2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Contents iii

1 CONTENTS

2

3

4 SUMMARY........................................................................................................................... xxix

5

6 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS.............................................................................. xlvii

7

8 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1-1

9

10 1.1 Background.......................................................................................................... 1-1

11 1.2 Purpose of and Need for Action........................................................................... 1-3

12 1.3 Environmental Review under NEPA................................................................... 1-5

13 1.3.1 Scope of the PEIS .................................................................................... 1-6

14 1.3.1.1 Incomplete and Unavailable Information ................................. 1-8

15 1.3.2 Public Involvement .................................................................................. 1-9

16 1.4 Analytical Issues.................................................................................................. 1-11

17 1.4.1 Geographic Scope .................................................................................... 1-11

18 1.4.2 Analytic Scope ......................................................................................... 1-11

19 1.4.3 Impact-Producing Factors........................................................................ 1-12

20 1.4.4 Potentially Affected Resources................................................................ 1-13

21 1.4.5 Issues Not Analyzed in This PEIS........................................................... 1-16

22 1.4.5.1 Worker Safety........................................................................... 1-16

23 1.4.5.2 Proposed Seismic Inventory ..................................................... 1-16

24 1.4.5.3 Neighboring Countries Drilling on OCS Border with the 

25 United States............................................................................. 1-17

26 1.4.5.4 Biological Assessment and Opinion for Threatened and 

27 Endangered Species.................................................................. 1-17

28 1.4.5.5 Life Cycle Effects of Oil and Gas Development ...................... 1-18

29 1.4.5.6 Resource Estimates and Impact Analyses ................................ 1-18

30 1.5 Organization of This PEIS................................................................................... 1-19

31 1.6 References............................................................................................................ 1-20

32

33 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION................................... 2-1

34

35 2.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action.......................................................................... 2-3

36 2.2 Alternative 2 – Exclude the Eastern GOM Planning Area for the Duration 

37 of the Program...................................................................................................... 2-6

38 2.3 Alternative 3 – Exclude the Western GOM Planning Area for the Duration

39 of the Program...................................................................................................... 2-6

40 2.4 Alternative 4 – Exclude the Central GOM Planning Area for the Duration

41 of the Program...................................................................................................... 2-7

42 2.5 Alternative 5 – Exclude the Beaufort Sea Planning Area for the Duration

43 of the Program...................................................................................................... 2-7

44 2.6 Alternative 6 – Exclude the Chukchi Sea Planning Area for the Duration

45 of the Program...................................................................................................... 2-7

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Contents iv

1 CONTENTS (Cont.)

2

3

4 2.7 Alternative 7 – Exclude the Cook Inlet Planning Area for the Duration 

5 of the 2012-2017 Program ................................................................................... 2-7

6 2.8 Alterntive 8 – No Action...................................................................................... 2-8

7 2.9 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Programmatic 

8 Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 2-8

9 2.9.1 Expand the Oil and Gas Leasing Program to Include More or All 

10 OCS Planning Areas................................................................................ 2-8

11 2.9.2 Hold Multiple Lease Sales in Some OCS Planning Areas ...................... 2-9

12 2.9.3 Delay Sales until Further Evaluation of Oil Spill Response and 

13 Drilling Safety Is Completed ................................................................... 2-10

14 2.9.4 Develop Alternate/Renewable Energy Sources as a Substitute for 

15 Oil and Gas Leasing on the OCS ............................................................. 2-10

16 2.9.5 Add Areal and Temporal Exclusion and Restriction Zones around 

17 Sensitive Areas and Resources ................................................................ 2-11

18 2.9.6 Reduce the Lease Sale Sizes to Smaller Than Area-Wide ...................... 2-11

19 2.9.7 Defer Oil and Gas Leasing in Deepwater Areas of the Central and 

20 Western GOM Planning Areas ................................................................ 2-12

21 2.10 Summary of Impacts Anticipated from the Proposed Action and 

22 Alternatives.......................................................................................................... 2-13

23 2.11 References............................................................................................................ 2-14

24

25 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.................................................................................... 3-1

26

27 3.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 3-1

28 3.2 Marine and Coastal Ecoregions........................................................................... 3-1

29 3.2.1 Large Marine Ecosystems........................................................................ 3-4

30 3.2.1.1 Gulf of Alaska Large Marine Ecosystem ................................. 3-4

31 3.2.1.2 Beaufort Sea Large Marine Ecosystem .................................... 3-8

32 3.2.1.3 Chukchi Sea Large Marine Ecosystem..................................... 3-8

33 3.2.1.4 Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem ................................ 3-8

34 3.2.2 Marine and Coastal Ecoregions of North America.................................. 3-11

35 3.2.3 Ecoregions of the Northern Gulf of Mexico............................................ 3-15

36 3.2.3.1 Northern Gulf of Mexico Shelf Ecoregion ............................... 3-15

37 3.2.3.2 Northern Gulf of Mexico Slope Ecoregion............................... 3-15

38 3.2.3.3 Mississippi Fan Ecoregion........................................................ 3-16

39 3.2.3.4 Gulf of Mexico Basin Ecoregion.............................................. 3-16

40 3.2.4 Ecoregions of the Gulf of Alaska............................................................. 3-16

41 3.2.4.1 Alaskan/Fjordland Shelf Level II Ecoregion............................ 3-16

42 3.2.4.2 Gulf of Alaska Level III Ecoregion .......................................... 3-17

43 3.2.4.3 Cook Inlet Level III Ecoregion................................................. 3-17

44 3.2.5 Ecoregions of the Alaska Arctic Coast .................................................... 3-17

45 3.2.5.1 Arctic Slope and Arctic Plains Level II Ecoregions................... 3-17

46 3.2.5.2 Beaufort/Chukchian Shelf Level II Ecoregion ......................... 3-18
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Contents v

1 CONTENTS (Cont.)

2

3

4 3.2.5.3 Beaufortian and Chukchian Neritic Level III Ecoregions........ 3-18

5 3.3 Considerations of Climate Change and the Baseline Environment..................... 3-18

6 3.3.1 Gulf of Mexico......................................................................................... 3-24

7 3.3.2 Alaska Region.......................................................................................... 3-25

8 3.4 Water Quality....................................................................................................... 3-27

9 3.4.1 Gulf of Mexico......................................................................................... 3-27

10 3.4.1.1 Coastal Waters.......................................................................... 3-28

11 3.4.1.2 Marine Waters........................................................................... 3-31

12 3.4.1.3 Climate Change Effects............................................................ 3-34

13 3.4.1.4 Deepwater Horizon Event......................................................... 3-35

14 3.4.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet ................................................................................. 3-40

15 3.4.2.1 Climate Change Effects............................................................ 3-43

16 3.4.3 Alaska – Arctic ........................................................................................ 3-43

17 3.4.3.1 Climate Change Effects............................................................ 3-47

18 3.5 Meterology and Air Quality................................................................................. 3-47

19 3.5.1 Climate..................................................................................................... 3-47

20 3.5.1.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 3-47

21 3.5.1.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 3-50

22 3.5.1.3 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 3-53

23 3.5.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................... 3-55

24 3.5.2.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 3-55

25 3.5.2.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 3-62

26 3.5.2.3 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 3-65

27 3.6 Acoustic Environment ......................................................................................... 3-67

28 3.6.1 Gulf of Mexico......................................................................................... 3-67

29 3.6.1.1 Sound Fundamentals................................................................. 3-67

30 3.6.1.2 Sound Propagation.................................................................... 3-69

31 3.6.1.3 Ambient Noise .......................................................................... 3-70

32 3.6.1.4 Anthropogenic Noise ................................................................ 3-71

33 3.6.1.5 Climate Change Effects............................................................ 3-82

34 3.6.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet ................................................................................. 3-82

35 3.6.2.1 Sources of Natural Sound ......................................................... 3-83

36 3.6.2.2 Sources of Anthropogenic Sound ............................................. 3-84

37 3.6.2.3 Climate Change Effects............................................................ 3-84

38 3.6.3 Alaska – Arctic ........................................................................................ 3-85

39 3.6.3.1 Sources of Natural Sound ......................................................... 3-85

40 3.6.3.2 Sources of Anthropogenic Sound ............................................. 3-87

41 3.6.3.3 Climate Change Effects............................................................ 3-90

42 3.7 Marine, Coastal, and other adjacent Habitats ...................................................... 3-91

43 3.7.1 Coastal and Estuarine Habitats ................................................................ 3-91

44 3.7.1.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 3-91

45 3.7.1.2 Cook Inlet ................................................................................. 3-107

46 3.7.1.3 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 3-109
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Contents vi

1 CONTENTS (Cont.)

2

3

4 3.7.2 Marine Benthic Habitats.......................................................................... 3-118

5 3.7.2.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 3-118

6 3.7.2.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 3-130

7 3.7.2.3 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 3-131

8 3.7.3 Marine Pelagic Habitats........................................................................... 3-135

9 3.7.3.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 3-135

10 3.7.3.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 3-138

11 3.7.3.3 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 3-141

12 3.7.4 Essential Fish Habitat .............................................................................. 3-143

13 3.7.4.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 3-144

14 3.7.4.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 3-148

15 3.7.4.3 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 3-150

16 3.8 Marine and Coastal Fauna ................................................................................... 3-152

17 3.8.1 Mammals.................................................................................................. 3-152

18 3.8.1.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 3-152

19 3.8.1.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 3-173

20 3.8.1.3 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 3-189

21 3.8.2 Marine and Coastal Birds......................................................................... 3-210

22 3.8.2.1 Marine and Coastal Birds of the Northern Gulf of 

23 Mexico ...................................................................................... 3-210

24 3.8.2.2 Marine and Coastal Birds of Alaska – Cook Inlet.................... 3-230

25 3.8.2.3 Marine and Coastal Birds of the Beaufort and Chukchi 

26 Seas Planning Areas.................................................................. 3-236

27 3.8.3 Reptiles 3-248

28 3.8.3.1 Life Stages and Habitats in the Gulf of Mexico ....................... 3-248

29 3.8.3.2 Climate Change Effects on Sea Turtles.................................... 3-254

30 3.8.4 Fish........................................................................................................... 3-255

31 3.8.4.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 3-255

32 3.8.4.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 3-262

33 3.8.4.3 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 3-265

34 3.8.5 Invertebrates and Lower Trophic Levels................................................. 3-268

35 3.8.5.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 3-269

36 3.8.5.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 3-274

37 3.8.5.3 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 3-275

38 3.9 Areas of Special Concern..................................................................................... 3-277

39 3.9.1 Gulf of Mexico......................................................................................... 3-277

40 3.9.1.1 Coastal Areas of Special Concern ............................................ 3-277

41 3.9.1.2 Marine Areas of Special Concern............................................. 3-284

42 3.9.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet ................................................................................. 3-288

43 3.9.2.1 National Park Service Lands..................................................... 3-288

44 3.9.2.2 Fish and Wildlife Service Lands............................................... 3-290

45 3.9.2.3 Forest Service Lands................................................................. 3-291

46 3.9.2.4 Marine Protected Areas ............................................................ 3-291
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI 

November 2011 BOEM

Contents vii 

1 CONTENTS (Cont.) 

 2 

 3 

4 3.9.2.5 Other Areas of Special Concern ............................................... 3-292 

5 3.9.3 Alaska – Arctic ........................................................................................ 3-293 

6 3.9.3.1 National Park Service Lands..................................................... 3-293 

7 3.9.3.2 Fish and Wildlife Service Lands ............................................... 3-293 

8 3.9.3.3 Marine Protected Areas ............................................................ 3-295 

9 3.9.3.4 Other Areas of Special Concern ............................................... 3-295 

10 3.10 Population, Employment, and Income ................................................................. 3-295 

11 3.10.1 Population ................................................................................................ 3-296 

12 3.10.1.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 3-296 

13 3.10.1.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 3-298 

14 3.10.1.3 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 3-298 

15 3.10.2 Community Population and Income ........................................................ 3-299 

16 3.10.2.1 Alaska – Cook Inlet ................................................................... 3-299 

17 3.10.2.2 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 3-301 

18 3.10.3 Employment, Unemployment, and Earnings ........................................... 3-301 

19 3.10.3.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 3-301 

20 3.10.3.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 3-302 

21 3.10.3.3 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 3-305 

22 3.10.4 Employment by Industry.......................................................................... 3-305 

23 3.10.4.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 3-305 

24 3.10.4.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 3-305 

25 3.10.4.3 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 3-306 

26 3.10.5 Oil and Gas Employment ......................................................................... 3-307 

27 3.10.5.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 3-307 

28 3.10.5.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 3-307 

29 3.10.5.3 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 3-307 

30 3.10.6 Population, Labor Force, and Income Projections ................................... 3-308 

31 3.10.6.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 3-308 

32 3.10.6.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 3-308 

33 3.10.6.3 Alaska – Arctic .......................................................................... 3-309 

34 3.10.7 Economic Impacts of the Deepwater Horizon Event ............................... 3-310 

35 3.11 Land Use and Infrastructure ................................................................................. 3-311 

36 3.11.1 Gulf of Mexico ......................................................................................... 3-311 

37 3.11.1.1 Ports .......................................................................................... 3-317 

38 3.11.1.2 Platform Fabrication Yards ....................................................... 3-320 

39 3.11.1.3 Shipyards .................................................................................. 3-321 

40 3.11.1.4 Support and Transport Facilities ............................................... 3-321 

41 3.11.1.5 Pipelines .................................................................................... 3-322 

42 3.11.1.6 Pipecoating Plants and Yards ................................................... 3-322 

43 3.11.1.7 Natural Gas Processing Plants and Storage Facilities .............. 3-322 

44 3.11.1.8 Refineries .................................................................................. 3-323 

45 3.11.1.9 Petrochemical Plants ................................................................. 3-323 

46 3.11.1.10 Waste Management Facilities ................................................... 3-324 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Contents viii

1 CONTENTS (Cont.)

2

3

4 3.11.1.11Effects of Deepwater Horizon Event........................................ 3-324

5 3.11.1.12Climate Change......................................................................... 3-325

6 3.11.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet ................................................................................. 3-328

7 3.11.3 Alaska – Arctic ........................................................................................ 3-332

8 3.12 Commercial and Recreational Fisheries .............................................................. 3-336

9 3.12.1 Commercial Fisheries .............................................................................. 3-336

10 3.12.1.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 3-336

11 3.12.1.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 3-339

12 3.12.1.3 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 3-340

13 3.12.2 Recreational Fisheries.............................................................................. 3-341

14 3.12.2.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 3-341

15 3.12.2.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 3-344

16 3.12.2.3 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 3-345

17 3.13 Tourism and Recreation....................................................................................... 3-345

18 3.13.1 Recreational Resources............................................................................ 3-345

19 3.13.1.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 3-345

20 3.13.1.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 3-345

21 3.13.1.3 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 3-346

22 3.13.2 Beach Recreation ..................................................................................... 3-346

23 3.13.2.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 3-346

24 3.13.3 Casino Gambling ..................................................................................... 3-347

25 3.13.3.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 3-347

26 3.13.3.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet and Arctic................................................. 3-347

27 3.13.4 Recreational Benefits of Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms....................... 3-348

28 3.13.4.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 3-348

29 3.13.4.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet and Arctic................................................. 3-349

30 3.13.5 Recreation and Tourism Employment ..................................................... 3-349

31 3.13.5.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 3-349

32 3.13.5.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 3-349

33 3.13.5.3 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 3-349

34 3.13.6 Impact of Oil Spills on Recreation and Tourism ..................................... 3-350

35 3.14 Sociocultural Systems and Subsistence ............................................................... 3-353

36 3.14.1 Gulf of Mexico......................................................................................... 3-354

37 3.14.1.1 Sociocultural Systems............................................................... 3-354

38 3.14.1.2 Subsistence and Renewable Resource Harvesting.................... 3-356

39 3.14.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet ................................................................................. 3-357

40 3.14.2.1 Sociocultural Systems............................................................... 3-357

41 3.14.2.2 Subsistence................................................................................ 3-359

42 3.14.3 Alaska – Arctic ........................................................................................ 3-368

43 3.14.3.1 Sociocultural Systems............................................................... 3-368

44 3.14.3.2 Subsistence................................................................................ 3-374

45 3.15 Environmental Justice.......................................................................................... 3-379

46 3.15.1 Gulf of Mexico......................................................................................... 3-384
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Contents ix

1 CONTENTS (Cont.)

2

3

4 3.15.1.1 Oil Spills and Human Health Effects........................................ 3-386

5 3.15.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet ................................................................................. 3-387

6 3.15.2.1 Consumption of Fish and Game ............................................... 3-388

7 3.15.2.2 Oil Spills and Subsistence ........................................................ 3-389

8 3.15.3 Alaska – Arctic ........................................................................................ 3-390

9 3.15.3.1 Health Status of Alaska Native Communities .......................... 3-391

10 3.16 Archaeological and Historic Resources............................................................... 3-396

11 3.16.1 Gulf of Mexico......................................................................................... 3-396

12 3.16.1.1 Offshore Prehistoric Resources ................................................ 3-397

13 3.16.1.2 Offshore Historic Resources..................................................... 3-397

14 3.16.1.3 Onshore Archaeological and Historic Resources ..................... 3-399

15 3.16.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet ................................................................................. 3-399

16 3.16.2.1 Offshore Prehistoric Resources ................................................ 3-399

17 3.16.2.2 Offshore Historic Resources..................................................... 3-400

18 3.16.2.3 Onshore Archaeological and Historic Resources ..................... 3-400

19 3.16.3 Alaska – Arctic ........................................................................................ 3-400

20 3.16.3.1 Offshore Prehistoric Resources ................................................ 3-400

21 3.16.3.2 Offshore Historic Resources..................................................... 3-401

22 3.16.3.3 Onshore Archaeological and Historic Resources ..................... 3-402

23 3.17 References............................................................................................................ 3-402

24

25 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................................................... 4-1

26

27 4.1 Environmental Consequences Associated With OCS Oil and Gas Activities..... 4-1

28 4.1.1 Routine Operations and Common Impact-Producing Factors................. 4-1

29 4.1.1.1 Exploration................................................................................ 4-2

30 4.1.1.2 Development............................................................................. 4-4

31 4.1.1.3 Operation .................................................................................. 4-5

32 4.1.1.4 Decommissioning ..................................................................... 4-5

33 4.1.2 Accidental Events and Spills ................................................................... 4-6

34 4.1.3 Assessment Approach.............................................................................. 4-6

35 4.1.4 Definition of Impact Levels..................................................................... 4-8

36 4.1.4.1 Impact Levels for Biological and Physical Resources.............. 4-9

37 4.1.4.2 Impact Levels for Societal Issues ............................................. 4-9

38 4.2 Relationship of the Physical Environment to Oil and Gas Operations................ 4-10

39 4.2.1 Physiography, Bathymetry, and Geologic Hazards................................. 4-10

40 4.2.1.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 4-10

41 4.2.1.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 4-17

42 4.2.1.3 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 4-31

43 4.2.2 Sea Ice and Permafrost............................................................................. 4-37

44 4.2.2.1 Sea Ice....................................................................................... 4-37

45 4.2.2.2 Subsea and Coastal Permafrost................................................. 4-41

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Contents x

1 CONTENTS (Cont.)

2

3

4 4.2.3 Physical Oceanography............................................................................ 4-41

5 4.2.3.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 4-41

6 4.2.3.2 Alaska Region........................................................................... 4-46

7 4.3 Assessment of Issues of Programmatic Concern................................................. 4-53

8 4.3.1 Multiple Use Issues and Marine Spatial Planning ................................... 4-53

9 4.3.1.1 Multiple Use Issues................................................................... 4-54

10 4.3.1.2 Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning........................................ 4-57

11 4.3.2 Health Impact Assessment....................................................................... 4-59

12 4.3.2.1 National Environmental Policy Act.......................................... 4-59

13 4.3.2.2 Potential Impacts on the Human Environment......................... 4-59

14 4.3.2.3 Potential Impacts of Routine Events Oil and Gas Activities.... 4-59

15 4.3.2.4 Potential Impacts of Accidental Spills...................................... 4-60

16 4.3.2.5 Conclusion ................................................................................ 4-62

17 4.3.3 Invasive Species....................................................................................... 4-62

18 4.3.4 Risk of a Low-probability, Catastrophic Discharge Event ...................... 4-65

19 4.3.4.1 Introduction............................................................................... 4-65

20 4.3.4.2 Risk Factors Influencing Occurrence, Size, Containment, 

21 Response, and Fate/Consequence of a Catastrophic 

22 Discharge .................................................................................. 4-66

23 4.3.4.3 Regional Risk Profiles.............................................................. 4-84

24 4.4 Environmental Impacts of Alternative 1 – Proposed Action............................... 4-100

25 4.4.1 Exploration and Development Scenario .................................................. 4-100

26 4.4.1.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 4-100

27 4.4.1.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 4-103

28 4.4.1.3 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 4-104

29 4.4.2 Accidental Spill Scenario......................................................................... 4-106

30 4.4.2.1 Spill Size Assumptions............................................................. 4-108

31 4.4.2.2 Spill Number Assumptions....................................................... 4-111

32 4.4.3 Potential Impacts on Water Quality......................................................... 4-111

33 4.4.3.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 4-111

34 4.4.3.2 Alaska Cook Inlet ..................................................................... 4-119

35 4.4.3.3 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 4-125

36 4.4.3.4 Conclusions............................................................................... 4-130

37 4.4.4 Potential Impacts on Air Quality ............................................................. 4-130

38 4.4.4.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 4-130

39 4.4.4.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 4-141

40 4.4.4.3 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 4-148

41 4.4.4.4 Conclusions............................................................................... 4-157

42 4.4.5 Potential Impacts on the Acoustic Environment...................................... 4-158

43 4.4.5.1 Introduction............................................................................... 4-158

44 4.4.5.2 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 4-160

45 4.4.5.3 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 4-162

46 4.4.5.4 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 4-165
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Contents xi

1 CONTENTS (Cont.)

2

3

4 4.4.5.5 Conclusion ................................................................................ 4-168

5 4.4.6 Potential Impacts on Marine and Coastal Habitats.................................. 4-168

6 4.4.6.1 Coastal and Estuarine Habitats................................................. 4-168

7 4.4.6.2 Marine Benthic Habitats........................................................... 4-185

8 4.4.6.3 Marine Pelagic Habitats............................................................ 4-212

9 4.4.6.4 Essential Fish Habitat ............................................................... 4-224

10 4.4.7 Potential Impacts on Marine and Coastal Fauna...................................... 4-236

11 4.4.7.1 Mammals .................................................................................. 4-236

12 4.4.7.2 Marine and Coastal Birds ......................................................... 4-294

13 4.4.7.3 Fish ........................................................................................... 4-319

14 4.4.7.4 Reptiles..................................................................................... 4-338

15 4.4.7.5 Invertebrates and Lower Trophic Levels.................................. 4-358

16 4.4.8 Potential Impacts to Areas of Special Concern........................................ 4-374

17 4.4.8.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 4-374

18 4.4.8.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 4-376

19 4.4.8.3 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 4-379

20 4.4.8.4 Conclusion ................................................................................ 4-381

21 4.4.9 Potential Impacts on Population, Employment, and Income................... 4-381

22 4.4.9.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 4-381

23 4.4.9.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 4-384

24 4.4.9.3 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 4-386

25 4.4.9.4 Conclusions............................................................................... 4-388

26 4.4.10 Potential Impacts to Land Use and Infrastructure.................................... 4-388

27 4.4.10.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 4-393

28 4.4.10.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 4-400

29 4.4.10.3 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 4-407

30 4.4.10.4 Conclusion ................................................................................ 4-414

31 4.4.11 Potential Impacts on Commercial and Recreational Fisheries ................ 4-415

32 4.4.11.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 4-415

33 4.4.11.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 4-418

34 4.4.11.3 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 4-423

35 4.4.11.4 Conclusion ................................................................................ 4-425

36 4.4.12 Potential Impacts to Tourism and Recreation.......................................... 4-425

37 4.4.12.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 4-425

38 4.4.12.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 4-427

39 4.4.12.3 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 4-428

40 4.4.12.4 Conclusion ................................................................................ 4-429

41 4.4.13 Potential Impacts to Sociocultural Systems............................................. 4-430

42 4.4.13.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 4-430

43 4.4.13.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 4-431

44 4.4.13.3 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 4-438

45 4.4.13.4 Conclusion ................................................................................ 4-448

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Contents xii

1 CONTENTS (Cont.)

2

3

4 4.4.14 Potential Impacts on Environmental Justice ............................................ 4-450

5 4.4.14.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 4-450

6 4.4.14.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 4-452

7 4.4.14.3 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 4-454

8 4.4.14.4 Conclusion ................................................................................ 4-456

9 4.4.15 Potential Impacts to Archeological and Historic Resources.................... 4-457

10 4.4.15.1 Gulf of Mexico.......................................................................... 4-457

11 4.4.15.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 4-461

12 4.4.15.3 Alaska – Arctic ......................................................................... 4-464

13 4.4.15.4 Conclusion ................................................................................ 4-467

14 4.5 Other Alternatives................................................................................................ 4-468

15 4.5.1 Alternative 2 – Defer the Eastern Planning Area for the Duration 

16 of the 2012-2017 Program ....................................................................... 4-468

17 4.5.1.1 Description of Alternative 2 ..................................................... 4-468

18 4.5.1.2 Summary of Impacts................................................................. 4-468

19 4.5.2 Alternative 3 – Defer the Western Planning Area for the Duration

20 of the 2012-2017 Program ....................................................................... 4-469

21 4.5.2.1 Description of Alternative 3 ..................................................... 4-469

22 4.5.2.2 Summary of Impacts................................................................. 4-469

23 4.5.3 Alternative 4 – Defer the Central Planning Area for the Duration 

24 of the 2012-2017 Program ....................................................................... 4-470

25 4.5.3.1 Description of Alternative 4 ..................................................... 4-470

26 4.5.3.2 Summary of Impacts................................................................. 4-471

27 4.5.4 Alternative 5 – Defer the Beaufort Sea Planning Area for the 

28 Duration of the 2012-2017 Program........................................................ 4-472

29 4.5.4.1 Description of Alternative 5 ..................................................... 4-472

30 4.5.4.2 Summary of Impacts................................................................. 4-472

31 4.5.5 Alternative 6 – Defer the Chukchi Sea Planning Area for the

32 Duration of the 2012-2017 Program........................................................ 4-473

33 4.5.5.1 Description of Alternative 6 ..................................................... 4-473

34 4.5.5.2 Summary of Impacts................................................................. 4-473

35 4.5.6 Alternative 7 – Defer the Cook Inlet Planning Area for the 

36 Duration of the 2012-2017 Program........................................................ 4-474

37 4.5.6.1 Description of Alternative 7 ..................................................... 4-474

38 4.5.6.2 Summary of Impacts................................................................. 4-474

39 4.5.7 Alternative 8 – No Action........................................................................ 4-476

40 4.5.7.1 Oil and Gas Uses and Alternatives........................................... 4-476

41 4.5.7.2 Analysis of the Environmental Effects of the No 

42 Action Alternative..................................................................... 4-495

43 4.6 Environmental Impacts of the Cumulative Case ................................................. 4-500

44 4.6.1 Cumulative Case Scenario ....................................................................... 4-500

45 4.6.1.1 OCS Program Oil and Gas Activities....................................... 4-501

46 4.6.1.2 Non-OCS Program Oil and Gas Activities............................... 4-505
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Contents xiii

1 CONTENTS (Cont.)

2

3

4 4.6.1.3 Mining Activity......................................................................... 4-508

5 4.6.1.4 Alternate Energy....................................................................... 4-508

6 4.6.1.5 Climate Change......................................................................... 4-509

7 4.6.2 Marine and Coastal Physical Resources.................................................. 4-510

8 4.6.2.1 Gulf of Mexico Region............................................................. 4-510

9 4.6.2.2 Alaska Region – Cook Inlet...................................................... 4-528

10 4.6.2.3 Alaska Region – Arctic............................................................. 4-537

11 4.6.3 Marine and Coastal Habitats.................................................................... 4-548

12 4.6.3.1 Gulf of Mexico Region............................................................. 4-548

13 4.6.3.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 4-564

14 4.6.3.3 Alaska Region – Arctic............................................................. 4-573

15 4.6.4 Marine and Coastal Fauna ....................................................................... 4-584

16 4.6.4.1 Gulf of Mexico Region............................................................. 4-585

17 4.6.4.2 Alaska Region – Cook Inlet...................................................... 4-610

18 4.6.4.3 Alaska Region – Arctic............................................................. 4-634

19 4.6.5 Social, Cultural, and Economic Resources.............................................. 4-657

20 4.6.5.1 Gulf of Mexico Region............................................................. 4-657

21 4.6.5.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet .................................................................. 4-670

22 4.6.5.3 Alaska Region – Arctic............................................................. 4-681

23 4.6.6 Cumulative Impacts Summary Tables..................................................... 4-690

24 4.7 References............................................................................................................ 4-697

25

26 5 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS................................. 5-1

27

28 5.1 Impacts on Physical Resources............................................................................ 5-1

29 5.2 Impacts on Ecological Resources ........................................................................ 5-1

30 5.3 Impacts on Social, Cultural, and Economic Resources ...................................... 5-2

31

32 6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN’S 

33 ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF 

34 LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ................................................................................ 6-1

35

36 7 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF 

37 RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 7-1

38

39 7.1 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................... 7-1

40 7.2 Biological Resources ........................................................................................... 7-1

41 7.3 Land Use and Socioeconomic Resources............................................................ 7-1

42 7.4 Archaeological Resources.................................................................................... 7-1

43

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Contents xiv

1 CONTENTS (Cont.)

2

3

4 8 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .............................................................. 8-1

5

6 8.1 Process for the Preparation of the 2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing 

7 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement................................................. 8-1

8 8.1.1 Draft Proposed Program and Draft PEIS................................................. 8-1

9 8.1.2 Scoping for the Draft PEIS ...................................................................... 8-1

10 8.1.3 Commenting on the Proposed Program and Draft PEIS.......................... 8-2

11 8.2 Distribution of the Draft PEIS ............................................................................. 8-2

12

13 9 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................ 9-1

14

15 APPENDIX A GLOSSARY................................................................................................. A-1

16

17 APPENDIX B ASSUMED MITIGATION MEASURES.................................................... B-1

18

19 APPENDIX C FEDERAL LAWS AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS...................................... C-1

20

21

22 FIGURES

23

24

25 1-1 OCS Planning Areas............................................................................................... 1-3

26

27 1-2 The Eastern GOM OCS Planning Area Showing the Portion Available for 

28 Lease Sale Consideration........................................................................................ 1-4

29

30 2.1 OCS Planning Areas............................................................................................... 2-3

31

32 2.2 Deferral Areas in the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas ................... 2-5

33

34 3.2-1 OCS Planning Areas............................................................................................... 3-2

35

36 3.2.1-1 Large Marine Ecosystems for Southern Alaska ..................................................... 3-5

37

38 3.2.1-2 Large Marine Ecosystems for Arctic Alaska.......................................................... 3-6

39

40 3.2.1-3 Large Marine Ecosystems for the GOM................................................................. 3-7

41

42 3.2.1-4 Estuarine and Fluvial Drainage Areas of the Northern GOM ................................ 3-9

43

44 3.2.1-5 Tropical Storm Paths in the Northern GOM........................................................... 3-10

45

46 3.2.2-1 CEC Level II and III Marine Ecoregions of the Northern GOM............................ 3-12
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Contents xv

1 FIGURES (Cont.)

2

3

4 3.2.2-2 CEC Level II and III Marine Ecoregions of South Central Alaska ........................ 3-13

5

6 3.2.2-3 CEC Level II and III Marine Ecoregions of Northern Alaska................................ 3-14

7

8 3.4.1-1 Depth Zones within GOM Planning Areas and Program Areas for the OCS 

9 Oil and Gas Leasing Program 2012-2017............................................................... 3-29

10

11 3.4.3-1 Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas............................................................. 3-45

12

13 3.5.1-1 U.S. Landfalling Hurricanes, 1994–2009 ............................................................... 3-51

14

15 3.5.2-1 Mandatory Class I Federal Areas along the GOM ................................................. 3-59

16

17 3.5.2-2 Mandatory Class I Federal Area in Cook Inlet, Alaska.......................................... 3-63

18

19 3.7-1 Ecoregions of the GOM Region ............................................................................. 3-92

20

21 3.7.1-1 Estuarine and Fluvial Drainage Areas of the Gulf of Mexico Region.................... 3-94

22

23 3.7.1-2 Hurricane Paths and Landfalls 1994–2009............................................................. 3-97

24

25 3.7.1-3 Estimated Wetland Density of the Gulf of Mexico Region.................................... 3-99

26

27 3.7.1-4 Annual Rates of Land Area Change in Coastal Louisiana ..................................... 3-102

28

29 3.7.1-5 Coastal Vulnerability Index of the Gulf of Mexico Region ................................... 3-106

30

31 3.7.2-1 Location of Hard Bottom Features in the Western, Central, and Eastern 

32 Planning Areas........................................................................................................ 3-121

33

34 3.7.2-2 Location of Coldwater Coral System Features in the Western, Central, and 

35 Eastern Planning Areas........................................................................................... 3-123

36

37 3.7.2-3 Location of Chemosynthetic Communities in the Western and Central

38 Planning Areas........................................................................................................ 3-127

39

40 3.7.2-4 Location of the Stefansson Sound Boulder Patch in the Beaufort Sea 

41 Planning Area ......................................................................................................... 3-133

42

43 3.7.3-1 Areas of High Abundance of Sargassum in the GOM in Early Spring, Spring 

44 and Summer, and Fall General Trajectory of Sargassum Movement Is

45 Shown in Map based on satellite data collected by Gower and King..................... 3-138

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Contents xvi

1 FIGURES (Cont.)

2

3

4 3.8.1-1 Coastal Distribution of the Endangered Beach Mouse Subspecies and the 

5 Florida Salt Marsh Vole in the GOM ..................................................................... 3-169

6

7 3.8.1-2 Critical Habitat for the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale DPS.......................................... 3-178

8

9 3.8.1-3 Steller Sea Lion Critical Habitat in the Area of the Cook Inlet Planning............... 3-181

10

11 3.8.1-4 Generalized Migration Route, Feeding Areas, and Wintering Area for the 

12 Western Arctic Bowhead Whale Stock .................................................................. 3-191

13

14 3.8.1-5 Distribution of Polar Bear Stocks in the Arctic Region ......................................... 3-196

15

16 3.8.1-6 Distribution of Caribou Herds in the Arctic Region............................................... 3-205

17

18 3.8.2-1 Coastal Counties from Which the Federally Endangered Mississippi Sandhill 

19 Crane and Roseate Tern, and the Federally Threatened Audubon’s Crested 

20 Caracara, Have Been Reported............................................................................... 3-216

21

22 3.8.2-2 Coastal Counties from Which the Federally Threatened Piping Plover Has 

23 Been Reported......................................................................................................... 3-218

24

25 3.8.2-3 Coastal Counties from Which the Federally Endangered Whooping Crane 

26 and the Federal Candidate Red Knot Have Been Reported.................................... 3-219

27

28 3.8.2-4 Coastal Counties from Which the Federally Endangered Wood Stork Has 

29 Been Reported......................................................................................................... 3-221

30

31 3.8.2-5 Primary Migration Routes Used by Birds in Passing from North America to 

32 Winter Quarters in the West Indies, Central America, and South America ........... 3-222

33

34 3.8.2-6 Important Bird Areas along the Northern Coast of the Gulf of Mexico................. 3-224

35

36 3.8.2-7 Important Bird Areas Identified by the Audubon Society for the Northern 

37 Coast of the Gulf of Mexico ................................................................................... 3-226

38

39 3.8.2-8 Important Bird Areas of the Cook Inlet Planning Area .......................................... 3-239

40

41 3.8.2-9 Important Bird Areas along the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Coasts................. 3-243

42

43 3.8.3-1 Reported Observations of Reptiles and Suitable Habitat in the GOM ................... 3-252

44

45 3.9.1-1 Map Showing the Location of Specially Protected Areas in the Western, 

46 Central, and Eastern Planning Areas ...................................................................... 3-280
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Contents xvii

1 FIGURES (Cont.)

2

3

4 3.9.1-2 Location of Military Use Areas in the GOM.......................................................... 3-287

5

6 3.9.2-1 Map Showing the Location of Specially Protected Areas in the Cook Inlet 

7 Planning Area ......................................................................................................... 3-289

8

9 3.9.3-1 Map Showing the Locations of Specially Protected Areas in the Beaufort 

10 and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas............................................................................ 3-294

11

12 3.11.1-1 Land Use Patterns for Coastal Counties in the GOM Region ................................ 3-313

13

14 3.11.1-2 Counties with Significant Retirement Economies in the GOM Region ................. 3-314

15

16 3.11.1-3 GOM Port Facilities................................................................................................ 3-316

17

18 3.11.1-4 Oil and Gas Infrastructure Locations in the GOM Region Western 

19 Planning Area ......................................................................................................... 3-318

20

21 3.11.1-5 Oil and Gas Infrastructure Locations in the GOM Region Central 

22 Planning Area ......................................................................................................... 3-319

23

24 3.11.1-6 Land Loss Effects on Infrastructure Sites 2000-2050, GOM Region..................... 3-326

25

26 3.11.2-1 Oil and Gas Fields and Infrastructure Locations in Cook Inlet .............................. 3-333

27

28 3.14.1-1 GOM Coastal Community Commuting Zone......................................................... 3-355

29

30 3.14.2-1 Native Communities around Cook Inlet................................................................. 3-358

31

32 3.14.3-1 Native Communities around the Arctic Region...................................................... 3-370

33

34 4.2.1-1 Physiographic Regions of the GOM....................................................................... 4-12

35

36 4.2.1-2 Physiographic Features of Cook Inlet..................................................................... 4-19

37

38 4.2.1-3 Upper Cook Inlet .................................................................................................... 4-20

39

40 4.2.1-4 Lower Cook Inlet.................................................................................................... 4-21

41

42 4.2.1-5 The Alaska-Aleutian Megathrust Fault and Subduction Zone with Seismicity 

43 Depth Profile across Cook Inlet.............................................................................. 4-25

44

45 4.2.1-6 Physiographic Features of the Arctic Region ......................................................... 4-32

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Contents xviii

1 FIGURES (Cont.)

2

3

4 4.2.3-1 Generalized Circulation Patterns in the GOM........................................................ 4-43

5

6 4.2.3-2 Generalized Circulation Patterns in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea ................ 4-49

7

8 4.2.3-3 Generalized Circulation Patterns in Cook Inlet and the Shelikof Strait ................. 4-52

9

10 4.3.4-1 Factors Affecting a Catastrophic Discharge Event................................................. 4-85

11

12 4.3.4-2 Principal Factors Affecting a Catastrophic Discharge Event in the Gulf of 

13 Mexico .................................................................................................................... 4-87

14

15 4.3.4-3 Principal Factors Affecting a Catastrophic Discharge Event in the Arctic ............ 4-90

16

17 4.4.1-1 OCS Planning Areas Where Leasing for Oil and Gas Development May 

18 Occur under the 2012-2017 OCS Leasing Program............................................... 4-102

19

20 4.4.1-2 Areas of Historical Lease Sales in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas OCS 

21 Planning Areas........................................................................................................ 4-107

22

23 4.4.7-1 Conceptual Model for Anticipated Impacting Factors for Marine Mammals........ 4-238

24

25 4.4.7-2 Conceptual Model for Potential Effects of Infrastructure Construction on

26 Marine Mammals.................................................................................................... 4-245

27

28 4.4.7-3 Conceptual Model for Potential Effects of Vessel Traffic on Marine 

29 Mammals ................................................................................................................ 4-249

30

31 4.4.7-4 Conceptual Model for Potential Effects of Decommissioning on Marine 

32 Mammals ................................................................................................................ 4-250

33

34 4.4.7-5 Conceptual Model for Potential Effects of Oil Spills on Marine 

35 Mammals ................................................................................................................ 4-252

36

37 4.4.7-6 Conceptual Model for Potential Effects of Seismic Survey Activities on 

38 Turtles in the GOM................................................................................................. 4-342

39

40 4.4.7-7 Conceptual Model for Potential Effects of OCS-Related Construction 

41 Activities on Turtles in the GOM ........................................................................... 4-343

42

43 4.4.7-8 Conceptual Model for Potential Effects of OCS Operation on Turtles in 

44 the GOM ................................................................................................................. 4-344

45

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI 

November 2011 BOEM

Contents xix 

1 FIGURES (Cont.) 

 2 

 3 

4 4.4.7-9 Conceptual Model for Potential Effects of Platform Decommissioning on 

5 Turtles in the GOM ................................................................................................. 4-345 

 6 

7 4.4.7-10 Conceptual Model for Potential Effects of Oil Spill on Reptiles in 

8 the GOM ................................................................................................................. 4-346 

 9 

10 4.4.10-1 Conceptual Model for Potential Direct and Indirect Effects of Seismic 

11 Survey Activities on Land Use, Development Patterns, and Infrastructure ........... 4-390 

 12 

13 4.4.10-2 Conceptual Model for Potential Direct and Indirect Effects of 

14 Onshore/Offshore Construction Activities on Land Use, Development 

15 Patterns, and Infrastructure ..................................................................................... 4-391 

 16 

17 4.4.10-3 Conceptual Model for Potential Direct and Indirect Effects of Normal 

18 Operations on Land Use, Development Patterns, and Infrastructure ..................... 4-392 

 19 

20 4.4.10-4 Coastal Vulnerability Index .................................................................................... 4-398

 21 

 22 

23 TABLES 

 24 

 25 

26 1-1 NEPA Assessments Conducted within the OCS Oil and Gas Leasing 

27 Program ................................................................................................................... 1-7

 28 

29 2.9-1 Impact-Producing Factors Associated with OCS Oil and Gas Development ......... 2-15 

 30 

31 2.9-2 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and 

32 Alternatives for a 2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program ......................... 2-16 

 33 

34 3.4.1-1 Summary of Results of Water and Sediment Quality Sampling from the 

35 Deepwater Horizon Event as of October 23, 2010 ................................................. 3-39

36 

37 3.5.2-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Maximum Allowable 

38 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Increments ............................................... 3-57

39 

40 3.6.1-1 General Types of Anthropogenic Sound in the Ocean and Estimated 

41 Levels of Maritime Activity ................................................................................... 3-72

42 

43 3.7.1-1 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Wetland Inventory ........................................................... 3-98

44 

45 3.7.1-2 Coastal Habitats of the Cook Inlet Planning Area .................................................. 3-108

46 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Contents xx

1 TABLES (Cont.)

2

3

4 3.7.1-3 Length of Coastal Habitats (mi) of the Alaskan Arctic Ecoregions....................... 3-111

5

6 3.7.1-4 Characteristics of Coastal Habitats of the Alaskan Arctic Ecoregions................... 3-112

7

8 3.7.2-1 Benthic and Pelagic Marine Habitat Types Found in the Northern Gulf of 

9 Mexico Shelf, Slope, Mississippi Fan, and Basin Marine Ecoregions 

10 within the Western and Central Planning Areas..................................................... 3-119

11

12 3.7.3-1 Summary of Potential Changes in the Marine and Pelagic Habitats of 

13 the Northern GOM Marine Ecoregion That Could Result from Climate 

14 Change .................................................................................................................... 3-139

15

16 3.7.4-1 Species for Which Essential Fish Habitat Has Been Designated in the 

17 GOM Region by the GOM Fisheries Management Council .................................. 3-145

18

19 3.7.4-2 Highly Migratory Species Designated in the GOM Region under Federally 

20 Implemented Fishery Management Plans............................................................... 3-146

21

22 3.7.4-3 The HAPCs Designated within the Central, Western, and Eastern GOM 

23 Planning Areas........................................................................................................ 3-147

24

25 3.7.4-4 Managed Species Designated under the Gulf of Alaska Groundfish 

26 Fisheries Management Plan and Life Stages for which EFH Has Been 

27 Designated .............................................................................................................. 3-149

28

29 3.8.1-1 Marine Mammals in the GOM................................................................................ 3-153

30

31 3.8.1-2 Unusual Mortality Event Cetacean Data for the Northern Gulf of Mexico............ 3-167

32

33 3.8.1-3 Cook Inlet Marine Mammals.................................................................................. 3-174

34

35 3.8.1-4 Arctic Marine Mammals......................................................................................... 3-190

36

37 3.8.2-1 Number of Bird Species Reported from the Gulf Coast States .............................. 3-211

38

39 3.8.2-2 Marine and Coastal Birds of the Gulf of Mexico ................................................... 3-212

40

41 3.8.2-3 Species Listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate under the 

42 Endangered Species Act That May Occur in Coastal or Marine Habitats 

43 of the Northern Gulf of Mexico.............................................................................. 3-215

44

45 3.8.2-4 Important Bird Areas Identified by the American Bird Conservancy 

46 for the Coastal Counties of the Northern Gulf of Mexico ...................................... 3-225
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Contents xxi

1 TABLES (Cont.)

2

3

4 3.8.2-5 Important Birds Areas Identified by the Audubon Society for the Coastal 

5 Counties of the Northern Gulf of Mexico............................................................... 3-227

6

7 3.8.2-6 Deepwater Horizon Event Bird Impact Data through May 12, 2011 ..................... 3-229

8

9 3.8.2-7 Major Groups of Marine and Coastal Birds of the Cook Inlet Planning Area ....... 3-231

10

11 3.8.2-8 Important Birds Areas in Cook Inlet ...................................................................... 3-237

12

13 3.8.2-9 Marine and Coastal Birds of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas Planning Areas....... 3-240

14

15 3.8.2-10 Important Birds Areas in the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas....... 3-247

16

17 3.8.3-1 Reptiles of the Gulf of Mexico That Are Listed under the Endangered

18 Species Act ............................................................................................................. 3-249

19

20 3.8.3-2 Sea Turtle Life Stages, Habitats, and Mobility in the Gulf of Mexico................... 3-251

21

22 3.8.3-3 Sea Turtle Species Recovered, Turtle Nests Translocated, and Turtle 

23 Hatchlings Released in the Atlantic Ocean Following the Deepwater 

24 Horizon Event......................................................................................................... 3-254

25

26 3.8.4-1 The Ten Most Abundant Demersal Fish Species in Trawl Surveys of the 

27 Continental Shelf from Texas to Alabama ............................................................. 3-258

28

29 3.8.4-2 The Ten Most Abundant Reef Fish Species Collected in SEAMAP Trap 

30 Collections from South Texas to South Florida...................................................... 3-259

31

32 3.8.4-3 The Five Most Abundant Fish Taxa Collected during 2008 Bottom Trawls

33 in the Beaufort Sea.................................................................................................. 3-267

34

35 3.9.1-1 National System Marine Protected Area Member Sites in the Western and 

36 Central GOM Planning Area and the Eastern GOM Planning Area from 

37 Alabama to Tampa, Florida .................................................................................... 3-279

38

39 3.9.1-2 National Wildlife Refuges along the GOM Coast from Texas through 

40 Tampa Bay, Florida ................................................................................................ 3-282

41

42 3.10.1-1 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Region Population ........................................................... 3-297

43

44 3.10.1-2 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Region Population Composition...................................... 3-297

45

46 3.10.1-3 Alaska Regional Population ................................................................................... 3-298
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Contents xxii

1 TABLES (Cont.)

2

3

4 3.10.2-1 South Central Alaska Region Community Population, Income, and Poverty 

5 Status ...................................................................................................................... 3-300

6

7 3.10.2-2 Arctic Region Community Population, Income, and Poverty Status ..................... 3-302

8

9 3.10.3-1 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Region Labor Force, Unemployment, Earnings, and 

10 Employment Composition ...................................................................................... 3-303

11

12 3.10.3-2 South Central Alaska Region Labor Force, Unemployment, Earnings, and 

13 Employment Composition ...................................................................................... 3-304

14

15 3.10.3-3 Arctic Region Labor Force, Unemployment, Earnings, and Employment 

16 Composition............................................................................................................ 3-306

17

18 3.10.6-1 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Region Projections........................................................... 3-309

19

20 3.10.6-2 South Central Alaska Region Projections............................................................... 3-309

21

22 3.10.6-3 Arctic Region Projections....................................................................................... 3-310

23

24 3.11.1-1 Land Loss Effects on OCS-Related Facilities ........................................................ 3-327

25

26 3.11.2-1 Past and Present Operational Gas Pipelines in Cook Inlet and Cook Inlet 

27 Basin ....................................................................................................................... 3-330

28

29 3.11.2-2 Past and Present Operational Oil and Liquid Petroleum Pipelines in Cook 

30 Inlet and Cook Inlet Basin ...................................................................................... 3-332

31

32 3.12.1-1 Total Weights and Values of Commercially Important Fishery Species in 

33 the GOM Region..................................................................................................... 3-337

34

35 3.12.1-2 Value of Gulf Coast Fish Landings by Distance from Shore and State

36 for 2009 .................................................................................................................. 3-337

37

38 3.12.1-3 Reported Total Landing Weights and Values for Major Ports in the GOM 

39 Region in 2009........................................................................................................ 3-338

40

41 3.12.2-1 Estimated Number of People Participating in GOM Marine Recreational 

42 Fishing, 2010 .......................................................................................................... 3-342

43

44 3.12.2-2 Estimated Number of Trips and Trip Range by Trip Mode in GOM Marine 

45 Recreational Fishing, 2010 ..................................................................................... 3-342

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Contents xxiii

1 TABLES (Cont.)

2

3

4 3.12.2-3 Estimated Number of Trips and Catch Weights in GOM Marine Recreational

5 Fishing, 2010 .......................................................................................................... 3-343

6

7 3.13.5-1 GOM Coastal Region Recreation and Tourism Employment Composition, 

8 2008 ........................................................................................................................ 3-350

9

10 3.13.5-2 South Central Alaska Region Recreation and Tourism Employment 

11 Composition, 2008.................................................................................................. 3-350

12

13 3.13.5-3 Arctic Region Recreation and Tourism Employment Composition, 2008............. 3-351

14

15 3.14.1-1 Federally Recognized Tribes in the Coastal Community Commuting Zone.......... 3-356

16

17 3.14.1-2 State-Recognized Tribes in the Coastal Community Commuting Zone................. 3-356

18

19 3.14.2-1 Alaska Natives in Communities around the Cook Inlet ......................................... 3-360

20

21 3.14.2-2 Reported Subsistence Use at Mat-Su Borough Communities................................ 3-363

22

23 3.14.2-3 Reported Subsistence Use at Selected Alaska Native Villages Adjacent 

24 to the Cook Inlet Planning Area ............................................................................. 3-365

25

26 3.14.3-1 Coastal North Slope Alaska Native Communities.................................................. 3-371

27

28 3.14.3-2 Coastal Northwest Arctic Borough Native Communities....................................... 3-372

29

30 3.14.3-3 Important Subsistence Species Harvested from Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, and 

31 Barrow .................................................................................................................... 3-376

32

33 3.14.3-4 Reported Subsistence Use at Arctic Coast Alaska Native Villages........................ 3-377

34

35 3.14.3-5 Reported Subsistence Harvest by Coastal NWAB Communities........................... 3-380

36

37 3.15.1-1 Gulf Coastal Region Minority and Low-Income Populations, 2000...................... 3-385

38

39 3.15.2-1 South Central Alaska Region Minority and Low-Income Populations, 

40 2000 ........................................................................................................................ 3-389

41

42 3.15.3-1 Arctic Region Minority and Low-Income Populations, 2000 ................................ 3-391

43

44 4.1.1-1 Impact-Producing Factors Associated with OCS O&G Development Phases....... 4-3

45

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Contents xxiv

1 TABLES (Cont.)

2

3

4 4.1.2-1 Accidental Events and Spills That May Be Associated with OCS O&G 

5 Development Phases............................................................................................... 4-7

6

7 4.1.3-1 Relationships among Development Phase Impacting Factors and Habitats, 

8 Life Stage, and Behavior of Sea Turtles................................................................. 4-8

9

10 4.2.1-1 Monitored Volcanoes near Cook Inlet.................................................................... 4-27

11

12 4.3.1-1 Comparison of the Objectives and Methods of CMSP with Those of the 

13 2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program PEIS............................................. 4-58

14

15 4.3.4-1 Risk Factors That Affect a Catastrophic Discharge Event ..................................... 4-68

16

17 4.3.4-2 Program Area Catastrophic Discharge Scenarios................................................... 4-86

18

19 4.4.1-1 Proposed Action – Exploration and Development Scenario for the GOM............. 4-101

20

21 4.4.1-2 Depth Distribution of New Infrastructure and Expected Natural Gas and 

22 Oil Production on the GOM OCS........................................................................... 4-103

23

24 4.4.1-3 Proposed Action – Exploration and Development Scenario for Cook Inlet........... 4-104

25

26 4.4.1-4 Proposed Action – Exploration and Development Scenario for Arctic Alaska...... 4-106

27

28 4.4.2-1 Oil Spill Assumptions for the Proposed Action .................................................... 4-109

29

30 4.4.2-2 Catastrophic Discharge Event Assumptions........................................................... 4-110

31

32 4.4.3-1 Water Quality Impact Matrix.................................................................................. 4-112

33

34 4.4.4-1 Estimated Highest Annual Air Emissions from OCS Activities in the Gulf 

35 of Mexico Planning Areas, Proposed 2012-2017 Leasing Program....................... 4-133

36

37 4.4.4-2 Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Oil and Gas Activities in the Gulf 

38 of Mexico Planning Areas, 2012-2017 Leasing Program....................................... 4-138

39

40 4.4.4-3 Estimated Highest Annual Air Emissions from OCS Activities in the Cook 

41 Inlet Planning Area, Proposed 2012-2017 Leasing Program ................................. 4-143

42

43 4.4.4-4 Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Oil and Gas Activities in the 

44 Cook Inlet Planning Area, 2012-2017 Leasing Program........................................ 4-146

45

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Contents xxv

1 TABLES (Cont.)

2

3

4 4.4.4-5 Estimated Highest Annual Air Emissions from OCS Activities in the Arctic 

5 Planning Area, Proposed 2012-2017 Leasing Program.......................................... 4-152

6

7 4.4.4-6 Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Oil and Gas Activities in the 

8 Arctic Planning Area, 2012-2017 Leasing Program............................................... 4-155

9

10 4.4.6-1 Impacting Factors for Coastal and Estuarine Habitats in the Gulf of Mexico........ 4-169

11

12 4.4.6-2 Impacting Factors for Coastal and Estuarine Habitats in the Alaska Region –

13 Cook Inlet ............................................................................................................... 4-175

14

15 4.4.6-3 Impacting Factors by Phase and Potential Effects on Marine Benthic Habitat

16 in the CPA and WPA of the GOM ......................................................................... 4-186

17

18 4.4.6-4 Impacting Factors by Phase and Potential Effects on Marine Benthic Habitat 

19 in the Cook Inlet Planning Area ............................................................................. 4-201

20

21 4.4.6-5 Impacting Factors by Phase and Potential Effects on Marine Benthic Habitat 

22 in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas................................................... 4-206

23

24 4.4.6-6 Impacting Factors by Phase and Potential Effects on Marine Pelagic Habitat 

25 in the CPA and WPA of the GOM ......................................................................... 4-213

26

27 4.4.6-7 Impacting Factors by Phase and Potential Effects on Marine Pelagic Habitat 

28 in the Cook Inlet Planning Area ............................................................................. 4-218

29

30 4.4.6-8 Impacting Factors by Phase and Potential Effects on Marine Pelagic Habitat 

31 in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas................................................... 4-221

32

33 4.4.7-1 Impact Factor Data Matrix for Marine Mammals .................................................. 4-237

34

35 4.4.7-2 Impacting Factors and the Marine and Coastal Bird Resource Components 

36 That Could Be Affected with Oil and Gas Development under the Proposed 

37 Action...................................................................................................................... 4-295

38

39 4.4.7-3 Impacting Factors on Fish and Their Habitat in the GOM Planning Areas ........... 4-320

40

41 4.4.7-4 Impacting Factors on Fish and Their Habitat in the Cook Inlet Planning Area ..... 4-328

42

43 4.4.7-5 Impacting Factors on Fish and Their Habitat in the Beaufort Sea and 

44 Chukchi Sea Planning Areas................................................................................... 4-334

45

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Contents xxvi

1 TABLES (Cont.)

2

3

4 4.4.7-6 Potential OCS Oil and Gas Development Impacting Factors for Reptiles in 

5 the GOM ................................................................................................................. 4-340

6

7 4.4.7-7 Summary of Known and Anticipated Effects of Seismic Noise on Sea Turtles 

8 in the GOM............................................................................................................. 4-348

9

10 4.4.7-8 Impacting Factors Potentially Affecting Invertebrates and Their Habitat in 

11 the GOM Planning Areas........................................................................................ 4-359

12

13 4.4.7-9 Impacting Factors Potentially Affecting Invertebrates and Their Habitat in 

14 the Cook Inlet Planning Area.................................................................................. 4-365

15

16 4.4.7-10 Impacting Factors Potentially Affecting Invertebrates and Their Habitat in 

17 the Beaufort and Chukchi Planning Areas.............................................................. 4-371

18

19 4.4.9-1 Average Annual Impacts of the Proposed Action on Regional Employment 

20 and Income.............................................................................................................. 4-382

21

22 4.4.9-2 Average Annual Impacts of the Proposed Action on Regional Employment 

23 and Income.............................................................................................................. 4-385

24

25 4.4.9-3 Average Annual Impacts of the Proposed Action on Regional and National 

26 Employment and Income ........................................................................................ 4-387

27

28 4.4.10-1 Impacting Factors Associated with Each Phase of Oil and Gas Activities ............ 4-389

29

30 4.4.11-1 Impacts of Single Oil and Gas Structures on Commercial Fisheries, by 

31 Placement Depth..................................................................................................... 4-417

32

33 4.4.11-2 Impacts of Single Oil and Gas Structures on Commercial Fisheries, by 

34 Placement Depth..................................................................................................... 4-420

35

36 4.5.7-1 Cumulative Energy Substitutions for Oil and Gas Under the No Action 

37 Alternative .............................................................................................................. 4-496

38

39 4.5.7-2 Projected Large Spill Occurrences under the No Action Alternative..................... 4-498

40

41 4.6.1-1 Offshore Exploration and Development Scenario for the OCS Program 

42 GOM Cumulative Case and Proposed Action ........................................................ 4-502

43

44 4.6.1-2 Offshore Exploration and Development Scenario for the OCS Program 

45 Alaska Cumulative Case and Proposed Action ...................................................... 4-503

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Contents xxvii

1 TABLES (Cont.)

2

3

4 4.6.1-3 Large and Small Oil Spill Assumptions for the Cumulative Case ......................... 4-505

5

6 4.6.2-1 Ongoing and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Non-OCS Activities 

7 Contributing to Cumulative Impacts on Water Quality.......................................... 4-511

8

9 4.6.2-2 Estimated Total Air Emissions for OCS and Non-OCS Program Activities 

10 for the Gulf of Mexico Cumulative Case................................................................ 4-522

11

12 4.6.2-3 Ongoing and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Non-OCS Activities 

13 Contributing to Cumulative Impacts on Water Quality – Cook Inlet..................... 4-529

14

15 4.6.2-4 Ongoing and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Non-OCS Activities 

16 Contributing to Cumulative Impacts on Water Quality – Arctic Region ............... 4-538

17

18 4.6.6-1 Summary of Cumulative Impacts and Incremental Contributions of the 

19 Proposed Action, GOM .......................................................................................... 4-691

20

21 4.6.6-2 Summary of Cumulative Impacts and Incremental Contributions of 

22 Proposed Action, Cook Inlet Planning Area........................................................... 4-693

23

24 4.6.6-3 Summary of Cumulative Impacts and Incremental Contributions of 

25 Proposed Action, Arctic Region ............................................................................. 4-695

26
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Contents xxviii

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 This page intentionally left blank.

14

15
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Summary xxix

1 SUMMARY

2

3

4 The Proposed Action

5

6 The U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI) proposes 15 lease sales in six of the Outer 

7 Continental Shelf (OCS) Planning Areas in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and offshore Alaska 

8 during the period 2012-2017 (Table S-1). Five area-wide lease sales each would be held in the 

9 Central and Western GOM Planning Areas, with one to two lease sales in the extreme western 

10 portion of the Eastern GOM Planning Area. Scheduled in the Alaska Region would be one sale 

11 with two whaling deferrals in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area, one sale with a 40 km (25 mi) 

12 buffer in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area, and one special interest sale in the Cook Inlet Planning 

13 Area. No lease sales are proposed off the U.S. east and west coasts. The proposed Program 

14 establishes a schedule that the USDOI will use as a basis for considering where and when leasing 

15 might be appropriate over a 5-year period (Table S-1). A decision to adopt the Program proposal 

16 is not a decision to issue specific leases or to authorize any drilling or development. 

17

18 Oil and gas activities may occur on OCS leases after a lease sale pursuant to the proposed 

19 action, and these activities may extend over a period of 40 to 50 years. These activities may 

20 include (1) seismic surveys; (2) drilling oil and natural gas exploration and production wells; 

21 (3) installation and operation of offshore platforms and pipelines, onshore pipelines, and support 

22 facilities; and (4) transporting oil using ships or pipelines. 

23

24

25 TABLE S-1 Proposed 2012-2017 Program Lease Sale Schedule

OCS Planning Area Proposed Lease Sale Year

Western Gulf of Mexico Annual sales beginning in 2012

Central Gulf of Mexico Annual sales beginning in 2013

Eastern Gulf of Mexico 2014, 2016

Cook Inlet 2013

Chukchi Sea 2016

Beaufort Sea 2015

26

27

28 Alternatives

29

30 Seven alternatives to the Proposed Action Alternative (Alternative 1) are evaluated in this 

31 draft programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS). Each alternative represents a 

32 reduction from the proposed action, differing only in which planning areas (and associated 

33 number of lease sales) would be included for possible future lease offerings under the 2012-2017 

34 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program (Program). 

35
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Summary xxx

1 • Alternative 2 – Exclude the Eastern GOM Planning Area for the duration of 

2 the Program. Leasing in the other five planning areas would be the same as 

3 Alternative 1. 

4

5 • Alternative 3 – Exclude the Western GOM Planning Area for the duration of 

6 Program. Leasing in the other five planning areas would be the same as 

7 Alternative 1.

8

9 • Alternative 4 – Exclude the Central GOM Planning Area for the duration of 

10 the Program. Leasing in the other planning areas would be the same as 

11 Alternative 1.

12

13 • Alternative 5 – Exclude the Beaufort Sea Planning Area for the duration of the 

14 Program. Leasing in the other planning areas would be the same as 

15 Alternative 1.

16

17 • Alternative 6 – Exclude the Chukchi Sea Planning Area for the duration of the 

18 Program. Leasing in the other planning areas would be the same as 

19 Alternative 1.

20

21 • Alternative 7 – Exclude the Cook Inlet Planning Area for the duration of the 

22 Program. Leasing in the other planning areas would be the same as 

23 Alternative 1.

24

25 • Alternative 8 – No Action. No lease sales would be conducted in any OCS 

26 Planning Area during the period 2012-2017. Exploration, development, and 

27 production activities would continue on blocks leased previously.

28

29

30 Principal Issues and Concerns

31

32 Risks of Oil Spills. Major regulatory reforms and advances in drilling and containment 

33 technology have occurred following the Deepwater Horizon event, reducing the risk of oil spills 

34 from OCS operations. The greatest concern related to oil and gas development following lease 

35 sales under any of the alternatives addressed in this draft PEIS is that of an accidental oil spill. 

36 The magnitude of effects from an accidental spill will depend on the location, timing, and 

37 volume of the spill; the environmental setting of the spill (e.g., restricted coastal waterway, 

38 deepwater pelagic location); and the species (and their ecology) exposed to the spill. Spill 

39 cleanup operations could result in short-term disturbance of fauna in the vicinity of cleanup 

40 activities.

41

42 Evaluating historical spill data and taking into account the amount of oil production 

43 anticipated to occur with development following leasing, spill scenarios were developed for the 

44 northern GOM, Cook Inlet, Beaufort Sea, and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. Most expected 

45 spills would be less than 50 bbl in size, and impacts to most resources from such small spills 

46 would be minor, as dispersion and natural processes would be expected to quickly disperse and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Summary xxxi

1 degrade the spill, limiting exposure of, and effects to, resources in the vicinity of the spill. In 

2 contrast, a large spill may be expected to affect more resources, do so over a much larger area 

3 and for a much longer period of time, and result in potentially major impacts. For analytical 

4 purposes, the draft PEIS presents analyses of the effects of varying sizes of oil spills on sensitive 

5 resources.

6

7 While this analysis provides the Secretary of the USDOI with information about the 

8 potential impacts if spills were to occur and contact environmental resources, the analyses cannot 

9 predict whether, when, or where specific oil spills will occur or whether any spills will contact 

10 environmental resources. The draft PEIS does estimate the number of possible small and large 

11 oil spills based on historical oil-spill data, which is independent from the severity of oil-spill 

12 impacts. 

13

14 In all program areas, the analyses considered the occurrence of at least one very large, 

15 catastrophic spill event, even if the amounts of oil estimated to be developed suggest the 

16 occurrence of such a spill unlikely. The analyses of these spills does not mean the USDOI 

17 expects such a catastrophic event to occur under any of the action alternatives considered in this 

18 draft PEIS; rather, the analyses identify potential impacts to resources, should such a catastrophic 

19 discharge event occur, even if it is unlikely that such an event would occur.

20

21 Impact-Producing Factors. It is important to note that establishing a schedule of lease 

22 sales by itself will have no direct effects on most resources on the OCS, as the activities that 

23 could impact resources would only occur following a lease sale, and then only following 

24 approval for exploration and development to be initiated in the lease sale area. Because the 

25 nature, location, and level of future project-specific oil and gas activities is unknown at this time, 

26 the environmental analyses presented in this draft PEIS are based on reasoned assumptions about 

27 future activities, and apply to each of the seven action alternatives under consideration for the 

28 Program. Estimates of oil and gas resources that might be found in, and produced from, the 

29 areas being considered for leasing provide the basis for making the assumption of the level of 

30 development that might occur. Each scenario contains the major elements of activity needed to 

31 support exploration, production, and transportation of oil and gas that may be discovered and 

32 found to be economically producible.

33

34 Several types of routine oil and gas activities were identified that could cause impacts 

35 under the proposed action or alternatives (excluding the No Action Alternative) following 

36 subsequent lease sale, plan, or permit considerations. None of the action alternatives, if 

37 implemented, would authorize oil and gas development activities. These activities were, 

38 however, evaluated in the draft PEIS in resource-specific analyses to provide decision makers 

39 with information regarding the nature and magnitude of potential impacts that may be incurred 

40 with development following a lease sale under any of the seven action alternatives. Location41 and resource-specific impacts would be evaluated in subsequent lease sale and plan-specific 

42 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses and decision-making. The impact43 producing factors related to routine OCS activities and evaluated in this draft PEIS include:

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Summary xxxii

1 • The disposal of liquid wastes, including drilling fluids (i.e., drill muds), 

2 produced water, ballast water, and sanitary and domestic wastewater 

3 generated by OCS-related activities.

4

5 • Solid waste disposal, including material removed from the well borehole 

6 (i.e., drill cuttings), solids produced with the oil and gas (e.g., sands), cement 

7 residue, bentonite, and trash and debris (e.g., equipment or tools) accidentally 

8 lost.

9

10 • Gaseous emissions from offshore and onshore facilities and transportation 

11 vessels and aircraft.

12

13 • Noise from seismic surveys, ship and aircraft traffic, pipeline trenching, 

14 drilling and production operations, and explosive platform removals.

15

16 • Physical impacts from ship and aircraft traffic and use conflicts with oil 

17 tankers and barges, supply/support vessels and aircraft, and seismic survey 

18 vessels and aircraft.

19

20 • Physical emplacement, presence, and removal of facilities including offshore 

21 platforms; seafloor pipelines; floating production, storage, and offloading 

22 systems; onshore infrastructure such as pipelines, storage, processing, and 

23 repair facilities; ports; pipe coating yards; refineries; and petrochemical plants.

24

25 In addition, accidental oil spills were also considered an impacting factor, although not resulting 

26 from routine operations. Accidental spills may be associated with a loss of well control, 

27 production accidents, transportation failures (e.g., tankers, other vessels, seafloor and onshore 

28 pipelines, and storage facilities), and low-level releases from platforms.

29

30

31 Sensitive Biological and Ecological Resources and Critical Habitats

32

33 The Program encompasses large areas in the GOM and portions of Alaska. These areas 

34 constitute diverse marine and coastal environments that support a tremendous diversity of 

35 habitats and biota, including species and habitats protected by the Endangered Species Act and 

36 other Federal and State laws and regulations. At this programmatic stage, it is not possible, or 

37 appropriate, to conduct site-specific analyses of all the potentially affected resources or identify 

38 all relevant mitigation. Therefore, in keeping with NEPA and Council on Environmental Quality 

39 regulations, the draft PEIS focuses on those aspects of marine and coastal resources that are 

40 unique, ecologically important, or most susceptible to impacts from offshore oil and gas 

41 activities. The draft PEIS also concentrates on those life stages and habitats that may be most 

42 sensitive to routine oil and gas activities, as well as to accidental oil spills. 

43

44 The identification and evaluation of potential impacts focused on three main categories: 

45 animals, plants, and habitats. Among the animal groups evaluated were marine mammals, birds, 

46 fish, sea turtles, and benthic invertebrates. Special attention was drawn to migratory species, 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Summary xxxiii

1 species taken commercially and for Alaska Native subsistence (including whales, fish, and 

2 birds), and threatened and endangered species. With respect to habitats, both marine (i.e., corals 

3 and “hard bottom” areas) and coastal (i.e., estuaries, wetlands/marshes) areas were identified and 

4 evaluated for possible adverse impacts from OCS oil and gas activities.

5

6

7 Social, Cultural, and Economic Resources

8

9 Specific concerns regarding social, cultural, and economic resources included potential 

10 impacts on tourism, recreation, commercial and recreational fishing, subsistence harvests, 

11 aesthetics, local economy (especially the “boom/bust” phenomenon), land and water use 

12 conflicts, disproportionate impacts on low income and minority groups, and disproportionate 

13 impacts on Alaska Natives. The social, cultural, and economic topics analyzed in the draft PEIS 

14 are as follows:

15

16 • Population, employment, income, and public service issues from the effects of 

17 the Program, including issues of “boom/bust” economic cycles.

18

19 • Land use and infrastructure, including construction of new onshore facilities, 

20 and land use and transportation conflicts between the oil and gas activities and 

21 other uses.

22

23 • Sociocultural systems effects, including concerns about the effects on 

24 subsistence (e.g., bowhead whale hunting), loss of cultural identity, health 

25 impacts including psychological health, and social cost of oil spills.

26

27 • Environmental justice (e.g., the potential for disproportionate and high 

28 adverse impacts on minority and/or low-income populations [Executive 

29 Order 12898]).

30

31 • Commercial and recreational fisheries.

32

33 • Tourism and recreation, including the use of coastal areas for sightseeing, 

34 wildlife observations, swimming, diving, surfing, sunbathing, hunting, fishing, 

35 boating, and visual impacts of offshore OCS structures.

36

37 • Archaeological resources, including historic shipwrecks and sites inhabited by 

38 humans during prehistoric times.

39

40

41 Climate Change

42

43 The draft PEIS considers how climate change, based on the observed changes that have 

44 been occurring during the past several decades, may affect baseline conditions of resources over 

45 the 40 to 50 year period during which oil and gas production could occur following lease sales 

46 under the Program. The effects of climate change on ecosystems are complex and non-uniform 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Summary xxxiv

1 across the globe and vary among atmospheric, terrestrial, and oceanic systems. Considerations 

2 of climate change effects in OCS Planning Areas focus on impacts to marine and coastal systems 

3 where environmental sensitivities are typically associated with increasing atmospheric and ocean 

4 temperatures, sea level rise, and ocean acidification. These general categories of climate change 

5 responses are occurring in addition to human-induced pressures related to coastal population 

6 densities (e.g., land use changes, pollution, overfishing) and trends of increasing human use of 

7 coastal areas. The draft PEIS presents resource-specific discussions of the affected environment 

8 with discussions of the effects of ongoing, observable climate changes for those resources. In 

9 addition, the impacts of the continuing trend in climate change during the life of the Program are 

10 evaluated as well. 

11

12

13 Conclusions

14

15 The analyses in this draft PEIS describe in detail the nature and extent of potential 

16 impacts of future oil and gas activities on the OCS that may occur under the proposed action or 

17 any of the action alternatives. Specifically, the draft PEIS evaluates the potential direct, indirect, 

18 and cumulative impacts of routine operations and accidental oil spills. The analyses assume the 

19 implementation of all mitigation measures currently required by statute, regulation, or Bureau of 

20 Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) policy and practice. One objective of the draft PEIS is to 

21 convey to decision makers and the public the relative extent of potential impacts. Conclusions 

22 for most analyses generally indicate the ability of most affected resources to recover from 

23 impacts that could result from oil and gas development following leasing. 

24

25 Under the proposed action, or Alternatives 2 through 7, routine operations associated 

26 with each of these phases will have the same or similar impact-producing factors associated with 

27 them, and these have “typical” types of impacts, regardless of location. The magnitude and 

28 importance of those impacts on the resource, however, will be very site- and project-specific. 

29 The types of impacts identified and discussed below will be the same for each of the alternatives 

30 except the No Action Alternative. The principal difference in potential impacts among the action 

31 alternatives will be in where those impacts may be incurred. Each of the alternatives to the 

32 proposed action excludes one of the six planning areas included in the proposed action from the 

33 Program, and thus most resources in an excluded planning area would not be expected to be 

34 affected by routine operations occurring in other planning areas. Because routine operations 

35 include some impacting factors (such as seismic survey noise and support vessel traffic) that may 

36 extend beyond planning area boundaries, resources in an excluded planning area may be affected 

37 by some of the routine operations associated with development in adjacent planning areas. 

38 Similarly, accidental oil spills may be transported from the planning area in which the spill 

39 occurs to adjacent planning areas, affecting resources in those other areas.

40

41 The evaluation of a No Action Alternative is required by the regulations implementing 

42 NEPA (40 CFR 1502.14(d)). If the Secretary were to adopt this alternative, it would halt OCS 

43 presale planning, sales, and new leasing from 2012 to 2017. However, exploration, 

44 development, and production stemming from past sales would continue.

45

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Summary xxxv

1 Water Quality

2

3 In the GOM and Alaska Planning Areas, routine operations could result in minor to 

4 moderate, localized, short-term impacts. Any such impacts would be associated with structure 

5 placement and construction (pipelines, platforms) and operational discharges (produced water, 

6 bilge water, and drill cuttings) and sanitary and domestic wastes. Structure placement and 

7 removal could increase suspended sediment loads, while operational discharges, sanitary and 

8 domestic wastes, and deck drainage could affect chemical water quality. Compliance with 

9 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, and U.S. Coast 

10 Guard (USGS) regulations would reduce most impacts of routine operations. 

11

12 The effects of accidental oil spills will depend upon the material spilled, spill size, 

13 location, and remediation activities. Small spills would likely result in short-term, localized 

14 impacts. Impacts from a large oil spill could persist for an extended period of time if oil were 

15 deposited in wetland and beach sediments or low-energy environments because of potential 

16 remobilization. The speed of natural recovery in Alaskan waters, as compared to GOM waters, 

17 could be slowed by the persistence of oil in cold water temperatures and ice cover. A very large 

18 oil spill (especially one associated with a catastrophic discharge event [CDE]) would affect water 

19 quality over a much larger area, including possibly in planning areas adjacent to the one where 

20 the spill occurs. The potential for more widespread and long-term water quality impacts may be 

21 expected to be greater in cold Alaskan waters, especially under ice-cover conditions. In Alaska, 

22 winter conditions (e.g., complete ice cover and extremely cold conditions) could substantially 

23 complicate spill response given current spill control and remediation technologies. 

24

25

26 Air Quality

27

28 Routine operations affecting air quality in the GOM and Alaska Planning Areas include 

29 emissions from construction equipment, machinery supporting production operations, 

30 helicopters, and ships. Only minor impacts to air quality are expected under any of the action 

31 alternatives. Emissions during routine operations under any of the action alternatives would 

32 cause some slight, localized increases in concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide 

33 (SO2), particulate matter less than 10 or 2.5 microns in diameter (PM10 and PM2.5, respectively), 

34 and carbon monoxide (CO) in the Planning Areas where such activities would occur. 

35 Concentrations would be well within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 

36 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

37 (PSD) increments. Increases in ozone may occur, but would be less than 1% of total 

38 concentrations. Air quality impacts from oil spills and in situ burning would be localized and of 

39 short duration. Overall, impacts from routine operations, oil spills, and spill response activities 

40 are expected to be minor.

41

42

43 Acoustic Environment

44

45 Routine operations in the GOM and Alaska OCS Planning Areas could affect ambient 

46 noise conditions, with impacts to ambient noise levels expected to be minor. Noise generating 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Summary xxxvi

1 sources associated with routine operations include seismic surveys, drilling and production, 

2 infrastructure placement and removal, and vessel traffic. Depending on the source and activity, 

3 changes in ambient noise levels could be short-term and localized (e.g., from vessel traffic), 

4 long-term and localized (from production), or short-term and less localized (from seismic 

5 surveys). Seismic surveys could result in short-term changes in ambient noise levels, but the 

6 changes could extend well beyond the survey boundary.

7

8

9 Marine and Coastal Habitats

10

11 Coastal and Estuarine Habitats. Under any of the action alternatives, coastal and 

12 estuarine habitats could incur minor to moderate impacts from routine operations such as 

13 pipeline landfall and construction, maintenance dredging of inlets and channels, and vessel 

14 traffic. Coastal and estuarine habitats could be disturbed by activities such as pipeline trenching 

15 and onshore facility construction. Shoreline habitats may also be affected by wake-induced 

16 erosion during routine dredging activities or ship traffic. Habitats potentially affected would 

17 include coastal dunes, wetlands, and barrier islands. The magnitude of these impacts would 

18 depend on the location of the construction activities, the level of dredging or shipping activity in 

19 a specific area, and existing environmental conditions (such as ongoing shoreline degradation).

20

21 Coastal and estuarine habitats could also be affected by accidental oil spills. The 

22 magnitude of potential impacts to coastal and estuarine habitats will depend on a variety of 

23 factors, including the location, size, timing, and duration of the spill, the effectiveness of 

24 remediation efforts, existing environmental conditions (e.g., vegetation, substrate type, ice 

25 cover), and natural localized erosion and deposition patterns. The effects of small spill would be

26 very localized and relatively short-term. In the event of a large spill or a CDE, habitats over a 

27 much greater geographic area may be affected, and may incur more severe impacts where oil is 

28 concentrated. In some cases, habitats such as coastal wetlands may not fully recover even 

29 following remediation.

30

31 Marine Benthic Habitats. Impacts from routine OCS oil and gas activities could result 

32 from the construction and removal of infrastructure (wells, platforms, pipelines), vessel traffic, 

33 and permitted operational discharges. Construction activities which involve the physical 

34 disturbance of the seafloor will result in moderate impacts to benthic habitats within and 

35 immediately adjacent to the disturbance footprint. In most cases, disturbed soft-bottom habitats 

36 would recover. Protective measures, currently required at the lease sale phase thorugh lease 

37 stipulations, exist for seafloor habitats such as live bottom and pinnacle trend areas in the GOM. 

38 These measures would help to reduce potential impacts on both nearshore and deeper-water 

39 habitats.

40

41 Accidental oil spills could affect benthic habitats, and result in minor to moderate impacts 

42 to affected habitats. The magnitude of these impacts would depend upon the location, size, 

43 timing and duration of the spill; weather conditions; effectiveness of containment and cleanup 

44 operations; and other environmental conditions at the time of the spill. Impacts from small spills 

45 would be mostly localized and minor. However, if a large spill or a CDE at the seafloor
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Summary xxxvii

1 (i.e., from a wellhead or a pipeline) were to occur, a greater amount of habitat could be affected. 

2 As a consequence, full recovery of oiled habitats could take many years in some locations. 

3

4 Marine Pelagic Habitats. Overall, no permanent degradation of pelagic habitat is 

5 anticipated and impacts would be negligible to minor in the GOM and Alaska Planning Areas. 

6 During routine operations (including routine discharges), marine pelagic habitats could be 

7 affected as a result of increased turbidity associated with bottom-disturbing activities, and from 

8 operational discharges such as produced water and drilling muds and cuttings. Impacts would be 

9 largely localized and short-term in duration.

10

11 Small accidental spills may be expected to result in only minor, localized impacts on 

12 pelagic habitats. The effects from oil spills would depend on the location, magnitude, duration, 

13 and timing of the spill, on environmental factors (e.g., presence of sea ice, storms, ocean 

14 currents), and on the habitats affected by the spill. Large spills or a CDE could reduce habitat 

15 quality over a larger area, and result in moderate impacts to some habitats. In the GOM, oil 

16 contacting Sargassum mats could result in complete or partial short-term loss of these unique 

17 habitats in some areas and cause localized population-level impacts on associated biota. In 

18 Alaska, accidental spills occurring under ice cover or in sea ice habitats could result in small, but 

19 long-term impacts to pelagic habitats.

20

21

22 Marine and Coastal Fauna

23

24 Mammals. Impacts to marine mammals from routine operations include noise 

25 disturbance from seismic surveys, vessels, helicopters, construction and operation of platforms, 

26 and removal of platforms with explosives; potential collision with vessels; and exposures to 

27 discharges and wastes. Impacts to cetaceans could range from negligible to moderate, with 

28 species or stocks inhabiting continental shelf or shelf slope waters most likely to be affected. In 

29 Alaska, if the disturbance results in the temporary abandonment of young by adults 

30 (e.g., abandonment of pups in Steller’s sea lion rookeries), survival of young may be reduced, 

31 and moderate impacts to local populations may result. Collisions with OCS-related vessels could 

32 also injure or kill some individuals, although the incidence of such collisions is expected to be 

33 very low. Meeting the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal 

34 Protection Act would reduce the likelihood and magnitude of adverse impacts from routine 

35 operations to most marine mammal species. For terrestrial mammals, no impacts are expected 

36 from routine operations in the GOM to endangered beach mice subspecies or the Florida salt 

37 marsh vole. In Alaska, impacts to terrestrial mammals from routine operations would be 

38 negligible to minor. 

39

40 Accidental oil spills may result in the direct and indirect exposures of mammals and their 

41 habitats to the oil. Fouling of fur of some species (e.g., sea otter and fur seal) could affect 

42 thermoregulation and reduce survival, while ingestion of oil and oil-contaminated food could 

43 have acute and chronic effects. The magnitude of effects from accidental spills will depend on 

44 the location, magnitude, duration, timing, and volume of the spills; the habitats affected by the 

45 spills (e.g., coastal habitats); and the species exposed. Spills in open waters may be expected to 

46 affect the fewest number of individuals. Very large spills, such as a CDE, would affect the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Summary xxxviii

1 greatest number of species and individuals, and have the greatest potential for adversely affecting 

2 local mammal populations. In Alaska, the greatest risk to marine mammals would be associated 

3 with large spills reaching rookeries and haulout locations where large numbers of individuals 

4 could be exposed and population-level impacts on some species (especially the Steller’s sea lion) 

5 could occur. Overall, small spills would affect relatively few individuals, while large spills 

6 could affect many more species, and in some cases (such as a CDE) result in local population7 level effects.

8

9 Marine and Coastal Birds. Routine operations may result in negligible to moderate, 

10 localized, short-term impacts. Impacts would be associated primarily with infrastructure 

11 construction, and ship and helicopter traffic. The primary effect would be disturbance of birds in 

12 the immediate vicinity of the activity. In most cases, disturbed birds would temporarily leave the 

13 area, while in other cases,the displacement could be long-term. Because many birds tend to 

14 habituate to human activities and noise, potential impacts from disturbance may be short-term 

15 and not expected to result in population-level effects. However, construction activities near 

16 coastal habitats could disrupt breeding and nesting activities of colonial nesting birds. 

17 Depending on the species, the numbers of birds affected, and the activity disturbed (nesting, 

18 molting, feeding, staging), the displacement of disturbed birds could reduce reproductive 

19 success, foraging success, and survival. Some collision mortality with offshore platforms would 

20 be expected. Loss or alteration of preferred habitat due to pipeline landfalls or other onshore 

21 construction could result in the displacement and possible decrease of nesting activities.

22

23 Accidental oil spills pose the greatest threat to marine and coastal birds. The magnitude 

24 and ecological importance of any effects would depend upon the size, location, duration, and 

25 timing of the spill; the species and life stages of the exposed birds; and the size of the local bird 

26 population. Exposure to spills in deep water would be largely limited to pelagic birds. Shallow27 water spills that reach coastal habitats could affect the greatest variety and number of birds, 

28 including shorebirds, waterfowl, wading birds, gulls, and terns. Spills reaching onshore 

29 locations have the greatest potential for affecting the greatest number of birds, especially if a 

30 spill occurs in or reaches an area where birds have congregated and are carrying out important 

31 activities (such as nesting, molting, and staging areas for some of the Alaskan waterfowl and 

32 shorebirds). Exposed birds may experience a variety of lethal or sublethal effects, and the 

33 magnitude and ecological importance of any such effects would depend upon the size and 

34 location of the spill, the species and life stage of the exposed birds, and the size of the local bird 

35 population.

36

37

38 Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat

39

40 Overall, impacts to fish from routine Program activities are expected to range from 

41 negligible to minor, and no impacts on threatened or endangered fish species are expected. The 

42 primary potential impacts on fish communities from Program activities could result from seismic 

43 surveys and bottom-disturbing activities such as drilling, platform placement and mooring, and 

44 pipeline trenching and placement, which could displace, injure, or kill fish in the vicinity of the 

45 activity. Fixed platforms, particularly the large number projected for the GOM, would also serve 

46 as artificial reefs that would attract substantial numbers of fish. Oil and gas activities would be 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Summary xxxix

1 temporary, and no permanent or population-level impacts on fish are expected. Displaced fish 

2 and invertebrate food sources would repopulate the area over a short period of time in the GOM, 

3 but fish habitat recovery may be long-term in Alaskan waters. The effects of drilling muds and 

4 produced water discharge on fish would be localized, and no population-level effects are 

5 expected. Drilling waste and produced water discharge would be far less in Alaska because 

6 fewer wells would be drilled in Alaska and because it is assumed that drilling muds and cuttings 

7 from production wells and all produced water would be reinjected into the wells. 

8

9 Small spills would be localized and are unlikely to affect a substantial number of fish 

10 before dilution and weathering would reduce concentrations of toxic fractions to nontoxic levels. 

11 Large spills and a CDE would affect a wider area, with the magnitude of the impacts depending 

12 on the location, timing, and volume of spills, distribution and ecology of affected fish species, 

13 and other environmental factors. Most adult fish are highly mobile and would likely avoid lethal 

14 hydrocarbon exposures, although they may be subjected to sublethal concentrations. Smaller 

15 species and egg and larval life stages are more likely to suffer lethal or sublethal exposures from 

16 oil contact because of their relative lack of mobility. Under most circumstances, any single large

17 spill would affect only a small proportion of a given fish population; therefore, overall 

18 population levels may not be affected. However, fish species that currently have depressed 

19 populations or have critical spawning grounds present in the affected area could experience 

20 population-level impacts. Oil contacting shoreline areas used for spawning or providing habitat 

21 for early life stages of fish could result in large-scale lethal and long-term sublethal effects on 

22 fish. In Alaskan waters, where oil may be slow to break down, coastal oiling could measurably 

23 depress some fish populations for several years. However, no permanent impacts on fish 

24 populations are expected.

25

26

27 Reptiles

28

29 Five species of sea turtles occur in the three GOM Planning Areas: green, hawksbill, 

30 Kemp’s ridley, leatherback, and loggerhead, and all are listed as threatened or endangered under 

31 the ESA. All but the hawksbill have been reported to nest on beaches within the GOM Planning 

32 Areas. In addition to these turtles, the American crocodile, which is federally endangered, 

33 occurs in the Eastern GOM Planning Area along the southern coast of Florida. Routine 

34 operations in the GOM are not expected to affect the American crocodile. This species could be 

35 affected in the event there is a very large oil spill that reaches the southern Florida coast. In such 

36 an event, adults and young could be directly exposed, and nest sites could be fouled. No reptiles 

37 occur in the Alaska OCS Planning Areas.

38

39 Impacts to reptiles from routine operations associated with the Program are expected to 

40 range from minor to moderate. Sea turtles could be directly affected by seismic surveys, vessel 

41 traffic, construction of offshore and onshore facilities, operational discharges, and removal of 

42 platforms. Noise generated during exploration and production activities and platform removal 

43 may result in the temporary disturbance of some individuals, while some turtles may be killed 

44 during the use of underwater explosives for platform removal. The construction and operation of 

45 new onshore facilities may impact nest sites, possibly result in eggs being crushed, and disturb 

46 hatchling movement from the nest sites to the water. Sea turtles may also be injured or killed by 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Summary xl

1 collisions with OCS vessels. Permit requirements, ESA regulations and requirements, regulatory 

2 stipulations, and BOEM guidelines could limit the seriousness of any potential effects on sea 

3 turtles. Therefore, while routine operations could affect individual sea turtles, population-level 

4 impacts are not expected.

5

6 Oil spills may expose one or more sea turtle life stages to oil or its weathering products. 

7 Oil reaching nests may reduce egg hatching and hatchling survival, and inhibit hatchling access 

8 to water. Exposed hatchlings, juveniles, and adults may incur a variety of lethal or sublethal 

9 effects. The presence of oil on nesting beaches may affect nest site access and use. Small spills 

10 are unlikely to affect a large number of sea turtles or their habitats and thus are not expected to 

11 have substantial or long-term effects. The magnitude of effects from accidental spills would 

12 depend on the location, timing, duration, and volume of the spills; the environmental settings of 

13 the spills; and the species and life stages of sea turtle exposed to the spills. A very large spill 

14 could affect many more individuals and habitats, including nesting beaches, and potentially lead 

15 to population-level effects. 

16

17

18 Invertebrates

19

20 Routine operations could result in negligible to moderate impacts to invertebrates, 

21 especially to benthic invertebrates. The primary impacts of routine Program activities would be 

22 from bottom-disturbing activities during the exploration and site development phases. Routine 

23 operations involving bottom disturbance (including pipeline trenching) could displace, bury, 

24 injure, or kill invertebrates in the immediate vicinity of the activities. Affected invertebrate 

25 communities would generally repopulate the disturbed areas over a short period of time 

26 (especially soft-bottom communities), although a return to the pre-disturbance community may 

27 take longer, particularly in the Arctic. If discharged into open water, the effects of drilling muds 

28 and produced water on invertebrates would be localized and no population-level effects are 

29 expected. No permanent or population-level impacts on invertebrates are expected from routine 

30 operations following lease sales under any of the action alternatives.

31

32 Small surface or subsurface oil spills would be rapidly diluted and likely result in only 

33 minor localized impacts on invertebrates. Large spills could affect a large number of benthic and 

34 pelagic invertebrates and their habitats. The location, size, duration, and timing of the spill 

35 would be important determinants of the impact magnitude of large spills. A large spill 

36 contacting shoreline areas with sensitive intertidal and shallow subtidal habitats could result in 

37 large-scale and long-term sublethal and lethal effects to the benthic communities in those 

38 habitats. In Alaska, local populations of intertidal organisms affected by such large spills could 

39 be measurably depressed for several years and oil could persist in shoreline sediments for 

40 decades.

41

42

43 Areas of Special Concern

44

45 Impacts to Areas of Special Concern (AOCs) resulting from routine Program activities 

46 are expected to be negligible to moderate because of the existing protections and use restrictions. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Summary xli

1 Routine operations that could affect AOCs (e.g., National Marine Sanctuaries, National Parks) 

2 include the placement of structures, pipeline landfalls, operational discharges, and vessel traffic. 

3 However, impacts from these activities are unlikely, as no infrastructure (e.g., pipeline landfalls, 

4 shore bases) would be sited in National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs), or other 

5 AOCs. In Alaska, no OCS-related activities would occur in National Park lands, thereby 

6 minimizing the potential for impacts from routine operations to these AOCs, and impacts from 

7 routine activities in adjacent areas would be minimal. However, offshore construction of 

8 pipelines and platforms could have temporary effects on wildlife due to noise and activity levels 

9 and on scenic values for park visitors. 

10

11 While an oil spill could affect AOCs, the magnitude of the potential impact would 

12 depend on the location, size, duration, and timing of a spill; the weather conditions at the time of 

13 the spill; the effectiveness of cleanup operations; and other environmental conditions 

14 (e.g., presence of sea ice) at the time of the spill. Accidental oil spills reaching AOCs could 

15 negatively affect fauna and habitats, subsistence use, commercial or recreational fisheries, 

16 recreation and tourism, and other uses.

17

18

19 Impacts on Population, Employment, and Regional Income

20

21 The main effect on population and employment of routine operations that could result 

22 following leasing will be the employment generated by routine Program activities. In the GOM, 

23 direct expenditures associated with routine operations would result in negligible impacts from 

24 small increases in population, employment, and income in each region over the duration of the 

25 leasing period, corresponding to less than 1% of the baseline. In Alaska, direct expenditures 

26 would result in minor impacts from small increases in population, employment, and income in 

27 each region over the duration of the leasing period, corresponding to less than 5% of the 

28 baseline. Given existing levels of leasing activity, impacts on property values in the GOM and 

29 Alaska Planning Areas would be negligible. In planning areas where tourism and recreation 

30 provide significant employment, accidental oil spills (especially a low probability CDE) could 

31 result in the short-term loss of employment, income, and property values. Expenditures 

32 associated with spill cleanup activities would create short-term employment and income in some 

33 parts of the affected coastal region(s).

34

35

36 Land Use and Infrastructure

37

38 Routine Program activities would result in negligible to minor impacts in the GOM, and 

39 minor to moderate impacts in Alaska, on land use, development patterns, and infrastructure. In 

40 the GOM, existing infrastructure generally would be sufficient to handle exploration and 

41 development associated with potential new leases. In Alaska, additional infrastructure would be 

42 necessary to support Program development. Projected impacts in both the GOM and Alaska 

43 from an accidental oil spill (especially from a low-probability CDE) would alter land use 

44 temporarily but would not likely result in long-term changes. The magnitude of the impacts 

45 would depend upon the location, size, timing, and duration of the spill and the existing land use 

46 at the spill location.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Summary xlii

1 Commercial and Recreational Fisheries

2

3 Following leasing, routine Program operations could have minor impacts on subsistence, 

4 commercial, and recreational fisheries. Impacts would be associated primarily with vessel traffic 

5 and structure placement, presence, and removal, each of which could temporarily drive fishes 

6 away from the area and preclude fishing. However, these impacts would be temporary, and 

7 population-level effects on commercial and recreational fishery resources are not anticipated 

8 from these routine operations. Once platforms are installed and production activities begin, 

9 offshore structures would act as fish attraction devices for both pelagic and reef-associated 

10 species; these structures would also be attractive for recreational fishing. Seismic surveys and 

11 construction of platforms and pipelines could result in space-use conflicts with commercial and 

12 recreational fishing activities, although these effects would be localized. Space-use conflicts, in 

13 the case of seismic surveys, would be short-duration. 

14

15 The level of effects from accidental oil spills on subsistence, commercial, and 

16 recreational fisheries would depend on the location, timing, duration, and volume of spills, in 

17 addition to other environmental factors. Small spills are unlikely to have a large effect before 

18 dilution and weathering reduces concentrations and, therefore, would not have long-term effects 

19 on subsistence, commercial and recreational fisheries. If large oil spills were to occur, 

20 subsistence, commercial, and recreational fisheries could be affected. The potential for oil21 soaked fishing gear and potentially contaminated fish may reduce commercial and recreational 

22 fishing efforts and affect subsistence use of the resource. Very large spills could also indirectly 

23 affect fisheries by degrading habitats that are critical for the survival of target species, but would 

24 only be serious if they led to severe declines in target species’ populations. Highly mobile fish 

25 species (tunas, sharks, and billfish) could move away from surface oil spills in deep water, 

26 disrupting fishing efforts. 

27

28

29 Tourism and Recreation

30

31 Routine operations would have minor, short-term negative effects on recreation and 

32 tourism, with potential adverse aesthetic impacts on beach recreation and sightseeing and 

33 potential positive impacts on diving and recreational fishing in the GOM coast; sightseeing, 

34 boating, fishing, and hiking activities in the Cook Inlet area; and sightseeing, hiking, and boating 

35 activities in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea Planning Areas. 

36

37 Potential impacts on recreation and tourism resulting from an oil spill in any of the 

38 planning areas would likely include direct impacts (e.g., oil contamination of a beach), access 

39 restrictions to a particular area (e.g., no diving or fishing while cleanup is being conducted), and 

40 aesthetic impacts. These impacts could persist for several months or more pending cleanup 

41 completion and any required habitat restoration. The extent of the impacts would depend on the 

42 location, size, duration, and timing of the spill and on the effectiveness of cleanup operations. 

43 Since oiled coastal sediments are often removed via mechanical means, such shoreline activity 

44 would effectively close the area to public use for the duration of cleanup operations. If 

45 restoration is required (i.e., to restore the proper beach profile), additional time may be required 

46 before public access is allowed. Historical evidence pertinent to the effects of major oil spills 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Summary xliii

1 has indicated that spills may prompt either a seasonal decline in tourist visits and/or tourist 

2 movement to other coastal areas in the region.

3

4

5 Sociocultural Systems and Environmental Justice

6

7 Impacts on sociocultural systems and environmental justice vary across OCS regions. In 

8 the GOM and Cook Inlet, where sociocultural systems have a long experience with offshore oil 

9 and gas operations, impacts on sociocultural systems would be few and impacts would be minor. 

10 The greatest impacts on sociocultural systems in the GOM are expected to result from the 

11 ongoing expansion of oil and gas activities in the GOM, especially in expansion to deepwater 

12 and ultra-deepwater areas. This expansion of oil and gas activities has contributed to the cultural 

13 heterogeneity of the area by drawing the offshore workforce from a wider geographic range. 

14 Expansion to deepwater and ultra-deepwater areas has resulted in the creation of jobs that require 

15 more specialized skills and in requiring longer, unbroken periods of work offshore. While there 

16 is extensive onshore oil development in the vicinity of Prudhoe Bay, there is currently no OCS 

17 oil and gas development in the Arctic. Thus, impacts to sociocultural systems from routine 

18 Program operations may range from minor to major. Of greatest concern to the Alaska Natives 

19 who inhabit the area are threats to their subsistence base and way of life. Noise from seismic 

20 surveys and exploratory drilling has the potential to deflect whales and other marine mammals 

21 from their accustomed migration routes, making them more difficult to harvest. 

22

23 A large environmental justice concern is the potential health risk to residents from nearby 

24 OCS-related infrastructure, including helipads, heliports, waste management facilities, pipe 

25 coating yards, shipyards, platform fabrication yards, supply bases, natural gas storage facilities, 

26 repair yards, refineries, port facilities, and terminals. In the GOM, with existing industrial 

27 infrastructure, routine Program operations are not expected to significantly change the health risk 

28 exposure of nearby residents, and impacts are expected to be negligible. Impacts to 

29 environmental justice from routine Program activities in the Cook Inlet and Arctic planning areas 

30 are expected to be negligible to minor.

31

32 Much of Alaska’s Native population, however, resides in coastal areas, and the Arctic 

33 areas have a very high Native Alaskan population. The importance of marine mammals (such as 

34 the bowhead whale) to subsistence by Alaska Natives (especially in the Arctic) raises particular 

35 concerns. Any adverse environmental impacts on fish and mammal subsistence resources from 

36 installation of infrastructure and routine operations of these facilities could have 

37 disproportionately higher health or environmental impacts on Alaska Native populations. A 

38 large oil spill that contacts subsistence resources could also have disproportionately high impacts 

39 on the Alaska Native population if the subsistence resources were diminished or tainted as a 

40 result of the spill. 

41

42

43 Archaeological Resources

44

45 Archaeological resources that could be affected by the proposed action include historic 

46 shipwrecks and inundated prehistoric sites offshore, and historic and prehistoric sites onshore. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Summary xliv

1 Although shipwrecks tend to concentrate in shallow, nearshore waters in all OCS regions, 

2 historic shipwrecks are scattered across the entire continental shelf, and many are found even in 

3 deepwater areas. Inundated prehistoric sites may occur on those portions of the continental shelf 

4 that were exposed as dry land during the period of lower sea levels of the last ice age. The extent 

5 of the continental shelf that was exposed varies from area to area; however, globally, sea levels 

6 were approximately 120 m (394 ft) lower than present approximately 21,000 to 19,000 years 

7 ago. Onshore historic properties include sites, structures, and objects such as historic buildings, 

8 forts, lighthouses, homesteads, cemeteries, and battlefields. Onshore prehistoric archaeological 

9 resources include sites, structures, and objects such as shell middens, earth middens, campsites, 

10 kill sites, tool manufacturing areas, ceremonial complexes, and earthworks.

11

12 Routine operations associated with the proposed action that may affect archaeological 

13 resources in all regions include drilling wells, installing platforms, installing pipelines, 

14 anchoring, and constructing onshore infrastructure. Existing Federal, State and local laws and 

15 regulations require that archaeological surveys be conducted prior to permitting any activity 

16 (onshore or offshore) that might disturb a significant archaeological site. Compliance with 

17 existing laws and regulations should protect archaeological resources to the maximum extent 

18 possible from most impacts associated with routine activities; however, it is still possible that 

19 some impacts could occur.

20

21 Should a direct physical contact between a routine activity and a shipwreck site occur, it 

22 could destroy fragile ship remains and/or disturb the site context, resulting in a loss of data on 

23 ship construction, cargo, and the social organization of the vessel’s crew, as well as the 

24 concomitant loss of information on maritime culture for the time period from which the ship 

25 dates. Ferromagnetic debris associated with OCS operations could mask the magnetic signature 

26 of historic archaeological resources, making them difficult to detect with magnetometers. 

27 Interaction between a routine activity and a prehistoric archaeological site could destroy artifacts 

28 or site features and could disturb the stratigraphic context of the site.

