Walker Ridge Block 52 December 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 49 

### small fuel spill, secondary impacts due to ingestion of oil via contaminated prey or reductions in prey abundance are unlikely. Due to the low densities of birds in open ocean areas, the small area affected, and the brief duration of the surface slick, no significant impacts on pelagic birds would be expected.


### Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD) Potential spill impacts on marine and pelagic birds are discussed in MMS ( 2007b ) and BOEM ( 2012a,b ,d ). For t his EP , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to spill impacts on these animals.
BOEM has reexamined the analys e s for coastal and marine birds presented in MMS (2007b, 2008) and determined that no new information was found that would alter the potential impact s on marine and pelagic birds ( BOEMRE, 2011 a ; BOEM, 2012 b ).
Pelagic seabirds could be exposed to oil from a spill at the project area. Hess and Ribic (2000) reported that terns, storm

- petrels, shearwaters, and jaegers were the most frequently sighted seabirds in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico (>200 m [<656 ft] ). Powers (1987) indicates that seabird densities over the open ocean typically are <10 birds/km 2 

### . The number of pelagic birds that could be affected in open, offshore waters wo uld depend on the extent and persistence of the oil slick.
Data following the Macondo spill provides relevant information about the species of pelagic birds that may be affected in the event of a large oil spill. Birds that have been treated for oiling in clude several pelagic species such as the Northern Gannet
, Magnificent Frigatebird, and Masked Booby ( USFWS, 2011 ). The Northern Gannet is among the species with the largest numbers of birds affected by the spill.



### C.4.2 Shorebird s and Coastal Nesting Bird s Threatened and endangered bird species (Piping Plover and Whooping Crane) have been discussed previously in Section C.3 . Various species of non

- endangered birds are also found along the northern Gulf C oast, including diving birds, shorebird s, marsh bird s, wading birds, and waterfowl. Gulf Coast marshes and beaches also provide important feeding grounds and nesting habitats. Species that breed on beaches, flats, dunes, bars, barrier islands, and similar habitats include the Sandwich Tern, Wilson’s Plove r, Black Skimmer, Forster’s Tern, Gull

- Billed Tern, Laughing Gull, Least Tern, and Royal Tern (USFWS, 2010b). Additional information is presented in MMS ( 2007b ) and BOEM ( 2012d ).
The Brown Pelican ( Pelecanus occidentalis ) was delisted from Federal endangered status in 2009 (USFWS, 2010c). However, this species remains listed as endangered on the Louisiana list of Endangered Species (Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 2013), is listed as a species of greatest conservation need by the State of Mississippi (Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, 20 05 ), and a s a species of special concern by the State of Florida (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 201 3 ). Brown Pelicans inhabit coastal habitats and forage within both coastal waters and waters of the inner continental shelf. Aerial and shipboard surveys, including GulfCet and GulfCet II, indicate that Brown Pelicans do not occur in deep offshore waters (Fritts and Reynolds, 1981; Peake, 1996; Hess and Ribic, 2000). Nearly half the southeastern population of Brown Pelicans live s in the northern Gulf Coast, generally nesting on protected islands (USFWS, 2010 b ).Walker Ridge Block 52 December 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 50 

### The Southern Bald Eagle ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus ) was delisted from its threatened status in the lower 48 states on 28 June 2007. The Bald Eagle is a terrestrial raptor widely distributed across the southern U.S., including coastal habitats along the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf C oast is inhabited by both wintering migrant and resident Bald Eagles (Johnsgard, 1990; Ehrlich et al., 1992).
IPFs potentially affecting shorebird s and coastal nesting birds include support vessel and helicopter traffic and a large oil spill (WCD). A small fuel spill in the lease area would be unlikely to affect shorebird s or coastal nesting birds , due to the lease area’s distance from the nearest shoreline. As explained in Section A.9.2 , a small fuel spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up. Compliance with NTL 2012

- BSEE

- G01 will minimize the potential for marine debris

- related impacts on shorebirds.


### Impacts of Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic Support vessels and helicopters will transit coastal areas near Port Fourchon and Houma, Louis iana, where shorebirds and coastal nesting birds may be found. These activities could periodically disturb individuals or groups of birds within sensitive coastal habitats (e.g., wetlands that may support feeding, resting, or breeding birds).

Vessel traff ic may disturb some foraging and resting birds. Flushing distances vary between species and between individuals (Rodgers and Schwikert, 2002). The disturbances will be limited to flushing birds away from vessel pathways; known distances are from 20 to 49 m (65 to 160 ft) for personal watercraft and 23 to 58 m (75 to 190 ft) for an outboard

- powered boat (Rodgers and Schwikert, 2002). Flushing distances may be similar or less for the support vessels to be used for Anadarko ’s project, and some species such as gulls are attracted to boats. Support vessels will not approach nesting or breeding areas on the shoreline, so disturbances to nesting birds, eggs, and chicks are not expected. Vessel operators will use designated navigation channels and comply with p osted speed and wake restrictions while transiting sensitive inland waterways. Due to the limited scope and short duration of drilling activities, any short

- term impacts are not expected to be biologically significant to coastal bird populations.

Aircraft traffic can cause some disturbance to birds onshore and offshore. Responses are highly dependent on the type of aircraft, the bird species, the activities that animals were previously engaged in, and previous exposures to overflights (Efroymson et al., 2 000). Helicopters seem to cause the most intense responses over other human disturbances for some species (Bélanger and Bédard, 1989). However, Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular No. 91

- 36D recommends that pilots maintain a minimum altitud e of 610 m (2,000 ft) when flying over noise

- sensitive areas such as wildlife refuges, parks, and areas with wilderness characteristics. This is greater than the distance (slant range) at which aircraft overflights have been reported to cause behavioral e ffects on most species of birds studied (Efroymson et al., 2000). With these guidelines in effect, it is likely that individual birds would experience, at most, only short

- term behavioral disruption.


### Impacts of Large Oil Spill (WCD) Coastal birds can be exposed to oil as they float on the water surface, dive during foraging, or wade in oiled coastal waters. Oiled birds can lose the ability to fly, dive for food, or float on the water, which could lead to drowning (USFWS, 2010 d ). Oil interferes with the w ater repellency of feathers and can cause hypothermia in the right conditions. As birds groom themselves, theyWalker Ridge Block 52 December 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 51 

### can ingest and inhale the oil on their bodies. Scavengers such as Bald Eagles and gulls can be exposed to oil by feeding on carcasses of contaminated fish and wildlife. While ingestion can kill animals immediately, more often it results in lung, liver, and kidney damage, which can lead to death. Bird eggs may be damaged if an oiled adult sits on the nest.

As noted above, the Brown Pelican was r ecently removed from the Federal endangered species list. Brown Pelicans are especially at risk from direct and indirect impacts from spilled oil within inner shelf and inshore waters, such as embayments . The range of this species is generally limited to these waters and surrounding coastal habitats. Brown Pelicans feed on mid

- sized fish that they capture by diving from above (“plunge diving”) and then scooping the fish into their expandable gular pouch. This behavior makes them susceptible to plumage o iling if they feed in areas with surface oil or an oil sheen. They may also capture prey that has been physically contaminated with oil or has ingested oil. Issues for Brown Pelicans include direct contact with oil, disturbance by cleanup activities, and long

- term habitat contamination. The Bald Eagle may also be at risk from direct and indirect impacts from spilled oil. This species often captures fish within shallow water areas (snatching prey from the surface or wading into shallow areas to capture prey with their bill) and so may be susceptible to plumage oiling and, as with the Brown Pelican , they may also capture prey that has been physically contaminated with oil or has ingested oil.



## C.5 Fisheries Resources

C.5.1 Pelagic Communities and Ichthyoplankton
Biggs and Ressler (2000) reviewed the biology of pelagic communities in the deepwater environment of the northern Gulf of Mexico. The biological oceanography of the region is dominated by the influence of the Loop Current, whose surface wa ters are among the most oligotrophic in the world’s oceans. Superimposed on this low

- productivity condition are productive " hot spots " associated with entrainment of nutrient

- rich Mississippi River water and mesoscale oceanographic features. Anticyclonic and cyclonic hydrographic features play an important role in determining biogeographic patterns and controlling primary productivity in the northern Gulf of Mexico (Biggs and Ressler, 2000).
Most fishes inhabiting shelf or oceanic waters of the Gulf of Me xico have planktonic eggs and larvae (Ditty, 1986; Ditty et al., 1988; Richards et al., 1989, 1993). Pelagic eggs and larvae become part of the planktonic community for various lengths of time (10 to 100 days, depending on the species) (MMS, 2007b).

IPFs potentially affecting pelagic communities and ichthyoplankton include drilling rig presence, noise, and lights; effluent discharges; water intakes; and two types of accidents – a small fuel spill and a large oil spill ( WCD).


### Impacts of Drilling Rig Presenc e, Noise, and Lights The drilling rig, as a floating structure in the deepwater environment, will act as a fish

- attracting device (FAD). In oceanic waters, the FAD effect would be most pronounced for epipelagic fishes such as tunas, dolphin, billfishes, and jacks, which are commonly attracted to fixed and drifting surface structures (Holland et al., 1990; Higashi, 1994; Relini et al., 1994 ; MMS, 2000, 2007b, 2008 ). This FAD effect could possibly enhance the feeding of epipelagic predators by attractingWalker Ridge Block 52 December 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 52 

### and concentrating smaller fish species. Because the drilling rig is a single, temporary structure, impacts on fish populations, whether beneficial or adverse, are considered minor.


### Impacts of Effluent Discharges Treated sanitary and domestic wastes may have a slight effect on the pelagic environment in the immediate vicinity of these discharges. These wastes may have elevated levels of nutrients, organic matter, and chlorine, but should be diluted rapidly to undetectable levels within tens to hundreds of meters from the source. Minimal impacts on water quality, plankton, and nekton are anticipated.
Deck drainage may have a slight effect on the pelagic environment in the immediate vicinity of these discharges. Deck drainage from contaminated areas will be passed through an oil

- and

- water separator prior to release, and discharges will be monitored for visible sheen. The discha rges may have slightly elevated levels of hydrocarbons but should be diluted rapidly to undetectable levels within tens to hundreds of meters from the source. Minimal impacts on water quality, plankton, and nekton are anticipated.
Other discharges in acco rdance with the NPDES permit, such as desalination unit brine and uncontaminated cooling water, fire water, and ballast water
, are expected to be diluted rapidly and have little or no impact on water column biota.


### Impacts of Water Intakes

Seawater will be drawn from the ocean for once

- through, non

- contact cooling of machinery

on the drilling rig. The drilling rig ultimately chosen for this project will be in compliance with all

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

- swimming juvenile fishes and smaller adults to escape entrainment or impingement. However, drifting plankton would not be able to escape entrainment with the exception of a few fast

- swi mming larvae of certain taxonomic groups. Those organisms entrained may be stressed or killed, primarily through changes in water temperature during the route from cooling intake structure to discharge structure and mechanical damage (turbulence in pumps and condensers). Due to the limited scope and short duration of drilling activities , any short

- term impacts of entrainment are not expected to be biologically significant to plankton or ichthyoplankton populations.


### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

Potential spill impacts on fisheries resource s are discussed in MMS ( 2007b ) and BOEM ( 2012a, d). F or this EP , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to spill impacts.
The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Anadarko’ s preventative measure s during routine operations including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Anadarko ’s OSRP could mitigate the potential for impacts on pelagic communities, including ichthyoplankton. EP Section H provides detail on spill res ponse measures. Given the open ocean location of the lease area, the duration of a small spill and opportunity for impacts to occur would be very brief.Walker Ridge Block 52 December 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 53 

### A small fuel spill in offshore waters would produce a slick on the water surface and increase the

conc entrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and their degradation products. The extent and persistence of impacts would depend on the meteorological and oceanographic conditions at the time and the effectiveness of spill response measures. Section A.9.2 discuss es the likely fate of a small fuel spill and indicates that over 90% would be evaporated or dispersed naturally within 24 hours. The sea surface area with diesel fuel on it would range from 0.5 to 5 ha (1.2 to 12 ac)
, depending on sea state and weather conditions.

A small fuel spill could have localized impacts on phytoplankton, zooplankton, and nekton. Due to the limited areal extent and short duration of water quality impacts, a small fuel spill would be unlikely to produce detectable impacts on pelagic communities.


### Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD) A large oil spill could affect water column biota including phytoplankton, zooplankton, ichthyoplankton, and nekton. A large spill that persisted for weeks or months wo uld be more likely to affect these communities. While adult and juvenile fishes may actively avoid a large spill, planktonic eggs and larvae would be unable to avoid contact. Eggs and larvae of fishes are especially vulnerable to oiling because they inhabit the upper layers of the water column, and they will die if exposed to certain toxic fractions of spilled oil. Impacts potentially would be greater if local

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



### C.5.2 Essential Fish Habitat
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth to maturity. Under the Magnuson

- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Ac t, as amended, Federal agencies are required to consult on activities that may adversely affect EFH designated in Fishery Management Plans developed by the regional Fishery Management Councils.

The BOEM (201 2b ) has reexamined the analysis for fish resource s and EFH presented in MMS ( 2007a,b) in consideration of the Macondo event. No substantial new information was found that would alter the impact conclusions for fish resources and EFH presented in MMS (2007a,b)

. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Counc il (GMFMC) has prepared Fishery Management Plans for corals and coral reefs, shrimp s , stone crab, spiny lobster, reef fishes, coastal migratory pelagic fishes, and red drum. In 2005, the EFH for these managed species was redefined in Generic Amendment No. 3 to the various Fishery Management Plans (GMFMC, 2005). T he EFH for most of these GMFMC

- managed species is on the continental shelf in waters shallower than 183 m (600 ft). The shelf edge is the outer boundary for coastal migratory pelagic fishes, reef fishes, and shrimps. EFH for corals and coral reefs includes some shelf

- edge topographic features on the Texas

- Louisiana OCS, the nearest of which are
, located approximately 64 miles (103 km) north of the lease area along the shelf edge south of Louisiana.
Highly migratory pelagic fishes, which occur as transients in the lease area, are the only remaining group for which EFH has been identified in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Species in this group, including tunas, swordfishes, billfishes, and sharks, are managed by NMFS. HighlyWalker Ridge Block 52 December 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 54 

### migratory species with EFH at or near the lease area include the following species and life stages (NMFS, 2009):

• Atlantic bluefin tuna (spawn, eggs, larvae , adults )

• Bigeye tuna ( adults )

• Bigeye thresher shark (all)

• Blue marlin (juveniles, adults)

• Dusky shark (juveniles, adults)

• Longbill spearfish (juveniles, adults)

• Longfin mako shark (all)

• Oceanic whitetip shark (all) • Sailfish (adults)

• Shortfin mako shark (all)

• Silky shark (all)

• Skipjack tuna (spawn , adults )

• Swordfish (larvae, juveniles, adults)

• Tiger shark (adults)

• White marlin (juveniles, adults)

• Yellowfin tuna (spawn, juveniles, adults)

Research indicates the central and western Gulf of Mexico may be important spawning habitat for Atlantic bluefin tuna, and NMFS (2009) has designated a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) for this species. The HAPC covers much of the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, including the lease area ( Figure 3 ). The areal extent of the HAPC is approximately 300,000 km 2 

### (15,000 mi 2 

### ). The prevailing assumption is that Atlantic bluefin tuna follow an annual cycle of foraging in June through March off the eastern U.S. and Canadian coasts, followed by migration to the Gulf of Mexico to spawn in April, May, and June (NMFS, 2009).

On 27 May 2011, after an extensive scientific review, NOAA announced that Atlantic bluefin tuna currently do not warrant species protection under the ESA

. However, NOAA did classify the bluefin tuna as a species of concern, effectively placing the species on a watch list as the agency awaits new data on the impact of a stricter international management regimen

.
A new amendment to the original EFH Generic Amendment was finalized in 2005 (GMFMC, 2005). One of the most significant proposed changes in this amendment reduced the extent of EFH relative to the 1998 Generic Amendment by removing the EFH description and identification from waters between 100 fathoms and the seaward limit of the Exclusive Economic Zone ( EEZ )

. The Highly Migratory Species Fisheries Management Plan was amended in 2009 to update EFH and HAPC to include the bluefin tuna sp awning area ( NMFS , 2009).
There are current NTLs (2009

- G39 and 2009

- G40) that provide guidance and clarification of the regulations with respect to biologically sensitive underwater features and areas and benthic communities that are considered EFH (MMS, 2 009 a,b ). A new EFH consultation has been initiated between BOEM’s Gulf of Mexico Region and NOAA’s Southeastern Region. Some EFH requirements may change with the new agreement. Until the new agreement is in place, the 1999 Programmatic Consultation with the elements described a bove will be followed ( BOEMRE, 2011 a ; BOEM, 2012 b ).
Other HAPCs have been identified by the GMFMC (2005). These include the Florida Middle Grounds, Madison

- Swanson Marine Reserve, Tortugas North and South Ecological Reserves, Pull ey Ridge, and several individual reefs and banks of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico ( Figure 3 ). The nearest HAPC is Jakkula Bank, located approximately 72 miles (116 km) north of the lease area.
IPFs potentially affecting EFH include drilling rig presence, noise, and lights; effluent discharges; water intakes; and two types of accidents – a small fuel spill and a large oil spill (WCD).Walker Ridge Block 52 December 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 55 

### Impacts of Drilling Rig Presence, Noise, and Lights The drilling rig, as a floating structure in the deepwater environment, will act as a n FAD. In oceanic waters, the FAD effect would be most pronounced for epipelagic fishes such as tunas, dolphin, billfishes, and jacks, which are commonly attracted to fixed and drifting surface structures (Holland et al., 1990; Higashi, 1994; Relini et al., 1994 ; MMS, 2000, 2007b, 2008 ). This FAD effect would possibly enhance feeding of epipelagic predators by attracting and concentrating smaller fish species. Because the drilling rig is a single, temporary structure, any impact s on EFH for highly migratory pelagic fishes are considered minor.


### Impacts of Effluent Discharges Other effluent discharges affecting EFH by diminishing ambient water quality include drilling muds and cuttings, treated sanitary and domestic wastes, deck dr ainage, and miscellaneous discharges such as desalination unit brine and uncontaminated cooling water, fire water, and ballast water. Impacts on water quality have been discussed previously. No significant impacts on EFH for highly migratory pelagic fish es are expected from these discharges.


### Impacts of Water Intakes As noted previously, cooling water intake will cause entrainment and impingement of plankton, including fish eggs and larvae (ichthyoplankton). Due to the limited scope and short duration of drilling activities , any short

- term impacts on EFH for highly migratory pelagic fishes are not expected to be biologically significant.


### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Anadarko ’s preventative measures duri ng routine operations including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill , implementation of Anadarko ’s OSRP could help diminish the potential for impacts on EFH. EP Section H provides detail on spill response measures. Given the open ocean locati on of the lease area, the duration of a small spill and opportunity for impacts to occur would be very brief.
Potential spill impacts on EFH are discussed in MMS ( 2007b ) and BOEM ( 2012a, d)

. F or this EP , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to spill impacts.
A small fuel spill in offshore waters would produce a slick on the water surface and increase the concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and their degradation products. The extent and persistence of impacts would depend on the meteor ological and oceanographic conditions at the time and the effectiveness of spill response measures. Section A.9.2 discusses the likely fate of a small fuel spill and indicates that over 90% would be evaporated or dispersed naturally within 24 hours. The sea surface area with diesel fuel on it would range from 0.5 to 5 ha (1.2 to 12 ac)
, depending on sea state and weather conditions.

A small fuel spill could have localized impacts on EFH for highly migratory pelagic fishes, including tunas, swordfishes , billfishes, and sharks. These species occur as transients in the lease area. A spill would also produce short

- term impact on water quality in the HAPC for spawning bluefin tuna, which covers much of the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. The areal extent of th e affected area would represent a negligible portion of the HAPC.Walker Ridge Block 52 December 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 56 

### A small fuel spill would not affect EFH for corals and coral reefs, the nearest EFH being approximately 64 miles (103 km) north of the lease area along the southern shelf edge of Louisiana. A small fuel spill would float and dissipate on the sea surface and would not contact these features.


### Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD) Potential spill impacts on EFH are discussed in MMS ( 2007b ) and BOEM ( 2012a, d ). For this EP , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to EFH.
An oil spill in offshore waters would temporarily increase hydrocarbon concentrations on the water surface and potentially in the subsurface as well. Given the extent of EFH designations in the Gulf of Mexico (GMFMC, 2005; NMFS, 2009), some impact on EFH would be unavoidable.
A large spill could affect the EFH for many managed species including shrimp s , stone crab, spiny lobster, reef fishes, coastal migratory pelagic fishes, and red drum. It would result in adverse i mpacts on water quality and water column biota including phytoplankton, zooplankton, and nekton. In coastal waters, sediments could be contaminated and result in persistent degradation of the seafloor habitat for managed demersal fish and shellfish specie s.

T he lease area is within the HAPC for spawning Atlantic bluefin tuna (NMFS, 2009). A large spill could temporarily degrade the HAPC due to increased hydrocarbon concentrations in the water column, with the potential for lethal or sublethal impacts on spawning tuna. Potential impacts would depend in part on the timing of a spill, as this species migrates to the Gulf of Mexico to spawn in April, May, and June (NMFS, 2009).
The topographic features
, located 64 miles (103 km) north of the lease area
, are designated as EFH under the corals and coral reefs management plan. An accidental spill would be unlikely to affect this area, because a surface slick would not reach these features due to their depth

. 

