U.S. Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

OCS EIS/EA 

MMS 2005-010 

Environmental Assessment 

Proposed OCS Lease Sale 196, 

Western Gulf of Mexico 
U.S. Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

OCS EIS/EA 

MMS 2005-010 

Environmental Assessment 

Proposed OCS Lease Sale 196, 

Western Gulf of Mexico 

Author 

Minerals Management Service 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

Published by 

New Orleans

March 2005 
FINDING OF NO NEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 

The U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service (MMS) has prepared an 

environmental assessment (EA) for proposed Lease Sale 196 in the Western Planning Area (WPA) of the 

Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to determine whether MMS can make a Finding 

of No New Significant Impact (FONNSI) or should prepare a supplemental environmental impact 

statement (EIS). 

In November 2002, MMS filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a Final EIS covering 

CPA Lease Sales 185, 190, 194, 198, and 201; and Western Planning Area Lease Sales 187, 192, 196, and 

200 in the GOM (multisale EIS). Because the multisale EIS examined the environmental impacts of a 

sale similar in size, nature, and potential level of development as Lease Sale 196, the EA tiers off the 

multisale EIS and incorporates much of the material by reference. It also reexamines the potential 

environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives based on any new information regarding 

potential impacts or issues that were not available at the time the multisale EIS was prepared. 

The purpose of the EA is to analyze whether new information indicates that there are likely to be 

significant new impacts that were not addressed in the multisale EIS. As part of the scoping process for 

the EA, MMS reviewed new information to determine if any resources should be reevaluated or if the 

new information would alter conclusions of the multisale EIS. It was determined that three resources 

(marine mammals, sea turtles, and snowy plover) should be reevaluated because of new information. The 

new information for these three resources (mitigation measures for protected species and a revised oilspill probability for the snowy plover) is analyzed in the EA. 

The EA also presents a study of the impacts of Hurricane Lili, updates of MMS’s preparation of 

National Environmental Policy Act documents for seismic surveys and structure removal operations, 

more exact estimates of the abundance of cetaceans in the northern GOM, and additional scoping 

opportunities since the multisale EIS. This new information further supports or elaborates on analyses or 

information presented in the multisale EIS, but it does not change any of the analyses in the multisale 

EIS. 

Based on the analyses in the EA, no new significant impacts were identified for proposed Lease Sale 

196 that were not already assessed in the multisale EIS, nor is it necessary to change the conclusions of 

the kinds, levels, or locations of impacts described in that document. Therefore, MMS has determined 

that a supplemental EIS is not required and is issuing this FONNSI. 

Supporting Documents 

Proposed OCS Lease Sale 196, Western Gulf of Mexico—Environmental Assessment (USDOI, MMS, 

2005) (attached). 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2003-2007; Central Planning Area Sales 185, 190, 194, 

198, and 201; Western Planning Area Sales 187, 192, 196, and 200—Final Environmental Impact 

Statement; Volumes I and II (USDOI, MMS, 2002) (available upon request). 

_________________________________ ________________________ 

Director Date 
Environmental Assessment iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

FIGURES......................................................................................................................................................v

TABLES .......................................................................................................................................................v

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................vi

1. OBJECTIVES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................1

2. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION.............................................................1

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

3.1. Alternative A—Proposed Action ................................................................................................2

3.2. Alternatives to the Proposed Action ...........................................................................................3

3.3. Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................................................3

3.3.1. Protected Species Stipulation .......................................................................................4

3.3.2. Notices to Lessees and Operators.................................................................................5

4. IMPACT ANALYSIS...........................................................................................................................10

4.1. Update of Projections of Potential Activity from the Proposed Action....................................10

4.1.1. Resource Estimates and Timetables ...........................................................................10

4.1.2. Hurricane Lili .............................................................................................................10

4.1.3. Geological and Geophysical Activities ......................................................................10

4.1.4. Structure Removal Operations ...................................................................................11

4.2. Update of Information on the Affected Environment ...............................................................11

4.2.1. Marine Mammals .......................................................................................................11

4.2.2. Sea Turtles..................................................................................................................12

4.2.3. Snowy Plover .............................................................................................................12

4.3. Impacts from Alternative A—The Proposed Action ................................................................13

4.3.1. Summary of Analysis Incorporated by Reference from the Multisale EIS................13

4.3.1.1. Impacts on Coastal Resources...................................................................13

4.3.1.2. Impacts on Offshore Environments ..........................................................15

4.3.2. Updated Impact Analysis for the Proposed Action ....................................................17

4.3.2.1. Marine Mammals ......................................................................................17

4.3.2.2. Sea Turtles.................................................................................................17

4.3.2.3. Snowy Plover ............................................................................................18

4.4. Alternative B—The Proposed Action Excluding the Blocks Near Biologically 

Sensitive Topographic Features ................................................................................................18

4.5. Alternative C—No Action ........................................................................................................18

4.6. Cumulative Analysis.................................................................................................................19

4.6.1. Marine Mammals .......................................................................................................19

4.6.2. Sea Turtles..................................................................................................................19

4.6.3. Snowy Plover .............................................................................................................20
Environmental Assessment iv 

5. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ......................................................................................20

5.1. Scoping for the Environmental Assessment for the Western Planning Area’s Proposed 

Lease Sale 196 ..........................................................................................................................20

5.2. Consultation and Coordination Calendar..................................................................................23

6. REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................................24

APPENDIX A. PROPOSED LEASE STIPULATIONS.....................................................................27

APPENDIX B. NOTICES TO LESSEES AND OPERATORS (NOVEMBER 2002—

PRESENT).................................................................................................................36

APPENDIX C. PUBLICATIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM, 

GULF OF MEXICO OCS REGION (NOVEMBER 2002—PRESENT) .................39
Environmental Assessment v 

FIGURES 

 Page 

Figure 1. GOM OCS Planning Areas and WPA Offshore Subareas......................................................3

Figure 2. Snowy Plover Habitat ...........................................................................................................13

TABLES 

Page 

Table 1. Estimated Abundance of Cetaceans in the Northern GOM Oceanic Waters........................12
Environmental Assessment vi 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

5-Year Program Outer Continental Shelf Oil 

and Gas Leasing Program 

2002-2007

ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current 

Profile 

bbl barrel 

BBO billion barrels of oil 

BML below mud line 

BO Biological Opinion 

Btu British thermal unit 

Call Call for Information and 

Nominations 

CD Consistency Determination 

COE United States Army Corps of 

Engineers 

CPA Central Planning Area 

CWPPRA Coastal Wetlands Planning, 

Protection, and Restoration 

Act 

CZM Coastal Zone Management 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EFH essential fish habitat 

EIS Environmental Impact 

Statement 

EPA Eastern Planning Area 

ESA Endangered Species Act of 

1973 

FONNSI Finding of No New 

Significant Impact 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

G&G geological and geophysical 

GOADS Gulf-wide Offshore Activity 

Data System 

GOM Gulf of Mexico 

ITS Incidental Take Statement 

LCA Louisiana Coastal Area 

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection 

Act of 1972 

MMS Minerals Management 

Service 

MODU mobile offshore drilling unit 

NEPA National Environmental 

Policy Act 

NOAA National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration 

NOI Notice of Intent to Prepare an 

EIS 

NOx nitrogen oxide 

NPDES National Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System 

NTL Notice to Lessees and 

Operators 

OCD Offshore and Coastal 

Dispersion 

OCS Outer Continental Shelf 

OSRA Oil-Spill Risk Analysis 

PEA Programmatic Environmental 

Assessment 

PEIS Programmatic EIS 

PM10 particulate matter smaller 

than 10 microns 

ROV remotely operated vehicle 

SBF synthetic-based drilling fluids 

Secretary Secretary of the Interior 

SOx sulphur oxide 

SWAMP Sperm Whale Acoustic 

Monitoring Program 

SWSS Sperm Whale Seismic Survey 

TAOS Technical Assessment and 

Operation Support 

Tcf trillion cubic feet 

USCG United States Coast Guard 

USDOI United States Department of 

the Interior 

USEPA United States Environmental 

Protection Agency 

WPA Western Planning Area 
Environmental Assessment 1 

1. OBJECTIVES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

This environmental assessment (EA) addresses one proposed Federal action: oil and gas Lease Sale 

196 in the proposed lease sale area of the Western Planning Area (WPA) of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) as scheduled in the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

2002-2007 (5-Year Program) (USDOI, MMS, 2002a). This EA incorporates by reference all of the 

relevant material in the multisale environmental impact statement (EIS) from which it tiers (Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2003-2007; Central Planning Area Sales 185, 190, 194, 198, and 

201; Western Planning Area Sales 187, 192, 196, and 200; Final Environmental Impact Statement; 

Volumes I and II (USDOI, MMS, 2002b)). The EA has been prepared to aid in the determination of 

whether or not new available information indicates that the proposed lease sale would result in new 

significant impacts not addressed in the multisale EIS. 

In preparation for this EA, the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI) Minerals Management 

Service (MMS) reexamined the potential environmental effects of the proposed action and the alternatives 

based on any new information regarding potential impacts and issues not available at the time MMS 

prepared the multisale EIS in November 2002. New information was reviewed to determine if any 

resources should be reevaluated or if the new information would alter conclusions of the multisale EIS. It 

was determined that three resources (marine mammals, sea turtles, and snowy plover) should be 

reevaluated because of new information. The new information for these three resources is the mitigation 

measures for protected species and a revised oil-spill probability for the snowy plover. 

Federal regulations allow for an agency to analyze related or similar proposals in one EIS (40 CFR 

1502.4). Since WPA Lease Sales 187, 192, 196, and 2000 and their projected activities are very similar, 

if not almost identical, MMS addressed the four lease sales in a single EIS. The multisale approach 

focuses the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) EIS process on the differences between the 

proposed lease sales and new information and issues. Although the multisale EIS addressed four 

proposed WPA lease sale actions, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) makes a separate decision for 

each lease sale. 

The multisale EIS can be obtained from the Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, Attention: Public Information Office (MS 5034), 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, Room 114, 

New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394 (1-800-200-GULF) or viewed on the MMS website at http://

www.gomr.mms.gov. A list of libraries that have copies of the multisale EIS and their locations is also 

available on the MMS Internet website. 

2. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

Purpose of the Proposed Action 

The purpose of this proposed action (WPA Lease Sale 196) is to offer for lease all unleased blocks in 

the proposed lease sale area (Figure 1) that may contain economically recoverable oil and natural gas 

resources. The proposed lease sale would provide qualified bidders the opportunity to bid upon and lease 

acreage in the proposed lease sale area in order to explore, develop, and produce oil and natural gas. 

Need for the Proposed Action 

The GOM constitutes one of the world’s major oil- and gas-producing areas and has proved to be a 

steady and reliable source of crude oil and natural gas for more than 50 years. Oil from the GOM would 

help reduce the Nation’s need for oil imports and reduce the environmental risks associated with oil 

tankering. Natural gas is generally considered to be an environmentally preferable alternative to oil in 

terms of both production and consumption. 
Environmental Assessment 2 

3. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 

3.1. ALTERNATIVE A—PROPOSED ACTION

Alternative A—The Proposed Action: Under proposed WPA Lease Sale 196, MMS would offer for 

lease all unleased blocks within the WPA for oil and natural gas operations, with the following 

exceptions: High Island Area East Addition, South Extension, Blocks A-375 and A-398 and portions of 

other blocks within the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary are deferred from leasing. 

Sigsbee Escarpment Area Blocks 11, 57, 103, 148, 149, 194, 239, 284, and 331-341; portions of Sigsbee 

Escarpment Area Blocks 12-14, 58-60, 104-106, 150, 151, 195, 196, 240, 241, 285-298, and 342-349; and 

Keathley Canyon Blocks 978-980 are deferred from the proposed action under the “Treaty Between The 

Government of the United States of America And The Government Of The United Mexican States on the 

Delimitation Of The Continental Shelf In the Western Gulf of Mexico Beyond 200 Nautical Miles,” 

which took effect in January 2001. 

Mustang Island Area Blocks 793, 799, and 816 have been considered crucial to Naval Mine Warfare 

Command operations and were deferred from past lease sales. The MMS has been informed by the Navy 

that these blocks are still used for testing equipment and for training mine warfare personnel; however, 

the Navy does not object to these blocks being offered for lease under the condition of no surface 

occupancy. Therefore, MMS proposes to offer those three blocks for lease in WPA Lease Sale 196 and to 

add the following to the Operations in the Naval Mine Warfare Area Stipulation. This will apply to 

Mustang Island Area Blocks 793, 799, and 816. 

(a) For below seabed operations, the lessee agrees that no activity including, but not 

limited to, structures, drilling rigs, pipelines, and/or anchoring will be located on the 

seabed or in the water column above within any portion of the lease. All exploration, 

development, and production activities or operations must take place from outside the 

lease by the use of directional drilling or other techniques. 

(b) Prior to the submission of Exploration Plans (EP) and Development Operations 

Coordination Documents (DOCD) regarding any operations on or under the seabed 

of these blocks, the lessee will consult with the Commander, Mine Warfare 

Command, in order to determine the compatibility of the lessee’s plans with 

scheduled military operations. The EP and DOCD shall contain a statement 

certifying the consultation and indicating whether the Commander, Mine Warfare 

Command has any objection to activities and schedule of the EP or DOCD. 

The addition of these three blocks does not change the range of resource projections and associated 

activities; therefore, it does not change any conclusions from the multisale EIS. 

In the multisale EIS, a proposed action is presented as a set of ranges for resource estimates, projected 

exploration and development activities, and impact-producing factors. All of the proposed WPA lease 

sales analyzed in the multisale EIS are expected to be within the scenario ranges presented for a typical 

WPA lease sale; therefore, a proposed action is representative of each proposed lease sale. The WPA 

encompasses about 35.9 million ac in water depths ranging from 8 to 3,000 m (Figure 1). The estimated 

amount of resources projected to be developed as a result of proposed WPA Lease Sale 196 is 0.136-

0.262 billion barrels of oil (BBO) and 0.810-1.440 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas. 
Environmental Assessment 3 

Figure 1. GOM OCS Planning Areas and WPA Offshore Subareas. 

3.2. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION

Alternative B—The Proposed Action Excluding the Unleased Blocks Near Biologically Sensitive 

Topographic Features: This alternative would offer for lease all unleased blocks in the WPA, as

described for the proposed action, with the exception of any unleased blocks within the 200 blocks

subject to the Topographic Features Stipulation. 

Alternative C—No Action: This alternative is equivalent to the cancellation of proposed WPA Lease 

Sale 196. The opportunity for development of the estimated 0.136-0.262 BBO oil and 0.810-1.440 Tcf of

natural gas resources that could have resulted from the proposed action would be precluded or postponed. 

Any potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed action would not occur or would be 

postponed.

3.3. MITIGATION MEASURES

The proposed action and all subsequent activities resulting from it are subject to the existing 

regulations and proposed lease stipulations designed to reduce environmental risks. Lease stipulations are

legally binding restrictions and operating requirements that, if adopted, become part of lease contracts. 

Five stipulations are proposed to be applied to leases resulting from WPA Lease Sale 196. Four of the 

stipulations (Topographic Features; Military Areas; Operations in the Naval Mine Warfare Area; and Law 

of the Sea Convention Royalty Payment) are included in the multisale EIS. Chapter 2.4.1.3. of the 

multisale EIS discusses the effectiveness of these stipulations. 