29

30 Oil spills could affect coastal historic and prehistoric archaeological resources and could 

31 result in unavoidable loss of information. The level of this impact would depend on the 

32 significance and uniqueness of the information lost. Archaeological resource protection during 

33 an oil spill requires specific knowledge of the resource’s location, condition, nature, and extent 

34 prior to impact; however, the coastal areas of the various OCS regions have not been 

35 systematically surveyed for sites. Existing information indicates that prehistoric sites in all 

36 regions occur frequently along the mainland coast and barrier islands, and along the margins of 

37 estuaries, bays and lagoons; thus, any spill that contacts these areas could involve a potential 

38 impact on a prehistoric site.

39

40

41 Alternative 8 – No Action

42

43 The evaluation of a No Action Alternative is required by the regulations implementing 

44 NEPA (40 CFR 1502.14(d)). If the Secretary were to adopt this alternative, it would halt OCS 

45 presale planning, sales, and new leasing from 2012 to 2017, even in the Central and Western 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Summary xlv

1 GOM Planning Areas. However, exploration, development, and production stemming from past 

2 sales would continue.

3

4 This alternative would eliminate new leasing from mid-2012 through mid-2017. The 

5 amounts of OCS natural gas (up to 35 trillion cubic feet) and oil (up to 8.1 billion barrels of oil) 

6 that could help meet national energy needs would be forgone. That amount of energy would 

7 have to be replaced by a combination of imports, alternative energy sources, and conservation.

8

9 Market forces are expected to be the most important determinant of the substitute mix for 

10 OCS oil and gas. Key market substitutes for forgone OCS oil production would be imported oil, 

11 conservation, switching to gas, and onshore production. For OCS natural gas, the principal 

12 substitutes would be switching to oil, onshore production, imports, and conservation.

13

14 In addition to market-based substitutes, the nation or individual States might choose to 

15 encourage or even impose programs designed to deal with the energy shortfall. To replace oil, 

16 these programs might favor alternative vehicle fuels such as ethanol or methanol, vehicles with 

17 greater fuel efficiency, or alternate transportation methods such as mass transit.

18

19 As a partial replacement for the forgone natural gas, governments might mandate 

20 increased reliance on coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, or wind-generated electric power. In addition, 

21 governments might give more emphasis to programs encouraging more efficient electricity 

22 transmission and more efficient use of gas and electricity in factories, offices, and homes.

23

24

25 Conclusions

26

27 This PEIS is consistent with the requirements of Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 

28 1953 (67 Stat. 462) as amended in 1988 (43 USC 1331 et seq.), NEPA (42 USC 4321), as 

29 amended, and Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA 

30 (40 CFR Part 1500). A scoping process was conducted to obtain input from stakeholders, 

31 including individuals, public interest organizations, and governmental agencies, and this input 

32 was used to develop the alternatives and issues analyzed in this PEIS.

33

34 On the basis of the analyses in this PEIS, the types of impacts that could occur during 

35 routine Program activities would be the same among the action alternatives. The alternatives 

36 differ primarily on the basis of where the impacts could occur, which is directly related to the 

37 planning areas included in each alternative. Routine operations are expected to result in impacts 

38 that range from negligible to major, with most being short-term and recovering following 

39 completion of the routine activities. The greatest impacts would occur with a low-probability 

40 catastrophic discharge event, but the nature and magnitude of impacts would depend on the 

41 location, size, duration, and timing of the spill, the resources affected, and the effectiveness of 

42 the spill containment and cleanup activities.

43

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Summary xlvi

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 This page intentionally left blank.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Abbreviations and Acronyms xlvii

1 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

2

3

4 ACSAR Atlantic continental slope and rise

5 ABC American Bird Conservancy

6 ABM Alabama beach mouse

7 ACC Arctic Coastal Current

8 ACIA Arctic Climate Impact Assessment

9 ACP Arctic Coastal Plain

10 ADCED Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development

11 ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

12 ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game

13 ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources

14 AEB Aleutian East Borough

15 AEWC Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission

16 AFB Air Force Base

17 AFN Alaskan Federation of Natives

18 AHTS anchor handling towing supply

19 Alaska OHA Alaska Office of History and Archaeology

20 AMMP adaptive mitigation and management plan

21 ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971

22 ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

23 ANIMIDA Arctic Nearshore Impact Monitoring in Development Area

24 ANSC Aleutian North Slope Current

25 ANWR Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

26 AO Arctic Oscillation

27

28 BBB Bristol Bay Borough

29 Bbbl billion barrels

30 bbl barrels

31 bbl/yr barrels per year

32 BBO billion barrels of oil

33 BBOE billion barrels of oil equivalent

34 Bcf billion cubic feet

35 BCNP Big Cypress National Preserve

36 BLM Bureau of Land Management (USDOI)

37 BNWR Breton National Wildlife Refuge

38 B.P. before present

39 bpd barrels per day

40 BSAI Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands, Alaska

41 BTEX benzene, toulene, ethylbenzene & xylene

42 BPXA British Petroleum (Exploration) Alaska

43

44 C degrees Centrigrade

45 14C carbon-14

46 CAA Clean Air Act or conflict avoidance agreement
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Abbreviations and Acronyms xlviii

1 CAH Central Arctic Herd

2 CBM Choctawhatchee beach mouse

3 CEC Commission on Environmental Cooperation

4 CEI Coastal Environments, Inc.

5 CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

6 CER categorical exclusion review

7 CFC chlorofluorocarbons

8 CFR Code of Federal Regulations

9 CH4 methane

10 CIAP Coastal Impact Assistance Program

11 CIRI Cook Inlet Region, Inc.

12 cm centimeter

13 CMP coastal management program

14 cm/s centimeter per second

15 CMSP Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning

16 CO carbon monoxide

17 CO2 carbon dioxide

18 COE Corps of Engineers (U.S. Army)

19 CPUE catch per unit effort

20 CVI coastal vulnerability index

21 CWA Clean Water Act

22 CWPPRA Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act

23 CZM Coastal Zone Management

24 CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

25

26 dB decibel

27 dB re 1 μPa-m dB referenced to 1 micropascal within 1 meter of the source

28 DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

29 DHHS Department of Health and Human Services

30 DIN dissolved inorganic nitrogen

31 DIP dissolved inorganic phosphorus

32 DLP defense of life and property

33 DOSS dioctylsulfosuccinate

34 DPnB dipropylene glycol n-butyl ether

35 DPS distinct population segment

36 DTNP Dry Tortugas National Preserve

37 DWH Deepwater Horizon

38 DWH oil spill Deepwater Horizon MC252 Spill of National Significance

39

40 E&D exploration and development

41 EA environmental assessment

42 ECOS Environmental Conservation Online System

43 EDA estuarine drainage area

44 EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

45 EFH essential fisheries habitat

46 EIA economic impact area
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Abbreviations and Acronyms xlix

1 EIS environmental impact statement

2 EJ environmental justice

3 ENP Everglades National Park

4 ENSO El Niño-Southern Oscillation

5 EO Executive Order

6 ERS Economic Research Service (USDOA)

7 ESA Endangered Species Act

8 ESI Environmental Sensitivity Index

9

10 F degrees Fahrenheit

11 FAD fish aggregation device

12 FCMA Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976

13 FDA fluvial drainage area

14 FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

15 FGBNMS Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary

16 FKNMS Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

17 FLM Federal land manager

18 FMC fishery management council

19 FMP fishery management plan

20 FOSC Federal On-Scene Coordinator

21 FPSO floating production, storage, and offloading

22 FR Federal Register

23 FS Forest Service (USDOA)

24 FSB Federal Subsistence Board

25 FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act

26 FWS Fish and Wildlife Service (USDOI)

27

28 GCCF Gulf Coast Claims Facility

29 GINS Gulf Island National Seashore

30 GMFMC Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council

31 GOA Gulf of Alaska

32 GOM Gulf of Mexico

33 GRS geographic response strategy

34 GSA Geographic Society of America

35 GWP global warming potential

36

37 H2S hydrogen sulfide

38 ha hectare

39 HAPC habitat area of particular concern

40 HCA Habitat Conservation Area

41 HDDC high density deepwater communities

42 HIA Health Impact Assessment

43 HPA Habitat Protection Area

44 Hz hertz

45

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Abbreviations and Acronyms l

1 IBA Important Bird Area

2 IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

3 IPHC International Pacific Halibut Commission

4 IUCN International Union Conservation Network

5 IWC International Whaling Commission

6

7 kHz kilohertz

8 KIB Kodiak Island Borough

9 km kilometer

km2 10 square kilometer

11 km/hr kilometers per hour

12 KPB Kenai Peninsula Borough

13 kwh kilowatt hours

14

15 lb pounds

16 LCI Lower Cook Inlet

17 LMA Labor Market Area

18 LME Large Marine Ecoregion

19 LNG liquefied natural gas

20 LPB Lake and Peninsula Borough

21 LRRS Long-Range Radar Site

22 LSU CMI Louisiana State University Coastal Marine Institute

23 LCWCRTF Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force

24

25 m meter

m3 26 cubic meter

m3 27 /s cubic meter per second

28 m/s meters per second

29 m/yr meters per year

30 MAFLA Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida

31 MAG-PLAN MMS Alaska-GOM Modeling Using IMPLAN

32 MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships

33 Mbbl million barrels

34 MCF million cubic feet

35 mg/kg milligrams per kilogram

36 mg/L milligrams per liter

mi2 37 square miles

mi2 38 /yr square miles per year

39 ML Richter low magnitude

40 ml/L milliliters per liter

41 MMbbl million barrels

42 MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act

43 MMS Minerals Management Service (USDOI)

44 MODU mobile offshore drilling unit

45 MPA Marine Protected Area

46 mph miles per hour
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Abbreviations and Acronyms li

1 MPPRCA Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act

2 MPRSA Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act

3 MRFSS Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (NMFS)

4 MSA metropolitan statistical area

5 MSP marine spatial planning

6 Mw moment magnitude

7

8 NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

9 NAFTA North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement

10 NAO North Atlantic Oscillation

11 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

12 NAST National Assessment Synthesis Team

13 NDBC National Data Buoy Center

14 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

15 NGL natural gas liquid

16 NGO non-governmental organization

17 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

18 NIC National Incident Command

19 NM nautical miles

20 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service (USDOC, NOAA)

21 N2O nitrous oxide

22 NO2 nitrogen dioxide

23 NOx nitrogen oxide

24 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (USDOC)

25 NOC National Ocean Council

26 NORM naturally occurring radioactive material

27 NOx nitrogen oxides

28 NP National Park

29 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

30 NPFMC North Pacific Fishery Management Council

31 NPR–A National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska

32 NRDA Natural Resource Damage Assessment

33 NRDC National Resources Defense Council

34 NRHP National Register of Historic Places

35 NPS National Park Service (USDOI)

36 NRC National Research Council

37 NSB North Slope Borough 

38 NSRE National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NOAA)

39 NTL Notice to Lessees

40 NWA national wilderness area

41 NWR national wildlife refuge

42 NWS National Weather Service

43

44 O&G oil and gas

45 O3 ozone
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Abbreviations and Acronyms lii

1 OBIS-SEAMAP Ocean Biogeographic Information System-Spatial Ecological Analysis of 

2 Megavertebrate Populations

3 OBM oil-based mud

4 OCD Offshore and Coastal Dispersion Model

5 OCS Outer Continental Shelf

6 OCSLA Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

7 OECM Offshore Environmental Cost Model

8 OPA 90 Oil Pollution Act of 1990

9 OPAREA (military) operating area

10 OSAT Operational Science Advisory Team of the Unified Area Command

11 OSRF oil-spill financial responsibility

12 OSV offshore supply vessel

13

14 PAH polyaromatic hydrocarbons

15 Pb lead

16 PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

17 PCH Porcupine Caribou Herd

18 PCPI per capita personal income

19 PDO Pacific Decadal Oscillation

20 PEIS programmatic environmental impact statement

21 PICES North Pacific Marine Science Organization

22 PINS Padre Island National Seashore 

23 PKBM Perdido Key beach mouse

24 PM particulate matter

25 PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

26 PM2.5 fine particulates less than 2.5 microns in diameter

27 ppb parts per billion

28 ppm parts per million

29 ppt parts per thousan

30 PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

31

32 RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

33 ROD record of decision

34 ROP required operating procedure

35 ROW right-of-way

36

37 SAAQS State Ambient Air Quality Standards

38 SABM St. Andrew’s beach mouse

39 SBF synthetic-based drill fluids

40 SCAT Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Team

41 SEED Shelf Energetics and Exchange Dynamics

42 SIP State Implementation Plan

43 SMB synthetic-based muds

44 SO2 sulfur dioxide

45 SOx sulfur oxides

46 SST sea-surface temperature
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Abbreviations and Acronyms liii

1 SSDC single steel drilling caisson

2 SUA Special Use Airspace

3 SUSIO State University System of Florida Institute of Oceanography

4

5 t metric ton (tonne)

6 TAPS Trans–Alaska Pipeline System

7 Tbbl trillion barrels

8 tcf trillion cubic feet

9 TcfG trillion cubic feet of gas

10 TcfGE trillion cubic feel of gas equivalent

11 TEIA Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment

12 TERA Troy Ecological Research Associates

13 Tg teragram

14 TLH Teshekpuk Lake Herd

15 TMDL total maximum daily load

16 TLSA Teshepuk Lake Special Area

17 TTI/E Ten Thousand Islands/Everglades Unit

18

19 UCI Upper Cook Inlet

20 g/m3 migrograms per cubic meter

21 m micrometer

22 UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

23 Pa microPascal

24 Pa-m microPascal at 1 meter

25 USCG U.S. Coast Guard

26 USDOC U.S. Department of Commerce

27 USDOD U.S. Department of Defense

28 USDOE U.S. Department of Energy

29 USDOI U.S. Department of the Interior

30 USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation

31 USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

32 USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

33 USGS U.S. Geological Survey (USDOI)

34

35 VLOS very large oil spill

36 VOC volatile organic compound

37

38 WA Wilderness Area

39 WAH Western Arctic Herd

40 WBF water-based fluid

41 WBM water-based muds

42 WEA Wind EnergyArea

43

yd3 44 cubic yards

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Abbreviations and Acronyms liv

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 This page was intentionally left blank.

14

15
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Introduction 1-1

1 1 INTRODUCTION

2

3

4 1.1 BACKGROUND

5

6 Section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) of 1953 (67 Stat. 462) as 

7 amended in 1988 (43 USC 1331 et seq.) requires the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI) to 

8 prepare a 5-year schedule that specifies, as precisely as possible, the size, timing, and location of 

9 areas to be assessed for Federal offshore oil and gas leasing on the U.S. outer continental shelf 

10 (OCS). The Federal action being evaluated is the preparation of this 5-year schedule. A 

11 schedule is needed to increase the predictability of sales in order to facilitate planning by 

12 industry, affected states, and the general public. The OCSLA also requires the 5-year leasing 

13 schedule to be developed and maintained in a manner that is consistent with several management 

14 principles. Within the USDOI, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM or the 

15 Bureau) (formerly the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement and 

16 prior to that, the Minerals Management Service) must manage the OCS oil and gas program to 

17 ensure a proper balance among oil and gas production, environmental protection, and impacts on 

18 the coastal zone. OCSLA defines the OCS as all submerged lands lying seaward of State coastal 

19 waters which are under U.S. jurisdiction. The BOEM is organized into four regional offices, 

20 each of which is responsible for overseeing the safe and environmentally responsible

21 development of traditional and renewable ocean energy and mineral resources in four OCS 

22 regions: Alaska, Pacific, Gulf of Mexico (GOM), and Atlantic — for a combined total of 

23 1.7 billion acres of the OCS.

24

25 In recent years, the OCS oil and gas resources have been subject to suspensions of 

26 activities or moratoria. In 1982, Congress imposed a moratorium on oil and gas leasing for 

27 offshore California. Over the next decade, Congress expanded the moratorium to include almost

28 all Atlantic and Pacific planning areas. From 1990 through 2000, an Executive Withdrawal

29 enacted by President George H. Bush was in effect on a portion of the same OCS acreage subject 

30 to the 1982 congressional moratorium. Separate and apart from the congressional moratorium, 

31 the Executive Withdrawal served to independently limit offshore development. In 1998, 

32 President Clinton extended the Executive Withdrawal through 2012. On July 14, 2008, however, 

33 President George W. Bush lifted the OCS Executive Withdrawal. On August 1, 2008, the 

34 Minerals Management Service (MMS) issued a Request for Comments for the preparation of a 

35 new 5-year OCS leasing program to cover 2010 through 2015.

36

37 On January 21, 2009, a notice for Request for Comments on the Draft Proposed 5-Year

38 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2010-2015 and the Notice of Intent to Prepare an 

39 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Proposed 5-Year Program Draft Proposed 

40 Program were published in the Federal Register (Federal Register, January 21, 2009, 

41 Volume 74, Number 12, pages 3631–3635). On February 10, 2010, the Secretary of the Interior 

42 extended the comment period by 180 days to September 21, 2009.

43

44 As a result of the comment period extension and the Bureau‘s reconsideration of existing 

45 policies and regulations in response to the Deepwater Horizon event on April 20, 2010, the time 

46 period to be covered by the new program shifted from 2010-2015 to 2012-2017. The 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Introduction 1-2

1 January 2009 Draft Proposed Plan remains the first of three draft decisions for the program (now 

2 for 2012-2017) that will replace the existing 2007-2012 program. However, in response to 

3 comments and other considerations, the Secretary has reduced the scope of the 5-year EIS to 

4 exclude several planning areas that were originally included in the Draft Proposed Plan decision.

5

6 On April 2, 2010, the Bureau issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS with 

7 respect to the OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2012-2017 (hereafter referred to as ―the 

8 Program‖) and requested comments for the purpose of determining the scope of the EIS. The 

9 updated strategy limited lease sales to the following planning areas: Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea,

10 Cook Inlet, the Central and Western GOM, and the area of the Eastern GOM excluded from 

11 Congressional moratoria (see Figure 1-1). The NOI also announced that scoping meetings 

12 would be held during June and early July 2010 in coastal States bordering the Mid- and South 

13 Atlantic; Western, Central, and the portion of the Eastern GOM; and at several locations in 

14 Alaska. Subsequently, on June 30, 2010, the Secretary announced that the scoping meetings 

15 were postponed until later in 2010 because of the need for BOEM to focus on reviewing and 

16 evaluating safety and environmental requirements of offshore drilling in response to the 

17 Deepwater Horizon event and that a new public comment period would later be announced. On 

18 December 1, 2010, the Secretary announced an updated oil and gas leasing strategy for the OCS. 

19 Consistent with the Secretary‘s direction to proceed with caution and to focus on leasing in areas 

20 with current active leases, the area in the Eastern GOM that remains under a congressional 

21 moratorium and the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas were no longer considered for 

22 potential sales and development through 2017. Therefore, scoping meetings were not held in 

23 these areas. It was also announced that the Western GOM, Central GOM, and the Cook Inlet, 

24 Chukchi Sea, and Beaufort Sea areas offshore Alaska would continue to be considered for 

25 potential leasing in the Program.

26

27 Congress, in its yearly appropriations to the USDOI, continues to maintain an annual 

28 moratorium on OCS oil and gas leasing in the Eastern GOM Planning Area with the exception 

29 of a small area along the boundary between the Central and Eastern Planning Areas that was 

30 excluded from the moratorium by the GOM Energy Security Act of 2006. Additionally, 

31 Presidential moratoria have withdrawn all national marine sanctuaries from leasing through 

32 June 30, 2017 (Hagerty 2011). On March 31, 2011, President Obama, under the authority of 

33 Section 12(a) of the OCSLA, withdrew the Bristol Bay area of the North Aleutian Basin for 

34 consideration of leasing through June 30, 2017. The Congressional and Presidential moratoria 

35 prohibit future oil and gas leasing but do not apply to existing leases. Although there are current 

36 leases in the Pacific region, no new OCS leasing will take place in the Pacific region under the

37 Program. 

38

39 The BOEM has prepared this draft programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) 

40 to assess the environmental, social, and economic impacts associated with the Program. The 

41 following Federal, State, and local agencies are serving as cooperating agencies on the 

42 development of the PEIS, due to their special expertise:

43

44 • U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

45 Administration (NOAA)

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Introduction 1-3

1

2 FIGURE 1-1 OCS Planning Areas (planning areas being considered for the Program are shown in 

3 yellow) See Figure 1-2 for details on the Eastern GOM Planning Area.

4

5

6 • The State of Alaska

7

8 • Alaska North Slope Borough (NSB)

9

10 The Program is scheduled to begin in November 2012. The Program consists of a 

11 national schedule of potential OCS lease sales within 6 of the 26 OCS Planning Areas

12 (Figures 1-1 and 1-2). The Program will be the eighth such program prepared since Congress 

13 passed the OCSLA in 1988. The Program establishes a framework for managing the OCS oil 

14 and gas leasing in a manner that accounts for all of the factors required by OCSLA. It also 

15 provides the public with a clear statement of the USDOI‘s OCS leasing intentions during the 

16 period from 2012 to 2017.

17

18

19 1.2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

20

21 The purpose and need of preparing a schedule of potential OCS oil and gas lease sales is

22 to  ̳ ̳best meet national energy needs for the 5-year period following its approval‘‘ (43 USC 1344)
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Introduction 1-4

1

2 FIGURE 1-2 The Eastern GOM OCS Planning Area Showing the Portion Available for Lease Sale 

3 Consideration

4

5
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Introduction 1-5

1 by balancing the potential for adverse environmental and societal impacts with the beneficial 

2 impacts of the discovery and development of oil and gas. In developing the 5-year leasing 

3 schedule, BOEM considers regional and national energy needs; leasing interests as expressed by 

4 possible oil and gas producers; applicable laws, goals, and policies of affected States, local 

5 governments, and tribes; competing uses of the OCS; relative environmental sensitivity and 

6 marine productivity among OCS regions; public input; and the equitable sharing of benefits and 

7 risks among stakeholders. 

8

9 Energy use in the United States is expected to continue to increase from present levels 

10 through 2035 and beyond (EIA 2011). For example, the U.S. consumption of crude oil and 

11 petroleum products has been projected to increase from about 19.1 million barrels (Mbbl) per 

12 day in 2010 to about 21.9 Mbbl per day in 2035 (EIA 2011). Oil and gas reserves in the OCS 

13 represent significant sources that currently help meet U.S. energy demands and are expected to 

14 continue to do so in the future. The benefits of producing oil and natural gas from the OCS 

15 include not only helping to meet this national energy need, but also generating money for public 

16 use. In 2009, the OCS produced 2.5 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas and more than 

17 590 Mbbl of oil and condensate. These numbers represent 10 and 30%, respectively, of the total 

18 U.S. domestic production of oil/condensate and natural gas in 2009. The Federal Government 

19 has received, on average, more than $10 billion per year between 2000 and 2010 from OCS 

20 bonuses, rental payments, and royalties. The highest revenues per year occurred in 2008, when 

21 the government received $23.3 billion in total revenues.

22

23

24 1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER NEPA

25

26 Section 18 of the OCSLA directs the USDOI to conduct environmental studies and 

27 prepare any EIS required in accordance with the OCSLA and within Section 102(2)(C) of the 

28 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 USC 4332(2)(C)). Under NEPA, 

29 Federal agencies are required to prepare a ―detailed statement for major Federal actions 

30 significantly affecting the quality of the human environment‖ (NEPA 102(2)). The preparation 

31 of this draft PEIS is also consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

32 regulations (40 CFR 1502.4(b)), which state that ―environmental impact statements may be 

33 prepared and are sometimes required for broad Federal actions such as the adoption of new 

34 agency programs or regulations (Section 1508.18). Agencies shall prepare statements on broad 

35 actions so that they are relevant to policy and are timed to coincide with meaningful points in 

36 agency planning and decision making.‖ The preparation of this draft PEIS is thus consistent 

37 with, and meets the requirements of OCSLA, CEQ‘s regulations for implementing NEPA and 

38 USDOI‘s regulations implementing NEPA (43 CFR 46).

39

40 The OCSLA leasing and development process consists of four major phases. The 

41 Secretary first prepares a nationwide 5-year oil and gas leasing program that establishes a 

42 schedule of lease sales. Thereafter, individual lease sales scheduled in the 5-year program are 

43 held following a series of pre-lease planning actions. Once a lease is issued to an OCS lessee, an 

44 Exploration Plan (EP) must be submitted for approval before an operator may begin exploratory 

45 drilling on a lease. The EP establishes how the operator will explore the lease and includes all 

46 exploration activities, the timing of these activities, information concerning drilling, the location 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Introduction 1-6

1 of each well, and other relevant information. If the lessee discovers oil and/or natural gas, a 

2 Development and Production Plan (DPP) must be submitted for agency approval. This DPP 

3 includes how many wells, where these wells will be located, what type of structure will be used, 

4 and how the operator will transport the oil and natural gas. The OCSLA also requires operators

5 to apply for permission prior to drilling wells, pursuant to an EP or, in most areas, a DPP.

6

7 In this phased process, the final PEIS may, through tiering, greatly assist subsequent lease

8 sale-specific analyses by allowing incorporation of relevant portions of the final PEIS into those 

9 later analyses and NEPA documents. Tiering is defined by the CEQ (40 CFR 1508.28) as ―the 

10 coverage of general matters in broader environmental impact statements (such as national 

11 program or policy statements) with subsequent narrower statements or environmental analyses 

12 (such as regional or basin-wide program statements or ultimately site-specific statements) 

13 incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on issues specific to 

14 the statement subsequently prepared.‖

15

16 When a broad NEPA document such as a PEIS or environmental assessment (EA) 

17 has been prepared, any subsequent site-specific assessment or evaluation can summarize 

18 (and include by reference) the issues discussed in the broader document, and thus the site19 specific assessment can focus its analyses on project-specific issues of the particular proposed 

20 action (40 CFR 1502.20). Following selection of the Program, any subsequent lease sale21 specific NEPA analyses and documentation may tier off the PEIS for the Program.

22

23 This draft PEIS is the first of many NEPA analyses that will be done for the activities that 

24 occur as a result of the Program. The NEPA assessments, including EISs and EAs associated 

25 with various stages of OCS oil and gas development, are shown in Table 1-1.

26

27

28 1.3.1 Scope of the PEIS

29

30 This draft PEIS was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of alternatives for 

31 OCS oil and gas leasing under the Program, and presents those impacts in a comparative manner 

32 that provides a clear basis for making a reasoned choice among the alternatives by the 

33 decisionmaker. The analyses and evaluations in this draft PEIS and subsequent final PEIS are 

34 intended to inform decisions on the size, timing, and location of leasing activity that will be 

35 made to create the schedule of lease sales for the Program (43 USC 1344). The OCSLA requires 

36 that, for potential leasing to occur in a specific planning area during the applicable 5-year OCS 

37 oil and gas leasing program, the specific planning area in which the lease sale would be held 

38 must be included in the 5-year program and its associated PEIS. Pursuant to the OCSLA 

39 (1344(e)), the Secretary has the discretion to review the leasing program approved at least once 

40 each year. 

41

42 Portions of planning areas can be deferred from leasing during any 5-year oil and gas 

43 program because of the presence of sensitive environmental resources, space-use conflicts, or 

44 other reasons. The USDOI can also cancel or restrict the area offered in a lease sale based on 

45 information, events, and other conditions that arise during any 5-year oil and gas program. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Introduction 1-7

1 TABLE 1-1 NEPA Assessments Conducted within the OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Program 

Level Program Stage NEPA Analysisa Geographic Scope Focus and Scope

Planning Program Programmatic EIS Continental Identification of program 

areas and number and 

schedule of lease sales 

for the Program

Lease sale Lease sale EIS or EA Planning area Identification of potential 

impacts and mitigation 

measures

Projectb Exploration CER, EA, or EIS Lease block(s) Application and 

enforcement of 

mitigation measures; 

monitoring of mitigation 

effectiveness

Production CER, EA, or EIS Portion of lease block

Decommissioning CER, EA, or EIS Specific facility 

within a lease block

a CER = categorical exclusion review; EA = environmental assessment; EIS = environmental impact 

statement.

b The level of NEPA review at the project level is determined by the complexity of the project, risk factors 

associated with the project, whether the project occurs in a frontier or mature OCS area, the technologies 

being used for the project, and other factors.

2

3

4 Examples of the exercise of this authority occurred during the 2007-2012 oil and gas leasing 

5 program (the Program) when the single sales scheduled in the North Aleutian Basin and offshore 

6 Virginia were cancelled in 2010.

7

8 Because portions of planning areas (subareas) can be deferred during a 5-year leasing 

9 program, the USDOI is maintaining maximum flexibility in fulfilling its OCSLA mandate to 

10 provide for both the nation‘s energy needs and protect the marine and coastal environment by 

11 including in the Program all 6 OCS Planning Areas that were decided upon by the Secretary. If 

12 conditions changed during the Program as a result of new information, technologies, or other 

13 developments that mitigated the issues responsible for the deferral of a subarea, it would not be 

14 possible to restore the subarea for leasing during the existing Program if it were not included in 

15 the Program at the outset. There are some exceptions to the approach described above for the 

16 5-year program; for example, the two subsistence deferrals in the Beaufort Sea and the 25-mi

17 no-leasing buffer in the Chukchi Sea have been deferred in past lease sales and have 

18 subsequently been incorporated into past 5-year programs. These deferrals (described in detail in 

19 Chapter 2 of this PEIS) will be included in the proposed action for the current 5-year leasing

20 program. BOEM may include additional deferral areas in future 5-year programs based on the 

21 environmental analysis and regional determination for individual lease sales.

22

23 In addition, the detailed information and fine geographic scale needed to evaluate block24 by-block deferrals or other mitigations in a specific planning area are not available or appropriate 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Introduction 1-8

1 for the PEIS, which needs to adopt a broad geographical scale for its national coverage. 

2 Decisions about exclusions and mitigations are premature at the programmatic stage when the 

3 focus is the development of a leasing program that identifies how many sales will be included in 

4 the program, where to have the sales, and when to schedule the sales. The PEIS informs these 

5 decisions by identifying areas, environmental resources, and types of OCS activities that, acting 

6 together, suggest the potential for significant interactions between environmental resources and 

7 OCS-related activities that could result in significant impacts. In this way, the PEIS identifies 

8 the broad issues that will likely require more focused and fine-scale evaluations in subsequent 

9 NEPA assessments, leading to the possible development and application of mitigations, should 

10 leasing and development actually occur.

11

12

13 1.3.1.1 Incomplete and Unavailable Information

14

15 CEQ regulations require an agency to obtain, or explain why it cannot obtain, relevant 

16 information about reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts that is essential to a 

17 reasoned choice among the alternatives presented in an EIS (40 CFR 1502.22). This PEIS 

18 provides the level of NEPA analysis corresponding to the first stage of the Program. The PEIS 

19 sets forth alternatives for the Secretary to consider and analyzes issues of programmatic concern, 

20 which pertain to the Program as a whole. 

21

22 Programmatic-level analyses and decisions do not require the same detailed analysis that 

23 may be necessary at a later stage in the OCS leasing process. Lease sale-specific issues, such as 

24 determining which stipulations should apply to a lease sale, are not ripe for analysis at the 

25 programmatic stage. Resolving uncertainty related to significant adverse effects on some 

26 resources, such as that surrounding global climate change impacts in the Arctic and the potential 

27 environmental baseline change brought about by the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) event in the 

28 GOM, is not essential at this programmatic stage. In the instances of missing resource-specific 

29 information noted in the PEIS, it was determined that the information was not essential to the 

30 Secretary‘s choice among alternatives at this broad, programmatic decision point because the 

31 Secretary is only establishing a schedule of potential lease sales. The Secretary maintains the 

32 discretion to delay and cancel lease sales that are part of an approved program. On the other 

33 hand, the Secretary will not have the discretion to add program areas that are not included in the 

34 Program without program re-approval. It would be imprudent to foreclose program areas at this 

35 time based on uncertainty due to incomplete and unavailable information. Over the course of the 

36 Program, information relevant to decision making may become available before the decision 

37 maker is actually deciding to hold a specific lease sale. 

38

39 This PEIS presents the information necessary for the Secretary to make a general 

40 planning decision, which will be implemented in the future through a series of subsequent, 

41 planning area-specific decisions that authorize lease sales and OCS exploration and development 

42 activities. To the degree possible, the PEIS uses scientifically credible information and uses 

43 accepted scientific methods to make reasoned judgments and arrive at reasoned conclusions.

44 Moreover, some of the missing information, such as definitive information about baseline 

45 changes to resources in the GOM resulting from the DWH event, will not be available in a time 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Introduction 1-9

1 frame relevant to timely fulfillment of the OCSLA statutory mandate to establish a program 

2 every five years.

3

4

5 1.3.2 Public Involvement

6

7 As previously discussed, the development of the Program includes preparation of this 

8 draft PEIS which, in accordance with NEPA, analyzes the potential effects of the adoption of a 

9 schedule of proposed lease sales that identifies the size, timing, and location of proposed leasing 

10 activity. The content of a PEIS is based on a process called ―scoping.‖ The regulations 

11 implementing NEPA require that scoping be included in the environmental analysis process 

12 (40 CFR 1501.7). Scoping for this draft PEIS included several key elements: (1) gathering 

13 information and ideas from the public and elsewhere about the analytical issues related to the 

14 Program; (2) making determinations about which issues should be analyzed; and (3) identifying 

15 alternatives to the proposal that warranted analysis. The scoping process is dynamic in that it 

16 begins before the draft PEIS analyses are initiated and continues throughout the period of 

17 document preparation.

18

19 In January 2009, the previous Administration published a Draft Proposed Program and a 

20 NOI to prepare an EIS that set out a schedule for scoping meetings in the areas of the Draft

21 Proposed Plan. In February 2009, the Secretary of the Interior extended the comment period on 

22 the Draft Proposed Plan and postponed the scoping meetings to allow time to consider further 

23 public comment before determining which areas in the Draft Proposed Plan should be scoped 

24 and analyzed for consideration in the subsequent program proposals. A preliminary revised 

25 program for 2012-2017 was proposed on March 31, 2010, and on April 2, 2010, an NOI to 

26 prepare and scope the 2012-2017 OCS oil and gas leasing program PEIS was published in the 

27 Federal Register (75 FR 16828). That NOI invited the public to provide comments on the scope 

28 and content of the PEIS and identified as many as 14 locations where public scoping meetings 

29 could be held to obtain comments.

30

31 On June 30th, 2010, Secretary of the Interior Salazar announced that the public scoping 

32 meetings would be postponed in response to the Deepwater Horizon event. The additional time 

33 would be used to evaluate safety and environmental requirements of offshore drilling. On 

34 December 1, 2010, Secretary Salazar announced an updated oil and gas strategy for the OCS. 

35 The new strategy continued a moratorium for areas in the Eastern GOM (Figure 1-2) and 

36 eliminated the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning Areas from consideration for potential 

37 sales and development through the 2017 planning horizon. The Western GOM, Central GOM, 

38 Eastern GOM (only a very small portion thereof), Cook Inlet, Chukchi Sea, and Beaufort Sea 

39 OCS Planning Areas (Figure 1-1) would continue to be considered in the PEIS. Subsequently, 

40 on January 4, 2011, a Notice of Scoping Meetings for the proposed 2012-2017 OCS oil and gas 

41 leasing program PEIS was published in the Federal Register (76 FR 376) and a second scoping 

42 period was conducted from January 6, 2011, through March 31, 2011. During this scoping 

43 period, public scoping meetings were scheduled for 12 locations in Alaska, Texas, Louisiana, 

44 Alabama, and Washington, D.C. In addition, BOEM received comments through the mail and 

45 maintained a public website to accept electronic scoping comments.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Introduction 1-10

1 Recent EISs and EAs for GOM and offshore Alaska oil and gas lease sales provided 

2 additional scoping information. Many of the analytical issues raised during the lease sale review 

3 process are applicable to this draft PEIS for the proposed Program. Subject matter experts at 

4 BOEM also identified analytical issues relevant to the draft PEIS analyses. In addition, 

5 alternatives developed for past leasing program proposals were reviewed to determine whether it 

6 would be appropriate to analyze any of them in detail in this PEIS.

7

8 Through the scoping process, the following major issues were identified for consideration 

9 in preparing the draft PEIS:

10

11 • Oil and gas activities that could cause impacts (termed ―impact-producing 

12 factors‖);

13

14 • Ecological resources that could be affected by oil and gas activities;

15

16 • Social, cultural, and economic resources that could be affected by oil and gas 

17 activities;

18

19 • Human health;

20

21 • Climate change;

22

23 • Regulatory oversight and safety; and

24

25 • Oil spills.

26

27 In addition, comments received through the scoping process provided suggestions for 

28 alternatives to be considered in the PEIS. These suggestions fell into the following major 

29 categories:

30

31 • Prohibiting leasing and development in one or more planning areas;

32

33 • Limiting leasing and development to specific areas on the OCS (e.g., no deep 

34 water);

35

36 • Including more OCS planning areas than the six identified in the proposed 

37 action;

38

39 • Developing new, or expanding existing, deferral areas; and

40

41 • Developing alternative energy sources to replace oil and gas.

42

43 The alternatives evaluated in this draft PEIS, as well as those considered but removed 

44 from further consideration, are discussed in Chapter 2 of this draft PEIS.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Introduction 1-11

1 This draft PEIS considers mitigation measures already established and required by 

2 existing statutes or regulations, as well as sale-specific measures (stipulations) that were 

3 commonly adopted in past sales and that will likely be implemented for any lease sales that 

4 would occur under the Program. However, it is at the lease sale stage that more detailed and 

5 geographically focused analyses are conducted to evaluate the magnitude of potential impacts

6 and, if needed, to develop effective mitigation strategies to reduce the magnitude of those 

7 potential impacts to acceptable levels. Therefore, the impact analyses presented in this PEIS 

8 assume implementation of mitigation measures that are required by statute or regulation as well 

9 as sale-specific mitigation measures (stipulations) commonly adopted in past sales (see 

10 Appendix B: Assumed Mitigation Measures). This draft PEIS also assumes that existing 

11 mitigations in areas with currently active leases, such as the GOM and parts of Alaska, will be 

12 applied to areas included in the Program that do not have a history of OCS activity. 

13

14

15 1.4 ANALYTICAL ISSUES

16

17 A number of analytical issues, many of which are addressed in this draft PEIS, were 

18 identified during scoping. These include the geographic scope of the PEIS, the analytical scope 

19 of the PEIS, the impacting factors to be considered in the analyses, and the resources that may be 

20 affected by the Program. These analytical issues are discussed below.

21

22

23 1.4.1 Geographic Scope

24

25 There are 26 planning areas on the OCS, and six of these have been identified for leasing 

26 consideration as part of the Program (Figure 1-1). Twenty planning areas located along the 

27 Atlantic, Pacific, Florida, and Alaskan coasts are neither part of the proposed action nor analyzed 

28 in any alternative considered in this draft PEIS. 

29

30

31 1.4.2 Analytic Scope

32

33 The analyses conducted in preparation of this draft PEIS were based on current, 

34 available, and credible scientific data. Interpretation of these scientific data was used to evaluate 

35 direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with the proposed action and alternatives. 

36 Throughout this PEIS, Alternative 1 (referred to herein as the proposed action) is used as the 

37 default scenario on which to base analysis of potential impacts. This does not mean that 

38 Alternative 1 has already been chosen as the operative alternative for the Program. Rather, the 

39 proposed action includes the largest geographic scope of any of the alternatives contemplated, so 

40 using it to analyze impacts results in the most all-inclusive analysis possible, compared to the 

41 other alternatives presented. The proposed action is the alternative that has the potential to cause 

42 the greatest impacts, with each of the other alternatives representing, in effect, a subset of the 

43 proposed action. Therefore, using the proposed action as the basis for analysis provides the most 

44 complete and meaningful assessment of potential impacts.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Introduction 1-12

1 As a programmatic evaluation, this draft PEIS does not evaluate site-specific issues that 

2 would be associated with specific lease sales in specific planning areas. As previously discussed, 

3 a variety of location-specific factors (such as water depth, sea floor topography, distance from 

4 shore, ecological communities, and the presence of threatened and endangered species and 

5 cultural resources) may vary considerably, not only between planning areas but also among lease 

6 sale blocks within individual planning areas. In addition, variations in project design and study 

7 (including the seismic survey approach and technology selected) will influence and/or determine 

8 the nature and magnitude of impacts that might occur with a given lease sale. The combined 

9 effect of these location-specific and project-specific factors cannot be fully anticipated or 

10 addressed in a programmatic analysis, and can only be evaluated at the lease-sale or finer level.

11

12

13 1.4.3 Impact-Producing Factors

14

15 Several types of impact-producing factors were identified that warrant consideration. All 

16 of the following impact-producing factors are included in the exploration and development 

17 scenarios for the proposed action presented in Section 4.4, and are evaluated as applicable in the 

18 resource-specific impact evaluations presented elsewhere in Chapter 4. In addition, the 

19 cumulative impact analysis includes activities unrelated to OCS development but relevant to 

20 assessing cumulative impacts (Section 4.6). The impact-producing factors related to OCS 

21 development that were identified include:

22

23 • Accidental oil spills including those from loss of well control, production 

24 accidents, transportation failures (e.g., from tankers, other vessels, seafloor 

25 and onshore pipelines, and storage facilities), and low-level spillage from 

26 platforms.

27

28 • The offshore and onshore disposal of liquid wastes, including well drilling 

29 fluids (i.e., drill muds), produced water, ballast water, and sanitary and 

30 domestic wastewater generated by OCS-related activities.

31

32 • Solid waste disposal, including material removed from the well borehole 

33 (i.e., drill cuttings), solids produced with the oil and gas (e.g., sands), cement 

34 residue, bentonite, and trash and debris (e.g., equipment or tools) accidentally 

35 lost, including those that contain materials such as mercury that may 

36 bioaccumulate.

37

38 • Gaseous emissions from offshore and onshore facilities and transportation 

39 vessels and aircraft.

40

41 • Noise from seismic surveys, ship and aircraft traffic, drilling and production 

42 operations, and explosive platform removals.

43

44 • Invasive species whose introduction may be facilitated by activities associated

45 with the construction of offshore facilities or with the movement of materials 

46 and equipment by way of transportation systems.

47
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Introduction 1-13

1 • Physical impacts from ship and aircraft traffic and use conflicts with oil 

2 tankers and barges, supply/support vessels and aircraft, and seismic survey 

3 vessels and aircraft.

4

5 • Physical emplacement, presence, and removal of facilities, including offshore 

6 platforms; seafloor pipelines; floating production, storage, and offloading 

7 systems; onshore infrastructure such as pipelines, storage, processing, and 

8 repair facilities; ports; pipe coating yards; refineries; and petrochemical plants.

9

10 • Other activities including oil spill response (cleanup), including both response

11 and recovery under extreme sea and ice conditions.

12

13 • Interaction of oil and gas industry workers and local residents, including 

14 interaction associated with the employment of local residents.

15

16 In addition to the activities that may result from the proposed action, the draft PEIS 

17 considers natural processes and phenomena that could cause indirect impacts by affecting the 

18 safe conduct of OCS oil and gas exploration, production, and transportation activities, or the 

19 environmental conditions under which these activities occur. These include geologic hazards 

20 such as earthquakes and continental slumping; gas hydrates; physical oceanographic processes 

21 such as water currents, sea ice, and waves; subsea permafrost; shoreline erosion; and 

22 meteorological and climatic events and processes such as hurricanes and climate change, 

23 including global warming and ocean acidification. The draft PEIS also considers space-use 

24 conflicts with military operations in designated offshore military areas and potential future 

25 alternative uses of the OCS, including the program for alternative energy development and 

26 production and alternate use of offshore facilities. It also considers the effects of the OCS oil 

27 and gas leasing program on the introduction of invasive species into U.S. waters.

28

29 This draft PEIS gives particular attention to the issue of climate change, based on the 

30 observed changes that have been occurring during the past several decades, particularly in the 

31 Arctic environments in Alaska. Chapter 3 presents a discussion of climate change and baseline 

32 conditions (Section 3.3), while many of the subsequent resource-specific discussions of the 

33 affected environment include discussions of the effects of ongoing, observable climate changes 

34 for those resources. Additional analyses are included in the cumulative analysis (Section 4.6) in 

35 which the impacts of the continuing trend in climate change during the life of the proposed

36 action are evaluated along with all other factors affecting the resource.

37

38

39 1.4.4 Potentially Affected Resources

40

41 This draft PEIS evaluates resources that may potentially be impacted by oil and gas 

42 leasing and development under the Program. The resources evaluated include not only natural 

43 resources (physical and biological) but social, cultural, and economic resources as well. The 

44 natural resources and topics evaluated in this draft PEIS are as follows:

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Introduction 1-14

1 • Water Quality (including marine and estuarine areas). The water quality 

2 issues are related primarily to marine water quality and how changes in water 

3 quality caused by OCS activities could affect biological resources (for 

4 example, by potentially contributing to the GOM hypoxia zone).

5

6 • Air Quality. The principal concern is the transport of offshore emissions to 

7 onshore areas leading to potential violations of Federal and State air quality 

8 standards intended for the protection of human health and welfare.

9

10 • Biologic Resources. Primary concerns are related to habitat disturbance or 

11 loss (including designated critical habitats, pursuant to ESA, and habitat areas 

12 of particular concern, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act), direct physical 

13 impacts on biota, and disturbance of normal behaviors (feeding, courtship, 

14 migration) by OCS-related activities.

15

16 • Socioeconomic and Sociocultural Resources. Socioeconomic and 

17 sociocultural resources included potential impacts on tourism, recreation, 

18 commercial fishing, subsistence harvests, aesthetics, local economy, land and 

19 water use conflicts, equitable sharing of program benefits and burdens, 

20 disproportionate impacts on Louisiana, and disproportionate impacts on 

21 Alaska Natives. 

22

23 The issues we examine in this draft PEIS regarding possible impacts on biology and 

24 ecology fall into three main categories: animals, plants, and habitats or ecological systems. 

25 Among the animal groups identified as needing analysis for potential program impacts were 

26 marine mammals, birds, fish, and sea turtles. Special attention was drawn to migratory species, 

27 species taken commercially and for Alaska Native subsistence (including whales, fish, and 

28 birds), and threatened and endangered species. With respect to habitats or systems, both marine 

29 (e.g., sanctuaries, marine parks/preserves, seagrasses, mangroves, and ―hard bottom‖ areas) and 

30 coastal (e.g., estuaries, wetlands/marsh, intertidal zone, seashore parks) areas were identified as 

31 subject to possible adverse impacts. The issue of bioaccumulation is also discussed in this draft 

32 PEIS.

33

34 The specific biological and ecological resources analyzed in detail are:

35

36 • Marine mammals, including a variety of endangered and nonendangered 

37 cetaceans (e.g., whales, dolphins, etc.), pinnipeds (seals, sea lions, walruses), 

38 sea otters, and polar bears. 

39

40 • Terrestrial mammals, including caribou and grizzly/brown bear in the Arctic, 

41 and five species of federally listed mice and voles that inhabit certain coastal

42 areas of the GOM.

43

44 • Birds, including a variety of endangered and nonendangered seabird, 

45 shorebird, waterfowl, and raptor species. Particular concern was identified for 

46 migratory species, including those taken for Alaska Native subsistence.

47
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Introduction 1-15

1 • Fish, including a variety of finfish and shellfish species used for commercial 

2 or recreational purposes. Particular concern was identified regarding chronic 

3 pollution from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Particular concern was also 

4 identified for salmon in Alaska.

5

6 • Reptiles, including sea turtles.

7

8 • Coastal habitats, including wetlands, estuaries, seagrass and kelp beds, 

9 mangroves, dunes, beaches, and barrier islands.

10

11 • Lower trophic level organisms and food chains.

12

13 • Open water habitats, such as Sargassum mats. 

14

15 • Seafloor habitats, including submarine canyons, topographic features, corals, 

16 live bottom areas (benthic environments), and seeps (e.g., brine and oil seeps).

17

18 • Areas of special concern, including coastal and marine sanctuaries, parks, 

19 refuges, reserves, sanctuaries, and forests. Particular concern was raised in 

20 regard to ―essential fish habitat‖ as designated by the U.S. Department of 

21 Commerce (USDOC) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

22

23 Specific concerns regarding social, cultural, and economic resources included potential 

24 impacts on tourism, recreation, commercial and recreational fishing, subsistence harvests, 

25 aesthetics, local economy (especially the ―boom/bust‖ phenomenon), land and water use 

26 conflicts, equitable sharing of program benefits and burdens, and disproportionate impacts to 

27 certain populations. The social, cultural, and economic topics analyzed in this PEIS are as

28 follows:

29

30 • Population, employment, income, and public service issues from the effects of 

31 the Program, including issues of ―boom/bust‖ economic cycles.

32

33 • Land use and infrastructure, including construction of new onshore facilities,

34 and land use and transportation conflicts between the oil and gas development 

35 and other uses.

36

37 • Sociocultural systems effects were primarily identified with respect to Alaska. 

38 These include concerns about the effects on subsistence (e.g., bowhead whale 

39 hunting), loss of cultural identity, psychological health of people, and social 

40 costs of lease sales and oil spills.

41

42 • Environmental justice (e.g., the potential for disproportionate and high 

43 adverse impacts on minority and/or low-income populations [Executive 

44 Order 12898]).

45

46 • Fisheries; commercial, subsistence, and recreational.

47
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Introduction 1-16

1 • Tourism and recreation, including the use of coastal areas for sightseeing, 

2 wildlife observations, swimming, diving, surfing, sunbathing, hunting, fishing, 

3 and boating, as well as visual impacts of offshore OCS structures.

4

5 • Archaeological resources, including historic shipwrecks and surface or 

6 subsurface sites that had been inhabited by humans during prehistoric times.

7

8

9 1.4.5 Issues Not Analyzed in This PEIS

10

11 The following discussions address issues mentioned during scoping that were not 

12 analyzed in this PEIS. These issues include concerns about affected resources or analytical 

13 techniques employed in the PEIS.

14

15

16 1.4.5.1 Worker Safety

17

18 Generally, concerns mentioned regarding worker safety risks from OCS oil and gas 

19 development were broad and not defined during scoping. The issue of worker safety is more 

20 appropriately considered during the review of individual lease exploration and development 

21 proposals. The OCSLA and the implementing regulations require that all drilling and production 

22 operations use the best available and safest technologies. A principal reason for this requirement 

23 is to minimize the adverse effect of OCS operations on human safety. BOEM considers whether 

24 a proposed project would be conducted in a manner that conforms to the many specific 

25 requirements developed to protect worker safety during the review of proposals to conduct lease 

26 operations. BOEM can best determine at that time whether additional measures are needed to 

27 reduce the potential for accidents that affect safety.

28

29

30 1.4.5.2 Proposed Seismic Inventory

31

32 Many comments were received through the scoping process on the issue of conducting 

33 seismic surveys to identify potential OCS U.S. oil and gas resources. Industry must hold leases 

34 before it commits to very expensive exploration drilling activities. Generally, industries, States, 

35 and individuals supportive of OCS petroleum development favored this idea, and those against 

36 OCS development opposed it. Those in favor argued that it was prescribed in duly enacted law, 

37 it would support national energy planning, and it would provide information relevant to the 

38 equitable sharing of the benefits and burdens of the OCS leasing program. Those against oil and 

39 gas leasing and development on the OCS argued that it would subvert previous laws and policies 

40 (e.g., coastal zone management and Congressional moratoria), it might not comply with all 

41 NEPA requirements, and it might create pressure to develop areas that are currently under 

42 Congressional moratoria and Presidential withdrawals. The procedures under which a seismic 

43 inventory for all of the oil and gas resources on the OCS might be conducted are not yet 

44 established and are, therefore, unrelated to the Program and not addressed in this PEIS. 

45

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Introduction 1-17

1 1.4.5.3 Neighboring Countries Drilling on OCS Border with the United States

2

3 It was suggested that the United States should lease selected tracts on the OCS to counter 

4 petroleum development being planned by foreign countries, such as Cuba. It was suggested that 

5 this would protect U.S. mineral rights in border areas. The issue of foreign governments 

6 exploring and developing petroleum resources in their territorial waters is unrelated to the 

7 Program and is, therefore, not addressed by this draft PEIS. This issue of international mineral 

8 rights is more appropriately addressed by the U.S. Department of State than by BOEM. 

9

10

11 1.4.5.4 Biological Assessment and Opinion for Threatened and Endangered Species

12

13 Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 USC 1536(a)(12)) requires 

14 every Federal agency, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary of the Interior

15 and the Secretary of Commerce, to ensure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out in 

16 the United States or upon the high seas is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any 

17 listed species or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Section 402.02 

18 defines ―action‖ as ―all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out in 

19 whole or in part.‖ Preparing the Program does not fit the definition of a Federal action because 

20 no OCS activities are being ―authorized, funded, or carried out‖ at this Program level.

21 Therefore, ESA Section 7 consultation (whether informal or formal) at the leasing program level 

22 is premature.

23

24 The OCS oil and gas leasing program, as required by Section 18 of OCSLA

25 (43 USC 1344), identifies a proposed schedule of lease sales and prospective areas of the OCS 

26 that the Secretary of the Interior believes will best meet U.S. energy needs. The leasing program 

27 process and subsequent Secretarial decisions are based on the four main principles of Section 18 

28 that dictate which areas are reasonable for consideration of leasing in the upcoming 5-year time

29 frame. The Program will define, as broadly as possible, the portion of each planning area that is 

30 proposed for subsequent leasing consideration. Decision options for the leasing program are 

31 preserved for the Secretary at the time the decision is made for each sale. Therefore, it is at the 

32 lease sale stage that BOEM begins ESA Section 7 consultations.

33

34 In further support of the position not to consult at the leasing program stage, the U.S. Fish 

35 and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NMFS, in their final rulemaking establishing procedural 

36 regulations for Section 7 consultations (51 FR 19926), clarified that informal and formal 

37 consultations are a ―post-application process when applicants are involved.‖ BOEM would not 

38 approach this stage until a lease sale is held and a qualified bid is accepted. Further, we believe 

39 the intent of Congress when passing the ESA was to exclude consultations on actions that are 

40 remote or speculative in nature. While the following quote addresses ESA Section 7 early 

41 consultations (a pre-application process defined in the above-referenced Federal Register

42 notice), we believe it clearly expresses Congress‘ intent and is consistent with our position. 

43

44 ―The Committee expects that the Secretary will exclude from such early 

45 consultation those actions which are remote or speculative in nature and to 

46 include only those actions which the applicant can demonstrate are likely to 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Introduction 1-18

1 occur. [. . .] The Committee further expects that the guidelines will require the 

2 prospective applicant to provide sufficient information describing the project, 

3 its location, and the scope of activities associated with it to enable the Secretary 

4 to carry out a meaningful consultation.‖ (H.R. Rep. No. 567, 97th Cong., 

5 2nd Sess. 25 [1982])

6

7 Ultimately, decisions regarding the size and configuration of a lease sale area, lease 

8 stipulations, and some mitigation measures are determined by the presale process. Prior to the 

9 presale process, greater uncertainties exist. Some of the uncertainties may result from an 

10 industry firm‘s interest in a particular area and its willingness to bid, which depend, in part, on 

11 continually changing perceptions about potential benefits that might result. Limitations on 

12 predicting a firm‘s investment decisions also limit the ability to predict OCS activities. With so 

13 much uncertainty at this Program stage, ESA consultation would be premature.

14

15

16 1.4.5.5 Life Cycle Effects of Oil and Gas Development

17

18 A recommendation was made that the PEIS address all reasonable effects of new oil and 

19 gas development, production, and consumption. Such ―full cycle‖ effects would include oil and 

20 gas exploration, construction and placement of infrastructure, continued drilling, production, 

21 processing, treatment, refining, transportation and storage, final decommissioning, and ultimate 

22 consumption of the finished product. Additionally, the contribution of OCS development and 

23 OCS oil and gas consumption activities to global warming was stressed.

24

25 The scope of the proposed action analyzed in this draft PEIS encompasses the 

26 exploration, development, production, and transport of crude oil, and decommissioning. The 

27 consumption of the refined oil is not considered because the scope of this draft PEIS is limited to 

28 issues that have a bearing on the decisions for the proposed leasing program. Consumption of oil 

29 and gas is considered at a broader level when decisions are made regarding the role of oil and gas 

30 generally, including domestic production and imports, in the overall energy policy of the 

31 United States. At the refinery stage, OCS oil is mixed with oil from other sources such that the 

32 OCS contribution to subsequent environmental impacts is not separable.

33

34

35 1.4.5.6 Resource Estimates and Impact Analyses

36

37 A concern was expressed that petroleum resource reserves should not be linked to 

38 conclusions for environmental impacts. It was felt that low oil resource estimates, and 

39 subsequent low probabilities of commercial finds, may erroneously be equated with insignificant 

40 environmental impacts. The draft PEIS does not equate oil and gas resource estimates and 

41 impact significance. We assess the potential impacts of exploration, production, transporting 

42 crude oil and gas, and decommissioning on environmental resources, including the potential 

43 impacts of a large oil spill, of the proposed action and alternatives, regardless of the oil resource 

44 estimate. The analytical conclusions reflect the likely impacts of routine activities as well as 

45 those that could occur in the event a large spill contacted the resource. The estimated number of 

46 large spills that could occur is a function of the assumptions regarding anticipated (future) 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Introduction 1-19

1 production. Therefore, the impacts could be greater on some environmental resources because 

2 they could be exposed to more large spills than other environmental resources. If exploration 

3 fails to identify oil and gas projects that are commercially feasible, then no development would 

4 occur and the only impacts will be associated with exploration activities.

5

6 A suggestion was made that the analysis of relative marine productivity should not be 

7 limited to a measure of the primary productivity of marine plants. This measure is used because 

8 it is well documented and understood. However, we agree that it should not be the only factor 

9 used; therefore, BOEM uses other information as well in its consideration of the productivity of 

10 marine environments.

11

12 A suggestion was made that the environmental cost analysis model should consider the 

13 impact of catastrophic events on unique resources. We think that probabilistic models are not an 

14 appropriate venue for analyzing events with highly uncertain probabilities. For this reason, 

15 catastrophic events are being considered separately. 

16

17 A suggestion was made in the Alaska region that BOEM use development scenarios that 

18 reflect the concerns of affected communities rather than such industry-related factors as water 

19 depth and proximity to existing infrastructure. As is the intent of CEQ guidance, our 

20 development scenarios are constructed to identify those events that are most likely to happen to 

21 better focus the analysis of future activities. However, we address the concerns of affected 

22 communities in the analyses of such topics as possible impacts on species and on subsistence.

23

24

25 1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THIS PEIS

26

27 This draft PEIS is organized as follows:

28

29 • Chapter 1 provides background information, identifies the purpose and need 

30 for the action, and discusses scoping and analytical issues.

31

32 • Chapter 2 describes the alternatives evaluated in the draft PEIS, identifies 

33 alternatives considered but not evaluated in the draft PEIS, and presents a 

34 summary comparison of the environmental impacts of the alternatives.

35

36 • Chapter 3 provides an overview of the marine and coastal ecoregions where 

37 oil and gas development under the Program may occur and presents 

38 descriptions of the physical, natural, cultural, and economic resources or 

39 conditions that may potentially be affected by the proposed action and other 

40 alternatives.

41

42 • Chapter 4 describes the impact-producing factors associated with routine 

43 operations under each phase of OCS oil and gas development, discusses 

44 accidental events and spills, describes the impact analysis approach of the 

45 draft PEIS, and defines impact levels. This chapter also discusses the 

46 relationship of the physical environment to oil and gas development and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Introduction 1-20

1 identifies issues of programmatic concern. Finally, Chapter 4 presents the 

2 exploration and development scenarios, as well as the accidental oil spill 

3 scenarios, assumed for this draft PEIS; discusses the potential impacts of these 

4 scenarios for each alternative; and discusses the potential cumulative impacts 

5 of the alternatives.

6

7 • Chapter 5 identifies the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the 

8 alternatives.

9

10 • Chapter 6 discusses the relationship between short-term use of the 

11 environment and long-term productivity.

12

13 • Chapter 7 discusses the significant irreversible and irretrievable commitments 

14 of natural and manmade resources.

15

16 • Chapter 8 discusses the process used for preparing the Program and the list of 

17 agencies, organizations, governments, and individuals that received the draft 

18 PEIS.

19

20 • Chapter 9 lists the names, education, and experience of the persons who 

21 helped to prepare the draft PEIS. Also included are the subject areas for 

22 which each person was responsible.

23

24 • Appendix A presents a glossary of terms used throughout this draft PEIS.

25

26 • Appendix B identifies the mitigation measures that are required by existing 

27 statutes or regulations, as well as sale-specific measures (stipulations) that 

28 were commonly adopted in past sales and that are assumed will be 

29 implemented for any lease sales that would occur under the Program.

30

31 • Appendix C identifies all Federal laws and Executive Orders that would apply

32 to leasing under the Program.

33

34

35 1.6 REFERENCES

36

37 EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration), 2011, Annual Energy Outlook 2011, Office of 

38 Integrated and International Energy Analysis, Washington, D.C.

39

40 Hagerty, C.L., 2011, Outer Continental Shelf Moratoria on Oil and Gas Development, CRS 

41 Report to Congress, 7-5700, R41132, Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C., 

42 May 6.

43
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-1

1 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

2

3

4 The Notice of Intent (NOI) for this draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

5 (PEIS), which was published on April 2, 2010 (75 CFR Part 63: 16828–16829), identified

6 eight OCS planning areas for possible inclusion in the 2012-2017 OCS oil and gas leasing 

7 program (the Program), but identified no specific lease sale alternatives. The eight planning 

8 areas identified in that NOI were as follows:

9

10 • The Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, and Cook Inlet Planning Areas in Alaska.

11

12 • The Western, Central, and Eastern Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Planning Areas, 

13 with the latter focusing on a small area along the western boundary of this 

14 planning area.

15

16 • The South and Mid-Atlantic Planning Areas.

17

18 Subsequently, on December 1, 2010, the Secretary of the Interior announced an updated 

19 oil and gas leasing strategy for the OCS (FR Notice; FR Doc. 2010–33149). Consistent with the 

20 Secretary’s direction to proceed with caution and focus leasing in areas with current active 

21 leases, the area in the Eastern GOM Planning Area, which remains under a Congressional 

22 moratorium (except for the area not restricted from leasing and development per the Gulf of 

23 Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 as indicated in Figure 1-2 of this DEIS), and the South and 

24 Mid-Atlantic Planning Areas were dropped from consideration for potential sales and 

25 development through 2017, and thus are no longer under consideration in this PEIS.

26

27 The following six OCS planning areas are thus considered in this PEIS.

28

29 • The Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, and Cook Inlet Planning Areas in Alaska. 

30

31 • The Western, Central, and Eastern GOM Planning Areas, with the latter

32 focusing only on a small area along the western boundary of this planning 

33 area.

34

35 This draft PEIS analyzes eight alternatives for the leasing of Federal offshore lands by the 

36 U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), under 

37 the Program. 

38

39 The draft PEIS analyses assume the implementation of all mitigation measures required 

40 by statute, regulation, or lease stipulations. All BOEM sale proposals include rules and 

41 regulations prescribing environmental controls applicable to lease operators. Lease stipulations, 

42 OCS regulations, and other measures provide a regulatory base for implementing environmental 

43 protection on leases issued as a result of a sale. The BOEM Environmental Studies Program and 

44 the analyses and monitoring of activities in a sale area provide information used in formulating 

45 the Agency’s regulatory control over the activities that occur during the life of the leases. This 

46 PEIS also assumes that Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE, formerly part 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-2

1 of BOEMRE will continue to use its broad permitting and monitoring and enforcement authority 

2 to ensure safe operations and environmental protection, including use of the best available and 

3 safest technologies and requiring existing mitigations. The PEIS assumes that BOEM will 

4 continue to monitor operations after drilling has begun and will carry out periodic inspections of 

5 facilities (in certain instances, in conjunction with other Federal Agencies such as the 

6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA]) to ensure safe and clean operations over the 

7 life of the leases. The 7 action alternatives listed below are not mutually exclusive, and the 

8 Secretary has the discretion to combine alternatives. These alternatives include the following:

9

10 • Alternative 1 – Proposed Action

11

12 Under the proposed action, there would be as many as 15 lease sales distributed among 

13 the six OCS planning areas, including 12 sales in the GOM and 3 sales in Alaska. The GOM

14 sales include five annual sales in each of the Central and Western Planning Areas and up to two 

15 sales in a small area of the Eastern GOM Planning Area that includes 83 lease blocks being 

16 considered for this Program (Figure 1-2). The Alaska sales would include one sale in each of the 

17 Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas and one special interest sale in Cook Inlet. Under 

18 the special interest sale process, BOEM issues an annual request for nominations and 

19 information and will move forward with the lease sale process only after consideration of the 

20 comments received in response to the annual request. If industry interest reflected in the 

21 comments is sufficient, the lease sale process will proceed. If interest is not sufficient to support 

22 consideration of a sale, the lease sale process will not proceed and another request will be issued 

23 the following year and so through the 5-year schedule, until a sale is held or the 5-year period 

24 expires.

25

26 Neither the proposed action nor any alternative to the proposed action includes

27 consideration of leasing in the Pacific or Atlantic OCS regions. The OCS Planning Areas 

28 included in the proposed action are shown in Figure 2-1. All the other ―action‖ alternatives, 

29 i.e., Alternatives 2 through 7, are the same as the proposed action, except as specified below.

30

31 • Alternative 2 – Exclude the Eastern Planning Area for the duration of the 

32 Program

33

34 • Alternative 3 – Exclude the Western GOM Planning Area for the duration of 

35 the Program

36

37 • Alternative 4 – Exclude the Central GOM Planning Area for the duration of 

38 the Program

39

40 • Alternative 5– Exclude the Beaufort Sea Planning Area for the duration of the 

41 Program

42

43 • Alternative 6 – Exclude the Chukchi Sea Planning Area for the duration of the 

44 Program

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-3

1

2 FIGURE 2-1 OCS Planning Areas. Planning Areas in Yellow are under Consideration for 

3 Inclusion in the 2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program

4

5

6 • Alternative 7 – Exclude the Cook Inlet Planning Area for the duration of the 

7 Program

8

9 • Alternative 8 – No Action.

10

11 This chapter describes each alternative and summarizes the potential environmental 

12 impacts of the alternatives in comparative form. The summary describes the primary impacts 

13 based on the detailed analysis of all potential impacts presented in Chapter 4, Environmental 

14 Consequences. The impact analyses presented in this PEIS were generated from exploration, 

15 development, transportation, and oil spill scenarios developed specifically for analytical 

16 purposes.

17

18

19 2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 – PROPOSED ACTION

20

21 The four OCS regions are divided into 26 OCS Planning Areas (Figure 2-1), and under 

22 the proposed action, leasing is considered in two of the four BOEM OCS regions: GOM and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-4

1 Alaska. Within the GOM OCS region, leasing is being considered in the Central and Western 

2 GOM Planning Areas, and in a small extreme western portion of the Eastern GOM Planning 

3 Area. Because of the small portion of the Eastern GOM Planning Area under consideration for 

4 the program, which contains only 83 of the nearly 11,000 lease blocks in the Eastern GOM 

5 Planning Area, and because of the relatively small amount of production that might occur in 

6 these blocks, the exploration and development and the oil spill scenarios identified for both one 

7 and two sales in the Eastern GOM are analytically identical. Therefore, the impact analysis for a 

8 proposed action that includes two eastern GOM sales would also apply to a proposed action that 

9 included only a single sale. In addition, the USDOI is considering leasing in 3 of the 15 Alaska 

10 region planning areas: Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, and Cook Inlet. No other OCS Planning 

11 Areas are analyzed in this PEIS because the USDOI is not considering those areas for leasing 

12 under the Program. The proposed action is the USDOI’s preferred alternative.

13

14 Specifically, the proposed action calls for 15 lease sales under the Program:

15

16 • Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Area — five area-wide lease sales; one sale 

17 annually beginning in 2012.

18

19 • Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area — five area-wide lease sales; one sale 

20 annually beginning in 2013.

21

22 • Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area — one to two lease sales in the 

23 extreme western portion of the planning area; one sale in 2014 and one sale in 

24 2016.

25

26 • Beaufort Sea Planning Area — one sale in 2015 with a bowhead whale 

27 migration deferral, which includes the following areas (Figure 2-2):

28 The Barrow Subsistence Whaling area that defers 49 whole or partial 

29 blocks located at the western border of the planning area 

30 The Kaktovik Subsistence Whaling area that defers 28 whole or partial 

31 blocks located offshore of Kaktovik. 

32

33 • Chukchi Sea Planning Area — one sale in 2016 with a 40 km (25 mi) buffer 

34 deferral (Figure 2-2). This alternative considers the impacts associated with 

35 not leasing within 25 miles of the Chukchi Sea coast. 

36

37 • Cook Inlet Planning Area — one special interest sale in 2013.

38

39 Activities that could occur as a result of the 15 lease sales under the proposed action may 

40 extend over a period of 40–50 years. The impact-causing factors associated with these activities 

41 include the placement, use, and decommissioning of offshore infrastructure such as rigs, 

42 platforms, and pipelines, and the expansion or construction of, and use of onshore facilities such 

43 as support bases and processing plants, and these impacting factors apply to activities in any of 

44 the planning areas that are part of the proposed action and alternatives considered in this draft 

45 PEIS. Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, presents the basic assumptions about anticipated 

46 production, exploration, development, transportation, and accidental oil spills used to prepare the 

47
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

September 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-5

12 FIGURE 

2-2 Deferral Areas in the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-6

1 draft PEIS. The specific estimates of offshore infrastructure required to support exploration and 

2 development of the hydrocarbon resources (scenarios) associated with Alternative 1 (the 

3 proposed action) are provided in Tables 4.4.1.1-1, 4.4.1.1-3, and 4.4.1.1-4 in Section 4.4.1 of this 

4 draft PEIS. Impacting factors and activity-specific impacts are discussed in additional detail in 

5 Section 4.1, and in the resource-specific impact discussions presented elsewhere in Chapter 4 of 

6 this PEIS.

7

8 Transportation for most oil and gas from the GOM Planning Areas would be 

9 accomplished by extending and expanding the existing offshore pipeline systems. Some of the 

10 oil in deepwater areas and a small amount of the oil from the nearshore areas of the GOM 

11 Planning Areas would be transported by barge or shuttle tanker.

12

13 In the Alaska OCS region, the lifting of the export ban on Alaskan crude oil has led to 

14 infrequent and limited shipments to East Asia. However, the vast majority of oil transported via 

15 the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) is still being sent to the U.S. West Coast. Oil and gas 

16 from the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas would be transported by new subsea and 

17 overland pipelines to the TAPS and delivered to the marine terminal facilities in Valdez, where it 

18 would be loaded on tankers and shipped primarily to West Coast ports. Oil and gas from the 

19 Cook Inlet Planning Area would be transported to shore using new subsea pipelines, with new 

20 onshore common-carrier pipeline systems delivering the oil to existing refineries in Nikiski and 

21 gas to transmission facilities in the Kenai area.

22

23

24 2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 – EXCLUDE THE EASTERN GOM PLANNING AREA FOR 

25 THE DURATION OF THE PROGRAM

26

27 Under Alternative 2, the Program would not include new leasing in the Eastern GOM 

28 Planning Area. This alternative includes 13 lease sales, with the same number of sales in other 

29 planning areas and the same exploration and development and oil spill scenarios as identified for 

30 the proposed action. The potentially available resources in the Eastern GOM Planning Area 

31 available for leasing are estimated to include no more than 0.1 billion barrels (Bbbl) of oil and 

32 0.2 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas.

33

34

35 2.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 – EXCLUDE THE WESTERN GOM PLANNING AREA FOR 

36 THE DURATION OF THE PROGRAM

37

38 Alternative 3 has no lease sales occurring in the Western GOM Planning Area, with the 

39 resultant Program having 10 lease sales. The potentially available resources in the Western 

40 GOM Planning Area include up to 1.0 Bbbl of oil and 4.6 Tcf of natural gas.

41

42
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-7

1 2.4 ALTERNATIVE 4 – EXCLUDE THE CENTRAL GOM PLANNING AREA

2 FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROGRAM

3

4 Under this alternative, there would be no lease sales in the Central GOM Planning Area, 

5 and only 10 lease sales under the Program. The potentially available resources in the Central 

6 GOM Planning Area include as much as 4.3 Bbbl of oil and 19.1 Tcf of natural gas.

7

8

9 2.5 ALTERNATIVE 5 – EXCLUDE THE BEAUFORT SEA PLANNING AREA

10 FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROGRAM

11

12 Alternative 5 includes a total of 14 lease sales in all OCS Planning Areas identified for 

13 the proposed action except for the Beaufort Sea Planning Area. Under this alternative, OCS oil 

14 and gas leasing under the Program, and any subsequent exploration and development in the 

15 Arctic region would occur only in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area (except in the deferred area). 

16 The potentially available resources in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area that would not be made 

17 available under this alternative include as much as 0.4 Bbbl of oil and as much as 2.2 Tcf of 

18 natural gas.

19

20

21 2.6 ALTERNATIVE 6 – EXCLUDE THE CHUKCHI SEA PLANNING AREA

22 FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROGRAM

23

24 Under Alternative 6, there would be a total of 14 lease sales held under the Program in 

25 all OCS Planning Areas included in the proposed action except for the Chukchi Sea Planning 

26 Area. Under this alternative, OCS oil and gas leasing under the Program, and any subsequent 

27 exploration and development in the Arctic region would occur only in the Beaufort Sea Planning 

28 Area (except in the deferred areas). The potentially available resources in the Chukchi Sea 

29 Planning Area that would not be made available under this alternative include as much as 

30 2.1 Bbbl of oil and as much as 8.0 Tcf of natural gas.

31

32

33 2.7 ALTERNATIVE 7 – EXCLUDE THE COOK INLET PLANNING AREA 

34 FOR THE DURATION OF THE 2012-2017 PROGRAM

35

36 Under Alternative 7, no sales would be held in the Cook Inlet Planning Area, resulting in 

37 14 sales in the Program. Under this alternative, OCS oil and gas leasing under the Program, and 

38 any subsequent exploration and development in the Alaska region would occur only in the 

39 Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas, except in the deferred areas. The potentially 

40 available resources in the Cook Inlet Planning Area that would not be made available under this 

41 alternative include as much as 0.1-0.2 Bbbl of oil and as much as 0.7 Tcf of natural gas.

42

43
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-8

1 2.8 ALTERNTIVE 8 – NO ACTION

2

3 Alternative 8 is the No Action Alternative. Under this alternative, there would be no 

4 lease sales conducted under the Program in any OCS Planning Areas. As much as 8.2 Bbbl of 

5 oil and 35 Tcf of natural gas would not be available under this alternative. Energy substitutes are 

6 discussed in Section 4.5.6

7

8

9 2.9 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER 

10 PROGRAMMATIC EVALUATION

11

12 Pursuant to the NEPA, BOEM had two public scoping periods, one extending from 

13 April 2, 2010, through June 30, 2010, and another from January 6, 2011, through March 31, 

14 2011, to solicit comments for the purpose of determining the scope of the PEIS (see Chapter 1). 

15 Comments received through scoping were used to identify issues to be addressed and to provide 

16 input into the development of the alternatives considered in this draft PEIS. Additional 

17 alternatives suggested through scoping that are different from Alternatives 1–8 above include:

18

19 • Expand the oil and gas leasing program to include more or all OCS Planning 

20 Areas beyond those identified in the NOI.

21

22 • Hold multiple sales in some OCS Planning Areas.

23

24 • Delay sales until further data regarding oil spill response and drilling safety 

25 are collected and analyzed for the Arctic and GOM areas.

26

27 • Develop alternative/renewable energy sources as a substitute for oil and gas 

28 leasing on the OCS.

29

30 • Add further spatial and temporal deferrals, such as no leasing in parts of 

31 planning areas and seasonally limiting activity in other parts of planning areas.

32

33 • Reduce the lease sale sizes to smaller than area-wide (less than full planning 

34 areas).

35

36 • Defer deepwater areas in the GOM planning areas.

37

38 These alternatives were considered but eliminated from further evaluation in this PEIS for a 

39 variety of reasons, and each alternative is discussed separately below.

40

41

42 2.9.1 Expand the Oil and Gas Leasing Program to Include More or All OCS 

43 Planning Areas

44

45 Under discretionary authority conferred by Section 18 of OCSLA, the Secretary of the 

46 Interior hosted regional public meetings in Atlantic City, NJ, New Orleans, LA, Anchorage, AK,
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-9

1 and San Francisco, CA in April 2009 to gather information and public comment to help build a 

2 comprehensive energy strategy for the .Outer Continental Shelf. Invited to each of these 

3 meetings were regional governors, elected federal officials, private citizens, interested 

4 organizations, energy producers, advocacy groups, and local governments. Using the 

5 information that was collected from these meetings, and from the extended comment period, the 

6 Secretary decided which planning areas to include.

7

8 The alternatives considered in this draft PEIS (excluding the No Action Alternative) 

9 include oil and gas leasing in as many as 6 of the 26 OCS Planning Areas (Figure 2-1). 

10 Alternatives that include more OCS Planning Areas (either adding selected individual areas such 

11 as the Atlantic Planning Areas, or including all 26 OCS Planning Areas) were not considered in 

12 this PEIS for several reasons.

13

14 Most of the Eastern GOM Planning Area, as well as areas of the Central GOM Planning 

15 Area within 161 km (100 mi) of the Florida coast, are restricted from leasing and development 

16 until 2022 as part of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006. In Alaska, Bristol Bay in 

17 the North Aleutian Basin Planning Area was withdrawn on March 31, 2010, by the President 

18 from leasing consideration through June 30, 2017. As a matter of caution, in the aftermath of the 

19 DWH event, in April 2010, the Secretary of the Interior announced, on December 1, 2010, a 

20 narrowing of the scope of the PEIS by removing the South and Mid-Atlantic Planning Areas 

21 from consideration for potential sales and development through 2017. Because of these 

22 moratoria and removals, expansion of the Program to all planning areas is not possible, and 

23 expanding it to planning areas other than those considered in this draft PEIS is not feasible

24 without further postponement of the Program. Inclusion of all OCS Planning Areas would have

25 been inconsistent with the December 1, 2010, direction of the Secretary of the Interior for the 

26 scope of the PEIS to focus on leasing in areas with current active leases. Many of the 26 OCS 

27 Planning Areas do not currently have active leases or substantial interest from industry, and were 

28 thus not considered for inclusion in the Program, or for evaluation in this draft PEIS.

29

30

31 2.9.2 Hold Multiple Lease Sales in Some OCS Planning Areas

32

33 The proposed action identifies 15 lease sales in six planning areas: five sales each in the 

34 Western and Central GOM Planning Areas, two sales in the Eastern GOM Planning Area, and 

35 one each in the Cook Inlet, Beaufort Sea, and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. Alternatives with 

36 additional sales, such as having more than two sales in the Eastern GOM Planning Area or more 

37 than one sale in each of the Alaska Planning Areas, would be inconsistent with the Secretary of 

38 the Interior’s Program scoping announcement on December 1, 2010, of an updated oil and gas 

39 leasing strategy for the OCS that would proceed with caution and focus on leasing in areas with 

40 currently active leases and an existing knowledge base. Holding one sale in each planning area 

41 is more consistent with a cautionary approach in the Arctic.

42

43
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-10

1 2.9.3 Delay Sales until Further Evaluation of Oil Spill Response and Drilling Safety 

2 Is Completed

3

4 Following the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) event, there has been considerable activity by 

5 not only BOEM but also other Federal and State agencies with regard to the adequacy of past oil 

6 spill response plans and drilling safety, as well as the development of new approaches for spill 

7 response and increasing drilling safety. BOEM has been active in revising existing regulations 

8 and developing new regulations specific to spill response plan requirements and drilling safety, 

9 and multiple agencies (including BOEM) are continuing to evaluate these areas. The 

10 identification of new approaches to enhance spill response and drilling safety is expected to be 

11 an activity that will extend throughout the duration of the Program. Waiting until further 

12 evaluation is completed would delay the Program beyond the 5-year revision requirement 

13 specified in Section 18 of OCSLA. Inclusion of new information (and any subsequent

14 requirements) related to spill response and drilling safety would be included through the 

15 promulgation of regulations, notices to lessees and operators, and site-specific mitigations 

16 identified in NEPA analyses at the lease sale and project levels. In addition, at the discretion of 

17 the Secretary, any lease sale can be delayed or cancelled for any reason, including a possible 

18 need for further evaluation of oil spill response or drilling safety issues. 

19

20

21 2.9.4 Develop Alternate/Renewable Energy Sources as a Substitute for Oil and Gas 

22 Leasing on the OCS

23

24 Energy use in the United States is expected to continue to increase from present levels 

25 through 2035 and beyond (EIA 2011). For example, the U.S. Energy Information 

26 Administration (EIA) has projected that U.S. consumption of crude oil and petroleum products 

27 will increase from about 18.8 million bbl per day in 2009 to about 21.9 million bbl per day in 

28 2035 (EIA 2011). Oil and gas reserves in the OCS (and especially the GOM) represent 

29 significant sources that currently help meet U.S. energy demands, and are expected to continue 

30 to do so in the future. While alternate/renewable energy sources currently play a role in meeting 

31 energy demand in this country, and will continue to do so in the future, such sources could not 

32 replace the energy supplied by oil and gas from OCS sources. A more detailed discussion of 

33 alternate and other energy substitutes for oil and gas appears in Section 4.5.6, which considers 

34 the environmental effects of the No Action Alternative.

35

36 The OCSLA, in conjunction with other statutes, extends broad powers to the President 

37 and designated Federal Agencies (such as BOEM) over leasing activities on the OCS. 

38 Section 18 of the OCSLA specifically directs the Secretary of the Interior to prepare and 

39 periodically revise an oil and gas leasing program to implement the policies of OCSLA, and 

40 BOEM conducts oil and gas lease sales and executes leases under the OCSLA. Renewable 

41 energy projects on the OCS are also managed in conjunction with other Federal and State 

42 authorities. Under the OCSLA, Federal planning does not specifically integrate oil and gas 

43 leasing with renewable energy leasing. BOEM has, however, issued a final rule specific to the 

44 establishment of a program to grant leases, easements, and rights-of-way for renewable energy 

45 projects on the OCS (30 CFR Parts 250, 285, and 290).

46

47
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-11

1 2.9.5 Add Areal and Temporal Exclusion and Restriction Zones around Sensitive Areas 

2 and Resources

3

4 BOEM received scoping comments requesting that the PEIS include alternatives that 

5 exclude portions of program areas from leasing during the program or that seasonally exclude or 

6 restrict drilling in some Arctic areas when ice is present. Specific examples include creating 

7 more exclusion areas in the Arctic, particularly in the Hannah Shoals and Camden Bay areas, 

8 protecting the Bowhead whale migration corridors, and temporal exclusion or restriction of

9 drilling in the Arctic when ice is present. Other comments suggested exclusion of sensitive areas 

10 in the GOM particularly to avoid or minimize contact from a DWH-like discharge event. 

11 Specific examples include excluding areas of the GOM OCS in which the Loop Current could 

12 transport oil from a large discharge event over great distances, avoiding important ecological 

13 areas and features, and developing buffer zones around areas as appropriate, such as coastal 

14 migratory corridors, population centers, and critical habitat of listed species.

15

16 The Secretary may carve out deferral areas that are based on specific, established need 

17 and supported by adequate information, such as deferral areas selected in previous 5-year 

18 program alternatives and needed to continue protection of bowhead whale migration in the 

19 Beaufort Sea and coastal subsistence uses in the Chukchi Sea. The Bureau indicated in its April, 

20 2010 NOI that other areal or temporal exclusions within planning areas may be considered.

21 After consideration of areas suggested during scoping, BOEM has decided that it is premature to 

22 make any decisions as to such exclusions at this early Program stage. The determination of other 

23 areal and temporal exclusions and restrictions will depend on the location of specific lease sale 

24 areas and whether exploration and development will actually occur in the lease sale area, which 

25 is unknown at this time. The exclusion of specific areas or blocks within a planning area is best 

26 done at the lease sale stage of the program or when specific OCS projects are being evaluated.

27

28 The PEIS is mainly a planning document that informs ―big-picture‖ decisions about the 

29 overall size of the program, the planning areas included in the program, and the number of lease 

30 sales that could occur during the program. The ecoregional scale used in the draft PEIS to 

31 identify areas where OCS effects and vulnerable environmental resources are likely to interact 

32 and where mitigations may need to be developed during the program to reduce potential impacts 

33 does not provide the fine scale and detailed information needed to develop protected areas on a 

34 block-by-block basis. Furthermore, the lease sale process is an evolving process, and additional 

35 site-specific studies, consultations, and analyses may be required before effective mitigations and 

36 exclusions can be developed. Indeed, it could be almost foolhardy to include areal or temporal 

37 exclusions or restrictions now, armed only with inadequate information. By including entire 

38 planning areas in the Program, the USDOI is attempting to maintain flexibility in fulfilling its 

39 mandate to provide for both U.S. energy needs and to protect the marine and coastal 

40 environment.

41

42

43 2.9.6 Reduce the Lease Sale Sizes to Smaller Than Area-Wide (less than full 

44 planning areas)

45

46 Using an area-wide leasing approach provides greater flexibility to fully consider and 

47 balance development, economic, and environmental concerns. While significant domestic 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-12

1 energy resources are assumed to be located on the OCS, the precise locations and quantities are 

2 unknown because not all promising areas and reservoirs have been fully explored and delineated.

3 One way to optimize discovery of significant oil and gas deposits is to encourage companies to 

4 pursue unique and diverse exploration and development strategies based on differing views as to 

5 resource location, availability, and extractability. The area-wide process allows lessees to 

6 concentrate efforts on tracts they consider most promising as opposed to those pre-identified by 

7 the government, unless those areas have been already excluded through pre-lease sale planning

8 and environmental review. The Secretary can reduce the area offered for leasing within a 

9 planning area at the lease sale stage of the program based on more information about the location 

10 and value of recoverable resources, the potential vulnerability of environmental resources, or 

11 other Section 18 concerns. Leasing strategies other than area-wide leasing are described in the 

12 Proposed Program.

13

14

15 2.9.7 Defer Oil and Gas Leasing in Deepwater Areas of the Central and Western GOM 

16 Planning Areas

17

18 During the scoping process, several comments expressed opposition to drilling in 

19 deepwater areas. The comments expressed general concerns about deepwater drilling in the 

20 GOM after the Deepwater Horizon event that occurred on April 20, 2010, and resulted in a 

21 discharge estimated to be 4-9 million barrels of oil. The comments did not specify a definition of 

22 deepwater to apply to an alternative that excludes certain areas from leasing to reduce the risk of 

23 occurrence of a catastrophic discharge event, nor did the comments identify specific risk factors 

24 associated with drilling in ―deep‖ water compared to drilling at other water depths. The 

25 Secretary defined deepwater in the context of areas of the GOM with potential for increased 

26 drilling risk as water depths of 152 m (500 ft) and deeper when he directed BOEM on May 28, 

27 2010, to exercise its authority under the OCSLA to suspend certain drilling activities for a period 

28 of up to 6 months in those water depths. The Secretary later clarified the suspension to cover 

29 deepwater operations that involved the use of certain deepwater technology. On October 12, 

30 2011, BOEM lifted the May 28, 2011, drilling suspension on the basis that major issues 

31 pertaining to deepwater drilling risk had been addressed through multiple venues in the 

32 intervening 5 months.

33

34 The PEIS acknowledges the importance of understanding catastrophic discharge event 

35 risk for planning, leasing, and regulatory decisions during the Program. To further this 

36 understanding, the PEIS includes in Section 4.3, Assessment of Issues of Programmatic Concern, 

37 a discussion of the current knowledge of the relative importance of catastrophic discharge event 

38 risk factors, and a synthesis of this information to identify catastrophic event risk in different 

39 program areas. This section identifies water depth as just one of many risk factors that should be 

40 considered with other factors when making specific leasing decisions. This section also 

41 describes recent regulatory measures that have been promulgated to improve drilling safety and 

42 to reduce the risk of occurrence of catastrophic discharge events. 

43

44 Furthermore, to exclude all deepwater areas in the GOM from potential oil and gas 

45 exploration and development would not be reasonable in light of the purpose and need for the oil 

46 and gas leasing program, which is to help meet the Nation’s energy needs by developing oil and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-13

1 gas resources in a manner consistent with environmental protection and the laws and policies of 

2 affected States. Over the last approximately 20 years, leasing, drilling, and production have 

3 moved steadily into deeper waters. As of 2009, there were approximately 7,310 active leases in 

4 the U.S. GOM, 58% of which were in deep water. Likewise, deepwater oil production rose 

5 about 786% and deepwater gas production increased about 1,067% from 1992 to 2007 (Nixon 

6 and Shepard 2009). The leasing schedule must ensure a proper balance between oil and gas 

7 production and possible environmental impacts, while also considering relative environmental 

8 sensitivity among OCS Regions and competing uses of the OCS. Portions of planning areas, 

9 such as deepwater areas, can potentially be deferred from leasing during the program at the lease 

10 sale level when such analysis and issues are ripe, if there is, for example, a demonstrated and 

11 significant relative risk of a spill or blowout associated with certain deepwater areas, the 

12 presence of sensitive environmental resources, space use conflicts, or other reasons.

13

14

15 2.10 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ANTICIPATED FROM THE PROPOSED ACTION 

16 AND ALTERNATIVES

17

18 In general, oil and gas development follows a four-phase process, beginning with 

19 (1) exploration to locate viable deposits, (2) development of the production well and support 

20 infrastructure, (3) operation (oil or gas production), and (4) decommissioning of the offshore 

21 facility once it is no longer productive or profitable. Under the proposed action, or 

22 Alternatives 2 through 7, routine operations associated with each of these phases will have the 

23 same or similar impact-producing factors associated with them (Table 2.10-1), and these have 

24 ―typical‖ types of impacts, regardless of location. The magnitude and importance of those 

25 impacts on the resource, however, will be very site and project specific. For example, pipeline 

26 trenching, regardless of location, will result in disturbance of the sea floor and associated biota 

27 and habitats, and generate suspended sediments that will affect local water quality. The 

28 importance of such impacts will depend on the types of biota and habitats present (seagrass beds 

29 vs. mud bottom; endangered species) and ambient water quality conditions. The types of 

30 impacts identified for the proposed action are therefore the same as those expected under each of 

31 the alternatives except the No Action Alternative. Table 2.10-2 presents a summary comparison 

32 of impacts of all the alternatives, including No Action. The difference in potential impacts 

33 among the action alternatives will be in where those impacts may be incurred. Each of the 

34 alternatives to the proposed action defers one of the six Planning Areas included in the proposed 

35 action from the 2012-2017 OCS leasing program, and most resources in the deferred Planning 

36 Area would not be expected to be affected by routine operations in the other Planning Areas. 

37 Because routine operations include some impacting factors (such as seismic survey noise and 

38 support vessel traffic) that may extend beyond Planning Area boundaries, resources in deferred 

39 Planning Areas may be affected by routine operations associated with development in adjacent 

40 Planning Areas.

41

42 One potential impact-producing factor of oil and gas development under each of the 

43 seven action alternatives is an accidental oil spill. The types of effects such accidental spills may 

44 have on specific resources will be similar between the proposed action and the other action 

45 alternatives, although the duration and magnitude of the impacts will depend on the location, 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-14

1 size, timing, and duration of the spill; the effectiveness of spill containment and cleanup 

2 operations; and the biological and cultural resources affected by the spill.

3

4 The evaluation of a No Action Alternative is required by the regulations implementing 

5 the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1502.14(d)). If the Secretary were to adopt this 

6 alternative, it would halt OCS presale planning, sales, and new leasing from 2012 to 2017. 

7 However, exploration, development, and production stemming from past sales would continue.

8

9 This alternative would shut down the OCS leasing program from mid-2012 through 

10 mid-2017. The amounts of OCS natural gas (up to 35 trillion cubic feet) and oil (up to 

11 8.1 billion barrels of oil) that could help meet national energy needs would be forgone. That 

12 amount of energy would have to be replaced by a combination of imports, alternative energy 

13 sources, and conservation.

14

15 Market forces are expected to be the most important determinant of the substitute mix for 

16 OCS oil and gas. Key market substitutes for forgone OCS oil production would be imported oil, 

17 conservation, switching to gas, and onshore production. For OCS natural gas, the principal 

18 substitutes would be switching to oil, onshore production, imports, and conservation.

19

20 In addition to market-based substitutes, the Nation or individual States might choose to 

21 encourage or even impose programs designed to deal with the energy shortfall. To replace oil, 

22 these programs might favor alternative vehicle fuels such as ethanol or methanol, vehicles with 

23 greater fuel efficiency, or alternate transportation methods such as mass transit.

24

25 As a partial replacement for the forgone natural gas, governments might mandate 

26 increased reliance on coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, or wind-generated electric power. In addition, 

27 governments might give more emphasis to programs encouraging more efficient electricity 

28 transmission and more efficient use of gas and electricity in factories, offices, and homes.

29

30

31 2.11 REFERENCES

32

33 EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration), 2011, Annual Energy Outlook 2011, Office of 

34 Integrated and International Energy Analysis, Washington, D.C.

35

36 Hagerty, C.L., 2011, Outer Continental Shelf Moratoria on Oil and Gas Development, CRS 

37 Report to Congress, 7-5700, R41132, Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C., 

38 May 6.

39

40 MMS (Minerals Management Service), 2007, Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 

41 2007-2012 Final Environmental Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-018, Minerals 

42 Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans.

43

44 Nixon, L.D., and N.K. Shepard, 2009, Deepwater Gulf of Mexico 2009: Interim Report of 2008 

45 Highlights, Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, New Orleans, La.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2-15

1 TABLE 2.10-1 Impact-Producing Factors Associated with OCS Oil and Gas Development

Development Phase

Exploration

Impact-Producing Factor

Seismic 

Survey

Exploration 

Well Development Operation Decommissioning

Noise X X X X X

Seismic noise X

Ship noise X X X X X

Aircraft noise X X X X

Drilling noise X X

Trenching noise X

Production noise X

Onshore construction X

Platform removal X

Traffic X X X X X

Aircraft traffic X X X X

Ship traffic X X X X X

Drilling Mud/Debris X X

Bottom/Land Disturbance X X

Coring and drilling X X

Pipeline trenching X

Onshore construction X

Air Emissions X X X X X

Offshore X X X X X

Onshore X X X

Explosives X

Platform removal X

Lighting X X X X

Offshore X X X X

Onshore X X

Visible Infrastructure X X X

Offshore X X X

Onshore X X

Space Use Conflicts X X X X

Offshore facilities X X X X

Onshore facilities X X

Accidental Spills X X X X

2
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-16

1 TABLE 2.10-2 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives for a 2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas 

2 Leasing Program

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Water Quality Alternative 1 – Proposed 

Action

Gulf of Mexico: Routine operations that could result in minor to moderate, localized, short-term impacts include 

structure placement and construction (pipelines, platforms) and operational discharges (produced water, bilge water, 

drill cuttings) and sanitary and domestic wastes. Structure placement and removal could increase suspended 

sediment loads, while operational discharges, sanitary and domestic wastes, and deck drainage could affect chemical 

water quality. Compliance with NPDES permits and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) regulations would reduce most 

impacts of routine operations. The effects of accidental oil spills will depend upon material, spill size, location, and 

remediation activities. Small spills would likely result in short-term, localized impacts. Impacts from a large oil spill 

(including those from a very large spill associated with an unlikely catastrophic discharge event [CDE]) could persist 

for an extended period of time if oil were deposited in wetland and beach sediments or low-energy environments 

because of potential remobilization.

Alaska: Routine operations would result in minor to moderate, short-term, localized impacts such as disturbing 

sediments and increasing turbidity near construction sites and altering water chemistry from operational discharges. 

In the Arctic Planning Areas, minor water quality impacts could also occur from fluids entrained in ice roads when 

they break up in the spring. Compliance with NPDES permits and USCG regulations would reduce impacts of 

routine operations. The effects of accidental oil spills will depend upon material, spill size, location, season, 

response, and remediation activities. In the presence of cold temperatures and ice, cleanup activities would be 

extremely difficult. Small spills would likely result in short-term impacts. Impacts from a large oil spill (including

those from a very large spill associated with an unlikely CDE) could persist for an extended period of time if oil were 

deposited in wetland and beach sediments or low-energy environments because of potential remobilization. Spills 

under ice could affect water quality for relatively long periods.

Alternative 2 – Defer the 

Eastern Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts to water quality in the Eastern GOM Planning Area from 

routine operations. Accidental oil spills (especially very large spills) in the other GOM planning areas could 

potentially affect water quality in the Eastern GOM Planning Area if transported there by GOM currents.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 3 – Defer the 

Western Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts to water quality in the Western GOM Planning Area from 

routine operations. Accidental oil spills in the other GOM planning areas could potentially affect water quality in the 

Western GOM Planning Area if transported there by GOM currents, especially in the event of a very large oil spill.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-17

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Water Quality (Cont.) Alternative 4 – Defer the 

Central Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts to water quality in the Central GOM Planning Area from 

routine operations. Accidental oil spills in the other GOM planning areas could potentially affect water quality in the 

Central GOM Planning Area if transported there by GOM currents, especially in the event of a very large oil spill.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 5 – Defer the 

Beaufort Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1 except that no impacts would be expected in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area. 

Accidental oil spills in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area could affect water quality in the Beaufort Sea, depending on 

the location, size, and duration of the spill as well as on the effectiveness of containment and cleanup operations 

(especially under winter, ice cover conditions).

Alternative 6 – Defer the 

Chukchi Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1. 

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1 except that no impacts would be expected in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area. 

Accidental oil spills in the western portion of the Beaufort Sea Planning Area could affect water quality in some 

portions of the eastern Chukchi Sea, depending on the location, size, and duration of the spill as well as on the 

effectiveness of containment and cleanup operations.

Alternative 7 – Defer the 

Cook Inlet Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program 

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1 except that no impacts would be expected in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. 

Alternative 8 – No 

Actiona

There would be no impacts from a 2012-2017 OCS oil and gas leasing program.

Air Quality Alternative 1 – Proposed 

Action

Gulf of Mexico: Routine operations are expected to result in only minor impacts to air quality. Sources of air 

pollutants (NO2, SO2, PM10, and CO) associated with OCS oil and gas development include diesel and gas engines, 

turbines, and support vessels. Routine operations would not result in exceedance of the NAAQS or impact visibility. 

Increases of ozone, if they occur, would be about 1% of total concentrations. Small accidental oil spills could have 

localized and temporary impacts. Pollutant levels from very large spills (including accidental spills associated with 

an unlikely CDE) and associated in situ burning, if used, would generally be small. Plumes from in situ burning 

could temporarily degrade visibility in PSD Class I areas. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-18

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Air Quality (Cont.) Alaska: Routine operations are expected to result in only minor impacts to air quality. Routine operations would not 

result in exceedance of the NAAQS in public access areas or impact visibility. Smaller oil spills could have localized 

and temporary impacts. Pollutant levels from very large spills (including accidental spills associated with an unlikely 

CDE) and associated in situ burning, if used, could be major during the initial leak and again during cleanup efforts 

(plumes from in situ burning could temporarily degrade visibility), but eventually, air quality is expected to return to 

normal or near normal. The long-term effects associated with a spill and cleanup would be minor.

Alternative 2 – Defer the 

Eastern Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts to air quality in the Eastern GOM Planning Area from 

routine operations. Depending on the strength, duration, and direction of prevailing winds, in situ burning of a spill 

in the Central GOM Planning Area could affect air quality in the Eastern GOM Planning Area.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 3 – Defer the 

Western Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts to air quality in the Western GOM Planning Area from 

routine operations. Depending on the strength, duration, and direction of prevailing winds, in situ burning of a spill 

in the Central GOM Planning Area could affect air quality in the Western GOM Planning Area.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1. 

Alternative 4 – Defer the 

Central Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts to air quality in the Central GOM Planning Area from 

routine operations. Depending on the strength, duration, and direction of prevailing winds, in situ burning of a spill 

in the other GOM planning areas could affect air quality in the Central GOM Planning Area.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 5 – Defer the 

Beaufort Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1 except no impacts to air quality in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area. Depending on the 

strength, duration, and direction of prevailing winds, in situ burning of a spill in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area could 

affect air quality in nearby areas of the Beaufort Sea Planning Area.

Alternative 6 – Defer the 

Chukchi Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1 except no impacts to air quality in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area. Depending on the 

strength, duration, and direction of prevailing winds, in situ burning of a spill in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area 

could affect air quality in nearby areas of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-19

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Air Quality (Cont.) Alternative 7 – Defer the 

Cook Inlet Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Cook Inlet Planning Area.

Alternative 8 – No 

Actiona

There would be no impacts from a 2012-2017 OCS oil and gas leasing program.

Acoustic Environment Alternative 1 – Proposed 

Action

Gulf of Mexico and Alaska: Routine operations in the GOM and Alaska OCS Planning Areas could affect ambient 

noise conditions, and impacts to ambient noise levels are expected to be minor. Noise generating sources associated 

with routine operations include seismic surveys, drilling and production, infrastructure placement and removal, and 

vessel traffic. Depending on the source and activity, changes in ambient noise levels could be short-term and 

localized (e.g., from vessel traffic), long-term and localized (from production), or short-term and less localized (from 

seismic surveys). Seismic surveys could result in short-term changes in ambient noise levels, but the changes could 

extend well beyond the survey boundary.

Alternative 2 – Defer the 

Eastern Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico and Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no changes in local ambient sound levels in the Eastern 

GOM Planning Area from routine operations. Seismic surveys conducted in the eastern portions of the Central GOM 

Planning Area could temporarily increase ambient sound levels in portions of the Eastern GOM Planning Area.

Alternative 3 – Defer the 

Western Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico and Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no changes in local ambient sound levels in the Western 

GOM Planning Area from routine operations. Seismic surveys conducted in the western portions of the Central 

GOM Planning Area could temporarily increase ambient sound levels in portions of the Western GOM Planning 

Area.

Alternative 4 – Defer the 

Central Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico and Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no changes in local ambient sound levels in the Central 

GOM Planning Area from routine operations. Seismic surveys conducted in the western portion of the Eastern GOM 

Planning Area or the eastern portion of the Western GOM Planning Area could temporarily increase ambient sound 

levels in portions of the Central GOM Planning Area.

