,176,779 949,626

Louisiana 5,302 1,728 38,986 61,425 7,068 10,970 14,779 11,386

Mississippi 1,150 273 7,627 10,191 651 3,042 7,661 --

Total 713,589 1,022,925 1,550,342 1,291,721 278,940 675,849 1,315,516 1,141,110

Federal 

Alabama 639 14,597 103,320 65,035 336 14,374 38,548 313

Florida 110,211 81,815 312,418 239,399 72,707 91,271 238,438 170,106

Louisiana 9,023 7,296 28,865 58,788 3,427 1,826 6,256 6,986

Mississippi 5,175 3,309 13,144 182 -- -- -- --

Total 125,048 107,017 457,747 363,404 76,470 107,471 283,242 177,405

Note: This table presents the sum of fishing data for Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and West Florida. 

Source: USDOC, NOAA, 2010d. 
Figures and Tables A-69 

Table 4-13 

 

Angler Trips in the Gulf of Mexico by Location and Mode in 2009 

State Area Number of Trips % State Total 

Alabama Shore Ocean (< 3 nmi) 354,043 20.6

 Shore Inland 407,982 23.8

 Charter Ocean (<3 nmi) 9228 0.5

 Charter Ocean (>3 nmi) 36672 2.1

 Charter Inland 10759 0.6

 Private/Rental Ocean (<3 nmi) 154301 9.0

 Private/Rental Ocean (>3 nmi) 165012 9.6

 Private/Rental Inland 579033 33.7

 Total 1,717,030 

West Florida Shore Ocean (< 9 nmi) 2,511,933 16.2

 Shore Inland 3,942,920 25.4

 Charter Ocean (<9 nmi) 195,688 1.3

 Charter Ocean (>9 nmi) 259,622 1.7

 Charter Inland 112,007 0.7

 Private/Rental Ocean (<9 nmi) 2,602,581 16.8

 Private/Rental Ocean (>9 nmi) 616,371 4.0

 Private/Rental Inland 5,276,236 34.0

 Total 15,517,358 

Louisiana Shore Ocean (< 3 nmi) 37,324 0.9

 Shore Inland 731,676 18.3

 Charter Ocean (<3 nmi) 3,283 0.1

 Charter Ocean (>3 nmi) 18,031 0.5

 Charter Inland 135,654 3.4

 Private/Rental Ocean (<3 nmi) 75,482 1.9

 Private/Rental Ocean (>3 nmi) 102,196 2.6

 Private/Rental Inland 2,896,326 72.4

 Total 3,999,972 

Mississippi Shore Ocean (< 3 nmi) 330 0.0

 Shore Inland 307,856 29.0

 Charter Ocean (<3 nmi) 2,831 0.3

 Charter Ocean (>3 nmi) 330 0.0

 Charter Inland 7,680 0.7

 Private/Rental Ocean (<3 nmi) 18,602 1.8

 Private/Rental Ocean (>3 nmi) 26,095 2.5

 Private/Rental Inland 698,752 65.8

 Total 1,062,476 

Gulf Total Shore Ocean (< 3 nmi) 2,903,630 13.0

 Shore Inland 5,390,434 24.2

 Charter Ocean (<3 nmi) 211,030 0.9

 Charter Ocean (>3 nmi) 314,655 1.4

 Charter Inland 266,100 1.2

 Private/Rental Ocean (<3 nmi) 2,850,966 12.8

 Private/Rental Ocean (>3 nmi) 909,674 4.1

 Private/Rental Inland 9,450,347 42.4

 Total 22,296,836 

Notes: This table presents the sum of fishing data from Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and West Florida 

State waters in Florida extend 9 nautical miles from the coast rather than the typical 3 nautical miles.

Source: USDOC, NOAA, 2010d. 
A-70 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table 4-14 

 

Economic Impact of Recreational Fishing in the Gulf of Mexico in 2008 

Expenditures* Sales* Value Added* Employment 

Alabama 480,587 455,093 235,481 4,719 

West Florida 6,332,287 5,650,068 3,075,710 54,589 

Mississippi 410,007 382,778 148,837 2,930 

Louisiana 2,727,225 2,297,078 1,156,796 25,590 

Texas 2,594,714 3,288,135 1,656,545 25,544 

Total 12,544,820 12,073,152 6,273,369 113,372 

*Data on expenditures, sales, and value added are presented in thousands of dollars. 

Source: USDOC, NOAA, 2010c. 
Figures and Tables A-71 

Table 4-15 

 

Fish Species Caught by Recreational Anglers during Certain Months of 2009 and 2010 

Species/Year 2009 2010 

Months Jan/Feb Mar/April May/June July/Aug Jan/Feb Mar/April May/June July/Aug 

Number of Fish 

Atlantic Croaker 145,458 809,858 1,816,279 1,625,287 50,971 386,179 1,944,042 1,044,961

Black Drum 161,376 164,735 325,061 224,853 227,071 225,385 364,503 275,733

Blackfin Tuna 27,354 4,581 3,530 26,771 949 1,932 4,657 13,858

Cobia 584 4,475 40,360 34,150 871 14,029 28,830 15,197

Dolphins 12,011 14,355 130,214 84,491 2,113 19,700 136,119 26,805

Gag 395,418 296,874 811,646 478,649 230,505 220,433 634,532 366,454

Gray Snapper 485,160 635,363 934,055 1,451,321 313,131 222,635 407,943 714,142

Great Amberjack 31,396 12,326 104,533 45,653 68,638 55,138 146,875 42,207

King Mackerel 19,359 63,883 202,625 188,375 5,607 32,121 146,680 40,138

Little Tuny 19,291 9,276 32,635 38,169 3,955 8,159 15,674 51,860

Pinfishes 1,371,965 1,391,786 2,470,196 4,232,636 533,986 701,588 4,025,971 3,181,734

Red Drum 982,472 747,513 1,361,522 1,484,450 925,532 1,198,622 1,577,535 1,452,287

Red Grouper 437,521 250,878 1,198,225 691,905 62,283 147,913 771,742 397,990

Red Snapper 84,572 106,800 1,458,523 1,018,133 161,625 120,570 619,128 172,683

Sand Seatrout 269,556 638,973 2,068,415 1,612,595 111,317 630,783 1,851,837 859,674

Sheepshead 1,272,356 901,817 135,120 169,281 746,819 997,496 179,120 110,364

Southern Flounder 36,231 57,573 143,744 213,087 18,603 85,698 267,215 315,046

Southern Kingfish 76,964 289,755 500,087 405,015 133,317 149,150 500,078 131,282

Spanish Mackerel 81,393 472,775 1,059,242 612,279 12,449 592,166 691,469 1,132,884

Spotted Seatrout 3,771,209 2,719,521 8,622,412 5,350,897 1,539,569 1,719,419 5,585,438 4,486,243

Striped Mullet 198,193 31,379 109,002 322,672 31,735 8,328 260,327 413,764

White Grunt 518,784 236,420 448,748 554,624 160,520 252,943 729,231 602,460

Pounds 

Atlantic Croaker 11,715 57,628 173,870 166,893 12,044 24,010 200,460 107,664

Black Drum 272,586 352,421 531,320 546,397 298,282 660,342 306,550 386,283

Blackfin Tuna 202,746 21,076 30,382 265,762 10,708 0 73,709 79,780

Cobia 0 65,580 133,791 297,808 15,919 193,213 171,895 88,019

Dolphins 77,512 90,040 630,635 476,560 10,000 47,840 380,042 120,936

Gag 87,005 146,676 566,695 246,203 171,685 198,240 560,661 179,243

Gray Snapper 152,724 162,960 446,707 618,699 32,209 73,124 189,543 282,467

Great Amberjack 187,900 73,076 693,653 459,602 75,765 314,726 542,118 109,240

King Mackerel 111,522 214,979 983,633 1,136,665 38,517 176,646 972,566 208,339

Little Tuny 68,459 41,731 87,565 165,513 11,933 44,784 41,341 213,463

Pinfishes 258 313,523 747,119 1,375,430 747,218 206,004 347,535 513,628

Red Drum 817,402 1,345,542 2,748,252 2,309,682 1,184,906 2,269,014 2,288,800 2,079,421

Red Grouper 21,369 53,245 307,916 411,885 14,533 37,661 214,075 146,487

Red Snapper 0 0 1,683,450 1,929,816 0 0 396,817 286,040

Sand Seatrout 148,892 220,669 765,417 492,922 54,110 230,046 639,504 387,178

Sheepshead 1,685,580 1,480,944 201,108 222,947 666,634 1,464,578 197,581 60,044

Southern Flounder 29,987 59,601 147,221 233,972 13,772 105,545 282,568 332,260

Southern Kingfish 39,828 125,402 216,637 228,593 68,592 57,467 159,080 47,474

Spanish Mackerel 109,864 320,961 683,805 431,326 8,241 359,894 462,765 501,242

Spotted Seatrout 1,445,014 1,134,580 5,358,179 2,776,994 478,076 811,950 3,312,727 1,805,049

Striped Mullet 124,267 4,899 67,245 330,619 44,936 7,566 265,989 686,934

White Grunt 272,297 115,689 140,164 180,879 94,253 125,841 231,324 253,337

Notes: Fish that are released alive are included in the landings data but not in the weight data. 

This table presents the sum of fishing data for Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and West Florida. 

Source: USDOC, NOAA, 2010d. 
A-72 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table 4-16a 

 

Employment in the Leisure/Hospitality Industry in Selected Geographic Regions 

Region 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Panel A—Economic Impact Area 

TX-1 45,553 46,979 48,490 49,165 50,446 53,281 54,654 54,551 53,691

TX-2 14,055 14,113 14,241 14,728 14,670 16,153 16,564 16,883 16,702

TX-3 195,214 203,090 207,245 214,025 219,203 231,840 241,110 240,231 240,366

LA-1 13,682 14,065 14,300 14,725 15,339 14,747 14,563 14,295 14,246

LA-2 17,653 17,451 18,560 19,817 20,787 21,072 21,517 21,364 20,588

LA-3 37,902 38,048 40,752 42,229 43,483 44,533 44,810 46,037 44,157

LA-4 80,990 80,677 81,243 85,093 47,641 64,812 68,531 68,605 67,438

MS-1 31,485 32,752 33,714 33,297 18,024 29,191 29,680 27,702 26,938

AL-1 23,785 23,937 24,488 24,464 25,481 26,463 26,850 26,516 26,034

FL-1 34,829 36,139 36,520 39,956 41,133 41,887 41,688 40,001 41,003

FL-2 17,934 19,733 18,860 21,588 21,861 22,478 22,913 22,502 21,699

FL-3 123,248 130,250 132,256 137,302 145,005 145,894 149,448 146,368 142,393

FL-4 238,090 251,658 256,472 268,487 274,635 280,874 283,748 283,359 280,380

TX EIA Total 254,822 264,182 269,976 277,918 284,319 301,274 312,328 311,665 310,759

LA EIA Total 150,227 150,241 154,855 161,864 127,250 145,164 149,421 150,301 146,429

MS EIA Total 31,485 32,752 33,714 33,297 18,024 29,191 29,680 27,702 26,938

AL EIA Total 23,785 23,937 24,488 24,464 25,481 26,463 26,850 26,516 26,034

FL EIA Total 414,101 437,780 444,108 467,333 482,634 491,133 497,797 492,230 485,475

EIA Total 874,420 908,892 927,141 964,876 937,708 993,225 1,016,076 1,008,414 995,635

Panel B—Coastal 

TX 57,637 59,250 60,873 61,983 63,069 67,625 68,195 67,388 68,025

LA 88,235 87,640 88,431 92,703 56,242 73,405 77,567 77,580 75,958

MS 30,052 31,295 32,172 31,625 16,152 26,926 27,444 25,575 25,080

AL 21,231 21,690 22,249 22,250 23,099 24,186 24,437 24,319 23,990

FL 377,323 399,122 404,048 423,855 437,761 445,948 450,414 445,164 441,068

Coastal Total 574,478 598,997 607,773 632,416 596,323 638,090 648,057 640,026 634,121

Panel C—Statewide 

TX 818,164 840,506 854,733 877,284 900,646 943,581 982,437 995,445 982,122

LA 191,394 192,342 198,195 206,298 171,674 189,822 194,614 194,905 189,527

MS 116,714 120,243 121,528 122,557 110,430 123,402 125,192 121,033 115,924

AL 148,989 149,172 154,287 158,390 163,390 168,558 171,697 168,413 166,237

FL 772,721 808,429 817,571 866,269 893,043 912,409 932,012 922,534 896,923

State Total 2,047,982 2,110,692 2,146,314 2,230,798 2,239,183 2,337,772 2,405,952 2,402,330 2,350,733

1) Economic Impact Areas are defined in Figure 2-2. 

2) The Coastal category refers to counties within EIA's that are directly along the coast of the U.S. 

3) The Statewide category refers to the number of employees within the borders of the entire state. 

4) The leisure/hospitality industry is defined according to the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS). 

5) The employment figure for any given year corresponds to the total number of employees in December of that year. 

Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010. 
Figures and Tables A-73 

Table 4-16b 

 

Monthly Employment in the Leisure/Hospitality Industry during 2010 

Region Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sep 

Panel A—Economic Impact Area 

TX-1 53,780 54,864 56,434 56,712 57,682 57,817 56,989 56,821 56,106

TX-2 16,372 16,535 16,879 17,357 17,488 17,953 17,744 17,668 17,234

TX-3 233,323 236,395 242,381 245,096 248,306 250,958 248,351 248,857 246,488

LA-1 14,195 14,203 14,435 14,500 14,698 14,774 14,632 14,402 14,487

LA-2 20,441 20,790 21,107 21,666 21,934 21,640 21,319 21,259 21,210

LA-3 42,988 43,485 44,710 44,925 45,606 45,695 45,320 45,556 45,492

LA-4 68,343 68,806 70,051 70,708 70,570 71,257 70,173 70,590 70,982

MS-1 26,404 26,645 27,211 27,583 27,879 28,290 28,052 27,981 27,570

AL-1 25,435 25,925 27,140 28,316 28,962 29,503 28,836 28,571 27,961

FL-1 40,374 42,431 46,703 48,351 49,119 50,806 49,889 48,372 46,160

FL-2 21,621 22,074 22,478 22,868 22,011 21,550 21,238 21,504 22,090

FL-3 142,690 145,777 149,670 150,654 149,325 148,017 145,285 145,267 145,346

FL-4 280,126 285,916 291,067 290,144 284,324 279,782 272,745 272,263 270,061

TX EIA total 303,475 307,794 315,694 319,165 323,476 326,728 323,084 323,346 319,828

LA EIA total 145,967 147,284 150,303 151,799 152,808 153,366 151,444 151,807 152,171

MS EIA total 26,404 26,645 27,211 27,583 27,879 28,290 28,052 27,981 27,570

AL EIA total 25,435 25,925 27,140 28,316 28,962 29,503 28,836 28,571 27,961

FL EIA total 484,811 496,198 509,918 512,017 504,779 500,155 489,157 487,406 483,657

EIA total 986,092 1,003,846 1,030,266 1,038,880 1,037,904 1,038,042 1,020,573 1,019,111 1,011,187

Panel B—Coastal 

TX 66,575 67,809 70,159 71,833 72,737 73,916 72,832 72,110 70,337

LA 76,571 77,167 78,666 79,306 79,329 79,933 78,923 79,373 79,764

MS 24,585 24,803 25,313 25,675 25,972 26,376 26,249 26,153 25,750

AL 23,425 23,908 25,020 26,192 26,734 27,202 26,551 26,324 25,732

FL 440,714 451,034 464,086 465,718 460,000 456,131 445,905 443,901 438,708

Coastal total 631,870 644,721 663,244 668,724 664,772 663,558 650,460 647,861 640,291

Panel C—Statewide 

TX 955,907 971,203 993,927 1,007,287 1,025,007 1,035,662 1,024,465 1,026,375 1,017,550

LA 187,935 189,633 193,519 195,715 196,978 197,360 194,930 195,358 195,476

MS 113,199 114,644 117,222 119,567 120,425 121,213 119,571 120,795 119,569

AL 160,117 160,637 165,671 169,475 171,307 172,834 170,998 171,144 168,839

FL 893,174 915,016 937,711 942,916 934,556 926,893 910,396 907,547 901,179

State total 2,310,332 2,351,133 2,408,050 2,434,960 2,448,273 2,453,962 2,420,360 2,421,219 2,402,613

1) Economic Impact Areas (EIA’s) are defined in Figure 2-2. 

2) The Coastal category refers to counties within EIA's that are directly along the coast of the U.S. 

3) The Statewide category refers to the number of employees within the borders of the entire state. 

4) The leisure/hospitality industry is defined according to the North American Industrial Classification System. 

Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011. 
A-74 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table 4-17a 

 

Total Wages Earned by Employees in the Leisure/Hospitality Industry in Selected Geographic Regions 

Region 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Panel A—Economic Impact Area 

TX-1 516,185 544,244 566,896 586,252 627,083 685,028 739,142 746,670 766,750

TX-2 148,743 155,321 158,437 168,256 175,260 190,740 209,082 221,889 237,274

TX-3 3,018,006 3,184,819 3,269,332 3,482,253 3,711,467 4,067,402 4,341,536 4,559,854 4,635,997

LA-1 179,049 190,839 196,760 207,015 252,162 250,432 251,148 257,990 263,543

LA-2 176,741 186,845 195,892 219,352 243,347 280,120 295,347 308,107 314,147

LA-3 446,102 452,046 487,564 498,022 543,970 597,138 633,241 654,806 667,398

LA-4 1,318,417 1,378,771 1,429,488 1,493,019 1,409,983 1,246,477 1,505,206 1,633,224 1,595,567

MS-1 591,065 591,974 608,043 618,987 617,535 453,168 621,439 616,442 560,510

AL-1 281,331 287,381 300,006 305,922 321,934 347,512 371,712 388,644 390,968

FL-1 470,616 508,316 528,008 599,949 655,141 721,483 761,247 738,910 743,731

FL-2 182,944 209,213 210,758 232,143 249,152 270,339 294,144 293,528 291,417

FL-3 1,849,168 1,956,066 2,046,441 2,224,235 2,418,168 2,576,029 2,752,991 2,906,630 2,795,652

FL-4 4,219,638 4,391,881 4,669,982 5,131,115 5,650,225 5,981,862 6,304,312 6,493,402 6,344,752

TX EIA Total 3,682,934 3,884,384 3,994,665 4,236,761 4,513,810 4,943,170 5,289,760 5,528,413 5,640,021

LA EIA Total 2,120,309 2,208,501 2,309,704 2,417,408 2,449,462 2,374,167 2,684,942 2,854,127 2,840,655

MS EIA Total 591,065 591,974 608,043 618,987 617,535 453,168 621,439 616,442 560,510

AL EIA Total 281,331 287,381 300,006 305,922 321,934 347,512 371,712 388,644 390,968

FL EIA Total 6,722,366 7,065,476 7,455,189 8,187,442 8,972,686 9,549,713 10,112,694 10,432,470 10,175,552

EIA Total 13,398,005 14,037,716 14,667,607 15,766,520 16,875,427 17,667,730 19,080,547 19,820,096 19,607,706

Panel B—Coastal 

TX 706,679 737,035 761,880 790,346 834,820 927,109 986,605 994,817 1,027,931

LA 1,401,025 1,459,632 1,512,219 1,578,886 1,503,750 1,359,770 1,631,966 1,764,631 1,734,276

MS 579,122 579,914 595,776 605,542 602,391 433,995 600,226 594,626 539,240

AL 259,024 265,870 279,872 284,844 299,662 324,127 347,209 363,802 367,039

FL 6,309,393 6,624,756 6,991,895 7,687,112 8,410,661 8,955,648 9,456,949 9,762,721 9,522,041

Coastal Total 9,255,243 9,667,207 10,141,642 10,946,730 11,651,284 12,000,649 13,022,955 13,480,597 13,190,527

Panel C—Statewide 

TX 12,226,217 12,630,640 12,936,441 13,601,748 14,407,978 15,653,469 16,677,752 17,490,862 17,674,963

LA 2,674,740 2,762,055 2,886,189 3,028,338 3,069,485 3,013,979 3,336,193 3,530,708 3,511,171

MS 1,714,340 1,746,899 1,778,922 1,840,583 1,872,402 1,789,900 1,990,974 2,024,034 1,915,700

AL 1,682,365 1,730,048 1,800,093 1,882,015 1,998,089 2,124,157 2,244,583 2,344,058 2,345,332

FL 13,388,764 13,677,833 14,336,358 15,686,585 17,089,645 18,132,360 19,354,496 19,990,305 19,103,860

State Total 31,686,426 32,547,475 33,738,003 36,039,269 38,437,599 40,713,865 43,603,998 45,379,967 44,551,026

1) Economic Impact Areas (EIA’s) are defined in Figure 2-2. 

2) The Coastal category refers to counties within EIA's that are directly along the coast of the U.S. 

3) The Statewide category refers to the number of employees within the borders of the entire state. 

4) The leisure/hospitality industry is defined according to the North American Industrial Classification System. 

5) Wages are presented in thousands of dollars. 

Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010. 
Figures and Tables A-75 

Table 4-17b 

 

Quarterly Wages in the Leisure/Hospitality Industry in 2009 and 2010 

2009 2010 

Region Q1 Q2 Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3 

Panel A—Economic Impact Area 

TX-1 186,485 190,705 196,907 189,011 200,118 202,891 

TX-2 55,947 59,888 60,406 56,807 62,136 62,005 

TX-3 1,101,383 1,156,040 1,172,061 1,101,259 1,182,646 1,205,761 

LA-1 66,498 62,427 68,772 67,858 63,177 69,412 

LA-2 76,903 79,958 78,659 74,803 82,036 82,804 

LA-3 146,758 147,760 151,476 146,165 155,619 157,535 

LA-4 399,037 375,763 372,045 422,006 393,554 389,661 

MS-1 139,067 139,486 144,690 137,586 138,553 144,858 

AL-1 90,350 101,085 102,964 90,985 105,881 107,282 

FL-1 165,362 199,059 208,098 161,938 201,780 203,336 

FL-2 72,448 73,443 71,806 68,942 72,564 72,652 

FL-3 704,036 685,052 661,734 683,879 706,460 704,891 

FL-4 1,644,155 1,582,097 1,455,292 1,614,884 1,639,368 1,543,834 

TX EIA total 1,343,815 1,406,633 1,429,374 1,347,077 1,444,900 1,470,657 

LA EIA total 689,196 665,908 670,952 710,832 694,386 699,412 

MS EIA total 139,067 139,486 144,690 137,586 138,553 144,858 

AL EIA total 90,350 101,085 102,964 90,985 105,881 107,282 

FL EIA total 2,586,001 2,539,651 2,396,930 2,529,643 2,620,172 2,524,713 

EIA total 4,848,429 4,852,763 4,744,910 4,816,123 5,003,892 4,946,922 

Panel B—Coastal 

TX 242,514 258,365 266,840 245,102 271,683 274,253 

LA 413,709 389,122 386,512 439,668 412,408 408,835 

MS 133,736 134,172 139,231 132,549 133,384 139,556 

AL 84,665 95,019 96,792 85,260 99,780 100,742 

FL 2,423,701 2,377,078 2,234,861 2,371,990 2,454,904 2,360,412 

Coastal total 3,298,325 3,253,756 3,124,236 3,274,569 3,372,159 3,283,798 

Panel C—Statewide 

TX 4,309,905 4,381,324 4,412,854 4,261,565 4,470,937 4,596,176 

LA 864,759 851,017 856,394 884,745 883,392 890,067 

MS 466,911 482,749 482,404 456,300 486,254 495,765 

AL 548,550 592,439 600,567 549,179 608,297 608,426 

FL 4,816,481 4,795,973 4,515,640 4,769,647 4,895,534 4,791,884 

State total 11,006,606 11,103,502 10,867,859 10,921,436 11,344,414 11,382,318 

1) Economic Impact Areas (EIA’s) are defined in Figure 2-2. 

2) The Coastal category refers to counties within EIA's that are directly along the coast of the U.S.

3) The Statewide category refers to the number of employees within the borders of the entire state. 

4) The leisure/hospitality industry is defined according to the North American Industrial Classification System. 

5) Wages are presented in thousands of dollars. 

Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011.
A-76 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table 4-18 

 

Total Tourism Spending in Gulf Coast States 

(millions of dollars) 

State 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Texas 36,753 35,106 34,238 34,589 37,065 40,790 44,707 44,428 50,874 

Louisiana 9,227 9,266 9,262 9,418 9,964 8,248 6,718 9,021 9,642 

Mississippi 5,282 5,227 5,345 5,489 5,755 5,939 5,633 6,060 6,329 

Alabama 5,487 5,423 5,368 5,627 6,051 6,639 6,998 7,405 7,723 

Florida 60,296 56,166 54,544 56,265 61,118 64,544 66,165 68,820 70,521 

Source: U.S. Travel Association, 2010. 

Table 4-19 

 

Coastal Travel, Tourism, and Recreation Estimates in 2004 

State Employees Payroll Establishments 

Texas 13,712 $366,374 1,626 

Louisiana 4,362 $158,357 544 

Mississippi 12,188 $192,864 148 

Alabama 1,078 $35,407 212 

Florida 31,166 $721,440 2,398 

Gulf Total 62,506 $949,711 4,928 

Source: Kaplan and Whitman, unpublished. 

Table 4-20 

 

Number of Beaches and Beach Participation in Gulf States 

State Number of Beaches1 Beach Visitation2, 3

Texas 168 4,929,000 

Louisiana 28 578,000 

Mississippi 20 956,000 

Alabama 25 1,527,000 

Florida 634 21,989,000 1

 USEPA, 2008. 

2

 U.S. Dept of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2010. 

3

 Beach visitation only refers to visitors originating from within the U.S. 
Figures and Tables A-77 

Table 4-21 

 

Shipwrecks in the Gulf of Mexico’s Central Planning Area 

Map Area No. of Reported Wrecks Historic Wrecks (verified) 

Bay Marchand 3 1 

Breton Sound 11 0 

Chandeleur 8 0 

East Cameron 49 1 

Eugene Island 98 1 

Ewing Bank 5 1 

Green Canyon 15 2 

Grand Isle 33 3 

Lund 11 0 

Mississippi Canyon 49 11 

Mobile 56 2 

Main Pass 65 0 

South Pelto 16 0 

Sabine Pass (LA) 15 0 

South Marsh Island 33 1 

South Pass 36 1 

Ship Shoal 95 3 

South Timbalier 90 2 

Viosca Knoll 23 4 

Vermilion 62 0 

West Cameron 121 1 

West Delta 62 0 

Walker Ridge 3 0 

TOTAL 959 34 
A-78 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table 4-22 

 

OCS and Non-OCS Program Spill Rates 

OCS Program Spill Rates 

<1,000 bbl 

1 bbl 2,020 spills/BBO handled 

1 and <50 bbl 75 spills/BBO handled 

50 bbl and <1,000 bbl 13 spills/BBO handled 

1,000 bbl 

Facility 0.25 spills/BBO handled 

Pipeline 0.88 spills/BBO handled 

Shuttle Tanker 0.34 spills/BBO handled 

At Sea 0.08 spills/BBO handled 

In Port 0.26 spills/BBO handled 

Barge 0.62 spills/BBO handled 

Non-OCS Program Spill Rates 

1,000 bbl rate based on yearly occurrence information 

1,000 bbl 

Tanker Worldwide 0.32 spills/BBO handled 

At Sea 0.14 spills/BBO handled 

In Port 0.18 spills/BBO handled 

Tanker in U.S. Waters 0.34 spills/BBO handled 

At Sea 0.08 spills/BBO handled 

In Port 0.26 spills/BBO handled 

Barge in U.S. Coastal, Offshore, and Inland Waters 0.62 spills/BBO handled 

Pipeline rate based on yearly occurrence information 

BBO = billion barrels of oil. 

Source: USDOI, BOEMRE, 2011. 
Table 4-23 Classification of the Gulf Economic Impact Areas State Area Labor Market County/Parish State Area Labor Market County State Area Labo

Alabama AL-1 Mobile Baldwin Texas TX-1 Brownsville Cameron Florida FL-1 Pana

Clarke Hidalgo Conecuh Starr Escambia Willacy PensMobile Corpus Christi Aransas Monroe Brooks Washington Duval Wilcox Jim Wells FL-2 Talla

Kenedy 

Mississippi MS-1 Biloxi-Gulfport George Kleberg 

Greene Nueces Hancock Refugio Harrison San Patricio Jackson TX-2 Brazoria Brazoria Pearl River Matagorda Stone Wharton 

Victoria Calhoun Lake 

Louisiana LA-1 Lake Charles Allen Colorado 

Beauregard Dewitt Calcasieu Fayette Cameron Goliad Jefferson Davis Gonzales Vernon Jackson Lavaca Victori a
Table 4-23. Classification of the Gulf Economic Impact Areas (continued). State Area Labor Market County State Area Labor Market County State Area Labor Ma

FL-3 Ocala 

LA-2 Lafayette Acadia 

Evangeline GainesvilIberia TX-3 Beaumont - Hardin Lafayette Port Arthur Jasper St. Landry Jefferson St. Martin Newton Vermillion Orange 

LA-3 Baton Rouge Ascension Polk Tampa-St

Petersburg 

East Baton Rouge Tyler 

Iberville Houston - Austin Livingston Galveston Chambers Tangipahoa Fort Band FL-4 Ft. Myers West Baton Rouge Galveston 

Houma Assumption Harris Miami 

Lafourche Liberty 

St. Mary Montgomery Terrebonne San Jacinto Sarasota 

LA-4 New Orleans Jefferson Waller 

Orleans Washington 

Plaquemines St. Bernard St. Charles St. James St. John the Baptist St. Tammany Washington 
Table 4-24 Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area TX-1 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 20

Total Population (in thousands) 1,625.42 1,771.25 1,807.15 1,843.24 1,879.50 1,915.95 1,952.51 2,137.01 2,32

Age Under 19 Years 36.1% 36.4% 36.4% 36.4% 36.4% 36.4% 36.4% 36.6% 3Age 20 to 34 21.0% 20.2% 20.0% 20.0% 19.9% 19.9% 19.8% 18.8% 1Age 35 to 49 18.7% 18.0% 17.8% 17.6% 17.4% 17.3% 17.1% 17.1% 1Age 50 to 64 13.5% 14.6% 14.8% 14.8% 14.9% 14.9% 14.8% 14.5% 1Age 65 and Over 10.7% 10.9% 11.0% 11.2% 11.4% 11.6% 11.9% 13.1% 1

Median Age of Population (years) 33 34 34 34 35 35 35 36 White Population (in thousands) 18.7% 16.8% 16.4% 16.1% 15.8% 15.5% 15.3% 14.1% 1Black Population (in thousands) 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% Native American Population (in thousands) 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 79.0% 80.9% 81.2% 81.5% 81.9% 82.1% 82.4% 83.7% 8Male Population (in thousands) 48.7% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 4Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 728.91 840.00 864.86 878.23 891.81 905.55 919.48 991.85 1,06

 Farm Employment 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3%  Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%  Mining 1.8% 2.4% 2.4% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.1%  Utilities 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2%  Construction 7.2% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.8%  Manufacturing 4.0% 3.2% 3.1% 3.1% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.7%  Wholesale Trade 2.8% 2.4% 2.4% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.1%  Retail Trade 12.0% 11.4% 11.4% 11.3% 11.3% 11.3% 11.2% 11.1% 1 Transportation and Warehousing 3.3% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4%  Information Employment 1.2% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%  Finance and Insurance 3.1% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4%  Real Estate / Rental and Lease 3.0% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9%  Professional and Technical Services 3.4% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.3% 3.3% 3.4%  Management 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3%  Administrative and Waste Services 5.4% 5.6% 5.7% 5.7% 5.8% 5.8% 5.9% 6.1%  Educational Services 0.8% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%  Health Care and Social Assistance 15.6% 17.9% 18.0% 18.2% 18.4% 18.6% 18.7% 19.6% 2 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1%  Accommodation and Food Services 7.2% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3%  Other Services, Except Public Administration 6.5% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3%  Federal Civilian Government 1.7% 1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6%  Federal Military 1.3% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9%  State and Local Government 15.1% 15.7% 15.6% 15.6% 15.6% 15.5% 15.5% 15.3% 1
Table 4-24. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area TX-1 (continued). 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 20Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 24,168.27 25,503.71 26,303.90 26,962.27 27,636.74 28,327.69 29,035.50 32,841.93 37,1

 Farm 1.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%  Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%  Mining 3.6% 5.4% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3%  Utilities 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%  Construction 7.5% 6.2% 6.6% 6.5% 6.4% 6.3% 6.3% 5.9%  Manufacturing 5.9% 4.8% 4.9% 4.8% 4.8% 4.7% 4.6% 4.3%  Wholesale Trade 4.2% 4.0% 4.1% 4.1% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 3.8%  Retail Trade 8.8% 7.9% 8.0% 7.9% 7.9% 7.9% 7.8% 7.6%  Transportation and Warehousing 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.5%  Information 1.5% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2%  Finance and Insurance 3.4% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 3.0% 3.0% 3.1%  Real Estate / Rental and Lease 1.4% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2%  Professional and Technical Services 4.6% 3.9% 3.8% 3.8% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 4.1%  Management 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3%  Administrative and Waste Services 3.0% 3.2% 3.2% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.4% 3.5%  Educational Services 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%  Health Care and Social Assistance 14.9% 17.9% 18.0% 18.2% 18.4% 18.6% 18.8% 19.8% 2 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%  Accommodation and Food Services 3.4% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.1%  Other Services, Except Public Administration 4.5% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1%  Federal Civilian Government 4.9% 5.6% 5.5% 5.5% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4% 5.2%  Federal Military 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.6% 2.5%  State and Local Government 17.8% 18.8% 18.7% 18.7% 18.7% 18.7% 18.8% 18.8% 1

Total Personal Income Per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 21,146 22,321 22,304 22,511 22,729 22,955 23,191 24,519 2Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 68.3 75.0 74.8 74.9 75.0 75.2 75.3 75.9 Persons Per Household (in number of people) 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 69,895 79,290 79,758 80,471 81,303 82,071 82,820 87,661 9Number of Households (in thousands) 499.93 548.88 560.61 573.81 586.98 600.13 613.23 677.74 7Income < $10,000 (thousands of households, 2000 dollars) 15.6% 14.2% 13.9% 13.7% 13.5% 13.3% 13.1% 12.0% 1Income $10,000 to $19,999 17.6% 16.0% 15.7% 15.5% 15.2% 15.0% 14.8% 13.6% 1Income $20,000 to $29,999 15.0% 13.8% 13.6% 13.4% 13.2% 13.0% 12.8% 11.7% 1Income $30,000 to $44,999 18.8% 19.9% 20.0% 20.1% 20.2% 20.3% 20.4% 20.5% 1Income $45,000 to $59,999 12.5% 13.7% 14.0% 14.2% 14.4% 14.6% 14.8% 16.0% 1Income $60,000 to $74,999 7.7% 8.5% 8.6% 8.7% 8.9% 9.0% 9.1% 9.9% 1Income $75,000 to $99,999 6.6% 7.2% 7.3% 7.4% 7.5% 7.7% 7.8% 8.4% Income $100,000 or more 6.1% 6.7% 6.8% 6.9% 7.1% 7.2% 7.3% 7.9% 

Notes: Median age, wealth index, and mean household income is the average of the original Woods & Poole values for the 13 counties in the EIA; income 

personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for the EIA. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010. 
Table 4-25 Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area TX-2 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 202

Total Population (in thousands) 579.99 626.33 634.39 642.51 650.70 658.94 667.23 709.17 75

Age Under 19 Years 29.7% 29.4% 29.3% 29.3% 29.2% 29.2% 29.1% 29.1% 28Age 20 to 34 18.6% 18.9% 19.2% 19.3% 19.4% 19.3% 19.2% 19.1% 19Age 35 to 49 22.5% 20.5% 20.0% 19.5% 19.1% 18.9% 18.7% 18.1% 17Age 50 to 64 16.8% 18.5% 18.8% 18.9% 19.1% 19.2% 19.2% 18.4% 17Age 65 and Over 12.3% 12.6% 12.7% 13.0% 13.2% 13.5% 13.7% 15.3% 17

Median Age of Population (in years) 39 40 40 39 39 39 39 39 White Population (in thousands) 58.9% 55.1% 54.5% 53.8% 53.2% 52.6% 51.9% 48.8% 45Black Population (in thousands) 9.1% 9.9% 10.0% 10.0% 10.1% 10.2% 10.3% 10.7% 11Native American Population (in thousands) 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 2.3% 3.1% 3.2% 3.2% 3.3% 3.3% 3.4% 3.5% 3Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 29.4% 31.5% 32.0% 32.6% 33.1% 33.6% 34.1% 36.6% 39Male Population (in thousands) 50.4% 50.4% 50.4% 50.4% 50.4% 50.4% 50.4% 50.4% 50Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 287.61 309.97 317.96 321.85 325.78 329.76 333.78 354.48 37

 Farm Employment 7.4% 7.0% 6.9% 6.8% 6.7% 6.7% 6.6% 6.2% 5 Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1 Mining 2.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.2% 3 Utilities 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0 Construction 9.6% 7.5% 7.5% 7.6% 7.6% 7.7% 7.8% 8.0% 8 Manufacturing 9.7% 9.2% 9.1% 9.0% 8.9% 8.8% 8.7% 8.2% 7 Wholesale Trade 2.7% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2 Retail Trade 11.3% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 10.9% 10 Transportation and Warehousing 2.9% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.1% 3 Information Employment 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0 Finance and Insurance 3.4% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3 Real Estate / Rental and Lease 3.4% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.7% 3.7% 3 Professional and Technical Services 3.9% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.4% 4 Federal Civilian Government 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0 Federal Military 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0 State and Local Government 12.9% 13.4% 13.4% 13.4% 13.4% 13.3% 13.3% 13.3% 13 Management 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0 Administrative and Waste Services 4.6% 4.3% 4.3% 4.4% 4.4% 4.5% 4.5% 4.7% 5 Educational Services 0.9% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.5% 1 Health Care and Social Assistance 7.7% 8.9% 8.9% 9.0% 9.1% 9.1% 9.2% 9.6% 10 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.2% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1 Accommodation and Food Services 5.6% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.6% 5 Other Services, Except Public Administration 6.5% 6.2% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6
Table 4-25. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area TX-2 (continued). 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 202Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 10,282.28 10,218.80 10,728.94 10,949.05 11,173.46 11,402.24 11,635.47 12,871.31 14,23

 Farm Employment 3.5% 1.4% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% 0 Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0 Mining 4.3% 6.0% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.9% 5.9% 6.1% 6 Utilities 1.6% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.5% 1.5% 1 Construction 11.7% 9.1% 10.1% 10.1% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 9.8% 9 Manufacturing 20.2% 19.4% 19.6% 19.4% 19.1% 18.9% 18.7% 17.7% 16 Wholesale Trade 3.5% 3.8% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.8% 3 Retail Trade 8.1% 7.8% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 7.6% 7 Transportation and Warehousing 3.5% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3 Information Employment 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0 Finance and Insurance 3.0% 3.2% 3.3% 3.3% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.5% 3 Real Estate / Rental and Lease 1.5% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.8% 1 Professional and Technical Services 3.9% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.2% 4.2% 4.3% 4.5% 4 Management 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0 Administrative and Waste Services 2.5% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.9% 3 Educational Services 0.5% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% 0 Health Care and Social Assistance 7.5% 8.5% 8.6% 8.7% 8.7% 8.8% 8.9% 9.2% 9 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0 Accommodation and Food Services 2.2% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.3% 2 Other Services, Except Public Administration 5.2% 4.9% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.8% 4.8% 4 Federal Civilian Government 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1 Federal Military 0.6% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0 State and Local Government 13.9% 15.5% 15.1% 15.1% 15.2% 15.2% 15.2% 15.4% 15

Total Personal Income Per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 29,643 30,101 30,571 30,892 31,211 31,533 31,862 33,626 35Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 79.0 80.7 81.0 81.2 81.4 81.6 81.8 82.8 Persons Per Household (in number of people) 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 71,979 73,706 75,027 75,915 76,840 77,800 78,796 84,429 91Total Number of Households (in thousands) 208.95 226.47 229.54 233.19 236.81 240.39 243.95 261.04 27Income < $10,000 (thousands of households, 2000 dollars) 9.6% 8.8% 8.5% 8.4% 8.2% 8.1% 7.9% 7.1% 6Income $10,000 to $19,999 12.9% 11.8% 11.6% 11.4% 11.2% 11.0% 10.7% 9.7% 8Income $20,000 to $29,999 12.9% 11.9% 11.7% 11.5% 11.3% 11.1% 10.9% 9.8% 8Income $30,000 to $44,999 17.5% 16.9% 16.7% 16.5% 16.3% 16.1% 15.9% 14.5% 13Income $45,000 to $59,999 14.4% 15.0% 15.2% 15.3% 15.4% 15.6% 15.7% 16.1% 15Income $60,000 to $74,999 11.3% 12.1% 12.4% 12.6% 12.8% 13.0% 13.3% 14.6% 16Income $75,000 to $99,999 11.0% 11.9% 12.2% 12.4% 12.6% 12.8% 13.0% 14.4% 15Income $100,000 or More 10.6% 11.5% 11.8% 12.0% 12.2% 12.4% 12.6% 13.9% 15

Notes: Median age, wealth index, and mean household income is the average of the original Woods & Poole values for the 12 counties in the EIA; income 

personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for the EIA. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010. 
Table 4-26 Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area TX-3 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 

Total Population (in thousands) 5,552.60 6,192.43 6,299.99 6,408.25 6,517.13 6,626.68 6,736.63 7,292.42 7,855.

Age Under 19 years 30.9% 30.8% 30.7% 30.6% 30.6% 30.5% 30.4% 30.2% 29.7Age 20 to 34 22.3% 21.8% 21.8% 21.7% 21.7% 21.6% 21.5% 21.2% 21.4Age 35 to 49 22.7% 21.2% 20.9% 20.6% 20.4% 20.3% 20.2% 19.7% 19.1Age 50 to 64 15.6% 17.1% 17.4% 17.4% 17.5% 17.5% 17.5% 16.9% 16.1Age 65 and over 8.6% 9.1% 9.3% 9.5% 9.8% 10.1% 10.4% 12.0% 13.7

Median Age of Population (in years) 37 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 White Population (in thousands) 46.5% 43.0% 42.3% 41.7% 41.1% 40.4% 39.8% 36.8% 33.9Black Population (in thousands) 17.4% 17.4% 17.3% 17.2% 17.0% 16.9% 16.8% 16.3% 15.7Native American Population (in thousands) 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 5.4% 5.9% 6.1% 6.2% 6.3% 6.4% 6.5% 7.1% 7.6Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 30.4% 33.4% 34.0% 34.6% 35.2% 35.9% 36.5% 39.5% 42.4Male Population (in thousands) 50.0% 50.1% 50.1% 50.1% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 49.9% 49.8Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 3,218.66 3,596.00 3,700.61 3,758.99 3,818.15 3,878.09 3,938.83 4,254.86 4,592.

 Farm Employment 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5 Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2 Mining 2.8% 3.5% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.3% 3.3% 3.1% 2.9 Utilities 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5 Construction 8.0% 7.2% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.4% 7.5% 7.6 Manufacturing 7.4% 7.4% 7.3% 7.2% 7.2% 7.1% 7.0% 6.6% 6.2 Wholesale Trade 4.5% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2 Retail Trade 10.2% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.3% 9.3 Transportation and Warehousing 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.2% 4.2 Information Employment 1.5% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2 Finance and Insurance 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5 Real Estate / Rental and Lease 4.1% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9 Professional and Technical Services 7.8% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.1% 8.1% 8.2% 8.5% 8.7 Management 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8 Administrative and Waste Services 7.4% 7.1% 7.1% 7.2% 7.2% 7.3% 7.3% 7.6% 7.9 Educational Services 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.9 Health Care and Social Assistance 8.2% 9.5% 9.5% 9.6% 9.6% 9.6% 9.7% 9.9% 10.1 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5 Accommodation and Food Services 6.5% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7 Other Services, Except Public Administration 6.0% 5.8% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 6.0% 6.1 Federal Civilian Government 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7 Federal Military 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3 State and Local Government 10.3% 10.5% 10.5% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.3% 10.1
Table 4-26. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area TX-3 (continued) 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 186,536.19 200,395.27 208,221.43 213,342.61 218,582.25 223,942.87 229,427.07 258,795.84 291,672.

 Farm Employment 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1 Mining 12.3% 13.9% 13.7% 13.8% 13.8% 13.9% 13.9% 14.2% 14.4 Utilities 1.6% 2.2% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1 Construction 8.2% 6.8% 7.3% 7.2% 7.2% 7.1% 7.1% 6.9% 6.6 Manufacturing 11.7% 11.5% 11.8% 11.7% 11.5% 11.4% 11.3% 10.6% 10.0 Wholesale Trade 6.2% 6.1% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.3 Retail Trade 5.2% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.5% 4.5% 4.4% 4.3 Transportation and Warehousing 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.3% 5.2 Information Employment 1.7% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.2 Finance and Insurance 5.5% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.3% 5.4% 5.4 Real Estate / Rental and Lease 2.4% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6 Professional and Technical Services 10.8% 10.8% 10.7% 10.8% 10.8% 10.9% 11.0% 11.4% 11.8 Management 0.6% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.4% 1.5 Administrative and Waste Services 4.4% 3.9% 4.0% 4.0% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.3% 4.6 Educational Services 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 1.1 Health Care and Social Assistance 6.5% 7.2% 7.1% 7.2% 7.2% 7.2% 7.3% 7.4% 7.5 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6 Accommodation and Food Services 2.3% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.1 Other Services, Except Public Administration 3.1% 2.9% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.9% 2.9 Federal Civilian Government 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.5 Federal Military 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3 State and Local Government 8.3% 8.9% 8.8% 8.8% 8.8% 8.8% 8.8% 8.8% 8.8

Total Personal Income Per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 38,941 38,315 39,041 39,421 39,818 40,231 40,661 43,035 45,7Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 85.7 87.4 87.9 87.8 87.6 87.5 87.4 86.9 86Persons Per Household (in number of people) 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 80,484 82,582 84,242 84,841 85,460 86,115 86,816 91,101 96,6Total Number of Households (in thousands) 1,988.28 2,215.36 2,252.62 2,295.55 2,338.22 2,380.57 2,422.51 2,625.44 2,817.Income < $10,000 (thousands of households, 2000 dollars) 8.7% 8.2% 8.0% 7.9% 7.7% 7.6% 7.4% 6.7% 6.0Income $10,000 to $19,999 11.0% 10.4% 10.1% 10.0% 9.8% 9.7% 9.5% 8.6% 7.7Income $20,000 to $29,999 12.0% 11.4% 11.1% 11.0% 10.8% 10.6% 10.4% 9.4% 8.5Income $30,000 to $44,999 16.8% 16.1% 15.8% 15.6% 15.4% 15.1% 14.8% 13.5% 12.2Income $45,000 to $59,999 14.0% 14.4% 14.5% 14.5% 14.6% 14.6% 14.6% 14.2% 13.1Income $60,000 to $74,999 10.8% 11.3% 11.5% 11.7% 11.9% 12.1% 12.3% 13.4% 14.4Income $75,000 to $99,999 11.4% 12.0% 12.3% 12.4% 12.6% 12.9% 13.1% 14.4% 16.0Income $100,000 or more 15.4% 16.3% 16.7% 16.9% 17.2% 17.5% 17.9% 19.7% 22.0Notes: Median age, wealth index, and mean household income is the average of the original Woods & Poole values for the 17 counties in the EIA; income 

personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for the EIA. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010. 
Table 4-27 Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area LA1 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 20

Total Population (in thousands) 334.22 334.72 336.53 338.39 340.27 342.20 344.15 354.20 3

Age Under 19 years 29.2% 28.5% 28.4% 28.3% 28.3% 28.2% 28.2% 28.1% 2Age 20 to 34 21.8% 21.9% 21.9% 21.9% 21.7% 21.4% 20.8% 19.6% 1Age 35 to 49 20.9% 18.9% 18.5% 18.3% 18.1% 18.1% 18.4% 18.6% 1Age 50 to 64 16.2% 18.1% 18.5% 18.6% 18.8% 18.9% 19.0% 18.4% 1Age 65 and over 11.9% 12.6% 12.6% 12.9% 13.2% 13.4% 13.6% 15.2% 1

Median Age of Population (in years) 35 35 36 36 36 36 36 38 White Population (in thousands) 74.6% 73.9% 73.8% 73.8% 73.7% 73.6% 73.6% 73.2% 7Black Population (in thousands) 20.8% 20.7% 20.7% 20.7% 20.7% 20.7% 20.6% 20.5% 2Native American Population (in thousands) 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 3.0% 3.5% 3.6% 3.7% 3.8% 3.8% 3.9% 4.3% Male Population (in thousands) 49.9% 49.8% 49.8% 49.8% 49.8% 49.8% 49.8% 49.8% 4Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 171.65 177.73 182.05 183.91 185.81 187.70 189.62 199.43 2

 Farm Employment 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.8%  Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%  Mining 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1%  Utilities 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%  Construction 8.7% 8.9% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.1% 9.1% 9.3%  Manufacturing 6.7% 6.7% 6.6% 6.5% 6.4% 6.4% 6.3% 5.9%  Wholesale Trade 2.2% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8%  Retail Trade 11.0% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.3% 1 Transportation and Warehousing 3.2% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8%  Information Employment 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9%  Finance and Insurance 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4%  Real Estate / Rental and Lease 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%  Professional and Technical Services 4.7% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.6% 4.6% 4.7% 4.9%  Management 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%  Administrative and Waste Services 3.8% 4.9% 5.0% 5.0% 5.1% 5.2% 5.3% 5.8%  Educational Services 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9%  Health Care and Social Assistance 9.5% 10.7% 10.8% 10.9% 11.0% 11.1% 11.2% 11.8% 1 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 2.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1%  Accommodation and Food Services 7.9% 7.6% 7.6% 7.6% 7.6% 7.6% 7.6% 7.7%  Other Services, Except Public Administration 6.2% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.9% 5.9% 6.0% 6.2%  Federal Civilian Government 2.1% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8%  Federal Military 5.7% 5.8% 5.8% 5.7% 5.6% 5.6% 5.5% 5.2%  State and Local Government 14.0% 14.8% 14.8% 14.7% 14.6% 14.5% 14.4% 14.0% 1
Table 4-27. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area LA-1 (continued). 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 202Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 6,873.26 7,285.45 7,545.69 7,677.77 7,811.98 7,948.32 8,086.83 8,813.22 9,599

 Farm Employment 0.5% 0.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0. Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0. Mining 1.7% 2.3% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 2.0% 2. Utilities 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0. Construction 7.6% 10.9% 11.8% 11.7% 11.7% 11.6% 11.6% 11.3% 11. Manufacturing 14.6% 12.5% 12.7% 12.6% 12.4% 12.3% 12.2% 11.5% 10. Wholesale Trade 2.7% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.3% 2. Retail Trade 6.3% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5. Transportation and Warehousing 3.6% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2. Information Employment 2.6% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2. Finance and Insurance 2.3% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2. Real Estate / Rental and Lease 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1. Professional and Technical Services 5.4% 5.4% 5.3% 5.4% 5.5% 5.5% 5.6% 6.0% 6. Management 1.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0. Administrative and Waste Services 2.2% 3.0% 3.0% 3.1% 3.2% 3.2% 3.3% 3.7% 4. Educational Services 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0. Health Care and Social Assistance 8.7% 9.2% 9.2% 9.3% 9.4% 9.5% 9.7% 10.2% 10. Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0. Accommodation and Food Services 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3. Other Services, Except Public Administration 3.7% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.2% 3. Federal Civilian Government 3.8% 4.1% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 3.9% 3.9% 3. Federal Military 10.6% 11.4% 11.3% 11.3% 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.0% 10. State and Local Government 13.8% 14.1% 13.8% 13.8% 13.8% 13.8% 13.7% 13.6% 13.

Total Personal Income Per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 27,573 29,916 30,288 30,714 31,145 31,584 32,032 34,415 37,Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 70.1 84.8 84.6 84.8 85.0 85.2 85.4 86.4 8Persons Per Household (in number of people) 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 66,070 78,879 79,669 80,570 81,502 82,473 83,478 89,133 95,Total Number of Households (in thousands) 123.62 124.83 125.65 126.79 127.92 129.02 130.11 135.19 139Income < $10,000 (thousands of households, 2000 dollars) 12.1% 10.9% 10.6% 10.5% 10.3% 10.1% 9.9% 8.7% 7.Income $10,000 to $19,999 14.8% 13.3% 13.0% 12.8% 12.6% 12.3% 12.1% 10.6% 9.Income $20,000 to $29,999 13.0% 11.6% 11.3% 11.1% 10.9% 10.7% 10.5% 9.2% 7.Income $30,000 to $44,999 19.5% 18.6% 18.4% 18.2% 17.9% 17.6% 17.4% 15.3% 13.Income $45,000 to $59,999 15.2% 17.0% 17.4% 17.7% 18.0% 18.3% 18.6% 20.1% 20.Income $60,000 to $74,999 9.6% 10.8% 11.1% 11.3% 11.5% 11.7% 11.9% 13.7% 16.Income $75,000 to $99,999 8.9% 9.9% 10.2% 10.3% 10.5% 10.7% 10.9% 12.5% 14.Income $100,000 or more 6.9% 7.8% 8.0% 8.1% 8.2% 8.4% 8.5% 9.7% 11.

Notes: Median age, wealth index, and mean household income is the average of the original Woods & Poole values for the 6 parishes in the EIA; income 

personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for the EIA. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010. 
Table 4-28 Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area LA-2 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 20

Total Population (in thousands) 558.39 587.88 593.59 599.38 605.23 611.14 617.10 647.47 67

Age Under 19 years 29.9% 28.9% 28.8% 28.7% 28.5% 28.5% 28.4% 28.2% 2Age 20 to 34 21.0% 22.0% 22.1% 22.0% 21.8% 21.5% 21.0% 19.5% 1Age 35 to 49 21.6% 19.1% 18.7% 18.4% 18.3% 18.3% 18.5% 19.3% 2Age 50 to 64 15.9% 18.0% 18.4% 18.6% 18.8% 18.9% 18.9% 18.4% 1Age 65 and over 11.6% 12.0% 12.1% 12.3% 12.6% 12.8% 13.1% 14.7% 1

Median Age of Population (in years) 35 35 35 35 35 35 36 37 White Population (in thousands) 69.1% 68.3% 68.2% 68.1% 68.0% 67.9% 67.8% 67.2% 6Black Population (in thousands) 27.7% 28.0% 28.0% 28.0% 28.1% 28.1% 28.2% 28.4% 2Native American Population (in thousands) 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.5% Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 1.7% 2.2% 2.2% 2.3% 2.3% 2.4% 2.4% 2.7% Male Population (in thousands) 48.6% 48.7% 48.7% 48.7% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.9% 4Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 297.51 321.93 330.21 334.03 337.89 341.78 345.70 365.76 38

 Farm Employment 1.9% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6%  Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%  Mining 6.9% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.2% 8.2% 8.2% 8.0%  Utilities 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%  Construction 6.7% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.5%  Manufacturing 6.1% 5.9% 5.8% 5.7% 5.6% 5.6% 5.5% 5.1%  Wholesale Trade 3.7% 3.6% 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.4%  Retail Trade 11.5% 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.1% 11.1% 11.1% 10.9% 1 Transportation and Warehousing 3.5% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%  Information Employment 1.5% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2%  Finance and Insurance 3.4% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1%  Real Estate / Rental and Lease 4.0% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.3%  Professional and Technical Services 4.7% 5.2% 5.2% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.4% 5.5%  Management 1.1% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9%  Administrative and Waste Services 4.6% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 5.0% 5.0% 5.2%  Educational Services 1.2% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%  Health Care and Social Assistance 11.2% 12.0% 12.1% 12.3% 12.5% 12.6% 12.8% 13.6% 1 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.5%  Accommodation and Food Services 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.5%  Other Services, Except Public Administration 7.0% 7.0% 7.1% 7.1% 7.2% 7.2% 7.3% 7.6%  Federal Civilian Government 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%  Federal Military 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%  State and Local Government 10.8% 10.2% 10.2% 10.1% 10.1% 10.0% 9.9% 9.7% 
Table 4-28. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area LA-2 (continued). 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 20Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 11,484.00 12,782.07 13,132.04 13,420.62 13,715.20 14,015.87 14,322.73 15,953.99 17,75

 Farm Employment 0.8% 1.5% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1%  Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%  Mining 13.7% 17.7% 17.7% 17.8% 17.9% 18.0% 18.1% 18.7% 1 Utilities 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%  Construction 7.1% 6.0% 6.3% 6.2% 6.1% 6.0% 5.9% 5.4%  Manufacturing 7.5% 7.6% 7.7% 7.6% 7.5% 7.4% 7.3% 6.8%  Wholesale Trade 4.7% 4.8% 5.0% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9%  Retail Trade 7.9% 7.7% 7.8% 7.7% 7.7% 7.6% 7.5% 7.3%  Transportation and Warehousing 4.6% 3.8% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.6%  Information Employment 1.7% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3%  Finance and Insurance 4.1% 2.9% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%  Real Estate / Rental and Lease 3.5% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7%  Professional and Technical Services 6.0% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.2% 6.2% 6.3%  Management 1.6% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.5%  Administrative and Waste Services 3.1% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.1%  Educational Services 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8%  Health Care and Social Assistance 11.3% 11.6% 11.7% 11.8% 12.0% 12.1% 12.2% 12.9% 1 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.6% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%  Accommodation and Food Services 2.5% 2.6% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6%  Other Services, Except Public Administration 4.5% 4.1% 4.1% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.4%  Federal Civilian Government 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1%  Federal Military 0.9% 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6%  State and Local Government 11.3% 11.3% 11.2% 11.1% 11.1% 11.1% 11.0% 10.8% 1

Total Personal Income (in millions of 2005 dollars) Total Personal Income Per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 28,507 30,706 30,852 31,247 31,645 32,047 32,456 34,618 37Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 72.7 78.6 77.7 77.7 77.8 77.8 77.8 77.8 Persons Per Household (in number of people) 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 68,505 75,359 75,338 76,021 76,720 77,445 78,201 82,488 87Total Number of Households (in thousands) 208.17 220.47 222.77 225.63 228.48 231.29 234.07 247.40 25Income < $10,000 (thousands of households, 2000 dollars) 15.9% 14.1% 13.9% 13.7% 13.4% 13.2% 13.0% 11.8% 1Income $10,000 to $19,999 15.2% 13.6% 13.3% 13.1% 12.9% 12.7% 12.6% 11.3% 1Income $20,000 to $29,999 12.9% 11.7% 11.5% 11.3% 11.2% 11.0% 10.8% 9.8% Income $30,000 to $44,999 18.2% 18.4% 18.3% 18.3% 18.2% 18.1% 18.0% 17.0% 1Income $45,000 to $59,999 14.1% 15.8% 16.1% 16.3% 16.5% 16.7% 17.0% 18.2% 1Income $60,000 to $74,999 9.1% 10.2% 10.4% 10.6% 10.7% 10.9% 11.0% 12.3% 1Income $75,000 to $99,999 7.4% 8.3% 8.5% 8.6% 8.8% 8.9% 9.0% 10.1% 1Income $100,000 or more 7.1% 7.9% 8.0% 8.2% 8.3% 8.4% 8.5% 9.6% 1Notes: Median age, wealth index, and mean household income is the average of the original Woods & Poole values for the 7 parishes in the EIA; income per capi

personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for the EIA. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010. 
Table 4-29 Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area LA-3 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 20

Total Population (in thousands) 1,039.88 1,126.87 1,140.44 1,154.15 1,167.97 1,181.91 1,195.92 1,266.99 1,3

Age Under 19 years 29.7% 28.8% 28.6% 28.4% 28.3% 28.1% 28.1% 27.9% 2Age 20 to 34 22.4% 23.1% 23.4% 23.5% 23.5% 23.5% 23.1% 21.7% 2Age 35 to 49 21.4% 19.2% 18.7% 18.3% 18.0% 17.9% 17.9% 18.4% 1Age 50 to 64 16.2% 17.8% 18.1% 18.2% 18.3% 18.3% 18.3% 17.7% 1Age 65 and over 10.3% 11.1% 11.3% 11.6% 11.9% 12.2% 12.5% 14.3% 1

Median Age of Population (in years) 35 35 35 35 35 36 36 37 White Population (in thousands) 65.7% 64.0% 63.7% 63.5% 63.3% 63.1% 62.9% 61.8% 6Black Population (in thousands) 29.6% 30.6% 30.7% 30.8% 30.9% 31.0% 31.1% 31.6% 3Native American Population (in thousands) 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 1.4% 1.4% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6% Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 2.3% 3.0% 3.1% 3.2% 3.3% 3.4% 3.5% 3.9% Male Population (in thousands) 48.7% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 4Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 606.81 663.02 680.63 689.17 697.80 706.51 715.33 760.83 8

 Farm Employment 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%  Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%  Mining 1.5% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.8% 1.7%  Utilities 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3%  Construction 9.8% 9.3% 9.3% 9.3% 9.4% 9.4% 9.5% 9.6%  Manufacturing 6.8% 6.1% 6.1% 6.0% 5.9% 5.8% 5.7% 5.3%  Wholesale Trade 3.2% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.6%  Retail Trade 10.9% 10.1% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 9.9%  Transportation and Warehousing 4.4% 4.6% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.4%  Information Employment 1.4% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1%  Finance and Insurance 3.5% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.2%  Real Estate / Rental and Lease 3.6% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.8%  Professional and Technical Services 4.8% 5.6% 5.6% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.8% 6.0%  Management 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0%  Administrative and Waste Services 5.8% 6.1% 6.1% 6.2% 6.3% 6.4% 6.5% 7.1%  Educational Services 1.1% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6%  Health Care and Social Assistance 8.8% 10.0% 10.1% 10.1% 10.2% 10.3% 10.3% 10.6% 1 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4%  Accommodation and Food Services 6.6% 6.7% 6.7% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.9%  Other Services, Except Public Administration 6.7% 6.6% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.8% 6.8% 7.0%  Federal Civilian Government 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%  Federal Military 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6%  State and Local Government 15.6% 15.0% 14.9% 14.8% 14.7% 14.5% 14.4% 13.8% 1
Table 4-29. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area LA-3 (continued). 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 20Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 24,055.56 27,529.09 28,679.63 29,248.86 29,828.55 30,418.91 31,020.09 34,194.93 37,6

 Farm Employment 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%  Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%  Mining 2.6% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7%  Utilities 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%  Construction 10.3% 11.0% 12.0% 11.9% 11.9% 11.8% 11.7% 11.4% 1 Manufacturing 12.4% 11.2% 11.3% 11.2% 11.1% 10.9% 10.8% 10.1%  Wholesale Trade 4.4% 3.7% 3.8% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.6%  Retail Trade 7.2% 6.4% 6.4% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.2%  Transportation and Warehousing 6.0% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6%  Information Employment 1.7% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4%  Finance and Insurance 4.3% 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.6%  Real Estate / Rental and Lease 2.1% 1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8%  Professional and Technical Services 6.0% 6.9% 6.8% 6.9% 6.9% 7.0% 7.0% 7.3%  Management 1.4% 1.9% 1.9% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%  Administrative and Waste Services 3.5% 3.9% 3.8% 3.9% 4.0% 4.1% 4.2% 4.7%  Educational Services 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%  Health Care and Social Assistance 9.2% 9.4% 9.3% 9.3% 9.4% 9.5% 9.6% 9.9% 1 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.7% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%  Accommodation and Food Services 2.7% 2.6% 2.5% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6%  Other Services, Except Public Administration 4.1% 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.7%  Federal Civilian Government 1.2% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%  Federal Military 0.9% 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%  State and Local Government 17.5% 17.8% 17.4% 17.3% 17.3% 17.2% 17.2% 16.9% 1

Total Personal Income Per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 30,731 32,203 32,690 33,093 33,505 33,924 34,352 36,628 3Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 79.2 85.3 85.7 85.7 85.8 85.9 86.0 86.4 Persons Per Household (in number of people) 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 77,923 83,219 84,664 85,438 86,256 87,115 88,016 93,155 9Total Number of Households (in thousands) 385.14 421.32 426.92 433.61 440.27 446.88 453.43 485.13 5Income < $10,000 (thousands of households, 2000 dollars) 12.4% 11.3% 11.1% 10.9% 10.7% 10.6% 10.4% 9.3% Income $10,000 to $19,999 13.2% 12.1% 11.8% 11.7% 11.5% 11.3% 11.1% 10.0% Income $20,000 to $29,999 12.1% 11.1% 10.8% 10.7% 10.5% 10.4% 10.2% 9.2% Income $30,000 to $44,999 17.5% 16.6% 16.3% 16.1% 15.9% 15.7% 15.5% 14.1% 1Income $45,000 to $59,999 14.7% 16.0% 16.3% 16.5% 16.7% 16.9% 17.0% 17.3% 1Income $60,000 to $74,999 11.1% 12.1% 12.4% 12.7% 12.9% 13.1% 13.3% 15.0% 1Income $75,000 to $99,999 10.0% 10.9% 11.1% 11.3% 11.5% 11.7% 11.9% 13.3% 1Income $100,000 or more 9.1% 9.8% 10.0% 10.1% 10.3% 10.4% 10.6% 11.8% 1Notes: Median age, wealth index, and mean household income is the average of the original Woods & Poole values for the 10 parishes in the EIA; income per cap

personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for the EIA. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010. 
Table 4-30 Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area LA-4 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 

Total Population (in thousands) 1,378.12 1,267.52 1,278.34 1,289.31 1,300.40 1,311.64 1,322.96 1,380.77 1,439

Age Under 19 years 28.1% 26.3% 26.2% 26.1% 26.1% 26.1% 26.1% 26.5% 26.Age 20 to 34 20.7% 20.7% 20.6% 20.5% 20.4% 20.1% 19.9% 18.1% 17.Age 35 to 49 22.0% 20.1% 19.7% 19.4% 19.2% 19.0% 18.8% 19.1% 19.Age 50 to 64 17.5% 20.5% 20.8% 20.9% 20.9% 21.0% 20.9% 19.8% 18.Age 65 and over 11.6% 12.5% 12.7% 13.1% 13.4% 13.8% 14.2% 16.5% 18.