Following the completion of the multisale EIS, the Protected Species Stipulation was developed in 

consultation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS). Its requirements, which are described in Chapter 3.3.1., were adopted for WPA 

Lease Sales 187 and 192 and are proposed for WPA Lease Sale 196. Each of the five lease stipulations

proposed for WPA Lease Sale 196 are presented in Appendix A. 

The MMS has also issued 44 Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTL) since the completion of the

multisale EIS in order to

• clarify, describe, or interpret regulation or OCS standards; 
Environmental Assessment 4 

• provide guidelines on the implementation of a special lease stipulation or regional 

requirement; 

• provide a better understanding of the scope and meaning of a regulation by 

explaining MMS interpretation of a requirement; or 

• transmit administrative information. 

A list of the new NTL’s can be found in Appendix B, while the actual NTL’s are on the MMS 

Internet website at www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/regs/ntls/ntl_lst.html. The requirements 

addressed in these NTL’s apply to all existing and future oil and natural gas operations on the GOM OCS. 

Ten of the new NTL’s (Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting; Marine 

Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination; Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures 

and Protected Species Observer Program; Biologically Sensitive Areas of the Gulf of Mexico; StructureRemoval Operations; Production Activities Information Collection and Reporting for Calculations of Air 

Emissions in the Western Gulf of Mexico; Damage Caused by Hurricane Ivan (Parts 1-3); and Deepwater 

Ocean Current Monitoring on Floating Facilities) are discussed in Chapter 3.3.2.

3.3.1. Protected Species Stipulation 

The Protected Species Stipulation is designed to minimize or avoid potential adverse impacts to 

federally protected species (e.g., sea turtles, marine mammals, and other listed species). To reduce the 

potential taking of federally protected species 

(1) The MMS conditions all permits issued to lessees and their operators to require them 

to collect and remove flotsam resulting from activities related to exploration, 

development, and production of this lease. 

(2) The MMS conditions all permits issued to lessees and their operators to require them 

to post signs in prominent places on all vessels and platforms used as a result of 

activities related to exploration, development, and production of this lease detailing 

the reasons (legal and ecological) why the release of debris must be eliminated. 

(3) The MMS requires that vessel operators and crews watch for marine mammals and 

sea turtles, reduce vessel speed to 10 kt or less when assemblages of cetaceans are 

observed, and maintain a distance of 90 m or greater from whales and a distance of 

45 m or greater from small cetaceans and sea turtles. 

(4) The MMS requires that all seismic surveys employ mandatory mitigation measures 

including the use of a 500-m “exclusion zone” based upon the appropriate water 

depth, ramp-up and shut-down procedures, visual monitoring, and reporting. Seismic 

operations must immediately cease when whales are detected within the 500-m 

exclusion zone. Ramp-up procedures and seismic surveys may be initiated only 

during daylight unless alternate monitoring methods approved by MMS are used. 

(5) The MMS requires lessees and operators to instruct offshore personnel to 

immediately report all sightings and locations of injured or dead protected species 

(marine mammals and sea turtles) to the appropriate stranding network. If oil and gas 

industry activity is responsible for the injured or dead animals (e.g., because of a 

vessel strike), the responsible parties should remain available to assist the stranding 

network. If the injury or death is caused by a vessel collision, the responsible party 

must notify MMS within 24 hours of the strike. 

(6) The MMS requires oil-spill contingency planning to identify important habitats, 

including designated critical habitat, used by listed species (e.g., sea turtle nesting 

beaches, and piping plover critical habitat) and will require the strategic placement of 

spill cleanup equipment to be used only by personnel trained in less intrusive cleanup 

techniques on beach and bay shores. 
Environmental Assessment 5 

The analyses of potential proposed action impacts to marine mammals, sea turtles, and snowy plover 

are presented in Chapter 4.2. of this EA. 

3.3.2. Notices to Lessees and Operators 

Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting (NTL 2003-G10) 

The Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting NTL (NTL 2003-G10) 

provides the following guidelines to minimize the risk of vessel strikes to protected species and report 

observations of injured or dead protected species. 

Protected Species Identification Training 

Vessel crews are to use a GOM reference guide to identify marine mammals and sea turtles. 

Vessel Strike Avoidance 

The following guidelines are included: 

(1) Vessel operators and crews should maintain a vigilant watch for marine mammals 

and sea turtles and slow down or stop their vessels to avoid striking protected species. 

(2) When a whale is sighted, a distance of 90 m or greater from the whale should be 

maintained. 

(3) When sea turtles or small cetaceans are sighted, there should be an attempt to 

maintain a distance of 45 m or greater whenever possible. 

(4) When cetaceans are sighted while a vessel is underway, there should be an attempt to 

remain parallel to the animals’ course. Excessive speed or abrupt changes in 

direction until the cetaceans have left the area should be avoided. 

(5) Vessel speed should be reduced to 10 kt or less when pods or large assemblages of 

cetaceans are observed near an underway vessel. Cetaceans at the surface may 

indicate the presence of submerged animals near the vessel. 

(6) Whales may surface in unpredictable locations or approach slowly moving vessels. 

When animals are sighted in the vessel’s path or in close proximity to a moving 

vessel, speed should be reduced and the engine shifted to neutral. Engines should not 

be engaged until the animals are clear of the area. 

Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting 

Vessel crews must report sightings of any injured or dead protected species (marine mammals and sea 

turtles) immediately to the Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Stranding Hotline or the Marine Mammal 

Stranding Network. If oil and gas industry activity is responsible for the injury or death of a protected 

species, MMS must be notified within 24 hours and the responsible parties should remain available to 

assist the respective salvage and stranding network as needed. 

Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination (NTL 2003-G11) 

The Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination NTL (NTL 2003-G11) provides guidance 

to reduce the accidental introduction of marine trash and debris into the GOM. This NTL requires the 

placement of marine debris elimination placards, with specified language, in prominent places on all fixed 

and floating production facilities that have sleeping or food preparation capabilities, and on all mobile 

drilling units engaged in oil and gas operations in the GOM OCS. This NTL also requires marine debris 

awareness training for all offshore employees and contractors actively engaged in offshore operations. 

This training includes viewing a training video or slide show and receiving an explanation from the 

company’s management that emphasizes their commitment to achieve the objectives of the trash and 
Environmental Assessment 6 

debris containment requirement. This NTL describes certification guidelines including the preparation of 

an annual report to MMS from a company official that describes the marine trash and debris awareness 

training process and certifies that the training process has been followed for the previous calendar year. 

Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species Observer 

Program (NTL 2004-G01) 

The MMS superseded NTL 2003-G08, Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and 

Protected Species Observer Program, with NTL 2004-G01. The new NTL, which expands application of 

the seismic survey mitigation measures to include additional marine mammal species, became effective 

March 1, 2004. 

The Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species Observer Program 

NTL (NTL 2004-G01) details information on ramp-up procedures, observation methods, and reporting 

requirements to be followed by the seismic industry during certain geological and geophysical (G&G) 

survey operations. The conditions prescribed under this NTL aid in reducing the chance of harassment to 

nearby marine mammals and sea turtles. The report data received from the companies will be used to 

increase the knowledge base on species habitat. 

For all seismic operations in water depths >200 m in the WPA and Central Planning Area (CPA), and 

all water-depths in the Eastern Planning Area (EPA), this NTL requires the use of soft start or ramp-up 

and visual observers as required in the previous NTL’s. This NTL includes requirements for 

(1) seismic vessels to have at least two visual observers on watch during all daylight 

hours when geophysical operations are being conducted; 

(2) visual observers to have completed a training course; 

(3) no additional duties to be assigned to visual observers during their watch; 

(4) limiting watch and duty hours for observers; 

(5) elements that must be included in the training course; 

(6) methods to be employed for visual observations; 

(7) “all clear” prior to ramp-up; 

(8) shutdown of seismic airguns when whales are within 500 m of the center of the 

airgun array; 

(9) restart of survey after shutdown; and 

(10) reporting required information, including types of reports and submission of reports 

to MMS. 

This NTL also contains special provisions for borehole, or vertical seismic profiling, operations and a 

special mitigation exception for seismic vessels that employ experimental passive acoustic monitoring. 

Biologically Sensitive Areas of the Gulf of Mexico (NTL 2004-G05) 

The Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation and Topographic Features Stipulation are now 

embodied in the more comprehensive NTL 2004-G05, Biologically Sensitive Areas of the Gulf of 

Mexico. In addition to existing stipulated areas for biological features, a new category of protected area 

has been established under NTL 2004-G05 termed “Potentially Sensitive Biological Features.” These are 

hard-bottom features not protected by a biological lease stipulation that are of moderate to high relief 

(about 8 ft or higher), provide surface area for the growth of sessile invertebrates, and can attract large 

numbers of fish. These features would be located outside any “No Activity Zone” of any of the named 

topographic features (banks) or the 70 live-bottom (pinnacle trend) stipulated blocks. 
Environmental Assessment 7 

Structure-Removal Operations (NTL 2004-G06) 

The Structure-Removal Operations NTL (NTL 2004-G06) provides lessees with updated information 

on Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultations and the monitoring and reporting requirements to be 

followed by the operators and severance subcontractors during decommissioning operations. This NTL 

also addresses MMS’s position on decommissionings using explosive-severance tools in light of the 

recent expiration of Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) take-regulations (50 CFR 216.141-147). 

As detailed in the NTL, MMS currently permits decommissioning operations conditional on two 

Biological Opinions (BO) from NOAA Fisheries subsequent to consultations conducted under Section 7 

of the ESA. Issued in July 1988, the “generic” consultation BO and its Incidental Take Statement (ITS) 

identifies the terms and conditions of operation for explosive-severing activities using charges that range 

from >5 to 50 lb (http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/generic-consultation.pdf). 

In October 2003, NOAA Fisheries issued a second BO, the “de minimus” BO, that lists 

minimization measures that apply to explosive-severing charges ≤0-5 lb (http://www.gomr.mms.gov/

homepg/regulate/environ/de-minimus-consultation.pdf). Both BO’s define specific operational criteria 

that explosive-severing activities must follow. These criteria include 

(1) the use of high-velocity explosives (i.e., detonation rates >7,600 m per second); 

(2) a maximum of eight individual blasts per group of detonations; 

(3) blast staggering at an interval of 0.9 seconds (900 milliseconds); 

(4) charge placement no less than 15 ft below the mudline (BML); and 

(5) maximum charge sizes of either 5 lb (for the “de minimus” consultation) or 50 lb (for 

the “generic” consultation). 

This NTL contains special provisions to lessees applying for permits on decommissioning operations 

suggesting activities that do not fall within the above-listed criteria. Discussion is also made on the 

specific penalties prescribed under the ESA and MMPA when an unauthorized take (i.e., harassment, 

harm, injury, or mortality) of a marine mammal or sea turtle occurs. Ultimately, the conditions described 

under and referenced within this NTL aid in reducing the chance of harassment or injury to marine 

mammals and sea turtles in the vicinity of removal activities. 

Production Activities Information Collection and Reporting for Calculations of Air 

Emissions in the Western Gulf of Mexico (NTL 2004-G17) 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has promulgated more stringent 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and particulate matter (PM2.5). The USEPA has also 

proposed new regional haze regulations to improve visibility. All these regulations require state agencies 

to perform ozone and regional haze modeling for use in their State Implementation Plans. Emission 

inventories must be generated in order to conduct this air quality modeling. Under NTL 2004-G17, MMS 

will be able to provide States with operator activity data for their emission inventories. The MMS has 

directed lessees and operators of each affected OCS lease in the GOM to collect and report facility, 

equipment, fuel usage, and other activity information during the period January 1, 2005, to December 31, 

2005. Affected leases include all leases in the WPA and CPA, and those in the EPA west of 87.5 degrees 

longitude. 

Damage Caused by Hurricane Ivan (NTL 2004-G18); Damage Caused by Hurricane Ivan 

(Part 2) (NTL 2004-G19); and Damage Caused by Hurricane Ivan (Part 3) (NTL 

2004-G20) 

The MMS works to reduce potential hurricane associated risks to workers, structures, and the 

environment. When a hurricane threatens offshore activities, NTL 2004-G14 (Hurricane and Tropical 

Storm Evacuation and Production Curtailment Statistics), and its earlier versions, require operators to 

notify MMS of employee evacuations, production curtailment, and resumption. This information is 
Environmental Assessment 8 

shared with the United States Coast Guard (USCG) who would respond to any rescue calls or oil spills. 

In advance of Hurricane Ivan (September 16, 2004), operators reported to MMS that 575 platforms (75% 

of manned platforms in the GOM) and 69 operating rigs (59% of operating rigs in the GOM) had been 

evacuated prior to the arrival of the hurricane. The storm track of Hurricane Ivan passed through many 

MMS leases before making landfall at Gulf Shores, Alabama. Three NTL’s were issued to ensure that 

structures and pipelines remained safe and retained integrity, and pollution was minimized following the 

hurricane. 

The NTL 2004-G18 specified three levels of inspection for platforms and structures. Operators must 

perform a Level I survey (above-water visual inspection) on those platforms that were exposed to 

hurricane force winds (74 mph or greater). A Level II survey (general underwater visual inspection by 

divers or a remotely operated vehicle (ROV)) must be performed if the platform is located within 35 mi of 

the hurricane’s eye center storm track or when the Level I survey indicates that underwater damage may 

have occurred. When a Level II survey detects significant structural damage, a Level III survey 

(underwater visual inspection of areas of known or suspected damage) must be performed. For those 

platforms where the inspection indicated damage, restrictions on activities were listed. This same NTL 

also specified inspections of above-water risers and underwater tie-ins, risers, catenary risers, and a plan 

of corrective action for OCS pipelines. The NTL included maps to illustrate the required level of 

inspection by location relative to the hurricane track. 

Because of the extensive pipeline damage discovered, MMS prepared a second NTL (2004-G20) to 

further detail the necessary pipeline inspections according to water depth. The third NTL (2004-G19) 

described how inspections and findings should be reported to MMS. 

Deepwater Ocean Current Monitoring on Floating Facilities (NTL 2005-G02) 

Recently a limited number of high-speed, ocean water current events, at times approaching 2 kt, were 

observed at depths exceeding 1,500 m in the northern GOM (Hamilton et al., 2003; USDOI, MMS 2002 

and 2003). Similar high-speed current events have been identified in ongoing MMS current measurement 

studies in the north-central GOM. In addition, high-speed current events do not appear to be an isolated 

or exceptionally unusual occurrence in the northern GOM. Mega-furrows on the seafloor have been 

discovered in the northern GOM, apparently because of the erosional effects of high-speed currents. 

Further, several deepwater oil and gas operators also have observed very high-speed midwater jets 

exceeding 150 cm per second over the upper continental slope. Causes of these jet events remain 

uncertain until further data is collected (Dimarco et al., 2004). 

Ocean current speeds used by industry in the design, operation, and function of mobile offshore 

drilling units (MODU’s), floating production platforms, and their ancillary equipment (i.e., drilling and 

production risers, tendons, and mooring systems) may be underestimated. At some locations in the GOM, 

10-year Loop Current events have been exceeded and, in certain instances, deeper ocean currents were 

not empirically measured or underestimated current speeds were considered in designs. Recent incidents 

have demonstrated to the MMS GOM Region a need for more site-specific data for use in hindcasting and 

forecasting ocean currents that may affect structural design, fatigue criteria, or daily operations. 

The MMS has issued a new NTL, Deepwater Ocean Current Monitoring on Floating Facilities, 

relevant to these concerns; it becomes effective March 31, 2005. The new NTL establishes and 

implements the following program to monitor ocean currents and share the data for all floating MODU’s 

and production facilities operating or installed in waters depths >400 m (1,312 ft). While the core of this 

program follows, the NTL should be consulted for further details on data collection, processing, 

recording, and reporting. 