## C.6 Archaeological Resources

C.6.1 Shipwreck Site s

The BOEM (201 2b ) reexamined the analys e s for archaeological resources presented in MMS (2007b, 2008), b ased on additional information available since the publication of these two documents and in consideration of the Macondo oil spill

. Substantial new information that alters the impact conclusion for archaeological resources presented in MMS (2007b, 2008) has come to light as a result of BOEM

- sponsored studies and industry surveys. Specifically, evidence of damage to significant cultural resources (i.e., historic shipwrecks) has been shown to have occurred because of an incomplete knowledge of seafloor conditions in lease areas >200 m (656 ft) deep that have been exempted from high

- resolution surveys. Because significant historic shipwrecks have be en discovered outside the previously designated high

- probability areas (some of which show evidence of impacts from permitted activities prior to their discovery), a survey is now required for exploration and development projects.

The lease area is not on the list of OCS blocks with a high potential for historic shipwrecks (BOEM, 2012c). The site clearance survey conducted by Fugro (2013) detected no man

- made objects within 610 m (2,000 ft) of any of the proposed wellsites. A nadarko will abide by the appl icable requirements of NTL 2005

- G07, which stipulate that work be stopped at the projectWalker Ridge Block 52 December 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 57 

### site if any previously undetected archaeological resource is discovered after work has begun until appropriate surveys and evaluations have been completed.

Because the re are no shipwreck sites in the lease area, there are no routine IPFs that are likely to affect shipwrecks. I mpacts of a large oil spill (WCD) are the only IPFs considered. A small fuel spill would not affect shipwrecks because the oil would float and dissipate on the sea surface.


### Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD) MMS (2007b) estimate d that a severe subsurface blowout could resuspend and disperse sediments within a 300

- m (984

- ft) radius. Because there are no historic shipwrecks in the lease area, this impact would not be relevant.
Previous analyses (MMS, 2007a, 2008) concluded that oil spills would be unlikely to affect archaeological sites beyond the immediate vicinity of the wellhead (i.e., due to physical impacts of a blowout) because the oil would r ise quickly to the sea surface directly over the spill location. However, during the Macondo spill, subsurface plumes were reported at a water depth of about 1,100 m (3,600 ft), extending at least 22 miles ( 35 km ) from the wellsite and persisting for more than a month (Camilli et al., 2010). The subsurface plumes apparently resulted from the use of dispersants at the wellhead (Joint Analysis Group, 2010c). While the behavior and impacts of subsurface plumes are not well known, a subsurface plume could ha ve the potential to contact shipwreck sites beyond the 300

- m (984

- ft) radius estimated by MMS (2007a, 2008)
, depending on its extent, trajectory, and persistence. If oil from a subsea spill should come into contact with wooden shipwrecks on the seafloor
, it could adversely affect their condition or preservation. Should there be any indication that potential shipwreck sites could be affected, in accordance with NTL 2005

- G07 , Anadarko will immediately halt operations, take steps to ensure that the site is n ot disturbed in any way
, and contact the BOEM Regional Supervisor, Leasing and Environment, within 48 hours of its discovery. Anadarko would cease all operations within 305 m (1,000 ft) of the site until the Regional Supervisor provides instructions on st eps to take to assess the site’s potential historic significance and protect it.
A spill entering shallow coastal waters could conceivably contaminate an undiscovered shipwreck site. A s noted by MMS (2007b), should an oil spill contact a coastal historic site, such as a fort or a lighthouse, the major impact would be a temporary, reversible visual impact from oil contact and contamination of the site and its environment.



### C.6.2 Prehistoric Archaeological Sites
Available evidence suggests that sea level in t he northern Gulf of Mexico was at least 9 1 m ( 300 ft), and possibly as much as 130 m (427 ft), lower than present sea level during the period 20,000 to 17,000 years Before Present (B.P.) (Nelson and Bray, 1970). Sea level in the northern Gulf reached its present stand around 3,500 years B.P. (Pearson et al., 1986).
During periods that the continental shelf was exposed above sea level, the area was open to habitation by prehistoric peoples. The advent of early man into the Gulf of Mexico region is currentl y accepted to be around 12,000 years B.P. (Aten, 1983). The sea

- level curve for the northern Gulf of Mexico proposed by Coastal Environments, Inc. suggests that sea level at 12,000 years B.P. would have been approximately 45 to 60 m (148 to 197 ft) bel ow the present

- day sea level (Coastal Environments, Inc.
, 1977 , 1982). On this basis, the contine ntal shelf shoreward of the 45 - to 60

- m (148 - to 197

- ft) bathymetric contours has potential forWalker Ridge Block 52 December 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 58 

### prehistoric sites dating after 12,000 years B.P. Because of inherent uncertainties in both the depth of sea level and the entry date of prehistoric man into North America, the MMS adopted the 60

- m (197

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

.
With water depth s between 1,745 and 1,792 m (5,725 and 5,879 ft), the le ase area is well beyond the 60

- m (197

- ft) depth contour used by the BOEM as the seaward extent for prehistoric archaeological site potential in the Gulf of Mexico. Because prehistoric archaeological sites are not found in the lease area, the only relevant IPF is a large oil spill (WCD). A small fuel spill would not affect prehistoric archaeological resources because the oil would float and dissipate on the sea surface.


### Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (W CD) Because prehistoric archaeological sites are not found in the lease area, they would not be affected by the physical effects of a subsea blowout. The MMS (2007b) estimates that a severe subsurface blowout could resuspend and disperse sediments within a 300

- m (984

- ft) radius.
Along the northern Gulf C oast, prehistoric sites occur frequently along the barrier islands and mainland coast and along the margins of bays and bayous (MMS, 2007b). If a spill did reach a prehistoric site along these shorelines
, it could coat fragile artifacts or site features and compromise the potential for radiocarbon dating organic materials in a site (although other dating methods are available
, and it is possible to decontaminate an oiled sample for radiocarbon dating). Coastal prehistoric sites could also be damaged by spill cleanup operations (e.g., by destroying fragile artifacts and disturbing the provenance of artifacts and site features).



## C.7 Coastal Habitats and Protected Areas
Coastal habitats in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico that may be affected by oil and gas activities are described in MMS ( 2007b ), BOEM ( 2012a,b, d), and in a literature review by Collard and Way (1997). Coastal habitats inshore of the project area include barrier beaches and dunes, wetlands, and submerged seagrass beds. Generally, most of the northeastern Gulf is fringed by barrier beaches, with wet lands and/or submerged seagrass beds occurring in sheltered areas behind the barrier islands and in estuaries.

Due to the distance from shore, the only IPF associated with routine activities in the lease area that potentially may affect beaches and dunes, wetlands, seagrass beds, coastal wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, or any other managed or protected coastal area relate to support vessel traffic. The support bases at Port Fourchon and Houma, Louisiana
, are not in wildlife refuge s or wilderness area s. Potential impacts of support vessel traffic are addressed briefly below.
A small fuel spill in the lease area would be unlikely to affect coastal habitats due to the lease area’s distance from the nearest shoreline

. A s explained in Section A.9.2 , a smal l fuel spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up.


### Impacts of Support Vessel Traffic For OCS activities in general, support operations, including crew boats and supply boats, may have a minor incremental impact on coastal habitats. Over time with a large number of vessel trips, vessel wakes can erode shorelines along inlets, channels, and harbors. Support operations, including crew boats and supply boats as detailed in EP Section K , may have a minorWalker Ridge Block 52 December 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 59 

### incremental impact on coastal habitats or protected areas. Impacts will be minimized by following the speed and wake restrictions in harbors and channels. 

### Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD) Potential spill impacts on coastal habitats are discussed in MMS ( 2007b ) and BOEM ( 2012a,b, d ). Coastal habitats inshore of the project area include barrier beaches and dunes, wetlands, and submerged seagrass beds. For this EP , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to coastal habitats.

The revised OSRA modeling summarized in Table 3 predicts that there is a 17% pr obability of oil from a spill in the lease area reaching shorelines in Texas within 120 days, and a 14% probability of oil reaching Louisiana shorelines within 120 days.
The shorelines within the geographic range predicted by the OSRA modeling ( Table 3 ) include extensive barrier beaches and wetlands, with submerged seagrass beds occurring in sheltered areas behind the barrier islands and in estuaries. NWRs and other protected areas along the coast are discussed in MMS ( 2007b ), BOEM ( 2012b ), and Anadarko’ sOSRP. Coastal and near coastal wildlife refuges, wilderness areas , and State and National parks within the geographic range of the potential shoreline cont acts after 120 days are presented in Table 6

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

County or Parish, State W ildlife Refuge, Wilderness Area, or State/National Park
Kenedy County, Texas Padre Island National Seashore Laguna Madre Estuarine And Coastal Marine Area
Kleberg County, Texas Padre Island National Seashore Laguna Madre Estuarine And Coastal Marine Area

Nueces County, Texas Laguna Madre Estuarine And Coastal Marine Area Mustang Island State Park Lake Corpus Christi State Park Port Aransas Park Mission

- Aransas National Estuarine Research Reserve

Aransas County, Texas Mission

- Aransas National Estuarine Research Reserve Aransas National Wildlife Refuge Goose Island State Park

Calhoun County, Texas Mission

- Aransas National Estuarine Research Reserve Aransas National Wildlife Refuge Matagorda Island State Park Guadalupe Delta Wildlife Management Area Welder Flats Coastal Preserve

Matagorda County, Texas Aransas National Wildlife Refuge Mad Island Wildlife Management Area Big Boggy National Wildlife Refuge San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge

Brazoria County, Texas San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge Peach Point Wildlife Management Area Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge Christmas Bay State Park Christmas Bay Coastal Preserve

Galveston County, Texas Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge Galveston Island State Park Apffel Park Seawolf Park

### Table 6. (Continued).

Walker Ridge Block 52 December 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 60 County or Parish, State W ildlife Refuge, Wilderness Area, or State/National Park Old Fort Travis Park Atkinson Island Wildlife Management Area Ft. Anahuac Park Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge Candy Abshier Wildlife Management Area Atkinson Island Wildlife Management Area
Chambers County, Texas Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge

Jefferson County, Texas McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge Sea Rim State Park Murphree Wildlife Management Area Texas Point National Wildlife Refuge

Cameron Parish, Louisiana Sabine National Wildlife Refuge Cameron Prairie National Wildlife Refuge Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge Little Pecan Island Natural Area Peveto Woods Natural Area Lower Neches Wildlife Management Area Rockefeller Wildlife Management Area
Vermilion Parish, Louisiana Rockefeller Wildlife Management Area Paul J. Rainey Wildlife Management Area