Median Age of Population (in years) 36 36 37 37 37 37 37 38 White Population (in thousands) 54.4% 55.5% 55.3% 55.1% 54.9% 54.8% 54.6% 53.7% 52.Black Population (in thousands) 37.7% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.1% 35.1% 35.2% 35.Native American Population (in thousands) 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 2.4% 2.7% 2.7% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.9% 3.1% 3.Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 5.1% 6.4% 6.5% 6.6% 6.7% 6.9% 7.0% 7.5% 8.Male Population (in thousands) 48.0% 48.2% 48.2% 48.2% 48.2% 48.2% 48.2% 48.2% 48.Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 740.50 728.32 745.53 752.64 759.77 766.93 774.11 810.24 846

 Farm Employment 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0. Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0. Mining 1.3% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1. Utilities 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0. Construction 6.2% 7.4% 7.4% 7.5% 7.6% 7.6% 7.7% 8.1% 8. Manufacturing 5.6% 5.6% 5.5% 5.5% 5.4% 5.3% 5.3% 4.9% 4. Wholesale Trade 3.6% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.0% 3. Retail Trade 10.0% 10.2% 10.2% 10.3% 10.3% 10.3% 10.3% 10.5% 10. Transportation and Warehousing 4.1% 3.8% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3. Information Employment 1.6% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1. Finance and Insurance 3.9% 3.5% 3.5% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.3% 3. Real Estate / Rental and Lease 4.0% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4. Professional and Technical Services 5.7% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6. Management 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1. Administrative and Waste Services 6.4% 6.1% 6.2% 6.2% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.5% 6. Educational Services 3.1% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3. Health Care and Social Assistance 8.8% 9.6% 9.7% 9.7% 9.8% 9.8% 9.9% 10.1% 10. Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2. Accommodation and Food Services 8.8% 9.1% 9.0% 8.9% 8.9% 8.8% 8.8% 8.4% 8. Other Services, Except Public Administration 6.5% 6.3% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.5% 6.6% 6. Federal Civilian Government 2.1% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1. Federal Military 1.4% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1. State and Local Government 11.9% 11.7% 11.7% 11.7% 11.8% 11.8% 11.8% 11.9% 11.
Table 4-30. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area LA-4 (continued). 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 33,666.07 33,632.01 34,709.10 35,337.46 35,974.63 36,620.67 37,275.64 40,686.08 44,326

 Farm Employment 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0. Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0. Mining 4.4% 4.9% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.7% 4.7% 4.6% 4. Utilities 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1. Construction 6.5% 6.2% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6. Manufacturing 8.6% 9.0% 9.2% 9.1% 9.0% 8.9% 8.8% 8.2% 7. Wholesale Trade 5.3% 4.9% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 4.9% 4. Retail Trade 6.2% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5. Transportation and Warehousing 5.1% 4.9% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.7% 4.7% 4.6% 4. Information Employment 1.7% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1. Finance and Insurance 5.1% 4.2% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4. Real Estate / Rental and Lease 2.6% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1. Professional and Technical Services 8.0% 9.0% 8.9% 8.9% 8.9% 8.9% 8.9% 8.9% 8. Management 1.8% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1. Administrative and Waste Services 4.0% 3.9% 4.0% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.2% 4.4% 4. Educational Services 2.2% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2. Health Care and Social Assistance 8.7% 9.8% 9.7% 9.8% 9.9% 9.9% 10.0% 10.3% 10. Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 2.1% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.1% 2. Accommodation and Food Services 4.4% 4.8% 4.7% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.5% 4.3% 4. Other Services, Except Public Administration 3.7% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.7% 3. Federal Civilian Government 4.2% 4.0% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3. Federal Military 1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1. State and Local Government 12.1% 13.0% 12.9% 12.9% 13.0% 13.0% 13.1% 13.4% 13.

Total Personal Income Per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 32,677 35,414 35,829 36,225 36,628 37,038 37,456 39,644 42,0Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 79.1 91.9 91.0 90.8 90.7 90.5 90.4 89.9 8Persons Per Household (in number of people) 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 77,994 87,207 87,276 87,772 88,333 88,946 89,614 93,616 98,5Total Number of Households (in thousands) 530.24 491.36 496.01 501.93 507.80 513.61 519.34 546.73 572Income < $10,000 (thousands of households, 2000 dollars) 12.7% 10.8% 10.6% 10.5% 10.3% 10.1% 9.9% 9.2% 8.Income $10,000 to $19,999 13.5% 11.9% 11.7% 11.5% 11.3% 11.1% 10.9% 10.1% 9.Income $20,000 to $29,999 12.9% 11.4% 11.2% 11.1% 10.9% 10.8% 10.6% 9.7% 8.Income $30,000 to $44,999 17.6% 15.5% 15.3% 15.2% 15.0% 14.8% 14.6% 13.6% 12.Income $45,000 to $59,999 13.7% 15.1% 15.3% 15.4% 15.5% 15.6% 15.7% 15.5% 14.Income $60,000 to $74,999 10.1% 11.7% 11.9% 12.0% 12.2% 12.4% 12.6% 13.8% 15.Income $75,000 to $99,999 9.3% 11.3% 11.5% 11.7% 11.9% 12.1% 12.3% 13.6% 15.Income $100,000 or more 10.2% 12.3% 12.5% 12.6% 12.8% 13.1% 13.3% 14.5% 16.Notes: Median age, wealth index, and mean household income is the average of the original Woods & Poole values for the 9 parishes in the EIA; income 

personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for the EIA. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010. 
Table 4-31 Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area MS-1 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 20

Total Population (in thousands) 476.88 470.61 474.64 478.72 482.85 487.02 491.23 512.71 53

Age Under 19 years 28.6% 28.0% 27.9% 27.8% 27.6% 27.6% 27.5% 27.5% 2Age 20 to 34 20.2% 20.3% 20.4% 20.5% 20.6% 20.5% 20.2% 19.6% 1Age 35 to 49 21.7% 19.8% 19.4% 19.1% 18.8% 18.5% 18.5% 18.3% 1Age 50 to 64 17.4% 19.0% 19.3% 19.3% 19.3% 19.4% 19.5% 18.9% 1Age 65 and over 12.1% 12.8% 13.0% 13.4% 13.7% 14.0% 14.3% 15.7% 1

Median Age of Population (in years) 36 36 36 36 37 37 37 37 White Population (in thousands) 75.5% 74.0% 73.8% 73.7% 73.5% 73.4% 73.2% 72.5% 7Black Population (in thousands) 19.2% 19.8% 19.8% 19.9% 19.9% 19.9% 20.0% 20.3% 2Native American Population (in thousands) 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 2.0% 2.1% 2.1% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.3% Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 2.8% 3.6% 3.7% 3.8% 3.8% 3.9% 4.0% 4.4% Male Population (in thousands) 49.6% 49.6% 49.6% 49.6% 49.6% 49.5% 49.5% 49.5% 4Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 238.83 243.91 249.36 251.56 253.76 255.98 258.22 269.62 28

 Farm Employment 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2%  Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%  Mining 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%  Utilities 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%  Construction 7.5% 7.2% 7.2% 7.2% 7.2% 7.3% 7.3% 7.4%  Manufacturing 9.5% 10.2% 10.2% 10.1% 10.0% 9.9% 9.8% 9.4%  Wholesale Trade 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3%  Retail Trade 10.9% 10.2% 10.1% 10.1% 10.1% 10.1% 10.0% 9.9%  Transportation and Warehousing 2.4% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%  Information Employment 1.4% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9%  Finance and Insurance 2.5% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6%  Real Estate / Rental and Lease 3.1% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.8%  Professional and Technical Services 3.8% 4.1% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% 4.5%  Management 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3%  Administrative and Waste Services 5.4% 6.0% 6.1% 6.1% 6.2% 6.3% 6.4% 6.8%  Educational Services 0.5% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0%  Health Care and Social Assistance 6.2% 6.8% 6.9% 6.9% 6.9% 7.0% 7.0% 7.1%  Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 2.2% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8%  Accommodation and Food Services 12.1% 10.3% 10.3% 10.3% 10.2% 10.2% 10.2% 10.0%  Other Services, Except Public Administration 5.5% 5.5% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.7% 5.7% 5.9%  Federal Civilian Government 3.9% 4.0% 4.0% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.8% 3.7%  Federal Military 5.7% 5.3% 5.3% 5.2% 5.2% 5.1% 5.1% 4.8%  State and Local Government 12.3% 13.4% 13.4% 13.4% 13.4% 13.4% 13.3% 13.3% 1
Table 4-31. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area MS-1 (continued). 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 20Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 9,318.99 9,816.16 10,180.77 10,354.51 10,530.94 10,710.09 10,892.03 11,844.59 12,87

 Farm Employment 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%  Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%  Mining 0.2% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%  Utilities 2.1% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7%  Construction 6.0% 5.4% 6.0% 6.0% 5.9% 5.9% 5.8% 5.7%  Manufacturing 15.4% 17.3% 17.7% 17.5% 17.4% 17.3% 17.1% 16.5% 1 Wholesale Trade 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.5%  Retail Trade 7.0% 6.1% 6.1% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 5.9% 5.8%  Transportation and Warehousing 2.3% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%  Information Employment 1.4% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9%  Finance and Insurance 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.3%  Real Estate / Rental and Lease 1.0% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9%  Professional and Technical Services 4.6% 5.1% 5.1% 5.2% 5.3% 5.3% 5.4% 5.7%  Management 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%  Administrative and Waste Services 3.1% 3.4% 3.4% 3.5% 3.5% 3.6% 3.6% 3.9%  Educational Services 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6%  Health Care and Social Assistance 6.7% 6.9% 6.9% 6.9% 6.9% 7.0% 7.0% 7.1%  Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.5% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0%  Accommodation and Food Services 8.0% 5.9% 5.8% 5.8% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.6%  Other Services, Except Public Administration 3.4% 3.5% 3.4% 3.4% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.6%  Federal Civilian Government 8.4% 8.8% 8.6% 8.6% 8.6% 8.6% 8.6% 8.6%  Federal Military 10.2% 10.2% 10.1% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 9.9% 9.8%  State and Local Government 13.2% 15.3% 15.0% 15.0% 15.1% 15.1% 15.2% 15.4% 1

Total Personal Income Per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 27,815 29,510 29,900 30,216 30,539 30,868 31,204 32,989 34Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 68.6 73.6 73.5 73.4 73.4 73.3 73.2 72.8 Persons Per Household (in number of people) 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 65,960 67,129 67,940 68,417 68,918 69,445 70,003 73,247 77Total Number of Households (in thousands) 180.00 179.76 181.51 183.72 185.92 188.09 190.24 200.49 2Income < $10,000 (thousands of households, 2000 dollars) 10.8% 9.8% 9.7% 9.5% 9.4% 9.2% 9.1% 8.4% Income $10,000 to $19,999 122.2% 122.3% 122.3% 122.3% 122.3% 122.3% 122.3% 122.5% 12Income $20,000 to $29,999 103.6% 102.5% 102.4% 102.4% 102.4% 102.4% 102.4% 101.9% 10Income $30,000 to $44,999 148.8% 154.6% 155.9% 156.8% 157.6% 158.3% 158.9% 161.1% 16Income $45,000 to $59,999 79.1% 92.0% 94.5% 96.5% 98.6% 100.9% 103.3% 115.9% 13Income $60,000 to $74,999 65.2% 66.6% 66.8% 66.9% 67.1% 67.3% 67.4% 71.0% 8Income $75,000 to $99,999 83.1% 82.9% 82.9% 82.9% 82.9% 82.8% 82.8% 82.7% 8Income $100,000 or more 81.1% 81.1% 81.2% 81.2% 81.2% 81.2% 81.2% 81.2% 8Notes: Median age, wealth index, and mean household income is the average of the original Woods & Poole values for the 7 counties in the EIA; income 

personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for the EIA. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010. 
Table 4-32 Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area AL-1 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 202

Total Population (in thousands) 691.71 725.48 731.11 736.83 742.62 748.49 754.41 784.68 81

Age Under 19 years 28.1% 27.4% 27.2% 27.1% 26.9% 26.8% 26.7% 26.5% 2Age 20 to 34 19.2% 19.5% 19.6% 19.6% 19.5% 19.3% 19.1% 18.3% 17Age 35 to 49 21.1% 19.3% 18.9% 18.6% 18.5% 18.4% 18.4% 18.5% 1Age 50 to 64 18.0% 19.5% 19.7% 19.8% 19.8% 19.8% 19.8% 19.0% 17Age 65 and over 13.6% 14.4% 14.6% 14.9% 15.3% 15.6% 16.0% 17.7% 19

Median Age of Population (in years) 38 39 39 40 40 40 40 41 White Population (in thousands) 66.6% 66.0% 65.9% 65.9% 65.8% 65.7% 65.7% 65.3% 64Black Population (in thousands) 29.6% 29.4% 29.4% 29.4% 29.3% 29.3% 29.3% 29.3% 29Native American Population (in thousands) 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 1.2% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 1.6% 2.2% 2.3% 2.3% 2.4% 2.4% 2.5% 2.7% 3Male Population (in thousands) 48.2% 48.3% 48.3% 48.3% 48.3% 48.3% 48.4% 48.4% 4Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 363.84 353.63 362.59 366.69 370.81 374.97 379.15 400.55 42

Farm Employment 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0Mining 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0Utilities 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0Construction 8.5% 7.5% 7.6% 7.6% 7.6% 7.6% 7.6% 7.7% 7Manufacturing 8.7% 7.6% 7.6% 7.5% 7.4% 7.3% 7.2% 6.9% Wholesale Trade 3.5% 3.1% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.9% 2.8% 2Retail Trade 12.4% 11.9% 11.8% 11.8% 11.7% 11.6% 11.5% 11.1% 10Transportation and Warehousing 3.7% 3.9% 3.9% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.6% Information Employment 1.3% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% Finance and Insurance 3.4% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.6% 3.6% 3.5% Real Estate / Rental and Lease 4.4% 4.6% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.8% 4.9% 5Professional and Technical Services 4.4% 4.6% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.8% 4.8% 5.0% 5Management 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0Administrative and Waste Services 6.4% 6.4% 6.5% 6.5% 6.6% 6.7% 6.7% 7.0% 7Educational Services 1.4% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.8% Health Care and Social Assistance 8.5% 9.4% 9.4% 9.5% 9.6% 9.6% 9.7% 10.1% 10Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.3% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% Accommodation and Food Services 6.8% 7.6% 7.6% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 7.8% 8.0% Other Services, Except Public Administration 7.7% 7.9% 7.9% 8.0% 8.0% 8.1% 8.1% 8.4% Federal Civilian Government 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0Federal Military 1.3% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0State and Local Government 12.0% 12.0% 12.0% 11.9% 11.9% 11.9% 11.8% 11.6% 1
Table 4-32. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area AL-1 (continued). 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 202Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 12,930.79 13,040.20 13,381.74 13,639.05 13,900.74 14,166.88 14,437.55 15,860.94 17,40

Farm Employment 0.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0Mining 0.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0Utilities 1.0% 1.4% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% Construction 8.9% 7.9% 8.6% 8.5% 8.4% 8.4% 8.3% 8.0% 7Manufacturing 13.6% 12.2% 12.6% 12.5% 12.4% 12.3% 12.2% 11.7% 1Wholesale Trade 5.1% 4.6% 4.7% 4.7% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.5% 4Retail Trade 8.9% 8.4% 8.5% 8.4% 8.3% 8.3% 8.2% 7.9% 7Transportation and Warehousing 4.8% 5.7% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.5% 5.5% 5.3% Information Employment 1.6% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% Finance and Insurance 4.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% Real Estate / Rental and Lease 2.3% 1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 2.0% Professional and Technical Services 5.5% 6.1% 6.1% 6.2% 6.2% 6.3% 6.4% 6.7% 7Management 0.3% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0Administrative and Waste Services 3.7% 3.6% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.8% 3.8% 4.1% 4Educational Services 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% Health Care and Social Assistance 9.8% 11.0% 11.1% 11.2% 11.3% 11.4% 11.5% 11.9% 12Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% Accommodation and Food Services 3.2% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.6% 3.6% 3.7% 3Other Services, Except Public Administration 4.8% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 5.0% 5.0% 5.2% 5Federal Civilian Government 2.2% 2.5% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2Federal Military 1.8% 1.8% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% State and Local Government 13.8% 15.2% 15.1% 15.1% 15.1% 15.1% 15.2% 15.2% 1

Total Personal Income Per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 26,961 28,132 28,252 28,605 28,964 29,329 29,701 31,665 33Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 69.0 71.9 71.2 71.2 71.3 71.3 71.4 71.6 Persons Per Household (in number of people) 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 61,397 63,756 63,690 64,304 64,944 65,612 66,308 70,242 74Total Number of Households (in thousands) 267.98 283.15 285.62 288.82 292.00 295.14 298.23 312.96 32Income < $10,000 (thousands of households, 2000 dollars) 13.3% 11.9% 11.7% 11.6% 11.4% 11.2% 11.0% 10.0% Income $10,000 to $19,999 14.5% 13.2% 13.0% 12.8% 12.7% 12.5% 12.3% 11.2% 9Income $20,000 to $29,999 13.0% 11.9% 11.8% 11.6% 11.5% 11.3% 11.2% 10.2% Income $30,000 to $44,999 18.8% 18.5% 18.4% 18.2% 18.1% 17.9% 17.8% 16.5% 14Income $45,000 to $59,999 14.8% 16.4% 16.6% 16.8% 17.0% 17.2% 17.4% 18.7% 19Income $60,000 to $74,999 9.6% 10.6% 10.7% 10.9% 11.0% 11.2% 11.3% 12.5% 14Income $75,000 to $99,999 8.4% 9.3% 9.4% 9.5% 9.7% 9.8% 9.9% 11.0% 12Income $100,000 or more 7.5% 8.4% 8.5% 8.6% 8.7% 8.9% 9.0% 10.0% 1Notes: Median age, wealth index, and mean household income is the average of the original Woods & Poole values for the 8 counties in the EIA; income 

personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for the EIA. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010. 
Table 4-33 Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area FL-1 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 20

Total Population (in thousands) 865.12 896.10 911.70 927.40 943.19 959.08 975.02 1,055.59 1,13

Age Under 19 years 26.1% 25.0% 24.8% 24.7% 24.6% 24.5% 24.5% 24.9% 2Age 20 to 34 20.5% 21.5% 21.7% 21.8% 21.9% 21.9% 21.5% 19.9% 1Age 35 to 49 22.0% 19.5% 19.0% 18.5% 18.1% 17.7% 17.7% 18.2% 1Age 50 to 64 17.9% 19.4% 19.6% 19.7% 19.7% 19.8% 19.8% 18.8% 1Age 65 and over 13.4% 14.6% 14.8% 15.3% 15.7% 16.1% 16.4% 18.2% 2

Median Age of Population (in years) 39 39 40 40 40 40 40 40 White Population (in thousands) 79.2% 77.6% 77.4% 77.2% 77.1% 76.9% 76.7% 75.8% 7Black Population (in thousands) 13.8% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 14.4% 14.4% 14.4% 14.6% 1Native American Population (in thousands) 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 2.4% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.8% Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 3.7% 4.6% 4.7% 4.8% 5.0% 5.1% 5.2% 5.9% Male Population (in thousands) 49.8% 50.0% 50.1% 50.1% 50.2% 50.2% 50.2% 50.4% 5Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 487.45 489.82 504.24 512.13 520.13 528.26 536.52 579.78 62

Farm Employment 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Mining 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Utilities 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Construction 9.0% 5.6% 5.6% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% Manufacturing 3.4% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.9% 2.8% Wholesale Trade 2.6% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9% Retail Trade 12.0% 11.8% 11.8% 11.7% 11.7% 11.7% 11.7% 11.5% 1Transportation and Warehousing 1.8% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Information Employment 1.9% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.7% Finance and Insurance 3.6% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 4.0% Real Estate / Rental and Lease 5.5% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% Professional and Technical Services 5.2% 5.7% 5.7% 5.8% 5.9% 5.9% 6.0% 6.4% Management 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% Administrative and Waste Services 7.0% 6.4% 6.4% 6.5% 6.5% 6.6% 6.7% 6.9% Educational Services 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% Health Care and Social Assistance 8.9% 10.8% 10.9% 11.0% 11.1% 11.2% 11.3% 11.8% 1Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.7% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% Accommodation and Food Services 8.8% 9.2% 9.2% 9.2% 9.2% 9.2% 9.2% 9.1% Other Services, Except Public Administration 6.2% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.4% 6.5% Federal Civilian Government 3.5% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.6% 3.6% 3.5% 3.3% Federal Military 6.9% 7.3% 7.2% 7.1% 7.0% 6.9% 6.8% 6.2% State and Local Government 9.1% 9.7% 9.7% 9.6% 9.6% 9.6% 9.5% 9.3% 
Table 4-33. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area FL-1 (continued). 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 20Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 19,144.97 18,366.21 19,090.88 19,571.64 20,064.69 20,570.39 21,089.01 23,888.71 27,06

Farm Employment 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Mining 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Utilities 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Construction 8.1% 4.4% 4.8% 4.8% 4.7% 4.7% 4.6% 4.4% Manufacturing 4.8% 4.7% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.7% 4.6% Wholesale Trade 3.0% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.3% Retail Trade 7.9% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.2% 7.2% 7.2% 7.0% Transportation and Warehousing 1.8% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% Information Employment 2.4% 2.0% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% Finance and Insurance 3.9% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.7% 3.7% 3.8% 4.0% Real Estate / Rental and Lease 3.1% 2.0% 2.0% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.2% Professional and Technical Services 6.6% 6.8% 6.8% 6.9% 7.0% 7.1% 7.2% 7.7% Management 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% Administrative and Waste Services 4.5% 3.7% 3.8% 3.8% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 4.2% Educational Services 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% Health Care and Social Assistance 10.0% 12.0% 12.0% 12.2% 12.3% 12.5% 12.6% 13.3% 1Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Accommodation and Food Services 4.6% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.3% 4.3% Other Services, Except Public Administration 4.4% 4.3% 4.2% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.4% Federal Civilian Government 6.8% 7.8% 7.6% 7.6% 7.5% 7.5% 7.4% 7.1% Federal Military 14.5% 18.2% 18.0% 17.8% 17.6% 17.4% 17.2% 16.3% 1State and Local Government 10.5% 11.2% 11.1% 11.1% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 1

Total Personal Income Per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 30,955 31,238 31,611 31,972 32,345 32,728 33,123 35,252 37Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 86.0 86.1 85.9 86.0 86.0 86.1 86.2 86.6 Persons Per Household (in number of people) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 70,630 68,775 69,464 70,092 70,758 71,474 72,225 76,569 81Total Number of Households (in thousands) 339.50 355.60 362.19 369.74 377.31 384.77 392.23 428.80 46Income < $10,000 (thousands of households, 2000 dollars) 8.7% 8.1% 7.9% 7.8% 7.7% 7.5% 7.4% 6.6% Income $10,000 to $19,999 12.4% 11.6% 11.3% 11.1% 11.0% 10.8% 10.6% 9.4% Income $20,000 to $29,999 13.8% 12.9% 12.6% 12.4% 12.2% 12.0% 11.8% 10.4% Income $30,000 to $44,999 19.7% 18.9% 18.6% 18.3% 18.1% 17.8% 17.5% 15.6% 1Income $45,000 to $59,999 16.5% 17.4% 17.8% 18.0% 18.2% 18.3% 18.5% 19.1% 1Income $60,000 to $74,999 11.2% 12.0% 12.3% 12.5% 12.7% 13.0% 13.2% 15.0% 1Income $75,000 to $99,999 9.2% 9.8% 10.1% 10.2% 10.4% 10.6% 10.8% 12.3% 1Income $100,000 or more 8.6% 9.2% 9.5% 9.6% 9.8% 10.0% 10.2% 11.6% 1Notes: Median age, wealth index, and mean household income is the average of the original Woods & Poole values for the 7 counties in the EIA; income per capi

income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for the EIA. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010. 
Table 4-34 Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area FL-2 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 202

Total Population (in thousands) 613.83 657.40 666.76 676.21 685.71 695.29 704.90 753.56 80

Age Under 19 years 25.8% 24.6% 24.3% 24.2% 24.0% 23.9% 24.0% 24.2% 24Age 20 to 34 24.5% 25.3% 25.6% 25.8% 25.9% 25.9% 25.5% 22.8% 20Age 35 to 49 20.7% 18.9% 18.5% 18.1% 17.8% 17.5% 17.4% 18.7% 20Age 50 to 64 17.1% 18.2% 18.4% 18.3% 18.3% 18.3% 18.3% 17.6% 16Age 65 and over 11.9% 12.9% 13.2% 13.6% 14.0% 14.4% 14.8% 16.7% 18

Median Age of Population (in years) 37 38 38 38 39 39 39 40 White Population (in thousands) 66.6% 65.2% 65.0% 64.8% 64.6% 64.4% 64.2% 63.2% 62Black Population (in thousands) 27.1% 27.5% 27.6% 27.6% 27.7% 27.7% 27.8% 28.2% 28Native American Population (in thousands) 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 1.3% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 1Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 4.5% 5.3% 5.4% 5.5% 5.6% 5.8% 5.9% 6.4% 6Male Population (in thousands) 50.3% 50.8% 50.8% 50.9% 50.9% 51.0% 51.0% 51.2% 51Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 322.62 330.09 338.56 342.74 346.98 351.28 355.62 378.16 40

Farm Employment 2.6% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.7% 2Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1Mining 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0Utilities 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0Construction 6.5% 4.7% 4.7% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.9% 5Manufacturing 4.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.3% 3Wholesale Trade 2.1% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.8% 1.7% 1Retail Trade 11.0% 10.3% 10.2% 10.2% 10.2% 10.2% 10.2% 10.0% 9Transportation and Warehousing 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1Information Employment 1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1Finance and Insurance 3.2% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3Real Estate / Rental and Lease 3.1% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.3% 3Professional and Technical Services 5.8% 6.2% 6.3% 6.4% 6.5% 6.6% 6.7% 7.1% 7Management 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0Administrative and Waste Services 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 5.0% 5.1% 5Educational Services 1.1% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.9% 2Health Care and Social Assistance 8.6% 10.3% 10.4% 10.5% 10.7% 10.8% 10.9% 11.4% 12Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.2% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6% 1Accommodation and Food Services 6.7% 6.8% 6.8% 6.9% 6.9% 6.9% 6.9% 7.0% 7Other Services, Except Public Administration 6.2% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.3% 6Federal Civilian Government 1.2% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1Federal Military 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0State and Local Government 25.3% 25.0% 24.8% 24.6% 24.4% 24.2% 24.0% 23.0% 22
Table 4-34. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area FL-2 (continued). 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 202Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 11,927.62 11,506.58 11,863.49 12,113.72 12,369.19 12,629.96 12,896.15 14,312.49 15,88

Farm Employment 1.3% 1.2% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1Mining 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0Utilities 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 0Construction 6.4% 4.2% 4.5% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.2% 4Manufacturing 5.9% 5.3% 5.5% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4% 5.2% 5Wholesale Trade 2.7% 2.3% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.3% 2.3% 2Retail Trade 7.2% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 6.9% 6.9% 6.9% 6.7% 6Transportation and Warehousing 1.5% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1Information Employment 2.4% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.2% 2Finance and Insurance 4.2% 4.5% 4.6% 4.6% 4.7% 4.7% 4.8% 5.0% 5Real Estate / Rental and Lease 1.1% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0Professional and Technical Services 7.9% 8.1% 8.1% 8.2% 8.3% 8.4% 8.6% 9.2% 9Management 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0Administrative and Waste Services 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.9% 3Educational Services 0.5% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 1Health Care and Social Assistance 9.6% 11.6% 11.7% 11.8% 12.0% 12.1% 12.2% 12.9% 13Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0Accommodation and Food Services 2.7% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2Other Services, Except Public Administration 5.2% 5.4% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.4% 5.4% 5Federal Civilian Government 2.7% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.0% 2Federal Military 0.5% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0State and Local Government 32.3% 32.2% 31.6% 31.4% 31.2% 31.0% 30.8% 29.9% 28

Total Personal Income Per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 27,200 26,656 26,811 27,063 27,321 27,585 27,856 29,328 31Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 67.0 66.8 66.7 66.6 66.5 66.4 66.3 65.9 Persons Per Household (in number of people) 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 57,688 56,795 57,352 57,724 58,116 58,529 58,970 61,586 64Total Number of Households (in thousands) 236.50 255.39 259.32 263.92 268.49 273.05 277.56 299.51 32Income < $10,000 (thousands of households, 2000 dollars) 13.6% 12.8% 12.6% 12.4% 12.2% 12.1% 11.9% 11.0% 10Income $10,000 to $19,999 14.3% 13.6% 13.4% 13.2% 13.0% 12.8% 12.6% 11.7% 10Income $20,000 to $29,999 14.0% 13.3% 13.1% 12.9% 12.7% 12.5% 12.4% 11.5% 10Income $30,000 to $44,999 18.7% 18.8% 18.8% 18.8% 18.7% 18.6% 18.5% 17.9% 16Income $45,000 to $59,999 14.2% 14.9% 15.2% 15.4% 15.6% 15.8% 16.1% 17.2% 18Income $60,000 to $74,999 9.4% 9.9% 10.0% 10.2% 10.3% 10.5% 10.6% 11.5% 12Income $75,000 to $99,999 8.2% 8.6% 8.7% 8.8% 8.9% 9.1% 9.2% 9.9% 10Income $100,000 or more 7.8% 8.1% 8.3% 8.4% 8.5% 8.6% 8.7% 9.4% 10Notes: Median age, wealth index, and mean household income is the average of the original Woods & Poole values for the 15 counties in the EIA; income p

personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for the EIA. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010. 
Table 4-35 Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area FL-3 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 202

Total Population (in thousands) 3,416.04 3,624.88 3,675.05 3,725.64 3,776.58 3,827.91 3,879.47 4,140.64 4,40

Age Under 19 years 24.0% 23.4% 23.3% 23.2% 23.2% 23.1% 23.1% 23.1% 23Age 20 to 34 18.9% 19.4% 19.7% 19.8% 19.9% 19.9% 19.8% 19.2% 18Age 35 to 49 21.2% 19.6% 19.2% 18.8% 18.5% 18.2% 18.1% 17.9% 18Age 50 to 64 18.1% 19.5% 19.8% 19.8% 19.8% 19.9% 19.9% 19.1% 17Age 65 and over 17.8% 18.0% 18.1% 18.4% 18.6% 18.9% 19.1% 20.6% 22

Median Age of Population (in years) 41 41 42 42 42 42 42 43 White Population (in thousands) 74.5% 71.2% 70.7% 70.1% 69.6% 69.1% 68.5% 65.9% 63Black Population (in thousands) 11.3% 11.8% 11.9% 12.0% 12.0% 12.1% 12.1% 12.3% 12Native American Population (in thousands) 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 2.5% 2.9% 3.0% 3.0% 3.1% 3.2% 3.3% 3.6% 4Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 11.4% 13.7% 14.1% 14.5% 14.9% 15.3% 15.8% 17.8% 19Male Population (in thousands) 48.7% 48.9% 49.0% 49.0% 49.1% 49.2% 49.2% 49.4% 49Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 1,944.16 1,868.77 1,922.79 1,951.29 1,980.12 2,009.31 2,038.85 2,192.00 2,35

 Farm Employment 1.0% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1 Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0 Mining 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0 Utilities 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0 Construction 7.3% 4.8% 4.8% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 5.0% 5 Manufacturing 5.0% 4.4% 4.3% 4.3% 4.2% 4.1% 4.0% 3.7% 3 Wholesale Trade 3.4% 3.4% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.2% 3 Retail Trade 11.4% 11.1% 11.1% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 10.8% 10 Transportation and Warehousing 2.3% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2 Information Employment 2.2% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9% 1 Finance and Insurance 5.8% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.8% 5.8% 5.7% 5 Real Estate / Rental and Lease 4.5% 4.4% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.6% 4 Professional and Technical Services 6.4% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7 Management 0.8% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1 Administrative and Waste Services 10.8% 7.8% 7.9% 8.0% 8.1% 8.2% 8.2% 8.7% 9 Educational Services 1.3% 1.7% 1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 2.0% 2 Health Care and Social Assistance 10.3% 13.0% 13.1% 13.2% 13.4% 13.5% 13.6% 14.2% 14 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 2.0% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.3% 2.3% 2 Accommodation and Food Services 6.8% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 6.9% 6.9% 6.8% 6.6% 6 Other Services, Except Public Administration 5.9% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.1% 6 Federal Civilian Government 1.3% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1 Federal Military 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0 State and Local Government 9.9% 10.3% 10.3% 10.2% 10.2% 10.1% 10.1% 9.9% 9
Table 4-35. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area FL-3 (continued). 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 79,115.35 72,699.32 75,523.98 77,335.32 79,187.57 81,081.56 83,018.17 93,371.74 104,929

 Farm Employment 0.5% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0 Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0 Mining 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0 Utilities 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0 Construction 7.5% 4.4% 4.8% 4.8% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.5% 4 Manufacturing 6.8% 6.0% 6.1% 6.0% 5.9% 5.8% 5.8% 5.3% 4 Wholesale Trade 4.9% 4.8% 4.9% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.7% 4 Retail Trade 8.3% 7.7% 7.7% 7.6% 7.6% 7.5% 7.5% 7.3% 7 Transportation and Warehousing 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.2% 2 Information Employment 3.3% 3.1% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.9% 2 Finance and Insurance 8.0% 7.2% 7.2% 7.2% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.4% 7 Real Estate / Rental and Lease 2.3% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 1 Professional and Technical Services 8.1% 9.2% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9 Management 1.6% 2.4% 2.4% 2.5% 2.5% 2.6% 2.6% 2.8% 3 Administrative and Waste Services 7.1% 4.8% 4.9% 4.9% 5.0% 5.1% 5.1% 5.4% 5 Educational Services 0.8% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1 Health Care and Social Assistance 12.1% 15.5% 15.4% 15.6% 15.7% 15.9% 16.0% 16.7% 17 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.5% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1 Accommodation and Food Services 3.9% 4.2% 4.1% 4.1% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 3.8% 3 Other Services, Except Public Administration 4.0% 4.2% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.0% 4 Federal Civilian Government 2.7% 3.5% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.5% 3 Federal Military 1.2% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1 State and Local Government 11.8% 12.8% 12.6% 12.6% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.3% 12

Total Personal Income Per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 33,224 31,323 31,639 32,001 32,373 32,754 33,144 35,240 37,Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 79.5 77.2 77.2 77.2 77.1 77.1 77.1 77.0 7Persons Per Household (in number of people) 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 64,512 62,252 63,029 63,502 63,992 64,509 65,058 68,279 72,Total Number of Households (in thousands) 1,449.40 1,546.55 1,568.95 1,595.36 1,621.62 1,647.70 1,673.53 1,798.54 1,917Income < $10,000 (thousands of households, 2000 dollars) 9.1% 8.7% 8.6% 8.4% 8.3% 8.1% 8.0% 7.2% 6Income $10,000 to $19,999 13.8% 13.4% 13.1% 12.9% 12.6% 12.4% 12.1% 11.0% 9Income $20,000 to $29,999 14.7% 14.2% 13.9% 13.7% 13.5% 13.2% 12.9% 11.7% 10Income $30,000 to $44,999 19.6% 19.5% 19.3% 19.2% 19.0% 18.7% 18.5% 17.1% 15Income $45,000 to $59,999 15.1% 15.7% 16.0% 16.3% 16.6% 16.8% 17.1% 18.0% 18Income $60,000 to $74,999 9.7% 10.1% 10.3% 10.5% 10.7% 10.9% 11.1% 12.4% 14Income $75,000 to $99,999 8.4% 8.7% 8.9% 9.0% 9.2% 9.4% 9.6% 10.7% 12Income $100,000 or more 9.4% 9.7% 9.9% 10.1% 10.2% 10.4% 10.7% 11.9% 13Notes: Median age, wealth index, and mean household income is the average of the original Woods & Poole values for the 12 counties in the EIA; income 

personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for the EIA. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010. 
Table 4-36 Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area FL-4 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 

Total Population (in thousands) 5,960.39 6,210.44 6,294.73 6,379.76 6,465.42 6,551.79 6,638.56 7,078.51 7,525

Age Under 19 years 24.7% 24.0% 23.9% 23.7% 23.6% 23.6% 23.5% 23.5% 23.Age 20 to 34 18.5% 18.6% 18.6% 18.7% 18.7% 18.8% 18.8% 18.2% 17.Age 35 to 49 22.1% 20.8% 20.4% 20.1% 19.7% 19.3% 19.0% 18.3% 18.Age 50 to 64 17.5% 18.9% 19.1% 19.3% 19.4% 19.6% 19.7% 19.3% 18.Age 65 and over 17.2% 17.8% 18.0% 18.2% 18.5% 18.8% 19.1% 20.7% 22.

Median Age of Population (in years) 44 45 45 45 45 45 45 46 White Population (in thousands) 46.6% 43.3% 42.7% 42.1% 41.5% 40.9% 40.4% 37.7% 35.Black Population (in thousands) 16.5% 16.5% 16.6% 16.6% 16.6% 16.7% 16.7% 16.8% 16.Native American Population (in thousands) 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 1.9% 2.1% 2.1% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.3% 2.5% 2.Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 34.8% 37.9% 38.5% 39.0% 39.5% 40.0% 40.5% 42.8% 45.Male Population (in thousands) 48.8% 49.0% 49.1% 49.1% 49.1% 49.1% 49.1% 49.2% 49.Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 3,395.35 3,329.05 3,426.96 3,479.99 3,533.68 3,588.03 3,643.04 3,928.30 4,230

 Farm Employment 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0. Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0. Mining 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0. Utilities 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0. Construction 8.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.1% 5.1% 5.3% 5. Manufacturing 3.6% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.8% 2.8% 2.7% 2.5% 2. Wholesale Trade 4.5% 4.3% 4.3% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.1% 3.9% 3. Retail Trade 11.2% 11.1% 11.1% 11.0% 11.0% 10.9% 10.9% 10.7% 10. Transportation and Warehousing 3.8% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.8% 3.8% 3.7% 3. Information Employment 2.0% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1. Finance and Insurance 5.0% 4.9% 4.9% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.7% 4. Real Estate / Rental and Lease 6.0% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6. Professional and Technical Services 6.5% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.9% 6.9% 7.0% 7. Management 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0. Administrative and Waste Services 9.0% 7.9% 8.0% 8.0% 8.1% 8.2% 8.2% 8.6% 9. Educational Services 1.8% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.6% 2. Health Care and Social Assistance 9.1% 11.4% 11.5% 11.6% 11.7% 11.8% 11.8% 12.3% 12. Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 2.2% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2. Accommodation and Food Services 7.2% 7.4% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.2% 7.1% 7. Other Services, Except Public Administration 7.7% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.5% 8.6% 8. Federal Civilian Government 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1. Federal Military 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0. State and Local Government 9.0% 9.6% 9.6% 9.5% 9.5% 9.5% 9.4% 9.3% 9.
Table 4-36. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area FL-4 (continued). 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 146,349.28 133,109.32 138,104.63 141,438.36 144,845.84 148,328.48 151,887.81 170,888.07 192,042

 Farm Employment 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0. Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0. Mining 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0. Utilities 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0. Construction 9.4% 5.2% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.5% 5.5% 5.4% 5. Manufacturing 4.4% 3.6% 3.7% 3.7% 3.6% 3.6% 3.5% 3.3% 3. Wholesale Trade 6.8% 6.7% 6.9% 6.8% 6.8% 6.7% 6.7% 6.4% 6. Retail Trade 8.5% 8.4% 8.4% 8.3% 8.3% 8.2% 8.2% 7.9% 7. Transportation and Warehousing 4.0% 4.0% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.8% 3.7% 3. Information Employment 3.6% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3. Finance and Insurance 6.9% 6.2% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6. Real Estate / Rental and Lease 3.7% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.5% 2.5% 2. Professional and Technical Services 8.3% 9.2% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.2% 9.2% 9.4% 9. Management 1.3% 1.9% 1.9% 2.0% 2.0% 2.1% 2.1% 2.3% 2. Administrative and Waste Services 6.2% 4.9% 4.9% 5.0% 5.0% 5.1% 5.1% 5.4% 5. Educational Services 1.5% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.3% 2. Health Care and Social Assistance 9.5% 12.2% 12.1% 12.2% 12.3% 12.4% 12.5% 13.0% 13. Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.6% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1. Accommodation and Food Services 4.3% 4.6% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.4% 4.3% 4. Other Services, Except Public Administration 4.2% 4.6% 4.5% 4.5% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4. Federal Civilian Government 2.2% 2.7% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2. Federal Military 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0. State and Local Government 11.8% 14.0% 13.8% 13.8% 13.8% 13.8% 13.8% 13.8% 13.

Total Personal Income Per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 37,332 35,529 35,954 36,438 36,933 37,438 37,957 40,740 43,8Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 119.1 113.4 113.6 113.8 114.0 114.2 114.5 115.7 11Persons Per Household (in number of people) 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 92,182 86,404 87,645 88,598 89,600 90,651 91,754 98,070 105,6Total Number of Households (in thousands) 2,337.90 2,434.13 2,469.25 2,510.68 2,551.90 2,592.85 2,633.43 2,830.25 3,017Income < $10,000 (thousands of households, 2000 dollars) 9.2% 8.8% 8.7% 8.5% 8.4% 8.2% 8.1% 7.2% 6.Income $10,000 to $19,999 12.1% 11.7% 11.5% 11.4% 11.2% 11.0% 10.7% 9.6% 8.Income $20,000 to $29,999 12.6% 12.3% 12.1% 11.9% 11.7% 11.5% 11.2% 10.0% 8.Income $30,000 to $44,999 17.3% 17.0% 16.8% 16.5% 16.3% 16.0% 15.7% 14.0% 12.Income $45,000 to $59,999 14.9% 15.3% 15.5% 15.6% 15.8% 15.9% 16.0% 16.2% 15.Income $60,000 to $74,999 10.6% 11.0% 11.2% 11.4% 11.6% 11.8% 12.0% 13.5% 15.Income $75,000 to $99,999 10.0% 10.3% 10.5% 10.7% 10.9% 11.1% 11.3% 12.8% 14.Income $100,000 or more 13.1% 13.5% 13.8% 14.0% 14.3% 14.5% 14.8% 16.7% 18.Notes: Median age, wealth index, and mean household income is the average of the original Woods & Poole values for the 9 counties in the EIA; income 

personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for the EIA. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010. 
Table 4-37 Baseline Population Projections (in thousands) by Economic Impact Area Model Year Calendar Year AL-1 MS-1 LA-1 LA-2 LA-3 LA-4 TX-1 TX-2 TX-3 FL-1 FL-2 

2010 725.48 470.61 334.72 587.88 1,126.87 1,267.52 1,771.25 626.33 6,192.43 896.10 657.42011 731.11 474.64 336.53 593.59 1,140.44 1,278.34 1,807.15 634.39 6,299.99 911.70 666.

1 2012 736.83 478.72 338.39 599.38 1,154.15 1,289.31 1,843.24 642.51 6,408.25 927.40 676.2 2013 742.62 482.85 340.27 605.23 1,167.97 1,300.40 1,879.50 650.70 6,517.13 943.19 685.3 2014 748.49 487.02 342.20 611.14 1,181.91 1,311.64 1,915.95 658.94 6,626.68 959.08 695.4 2015 754.41 491.23 344.15 617.10 1,195.92 1,322.96 1,952.51 667.23 6,736.63 975.02 704.5 2016 760.38 495.47 346.12 623.10 1,210.00 1,334.37 1,989.19 675.55 6,847.01 991.02 714.6 2017 766.41 499.75 348.12 629.15 1,224.17 1,345.89 2,026.02 683.92 6,957.91 1,007.10 724.7 2018 772.47 504.05 350.13 635.22 1,238.39 1,357.45 2,062.92 692.31 7,069.08 1,023.22 734.8 2019 778.57 508.38 352.16 641.34 1,252.68 1,369.10 2,099.94 700.73 7,180.66 1,039.39 743.9 2020 784.68 512.71 354.20 647.47 1,266.99 1,380.77 2,137.01 709.17 7,292.42 1,055.59 753.

10 2021 790.89 517.11 356.28 653.68 1,281.45 1,392.61 2,174.35 717.69 7,405.11 1,071.93 763.411 2022 797.15 521.54 358.38 659.95 1,296.07 1,404.55 2,212.34 726.31 7,519.54 1,088.51 773.412 2023 803.46 526.02 360.48 666.29 1,310.86 1,416.60 2,251.00 735.03 7,635.74 1,105.36 783.13 2024 809.82 530.53 362.60 672.68 1,325.83 1,428.75 2,290.33 743.85 7,753.73 1,122.46 793.14 2025 815.74 534.70 364.61 678.54 1,339.29 1,439.98 2,323.71 751.75 7,855.87 1,137.26 802.15 2026 821.98 539.11 366.70 684.79 1,353.80 1,451.87 2,361.17 760.29 7,968.97 1,153.65 812.16 2027 828.26 543.56 368.81 691.09 1,368.46 1,463.87 2,399.24 768.92 8,083.69 1,170.28 822.17 2028 834.60 548.05 370.92 697.46 1,383.29 1,475.96 2,437.91 777.65 8,200.07 1,187.15 833.18 2029 840.98 552.58 373.05 703.88 1,398.27 1,488.16 2,477.21 786.48 8,318.13 1,204.26 843.19 2030 846.94 556.77 375.07 709.79 1,411.83 1,499.47 2,511.01 794.43 8,421.37 1,219.22 852.420 2031 853.17 561.19 377.17 716.05 1,426.34 1,511.37 2,548.50 802.95 8,534.58 1,235.62 862.21 2032 859.46 565.63 379.27 722.36 1,440.99 1,523.36 2,586.55 811.57 8,649.31 1,252.25 872.422 2033 865.79 570.12 381.39 728.73 1,455.80 1,535.45 2,625.17 820.28 8,765.59 1,269.10 882.23 2034 872.17 574.64 383.51 735.16 1,470.76 1,547.64 2,664.37 829.09 8,883.43 1,286.17 892.24 2035 878.13 578.84 385.53 741.09 1,484.37 1,558.97 2,698.47 837.06 8,987.43 1,301.24 902.25 2036 884.41 583.28 387.64 747.40 1,498.95 1,570.96 2,736.13 845.63 9,101.21 1,317.72 911.26 2037 890.74 587.76 389.77 753.76 1,513.68 1,583.03 2,774.31 854.28 9,216.42 1,334.42 922.27 2038 897.11 592.27 391.90 760.17 1,528.55 1,595.20 2,813.03 863.02 9,333.09 1,351.32 932.28 2039 903.53 596.82 394.04 766.64 1,543.57 1,607.46 2,852.29 871.85 9,451.24 1,368.44 942.429 2040 909.54 601.05 396.08 772.62 1,557.29 1,618.89 2,886.77 879.89 9,556.30 1,383.66 951.30 2041 916.04 605.67 398.25 779.20 1,572.59 1,631.33 2,927.06 888.89 9,677.28 1,401.19 962.31 2042 922.60 610.31 400.43 785.83 1,588.03 1,643.87 2,967.91 897.99 9,799.78 1,418.94 972.32 2043 929.20 615.00 402.62 792.52 1,603.64 1,656.50 3,009.33 907.18 9,923.84 1,436.92 983.33 2044 935.84 619.72 404.83 799.26 1,619.39 1,669.23 3,051.33 916.46 10,049.47 1,455.12 994.434 2045 942.54 624.47 407.04 806.06 1,635.30 1,682.06 3,093.91 925.84 10,176.68 1,473.56 1,005.35 2046 949.28 629.27 409.27 812.92 1,651.37 1,694.99 3,137.09 935.31 10,305.51 1,492.22 1,016.36 2047 956.07 634.09 411.51 819.84 1,667.59 1,708.02 3,180.87 944.88 10,435.97 1,511.13 1,027.37 2048 962.91 638.96 413.76 826.82 1,683.97 1,721.15 3,225.27 954.55 10,568.08 1,530.27 1,039.38 2049 969.80 643.86 416.03 833.86 1,700.52 1,734.37 3,270.28 964.32 10,701.87 1,549.66 1,050.39 2050 976.73 648.81 418.30 840.95 1,717.22 1,747.70 3,315.92 974.19 10,837.34 1,569.29 1,062.40 2051 983.72 653.78 420.59 848.11 1,734.09 1,761.14 3,362.20 984.16 10,974.54 1,589.17 1,073.

Notes: Actual Woods & Poole data for 2010 through 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, and 2040. Missing estimates through 2040 calculated using average annual 

period; projections after 2040 calculated using the average annual growth rate from 2035 to 2040. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010. 
Table 4-38 Baseline Employment Projections (in thousands) by Coastal Subarea Model Year Calendar Year AL-1 MS-1 LA-1 LA-2 LA-3 LA-4 TX-1 TX-2 TX-3 FL-1 FL-2 

20 63 10 353. 243.91 177.73 321.93 663.02 728.32 840.00 309.97 3,596.00 489.82 330.0

 20 59 11 362. 249.36 182.05 330.21 680.63 745.53 864.86 317.96 3,700.61 504.24 338.

1 20 69 12 366. 251.56 183.91 334.03 689.17 752.64 878.23 321.85 3,758.99 512.13 342.72 20 81 13 370. 253.76 185.81 337.89 697.80 759.77 891.81 325.78 3,818.15 520.13 346.3 20 97 14 374. 255.98 187.70 341.78 706.51 766.93 905.55 329.76 3,878.09 528.26 351.4 20 15 15 379. 258.22 189.62 345.70 715.33 774.11 919.48 333.78 3,938.83 536.52 355.5 20 37 16 383. 260.47 191.54 349.65 724.23 781.30 933.58 337.82 4,000.39 544.90 360.06 20 62 17 387. 262.73 193.50 353.63 733.24 788.52 947.87 341.92 4,062.77 553.43 364.47 20 90 18 391. 265.01 195.46 357.65 742.34 795.74 962.34 346.07 4,125.95 562.07 368.8 20 21 19 396. 267.30 197.44 361.69 751.53 802.98 977.00 350.24 4,189.99 570.86 373.9 20 55 20 400. 269.62 199.43 365.76 760.83 810.24 991.85 354.48 4,254.86 579.78 378.

10 20 99 21 404. 271.97 201.47 369.93 770.43 817.53 1,007.28 358.83 4,322.32 589.12 382.11 20 48 22 409. 274.34 203.54 374.15 780.14 824.89 1,022.95 363.24 4,390.84 598.61 387.12 20 02 23 414. 276.74 205.62 378.41 789.98 832.32 1,038.87 367.71 4,460.45 608.25 392.713 20 61 24 418. 279.15 207.73 382.73 799.95 839.81 1,055.03 372.22 4,531.17 618.06 397.714 20 75 25 422. 281.38 209.65 386.61 808.81 846.71 1,069.01 376.26 4,592.14 626.48 402.15 20 35 26 427. 283.81 211.77 390.93 818.92 854.06 1,085.44 380.83 4,664.06 636.56 407.16 20 99 27 431. 286.26 213.92 395.30 829.16 861.46 1,102.12 385.46 4,737.10 646.80 412.17 20 69 28 436. 288.73 216.09 399.71 839.52 868.93 1,119.07 390.14 4,811.29 657.21 417.18 20 43 29 441. 291.22 218.28 404.18 850.02 876.47 1,136.27 394.88 4,886.64 667.78 422.19 20 72 30 445. 293.52 220.27 408.21 859.36 883.43 1,151.17 399.12 4,951.73 676.88 427.20 20 47 31 450. 296.02 222.48 412.68 870.01 890.79 1,168.65 403.92 5,028.34 687.75 433.021 20 27 32 455. 298.55 224.71 417.21 880.78 898.22 1,186.39 408.78 5,106.13 698.79 438.22 20 12 33 460. 301.09 226.97 421.78 891.69 905.70 1,204.41 413.70 5,185.13 710.01 444.023 20 02 34 465. 303.66 229.25 426.41 902.73 913.25 1,222.69 418.67 5,265.35 721.41 449.724 20 47 35 469. 306.03 231.32 430.59 912.57 920.25 1,238.56 423.13 5,334.78 731.22 454.725 20 37 36 474. 308.61 233.62 435.21 923.76 927.61 1,257.14 428.15 5,416.31 742.93 460.426 20 32 37 479. 311.21 235.94 439.89 935.09 935.02 1,275.99 433.24 5,499.10 754.83 466.27 20 33 38 484. 313.83 238.28 444.61 946.56 942.50 1,295.13 438.38 5,583.14 766.92 472.28 20 39 39 489. 316.47 240.64 449.38 958.16 950.04 1,314.56 443.59 5,668.48 779.21 478.29 20 98 40 493. 318.92 242.80 453.71 968.53 957.04 1,331.45 448.26 5,742.46 789.79 483.30 20 14 41 499. 321.61 245.21 458.58 980.40 964.70 1,351.41 453.58 5,830.23 802.44 489.31 20 35 42 504. 324.31 247.64 463.51 992.42 972.41 1,371.68 458.97 5,919.33 815.29 495.32 20 62 43 509. 327.05 250.10 468.48 1,004.59 980.19 1,392.26 464.42 6,009.81 828.36 502.33 20 94 44 514. 329.80 252.58 473.52 1,016.91 988.02 1,413.14 469.94 6,101.66 841.63 508.34 20 32 45 520. 332.58 255.09 478.60 1,029.38 995.93 1,434.33 475.52 6,194.92 855.11 514.35 20 76 46 525. 335.38 257.62 483.74 1,042.00 1,003.89 1,455.85 481.17 6,289.60 868.81 521.36 20 25 47 531. 338.20 260.17 488.94 1,054.78 1,011.92 1,477.68 486.88 6,385.73 882.72 528.37 20 80 48 536. 341.05 262.75 494.19 1,067.71 1,020.01 1,499.84 492.66 6,483.33 896.87 534.38 20 40 49 542. 343.92 265.36 499.49 1,080.81 1,028.17 1,522.34 498.52 6,582.42 911.23 541.39 20 07 50 548. 346.82 267.99 504.86 1,094.06 1,036.39 1,545.17 504.44 6,683.02 925.83 548.440 20 79 51 553. 349.74 270.65 510.28 1,107.48 1,044.68 1,568.35 510.43 6,785.16 940.66 555.4

Notes: Actual Woods & Poole data for 2010 through 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, and 2040. Missing estimates through 2040 calculated using average annual growth 

projections after 2040 calculated using the average annual growth rate from 2035 to 2040. Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2010.
Figures and Tables A-109 

Table 4-39 

 

Liquid Waste Collected from the Deepwater Horizon Event 

Landfill Name Percentage 

Newpark Environmental Services—Fourchon Site Code 2913 29.67% 

River Birch Industries Landfill 17.60% 

Apex Environmental Services 17.44% 

Liquid Environmental Solutions 13.07% 

Tidewater Landfill LLC (Environmental Operations) Coast Guard Road Sanitary Landfill 11.08% 

Newpark Environmental Mud Facility—Venice 11.08% 

MBO LLC (Lacassine Oilfield Services) 3.20% 

Newpark Environmental Services—Morgan City Site Code 5102 2.84% 

Chemical Waste Management 1.04% 

Aaron Oil 0.89% 

Waste Water 0.83% 

Intergulf 0.58% 

Cliff Berry, Inc.—Tampa/ Miami 0.55% 

Clearview Landfill 0.46% 

Newpark Environmental Intercoastal City 0.27% 

Vacco Marine 0.16% 

Oil Recovery Company 0.08% 

Vacco Marine/River Birch 0.03% 

City of Tampa Treatment Plant 0.01% 

Bealine 0.00% 

SWS 0.00% 

Gulf Coast Water Authority 0.00% 

M.A. Norden Company 0.00% 

WH Chastang Landfill 0.00% 

Geocycle/Holcim 0.00% 

Sunbelt Crushing 0.00% 

Baldwin County Magnolia Landfill 0.00% 

Tarpon Recycling 0.00% 

Covanta-Huntsville 0.00% 

WM Springhill Regional Landfill 0.00% 

Fort Walton Transfer 0.00% 

Gulf West Landfill (Texas) 0.00% 

Allied Waste/BFI Colonial Landfill 0.00% 

Jefferson Parish Waste Management 0.00% 

Allied Waste Jefferson Davis Parish 0.00% 

Allied Waste Recycling Center 0.00% 

Newpark Environmental Services—Cameron Site Code 1205 0.00% 

Advanced Disposal Services 0.00% 

WM Pecan Grove 0.00% 

Coastal Plains—Waste Management 0.00% 

Sources: British Petroleum, 2011a and 2011b.
A-110 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table 4-40 

 

Solid Waste Collected from the Deepwater Horizon Event 

Landfill Name Percentage 

WM Springhill Regional Landfill 26.11% 

Allied Waste/BFI Colonial Landfill 25.12% 

Baldwin County Magnolia Landfill 11.31% 

Clearview Landfill 8.66% 

Newpark Environmental Services—Fourchon Site Code 2913 7.99% 

River Birch Industries Landfill 7.70% 

WH Chastang Landfill 6.81% 

Jefferson Parish Waste Management 6.56% 

Newpark Environmental Services—Cameron Site Code 1205 4.60% 

WM Pecan Grove 3.82% 

Covanta-Huntsville 0.78% 

Tidewater Landfill LLC (Environmental Operations) Coast Guard Road Sanitary Landfill 0.50% 

Sunbelt Crushing 0.34% 

M.A. Norden Company 0.17% 

Tarpon Recycling 0.07% 

Coastal Plains—Waste Management 0.06% 

Allied Waste Recycling Center 0.03% 

Gulf West Landfill (Texas) 0.03% 

Fort Walton Transfer 0.02% 

Advanced Disposal Services 0.00% 

Intergulf 0.00% 

Aaron Oil 0.00% 

Geocycle/Holcim 0.00% 

Apex Environmental Services 0.00% 

Liquid Environmental Solutions 0.00% 

Chemical Waste Management 0.00% 

Oil Recovery Company 0.00% 

City of Tampa Treatment Plant 0.00% 

Cliff Berry, Inc.—Tampa/ Miami 0.00% 

Vacco Marine 0.00% 

Vacco Marine/River Birch 0.00% 

Gulf Coast Water Authority 0.00% 

Waste Water 0.00% 

Allied Waste Jefferson Davis Parish 0.00% 

Newpark Environmental Mud Facility—Venice 0.00% 

Newpark Environmental Services—Morgan City Site Code 5102 0.00% 

Newpark Environmental Intercoastal City 0.00% 

MBO LLC (Lacassine Oilfield Services) 0.00% 

Bealine 0.00% 

SWS 0.00% 

Sources: British Petroleum, 2011a and 2011b. 
Figures and Tables A-111 

Table 4-41 

 

Deepwater Horizon Waste Destination Communities 

Landfill Name and Location 

Percent 

Minority 

Living 

within a 

1-Mile 

Radius of 

the Site 

Total 

Population 

Living within a 

1-Mile Radius 

of the Site 

(2000 Census) 

Percentage of 

Total DWH 

Liquid Waste 

Collected 

Percentage of 

Total DWH 

Solid Waste 

Collected 

Liquid Environmental Solutions, Mobile, AL 95.80% 4,257 13.17% 0.00% 

Oil Recovery Company, Mobile, AL 93.90% 3,238 0.08% 0.00% 

Cliff Berry, Inc., Miami, FL 92.80% 24,768 >0.58% 0.00% 

River Birch Industries Landfill Avondale, LA 92.20% 167 16.99% 8.67% 

Jefferson Parish Waste Management, Avondale, LA 91.40% 120 0.00% 0.02% 

Sunbelt Crushing, Mobile, AL 76.80% 3,173 0.00% 0.29% 

Chemical Waste Management, Emelle, AL 75.20% 33 1.02% 0.00% 

WM Springhill Regional Landfill, Campbelton, FL 74.30% 109 0.00% 23.67% 

Allied Waste/BFI Colonial Landfill, Sorrento, LA 74.10% 153 0.00% 21.98% 

Allied Waste Recycling Center, Metairie, LA 63.50% 14,420 0.00% 0.06% 

WH Chastang Landfill, Mount Vernon, AL 62.50% 123 0.00% 8.93% 

Clearview Landfill Lake, MS 50.90% 55 0.44% 14.92% 

Cliff Berry, Inc., Tampa, FL 50.50% 1,817 >0.58% 0.00% 

Apex Environmental Services, Theodore, AL 50.40% 383 17.44% 0.00% 

Newpark Environmental Services Site Code 5102, 

Morgan City, LA 35.90% 4,237 2.74% 0.00% 

Landfill Name and Location 

Percent 

Below 

Poverty 

Living within 

a 1-Mile 

Radius 

of the Site 

Total 

Population 

Living within a 

1-Mile Radius 

of the Site 

(2000 Census) 

Percentage of 

Total DWH 

Liquid Waste 

Collected 

Percentage of 

Total DWH 

Solid Waste 

Collected 

Liquid Environmental Solutions, Mobile, AL 63.30% 4,257 13.17% 0.00% 

Newpark Environmental Mud Facility, Venice, LA 50.00% 2 10.90% 0.00% 

Oil Recovery Company, Mobile, AL 41.70% 3,238 0.08% 0.00% 

Chemical Waste Management, Emelle, AL 36.40% 33 1.02% 0.00% 

Newpark Environmental Services Site Code 2913, 

Fourchon, LA 33.30% 3 30.14% 0.00% 

Vacco Marine, Houma, LA 29.20% 525 0.16% 0.00% 

River Birch Industries Landfill, Avondale, LA 28.10% 167 16.99% 8.67% 

Jefferson Parish Waste Management, Avondale, LA 26.70% 120 0.00% 0.02% 

Apex Environmental Services, Theodore, AL 26.20% 383 17.44% 0.00% 

Allied Waste/BFI Colonial Landfill, Sorrento, LA 25.00% 153 0.00% 21.98% 

WM Pecan Grove, Pass Christian, MS 14.40% 290 0.00% 3.28% 

Baldwin County Magnolia Landfill, AL 13.70% 446 0.00% 11.18% 

MBO LLC (Lacassine Oilfield Services) 12.90% 85 3.82% 0.00% 

Coast Guard Rd Sanitary Landfill 0.00% 0 0.00% 8.05% 

Sources: British Petroleum, 2011 and 2011b. 
A-112 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table 4-42 

 

Gulf Coast Claims Facility — Deepwater Horizon Claimant Data by State 

(status report as of April 27, 2011) 

Alabama Claimant Status No. of Claimants 

Total GCCF Claimants to Date (claimants may have one or more claim type) 73,197 

1. Paid Claimants 29,957 

State Claims for Emergency or Final Payment 

(includes individual and business) 

Number of 

Claims Paid Amount Paid 

Alabama 1. Removal and Cleanup Costs 40 $414,560 

 2. Real or Personal Property 75 $676,538 

 3. Lost Earnings or Profits 49,629 $725,729,536 

 

4. Loss of Subsistence Use of Natural 

Resources 11 $84,240 

 5. Physical Injury/Death 25 $68,000 

Alabama Total Total to Date 49,780 $726,972,874 

Florida Claimant Status No. of Claimants 

Total GCCF Claimants to Date (claimants may have one or more claim type) 176,001 

1. Paid Claimants 75,303 

State Claims for Emergency or Final Payment 

(includes individual and business) 

Number of 

Claims Paid Amount Paid 

Florida 1. Removal and Cleanup Costs 39 $520,629 

 2. Real or Personal Property 66 $393,393 

 3. Lost Earnings or Profits 124,617 $1,551,648,940 

 

4. Loss of Subsistence Use of Natural 

Resources 8 $131,975 

 5. Physical Injury/Death 13 $201,107 

Florida Total Total to Date 124,743 $1,552,896,044 

Louisiana Claimant Status No. of Claimants 

Total GCCF Claimants to Date (claimants may have one or more claim type) 203,460 

1. Claimants Paid and Approved for Payment 62,541 

State Claims for Emergency or Final Payment 

(includes individual and business) 

Number of 

Claims Paid Amount Paid 

Louisiana 1. Removal and Cleanup Costs 9 $157,165 

 2. Real or Personal Property 71 $929,045 

 3. Lost Earnings or Profits 106,206 $1,321,768,784 

 

4. Loss of Subsistence Use of Natural 

Resources 16 $130,464 

 5. Physical Injury/ Death 29 $85,423 

Louisiana Total Total to Date 106,331 $1,323,070,881 
Figures and Tables A-113 

Table 4-42. Gulf Coast Claims Facility — Deepwater Horizon Claimant Data by State, 

(status report as of April 27, 2011) (continued). 