Floating MODU’s 

(1) Floating MODU’s will continuously monitor and gather ocean current data on a realtime basis from near the ocean surface (~30 m (100 ft)) to ~1,000 m (3,280 ft) using 

an Acoustic Doppler Current Profile (ADCP) current monitoring system or 

comparable equipment, mounted as near to the ocean surface as practicable. 
Environmental Assessment 9 

(2) In water depths >1,100 m (3,608 ft), an additional current meter, preferably an 

upward looking ADCP, must be installed near the ocean bottom (~100 m (328 ft) 

from the seafloor). 

(3) During drilling operations, if currents are measured with speeds >0.75 kt at the 

maximum range of the ADCP (or comparable equipment) for more than 24 hours, all 

current data below the maximum range of the ADCP will be monitored and gathered 

while normal ROV operations or inspections are conducted. 

 Data collected by floating MODU’s under this program must be recorded and 

reported to an industry-accessible Internet website. Details of requirements for data 

collection, recording, processing, and reporting are available in the NTL. 

Planned Floating Production Facilities 

Prior to installing a floating production facility after March 31, 2005, a full water-column mooring 

must be deployed to collect at least one year of site-specific current data at the planned floating 

production facility location. These current data must extend from near the ocean surface (~30 m (100 ft)) 

to near the ocean bottom (~100 m (328 ft) from the seafloor). The moorings should include point current 

meters spaced no more than 500 m (1,640 ft) apart, an ADCP array, or some combination of point current 

meters and ADCP’s. The NTL describes details of requirements for data collection, processing, 

recording, and reporting to an industry-accessible Internet website. Data collected during the drilling 

phase may be used as part of the one year of site-specific current data. A full year of data is not required 

prior to initiating design; see the NTL for further information. The MMS GOMR does not generally 

intend that current monitoring impede the installation of new facilities. 

Existing Floating Production Facilities 

(1) An ADCP current monitoring system or comparable equipment must be used to 

continuously monitor and gather ocean current data on a real-time basis from near the 

surface (~30 m (100 ft)) to ~1,000 m (3,280 ft) for existing floating production 

facilities. The ADCP (or comparable equipment) must be mounted as near to the 

ocean surface as possible. Details of requirements for data collection, processing, 

recording, and reporting to an industry-accessible Internet website are discussed in 

the NTL. 

(2) For floating production facilities located in water depths >1,100 m (3,608 ft) install 

an additional current meter, preferably an upward looking ADCP, to continuously 

monitor and record speed and direction of the near-bottom current (~100 m (328 ft) 

from the seafloor). Once every 6 months and whenever a near-bottom current event 

>1 kt is presumed to have occurred, the data must be retrieved and examined. 

Whenever average currents >1 kt are measured for more than 24 hours by any 

component, the MMS GOM Region Technical Assessment and Operation Support 

(TAOS) Section must be immediately notified and a full water-column mooring must 

be installed that contains point current meters spaced no more than 500 m (1,640 ft) 

apart, an ADCP array, or some combination of point current meters and ADCP’s. 

Details of requirements for data collection, processing, recording, and reporting to an 

industry-accessible Internet website are discussed in the NTL. 

(3) Operators of existing floating production facilities must provide to the MMS GOM 

Region TAOS Section by February 15, 2005, the monitoring equipment type, the date 

of installation, and the depth range of the monitoring equipment. 

Suggested methods for data time averaging and the reporting of any additional current data that is not 

required are specified in the NTL. The NTL also lists exclusions from the above requirements, 

operational and general concerns, discussion of the Application for Permit to Drill (APD), and other 

details related to data collection, processing, recording, and reporting. 
Environmental Assessment 10 

4. IMPACT ANALYSIS 

4.1. UPDATE OF PROJECTIONS OF POTENTIAL ACTIVITY FROM THE PROPOSED 

ACTION

4.1.1. Resource Estimates and Timetables 

The multisale EIS discusses projections for activities associated with a typical proposed WPA lease 

sale. The estimated amounts of resources projected to be leased, discovered, developed, and produced as 

a result of proposed WPA Lease Sale 196 are 0.136-0.262 BBO and 0.810-1.440 Tcf of natural gas. The 

oil and gas resource projections and associated activities used in the multisale EIS are based on the 2000 

Assessment of Conventionally Recoverable Hydrocarbon Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic 

Outer Continental Shelf as of January 1, 1999 (Lore et al., 2001). The MMS is currently in the process of 

updating the 2000 National Resource Assessment and has recently revised the deep gas resource estimate 

on the shelf. This revision is based on knowledge gained from recent deep drilling activity in this area, 

prompting the addition of a new “Deep Shelf Mesozoic” play to the assessment. Although MMS 

anticipates a significant increase in total undiscovered conventionally recoverable deep gas resources on 

the shelf as reported, a significant portion of these newly assessed deep gas resources are either currently 

under lease or are uneconomic at this time. The MMS GOM Region’s Office of Resource Evaluation 

reviewed the oil and natural gas resource projections and associated activities for WPA Lease Sale 196 

and confirmed that they are still valid; they are therefore incorporated by reference. 

4.1.2. Hurricane Lili

As discussed in Chapter 1.5. of the multisale EIS, criteria, models, and procedures for shutdown 

operations and the orderly evacuation of personnel prior to a pending hurricane have been in place on the 

GOM OCS for more than 30 years. Operating experience from extensive drilling activities and the 

presence of more than 4,000 platforms during the 30-plus years of the GOM OCS Program has proven the 

effectiveness and safety of securing wells and evacuating a facility in advance of severe weather 

conditions. This was evident in early October 2002 when Hurricane Lili, a Category 4 hurricane, passed 

near 800 OCS structures in the GOM. Of 800 structures, 6 were seriously damaged. All six were more 

than 20 years old. Of the 99 drilling rigs in the GOM at that time, 4 sustained substantial damage. About 

25,000 offshore workers were safely evacuated (USDOI, MMS, 2002c). 

Nine pollution events occurred as a result of Hurricane Lili. The only significant incident was a 350-

barrel (bbl) oil spill at Ship Shoal Block 119. The other eight pollution events ranged from 0.14 gal to 3 

bbl. In August 2003, MMS published a report that recorded the transport and fate of oil spilled at Ship 

Shoal Block 119 during Hurricane Lili (USDOI, MMS, 2003a). The report states that the lessee mounted 

an appropriate response and the response was complicated by hurricane-related onshore conditions. 

Approximately 145 bbl of oil were recovered and 205 bbl of oil dissipated. No shoreline or wildlife 

impacts were reported. No birds were fouled. The unrecovered oil was removed from the surface of the 

water by natural weathering processes including evaporation, dissolution in the water, adsorption to 

particulate material, and biodegradation. The lessee, Murphy Exploration and Production Company, the 

U.S. Coast Guard, the Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office, oil-spill-response organizations, and 

MMS have discussed the response (Bedell, 2004). 

4.1.3. Geological and Geophysical Activities 

Geological and geophysical activities are performed to obtain information on surface and near-surface 

geology and on subsurface geologic formations. The MMS has completed a programmatic EA (PEA) on 

G&G activities in the GOM (USDOI, MMS, 2004a). The activities analyzed in the PEA include seismic 

surveys, deep-tow side-scan surveys, electromagnetic surveys, geological and geochemical sampling, and 

remote-sensing surveys. The impact-producing factors considered in the PEA include seismic survey 

noise, vessel and aircraft noise, seafloor disturbance, and space-use conflicts with seismic arrays. The 

notice of availability of the PEA was published in the Federal Register on July 30, 2004. The results of 

the analyses in the PEA are that G&G activities are not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to 

any of the potentially affected resources. The EA resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact. 
Environmental Assessment 11 

4.1.4. Structure Removal Operations 

The MMS is preparing a GOM PEA to assess the potential impacts of decommissioning activities, 

specifically the severing and removal of seafloor obstructions and facilities (i.e., wellheads, caissons, 

casing strings, platforms, mooring devices, etc.) and subsequent salvage operations. Preparation of the 

PEA is an important step in the decision process for future permitting for the removal of offshore 

structures and for further consultation and coordination with other Federal agencies. Information from 

the PEA will be used in rulemaking by NOAA Fisheries for incidental take regulations under Subpart I of 

the MMPA and to initiate a new consultation for explosive-severance activities under Section 7 of the 

ESA. Topics of primary concern being addressed in the PEA include pre-severance operations, severance 

technologies, industry needs related to water depth and location, and the potential impacts of 

decommissioning operations on the marine environment. On April 16, 2003, MMS published a Notice of 

Preparation in the Federal Register requesting information or issues that should be addressed in the PEA. 

Several comments were received with most centering on the need for increased “rigs-to-reef” options and 

concerns over NEPA procedure. The MMS has scheduled completion for the first quarter of 2005. 

4.2. UPDATE OF INFORMATION ON THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Chapter 3 and Appendix 9 of the multisale EIS provide a complete description as of 2002 of the 

affected environment for the proposed lease sale and are incorporated by reference (USDOI, MMS, 

2002b). For a number of resources (geology, meteorology, air quality, water quality, coastal barrier 

beaches and associated dunes, wetlands, deepwater benthic communities, topographic features, sea turtles, 

coastal and marine birds, fish resources, public services, infrastructure, land-use plans, sociocultural 

issues and environmental justice, commercial fisheries, recreational resources and beach use, 

archaeological resources, and coastal zone management plans), MMS has identified no new information 

since completion of the multisale EIS. 

The following summarizes the affected environment for resources MMS has determined should be 

reevaluated because of new information that was unavailable during the preparation of the multisale EIS. 

This includes information on protective measures for protected species, estimated population numbers of 

cetaceans in the GOM and a revised oil-spill probability for the snowy plover. 

4.2.1. Marine Mammals 

Chapter 3.2.4. of the multisale EIS discusses nonendangered/nonthreathened and endangered/ 

threatened species of marine mammals known to occur in the GOM. Five mysticete (or baleen) whales 

(the northern right, blue, fin, sei, and humpback), one odontocete (or toothed) whale (the sperm whale), 

and one sirenian (the West Indian manatee) are listed as endangered. Sperm whales are common in the 

oceanic waters of the northern GOM. Sightings in all seasons and recent tag results indicate that there 

may be a resident population in the GOM in addition to migratory visitors. Baleen whales are not 

common. All five of the endangered baleen whales that occur in the GOM are considered rare or 

extralimital (Würsig et al., 2000). The most frequently observed baleen whale in the GOM is the 

nonendangered Bryde’s whale; it is considered uncommon in GOM waters. The West Indian manatee 

(Trichechus manatus) inhabits only coastal marine, brackish, and freshwater areas. 

For over a decade, MMS has funded and participated in research on marine mammals in the GOM. 

This research has included the GulfCet I and GulfCet II studies conducted in 1992-1999, the Sperm 

Whale Acoustic Monitoring Program (SWAMP) in 2000-2001, and the ongoing Sperm Whale Seismic 

Survey (SWSS) study initiated in 2002. Through these studies, the diverse cetacean community of the 

GOM has been documented, including the year-round sperm whale population. Many of these cruises 

included tissue sampling of numerous GOM cetacean species for genetic analysis. 

Updated information from NOAA Fisheries concerning estimated population numbers for cetaceans 

in the northern GOM is presented in Table 1 (USDOC, NOAA Fisheries, 2004). Although these data are 

more specific than the relative occurrence estimates provided in the multisale EIS, the new estimates are 

in agreement with the relative occurrence estimates presented in the multisale EIS and therefore no new 

analysis is required as a result of the new estimates. Chapter 4.3.2.1. of this EA reevaluates the proposed 

action’s potential impact on marine mammals with the Protected Species Stipulation and NTL’s described 

in Chapter 3.3. 
Environmental Assessment 12 

Table 1 

Estimated Abundance of Cetaceans in the Northern GOM Oceanic Waters 

Species Common Name 

Estimated Number 

of Individuals 

Balaenoptera edeni Bryde’s whale 25 

Physeter macrocephalus Sperm whale 1,035 

Kogia spp. Dwarf or pygmy sperm whale 584 

Ziphius cavirostris Cuvier’s beaked whale 65 

Unidentified ziphiid Unidentified beaked whales 70 

Feresa attenuata Pygmy killer whale 256 

Pseudorca crassidens False killer whale 606 

Orcinus orca Killer whale 90 

Globicephala sp. Pilot whale 1,628 

Peponocephala electra Melonheaded whale 2,238 

Grampus griseus Risso’s dolphin 1,668 

Tursiops truncatus Bottlenose dolphin 24,944 

Steno bredanensis Rough-toothed dolphin 1,595 

Lagenodelphis hosei Fraser’s dolphin 726 

Stenella frontalis Atlantic spotted dolphin 24,752 

Stenella longirostris Spinner dolphin 6,990 

Stenella attenuate Pantropical spotted dolphin 79,879 

Stenella clymene Clymene dolphin 10,528 

Stenella coeruleoalba Striped dolphin 4,599 

Source: USDOC, NOAA Fisheries, 2004. 

4.2.2. Sea Turtles 

Five species of sea turtles are known to inhabit the waters of the GOM: the green, the loggerhead, the 

hawksbill, the Kemp’s ridley, and the leatherback (Pritchard, 1997). All sea turtle species inhabiting the 

GOM are listed as either endangered or threatened under the ESA of 1973 (Pritchard, 1997). Chapter 

3.2.5. of the multisale EIS presents information on the distribution, habitat, feeding, and nesting of sea 

turtles. Chapter 4.4.2.2. of this EA reevaluates the proposed action’s potential impact on sea turtles with 

the Protected Species Stipulation and NTL’s described in Chapter 3.3. 

4.2.3. Snowy Plover 

Coastal and marine birds are discussed in Chapter 3.2.7. of the multisale EIS. The snowy plover 

inhabits the areas identified in Figure 2. When commenting on the Draft EIS for EPA Lease Sales 189 

and 197, published after the multisale EIS, FWS stated that snowy plover are present year round (USDOI, 

MMS, 2003b) as opposed to the period (February to August) that was used for the multisale EIS and the 

EPA Draft EIS. Chapter 4.4.2.4. of this EA reevaluates the proposed action’s potential impact on snowy 

plover given this new information. 
Environmental Assessment 13 

Figure 2. Snowy Plover Habitat.

4.3. IMPACTS FROM ALTERNATIVE A—THE PROPOSED ACTION

4.3.1. Summary of Analysis Incorporated by Reference from the Multisale EIS 

The multisale EIS analyzed the effects of a typical WPA lease sale by presenting a set of ranges for 

resource estimates, projected exploration and development activities, and impact-producing factors for 

any of the proposed WPA lease sales held over the 5-year period. This EA tiers off the multisale EIS and

incorporates that document by reference. All unleased blocks in the WPA will be available for lease 

under the proposed action (as described in Chapter 3.1.). The MMS expects only a small percentage of

blocks would be leased, and an even smaller percentage would actually produce oil and gas. The 

following is a summary of impacts to resources taken from the multisale EIS. 

4.3.1.1. Impacts on Coastal Resources 

No significant impacts to the physical shape and structure of barrier beaches and associated dunes are 

expected to occur as a result of the proposed action. Should a spill contact a barrier beach, sand removal

during cleanup activities is expected to be minimal. 