Iberia Parish, Louisiana Marsh Island Wildlife Management Area Cypremort Point State Park Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge
St. Mary Parish, Louisiana Atchafalaya Delta Wildlife Management Area Bayou Teche National Wildlife Refuge

Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana Atchafalaya Delta Wildlife Management Area Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge Isles Dernieres Barrier Islands Refuge Point Au Chein Wildlife Management Area
Lafourche Parish, Louisiana Point Au Chein Wildlife Management Area Wisner Wildlife Management Area

Jefferson Parish, Louisiana Grand Isle State Park Salvador Wildlife Management Area Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve Lafitte Woods Natural Area

Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana Salvador Wildlife Management Area Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve Delta National Wildlife Refuge Pass A Loutre Wildlife Management Area Breton National Wildlife Refuge St. Bernard State Park

St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana Breton National Wildlife Refuge St. Bernard State Park Biloxi Wildlife Management Area Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge

### Table 6. (Continued).

Walker Ridge Block 52 December 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 61 County or Parish, State W ildlife Refuge, Wilderness Area, or State/National Park

Hancock and Harrison Counties, Mississippi Hancock County Coastal Marsh Reserve Buccaneer State Park Jourdan River Coastal Reserve Biloxi River Coastal Reserve Gulf Islands National Seashore Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge Pearl River Wildlife Management Area Wolf River Coastal Reserve Grand Bayou Coastal Preserve Bayou Portage Coastal Reserve Biloxi Marshes State Coastal Preserve Deer Island State Coastal Preserve

Jackson County, Mississippi Gulf Islands National Seashore Davis Bayou Coastal Preserve Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge Pascagoula River Coastal Reserve Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge Grand Bay Savannah Coastal Preserve Deer Island State Coastal Preserve Old Fort Bayou Coastal Reserve Bellefontaine Point Coastal Reserve Graveline Bay Coastal Reserve

Mobile County, Alabama Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge The Grand Bay Savanna Tract Penalver State Park Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge W.L. Holland Wildlife Management Area

Baldwin County, Alabama Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge Meaher State Park Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Gulf State Park Lillian Swamp Mitigation Area Tarklin Bayou State Preserve W.L. Holland Wildlife Management Area

Escambia County, Florida Perdido Key State Recreation Area Big Lagoon State Recreation Area Fort Pickens State Park Aquatic Preserve Gulf Islands National Seashore Pensacola Bay SWIM Area Yellow River Wildlife Management Area

Okaloosa County, Florida Gulf Islands National Seashore Pensacola Bay SWIM Area Choctawatchee Bay SWIM Area

Walton County, Florida Choctawatchee Bay SWIM Area Henderson State Park Point Washington Outstanding Florida Water Deer Lake State Park Grayton Beach State Park Outstanding Florida Water St. Andrew Bay Watershed SWIM Area

### Table 6. (Continued).

Walker Ridge Block 52 December 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 62 County or Parish, State W ildlife Refuge, Wilderness Area, or State/National Park

Bay County, Florida Point Washington Outstanding Florida Water St. Andrew Bay Watershed SWIM Area St. Andrews State Park Aquatic Preserve St. Andrews State Park

Gulf County, Florida St. Andrew Bay Watershed SWIM Area St. Joseph Peninsula State Park St. Joseph Bay State Buffer Preserve

Franklin County, Florida St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve Outstanding Florida Water Apalachicola River and Bay SWIM Area Apalachicola River Wildlife and Environmental Area St. George Island State Park



### The level of impacts from oil spills on coastal habitats depends on many factors, including the oil characteristics, the geographic location of the landfall, and the weather and oceanographic conditions at the time (MMS, 2007b). Oil that makes it to beaches may be either liquid weathered oil, an oil

- and

- water mousse, or tarballs (MMS, 2007b). Oil is generally deposited on beaches in lines defined by wave action at the time of landfall. Oil that remains on the beach will thicken as its volatile components are lost. Thickened oil may form tarballs or aggregations that incorporate sand, shell, and other materials into its mass. Tar may be buried to v arying depths under the sand. On warm days, both exposed and buried tarballs may liquefy and ooze. Oozing may also serve to expand the size of a mass as it incorporates beach materials. Oil on beaches may be cleaned up manually, mechanically, or both. Some oil can remain on the beach at varying depths and may persist for several years as it slowly biodegrades and volatilizes.
Wetlands are highly sensitive to oiling. The MMS (2007b) predicted that for every 50 bbl of oil contacting wetlands, approximate ly 2.7 ha (6.7 ac) of wetland vegetation will experience dieback. Thirty percent of these damaged wetlands are assumed to recover within 4 years, and 85% within 10 years. About 15% of the contacted wetlands are expected to be converted permanently to ope n- water habitat. The critical concentration of oil is that concentration above which impacts to wetlands will be long

- term and recovery will take longer than two growing seasons, and which causes plant mortality and some permanent wetland loss. Critical concentrations of various oils are expected to vary broadly for wetland types and wetland plant species. Louisiana wetlands are assumed to be more sensitive to oil contact than elsewhere in the Gulf because of high cumulative stress (MMS, 2007b). In addition to the direct impacts of oil, cleanup activities in marshes may accelerate rates of erosion and retard recovery rates, which have been reported to require from years to decades following a spill (MMS, 2007b ; BOEMRE, 2011a; BOEM, 2012b ).



## C.8 Socioecono mic and Other Resources

C.8.1 Recreational and Commercial Fishing
BOEM has reexamined the analysis for recreational and commercial fishing presented in MMS (2007b, 2008) based on additional information and in consideration of the Macondo spill.Walker Ridge Block 52 December 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 63 

### N o new inf ormation was found that would alter the potential impact s on commercial fishing ( BOEMRE, 2011 a ; BOEM, 2012 b).
The main commercial fishing activity in deep waters of the northern Gulf of Mexico is pelagic longlining for tunas, swordfishes, and other billfishes (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2002). Pelagic longlining has occurred historically in the project area, primarily during spring and

summer

. Longline gear consists of monofilament line deployed from a moving vessel and generally allowed to drift for 4 to 5 hours (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2002). As the mainline is put out, baited leaders and buoys are clipped in place at regular intervals. It takes 8 to 10 hours to deploy a longline and about the same time to retrieve it. Longl ines are often set near oceanographic features such as fronts or downwellings, w ith the aid of sophisticated on

- board temperature sensors, depth finders, and positioning equipment. Vessels typically are 10 to 30 m (33 to 98 ft) long, and their trips last from about 1 to 3 weeks. The main Gulf of Mexico homeports for longlining vessels are in Louisiana (Dulac and Venice) and Florida (Destin, Madeira Beach, and Panama City).
It is unlikely that any commercial fishing activity other than longlining occurs at or near the project area. Benthic species targeted by commercial fishers occur on the upper continental slope, well inshore of the project area. Royal red shrimp ( Pleoticus robustus ) are caught by trawlers in water depths of about 250 to 550 m (820 to 1 ,804 ft). Tilefish es (primarily Lophalotilus chamaeleonticeps ) are caught by bottom longlining in water depths from about 165 to 450 m (540 to 1,476 ft) (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2002).
Most recreational fishing activity in the region occurs in water depths less than 200 m (656 ft) (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 1997, 2002). In deeper water, the main attraction to recreational fishers would be petroleum rig s offshore Texas and Louisiana. Due to the distance from shore, it is unlikely that recreational fishing activity is occurring in the lease area.
The only routine IPF potentially affecting fisheries is drilling rig presence (including noise and lights)

. T wo types of potential accidents are also addressed below – a small fuel spill and a large oil spill (WCD).


### Impacts of Drilling Rig Presence There is a slight possibility of pelagic longlines becoming entangled in the drilling rig. For example, in January 1999, a portion of a pelagic longline snagged on the acoustic Doppler current prof iler of a drillship working in the Gulf of Mexico (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2002). The line was removed without incident. Generally, longline fishers use radar and are aware of offshore structures and ships when placing their sets. Therefore, little or no impact on pelagic longlining is expected.
Because it is unlikely that any recreational fishing activity is occurring in the project area, no adverse impacts are anticipated. Other factors such as effluent discharges are likely to have neglig ible impacts on commercial or recreational fisheries due to rapid dispersion, the small area of ocean affected, and the intermittent nature of the discharges.Walker Ridge Block 52 December 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 64 

### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Anadarko’s pre ventative measures during routine operations including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Anadarko ’s OSRP could potentially mitigate and reduce the potential for impacts

. EP Section H provides detail on spill response measures. Given the open ocean location of the lease area, the duration of a small spill and opportunity for impacts to occur would be very brief.
Pelagic longlining activities in the lease area, if any, could be interrup ted in the event of a small fuel spill. The sea surface area with diesel fuel on it would range from 0.5 to 5 ha (1.2 to 12 ac)
, depending on sea state and weather conditions. Fishing activities could be interrupted due to the activities of response vess els operating in the lease area. A small fuel spill would not affect coastal water quality because the spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up (see Section A.9.2 ).


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

Potent ial spill impacts on fishing activities are discussed in MMS ( 2007b ) and BOEM ( 2012 a,b ). For this EP , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to this activity.
Pelagic longlining activities in the lease area and other fishing activities in the northern Gulf of Mexico could be interrupted in the event of a large oil spill. A spill may or may not result in fishery closures, depending on the duration of the spill, the oceanographic and meteorological conditions at the time, and the effectiveness of spill response measures. The Macondo spill provides information about the maximum potential extent of fishery closures in the event of a large oil spill in the Gulf of M exico (NMFS, 2010 c ). At its peak on 12 July 2010, closures encompassed 217,821 km 2 

### (84,101 mi 2 

### ), or 34.8% of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico EEZ.



### C.8.2 Public Health and Safety
There are no IPFs associated with routine operations that are expected to affect publi c health and safety. Impacts of a small fuel spill and a large oil spill (WCD) are addressed below.


### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Anadarko ’s preventative measures during routine operations including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Anadarko ’s OSRP could potentially alleviate the potential for impacts. EP Section H provides detail on spill response measures.

A small fuel spill would not have any impacts on public health and safety because it would affect only a small area of the open ocean 152 miles (245 km) from the nearest shoreline
, and nearly all of the diesel fuel would evaporate or disperse naturally with in 24 hours. Response crews would be equipped with appropriate safety equipment to avoid injury and health effects. A small fuel spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up (see Section A.9.2 ).


### Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD) In the event of a large spill from a blowout, the main safety and health concerns are those of the offshore personnel involved in the incident and those responding to the spill. The drilling rig maintains a Shipboard Oil Pollution Em ergency Plan as required under MARPOL 73/78.Walker Ridge Block 52 December 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 65 

### Depending on the spill rate and duration, the physical/chemical characteristics of the oil, meteorological and oceanographic conditions at the time, and the effectiveness of spill response measures, the public could be exposed to oil on the water and along the shoreline, including skin contact or breathing VOCs . Crude oil is a highly flammable material
, and any smoke or vapors from a crude oil fire can cause irritation, and in large quantities may pose a health hazard.
Data from the Macondo spill provide relevant information about the types of health issues that may occur in the event of a large oil spill (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010a). Wildlife cleaning and rehabilitation workers have repo rted concerns including scrapes and cuts, itchy or red skin or rash, and symptoms of headache or feeling faint, dizzy, or fatigued. Hand, shoulder, or back pain was also reported by some wildlife

- cleaning workers. Personnel working on offshore vessels or providing direct oversight to offshore vessels, including USCG personnel, civilian contractors, and other responders who were exposed to oil and dispersants
, had a 7 to 12 times higher prevalence of upper respiratory symptoms and cough than those not expo sed (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010b). Another potential occupational hazard for spill response workers in general was heat stress from work in a hot and humid environment. Initial symptoms from cleanup workers who sought medical care in Louisiana were typical of acute exposure to hydrocarbons or H 2 

### S ( e.g., headaches, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, cough, respiratory distress, and chest pain ) (Solomon and Janssen, 2010).



### C.8.3 Employment and Infrastructure

There are no IPFs associated with routine operations that are expected to affect employment and infrastructure. The project involves drilling with support from existing shorebase facilities in Louisiana . No new or expanded facilities will be constructed, and no new employees are expecte d to move permanently into the area. The project will have a negligible impact on socioeconomic conditions such as local employment, existing offshore and coastal infrastructure (including major sources of supplies, services, energy, and water), and minor ity and lower income groups. Impacts of a small fuel spill and a large oil spill (WCD) are addressed below.


### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Anadarko ’s preventative measures during routine operations inclu ding fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Anadarko ’s OSRP could potentially mitigate and reduce the potential for impacts. EP Section H provides detail on spill response measures. Given the open ocean location of the lease area, the duration of a small spill and opportunity for impacts to occur would be very brief.
A small fuel spill that is dissipated within a few days would have little or no economic impact, as the spill response would use existing facilities, resources, a nd personnel.


### Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD) Potential socioeconomic impacts of an oil spill are discussed in MMS ( 2007b ) and BOEM ( 2012a,b ,d ). For this EP , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to employment and coastal infrastructure. A large spill could cause economic impacts in several ways: it could result in extensive fishery closures that put fishermen out of work; it could result in temporary employment as part of the response effort; it could result in adverse publicity that

a ffects employment in coastal recreation and tourism industries; and it could result in anotherWalker Ridge Block 52 December 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 66 

### suspension of OCS drilling activities, including service and support operations that are an important part of local economies.
In addition to the analys e s presen ted by MMS (2007b, 2008 ) and BOEM (201 2b ), a study explored the economic impacts of the Macondo spill on oil and gas industry employment due to suspension of deepwater drilling (Inter

- Agency Economic Report, 2010). The study indicates that during the mora torium, the number of oil industry workers in the Gulf of Mexico fell by about 2,000 and may have indirectly caused a temporary loss of 8,000 to 12,000 jobs along the Gulf Coast. Total spending by drilling operators is estimated to have declined by $1.8 b illion

over a 6- month period; this direct reduction in spending affected employment in the industries that supply the Gulf drilling industry and in all other industries affected by declines in consumer and business spending (Inter

- Agency Economic Report, 2 010)

.


### C.8.4 Recreation and Tourism
BOEM has reexamined the analys e s for recreation and tourism presented in MMS (2007b, 2008) based on additional information and in consideration of the Macondo oil spill event. No new information was found that would alter the potential impact s on recreation and tourism ( BOEMRE, 2011 a ; BOEM, 2012 b ).

There are no known recreational uses of the lease area. Recreational resources and tourism in coastal areas would not be affected by a ny routine activities due to the distance from shore. Compliance with NTL 2012

- BSEE

- G01 will minimize the chance of trash or debris being lost overboard from the drilling rig and subsequently washing up on beaches.


### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill The probab ility of a fuel spill will be minimized by Anadarko ’s preventative measures during routine operations including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Anadarko ’s OSRP could potentially help mitigate and reduce the potential for impacts. EP Section H provides detail on spill response measures. Given the open ocean location of the lease area, the duration of a small spill and opportunity for impacts to occur would be very brief.
A small fuel spill in the lease area would be unlikely to affect recreation and tourism. There are no known recreational or tourism activities occurring in the lease area, and as explained in Section A.9.2 , a small fuel spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breakin g up. 

### Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD) Potential impacts of an oil spill on recreation and tourism are discussed in MMS ( 2007b ) and BOEM ( 2012a ,b,d ). For this EP , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to these impacts.
Impacts on recreation and tourism would vary depending on the duration of the spill and its fate including the effectiveness of response measures. A large spill that reached coastal waters and shorelines could adversely affect recreation and tourism by co ntaminating beaches and wetlands, resulting in negative publicity that encourages people to stay away. Based on the revised OSRA modeling (BOEM, 2012b) as summarized in Section A.9.3 ( Table 3 ), there is a 17% probability of oil from a spill in the lease area reaching shorelines in Texas and a 14 % probability of oil contacting shorelines in Louisiana within 120 days.Walker Ridge Block 52 December 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 67 

### In addition to the analysis presented by MMS (2007b ) and BOEM (2012 a,b,d ), recent and ongoing studies have explored the economic impacts of th e Macondo spill including tourism and

" brand " damage (IEM, 2010; Oxford Economics, 2010). The U.S. Travel Association has estimated the economic impact of the Macondo spill on tourism across the Gulf Coast over a three

- year period at $22.7 billion (Oxford Economics, 2010)

.


### C.8.5 Land Use
Land use along the northern Gulf C oast is discussed in MMS ( 2007b ) and BOEM ( 2012a,b ,d ). There are no routine IPFs potential ly affecting land use. The project will use existing onshore support facilities in Louisiana

. The land use at the existing shorebase sites is industrial. The project will not involve any new construction or changes to existing land use and, therefore, will not have any impacts. Levels of boat and helicopter traffic, as well as demand for goods an d services including scarce coastal resources, will represent a small fraction of the level of activity occurring at the shorebase s.
A large oil spill (WCD) is the only relevant IPF. A small fuel spill would not have any impacts on land use, as the response would be staged out of existing shorebases and facilities.


### Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD) The initial response for a large oil spill would be staged out of existing facilities, with no effect on land use. A large spill could have limited temporary impacts on land use along the coast if additional staging areas were needed. For example, during the Macondo spill, temporary staging areas were established in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida for spill response and cleanup efforts. In the event of a large spill in the lease area, similar temporary staging areas could be needed. These areas would eventually return to their original use as the response is demobilized.



### C.8.6 Other Marine Uses

The lease area is not located within any USCG

- designated fairway or shipping lane or Military Warning Area. Anadarko will comply with BOEM requirements and lease stipulations to avoid impacts on uses of the area by military vessels and aircraft. Fugro (2013) identified no existing

man

- made objects i n the vicinity of the wellsites.
There are no IPFs from routine project activities that are likely to affect other marine uses of the lease area. A large oil spill (WCD) is the only relevant accident IPF. A small fuel spill would not have any impacts on other marine uses because spill response activities would be mainly within the lease area and the duration would be brief.


### Impacts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD) An accidental spill would be unlikely to significantly affect shipping or other marine uses

. In t he event of a large spill requiring numerous response vessels, coordination would be required to manage the vessel traffic for safe operations. Anadarko will comply with BOEM requirements and lease stipulations to avoid impacts on uses of the area by military vessels and aircraft.
In the event of a large spill requiring numerous vessels in the area, coordination would be required to ensure that no anchoring or seafloor

- disturbing activities occur near the existing pipelines and flowlines.Walker Ridge Block 52 December 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 68 

# D. Environmenta l Hazards

D.1 Geologic Hazards
The site clearance survey (Fugro, 2013) identified buried faults that will penetrate wellbores at the WR 52

- D, WR 52

- E, WR 52

- F, WR 52

- G, and WR 52

- K. Fault penetrations will occur at 183 m (602 ft) below mud line (BML) at WR 52

- D, 243 m (767 ft) BML at WR 52

- E, 164 m (539 ft) BML at WR 52

- F, 149 m (490 ft) BML at WR 53

- G, and 230 m (753 ft) BML at WR 52

- K. Fugro (2013) advised caution when penetrating heavily faulted sediments, as drilling fluid losses can occur.
Fugro (2013) concluded that all of the proposed wellsites posed a negligible risk for shallow water flow, a negligible to low risk for encountering shallow gas, and a low risk for encountering dimminated gas hydrate accumulations . Fugro (2013) con cluded that the wellsites are free of any significant geological hazards and are suitable for the propose d activities. See EP Section C for supporting geological and geophysical information.



## D.2 Severe Weather

Under most circumstances, weather is not expected to have any effect on the proposed activities. Extreme weather, including high winds, strong currents, and large waves, was considered in the design criteria for the drilling rigs under consideration for this project . High winds a nd limited visibility during a severe storm could disrupt support activities (vessel and helicopter traffic) and make it necessary to suspend some activities on the drilling rig for safety reasons until the storm or weather event passes. In the event of a hurricane, procedures as outlined in the Hurricane Evacuation Plan would be adhered to.



## D.3 Currents and Waves

Metocean conditions such as sea states, wind speed, ocean currents, etc. will be continuously monitored. Under most circumstances, physical oce anographic conditions are not expected to have any effect on the proposed activities. Strong currents (e.g., caused by Loop Current eddies and intrusions) and large waves were considered in the design criteria for the drilling rig under consideration for this project . High waves during a severe storm could disrupt support activities (i.e., vessel and helicopter traffic) and make it necessary to suspend some activities on the drilling rig for safety reasons until the storm or weather event passes.



# E. Alt ernatives

N o formal alternatives we re evaluated in this EIA for an EP . However, various technical and operational options
, including the location of the wellsite s and the selection of a drilling unit, were considered by Anadarko in developing the proposed action.Walker Ridge Block 52 December 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 69 

# F. Mitigation Measures

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

.



# G. Consultation

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



# H. Preparers

The EIA was prepared by CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. Contributors included :

• M. John Thompson (Senior Scientist);

• John M. Tiggelaar II (Project Scientist);

• Keith VanGraafeiland (Geospatial Manager);

• K evin Noack (Geospatial Coordinator);

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

• LeslieAnn Weekes (Technical Editor)

.