Mississippi Claimant Status No. of Claimants 

Total GCCF Claimants to Date (claimants may have one or more claim type) 55,334 

1. Paid Claimants 15,868 

State 

Claims for Emergency or Final Payment 

(includes individual and business) 

Number of 

Claims Paid Amount Paid 

Mississippi 1. Removal and Cleanup Costs 0 $0 

 2. Real or Personal Property 32 $298,983 

 3. Lost Earnings or Profits 26,918 $336,742,048 

 

4. Loss of Subsistence Use of Natural 

Resources 5 $37,189 

 5. Physical Injury/ Death 11 $41,763 

Mississippi Total Total to Date 26,966 $337,119,983 

Texas Claimant Status No. of Claimants 

Total GCCF Claimants to Date (claimants may have one or more claim type) 11,735 

1. Paid Claimants 3,141 

State Claims for Emergency or Final Payment 

(includes Individual and Business) 

Number of 

Claims Paid Amount Paid 

Texas 1. Removal and Cleanup Costs 1 $169,100 

2. Real or Personal Property 5 $55,000 

3. Lost Earnings or Profits 4,222 $153,429,443 

4. Loss of Subsistence Use of Natural 

Resources 0 $0 

5. Physical Injury/ Death 4 $14,000 

Texas Total Total to Date 4,232 $153,667,543 

Source: Gulf Coast Claims Facility, 2011b. 
A-114 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table 5-1 

 

Scoping Comments 

Name and Affiliation Concerns 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Washington, DC 

 Ensure the reanalysis of baseline conditions is woven into the Agency’s decisionmaking process. 

 The Supplemental EIS should include impacts to threatened and endangered 

species, target and nontarget fish species, water quality, seafloor conditions, and 

any other natural resources affected by the Deepwater Horizon spill. 

 The BOEMRE must closely examine the types of basic information about the Gulf 

marine environment that were not analyzed prior to the spill. 

 The reassessment of risk for future oil spills has two primary components. First, 

BOEMRE must reexamine the risk of oil spills in general. Second, BOEMRE 

must reexamine the risk of oil spills in the particular locations and conditions at 

issue in a particular NEPA analysis. 

 As BOEMRE examines the risk of future oil spills occurring, BOEMRE also must 

look closely at the likely impact of such spills. 

 The BOEMRE must ensure that its use of categorical exclusions and 

environmental assessments that tier to the Multisale EIS are on solid footing by 

taking a precautionary approach that reexamines the environmental impacts of a 

range of oil and gas activities that have not been analyzed adequately, or in some 

cases analyzed at all. 

 In examining ways to maximize avoidance and minimize impacts to 

environmental resources, BOEMRE should begin with analyzing additional 

measures to address safety and well control issues for both deep and shallowwater operations. 

 The Supplemental EIS also should examine options for improving offshore 

inspections and safety procedures, enforcing stronger cementing and well control 

protocols, and requiring improvements in the reliability factor of blowout 

prevention technology in any water depth. 

 Defenders of Wildlife further recommends that BOEMRE enact a hiatus in future 

permits and approvals for floating offshore storage and processing vessels due to 

the spill threat posed by these facilities and the demonstrated lack of effective 

response capabilities for large oil releases evidenced during the Deepwater 

Horizon event, and we request that this limitation on future permitting be analyzed 

in the Supplemental EIS. 

 In addition to the regulatory suggestions listed above, the Supplemental EIS 

should also assess the impact of requiring the following measures to increase 

worker safety, protect sensitive ecosystems and marine and intertidal habitats, and 

ensure a more adequate, rapid response to future OCS disasters: (1) research, 

development, and implementation of a new type of fail-safe backup valve, shut-in 

device that would reliably preclude loss of well control in the event of the failure 

of the blowout preventer in any water depth; measures beyond a future 

requirement of a second blind shear ram will likely be necessary; (2) 

predeployment of a rig capable of drilling a relief well at the appropriate water 

depth in a location within a certain reasonable response time of every drilling site; 

(3) strict requirements that oil spill contingency plans be certified by the U.S. 

Government as capable of immediate response in the event of a “worst case” well 

blowout, riser break, damaged floating storage vessel, tankship spill, or other 

cause of a major hydrocarbon release into the marine environment; (4) research 

and development of new types of biodegradable dispersants, their comprehensive 

testing and certification by USEPA for use in mass quantities under predefined 
Figures and Tables A-115 

Table 5-1. Scoping Comments (continued). 

Name and Affiliation Concerns 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Washington, DC 

appropriate conditions, their manufacture in commercial quantities, and their 

predeployment at locations of possible future need; (5) engineering and development 

of large ship-scaled oil skimmers for use in realistic wind, wave, and ocean current 

conditions, to be certified by the U.S. Coast Guard and built and operated by the 

petroleum industry; (6) immediate development and manufacture of more effective 

oil spill containment technologies and sorbent booms, and their predeployment in 

storage facilities in geographic areas of likely future need; (7) required testing of spill 

response technology in real world conditions and mandatory certification as to the 

measurable response impact of response equipment and plans; (8) a minimum 

requirement for response capacity onsite or within reasonable distance such that 

operators have capacity to recover a certain minimum percentage of oil spilled; and 

(9) bonding requirements sufficient to cover the cost of response and cleanup in the 

event of a blowout or other spill are necessary. 

 The No Action alternative of canceling the remaining lease sales should receive 

robust consideration in order to guarantee maximum protection for the resources that 

have been damaged by the Deepwater Horizon event. 

 The Defenders of Wildlife further reiterate that no activities in reliance on the 

previous inadequate Gulf Multisale EIS should move forward until the Supplemental 

EIS is complete, including all analyses that tier to the previous EIS to justify use of 

an environmental assessment or categorical exclusion. 

 The Supplemental EIS should also strongly consider exclusion of sensitive areas and 

possible recommendations for Gulf marine protected areas. 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

San Francisco, CA 

 In determining the scope of the environmental impacts of OCS drilling in the GOM, 

BOEMRE should take into account the fact that many of the species move in and 

throughout the GOM. 

 It should also take into account all aspects of drilling including spills—both large and 

small, seismic activities—both noise impacts and vessel strikes, impacts to fisheries, 

tourism, and other industries that rely on the health of the GOM. 

 It is unclear at this time, and may be for some time, the entire impact of the spill on 

the flora and fauna of the GOM; therefore, BOEMRE should employ precautionary 

principles in its estimates of the harm as well as its assumptions about future spills. 

 The BOEMRE must also take into account the already degraded status of the Gulf of 

Mexico in its assessment of the environmental baseline, as well as the effect of these 

persistent stressors. 

 The BOEMRE should include detailed assessments of (1) areas of high seismic risk 

or seismicity, relatively untested deep water, or remote areas; or (2) activities within 

the boundary of a proposed or established marine sanctuary, and/or within or near the 

boundary of a proposed or established wildlife refuge or areas of high biological 

sensitivity; or (3) activities in areas of hazardous natural bottom conditions; or (4) 

utilizing new or unusual technology. 

 The BOEMRE should analyze and review areas and activities in the GOM OCS 

program that (a) have significant impacts on public health or safety; (b) have 

significant impacts on such natural resources and unique geographic characteristics 

as historic or cultural resources; park, recreation, or refuge lands; wilderness areas; 

wetlands (Executive Order 11990); floodplains (Executive Order 11988); national 

monuments; migratory birds; and other ecologically significant or critical areas;
A-116 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table 5-1. Scoping Comments (continued). 

Name and Affiliation Concerns 

Center for Biological 

Diversity 

San Francisco, CA 

(c) have highly controversial environmental effects or involve unresolved conflicts 

concerning alternative uses of available resources [NEPA Section 102(2)(E)]; (d) 

have highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental effects or involve 

unique or unknown environmental risks; . . . . (h) have significant impacts on species 

listed, or proposed to be listed, on the List of Endangered or Threatened Species or 

have significant impacts on designated Critical Habitat for these species; (i) violate a 

Federal law, or a State, local, or tribal law or requirement imposed for the protection 

of the environment. 

 The BOEMRE should also address the following significant issues in its 

Supplemental EIS: (1) environmental impacts or worst-case scenario oil spills and 

cumulative oil spills, including response activities and the use of dispersants; (2) the 

direct, indirect, and cumulative climate change impacts of the action, including the 

greenhouse gas emissions from the produced oil and gas, and the influence of those 

climate change impacts on the affected environment; (3) the impacts of the action on 

special status species such as those protected under the Endangered Species Act and 

Marine Mammal Protection Act and sensitive habitat areas, including but not limited 

to critical habitat, essential fish habitat, marine protected areas; (4) a reasonable 

range of alternatives that would avoid or minimize environmental impacts; (5) 

broader cumulative impacts analysis which take into consideration the incremental 

impacts of the action when considered in conjunction with past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Gulf; (6) at lease sale and exploration 

stages, each EIS should contain site-specific analyses, smaller in scale than a typical 

multisale EIS, though not so narrowly focused as to result in impermissible 

segmentation of the project; (7) at exploration and drilling stages, specific focus on 

time and place of activity, keeping in mind seasonal shifts in migratory patterns and 

habitat composition. 

Chevron North 

America Exploration 

and Production 

Company 

Houston, TX 

 The Supplemental EIS should be confined to truly new information and focus on 

impacts of accidental events and to a lesser extent, cumulative impacts. 

 The BOEMRE must heed its own finding that a catastrophic spill remains a very low 

probability. 

 The planned Supplemental EIS must proceed with the supplemental analyses based 

upon information available at a certain date and cannot rely on speculative 

information and not await a series of new GOM studies. 

 When there are gaps in data and knowledge, BOEMRE must identify the information 

that is not known in the Supplemental EIS. 

 The BOEMRE must carefully review all new information and ensure its reliability 

before inclusion in the Supplemental EIS. 

 The BOEMRE must consider recent, significant improvements in safety and response 

capacity in the Supplemental EIS. 

 Chevron encourages BOEMRE to consider a reasonable range of clearly defined 

proposed alternatives and each alternative should be concise with no ambiguity. 

 Future NEPA analysis should tier to this Supplemental EIS. 

 The BOEMRE must review any suggestions for new and additional mitigation 

measures very carefully and have sufficient information to support their adoption. 

 There is no evidence that certain activities at a particular water depth are inherently 

more dangerous than others. 
Figures and Tables A-117 

Table 5-1. Scoping Comments (continued). 

Name and Affiliation Concerns 

Dean Peeler 

Alabama Petroleum 

Council (APC) 

Mobile, AL 

 It is prudent to update the baseline conditions and potential environmental effects of 

oil and natural gas leasing. 

 The BOEMRE should use any currently new information that helps evaluate the 

defined impacts of the lease sales. 

 Proposed Lease Sales 216, 218, and 222 should be held with no reduction in the 

acreage traditionally offered in areawide lease sales. 

 The Supplemental EIS development should complement other environmental 

analyses by BOEMRE on the 2012-2017 5-Year Program. 

Andy Radford 

American Petroleum 

Institute (API) 

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

traditionally offered in areawide lease sales. 

 The scope of the Supplemental EIS should be focused specifically on new 

information that is readily available during the drafting of the Supplemental EIS and 

should limit the Supplemental EIS to an analysis of this new information as it exists 

at this time. 

 The BOEMRE must consider the extensive safety improvements implemented since 

the Deepwater Horizon event and consider the possibility of a catastrophic oil spill 

remains a very low probability. 

 The implementation of new drilling and environmental safeguards by industry since 

the Deepwater Horizon event should be considered and analyzed in the Supplemental 

EIS. 

 The possibility of another catastrophic spill will be reduced even further since 

implementation of the extensive safety improvements. 

 The Supplemental EIS should be designed specifically to be used as a reference for 

tiering in the future. 

Marine Mammal 

Commission 

Bethesda, MD 

 The BOEMRE should develop a set of standards for baseline information needed to 

assess the effects of oil and gas operations on marine mammals and their 

environment, initiate research on these topics prior to the resumption of lease sales in 

the Gulf of Mexico, and consider ways to improve oil-spill prevention and response 

capabilities. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

Lafayette, LA 

 The Supplemental EIS should evaluate direct, indirect, and cumulative oil spill 

impacts from MC 252 to wetlands, migratory birds, endangered and threatened 

species, and designated critical habitat, as well as any impacts to those FWS trust 

resources from potential future spills. 

 Any possible correlations of the MC 252 spill and potential future spills to climate 

change should also be discussed. 

 The Supplemental EIS should include an assessment of potential direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts (including global climate change) to FWS trust resources from 

oil and gas industry exploration, development and response activities. 

 The FWS requests that BOEMRE discuss the relative risk of exploration and 

production wells leaking oil on the continental shelf versus those located on the 

continental slope and deepwater Gulf of Mexico. The BOEMRE should revise spill 

probabilities and model different sized spills, including catastrophic or multiday 

spills for the Gulf of Mexico for sources of spills in offshore and nearshore 

environments. 

 Any new safety regulations or revised permit review processes should be evaluated in 

the proposed Supplemental EIS for their impact to FWS trust resources. Changes to 

spill contingency planning, spill response, and restoration actions should also be 

described and their effects on FWS trust resources assessed. 
A-118 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table 5-1. Scoping Comments (continued). 

Name and Affiliation Concerns 

International 

Association of 

Geophysical 

Contractors (IAGC) 

Houston, TX 

 Any analysis of alternatives should recognize and take into account the improved 

regulatory management, oversight, and enforcement enacted since the blowout of the 

Macondo well and the resulting oil spill. 

 The BOEMRE should analyze an alternative that includes the holding of all 

remaining scheduled lease sales for the entire Western and Central Planning Areas. 

 The IAGC believes that there should be no discrimination between areas within the 

Western and Central Planning Areas in regard to geophysical, leasing, drilling, and 

production activities based upon popular political goals or environmental opinions 

that cannot be substantiated. 

 The IAGC strongly recommends that the final Supplemental EIS clearly provide for 

and facilitate new geophysical data acquisition and subsequent analysis of the 

hydrocarbon production of the Western and Central Planning Areas. 

 In developing the Supplemental EIS, BOEMRE should only rely on the best 

available scientific information and knowledge. 

 The IAGC also encourages BOEMRE to consider the environmental and 

socioeconomic information gathered and analyzed, and the conclusions made as part 

of this process to be utilized in the Supplemental EIS to be developed for the next 5-

Year OCS Program. 

Stone Energy 

Lafayette, LA 

 Stone Energy recommends that BOEMRE incorporate consideration of all new 

regulations and requirements put in place post-Macondo. 

Consumer Energy 

Alliance 

Houston, TX 

 The BOEMRE should proceed with the Supplemental EIS in an expedited and 

efficient manner, and consider thoroughly the socioeconomic impacts of oil and gas 

development on coastal communities. 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration, 

National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

St. Petersburg, FL 

 The BOEMRE should consider the understatement of frequency and magnitude of oil 

spills, understatement of potential environmental impacts of oil spills, the need to 

better evaluate the potential adverse impacts that a spill could have on the seafood 

industry and markets, the need to better evaluate modeling of spills, and the need to 

address cumulative impacts on wetlands. 

 The Supplemental EIS should provide an analysis of the potential social, economic, 

and environmental impacts of a major oil event to fish stocks and to commercial and 

recreational fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the Supplemental EIS 

should include an analysis of the potential effects of a major spill event to seafood, 

including wild-caught finfish and shellfish and aquaculture products that are 

important components of the Nation’s food supply. These analyses should consider 

fishery closures, impacts to food safety, and contamination by hydrocarbon 

compounds and dispersants. 

 The Environmental Sensitivity Index used in past programs does not consider the 

sensitivity of marine habitats in the OCS to oil spills or other activities associated 

with oil and gas exploration, development, or production. The NOAA suggests that 

BOEMRE broaden the scope of its analysis to consider the impacts of all activities, 

including potential oil-spills and the use of chemical dispersants in any oil spill 

response efforts, to EFH and other vulnerable deepwater habitats such as deep-sea 

corals. The NOAA also suggests that BOEMRE evaluate the potential impacts to 

EFH for each life stage of each managed species, as well as impacts to other 

vulnerable habitats, from a worst-case scenario spill, including impacts to benthic 

and pelagic coastal and offshore habitats and prepare proposed mitigation 

requirements for such a spill. 

 The NOAA provided a list of 14 habitat areas of particular concern, which are 

designated within the Western and Central Planning Areas. 
Figures and Tables A-119 

Table 5-1. Scoping Comments (continued). 

Name and Affiliation Concerns 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration, 

National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

St. Petersburg, FL 

 The EFH section of the Supplemental EIS should reflect the current EFH 

identifications and descriptions by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council in 

2005 for Council-managed species and by NMFS for highly migratory species in 2009. 

 The NOAA recommends a recalculation of the likelihood of a major oil-spill event 

and an analysis of the effects from oil spills that utilize the flow rates and quantities 

identified in the “Oil Budget Calculator Deepwater Horizon Technical 

Documentation.” Additionally, the Supplemental EIS should reanalyze the effects of 

dispersant application and in-situ burning. 

 If the proposed activity may affect a listed species or designated critical habitat, 

BOEMRE must initiate consultation with NMFS pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA. 

 The NMFS would like to work with BOEMRE to enhance, refine, or develop new 

oil-spill analyses to improve the understanding of the effects of oil spills on listed 

species and to improve the Section 7 consultation. The NMFS recommends that spill 

probabilities and modeling of different sized spills, including catastrophic spills, be 

provided for sources of spills in offshore and nearshore environment and for surface 

and deepwater sources. The NMFS also asks BOEMRE to provide additional 

information regarding the relative risk of exploration and production wells leaking oil 

on the continental shelf versus those located on the continental slope and deepwater 

Gulf of Mexico. 

 The NOAA recommends that revised spill probabilities and modeling of different 

sized spills, including catastrophic spills for the Gulf of Mexico for sources of spills 

in offshore and nearshore environments be conducted. These models must include 

both surface and deepwater sources, as well as the effects of oil-spill response plans 

(e.g., dispersants) on the fate of the oil in the models. The Supplemental EIS should 

consider the variety and magnitude of effects associated with the chance of an oil 

spill taking listed species and adversely modifying or destroying critical habitat. 

 Please describe any changes to the proposed action resulting from the Deepwater 

Horizon event, including safety, spill contingency planning, spill response, and 

restoration actions. Also include any new programs and safeguards to reduce the 

likelihood of spills occurring in the future and provide an analysis of any new 

information and the potential for impacts to occur on listed species and critical 

habitat. 

 The Supplemental EIS should define the proposed lease sale areas, air permit 

requirements, and types of operations that fall under the jurisdictions of both 

BOEMRE and USEPA. The USEPA may be included as a co-agency in the 

biological opinion for air emissions for lease areas under their jurisdiction and should 

be included in any such request for ESA consultation. 

 The NMFS recommends that BOEMRE conduct a study to better understand the 

cumulative effects of noise from oil and gas construction and development activities 

on the OCS. This recommendation includes characterizing all aspects of noiseproducing construction and operation activities such as pile driving during well 

construction and platform installation, and other common OCS activities. Major 

noise-producing activities (>120 dB re 1 μParms) should be identified, and 

measurements of noise from these activities should be reported in appropriate units of 

measurement to estimate the acoustic footprint on the environment, duration, 

frequency, and relative contribution to ambient noise levels in the Gulf of Mexico. 

 The BOEMRE should consider a data collection program for the protected species 

observer program in coordination with NMFS, and include the program in the 

Supplemental EIS as appropriate. 
A-120 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table 5-1. Scoping Comments (continued). 

Name and Affiliation Concerns 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration, 

National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

St. Petersburg, FL 

 Pipeline construction may affect habitats important to listed species and should be 

considered in the Supplemental EIS. 

 The BOEMRE should continue to work with NMFS and the Offshore Operators 

Committee to provide informational materials to the offshore oil and gas workers, 

require annual training, and continue to develop best management practices to reduce 

the release of debris into the marine environment. The BOEMRE should work with 

NMFS to update the Marine Debris Notice to Lessees (NTL) 2003-G11 and apply 

this to other geographic areas/regions as appropriate. 

 The NOAA recommends that the Vessel Strike Avoidance Measures and Reporting 

for Mariners be applied throughout approved lease areas. 

 The Supplemental EIS should characterize all noise sources with source levels above 

120 dB re 1 μParms as the potential to affect marine mammals and other listed species. 

 Many general impacts associated with the construction and operation of oil and gas 

structures should be considered in the Supplemental EIS. Habitat alterations to water 

quality may result from accidental spills, turbidity during terminal an pipeline 

construction, wastewater discharges, and warming water outflow. Habitat effects 

may also occur from propeller wash, benthic impacts from pipeline and terminal 

construction, and discharges of marine debris. 

 In the event that any aspect of a proposed oil and gas operation will result in a “take,” 

the oil and gas applicant, or the lead agency acting on behalf of the applicant, would 

be required to obtain an incidental take authorization from NOAA. 

 The NOAA had two primary comments on the Supplemental EIS related to national 

marine sanctuaries: (1) NOAA requests that BOEMRE review the designation of all 

No-Activity Zones associated with all of the topographic features in the Central and 

Western Planning Area, and re-establish these areas based on current bathymetric and 

biological data; and (2) NOAA requests that BOEMRE require the shunting of 

material from all wells drilled within the specified buffer zones around the NoActivity Zones. 

 As BOEMRE considers scoping for the Supplemental EIS, BOEMRE should 

consider the following issues: (1) potential and cumulative impacts on the 

mesophotic and deep-sea communities during the development of oil and gas 

resources; (2) potential and cumulative impacts on mesophotic and deep-sea coral 

communities in the siting of undersea pipelines; (3) potential and cumulative impacts 

on mesophotic and deep-sea coral communities in the event of a major spill; recent 

findings from research conducted to assess impacts from the Deepwater Horizon spill 

on deep-sea coral communities should be helpful in considering these impacts; (4) 

potential and cumulative impacts on shallow coral reef, mesophotic and deep-sea 

coral communities connected by prevailing ocean currents to the lease sites; and (5) 

potential and cumulative socioeconomic impacts to communities dependent on 

recreational and commercial fishing in the lease areas, as well as communities 

dependent on coastal and ocean tourism and fishing in places connected by prevailing 

ocean currents. 
Figures and Tables A-121 

References Cited 

Alonso-Alvarez, C., I. Munilla, M. Lờpez-Alonso, and A. Velando. 2007. Sublethal toxicity of the 

Prestige oil spill on yellow-legged gulls. Environment International 33:773-781. 

Anderson, C.M. and R.P. LaBelle. 2000. Update of comparative occurrence rates for offshore oil spills. 

Spill Science and Technology Bulletin 6(5/6):302-321. 

Atkins, M., T. Edward, D. Johnson, and M. Dance. 2007. Pipeline damage assessment from Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Herndon, VA. TA&R 581. 

Banks, A.N., W.G. Sanderson, B. Hughes, P.A. Cranswick, L.E. Smith, S. Whitehead, A.J. Musgrove, 

B. Haycock, and N.P. Fairney. 2008. The Sea Empress oil spill (Wales, UK): Effects on common 

scoter Melanitta nigra in Carmarthen Bay and status ten years later. Marine Pollution Bulletin 

56:895-902. 

British Petroleum. 2011a. Waste disposal and recoverable facilities (current and potential locations). 

Internet website: http://usresponse.bp.com/external/content/document/2911/995083/1/

Waste_Disposal_Locations%20%2012511.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2011. 

British Petroleum. 2011b. MC 252 weekly waste tracking cumulative report by disposal facility: Report 

for the weeks of 04/04/2011 to 04/10/11; consolidated report. 22 pp. Internet website: http://

usresponse.bp.com/external/content/document/2911/1066495/1/

Consolidated_Weekly_Report_04102011_Disposal_Facility.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2011. 

Brooks, J.M. and C.P. Giammona. 1990. Mississippi-Alabama marine ecosystem study: Annual report; 

Year 2. Volume I: Technical narrative. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 89-0095. 348 pp. 

Burger, A.E. 1993. Estimating the mortality of seabirds following oil spills: Effects of spill volume. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin 26:140-143. 

Byrd, G.V., J.H. Reynolds, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Persistence rates and detection probabilities of bird 

carcasses on beaches of Unalaska Island, Alaska, following the wreck of the M/V Selendang Ayu. 

Marine Ornithology 37:197-204. 

Cadiou, B., L. Riffaut, K.D. McCoy, J. Cabelguen, M. Fortin, G. Gélinaud, A. Le Roch, C. Tirard, and 

T. Boulinier. 2004. Ecological impact of the “Erika” oil spill: Determination of the geographic 

origin of the affected common guillemots. Aquatic Living Resources 17:369-377. 

Camphuysen, K., M. Heubeck, S.L. Cox, R. Bao, D. Humple, C. Abraham, and A. Sandoval. 2002. The 

Prestige oil spill in Spain. Atlantic Birds 4:131-140. 

Canadian Center for Energy Information. 2010. What are oil sands and heavy oil? Internet website: 

http://www.centreforenergy.com/AboutEnergy/ONG/OilsandsHeavyOil/Overview.asp?page=1. 

Accessed September 27, 2010. 

Castège, I., G. Hèmery, N. Roux, J. D’Elbèe, Y. Lalanne, F. D’Amico, and C. Mouchès. 2004. Changes 

in abundance and at-sea distribution of seabirds in the Bay of Biscay prior to, and following the 

“Erika” oil spill. Aquatic Living Resources 17:369-377. 

Castège, I., Y. Lalanne, V. Gouriou, G. Hèmery, M. Girin, F. D’Amico, C. Mouchès, J. D’Elbèe, 

L. Soulier, J. Pensu, D. Lafitte, and F. Pautrizel. 2007. Estimating the actual seabirds mortality at sea 

and relationship with oil spills: Lesson from the “Prestige” oil spill in Aquitaine (France). Ardeola 

54:289-307. 

Chapman, B.R. 1981. Effects of Ixtoc I oil spill on Texas shorebird populations. In: Proceedings of the 

7th International Oil Spill Conference, Atlanta, GA. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. 

Pp. 461-465. 
A-122 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Chapman, B.R. 1984. Seasonal abundance and habitat-use patterns of coastal bird populations on Padre 

and Mustang Island barrier beaches (following the Ixtoc I oil spill). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-83/31. 73 pp. Internet website: http://

www.gomr.boemre.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3850.pdf. 

Devers, W. 2010. Official communication. Long Beach fish kills report. Marine fisheries scientist, 

Mississippi Dept. of Marine Sciences. September 27, 2010. 

Dickey, D. 2006. Official communication. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Coast Guard. Headquarters 

Office of Compliance and Analysis, Washington DC. June 28, 2006. 

Dickey, D. 2010. Official communication. Oil-spill events (2008). U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Coast 

Guard, Headquarters Office of Compliance and Analysis, Washington DC. April 26, 2010. 

Dismukes, D.E. In preparation. OCS-related infrastructure fact book. Volume I: Post-hurricane impact 

assessment. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and 

Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEMRE 2011-043. 

Energo Engineering. 2010. Assessment of damage and failure mechanisms for offshore structures and 

pipelines in Hurricanes Gustav and Ike. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Herndon, VA. TA&R 642. 

Federal Register. 2010. Increased safety measures for energy development on the outer continental 

shelf. 75 FR 198, 63346-63377. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-10-14/

pdf/2010-25256.pdf. 

Federal Register. 2011. Reorganization of Title 30: Bureaus of Safety and Environmental Enforcement 

and Ocean Energy Management. 30 CFR Chapters II and V. Direct Final Rule. Tuesday, 

October 18, 2011. 76 FR 201, pp. 64432-64780. Internet website: 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-10-18/pdf/2011-22675.pdf. 

Flint, P.L. and A.C. Fowler. 1998. A drift experiment to assess the influence of wind on recovery of 

oiled seabird on St. Paul Island, Alaska. Marine Pollution Bulletin 36:165-166. 

Flint, P.L., A.C. Fowler, and R.F. Rockwell. 1999. Modeling bird mortality associated with the M/V 

Citrus oil spill off St. Paul Island, Alaska. Ecological Modelling 117:261-267. 

Flint, P.L., E.W. Lance, K.M. Sowl, and T.F. Donnelly. 2010. Estimating carcass persistence and 

scavenging bias in a human-influenced landscape in western Alaska. Journal of Field Ornithology 

81:206-214. 

Ford, R.G., M.L. Bonnell, D.H. Varoujean, G.W. Page, H.R. Carter, B.E. Sharp, D. Heinemann, and 

J.L. Casey. 1996. Total direct mortality of seabirds from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. American 

Fisheries Society Symposium 18:684-711. 

Fowler, A.C. and P.L. Flint. 1997. Persistence rates and detection probabilities of oiled king eider 

carcasses on St. Paul Island, Alaska. Marine Pollution Bulletin 34:522-526. 

Gardner, J.V., P. Dartnell, and K.J. Sulak. 2002. Multibeam mapping of the pinnacles region, Gulf of 

Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey. Open File Report OF02-006. Internet 

website: http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of02-006/. Accessed September 9, 2010. 

Gulf Coast Claims Facility. 2010. Frequently asked questions. Internet website: http://

gulfcoastclaimsfacility.com/faq#Q11. Accessed January 23, 2011. 

Gulf Coast Claims Facility. 2011. Statistics and overall summary, and state status reports (April 27, 

2011). Internet website: http://www.gulfcoastclaimsfacility.com/reports. Accessed April 28, 2011. 

Helm, R.C., R.G. Ford, and H.R. Carter. 2006. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and Natural Resources 

Damage Assessment. Marine Ornithology 34:99-108. 

Helm, R.C., R.G. Ford, and H.R. Carter. 2008. Oil spills, seabirds, and NRDA: Differences between 

U.S. West, East, and Gulf Coasts. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Oil Spill Conference, 
Figures and Tables A-123 

Savannah, GA, USA. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. Pp. 1131-1139. Internet 

website: http://www.iosc.org/papers/2008%20193.pdf. 

Jernelöv, A. 2010. The threats from oil spills: Now, then, and in the future. Ambio 39:353-366. 

Internet website: http://www.springerlink.com/content/303223683645l54u/fulltext.pdf.

Kaplan, M.F. and C. Whitman. Unpublished. Measuring the economic impact of tourism and recreation 

industries on Gulf Coast communities—Relationship between OCS development and coastal 

resources (2008). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, New Orleans, LA. Contract No. 1435-01-99-CA-30951-18261. x + 164 pp. 

King, J.G. and G.A. Sanger. 1979. Oil vulnerability index for marine oriented birds. In: Bartonek, J.C. 

and D.N. Nettleship, eds. Conservation of marine birds in North America. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Wildlife Research Report Number 11. Pp. 227-239. 

Internet website: http://www.archive.org/stream/conservationofma00naturich#page/n3/mode/2up. 

Accessed March 25, 2011. 

Law, R.J. and C. Kelley. 2004. The impact of the “Sea Impress” oil spill. Aquatic Living Resources 

17:389-394. 

Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources. 2010. Production information. SONRIS lite: Internet database. 

Internet website: http://sonris-www.dnr.state.la.us/www_root/sonris_portal_1.htm. Accessed 

October 6, 2010. 

Michel, J. 1992. Chapter 2. Oil behavior and toxicity. In: Introduction to coastal habitats and 

biological resources for spill response. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Office of Response and Restoration. NOAA Report No. HMRAD 92-4. Internet 

website: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/

type_subtopic_entry.php?RECORD_KEY%28entry_subtopic_type%29=entry_id,subtopic_id,type_id

&entry_id(entry_subtopic_type)=275&subtopic_id(entry_subtopic_type)=8&type_id(entry_subtopic_

type)=2. Accessed March 22, 2011. 

Munilla, I. and A. Velando. 2010. Oiling of live gulls as a tool to monitor acute oil spill effects on 

seabirds. Ibis 152:405-409. 

National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and National Research Council (NRC). 2011. Blowout 

prevention: Analysis of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, fire, and oil spill. Internet website: http://

sites.nationalacademies.org/BlowoutPrevention/index.htm. Accessed March 15, 2011. 

National Archives and Records Administration. 2010. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. Internet 

website: http://www.archives.gov/. Accessed January 27, 2011. 

National Ocean Economics Program. 2006. Oil & gas production. Internet website: http://

noep.csumb.edu/Minerals/oil_gas.asp. Accessed September 11, 2006. 

Oil Spill Commission. 2010. The amount and fate of the oil. Staff Working Paper No. 3. National 

Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. 29 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/sites/default/files/documents/

Working%20Paper.Amount%20and%20Fate.For%20Release.pdf. 

Oil Spill Commission. 2011. Deep water: The Gulf oil disaster and the future of offshore drilling. 

Report to the President, National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore 

Drilling. 398 pp. Internet website: http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/final-report. Accessed 

March 15, 2011. 

Piatt, J.F. and R.G. Ford. 1996. How many seabirds were killed by the Exxon Valdez oil spill? American 

Fisheries Society Symposium 18:712-719. 

Piatt, J.F., C.J. Lensink, W. Butler, M. Kendziorek, and D.R. Nysewander. 1990a. Immediate impact of 

the Exxon Valdez oil spill on seabirds. Auk 107:387-397. 
A-124 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Piatt, J.F., H.R. Carter, and D.N. Nettleship. 1990b. Effects of oil pollution in marine bird populations. 

In: White, J., ed. The effects of oil on wildlife: Research, rehabilitation and general concerns. 

Proceedings of the Oil Symposium, Herndon, VA, October 16-18, 1990. Hanover, PA: Sheridan 

Press. Pp. 125-141. 

RestoreTheGulf.gov. 2011. Transcripts and docs. Internet website: http://www.restorethegulf.gov/

news/transcripts-docs. Accessed March 11, 2011. 

Schroeder, W.W., A.W. Shultz, and J.J. Dindo. 1988. Inner-shelf hardbottom areas, northeastern Gulf of 

Mexico. Trans. Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc. 38:535-541. 

Shipp, R.L. and T.L. Hopkins. 1978. Physical and biological observations of the northern rim of the 

DeSoto Canyon made from a research submersible. N.E. Gulf Sci. 2(2):113-121. 

Tan, L., M. Belanger, and C. Wittnich. 2010. Revisiting the correlation between estimated seabird 

mortality and oil spill size. Journal of Marine Animals and Their Ecology 3:20-26. 

U.S. Dept of Agriculture. Forest Service. 2010. National survey on recreation and the environment, 

2005-2009. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Census Bureau. 2010. State and county quick facts. Internet website: http://

quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/22000.html. Last revised November 4, 2010. Accessed April 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010a. Deepwater 

Horizon oil: Characteristics and concerns. National Ocean Service. 2 pp. Internet website: http://

sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/deepwater_horizon/OilCharacteristics.pdf. Last revised May 15, 2010. 

Accessed August 27, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010b. National 

Hurricane Center, Miami, FL. Internet website: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov. Accessed November 16, 

2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010c. 2008—Fisheries 

economics of the U.S. Internet website: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/

fisheries_economics_2008.html#. Accessed December 1, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010d. Recreational 

fisheries statistics queries. Internet website: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/recreational/queries/

index.html. Accessed December 1, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2011. Deepwater Horizon

MC 252 waste management sites. Internet website: http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/

globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/incident_response/STAGING/local_assets/downloads_pdfs/

wastemgnt_7282010.pdf . Accessed May 16, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2006. Petroleum and other liquids. Internet 

website: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/info_glance/petroleum.html. Accessed 

September 11, 2006. 

U.S. Dept. of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010. Quarterly census of employment and wages. 

Internet website: http://www.bls.gov/cew/home.htm. Accessed December 1, 2010. 

U.S. Dept. of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011. Quarterly census of employment and wages for 

2010. Internet website: http://.bls.gov//. Accessed April 1, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Army. Corps of Engineers. 2011. Amount of dredged material ocean disposed by year 

in cubic yards by single district. Internet website: http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/odd/. Stated as 

current through 2008. Accessed January 27, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 2010a. Increased safety measures for energy development on the outer 

continental shelf, May 27, 2010. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington, DC. 44 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/loader.cfm?csModule=security/

getfile&PageID=33598. Accessed March 13, 2011. 
Figures and Tables A-125 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 2010b. Outer Continental Shelf Safety Oversight Board, report to Secretary of 

the Interior Ken Salazar. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington, DC. September 1, 2010. 37 pp. 

Internet website: http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/loader.cfm?csModule=security/

getfile&PageID=43677. Accessed March 13, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2011. 

Draft report: Update of oil spill occurrence rates for offshore oil spills. Email received from Melinda 

Mayes on July 5, 2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Bird impact data from DOI-ERDC database 

download 30 Nov. 2010: Weekly bird impact data and consolidated wildlife reports. 3 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/

Bird%20Data%20Species%20Spreadsheet%2011302010.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2006. 

2006 national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. FHW/06-NAT. 168 pp. 

Internet website: http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/fhw06-nat.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Office of the Inspector General. 2010. A new horizon: Looking to the future 

of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. No. CR-EV-MMS-0015-

2010. Washington, DC. 82 pp. Internet website: http://www.doioig.gov/images/stories/reports/pdf/

A%20New%20Horizon%20Public.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Coast Guard. 2001. Polluting incident compendium: Cumulative data and 

graphics for oil spills, 1973-2000. Internet website: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/nmc/response/stats/

summary.htm. 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Maritime Administration (MARAD). 2009. Vessel calls snapshot, 2009. 

10 pp. Internet website: http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/

Vessel_Calls_at_US_Ports_Snapshot.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. National list of beaches. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Water. EPA-823-R-08-004. 160 pp. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. 8-hour ozone nonattainment area/state/county report. 

Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/gnca.html. Accessed April 28, 2011. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and British Petroleum. 2010. Unified Area Command Plan—

Deepwater Horizon MC252: Waste and material tracking system and reporting plan. Internet 

website: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/waste/bp_waste_tracking_plan.pdf. Issued August 20, 2010. 

Accessed October 8, 2010. 

U.S. Travel Association. 2010. Economic impact of travel and tourism. The Power of Travel Data 

Center. Internet website: http://poweroftravel.org/statistics. Accessed December 14, 2010. 

Velando, A., D. Álvarez, J. Mouriño, F. Arcos, and Á. Barros. 2005a. Population trends and 

reproductive success of the European shag Phalocrocorax aristotelis on the Iberian Peninsula 

following the Prestige oil spill. Journal of Ornithology 146:116-120. 

Velando, A., I. Munilla, and P.M. Leyenda. 2005b. Short-term indirect effects of the Prestige oil spill on 

European shags: Changes in availability of prey. Marine Ecology Progress Series 302:263-274. 

Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, and P.E. Rosel, eds. 2009. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico marine mammal stock assessments -- 2011. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS NE 219. 598 pp. 

Weaver, D.C., G.D. Dennis, and K.J. Sulak. 2002. Northeastern Gulf of Mexico coastal marine 

ecosystem program: Community structure and trophic ecology of demersal fishes on the pinnacle 

reef tract: Final synthesis report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, USGS BSR-2001-

008 and Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study 

MMS 2002-034. 143 pp. 
A-126 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Wiens, J.A., R.G. Ford, and D. Heinemann. 1984. Information needs and priorities for assessing the 

sensitivity of marine birds to oil spills. Biological Conservation 28:21-49. 

Wiese, F.K. and I.L. Jones. 2001. Experimental support for a new drift block design to assess seabird 

mortality from oil pollution. Auk 118:1062-1068. 

Wilhelm, S.I., G.J. Robertson, P.C. Ryan, and D.C. Schneider. 2007. Comparing an estimate of seabirds 

at risk to a mortality estimate from the November 2004 Terra Nova FPSO oil spill. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin 54:537-544. 

Williams, J.M., M.L. Tasker, I.C. Carter, and A. Webb. 1995. A method of assessing seabird 

vulnerability to surface pollutants. Ibis 137:S147-S152. 

Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2010. The 2011 complete economic and demographic data source 

(CEDDS) on CD-ROM. 
APPENDIX B 

 

CATASTROPHIC SPILL EVENT ANALYSIS

Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-iii 

CATASTROPHIC SPILL EVENT ANALYSIS: 

HIGH-VOLUME, EXTENDED-DURATION OIL SPILL RESULTING 

FROM LOSS OF WELL CONTROL 

ON THE GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

1. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................B-1

1.1. What is a Catastrophic Event? ................................................................................................ B-1

1.2. Methodology ........................................................................................................................... B-2

1.2.1. Geographic Scope .................................................................................................... B-2

1.2.2. Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario................................................................... B-2

1.2.3. Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts ............................................................ B-2

1.3. How to Use This Analysis ...................................................................................................... B-3

2. INITIAL EVENT (PHASE 1).............................................................................................................B-3

2.1. Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario ................................................................................. B-3

2.2. Most Likely and Most Significant Impacts............................................................................. B-4

2.2.1. Physical Resources................................................................................................... B-4

2.2.1.1. Air Quality ..............................................................................................B-4

2.2.1.2. Offshore Water Quality...........................................................................B-5

2.2.2. Biological Resources................................................................................................ B-6

2.2.2.1. Marine and Migratory Birds....................................................................B-6

2.2.2.2. Fish, Fisheries, and Essential Fish Habitat..............................................B-6

2.2.2.3. Marine Mammals ....................................................................................B-7

2.2.2.4. Sea Turtles...............................................................................................B-7

2.2.2.5. Offshore Benthic Habitats.......................................................................B-7

2.2.3. Socioeconomic Resources...................................................................................... B-10

2.2.3.1. Offshore Archaeological Resources......................................................B-10

2.2.3.2. Commercial Fishing..............................................................................B-10

2.2.3.3. Recreational Resources and Fishing .....................................................B-10

2.2.3.4. Human Resources, Land Use, and Environmental Justice....................B-11

3. OFFSHORE SPILL (PHASE 2) .......................................................................................................B-11

3.1. Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario ............................................................................... B-11

3.1.1. Duration of Spill..................................................................................................... B-11

3.1.1.1. Shallow Water.......................................................................................B-11

3.1.1.2. Deep Water ...........................................................................................B-11

3.1.2. Area of Spill ........................................................................................................... B-11

3.1.3. Volume of Spill ...................................................................................................... B-12

3.1.3.1. Shallow Water.......................................................................................B-12

3.1.3.2. Deep Water ...........................................................................................B-12

3.1.4. Oil in the Environment: Properties and Persistence .............................................. B-12

3.1.5. Release of Natural Gas........................................................................................... B-14

3.1.6. Offshore Cleanup Activities................................................................................... B-14

3.1.6.1. Shallow Water.......................................................................................B-14
B-iv Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

3.1.6.2. Deep Water ...........................................................................................B-14

3.1.6.3. Vessel Decontamination Stations..........................................................B-15

3.1.7. Severe Weather ...................................................................................................... B-15

3.2. Most Likely and Most Significant Impacts........................................................................... B-15

3.2.1. Physical Resources................................................................................................. B-15

3.2.1.1. Air Quality ............................................................................................B-15

3.2.1.2. Offshore Water Quality.........................................................................B-16

3.2.2. Biological Resources.............................................................................................. B-17

3.2.2.1. Marine and Migratory Birds..................................................................B-17

3.2.2.2. Fish, Fisheries, and Essential Fish Habitat............................................B-17

3.2.2.3. Marine Mammals ..................................................................................B-19

3.2.2.4. Sea Turtles.............................................................................................B-19

3.2.2.5. Offshore Habitats ..................................................................................B-20

3.2.2.6. Continental Shelf Benthic Resources....................................................B-20

3.2.2.7. Deepwater Benthic Communities .........................................................B-24

3.2.3. Socioeconomic Resources...................................................................................... B-26

3.2.3.1. Offshore Archaeological Resources......................................................B-26

3.2.3.2. Commercial Fishing..............................................................................B-27

3.2.3.3. Recreational Fishing..............................................................................B-27

3.2.3.4. Tourism and Recreational Resources....................................................B-27

3.2.3.5. Employment and Demographics...........................................................B-27

3.2.3.6. Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure.....................................................B-28

3.2.3.7. Environmental Justice ...........................................................................B-28

4. ONSHORE CONTACT (PHASE 3).................................................................................................B-29

4.1. Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario ............................................................................... B-29

4.1.1. Duration.................................................................................................................. B-29

4.1.1.1. Shallow Water.......................................................................................B-29

4.1.1.2. Deep Water ...........................................................................................B-29

4.1.2. Volume of Oil......................................................................................................... B-29

4.1.3. Length of Shoreline Contacted............................................................................... B-30

4.1.3.1. Shallow Water.......................................................................................B-30

4.1.3.2. Deep Water ...........................................................................................B-30

4.1.4. Severe Weather ...................................................................................................... B-30

4.1.5. Onshore Cleanup Activities.................................................................................... B-30

4.1.5.1. Shallow Water.......................................................................................B-31

4.1.5.2. Deep Water ...........................................................................................B-31

4.2. Most Likely and Most Significant Impacts........................................................................... B-31

4.2.1. Physical Resources................................................................................................. B-31

4.2.1.1. Air Quality ............................................................................................B-31

4.2.1.2. Coastal Water Quality...........................................................................B-32

4.2.2. Biological Resources.............................................................................................. B-32

4.2.2.1. Coastal and Marine Birds......................................................................B-32

4.2.2.2. Fish, Fisheries, and Essential Fish Habitat............................................B-34

4.2.2.3. Marine Mammals ..................................................................................B-34

4.2.2.4. Sea Turtles.............................................................................................B-35

4.2.2.5. Terrestrial Mammals and Reptiles ........................................................B-35

4.2.2.6. Coastal Habitats ....................................................................................B-36

4.2.3. Socioeconomic Resources...................................................................................... B-39

4.2.3.1. Onshore Archaeological Resources ......................................................B-39
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-v 

4.2.3.2. Commercial Fishing..............................................................................B-39

4.2.3.3. Recreational Fishing..............................................................................B-39

4.2.3.4. Tourism and Recreational Resources....................................................B-39

4.2.3.5. Employment and Demographics...........................................................B-40

4.2.3.6. Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure.....................................................B-40

4.2.3.7. Environmental Justice ...........................................................................B-41

5. POST-SPILL, LONG-TERM RECOVERY (PHASE 4)..................................................................B-41

5.1. Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario ............................................................................... B-41

5.2. Most Likely and Most Significant Impacts........................................................................... B-41

5.2.1. Physical Resources................................................................................................. B-42

5.2.1.1. Air Quality ............................................................................................B-42

5.2.1.2. Coastal and Offshore Water Quality .....................................................B-42

5.2.2. Biological Resources.............................................................................................. B-42

5.2.2.1. Coastal and Marine Birds......................................................................B-42

5.2.2.2. Fish, Fisheries, and Essential Fish Habitat............................................B-43

5.2.2.3. Marine Mammals ..................................................................................B-43

5.2.2.4. Sea Turtles.............................................................................................B-43

5.2.2.5. Terrestrial Mammals and Reptiles ........................................................B-44

5.2.2.6. Coastal Habitats ....................................................................................B-44

5.2.2.7. Open-Water Habitats.............................................................................B-45

5.2.2.8. Benthic Habitats....................................................................................B-46

5.2.3. Socioeconomic Resources...................................................................................... B-46

5.2.3.1. Offshore and Onshore Archaeological Resources ................................B-46

5.2.3.2. Commercial Fishing..............................................................................B-47

5.2.3.3. Recreational Fishing..............................................................................B-47

5.2.3.4. Tourism and Recreational Resources....................................................B-47

5.2.3.5. Employment and Demographics...........................................................B-47

5.2.3.6. Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure.....................................................B-48

5.2.3.7. Environmental Justice ...........................................................................B-48

6. CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT.................................B-50

7. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS .............................................................................................................B-50

7.1. Summary of Impacts from Phase 1 (Initial Event)................................................................ B-50

7.2. Summary of Impacts from Phase 2 (Offshore Spill)............................................................. B-51

7.3. Summary of Impacts from Phase 3 (Onshore Contact)......................................................... B-51

7.4. Summary of Impacts from Phase 4 (Long-Term Impacts) ................................................... B-52

8. PREPARERS ....................................................................................................................................B-52

9. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................B-53

Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-1 

1. INTRODUCTION 

In 1986, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations were amended to rescind the 

requirement to prepare a “worst-case analysis” for an environmental impact statement (EIS) (see 

40 CFR 1502.22(b)(4)). The regulation, as amended, states that catastrophic, low-probability impacts 

must be analyzed if the analysis is “supported by credible scientific evidence, is not based on pure 

conjecture, and is within the rule of reason.” 

The August 16, 2010, CEQ report, prepared following the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) event and spill 

in the Gulf of Mexico (CEQ, 2010), recommended that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

(BOEM), formerly the Minerals Management Service (MMS), should “ensure that NEPA documents 

provide decisionmakers with a robust analysis of reasonably foreseeable impacts, including an analysis of 

reasonably foreseeable impacts associated with low probability catastrophic spills for oil and gas 

activities on the Outer Continental Shelf” (CEQ, 2010). This analysis provides that robust analysis of the 

impacts from low-probability catastrophic spills for all applicable decisionmakers including, but not 

limited to, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior (USDOI) for the National 5-Year Program, the 

Assistant Secretary of Land and Minerals Management for an oil and gas lease sale, and the Gulf of 

Mexico Regional Supervisors, Office of Environment and Office of Leasing and Plans, for an exploration 

or development plan. 

It should be noted that the analysis presented here is intended to be a general overview of potential 

effects of a catastrophic spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The analysis does not include detailed sale-specific 

or site-specific analyses nor is it intended to replace such analyses for individual resources in the 

Supplemental EIS. As such, the Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis should be read with the understanding 

that further detail about accidental oil impacts on a particular resource may be found in the Supplemental 

EIS analysis or previous relevant National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses (e.g., Multisale 

EIS). 

1.1. WHAT IS A CATASTROPHIC EVENT? 

As applicable to NEPA, Eccleston (2008) defines a catastrophic event as “large-scale damage 

involving destruction of species, ecosystems, infrastructure, or property with long-term effects, and/or 

major loss of human life.” For oil and gas activities on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), a catastrophic 

event is a high-volume, long-duration oil spill regardless of the cause, whether natural disaster (i.e., 

hurricane) or manmade (i.e., human error and terrorism). This high-volume, long-duration oil spill, or 

catastrophic spill, has been further defined by the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan as a “spill of national significance” or “a spill which, because of its severity, size, 

location, actual or potential impact on the public health and welfare or the environment, or the necessary 

response effort, is so complex that it requires extraordinary coordination of federal, state, local, and 

responsible party resources to contain and cleanup the discharge” (40 CFR 300, Appendix E). 

Each oil-spill event is unique; its outcome depends on several factors, including time of year and 

location of release relative to winds, currents, land, and sensitive resources, specifics of the well (i.e., 

flow rates, hydrocarbon characteristics, and infrastructure damage), and response (i.e., speed and 

effectiveness). For this reason, the severity of impacts from of an oil spill cannot be predicted based on 

volume alone, although a minimum volume of oil must be spilled to reach catastrophic impacts. 

Though large spills may result from a pipeline rupture, such events will not result in a catastrophic 

spill because the ability to detect leaks and shut off pipelines limits the amount of the spill to the contents 

of the pipeline. The largest, non-blowout-related spill on the Gulf of Mexico OCS occurred in 1967, a 

result of internal pipeline corrosion following initial damage by an anchor. In 13 days, 160,638 barrels of 

oil leaked (USDOI, BOEMRE, 2010a); however, no significant environmental impacts were recorded as a 

result of this spill. 

Although loss of well control is defined as the uncontrolled flow of reservoir fluid that may result in 

the release of gas, condensate, oil, drilling fluids, sand, or water, it is a broad term that includes very 

minor well control incidents as well as the most severe well control incidents. Historically, loss of well 

control incidents occurred during development drilling operations, but loss of well control incidents can 
B-2 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

occur during exploratory drilling, production, well completions, or workover operations. These losses of 

well control incidents may occur between formations penetrated in the wellbore or at the seafloor. 

Blowouts are a more severe loss of well control incident that creates a great risk of a large oil spill 

and serious human injury. Two blowouts that resulted in catastrophic spills have occurred in U.S. and 

Mexican waters of the Gulf of Mexico. In 1979, the Ixtoc blowout in shallow water (water depth of 

164 feet [ft]; 50 meters [m]; and 50 miles [mi]; 80 kilometers [km] offshore in the Bay of Campeche, 

Mexico) spilled 3.5 million barrels of oil in 10 months (USDOC, NOAA, Office of Response and 

Restoration, 2010a; USDOC, NOAA, Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division, 1992; 

ERCO, 1982). On April 20, 2010, the DWH event, in deep water (4,992 ft; 1,522 m) 48 mi (77 km) 

offshore in Mississippi Canyon Block 252, spilled an estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil until it was 

capped almost 3 months later. 

Prior to the DWH event, the two largest spills resulting from a loss of well control in U.S. waters of 

the Gulf of Mexico occurred in 1970 and released 30,000 and 53,000 barrels of oil, respectively (USDOI, 

BOEMRE, 2010a). These incidents resulted in four human fatalities. Although these incidents occurred 

only 8-14 mi (13-26 km) from shore, there was minor shoreline contact with oil (USDOC, NOAA, Office 

of Response and Restoration, 2010b and 2010c). In 1987, a blowout of the Mexican exploratory oil well, 

YUM II, resulted in a spill of 58,640 barrels and 75 mi of impacted shoreline (USDOC, NOAA, 

Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division, 1992). None of these spills met the definition 

of a catastrophic event or spill. For this reason, only the Ixtoc and DWH blowouts and spills are analyzed 

below. 

1.2. METHODOLOGY

Two general approaches are utilized to analyze a catastrophic event under NEPA. The first approach 

is a bounding analysis for each individual resource category (e.g., marine mammals, sea turtles, etc.). A 

bounding analysis involves selecting and evaluating a different set of factors and scenarios for each 

resource in the context of a worst-case analysis. The second approach involves the selection of a single 

set of key circumstances that, when combined, result in catastrophic consequences. The second approach 

is used for a site-specific analysis and, consequently, its possible application is more limited. 

Accordingly, this analysis combines the two approaches, relying on a generalized scenario while 

identifying site-specific severity factors for individual resources. This combined approach allows for the 

scientific investigation of a range of possible, although not necessarily probable, consequences of a 

catastrophic blowout and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. 

1.2.1. Geographic Scope 

The Gulf of Mexico is a semi-enclosed basin with an extensive history of oil and gas activities and 

with unique environmental conditions and hydrocarbon reservoir properties; consequently, this analysis is 

only applicable to the Gulf of Mexico OCS and is not intended for other OCS regions. 

When possible, this analysis distinguishes between shallow water (<1,000 ft; 305 m) and deep water 

(1,000 ft; 305 m). 

1.2.2. Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario 

A hypothetical, yet feasible, scenario was developed to provide a framework for identifying the 

impacts of an extended oil spill from an uncontrolled blowout in both shallow and deep water. Unless 

noted, this scenario is based on the larger magnitude, blowout-related oil spills that have occurred in the 

Gulf of Mexico (discussed in Section 1.1). As noted above, because each spill event is unique, its 

outcome depends on many factors. Therefore, the impacts from present or future spills cannot be 

predicted based on this scenario. 

1.2.3. Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts 

This analysis evaluates the impacts to the Gulf of Mexico’s coastal, marine, environmental, and 

socioeconomic resources from a catastrophic blowout, oil spill, and associated cleanup activities. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-3 

Although the most recent EIS’s prepared by this Agency for oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of 

Mexico analyze the potential impacts from smaller oil spills that are more reasonably foreseeable 

(USDOI, MMS, 2007 and 2008), the analysis below focuses on the most likely and most significant 

impacts created by a high-volume, extended-duration spill. Because catastrophic consequences may not 

occur for all resources, factors affecting the severity of impacts are identified by individual resource. 

1.3. HOW TO USE THIS ANALYSIS

The purpose of this technical analysis is to assist BOEM in meeting CEQ requirements. The CEQ 

regulations address impacts with catastrophic consequences in the context of evaluating reasonably 

foreseeable significant adverse effects in an EIS when they address the issue of incomplete or unavailable 

information (40 CFR 1502.22). “‘Reasonably foreseeable’ impacts include impacts which have 

catastrophic consequences even if their probability of occurrence is low, provided that the analysis of the 

impacts is supported by credible scientific evidence, is not based on pure conjecture, and is within the rule 

of reason” (40 CFR 1502.22(b)(4)). Therefore, this analysis, based on credible scientific evidence, 

identifies the most likely and most significant impacts from a high-volume blowout and oil spill that 

continues for an extended period of time. The scenario and impacts discussed in this analysis should not 

be confused with the scenario and impacts anticipated to result from routine activities or more reasonably 

foreseeable accidental events of a proposed action. 

This technical analysis is designed to be incorporated by reference in future NEPA documents and 

consultations. Therefore, factors that affect the severity of impacts of a high-volume, extended-duration 

spill are highlighted throughout the analysis for use in subsequent site-specific analyses. 

To analyze a hypothetical catastrophic event in an area such as the Gulf of Mexico, several 

assumptions and generalizations were made. However, future project-specific analyses should also 

consider specific details such as potential flow rates for the specific proposed activity, the properties of 

the targeted reservoir, and distance to shore of the proposed activities. 

The life cycle of a catastrophic blowout and spill is divided into four geographic areas and/or time 

periods, some of which may overlap: 

 Phase 1: Initial event (Section 2) 

 Phase 2: Offshore spill (Section 3) 

 Phase 3: Onshore contact (Section 4) 

 Phase 4: Post-spill, long-term recovery (Section 5) 

Each phase of a catastrophic oil spill is addressed in this analysis. For each phase, the scenario is 

described, factors that could produce environmental impacts are listed, and the most likely and most 

significant impacts are discussed. 

2. INITIAL EVENT (PHASE 1) 

While most of the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of a catastrophic blowout would occur 

during the ensuing high-volume, extended-duration spill (see Sections 3, 4, and 5), it is important to 

acknowledge the deadly events that could occur in the initial phase of a catastrophic blowout. The 

following scenario was developed to provide a framework for identifying the most likely and most 

significant impacts during the initial phase. 

2.1. IMPACT-PRODUCING FACTORS AND SCENARIO

Phase 1 of the scenario is the initiation of a catastrophic blowout incident. Impacts, response, and 

intervention depend on the spatial location of the blowout and leak. While there are several points where 

a blowout could occur, four major distinctions that are important to the analysis of impacts are described 

in Table 1 below. 
B-4 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

For this analysis, an explosion and subsequent fire are assumed to occur. If a blowout associated with 

the drilling of a single exploratory well occurs, this could result in a fire that would burn for 1 or 2 days. 

If a blowout occurs on a production platform, other wells could feed the fire, allowing it to burn for over a 

month (USDOC, NOAA, Office of Response and Restoration, 2010c). The drilling rig or platform may 

sink. If the blowout occurs in shallow water, the sinking rig or platform may land in the immediate 

vicinity; if the blowout occurs in deep water, the rig or platform could land a great distance away, beyond 

avoidance zones. For example, the DWH drilling rig sank, landing 1,500 ft (457 m) away on the seafloor. 

Regardless of water depth, the immediate response would be from search and rescue vessels and aircraft, 

such as United States Coast Guard (USCG) cutters, helicopters, and rescue planes, and firefighting 

vessels. 

Table 1 

 

Blowout Scenarios and Key Differences in Impacts, Response, and/or Intervention 

Location of Blowout and Leak Key Differences in Impacts, Response, and/or Intervention 

Blowout occurs at the sea surface 

(i.e., at the rig) 

Offers the least chance for oil recovery because of the restricted access to the 

release point; therefore, greater impacts to coastal ecosystems. In addition to 

relief wells, there is potential for other intervention measures such as capping 

and possible manual activation of blowout-preventer (BOP) rams. 

Blowout occurs along the riser 

anywhere from the seafloor to the 

sea surface. However, a severed 

riser would likely collapse, 

resulting in a leak at the seafloor. 

In deep water, the use of subsea dispersants may reduce impacts to coastal 

ecosystems; however, their use may increase exposure of marine resources to 

oil. There is a possibility for limited recovery of oil at the source. In addition 

to relief wells, there is potential for other intervention measures, such as 

capping and possible manual activation of BOP rams. 

At the seafloor, through leak paths 

on the BOP/wellhead 

In deep water, the use of subsea dispersants may reduce impacts to coastal 

ecosystems; however, their use may increase exposure of deepwater marine 

resources to dispersed oil. 

With an intact subsea BOP, intervention may involve the use of drilling mud to 

kill the well. If the BOP and well stack are heavily compromised, the only 

intervention method may be relief wells. Greatest possibility for recovery of oil 

at the source, until the well is capped or killed. 

Below the seafloor, outside the 

wellbore (i.e., broached) 

Disturbance of a large amount of sediments resulting in the burial of benthic 

resources in the immediate vicinity of the blowout. The use of subsea 

dispersants would likely be more difficult (PCCI, 1999). Stopping this kind of 

blowout would probably involve relief wells. Any recovery of oil at the seabed 

would be very difficult. 

2.2. MOST LIKELY AND MOST SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

Impacts during Phase 1 would be limited to environmental resources in the immediate vicinity of the 

blowout. The most recent EIS’s prepared by this Agency for oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico 

detail the potential impacts from reasonably foreseeable blowouts (USDOI, MMS, 2007 and 2008). In 

addition to the impacts described in those documents, the most likely and most significant impacts 

resulting from a catastrophic blowout outside the wellbore are described below. 

2.2.1. Physical Resources 

2.2.1.1. Air Quality 

A catastrophic blowout close to the water surface would initially emit large amounts of methane and 

other gases into the atmosphere. If high concentrations of sulfur are present in the produced gas, 

hydrogen sulfide (H2S) could present a hazard to personnel. The natural gas H2S concentrations in the 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-5 

Gulf of Mexico OCS are generally low; however, there are areas such as the Norphlet formation in the 

northeastern Gulf of Mexico, for example, that contain levels of H2S up to 9 percent. Ignition of the 

blowout gas and subsequent fire would result in emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), 

carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC’s), particulate matter (PM10), and fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5). The fire could also produce polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s), which 

are known to be hazardous to human health. The pollutant concentrations would decrease with downwind 

distance. A large plume of black smoke would be visible at the source and may extend a considerable 

distance downwind. However, with increasing distance from the fire, the gaseous pollutants would 

undergo chemical reactions, resulting in the formation of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) that includes 

nitrates, sulfates, and organic matter. The PM2.5 concentrations in the plume would have the potential to 

temporarily degrade visibility in any affected Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class I areas 

(i.e., National Wilderness Areas and National Parks) and other areas where visibility is of significant 

value. Organic aerosols formed downwind from the DWH oil spill (de Gouw et al., 2010), during which 

the lightest compounds in the oil from the DWH blowout evaporated within hours and during which the 

heavier compounds took longer to evaporate, contributing to the formation of air pollution particles 

downwind.

2.2.1.2. Offshore Water Quality 

During the initial phase of a catastrophic blowout, water quality impacts include disturbance of 

sediments and release and suspension of oil and natural gas (methane) into the water column. These 

potential impacts are discussed below. As this section deals with the immediate effects of a blowout that 

would be located at least 3 nautical miles from shore, it is assumed that there would be no impacts on 

coastal water quality during this initial stage. 

Disturbance of Sediments 

A catastrophic blowout below the seafloor, outside the wellbore (Table 1) has the potential to 

resuspend sediments and disperse potentially large quantities of bottom sediments. Some sediment could 

travel several kilometers, depending on particle size and subsea current patterns. In the deep Gulf of 

Mexico, surficial sediments are mostly composed of silt and clay, and, if resuspended, could stay in the 

water column for several hours to even days. Bottom currents in the deep Gulf of Mexico have been 

measured to reach 30 centimeters/second (cm/sec) (12 inches/second [in/sec]) with mean flows of 1.5-2.5 

cm/sec (0.6-0.9 in/sec) (Hamilton, 1990). At these mean flow rates, resuspended sediment could be 

transported 1.3-2.1 kilometers/day (0.8-1.3 miles/day). Sediment resuspension can lead to a temporary 

change in the oxidation-reduction chemistry in the water column, including a localized and temporal 

release of any formally sorbed metals, as well as nutrient recycling (Caetano et al., 2003; Fanning et al., 

1982). Sediments also have the potential to become contaminated with oil components. 

A subsea release also has the potential to destabilize the sediments and create slumping or larger scale 

sediment movements along depth gradients. These types of events would have the potential to move 

and/or damage any infrastructure in the affected area. 

Release and Suspension of Oil into the Water Column 

As the DWH event showed, a subsea release of hydrocarbons at a high flow rate has the potential to 

disperse and suspend plumes of oil droplets (chemically dispersed or otherwise) within the water column 

and to induce large patches of sheen and oil on the surface. These dispersed hydrocarbons may adsorb 

onto marine detritus (marine snow) or may be mixed with drilling mud and deposited near the source. 

Mitigation efforts such as burning may introduce hydrocarbon byproducts into the marine environment, 

which would be distributed by surface currents. The acute and chronic sublethal effects of these dilute 

suspended “plumes” are not well understood and require future research efforts. 

Large quantities of oil put into offshore water may alter the chemistry of the sea with unforeseeable 

results. The VOC’s, including benzene, can have acutely toxic effects. The components of crude oil that 

are water soluble are more available than some of the heavier components to exert a toxic effect on 

marine life. The PAH’s are present in crude oil and include carcinogenic compounds and compounds that 

pose various risks to marine organisms and possibly to the higher trophic level species, including humans 
B-6 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

that feed on these organisms. The PAH’s are also persistent in the environment. Impacts from the 

subsequent extended oil spill on offshore water quality are discussed further in Section 3.2.1.2. 