Adverse initial impacts and more importantly secondary impacts of pipeline and navigation canals are 

considered the most significant proposed-action-related impacts to wetlands. Although initial impacts are 

considered locally significant and are largely limited to where OCS-related canals and channels pass

through wetlands, secondary impacts may have substantial, progressive, and cumulative adverse impacts 

to the hydrologic basin or subbasin in which they are found. Offshore oil spills resulting from the 

proposed action are not expected to significantly damage inland wetlands. The greatest threat to wetland

habitat is from an inland spill from a vessel accident or pipeline rupture. While a resulting slick may

cause minor impacts to wetland habitat, equipment and personnel used to clean up a slick over the 

impacted area may generate the greatest direct impacts to the area. 

Normal OCS activities are expected to have little adverse impact on seagrass communities. Impacts 

from pipeline installation activities are expected to be very small and short-term. Inshore spills from

vessel collisions or pipeline ruptures pose the greatest potential threat to seagrass communities. 

Adverse impacts on endangered/threatened and nonendangered/nonthreatened coastal and marine 

birds are expected to be sublethal. These effects include behavior changes, eating OCS-related 

contaminants or discarded debris, and displacement of localized groups from optimal habitats. Chronic 

sublethal stress, however, is often undetectable in birds. As a result of stress, individuals may weaken

and be prone to infection or disease, have reduced reproductive success, or have disturbed migration

patterns. Oil spills pose the greatest potential direct and indirect impacts to coastal and marine birds. If 

physical oiling of individuals or local groups of birds occurs, some degree of both acute and chronic 

physiological stress associated with direct and secondary uptake of oil would be expected. Low levels of 
Environmental Assessment 14 

oil could stress birds by interfering with food detection, feeding impulses, predator avoidance, territory 

definition, homing of migratory species, susceptibility to physiological disorders, disease resistance, 

growth rates, reproduction, and respiration. Reproductive success can be affected by the toxins in oil. 

Indirect effects occur by fouling of nesting habitat, and displacement of individuals, breeding pairs, or 

populations to less favorable habitats. Dispersants used in spill cleanup activity can have toxic effects 

similar to oil on the reproductive success of coastal and marine birds. The air, vehicle, and foot traffic 

that takes place during shoreline cleanup activity can disturb nesting populations and degrade or destroy 

habitat. 

Impacts to coastal water quality from the proposed action are expected to be minimal. The primary 

impacting sources to water quality in coastal waters are point-source and nonpoint-source discharges from 

OCS support facilities and support-vessel discharges. 

Emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere from the activities associated with the proposed action 

are not projected to have significant impacts on onshore air quality. Emissions from OCS activity are not 

expected to have concentrations that would change onshore air-quality classifications. The Offshore and 

Coastal Dispersion (OCS) modeling results show that increases in onshore annual average concentrations 

of NOx, SOx, and PM10 are estimated to be less than the maximum increases allowed in the PSD Class I or 

II areas. 

The impact from the proposed action on Gulf Coast recreational beaches is expected to be minimal. 

The proposed action may result in an incremental increase in noise from helicopter and vessel traffic, 

nearshore operations that may adversely affect the enjoyment of some Gulf Coast beach uses, and some 

increases in beached debris; these impacts are expected to have little effect on the number of beach users. 

Impacts from oil spills are expected to be short-term and localized; a large volume of oil contacting a 

recreational beach could close the area to recreational use for up to 30 days. 

Routine activities associated with the proposed action are not expected to impact coastal historic 

archaeological resources. It is very unlikely that an oil spill would occur and contact coastal historic 

archaeological sites from accidental events associated with the proposed action. The major effect from an 

oil spill impact would be visual contamination of a historic coastal site, such as a historic fort or 

lighthouse. As historic archaeological sites are protected under law, it is expected that any spill cleanup 

operations would be conducted in such a way as to cause little or no impacts to historic archaeological 

resources. These impacts would be temporary and reversible. 

The proposed action is not expected to result in impacts to coastal prehistoric archaeological sites; 

however, should such an impact occur, unique or significant archaeological information could be lost. It 

is very unlikely that an oil spill would occur and contact coastal, barrier island prehistoric sites as a result 

of the proposed action. Should a spill contact a prehistoric archaeological site, unique or significant 

archaeological information could be irreversibly damaged or lost; damage might include loss of 

radiocarbon-dating potential, direct impact from oil-spill cleanup equipment, and/or looting. Previously 

unrecorded sites could be impacted by oil-spill cleanup operations on beaches. 

Some economic indicators in the GOM Region have changed since the multisale EIS. Both oil and 

natural gas prices have increased substantially, with natural gas prices more than doubling and oil prices 

nearly doubling. As of January 4, 2005, Henry Hub Natural Gas closed at $5.725 per million British 

thermal unit (Btu) and West Texas Intermediate at $43.91 per barrel (Oilnergy, 2005). While activity in 

the ultra-deep waters of the GOM (>5,000 ft) has remained fairly strong, the number of rigs operating in 

the region and the number of wells drilled have continued a downward trend. Offshore service vessel 

utilization and day rates have also declined, with supply boats experiencing the most dramatic change. 

Supply boat average day rates in November 2004 ranged from $5,025 for boats <200 ft and $8,087 for 

boats ≥ 200 ft, with utilization rates of 86 and 93 percent, respectively (Greenberg, 2005). In contrast, the 

July 2001 rates ranged from $7,718 for boats <200 ft and $10,950 for boats ≥ 200 ft, with utilization rates 

of 89 and 100 percent, respectively. 

Activities resulting from the proposed action are expected to minimally affect the analysis area’s land 

use, infrastructure, or demographic characteristics of the Gulf coastal communities. The proposed action 

is expected to generate less than a 1 percent increase in employment in the Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

and Alabama subareas. Nowhere would these impacts be significant because demand will be met 

primarily with the existing population and available labor force. Accidental events such as oil or 

chemical spills, blowouts, and vessel collisions would have no effects on land use or demographics. 

Coastal or nearshore spills could have short-term adverse effects on coastal infrastructure requiring 
Environmental Assessment 15 

cleanup of any oil or chemicals spilled. The opportunity costs associated with oil-spill cleanup activities 

are expected to be temporary and of short duration. 

Environmental Justice policy, based on Executive Order 12898, requires Federal agencies to 

determine whether their proposed actions will result in disproportionately high and adverse environmental 

effects on minority and low income populations. Because of the presence of an existing extensive and 

widespread support system for the OCS-related industry and associated labor force, the effects of the 

proposed action are expected to be widely distributed and little felt. In general, who will be hired and 

where new infrastructure might be located is impossible to predict. Impacts related to a proposed action 

are expected to be economic and have a limited but positive effect on low-income and minority 

populations. Given the existing distribution of the industry and the limited concentrations of minority and 

low-income peoples, the proposed action is not expected to have a disproportionate effect on these 

populations. A proposed action is not expected to have disproportionate high/adverse environmental or 

health effects on minority or low-income people. 

New MMS research indicates that minority populations throughout Lafourche Parish, Louisiana could 

sustain disproportionate effects should a major accident involving onshore activities occur (MMS 2003-

038). Five different classes of relevant OCS activities exist in the region including: transportation 

corridors, oil and natural gas pipelines, petroleum bulk storage facilities, shipyards, and a natural gas 

processing plant. The majority of OCS-related infrastructure is located in south Lafourche Parish where 

the Houma Indian population is clustered. Proposed WPA Lease Sale 196 would not significantly alter 

this preexisting situation where onshore cumulative effects already exist. Therefore, the preexisting 

situation would not be significantly altered. 

4.3.1.2. Impacts on Offshore Environments 

Adverse impacts to topographic features from routine activities resulting from the proposed action are 

not expected because the Topographic Features Stipulations establishes requirements for setbacks from 

these features. Adverse impacts from accidental seafloor oil releases or blowouts are expected to be rare 

because drilling and pipeline operations are not permitted in the vicinity of topographic features and 

because topographic features are small in size and dispersed within the areas that they occur; no 

community-wide impacts are expected. If contact were to occur between diluted oil and adult sessile 

biota, including coral colonies in the case of the Flower Garden Banks, the effects would be primarily 

sublethal and there would be limited incidents of mortality. 

No adverse impacts to the ecological function or biological productivity of the widespread, lowdensity chemosynthetic communities or to the widespread, typical, deep-sea benthic communities are 

expected to occur as a result of routine activities or accidental events resulting from the proposed action. 

The potential for adverse impacts to the rarer, widely scattered, high-density, Bush Hill-type 

chemosynthetic communities are expected to be greatly reduced by the requirement for OCS activities to 

avoid potential chemosynthetic communities by a minimum of 1,500 ft (NTL 2000-G20). High-density 

chemosynthetic communities could experience minor impacts from drilling discharges or resuspended 

sediments located at more than 1,500 ft away. 

Impacts to marine water quality occur from discharges of drilling fluids and cuttings during 

exploration and produced water during production. Impacts to marine water quality are expected to be 

minimal as long as all regulatory requirements are met. Spills <1,000 bbl are not expected to significantly 

impact marine water quality. Larger spills, however, could impact marine water quality. Chemical spills, 

the accidental release of synthetic-based drilling fluids (SBF), and blowouts are expected to have 

temporary localized impacts on marine water quality. The USEPA National Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) general permit for Region 6, which covers the WPA and most of the CPA, 

expired November 3, 2003. The reissued permit became effective on November 6, 2004 (Federal 

Register, 2004). The USEPA NPDES permit for Region 4, which covers the rest of the CPA and all of 

the EPA, became final January 1, 2005. Sampling and analysis will be conducted during the 3-year 

permit term to learn more about concentrations of conventional pollutants in produced water and their 

potential impacts of increased produced-water discharge to the hypoxic zone, located off Louisiana, if 

volumes should increase. 

Based on air quality impact analysis of the proposed action, emissions from offshore facilities are not 

expected to significantly impact offshore air quality. Accidents involving high concentrations of H2S 

could result in deaths as well as environmental damage. Other emissions of pollutants into the 
Environmental Assessment 16 

atmosphere from accidental events as a result of the proposed action are not projected to have significant 

impacts. 

The routine activities related to the proposed action are not expected to have long-term adverse 

effects on the size and productivity of any marine mammal species or population stock endemic to the 

northern GOM. Routine OCS activities are expected to have impacts that are sublethal. A small number 

of marine mammals could be harmed or killed by chance collisions with service vessels or by eating 

indigestible trash and debris from proposed-action-related activities. Lethal “takes” as a result of 

explosive removal of OCS platform or production facilities are not expected because of established 

mitigation measures. While no adverse impacts of seismic operations have been documented in the 

GOM, MMS and NOAA Fisheries have established mitigation measures as a precaution to reduce the 

potential for injury to protected species. Populations of marine mammals in the northern Gulf are 

expected to be exposed to residuals of oils spilled as a result of the proposed action during their lifetimes. 

Chronic or acute exposure may result in the harassment, harm, or mortality to marine mammals occurring 

in the northern Gulf. In most foreseeable cases, exposure to hydrocarbons persisting in the sea following 

the dispersal of an oil slick will result in sublethal impacts to marine mammals. 

The routine activities resulting from the proposed action are unlikely to have significant adverse 

effects on the size and recovery of any sea turtle species or population in the GOM. Routine activities are 

expected to have sublethal impacts. Adverse impacts are localized degradation of water quality from 

operational discharges near platforms; noise from helicopters, service vessels, platform, and drillship 

operations; and hatchling disorientation caused by brightly-lit platforms. Sea turtles could be harmed or 

killed from chance collisions with service vessels and from eating floating debris from proposed-actionrelated activities. Lethal “takes” because of explosive removals of OCS facilities are expected to be rare 

because of established mitigation measures (e.g., NOAA Fisheries Observer Program). Accidental 

blowouts, oil spills, and spill-response activities resulting from the proposed action have the potential to 

impact small to large numbers of sea turtles in the GOM. Populations of sea turtles in the northern Gulf 

will be exposed to residuals of oils spilled as a result of the proposed action during their lifetimes. 

Chronic or acute exposure may result in the harassment, harm, or mortality to sea turtles occurring in the 

northern Gulf. In most foreseeable cases, exposure to hydrocarbons persisting in the sea following the 

dispersal of an oil slick will result in sublethal impacts to sea turtles. Death would likely occur to sea 

turtle hatchlings exposed to, becoming fouled by, or consuming tarballs. 

A less than 1-percent decrease in fish resources and/or standing stocks or in essential fish habitat 

(EFH) would be expected as a result of the proposed action. Coastal and marine environmental 

degradation resulting from the proposed action is expected to have little effect on fish resources or EFH. 

Recovery of fish resources and EFH can occur from more than 99 percent, but not all, of the expected 

coastal and marine environmental degradation. Fish populations, if left undisturbed, would regenerate in 

one generation, but any loss of wetlands as EFH would be permanent. Impacts are expected to result in 

less than a 1-percent change in commercial fishing “pounds landed” or in the value of landings. Oil spills 

estimated to result for the proposed action would cause less than a 1-percent decrease in standing stocks 

of any population, commercial fishing efforts, landings, or value of those landings. The resultant impact 

on fish populations and commercial fishing activities within the WPA would be negligible and 

indistinguishable from variations due to natural causes. Any affected commercial fishing activity would 

recover within 6 months. 

Routine activities associated with the proposed action are not expected to impact offshore historic or 

prehistoric archaeological resources. The greatest potential impact to an offshore historic archaeological 

resource would result from direct contact between an offshore activity and a historic shipwreck. Offshore 

oil and gas activities resulting from the proposed action could contact a shipwreck because of incomplete 

knowledge on the location of shipwrecks in the Gulf. Although this occurrence is not probable, such an 

event could result in the disturbance or destruction of important historic archaeological information. 

Should an offshore prehistoric archaeological site be contacted by proposed-action-related activities, 

unique or significant archaeological information could be lost. In the event that an archaeological site is 

located during operations, the operator must take steps to ensure that the site is not disturbed in any way 

and contact the Regional Director within 48 hours of its discovery. All operations within 1,000 ft of the 

site must cease until the Regional Director instructs the operator on what steps they must take to assess 

the site’s potential historic significance and what steps they must take to protect it. Under Section 110(g) 
Environmental Assessment 17 

of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470h-2[g]), MMS may charge Federal permittees for 

costs related to historic preservation activities as a condition of the issuance of their permit. 

4.3.2. Updated Impact Analysis for the Proposed Action 

The following chapters describe the potential impacts as a result of the proposed action for those 

resources (marine mammals, sea turtles, and snowy plover) where new information became available 

after MMS prepared the multisale EIS. The analyses for these resources have been reevaluated taking 

into consideration the new information. 

4.3.2.1. Marine Mammals 

The Protected Species Stipulation and the three related NTL’s (Chapters 3.3.1-3.3.2.) were not 

analyzed in the multisale EIS because they were not in place at the time the EIS was completed. The 

purpose of the Protected Species Stipulation is to reduce the potential taking of federally protected 

species, while the three NTL’s serve to provide detailed guidance relative to the requirements of the 

Protected Species Stipulation. These mitigation measures are precautionary and intended to further 

reduce the potential for any impacts related to the proposed action to occur. The environmental impacts 

of the proposed action on marine mammals given the Protected Species Stipulation and NTL’s remain the 

same as presented in the multisale EIS. 

The multisale EIS stated that small numbers of marine mammals could potentially be killed or injured 

by chance collision with service vessels and by eating indigestible debris, particularly plastic items, lost 

from service vessels, drilling rigs, and fixed and floating platforms. Deaths as a result of structure 

removals are not expected because of existing mitigation measures or those being developed for structures 

placed in oceanic waters. There is no conclusive evidence whether anthropogenic noise has or has not 

caused long-term displacements of, or reductions in, marine mammal populations. Contaminants in waste 

discharges and drilling muds might indirectly affect marine mammals through food-chain 

biomagnification, although the scope of effects and their magnitude are not known. The routine activities 

of the proposed action are not expected to have long-term adverse effects on the size and productivity of 

any marine mammal species or population stock endemic to the northern GOM. 