# I. References

Ackleh, A., G.E. Loup, J.W. Loup, B. Ma, J.J. Newcomb, N. Pal, N.A. Sidorovskaia, and C. Tiemann. 2012. Assessing the Deepwater Horizon oil spill impact on marine mammal population through acoustics: Endangered sperm whales. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 131(3) : 2 , 306 -2, 314. Anderson, C.M. and R.P. LaBelle. 2000. Update of comparative occurrence rates for o ffshore oil spills. In: Spill Science & Technology Bulletin, Vol. 6, No. 5/6, pp. 303

- 321. Elsevier Science Ltd., PII: S1353

- 2561(01) 00049

- 4. U.S. Minerals Management Service, Herndon, VA. Aten, L.E. 1983. Indians of the upper Texas coast. New York, NY: Academic Press. 370 pp. Barkuloo, J.M. 1988. Report on the conservation status of the Gulf of Mexico sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish Wildlife Service, Panama City, FL. 33 pp. Bélanger, L. and J. Bédard. 1989. Responses of s taging Greater Snow Geese to h uman d isturbance. J. Wildl

. Manage

. 53:713

- 719. Biggs, D.C. and P.H. Ressler. 2000. Water column biology, pp. 141

- 187. In: Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. Deepwater Program: Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Information Resources Data Search and Literature Synthesis. Volume I: Narrative Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000

- 049.Walker Ridge Block 52 December 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 70 Boehm, P., D. Turton, A. Raval, D. Caudle, D. French, N. Rabalais, R. Spies, and J. Johnson. 2001. Deepwater program: Literature review, environmental risks of chemical products used in Gulf of Mexico deepwater oil and gas operations. Volume I: Technical report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management S ervice, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2001

- 011. 326 pp. Brooke, S., and W.W. Schroeder. 2007. State of deep coral ecosystems in the Gulf of Mexico region: Texas to the Florida Straits, pp. 271

- 306. In: S.E. Lumsden, T.F. Hourigan, A.W. Bruckner, and G. Dorr (eds.)
, The State of Deep Coral Ecosystems of the United States. NOAA Tech. Memo. CRCP

- 3. Silver Spring, MD. 365 pp. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012a. Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2012

- 2017. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2012

- 030. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

. 2012 b. Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale: 2012. Central Planning Area Lease Sale 216/222. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. New Orleans, LA. 2 volumes. OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2012

- 058. Accessed 19 Ja nuary 2012. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012 c. Archaeology Survey Blocks. Website accessed on 11 November 2013

. http://www.boem.gov/Environmental

- Stewardship/Archaeology/surveyblocks

- pdf.aspx

. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012d. Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2012

- 2017. Western Planning Area Lease Sales 229, 233, 238, 246, and 248. Central Planning Area Lease Sales 227, 231, 235, 241, and 247. Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2012

- 019. 3 vols. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2010. Federal & Academic Scientists Return from Deep

- sea Research Cruise in Gulf of Mexico: Scientists Observe Damage to Deep

- sea Corals. Online news dated 4 November 2010. Website accessed 11 November 2013

. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20101104_coralcruise.html Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2011a. Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale: 2011. W estern Planning Area Lease Sale 218 Final Supplemental Envir onmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS EIS /EA BOEMRE 2011

- 034. Accessed 11 Nove mber 2013

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

- Newsroom/Library/Publications/2011/2011

- 034

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

. Bure au of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement Spills – Statistics and Summaries 1996

- 2011

. W ebsite accessed 11 November 2013. http://www.boem.gov/Environmental

- Stewardship/Environmental

- Assessment/Oil

- Spill

Modeling/spills

- 1996

- 2011.aspx Camilli, R., C.M. Reddy, D.R. Yoerger, B.A .S. Van Mooy, M.V. Jakuba, J.C. Kinsey, C.P. McIntyre, S.P. Sylva, a nd J.V. Maloney. 2010. Tracking hydrocarbon plume transport and biodegradation at Deepwater Horizon . Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1195223.
Carm ichael, R.H., W.M. Graham, A. Aven, G.Worthy, and S. Howden. 2012. Were multiple stressors a ‘perfect storm’ for northern Gulf of Mexico bottlenose dolphins ( Tursiops truncatus ) in 2011? PLoS ONE 7(7): e41155. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041155. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041155 Carr, A. 1996. Suwannee River sturgeon, pp. 73

- 83. In: M.H. Carr (ed.), A Naturalist in Florida. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2010a. Deepwater Horizon response: NIOSH ongoing health hazard evaluation. Website accessed 11 November 2013 , updated 24 August 2011.

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

- 0115. Interi m Report #6A. 11 pp. Website accessed 11 November 2013

. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/oilspillresponse/gulfspillhhe.html

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

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

- 82/01. 637 pp. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/pdfs/interim_report_6.pdfWalker Ridge Block 52 December 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 71 Clapp, R.B., D. Morgan

- Jacobs, and R.C. Banks. 1982b. Marine birds of the southeastern United States and Gulf of Mexico. Part II. Anseriformes. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS

- 82/20. 492 pp. Clapp, R.B., D. Morgan

- Jacobs, and R.C. Banks. 1983. Marine birds of the southeastern United States and Gulf of Mexico. Part III. Charadriiformes. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS

- 83/30. 853 pp. Coastal Environments, Inc. 1977. Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Interagency Archaeological Services, Baton Rouge, LA. 4 vo l. Coastal Environments, Inc. 1982. Sedimentary Studies of Prehistoric Archaeological Sites. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Division of State Plans and Grants, Baton Rouge, LA. Collard, S.B. and C. Way. 1997. Chapter 5 – The biological environment. In: Science Applications International Corporation (ed.), Northeastern Gulf of Mexico C oastal and M arine E cosystem P rogram: Data S earch and S ynthesis; Synthesis R eport. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geologi cal Survey, Biological Resources Division and Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. USGS/BRD/CR

- 1997

- 0005. OCS Study MMS 96

- 0014. 313 pp. Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1997. Characterization and trends of recreational and commercial fishing from the Florida panhandle. U.S. Department of Interior, Minerals Managem ent Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. USGS/BRD/CR

- 1997

- 0001 and OCS Study MMS 97

- 0020. 333 pp. Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2002. Deepwater P rogram: Bluewater fishing and OCS activity, interactions between the fishing and petroleum industries in deepwaters of the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orlea ns, LA. OCS Stu dy MMS 2002

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

- 045.
Cruz

- Kaegi, M.E. 1998. Latitudinal variations in biomass and metabolism of benthic infaunal communities. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. CSA International, Inc. 2007. Characterization of northern Gulf of Mexico deepwater hard - bottom communities with emphasis on Lophelia coral. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2007

- 044. 169 pp. + app. Davis, R.W. and G.S. Fargion. 1996. Distribution and abundance of cetaceans in the north

- central and western Gulf of Mexico: Final report. U.S. Dep artmen t of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico O CS Region, New Orleans, LA. Website accessed 11 November 2013

. Vol I. http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3296.pdf Vol. II. http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3297.pdf Vol. III. http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3301.pdf Davis, R.W., J.G. Ortega

- Ortiz, C.A. Ribic, W.E. Evans, D.C. Biggs, P.H. Ressler, J.H. Wormuth, R.R. Leben, K.D. Mullin, and B. Würsig. 2000. Cetacean habitat in the northern Gulf of Mexico, pp. 217 -2 53. In: R.W. Davis, W.E. Evans, and B. Würsig (eds.) , Cetaceans, sea turtles, and seabirds in the northern Gulf of Mexico: Distribution, abundance and habitat associations. Volume II: Technical report. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, USGS/BRD/CR

- 1999

- 0006 and U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000

- 003. 346 pp. Webs ite accessed 4 September 2012. http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFIma ges/ESPIS/3/3153.pdf Ditty, J.G. 1986. Ichthyoplankton in neretic waters of the northern Gulf of Mexico off Louisiana: Composition, relative abundance, and seasonality. Fish. Bull. 84(4):935

- 946. Ditty, J.G., G.G. Zieske, and R.F. Shaw. 1988. Seasonal ity and depth distribution of larval fishes in the northern Gulf of Mexico above 26°00’N. Fish. Bull. 86:811

- 823.Walker Ridge Block 52 December 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 72 Earthjustice. 2011. Comments on Shell Exploration Plan S

- 7445 , Document ID: BOEM

- 2011

- 0006

- 0001, Docket ID: BOEM

- 2011

- 0006, 6 February 2011 . 18 pp. Efroymson, R.A., W.H. Rose, S. Nemeth, and G.W. Suter II. 2000. E cological risk assessment framework for low altitude overflights by fixed

- wing and rotary

- wing military aircraft. Report prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ORNL/TM

- 2000/289: ES

- 5048. Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1992. Birds in Jeopardy: The Imperiled and Extinct Birds of the United States and Canada, including Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA. 261 pp. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 201 3 . Florida's endangered species and threatened species

. Webs ite accessed 30 October 201 3. Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary. 2011. Cnidarian species. Website a ccessed 11 November 2013
, updated 27 August 2013

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

http://flowergarden.noaa.gov/about/cnidarianlist.html Fox, D.A., J.E. Hightower, and F.M. Paruka. 2000. Gulf sturgeon spawning migration and habitat in the Choctawhatchee River system, Alabama

- Florida. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 129:811

- 826. Frit ts, T.H. and R.P. Reynolds. 1981. Pilot study of the marine mammals, birds, and turtles in OCS areas of the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program. FWS/OBS

- 81/36. Fugro Geo C onsulting
, Inc. 2013. Wellsite clearance letter, proposed wellsite WR 52

- D, WR 52

- E, WR 52

- F, WR 52

- G, WR 52

- H, WR 52

- I, WR 52

- J, and WR 52

- K. Block 52, Walker Rid ge Area, Gulf of Mexico. OCS -G- 25232. Report Nos. 27.2013

- 2644

- 52

- D, 27.2013

- 2644

- 52

- E, 27.2013

- 2644 -52- F, 27.2013

- 2644

- 52

- G, 27.2013

- 2644

- 52

- H, 27.2013

- 2644

- 52

- I, 27.2013

- 2644

- 52

- J, and 27.2013

- 2644

- 52

- K. Gallaway, B. (ed.). 1988. Northern Gulf of Mexico continental slope study, final report: Year 4. Volume II: Synthesis report. Final report submitted to the Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA. Contract No. 14

- 12

- 0001

- 30212. Gallaway, B.J., J.G. Cole, and R.G. Fechhelm. 2003. Selected Aspects of the Ecology of the Continental Slope Fauna of the Gulf of Mexico: A Synopsis of the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Slope Study, 1983

- 1988

. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2003

- 072. Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1987. Effects of offshore oil and gas development on marine mammals and turtles, pp. 587