Release of Natural Gas (Methane) into the Water Column 

A catastrophic blowout could release natural gas into the water column; the amount of gas released is 

dependent upon the water depth, the natural gas content of the formation being drilled, and its pressure. 

Methane is the primary component of natural gas (NaturalGas.org, 2010). Methane may stay in the 

marine environment for long periods of time (Patin, 1999; p. 237), as methane is highly soluble in 

seawater at the high pressures and cold temperatures found in deepwater environments (NRC, 2003; 

p. 108). However, methane diffusing through the water column would likely be oxidized in the aerobic 

zone and would rarely reach the air-water interface (Mechalas, 1974; p. 23). In addition to methane, 

natural gas contains smaller percentages of other gases such as ethane and propane. It may also contain 

VOC’s (including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene) and H2S, which have individual toxic 

characteristics. Methane and other natural gas constituents are carbon sources, and their introduction into 

the marine environment could result in reducing the dissolved oxygen levels because of microbial 

degradation of the methane potentially creating hypoxic or “dead” zones. Depletion of dissolved oxygen 

in the Gulf of Mexico because of the release of natural gas from the Macondo well (DWH event) is 

currently being examined as a result of the DWH event (Schenkman, 2010). Unfortunately, little is 

known about methane toxicity in the marine environment, but there is concern as to how methane in the 

water column might affect fish (see Section 3.2.2.2). 

2.2.2. Biological Resources 

Impacts during the initial event would be limited to environmental resources in the immediate vicinity 

of the blowout as described below. 

2.2.2.1. Marine and Migratory Birds 

Many migratory birds use offshore platforms or rigs as rest sites during migration (Russell, 2005). In 

addition, seabirds are attracted to offshore platforms and rigs (Tasker et al., 1986; Weise et al., 2001). 

The numbers of birds present at a platform or rig are greater when platforms or rigs are closer to shore 

during drilling operations (Baird, 1990). Birds resting on the drilling rig or platform during a catastrophic 

blowout are likely to be killed by an explosion. While it is assumed that most birds in trans-Gulf 

migration would likely avoid the fire and smoke plume during the day, it is conceivable that the light 

from the fire could interfere with nocturnal migration, especially during poor visibility conditions. It has 

been documented that seabirds are attracted to natural gas flares at rigs and platforms (Russell, 2005; 

Wiese et al., 2001); therefore, additional bird fatalities could result from the fire following the blowout. 

Though different species migrate throughout the year, the largest number of species migrate from March 

through November. A blowout during this time would cause a greater number of bird fatalities. While 

the number and species of birds killed depends on the blowout location and time of year, these initial 

fatalities would likely not result in population-level impacts for species present at the time of the blowout 

and resulting fire (Russell, 2005, Table 6.12). 

2.2.2.2. Fish, Fisheries, and Essential Fish Habitat 

Depending on the type of blowout and the proximity of marine life to it (Table 1), an eruption of 

gases and fluids may generate not only a toxic effect but also pressure waves and noise significant enough 

to injure or kill local biota. Within a few thousand meters of the blowout, resuspended sediments may 

clog fish gills and interfere with respiration. Settlement of resuspended sediments may, in turn, smother 

invertebrates or interfere with their respiration. Offshore benthic habitats that support fisheries could also 

be impacted, as discussed below. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-7 

2.2.2.3. Marine Mammals 

Depending on the type of blowout, the pressure waves and noise generated by the eruption of gases 

and fluids would likely be significant enough to harass, injure, or kill marine mammals, depending on the 

proximity of the animal to the blowout. A high concentration of response vessels could result in 

harassment or displacement of individuals and could place marine mammals at a greater risk of vessel 

collisions, which would likely cause fatal injuries. 

2.2.2.4. Sea Turtles 

Five species of sea turtles are found in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico: green, leatherback, 

hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, and loggerhead. All species are protected under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA), and all are listed as endangered except the loggerhead turtle, which is listed as threatened. 

Depending on the type of blowout (Table 1), an eruption of gases and fluids may generate significant 

pressure waves and noise that may harass, injure, or kill sea turtles, depending on their proximity to the 

accident. A high concentration of response vessels could place sea turtles at a greater risk of fatal injuries 

from vessel collisions. 

Further, mitigation by burning puts turtles at risk because they tend to be gathered up in the corralling 

process necessary to concentrate the oil in preparation for the burning. Trained observers should be 

required during any mitigation efforts that include burning. 

2.2.2.5. Offshore Benthic Habitats 

Gulf of Mexico benthic resources are divided into shelf habitats and deepwater habitats. Shelf 

habitats of the Gulf of Mexico include soft-bottom habitats (sandy and muddy substrate) and hard-bottom 

habitats (rock or salt outcroppings that provide habitat for encrusting organisms). Deepwater benthic 

communities of the Gulf of Mexico include soft-bottom, coral, and chemosynthetic habitats. The impacts 

to these benthic communities depend on the location and the type of catastrophic blowout that occurs. 

Introduction 

Sediment disturbance as a result of the blowout above the seafloor would not occur. A catastrophic 

blowout that occurs above the seabed (at the rig, along the riser between the seafloor and sea surface, or 

through leak paths on the BOP/wellhead) would result in released oil rising to the sea surface. However, 

if the leak is deep in the water column and the oil is ejected under pressure, oil droplets may become 

entrained deep in the water column. The upward movement of the oil may be reduced if methane in the 

oil is dissolved at the high underwater pressures, reducing the oil’s buoyancy (Adcroft et al., 2010). The 

large oil droplets will rise to the sea surface, but the smaller droplets, formed by vigorous turbulence in 

the plume or the injection of dispersants, may remain neutrally buoyant in the water column, creating a 

subsurface plume (Adcroft et al., 2010). Oil droplets less than 100 micrometers in diameter may remain 

in the water column for several months (Joint Analysis Group, 2010), where they will not be in contact 

with benthic habitats; similarly, large oil drops on the sea surface will not be in contact with benthos. 

However, oil in the water column or at the sea surface may sometimes sink, contact benthos, and have 

impacts, as discussed below. 

As discussed below, a catastrophic blowout outside the well casing and below the seafloor or at the 

seafloor water interface could resuspend large quantities of bottom sediments and create a large crater, 

destroying many organisms within a few hundred meters of the wellhead. Some of the sediment could 

travel up to a few thousand meters before redeposition, negatively impacting a localized area of benthic 

communities. 

The use of subsea dispersants would increase the exposure of offshore benthic habitats to dispersed 

oil droplets in the water column, as well as the chemicals used in the dispersants. The use of subsea 

dispersants is not likely to occur for seafloor blowouts outside the well casing. 
B-8 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Soft-Bottom Shelf Habitats 

The vast majority of the Gulf of Mexico seabed is comprised of soft sediments. Microbes to 

metazoans (e.g., polychaete worms and crabs) inhabit the soft-bottom benthos, many forming the base of 

the food chain for several species. When soft-bottom infaunal communities are physically impacted by a 

blowout (either lost to the crater formation or smothered by sediment), recolonization by populations 

from neighboring soft-bottom substrate is expected within a relatively short period of time. Many of the 

organisms on soft bottoms live within the sediment and have the ability to migrate upward in response to 

burial by sedimentation. A blowout that occurs outside the well casing can rapidly deposit 30 cm (12 in) 

or more of sediment within a few hundred meters and may smother much of the soft-bottom community 

in a localized area. In situations where soft-bottom infaunal communities are negatively impacted, 

recolonization by populations from neighboring soft-bottom substrate would be expected over a relatively 

short period of time for all size ranges of organisms, in a matter of days for bacteria, and probably less 

than 1 year for most macrofauna and megafauna species. Recolonization could take longer for areas 

affected by direct contact of concentrated oil. Initial repopulation from nearby stocks of pioneering 

species, such as tube-dwelling polychaetes or oligochaetes, may begin with the next recruitment event 

(Rhodes and Germano, 1982). Full recovery would follow as later stages of successional communities 

overtake the pioneering species (Rhodes and Germano, 1982). The time it takes to reach a climax 

community may vary depending on the species and degree of impact. Full benthic community recovery 

may take years to decades if the benthic habitat is heavily oiled (Gesteira and Dauvin, 2000; Sanders et 

al., 1980; Conan, 1982). A slow recovery rate will result in a community with reduced biological 

diversity and possibly a lesser food value for predatory species. 

Hard-Bottom Shelf Habitats 

The Gulf of Mexico has several hard-bottom features on the continental shelf in water depths less 

than 300 m (984 ft), features upon which encrusting and epibenthic organisms attach. Though there are 

varying degrees of relief on the hard bottom, the impacts from a catastrophic blowout are similar for the 

banks of varying relief because similar organisms occur on these features. Thus, they are discussed as a 

single grouping under “hard-bottom communities,” with references to specific communities where 

impacts may differ. 

Topographic features are isolated areas of moderate to high relief that provide habitat for hard-bottom 

communities of high biomass and moderate diversity. These features provide shelter and food for large 

numbers of commercially and recreationally important fish. There are 37 named topographic features in 

the Gulf of Mexico with specific BOEM protections, including the Flower Garden Banks National Marine 

Sanctuary. The BOEM has created “No Activity Zones” around topographic features in order to protect 

these habitats from disruption because of oil and gas activities. A “No Activity Zone” is a protective 

perimeter drawn around each feature that is associated with a specific isobath (depth contour) surrounding 

the feature in which structures, drilling rigs, pipelines, and anchoring are not allowed. These “No 

Activity Zones” are areas where activity is prohibited based on BOEM policy. Notice to Lessees and 

Operators (NTL) 2009-G39 recommends that drilling should not occur within 152 m (500 ft) of a “No 

Activity Zone” of a topographic feature. 

The northeastern portion of the central Gulf of Mexico is a region of low to moderate relief known as 

the “Pinnacle Trend” at the outer edge of the Mississippi-Alabama shelf between the Mississippi River 

and De Soto Canyon. Fish are attracted to these outcrops that provide hard substrate for sessile 

invertebrates to attach. The NTL 2009-G39 recommends that no bottom-disturbing activities occur 

within 30 m (100 ft) of any hard bottoms/pinnacles with a relief of 8 ft (2 m) or greater. 

Potentially sensitive biological features are features that have moderate to high relief (8 ft [2 m] or 

higher), provide hard surface for sessile invertebrates, attract fish, but are not located within Pinnacledesignated blocks or the “No Activity Zone” of topographic features. No bottom-disturbing activities that 

may cause impact to these features are permitted. 

Impacts that occur to hard-bottom shelf habitats as a result of a blowout would depend on the type of 

blowout, distance from the blowout, relief of the biological feature, and surrounding physical 

characteristics of the environment (e.g., turbidity). The NTL 2009-G39 recommends the use of buffers to 

prevent blowouts in the immediate vicinity of a hard-bottom habitat or its associated biota. Much of the 

oil released from a blowout would rise to the sea surface, therefore minimizing the impact to benthic 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-9 

communities by direct oil exposure. However, small droplets of oil that are entrained in the water column 

for extended periods of time may migrate into “No Activity Zones.” Although these small oil droplets 

will not sink themselves, they may attach to suspended particles in the water column and then be 

deposited on the seafloor (McAuliffe et al., 1975). These long-term impacts, such as reduced recruitment 

success, reduced growth, and reduced coral cover, as a result of impaired recruitment, are discussed in 

Section 3.2.2.6. Also, if the blowout were to occur beneath the seabed, suspension and subsequent 

deposition of disturbed sediment may smother localized areas of benthic communities, possibly including 

organisms within No Activity Zones or other hard-bottom substrate. 

Benthic communities on a hard-bottom feature exposed to large amounts of resuspended and 

deposited sediments following a catastrophic, subsurface blowout could be subject to sediment 

suffocation, exposure to resuspended toxic contaminants, and reduced light availability. Impacts to corals 

as a result of sedimentation would vary based on coral species, the height to which the coral grows, 

degree of sedimentation, length of exposure, burial depth, and the coral’s ability to clear the sediment. 

Impacts may range from sublethal effects such as reduced growth, alteration in form, and reduced 

recruitment and productivity to slower growth to death (Rogers, 1990). 

The initial blowout impact would be greatest to communities located in clear waters that experience 

heavy sedimentation. Reef-building corals are sensitive to turbidity and may be killed by heavy 

sedimentation (Rogers, 1990; Rice and Hunter, 1992). However, it is unlikely that reef-building corals 

would experience heavy sedimentation as a result of a blowout because drilling activity would not be 

allowed near sensitive organisms in the “No Activity Zones,” based on the lease stipulations as described 

in NTL 2009-G39. The most sensitive organisms are also typically elevated above soft sediments, 

making them less likely to be buried. It is possible, however, for potentially sensitive biological features 

outside of “No Activity Zones” or Pinnacle-designated blocks to experience some turbidity or 

sedimentation impacts. Corals may also experience discoloration or bleaching as a result of sediment 

exposure, although recovery from such exposure may occur within 1 month (Wesseling et al., 1999). 

Initial impacts would be much less extreme in a turbid environment (Rogers, 1990). For example, the 

Pinnacle Trend community exists in a relatively turbid environment, starting just 65 km (40 mi) east of 

the mouth of the Mississippi River and trending to the northeast. Sediment from a blowout, if it occurred 

nearby, may have a reduced impact on these communities compared with an open-water reef community, 

as these organisms are more tolerant of suspended sediment (Gittings et al., 1992). Many of the 

organisms that predominate in this community also grow tall enough to withstand the sedimentation that 

results from their turbid environment or they have flexible structures that enable the passive removal of 

sediments (Gittings et al., 1992). 

A portion or the entire rig may sink to the seafloor as a result of a blowout. The benthic communities 

(hard- or soft-bottom communities) on the seafloor upon which the rig settles would be destroyed or 

smothered. A settling rig may suspend sediments, which may smother nearby benthic communities as the 

sediment is redeposited on the seafloor. The habitats beneath the rig may be permanently lost; however, 

the rig itself may become an artificial reef upon which epibenthic organisms may settle. The surrounding 

benthic communities that were smothered by sediment would repopulate from nearby stocks through 

spawning recruitment and immigration. 

Deepwater Habitats 

The effects of a catastrophic blowout event on Gulf of Mexico benthic resources in deep water 

(>1,000 ft; 300 m) are similar to those on the shelf communities. The main factors are the type of 

blowout and the proximity to the habitat. Known deepwater communities include soft bottoms and two 

types of hard-bottom communities: chemosynthetic communities and deep coral communities. Many of 

the organisms on soft bottoms live within the sediment and have the ability to migrate upward in response 

to burial by sedimentation. A blowout that occurs outside the well casing can rapidly deposit 30 cm 

(12 in) or more of sediment within a few hundred meters and may smother much of the soft-bottom 

community in a localized area. In situations where soft-bottom infaunal communities are negatively 

impacted, recolonization by populations from neighboring soft-bottom substrate would be expected over a 

relatively short period of time for all size ranges of organisms, in a matter of days for bacteria, and 

probably less than 1 year for most macrofauna and megafauna species. Recolonization could take longer 

for areas affected by direct contact of concentrated oil. 
B-10 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

The BOEM’s restrictions applicable to work near deepwater hard-bottom areas (as described in NTL 

2009-G40) would prevent direct negative effects from a seafloor blowout. The established policy 

prohibits location of wells within 2,000 ft (610 m) of a suspected hard-bottom habitat. Geophysical 

analyses have achieved a high degree of reliability in detecting the potential presence of hard-bottom 

communities in the Gulf of Mexico. In rare instances, the subtle geophysical signatures of hydrocarbon 

seepage that are a probable indicator of a hard-bottom community are not discovered during routine 

environmental analysis. Therefore, it is possible that a well could be drilled close enough for a hardbottom community to be damaged in the event of a catastrophic blowout. 

Blowouts at points above the seafloor (in the riser or on the drill platform) would have little 

immediate effect on deepwater seafloor communities unless the structure sinks and physically impacts the 

seafloor. If a structure sank directly on a hard-bottom community, at least 2,000 ft (610 m) from the well, 

organisms could be crushed and smothered. 

2.2.3. Socioeconomic Resources 

2.2.3.1. Offshore Archaeological Resources 

The BOEM protects all known, discovered, and potentially historic and prehistoric archaeological 

resources on the OCS by requiring appropriate avoidance criteria as well as directives to investigate these 

resources. 

Onshore archaeological resources, prehistoric and historic sites, would not be immediately impacted 

during the initial phase of a catastrophic blowout because the distance of a blowout site from shore is at 

least 3 nautical miles. However, offshore catastrophic blowouts, when compared with spills of lesser 

magnitude, may initially impact multiple archaeological resources. Resources adjacent to a catastrophic 

blowout could be damaged by the high volume of escaping gas, buried by large amounts of dispersed 

sediments, crushed by the sinking of the rig or platform, destroyed during emergency relief well drilling, 

or contaminated by the hydrocarbons. 

Based on historical information, over 2,100 potential shipwreck locations have been identified in the 

Gulf of Mexico OCS (USDOI, MMS, 2007). This number is a conservative estimate and is heavily 

weighted toward post-19th century, nearshore shipwrecks, where historic records documenting the loss of 

the vessels were generated more consistently. Of the 2,100 recorded wrecks, only 233 records were 

determined to have associated spatial data possessing sufficient accuracy for BOEM’s needs. 

In certain circumstances, BOEM’s Regional Director may require the preparation of an 

archaeological report to accompany the EP, DOCD, or DPP, under 30 CFR 550.194, and BSEE’s 

Regional Director may do likewise under 30 CFR 250.194 if a potential wreck is encountered during 

operations. As part of the environmental reviews conducted for postlease activities, available information 

will be evaluated regarding the potential presence of archaeological resources within the proposed action 

area to determine if additional archaeological resource surveys and mitigations are warranted. 

2.2.3.2. Commercial Fishing 

The initial explosion and fire could endanger commercial fishermen in the immediate vicinity of the 

blowout. Although commercial fishing vessels in the area would likely aid in initial search-and-rescue 

operations, the subsequent fire could burn for over a month, during which time commercial vessels would 

be expected to avoid the area so as to not interfere with response activities. This could impact the 

livelihood and income of these commercial fishermen. 

2.2.3.3. Recreational Resources and Fishing 

A substantial amount of recreational activity is associated in the immediate area around shallow water 

oil and gas structures because these structures function as artificial reefs, promote coral growth, and 

attract fish. About 20 percent of the recreational fishing activity and 90 percent of the recreational diving 

activity in the Gulf of Mexico occurs within 300 ft (91 m) of oil and gas structures (Hiett and Milon, 

2002). Therefore, an explosion and fire within 100 mi (161 km) of shore could endanger recreational 

fishermen and divers in the immediate vicinity of the blowout, especially if the blowout is located 

between water depths of 100 and 200 ft (30 and 61 m). Recreational vessels in the area would likely aid 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-11 

in initial search-and-rescue operations but would also be in danger during the explosion and subsequent 

fire. The subsequent fire could burn for more than a month, during which recreational vessels would be 

expected to avoid the area and not interfere with response activities. This will impact the income of 

recreational fishing and diving businesses. Also, if the fire and smoke is visible from recreational 

beaches, their recreational use may be impacted. 

2.2.3.4. Human Resources, Land Use, and Environmental Justice 

Fatalities and serious injuries would likely occur during the initial explosion and/or fire. Due to the 

large number of people (>100) working on a deepwater drilling rig or platform, dozens of fatalities and 

serious injuries could occur. 

With the explosion >3 nautical miles from the shore and the likelihood that the resulting fire will burn 

for a short duration, the initial fire and/or explosion is not expected to impact land use, demographics, or 

economics, although some recreational beach use may be impacted (Section 2.2.2.3). Thus, the initial fire 

and explosion should not disproportionately affect low-income persons or minorities, and therefore, will 

not raise environmental justice concerns. 

3. OFFSHORE SPILL (PHASE 2) 

3.1. IMPACT-PRODUCING FACTORS AND SCENARIO

Phase 2 of the analysis focuses on the spill and response in Federal and State offshore waters. 

3.1.1. Duration of Spill 

The duration of the offshore spill from a blowout depends on the time needed for intervention and the 

time the remaining oil persists offshore. If a blowout occurs and the damaged surface facilities preclude 

well reentry operations, a relief well may be needed to regain control. The time required to drill the relief 

well depends on the complexity of the intervention, the location of a suitable rig, the type of operation 

that must be terminated to release the rig (e.g., casing may need to be run before releasing the rig), and 

problems mobilizing personnel and equipment to the location. A blown-out well may also be 

successfully capped prior to completion of relief wells, as occurred in the DWH event. Assuming the 

duration of previous spills including the DWH and the type of oil and water temperatures found in the 

Gulf of Mexico, the majority of visibly spilled oil on the surface of the water would not persist more than 

30 days after the oil flow stopped (Lubchenco et al., 2010). 

3.1.1.1. Shallow Water 

If a blowout occurs in shallow water, the entire intervention effort including drilling relief wells could 

take 1-3 months. This includes 1-3 weeks to transport the drilling rig to the well site. Spilled surface oil 

is not expected to persist more than 1 month after the flow is stopped. Therefore, the estimated spill 

duration resulting from a shallow water blowout is 2-4 months. 

3.1.1.2. Deep Water 

If a blowout occurs in deep water, the entire intervention effort including drilling relief wells could 

take 3-4 months (USDOI, MMS, 2000; Regg, 2000). This includes 2-4 weeks to transport the drilling rig 

to the well site. Spilled surface oil is not expected to persist more than 1 month after the flow is stopped. 

Therefore, the estimated spill duration from a deep water blowout is 4-5 months. 

3.1.2. Area of Spill 

When oil reaches the sea surface, it spreads. The speed and extent of spreading depends on the type 

and volume that is spilled. However, a catastrophic spill would likely spread hundreds of square miles. 

Also, the oil slick may break into several smaller slicks, depending on local wind patterns that drive the 

surface currents in the spill area. 
B-12 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

3.1.3. Volume of Spill 

For this analysis, a higher flow rate is assumed for a blowout in deep water for the following reasons. 

After 50 years of Gulf of Mexico development, most, if not all, of the largest shallow-water prospects 

have been developed. As a result, reservoir pressures in shallow water are generally reduced. Although 

under certain conditions oil may be present with the natural gas, deeper shelf wells target natural gas. 

Also, because deepwater development is costly, only larger prospects with higher flow rates are currently 

targeted for exploration. 

3.1.3.1. Shallow Water 

For this analysis, an uncontrolled flow rate of 30,000 barrels per day is assumed for a catastrophic 

blowout in shallow water. This assumption is based upon the results of well tests in shallow water (see 

Section 3.1.3 above) and the maximum flow rate from the 1979 Ixtoc blowout, which occurred in shallow 

water. Using this flow rate, the total volume of oil spilled from a catastrophic blowout in shallow water is 

estimated at 900,000 to 3 million barrels for a spill lasting 1-3 months. In addition to the flow rate, it is 

assumed that any remaining diesel fuel from a sunken drilling rig or platform would also leak. 

3.1.3.2. Deep Water 

For the purposes of this analysis, an uncontrolled flow rate of 30,000-60,000 barrels per day is 

assumed for a catastrophic blowout in deep water. This flow rate is based on the assumption in Section 

3.1.3 above, well test results, and the maximum flow rate estimated for the 2010 DWH event, which 

occurred in deep water. Therefore, total volume of oil spilled is estimated to be 2.7-7.2 million barrels 

over 3-4 months. In addition, deepwater drilling rigs or platforms hold a large amount of diesel fuel 

(10,000-20,000 barrels). Therefore, it is assumed that any remaining diesel fuel from a sunken structure 

would also leak and add to the spill. 

3.1.4. Oil in the Environment: Properties and Persistence 

The fate of oil in the environment depends on many factors, such as the source and composition of the 

oil, as well as its persistence (NRC, 2003). Persistence can be defined and measured in different ways 

(Davis et al., 2004), but the National Research Council (NRC) generally defines persistence as how long 

oil remains in the environment (NRC, 2003; p. 89). Once oil enters the environment, it begins to change 

through physical, chemical, and biological weathering processes (NRC, 2003). These processes may 

interact and affect the properties and persistence of the oil through 

 evaporation (volatilization), 

 emulsification (the formation of a mousse), 

 dissolution, 

 oxidation, and 

 transport processes (NRC, 2003; Scholz et al., 1999). 

Horizontal transport takes place via spreading, advection, dispersion, and entrainment, while vertical 

transport takes place via dispersion, entrainment, Langmuir circulation, sinking, overwashing, 

partitioning, and sedimentation (NRC, 2003). The persistence of an oil slick is influenced by the 

effectiveness of oil-spill response efforts and affects the resources needed for oil recovery (Davis et al., 

2004). The persistence of an oil slick may also affect the severity of environmental impacts as a result of 

the spilled oil. 

Crude oils are not a single chemical, but instead are complex mixtures with varied compositions. 

Thus, the behavior of the oil and the risk the oil poses to natural resources depends on the composition of 

the specific oil encountered (Michel, 1992). Generally, oils can be divided into three groups of 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-13 

compounds: (1) light-weight; (2) medium-weight; and (3) heavy-weight components. On average, these 

groups are characterized as outlined below in Table 2. 

Table 2 

 

Properties and Persistence by Oil Component Group 

Properties and 

Persistence Light-Weight Medium-Weight Heavy-Weight 

Hydrocarbon 

compounds 

Up to 10 carbon atoms 10-22 carbon atoms >20 carbon atoms 

API o >31.1 o 31.1o-22.3 o <22.3 o 

Evaporation rate Rapid (within 1 day) 

and complete 

Up to several days; not 

complete at ambient 

temperatures 

Negligible 

Solubility in water High Low (at most a few mg/L) Negligible 

Acute toxicity High because of 

monoaromatic 

hydrocarbons (BTEX) 

Moderate because of 

diaromatic hydrocarbons 

(naphthalenes—2 ring 

PAH’s) 

Low except because of 

smothering (i.e., heavier oils 

may sink) 

Chronic toxicity None, does not persist 

because of evaporation 

PAH components (e.g., 

naphthalenes—2 ring 

PAH’s) 

PAH components (e.g., 

phenanthrene, anthracene—

3 ring PAH’s) 

Bioaccumulation 

potential 

None, does not persist 

because of evaporation 

Moderate Low, may bioaccumulate 

through sediment sorption 

Compositional 

majority 

Alkanes and 

cycloalkanes 

Alkanes that are readily 

degraded 

Waxes, asphaltenes, and 

polar compounds (not 

significantly bioavailable or 

toxic) 

Persistence Low because of 

evaporation 

Alkanes readily degrade, but 

the diaromatic hydrocarbons 

are more persistent 

High; very low degradation 

rates and can persist in 

sediments as tarballs or 

asphalt pavements 

Sources: Michel, 1992; Canadian Center for Energy Information, 2010. 

Of the oil reservoirs sampled in the Gulf of Mexico OCS, the majority fall within the light-weight 

category, while less than one quarter are considered medium-weight and a small portion are considered 

heavy-weight. Oil with an API gravity of 10.0 or less would sink and has not been encountered in the 

Gulf of Mexico OCS and, therefore, it is not analyzed in this paper (USDOI, BOEMRE, 2010c).

Heavy-weight oil may persist in the environment longer than the other two types of oil, but the 

medium-weight components within oil present the greatest risks to organisms because, with the exception 

of the alkanes, these medium-weight components are persistent, bioavailable, and toxic (Michel, 1992). 

Previous studies (e.g., Johansen et al., 2001) supported the theory that most, if not all, released oil 

would reach the surface of the water column. However, data and observations from the DWH event 

challenge that theory. While analyses are in their preliminary stages, it appears that measurable amounts 

of hydrocarbons (dispersed or otherwise) are being detected in the water column as subsurface “plumes” 

and on the seafloor in the vicinity of the release. While not all of these hydrocarbons have been 

definitively traced back to releases from the Macondo well (DWH event), these early measurements and 

results warrant a reassessment of previous theories of the ultimate fate of hydrocarbons from unintended 

subsurface releases. It is important to note that the North Sea experiment (Johansen et al., 2001) did not 

include the use of dispersants at or near the source of the subsea oil discharge. 
B-14 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

3.1.5. Release of Natural Gas 

The quality and quantity of components in natural gas vary widely by the field, reservoir, or location 

from which the natural gas is produced. Although there is not a “typical” makeup of natural gas, it is 

primarily composed of methane (NaturalGas.org, 2010). 

3.1.6. Offshore Cleanup Activities 

As demonstrated by the Ixtoc and DWH spill responses, a large-scale response effort is certain to 

follow a catastrophic blowout. The number of vessels and responders would increase exponentially as the 

spill continued. 

3.1.6.1. Shallow Water 

Within the first week of an oil spill originating in shallow water, 25 vessels are estimated to respond, 

which would steadily increase to over 3,000 by the end of the spill. This includes about 25 skimmers in 

the vicinity of the well at a time. In addition, recovered oil may be barged to shore from recovery vessels. 

Within the first week, over 500 responders are estimated to be deployed to a spill originating in 

shallow water, which would steadily increase up to 25,000 before the well is capped or killed within 

2-4 months. 

Response to an oil spill in shallow water is expected to involve over 10,000 ft (3,048 m) of boom 

within the first week and would steadily increase up to 5 million feet (950 mi; 1,520 km) for use offshore 

and nearshore, the amount dependent upon the location of the potentially impacted shoreline, 

environmental considerations, and agreed upon protection strategies involving the local potentially 

impacted communities. 

Up to 25 planes and 50 helicopters are estimated to respond per day by the end of a shallow-water 

spill. 

Along the Gulf Coast, dispersants are preapproved for use greater than 3 nautical miles from shore 

and in water depths greater than 33 ft (10 m), with the exception of Florida where the water depth must be 

65 ft (20 m) (USDOT, CG, 2010). However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is 

presently examining these preapprovals, and restrictions are anticipated regarding the future use of 

dispersants for ongoing spills as a result. Changes to the dispersant use preapprovals would be expected 

to limit this use in the future. Under the preapprovals, it is estimated that up to a total of 35,000 barrels of 

dispersant would be used.1

 Aerial dispersants would likely be applied from airplanes as a mist, which 

settles on the oil on the water’s surface. In addition to dispersants, controlled burns may also occur. 

3.1.6.2. Deep Water 

Within the first week of oil spill originating in deep water, 50 vessels are estimated to respond, which 

would steadily increase to over 7,000 by the end of the spill. This includes about 25 skimmers in the 

vicinity of the well at a time. In addition, recovered oil may be shuttle tankered to shore from recovery 

vessels. 

For an oil spill in deep water, over 1,000 responders are estimated to be deployed within the first 

week, which would steadily increase up to 50,000 before capping or killing the well within 4-5 months. 

Over 20,000 ft (6,096 m) of boom is estimated to be deployed within the first week of a deepwater 

spill, which would steadily increase up to 11 million feet (2,100 mi; 3,350 km) offshore and nearshore, 

the amount dependent upon the location of the potentially impacted shoreline, environmental 

considerations, and agreed upon protection strategies involving the local potentially impacted 

communities. 

Up to 50 planes and 100 helicopters are estimated to respond per day by the end of a deepwater spill. 

With the exception of special Federal management areas or designated exclusion areas, dispersants have 

been preapproved in the vicinity of a deepwater blowout (USDOT, CG, 2010). However, USEPA is 

 

1 At the Ixtoc-I well blowout in 1979, between 1 million and 2.5 million gallons of mostly Corexit dispersant 

products were applied over a 5-month period on the oil discharge. However, this scenario assumes a spill from a 

blowout in shallow water would last up to 3 months. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-15 

presently examining these preapprovals, and restrictions are anticipated regarding the future use of 

dispersants as a result. Under preexisting preapprovals, it is estimated that up to 50,000 barrels of 

dispersant could be applied (2/3 on the water surface and 1/3 subsurface, if possible). Changes to the 

dispersant use preapprovals would be expected to limit this use. No preapproval presently exists for the 

use of subsea dispersants, and approval must be obtained before each use of this technology. The use of 

subsea dispersants depends on the location of the blowout, as discussed in Table 1. Aerial dispersants are 

applied from airplanes as a mist, which settles on the oil on the water’s surface. In addition to 

dispersants, it is estimated that 5-10 controlled burns would be conducted per day in suitable weather. 

About 500 burns in all would remove 5-10 percent of the oil. 

3.1.6.3. Vessel Decontamination Stations 

To avoid contaminating inland waterways, multiple vessel decontamination stations may be 

established offshore in Federal and State waters. Vessels responding to the spill and commercial and 

recreational vessels passing through the spill would anchor, awaiting inspection. If decontamination is 

required, work boats would use fire hoses to clean oil from the sides of the vessels. This could result in 

some oiling of otherwise uncontaminated waters. While these anchorage areas would be surveyed for 

buried pipelines that could be ruptured by ship anchors, they may not be surveyed adequately for benthic 

communities or archaeological sites. Therefore, some damage to benthic communities or archaeological 

sites may occur because of vessel decontamination activities associated with an oil spill in deep water 

(Alabama State Port Authority, 2010; State of Florida, Office of the Governor, 2010; Nodar, 2010; 

Unified Incident Command, 2010a-c; USDOC, NOAA, 2010a; USEPA, 2010a).

3.1.7. Severe Weather 

A hurricane could accelerate biodegradation, increase the area affected by the spill, and/or slow the 

response effort. The Atlantic hurricane season runs from June 1st through November 30th, peaking in 

September. In an average Atlantic season, there are 11 named storms, 6 hurricanes, and 2 Category 3 or 

higher storms (USDOC, NOAA, National Weather Service, 2010a). As a result of a hurricane, high 

winds and seas would mix and “weather” the oil from an oil spill. This can help accelerate the 

biodegradation process (USDOC, NOAA, National Weather Service, 2010b). The high winds may 

distribute oil over a wider area (USDOC, NOAA, National Weather Center, 2010b). In the event of a 

hurricane, vessels would evacuate the area, delaying response efforts, including the drilling of relief wells 

and any well capping or collection efforts. 

3.2. MOST LIKELY AND MOST SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

The most recent EIS’s prepared by this Agency for oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico 

identify in detail the potential impacts from reasonably foreseeable oil spills (USDOI, MMS, 2007 and 

2008). In addition to the impacts described in those documents, the most likely and most significant 

impacts because of the magnitude of shoreline oil as a result of a catastrophic spill are described below. 

3.2.1. Physical Resources 

3.2.1.1. Air Quality 

In the Gulf of Mexico, evaporation from the oil spill would result in concentrations of VOC’s in the 

atmosphere, including chemicals that are classified as being hazardous. The VOC concentrations would 

occur anywhere where there is an oil slick, but they would be highest at the source of the spill because the 

rate of evaporation depends on the volume of oil present at the surface. The VOC concentrations would 

decrease with distance as the layer of oil gets thinner. The lighter fractions of VOC’s would be most 

abundant in the immediate vicinity of the spill site. The heavier compounds would be emitted over a 

longer period of time and over a larger area. Some of the compounds emitted could be hazardous to 

workers in close vicinity of the spill site. The hazard to workers can be reduced by monitoring and using 

protective gear, including respirators, as well as limiting exposure through limited work shifts, rotating 

workers out of high exposure areas, and pointing vessels into the wind. During the DWH event, air 
B-16 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

samples collected by individual offshore workers of British Petroleum (BP), the Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA), and U.S. Coast Guard showed levels of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, 

and xylene that were mostly under detection levels. All samples had concentrations below the OSHA 

Occupational permissible exposure limits and the more stringent ACGIH (American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists) threshold limit values (U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, 2010a). 

The VOC emissions that result from the evaporation of oil contribute to the formation of particulate 

matter (PM2.5) in the atmosphere. In addition, VOC’s could cause an increase in ozone levels, especially 

if the release were to occur on a hot, sunny day with sufficient concentrations of NOx present in the lower 

atmosphere. However, because of the distance from shore, the oil slick would not normally have any 

effects on onshore ozone concentrations. 

It is assumed that response efforts would include hundreds of in-situ or controlled burns, which would 

remove an estimated 5-10 percent of the volume of oil spilled. This could be as much as 720,000 barrels 

of oil for a spill of 60,000 barrels per day for 120 days. In-situ burning would result in ambient 

concentrations of CO, NOx, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 very near the site of the burn and would generate a 

plume of black smoke. The levels of PM2.5 could be a hazard to personnel working in the area, but this 

could be effectively mitigated through monitoring and relocating vessels to avoid areas of highest 

concentrations. In an experiment of an in-situ burn off Newfoundland, it was found that CO, SO2, and 

NO2 were measured only at background levels and were frequently below detection levels (Fingas et al., 

1995). Limited amounts of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde were measured, but concentrations were 

close to background levels. Measured values of dioxins and dibenzofurans were at background levels. 

Measurements of PAH in the crude oil, the residues, and the air indicated that the PAH in the crude oil are 

largely destroyed during combustion (Fingas et al., 1995). 

While containment operations may be successful in capturing some of the escaping oil and gas, 

recovery vessels may not be capable of storing the crude oil or may not have sufficient storage capacity. 

In this case, excess oil would be burned; captured gas cannot be stored or piped to shore so it would be 

flared. For example, in the DWH event, gas was flared at the rate of 100-200 million cubic feet per day 

and oil burned at the rate of 10,000-15,000 barrels per day. The estimated NOx emissions are about 

13 tons per day. The SO2 emissions would be dependent on the sulfur content of the crude oil. For crude 

oil with a sulfur content of 0.5 percent, the estimated SO2 emissions are about 16 tons per day. Particulate 

matter in the plume would also affect visibility. Flaring or burning activities upwind of a PSD Class I 

area, e.g., the Breton National Wilderness Area, could adversely affect air quality there because of 

increased levels of SO2, PM10, and PM2.5, and because of reduced visibility. 

3.2.1.2. Offshore Water Quality 

The water offshore of the Gulf’s coasts can be divided into two regions: the continental shelf and 

slope (<1,000 ft; 305 m) and deep water (>1,000 ft; 305 m). Waters on the continental shelf and slope are 

heavily influenced by the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers, the primary sources of freshwater, 

sediment, nutrients, and pollutants from a huge drainage basin encompassing 55 percent of the continental 

U.S. (Murray, 1998). Lower salinities are characteristic nearshore where freshwater from the rivers mix 

with Gulf waters. The presence or extent of a nepheloid layer, a body of suspended sediment at the sea 

bottom (Kennett, 1982; p. 524), affects water quality on the shelf and slope. Deep waters east of the 

Mississippi River are affected by the Loop Current and associated warm-core (anti-cyclonic) eddies, 

which flush the area with clear, low-nutrient water (Muller-Karger et al., 2001). However, cold-core 

cyclonic eddies (counter-clockwise rotating) also form at the edge of the Loop Current and are associated 

with upwelling and nutrient-rich, high-productivity waters, although the extent of this flushing can vary 

seasonally. 

While response efforts would decrease the fraction of oil remaining in Gulf waters, significant 

amounts of oil would remain (The Federal Interagency Solutions Group, 2010). Natural processes will 

physically, chemically, and biologically aid the degradation of oil (NRC, 2003). The physical processes 

involved include evaporation, emulsification, and dissolution, while the primary chemical and biological 

degradation processes include photooxidation and biodegradation (i.e., microbial oxidation). Water 

quality would not only be impacted by the oil, gas, and their respective components but also to some 

degree from cleanup and mitigation efforts, such as from increased vessel traffic and the addition of 

dispersants and methanol to the marine environment. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-17 

In the case of a catastrophic subsea blowout in deep water, it is assumed that large quantities of 

subsea dispersants would be used. As a result, clouds or plumes of dispersed oil may occur near the 

blowout site. Reports following the DWH event have found such plumes and have shown that the 

concentrations of these clouds decrease to undetectable levels within a few miles of the source (USDOC, 

NOAA, 2010b). Additional reporting in the coming months will enhance the understanding of the effects 

of subsurface plumes. Dissolved oxygen levels are a concern with any release of a carbon source, and 

these levels became a particular concern during the DWH event, since dispersants were used in deep 

waters for the first time. Thus, USEPA required monitoring protocols in order to use subsea dispersants 

(USDOC, NOAA, 2010c). In areas where plumes of dispersed oil were previously found, dissolved 

oxygen levels decreased by about 20 percent from long-term average values in the Gulf of Mexico; 

however, scientists reported that these levels have stabilized and are not low enough to be considered 

hypoxic (USDOC, NOAA, 2010d). The temporary decrease in oxygen content has been attributed to 

microbial degradation of the oil. Over time, as the oil continues to be degraded and diffuses, hypoxia 

becomes less of a concern. As reported for the DWH event, dissolved oxygen levels would likely remain 

above levels of immediate concern, but there would still be a need to monitor dissolved oxygen levels 

over time. 

Toxicity of dispersed oil in the environment would depend on many factors, including the 

effectiveness of the dispersion, temperature, salinity, degree of weathering, type of dispersant, and degree 

of light penetration in the water column (NRC, 2005). The toxicity of dispersed oil is primarily because 

of the toxic components of the oil itself (Australian Maritime Safety Authority, 2010). 

3.2.2. Biological Resources 

The most recent EIS’s prepared by this Agency for oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico 

details potential localized impacts to specific species from reasonably foreseeable oil spills (USDOI, 

MMS, 2007 and 2008). However, a catastrophic event, such as a high-volume, extended-duration spill 

resulting from a blowout, has the potential to cause population-level impacts. Multiple Federal and Statelisted, threatened and endangered species could be impacted from an extended offshore spill (USDOI, 

FWS, 2010a and 2010b). 

3.2.2.1. Marine and Migratory Birds 

During Phase 2 of a catastrophic spill, the primary concern for marine and migratory birds would be 

their vulnerability to oiling or ingesting oil, which is related to their behavior. Wading birds (e.g., herons, 

egrets, etc.) and species that feed by plunge-diving into the water to catch small fish (e.g., pelicans, 

gannets, terns, gulls, and pelagic birds) and those that use water as a primary means of locomotion, 

foraging, or resting and preening (e.g., diving ducks, cormorants, pelicans, etc.) are highly vulnerable to 

becoming oiled and also to ingesting oil, as are black skimmers. These birds tend to feed and concentrate 

in convergence zones, places in the ocean where strong opposing currents meet. In addition to 

concentrating prey, these zones also aggregate oil (Unified Incident Command, 2010d). Oiling interferes 

with the birds’ ability to fly (thus to obtain food) and compromises the insulative characteristics of down 

and contour feathers making it difficult to maintain body heat. Attempts by the birds to remove the oil by 

preening causes oiled birds to ingest oil and may result in mortality. 

3.2.2.2. Fish, Fisheries, and Essential Fish Habitat 

Early life stages of animals are usually more sensitive to oil than adults (Boesch and Rabalais, 1987; 

NRC, 2005). Weathered crude oil has been shown in laboratory experiments to cause malformation, 

genetic damage, and even mortality at low levels in fish embryos of Pacific herring (Carls et al., 1999). 

There is a high probability of mortality for the eggs and larvae of Gulf fishes that come in contact with 

spilled oil. 

Adult fish may be less at risk than earlier life stages in part because they are less likely to concentrate 

at the surface and may avoid contact with floating oil. There were, however, sightings of whale sharks 

(which are defined as “threatened” by the International Union for Conservation of Nature) swimming 

among slicks from the DWH spill. They were not visibly oiled, but there was concern that they could be 

affected because they are surface feeders (Howell, 2010). Effects of oil on organisms can include direct 
B-18 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

lethal toxicity, sublethal disruption of physiological processes (internal lesions), effects of direct coating 

by oil (suffocation by coating gills), incorporation of hydrocarbons in organisms causing tainting or 

accumulation in the food chain, and changes in biological habitat (decreased dissolved oxygen) (Moore 

and Dwyer, 1974). 

Because natural crude oil found in the Gulf of Mexico would generally float on the surface, fish 

species whose eggs and larvae are found at or near the water surface are most at risk from an offshore 

spill. Species whose spawning periods coincide with the timing of the highest oil concentrations would 

be at greatest risk. If there is a subsea catastrophic blowout, it is assumed dispersants would be used. 

Then there could be effects on multiple life history stages and trophic levels. There is limited knowledge 

of the toxicity of dispersants mixed with oil to specific species or life stages of ichthyoplankton, and the 

likely extent of mortality because of the combination of factors is difficult to determine. The combined 

toxic effects of the oil and any dispersants that may be used may not be apparent unless a significant 

portion of a year-class is absent from next year’s fishery (e.g., shrimps, crabs, snapper, and tuna). 

Recent studies by USEPA using representative species provide some indication of the relative toxicity 

of Louisiana sweet crude oil, dispersants, and oil/dispersant mixes. Bioassays were conducted using two 

Gulf species—a mysid shrimp (Amercamysis bahia) and a small estuarine fish, the inland silverside 

(Menidia beryllinina)—to evaluate the acute toxic effects of oil, eight dispersants, and oil/dispersant 

mixtures. In addition, USEPA used standard in vitro techniques using the same dispersants to (1) 

evaluate acute toxicity on three cell lines over a range of concentrations and (2) evaluate effects of these 

dispersants on androgen and estrogen function using human cell lines (to see if they are likely to disrupt 

hormonal systems). All dispersants showed cytotoxicity in at least one cell type at concentrations 

between 10 and 110 parts per million (ppm). Results of the in vitro toxicity tests were similar to the 

whole animal tests, showing generally low dispersant toxicity. Lethal concentration (LC50) values (the 

concentration at which half of the test subjects die) were lower than the cell-based assays. For all eight 

dispersants, for both species, the dispersants alone were less toxic than the dispersant/oil mixture. 

Louisiana sweet crude oil alone was determined to be more toxic to both the silverside fish and the mysid 

shrimp than the dispersants alone. The results of the testing for disruption of androgen and estrogen 

function indicate that the dispersants do not show biologically significant endocrine activity via androgen 

or estrogen pathways (USEPA, Office of Research and Development, 2010a and 2010b). 

The North Atlantic bluefin tuna is an example of a fish/fishery in the Gulf of Mexico that could be at 

risk to lose a year-class. It has a relatively narrow peak spawning period in April and May and floating 

eggs. A catastrophic blowout during the spring season could cause a negative effect to this population. 

The Gulf of Mexico is one of only two documented spawning grounds for the Atlantic bluefin tuna; the 

other is in the Mediterranean Sea. Spawning is clustered in a specific type of habitat along the continental 

slope. Bluefin tuna are among the most valuable fish in global markets. The International Commission 

for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ScienceDaily, 2010) currently manages the Atlantic bluefin tuna 

as two distinct populations, with western Atlantic spawners of the Gulf of Mexico forming a population 

genetically distinct from the eastern spawners of the Mediterranean Sea. The western Atlantic stock has 

suffered, and a long-term rebuilding plan has failed to revive the population or the fishery. The failure of 

the Gulf of Mexico spawning population to rebuild and the scope of illegal and under-reported catches are 

of such concern that the species was considered for Appendix 1 listing (most endangered status) by the 

Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in March 2010. The NOAA made a 

determination on May 27, 2011, that Atlantic bluefin tuna did not warrant species protection under the 

ESA at that time. However, NOAA does plan to revisit this decision by early 2013 when more 

information will be available concerning any effects of the DWH spill (76 FR 31556). In addition, a new 

stock assessment will be available from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic 

Tunas. 

A catastrophic deepwater spill could release natural gases with methane as the primary component 

(NaturalGas.org, 2010) into the water column, but little is known about the effects of elevated methane 

levels on fish. Patin (1999) studied the elevated concentrations of methane resulting from a gas blowout 

from drilling platforms in the Sea of Asov, Ukraine, on fish. The pathological changes reported were 

species specific and included damages to cell membranes, organs, and tissues; modifications of protein 

synthesis; and other anomalies typical for acute poisoning of fish. These impacts, however, were 

observed at levels of 4-6 milligrams/liter of methane near the accident well. The full effect of elevated 

methane levels on Gulf of Mexico fishes is currently unknown. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-19 

3.2.2.3. Marine Mammals 

An oil spill and related spill-response activities can impact marine mammals that come into contact 

with oil and remediation efforts. The marine mammals’ exposure to hydrocarbons persisting in the sea 

may result in sublethal impacts (e.g., decreased health, reproductive fitness, longevity, and increased 

vulnerability to disease), some soft tissue irritation, respiratory stress from inhalation of toxic fumes, food 

reduction or contamination, direct ingestion of oil and/or tar, and temporary displacement from preferred 

habitats or migration routes. More detail on the potential range of effects to marine mammals from 

contact with spilled oil can be found in Geraci and St. Aubin (1990). The best available information does 

not provide a complete understanding of the effects of the spilled oil and active response/cleanup 

activities on marine mammals. For example, it is expected that the large amount of chemical dispersants 

being used on the oil may act as an irritant on the marine mammals’ tissues and sensitive membranes. 

The increased human presence after an oil spill (e.g., vessels) would likely add to changes in behavior 

and/or distribution, thereby potentially stressing marine mammals further and perhaps making them more 

vulnerable to various physiologic and toxic effects. In addition, the large number of response vessels 

could place marine mammals at a greater risk of vessel collisions, which could cause fatal injuries. 

The potential biological removal (PBR) level is defined by the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities that may be removed 

from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable 

population. However, in the Gulf of Mexico, many marine mammal species have either entirely unknown 

PBR’s or population size estimates that are more than 8 years old and therefore considered unknown. The 

biological significance of any injury or mortality would depend, in part, on the size and reproductive rates 

of the affected stocks, as well as the number, age, and size of the marine mammals affected. 

According to the Consolidated Fish and Wildlife Collection Reports from the DWH event, 170 

marine mammals have been collected (13 alive, 157 deceased as of April 20, 2011). Due to known low 

detection rates of carcasses, it is possible that the number of deaths of marine mammals is underestimated 

(Williams et al., 2011). The mortality estimates from the DWH event are just an example of the potential 

losses because of a high-volume oil spill. It is also important to note that evaluations have not yet 

confirmed the cause of death, and it is possible that not all carcasses were related to the DWH event. 

Thus, a high-volume oil spill lasting 120 days could directly impact as many individuals or more. The 

majority would likely be coastal or estuarine bottlenose dolphins, as was the case with the DWH event. 

This number represents only those marine mammals collected (either dead or alive) and does not address 

all potential impacts to the population. Based on these data, it is reasonable to assume that a catastrophic 

oil spill lasting up to 120 days could have population-level effects on many species of marine mammals 

(e.g., sperm whales, Bryde’s whales, etc.). 

3.2.2.4. Sea Turtles 

Sea turtles are more likely to be affected by a catastrophic spill in shallow water than in deep water 

because not all sea turtles occupy a deepwater habitat. For example, Kemp’s ridley sea turtles are 

unlikely to be in water depths of 160 ft (49 m) or greater. Hawksbill sea turtles are commonly associated 

with coral reefs, ledges, caves, rocky outcrops, and high energy shoals. Green sea turtles are commonly 

found in coastal benthic feeding grounds, although they may also be found in the convergence zones of 

the open ocean. Convergence zones are areas that also may collect oil. Leatherback sea turtles are 

commonly pelagic and are the sea turtle species most likely to be affected by a deepwater oil spill. As the 

spilled oil moves toward land, additional species of sea turtles are more likely to be affected. 

Based on the Consolidated Fish and Wildlife Collection Reports from the DWH event, a few to over 

two dozen sea turtles could be impacted daily through oiling and/or collection. According to the 

Consolidated Fish and Wildlife Collection Report, after the DWH event, 1,149 sea turtles have been 

collected (536 alive, 613 deceased as of April 20, 2011). These mortality estimates from the DWH event 

are just an example of the potential losses because of a high-volume oil spill. It is also important to note 

that evaluations have not yet confirmed the cause of death, and it is possible that not all carcasses were 

related to the DWH event. A high-volume oil spill lasting 120 days could impact greater than 1,000 sea 

turtles, and the majority could be Kemp’s ridley turtles, which are listed as endangered under the ESA 

(USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, 2010a; Unified Incident Command, 2010e). In addition, the large number of 
B-20 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

response vessels could place sea turtles at a greater risk of vessel collisions, which could cause fatal 

injuries. 

3.2.2.5. Offshore Habitats 

Sargassum mats, which are mats made from a free-floating seaweed, provide habitat for juvenile sea 

turtles and developing invertebrates, spawning sites for hundreds of fish species, and feeding sources for 

manatees. In offshore waters, both free-floating patches of Sargassum seaweed and spilled oil tend to 

accumulate in convergence zones, places in the ocean where strong opposing currents meet. Sea turtles, 

especially juveniles, use these areas for food and cover. Burn operations sometime occurred there 

because of the aggregated oil (Unified Incident Command, 2010d). Benthic resources are discussed 

below. 

Open-water organisms, such as phytoplankton and zooplankton, are essential to the marine food web. 

They play an important role in regulating climate, contribute to marine snow, and are an important source 

of nutrients for mesopelagic and benthic habitats. An offshore oil spill would not only have an impact on 

these populations but also on the species that depend on them. The microbial community can also be 

affected by an offshore oil spill. The microbial loop is an essential part of the marine ecosystem. 

Changes in the microbial community because of an oil spill could have significant impacts on the rest of 

the marine ecosystem. 

However, several laboratory and field experiments and observations have shown that impacts to 

planktonic and marine microbial populations are generally short lived and do not affect all groups evenly, 

and in some cases stimulate growth of important species (Gonzalez et al., 2009; Graham et al., 2010; 

Hing et al., 2011). A study by Widger et al. (2011) does not support an argument of lasting effects 

because of the DWH spill on coastal microbial communities and pathogens. The study had only one prespill and one during-spill-time point each, with no post-spill component to monitor trends. Further, the 

pathogens noted are commonly found in coastal waters after significant rain events and occur as a result 

of untreated freshwater reaching the coast (Stumpf et al., 2010; Wetz et al., 2008; Hsieh et al., 2007). The 

study does not address the potential that the increase in microbial pathogens are a result of storm-water 

runoff, and it does not address if there was a significant rain event upstream, which could have carried 

these terrestrial derived pathogens to the coastal zone. 

3.2.2.6. Continental Shelf Benthic Resources 

A spill from a shallow-water blowout could impact benthic communities on the continental shelf 

because of the blowout’s proximity to these habitats. A spill from a deepwater blowout could also impact 

shelf communities if oil that was chemically dispersed at the seafloor is transported to these areas. 

Soft-Bottom Benthic Communities 

Soft-bottom infaunal communities that come into direct contact with oil or dispersed oil may 

experience sublethal and/or lethal effects. Localized areas of lethal effects would be recolonized by 

populations from neighboring soft-bottom substrate once the oil in the sediment has been sufficiently 

reduced to a level able to support marine life (Sanders et al., 1980; Lu and Wu, 2006; Ganning et al., 

1984; Gómez Gesteira and Dauvin, 2000; Dean and Jewett, 2001). This initial recolonization process 

may be fairly rapid, but full recovery may take up to 10 years depending on the species present, substrate 

in the area, toxicity of oil spilled, concentration and dispersion of oil spilled, and other localized 

environmental factors that may affect recruitment (Kingston et al., 1995; Gesteira and Dauvin, 2000; 

Sanders et al., 1980; Conan, 1982). Opportunistic species would take advantage of the barren sediment, 

repopulating impacted areas first. These species may occur within the first recruitment cycle of the 

surrounding populations or from species immigration from surrounding stocks and may maintain a 

stronghold in the area until community succession begins (Rhodes and Germano, 1982; Sanders et al., 

1980). 

Long-term or low-level exposure may occur to benthic infauna as a result of oil adhering to sediment. 

Mesocosm experiments using long-term, low-level concentrations of No. 2 fuel oil indicate acute toxicity 

to meiofauna because of direct oil contact and sublethal effects from sedimented oil and byproducts of the 

decomposition of the sedimented oil (Frithsen et al., 1985). Long-term exposure to low levels of fuel oil 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-21 

was shown to affect recruitment success; meiofaunal population recovery took between 2 and 7 months 

(Frithsen et al., 1985). Oil entrained within sediments at the seafloor could create a layer toxic to infaunal 

species. This layer will persist through burial unless it is sufficiently degraded over time. Continued 

deposition of pelagic material could bury the layer, but it will remain intact over some timeframe as a 

potentially toxic or lethal horizon. 

Continued localized disturbance of soft-bottom communities may occur during oil-spill response 

efforts. Anchors used to set booms to contain oil or vessel anchors in decontamination zones may affect 

infaunal communities in the response activity zone. Infaunal communities may be altered in the anchor 

scar, and deposition of suspended sediment may result from the setting and resetting of anchors. The 

disturbed benthic community should begin to repopulate from the surrounding communities during their 

next recruitment event and through immigration of organisms from surrounding stocks. Any 

decontamination activities, such as cleaning vessel hulls of oil, may also contaminate the sediments of the 

decontamination zone, as some oil may settle to the seabed, impacting the underlying benthic community. 

If a blowout occurs at the seafloor, drilling muds (primarily barite) may be pumped into a well in 

order to “kill” it. If a kill is not successful, the mud (possibly tens of thousands of barrels) may be forced 

out of the well and deposited on the seafloor near the well site. Any organisms beneath heavy layers of 

the extruded drilling mud would be buried. Base fluids of drilling muds are designed to be low in toxicity 

and biodegradable in offshore marine sediments (Neff et al., 2000). However, as bacteria and fungi break 

down the drilling fluids, the sediments may be come anoxic (Neff et al., 2000). Benthic macrofaunal 

recovery would occur when drilling mud concentrations are reduced to levels that enable the sediment to 

become re-oxygenated (Neff et al., 2000). Complete community recovery from drilling mud exposure 

may take 3-5 years, although microbial degradation of drilling fluids, followed by an influx of tolerant 

opportunistic species, is anticipated to begin almost immediately (Neff et al., 2000). In addition, the 

extruded mud may bury hydrocarbons from the well, making them a hazard to the infaunal species and 

difficult to remove. 

If dispersants are used at the sea surface, oil may mix into the water column, and if they are applied 

subsea, they can travel with currents through the water and may settle on the seafloor. If near the source, 

the dispersed oil could be concentrated enough to harm the benthic community. If the oil remains 

suspended for a longer period of time, it would be more dispersed and present at lower concentrations. 

Reports on dispersant usage on surface plumes indicate that a majority of the dispersed oil remains in the 

top 10 m (33 ft) of the water column, with 60 percent of the oil in the top 2 m (6 ft) (McAuliffe et al., 

1981). Dispersant usage also reduces the oil’s ability to stick to particles in the water column, minimizing 

sedimented oil traveling to the seafloor (McAuliffe et al., 1981). There is very little information on the 

behavior of subsea dispersants. 

Dispersed oil reaching the benthic communities in the Gulf of Mexico would be expected to be at 

very low concentrations (<1 ppm) (McAuliffe et al., 1981). Such concentrations would not be life 

threatening to larval or adult stages at depth based on experiments conducted with benthic and pelagic test 

species (Scarlett et al., 2005; Hemmer et al., 2010; George-Ares and Clark, 2000). Any dispersed oil in 

the water column that comes in contact with benthic communities may evoke short-term negative 

responses by the organisms (Scarlett et al., 2005). Sublethal responses may include reduced feeding rate, 

erratic movement, and tentacle retraction (Scarlett et al., 2005). In addition, although dispersants were 

detected in waters off Louisiana after the DWH event, they were below USEPA benchmarks of chronic 

toxicity (OSAT, 2010). The rapid dilution of dispersants in the water column and lack of transport to the 

sea floor was also reported by OSAT (2010) where no dispersants were detected in sediment on the Gulf 

floor following the DWH event. 

Oil-degrading bacteria may ameliorate the effects of oil in the water column and benthic 

environments. Oil-degrading bacteria was detected in the subsea oil plume following the DWH event, 

and although this bacteria had reduced some oxygen in the water column when it degraded the oil, the 

decrease in oxygen was small compared with the surrounding water column (Hazen at al., 2010). Field 

measurements collected from the subsea plume indicated that these dissolved oxygen levels never 

approached hypoxic (<1.4 mL oxygen/L water) levels (Joint Analysis Group, 2010b). The dissolved 

oxygen in the water column did not appear to be decreasing over time, indicating that the oil was mixing 

with the surrounding oxygen-rich water (Joint Analysis Group, 2010b). The dissolved reduced oxygen 

levels produced by the bacteria never approached the low dissolved oxygen levels that occur during a 

yearly hypoxic event on the continental shelf of the northern Gulf of Mexico for prolonged periods during 
B-22 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

the spring through late summer (Rabalais et al., 2002). This hypoxic event results in lower dissolved 

oxygen levels than what were measured in the water column and bottom waters as a result of the DWH 

event (Joint Analysis Group, 2010a and 2010b; Haddad and Murawski, 2010). 

Once the petroleum source has been reduced, the bacteria may die and sink to the seafloor. If enough 

dead bacteria accumulate in an area, the degradation of these bacteria by other bacteria may result in a 

locally decreased oxygen levels that may impact the nearby benthic organisms. 

Hard-Bottom Benthic Communities 

Sensitive reef communities flourish wherever hard bottoms occur in the Gulf of Mexico. Several 

categories of hard bottom communities are protected by BOEM. The eastern Gulf of Mexico contains 

scattered, low-relief live bottoms including areas of flat limestone shelf rock. Potentially sensitive 

biological features are 8 ft (2 m) or more above the seafloor. The Pinnacle Trend area includes low- and 

high-relief features and is 60-120 m (200-400 ft) below the sea surface, and topographic features are high 

relief and generally 15 m (49 ft) or more below the sea surface. Their depth below the sea surface 

protects all of these habitats from a surface oil spill. 

Although hard-bottom benthic communities are initially buffered from surface oil slicks by their 

depth below the sea surface, surface oil may be brought to depth through physical processes. Rough seas 

may mix the oil into subsurface water layers, where it may impact sessile biota. The total time during 

which seas are rough would help affect the amount of oil from a surface slick that would be mixed into 

the water column. Measurable amounts of oil have been documented down to a 10-m (33-ft) depth, 

although modeling exercises have indicated such oil may reach a depth of 20 m (66 ft). At this depth, 

however, the oil is found at concentrations several orders of magnitude lower than the amount shown to 

have an effect on corals (Lange, 1985; McAuliffe et al., 1975 and 1981; Knap et al., 1985). 

The presence of a subsurface oil plume may affect hard-bottom communities. A majority of the oil 

released is expected to rise rapidly to the sea surface. However, upward movement of the oil may be 

reduced if methane in the oil is dissolved under high pressures, and oil droplets may become entrained 

deep in the water column (Adcroft et al., 2010). Subsurface plumes generated by high-pressure 

dissolution of oil may come in contact with hard-bottom features. A sustained spill would continuously 

create surface slicks and possibly subsurface spill plumes. Some of the oil in the water column will 

become diluted or evaporated over time, reducing any localized transport to the seafloor (Vandermeulen, 

1982). In addition, microbial degradation of the oil occurs in the water column so that the oil would be 

less toxic when it contacts the seafloor (Hazen et al., 2010). However, a sustained spill may result in 

elevated exposure concentrations to hard-bottom features if the plume reaches them. The longer the spill 

takes to stop, the longer the exposure time and concentration may be. 

Low-level exposures of corals to oil from a subsea plume may result in chronic or temporary impacts. 

For example, feeding activity or reproductive ability may be reduced when coral is exposed to low levels 

of oil; however, impacts may be temporary or unable to be measured over time. Experiments indicated 

that normal feeding activity of Porites porites and Madracis asperula were reduced when exposed to 

50 ppm oil (Lewis, 1971). Reefs of Siderastrea sidereal that were oiled in a spill produced smaller 

gonads than unoiled reefs, resulting in reproductive stress (Guzmán and Holst, 1993). 

Elevated concentrations of oil may be necessary to measure reduced photosynthesis or growth in 

corals. Photosynthesis of the zooxanthellae in Diplora strigosa exposed to approximately 18-20 ppm 

crude oil for 8 hours was not measurably affected, although other experiments indicate that 

photosynthesis may be impaired at higher concentrations (Cook and Knap, 1983). Measurable growth of 

Diploria strigosa exposed to oil concentrations up to 50 ppm for 6-24 hours did not show any reduced 

growth after 1 year (Dodge et al., 1984). 

Corals exposed to subsea oil plumes may incorporate petroleum hydrocarbons into their tissue. 

Records indicate that Siderastrea siderea, Diploria strigosa, and Montastrea annularis accumulate oil 

from the water column and incorporate petroleum hydrocarbons into their tissues (Burns and Knap, 1989; 

Knap et al., 1982; Kennedy et al., 1992). Most of the petroleum hydrocarbons are incorporated into the 

coral tissues, not their mucus (Knap et al., 1982). However, hydrocarbon uptake may also modify lipid 

ratios of coral (Burns and Knap, 1989). If lipid ratios are modified, mucus synthesis may be impacted, 

adversely affecting the coral’s ability to protect itself from oil through mucus production (Burns and 

Knap, 1989). 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-23 

If dispersants are used on the seafloor or at the surface, oil may mix into the water column, and if they 

are applied subsea, they can travel with currents through the water, and they may contact or settle on hard 

bottoms. If near the source, the dispersed oil could be concentrated enough to harm the community. If 

the oil remains suspended for a longer period of time, it would be more dispersed and present at lower 

concentrations. Reports on dispersant usage on surface plumes indicate that a majority of the dispersed 

oil remains in the top 10 m (33 ft) of the water column, with 60 percent of the oil in the top 2 m (6 ft) 

(McAuliffe et al., 1981). Dispersant usage also reduces the oil’s ability to stick to particles in the water 

column, minimizing sedimented oil traveling to the seafloor (McAuliffe et al., 1981). There is very little 

information on the behavior of subsea dispersants. 