Accidental blowouts, oil spills, and spill-response activities resulting from the proposed action have 

the potential to impact marine mammals in the GOM. Characteristics of impacts (i.e., acute vs. chronic 

impacts) depend on the magnitude, frequency, location, and date of accidents; characteristics of spilled 

oil; spill-response capabilities and timing; and various meteorological and hydrological factors. 

Populations of marine mammals in the northern GOM will be exposed to residuals of oils spilled as a 

result of the proposed action during their lifetimes. Chronic or acute exposure may result in the 

harassment, harm, or mortality to marine mammals occurring in the northern GOM. In most foreseeable 

cases, exposure to hydrocarbons persisting in the sea following the dispersal of an oil slick will 

potentially result in sublethal impacts (e.g., decreased health, reproductive fitness, and longevity; and 

increased vulnerability to disease) to marine mammals. 

4.3.2.2. Sea Turtles 

The Protected Species Stipulation and the three related NTL’s (Chapters 3.3.1-3.3.2.) were not 

analyzed in the multisale EIS because they were not in place at the time the EIS was completed. The 

purpose of the Protected Species Stipulation is to reduce the potential taking of federally protected 

species, while the three NTL’s serve to provide detailed guidance relative to the requirements of the 

Protected Species Stipulation. These mitigation measures are precautionary and intended to further 

reduce the potential for any impacts related to the proposed action to occur. The environmental impacts 

of the proposed action on sea turtles given the Protected Species Stipulation and NTL’s remain the same 

as presented in the multisale EIS. 

The multisale EIS stated that routine activities resulting from the proposed action have the potential to 

harm individual sea turtles. These animals could be impacted by the degradation of water quality 

resulting from operational discharges; noise generated by helicopter and vessel traffic, platforms, and 

drillships; brightly-lit platforms; explosive removals of offshore structures; vessel collisions; and jetsam 

and flotsam generated by service vessels and OCS facilities. Lethal effects are most likely to be from 
Environmental Assessment 18 

chance collisions with OCS service vessels and ingestion of plastic materials. Potential “takes” as a result 

of explosive removals are expected to be rare because of mitigation measures already established (e.g., 

NOAA Fisheries Observer Program) and in development. The potential effects of most OCS activities 

are expected to be sublethal. Contaminants in waste discharges and drilling muds might indirectly affect 

sea turtles through food-chain biomagnification, although there is uncertainty concerning the possible 

effects. Chronic sublethal effects (e.g., stress) resulting in persistent physiological or behavioral changes 

and/or avoidance of impacted areas could cause declines in survival or fecundity, and population; 

however, such declines are not expected. The routine activities of the proposed action are unlikely to 

have significant adverse effects on the size and recovery of any sea turtle species or population in the 

GOM. 

4.3.2.3. Snowy Plover 

According to FWS, the snowy plover is present at its identified habitats year round as opposed to only 

February through August. Therefore, the oil-spill probability for the snowy plover was recalculated for 

this EA. The recalculated probability of an oil spill ≥1,000 bbl occurring and contacting snowy plover 

habitat within 10 days as a result of the proposed action is 2-5 percent. While this is an increase from the 

February through August probability (2-4%) as shown on Figure 4-21 of the multisale EIS, the 

environmental impacts of the proposed action remain almost the same as presented in the multisale EIS. 

The multisale EIS stated that oil spills from the proposed action pose the greatest potential direct and 

indirect impacts to snowy plover. Birds that are heavily oiled usually die. If physical oiling of 

individuals or local groups of birds occurs, some degree of both acute and chronic physiological stress 

associated with direct and secondary uptake of oil would be expected. Small coastal spills, pipeline spills, 

and spills from accidents in navigated waterways can contact and affect the snowy plover. Lightly oiled 

birds can sustain tissue and organ damage from oil ingested during feeding and grooming or from oil that 

is inhaled. Stress and shock enhance the effects of exposure and poisoning. Low levels of oil could stress 

snowy plover by interfering with food detection, feeding impulses, predator avoidance, territory 

definition, susceptibility to physiological disorders, disease resistance, growth rates, reproduction, and 

respiration. Reproductive success can be affected by the toxins in oil. Indirect effects occur by fouling of 

nesting habitat, and displacement of individuals, breeding pairs, or populations to less favorable habitats. 

Dispersants used in spill cleanup activity can have toxic effects similar to oil on the reproductive success 

of snowy plover. The air, vehicle, and foot traffic that takes place during shoreline cleanup activity can 

disturb nesting populations and degrade or destroy habitat. 

4.4. ALTERNATIVE B—THE PROPOSED ACTION EXCLUDING THE BLOCKS NEAR 

BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES

Alternative B would offer for lease all unleased blocks in the WPA, as described for the proposed 

action, with the exception of any unleased blocks within the 200 blocks in the WPA that are subject to the 

Topographic Features Stipulation. All the assumptions including the potential mitigating measures and 

resource estimates remain the same as in the proposed action. The environmental impacts of this 

alternative remain the same as presented in the multisale EIS (Chapter 4.3.2.). 

4.5. ALTERNATIVE C—NO ACTION

Alternative C is equivalent to cancellation of the proposed lease sale. The opportunity for 

development of the estimated of 0.136-0.262 BBO and 0.810-1.440 Tcf of natural gas that could have 

resulted from the proposed action would be precluded or postponed, and any potential environmental 

impacts resulting from the proposed action would not occur or would be postponed. 

Canceling the proposed lease sale would eliminate the effects described for Alternative A (the 

proposed action). However, other sources of energy would substitute for the lost production. Principal 

substitutes would be additional imports, conservation, additional domestic production, and switching to 

other fuels. These alternatives, except conservation, would have substantial negative environmental 

impacts of their own. These substitutes and the effects are discussed in the multisale EIS and Energy 

Alternatives and the Environment (USDOI, MMS, 2001), and are incorporated by reference. The 
Environmental Assessment 19 

environmental impacts of this alternative remain the same as presented in the multisale EIS (Chapter 

4.3.3.). 

4.6. CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS

The cumulative analysis considers the effects of impact-producing factors related to the proposed 

action, prior and future OCS sales, State oil and gas activities, other governmental and private projects 

and activities, and pertinent natural processes and events that may occur and adversely affect 

environmental and socioeconomic resources. Descriptions of these activities and the analysis of the 

cumulative effects are included in the multisale EIS. 

4.6.1. Marine Mammals 

The cumulative conclusions for marine mammals remain unchanged from the multisale EIS. 

Activities considered under the cumulative scenario could affect protected cetaceans and sirenians. These 

marine mammals could be impacted by the degradation of water quality resulting from operational 

discharges; vessel traffic; noise generated by platforms, drillships, helicopters, and vessels; seismic 

surveys; explosive—severance tools used during structure removals; oil spills; oil-spill-response 

activities; loss of debris from service vessels and OCS structures; commercial fishing; capture and 

removal; and pathogens. The cumulative impact on marine mammals is expected to result in a number of 

chronic and sporadic sublethal effects (behavioral effects and nonfatal exposure to or intake of 

OCS-related contaminants or discarded debris) that may stress and/or weaken individuals of a local group 

or population and predispose them to infection from natural or anthropogenic sources. Few deaths are 

expected from oil spills, chance collisions with OCS service vessels, ingestion of plastic material, 

commercial fishing, and pathogens. Oil spills of any size are estimated to be recurring events that would 

periodically contact marine mammals. Deaths as a result of explosive-severance activities are not 

expected to occur because of mitigation measures (e.g., NOAA Fisheries Observer Program). 

Disturbance (noise from vessel traffic and drilling operations, etc.) and/or exposure to sublethal levels of 

toxins and anthropogenic contaminants may stress animals, weaken their immune systems, and make 

them more vulnerable to parasites and diseases that normally would not be fatal. The net result of any 

disturbance would be dependent upon the size and percentage of the population likely to be affected, 

ecological importance of the disturbed area, environmental and biological parameters that influence an 

animal’s sensitivity to disturbance and stress, or the accommodation time in response to prolonged 

disturbance (Geraci and St. Aubin, 1980). Collisions between cetaceans and ships, though expected to be 

rare events, could cause serious injury or mortality. 

The incremental contribution of impacts stemming from the proposed action is expected to be small 

and primarily sublethal (behavioral effects and nonfatal exposure to or intake of OCS-related 

contaminants or discarded debris). Effects of the incremental contribution of the proposed action 

combined with non-OCS activities may be deleterious, as stated in the multisale EIS, to cetaceans 

occurring in the GOM. Biological significance of any mortality would depend, in part, on the size and 

reproductive rates of the affected stocks, as well as the number, age, and size of animals affected. 

4.6.2. Sea Turtles 

The cumulative conclusions for sea turtles remain unchanged from the multisale EIS. Activities 

considered under the cumulative scenario may harm sea turtles and their habitats. Those activities include 

structure installation, dredging, water quality and habitat degradation, OCS-related trash and flotsam, 

vessel traffic, seismic surveys, explosive-severance and site-clearance trawling activities conducted 

during structure removals, oil spills, oil-spill-response activities, natural catastrophes, pollution, dredge 

operations, vessel collisions, commercial and recreational fishing, human consumption, beach lighting, 

and power plant entrainment. Sea turtles could be killed or injured by chance collision with service 

vessels or eating marine debris, particularly plastic items, lost from OCS structures and service vessels. It 

is expected that deaths as a result of explosive-severance and site—clearance trawling activities would 

rarely occur because of mitigation measures (e.g., NOAA Fisheries Observer Program). The presence of, 

and noise produced by, service vessels and by the construction, operation, and removal of drill rigs may 

cause physiological stress and make animals more susceptible to disease or predation, as well as disrupt 
Environmental Assessment 20 

normal activities. Contaminants in waste discharges and drilling muds might indirectly affect sea turtles 

through food-chain biomagnification, although there is uncertainty concerning the possible effect. Oil 

spills and oil-spill-response activities are potential threats that may be expected to cause turtle deaths. 

Contact with, and consumption of, oil and oil-contaminated prey may seriously impact turtles. Sea turtles 

have been seriously harmed by oil spills in the past. The majority of OCS activities are estimated to be 

sublethal (behavioral effects and nonfatal exposure to intake of OCS-related contaminants or debris). 

Chronic sublethal effects (e.g., stress) resulting in persistent physiological or behavioral changes and/or 

avoidance of impacted areas could cause declines in survival or productivity, resulting in either acute or 

gradual population declines. The incremental contribution of the proposed action to cumulative impacts 

on sea turtles is slight. 

4.6.3. Snowy Plover 

The cumulative conclusions for the snowy plover remain unchanged from the multisale EIS. It is 

expected that cumulative effects would be detrimental to the snowy plover; however, the majority of 

effects from the major impact-producing factors on the snowy plover are sublethal (behavioral effects and 

nonfatal exposure to or intake of OCS-related contaminants or discarded debris) and would usually cause 

temporary disturbances and displacement of localized groups inshore. The net effect of habitat loss from 

oil spills, new construction, and maintenance and use of pipeline corridors and navigation waterways 

would reduce the overall carrying capacity of disturbed area(s) in general. The incremental contribution 

of the proposed action to the cumulative impact is negligible because the effects of the most probable 

impacts, such as lease sale-related operational discharges and helicopters and service-vessel noise and 

traffic, are estimated to be sublethal with some displacement of local individuals or groups. It is expected 

that there would be little interaction between OCS-related oil spills and the snowy plover.

5. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

5.1. SCOPING FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE WESTERN 

PLANNING AREA’S PROPOSED LEASE SALE 196 

The MMS performs ongoing external and internal scoping in order to determine the breadth and depth 

necessary for environmental analysis. 

External Scoping: The scoping process for this EA was formally initiated on January 19, 2005, with 

the Federal Register notice announcing the preparation of an EA. In the notice, MMS requested that 

interested parties submit comments regarding any new information or issues that should be addressed in 

the EA. The comment period closed on February 17, 2005. Responses were received from Louisiana’s 

Department of Natural Resources and John Farhar of Atascadero, California. These comments were 

considered in the preparation of this EA. 

Scoping and coordination efforts continue throughout the lease sale process and have been conducted 

since the publication of the multisale EIS: 

• On January 8 and 9, 2003, public hearings were held on the Draft EIS for EPA Lease 

Sales 189 and 197 (USDOI, MMS, 2003b) in New Orleans, Louisiana, and Mobile, 

Alabama. 

• The MMS held the GOM Region’s annual Information Transfer Meeting in 

January 14-16, 2003. Sessions pertained to MMS’s GOM OCS oil and gas program, 

as well as regional environmental, social, and economic concerns, and current OCS 

industry activities and technologies. 

• The MMS co-hosted the International Offshore Pipeline Workshop on 

February 26-28, 2003, which brought together worldwide experience in operating 

and regulating offshore oil and gas activities in order to identify/disseminate pipeline 

issues and knowledge for continued safe and pollution free operations. 
Environmental Assessment 21 

• On June 1-3, 2003, MMS participated in the Oceanology International Americas 

conference in New Orleans, Louisiana. The conference incorporated the following 

disciplines: marine science, technology, operational oceanography, policy, and 

education. 

• On June 4, 2003, MMS published a Notice of Preparation of an EA on proposed CPA 

Lease Sale 190. In the notice, MMS requested interested parties to submit comments 

regarding any new information or issues that should be addressed in the EA. No 

comments were received. 

• In June 2003, MMS requested the Gulf States’ review MMS’s GOM Region Studies 

Development Plan for FY 2004-2006. On July 16, 2003, comments were received 

from the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. 

• To ensure conformance with State Coastal Zone Management (CZM) program 

policies and local land-use plans, MMS prepares appropriate consistency documents 

for each proposed OCS lease sale. On October 28, 2003, MMS sent the Consistency 

Determination (CD) for CPA Lease Sale 190 to the Governors of Louisiana, 

Mississippi, and Alabama, and to the head of each State’s CZM group. The States 

confirmed MMS’s Consistency Statement for CPA Lease Sale 190. On September 4, 

2003, MMS met with Louisiana’s CZM group; September 9, 2003, with Mississippi; 

and September 10, 2003, with Alabama. 

• In October 2003, MMS published the EA for CPA Lease Sale 190 (USDOI, MMS, 

2003c). No comments were received of the EA. 

• On November 18-20, 2003, MMS participated in the Thirteenth Annual Clean Gulf 

Conference along with consultants, responders, and Federal and State agencies. The 

MMS made the following presentations: “The Oil Spill Response Equipment,” “Oil 

Spill Exercises and Drills,” “Updates of the MMS Worst Case Discharge for 

Blowouts and Pipelines,” and “Ongoing Exploration Along the US/Mexican 

International Boundary.” 

• On November 19, 2003, MMS published a Notice of Preparation of an EA on 

proposed WPA Lease Sale 192. In the notice, MMS requested interested parties to 

submit comments regarding any new information or issues that should be addressed 

in the EA. No comments were received. 

• A workshop on social and economic topics related to the oil and gas industry was 

hosted by the MMS GOM Region on February 3-5, 2004, in New Orleans, Louisiana. 

Discussions were structured around the following topics: Industry Trends and 

Dynamics; Community-Level Impacts of Oil and Gas in the Gulf of Mexico Region; 

and Cultural Impacts of Oil and Gas Activity in the Gulf of Mexico. Information 

derived from the workshop will be used to shape future research projects. The 

proceedings will be published on the MMS Internet website in the near future. 