- 617. In: D.F. Boesch and N.N. Rabalais (eds.), Long Term Environmental Effects of Offshore Oil and Gas Development. Elsevier Applied Science Publ. Ltd., London and New York. Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aub in. 1990. Sea M ammals and O il: C onfronting the R isks. Academic Press, San Diego. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 2005. Generic A mendment N umber 3 for a ddressing E ssential F ish H abitat R equirements, H abitat A reas of P articular C oncern, and a dverse e ffects of f ishing in the f ollowing F ishery M anagement P lans of the Gulf of Mexico: S hrimp fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States waters red drum fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, reef fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico coastal migratory pelagic resources (mackerels) in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, stone crab fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, spiny lobster in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, coral and coral reefs of the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa , FL. Hazen, T.C., E.A. Dubinsky, T.Z. DeSantis, G.L. Andersen, Y.M. Piceno, N. Singh, J.K. Jansson, A. Probst, S.E. Borglin, J.L. Fortney, W.T. Stringfellow, M. Bill, M.S. Conrad, L.M. Tom, K.L. Chavarria, T.R. Alus i, R. Lamendella, D.C. Joyner, C. Spier, J. Baelum, M. Auer, M.L. Zemla, R. Chakraborty, E.L. S onnenthal, P. D’haeseleer, H.N. Holman, S. Osman, Z. Lu, J.D. Van Nostrand, Y. Deng, J. Zhou, and O.U. Mason. 2010. Deep

- sea oil plume enriches indigenous oil

- degrading bacteria. Science DOI: 10.112 6/science.1195979. Hess, N.A. and C.A. Ribic. 2000. Seabird ecology, pp. 275

- 315. In: R.W. Davis, W.E. Evans, and B. Würsig (eds.), Cetaceans, sea turtles, and seabirds in the northern Gulf of Mexico: Distribution, abundance and habitat associations. V olume II: Technical report. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, USGS/BRD/CR

- 1999

- 0006 and U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000

- 003. 346 pp. Higash i, G.R. 1994. Ten years of fish aggregating device (FAD) design and development in Hawaii. Bull. Mar. Sci. 55(2

- 3):651

- 666.Walker Ridge Block 52 December 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 73 Holand, P. 1997. Offshore Blowouts: Causes and Control. Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, TX. ISBN 0884155145. Holland, K.R., R.W. Brill, and R.K.C. Chang. 1990. Horizontal and vertical movements of yellowfin and bigeye tuna associated with fish aggregating devices. Fish. Bull. 88:493

- 507.
IEM. 2010. A Study of the Economic Impact of the Deepwater Horizon Oil S pill. Prepared f or Greater New Orleans, Inc. October 2010. Website accessed 11 November 2013

. http://gnoinc.org/wp

- content/uploads/Economic_Impact_Study_Part_I_

- _Full_Report.pdf http://gnoinc.org/wp

- content/uploads/Economic_Impact_Study_Part_II_ -_ Moratoria_FINAL.pdf http://gnoinc.org/wp

- content/uploads/Economic_Impact_Study_Part_III_

- _Public_Perception_FINAL.pdf
Inter

- Agency Economic Repo rt. 2010. Estimating the effects of the deepwater drilling moratorium on the Gulf coast economy. September 2010. Website accessed 11 November 2013

. http://www.esa.doc.gov/Reports/estimating

- economic

- effects

- deepwater

- drilling

- moratorium

- gulf

- coast

economy Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II a nd III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland. 104 pp. International Association of Oil & Gas Producers. 2010. Risk assessment data directory: Blowout frequencies. IAGP Report No. 434

- 2. March 2010. Website accessed 11 November 2013

. http://www.ogp.org.uk/pubs/434

- 02.pdf Ji, Z

- G., W.R. Johnson, C.F. Marshall, and E.M. Lear. 2004. Oil

- Spill Risk Analysis: Contingency Planning Statistics for Gulf of Mexico OCS Activities. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS Report MMS 2004

- 026. Jochens, A., D. Biggs, K. Benoit

- Bird, D. Engelhaupt, J. Gordon, C. Hu, N. Jaquet, M. Johnson, R. Leben, B. Mate, P. Miller, J. Ortega

- Ortiz, A. Thode, P. Tyack, and B. Würsig. 2008. Sperm whale seismic study in the Gulf of Mexico: Synthesis report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2008

- 006. 341 pp. Johnsgard, P.A. 1990. Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons of North America; Biology and Natural History. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington. 403 pp.
Joint Ana lysis Group. 2010a. Joint Analysis Group (JAG) r eview of p reliminary d ata to e xamine s ubsurface oil in the vicinity of MC252#1 May 19 to June 19, 2010. Website accessed 11 November 2013

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

o il. Website accessed 11 November 2013

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

http://www.noaa.gov/sciencemissions/PDFs/JAG_Report_1_BrooksMcCall_Final_June20.pdf Joint Analysis Group. 2010c. Jo int Analysis Group (JAG) review of preliminary data to examine oxygen levels in the vicinity of MC252#1 May 8 to August 9, 2010. Website accessed 11 November 2013

.

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

- 139. In: Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. Deepwater Program: Gulf of Mexico deepwater informatio n resources data search and literature synthesis. Volume I: Narrative report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000

- 049. http://www.noaa.gov/sciencemissions/PDFs/JAG_Oxygen_Report%20%28FINAL%20090410%29.pdf

LGL Ecological Research Associates, Ltd. 2006. Assessment o f t he e ffects o f u nderwater n oise f rom t he p roposed Neptune L NG Project - Supplementary Biological Effects Report to Ecology and Environment, Inc. LGL Report No. 4200

- 2a , 8 August 2006. 11 pp. Lohoefener, R., W. Hoggard, K. Mullin, C. Roden, and C. Rogers. 1990. Association of sea turtles with petroleum platforms in the north

- central Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 90

- 0025. 90 pp

. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. 2013. Tracking List and Fact Sheets . Website accessed 11 November 2013

. http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/wildlife/rare

- animals

- fa ct

- sheets Lutcavage, M.E., P.L. Lutz, G.D. Bossart, and D.M. Hudson. 1995. Physiologic and clinicopathologic effects of crude oil on loggerhead sea turtles. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 28:417

- 422.Walker Ridge Block 52 December 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 74 Lutcavage, M.E., P. Plotkin, B. Witherington, and P. L. Lutz. 1997. Human impacts on sea turtle survival,
pp. 387

- 409. In: P.L. Lutz and J.A. Musick (eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. MacDonald, I.R. (ed.). 2002. Stability and Change in Gulf of Mexico Chemosynthetic Communit ies. Volume II: Technical Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2002

- 036. 456 pp. Marine Mammal Commission. 201 1

. Assessing the long

- term effects of the BP Deep water Horizon o il s pill on
m arine m ammals in the Gulf of Mexico: A statement of research needs

. Website accessed 11 November 2013

. http://www.mmc.gov/reports/workshop/p df/longterm_effects_bp_oilspil.pdf Minerals Management Service. 2000. Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Operations and Activities: Environmental Assessment. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2000

- 001. Minerals Management Service. 2007a. Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 2007

- 2012 Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Herndon, VA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007

- 003. April 2007. Minerals Management Service. 2007b. Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2007

- 2012. Western Planning Area Sales 204, 207, 210, 215, and 218; Central Planning Area Sales 205, 206, 208, 213, 216, and 222. Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Dep artmen t of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007

- 018. April 2007. Minerals Management Service. 2008. Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2009

- 2012; Central Planning Area Sales 208, 213, 216, and 222; Western Planning Area Sales 210, 215, and 218. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/EA MM S 2008

- 041. September 2008. Minerals Management Service. 2009a. NTL No. 2009

- G39: Biologically Sensitive Underwater Features and Areas. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. Minerals Management Service. 2009b. NTL No. 2009

- G40: Deepwater Benthic Communities. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexi co OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks. 20 05 . Mississ ippi’s species of greatest conservation need by ecoregion. Website accessed 11 November 2013; begins on p. 375

. http://www.mdwfp.com/media/63792/cwcs.pdf Morrow, J.V., Jr., J.P. Kirk, K.J. Killgore, H. Rugillio, and C. Knight. 1998. Status and recovery of G ulf sturgeon in the Pearl River system, Louisiana

- Mississippi. N. Am. J. Fish Manage. 18:798

- 808. Mullin, K., W. Hoggard, C. Roden, R. Lohoefener, C. Rogers, and B. Taggart. 1991. Cetaceans on the upper continental slope in the north

- central Gulf of Mexico. OCS Study/MMS 910027. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Regional Office, New Orleans, LA. 108 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007. Endangered Species Act, Section 7 Consultation – Biological Opinion. Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Activities: Five

- Year Leasing Plan for Western and Central Planning Areas 2007

- 2012. 29 June 2007. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009. Final Amendment 1 to the Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan Essential Fish Habitat. Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Silver Spring, MD. June 2009. Website accessed 11 November 2013

. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/EFH/Final/FEIS_Amendment_Total.pdf National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010 a. Final Recovery Plan for the Sperm Whale ( Physeter macrocephalus ). Website accessed 11 November 2013

. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/final_sperm_whale_recovery_plan_21dec.pdf National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010 b . Gulf sturgeon ( Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi ). Website accessed 11 November 2013 , updated 27 February 2013

. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/gulfsturgeon.htm http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/oilspill.htm National Marine Fisheries Service . 2010 c

. Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill: size and percent coverage of fishing area closures due to BP oil spill. Website accessed 11 November 2013

. http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/deepwater_horizon/size_percent_closure/index.htmlWalker Ridge Block 52 December 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 75 National Marine Fisheries Service. 2013. Draft marin e mammal stock assessment reports (SARs). Updated 6 November 2013. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/draft.htm National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
, and SEMARNAT. 201 1. Bi

- National Recovery Plan for the Kemp‘s Ridley Sea Turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii ), Second Revision. National Marine Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, Maryland. Website accessed 11 November 2013

. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/kempsridley_revision2.pdf National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2006. Fact Sheet: Small Diesel Spills (500

- 5,000 gallons)

. NOAA Scientific Support Team, Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Seattle, Washington. 2 pp. National Park Service . 2010. Breton Wilderness 300 km Radius. Website accessed 11 November 2013

. http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/Permits/ARIS/docs/bretMap300.pdf National Research Council. 1983. Drilling Discharges in the Marine Environment. National Academy Pres s, Washington, DC. 180 pp. National Research Counci l . 2003 a . Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 182 pp. + app. National Research Council. 2003b. Ocean N oise and M arine M ammals. Ocean Studies Boa rd, National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 204 pp. Neff, J.M. 1987. Biological effects of drilling fluids, drill cuttings and produced waters, pp. 469

- 538. In: D.F. Boesch and N.N. Rabalais (eds.), Long

- Term Effects of Offshore Oil and Gas Developme nt. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London. Neff, J.M., S. McKelvie, and R.C. Ayers, Jr. 2000. Environmental impacts of synthetic based drilling fluids. Prepared by Robert Ayers & Associates, Inc. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Managem ent Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000

- 064. 118 pp. Neff, J.M., A.D. Hart, J.P. Ray, J.M. Limia, and T.W. Purcell. 2005. An assessment of seabed impacts of synthetic

- based drilling

- mud cuttings in the Gulf of Mexico . 2005 SPE/EPA/DOE Exploration and Production Environmental Conference, 7

- 9 March 2005, Galveston, Texas, USA. SPE 94086. Nelson, H.F. and E.E. Bray. 1970. Stratigraphy and History of the Holocene Sediments in the Sabine

- High Island Area, Gulf of Mexic o. In: Morgam, J.P. (ed.) Deltaic Sedimentation; Modern and Ancient. Special Publn. No. 15. Tulsa, OK: SEPM. Nowlin, W.D., Jr., A.E. Jochens, S.F. DiMarco, R.O. Reid, and M.K. Howard. 2001. Deepwater Physical Oceanography Reanalysis and Synthesis of Historical Data: Synthesis Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2001

- 064. 528 pp. Operational Science Advisory Team. 2010. Summary report for sub

- sea and sub

- surface oil and dispersion detection: Sampling and monitoring. Operational Science Advisory Team (OSAT) Unified Area Command 131 pp. Oxford Economics. 2010. Potential impact of the Gulf oil spill on tourism. Report prepared for the U.S. Travel Association. Website accessed 11 November 2013

.