Alternative 5 – Defer the 

Beaufort Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico and Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no changes in local ambient sound levels in the Beaufort 

Sea Planning Area from routine operations. Seismic surveys conducted in the western portion of the Chukchi Sea 

Planning Area could temporarily increase ambient sound levels in portions of the Beaufort Sea Planning Area.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-20

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Acoustic Environment 

(Cont.)

Alternative 6 – Defer the 

Chukchi Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico and Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no changes in local ambient sound levels in the Chukchi 

Sea Planning Area from routine operations. Seismic surveys conducted in the eastern portion of the Beaufort Sea 

Planning Area could temporarily increase ambient sound levels in portions of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area.

Alternative 7 – Defer the 

Cook Inlet Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico and Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Cook Inlet 

Planning Area. 

Alternative 8 – No 

Actiona

There would be no impacts from a 2012-2017 OCS oil and gas leasing program.

Coastal and Estuarine 

Habitats

Alternative 1 – Proposed 

Action

Gulf of Mexico: Routine operations would result in minor to moderate localized impacts primarily due to facility 

construction, pipeline trenching and landfalls, channel dredging, and vessel traffic. The effects of accidental oil spills 

will depend on the specific habitat affected; the size, location, duration, and timing of the spill; and on the 

effectiveness of spill containment and cleanup activities. Small spills would likely result in short-term impacts while 

large spills (including CDE-level spills which are not expected) could incur both short-term and long-term impacts 

depending on habitat type and location and effectiveness of spill containment and cleanup activities.

Alaska: Routine operations would be expected to result in minor to moderate localized impacts primarily due to 

pipeline, road, and onshore facility construction and vessel traffic. These operations could have a major effect on the 

local indigenous residents most proximate to development if it interferes with their subsistence practices for the 

greater part of a season. The effects of accidental oil spills will depend on habitats affected; the size, location, 

duration and timing of the spill; and on the effectiveness of spill containment and cleanup activities. Large (including 

CDEs which are not expected) and small spills could result in long-term and short-term impacts, depending on the 

habitats affected; the duration and size of the spill, and on the effectiveness of spill containment and cleanup 

activities.

Alternative 2 – Defer the 

Eastern Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts to habitats in the Eastern GOM Planning Area from 

routine operations. Accidental spills in the Central GOM Planning Area could potentially impact habitats in the 

Eastern GOM Planning Area if carried there by GOM currents.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-21

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Coastal and Estuarine 

Habitats (Cont.)

Alternative 3 – Defer the 

Western Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts to habitats in the Western GOM Planning Area from 

routine operations. Accidental spills in the Central GOM Planning Area could potentially impact habitats in the 

Western GOM Planning Area if carried there by GOM currents.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 4 – Defer the 

Central Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts to habitats in the Central GOM Planning Area from 

routine operations. Accidental spills in the other GOM Planning Areas could potentially impact habitats in the 

Central GOM Planning Area if carried there by GOM currents.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 5 – Defer the 

Beaufort Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts to habitats in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area from routine 

operations. Accidental oil spills in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area could potentially impact habitats in the Beaufort 

Sea Planning Area if carried there by coastal currents.

Alternative 6 – Defer the 

Chukchi Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts to habitats in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area from routine 

operations. Spills in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area could potentially impact habitats in some portions of the eastern 

Chukchi Sea Planning Area.

Alternative 7 – Defer the 

Cook Inlet Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts to habitats in the Cook Inlet Planning are expected.

Alternative 8 – No 

Actiona

There would be no impacts from a 2012-2017 OCS oil and gas leasing program.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-22

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Marine Benthic Habitats Alternative 1 – Proposed 

Action

Gulf of Mexico: Routine operations could result in moderate and long-term impacts to benthic habitats, primarily 

soft sediments. Benthic habitat could be disturbed by platform and pipeline placement, dredging, and operational 

discharges (produced water and cuttings). Soft sediment habitats can recover within a few years from most 

disturbances. Existing mitigation measures should eliminate most direct impacts to sensitive and protected benthic 

habitats. Marine benthic habitat could be affected by a large oil spill, including CDE-level spills which are not 

expected. Impacts could be long-term and range from small to medium, depending on the habitat affected; the size, 

duration, timing, and location of the spill; and the effectiveness of spill containment and cleanup activities. Impacts 

to HDDC from routine operations and accidental spills are unlikely, but may be permanent if they do occur.

Alaska: Routine operations associated with platform and pipeline placement could result in moderate and long-term 

impacts to benthic habitats, primarily soft sediments. Existing mitigation measures should eliminate most direct 

impacts to sensitive boulder habitats. Accidental releases of oil could be long-term and range from small to medium

depending on the habitat affected, cleanup method, and the size, duration, timing, and location of the spill. Impacts 

to boulder habitats from routine operations could result in moderate and long-term impacts to benthic habitats, 

primarily soft sediments. 

Alternative 2 – Defer the 

Eastern Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Eastern GOM Planning 

Area from routine operations. Marine benthic habitat in the Eastern GOM Planning Area could be affected by a large 

oil spill in the Central GOM Planning Area. Impacts could be long-term depending on the habitat affected, cleanup 

method, and the size, duration, timing, and location of the spill.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 3 – Defer the 

Western Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Western GOM Planning 

Area from routine operations. Marine benthic habitat in the Western GOM Planning Area could be affected by a 

large oil spill in the Central GOM Planning Area. Impacts could be long-term depending on the habitat affected, 

cleanup method, and the size, duration, timing, and location of the spill.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 4 – Defer the 

Central Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Central GOM Planning 

Area from routine operations. Marine benthic habitat in the Central GOM Planning Area could be affected by a large 

oil spill in the Western or Eastern GOM planning areas. Impacts could be long-term depending on the habitat 

affected, cleanup method, and the size, duration, timing, and location of the spill.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-23

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Marine Benthic Habitats 

(Cont.)

Alternative 5 – Defer the 

Beaufort Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area. A 

large oil spill in the eastern portion of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area could affect benthic habitat in the western 

portion of the Beaufort Sea Planning Area, Impacts could be long-term depending on the habitat affected, cleanup 

method, and the size, duration, timing, and location of the spill.

Alternative 6 – Defer the 

Chukchi Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1. 

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area. A large 

oil spill in the western portion of the Beaufort Sea Planning Area could affect benthic habitat in the eastern portion of 

the Chukchi Sea Planning Area, Impacts could be long-term depending on the habitat affected, cleanup method, and 

the size, duration, timing, and location of the spill.

Alternative 7 – Defer the 

Cook Inlet Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts would be expected in the Cook Inlet Planning Area.

Alternative 8 – No 

Actiona

There would be no impacts from a 2012-2017 OCS oil and gas leasing program.

Marine Pelagic Habitats Alternative 1 – Proposed 

Action

Gulf of Mexico: Routine operations could result in negligible to minor short- and long-term impacts to pelagic 

habitats, primarily from operational discharges and turbidity generated during infrastructure placement. Effects of 

accidental oil spills, including CDE-level spills which are not expected, could result in small to large impacts to 

pelagic habitats, depending on the location, size, duration, and timing of the spill; the habitats affected

(e.g., Sargassum), and the effectiveness of spill containment and cleanup activities. 

Alaska: Routine operations could result in negligible to minor, short-term to long-term impacts to pelagic habitat. 

The effects of accidental releases of oil, including CDE-level spills which are not expected, could result in minor, but 

long-term impacts to pelagic habitat and sea ice habitat, depending on the size, duration, timing, and location of the 

spill; the habitat affected; and the effectiveness of spill containment and cleanup activities. Severe winter weather 

and ice cover may be expected to limit containment and cleanup in winter. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-24

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Marine Pelagic Habitats 

(Cont.)

Alternative 2 – Defer the 

Eastern Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Eastern GOM Planning 

Area from routine operations. A large oil spill in the Central GOM Planning Area could affect some pelagic habitats 

in the Eastern GOM Planning Area. 

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 3 – Defer the 

Western Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Western GOM Planning 

Area from routine operations. A large oil spill in the Central GOM Planning Area could affect some pelagic habitats 

in the Western GOM Planning Area.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 4 – Defer the 

Central Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Central GOM Planning 

Area from routine operations. A large oil spill in the Western or Eastern GOM Planning Areas could affect some 

pelagic habitats in the Central GOM Planning Area. 

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 5 – Defer the 

Beaufort Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area. A 

large oil spill in the eastern portion of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area could affect some pelagic habitats in the 

western portion of the Beaufort Sea Planning Area. 

Alternative 6 – Defer the 

Chukchi Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1. 

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area. A large 

oil spill in the western portion of the Beaufort Sea Planning Area could affect some pelagic habitats in the eastern 

portion of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area.

Alternative 7 – Defer the 

Cook Inlet Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts would be expected in the Cook Inlet Planning Area.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-25

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Marine Pelagic Habitats 

(Cont.)

Alternative 8 – No 

Actiona

There would be no impacts from a 2012-2017 OCS oil and gas leasing program.

Essential Fish Habitat Alternative 1 – Proposed 

Action

Gulf of Mexico: Routine operations could result in no more than moderate, short- and long-term impacts to EFH and 

managed species. Existing mitigation measures should eliminate most direct impacts to coral EFH. Impacts from 

accidental oil spills, including CDE-level spills which are not expected, could be long-term, depending on the size, 

duration, timing, and location of the spill; the habitats affected; and the effectiveness of spill containment and cleanup 

activities. 

Alaska: Routine operations could result in no more than moderate short- and long-term impacts to EFH and managed 

species. Accidental releases of oil could result in moderate and long-term impacts. Impacts from accidental oil 

spills, including CDE-level spills which are not expected, could be long-term depending on the size, duration, timing, 

and location of the spill; the habitats affected; and the effectiveness of spill containment and cleanup activities, which 

could be hampered by extreme winter conditions and ice cover.

Alternative 2 – Defer the 

Eastern Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Eastern GOM Planning 

Area from routine operations. Some EFH and managed species in the Eastern GOM Planning Area could be affected 

by a large oil spill in the Central GOM Planning Area. Impacts could be long-term depending on the habitat affected; 

the size, duration, timing, and location of the spill; and the effectiveness of spill containment and cleanup activities.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 3 – Defer the 

Western Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Western GOM Planning 

Area from routine operations. Some EFH and managed species in the Western GOM Planning Area could be 

affected by a large oil spill in the Central GOM Planning Area. Impacts could be long-term depending on the habitat 

affected; the size, duration, timing, and location of the spill; and the effectiveness of spill containment and cleanup 

activities.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 4 – Defer the 

Central Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Central GOM Planning 

Area from routine operations. Some EFH and managed species in the Central GOM Planning Area could be affected 

by a large oil spill in the Western or Eastern GOM planning areas. Impacts could be long-term depending on the 

habitat affected; the size, duration, timing, and location of the spill; and the effectiveness of spill containment and 

cleanup activities.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-26

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Essential Fish Habitat 

(Cont.)

Alternative 5 – Defer the 

Beaufort Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area. A 

large oil spill in the eastern portion of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area could affect EFH and managed species in the 

western portion of the Beaufort Sea Planning Area, Impacts could be long-term, depending on the habitats affected; 

the size, duration, timing, and location of the spill; and the effectiveness of spill containment and cleanup activities, 

the latter of which could be hampered by extreme winter conditions and ice cover.

Alternative 6 – Defer the 

Chukchi Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1. 

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area. A large 

oil spill in the western portion of the Beaufort Sea Planning Area could affect EFH and managed species in the 

eastern portion of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area, Impacts could be long-term depending on the habitat affected; the 

size, duration, timing, and location of the spill; and the effectiveness of spill containment and cleanup activities, the 

latter of which could be hampered by extreme winter conditions and ice cover.

Alternative 7 – Defer the 

Cook Inlet Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts would be expected in the Cook Inlet Planning Area.

Alternative 8 – No 

Actiona

There would be no impacts from a 2012-2017 OCS oil and gas leasing program.

Mammals Alternative 1 – Proposed 

Action

Gulf of Mexico: Impacts to marine mammals from routine operations include noise disturbance from seismic 

surveys, vessels, helicopters, construction and operation of platforms, and removal of platforms with explosives; 

potential collision with vessels; and exposures to discharges and wastes. Impacts to cetaceans could range from 

negligible to moderate, with species or stocks inhabiting continental shelf or shelf slope waters most likely to be 

affected. The West Indian manatee and rare or extralimital whale species are not likely to be affected. Meeting the 

requirements of the ESA and Marine Mammal Protection Act would reduce the likelihood and magnitude of adverse 

impacts from routine operations to most species. A large accidental oil spill, including CDE-level spills which are 

not expected, would have minor to moderate impacts to marine mammals; impacts from spill response activities are 

expected to be minor. No impacts from routine operations to endangered beach mice subspecies or the Florida salt 

marsh vole are expected. A large oil spill, especially during a tropical storm, could contaminate their habitats.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-27

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Mammals (Cont.) Alaska: Impacts to marine mammals, especially cetaceans, from routine operations would be similar to those for the 

GOM (negligible to moderate). Collisions with OCS-related vessels may injure or kill some individuals, although the 

incidence of such collisions is expected to be low. Vessels, construction of ice roads, on-ice vehicles, and aircrafts 

have been known to temporarily disturb some individuals (e.g., polar bears may abandon dens), but these effects 

would likely be short-term and mitigation can reduce the disturbance. Sea otters appear to habituate to regular human 

activity, and routine operations would have a negligible impact on their populations. A large oil spill (including 

CDE-level spills which are not expected) in Cook Inlet Planning Area could cause impacts similar in nature to those 

which occurred from the Exxon Valdez spill. In the Arctic, marine mammals would most likely be impacted by oilcontaminated ice leads, polynyas, rookeries, beaches, and haulouts. Impacts to terrestrial mammals from routine 

operations would be negligible. Disturbance from noise sources is the most likely impact. Negligible to minor 

impacts to species occurring along the Beaufort Sea from disturbance or habitat loss from construction and operation 

of onshore pipeline. A Cook Inlet oil spill that contaminates beaches and shorelines could impact terrestrial 

mammals such as the grizzly/brown bear and river otter that forage in intertidal habitats. A spill in the Arctic, 

especially from an onshore pipeline, could contaminate habitats used by caribou, grizzly/brown bears, Arctic foxes, 

and muskoxen. Coastal beaches are particularly critical to species (including caribou) seeking relief from 

mosquitoes. 

Alternative 2 – Defer the 

Eastern Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts to habitats or individuals in the Eastern GOM Planning 

Area. A large accidental oil spill in the Central GOM Planning Area could affect mammals and their habitats in the 

Eastern GOM Planning Area. Impacts to endangered rodent species similar to Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 3 – Defer the 

Western Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts to habitats or individuals in the Western GOM Planning 

Area. A large accidental oil spill in the Central GOM Planning Area could affect marine mammals and their habitats 

in the Western GOM Planning Area. Impacts to endangered rodent species similar to Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 4 – Defer the 

Central Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts to habitats or individuals in the Central GOM Planning 

Area. A large accidental oil spill in the Western or Eastern GOM Planning Areas could affect marine mammals and 

their habitats in the Central GOM Planning Area. Impacts to endangered rodent species similar but less than under 

Alternative 1, because no large accidental oil spill would occur in the Central GOM Planning Area.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-28

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Mammals (Cont.) Alternative 5 – Defer the 

Beaufort Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Impacts to marine mammals from routine operations similar to Alternative 1, except no impacts would be 

expected to resident marine mammals or their habitats in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area. No impacts from routine 

operations would occur to seasonal species while migrating through or inhabiting the Beaufort Sea. Accidental oil 

spills in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area could impact marine mammals in the Beaufort Sea and affect seasonal 

migration. Impacts from routine operations and oil spills to terrestrial mammals similar to Alternative 1 except no 

impacts to species and their habitats along the Beaufort Sea.

Alternative 6 – Defer the 

Chukchi Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Impacts to marine mammals from routine operations similar to Alternative 1, except no impacts would be 

expected to resident marine mammals or their habitats in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area. No impacts from routine 

operations would occur to seasonal species while migrating through or inhabiting the Chukchi Sea. Accidental oil 

spills in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area could impact marine mammals in some portions of the eastern Chukchi Sea 

and affect seasonal migration. Impacts from routine operations and oil spills to terrestrial mammals similar to 

Alternative 1 except no impacts to species and their habitats along the Chukchi Sea.

Alternative 7 – Defer the 

Cook Inlet Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts would be expected in the Cook Inlet Planning Area.

Alternative 8 – No 

Actiona

There would be no impacts from a 2012-2017 OCS oil and gas leasing program.

Marine and Coastal 

Birds

Alternative 1 – Proposed 

Action

Gulf of Mexico: Routine operations may result in negligible to moderate localized short-term impacts; impacts 

associated primarily with infrastructure construction, and ship and helicopter traffic. Impacts of routine operations to 

important coastal habitats such as nesting areas and overwintering sites could result in greater, more long-term and 

potentially population-level impacts should normal breeding and nesting activities be disrupted. Small accidental oil 

spills are expected to have largely local, small effects. Large spills, including CDE-level spills which are not 

expected, may result in large, long-term, and possibly population-level effects. The magnitude of the effects will 

depend on the size, duration, and timing of the spill; the species and habitats affected; and the effectiveness of spill 

containment and cleanup activities.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-29

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Marine and Coastal 

Birds (Cont.)

Alaska: Similar to the impacts identified for the GOM. Because of the importance of certain habitat areas for some 

migrating and breeding birds, spills affecting those birds and habitats could result in long-term population level 

impacts for some species if the spills affect important nesting colonies, migratory staging areas, or wintering grounds.

Alternative 2 – Defer the 

Eastern Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Eastern GOM Planning 

Area from routine operations. An accidental spill in the Central GOM Planning Area could affect coastal habitats 

and birds, as well as sea birds foraging in marine waters, of the Eastern GOM Planning Area.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 3 – Defer the 

Western Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Western GOM Planning 

Area from routine operations. An accidental oil spill in the Central GOM Planning Area could affect coastal habitats 

and birds, as well as sea birds foraging in marine waters, of the Western GOM Planning Area.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 4 – Defer the 

Central Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Eastern GOM Planning 

Area from routine operations. An accidental oil spill in the Eastern or Western GOM Planning Areas could affect 

coastal habitats and birds, as well as sea birds foraging in marine waters, of the Central GOM Planning Area.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 5 – Defer the 

Beaufort Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area from routine operations. An 

accidental oil spill in the western portion of the Chukchi Sea could affect birds and habitats in the Beaufort Sea 

Planning Area. 

Alternative 6 – Defer the 

Chukchi Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area from routine operations. An 

accidental oil spill in the western portion of the Beaufort Sea could affect birds and habitats in some portions of the 

eastern Chukchi Sea Planning Area.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-30

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Marine and Coastal 

Birds (Cont.)

Alternative 7 – Defer the 

Cook Inlet Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts would be expected in the Cook Inlet Planning Area.

Alternative 8 – No 

Actiona

There would be no impacts from a 2012-2017 OCS oil and gas leasing program.

Fish Alternative 1 – Proposed 

Action

Gulf of Mexico: Negligible to minor impacts to fish, and negligible impacts to threatened or endangered fish species 

are expected from routine operations. A large accidental oil, including a CDE-level spill which is not expected, spill 

is not expected to result in population level impacts except potentially for spills that significantly affect overfished 

species and their spawning grounds. Oil contacting shoreline areas could result in large-scale lethal and long-term 

sublethal effects on early life stages of some species, but no permanent population level effects are expected.

Alaska: Negligible to minor impacts to fish are expected from routine operations. The impact magnitude of a large 

oil spill, including a CDE-level spill which is not expected, would depend on the location, timing, and size of the 

spill, and the distribution and ecology of affected fish species. Oil contacting shoreline areas could result in largescale lethal and long-term sublethal effects on early life stages, but no permanent population level effects are 

expected.

Alternative 2 – Defer the 

Eastern Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Eastern GOM Planning 

Area from routine operation. Fish in the Eastern GOM Planning Area could be affected by a large oil spill in the 

Central GOM Planning Area.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 3 – Defer the 

Western Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Western GOM Planning 

Area from routine operation. Fish in the Western GOM Planning Area could be affected by a large oil spill in the 

Central GOM Planning Area.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 4 – Defer the 

Central Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Central GOM Planning 

Area from routine operation. Fish in the Central GOM Planning Area could be affected by a large oil spill in the

Western or Eastern GOM Planning Areas.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-31

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Fish (Cont.) Alternative 5 – Defer the 

Beaufort Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area. A 

large oil spill in the eastern portion of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area could affect fish in the Beaufort Sea Planning 

Area.

Alternative 6 – Defer the 

Chukchi Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1. 

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except that no 2012-2017 OCS program-related impacts would be expected in the 

Chukchi Sea Planning Area. A large oil spill in the western portion of the Beaufort Sea Planning Area could affect 

fish in the eastern portions of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area.

Alternative 7 – Defer the 

Cook Inlet Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts would be expected in the Cook Inlet Planning Area.

Alternative 8 – No 

Actiona

There would be no impacts from a 2012-2017 OCS oil and gas leasing program.

Reptiles Alternative 1 – Proposed 

Action

Gulf of Mexico: Routine operations would result in minor to moderate localized impacts primarily due to seismic 

exploration, facility construction, pipeline landfalls, channel dredging, and vessel traffic. Accidental oil spills could 

result in large impacts depending on the size, location, duration and timing of the spill, and on the effectiveness of 

spill containment and cleanup activities. Small spills would likely result in short-term impacts while large spills 

(including CDE-level spills which are not expected) could incur both short-term and long-term impacts depending on 

the species and habitat type affected, and on the size and duration of the spill.

Alaska: No impacts.

Alternative 2 – Defer the 

Eastern Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 2012-

2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts to reptile species and habitats in the Eastern GOM 

Planning Area from routine operations. Accidental spills in the Central GOM Planning Area could potentially impact 

species and their habitats in the Eastern GOM Planning Area.

Alaska: No impacts.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-32

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Reptiles (Cont.) Alternative 3 – Defer the 

Western Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts to reptile habitats in the Western GOM Planning Area 

from routine operations. Accidental spills in the Central GOM Planning Area could potentially impact species and 

their habitats in the Western Planning Area.

Alaska: No impacts.

Alternative 4 – Defer the 

Central Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts to reptile habitats in the Central GOM Planning Area from 

routine operations. Spills in the other GOM Planning Areas could potentially impact species and their habitats in the 

Central Planning Area.

Alaska: No impacts.

Alternative 5 – Defer the 

Beaufort Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1

Alaska: No impacts.

Alternative 6 – Defer the 

Chukchi Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1

Alaska: No impacts.

Alternative 7 – Defer the 

Cook Inlet Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts would be expected in the Cook Inlet Planning Area.

Alternative 8 – No 

Actiona

There would be no impacts from a 2012-2017 OCS oil and gas leasing program.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-33

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Invertebrates and Lower 

Trophic Levels

Alternative 1 – Proposed 

Action

Gulf of Mexico: Routine operations could result in negligible to moderate impacts to primarily benthic invertebrates, 

primarily from habitat disturbance associated with infrastructure placement, and from routine discharges. Recovery 

could be short-term to long-term. Large accidental oil spills, including CDE-level spills which are not expected,

could measurably depress invertebrate populations especially in intertidal areas, but no permanent impacts are 

expected.

Alaska: Routine operations could result in negligible to moderate impacts to primarily benthic invertebrates. 

Recovery could be short- to long-term. Large accidental oil spills, including CDE-level spills which are not 

expected, could measurably depress invertebrate populations, especially in intertidal areas. However, no permanent 

impacts are expected.

Alternative 2 – Defer the 

Eastern Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Eastern GOM Planning 

Area from routine operations. Invertebrates in the Eastern GOM Planning Area could be affected by a large oil spill 

in the Central GOM Planning Area.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 3 – Defer the 

Western Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Western GOM Planning 

Area from routine operations. Invertebrates in the Western GOM Planning Area could be affected by a large oil spill 

in the Central GOM Planning Area. 

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 4 – Defer the 

Central Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Central GOM Planning 

Area from routine operations. Invertebrates in the Central GOM Planning Area could be affected by a large oil spill 

in the Western or Eastern GOM Planning Areas. 

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 5 – Defer the 

Beaufort Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except that impacts would be expected in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area. A large 

oil spill in the eastern portion of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area could affect invertebrates in the Beaufort Sea 

Planning Area.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-34

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Invertebrates and Lower 

Trophic Levels (Cont.)

Alternative 6 – Defer the 

Chukchi Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1. 

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area. A large 

oil spill in the western portion of the Beaufort Sea Planning Area could affect invertebrates in the eastern portion of 

the Chukchi Sea Planning Area.

Alternative 7 – Defer the 

Cook Inlet Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1. 

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts would be expected in the Cook Inlet Planning Area.

Alternative 8 – No 

Actiona

There would be no impacts from a 2012-2017 OCS oil and gas leasing program.

Areas of Special 

Concern (AOC)

Alternative 1 – Proposed 

Action

Gulf of Mexico: Impacts resulting from routine activities are expected to be negligible to moderate because of the 

existing protections and use restrictions. Large accidental oil spills, including CDE-level spills which are not 

expected, reaching AOCs could negatively affect fauna and habitats, subsistence use, commercial or recreational 

fisheries, recreation and tourism, and other uses.

Alaska: Impacts resulting from routine activities are expected to be negligible to moderate because of the existing 

protections and use restrictions. Impacts from large accidental oil spills, including CDE-level spills which are not 

expected, reaching AOCs could negatively affect fauna and habitats, subsistence use, commercial or recreational 

fisheries, recreation and tourism, and other uses.

Alternative 2 – Defer the 

Eastern Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Eastern GOM Planning 

Area from routine operations. AOCs in the Eastern GOM Planning Area could be affected by a large accidental oil 

spill in the Central GOM Planning Area.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 3 – Defer the 

Western Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Western GOM Planning 

Area from routine operations. AOCs in the Western GOM Planning Area could be affected by a large accidental oil 

spill in the Central GOM Planning Area. 

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-35

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Areas of Special 

Concern (AOC) (Cont.)

Alternative 4 – Defer the 

Central Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico – Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Central GOM Planning 

Area from routine operations. AOCs in the Central GOM Planning Area could be affected by a large accidental oil 

spill in the Western or Eastern GOM Planning Areas. 

Alaska – Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 5 – Defer the 

Beaufort Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area. A 

large accidental oil spill in the eastern portion of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area could affect AOCs in the Beaufort 

Sea Planning Area.

Alternative 6 – Defer the 

Chukchi Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1. 

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except that no impacts would be expected in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area. A large 

accidental oil spill in the western portion of the Beaufort Sea Planning Area could affect AOCs in the eastern portions 

of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area.

Alternative 7 – Defer the 

Cook Inlet Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1. 

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts would be expected in the Cook Inlet Planning Area.

Alternative 8 – No 

Actiona

There would be no impacts from a 2012-2017 OCS oil and gas leasing program.

Population, 

Employment, and 

Income

Alternative 1 – Proposed 

Action

Gulf of Mexico: Direct expenditures associated with routine operations would result in negligible impacts from small 

increases in population, employment and income in each region over the duration of the leasing period, 

corresponding to less than 1% of the baseline. Given existing levels of leasing activity, impacts on property values 

would be negligible. In areas where tourism and recreation provide significant employment, accidental oil spills, 

including CDE-level spills which are not expected, could result in the short-term loss of employment, income and 

property values. Expenditures associated with spill cleanup activities would create short-term employment and 

income in some parts of the affected coastal region(s).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-36

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Population, 

Employment, and 

Income (Cont.)

Alaska: Direct expenditures associated with routine operations would result in minor impacts from small increases in 

population, employment and income in each region over the duration of the leasing period, corresponding to less than 

5% of the baseline. Given existing levels of leasing activity, impacts on property values would be negligible. In 

areas where tourism and recreation provide significant employment, accidental oil spills, including CDE-level spills 

which are not expected, could result in the short-term loss of employment, income and property values. Expenditures 

associated with spill cleanup activities would create short-term employment and income in some parts of the affected 

coastal region(s).

Alternative 2 – Defer the 

Eastern Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except likely slightly smaller increases in population, employment and 

income in the Eastern GOM Planning Area, as existing coastal infrastructure could be used to process oil and gas 

from the other GOM Planning Areas. A large accidental oil spill in the Central GOM Planning Area could affect 

employment, income, and property values.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 3 – Defer the 

Western Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except likely slightly smaller increases in population, employment and 

income in the Western GOM Planning Area, as existing coastal infrastructure could be used to process oil and gas 

from the other GOM Planning Areas. A large accidental oil spill in the Central GOM Planning Area could affect 

employment, income, and property values.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 4 – Defer the 

Central Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except likely slightly smaller increases in population, employment and 

income in the Central GOM Planning Area, as existing coastal infrastructure could be used to process oil and gas 

from the other GOM Planning Areas. A large accidental oil spill in the Western or Eastern GOM Planning Areas 

could affect employment, income, and property values.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 5 – Defer the 

Beaufort Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except likely slightly smaller increases in population, employment and income in the 

Beaufort Sea Planning Area, as coastal infrastructure in the corresponding coastal region would be used to process oil 

and gas from the Chukchi Sea Planning Area. A large accidental spill in the eastern Chukchi Sea Planning Area 

could affect employment, income, and property values in some portions of the western Beaufort Sea Planning Area.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-37

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Population, 

Employment, and 

Income (Cont.)

Alternative 6 – Defer the 

Chukchi Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska – Same as Alternative 1, except no increases in population, employment and income in Chukchi Sea Planning 

Area. A large oil accidental spill in the western portion of the Beaufort Sea Planning Area could affect employment, 

income, and property values in some portions of the eastern Chukchi Sea Planning Area.

Alternative 7 – Defer the 

Cook Inlet Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1. 

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no population, employment, and income impacts would be expected in the 

Cook Inlet Planning Area.

Alternative 8 – No 

Actiona

There would be no impacts from a 2012-2017 OCS oil and gas leasing program.

Land Use and 

Infrastructure

Alternative 1 – Proposed 

Action

Gulf of Mexico: Negligible to minor impacts on land use, development patterns, and infrastructure from routine 

operations. Existing infrastructure generally would be sufficient to handle exploration and development associated 

with potential new leases. Projected impacts from an accidental oil spill, including a CDE-level spill which is not 

expected, would likely include stresses of the spill response on existing infrastructure, and restrictions of access to a 

particular area while the cleanup is being conducted. Impacts would be expected to be temporary and localized.

Alaska: Minimal to moderate impacts to land use, development patterns, and infrastructure. The construction and 

operation of offshore facilities would expand the area potentially at risk from accidental oil spills, along with the 

requirement to maintain oil-spill response equipment. An accidental oil spill, including a CDE-level spill which is 

not expected, could alter land use temporarily but would not likely result in long-term changes. The magnitude of the 

impacts would depend on the size and location of the spill.

Alternative 2 – Defer the 

Eastern Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1 except no impacts to land use, development patterns, and infrastructure in the 

Eastern GOM Planning Area. A large accidental oil spill in the Central GOM Planning Area could affect land use in 

the Eastern GOM Planning Area; the level and duration of effects will depend on the size, location, duration, and 

timing of the spill, and on type and effectiveness of spill containment and cleanup activities.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-38

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Land Use and 

Infrastructure (Cont.)

Alternative 3 – Defer the 

Western Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1 except no impacts to land use, development patterns, and infrastructure in the 

Western GOM Planning Area. A large accidental oil spill in the Central GOM Planning Area could affect land use in 

the Western GOM Planning Area; the level and duration of effects will depend on the size, location, duration, and 

timing of the spill, and on type and effectiveness of spill containment and cleanup activities.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 4 – Defer the 

Central Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1 except no impacts to land use, development patterns, and infrastructure in the 

Central GOM Planning Area. A large accidental oil spill in the Western or Eastern GOM Planning Areas could affect 

land use in the Central GOM Planning Area; the level and duration of effects will depend on the size, location, 

duration, and timing of the spill, and on type and effectiveness of spill containment and cleanup activities.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 5 – Defer the 

Beaufort Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area. An accidental oil spill in the 

Chukchi Sea Planning Area could affect land use in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area.

Alternative 6 – Defer the 

Chukchi Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1 except no impacts in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area. An accidental oil spill in the 

eastern Beaufort Sea Planning Area could affect land use in the western portion of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area.

Alternative 7 – Defer the 

Cook Inlet Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no land use and infrastructure impacts would be expected in the Cook Inlet 

Planning Area.

Alternative 8 – No 

Actiona

There would be no impacts from a 2012-2017 OCS oil and gas leasing program.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-39

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Commercial, 

Recreational, and 

Subsistence Fisheries

Alternative 1 – Proposed 

Action

Gulf of Mexico: Routine operations would have a minor impact on subsistence fishing, the cost of commercial 

fishing, or on the number of recreation fishing trips, in each region over the duration of the leasing period. Large 

accidental oil spills (including CDE-level spills which are not expected) may have small to medium, short-term 

impacts on fisheries resources (lethal and sublethal toxic effects on exposed eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults) and 

small to medium impacts on commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishery activities (e.g., trawling, charter 

fishing). The magnitude and duration of effects will depend on the location, size, duration, and timing of the spill; 

the fisheries affected, and the duration and effectiveness of spill containment and cleanup activities.

Alaska: Similar to the effects for the Gulf of Mexico.

Alternative 2 – Defer the 

Eastern Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1 except no impacts in the Eastern GOM Planning Area. An accidental oil spill 

in the Central GOM Planning Area could reduce or stop commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishery activities 

in the Eastern GOM Planning Area if the spill enters coastal and marine waters associated with that planning area.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 3 – Defer the 

Western Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1 except no impacts in the Western GOM Planning Area. An accidental oil 

spill in the Central GOM Planning Area could reduce or stop commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishery 

activities in the Western GOM Planning Area if the spill enters coastal and marine waters associated with that 

planning area.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 4 – Defer the 

Central Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1 except no impacts in the Central GOM Planning Area. An accidental oil spill 

in the Western or Central GOM Planning Areas could reduce or stop commercial, recreational, and subsistence 

fishery activities in the Central GOM Planning Area if the spill enters coastal and marine waters associated with that 

planning area.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 5 – Defer the 

Beaufort Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1 except no impacts in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area. An accidental oil spill in the 

Chukchi Sea Planning Area could affect fisheries resources in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-40

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Commercial, 

Recreational, and 

Subsistence Fisheries 

(Cont.)

Alternative 6 – Defer the 

Chukchi Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1 except no impacts in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area. An accidental oil spill in the 

western portion of the Beaufort Sea Planning Area could affect fisheries resources in the eastern Chukchi Sea 

Planning Area.

Alternative 7 – Defer the 

Cook Inlet Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts to fisheries would be expected in the Cook Inlet area.

Alternative 8 – No 

Actiona

There would be no impacts from a 2012-2017 OCS oil and gas leasing program.

Tourism and Recreation Alternative 1 – Proposed 

Action

Gulf of Mexico: Routine operations would produce minor impacts to beach recreation, sightseeing, boating, and 

fishing, while offshore structures would create positive impacts to diving and recreational fishing. The impact of an 

accidental oil spill (including a CDE-level spill which is not expected) on tourism and recreation will depend on the 

size, location, duration, and timing of the spill, as well as on the effectiveness and timeliness of spill containment and 

cleanup activities.

Alaska: Similar to the impacts identified for the Gulf of Mexico.

Alternative 2 – Defer the 

Eastern Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1 except no impacts on tourism and recreation in the Eastern GOM Planning 

Area. An accidental oil spill in the Central GOM Planning Area could affect tourism and recreation in the Eastern 

GOM Planning Area and associated coastal areas.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 3 – Defer the 

Western Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1 except no impacts on tourism and recreation in the Western GOM Planning 

Area. An accidental oil spill in the Central GOM Planning Area could affect tourism and recreation in the Western 

GOM Planning Area and associated coastal areas.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-41

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Tourism and Recreation 

(Cont.)

Alternative 4 – Defer the 

Central Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1 except no impacts on tourism and recreation in the Central GOM Planning 

Area. An accidental oil spill in the Western or Eastern GOM Planning Areas could affect tourism and recreation in 

the Central GOM Planning Area and associated coastal areas.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 5 – Defer the 

Beaufort Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts on tourism or recreation in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area. An 

accidental oil spill in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area could affect tourism and recreation in the Beaufort Sea Planning 

Area.

Alternative 6 – Defer the 

Chukchi Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts on tourism or recreation in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area. An 

accidental oil spill in the western Beaufort Sea Planning Area could affect tourism and recreation in the Chukchi Sea 

Planning Area.

Alternative 7 – Defer the 

Cook Inlet Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts on tourism or recreation would be expected in the Cook Inlet.

Alternative 8 – No 

Actiona

There would be no impacts from a 2012-2017 OCS oil and gas leasing program.

Sociocultural Systems Alternative 1 – Proposed 

Action

Gulf of Mexico: Because of the well developed and long established oil and gas industry in the Gulf of Mexico, 

routine operations may be expected to have minor impacts on sociocultural systems of the region. Expansion of deep 

water development could lead to longer offshore work shifts, which could increase stress to workers, families and 

communities. Impacts from accidental oil spills would be small, except in the case of very large spills. Very large 

spills, including CDE-level spills which are not expected, may temporarily halt and impact economies associated 

with the oil and gas industry, but also in other sectors of the economy. Depending on the duration of such halts and 

the magnitude of economic impacts, this could result in social and cultural stress, leading to possible social 

pathologies.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-42

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Sociocultural Systems

(Cont.)

Alaska: Cook Inlet as an established oil and gas industry, and routine operations associated with the proposed action 

are expected to have no more than minor impacts on social and cultural systems. Potential impacts of routine 

operations can range from minor to major on sociocultural systems in the Arctic Planning Areas, depending on shore 

base infrastructure and proximity to existing communities. Accidental oil spills (including CDE-level spills which 

are not expected) may however, result in more serious impacts, especially in the Arctic where impacts to subsistence 

could result in large impacts to affected communities.

Alternative 2 – Defer the 

Eastern Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1 except no impacts in the Eastern GOM Planning Area. An accidental spill in 

the Central GOM Planning Area could affect individuals, families, and communities in the Eastern GOM Planning 

Area.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 3 – Defer the 

Western Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1 except no impacts in the Western GOM Planning Area. An accidental spill in 

the Central GOM Planning Area could affect individuals, families, and communities in the Western GOM Planning 

Area.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 4 – Defer the 

Central Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1 except no impacts in the Central GOM Planning Area. An accidental spill in 

the Western or Eastern GOM Planning Area could affect individuals, families, and communities in the Cemtral GOM 

Planning Area.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 5 – Defer the 

Beaufort Sea Planning

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1 except no impacts in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area. A large accidental oil spill in 

the Chukchi Sea Planning Area that enters the Beaufort Sea Planning Area could result in major impacts to 

individuals, families, and communities that rely on marine resources in those portions of the Beaufort Sea affected by 

the spill.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-43

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Sociocultural Systems 

(Cont.)

Alternative 6 – Defer the 

Chukchi Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1 except no impacts in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area. A large accidental oil spill in 

the Beaufort Sea Planning Area that enters the Chukchi Sea Planning Area could result in major impacts to 

individuals, families, and communities that rely on marine resources in those portions of the Chukchi Sea affected by 

the spill.

Alternative 7 – Defer the 

Cook Inlet Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts would be expected in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. 

Alternative – No Actiona There would be no impacts from a 2012-2017 OCS oil and gas leasing program.

Environmental Justice Alternative 1 – Proposed 

Action

Gulf of Mexico: Because of the long-established and well developed oil and gas industry present in the Gulf of 

Mexico and the non-coastal location of the majority of low income and minority population groups, routine 

operations are not expected to add additional environmental justice concerns and impacts would be negligible. 

Impacts of accidental oil spills, including CDE-level spills which are not expected, would be minor, primarily 

affecting subsistence activities.

Alaska: Routine operations could result in negligible to minor impacts depending on the proximity of onshore 

pipelines or offshore infrastructure to existing communities and/or subsistence harvest areas. Impacts of accidental 

spills could be large (including CDE-level spills which are not expected), primarily to subsistence resources and 

users, given the coastal location of the majority of low income and minority population groups and the very heavy 

reliance of individuals, families, and communities on subsistence resources (especially in Arctic areas).

Alternative 2 – Defer the 

Eastern Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1. An accidental oil spill in the Central GOM Planning Area could result in 

environmental justice concerns, associated primarily with a potential reduction of subsistence activities in portions of 

the Eastern GOM Planning Area affected by the spill.

Alaska – Same as Alternative 1.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-44

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Environmental Justice 

(Cont.)

Alternative 3 – Defer the 

Western Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1. An accidental oil spill in the Central GOM Planning Area could result in 

environmental justice concerns, associated primarily with a potential reduction of subsistence activities in portions of 

the Western GOM Planning Area affected by the spill.

Alaska – Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 4 – Defer the 

Central Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1. An accidental oil spill in the Western or Eastern GOM Planning Areas could 

result in environmental justice concerns, associated primarily with a potential reduction of subsistence activities in 

portions of the Central GOM Planning Area affected by a spill originating in the Central GOM Planning Area.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 5 – Defer the 

Beaufort Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1. An accidental oil spill in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area could result in 

environmental justice concerns, associated primarily with a potential reduction of subsistence activities in portions of 

the Beaufort Sea Planning Area affected by the spill.

Alternative 6 – Defer the 

Chukchi Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Alaska: Same as Alternative 1. An accidental oil spill in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area could result in 

environmental justice concerns, associated primarily with a potential reduction of subsistence activities in portions of 

the Chukchi Sea Planning Area affected by the spill.

Alternative 7 – Defer the 

Cook Inlet Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts would be expected in the Cook Inlet Planning Area.

Alternative 8 – No 

Actiona

There would be no impacts from a 2012-2017 OCS oil and gas leasing program.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-45

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Archeological and

Historic Resources

Alternative 1 – Proposed 

Action

Gulf of Mexico: Routine operations could affect significant archaeological and historic resources (especially 

offshore resources), with construction activities such as platform and pipeline construction, and dredging, potentially 

damaging or destroying affected resources. Onshore impacts (resource damage or loss; visual impacts) are possible 

from pipeline landfall, onshore pipeline, and road construction. Anchor drags could affect seafloor resources such as 

shipwrecks. Impacts could range from negligible to major depending on the presence of significant archaeological or 

historic resources in the area of potential effect. Most resources are expected to be avoided. Accidental oil spills 

(including CDE-level spills which are not expected) could impact archaeological and historic resources, depending 

on the spill location, size, and duration, as well on the effectiveness and nature of spill containment and cleanup 

activities. 

Alaska: Routine operations could affect significant archaeological and historic resources (especially in offshore 

locations) through construction activities such as platform and pipeline construction. Onshore impacts (including 

visual impacts) are also possible from pipeline landfall, onshore pipeline, and road construction. Anchor drags could 

affect seafloor resources. Impacts could range from negligible to major, depending on the presence of significant 

archaeological or historic resources in the area of potential effect. Most resources are expected to be avoided. 

Accidental oil spills, including CDE-level spills which are not expected, could impact archaeological and historic 

resources, depending on the spill location, size, and duration, as well on the effectiveness and nature of spill 

containment and cleanup activities.

Alternative 2 – Defer the 

Eastern Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts to archaeological and historic resources in the Eastern 

Planning Area from routine operations. Accidental oil spills in the Central GOM Planning Area could potentially 

impact archaeological and historic resources in the Eastern GOM Planning Area.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 3 – Defer the 

Western Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts to archaeological and historic resources in the Western 

GOM Planning Area from routine operations. Accidental oil spills in the Central GOM Planning Area could 

potentially impact archaeological and historic resources in the Western GOM Planning Area.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 4 – Defer the 

Central Planning Area for 

the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts to archaeological and historic resources in the Central 

GOM Planning Area from routine operations. Accidental oil spills in the Eastern or Western GOM Planning Areas 

could potentially impact archaeological and historic resources in the Central GOM Planning Area.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAlternatives Including the Proposed Action

2-46

TABLE 2.10-2 (Cont.)

Resource Alternative Potential Impacts

Archeological and 

Historic Resources 

(Cont.)

Alternative 5 – Defer the 

Beaufort Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts to archaeological and historic resources in the Beaufort Sea 

Planning Area from routine operations. Accidental oil spills in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area could potentially

impact archaeological and historic resources in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area.

Alternative 6 – Defer the 

Chukchi Sea Planning 

Area for the Duration of 

the 2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts to archaeological and historic resources in the Chukchi Sea 

Planning Area from routine operations. Accidental oil spills in the western portion of the Beaufort Sea Planning Area 

could potentially impact archaeological and historic resources in the eastern portion of the Chukchi Sea Planning 

Area.

Alternative 7 – Defer the 

Cook Inlet Planning Area 

for the Duration of the 

2012-2017 Program

Gulf of Mexico: Same as Alternative 1.

Alaska: Same as Alternative 1, except no impacts would be expected in the Cook Inlet Planning Area.

Alternative 8 – No 

Actiona

There would be no impacts from a 2012-2017 OCS oil and gas leasing program.

a Exploration, development, and production would continue under past sales, and could affect resources in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. See the 2007- 2012 OCS oil and 

gas leasing program PEIS (MMS 2007) for a discussion of potential impacts associated with that OCS leasing program.

1
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-1

1 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

2

3

4 3.1 INTRODUCTION

5

6 The draft programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) evaluates eight 

7 alternatives: the proposed action, six alternative actions, and a No Action Alternative. The 

8 proposed action would establish a 2012-2017 Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas 

9 Leasing Program (the Program) that includes three planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) 

10 (the Western and Central GOM Planning Areas, as well as a small portion of the Eastern GOM 

11 Planning Area), two planning areas in the Arctic (the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas), 

12 and Cook Inlet in south central Alaska. Each of the alternatives is identical to the proposed 

13 action, except that one of the six planning areas included in the proposed action is deferred from 

14 consideration for the duration of the Program; a different planning area is deferred in each 

15 alternative. Chapter 3 describes the nature and condition of natural, physical, and socioeconomic 

16 resources in these planning areas that may be affected by the Program in these planning areas.

17

18 Information regarding each resource presented in Chapter 3 and evaluated for potential 

19 impacts in Chapter 4 is presented as follows. Each resource is presented separately. For each 

20 resource, the nature and condition of the resource is provided in three groupings, based on the 

21 geographic settings of the planning areas included in the proposed action — the GOM, Cook 

22 Inlet, and Arctic Alaska. As applicable, the effects of the Deepwater Horizon spill on the 

23 baseline conditions of a resource are discussed, and a description is provided of potential 

24 changes in baseline conditions from climate change over the 40- to 50-yr expected period of oil 

25 and gas activities anticipated for the Program. Some information is currently unavailable, 

26 particularly with regard to affected environmental baseline changes; however, this information is 

27 not crucial in order to make a reasoned choice among alternatives at this programmatic stage 

28 (see Section 1.3.1.1, Incomplete and Unavailable Information).

29

30

31 3.2 MARINE AND COASTAL ECOREGIONS

32

33 With the exception of the Cook Inlet Planning Area, the planning areas being considered 

34 for leasing under the Program cannot be readily delineated from adjacent planning areas on the 

35 basis of clear, distinct geographical or physical boundaries. Except for topographical features 

36 associated with coastlines, the boundaries of the OCS planning areas are artificial administrative 

37 boundaries on the open oceans (Figure 3.2-1) drawn with no intended relationship to underlying 

38 ecologic, oceanographic, or other processes affecting environmental conditions on the OCS and 

39 in adjacent coastal areas. Many natural resources, as well as physical features such as currents,

40 freely cross the boundaries of adjacent planning areas, the boundaries between the OCS and 

41 adjacent marine waters seaward of the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), and the 

42 boundaries between coastal waters shoreward of the administrative boundary that separates State 

43 and Federal jurisdiction. As a consequence, it would be too restrictive to describe many of the

44 natural and physical resources, or to discuss the potential effects of oil and gas development on 

45 those resources, solely on a one-by-one planning area basis. Instead, the PEIS uses marine and 

46 coastal ecoregions as a spatial framework to incorporate the areas potentially affected directly by 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-2

12 FIGURE 3.2

-1 OCS Planning Areas
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-3

1 OCS activities within planning area boundaries as well as areas beyond the planning areas that 

2 could be affected by OCS impacts through the action of ecological and physical processes tht 

3 operate at an ecoregional scale.

4

5 An ecoregion is an ecologically and geographically defined area that contains 

6 characteristic geographically distinct assemblages of natural communities and species which 

7 tend to be distinct from those in other ecoregions (McMahon et al. 2001; Omernik 2004; 

8 Bailey 2005). In terrestrial systems, individual ecoregions are associated with characteristic 

9 combinations of land forms and geologic, hydrologic, and climatic conditions (Omernik 1987,

10 2004). Many Federal agencies and private organizations manage terrestrial resources using land 

11 classifications based on the ecoregion concept (e.g., see http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/ecoregions). 

12

13 The PEIS uses marine and coastal ecoregions to define areas being considered in this and 

14 subsequent chapters. Marine ecoregions are defined according to the boundaries of Large 

15 Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

16 (NOAA) (LMEW 2009). In particular, this PEIS uses the boundaries of the GOM, Chukchi Sea, 

17 Beaufort Sea, and Gulf of Alaska LMEs to define the marine areas that include the OCS 

18 Planning Areas considered in Chapters 3 and 4. NOAA developed the LME concept and 

19 established the LME program in 1984 as a tool for enabling an ecosystem-based approach to 

20 transboundary ecosystem-based science and management. The PEIS uses the LME boundaries 

21 to define the areas of analytic interest in the document based on ecologically important 

22 distinctions rather than political or administrative boundaries. The PEIS also uses the marine 

23 and coastal ecoregions developed by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) for 

24 North America (Wilkenson et al. 2009) to subdivide the areas defined by the LME boundaries 

25 into more localized regional distinctions, where appropriate. The coastal ecoregions are also 

26 used to characterize coastal and nearshore areas. 

27

28 For many environmental resources addressed in this PEIS, the descriptions of the affected 

29 environment, as well as the evaluations of possible environmental consequences associated with 

30 oil and gas activities, use locations within ecoregions rather than individual OCS planning areas 

31 as a spatial reference. The PEIS adopts this approach to facilitate a broader scale ecosystem 

32 perspective on the analysis of potential environmental effects of oil and gas activities on the OCS

33 following lease sales under the Proposed Action Alternative. A narrowed planning area 

34 perspective is more appropriate for an EIS prepared at the lease sale or project development 

35 stages of oil and gas activities on the OCS. Adoption of a broader ecoregional perspective is 

36 intended to facilitate the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) process of tiering 

37 by which programmatic analyses are intended to inform and provide context for the more 

38 geographically focused and detailed environmental analyses and reviews that will occur later 

39 under the Program.

40

41 The coastal and marine ecoregions identified in this section make up areas of interest for 

42 this PEIS. The evaluations and analyses in this and subsequent chapters will consider the 

43 potential effects of oil and gas activities on the OCS within these broad areas. The geographic 

44 scope of these analyses will vary depending on the issues being considered. Examples of 

45 specific areas of interest that could be applied to different analyses include:

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-4

1 1. Individual OCS Planning Areas and nearby coastal and marine areas where 

2 program-related activities could occur and directly affect local natural 

3 resource.

4

5 Example Issue: The effects of OCS-related bottom-disturbing activities 

6 (such as pipeline trenching) on benthic habitats.

7

8 2. Areas outside of OCS Planning Areas where environmental impacts may 

9 extend beyond program area boundaries through the action of ecoregion-scale 

10 physical and ecological processes.

11

12 Example Issue: Population effects on marine fauna from a very large oil 

13 spill as it is transported from a release location by ocean currents and 

14 winds.

15

16 3. Areas outside the OCS Planning Areas that contribute to and affect marine 

17 and coastal environmental baseline conditions and would need to be 

18 considered in the analysis of cumulative effects.

19

20 Example Issue: The influence of the Mississippi River drainage basin and

21 discharge on water quality and coastal and marine habitats in the GOM.

22

23

24 3.2.1 Large Marine Ecosystems

25

26 Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) are relatively large regions of coastal oceans of 

approximately 200,000 km2 (77,220 mi2 27 ) that include waters from river basins and estuaries to 

28 the seaward boundaries of continental shelves and/or seaward margins of coastal currents and 

29 water masses. They are characterized on the basis of ecological (as opposed to political) criteria, 

30 including bathymetry, hydrography, productivity, and trophic relationships. Sixty-four distinct 

31 LMEs have been delineated around the coastal margins of the Atlantic, Pacific, Arctic, and 

32 Indian Oceans (Sherman et al. 2007; LMEW 2009). 

33

34 The OCS Planning Areas being considered for leasing under the Program addressed in 

35 this PEIS occur within four LMEs. The Cook Inlet Planning Area occurs in the Gulf of Alaska 

36 LME #2 (Figure 3.2.1-1); the Beaufort Sea Planning Area occurs within the Beaufort Sea LME 

37 #55; and the Chukchi Sea Planning Area occurs within the Chukchi Sea LME #54 

38 (Figure 3.2.1-2). The Western, Central, and Eastern GOM Planning Areas occur within the 

39 GOM LME #5 (Figure 3.2.1-3). For the purposes of this draft PEIS, the LMEs are used solely to 

40 provide a spatial context for the planning areas considered for leasing in the Program. The 

41 following sections provide brief summary descriptions of these LMEs.

42

43

44 3.2.1.1 Gulf of Alaska Large Marine Ecosystem

45

46 The Gulf of Alaska LME lies along the southern coast of Alaska and the western coast of 

Canada (Figure 3.2.1-1), and has an area of approximately 1.5 million km2 (569,450 mi2 47 ), of 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-5

12 FIGURE 3.2.1

-1 Large Marine Ecosystems for Southern Alaska (modified from Wilkenson et al. 2009)

34
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-6

12 FIGURE 3.2.1

-2 Large Marine Ecosystems for Arctic Alaska (modified from Wilkenson et al. 2009) 

34
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-7

12 FIGURE 3.2.1

-3 Large Marine Ecosystems for the GOM (modified from Wilkenson et al. 2009)

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-8

which about 1.5% (22,500 km2 [8,540 mi2 1 ]) is protected (Aquarone and Adams 2009). The 

2 Cook Inlet Planning Area occupies about 1.5% of the Gulf of Alaska LME. This LME is 

3 separated to the west from the East Bering Sea LME by the Alaska Peninsula and to the south 

4 borders the California Current LME. There are 14 estuaries and river systems, including the 

5 Stikine and Copper Rivers, Cook Inlet, and Prince William Sound in the Gulf of Alaska LME.

6

7

8 3.2.1.2 Beaufort Sea Large Marine Ecosystem

9

10 The Beaufort Sea LME occurs along the arctic coast of Alaska and northwestern Canada 

(Figure 3.2.1-2) and covers about 770,000 km2 (297,300 mi2 11 ), of which about 0.02% (154 km2

[59 mi2 12 ]) is protected (Belkin et al. 2009). The Beaufort Sea Planning Area occupies about 34% 

13 of the Beaufort Sea LME, and future oil and gas leasing activities are anticipated to be restricted 

14 to the coastal shelf areas of this LME. The Beaufort Sea LME is characterized by an arctic 

15 climate with major annual and seasonal changes, and historically is ice-covered much of the 

16 year.

17

18

19 3.2.1.3 Chukchi Sea Large Marine Ecosystem

20

21 The Chukchi Sea LME is located off of Russia‘s East Siberian coast and the northwestern 

22 coast of Alaska (Figure 3.2.1-2). This LME is a relatively shallow marginal sea with a surface 

area of about 776,643 km2 (299,820 mi2), of which about 5.4% (42,000 km2 [16,190 mi2 23 ]) is 

24 protected (Heileman and Belkin 2009). The Chukchi Planning Area occupies about 33% of this 

25 LME. This LME is characterized by an arctic climate with major seasonal and annual changes, 

26 in particular, the annual formation and deformation of sea ice.

27

28

29 3.2.1.4 Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem

30

31 The GOM LME is a deep marginal sea bordered by Cuba, Mexico, and the United States 

32 (Figure 3.2.1-3). The GOM is the largest semi-enclosed coastal sea in the western Atlantic, 

encompassing about 1,500,000 km2 (579,150 mi2 33 ) (Heileman and Rabalais 2009). The Central 

34 GOM Planning Area comprises about 18%, the Western GOM Planning Area about 8%, and the 

35 Eastern GOM Planning Area about 17% of the total area of this LME. About 1.6% (24,000 km2

[9,090 mi2 36 ]) of the GOM LME is protected, and it contains about 0.5% of the world‘s coral 

37 reefs. The continental shelf comprises about 30% of this LME, and the coastal areas contain

38 more than 750 estuaries, bays, and sub-estuaries that are associated with 47 major estuaries 

39 (USEPA 2008; Heileman and Rabalais 2009). This LME is strongly influenced by freshwater 

40 input from rivers (especially the Mississippi River), which accounts for about two-thirds of the 

41 flows into the GOM (Figure 3.2.1-4), and tropical storms (i.e., hurricanes) (Figure 3.2.1-5) are a 

42 major climatological feature of the area (Heileman and Rabalais 2009). Important hydrocarbon 

43 seeps occur in the southernmost and northern portions of the LME.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-9

12 FIGURE 3.2.1

-4 Estuarine and Fluvial Drainage Areas of the Northern GOM
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-10

12 FIGURE 3.2.1

-5 Tropical Storm Paths in the Northern GOM 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-11

1 3.2.2 Marine and Coastal Ecoregions of North America

2

3 As shown in Figures 3.2.1-1, 3.2.1-2, and 3.2.1-3, the four LMEs that encompass the 

4 OCS Planning Areas addressed in this draft PEIS are very large, and reflect marine ecosystem 

5 differences at their largest scale. Thus, their use in assessing the potential effects of oil and gas 

6 development activities to marine resources within individual LMEs would be similarly restricted 

7 to very large scale evaluations. The LMEs may be further examined on finer scales that 

8 distinguish ecosystems on the basis of larger physiographic features (e.g., continental slope, 

9 shelf, and abyssal plain) as well as on more locally significant conditions (such as local water 

10 characteristics, regional landforms, and biological communities). One such sub-LME 

11 classification has been developed by the CEC, a tri-national partnership comprised of 

12 government agencies, organizations, and researchers from the United States, Canada, and 

13 Mexico (see http://www.cec.org). The CEC has classified North American oceanic and coastal 

14 waters into 24 marine ecoregions according to oceanographic features and geographically 

15 distinct assemblages of species (Wilkinson et al. 2009). The Level II and Level III marine 

16 ecoregions developed by the CEC for North America are used in this draft PEIS to help identify 

17 and describe the marine ecosystems and resources that occur in the OCS Planning Areas that 

18 may be affected by OCS oil and gas activities under the Program.

19

20 Level II ecoregions capture the division between neritic (coastal areas out to a depth of 

21 about 200 m [600 ft]) and oceanic areas, and are determined by large-scale physiography 

22 (continental shelf, slope, and abyssal plain and also areas of islands and major trenches, ridges, 

23 and straits). The Level II classifications reflect the importance of depth as a determinant of 

24 benthic marine communities as well as the importance of major physiographic features in 

25 determining current flows and areas of upwelling. The Level III ecoregions reflect differences 

26 within the neritic areas, and are based on more locally significant variables such as local 

27 characteristics of the water mass, regional landforms, and biological community type. The 

28 Level III ecoregions are limited to the continental shelf, as only these areas have sufficient 

29 information to support finer-scale ecoregion delineations (Wilkinson et al. 2009). The CEC 

30 Level II and III marine ecoregions relevant to this draft PEIS are shown in Figure 3.2.2-1 for the 

31 GOM Planning Areas, Figure 3.2.2-2 for the Cook Inlet Planning Area, and Figure 3.2.2-3 for 

32 the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas Planning Areas, and are discussed below. 

33

34 Other efforts have been directed toward developing ecoregions for coastal areas within 

35 LMEs (e.g., Yanez-Arancibia and Day 2004). The coastal ecoregions of Yanez-Arancibia and 

36 Day (2004) and the CEC marine ecoregions are used together in this PEIS to present an 

37 integrated ecosystem-based view of the areas that could be affected by oil and gas activities on 

38 the OCS.

39

40 The following sections identify the CEC ecoregions associated with each of the OCS 

41 Planning Areas addressed in this draft PEIS. Descriptions of the physical environment and 

42 ecological resources in these ecoregions are discussed in the subsequent resource-specific 

43 descriptions of the affected environment later in this chapter.

44

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-12

12 FIGURE 3.2.2

-1 CEC Level II and III Marine Ecoregions of the Northern GOM

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-13

12 FIGURE 3.2.2

-2 CEC Level II and III Marine Ecoregions of South Central Alaska

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-14

12 FIGURE 3.2.2

-3 CEC Level II and III Marine Ecoregions of Northern Alaska
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-15

1 3.2.3 Ecoregions of the Northern Gulf of Mexico

2

3 As previously discussed, the GOM Planning Areas addressed in this draft PEIS occur 

4 within the GOM LME (see Section 3.2.2), which can be subdivided into finer-scale marine 

5 ecoregions as described by the CEC and others (Wilkenson et al. 2009). On a geomorphological 

6 basis, the GOM Planning Areas include the Northern GOM Shelf and Slope, the Mississippi Fan, 

7 and the GOM Basin Ecoregions (Figure 3.2.2-1) (Wilkinson et al. 2009). The following sections 

8 present brief overviews of these ecoregions, with more detailed discussions of physical and 

9 biological conditions and resources discussed in later sections.

10

11

12 3.2.3.1 Northern Gulf of Mexico Shelf Ecoregion

13

14 As indicated by its name, this ecoregion encompasses the continental shelf of the 

15 northern GOM and includes about half of the Western, Central, and Eastern GOM Planning 

16 Areas (Figure 3.2.2-1). This ecoregion varies in width across the three planning areas, extending 

17 as much as 250 km (155 mi) from the coastline in some areas, being narrowest in the vicinity of 

18 the Mississippi River Delta eastward to the Florida Panhandle. Water depth extends down to 

19 about 200 m (660 ft). Coastal areas of this ecoregion may be further delineated into three 

20 estuarine areas, the Texas, Mississippi, and Western Florida Estuarine Areas, and three neritic 

21 areas, the Western GOM, Eastern GOM, and Southwest Florida Neritic Areas (Figure 3.2.2-1). 

22 These estuarine areas contain as much as 60% of the tidal marshes of the United States and 

23 receive inputs from 37 major rivers. Freshwater input (with associated sediment loads) from 

24 three major estuarine drainage areas (Figure 3.2.1-4) strongly influences the nature and 

25 distribution of habitats and associated biota along the GOM coast.

26

27 The physiological and ecological conditions of the shelf in the central portion of the 

28 northern GOM are strongly influenced by the Mississippi River and its tributary, the Atchafalaya 

29 River (Wilkenson et al. 2009). Drainage from more than 55% of the conterminous United States 

30 enters the GOM from the Mississippi River, affecting water quality and substrates of this and 

31 other ecoregions (see Section 3.4.1). Increased nutrient and sediment loads from the Mississippi 

32 River result in the annual appearance of a large ―dead zone‖ — an area of extremely low oxygen 

33 concentration.

34

35 Habitats include coastal lagoons and estuaries, tidal freshwater grasses, salt marsh, tidal 

36 freshwater marsh flats, intertidal scrub forest, beaches, and barrier islands. The nature and extent 

37 of these habitats and the biota they support vary, depending upon location (e.g., western Texas 

38 coastline vs. the Chenier Plain, Louisiana, vs. the west coast of central Florida).

39

40

41 3.2.3.2 Northern Gulf of Mexico Slope Ecoregion

42

43 This ecoregion extends from the edge of the Northern GOM Shelf Ecoregion to the start 

44 of the GOM Basin, with depths ranging from 200 to 3,000 m (660 to 9,800 ft) (Figure 3.2.2-1). 

45 This ecoregion extends through all three planning areas, comprising more than half of the 

46 Western and Central GOM Planning Areas and about a quarter of the Eastern GOM Planning 

47 Area.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-16

1 3.2.3.3 Mississippi Fan Ecoregion

2

3 The Mississippi Fan Ecoregion extends from the Mississippi River Delta to the central 

4 abyssal plain (Figure 3.2.2-1), and is strongly influenced by the outflow of the Mississippi River. 

5 The upper part of the fan (to a water depth of about 2,500 m [8,200 ft]) has a complex and 

rugged topography attributed to salt diapirism,1 6 slumping, and current scour; the lower part of 

7 the fan by contrast is smooth, with a gently sloping surface that merges with the abyssal plain to 

8 the southeast and southwest.

9

10

11 3.2.3.4 Gulf of Mexico Basin Ecoregion

12

13 The GOM Basin Ecoregion contains the deepest waters and habitats within the GOM 

14 LME. Water depths range from 3,000 to more than 4,300 m (9,800 to more than 14,100 ft). 

15 Only a very small portion of the Western GOM Planning Area overlies this ecoregion 

16 (Figure 3.2.2-1). In contrast, about a quarter of the Central GOM Planning Area (primarily in 

17 its southeastern portion) and about a third of the Eastern GOM Planning Area (primarily its 

18 southwestern portion) overlay the GOM Basin Ecoregion. 

19

20

21 3.2.4 Ecoregions of the Gulf of Alaska

22

23 As discussed earlier, the Cook Inlet Planning Area is located within the Gulf of Alaska 

24 LME (Figure 3.2.1-1). Cook Inlet itself is associated with the Alaskan/Fjordland Pacific Level II 

25 Ecoregion, which extends from the westernmost end of the Aleutian Islands southward to the 

26 northern end of Vancouver Island (Wilkinson et al. 2009). The Cook Inlet Planning Area 

27 includes two Level III ecoregions: the Cook Inlet Ecoregion in the upper portion of the planning 

28 area and the Gulf of Alaska Level III ecoregion in the lower portion of the planning area 

29 (Figure 3.2.2-2). These ecoregions are strongly influenced by the Alaska Current and the Alaska 

30 Coastal Current.

31

32

33 3.2.4.1 Alaskan/Fjordland Shelf Level II Ecoregion

34

35 The Alaskan/Fjordland Shelf Level II Ecoregion includes fjords, islands, and straits along 

36 the Pacific coast from the north end of Vancouver Island to the end of the Alaska Peninsula. The 

37 shelf is generally narrow, ranging from about 20 km (12 mi) at its southern end to about 160 km 

38 (96 mi) along portions of the Alaska Peninsula, and is very narrow in some areas (such as around 

39 the Queen Charlotte Islands). The shelf is widest in the vicinity of the Cook Inlet Planning Area. 

40 This ecoregion has one of the most productive marine ecosystems in the northern Pacific, 

41 primarily as a result of the upwelling of nutrients by the Alaska Gyre (Wilkenson et al. 2009).

 

1 Salt diapirism refers to a process by which natural salt (mainly halite but also including anhydrite and gypsum) 

in the subsurface deforms and flows in response to loading pressures from overlying sediments. Because of its 

low density, salt tends to flow upward from its source bed, forming intrusive bodies known a salt diapirs. Salt 

diapirs are common features of sedimentary basins such as the GOM (Nelson 1991).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-17

1 3.2.4.2 Gulf of Alaska Level III Ecoregion

2

3 The Gulf of Alaska Level III Ecoregion extends about 1,860 km (1,160 mi) along the 

4 Gulf of Alaska coast from about the vicinity of Juneau westward to the end of the Alaskan 

5 Peninsula at Unimak Pass, and has a width of about 170 km (105 mi) in the vicinity of the Cook 

6 Inlet Planning Area. This ecoregion encompasses the lower portion (the Shelikof Strait) of the 

7 Cook Inlet Planning Area, from the approximate vicinity of the Barren Islands through the 

8 Shelikof Strait to the southern end of Kodiak Island (Figure 3.2.2-2). This ecoregion is strongly 

9 influenced by the Alaska Current. The Shelikof Strait portion of this ecoregion and the planning 

10 area is about 240 km (150 mi) in length with a width of about 40–50 km (25–30 mi). 

11 Physiography of the ecoregion includes rocky coastlines and numerous fjords, islands, and 

12 embayments.

13

14

15 3.2.4.3 Cook Inlet Level III Ecoregion

16

17 The Cook Inlet Level III Ecoregion includes the northern portion of the Cook Inlet 

18 Planning Area, northward from the mouth of Cook Inlet proper (Figure 3.2.2-2). The inlet is 

about 290 km (180 mi) in length, with a watershed of about 100,000 km2 (39,000 mi2 19 ). Major 

20 tributaries based upon size include the Susitna, Little Susitna, Kenai, Matanuska, Eagle, 

21 Crescent, and Johnson Rivers.

22

23

24 3.2.5 Ecoregions of the Alaska Arctic Coast

25

26 The Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas occur within the two LMEs that 

27 encompass the arctic coast of Alaska (Figure 3.2.1-2). While the two planning areas occur 

28 within the similarly named LMEs, the Level II and III CEC ecoregions actually cross LME and 

29 planning area boundaries (Figure 3.2.2-3). The following sections identify and describe the CEC 

30 Level II and III ecoregions where OCS oil and gas leasing may occur under the proposed action.

31

32

33 3.2.5.1 Arctic Slope and Arctic Plains Level II Ecoregions

34

35 These two Level II ecoregions are characterized by relatively constant covers of ice 

36 sheets and ice packs (Wilkenson et al. 2009). Water depths on the Arctic Slope may range from 

37 200 to 3,000 m (660 to 9,800 ft) and are deeper on the Arctic Plains. Most of these two 

38 ecoregions occur in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area (Figure 3.2.2-3). While ice may cover 90–

39 100% of these ecoregions in any given year, ice cover throughout the year is not continuous; 

40 numerous leads of open water occur and are very important to ecological resources of these 

41 ecoregions.

42

43
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-18

1 3.2.5.2 Beaufort/Chukchian Shelf Level II Ecoregion

2

3 Within the Arctic Planning Areas, this Level II ecoregion extends along the Arctic coast 

4 from the eastern boundary of the Beaufort Sea Planning Area westward almost to Point Hope 

5 (Figure 3.2.2-3). In the Beaufort Sea Planning Area, this ecoregion is relatively narrow (about 

6 80 km [50 mi]), and widens considerably in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area to as much as 

7 390 km (240 mi). Water depths may reach 100 m (330 ft) (Wilkenson et al. 2009). Coastal areas 

8 include barrier beaches, extensive deltas, lagoons, estuaries, tidal flats, and narrow sand and 

9 gravel beaches, with low coastal relief. From October to June, this ecoregion is covered by a 

10 combination of landfast ice (extending 20 to 80 km [12 to 50 mi]) and pack ice. In summer, 

11 there is a coastal ice-free zone that may be as much as 200 km (120 mi) in width.

12

13

14 3.2.5.3 Beaufortian and Chukchian Neritic Level III Ecoregions

15

16 These Level III ecoregions occur within and comprise all of the Beaufort/Chukchian 

17 Shelf Level II Ecoregion (discussed above) that occurs within the two Arctic Planning Areas 

18 considered in this draft PEIS (Figure 3.2.2-3). The Beaufortian Neritic Level II Ecoregion 

19 accounts for the vast majority of the Beaufort/Chukchain Shelf, while the Chukchian Neritic 

20 Level II Ecoregion occurs only along a small portion of the Chukchi Sea coast in the vicinity 

21 of Point Hope. Both ecoregions (and especially the Chukchi Neritic Ecoregion) are strongly 

22 influenced by circulation flowing from the Bering Sea (Wilkenson et al. 2009).

23

24

25 3.3 CONSIDERATIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE BASELINE 

26 ENVIRONMENT

27

28 Several natural and anthropogenic factors affect climate variability, but scientific 

29 evidence has led to the conclusion that current climate warming trends are linked to human 

30 activities, which are predominantly associated with greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., NRC 2010). 

31 Climate change effects have been observed to be occurring on all continents and oceans, and 

32 these observations have provided insights on relationships among atmospheric concentrations of 

33 carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, mean global temperature increases, and observed 

34 effects on physical and biological systems (IPCC 2007a). There are many impacts associated 

35 with climate change processes that have been observed in U.S. coastal regions that include 

36 changing air and water temperatures, rising sea levels, more intense storms, ocean acidification, 

37 coastal erosion, sea ice loss, declining coral reef conditions, and loss of critical habitats such as 

38 estuaries, wetlands, barrier islands, and mangroves (e.g., Boesch et al. 2000; ACIA 2005; 

39 Titus et al. 2009; Morel et al. 2010; Pendleton et al. 2010; Blunden et al. 2011). 

40

41 The global climate system is driven largely by incoming solar energy that is reflected, 

42 absorbed, and emitted within the Earth‘s atmosphere, and the resulting energy balance 

43 determines atmospheric temperatures (Solomon et al. 2007). Atmospheric concentrations of 

44 greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and halocarbons) increase absorption 

45 and emission of energy, resulting in a positive radiative forcing to the climate system and 

46 warmer global mean temperatures; this process is often described in general terms as the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-19

1 greenhouse effect. Global concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased 

2 from pre-industrial times and by 70% from 1970 to 2004; these emission increases are linked to 

3 human activity sectors such as energy, industry, transportation, and agriculture (IPCC 2007a; 

4 Rogner et al. 2007). The climate system response to this positive radiative forcing is 

5 complicated by a number of positive and negative feedback processes among atmospheric, 

6 terrestrial, and oceanic ecosystems, but overall the climate is warming, as is evident by observed 

7 increases in air and ocean temperatures, melting of snow and ice, and sea level rise 

8 (IPCC 2007a). 

9

10 Global mean atmospheric temperatures have risen by 0.74 ± 0.18°C (1.33 ± 0.32°F) 

11 between 1905 and 2005, and the rate of warming for the past 50 yr has been almost double the 

12 rate for the past 100 yr (0.13°C [0.23°F] per decade) (Trenberth et al. 2007). Atmospheric 

13 warming has not been spatially uniform, and in particular arctic temperatures have increased 

14 about twice as much as those in lower latitudes (ACIA 2005). Preferential warming in the Arctic 

15 is partially the result of the ice-albedo effect, which occurs when highly reflective ice is replaced 

16 by less reflective water and land surfaces, resulting in more heat being absorbed by the land and 

17 water rather than being reflected back to the atmosphere (Perovich et al. 2007). About 80% of 

18 the warmth caused by greenhouse gases has been absorbed in the oceans (NRC 2010). Long19 term observations of oceanic temperatures have revealed considerable inter-annual and inter20 decadal variability. Between 1961 and 2003, oceanic warming was widespread in the upper 

21 700 m (2,300 ft) of oceans, where the global mean ocean temperature has risen by 0.10°C 

22 (0.18°F) (Bindoff et al. 2007). 

23

24 The effects of climate change on ecosystems are complex and nonuniform across the 

25 globe and vary among atmospheric, terrestrial, and oceanic systems (e.g., IPCC 2007a; 

26 Blunden et al. 2011). Considerations of climate change effects in OCS planning areas focus on 

27 impacts on marine and coastal systems where environmental sensitivities are typically associated 

28 with increasing atmospheric and ocean temperatures, but they can also be categorized as 

29 responses to sea level rise, coastal erosion, and ocean acidification. These general categories of 

30 climate change responses are occurring in addition to human-induced pressures related to coastal 

31 population densities (e.g., land use changes, pollution, overfishing) and trends of increasing 

32 human use of coastal areas (Nicholls et al. 2007).

33

34 Environmental Sensitivity to Atmospheric and Oceanic Temperature Increases. 

35 Environmental responses to warming atmospheric and oceanic temperatures include changes to 

36 species composition, coral reef damage, permafrost thawing, increased occurrences of storm 

37 events, loss of sea ice, and changes in ocean dynamics.

38

39 Species Composition. Effects of warming temperatures have already been seen in the 

40 form of changes in species location ranges, changes in migration patterns and timing, changes in 

41 location and timing of reproduction, and increases in disease (Perry et al. 2005; 

42 Rosenzweig et al. 2007; Simmonds and Isaac 2007). As species extend their spatial ranges, there 

43 can be negative consequences related to non-native and invasive species (Twilley et al. 2001). 

44 Climate change impacts on aquatic environments have the potential to affect species composition 

45 within an ecosystem according to species-specific thresholds, as well as species characteristics 

46 such as mobility, lifespan, and availability to use available resources (e.g., Chapin et al. 2000; 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-20

1 Levinsky et al. 2007). These variations in species-specific thresholds and characteristics result in 

2 the breakup of existing ecosystems and the formation of new ones in response to climate change, 

3 with unknown consequences (Perry et al. 2005; Simmonds and Isaac 2007; Karl et al. 2009). 

4

5 Coral Reef Damage. Warmer water temperatures or increases in ultraviolet light 

6 penetration cause coral to lose their symbiotic algae, a process called bleaching. Intensities 

7 and frequencies of bleaching events have increased substantially over the past 30 yr, resulting 

8 in the death of or severe damage to about one third of the world‘s shallow water corals 

9 (Karl et al. 2009). In addition to coral bleaching, there has been a rise in the occurrence of 

10 excessive algal growth on reefs, as well as the presence of predatory organisms and reports of 

11 diseases related to bacterial, fungal, and viral agents (Boesch et al. 2000; Twilley et al. 2001).

12 Additional discussion of coral reef damage is presented in Section 3.7.2.1.7.

13

14 Permafrost Thawing. Permafrost degradation affects terrestrial and hydrologic 

15 conditions in Arctic regions where the temperature at the top of the permafrost layer has 

16 increased by up to 3°C (5.4°F) since the 1980s, and in the Alaskan Arctic the permafrost base 

17 has been thawing at a rate of up to 0.04 m/yr (0.13 ft/yr) (Lemke et al. 2007). Recent data 

18 collected in 2010 suggest that trends in permafrost warming have begun to propagate southward 

19 nearly 200 km (124 mi) inland from the North Slope region (Richter-Menge and Jeffries 2011).

20 Thawing of permafrost near coastal regions is expected to result in more rapid rates of shore 

21 erosion, increases in stored-carbon releases (Schuur et al. 2009), and damage to infrastructure 

22 such as roads and pipelines (Karl et al. 2009). These effects are expected to be compounded by 

23 reduced duration and extent of shoreline protection provided by landfast ice and more exposure 

24 to ocean storms. 

25

26 Increases in Major Storm Frequency and Intensity. Regional weather conditions are 

27 influenced by modal climatic variability patterns such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation 

28 (ENSO), Arctic Oscillation (AO), North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), and the Pacific Decadal 

29 Oscillation (PDO) that act as connection pathways between regional atmospheric conditions and 

30 the world‘s oceans (NRC 1998; Liu and Alexander 2007). Major storms in low- to mid-latitude 

31 regions (e.g., cyclones, hurricanes, and typhoons) are largely controlled by the ENSO phase 

32 (Trenberth et al. 2007). In the northern hemisphere, there is a general northward shift in cyclone 

33 activity that is correlated with AO and NAO phases (ACIA 2005). Climate change affects water 

34 temperatures and wind patterns that interact to either enhance or work against storm formation,

35 making it difficult to predict climate change effects on major storm events (Karl et al. 2009). 

36 However, a number of studies have concluded that cyclonic activity has changed over the second 

37 half of the 20th century with evidence suggesting that since the 1970s there has been a 

38 substantial upward trend toward longer-lasting and more intense storms (Trenberth et al. 2007). 

39

40 Sea Ice Biome. The presence of sea ice and landfast ice in the marine environment of the 

41 Arctic creates a productive marine ice biome essential for the survival and flourishing of marine 

42 animals and supports traditional subsistence communities (e.g., Berkes and Jolly 2001; 

43 Simmonds and Isaac 2007; Arp et al. 2010). These environments provide hunting, resting, and 

44 birthing platforms along the ice-water interface, generate local upwelling responsible for high 

45 productivity in polynyas, and release large quantities of algae growing beneath the ice surface 

46 into the food chain at ice melt (ACIA 2005). Polar bear populations are strongly correlated with 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-21

1 regional characteristics of sea ice and vary seasonally and with respect to specific requirements 

2 for reproduction (Durner et al. 2004). The Iñupiat Eskimos, Alaska Native people of coastal 

3 villages of northwestern Alaska and the North Slope, use sea ice for hunting and fishing grounds, 

4 as well as seasonal whaling camps that are vital to support their subsistence lifestyle (Braund and 

5 Kruse 2009). The greatest threat to the sea ice biome is the loss of sea ice due to climate change. 

6 Sea ice extent, as observed mainly by remote sensing methods, has decreased at a rate of 

7 approximately 3% per decade starting in the 1970s with larger decreases occurring in summer 

8 months (Parkinson 2000). Multi-year sea ice has decreased at a rate of nearly 9 to 12% per 

9 decade since the 1980s (Comiso 2002; Perovich et al. 2010), but more recent studies have shown 

10 a loss of multi-year ice area of 42% from 2005 to 2008 (Kwok and Cunningham 2010).

11

12 Ocean Dynamics. While large-scale trends in ocean salinity suggest certain regions have 

13 been experiencing changes in salinity that in combination with the warming of the atmosphere 

14 and oceans can change the dynamic properties of the ocean circulation patterns, there is currently 

15 no clear evidence for suggesting significant changes to major ocean circulation patterns as a 

16 result of climate change (Bindoff et al. 2007). However, there have been more regional studies 

17 that have suggested potential mechanistic changes to ocean circulations. For example, Bakun 

18 (1990) presented evidence on the effects of altered wind patterns that could enhance coastal 

19 upwelling along the western coast of the United States, which could increase productivity in 

20 these regions as nutrient-rich bottom water ascends to the ocean surface. There has also been 

21 interest in understanding the effect of increased freshwater inputs from the Greenland Ice Sheet 

22 on overturning the North Atlantic Current (Church 2007; Rabe et al. 2011). One of the largest 

23 obstacles for understanding climate change effects on ocean currents is the lack of long-term 

24 measurements, which makes it difficult to decipher climate change responses from inter-decadal 

25 variability (Bryden et al. 2003).

26

27 Environmental Sensitivity to Sea Level Rise and Coastal Erosion. The recent global 

28 sea level rise has been caused by warming-induced thermal expansion of the oceans and 

29 accelerated melting of glaciers and ice sheets. The global mean sea level has risen at a mean 

30 rate of 1.8 ± 0.5 mm/yr from 1961 to 2003 with considerable variability spatially, as well as 

31 considerable decadal time-scale variability (Bindoff et al. 2007). Predictions in sea level rise are 

32 as much as 0.6 m (2 ft) by 2100 (Nicholls et al. 2007). The amount of relative sea level rise 

33 along different parts of the U.S. coast depends not only on thermal expansion and ice sheet 

34 melting, but also on the changes in elevation of the land that occur as a result of subsidence or 

35 geologic uplift (Karl et al. 2009). Submergence hotspots can occur as a result of local 

36 subsidence in combination with sea level rise such that the rate of rise of sea level relative to 

37 the land is expected to be higher than in other parts of the area.

38

39 Certain areas along the Atlantic and GOM coasts are undergoing relatively rapid 

40 inundation and landscape changes because of the prevalence of low-lying coastal lands 

41 (Titus et al. 2009). Barrier islands in the northern GOM have been losing land areas and 

42 changing habitat conditions because of decreased sediment supplies from rivers, sea level rise, 

43 and intense storms (Lucas and Carter 2010). Coastal erosion rates over the past couple of

44 decades averaged 3.7 m/yr (12 ft/yr), but storm events such as Hurricane Rita have caused 

45 erosion rates of 12 to 15 m (39 to 49 ft) in a single event (Park and Edge 2011). The coasts of 

46 the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas consist of river deltas, barrier islands, exposed bluffs, and large 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-22

1 inlets and inland are characterized by low-relief lands underlain by permafrost (Jorgenson and 

2 Brown 2005). The combination of wind-driven waves, river erosion, sea level rise, and sea ice 

3 scour with highly erodible coastal lands creates the potential for high erosion rates along the 

4 Beaufort and Chukchi Sea coasts (Proshutinsky et al. 2001; Mars and Houseknecht 2007). In 

5 addition to coastal erosion along the arctic coast, storm surge flooding has converted freshwater 

6 lakes into estuaries, affecting habitat conditions (Arp et al. 2010).

7

8 Environmental Sensitivity to Ocean Acidification. Ocean acidification refers to the 

9 decrease in the pH of the oceans and its buffering capacity caused by the uptake of carbon 

10 dioxide from the atmosphere that reacts with seawater to form carbonic acid, leading to 

11 decreasing pH values in the oceans. Predictions of future ocean water pH levels vary somewhat, 

12 but predicted decreases range from 0.14 to 0.4 pH units over the 21st century (Caldeira and 

13 Wickett 2005; Orr et al. 2005; IPCC 2007a). Factors such as water temperatures, salinity, sea 

14 ice, and ocean mixing processes affect the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by oceans, so 

15 climate change effects on storms, river discharge, and precipitation patterns all affect ocean 

16 acidification (IPCC 2007). The mechanisms that lead to ocean acidification also affect estuarine 

17 and coastal waters, although their impacts on estuarine ecosystems are not well known because 

18 of the multitude of processes affecting pH levels in these systems (Feely et al. 2010).

19

20 Ocean acidification affects the ability of certain organisms to create shells or skeletons by 

21 calcification, which can be especially harmful to mollusks, corals, and certain plankton species 

22 that are important to oceanic food chains (Orr et al. 2005; Karl et al. 2009). However, several 

23 laboratory experiments conducted under elevated carbon dioxide conditions have shown mixed

24 calcification rates in many organisms (including positive responses to ocean acidification), 

25 which suggests complex mechanisms by which organisms respond to ocean acidification

26 (Doney et al. 2009; Ries et al. 2009). Coral reefs are highly dependent on calcified structures 

27 for survival and both warm-water and cold-water corals are negatively impacted by ocean 

28 acidification (Royal Society 2005). Ocean waters in Arctic regions are highly susceptible to 

29 ocean acidification resulting from increased carbon dioxide solubility, freshwater inputs, and 

30 increased primary productivity, and these factors relating to ocean acidification are enhanced by 

31 current climate change trends and loss of sea ice (Fabry et al. 2009; Steinacher et al. 2009).

32

33 Climate Change Predictions and Uncertainties. Climate change predictions are based 

34 on a variety of models that simulate all relevant physical processes affecting interactions among

35 the atmosphere, oceans, and biosphere, which are driven by a variety of projected greenhouse 

36 gas emission scenarios. Global climate models generate projected changes in atmospheric, 

37 ocean, and land surface climate variables at scales on the order of one degree in latitude and 

38 longitude, which are not sufficient for making regional-scale climate assessments. Downscaling 

39 global climate models and coupling them with more localized regional climate models is an 

40 active area of current research (Christensen et al. 2007; Randall et al. 2007). The complexity 

41 of modeling global and regional climate systems is great, so it is important to consider 

42 measures of uncertainty, which is typically done using a multi-model ensemble approach 

43 (Krishnamurti et al. 2000). It is important to recognize that despite new climate model 

44 developments, uncertainty in climate projections can never be entirely eliminated 

45 (McWilliams 2007). 

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-23

1 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has summarized climate change 

2 predictions over the next two decades and over the 21st century, using climate model predictions 

3 and evidence from various scientific disciplines (IPCC 2007a). The IPCC uses a 10-fold 

4 likelihood scale ranging from virtually certain (>99% probability of occurrence) to exceptionally 

5 unlikely (<1% probability) to define consistent terminology for climate change projections where 

6 uncertainty can be assessed by statistical analyses, and a 10-point scale (10 being the most 

7 confident) for projections where uncertainty was qualitatively assessed by expert judgment. The 

8 most recent climate change projections summarized by the IPCC (2007a) include some of the 

9 following:

10

11 • An increase in atmospheric temperatures of approximately 0.2°C (0.4°F) per 

12 decade is predicted over a range in projected greenhouse gas emission 

13 scenarios;

14

15 • Warming is expected to be greatest over land and at higher latitudes;

16

17 • Model estimates of sea level rise vary from 0.18 to 0.59 m (0.6 to 2 ft) by the 

18 end of the 21st century, but information on important feedback processes to 

19 sea level rise do not allow for determining a best estimate;

20

21 • Polar regions are projected to have continued reductions in sea ice, glaciers, 

22 and ice sheets;

23

24 • Projection models suggest that ocean pH values decreasing between 0.14 and 

25 0.35 over the 21st century;

26

27 • It is likely (>66%) that tropical cyclones will become more intense;

28

29 • Increased precipitation is very likely (>90%) to occur at high-latitudes;

30

31 • There is high confidence (8 out of 10) that annual river runoff will increase by 

32 10 to 40% at high latitudes and decrease by 10 to 30% in dry regions of mid33 latitudes;

34

35 • Net carbon uptake by terrestrial ecosystems is likely (>66%) to peak during 

36 this century as natural carbon sequestration mechanisms reach their capacity;

37 and

38

39 • There is medium confidence (5 out of 10) that predicted temperature increases 

40 will result in approximately 20 to 30% of plant and animal species that have 

41 been assessed likely (>60%) being at an increased risk of extinction. 

42

43
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-24

1 3.3.1 Gulf of Mexico

2

3 Climate change in the GOM is expected to affect coastal ecosystems, forests, air and 

4 water quality, fisheries, and business sectors such as industry and energy (Ning et al. 2003). The 

5 GOM region has experienced increasing atmospheric temperatures since the 1960s, and from 

6 1900 to 1991 sea surface temperatures have increased in coastal areas and decreased in offshore 

7 regions (Twilley et al. 2001). In addition to temperature changes, the northern coast of the GOM

8 is experiencing impacts associated with sea level rise that include the loss of coastal wetland and 

9 mangrove habitats, salt water intrusion into coastal aquifers and forests, and increases in 

10 shoreline erosion (Williams et al. 1999; Pendleton et al. 2010). Climate change associated sea 

11 level rise is occurring in combination with altered hydrology and land subsidence that has 

12 resulted in measures of relative sea level rise ranging between 0.002 m/yr (0.007 ft/yr) along 

13 Texas and up to 0.01 m/yr (0.03 ft/yr) along the Mississippi River Delta (Twilley et al. 2001). 

14

15 Climate models generally predict a rise in temperatures in the GOM Coastal States this 

16 century; however, predictions of precipitation are more problematic due to model uncertainties 

17 (Karl et al. 2009). Predictions of precipitation among various modeling studies for the GOM

18 region have generally predicted a slight decrease in precipitation in coastal areas, as well as more 

19 intense rainfall events and longer periods of drought, but models vary widely in upland areas, 

20 which affect river discharges (Mulholland et al. 1997; Boesch et al. 2000; Twilley et al. 2001). 

21

22 Significant increases or decreases in precipitation and river runoff would affect salinity 

23 and water circulation, as well as water quality. Increased runoff would likely deliver increased 

24 amounts of nutrients (such as nitrogen and phosphorous) to estuaries, increase the stratification 

25 between warmer fresher and colder saltier water, and potentially lead to eutrophication of 

26 estuaries and increase the potential for harmful algal blooms that can deplete oxygen levels 

27 (Justic et al. 1996; Karl et al. 2009). Reductions of freshwater flows in rivers or prolonged 

28 drought periods could substantially reduce biological productivity in Mobile Bay, Apalachicola 

29 Bay, Tampa Bay, and the lagoons of Texas and could increase the salinity in coastal ecosystems, 

30 resulting in a decline in mangrove and sea grass habitats (Twilley et al. 2001). Decreased runoff 

31 could also diminish flushing of the estuaries, decrease the size of estuarine nursery zones, and 

32 allow an increase in predators and pathogens (Boesch et al. 2000). 

33

34 Sea level rise along parts of the northern GOM coast are as high as 0.01 m/yr (0.03 ft/yr), 

35 which is much greater than globally averaged rates (Twilley et al. 2001; IPCC 2007a). The 

36 combination of sea level rise and land subsidence is resulting in the loss of coastal wetlands 

37 and mangroves, which is damaging to habitat functions to many important fish and shellfish 

38 populations. Future sea level rise is expected to cause additional saltwater intrusion into 

39 coastal aquifers of the GOM, potentially making some unsuitable as potable water supplies

40 (Karl et al. 2009). Saltwater intrusion and sea level rise are damaging coastal bottomland forests 

41 (primarily along the western GOM coast) and mangroves through soil salinity poisoning, 

42 increased hydroperiods, and coastal erosion (Williams et al. 1999). Additionally, climate

43 change model predictions suggest that there will be an increase in the intensity of hurricanes 

44 (IPCC 2007a), and coastal regions may potentially have fewer barrier islands, coastal wetlands, 

45 and mangrove forests to buffer the resulting storm surges as a result of sea level rise.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-25

1 Marine biota in the GOM are influenced by changes in temperature, salinity, and ocean 

2 acidification, as well as their biological environment including predators, prey, species 

3 interactions, disease, and fishing pressure (Karl et al. 2009). Projected changes in physical 

4 oceanographic conditions can affect the growth, survival, reproduction, and spatial distribution 

5 of marine fish species and of the prey, competitors, and predators that influence the dynamics of 

6 these species. However, impacts on marine biota associated with climate change need to be 

7 considered against natural variation (Rosenzweig et al. 2007).

8

9

10 3.3.2 Alaska Region

11

12 The Arctic climate system is complex and has varied considerably over geologic time 

13 scales (ACIA 2005). Over the last 100 yr, mean Arctic temperatures have increased at a rate 

14 nearly double that of global mean temperatures (IPCC 2007a). The ice-albedo feedback 

15 mechanism has the potential to enhance the effects of warming trends as the loss of sea ice leads 

16 to more heat absorption by ocean waters, which affects both sea ice melt and regional 

17 atmospheric circulation patterns important to the global heat budget (ACIA 2005; Overland and 

18 Wang 2011). However, it is important to recognize that climate conditions in the Arctic 

19 experience strong decadal variability in relation to modal climatic variability patterns such as the 

20 AO, PDO, and NAO (ACIA 2005). A recent modeling study has suggested that Arctic regions 

21 are nearing a threshold, where amplified greenhouse effect warming is likely to overpass decadal 

22 climate variability patterns (Serreze and Francis 2006). The impacts of climate change on the 

23 Arctic include warming ocean temperatures, reductions in sea ice, permafrost thawing, and 

24 coastal erosion, which all affect terrestrial, coastal, and marine ecosystems (Hopcroft et al. 

25 2008). In addition to ecosystem impacts, the loss of sea ice contributes to an ice-albedo 

26 feedback process that affects regional atmospheric circulation patterns and global heat budgets 

27 (ACIA 2005; Overland and Wang 2011).

28

29 Changes to the Arctic climate, as well as the sea ice and permafrost biomes, have been 

30 documented in several studies (Parkinson 2000; Comiso 2002; Rothrock and Zhang 2005; 

31 ACIA 2005; Anisimov et al. 2007; Hopcroft et al. 2008; Perovich et al. 2010; Richter-Menge and 

32 Jeffries 2011) and include:

33

34 • Atmospheric temperatures have increased by 1–2°C (2–4°F) since the 1960s;

35

36 • Atmospheric temperatures increasing at a rate of 1°C (2°F) per decade in 

37 winter and spring;

38

39 • Precipitation has increased by approximately 1% per decade;

40

41 • March sea ice extent has decreased at a rate of approximately 3% per decade 

42 starting in the 1970s;

43

44 • Multi-year sea ice has decreased at a rate of approximately 9 to 12% per 

45 decade since the 1980s;

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-26

1 • Sea ice volumes have decreased by 4% per decade since the 1950s;

2

3 • Temperatures at the top of the permafrost layer have increased by up to 3°C 

4 (5°F) since the 1980s;

5

6 • Permafrost base has been thawing at a rate of up to 0.04 m/yr (0.13 ft/yr).

7

8 Impacts of current and projected climate changes have the potential to affect sea ice 

9 (most importantly multi-year sea ice) and permafrost biomes, as well as coastal erosion rates, 

10 animal populations, and subsistence livelihoods. Retreat of sea ice would increase impacts on 

11 coastal areas from storms. Furthermore, coastlines where permafrost has thawed are more 

12 vulnerable to erosion from wave action, which can affect both erosion rates as well as change 

13 freshwater lakes into estuarine habitats (Mars and Houseknecht 2007; Arp et al. 2010). An aerial 

14 photo comparison has revealed total erosive losses up to 457 m (1,500 ft) over the past few 

15 decades along some stretches of the Alaskan coast (Alaska Regional Assessment Group 1999). 

16 At Barrow, Alaska, coastal erosion has been measured at the rate of 1–2.5 m/yr (3–8 ft/yr) since 

17 1948 (ACIA 2005), and it has been causing severe impacts on the community. Maximum 

18 coastal erosion rates of up to 13.3 m/yr (43.6 ft/yr) have occurred near Cape Halkett and Cape 

19 Simpson during the time period of 1980–2000 (Ping et al. 2011).

20

21 Changes in permafrost have caused failure of buildings and costly increases in road 

22 damage and road maintenance in Alaska (Alaska Regional Assessment Group 1999; 

23 Hinzman et al. 2005). Present costs of thaw-related damage to structures and infrastructure in 

24 Alaska have been estimated at $35 million per year (NAST 2001). A continued warming of the 

25 permafrost is likely to increase the severity of permafrost thaw-related problems. Thawing of 

26 any permafrost increases groundwater mobility, reduces soil bearing strength, and increases the 

27 susceptibility to erosion and landslides. Thawing could disrupt petroleum exploration and 

28 production by shortening the availability of time for minimal-impact operations on ice roads and 

29 pads (ACIA 2005).

30

31 Loss of sea ice, especially multi-year ice that lasts through summer months, could cause 

32 large-scale changes in marine ecosystems and could threaten populations of marine mammals 

33 such as polar bears, walruses, and seals that depend on the ice for habitat, hunting, and 

34 transportation (Boesch et al. 2000; NAST 2001; Durner et al. 2004; Hopcroft et al. 2008; 

35 Karl et al. 2009). With studies examining the impacts of climate change on arctic biota, there 

36 have been reported changes in abundance, range shifts, growth rates, behavior, and community 

37 dynamics for both terrestrial and marine species (Belkin 2009; Mueter et al. 2009; Wassmann et 

38 al. 2011). Seals and polar bears regularly use landfast sea ice as habitat, which is particularly 

39 susceptible to climate warming (Boesch et al. 2000). Ice edges are biologically productive 

40 systems in which ice algae form the base of the food chain, which has implications for higher 

41 trophic levels (Moline et al. 2008). The sea ice algae are crucial to arctic cod, which is an 

42 important species to the diets of seabirds and marine animals in Arctic regions (Bradstreet and 

43 Cross 1982; Gradinger and Bluhm 2004). As ice melts, there is concern that there would be loss 

44 of prey species of marine mammals, such as arctic cod and amphipods, which are associated with 

45 ice edges, and these impacts can propagate through food webs associated with the sea ice biome 

46 (ACIA 2005). 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-27

1 Ocean fisheries are highly vulnerable to changes in climatic conditions such as sea 

2 temperature and sea ice conditions (Karl et al. 2009), and fisheries in the Alaska region have 

3 experienced decadal-scale variability in climate due to modal patterns of oceanic and 

4 atmospheric interactions (Schwing et al. 2010). For example, Pacific salmon populations have

5 shown decadal variability over the past 300 yr, which spans the timeframe of before and after 

6 commercial fishing, suggesting the strong coupling of ocean conditions and salmon populations 

7 (Finney et al. 2000). In 1977, warmer sea surface temperatures and reduced sea ice conditions 

8 generated a ―regime shift‖ in the fisheries of the Gulf of Alaska that carried over into the 1980s,

9 producing large salmon, pollock, and cod populations with a reduction in populations of forage 

10 fishes (Boesch et al. 2000; NAST 2001). Evidence of climate change warming effects on 

11 fisheries is difficult to detect with respect to decadal variability patterns. However, current 

12 trends of increased freshwater inputs, increased ultraviolet radiation, warmer sea surface 

13 temperatures, ocean acidification, and reduced sea ice are driving biodiversity changes across 

14 trophic levels for marine and freshwater fish of the Alaska region with both positive and negative 

15 effects depending on tolerance levels and the ability to adapt to changing habitats of the various 

16 fish populations (Reist et al. 2006; Anisimov et al. 2007; Bates and Mathis 2009). In addition to 

17 temperature and sea ice changes, permafrost thawing and alterations to terrestrial hydrology have

18 the potential to increase sediment and nutrient availability in estuarine and nearshore habitats, 

19 which have a mixture of positive and negative impacts on marine and anadromous fish 

20 populations (ACIA 2005; Hopcroft et al. 2008).

21

22 Alaska Native subsistence communities have adapted to climate variability in the past, 

23 but current warming trends may produce uncharacteristic and extreme environmental conditions 

24 that can adversely affect these communities (Berkes and Jolly 2001; Anisimov et al. 2007). 

25 Climate change effects such as sea ice melt, permafrost loss, and sea level rise may alter 

26 traditional hunting locations and cause shifts in game patterns and quality, travel routes, and

27 inter-community trading and social mechanisms (Alaska Regional Assessment Group 1999; 

28 ACIA 2005). In addition to climate change impacts, Alaska Native subsistence communities 

29 have been adapting to economic development and modernization occurring in Arctic regions 

30 (ACIA 2005; Braund and Kruse 2009). Alaska Native subsistence communities have 

31 experienced and are currently experiencing impacts on subsistence activities caused by a 

32 combination of environmental, social, and cultural changes. The Alaska Native subsistence 

33 communities will find it more difficult to adapt or relocate than they did in the past because most 

34 now live in established communities, which will make adaptation to climate change effects 

35 problematic in the future (ACIA 2005).

36

37

38 3.4 WATER QUALITY

39

40

41 3.4.1 Gulf of Mexico

42

43 The term water quality describes the overall condition of water, reflecting its particular 

44 biological, chemical, and physical characteristics. It is an important measure for both ecological 

45 and human health. Water quality is most often discussed in reference to a particular purpose or 

46 use of the water, such as recreation, drinking, or ecosystem health. This usage divides the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-28

1 analysis area into coastal and marine waters and includes human uses of water for recreation and 

2 food harvest along with industrial and domestic uses. Coastal waters include all bays and 

3 estuaries from the Rio Grande River to the Florida Bay. Marine water includes both State 

4 offshore water and Federal outer continental shelf (OCS) waters extending from outside the 

5 barrier islands to the Exclusive Economic Zone. The inland extent is defined by the Coastal 

6 Zone Management Act. A further distinction within the marine water areas is between 

7 continental shelf water and deep water. Figure 3.4.1-1 illustrates this distinction within marine 

8 water areas and the OCS Planning Areas for the GOM.