Dispersed oil reaching the benthic hard-bottom communities in the Gulf of Mexico would be 

expected to be at very low concentrations (less than 1 ppm) (McAuliffe et al., 1981). Such concentrations 

would not be life threatening to larval or adult stages at depth based on experiments conducted with coral. 

Any dispersed oil in the water column that comes in contact with corals may evoke short-term negative 

responses by the organisms (Wyers et al., 1986; Cook and Knap, 1983; Dodge et al., 1984). 

Reductions in feeding and photosynthesis are some impacts that may occur to coral exposed to 

dispersed oil. Short-term, sublethal responses of Diploria strigosa were reported after exposure to 

dispersed oil at a concentration of 20 ppm for 24 hours. Although concentrations in this experiment were 

higher than what is anticipated for dispersed oil at depth, effects exhibited included mesenterial filament 

extrusion, extreme tissue contraction, tentacle retraction, and localized tissue rupture (Wyers et al., 1986). 

Normal behavior resumed within 2 hours to 4 days after exposure (Wyers et al., 1986). Diploria strigosa

exposed to dispersed oil (20:1, oil:dispersant) showed an 85 percent reduction in zooxanthellae 

photosynthesis after 8 hours of exposure to the mixture (Cook and Knap, 1983). However, the response 

was short term, as recovery occurred between 5 and 24 hours after exposure and return to clean seawater. 

Investigations 1 year after Diploria strigosa was exposed to concentrations of dispersed oil between 1 and 

50 ppm for periods between 6 and 24 hours did not reveal any impacts to growth (Dodge et al., 1984). 

Historical studies indicate dispersed oil to be more toxic to coral species than oil or dispersant alone. 

The greater toxicity may be a result of an increased number of oil droplets caused by the use of 

dispersant, resulting in greater contact area between oil, dispersant, and water (Elgershuizen and Kruijf, 

1976). The dispersant causes a higher water-soluble amount of oil to contact the cell membranes of the 

coral (Elgershuizen and Kruijf, 1976). The mucus produced by coral, however, can protect the organism 

from oil. Both hard and soft corals have the ability to produce mucus, and mucus production has been 

shown to increase when corals are exposed to crude oil (Mitchell and Chet, 1975; Ducklow and Mitchell, 

1979). Dispersed oil, however, which has very small oil droplets, does not appear to adhere to coral 

mucus, and larger untreated oil droplets may become trapped by the mucus barrier (Knap, 1987; Wyers et 

al., 1986). However, entrapment of the larger oil droplets may increase the coral’s long-term exposure to 

oil if the mucus is not shed in a timely manner (Knap, 1987; Bak and Elgershuizen, 1976). Additionally, 

more recent field studies, using more realistic concentrations of dispersants did not result in the toxicity 

historically reported. 

Although historical studies indicated dispersed oil may be more toxic than untreated oil to corals 

during exposure experiments, untreated oil may remain in the ecosystem for long periods of time, while 

dispersed oil does not (Baca et al., 2005; Ward et al., 2003). Twenty years after an experimental oil spill 

in Panama, oil and impacts from untreated oil were still observed at oil treatment sites, but no oil or 

impacts were observed at dispersed oil or reference sites (Baca et al., 2005). Long-term recovery of the 

coral at the dispersed oil site had already occurred as reported in a 10-year monitoring update, and the site 

was not significantly different from the reference site (Ward et al., 2003). 

The BOEM’s policy prevents wells from being placed immediately adjacent to sensitive 

communities. In the event of a seafloor blowout, however, some oil could be carried to hard bottoms as a 

result of oil droplets, adhering to suspended particles in the water column. Oiled sediment that settles to 

the seafloor may affect organisms attached to hard-bottom substrates. Impacts may include reduced 

recruitment success, reduced growth, and reduced coral cover as a result of impaired recruitment. 

Experiments have shown that the presence of oil on available substrate for larval coral settlement has 

inhibited larval metamorphosis and larval settlement in the area. An increase in the number of deformed 

polyps after metamorphosis also took place because of exposure to oil (Kushmaro et al., 1997). 

The majority of organisms exposed to sedimented oil, however, are anticipated to experience lowlevel concentrations because as the oiled sediments settle to the seafloor they are widely dispersed. Coral 
B-24 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

may also be able to protect itself from low concentrations of sedimented oil that settles from the water 

column. Coral mucus may not only act as a barrier to protect coral from the oil in the water column but it 

has also been shown to aid in the removal of oiled sediment on coral surfaces (Bak and Elgershuizen, 

1976). Coral may use a combination of increased mucus production and the action of cilia to rid 

themselves of oiled sediment (Bak and Elgershuizen, 1976). 

Oil-spill-response activity may also impact sessile benthic features. Booms anchored to the seafloor 

are sometimes used to control the movement of oil at the water surface. Boom anchors can physically 

impact corals and other sessile benthic organisms, especially when booms are moved around by waves 

(Tokotch, 2010). Vessel anchorage and decontamination stations set up during response efforts may also 

break or kill hard-bottom features as a result of setting anchors. Injury to coral reefs as a result of anchor 

impact may result in long-lasting damage or failed recovery (Rogers and Garrison, 2001). Effort should 

be made to keep vessel anchorage areas as far from sensitive benthic features as possible to minimize 

impact. 

Drilling muds comprised primarily of barite may be pumped into a well to stop a blowout. If a “kill” 

is not successful, the mud (possibly tens of thousands of barrels) may be forced out of the well and 

deposited on the seafloor near the well site. Any organisms beneath the extruded drilling mud would be 

buried. Based on stipulations as described in NTL 2009-G39, a well should be far enough away from a 

hard-bottom community to prevent extruded drilling muds from smothering benthic communities. 

However, if drilling muds were to travel far enough or high enough in the water column to contact a hardbottom community, the fluid would smother the existing community. Experiments indicate that corals 

perish faster when buried beneath drilling mud than when buried beneath carbonate sediments 

(Thompson, 1980). As discussed earlier, as the drilling fluids biodegrade, an anoxic zone surrounding the 

activity may occur. Recolonization would occur from the surrounding community once the area has 

enough oxygen to support new growth, which may take 3-5 years (Neff et al., 2000). 

3.2.2.7. Deepwater Benthic Communities 

It is not likely that deepwater benthic communities would be impacted by a spill from a shallow-water 

blowout. However, a spill resulting from a catastrophic blowout in deep water has the potential to impact 

offshore benthic communities because of the blowout’s proximity to these habitats and the use of subsea 

dispersants. 

Much of the oil is expected to be treated with dispersants at the sea surface and possibly subsea at the 

source in the event of a deepwater blowout. The dispersed oil is mixed with the water, and its movement 

is then dictated by local currents and the physical, chemical, and biological degradation pathways. The 

oil would become more dispersed, less concentrated, and more biodegraded the longer it remains 

suspended in the water column. Depending on how long it remained suspended in the water column, it 

may be thoroughly degraded by biological action before contact with the seafloor and its sensitive 

resources occurs (Hazen et al., 2010; Valentine et al., 2010). Biodegradation rates in colder, deepwater 

environments are not well understood at this time. Oil may reach the seafloor in the following ways: as 

microbes begin to consume the oil particles; when the dispersed oil particles may flocculate (flocculation 

is suspended particles collecting into larger suspended flakes), thus increasing the density of the particles 

such that they are no longer in isostatic balance with the surrounding water and, thus, sink to the seafloor; 

when larger plankton consume the bacteria-rich oil particles and their fecal pellets are excreted and 

distributed over the seafloor; when water currents carry a plume to contact the seafloor directly; or most 

likely, where the dispersed oil to adhere to other particles and sink to the seafloor. This last scenario 

would result in a wide distribution of small amounts of oil. This oil could be in the process of 

biodegradation from bacterial action that would continue on the seafloor, resulting in scattered 

microhabitats with an enriched carbon environment. Biodegradation processes, both on the bottom and in 

the water column, would be expected to cause at least some reduction of normal ambient dissolved 

oxygen levels; however, this has yet to be observed at a level that would be detrimental to animal 

respiration (Hazen et al., 2010). 

Deepwater Soft-Bottom Benthic Communities 

Soft bottoms are the overwhelming majority of the deep-sea environment. Large amounts of oil 

would only affect these deep environments if dispersants are used. As described above, the toxic effects 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-25 

of dispersed oil would continue to decrease as the concentration of oil is reduced via dispersion, localized 

mixing, and biodegradation. As with shelf habitats, the only soft bottom that is expected to suffer 

significant effects would be soft bottoms in the immediate vicinity of a seafloor blowout in which some 

oil is mixed into the sediment. In situations where soft-bottom infaunal communities are negatively 

impacted, recolonization by populations from neighboring soft-bottom substrate would be expected over a 

relatively short period of time for all size ranges of organisms—a matter of days for bacteria and probably 

less than 1 year for most macrofauna and megafauna species. This could take longer for areas affected by 

direct oil contact in higher concentrations. 

Deepwater Coral Benthic Communities 

There have been no experiments showing the response of deepwater corals to oil exposure. 

Experiments with shallow tropical corals indicate that corals have a high tolerance to oil exposure. The 

mucus layers on coral resist penetration of oil and slough off the contaminant. Longer exposure times and 

areas of tissue where oil adheres to the coral are more likely to result in tissue damage and death of 

polyps. Corals with branching growth forms appear to be more susceptible to damage from oil exposure 

(Shigenaka, 2001). The most common deepwater coral, Lophelia pertusa, is a branching species. Tests 

with shallow tropical gorgonians indicate relatively low toxic effects to the coral (Cohen et al., 1977), 

suggesting deepwater gorgonians may have a similar response. Response of deepwater coral to oil 

exposure from a catastrophic spill would vary, depending on the level of exposure. Exposure to widely 

dispersed oil adhering to organic detritus and partially degraded by bacteria may be expected to result in 

little effect. Direct contact with plumes of relatively fresh dispersed oil droplets in the vicinity of the 

incident could cause death of affected coral polyps through exposure and potential feeding on oil droplets 

by polyps. Median levels of exposure to dispersed oil in a partly degraded condition may result in effects 

similar to those of shallow tropical corals, with often no discernable effects other than temporary 

contraction and some sloughing. The health of corals may be degraded by the necessary expenditure of 

energy as the corals respond to oiling (Shigenaka, 2001). Communities exposed to more concentrated oil 

may experience detrimental effects, including death of affected organisms, tissue damage, lack of growth, 

interruption of reproductive cycles, and loss of gametes. Many invertebrates associated with deepwater 

coral communities, particularly the crustaceans, would likely be more susceptible to damage from oil 

exposure. The recolonization of severely damaged or destroyed communities could take years or decades. 

However, because of the scarcity of deepwater hard bottoms and the comparatively low surface area, it is 

unlikely that a sensitive habitat would be located near a seafloor blowout, or if near, that concentrated oil 

would contact the site. 

Deepwater Chemosynthetic Benthic Communities 

Chemosynthetic communities in the GOM are adapted to cold seep habitats where oil, methane, and 

hydrogen sulfide seep up through the seafloor. If contacted by low quantities of well-dispersed oil 

undergoing biodegradation, chemosynthetic communities may experience little negative effect. Exposure 

may be similar to normal conditions for these communities and may be within the normal variation of 

habitat conditions. However, oil contact could cause some fluctuation in organism health, resulting in 

slower growth or delayed spawning. Since these organisms grow slowly, sublethal effects could 

eliminate a year or more of normal growth. Communities exposed to more concentrated oil may 

experience detrimental effects, including death of affected organisms, tissue damage, lack of growth, 

interruption of reproductive cycles, and loss of gametes. Other invertebrates associated with 

chemosynthetic communities, particularly the crustaceans, would likely be more susceptible to damage 

from oil exposure. Recolonization of severely damaged or destroyed communities could take years or 

decades. 
B-26 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

3.2.3. Socioeconomic Resources 

3.2.3.1. Offshore Archaeological Resources 

Due the response methods (i.e., subsea dispersants) and magnitude of the response (i.e., thousands of 

vessels), a catastrophic blowout and spill have a greater potential to impact offshore archaeological 

resources than other accidental events. 

Deep Water 

In contrast to smaller spills or spills in shallow water, the use of large quantities of subsea dispersants 

could be used for a catastrophic subsea blowout in deep water. This could result in currently unknown 

effects from dispersed oil droplets settling to the seafloor. Though information on the actual impacts to 

submerged cultural resources is inconclusive at this time, oil settling to the seafloor could come in contact 

with archaeological resources. At present, there is no evidence of this having occurred. A recent 

experimental study has suggested that, while the degradation of wood in terrestrial environments is 

initially retarded by contamination with crude oil, at later stages, the biodeterioration of wood was 

accelerated (Ejechi, 2003). While there are different environmental constraints that affect the degradation 

of wood in terrestrial and waterlogged environments, soft-rot fungal activity, one of the primary wood 

degrading organisms in submerged environments, was shown to be increased in the presence of crude oil. 

There is a possibility that oil from a catastrophic blowout could come in contact with wooden shipwrecks 

and artifacts on the seafloor and accelerate their deterioration. 

Ancillary damages from vessels associated with oil-spill response activities (e.g., anchoring) in deep 

water are unlikely because of the use of dynamically positioned vessels responding to a deepwater 

blowout. If response and support vessels were to anchor near a deepwater blowout site, the potential to 

damage undiscovered vessels in the area would be high because of the required number and the size of 

anchors and the length of mooring chains needed to safely secure vessels. Additionally, multiple offshore 

vessel decontamination stations would likely be established in shallow water outside of ports or entrances 

to inland waterways, as seen for the DWH event. The anchoring of vessels could result in damage to both 

known and undiscovered archaeological sites; the potential to impact archaeological resources increases 

as the density of anchoring activities in these areas increases. 

Shallow Water 

The potential for damaging archaeological resources increases as the oil spill and related response 

activities progress landward. In shallower waters, most of the damage would be associated with oil 

cleanup and response activities. Thousands of vessels would respond to a shallow-water blowout and 

would likely anchor, potentially damaging both known and undiscovered archaeological sites. Additional 

anchoring would be associated with offshore vessel decontamination stations, as described above. As the 

spill moves into the intertidal zone, the chance of direct contact between the oil and archaeological 

resources increases. As discussed above, this could result in increased degradation of wooden shipwrecks 

and artifacts. 

Additionally, in shallower waters, shipwrecks often act as a substrate to corals and other organisms, 

becoming an essential component of the marine ecosystem. These organisms often form a protective 

layer over the shipwreck, virtually encasing the artifacts and hull remains. If these fragile ecosystems 

were destroyed as a result of the oil spill and the protective layer removed, the shipwreck would then be 

exposed to increased degradation until it reaches a new level of stasis with its surroundings. 

Regardless of water depth, because oil is a hydrocarbon, heavy oiling could contaminate organic 

materials associated with archaeological sites, resulting in erroneous dates from standard radiometric 

dating techniques (e.g., 14C-dating). Interference with the accuracy of 14C-dating would result in the loss 

of valuable data necessary to understand and interpret the sites. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-27 

3.2.3.2. Commercial Fishing 

In 2008, the Gulf of Mexico provided over 33 percent of the commercial fishery landings in the 

continental U.S. (excluding Alaska), with nearly 1.3 billion pounds valued at nearly $660 million 

(USDOC, NMFS, 2010). 

Even though sensory and chemical testing may show no detectable oil or dispersant odors or flavors 

and the results could be well below the levels of concern, NOAA Fisheries would be expected to close 

large portions of the Gulf of Mexico during a high-volume spill as a precautionary measure to ensure 

public safety and to assure consumer confidence in Gulf seafood (USDOC, NOAA, NOAA Fisheries 

Service, 2010a). Up to 30-40 percent of the Gulf of Mexico Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) could be 

closed to commercial fishing as the spill continues and expands (USDOC, NOAA, NOAA Fisheries 

Service, 2010b). This area could represent 50-75 percent of the Gulf seafood production (Flynn, 2010). 

The size of the closure area may peak about 50 days into the spill and persist another 2-3 months until the 

well is killed or capped and the remaining oil is recovered or dissipates. During this period, portions or 

all of individual State waters would also be closed to commercial fishing. 

The economic impacts of closures on commercial fishing are difficult to predict because they are 

dependent on the season and would vary by fishery. If fishers cannot make up losses throughout the 

remainder of the season, a substantial part of their annual income would be lost. In some cases, 

commercial fishers will move to areas still open to fishing, but at a greater cost because of longer transit 

times. Marketing issues are also possible; even if the catch is uncontaminated, the public may lack 

confidence in the product. 

3.2.3.3. Recreational Fishing 

Up to 30-40 percent of the Gulf of Mexico EEZ could be closed to recreational fishing as the spill 

continues and expands (USDOC, NOAA, NOAA Fisheries, 2010b). The size of the closure area could 

peak about 50 days into the spill and continue for another 2-3 months until the well is killed or capped 

and the remaining oil is recovered or dissipates. During this period, portions or all of individual State 

waters would also be closed to recreational fishing. 

In 2008, over 24 million recreational fishing trips were taken; these trips generated about $12 billion 

in sales, over $6 billion in value-added impacts, and over 100,000 jobs (USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, 2010b). 

About 33 percent of the total Gulf catch came on trips that fished primarily in Federal and State waters 

(Pritchard, 2009). Recreational fishing is focused in the summer months. During this time, scheduled 

tournaments would be hard to reschedule. If the spill affected that time of year, normal direct income and 

indirect income to the communities that host these tournaments would be lost for that year. If a 

catastrophic spill occurs in the summer, a substantial number of recreational fishing trips would not occur 

and the economic benefits they generate would be lost for that year. 

3.2.3.4. Tourism and Recreational Resources 

While the spill is still offshore, there could be some ocean-dependent recreation that is affected (e.g., 

fishing, diving), as discussed above. In addition, there may be some effects due either to perceived 

damage to onshore recreational resources that has not yet materialized or to general hesitation on the part 

of travelers to visit the overall region because of the spill. For example, studies during the DWH oil spill 

show that perceptions can influence recreational activity, even if an oil spill has not yet damaged physical 

resources in an area (The Knowland Group, 2010; Market Dynamics Research Group, 2010). However, 

the majority of the impacts of a catastrophic spill would occur once the spill has contacted shore, as 

discussed in Section 4.2.3.4. 

3.2.3.5. Employment and Demographics 

In contrast to a less severe accidental event, suspension of some oil and gas activities would be likely 

following a catastrophic event. Depending on the duration and magnitude, this could impact hundreds of 

oil-service companies that supply the steel tubing, engineering services, drilling crews, and marine supply 

boats critical to offshore exploration. An interagency economic report estimated that the 6-month 

suspension, as a result of the DWH event, may have directly and indirectly resulted in up to 8,000-12,000 
B-28 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

fewer jobs along the Gulf Coast (USDOC, Economics and Statistics Administration, 2010). Most of 

these jobs were not permanently lost as a result of the suspension and returned following the resumption 

of deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. These estimates are lower than earlier estimates of 

15,000-60,000 rig and associated service jobs being at risk (Hargreaves, 2010; Louisiana Mid-Continent 

Oil and Gas Association, 2010; Zeller, 2010; Jindal, 2010). 

Whatever the number, much of the employment loss would be concentrated in coastal oil-service 

parishes in Louisiana (St. Mary, Terrebonne, Lafourche, Iberia, and Plaquemines) and counties/parishes 

where drilling-related employment is most concentrated (Harris County, Texas, in which Houston is 

located, and Lafayette Parish, Louisiana) (Nolan and Good, 2010; U.S. Dept. of Labor, BLS, 2010). 

There would be additional economic impacts to commercial and recreational fishing, as discussed in 

Sections 3.2.3.2 and 3.2.3.3. This impact is also expected to be more heavily concentrated in smaller 

businesses than in the larger companies (USDOC, Economics and Statistics Administration, 2010). 

Demographic impacts are unlikely from temporary job losses. 

3.2.3.6. Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure 

Impacts to tourism and recreational resources are addressed in Section 3.2.3.4. Possible fisheries 

closures are addressed in Sections 3.2.3.2 and 3.2.3.3. While still offshore, a catastrophic oil spill would 

not impact other land use or coastal infrastructure. 

3.2.3.7. Environmental Justice 

The environmental justice policy, based on Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994, directs 

agencies to incorporate into NEPA documents an analysis of potentially disproportionate and detrimental 

environmental and health effects of their proposed actions on minorities and low-income populations and 

communities. While the spill is still offshore, the primary environmental justice concern would be large 

commercial fishing closures disproportionately impacting minority fishers. In the event of a catastrophic 

spill, Federal and State agencies would be expected to close substantial portions of the Gulf to 

commercial and recreational fishing (USDOC, NOAA, 2010g). While oystering occurs “onshore,” oyster 

beds are also likely to be closed to harvests during Phase 2 of a catastrophic spill because of concerns 

about oil contamination and increased freshwater diversions to mitigate oil intrusion into the marshes (see 

Sections 3.2.3.2 and 3.2.3.3). These closures would directly impact commercial fishermen and 

oystermen, and indirectly impact such downstream activities as shrimp processing facilities and oyster 

shucking houses. The mostly African-American communities of Phoenix, Davant, and Point a la Hache 

in Plaquemines Parish are home to families with some of the few black-owned oyster leases, which 

because of freshwater diversion projects for coastal restoration have already been threatened (Mock, 

2010). 

The Gulf Coast hosts multiple minority and low-income groups whose use of natural resources of the 

offshore and coastal environments make them vulnerable to fishing closures. While not intended as an 

inventory of the area’s diversity, we have identified several Gulf Coast populations of particular concern. 

An estimated 20,000 Vietnamese fishermen and shrimpers live along the Gulf Coast; by 1990, over 1 in 

20 Louisiana fishers and shrimpers had roots in Southeast Asia even though they comprised less than half 

a percent of the State’s workforce (Bankston and Zhou, 1996). Vietnamese account for about one-third of 

all the fishermen in the central Gulf of Mexico (Ravitz, 2010). Islaños, African Americans, and Native 

American groups are also engaged in commercial fishing and oystering. Historically, Vietnamese and 

African Americans have worked in the fish processing and oyster shucking industries. Shucking houses 

particularly, have provided an avenue into the mainstream economy for minority groups. 

Therefore, fishing closures during Phase 2 of a catastrophic spill impacting the central Gulf of 

Mexico would disproportionately affect such minority groups as the Vietnamese, Native Americans, 

African Americans, and Islaños (Hemmerling and Colten, 2003). 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-29 

4. ONSHORE CONTACT (PHASE 3) 

4.1. IMPACT-PRODUCING FACTORS AND SCENARIO

4.1.1. Duration 

The duration of the shoreline oiling is measured from initial shoreline contact until the well is capped 

or killed and the remaining oil dissipates offshore. The time needed to cap or kill a well may vary, 

depending on the well’s water depth. Depending on the spill’s location in relation to winds and currents 

and the well’s distance to shore, oil could reach the coast within 1 week to 1 month, based on evidence 

from previous spills in the Gulf of Mexico OCS. While it is assumed that the majority of spilled oil 

would dissipate offshore within 30 days of stopping the flow, some oil may remain in coastal areas until 

cleaned, as seen in Louisiana following the DWH event (The State of Louisiana, 2010b-d). 

4.1.1.1. Shallow Water 

Due to the distance from shore, oil spilled as a result of a blowout in shallow water could reach shore 

within 1-3 weeks and could continue until the well is killed or capped (1-3 months) and the oil dissipates 

offshore (1 month). Therefore, it is estimated that shoreline oiling would likely occur for 1-4 months 

following a catastrophic blowout. 

4.1.1.2. Deep Water 

As discussed in Section 3.1.1, intervention is more difficult and would take longer in deeper water. In 

general, most of the deep water in the Gulf of Mexico is located far from shore and, therefore, it is 

assumed that oil would reach shore within 2-4 weeks. While most deep water is located far from shore, 

some areas of deep water are located relatively nearshore so that oil could reach shore earlier. 

The length of shoreline oiled would continue to increase until the well is killed or capped 

(3-4 months) and the oil dissipates offshore (1 month). Therefore, shoreline oiling could occur for 3 to 

more than 4 months following a catastrophic blowout. 

4.1.2. Volume of Oil 

In the event of a catastrophic spill, not all of the oil spilled would contact shore. The amount of oil 

recovered and chemically or naturally dispersed would vary. For example, the following are recovery and 

cleanup rates from previous high-volume, extended spills: 

 10-40 percent of oil recovered or cleaned up (including burned, chemically dispersed, 

and skimmed); 

 25-40 percent of oil naturally dispersed, evaporated, or dissolved; and 

 20-65 percent of the oil remains available for biodegradation offshore or inshore 

contact. 

In the case of the DWH event, the “Expected” scenario, developed by the Oil Budget Calculator 

Science and Engineering Team of The Federal Interagency Solutions Group, suggests that more than one 

quarter (29%) was naturally or chemically dispersed into Gulf waters, while burning, skimming, and 

direct recovery from the wellhead removed one quarter (25%) of the oil released. Less than one quarter 

(23%) of the total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved. The residual amount, just under one quarter 

(23%), remained in the Gulf of Mexico as a light sheen, as tarballs that have washed ashore or are buried 

in sand and other sediments (The Federal Interagency Solutions Group, 2010). 

For planning purposes, USCG estimates that 5-30 percent of oil will reach shore in the event of an 

offshore spill (33 CFR 154, Appendix C, Table 2). Using the USCG assumptions, a catastrophic spill 

could still result in a large amount of oil reaching shore. 
B-30 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

4.1.3. Length of Shoreline Contacted 

While larger spill volumes increase the chance of oil reaching the coast, other factors that influence 

the length and location of shoreline contacted include the duration of the spill and the well’s location in 

relation to winds, currents, and the shoreline. As seen with the DWH spill, as the spill continued, the 

length of oiled shoreline at any one time increased by orders of magnitude as follows: 

Duration of Spill Length of Shoreline Oiled1

30 days 0-50 miles 

60 days 50-100 miles 

90 days 100-1,000 miles 

120 days >1,000 miles2

1

 Not cumulative. 

2

 Length was extrapolated. 

Source: Operational Science Advisory Team, 2011. 

Dependent upon winds and currents throughout the spill event, already impacted areas could be reoiled. 

4.1.3.1. Shallow Water 

While a catastrophic spill from a shallow-water blowout is expected to be lower in volume than a 

deepwater blowout, as explained in Section 3.1, the site would be closer to shore, allowing less time for 

oil to be weathered, dispersed, and recovered. This could result in a more concentrated and toxic oiling of 

the shoreline. 

4.1.3.2. Deep Water 

While a catastrophic spill from a deepwater blowout is expected to have a much greater volume than 

a shallow-water blowout (see Section 3.1), the site would be farther from shore, allowing more time for 

oil to be weathered, dispersed, and recovered. This could result in a broader, patchier oiling of the 

shoreline. 

Translocation of the spilled oil via winds and currents is also a factor in the length of shoreline 

contacted. For example, oil could enter the Loop Current and then the Gulf Stream. However, the longer 

it takes oil to travel, the more it would degrade, disperse, lose toxicity, and break into streamers and 

tarballs (USDOC, NOAA, Office of Response and Restoration, 2010d). 

4.1.4. Severe Weather 

The Atlantic hurricane season runs from June 1st through November 30th, peaking in September. In 

an average Atlantic season, there are 11 named storms, 6 hurricanes, and 2 Category 3 or higher storms 

(USDOC, NOAA, National Weather Service, 2010a). In the event of a hurricane, vessels would evacuate 

the area, delaying response efforts, including the drilling of relief wells. The storm surge may push oil to 

the coastline and inland as far as the surge reaches, or the storm surge may remove the majority of oil 

from shore, as seen in some of the previous spills reviewed. 

Movement of oil during a hurricane would depend greatly on the track of the hurricane in relation to 

the slick. A hurricane’s winds rotate counter-clockwise. In general, a hurricane passing to the west of the 

slick could drive oil to the coast, while a hurricane passing to the east of the slick could drive the oil away 

from the coast. 

4.1.5. Onshore Cleanup Activities 

As described in Section 3.1, a large-scale response effort would be expected for a catastrophic 

blowout. The number of vessels and responders would increase exponentially as the spill continued. In 

addition to the response described in Section 3.1.6, the following response is also estimated to occur once 

the spill contacts the shore. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-31 

An exponential increase in the length of shoreline impacted would likely overwhelm response efforts. 

4.1.5.1. Shallow Water 

 There would be 5-10 staging areas established. 

 Weathering permitting, about 200-300 skimmers could be deployed near shore to 

protect coastlines. 

4.1.5.2. Deep Water 

 There would be 10-20 staging areas established. 

 Weather permitting, about 500-600 skimmers could be deployed near shore to protect 

coastlines. As seen in Louisiana following the DWH event, a few hundred coastal 

skimmers could still be in operation a few months after the well is capped or killed 

(The State of Louisiana, 2010e). 

4.2. MOST LIKELY AND MOST SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

The most recent EIS’s prepared by this Agency for oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico 

identify in detail the potential impacts from reasonably foreseeable oil spills (USDOI MMS, 2007 and 

2008). The most likely and significant onshore impacts caused by a catastrophic spill are described 

below. 

4.2.1. Physical Resources 

4.2.1.1. Air Quality 

As the spill nears shore, there would be low-level concentrations of odor-causing pollutants 

associated with evaporative emissions from the oil spill. These may cause temporary eye, nose, or throat 

irritation, nausea, or headaches, but the doses are not thought to be high enough to cause long-term harm 

(USEPA, 2010b). However, responders could be exposed to levels higher than OSHA permissible 

exposure levels (U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, 2010b). During the DWH oil spill, USEPA took air 

samples at various onshore locations along the length of the Gulf coastline. All except three 

measurements of benzene were below 3 parts per billion (ppb). The highest level was 91 ppb. Emissions 

of benzene to the atmosphere result from gasoline vapors, auto exhaust, and chemical production and user 

facilities. Ambient concentrations of benzene up to and greater than 5 ppb have been measured in 

industrial areas such as Houston Texas, in various urban areas during rush hour, and inside the homes of 

smokers (USDHHS, 2007). The following daily median benzene air concentrations were reported in the 

Volatile Organic Compound National Ambient Database (1975-1985): remote (0.16 ppb); rural 

(0.47 ppb); suburban (1.8 ppb); urban (1.8 ppb); indoor air (1.8 ppb); and workplace air (2.1 ppb). The 

outdoor air data represent 300 cities in 42 states, while the indoor air data represent 30 cities in 16 states 

(Shah and Singh, 1988).

During the DWH event, air samples collected by BP, OSHA, and USCG near shore showed levels of 

benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene that were mostly under detection levels. Among the 

15,000 samples taken by BP, there was only one sample where benzene exceeded the OSHA 

Occupational permissible exposure limits. All other sample concentrations were below the more stringent 

ACGIH threshold limit values (U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, 2010a). All measured concentrations 

of toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene were well within the OSHA permissible exposure levels and ACGIH 

threshold limit values. 
B-32 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

4.2.1.2. Coastal Water Quality 

Water quality governs the suitability of waters for plant, animal, and human use. Water quality is 

important in the bays, estuaries, and nearshore coastal waters of the Gulf because these waters provide 

feeding, breeding, and/or nursery habitat for many commercially significant invertebrates and fishes, as 

well as sea turtles, birds, and marine mammals. A catastrophic spill would significantly impact coastal 

water quality in the Gulf of Mexico. In the Gulf of Mexico, water quality prior to the DWH event was 

rated as fair while sediment quality was rated as poor (USEPA, 2008). In addition, the coastal habit 

index, a rating of wetlands habitat loss, was also rated as poor. Both the sediment quality and the coastal 

habitat index affect water quality. 

Though response efforts would decrease the amount of oil remaining in Gulf waters and reduce the 

amount of oil contacting the coastline, significant amounts of oil would remain. Coastal water quality 

would be impacted not only by the oil, gas, and their respective components but also to some degree from 

cleanup and mitigation efforts. Increased vessel traffic, hydromodification, and the addition of 

dispersants and methanol in an effort to contain, mitigate, or clean up the oil may also tax the 

environment. 

The use of dispersants as a response tool involves a tradeoff. The purpose of chemical dispersants is 

to facilitate the movement of oil into the water column in order to encourage weathering and biological 

breakdown of the oil (i.e., biodegradation) (NRC, 2005; Australian Maritime Safety Authority, 2010). 

Thus, the tradeoff is generally considered to be between the shoreline and surface of the water versus the 

water column and benthic resources (NRC, 2005). If the oil moves into the water column and is not on 

the surface of the water, it is less likely to reach sensitive shore areas (USEPA, 2010c). Since sea birds 

are often on the surface of the water or in shore areas, dispersants are also considered to be very effective 

in reducing the exposure of sea birds to oil (Australian Maritime Safety Authority, 2010). In addition to 

dispersion being enhanced by artificial processes, oil may also be dispersed from natural processes. For 

instance, microbial metabolism of crude oil results in the dispersion of oil (Bartha and Atlas, 1983). 

Dispersion has both positive and negative effects. The positive effect is that the oil, once dispersed, is 

more available to be degraded. The negative effect is that the oil, once dispersed, is more available to 

microorganisms, which temporarily increases the toxicity (Bartha and Atlas, 1983). Toxicity of dispersed 

oil in the environment will depend on many factors, including the effectiveness of the dispersion, 

temperature, salinity, the degree of weathering, type of dispersant, and degree of light penetration in the 

water column (NRC, 2005). The toxicity of dispersed oil is primarily because of the toxic components of 

the oil itself (Australian Maritime Safety Authority, 2010). 

Oxygen and nutrient concentrations in coastal waters vary seasonally. The zone of hypoxia (depleted 

oxygen) on the Louisiana-Texas shelf occurs seasonally and is affected by the timing of freshwater 

discharges from the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers, which carry nutrients to the surface waters. The 

hypoxic conditions continue until local wind-driven circulation mixes the water again. The 2010 hypoxic 

zone could not be linked to the DWH event in either a positive or a negative manner (LUMCON, 2010). 

Nutrients from the Mississippi River nourished phytoplankton and attributed to the formation of the 

hypoxic zone. 

4.2.2. Biological Resources 

Recent EIS’s prepared by this Agency for oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico detail the 

potential localized impacts to individuals from reasonably foreseeable oil spills. However, a catastrophic 

event, such as a high-volume, extended-duration spill resulting from a blowout, has the potential to cause 

population level impacts, as described below. 

Dozens of Federal and State-listed threatened and endangered species, including marine mammals, 

sea turtles, fish, and birds, could continue to be impacted during Phase 3 of a catastrophic oil spill as oil 

and response activities persist. Additional species could be impacted in extreme conditions (i.e., oil is 

pushed onto beaches or into rivers or marshes because of a hurricane) (USDOI, FWS, 2010a and 2010b). 

4.2.2.1. Coastal and Marine Birds 

Gulf coastal habitats are essential to the annual cycles of many species of breeding, wintering, and 

migrating waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, and songbirds. For example, the northern Gulf Coast 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-33 

supports a disproportionately high number of beach-nesting bird species (USDOI, FWS, 2010c). Once oil 

contacts shore, a few dozen to over a hundred birds could be impacted daily by oiling and/or collection. 

By extrapolating the number of birds impacted as a result of the DWH event, a spill lasting 120 days 

could result in direct mortality of over 7,000 birds (USDOI, FWS, 2010d). This number does not reflect 

total realized mortality but rather only the actual number of birds recovered as of October 2010. This 

number represents a small fraction of total bird mortality because of carcasses sinking, being scavenged, 

drifting outside the search zone, or simply going undetected because of wind, current, weather, and 

habitat factors (Ford et al., 1987; Piatt et al., 1990; Fowler and Flint, 1997; Flint et al., 1999; Wiese and 

Robertson, 2004; Byrd et al., 2009). In an early review of oil-related mortality for seabirds, Dunnett et al. 

(1982) provided an estimate of 10 percent, and 60 percent of the dead birds may be recovered under 

typical field conditions. Piatt and Ford (1996, Table 1) summarized recovery rates from 17 carcass-drift 

experiments, indicating a range of 0-59 percent of carcasses being recovered. Using data from the Exxon 

Valdez oil spill, Piatt and Ford (1996) estimated recovery rates from joint probability and Monte Carlos 

simulations of only 8.0 percent and 6.9 percent, respectively. 

The timing and location of the spill are the two primary factors for determining the severity of 

impacts on birds. The worst impacts to oiled birds or to those birds that have ingested oil with their prey 

would be if the oil spill occurs during the nesting season. An oil spill during nesting season could result 

in the loss of entire colonies of breeding birds on barrier islands surrounded by oil, along with the 

potential loss of all eggs and nestlings. Losses of shorebirds could occur through direct oiling of beaches 

on which nests are located, by oil covering the feeding sites near the nesting locations, or by the deaths of 

oiled parents, leaving eggs or hatchlings unprotected and unfed. 

Endangered and Threatened Birds 

Four species listed as endangered or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that could be 

affected by a catastrophic oil spill are the piping plover (Charadrius melodus), Mississippi sandhill crane 

(Grus Canadensis pulla), whooping crane (Grus americana), and wood stork (Mycteria americana). The 

Midwest Population of piping plovers, which nests along the Great Lakes, is listed as endangered while 

the Atlantic Coast and Northern Great Plains Populations are listed as threatened. The critical habitat for 

the plover is found within the wintering area, which includes areas along the Gulf Coast from Texas to 

Florida (LeDee et al., 2008, Figure 1; Haig et al., 2005, Figure 1), where they feed on aquatic insects, 

invertebrates, and small crustaceans along the advancing and retreating water line of the beaches. 

Unknown numbers of piping plovers could therefore become oiled or have their feeding areas oiled if a 

spill occurred during the time of year, roughly October through March, when plovers are present (Haig et 

al., 2005, Figure 1 and Table 2). 

The cranes and wood stork are tall wading birds. The whooping crane is found in Texas, Louisiana, 

and Florida, and the wood stork is found in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. The only 

self-sustaining wild population nests in the Northwest Territories and adjacent areas of Alberta, Canada, 

primarily within the boundaries of Wood Buffalo National Park. These birds winter in coastal marshes 

and estuarine habitats along the Gulf Coast in the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in Texas, and they 

represent the majority of the world’s population of free-ranging whooping cranes. A total of 

10 whooping cranes were reintroduced to Louisiana in the White Lake Conservation Area (about 17 mi 

[27 km] from the Gulf Coast) during the winter of 2011 as a nonessential experimental population. The 

Mississippi sandhill crane population was listed as endangered on June 4, 1973, under the Endangered 

Species Act. This nonmigratory species is found only in Mississippi, but historically it may have ranged 

in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida (USDOI, FWS, 1973, 1991; Tacha et al., 1992). 

Both the whooping and sandhill crane species use marsh habitats and eat small fish, frogs, mollusks, 

snails, insects, crustaceans, and aquatic invertebrates. Thus, they could both become oiled directly if oil 

reaches the marshes. They could also ingest oil along with their primary prey items, and their prey could 

be substantially reduced because of oil, resulting in a decline in health and reproduction in both species of 

wading birds. However, both species of cranes are located somewhat away from the shoreline of the open 

Gulf of Mexico and would not be likely to be affected by a catastrophic spill unless it worked its way into 

estuarine marshes. 

The U.S. breeding population of wood storks was listed as endangered for Alabama, Florida, Georgia, 

and South Carolina under the Endangered Species Act on February 24, 1984, because of the overall 
B-34 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

impact of human activities on breeding colonies. Alhough it likely has a low probability of oiling from a 

catastrophic spill due to its selection of more inland freshwater marshes, it may forage in coastal, 

brackish, or saltwater marshes, thus increasing its probability of oiling in the case where spilled oil is 

pushed into the rivers and marshes because of hurricanes, tropical storms, and the associated storm surge. 

4.2.2.2. Fish, Fisheries, and Essential Fish Habitat 

The life history of estuarine-dependent species involves spawning on the continental shelf, 

transportation of eggs, larvae or juveniles back to the estuary nursery grounds and migration of the adults 

back to the sea for spawning (Deegan, 1989; Beck et al., 2001). Estuaries in the Gulf of Mexico are 

extremely important nursery areas and are considered essential fish habitat for fish and aquatic life (Beck 

et al., 2001). Oiling of these areas, depending on the severity, can destroy nutrient-rich marshes and 

erode coastlines that have been significantly damaged by recent hurricanes. 

The Gulf of Mexico supports a wide variety of finfish, and most of the commercial finfish resources 

are linked either directly or indirectly to the estuaries that ring the Gulf of Mexico. Darnell et al. (1983) 

observed that the density distribution of fish resources in the Gulf was highest nearshore off of the central 

Gulf Coast. For all seasons, the greatest abundance occurred between Galveston Bay and the mouth of 

the Mississippi River. Monthly ichthyoplankton collections over the years 2004-2006 offshore of 

Alabama have confirmed that peak seasons for ichthyoplankton concentrations on the shelf are spring and 

summer (Hernandez et al., 2010). Therefore, if a catastrophic blowout occurs in the spring and summer 

seasons, it could cause greater harm to fish populations and not just individual fish. 

Oyster beds could be damaged by freshwater diversions that release tens of thousands of cubic feet of 

freshwater per second for months in an effort to keep oil out of the marshes. Adult oysters survive well 

physiologically in salinities from those of estuarine waters (about 7.5 parts per thousand sustained) to full 

strength seawater (Davis, 1958). While oysters may tolerate small changes in salinity for a few weeks, a 

rapid decrease in salinity over months would kill oysters. In the event of a catastrophic oil spill, the 

year’s oyster production would be lost because of exposure to freshwater and/or oil. Depending on the 

severity, oyster beds could take 2-5 years to recover (Burdeau, 2010). 

4.2.2.3. Marine Mammals 

Section 3.2.2 discusses the most likely and most significant impacts to the offshore marine mammal 

community. A high-volume oil spill lasting 120 days could directly impact over 20 species of marine 

mammals. As a spill enters coastal waters, manatees and coastal and estuarine dolphins would be the 

most likely to be affected. 

Manatees primarily inhabit open coastal (shallow nearshore) areas and estuaries, and they are also 

found far up in freshwater tributaries. During warmer months, manatees are common along the Gulf 

Coast of Florida from the Everglades National Park northward to the Suwannee River in northwestern 

Florida, and they are less common farther westward. In winter, the Gulf of Mexico subpopulations move 

southward to warmer waters. The winter range is restricted to waters at the southern tip of Florida and to 

waters near localized warm-water sources, such as power plant outfalls and natural springs in west-central 

Florida. Manatees are infrequently found as far west as Texas (Powell and Rathbun, 1984; Rathbun et al., 

1990; Schiro et al., 1998). If a catastrophic oil spill reached the Florida coast when manatees were in or 

near coastal waters, the spill could have population-level effects. 

It is possible that manatees could occur in coastal areas where vessels traveling to and from the spill 

site could affect them. A manatee present where there is vessel traffic could be injured or killed by a 

vessel strike (Wright et al., 1995). Due to the large number of vessels responding to a catastrophic spill 

both in coastal waters and traveling through coastal waters to the offshore site, manatees would have an 

increased risk of collisions with boats. Vessel strikes are the primary cause of death of manatees. 

There have been no experimental studies and only a few observations suggesting that oil impacts have 

harmed any manatees (St. Aubin and Lounsbury, 1990). Types of impacts to manatees and dugongs from 

contact with oil include (1) asphyxiation because of inhalation of hydrocarbons, (2) acute poisoning 

because of contact with fresh oil, (3) lowering of tolerance to other stress because of the incorporation of 

sublethal amounts of petroleum components into body tissues, (4) nutritional stress through damage to 

food sources, and (5) inflammation or infection and difficulty eating because of oil sticking to the sensory 

hairs around their mouths (Preen, 1989, in Sadiq and McCain, 1993; Australian Maritime Safety 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-35 

Authority, 2003). For a population whose environment is already under great pressure, even a localized 

incident could be significant (St. Aubin and Lounsbury, 1990). Spilled oil might affect the quality or 

availability of aquatic vegetation, including seagrasses, upon which manatees feed. The 2009 Stock 

Assessment Report (USDOI, FWS, 2009) for the Florida stock of West Indian manatees estimates that 

there is a minimum population estimate of 3,802 individuals based on a single synoptic survey of warmwater refuges in January 2009. The manatee’s potential biological removal is the maximum number of 

animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from the population or stock while 

allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population and is approximately 

12 individuals. Therefore, if a catastrophic spill and response vessel traffic occurred near manatee 

habitats in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, population level impacts could occur because the possibility exists 

for the number of mortalities to exceed the potential biological removal. 

Bottlenose dolphins were the most affected species of marine mammals from the DWH event. There 

were 171 marine mammals collected as of April 20, 2010 (the majority of which were deceased). This 

includes 155 bottlenose dolphins, 2 Kogia spp., 2 melon-headed whales, 6 spinner dolphins, 2 sperm 

whales, and 4 unknown species (USDOC, NOAA, NOAA Fisheries, 2011). It is also important to note 

that evaluations have not yet confirmed the cause of death, and it is possible that not all carcasses were 

related to the DWH event. Bottlenose dolphins can be found throughout coastal waters in the Gulf of 

Mexico. Like manatees, dolphins could be affected, possibly to population level, by a catastrophic oil 

spill if it reaches the coast (as well as affecting them in the open ocean), through direct contact, 

inhalation, ingestion, and stress, as well as through collisions with cleanup vessels. 

4.2.2.4. Sea Turtles 

Out of the five species of sea turtle that occur in the Gulf of Mexico, only three nest in this area. The 

largest nesting location for the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle is in Rancho Nuevo, Mexico, but they also nest in 

Texas. Loggerhead sea turtles nest in all states around the Gulf of Mexico. There are also records of 

nesting colonies of hawksbill sea turtles in the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico (Plotkin et al., 1995; OBISSEAMAP, 2009). Kemp’s ridley, loggerhead, and hawksbill sea turtles are therefore most likely to be 

affected by a catastrophic oil spill when there is onshore contact. 

Female sea turtles seasonally emerge during the warmer summer months to nest on beaches. 

Thousands of sea turtles nest along the Gulf Coast, and turtles could build nests on oiled beaches. Nests 

could also be disturbed or destroyed by cleanup efforts. Untended booms could wash ashore and become 

a barrier to sea turtle adults and hatchlings (USDOC, NOAA, 2010e). Hatchlings, with a naturally high 

mortality rate, could traverse the beach through oiled sand and swim through oiled water to reach 

preferred habitats of Sargassum floats. Response efforts could include mass movement of eggs from 

hundreds of nests or thousands of hatchlings from Gulf Coast beaches to the east coast of Florida or to the 

open ocean to prevent hatchlings entering oiled waters (Jernelöv and Lindén, 1981; USDOI, FWS, 

2010e). Due to poorly understood mechanisms that guide female sea turtles back to the beaches where 

they hatched, it is uncertain if relocated hatchlings would eventually return to the Gulf Coast to nest 

(Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 2010). Therefore, shoreline oiling and response 

efforts may affect future population levels and reproduction (USDOI, NPS, 2010). Sea turtle hatchling 

exposure to, fouling by, or consumption of tarballs persisting in the sea following the dispersal of an oil 

slick would likely be fatal. 

4.2.2.5. Terrestrial Mammals and Reptiles 

Beach Mice 

Seven subspecies of the field mouse, collectively known as beach mice, live along the Gulf Coast. 

Five subspecies of beach mice (Alabama, Perdido Key, Choctawhatchee, St. Andrew, and Anastasia 

Island) are listed as State and federally endangered; the southeastern beach mouse is listed as federally 

threatened; and the Santa Rosa beach mouse is a Federal species of concern. Beach mice are restricted to 

the coastal barrier sand dunes along the Gulf Coast of Alabama and Florida. Erosion caused by the loss 

of vegetation because of oiling would likely cause more damage than the direct oiling of beach mice, 

because of degradation or loss of habitat. In addition, vehicular traffic and activity associated with 

cleanup can trample or bury beach mice nests and burrows or cause displacement from preferred habitat. 
B-36 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Improperly trained personnel and vehicle and foot traffic during shoreline cleanup of a catastrophic spill 

would disturb beach mouse populations and would degrade or destroy habitat. 

The Alabama, Choctawhatchee, St. Andrew, and Perdido Key beach mice are already designated as 

protected species under the Endangered Species Act because of the loss of coastal habitat (USDOI, MMS, 

2007). The species’ coastal habitat is designated as their critical habitat. For example, the endangered 

Alabama beach mouse’s (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates) habitat is 1,211 acres (490 hectares) of 

frontal dunes covering just 10 mi (16 km) of shoreline designated as critical habitat (USDOI, FWS, 

2007). Critical habitat is the specific geographic areas that are essential for the conservation of a 

threatened or endangered species. With the potential oiling of over 1,000 mi (1,609 km) of shoreline, the 

entire critical habitat for a subspecies of beach mice could be completely oiled. Thus, destruction of the 

remaining habitat because of a catastrophic spill and cleanup activities would increase the threat of 

extinction of several subspecies of beach mice.

Diamondback Terrapin 

The Texas diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin littoralis) and the Mississippi diamondback 

terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin pileata) are two subspecies of terrapin that occur in the Gulf of Mexico, 

and they are Federal species of concern. The former’s range runs from Louisiana through Texas, while 

the latter’s includes Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida (USDOI, FWS, 2010f). Terrapins 

inhabit brackish waters including coastal marshes, tidal flats, creeks, and lagoons behind barrier beaches 

(Hogan, 2003). Their diet consists of fish, snails, worms, clams, crabs, and marsh plants (Cagle, 1952). 

Spending most of their lives at the aquatic-terrestrial boundary in estuaries, terrapins are susceptible to 

habitat destruction from oil-spill cleanup efforts as well as direct contact with oil. However, most impacts 

cannot be quantified at this time. Even after the oil is no longer visible, terrapins may still be exposed 

while they forage in the salt marshes lining the edges of estuaries, where oil may have accumulated under 

the sediments and within the food chain. Terrapin nests can also be disturbed or destroyed by cleanup 

efforts. The range of the possible chronic effects from oil and dispersants contact including lethal or 

sublethal oil-related injuries may include skin irritation from the oil or dispersants, respiratory problems 

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

the ingestion of oil or dispersants, and damage to other organs because of the ingestion or inhalation of 

these chemicals. 

4.2.2.6. Coastal Habitats 

A spill from a catastrophic blowout lasting up to 120 days could impact over 1,000 mi (1,609 km) of 

shoreline. Shoreline oiling would vary between heavy, moderate, light, and occasional tarballs. Due to 

the length of shoreline that could potentially be oiled and the sensitivity of the Gulf Coast, a high-volume, 

extended-duration spill could cause extensive habitat degradation. Loss of vegetation could lead to 

erosion and permanent landloss. 

In some previous spills reviewed, a strong storm removed the majority of oil from shore. However, 

storm surges may carry oil into the coastline and inland as far as the surge reaches. In addition, four 

significant hurricanes (Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike) have made landfall along the Texas/Louisiana coast 

in the last 6 years, greatly degrading the coastal beaches, marshes, and barrier islands, making them more 

susceptible to a catastrophic spill. 

Coastal Barrier Beaches and Associated Dunes 

Barrier islands make up more than two-thirds of the northern Gulf of Mexico shore. Each of the 

barrier islands is either high profile or low profile, depending on the elevations and morphology of the 

island (Morton et al., 2004). The distinguishing characteristics of the high- and low-profile barriers relate 

to the width of the islands along with the continuity of the frontal dunes. Low-profile barriers are narrow 

with discontinuous frontal dunes easily overtopped by storm surge, which makes the island susceptible to 

over wash and secondarily to erosion. This over wash can create channels to bring sand onto the island or 

into lagoons formed on these islands. High-profile barrier islands are generally wider than the low-profile 

islands and have continuous, vegetated, frontal dunes with elevations high enough to prevent over wash 

from major storm surge and, therefore, are less susceptible to erosion. The sand stored in these high-
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-37 

profile dunes allows the island to withstand prolonged erosion and therefore prevents breaching, which 

could result in damaging the island core. 

As a result of a catastrophic spill, many of the barrier islands and beaches would receive varying 

degrees of oiling. Oil disposal on sand and vegetated sand dunes would have little deleterious effects on 

the existing vegetation or on the recolonization of the oiled sands by plants (Webb, 1988). The depth of 

oiling would be variable, based on the wave environment and sediment source at a particular beach head. 

Layering of oil and sand could occur if it was not cleaned before another tidal cycle. However, most 

areas of oiling are expected to be light, and sand removal during cleanup activities should be minimized. 

In areas designated as natural wilderness areas (e.g., Breton National Wildlife National Refuge and Gulf 

Islands National Seashore), land managers may require little to no disruption of the natural system. In 

these environments it is preferred to let the oil degrade naturally without aggressive and intrusive cleanup 

procedures. Manual rather than mechanized removal techniques will be used in these areas and only if 

heavy oiling has occurred. Thus, these areas may not be treated as thoroughly as other shorelines. 

Once oil has reached the beaches and barrier islands and becomes buried or sequestered, it becomes 

difficult to treat. During wave events when the islands and beaches erode, the oil can become 

remobilized and transported. Thus, the fate of oil is not as simple as either reaching land, becoming 

sequestered, or being treated; but must be considered in terms of a continuing process of sequestration, 

remobilization, and transport. 

For spilled oil to move onto beaches or across dunes, strong southerly winds must persist for an 

extended time prior to or immediately after the spill to elevate water levels. Strong winds, however, 

would reduce the impact severity at a landfall site because they would accelerate the processes of oil-slick 

dispersal, spill spreading, and oil weathering. 

Due to the distance of beaches from deepwater blowout and the combination of weathering and 

dispersant treatment of the oil offshore, the toxicity of the oil reaching shore should be greatly reduced, 

thereby minimizing the chances of irreversible damage to the impacted areas. A blowout in shallower 

waters near shore may have equal or greater impacts because of a shorter period of weathering and 

dispersion prior to shoreline contact, even though a smaller volume of spilled oil is expected. 

Vessel traffic in close proximity to barrier islands has been shown to move considerably more bottom 

sediment than tidal currents, thus increasing coastal and barrier island erosion rates. If staging areas are 

in close proximity to these islands, recovery time of the barrier islands could be greatly extended because 

of the magnitude of vessels responding to a catastrophic spill. 

Wetlands 

Coastal wetland habitats in the Gulf of Mexico occur as bands around waterways; broad expanses of 

saline, brackish, and freshwater marshes; mud and sand flats; and forested wetlands of cypress-tupelo 

swamps and bottomland hardwoods. A spill from a catastrophic blowout could oil a few to several 

hundreds of acres of wetlands depending on the depth of inland penetration (Burdeau and Collins, 2010). 

This would vary from moderate to heavy oiling. 

The NOAA Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) ranks shorelines according to their sensitivity to 

oil, the natural persistence of oil, and the expected ease of cleanup after an oil spill. These factors cause 

oil to persist in coastal and estuarine areas (USDOI, MMS, 2010). According to the ESI, the most 

sensitive shoreline types (i.e., sheltered tidal flats, vegetated low banks, salt/brackish-water marshes, 

freshwater marshes/swamps, and scrub-shrub wetlands) tend to accumulate oil and are difficult to clean, 

thus causing oil to persist in these coastal and estuarine areas (USDOI, MMS, 2010). 

In case of catastrophic spills in the GOM, preemptive oil-response strategies would be initiated and 

include the deployment of oil booms, skimmer ships, and barge barriers to protect the beaches and the 

wetlands behind them. Boom deployment must also include plans for monitoring and maintaining the 

protective booms systems to assure that these systems are installed and functioning properly and that they 

are not damaging the wetlands they are trying to protect. In most cases, the beach face would take the 

most oil; however, in areas where the marsh is immediately adjacent to the beach face or embayments, or 

in the case of small to severe storms, marshes would be oiled. For example, in Alabama, Mississippi, and 

Florida, severe weather could push oil into the tidal pools and back beach areas that support tidal marsh 

vegetation. 
B-38 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Previous studies of other large spills have shown that, when oil has a short residence time in the 

marsh and it is not incorporated into the sediments, the marsh vegetation has a good chance of survival, 

even though aboveground die-off of marsh vegetation may occur (Mendelssohn et al., 2002). However, if 

reoiling occurs after the new shoots from an initial oiling are produced, such that the new shoots are 

killed, then the marsh plants may not have enough stored energy to produce a second round of new 

shoots. Longer term damage may result from continued reoiling than from a temporally continuous oiling 

(Lin et al, 2002; Lin and Mendelssohn, 2009). Other studies noted the utilization of dispersants in the 

proper dosages results in a reduction in marsh damage from oiling (Lin and Mendelssohn, 2009). The 

works of several investigators (Webb et al., 1981 and 1985; Alexander and Webb, 1983 and 1987; Lytle, 

1975; Delaune et al., 1979; Fischel et al., 1989) evaluated the effects of potential spills to area wetlands. 

For wetlands along the central Louisiana coast, the critical oil concentration is assumed to be 

0.025 gallons per ft2

 (1.0 liter per m2) of marsh. Concentrations less than this may cause diebacks for one 

growing season or less, depending upon the concentration and the season during which contact occurs. 

The duration and magnitude of a spill resulting from a catastrophic blowout could result in concentrations 

above this critical level and would result in longer term effects to wetland vegetation, including some 

plant mortality and loss of land. 

Due to the distance of deep water from shore, the possibility of a spill from a deepwater blowout 

reaching coastal wetlands with the toxicity to significantly impact the coastal wetlands is low because of 

the response procedures implemented during a catastrophic spill. The utilization of nearshore booming 

protection for beaches and wetlands, in combination with offshore skimming, burning, and dispersal 

treatments for the oil near the spill site, would result in capture and detoxification of the majority of oil 

reaching shore. Therefore, a spill from a shallow-water blowout is more likely to contribute to wetland 

damage. 

The activity of oil cleanup can result in additional impacts on wetlands if not done properly. During 

the DWH event, aggressive onshore and marsh cleanup methods were not utilized. 

Submerged Vegetation 

Approximately 500,000 hectares (1.25 million acres) of submerged seagrass beds are estimated to 

exist in exposed, shallow coastal waters and embayments of the northern Gulf of Mexico, and over 

80 percent of this area is in Florida Bay and Florida coastal waters (Beck et al., 2006; Carlson and 

Madley, 2006). Submerged vegetation distribution depends on an interrelationship between a number of 

environmental factors that include temperature, water depth, turbidity, salinity, turbulence, and substrate 

suitability (Sheridan and Minello, 2003). Marine seagrass beds generally occur in shallow, relatively 

clear, protected waters with predominantly sand bottoms (Short et al., 2001). Freshwater submerged 

aquatic vegetation (SAV) species occur in the low-salinity waters of coastal estuaries (Castellanos and 

Rozas, 2001). Seagrasses and freshwater SAV’s provide important habitat for immature shrimp, black 

drum, spotted sea trout, juvenile southern flounder, and several other fish species and provide a food 

source for species of wintering waterfowl (Castellanos and Rozas, 2001; Short et al., 2001; Caldwell, 

2003). These areas would have considerable impact from various cleanup efforts, such as increased 

vessel traffic. Although many of the beds are protected by extensive barrier islands, severe storms can 

cause inundation and overwashing of these islands, resulting in oiling of the seagrass beds if the storm 

occurred during an oil spill. In addition, boom anchors could damage seagrass beds (USDOC, NOAA, 

2010e). It is assumed that there would be a decrease in submerged vegetation and a negative impact on 

the bed communities in a highly affected area. If bays and estuaries accrue oil, there is an assumption that 

there would be a decrease in seagrass cover and negative community impacts. Depending on the species 

and environmental factors, seagrasses may exhibit minimal impacts from a spill; however, communities 

within the beds could accrue greater negative outcomes (Jackson et al., 1989; Taylor et al., 2006). 

Community effects could range from direct mortality because of smothering or indirect mortality from 

loss of food sources and loss of habitat because of a decrease in ecological performance of the entire 

system (Zieman et al., 1984). 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-39 

4.2.3. Socioeconomic Resources 

4.2.3.1. Onshore Archaeological Resources 

Regardless of the water depth in which the catastrophic blowout occurs, it is assumed that more than 

1,000 mi (1,609 km) of shoreline could be oiled to some degree. Onshore prehistoric and historic sites 

would be impacted to some extent by a high-volume spill from a catastrophic blowout that reaches shore. 

Sites on barrier islands could suffer the heaviest impact (McGimsey, personal communication, 2010). A 

few prehistoric sites in Louisiana, located inland from the coastline in the marsh and along bayous, could 

experience some light oiling. As discussed above, impacts would include the loss of ability to accurately 

date organic material from archaeological sites because of contamination. Efforts to prevent coastal 

cultural resources from becoming contaminated by oil would likely be overwhelmed in the event of a 

hurricane and by the magnitude of shoreline impacted. The most significant damage to archaeological 

sites could be related to cleanup and response efforts. Fortunately, important lessons were learned from 

the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska in 1989, in which the greatest damage to archaeological sites was related 

to cleanup activities and looting by cleanup crews rather than from the oil itself (Bittner, 1996). As a 

result, cultural resources were recognized as significant early in the response, and archaeologists are, at 

present, embedded in Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Teams (SCAT) and are consulting with cleanup 

crews. Historic preservation representatives are present at both the Joint Incident Command as well as 

each Area Command under the general oversight of the National Park Service to coordinate response 

efforts (Odess, personal communication, 2010). Despite these efforts, some archaeological sites suffered 

damage from looting or from spill cleanup activities (most notably the parade ground at Fort Morgan, 

Alabama) (Odess, personal communication, 2011). 

4.2.3.2. Commercial Fishing 

In addition to closures in Federal waters, portions of individual State waters would also be closed to 

commercial fishing. The economic impacts of closures on commercial fishing are complicated to predict 

because it is dependent on season and would vary by fishery. If fishers cannot make up losses in the 

remainder of the season, a substantial part of their annual income will be lost. In some cases, commercial 

fishers may move to areas still open to fishing, but at a greater cost because of longer transits. 

4.2.3.3. Recreational Fishing 

In addition to closures in Federal waters, portions to of individual State waters would also be closed 

to recreational fishing. More than 67 percent of the total Gulf catch came on trips that fished primarily in 

inland waters (Pritchard, 2009). In 2008, over 24 million recreational fishing trips were taken, which 

generated about $12 billion in sales, over $6 billion in value added impacts, and over 100,000 jobs 

(USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, 2010b). The majority of recreational fishing occurs in the summer months. 

During this time, scheduled fishing tournaments are held and would be hard to reschedule. If the spill 

affected the summer months, normal direct income and indirect income to the communities that host these 

tournaments would be lost for that year. If a catastrophic spill occurs in the summer, the majority of 

recreational fishing trips would not occur and economic benefits they generate would be lost for that year. 

4.2.3.4. Tourism and Recreational Resources 

Tourism and recreation are integral components of the economy of the Gulf of Mexico. Visitors to 

Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida spent approximately $145 billion in 2008 (U.S. 

Travel Association (2008). This spending helped to support approximately 2.4 million jobs in recreationbased industries statewide (U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2010a). Roughly 600,000 of these jobs are in counties 

and parishes that are directly along the coast, making them particularly vulnerable to a catastrophic event 

and the likely associated decrease in tourism. Recreation jobs account for 14.8 percent of Gulf Coast 

employment, greater than the national average of 12.4 percent (QCEW Fact Sheet). The coastal counties 

and parishes that have the highest concentration of recreation workers (over 10,000 workers) in each state 

are as follows: Cameron, Nueces, and Galveston Counties (Texas); Jefferson and Orleans Parishes 

(Louisiana); Harrison County (Mississippi); Mobile and Baldwin Counties (Alabama); and Escambia, 
B-40 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Okaloosa, Bay, Pasco, Pinellas, Hillsborough, Manatee, Sarasota, Lee, Collier, Broward, and MiamiDade Counties (Florida). Gulf Coast recreational employment is reasonably cyclical, with the peak 

months during the past few years occurring between March and June (U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2010b). 

A catastrophic spill has the potential to significantly impact the Gulf Coast recreation and tourism 

industries. The water-dependent and beach-dependent components of these industries would be 

particularly vulnerable. This is particularly true for some of the nature parks and island resources directly 

along the coast, such as Padre Island National Seashore (Texas), Dauphin Island (Alabama), and the Gulf 

Islands National Seashore (Mississippi/Florida). Kaplan and Whitman (unpublished) attempt to isolate 

the economic significance of the recreational resources in the Gulf of Mexico that are particularly relevant 

to OCS oil and gas activities. They found roughly 60,000 jobs that were dependent on these activities in 

2005, although there is uncertainty with this estimate, because of measurement issues and events that 

have occurred since their data collection period (most notably Hurricane Katrina). 

In analyzing the potential impacts of a catastrophic spill, one must also consider the range of activities 

that depend on the base resources that may be affected. For example, the restaurant and lodging 

industries are particularly important to the Gulf economy. They are also sensitive to general tourism 

trends in any particular area. However, the economic impacts on these sectors from a spill may be 

partially offset because of an influx of cleanup and relief workers. Finally, one should consider the 

economic context in which a catastrophic event occurs. The DWH event occurred in the context of an 

economy that was only beginning to recover from a very deep recession. In difficult economic times, 

recreation workers may be more prone to being laid off in response to a catastrophic event. Workers may 

also find it more difficult to transition between jobs, which can increase the severity of the economic 

effects. In a recession, tourism also may be more sensitive both to actual damage and to perceptions of 

economic problems within a region. 