Peake, D.E. 1996. Bird surveys, pp. 271

- 304. In: R.W. Davis and G.S. Fargion (eds.), Distribution and abundance of cetaceans in the north

- central and western Gulf of Mexico, F inal report. Volume II: Technical report. Prepared by the Texas Institute of Oceanography and the National Marine Fisheries Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region Office, New Orleans, LA. OCS St udy MMS 96

- 0027. 357 pp. http://www.ustravel.org/sites/default/files/page/2009/11/Gulf_Oil_Spill_Analysis_Oxford_Economics_710.pd f

Pearson, C.E., D.B. Kelley, R.A. Weinstein, and S.W. Gagliano. 1986. Archaeological investigations on the Outer Continental Shelf: A study within the Sabine River valley, offshore Louisiana and Texas

. U.S. Department of the Int erior, Minerals Management Service, Reston, VA. OCS Study MMS 86

- 0119. 314 pp. Powers, K. 1987. Seabirds, pp. 194

- 201. In: J.D. Milliman and W.R. Wright (eds.), The Marine Environment of the U.S. Atlantic Continental Slope and Rise. Jones and Bartlet t Publ., I nc. Boston/Woods Hole, MA. 275 pp.Walker Ridge Block 52 December 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 76 Pritchard, P.C.H. 1997. Evolution, phylogeny, and current status.pp. 1

- 28. In: Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick ( eds. ), The Biology of Sea Turtles. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Rathbun, G.B. 1988. Fixed

- wing airp lane versus helicopter surveys of manatees. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 4(1):71

- 75. Relini, M., L.R. Orsi, and G. Relini. 1994. An offshore buoy as a FAD in the Mediterranean. Bull. Mar. Sci. 55(2

- 3):1,099

- 1,105. Richards, W.J., T. Leming, M.F. McGowan, J.T. Lamki n, and S. Kelley

- Farga. 1989. Distribution of fish larvae in relation to hydrographic features of the Loop Current boundary in the Gulf of Mexico. Rapp. P.

- v. Reu n. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer. 191:169

- 176. Richards, W.J., M.F. McGowan, T. Leming, J.T. Lamki n, and S. Kelley. 1993. Larval fish assemblages at the Loop Current boundary in the Gulf of Mexico. Bull. Mar. Sci. 53(2):475

- 537. Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San D iego. 576 pp. Rodgers, J., Jr, and S. Schwikert. 2002. Buffer Zone Distances to Protect Foraging and Loafing Waterbirds from Disturbances by Personal Watercraft and Outboard

- Powered Boats. Conserv. Biol. 16:216

- 224. Rowe, G.T. and M.C. Kennicutt II. 2009. Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Slope Habitats and Benthic Ecology Study. Final Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Managem ent Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2009

- 039. 456 pp. Russell, R.W. 2005. Interactions between migrating birds and offshore oil and gas platforms in the northern Gulf of Mexico: Final Report. U.S. Dep artmen t of the Interior, Minerals Managem ent Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2005

- 00 9. 348 pp. Salmon, M. and J. Wyneken. 1990. Do swimming loggerhead sea turtles ( Caretta caretta ) use light cues for offshore orientation? Mar. Freshw. Behav. Phy. 17(4): 233

- 246. Share the Beach. 2010. Nesting season statistics. Website accessed 11 November 2013

. http://www.alabamaseaturtles.com/nesting

- season

- statistics/ Smultea, M.A., J.R. Mobley, Jr., D. Fertl, and G.L. Fulling. 2008. An unusual reaction and other observa tions of sperm whales near fixed wing aircraft. Gulf. Carrib. Res. 20:75

- 80. Solomon, G.M. and S. Janssen. 2010. Health Effects of the Gulf Oil Spill. Journal of the American Medical Association. Website accessed 11 November 2013

. http://www.asquifyde.es/uploads/documentos/Health

- Effects

- of

- the

- Gulf

- Oil

- Spill.pdf Sulak, K.J. and J.P. Clugston. 1998. Early life history stages of G ulf sturgeon in the S uwan nee River, Florida. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 127:758

- 771. Todd, V. L. G., W.D. Pearse, N.C. Tregenza, P.A. Lepper, and I.B. Todd. 2009. Diel echolocation activity of harbour porpoises ( Phocoena phocoena ) around North Sea offshore gas installations. ICES J. Mar. Sci. , 66: 734

– 745. Tuxbury, S.M. and M. Salmon. 2005. Competitive interactions between artificial lighting and natural cues during seafinding by hatchling marine turtles. Biol. Conserv. 121: 311

- 316. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Florida manatee recovery plan ( Trichechus manatus latirostris ), Third Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the Great Lakes Piping Plover ( Charadrius melodus ). Fort Sne lling, Minnesota. September 2003. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. International Recovery Plan: Whooping Crane ( Grus americana ), Third Revision. Albuquerque, New Mexico. March 2007. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010a. All about piping plover s. Website accessed 11 November 2013

. http://www.fws.gov/plover/facts.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010 b

. Beach Nesting Birds of the Gulf

. Website accessed 11 November 2013

. http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/DHBirdsOfTheGulf.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010 c . Species information, threatened and endangered animals and plants. Website accessed 11 November 2013

. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010 d . Effects of oil on wildlife and habitat. Website accessed 11 November 2013 v

. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/

http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/DHJICFWSOilImpactsWildlifeFactSheet.pdfWalker Ridge Block 52 December 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Supplemental Exploration Plan Page 77 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. FWS Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Response. B ird Impact Data and Consolidated Wildlife Reports. Deepwater Horizon Bird Impact Data from the DOI

- E RDC NRDA Database 12 May 2011. Website accessed 11 November 2013

. http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/Bird%20Data%20Species%20Spreadsheet%2005122011.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1995. Gulf Sturgeon Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 170 pp. Websi te accessed 11 November 2013

. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/sturgeon_gulf.pdf Wakeford, A. 2001. State of Florida conservation plan for Gulf sturgeon ( Acipencer oxyrinchus desotoi ). Florida Marine Research Institute Technical Report TR

- 8. St. Petersburg, FL. Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, K. Maze

- Foley, and P.E. Rosel (eds.). 2012. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments - 2011. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS NE 221. 330 pp. http://nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm221/tm221.pdf

. White, H.K., P. Hsing, W. Cho, T.M. Shank, E.E. Cordes, A.M. Quattrini, R.K. Nelson, R. Camilli, A.W.J. Demop oulous, C.R. German, J.M. Brooks, H.H. Roberts, W. Shedd, C.M. Reddy, and C.R. Fisher. 2012. Impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on a deep

- water coral community in the Gulf of Mexico

. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Early Edition). doi:10.1073/pnas.1118029109

. Website acces sed 11 November 2013

. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/23/1118029109.full.pd f+html?sid=56e8cdfe

- 2830

- 43f8

- 9d08

- 8eca0efd27e2 Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership . 2010. About whooping cranes and their recovery. Website accessed 11 November 2013

. http://www.bringbac kthecranes.org/technicaldatabase Wiese, F.K., W.A. Montevecchi, G.K. Davoren, F. Huettmann, A.W. Diamond, and J. Linke. 2001. Seabirds at risk around offshore oil platforms in the north

- west Atlantic. Mar. Poll. Bull. 42(12):1,285

- 1,290. Wei, C

- L. 2006 . The bathymetric zonation and community structure of deep

- sea macrobenthos in the northern Gulf of Mexico. M.S. thesis, Texas A&M University. Website accessed 11 November 2013

. http://repository.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/4927 Wilson, J. 2003. Manatees in Louisiana. Louisiana Marine Education Resources

. July/August 2003. 7 pp. Website accessed 11 November 2013

. http://www.lamer.lsu.edu/pdfs/Manatees_LaConservArticle.pdf Witherington, B.E. 1997. The problem of photopollution for sea turtles and other nocturnal animals, pp. 303

- 328. In: J.R. Clemmons and R. Buchholz (eds.), Behavioral Approaches to Conservation in the Wild. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. Würsig, B., S.K. Lynn, T.A. Jefferson, and K.D. Mullin. 1998. Behaviour of cetaceans in the northern Gulf of Mexico relative to survey ships and aircraft. Aquat. Mamm. 24: 41

- 50. Würsig, B., T.A. Jefferson, and D.J. Schmidly. 2000. The Marine Mammals of the Gulf of Mexico. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX. 232 pp.

### SECTION O ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

(a) Proprietary Information

Proprietary copies of this plan contain inform ation not available to the public and include structure maps, seismic information, cross sections, depths of wells, etc.

(b) Bibliography

 Shallow Hazards Reports referenced within this EP

 Site Clearance Letters included with this EP

 

### Final Sale Package for Central Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 185

### Online Payment 

### Step 3: Confirm Payment 1 | 2 | 3
Thank you. Your transaction has been successfully completed.

Pay.gov Tracking Information Application Name: BOEM Exploration Plan - BF Pay.gov Tracking ID: 25DN71NJ Agency Tracking ID: 74548741876 Transaction Date and Time: 12/27/2013 16:12 EST Payment Summary
Address Information

Account Holder Name: Jill Fowler

Billing Address: 1201 Lake Robbins Dr. Billing Address 2: City: The Woodlands State / Province: TX Zip / Postal Code: 77380 Country: USA Account Information Card Type: Visa Card Number: ************1715
Region: Gulf of Mexico

Contact: Bridget O'Farrell 832- 636-1694 Company Name/No: Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, 00981 Lease Number(s): 25232, , , ,

Area-Block: Walker Ridge WR, 52: , : , : , : , Surface Locations: 8 Payment Information Payment Amount: $29,384.00 Transaction Date and Time: 12/27/2013 16:12 EST 

### Page 1 of 1 Pay.gov - Online Payment

12 / 27 / 201 3 htt p s://www. p a y

. g ov/ p a yg ov/ p a y ments/authorizePlasticCardPa y ment.htm l