9

10 In general, coastal water quality is influenced by the rivers that drain into the area, the 

11 quantity and composition of wet and dry atmospheric deposition, and the influx of constituents 

12 from sediments. Human activities influence the waters closest to the land. Circulation or mixing 

13 of the water may either improve the water quality through dilution or degrade the quality by 

14 introducing factors that contribute to water quality decline.

15

16 Marine water composition in the GOM has two primary influences. These are the 

17 configuration of the GOM Basin, which controls the oceanic waters that enter and leave the 

18 GOM, and runoff from the land masses, which controls the quantity of freshwater input into the 

19 GOM. The GOM receives oceanic water from the Caribbean Sea through the Yucatan Channel 

20 and freshwater from major continental drainage systems such as the Mississippi River system. 

21 Estuarine and fluvial drainage areas in the GOM region are shown in Figure 3.2.1-4. The three 

major fluvial drainage areas (FDAs) drain a total of 4.1 million square kilometers (km2 22 )

(1.6 million square miles [mi2 23 ]) of the inland continental United States, and have a large 

24 influence on water quality in the GOM. The large amount of freshwater runoff mixes into the 

25 GOM surface water, producing a different composition on the continental shelf from that in the 

26 open ocean.

27

28

29 3.4.1.1 Coastal Waters

30

31 The GOM coast contains one of the most extensive estuary systems in the world. This 

32 system extends from the Rio Grande River in Texas eastward to Florida Bay in Florida. 

33 Estuaries, semi-enclosed basins within which the freshwater of rivers and the higher salinity

34 waters offshore mix, are influenced by both freshwater and sediment influx from rivers and the 

35 tidal actions of the oceans. The primary variables that influence coastal water quality are water 

36 temperature, total dissolved solids (salinity), suspended solids (turbidity), and nutrients. An 

37 estuary‘s salinity and temperature structure are determined by hydrodynamic mechanisms 

38 governed by the interaction of marine and terrestrial influences. Hydrodynamic influences 

39 include tides, nearshore circulation, freshwater discharges from rivers, and local precipitation. 

40 Tidal mixing within GOM estuaries is limited by the small tidal ranges that occur along the 

41 GOM coast. The shallowness of most GOM estuaries, however, tends to amplify the mixing 

42 effect of the small tidal range. GOM coast estuaries exhibit a general east-to-west trend in 

43 selected attributes of water quality associated with changes in regional geology, sediment 

44 loading, and freshwater inflow. For example, the estuarine waters in Florida generally have 

45 greater clarity and lower nutrient concentrations than those in the central and western areas of the 

46 GOM coast.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-29

1

2 FIGURE 3.4.1-1 Depth Zones within GOM Planning Areas and Program Areas for the OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program 2012-2017
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-30

1 The primary factors that affect estuarine water quality include upstream withdrawals of 

2 water for agricultural, industrial, and domestic purposes; contamination by industrial and sewage

3 discharges; agricultural runoff carrying fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides; upstream land use;

4 redirected water flows; and habitat alterations (e.g., construction and dredge-and-fill operations). 

5 Because drainage from more than 55% of the conterminous United States enters the GOM

6 primarily from the Mississippi River, a large area of the nation contributes to coastal water 

7 quality conditions in the GOM (see Figure 3.2.1-4). There are also three major estuarine 

drainage areas (EDAs) that drain approximately 250,000 km2 (95,000 mi2 8 ) of coastal areas along 

9 the GOM, strongly influencing water quality in the estuarine environments (NOAA 1999).

10

11 Population growth results in additional clearing of the land, excavation, construction, 

12 expansion of paved surface areas, and drainage controls. These activities alter the quantity, 

13 quality, and timing of freshwater runoff. Stormwater runoff that flows across impervious 

14 surfaces is more likely to transport contaminants associated with urbanization including 

15 suspended solids, heavy metals and pesticides, oil and grease, and nutrients (U.S. Commission 

16 on Ocean Policy 2004). Additional information on factors that contribute to coastal water 

17 quality can be found in the sociocultural systems section of this chapter.

18

19 Coastal water quality is also affected by the loss of wetlands, which is discussed in detail 

20 in Section 3.7.1. Wetlands improve water quality through filtration of runoff water and 

21 provision of valuable habitat. Suspended particulate material is trapped and removed from the 

22 water, resulting in greater water clarity. Nutrients may also be incorporated into vegetation and 

23 wetland sediments and removed from the water that passes through the wetlands.

24

25 The first USEPA National Coastal Condition Report summarized coastal conditions with 

26 data collected from 1990 to 1996 (USEPA 2001). The USEPA updated this information in a 

27 third report (USEPA 2008). The first report rated the overall condition of the GOM coastal 

28 region as fair to poor. The third report ranked the water quality index fair and the overall 

29 condition fair to poor (USEPA 2008). The water quality ranking used five factors: (1) dissolved 

30 oxygen, (2) dissolved inorganic nitrogen, (3) dissolved inorganic phosphorus, (4) chlorophyll a, 

31 and (5) water clarity. Contaminated sediments pose an immediate threat to benthic organisms 

32 and an eventual threat to estuarine ecosystems as a whole. Contaminants in sediments may be 

33 resuspended into the water by anthropogenic activities, storms, or other natural events, where 

34 they can expose organisms in the water column and can accumulate and move up the food chain, 

35 eventually posing health risks to humans (USEPA 2011g). The sediment quality index of the 

36 GOM coast region was ranked as poor (USEPA 2008). Sediments in the GOM coast region have 

37 been found to contain pesticides, metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and polycyclic 

38 aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (USEPA 2008).

39

40 Hurricanes Katrina and Rita resulted in a number of impacts on water quality conditions 

41 in the GOM as a result of storm damage to pipelines, refineries, manufacturing and storage 

42 facilities, sewage treatment facilities, and other facilities and infrastructure. For example, 

43 Katrina damaged 100 pipelines, which resulted in approximately 211 minor pollution reports to 

44 the former Minerals Management Service (MMS) (now the BOEM), while Rita damaged 

45 83 pipelines, resulting in 207 minor pollution reports (MMS 2006a). Flood waters pumped into 

46 Lake Pontchartrain contained a mixture of contaminants, including sewage, bacteria, heavy 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-31

metals, pesticides, and other toxic chemicals, and as much as 24,600 cubic meters (m3 1 )

2 (6.5 million gal) of oil (Sheikh 2006). Sources of these contaminants include damaged sewage 

3 treatment plants, refineries, manufacturing and storage facilities, and other industrial and 

4 agricultural facilities and infrastructure (Sheikh 2006). The flood waters of New Orleans were 

5 oxygen depleted and contained elevated bacterial levels, but the pollutants occurred at about the 

6 same concentrations as typical stormwater runoff (Pardue et al. 2005). Testing following the 

7 storm identified low levels of fecal coliform in Mississippi Sound and Louisiana coastal waters. 

8 Very few toxics resulting from the hurricanes were detected in estuarine or coastal waters 

9 (USEPA 2010).

10

11 The heavy rainfall associated with Katrina increased agricultural runoff of nutrients into 

12 the GOM and decreased salinity of nearshore waters (NOAA and NMFS 2007). Storm surges as 

13 a result of the hurricanes caused temporary saltwater intrusion in some estuarine areas (NOAA 

14 and NMFS 2007). The release of contaminated Lake Pontchartrain waters into the GOM, as well 

15 as releases from damaged pipelines, caused short-term impacts on water quality in the GOM. 

16 Tidal action and normal current patterns in the GOM resulted in the dilution and dispersal of any 

17 heavily contaminated waters, potentially limiting any long-term effects on GOM water quality 

18 (Congressional Research Service 2005). Levels of contamination in oyster populations in coastal 

19 Louisiana and Mississippi after hurricane Katrina were measured and compared to the 20-yr 

20 record of contamination. Levels of organochlorine compounds and PAHs were found to be 

21 below normal, and levels of metals/trace elements were found to be elevated at most sites, 

22 compared to the historical record (NCCOS 2006).

23

24

25 3.4.1.2 Marine Waters

26

27 Within the GOM, marine waters occur in three regions: (1) the continental shelf west of 

28 the Mississippi River (primarily the Western GOM Planning Area and the western half of the 

29 Central GOM Planning Area), (2) the continental shelf east of the Mississippi River (the eastern 

30 half of the Central GOM Planning Area and the Eastern GOM Planning Area), and (3) deep 

31 water (>310 m). Figure 3.4.1-1 illustrates the marine water areas and the OCS Planning Areas 

32 for the GOM.

33

34

35 3.4.1.2.1 Continental Shelf West of the Mississippi River. The water quality in this 

36 area is highly influenced by input of sediment and nutrients from the Mississippi and 

37 Atchafalaya Rivers (Murray 1997). The Mississippi-Atchafalaya River Basin drains about 41% 

38 of the conterminous United States (see Mississippi Coastal Subregion FDA in Figure 3.2.1-4). 

39 A turbid surface layer of suspended particles is associated with the freshwater plume from these 

40 rivers. The river system supplies nitrate, phosphate, and silicate to the shelf. During summer 

41 months, the low-salinity water from the Mississippi River spreads out over the shelf, resulting in 

42 a stratified water column. While surface oxygen concentrations are at or near saturation, 

43 hypoxia, defined as oxygen concentrations less than 2 milligrams per liter (mg/L), is observed in 

44 bottom waters during the summer months in waters of the continental shelf west of the 

45 Mississippi River.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-32

1 The Hypoxic Zone. Hypoxic, or low-oxygen, conditions occur on the continental shelf 

2 in the northern part of the GOM in areas where the dissolved oxygen level is below 2 mg/L. 

3 Hypoxia in the GOM is attributed to large nutrient influxes from the rivers draining the 

4 continental United States and stratification of GOM waters from differences in temperature 

5 and density (Mississippi River/GOM Watershed Nutrient Task Force 2009). The average size 

of the hypoxic zone over the period of measurement (1985–2011) is 13,600 km2 (5,300 mi2 6 ) 

7 (LUMCON 2011). Over the 5-yr period between 2006 and 2010, the hypoxic zone had an 

average size of 17,300 km2 (6,700 mi2 8 ), and in 2010, the hypoxic zone was measured to be 

17,520 km2 (6,765 mi2 9 ) (USEPA 2011?). The hypoxic zone increased from an average size of 

8,300 km2 (3,200 mi2) in the 1985−1992 period to more than 16,000 km2 (6,200 mi2 10 ) in the 

1993−1997 period (Rabalais et al. 2002), and it reached a record 22,000 km2 (8,500 mi2 11 ) in 

12 2002. The size of the hypoxic zone is directly correlated with the flux of nitrogen from the 

13 Mississippi River and river discharge (Scavia et al. 2003). Veil et al. (2005) evaluated the 

14 loading of nutrients and other oxygen-demanding materials in produced water discharged from 

15 offshore oil and gas platforms located in the hypoxic zone. Veil et al. (2005) found that the 

16 nitrogen and phosphorus loading in produced water discharges were about 0.16% and 0.013%, 

17 respectively, of the nutrient loading entering the GOM from the Mississippi and Atchafalaya 

18 Rivers.

19

20 Pollutant Sources. Analysis of shelf sediments off the coast of Louisiana has found 

21 trace organic pollutants including PAHs, herbicides such as Atrazine, chlorinated pesticides, 

22 PCBs, and trace inorganic (metal) pollutants (Turner et al. 2003). The detection of 

23 organochlorine pesticides and PAHs in sediment cores collected in water depths of 10 to 100 m 

24 (33 to 330 ft) off the southwest pass of the Mississippi River increased in sediments deposited 

25 after the 1940s (Turner et al. 2003). The river was identified as the primary source of both 

26 organochlorine and the pyrogenic PAHs, which are associated with the burning of fossil fuels; 

27 however, higher concentrations of petrogenic PAHs, associated with natural seeps and/or oil and 

28 gas exploration, were found farther from the mouth of the river (Turner et al. 2003).

29

30 The offshore oil and gas industry operates hundreds of platforms throughout this portion 

31 of the GOM. Many platforms have discharges of drilling wastes, produced water, and other 

32 industrial wastewater streams that have adverse impacts on water quality. The USEPA regulates 

33 the discharge of these wastes through an NPDES permit. Except in shallow waters, the effects of 

34 these discharges are generally localized near individual points of discharge (Neff 2005).

35

36

37 3.4.1.2.2 Continental Shelf East of the Mississippi River. Water quality on the 

38 continental shelf from the Mississippi River Delta to Tampa Bay is influenced by river 

39 discharge, runoff from the coast, and eddies from the Loop Current. The Mississippi River 

40 accounts for 72% of the total discharge onto the shelf (SUSIO 1975). The outflow of the 

41 Mississippi River generally extends 75 km (45 mi) to the east of the river mouth (Barry A. Vittor 

42 & Associates, Inc. 1985), except under extreme flow conditions. Mobile Bay and several smaller 

43 rivers east of the Mississippi River including the Apalachicola and Suwannee Rivers also 

44 contribute runoff to the area (Jochens et al. 2002). The Loop Current intrudes in irregular 

45 intervals onto the shelf, and the water column can change from well mixed to highly stratified 

46 very rapidly. Discharges from the Mississippi River can be easily entrained in the Loop Current. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-33

1 Hypoxia is rarely observed on the Mississippi-Alabama shelf, although near-hypoxic conditions 

2 have been observed in the spring and summer during research cruises in 1987 through 1989 

3 (Brooks and Giammona 1991) and 1998 through 2000 (Jochens et al. 2002).

4

5 The Mississippi-Alabama shelf sediments are strongly influenced by fine sediments 

6 discharged from the Mississippi River. The shelf area is characterized by a bottom nepheloid 

7 layer and surface lenses of suspended particulates that originate from river outflow. The West 

8 Florida Shelf receives very little sediment input. The water clarity is higher toward Florida, 

9 where the influence of the Mississippi River outflow is rarely observed. 

10

11 Pollutant Sources. Analysis of water, sediments, and biota for hydrocarbons between 

12 1974 and 1977 indicated that the Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida (MAFLA) area is pristine, 

13 with some influence of anthropogenic and petrogenic hydrocarbons from river sources 

14 (SUSIO 1977; Dames and Moore, Inc. 1979). Analysis of trace metal contamination for the nine 

15 trace metals analyzed (barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, nickel, vanadium, and 

16 zinc) also indicated no contamination sources (SUSIO 1977; Dames and Moore, Inc. 1979). A 

17 study done between 1987 and 1989 indicated that high molecular-weight hydrocarbons can come 

18 from natural petroleum seeps at the seafloor or recent biological production as well as input from 

19 anthropogenic sources (Brooks and Giammona 1991). The primary source of petroleum 

20 hydrocarbons and terrestrial plant material on the Mississippi-Alabama shelf is the Mississippi 

21 River. Higher levels of hydrocarbons were observed in late spring, coinciding with increased 

22 river influx. The sediments, however, are washed away later in the year, as evidenced by low 

23 hydrocarbon values in winter months. Contamination from trace metals was not observed 

24 (Brooks and Giammona 1991).

25

26 Several small rivers and the Loop Current are the primary influences on water quality on 

27 the shelf from DeSoto Canyon to Tarpon Springs and from the coast to a 200-m (656-ft) water 

28 depth (SAIC 1997). Because there is very little onshore development in this area, the waters and 

29 surface sediments are uncontaminated. The Loop Current flushes the area with clear, low30 nutrient water (SAIC 1997).

31

32 Deep Water. Limited information is available on the deepwater environment of the 

33 GOM. Water at depths greater than 1,400 m (4,600 ft) is generally relatively homogeneous with 

34 respect to temperature, salinity, and oxygen (Nowlin 1972; Pequegnat 1983; Gallaway and 

35 Kennicutt 1988). A dissolved-oxygen low appears to occur at water depths of between 250 and 

36 750 m (820 and 2,460 ft), depending upon the location within the GOM (Nowlin 1972). 

37 Pequegnat (1983) has pointed out the importance of the flushing time of the GOM. 

38 Jochens et al. (2005) provided a summary of estimated flushing rates presented in the literature, 

39 which range from 3 to 270 yr for different areas of the GOM. The waters of the western and 

40 southwestern GOM are estimated to have longer flushing times than the rest of the GOM; 

41 however, flushing rates are uncertain and are not well understood in the deepwater zone 

42 (Jochens et al. 2005). Investigations of historical oxygen data for the GOM and modeling of the 

43 distribution indicate that oxygen levels in the deep GOM would suffer only localized impacts 

44 from activities, but basin-wide decreases in oxygen would not occur (Jochens et al. 2005).

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-34

1 Limited analyses of trace metals and hydrocarbons for sediments exist, and water column 

2 measurements are primarily limited to salinity, temperature, and nutrients (Trefry 1981; 

3 Gallaway and Kennicutt 1988; CSA 2006; Rowe and Kennicutt 2009). Between 2000 and 2002, 

4 the MMS completed two studies to measure concentrations of organics, metals, and nutrients in 

5 sediments in the deepwater zone (CSA 2006; Rowe and Kennicutt 2009). These studies helped 

6 to create a baseline of information related to the ecological function of these sediments, the 

7 extent of naturally occurring organics, and the impacts seen from OCS oil and gas activities.

8

9 Hydrocarbon (oil) seeps are extensive throughout the continental slope and naturally 

10 contribute hydrocarbons to the sediments and water column (Sassen et al. 1993a). Remote 

11 sensing techniques have identified approximately 350 natural seeps in the northern half of the 

12 GOM (Kvenvolden and Cooper 2003). Estimates of the total volume of seeping oil in the 

13 northern half of the GOM vary widely from 29,000 barrels per year (bbl/yr) (MacDonald 1998) 

14 to 520,000 bbl/yr (Kvenvolden and Cooper 2003). When combined with estimates of oil seeping 

15 into the southern portion of the GOM, the estimated volume of oil seeping into the GOM is 

16 approximately 1.0 million bbl/yr (Kvenvolden and Cooper 2003). These estimates used satellite 

17 data and an assumed slick thickness. At hydrocarbon seeps, pore water of three different origins

18 has been identified to leak out in addition to hydrocarbons: (1) seawater trapped during the 

19 settling of sediments, (2) briny fluid that is associated with the dissolution of underlying salt 

20 deposits, and (3) highly saline deep-seated formation waters (Fu and Aharon 1998; 

21 Aharon et al. 2001). The first two fluids leak out in the vicinity of carbonate deposits, while 

22 the third is rich in barium and is associated with barite deposits such as chimneys (Fu and 

23 Aharon 1998).

24

25

26 3.4.1.3 Climate Change Effects

27

28 Water quality in the GOM is expected to be affected by climate change 

29 (Ning et al. 2003). A thorough discussion of the impacts of climate change to the baseline 

30 environment can be found in Section 3.3. Anticipated sea-level rise would cause salinity 

31 increases in estuaries and lead to increases in coastal erosion (Nicholls et al. 2007). Changes in 

32 precipitation in the large fluvial drainage areas that contribute to the GOM (see Figure 3.2.1-4) 

33 are anticipated to change the quantity and timing of runoff that enters into the GOM. Significant 

34 changes in runoff would impact salinity in the coastal waters of the GOM, change coastal water 

35 circulation, and also impact the quantities of contaminants carried to the GOM, including 

36 suspended solids, heavy metals, pesticides, oil and grease, and nutrients. Increased runoff 

37 would likely deliver increased amounts of nutrients, increase the stratification between warmer 

38 fresher and colder saltier water, and potentially lead to eutrophication of estuaries and increase 

39 the potential for harmful algal blooms that can deplete oxygen levels (Justic et al. 1996; 

40 Karl et al. 2009). Reductions of freshwater flows in rivers or prolonged drought periods 

41 could increase the salinity in coastal ecosystems (Twilley et al. 2001). Ocean temperatures 

42 in the upper 700 m (2,300 ft) increased by 0.10°C (0.18°F) between 1961 and 2003 

43 (Bindoff et al. 2007). Future sea surface temperature increases are anticipated and would affect 

44 chemical and microbial processes in coastal and marine environments. Rising temperatures are 

45 anticipated to lead to increased thermal stratification, increased coral bleaching and moratlity, 

46 and increased algal blooms, but other impacts are difficult to predict, due to the complexity of 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-35

1 ecological processes (Nicholls et al. 2007). In addition, ocean pH values are anticipated to 

2 decrease by up to 0.35 pH units over the 21st century, leading to ocean acidification 

3 (IPCC 2007a). 

4

5

6 3.4.1.4 Deepwater Horizon Event

7

8 On April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform collapsed leading to the 

9 largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history, the Deepwater Horizon event (DWH event) 

10 (OSAT 2010). It is estimated that between April 22 and July 15, 2010, approximately 

11 4.9 million barrels (with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10%) of oil leaked into the GOM from 

12 the DWH event (Lubchenco et al. 2010; TFISG 2010). Analysis of event video footage led 

13 scientists to conclude that the the majority of the volume of the release of the DWH event was 

14 hydrocarbon gases, and oil was only 44% of the volume of the release (TFISG 2010). In 

addition, approximately 7,000 m3 15 (1.84 million gal) of the chemical dispersants COREXIT 9500 

16 and COREXIT 9527 were used on the DWH event (Oil Spill Commission 2011). Of the total 

volume, approximately 2,900 m3 17 (771,000 gal) of chemical dispersants were applied directly to 

18 the DWH wellhead at a depth of about 5,000 ft below the water surface, which was the first 

19 application of dispersants at the source of a subsea spill (Kujawinski et al. 2011). An estimate of 

20 the fate of the oil was released by the National Incident Command (NIC) in August 2010; 

21 findings were as follows: 25% of the oil was estimated to be removed by burning, skimming, 

22 and direct recovery from the wellhead; 25% was estimated to have evaporated or dissolved; 24% 

23 was estimated to be dispersed; and 26% was estimated to remain as oil on or near the water 

24 surface, onshore oil that remains or has been collected, and oil that is buried in sand and 

25 sediments (Lubchenco et al. 2010). As of August 2010, oil that was reported to be dissolved or 

26 was dispersed into the water column, and thus remaining in the environment, was estimated to be 

27 between 2.9 and 3.2 million bbl by a group of academics organized by the Georgia Sea Grant 

28 (Hopkinson 2010).

29

30 The principal impacting factors to GOM water quality from the DWH event were (1) the 

31 release of oil, (2) the release of gas, and (3) the use of chemical dispersants. Impacts of the 

32 DWH event on water quality have been monitored by various Federal and State agencies and by 

33 the academic community. The December 17, 2010, report released by the Operational Science 

34 Advisory Team of the Unified Area Command (OSAT) summarized water and sediment quality 

35 data measuring concentrations of oil- and dispersant-related chemicals collected from the start of 

36 the DWH event through October 23, 2010 (OSAT 2010). The OSAT is a group of Federal 

37 scientists and stakeholders that was put together by the Unified Area Command to collect data to 

38 inform cleanup operations, restoration activities, research, and the Natural Resources Damage 

39 Assessment (NRDA) process (OSAT 2010). As of January 20, 2011, a total of 13,677 water 

40 samples and 4,506 sediment samples had been taken to support the NRDA process 

41 (NOAA 2011g). Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Team (SCAT) observations indicated that oiling 

42 along barrier islands and coastal areas in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida during 

43 and after the DWH event persisted as of January 2011 (Geoplatform 2011a,b).

44

45 The oil that leaked during the DWH event is known as light sweet crude oil and has many 

46 chemical constituents. To evaluate the impacts of the DWH event on the environment, the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-36

1 USEPA has set ―benchmark‖ concentrations of 41 compounds found in the oil from the DWH 

2 event for human health, aquatic health, and sediment (OSAT 2010). The compounds include 

3 7 volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 16 parent PAHs, and 18 derivative compounds of the 

4 PAHs (OSAT 2010). The composition of the oil from the DWH event varies with the state of 

5 weathering of the oil; as the lighter-end components are removed from weathering processes, 

6 only the heavier-end components remain (Core and Technical Working Groups 2010). Some of 

7 the constituents released during the DWH event evaporated at the surface or rapidly dissolved 

8 into the GOM waters before the oil reached the surface. Evidence from the DWH event 

9 indicates that methane gas released from the well was rapidly broken down by bacterial action 

10 with little oxygen drawdown (Camilli et al. 2010; Kessler et al. 2011). Other constituents 

11 remained in the water column and bottom sediments for longer periods (OSAT 2010). In 

12 addition, the chemical dispersant used during the spill has been tracked in the GOM by 

13 measuring concentrations of 2-butoxyethanol, dipropylene glycol n-butyl ether (DPnB), 

14 propylene glycol, and dioctylsulfosuccinate (DOSS) — its four major constituents — and 

15 comparing those concentrations to water quality aquatic life benchmarks set by the USEPA 

16 (OSAT 2010). Areas contacted by the event were identified by tracking certain constituents. 

17 Other chemicals associated with the event include other surface washing agents, which are used 

18 to lift oil off of shoreline surfaces and further prevent those surfaces from becoming sources of 

19 pollution (NOAA 2011a).

20

21 Both short-term and long-term impacts from the DWH event on water quality in the 

22 GOM are currently being assessed. The current understanding of the status of water quality in 

23 coastal and marine areas as a result of the event will be discussed below.

24

25

26 3.4.1.4.1 Effects of Deepwater Horizon Event on Coastal Water Quality. As a result 

27 of the DWH event, oil was present on the surface as well as dispersed and in suspension below 

28 the surface in coastal areas (OSAT 2010). The NRDA process has collected a large amount of 

29 data, and as of December 1, 2010, approximately 6,400 linear km (4,000 linear mi) of shoreline 

30 had been assessed by NRDA teams for oil contamination (NOAA 2010a). Data from regional 

31 SCAT teams indicates that oil contamination persisted on GOM shorelines as of December 2010 

32 and January 2011. As of December 20, 2010, the Louisiana SCAT team observations indicated 

33 tar balls and varying degrees of oiling were still present on the shoreline and barrier islands of 

34 Louisiana. As of January 5, 2011, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida SCAT team observations 

35 indicated varying degrees of oiling were present on the barrier islands and shoreline in 

36 Mississippi, Alabama, and western Florida (Geoplatform 2011a,b). As of January 20, 2011, 

37 134 km (83 mi) of shoreline were classified as heavily or moderately oiled (NOAA 2011c).

38

39 OSAT reported that all water samples collected after August 3, 2010 (in waters deeper 

40 than 10 ft), indicated that oil- and dispersant-related chemicals were below levels set by the 

41 USEPA to be chronically toxic to humans and aquatic life. Within 3 km (2 mi) of the wellhead, 

42 however, concentrations of oil-related chemicals in the deepwater sediments were still found to 

43 be elevated above benchmark concentrations for aquatic life (OSAT 2010). The OSAT report 

44 also identified some residual contamination remaining in shallow waters in the form of tar mats, 

45 defined as ―submerged sedimented oil,‖ located in the sub-tidal zone and reported that sampling 

46 to date had not been adequate to define the extent of the tar mats. The OSAT (2010) report 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-37

1 indicated the need to further define the tar mats and evaluate them as a potential source of 

2 shoreline contamination through ―re-oiling.‖

3

4 OSAT (2010) defined nearshore waters as those within 5.6 km (3 nautical mi;

5 3.5 linear mi) of the coastline, which are also defined as ―State‖ waters in most cases. Visible oil 

6 was first found in nearshore waters on approximately May 15, 2010, in Louisiana and June 1, 

7 2010, for Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida. Nearshore water and sediment quality were

8 sampled before oil reached the nearshore zone, starting in late April, to create a baseline/

9 reference dataset (OSAT 2010). Concentrations of oil-indicator and dispersant chemicals were 

10 measured in samples to determine the presence or absence of impacts from the event. The 

11 concentrations of those chemicals were then compared with the human health and ecological 

12 health benchmarks set by the USEPA as indicators of health risks. Findings of indicator 

13 concentrations of oil- and dispersant-related chemicals were also compared to the composition of 

14 the oil from the DWH event to rule out samples that may have been contaminated by other 

15 sources (e.g., oil leaks from boats). Samples that were found to be of indeterminate origin were 

16 considered to be the oil from the DWH event. Results of the water and sediment quality 

17 sampling are detailed in Table 3.4.1-1 and indicate that there were very few exceedances of the 

18 benchmarks set by the USEPA. No exceedances of the human health benchmark for oil-related 

19 chemicals or the aquatic life benchmark for dispersant-related chemicals were measured in 

20 samples. Sampling after August 3, 2010, found traces of oil and dispersant remaining in the 

21 nearshore zone, but all samples that exceeded water and/or sediment quality benchmarks were 

22 not consistent with the oil from the DWH event (OSAT 2010).

23

24

25 3.4.1.4.2 Effects of Deepwater Horizon Event on the Continental Shelf. The 

26 December 17, 2010, OSAT report summarized data collected measuring concentrations of oil27 and dispersant-related chemicals in water and sediment from the start of the event through 

28 October 23, 2010. The OSAT (2010) report defined the offshore zone as those waters between 

29 5.6 km (3 nautical mi) of the coastline (boundary of ―State‖ waters) to the 200-m (656-ft) 

30 bathymetric contour. Concentrations of oil- and dispersant-indicator chemicals were measured 

31 in samples to determine the presence or absence of impacts from the event. The concentrations 

32 of those chemicals were then compared with the human health and ecological health benchmarks 

33 set by the USEPA as indicators of health risks. Findings of indicator concentrations of oil- and 

34 dispersant-related chemicals were also compared to the composition of the oil from the DWH 

35 event to rule out samples that may have been contaminated by other sources (e.g., oil leaks from 

36 boats). Results of the water and sediment quality sampling are detailed in Table 3.4.1-1 and 

37 indicate that there were very few exceedances of the benchmarks set by the USEPA. No 

38 exceedances of the human health benchmark for oil-related chemicals or the aquatic life 

39 benchmark for dispersant-related chemicals were measured in water samples, and no 

40 exceedances of the aquatic life benchmark for oil-related chemicals were measured in sediment 

41 samples. Sampling after August 3, 2010, found traces of oil and dispersant remaining in the 

42 offshore zone, but no samples taken after this time had concentrations that exceeded water 

43 quality benchmarks (OSAT 2010).

44

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-38

1 3.4.1.4.3 Effects of Deepwater Horizon Event on Deep Water. The December 17, 

2 2010, OSAT report summarized oil- and dispersant-related chemical concentrations in water 

3 and sediment from the start of the DWH event through October 23, 2010. The OSAT (2010) 

4 defined the deepwater zone as those waters beyond the 200-m (656-ft) bathymetric contour. 

5 Concentrations of oil- and dispersant-indicator chemicals were measured in samples to determine 

6 the presence or absence of impacts from the DWH event. The concentrations of those chemicals 

7 were then compared with the human health and ecological health benchmarks set by the USEPA 

8 as indicators of health risks. Findings of indicator concentrations of oil- and dispersant-related 

9 chemicals were also compared to the composition of the oil from the DWH event to rule out 

10 samples that may have been contaminated by other sources (e.g., oil leaks from boats). Results 

11 of the water and sediment quality sampling (Table 3.4.1-1) indicate that there were very few 

12 exceedances of the benchmarks set by the USEPA. No exceedances of the human health 

13 benchmark for oil-related chemicals or the aquatic life benchmark for dispersant-related 

14 chemicals were measured in samples. Sampling after August 3, 2010, found traces of oil and 

15 dispersant remaining in the deepwater zone, and seven sediment samples taken within 3 km 

16 (2 mi) of the wellhead exceeded the aquatic life sediment quality benchmark and were consistent 

17 with the oil from the DWH event (OSAT 2010).

18

19 Camilli et al. (2010) conducted a subsurface hydrocarbon study two months after the 

20 DWH event (depth 1,500 m [4,921 ft]) in the GOM. They found a continuous oil plume at a 

21 depth of approximately 1,100 m (3,609 ft) that extended for 35 km (22 mi) from the DWH event 

22 site. The plume consisted of monoaromatic hydrocarbons (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and 

23 xylene) at concentrations greater than 50 micrograms per liter. The plume persisted for months 

24 at this depth with no substantial biodegradation. They also measured concentrations throughout 

25 the water column and found similarly high concentrations of aromatic hydrocarbons in the upper 

26 100 m (328 ft). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were found at very high concentrations 

27 (reaching 189 micrograms per liter) by Diercks et al. (2010) after the DWH event at depths 

28 between 1,000 and 1,400 m (3,281 and 4,593 ft) extending as far as 13 km (8 mi) from the 

29 subsurface DWH event site.

30

31 Joye et al. (2011) estimated that the DWH event released 500,000 tons of hydrocarbon 

32 gases at depth. They found high concentrations of dissolved hydrocarbon gases (methane, 

33 ethane, propane, butane, and pentane) in a water layer between 1,000 and 1,300 m (3,281 and 

34 4,265 ft) (Joye et al. 2011). These concentrations exceeded the background concentration of 

35 hydrocarbon gases by up to 75,000 times. Results from a study by Yvon-Lewis et al. (2011)

36 showed that, beginning 53 days after the DWH event and for 7 days of continuous chemical 

37 analysis at sea, there was a low flux of methane from the DWH event to the atmosphere. Based 

38 on these methane measurements at the surface water and concurrent measurements at depth, they 

39 concluded that the majority of methane from the DWH event remained dissolved in the deep 

40 ocean waters (Yvon-Lewis et al. 2011). Valentine et al. (2010) reported that two months after 

41 the DWH event, propane and ethane gases at depth were the major gases driving rapid 

42 respiration by bacteria. They also found these gases at shallower depths but at concentrations 

43 that were orders of magnitude lower (Valentine et al. 2010). 

44

45 Methane release in the DWH event and biodegradation by deepwater methanotrophs 

46 were studied by Kessler et al. (2011). They found that a deepwater bacterial bloom respired the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-39

1 TABLE 3.4.1-1 Summary of Results of Water and Sediment Quality Sampling from the Deepwater 

Horizon Event as of October 23, 20102

a

Sample Type

Total 

Samples

Number of 

Detects

Samples 

Exceeding 

Benchmarkb

Exceedances 

Consistent 

with Oil from 

DWH Event

Nearshore Zone

c

 Oil-Related Chemicals

Water quality sample compared to human health benchmark

b 6,090 2,685

00

Water quality sample compared to aquatic life benchmark 5,773 395 41 22

Sediment quality sample compared to aquatic life benchmark 1,136 441 24 13

 Dispersant-Related Chemicals

Water quality sample compared to aquatic life benchmark 5,262 6000

Sediment quality sample 4126 NA

d NA

Offshore Zone

e

 Oil-Related Chemicals

Water quality sample compared to human health benchmark

b 750 242

00

Water quality sample compared to aquatic life benchmark 481 28366

Sediment quality sample compared to aquatic life benchmark 268 20700

 Dispersant-Related Chemicals

Water quality sample compared to aquatic life benchmark 440 19900

Sediment quality sample 2421 NA NA

Deepwater Zone

f

 Oil-Related Chemicals

Water quality sample compared to human health benchmark

b 4,794 673

00

Water quality sample compared to aquatic life benchmark 3,612 821 70 63

Sediment quality sample compared to aquatic life benchmark 120 11477

 Dispersant-Related Chemicals

Water quality sample compared to aquatic life benchmark 4,114 35300

Sediment quality sample 1201 NA NA

a Data as presented in OSAT (2010). b Values of the USEPA benchmarks are presented in the report by OSAT (2010). c Nearshore zone is defined as coastal waters out to 5.6 km (3 nautical mi) from the shoreline (State waters). d NA = No sediment quality benchmarks were established for dispersant-related chemicals. e Offshore zone is defined as waters from 5.6 km (3 nautical mi) of the shoreline to a depth of 200 m (656 ft). f Deepwater zone is defined as waters deeper than 200 m (656 ft).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-40

1 majority of the methane in approximately 120 days. Similarly, Hazen et al. (2010) found 

2 indigenous bacteria at 17 deepwater stations biodegrading oil 2–3 months after the DWH event. 

3 The fate of 771,000 gallons of chemical dispersants injected at the DWH wellhead near the 

4 seafloor (1,500 m [4,921 ft]) was studied by Kujawinski et al. (2011). Their results show that the 

5 dispersants injected at the wellhead were concentrated in hydrocarbon plumes at 1,000–1,200 m 

6 (3,281–3,937 ft) depth 64 days after dispersant application was stopped and as far away as 

7 300 km (186 mi). They concluded that the chemical dispersants at this depth underwent slow 

8 rates of biodegradation (Kujawinski et al. 2011).

9

10

11 3.4.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

12

13 The term water quality describes the overall condition of water, reflecting its particular 

14 biological, chemical, and physical characteristics. It is an important measure for both ecological 

15 and human health. Water quality is most often discussed in reference to a particular purpose or 

16 use of the water, such as recreation, drinking, or ecosystem health. Alaska State and Federal 

17 laws define the type of water quality that must be maintained for these purposes.

18

19 Alaska marine waters are a mixture of several sources — atmospheric (precipitation), 

20 rivers, streams, groundwater, snowmelt, glacier-melt, ice-melt, and oceanic sources such as vents 

21 on the deep seafloor. Constituents in marine waters come into the system naturally (biogenic) 

22 and are introduced by humans (anthropogenic). Climate change is affecting the sources and 

23 constituents of marine water as increasing carbon dioxide and increasing air temperatures force 

24 changes in seawater acidification, seawater temperature, and related water quality variables.

25

26 Precipitation, snowmelt, glaciers, and groundwater springs feed the many lakes, streams, 

27 ponds, and wetlands throughout Alaska. High tundra, muskeg, willow-alder habitats, and alpine 

28 bedrock feed constituents into these freshwater systems. Rivers originating in headwaters 

29 introduce and transport sediment into the drainage basins on a seasonal basis. Volcanic 

30 eruptions have also played an important role in contributing chemical constituents to the 

31 freshwater systems of Alaska. 

32

33 In Alaska, there are several seasonal or occasional natural events that contribute to water 

34 quality and to which natural systems are adapted. Examples of these events include 

35 hydrocarbons from natural oil seeps, sediment from coastal erosion, sediment derived from 

36 glacial-fed rivers, natural levels of nutrients from river flooding, and metals from volcanic 

37 eruptions and rock erosion (AMAP 1997, 2002, 2007). Several metals, such as zinc and iron, in 

38 natural low concentrations are essential for life processes in the marine environment 

39 (Ezoe et al. 2004).

40

41 The Alaska OCS water quality to date has had relatively little exposure from the more 

42 common land-based and marine anthropogenic pollution found in the Lower 48 States. The 

43 rivers that flow into coastal marine waters remain relatively unpolluted by human activities. 

44 Industrial and shipping impacts on water quality have been and are relatively low at this time, 

45 with some notable exceptions of events such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill and the Selengdang 

46 Ayu and other ship groundings or accidents. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-41

1 There are, however, several sources of anthropogenic contaminants in the Alaska marine 

2 environment. They travel through pathways to the arctic marine ecosystem including deposition 

3 from the atmosphere, discharges to the sea, drifting sea ice, or directly from accidental or 

4 intentional dumping of pollutants. Water quality pollutants arrive in Alaska from sources both 

5 within and outside the circumpolar environment. The types of pollutants that come from these 

6 near and distant sources include oil-based hydrocarbons, manufactured chemicals, metals 

7 (e.g., mercury, lead, cadmium), nutrients loads, high sediment loads (nonpoint runoff of 

8 disturbed lands), organic waste (e.g., seafood processing), and radionuclides (from radioactive 

9 materials).

10

11 Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are a category of anthropogenic pollutants that are 

12 particularly resistant to degradation in the environment. POPs have a potential for long-range 

13 transport, and they accumulate in concentrations in aquatic species. Polyaromatic hydrocarbons 

14 (PAHs), a byproduct of burning hydrocarbon fuel, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), used 

15 in manufacturing products, are two persistent organic pollutants found in the Alaska 

16 (AMAP 2004). 

17

18 Many of these pollutants concentrate in animals and bioaccumulate as they move through 

19 the food web. Contaminated animals can then transport the pollutant into or away from the 

20 Arctic (AMAP 2004). Migratory whales, migratory seabirds, and salmon species are examples 

21 of pollutant transporters through the marine aquatic system.

22

23 Human society sometimes discharges into the environment constituents that also occur 

24 naturally in the ecosystem. These anthropogenic discharges, however, are different than the 

25 biogenic sources because they occur in greater concentrations and often suddenly; the chemical 

26 bondings are different than what is found in the natural system; the discharges occur outside the 

27 area that they would naturally occur; or they occur out of phase of the natural cycle of the same 

28 biogenic contributions to the system. Examples of anthropogenic constituents include sediment, 

29 metals, and hydrocarbons.

30

31 The Cook Inlet Planning Area is located in south central Alaska and has a watershed of 

approximately 100,000 km2 (38,600 m2 32 ) (Saupe et al. 2005). The continental shelf off of south 

33 central Alaska supports a productive ecosystem that includes numerous species of fishes, marine 

34 mammals, sea birds, and invertebrates. Degradations of water quality, where they occur, are 

35 largely related to seasonal biological activity and naturally occurring processes. The Cook Inlet 

36 watershed is home to two thirds of the population of the State of Alaska; therefore, runoff in the 

37 watershed is influenced by human activity more than in any other region in Alaska 

38 (Saupe et al. 2005). The principal point sources of anthropogenic contaminants in Cook Inlet are 

39 discharges from municipalities, seafood processors, and the petroleum industry (MMS 1995). 

40 Point source pollution is rapidly diluted by the energetic tidal currents in the Cook Inlet, and it is 

41 estimated that 90% of the water in the Cook Inlet is flushed every 10 months (MMS 2003a). The 

42 State of Alaska has identified several coastal impaired water bodies throughout the south central 

43 coastal area that have total maximum daily load (TMDL) restrictions implemented or remain on 

44 the Clean Water Act 303(d) list of impaired water bodies with TMDLs planned to be 

45 implemented by 2013 (ADEC 2010a). The impaired areas are all relatively small and are mainly 

46 affected by urban runoff, timber harvest, or seafood processing (ADEC 2010a). These small 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-42

1 impaired areas would not have an appreciable effect on marine water quality. The coastal waters 

2 of south central Alaska have recently been assessed to be in good condition by the USEPA 

3 National Coastal Condition Report, and were deemed to be in better condition than any other 

4 U.S. coastal waters assessed for the report (USEPA 2008).

5

6 Cook Inlet waters are influenced by riverine and marine inputs. During summer and fall, 

7 surface salinity varies from 32% at the entrance to lower Cook Inlet to approximately 26% at the 

8 West Forelands (Rosenberg et al. 1967; Kinney et al. 1970; Wright et al. 1973; Gatto 1976; 

9 Muench et al. 1978). Oxygen levels measured in May 1968 in the surface waters of Cook Inlet 

10 ranged from about 7.2 to 11.0 mL/L (Kinney et al. 1970). None of the waters in the inlet were 

11 found to be oxygen depleted, because of the strong tidal currents in the inlet that mix the entire 

12 water column (Kinney et al. 1970).

13

14 The distribution of suspended particulate matter in Cook Inlet shows horizontal gradients 

15 in both the longitudinal and cross-inlet directions (Feely and Massoth 1982). The suspended

16 particulate matter concentrations are higher (up to 2,000 parts per million [ppm]) in the 

17 northeastern end of upper Cook Inlet and decrease through the lower inlet (up to 100 ppm) 

18 depending on inputs from rivers at the time of measurement (Kinney et al. 1970; 

19 Wright et al. 1973; Sharma 1979; Feely and Massoth 1982; Saupe et al. 2005).

20

21 The activities associated with petroleum exploitation in State waters that are most likely 

22 to affect water quality in the Cook Inlet are (1) the permitted discharges from exploration drilling 

23 units and production platforms and (2) petrochemical plant operations. The USEPA compared 

24 pollutant concentrations resulting from an estimated Cook Inlet discharge of cuttings generated 

25 while drilling with synthetic-based fluid to both Federal criteria and State water quality 

26 standards (because the projected discharges occur in State waters). There was no predicted 

27 exceedance of the Federal criteria or State water quality standards in the Cook Inlet 

28 (USEPA 2000). The National Research Council (NRC 2003b) estimated that the total amount of 

29 produced water being released into Cook Inlet waters was 45.7 million bbl/yr in the 1990s. 

30 Produced water can contain hydrocarbons, salts, and metals at levels toxic to marine organisms. 

31 Before being discharged into the ocean, produced water is typically treated and must meet 

32 NPDES requirements regarding discharge rate, contaminant concentration, and toxicity, thereby 

33 reducing the potential for water column and sediment contamination.

34

35 Sediment sampling for sediment quality was conducted in depositional areas in the outer 

36 portion of Cook Inlet in 1997 and 1998 (Boehm et al. 2001a). Analysis of dated sediment cores 

37 demonstrated that the concentration of hydrocarbons has not increased appreciably over the past 

38 few decades (since before State offshore oil exploration and production in Cook Inlet). The 

39 concentrations of total PAHs found by Boehm et al. (2001a) in the outer portion of Cook Inlet 

40 range from less than 120 to 490 parts per billion (ppb). The highest concentrations tend to occur 

41 in the southeast corner of Cook Inlet. These concentrations are the result of a combination of 

42 eroded coal and oil sources, plus seep oil being deposited in sediments by the coastal current 

43 entering Cook Inlet from the eastern Gulf of Alaska (Boehm et al. 2001a). The concentrations 

44 downcurrent of Cook Inlet are actually diluted up to several-fold by Cook Inlet discharges. This 

45 results in the highest concentrations of hydrocarbons existing in coastal sediments where the 

46 influence of estuarine Cook Inlet discharges is smallest, particularly in eastern lower Cook Inlet 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-43

1 (Boehm 2001). Water and sediment quality were also sampled in 2002 by the USEPA and the 

2 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) for the National Coastal 

3 Assessment Program (Saupe et al. 2005). Total PAH concentrations in sediments of Cook Inlet 

4 ranged from less than 10 ppb to 840 ppb, with the majority of samples having concentrations less 

5 than 150 ppb (Saupe et al. 2005). No persistent organic contaminants, such as PCBs or 

6 dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethanes (DDTs) were detected in sediments during sampling in 2002 

7 (Saupe et al. 2005). Sampling for metals concentrations in sediment indicate that levels of most 

8 metals are below a range to produce effects (as defined by the ADEC); however, concentrations 

9 of nickel and chromium in sediments were found to exceed the threshold for effects at three 

10 stations and one station, respectively, within the Cook Inlet (Saupe et al. 2005). Measurements 

11 of sediment total organic carbon taken in 1971 were found to be low and suggestive of an 

12 unpolluted environment (MMS 2003a).

13

14 Hydrocarbons are found throughout the waters of Cook Inlet in generally low 

15 concentrations. Natural oil seeps occur on the west side of the Cook Inlet, which release 

16 hydrocarbons from biogenic sources (Saupe et al. 2005). Concentrations generally are similar to 

17 those found in other unpolluted coastal areas.

18

19

20 3.4.2.1 Climate Change Effects

21

22 Climate change is anticipated to impact water quality of the Cook Inlet. A thorough 

23 discussion of the impacts of climate change to the baseline environment can be found in 

24 Section 3.3. Anticipated sea-level rise would cause salinity increases in estuaries and lead to 

25 increases in coastal erosion (Nicholls et al. 2007). Increases in precipitation are anticipated to 

26 increase the quantity of runoff that enters into Cook Inlet (IPCC 2007a). Significant changes in 

27 runoff would impact salinity in Cook Inlet, change water circulation and stratification in Cook 

28 Inlet, and also impact the quantities of suspended solids and nutrients delivered to Cook Inlet 

29 (ACIA 2005). In addition, anticipated thaw of permafrost would increase susceptibility to 

30 erosion and landslides, which could lead to increased input of suspended solids to Cook Inlet 

31 (ACIA 2005). Ocean temperatures in the upper 700 m (2,300 ft) increased by 0.10°C (0.18°F) 

32 between 1961 and 2003 (Bindoff et al. 2007). Future sea surface temperature increases are 

33 anticipated and would affect chemical and microbial processes in coastal and marine 

34 environments (Nicholls et al. 2007). Coastal erosion is anticipated to increase due to climate 

35 change (Alaska Regional Assessment Group 1999). In addition, ocean pH values are anticipated 

36 to decrease by up to 0.35 pH units over the 21st century, leading to ocean acidification 

37 (IPCC 2007a).

38

39

40 3.4.3 Alaska – Arctic

41

42 The term water quality describes the overall condition of water, reflecting its particular 

43 biological, chemical, and physical characteristics. It is an important measure for both ecological 

44 and human health. Water quality is most often discussed in reference to a particular purpose or 

45 use of the water, such as recreation, drinking, or ecosystem health. Alaska State and Federal 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-44

1 laws define the type of water quality that must be maintained for these purposes. General 

2 characteristics of water quality in Alaskan waters are presented above in Section 3.4.2. 

3

4 Because of limited municipal and industrial activity around the Arctic Ocean coast, most 

5 pollutants occur at low levels in the Arctic. The rivers that flow into the Alaskan arctic marine 

6 environment remain relatively unpolluted by human activities, but they carry into the marine 

7 environment suspended sediment particles with trace metals and hydrocarbons. Winds and 

8 drifting sea ice may play a role in the long-range redistribution of pollutants in the Arctic Ocean. 

9 The broad arctic distribution of pollutants is described in a report by the Arctic Monitoring and 

10 Assessment Program (AMAP 1997) entitled Arctic Pollution Issues: A State of the Arctic 

11 Environmental Report.

12

13 The areas of the Arctic region in the proposed action are in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea

14 Planning Areas (Figure 3.4.3-1). Under Alternatives 5 and 6, leasing activity would be deferred 

15 in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea, respectively. In both seas, the water quality is relatively 

16 pristine. Degradation of water quality, where it occurs in the Arctic, is largely related to 

17 localized anthropogenic pollution from, for example, mining facilities and former military 

18 facilities (ADEC 2010a).

19

20 Water quality in the nearshore Arctic Ocean (landward of the 40-m [131-ft] water depth 

21 line) may be slightly affected locally by both anthropogenic and natural sources. Most 

22 detectable pollutants occur at very low levels in the arctic waters and/or sediments and do not 

23 pose an ecological risk to marine organisms (MMS 2003a). The State of Alaska does not 

24 identify any Clean Water Act Section 303(d) impaired water bodies within the Arctic region 

25 (ADEC 2010a). However, some annual water quality monitoring (temperature and total 

26 dissolved solids) is required for the Nearshore Beaufort Lagoons as a condition for oil and gas 

27 operations. The Nearshore Beaufort Lagoons were on the Clean Water Act 303(d) list for 

28 impaired water bodies between 1996 and 1998 for temperature and salinity, but mitigation 

29 measures have brought water quality into compliance with Alaska standards since 2002 

30 (ADEC 2010a).

31

32 The primary rivers that flow into the arctic marine environment remain relatively 

33 unpolluted by human activities. They do, however, carry into the marine environment suspended 

34 sediment particles with some trace metals, hydrocarbons, and other pollutants. Suspended 

35 sediment concentrations are highest during the spring runoff, when rivers flow into the Arctic 

36 under landfast ice (Alkire and Trefry 2006). Plumes of river water can extend to 20 km 

37 (12.4 mi) under the ice, as mixing and wave action are low under the seasonal ice (Alkire and 

38 Trefry 2006).

39

40 Suspended sediment concentrations in the Beaufort Sea under summer conditions are 

41 usually low, but can be elevated by wind-wave activity in shallow waters closer to shore 

42 (less than 10 m [33 ft] deep) (Boehm et al. 2001b). Suspended sediment concentrations in the 

43 Beaufort Sea are estimated to be at background levels (Trefry et al. 2009). Water quality also is 

44 affected by natural erosion of organic material along the shorelines. The Chukchi is a high45 energy shore once the ice is gone (MMS 2008b). Erosion and flooding occur with autumn and 

46 spring storms and ice movement (MMS 2008b). The increased oxygen demand of these inputs 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-45

12 FIGURE 3.4.

3-1 Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-46

1 may marginally lower oxygen levels and locally increase turbidity. These effects usually occur 

2 in waters less than 5 m (16.4 ft) deep and do not generally extend seaward of the barrier islands. 

3 Another cause of altered water quality is sea ice cover (MMS 2008b). As sea ice forms during 

4 the fall, particulates are removed from the water column by ice crystals and are locked into the 

5 ice cover. The result is very low turbidity levels during the winter.

6

7 Dissolved and particulate trace metal concentrations in sediments of the Beaufort 

8 nearshore do not show evidence of significant impact from the nearby oil and gas activities in 

9 Prudhoe Bay (Naidu et al. 2001, 2005; Trefry et al. 2009). However, elevated concentrations 

10 of copper, lead, cadmium, silver, arsenic, antimony, nickel, mercury, and cobalt have been 

11 measured at a monitoring station near the West Dock in Prudhoe Bay and are assumed to be 

12 related to construction activity in the area (Boehm et al. 2001b). Results of monitoring activities 

13 around the Northstar site and the original proposed Liberty site also indicate that hydrocarbon 

14 and metals concentrations in sediments are not significantly influenced by anthropogenic input 

15 (Brown 2003). Trace-metal concentrations in the Chukchi are elevated compared to those in the 

16 eastern portions of the Arctic Ocean. The higher concentrations are thought to come from 

17 Bering Sea water that passes first through the Chukchi Sea and then through the Beaufort Sea 

18 (MMS 2008b). These waters, however, are considerably lower in trace-metal concentrations 

19 than the USEPA criteria for the protection of marine life (MMS 2008b). One potential source of 

20 anthropogenic input of trace metals is the Red Dog Mine. A study for the National Park Service 

21 (Hasselbach et al. 2005) showed extensive airborne transport of cadmium and lead; although the 

22 study was focused only on the Cape Krusenstern National Monument, these contaminants are 

23 probably carried out into the Chukchi Sea (Hasselbach et al. 2005).

24

25 Background hydrocarbon concentrations in Beaufort Sea waters appear to be biogenic 

26 and on the order of less than 1 ppb (Trefry et al. 2004). No seafloor oil seeps have been 

27 identified in the Beaufort or Chukchi Sea (Becker and Manen 1988). However, naturally 

28 occurring oil seeps have been identified onshore above the low-tide line along the coast of the

29 Beaufort Sea (Becker and Manen 1988). Recent studies of sediments in Beaufort Lagoon, 

30 located in the eastern portion of the Alaskan arctic coast, have indicated that no anthropogenic 

31 hydrocarbon or metals contamination exists (Naidu et al. 2005). These sediment data will serve 

32 as a baseline against which to evaluate impacts to nearshore sediments from anthropogenic 

33 activities (Naidu et al. 2005). Hydrocarbon concentrations in sediments of the Beaufort Sea are 

34 relatively high compared with other undeveloped marine areas (Steinhauer and Boehm 1992). 

35 Total hydrocarbon concentrations in sediments range from 2 to 85 milligrams per kilogram 

36 (mg/kg) (Steinhauer and Boehm 1992; Naidu et al. 2001; Brown 2003). PAH concentrations in 

37 the sediments range from 0.3 to 2 mg/kg, which are well below levels that have detrimental 

38 effects on the environment (Brown 2003). Examination of sediment cores gives little indication 

39 that oil and gas activities in the area have measurably contaminated the sediments (Brown 2003), 

40 and molecular markers do not indicate input from oil and gas industrial activities 

41 (Naidu et al. 2001). However, concentrations of hydrocarbons at a sampling site near West Dock 

42 in Prudhoe Bay show signs of elevated hydrocarbons when compared to the other sampling 

43 stations (Boehm et al. 2001b). Considering the limited sources of anthropogenic input to the 

44 area, concentrations of hydrocarbons in the Chukchi Sea are expected to be at background levels.

45

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-47

1 3.4.3.1 Climate Change Effects

2

3 Climate change is anticipated to impact water quality of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. 

4 A thorough discussion of the impacts of climate change to the baseline environment can be 

5 found in Section 3.3. Anticipated sea-level rise would cause salinity increases in estuaries and 

6 lead to increases in coastal erosion (Nicholls et al. 2007). Increases in precipitation are 

7 anticipated to increase the quantity of runoff that enters arctic waters (IPCC 2007a). Significant 

8 changes in runoff would impact salinity and also impact the quantities of suspended solids and 

9 nutrients delivered to the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas (ACIA 2005). In addition, anticipated 

10 thaw of permafrost would increase the susceptibility to erosion and landslides, which could 

11 lead to increased input of suspended solids to arctic waters (ACIA 2005). Ocean temperatures 

12 in the upper 700 m (2,300 ft) increased by 0.10°C (0.18°F) between 1961 and 2003 

13 (Bindoff et al. 2007). Future sea surface temperature increases are anticipated and would affect 

14 chemical and microbial processes in coastal and marine environments (Nichols et al. 2007). 

15 Coastal erosion is anticipated to increase due to climate change, due to permafrost thaw (Alaska 

16 Regional Assessment Group 1999). Retreat of sea ice would increase impacts to coastal areas 

17 from storms, change the sea surface temperature and salinity, and alter ocean stratification 

18 (ACIA 2005). In addition, ocean pH values are anticipated to decrease by up to 0.35 pH units 

19 over the 21st century, leading to ocean acidification (IPCC 2007a). 

20

21

22 3.5 METEROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY

23

24

25 3.5.1 Climate

26

27

28 3.5.1.1 Gulf of Mexico

29

30 Most of the southern States, including the coastal areas along the GOM, have humid 

31 subtropical climates characterized by hot summers and mild winters, with high humidity in all 

32 seasons. These climates are classified as Cfa under the Köppen-Geiger climate classification 

33 system (Peel et al. 2007). The GOM is influenced by a maritime subtropical climate controlled 

34 mainly by the clockwise wind circulation around a semipermanent, high barometric pressure area 

35 alternating between the Azores and Bermuda Islands. The circulation around the western edge 

36 of the high pressure cell results in the predominance of moist southeasterly wind flow in the 

37 region. However, winter weather is quite variable. During the winter months, December 

38 through March, cold fronts associated with outbreaks of cold, dry continental air masses 

39 influence mainly the northern coastal areas of the GOM. Tropical cyclones may develop or 

40 migrate into the GOM during the warmer season, especially in the months of August through 

41 October. In coastal areas, the land-sea breeze is frequently the primary circulation feature in the 

42 months of May through October. Note that the following discussion is limited to the Western 

43 and Central Planning Areas and westernmost part of the Eastern Planning Area. Meteorological 

44 data summaries are based on two primary references: (1) local climatological data (NCDC 1995, 

45 2011a) for coastal cities along the GOM and (2) meteorological data collected from the shoreline 

46 stations and buoy stations over open waters of the GOM (NDBC 2011).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-48

1 For the coastal areas along the GOM, prevailing wind directions are generally from the 

2 southeast and the south, except for the coastal areas stretching from Alabama to the Florida 

3 Panhandle, where the prevailing wind is from the north (NCDC 1995, 2011a). Along the 

4 southern tip of Texas, southerly and southeasterly winds prevail throughout the year. Along the 

5 eastern coastal area (e.g., Pensacola, Florida), these wind components are limited to spring and 

6 early summer, and more northerly winds prevail during the rest of the year. Based on the 

7 National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) data in the Western and Central Planning Areas, 

8 southeasterly winds prevail (NDBC 2011). However, easterly winds are more frequent in the 

9 Eastern Planning Area. Near the coastal area in Alabama and the Florida Panhandle, the 

10 prevailing wind direction is from the north, the same as that for coastal cities (NCDC 2011a). 

11 Average wind speeds from the shoreline and buoy stations are relatively uniform, ranging from 

12 5.2 to 6.4 m/s (11.6 to 14.3 mph), although anemometer heights vary from 5.0 to 30.5 m (16.4 to 

13 100.1 ft). In general, wind speeds are highest in the winter months and lowest in the summer 

14 months, except for the shoreline stations in Texas where they are highest in May.

15

16 Ambient temperatures in the coastal areas and open waters of the GOM depend primarily 

17 on latitude and secondarily on proximity to the coastline. In the warmest month in the summer, 

18 average temperatures in the GOM coastal cities are relatively uniform, ranging from about 28 to 

19 29 degrees Celsius ( C) (82 to 85 degrees Fahrenheit [ F]) (NCDC 1995, 2011a). During the 

20 warm months, there is little diurnal or spatial variation in temperature. Average temperatures for 

21 the coldest month in winter range from about 11 C (51 F) in the northern coastal cities to about 

22 16 C (61 F) in the southernmost city in Texas. Ambient temperatures over the open GOM 

23 exhibit much smaller daily and seasonal variations due to the moderating effects of large bodies 

24 of water. Annual average temperatures range from 20 C (69 F) at the shoreline stations to 25 C 

25 (77 F) at open water buoy stations (NDBC 2011). Irrespective of the locations of NDBC 

26 stations, highest monthly temperatures, which occur mostly in August, are relatively uniform, 

27 ranging from about 28 to 29 C (82 to 84 F), which are similar to those in the coastal cities

28 (NCDC 1995, 2011a). The lowest monthly temperatures occur mostly in January and vary

29 depending on the location, ranging from 11 C (52 F) at the shoreline stations to 21 C (71 F) at 

30 open water buoy stations.

31

32 Humid subtropical climates exhibit abundant and fairly well-distributed precipitation 

33 throughout the year. Precipitation in the coastal cities along the GOM tends to peak in the 

34 summer months; lowest precipitation can occur in any of non-summer seasons. Annual mean 

35 precipitation tends to be heavier to the east than to the west of the GOM (NCDC 1995, 2011a). 

36 Annual precipitation ranges from 70.0 cm (27.55 in.) in Brownsville, Texas, to 168.4 cm 

37 (66.29 in.) in Mobile, Alabama. Rainfall in the warmer months is usually associated with 

38 convective cloud systems that produce showers and thunderstorms. Winter rains are associated

39 with the passage of frontal systems through the area. Snowfall along the GOM is uncommon: 

40 highest annual snowfall along the coastal cities is about 1.0 cm (0.4 in.) (NCDC 1995, 2011a).

41

42 Due to the proximity of the GOM, the relative humidity over the coastal areas is high, 

43 especially for the northern coastal areas during the warmer months. Lower humidities in the 

44 winter season are associated with outbreaks of cool, dry continental air from the interior. Annual

45 average relative humidities range from 75 to 79% for the coastal cities along the GOM

46 (NCDC 1995, 2011a). Typically, the highest relative humidity occurs during the coolest part of 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-49

1 the day (around sunrise), while the lowest relative humidity occurs during the warmest part of 

2 the afternoon.

3

4 Fog occurs occasionally in the cooler season as a result of warm, moist GOM air blowing 

5 over cool land or water surfaces. The number of days with heavy fog (visibility of 0.4 km 

6 [0.25 mi] or less) occur from 21 to 47 days per year along the GOM coastal cities (NCDC 1995, 

7 2011a). The poorest visibility conditions occur from November through April. During air 

8 stagnation, industrial pollution and agricultural burning can also impact visibility.

9

10 Atmospheric stability plays an important role in dispersing gases or particulates emitted 

11 into the atmosphere. Vertical motion and pollution dispersion are enhanced in an unstable 

12 atmosphere and are suppressed in a stable atmosphere. Over land, the atmospheric stability is 

13 more variable, depending on the time of day, cloud cover, and wind speed. Under calm to low 

14 winds, the atmosphere tends to be unstable during the daytime due to surface heating by solar 

15 insolation and stable at night due to radiative cooling. Under higher wind speeds and/or greater 

16 cloud cover, the atmosphere tends to be neutral irrespective of time of day. For coastal areas 

17 along the GOM, unstable conditions occur about 20% of the time, while neutral and stable 

18 conditions each occur about 40% of the time (Doty et al. 1976). Different from overland 

19 behavior, there is no large sensible heat flux driven by solar radiation over water. In addition, 

20 heating and cooling of the water surface takes place slowly due to its high heat capacity. In 

21 general, the atmosphere over water tends to be neutral to slightly unstable, since there are usually 

22 positive heat and moisture fluxes.

23

24 The mixing height is the height above the surface through which relatively vigorous 

25 vertical mixing occurs, primarily through the action of atmospheric turbulence. When the mixing 

26 height is low (i.e., very little vertical motion), ground-level concentrations of pollutants will be 

27 relatively high because the pollutants are prevented from dispersing upward. Mixing heights 

28 commonly go through large diurnal variations due to solar heating and surface cooling. Mixing 

29 heights are generally lowest around sunrise and highest during mid- to late afternoon. By 

30 season, mixing heights are typically the highest in summer and the lowest in winter. Near large 

31 water bodies (e.g., the GOM), diurnal and seasonal variations in mixing heights are relatively small 

32 compared with those at inland stations due to the moderating effects of the water. For coastal areas 

33 along the GOM, the mean annual morning mixing heights range from 500 to 900 m (1,640 to 

34 2,950 ft), while the mean afternoon mixing heights range from 1,000 to 1,400 m (3,280 to 4,590 ft) 

35 (Holzworth 1972). Over water, the absence of a strong sensible heat flux to drive the marine 

36 mixed layer and the small surface roughness of sea results in relatively low mixing heights. 

37 LeMone (1978) indicated that typical marine mixing height is about 500 m (1640 ft) over low38 latitude oceans.

39

40 In the GOM region, severe weather events such as thunderstorms, lightning, floods, 

41 tornadoes, and tropical cyclones are common. Thunderstorms occur from 26 days per year in 

42 Brownsville, Texas, to 80 days per year in Mobile, Alabama (NCDC 1995, 2011a). 

43 Thunderstorms occur most frequently in summer months and are least frequent in winter months. 

The number of lightning strikes per km2 44 -yr is as low as one at the southern tip of Texas and as 

45 high as 14 (NOAA 2011b). During the 1980–1999 period, tornadoes occurred from about 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-50

0.2 days per year2 1 at the southern tip of Texas up to 1.2 days per year in the southeastern Texas, 

2 Louisiana, and Mississippi along the GOM (NSSL 2003). While tornadoes and floods are the 

3 primary weather hazards in the southern States, the GOM coastal zone is most vulnerable to 

4 hurricanes and their accompanying impacts such as storm surges.

5

6 Tropical cyclones affecting the GOM originate over the tropical portions of the Atlantic 

7 basin, including the Atlantic Ocean, the Caribbean Sea, and the GOM. Tropical cyclones occur 

8 as early as May and as late as December, but most frequently from mid-August to late October 

9 (NHC 2011a). On average, about 11 tropical cyclones occur in the Atlantic Basin, many of 

10 which remain over the ocean and never impact the U.S. coastlines. About six of these storms 

11 become hurricanes each year (NHC 2011b). Coastal counties adjacent to the Western and 

12 Central Planning Areas could expect return periods, ranging from 3.6 to 7.0 yr, for hurricanes 

13 passing within 139 km (86 mi) of a given location (NHC 2011a). Figure 3.5.1-1 shows 

14 landfalling hurricanes in the continental U.S. for the period 1994–2009. Tropical cyclones cause 

15 damage to physical, economic, biological, and social systems in the GOM, but the severest 

16 effects tend to be highly localized. The GOM is also periodically affected by wintertime 

17 extratropical cyclones generated when continental, cold air outbreaks interact with the warm 

18 GOM waters. These storms can produce gale force winds and high seas, and are hazardous to 

19 shipping due to their sudden onset and rapid formation. For a discussion of the effects of tropical

20 cyclones and severe storms on OCS oil operations in the GOM, see previous EISs prepared for 

21 OCS oil and gas activities in the GOM (MMS 2007a, 2008a).

22

23

24 3.5.1.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

25

26 Climate in Alaska depends primarily on three factors: latitude, continentality, and 

27 elevation (ACRC 2011). The climate of the southern coastal Alaska including the Cook Inlet 

28 Planning Area is marine, characterized by short and cool summers and mild winters. The 

29 climate is moderated due to marine influences; however, the upper reaches of the Cook Inlet see 

30 more continental effects. Although the Cook Inlet Planning Area is relatively small compared to 

31 the other two planning areas, weather patterns significantly vary over a relatively short distance 

32 due to nearby complex terrains. The following discussion for wind, ambient temperature, and 

33 precipitation is based on data from primarily two National Weather Service (NWS) first-order 

34 stations: Homer, which is located on the southwest side of the Kenai Peninsula, and Kodiak, 

35 which is located on the east side of Kodiak Island. Homer and Kodiak are located in the upper 

36 and lower portions of the Cook Inlet Planning Area, which represent a wide spectrum of 

37 variations in climate around the area.

38

39 Winds are strongly influenced by local topography and mostly blow parallel to nearby 

40 mountain ranges. In Cook Inlet, the general prevailing wind direction is from the northeast. 

41 However, wind direction and speed at any location in Cook Inlet vary greatly depending on the 

42 orientation and elevation of and proximity to nearby mountain ranges/valleys and the openness 

43 to the Gulf of Alaska. At Homer, the prevailing wind direction is from the northeast during 

44 September through March, while winds blow more frequently from the west during April 

 

2 The mean number of days with one or more events occurring within 40 km (25 mi) of a point.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-51

12 FIGURE 3.5.1

-1 U.S. Landfalling Hurricanes, 1994–2009 (NHC 2011a)
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-52

1 through August (NCDC 2011b). The average wind speed at Homer is about 3.3 m/s (7.3 mph), 

2 with a slightly higher value in spring and a slightly lower value in summer. At Kodiak, the 

3 prevailing wind direction is from the northwest throughout the year, except in June and July 

4 when east-northeast winds blow more frequently (NCDC 2011b). The average wind speed at 

5 Kodiak is about 5.0 m/s (11.1 mph), with the highest reading in winter and the lowest in summer. 

6 At the NDBC buoy and coastal stations scattered within the Cook Inlet Planning Area, prevailing 

7 wind directions vary clockwise from the west to the northeast (NDBC 2011). Average wind 

8 speeds from NDBC stations range from 4.4 to 7.4 m/s (9.9 to 19.6 mph), with the highest reading 

9 in winter and the lowest in summer.

10

11 During the normal period (1970–2000), the average temperature at Homer was about 

12 3.4 C (38.1 F) (NCDC 2011b). January was the coldest month, with a mean daily minimum 

13 of –8.1 C (17.5 F); August was the warmest month, with a mean daily maximum of 16.1 C 

14 (61.0 F). In summer, maximum temperatures go over 21.1 C (70 F) about 2 days per year, 

15 while about 178 and 10 days have minimum temperatures at or below freezing and at –17.8 C 

16 (0 F ) or below, respectively (NCDC 2011b). The highest temperature, 27.2 C (81 F), was 

17 reached in July 1993, and the lowest, –31.1 C (–24 F), in January 1989. For the same period, 

18 the average temperature at Kodiak was about 4.7 C (40.5 F), with the lowest mean daily 

19 minimum of –4.3 C (24.3 F) in February and the highest mean daily maximum of 16.3 C 

20 (61.4 F) in August (NCDC 2011b). About 8 days annually exceed 21.1 C (70 F), while about 

21 131 days and 1 day have minimum temperatures at or below freezing and at –17.8 C (0 F) or 

22 below, respectively. Extreme temperatures at Kodiak range from –26.7 C (–16 F) to 30.0 C

23 (86 F). Temperature patterns from NDBC stations are similar to those at Homer and Kodiak, 

24 except for a little higher annual average temperature range of about 0.5 C (0.9 F) at NDBC 

25 stations (NDBC 2011).

26

27 The amount of precipitation depends strongly on the surrounding topographic features. 

28 During the normal period (1970–2000), annual precipitation at Homer averaged about 64.6 cm 

29 (25.45 in.) (NCDC 2011b). An annual average of 148 days have measurable precipitation 

30 (0.025 cm [0.01 in.] or higher). Precipitation is recorded throughout the year but is the highest in 

31 fall, followed by winter, and lowest in spring. Snow starts as early as October and continues as 

32 late as May. Most of the snow falls from November through March. The annual average 

33 snowfall at Homer is about 158.2 cm (62.3 in.). For the same period, annual precipitation at 

34 Kodiak averages about 191.4 cm (75.35 in.), and an annual average of 201 days have measurable 

35 precipitation (NCDC 2011b). By season, precipitation is the highest in fall, followed by winter, 

36 and lowest total in summer. Snow starts as early as October and continues as late as May. Most 

37 of the snow falls from November through April. The annual average snowfall at Kodiak is about 

38 181.6 cm (71.5 in.).

39

40 Severe weather events, such as floods, hail, high winds, and winter events (such as heavy 

41 snow, ice storms, winter storms, blizzards), have been reported in the area surrounding Cook 

42 Inlet (NCDC 2011c). A normal storm track along the Aleutian chain, the Alaska Peninsula, 

43 and all of the coastal area of the Gulf of Alaska exposes these parts of the State to a large 

44 majority of the storms crossing the North Pacific, resulting in a variety of wind-related issues 

45 (NCDC 2011d). Wind velocities exceeding 45 m/s (100 mph) are not common but do occur, 

46 usually associated with mountainous terrain and narrow passes. In 2006, Kodiak experienced a 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-53

1 wind gust estimated at 59 m/s (131 mph) that caused minor property damage. Intense coastal 

2 winds occur as a result of atmospheric pressure differentials between interior Alaska and the 

3 Gulf of Alaska. Higher interior atmospheric pressure also promotes periodic, local offshore 

4 winds that are orographically funneled, attaining velocities up to 42 m/s (93 mph) and extending 

5 up to 30 km (19 mi) offshore (Lackmann 1988).

6

7 Atmospheric stability provides a measure of the amount of vertical mixing and dispersion 

8 of air pollutants. Along the Gulf of Alaska, atmospheric stability is predominantly neutral. This 

9 is due to the frequent occurrence of relatively high wind speeds and cloud cover. Stable 

10 conditions are found about 15–25% of the time, while unstable conditions occur less than 10% of 

11 the time. Neutral conditions prevail for the rest of the time. The stable conditions are associated 

12 with clear, calm conditions at night. Over open water in the wintertime, unstable conditions are 

13 expected to be more frequent. More stable conditions are expected over water in the summer 

14 season because of the relatively colder temperature of the sea surface in relation to the ambient 

15 air.

16

17

18 3.5.1.3 Alaska – Arctic

19

20 As discussed above, climate in Alaska depends primarily on three factors: latitude, 

21 continentality, and elevation (ACRC 2011). The climate of the land mass bordering the Beaufort 

22 and Chukchi Seas is classified as tundra, characterized by a lack of warm summers (average 

23 temperature for the warmest month is less than 10 C (50 F) but above freezing (>0 C [32 F]), 

24 and scant (or trace) precipitation.

25

26

27 3.5.1.3.1 Winds. In general, wind patterns at the coastal stations along the Beaufort and 

28 Chukchi Sea Planning Areas are characterized by (1) relatively high average wind speeds, about 

29 5.4 m/s (12.0 mph) at stations in the Beaufort Sea, ranging from 4.7 m/s (10.5 mph) at Point Lay 

30 to 6.5 m/s (14.6 mph) at Point Hope in the Chukchi Sea; (2) frequent extreme winds; and 

31 (3) higher easterly wind components (NCDC 2011e). 

32

33 The eastern Beaufort Sea coastal winds are strongly influenced by channeling due to the 

34 Brooks Range to the south. In the eastern Beaufort Sea around Barter Island, westerly and west35 northwesterly winds become more frequent in the winter months, with prevailing easterly and 

36 east-southeasterly winds in other months (NCDC 2011e). These bimodal wind direction patterns 

37 are also observed in central Beaufort Sea around Prudhoe Bay, but prevailing and secondary 

38 wind directions are shifted to east-northeast and west-southwest, respectively.

39

40 Along the coast of the Chukchi Sea from Barrow to Cape Lisburne, surface winds 

41 commonly blow from the east-northeast and the east (NCDC 2011e). At these stations, 

42 northeasterly to east-southeasterly wind components prevail almost every month without any 

43 comparable westerly components. However, the prevailing wind direction at Point Hope 

44 (the westernmost coastal station of the Chukchi Sea) is from the north, but winds there blow

45 from the southeast and south-southeast a considerable amount of the time. At this station, 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-54

1 south-southeasterly winds prevail in June and July, while north-northwesterly to northeasterly 

2 winds prevail in all other months.

3

4 During the winter, northerly winds prevail in the Chukchi Sea, with directions ranging 

5 from northwest in the western part of the sea to northeast in the eastern part (Proshutinsky et al. 

6 1999). During the summer, the Chukchi Sea exhibits a more complicated wind regime, with 

7 alternating northerly and southerly winds.

8

9

10 3.5.1.3.2 Ambient Temperature. Along the Beaufort Sea, the average temperature 

11 ranges from –12.3 C (9.8 F) at Barter Island to –11.2 C (11.8 F) at Kuparuk (WRCC 2011). 

12 February is the coldest month, with a mean monthly minimum temperature ranging from 

13 –31.2 C (–24.2 F) to –32.4 C (–26.3 F); July is the warmest month, with a mean monthly

14 maximum ranging from 7.4 C (45.4 F) to 13.3 C (55.9 F). In summer, maximum temperatures 

15 seldom go over 21.1 C (70 F). Daily maxima above freezing have been recorded only one-third 

16 of the days. Freezing temperatures have been observed every month of the year (about 

17 287–310 days per year); more than half of the days (about 163–167 days per year) have 

18 minimum temperatures of –17.8 C (0 F) or below (WRCC 2011). The highest temperature, 

19 28.3 F (83 F), was reached at Kuparuk and Prudhoe Bay, and the lowest, –52.2 C (–62 F), at 

20 Prudhoe Bay.

21

22 Along the Chukchi Sea, the average temperature ranges from –12.0 C (10.4 F) at Barrow 

23 to –8.1 C (17.5 F) at Cape Lisburne (WRCC 2011). February is the coldest month, with a mean 

24 monthly minimum temperature ranging from –25.7 C (–14.3 F) to –34.7 C (–30.5 F), and July 

25 is the warmest month, with a mean monthly maximum ranging from 7.6 C (45.7 F) to 10.9 C 

26 (51.6 F). Freezing temperatures have been observed every month of the year (about 

27 264–316 days per year); about half of the days (about 125–165 days per year) have minimum 

28 temperatures of –17.8 C (0 F) or below (WRCC 2011). Both the highest temperature of 26.7 F 

29 (80 F) and the lowest of –48.9 C (–56 F) were recorded at Wainwright.

30

31

32 3.5.1.3.3 Precipitation. Precipitation on the tundra is generally meager; thus the tundra 

33 is desert-like in terms of precipitation. Along the Beaufort Sea, the average annual precipitation 

34 ranges from 10.1 cm (3.97 in.) at Kuparuk to 15.7 cm (6.19 in.) at Barter Island (WRCC 2011). 

35 Annual average measurable precipitation (0.025 cm [0.01 in.] or higher) ranges from 62 days at 

36 Kuparuk to 87 days at Barter Island. Precipitation is recorded throughout the year, mostly as 

37 rainfall, with the lowest amounts in spring and the highest in late summer. Snow falls every 

38 month of the year but approximately half falls in fall months. The annual average snowfall 

39 ranges from 82.0 cm (32.3 in.) at Kuparuk to 106.2 cm (41.8 in.) at Barter Island (WRCC 2011).

40

41 Along the Chukchi Sea, the average annual precipitation ranges from 11.7 cm (4.62 in.) 

42 at Barrow to 28.8 cm (11.34 in.) at Cape Lisburne (WRCC 2011). The annual average 

43 measurable precipitation ranges from 66 days at Point Lay to 112 days at Cape Lisburne. The 

44 annual average snowfall ranges from 43.2 cm (17.0 in.) at Point Lay to 105.2 cm (41.4 in.) at 

45 Cape Lisburne (WRCC 2011).

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-55

1 3.5.1.3.4 Severe Weather. Storms (wind velocities of greater than 15 m/s [34 mph]) are 

2 observed more often in winter than in summer. In the Chukchi Sea, 6–10 storm days occur per 

3 month. The duration of storms ranges from 6 to 24 hours in 70–90% of cases, but stormy 

4 weather can last 8–14 days (Proshutinsky et al. 1999).

5

6 On October 3, 1963, an intense storm that hit Barrow with little warning and caused 

7 more damage than any other storm in Barrow‘s historical records is described in detail by 

8 Brunner et al. (2004). Wind gusts as high as 34–36 m/s (75–80 mph) may have been reached, 

9 and the highest official observation of sustained winds was 25 m/s (55 mph). The resulting 

10 storm surge (or rise in sea level) reached 3.0 m (10 ft), and may have been as high as 3.7 m 

11 (12 ft). The storm surge and wave action caused extensive flooding in coastal areas, and more 

than 150,000 m3 (200,000 yd3 12 ) of sediment transport caused bluffs in the Barrow area to retreat 

13 as much as 3.0 m (10 ft) (Brunner et al. 2004). Since this episode, at least 30 storms have 

14 produced severe winds at Barrow and along the Chukchi Sea coast. Lynch et al. (2001) 

15 document high-wind events at Barrow for the period 1960–2000 and concluded that high-wind 

16 events are common in fall and winter, but rare in summer. It remains uncertain whether the more 

17 frequent storms and the summer storms seen in the past few years are part of a new pattern.

18

19 Since 2001, severe weather events, such as floods, storm surges, hail, high winds, winter 

20 events (such as heavy snow, winter storms, extreme windchills, blizzards), have been reported in 

21 the coastal areas surrounding the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas (NCDC 2011c). In 2005, Cape 

22 Lisburne, (nearly the westernmost point of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area) experienced a wind 

23 gust estimated at 40 m/s (89 mph) that caused no property damage.

24

25

26 3.5.1.3.5 Atmospheric Stability. Atmospheric stability provides a measure of the 

27 amount of vertical mixing and dispersion of air pollutants. Along the Arctic Ocean, the 

28 atmosphere is predominantly neutral, due to the frequent occurrence of high wind speeds and 

29 cloud cover. Stable conditions are found about 15–25% of the time, while unstable conditions 

30 occur less than 10% of the time. Netural conditions prevail for the rest of the time. Stable 

31 conditions are usually associated with clear, calm conditions at night. The presence of sea ice 

32 tends to result in more stable conditions, but also greater winds speeds, which could lead to a 

33 neutral atmosphere. Stable conditions also tend to be favored in the summertime due to the 

34 relatively colder temperatures of the sea surface in relation to the ambient air.

35

36

37 3.5.2 Air Quality

38

39

40 3.5.2.1 Gulf of Mexico

41

42 Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), which was last amended in 1990, the USEPA has set 

43 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public 

44 health and the environment (USEPA 2011a). NAAQS have been established for six criteria 

45 pollutants — carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (PM; 

46 PM10, PM with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 μm or less; and PM2.5, PM with an aerodynamic
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-56

1 diameter of 2.5 μm or less), ozone (O3), and sulfur dioxide (SO2), as shown in Table 3.5.2-1. 

2 The CAA established two types of NAAQS: primary standards to protect public health including 

3 sensitive populations (e.g., asthmatics, children, and the elderly) and secondary standards to 

4 protect public welfare, including protection against degraded visibility and damage to animals, 

5 crops, vegetation, and buildings. Any individual State can have its own State Ambient Air 

6 Quality Standards (SAAQS) but SAAQS must be at least as stringent as the NAAQS. If a State 

7 has no standard corresponding to one of the NAAQS or the SAAQS is not as stringent as the 

8 NAAQS, then the NAAQS apply. Currently, all GOM States except Florida have adopted 

9 NAAQS. The State of Florida has ambient standards for 24-hour and annual average SO2 that 

10 are more stringent than the NAAQS.

11

12 Areas considered to have air quality as good as or better than NAAQS are designated 

13 by the USEPA as attainment areas. Areas where air quality does not meet the NAAQS are 

14 designated by the USEPA as nonattainment areas. Nonattainment areas where air quality has 

15 improved to meet the NAAQS are redesignated as maintenance area and are subject to an air 

16 quality maintenance plan. The CAA requires each State to develop and regularly update a State 

17 Implementation Plan (SIP) to demonstrate how it will attain and maintain the NAAQS. SIPs 

18 include the regulations, programs, and schedules that a State will impose on sources and must 

19 demonstrate to the USEPA that the NAAQS will be attained and maintained.

20

21 In general, ambient air quality on coastal counties along the GOM is relatively good. 

22 Currently, all of the coastal counties along the GOM are in attainment for all criteria pollutants 

23 except 8-hour ozone (USEPA 2011b). For 8-hour ozone, all coastal counties in Mississippi, 

24 Alabama, and Florida are classified as in attainment, but a number of counties in Texas and 

25 Louisiana are designated as nonattainment or maintenance areas. Eight counties in the Houston26 Galveston-Brazoria designated area in southeast Texas are classified as severe (maximum 

27 attainment date no later than June 2019) nonattainment areas, while three counties in the 

28 Beaumont/Port Arthur designated area are classified as moderate maintenance areas. In 

29 Louisiana, five parishes in the Baton Rouge designated area are classified as moderate 

30 (maximum attainment date no later than June 2010) nonattainment areas. For the Houston31 Galveston-Brazoria and Baton Rouge nonattainment areas, 8-hour ozone concentrations have 

32 had a general downward trend since 1998 but ozone concentrations frequently exceed the 

33 NAAQS (USEPA 2011c). During the 2004–2008 period, the highest of the annual fourth34 highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations were 0.106 ppm and 0.097 ppm, recorded 

35 in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria and Baton Rouge nonattainment areas, respectively.

36

37 This region has several favorable conditions for the photochemical production of ozone. 

38 Precursor emissions of ozone, such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) and VOCs, are abundant in the 

39 region due to a huge population, the oil and gas industry, and the petrochemical industry, 

40 including electricity generating facilities, chemical plants, petroleum refining facilities, oil and 

41 gas storage and transportation industries, and associated onroad vehicles and nonroad equipment. 

42 In addition, considerable emissions of biogenic VOCs are widespread and ubiquitous in the 

43 region. The subtropical climate of the region (characterized by relatively high temperature and 

44 intense solar radiation, despite frequent occurrences of precipitation) plays a role in establishing 

45 conditions conducive to high ozone episodes. 

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-57

1 TABLE 3.5.2-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Maximum Allowable 

2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Increments

NAAQSb PSD Increment (μg/m3)

d

Pollutanta Averaging Time Value Typec Class I Class II Class III

CO 8-hour 9 ppm

(10 mg/m3)

P –

e – –

1-hour 35 ppm

(40 mg/m3)

P – – –

Pb Rolling 3-month 

average

0.15 μg/m3 P, S – – –

Quarterly average 1.5 μg/m3 P, S – – –

NO2 Annual 

(arithmetic average)

53 ppb P, S 2.5 25 50

1-hour 100 ppb P – – –

PM10 Annual

(arithmetic average)

– – 4 17 34

24-hour 150 μg/m3 P, S 8 30 60

PM2.5 Annual

(arithmetic average)

15.0 μg/m3 P, S 1 4 8

24-hour 35 μg/m3 P, S 2 9 18

O3 8-hour 0.075 ppm

(2008 standard)

P, S – – –

8-hour 0.08 ppm

(1997 standard)

P, S – – –

1-hour 0.12 ppmf P, S – – –

SO2 Annual

(arithmetic average)

0.03 ppm P 2 20 40

24-hour 0.14 ppm P 5 91 182

3-hour 0.5 ppm S 25 512 700

1-hour 75 ppb P – – –

a CO = carbon monoxide; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; O3 = ozone; Pb = lead; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 m; 

PM10 = particulate matter 10 m; and SO2 = sulfur dioxide.

b Refer to 40 CFR Part 50 for detailed information on the attainment determination and reference method for monitoring.

c P = primary standards, which set limits to protect public health, including the health of ―sensitive‖ populations such as 

asthmatics, children, and the elderly; S = secondary standards, which set limits to protect public welfare, including 

protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.

d The final rule for PSD increments for PM2.5 is effective on December 20, 2010 (75 FR 64864).

e A dash denotes that no standard exists.

f The USEPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard in all areas, although some areas have continuing obligations under that 

standard (―anti-backsliding‖).

Source: 40 CFR 52.21; 75 FR 64864; USEPA 2011a.

3

4
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-58

1 In recent years, four revisions to NAAQS have been promulgated. Effective May 27, 

2 2008, the USEPA revised the 8-hour ozone standards from 0.08 ppm to 0.075 ppm 

3 (73 FR 16436). Effective January 12, 2009, the USEPA revised the Pb standard from a calendarquarter average of 1.5 μg/m3 to a rolling 3-month average of 0.15 μg/m3 4 (73 FR 66964). 

5 Effective April 12, 2010, the USEPA established a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at 

6 100 ppb (75 FR 6474), while, effective August 23, 2010, the USEPA established a new 1-hour 

7 primary NAAQS for SO2 at 75 ppb (75 FR 35520). It takes several years to establish monitoring 

8 plans and collect data to determine whether an area is in compliance with a new standard.

9

10 The Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations (see 40 CFR 52.21), 

11 which are designed to limit the growth of air pollution in clean areas, apply to major new sources 

12 or modifications of existing major sources within an attainment or unclassified area. While the 

13 NAAQS (and SAAQS) place upper limits on the levels of air pollution, PSD regulations place 

14 limits on the total increase in ambient pollution levels above established baseline levels for NO2, 

15 PM10, PM2.5, and SO2, thus preventing ―polluting up to the standard‖ (see Table 3.5.2-1). All 

16 State air quality jurisdictions are divided into three classes of air quality protection. These 

17 allowable increases are smallest in Class I areas, special areas of natural wonder and scenic 

18 beauty, such as National Parks (NPs), National Monuments, and Wilderness Areas (WAs), where 

19 air quality and air quality-related values (such as visibility and acid deposition) should be given 

20 special protection. The rest of the country is subject to larger Class II increments. States can 

21 choose a less stringent set of Class III increments, but none have done so. Major (large) new and 

22 modified stationary sources must meet the requirements for the area in which they are locating 

23 and any areas they impact. Thus, a source locating in a Class II area near a Class I area would 

24 need to meet the more stringent Class I increment in the Class I area and the Class II increment 

25 elsewhere, as well as any other applicable requirements.

26

27 As a matter of policy, the USEPA recommends that the permitting authority notify the 

28 Federal land managers (FLMs) when a proposed PSD source would locate within 100 km 

29 (62 mi) of a Federal Class I area. If the source‘s emissions are considered large, the USEPA 

30 recommends that sources beyond 100 km (62 mi) of a Federal Class I area be brought to 

31 attention of the FLM. There are several Class I areas in the GOM coastal zones, in Louisiana 

32 and Florida, as shown in Figure 3.5.2-1. In Louisiana, there is one Federal Class I area, while

33 Florida has four. The Federal Class I area offshore of Louisiana consists of the Breton Wildlife 

34 Refuges, located on Breton Island and on many of the Chandeleur Islands (40 CFR 81.412). 

Federal Class I areas in Florida, such as Bradwell Bay WA, 35 3 Everglades NP, Chassahowitzka 

36 WA, and St. Marks WA (40 CFR 81.407), are located more than 250 km (155 mi) from the 

37 eastern boundary of the Central Planning Area. In addition, these Class I areas are not located 

38 downwind of prevailing winds in the Western and Central Planning Areas, and thus are not much 

39 affected by any current activities occurring in the Western or Central Planning Areas.

40

41

 

3 In 1980, Bradwell Bay WA along with Rainbow Lake in Wisconsin were excluded for purposes of visibility 

protection as Federal Class I areas.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-59

12 FIGURE 3.5.2

-1 Mandatory Class I Federal Areas along the GOM

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-60

1 Deepwater Horizon Event

2

3 On April 20, 2010, the explosion and subsequent fire of the British Petroleum (BP) DWH 

4 platform in the GOM caused estimated 4.9 million barrels (Mbbl) of oil to be released into the 

5 GOM until July 15, 2010, when the wellhead was capped. The BP spill is by far the world‘s 

6 largest accidental release of oil into marine waters. It is estimated that burning, skimming, and 

7 direct recovery from the wellhead removed one quarter (25%) of the oil released from the 

8 wellhead (Lubchenco et al. 2010). One quarter (25%) of the total oil naturally evaporated or 

9 dissolved, and slightly less than one quarter (24%) was dispersed (either naturally or chemically) 

10 as microscopic droplets into GOM waters. The residual amount — just over one quarter (26%) 

11 — is either on or just below the surface as light sheen and weathered tar balls, has washed ashore 

12 or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments. In summary, a third (33%) 

13 of the total leaked oil in the BP spill was captured or mitigated by the unified command recovery 

14 operations, including burning, skimming, direct recovery from the wellhead, and chemical 

15 dispersion. Half of the total leaked oil (naturally and chemically dispersed and residual) is 

16 currently being degraded naturally.

17

18 Evaporation from the oil spill itself would result in VOCs in the atmosphere. The 

19 VOC concentrations would occur anywhere there is an oil slick, and downwind of the slick. 

20 VOC concentrations would decrease with downwind distance. The lighter portions of VOCs 

21 would be most abundant in the immediate vicinity of the spill site. The heavier compounds 

22 would be emitted over a longer period of time and over a larger area. The formation of large 

23 concentrations of secondary organic aerosol (SOA), which affects air quality and climate change, 

24 was observed downwind from the DWH oil spill (de Gouw et al. 2011). This SOA plume was 

25 formed from unmeasured, less volatile hydrocarbons that were emitted from a wider area around

26 DWH. Some of the compounds emitted could be hazardous to workers in the vicinity of the spill 

27 site. The hazard to workers can be reduced by monitoring and using protective gear, including 

28 respirators. During the DWH incident, air samples collected by individual offshore workers by 

29 BP, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the USCG showed levels 

30 of BTEX that were mostly under detection levels. All samples had concentrations below the 

31 OSHA Occupational Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) and the more stringent American 

32 Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) 

33 (BOEMRE 2011a).

34

35 At present, a number of scientists, physicians, and health care experts are concerned with 

36 potential public health effects as a result of DWH event in the GOM; they found that the VOC 

37 benzene, a cancer-causing agent, has been found to be above Louisiana‘s ambient air quality 

38 standards (BOEMRE 2011a). However, while benzene in several samples related to the DWH 

oil spill was indeed above the Louisiana annual standard of 12 μg/m3 39 (or 3.76 ppb), the long40 term average in the monitoring period was well below the standard (Liu 2011).

41

42 Climate Change Effects

43

44 Climate changes are under way in the United States and globally, and are projected to 

45 continue to grow substantially over next several decades unless intense, concerted measures are 

46 taken to reverse this trend. Climate-related changes include rising temperature and sea level, 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-61

1 increased frequency and intensity of extreme weathers (e.g., heavy downpours, floods, and 

2 droughts), earlier snowmelts and associated frequent wildfires, and reduced snow cover, glaciers, 

3 permafrost, and sea ice. A thorough discussion of the impacts of climate change to the baseline 

4 environment can be found in Section 3.3. In this section, potential impacts of climate change on 

5 meteorology and air quality specific to the GOM are discussed based on the report released by 

6 U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) in June 2009 titled, Global Climate Change 

7 Impacts in the United States (USGCRP 2009), unless otherwise noted.

8

9 Overall, the annual average temperature in the Southeast, which encompass the GOM

10 coastal areas, did not change significantly over the past century. However, since 1970, the 

11 annual average temperature has risen about 1.6 F (0.9 C), with the highest seasonal increase of 

12 2.7 F (1.5 F) in winters. Recently, heat waves and extreme temperatures have been common, 

13 especially in the southern States. For example, the average temperature for the summer in Texas 

14 at 86.8 F (30.4 C) exceeded the previous seasonal statewide average temperature record for any 

15 State during any season (NCDC 2011x). In summer of 2011, persistent heat engulfed the nation 

16 and the number of daily maximum temperatures over 100 F (37.8 C) were recorded to range 

17 from 10 days to more than 70 days in most of Texas, with a maximum of 90 days at Laredo 

18 Airport located in the southernmost Texas. In the near term (2010–2029) and mid-century 

19 (2040–2059), projected average temperature changes along the GOM coastal areas range 1–3 F 

20 (0.6–1.7 C) and 2–4 F (1.1–2.2 C), respectively, from 1961–1979 baseline.

21

22 Over the century, precipitation in the Southeast has increased by an average of 6% but 

23 has decreased by about 8% since 1970, with a maximum decrease of about 29% in spring. 

24 Model predictions indicated that, due to the northward shift of storm tracks, northern areas will 

25 become wetter and southern areas, especially in the West, will become drier. Accordingly, most 

26 of the GOM coastal area is predicted to experience reductions in precipitation and increases in 

27 drought severity and duration in the future. The destructive potential of Atlantic hurricanes has 

28 increased since 1970 and is correlated with the increase in sea surface temperature. Anticipated 

29 future changes for the U.S. and surrounding coastal waters include more intense hurricanes with 

30 related increases in wind, rain, and storm surges, but the frequency of landfalling hurricanes has 

31 not been established.

32

33 The two criteria air pollutants of most concern for public health and the environment are 

34 surface ozone and particulate matter. Air quality in the GOM is anticipated to be affected by 

35 climate change. While the Clean Air Act has improved air quality, higher temperatures and 

36 associated stagnant air masses due to a weaker global circulation and a decreasing frequency of 

37 mid-latitude cyclones (Jacob and Winner 2009) are expected to make it more challenging to meet 

38 air quality standards, particularly for ground-level ozone (a component of smog). A warmer 

39 climate is projected to increase the natural emissions of VOCs, accelerate ozone formation, and 

40 increase the frequency and duration of stagnant air masses that allow air pollutants to 

41 accumulate. This will worsen air quality, exacerbate respiratory diseases, and cause decreased 

42 crop yields. 

43

44 Wildfires in the U.S. are already increasing due to warming. In GOM coastal areas, 

45 rising temperature and less precipitation (and thus prolonged droughts) have caused drying of 

46 soils and vegetation, which increase the potential for wildfires. More wildfires would result in 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-62

1 air emissions, including criteria pollutants and toxic air pollutants, which could adversely impact 

2 air quality, visibility, and human health. In addition, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions released 

3 from wildfires and associated loss of vegetation acting as a GHG sink could accelerate climate 

4 changes.

5

6

7 3.5.2.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

8

9 For more detailed information on Federal air regulations and programs, please see 

10 Section 3.5.2.1.

11

12 The Alaska SAAQS are identical to the NAAQS (18 AAC 50.010). In addition, Alaska

13 has set standards for some pollutants that are not addressed by the NAAQS, that is, reduced 

14 sulfur compounds and ammonia.

15

16 Except for a few population centers such as Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau, the 

17 existing air quality in Alaska is relatively pristine with pollutant concentrations that are well 

18 within the ambient standards. Currently, Kenai Peninsula and Kodiak Island Boroughs, which 

19 surround the Cook Inlet Planning Area, have no air monitoring stations for criteria pollutants but 

20 are in unclassifiable/attainment for all criteria pollutants (40 CFR 81.302). 

21

22 Eagle River in the Municipality Anchorage and Juneau are currently in nonattainment 

23 for the PM10 NAAQS, while Fairbanks is in nonattainment for PM2.5 NAAQS. Although PM2.5

24 is still a problem, recent air monitoring data indicated that neither Eagle River nor Juneau 

25 continues to violate the PM10 standard. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 

26 (ADEC), together with the USEPA and related boroughs, are currently in the process of 

27 changing the status from nonattainment to maintenance. The most important sources of

28 particulate matter in Alaska include volcanic ash, windblown dust from dry glacial riverbeds, 

29 wildfires during summertime, fugitive dust from unpaved roads, re-entrainment of winter 

30 sanding materials from paved roads, and wood smoke as well as fuel combustion 

31 (ADEC 2010b). In particular, increased exposure to particulate matter occurs during extended 

32 wintertime temperature inversions. In addition, Anchorage and Fairbanks are designated as 

33 maintenance areas for CO NAAQS.

34

35 There are four PSD Class I areas in Alaska (40 CFR 81.402): the Bering Sea WA in the 

36 St. Mathew Island group off southwestern Alaska; the Denali NP in south central Alaska; the 

37 Simeonof WA in the Shumagin Islands off the Alaska Peninsula; and the Tuxedni WA in Cook 

38 Inlet. All WAs are administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), while the 

39 Denali NP is administered by the National Park Service. The Tuxedni WA is the only Class I 

40 area that is located in close proximity to the northern portion of Cook Inlet Planning Area (about 

41 10 km [6 mi] away), as shown in Figure 3.5.2-2. All other Class I areas in Alaska are located 

42 beyond 100 km (61 mi) from the Cook Inlet Planning Area.

43

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-63

12 FIGURE 3.5.2

-2 Mandatory Class I Federal Area in Cook Inlet, Alaska

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-64

1 Climate Change Effects

2

3 Climate changes are under way in the U.S. and globally, and are projected to continue to 

4 grow substantially over next several decades unless intense concerted measures are taken to 

5 reverse this trend. Climate-related changes include rising temperature and sea level, increased 

6 frequency and intensity of extreme weathers (e.g., heavy downpours, floods, and droughts), 

7 earlier snowmelts and associated frequent wildfires, and reduced snow cover, glaciers, 

8 permafrost, and sea ice. A thorough discussion of the impacts of climate change to the baseline 

9 environment can be found in Section 3.3. In this section, potential impacts of climate change on 

10 meteorology and air quality specific to the Cook Inlet are discussed based on the report released 

11 by U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) in June 2009 titled, Global Climate 

12 Change Impacts in the United States (USGCRP 2009).

13

14 In particular, Alaska has many resources vulnerable to climate change, such as sea ice, 

15 glaciers, permafrost, and thus may be subject to more pronounced potential impacts than any 

16 other parts of U.S. Over the past 50 yr, Alaska experienced more temperature increases than the 

17 rest of U.S. Its annual average temperature has increased by 3.4 F (1.9 C), with the highest 

18 seasonal increase of 6.3 F (3.5 C) in winters. By the middle of the century, the annual average 

19 temperature in Alaska is projected to rise about 3.5 to 7 F (1.9 to 3.9 C). The higher 

20 temperatures are already contributing to earlier snowmelt, reduced sea ice, widespread glacier 

21 retreat, and permafrost warming. This warming could produce benefits in some sectors, such as 

22 longer growing season, a longer period of outdoor and commercial activity such as tourism, 

23 increased shipping, and resource extraction, and detriments in others, such as increased 

24 likelihood of summer drought and wildfires due to longer summers and higher temperatures, 

25 coastal erosion, and flooding associated with coastal storms, and major shifts of biota habitats. 