4.2.3.5. Employment and Demographics 

By the end of a catastrophic spill, up to 50,000 personnel would be expected to have responded to 

protect the shoreline and wildlife and to cleanup vital coastlines. The degree to which new cleanup jobs 

offset job losses would vary greatly from county to county (or parish to parish). However, these new jobs 

would not make up for lost jobs, in terms of dollar revenue. In most cases, cleanup personnel are paid 

less (e.g., $15-$18 per hour compared with roughly $45 per hour on a drilling rig), resulting in consumers 

in the region having reduced incomes overall and thus, investing less money in the economy (Aversa, 

2010). Permanent demographic impacts are unlikely from these temporary jobs. 

There would be additional economic impacts to tourism and both recreational and commercial 

fishing, as discussed in Sections 4.2.3.2 through 4.2.3.4 above. 

4.2.3.6. Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure 

In the event of a catastrophic spill, impacts on land use and infrastructure would be temporary and 

variable in nature. These impacts include land use in staging areas, waste disposal locations and 

capacities, and potential delays because of vessel decontamination stations near ports, as described below. 

Up to 20 staging areas and as many as 50,000 responders would likely result in increased traffic 

congestion and some possible competing land-use issues near the staging areas, depending on the real 

estate market at the time of the event. Some infrastructure categories, such as vessels, ports, docks and 

wharves, would likely become very engaged in response activities and this could result in a shortage of 

space and functionality at infrastructure facilities if ongoing drilling activities were simultaneously 

occurring. However, if a drilling suspension was enacted, like the one related to the DWH event, 

conflicting demands on infrastructure facilities would likely fail to materialize (Dismukes, personal 

communication, 2010a). 

In the category of waste disposal, the impacts would be more visible as thousands of tons of oily 

liquid and solid wastes from the oil-spill cleanup are disposed of in onshore landfills. The USEPA, in 

consultation with the U.S. Coast Guard, would likely issue solid-waste management directives to address 

the issue of contaminated materials and solid or liquid wastes that are recovered as a result of cleanup 

operations (USEPA, 2010d and 2010e). 

For navigation and port use, there is also the potential for delays in cargo handling and slow vessel 

traffic because of decontamination operations at various sites along the marine transportation system 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-41 

(USDOT, 2010). However, most cleanup activities would be complete within a year of the event, so 

impacts would be expected to be limited in duration (Dismukes, personal communication, 2010b). 

4.2.3.7. Environmental Justice 

While most coastal populations along the Gulf of Mexico coast are not generally minority or low 

income, several communities on the coasts of St. Mary, Lafourche, Terrebonne, St. Bernard, and 

Plaquemines Parishes have minority or low-income population percentages that are higher than their state 

average. These minority populations are predominately Native American, Islaños, or African American. 

For example, a few counties or parishes along the Gulf Coast have more than a 2-percent Native 

American population (USDOI, MMS, 2007); about 2,250 Houma Indians (a State of Louisiana 

recognized tribe) are concentrated in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana, comprising 2.4 percent of the parish’s 

population, and about 800 Chitimacha (a federally recognized tribe) make up 1.6 percent of St. Mary 

Parish’s population. While these are not significant numbers on their own, viewed in the context of 

Louisiana’s overall 0.6 percent Native American average, these communities take on greater 

environmental justice importance. 

Gulf Coast minority and low-income groups are particularly vulnerable to the coastal impacts of a 

catastrophic oil spill due to their greater than average dependence on the natural resources in the offshore 

and coastal environments. Besides their economic reliance on commercial fishing and oystering, coastal 

low-income and minority groups rely heavily on these fisheries and other traditional subsistence fishing, 

hunting, trapping, and gathering activities to augment their diets and household incomes (see Hemmerling 

and Colton, 2003, for an evaluation of environmental justice considerations for south Lafourche Parish). 

Regular commuting has continued this reliance on the natural resources of the coastal environments even 

when populations have been forced to relocate because of landloss and the destruction from recent 

hurricane events. 

State fishery closures because of a catastrophic oil spill would disproportionately affect minority and 

low-income groups. Shoreline impacts would generate additional subsistence-related effects. Therefore, 

these minority groups would be disproportionately affected if these coastal areas were impacted by a 

catastrophic spill and the resulting response. 

5. POST-SPILL, LONG-TERM RECOVERY (PHASE 4) 

5.1. IMPACT-PRODUCING FACTORS AND SCENARIO

During the final phase a catastrophic blowout and spill, it is presumed that the well has been capped 

or killed and cleanup activities are concluding. While it is assumed that the majority of spilled oil would 

be dissipated within 30 days of stopping the flow (Lubchenco et al., 2010), oil has the potential to persist 

in the environment long after a spill event and has been detected in sediment 30 years after a spill 

(USDOI, FWS, 2004). On sandy beaches, oil can sink deep into the sediments. In tidal flats and salt 

marshes, oil may seep into the muddy bottoms (USDOI, FWS, 2010g). 

5.2. MOST LIKELY AND MOST SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

At this point in the scenario, the spill has been stopped and long-term recovery begins. There is a 

great deal of uncertainty regarding the long-term impacts of a catastrophic spill in the Gulf of Mexico. 

The most likely and most significant impacts, as described below, will likely relate to the continued 

exposure of organisms to the spilled oil, oil components, and dispersants remaining in the air, water, and 

sediments, as well as the effects of continued cleanup efforts. 

A catastrophic spill can have long-term impacts on Gulf of Mexico ecosystems. An ecosystem is a 

geographically specified system of organisms, including humans, their environment, and the processes 

that control their dynamics. Ecosystems involve complex connections between organisms, their 

environment, and the processes that drive the system (USDOC, NOAA, 2010f). In some cases, marine 

ecosystems may take decades to fully recover or may recover to alternative states (Ragen, 2010). 
B-42 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

5.2.1. Physical Resources 

5.2.1.1. Air Quality 

There would be some residual air quality impacts after the well is capped or “killed.” As most of the 

oil would have been burned, evaporated, or weathered over time, air quality would return to pre-oil spill 

conditions. While impacts to air quality are expected to be localized and temporary, as discussed in 

Sections 2.2.1.1, 3.2.1.1, and 4.2.1.1, adverse effects that may occur from the exposure of humans and 

wildlife to air pollutants could have long-term consequences. 

5.2.1.2. Coastal and Offshore Water Quality 

The leading source of contaminants that impairs coastal water quality in the Gulf of Mexico is urban 

runoff. Urban runoff can include suspended solids, heavy metals, pesticides, oil, grease, and nutrients 

(such as from lawn fertilizer). Urban runoff increases with population growth, and the Gulf Coast region 

has experienced a 103 percent population growth since 1970 (USDOC, NOAA, NOS, 2008). Other 

pollutant source categories include (1) agricultural runoff, (2) municipal point sources, (3) industrial 

sources, (4) hydromodification (e.g., dredging), and (5) vessel sources (e.g., shipping, fishing, and 

recreational boating). The NRC (2003, Table I-4, p. 237) estimated that, on average, approximately 

26,324 barrels of oil per year entered Gulf waters from petrochemical and oil refinery industries in 

Louisiana and Texas. The Mississippi River introduced approximately 3,680,938 barrels/year (NRC, 

2003, Table I-9, p. 242) into the waters of the Gulf. Hydrocarbons also enter the Gulf of Mexico through 

the result of natural seeps in the Gulf of Mexico at a rate of approximately 980,392 barrels per year (a 

range of approximately 560,224-1,400,560 barrels/year) (NRC, 2003, p. 191). Produced water (formation 

water) is, by volume, the largest waste stream from the oil and gas industry that enters Gulf waters. The 

NRC has estimated the quantity of oil in produced water entering the Gulf per year to be 473,000 bbl 

(NRC, 2003, p. 200, Table D-8).2

 These sources total about 5.5 million barrels of oil per year that 

routinely enters Gulf of Mexico waters. In comparison, a catastrophic spill of 30,000-60,000 barrels per 

day for 90-120 days would spill a total of 2.7-7.2 million barrels of oil. When added to the other sources 

of oil listed above, this would result in a 48- to 129-percent increase in the volume of oil entering the 

water during the year of the spill. In addition, the oil from a spill will be much more concentrated in 

some locations than the large number of other activities that release oil into the Gulf of Mexico. 

Section 3.1.4 discusses the properties and persistence of oil in the environment. 

5.2.2. Biological Resources 

As described below, long-term consequences on biological resources can include impaired 

reproduction, which can potentially impact population levels. Oil has the potential to persist in the 

environment long after a spill event and has been detected in sediment 30 years after a spill (USDOI, 

FWS, 2004). On sandy beaches, oil can sink deep into the sediments. In tidal flats and salt marshes, oil 

may seep into the muddy bottoms. Oil in these systems has the potential to have long-term impacts on 

fish and wildlife populations. 

Some animals may survive initial exposure to spilled oil but may accumulate high levels of 

contaminants in their bodies that can be passed on to predators, in a process known as bioaccumulation 

(USDOI, FWS, 2010g). 

5.2.2.1. Coastal and Marine Birds 

There is a high probability of underestimating the impacts of oil spills on avian species potentially 

encountering oil, particularly seabirds. Despite being oiled, some birds are able to fly and may later be 

killed by the oil, far from the spill location. Often overlooked and understudied are the long-term, 

sublethal, chronic effects because of sublethal exposure to oil. These effects may persist for years after 

exposure, reducing the capacity of affected individuals within the population to recover, because of 

 

2 These numbers were generated from converting the units reported in the noted reference and do not imply any 

level of significance. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-43 

effects that may range from minor physiological disorders through damage to vital organs (i.e., liver and 

kidney) (Alonso-Alvarez et al., 2007). The long-term impacts of potential food stress for bird species 

from an altered ecosystem because of a catastrophic spill are unknown, but disturbances to the ecosystem 

can cause long-term sublethal impacts, including malnourishment and decreased reproductive success, 

which could have severe impacts to bird populations as seen after the Exxon Valdez catastrophic spill 

(Piatt and Anderson, 1996). Birds are top predators in the Gulf of Mexico and require a substantial 

supply of prey species to sustain their populations. Sublethal effects of oil could ultimately result in 

reductions in long-term survival or lower reproductive success for some species of birds (Fry et al., 1986; 

Leighton, 1993; Esler et al., 2000; Golet et al., 2003; Velando et al., 2010). In addition, even light oiling 

of avian eggs transferred via contact with contaminated breast feathers from an incubating female can be 

toxic to developing embryos (Albers, 1980; Albers and Heinz, 1983). Effects such as delayed sexual 

maturity of most seabird species, loss of breeding-age individuals, particularly females, may have longterm, population-level effects. Long-term, sublethal, chronic effects may exceed immediate losses 

because of direct mortality (i.e., oiled birds) if such residual effects influence a significant proportion of 

the population or disproportionately impact an important population segment (Newton, 1998; Peterson et 

al., 2003; Alonso-Alvarez et al., 2007). Depending on the effects, some populations could take years or 

decades before reaching a full recovery, and some may never recover. 

5.2.2.2. Fish, Fisheries, and Essential Fish Habitat 

In addition to possible small fish kills because of direct impacts (as described under Phases 2 and 3), a 

catastrophic spill could affect fish populations in the long term. Due to a catastrophic spill, a significant 

portion of a year class of fish could be absent from the following year’s fishery, reducing overall 

population numbers. However, sublethal impacts, especially for long-lived species (e.g., snapper and 

grouper), could be masked by reduced fishing pressure because of closures. In addition, healthy fish 

resources and fishery stocks depend on ideal habitat (essential fish habitat) for spawning, breeding, 

feeding, and growth to maturity. Thus, a catastrophic spill that affects these areas could result in longterm impacts, including destruction to a portion of their habitats. 

5.2.2.3. Marine Mammals 

Even after the spill is stopped, oilings or deaths of marine mammals would still likely occur because 

of oil and dispersants persisting in the water, past marine mammal/oil or dispersant interactions, and 

ingestion of contaminated prey. The animals’ exposure to hydrocarbons persisting in the sea may result 

in sublethal impacts (e.g., decreased health, reproductive fitness, and longevity; and increased 

vulnerability to disease) and some soft tissue irritation, respiratory stress from inhalation of toxic fumes, 

food reduction or contamination, direct ingestion of oil and/or tar, and temporary displacement from 

preferred habitats or migration routes. A catastrophic oil spill could lead to increased mortalities, 

resulting in potential population-level effects for some species/populations (USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, 

2010c). 

5.2.2.4. Sea Turtles 

Sea turtles take many years to reach sexual maturity. Green sea turtles reach maturity between 20 and 

50 years of age; loggerheads may be 35 years old before they are able to reproduce; and hawksbill sea 

turtles typically reach lengths of 27 inches for males and 31 inches for females before they can reproduce 

(USDOC, NOAA, NMFS, 2010d). Declines in the food supply for sea turtles, which include 

invertebrates and sponge populations, could also affect sea turtle populations. While all of the pathways 

that an oil spill or the use of dispersants can affect sea turtles is poorly understood, some pathways may 

include the following: (1) oil or dispersants on the sea turtle’s skin and body can cause skin irritation, 

chemical burns, and infections; (2) inhalation of volatile petroleum compounds or dispersants can damage 

the respiratory tract and lead to diseases; (3) ingesting oil or dispersants may cause injury to the 

gastrointestinal tract; and (4) chemicals that are inhaled or ingested may damage internal organs. In most 

foreseeable cases, exposure to hydrocarbons persisting in the sea following the dispersal of an oil slick 

would result in sublethal impacts (e.g., decreased health, reproductive fitness, and longevity and increased 

vulnerability to disease) to sea turtles. Other possible internal impacts might include harm to the liver, 
B-44 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

kidney, and brain function, as well as cause anemia and immune suppression, or could lead to 

reproductive failure or death. As discussed in Section 4.2.2, shoreline oiling and response efforts may 

affect future population levels and reproduction (USDOI, NPS, 2010). The deaths of subadult and adult 

sea turtles may also drastically reduce the population. 

5.2.2.5. Terrestrial Mammals and Reptiles 

Beach Mice 

Within the last 20-30 years, the combination of habitat loss because of beachfront development, 

isolation of remaining beach mouse habitat areas and populations, and destruction of remaining habitat by 

tropical storms and hurricanes has increased the threat of extinction of several subspecies of beach mice. 

Destruction of the remaining habitat because of a catastrophic spill and cleanup activities would increase 

the threat of extinction. 

Diamondback Terrapin 

Habitat destruction, road construction, and drowning in crab traps are the most recent threats to 

diamondback terrapins. Tropical storms, hurricanes, and beach erosion threaten their preferred nesting 

habitats. Destruction of the remaining habitat because of a catastrophic spill and response efforts could 

drastically affect future population levels and reproduction. 

5.2.2.6. Coastal Habitats 

Coastal habitats serve important ecological functions, and the loss of vegetation in coastal areas could 

lead to erosion and permanent landloss. 

Coastal Barrier Beaches and Associated Dunes 

Oil or its components that remain in the sand after cleanup may be (1) released periodically when 

storms and high tides resuspend or flush beach sediments, (2) decomposed by biological activity, or 

(3) volatilized and dispersed. 

The protection once afforded to inland marshes by coastal barrier beaches has been greatly reduced 

because of decreased elevations and the continued effect of subsidence, sea-level rise, and saltwater 

intrusion. A catastrophic spill has the potential to contribute to this reduction. 

The cleanup impacts of a catastrophic spill could result in short-term (up to 2 years) adjustments in 

beach profiles and configurations as a result of sand removal and disturbance during cleanup operations. 

Some oil contact to lower areas of sand dunes is expected. These contacts would not result in significant 

destabilization of the dunes. The long-term stressors to barrier beach communities caused by the physical 

effects and chemical toxicity of an oil spill may lead to decreased primary production, plant dieback, and 

hence further erosion. 

Wetlands 

Wetlands serve a number of important ecological functions. For example, Louisiana’s coastal 

wetlands support more than two-thirds of the wintering waterfowl population of the Mississippi Flyway, 

including 20-25 percent of North America’s puddle duck population. Therefore, loss of wetlands would 

also impact a significant portion of the waterfowl population. 

The duration and magnitude of a spill resulting from a catastrophic blowout could result in high 

concentrations of oil that would result in long-term effects to wetland vegetation, including some plant 

mortality and loss of land. This would add to continuing impacts of other factors, such as hurricanes, 

subsidence, saltwater intrusion, and sea-level rise. The wetlands along the Gulf Coast have already been 

severely damaged by the 2005 and 2008 hurricane seasons, leaving the mainland less protected. It was 

estimated in 2000 that coastal Louisiana would continue to lose land at a rate of approximately 

2,672 ha/yr (10 mi2

/yr) over the next 50 years. Further, it was estimated that an additional net loss of 

132,794 ha (512 mi2

) may occur by 2050, which is almost 10 percent of Louisiana’s remaining coastal 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-45 

wetlands (Barras et al., 2003). Barras (2006) indicated an additional 217 mi2

 (562 km2) of land lost 

during the 2005 hurricane season. A catastrophic spill occurring nearshore would contribute further to 

this landloss. Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, another series of hurricanes (Gustav and Ike) made 

landfall along the Louisiana and Texas coasts in September 2008. Hurricane Gustav made landfall as a 

Category 2 storm near Cocodrie, Louisiana, pushing large surges of saline water into the fresh marshes 

and coastal swamps of Louisiana from Grand Isle westward. While Hurricane Gustav did not impact the 

quantity of wetlands that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita impacted, it did have a severe and continuing effect 

on the coastal barrier islands and the wetlands associated with backshore (back of the island) and 

foreshore (front of the island). While Hurricane Gustav affected the eastern portion of the Louisiana 

coast closer to Grand Isle and Houma, Hurricane Ike concentrated on Louisiana’s western coast. The 

Texas coast received the brunt of Hurricane Ike where it made landfall slightly east of Galveston. The 

storm surge basically removed the dune systems and significantly lowered the beach elevations along the 

eastern portion of the Texas coast near Galveston and the Bolivar Peninsula. The erosion and wash-over 

associated with Hurricane Ike’s tidal surge breeched beach ridges and opened the inland freshwater ponds 

and their associated wetlands to the sea. As a result of the four successive storms, the Louisiana and 

Texas coasts have lost protective elevations, barrier islands, and wetlands, and they now have the 

potential for transitioning to a less productive salt-marsh system in areas where fresh-marsh systems once 

existed. 

In addition, a poorly executed oil cleanup can result in additional impacts. Aggressive onshore and 

marsh cleanup methods have not yet been utilized and probably would not be initiated until the oil spill 

has been stopped. Depending on the marsh remediation methods used, further impacts to the wetlands 

may occur from cleanup activities. Boat traffic in marsh areas from the thousands of response vessels 

associated with a catastrophic spill would produce an incremental increase in erosion rates, sediment 

resuspension, and turbidity (i.e., an adverse but not significant impact to coastal wetland and seagrass 

habitats.) 

5.2.2.7. Open-Water Habitats 

Submerged Vegetation 

If bays and estuaries accrue oil, there is an assumption that there would be a decrease in seagrass 

cover and negative community impacts. Submerged vegetation serves important ecological functions. 

For example, seagrasses and freshwater SAV’s provide important habitat for immature shrimp, black 

drum, spotted sea trout, juvenile southern flounder, and several other fish species, and they provide a food 

source for species of wintering waterfowl (Castellanos and Rozas, 2001; Short and Coles, 2001; Caldwell, 

2003). Therefore, loss of submerged vegetation would impact these species. 

Sargassum 

Oceanographic processes that concentrate Sargassum into mats and rafts would also concentrate toxic 

substances. Therefore, it may be assumed that Sargassum would be found in areas where oil, dispersants, 

and other chemicals have accumulated following a catastrophic spill. The ultimate effects of toxins to 

Sargassum are unclear; however, it is evident that the accumulation provides a toxic environment for 

associated species, especially those that use the Sargassum as areas of refuge for larvae or other 

developmental stages (Unified Incident Command, 2010d). There would be noticeable effects on species 

that eat the plant material, such as sea turtles, and the death rate of Sargassum may be increased because 

of toxic substances, which would contribute to a major decline in its biomass. This would decrease 

available habitat for associated organisms and indirectly affect the survival rate and recruitment for 

associated fish species. The severity and duration of any toxic effects would be dependent on both the 

physical properties of the toxic components and their biological effects, such as how long it might take 

them to degrade, their solubility in water, and the degree that they accumulate in biological tissue.
B-46 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

5.2.2.8. Benthic Habitats 

Shelf Habitats 

In situations where soft-bottom infaunal communities are negatively impacted, recolonization by 

populations from neighboring soft-bottom substrate would be expected over a relatively short period. 

Recolonization would begin with recruitment and immigration of opportunistic species from surrounding 

stocks. More complex communities would follow with time. Repopulation could take longer for areas 

affected by direct oil contact in higher concentrations. 

Hard-bottom communities exposed to large amounts of resuspended sediments following a 

catastrophic, subsurface blowout could be subject to sediment suffocation, exposure to resuspended toxic 

contaminants, and reduced light penetration. The greatest impacts would occur to communities that exist 

in clear water with very low turbidity. The consequences of a blowout along, directly on, or near one of 

these features could be long lasting, although the occurrence of a blowout near such sensitive 

communities is unlikely because of stipulations described in NTL 2009-G39 prevents drilling activity 

near sensitive hard-bottom habitats. Impacts would more likely be from low-level or long-term exposure. 

This type of exposure has the potential to greatly impact coral reef communities, resulting in impaired 

reef health. Impacts to a community in more turbid waters would be greatly reduced, as the species are 

tolerant of suspended sediments, and recovery would occur quicker. 

Deepwater Soft-Bottom Benthic Communities 

In situations where soft-bottom infaunal communities are negatively impacted, recolonization by 

populations from neighboring soft-bottom substrate would be expected over a relatively short period of 

time for all organisms ranging from a matter of days for bacteria and probably less than 1 year for most 

macrofauna and megafauna species. This could take longer for areas affected by direct oil contact in 

higher concentrations. 

Deepwater Coral Benthic Communities 

Deepwater corals are expected to be resistant to oiling, with little effect from low exposure. Many 

invertebrates associated with deepwater coral communities, particularly the crustaceans, would likely be 

more susceptible to damage from oil exposure. Recolonization of severely damaged or destroyed 

communities could take years to decades. 

Deepwater Chemosynthetic Benthic Communities 

While chemosynthetic communities that receive low quantities of well-dispersed oil undergoing 

biodegradation would likely experience little negative effect, recolonization of severely damaged or 

destroyed communities could take years to decades. 

5.2.3. Socioeconomic Resources 

5.2.3.1. Offshore and Onshore Archaeological Resources 

While it is unlikely (Section 2.2.3.1), a known shipwreck could be impacted by the blowout itself or 

the subsequent oil spill; impacts (i.e., contamination) from the release of large quantities of dispersants 

associated with a deepwater, catastrophic blowout are possible. Because a site cannot be avoided unless 

its location in known, undiscovered shipwrecks are at a much higher risk as a result of a blowout. Longterm effects of oiling of prehistoric and historic archaeological resources are poorly understood; however, 

damage to the protective layer of corals and other organisms on shipwreck sites by oiling could alter the 

surrounding site dynamics and increase their degradation. In addition, onshore habitat degradation could 

lead to erosion, which would increase exposure to and subsidence of prehistoric and historic sites. Unlike 

biological resources that have the potential to recover, damage to archaeological resources from the spill 

or cleanup activities would be irreversible, leading to loss of important archaeological data needed for 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-47 

proper study and interpretation. Archaeological sites also provide recreational opportunities both offshore 

and onshore; therefore, the loss of a site would also have impacts on recreation. 

5.2.3.2. Commercial Fishing 

The Gulf is an important biologic and economic area in terms of seafood production and recreational 

fishing. According to NOAA, there are 3.2 million recreational fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico region 

who took 24 million fishing trips in 2008. Commercial fishermen in the Gulf harvested more than 

1 billion pounds of finfish and shellfish in 2008 (USDOC, NOAA, 2010g). The economic impacts of 

closures on commercial fishing are complicated to predict because the economic effects are dependent on 

season and would vary by fishery. If fishers cannot make up losses in the remainder of the season, a 

substantial part of their annual income could be lost. While the commercial fishing industry of Texas did 

not sustain measurable direct or indirect economic effects following the 1979 Ixtoc blowout and spill 

(Restrepo et al., 1982), there is a documented phenomenon that, long after an incident, the perception of 

tainted fish and shellfish from the impacted area persists (Keithly and Diop, 2001). It is reasonable to 

assume that a negative perception could impact the value of commercial fish resources for several 

seasons. 

5.2.3.3. Recreational Fishing 

In 2008, over 24 million recreational fishing trips were taken in the Gulf of Mexico, which generated 

about $12 billion in sales, over $6 billion in value-added impacts, and over 100,000 jobs (USDOC, 

NOAA, NMFS, 2010b). Unlike commercial fishing, recreational fishing is concentrated during the 

summer months. Therefore, a catastrophic spill occurring at the beginning of the recreational fishing 

season and continuing through the season would result in the loss of millions of recreational fishing trips 

and billions in subsequent sales. For example, during the summer months, scheduled fishing tournaments 

are held that would be hard to reschedule. Normal direct income and indirect income to the communities 

that host these tournaments would be lost for that year. 

5.2.3.4. Tourism and Recreational Resources 

The longer-term implications of a catastrophic event on tourism would depend on the extent to which 

any structural/ecological damage can be repaired, as well as on the extent to which public confidence in 

the tourism industry can be restored. For example, a catastrophic oil spill would likely affect the fish 

populations in the affected waters to some extent. The most direct impact of this would be decreased 

recreational fishing activity in a region to the extent that the fish population has decreased. However, a 

region would not fully recover from the event until confidence in fishing is restored and the remaining 

fish population recovers. In addition, restaurants in the region would be impacted to the extent to which 

they are perceived to use seafood products caught or raised in contaminated waters. Similarly, although 

beaches can be decontaminated not long after a spill has been stopped, lingering perceptions can be 

expected to negatively impact tourism. 

Oxford Economics (2010) conducted a study of recent catastrophic events in order to estimate the 

longer-term economic implications of the DWH oil spill. They estimate that the long-term economic 

damage from the spill could be between $7.6 and $22.7 billion. Analyzing previous oil spills and other 

catastrophic events, they also suggest that it could take 15-36 months for the tourism industry to recover 

to pre-spill levels. Given Florida’s dependence on fishing and beach activities (as well as the overall size 

of its economy), this study suggests that the State would bear the majority of the economic damage from 

the spill. This study also points out the complicated set of economic and psychological forces that 

ultimately determine the extent to which the tourism and recreation industries would recover from a 

catastrophic oil spill. 

5.2.3.5. Employment and Demographics 

While a catastrophic spill could immediately impact several Gulf States for several months through 

fishing closures, loss of tourism, and any suspension of oil and gas activities, anticipating the long-term 

economic and employment impacts in the Gulf of Mexico is a difficult task. Many of the potentially 
B-48 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

affected jobs, like fishing charters, are self-employed. Thus, they would not necessarily file for 

unemployment and will not be included in business establishment surveys used to estimate State 

unemployment levels. In addition, unemployment numbers in states are based on nonagricultural jobs, 

and the fishing industry is considered within the agriculture category. On the other side, it is also a 

challenge to estimate how many of these displaced workers have been hired to clean up the spill. For 

example, while thousands of vessels of opportunity would be active in the spill response, not all of these 

would be displaced commercial fishermen from the affected areas. The positive employment impacts 

related to response activities are likely to be shorter term than the negative impacts discussed above. 

Catastrophic spills have a huge regional economic impact, as seen recently in the DWH event. It is 

estimated that the total economic consequences of the DWH event will lead to a net loss of just under 

$20 billion for the U.S. economy in 2010, which would lower U.S. economic growth in 2010 by roughly 

0.1 percent and would reduce growth to a greater extent in the four states most affected. 

5.2.3.6. Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure 

Based on the rapid recovery of infrastructure that was heavily damaged by the catastrophic 2005 

hurricane season, there are not expected to be any long-term impacts to land use and coastal infrastructure 

as a result of a catastrophic oil-spill event. However, BOEM would continue to monitor the post-spill, 

long-term recovery phase of the DWH event for any changes that indicate otherwise. A catastrophic spill 

could generate up to 60,000 tons of oil-impacted solid materials disposed in landfills along the Gulf 

Coast. This waste may contain debris, beach or marsh material (sand/silt/clay), vegetation, and personal 

protection equipment collected during cleanup activities. This would be equivalent to 2-6 years of waste 

produced from OCS oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico (Dismukes et al., 2007). However, 

landfill capacity is not expected to be an issue at any phase of the oil-spill event or the long-term 

recovery. According to USEPA, existing landfills that are receiving oil-spill waste from the DWH event 

have plenty of capacity to handle the expected waste volumes. The oil-spill waste that is being disposed 

of in landfills represents less than 7 percent of the total daily waste normally accepted at these landfills 

(USEPA, 2010a). 

It is not expected that any long-term, land-use impacts would arise from properties that are utilized 

for restoration activities and would somehow have their future economic use compromised. The rise or 

fall of property values would not be solely a function of some kind of economic impact from a 

catastrophic oil-spill event. There are many other factors that influence the value of property and its best 

economic use. It is not clear from past experiences whether vegetation loss or erosion created by a spill 

could result in changes in land use. The amount and location of erosion and vegetation loss can be 

influenced by the time of year the spill occurs, its location, and weather patterns, including hurricane 

landfalls (Dismukes, personal communication, 2010a). 

5.2.3.7. Environmental Justice 

After the spill is stopped, the primary environmental justice concerns relate to possible long-term 

health impacts to cleanup workers, a predominately minority population, and to possible disposal of oilimpacted solid waste in predominantly minority areas. 

Suspension of Oil and Gas Activities 

An analysis of socioeconomic characteristics shows that people of Cajun ethnicity in the Gulf States, 

often found to be of a comparatively low socioeconomic status and to work jobs in the textile and oil 

industries (Henry and Bankston, 1999). Past studies suggest that a healthy offshore petroleum industry 

also indirectly benefits low-income and minority populations (Tolbert, 1995). One BOEM study in 

Louisiana found income inequality decreased during the oil boom of the 1980’s and increased with the 

decline (Tolbert, 1995). Although we know that many oil- and gas-related service industries are cutting 

costs and putting off maintenance to defer massive layoffs in response to the oil-spill-caused deepwater 

drilling suspension and the slowed schedule for shallow-water drilling permits, we do not fully 

understand their long-term impacts. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-49 

Onshore and Offshore Cleanup Workers 

By the end of a catastrophic spill, up to 50,000 personnel would be expected to be responding to the 

spill. The majority of these are field responders (United Incident Command, 2010f). As seen by the 

DWH event, the racial composition of cleanup crews was so conspicuous that Ben Jealous, the president 

of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), sent a public letter to BP 

Chief Operations Officer Tony Hayward on July 9, 2010, demanding to know why African Americans 

were over-represented in “the most physically difficult, lowest paying jobs, with the most significant 

exposure to toxins” (NAACP, 2010). While regulations require the wearing of protective gear and only a 

small percentage of cleanup workers suffer immediate illness and injuries (Center for Disease Control, 

2010), exposure could have long-term health impacts (e.g., increased rates of some types of cancer) 

(Savitz and Engel, 2010; Kirkeleit et al., 2008). Of the 38 accidents involving supertankers and resulting 

in large oil spills throughout the world, only seven studies on the repercussions of the exposure of spilled 

oils on human health have been completed. Aguilera et al. (2010) compiled and reviewed these studies 

for patterns of health effects and found evidence of the relationship between exposure and “acute 

physical, psychological, genotoxic, and endocrine effects in the exposed individuals.” Acute symptoms 

from exposure to oil, dispersants, and degreasers include headaches, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, sore 

eyes, runny nose, sore throat, cough, nose bleeds, rash, blisters, shortness of breath, and dizziness 

(Sathiakumar, 2010). The USEPA’s monitoring data have so far shown that the use of dispersants during 

the DWH event did not result in a presence of chemicals that surpassed human health benchmarks 

(Trapido, 2010). Longitudinal epidemiological studies of possible long-term health effects from exposure 

to either the DWH oil spill or dispersants, such as the possible bioaccumulation of toxins in tissues and 

organs, are lacking and the potential for the long-term human health effects are largely unknown 

(although the National Institutes of Health has proposed such a study). 

Prior research on post-spill cleanup efforts found that the duration of cleaning work was a risk factor 

for acute toxic symptoms and that seamen had the highest occurrence of toxic symptoms compared with 

volunteers or paid workers. Therefore, participants in the “Vessels of Opportunity” program, which 

recruited local boat owners (including Cajun, Houma Indian, and Vietnamese fishermen) to assist in 

cleanup efforts, would likely be one of the most exposed groups. African Americans are thought to have 

made up a high percentage of the cleanup workforce. The OSHA released two matrices of gear 

requirements for onshore and offshore Gulf operations that are organized by task (OSHA, 2010a). Of 

past oil-spill workers, uninformed and poorly informed workers were at more risk of exposure and 

symptoms, demonstrating the importance of education and proper training of workers (Sathiakumar, 

2010). Therefore, a catastrophic spill could disproportionately affect seamen and onshore workers such 

as Cajuns, Vietnamese, Houma Indian, and African Americans. 

During a recent National Institute of Environmental Sciences workshop regarding the health effects of 

the DWH oil spill, Chairperson Nancy E. Adler pointed to the uncertainty regarding health effects and 

these types of events, “While studies of previous oil spills provide some basis for identifying and 

mitigating the human health effects of these exposures, the existing data are insufficient to fully 

understand and predict the overall impact of hazards from the DWH oil spill on the health of 

individuals—including workers, volunteers, residents, visitors, and special populations” (Institute of 

Medicine, 2010). In order to address these data gaps, the National Institute of Environmental Sciences 

plans to begin a prospective study of the mental and physical health of about 50,000 workers who helped 

battle the spill. 

Solid-Waste Disposal 

Following a catastrophic spill, environmental justice concerns arise related to the disposal of cleanuprelated wastes near minority and/or low-income communities (Schleifstein, 2010). It is estimated a 

catastrophic spill could generate up to 60,000 tons of oil-impacted solid materials that would be disposed 

in landfills along the Gulf Coast. While no new landfills would be built because of a catastrophic spill, 

the use of existing landfills might exacerbate existing environmental justice issues. For example, Mobile, 

Alabama, and Miami, Florida, are majority minority urban centers with a majority of minority residents 

living within a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius of chosen landfills or liquid processing centers. While only a small 

percentage of DWH waste was sent to these facilities—13 percent of the liquid waste to Liquid 

Environmental Solutions in Mobile and only 0.28 percent of the total liquid waste to Cliff Berry in 
B-50 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Miami—they could potentially receive more for future spills. For example, of the nine landfills approved 

by USEPA for oil-impacted solid materials, more than half of the waste was disposed of in four landfills 

that were located in areas where minority groups comprised the majority of the population (Hernandez, 

2010). Disposal procedures for the DWH event involved sorting waste materials into standard “waste 

stream types” at small, temporary stations, and then sending each type to existing facilities that were 

licensed to dispose of them. The location of temporary sorting stations was linked to the location of 

containment and cleanup operations. Hence, future locations of any sorting stations are not predictable 

since they would be determined by the needs of cleanup operations. However, waste disposal locations 

were determined by the specializations of existing facilities and by contractual relationships between 

them and the cleanup and containment firms. Louisiana received about 82 percent of the DWH liquid 

waste recovered; of this, 56 percent was manifested to mud facilities located in Venice, Plaquemines 

Parish, Louisiana, and Port Fourchon, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana, and then transferred to a processing 

facility in Port Arthur, Texas. The waste remaining after processing was sent to deep well injection 

landfills located in Fannett and Big Hill, Texas. The sites located in Venice and Port Fourchon, 

Louisiana, and Port Arthur, Fannett, and Big Hill, Texas, have low-minority populations but a few of 

these areas have substantial poverty rates relative to State and county means. Although, in the case of the 

DWH event, most of the cleanup occurred in the CPA and disposal occurred in both the CPA and WPA; 

this would likely happen should a future spill event occur in the CPA. 

6. CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC 

IMPACT 

Like the recent, devastating hurricane seasons of 2005 and 2008, the DWH event has changed the 

environmental baseline of the Gulf of Mexico. Another catastrophic oil spill would make the resources of 

the Gulf even more susceptible to further impacts, adding to the cumulative effects of an already sensitive 

ecosystem. 

The Gulf Coast has survived major natural and manmade disasters (i.e., hurricanes and oil spills), 

through which the people and environmental resources of the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf Coast have 

repeatedly demonstrated their resiliency. While environmental and socioeconomic resources may recover 

from a natural or manmade disaster if given enough time between disasters, disasters happening in unison 

or within short periods of each other would make recovery more difficult. 

The magnitude of OCS and non-OCS activity in the Gulf of Mexico is so immense that routine 

activities associated with a single OCS oil and gas activity (e.g., single lease sale, single well) have a 

minor to no incremental contribution to the impacts of cumulative activities. However, a catastrophic 

blowout and spill would have a major contribution to cumulative impacts. 

7. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

7.1. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM PHASE 1 (INITIAL EVENT) 

The initial phase of the catastrophic event analyzed in the Gulf of Mexico is a blowout causing an 

explosion and fire, possibly resulting in the sinking of the drilling rig or platform, which could potentially 

cause injuries and fatalities because of the explosion, fire, and structure failure. Impacts during Phase 1 

would be limited to workers on the drilling rig or platform and response vessels and environmental 

resources in the immediate vicinity of the blowout. Air quality impacts include the emission of pollutants 

from the oil and the fire that are hazardous to human health and that can possibly be fatal if it involves 

high concentrations of H2S or other highly toxic gases. Water quality impacts include localized water 

quality effects, which could include the release of a large amount of methane gas and the disturbance of a 

large amount of sediments over an extended area, if the blowout occurs outside the wellbore, below the 

seafloor. 

An explosion would kill any birds resting on the platform, including birds protected under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Eruption of gases and fluids may generate significant pressure waves and 

noise to injure or kill individual animals in the vicinity, including federally listed threatened and 

endangered species under the ESA or MMPA. A shock wave underwater may also impact commercial 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-51 

and recreational fisheries in the area. Benthic communities beyond avoidance zones could be smothered. 

In addition to a large number of fatalities and injuries of people on the drilling rig or platform itself, 

commercial and recreational fishers and divers near the blowout could be injured or killed. The blowout 

could also damage any unidentified archaeological sites nearby.

7.2. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM PHASE 2 (OFFSHORE SPILL) 

The second phase of the catastrophic event analyzed is an extended, offshore spill estimated to last 

1-4 months for a blowout in shallow water and 3-5 months for a blowout in deep water, because of more 

difficult intervention. A large-scale response effort would be expected for a catastrophic spill, including 

tens of thousands of responders, several thousand vessels, and the release of a large amount of 

dispersants. 

A catastrophic spill has the potential to cause population level impacts to offshore biological 

resources. Multiple Federal and State-listed, threatened and endangered species could be impacted in the 

water column or at the sea surface. In addition, natural processes (e.g., flocculation) and human 

intervention (i.e., subsea dispersants) could expose benthic communities and archaeological sites to oil. 

Additionally, known and previously undiscovered archaeological sites and benthic habitats could be 

damaged by bottom-disturbing activities associated with the response effort, including the anchoring of 

vessels. Pollutants in the spilled oil that are hazardous to response workers without protective equipment 

would be emitted into the air through evaporation and through in-situ or controlled burns of oil slicks. 

Socioeconomic impacts would begin while the spill is still offshore. A large portion of the Gulf of 

Mexico EEZ and most of State waters could be closed to commercial and recreational fishing for several 

months, possibly causing the loss of revenue for an entire season or year. These closures may 

predominately affect minority or ethnic groups. Tourism may also be impacted because of either 

perceived damage to recreational resources that has not yet materialized or to general hesitation on the 

part of travelers to visit the overall region because of the spill. Suspension of some oil and gas activities 

would possibly follow a catastrophic event, temporarily affecting jobs in the oil and gas industry. 

7.3. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM PHASE 3 (ONSHORE CONTACT) 

The third phase of the catastrophic event analyzed is oiling of the shoreline. Exponential increase of 

the length of impacted shoreline is expected as the spill would continue over several months, which 

would likely overwhelm response efforts. Because of longer intervention times, a deepwater blowout and 

spill could impact over 1,000 mi (1,609 km) of shoreline. While a catastrophic spill from a shallow-water 

blowout is expected to be a lower volume than a deepwater blowout, the site would generally be located 

closer to shore, allowing less time for oil to be weathered, dispersed, and recovered. This could result in 

more concentrated and toxic oiling of several hundred miles of shoreline for more than 2 months. 

The severity of oiling would vary between heavy, moderate, light, and occasional tarballs. However, 

because of the length of shoreline that could be potentially oiled and the sensitivity of the Gulf Coast, a 

catastrophic spill could cause extensive habitat degradation. Loss of vegetation could lead to erosion and 

permanent landloss. Though response efforts (including the use of skimmers and booms) would decrease 

the amount of oil contacting the coastline, significant amounts of oil would remain to impact coastal 

water quality. Gulf of Mexico water quality is already rated as fair to poor, according to USEPA. 

Depending on timing and location, a catastrophic spill has the potential to cause population-level impacts 

on biological resources. Dozens of Federal and State-listed, threatened and endangered species could be 

impacted. Impacts on air quality may have adverse effects on oil-spill responders. 

While cultural resources were recognized as significant early in the response and archaeologists are at 

present embedded in SCAT teams and consulting with cleanup crews, efforts to prevent coastal cultural 

resources from becoming contaminated by oil would likely be overwhelmed by the magnitude of 

shoreline impacted and/or in the event of a hurricane during the spill cleanup efforts. In addition to 

closures in Federal waters, portions to all of individual State waters would also be closed to commercial 

and recreational fishing. The economic impact of these closures would have a disproportional effect on 

minority and low-income groups, and shoreline impacts would generate additional subsistence-related 

effects. A catastrophic spill also has the potential to significantly impact the Gulf Coast recreation and 

tourism industries, particularly water-dependent and beach-dependent components of these industries. An 
B-52 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

influx of cleanup and relief workers would not fully offset economic impacts. The influx a large number 

of responders and the creation of staging areas because of a catastrophic spill would have temporary 

impacts (e.g., increased traffic congestion and some possible competing land-use issues) on land use and 

infrastructure. In addition, there is a potential for delays in cargo handling and slow vessel traffic because 

of decontamination operations at various sites along the marine transportation system. 

7.4. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM PHASE 4 (LONG-TERM IMPACTS) 

Phase 4 focuses on the long-term impacts of a catastrophic oil spill. While impacts to air and water 

quality may be shorter term, a catastrophic spill can have impacts on Gulf of Mexico ecosystems long 

after the well is capped or killed and cleanup activities have concluded. In some cases, marine 

ecosystems may take decades to fully recover or may recover to alternative states. 

Coastal and offshore habitats serve important ecological functions. Onshore, the loss of vegetation 

could lead to erosion and permanent landloss. Offshore, repopulation of benthic communities could take 

longer for areas affected by direct oil contact in higher concentrations. For birds, fish, marine mammals 

and sea turtles, damage of habitats, loss of reproductively capable adults as well as juveniles, and 

sublethal impacts from oil exposure can lead to impaired reproduction. This can potentially reduce 

population levels. For example, a catastrophic spill could decrease available habitat for associated 

organisms and indirectly affect the survival rate and recruitment for associated fish species. In the case of 

birds, long-term, sublethal, chronic effects may exceed immediate losses because of direct mortality (i.e., 

oiled birds) if such residual effects influence a significant proportion of the population or 

disproportionately impact an important population segment. A catastrophic spill could cause the 

destruction of the remaining habitat of certain onshore species, such as the diamondback terrapin or beach 

mice. 

A catastrophic spill can also have long-term impacts on socioeconomic resources. Positive 

employment impacts related to response activities are likely to be shorter term than the negative impacts. 

Catastrophic spills have a huge regional economic impact (billions of dollars), as recently seen with the 

DWH event. The longer-term implications for commercial and recreational fishing and tourism depend 

on the extent and perception of environmental damage. After the spill is stopped, the primary 

environmental justice concerns would be long-term health impacts of predominately minority workers 

and the disposal of oil-impacted solid waste in predominantly minority areas. Long-term impacts to land 

use and coastal infrastructure are not expected. Unlike biological or other socioeconomic resources that 

have the potential to recover, damage to archaeological resources from the spill or cleanup activities 

would be irreversible, leading to the loss of important archaeological data needed for proper study and 

interpretation.

8. PREPARERS 

James F. Bennett, Chief, Environmental Assessment Branch 

Brad J. Blythe, Oceanographer 

Gregory S. Boland, Biological Oceanographer 

Darice Breeding, Physical Scientist 

Sindey Chaky, Social Scientist 

Deborah Epperson, Biologist 

Jeff Gleason, Biologist 

Donald (Tre) W. Glenn III, Protected Species Biologist 

Gary D. Goeke, Chief, Environmental Assessment Section 

Larry M. Hartzog, Biologist 

Dirk Herkhof, Meteorologist 

Chester Huang, Meteorologist 

Chris Horrell, Marine Archeologist 

Tim Holder, Socioeconomic Specialist 

Jack Irion, Supervisor, Marine Archaeologist, Social Sciences Unit 

Mark D. Jensen, Economist 

Brian Jordan, Archaeologist 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-53 

Arie R. Kaller, Biologist 

Greg Kozlowski, Environmental Scientist 

Daniel (Herb) Leedy, Supervisor, Biological Sciences Unit 

Harry Luton, Social Scientist 

Lissa Lyncker, Environmental Scientist 

Robert Martinson, Senior Environmental Scientist 

Margaret Metcalf, Supervisor, Physical Scientist, Physical Science Unit 

Deborah H. Miller, Technical Editor 

David P. Moran, Biologist 

Michelle V. Morin, Environmental Protection Specialist 

Maureen Mulino, Biologist 

Constance E. Murphy, Editor 

Michelle K Nannen, Biologist 

Erin O’Reilly, Physical Scientist 

James Sinclair, Biologist 

Kimberly A. Skrupky, Marine Biologist 

Kristen L. Strellec, Economist 

Sally Valdes, Fisheries Biologist 

James R. Woehr, Avian Biologist 

9. REFERENCES 

Adcroft, A., R. Hallberg, J.P. Dunne, B.L. Samuels, J.A. Galt, C.H. Barker, and B. Payton. 2010. 

Simulations of underwater plumes of dissolved oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Geophysical Research 

Letters. Vol. 37. 5 pp. 

Aguilera, F., J. Méndez, E. Pásaro, and B. Laffon. 2010. Review on the effects of exposure to spilled 

oils on human health. Journal of Applied Toxicology 30:291–301. doi:10.1002/jat.1521. 

Alabama State Port Authority. 2010. Spill continues to impact Gulf Coastal States, Port of Mobile will 

remain open. Media Update, July 2, 2010. Internet website: http://www.asdd.com/pdf/

ASPA_PortofMobile_OilSpillUpdate_07022010.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Albers, P.H. 1980. Transfer of crude oil from contaminated water to bird eggs. Environmental Research 

22:307-314. 

Albers, P.H. and G.H. Heinz. 1983. FLIT-MLO and No. 2 fuel oil: Effects of aerosol applications to 

mallard eggs on hatchability and behavior of ducklings. Environmental Research 30:381-388. 

Alexander, S.K. and J.W. Webb. 1983. Effects of oil on growth and decomposition of Spartina 

alterniflora. In: Proceedings, 1983 Oil Spill Conference. . .February 28-March 3, 1983, San 

Antonio, TX. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. Pp. 529-532. 

Alexander, S.K. and J.W. Webb. 1987. Relationship of Spartina alterniflora growth to sediment oil 

content following an oil spill. In: Proceedings, 1987 Oil Spill Conference. . .April 6-9, 1988, 

Baltimore, MD. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. Pp. 445-450. 

Alonso-Alvarez, C., I. Munilla, M. López-Alonso, and A. Veland. 2007. Sublethal toxicity of the 

Prestige oil spill on yellow-legged gulls. Environ. Int. 54:773-781. 

Australian Maritime Safety Authority. 2010. Oil spill dispersants: Top 20 frequently asked questions 

(FAQs). Internet website: http://www.amsa.gov.au/Marine_Environment_Protection/National_plan/

General_Information/Dispersants_Information/FAQ_Oil_Spills_Dispersants.asp. Accessed 

November 10, 2011. 

Aversa, J. 2010. Oil spill’s economic damage may not go beyond Gulf. Internet website: http://

www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9GK80MG0.htm. Accessed November 17, 2011. 

Baca, B., G.A. Ward, C.H. Lane, and P.A. Schuler. 2005. Net environmental benefit analysis (NEBA) of 

dispersed oil on nearshore tropical ecosystems derived from the 20 year “TROPICS” field study. In: 
B-54 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Proceedings 2005 International Oil Spill Conference. May 15-19, 2005, Miami Beach, FL. 

Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. 

Baird, P.H. 1990. Concentrations of seabirds at oil-drilling rigs. Condor 92:768-771. 

Bak, R.P.M. and J.H.B.W. Elgershuizen. 1976. Patterns of oil-sediment rejection in corals. Marine 

Biology 37:105-113. 

Bankston, C.L. and M. Zhou. 1996. Go fish: The Louisiana Vietnamese and ethnic entrepreneurship in 

an extractive industry. National Journal of Sociology 10(1): 37-55. 

Barras, J.A. 2006. Land area change in coastal Louisiana after the 2005 hurricanes: A series of three 

maps. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey. Open File Report 06-1274. 

Barras, J.A., S. Beville, D. Britsch, S. Hartley, S. Hawes, J. Johnston, P. Kemp, Q. Kinler, A. Martucci, 

J. Porthouse, D. Reed, K. Roy, S. Sapkota, and J. Suhayda. 2003. Historical and projected coastal 

Louisiana land changes: 1978-2050. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey. Open File 

Report 03-334. 

Bartha, R. and R.M. Atlas. 1983. Transport and transformations of petroleum: Biological processes. In: 

Boesch, D.F. and N.N. Rabalais, eds). Long-term environmental effects of offshore oil and gas 

development. Taylor and Francis, Abingdon. 

Beck, M.W., K.L. Heck, Jr., K.W. Able, D.L. Childers, D.B. Eggleston, B.M. Gillanders, B. Halpern, 

C.G. Hays, K. Hoshino, T.J. Minello, R.J. Orth, P.F. Sheridan, and M.P. Weinstein. 2001. The 

identification, conservation, and management of estuarine and marine nurseries for fish and 

invertebrates. BioScience 51(8):633-641. 

Beck, W.W., W.L. Kruczynski, and P.F. Sheridan. 2006. Conclusion. In: Handley, D.A, D. Altsman, 

and R. DeMay, eds. 2006. Seagrass status and trends in the northern Gulf of Mexico: 1940-2002. 

Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5287. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 855-R-04-003. 

Internet website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5287/. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Bittner, J.E. 1996. Cultural resources and the Exxon-Valdez oil spill: An overview. Proceedings of the 

Exxon-Valdez Oil Spill Symposium. American Fisheries Society Symposium 18:814-818. 

Boesch, D.F. and N.N. Rabalais, eds. 1987. Long-term environmental effects of offshore oil and gas 

development. London: Elsevier Applied Science Publishers. 696 pp. 

Burdeau, C. 2010. Widespread oyster deaths found on Louisiana reefs. The Associated Press. July 17, 

2010. Internet website: http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/07/

widespread_oyster_deaths_found.html. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Burdeau C. and J. Collins. 2010. Marshes fouled by Gulf of Mexico oil spill show signs of regrowth. 

The Associated Press. August 12, 2010. Internet website: http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/

index.ssf/2010/08/marshes_fouled_by_gulf_of_mexi.html. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Burns, K.A. and A.H. Knap. 1989. The Bahía Las Minas oil spill: Hydrocarbon uptake by reef building 

corals. Marine Pollution Bulletin 20(8):391-398. 

Byrd, G.V., J.H. Reynolds, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Persistence rates and detection probabilities of bird 

carcasses on beaches of Unalaska Island, Alaska, following the wreck of the M/V Selendang Ayu. 

Marine Ornithology 37:197-204. 

Caetano, M., M.J. Madureira, and C. Vale. 2003. Metal remobilization during resuspension of anoxic 

contaminated sediment: Short-term laboratory study. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 143:23-40. 

Cagle, F.R. 1952. A Louisiana terrapin population (Malaclemys). Copeia 1952:74-76. 

Caldwell, A.B. 2003. Do terraces and coconut mats affect seeds and submerges aquatic vegetation at 

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge? Master’s thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. 

41 pp. Internet website: http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0625103-110131/unrestricted/

Caldwell_thesis.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2011. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-55 

Canadian Center for Energy Information. 2010. What are oil sands and heavy oil? Internet website: 

http://www.centreforenergy.com/AboutEnergy/ONG/OilsandsHeavyOil/Overview.asp?page=1. 

Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Carls, M.G., S.D. Rice, and J. Hose. 1999. Sensitivity of fish embryos to weathered crude oil: Part 1. 

Low-level exposure during incubation causes malformations, genetic damage and mortality in larval 

Pacific herring (Clupea pallashi). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18(3):481-493. 

Carlson, P.R., Jr. and K. Madley. 2006. Statewide summary for Florida. In: Handley, D.A, D. Altsman, 

and R. DeMay, eds. 2006. Seagrass status and trends in the northern Gulf of Mexico: 1940-2002. 

Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5287. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 855-R-04-003. 

Internet website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5287/. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Castellanos, D.L. and L.P. Rozas. 2001. Nekton use of submerged aquatic vegetation, marsh, and 

shallow unvegetated bottom in the Atchafalaya River Delta, a Louisiana tidal freshwater ecosystem. 

Estuaries 24(2):184-197. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2010. NIOSH report of BP illness and injury data (April 23 

– June 6, 2010). Internet website: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/oilspillresponse/pdfs/

NIOSHRept-BPInjuryandIllnessDataApril23-June6.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Clark Atlanta University. Environmental Justice Resource Center. 2010. BP waste oil spill waste 

disposal correction. Internet website: http://www.ejrc.cau.edu/GulfCorrection8-24-2010.html. 

Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Cook, B.B. and A.H. Knap. 1983. The effects of crude oil and chemical dispersant on photosynthesis in 

the brain coral, Diploria strigosa. Marine Biology 78:21-27. 

Conan, G. 1982. The long-term effects of the Amoco Cadiz oil spill. Philosophical Transactions of the 

Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 297(1087). 

Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2010. Report regarding the Minerals Management Service’s 

National Environmental Policy Act policies, practices, and procedures as they relate to Outer 

Continental Shelf oil and gas exploration and development. 41 pp. Internet website: http://

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ceq/20100816-ceq-mms-ocs-nepa.pdf. Posted 

August 16, 2010. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Darnell, R.M., R.E. Defenbaugh, and D. Moore. 1983. Atlas of biological resources of the continental 

shelf, northwestern Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, New 

Orleans, LA. BLM Open File Report No. 82-04. 

Davis, H.C. 1958. Survival and growth of clam and oyster larvae at different salinities. Biological 

Bulletin, Marine Biological Laboratory 114(3):296-307. 

Davis, B., D.S. Etkin, M. Landry, and K. Watts. 2004. Determination of oil persistence: A historical 

perspective. Proc. Fifth Biennial Freshwater Spills Symposium. Internet website: http://

www.environmental-research.com/erc_papers/ERC_paper_19.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Dean, T.A. and S.C. Jewett. 2001. Habitat-specific recovery of shallow subtidal communities following 

the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Ecological Applications 11(5):1456-1471. 

Deegan, L.A. 1989. Nekton, the free-swimming consumers. In: Day, J.W. Jr., C.A.S. Hall, 

W.M. Kemp, and A. Yanez-Arancibia, eds. Estuarine ecology. New York, NY: Wiley and Sons, 

Inc. 400 pp. 

Delaune, R.D., W.H. Patrick, and R.J. Bureh. 1979. Effect of crude oil on a Louisiana Spartina 

alterniflora salt marsh. Environ. Poll. 20:21-31. 

Dismukes, D. 2010a. Personal communication. Associate Director, LSU Center for Energy Studies, 

Baton Rouge, LA. September 1, 2010. 

Dismukes, D. 2010b. Personal communication. Associate Director, LSU Center for Energy Studies, 

Baton Rouge, LA. August 30, 2010. 
B-56 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Dismukes, D.E., M. Barnett, D. Vitrano, and K. Strellec. 2007. Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas scenario 

examination: Onshore waste disposal. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 2007-051. 5 pp. 

Dodge, R.E., S.C. Wyers, A.H. Knap, H.R. Frith, T.D. Sleeter, and S.R. Smith. 1984. The effects of oil 

and oil dispersants on hermatypic coral skeletal growth (extension rate). Coral Reefs 3:191-198. 

Ducklow, H.W. and R. Mitchell. 1979. Composition of mucus released by coral reef Coelenterates. 

Limnology and Oceanography 24(4):706-714. 

Dunnet, G.M., D.J. Crisp, G. Conan, and W.R.P. Bourne. 1982. The long-term effects of oil pollution on 

marine populations, communities and ecosystems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 

of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 297(1087):413-427. Internet website: http://

www.jstor.org/stable/2396584. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Dunstan, W. M., L.P. Atkinson, J. Natoli. 1975. Stimulation and inhibition of phytoplankton growth by 

low molecular weight hydrocarbons. Marine Biology, 08-01. 

Eccleston, C.H. 2008. NEPA and environmental planning: Tools, techniques, and approaches for 

practitioners. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 447 pp. 

Ejechi, B.O. 2003. Biodegradation of wood in crude oil-polluted soil. World Journal of Microbiology & 

Biotechnology 19(8):799-804. ISSN: 0959-3993. 

Elgershuizen, J.H.B.W. and H.A.M. deKruijf. 1976. Toxicity of crude oils and a dispersant to the stony 

coral Madracis mirabilis. Marine Pollution Bulletin 7(2):22-25. 

Energy Resources Co. Inc. (ERCO). 1982. IXTOC oil spill assessment: Executive summary. U.S. Dept. 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Contract No. AA851-CTO-71. Cambridge, MA. 39 pp. 

Internet website: http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3977.pdf. Accessed November 

10, 2011. 

Esler, D., J.A. Schmutz, R.L. Jarvis, and D.M. Mulcahy. 2000. Winter survival of adult female harlequin 

ducks in relation to history of contamination by the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 64:839-847. 

Fanning, K., K.L. Carder, and P.R. Betzer. 1982. Sediment resuspension by coastal waters: A potential 

mechanism for nutrient re-cycling on the ocean’s margins. Deep-Sea Research 29:953-965. 

Fingas, M., F. Ackerman, P. Lambert, K. Li, Z. Wang, J. Mullin, L. Hannon, D. Wang, A. Steenkammer, 

R. Hiltabrand, R. Turpin, and P. Campagna. 1995. The Newfoundland offshore burn experiment: 

Further results of emissions measurement. In: Proceedings of the Eighteenth Arctic and Marine 

Oilspill Program Technical Seminar, Volume 2, June 14-16, 1995, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 

Pp. 915-995. 

Fischel, M., W. Grip, and I.A. Mendelssohn. 1989. Study to determine the recovery of a Louisiana 

marsh from an oil spill. In: Proceedings, 1989 Oil Spill Conference, February 13-16, 1989, San 

Antonio, TX. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. Pp. 383-387. 

Flint, P.L., A.C. Fowler, and R.F. Rockwell. 1999. Modeling losses of birds associated with the oil spill 

from the M/V Citrus off St. Paul Island, Alaska. Ecological Modeling 117:261-267. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2010. Sea turtle nests to be moved Friday. News 

Release, June 22, 2010. 2 pp. Internet website: http://myfwc.com/news/news-releases/2010/july/22/

news_10_x_oilspill34/. Accessed November 17, 2011. 

Flynn, D. 2010. NOAA closes Gulf spill area to fishing. Food safety news. May 3, 2010. Internet 

website: http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/05/noaa-closes-spill-area-to-fishing/. Accessed 

November 10, 2011. 

Ford, R.G., G.W. Page, and H.R. Carter. 1987. Estimating mortality of seabirds from oil spills. In: 

Proceedings of the 1987 Oil Spill Conference. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. 

Pp. 747-751. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-57 

Fowler, A.C. and P.L. Flint. 1997. Persistence rates and detection probabilities of oiled King Eider 

carcasses on beaches of St. Paul Island, Alaska. Marine Pollution Bulletin 34:522-526. 

Frithsen, J.B., R. Elmgren, and D.T. Rudnick. 1985. Responses of benthic meiofauna to long-term, lowlevel additions of No. 2 fuel oil. Marine Ecology Progress Series 23:1-14. 

Fry, D.M., J. Swenson, L.A. Addiego, C.R. Grau, and A. Kang. 1986. Reduced reproduction of wedgetailed shearwaters exposed to weathered Santa Barbara crude oil. Archives of Environmental 

Contamination and Toxicology 15:453-463. 

Ganning, B., D.J. Reish, and D. Straughan. 1984. Recovery and restoration of rocky shores, sandy 

beaches, tidal flats, and shallow subtidal bottoms impacted by oil spill. In: Cairns, J., Jr. and 

A.L. Buikema, Jr., eds. Restoration of habitats impacted by oil spills. Boston, MA. 

George-Ares, A. and J.R. Clark. 2000. Aquatic toxicology of two Corexit® registered dispersants. 

Chemosphere 40(8):897-906. 

Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin, eds. 1990. Sea mammals and oil: Confronting the risks. San Diego, 

CA: Academic Press. 

Gesteria, J.L.G. and J.C. Dauvin. 2000. Amphipods are good bioindicators of the impact of oil spills on 

sift-bottom macrobenthic communities. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40(11):1017-1027. 

Gittings, S.R., T.J. Bright, W.W. Schroeder, W.W. Sager, J.S. Laswell, and R. Rezak. 1992. Invertebrate 

assemblages and ecological controls on topographic features in the northeast Gulf of Mexico. 

Bulletin of Marine Science 50(3):435-455. 

Golet, G.H., P.E. Seisner, A.D. McGuire, D.D. Roby, J.B. Fischer, K.J. Kuletz, D.B. Irons, T.A. Dean, 

S.C. Jewett, and S.H. Newman. 2003. Long-term direct and indirect effects of the Exxon Valdez oil 

spill on pigeon guillemots in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Marine Ecology Progress Series 

241:287-304. 

Gómez Gesteira, J.L. and J.C. Dauvin. 2000. Amphipods are good bioindicators of the impact of oil 

spills on soft-bottom macrobenthic communities. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40(11):1017-1027. 

González, J, F.G. Figueiras, M. Aranguren-Gassis, B.G. Crespo, E. Fernández, X.A.G. Morán, and 

M. Nieto-Cid. 2009. Effect of a simulated oil spill on natural assemblages of marine phytoplankton 

enclosed in microcosms. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 83(3):265-276. 

Graham, W.M., R.H. Condon, R.H. Carmichael, I. D’Ambra, H.K. Patterson, L.J. Linn, and 

F.J. Hernandez, Jr. 2010. Oil carbon entered the coastal planktonic food web during the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill. Environ. Res. Lett. 5 045301:1-6. 

Guzmán, H.M. and I. Holst. 1993. Effects of chronic oil-sediment pollution on the reproduction of the 

Caribbean reef coral Siderastrea siderea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 26:276-282. 

Guzman, H.M., J.B.C. Jackson, and E. Weil. 1991. Short-term ecological consequences of a major oil 

spill on Panamanian subtidal reef corals. Coral Reefs 10:1-12. 

Haddad, R. and S. Murawski. 2010. Analysis of hydrocarbons in samples provided from the cruise of the 

R/V Weatherbird II, May 23-26, 2010. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanographic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD. 14 pp. 

Haig, S.M., C.L. Ferland, F.J. Cuthbert, J. Dingledine, J.P. Goossen, A. Hecht, and N. McPhillips. 2005. 

A complete species census and evidence for regional declines in piping plovers. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 69:160-173. 

Hamilton, P. 1990. Deep currents in the Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Physical Oceanography 20:1087-

1104. 

Hargreaves, S. 2010. Drilling ban: Jobs at stake. Internet website: http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/24/

news/economy/drilling_jobs_at_stake/index.htm?postversion=2010062410. Accessed November 10, 

2011. 
B-58 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Hazen, T.C., E.A. Dubinsky, T.Z. DeSantis, G.L. Andersen, Y.M. Picento, N. Singh, J.K. Jansson, 

A. Probst, S.E. Borglin, J.L. Fortney, W.T. Stringfellow, M. Bill, M.S. Conrad, L.M. Tom, 

K.L. Chavarria, T.R. Alusi, R. Lamendella, D.C. Joyner, C. Spier, J. Baelum, M. Auer, M.L. Zelma, 

R. Chakraborty, E.L. Sonnenthal, P. D’haeseleer, H.N. Holman, S. Osman, Z. Lu, J.D. Van Nostrand, 

Y. Deng, J. Zhou, and O.U. Mason. 2010. Deep-sea oil plume enriches indigenous oil-degrading 

bacteria. Science Express. August 24, 2010. 

Hemmer, M.J., M.G. Barron, and R.M. Greene. 2010. Comparative toxicity of Louisiana sweet crude oil 

(LSC) and chemically dispersed LSC to two Gulf of Mexico aquatic test species. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. July 31, 2010. 