• In March 2004, MMS published the EA for WPA Lease Sale 192 (USDOI, MMS, 

2004c). No comments were received on the EA. 

• On March 3, 2004, the Louisiana Sand Management Working Group, composed of 

Federal, State, and local authorities, academia, and industry, met to provide advice to 

MMS relative to the long-term use of Federal sand offshore Louisiana. Louisiana's 

coastal landloss problem continues at a rate of more than 25-30 mi2

 per year, severely 

affecting the storm buffering capacity and the protection that nearshore barrier 

islands provide to human populations, oil and gas infrastructure, inland bays, 

estuaries, and wetlands. A major concern expressed by Louisiana is the potential 

conflict created by emplacement of oil and gas infrastructure in areas of rich sand 

deposits. The MMS is currently evaluating the issue. The MMS evaluates each 

proposal for space-use conflicts, recommends mitigations for affected resources and 
Environmental Assessment 22 

to alleviate conflicts with existing OCS infrastructure such as pipelines and 

platforms. Chapter 4.1.3.2.2. of the multisale EIS discusses MMS’s Sand Resources 

Programs. 

• On June 4, 2004, MMS published a Notice of Preparation of an EA on proposed CPA 

Lease Sale 194. In the notice, MMS requested interested parties to submit comments 

regarding any new information or issues that should be addressed in the EA. No 

comments were received.

• On June 4, 2004, MMS published a Notice of Preparation of an EA on proposed EPA 

Lease Sale 197. In the notice, MMS requested interested parties to submit comments 

regarding any new information or issues that should be addressed in the EA. No 

comments were received.

• On July 9, 2004, the Corps of Engineers (COE) released a Draft Programmatic EIS 

(PEIS) for the Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) Ecosystem Restoration Plan with a 45-

day comment period. The LCA Plan is designed to be a coordinated approach to 

alleviate and arrest the chronic and severe loss of wetlands along coastal Louisiana. 

The draft PEIS envisions a range of “restoration opportunities” over the next 10 years 

that fall into two categories: those that divert Mississippi River water and sediment to 

naturally replenish threatened areas and habitats, and those that reconstruct or 

enhance geomorphic barriers that dampen storm waves and tidal surge, such as 

barrier islands and levee systems. The COE’s preferred alternative, or Tentatively 

Selected Plan, is an ambitious synergistic combination of projects undertaking both 

river diversions and geomorphic restorations estimated to cost $1.9 billion over 10 

years. The MMS is commenting on the draft PEIS, focusing primarily on conflicts 

and interfaces with MMS’s OCS Program. 

• On July 26, 2004, MMS met with the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection in Tallahassee, Florida, to discuss the EA for EPA Lease Sale 197 and 

tiering the CD for the EPA Lease Sale 197 CD to the previous EPA Lease Sale 189 

CD. 

• On October 13, 2004, MMS held the Gulf-wide Offshore Activity Data System 

(GOADS) 2005 Workshop at the GOM Region. The workshop discussed and 

explained air emissions information collection and reporting procedures that are 

required from all lessees and operators in the Western GOM. The agenda included 

explaining the equipment activity data the operators must collect and report for 

calendar year 2005, the schedule for submittal of this information, the information 

reporting software (GOADS-2005), and a hands-on computer session to ask specific 

questions about this software. Under NTL 2004-G17, the activity data collected by 

lessees and operators will be sent to a MMS’ contractor for calculation of a 2005 

gulf-wide emissions inventory. This inventory will be used for input into air 

pollution dispersion models for assessments of air quality. 

• On December 1, 2004, MMS participated in the Gulf Coastal Zone Management Act 

(CZMA) Federal Consistency Workshop in New Orleans, Louisiana. Organized by 

NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), the 

workshop centered on the Federal consistency reviews and requirements relating to 

each of the Gulf States’ (i.e., Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) 

coastal zone management plans (CZMP’s) and significant Federal and State agency 

issues. 

• The MMS held the GOM Region’s semi-annual Information Transfer Meeting on 

January 11-13, 2005. Sessions pertained to MMS’s GOM OCS oil and gas program, 

as well as regional environmental, social, and economic concerns, and current OCS 

industry activities and technologies. 
Environmental Assessment 23 

Internal Scoping: Internal scoping is an ongoing activity for all environmental projects and NEPA 

documents. Part of internal scoping involves reviewing resource estimates and oil-spill modeling results 

used in the preparation of the multisale EIS to determine if they are still valid. The MMS GOM Region’s 

Office of Resource Evaluation reviewed the oil and gas resource projections and associated activities for 

WPA Lease Sale 196 and confirmed that they remain within the range of those projected by MMS for a 

“typical WPA lease sale.” The MMS Headquarters’ Oil-Spill Risk Analysis (OSRA) group confirmed 

that results from the OSRA model summarized in the multisale EIS and presented in a separate MMS 

report (USDOI, MMS, 2002d) are still valid for the proposed lease sale. 

Internal scoping also requires MMS subject matter experts/analysts and NEPA coordinators to 

continuously update their knowledge base and incorporate three primary informational components into 

their analyses: 

(1) recent studies/reports; 

(2) monitoring results; and 

(3) related cumulative-impact data. 

The MMS’s analysts and coordinators take an active role in the preparation, execution, and peer 

review of studies and reports developed under MMS’s Environmental Studies Program. In addition, 

some analysts provide expertise and are involved in additional studies and analyses conducted by other 

Federal/State agencies and universities concerning GOM issues and interests. The information obtained 

from these studies, as well as other relevant, non-MMS research, was considered by each subject matter 

expert in their assessment for this EA. Appendix C of the multisale EIS lists the GOM Region studies 

published from 1999-2002, while Appendix C of this EA lists those GOM studies published since the 

completion of the multisale EIS. Technical summaries for these studies are available on the MMS 

Internet website (http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/techsumm/rec_pubs.html). 

In addition to hindcasting projections and estimates, MMS compliance monitoring tracks the status of 

mitigation and other conditions applied to approved-OCS activities. The monitoring information received 

from field inspections, office auditing, and/or mandatory reporting is reviewed by MMS analysts. 

Knowledge gained through environmental compliance monitoring forms a basis for mitigation revision 

and future mitigation development, and was ultimately incorporated by analysts into this EA. 

Cumulative analyses are prepared by MMS subject matter experts that consider activities that could 

occur and may adversely affect GOM resources, including proposed WPA Lease Sale 196, prior and 

future OCS lease sales, State oil and gas activities, and other governmental and private projects and 

activities. The MMS analysts are often responsible for reviewing GOM activities not associated with oil 

and gas operations. All information gained from cumulative analyses was considered by MMS analysts 

in their assessments for this EA. 

5.2. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION CALENDAR

A complete description of all consultation and coordination activities and meetings is included in 

Chapter 5 of the multisale EIS. A brief summary of these events follows: 

Multisale EIS Process

September 12, 2001 The Call for Information/Notice of Intent (Call/NOI) for the proposed 2003-

2007 CPA and WPA lease sales was published in the Federal Register. The 

required 30-day comment period closed on October 12, 2001. Additional 

public notices were distributed via newspaper notices, mailed notices, and the 

Internet. The MMS received four comment letters in response to the Call. Ten 

written scoping letters were received in response to the NOI. 
Environmental Assessment 24 

October 25-22, 2001 The MMS held scoping meetings in Galveston and Houston, Texas; New 

Orleans, Louisiana; and Mobile, Alabama, to receive comments on the Draft 

EIS for the proposed 2003-2007 CPA and WPA lease sales. A summary of 

comments presented at the scoping meetings is provided in Chapter 5.3. of the 

multisale EIS. 

April 15, 2002 and 

April 17, 2002 

The MMS, by memorandum to FWS (April 15, 2002) and NOAA Fisheries 

(April 17, 2002), requested formal Section 7 consultation for CPA Lease Sales 

185, 190, 194, 198, and 201, and WPA Lease Sales 187, 192, 196, and 200. 

The consultation included all aspects of oil and gas exploration, development, 

production, and abandonment activities. The FWS concluded that the proposed 

actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species 

under FWS jurisdiction (whooping crane, Gulf sturgeon, brown pelican, 

Alabama beach mouse, Perdido Key beach mouse, loggerhead sea turtle, piping 

plover, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtle) and are not likely to destroy or adversely 

modify their designated critical habitat, if any. For each species with 

designated critical habitat, the adverse effects that may occur to critical habitat 

would be temporary in nature and of low probability. The NOAA Fisheries 

concluded that implementation of the proposed actions will adversely affect, 

but not likely jeopardize, the continued existence of the sperm whale; 

leatherback, green, hawksbill, Kemp's ridley, and loggerhead sea turtles; and 

the Gulf sturgeon. 

April 30—May 2, 2002 The MMS held public hearings in Houston, Texas; New Orleans, Louisiana;

and Mobile, Alabama, to receive comments on the multisale EIS for CPA 

Lease Sales 185, 190, 194, 198, and 201, and WPA Lease Sales 187, 192, 196, 

and 200. One person attended the Houston hearing, but no comments were 

presented. Seven people attended the New Orleans hearing. Three individuals 

presented comments, which are summarized in Chapter 5.5. of the multisale 

EIS. There were no attendees at the Mobile hearing. 

November 2002 The MMS completed and filed the Final EIS for CPA Lease Sales 185, 190, 

194, 198, and 201, and WPA Lease Sales 187, 192, 196, and 200 (multisale 

EIS) with USEPA. The MMS revised the document using information 

presented at the hearings and as a result of comments received on the Draft EIS 

(See Chapter 5.7. of the multisale EIS for a complete discussion of comments 

and responses.). 

WPA Lease Sale 196 EA Process 

January 19, 2005 The MMS published a Notice of Preparation of an EA on proposed Lease Sale 

196. In the notice, MMS requested interested parties to submit comments 

regarding any new information or issues that should be addressed in the EA. 

Two comments were received.

6. REFERENCES 

Bedell, C. 2004. Post-storm spill response mobilization in Louisiana. In: Proceedings, Twenty-second 

Information Transfer Meeting, January 2003. U.S. Dept of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2003-073. 98 pp. 
Environmental Assessment 25 

Council on Environmental Quality (Executive Office of the President) 1997. Environmental Justice: 

Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington D.C.: Old Executive Office 

Building, Room 360. [http://www.whitehourse.gov/CEQ/]. 

Dimarco, S.F., M.K. Howard, W.D. Nowlin, Jr., and R.O. Reid. 2004. Subsurface, high-speed current 

jets in the deepwater region of the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2004-022. 98 pp. 

Federal Register. 2004. Notice of Final NPDES General Permit for New and Existing Sources and New 

Dischargers in the Offshore Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Category for the Western 

Portion of the Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico (GMG290000). 69 FR 194, pp. 60,150-

60,151 

Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1980. Offshore petroleum resource development and marine mammals: 

A review and research recommendations. Marine Fisheries Review 42:1-12. 

Greenberg, J. 2005. OSV day rates. Workboat 62(1): 12, January. 

Hamilton, P., J.J. Singer, E. Waddell, and K. Donahue. 2003. Deepwater observations in the Northern 

Gulf of Mexico from in-situ current meters and PIES: Final report. Volume II: Technical report. 

U.S. Dept of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Study MMS 2003-049. 95 pp. 

Hemmerling, S.A. and C.E. Colten. 2003. Environmental justice considerations in Lafourche Parish, 

Louisiana. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2003-038. 

Lore G.L., D.A. Marin, E.C. Batchelder, W.C. Courtwright, R.P. Desselles, and R.J. Klazynski. 2001. 

2000 assessment of conventionally recoverable hydrocarbon resources of the Gulf of Mexico and 

Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf as of January 1, 1999. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 2001-087. 

Oilnergy. 2004. Internet website: http://www.oilnergy.com. January 5, 2005. 

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1997. Evolution, phylogeny, and current status. In: Lutz, P.L. and Musivk, J. A. eds. 

The biology of sea turtles. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Pp. 1-28. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2003. Barataria Plaquemines Barrier 

Island Complex Project, Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) 

Project Fed. No./BA-38, Pass La Mer to Chaland Pass and Pelican Island Environmental Assessment. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, prepared by Tetra Tech EM Inc. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, December, 2003. 89 pp. 

+ apps. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries. 2004. Draft 

2003 stock assessment reports. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/

Stock_Assessment_Program/sars_draft.html. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1995. 

Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) recovery/management plan. Prepared by the Gulf 

Sturgeon Recovery/Management Task Team for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA; the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Ocean 

Springs, MS; and the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2001. Energy alternatives and the 

environment. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Herndon, VA. OCS Report 

MMS 2001-096. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2002a. Outer continental shelf oil and gas 

leasing program: 2002-2007—final environmental impact statement; Volumes I and II. U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Washington, DC. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2002-006. 
Environmental Assessment 26 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2002b. Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas lease 

sales: 2003-2005; Central Planning Area Sales 185, 190, 194, 198, and 201; Western Planning Area 

Sales 187, 192, 196, and 200—final environmental impact statement; Volumes I and II. U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

EIS/EA MMS 2002-052. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2002c. News Release: MMS preliminary 

report finds most facilities withstood Hurricane Lili; 6 platforms out of 800 with severe damage; 

MMS buoy provides important data. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf 

of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. October 16, 2002. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2002d. Oil-spill risk analysis: Gulf of 

Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lease sales, Central Planning Area and Western Planning 

Area, 2003-2007 and Gulfwide OCS Program, 2003-2042. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Washington, DC. OCS Report MMS 2002-032. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2003a. Outer Continental Shelf oil spill 

during Hurricane Lili, Ship Shoal Block 119: Responses, fate, and effects. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 

2003-039. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2003b. Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas lease 

sales: 2003 and 2005; Eastern Planning Area Sales 189 and 197—final environmental impact 

statement. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2003-020. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2003c. Proposed OCS Lease Sale 190, 

Central Gulf of Mexico—environmental assessment. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 

2003-066. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2004a. Geological and geophysical 

exploration for mineral resources on the Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf; final programmatic 

environmental assessment. Prepared by Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. for the U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/

EA MMS 2004-054. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2004c. Proposed OCS Lease Sale 192, 

Western Gulf of Mexico—environmental assessment. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 

2004-007. 

Würsig, B., T. Jefferson, and D. Schmidly. 2000. The marine mammals of the Gulf of Mexico. College 

Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press. 
Environmental Assessment 27 

APPENDIX A. PROPOSED LEASE STIPULATIONS 

One or more of five lease stipulations will be applied to leases resulting from this lease sale (WPA 

Lease Sale 196) on blocks shown on the map “Stipulations and Deferred Blocks, Sale 196, Proposed,”

included in the Proposed Notice of Sale 196 Package (PNOS 196 Package). In addition, the “List of

Blocks Available for Leasing” contained in the Final Notice of Sale 196 Package (FNOS 196 Package) 

identifies for each block listed the lease stipulations applicable to that block. These lease stipulations are: 

Stipulation No. 1 — Topographic Features 

Stipulation No. 2 — Military Areas 

Stipulation No. 3 — Operations in the Naval Mine Warfare Area 

Stipulation No. 4 — Law of the Sea Convention Royalty Payment 

Stipulation No. 5 — Protected Species 

STIPULATION NO. 1 — TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES

This stipulation will be included only in leases on blocks within the areas so indicated in the Biological 

Stipulation Map Package for the Western Gulf of Mexico which is available from the MMS Gulf of Mexico 

Region’s Public Information Unit. Please see the PNOS 196 Package for the address and telephone numbers. 