26 Open water with a lower albedo absorbs sunlight better than the reflective surface of ice with a 

27 higher albedo. Albeit limited to northern Cook Inlet, any decrease in sea ice due to warming 

28 could lead to an decrease in albedo and thus an increase in ocean surface temperature, which 

29 causes sea ice to melt more, the so-called ice-albedo positive feedback. 

30

31 Over the past 50 yr, precipitation has increased an average of 5% in the U.S. Model 

32 predictions indicate that, due to northward shift of storm tracks, northern areas will become 

33 wetter and southern areas, especially in the West, will become drier. Over this century, the 

34 temperature rise in sea surface temperature and reduced ice cover are likely to lead to northward 

35 shifts in Pacific storm tracks and increased impacts on Alaskan coastlines, many of which are 

36 low in elevation.

37

38 Two criteria air pollutants of most concern for public health and the environment are 

39 surface ozone and particulate matter. Air quality in the Cook Inlet is anticipated to be affected 

40 by climate change. Associated with climate change, more wildfires would result in air 

41 emissions, including criteria pollutants and toxic air pollutants, which could adversely impact air 

42 quality, visibility, and human health. In addition, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions released 

43 from wildfires and associated loss of vegetation as a GHG sink could accelerate climate changes. 

44 To some degree, higher temperatures could increase ground-level ozone levels, which are 

45 primarily related to ambient temperature. Ozone level increases can worsen air quality, 

46 exacerbate respiratory diseases, and cause decreased crop yields. However, this minimal 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-65

1 increase in ozone due to climate change is not anticipated to be high enough to contribute to 

2 exceeding the NAAQS.

3

4

5 3.5.2.3 Alaska – Arctic

6

7 Please see Section 3.5.2.1 for more detailed information on Federal air regulations and 

8 programs and 3.5.2.2 for Alaska-specific information.

9

10 Alaska has low air emissions. There are few industrial emission sources and, outside of 

11 Anchorage and Fairbanks, no sizable population centers. Barrow with a year 2010 population of 

12 about 4,600 is the largest city in North Slope Borough (USCB 2011i). The primary industrial 

13 emissions are associated with oil and gas production, power generation, small refineries, paper 

14 mills, and mining. The existing air quality in Alaska is considered to be relatively pristine, with 

15 pollutant concentrations in most areas that are well within the NAAQS. Currently, North Slope 

16 Borough, which borders the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas, has no continuous air 

17 monitoring stations for criteria pollutants but is designated as an unclassifiable/attainment area 

18 for all criteria pollutants (40 CFR 81.302).

19

20 All four Class I areas in Alaska are located more than 690 km (430 mi) from the Beaufort 

21 and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas (40 CFR 81.402). The entire Arctic region is classified Class II 

22 under Federal PSD regulations.

23

24 Over most of the onshore areas bordering the Arctic Ocean, there are only a few small, 

25 widely scattered emission sources. The only major local sources of industrial emissions are in 

26 the Prudhoe Bay-Kuparuk-Endicott oil production complex. The offshore Northstar facility 

27 located on an artificial island was the greatest single source of vented/flared gas on the North 

28 Slope in 2002 (Alaska Department of Administration 2004). However, repairs during 2004 

29 resulted in a significant decrease of flaring at Northstar Island. This area was the subject of 

30 monitoring programs during 1986–1987 (ERT Company 1987; Environmental Science and 

31 Engineering, Inc. 1987) and from 1990 through 1996 (ENSR Consulting and Engineering 1996; 

32 USACE 1999). Five monitoring sites were selected — three were considered subject to 

33 maximum air pollutant concentrations, and two were considered more representative of the air

34 quality of the general Prudhoe Bay area. The more recent observations are summarized in 

35 Table III.A-6 in MMS (2003b). All the values meet the NAAQS and SAAQS. The results 

36 demonstrate that ambient pollutant concentrations meet the ambient standards, even for sites 

37 subject to maximum concentrations.

38

39 Aside from notable warming trends and their associated impacts, the Arctic region 

40 experiences air pollution problems due to long-range transport of air pollutants from industrial 

41 northern Eurasia and North America, including arctic haze followed by acidic depositions, 

42 tropospheric ozone, and buildup of toxic substances such as mercury or persistent organic 

43 compounds (Law and Stohl 2007). Local shipping emissions and summertime boreal forest fires 

44 may also be important pollution sources in the Arctic. In addition, large haze events in the 

45 Arctic can be caused by Asian dust originating from the Gobi and Taklamakan Deserts in 

46 Mongolia and northern China in springtime, as identified in Rahn et al. (1977).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-66

1 During the winter and spring, winds transport pollutants to Arctic region across the Arctic 

2 Ocean from industrial Europe and Asia (Rahn 1982). These pollutants, primarily from coal 

3 burning and metal smelting, cause a phenomenon known as arctic haze, a visible reddish-brown 

4 haze. The composition of aerosols producing regional haze consists of approximately 90% 

5 sulfate aerosols and 10% soot (Wilcox and Cahill 2003). Pollutant sulfate due to arctic haze in 

the air in Barrow (that in excess of natural background) averages 1.5 g/m3 6 . The concentration 

7 of vanadium, one of signature elements that fingerprint fossil fuel combustion, averages up to 

8 20 times the background levels in the air and snowpack. Observations of the chemistry of the 

9 snowpack in the Canadian Arctic also provide evidence of long-range transport of small 

10 concentrations of organochlorine pesticides (Gregor and Gummer 1989). Concentrations of 

11 arctic haze during winter and spring at Barrow are similar to those over large portions of the 

12 continental United States, but they are considerably higher than levels south of the Brooks Range 

13 in Alaska. Any ground-level effects of arctic haze on the concentrations of regulated air 

14 pollutants in the Prudhoe Bay area are included in the monitoring data given in Table III.A-6 in 

15 MMS (2003b). Model calculations indicate that less than 10% of the pollutants emitted in the 

16 major source regions are deposited in the Arctic (Pacyna 1995). Maximum concentrations of 

17 some pollutants, sulfates and fine particles, were observed during the early 1980s and decreases

18 in concentrations were observed at select stations at the end of the 1980s due to emissions

19 decreases in some source regions and a meteorological shift. However, the decline in emissions 

20 from Russia may be reversing as a consequence of economic revitalization and an increasing 

21 reliance on coal, as natural gas becomes more valuable for export (Wilcox and Cahill 2003). 

22 Despite this seasonal, long-distance transport of pollutants into the Arctic, regional air quality 

23 still is far better than ambient air quality standards.

24

25 Climate Change Effects

26

27 Climate changes are underway in the U.S. and globally, and are projected to continue to 

28 grow substantially over next several decades unless intense concerted measures are taken to 

29 reverse this trend. Climate-related changes include rising temperature and sea level, increased 

30 frequency and intensity of extreme weathers (e.g., heavy downpours, floods, and droughts), 

31 earlier snowmelts and associated frequent wildfires, and reduced snow cover, glaciers, 

32 permafrost, and sea ice. A thorough discussion of the impacts of climate change to the baseline 

33 environment can be found in Section 3.3. In this section, potential impacts of climate change on 

34 meteorology and air quality specific to the Arctic are discussed based on the report released by 

35 U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) in June 2009 titled, Global Climate Change 

36 Impacts in the United States (USGCRP 2009).

37

38 In particular, Alaska has many resources vulnerable to climate change, such as sea ice, 

39 glaciers, permafrost, and thus may be subject to more pronounced potential impacts than any 

40 other parts of U.S. Over the past 50 yr, Alaska experienced more temperature increase than the 

41 rest of U.S. Its annual average temperature has increased by 3.4 F (1.9 C), with highest seasonal 

42 increase of 6.3 F (3.5 C) in winters. By the middle of the century, annual average temperature 

43 in Alaska is projected to rise about 3.5 to 7 F (1.9 to 3.9 C). The higher temperatures are 

44 already contributing to earlier snowmelt, reduced sea ice, widespread glacier retreat, and 

45 permafrost warming. This warming could produce benefits in some sectors, such as longer 

46 growing season, a longer period of outdoor and commercial activity such as tourism, increased 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-67

1 shipping, and resource extraction, and detriments in others, such as increased likelihood of 

2 summer drought and wildfires due to longer summers and higher temperatures, coastal erosion, 

3 and flooding associated with coastal storms, and major shifts of biota habitats. Open water with 

4 a lower albedo absorbs sunlight better than the reflective surface of ice with a higher albedo. 

5 Any decrease in Arctic sea ice due to warming could lead to a decrease in albedo and thus an 

6 increase in ocean surface temperature, which causes sea ice to melt more, the so-called ice7 albedo positive feedback.

8

9 Over the past 50 yr, precipitation has increased an average of 5% in the U.S. Model 

10 predictions indicate that, due to northward shift of storm tracks, northern areas will become 

11 wetter and southern areas, especially in the West, will become drier. Over this century, 

12 temperature rise in sea surface temperature and reduced ice cover are likely to lead to northward 

13 shifts in Pacific storm tracks and increased impacts on Alaskan coastlines, many of which are 

14 low in elevation.

15

16 Two criteria air pollutants of most concern for public health and the environment are 

17 surface ozone and particulate matter. Air quality in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas is anticipated 

18 to be affected by climate change. Associated with climate change, more wildfires would result 

19 in air emissions, including criteria pollutants and toxic air pollutants, which could adversely 

20 impact air quality, visibility, and human health. In addition, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 

21 released from wildfires and associated loss of vegetation as a GHG sink could accelerate climate 

22 changes. To some degree, higher temperatures could increase ground-level ozone levels, which 

23 are primarily related to ambient temperature. Ozone level increases can worsen air quality, 

24 exacerbate respiratory diseases, and cause decreased crop yields. However, this minimal 

25 increase in ozone due to climate change is not anticipated to be high enough to contribute to 

26 exceeding the NAAQS.

27

28

29 3.6 ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT

30

31

32 3.6.1 Gulf of Mexico

33

34 For a more detailed discussion on the acoustic environment of the GOM, please see 

35 MMS (2004), which is incorporated here for reference.

36

37

38 3.6.1.1 Sound Fundamentals

39

40 Light does not travel far in the ocean due to its absorption or scattering. Even in the 

41 clearest water most light is absorbed within a few tens of meters, and visual communication is 

42 very limited in water, especially in deep or murky water, and/or at night. Accordingly, auditory 

43 capabilities have evolved to overcome this limitation of visual communication for many marine 

44 animals. Sound, which is mostly used by marine animals for such basic activities as finding food 

45 or a mate, navigating, and communicating, plays a crucial role in their survival in the marine 

46 environment. The same advantages of sound in water have led humans to deliberately introduce 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-68

1 sound into the ocean for many valuable purposes, e.g., communication (e.g., submarine-to2 submarine), feeding (e.g., fish-finding sonar), and navigation (e.g., depth-finders and geological 

3 and geophysical surveys for minerals) (Hatch and Wright 2007). However, some sounds, such 

4 as the noise generated by ships and by offshore industrial activities, including oil and gas 

5 activities, are also introduced into the ocean as a byproduct.

6

7 Any pressure variation that the human ear can detect is considered as sound, and noise is 

8 defined as unwanted sound. Sound is described in terms of amplitude (perceived as loudness) 

9 and frequency (perceived as pitch). The ear can detect pressure fluctuations changing over 

10 seven orders of magnitude. The ear has a protective mechanism in that it responds 

11 logarithmically, rather than lineally. To deal with these two realities (wide range of pressure 

fluctuations and the response of the ear), sound pressure levels4 12 are typically expressed as a 

13 logarithmic ratio of the measured value to a reference pressure, called a decibel (dB). By 

14 convention, the reference pressures are 20 micropascal (μPa) for airborne sound, which 

15 corresponds to the average person‘s threshold of hearing at 1000 Hz, and 1 μPa for underwater 

16 sound. Accordingly, sound intensity in dB in water is not directly comparable to that in dB in 

17 air. 

18

19 There are primarily three ways to characterize the intensity of a sound signal 

20 (OMP 2010). The ―zero-to-peak pressure‖ denotes the range between zero and the greatest 

21 pressure of the signal, while ―peak-to-peak pressure‖ denotes the range between negative and 

22 positive extremes of the signal. The ―root-mean-square (rms) pressure‖ is the square root of the 

23 average of the square of the pressures of the sound signal over a given duration. Due to the 

24 sensitivity of marine animals to sound intensity, the rms pressure is most widely used to 

25 characterize underwater sound waves. However, for impulsive sounds, rms pressure is not 

26 appropriate to use because it can vary considerably depending on the duration over which the 

27 signal is averaged. In this case, peak pressure of impulsive sound, which could be associated 

28 with the risk of causing physical damage in auditory systems of marine animals, is more 

29 appropriately used (Coles et al. 1968). Unless otherwise noted, source levels of underwater 

30 sounds are typically expressed in the notation ―dB re 1 μPa-m,‖ which is defined as the pressure 

31 level that would be measured at a reference distance of 1 m from a source. In addition, zero-to32 peak and peak-to-peak sound pressure levels are denoted as dB0-p and dBp-p re 1 μPa-m, 

33 respectively. In addition, the received levels (estimated at the receptor locations) are presented 

34 as ―dB re 1 μPa‖ at a given location (e.g., 5 km [3 mi]).

35

36

 

4 There are two primary but different metrics for sound measurements: sound pressure level (SPL) and sound 

exposure level (SEL). SPL is the root mean square of the sound pressure over a given interval of time, given as 

dB re 1 μPa for underwater sound. In contrast, SEL is the total noise energy from a single event and is the 

integration of all the acoustic energy contained within the event. SEL takes into account both the intensity and 

the duration of a noise event, given as dB re 1 μPa2 × s for underwater sound. In consequence, SEL is similar to 

SPL in that total sound energy is integrated over the measurement period, but instead of averaged over the entire 

measurement period, a reference duration of 1 s is used.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-69

1 3.6.1.2 Sound Propagation

2

3 Understanding the impact of sound on a receptor requires a basic understanding of how 

4 sound propagates from its source. Underwater sound spreads out in space, is reflected, refracted, 

5 and absorbed. Sound propagates with different geometries under water, especially in relatively 

6 shallow nearshore environments. Vertical gradients of temperature, pressure, and salinity in the 

7 water as well as wave and current actions can also be expected to constrain or distort sound 

8 propagation geometries. Several important factors affecting sound propagation in water include 

9 spreading loss, absorption loss, scattering loss, and boundary effects of the ocean surface and the 

10 bottom (Malme 1995). 

11

12 Among these, spreading loss, which does not depend on frequency, is the major 

13 contributor to sound attenuation. As propagation of sound continues, its energy is distributed 

14 over an ever-larger surface area. Spherical and cylindrical spreading are two simple 

15 approximations used to describe the sound levels associated with sound propagations away from 

16 a source. In spherical propagation, sound from a source at mid-depth in the ocean (i.e., far from 

17 the sea surface or sea bottom) propagates in all directions with a 6-dB drop per doubling of 

18 distance from the source. In cylindrical spreading, sound propagates uniformly over the surface 

19 of a cylinder, with sound radiating horizontally away from the source, and sound levels dropping

20 3 dB per doubling of distance. The surface of the water and the ocean floor are effective 

21 boundaries to sound propagation, acting either as sound reflective or absorptive surfaces. 

22 Consequently, underwater sound originating as a point source will initially propagate spherically 

23 over some distance until the sound pressure wave reaches these boundary layers; thereafter, the 

24 sound will propagate cylindrically. Therefore, sound levels tend to diminish rapidly near the 

25 source (spherical propagation) but slowly with increasing distances (cylindrical propagation).

26

27 Directionality refers to the direction in which the signal is projected. Many underwater 

28 noises are generally considered to be omnidirectional (e.g., construction, dredging, explosives). 

29 However, geophysical surveys, such as seismic air gun arrays, are focuses downward, while 

30 some geological surveys are fanned. Although air gun arrays are designed to direct a high 

31 proportion of the sound energy downward, some portion of the sound pulses can propagate 

32 horizontally in the water, depending on array geometry and aspect relative to the long axis of the 

33 array (Greene and Moore 1995). In any case, sound attenuation of directional sound with 

34 distance is lower than the spreading loss for omnidirectional sources discussed above.

35

36 As sound travels, some sound energy is absorbed by the medium such as air or water

37 (so-called absorption losses) which represents conversion of acoustic energy to heat energy. 

38 Absorption losses depend strongly on frequency, becoming greater with increasing frequencies, 

39 and vary linearly with increasing distance, and are given as dB/km. Sound scattering is affected 

40 by bubbles, suspended particles, organisms, or other floating materials. Like absorption losses, 

41 scattering losses vary linearly with distance, and are given as dB/km.

42

43 Whenever sound hits the ocean surface or seafloor, it is reflected, scattered, or 

44 absorbed and mostly loses a portion of its sound energy. Hard materials (like rocks) will reflect 

45 or scatter more sound energy, while soft materials (like mud) will absorb more sound energy. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-70

1 Accordingly, the seafloor plays a significant role in sound propagation, particularly in shallow 

2 waters.

3

4 Typically, a high-frequency sound cannot travel as far as a low-frequency sound in water 

5 because higher frequencies are absorbed more quickly. An exception is the rapid attenuation of 

6 low frequencies in shallow waters (Malme 1995). Shallow water acts as a waveguide bounded 

7 on the top by the air and on the bottom by the ocean bottom. The depth of the water represents

8 the thickness of the waveguide. Sound at long wavelengths (low frequencies) does not fit in the 

9 waveguide and is attenuated rapidly by the effects of interference at the boundaries.

10

11

12 3.6.1.3 Ambient Noise

13

14 Ambient noise is defined as typical or persistent environmental background noise

15 lacking a single source or point. In the ocean, there are numerous sources of ambient noise, both 

16 natural and anthropogenic, which are variable with respect to season, time of day, location, and 

17 noise characteristics (e.g., frequency). Natural sources include wind and waves, seismic noise 

18 from volcanic and tectonic activity, precipitation, marine biological activities, and sea ice 

19 (Greene 1995) while anthropogenic sources include transportation, dredging and construction, 

20 oil and gas drilling and production, geophysical surveys, sonars, explosions, and ocean scientific 

21 studies (Greene and Moore 1995). Depending on the ambient noise levels and their frequency 

22 distributions, basic activities by marine animals or specific human activities could be 

23 significantly hampered. As the ambient noise level increases, sounds from a specific source 

24 disappear below the ambient level and become undetectable due to loss of prominence of the 

25 signal at shorter ranges. In particular, anthropogenic sound could have effects on marine life, 

26 including behavior changes, masking, hearing loss, and strandings. Due to its importance to the 

27 sensitivity of instrumentation for research and military applications, ambient noise has been of 

28 considerable interest to oceanographers and naval forces. Recent concerns over potential 

29 impacts of strong sources of sound from scientific and military activities have driven 

30 considerable public and political interest in the issue of noise in the marine environment 

31 (NRC 2003; Greene 1995).

32

33 For most of the world oceans, shipping and seismic exploration noise dominate the low34 frequency portion of the spectrum (Hildebrand 2009). In particular, noise generated by shipping 

35 has increased as the number of ships on the high seas has increased (Andrew et al. 2002). Along 

36 the west coast of North America, long-term monitoring data suggest an average increase of about 

37 3 dB per decade in low-frequency ambient noise. 

38

39 Various activities and processes, both natural and anthropogenic, combine to form the 

40 sound profile within the ocean. Except for sounds generated by some marine animals using 

41 active acoustics, most ambient noise is broadband (composed of a spectrum of numerous 

42 frequencies without a differentiating pitch). Virtually the entire frequency spectrum is 

43 represented by ambient noise sources. 

44

45 According to the Office of Marine Programs (OMP 2010) of the University of Rhode 

46 Island, distant shipping is the primary source of ambient noise in the 20- to 500-Hz range. Spray 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-71

1 and bubbles associated with breaking waves are the major contributions to ambient noise in the 

2 500- to 100,000-Hz range. At frequencies greater than 100,000 Hz, ―thermal noise‖ caused by 

3 the random motion of water molecules is the primary source. Ambient noise sources, especially 

4 noise from wave and tidal action, can cause coastal environments to have particularly high 

5 ambient noise levels. Ice movements are a large source of noise in the Arctic and in Cook Inlet.

6

7 Per classical Wenz curves (Wenz 1962), which are plots of average ambient noise 

8 spectra, seismic background and turbulent-pressure fluctuations are prevailing noises in the 

9 frequency range of 1 to 100 Hz. Ocean traffic has noise between 10 and 1,000 Hz. Bubble and 

10 spray resulting from sea surface agitation (such as breaking waves, spray, bubble formation and 

11 collapse, and rainfall), whose noise increases with wind speed, accounts for the frequency range 

12 of 100 to 20,000 Hz. With peaks ranging between 100 and 1,000 Hz, Wenz curves provided 

noise spectrum level distributions for varying sea states. 13 5 At frequencies greater than 10,000 Hz, 

14 thermal noise contributes increasingly to ambient levels with frequency, but absolute levels are 

15 much lower than those below these frequencies. As intermittent and local effects, earthquakes 

16 and explosions consist of noise signals from 1 to 100 Hz. Volcanic and tectonic noise generated 

17 by earthquakes on land or in water propagates as low-frequency, locally generated ―T-phase‖ 

18 waves, with energy levels generally below 100 Hz (Greene 1995). Biota, such as fishes, certain 

19 shrimps, and marine mammals, can produce signals ranging from less than 10 Hz to well over 

20 100,000 Hz. Shipping and industrial activities along with sea ice have signals between 10 and 

21 10,000 Hz. In addition to noise caused by breakup, sea ice makes noise when temperature 

22 changes result in cracking. Underpressure from wind and currents also results in significant 

23 low-frequency noise, and iceberg melting results in ―seltzer‖ noise. Precipitation covers the 

24 frequency range of 100 to 25,000 Hz. 

25

26 Sources of ambient noise in the OCS include wind and wave activity, including surf noise 

27 near the land-sea interface; precipitation noise from rain and hail; lightning; biological noise 

28 from marine mammals, fishes, and crustaceans; and distant shipping traffic (Greene 1995). 

29 Several of these sources may contribute significantly to the total ambient noise at any one place 

30 and time, although ambient noise levels above 500 Hz are usually dominated by wind and wave 

31 noise. Consequently, ambient noise levels at a given frequency and location may vary widely on 

32 a daily basis. A wider range of ambient noise levels occurs in water depths less than 200 m 

33 (shallow water) than in deeper water. Ambient noise levels in shallow waters are directly related 

34 to wind speed and indirectly to sea state (Wille and Geyer 1984).

35

36

37 3.6.1.4 Anthropogenic Noise

38

39 Table 3.6.1-1 summarizes the various types of man-made noises in the ocean. Sources 

40 include transportation, dredging, construction, hydrocarbon and mineral exploration, geophysical 

41

 

5 Sea state is a measure of the intensity of the ocean‘s movement and is characterized by such parameters as wind 

speed, wave height, wave periodicity, and wave length. Sea states vary from ―0,‖ which represents calm 

conditions, to ―9,‖ which is characterized by wind speeds of more than 33 m/sec (108 ft/sec) and wave heights of 

more than 14 m (46 ft).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-72

1 TABLE 3.6.1-1 General Types of Anthropogenic Sound in the Ocean and Estimated Levels of Maritime Activity

Activity Sources

Source Levela

(dB re 1 μPa-m)

Frequency 

Range (Hz)b

Gulf of Mexico

Level of Activity

Transportation Aircraft (fixed-wing 

and helicopters) 

156–175 45–7,070 Moderate flight activity, estimated to be in the range of several 

hundred flights annually (most low-level flights for oil and gas 

support, aerial surveys)

Small vessels (boats, 

ships)

145–170 37–6,300 High activity level; hundreds to thousands of fishing vessels, 

pleasure craft, small ships daily; millions of angler trips per year 

(MMS 2004: Appendix F, Section II.B); oil and gas support 

vessel activity, estimated to be 304,807 to 319,921 trips per 

year, with most concentrated in the Central Planning Area.

Large vessels

(commercial vessels, 

supertankers)

169–198 6.8–428 In the U.S. GOM in 1999, tankers and other freight vessels 

completed a total of approximately 279,000 vessel trips in the 

GOM and Gulf Intracoastal Waterway waters

Ice breakers 171–191 10–1,000 None

Hovercraft and 

vehicles on ice

130 224–7,070 None; related watercraft would include ―jet skis,‖ whose 

numbers are estimated to range into the thousands

Dredging and 

construction

Dredging 150–180 10–1,000 Precise levels unknown, although harbor maintenance activity is 

very common for major GOM ports; very limited in shipping 

channels

Tunnel boring Low 10–500 Unknown; expected to be rare in the GOM

Other construction 

operations

Low <1000 Unknown; expected to be limited in the GOM

Pile driving 228 Broadband 

(peak at 100–

500 Hz)

Precise levels unknown; used to set platforms

2
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-73

TABLE 3.6.1-1 (Cont.)

Activity Sources

Source Levela

(dB re 1 μPa-m)

Frequency 

Range (Hz)b

Gulf of Mexico

Level of Activity

Oil and gas drilling and 

production

Drilling from islands 

and caissons

140–160 20–1,000 None in the GOM

Drilling from bottomfounded platforms119–127

(received)

5–1,200 Variable; may range from tens to hundreds of wells drilled from 

GOM platforms annually; January 2001 drilling activity levels: 

61 wells. MMS notes 40,361 approved applications to drill in 

the GOM Federal waters

Drilling from vessels 154–191 10–10,000 Low level of activity, on the order of tens of drill ships operating 

in GOM waters annually

Offshore oil and gas

production

Low 50–500 4,019 production platforms on 7,564 active leases in Federal 

waters of the GOM, as of July 31, 2001; as of September 2,

2003, there were 3,476 active offshore production platforms in 

the GOM Federal waters

Support activity See small vessels See small 

vessels

304,807 to 319,921 trips per year, with most (~90%) 

concentrated in the Central Planning Area; ~10% of support 

vessel activity occurs in the Western Planning Area, while 0.2 to 

0.3% is projected for the Eastern Planning Area

Geophysical surveys Air guns 216–259c <120 Tens to 30+ surveys per year, may have as many as five surveys 

running concurrently (MMS 2004: Appendix D, Section V)

Sleeve exploders and 

gas guns

217c Low Unknown; expected to be very rare
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-74

TABLE 3.6.1-1 (Cont.)

Activity Sources

Source Levela

(dB re 1 μPa-m)

Frequency 

Range (Hz)b

Gulf of Mexico

Level of Activity

Geophysical surveys

(Cont.)

Vibroseis 187 to 210c

instantaneous level 

dependent upon 

sweep length 

(i.e., ~18–22 dB 

less than an air 

gun pulse)

10–70 Estimated to be rare (MMS 2004: Append D, Section II.D) 

Other techniques 

(sparkers, boomers)

212–221c Not applicable Estimated to be rare

Navigation and target 

detection (sonars, 

pingers)

Fathometers 180+ 12,000+ Potentially high, given the presence of thousands of ships and 

boats in the GOM

Military active sonars 230+ 2,000–57,000 Unknown; expected to be periodic, infrequent (e.g., tens to 

100 or more annually)

Transponders 180–200 7,000–60,000 Unknown; expected to be periodic, infrequent (e.g., several 

hundred per year)

Explosions Military ordinance >279c Peak Low; live fire testing very limited in the GOM

Ship and weapons 

testing

>294c(10,000 lb 

charge)

Broadband Periodic, infrequent

Offshore demolition 

(structure removals)

267–279c(based 

on charge weights)

Peak 53–130 removals per year
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-75

TABLE 3.6.1-1 (Cont.)

Activity Sources

Source Levela

(dB re 1 μPa-m)

Frequency 

Range (Hz)b

Gulf of Mexico

Level of Activity

Ocean science studies Seismology Not applicable Not applicable Unknown, expected to be very limited study of earthquakes in 

the GOM, if any

Acoustic propagation 220 50–64 Unknown, expected to be very limited

Acoustic tomography Not applicable Not applicable None expected

Acoustic 

thermometry

195 57.5–92.5 None expected

a Root mean square pressure level unless otherwise noted.

b Frequency range represents the lowest and highest frequencies over which the estimated source level data (reported either for dominant tones or center 

frequency of the 1/3 octave bands) are available.

c Zero-to-peak pressure level.

Source: Adapted from Greene and Moore (1995) and various sources including MMS (2004), as noted.

1
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-76

1 surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean science studies. Noise levels from most human activities 

2 are greatest at relatively low frequencies (<500 Hz).

3

4

5 3.6.1.4.1 Transportation. Transportation-related noise sources include aircraft (both 

6 helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft) and surface and subsurface vessels. While icebreakers, 

7 snowmobiles (snowmachine traffic), and hovercrafts are operating in the Arctic region, of these 

8 three, only hovercrafts are used in Cook Inlet, and none are used in the GOM.

9

10 Aircraft. The primary sources of aircraft noise are their engine(s) (either reciprocating 

11 or turbine) and propellers or rotors. Sound energy from both helicopters and propeller-driven 

12 aircraft concentrates at relatively low frequencies (usually below 500 Hz) due to dominant tones, 

which are harmonics of the blade rates 13 6 of the propellers and rotors (Hubbard 1995). Sounds 

14 from jets (i.e., turbojet or turbofan) that do not drive propellers or rotors do not include

15 prominent tones at low frequencies but broadband noise across a wide range of frequencies.

16

17 In general, large, multi-engine aircraft tend to be noisier than small aircraft. Broadband 

18 (45–7,070 Hz) source levels from aircraft flyovers range from 156 dB re 1 μPa-m for Twin Otter 

19 with two turboprops to 175 dB re 1 μPa-m for C-130 military transport aircraft with four 

20 turboprops. A four-engine P-3 Orion with multi-bladed propellers has estimated source levels of 

21 160–162 dB re 1 μPa-m in the 56–80 Hz band and 148–158 dB re 1 μPa-m in the 890–1,120 Hz 

22 band. A Twin Otter generates source levels of 147–150 dB re 1 μPa-m at the 82 Hz tone. 

23 Helicopters are typically noisier and produce a larger number of acoustic tones and higher 

24 broadband noise levels than do fixed-wing aircraft of similar size. Estimated source levels 

25 for a Bell 212 helicopter are about 149–151 dB re 1 μPa-m at the 22 Hz tone (Greene and 

26 Moore 1995).

27

28 Underwater sounds from passing aircraft are transient. Levels and durations of sounds 

29 received underwater from passing aircraft depend on the noise strength of the aircraft, the 

30 altitude and aspect of the aircraft, water depth, bottom conditions, the temperature-salinity 

31 profile of the water column, and receiver depth. The peak received noise level in water, as an 

32 aircraft passes directly overhead, decreases with increasing altitude and increasing receiver 

33 depth. At incident angles greater than 13 from the vertical, much of the incident noise from 

34 passing aircraft is reflected and does not penetrate the water with calm seas, deep water, or 

35 shallow water with a nonreflective bottom. However, some airborne sound may penetrate water 

36 at angles greater than 13 from the vertical when rough seas provide suitable angles for 

37 additional transmission, but only above certain frequencies (Lubard and Hurdle 1976). 

38 Accordingly, the duration of audibility of a passing aircraft is far longer in air than in water. As 

39 explained previously, bottom type and water depth may strongly affect the level and frequency 

40 content of aircraft noise by either reflectivity or absorption of sound. Due to multiple reflections, 

41 lateral propagation underwater during aircraft flyover is better in shallow than in deep water, 

42 especially in the case of a reflective bottom (e.g., basalt); thus, its noise can be heard longer in 

43 shallow than in deep water.

 

6 The blade rate is defined as the number of turns of a propeller or turbine per second multiplied by the number of 

blades.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-77

1 Small and Large Vessels. Vessels are primary contributors to overall background noise 

2 in the sea, given their large numbers, wide distribution, and mobility (Greene and Moore 1995). 

3 Sound levels and frequency characteristics of vessel noises underwater are generally related to 

4 vessel size, speed, and mode of operation, although there exist wide variations among vessels of 

5 similar classes depending on vessel design. Larger vessels generally emit stronger and lowerfrequency sounds than smaller vessels do because of their greater power, large drafts,7 6 and slow7 turning engines and propellers, and those underway with a full load or those pushing or towing a 

8 load are noisier than unladen vessels. The primary noise sources from all machine-powered 

9 vessels are related to propeller, propulsion, and other machinery. Propeller cavitation is usually 

10 the dominant underwater noise source of many vessels (Ross 1976). In general, propeller 

11 cavitation produces most of the broadband noise, with dominant tones resulting from the 

12 propeller blade rate. Propeller singing, typically a result of resonant vibration of the propeller 

13 blade(s) with a strong tone between 100 and 1,000 Hz, is an additional source of propeller noise. 

14 Cavitation bubbles absorb vibrational energy, so propeller singing ceases in case of strong

15 cavitation. Noise from propulsion machinery is generated by engines, transmissions, rotating 

16 propeller shafts, and mechanical friction. These sources reach the water through the vessel hull. 

17 Other sources of vessel noise include a diverse array of auxiliary machinery, flow noise from 

18 water dragging along a vessel‘s hull, and bubbles breaking in the vessel‘s wake (Greene and 

19 Moore 1995).

20

21 Small boats produce noise of about 150–170 dB re 1 μPa-m at frequencies mostly below 

22 1,000 Hz. At the 1/3 octave-band‘s center frequency of 1,000 Hz, a tug pulling a barge generates 

23 164 dB re 1 μPa-m when empty and 170 dB re 1 μPa-m when loaded. A tug and barge underway 

24 at 18 km/hr (11 mph) can generate broadband (45–7,070 Hz) source levels of 171 dB re 1 μPa-m. 

25 A small crew boat produces 156 dB re 1 μPa-m at the 90 Hz tone. A small boat with an outboard 

26 engine generates 156 dB re 1 μPa-m at the 1/3 octave-band‘s center frequency of 630 Hz, with 

27 almost the same levels as that ranging from 400 to 800 Hz. An inflatable boat with a 

28 25 horsepower outboard engine produces 152 dB re 1 μPa-m at the 1/3 octave-band‘s center 

29 frequency of 6,300 Hz (Greene and Moore 1995).

30

31 Fishing in coastal regions also contributes sound to the overall ambient noise. Sound

32 produced by these smaller boats is typically at a higher frequency, around 300 Hz. A 12-m 

33 (39-ft) long fishing boat, underway at 7 knots, generates a broadband source level of 151 dB 

34 re 1 μPa-m in the 250–1,000 Hz range. Trawlers generate source levels of 158 dB re 1 μPa-m at 

35 the 1/3 octave-band‘s center frequency of 100 Hz, with almost the same levels as that ranging 

36 from 100 to 250 Hz (Greene and Moore 1995).

37

38 Few data on 1-m (3-ft) source levels are available for small ships, such as support and 

39 supply ships. A supply ship underway can generate broadband (45–7,070 Hz) source levels of 

40 181 dB re 1 μPa-m. In general, broadband (20-1000 Hz) source levels for most small ships are 

41 about 170 to 180 dB re 1 μPa-m (Greene and Moore 1995), which is for ships between boats and 

42 large vessels.

43

 

7 The draft denotes the vertical distance between the waterline and the bottom of the ship‘s hull.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-78

1 Shipping traffic, including large commercial vessels and supertankers, is most significant 

2 at frequencies from 20 to 300 Hz. Source levels from a freighter can be 172 dB re 1 μPa-m in 

3 the dominant tone of 41 Hz. Large vessels such as tankers, bulk carriers, and container ships can 

4 range from 169 dB (at the 428 Hz tone) to 181 dB (at the 33 Hz tone) re 1 μPa-m, while a very 

5 large container ship generates as much as 181–198 dB re 1 μPa-m (at tones below 40 Hz). 

6 Supertankers generate peak source levels of 185–190 dB re 1 μPa-m at about a 7 Hz tone. Noise 

7 levels of supertankers are highest at the lowest frequency measured (near 2 Hz), while strong 

8 broadband components caused by propeller cavitation are centered at frequencies ranging from 

9 40 to 100 Hz (Greene and Moore 1995).

10

11 In shallow water, shipping traffic located more than 10 km (6 mi) away from a receiver 

12 generally contributes only to background noise. However, in deep water, low-frequency 

13 components of traffic noise up to 4,000 km (2,485 mi) away may contribute to background noise 

14 levels (Greene 1995).

15

16

17 3.6.1.4.2 Dredging and Construction. Marine dredging and construction activities are 

18 common within the coastal waters of the OCS. Underwater noises from dredge vessels are 

19 typically continuous in duration (for periods of days or weeks at a time) and strongest at low 

20 frequencies. Marine dredging sound levels vary greatly, depending upon the type of dredge

21 (such as transfer, hopper, and clamshell dredges), and hopper dredges were noisier than transfer 

22 dredges (Greene 1985a, 1987). Transfer dredges can generate broadband (45–890 Hz) source 

23 levels of 172 to 185 dB re 1 μPa-m, and 1/3 octave-band (between 10 and 1,000 Hz) source 

24 levels ranging from 150 to 180 dB re 1 μPa-m with peaks in the 100–200 Hz range (Greene and 

25 Moore 1995). A clamshell dredge generates broadband (20–1,000 Hz) source levels of about 

26 167 dB re 1 μPa-m while pulling a loaded clamshell back to the surface. Because of rapid 

27 attenuation of low frequencies in shallow water, dredging noise can diminish below typical 

28 broadband ambient levels of about 100 dB re 1 μPa within 25 km (16 mi) of dredges, but 

29 stronger tones from some dredges can be detectable beyond 25 km (16 mi) under certain 

30 conditions (Greene and Moore 1995).

31

32 Sounds from various onshore construction activities vary greatly in levels and 

33 characteristics. These sounds are most likely within shallow waters. Onshore construction 

34 activities may also propagate into coastal waters, depending upon the source and ground material 

35 (Greene and Moore 1995). 

36

37 Pile driving during construction activities is of special concern because it generates 

38 signals with a very high source level and broad bandwidth. In general, the source level and 

39 frequency content of the sounds produced by pile driving depend on a variety of factors, 

40 including the type and size of the impact hammer and the pile, the properties of the seafloor, and 

41 the depth of the water. Thus, the actual sounds produced would vary from location to location. 

42

43 Pile driving is expected to generate sound levels in excess of 200 dB and to have a 

44 relatively broad bandwidth from 20 Hz to the ultrasonic range above 20 kHz, with peak 

45 energy between 100 and 500 Hz (Madsen et al. 2006; Thomsen et al. 2006). Due to the 

46 impulsive nature of the sound, the radiation pattern is assumed to be rather omnidirectional 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-79

1 (Madsen et al. 2006). Measurements from offshore wind farms in German Bight indicated 

2 that the broadband peak sound pressure level during pile driving were 189 dB0-p re 1 μPa 

(SEL = 166 dB re 1 μPa2 3 s) at 400 m (1,300 ft) distance, resulting in a peak broadband source 

level of 228 dB0-p re 1 μPa-m (SEL = 206 dB re 1 μPa2 4 s-m) (Madsen et al. 2006). The 

5 1/3 octave-band sound pressure level was highest at 315 Hz (peak = 218 dB0-p re 1 μPa-m) 

6 with considerable sound energy above 2 kHz.

7

8 Sound propagation modeling for three projects predicted underwater noise levels 

9 greater than 160 dB re 1 μPa (NMFS threshold for behavioral disturbance/harassment from 

10 a noncontinuous noise source) at distances ranging from 3.4 to 7.2 km (2.1 to 4.5 mi) 

11 (BOEMRE 2011b). Pile-driving noise can travel a long distance; even at 80 km (50 mi) 

12 distance, the sound pressure levels at frequencies below 4 kHz are well above background noise, 

13 about 40–50 dB (Thomsen et al. 2006).

14

15

16 3.6.1.4.3 Oil and Gas Drilling and Production. Offshore drilling and production 

17 involve a variety of activities that produce underwater noises. Offshore drilling can be, in large 

18 part, made from three types of facilities: (1) natural or manmade islands; (2) bottom-founded 

19 platforms; and (3) drilling vessels, including semisubmersibles and drillships. Irrespective of 

20 type of facilities, most noises associated with offshore oil drilling and gas production are 

21 generally below 1,000 Hz (Greene and Moore 1995).

22

23 Compared with other drilling facilities, underwater noise emanating from drilling on 

24 natural or manmade islands is generally low, primarily due to poor transmission of sound 

25 through the rock and fill islands. And thus noise is inaudible at ranges beyond a few kilometers. 

26 During drilling operations at the Sandpiper Island, Miles et al. (1987) estimated the source level 

27 of 145 dB re 1 μPa-m at a predominant 40-Hz tone, which is presumed related to diesel electric 

28 generator operation.

29

30 Underwater noises emanating from drilling activities from fixed, metal-legged platforms 

31 are considered weak due to noise sources on decks well above the water and small surface areas 

32 in contact with water. The strongest tones are generally at very low frequencies, near 5 Hz, for 

33 which received levels of 119 to 127 dB re 1 μPa at near-field measurement locations were 

34 reported (Gales 1982). 

35

36 Drillships show somewhat higher noise levels than semisubmersibles as a result of 

37 mechanical noises generated through the hull of a drillship that is well coupled to the water. 

38 The drillship Canmar Explorer II generated broadband (45–7,070 Hz) source levels of 174 dB 

39 re 1 μPa-m. The specialized ice-strengthened floating platform Kulluk is by far the noisiest 

40 among drillships, producing broadband (45–1,780 Hz) source levels of 185 dB re 1 μPa-m 

41 (Greene and Moore 1995). Across the 20 to 1,000 Hz range, its 1/3 octave-band source levels 

42 are higher than that for Canmar Explorer II, with a maximum difference of about 15 dB. 

43 Measurements from Kulluk operating in another area indicated that it produced broadband 

44 (10–10,000 Hz) source levels of 191 dB re 1 μPa-m while drilling and 179 dB re 1 μPa-m while 

45 tripping (extracting or lowering the drillstring) (Hall et al. 1994).

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-80

1 In the shallow waters, the overall noise (20 to 1,000 Hz band) from most drilling 

2 operations would be at levels below the median ambient noise (about 100 dB re 1 μPa) at ranges 

3 greater than 30 km (19 mi) (Greene 1987).

4

5 Offshore oil and gas production is made from natural/manmade islands or from bottom6 standing metal platforms. Sounds from production on islands or platforms can attenuate rapidly 

7 due to the reasons explained above for platforms and islands. Underwater sound levels from 

8 these activities are relatively low compared with other manmade activities. In addition, support 

9 activities associated with oil and gas operations such as supply/anchor handling and crew boats 

10 and helicopters also contribute to the noise from offshore activities.

11

12

13 3.6.1.4.4 Geophysical Surveys. Marine geophysical (seismic) surveys are commonly 

14 conducted to delineate oil and gas reservoirs below the surface of the land and seafloor. These 

15 operations direct high-intensity, low-frequency sound waves through layers of subsurface rock, 

16 which are reflected at boundaries between geological layers with different physical and chemical 

17 properties. The reflected sound waves are recorded and processed to provide information about 

18 the structure and composition of subsurface geological formations (McCauley 1994). In an 

19 offshore seismic survey, a high-energy sound source is towed at a slow speed behind a survey 

20 vessel. Until the mid-1960s, explosive charges were the standard sources for marine seismic 

21 exploration, but nonexplosive seismic survey sources, such as air guns, sleeve exploders, gas 

22 guns, and Vibroseis®, are currently in use, among which air guns are commonly used (Greene 

23 and Moore 1995). An air gun is a pneumatic device that produces acoustic output through the 

24 rapid release of a volume of compressed air, which forms bubbles. The air gun is designed to 

25 direct the high-energy bursts of low-frequency sound (termed a ―shot‖) downward toward the 

26 seafloor. Air guns are usually used in sets, or arrays, rather than singly (McCauley 1994). 

27 Reflected sounds from below the seafloor are received by an array of sensitive hydrophones on 

28 cables (collectively termed ―streamers‖) that are either towed behind a survey vessel or attached 

29 to cables placed on or anchored to the seafloor.

30

31 Air gun arrays are the most common source of seismic survey noise. Air guns produce 

32 energy primarily at 10–120 Hz, with some energy up to 500–1,000 Hz, which is lower than low33 frequency energy but much higher than ambient noise levels. A typical full-scale air gun array 

produces a broadband source level of 248–255 dB0-p

8 34 re 1 μPa-m (Johnston and Cain 1981; 

35 Greene 1985b), with the most powerful air gun array producing 259 dB0-p re 1 μPa-m 

36 (Parrott 1991). Typical seismic arrays being used in the GOM produce source levels (sound 

pressure levels) of approximately 240 dB0-p 37 re 1 μPa-m. Despite downward focusing of the 

38 seismic air gun pulses toward the ocean bottom, portions of their energy propagate horizontally, 

39 which is of greater concern. In waters 25–50 m (82–164 ft) deep, sound produced by air guns 

40 can be detected 50–75 km (31–47 mi) away, and these detection ranges can exceed 100 km 

41 (62 mi) during quiet times with efficient propagation, or in deeper water (Greene and 

42 Moore 1995).

43

 

8 For an ideal sinusoid, the zero-to-peak value is about 6 dB lower than peak-to-peak value and about 3 dB higher 

than the rms value.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-81

1 3.6.1.4.5 Navigation and Target Detection. Active sonar systems are used for the 

2 detection of objects underwater. These range from depth-finding sonars (fathometers), found 

3 on most ships and boats, to powerful and sophisticated units used by the military. Sonars emit 

4 transient, and often intense, sounds that vary widely in intensity and frequency. Unlike most 

5 other manmade noises, sonar sounds are mainly at moderate to high frequencies, ranging from 

6 a few hundred hertz for long-range search sonar to several hundred kilohertz for side-scan 

7 sonars and military sonars, which attenuate much more rapidly than lower frequencies (Greene 

8 and Moore 1995). Acoustic pingers used for locating and positioning of oceanographic and 

9 geophysical equipment also generate noise at high frequencies.

10

11 Source levels of depth sounders are over 180 dB re 1 μPa-m at over 12 kHz, while those 

12 of bottom profilers are about 200–230 dB re 1 μPa-m in the 0.4–30 kHz range. Military sonars 

13 for search and surveillance operate at 2–57 kHz, with source levels of over 230 dB re 1 μPa-m

14 (Watts 1994).

15

16

17 3.6.1.4.6 Explosions. Underwater explosions in open waters are the strongest point 

18 sources of anthropogenic sound in the sea. Sources of explosions include both military testing 

19 and non-military activities, such as offshore structure removals. Explosives produce rapid onset 

20 pulses (shock waves) followed by a succession of oscillating low-frequency bubble pulses, if 

21 the explosion occurs sufficiently deep from the surface (Staal 1985). Shock waves change to 

22 conventional acoustic pulses as they propagate. 

23

24 High-explosive detonations have velocities of 5,000–10,000 m/s with pulse rise times 

25 of about 20 μsec and short-pulse durations of 0.2–0.5 ms. Although the wave is initially 

26 supersonic, it is quickly reduced to a normal acoustic wave. Bubble-pulse frequency decreases 

27 as charge mass increases and as charge depth decreases. The spectra are dominated by a broad 

28 peak over a lower frequency band (<100 Hz), with strong infrasonic (<20 Hz) energy. Even a 

29 small 0.5-kg (1-lb) charge of TNT generates source levels of 267 dB0-p re 1 μPa-m, while a 

30 20-kg (44-lb) charge of TNT produces 279 dB0-p re 1 μPa-m, with dominant frequencies below 

31 50 Hz. Detonation of very large charges during ship shock tests with a 4,536-kg (10,000-lb) 

32 charge produces source levels of more than 294 dB0-p re 1 μPa-m (Greene and Moore 1995; 

33 MMS 2005a).

34

35

36 3.6.1.4.7 Ocean Science Studies. Ocean science studies examine characteristics of the 

37 water masses and ocean bottom layer. In addition to the seismic surveys that are mentioned 

38 above, these include investigating sound transmission and the properties of ocean water masses 

39 (acoustic oceanography), the latter of which include tomographic studies.

40

41 Two notable closely related ocean science studies are presented to describe typical 

42 source levels. In January 1991, the Heard Island Feasibility Test (HIFT) in the southern Indian 

43 Ocean was carried out to establish the limits of usable, long-range acoustic transmissions 

44 (Munk et al. 1994). In the study, a vertical array of five sources, centered at 57 Hz (bandwidth 

45 14 Hz), generated broadband source levels of about 220–221 dB re 1 μPa-m. These signals were 

46 detected halfway around the world (at ranges of up to ~20,000 km [12,427 mi]). The Acoustic 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-82

1 Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC) study was made in the northern Pacific Ocean over the 

2 decade 1996–2006, and was designed to monitor long-term ocean temperature trends. The coded 

3 signals with a source level of 195 dB re 1 μPa-m transmitted broadband signals centered at 75 Hz 

4 (bandwidth 35 Hz) to receivers scattered in the northern Pacific Ocean at a maximum range of 

5 about 5,500 km (3,418 mi) (Dushaw et al. 2009).

6

7

8 3.6.1.4.8 Snowmachines and Ice Roads. The two principal sources of transportation 

9 activity on the North Slope are the oil industry and the Iñupiat communities (MMS 2008b). 

10 Small snowmobiles have high-speed two-cycle engines. These are noisy in air and create sounds 

11 at higher frequencies than larger, slower machinery. The amount of sound passing through ice 

12 into the water below is expected to vary greatly depending on snow, ice, and temperature 

13 conditions. The spectrum of snowmobile sound as received under the ice includes much energy 

near 1–1.25 kHz, but levels vary widely: spectrum levels about 90 dB re 1 μPa2 14 /Hz at a range of 

15 148 m (486 ft) in one study, versus only 55-60 dB at range of about 200 m (656 ft) in another

16 (Greene and Moore 1995).

17

18 The oil industry builds ice roads in winter to access areas that otherwise would be 

19 inaccessible to large equipment. Fresh water from local streams and ponds is used to build a 

20 thick, flat road surface capable of supporting large machinery. Ice-road construction begins after

21 freezeup and after there is a minimum of 6 in. of base snow. Ice roads are built over tundra and

22 shorefast ice to facilitate exploration and development while minimizing impacts (MMS 2008b).

23

24

25 3.6.1.5 Climate Change Effects

26

27 Potential impacts of climate change on the acoustic environment are relatively minor. 

28 Since the sound attenuation rate depends on seawater acidity, it has been suggested that 

29 increasing ocean acidification resulting from rising anthropogenic CO2 emissions will result in 

30 decreased sound absorption (Hester et al. 2008). Increases in ambient low-frequency noise have 

31 already been reported, attributable largely to an overall increase in human activities, such as 

32 shipping that are unrelated to climate change (Andrews et al. 2002). Due to the combined effects 

33 of decreased absorption and anticipated increases in overall human activities, ambient noise 

34 levels will increase considerably within the auditory range of 10–10,000 Hz, which are critical 

35 for environmental, biota, military, and economic interests (Hester et al. 2008). There will also be 

36 changes in frequency spectrum distributions.

37

38

39 3.6.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

40

41 For a more detailed discussion on the acoustic environment of Cook Inlet, please see 

42 MMS (2003a), which is incorporated here for reference.

43

44 General underwater noise sources are covered in detail in Section 3.6.1, Acoustic 

45 Environment: Gulf of Mexico, while those limited to Arctic Alaska are discussed in 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-83

1 Section 3.6.3, Acoustic Environment: Alaska – Arctic. In this section, noise sources specific to 

2 Cook Inlet will be presented.

3

4

5 3.6.2.1 Sources of Natural Sound

6

7 In Cook Inlet, underwater sound is generated by a variety of natural sources, such as ice, 

8 the action of wind, waves, and biological activity. Ambient noise levels and the acoustic 

9 environment in the Cook Inlet vary greatly among seasons and even daily. To a lesser degree 

10 than in the Arctic, ice plays a role in the ambient noise levels. In contrast to the Arctic 

11 environment, strong tidal fluctuations and currents function as additional sources of ambient 

12 noise in Cook Inlet. Cook Inlet has one of the largest tides in the North American continent, and 

13 thus tidal noises can be important contributors to ambient levels, especially at low frequencies. 

14 Wind and wave action also contribute to ambient noise. Measurements at several seaward 

15 locations around Anchorage that are removed from industrial activities indicated that the mean 

16 ambient underwater broadband (10–20,000 Hz) levels span a fairly wide range, from 95 to 

17 120 dB re 1 μPa (Blackwell and Greene 2002).

18

19 Marine mammals in Cook Inlet also contribute to ambient noise. 

20

21 Echolocation clicks have the highest source levels among marine mammal sounds. The 

22 echolocation signals from beluga whales have source levels of about 206–225 dB re 1 μPa-m,

23 with peak frequencies between 40 and 60 kHz and between 100 and 120 kHz (Au et al. 1985, 

24 1987; Au 1993). Under controlled conditions, a trained beluga had good echolocation abilities at 

25 distances up to at least 80 m (262 ft) (Au et al. 1987). However, maximum distances at which 

26 echolocation pulses can be detectable by hydrophone (one-way travel) are much greater than the 

27 maximum target distance at which the emitting animal can detect echoes (two-way travel).

28

29 Humpback whales in southeast Alaskan waters produce five categories of sounds, with 

30 frequencies ranging between 20 and 2,000 Hz (Thompson et al. 1986). Source levels ranged 

31 from 162 (low-frequency pulse trains) to 192 dB (surface impacts resulting from fluke or flipper 

32 slaps), re 1 μPa-m.

33

34 Fin whales typically produce calls around 20 Hz, which have source levels of about 

35 160–186 dB re 1 μPa-m with extremes of 200 dB and ≤140 dB (Patterson and Hamilton 1964; 

36 Northrop et al. 1968, 1971; Watkins 1981; Watkins et al. 1987; Cummings and Thompson 1994). 

37 Calls at 20 Hz can be transmitted up to 185 km (115 mi) away (Cummings and Thompson 1971).

38

39 There are many other species of marine mammals in the marine environment of Cook 

40 Inlet whose vocalizations contribute to ambient sound. These include but are not limited to, 

41 other whales (such as gray whales), dolphins, sea lions, sea otters, and seals (see Section 3.8.1.2). 

42 Sea lions, sea otters, seals, and marine and coastal birds all produce sound that can be heard 

43 above water.

44

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-84

1 3.6.2.2 Sources of Anthropogenic Sound

2

3 The primary sources of anthropogenic sounds in the Cook Inlet include aircraft 

4 overflights, vessel activities and traffic, oil and gas activities, including seismic surveys and 

5 production operations and other miscellaneous human activities such as construction of pipelines 

6 and production facilities, pile driving for a new dock at Anchorage port, and possibly new bridge

7 construction. Port of Anchorage and Anchorage International Airport, which are important 

8 transportation and distribution hubs, and Elmendorf Air Force Base are located more than 

9 145 km (90 mi) northeast of the Cook Inlet Planning Area (see Figure 3.2.1-1). Cook Inlet 

10 experiences considerable aircraft traffic throughout the year, including commercial passenger, 

11 cargo, private, and military aircraft (Moore et al. 2000). In particular, Kenai and Homer airports,

12 located east of the planning area, processed about 114,000 flight operations in 2001, about half 

13 of which were attributable to air-taxi operations. More than 10 helicopters are also based at 

14 these two airports. In Cook Inlet, significant noise originates from heavy vessel traffic, including 

15 cargo vessels, freighters, tankers, supply ships, support vessels, tugboats, barges, seismic-survey 

16 vessels, and fishing boats (for recreational, commercial, subsistence, and personal use). As for 

17 natural sound, anthropogenic sound varies spatially and temporally within the Cook Inlet.

18

19 Considering the size and/or traffic volume of vessels, noise from boat traffic associated 

20 with oil and gas activities is likely less than that from the fishing and commercial traffic 

21 occurring within the Cook Inlet. However, shipping traffic is more pronounced in Cook Inlet 

22 than in the Arctic Ocean. Shipping traffic dominates the spectra of ambient noise between 

23 20 and 300 Hz. Fishing vessels produce high-frequency sound peaking at 300 Hz, whereas 

24 larger cargo vessels produce more lower frequency sounds (Greene and Moore 1995).

25

26 Sounds produced by offshore oil and gas platforms in Cook Inlet have not been well 

27 studied. However, drilling platforms and combined drilling/production platforms in California 

28 produce little underwater sound because of the small surface area in contact with the water and 

29 the placement of machinery on decks well above the water (Gales 1982).

30

31

32 3.6.2.3 Climate Change Effects

33

34 Potential impacts of climate change on the acoustic environment are relatively minor. Since the 

35 sound attenuation rate depends on seawater acidity, it has been suggested that increasing ocean 

36 acidification resulting from rising anthropogenic CO2 emissions will result in decreased sound 

37 absorption (Hester et al. 2008). Increases in underwater low-frequency noise have already been 

38 reported, attributable largely to an overall increase in human activities, such as shipping that are 

39 unrelated to climate change (Andrews et al. 2002). Although sea ice is limited to northern Cook 

40 Inlet during winter through early spring, reduced sea ice associated with climate change could 

41 provide a longer open water season for shipping and resource extraction, which could increase 

42 sound levels in Cook Inlet. Due to the combined effects of decreased absorption, the anticipated 

43 increase in overall human activities, and the longer open water season, ambient noise levels will 

44 increase considerably within the auditory range of 10–10,000 Hz, which are critical for 

45 environmental, biota, military, and economic interests (Hester et al. 2008). There will also be 

46 changes in frequency spectrum distributions.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-85

1 3.6.3 Alaska – Arctic

2

3 For a more detailed discussion on the acoustic environment of the Arctic region, please 

4 see MMS (2008b) and MMS (2006c), which are incorporated here for reference.

5

6 General underwater noise sources are covered in detail in Section 3.6.1, Acoustic 

7 Environment: Gulf of Mexico, while those limited to Cook Inlet are discussed in Section 3.6.2, 

8 Acoustic Environment: Alaska – Cook Inlet. In this section, noise sources specific to Arctic 

9 Alaska will be presented.

10

11 In the Arctic Project Areas including the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, underwater sound is 

12 generated by a variety of natural and anthropogenic sources. The arctic waters are a unique 

13 acoustic environment mainly due to the presence of ice, which can contribute significantly to 

14 ambient sound levels and affects sound propagation.

15

16

17 3.6.3.1 Sources of Natural Sound

18

19 Natural sound in the Alaskan Arctic predominantly originates from ice and the action of 

20 wind, waves, and biological activity (Greene 1995). Ambient levels of natural sound can vary 

21 dramatically between and within seasons at a particular location and can vary from location to 

22 location. As an example, Burgess and Greene (1999) found that ambient sound in the Beaufort 

23 Sea in September 1998 ranged widely, between about 63 and 133 dB re 1 μPa. The presence, 

24 thickness, and movement of sea ice significantly influence the ice‘s contribution to ambient 

25 sound levels, as does the period of open water when wind and waves contribute to ambient sound 

26 levels.

27

28 Sea Ice. The Arctic waters are a unique acoustic environment mainly due to the presence 

29 of ice, which can contribute significantly to ambient sound levels and affects sound propagation. 

30 Ice cracking due to thermal stresses caused by temperature changes generates noise, and ice 

31 deformation under pressure from wind and currents produces significant low-frequency noise 

32 (Greene 1995). Data are limited, but in at least one instance it has been shown that ice33 deformation sounds had frequencies of 4–200 Hz (Greene 1981). While sea ice can produce 

34 significant sound, it also can also function to dampen ambient sound.

35

36 Ambient noise levels in the project area can vary drastically between seasons and can 

37 also vary with sea ice conditions. In winter and spring, shore-fast ice produces significant 

38 thermal cracking sounds (Milne and Ganton 1964). The spectrum of cracking noise typically 

39 displays a broad range from 100 to 1000 Hz, and the spectrum level has been observed to vary as 

40 much as 15 dB within 24 hours due to the diurnal change of air temperature. The NRC (2003; 

41 citing Urick 1984) reported that variability in air temperature over the course of the day can 

42 change received sound levels by 30 dB between 300 and 500 Hz. Spring noise spectra peaked at 

about 90 dB re 1 μPa2 43 /Hz at infrasonic frequencies (0.5–2 Hz) (Milne and Ganton 1964). In the 

44 2–20 Hz range, noise spectra decrease with increasing frequency, while in the 20–8,000 Hz 

range, the levels of 50 dB re 1 μPa2 45 /Hz remain constant. Winter noises include wind-induced 

46 noise as well as thermal cracking sounds. Winter noise, equivalent to Knudsen spectrum for sea 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-86

1 state three, is higher than during any other season. For late summer ice, relative motion of the 

2 floes is the primary factor for ambient sound. As icebergs melt, they produce additional 

background noise with a spectrum level flat at about 62 dB re 1 μPa2 3 /Hz at a range of 180 m 

4 from an iceberg, decreasing to about 58 dB at 10 kHz (Urick 1971). In addition to noise caused 

5 by breakup, sea ice makes noise when temperature changes result in cracking. Underpressure 

6 from wind and currents also results in significant low-frequency noise, and iceberg melting 

7 results in ―seltzer‖ noise.

8

9 The Arctic Ocean is almost uniformly cold from top to bottom, and pressure always 

10 increases with depth. Thus, sound speed is the lowest at or near the surface. All sound rays in 

11 the arctic surface channel are refracted upward and are then reflected from the under-ice surface 

12 (Richardson et al. 1995). Low-frequency noise loses its energy by conversion of acoustic waves 

13 into flexural waves of the ice sheet. At higher frequencies, under-ice roughness plays a primary 

14 role in sound propagation. Smooth annual ice may enhance propagation as compared with open 

15 water conditions. However, increased cracking, ridging, and other forms of roughness generally 

16 cause more transmission losses than under open water conditions. As ice forms, especially in 

17 very shallow water, the sound propagation properties of the underlying water are affected in a 

18 way that can reduce the transmission efficiency of low-frequency sound (Blackwell and 

19 Greene 2002). At frequencies less than 500 Hz, where most acoustic energy from aircraft and 

20 surface vehicles is concentrated, the ice layer is acoustically thin and causes little attenuation of 

21 sound (Malme 1995).

22

23 The presence of sea ice also affects the timing, nature, and possible locations of human 

24 activities such as shipping; research; barging; whale hunting; oil- and gas-related exploration 

25 (e.g., seismic surveys and drilling); military activities; and other activities that introduce noise 

26 into the marine environment. Because of sea ice and its effects on human activities, ambient 

27 sound levels in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas can vary dramatically between seasons and with 

28 sea ice conditions. The presence of ice also impacts which marine species are present, another 

29 factor that influences ambient sound levels.

30

31 There is some concern that climate change will alter the acoustic environment in the 

32 Arctic drastically. Arctic sea ice is declining rapidly. Its extent has fallen at a rate of 3 to 4% 

33 per decade over the last three decades, and this trend is very likely to continue (USGCRP 2009). 

34 If Arctic warming continues, it is likely that changes in the acoustic environment also will occur 

35 in many parts of the waters off Alaska (Tynan and DeMaster 1997; Brigham and Ellis 2004). 

36 Climate warming potentially could: (1) increase noise and disturbance related to increased 

37 shipping and other vessel traffic and possibly increased seismic exploration and development;

38 (2) expand commercial fishing and/or cause a change in areas where intensive fishing occurs; 

39 (3) decrease year-round ice cover; (4) change subsistence-hunting practices; and (5) change the 

40 distribution of marine mammal species (MacLeod et al. 2005).

41

42 Wind and Waves. During the open water season in the Arctic, wind and waves are 

43 important interrelated sources of ambient sounds with levels tending to increase with increased 

44 wind (and thus sea state) and wave height, all other factors being equal (Greene 1995). Areas of 

45 water with 100% sea ice cover can reduce or completely eliminate sounds from waves or surf. 

46 However, the marginal ice zone in the area near the edge of large sheets of ice usually is 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-87

1 characterized by quite high levels of ambient sound compared to other areas, in large part due to 

2 the impact of waves against the ice edges and the breaking up and rafting of ice flows (Milne and 

3 Ganton 1964).

4

5 Marine Mammals (and Birds). Marine mammals can contribute significantly to the 

6 background sounds in the acoustic environment of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas; however, 

7 frequencies and levels depend highly on seasons. For example, bearded seal sounds dominate 

8 ambient noise in many Arctic areas during spring; source levels of bearded seal songs have been 

9 estimated to be up to 178 dB re 1 μPa-m, with dominant frequencies of 1–2 kHz 

10 (Cummings et al. 1983). Parts of some calls were recorded up to a distance of 25 km (16 mi) 

11 underwater (Cleator et al. 1989). Ringed seal calls have a source level of 95–130 dB re 1 μPa-m, 

12 with the most energy below 5 kHz (Thomson and Richardson 1995). Its source levels are low 

13 compared with those of other marine mammals and the detection range may not exceed 1 km 

14 (0.6 mi) (Cummings et al. 1984). Bowhead whales, which are present in the Arctic region from 

15 early spring to mid- to late fall, produce sounds with estimated source levels ranging 128 to 

16 189 dB re 1 μPa-m in frequency ranges from 20 to 3,500 Hz. Thomson and Richardson (1995) 

17 summarized that most bowhead whale calls are ―tonal frequency modulated (FM)‖ sounds at 

18 50–400 Hz. A few callings of bowhead whales are detectable up to 20 km (12 mi) away, 

19 although most localizable whales are ≤ 10 km (6.2 mi) away (Cummings and Holliday 1985; 

20 Davis et al. 1985; Clark et al. 1986; LGL and Greeneridge 1987).

21

22 There are many other species of marine mammals in the arctic marine environment 

23 whose vocalizations contribute to ambient sound including, but not limited to, the gray whale, 

24 walrus, beluga whale, spotted seal, fin whale (in the southwestern areas), and, potentially but less 

25 likely, the humpback whale. Walruses, seals, and seabirds (especially in the Chukchi Sea near 

26 colonies) all produce sound that can be heard above water.

27

28

29 3.6.3.2 Sources of Anthropogenic Sound

30

31 The primary sources of anthropogenic sounds in the Arctic include vessel activities and 

32 traffic, oil and gas activities, including seismic surveys, production, and other miscellaneous 

33 activities. During much of the year in many marine areas, there are few near-field marine noise 

34 sources of human origin and limited, but increasing, land-based and nearshore-based sources of 

35 noise.

36

37 Anthropogenic sources of sound in the project area include vessels; navigation and 

38 scientific research equipment; airplanes and helicopters; human settlements; military activities; 

39 and marine development, including those sounds from the oil and gas activities. Ambient sound 

40 levels from anthropogenic sources can also fluctuate temporally and spatially as much as 

41 variations in natural sounds. Table 3.6.1-1 provides a comparison of man-made sound levels 

42 from various sources and their typical source levels associated with the marine environment.

43

44 Vessel Activities and Traffic. The types of vessels that typically produce noise in the

45 Beaufort and Chukchi Seas include barges, skiffs with outboard motors, icebreakers, tourism and 

46 scientific research vessels, and vessels associated with oil and gas exploration, development, and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-88

1 production. In the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, vessel traffic and associated noise presently is 

2 limited primarily to open water season between late spring and early autumn.

3

4 In shallow water, vessels more than 10 km (6.2 mi) away from a receiver generally 

5 contribute only to background noise levels (Greene 1995). In deep water, traffic noise up to 

6 4,000 km (2,485 mi) away may contribute to background noise levels. Shipping traffic is most 

7 significant at frequencies from 20 to 300 Hz (Greene 1995). Barging associated with activities 

8 such as onshore and limited offshore oil and gas activities, fuel and supply shipments, and other 

9 activities contributes to overall ambient noise levels in some regions of the Arctic. Smaller 

10 boats, such as aluminum skiffs with outboard motors during fall subsistence whaling and fishing 

11 also generate noise, typically at a higher frequency around 300 Hz (Greene and Moore 1995).

12

13 Icebreaking vessels used in the Arctic for activities including research and oil and gas 

14 activities produce louder, but also more variable, sounds than those associated with other vessels 

15 of similar power and size (Greene and Moore 1995). Icebreaking noise is up to 15 dB higher 

16 than when the same ship is underway in open water, primarily due to strong propeller cavitation. 

17 However, physical crushing of ice contributes little to the overall increase in noise. In general, 

18 spectra of icebreaker noise are wide and highly variable over time. Icebreaking generates 

19 broadband (10–1,000 Hz) source levels of 184 and 191 dB re 1 μPa-m during movement ahead 

20 and astern, respectively (Greene and Moore 1995). Even with rapid attenuation of sound under 

21 heavy ice conditions, the elevation in noise levels attributed to icebreaking can be substantial out 

22 to at least 5 km (3 mi). In some instances, icebreaking sounds are detectable from more than 

23 50 km (31 mi) away. 

24

25 Hovercraft can operate on open water or ice, and tracked or standard vehicles can often 

26 operate on shore-fast ice. Recordings indicated that the hovercraft operating around the 

27 Northstar Island generate strong in-air sounds, but were considerably quieter underwater than 

28 conventional vessels of similar size (Blackwell and Greene 2005). Hovercraft have replaced 

29 much of the helicopter traffic to the Northstar facility. At the closest point of approach (6.5 m

30 [21 ft]), underwater broadband (10–10,000 Hz) levels reached 133 and 131 dB re 1 μPa at depths 

31 of 1 and 7 m (3 and 23 ft), respectively, with the peak near 87 Hz, which corresponds to the 

32 blade rate of the thrust propeller.

33

34 In general, noise generated on ice is transmitted into the water directly below but does not 

35 propagate well laterally (Greene and Moore 1995). For sources on ice, sound levels are affected 

36 by ice conditions (temperature, snow cover) and are generally much lower than those generated 

37 by vessels on water. Snow absorbs sound, and thus transmits less sound energy to water, and 

38 water depth also affects sound transmission from sources on ice.

39

40 Northstar is the first offshore oil production island in the Beaufort Sea, which is located 

41 about 19 km (12 mi) northwest of the Prudhoe Bay. Around the Northstar Island, vessels were 

42 the main contributors to the underwater sound field. During both the ice-covered and the open

43 water seasons, helicopters and a hovercraft were used to transport personnel and equipment to 

44 and from the Northstar Island (Richardson 2011). During the ice-covered season, tracked 

45 vehicles and standard vehicles were additional modes of transportation over an ice road to the 

46 Northstar Island. During the open water season, vessels such as tugs, self-propelled barges, crew 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-89

1 boats, and other vessel operations (e.g., oil spill-response training) were additional modes of 

2 transportation. Broadband sounds from vessel traffic were often detectable as much as 30 km 

3 offshore. Sound measurements for the entire 2001–2010 late summer/early fall seasons 

4 indicated that broadband (10–450 Hz) ambient levels ranged from 81 to 141 dB re 1 μPa at about 

5 450 m (1,476 ft) north to northeast of Northstar.

6

7 Seismic Noise. The oil and gas industry in Alaska conducts marine (open water) surveys 

8 (e.g., air gun array) in the summer and fall, and on-ice seismic surveys (e.g., Vibroseis) in the 

9 winter to locate geological structures potentially capable of containing petroleum accumulations 

10 and to better characterize ocean substrates or sub-sea terrain. 

11

12 Air gun arrays are the most common source of seismic survey noise. Air guns produce 

13 energy primarily at 10–120 Hz, with some energy up to 500–1,000 Hz, which is lower than low14 frequency energy but much higher than ambient noise levels. A typical full-scale air gun array 

15 produces a broadband source level of 248–255 dB0-p re 1 μPa-m (Johnston and Cain 1981; 

16 Greene 1985b), with the most powerful air gun array of 259 dB0-p re 1 μPa-m (Parrott 1991). 

17 Typical seismic arrays being used in the Arctic produce source levels (sound pressure levels) as 

18 high as 248 dB0-p re 1 μPa-m (Greene and Richardson 1988).

19

20 While the seismic air gun pulses are directed toward the ocean bottom, sound propagates 

21 horizontally for several kilometers (Greene and Richardson 1988; Hall et al. 1994). In waters 

22 25–50 m deep, sound produced by air guns can be detected 50–75 km (31–47 mi) away, and 

23 these detection ranges can exceed 100 km (62 mi) in deeper water (Greene and Moore 1995) 

24 and, particularly during summer, over 3,000 km (1,864 mi) in the open ocean 

25 (Nieukirk et al. 2004).

26

27 Vibroseis is a method of seismic profiling on shore-fast ice, usually over shallow water, 

28 which propagates energy into the earth over an extended period of time, in contrast to the near29 instantaneous energy provided by impulsive sources. In this activity, hydraulically driven pads 

30 mounted beneath a line of trucks are used to vibrate, and thereby energize, the ice. Noise 

31 incidental to the activity is introduced by the vehicles associated with this activity. Greene and 

32 Moore (1995) summarized that typical signals associated with the vibroseis sound source used 

33 for an on-ice seismic survey sweep from 10 to 70 Hz, but harmonics extend to about 1.5 kHz. 

34 Vibroseis produces source levels of about 187–210 dB0-p re 1 μPa-m and would reduce to the 

35 ambient level at distances of 3.5–5 km (2–3 mi) (Holliday et al. 1984).

36

37 Noise from Other Oil and Gas Activities. Offshore exploration and production drilling 

38 platforms (freestanding or drill ships) use machinery and equipment that emit noise into the 

39 marine environment. While most of this noise is relatively localized, organisms can be attracted 

40 to or be displaced away from these sites.

41

42 Onshore oil production facilities (and associated buildings, pipelines, roads, etc.) have 

43 equipment (machinery and vehicles) or people that generate noise. As of 2008, there is no oil 

44 production facilities in the Chukchi Sea. There is one operating oil production facility on an 

45 artificial island and several others in planning and construction stages in the Beaufort Sea. There 

46 are two other developments on causeways. While sounds originating from drilling activities on 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-90

1 islands can reach the marine environment, noise typically propagates poorly from artificial 

2 islands, as it must pass through gravel into the water (Greene and Moore 1995). During 

3 unusually quiet periods, drilling noise from icebound islands with a low source level and low

4 frequency would be audible at a range of about 10 km (6 mi), when the usual audible range 

5 would be about 2 km (1 mi). Broadband noise reduced to ambient levels within about 1.5 km

6 (0.9 mi), and low-frequency tones were measurable to about 9.5 km (6 mi) under low ambient

7 noise conditions, but were essentially undetectable beyond about 1.5 km (0.9 mi) with high 

8 ambient noise. Much of the production noise from oil and gas operations on gravel islands is 

9 substantially attenuated within 4 km (2.5 mi) and often not detectable beyond 9.3 km (6 mi) 

10 away.

11

12 Based on sounds measurements of noise from Northstar obtained during March 2001 and 

13 February–March 2002 (during the ice-covered season), Blackwell et al. (2004) found that 

14 background levels were reached underwater at 9.4 km (6 mi) during drilling and at 3–4 km 

15 (2–2.5 mi) without. Depending on the wind but irrespective of drilling, in-air background levels 

16 were reached at 5–10 km (3–6 mi) from Northstar. Without vessels and under calm sea (sea 

17 state ≤ 1), median underwater sound from a gravel island like Northstar generally reached 

18 background levels at about 2–4 km (1.2–2.5 mi) from Northstar (Richardson 2011).

19

20

21 3.6.3.2.3 Miscellaneous Sources. Acoustical systems are associated with some 

22 research, military, commercial, or other vessel use of the Beaufort or Chukchi Seas. Such 

23 systems include multi-beam sonar, sub-bottom profilers, and acoustic Doppler current profilers. 

24 Active sonar is used for the detection of objects underwater. These systems range from depth25 finding sonar, found on most ships and boats, to powerful and sophisticated units used by the 

26 military. Sonar emits transient, and often intense, sounds that vary widely in intensity and 

27 frequency. Although not commonly used in the Arctic, acoustic pingers used for locating and 

28 positioning oceanographic and geophysical equipment also generate noise at frequencies greater 

29 than about 10–20 kHz. LGL Ltd. (2005) describes many examples of acoustic navigational 

30 equipment.

31

32 Small snowmobiles are used for transportation on the North Slope (MMS 2008b). These 

33 are noisy in air and create sounds at higher frequencies than larger, slower machinery. The 

34 amount of sound passing through ice into the water below is expected to vary greatly depending 

35 on snow, ice, and temperature conditions (Greene and Moore 1995). 

36

37 The oil industry builds ice roads in winter to access areas that otherwise would be 

38 inaccessible to large equipment. Ice-road construction begins after freezeup and is built over 

39 tundra and shorefast ice to facilitate exploration and development while minimizing impacts

40 (MMS 2008b). 

41

42

43 3.6.3.3 Climate Change Effects

44

45 Potential impacts of climate change on acoustic environment are relatively minor. Since 

46 the sound attenuation rate depends on seawater acidity, it has been suggested that increasing 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-91

1 ocean acidification resulting from rising anthropogenic CO2 emissions will result in decreased 

2 sound absorption (Hester et al. 2008). Increases in underwater low-frequency noise have already 

3 been reported, attributable largely to an overall increase in human activities, such as shipping,

4 that are unrelated to climate change (Andrews et al. 2002). In addition, reduced sea ice 

5 associated with climate change could provide a longer open water season for shipping and 

6 resource extraction, which could increase sound levels in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Due 

7 to the combined effects of decreased absorption, the anticipated increase in overall human 

8 activities, and the longer open water season, ambient noise levels will increase considerably 

9 within the auditory range of 10–10,000 Hz, which are critical for environmental, biota, military, 

10 and economic interests (Hester et al. 2008). There will also be changes in frequency spectrum 

11 distributions.

12

13

14 3.7 MARINE, COASTAL, AND OTHER ADJACENT HABITATS

15

16 A habitat is defined as an area or environment where an organism or ecological 

17 community normally lives. Marine and coastal habitats occur as characteristic arrangements 

18 of geologic, hydrologic, oceanographic, and biologic features and processes that create

19 environments favorable for the establishment, flourishing, and continued survival of the flora 

20 and fauna of marine and coastal areas. This section focuses on the geologic, biologic and 

21 oceanographic features that define marine and coastal habitats of particular concern. Habitats of 

22 particular concern are so designated because of their ecosystem importance, their association 

23 with high productivity and/or faunal populations, and/or their high scientific interest. These 

24 habitats will be evaluated within an ecoregional geographic framework shown in Figure 3.7-1

25 and discussed in Section 3.2.

26

27

28 3.7.1 Coastal and Estuarine Habitats

29

30

31 3.7.1.1 Gulf of Mexico

32

33 Habitats are divided into coastal and marine categories. Coastal habitats occur in 

34 estuarine areas along virtually the entire U.S. GOM coast. The EIS uses the EDAs from 

35 NOAA‘s Coastal Assessment Framework (http://coastalgeospatial.noaa.gov/) database to show 

36 the areas where the coastal habitats that are considered in the EIS are located (Figure 3.7-1). 

37 Marine habitats occur seaward of the coastal habitats that occur within estuarine watersheds. 

38 While a convenient boundary between coastal and marine habitats is the most seaward coastal 

39 feature, which typically would be barrier islands or beaches in the GOM, the actual boundary 

40 between predominantly coastal and predominantly marine habitats is a transition zone blurred by 

41 the influence of estuarine discharges onto the continental shelf. Figure 3.7-1 shows that the 

42 central coastal ecoregion estuarine influence extends to the edge of the continental shelf as a 

43 result of the discharge of the Mississippi River, while it is much more restricted on the 

44 continental shelf offshore Florida and Texas.

45

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-92

12 FIGURE 3.7

-1 Ecoregions of the GOM Region

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-93

1 GOM coastal habitats are associated with a nearly continuous estuarine ecosystem that is 

2 made up of 31 major estuarine watersheds that extend across the coastal waters of the northern 

3 GOM. Coastal and nearshore habitats of concern within these areas include barrier islands and 

4 beaches, wetlands (marsh, bottomland swamp, mangrove, and scrub/shrub communities), and 

5 seagrasses. These habitats occur within estuarine watersheds in and around bays, lagoons, and 

6 river mouths where marine and fresh waters intermix. Coastal and nearshore habitats of the 

7 GOM can be subdivided into three GOM Estuarine Ecoregions (Figure 3.7.1-1), each with 

8 distinguishing characteristics, arrangements of habitat components, and freshwater inflows with 

9 associated nutrient and sediment loads: a western coastal ecoregion, extending from near the 

10 Mexico–Texas border to just east of the Louisiana border; the Central GOM Estuarine Region, 

11 extending to just east of the Florida border; and the Eastern GOM Estuarine Region, extending to 

12 the southern tip of Florida. These ecoregions are similar to the geographic/hydrologic regions of 

13 Yanez-Arancibia and Day (2004) and are consistent with estuarine influenced zones identified on 

14 the GOM continental shelf in the Marine Ecoregions of North America (CEC 2008).

15

16 Figure 3.7.1-1 emphasizes coastal habitats. It shows terrestrial, estuarine, and continental 

17 shelf estuarine areas and values for fluvial and marine processes/quantities. Fluvial drainage 

18 areas are shown because they depict the land area that drains into the estuarine portion of the 

19 watershed. The estuarine drainage areas show where coastal habitats potentially affected by 

20 OCS oil and gas activities occur. While OCS activities would not be expected to extend 

21 upstream into the terrestrial portion of the watershed, the terrestrial watershed characteristics 

22 have important influences on estuarine habitats. Terrestrial discharges introduce dissolved and 

23 suspended materials into estuarine and marine waters that can serve either as nutrients that enrich 

24 marine and coastal productivity or as pollutants that degrade habitat quality. The terrestrial 

25 discharges also carry suspended and bed load sediments from the land into estuarine areas where 

26 they are redistributed through the coastal zone to provide the substrate for many coastal habitats. 

27 Marine processes are also at work on the seaward side of estuarine areas through the action of 

28 waves, tides, and currents. These processes affect the redistribution of terrestrial sediments in 

29 the coastal zone, coastal erosion and deposition patterns, and mixing of fresh and salt water 

30 within the coastal zone and onto the continental shelf. To a large degree, the variations in the 

31 interactions among these terrestrial and marine processes and properties within the GOM explain 

32 the distinctions among the three coastal ecoregions that characterize the northern GOM.

33

34 Figure 3.7.1-1 indicates that marine processes affecting estuarine habitats, such as tidal 

35 range, wave height, and longshore sediment transport, are fairly uniform across the GOM coast. 

36 In contrast, there is substantial variation in terrestrial drainage properties among the coastal 

37 ecoregions. Fluvial discharge, for example, varies by a factor of over 25 across the three coastal

38 ecoregions. The effect of the amount of fresh water discharged through the central GOM

39 estuarine costal ecoregion is apparent on Figure 3.7.1-1, which shows the entire continental shelf 

40 area offshore of the Mississippi River delta as being estuarine influenced compared to smaller 

41 estuarine areas on the continental shelf offshore of the eastern and western coastal ecoregions.

42

43 The sizes and configurations of the fluvial drainage areas also affect governance issues 

44 that would apply to managing coastal environments and habitats and present and future programs 

45 for mitigating and restoring coastal habitats there. The central coastal fluvial drainage area is 

46 sub-continental in size and under the jurisdiction and regulatory authority of numerous state 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-94

12 FIGURE 3.7.1

-1 Estuarine and Fluvial Drainage Areas of the Gulf of Mexico Region
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-95

1 governments, federal agencies, and interagency programs. Furthermore, the hydrology of the 

2 Mississippi River system in the central GOM fluvial drainage area supports numerous 

3 navigational, agricultural, recreational, and industrial activities and enterprises that together 

4 create a complex set of governance and trade-off issues that would affect the management of 

5 coastal and marine habitats there. The western and eastern fluvial drainage areas, in contrast, are 

6 nearly contained within the boundaries of a single State, which would act to simplify governance 

7 issues affecting coastal habitat management there.

8

9

10 3.7.1.1.1 Barriers. Coastal barrier landforms consist of barrier islands, major bars, sand 

11 spits, and beaches that extend across the nearshore waters from the Texas–Mexico border to 

12 southern Florida. These elongated, narrow landforms are composed of sand and other 

13 unconsolidated, predominantly coarse sediments that have been transported to their present 

14 locations by rivers, waves, currents, storm surges, and winds.

15

16 Coastal landforms are transitory in nature and are constantly being modified by the same 

17 forces that led to their original deposition. The GOM coast shoreline is constantly changing as a 

18 result of the action of wind-driven waves and longshore currents that cause sediment transport. 

19 The coastline has a narrow tidal range, and energy forces tend to be storm dominated, with

20 episodic high wave energy. These landforms are continually modified by waves, currents, storm 

21 surges, and winds. Coastal currents in the GOM transport sediments in a counter-clockwise 

22 direction from east to west, and contribute to sediment accretion as well as erosion of coastal 

23 landforms. Over extended periods of time, landforms may move landward (transgressive), 

24 seaward (regressive), or laterally along the coast. Sediments are also transported to coastal areas 

25 from rivers that discharge to the GOM. Barrier islands and sand spits protect wetlands and other 

26 estuarine habitats located behind them from the direct impacts of the open ocean, and slow the 

27 dispersal of freshwater into the GOM, thus contributing to the total area and diversity of 

28 estuarine habitat.

29

30 On barrier landforms, the nonvegetated foreshore slopes up from the low-tide line to the 

31 beach berm-crest. The backshore is found between the beach berm-crest and the dunes, and it 

32 may be sparsely vegetated. The berm-crest and backshore may occasionally be absent because 

33 of storm activity. The dune zone of a barrier landform consists of one or more low dune ridges 

34 that may be stabilized by vegetation such as grasses and scrubby woody vegetation. During 

35 storms, waves can overwash lower barrier landforms, and vegetation communities on these are 

36 often sparse and in early successional stages. On higher, more stabilized landforms, vegetation 

37 behind the dunes consists of scrubby woody vegetation, marshes, and maritime forests. 

38 Fresh- and saltwater ponds may occur on landward flats or between dunes. On the landward side 

39 of islands and spits, low flats grade into intertidal wetlands or mudflats.

40

41 Barrier islands are prevalent along the Texas coast from the Bolivar Peninsula southward 

42 to the Mexican border. Barrier islands and sand spits present in this region of the Texas coast 

43 were formed from sediments supplied by major deltaic headlands. The barrier islands in this 

44 region are arranged symmetrically around old, eroding delta headlands, and tend to be narrow 

45 and sparsely vegetated, exhibiting a low profile with numerous washover channels. The barrier 

46 islands and beaches are moving generally to the southwest. Net coastal erosion has been 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-96

1 occurring in some areas. Inland beaches of sand and shells are found along the shores of bays, 

2 lagoons, and tidal streams.

3

4 The Chenier Plain is transitional between the Central estuarine ecoregion, which is 

5 heavily influenced by the Mississippi River delta building processes, and the Western estuarine 

6 ecoregion, where the river influence greatly diminishes. Most barrier shorelines of the 

7 Mississippi River Delta complex in Louisiana occur along the outward remains of a series of old 

8 abandoned river deltas and are transgressive. Only a minor portion of the sediments of the 

9 Mississippi River, now channelized, enter longshore currents and contribute to barrier landforms. 

10 Most dune areas of the delta consist of low single-line dune ridges that are sparsely to heavily 

11 vegetated, depending on the length of time between major storms.

12

13 Short time intervals between storms can cause reductions in the size and resiliency of 

14 barrier islands and shorelines. Although barrier islands and shorelines have some capacity to 

15 regenerate over time, the process is very slow and often incomplete. The past decade has seen an 

16 increase in tropical storm activity for the project area. Figure 3.7.1-2 shows hurricane landfalls 

17 from 1994 to 2009. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 caused severe erosion and land loss for the 

18 coastal barrier islands of the Deltaic Plain. Hurricane Katrina was the fifth hurricane to impact 

19 the Chandeleur Island chain in 8 yr. The Chandeleur Islands were reduced by Hurricane Katrina 

from 14.6 km2 (5.64 mi2) to 6.5 km2 (2.5 mi2), and then to 5.2 km2 (2.0 mi2 20 ) by Hurricane Rita 

21 (Di Silvestro 2006).

22

23 The Mississippi River Delta in Louisiana has the most rapidly retreating beaches in North 

24 America. Most of the barrier beaches of southeast Louisiana are composed of medium to coarse 

25 sand. Mudflats occur in lower intertidal areas. Gentle slopes of subtidal substrates in much of 

26 the area reduce wave energies and erosion. The Statewide average shoreline retreat for 1956–

27 1978 was 8.29 m/yr (27.2 ft/yr) (van Beek and Meyer-Arendt 1982). More recent analyses 

28 reveal that Louisiana shorelines are retreating at an average rate of 4.2 m/yr (13.8 ft/yr) and 

29 range from a gain of 3.4 m/yr (11.2 ft/yr) to a loss of 26.3 m/yr (86.2 ft/yr) (USGS 1988). In 

30 comparison, the average shoreline retreat rates for the GOM, Atlantic seaboard, and Pacific 

31 seaboard were reported at 1.8, 0.8, and 0.0 m/yr (5.9, 2.6, and 0.0 ft/yr), respectively. The 

32 highest reported rates of Louisiana‘s coastal retreat have occurred along the coastal plain of the 

33 Mississippi River. Regressive shorelines occur, however, at the mouth of the Atchafalaya River, 

34 where sediment discharges from that river are forming new deltas.

35

36 Wide beaches and a large dune system are located on the Alabama coast. The Mississippi Sound 

37 barrier islands, along the coast of Mississippi and Alabama, have formed as a result of westward 

38 sand migration resulting in shoal and sand bar growth (Otvos 1980). The islands are separated 

39 from each other by fairly wide, deep channels, and are offset from the coast by as much as 16 km 

40 (10 mi). They are generally regressive and stable in size, and slowly migrating westward in 

41 response to the westward moving longshore current. These islands have high beach ridges and 

42 prominent sand dunes, and sand shoals typically occur adjacent to the islands. The dunes and 

43 margins of ponds on the islands are well vegetated, with mature southern maritime forests of 

44 pine and palmetto behind some dunes areas. Although some of these islands may experience 

45 washover during significant storms, washover channels are not common.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-97

12 FIGURE 3.7.1

-2 Hurricane Paths and Landfalls 1994–2009
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-98

1 Exceptions include a number of barrier islands of Mobile Bay‘s ebb-tidal delta, portions 

2 of which are low-profile transgressive islands frequently overwashed by storms. They 

3 continually change shape under storm and tidal pressures. Their sands generally move 

4 northwesterly into the longshore drift, nourishing beaches down drift. These sediments may also 

5 move landward during flood tides (Hummell 1990).

6

7 Barrier islands and sand beaches occur along the southwest Florida coastline, north of the 

8 Everglades, except in the Big Bend area. The Big Bend area, one of the lowest energy coastlines 

9 in the world, is devoid of typical barrier islands and beaches. Because of the low energy and 

10 minimal erosive forces, forested wetlands occur down to the water‘s edge. The barrier islands 

11 and mainland beaches of the Florida Panhandle typically are stable, with broad, high-profile 

12 beaches backed by high dunes. The Florida Keys, at the southern tip of Florida, are limestone 

13 islands, an unusual landform type that does not occur elsewhere in the GOM, and provide unique 

14 habitats in the region (MMS 1996).

15

16

17 3.7.1.1.2 Wetlands. Wetland habitats along the coast of the GOM consist of fresh, 

18 brackish, and salt marshes; mudflats; forested wetlands of bottomland hardwoods, cypress tupelo 

19 swamps, and mangrove swamps. Wetland habitats may occupy only narrow bands along the 

20 shore, or they may cover vast expanses of the coastline. Marshes and mangrove swamps are 

21 primarily intertidal habitats. Forested wetlands are generally found inshore, above the tidal 

22 influence. Coastal wetland areas of the GOM States are given in Table 3.7.1-1 and wetland 

23 density is shown in Figure 3.7.1-3.

24

25 Coastal wetlands are characterized by high organic productivity, including the production 

26 and export of detritus, and efficient nutrient recycling. They provide habitat for numerous 

27 species of plants, invertebrates, fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Freshwater marshes generally 

28 support a greater diversity of plant and animal species than do brackish and salt marshes.

29

30

31 TABLE 3.7.1-1 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Wetland Inventory

State Marsha

Estuarine 

Scrub-Shruba

Forested 

Scrub-Shruba Totala % Total

Texas 183,900 1,100 3,000 188,000 14

Louisiana 723,500 4,100 1,900 729,500 55

Mississippi 23,800 400 – 24,200 2

Alabama 10,400 1,100 800 12,300 1

Florida 108,100 255,100 13,100 363,900 28

Total 1,041,700 261,800 18,800 1,319,900 –

a Measured in ha.

Source: EPA 1992.

32
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-99

12 FIGURE 3.7.1

-3 Estimated Wetland Density of the Gulf of Mexico Region (Stedman and Dahl 2008)

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-100

1 The coast of the Chenier Plain, which includes western Louisiana and eastern Texas from 

2 the Bolivar Peninsula just north of Galveston Bay, is composed of sand beaches and extensive 

3 intertidal mudflats. The mudflats are the result of mud and fine particles being transported from 

4 the Mississippi and the Atchafalaya Rivers. A subtidal mud bottom extends a great distance 

5 seaward in shallow water, reducing wave energy and resulting in minimal longshore sediment 

6 transport (USDOI and USGS 1988), and helping to protect coastal wetland communities. The 

7 shoreline is in a state of transgression (moving landward). Thin accumulations of sand, shell, 

8 and caliche nodules form beaches that are migrating landward over tidal marshes. These beaches 

9 have poorly developed dunes and numerous washover channels. Barrier beaches in the Chenier 

10 Plain area are narrow, low, thin sand deposits present along the seaward edge of the coastal 

11 marsh, and have poorly developed dunes and numerous washover channels. In some western 

12 areas of the Chenier Plain, the beach and subtidal substrates are composed of shelly sand 

13 (Fisher et al. 1973). Subtidal substrates in the eastern portions are mud and muddy sand. Most 

14 of the shoreline of the Chenier Plain is sediment starved and transgressive.

15

16 Along the Texas coast, from the Mexican border to the Bolivar Peninsula, estuarine 

17 marshes occur in discontinuous bands arund bays and lagoons, on the inner sides of barrier

18 islands, and in the deltas and tidally influenced reaches of rivers. Salt marshes, composed 

19 primarily of smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), are evident nearest the mouths of bays and 

20 lagoons in areas of higher salinities. Salt-tolerant species such as saltwort (Batis maritima) and 

21 glasswort (Salicornia spp.) are among the dominant species. Brackish water marshes, some of 

22 which are infrequently flooded, occur farther landward. Freshwater marshes occur along the 

23 major rivers and tributaries, lakes, and catchments (White et al. 1986). Broken bands of black 

24 mangroves (Avicennia germinans) also occur in this area (Brown et al. 1977; White et al. 1986). 

25 Mud and sand flats occur around shallow bay margins and near shoals, increasing toward the 

26 south as marshes decrease. Freshwater swamps and bottomland hardwoods are uncommon, and 

27 do not occur in the southern third of this coastal area.

28

29 Localized sedimentation conditions have favored deposition in the area of the Chenier 

30 Plain, which is a series of sand and shell ridges separated by progradational mudflats, marshes, 

31 and open water lakes. Few tidal passes are located along the Chenier Plain, and the tidal 

32 movement of saline water is reduced. Salt marshes are not widely distributed on the Chenier 

33 Plain. They are generally directly exposed to GOM waters and are frequently inundated. 

34 Brackish marshes are dominant in estuarine areas and are the most extensive and productive in 

35 the Louisiana portion of this coastal area. Marsh-hay cordgrass (Spartina patens) is generally 

36 the dominant species.

37

38 Freshwater wetlands are extensive on the Chenier Plain. While tidal influence is 

39 minimal, these wetlands may be inundated by strong storms. Some inland freshwater marshes, 

40 bottomland swamps, and hardwood forests were inundated by hurricane Rita with up to 1.5 m 

41 (4 ft) of saltwater. Detritus tends to collect in freshwater marshes and may form thick 

42 accumulations, sometimes forming floating marshes in very low energy areas. Forested wetlands 

43 of cypress-tupelo swamps, black willow stands, and bottomland hardwoods occur only in the 

44 floodplains of major streams.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-101

1 Wetlands in the Mississippi Deltaic Plain are associated with a series of overlapping 

2 riverine deltas. These wetlands developed in shallow areas that received flow and sediments 

3 from the Mississippi River. The effects of sea-level rise and high, natural subsidence of these 

4 organically rich sediments are continually impacting these wetlands (van Beek and 

5 Meyer-Arendt 1982). Extensive salt and brackish marshes occur throughout the southern half of 

6 the plain and east of the Mississippi River. Farther landward, extensive intermediate and 

7 freshwater marshes are found. In freshwater areas, cypress-tupelo swamps occur along the 

8 natural levees and in areas that are impounded by dredged materials, levees, or roads. 

9 Bottomland hardwoods occur on natural levees and in drained levee areas. Extensive freshwater 

10 marshes, swamps, and hardwood forest also occur in Atchafalaya Bay in association with the 

11 delta sediments. Sparse stands of black mangrove are scattered in some high-salinity areas of the 

12 Mississippi Deltaic Plain.

13

14 Most marshes around Mississippi Sound and associated bays occur as discontinuous 

15 wetlands associated with estuarine environments. The more extensive coastal wetland areas in 

16 Mississippi are associated with the deltas of the Pearl River and Pascagoula River. The marshes 

17 in Mississippi are more stable than those of either Alabama or Louisiana, reflecting a more stable 

18 substrate and continued active sedimentation in the marsh areas. In Alabama, most of the 

19 wetlands are located in Mobile Bay and along the northern side of Mississippi Sound. Forested 

20 wetlands are the predominant wetland type along the coast of Alabama; large areas of estuarine 

21 marsh and smaller areas of freshwater marsh also occur (Wallace 1996). Major causes of marsh 

22 loss in Alabama have included industrial development, navigational dredging, natural 

23 succession, and erosion-subsidence (Roach et al. 1987).

24

From 1956 to 2006, the land loss rate for coastal Louisiana was 69.7 km2 25 /yr

(26.9 mi2/yr), for a total net loss of 3,494 km2 (1,349 mi2 26 ) (Barras et al. 2008). The net land loss 

rate has declined, however, from previous years: a loss of 562 km2 (217 mi2 27 ) from 2001–2006, 

at 16.4 km2/yr (6.3 mi2/yr) from 2001 to 2004, and 256.4 km2/yr (99.0 mi2 28 /yr) from 2004 to 

29 2006. Although the net land loss rate is expected to continue to decline from 2000 to 2050, 

averaging 26.7 km2/yr (10.3 mi2 30 /yr), Louisiana can be expected to lose about 1,329–1,813 km2

(513–700 mi2 31 ) of coastal wetlands over that time period, in spite of predicted gains from natural 

32 processes and current restoration projects (Johnston 2003; USGS 2003; LCWCRTF 2003; 

33 COE 2004). Historic and projected future land losses for coastal Louisiana (developed before 

34 hurricanes Katrina and Rita) are shown in Figure 3.7.1-4.

35

36 Losses of coastal wetlands have been occurring along the GOM coast for decades,

37 resulting in the conversion of wetland habitats to open water. Coastal land loss is a particular 

38 problem in Louisiana. Many factors contribute to the coastal land loss problem there, including 

39 the effects of large storm events, subsidence, sea-level rise, saltwater intrusion, drainage and 

40 development, canal construction, herbivory, sediment deprivation, reduced flooding, and induced

41 subsidence and fault reactivation. Upstream alterations of the Mississippi River drainage system 

42 are factors of particular importance because the construction of dams on upstream tributaries has

43 resulted in approximately a 50% reduction in sediment load transported to the GOM (Turner and 

44 Cahoon 1988), and flood control levees constructed along the Mississippi River have prevented 

45 seasonal overbank flooding and sediment deposition in coastal marshes. Projects undertaken 

46 through the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA, or Breaux 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-102

1

2 FIGURE 3.7.1-4 Annual Rates of Land Area Change in Coastal Louisiana 

3 (Barras et al. 2008)

4

5

6 Act) program (LCWCRTF 2003), Coast 2050 Plan (LCWCRTF 1998), and Louisiana Coastal 

7 Area Plan (USACE 2004c) are designed to contribute to ecosystem-scale restoration and 

8 sustainability.

9

10 Land losses along the Louisiana coast result from numerous factors, some of which are 

11 relatively recent in origin, while others have been ongoing for many years. Coastal wetlands are 

12 lost due to the effects of large storm events, and erosion of barrier islands reduces wetland 

13 protection (LCWCRTF 2001). In addition, hydrologic alterations have resulted in changes in 

14 salinity and inundation, causing a dieback of marsh vegetation and a subsequent loss of substrate 

15 (LCWCRTF 2001). The sediment load of the Mississippi River has been reduced by about 50%

16 since the 1950s as a result of upstream tributary dam construction and reduced soil erosion in the 

17 watershed. Furthermore, levees constructed along the Mississippi River have, for many years, 

18 prevented seasonal overbank flooding and the sediment deposition in coastal marshes. The 

19 Louisiana coastal marshes require an adequate addition of sediment annually to continue 

20 building vertically in pace with ongoing subsidence and sea level change (LCWCRTF 1998, 

21 2003; COE 2004). As a result, coastal marshes are being converted to open water.

22

23 Subsidence is a natural process resulting from the compaction of highly organic sediment 

24 deposits underlying the coastal marshes, and has been occurring for centuries. The rate of 

25 subsidence is 0.15–1.31 m (0.49–4.30 ft) per century in the delta area and 0.08–0.61 m 

26 (0.26–2.00 ft) per century on the western Louisiana Coast (COE 2004). The rise in sea level is 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-103

1 attributed to the melting of ice sheets and glaciers, and increased ocean temperatures, induced by 

2 global climate change. Sea levels have risen 0.12 cm/yr (0.05 in./yr) over the past century, and 

3 may rise as much as 20 cm (7.9 in.) by 2050 (LCWCRTF 1998, 2001; COE 2004). Relative 

4 sea-level rise is a combination of the rise in sea level and local subsidence, and the average rate 

5 is currently estimated to be 1.03–1.19 m (3.38–3.90 ft) per century along the Louisiana Coast 

6 (COE 2004). The rate of relative sea-level rise on the deltaic plain is occurring at a higher rate 

7 than in most coastal areas, and the rapid rise in relative sea level exacerbates the effects of 

8 reduced sedimentation in the wetlands.