Hemmerling, S.A. and C.E. Colten. 2003. Environmental justice considerations in Lafourche Parish, 

Louisiana: Final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2003-038. 348 pp. 

Henry, J.M. and C.L. Bankston III. 1999. Louisiana Cajun ethnicity: Symbolic or structural? 

Sociological Spectrum: Mid-South Sociological Association, 1521-0707, 19(2):223-248. 

Hernandez, D. 2010. Here’s where BP is dumping its oil spill waste. ColorLines. August 4 2010. 

Internet website: http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/08/

heres_where_bp_is_dumping_its_oil_spill_waste.html. Accessed November 17, 2011. 

Hernandez, F.J., S. Powers, and W. Graham. 2010. Seasonal variability in ichthyoplankton abundance 

and seasonal composition in the northern Gulf of Mexico off Alabama. Fish Bull 108:193-207. 

Hiett, R.L. and J.W. Milon. 2002. Economic impact of recreational fishing and diving associated with 

offshore oil and gas structures in the Gulf of Mexico: Final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 

2002-010. 98 pp. 

Hing, L.S., T. Ford, P. Finch, M. Crane, and D. Morritt. 2011. Laboratory stimulation of oil-spill effects 

on marine phytoplankton. Aquat. Toxicol. 103(1-2):32-7. 

Hogan, J.L. 2003. Occurrence of the diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin littoralis) at South 

Deer Island in Galveston Bay, Texas, April 2001–May 2002. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological 

Survey. USGS Open File Report 03-022. 30 pp. 

Howell, K. 2010. Gulf spill roundup. Greenwire, July 2, 2010. 

Hsieh, J.L., J.S. Fries, and R.T. Noble. 2007. Vibrio and phytoplankton dynamics during the summer of 

2004 in a eutrophying estuary. Ecological Applications 17(5):S102-S109. 

Institute of Medicine. 2010. Assessing the effects of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill on human health: A 

summary of the June 2010 workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Internet 

website: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2010/Assessing-the-Effects-of-the-Gulf-of-Mexico-Oil-Spillon-Human-Health.aspx. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Jackson, J.B.C., J.D. Cubit, B.D. Keller, V. Batista, K. Burns, H.M. Caffey, R.L. Caldwell, S.D. Garrity, 

C.D. Getter, C. Gonzalez, H.M. Guzman, K.W. Kaufmann, A.H. Knap, S.C. Levings, M.J. Marshall, 

R. Steger, R.C. Thompson, and E. Weil. 1989. Ecological effects of a major oil spill on Panamanian 

coastal marine communities. Science 243:37-44. 

Jernelöv, A. and O. Lindén. 1981. Ixtoc I: A case study of the world's largest oil. Ambio 

10(6):299-306. 

Jindal, Governor Bobby. 2010. Governor Jindal letter to President Obama and Secretary Salazar: Severe 

impacts of moratorium on deepwater drilling. Internet website: http://emergency.louisiana.gov/

Releases/06032010-letter.html. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Johansen, O., H. Rye, and C. Cooper. 2001. DeepSpill JIP—field study of simulated oil and gas 

blowouts in deep water. In: Proceedings from the Fifth International Marine Environment Modeling 

Seminar, October 9-11, 2001, New Orleans, LA. 377 pp. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-59 

Joint Analysis Group. 2010a. Review of R/V Brooks McCall data to examine subsurface oil. Internet 

website: http://www.noaa.gov/sciencemissions/PDFs/

JAG_Report_1_BrooksMcCall_Final_June20.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Joint Analysis Group. 2010b. Review of preliminary data to examine oxygen levels in the vicinity of 

MC525#1. May 8 to August 9, 2010. Internet website: http://www.noaa.gov/sciencemissions/PDFs/

JAG_Oxygen_Report%20(FINAL%20090410).pdf. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Kaplan, M.F. and C. Whitman. Unpublished. Measuring the economic impact of tourism and recreation 

industries on Gulf Coast communities—Relationship between OCS development and coastal 

resources (2008). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, New Orleans, LA. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. Contract No. 1435-01-99-CA-30951-18261. x + 164 pp. 

Kennedy, C.J., N.J. Gassman, and P.J. Walsh. 1992. The fate of benzo[a]pyrene in the Scleractinian 

corals Favia fragrum and Montastrea annularis. Marine Biology 113:313-318. 

Keithly, W and H. Diop. 2001. The demand for eastern oysters, Crassostrea virginica, from the Gulf of 

Mexico in the presence of Vibrio vulnificus. Marine Fisheries Review 63(1):47-53. 

Kingston, P.F., I.M.T. Dixon, S. Hamilton, and D.C. Moore. 1995. The impact of the Braer oil spill on 

the macrobenthic infauna of the sediments off the Shetland Islands. Marine Pollution Bulletin 

30(7):445-459. 

Kirkeleit J., T. Riise, M. Bråtveit and B.E. Moen. 2008. Increased risk of acute myelogenous leukemia 

and multiple myeloma in a historical cohort of upstream petroleum workers exposed to crude oil. 

Cancer Causes Control. 2008 Feb, 19(1):13-23. Epub 2007 Sep 29. Internet website: http://

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17906934. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Kirsch, E.M. and J.G. Sidle. 1999. Status of the interior population of least tern. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 63:470-483. 

Knap, A.H. 1987. Effects of chemically dispersed oil on the brain coral, Diploria strigosa. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin 18(3):119-122. 

Knap, A.H., J.E. Solbakken, R.E. Godge, T.D. Sleeter, S.C. Wyers, and K.H. Palmork. 1982. 

Accumulation and elimination of (9-14C) phenanthrene in the reef-building coral (Diploria strigosa). 

Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 28:281-284. 

Knap, A.H., S.C. Wyers, R.E. Dodge, T.D. Sleeter, H.R. Frith, S.R. Smith, and C.B. Cook. 1985. The 

effects of chemically and physically dispersed oil on the brain coral, Diploria strigosa (Dana)—a 

summary review. In: Proceedings 1985 Oil Spill Conference, Los Angeles, CA. (USCG/API/EPA) 

API Publ. No. 4385:547-551. 

Knowland Group, The. 2010. Survey data. Internet website: http://www.hotelnewsresource.com/

article46295.html. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Kushmaro, A., G. Henning, D.K. Hofmann, and Y. Benayahu. 1997. Metamorphosis of Heteroxenia 

fuscescens Plaunlae (Cnidaria: Octocorallia) is inhibited by crude oil: A novel short term toxicity 

bioassay. Marine Environmental Research 43(4):295-302. 

Lange, R. 1985. A 100 ton experimental oil spill at Halten Bank, off Norway. In: Proceedings, 1985 

Oil Spill Conference. . .February 25-28, 1985, Los Angeles, CA. Washington, DC: American 

Petroleum Institute. 

LeDee, O.E., F.J. Cuthbert, and P.V. Bolstad. 2008. A remote sensing analysis of coastal habitat 

composition for a threatened shorebird, the piping plover (Charadrius melodus). Journal of Coastal 

Research 24:719-726. 

Leighton, F.A. 1993. The toxicity of petroleum oils to birds. Environ. Rev. 1:92-103. 

Lewis, J.B. 1971. Effects of crude oil and oil spill dispersant on coral reefs. Marine Pollution Bulletin 

2:59-62. 
B-60 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Lin, Q., I.A. Mendelssohn, M.T. Suidan, K. Lee, and A.D. Venosa. 2002. The dose-response 

relationship between No. 2 fuel oil and the growth of the salt marsh grass, Spartina alterniflora. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin 44:897-902. 

Lin Q. and I. Mendlessohn. 2009. Potential of restoration and phytoremediation with Juncus

roemerianus for diesel-contaminated coastal wetlands. Ecological Engineering 8 January 2009, pp. 

85-91. Internet website: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VFB4V2J6J8-4&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F08%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=

search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1619317074&_rerunOrigin=

scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=

e4e701499ce803ec8e0d60bf57c2d99c&searchtype=a. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Louisiana, The State of. 2010a. Report on oil sightings throughout coastal Louisiana. Press Release. 

September 17, 2010. Internet website: http://emergency.louisiana.gov/Releases/

91710Sightings.html. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Louisiana, The State of. 2010b. Report on oil sightings throughout coastal Louisiana. Press Release. 

September 16, 2010. Internet website: http://emergency.louisiana.gov/Releases/

091610Sightings.html. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Louisiana, The State of. 2010c. Report on oil sightings throughout coastal Louisiana. Press Release. 

September 14, 2010. Internet website: http://emergency.louisiana.gov/Releases/

91410Sightings.html. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Louisiana, The State of. 2010d. Report on oil sightings throughout coastal Louisiana. Press Release. 

September 13, 2010. Internet website: http://emergency.louisiana.gov/Releases/

91310Sightings.html. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Louisiana, The State of. 2010e. Report on coastal skimming activities in Louisiana. Press Release. 

September 17, 2010. Internet website: http://emergency.louisiana.gov/Releases/

91710Skimming.html. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association. 2010. Impact of President Obama’s order halting 

work on 33 exploratory wells in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Internet website: http://

www.theoildrum.com/node/6595. Accessed November 17, 2011. 

Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium (LUMCON). 2010. 2010 Dead zone—one of the largest ever. 

LUMCON News. Internet website: http://www.gulfhypoxia.net/research/Shelfwide%20Cruises/

2010/PressRelease2010.pdf. Accessed November 17, 2011. 

Lu, L. and R.S.S. Wu. 2006. A field experimental study on recolonization and succession of 

macrobenthic infauna in defaunated sediment contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons. Estuarine, 

Coastal and Shelf Science 68:627-634. 

Lubchenco, J., M. McNutt, B. Lehr, M. Sogge, M. Miller, S. Hammond, and W. Conner. 2010. BP 

Deepwater Horizon oil budget: What happened to the oil? 5 pp. Internet website:http://

www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/imported_pdfs/posted/2931/

Oil_Budget_description_8_3_FINAL.844091.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Lytle, J.S. 1975. Fate and effects of crude oil on an estuarine pond. In: Proceedings, Conference on 

Prevention and Control of Oil Pollution, San Francisco, CA. Pp. 595-600. 

Market Dynamics Research Group. 2010. Importance of leisure travel attributes and perceptions of 

Louisiana. Internet website: http://www.louisianatravel.com/. 

McAuliffe, C.D., A.E. Smalley, R.D. Groover, W.M. Welsh, W.S. Pickle, and G.E. Jones. 1975. 

Chevron Main Pass Block 41 oil spill: Chemical and biological investigation. In: Proceedings, 1975 

Conference on Prevention and Control of Oil Pollution, March 25-27, 1975, San Francisco, CA. 

Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-61 

McAuliffe, C.D., B.L. Steelman, W.R. Leek, D.F. Fitzgerald, J.P. Ray, and C.D. Barker. 1981. The 1979 

southern California dispersant treated research oil spills. In: Proceedings 1981 Oil Spill Conference. 

March 2-5, 1981, Atlanta, GA. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. Pp. 269-282. 

McGimsey, C. 2010. Personal communication. Discussion with the State Archaeologist, Louisiana 

Division of Archaeology, Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism with regard to effects of 

the oil spill on cultural resources. 

Mechalas, B.J. 1974. Pathways and environmental requirements for biogenic gas production in the 

ocean. In: Kaplan, I.R., ed. Natural Gases in Marine Sediments. Marine Science, Volume 3. New 

York, NY: Plenum Press. 

Michel, J. 1992. Chapter 2. Oil behavior and toxicity. In: Introduction to coastal habitats and biological 

resources for spill response. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Office of Response and Restoration. NOAA Report No. HMRAD 92-4. Internet 

website: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/type_subtopic_entry.php?RECORD_KEY%

28entry_subtopic_type%29=entry_id,subtopic_id,type_id&entry_id(entry_subtopic_type)=

275&subtopic_id(entry_subtopic_type)=8&type_id(entry_subtopic_type)=2. Accessed 

November 10, 2011. 

Mitchell, R. and I. Chet. 1975. Bacterial attack of corals in polluted seawater. Microbial Ecology 

2:227-233. 

Mock, B. 2010. Boats moored by the BP oil spill, a long-threatened community of black fishers fears for 

its future. The Lens: Investigating New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. Internet website: http://

www.projectnola.com/component/content/article/86-the-lens/90049-boats-moored-by-the-bp-oilspill-a-long-threatened-community-of-black-fishers-fears-for-its-future. Accessed November 10, 

2011. 

Moore, S.F. and R.L. Dwyer. 1974. Effects of oil on marine organisms: A critical assessment of 

published data. Water Research 8:819-827. 

Morton R.A., T.L. Miller, and L.J. Moore. 2004. Historical shoreline changes along the US Gulf of 

Mexico: A summary of recent shoreline. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey. Open File 

Report 2004-1089. Internet website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1089/references.html. Accessed 

November 10, 2011. 

Murray, S.P. 1998. An observational study of the Mississippi/Atchafalaya coastal plume: Final report. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Study MMS 98-0040. 513 pp. 

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). 2010. NAACP blasts BP for 

oil spill response. July 10, 2010. 

National Research Council (NRC). 2003. Oil in the sea III: Inputs, fates, and effects (Committee on Oil 

in the Sea: J.N. Coleman, J. Baker, C. Cooper, M. Fingas, G. Hunt, K. Kvenvolden, J. McDowell, 

J. Michel, K. Michel, J. Phinney, N. Rabalais, L. Roesner, and R.B. Spies). Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press. 265 pp. 

National Research Council (NRC). 2005. Oil spill dispersants: Efficacy and effects. Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press. 377 pp. 

NaturalGas.org. 2010. Background. Internet website: http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/

background.asp. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Neff, J.M., S. McKelvie, and R.C. Ayers, Jr. 2000. Environmental impacts of synthetic based drilling 

fluids. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000-064. 118 pp. 

Newton, I. 1998. Population limitation in birds. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 
B-62 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Nodar, J. 2010. Gulf tanker decontaminated before entering Mississippi. The Journal of Commerce 

Online. May 26, 2010. Internet website: http://www.joc.com/maritime/tanker-requires-cleaningentering-mississippi-river. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Nolan, B. and A. Good. 2010. Moratorium in wake of Gulf oil spill idles much more than rigs, workers. 

Internet website: http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/07/

moratorium_in_wake_of_gulf_oil.html. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

OBIS-SEAMAP. 2009. Sea turtle nesting sites: OBIS-SEAMAP. State of the World’s Sea Turtles 

(SWOT). 2009. Internet website: http://seamap.env.duke.edu/swot. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Odess, D. 2010. Personal communication. Telecon regarding Section 106 in relation to response to the 

oil spill. 

Odess, D. 2011. Personal communication. Trustees Meeting January 12, 2011, New Orleans, LA. 

Office of the Governor, State of Florida. 2010. Gulf oil spill situation update. Florida Releases. July 18, 

2010. Internet website: http://www.thegovmonitor.com/world_news/united_states/florida-releasesjuly-18-2010-gulf-oil-spill-situation-update-35721.html. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Operational Science Advisory Team (OSAT). 2010. Summary report for sub-sea and sub-surface oil and 

dispersant detection: Sampling and monitoring. Unified Area Command, New Orleans, LA. 

Released on December 17, 2010. Internet website: 

http://www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/OSAT_Report_FINAL_17DEC.pdf. 

Accessed November 18, 2011. 

Operational Science Advisory Team (OSAT-2). 2011. Summary report for fate and effects of remnant 

oil remaining in the beach environment. Annex B: Spatial oil distribution. 35 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/u316/OSAT-2%20Report%20no%20ltr.pdf. 

Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Oxford Economics. 2010. Potential impact of the Gulf oil spill on tourism. Internet website: http://

www.ustravel.org/sites/default/files/page/2009/11/

Gulf_Oil_Spill_Analysis_Oxford_Economics_710.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Patin, S. 1999. Gas impacts on fish and other marine organisms. In: Environmental impact of the 

offshore oil and gas industry. New York, NY: EcoMonitor Publishing. 425 pp. 

PCCI Marine and Environmental Engineering (PCCI). 1999. Oil spill containment, remote sensing and 

tracking for deepwater blowouts: Status of existing and emerging technologies, final report. 

Prepared for U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Alexandria, VA. Purchase 

Order Number 1435-01-98-PO-15135. Internet website: 

http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/311/311AA.pdf. Accessed November 18, 2011. 

Peterson, C.H., S.D. Rice, J.W. Short, D. Esler, J.L. Bodkin, B.E. Ballachey, and. D.B. Irons. 2003. 

Long-term ecosystem response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Science 302:2082-2086. 

Piatt, J.F. and R.G. Ford. 1996. How many seabirds were killed by the Exxon Valdez oil spill? In: 

Rice, S.D., R.B. Spies, D.A. Wolfe, and B.A. Wright, eds. Proceedings of the Exxon Valdez oil spill 

symposium. Am. Fisheries Soc. Symposium 18, Bethesda, MD. Pp. 712-719. 

Piatt, J.F., H.R. Carter, and D.N. Nettleship. 1990. Effects of oil pollution on marine bird populations. 

In: White, J., ed. The effects of oil on wildlife: Research, rehabilitation and general concerns. 

Hanover, PA: Sheridan Press. 

Plotkin, P.T., ed. 1995. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Status 

reviews for sea turtles listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

Powell, J.A. and G.B. Rathbun. 1984. Distribution and abundance of manatees along the northern coast 

of the Gulf of Mexico. Northeast Gulf Sci. 7:1-28. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-63 

Pritchard, E.S., ed. 2009. Fisheries of the United States: 2008. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Science and Technology, Fisheries Statistics Division, Silver 

Spring, MD. 

Rabalais, N.N., R.E. Turner, and W.J. Wiseman, Jr. 2002. Gulf of Mexico hypoxia, A.K.A. “The Dead 

Zone.” Annual Review of Ecological Systems 33:235-263. 

Ragen, T.J. 2010. Testimony of Timothy J. Ragen, Executive Director, U.S. Marine Mammal 

Commission, before the House Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans, and Wildlife, regarding the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill and its effects on marine mammals. June 10, 2010. 8 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.mmc.gov/testimony/pdf/testimony_061010.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Rathbun, G.B., J.P. Reid, and G. Carowan. 1990. Distribution and movement patterns of manatees 

(Trichechus manatus) in northwestern peninsular Florida. FL Mar. Res. Publ. No. 48. 33 pp. 

Ravitz, J. 2010. Vietnamese fishermen in Gulf fight to not get lost in translation. CNN. June 25, 2010. 

Internet website: http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=148708. Accessed 

November 10, 2011. 

Regg, J. 2000. Deepwater development: A reference document for the deepwater environmental 

assessment, Gulf of Mexico OCS (1997 through 2000). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 99-0066. 

Restrepo, C.E., F.C. Lamphear, C.A. Gunn, R.B. Ditton, J.P. Nichols, and L.S. Restrepo. 1982. IXTOC I 

oil spill economic impact study, executive summary. Report prepared by Restrepo and Associates for 

the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, New Orleans OCS Office, New Orleans, 

LA. 

Rhodes, D.C. and J.D. Germano. 1982. Characterization of organism-sediment relations using sediment 

profile imaging: An efficient method of remote ecological monitoring of the seafloor (RemotsTM

System). Marine Ecology Progress Series 8:115-128. 

Rice, S.A. and C.L. Hunter. 1992. Effects of suspended sediment and burial on Scleractinian corals from 

west central Florida patch reefs. Bulletin of Marine Science 51(3):429-442. 

Rogers, C.S. 1990. Responses of coral reefs and reef organisms to sedimentation. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series 62:185-202. 

Rogers, C.S. and V.H. Garrison. 2001. Ten years after the crime: Lasting effects of damage from a 

cruise ship anchor on a coral reef in St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. Bulletin of Marine Science 

69(2):793-803. 

Russell, R.W. 2005. Interactions between migrating birds and offshore oil and gas platforms in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico: Final Report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Study MMS 2005-009. 348 pp. 

Sanders, H.L., J.F. Grassle, G.R. Hamson, L.S. Morse, S. Garner-Price, and C.C. Jones. 1980. Anatomy 

of an oil spill: Long-term effects from the grounding of the barge Florida off West Falmouth, 

Massachusetts. Journal of Marine Research 38:265-380. 

Savitz, D.A. and L.S. Engel. 2010. Lessons for study of the health effects of oil spills. Annals of 

Internal Medicine. August 23, 2010. Internet website: http://www.annals.org/content/early/2010/08/

23/0003-4819-153-8-201010190-00276.full. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Sathiakumar, N. 2010. Short-term physical effects of oil spills. Presentation, School of Public Health, 

University of Alabama at Birmingham. Internet website: http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity

%20Files/PublicHealth/OilSpillHealth/NaliniSathiakumar-6-22-1110am.pdf. Accessed 

November 10, 2011. 
B-64 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

Scarlett, A., T.S. Galloway, M. Canty, E.L. Smith., J. Nilsson, and S.J. Rowland. 2005. Comparative 

toxicity of two oil dispersants, Superdispersant-25 and Corexit 9527, to a range of coastal species. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 24(5):1219-1227. 

Schenkman, L. 2010. Gulf cruise raises questions on methane, but much data still to analyze. Science 

Insider. June 23, 2010. Internet website: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/06/gulfcruise-raises-questions-on-.html. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Schiro, A.J., D. Fertl, L.P. May, G.T. Regan, and A. Amos. 1998. West Indian manatee (Trichechus 

manatus) occurrence in U.S. waters west of Florida. Presentation, World Marine Mammal 

Conference, 20-24 January, Monaco. 

Schleifstein, M. 2010. Environmental justice concerns arising from Gulf of Mexico oil spill aired. The 

Times-Picayune. June 15, 2010. Internet website: http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/

2010/06/environmental_justice_concerns.html. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Scholz, D.K., J.H. Kucklick, R.G. Pond, A.H. Walker, A. Bostrom, and P. Fischbeck. 1999. Fate of 

spilled oil in marine waters: Where does it go? What does it do? How do dispersants affect it? An 

information booklet for decision-makers. American Petroleum Institute Publication Number 4691. 

ScienceDaily. 2010. Spawning habitat of bluefin tuna in Gulf of Mexico: Critical area intersects 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill. May 31, 2010. Internet website: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/

2010/05/100528210726.htm. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Shah J.J. and H.B. Singh. 1988. Distribution of volatile organic chemicals in outdoor and indoor air. 

Environ. Sci. Technol. 22:1381-1388. In: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human, Services Public Health 

Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for benzene, 

August 2007. 

Sheridan, P. and T.J. Minello. 2003. Nekton use of different habitat types in seagrass beds of lower 

Laguna Madre, Texas. Bulletin of Marine Science 72(1):37-61. 

Shigenaka, G. 2001. Toxicity of oil to reef-building corals: A spill response perspective. U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Response and Restoration, 

Hazardous Materials Response Division, Seattle, WA. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS 

OR&R 8. 95 pp. Internet website: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/1_coral_tox.pdf. 

Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Short, F.T. and R.G. Coles, eds. 2001. Global seagrass research methods. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: 

Elsevier Science B.V. 473 pp. 

Short, F.T., R.G. Coles, and C. Pergent-Martini. 2001. Global seagrass distribution. In: Short, F.T. and 

R.G. Coles, eds. Global seagrass research methods. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science 

B.V. Pp. 5-6, 20. 

St. Aubin, D.J. and V. Lounsbury. 1990. Oil effects on manatees: Evaluating the risks. In: Geraci, J.R. 

and D.J. St. Aubin, eds. Sea mammals and oil: Confronting the risk. San Diego, CA: Academic 

Press. Pp. 241-251. 

Stumpf, C.H., M.F. Piehler, S. Thompson, and R.T. Noble. 2010. Loading of fecal indicator bacteria in 

tidal creek headwaters: Hydrographic, meteorological, and terrestrial runoff relationships. Journal of 

Water Research 44(16):4704-15. 

Szell, C.C. and M.S. Woodrey. 2003. Reproductive ecology of the least tern along the lower Mississippi 

River. Waterbirds 26:35-43. 

Tacha, T.C., S.A. Nesbitt, and P.A. Vohs. 1992. Sandhill crane (Grus canadensis). In: Poole, A., ed. 

The birds of North America (online). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; retrieved from The Birds 

of North America online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/031. Accessed November 10, 

2011. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-65 

Tasker, M.L., P. Hope-Jones, B.F. Blake, T.J. Dixon, and A.W. Wallis. 1986. Seabirds associated with 

oil production platforms in the North Sea. Ringing and Migration 7:7-14. 

Taylor, H.A., M.A. Rasheed, and R. Thomas. 2006. Port Curtis post oil spill seagrass assessment, 

Gladstone-2006. DPI&F Information Series QI06046 (DPI&F, Cairns). 19 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.seagrasswatch.org/Info_centre/Publications/pdf/meg/

GladstonePostOilSpillReport2006_Final.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

The Federal Interagency Solutions Group. 2010. Oil budget calculator: Deepwater Horizon. 217 pp. 

The Federal Interagency Solutions Group, Oil Budget Calculator Science and Engineering Team. 

Internet website: http://www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/

OilBudgetCalc_Full_HQ-Print_111110.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Thompson, J.H. 1980. Effects of drilling mud on seven species of reef-building coral as measured in 

field and laboratory. Report to the U.S. Dept. of Interior, Geological Survey by Texas A&M 

University, Department of Oceanography, College Station, TX. 

Tokotch, B. 2010. Oil and coral fact sheet. 3 pp. Internet website: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/

deepwater_horizon/Oil-CoralOnePage.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Tolbert, C.M. 1995. Oil and gas development and coastal income inequality: A comparative analysis. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Study MMS 94-0052. 75 pp. 

Trapido, E.J., Sc.D., F.A.C.E. 2010. Health and the Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spill. (October 5-6, 

2010). JSOST Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Principal Investigator (PI) Conference, St. Petersburg, 

FL. 

Unified Incident Command. 2010a. Vessel decontamination stations available around Louisiana. 

Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center. June 20, 2010. 

Unified Incident Command. 2010b. Ask a responder: Q & A with Coast Guard Task Force leader for 

commercial vessel decontamination. September 29, 2010. 

Unified Incident Command. 2010c. Media availability: Media invited to observe commercial-vessel 

decontamination operations. June 23, 2010. 

Unified Incident Command. 2010d. Fish and Wildlife report, consolidated Fish and Wildlife collection 

report. 

Unified Incident Command. 2010e. Unified Area Command continues to build a sea turtle observer 

program for on-water oil clean-up. Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center. July 2, 

2010. 

Unified Incident Command. 2010f. Unified Area Command daily report, August 25, 2010. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. Economics and Statistics Administration. 2010. Estimating the 

economic effects of the deepwater drilling moratorium on the Gulf Coast economy: Inter-agency 

economic report. 25 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/reports/documents/drillingmoratorium.pdf. Accessed 

November 18, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2010a. 

NOAA assists with multi-agency effort to decontaminate ships passing through oil spill. Internet 

website: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100528_ships.html. Accessed November 10, 

2011. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2010b. 

Administration’s Joint Analysis Group releases first scientific report on subsea monitoring data from 

Gulf spill. Internet website: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100623_brooks.html. 

Accessed November 10, 2011. 
B-66 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2010c. 

Second Federal analysis gives further clues about location and movement of subsurface oil. July 23, 

2010. Internet website: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100722_jag.html. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2010d. 

No dead zones observed or expected as part of BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. September 7, 2010. 

Internet website: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100907_jag3.html. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2010e. 

Using booms in response to oil spills. 4 pp. Internet website: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/

deepwater_horizon/NOAA_boom_fact_sheet.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2010f. 

What is an ecosystem? Internet website: http://ecosystems.noaa.gov/what_eco.htm. Accessed 

November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2010g. 

NOAA closes commercial and recreational fishing in oil-affected portion of Gulf of Mexico. May 2, 

2010. Internet website: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100502_fisheries.html. 

Accessed November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Hazardous 

Materials Response and Assessment Division. 1992. Oil spill case histories, 1967-1991: Summaries 

of significant U.S. and international spills. HMRAD 92-11 to USCG Research and Development 

Center, Seattle, WA. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010a. Sea turtles, dolphins, and whales and the Gulf of Mexico 

oil spill. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/oilspill.htm. Accessed November 10, 

2011. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010b. Fisheries economics of the United States, 2008. U.S. 

Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-109. 177 pp. Internet website: http://

www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/index.html. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010c Annual commercial landings by group. 2 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/gc_runc.html. Accessed 

November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010d. Impacts of oil on marine mammals and sea turtles. 2 pp. 

Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/health/oil_impacts.pdf. Accessed November 10, 

2011. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). National 

Ocean Service (NOS). 2008. Gulf of Mexico at a glance. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). National 

Weather Service. 2010a. Tropical cyclone climatology. Internet website: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/

pastprofile.shtml. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). National 

Weather Service. 2010b. NOAA’s oil spill response: Hurricanes and the oil spill. Internet website: 

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/hurricanes_oil_factsheet.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA 

Fisheries Service. 2010a. Information about the Federal fishing closure in oil-affected portions of the 

Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-67 

NOAA Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, Saint Petersburg, FL. Southeast Fishery 

Bulletin, July 12, 2010. Internet website: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/deepwater_horizon/

FB_Closure%20info_Eng.pdf Accessed November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA 

Fisheries Service. 2010b. Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill: Size and percent coverage of fishing area 

closures due to BP oil spill. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, NOAA Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, Saint Petersburg, FL. Internet 

website: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/ClosureSizeandPercentCoverage.htm. Updated April 29, 2011. 

Accessed November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA 

Fisheries Service. 2011. Dolphins and whales and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Internet website: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/oilspill/mammals.htm. Last updated June 29, 2011. Accessed 

November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Office of 

Response and Restoration. 2010a. IXTOC I. Internet website: http://www.incidentnews.gov/

incident/6250. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Office of 

Response and Restoration. 2010b. Chevron Main Pass Block 41. Internet website: http://

www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6209. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Office of 

Response and Restoration. 2010c. Shell Platform 26. Internet website: http://

www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6211. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Office of 

Response and Restoration. 2010d. Shoreline threat update: Southern Florida, Florida Keys and East 

Coast Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill, July 30, 2010. Internet website: http://

response.restoration.noaa.gov/topic_subtopic_entry.php?RECORD_KEY%28entry_subtopic_topic%

29=entry_id,subtopic_id,topic_id&entry_id(entry_subtopic_topic)=

815&subtopic_id(entry_subtopic_topic)=2&topic_id(entry_subtopic_topic)=1#evolution. Accessed 

November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS). 2007. Toxicological profile for benzene. 

U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry. . August 2007. 

U.S. Department of Labor. 2010a. Quarterly census of employment and wages. Internet website: http://

www.bls.gov/cew/. Accessed November 17, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Labor. 2010b. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, fact sheet. June 2010. 

Internet website: http://www.bls.gov/cew/gulf_coast_leisure_hospitality.htm. Accessed 

November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2010. Fact sheet: Employment in the oil 

and gas well drilling industry. Internet website: http://www.bls.gov/cew/oil_gas_drilling.htm. 

Accessed November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2010a. On-shore 

& off-shore PPE matrix for Gulf operations. Internet website: http://www.osha.gov/oilspills/gulfoperations-ppe-matrix.pdf. Accessed November 17, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2010b. Keeping 

workers safe during oil spill response and cleanup operations: Gulf oil response and heat. Internet 

website: http://www.osha.gov/oilspills/heatstress.html. Accessed November 10, 2011. 
B-68 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement 

(BOEMRE). 2010a. Spills ≥50 barrels (2,100 gallons)—1967. Internet website: 

http://www.boemre.gov/incidents/SigPoll67.htm. Updated September 17, 2010. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement 

(BOEMRE). 2010b. Gulf of Mexico Region, Spills ≥ 50 barrels (2,100 gallons)—1970. Internet 

website: http://www.boemre.gov/incidents/SigPoll70.htm. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement 

(BOEMRE). 2010c. Technical Information Management System (TIMS). Accessed November 10, 

2011. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1973. Amendments to lists of endangered 

fish and wildlife. Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations Part 17, Federal Register Vol. 38, No. 106, 

June 4, 1973, page 14678. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1991. Mississippi sandhill crane recovery 

plan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 42 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004. Effects of oil spills on wildlife 

and habitat. December 2004. Internet website: http://alaska.fws.gov/media/unalaska/Oil%20Spill%

20Fact%20Sheet.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007. Alabama beach mouse—

revision of critical habitat. January 2007. Daphne Ecological Services Field Office. Internet 

website: http://www.fws.gov/daphne/abm/pdf/ABM-FactSheet-finalCH-1-30-07.pdf. Accessed 

November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009. Stock assessment report for the 

West Indian manatee Florida stock. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, 

FL. December 20, 2009. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Manatee/SARS/

20091230_rpt_Final_Florida_Manatee_SAR.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010a. Wildlife threatened on the 

Gulf Coast. June 2010. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/

NewWildlifeOfGulf.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010b. Federally listed wildlife and 

plants threatened by Gulf oil spill. June 2010. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/home/

dhoilspill/pdfs/FedListedBirdsGulf.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010c. Beach-nesting birds of the 

Gulf. May 2010. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/

DHBirdsOfTheGulf.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010d. Bird impact data from DOIERDC database download 12 Oct. 2010. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/

Bird%20Data%20Species%20Spreadsheet%2010122010.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010e. State and Federal wildlife 

agencies, other partners, move to safeguard sea turtle nests; FedEx providing transportation to 

Florida’s Space Coast. News Release, July 9, 2010. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/southeast/

news/2010/r10-048.html. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010f. Species report. Internet 

website: http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/SpeciesReport.do. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010g. Effects of oil on wildlife and 

habitat. Fact Sheet, June 2010. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/

DHJICFWSOilImpactsWildlifeFactSheet.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2011. 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-69 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Minerals Management Service (MMS). 2000. Gulf of Mexico 

deepwater operations and activities: Environmental assessment. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 

2000-001. Internet website: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PDFs/2000/2000-001.pdf. Accessed 

November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Minerals Management Service (MMS). 2007. Gulf of Mexico OCS oil 

and gas lease sales: 2007-2012; Western Planning Area Sales 204, 207, 210, 215, and 218; Central 

Planning Area Sales 205, 206, 208, 213, 216, and 222—final environmental impact statement. 2 vols. 

U.S. Dept. the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-018. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Minerals Management Service (MMS). 2008. Gulf of Mexico OCS oil 

and gas lease sales: 2009-2012; Central Planning Area Sales 208, 213, 216, and 222; Western 

Planning Area Sales 210, 215, and 218—final supplemental environmental impact statement. U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 

OCS EIS/EA MMS 2008-041. Internet website: http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PDFs/2008/2008-

041.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Minerals Management Service (MMS). 2010. Preliminary revised 

program Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, 2007-2012. Internet website: http://

www.boemre.gov/5-year/PDFs/PRP2007-2012.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service (NPS). 2010. Managing sea turtles during the oil 

spill response. 2 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/imported_pdfs/external/content/document/2931/7718

79/1/NPS_Turtles_Web.pdf. Accessed November 18, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2010. Gulf Coast ports surrounding the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill. Fact Sheet, June 2010. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Research and Innovative 

Technology Administration. Internet website: http://www.bts.gov/publications/bts_fact_sheets/

2010_001/pdf/entire.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Transportation. Coast Guard (USCG). 2010. Dispersants/on-water oil removal 

capacity (CAPS). Internet website: https://homeport.uscg.mil/mycg/portal/ep/contentView.do?

contentTypeId=2&channelId=-30095&contentId=125795&programId=114824&programPage=%

2Fep%2Fprogram%2Feditorial.jsp&pageTypeId=13489. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008. Coastal condition report III. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development/Office of Water, 

Washington, DC. EPA/842-R-08-002. Internet website: http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/

assessmonitor/downloads.cfm. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010a. Questions and answers about the BP oil spill 

in the Gulf Coast. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/BPSpill/qanda.html#waste19. Accessed 

August 31, 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010b. Odors from the BP oil spill. Internet website: 

http://www.epa.gov/BPSpill/odor.html. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010c. BP's analysis of subsurface dispersant use. 

Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants-bp.html. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010d. Recovered oil, contaminated materials and 

liquid and solid wastes management directive, Louisiana, June 29, 2010. Internet website: http://

www.epa.gov/bpspill/waste/wastemanagementdirective_la.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010e. Recovered oil, contaminated materials and 

liquid and solid wastes management directive, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, June 29, 2010. Internet 

website: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/waste/wastemanagementdirective_msalfl.pdf. Accessed 

November 10, 2011. 
B-70 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Office of Research and Development. 2010a. 

Comparative toxicity of Louisiana sweet crude oil (LSC) and chemically dispersed LSC to two Gulf 

of Mexico aquatic test species. 13 pp. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/reports/updatedphase2dispersant-toxtest.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Office of Research and Development. 2010b. 

Analysis of eight oil spill dispersants using in vitro tests for endocrine and other biological activity. 

47 pp. Appendices 61 pp. 

U.S. Travel Association. 2010. The power of travel. Internet website: http://www.poweroftravel.org/

statistics. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Vandermeulen, J.H. 1982. Some conclusions regarding long-term biological effects of some major oil 

spills. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 

297(1087). 

Velando, A., I. Munilla, M. Lopez-Alonso, J. Freire, and C. Perez. 2010. EROD activity and stable 

isotopes in seabirds to disentangle marine food web contamination after the Prestige oil spill. 

Environmental Pollution 158(2010):1275-1280. Internet website: http://webs.uvigo.es/cristobal/

papers/8.EROD%20activity%20and%20stable%20isotopes%20in%20seabirds%20to%20disentangle

%20marine%20food%20web%20contamination%20after%20the%20Prestige%20oil%20spill.pdf. 

Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Ward, G.A., B. Baca, W. Cyriacks, R.E. Dodge, and A. Knap. 2003. Continuing long-term studies of the 

TROPICS Panama oil and dispersed oil spill sites. In: Proceedings 2003 International Oil Spill 

Conference, April 6-11, 2003, Vancouver, Canada. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. 

Webb, J.W. 1988. Establishment of vegetation on oil-contaminated dunes. Shore and Beach, October. 

Pp. 20-23. 

Webb, J.W., G.T. Tanner, and B.H. Koerth. 1981. Oil spill effects on smooth cordgrass in Galveston 

Bay, Texas. Contributions in Marine Science 24:107-114. 

Webb, J.W., S.K. Alexander, and J.K. Winters. 1985. Effects of autumn application of oil on Spartina 

alterniflora in a Texas salt marsh. Environ. Poll., Series A 38(4):321-337. 

Wesseling, I., A.J. Uychiaoco, P.M. Aliño, T. Aurin, and J.E. Vermaat. 1999. Damage recovery of four 

Philippine corals from short-term sediment burial. Marine Ecology Progress Series 176:11-15. 

Wetz, J.J., A.D. Blackwood, J.S. Fries, Z.F. Williams, and R.T. Noble. 2008. Trends in total Vibrio spp. 

and Vibrio vulnificus concentrations in the eutrophic Neuse River estuary, North Carolina, during 

storm events. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 53:141-149. 

Widger, W.R., G. Golovko, A.F. Martinez, E.V. Ballesteros, J.J. Howard, Z. Xu, U. Pandya, 

V.Y. Fofanov, M. Rojas, C. Bradburne, T. Hadfield, N.A. Olson, J.L. Santarpia, and Y. Fofanov. 

2011. Longitudinal metagenomic analysis of the water and soil from Gulf of Mexico beaches 

affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Nature Proceedings hdl:10101/npre.2011.5733.1. 

Wiese, F.K., W.A. Montevecchi, G.K. Davoren, F. Huettman, A.W. Diamond and J. Linke. 2001. 

Seabirds at risk around offshore oil platforms in the Northwest Atlantic. Marine Pollution Bulletin 

42:1285-1290. 

Wiese, F.K. and G.J. Robertson. 2004. Assessing impacts of chronic oil discharges at sea on seabirds: a 

general oiled seabird mortality model applied to Eastern Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management 

68:627–638. 

Williams, R., S. Gero, L. Bejder, J. Calambokidis, S. Kraus, D. Lusseau, A. Read, and J. Robbins. 2011. 

Underestimating the damage: interpreting cetacean carcass recoveries in the context of the Deepwater 

Horizon/BP Incident. Conservation Letters, DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-263x2011.00168x. 

Wright, S.D., B.B. Ackerman, R.K. Bonde, C.A. Beck, and D.J. Banowetz. 1995. Analysis of 

watercraft-related mortality of manatees in Florida, 1979-1991. In: O’Shea, T.J., B.B. Ackerman, 
Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis B-71 

and H.F. Percival, eds. Population biology of the Florida manatee. National Biological Service 

Information and Technology Report 1. Pp. 259-268. 

Wyers, S.C., H.R. Frith, R.E. Dodge, S.R. Smith, A.H. Knap, and T.D. Sleeter. 1986. Behavioral effects 

of chemically dispersed oil and subsequent recovery in Diploria strigosa. Marine Ecology 7:23-42. 

Zeller, T., Jr. 2010. Drill ban means hard times for rig workers. Internet website: http://

www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/business/18rig.html?_r=1. Accessed November 10, 2011. 

Zieman, J.C., R. Orth, R.C. Phillips, G. Thayer, and A. Thorhaug. 1984. The effects of oil on seagrass 

ecosystems. In: Cairns, J., Jr. and A.L. Buikema, Jr., eds. Restoration of habitats impacted by oil 

spills. Boston, MA: Butterworth Publishers. 

APPENDIX C 

 

BOEM-OSRA CATASTROPHIC RUN

BOEM-OSRA Catastrophic Run C-3 

APPENDIX C. BOEM-OSRA CATASTROPHIC RUN 

A special Oil-Spill Risk Analysis (OSRA) run was conducted in order to estimate the impacts of a 

possible future catastrophic or high-volume, long-duration oil spill. Thus, assuming a hypothetical highvolume, long-duration oil spill occurred, this analysis emphasized modeling a spill that continued for 

90 consecutive days, with each trajectory tracked for up to 120 days. The OSRA for this analysis was 

conducted for only the trajectories of oil spills from five hypothetical spill locations to various land 

segments. The probability of an oil spill contacting a specific land segment within a given time of travel 

from a certain location or spill point is termed a conditional probability; the condition being that a spill is 

assumed to have occurred. Each trajectory was allowed to continue for as long as 120 days. However, if 

the hypothetical spill contacted shoreline sooner than 30 days after the start of the spill, the spill trajectory 

was terminated, and the contact was recorded. Although, overall OSRA is designed for use as a riskbased assessment, for this analysis, only the conditional probability, the probability of contact to the 

resource, was calculated. The probability of a catastrophic spill occurring was not calculated; thus, the 

combination of the probability of a spill and the probability of contact to the resources from the 

hypothetical spill locations were not performed. Results from this trajectory analysis provide input to the 

final product by estimating where spills might travel on the ocean’s surface and what land segments might 

be contacted if and when another catastrophic spill occurs, but it does not provide input on the probability 

of another catastrophic spill occurring. 

OSRA Overview 

The OSRA model, originally developed by Smith et al. (1982) and enhanced by this Agency over the 

years (Ji et al., 2002, 2004a, 2004b), simulates oil-spill transport using model-simulated winds and ocean 

currents in the Gulf of Mexico. An oil spill on the ocean surface moves around by the complex surface 

ocean currents exerting a shear force on the spilled oil from below. In addition, the prevailing wind exerts 

an additional shear force on the spill from above, and the combination of the two forces causes the 

transportation of the oil spill away from its initial spill location. In the OSRA model, the velocity of a 

hypothetical oil spill is the linear superposition of the surface ocean current and the wind drift caused by 

the winds. The model calculates the movement of hypothetical spills by successively integrating time 

sequences of two spatially gridded input fields: the surface ocean currents and the sea-level winds. Thus, 

the OSRA model generates time sequences of hypothetical oil-spill locations—essentially, oil-spill 

trajectories. 

At each successive time step, the OSRA model compares the location of the hypothetical spills against 

the geographic boundaries of shoreline. The frequencies of oil-spill contact are computed for designated 

oil-spill travel times (e.g., 3, 10, 30, or 120 days) by dividing the total number of oil-spill contacts by the 

total number of hypothetical spills initiated in the model from a given hypothetical spill location. The 

frequencies of oil-spill contact are the model-estimated probabilities of oil-spill contact. The OSRA 

model output provides the estimated probabilities of contact to segments of shoreline from the five launch 

points (LP) in the Gulf of Mexico, which are explained below. 

There are factors not explicitly considered by the OSRA model that can affect the transport of spilled 

oil as well as the dimensions, volume, and nature of the oil spills contacting environmental resources or 

the shoreline. These include possible cleanup operations, chemical composition or biological weathering 

of oil spills, or the spreading and splitting of oil spills. The OSRA analysts have chosen to take a more 

environmentally conservative approach by presuming persistence of spilled oil over the selected time 

duration of the trajectories. 

In the trajectory simulation portion of the OSRA model, many hypothetical oil-spill trajectories are 

produced by numerically integrating a temporally and spatially varying ocean current field, and 

superposing on that an empirical wind-induced drift of the hypothetical oil spills (Samuels et al., 1982). 

Collectively, the trajectories represent a statistical ensemble of simulated oil-spill displacements produced 

by a field of numerically derived winds and ocean currents. The winds and currents are assumed to be 

statistically similar to those that will occur in the Gulf during future offshore activities. In other words, 

the oil-spill risk analysts assume that the frequency of strong wind events in the wind field is the same as 

what will occur during future offshore activities. By inference, the frequencies of contact by the 
C-4 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

simulated oil spills are the same as what could occur from actual oil spills during future offshore 

activities. 

Another portion of the OSRA model tabulates the contacts by the simulated oil spills. A contact to 

shore will stop the trajectory of an oil spill; no re-washing is assumed in this model. After specified 

periods of time, the OSRA model will divide the total number of contacts to the coastline segments by the 

total number of simulated oil spills from each of the five LP’s. These ratios are the estimated 

probabilities of oil-spill contact from offshore activities at that geographic location, assuming spill 

occurrence. 

Conducting an oil-spill risk analysis needs detailed information on ocean currents and wind fields 

(Ji, 2004). The ocean currents used are numerically computed from an ocean circulation model of the 

Gulf of Mexico driven by analyzed meteorological forces (the near-surface winds and the total heat 

fluxes) and observed river inflow into the Gulf of Mexico (Oey et al., 2004; Oey, 2005). The models 

used are versions of the Princeton Ocean Model, which is an enhanced version of the earlier constructed 

Mellor-Blumberg Model. 

The ocean model calculation was performed by Princeton University (Oey et al., 2004). This 

simulation covered the 7-year period, 1993 through 1999, and the results were saved at 3-hour intervals. 

This run included the assimilation of sea-surface altimeter observations to improve the ocean model 

results. The surface currents were then computed for input into the OSRA model, along with the 

concurrent wind field. The OSRA model used the same wind field to calculate the empirical wind drift of 

the simulated spills. The statistics for the contacts by the trajectories forced by the currents and winds 

were combined for the average probabilities. 

Catastrophic OSRA Run Overview 

A special OSRA run was conducted in order to estimate the impacts of a possible future catastrophic 

spill. Thus, assuming a hypothetical catastrophic oil spill occurred, this analysis emphasized modeling a 

spill that continued for 90 consecutive days with each trajectory tracked for up to 120 days. The OSRA 

for this analysis was conducted for only the trajectories of oil spills from five hypothetical spill locations 

to various land segments (Figure C-1 and C-2). The probability that an oil spill will contact a specific 

land segment within a given time of travel from a certain location or spill point is termed a conditional 

probability; the condition being that a spill is assumed to have occurred. Each trajectory was allowed to 

continue for as long as 120 days. However, if the hypothetical spill contacted shoreline sooner than 

30 days after the start of the spill, the spill trajectory was terminated, and the contact was recorded. 

Although, overall the OSRA is designed for use as a risk-based assessment, for this analysis, only the 

conditional probability, the probability of contact to the resource, was calculated. The probability of a 

catastrophic spill occurring was not calculated, thus the combination of the probability of a spill and the 

probability of contact to the resources from the hypothetical spill locations was not performed. Results 

from this trajectory analysis provide input to the final product by estimating where spills might travel on 

the ocean’s surface and what land segments might be contacted if and when another catastrophic spill 

occurs, but it does not provide input on the probability of another catastrophic spill occurring. 

Trajectories of hypothetical spills were initiated every 1.0 day from each of the launch points over the 

simulation period from January 1, 1993, to December 31, 1998 (Figure C-1). The chosen number of 

trajectories per site was small enough to be computationally practical and large enough to reduce the 

random sampling error to an insignificant level. Also, the weather-scale changes in the winds are at least 

minimally sampled, with simulated spills started every 1.0 day. 

These launch point locations were developed within the Gulf of Mexico region for the purpose of this 

analysis. Five launch points were identified and encompassed the approximate areas with the possibility 

of finding the largest oil volume within the following regions: 

 Central Gulf of Mexico shelf area west of the Mississippi River; 

 Central Gulf of Mexico shelf area east of the Mississippi River; 

 Central Gulf of Mexico slope area; 
BOEM-OSRA Catastrophic Run C-5 

 Western Gulf of Mexico shelf area; and 

 Western Gulf of Mexico slope area. 

Longitude Latitude Launch Point (LP) 

-92.17851 28.98660 1 

-88.15338 29.91388 2 

-90.22203 27.31998 3 

-96.76627 27.55423 4 

-94.51836 27.51367 5 

The methodology used for launch point selection is not part of the OSRA model in the manner it has 

been typically run for this Agency’s spill analyses. Gulf of Mexico OCS Region geologists and engineers 

used the following methodology to select the five points. For each geologic play currently recognized, 

the undiscovered technically recoverable resource volume was allocated throughout the play area based 

on the likelihood of future oil discovery potential. The probability factor used to allocate undiscovered 

oil volumes to areas within the geologic play was based on the density of existing discoveries, the density 

of undrilled prospects on leased acreage, and the results from recent exploration activity. In areas where 

the potential for undiscovered technically recoverable resource volume exists for more than one geologic 

play, the oil volumes were aggregated. Results from the aggregation were used to identify five 

geographic areas of high potential for future oil discoveries: three in the Central Planning Area and two 

in the Western Planning Area of the Gulf of Mexico. Although these areas may encompass hundreds of 

square miles, the coordinates for the five launch points were selected qualitatively to correspond with the 

centroid of these areas. After their selection, the five points were given to the OSRA analysts for use with 

the OSRA model. 

Additionally, the total estimated oil-contacted area of water was also determined. The OSRA model 

integrates the spill velocities (a linear superposition of surface ocean currents and empirical wind drift) by 

integrating in time to produce the spill trajectories. The time step selected was 1 hour to fully utilize the 

spatial resolution of the ocean current field and to achieve a stable set of trajectories. The velocity field 

was bilinearly interpolated from the 3-hour grid to get velocities at 1-hour intervals. 

The trajectories simulated by the model represent only hypothetical pathways of oil slicks; they do not 

involve any direct consideration of cleanup, dispersion, or weathering processes that could alter the 

quantity or properties of oil that might eventually contact the environmental resource locations. However, 

an implicit analysis of weathering and spill degradation can be considered by choosing a travel time for 

the simulated oil spills when they contact environmental resource locations that represent the likely 

persistence of the oil slick on the water surface. Therefore, OSRA model trajectories were analyzed up to 

120 days. Any spill contacts occurring during this elapsed time are reported in the probability tables. 

Conditional probabilities of contact with land segments within 120 days of travel time were calculated for 

each of the hypothetical spill sites. 

The probability estimates were tabulated as 90-day groupings of the 120-day trajectories, as averages 

for the 6 years of the analysis from 1993 to 1998. These groupings were treated as seasonal probabilities 

that corresponded with quarters of the year: Winter, Q1 (January, February, and March); Spring, 

Q2 (April, May, and June); Summer, Q3 (July, August, and September); and Fall, Q4 (October, 

November, and December). These 3-month probabilities can be used to estimate the average number of 

land segments (counties/parishes) contacted during a spill, treated as one spill occurring each day for 90 

days, within the quarter. The seasonal quarterly groupings take account of the differing meteorological 

and oceanographic conditions (wind and current patterns) during the year. The latest meteorological and 

oceanographic information in the Gulf of Mexico available to BOEM were for the years 1993-1998. 

The area of ocean surface contacted by oil from the hypothetical spills was estimated by creating a 

grid of 1/6 degree longitude by 1/6 degree latitude. As the trajectories were computed, contact to the grid 

cells was tabulated. To estimate the area, the number of grid cells was multiplied by the approximate area 

of 342 square kilometers per grid cell. The number of grid cells and the approximate area of the ocean 

contacted by the spills were summarized at the same time intervals that were used for the land segment 

(county/parish boundary) tables (3, 10, 30, and 120 days). 
C-6 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Catastrophic OSRA Results and Discussion 

It should be noted that the study area only extends somewhat into the Atlantic Ocean, where oil spills 

in the Gulf might be transported via the exiting Loop Current. However, on average, less than 0.5 percent 

of the simulated spills made it across the northern or southern Florida Straits boundary within 30 days, 

and only 1-2 percent within 120 days. The hypothetical spill trajectories from launch points in the 

western Gulf of Mexico (e.g., LP1, LP4, and LP5) have a much less chance of being transported through 

the Florida Straits than those in the central Gulf of Mexico (LP2 and LP3). 

As one might expect, land segments closest to the spill sites had the greatest risk of contact. As the 

model run duration increases, more of the shoreline segments could have meaningful probabilities of 

contact (0.5%) (See Tables C-1 through C-5 for the probabilities expressed as percent chance of one or 

more offshore spills 1,000 bbl contacting the areas noted in Figure C-2.). It should be reiterated that 

these are conditional probabilities; the condition being that a spill is assumed to have occurred. The 

longer transit times up to 120 days allowed by the model enable hypothetical spills to reach the 

environmental resources and the shoreline from more distant spill locations. With increased travel time, 

the complex patterns of wind and ocean currents produce eddy-like motions of the oil spills and multiple 

opportunities for a spill to make contact with shoreline segments. For some launch points and for the 

travel times greater than 30 days, the probability of contact to land decreases very slowly or remains 

constant because the early contacts to land have occurred within 30 days, and the trajectories that have not 

contacted land within 30 days will remain at sea for 120 days or more. 

To summarize the differences between the LP’s, a chart showing the estimated square area of each 

launch point for the 6-day intervals is shown (see Figures C-3 through C-7 corresponding to LP’s 1-5, 

respectively). The differences between the estimated spill areas from each LP can be explained by 

meteorological and oceanographic conditions. 

 LP1—CPA, shelf area, west of the Mississippi River Delta, offshore south-central 

Louisiana, deepwater. Launch Point 1 is located near the Louisiana coast, and the 

fall circulation results in persistent and recurring coastal current from Louisiana 

waters toward Texas waters. 

 LP2—CPA, shelf edge area, east of the Mississippi River Delta, south of the 

Alabama-Mississippi border, ultra-deepwater. Launch Point 2 is located near the 

Mississippi River Delta on the eastern side. The trajectories contact the coastline of 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. Many of the trajectories are forced 

offshore by the wind drift and interact with the Loop Current and Loop Current 

eddies. 

 LP3—CPA, shelf area, west of the Mississippi River delta, due south of New 

Orleans, deepwater. Launch Point 3 is located relatively far offshore and west of the 

Mississippi River Delta. The estimated area contacted by the spill is the largest of all 

the selected points, and the trajectories are influenced by the deepwater Loop Current 

eddies and offshore currents. 

 LP4—WPA, shelf area, deepwater. Launch Point 4 is near the Texas coast in the 

western Gulf of Mexico. The trajectories from this launch point frequently contact 

land. The coastal flow near Texas, but to the south of the U.S./Mexico border, has a 

high fraction of northward currents, the wind is relatively persistent with a westward 

component, and the trajectories remain in a relatively smaller area. 

 LP5—WPA, slope area, ultra-deepwater. Launch Point 5 is in the western Gulf of 

Mexico between the coast (LP4) and the central Gulf (LP3). The trajectories are 

forced by the Loop Current eddies that are somewhat weaker in this part of the Gulf 

of Mexico because these eddies dissipate kinetic energy as they drift to the west from 

their original separation zone. 
BOEM-OSRA Catastrophic Run C-7 

REFERENCES CITED 

Ji, Z.-G. 2004. Use of physical sciences in support of environmental management. Environmental 

Management 34(2). Pp. 159-169. 

Ji, Z.-G., W.R. Johnson, C.F. Marshall, G.B. Rainey, and E.M. Lear. 2002. Oil-spill risk analysis: Gulf 

of Mexico outer continental shelf (OCS) lease sales, Central Planning Area and Western Planning 

Area, 2003-2007, and Gulfwide OCS program, 2003-2042. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Herndon, VA. OCS Report MMS 2002-032. 61 pp. 

Ji, Z.-G., W.R. Johnson, and C.F. Marshall. 2004a. Deepwater oil-spill modeling for assessing 

environmental impacts. Coastal Environment V. Southampton, MA: WIT Press. Pp. 349-358. 

Ji, Z.-G., W.R. Johnson, C.F. Marshall, and E.M. Lear. 2004b. Oil-spill risk analysis: Contingency 

planning statistics for Gulf of Mexico OCS activities. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Herndon, VA. OCS Report MMS 2004-026. 62 pp. 

Oey, L.-Y. 2005. Circulation model of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea: Development of the 

Princeton Regional Ocean Forecast (& Hindcast) System—PROFS and Hindcast experiment for 

1992-1999: Final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Environmental 

Division, Herndon, VA. OCS Study MMS 2005-049. 174 pp. 

Oey, L.-Y., P. Hamilton, and H. C.-Lee. 2004. Modeling and data analyses of circulation processes in 

the Gulf of Mexico: Final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2003-074. 129 pp. 

Samuels, W. B., N. E. Huang, and D.E. Amstutz. 1982. An oil spill trajectory analysis model with a 

variable wind deflection angle. Ocean Engineering 9:347-360. 

Smith, R.A., J.R. Slack, T. Wyant, and K.J. Lanfear. 1982. The oil spill risk analysis model of the U.S. 