The stipulation provides for protection of the following banks: 

Bank Name No Activity Zone 

Defined by Isobath (meters) 

Shelf Edge Banks 

West Flower Garden Bank 100 

(defined by 1/4 1/4 1/4 system) 

East Flower Garden Bank 100 

(defined by 1/4 1/4 1/4 system) 

MacNeil Bank 82 

29 Fathom Bank 64 

Rankin Bank 85 

Geyer Bank 85 

Elvers Bank 85 

Bright Bank[1] 85 

McGrail Bank[1] 85

Rezak Bank[1] 85 

Sidner Bank[1] 85 

Parker Bank[1] 85

Stetson Bank 52

Appelbaum Bank 85 

Low Relief Banks[2] 

Mysterious Bank 74,76,78,80,84

Coffee Lump Various 

Blackfish Ridge 70 

Big Dunn Bar 65 

Small Dunn Bar 65

32 Fathom Bank 52 
Environmental Assessment 28 

Bank Name No Activity Zone 

Defined by Isobath (meters) 

Claypile Bank[3] 50 

South Texas Banks[4]

Dream Bank 78,82 

Southern Bank 80 

Hospital Bank 70

North Hospital Bank 68

Aransas Bank 70 

South Baker Bank 70 

Baker Bank 70 

[1] Central Gulf of Mexico bank with a portion of its “1-Mile Zone” and/

or “3-Mile Zone” in the Western Gulf of Mexico. 

[2] Low Relief Banks--Only paragraph (a) applies. 

[3] Claypile Bank--Paragraphs (a) and (b) apply. In paragraph (b),

monitoring of the effluent to determine the effect on the biota of

Claypile Bank shall be required rather than shunting.

[4] South Texas Banks--Only paragraphs (a) and (b) apply.

(a) No activity including structures, drilling rigs, pipelines, or anchoring will be allowed

within the listed isobath (“No Activity Zone” as shown in the aforementioned 

Biological Stipulation Map Package) of the banks as listed above. 

(b) Operations within the area shown as “1,000-Meter Zone” in the aforementioned 

Biological Stipulation Map Package shall be restricted by shunting all drill cuttings 

and drilling fluids to the bottom through a downpipe that terminates an appropriate 

distance, but no more than 10 meters, from the bottom. 

(c) Operations within the area shown as “1-Mile Zone” in the aforementioned Biological 

Stipulation Map Package shall be restricted by shunting all drill cuttings and drilling 

fluids to the bottom through a downpipe that terminates an appropriate distance, but 

no more than 10 meters, from the bottom. (Where there is a “1-Mile Zone” 

designated, the “1,000-Meter Zone” in paragraph (b) is not designated.) This

restriction on operations also applies to areas surrounding the Flower Garden Banks 

National Marine Sanctuary, namely the “4-Mile Zone” surrounding the East Flower 

Garden Bank and the West Flower Garden Bank. 

(d) Operations within the area shown as “3-Mile Zone” in the aforementioned Biological 

Stipulation Map Package shall be restricted by shunting all drill cuttings and drilling 

fluids from development operations to the bottom through a downpipe that terminates 

an appropriate distance, but no more than 10 meters, from the bottom.

STIPULATION NO. 2 — MILITARY AREAS

This stipulation will be included in leases located within the Warning Areas as shown on the map

“Stipulations and Deferred Blocks, Sale 196, Proposed” included in the PNOS 196 Package. 

(a) Hold and Save Harmless 

Whether compensation for such damage or injury might be due under a theory of 

strict or absolute liability or otherwise, the lessee assumes all risks of damage or

injury to persons or property, which occur in, on, or above the OCS, to any persons 

or to any property of any person or persons who are agents, employees, or invitees of
Environmental Assessment 29 

the lessee, its agents, independent contractors, or subcontractors doing business with 

the lessee in connection with any activities being performed by the lessee in, on, or 

above the OCS, if such injury or damage to such person or property occurs by reason

of the activities of any agency of the United States Government, its contractors or

subcontractors, or any of its officers, agents or employees, being conducted as a part 

of, or in connection with, the programs and activities of the command headquarters 

listed at the end of this stipulation. 

Notwithstanding any limitation of the lessee's liability in Section 14 of the lease, the

lessee assumes this risk whether such injury or damage is caused in whole or in part

by any act or omission, regardless of negligence or fault, of the United States, its

contractors or subcontractors, or any of its officers, agents, or employees. The lessee

further agrees to indemnify and save harmless the United States against all claims for

loss, damage, or injury sustained by the lessee, or to indemnify and save harmless the 

United States against all claims for loss, damage, or injury sustained by the agents,

employees, or invitees of the lessee, its agents, or any independent contractors or

subcontractors doing business with the lessee in connection with the programs and 

activities of the aforementioned military installation, whether the same be caused in 

whole or in part by the negligence or fault of the United States, its contractors, or 

subcontractors, or any of its officers, agents, or employees and whether such claims

might be sustained under a theory of strict or absolute liability or otherwise. 

(b) Electromagnetic Emissions 

The lessee agrees to control its own electromagnetic emissions and those of its

agents, employees, invitees, independent contractors or subcontractors emanating 

from individual designated defense warning areas in accordance with requirements

specified by the commander of the command headquarters listed in the following 

table to the degree necessary to prevent damage to, or unacceptable interference with, 

Department of Defense flight, testing, or operational activities, conducted within

individual designated warning areas. Necessary monitoring control, and coordination 

with the lessee, its agents, employees, invitees, independent contractors or 

subcontractors, will be effected by the commander of the appropriate onshore 

military installation conducting operations in the particular warning area; provided,

however, that control of such electromagnetic emissions shall in no instance prohibit

all manner of electromagnetic communication during any period of time between a 

lessee, its agents, employees, invitees, independent contractors or subcontractors and 

onshore facilities. 

(c) Operational 

The lessee, when operating or causing to be operated on its behalf, boat, ship, or 

aircraft traffic into the individual designated warning areas, shall enter into an

agreement with the commander of the individual command headquarters listed in the

following list, upon utilizing an individual designated warning area prior to 

commencing such traffic. Such an agreement will provide for positive control of

boats, ships, and aircraft operating into the warning areas at all times. 

W-59 Naval Air Station—JRB 159 Fighter Wing 

400 Russell Avenue 

Building 285

New Orleans, Louisiana 70143-0027 

Telephone: (504) 391-8696/8687; (504) 391-8671 (fax) 

W-147 147 OG/DOV 

14657 Sneider Street 
Environmental Assessment 30 

Houston, Texas 77034-5586 

Telephone: (281) 929-2141/2391 

W-228 Chief, Naval Air Training 

Attn: Code N332 (ATC & Space Mgt) 

Naval Air Station 

Corpus Christi, Texas 78419-5100, 

Telephone: (361) 961-2550/3229 

W-602 VQ-4 

7791 Mercury Rd. 

Tinker AFB, Oklahoma 73145-8704 

Telephone: (402) 294-2334

STIPULATION NO. 3 — OPERATIONS IN THE NAVAL MINE WARFARE AREA

This stipulation will apply to Mustang Island Area Blocks 768, 769, 775, 777, 778, 790, 791, 793,

798, 799, 815, 816, 821, and 822; and Mustang Island Area East Addition Blocks 732, 733, and 734. 

1. The provisions of this paragraph shall apply to all of Mustang Island Area East 

Addition Blocks 732, 733, and 734; and to those portions of Mustang Island Area 

Blocks 768, 769, 777, 778, 790 and 791 which are in Naval Mine Warfare Command

Operational Area D as shown on the attached map and specified on the attached

coordinates list. 

(a) Exploration: The placement, location, and planned periods of operation of 

surface structures on this lease (or portion as specified above) during the 

exploration stage are subject to approval by the Regional Director (RD), MMS

Gulf of Mexico Region, after the review of the operator's Exploration Plan (EP). 

Prior to the submission of the EP, the lessee will consult with the Commander,

Mine Warfare Command, in order to determine the EP's compatibility with

scheduled military operations. The EP shall contain a statement certifying the 

consultation and indicating whether the Commander, Mine Warfare Command 

has any objection to activities and schedule of the EP. No permanent structures

nor debris of any kind shall be allowed in the area covered by this lease during 

exploration operations. 

(b) Development: Any above-seafloor development operations within the area

covered by this lease (or portion as specified above) must be compatible with

scheduled military operations as determined by the Commander, Mine Warfare 

Command. The lessee will consult with and coordinate plans for above-seafloor

development activities (including abandonment) with the Commander, Mine 

Warfare Command. The Development Operations Coordination Document

(DOCD) must contain the locations of any permanent structures, fixed platforms,

pipelines, or anchors planned to be constructed or placed in the area covered by 

this lease (or portion as specified above) as part of such development operations. 

The DOCD must also contain the written comments of the Commander, Mine 

Warfare Command on the proposed activities. If the Commander, Mine Warfare 

Command determines that activities are incompatible, the RD will consult with 

him to resolve the matter. If no resolution can be reached, then development 

operations must be conducted from outside the Naval Mine Warfare Command

Operational Area. 

2. The provisions of this paragraph shall apply to those portions of Mustang Island Area 

Blocks 775, 798, 815, 821, and 822 which are in the Naval Mine Warfare Command

operational transit lanes QJR 101, QJR 102, and QJR 105 as shown on the attached 

map and specified on the attached coordinates list. 
Environmental Assessment 31 

(a) Exploration and Development: No operations, exploratory or development 

activities shall take place, nor will structures of any kind will be placed, in Naval 

Mine Warfare Command operational transit lanes QJR 101, QJR 102, and QJR 

105. 

3. The provisions of this paragraph shall apply to all of Mustang Island Area Blocks 

793, 799, and 816. 

(a) Exploration and Development: The lessee agrees that no activity including, but

not limited to, construction and use of structures, operation of drilling rigs, laying

of pipelines, and/or anchoring will occur or be located on the seabed or in the 

water column above or within any portion of this lease. All exploration, 

development, and production activities or operations must take place from 

outside the lease by the use of directional drilling or other techniques. 

(b) Prior to the submission of Exploration Plans (EP) and Development Operations 

Coordination Documents (DOCD) for this lease, Lessee will consult with the 

Commander, Mine Warfare Command, in order to determine the compatibility of 

Lessee’s plans with scheduled military operations. The EP and DOCD shall 

contain a statement certifying the consultation and indicating whether the

Commander, Mine Warfare Command has any objection to activities and 

schedule of the EP or DOCD. 

4. For more information, consultation, and coordination, the lessee must contact: 

Commander, Mine Warfare Command 

325 Fifth Street, S.E. 

Corpus Christi, Texas 78419-5032 

Phone: (361) 961-4869/4870 
Environmental Assessment 32 MAP FOR NAVAL MINE WARFARE AREA STIPULATION NOTE: This stipulation applies to all or portions of Mustang Island Area Blocks 768, 769, 775, 777, 778, 790, 791, 793, 798, 799, 815, 816, 821, and 822. 

Although not show

n

here, this stipulation also applies to all of Mustang Island Area East 

Addition Blocks 732, 

733, and 734. 
Environmental Assessment 33 

Coordinates for Stipulation No. 3--Operations in the Naval Mine Warfare Area 

Coordinates of Operational Areas for 

Naval Training off Corpus Christi, Texas 

SITE - CORNER WGS - 84 

LATITUDE 

WGS - 84

LONGITUDE

WGS - 84

X(M)

WGS - 84

Y(M)

LAMBERT 

X (FT) 

LAMBERT 

Y (FT) 

D - NW 27°40' 00" 96°54' 30" 706313.566 3062027.331 2515275.590 730113.200

D - SW 27°35' 42" 96°54' 30" 706448.081 3054085.836 2515604.230 704061.290

D - NE 27°40' 00" 96°51' 30" 711246.664 3062111.991 2531458.820 730320.550

D - SE 27°35' 42" 96°51' 30" 711384.401 3054170.348 2531797.780 704268.780

Coordinates of Operational Transit Lanes for 

Naval Training off Corpus Christi, Texas 

TRANSIT LANE WAYPOINT LATITUDE LONGITUDE

QJR 101 A 27° 42.50' N 096° 59.50' W 

B 27° 35.50' N 096° 59.50' W 

C 27° 26.00' N 097° 06.25' W 

QJR 102 A 27° 42.50' N 097° 00.00' W 

B 27° 36.00' N 097° 00.00' W 

C 27° 32.25' N 097° 04.00' W 

D 27° 28.00' N 097° 04.75' W 

QJR 105 A 27° 34.50' N 097° 06.75' W 

B 27° 25.50' N 097° 06.25' W 

Note: All transit lanes are 1,500 yards wide. 

STIPULATION NO. 4 — LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION ROYALTY PAYMENT

This stipulation will be included in leases beyond the United States (U.S.) Exclusive Economic Zone 

(EEZ) in the area formerly known as the Western Gap, as shown on the map "Stipulations and Deferred

Blocks, Sale 196, Proposed" included in the PNOS 196 Package. 

If the U.S. becomes a party to the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention (Convention) prior to or during

the life of a lease issued by the U.S. on a block or portion of a block located beyond the U.S. EEZ and 

subject to such conditions that the Senate may impose through its constitutional role of advice and 

consent, then the following royalty payment lease provisions will apply to the lease so issued, consistent 

with Article 82 of the Convention: 

1. The Convention requires payments annually by coastal States party to the Convention 

with respect to all production at a site after the first five years of production at that 

site. Any such payments will be made by the U.S. government and not the lessee. 
Environmental Assessment 34 

2. For the purpose of this stipulation regarding payments by the lessee to the U.S., a site

is defined as an individual lease whether or not the lease is located in a unit. 

3. For the purpose of this stipulation, the first production year begins on the first day of 

commercial production (excluding test production). Once a production year begins it 

shall run for a period of 365 days whether or not the lease produces continuously in

commercial quantities. Subsequent production years shall begin on the anniversary

date of first production.

4. If total lease production during the first five years following first production exceeds 

the total royalty suspension volume(s) provided in the lease terms, or through 

application and approval of relief from royalties, the following provisions of this

stipulation will not apply. If after the first five years of production but prior to 

termination of this lease, production exceeds the total royalty suspension volume(s) 

provided in the lease terms, or through application and approval of relief from 

royalties, the following provisions of this stipulation will no longer apply effective 

the day after the suspension volumes have been produced. 

5. If, in any production year after the first five years of lease production, due to lease 

royalty suspension provisions or through application and approval of relief from 

royalties, no lease production royalty is due or payable by the lessee to the U.S., then

the lessee will be required to pay, as stipulated in paragraph 9 below, Conventionrelated royalty in the following amount so that the required Convention payments 

may be made by the U. S. government as provided under the Convention: 

a. In the sixth year of production, one percent of the value of the sixth year's lease 

production saved, removed, or sold from the leased area; 

b. After the sixth year of production, the Convention-related royalty payment rate

shall increase by one percent for each subsequent year until the twelfth year and 

shall remain at seven percent thereafter until lease termination. 

6. If the U.S. becomes a party to the Convention after the fifth year of production from 

the lease, and a lessee is required, as provided herein, to pay Convention-related 

royalty, the amount of the royalty due will be based on the above payment schedule 

as determined from first production. For example, U.S. accession to the Convention 

in the tenth year of lease production would result in a Convention-related royalty 

payment of five percent of the value of the tenth year's lease production, saved, 

removed, or sold from the lease. The following year, a payment of six percent would 

be due, and so forth as stated above, up to a maximum of seven percent per year. 