9

10 Numerous canals have been constructed within the coastal marshes for navigation and 

11 shoreline access and, because of widening over time, contribute to the breakup of marsh 

12 (LCWCRTF 2003). Spoil banks along the canals cover wetland areas and prevent the effective 

13 draining of adjacent areas, resulting in higher water levels or more prolonged tidal inundation. 

14 Canals also create a means for salt water intrusion into brackish and freshwater wetlands and 

15 increased tidal processes, resulting in shifts in species composition, habitat deterioration, erosion, 

16 and wetland loss (LCWCRTF 1998, 2003).

17

18 Marsh loss in Louisiana has also resulted from sudden marsh dieback, or brown marsh. 

19 Large areas of coastal marsh vegetation have died, particularly in 2000 and 2009. Brown marsh 

20 results from a combination of factors related to extensive drought conditions, primarily 

21 reduced soil moisture combined with physical and chemical changes in the soil (Lindstedt and 

22 Swenson 2006). Most areas affected in 2000 have recovered.

23

24 Induced subsidence and fault reactivation attributed to oil and gas extraction below the 

25 coastal marshes have also been identified as causes of coastal wetland loss in some locations in

26 Louisiana (USGS 2001b; Morton et al. 2002, 2003). Large-volume extraction of hydrocarbon 

27 fluids and formation water has likely caused compaction of the overlying rock strata and 

28 downward displacement along nearby faults, resulting in land surface subsidence and conversion 

29 of marsh to open water, particularly during the years of high petroleum production.

30

31 In coastal Louisiana, it is difficult to establish possible linkages from deep onshore and 

32 nearshore hydrocarbon production to subsidence and wetland loss because wetland loss is 

33 ubiquitous and caused by numerous processes and conditions, both natural and anthropogenic 

34 (Morton et al. 2002). Thus, it is increasingly complex and difficult to establish the extent to 

35 which onshore subsidence and land loss is caused by hydrocarbon fluids and formation water 

36 extraction in offshore Federal waters.

37

38 A number of coastal habitat protection and restoration projects have been initiated along 

39 the GOM coast to address the issue of erosion and land losses. Many of these projects have 

40 focused on rebuilding barrier islands and coastal beaches for shoreline maintenance, as well as 

41 protection of coastal salt marshes. Modern techniques for navigation channel dredging and 

42 maintenance use the dredged sediments to nourish adjacent coastal landforms, minimizing 

43 potential erosion impacts. The MMS, now BOEM, in cooperation with State and local agencies, 

44 has been involved in developing habitat restoration projects using OCS sand resources.

45

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-104

1 3.7.1.1.3 Seagrasses. Seagrass beds grow in shallow, relatively clear and protected 

2 waters with predominantly sand bottoms. Their distribution depends on an interrelationship 

3 among a number of environmental factors that include temperature, water depth, turbidity, 

4 salinity, turbulence, and substrate suitability. Extensive areas of seagrass beds occur in exposed, 

5 shallow subtidal coastal waters of the northern GOM and in protected, natural embayments. 

6 Seagrasses are uncommon where freshwater inflow is high and salinities average less than 

7 20 parts per thousand (ppt), as well as the upper portions of most estuaries. An estimated 

8 3,000,000 ha (7,413,000 acres) of submerged seagrass beds exist in exposed, shallow coastal 

9 waters of the northern GOM. An additional 166,000 ha (410,200 ac) are found in protected, 

10 natural embayments. The area off Florida contains approximately 98.5% of all coastal 

11 seagrasses in the northern GOM. Texas and Louisiana contain approximately 0.5% of coastal 

12 seagrasses. Mississippi and Alabama have the remaining 1% of seagrass beds. Seagrass beds 

13 provide habitat for a highly diverse group of marine species.

14

15 Hurricane impacts, such as the influx of salt water in low salinity estuaries, can produce 

16 changes in seagrass community quality and composition. The distribution of seagrass beds in 

17 coastal waters of the Western and Central GOM has diminished during recent decades. Primary 

18 factors believed to be responsible include dredging, dredged material disposal, trawling, water 

19 quality degradation, hurricanes, a combination of flood protection levees that have directed 

20 freshwater away from wetlands, saltwater intrusion that moved growing conditions closer inland, 

21 and infrequent freshwater diversions from the Mississippi River into coastal areas during the 

22 flood stage.

23

24 Primarily because of low salinity and high turbidity, robust seagrass beds are found only 

25 within a few scattered, protected locations in the Western and Central GOM, although seagrass 

26 meadows occur in nearly all bay systems along the Texas coast. Seagrasses in the Western 

27 GOM are widely scattered beds in shallow, high-salinity coastal lagoons and bays. Lower28 salinity, submerged beds of aquatic vegetation are found inland and discontinuously in coastal 

29 lakes, rivers, and the most inland portions of some coastal bays. The distribution of seagrass 

30 beds in coastal waters of the Western and Central GOM has diminished during recent decades.

31

32 The turbid waters and soft, highly organic sediments of Louisiana‘s estuaries and 

33 offshore areas limit widespread distribution of higher salinity seagrass beds. Consequently, only 

34 a few areas in offshore Louisiana support seagrass beds. In Mississippi and Alabama, seagrasses 

35 occur within the Mississippi Sound. Widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima), an opportunistic species, 

36 is tolerant of low salinities and occurs in some estuaries.

37

38

39 3.7.1.1.4 Climate Change Effects. Coastal habitats would be affected by global climate 

40 change. Factors associated with global climate change include changes in temperature, rainfall, 

41 alteration in stream flow and river discharge, wetland loss, salinity, sea level rise, changes in 

42 hurricane frequency and strength, sediment yield, mass movement frequencies and coastal 

43 erosion, and subsidence (Yanez-Arancibia and Day 2004). Effects of sea level rise include 

44 damage from inundation, floods, and storms; erosion; saltwater intrusion; rising water 

45 tables/impeded drainage; and wetland loss and change (Nicholls et al. 2007). Effects of 

46 increased storm intensity include increases in extreme water levels and wave heights, and
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-105

1 increases in episodic erosion, storm damage, risk of flooding, and defence failure 

2 (Nicholls et al. 2007). Patterns of erosion and accretion can also be altered along coastlines 

3 (Nicholls et al. 2007). The small tidal range of the GOM coast increases the vulnerability of 

4 coastal habitats to the effects of climate change. A study of coastal vulnerability along the entire 

5 U.S. GOM coast found that 42% of the shoreline mapped was classified as being at very high 

6 risk of coastal change due to factors associated with future sea-level rise (Thieler and Hammar7 Klose 2000). A revised coastal vulnerability index (CVI) study of the coast from Galveston, 

8 Texas, to Panama City, Florida, indicated that 61% of that mapped coastline was classified as 

9 being at very high vulnerability, with coastal Louisiana being the most vulnerable area of this 

10 coastline (Pendleton et al. 2010) (see Figure 3.7.1-5, which shows the CVIs of Pendleton et al.

11 [2010] from Galveston to Panama City, and CVIs of Thieler and Hammar-Klose [2000] for the 

12 remainder of the coast).

13

14 Saltwater intrusion/increased salinity and sea level rise can result in mortality of salt15 intolerant species, resulting in reductions in habitat area and changes in species composition of 

16 coastal habitats. Effects observed include declines in coastal bald cypress (Taxodium disticum) 

17 forests in Louisiana and migration of mangroves into adjacent wetland communities in Florida 

18 (Nicholls et al. 2007). In some areas, existing plant communities may be displaced farther inland 

19 (Nicholls et al. 2007). Enhanced coastal erosion, coastal flooding, and loss of coastal wetlands, 

20 particularly in Louisiana and Florida, are projected impacts of sea level rise and increased 

21 frequency of storm surges, both of which are associated with climate change (IPCC 2002).

22

23 Land losses would likely increase due to the effects of climate change. The acceleration 

24 of sea level rise and increases in storm intensity as a result of climate change would exacerbate 

25 the current level of coastal land loss in the Mississippi deltaic plain, an already expected 

additional loss of 1,300 km2 (501.9 mi2 26 ) if current global, regional, and local processes continue 

27 (Nicholls et al. 2007). Recent rates of sea level rise have been approximately 3 mm/yr

28 (0.12 in./yr), but this rate may increase to 4 mm/yr (0.16 in./yr) by 2100 (Blum and 

29 Roberts 2009). Combined with potential rates of subsidence in the area of the Mississippi Delta 

30 Plain, relative sea level rise may range from 0.5 to 1.4 m (1.6 to 4.6 ft) by 2100 (Blum and 

31 Roberts 2009). In the absence of sediment input, resulting submergence in the delta region could 

range from 10,000 to 13,500 km2/yr (3,861 to 5,212 mi2 32 /yr) by 2100 (Blum and Roberts 2009). 

33

34

35 3.7.1.1.5 Effects of Deepwater Horizon Event. Oil released into coastal waters as a 

36 result of the DWH event, April–July, 2010, affected more than 1,046 km (650 mi) of the GOM

37 coastal habitat, from the Mississippi River delta to the Florida panhandle, with the Louisiana, 

38 Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida coasts all affected (OSAT-2 2011; National 

39 Commission 2011). The greatest impacts were in Louisiana. More than 209 km (130 mi) of 

40 coastal habitat were moderately to heavily oiled, only 32 km (20 mi) of which occurred outside 

41 of Louisiana (National Commission 2011). Little or no oil affected Texas coastal habitats. 

42 Heavy to moderate oiling occurred along a substantial number of Louisiana beaches, with the 

43 heaviest oiling on the Mississippi Delta, in Barataria Bay, and on the Chandeleur Islands 

44 (OSAT-2 2011). The majority of Mississippi barrier islands had light oiling to trace oil, 

45 although heavy to moderate oiling occurred in some areas. Some heavy to moderate oiling also 

46 occurred on beaches in Alabama and Florida, with the heaviest stretch of oiling extending from
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-106

1

2 FIGURE 3.7.1-5 Coastal Vulnerability Index of the Gulf of Mexico Region (Pendleton et al. 2010; Thieler and Hammar-Klose 2000)
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-107

1 Dauphin Island, Alabama, to near Gulf Breeze, Florida (OSAT-2 2011). Light to trace oiling 

2 occurred from Gulf Breeze to Panama City, Florida. Deposition of oil occurred in the supratidal 

3 zone (above the high tide mark), deposited and buried during storm events; in the intertidal zone;

4 and in the subtidal zone, remaining there as submerged oil mats (OSAT-2 2011). On Grand Isle, 

5 Louisiana, and Bon Secour, Alabama, oil was found up to 105 cm (41 in.) below the surface 

6 (OSAT-2 2011). Although much of the oil remaining after cleanup is highly weathered, several

7 constituents have the potential to cause toxicological effects (OSAT-2 2011). Oil was also 

8 deposited along the coast in marshes such as those of the Mississippi River Delta and Chandeleur 

9 Sound, mudflats, and mangroves, oil contacted seagrass beds such as those behind the 

10 Chandeleur Island chain, and submerged aquatic vegetation communities such as those in 

11 Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes, Louisiana. These habitats also were also affected by 

12 prevention and cleanup efforts (NOAA 2010). Loss of marsh habitat along its edge as a result of 

13 oiling was observed. A full understanding of the effects of the spill is expected to take years but 

14 is not needed at the programmatic stage to make a reasoned choice among alternatives 

15 (see Section 1.3.1.1, Incomplete and Unavailable Information).

16

17

18 3.7.1.2 Cook Inlet

19

20 Coastal and nearshore habitats of concern within the Cook Inlet Planning Area include 

21 beaches, marshes, tidal flats, scarps, riverine mouths/deltas, and marine algae. Coastal habitats 

22 of Cook Inlet are given in Table 3.7.1-2. These habitats occur within estuarine watersheds in and 

23 around bays, lagoons, and river mouths where marine and fresh waters intermix. Coastal and 

24 nearshore habitats of Cook Inlet can be subdivided into two ecoregions (Figure 3.2.2-2), each 

25 with distinguishing characteristics, arrangements of habitat components, and freshwater inflows 

26 with associated nutrient and sediment loads: the Cook Inlet, extending from the northeastern 

27 Alaska Peninsula to the southern tip of the Kenai Peninsula, and the Gulf of Alaska, extending 

28 south along Kodiak Island and the Alaska Peninsula. These are based on the Level III Marine 

29 Ecoregions of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC 2008). Four terrestrial 

30 ecoregions are located along the coast of the Cook Inlet Planning Area: the Cook Inlet, the 

31 Alaska Range (along the southwestern coastline), Coastal Western Hemlock-Sitka Spruce 

32 Forests (on the southeastern coastline and northern Kodiak Island), and the Alaska Peninsula 

33 Mountains (along the Alaska Peninsula and southern Kodiak Island) (USEPA 2011e). 

34

35 In Cook Inlet, the amount of sea ice varies annually. In general, sea ice forms in October 

36 to November, increases from October to February from the West Foreland to Cape Douglas, and 

37 melts in March to April. Sea-ice formation is controlled in upper Cook Inlet primarily by air 

38 temperature and in lower Cook Inlet by the temperature and inflow rate of the Alaska Coastal 

39 Current (Poole and Hufford 1982).

40

41 Coastal forest occurs along much of Alaska‘s south central coast and on the coastal 

42 islands, and is predominantly evergreen forest composed of Sitka spruce and western hemlock 

43 (BLM 2002). Deciduous forest occurs primarily along floodplains, streams, and in disturbed 

44 areas. Many areas around Cook Inlet also support white spruce and black spruce forest, as well 

45 as wet tundra, referred to as ―muskegs,‖ with sedges, mosses, and scattered shrubs 

46 (ADNR 1999). Also occurring along or near the shoreline are forested wetlands, wetlands with 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-108

1 TABLE 3.7.1-2 Coastal Habitats of the Cook Inlet Planning Area

Habitat: ESI Rank

Habitat Area and 

Shoreline Length

Salt- and brackish-water marshes: 10A 11,338 mi2; 672 mi

Sheltered tidal flats: 9A 104,977 mi2; 356 mi

Sheltered scarps in mud or clay: 8A 279 mi

Exposed tidal flats: 7 280,010 mi2; 426 mi

Gravel beaches: 6A 167 mi

Mixed sand and gravel beaches: 5 317 mi2; 792 mi

Coarse-grained sand beaches: 4 36 mi

Fine- to medium-grained sand beaches: 3A 7 mi

Exposed wave-cut platforms in bedrock, mud, or clay: 2A 10,252 mi2; 449 mi

Exposed, solid man-made structures: 1B 1 mi

Exposed rocky shores: 1A 25 mi2; 284 mi

2

3

4 emergent vegetation, and shrub wetlands that are not tidally influenced but that have saturated 

5 soils or are flooded seasonally or continuously (BLM 2002).

6

7 Extensive freshwater marshes and salt marshes composed of sedge and grass wet 

8 meadow communities occur on river deltas along the coast. Coastal habitat in the Gulf of Alaska 

9 includes several large estuaries and wetlands (MMS 2002c). 

10

11 In some areas of the south Alaskan coastline, numerous peninsulas and islands with 

12 irregular shorelines form bays, lagoons, and steep prominences (BLM 2002). Much of the 

13 shoreline consists of steep slopes with a narrow zone of tidal influence. 

14

15 Coastal habitats throughout the Gulf of Alaska, including Cook Inlet, include intertidal 

16 and shallow subtidal communities (O‘Clair and Zimmerman 1986). Intertidal wetlands include 

17 unvegetated rocky and soft sediment (sand or mud) shores, as well as coastal salt marshes with 

18 emergent vegetation and wetlands with submerged or floating vegetation (BLM 2002). These 

19 wetlands are all periodically inundated or exposed by tides. Large areas of soft-sediment shores 

20 are common in Cook Inlet (McCammon et al. 2002). Salt marshes and other wetlands occur 

21 throughout the coastal margins of the Cook Inlet (ADNR 1999).

22

23 Submerged or floating vegetation community types in estuaries include eelgrass 

24 communities and marine algae communities (BLM 2002). Eelgrass communities are 

25 common in protected bays, inlets, and lagoons with soft sediments (Viereck et al. 1992; 

26 McCammon et al. 2002). Marine algae communities often occur along exposed rocky shores on 

27 much of the coast (Viereck et al. 1992). Large kelps form dense communities in shallow subtidal 

28 areas along much of the Gulf of Alaska coast (McCammon et al. 2002). Marine algae 

29 communities dominate the low intertidal areas, to about 3 m (10 ft) in depth, and do not occur 

30 below about 5 m (16 ft) in depth (MMS 2003a).

31
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-109

1 Coastal salt marshes occur on soft sediments along low-energy shorelines. Coastal 

2 marshes may contain a number of vegetation community types that are tidally influenced, 

3 ranging from irregularly exposed to irregularly inundated (BLM 2002). The higher areas of 

4 coastal marshes may support sedge-scrub wet meadow communities (Viereck et al. 1992). These 

5 communities are not generally inundated by tides, but may be flooded during storm surges. 

6 Upper areas of coastal marshes may also support a hairgrass community (ADNR 1999).

7

8 The lower, outer areas of coastal salt marshes typically consist of sedge and grass 

9 communities (Viereck et al. 1992). The inland portion of these marshes often includes the taller 

10 and denser communities of salt-tolerant sedges. The seaward margin often adjoins a sparse 

11 community of salt-tolerant alkali grass, often associated with salt-tolerant forbs 

12 (Viereck et al. 1992). Halophytic herb wet meadow communities occur in early successional 

13 stages on seaward portions of beaches and coastal marshes where inundation occurs at least a 

14 few times per month (Viereck et al. 1992).

15

16 Brackish ponds occasionally occur within coastal marshes of deltas, tidal flats, and bays 

17 (BLM 2002; Viereck et al. 1992). These communities occur in shallow water and are 

18 periodically inundated by tides. 

19

20 Coastal habitats along Cook Inlet are vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Sea 

21 level rise is expected to increase, inundating low-lying coastal habitats (Nicholls et al. 2007). 

22 Climate change is also expected to result in an increase in the incidence of pests and diseases, 

23 which could result in increased forest tree mortality (Anisimov et al. 2007).

24

25 Dynamic tidal currents in the inlet are related to the vulnerability of shoreline 

26 communities and their sensitivity to disturbance. The overall environmental sensitivity of Cook 

27 Inlet shorelines has been ranked independently by NOAA, the Alaska Regional Response Team, 

28 and recently by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustees/Cook Inlet Regional Citizens Advisory 

29 Council (Harper et al. 2004). In general, the vulnerability of shoreline habitats is rated as low if 

30 the shoreline substrate is impermeable (rock) and exposed to high wave energy or tidal currents, 

31 and is rated as high for vegetated wetlands and semipermeable substrates (mud) that are sheltered 

32 from wave energy and strong tidal currents. Sensitive shoreline habitats identified in lower Cook 

33 Inlet include marshes, sheltered tidal flats, sheltered rocky shores, and exposed tidal flats 

34 (NOAA 1994) (see Table 3.7.1-2). A study of the recovery rate of organisms on sheltered rocky 

35 shores in Cook Inlet concluded that 5–10 yr would be needed for full recolonization of rocky 

36 shorelines (Highsmith et al. 2001). Ongoing Exxon Valdez oil spill studies have shown that 

37 traces of spilled oil have persisted in Prince William Sound shoreline sediments and intertidal 

38 organisms for more than a decade (Short 2004; MMS 2003a).

39

40

41 3.7.1.3 Alaska – Arctic 

42

43 Arctic coastal and nearshore habitats of concern include barrier islands and beaches, low 

44 tundra, marshes, tidal flats, scarps, peat shorelines, and marine algae. These habitats occur 

45 within estuarine watersheds along the coastline and in and around bays, lagoons, and river 

46 mouths where marine and fresh waters intermix. Coastal and nearshore habitats of the Arctic 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-110

1 region can be subdivided into two ecoregions (Figure 3.2.2-3), each with distinguishing 

2 characteristics, arrangements of habitat components, and freshwater inflows with associated 

3 nutrient and sediment loads: the Chukchian Neritic Ecoregion, extending from near Point Hope 

4 to near Cape Lisburne, and the Beaufortian Neritic Ecoregion, extending from near Cape 

5 Lisburne to the border of Canada. These are based on the Level III Marine Ecoregions of the 

6 Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC 2008). Most of the coastline along the 

7 Chukchi Sea Planning Area, from near Cape Lisburne to near Point Barrow, lies within the 

8 Beaufortian Neritic Ecoregion. Two terrestrial ecoregions are located along the arctic coast: the 

9 Arctic Foothills, from Kotzebue to near Cape Beaufort, and the Arctic Coastal Plain, from near 

10 Cape Beaufort to near the border of Canada (USEPA 2011e). 

11

12 The fluvial discharge and freshwater flow into the Beaufortian ecoregion is much larger 

13 than the flow into Chukchian ecoregion. Fluvial discharge into the Chukchian ecoregion is 

14 relatively limited, with the Kukpuk River being the only major river system present, although 

15 there are numerous named and unnamed streams discharging into the Chukchi Sea. Numerous 

16 large rivers, such as the Kukpowruk River, Utukok River, and Kuk River along the Chukchi Sea,

17 and the Colville River, Kuparuk River, Sagavanirktok River, and Canning River along the 

18 Beaufort Sea, discharge into the Beaufortian ecoregion.

19

20 Stream flows generally begin in late May or early June as a rapid flood event, with more 

21 than half of the annual discharge of a stream sometimes occurring over a period of several days 

22 to a few weeks (MMS 2008). Fluvial discharges introduce dissolved and suspended materials 

23 into estuarine and marine waters that can serve either as nutrients that enrich marine and coastal 

24 productivity or as pollutants that can degrade habitat quality. Human society sometimes 

25 discharges into the environment constituents that also occur naturally in the ecosystem. These 

26 anthropogenic discharges, however, are different than the biogenic sources because they occur in 

27 greater concentrations and often suddenly; the chemical bondings are different than what is 

28 found in the natural system; the discharges occur outside the area where they would naturally 

29 occur; or they occur out of phase of the natural cycle of the same biogenic contributions to the 

30 system. Examples of anthropogenic constituents include sediment, metals, and hydrocarbons

31 (see Section 3.4.3 for a further discussion of water quality). The fluvial discharges also carry 

32 suspended and bed load sediments that when deposited at the river mouths and redistributed 

33 through the coastal zone provide the substrate and foundation for many coastal habitats.

34

35 Arctic coastal habitats are greatly influenced by a short growing season and extremely 

36 cold winters. The onshore sediments are frozen during most of the year and are underlain by 

37 permafrost (permanently frozen soil). Growth and even biodegradation in coastal habitats are 

38 limited to only a few months per year (Prince et al. 2002).

39

40 Although differences exist in fluvial discharge, the coastal and estuarine habitats of both 

41 ecoregions are greatly affected by the dynamics of sea ice. The arctic coastline is highly 

42 disturbed due to the movement of sea ice that frequently is pushed onshore, scouring and 

43 scraping the coastline. Sea ice dominates the coastal habitats during most of the year. Landfast 

44 ice, which is attached to the shore and freezes to the seafloor (grounded ice) in shallow water up 

45 to 2 m (7 ft) in depth, is relatively immobile (MMS 2010); however, landfast ice along the 

46 Chukchi Sea coast is not as stable as along the Beaufort Sea coast (MMS 2008b). Onshore 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-111

1 pileups of ice often extend up to 20 m (66 ft) inland from the shoreline, while rideups of 

2 unbroken ice sheets over the ground surface occasionally extend more than 50 m (164 ft) and 

3 rarely beyond 100 m (328 ft) (MMS 2008b). Landfast ice begins forming in late October to late 

4 December along the Chukchi Sea, with breakup in late May to mid-June (MMS 2010); in the 

5 Beaufort Sea, landfast ice begins forming in September to October, with breakup beginning in 

6 early June to early July (MMS 2008b). The areal extent of sea ice in the Arctic has substantially 

7 decreased over the past several decades (MMS 2010). Decreases in ice cover can increase wave 

8 action and shoreline erosion. The duration of landfast ice has also decreased, with ice breaking 

9 up earlier in the spring (MMS 2008b).

10

11 Coastal habitats of the Arctic ecoregions are given in Table 3.7.1-3, with general 

12 characteristics in Table 3.7.1-4. The coastline of the Beaufort Sea includes eroding bluffs, sandy 

13 beaches, lower tundra areas with some saltwater intrusions, sand dunes, sandy spits, and 

14 estuarine areas where streams enter the Beaufort Sea (MMS 2002b, 2003b). The Chukchi Sea 

15 coastline consists of nearly continuous sea cliffs cut into permafrost (MMS 2010). While the 

16 cliffs are abutted by narrow beaches along most of the coastline, in some areas, barrier islands 

17 enclose shallow lagoons. Barrier islands occur along the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea coastlines 

18 and also support tundra communities. These islands are generally narrow (less than 250 m 

19 [820 ft] wide) and low-lying (less than 2 m [7 ft] in elevation) and are washed over in large

20 storms (MMS 2003b). Deltas of the Colville, Sagavanirktok, Kadleroshilik, and Shaviovik

21 Rivers support a complex mosaic of wet arctic saltmarsh, dry coastal barrens, salt-killed tundra, 

22 typical moist and wet tundra, and dry, partially vegetated gravel bars.

23

24

25 TABLE 3.7.1-3 Length of Coastal Habitats (mi) of the Alaskan Arctic Ecoregions

Habitat: ESI Rank

Chukchian 

Ecoregiona

Beaufortian 

Ecoregion

Salt- and brackish-water marshes: 10A – 88 

Inundated low-lying tundra: 10E – 763 

Sheltered tidal flats: 9A – 24 mi2a; 394 

Sheltered, vegetated low banks: 9B – 225 

Peat shorelines: 8E – 283 

Sheltered scarps in mud or clay: 8A – 1 

Exposed tidal flats: 7 – 196 

Riprap: 6B <1 1 

Gravel beaches: 6A 2 13 

Mixed sand and gravel beaches: 5 76 488 

Coarse-grained sand beaches: 4 – 72 

Tundra cliffs: 3C – 338 

Fine- to medium-grained sand beaches: 3A – 393 

Exposed wave-cut platforms in bedrock, mud, or clay: 2A – –

Exposed, solid man-made structures: 1B – <1 

Exposed rocky shores: 1A 18 19 

a Square mileage represents total habitat area.

26
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-112

1 TABLE 3.7.1-4 Characteristics of Coastal Habitats of the Alaskan Arctic Ecoregions

Habitat Chukchian Ecoregion Beaufortian Ecoregion

Barrier beaches and 

islands

Narrow beaches along coastline, 

predominantly fronting steep cliffs cut 

in bedrock, up to 260 m (853 ft) high 

at Cape Lisburne (MMS 2007c). 

Barrier islands occur only at Point 

Hope at Marryat Inlet/Kukpuk River 

delta and nearby Aiautak Lagoon; 

nearly continuous, composed of sand 

and gravel.

Narrow beaches along coastline; lower 

cliffs, where present, cut in bedrock 

(south of Utukok River) or perennially 

frozen ice-rich sediments (MMS 2007c). 

Barrier islands, typically enclosing 

lagoons, frequent along Chukchi and 

Beaufort Sea coasts, some, such as at 

Kasegaluk Lagoon, <3 m (10 ft) relief, 

and <2 m (7 ft) in Beaufort. Coastal 

relief along these marine depositional 

areas is generally <5 m (16 ft). Much of 

coast eroded by ice, waves, and currents, 

but active wave erosional coast is rare 

along Chukchi Sea where cliffs are 

generally <1 m (3 ft) high.

Wetlands Little wetland occurrence along 

coastline except along Point Hope.

Estuarine wetland systems occur in 

enclosed and protected bays along the 

Chukchi Sea shoreline.

Large estuarine wetland complexes in 

Chukchi Sea lagoons and other well 

protected areas, such as Omalik Lagoon, 

Kasegaluk Lagoon, Icy Cape, Peard Bay, 

Wainwright Inlet; include sand/silt flats 

and brackish-water sedge marshes.

Few, scattered narrow marshes along 

remainder of coastline 

Marine algae – Few known beds along coast, on hard 

bottom substrates; includes many species 

of macroalgae, e.g., 15 at the Stefansson 

Sound Boulder Patch; community 

dominated by a few common species 

(Iken 2009). Present along Chukchi Sea 

in Kasegaluk Lagoon, Peard Bay, near 

Skull Cliffs, and 25 km (16 mi) southwest 

of Wainright, in 11–13 m (36–443 ft) 

water.

Source: MMS 2007c; Iken 2009.

2

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-113

1

2 Marine algae communities occur on hard bottom substrates in several areas along the 

3 Chukchi Sea coast, such as in Peard Bay, or southwest of Wainwright at a depth of 11–13 m 

4 (36–43 ft) (MMS 2010). The distribution and extent of these communities are likely limited by 

5 the presence of rock and other hard substrate (MMS 2010). Few known beds occur along the 

6 Beaufort Sea coast. These communities include many species of macroalgae (e.g., 15 species at 

7 the Stefansson Sound Boulder Patch); however, the community is dominated by a few common 

8 species (Iken 2009).

9

10 Several estuarine habitats within shallow bays, inlets, and lagoons occur along the 

11 Chukchi Sea coastline, including Kasegaluk Lagoon, Wainwright Inlet, Peard Bay, and Kugrua 

12 Bay (BLM and MMS 2003). These areas often have low-energy sand beaches and wetlands

13 along their margins, and some support communities of marine algae, such as sea lettuce 

14 (Ulva spp.). Kasegaluk Lagoon is usually ice covered from mid-September through mid-July. 

15 During the summer, many animals concentrate around the passes between the ocean and the 

16 shallow lagoon.

17

18 Salt marshes occur along the arctic coastline and support emergent vegetation 

19 communities. These coastal marshes are intertidal wetlands exposed at low tides and inundated 

20 by high tides and storm surges. The arctic coastline experiences tides of small fluctuation, 6 to 

21 10 cm (2.4 to 4 in.) along the Beaufort Sea (MMS 2003b); however, coastal water levels are 

22 driven primarily by wind stress and barometric pressure changes from the passage of storm 

23 centers and frontal passages (Gill et al. 2011). Storm surge and water level withdrawal on the 

24 coast can be considerable, about 1 m (3 ft) in amplitude (Gill et al. 2011). The Arctic coastline is 

25 subject to strong erosive forces (BLM 2002; MMS 2002c). Disturbance from sea ice action is 

26 common along the generally unstable and erosion-prone shoreline (MMS 2002c). Arctic coastal 

27 salt marshes are therefore smaller, often only a few meters in extent, and less common than on 

28 south Alaskan coasts (Macdonald 1977; Viereck et al. 1992). The most extensive salt marsh 

29 habitats along the coast occur in the deltas of the major rivers and a few protected bays.

30

31 The predominant community types of arctic coastal salt marshes are dense halophytic 

32 (salt-tolerant) sedge wet meadow communities and sparse halophytic grass wet meadow 

33 communities (Meyers 1985; Viereck et al. 1992; Funk et al. 2004). The former occur where tidal 

34 inundation ranges from several times per month to once a summer, while the latter occur at lower 

35 elevations under regular or daily inundation from tides.

36

37 Halophytic sedge wet meadow communities often form the main body of the coastal 

38 marsh. Soils are fine-textured silts and clays, often overlying sand or gravel. The shoreward

39 marsh community forms a broad transition zone with freshwater wetlands (Viereck et al. 1992). 

40 The substrate is typically peat. The seaward margin is often adjacent to a halophytic grass wet 

41 meadow community. 

42

43 The seaward portions of beaches and areas of coastal marshes where inundation occurs at 

44 least a few times per month support halophytic herb wet meadow communities 

45 (Viereck et al. 1992). These also occur in brackish ponds within coastal marshes of deltas, tidal 

46 flats, and bays (Viereck et al. 1992).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-114

1 The most important coastal estuarine wetlands along the Beaufort Sea coast include Elson 

2 Lagoon, just east of Point Barrow; Fish Creek Delta; Colville River Delta; Simpson Lagoon; 

3 Canning River Delta; Jago Lagoon–Hulahula River Delta; and Demarcation Bay. Along the 

4 Chukchi Sea coast, the primary estuaries include Peard Bay, Kasegaluk Lagoon, and Point Hope 

5 (MMS 2002c).

6

7 Nearshore areas of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas are estuarine subtidal deepwater 

8 habitat and are generally unvegetated (BLM 2002). However, dense marine algae communities 

9 occasionally grow in shallow nearshore subtidal areas (less than about 11 m [36 ft) in depth) and 

10 generally in protected areas (such as behind barrier islands and shoals) with hard substrates 

11 (MMS 2003b). 

12

13 Estuaries and coastal lagoons are characterized by large fluctuations in salinity and 

14 temperature. Salinity can range from 180 parts per trillion (ppt) in winter to 1–32 ppt in summer 

15 (Houghton et al. 1984). At ice breakup in spring, the large influx of freshwater from ice melt 

16 and terrestrial runoff can create hyposaline conditions approaching freshwater. Temperature also 

17 fluctuates widely and rapidly at breakup, ranging from 0 C to 14 C (Craig et al. 1984).

18

19 Effects of climate change on Alaskan arctic habitats include decreases in sea ice cover, 

20 warming of permafrost, longer growing season, and changes in precipitation. Decreased sea ice 

21 has led to increased wave activity and accelerated coastal erosion and increases in shoreline 

22 erosion from storms, along with increased turbidity (MMS 2008b). Portions of the coast have 

23 experienced considerable erosive losses, up to 457 m (1,500 ft) over the past few decades 

24 (MMS 2008b). Coastal peat bluffs along the Chukchi Sea coast have experienced more rapid 

25 erosion. The erosion rate in areas of the Beaufort Sea coast has more than doubled between 1955 

26 and 2005.

27

28 Increases in air temperature and precipitation have also occurred as a result of climate 

29 change, particularly in autumn and winter (MMS 2008b). Permafrost, occurring on much of the 

30 Arctic Coastal Plain, creates an impermeable soil layer, limiting the water storage capability of 

31 the subsurface and, when near the surface, generally maintaining saturated soils above the 

32 permanently frozen layer, thereby maintaining lakes and wetland habitats. Permafrost is 

33 warming across the Arctic, with rapid warming in Alaska over the last 50 yr 

34 (Anisimov et al. 2007). Significant permafrost degradation has been observed in some areas. 

35 Increased permafrost temperatures at 15–20 m (49–66 ft) depths over the past 20 yr have been 

36 recorded (MMS 2008b). Increases in mean annual ground surface temperatures have been 

37 observed since the 1960s and, in some areas, discontinuous permafrost has begun thawing 

38 downward at a rate of 0.1 m/yr (0.3 ft/yr) (MMS 2008b). Thawing of permafrost tends to result 

39 in collapse of the soil structure of thaw-unstable soils and slumping of the soil surface, which 

40 may subsequently result in flooding. Deepening of the active layer, the upper soil layer that 

41 thaws each summer, and associated hydrologic change is accompanied by large changes in the 

42 plant community. Evaporation/precipitation ratios have also increased in the Arctic, resulting in 

43 the desiccation of some lakes (MMS 2008b). Earlier spring melt in the Arctic and later freeze-up 

44 has resulted in a longer growing season, along with changes in plant communities, such as an 

45 increased abundance of shrubs (Anisimov et al. 2007). 

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-115

1 Projections for future climate change indicate continued increases in temperature 

2 and precipitation in the Arctic. The depth of the permafrost active layer is expected to 

3 increase by 15 to 25% on average by 2050, and 50% or more in the northernmost areas 

4 (Anisimov et al. 2007). Areas of continuous permafrost are likely to show increasing patchiness 

5 (Anisimov et al. 2007). An initial increase in the number and total area of wetlands and shallow 

6 lakes due to permafrost thawing may be followed over time by the loss of these habitats as 

7 permafrost continues to thaw, surface water increasingly drains into groundwater systems, and 

8 shallow groundwater tables continue to drop, resulting in the drying of wetland habitats and 

9 drainage of lakes (MMS 2008b; Anisimov et al. 2007). A longer growing season and warmer 

10 water temperatures of lakes that currently freeze to the bottom would likely change the chemical, 

11 mineral, and nutrient status. Arctic species may be at a competitive disadvantage as subarctic 

12 species ranges expand northward and changes in plant communities are likely to continue. 

13 Arctic tundra in Alaska may be replaced by boreal forest by 2100 (Anisimov et al. 2007). 

14

15 Decreases in sea ice cover are also expected to continue. The Arctic sea ice is 

16 undergoing changes in extent, thickness, distribution, age, and melt duration (NSIDC 2010, 

17 2011; Kwok and Cunningham 2010, 2011). The analysis of long-term datasets indicates 

18 substantial reductions in both the extent (area of ocean covered by ice) and thickness of the 

19 Arctic sea-ice cover during the past 20–40 yr. Generally, it is thought that the Arctic will 

20 become ice-free in the summer, but at this time there is considerable uncertainty about when that 

21 will happen (Stroeve et al. 2011; Tietsche et al. 2011; Zhang et al. 2010; Overland and Wang 

22 2010). See also Section 3.3 for further discussion of sea ice. The suspended sediments 

23 associated with increased coastal erosion will likely affect marine algae communities. In 

24 addition, sea level is projected to rise an average of 0.73 m (2.4 ft) in the Arctic between 2000 

25 and 2100, flooding low-lying coastal habitats (MMS 2008b). Coastal wetlands and estuaries 

26 would be threatened by inundation from rising sea levels, intensification of storms, and higher 

27 storm surges. Increased wave activity, relative sea level rise, and thawing of permafrost that 

28 binds coastal sediments lead to retreat of coastal habitats (Nicholls et al. 2007). Temperature, 

29 salinity, and oxygen levels of coastal estuaries would be affected by changes in rates and timing 

30 of river runoff. Seasonal ice cover on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier each year, with a 

31 longer open water season (MMS 2008b). Observed changes in tundra habitats are expected to 

32 continue. Snow cover over tundra is expected to melt earlier and large-scale changes in 

33 permafrost are predicted to be likely. 

34

35 No federally listed or candidate plant species occur in the Arctic region. Seven species of 

36 rare vascular plants are known to occur on the ACP and Arctic Foothills (Lipkin 1997; 

37 MMS 2003b; BLM 2003). These species are found nowhere else in Alaska, and several are 

38 endemic to Alaska. 

39

40

41 3.7.1.3.1 Chukchian Neritic. Habitats of the Chukchian ecoregion include narrow 

42 beaches along the coastline, predominantly fronting steep cliffs cut in bedrock, up to 260 m 

43 (853 ft) high at Cape Lisburne (MMS 2007c). Barrier islands occur only at Point Hope at the 

44 Marryat Inlet/Kukpuk River delta and nearby Aiautak Lagoon; the islands are nearly continuous, 

45 composed of sand and gravel. There is little or no wetland occurrence along the Chukchian 

46 ecoregion coastline other than the lagoon at Point Hope. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-116

1 3.7.1.3.2 Beaufortian Neritic. Habitats of the Beaufortian ecoregion include narrow 

2 beaches along the coastline; lower cliffs, where present, are cut in bedrock (south of Utukok 

3 River) or perennially frozen ice-rich sediments (MMS 2007c). Barrier islands, typically 

4 enclosing lagoons, are frequent along Chukchi and Beaufort Sea coasts; some, such as at 

5 Kasegaluk Lagoon, have less than 3 m (10 ft) relief and less than 2 m (7 ft) in the Beaufort Sea. 

6 Beaufort islands are narrow, at less than 250 m (820 ft), and short (MMS 2008b). Coastal relief 

7 along these marine depositional areas is generally less than 5 m (16 ft). The Chukchi Sea coast 

8 is a high-energy shoreline when ice is absent. Erosion and flooding are associated with autumn 

9 and spring storms and ice movement (MMS 2008b). Much of the coast is eroded by ice, waves, 

10 and currents, but active wave erosional coast is rare along the Chukchi Sea, where cliffs are 

11 generally less than 1 m (3 ft) high (MMS 2007c). 

12

13 Estuarine wetland systems occur in enclosed and protected bays along the Chukchi Sea 

14 shoreline. Large estuarine wetland complexes in Chukchi Sea lagoons and other well-protected 

15 areas, such as Omalik Lagoon, Kasegaluk Lagoon, Icy Cape, Peard Bay, and Wainwright Inlet,

16 include sand/silt flats and brackish-water sedge marshes. A few scattered, narrow marshes occur 

17 along the remainder of the coastline. Beaufort Sea coastal waters are estuarine during a portion 

18 of the year, with freshwater inflows from numerous rivers and streams mixing with marine 

19 waters (MMS 2007c, 2008b). Maximum discharge is late May to early June, with melting of 

20 landfast ice in early June to July, initially near river deltas. The coastline includes bays and 

21 lagoons, as well as Stefansson Sound, enclosed by barrier islands. 

22

23

24 3.7.1.3.3 Arctic Coastal Plain. The Arctic Coastal Plain (ACP) is relatively flat and 

25 borders the Beaufort Sea and the eastern portion of the Chukchi Sea, encompassing most of the 

26 Beaufortian ecoregion. The ACP includes a complex mosaic of vegetation types, the distribution 

27 and extent of which are strongly influenced by local soil characteristics, elevation, temperature, 

28 and moisture (BLM 2002). Freshwater wetlands, including a wide variety of vegetation types, 

29 cover nearly all of the coastal plain and foothills (ADNR 2008; BLM 2002; BLM and 

30 MMS 2003).

31

32 On the ACP, the presence of thick, continuous permafrost that is generally near the soil 

33 surface restricts soil drainage and results in saturated soils over most of the area (BLM 2002; 

34 BLM and MMS 2003). Wetland plant communities, characterized by sedges, grasses, dwarf 

35 shrubs, and mosses, are the predominant vegetation types of the ACP (BLM 2002; MMS 2002b, 

36 2003b). Numerous small lakes and ponds are scattered across the landscape. Even small-scale 

37 variations in the land surface elevation alter patterns of species occurrence and influence the 

38 distribution of plant communities. These variations determine the occurrence of wet, moist, and 

39 dry tundra (BLM and MMS 2003). Flooded tundra and aquatic vegetation cover types also 

40 occur. Coastal plain soils generally consist of an organic mat over fine-textured mineral soil.

41

42 Over much of the near coastal area inland from Point Barrow, along the Beaufort Sea to 

43 the Canning River, wet graminoid moss communities, with moist communities on higher 

44 microsites, are the predominant plant communities (Raynolds et al. 2006). Wet sedge moss 

45 communities, with moist communities such as tussock-sedge and dwarf-shrub communities on 

46 higher microsites, extend over much of the ACP from near Point Lay on the Chukchi coast to the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-117

1 border of Canada. Non-tussock sedge, dwarf-shrub, moss tundra communities and Non-tussock 

2 sedge, dwarf-shrub, forb, moss tundra communities, both on mesic soils, occur at the margin of 

3 the ACP near the Arctic Foothills. Tussock-sedge, dwarf-shrub, moss tundra communities, 

4 occurring on sandy soils in complex with lakes and wet tundra, are the predominant community 

5 type over a large area south of Teshekpuk Lake, in the central portion of the ACP. 

6

7 Ground patterns form polygons in much of the east-central portion of the ACP. Low 

8 polygons, enclosed by rims, are common and support wet sedge/moist sedge tundra in basins and 

9 dwarf shrub tundra on rims, with troughs between polygons (Noel and McKendrick 2000; 

10 MMS 2002b). Near the coastline, high centered polygons bordered by deep troughs support 

11 moist sedge and dwarf shrub tundra.

12

13 Over much of the ACP, thaw lakes (typically 1–7 m [3–23 ft] in depth) shaped and 

14 oriented by wind direction cover 20–50% of the surface area (Gallant et al. 1995). Ponds are 

15 generally smaller and shallower. Lake margins and smaller ponds frequently support the fresh 

16 grass marsh vegetation type, generally in surface water depths of 0.2–2 m (0.7–7 ft) 

17 (Viereck et al. 1992). 

18

19 Thaw lakes generally follow a cyclic pattern of draining and reforming (BLM 2002). 

20 Wet tundra communities, later becoming wet sedge meadow communities, commonly become 

21 established in drained basins (BLM 2002). Surface water in these areas may be present much of 

22 the growing season and may be up to 15 cm (0.5 ft) deep (Viereck et al. 1992).

23

24 Barren areas along major streams are composed of 60% barren peat, mineral soil, or 

25 gravel. These areas may have patches with sparse cover of forbs and dwarf shrubs. The margins 

26 of ACP rivers typically include gravel bars, sandbars, and sand dunes (BLM 2002). Active sand 

27 dunes support dunegrass communities, while floodplains support low willow shrub and seral 

28 herb communities. Large, braided rivers on the ACP, such as the Sagavanirktok River, include 

29 extensive areas that are predominantly unvegetated or sparsely vegetated. Some plant 

30 communities near the Sagavanirktok and Kadleroshilik Rivers are maintained in early and mid31 successional stages by the deposition of windblown silt from the river channel (MMS 2002b; 

32 BLM 2002).

33

34

35 3.7.1.3.4 Arctic Foothills. Inland from the Chukchian ecoregion and southwestern 

36 Beaufortian ecoregion coast, the Arctic Foothills extend across northern Alaska between the 

37 ACP and the Brooks Range, reaching to the Beaufort Sea near the border of Canada. Thick 

38 permafrost extends over the hills and plateaus of the Arctic Foothills, and most soils are poorly 

39 drained with thick organic layers (BLM 2002). Although the foothills have more distinct 

40 drainage patterns and fewer lakes than the ACP, much of the landscape in the foothills consists 

41 of wetlands.

42

43 A wide variety of plant community types occurs on the foothills (Raynolds et al. 2006). 

44 Near the Chukchian ecoregion coast, the wet sedge moss communities (with moist communities 

45 on higher microsites), non-tussock sedge, dwarf-shrub, forb, moss communities (mesic soils), 

46 and prostrate dwarf-shrub, forb, lichen (dry limestone slopes) are the predominant community 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-118

1 types. Farther inland, and extending along much of the southwestern Beaufortian ecoregion, the 

2 tussock-sedge, dwarf-shrub, moss community type, on mesic soils, is a predominant community 

3 type of the Arctic Foothills. Also occurring near the coast are erect dwarf-shrub, lichen 

4 communities on mesic sites and prostrate dwarf-shrub, lichen communities on dry granitic 

5 slopes. The foothills approach the Beaufort Sea along the northeastern coast of Alaska. Here, 

6 tussock-sedge, dwarf-shrub, moss (mesic soils); erect dwarf-shrub (mesic soils); and prostrate 

7 dwarf-shrub, sedge community types (dry limestone slopes) occur at or near the coast.

8

9

10 3.7.2 Marine Benthic Habitats

11

12

13 3.7.2.1 Gulf of Mexico

14

15 Marine benthic (bottom) habitats are areas of the seafloor used by organisms at some or 

16 all stages in their life for critical functions such as feeding, reproduction, and shelter. In the 

17 GOM Planning Areas, marine benthic habitats on the continental shelf and slope/deep sea 

18 habitats include soft sediments, hard bottom areas, chemosynthetic communities, warm-water 

19 coral reefs, and deepwater corals (Table 3.7.2-1).

20

21

22 3.7.2.1.1 Soft Sediments. Sediments of the Northern GOM are primarily composed of 

23 sand, silt, and clay. Thus soft bottom habitat is not a unique habitat of concern like the hard

24 bottom, deepwater coral, and deepwater community habitats discussed below. However, soft 

25 sediments do provide habitat to most marine organisms in the GOM and are the site of 

26 fundamental ecosystem processes, such as the breakdown of organic matter, nutrient 

27 transformation and recycling, and the metabolization of natural and anthropogenic releases of 

28 hydrocarbons (Hazen et al. 2010). As the predominant sediment substrate type, soft sediment 

29 habitat will be most affected by oil and gas development and production activities.

30

31 Continental Shelf Soft Bottom Habitat. The Northern GOM Continental Shelf Marine 

32 Ecoregion extends from the coastline out to the shelf break at water depths ranging about 118 to 

33 150 m (387 to 492 ft) and encompasses the Mississippi and Texas Estuarine Ecoregions and the 

34 Western Gulf Neritic Ecoregion. The major marine benthic habitat consists of soft muddy 

35 bottom. An exception is the sandy sediments along beaches and barrier islands.

36

37 Much of the organic matter in the upper water column is eventually deposited on the 

38 seafloor in seasonal pulses, following springtime peaks in river discharge and spring 

39 phytoplankton blooms. Once reaching the seafloor, organic matter is consumed by bacteria, 

40 meiofauna, and macrofauna. Consequently, soft sediments are important sites for detrital 

41 processing and the remineralization of critical elements like sulfur, nitrogen, and phosphate. 

42 Sediment-associated nutrients and organic matter may also be resuspended into the water 

43 column, where they support new water column primary and secondary production. This 

44 coupling between benthic and pelagic habitats is particularly strong in shallow areas of the 

45 continental shelf.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-119

1 TABLE 3.7.2-1 Benthic and Pelagic Marine Habitat Types Found in the Northern Gulf of 

2 Mexico Shelf, Slope, Mississippi Fan, and Basin Marine Ecoregions within the Western and 

3 Central Planning Areas

Marine Habitat Type Marine Ecoregion

Benthic 

 Soft sediments All ecoregions

 Hard bottom areas Shelf (Mississippi Estuarine Area, Western Gulf Neritic), Slope, and Basin

 Coral reefs Shelf (Western Gulf Neritic)

 Deep/coldwater corals Primarily Slope

 Chemosynthetic communities Primarily Slope

 Man-made structures Shelf (Mississippi Estuarine Area, Western Gulf Neritic), Slope

Pelagic

 Water column All ecoregions

 Sargassum All ecoregions

4

5

6 Biological interactions as well as physiochemical factors such as substrate, temperature, 

7 salinity, water depth, currents, oxygen, nutrient availability, and turbidity are critical in 

8 determining the distribution, composition, and abundance of continental shelf soft bottom 

9 communities. The major factor influencing the megafaunal distributions appears to be the 

10 differing substrates, with primarily carbonate sediments found east of DeSoto Canyon and along 

11 the west Florida shelf in the Eastern Planning Area and with more terrigenous muds found in the 

12 estuarine and neritic shelf sediments in the Eastern and Western Planning Areas 

13 (Defenbaugh 1976). Soft sediment infaunal communities on the GOM continental shelf are 

14 generally dominated, in both number of species and individuals, by surface-deposit-feeding 

15 polychaete worms, followed by crustaceans and mollusks (Continental Shelf 

16 Associates, Inc. 1992, 1996; Brooks 1991; Baustian and Rabalais 2009). Common species on 

17 the sediment surface include sea anemones, brittle stars, portunid crabs, and penaid shrimp. 

18 These animals are typically distributed on the basis of water depth and sediment composition or 

19 grain size, with seasonal components also being present in shallower water areas.

20

21 Northern Gulf of Mexico Slope/Basin Ecoregion. Soft sediments of the continental 

22 slope and deep sea have a unique faunal community adapted to the cold, high-pressure, and low23 productivity environment. Recent surveys from south Texas to the Florida panhandle revealed 

24 that echinoderms, sea anemones, nematodes, copepods, amphipod, polychaetes, and bivalves 

25 were common constituents of soft sediment assemblages in the deep sea. There were distinct 

26 faunal communities from east to west of the Mississippi River and from the upper slope to the 

27 abyssal plain (Rowe and Kennicutt 2009; Wei et al. 2010). The highest macroinvertebrate 

28 densities were found near the Mississippi River, followed by areas to the east. A general 

29 decrease in the abundance of fish, meiofauna, and macrofauna was observed from the upper 

30 continental slope to the abyssal areas in the GOM (Rowe and Kennicutt 2009). The number of 

31 invertebrate species was higher on the shelf/slope than the outer shelf, and the number of benthic 

32 invertebrate species was highest on the mid to upper slope. Overall, biomass, species number, 

33 and species composition were influenced by water depth, the proximity of locations to canyons 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-120

1 and methane seeps, and the organic matter content of sediment (Rowe and Kennicutt 2009). 

2 Other physical and chemical parameters — such as oxygen concentration, temperature, salinity, 

3 and chemical contaminants within the sediments — did not appear to be related to community 

4 structure (Rowe and Kennicutt 2009).

5

6 The abundance patterns just described, such as the high density of macrofauna near the 

7 Mississippi River, are in large part attributable to food availability. The offshore GOM has low 

8 nutrient concentrations and surface water productivity. In such areas, most organic matter is 

9 therefore tightly recycled in the water column and much less is exported to sediment or higher 

10 trophic levels (Hagstrom et al. 1988; Buesseler 1998; Pomeroy et al. 2007; Hung et al. 2010). 

11 Organic matter that does fall below the photic zone breaks down as it sinks and reaches the 

12 seafloor in a highly degraded state. The continental slope/deep sea benthos is thus typically food 

13 starved; consequently, the size, biomass, and abundance of benthic consumers decline with depth 

14 as one goes from the continental shelf to the deep sea. Although much of the deep sea is 

15 relatively unproductive, deep sea cold seep communities are exceptions and will be discussed 

16 later in this section.

17

18

19 3.7.2.1.2 Warm Water Coral Reefs. Coral reefs are formed by reef-building coral 

20 species. Coral are suspension feeders, and their prey predominantly consist of planktonic 

21 organisms carried in the water column. Photosynthetic corals also harbor dinoflagellate algae 

22 that benefit the coral‘s physiology through products resulting from photosynthesis. Where they 

23 are present, coral reefs in the GOM serve ecological functions as important sites of primary 

24 productivity and as habitat for dense and diverse reef-associated communities.

25

26 Coral reefs are primarily concentrated on the west Florida shelf. Although not in the 

27 Western or Central Planning Areas, these reefs could be affected by accidental oil spills. Coral 

28 reefs are not found in the Central Planning Area and are relatively uncommon in the Western 

29 Planning Area, although individual corals are common in hard-bottom seafloor habitats in both 

30 areas. The East and West Flower Garden Banks in the FGBNMS, located in the Western Gulf 

31 Neritic Marine Ecoregion, are considered the only coral reefs present in the Western Planning 

32 Area (Figure 3.7.2-1). The East and West Banks are prominent topographic features covering 

approximately 50 and 74 km2 33 (12,355 and 18,286 ac), respectively, and rising to a depth of 17 m 

34 (63 ft) below the water surface from surrounding water depths below 100 m (328 ft)

35 (Hickerson et al. 2008). The banks formed over salt domes, which forced the overlying seabed 

36 upward, resulting in exposed carbonate that provided substrate for the colonization and growth of 

37 reef organisms. The crests of these features are carbonate rock formed by reef-building corals, 

38 coralline algae, and other lime-secreting creatures. The dominant community on these banks at 

39 water depths above 36 m (118 ft) is composed of reef-building corals (approximately 

40 20 species), with an average cover of more than 50% (Bright et al. 1984; Dokken et al. 1999; 

41 Precht et al. 2008). In addition, more than 80 species of algae, approximately 250 species of 

42 macroinvertebrates, and more than 120 species of fishes are associated with these features 

43 (Dokken et al. 1999).

44

45 On the basis of data from 1978 to 2006, there do not appear to be any long-term trends in 

46 the percentage of coral cover at the FGBNMS (Hickerson et al. 2008; Robbart et al. 2009), and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-121

12 FIGURE 3.

7.2-1 Location of Hard Bottom Features in the Western, Central, and Eastern Planning Areas
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-122

1 despite causing some physical damage to reef structure, recent hurricanes have not caused

2 significant lasting damage to the FGBNMS (Robbart et al. 2009). Within a 6.4-km (4-mi) radius 

3 of the FGBNMS, there are currently 14 oil production platforms, and there is one gas production 

4 platform within the East Sanctuary boundary. However, there is no evidence that oil and gas 

5 production activities have adversely affected the FGBNMS (Gittings 1998). Ongoing stressors 

6 on the FGBNMS include mechanical disturbance from anchors and discarded fishing gear, 

7 coastal runoff, and disease (Hickerson et al. 2008).

8

9

10 3.7.2.1.3 Deepwater Corals. Research from 2003 to the present has resulted in 

11 extensive data on the distribution of deepwater (or coldwater) corals and the compositions of 

12 their associated communities (CSA International, Inc. 2007). Deepwater corals are found on 

13 rock outcroppings in the Northern GOM Slope Ecoregion in waters typically deeper than 300 m 

14 (984 ft) (Figure 3.7.2-2). The primary deepwater species in the GOM is Lophelia pertusa. This 

15 highly branching species can develop from small bushes to thickets of hemispherical colonies.

16 Lophelia aggregations typically develop on lithified outcroppings formed in the past by now17 inactive hydrocarbon seeps. Although often located near cold hydrocarbon seeps, Lophelia

18 corals and associated biota do not appear to use seep hydrocarbons as a food source; instead, 

19 they depend on plankton and organic matter falling from the upper water column 

20 (CSA International, Inc. 2007). Lophelia produce larvae whose dispersal ability is limited when 

21 compared with that of species that produce planktotrophic larvae. Consequently, gene flow 

22 appears to occur primarily within individual Lophelia thickets; nevertheless, enough long23 distance dispersal occurs to maintain regional genetic distinctiveness (USGS 2008).

24

25 Lophelia beds provide complex benthic habitat that attracts deepwater fish and 

26 invertebrates in greater density than that found in the surrounding soft-bottom habitat. Surveys 

27 of Lophelia communities off the coast of Louisiana conducted in 2004 and 2005 indicated that 

28 polychaetes, brittle stars, sponges, and hydroids were the most common species (CSA 

29 International, Inc. 2007). Predatory polychaetes and shrimp and crabs were also common. 

30 Overall, suspension feeders and predators were the dominant trophic guilds represented, but 

31 large scavengers were also present (CSA International, Inc. 2007). A study of the Viosca Knoll 

32 Lophelia communities found that fish communities differ according to depth, with communities 

33 found at 325 m (1,066 ft) being distinctly different than the deepwater fish species collected at 

34 500 m (1,640 ft) (USGS 2008).

35

36

37 3.7.2.1.4 Hard Bottom. The term hard bottom (also referred to as live bottom) 

38 generally refers to exposed rock, but it can also refer to other substrata, such as coral and clay, or 

39 even artificial structures. Hard bottoms often support highly productive algal and animal 

40 communities. The sessile (nonmotile) biota typically growing on hard-bottom areas may include 

41 macroalgae, seagrasses, sponges, barnacles, hydroids, corals, cnidarians, bryozoans, and 

42 tunicates, which, in turn, provide shelter, food, and spawning sites for mobile fish and 

43 invertebrates. Within the Eastern and Western Gulf Neritic and the Mississippi Gulf Estuarine 

44 Ecoregions, major topographic features occur on the continental shelf and shelf edge across the 

45 west Florida shelf and in more restricted locations off Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and 

46 Texas. The estimated areal extent of natural hard bottom in the GOM on the continental shelf is 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-123

12 FIGURE 3

.7.2-2 Location of Coldwater Coral System Features in the Western, Central, and Eastern Planning Areas
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-124

1 4,772,600 ha (11,793,300 ac), with only 6% of this occurring in the Central and Western 

2 Planning Areas (GMFMC 1998). Authigenic carbonate exposed in deepwater areas below 

3 300 m could total more than 200,000 ha (494,208 ac) as determined from 3D seismic remote 

4 sensing data (less than 1% of the total bottom area of the deep GOM). 

5

6 Mississippi-Alabama Shelf. Within the Mississippi Estuarine Area, in inner-shelf and 

7 mid-shelf regions off Mobile Bay and the Alabama/Florida State line, there are small low-relief 

8 outcrops of rock, shell hash, and sandstone on areas with sand or shell bottom (Figure 3.7.2-1). 

9 This hard-bottom habitat, found in water depths of 18 to 40 m (59 to 131 ft), ranges from low10 relief exposed rock in shallow depressions to rock outcrops with up to 5 m (16.4 ft) of vertical 

11 relief (Thomson et al. 1999). The dominant biota varies with location, but it can include 

12 barnacles, coralline algae, hydroids, sponges, octocorals, solitary hard corals, bryozoans, and 

13 ascidians (Schroeder et al. 1989; Thompson et al. 1999). These inner shelf outcrops also served 

14 as spawning grounds for a variety of fish, including the spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) and the 

15 Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulates).

16

17 Along the shelf edge between the Mississippi River and DeSoto Canyon, there are 

18 discontinuous carbonate reef structures called Pinnacle Trend regions; they fall primarily in two 

19 parallel bands along depth contours. BOEM (as MMS)-sponsored studies (Brooks 1991; 

20 Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1992; Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., and Texas A&M 

21 University, Geochemical and Environmental Research Group 1999) have provided further 

22 information about these features, which consist of thousands of carbonate mounds ranging in size 

23 from less than a few meters to nearly a kilometer in diameter. The larger ―pinnacle‖ features are 

24 found at depths of 74–82 m (243–269 ft) and 105–120 m (344–394 ft), and their vertical relief 

25 ranges from 2 to 20 m (6 to 66 ft), with the average being 9 m (30 ft). Linear ridges paralleling 

26 the isobaths were also mapped in the shallower depth zone. These ridges are typically about 

27 20 to 250 m (66 to 820 ft) in width, are more than 1 km (0.6 mi) long, and have a relief of up to 

28 8 m (26 ft). Shallow (generally less than 1 m, or 3 ft, deep) depressions, usually less than 15 m 

29 (49 ft) in diameter, were also found (Sager et al. 1992). 

30

31 The pinnacle features provide a significant amount of hard substrate for colonization by 

32 suspension-feeding invertebrates, and they support relatively rich biological communities. 

33 Barnacles, worms, coralline algae, sponges, corals, and bryozoans are present at the tops of the 

34 shallowest features in water depths of less than about 70 m (230 ft) (GMFMC 2004). The 

35 diversity and abundance of the associated species appear to be related to the size and complexity 

36 of the features, with the low-relief rock outcrops (less than 1 m [3 ft] high) typically having low 

37 faunal densities, and the higher-relief features having the more diverse faunal communities. 

38 Although it is likely that little active reef building is occurring now, the Pinnacle Trend may 

39 serve as an important colonization site for hard-bottom species and allow cross-shelf gene flow 

40 between reef species in the western and eastern GOM (GMFMC 2004). In addition, pinnacles 

41 off Mobile Bay serve as aggregation sites and spawning grounds for fish and invertebrates during 

42 multiple life stages. 

43

44 Louisiana-Texas Shelf Banks and South Texas Banks. Within the Mississippi 

45 Estuarine and Western Gulf Neritic Ecoregions, there are several low- to high-relief banks and 

46 ridges along the mid to outer Louisiana-Texas shelf in 22 to 200 m (72 to 656 ft) of water. Bank 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-125

1 relief ranges from less than 1 to 150 m (3 to 492 ft) and can be as large as several hundred square 

2 meters in area. The major topographic features of the central and western GOM are shown in 

3 Figure 3.7.2-1. These features are elevated above the surrounding seafloor and are characterized 

4 as either mid-shelf bedrock banks or outer-shelf bedrock banks with carbonate caps 

5 (Rezak et al. 1983; Hickerson et al. 2008). Although these topographic features are small, the 

6 hard-bottom faunal assemblages associated with them often have high diversity, species richness, 

7 and biomass; they also provide habitat for important commercial and recreational fish species.

8

9 Benthic zones were described for the topographic features by Rezak et al. (1983). The 

10 zones were classified on the basis of their amount of reef-building activity and primary 

11 production (Rezak et al. 1983, 1985). The mid-shelf and shelf-edge banks along the Texas12 Louisiana border contain a variety of zones, ranging from clear water high-productivity to low13 productivity zones (Rezak et al. 1983). Several banks along the Louisiana-Texas mid shelf and 

14 shelf edge were near the storm track of Hurricane Rita in 2005. However, the long-term effects 

15 on these banks appear to have been minor (Robbart et al. 2009). Rezak et al. (1983) classifies 

16 the south Texas banks as low relief with turbidity-tolerant communities and little to no reef17 building activity. 

18

19 It appears that differences in the fish and invertebrate communities depend on the bank‘s 

20 structure, depth, and location. However, all areas have high fish and invertebrate densities and 

21 diversities, dominated by reef-associated species (Dennis and Bright 1988). Epibenthic biota 

22 that are colonizing the hard substrate include bryozoans, hard corals, octocorals, fire corals, 

23 sponges, sea whips, gastropods, hydroids, sea urchins, and spiny lobster (GMFMC 2004). Reef24 associated fishes typical of the GOM congregate around these features, and many are of 

25 commercial and recreational importance (Section 3.8.4.1). 

26

27 West Florida Shelf. Most of the hard-bottom habitat in the Northern GOM Shelf Marine 

28 Ecoregion is located on the west coast of Florida. Although not in the Western or Central 

29 Planning Areas, these areas could be affected by accidental oil spills and are therefore briefly 

30 described. The live-bottom communities on the west Florida shelf are tropical to temperate in 

31 nature, with the number of tropical species decreasing to the north. The communities are 

32 predominantly algal/sponge/coral assemblages, with the shallow-water octocorals and the hard 

33 corals significantly decreasing in abundance at depths deeper than about 40 m (161 ft). Most of 

34 the hard bottom on the west Florida shelf is low relief (less than 1 m [3 ft]), but it also includes 

35 ridges and pinnacles rising up to 30 m (98 ft) from the seafloor (Woodward-Clyde Consultants 

36 and Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1983; Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1987). Despite 

37 the relatively small amount of actual exposed rock outcrops across this shelf, dense sessile 

38 epifaunal assemblages are common. The primary topographic features on the west Florida shelf 

39 are the Florida Middle Ground (Figure 3.7.2-1), located about 160 km (99 mi) northwest of 

40 Tampa Bay, and Madison Swanson water, located south of Panama City at a depth of 60 to 

100 m (197 to 328 ft). Steamboat Lumps, a low-relief area that measures 269 km2 (104 mi2 41 ) and 

42 is located west of Tarpon Springs, is another known spawning ground for reef fish. (Additional 

43 maps are available at http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/islands01/log/jun20/

44 jun20.html).

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-126

1 Artificial hard-bottom sites, including sunken vessels, oil and gas platforms, and debris, 

2 represent only 1.3% of all hard-bottom sites in the GOM (GMFMC 1998); nevertheless, these 

3 structures support locally abundant fish populations in shelf waters of all GOM coast States 

4 (GMFMC 1998). Artificial reefs are placed in the GOM continental shelf to improve fishery 

5 production and recreational fishing opportunities. 

6

7 Oil platforms also serve as artificial reef habitats. There are 3,315 active oil platforms 

8 now present in GOM Federal waters (Boudreaux 2011). After oil platforms are 

9 decommissioned, they can be converted to artificial reefs by being toppled or partially removed. 

10 Oil platforms represent a novel habitat when compared with the surrounding soft sediments, and 

11 they provide attachment sites for sessile reef invertebrates such as corals, bryozoans, and 

12 sponges. In this way, they allow the range of fish and invertebrate species to expand. In 

13 addition, by serving as ―islands‖ of hard substrate, the platforms can also promote gene flow 

14 between the eastern and western portion of the GOM (Sammarco et al. 2004).

15

16 Although the algae growing on oil platforms provide food for some platform biota, 

17 plankton is the primary food source supporting the platform community. The attached platform 

18 community in turn provides food for many but not all structure-oriented fish and invertebrates 

19 living on or near the platform. Single offshore platforms of average size have been found to 

20 provide habitat for an average of 10,000 to 30,000 fish within 50 m (164 ft) of the structure 

21 (Stanley and Wilson 2000). The high densities of fish near the platform decline to background 

22 levels within 10 to 50 m (33 to 164 ft) of the platform. Jacks, amberjack, red snapper, gray 

23 snapper, and triggerfish dominate the oil platform fish assemblage (Stanley and Wilson 2000).

24

25 Although platforms undoubtedly have higher amounts of organismal biomass than do the 

26 surrounding soft sediments, their role in enhancing fish production is controversial. Initially it 

27 was argued that reef fish are habitat-limited because of the scarcity of hard bottom on the Gulf 

28 continental shelf. Consequently, it was thought that artificial reefs provide needed habitat

29 (Brickhill et al. 2005). Others argued that reef fish are not habitat-limited, and artificial reefs 

30 such as oil platforms simply attract fish away from natural hard bottom. Thus, platforms may 

31 simply attract fish rather than increasing fish production and, at the same time, make them easier 

32 to harvest by commercial and recreational fisheries (Brickhill et al. 2005). The benefit or 

33 detriment of artificial reefs as habitat depends on how fisheries are managed on the reef and the 

34 individual life histories and habitat requirements of the species present.

35

36

37 3.7.2.1.5 Chemosynthetic (Seep) Communities. In deepwater areas where oil and 

38 natural gas compounds seep up through the sediments, chemosynthetic bacteria inhabit 

39 specialized cells in clam, mussel, and worm hosts; they form symbiotic relationships in which 

40 methane and/or hydrogen sulfide are used to produce basic organic compounds. In the Northern 

41 GOM Slope Marine Ecoregion, chemosynthetic communities are associated with hydrocarbon 

42 seeps in water depths ranging from less than 300 m (984 ft) to more than 2,700 m (8,858 ft; 

43 Brooks et al. 2008). Figure 3.7.2-3 shows known chemosynthetic community locations. In 

44 addition, maps of acoustic seafloor anomalies in the GOM have been developed over the last 

45 13 yr that can be used to predict the location of deepwater corals (Section 3.7.2.1.3-1) and 

46 chemosynthetic communities (Figure 3.7.2-3). The anomalies are present in the form of positive 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-127

12 FIGURE 3.

7.2-3 Location of Chemosynthetic Communities in the Western and Central Planning Areas
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-128

1 anomalies, negative anomalies, and pockmark features. The positive anomalies are indicative of 

2 hard-bottom authigenic carbonate deposits or solid hydrate formations with which deepwater 

3 coral or chemosynthetic communities are often associated. Positive anomalies do not guarantee 

4 the presence of deepwater communities because there may be a lack of exposed hard substrate 

5 for corals and the hydrocarbon seep could be inactive and not capable of supporting 

6 chemosynthetic communities. The negative anomalies are areas of rapid gas expulsion where it 

7 is generally not possible for significant communities to develop, although suitable hard substrate 

8 may be nearby. Pockmarks may be caused by large, short-term gas expulsion events and may or 

9 may not have associated hard substrate. BOEM has successfully used the presence of positive 

10 anomalies to predict the location of exposed hard-bottom, chemosynthetic, and/or deepwater 

11 coral communities, which has allowed these sensitive features to be avoided by oil and gas 

12 activities. Sassen et al. (1993b) showed that at locations for which data were available, most 

13 significant oil fields in the deepwater GOM had associated chemosynthetic communities. Since 

14 there is extensive natural oil and gas seepage in the GOM, an extensive amount of habitat is 

15 thought to be available for these types of communities, although the amounts are small in 

16 individual areal extent. In addition, chemosynthetic communities not associated with oil and gas 

17 seepage have been found at the base of the Florida Escarpment in water at a depth of about 

18 3,200 m (10,499 ft) (Paull et al. 1984; Hecker 1985). 

19

20 Evidence indicates that fauna associated with chemosynthetic communities can be 

21 extremely slow-growing. For example, tubeworms are estimated to grow less than 1 cm (0.4 in.)

22 per year and to live longer than 200 yr (Fisher et al. 1997; MacDonald 2000). The seep mussels 

23 also exhibit slow growth rates, with adults surviving up to 40 yr (Nix et al. 1995; 

24 MacDonald 2000). Chemosynthetic communities on the upper continental slope (<1,000 m 

25 [3,281 ft]) and the mid to lower continental slope (>1,000 m [3,281 ft]) have been studied. 

26 Although general groups of epifauna, such as galatheid crabs, decapod shrimp, mussels, and 

27 tubeworms, were present at upper and lower slope sites, differences were strong at the species 

28 level (Brooks et al. 2008). There were differences in the invertebrate communities associated 

29 with mussel and tubeworm habitats although a single species of shrimp (Alvinocaris muricola) 

30 was typically numerically dominant at both habitat types. Depth, relative abundance of different 

31 mussel species in a bed, and the tubeworm size were important determinants of community 

32 composition (Cordes et al. 2010).

33

34

35 3.7.2.1.6 Climate Change Effects on GOM Marine Benthic Habitats. Climate 

36 change has the potential to profoundly affect marine benthic habitats and communities. One 

37 seafloor habitat likely to be affected is coral reefs. For example, as a stress response to warming

38 water temperatures, coral reefs could suffer from an increased frequency of bleaching (Hoegh39 Guldberg et al. 2007). Globally, bleaching appears to have increased in frequency and severity 

40 since the last quarter of the 20th century (Janetos et al. 2008), but on the basis of data from 1978 

41 to 2006, there do not appear to be any long-term trends in the percentage of coral cover at the 

42 FGBNMS (Hickerson et al. 2008; Robbart et al. 2009). Recent surveys indicate that the 

43 FGBNMS appears to be healthy, with coral cover ranging from 50 to 70% on both banks and a 

44 low incidence of bleaching and other coral disease (Precht et al. 2008; Robbart et al. 2009). 

45 Much of this may be due to the distance of the coral reefs from land and the depth at which the 

46 reefs are located. However, the IPCC estimates that water temperatures could increase by 1.8 to 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-129

1 4.0 C by 2050 (IPCC 2007b), and with the rise in temperature, coral bleaching at the FGBNMS

2 could increase.

3

4 In addition to coral bleaching, there are other challenges to coral reefs related to climate 

5 change. For example, there has been a rise in the occurrence of excessive algal growth on reefs 

6 and an increase in bacterial, fungal, and viral agents (Boesch et al. 2000; Twilley et al. 2001). 

7 There is also the potential for greater frequency of mechanical damage to corals from greater

8 severity of tropical storms and hurricanes (Janetos et al. 2008). 

9

10 In addition, the increase in atmospheric CO2 has resulted in the formation of carbonic 

11 acid, at the expense of carbonates (aragonite and calcite), in seawater. The resulting decreases in 

12 the oceanic pH and carbonate concentration are expected to reduce the reef formation rate, 

13 weaken the existing reef structure, and alter the composition of coral communities 

14 (Janetos et al. 2008). The projected decrease in pH varies depending on the model and model 

15 assumptions used; nevertheless, by 2050, the ocean‘s carbonate saturation might drop below 

16 levels necessary for coral reef accretion, and the pH of surface oceans might drop by as much as 

17 0.5 pH by the end of this century (Royal Society 2005; Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2007). Recent 

18 work also suggests ecosystem respiration is higher in the GOM because eutrophication has 

19 increased dissolved CO2 and reduced oceanic pH by 0.11 to 0.16 (Cai et al. 2010). The trend is 

20 expected to continue, potentially leading to carbonate undersaturation (Cai et al. 2010). 

21

22 As climate change has the potential to affect warm water corals, it could also affect 

23 coldwater Lophelia habitats. The saturation depth of aragonite (the primary carbonate form used 

24 by hard corals) appears to be a primary determinant of deep water coral distribution, with reefs 

25 forming in areas of high aragonite solubility (Orr et al. 2005). The depth at which the water is 

26 saturated with aragonite is projected to become shallower over the coming century, and most 

27 coldwater corals may be in undersaturated waters by 2100 (Orr et al. 2005). Consequently, the 

28 spatial extent, density, and growth of deepwater corals may decrease, diminishing their 

29 associated ecosystem functions (Orr et al. 2005). 

30

31 In nearshore and mid-shelf benthic habitats, climate change may cause the temporal 

32 variability of key physical parameters — particularly dissolved oxygen, salinity, and temperature 

33 — to change or increase, which could significantly alter the existing structure of the benthic 

34 community (Rabalais et al. 2010). For example, freshwater discharge into the GOM has been 

35 increasing and is expected to continue to increase as a result of the increased rainfall in the 

36 Mississippi River Basin (Dai et al. 2009). Such changes could result in severe long-term or 

37 short-term fluctuations in temperature and salinity that could reduce or eliminate sensitive 

38 species. Such changes are most likely to occur in the Mississippi Estuarine Ecoregion, where 

39 freshwater inputs are highest. Habitats most likely to be affected include inner-shelf and mid40 shelf hard-bottom and soft-sediment habitats, although the benthos of deepwater areas affected 

41 by the Mississippi River, such as Mississippi and DeSoto Canyons, may also be affected. In 

42 addition, greater rainfall may increase inputs of nutrients into the GOM, potentially resulting in 

43 more intense phytoplankton blooms that could promote benthic hypoxia (Rabalais et al. 2010). 

44 The increased freshwater inputs and surface water temperature may also promote water column 

45 stratification, which is also conducive to the development and expansion of the existing GOM
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-130

1 Dead Zone. Hypoxic or anoxic conditions can reduce or eliminate the suitability of benthic 

2 habitat for marine organisms. 

3

4

5 3.7.2.1.7 Effects of DWH Event on Marine Benthic Habitats. Few observations or 

6 analyses have been conducted on the effects of the DWH event on soft sediment habitats. Some 

7 researchers have reported seeing dead and dying benthic animals as well as what appear to be 

8 thick deposits of oil or flocculants of oil and organic matter on the seafloor (BOEMRE 2010b). 

9 More data are needed before characterizing the implications of the DWH event on soft sediment 

10 habitat. It is likely that the sediment hydrocarbon concentrations decreased significantly with 

11 distance from the well. In heavily oiled areas, the recovery time is unknown, but sediments in 

12 deeper waters may take longer to recover because of colder temperatures. Overall, natural 

13 processes should break down the oil, and it is likely that no permanent changes in soft sediment 

14 habitat affected by the DWH event would occur.

15

16 There is some evidence that the DWH event affected more sensitive benthic habitats. In 

17 November 2010, a survey of deepwater corals along the predicted trajectory of the DWH event 

18 in 1,400 m (4,593 ft) of water revealed a 15 40-m (49 131-ft) area of dead and dying 

19 deepwater corals covered in brown flocculent. The mortality was attributed to oil from the DWH 

20 event located approximately 11 km (7 mi) to the northeast (http://www.boemre.gov/ooc/press/

21 2010/press1104a.htm). Investigations are ongoing. It is not known how many deepwater coral 

22 communities were affected or whether the affected corals will recover. The DWH event 

23 occurred more than 320 km (200 mi) from the FGBNMS, and there were no reports of oil from 

24 the spill reaching the FGBNMS (http://flowergarden.noaa.gov/education/oilspill.html). The 

25 FGBNMS is monitored as part of a regular program, and any changes related to the spill should 

26 be detected. 

27

28

29 3.7.2.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

30

31 The Cook Inlet Planning Area is located within the Alaska Fjordland Shelf Ecoregion

32 (Wilkinson et al. 2009). The physical characteristics of the benthic habitats of Kachemak Bay, 

33 Shelikof Strait, and lower Cook Inlet are critical in determining habitat function. Several distinct 

34 benthic habitats have been identified based on tidal inundation and substrate, which can consist 

35 of rock, sand, silt, and/or shell debris. Plant and animal communities in rocky habitats have 

36 strong patterns of zonation with marked variation in species composition, community structure, 

37 and productivity. In the rocky intertidal habitat, benthic assemblages are concentrated below the 

38 seaweed zone, probably due to battering by waves and kelp (MMS 1996b). The Shelikof Strait 

39 is relatively ice free even in winter (MMS 2003a). However, seasonal ice is an important 

40 influence on habitat function in Cook Inlet. The western side of Cook Inlet experiences seasonal 

41 ice scour and has biological and physical characteristics that are more similar to arctic habitats 

42 compared to the eastern side, which does not experience ice scour (MMS 1996b, 2003a). The 

43 Cook Inlet lease sale 149 EIS (MMS 1996b) and 191 and 199 lease sale EIS (MMS 2003b) 

44 contain a comprehensive description of the habitats and biota found in Cook Inlet. See 

45 Section 3.8.4.2 and Section 3.8.5.2 for a further description of fish and benthic invertebrate 

46 communities in Cook Inlet.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-131

1 The Gulf of Alaska is located outside of the Cook Inlet Planning Area and therefore 

2 would not be directly disturbed by oil and gas infrastructure. However, it could be affected by 

3 an oil spill associated with OCS activities in Cook Inlet and therefore will be briefly described. 

4 In the Gulf of Alaska, sediment deposition and sediment grain size are important determinants of 

5 benthic communities. In areas of the Gulf of Alaska where sediments are fine and sedimentation 

6 rates are high (particularly in the north-central region), nearshore infauna consists mostly of 

7 mobile deposit-feeding organisms. Greater numbers of sessile and suspension feeding infauna 

8 occur west of Prince William Sound as sediment changes to sand/gravel. A relatively low 

9 biomass of deposit feeders occurs in the eastern Gulf of Alaska, an environment characterized by 

10 strong tidal currents and sediment of low organic content (Semenov 1965). 

11

12 Strong benthic-pelagic coupling is present in the Gulf of Alaska. Studies of Prince 

13 William Sound indicate sediment habitat receive the greatest springtime inputs of phytoplankton 

14 in years when phytoplankton blooms are of short duration and high biomass 

15 (Eslinger et al. 2001). Soft sediment habitat also contributes to water column productivity when 

16 sediments are resuspended by wind and wave action.

17

18 Climate Change Effects on Cook Inlet Marine Benthic Habitats. Continuing trends 

19 in climate change are expected to result in chemical, physical, and hydrologic changes in Cook 

20 Inlet. For example, increased river discharge is expected to alter the salinity, temperature, and 

21 turbidity regimes in nearshore benthic habitat (Arctic Council 2005), potentially resulting in 

22 changes in the composition, abundance, and diversity of sessile benthic communities. See 

23 Section 3.8.4.2 and Section 3.8.5.2 for a discussion of climate change and benthic fish and 

24 invertebrates. In addition to changes in hydrology, the expected reduction in landfast ice extent 

25 and duration resulting from rising temperatures may reduce the scouring of intertidal and shallow 

26 subtidal habitats on the western side of Cook Inlet. Warmer temperatures may also increase 

27 phytoplankton productivity, potentially resulting in greater food inputs to benthic habitats and 

28 subsequent increases in the productivity of benthic biota. 

29

30

31 3.7.2.3 Alaska – Arctic

32

33 The Beaufort and Chukchi Planning Areas include the Beaufort/Chukchian Shelf Marine 

34 Ecoregion and the Arctic Slope and Arctic Plains Marine Ecoregions. In both planning areas, oil 

35 and gas exploration and production activities will generally occur in water depths of less than 

36 200 m (656 ft). 

37

38 Most of the seafloor of the Beaufort/Chukchian Shelf Marine Ecoregion consists of a 

39 soft-bottom, featureless plain composed of silt, clay, and sand. Deposits of flocculated particles 

40 from plankton blooms, epontic organisms, and ice algae from ice retreat all contribute to the 

41 bottom sediments in these regions. Disturbance from sea ice scour is a dominant process 

42 affecting the seafloor of the Beaufort and Chukchi shelves. Deep keels of icebergs moving 

43 across the shelf scour sediments, causing chronic disturbance to benthic communities. Strudel

44 (drainage of large volumes of freshwater through the ice at holes and cracks) scouring of the 

45 seafloor also occurs near the mouths of rivers during spring flood periods. Few species inhabit 

46 the seafloor in waters shallower than 2 m (6.6 ft) deep because of the bottom fast ice, which 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-132

1 prohibits overwintering of most organisms. This nearshore benthic area is recolonized each 

2 summer, mainly by mobile, opportunistic, epifaunal crustaceans (amphipods, mysids,

3 cumaceans, and isopods, which are fed on primarily by waterfowl and fishes). In slightly deeper 

4 water, the gouging of the seafloor by ice keels creates a habitat for opportunistic infauna 

5 (e.g., small clams and other invertebrates), which are fed on by seabirds, fishes, and walrus 

6 (Bluhm and Gradinger 2008). Surveys on the Chukchi Shelf revealed that tunicates, 

7 echinoderms, jellies, crabs, polychaetes, and sponges make up most of the benthic biomass 

8 (NPFMC 2009). Common fish on soft sediments included arctic cod (Arctogadus glacialis), 

9 Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii), sculpins, and pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) 

10 (NPFMC 2009). See Sections 3.8.4.3 and 3.8.5.3 for descriptions of fish and invertebrate 

11 communities. 

12

13 Food sources supporting soft-sediment habitat are highly seasonal and primarily derive 

14 from terrestrial sources and from water column primary and secondary production originating 

15 locally or advected from the Bering Sea. Data from the Northern Bering Sea and the Chukchi 

16 Sea suggests there is a strong coupling between phytoplankton biomass and benthic invertebrate 

17 biomass (also known as benthic-pelagic coupling), suggesting that communities on seafloor 

18 habitats rely strongly on organic matter originating from the water column. These benthic 

19 communities in turn support higher trophic levels such as benthic feeding birds and marine 

20 mammals (Dunton et al. 2005; Grebmeier et al. 2006). Thus, the fact that the biomass of benthic 

21 invertebrates in Chukchi Shelf sediments is higher than that in Beaufort Shelf sediments is 

22 thought to result from the higher phytoplankton and organic matter available on the former 

23 (Dunton et al. 2005). In contrast, benthic communities on the Beaufort Shelf do not appear to be 

24 related to phytoplankton biomass but rather to the availability of terrestrial organic matter from 

25 coastal erosion or riverine inputs (Dunton et al. 2006). Organic matter released from sea ice 

26 habitat is another food source that may be critical to benthic species in certain locations and 

27 seasons. For example, early life stages of benthic invertebrates are commonly found in the water 

28 column associated with sea ice (Gradinger and Bluhm 2005). In addition, much of the 

29 phytoplankton from ice-edge blooms associated with the spring sea ice melt is exported to the

30 seafloor because of the low zooplankton density in the water column in the early spring (Bluhm 

31 and Gradinger 2008).

32

33 Hard-bottom seafloor habitat is also present, primarily in the form of cobble and boulders 

34 distributed sporadically along the inner Beaufort and Chukchi shelves and in the Barrow Canyon 

35 (MMS 2002a). Three such locations are in Stefansson Sound and western Camden Bay in the 

36 Beaufort Sea and in Peard Bay in the Chukchi Sea (MMS 2003b, Section III.B.1.b; BLM and 

37 MMS 2003b, Section III.A.2.c(3)). In addition, Peard Bay and the Stefansson Sound Boulder 

38 Patch have kelp communities, with the latter having the largest brown kelp (Laminaria 

39 solidungula) community in the Alaskan Arctic (Phillips et al. 1984; Dunton et al. 2004; 

40 Figure 3.7.2-4). The resident species are found at higher diversity, abundance, and biomass in 

41 boulder patches than in surrounding areas and are composed of a unique community of algae, 

42 bryozoans, hydroids, polychaetes, bivalves, crustaceans, and the soft coral associated with them 

43 (Iken 2009). Sediment inputs from rivers and ice scouring are primary controls on biological 

44 productivity in boulder habitat. Results of a recent study conducted under the BOEM Arctic 

45 Nearshore Impact Monitoring in the Development Area (ANIMIDA) Program demonstrated that 

46 suspended sediment can reduce the light available for kelp production during open-water periods 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-133

12 FIGURE 3.

7.2-4 Location of the Stefansson Sound Boulder Patch in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-134

1 of summer (Dunton et al. 2004) and that kelp productivity is significantly reduced in years where 

2 sediment loading is high (Aumack et al. 2007). The reduced photosynthesis can result from 

3 sediment coating kelp blades or reducing light penetration into the water column. Multiple 

4 studies have also demonstrated that boulder habitats are subject to frequent disturbance from the 

5 freezing and thawing of ice. If significantly scoured or overturned, communities associated with 

6 boulders are slow (2 or more years) to begin recovery, with full recovery taking a decade or more

7 (Konar 2007 and references therein). 

8

9 Although no drilling is proposed on the Beaufort or Chukchi slope, in recent 

10 investigations, ―pock marks‖ were discovered on the Chukchi slope (MacDonald et al. 2005). 

11 These crater-like features are about 1 km (3,281 ft) in diameter and 40 m (131 ft) deep and are 

12 located between the 500-m and 1,000-m (1,640-ft and 3,280-ft) isobath. The abundance and 

13 diversity of invertebrates were higher in the pock marks than in the surrounding sediments. 

14 Brittle stars, various types of anemones, shrimps, eel pouts, stalked crinoids, benthic ctenophore, 

15 gooseneck barnacles, mysids, and holothurians were the most abundant epifauna. Polychaetes, 

16 foraminiferans, nemertineans, cnidarians, peanut worms, and clams were the most abundant 

17 infauna (MacDonald et al. 2005).

18

19 Climate Change Effects on Arctic Marine Benthic Habitats. Continuing trends in 

20 climate change are expected to result in chemical, physical, and hydrologic changes in the 

21 Alaska Fjordland Shelf and Beaufort/Chukchian Shelf Ecoregion. For example, increased river 

22 discharge is expected to alter the salinity, temperature, and turbidity regimes in nearshore benthic 

23 habitat (Arctic Council 2005; Hopcroft et al. 2008), potentially resulting in changes in the 

24 composition, abundance, and diversity of sessile benthic communities.

25

26 The predicted decrease in the extent and duration of sea ice also has implications for 

27 benthic habitat. The retreat of the summer sea-ice cover from the coastline during the last few 

28 decades (Arctic Council 2005) has created an unusually wide expanse of open water, which has 

29 led to the formation of large storm waves that cause shoreline erosion and consequent changes to 

30 the intertidal and shallow subtidal benthic habitats. A reduction in the extent of sea-ice cover 

31 may also reduce the intensity of benthic scouring. A decrease in the sea-ice cover will adversely 

32 affect sea-ice-dependent benthic biota and reduce the seasonally important pulse of sea-ice 

33 organic matter to the seafloor. Recent data also suggests that benthic-pelagic coupling could be 

34 weakened if the existing temperature increases and reductions in sea ice continue in the Arctic. 

35 A reduction in organic matter inputs to the benthos could reduce benthic productivity and shift 

36 the system from a benthic-dominated food web to a more pelagic-oriented system dominated by 

37 pelagic fishes (Grebmeier et al. 2006). Benthic feeding birds and marine mammals could suffer 

38 from the reduced benthic productivity (Grebmeier et al. 2006). Such changes are less likely to 

39 affect the Beaufort Sea than the Chukchi Sea, where there is tight benthic-pelagic coupling 

40 (Hopcroft et al. 2008). The loss of sea-ice organic-matter deposition may be made up for by 

41 higher open water phytoplankton productivity, some of which will settle to the seafloor. 

42

43 Climate change also has several potential implications for hard-bottom habitat. The 

44 reduction in sea-ice cover may reduce the spatial and temporal extent of scouring, and it may 

45 also increase wave action, which could result in more frequent disturbance of slow-recovering 

46 Boulder Patch habitats. The increase in total suspended solids due to coastal erosion and the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-135

1 greater riverine sediment loading could increase turbidity in the water column and consequently 

2 decrease the penetration of photosynthetically active radiation available for kelp production 

3 (Hopcroft et al. 2008).

4

5

6 3.7.3 Marine Pelagic Habitats

7

8 Marine pelagic habitats exist in the water column rather than the seafloor, and include the 

9 water surface. The following sections focus on the water column as habitat for biota. See 

10 Section 3.4 for a discussion of water quality in the GOM, Cook Inlet Planning Area, and the 

11 Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas.

12

13

14 3.7.3.1 Gulf of Mexico

15

16

17 3.7.3.1.1 Water Column. Pelagic habitats in the GOM include unique habitats such as 

18 drifting surface Sargassum and areas where dynamic ocean circulation processes result in high 

19 biological productivity. The Mississippi and Texas Estuarine Areas have high inputs of riverine 

20 nutrients, which promote phytoplankton productivity in the surface water; this, in turn, supports a 

21 high biomass of vertebrate and invertebrate consumers. Primary production is typically limited 

22 by nutrients whose concentrations are greatly reduced in the absence of riverine inputs. 

23 Therefore, primary production decreases to the west and east with distance from the Mississippi 

24 River, and it decreases from the Mississippi and Texas Estuarine Areas seaward to the neritic 

25 ecoregions, where the phytoplankton are dominated by small picophytoplankton, dinoflagellates, 

26 and cyanobacteria (Hulbert and Corwin 1972; Wawrik and Paul 2004). Oceanic waters beyond 

27 the continental shelf edge are similarly unproductive. Although most oceanic waters are 

28 relatively unproductive, there are areas of temporarily high productivity. For example, 

29 upwelling zones occur along the edge of the GOM shelf, where deepwater moves up the 

30 continental slope, bringing nutrients into the photic zone. The combination of high irradiance 

31 and high nutrient levels allows seasonally high primary and secondary production in upwelling 

32 zones. The DeSoto and Mississippi Canyons are important upwelling zones in the Central 

33 Planning Areas, and the south Texas shelf is an upwelling zone in the Western Planning Area 

34 (GMFMC 2004; Walker et al. 2005; Zavala-Hidalgo et al. 2006).

35

36 Most pelagic primary consumers are temporary or permanent zooplankton. Temporary 

37 zooplankton are larval stages of fish and invertebrates that mature in the marine environment or 

38 are transported into estuaries where they will reach their juvenile stage. Permanent zooplankton 

39 remain in a planktonic state for their entire life cycle. Zooplankton serve as critical food sources. 

40 They also play a key role in recycling nutrients within the water column and in transferring water 

41 column primary production to sediment consumers in the form of fecal pellets and carcasses. 

42

43 Pelagic waters can be classified into zones on the basis of their depth (Bond 1996). 

44 Epipelagic habit is defined as the upper 200 m (656 ft) of the water column. Because of the high 

45 clarity of the water, light penetrates deeply enough to support limited primary production in 

46 water as deep as 200 m (656 ft). Below this euphotic zone, light levels and consequently 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-136

1 primary production are limited or nonexistent. Below the epipelagic zone, the water column may 

2 be layered into the mesopelagic zone (200 to 1,000 m [656 to 3,281 ft]) and bathypelagic 

3 (>1,000 m [>3,281 ft]) zone. To overcome the low availability of food at depth, many 

4 mesopelagic fishes and megaplankton spend their days in depths of 200 to 1,000 m (656 to 

5 3,281 ft) but migrate vertically at night into food-rich near-surface waters. Mesopelagic fish and 

6 zooplankton are important ecologically because they transfer significant amounts of energy 

7 between mesopelagic and epipelagic zones over each daily cycle. For example, the lanternfishes, 

8 which are abundant mid-water species in the GOM, are important prey for meso- and epipelagic 

9 predators like tuna (Hopkins et al. 1997). 

10

11 The bathypelagic zone is an aphotic, food-poor habitat. Consequently, predators and 

12 scavengers dominate this zone. The base of the food web is relatively degraded particulate 

13 falling from the photic zone. This material can aggregate into larger particles called marine 

14 snow. Many organisms occupying the bathypelagic zone have evolved adaptations to the harsh 

15 physical and chemical conditions; these include a lowered metabolic rate and soft bodies with 

16 high water content to reduce the need for food and hypercephelization and large jaws to swallow 

17 a greater size range of prey (Miller 2004). Deeper-dwelling (bathypelagic) fishes are composed 

18 of strange, little-known species, such as snipe eels (family Nemichthyidae), slickheads (family 

19 Alepocephalidae), bigscales (family Melamphaidae), and whalefishes (family Cetomimidae) 

20 (McEachran and Fechhelm 1998). Most species are capable of producing and emitting light 

21 (bioluminescence) to aid communication in an environment devoid of sunlight.

22

23 The ecological effects of the DWH event are still being investigated. However, data 

24 collected from recent research cruises indicate that some tentative conclusions can be made 

25 about the effect of the spill on marine pelagic habitats. The spill released both oil and methane 

26 gas into the water column. Some of it rose to the surface above the well, and some of it was 

27 entrained in bottom currents, forming a subsurface plume. Surveys in late June 2010 indicated 

28 that there was a subsurface methane plume in 800 to 1,200 m (2,625 to 3,937 ft) of water that 

29 extended from the DWH. However, by September 2010, the plume had not been found, despite 

30 extensive areal sampling coverage (Kessler et al. 2011). Also in June 2010, an oil plume 

31 trending southwest from the well was found at a depth of 1,100 m (3,609 ft); it extended 35 km 

32 (22 mi) from the wellhead. The plume was as thick as 200 m (656 ft) and up to 2 km (6,562 ft) 

33 in width (Camilli et al. 2010). Dispersants were also found in the subsurface oil plume; their 

34 concentrations decreased significantly with time and distance from the well as a result of their 

35 dilution with seawater (Kujawinski et al. 2011). However, dispersant was still detectable at low, 

36 nontoxic levels up to 300 km (186 mi) away from the wellhead 64 days after the dispersant 

37 release ended, suggesting slow natural breakdown (Kujawinski et al. 2011). The DWH event 

38 also changed pelagic microbial communities. The amount of menthanotropic and oil-eating 

39 bacteria increased greatly after the DWH event (Camilli et al. 2010; Kessler et al. 2011). 

40 However, the increase in microbial biomass did not result in significant oxygen depletion, even 

41 in deep water. The hydrocarbons appeared to be assimilated by bacteria and transferred up 

42 through the zooplankton food web (Graham et al. 2010). These studies suggest the GOM has a 

43 tremendous natural capacity to assimilate accidental oil spills.

44

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-137

1 3.7.3.1.2 Pelagic Sargassum Habitat. Floating Sargassum mats are present in neritic 

2 and oceanic waters (Figure 3.7.3-1). Sargassum in the GOM consists of three species of brown 

3 algae: Sargassum natans (80%) S. fluitans (10%), and detached sessile S. filapendula (10%) 

4 (GMFMC 2004). Satellite maps indicate that Sargassum originates in the northwest GOM in the 

5 spring and is transported through the Florida Straits into the Atlantic Ocean via the Loop Current 

6 and Gulf Stream (Gower and King 2008). Its abundance is highest in the summer and decreases 

7 in the fall and winter (Figure 3.7.3-1). Sargassum is distributed over the entire GOM in shelf, 

8 basin, and slope waters. 

9

10 As many as 54 fish species are closely associated with floating Sargassum at some point 

11 in their life cycle, but only two species spend their entire lives there: the Sargassum fish (Histrio 

12 histrio) and the Sargassum pipefish (Syngnathus pelagicus) (MMS 1999). Hydroids, 

13 anthozoans, flatworms, bryozoans, polychaetes, gastropods, nudibranchs, bivalves, cephalopods, 

14 pycnogonids, isopods, amphipods, copepods, decapod crustaceans, insects, and tunicates can all 

15 be found in the Sargassum-associated invertebrate community (GMFMC 2004). Most fish 

16 associated with Sargassum are temporary residents, such as juvenile stages of species that reside 

17 in shelf or coastal waters as adults (MMS 1999). Sargassum mats are also recognized as 

18 preferred habitat for hatchling sea turtles (Carr and Meylan 1980). These species subsist on the 

19 shrimp and crabs that dominate the invertebrate biomass within the Sargassum mat. Several 

20 large fish species of recreational or commercial importance — including dolphin fish, yellowfin 

21 tuna, blackfin tuna, skipjack tuna, Atlantic bonito, little tunny, and wahoo — feed on the small 

22 fishes and invertebrates attracted to Sargassum (Morgan et al. 1985; MMS 1999).

23

24

25 3.7.3.1.3 Climate Change Effects on GOM Marine Pelagic Habitats. See Water 

26 Quality, in Section 3.4.1, for a discussion of the potential effects of climate change on water 

27 quality in the GOM.

28

29 Climate change may affect water column productivity and ecosystem processes 

30 (Table 3.7.3-1). Surface water phytoplankton productivity in nearshore and mid-shelf areas is 

31 likely to increase during the spring because of the greater discharge of nutrient-rich river water 

32 into the GOM (Rabalais et al. 2010). The composition of the phytoplankton community may 

33 also change to reflect the new nutrient, salinity, and temperature regime, although the nature of 

34 the changes is unknown. Some have predicted that silica limitation in the face of greater nutrient 

35 inputs may reduce the relative abundance of diatoms in favor of nuisance phytoplankton such as

36 dinoflagellates (Turner 2001). If this were to occur, the traditional diatom-zooplankton food web 

37 could potentially shift to a microbial-based food web, resulting in a reduction in energy transfer 

38 to higher trophic levels. Along with increased primary production in the springtime, the greater 

39 freshwater inputs and surface water temperature may promote water column stratification; 

40 together, these could promote the development and expansion of the existing GOM Dead Zone

41 (area of hypoxic or anoxic water that develops seasonally in the GOM). In the summer, the 

42 productivity of surface water phytoplankton may decrease because higher water temperatures 

43 may promote greater thermal stratification and reduce the transfer of nutrients to the upper water 

44 column. However, the expected increase in the frequency and severity of tropical storms may 

45 promote water column turnover and reduce the duration of hypoxic conditions 

46 (Rabalais et al. 2010). 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-138

1

2 FIGURE 3.7.3-1 Areas of High Abundance of Sargassum in the GOM in (a) Early Spring, 

3 (b) Spring and Summer, and (c) Fall. General Trajectory of Sargassum Movement Is Shown in (d). 

4 Map based on satellite data collected by Gower and King (2008) 

5

6

7 The impact of increased atmospheric CO2 on pelagic productivity is complicated and 

8 difficult to predict. Increased CO2 could increase primary productivity by increasing the carbon 

9 available for photosynthesis. However, greater CO2 has also resulted in the formation of 

10 carbonic acid at the expense of carbonates in seawater. Aside from affecting pelagic 

11 invertebrates (Section 3.8.5.1), ocean acidification could also negatively affect calcifying 

12 phytoplankton species such as the coccolithophores (Royal Society 2005), which are often a 

13 dominant primary producer found in low-nutrient waters over the outer continental shelf and 

14 slope. However, other research suggests coccolithophore productivity will increase with greater 

15 CO2 concentrations (Royal Society 2005).

16

17

18 3.7.3.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

19

20 See Section 3.4.2 for a discussion of water quality in Cook Inlet. Cook Inlet pelagic 

21 waters are influenced by riverine and marine inputs, resulting in salinity gradients and horizontal 

22 mixing near the inlet. In general, extensive areas of pack ice do not form in Cook Inlet because 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-139

1 TABLE 3.7.3-1 Summary of Potential Changes in the Marine and Pelagic Habitats of the Northern GOM Marine Ecoregion That 

2 Could Result from Climate Change

Climate Change 

Impact Factor Soft Sediment Coral Hard Bottom

Deepwater 

Coral

Chemosynthetic

Communities Pelagic Habitat

Sea level rise Decrease in light 

availability

Temperature 

increase

Changes in 

biogeochemical 

processes; changes 

in food inputs to the 

seafloor

Increase in coral 

bleaching

Changes in food 

inputs to the 

seafloor

Changes in food 

inputs to the 

seafloor

Greater water column 

stratification; changes in 

water column productivity

Ocean 

acidification

Decrease in growth 

and distribution

Decrease in coral 

growth

Decrease in 

growth and 

distribution

Decrease in growth 

of chemosynthetic 

mussels and clams

Changes in phytoplankton 

composition

Increased storm 

frequency

Increase in benthic 

disturbance

Physical damage to 

corals

Physical damage 

and scouring

Greater mixing of water 

column

Increased river 

discharge

Physiological stress 

on sessile organisms; 

changes in 

biogeochemical 

processes

Increased nutrients 

and turbidity may 

reduce light 

penetration

Physiological 

stress on sessile 

organisms

Could affect 

habitat in GOM

canyons

Could affect 

habitat in GOM

canyons

Greater water column 

stratification and variation 

in water chemistry; 

changes in water column 

productivity
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-140

1 of the large tidal range and strong tidal currents. However, seasonal ice is observed during the 

2 winter (MMS 2003a). The Shelikof Strait is relatively ice free even in winter (MMS 2003a).