Geological Survey. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey Professional Paper 1227. 
C-8 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 









  

 

 

 



 









	









 	











	
 



	






	








	
 




















	









 	
 












  

	
 





   	







	
 


	




	


   	



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

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

Order to Estimate the Impacts of a Possible Future Catastrophic Spill. 
BOEM-OSRA Catastrophic Run C-9 

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

1000000

3d area 10d area 30d area 120d area

Square Kilometers (km2

) of Oil Contacted Area

Winter Spring Summer Fall

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

Spring, Summer, and Fall. 
C-10 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

1000000

3d area 10d area 30d area 120d area

Square Kilometers (km2

) of Oil Contacted Area

Winter Spring Summer Fall

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

Spring, Summer, and Fall. 
BOEM-OSRA Catastrophic Run C-11 

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

1000000

3d area 10d area 30d area 120d area

Square Kilometers (km2

) of Oil Contacted Area

Winter Spring Summer Fall

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

Spring, Summer, and Fall. 
C-12 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

1000000

3d area 10d area 30d area 120d area

Square Kilometers (km2

) of Oil Contacted Area

Winter Spring Summer Fall

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

Spring, Summer, and Fall. 
BOEM-OSRA Catastrophic Run C-13 

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

1000000

3d area 10d area 30d area 120d area

Square Kilometers (km2

) of Oil Contacted Area

Winter Spring Summer Fall

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

Spring, Summer, and Fall. 
C-14 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table C-1 

 

Conditional Probabilities Expressed as Percent Chance that an Oil Spill Starting at Launch Point One 

Will Contact a Certain Parish, County, or Coastline within 120 Days 

 Season Winter Spring Summer Fall 

 Day 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120

ID Name Percent Chance 

1 Cameron, TX - - 1 2 - - - - - - - 1 - - - 2

2 Willacy, TX - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

3 Kenedy, TX - - 1 3 - - - - - - 1 1 - - 2 4

4 Kleberg, TX - - - 1 - - - 1 - - 1 1 - - 1 3

5 Nueces, TX - - 1 4 - - - - - - 1 2 - - 1 3

6 Aransas, TX - - 2 4 - - - - - - 2 2 - - 2 4

7 Calhoun, TX - - 5 10 - - - - - - 4 4 - - 2 3

8 Matagorda, TX - 1 13 17 - - 1 1 - - 3 4 - 1 9 11

9 Brazoria, TX - 1 9 10 - 1 3 3 - - 4 6 - - 6 6

10 Galveston, TX - 2 9 11 - 2 8 9 - 2 12 15 - 1 9 9

11 Chambers, TX - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - -

12 Jefferson, TX - 2 5 6 - 5 9 9 - 2 9 10 - 3 6 6

13 Cameron, LA 2 10 13 15 5 35 41 41 - 7 18 20 2 13 16 19

14 Vermilion, LA 4 9 10 10 8 22 24 24 1 9 12 12 4 8 9 9

15 Iberia, LA 1 2 3 3 1 5 6 6 - 5 7 7 1 2 3 3

16 St. Mary, LA - 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 - - - - - - - -

17 Terrebonne, LA - 1 1 1 - 2 2 2 - - 5 6 - 1 1 1

18 Lafourche, LA - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - -

19 Jefferson, LA - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

21 St. Bernard, LA - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - -

 

62 Texas Coastline - 6 45 68 - 8 23 24 - 5 37 47 - 6 38 52

63 Louisiana Coastline 8 23 28 30 14 64 75 76 2 21 43 49 6 23 30 32

64 Mississippi Coastline - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - -

67 Tamaulipas, Mexico - - - 1 - - - - - - 2 2 - - 1 3

Note: Values of <0.5% are indicated by “-”. Any areas where the percent chance within 120 days of all seasons 

are all <0.5% are not shown. See Figure C-1 for the location of Launch Point One. See Figure C-2 for the 

location of the named land areas. 
BOEM-OSRA Catastrophic Run C-15 

Table C-2 

 

Conditional Probabilities Expressed as Percent Chance that an Oil Spill Starting at Launch Point Two 

Will Contact a Certain Parish, County, or Coastline within 120 Days 

 Season Winter Spring Summer Fall 

 Day 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120

ID Name Percent Chance 

1 Cameron, TX - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - -

2 Willacy, TX - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - -

3 Kenedy, TX - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1

4 Kleberg, TX - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

7 Calhoun, TX - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1

8 Matagorda, TX - - - 2 - - - - - - - 1 - - - 2

9 Brazoria, TX - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1

10 Galveston, TX - - - 1 - - - - - - - 1 - - - -

12 Jefferson, TX - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

13 Cameron, LA - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

14 Vermilion, LA - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -

17 Terrebonne, LA - - 3 4 - - - - - - - 1 - - - 1

18 Lafourche, LA - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 1

19 Jefferson, LA - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - 1 1

20 Plaquemines, LA 1 14 21 23 - 3 4 6 1 8 20 25 2 21 27 28

21 St. Bernard, LA - 4 5 5 - 1 2 3 1 7 14 16 - 8 9 10

22 Hancock, MS - 1 2 4 - 2 2 2 - 2 3 3 1 3 5 5

23 Harrison, MS 2 3 4 5 - 4 4 4 1 3 4 4 1 2 3 3

24 Jackson, MS 7 11 11 13 5 11 12 12 1 3 4 4 6 12 13 14

25 Mobile, AL 11 14 14 15 11 16 17 17 4 8 9 10 8 11 12 13

26 Baldwin, AL 4 7 7 9 6 14 16 17 1 8 10 10 1 2 2 3

27 Escambia, FL - 1 1 2 1 5 11 13 1 3 5 6 - - 1 1

29 Okaloosa, FL - - - 1 - 1 2 3 - - 1 1 - - - -

30 Walton, FL - - - - - 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 1

31 Bay, FL - - - 1 - 2 3 5 - - 1 2 - - - -

32 Gulf, FL - - - - - 1 3 5 - - 1 1 - - - -

33 Franklin, FL - - - - - - - 3 - - 1 2 - - - -

34 Wakulla, FL - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - -

36 Taylor, FL - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - -

38 Levy, FL - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - -

49 Monroe, FL - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - - - - - -

50 Dade, FL - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - -

 

62 Texas Coastline - - - 7 - - - - - - - 5 - - 1 6

63 Louisiana Coastline 2 18 29 37 - 4 6 9 1 15 34 43 2 29 39 41

64 Mississippi Coastline 9 15 17 22 5 16 18 19 3 7 11 12 7 16 21 22

65 Alabama Coastline 15 21 21 24 18 30 34 34 5 16 19 20 9 13 14 15

66 Florida Coastline - 2 2 6 1 10 20 36 1 3 10 14 - - 1 2

67 Tamaulipas, Mexico - - - 1 - - - - - - - 1 - - - 1

Note: Values of <0.5% are indicated by “-”. Any areas where the percent chance within 120 days of all seasons are all <0.5% 

are not shown. See Figure C-1 for the location of Launch Point Two. See Figure C-2 for the location of the named land 

areas. 
C-16 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table C-3 

 

Conditional Probabilities Expressed as Percent Chance that an Oil Spill Starting at Launch Point Three 

Will Contact a Certain Parish, County, or Coastline within 120 Days 

 Season Winter Spring Summer Fall 

 Day 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120

ID Name Percent Chance 

1 Cameron, TX - - - 2 - - - - - - - 2 - - - 2

2 Willacy, TX - - - 3 - - - - - - - 2 - - - 3

3 Kenedy, TX - - - 8 - - - 1 - - - 9 - - - 5

4 Kleberg, TX - - 1 6 - - - - - - - 4 - - 1 6

5 Nueces, TX - - 1 6 - - - - - - - 2 - - 1 2

6 Aransas, TX - - - 5 - - - 1 - - - 3 - - - 2

7 Calhoun, TX - - 1 6 - - - - - - - 6 - - 1 4

8 Matagorda, TX - - 2 17 - - 3 4 - - - 11 - - 1 6

9 Brazoria, TX - - 3 12 - - 1 3 - - 2 8 - - 1 5

10 Galveston, TX - - 3 10 - - 3 6 - - 2 5 - - 1 4

12 Jefferson, TX - - 1 4 - - 7 9 - - 1 1 - - - 2

13 Cameron, LA - - 1 4 - - 11 12 - 1 1 4 - - - 4

14 Vermilion, LA - - 1 2 - - 5 6 - 1 1 2 - - - -

15 Iberia, LA - - - 1 - - 4 4 - - - - - - - -

17 Terrebonne, LA - 1 2 3 - 4 12 14 - - - 2 - - - -

18 Lafourche, LA - - 1 1 - 2 8 10 - - 1 2 - - - -

19 Jefferson, LA - - - 1 - - 2 2 - - 1 1 - - - -

20 Plaquemines, LA - - - 1 - 2 10 12 - - 1 2 - - - -

24 Jackson, MS - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - -

26 Baldwin, AL - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - -

31 Bay, FL - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - -

33 Franklin, FL - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

49 Monroe, FL - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - 1

50 Dade, FL - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - -

 

62 Texas Coastline - - 12 78 - - 14 24 - - 6 54 - - 4 41

63 Louisiana Coastline - 1 6 14 - 9 52 60 - 1 4 13 - - - 6

64 Mississippi Coastline - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - -

65 Alabama Coastline - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - -

66 Florida Coastline - - - 1 - - 1 4 - - - 2 - - - 2

67 Tamaulipas, Mexico - - - 4 - - - 1 - - - 10 - - - 10

68 Veracruz-Llave, Mexico - - - - - - - - - - 1 7 - - - 1

69 Tabasco, Mexico - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - -

Note: Values of <0.5% are indicated by “-”. Any areas where the percent chance within 120 days of all seasons 

are all <0.5% are not shown. See Figure C-1 for the location of Launch Point Three. See Figure C-2 for 

the location of the named land areas. 
BOEM-OSRA Catastrophic Run C-17 

Table C-4 

 

Conditional Probabilities Expressed as Percent Chance that an Oil Spill Starting at Launch Point Four 

Will Contact a Certain Parish, County, or Coastline within 120 Days 

 Season Winter Spring Summer Fall 

 Day 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120

ID Name Percent Chance 

1 Cameron, TX 1 3 3 3 - - - - - - - - - 2 3 3

2 Willacy, TX 3 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 3 7 8 8

3 Kenedy, TX 10 22 23 23 7 9 9 9 3 9 9 9 10 21 22 23

4 Kleberg, TX 9 14 15 16 12 14 14 14 9 17 17 17 7 13 14 14

5 Nueces, TX 10 16 17 18 21 26 26 26 8 17 18 18 11 16 17 17

6 Aransas, TX 11 15 16 16 28 33 33 33 17 26 26 26 9 12 13 13

7 Calhoun, TX 7 12 13 14 12 15 15 15 18 25 26 26 7 11 12 12

8 Matagorda, TX 1 3 3 4 1 2 2 2 - 2 2 2 - 1 2 3

9 Brazoria, TX - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1

 

62 Texas Coastline 51 90 94 98 82 99 ** ** 56 98   48 84 91 93

67 Tamaulipas, Mexico - 1 2 2 - - - - - - - - - - 1 1

Note: Values of <0.5%.are indicated by “-”. Any areas where the percent chance within 120 days of all seasons 

are all <0.5% are not shown. Values of >99.5% are indicated by “** ”. See Figure C-1 for the location of 

Launch Point Four. See Figure C-2 for the location of the named land areas. 
C-18 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Table C-5 

 

Conditional Probabilities Expressed as Percent Chance that an Oil Spill Starting at Launch Point Five 

Will Contact a Certain Parish, County, or Coastline within 120 Days 

 Season Winter Spring Summer Fall 

 Day 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120

ID Name Percent Chance 

1 Cameron, TX - - 2 4 - - - - - - 2 3 - - 3 5

2 Willacy, TX - - 1 4 - - - - - - 2 3 - - 2 3

3 Kenedy, TX - 1 8 14 - - 1 1 - - 4 7 - - 6 9

4 Kleberg, TX - - 5 7 - 1 2 2 - - 1 3 - - 4 5

5 Nueces, TX - 1 5 9 - 1 2 2 - - 1 1 - - 3 5

6 Aransas, TX - 1 5 10 - - 3 3 - - 2 3 - - 4 6

7 Calhoun, TX - 2 10 20 - 3 11 12 - - 7 9 - 1 5 7

8 Matagorda, TX - 1 8 14 - 18 29 30 - 2 12 21 - 2 9 15

9 Brazoria, TX - - 3 4 - 9 13 13 - - 7 12 - 1 4 6

10 Galveston, TX - 1 2 4 - 3 11 13 - - 5 12 - 1 2 3

12 Jefferson, TX - - - 1 - - 12 15 - - 1 4 - - - 1

13 Cameron, LA - - - 1 - 1 5 6 - - 6 8 - - - -

14 Vermilion, LA - - - - - - 2 3 - - 1 2 - - - -

20 Plaquemines, LA - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - -

 

62 Texas Coastline - 7 50 91 - 35 85 90 - 2 43 79 - 5 43 65

63 Louisiana Coastline - - - 1 - 1 8 9 - - 8 11 - - - -

67 Tamaulipas, Mexico - - 1 6 - - - - - - 3 7 - - 2 11

68 Veracruz-Llave, Mexico - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - -

Note: Values of <0.5% are indicated by “-”. Any areas where the percent chance within 120 days of all seasons 

are all <0.5% are not shown. See Figure C-1 for the location of Launch Point Five. See Figure C-2 for the 

location of the named land areas. 
APPENDIX D 

 

RECENT PUBLICATIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 

PROGRAM, GULF OF MEXICO OCS REGION, 2006—PRESENT

Recent Publications of the Environmental Studies Program D-3 

APPENDIX D. RECENT PUBLICATIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL 

STUDIES PROGRAM, GULF OF MEXICO OCS 

REGION, 2006—PRESENT 

Published in 2011 

BOEMRE 2011-001 

(in press) Analysis of the Oil Services Contract Industry in the Gulf of Mexico Region 

BOEMRE 2011-002 

Status and Applications of Acoustic Mitigation and Monitoring Systems for 

Marine Mammals: Workshop Proceedings, November 17-19, 2009, Boston, 

Massachusetts 

BOEMRE 2011-003 

(in press) 

Impact of Recent Hurricane Activity on Historic Shipwrecks in the Gulf of 

Mexico Outer Continental Shelf 

BOEMRE 2011-004 

(in press) 

Archival Investigations for Potential Colonial-Era Shipwrecks in UltraDeepwater within the Gulf of Mexico 

BOEMRE 2011-011 User’s Guide for the 2011 Gulfwide Offshore Activities Data System 

(GOADS-2011) 

BOEMRE 2011-012 Literature Synthesis for the North and Central Atlantic Ocean 

BOEMRE 2011-028 Assessment of Opportunities for Alternative Uses of Hydrocarbon 

Infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico 

Published in 2010 

Study Number Title 

MMS 2010-001 Proceedings: USA-Mexico Workshop on the Deepwater Physical 

Oceanography of the Gulf of Mexico, June 2007 

MMS 2010-002 Proof of Concept for Platform Recruited Reef Fish, Phase 1: Do Platforms 

Provide Habitat for Subadult Red Snapper? 

MMS 2010-007 Assessment of Marginal Production in the Gulf of Mexico and Lost Production 

from Early Decommissioning 

MMS 2010-015 Low-Frequency Variability of Currents in the Deepwater Eastern Gulf of 

Mexico 

MMS 2010-016 Trophic Aspects of Sperm Whales (Physeter macrocephalus) in the Northern 

Gulf of Mexico Using Stable Isotopes of Carbon and Nitrogen 

BOEMRE 2010-039 Bank Erosion of Navigation Canals in the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico 

BOEMRE 2010-041 

(in press) Study of Deepwater Currents in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico 

BOEMRE 2010-042 

(in press) Fact Book: Offshore Oil and Gas Industry Support Sectors 

BOEMRE 2010-044 

(in press) Full-Water Column Current Observations in the Western Gulf of Mexico 
D-4 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

BOEMRE 2010-045 Year 2008 Gulfwide Emission Inventory Study 

BOEMRE 2010-046 Multicomponent and Multifrequency Seismic for Assessment of Fluid-Gas 

Expulsion Geology and Gas-Hydrate Deposits: Gulf of Mexico Hydrates 

BOEMRE 2010-050 

(in press) Satellite Data Assimilation into Meteorological/Air Quality Models 

BOEMRE 2010-051 

(in press) 

Evaluation of NASA Aura’s Data Products for Use in Air Quality Studies over 

the Gulf of Mexico 

BOEMRE 2010-052 

BOEMRE 2010-053 

(in press) 

Long-Term Monitoring at the East and West Flower Garden Banks: 2004-2008

Volume 1: Technical Report 

Volume 2: Appendices 

Published in 2009 

Study Number Title 

MMS 2009-010 Quality Control and Analysis of Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler Data 

Collected on Offshore Platforms of the Gulf of Mexico 

MMS 2009-013 Foraminiferal Communities of Bathyal Hydrocarbon Seeps, Northern Gulf of 

Mexico: A Taxonomic, Ecologic, and Geologic Study 

MMS 2009-023 Loop Current Frontal Eddies Based on Satellite Remote Sensing and Drifter 

Data 

MMS 2009-032 Post-Hurricane Assessment of Sensitive Habitats of the Flower Garden Banks 

Vicinity 

MMS 2009-039 Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Slope Habitats and Benthic Ecology 

Study: Final Report 

MMS 2009-043 

Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus) Use of the Ship/Trinity/Tiger Shoal Complex as 

a Nationally Important Spawning/Hatching/Foraging Ground: Discovery, 

Evaluation, and Sand Mining Recommendations Based on Blue Crab, Shrimp, 

and Spotted Seatrout Findings 

MMS 2009-046 Investigations of Chemosynthetic Communities on the Lower Continental Slope 

of the Gulf of Mexico, Interim Report 2 

MMS 2009-048 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)-Related Pipelines and Navigation Canals in the 

Western and Central Gulf of Mexico: Relative Impacts on Wetlands Habitats 

and Effectiveness of Mitigation 

MMS 2009-050 Observation of the Deepwater Manifestation of the Loop Current and Loop 

Current Rings in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico 

MMS 2009-051 Proceedings: Twenty-fifth Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer Meeting, 

January 2009 
Recent Publications of the Environmental Studies Program D-5 

MMS 2009-055 

MMS 2009-056 

MMS 2009-057 

MMS 2009-058 

Synthesis, Analysis, and Integration of Meteorological and Air Quality Data for 

the Gulf of Mexico Region 

Volume I: User’s Manual for the Gulf of Mexico Air Quality Database 

(Version 1.0) 

Volume II: Technical Reference Manual for the Gulf of Mexico Air Quality 

Database 

Volume III: Data Analysis 

Volume IV: Cart Analysis of Modeling Episode Days 

MMS 2009-059 Evaluation of Oil and Gas Platforms on the Louisiana Continental Shelf for 

Organisms with Biotechnology Potential 

MMS 2009-060 Modeling Waves and Currents Produced by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and 

Wilma 

Published in 2008 

Study Number Title 

MMS 2008-001 Deepwater Currents in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico: Observations at 25.5°N 

and 87°W 

MMS 2008-006 Sperm Whale Seismic Study in the Gulf of Mexico: Synthesis Report 

MMS 2008-009 Investigations of Chemosynthetic Communities on the Lower Continental Slope 

of the Gulf of Mexico: Interim Report 1 

MMS 2008-012 Proceedings: Twenty-Fourth Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer Meeting, 

January 2007 

MMS 2008-015 

Lophelia Reef Megafaunal Community Structure, Biotopes, Genetics, Microbial 

Ecology, and Geology (2004-2006) 

NOTE: This study was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for 

the Agency’s Headquarters’ Office, and it was funded by USGS.

MMS 2008-017 Examination of the Development of Liquefied Natural Gas on the Gulf of 

Mexico 

MMS 2008-018 Viosca Knoll Wreck: Discovery and Investigation of an Early NineteenthCentury Wooden Sailing Vessel in 2,000 Feet of Water 

MMS 2008-019 Post-Hurricane Assessment at the East Flower Garden Bank Long-Term 

Monitoring Site: November 2005 

MMS 2008-022 Effects of Subsea Processing on Deepwater Environments in the Gulf of Mexico 

MMS 2008-024 Executive Summary: 3rd International Deep-Sea Coral Symposium in Miami 

MMS 2008-027 

MMS 2008-028 

Long-Term Monitoring at the East and West Flower Garden Banks, 2004-

2005—Interim Report 

Volume I: Technical Report 

Volume II: Appendices 

MMS 2008-029 Five-Year Meteorological Datasets for CALMET/CALPUFF and OCD5 

Modeling of the Gulf of Mexico Region 

MMS 2008-030 

MMS 2008-031 

Study of Deepwater Currents in the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico 

Volume I: Executive Summary 

Volume II: Technical Report 
D-6 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS

MMS 2008-042 

MMS 2008-043 

MMS 2008-044 

MMS 2008-045 

MMS 2008-046 

MMS 2008-047 

History of the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry in Southern Louisiana 

Volume I: Papers on the Evolving Offshore Industry 

Volume II: Bayou Lafourche—Oral Histories of the Oil and Gas Industry 

Volume III: Morgan City’s History in the Era of Oil and Gas—Perspectives of 

Those Who Were There 

Volume IV: Terrebonne Parish 

Volume V: Guide to the Interviews 

Volume VI: A Collection of Photographs 

MMS 2008-048 

Platform Debris Fields Associated with the Blue Dolphin (Buccaneer) Gas and 

Oil Field Artificial Reef Sites Offshore Freeport, Texas: Extent, Composition, 

and Biological Utilization 

MMS 2008-050 

MMS 2008-051 

Labor Needs Survey 

Volume I: Technical Report 

Volume II: Survey Instruments 

MMS 2008-052 Benefits and Burdens of OCS Activities on States, Labor Market Areas, Coastal 

Counties, and Selected Communities 

MMS 2008-058 Cumulative Increment Analysis for the Breton National Wilderness Area 

Published in 2007 

Study Number Title 

MMS 2007-015 Archaeological and Biological Analysis of World War II Shipwrecks in the Gulf 

of Mexico; Artificial Reef Effect in Deepwater 

MMS 2007-019 Mixtures of Metals and Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons May Elicit 

Complex, Nonadditive Toxicological Interactions 

MMS 2007-022 Full-Water Column Current Observations in the Central Gulf of Mexico: Final 

Report

MMS 2007-030 Incorporation of Gulf of Mexico Benthic Survey Data into the Ocean 

Biogeographic Information System

MMS 2007-031 Idle Iron in the Gulf of Mexico

MMS 2007-033 Cooperative Research to Study Dive Patterns of Sperm Whales in the Atlantic 

Ocean

MMS 2007-034 Competition and Performance in Oil and Gas Lease Sales and Development in 

the U.S. Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 1983-1999

MMS 2007-035 

Seafloor Characteristics and Distribution Patterns of Lophelia pertusa and 

Other Sessile Megafauna at Two Upper-Slope Sites in the Northeastern Gulf of 

Mexico 

MMS 2007-044 Characterization of Northern Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Hard-Bottom 

Communities with Emphasis on Lophelia Coral

MMS 2007-056 

Full-Water Column Currents Near the Sigsbee Escarpment (91-92o W. 

Longitude) and Relationships with the Loop Current and Associated Warm- and 

Cold-Core Eddies 

MMS 2007-061 Study of Barite Solubility and the Release of Trace Components to the Marine 

Environment

MMS 2007-067 Year 2005 Gulfwide Emission Inventory Study
Recent Publications of the Environmental Studies Program D-7 

MMS 2007-068 User’s Guide for the 2008 Gulfwide Offshore Activities Data System 

(GOADS-2008)

Published in 2006 

Study Number Title 

MMS 2006-005 Fidelity of Red Snapper to Petroleum Platforms and Artificial Reefs in the 

Northern Gulf of Mexico 

MMS 2006-011 Sustainable Community in Oil and Gas Country: Final Report 

MMS 2006-028 Degradation of Synthetic-Based Drilling Mud Base Fluids by Gulf of Mexico 

Sediments, Final Report 

MMS 2006-030 Accounting for Socioeconomic Change from Offshore Oil and Gas: Cumulative 

Effects on Louisiana’s Coastal Parishes, 1969-2000 

MMS 2006-034 Sperm Whale Seismic Study in the Gulf of Mexico, Summary Report: 2002-

2004 

MMS 2006-035 Long-Term Monitoring at the East and West Flower Garden Banks National 

Marine Sanctuary, 2002-2003 

MMS 2006-036 Study to Conduct National Register of Historic Places Evaluations of 

Submerged Sites on the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf 

MMS 2006-037 

Effect of Depth, Location, and Habitat Type, on Relative Abundance and 

Species Composition of Fishes Associated with Petroleum Platforms and 

Sonnier Bank in the Northern Gulf of Mexico 

MMS 2006-044 

MMS 2006-045 

MMS 2006-046 

Effects of Oil and Gas Exploration and Development at Selected Continental 

Slope Sites in the Gulf of Mexico; 

Volume I: Executive Summary 

Volume II: Technical Report 

Volume III: Appendices 

MMS 2006-063 Economic Effects of Petroleum Prices and Production in the Gulf of Mexico 

OCS on the U.S. Gulf Coast Economy 

MMS 2006-064 Capital Investment Decisionmaking and Trends in Petroleum Resource 

Development in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico 

MMS 2006-067 Sperm Whale Seismic Study in the Gulf of Mexico, Annual Report: Years 3 and 

4 

MMS 2006-071 

Annotated Bibliography of the Potential Environmental Impacts of Chlorination 

and Disinfection Byproducts Relevant to Offshore Liquefied Natural Gas Port 

Facilities 

MMS 2006-072 Mica Shipwreck Project Report: Deepwater Archaeological Investigation of a 

19th Century Shipwreck in the Gulf of Mexico 

MMS 2006-073 

MMS 2006-074 

Exploratory Study of Deepwater Currents in the Gulf of Mexico 

Volume I: Executive Summary 

Volume II: Technical Report 

APPENDIX E 

 

AGENCY-FUNDED HURRICANE RESEARCH AND STUDIES

Agency-Funded Hurricane Research and Studies E-3 

APPENDIX E. AGENCY-FUNDED HURRICANE RESEARCH AND 

STUDIES 

Project/Study Number Title 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

BOEMRE 2011-003 

(in press) 

Impacts of Recent Hurricane Activity on Historic Shipwrecks in the Gulf of 

Mexico Outer Continental Shelf 

MMS 2009-060 Modeling Waves and Currents Produced by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and 

Wilma 

MMS 2009-032 Post-Hurricane Assessment of Sensitive Habitats of the Flower Garden 

Banks Vicinity 

MMS 2008-019 Post-Hurricane Assessment at the East Flower Garden Bank Long-Term 

Monitoring Site: November 2005 

GM-07-x12 Assessing Impact of OCS Activities on Public Infrastructure, Service, and 

Population in Coastal Communities Following Hurricanes Rita and Katrina 

GM-92-42-124 Post-Hurricane Assessment of OCS-Related Infrastructure and Communities 

in the Gulf of Mexico Region 

GM-92-42-125 Spatial Restructuring and Fiscal Impacts in the Wake of Disaster: The Case 

of the Oil and Gas Industry Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

GM-92-42-131 Gulf Coast Subsidence and Wetland Loss: A Synthesis of Recent Research 

GM-92-42-137 Socioeconomic Responses to Coastal Landloss and Hurricanes: Measuring 

Resilience Among OCS-Related Coastal Communities in Louisiana 

Project No. 578 Assessment of Fixed Offshore Platform Performance in Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita 

Project No. 580 Hindcast Data on Winds, Waves and Currents in Northern Gulf of Mexico 

in Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

Project No. 581 Pipeline Damage Assessments from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

Project No. 591 

(completed December 5, 

2007) 

Evaluate Accuracy of Polyester Subrope Damage Detection Performed by 

Remotely-Operated Vehicles (ROV’s) Following Hurricanes and Other 

Events 

Project No. 593 Evaluate and Assess the Performance of Jackup Rigs That Were Subject to 

Hurricanes Katrina or Rita 

Project No. 599 JIP to Quantify Risks in Deepwater Production Facilities and Flowlines in 

the GOM 

Project No. 603 Stability of Tension-Leg Platforms (TLP’s) with Damaged Tendons 

Project No. 604 Evaluation of Fatigue Life Models and Assessment Practice for Tension-Leg 

Platforms (Phase 1: Tendon System Fatigue) 
E-4 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Project No. 605 Cooperative Research on Extreme Seas and Their Impact to Floating 

Structures 

Project No. 609 Reliability vs. Consequence of Failure for API RP 2A Platforms Using 

RP2MET 

Hurricane Ivan 

GM-05-x12 Ocean Currents under Hurricane Ivan on the Mississippi/Alabama Shelf 

Project No. 548 

Examination and Review of Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) Loss 

of Station-keeping Ability during Hurricane Ivan and Assessment of Current 

Mooring Standards and Criteria to Prevent Similar Failures 

Project No. 549 Assessment of Fixed Offshore Platforms in Hurricane Ivan, Andrew 

Project No. 550 A Pilot Study for Regionally-Consistent Hazard Susceptibility Mapping of 

Submarine Mudslides, Offshore Gulf of Mexico 

Project No. 551 Assessment of Drilling and Workover Rig Storm Sea Fastenings on 

Offshore Floating Platforms during Hurricane Ivan 

Project No. 552 Mudslides during Hurricane Ivan and an Assessment of the Potential for 

Future Mudslides in the GOM 

Project No. 553 Pipeline Damage Assessment from Hurricane Ivan 

Project No. 559 Offshore Hurricane Readiness and Recovery Conference 

Hurricane Lili 

MMS 2009-039 Oil Spill during Hurricane Lili: Ship Shoal Block 119; Response, Fate, and 

Effects 

Project No. 466 Validation and Calibration of API RP2A Using Hurricane Lili to Update the 

Hurricane Andrew JIP Results that Provided the Basis for API Section 17 

Project No. 467 Hindcast Study of Winds, Waves, and Currents in Northern GOM in 

Hurricane Lili (2002) 

Project No. 469 Post-Mortem Failure Assessment of Drilling Rigs during Hurricane Lili 

Project No. 471 Assessment of Performance of Deepwater Floating Production Facilities 

Project No. 503 Evaluate and Compare Hurricane-Induced Damage to Offshore Pipelines for 

Hurricane Lili—Rev. A 

Hurricane Andrew 

Project No. 193 Study and Hindcast of Wind and Wave Fields for Hurricane Andrew 

Project No. 199 Hurricane Andrew Calibration Study 

Project No. 201 Evaluation of Hurricane Pipeline Damage 

Project No. 203 

Performance of Safety and Pollution Control Devices in the Aftermath of 

Hurricane Andrew (Part of the Hurricane Andrew OCS Damage Assessment 

Program) 
Agency-Funded Hurricane Research and Studies E-5 

Project No. 204 Post-Mortem Platform Failure Evaluation Study 

Project No. 206 Shallow-Water Wave and Current Field Study 

Project No. 207 API/Hurricane Foundation Study 

Project No. 209 Development of Acceptance Criteria for Caisson Structures Damaged 

during Hurricane Andrew 

Project No. 210 Hurricane Andrew Effects on Offshore Platforms 

Project No. 224 Dynamic Nonlinear Loading Effects on Offshore Platforms 

Project No. 229 Hurricane Andrew Effects on Offshore Platforms (Phase II – JIP) 

KEYWORD INDEX

Keyword Index Keyword-3 

KEYWORD INDEX 

Air Quality, x, 1-13, 1-15, 1-16, 1-18, 1-26, 1-32, 2-6, 2-9, 3-20, 3-22, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 

4-13, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-262, 4-265, 4-274, 4-295, 4-397, 4-447, 4-449, 4-454, 5-38, 

5-39, 5-38, 5-39, 5-129 

Alternative Energy, 4-451 

Annular Preventer, 1-23, 3-48 

Archaeological Resources, x, xiii, 1-15, 1-16, 1-18, 1-21, 1-27, 2-6, 2-26, 2-27, 3-5, 3-6, 3-8, 3-26, 4-55, 

4-349, 4-351, 4-352, 4-353, 4-354, 4-355, 4-356, 4-358, 4-359, 4-360, 4-361, 4-362, 4-363, 4-364, 4-

447, 4-449, 4-450, 4-455, 4-456 

Artificial Reefs, xiii, 1-13, 1-30, 2-6, 2-24, 2-26, 3-12, 3-55, 3-60, 3-64, 4-107, 4-110, 4-130, 4-135, 4-

139, 4-169, 4-307, 4-308, 4-320, 4-328, 4-332, 4-334, 4-335, 4-336, 4-338, 4-342, 4-357, 4-358, 4-424, 

4-427, 4-428, 4-435, 4-458 

Beach Mice, x, xii, 2-21, 2-22, 4-6, 4-243, 4-244, 4-245, 4-246, 4-247, 4-248, 4-249, 4-250, 4-447, 4-449, 

4-455 

Blowout Preventer, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 1-20, 1-23, 1-25, 3-25, 3-38, 3-46, 3-47, 3-48, 3-49, 3-50, 3-51, 3-

52, 4-113, 4-140, 4-171, 4-429, 5-47, 5-187 

Blowouts, viii, xiii, xiv, 1-7, 1-8, 1-10, 1-16, 1-20, 1-22, 1-23, 1-25, 1-33, 2-7, 2-9, 2-10, 2-13, 2-14, 2-15, 

2-16, 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-24, 2-25, 2-26, 2-30, 3-11, 3-24, 3-25, 3-32, 3-33, 3-35, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-

45, 3-46, 3-47, 3-48, 3-49, 3-51, 3-52, 4-11, 4-17, 4-27, 4-28, 4-35, 4-36, 4-39, 4-40, 4-42, 4-56, 4-104, 

4-113, 4-116, 4-118, 4-119, 4-120, 4-121, 4-122, 4-124, 4-125, 4-126, 4-133, 4-140, 4-141, 4-144, 4-

146, 4-147, 4-148, 4-149, 4-151, 4-152, 4-153, 4-162, 4-163, 4-169, 4-171, 4-177, 4-178, 4-179, 4-180, 

4-181, 4-182, 4-183, 4-184, 4-189, 4-190, 4-203, 4-204, 4-205, 4-206, 4-207, 4-213, 4-214, 4-215, 4-

216, 4-217, 4-227, 4-240, 4-301, 4-303, 4-308, 4-309, 4-310, 4-311, 4-312, 4-313, 4-314, 4-315, 4-323, 

4-325, 4-327, 4-328, 4-334, 4-365, 4-366, 4-371, 4-376, 4-379, 4-385, 4-400, 4-419, 4-428, 4-429, 4-

434, 4-435, 4-436, 4-438, 4-439, 4-440, 4-443, 4-444, 4-447, 4-449, 4-450, 4-454, 5-47, 5-137, 5-187, 

5-190 

Chemosynthetic Communities, xii, 1-13, 1-14, 1-15, 2-6, 2-17, 2-18, 3-24, 4-6, 4-193, 4-194, 4-195, 4-

196, 4-198, 4-199, 4-200, 4-202, 4-203, 4-204, 4-205, 4-206, 4-207, 4-208, 4-209, 4-211, 4-212, 4-213, 

4-216 

Chemosynthetic Deepwater Benthic Communities, 2-17, 4-193 

Coastal And Marine Birds, x, xii, 1-3, 2-3, 2-22, 3-4, 4-3, 4-5, 4-7, 4-250, 4-251, 4-255, 4-256, 4-261, 4-

262, 4-263, 4-264, 4-265, 4-266, 4-267, 4-268, 4-271, 4-272, 4-273, 4-274, 4-275, 4-276, 4-277, 4-278, 

4-279, 4-281, 4-282, 4-447, 4-449, 4-455, 5-3 

Coastal Barrier Beaches, x, xi, 2-10, 2-11, 4-6, 4-45, 4-51, 4-53, 4-54, 4-56, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-63, 4-64, 

4-369, 4-447, 4-449 

Coastal Infrastructure, xiii, 2-27, 2-28, 2-31, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-31, 3-57, 4-6, 4-82, 4-263, 4-354, 4-361, 

4-362, 4-363, 4-364, 4-366, 4-367, 4-370, 4-371, 4-372, 4-373, 4-375, 4-443 

Coastal Zone Management, x, 1-5, 1-21, 1-27, 4-20, 4-62, 5-5, 5-8 

Collisions, viii, xiii, xiv, 1-33, 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 2-19, 2-20, 2-22, 2-28, 2-29, 3-32, 3-52, 3-53, 4-27, 4-28, 

4-39, 4-42, 4-56, 4-57, 4-80, 4-86, 4-92, 4-205, 4-215, 4-219, 4-227, 4-233, 4-237, 4-238, 4-239, 4-242, 

4-253, 4-263, 4-266, 4-273, 4-275, 4-279, 4-280, 4-282, 4-296, 4-365, 4-371, 4-372, 4-376, 4-379, 4-

385, 4-399, 4-400, 4-401, 4-442, 4-453, 4-454 

Commercial Fishing, x, xiii, 1-13, 1-23, 2-6, 2-25, 3-11, 3-12, 3-55, 3-56, 4-4, 4-21, 4-122, 4-126, 4-150, 

4-153, 4-181, 4-230, 4-232, 4-241, 4-242, 4-243, 4-296, 4-299, 4-300, 4-314, 4-315, 4-319, 4-320, 4-
Keyword-4 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

321, 4-322, 4-324, 4-325, 4-326, 4-327, 4-328, 4-331, 4-333, 4-334, 4-342, 4-347, 4-355, 4-357, 4-366, 

4-378, 4-380, 4-382, 4-384, 4-386, 4-390, 4-439, 4-447, 4-449, 4-456, 4-457, 5-132, 5-189 

Consultation and Coordination, viii, 1-5, 1-6, 1-32, 4-388 

Cumulative Activities, viii, 3-54, 3-55, 3-56, 3-57, 3-58, 3-60, 3-61, 3-63, 3-64, 3-66, 3-67, 3-69, 3-70, 3-

71, 3-73, 3-76, 4-3, 4-81, 4-87, 4-243, 4-249, 4-250, 4-275, 4-276, 4-281, 4-357, 4-376, 4-380, 4-381, 

4-445, 4-446 

Cumulative Impacts, viii, x, 3-55, 3-57, 3-66, 3-71, 4-3, 4-4, 4-7, 4-17, 4-19, 4-20, 4-29, 4-30, 4-42, 4-43, 

4-45, 4-58, 4-63, 4-64, 4-81, 4-87, 4-94, 4-122, 4-149, 4-154, 4-161, 4-181, 4-191, 4-192, 4-193, 4-205, 

4-206, 4-207, 4-208, 4-214, 4-215, 4-216, 4-217, 4-228, 4-230, 4-231, 4-232, 4-241, 4-242, 4-243, 4-

249, 4-250, 4-255, 4-261, 4-272, 4-277, 4-281, 4-282, 4-283, 4-295, 4-296, 4-301, 4-302, 4-311, 4-312, 

4-314, 4-315, 4-325, 4-334, 4-335, 4-347, 4-348, 4-355, 4-362, 4-364, 4-365, 4-373, 4-375, 4-376, 4-

379, 4-380, 4-386, 4-402, 4-404, 4-407, 4-408, 4-436, 4-437, 4-440, 4-445, 4-448, 4-450, 4-457, 5-37, 

5-55, 5-37, 5-55, 5-135, 5-183 

Deepwater, vii, x, 1-3, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 1-16, 1-17, 1-18, 1-25, 1-32, 1-33, 2-19, 2-24, 2-30, 3-4, 

3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-11, 3-17, 3-18, 3-20, 3-23, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-33, 3-35, 3-36, 3-39, 3-42, 3-46, 3-47, 3-

49, 3-50, 3-51, 3-54, 3-55, 3-56, 3-59, 3-64, 3-65, 3-71, 3-76, 4-6, 4-11, 4-23, 4-32, 4-34, 4-35, 4-40, 4-

46, 4-50, 4-70, 4-74, 4-90, 4-101, 4-102, 4-103, 4-116, 4-124, 4-130, 4-131, 4-132, 4-144, 4-152, 4-

157, 4-161, 4-162, 4-163, 4-165, 4-174, 4-193, 4-194, 4-196, 4-197, 4-198, 4-200, 4-203, 4-205, 4-206, 

4-207, 4-208, 4-209, 4-210, 4-211, 4-212, 4-213, 4-214, 4-215, 4-216, 4-217, 4-221, 4-224, 4-235, 4-

252, 4-255, 4-258, 4-261, 4-286, 4-289, 4-294, 4-296, 4-297, 4-299, 4-302, 4-307, 4-308, 4-309, 4-314, 

4-321, 4-326, 4-330, 4-335, 4-340, 4-349, 4-350, 4-351, 4-353, 4-354, 4-357, 4-365, 4-366, 4-368, 4-

371, 4-372, 4-374, 4-382, 4-383, 4-384, 4-388, 4-390, 4-391, 4-393, 4-394, 4-400, 4-401, 4-403, 4-406, 

4-408, 4-412, 4-413, 4-414, 4-422, 4-438, 4-441, 4-447, 4-449, 4-451, 4-452, 4-458, 5-4, 5-38, 5-39, 5-

38, 5-39, 5-130, 5-131, 5-134, 5-137, 5-138, 5-186, 5-191 

Deepwater Horizon Event, vii, x, xiii, xiv, 1-6, 1-7, 1-10, 1-20, 1-23, 1-25, 2-3, 2-5, 2-7, 2-10, 2-12, 2-16, 

2-20, 2-21, 2-22, 2-23, 2-25, 2-26, 2-28, 2-29, 2-30, 2-31, 2-32, 3-3, 3-4, 3-13, 3-18, 3-23, 3-25, 3-27, 

3-28, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-35, 3-38, 3-40, 3-41, 3-42, 3-44, 3-46, 3-48, 3-49, 3-51, 3-52, 3-57, 3-63, 3-

74, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-16, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-

36, 4-40, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-63, 

4-64, 4-66, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 4-82, 4-85, 4-87, 4-88, 4-

89, 4-91, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-101, 4-102, 4-103, 4-104, 4-112, 4-116, 4-122, 4-124, 4-125, 4-131, 

4-132, 4-144, 4-152, 4-154, 4-161, 4-162, 4-163, 4-170, 4-174, 4-175, 4-182, 4-186, 4-187, 4-192, 4-

193, 4-196, 4-197, 4-198, 4-204, 4-206, 4-209, 4-210, 4-213, 4-216, 4-217, 4-219, 4-220, 4-221, 4-222, 

4-223, 4-224, 4-227, 4-229, 4-230, 4-231, 4-235, 4-236, 4-237, 4-239, 4-240, 4-241, 4-242, 4-243, 4-

246, 4-247, 4-250, 4-251, 4-252, 4-253, 4-255, 4-256, 4-257, 4-258, 4-259, 4-260, 4-261, 4-267, 4-272, 

4-280, 4-282, 4-283, 4-289, 4-294, 4-295, 4-296, 4-297, 4-300, 4-301, 4-303, 4-304, 4-309, 4-310, 4-

311, 4-313, 4-314, 4-315, 4-316, 4-317, 4-318, 4-319, 4-320, 4-322, 4-323, 4-324, 4-326, 4-327, 4-328, 

4-329, 4-330, 4-331, 4-333, 4-334, 4-335, 4-336, 4-337, 4-338, 4-339, 4-340, 4-341, 4-343, 4-344, 4-

345, 4-346, 4-347, 4-349, 4-351, 4-355, 4-360, 4-362, 4-364, 4-365, 4-366, 4-367, 4-368, 4-370, 4-371, 

4-372, 4-373, 4-374, 4-376, 4-377, 4-380, 4-381, 4-382, 4-383, 4-384, 4-388, 4-390, 4-391, 4-392, 4-

395, 4-396, 4-397, 4-398, 4-399, 4-401, 4-402, 4-406, 4-407, 4-408, 4-412, 4-413, 4-415, 4-416, 4-417, 

4-418, 4-419, 4-420, 4-438, 4-439, 4-441, 4-442, 4-444, 4-445, 4-446, 4-451, 4-452, 4-453, 5-3, 5-9, 5-

10, 5-36, 5-37, 5-38, 5-40, 5-41, 5-55, 5-64, 5-36, 5-37, 5-38, 5-40, 5-41, 5-55, 5-64, 5-128, 5-131, 5-

132, 5-133, 5-136, 5-138, 5-183, 5-185, 5-186, 5-187, 5-188, 5-189, 5-191, 5-192, 5-198, 5-199, 5-214, 

5-215 

Demographics, xiv, 2-28, 4-376, 4-377, 4-379 

Diamondback Terrapins, x, xiv, 2-31, 4-408, 4-440, 4-441, 4-442, 4-443, 4-444, 4-445, 4-446, 5-185 

Discharges, x, xi, xii, 1-23, 2-9, 2-13, 2-14, 2-15, 2-16, 2-17, 2-18, 2-20, 2-23, 2-32, 3-13, 3-14, 3-20, 3-

26, 3-32, 4-20, 4-22, 4-25, 4-26, 4-29, 4-30, 4-32, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-43, 4-44, 4-104, 

4-105, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108, 4-109, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 4-122, 4-123, 4-126, 4-127, 4-133, 4-134, 4-

136, 4-137, 4-140, 4-141, 4-149, 4-150, 4-153, 4-154, 4-163, 4-164, 4-165, 4-167, 4-169, 4-170, 4-171, 
Keyword Index Keyword-5 

4-181, 4-183, 4-184, 4-187, 4-188, 4-189, 4-191, 4-193, 4-200, 4-202, 4-203, 4-205, 4-206, 4-207, 4-

208, 4-211, 4-212, 4-213, 4-215, 4-216, 4-217, 4-224, 4-229, 4-237, 4-239, 4-240, 4-247, 4-262, 4-265, 

4-274, 4-277, 4-281, 4-288, 4-290, 4-291, 4-292, 4-295, 4-299, 4-301, 4-305, 4-306, 4-307, 4-311, 4-

312, 4-314, 4-321, 4-325, 4-327, 4-328, 4-334, 4-342, 4-347, 4-396, 4-398, 4-420, 4-422, 4-423, 4-426, 

4-428, 4-429, 4-436, 4-437, 4-440, 4-454, 4-455, 5-198 

Dispersant, 1-24, 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 2-16, 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-23, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-42, 3-43, 3-52, 4-8, 4-

16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-40, 4-42, 4-44, 4-52, 4-55, 4-57, 

4-60, 4-61, 4-71, 4-72, 4-76, 4-79, 4-80, 4-82, 4-93, 4-103, 4-113, 4-114, 4-116, 4-117, 4-120, 4-121, 

4-124, 4-132, 4-141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-144, 4-145, 4-148, 4-152, 4-162, 4-171, 4-172, 4-174, 4-175, 4-

176, 4-179, 4-180, 4-186, 4-189, 4-190, 4-197, 4-198, 4-203, 4-204, 4-205, 4-206, 4-207, 4-209, 4-210, 

4-213, 4-214, 4-216, 4-221, 4-228, 4-235, 4-240, 4-268, 4-269, 4-272, 4-289, 4-294, 4-295, 4-296, 4-

297, 4-301, 4-303, 4-310, 4-324, 4-354, 4-355, 4-362, 4-397, 4-398, 4-399, 4-400, 4-407, 4-413, 4-414, 

4-415, 4-416, 4-417, 4-418, 4-429, 4-430, 4-431, 4-444, 4-454, 4-455, 5-129, 5-131, 5-133, 5-134, 5-

137, 5-138, 5-186, 5-190 

Dispersants, 1-24, 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 2-16, 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-23, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-42, 3-43, 3-52, 4-8, 4-

16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-40, 4-42, 4-44, 4-52, 4-55, 4-57, 

4-60, 4-61, 4-71, 4-72, 4-76, 4-79, 4-80, 4-82, 4-93, 4-103, 4-113, 4-114, 4-116, 4-117, 4-120, 4-121, 

4-124, 4-132, 4-141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-144, 4-145, 4-148, 4-152, 4-162, 4-171, 4-172, 4-174, 4-175, 4-

176, 4-179, 4-180, 4-186, 4-189, 4-190, 4-197, 4-198, 4-203, 4-204, 4-205, 4-206, 4-207, 4-209, 4-210, 

4-213, 4-214, 4-216, 4-221, 4-228, 4-235, 4-240, 4-268, 4-269, 4-272, 4-289, 4-294, 4-295, 4-296, 4-

297, 4-301, 4-303, 4-310, 4-324, 4-354, 4-355, 4-362, 4-397, 4-398, 4-399, 4-400, 4-407, 4-413, 4-414, 

4-415, 4-416, 4-417, 4-418, 4-429, 4-430, 4-431, 4-444, 4-454, 4-455, 5-129, 5-131, 5-133, 5-134, 5-

137, 5-138, 5-186, 5-190 

Dunes, x, xi, 2-10, 2-11, 3-62, 4-6, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-51, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 

4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-67, 4-70, 4-98, 4-244, 4-245, 4-246, 4-247, 4-248, 4-253, 4-255, 

4-257, 4-265, 4-348, 4-406, 4-441, 4-447, 4-449 

Economic Factors, xiv, 2-29, 4-6, 4-343, 4-369, 4-372, 4-380, 4-381, 4-384, 4-385, 4-386, 4-392, 4-402 

Employment, xiv, 2-26, 2-28, 2-29, 4-319, 4-337, 4-338, 4-339, 4-341, 4-344, 4-365, 4-369, 4-376, 4-378, 

4-379, 4-380, 4-381, 4-382, 4-383, 4-384, 4-385, 4-386, 4-387, 4-391, 4-392, 4-394, 4-395, 4-402 

Environmental Justice, x, xiv, 1-6, 2-29, 2-30, 3-31, 4-7, 4-8, 4-370, 4-388, 4-389, 4-390, 4-391, 4-392, 4-

393, 4-395, 4-396, 4-397, 4-399, 4-401, 4-402, 4-403, 4-404, 4-405, 4-406, 4-407, 5-41, 5-128 

Essential Fish Habitats, x, xii, 1-5, 2-24, 2-25, 4-5, 4-7, 4-101, 4-130, 4-131, 4-132, 4-155, 4-160, 4-172, 

4-185, 4-301, 4-302, 4-303, 4-304, 4-305, 4-306, 4-307, 4-308, 4-310, 4-311, 4-312, 4-313, 4-314, 4-

315, 4-331, 4-333, 4-420, 5-9, 5-10, 5-133 

Explosive Removals, 2-6, 2-16, 2-23, 3-27, 4-111, 4-123, 4-169, 4-170, 4-182, 4-226, 4-239, 4-290, 4-

292, 4-296, 4-312, 4-428 

Fish Resources, x, xii, 2-24, 2-25, 4-7, 4-101, 4-293, 4-301, 4-302, 4-305, 4-306, 4-307, 4-308, 4-309, 4-

310, 4-311, 4-312, 4-313, 4-314, 4-321, 4-322, 4-324, 4-327, 4-328, 4-331, 4-334, 4-447, 4-449, 4-455, 

4-456, 5-131, 5-133 

Fisheries, xiii, 1-3, 1-12, 1-14, 1-16, 1-18, 2-3, 2-25, 2-26, 3-4, 3-30, 3-54, 4-3, 4-5, 4-7, 4-14, 4-122, 4-

130, 4-149, 4-160, 4-205, 4-215, 4-218, 4-225, 4-234, 4-258, 4-273, 4-281, 4-284, 4-285, 4-286, 4-287, 

4-294, 4-302, 4-303, 4-304, 4-308, 4-309, 4-311, 4-314, 4-315, 4-316, 4-317, 4-318, 4-319, 4-320, 4-

321, 4-322, 4-323, 4-324, 4-325, 4-326, 4-327, 4-328, 4-329, 4-330, 4-332, 4-333, 4-334, 4-335, 4-358, 

4-370, 4-390, 4-399, 4-402, 4-455, 4-456, 5-3, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-9, 5-132, 5-189 

Flaring, 1-20, 1-26, 3-23, 3-24, 4-10, 4-11, 4-14, 4-16, 4-17, 5-39 

Flower Garden Banks, 2-6, 4-108, 4-115, 4-116, 4-117, 4-142, 4-144, 4-155, 4-156, 4-157, 4-159, 4-161, 

4-167, 4-172, 4-173, 4-175, 4-179 
Keyword-6 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Gulf Sturgeon, x, xii, 2-23, 4-7, 4-229, 4-283, 4-284, 4-285, 4-286, 4-287, 4-288, 4-289, 4-290, 4-291, 4-

292, 4-293, 4-294, 4-295, 4-296, 4-297, 4-298, 4-299, 4-300, 4-301, 4-447, 4-449, 5-133 

Human Resources, 2-28, 3-55, 4-364, 4-447, 4-449 

Hurricanes, x, 1-17, 1-19, 2-22, 2-25, 3-14, 3-15, 3-25, 3-26, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-48, 3-53, 3-54, 3-55, 3-

61, 3-64, 3-65, 3-72, 3-73, 3-75, 3-76, 4-4, 4-10, 4-17, 4-18, 4-29, 4-30, 4-43, 4-44, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-

49, 4-50, 4-52, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-69, 4-70, 4-72, 4-74, 4-76, 4-78, 4-81, 

4-82, 4-84, 4-85, 4-86, 4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 4-94, 4-95, 4-96, 4-99, 4-125, 4-126, 4-153, 4-161, 4-175, 4-

181, 4-183, 4-185, 4-191, 4-192, 4-193, 4-209, 4-232, 4-244, 4-245, 4-246, 4-248, 4-249, 4-250, 4-255, 

4-258, 4-259, 4-260, 4-261, 4-280, 4-282, 4-283, 4-286, 4-288, 4-289, 4-297, 4-298, 4-299, 4-302, 4-

303, 4-311, 4-312, 4-313, 4-315, 4-322, 4-325, 4-326, 4-327, 4-328, 4-332, 4-334, 4-335, 4-336, 4-337, 

4-338, 4-339, 4-348, 4-351, 4-355, 4-358, 4-360, 4-364, 4-368, 4-374, 4-389, 4-390, 4-391, 4-393, 4-

394, 4-402, 4-406, 4-407, 4-408, 4-412, 4-413, 4-438, 4-439, 4-440, 4-441, 4-445, 5-41, 5-55, 5-41, 5-

55 

Income, xiv, 2-29, 2-30, 4-319, 4-330, 4-344, 4-378, 4-379, 4-380, 4-381, 4-388, 4-389, 4-390, 4-391, 4-

392, 4-393, 4-394, 4-395, 4-396, 4-397, 4-399, 4-400, 4-401, 4-402, 4-403, 4-404, 4-406, 4-407, 4-451, 

5-132 

Infrastructure, viii, x, xi, xiii, xiv, 2-10, 2-16, 2-28, 2-29, 3-3, 3-5, 3-10, 3-12, 3-17, 3-18, 3-23, 3-24, 3-

25, 3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-31, 3-32, 3-34, 3-52, 3-55, 3-56, 3-57, 3-59, 3-61, 3-62, 3-67, 3-73, 3-74, 

3-75, 4-4, 4-18, 4-26, 4-51, 4-53, 4-54, 4-60, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-71, 4-74, 4-75, 4-84, 4-86, 4-104, 4-

105, 4-110, 4-111, 4-127, 4-133, 4-134, 4-139, 4-163, 4-164, 4-169, 4-170, 4-274, 4-290, 4-292, 4-303, 

4-315, 4-342, 4-343, 4-348, 4-357, 4-364, 4-366, 4-367, 4-368, 4-370, 4-372, 4-373, 4-374, 4-375, 4-

388, 4-389, 4-390, 4-392, 4-393, 4-394, 4-395, 4-402, 4-403, 4-404, 4-406, 4-407, 4-408, 4-420, 4-427, 

4-428, 4-446, 4-454, 4-457, 5-55 

Kick, 1-23, 3-50, 3-51 

Land Use, x, xiii, 2-26, 2-28, 3-55, 3-67, 4-6, 4-294, 4-300, 4-344, 4-364, 4-365, 4-367, 4-368, 4-370, 4-

371, 4-372, 4-373, 4-374, 4-375, 4-388, 4-393, 4-403, 4-447, 4-449 

Live Bottoms, ix, x, xi, 1-14, 1-15, 1-16, 1-18, 2-5, 2-13, 2-14, 2-15, 2-32, 4-6, 4-96, 4-97, 4-99, 4-103, 4-

104, 4-105, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108, 4-109, 4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 4-114, 4-115, 4-116, 4-118, 4-119, 

4-120, 4-121, 4-122, 4-123, 4-124, 4-125, 4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-133, 4-134, 4-135, 4-136, 4-137, 4-

138, 4-139, 4-140, 4-141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-144, 4-145, 4-146, 4-147, 4-148, 4-149, 4-150, 4-151, 4-152, 

4-153, 4-154, 4-304, 4-305, 4-307, 4-308, 4-311, 4-312, 4-314, 4-327, 4-334, 4-447, 4-449, 4-454, 5-9 

Louisiana Highway 1, 2-8, 4-374, 4-393, 4-394, 4-403 

Low Relief, x, xi, 2-14, 2-32, 4-6, 4-98, 4-126, 4-127, 4-133, 4-134, 4-139, 4-140, 4-147, 4-148, 4-447, 4-

449 

Macondo, 1-3, 1-7, 3-4, 3-23, 3-43, 3-46, 3-49, 4-76, 4-174, 4-197, 4-211, 4-354, 4-362, 5-3, 5-4, 5-138, 

5-186, 5-187, 5-191, 5-199 

Marine Mammals, x, xii, 1-3, 1-5, 1-14, 1-30, 2-3, 2-6, 2-19, 2-20, 3-4, 3-15, 3-19, 3-26, 3-54, 4-3, 4-7, 4-

217, 4-219, 4-220, 4-221, 4-222, 4-223, 4-224, 4-225, 4-226, 4-227, 4-228, 4-229, 4-230, 4-231, 4-238, 

4-240, 4-242, 4-447, 4-449, 4-454, 5-3, 5-5, 5-7, 5-46, 5-133, 5-214 

Mercury, 4-21, 4-32, 4-33, 4-107, 4-109, 4-136, 4-137, 4-167, 4-187, 4-260, 4-290, 4-306, 4-314, 4-321, 

4-322, 4-327, 4-423, 4-426 

Meteorological Conditions, 3-34, 4-8, 4-27, 4-30, 4-39, 4-40, 4-44 

Mitigating Measures, vii, ix, 1-12, 1-13, 2-3, 2-5, 2-6, 2-32, 2-34, 4-13, 4-79, 4-104, 4-120, 4-121, 4-181, 

4-403, 4-446, 4-448, 5-10 

NEPA, vii, 1-4, 1-5, 1-12, 1-13, 1-15, 1-16, 1-18, 1-21, 1-31, 1-32, 2-3, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-25, 2-30, 3-32, 3-

33, 4-4, 4-5, 4-7, 4-46, 4-184, 4-230, 4-242, 4-311, 4-323, 4-388, 4-392, 4-401, 4-407, 4-440, 5-3, 5-4, 
Keyword Index Keyword-7 

5-9, 5-10, 5-36, 5-38, 5-41, 5-46, 5-64, 5-36, 5-38, 5-41, 5-46, 5-64, 5-136, 5-138, 5-183, 5-184, 5-185, 

5-186, 5-187, 5-188, 5-191, 5-199, 5-214, 5-215 

Noise, xiii, 2-20, 2-26, 3-12, 3-19, 3-22, 4-218, 4-224, 4-225, 4-226, 4-230, 4-237, 4-238, 4-239, 4-241, 

4-242, 4-252, 4-262, 4-263, 4-264, 4-273, 4-275, 4-277, 4-281, 4-282, 4-342, 4-344, 4-348, 4-455 

Nonchemosynthetic Deepwater Benthic Communities, xii, 2-18, 4-6, 4-208, 4-211, 4-213 

Oil Spills, viii, x, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, 1-7, 1-24, 1-25, 1-28, 2-7, 2-11, 2-13, 2-14, 2-15, 2-16, 2-17, 2-18, 2-

19, 2-22, 2-23, 2-25, 2-26, 2-27, 2-28, 2-29, 2-30, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-18, 3-27, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 3-35, 

3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-40, 3-41, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-49, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-11, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-

22, 4-24, 4-27, 4-28, 4-33, 4-39, 4-40, 4-42, 4-45, 4-46, 4-50, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 

4-64, 4-70, 4-71, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 4-81, 4-83, 4-86, 4-87, 4-92, 4-94, 4-95, 4-103, 4-104, 4-

113, 4-114, 4-116, 4-117, 4-118, 4-120, 4-121, 4-122, 4-124, 4-125, 4-126, 4-133, 4-140, 4-141, 4-142, 

4-144, 4-145, 4-148, 4-149, 4-151, 4-152, 4-153, 4-154, 4-161, 4-163, 4-169, 4-171, 4-172, 4-175, 4-

176, 4-177, 4-179, 4-180, 4-181, 4-182, 4-183, 4-184, 4-186, 4-189, 4-197, 4-198, 4-204, 4-205, 4-206, 

4-207, 4-213, 4-214, 4-216, 4-220, 4-221, 4-227, 4-228, 4-229, 4-235, 4-236, 4-240, 4-248, 4-249, 4-

250, 4-267, 4-268, 4-271, 4-272, 4-273, 4-274, 4-276, 4-277, 4-280, 4-281, 4-282, 4-293, 4-294, 4-295, 

4-296, 4-297, 4-300, 4-301, 4-308, 4-309, 4-310, 4-311, 4-314, 4-315, 4-316, 4-320, 4-323, 4-325, 4-

328, 4-329, 4-330, 4-331, 4-333, 4-334, 4-335, 4-336, 4-337, 4-338, 4-340, 4-341, 4-344, 4-345, 4-346, 

4-347, 4-348, 4-349, 4-355, 4-356, 4-358, 4-362, 4-363, 4-364, 4-371, 4-372, 4-373, 4-385, 4-391, 4-

395, 4-397, 4-399, 4-400, 4-401, 4-402, 4-405, 4-407, 4-408, 4-412, 4-414, 4-415, 4-417, 4-418, 4-419, 

4-428, 4-429, 4-430, 4-431, 4-432, 4-433, 4-434, 4-436, 4-438, 4-439, 4-440, 4-441, 4-442, 4-443, 4-

444, 4-445, 4-446, 4-447, 4-449, 4-453, 4-454, 4-455, 4-456, 4-457, 5-37, 5-38, 5-39, 5-37, 5-38, 5-39, 

5-132, 5-134, 5-183, 5-184, 5-185, 5-186, 5-188, 5-189, 5-190, 5-191, 5-192, 5-198, 5-199 

OSRA, 3-35, 3-36, 4-92, 4-148, 4-180, 4-248, 4-277, 4-296, 5-37, 5-38, 5-47, 5-37, 5-38, 5-47, 5-187 

Physical Oceanography, 3-76, 4-21, 4-31 

Pinnacle Trend, x, xi, 2-13, 2-14, 2-32, 4-6, 4-96, 4-97, 4-98, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 4-102, 4-103, 4-104, 4-

105, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108, 4-109, 4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 4-115, 4-116, 4-117, 4-118, 4-120, 4-121, 

4-122, 4-123, 4-124, 4-125, 4-126, 4-128, 4-129, 4-144, 4-308, 4-312, 4-420, 4-447, 4-449 

Pipelines, x, xii, 1-15, 1-16, 1-18, 1-20, 1-21, 1-23, 1-24, 1-25, 1-32, 2-6, 2-11, 2-16, 2-18, 2-23, 2-32, 3-

11, 3-14, 3-15, 3-17, 3-18, 3-24, 3-25, 3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-37, 3-52, 3-53, 3-57, 3-59, 

3-61, 3-71, 4-6, 4-18, 4-25, 4-26, 4-36, 4-38, 4-52, 4-56, 4-57, 4-62, 4-63, 4-71, 4-73, 4-75, 4-76, 4-78, 

4-81, 4-82, 4-83, 4-84, 4-86, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-94, 4-111, 4-123, 4-134, 4-139, 4-151, 4-155, 4-164, 

4-170, 4-172, 4-212, 4-263, 4-274, 4-292, 4-296, 4-311, 4-312, 4-313, 4-320, 4-321, 4-353, 4-356, 4-

361, 4-363, 4-366, 4-368, 4-369, 4-371, 4-373, 4-388, 4-420, 4-421, 4-437, 4-446, 4-449, 4-455, 4-456, 

5-55 

Port Fourchon, xiv, 2-8, 2-29, 3-29, 4-22, 4-52, 4-74, 4-81, 4-86, 4-343, 4-344, 4-366, 4-372, 4-374, 4-

375, 4-376, 4-378, 4-380, 4-388, 4-392, 4-393, 4-394, 4-403 

Produced Waters, xii, 2-13, 2-14, 2-22, 3-13, 3-21, 4-74, 4-84, 4-86, 4-108, 4-109, 4-112, 4-122, 4-123, 

4-126, 4-136, 4-137, 4-140, 4-149, 4-151, 4-153, 4-166, 4-167, 4-169, 4-181, 4-183, 4-184, 4-188, 4-

191, 4-207, 4-216, 4-266, 4-290, 4-291, 4-301, 4-305, 4-311, 4-312, 4-314, 4-325, 4-327, 4-328, 4-334, 

4-423, 4-424, 4-425, 4-426, 4-436, 4-437, 4-440, 4-454 

Public Services, x, 2-29, 4-386 

Recreational Fishing, x, xiii, 2-26, 3-55, 4-6, 4-275, 4-278, 4-295, 4-311, 4-312, 4-315, 4-328, 4-329, 4-

330, 4-331, 4-332, 4-333, 4-334, 4-335, 4-336, 4-338, 4-339, 4-340, 4-342, 4-343, 4-346, 4-378, 4-380, 

4-382, 4-384, 4-386, 4-439, 4-447, 4-449, 4-457, 5-132 

Recreational Resources, x, xiii, 2-26, 3-55, 4-6, 4-336, 4-338, 4-340, 4-341, 4-342, 4-343, 4-344, 4-345, 

4-346, 4-347, 4-348, 4-349, 4-447, 4-449, 4-450, 5-189 

Resource Estimates, 3-3, 3-4, 3-34 
Keyword-8 Central Planning Area Supplemental EIS 

Sargassum, x, xi, 2-17, 4-6, 4-158, 4-184, 4-185, 4-186, 4-187, 4-188, 4-189, 4-190, 4-191, 4-192, 4-233, 

4-234, 4-304, 4-447, 4-449, 4-454, 5-185, 5-189, 5-190 

Sea Turtles, x, xii, 1-3, 1-14, 1-30, 2-3, 2-6, 2-20, 2-21, 3-4, 3-26, 4-3, 4-7, 4-184, 4-185, 4-190, 4-226, 4-

229, 4-231, 4-232, 4-233, 4-234, 4-235, 4-236, 4-237, 4-238, 4-239, 4-240, 4-241, 4-242, 4-243, 4-441, 

4-444, 4-447, 4-449, 5-3, 5-37, 5-189, 5-190, 5-214, 5-215 

Seagrass Communities, x, xi, 2-11, 2-12, 2-32, 4-6, 4-80, 4-87, 4-92, 4-94, 4-127, 5-40, 5-135 

Service base, 3-19, 3-22, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 4-22, 4-74, 4-86, 4-248, 4-312, 4-366, 4-367, 4-369, 4-374, 4-

375, 4-385, 4-388, 4-393, 4-394 

Site Clearance, 1-29, 2-6, 2-26, 3-26, 4-170, 4-352, 4-354, 4-358, 4-364 

Soft Bottoms, x, xiv, 2-30, 4-6, 4-96, 4-154, 4-155, 4-156, 4-158, 4-198, 4-204, 4-210, 4-211, 4-212, 4-

214, 4-302, 4-304, 4-408, 4-414, 4-420, 4-421, 4-436, 4-438, 4-439, 4-440, 4-447, 4-449, 5-185 

Submerged Vegetation, 2-12, 4-45, 4-73, 4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-292, 4-

304, 4-305, 4-435 

Synthetic-Based Drilling Fluids, 3-20, 3-54, 4-33, 4-37, 4-41, 4-421, 4-425 

Topographic Features, ix, x, xi, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-15, 2-16, 2-17, 2-32, 2-33, 2-34, 4-6, 4-114, 4-119, 4-128, 

4-154, 4-155, 4-156, 4-159, 4-161, 4-162, 4-163, 4-164, 4-165, 4-166, 4-167, 4-168, 4-169, 4-170, 4-

171, 4-172, 4-174, 4-175, 4-177, 4-178, 4-179, 4-180, 4-181, 4-182, 4-183, 4-184, 4-220, 4-302, 4-304, 

4-307, 4-312, 4-422, 4-428, 4-437, 4-446, 4-447, 4-448, 4-449, 5-9, 5-37, 5-49, 5-37, 5-49, 5-130, 5-

183 

Tourism, x, 2-26, 2-29, 3-12, 4-21, 4-58, 4-62, 4-234, 4-331, 4-333, 4-335, 4-336, 4-337, 4-338, 4-339, 4-

340, 4-341, 4-342, 4-343, 4-344, 4-345, 4-346, 4-347, 4-348, 4-349, 4-366, 4-376, 4-378, 4-379, 4-380, 

4-383, 4-384, 4-386, 4-403, 4-457, 5-5, 5-131 

Trash, x, xii, 1-30, 2-21, 2-31, 3-10, 3-22, 4-227, 4-230, 4-239, 4-242, 4-243, 4-247, 4-248, 4-249, 4-250, 

4-262, 4-265, 4-273, 4-276, 4-277, 4-282, 4-321, 4-342, 4-405, 4-442, 4-443, 4-445, 4-446, 4-449, 4-

454, 4-455 

Waste Disposal, 2-28, 3-28, 3-31, 3-32, 4-71, 4-74, 4-76, 4-265, 4-277, 4-365, 4-366, 4-367, 4-368, 4-

370, 4-373, 4-375, 4-392, 4-394, 4-397, 4-405, 5-132 

Wastes, xi, 3-18, 3-20, 3-22, 3-31, 3-32, 3-61, 4-29, 4-30, 4-37, 4-38, 4-42, 4-44, 4-64, 4-71, 4-74, 4-76, 

4-86, 4-207, 4-216, 4-266, 4-321, 4-343, 4-367, 4-370, 4-372, 4-391 

Water Quality, x, xi, 1-15, 2-9, 2-10, 2-17, 2-22, 2-23, 3-20, 3-26, 3-35, 4-6, 4-14, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-25, 

4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-36, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-91, 4-

105, 4-108, 4-134, 4-136, 4-164, 4-166, 4-187, 4-188, 4-189, 4-190, 4-191, 4-192, 4-193, 4-204, 4-210, 

4-214, 4-224, 4-237, 4-260, 4-262, 4-265, 4-266, 4-273, 4-274, 4-277, 4-282, 4-284, 4-287, 4-288, 4-

290, 4-291, 4-292, 4-293, 4-305, 4-306, 4-308, 4-312, 4-314, 4-321, 4-327, 4-331, 4-334, 4-336, 4-397, 

4-414, 4-415, 4-416, 4-425, 4-442, 4-447, 4-449, 4-450, 4-454, 4-458, 5-37, 5-39, 5-37, 5-39, 5-133, 5-

134, 5-136, 5-138, 5-191, 5-192, 5-199 

Wetlands, x, xi, 1-6, 2-6, 2-11, 2-24, 3-30, 3-59, 3-62, 3-70, 3-71, 3-72, 3-73, 4-5, 4-6, 4-14, 4-21, 4-22, 

4-28, 4-45, 4-52, 4-53, 4-55, 4-57, 4-59, 4-60, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-

73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 4-81, 4-82, 4-83, 4-84, 4-85, 4-86, 4-87, 4-88, 4-252, 4-

253, 4-254, 4-255, 4-260, 4-261, 4-262, 4-263, 4-265, 4-276, 4-279, 4-280, 4-298, 4-304, 4-305, 4-307, 

4-308, 4-311, 4-321, 4-325, 4-326, 4-333, 4-339, 4-348, 4-365, 4-368, 4-369, 4-370, 4-374, 4-375, 4-

390, 4-406, 4-441, 4-442, 4-443, 4-444, 4-445, 4-446, 4-447, 4-449, 4-454, 4-456, 4-458, 5-37, 5-40, 5-

37, 5-40 
The Department of the Interior Mission

As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has 

responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural 

resources. This includes fostering the sound use of our land and water 

resources, protecting our fish, wildlife and biological diversity; preserving the 

environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and 

providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department 

assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their 

development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship 

and citizen participation in their care. The Department also has a major 

responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who 

live in island communities. 

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) works to manage the 

exploration and development of the nation's offshore resources in a way that 

appropriately balances economic development, energy independence, and 

environmental protection through oil and gas leases, renewable energy 

development and environmental reviews and studies.