7. If, in any production year after the first five years of lease production, due to lease 

royalty suspension provisions or through application and approval of relief from 

royalties, lease production royalty is paid but is less than the payment provided for by 

the Convention, then the lessee will be required to pay to the U.S. government the 

Convention-related royalty in the amount of the shortfall. 

8. In determining the value of production from the lease if a payment of Conventionrelated royalty is to be made, the provisions of the lease and applicable regulations

shall apply.

9. The Convention-related royalty payment(s) required under paragraphs 5 through 7 of

this stipulation, if any, shall not be paid monthly but shall be due and payable to 

MMS on or before 30 days after the expiration of the relevant production lease year. 

10. The lessee will receive royalty credit in the amount of the Convention-related royalty 

payment required under paragraphs 5 through 7 of this stipulation, which will apply 

to royalties due under the lease for which the Convention-related royalty accrued in 

subsequent periods as non-Convention related royalty payments become due. 
Environmental Assessment 35 

11. Any lease production for which the lessee pays no royalty other than a Conventionrelated requirement, due to lease royalty suspension provisions or through application

and approval of relief from royalties, will count against the lease's applicable royalty

suspension or relief volume. 

12. The lessee will not be allowed to apply or recoup any unused Convention-related 

credit(s) associated with a lease that has been relinquished or terminated. 

STIPULATION NO. 5 — PROTECTED SPECIES

This stipulation will apply to all leases resulting from this sale (WPA Lease Sale 196). 

To reduce the potential taking of Federally protected species (e.g., sea turtles, marine mammals, Gulf

sturgeon, and other listed species): 

(a) The MMS will condition all permits issued to lessees and their operators to 

require them to collect and remove flotsam resulting from activities related to 

exploration, development, and production of this lease. 

(b) The MMS will condition all permits issued to lessees and their operators to 

require them to post signs in prominent places on all vessels and platforms used

as a result of activities related to exploration, development, and production of this

lease detailing the reasons (legal and ecological) why release of debris must be 

eliminated. 

(c) The MMS will require that vessel operators and crews watch for marine

mammals and sea turtles, reduce vessel speed to 10 knots or less when

assemblages of cetaceans are observed and maintain a distance of 90 meters or

greater from whales, and a distance of 45 meters or greater from small cetaceans

and sea turtles. 

(d) The MMS will require that all seismic surveys employ mandatory mitigation 

measures including the use of a 500-meter “exclusion zone” based upon the 

appropriate water depth, ramp-up and shut-down procedures, visual monitoring

and reporting. Seismic operations must immediately cease when certain marine

mammals are detected within the 500-meter exclusion zone. Ramp-up 

procedures and seismic surveys may be initiated only during daylight unless 

alternate monitoring methods approved by MMS are used. 

(e) The MMS will require lessees and operators to instruct offshore personnel to 

immediately report all sightings and locations of injured or dead protected 

species (marine mammals and sea turtles) to the appropriate stranding network. 

If oil and gas industry activity is responsible for the injured or dead animals (e.g. 

because of a vessel strike), the responsible parties should remain available to

assist the stranding network. If the injury or death was caused by a collision with 

your vessel, you must notify MMS within 24 hours of the strike. 

(f) The MMS will require oil spill contingency planning to identify important

habitats, including designated critical habitat, used by listed species (e.g. sea 

turtle nesting beaches, piping plover critical habitat), and require the strategic 

placement of spill cleanup equipment to be used only by personnel trained in 

less-intrusive cleanup techniques on beach and bay shores. 

Lessees and operators will be instructed how to implement these mitigation measures in Notices To

Lessees. 
Environmental Assessment 36 

APPENDIX B. NOTICES TO LESSEES AND OPERATORS 

(NOVEMBER 2002—PRESENT) 

NTL Number Effective Date Title 

2002-G12 November 4, 2002 Revised North American Datum 83 Implementation Plan for the Gulf

of Mexico 

2002-N13 November 1, 2002 Drilling and Well Permit and Reporting Forms 

2002-G15 December 20, 2002 Coastal Zone Management Program Requirements for OCS ROW 

Pipeline Applications 

2003-G03 January 23, 2003 Remotely Operated Vehicle Surveys in Deepwater 

2003-G05 February 15, 2003 Procedures for Submission, Inspection and Selection of Geophysical 

Data and Information Collected Under a Permit and Processed or

Reprocessed by a Permittee or a Third Party

2003-G02 March 3, 2003 Ultimate Recovery Abandonment and Bypassing of Zones 

2003-N03 March 7, 2003 Performance Measures for OCS Operators and Form MMS-131 

2003-N04 May 9, 2003 Extension of Lease Terms by Production in Paying Quantities 

2003-N06 June 17, 2003 Supplemental Bond Procedures 

2003-G10 June 19, 2003 Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species

Reporting 

2003-G11 June 19, 2003 Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination 

2003-G15 August 13, 2003 Contact with District Offices and the Pipeline Section Outside 

Regular Work Hours 

2003-G16 August 15, 2003 Assessment of Existing OCS Platforms 

2003-G17 August 27, 2003 Guidance for Submitting Exploration Plans and Development

Operations Coordination Documents 

2003-G19 September 1, 2003 Drilling Windows, Eastern Gulf of Mexico 

2003-G20 January 1, 2004 Gas Volume Statement Requirements 

2004-N01 January 12, 2004 Revised Assessment Matrix 

2004-G02 January 27, 2004 Military Warning and Water Test Areas 
Environmental Assessment 37 

NTL Number Effective Date Title 

2004-G03 February 6, 2004 Notification and Confirmation of Deep Gas Royalty Relief 

2004-G01 March 1, 2004 Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and 

Protected Species Observer Program 

2004-G04 March 7, 2004 Standard Reporting Period for the Well Activity Report 

2004-G05 April 1, 2004 Biologically Sensitive Areas of the Gulf of Mexico

2004-G06 April 5, 2004 Structure Removal Operations 

2004-G07 April 20, 2004 Well Records Submittal 

2004-G08 April 21, 2004 Flaring and Venting Approval Guidelines 

2004-G11 May 3, 2004 Clarification of Deep Gas Royalty Relief Regulation Regarding 

Natural Gas Liquids and Pipeline (Retrograde) Condensate 

2004-G09 May 17, 2004 Policies for Shutting-In Producible Wells During Rig Moves 

2004-G10 June 1, 2004 Implementation of the eWell Permitting and Reporting System 

2004-G07

Addendum 1 

June 1, 2004 Change of MMS Contractor Receiving Digital Well Log Drilling 

Records and Additional Well Log Curves to Submit 

2004-N03 July 26, 2004 Directional and Inclination Survey Data Submission Requirements 

2004-G12 June 21, 2004 Clarification of Deep Gas Royalty Suspension Provision in Lease 

Instrument Relating to Sidetrack Completions

2004-G13 June 22, 2004 Replacing Deep Gas Royalty Relief Provisions in Lease Instrument

With Regulatory Deep Gas Royalty Relief Provisions

2004-G14 June 23, 2004 Hurricane and Tropical Storm Evacuation and Production

Curtailment Statistics 

2004-N04 June 25, 2004 Data and Information to be Made Available to the Public

2004-G15 August 10, 2004 Application of the Deep Gas Royalty Relief Rule to Leases Issued

from 2001 through 2003

2004-G16 August 19, 2004 Suspensions of Operations (SOO’s) for Drilling Ultra-Deep Wells 

Under Salt Sheets 
Environmental Assessment 38 

NTL Number Effective Date Title 

2004-G17 September 10, 2004 Production Activities Information Collection and Reporting for 

Calculations of Air Emissions in the Western Gulf of Mexico 

2004-G18 October 4, 2004 Damage Caused by Hurricane Ivan 

2004-G19 October 18, 2004 Damage Caused by Hurricane Ivan (Part 2)

2004-G20 November 15, 2004 Damage Caused by Hurricane Ivan (Part 3)

2004-G22 December 1, 2004 Drilling Windows, Eastern Gulf of Mexico 

2005-G01 January 6, 2005 Monitoring Bypassed Safety Devices 

2005-G02 March 31, 2005 Deepwater Ocean Current Monitoring on Floating Facilities 

2005-N01 January 7, 2005 2005 Industry Awards Program and Luncheon
Environmental Assessment 39 

APPENDIX C. PUBLICATIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 

PROGRAM, GULF OF MEXICO OCS REGION

(NOVEMBER 2002—PRESENT) 

Study 

Number Title 

2002-055 Northeastern Gulf of Mexico Chemical Oceanography and Hydrography Study, Synthesis

Report 

2002-063 Deepwater Program: Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Slope Habitats and Benthic

Ecology; Year 2: Interim Report

2002-064 Lagrangian Study of Circulation, Transport, and Vertical Exchange in the Gulf of Mexico 

2002-072 Effect of the Oil and Gas Industry on Commuting and Migration Patterns in Louisiana: 1960-

1990

2002-073 Emissions Inventories of OCS Production and Development Activities in the Gulf of Mexico, 

Final Report 

2002-077 Offshore Petroleum Platforms: Functional Significance for Larval Fish Across Longitudinal and

Latitudinal Gradients

2002-078 Deepwater Program: Bluewater Fishing and OCS Activity, Interactions Between the Fishing

and Petroleum Industries in Deepwaters of the Gulf of Mexico, Final Report 

2003-004 Dynamics of the Oil and Gas Industry in the Gulf of Mexico: 1980-2000, Final Report 

2003-005 Proceedings: Twenty-first Annual Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer Meeting, January 2002

2003-009 Rigs and Reefs: A Comparison of the Fish Communities at Two Artificial Reefs, a Production 

Platform, and a Natural Reef in the Northern Gulf of Mexico; Final Report 

2003-018 Modeling the Economic Impacts of Offshore Oil and Gas Activities in the Gulf of Mexico: 

Methods and Applications 

2003-022 Labor Demand in the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry in the 1990’s: The Louisiana Case 

2003-029 Importance of Zooplankton in the Diets of Blue Runner (Caranx crysos) Near Offshore 

Petroleum Platforms in the Northern Gulf of Mexico 

2003-030 Workshop on Deepwater Environmental Studies Strategy: A Five-Year Follow-Up and 

Planning for the Future; May 29-31, 2002

2003-031 Long-Term Monitoring at the East and West Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary,

1998-2001; Final Report
Environmental Assessment 40 

Study 

Number Title 

2003-038 Environmental Justice Considerations in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana 

2003-040 Marine and Coastal Fishes Subject to Impingement by Cooling-Water Intake Systems in the

Northern Gulf of Mexico: An Annotated Bibliography 

2003-041 Changing Patterns of Ownership and Control in the Petroleum Industry: Implications on the

Market for Oil and Gas Leases in the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 1983-1999 

2003-048 

2003-049 

Deepwater Observations in the Northern Gulf of Mexico from In-situ Current Meters and PIES 

Volume I: Executive Summary

Volume II: Technical Report

2003-060 

2003-061 

2003-062 

Refining and Revising the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region High-Probability

Model for Historic Shipwrecks, Final Report

Volume I: Executive Summary

Volume II: Technical Narrative 

Volume III: Appendices 

2003-063 Historical Reconstruction of the Contaminant Loading and Biological Responses in the Central

Gulf of Mexico Shelf Sediments 

2003-065 Preparation of an Interactive Key for Northern Gulf of Mexico Polychaete Taxonomy Employing

the DELTA/INTKEY System, FInal Report 

2003-069 Sperm Whale Seismic Study in the Gulf of Mexico, Annual Report: Year 1 

2003-072 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 

2003-073 Proceedings: Twenty-Second Annual Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer Meeting, January 

2003

2003-074 Modeling and Data Analyses of Circulation Processes in the Gulf of Mexico, Final Report 

2004-009 Long-Term Oil and Gas Structure Installation and Removal Forecasting in the Gulf of Mexico: 

A Decision- and Resource-Based Approach 

2004-013 Intermediate Depth Circulation in the Gulf of Mexico: PALACE Float Results for the Gulf of 

Mexico Between April 1998 and March 2002 

2004-015 Minerals Management Service Environmental Studies Program: A History of Biological

Investigations in the Gulf of Mexico, 1973-2000

2004-016 Fiscal System Analysis: Concessionary and Contractual Systems Used in Offshore Petroleum 

Arrangements
Environmental Assessment 41 

Study 

Number Title 

2004-017 Cross-Shelf Exchange Processes and the Deepwater Circulation of the Gulf of Mexico: 

Dynamical Effects of Submarine Canyons and Interactions of Loop Current Eddies with 

Topography, Final Report 

2004-022 Subsurface, High-Speed Current Jets in the Deepwater Region of the Gulf of Mexico, Final 

Report 

2004-027 Deepwater Program: OCS-Related Infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico Fact Book 

2004-036 Observational and Predictive Study of Inner Shelf Currents over the Louisiana-Texas Shelf 

2004-040 Strong Mid-Depth Currents and a Deep Cyclonic Gyre in the Gulf of Mexico 

2004-041 Economic Impact in the U.S. of Deepwater Projects: A Survey of Five Projects 

2004-047 Supply Network for Deepwater Oil and Gas Development in the Gulf of Mexico: An Empirical 

Analysis of Demand for Port Services, Final Report 

2004-049 

2004-050 

2004-051 

History of the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry in Southern Louisiana: Interim Report 

Volume I: Papers on the Evolving Offshore Industry 

Volume II: Bayou Lafourche—An Oral History of the Development of the Oil and Gas 

Industry 

Volume III: Samples of Interviews and Ethnographic Preferences 

2004-052 Effects of Changes in Oil and Gas Prices and State Offshore Petroleum Production on the 

Louisiana Economy, 1969-1999 

2004-057 Labor Migration and the Deepwater Oil Industry 

2004-060 Boundary Layer Study in the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico 

2004-063 High-Resolution Integrated Hydrology-Hydrodynamic Model: Development and Application to 

Barataria Basin, Louisiana 

2004-067 Sperm Whale Seismic Study in the Gulf of Mexico, Annual Report: Year 2 

2004-070 User’s Guide for the 2005 Gulfwide Offshore Activities Data System (GOADS-2005): Final 

Report 

2004-071 Data Quality Control and Emissions Inventories of OCS Oil and Gas Production Activities in 

the Breton Area of the Gulf of Mexico 

2004-072 Gulfwide Emission Inventory for the Regional Haze and Ozone Modeling Effort 
The Department of the Interior Mission

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility 

for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering 

sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; 

preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; 

and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses 

our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best 

interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. 

The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities 

and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. 

The Minerals Management Service Mission 

As a bureau of the Department of the Interior, the Minerals Management Service's (MMS) 

primary responsibilities are to manage the mineral resources located on the Nation's Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS), collect revenue from the Federal OCS and onshore Federal and Indian 

lands, and distribute those revenues. 

Moreover, in working to meet its responsibilities, the Offshore Minerals Management Program 

administers the OCS competitive leasing program and oversees the safe and environmentally 

sound exploration and production of our Nation's offshore natural gas, oil and other mineral 

resources. The MMS Minerals Revenue Management meets its responsibilities by ensuring the 

efficient, timely and accurate collection and disbursement of revenue from mineral leasing and 

production due to Indian tribes and allottees, States and the U.S. Treasury. 

The MMS strives to fulfill its responsibilities through the general guiding principles of: (1) being 

responsive to the public's concerns and interests by maintaining a dialogue with all potentially 

affected parties and (2) carrying out its programs with an emphasis on working to enhance the 

quality of life for all Americans by lending MMS assistance and expertise to economic 

development and environmental protection.