3 Pelagic habitat in Cook Inlet is highly productive, with phytoplankton biomass peaking in the 

4 spring. The spring phytoplankton bloom begins as the water column stratifies and light levels 

5 increase. However, productivity remains high in summer because of the resuspension of 

6 nutrient-rich bottom sediments due to tidal flux and strong winds. There is spatial variation in 

7 productivity as well, with the west side of Cook Inlet having lower primary and secondary 

8 production due to greater sediment loading. Diatoms and microflagellates, many of them 

9 advected from the Gulf of Alaska, dominate the phytoplankton assemblage.

10

11 In Shelikof Strait, studies indicate that the densities of zooplankton and pollack eggs 

12 are higher than in the adjacent continental shelf, and interannual variation in both appears to 

13 be controlled primarily by physical factors such as currents, salinity, and temperature, which 

14 in turn influence biologically important variables such as phytoplankton production (Kendall et 

15 al. 1996; Napp et al. 1996; Incze et al. 1997; Speckman et al. 2005; Bacheler et al. 2009). 

16 Zooplankton are dominated by copepods of estuarine, continental shelf, and marine origin 

17 (Incze et al. 1997; Speckman et al. 2005).

18

19 The fate of phytoplankton depends on the timing of the spring phytoplankton bloom. 

20 Zooplankton biomass in Cook Inlet tracks seasonal peaks in phytoplankton. Zooplankton can 

21 consume a high proportion of phytoplankton biomass in years with a prolonged lower density 

22 bloom (Eslinger et al. 2001). However, in years with a short high-density bloom, zooplankton 

23 consumption cannot keep up with phytoplankton production and much of the phytoplankton is 

24 exported to the seafloor. 

25

26 Climate Change Effects on Cook Inlet Planning Area Pelagic Habitat. See 

27 Section 3.4.2 for a discussion of climate change and water resources in Cook Inlet. The effects 

28 of climate change on pelagic habitat in Cook Inlet are difficult to predict with certainty because 

29 of the complexity of the system. However, current and predicted trends suggest climate change 

30 will significantly alter the chemical, physical, and hydrologic properties of pelagic habitat, which 

31 will in turn alter biological communities. For example, the predicted increase in river discharge 

32 could change the salinity, temperature, and turbidity regimes in nearshore areas and alter the 

33 composition of existing phytoplankton communities. The rise in ocean temperature may also 

34 increase yearly phytoplankton productivity and alter the timing and duration of phytoplankton 

35 blooms.

36

37 Ocean acidification from increasing CO2 inputs into the ocean is also predicted to 

38 continue in Alaskan waters and may reduce the availability of calcite and aragonite to calcifying 

39 marine organisms. In the Gulf of Alaska, carbonate undersaturated water from the outer shelf 

40 and slope periodically moves inshore, potentially reducing the abundance of calcifying 

41 invertebrate prey for commercially important species such as salmon and pollock 

42 (Fabry et al. 2009).

43

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-141

1 3.7.3.3 Alaska – Arctic

2

3 Water depths in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas range up to 3,800 m 

4 (12,467 ft). Section 3.4.3 has a detailed description of the physical and chemical characteristics 

5 of the water column. In both planning areas, oil and gas exploration and production activities 

6 would generally occur in the inner shelf in water depths up to 200 m (656 ft).

7

8 The Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea are characterized by distinct hydrographic and 

9 productivity regimes. Both systems undergo extended seasonal periods of frigid and harsh 

10 environmental conditions, reduced light, seasonal darkness, prolonged low temperatures, and ice 

11 cover. The lack of sunlight and extensive ice cover in arctic latitudes during winter months 

12 greatly reduces primary and secondary productivity (Craig 1989).

13

14 Pelagic habitat in the Beaufort/Chukchi Marine Ecoregion consists of ice-free open water 

15 and high-productivity areas of open water surrounded by sea ice (polynyas). Productivity in the 

16 water column is primarily controlled by temperature, nutrients, light, and the amount of sea ice in 

17 a given year. Phytoplankton productivity is highest in the summer when temperatures are 

18 highest (Hopcroft et al. 2008) and when nutrient and solar irradiance are most conducive to 

19 productivity. Phytoplankton productivity gradually decreases from the southwestern Chukchi 

20 Sea to the east to the Beaufort Sea (especially east of Point Barrow) and from inshore to offshore 

21 areas, although there are isolated mid-shelf upwelling regions where productivity is higher than it 

22 is in the surrounding water. The east-to-west trend is thought to be caused by the import of 

23 nutrients, phytoplankton, and organic matter-rich water into the Chukchi Sea from the adjacent 

24 Bering Sea (Dunton et al. 2005) as well as the cold nutrient-poor water flowing into the Beaufort 

25 Sea from the Atlantic. Sea ice is also a primary influence on primary productivity, and nutrients 

26 from upwelling off the Barrow and Herald Canyons can also be delivered to the continental shelf 

27 (Pickart et al. 2009). Phytoplankton productivity is highest in warmer years with less sea ice 

28 because of the higher areal extent of surface water solar irradiance and the longer growing 

29 season (Wang et al. 2005). 

30

31 There are multiple fates for water column productivity, and they depend highly on the

32 timing of phytoplankton and zooplankton activity. In the early spring when waters are still cold, 

33 zooplankton (primarily protozoans and copepods) are not as active, and much of the productivity 

34 may be exported to the seafloor, where it is a critical subsidy for the benthic food web. In late 

35 spring and summer, however, during periods of active zooplankton growth, much of the 

36 productivity may be consumed in the water column (Hopcroft et al. 2008). In general, the 

37 Chukchi exhibits strong benthic-pelagic coupling, with high flux of phytoplankton and organic 

38 matter from open water areas (including polynyas) to the sediment. The production may also be 

39 advected to deep waters of the Canada Basin (Cooper et al. 2002; Bates et al. 2005). 

40

41 Pelagic habitats of the Arctic contain classes of organisms similar to those found in 

42 subarctic and temperate waters, such as protozoan microzooplankton, copepods, euphausiids, 

43 shrimp, larvaceans, cnidarians, ctenophores, pteropods, and squid. The pelagic fish assemblage 

44 is dominated by arctic cod, whitefish (Coregonus), capelin (Mallotus villosus), and herring. All 

45 of these resources are important forage for marine mammals and birds. See Sections 3.8.4.3 and 

46 3.8.5.3 for a discussion of arctic fish and invertebrates.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-142

1 3.7.3.3.1 Sea Ice. Sea ice is an important habitat in the northern Beaufort and Chukchi 

2 Seas; it exists for variable periods in the colder months of the year near the coastline and 

3 perennially closer to the shelf edge and basin. Sea ice is more extensive and lasts longer in the 

4 Beaufort Sea than the Chukchi Sea. Algae growing on the underside of sea ice can be the 

5 primary source of productivity in northern areas of the shelf with permanent ice cover, and sea 

6 ice algal productivity and biomass can exceed the productivity of the water column during the 

7 spring (Gradinger 2009). One primary control over the growth of sea ice algae is the availability 

8 of light under the ice, which is a function of snow cover, ice thickness, and sediment loading; all 

9 of which are negatively related to productivity. In addition to the diatoms that dominate the algal 

10 assemblage, sea-ice communities contain a diverse mixture of bacteria, protozoans, and a rich 

11 meiofaunal and macroinvertebrate community dominated by amphipods, copepods, and 

12 nematodes. These organisms are, in turn, fed upon by higher trophic-level consumers, such as 

13 arctic cod, seals, and birds. In addition, sea ice provides shelter and resting habitat for marine 

14 mammals and birds. Sea ice also supports the early life stages of fish (especially arctic cod) and 

15 benthic invertebrates by providing temporary habitat (particularly nearshore sea ice) or by 

16 exporting seasonal pulses of organic matter to the seafloor (Gradinger and Bluhm 2005; Bluhm 

17 and Gradinger 2008). In addition, by trapping and transporting nutrients, sea ice can increase the 

18 spatial extent of nutrient availability to phytoplankton. Sea ice is responsible for strong ice-edge 

19 phytoplantkon blooms, which occur as melting sea ice releases organic matter and fresh water, 

20 creating a stratified upper water column high in nutrients (Hopcroft et al. 2008). 

21

22

23 3.7.3.3.2 Climate Change. See Section 3.4.3 for a discussion of climate change and 

24 water resources in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The effects of climate change on pelagic 

25 habitat in the Beaufort/Chukchi shelf are difficult to predict with certainty because of the 

26 complexity of the system. However, current trends suggest climate change will significantly 

27 alter the chemical, physical, and hydrologic properties of pelagic habitat, which will, in turn, 

28 affect biological communities. For example, increased river discharge is expected to alter the 

29 salinity, temperature, and turbidity regimes in nearshore areas (Hopcroft et al. 2008), which 

30 could change the distribution, abundance, and composition of existing phytoplankton and 

31 zooplankton communities (Section 3.8.5.3). Several rivers flow into the Beaufort shelf and this 

32 region may be more heavily affected than the western Chukchi shelf. The effects of increased 

33 river discharge on phytoplankton are difficult to predict because, although rivers deliver nutrients 

34 to coastal regions, the increase in sediment load could also reduce the availability of light. 

35

36 Climate change in the Arctic is affecting the arctic sea ice cover, which has retreated 

37 unusually far from the coastline during the last few decades (Arctic Council 2005). Climate 

38 change is expected to decrease the spatial extent and temporal duration of sea ice as well as make 

39 the ice thinner. Recent studies suggest the amount of ice formed in the winter is not sufficient to 

40 replace the amount of ice lost in the summer; consequently there has been a decrease in the ratio 

41 of thicker, multi-year ice to thinner, first-year sea ice (Kwok et al. 2009). Although thinner ice 

42 and less snow cover may promote the primary productivity beneath sea ice, increased river 

43 discharge (i.e., Mackenzie River) may trap more sediment within ice and reduce the availability 

44 of light (Gradinger and Bluhm 2005). In addition, a reduction in landfast ice will increase the 

45 sloughing of sediments from shoreline during storms, adding to the sediment loads and 

46 changing water chemistry in nearshore areas. In the winter, before the spring phytoplankton 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-143

1 bloom, sea ice algae are the primary food source supporting pelagic biota (Lee et al. 2008). The 

2 loss of sea ice may therefore reduce seasonal food availability to sea ice dependent species. 

3 Overall biological productivity in the open water is expected to increase with increasing 

4 temperature and ice retreat (Arctic Council 2005; Hopcroft et al. 2008). With the increase in 

5 phytoplankton productivity, the biomass of zooplankton may also increase; the result could be a 

6 shift to a pelagic-based rather than a benthic-based food web as the flux of organic matter to the 

7 sediment is reduced due to increased phytoplankton grazing in the water column 

8 (Hopcroft et al. 2008). Similarly, recent data suggests that the strong benthic-pelagic coupling in 

9 the Chukchi Sea could be weakened if the existing temperature increases and reductions in sea10 ice continue (Grebmeier et al. 2006). This could reduce benthic productivity and shift the system

11 from a benthic-dominated food web to a more pelagic-oriented system dominated by pelagic 

12 fishes (Grebmeier et al. 2006).

13

14 Ocean acidification from increasing CO2 inputs into the ocean is also predicted to 

15 continue in arctic waters, which may reduce the availability of calcite and aragonite to calcifying 

16 marine organisms. Surface waters in the Arctic are currently supersaturated with aragonite 

17 (another form of carbonate), but it is predicted that they will be undersaturated by the century‘s 

18 end or earlier (reviewed in Fabry et al. 2009). Aside from affecting pelagic invertebrates, ocean 

19 acidification could also adversely affect calcifying phytoplankton species, such as the 

20 coccolithophores, which are often a dominant primary producer in low-nutrient waters over the 

21 outer continental shelf and slope. However, other research suggests that despite the potential 

22 adverse effects of reduced pH oncoccolithophore plate formation, their productivity could

23 increase due to greater CO2 concentrations which are used in photosynthesis. Clearly more 

24 research is needed as very few species have been tested, and many of these studies are laboratory 

25 based and may not be relevant to the far more complex oceanic environment (see Royal 

26 Society [2005] and Doney et al. [2009] for recent reviews).

27

28

29 3.7.4 Essential Fish Habitat

30

31 The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) manages commercial and recreational 

32 fisheries within Federal waters under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

33 Management Act (FCMA) (16 USC 1801-1883). The 1996 amendments to this Act require 

34 regional fishery management councils (FMCs), with assistance from NMFS, to delineate 

35 essential fish habitat (EFH) in Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) or FMP amendments for all 

36 federally managed fisheries. EFH is defined as the water and substrate necessary for fish 

37 spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth to maturity (50 CFR Part 600). FMPs for fishery 

38 resources are submitted to the NMFS for approval and implementation. The FCMA mandates 

39 that any FMP shall: (1) describe and identify EFH for the fishery, (2) minimize to the extent 

40 practicable adverse effects on such habitat caused by fishing, and (3) identify other actions to 

41 encourage the conservation and enhancement of such habitat. The FCMA also requires Federal 

42 agencies to consult on activities that may adversely affect EFHs designated in the FMPs. Oil and 

43 gas development activities may have direct and indirect effects on an EFH that could be site44 specific or habitat-wide.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-144

1 In addition to designating EFH, the NMFS requires FMCs to identify habitat areas of 

2 particular concern (HAPCs) within FMPs (Figure 3.7.2.1.2-1). These HAPCs are discrete 

3 subsets of EFHs that the Councils may designate based on: (1) the importance of the ecological 

4 function provided by the habitat; (2) the extent to which the habitat is sensitive to human5 induced environmental degradation; (3) whether, and to what extent, development activities are, 

6 or will be, stressing the habitat type; or (4) the rarity of the habitat type (GMFMC 2004). While 

7 the HAPC designation does not confer additional protection for or restrictions on an area, it can 

8 help prioritize conservation efforts.

9

10

11 3.7.4.1 Gulf of Mexico

12

13 Various State and Federal agencies are involved in the management of fish resources in 

14 the GOM. The GOM Fishery Management Council (GMFMC), which typically prepares FMPs 

15 for the GOM, has identified marine and estuarine EFHs within its management area for a variety 

16 of fish and invertebrates. These species are listed in Tables 3.7.4-1 and 3.7.4-2 (NMFS 2010a). 

17 See Section 3.8.4.1 for a general discussion of fish in the GOM, as well as the potential changes 

18 to fish communities resulting from climate change.

19

20 Estuarine and coastal EFH includes the following habitats: submerged aquatic 

21 vegetation, emergent intertidal wetlands (marshes and mangroves), soft-bottom (mud, sand, or 

22 clay), live hard-bottom, oyster reefs, and estuarine water column. See Section 3.7.1.1 for a 

23 description of these coastal habitats. Coral reefs, marine water column, marine sediment, live24 /hard-bottom, the continental slope, chemosynthetic cold seeps, Sargassum, and man-made 

25 structures are representative offshore and marine EFH. See Section 3.7.2.1 and Section 3.7.3.1

26 for descriptions of marine benthic and pelagic habitats in the GOM as well as the potential 

27 changes to these habitats resulting from climate change.

28

29 Within the Central and Western GOM Planning Areas, several individual reefs and banks 

30 located offshore of the Louisiana–Texas border have been designated HAPCs by the GMFMC 

31 (NMFS 2010a; Table 3.7.4-3; Figure 3.7.2-1). The HAPCs in the Eastern Planning Area that 

32 could be affected by oil spills from the Central or Western Planning Areas include the Florida 

33 Middle Grounds, the Madison-Swanson Marine Reserve, Pulley Ridge, and Tortugas North and 

34 South Ecological Reserve. Most of these HAPCs are important with respect to corals and coral 

35 reefs, and provide habitats for reef species such as snappers, groupers, and spiny lobster.

36

37 Effects of DWH Event on EFH and Managed Species. The DWH event has the 

38 potential to affect coastal and offshore EFH and managed species. Oil released as a result of 

39 the DWH event affected more than 1,046 km (650 mi) of the GOM coastal EFH, from the 

40 Mississippi River delta to the Florida panhandle (OSAT-2 2011; National Commission 2011). 

41 More than 209 km (130 mi) of coastal habitat were moderately to heavily oiled, primarily in 

42 Louisiana (National Commission 2011). EFH affected by oiling included beaches, coastal 

43 marshes, mudflats, mangroves, seagrass beds, and submerged aquatic vegetation 

44 (Section 3.7.1.1.5). These habitats also were also affected by prevention and cleanup efforts 

45 (NOAA 2010). Although much of the oil remaining after cleanup is highly weathered, several 

46 constituents have the potential to cause toxicological effects (OSAT-2 2011). Loss of marsh 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-145

1 TABLE 3.7.4-1 Species for Which Essential Fish Habitat Has Been Designated in the GOM

2 Region by the GOM Fisheries Management Council

Reef Fish Fishery Reef Fish Fishery (Cont.)

Snappers – Family Lutjanidae Tilefishes – Family Malacanthidae 

Blackfin snapper (Lutjanus buccanella) Goldface tilefish (Caulolatilus crysops)

Cubera snapper (Lutjanus cyanopterus) Blackline tilefish (Caulolatilus cyanops)

Dog snapper (Lutjanus jocu) Blueline tilefish (Caulolatilus microps)

Gray snapper (Lutjanus griseus) Anchor tilefish (Caulolatilus intermedius)

Lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris) Tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps)

Mahogany snapper (Lutjanus mahogoni)

Mutton snapper (Lutjanus analis) Wrasses – Family Labridae

Schoolmaster (Lutjanus apodus) Hogfish (Lachnolaimus maximus)

Queen snapper (Etelis oculatus)

Red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) Sand Perches – Family Serranidae 

Silk snapper (Lutjanus vivanus) Dwarf sand perch (Diplectrum bivittatum)

Vermillion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens) Sand perch (Diplectrum formosum)

Yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus)

Wenchman (Pristipomoides aquilonaris) Red Drum Fishery 

Red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus)

Groupers – Family Serranidae

Black grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci)

Gag (Mycteroperca microlepis) Coastal Migratory Pelagic Fishes

Misty grouper (Epinephelus mystacinus) Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix)

Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) Cero (Scomberomorus regalis)

Red grouper (Epinephelus morio) Cobia (Rachycentron canadum)

Red hind (Epinephelus guttatus) Dolphin (Coryphaena hippurus)

Rock hind (Epinephelus adscensionis) King mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla)

Scamp (Mycteroperca phenax) Little tunny (Euthynnus alletteratus)

Speckled hind (Epinephelus drummondhayi) Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus)

Snowy grouper (Epinephelus niveatus)

Yellowedge grouper (Epinephelus favolimbatus) Corals

Yellowfin grouper (Mycteroperca enenosa) Class Hydrozoa (stinging and hydrocorals)

Yellowmouth grouper (Mycteroperca interstitialis) Class Anthozoa (sea fans, whips, precious coral,

 sea pen, stony corals)

Jacks – Family Carangidae Invertebrate Fishery

Greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili) Brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus)

Lesser amberjack (Seriola fasciata) Pink shrimp (Penaeus duorarum)

Almaco jack (Seriola rivoliana) Royal red shrimp (Hymenopenaeus robustus)

Banded rudderfish (Seriola zonata) Spiny lobsters (Panulirus spp.)

Slipper lobsters (Scyllarides spp.)

Triggerfishes – Family Balistidae Stone crab (Menippe spp.)

Gray triggerfish (Balistes capriscus) White shrimp (Penaeus setiferus)

Source: NMFS 2010a.

3

4
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-146

1 TABLE 3.7.4-2 Highly Migratory Species Designated in the GOM Region under Federally 

2 Implemented Fishery Management Plans

Coastal Sharks Pelagic Sharks

Atlantic angel shark (Squatina dumerili) Bigeye sixgill shark (Hexanchus vitulus) 

Atlantic sharpnose (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae) Bigeye thresher shark (Alopias superciliosus)

Basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) Blue shark (Prionace glauca) 

Bigeye sand tiger (Odontaspis noronhai) Common thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus)

Blacknose shark (Carcharhinus acronotus) Longfin mako shark (Isurus paucus) 

Bignose shark (Carcharhinus altimus) Porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus) 

Blacktip shark (Carcharhinus limbatus) Sevengill shark (Heptranchias perlo)

Bonnethead (Sphyrna tiburo) Sixgill shark (Heptranchias griseus) 

Bull shark (Carcharhinus leucas) Shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus)

Caribbean sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon porosus) Oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanu)

Caribbean reef shark (Carcharhinus perezi)

Dusky shark (Carcharhinus obscurus) Tuna

Finetooth shark (Carcharhinus isodon) Albacore (Thunnus alalunga) 

Galapagos shark (Carcharhinus galapagensis) Atlantic bigeye (Thunnus obesus)

Great hammerhead (Sphyrna mokarran) Atlantic bluefin (Thunnus thynnus) 

Lemon shark (Negaprion brevirostris) Atlantic yellowfin (Thunnus albacares) 

Narrowtooth shark (Carcharhinus Brachyurus) Skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis)

Night shark (Carcharhinus signatus)

Nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum) Swordfish

Sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus) Swordfish (Xiphias gladius)

Scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini)

Silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) Billfish

Smooth hammerhead (Sphyrna zygaena) Blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) 

Spinner shark (Carcharhinus brevipinna) Sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus) 

Tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvieri) White marlin (Tetrapturus albidus)

White shark (Carcharodon carcharias) Longbill spearfish (Tetrapturus pfluegeri)

Sand tiger shark (Carcharias taurus) 

Whale shark (Rhinocodon typus)

Source: NMFS 2010a.

3

4

5 habitat along its edge as a result of oiling was observed. A full understanding of the effects of 

6 the spill is expected to take a considerable period of time, likely years.

7

8 The DWH event affected offshore marine EFH as well. There is little information on the 

9 effects of the DWH event on offshore seafloor EFH. Some researchers have reported seeing 

10 what appear to be thick deposits of oil or flocculants of oil and organic matter on the seafloor 

11 (BOEMRE 2010b). In heavily oiled areas, the recovery time is unknown, but sediments in 

12 deeper waters may take longer to recover because of colder temperatures. Overall, natural 

13 processes should break down the oil, and it is likely that no permanent changes in seafloor EFH 

14 affected by the DWH event would occur. There is some evidence that the DWH event affected 

15 habitat-forming deepwater corals (http://www.boemre.gov/ooc/press/2010/press1104a.htm; 

16 Section 3.7.2.1.7). It is not known how many deepwater coral communities were affected or 

17 whether the affected corals will recover. The DWH event occurred several hundred kilometers 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-147

1 TABLE 3.7.4-3 The HAPCs Designated within the Central, Western, and 

2 Eastern GOM Planning Areas

Central and Western Planning Areas

East Flower Garden Banks Geyer Bank

West Flower Garden Banks McGrail Bank

Stetson Bank Jakkula Bank

29 Fathom Bank Bouma Bank

MacNeil Bank Sonnier Bank

Rezak Sidner Bank Alderdice Bank

Rankin Bright Bank

Eastern Planning Area

Florida Middle Grounds Madison-Swanson Marine Reserve

Tortugas North and South Ecological Reserves Pulley Ridge

Source: NMFS 2010a.

3

4

5 from hard-bottom topographic features considered HAPC. There were no reports of oil from the 

6 spill reaching the FGBNMS (http://flowergarden.noaa.gov/education/oilspill.html). The 

7 FGBNMS is monitored as part of a regular program, and any changes related to the spill should 

8 be detected.

9

10 The DWH event released oil and methane gas into marine water column EFH, forming 

11 both a surface slick and a subsurface plume containing oil mixed with dispersants 

12 (Section 3.7.3.1.1; Camilli et al. 2010; Kessler et al. 2011; Kujawinski et al. 2011). The methane 

13 plume appeared to be relatively short-lived (Kessler et al. 2011), but dispersant was still 

14 detectable at low, nontoxic levels up to 300 km (186 mi) away from the wellhead 64 days after 

15 the dispersant release ended (Kujawinski et al. 2011).

16

17 There are few studies of the impacts of the DWH event on fish communities in the GOM. 

18 The spill has the potential to cause population level impacts on fish species, particularly species 

19 that have already depressed populations or early life stages that rely heavily on marine and 

20 coastal habitats affected by the spill. The few initial studies suggest that, despite occurring 

21 during the spawning period for many GOM fishes, the DWH event did not have an immediate 

22 negative impact on fish populations (including juvenile age classes, although there remains the 

23 potential for long-term population impacts from sublethal and chronic exposure (Fodrie and 

24 Heck 2011). Landings of shrimp also do not suggest any reduction in shrimp populations 

25 (http://gomos.msstate.edu/gomosshrimplandingimpactGOM.html). However, managed species 

26 such as tuna and billfish that have important spawning habitat in the GOM and are currently in 

27 decline have not been investigated. Several years may be required to fully assess the impacts of 

28 the DWH event on fish populations, given the time lag between the spill and the eventual 

29 recruitment of immature year classes that may have been affected by the spill.

30

31
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-148

1 3.7.4.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

2

3 See Section 3.8.4.2 for a general description of fish communities, their life history, and 

4 their ecological role in the Cook Inlet Planning Area as well as the potential changes to fish 

5 communities resulting from climate change. This section discusses managed species and EFH 

6 within Cook Inlet. Cook Inlet falls within the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Fisheries Management

7 Area of the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC). As required under the 

8 FCMA, EFH is described for federally managed species in each FMP. The FMPs and the EFHs 

9 that occur in waters of Cook Inlet are described below. Regulatory measures to mitigate the 

10 effects of fishing on EFH include permanent and temporary closures for certain times or areas; 

11 restrictions on vessel sizes and trip limits; restrictions or limitations on gear types; restrictions on 

12 the spacing of nets; restrictions on the catch size and number; fishing practices that minimize 

13 bottom contact; limitations on boat sizes and speeds; bycatch limits; and license limitations 

14 (NPFMC 2002). Supporting EFH documents can be found in NMFS (2005) and at 

15 http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/fmp/fmp.htm. Additional information concerning the biology, 

16 ecology, and behavior of fish species of Cook Inlet can be found in Section 3.8.4.2. The NMFS 

17 Alaska Fisheries Science Center also regularly publishes Stock Assessment and Fishery 

18 Evaluation Reports that describe stocks and other germane population information for valued 

19 fish resources (see http://www.afsc.noaa.gov).

20

21 FMPs applicable to Cook Inlet include the GOA Groundfish FMP, the Scallop FMP, and 

22 the Salmon FMP. The GOA Groundfish FMP (NPFMC 2010) applies to the U.S. EEZ waters 

23 south and east of the Aleutian Islands at longitude 170° W and Dixon Entrance at longitude 

24 132°40' W and includes the western, central, and eastern regulatory areas. The Groundfish FMP 

25 covers all stocks of finfish except salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), steelhead (Oncorhynchus 

26 mykiss), Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis), Pacific herring, and tuna (Scombridae). Tuna 

27 are not found in Alaskan waters except during El Nino years. Species groups managed under the 

28 GOA Groundfish FMP are listed in Table 3.7.4-4. EFH has not been designated for all life 

29 stages of managed species. For example, there is insufficient information to specify EFH for 

30 early juvenile stages of all managed species. In addition, no EFH has been designated for any 

31 life stage of the following species: sharks, octopus, and forage fish. For species and life stages 

32 for which EFH has been designated, EFHs includes, taken together, the entire sediment and 

33 water column from lower Cook Inlet to the Gulf of Alaska Shelf (NPFMC 2010). The most 

34 diverse species group, the rockfish, is represented by 30 species (NMFS 2005). These fish use 

35 one or more aquatic habitats during different stages of their life cycles; the habitats include 

36 estuarine; bays; kelp forests; reefs; and nearshore, coastal, continental shelf, oceanic, and 

37 bathypelagic waters and/or substrates. Information on species-specific EFHs can be found in 

38 NPFMC (2010). The Alaska Seamount Habitat Protection Areas and Gulf of Alaska Coral 

39 Protection Areas are designated as HAPCs. No HAPC is designated within Cook Inlet. See 

40 individual sections on water quality, coastal habitat, and marine benthic and pelagic habitats in 

41 the Cook Inlet Planning Area for a description of these habitat types as well as potential changes 

42 to these habitats resulting from climate change.

43

44 The scallop FMP covers all Federal waters off the GOA. The fishery occurs in the GOA 

45 from the panhandle out to the Aleutian Islands and the Bering Sea. Portions of upper and lower 

46 Cook Inlet are closed to scallop fishing to reduce crab bycatch and protect crab habitat from 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-149

1 TABLE 3.7.4-4 Managed Species Designated under the Gulf of Alaska Groundfish Fisheries 

2 Management Plan and Life Stages for which EFH Has Been Designated

Management Group Life Stagea Management Group Life Stage

Walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) E, L, LJ, A Sculpins (various species) LJ, A

Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) E, L, LJ, A Atka mackerel (Pleurogrammus 

monopterygius)

L, A

Sole (Pleuronectidae spp., including dover, 

yellowfin, Alaska paice, rex, and flathead) 

E, L, LJ, A Squid LJ, A

Rock sole (Lepidopsetta polyxystra) L, LJ, A Skates A

Arrowtooth flounder (Atheresthes stomias) L, LJ, A Sharks I

Sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) E, L, LJ, A Octopus I

Pacific Ocean perch (Sebastes alutus) L, LJ, A Forage fish (eulachon, capelin, sand 

lance, myctophids and bathylagids, 

sand fish, euphausiids, and pholids 

and stichaeids).

I

Rockfish (Sebastes spp., including 

shortraker, rougheye, northern, dusky, 

yelloweye, and thornyhead)

Varies by 

species

a E = egg; L = larvae; LJ = late juvenile; A = adults; I = insufficient information.

3

4

5 dredging damage (NPFMC 2004). Closed areas are specified in regulations. Under existing 

6 State regulations, most areas closed to scallop dredging are also closed to bottom trawling. 

7 Scallops are found from intertidal waters to a depth of 300 m (984 ft). Their abundance tends to 

8 be greatest between 45 and 130 m (148 and 426 ft) on beds of mud, clay, sand, and gravel 

9 (Hennick 1973). Traditional knowledge and sampling data indicate that scallop distributions 

10 may contract and expand as the result of a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, 

11 temperature changes, current patterns, changes in population size, and changes in predator and 

12 prey distribution (NMFS 1998). EFH has been defined only for the late juvenile and adult life 

13 stages of weathervane scallops (Patinopecten caurinus; NPFMC 2004). The EFH for 

14 weathervane scallops was identified on the basis of historical information on their range and 

15 includes the lower Cook Inlet (NPFMC 2004). Weathervane scallops occur in discrete beds in 

16 areas 60 to 140 m (197 to 459 ft) deep over predominantly clayey silt and sandy bottoms, but 

17 they are also found in areas with gravelly sand and silty sand. No HAPC has been designated 

18 within Cook Inlet for scallops. 

19

20 Salmon fisheries are managed by the State of Alaska rather than the NPFMC. Even 

21 though the Council and NMFS are removed from routine management of salmon fisheries in the 

22 EEZ, the FMP asserts general NMFS and Council participation in and oversight of salmon 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-150

1 management in the EEZ, and it asserts their express and specific authority in the State in the 

2 southeast commercial troll fishery and the EEZ sport fishery. At present, Council staff is 

3 comprehensively reviewing the Salmon FMP and may repeal or modify the current plan.

4

5 The Salmon FMP applies to the EEZ off the coast of Alaska and the salmon fisheries that 

6 occur there (NMFS 2005). Most fishing occurs in coastal waters or inlets, bays, and rivers where 

7 salmon are migrating, but fishing also occurs in offshore waters. The EFH has also been defined 

8 for the six salmon life stages: eggs and larvae, juveniles in freshwater, juveniles in estuaries, 

9 juveniles before their first winter in the marine environment, immature and maturing adults in 

10 the marine environment, and adults in fresh water. EFH for Pacific salmon includes waters and 

11 substrate necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. The locations of 

12 many bodies of fresh water that are used by salmon (including several within Cook Inlet and 

13 associated tributaries and lakes) are described in documents organized and maintained by the 

14 Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) in the Catalogue of Waters Important for the 

15 Spawning, Rearing, or Migration of Anadromous Fishes (http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/

16 sf/SARR/AWC). Additional information on the biology, ecology, and EFH of Pacific salmon 

17 can be found at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/habitat/efh/review/appx5.pdf.

18

19 Some fisheries that occur in Cook Inlet and the GOA are managed by authorities other 

20 than the NPFMC. Pacific halibut is managed by the International Halibut Comimission, and 

21 there are a variety of State-managed fisheries for groundfishes, shellfish, salmon, and Pacific 

22 herring. The ADF&G regularly publishes stock assessment information on State-managed 

23 fishes.

24

25

26 3.7.4.3 Alaska – Arctic

27

28 See Section 3.8.4.3 for a general description of fish communities, their life histories, and 

29 their ecological role in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas as well as potential 

30 changes in Arctic fish communities resulting from climate change. This section discusses 

31 managed species and EFH within the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. There are two 

32 fishery management plans that apply to the Chukchi and Beaufort Planning Areas: the FMP for 

33 the Arctic Management Area (Arctic FMP; NPFMC 2009) and the FMP for the salmon fisheries 

34 in the EEZ off the coast of Alaska (NPFMC and NMFS 1990). The Arctic FMP applies to all 

35 marine waters in the U.S. EEZ of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas from 5.6 km (3.5 mi) (3 NM) 

36 offshore the coast of Alaska or its baseline to 370 km (230 mi) (200 NM) offshore, north of the 

37 Bering Strait (from Cape Prince of Wales to Cape Dezhneva), westward to the 1990 U.S./Russia 

38 maritime boundary line, and eastward to the U.S./Canada maritime boundary (NPFMC 2009). 

39 Complete FMPs can be found at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/fmp/fmp.htm.

40

41 The Arctic FMP governs all stocks of marine living resources, except for Pacific salmon 

42 and Pacific halibut, which are managed under the salmon FMP and the International Pacific 

43 Halibut Commission, respectively (NPFMC and NMFS 1990). The Arctic Management Area is 

44 closed to commercial fishing until such time in the future that sufficient information is available 

45 with which to initiate a planning process for commercial fishery development (NPFMC 2009). 

46 Although species managed under separate FMPs, such as salmon, groundfish, halibut, crabs, and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-151

1 scallops, are present in arctic waters, their commercial harvest is not permitted in the Beaufort

2 and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas (NPFMC 2009).

3

4 Under the Arctic FMP, EFH has been designated for three species (NPFMC 2009): 

5

6 • Arctic cod (Arctogadus glacialis). Insufficient information is available to 

7 determine EFH for eggs, larvae, and early juveniles. For late juvenile and 

8 adults, EFH includes pelagic and epipelagic arctic waters from 0 to 200 m 

9 (0 to 656 ft) and upper slope waters from 200 to 500 m (656 to 1,640 ft).

10

11 • Saffron cod (Eleginus gracilis). Insufficient information is available to 

12 determine EFH for eggs, larvae, and early juveniles. For late juveniles and 

13 adults, EFH includes coastal pelagic and epipelagic arctic waters from 0 to 

14 50 m (0 to 164 ft) and wherever there are sand and gravel substrates. 

15

16 • Snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio). Insufficient information is available to 

17 determine EFH for larvae and early juvenile life stages. EFH for eggs, late 

18 juveniles, and adult snow crabs consists of bottom habitats along the inner 

19 shelf from 0 to 50 m (0 to 164 ft) and middle shelf from 50 to 100 m (164 to 

20 328 ft) in Arctic waters south of Cape Lisburne, wherever there are substrates 

21 consisting mainly of mud.

22

23 See individual sections on water quality, coastal habitat, and marine benthic and pelagic 

24 habitats in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas for a description these habitat types as well as 

25 potential changes to these habitats resulting from climate change.

26

27 The salmon FMP designates EFH for the juvenile or adult marine life stages of chinook 

28 (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (O. kisutch), pink (O. gorbuscha), sockeye (O. nerka), and 

29 chum (O. keta) salmon as being all marine waters of the Chukchi Sea and Arctic Ocean from the 

30 mean higher tide line to the 370-km (200-NM) limit of the U.S. EEZ (NMFS 2005). There are 

31 no salmon HAPCs designated within the Beaufort Sea or Chukchi Sea Planning Area. No 

32 commercial fishing for salmon is allowed in the U.S. EEZ off Alaska except in designated areas, 

33 none of which are in the Beaufort or Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. Thus no commercial salmon 

34 fishery is present. In addition, all five managed salmon species decrease in abundance north of 

35 the Bering Strait (Craig and Haldorson 1986) and from west to east along the coast of the 

36 Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Pink salmon and chum salmon are most common in arctic waters 

37 (Augerot 2005; Stephenson 2005; Moss et al. 2009; Kondzela et al. 2009). Salmon are most 

38 abundant west of Point Barrow and appear to be rare in the Beaufort Sea and extremely rare in 

39 the eastern Beaufort Sea, although chum salmon are natal to the Mackenzie River and 

40 consistently found there in low numbers (Irvine et al. 2009). Chum and pink salmon may be 

41 natal to other rivers on the North Slope; that possibility has not been confirmed 

42 (Irvine et al. 2009).

43

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-152

1 3.8 MARINE AND COASTAL FAUNA

2

3

4 3.8.1 Mammals

5

6 All marine mammals are protected in U.S. waters under the Marine Mammal Protection 

7 Act of 1972 (MMPA; 16 USC 1631 et seq.). The MMPA organizes marine mammals into 

8 separate stocks for management purposes. By definition, a stock is a group of animals in 

9 common spatial arrangement that interbreed (NMFS 2011a). Some species receive additional 

10 protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 USC 1531 et seq.). In the northern GOM 

11 and the Alaska OCS regions, the NMFS is the Federal agency responsible for conservation and 

12 management of whales, seals, dolphins, and porpoises. While the USFWS manages manatees in 

13 the GOM and in Alaska waters, the USFWS manages sea otters, walruses, and polar bears. The 

14 MMPA also created the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission to provide an oversight role for the 

15 Federal agencies implementing the MMPA. Marine mammals are among the most important 

16 subsistence resources for coastal Alaskan Natives, and a large body of traditional and local 

17 knowledge exists about marine mammals (see Section 3.5.5). In recognition of both these 

18 factors, many marine mammal stocks are co-managed by the Federal Government (USFWS or 

19 NMFS) and Alaskan Native subsistence users under the authority of the MMPA. The take of 

20 other mammals (upland or terrestrial) is primarily regulated by the respective State.

21

22

23 3.8.1.1 Gulf of Mexico 

24

25

26 3.8.1.1.1 Marine Mammals. The U.S. GOM marine mammal community is diverse and 

27 distributed throughout the northern GOM waters (Table 3.8.1-1). Twenty-one species of 

28 cetaceans regularly occur in the GOM (Jefferson et al. 1992; Davis et al. 2000) and are identified 

29 in the NMFS GOM Stock Assessment Reports (Waring et al. 2010) in addition to one species of 

30 Sirenian. The GOM‘s marine mammals are represented by members of the taxonomic order 

31 Cetacea, which is divided into the suborders Mysticeti (i.e., baleen whales) and Odontoceti 

32 (i.e., toothed whales), as well as the order Sirenia, which includes the manatee and dugong. 

33 Most GOM cetacean species have worldwide distributions; however, two exceptions are Atlantic 

34 spotted dolphins (Stenella frontalis) and clymene dolphins (Stenella clymene). Common in the 

35 GOM, these two species are found only in the Atlantic Ocean and its associated waters.

36

37 There are species that have been reported from GOM waters, either by sighting or 

38 stranding, that are not considered further in this document. These species include the blue whale 

39 (Balaenoptera musculus), the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis), and the

40 Sowerby‘s beaked whale (Mesolplodon bidens), all considered extralimital in the GOM; along 

41 with the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangiliae), the fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), 

42 the sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis), and the minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), all 

43 considered rare occasional migrants in the GOM (Würsig et al. 2000; Mullin and Fulling 2004). 

44 Because these species are uncommon in the GOM (and by extension the WPA), they are not 

45 included in the most recent NMFS Stock Assessment Reports for the GOM (Waring et al. 2010).

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-153

1 TABLE 3.8.1-1 Marine Mammals in the GOMa

General Occurrenceb Typical Habitat

Family/Species Statusc

Western 

GOMd

Central 

GOMe

Eastern 

GOMf Coastal Shelf

Slope/

Deep

Order Cetacea

Suborder Mysticeti (Baleen whales)

Family Balaenidae

 North Atlantic right whale 

 (Eubalaena glacialis)

E/D EX EX EX X X

Family Balaenopteridae

 Bryde‘s whale 

 (Balaenoptera edeni)

O O O X X

 Fin whale 

 (Balaenoptera physalus)

E/D EX EX EX X X

 Humpback whale 

 (Megaptera novaeangliae)

E/D EX EX EX X X

 Minke whale 

 (Balaenoptera acutorostrata)

EX EX EX X X

 Sei whale 

 (Balaenoptera edeni) 

E/D EX EX EX X X

 Blue whale 

 (Balaenoptera musculus) 

E/D EX EX EX X X

Suborder Odontoceti 

(Toothed whales and dolphins)

Delphinidae

 Atlantic spotted dolphin 

 (Stenella frontalis)

C C C X X

 Bottlenose dolphin 

 (Tursiops truncatus)

C C C X X X

 Clymene‘s dolphin 

 (Stenella clymene)

C C C X

 False killer whale 

 (Pseudorca crassidens)

O O O X

 Fraser‘s dolphin 

 (Lagenodelphis hosei)

O O O X

 Killer whale

 (Orcinus orca)

O O O – X

 Melon-headed whale

 (Peponocephala electra)

UC UC O X

 Pantropical spotted dolphin 

 (Stenella attenuata)

C C C X
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-154

TABLE 3.8.1-1 (Cont.)

General Occurrenceb Typical Habitat

Family/Species Statusc

Western 

GOMd

Central 

GOMe

Eastern 

GOMf Coastal Shelf

Slope/

Deep

Delphinidae (Cont.)

 Pygmy killer whale 

 (Feresa attentuata)

O O O X

 Risso‘s dolphin 

 (Grampus griseus)

UC UC UC X

 Rough-toothed dolphin 

 (Steno bredanensis)

UC UC UC X

 Short-finned pilot whale

 (Globicephala macrorhynchus)

UC UC O X

 Spinner dolphin

 (Stenella longirostris)

O O O X

 Striped dolphin 

 (Stenella coeruleoalba)

UC UC UC X

Kogiidae

 Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima) O O O X

 Pygmy sperm whale 

 (Kogia breviceps)

O O O X

Physeteridae

 Sperm whale 

 (Physeter macrocephalus)

E/D C C C X

Ziphidae

 Blainville‘s beaked whale 

(Mesoplodon densirostris)

O O O – X

 Cuvier‘s beaked whale

 (Ziphius cavirostris)

O O O X

 Gervais‘ beaked whale 

 (Mesoplodon europaeus)

O O O – X

 Sowerby‘s beaked whale 

 (Mesoplodon bidens)

EX EX EX – X

Sirenidae

 West Indian manatee, Florida 

subspecies (Trichechus manatus 

latrostris)

E O O UC X –

Footnotes on next page.

1
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-155

TABLE 3.8.1-1 (Cont.)

a C = Common — regularly observed throughout the year; EX = Extralimital — known only on the basis of a 

few records that probably resulted from unusual wanderings of animals into the region; O = Occasional —

relatively few observations throughout the year, but some species may be more frequently observed in some 

locations or during certain times (e.g., during migration); and UC = Uncommon — infrequently observed 

throughout the year, but some species may be more common in some locations or during certain times of the 

year (e.g., during migration or when on summer calving grounds or wintering grounds). – = Absent — not 

recorded from the area; X = Present.

b The indicated occurrence does not reflect the distribution and occurrence of individual stocks of marine 

mammals within localized geographic areas, but rather the broad distribution of the species within the larger 

categories of OCS waters.

c E = Endangered under the Endangered Species Act; D = Depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

d Western GOM includes OCS waters from the Texas-Mexico border to the Texas-Louisiana border.

e Central GOM includes OCS waters from the Texas-Louisiana border to the Alabama-Florida border.

f Eastern GOM includes OCS waters of the west coast of Florida.

Source: Waring et al. (2010).

1

2

3 Threatened or Endangered Marine Mammals. Five baleen whales including the 

4 North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis), blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), fin whale 

5 (Balaenoptera physalus), sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis), and humpback whale (Megaptera 

6 novaeangliae); one toothed whale, the sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus); and one sirenian, 

7 the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) occur in the northern GOM; and are all listed as 

8 federally endangered under the ESA. The sperm whale is common in oceanic waters of the 

9 northern GOM and may be a resident species, while the baleen whales are rare or extralimital in 

10 the northern GOM (Würsig et al. 2000). The West Indian manatee typically inhabits only coastal 

11 marine, brackish, and freshwater areas.

12

13 Cetaceans: Mysticetes. The occurrences of the North Atlantic right whale in the 

14 northern GOM represent distributional anomalies, normal wanderings of occasional animals, or a 

15 more extensive historic range beyond the sole known calving and wintering ground in the waters 

16 of the southeastern United States (Waring et al. 2010), and are therefore considered extralimital. 

17 The North Atlantic right whale inhabits primarily temperate and subpolar waters 

18 (Jefferson et al. 2006). It ranges from wintering and calving grounds in coastal waters of the 

19 southeastern United States to summer feeding, nursery, and mating grounds in New England 

20 waters and northward to the Bay of Fundy, the Scotian Shelf, and the Gulf of St. Lawrence 

21 (Waring et al. 2010). In the North Atlantic, it primarily inhabits the area between 20° and 60°N 

22 (NMFS 2011a). The North Atlantic right whale forages on or near the surface on copepods and 

23 other zooplankton (e.g., krill) (Jefferson et al. 2006). Six major congregation areas identified for 

24 the western North Atlantic right whale are the coastal waters of the southeastern United States, 

25 Great South Channel, Georges Bank/Gulf of Maine, Cape Cod and Massachusetts Bays, Bay of 

26 Fundy, and Scotian Shelf (Waring et al. 2010). The minimum stock size in western North 

27 Atlantic, estimated in 2005, is 361 individuals (Waring et al. 2010). The few confirmed records
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-156

1 of the North Atlantic right whale in the northern GOM have been in the Northern GOM Slope 

and the GOM Basin Level II Ecoregions (see Figure 3.2.2-1). 2 9

3

4 The blue whale is the largest marine mammal. Blue whales are extralimital in the 

5 northern GOM (Würsig et al. 2000) with the only records consisting of two strandings, one each 

6 on the Louisiana and Texas coasts, with the identifications for both strandings being questionable 

7 (Davis and Schmidly 1997). It occurs in all major oceans of the world (Jefferson et al. 2006; 

8 Waring et al. 2010). Those that migrate move to feeding grounds in polar waters during spring 

9 and summer, after wintering in subtropical and tropical waters (Yochem and Leatherwood 1985). 

10 Most blue whale sightings in the North Atlantic are from the Gulf of St. Lawrence, where they 

11 may be present throughout most of the year (NMFS 2011a). Blue whales tend to occur in the 

12 open ocean; however, in some areas they come close to shore to feed and possibly breed 

13 (Jefferson et al. 2006). Blue whales tend to occur alone or in pairs, but aggregations of 12 or 

14 more may develop in prime feeding grounds (Jefferson et al. 2006). They feed almost 

15 exclusively on krill (euphausids) (Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006; NMFS 2011a). The

16 minimum blue whale population estimate for the western North Atlantic, based on counts made 

17 in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, is 440 (Waring et al. 2010).

18

19 The fin whale is an oceanic species that occurs worldwide. There are few reliable reports 

20 of fin whales in the northern GOM, indicating that fin whales are not abundant there (Jefferson 

21 and Schiro 1997) and they are therefore considered extralimital. Most fin whale sightings occur

22 where deep water approaches the coast (Jefferson et al. 2006), and it mostly occurs in temperate

23 to polar waters and less commonly in tropical waters (NMFS 2011a). Fin whales tend to be 

24 more common north of 30°N (NMFS 2010b). In the North Atlantic, fin whales occur in groups 

25 of two to seven (NMFS 2011a). The fin whale makes seasonal migrations between tropical and 

26 subtropical waters (where it mates and calves in winter) and the north-temperate polar feeding 

27 grounds that it occupies during the summer months (Jefferson et al. 2006). New England waters 

28 are a major feeding ground for fin whales (Waring et al. 2010), where they feed on 

29 concentrations of zooplankton (e.g., krill), fishes, and cephalopods (Pauly et al. 1995; 

30 Jefferson et al. 2006). The best estimate for the western North Atlantic fin whale stock is 3,985

31 with a minimum estimate of 3,269 (Waring et al. 2010).

32

33 The sei whale is rare in the northern GOM (Würsig et al. 2000), based on records of a 

34 single stranding in the Florida Panhandle and three strandings in eastern Louisiana (Jefferson and 

35 Schiro 1997) and they are therefore considered extalimital. It is an oceanic species that occurs in 

36 tropical to polar waters, being more common in the mid-latitude temperate zones. It seldom 

37 occurs close to shore (Jefferson et al. 2006). Groups of two to five individuals are commonly 

38 observed, but loose aggregations of 30 to 50 occasionally occur (Jefferson et al. 2006; 

39 NMFS 2011a). The sei whale feeds on concentrations of zooplankton (e.g., krill and copepods), 

40 fishes, and cephalopods (Pauly et al. 1995). The best estimate for the Nova Scotia sei whale 

41 stock is 386 with a minimum estimate of 208 (Waring et al. 2010).

42

43 Humpback whales are rare in the northern GOM (Würsig et al. 2000), based on a few 

44 confirmed sightings and one stranding event, and are therefore considered extralimital. The 

 

9 Descriptions of the marine ecoregions in the northern GOM are provided in Section 3.2.3.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-157

1 humpback whale occurs in all oceans, feeding in higher latitudes during spring, summer, and 

2 autumn, and migrating to a winter range over shallow tropical and subtropical banks, where they 

3 calve and presumably breed (Jefferson et al. 2006). They normally occur in coastal and shelf 

4 waters but frequently travel across deep water during migration (Clapham and Mead 1999). 

5 Humpback whales usually occur alone or in groups of two or three, although larger aggregations 

6 occur in breeding and feeding areas (Jefferson et al. 2006). Humpback whales feed on 

7 concentrations of zooplankton (e.g., krill) and fishes (Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006). 

8 The best estimate of the Gulf of Maine humpback whale stock is 11,570 individuals 

9 (NMFS 2011a).

10

11 Cetaceans: Odontocetes. The sperm whale occurs worldwide in deep waters from the 

12 tropics to the pack-ice edges, although generally only large males venture to the extreme 

13 northern and southern portions of the species‘ range (Jefferson et al. 2006). It is the only great 

14 whale considered common in the northern GOM (Mullin et al. 1991; Davis and Fargion 1996; 

15 Jefferson and Schiro 1997). Consistent sightings and satellite tracking results indicate that sperm 

16 whales occupy the northern GOM throughout the year (Mullin et al. 1991; Davis and 

17 Fargion 1996; Jefferson and Schiro 1997; Davis et al. 2000; Jochens et al. 2008), where it is 

18 widely distributed in the Northern GOM Slope, Mississippi Fan, and GOM Basin Level II 

19 Ecoregions (see Figure 3.2.2-1) (Read et al. 2011; Waring et al. 2010; Wilkinson et al. 2009). 

20 Sperm whales tend to inhabit areas with water depths of 600 m (1,970 ft) or more and are 

21 uncommon at depths shallower than 300 m (984 ft) (NMFS 2011a). However, they do come 

22 close to shore where submarine canyons or other geophysical features bring deep water near the 

23 coast (Jefferson et al. 2006). Aggregations of sperm whales commonly occur in waters over the 

24 shelf edge in the vicinity of the Mississippi River Delta in waters that are 500 to 2,000 m 

25 (1,641 to 6,562 ft) in depth (Mullin et al. 1991; Davis and Fargion 1996; Davis et al. 2000). 

26 Sperm whales often concentrate along the continental slope in or near cyclones and zones of 

27 confluence between cyclones and anticyclones (Davis et al. 2000). They commonly occur in 

28 medium to large groups of up to fifty individuals (Jefferson et al. 2006). Dive depths observed 

29 in the GOM range from 544 to 644 m (1,784 to 2,113 ft) and average 45.5 minutes in length 

30 (Watwood et al. 2006). Sperm whales prey on cephalopods, fishes, and benthic invertebrates 

31 (Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006). For management purposes, sperm whales in the GOM

32 are considered a separate stock from those in the Atlantic Ocean (Jochens et al. 2008). The best 

33 estimate of the abundance of sperm whales in the northern GOM is 1,665 individuals with a 

34 minimum population estimate of 1,409 (Waring et al. 2010).

35

36 Sirenians. The West Indian manatee occurs in tropical and subtropical coastal marine, 

37 brackish, and fresh waters of the southeastern United States, GOM, Caribbean Sea, and Atlantic 

38 coast of northeastern South America (Jefferson et al. 2006). There are two subspecies of the 

39 West Indian manatee: the Florida manatee (T. m. latirostris), which ranges from the northern 

40 GOM to Virginia, and the Antillean manatee (T. m. manatus), which ranges from northern 

41 Mexico to eastern Brazil, including the islands of the Caribbean Sea (Jefferson et al. 2006). The 

42 Florida manatee inhabits marine, estuarine, and freshwater habitats (coastal tidal rivers and 

43 streams, mangrove swamps, salt marshes, freshwater springs, and vegetated bottoms). In the 

44 northern GOM, most Florida manatee sightings are from the Western Florida Estuarine Area

45 and Eastern Gulf Neritic Level III Ecoregions (see Figure 3.2.2-1) (Read et al. 2011; 

46 Waring et al. 2010; Wilkinson et al. 2009). The Florida manatee makes use of specific areas for 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-158

1 foraging (especially shallow grass beds with ready access to deep water), drinking (springs and 

2 freshwater runoff sites), resting (secluded canals, creeks, embayments, and lagoons), and for 

3 travel corridors (open waterways and channels) (USFWS 2007a). While Florida manatees can

4 occur at depths greater than 4 m (12 ft), most occur in relatively shallow water 

5 (Haubold et al. 2006). The West Indian manatee mostly occurs alone or in groups of up to six 

6 individuals. However, larger groups may occur, especially in winter at sources of warm water 

7 (e.g., power plant outfalls) (Jefferson et al. 2006). The Florida manatee feeds on submerged, 

8 floating, and emergent vegetation, and requires freshwater for drinking (USFWS 2009a). In 

9 some cases (e.g., at docks), they actively consume invertebrates (Courbis and Worthy 2003).

10

11 The Florida manatee is intolerant of cold waters, seeking warm-water sites when 

12 temperatures drop below 20°C (68°F). It is unable to tolerate prolonged exposures to 

13 temperatures colder than 16°C (61°F) (Haubold et al. 2006). To avoid cold water, the Florida 

14 manatee seeks refuge in natural warmwater sites (e.g., springs, deep water areas, and areas 

15 thermally influenced by the Gulf Stream) and industrial plant thermal discharges (Laist and 

16 Reynolds 2005). Nearly two thirds of Florida manatees winter in industrial plant discharges, 

17 most of which are power plants (USFWS 2007a). In winter, the GOM subpopulations move 

18 southward to warmer waters. The winter range is restricted to waters at the southern tip of 

19 Florida and to waters near localized warm-water sources, such as power plant outfalls and 

20 natural springs in west-central Florida. Crystal River in Citrus County is typically the northern 

21 limit of the manatee‘s winter range on the GOM coast. In the spring, they leave warm-water 

22 sites and often travel large distances along the GOM and Atlantic coastlines. During warmer 

23 months, manatees are common along the GOM coast of Florida from Everglades National Park 

24 northward to the Suwannee River in northwestern Florida and less common farther westward, 

25 infrequently occurring as far west as Texas (Powell and Rathbun 1984; Rathbun et al. 1990; 

26 Davis and Schmidly 1997).

27

28 Florida manatees have been divided into four distinct regional management units: the 

29 Atlantic Coast Unit that occupies the east coast of Florida, including the Florida Keys and the 

30 lower St. Johns River north of Palatka, Florida; the Southwest Unit that occurs from Pasco 

31 County, Florida, south to Whitewater Bay in Monroe County, Florida; the Upper St. Johns River 

32 Unit that occurs in the river south of Palatka, Florida; and the Northwest Unit that occupies the 

33 Florida Panhandle south to Hernando County, Florida (USFWS 2009). Manatees from the 

34 Northwest Unit are more likely to be seen in the northern GOM, and can be found as far west as 

35 Texas; however, most sightings are in the eastern GOM. Based on a survey of warm water 

36 refuges made in 2009, the best available count of the Florida manatee is 3,802 individuals 

37 (Waring et al. 2010). This includes manatees that occur within the GOM and along the Atlantic 

38 coast.

39

40 Non-ESA-Listed Marine Mammals. Twenty-two species of cetaceans, not listed under 

41 the ESA, occur in the GOM. The mysticetes (baleen whales) account for two of these species

42 while the other 20 species are odontocetes (toothed whales and dolphins).

43

44 Cetaceans: Mysticetes. The Bryde‘s whale (Balaenoptera edeni) occurs in tropical and 

45 subtropical waters throughout the world, both offshore and near the coast (Jefferson et al. 2006). 

46 Individuals tend to occur alone or in pairs, but may aggregate in groups of 10 to 20 on feeding 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-159

1 grounds. The Bryde‘s whale feeds on fishes, shrimp, pelagic red crabs, and large zooplankton 

2 such as krill and copepods (Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006; NMFS 2011a). Dives last 5 

3 to 15 minutes and can reach a depth of 300 m (1,000 ft) (NMFS 2011a). In the northern GOM, 

4 most sightings of Bryde‘s whales have been made in the DeSoto Canyon region and off western 

5 Florida, although some sightings have been made in the west-central portion of the northeastern 

6 GOM (i.e., in the Northern GOM Slope Level II Ecoregion south of the Florida Panhandle; see 

7 Figure 3.2.2-1) (Waring et al. 2010; Read et al. 2011; Wilkinson et al. 2009). The best estimate 

8 of Bryde‘s whale abundance for the northern GOM is 15 individuals with the minimum 

9 population estimate of 5 individuals (Waring et al. 2010).

10

11 The minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) occurs worldwide. It prefers temperate to 

12 boreal waters, but also occurs in subtropical to tropical waters (NMFS 2011a). Most records 

13 from the GOM have come from the Florida Keys, although strandings in western and northern 

14 Florida, Louisiana, and Texas have been reported (Jefferson and Schiro 1997) and they are 

15 therefore considered extralimital. The minke whale occurs more often in coastal and inshore 

16 areas compared to offshore areas (Jefferson et al. 2006). Similar to other baleen whales, minke 

17 whales generally occupy the continental shelf rather than the continental shelf edges 

18 (Waring et al. 2010). It usually occurs alone or in groups of only two to three whales, although 

19 loose aggregations of up to 400 can occur in feeding areas in higher latitudes (NMFS 2011a). 

20 The minke whale preys on a variety of large zooplankton (e.g., krill and copepods) and small 

21 schooling fishes (Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006). Minke whales are rare in the GOM

22 with the only confirmed records coming from stranding information (Würsig et al. 2000), and are 

23 therefore considered extralimital. The best estimate for the Canadian East Coast population, 

24 which includes the minke whales that occur off the eastern coast of the United States to the 

25 GOM, is 8,987 individuals. The minimum population estimate is 6,909 (Waring et al. 2010).

26

27 Cetaceans: Odontocetes (Family Kogiidae). The pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps) 

28 has a worldwide distribution in deep waters from temperate to tropical waters. It is especially 

29 common over and near the continental slope (Jefferson et al. 2006). The pygmy sperm whale 

30 usually occurs alone or in groups up to seven individuals (NMFS 2011a). In some areas, 

31 including the GOM, it is among the most frequently stranded small whale species 

32 (Jefferson et al. 2006; Waring et al. 2010). Pygmy sperm whales can dive at least 300 m 

33 (1,000 ft) (NMFS 2011a). They feed mainly on squid, but will also eat crab, shrimp, and fishes 

34 (Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006). In the GOM, they occur primarily along the continental 

35 shelf edge and in deeper waters off the continental shelf (Mullin et al. 1991). 

36

37 The dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima) has a worldwide distribution in temperate to 

38 tropical waters, mostly over the continental shelf and slope (Jefferson et al. 2006; Culik 2010).

39 In the northern GOM, most sightings occur in oceanic waters (Waring et al. 2010). The dwarf 

40 sperm whale mostly occurs in groups of less than five individuals, although groups of up to 10 

41 do occur (Jefferson et al. 2006). It is capable of diving to a depth of at least 300 m (1,000 ft) 

42 (NMFS 2011a). The dwarf sperm whale feeds on squid, fishes, and crustaceans 

43 (Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006). 

44

45 At sea, it is difficult to differentiate the pygmy sperm whale from the dwarf sperm whale.

46 Most sightings of these two species have been in the Northern GOM Slope and GOM Basin 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-160

1 Level II Ecoregions (see Figure 3.2.2-1) (Read et al. 2011; Waring et al. 2010; 

2 Wilkinson et al. 2009). The best estimate of abundance for dwarf and pygmy sperm whales 

3 combined in the northern GOM is 453 individuals with a minimum population estimate of 

4 340 (Waring et al. 2010). 

5

6 Cetaceans: Odontocetes (Family Ziphiidae). Due to the difficulty of at-sea 

7 identification of beaked whales, most observations in the GOM are identified as Cuvier‘s beaked 

8 whales (Ziphius cavirorostris), Mesoplodon spp, or unidentified Ziphiidae (Waring et al. 2010). 

9 In the northern GOM, beaked whales are broadly distributed in waters greater than 1,000 m 

10 (3,280 ft) in depth over lower slope and abyssal landscapes (Davis et al. 1998, 2000) in the 

11 Northern GOM Slope, Mississippi Fan, and GOM Level II Ecoregions (see Figure 3.2.2-1) 

12 (Read et al. 2011; Waring et al. 2010; Wilkinson et al. 2009).

13

14 The Blainville‘s beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris) occurs in warm-temperate to

15 tropical waters worldwide, mostly in offshore deep waters (Jefferson et al. 2006). It is often 

16 associated with steep underwater geologic structures such as banks, submarine canyons, 

17 seamounts, and continental slopes (NMFS 2011a). The Blainville‘s beaked whale most 

18 commonly occurs singly or in pairs, but groups of up to 7 to 12 individuals are reported 

19 (Jefferson et al. 2006; NMFS 2011a). Commonly, dives occur to depths of 500 to 1,000 m 

20 (1,600 to 3,300 ft) and last 20 to 45 minutes (NMFS 2011a). Blainville‘s beaked whales feed on 

21 squid and some fishes (Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006). There have been four 

22 documented strandings and two sightings of the Blainville‘s beaked whale in the northern GOM

23 (Waring et al. 2010).

24

25 The Gervais‘ beaked whale (Mesoplodon europaeus) is widely, but sparsely, distributed 

26 in temperate to tropical oceanic waters worldwide (Waring et al. 2010). It usually occurs alone 

27 or in small social groups (NMFS 2011a). The species feeds on squid, mysid shrimp, and fish 

28 (Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006; NMFS 2011a). Stranding records suggest that the 

29 Gervais‘ beaked whale is probably one of the most common Mesoplodon species in the northern 

30 GOM (Jefferson and Schiro 1997).

31

32 The best abundance estimate for the Gervais‘ and Blainville‘s beaked whales combined 

33 in the northern GOM is 57 individuals with a minimum population estimate of 24 

34 (Waring et al. 2010).

35

36 The Cuvier‘s beaked whale (Ziphius cavirorostris) occurs worldwide in offshore deep 

37 waters, except for polar waters (Jefferson et al. 2006; Waring et al. 2010). It prefers waters of 

38 the continental slope and edge and steep underwater geologic features such as banks, seamounts, 

39 and submarine canyons where depths are greater than 1,000 m (3,000 ft) (NMFS 2011a). The 

40 Cuvier‘s beaked whale mostly occurs alone or in small groups up to 12 individuals, although 

41 groups up to 25 whales have been reported (NMFS 2011a). It can dive to depths of at least 

42 1,000 m (3,000 ft) that last 20 to 40 minutes (NMFS 2011a). Its diet consists of squid, fishes, 

43 and crustaceans (Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006). The Cuvier‘s beaked whale is 

44 probably one of the most common beaked whale species in the northern GOM (Jefferson and 

45 Schiro 1997; Davis et al. 1998, 2000). The best estimate of abundance for Cuvier‘s beaked 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-161

1 whale in the northern GOM is 65 individuals with a minimum population estimate of 39 

2 (Waring et al. 2010).

3

4 The Sowerby‘s beaked whale (Mesoplodon bidens) generally occurs in cold temperate to 

5 subarctic waters of the North Atlantic. It usually occurs alone or in small groups of 3 to 

6 10 individuals. Dives, lasting 10 to 15 minutes, can reach depths of 1,500 m (4,920 ft) (NMFS 

7 2011a). It feeds on squid and small fishes (Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006). There are no 

8 abundance estimates for the Sowerby‘s beaked whale in the GOM. The Sowerby‘s beaked 

9 whale does not regularly inhabit the GOM (MacLeod et al. 2006). The one stranding report from 

10 the GOM represents an extralimital occurrence (Jefferson and Schiro 1997; Waring et al. 2010).

11

12 Cetaceans: Odontocetes (Family Delphinidae). The Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella 

13 frontalis) is endemic to the Atlantic Ocean in tropical to temperate waters from about 50°N to 

14 25°S (Culik 2010). It mostly occurs in coastal or continental shelf waters that are 20 to 250 m 

15 (65 to 820 ft) deep, but also inhabits continental slope waters up to 2,000 m (6,562 ft) deep 

16 (Culik 2010; Jefferson et al. 2006; NMFS 2011a). The Atlantic spotted dolphin may seasonally 

17 enter shallow water in pursuit of migratory prey (Perrin 2002). In the northern GOM, the 

18 Atlantic spotted dolphin is usually observed from the continental shelf waters 10 to 200 m 

19 (33 to 656 ft) deep to slope waters less than 500 m (<1,640 ft) deep throughout the Northern 

20 GOM Shelf and the more shoreward portions of the Northern GOM Slope Level II Ecoregions 

21 (see Figure 3.2.2-1) (Read et al. 2011; Waring et al. 2010; Wilkinson et al. 2009). The Atlantic 

22 spotted dolphin generally occurs in groups smaller than 50 individuals, with coastal groups 

23 usually consisting of 5 to 15 individuals (Jefferson et al. 2006); however, groups as large as 

24 200 do occur (NMFS 2011a). They sometimes associate with other cetaceans such as bottlenose 

25 dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) (NMFS 2011a). Atlantic spotted dolphins usually dive about 10 m 

26 (30 ft) but can reach depths up to 60 m (200 ft) (NMFS 2011a). They feed on fishes and 

27 cephalopods (Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006). Current population size for the Atlantic 

28 spotted dolphin in the northern GOM is unknown because survey data is more than 8 yr old. 

29 Estimated abundance, based on outer continental shelf observations made from fall 2000 and 

30 2001 surveys, is 37,611 individuals (Waring et al. 2010).

31

32 The bottlenose dolphin inhabits tropical and temperate waters worldwide primarily 

33 between 45°N to 45°S (NMFS 2011a). For management purposes, in the northern GOM, 

34 bottlenose dolphins are divided into six stock groups: (1) western coastal stock (Mississippi 

35 River Delta to the Texas-Mexico border); (2) northern coastal stock (Mississippi River Delta to 

36 84°W); (3) eastern coastal stock (84°W to Key West); (4) continental shelf stock; (5) oceanic 

37 stock; and (6) 32 bay, sound, and estuarine stocks (Waring et al. 2010). The seaward boundary 

38 for the three bottlenose dolphin coastal stocks is the 20-m (66-ft) isobath, which ranges 4 to 

39 90 km (2.5 to 56 mi) from shore (Waring et al. 2010). The northern GOM continental shelf

40 stock occurs in waters from 20 to 200 m (66 to 656 ft) deep, while the oceanic stock inhabits 

41 waters greater than 200 m (656 ft) deep (Waring et al. 2010). The continental shelf stock; 

42 coastal stocks; and bay, sound, and estuarine stocks occur throughout the Northern GOM Shelf 

43 Level II Ecoregion, while the oceanic stock occurs primarily within the Northern GOM Slope 

44 Level II Ecoregion (see Figure 3.2.2-1) (Read et al. 2011; Waring et al. 2010; 

45 Wilkinson et al. 2009).

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-162

1 Bottlenose dolphins usually occur in groups of less than 20 individuals, but offshore 

2 herds of several hundred individuals occur. It commonly associates with other cetaceans 

3 (Jefferson et al. 2006). Bottlenose dolphins are opportunistic feeders, taking a wide variety of 

4 fishes, cephalopods, and shrimp (Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006). Coastal bottlenose 

5 dolphins consume benthic invertebrates and fish, while offshore individuals feed on pelagic fish 

6 and squid (NMFS 2011a).

7

8 The population sizes for the continental shelf stock; the western coastal stock; and most 

9 of the bay, sound, and estuarine stocks have been not been estimated in over 8 yr. Therefore, 

10 their current population estimates are unknown (Waring et al. 2010). The best current estimate 

11 of abundance for the eastern coastal stock is 7,702 with a minimum population estimate of 

12 6,551 bottlenose dolphins, while the best current estimate of abundance for the northern coastal 

13 stock is 2,437 with a minimum population estimate of 2,004. The best current estimate of

14 abundance for the oceanic stock is 3,708 individuals with a minimum population estimate of

15 2,641 dolphins (Waring et al. 2010).

16

17 The Clymene dolphin (Stenella clymene) is endemic to tropical and sub-tropical waters of 

18 the Atlantic Ocean including the Caribbean Sea and GOM. It is a deepwater oceanic species not 

19 often observed near shore (Jefferson et al. 2006), generally occurring in waters 250 to 5,000 m 

20 (820 to 16,400 ft) deep (NMFS 2011a). There is an atypical report of a Clymene dolphin off 

21 southern Texas waters with a bottom depth of 44 m (144 ft) (Fertl et al. 2003). In the northern 

22 GOM, most Clymene dolphin sightings are in the Northern GOM Slope, Mississippi Fan, and 

23 GOM Basin Level II Ecoregions (see Figure 3.2.2-1) (Read et al. 2011; Waring et al. 2010; 

24 Wilkinson et al. 2009). Herds, often segregated by age and sex, are normally less than 

25 200 individuals and are often less than 50 individuals. Clymene dolphins occur with other 

26 dolphin species (Jefferson et al. 2006; Jefferson and Curry 2003). They occur in the GOM

27 throughout the year (Jefferson et al. 1995; Jefferson and Curry 2003). The Clymene dolphin is 

28 an active bowrider and will approach ships from many miles away (Jefferson and Curry 2003). 

29 It feeds on fishes and cephalopods (Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006). The best estimate 

30 for the abundance of the Clymene dolphin in the northern GOM is 6,575 individuals with a 

31 minimum population estimate of 4,901 (Waring et al. 2010).

32

33 The false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) occurs worldwide in tropical and temperate 

34 oceanic waters (generally between 50°N and 50°S) that are deeper than 1,000 m (3,300 ft) 

35 (Culik 2010; Jefferson et al. 2006; NMFS 2011a). However, inshore movements occasionally 

36 occur that are associated with either food resources or shoreward flooding of warm oceanic

37 currents (Stacey et al. 1994). In the GOM, most sightings occur in the Northern GOM Slope, 

38 Mississippi Fan, and GOM Basin Level II Ecoregions (see Figure 3.2.2-1) (Read et al. 2011; 

39 Waring et al. 2010; Wilkinson et al. 2009). The false killer whale normally occurs in groups 

40 of 10 to 60, but groups of up to 300 or more do occur (Culik 2010). The false killer whale is 

41 one of the most common cetacean species involved in mass strandings; one observed mass 

42 stranding near Mar del Plata, Argentina, included 835 individuals (Baird 2009). It associates

43 with at least 10 other species of cetaceans, especially the bottlenose dolphin (Stacey et al. 1994). 

44 False killer whales primarily eat fish and cephalopods, but they will attack small cetaceans 

45 (Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006). To increase their potential to find prey, a group may 

46 travel in a broad band several kilometers wide (NMFS 2011a). The best estimate for the
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-163

1 abundance of the false killer whale in the northern GOM is 777 individuals with a minimum 

2 population estimate of 501 (Waring et al. 2010).

3

4 The Fraser‘s dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei) has a worldwide distribution in tropical to 

5 warm temperate waters between 30°N and 30°S (NMFS 2011a). It normally occurs in oceanic 

6 waters deeper than 1,000 m (3,300 ft) but will occur near shore where deep water approaches 

7 the coast (Jefferson et al. 2006; NMFS 2011a). Fraser‘s dolphins are often associated with 

8 areas of upwelling (NMFS 2011a). In the GOM, they occur in deeper waters off the continental 

9 shelf (Waring et al. 2010), mostly in the Northern GOM Slope and at the boundary between 

10 the Northern GOM Slope and the GOM Basin Level II Ecoregions (see Figure 3.2.2-1) 

11 (Read et al. 2011; Waring et al. 2010; Wilkinson et al. 2009). Some Fraser‘s dolphins inhabit 

12 the northern GOM throughout the year (Waring et al. 2010). The Fraser‘s dolphin usually 

13 occurs in herds of 10 to 100 individuals, but occasionally occurs in herds consisting of hundreds 

14 to thousands of individuals (Jefferson et al. 2006; NMFS 2011a). It often occurs with other 

15 cetaceans, particularly the melon-headed whale (Peponocephala electra) (Jefferson et al. 2006). 

16 Fraser‘s dolphins can dive to nearly 600 m (2,000 ft) (NMFS 2011a), where they feed on fishes, 

17 cephalopods, and crustaceans (Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006). Based on observations

18 made from 1996 to 2001, 726 Fraser‘s dolphins occurred in the northern GOM.

19

20 The killer whale (Orcinus orca) has a worldwide distribution from tropical to polar 

21 waters. They are more common in nearshore cold temperate to subpolar waters 

22 (Jefferson et al. 2006). In the GOM, killer whales occur primarily in the deeper oceanic waters 

23 off the continental shelf at depths ranging from 256 to 2,652 m (840 to 8,700 ft) (Davis and 

24 Fargion 1996; Waring et al. 2010). Sightings in the northern GOM occur from the Northern 

25 GOM, Mississippi Fan, and GOM Basin Level II Ecoregions (see Figure 3.2.2-1) 

26 (Read et al. 2011; Waring et al. 2010; Wilkinson et al. 2009). Killer whale pods contain 1 to 

27 55 individuals with resident pods tending to be larger than transient pods (Jefferson et al. 2006). 

28 Killer whales are top-level predators that feed on marine mammals, marine birds, sea turtles, 

29 fishes, and cephalopods (Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006). The best estimate of the

30 abundance of killer whales in the northern GOM is 49 individuals with a minimum population 

31 estimate of 28 (Waring et al. 2010).

32

33 The melon-headed whale has a worldwide distribution in subtropical to tropical oceanic 

34 waters (Jefferson et al. 2006). In the GOM, sightings of melon-headed whales are mostly in the 

35 Northern GOM Slope Level II Ecoregion, with some sightings in the GOM Basin Level II 

36 Ecoregion (see Figure 3.2.2-1) (Mullin et al. 1994; Read et al. 2011; Waring et al. 2010; 

37 Wilkinson et al. 2009). The melon-headed whale occurs in most areas of its range throughout

38 the year (Jefferson and Barros 1997). Worldwide, it usually occurs in pods of 100 to 

39 500 individuals with a known maximum of 2,000 individuals (Jefferson et al. 2006). Average 

40 herd size in the GOM is 130 to 310 individuals (Jefferson and Barros 1997). The melon-headed 

41 whale has strong social bonds, evidenced by mass strandings including up to several hundred 

42 individuals observed for mass strandings in Brazil and Australia (Jefferson and Barros 1997). 

43 Strandings of individual melon-headed whales have occurred in the GOM (Waring et al. 2010). 

44 In the GOM, melon-headed whales often occur with other species such as Fraser‘s dolphin or the 

45 rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis) (Jefferson and Barros 1997; Jefferson et al. 2006). 

46 Melon-headed whales will occasionally ride the bow waves of passing ships (Jefferson and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-164

1 Barros 1997). They feed on cephalopods, fishes, and some crustaceans (Pauly et al. 1995; 

2 Jefferson et al. 2006; NMFS 2011a). The best estimate of the abundance of the melon-headed 

3 whale in the northern GOM is 2,283 individuals with a minimum population estimate of 1,293 

4 (Waring et al. 2010).

5

6 The pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata) occurs in tropical to warm temperate 

7 oceanic waters worldwide roughly from 40°N to 40°S (Culik 2010). In the GOM, sightings of 

8 the pantropical spotted dolphin occur in the Northern GOM Slope, Mississippi Fan, and the 

9 GOM Basin Level II Ecoregions (see Figure 3.2.2-1) (Read et al. 2011; Waring et al. 2010; 

10 Wilkinson et al. 2009). During the day, they typically occur in waters between 90 and 300 m 

11 (300 and 1,000 ft) deep and will dive into deeper waters at night in search of prey 

12 (NMFS 2011a). The pantropical spotted dolphin is the most common cetacean in the oceanic 

13 northern GOM (Mullin et al. 1991). School sizes may range from several to thousands of 

14 individuals (Perrin 2001). It often schools with other dolphins such as spinner dolphins (Stenella 

15 longirostris) (NMFS 2011a). The pantropical spotted dolphin primarily feeds on epipelagic 

16 fishes and cephalopods (Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006). The best estimate of the

17 abundance of the pantropical spotted dolphin in the northern GOM is 34,067 individuals with a

18 minimum population estimate of 29,311 (Waring et al. 2010).

19

20 The pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata) occurs worldwide in deeper tropical and 

21 subtropical waters, generally between 40°N and 35°S (Jefferson et al. 2006; Culik 2010). 

22 Generally, the pygmy killer whale occurs in groups of 50 individuals or less, although some 

23 herds of several hundred occur (Jefferson et al. 2006). Its diet includes cephalopods and fishes, 

24 though reports of feeding on other dolphins are reported (Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006). 

25 In the northern GOM, the pygmy killer whale occurs primarily in deeper oceanic waters off the 

26 continental shelf (Waring et al. 2010). It inhabits the Northern GOM Slope, Mississippi Fan, 

27 and GOM Basin Level II Ecoregions (see Figure 3.2.2-1) (Read et al. 2011; Waring et al. 2010; 

28 Wilkinson et al. 2009). The best estimate of the abundance of the pygmy killer whale in the 

29 northern GOM is 323 individuals and the minimum population estimate is 203 

30 (Waring et al. 2010).

31

32 The Risso‘s dolphin (Grampus griseus) occurs worldwide in tropical to temperate 

33 waters, generally between 60°N and 60°S, where it inhabits deep oceanic waters (e.g., depths

34 greater than 1,000 m [3,300 ft]) seaward of the continental shelf and slopes) (Culik 2010; 

35 Jefferson et al. 2006; NMFS 2011a). In the northern GOM, they are widely distributed 

36 throughout the Northern GOM Slope, Mississippi Fan, and GOM Basin Level II Ecoregions 

37 (see Figure 3.2.2-1) (Read et al. 2011; Waring et al. 2010; Wilkinson et al. 2009). Their core 

38 area of occurrence is between the 350- and 975-m (1,150- and 3,200-ft) isobaths with seafloor 

39 slopes greater than 22 m/km (116 ft/mi) (Baumgartner 1997). Groups of 4,000 can occur, but 

40 herds tend to average 10 to 30 in number (Jefferson et al. 2006; NMFS 2011a). Risso‘s 

41 dolphins associate with other cetaceans and hybridization with bottlenose dolphins is recorded 

42 (Jefferson et al. 2006). It can dive to at least 300 m (1,000 ft) and remain underwater for up to 

43 30 minutes (NMFS 2011a). The Risso‘s dolphin feeds primarily on squid and secondarily on 

44 fishes and crustaceans (Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006). The best estimate of the

45 abundance of the Risso‘s dolphin in the northern GOM is 1,589 individuals with a minimum 

46 population estimate of 1,271 (Waring et al. 2010).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-165

1

2 The rough-toothed dolphin occurs in tropical to warm-temperate oceanic and continental 

3 shelf waters worldwide (Jefferson et al. 2006; Waring et al. 2010). In the northern GOM, 

4 sightings are scattered throughout most Level II ecoregions, with most sightings in the Northern 

5 GOM Slope (see Figure 3.2.2-1) (Mullin and Fulling 2004; Read et al. 2011; Waring et al. 2010; 

6 Wilkinson et al. 2009). It most commonly occurs in groups of 10 to 20, but herds of more than 

7 100 do occur (Jefferson et al. 2006; NMFS 2011a). The rough-toothed dolphin often associates 

8 with other dolphins including the short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus), 

9 bottlenose dolphin, pantropical spotted dolphin, and spinner dolphin (NMFS 2011a). It feeds on 

10 benthic invertebrates, cephalopods, and fishes (Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006). The 

11 abundance of the rough-toothed dolphin in the northern GOM, based on a combined abundance 

12 estimate for the oceanic and OCS portions of the GOM based on surveys conducted between 

13 2000 and 2004, was 2,653 (Waring et al. 2010).

14

15 The short-finned pilot whale occurs worldwide in tropical to temperate waters, 

16 generally in deep offshore areas (Jefferson et al. 2006). In the GOM, most sightings occur in 

17 the Northern GOM Slope with a few sightings in the Mississippi Fan and GOM Basin Level II 

18 Ecoregions (see Figure 3.2.2-1) (Waring et al. 2010; Wilkinson et al. 2009). Pods often 

19 consist of 25 to 50 animals; however, a pod can consist of up to several hundred individuals

20 (Jefferson et al. 2006; NMFS 2011a). While swimming or looking for food, a pod may spread 

21 out over 1 km (0.6 mi) (NMFS 2011a). The short-finned pilot whale feeds at depths of 305 m 

22 (1,000 ft) or more (NMFS 2011a) predominately on squid, with fishes being consumed 

23 occasionally (Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006). It is among the cetacean species that most 

24 frequently mass-strand (Jefferson et al. 2006). The best estimate of the abundance of the short25 finned pilot whale in the northern GOM is 716 individuals with a minimum population estimate 

26 of 542 (Waring et al. 2010). 

27

28 The spinner dolphin occurs worldwide in tropical, subtropical, and some warm-temperate 

29 waters normally in deep oceanic waters between 40°N and 40°S (Culik 2010; NMFS 2011a). 

30 In the northern GOM, most sightings are within the Northern GOM Slope Level II Ecoregion 

31 (see Figure 3.2.2-1) (Read et al. 2011; Waring et al. 2010; Wilkinson et al. 2009). Herd size 

32 ranges from under 50 to several thousand (Jefferson et al. 2006), and the spinner dolphin often 

33 schools with other dolphins, such as the pantropical spotted dolphin (Perrin 1998). It feeds on 

34 mesopelagic fishes, squid, and shrimp (Culik 2010; Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006). The 

35 best estimate of the abundance of the spinner dolphin in the northern GOM is 1,989 individuals 

36 with a minimum population estimate of 1,356 (Waring et al. 2010). 

37

38 The striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) occurs in tropical to temperate waters. In the 

39 northern GOM, sightings occur in oceanic waters (Waring et al. 2010). Its presence is often 

40 associated with areas of upwelling and convergence zones (NMFS 2011a). The striped dolphin

41 only occurs close to shore in areas where deep water approaches the coast (Jefferson et al. 2006). 

42 In the northern GOM, sightings are mostly in the Northern GOM Slope, Mississippi Fan, and 

43 GOM Basin Level II Ecoregions (see Figure 3.2.2-1) (Read et al. 2011; Waring et al. 2010; 

44 Wilkinson et al. 2009). Mass strandings of the striped dolphin are rare because of its offshore 

45 distribution (Archer and Perrin 1999). Individual strandings in the GOM are reported 

46 (Waring et al. 2010). School size throughout its range generally ranges from about 25 to 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-166

1 100 individuals, although schools of hundreds to thousands of individuals do occur

2 (NMFS 2011a). The striped dolphin can dive to depths of 700 m (2,300 ft) or more 

3 (NMFS 2011a). They feed primarily on small, mid-water squid and fishes, especially lanternfish 

4 (Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006). The best estimate of the abundance of the striped 

5 dolphin in the northern GOM is 3,325 individuals with a minimum population estimate of 2,266

6 (Waring et al. 2010).

7

8 Factors Influencing Cetacean Distribution and Abundance. Various mesoscale 

9 oceanographic circulation patterns strongly influence the distribution and abundance of cetaceans 

10 within the northern GOM. These patterns are primarily driven by river discharge (primarily the 

11 Mississippi/Atchafalaya Rivers), wind stress, and the Loop Current and its derived circulation 

12 phenomena. Circulation on the continental shelf is largely wind-driven, with localized effects 

13 from freshwater (i.e., river) discharge, while mesoscale circulation beyond the shelf is largely 

14 driven by the Loop Current in the eastern GOM. Approximately once or twice a year, the Loop 

15 Current sheds anticyclonic eddies (also called warm-core rings). Anticyclones are long-lived, 

16 dynamic features that generally migrate westward and transport large quantities of high-salinity, 

17 nutrient-poor water across the near-surface waters of the northern GOM. These anticyclones, in 

18 turn, spawn cyclonic eddies (also called cold-core rings) during interaction with one another and 

19 upon contact with topographic features of the continental slope and shelf edge. These cyclones 

20 contain and maintain high concentrations of nutrients and stimulate localized production 

21 (Davis et al. 2000). 

22

23 In the north-central GOM, the relatively narrow continental shelf south of the Mississippi 

24 River Delta may be an additional factor affecting cetacean distribution (Davis et al. 2000). 

25 Outflow from the Mississippi River mouth transports large volumes of low salinity, nutrient-rich 

26 water southward across the continental shelf and over the slope. River outflow also may be 

27 entrained within the confluence of a cyclone-anticyclone eddy pair and be transported beyond 

28 the continental slope. In either case, this nutrient-rich input of water leads to a localized 

29 deepwater environment with enhanced productivity, and may explain the persistent presence of 

30 aggregations of sperm whales within 50 km (31 mi) of the Mississippi River Delta in the vicinity 

31 of the Mississippi Canyon. Other marine predators, such as the bottlenose dolphin, also focus 

32 their foraging efforts on these abundant prey locations to improve overall efficiency and reduce 

33 energy costs (Bailey and Thompson 2010).

34

35 Climate Change. Marine mammal populations throughout the GOM may be affected by 

36 climate change and to a lesser extent by hurricane events. As previously discussed 

37 (Section 4.8.1.1), there is growing evidence that climate change is occurring, and potential 

38 effects in the GOM may include a change (i.e., rise) in sea level or a change in water 

39 temperatures. Such changes could affect the distribution, availability, and quality of marine 

40 mammal habitats and the abundance of marine mammal forage or prey resources. The 

41 construction of sea walls or other structures to protect coastal habitats against rising sea levels 

42 could potentially impact coastal marine species and possibly interfere with the movement of 

43 species such as the West Indian manatee (Learmonth et al. 2006). It is not possible at this time 

44 to identify the likelihood, direction, or magnitude of climate change on the marine mammals of 

45 the GOM. However, the current state of climate change and its impacts on marine mammals 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-167

1 would need to be considered in any subsequent environmental reviews for lease sales or other 

2 OCS-related activities.

3

4 Unusual Mortality Event for Cetaceans in the Gulf of Mexico. On December 13, 

5 2010, NMFS declared an unusual mortality event (UME) for cetaceans (whales and dolphins) in 

6 the GOM. A UME is defined under the MMPA as a ―stranding that is unexpected, involves a 

7 significant die-off of any marine mammal population, and demands immediate response.‖ 

8 Evidence of the UME was first noted by NMFS as early as February 2010. A total of 

9 550 cetaceans (4% stranded alive and 96% stranded dead) have stranded since the start of the 

10 UME through September 18, 2011, with a vast majority of these strandings involving premature, 

11 stillborn, or neonatal bottlenose dolphins between Franklin County, Florida, and the 

12 Louisiana/Texas border (NMFS 2011f). Table 3.8.1-2 provides information on the cetacean 

13 strandings during pre-response, initial-response, and post-response phases for the DWH event. 

14 The 550 animals include 6 dolphins killed during a fish-related scientific study and 1 dolphin 

15 killed incidental to a dredging operation (NMFS 2011f).

16

17 It is unclear at this time whether the increase in strandings is related partially, wholly, or 

18 not at all to the DWH event (NMFS 2011f). The NMFS has also documented an additional 

19 15 UMEs since 1991 that have been previously declared in the GOM; 11 of these involved 

20 cetaceans and the other 4 UMEs involved manatees (NMFS 2011g). However, the current data 

21 in the table above also shows a marked increase in strandings during the DWH event response 

22 and afterward. NMFS (2011f) considers the investigation into the cause of the UME and the 

23 potential role of the DWH event to be ―ongoing and no definitive cause has yet been identified 

24 for the increase in cetacean strandings in the northern Gulf in 2010 and 2011.‖ It is therefore 

25 unclear whether increases in stranded cetaceans during and after the DWH event response period 

26

27

28 TABLE 3.8.1-2 Unusual Mortality Event Cetacean Data for the Northern Gulf of Mexico

Cetaceans Stranded

Phase of Deepwater Horizon Oil-Spill 

Response Dates

113 cetaceans stranded Prior to the response phase for the oil spill February 1, 2010–April 29, 2010

115 cetaceans stranded or 

were reported dead offshore

During the initial response phase to the oil 

spill

April 30, 2010–November 2, 2010

322 cetaceans strandeda After the initial response phase ended November 3, 2010–September 18, 2011b

a This number includes 6 dolphins that were killed incidental to fish-related scientific data collection and 1 

dolphin killed incidental to trawl relocation for a dredging project.

b The initial response phase ended for all four states on November 3, 2010, but then re-opened for eastern and 

central Louisiana on December 3, 2010.

Source: NMFS 2011f.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-168

1 are or are not related to impacts from the DWH event; this will likely remain unclear until NMFS 

2 completes its UME and NRDA evaluation processes.All marine mammals collected either alive 

3 or dead were found east of the Louisiana/Texas border through Franklin County, Florida. The 

4 highest concentration of strandings has occurred off eastern Louisiana, Mississippi, and 

5 Alabama, with a significantly lesser number off western Louisiana and western Florida 

6 (NMFS 2011h) (see Map of Cetacean (Dolphin and Whale) Strandings in the Northern Gulf of 

7 Mexico at http://www.nmfs.noaa.

8 gov/pr/health/mmume/cetacean_gulfofmexico2010.htm, last accessed September 22, 2011).

9

10 Deepwater Horizon Event. The DWH event in Mississippi Canyon Block 252 and the 

11 resulting oil spill and related spill-response activities (including use of dispersants) have affected 

12 marine mammals that have come into contact with oil and remediation efforts. Within the 

13 designated DWH spill area, 171 marine mammals (89% of which were deceased) were reported. 

14 This includes 155 bottlenose dolphins, 2 Kogia spp., 2 melon-headed whales, 6 spinner dolphins, 

15 2 sperm whales, and 4 unknown species (NMFS 2011h). There have not been any manatees 

16 reported within the areas affected by the DWH event. All marine mammals collected either 

17 alive or dead were found east of the Louisiana/Texas border through Apalachicola, Florida. 

18 The highest concentration of strandings occurred off eastern Louisiana, Mississippi, and 

19 Alabama with a significantly lesser number off western Louisiana and western Florida 

20 (see Map of Cetacean (Dolphin and Whale) Strandings in the Northern Gulf of Mexico at

21 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/cetacean_gulfofmexico2010.htm). Due to known 

22 low detection rates of carcasses, it is possible that the number of deaths of marine mammals is 

23 underestimated (Williams et al. 2011). It is also important to note that evaluations have not yet 

24 confirmed the cause of death, and it is possible that many, some, or no carcasses were related to 

25 the DWH oil spill (NMFS 2011f).

26

27

28 3.8.1.1.2 Terrestrial Mammals. This section focuses on federally endangered 

29 terrestrial mammals likely to be present in coastal habitats of the northern GOM, although 

30 numerous other terrestrial mammals may be present in coastal habitats at any given time. Four 

31 federally endangered GOM coast ―beach mice‖ subspecies occupy restricted habitats within 

32 mature coastal dune habitats of northwestern Florida and Alabama: (1) the Alabama beach 

33 mouse (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates), (2) Choctawhatchee beach mouse (Peromyscus 

34 polionotus allophrys), (3) Perdido Key beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis), and 

35 (4) St. Andrew beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis). They are recognized 

36 subspecies of the old-field mouse (Peromyscus polionotus) (Bowen 1968; USFWS 1987). 

37 Additionally, the federally endangered Florida salt marsh vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus 

38 dukecampbelli), a subspecies of the meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), occurs in limited 

39 salt marsh areas in the Big Bend area of Florida (NatureServe 2010a). Figure 3.8.1-1 shows the 

40 GOM coast distributions of the four beach mouse subspecies and the Florida salt marsh vole.

41

42 Beach mouse habitat is restricted to mature coastal barrier sand dunes. The primary and 

43 secondary (frontal) dunes are generally characterized by thick growths of sea oats (Uniola

44 paniculata) and other species such as blue stem (Schizachyrium scoparium), beach grass 

45 (Panicum amarum), and beach goldenrod (Chrysoma pauciflosculosa) (USFWS 2006a). The 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-169

1

2 FIGURE 3.8.1-1 Coastal Distribution of the Endangered Beach Mouse Subspecies and the Florida Salt Marsh Vole in the GOM
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-170

1 scrub dunes provide refugia for beach mice during and after tropical storm events 

2 (USFWS 2007b). The scrub dunes tend to be dominated by large patches of scrub live oak 

3 (Quercus geminata) with gopher apple (Licania michauxii) and green briar (Smilax spp.) ground 

4 cover (USFWS 2006a). The inland extent of the scrub dune habitat ends where the maritime 

5 forest begins (USFWS 2006a). Beach mice dig burrows mainly on the lee side of the primary 

6 dunes and in other secondary and interior dunes where the vegetation provides suitable cover. 

7 The beach mice may also use ghost crab (Ocypoda quadratus) burrows. The dynamic hurricane8 dune regeneration cycle maintains the dune habitat structure preferred by beach mice 

9 (Bird et al. 2009).

10

11 Beach mice typically feed nocturnally in the dunes and remain in burrows during the day. 

12 Their diets vary seasonally but consist mainly of seeds, fruits, and insects (Bird et al. 2009). 

13 Most foraging occurs in the sand dunes. Beach mice inhabit a single home range during their 

lifetime that averages about 5,000 m2 (53,820 ft2 14 ). Individual home ranges normally overlap. 

15 An individual may have 20 or more burrows within its home range (Bird et al. 2009). Beach 

16 mice use the highly vegetated areas of swales when moving between the primary and secondary 

17 dunes (Bird et al. 2009). The densities of beach mice are cyclic and can have large fluctuations 

18 on a seasonal and annual basis resulting from changes in reproductive rates, food availability, 

19 habitat quality and quantity, catastrophic events, disease, and predation (USFWS 2007b). Beach 

20 mice breed year-round with up to 13 generations per year. Peak breeding occurs in fall and 

21 winter, declines in spring, and occurs at low levels in summer. Average life span is about 

22 9 months (USFWS 2007b).

23

24 The endangered status of beach mouse subspecies results from the loss and degradation 

25 of coastal dune habitats due to coastal development and natural processes. The combination of 

26 habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from beachfront development, the subsequent isolation 

27 of remaining habitat fragments and beach mouse populations, and destruction of these remaining 

28 habitats by hurricanes has increased the threat of extinction of the beach mouse subspecies 

29 (USFWS 1987; Oli et al. 2001).

30

31 The following provides additional information on the four beach mouse subspecies and 

32 the Florida salt marsh vole.

33

34 The Alabama beach mouse occurs in Alabama within disjunctive private coastline 

35 holdings and a coastal strand habitat in the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge (Baldwin

36 County). It appears to be the dominant small mammal in the dune and scrub habitats on the 

37 Fort Morgan Peninsula. Surveys and habitat analyses (Lynn 2000; Sneckenberger 2001; 

38 Swilling et al. 1998) provide overwhelming evidence that beach mice also forage and burrow in 

39 areas beyond the frontal dunes, including the escarpment and interior scrub. The Alabama beach 

40 mouse originally occurred along 53.9 km (33.5 mi) of coastline in Baldwin County, Alabama. 

41 As of May 2008, the Alabama beach mouse occurred within 991 ha (2,450 ac) of primary, 

42 secondary, and tertiary dunes and interior scrub habitat along an estimated 21 km (13 mi) of 

43 Alabama coastline (USFWS 2009b) (Figure 3.8.1-1). The revised critical habitat for the 

44 Alabama beach mouse encompasses about 490 ha (1,211 ac) of coastal dune and scrub habitat in

45 Baldwin County, Alabama (USFWS 2007b). The critical habitat includes five units: (1) Fort 

46 Morgan — 180 ha (446 ac); (2) Little Point Clear — 108 ha (268 ac); (3) Gulf Highland —
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-171

1 111 ha (275 ac); (4) Pine Beach — 12 ha (30 ac); and (5) Gulf State Park — 78 ha (192 ac). 

2 The USFWS (2007b) describes and provides maps for these critical habitat units.

3

4 The Choctawhatchee beach mouse was once present along the coastal dunes between 

5 Choctawhatchee Bay and St. Andrew Bay, Florida (Figure 3.8.1-1). Since Hurricane Ivan, 

6 trapping sessions have indicated healthy populations at Topsail Hill Preserve State Park. The 

7 viability of populations elsewhere appear to be in decline and/or are at very low densities 

8 (USFWS 2007b). Habitat for the Choctawhatchee beach mouse is primary, secondary, and 

9 occasionally tertiary sand dunes with a moderate cover of grasses and forbs (FNAI 2001). About 

10 1,010 ha (2,500 ac) of Choctawhatchee beach mouse habitat exists (USFWS 2007b). The 

11 revised critical habitat for the Choctawhatchee beach mouse encompasses about 973 ha 

12 (2,404 ac) of coastal dune and scrub habitat in Okaloosa, Walton, and Bay Counties, Florida 

13 (USFWS 2006a). The critical habitat includes five units: (1) Henderson Beach — 39 ha (96 ac); 

14 (2) Topsail Hill — 125 ha (309 ac); (3) Grayton Beach — 73 ha (179 ac); (4) Deer Lake —

15 20 ha (49 ac); and (5) West Crooked Island/Shell Island — 716 ha (1,771 ac). The USFWS 

16 (2006a) provides maps for and describes these critical habitat units.

17

18 Historically, the Perdido Key beach mouse occurred in coastal dune habitat between 

19 Perdido Bay, Alabama, and Pensacola Bay, Florida (Bowen 1968). The effects of Hurricane 

20 Frederic (in 1979) combined with increased habitat fragmentation due to human development led 

21 to the extirpation of all but one population of Perdido Key beach mouse. The remaining 

22 population at Gulf State Park (at the westernmost end of Perdido Key) contained 30 individuals. 

23 Some of the individuals from this site were used to reestablish the subspecies at Gulf Islands 

24 National Seashore (GINS) during 1986–1988 (Holler et al. 1989). In 2000, five pairs were 

25 relocated from the GINS-Perdido Key area to Perdido Key State Park. In February of 2001, this 

26 relocation was supplemented with an additional 16 pairs that were released on both north and 

27 south sides of Highway 292 in suitable habitat. After 2 yr of quarterly survey trapping, 

28 indications were that the relocations to Perdido Key State Park successfully established a 

29 population at that location (USFWS 2004). Individuals were also trapped on private lands 

30 between GINS and Perdido Key State Park in 2004, increasing documentation of current 

31 occurrences of the Perdido Key beach mouse. Currently, the Perdido Key beach mouse exists on 

32 lands in areas along 13.5 km (8.4 mi) of coastline from Perdido Key at GINS to Perdido Key 

33 State Park (Figure 3.8.1-1). The revised critical habitat for the Perdido Key beach mouse 

34 encompasses about 525 ha (1,300 ac) of coastal dune and scrub habitat in Baldwin and Escambia 

35 Counties, Florida (USFWS 2006a). The critical habitat includes five units: (1) Gulf State 

36 Park — 96 ha (238 ac); (2) West Perdido Key — 59 ha (147 ac); (3) Perdido Key State Park —

37 111 ha (275 ac); (4) Gulf Beach — 66 ha (162 ac); and (5) Gulf Islands National Seashore —

38 258 ha (638 ac). The USFWS (2006a) describes and provides maps for these critical habitat 

39 units.

40

41 The St. Andrew beach mouse is the easternmost of the four GOM coastal subspecies 

42 (Figure 3.8.1-1) and currently consists of two disjunct populations: East Crooked Island in Bay 

43 County, Florida, and St. Joseph Peninsula in Gulf County, Florida (USFWS 2010a). The current 

44 population at East Crooked Island is a result of translocations of beach mice from St. Joseph 

45 State Park to Crooked Island (1997–1998). The St. Andrew beach mouse also occurs on private 

46 lands to the west of Mexico Beach, Florida (USFWS 2009c). Population estimates reported in 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-172

1 2008 were 3,000 mice at East Crooked Island and 1,775 mice in the front dunes at St. Joseph 

2 State Park (USFWS 2009c). Optimal habitat is an undisturbed, intact, and functioning system of 

3 unconsolidated marine substrate, beach sand, primary natural sand dunes, and secondary and 

4 scrub dunes (USFWS 2009c). Of the estimated 83.3 km (51.8 mi) of current suitable habitat 

5 within the historic range of the St. Andrew beach mouse, the beach mouse occupies 44.5 km 

6 (27.7 mi) (USFWS 2010a). The critical habitat for the St. Andrew beach mouse encompasses 

7 about 1,008 ha (2,490 ac) of coastal dune and scrub habitat in Bay and Gulf Counties, Florida 

8 (USFWS 2006a). The critical habitat includes three units: (1) East Crooked Island — 335 ha 

9 (826 ac); (2) Palm Point — 65 ha (162 ac); and (3) St. Joseph Peninsula — 608 ha (1,502 ac). 

10 The USFWS (2006a) describes and provides maps for these critical habitat units.

11

12 Originally the only known occurrence of the Florida salt marsh vole was Waccasassa Bay 

13 in Levy County, Florida, where it existed in low numbers. In 2004, several individuals were 

14 discovered on the Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge located in southeastern 

15 Dixie/northwestern Levy Counties, Florida (Raabe and Gauron 2005). The two locations are 

16 only about 8 km (5 mi) apart (USFWS 2008a), resulting in the currently known approximate 

17 range shown in Figure 3.8.1-1. The Florida salt marsh vole appears to be most common in areas 

18 vegetated by saltgrass (Distichlis spicata). Its salt marsh habitat is vulnerable to flooding by 

19 hurricanes and extremely high tides (NatureServe 2010a). It probably survives high tides and 

20 storm flooding by swimming and climbing vegetation. Due to the very restricted range of the 

21 Florida salt marsh vole, catastrophic events could result in its extinction (NatureServe 2010a). 

22 Due to its rarity, life history and reproductive behavior of the subspecies are not well studied. 

23 However, some aspects are assumed to be similar to the meadow vole — feeding on a variety of 

24 plant matter, high reproductive rates with breeding throughout the year, and a lifespan of about 

25 6 months (USFWS 1997). Critical habitat is not designated for the Florida salt marsh vole, 

26 primarily because publishing critical habitat maps could increase the chance of illegal collecting 

27 or attracting trespass on the lands where it occurs (USFWS 1991a).

28

29 Climate Change. GOM coastal habitats will be affected by climate change. Factors 

30 associated with climate change that can effect beach mice and the Florida salt marsh vole include 

31 alteration in stream flow and river discharges, wetland loss, sea level rise, changes in storm 

32 frequency and strength, sediment yield, mass movement frequencies and coastal erosion, and 

33 subsidence. The small tidal range of the GOM coast increases the vulnerability of coastal 

34 habitats to the effects of climate change. Rising sea levels and changes in the frequency, 

35 intensity, timing, and distribution of tropical storms and hurricanes are expected to have 

36 substantial impacts on coastal wetland and shoreline patterns and processes (Michener et al.

37 1997; Scavia et al. 2002). Increases in sea level rise and storm frequency and severity may 

38 increase inundation and erosion of beach mice and Florida salt marsh vole habitats. The 

39 construction of sea walls or other protective measures to protect coastal habitats from increasing 

40 sea levels could potentially impact alternative sites suitable for these species.

41

42
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-173

1 3.8.1.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet 

2

3

4 3.8.1.2.1 Marine Mammals. The following information describes the life history 

5 attributes, distributions, and seasonal movements of 17 marine mammal species that occur in 

6 Cook Inlet (Cook Inlet Level III Coastal Ecoregion) or nearby waters of the Gulf of Alaska (Gulf 

7 of Alaska Level III Coastal Ecoregion) that could be affected by activities related to lease sales 

in Cook Inlet (Table 3.8.1-3).10 8 (The Level III Ecoregions are described in Section 3.2.4 and are 

9 shown in Figure 3.2.2-2.) Nine of these species are threatened or endangered under the ESA.

10

11 Threatened and Endangered Marine Mammals.

12

13 Cetaceans: Mysticetes. The endangered blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) occurs in 

14 Alaska in a narrow area just south of the Aleutian Islands between 160°W and 175°W (Berzin 

15 and Rovnin 1966; Rice 1974) and rarely occurs in the far southwestern Bering Sea (Rice 1998). 

16 It also occurs north of 50°N extending from southeastern Kodiak Island across the Gulf of 

17 Alaska and from southeast Alaska to Vancouver Island (Berzin and Rovnin 1966). Individuals 

18 from the eastern North Pacific and western North Pacific blue whale stocks can occur in the Gulf 

19 of Alaska during spring and summer after wintering in subtropical and tropical waters 

20 (Carretta et al. 2011). The eastern North Pacific blue whale stock occurs in the eastern North 

21 Pacific, ranging from the northern Gulf of Alaska to the eastern tropical Pacific. Most winter in 

22 the highly productive waters of Baja California, Gulf of California, and on the Costa Rica Dome 

23 (Carretta et al. 2011). Blue whales from the central North Pacific stock feed in summer 

24 southwest of Kamchatka, south of the Aleutian Islands, and in the Gulf of Alaska. This stock 

25 winters in lower latitudes in the western Pacific and less frequently in central Pacific including 

26 offshore waters north of Hawaii (Carretta et al. 2011). While the blue whale occurs in south 

27 central Alaska, it is not expected to occur within Cook Inlet. Blue whales tend to occur 

28 alone or in pairs, but aggregations of 12 or more may develop in prime feeding grounds 

29 (Jefferson et al. 2006). Blue whales feed year-round (Carretta et al. 2011). They feed almost 

30 exclusively on krill (euphausids) (Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006; NMFS 2011a). Mating 

31 and calving occur in the late fall and winter (Zimmerman and Rehberg 2008). The best estimate 

32 of the abundance of the eastern North Pacific blue whale stock is 2,497 with a minimum 

33 abundance of 2,046; no abundance estimates are available for the central North Pacific blue 

34 whale stock (Carretta et al. 2011).

35

36 The endangered fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) ranges worldwide from subtropical to 

37 arctic waters, and most sightings occur where deep water approaches the coast 

38 (Jefferson et al. 2006). Most fin whales migrate seasonally from relatively low-latitude 

39 wintering habitats where breeding and calving occur to high-latitude summer feeding areas 

40 (Perry et al. 1999). Northward migration begins in spring with migrating whales entering the 

41 Gulf of Alaska from early April through June (MMS 1996b). Their summer distribution extends 

42 from central California into the Bering and Chukchi Seas, while their winter range is restricted to 

43 the waters off the coast of California. Some fin whales feed in the Gulf of Alaska, including near 

 

10 A solitary Pacific walrus inhabited the Cook Inlet from the 1980s until its death in 2001 (Little 2001); however, 

as the occurrence of the Pacific walrus in the Cook Inlet is atypical, the species is not addressed in this section.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-174

1 TABLE 3.8.1-3 Cook Inlet Marine Mammals

Species Statusa

ORDER CETACEA

Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)

Eubalaena japonica (North Pacific right whale) E/D

 Balaenoptera acutorostrata (minke whale) –

 Balaenoptera borealis (sei whale) E/D

 Balaenoptera musculus (blue whale) E/D

 Balaenoptera physalus (fin whale) E/D

 Eschrichtius robustus (gray whale) DL/D

 Megaptera novaeangliae (humpback whale) E/D

Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales and dolphins)

 Physeter macrocephalus (sperm whale) E/D

 Delphinapterus leucas (beluga whale) E/D

 Orcinus orca (killer whale) D

 Lagenorhychus obliquidens (Pacific white-sided dolphin) –

 Ziphius cavirostris (Cuvier‘s beaked whale) –

 Phocoenoides dalli (Dall‘s porpoise) –

 Phocoena phocoena (harbor porpoise) –

ORDER CARNIVORA

Suborder Pinnipedia (seals, sea lions, and walrus)

 Eumetopias jubatus (Steller sea lion) E/D, T/Db

 Phoca vitulina richardsi (harbor seal) –

Suborder Fissipedia (sea otters and polar bears)

 Enhydra lutris (sea otter) T

a Status: E = endangered under the ESA; T = threatened under the 

ESA; C = candidate for listing under the ESA; DL = delisted under 

the ESA; D = depleted under the MMPA (for the killer whale, it only 

applies to the AT1 group of eastern North Pacific transient killer 

whales); – = not listed.

b The western U.S. stock of Steller sea lion encompasses the range of 

the Western District Population Segment of the Steller sea lion, 

which is listed as endangered under the ESA, and the eastern 

U.S. stock encompasses the range of the Eastern District Population 

Segment, which is listed as threatened under the ESA.

2

3

4 the entrance to Cook Inlet (NMFS 2003). During the months of July and August, fin whales 

5 concentrate in the Bering Sea-eastern Aleutian Island area. In September to October, most fin 

6 whales are in the Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, and along the U.S. coast as far south as Baja, 

7 California (Mizroch et al. 1984; Brueggman et al. 1984). The fin whale feeds on concentrations 

8 of zooplankton (e.g., krill), fishes, and cephalopods (Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006). A 

9 provisional estimate for the fin whale population west of the Kenai Peninsula is 5,700 animals 

10 (Allen and Angliss 2011).

11

12
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-175

1 The endangered humpback whale (Megaptera novaeanglia) occurs worldwide in all 

2 ocean basins, feeding in higher latitudes during spring, summer, and autumn, and migrating to a 

3 winter range over shallow tropical and subtropical banks, where they calve and presumably 

4 breed (Jefferson et al. 2006). Members of the Western North Pacific and Central North Pacific 

5 stocks occur in Alaskan waters. They migrate from winter breeding grounds near Japan, Hawaii, 

6 or Mexico to summer feeding grounds from Washington to as far north as the Chukchi Sea 

7 (Zimmerman and Karpovich 2008). The observation of some individuals in the Beaufort Sea 

8 east of Barrow suggests a northward expansion of their feeding grounds (Zimmerman and 

9 Karpovich 2008; Hashagen et al. 2009). In the Gulf of Alaska, areas with concentrations of 

10 humpback whales include the Portlock and Albatross Banks and west to the eastern Aleutian 

11 Islands, Prince William Sound, and the inland waters of southeastern Alaska (Berzin and 

12 Rovnin 1966). Current data demonstrate that the Bering Sea remains an important feeding 

13 area. Humpback whales usually occur alone or in groups of two or three, although larger 

14 aggregations occur in breeding and feeding areas (Jefferson et al. 2006). Humpback whales 

15 feed on concentrations of zooplankton (e.g., krill) and fishes using a variety of techniques 

16 that concentrate prey for easier feeding (Winn and Reichley 1985; Pauly et al. 1995; 

17 Jefferson et al. 2006). Feeding rarely occurs while migrating or during winter while in tropical 

18 waters (Zimmerman and Karpovich 2008). The best population estimate for the Western North 

19 Pacific stock is 938 whales with a minimum population estimate of 732 individuals; the best 

20 population estimate for the Central North Pacific stock is 7,469 whales with a minimum 

21 population estimate of 5,833 individuals (Allen and Angliss 2011). It is currently unknown 

22 whether the humpbacks observed in the southeastern Chukchi Sea and in the Beaufort Sea are 

23 part of the Western or Central stock.

24

25 The endangered North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica) historically ranged 

26 across the entire North Pacific north of 35°N and occasionally as far south as 20°N before 

27 commercial whaling reduced their numbers. Today, distribution and migratory patterns of the 

28 North Pacific stock are largely unknown. The whales in the North Pacific population summer in 

29 their high-latitude calanoid copepod and euphausid crustacean feeding grounds, and migrate to 

30 more temperate, possibly offshore, waters during the winter (Braham and Rice 1984; 

31 Scarff 1986; Allen and Angliss 2011). North Atlantic and Southern Hemisphere right whales 

32 calve in coastal waters during the winter, but locations of calving grounds in the eastern North 

33 Pacific are not known (Scarff 1986). Right whales remain in the southeastern Bering Sea from 

34 May through December (Allen and Angliss 2011).

35

36 There is evidence of North Pacific right whale occurrence in the Gulf of Alaska and 

37 Bering Sea (Mellinger et al. 2004). Recent sightings have been concentrated in the western 

38 outer Bristol Bay area, midway on a line between Unimak Island and Kuskokwim Bay, and 

39 this area may be an important feeding area for the few remaining North Pacific right whales 

40 (Shelden et al. 2005). More recent sightings of North Pacific right whales in the eastern Bering 

41 Sea during the summer are the first reliable observations in decades (Goddard and Rugh 1998; 

42 Moore et al. 2000b; Tynan et al. 2001; Wade et al. 2011). These sightings include the first few 

43 calves documented in the eastern North Pacific in over a century (Goddard and Rugh 1998; 

44 LeDuc et al. 2001; Brownell et al. 2001; Wade et al. 2011). These sightings suggest that the 

45 abundance in the eastern North Pacific is possibly in the tens of animals. North Pacific right 

46 whales remain the most highly endangered marine mammal in the world. Little is known 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-176

1 regarding the migratory behavior, life history characteristics, and habitat requirements of this 

2 species. The basic life history parameters and census data (including population abundance, 

3 growth rate, age structure, breeding ages, gender ratios, and distribution) remain undetermined. 

4 Given that the population is extremely small and little current information is available, recovery 

5 is not anticipated in the foreseeable future (e.g., several decades or longer).

6

7 Based on available evidence, the NMFS revised the species‘ critical habitat on 

8 July 6, 2006 (71 FR 38277) to include one area in the Gulf of Alaska and one in the Bering 

9 Sea. For more information on North Pacific right whales, see http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/

10 protectedresources/whales/nright/default.htm. NMFS (2006) reported the largest number of 

11 eastern North Pacific right whales identified in the Bering Sea to be 23 individuals. The 

12 minimum estimate of abundance is 17 individuals (Allen and Angliss 2011).

13

14 The endangered sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) is an oceanic species that occurs in 

15 tropical to polar waters, being more common in the mid-latitude temperate zones. It seldom 

16 occurs close to shore (Jefferson et al. 2006). They inhabit deepwater areas of the open ocean, 

17 most commonly over the continental slope (Carretta et al. 2011; Reeves et al. 1998). Sei whales 

18 migrate to lower latitudes for breeding and calving in the winter and to higher latitudes in 

19 summer for feeding (Kawamura 1980), including the Gulf of Alaska and along the Aleutian 

20 Islands and the southern Bering Sea (Reeves et al. 1998). The highest number of sightings south 

21 of the Aleutian Islands is off of the eastern Kamchatka Peninsula to the Commander Islands 

22 (Nasu 1963). Sei whales begin their southward migration in August or September. Groups of 

23 2 to 5 individuals are commonly observed, but loose aggregations of 30 to 50 occasionally do 

24 occur (Jefferson et al. 2006; NMFS 2011a). Sei whales feed on concentrations of zooplankton 

25 (e.g., krill and copepods), fishes, and cephalopods (Pauly et al. 1995). Sei whales observed in 

26 Alaska are members of either the Eastern North Pacific stock and/or the Hawaiian stock. The 

27 abundance of the Eastern North Pacific stock is estimated at 126 individuals with a minimum 

28 estimate of 83 whales; while abundance estimates for the Hawaiian stock are 77 with a minimum 

29 abundance of 37 (Caretta et al. 2011).

30

31 Cetaceans: Odontocetes. The NMFS recognizes five stocks of beluga whales 

32 (Delphinapterus leucas) in U.S. waters: (1) Cook Inlet, (2) Bristol Bay, (3) eastern Bering Sea, 

33 (4) eastern Chukchi Sea, and (5) Beaufort Sea (Allen and Angliss 2011). There are no physical 

34 barriers among these stocks, but genetic data indicates that the stocks do not interbreed (Citta and

35 Lowry 2008). The Cook Inlet stock was listed as an endangered distinct population segment 

36 (DPS) under the ESA in 2008 (NMFS 2008a). The beluga whales that inhabit Yakutat Bay 

37 (fewer than 20 individuals) are included as part of the Cook Inlet stock but are not considered 

38 part of the Cook Inlet DPS (Allen and Angliss 2011).

39

40 The beluga whale occurs throughout seasonally ice-covered arctic and subarctic waters of 

41 the Northern Hemisphere (Stewart and Stewart 1989) and is closely associated with open leads 

42 and polynyas in ice-covered regions (Hazard 1988). Depending on season and region, beluga 

43 whales may occur in both offshore and coastal waters. Ice cover, tidal conditions, access to prey, 

44 temperature, and human interaction affect seasonal distribution (Allen and Angliss 2011). 

45 During the winter, beluga whales generally occur in offshore waters associated with ice packs,

46 and in the spring, many migrate to warmer coastal estuaries, bays, and rivers for molting and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-177

1 calving (Sergeant and Brodie 1969). Breeding occurs in March or April, with calves born the 

2 following May through July, usually when herds are at or near summer concentration areas (Citta 

3 and Lowry 2008). Beluga whales shed their skin (molt) yearly in July in shallow water, often 

4 where there is coarse gravel to rub against (Citta and Lowry 2008).

5

6 The Cook Inlet stock occurs near river mouths in the northern Cook Inlet during the 

7 spring and summer months and in mid-Inlet waters in the winter; evidence indicates that the 

8 stock remains in Cook Inlet throughout the year (Allen and Angliss 2011; NMFS 2008a). Based 

9 on surveys conducted in the Gulf of Alaska between 1936 and 2000, a few belugas occur in the 

10 Gulf of Alaska outside of Cook Inlet. Those belugas are considered part of the Cook Inlet stock 

11 (Laidre et al. 2000).

12

The NMFS (2011b) designated 7,800 km2 (3,013 mi2 13 ) of critical habitat for the Cook 

14 Inlet DPS of beluga whales on April 11, 2011 (Figure 3.8.1-2). Critical Habitat Area 1 and 

15 Critical Habitat Area 2 are respectively equivalent to the Type 1 and 2 habitats identified in the 

16 conservation plan for the Cook Inlet beluga whale (NMFS 2008a). Critical Habitat Area 1, 

encompassing1,909 km2 (738 mi2 17 ), occurs in the upper portion of Cook Inlet that contains a 

18 number of shallow tidal flats, river mouths, and estuarine areas that are important for foraging, 

19 calving, molting, and escaping predators. This area, considered the most valuable habitat type 

20 for Cook Inlet belugas, contains the highest concentrations of belugas from spring through fall 

(NMFS 2008a, 2011b). Critical Habitat Area 2, encompassing 5,891 km2 (2,275 mi2 21 ), is used 

22 less during spring and fall, but is known to be used in fall and winter. Dispersed fall and winter 

23 feeding and transit areas occur in this critical habitat area, which includes near and offshore areas 

24 of the mid- and upper Inlet and nearshore areas of the lower Inlet (Figure 3.8.1-2). The deeper 

25 dives made by Cook Inlet beluga whales in this area of critical habitat suggest that the area is an 

26 important fall and winter feeding area that may be important to the winter survival and recovery 

27 of Cook Inlet beluga whales (NMFS 2008a, 2011b).

28

29 Two fish species especially fed upon by Cook Inlet beluga whales are king (Chinook) 

30 salmon and Pacific eulachon. Other items prominent in their diet are Pacific salmon, cod, 

31 walleye pollock, yellowfin sole, and other fishes and invertebrates (NMFS 2011b). In spring, the 

32 belugas feed on eulachon, gadids (cod and pollock), anadromous steelhead trout, and freshwater 

33 fishes. During summer, belugas prey on the Pacific salmon species that spawn in the rivers 

34 throughout Cook Inlet. In the fall, they feed on the various fish species that occur in nearshore 

35 bays and estuaries. Stomach samples for Cook Inlet belugas during winter are not available, but 

36 the belugas probably prey on deeper water prey such as flatfish, sculpin, and pollock 

37 (NMFS 2008a).

38

39 During 1978 to 1979, 95% of the Cook Inlet beluga whale range occupied 7,226 km2

(2,790 mi2 40 ) of Cook Inlet (Rugh et al. 2010). The Cook Inlet beluga whale stock was estimated

41 at 1,300 animals in 1979 (NMFS 2008a). By 1994, the stock numbered 653 whales and declined 

42 to 347 whales by 1998. Subsistence hunting and interactions with fishing gear appear to be the 

43 major factors leading to abundance declines (Laidre et al. 2000). The Cook Inlet stock has 

44 continued to decline by 1.45% per year from 1999 to 2008 (Allen and Angliss 2011). Between 

1998 and 2008, 95% of the beluga whale range in Cook Inlet was 2,806 km2 (1,083 mi2 45 ). Most 

46 areas occupied are in the upper portions of Cook Inlet (Rugh et al. 2010). The current best 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-178

1

2 FIGURE 3.8.1-2 Critical Habitat for the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale DPS

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-179

1 population estimate for the Cook Inlet stock is 355 with a minimum estimate of 326 (Allen and 

2 Angliss 2011). A healthy population level for the Cook Inlet beluga whale stock should be at 

3 least 780 individuals (NMFS 2008a).

4

5 The endangered sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) occurs worldwide in deep waters 

6 from the tropics to the pack-ice edges, although generally only large males venture to the 

7 extreme northern and southern portions of the species‘ range (Jefferson et al. 2006). Sperm 

8 whales tend to inhabit areas with water depths of 600 m (1,970 ft) or more and are uncommon at 

9 depths shallower than 300 m (984 ft) (NMFS 2011a). However, they do come close to shore 

10 where submarine canyons or other geophysical features bring deep water near the coast 

11 (Jefferson et al. 2006). In Alaska, their northernmost boundary extends from Cape Navarin 

12 (62°N) to the Pribilof Islands, with whales more commonly found in the Gulf of Alaska and 

13 along the Aleutian Islands (Omura 1955; Allen and Angliss 2011). The shallow continental shelf 

14 may prevent their movement into the northeastern Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean (Rice 1989). 

15 Females and young sperm whales usually remain in tropical and temperate waters year-round,

16 while males move north to feed in the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, and waters around the 

17 Aleutian Islands (Gosho et al. 1984; Allen and Angliss 2011). Seasonal movement of sperm 

18 whales in the North Pacific is not well-defined, but they typically occur south of 40°N during the 

19 winter (Gosho et al. 1984). Males move north in the spring and summer to feed in the Gulf of 

20 Alaska, Bering Sea, and waters around the Aleutian Islands (Berzin and Rovnin 1966). Fall 

21 migrations begin in September and most whales have left Alaskan waters by December 

22 (MMS 1996b), returning to temperate and tropical portions of their range, typically south of 

23 40°N, in the fall (Gosho et al. 1984; Allen and Angliss 2011). Breeding occurs during the spring 

24 and early summer (April through August). Sperm whales are present year-round in the Gulf of 

25 Alaska, but are apparently more abundant in summer than in winter (Mellinger et al. 2004). 

26 Sperm whales commonly occur in medium to large groups of up to 50 individuals 

27 (Jefferson et al. 2006). Sperm whales prey on cephalopods, fishes, and benthic invertebrates 

28 (Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006). The number of sperm whales occurring in Alaska 

29 waters is unknown. More than 100,000 sperm whales were estimated to occur in the western 

30 North Pacific in the late 1990s (Allen and Angliss 2011).

31

32 Pinnipeds. The Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) in Alaska is comprised of an 

33 eastern U.S. stock, which includes animals east of Cape Suckling, Alaska (144°W), and a 

34 western U.S. stock, including animals at and west of Cape Suckling (Loughlin 1997). The 

35 eastern stock encompasses the range of the Eastern Distinct Population Segment of the Steller 

36 sea lion that is listed as threatened under the ESA, while the western stock encompasses the 

37 range of the Western Distinct Population Segment that is listed as endangered under the ESA 

38 (NOAA 2011a). The centers of abundance and distribution of the Steller sea lion are located in 

39 the Gulf of Alaska and the Aleutian Islands. Individuals from only the western stock inhabit 

40 areas of south central Alaska could be affected by oil and gas activities in the Cook Inlet

41 Planning Area. The Steller sea lion is not known to migrate, but individuals disperse widely 

42 outside of the breeding season (late May to early July). At sea, Steller sea lions commonly occur 

43 near the 200-m (660-ft) depth contour, but individuals occur from nearshore to well beyond the 

44 continental shelf (Kajimura and Loughlin 1988). Some individuals may enter rivers in pursuit of 

45 prey (NMFS 2008b). Steller sea lions eat a variety of fishes and cephalopods and occasionally 

46 birds and seals (Zimmerman and Rehberg 2008). Older juveniles can dive to depths of 500 m 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-180

1 (1,500 ft) and can stay underwater for more than 16 minutes (Zimmerman and Rehberg 2008). 

2 However, dive depths of juveniles generally do not exceed 20 m (66 ft), while adults will dive to 

3 depths greater than 250 m (820 ft) (NMFS 1993).

4

5 Thirty-eight Steller sea lion rookeries and hundreds of haulouts occur within the range of 

6 the western stock of the Steller sea lion (Allen and Angliss 2011; NMFS 2008b). The locations

7 of the rookeries and haulouts change little from year to year (NMFS 1993). Breeding and 

8 pupping occur on rookeries; rookeries normally occur on relatively remote islands, rocks, reefs, 

9 and beaches, where access by terrestrial predators is limited. Rookeries are normally occupied 

10 from late May through early July (NMFS 1993). Haulouts are areas used for rest and refuge by 

11 all sea lions during the non-breeding season and by non-breeding adults and subadults during the 

12 breeding season. Some rookeries are used as haulouts after the breeding season is over. In 

13 addition to rocks, reefs, and beaches normally used as haulouts, sea lions may also use sea ice 

14 and manmade structures such as breakwaters, navigational aids, and floating docks 

15 (NMFS 1993). Sea lion critical habitat includes a 32 nautical km (20 nautical mi) buffer around 

16 all major haulouts and rookeries, as well as associated terrestrial, air, and aquatic zones. Special 

17 foraging areas in Alaska have also been designated critical habitat for Steller sea lions including 

18 the Shelikof Strait area of the Gulf of Alaska, the Bogoslof area in the Bering Sea shelf, and the 

19 Seguam Pass area in the central Aleutian Islands (NMFS 1993). Figure 3.8.1-3 shows the Steller 

20 sea lion critical habitat in the area of Cook Inlet Planning Area. The minimum population 

21 estimate for the Steller sea lion western stock is 42,366 (Allen and Angliss 2011). The 

22 abundance of the western stock is stable or slightly decreasing (NMFS 2008b).

23

24 Fissipeds. The sea otter (Enhydra lutris) inhabits shallow water areas along the shores of 

25 the North Pacific. Three stocks of the sea otter occur in Alaskan waters: (1) Southwest Alaska, 

26 extending from the Kodiak Archipelago southwest through the Alaska Peninsula to the Aleutian 

27 Islands; (2) south central Alaska, between Cape Yukataga and the east coast of Cook Inlet and 

28 including the eastern side of Cook Inlet; and (3) Southeast Alaska, extending from the 

29 U.S./Canadian border to Cape Yukataga (Gorbics and Bodkin 2001). Individuals from both the 

30 south central and southwest Alaska stocks occur in south central Alaska where they could be 

31 affected by oil and gas activities in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. The Southwest Alaska stock 

32 has declined dramatically over the past several decades, probably due to predation by killer 

33 whales (Schneider and Ballachey 2008), causing the USFWS to list that stock as a threatened 

34 DPS under the ESA (USFWS 2006b).

35

Five units totaling 15,164 km2 (5,855 mi2 36 ) are designated as critical habitat for the 

37 Southwest Alaska DPS (USFWS 2009d). Unit 5 (Kodiak, Kamishak, Alaska Peninsula), 

containing 6,755 km2 (2,607 mi2 38 ) of critical habitat (USFWS 2009d), is the most likely of the 

39 sea otter critical habitat units to be affected by activities related to lease sales in Cook Inlet. This 

40 unit ranges from Castle Cape in the west to Tuxedni Bay in the east, and includes the Kodiak 

41 Archipelago (USFWS 2009d). The unit includes the nearshore marine environment ranging 

42 from the mean high tide to the 20-m (66-ft) depth contour as well as waters occurring within 

43 100 m (330 ft) of the mean high tide line (USFWS 2009d). The lower western half of Cook Inlet 

44 to Redoubt Point is included in Unit 5 of the critical habitat (USFWS 2009d).

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-181

1

2 FIGURE 3.8.1-3 Steller Sea Lion Critical Habitat in the Area of the Cook Inlet Planning Area 

3 (note: the figure is in the process of being prepared/modified)

4

5

6 The sea otter inhabits coastal waters less than 90 m (295 ft) deep, with the highest 

7 densities usually found within the 40-m (130-ft) isobath where young animals and females with 

8 pups forage. Preferred habitat includes rocky reefs, offshore rocks, and kelp beds. Sea otters in 

9 Alaska are not migratory and, while capable of movements over 100 km (60 mi), generally do 

10 not disperse over long distances (Allen and Angliss 2011). They will sometimes rest in groups 

11 of fewer than 10 to more than 1,000 individuals. Sea otters seldom come onshore, and when 

12 they do, they are seldom more than a few meters from water (Schneider and Ballachey 2008).

13

14 Sea otters prey on a great variety of mostly benthic food sources including sea urchins, 

15 clams, mussels, snails, abalone, crabs, scallops, chitons, limpets, octopus, and fin fish 

16 (Estes et al. 1981; Garshelis et al. 1986; Riedman and Estes 1990; Green and Brueggeman 1991; 

17 Kvitek et al. 1993). They dive to depths of 1.5 to 76 m (5 to 250 ft). A dive usually lasts 1 to 

18 1.5 minutes, but can last 5 minutes or more (Schneider and Ballachey 2008). The recovery and 

19 expansion of the sea otter populations in Prince William Sound and in Southeast Alaska, coupled 

20 with the otter‘s preference for crab and clam species that are of commercial interest (such as

21 Dungeness crab and butter clam) (Garshelis et al. 1986; Kvitek et al. 1993), has resulted in 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-182

1 competition and conflict with commercial-fishing interests (Garshelis and Garshelis 1984; 

2 Pitcher 1989).

3

4 Among marine mammals, sea otters probably have one of the higher reproductive 

5 rates and a potential for fairly rapid population recovery (such as 17–20% per year 

6 [Riedman et al. 1994]) after substantial losses due to natural or manmade causes (such as 

7 overharvest or an oil spill). Female sea otters can reach sexual maturity at 2 yr of age (30%), 

8 with all females mature at 5 yr of age (Bodkin et al. 1993). With a gestation period of about 

9 6 months and a pup dependency of 6 months, most sexually mature female sea otters (85–90%) 

10 are able to pup in a given year (Jameson and Johnson 1993). Post-weaning survival can range 

11 from 18 to 86%, and survival of sea otters more than 2 yr of age can approach or exceed 90%. 

12 Females can live up to 22 yr and males up to 15 yr (USFWS 2010).

13

14 The current estimate for the Southwest Alaska stock is 47,676 sea otters, with a minimum 

15 population estimate of 38,703, while the current estimate for the Southcentral Alaska stock is 

16 15,090 sea otters, with a minimum population estimate of 13,955. Of these, 2,673 sea otters 

17 occur in Cook Inlet/Kenai Fiords (Allen and Angliss 2011). The south central Alaska stock 

18 population trend is stable, while the Southwest Alaska stock is declining (Allen and 

19 Angliss 2011). The cause of the population decline is not known for sure, but weight of 

20 evidence indicates that increased predation by killer whales as the most likely cause. The most 

21 important threats to recovery of the population are predation and oil spills; other threats to 

22 recovery include subsistence harvest, illegal take, and infectious disease (USFWS 2010).

23

24 Non-ESA-Listed Marine Mammals.

25

26 Cetaceans: Mysticetes. The Eastern North Pacific population of the gray whale

27 (Eschrichtius robustus) was delisted from the ESA in 1994 (USFWS 1994). The Eastern North 

28 Pacific stock (which encompasses this population) winters primarily along the west coast of Baja 

29 California where calving occurs from January to mid-February (Rice et al. 1981). The northward 

30 migration, which occurs in nearshore waters, begins in mid-February and continues through May 

31 (Rice et al. 1981). Gray whales arrive for their feeding season in the Gulf of Alaska in late 

32 March and April (at which time some individuals may occur close to Cook Inlet), the northern 

33 Bering Sea (Cherikov Basin located west and north of the Norton Basin) in May or June, and the 

34 Chukchi and Beaufort Seas in July or August (Rice and Wolman 1971; Consiglieri et al. 1982). 

35 They migrate out of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas at freezeup and out of the Bering Sea during 

36 November to December (Rugh and Braham 1979). Breeding occurs during their southward 

37 migration to the Gulf of California and Baja. In recent years, gray whales have begun to delay 

38 their southbound migration, are expanding their feeding range along the migration route and 

39 northward to arctic waters, and some even remain in polar waters over winter (Moore 2008).

40

41 Gray whales usually live in small groups of about three whales, although groups up 

42 to 18 whales occur (Frost and Karpovich 2008). Gray whales feed primarily on benthic 

43 amphipods in the northern Bering, Chukchi, and western Beaufort Seas. Shallow coastal areas 

44 and offshore shoals in the Chukchi and western Beaufort Seas also provide rich feeding habitat 

45 (Rugh et al. 1999). Gray whales seldom feed while migrating or during winters in tropical 

46 waters (Frost and Karpovich 2008). In summer, gray whales select coastal/shoal waters and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-183

1 open waters, while in autumn they select coastal and shoal/trough habitats in light ice and open 

2 water (Moore et al. 2000a). They generally occur closer to shore than other large whale species 

3 (Shell Offshore, Inc. 2005). The abundance estimate for the Eastern North Pacific gray whale 

4 stock is 19,126 with a minimum estimate of 18,017 individuals. The population of this stock has 

5 been increasing over the past several decades (Allen and Angliss 2011).

6

7 The minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) occurs from the Bering and Chukchi Seas 

8 south to near the equator with apparent concentrations of whales near Kodiak Island (Allen and 

9 Angliss 2011; Rice and Wolman 1982). In spring, most minke whales are found over the 

10 continental shelf and prefer shallow coastal waters. In Alaska, minke whales are most abundant 

11 in the Gulf of Alaska during summer for feeding but become scarce in the fall, with most whales 

12 leaving by October (Consiglieri et al. 1982). Only a few whales have been reported in the 

13 northeastern Gulf of Alaska (offshore the Icy Bay area) and in southeastern Alaska (Sitka area) 

14 during winter. Breeding occurs year-round in the Pacific. The minke whale usually occurs alone

15 or in groups of only two to three whales, although loose aggregations of up to 400 can occur in 

16 feeding areas at higher latitudes (NMFS 2011a). The minke whale preys on a variety of large 

17 zooplankton (e.g., krill and copepods) and small schooling fishes (Pauly et al. 1995; 

18 Jefferson et al. 2006). No estimates are available for the number of minke whales in the entire 

19 North Pacific. The provisional estimate for the number of minke whales in central-eastern and 

20 southeastern Bering Sea is 810 and 1,003, respectively (Allen and Angliss 2011). There are no 

21 data on the trends of minke whale abundance in Alaska (Allen and Angliss 2011).

22

23 Cetaceans: Odontocetes. The Cuvier‘s beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris) is the most 

24 widespread of the beaked whales, occurring in all oceans and most seas except in the high polar 

25 waters (Moore 1963). Its distribution in the northeastern Pacific ranges from Baja California to 

26 the northern Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Commander Islands (Rice 1986, 1988). 

27 Although the Cuvier‘s beaked whale occurs in south central Alaska, individuals do not 

28 apparently enter Cook Inlet (Allen and Angliss 2011). The Cuvier‘s beaked whale prefers 

29 waters of the continental slope and edge and steep underwater geologic features such as 

30 banks, seamounts, and submarine canyons where depths are greater than 1,000 m (3,000 ft) 

31 (NMFS 2011a). Within its range, the Cuvier‘s beaked whale mostly occurs alone or in small 

32 groups up to 12 individuals, although groups up to 25 have been reported (NMFS 2011a). It 

33 dives to depths of at least 1,000 m (3,000 ft) that last 20 to 40 minutes (NMFS 2011a). Its diet 

34 consists of squid, fishes, and crustaceans (Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006). Cuvier‘s 

35 beaked whale strandings indicate that it is the most widespread beaked whale and not as rare as 

36 originally thought (Moore 1963; Heyning 1989; Culik 2010; Allen and Angliss 2011). 

37 Information on population abundance or trends for the Alaska stock of the Cuvier‘s beaked 

38 whale is not available (Allen and Angliss 2011).

39

40 The Dall‘s porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli) is present year-round throughout its entire 

41 range in the northeast Pacific, from Baja California, Mexico, to the Bering Sea in Alaska. 

42 However, within its range, the Dall‘s purpose does not occur in the upper Cook Inlet or in the 

43 shallow eastern flats of the Bering Sea (Allen and Angliss 2011). Dall‘s porpoise generally 

44 occurs over the continental shelf adjacent to the slope and over oceanic waters greater than 

45 2,500 m (8,200 ft) deep (Allen and Angliss 2011). It also occurs closer to shore in narrow 

46 channels and fjords that have clear, relatively deep water (Culik 2010). The Dall‘s porpoise
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-184

1 usually travels in groups of 2 to 20 animals, but occasionally occurs in loosely associated groups 

2 of hundreds to thousands of animals (NMFS 2011a). They also occasionally occur with other 

3 marine mammals, especially the Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhychus olbiquidens) 

4 (Jefferson 1988). Dall‘s porpoises routinely feed at depths of 500 m (1,640 ft) or more, 

5 primarily on squid and small schooling fishes (Culik 2010; Jefferson 1988). Based on survey

data over 8 yr old,11 6 the best estimate of the abundance of the Alaska stock is 83,400 individuals 

7 with a minimum population estimate of 76,874 (Allen and Angliss 2011).

8

9 The harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), in the Eastern North Pacific Ocean, ranges 

10 from Point Barrow, along the Alaska coast, and down the west coast of North America to Point 

11 Conception, California (Gaskin 1984). They generally occur in harbors, bays, and river mouths 

12 but may also be concentrated in and along turbid river water plumes such as the Copper River 

13 and Icy Bay areas. In the Gulf of Alaska and southeast Alaska, the harbor porpoise frequents 

14 waters less than 100 m (330 ft) in depth, with high densities of animals occurring in Glacier Bay, 

15 Yakutat Bay, Copper River Delta, and Sitkalidak Strait (Dahlheim et al. 2000). Activities 

16 associated with lease sales in Cook Inlet could potentially affect harbor porpoise individuals in 

17 the Gulf of Alaska stock. This stock includes individuals occurring from Cape Suckling to

18 Unimak Pass (Allen and Angliss 2011). Harbor porpoises usually occur in groups smaller than 

19 8 individuals, although they will aggregate into groups of 50 to several hundred during feeding 

20 or migration (Culik 2010). Harbor porpoises consume a wide variety of fishes and cephalopods, 

21 apparently preferring non-spiny schooling fish such as herring, mackerel, and pollock 

22 (Leatherwood and Reeves 1987). Based on survey data over 11 yr old, the population estimate 

23 for the Gulf of Alaska harbor porpoise stock is 31,046 with a minimum estimate of 25,987 (Allen 

24 and Angliss 2011).

25

26 The killer whale (Orcinus orca) occurs along the entire Alaskan coast within the Beaufort 

27 Sea, Chukchi Sea, Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, Gulf of Alaska, Prince William Sound, Kenai 

28 Fjords, and southeastern Alaska. NMFS recognizes several stocks of killer whales in Alaskan 

29 waters: (1) the Eastern North Pacific Northern Resident stock, occurring from British Columbia 

30 through part of southeastern Alaska; (2) the Eastern North Pacific Alaska Resident stock, 

31 occurring from southeastern Alaska to the Aleutian Islands and the Bering Sea; (3) the Eastern 

32 North Pacific Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea Transient stock, occurring mainly 

33 from Prince William Sound through the Aleutian Islands and the Bering Sea; (4) the AT1 

34 Transient stock, occurring in Alaska from Prince William Sound through the Kenai Fjords; 

35 (5) the West Coast Transient stock, occurring from California through southeastern Alaska; and 

36 (6) the Eastern North Pacific Offshore stock, occurring from California through Alaska (Allen 

37 and Angliss 2011). Oil and gas activities in the Cook Inlet Planning Area could potentially 

 

11 The NMFS has a policy to use data less than 8 years old for the purposes of calculating the potential biological 

removal, which is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, 

that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum 

sustainable population. The potential biological removal level is the product of the following factors:

• The minimum population estimate of the stock; 

• One-half the maximum theoretical or estimated net productivity rate of the stock at a small 

population size; and 

• A recovery factor of between 0.1 and 1.0.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-185

1 affect killer whales from the Eastern North Pacific Alaska Resident stock and the Eastern North 

2 Pacific Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea Transient stock. Killer whales are 

3 relatively common in lower Cook Inlet but are somewhat infrequent in the upper Cook Inlet 

4 (Shelden et al. 2003).

5

6 Killer whales are top-level predators that feed on marine mammals, marine birds, sea 

7 turtles, fishes, and cephalopods (Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006). The resident stocks 

8 mainly feed on salmonids, whereas the transient stocks tend to feed on marine mammals (NMFS 

9 2011a). In spring, killer whales occur throughout the Gulf of Alaska in shallow waters less than 

10 200 m (660 ft) deep (Braham and Dahlheim 1982). In summer, they concentrate in Prince 

11 William Sound, the Kodiak Island area, and the nearshore waters of southeastern Alaska. The 

12 inshore migration of prey partly accounts for movement of killer whales to nearshore waters, 

13 especially in summer and fall (Balcomb et al. 1980; Heimlich-Boran 1988). In fall and winter, 

14 killer whales are numerous around Kodiak Island and adjacent shelf waters but not elsewhere in 

15 the Gulf of Alaska (Consiglieri et al. 1982). The peak breeding period of killer whales is May 

16 through July (Consiglieri et al. 1982).

17

18 Killer whale group or pod size varies from 1 to 100 (Braham and Dahlheim 1982). Most 

19 pods in Alaska have fewer than 40 individuals (Zimmerman and Small 2008). Transient killer 

20 whale pods move over broader ranges of territory than do resident pods and prefer to feed on 

21 other marine mammals, such as seals, porpoises, and baleen whales (Heimlich-Boran 1988; Barr 

22 and Barr 1972; Hancock 1965). The minimum size of the Eastern North Pacific Alaska Resident 

23 stock is 2,084 individuals, while the minimum size of the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Island, and 

24 Bering Sea Transient stock is 552 individuals (Allen and Angliss 2011).

25

26 The Pacific white-sided dolphin occurs in the Eastern North Pacific from the southern 

27 Gulf of California, north to the Gulf of Alaska and west to Amchitka in the Aleutian Islands. 

28 They rarely occur in the southern Bering Sea (Allen and Angliss 2011). This dolphin species 

29 generally occurs offshore over the continental slope in waters from 200 to 2,000 m (660 to 

30 6,600 ft) deep (Stacey and Baird 1991; Consiglieri et al. 1982). Individuals do enter the inshore 

31 passes of Alaska (Stacey and Baird 1991; Consiglieri et al. 1982; Ferrero and Walker 1996). In 

32 the Gulf of Alaska, occurrences of the Pacific white-sided dolphins vary seasonally, in that they 

33 are rarely present in winter, become increasingly abundant in spring, and are most abundant in 

34 the summer when fish abundance is highest (Consiglieri et al. 1982). They commonly occur in 

35 groups of several hundred individuals, and groups of more than 1,000 individuals have been 

36 sighted (Leatherwood and Reeves 1987). Pacific white-sided dolphins feed on squid and fish 

37 (Pauly et al. 1995). There are no reliable population estimates for the North Pacific stock of the 

38 Pacific white-sided dolphin because abundance estimates are over 8 yr old. The estimated 

39 minimum population abundance in the early 1990s was 26,880 individuals (Allen and 

40 Angliss 2011).

41

42 Carnivores: Pinnipeds. The harbor seal (Phoca vitulinea richardsi) is distributed along 

43 the southeast Alaska coastline west through the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands, and into the 

44 Bering Sea north to Cape Newenham and the Pribilof Islands (Allen and Angliss 2011). Among 

45 the three stocks of harbor seals that occur in Alaska, the Gulf of Alaska stock could be affected 

46 by oil and gas activities in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. The Gulf of Alaska stock occurs from 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-186

1 Cape Suckling to Unimak Pass, including animals that occur throughout the Aleutian Islands 

2 (Allen and Angliss 2011). Harbor seals are nonmigratory with local movements associated with 

3 tides, weather, season, food availability, and reproduction (Scheffer and Slipp 1944; Fisher 1952; 

4 Bigg 1969, 1981). Harbor seals occupy a wide variety of habitats in fresh and saltwater and 

5 along protected and exposed coastlines. They prefer to haul out on gently sloping or tidally 

6 exposed habitats including reefs, offshore rocks and islets, mud and sandbars, sand and gravel 

7 beaches, and floating and shorefast ice (Calambokidis et al. 1987; Bigg 1981; Allen and Angliss 

8 2011). In Cook Inlet, harbor seals haul out near available prey and in areas that avoid high 

9 anthropogenic disturbance. They also select sites of rock substrate and those near deep water 

10 (Montgomery et al. 2007). Typically, an individual in a given area uses one or two haulout sites. 

11 Breeding occurs generally in late spring through fall. Females aggregate on glacial fjords to give 

12 birth between May and mid-July (Kinkhart et al. 2008). Important pupping areas occur within 

13 Icy and Yakutat Bays and Kodiak Island (Loughlin et al. 1994). Most dives are less than 20 m 

14 (65 ft) deep and last less than 4 minutes, although dives can occur to depths of 500 m (1,640 ft) 

15 and last up to 20 minutes (Kinkhart et al. 2008). In Cook Inlet, harbor seal abundance increases 

16 with proximity to bathymetric depths of 20 m (66 ft) (Montgomery et al. 2007). Harbor seals are 

17 opportunistic feeders. Their diet varies with season and location; they primarily feed on fish, 

18 cephalopods, molluscs, and crustaceans (Pitcher and Calkins 1979; Pauly et al. 1995). Feeding 

19 occurs in marine, estuarine, and occasionally fresh waters (Allen and Angliss 2011). The current 

20 estimate of the Gulf of Alaska stock is 45,975 with a minimum population estimate of 44,453 

21 (Allen and Angliss 2011).

22

23 Climate Change. A major concern regarding marine mammals in Arctic and subarctic 

24 regions is the potential for climate change and associated changes in the extent of sea ice. 

25 Climate change will primarily affect marine mammals from loss of habitat, changes in prey 

26 availability, and potentially increased expansion of other species that are likely to cause 

27 competitive pressure on some species, as well as putting them at greater risk of predation, 

28 disease, and parasitic infections (Alter et al. 2010; Kovacs et al. 2011). Alteration of sea ice and 

29 increasing human presence and activities will cause extensive redistribution of mobile species, 

30 disappearance of non-mobile species throughout portions of their range, and possible species 

31 extinctions (Ragen et al. 2008). The Cook Inlet beluga whale is the marine mammal species 

32 most likely to be effected by climate change. However, it is not possible at this time to identify 

33 the likelihood, direction, or magnitude of climate change on the marine mammals of Cook Inlet. 

34 The current state of climate change and its impacts on marine mammals would need to be 

35 considered in any subsequent environmental reviews for lease sales or other OCS-related 

36 activities.

37

38 3.8.1.2.2 Terrestrial Mammals. Approximately 40 species of terrestrial mammals 

39 occur in south central Alaska, including the American bison (Bison bison), American black bear 

40 (Ursus americanus), brown bear (Ursus arctos; also commonly known as the grizzly bear), 

41 caribou (Rangifer tarandus), Dall sheep (Ovis dalli), moose (Alces americanus), mountain goat 

42 (Oreamnos americanus), Roosevelt elk (Cervus canadensis roosevelti), and Sitka black-tailed 

43 deer (Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis), American beaver (Castor canadensis), American marten 

44 (Martes americana), American mink (Neovision vision), Canadian lynx (Lynx canadensis), 

45 coyote (Canislatrans), ermine (Mustela erminea), gray wolf (Canis lupus), least weasel (Mustela

46 nivalis), North American river otter (Lontra canadensis), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), and wolverine 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-187

1 (Gulo gulo) (ADFG 2011a; McDonough 2007; Peltier 2007; Van Daele and Crye 2007). The 

2 following information describes the life history attributes, distribution, and seasonal movement 

3 of select terrestrial big game and furbearer species expected to use coastal habitats in the Cook 

4 Inlet Planning Area or nearby coastal habitats in the Gulf of Alaska.

5

6 American Black Bear (Ursus americanus). In Alaska, American black bears occur 

7 throughout most forests and coastal areas. However, they do not occur on the Seward Peninsula, 

8 Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, north of the Brooks Range, several islands in the Gulf of Alaska 

9 and from the Alaska Peninsula beyond the area of Lake Iliamma. However, they do inhabit 

10 most islands in Southeast Alaska except for Admiralty, Baranof, Chichagof, and Kruzof 

11 (ADFG 2011). American black bear populations vary among the game management units in 

12 Alaska, ranging from several hundred to several thousand. It is estimated that 3,000 to 

13 4,000 American black bears inhabit the Kenai Peninsula, which is bordered on the west by Cook 

14 Inlet (Selinger 2008). The population estimate for Game Management Unit 16B (west side of 

15 Cook Inlet) is under 1,900 (Peltier 2008). American black bears hibernate during winter. 

16 Following den entrance, pregnant females give birth to one to three cubs. On the Kenai 

17 Peninsula, average dates of den entrance and emergence are October 18 and April 26, 

18 respectively, although severe spring weather can delay den emergence (Schwartz et al. 1987). 

19 Breeding occurs during the summer. Apart from that time, American black bears are usually 

20 solitary, except for sows with cubs. Cubs remain with their mother through the first winter. 

21 American black bears make heavy use of coastal habitats in the spring following den emergence 

22 (McIlroy 1970; Johnson 2008). During the summer, salmon from spawning runs are common 

23 food sources (Frame 1974), but bears will also eat vegetation, insects, berries, winter-killed 

24 animals, and newborn moose calves (Johnson 2008). Large amounts of berries are particularly 

25 important to American black bears during the summer; often bears will switch from salmon to 

26 berries during this time.

27

28 Brown Bear (Ursus arctos). Brown bears (also commonly referred to as grizzley bears) 

29 occur throughout most of Alaska except on the islands south of Frederick Sound in southeast 

30 Alaska, west of Unimak in the Aleutian Islands, and on the Bering Sea islands (Eide et al. 2008). 

31 Recent genetic studies do not support the differentiation of brown bear subspecies (NatureServe 

32 2011). The brown bear mating season occurs from May to July. Pregnant females tend to enter 

33 their dens in the fall. Females give birth to one to four cubs in their dens between January and 

34 February and emerge from dens in June. Males enter their dens later than females and tend to 

35 emerge from them before females do. In the northern part of Alaska, brown bears may stay in 

36 their dens up to 8 months; in areas with relatively mild winters, they may stay active all winter 

37 (Eide et al. 2008). Cubs stay with their mothers for up to 3 yr, but fewer than half the cubs 

38 survive (Eide et al. 2008). Brown bear densities vary with the quality of the environment. For 

39 example, in areas of low productivity such as the North Slope, bear densities are as low as one 

bear per 777 km2 (300 mi2 40 ), while in areas of high productivity such as the Alaska Peninsula, 

41 Kodiak Island, and Admiralty Island, densities are as high as one bear per 39 to 65 km2

(15 to 25 mi2 42 ). Areas occupied by an individual bear overlap those used by other bears 

43 (Eide et al. 2008). In the early 1990s, the population for brown bears in Game Management 

44 Unit 16 (west side of Cook Inlet) was estimated at 586 and 1,156. Similar numbers were 

45 estimated in the early 2000s (Kavalok 2007).

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-188

1 Large males may weigh up to 680 kg (1,500 lb) in coastal areas but only 227 kg (500 lb) 

2 in interior areas (Eide et al. 2008). Brown bears are generally solitary, but may aggregate at

3 feeding areas such as salmon spawning streams, sedge flats, open garbage dumps, or whale 

4 carcasses (Eide et al. 2008). Brown bears are omnivorous — their foods include grasses, sedges, 

5 berries, fish, ground squirrels, caribou, moose, domestic animals, garbage, and carrion 

6 (Eide et al. 2008). During spring, coastal bears rely heavily on beaches, meadows, and 

7 shorelines while foraging on newly emergent plants, carrion, and intertidal infauna such as 

8 clams. In summer and early fall, brown bears aggregate along coastal streams to feed on salmon 

9 and other spawning fish. The salmon runs are especially important to the Kodiak, Alaska 

10 Peninsula, and McNeil River brown bears and are available from late June to mid-December on 

11 Kodiak Island (Barnes 1990). Large amounts of berries are particularly important to brown

12 bears during the summer; often bears will switch from salmon to berries during this time.

13

14 Moose (Alces americanus). Moose are associated with northern forests. They are most 

15 abundant in recently burned areas where dense stands of willow, aspen, and birch shrubs have 

16 propagated; timberline plateaus; and along major rivers of Southcentral and Interior Alaska 

17 (Crouse et al. 2008). Up to 200,000 moose occur in Alaska. Based on estimates made between 

18 2000 and 2005, about 6,000 moose occur in the western Kenai Peninsula (which includes the 

19 eastern side of Cook Inlet), while about 2,000 moose occur in game management units that 

20 include the western portion of Cook Inlet (ADFG 2011). Moose make seasonal movements to 

21 calving, rutting, and wintering areas. Females generally breed at 28 months, with breeding 

22 occurring in the fall. Calves are born from mid-May to early June after a gestation period of 

23 about 120 days. Calves remain with their mothers until about 1 yr old (Crouse et al. 2008). 

24 Moose consume willow, birch, and aspen twigs in the fall and winter; twigs, sedges, horsetail, 

25 pond weeds, and grasses in spring; and pond plants, forbs, and leaves of birch, willow, and aspen 

26 in summer (Crouse et al. 2008). Predation by wolves and bears limits population growth of 

27 moose in many locations in Alaska. Hunting and severe winter weather are also controlling 

28 factors on moose populations (Crouse et al. 2008).

29

30 North American River Otter (Lutra canadensis). River otters frequently occur in 

31 nearshore coastal waters, beaches, and intertidal areas throughout the South Alaska, where they 

32 forage on small fish, clams, crustaceans, and other invertebrates. Sculpin and rockfish are 

33 predominant prey items of river otters occurring along the coast of southeastern Alaska 

34 (Larsen 1984). River otters in Alaska breed in May, with mating occurring in and out of the 

35 water (Solf and Golden 2008). One to six pups are born the following year any time from late 

36 January to June. River otters reach sexual maturity at 2 yr of age and live up to 20 yr (Solf and 

37 Golden 2008). Family units consisting of a female with her pups, with or without an adult male, 

38 travel only a few kilometers. Larger groups of neighboring family units (more than 

39 10 individuals) form temporary associations. These groups travel over a wide area and 

40 apparently do not have exclusive territories (Solf and Golden 2008).

41

42 Sitka Black-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis). Sitka black-tailed deer are 

43 native to wet coastal rainforests of southeast Alaska and north-coastal British Columbia. 

44 Transplants have led to the establishment of populations near Yakutat in Prince William Sound 

45 and on Kodiak and Afognak Islands (ADFG 2011b). Sitka black-tailed deer populations 

46 fluctuate depending on the severity of winters. They have a high reproductive potential, so they 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-189

1 can generally rebound quickly from reduced populations (ADFG 2011b). From winter through 

2 early spring, they are mostly restricted to uneven-aged old-growth forest below 366 m (1,500 ft) 

3 in elevation. During extreme snow events, the deer may congregate in heavily timbered stands at 

4 lower elevation or even on beaches (ADFG 2011b). After the winter snow pack recedes, 

5 migratory deer move to high-elevation alpine and subalpine habitats, while resident deer remain 

6 at lower elevation forested areas. With the first heavy frost, deer occupying alpine and subalpine 

7 habitats descend to the upper forest (Merriam et al. 2008). Summer and winter home ranges 

8 average 454 ha (1,122 ac) and 107 ha (264 ac), respectively (Van Daele and Crye 2009). The 

9 distance between winter and summer home ranges is about 22 km (13 mi) for migratory deer and 

10 0.8 km (0.5 mi) for resident deer (Merriam et al. 2008; Van Daele and Crye 2009). During 

11 summer, Sitka black-tailed deer feed on herbaceous vegetation and shrub leaves, while in winter

12 they feed on evergreen forbs and woody browse (ADFG 2011b). The breeding season begins in 

13 late October and continues through November. Fawning occurs from late May to early June 

14 (ADFG 2011b). In 2008, about 60,000 Sitka black-tailed deer populated the Kodiak Archipelago 

15 with the population appearing to be decreasing (Van Daele and Crye 2009).

16

17 Climate Change. Cook Inlet coastal habitats are vulnerable to the effects of climate 

18 change. Sea level rise is expected to inundate low-lying coastal habitats (Nicholls et al. 2007). 

19 Changes in sea level and increases in storms and erosion could result in loss of low-lying habitats 

20 critical to productivity and welfare of some wildlife species (Clark et al. 2010). Moose have

21 timing and synchrony or parturition area adaptations to long-term patterns in climate and may be 

22 more susceptible to climate change than other ungulates that are more adapted to climatic 

23 variability (Bowyer et al. 1998). Shorter winters caused by climate change may increase the 

24 threat from ticks and deer-borne parasites (Howard 2011). Because brown bears are 

25 opportunistic, omnivorous, and highly adaptable, climate change is not expected to threaten their 

26 populations due to ecological threats or constraints; however, it may lead to an increase in brown 

27 bear/human interactions, in part from later den entry and earlier den exit (Servheen and 

28 Cross 2010).

29

30

31 3.8.1.3 Alaska – Arctic

32

33

34 3.8.1.3.1 Marine Mammals. There are 15 species of marine mammals in the Arctic 

35 region (Beaufort and Chukchi Seas). Four of these species are listed as threatened or endangered 

36 under the ESA, one is a candidate species, and two are proposed for listing as threatened species 

37 (Table 3.8.1-4). The following information describes the life history attributes, distribution, and 

38 seasonal movement of these 14 marine mammal species within the Alaska OCS lease sale areas 

39 in the Arctic region (Beaufort and Chukchi Seas). These areas encompass and/or could impact 

40 marine mammals that occur in the Beaufort/Chukchian Shelf Level II Ecoregion and include the 

41 Chukchian Neritic and Beaufortian Neritic Level III Ecoregions. (The ecoregions are described 

42 in Section 3.2.5 and shown in Figure 3.2.2-3.)

43

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-190

1 TABLE 3.8.1-4 Arctic Marine Mammals

Species Statusa

ORDER CETACEA

Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)

 Balaenoptera acutorostrata (minke whale) –

 Balaenoptera mysticetus (bowhead whale) E/D

 Balaenoptera physalus (fin whale) E/D

 Eschrichtius robustus (gray whale) DL/D

 Megaptera novaeangliae (humpback whale) E/D

Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales and dolphins)

 Delphinapterus leucas (beluga whale) –

 Monodon monoceros (narwhal)

 Orcinus orca (killer whale) D

 Phocoena phocoena (harbor porpoise) –

ORDER CARNIVORA

Suborder Pinnipedia (seals, sea lions, and walrus)

 Erignathus barbatus (bearded seal) PT

 Odobenus rosmarus divergens (Pacific walrus) C

 Phoca fasciata (ribbon seal) –

 Phoca hispida (ringed seal) PT

 Phoca largha (spotted seal) –

Suborder Fissipedia (sea otters and polar bears)

 Ursus maritimus (polar bear) T/D

a Status: E = endangered under the ESA; T = threatened 

under the ESA; C = candidate for listing under the ESA; 

DL = delisted under the ESA; D = depleted under the 

MMPA (for the killer whale, it only applies to the 

AT1 group of eastern North Pacific transient killer whales); 

PT = proposed threatened under the ESA; – = not listed.

2

3

4 Threatened and Endangered Marine Mammals.

5

6 Cetaceans: Mysticetes. The endangered bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) occurs in 

7 seasonally ice-covered waters of the Arctic and near Arctic, typically between 60 N and 75 N in 

8 the Western Arctic Basin (Allen and Angliss 2011). The critical habitat for the bowhead whale 

9 has not been identified because habitat issues were not a factor in the decline of the species 

10 (ADNR 2009). The Western Arctic stock is the only bowhead stock found in U.S. waters (Allen 

11 and Angliss 2011). As shown in Figure 3.8.1-4, bowhead whales migrate annually from winter 

12 breeding areas (November to March) in the northern Bering Sea, through the Chukchi Sea in the 

13 spring (March through June) where most calving occurs, and into the Canadian Beaufort Sea 

14 where they spend much of the summer (mid-May through September) (Allen and Angliss 2011). 

15 In the fall (September through November), the bowheads return along this general route, closer 

16 to shore across the Beaufort Sea, to the Bering Sea to overwinter in polynyas and along edges of 

17 the pack ice (Braham et al. 1980; Moore and Reeves 1993). Some bowhead whales, thought to 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-191

1

2 FIGURE 3.8.1-4 Generalized Migration Route, Feeding Areas, and Wintering 

3 Area for the Western Arctic Bowhead Whale Stock (Source: Moore and 

4 Laidre 2006)

5

6

7 be part of the expanding Western Arctic stock, remain in the Bering and Chukchi Seas during 

8 summer (Rugh et al. 2003).

9

10 Important winter areas in the Bering Sea include polynyas along the northern Gulf of 

11 Anadyr, south of St. Matthew Island, and near St. Lawrence Island. Bowheads congregate in 

12 these polynyas before migrating (Moore and Reeves 1993). Most mating occurs in late winter 

13 and spring in the Bering Sea, although some mating occurs as late as September and early 

14 October (Koski et al. 1993; Reese et al. 2001; Quakenbush 2008). Most calving occurs during 

15 the spring migration in and adjacent to the eastern Chukchi Sea and the Beaufort Sea spring lead 

16 ice systems (MMS 2008a). Females give birth to a single calf every 3 to 4 yr (MMS 2008a).

17

18 Bowhead whales usually travel alone, in small groups of up to six whales, or in mother19 calf pairs (ADNR 2009). Also, bowhead whales usually feed as individuals, but groups 

20 occasionally feed together in an echelon formation (Quakenbush 2008). Bowheads feed 

21 throughout the water column, including bottom or near-bottom feeding as well as surface 

22 feeding. Food items of bowheads include euphausiids, mysids, copepods, and amphipods 

23 (Lowry and Frost 1984). Many or all of the bowhead whales from the Western Arctic stock feed 

24 in the Canadian Beaufort Sea in the summer and early fall, and in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-192

1 during their westward migration in late summer/early fall (Richardson and Thomson 2002). In 

2 mid to late fall, some bowheads feed in the southwestern Chukchi Sea. There have been no 

3 detailed bowhead whale feeding studies during winter in the Bering Sea. It is likely that some 

4 whales feed opportunistically during the spring migration (Carroll et al. 1987; Shelden and 

5 Rugh 1995).

6

7 The best estimate of the abundance of the Western Arctic bowhead whale stock is 

8 10,545 with a minimum population estimate of 9,472 (Allen and Angliss 2011). Overall, the 

9 stock appears to be healthy and increasing in population (Allen and Angliss 2011).

10

11 The endangered fin whale ranges from subtropical to arctic waters and usually occurs in 

12 high-relief areas where productivity is probably high (Brueggeman et al. 1988). Their summer 

13 distribution extends from central California into the Chukchi Sea, while their winter range is 

14 restricted to the waters off the coast of California. In Alaskan waters, some fin whales feed in 

15 the Gulf of Alaska, while others migrate farther north to feed throughout the Bering and 

16 Chukchi Seas from June through October. There are few observations of fin whales in the 

17 eastern half of the Chukchi Sea and no documented occurrences of fin whales in the Beaufort 

18 Sea (MMS 2008b). From September through November, most fin whales migrate southward to 

19 California; however, a few animals may remain in the Navarin Basin (Brueggman et al. 1984). 

20 Northward migration begins in spring with migrating whales entering the Gulf of Alaska from 

21 early April–June (MMS 1996b).

22

23 Fin whales usually breed and calve in the warmer waters of their winter range off the 

24 coast of California. Breeding can occur year-round, but peaks between November and February 

25 (Ohsumi et al. 1958). The fin whale feeds on concentrations of zooplankton (e.g., krill), fishes, 

26 and cephalopods (Pauly et al. 1995; Jefferson et al. 2006). Reliable abundance estimates for the 

27 Northeast Pacific fin whale stock are not available. A provisional estimate for the fin whale 

28 population west of the Kenai Peninsula is 5,700 (Allen and Angliss 2011).

29

30 The endangered humpback whale occurs worldwide in all ocean basins, although it is less 

31 common in arctic waters. In winter, most humpback whales occur in the temperate and tropical 

32 waters. Humpback whales in the North Pacific are seasonal migrants to arctic waters where they 

33 feed on zooplankton and small schooling fishes in the cool coastal waters of the western 

34 United States, western Canada, and the Russian Far East (NMFS 1991). The historic feeding 

35 range of humpback whales in the North Pacific encompassed coastal and inland waters around 

36 the Pacific Rim from Point Conception, California, north to the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering 

37 Sea, and west along the Aleutian Islands to the Kamchatka Peninsula and into the Sea of 

38 Okhotck (Johnson and Wolman 1984; Allen and Angliss 2011). Current data demonstrate that 

39 the Bering Sea remains an important feeding area. During summer months, humpback whales 

40 will also enter the Chukchi Sea with rare observations in the western Beaufort Sea (Johnson and 

41 Wolman 1984; Hashagen et al. 2009; Allen and Angliss 2011).

42

43 NMFS recognizes three stocks of humpback whales occurring in U.S. waters, including 

44 the (1) California/Oregon/Washington and Mexico stock; (2) central North Pacific stock that 

45 migrates from Hawaii to northern British Columbia/Southeast Alaska and Prince William Sound 

46 west to Kodiak; and (3) western North Pacific stock that most likely migrates from Japan to 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-193

1 waters west of the Kodiak Archipelago (the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands) during the 

2 summer/fall (Berzin and Rovnin 1966; Allen and Angliss 2011). Winter/spring populations of 

3 humpback whales also occur near Mexico‘s offshore islands. The western North Pacific stock 

4 spends winter and spring in waters off Japan and migrates to the Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, and 

5 Aleutian Islands in the summer and fall (Berzin and Rovnin 1966; Allen and Angliss 2011). 

6 During migrations, humpbacks are pelagic. The central North Pacific stock winters in Hawaiian 

7 Island waters and migrates to northern British Columbia/southeast Alaska and Prince William 

8 Sound west to Kodiak Island in the summer and fall (Baker et al. 1990; Perry et al. 1990; Allen 

9 and Angliss 2011). In the Gulf of Alaska, concentration areas of humpbacks include the 

10 Portlock and Albatross Banks and west to the eastern Aleutian Islands, Prince William Sound, 

11 and the inland waters of southeast Alaska (Berzin and Rovnin 1966).

12

13 Breeding and calving occur on the wintering grounds, and most births occur between 

14 January and March (Johnson and Wolman 1984). During the summer feeding period, the 

15 humpback whales generally occur nearshore. The central North Pacific stock of humpback 

16 whale feeding aggregations occur along the northern Pacific Rim. Humpback whale distribution 

17 in summer is continuous from British Columbia to the Russian Far East, with humpbacks present 

18 offshore in the Gulf of Alaska (Brueggeman et al. 1989; Allen and Angliss 2011). Their diet 

19 consists of euphausiids, amphipods, mysids, and small schooling forage fishes 

20 (Jefferson et al. 2006; Pauly et al. 1995).

21

22 The minimum population estimate for the Western North Pacific humpback whale stock 

23 is approximately 732 individuals and that for the central North Pacific stock is approximately 

24 5,833 individuals (Allen and Angliss 2011).

25

26 Pinnipeds. The bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus, proposed threatened [NMFS 2010c]) 

27 occurs throughout the Arctic and usually inhabits waters less than 200 m (660 ft) in depth in 

28 areas of broken, moving sea ice (Cleator and Stirling 1990; Allen and Angliss 2011). Most of 

29 the bearded seals in Alaska occur over the continental shelf of the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort 

30 Seas between 85°N and 57°N (Cameron and Boveng 2009). Bearded seal densities are greatest 

31 during the summer and lowest during the winter. Many of the seals that winter in the Bering Sea 

32 migrate north in April and May to the summer ice edge of the Chukchi Sea (Burns 1967; 

33 Burns 1981). Others remain in the open waters of the Bering and Chukchi Seas (Burns 1981; 

34 Nelson 2008a). During spring, bearded seals prefer areas that contain 70 to 90% sea ice 

35 coverage and are most abundant 32 to 161 km (20 to 100 mi) from shore, except for the 

36 nearshore concentration to the south of Kivalina (Allen and Angliss 2011). Bearded seals 

37 generally prefer ice habitat that is in constant motion and produces natural openings and areas of 

38 open water, such as leads, fractures, and polynyas for breathing, hauling out on the ice, and

39 access to water for foraging. They usually avoid areas of continuous, thick, shorefast ice and 

40 rarely occur in the vicinity of unbroken, heavy, drifting ice or large areas of multi‐year ice 

41 (Cameron et al. 2010).

42

43 Pupping takes place on top of the ice less than 1 m (3 ft) from open water 

44 (Kovacs et al. 1996) from late March through May mainly in the Bering and Chukchi Seas, 

45 although some pupping occurs in the Beaufort Sea. Breeding occurs around one month later 

46 following the weaning of pups. Bearded seals tend to be solitary (Nelson 2008a), but sometimes 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-194

1 form loose aggregations in areas such as polynya systems. Bearded seals primarily feed on 

2 benthic prey such as crustaceans, mollusks, fishes, and octopuses (NMFS 2011a). In the 1970s, 

3 the estimated number of bearded seals in the Bering and Chukchi Seas was 250,000 to 300,000 

4 (Nelson 2008a). Allen and Angliss (2010a) stated that there are no current population estimates 

5 or trends for the Alaska stock of the bearded seal; however, NMFS (2010c) has given a 

6 population estimate of 155,000 individuals. Estimates provided in NMFS (2010c) are 

7 3,150 bearded seals for the entire Beaufort Sea in June, and 27,000 bearded seals in the 

8 Chukchi Sea in the May–June timeframe.

9

10 The ringed seal (Phoca hispida, proposed threatened [NMFS 2010d]) is circumpolar in 

11 distribution and is associated with ice for much or all of the year. It occurs throughout the 

12 Beaufort, Chukchi, and Bering Seas as far south as Bristol Bay (Allen and Angliss 2011). The 

13 ringed seal is the most abundant seal in the Arctic (Citta 2008). Ringed seals live on and under 

14 extensive, largely unbroken, shorefast ice, and generally occur over water depths of 10 to 20 m 

15 (33 to 66 ft) (ADNR 2009). They are generally solitary when hauled out on ice (ADNR 2009). 

16 Ice cover strongly influences ringed seal movements, foraging, reproductive behavior, and 

17 vulnerability to predation (Kelly et al. 2010b). In the winter/spring period, when ringed seals 

occupy shorefast ice, their home ranges extend from <1 to 27.9 km2 (<0.4 to 10.8 mi2 18 ). Ringed 

seals inhabiting shorefast ice in the Beaufort Sea occupy ranges averaging <2 km2 (<0.8 mi2 19 ) 

20 during April through early June (Kelly et al. 2010a). In summer/fall, ringed seals may range up 

21 to 1,800 km (1,120 mi) from their winter/spring home ranges and return to the same home range 

22 sites during the ice-bound months in the following year. They continue to use sea ice as resting 

23 platforms during the summer/fall period (Kelly et al. 2010a). Some ringed seals occur during 

24 ice-free periods in the Bering and Chukchi Seas (Citta 2008). Primary pupping habitat is located 

25 on fast ice along the coasts of St. Lawrence Island, Norton Sound, and the Yukon River Delta. 

26 Ringed seals are monogamous to weakly polygamous (Kelly et al. 2010b). When sexually 

27 mature, males establish territories during the fall and maintain them during the pupping season. 

28 Pups are born in late March and April in subnivian lairs that seals excavate above breathing holes 

29 in the ice (Kelly et al. 2010b). During the breeding and pupping season, adults on shorefast ice 

30 (floating fast-ice zone) usually move less than individuals in other habitats; they depend on a 

31 relatively small number of holes and cracks in the ice for breathing and foraging. Ringed seals 

32 molt between mid-May to mid-July, at which time they spend long periods on the ice

33 (NMFS 2010d). They are capable of diving to depths over 500 m (1,640 ft) and dives can last up 

34 to 39 minutes (Born et al. 2004). In the winter/spring, ringed seals feed under the ice while in 

35 summer/fall they feed either in open water or under the ice (Kelly et al. 2010a). Ringed seals 

36 prey on Arctic cod, saffron cod, shrimps, amphipods, and euphausiids (Kelly 1988b; 

37 Reeves et al. 1992). A reliable population estimate for the Alaska stock is not available, but is 

38 assumed to be over 249,000 (Allen and Angliss 2011). Kelly et al. (2010b) estimated a 

39 reasonable population of ringed seals to be about 1 million.

40

41 Fissipeds. The federally threatened polar bear (Ursus maritimus) lives only on the arctic 

42 ice cap in the Northern Hemisphere, mainly near coastal areas. The polar bear is considered a 

43 marine mammal because it principally inhabits the sea-ice surface rather than adjacent land 

44 masses (Amstrup 2003). In Alaska, polar bears primarily occur on the northern and northwestern 

45 coasts as far south as St. Matthew Island and the Pribilof Islands and extending north and 

46 eastward into the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, from the Bering Strait to the Canadian border 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-195

1 (Ray 1971). There are two polar bear stocks recognized in Alaska: the Southern Beaufort Sea 

2 stock and the Chukchi/Bering Seas stock (Figure 3.8.1-5). The Southern Beaufort Sea 

3 population ranges from the Baillie Islands, Canada, and west to Point Hope, Alaska. Individuals 

4 of the Bering/Chukchi Seas stock range widely on pack ice from Point Barrow, Alaska, west to 

5 the Eastern Siberian Sea. The stock‘s southern boundary in the Bering Sea is determined by the 

6 annual extent of the pack ice (Allen and Angliss 2011). These two stocks overlap between Point 

7 Hope and Point Barrow, Alaska, centered near Point Lay (Allen and Angliss 2011).

8

9 The USFWS designated critical habitat for the polar bear on December 7, 2010 

10 (USFWS 2010b). Three habitat areas designated as critical habitat include barrier islands, sea 

11 ice, and terrestrial denning habitat. USFWS (2010b) contains figures showing the location of the 

critical habitat areas. These critical habitat areas total about 484,734 km2 (187,157 mi2 12 ) of lands 

13 and water within the United States. The barrier island habitat includes coastal barrier islands and 

14 spits along the Alaska coast. These areas are used for denning, refuge from human disturbance, 

15 access to maternal dens and feeding habitat, and travel along the coast. A total of 10,576 km2

(4,083 mi2 16 ) of barrier island habitat is identified as critical habitat (USFWS 2010b). The sea ice 

17 critical habitat occurs over the continental shelf and includes water 300 m (984 ft) or less in 

18 depth. Sea ice habitat is essential for most polar bear activities as a platform for hunting and 

19 feeding, searching for mates and for breeding, moving to terrestrial maternity denning areas, 

resting, and making long-distance movements. A total of 464,924 km2 (179,508 mi

2 20 ) of sea ice 

21 habitat has been designated as critical habitat (USFWS 2010b). Terrestrial denning critical 

22 habitat includes lands within 32 km (20 mi) of the northern coast of Alaska between the 

23 U.S./Canadian border and Kavik River and within 8 km (5 mi) between the Kavik River and 

Barrow. A total of 14,652 km2 (5,657 mi2 24 ) of terrestrial denning habitat has been designated as 

25 critical habitat (USFWS 2010b).

26

27 Seasonal movements of polar bears reflect changing ice conditions and breeding 

28 behavior. In spring, polar bears in the Beaufort Sea overwhelmingly prefer regions with ice 

29 concentrations greater than 90% and composed of ice floes 2 to 10 km (1.2 to 6.2 mi) in diameter 

30 (Durner et al. 2004). Mature males range offshore in early spring, but move closer to shore 

31 during the spring breeding season. With the breakup of the ice during spring and early summer, 

32 polar bears move northward where they select habitats with a high proportion of old ice. To 

33 reach this ice, polar bears may migrate as much as 1,000 km (620 mi) (Amstrup 2003). As ice 

34 reforms in the fall, the bears move southward, and by late fall are distributed seaward of the 

35 Chukchi and Beaufort Sea coasts. During winter, polar bears prefer the lead ice system at the 

36 shear zone between the shorefast ice and the active offshore ice. Annual activity areas for 

female polar bears in the Beaufort Sea range from 13,000 to 597,000 km2 (5,020 to 230,500 mi2 37 )

with an average of 149,000 km2 (57,530 mi2 38 ) (Amstrup et al. 2000).

39

40 Pregnant and lactating females with newborn cubs are the only polar bears that occupy 

41 winter dens for extended periods (Lentfer and Hensel 1980; Amstrup and Gardner 1994). The 

42 key denning habitat characteristics are topographic features that catch snow for den construction 

43 and maintenance (USFWS 2008b). The main terrestrial denning areas for the Southern Sea stock 

44 in Alaska occur on the barrier islands from Barrow to Kaktovik and along coastal areas up to 

45 40 km (25 mi) inland (Allen and Angliss 2011). Most onshore dens are close to the seacoast, 

46 usually not more than 8–10 km (5–6 mi) inland. Information on polar bear use of terrestrial 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-196

1

2 FIGURE 3.8.1-5 Distribution of Polar Bear Stocks in the Arctic Region (USFWS 2010c)

3

4

5 habitat for maternity denning in and near the Prudhoe Bay oil field indicates that dens were 

6 located or associated with pronounced landscape features, such as coastal and river banks, as 

7 well as lake shores and abandoned oil field gravel pads (Durner et al. 2003). In the Beaufort 

8 Sea and to a limited extent the Chukchi Sea, females may den on the drifting pack ice 

9 (Schliebe et al. 2005). Females enter dens by late November, with young being born in late 

10 December or early January (Harington 1968). Polar bears do not have denning site fidelity, but 

11 do return to the general substrate (i.e., land or ice) and geographic area (e.g., eastern or western 

12 Beaufort Sea) (ADNR 2009). Females and cubs emerge from dens in late March or early April. 

13 Coastal areas provide important denning habitat for polar bears. More polar bears are now 

14 denning near shore, rather than in far offshore regions. Data indicated that approximately 64%

15 of all polar bear dens in Alaska from 1997 to 2004 occurred on land, compared to approximately 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-197

1 36% of dens from 1985 to 1994 (Fischbach et al. 2007). Recent information indicates that 

2 survival rates of cubs-of-the-year are now significantly lower than they were in previous studies, 

3 and there has also been a declining trend in cub-of-the-year size for the Southern Beaufort Sea 

4 stock. Although many cubs are currently being born into the Southern Beaufort Sea Stock 

5 region, more females are apparently losing their cubs shortly after den emergence, lowering 

6 recruitment of new bears into the population (Regehr et al. 2006). 

7

8 Polar bears normally occur at low densities throughout their range. Most of the year, 

9 polar bears are solitary or occur in family groups of a mother and her cubs (Lentfer and 

10 Small 2008). Polar bears do aggregate along the Beaufort Sea coastline in the fall in areas where 

11 harvesting and butchering of marine mammals occurs. Specific aggregation areas include Point 

12 Barrow, Cross Island, and Kaktovik (USFWS 1999). Polar bear concentrations also occur during 

13 the winter in areas of open water, such as leads and polynyas, and areas where beach-cast marine 

14 mammal carcasses occur (USFWS 1999).

15

16 The predominant prey item of polar bears in Alaska is ringed seals, and to a lesser degree 

17 bearded seals (Stirling and McEwan 1975; Stirling and Archibald 1977; Stirling and 

18 Latour 1978) and spotted seals. To hunt seals in the Beaufort Sea, polar bears concentrate in 

19 shallow waters less than 300 m (1,000 ft) deep over the continental shelf and in areas with 

20 greater than 50% ice cover (Allen and Angliss 2011). In addition, bears may take walruses 

21 (Calvert and Stirling 1990), beluga whales (Freeman 1973; Heyland and Hay 1976; 

22 Lowry et al. 1987), caribou (Derocher et al. 2000; Brook and Richardson 2002), and other polar 

23 bears (Lunn and Stenhouse 1985; Taylor et al. 1985). Cannibalism of cubs and juvenile bears by 

24 adult bears is not uncommon (Dyck and Daley 2002; Derocher and Wiig 1999). Polar bears also 

25 scavenge whale, seal, and walrus carcasses (USFWS 2008b). When regular prey items are not 

26 available, polar bears may consume small mammals, birds, eggs, and vegetation, although these 

27 foods are not important dietary components (USFWS 1994). They also will consume human 

28 refuse (Amstrup 2003). 

29

30 About 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears occur worldwide in 19 relatively discrete populations 

31 (USFWS 2008b). A reliable estimate for the Chukchi/Bering Seas stock does not exist, but the 

32 best information available provides a minimum population estimate of 2,000 individuals for the 

33 stock. There is also no reliable population trend for this stock (Allen and Angliss 2011). The 

34 best population estimate for the Southern Beaufort Sea stock is 1,526 individuals with a 

35 minimum population abundance of 1,397. This stock is experiencing a population decline 

36 (Allen and Angliss 2011).

37

38 Non-ESA-Listed Marine Mammals.

39

40 Cetaceans: Mysticetes. The eastern North pacific population of the gray whale 

41 (Eschrichtius robustus) was removed from ESA listing in 1994 (USFWS 1994). The gray whale 

42 (Eschrichtius robustus) occurs in the Gulf of Alaska in late March and April, moves into the 

43 Northern Bering Sea in May or June, and then enters the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea area in July 

44 or August (Rice and Wolman 1971; Consiglieri et al. 1982; Frost and Karpovich 2008). Gray 

45 whales migrate out of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas at freezeup and migrate out of the Bering 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-198

1 Sea during November to December (Rugh and Braham 1979). Section 3.5.4.2.1 provides 

2 additional information on the gray whale, including population estimates.

3

4 The minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) occurs from the Bering and Chukchi Seas 

5 south to near the equator with apparent concentrations of whales near Kodiak Island 

6 (Leatherwood et al. 1982; Rice and Wolman 1982). Very little is known about minke whale use 

7 of the Chukchi Sea, and they would not be expected to occur in the Beaufort Sea. Sightings are 

8 infrequent during the summer months in the Chukchi Sea. There are no estimates for minke 

9 whales in the Chukchi Sea, but numbers are clearly very low because it is the northern extreme 

10 of the species range (Brueggeman 2009). Section 3.5.4.2.1 provides additional information on

11 the minke whale.

12

13 Cetaceans: Odontocetes. The beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) is a subarctic and 

14 arctic species. Both the Beaufort Sea and Eastern Chukchi Sea stocks occur in the Arctic region. 

15 Beluga whales are associated with open leads and polynyas in ice-covered regions (Allen and 

16 Angliss 2011). Ice cover, tidal conditions, access to prey, temperature, and human interactions 

17 affect the seasonal distribution of beluga whales. They occur in ice-covered areas of the Bering 

18 Sea in winter and spring and in coastal waters of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas in summer and 

19 fall. Some beluga whales migrate more than 2,700 km (1,500 mi) between the Bering Sea and 

20 the Mackenzie River estuary in Canada, sometimes moving more than 180 km (100 mi) per day. 

21 They will ascend large rivers and are apparently unaffected by salinity changes (Citta and 

22 Lowry 2008).

23

24 Small groups of 2 to 5 beluga whales are common, but they can occur in groups of up to 

25 1,000 animals (Citta and Lowry 2008). Adult males will occur together in pods of 8 to10, while 

26 females occur in pods with juveniles and calves (Citta and Lowry 2008). Breeding occurs in 

27 March or April with calves being born between May and July after a gestation period of about 

28 14.5 months. Calving occurs when herds are generally near or in their summer concentration 

29 areas (Lowry 1994). Fall migration occurs in September and October. While some belugas 

30 migrate along the coast (Johnson 1979), most migrate offshore along the pack-ice front 

31 (Moore et al. 2000b; Richard et al. 2001; Suydam et al. 2001).

32

33 Belugas shed their skin around July. To do this, they tend to concentrate in shallow water 

34 where there is coarse gravel to rub against (Citta and Lowry 2008). Feeding occurs over the 

35 continental shelf and in nearshore estuaries and river mouths. During summer, belugas feed 

36 primarily on various schooling and anadromous fishes and occasionally on cephalopods, shrimp, 

37 crabs, and clams. Winter foods are not known (Citta and Lowry 2008). Most feeding dives are 

38 to depths of 6 to 30 m (20 to 100 ft) and last up to 5 minutes; however, they can dive to over 

39 860 m (2,800 ft) (Citta and Lowry 2008).

40

41 The best population estimate for the Beaufort Sea stock is 39,258 with a minimum 

42 estimate of 32,453 individuals; while the best population estimate for the Chukchi Sea stock is

43 3,710 individuals (which is also considered the minimum population size) (Allen and 

44 Angliss 2011). The population trend for the Beaufort Sea stock is unknown, and there is no 

45 evidence that the eastern Chukchi Sea stock is declining (Allen and Angliss 2011).

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-199

1 The narwhal (Monodon monoceros) typically occurs above the Arctic Circle. Narwhals 

2 are most common in Nunavut, Canada, west Greenland, and the European Arctic; but incidental 

3 sightings occur in the East Siberian, Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas (COSEWIC 2004; 

4 Jefferson et al. 1993). During summer, narwhals inhabit coastal areas with deep water and 

5 shelter from the wind. During the fall migration and, especially, while wintering in the pack ice, 

6 they prefer deep fjords and the continental slope at depths of 1,000 to 1,500 m (3,281 to 4,921 ft) 

7 (COSEWIC 2004). Narwhals often travel in small groups of under ten individuals, but do 

8 congregate in the hundreds during spring and fall migration. Peak mating occurs in mid-April 

9 with calving generally occurring in July and August following a gestation of up to 15.3 months 

10 (COSEWIC 2004). Prey items include fish and invertebrates including squid, shrimp, cod, and 

11 other demersal fish and crustaceans (COSEWIC 2004; Jefferson et al. 1993; Pauley et al. 1995). 

12 Population estimates for the Nunavut waters are up to 86,000 individuals (DFO 2008). There are 

13 no reliable population estimates or trends in population abundance for the narwhal in Alaska 

14 (Allen and Angliss 2011).

15

16 The harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) ranges from Point Conception, California, to 

17 Point Barrow, Alaska (Gaskin 1984). Activities associated with lease sales in the Arctic region 

18 could affect harbor porpoises that belong to the Bering Sea stock. The Bering Sea stock includes 

19 harbor porpoises that occur throughout the Aleutian Islands and all waters north of Unimak Pass 

20 (Allen and Angliss 2011). Harbor porpoises frequent waters less than 100 m (325 ft) in depth 

21 (Dahlheim et al. 2000). Mating likely occurs from June or July to October, with peak calving 

22 occurring the following May and June (Consiglieri et al. 1982). Harbor porpoises consume a 

23 wide variety of fish and cephalopods, apparently preferring non-spiny schooling fish such as 

24 herring, mackerel, and pollock (Houck and Jefferson 1999; American Cetacean Society 2006).

25 The best population estimate for the Bering Sea stock is 48,215 with a minimum population 

26 estimate of 40,039 based on survey data that is over 10 yr old (Allen and Angliss 2011).

27

28 The killer whale (Orcinus orca) occurs along the entire Alaska coast within the Chukchi 

29 Sea, Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, Gulf of Alaska, Prince William Sound, Kenai Fjords, and 

30 southeast Alaska. Some killer whales may also stray into the western portion of the Beaufort 

31 Sea. Killer whales that occur in the northern Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, and Beaufort Sea move 

32 south with the advancing pack ice (Culik 2010). Within these areas, three genetically distinct 

33 ecotypes, or forms, of killer whales exist: resident, transient, and offshore (Allen and 

34 Angliss 2011). The whales found in the Arctic region likely belong to the eastern North Pacific 

35 Transient Stock. Members of this stock occur from California to Alaska, with some also 

36 occurring within Canadian waters (Allen and Angliss 2011). Section 3.5.4.2.1 provides 

37 additional information on the killer whales in Alaska.

38

39 Pinnipeds. The Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens), a candidate for listing 

40 under the ESA (USFWS 2011a), ranges throughout the shallow continental shelf waters of the 

41 Bering and Chukchi Seas, where its distribution is closely linked with the seasonal distribution of 

42 the pack ice. It occasionally moves into the eastern Siberian Sea and western Beaufort Sea 

43 during summer (Fay 1982). The Pacific walrus is an extremely social and gregarious animal that

44 spends approximately one third of its time hauled out onto land or ice, usually in close physical 

45 contact with one another. Group size can range from several individuals to several thousand 

46 individuals (USFWS 2011a). The Pacific walrus relies on sea ice as a substrate for resting,
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-200

1 giving birth and nursing, isolation from predators, and passive transport to new feeding areas 

2 (USFWS 2009e). Spring migration usually begins in April, and most of the Pacific walruses 

3 move north through the Bering Strait by late June. During the summer months, most of the 

4 population moves into the Chukchi Sea; however, several thousand individuals, primarily adult 

5 males, use coastal haulouts in the Bering Sea (USFWS 2009e). Two large arctic areas are 

6 occupied by Pacific walruses during summer — from the Bering Strait west to Wrangell Island 

7 and along the northwest coast of Alaska from about Point Hope to north of Point Barrow. 

8 Within this area, summer/fall haulouts include Cape Lisburne, Corwin Bluff, Point Lay Barrier 

9 Islands, Icy Cape, Wainwright, Naokok, Asiniak Point, and Peard Bay (USFWS 2011b). 

10 Although a few Pacific walruses may move east throughout the Alaskan portion of the Beaufort 

11 Sea to Canadian waters during the open-water season, the majority of the population occurs west 

12 of 155°W, north and west of Barrow, with the highest seasonal abundance along the pack-ice 

13 front. With the southern advance of the pack ice in the Chukchi Sea during the fall (October to 

14 December), most of the Pacific walrus population migrates south of the Bering Strait, although 

15 solitary animals may occasionally overwinter in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Breeding 

16 occurs in areas of broken ice from January through March, with calves born in late April or May 

17 of the following year (USFWS 2009e).

18

19 Most Pacific walrus feeding dives last 5 to 10 minutes, with a 1- to 2-minute surface 

20 interval between dives (USFWS 2009e). The diet primarily includes molluscs, snails, decapod 

21 crustaceans, amphipods, sea cucumbers, and segmented worms. Some walruses will 

22 occasionally eat seals (Fay 1985; USFWS 2009e).

23

24 Allen and Angliss (2010a) provided estimates of the Pacific walrus population over the 

25 past several centuries. A minimum population of 200,000 animals occurred in the 18th and 

26 19th centuries. Commercial harvests reduced the population to an estimated 50,000 to 100,000 

27 by the 1950s. Between 1975 and 1990, the population estimate ranged from 201,039 to 

28 234,020 animals, and the 2006 estimated minimum population was 129,000 animals.

29

30 The ribbon seal (Phoca fasciata) inhabits the North Pacific Ocean and adjacent fringes 

31 of the Arctic Ocean. In Alaskan waters, ribbon seals occur in the open sea, on the pack ice, 

32 and only rarely on shorefast ice (Kelly 1988a), generally occurring in the open sea in summer 

33 and on the pack ice in winter (Nelson 2008b). The ribbon seal rarely occurs on land 

34 (Boveng et al. 2008). The ribbon seal ranges northward from Bristol Bay in the Bering Sea into 

35 the Chukchi and western Beaufort Seas (Allen and Angliss 2011). It inhabits the Bering Sea ice 

36 front from late March to early May. As the ice recedes in May to mid-July, ribbon seals move 

37 farther north in the Bering Sea, where they haul out on the receding ice edge (Allen and 

38 Angliss 2011). Kelly (1988a) suggests that many ribbon seals migrate into the Chukchi Sea for 

39 the summer. The ribbon seal is strongly associated with sea ice during its whelping, mating, and 

40 molting periods which occur from mid-March through June. During the remainder of the year, 

41 ribbon seals remain at sea feeding on fishes, cephalopods, and crustaceans (Nelson 2008a). 

42 Reliable population estimates and trends for the Alaska stock of the ribbon seal are not available,

43 although there is a provisional estimate of 49,000 ribbon seals in the eastern and central Bering 

44 Sea. This estimate is consistent with historical estimates, which suggests no major changes in 

45 the ribbon seal stock over the past several decades (Allen and Angliss 2011).

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-201

1 Only the Bering Sea Distinct Population Segment of the spotted seal (Phoca largha) 

2 occurs in U.S. waters (NMFS 2011a). It occurs along the continental shelf of the Beaufort, 

3 Chukchi, and Bering Seas (Allen and Angliss 2011). It occurs year-round in the Bering Sea, 

4 while occurring in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas in summer (Nelson 2008c). Terrestrial haul5 out sites are generally located on isolated mud, sand, or gravel beaches or on rocks close to 

6 shore. Haul-out sites are apparently selected based on proximity to food (e.g., in Alaska, haul7 out sites are located near herring and capelin spawning areas), lack of disturbance, and favorable 

8 tidal conditions (Boveng et al. 2009). Beaufort Sea coastal haul-out and concentration areas 

9 include the Colville River Delta, Peard Bay, Smith Bay, and Oarlock Island in Dease 

10 Inlet/Admiralty Bay, while along the Chukchi Sea coast they mostly haul out at Kasegaluk 

11 Lagoon but also at other locations to a lesser degree. Along the west coast of Alaska, spotted 

12 seals occur around the Pribilof Islands, Bristol Bay, and the eastern Aleutian Islands (Allen and 

13 Angliss 2011). Spotted seals frequently enter estuaries and sometimes ascend rivers, presumably 

14 to feed on anadromous fishes. Spotted seals migrate out of the Arctic region in the fall 

15 (September to mid-October) as the shorefast ice reforms and the pack ice advances southward. 

16 They spend the winter and spring periods offshore north of the 200-m (660-ft) isobath along the 

17 ice front throughout the Bering Sea where pupping, breeding, and molting occur 

18 (Lowry et al. 2000). Adult spotted seals forage at depths up to 300 m (984 ft), while pups can 

19 dive to 80 m (262 ft) (Boveng et al. 2009). Their diet includes a variety of fishes, crustaceans, 

20 and cephalopods (Nelson 2008b). A reliable population estimate for the Alaska stock is not 

21 available, but preliminary results provide a population estimate of over 59,000 individuals (Allen 

22 and Angliss 2011).

23

24 Climate Change. A number of reviews discuss the potential responses of arctic marine 

25 mammals to climate change (e.g., Tynan and DeMaster 1997; Learmonth et al. 2006; 

26 Laidre et al. 2008; Moore and Huntington 2008; Ragen et al. 2008; Simmonds and Eliott 2009; 

27 Kovacs et al. 2011). Climate change will primarily affect marine mammals from loss of habitat 

28 (particularly the extent and concentration of sea ice), changes in prey availability, and potentially 

29 increased expansion of other species that are likely to cause competitive pressure on some 

30 species, as well as putting them at greater risk of predation, disease, and parasitic infections 

31 (Alter et al. 2010; Kovacs et al. 2011). These changes may alter the seasonal distributions, 

32 geographic ranges, migration patterns, nutritional status, prey species, reproductive success, and 

33 ultimately the abundance and stock structure of some marine mammal species. The capacity of 

34 Arctic marine mammals to adapt to new or different food sources will have a key role in their 

35 ability to cope with climate change, with generalists probably having a better chance of coping 

36 than specialists (Kovacs et al. 2011).

37

38 Climate change impacts on marine mammals can be either direct (e.g., effects of reduced 

39 sea ice and rising sea levels on seal haul-out sites, or species tracking a specific range of water 

40 temperatures in which they can physically survive); or indirect (e.g., changes in prey availability 

41 and increased susceptibility to disease or contaminants) (Learmonth et al. 2006). Predicted 

42 indirect impacts on cetacean species are decreased reproductive capacity, asynchrony in space or 

43 time with prey species, increased prevalence and/or susceptibility to disease, and loss of habitat 

44 (Simmonds and Eliott 2009). Alteration of sea ice and the productive food web associated with 

45 it, as well as increasing human presence and activities, will cause extensive redistribution of 

46 mobile species, disappearance of non-mobile species throughout portions of their range, and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-202

1 possible species extinctions (Ragen et al. 2008). For instance, the loss of sea ice could have 

2 some potential beneficial effects on bowhead whales by increasing prey availability (Moore and 

3 Laidre 2006). However, loss of sea ice would include increase noise and disturbance related to 

4 increased shipping, increased interactions with commercial fisheries, including noise and 

5 disturbance, incidental intake, and gear entanglement; changes in prey species concentrations 

6 and distribution; and changes in subsistence-hunting practices.

7

8 Species that seasonally occupy Arctic and subarctic habitats may move further north, 

9 remain there longer, and compete with endemic arctic species (Moore and Huntington 2008). 

10 For example, humpback whales now occur as far north as the Beaufort Sea and fin whales occur 

11 farther north than usual within the Chukchi Sea. Higher calf counts in the spring are associated 

12 with years of delayed onset of freezeup in the Chukchi Sea. Killer whales appear to be extending 

13 their season of Arctic habitation and are expanding their range northward. Other species that 

14 may be shifting their summer distribution northward in the Arctic include the sei whale, blue 

15 whale, minke whale, and harbor porpoise (Kovacs et al. 2011). However, information is not 

16 sufficient to determine or predict whether short-term apparent changes in their distribution will 

17 persist and become longer term trends in the Arctic (MMS 2008).

18

19 Changes in sea ice will reduce habitat available for ice-associated marine mammals that 

20 give birth on sea ice, hide from predators, seek shelter from inclement weather on ice fields, or 

21 consume ice-associated fish and invertebrate prey or ice-associated marine mammals (Kovacs et 

22 al. 2011). Changes in the extent, concentration, and thickness of the sea ice in the Arctic may 

23 alter the distribution, geographic ranges, migration patterns, nutritional status, reproductive 

24 success, and ultimately the abundance of ice-associated pinnipeds that rely on the ice platform 

25 for pupping, rest, and molting (Tynan and DeMaster 1997). The early breakup of sea ice has 

26 resulted in increased mortality of seal pups within their birth lairs (Stirling and Lunn 2001). In 

27 the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, ringed seal-lair abandonment began earlier each year from 1999 

28 (May 21) to 2003 (April 28) and was associated with early onset of spring melt over the sea-ice 

29 cover and the snow pack turning isothermal, at which time the thermal and structural integrity of 

30 the lairs was compromised (Kelly et al. 2003). Climate change may adversely affect populations 

31 of ringed seals as warmer temperatures and rain may collapse roofs of birth lairs, exposing pups 

32 to predators and to wet weather before they have enough blubber to insulate them (Kelly 2001; 

33 Ferguson et al. 2005; Citta 2008). Although longer periods of open water may increase prey 

34 accessibility, earlier spring break-up may force ringed seal pups into open water at an earlier age 

35 and expose them to increased risk of predation and thermal challenges (Ferguson et al. 2005). A

36 loss of suitable sea ice due to climate change could isolate bearded seals from suitable benthic 

37 prey communities (Cameron and Boveng 2009).

38

39 Reductions in sea-ice coverage would adversely affect the availability of pinnipeds prey 

40 for polar bears (Ramsay 1995; Stirling et al. 1999; Stirling and Lunn 2001). This can force polar 

41 bears ashore earlier than normal and in poorer condition. Lack of access to seals for a long 

42 period of time can cause a decline in polar bear health, reproduction, survival, and population 

43 size. Generally, polar bears cannot meet their caloric needs from just terrestrial sources of food 

44 (USFWS 2008). Changing ice conditions due to climate change is expected to increase polar 

45 bear use of the coast during open-water seasons (June through November). Polar bears spending 

46 extended periods of time on land without an adequate food source may be nutritionally stressed 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-203

1 animals and potentially more dangerous when encountering humans (USFWS 2009). Monnett 

2 and Gleason (2006) speculated that mortalities due to offshore swimming during late-ice (or mild 

3 ice) years may be an important and unaccounted source of natural mortality given energetic 

4 demands placed on individual polar bears engaged in long-distance swimming. Drowning5 related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of pack ice 

6 regression and/or longer open water period continues. Polar bear survival, breeding rates, and 

7 cub litter survival decline with an increasing number of days per year that waters across the 

8 continental shelf are ice free (Regehr et al. 2010).

9

10 Pacific walruses have been showing negative impacts of sea-ice reductions (e.g., reports 

11 of abandoned calves at sea, and mothers and calves spending more time on land, where stampede 

12 incidents have caused significant mortality). The Pacific walrus may also be shifting its diet 

13 toward eating more seals and fewer benthic invertebrates (Kovacs et al. 2011). Decreases in 

14 summer extent of sea ice may decrease the access of Pacific walrus to their food resources and 

15 increase their exposure to polar bear predation (Kelly 2001).

16

17

18 3.8.1.3.2 Terrestrial Mammals. Approximately 30 species of terrestrial mammals 

19 occur in Alaska‘s Arctic region (Sage 1996); these species include the brown bear (Ursus

20 arctos), caribou (Rangifer tarandus), muskox (Ovibos moschatus), Arctic fox (Alopex lagopus), 

21 brown lemming (Lemmus trimucronatus), ermine (Mustela ermine), gray wolf (Canis lupus), 

22 least weasel (Mustela rixosa), North American river otter (Lutra canadensis), red fox (Vulpes

23 vulpes), and wolverine (Gulo gulo) (ADFG 2011a; Carroll 2007; Szepanski 2007). Among 

24 these, the Arctic fox, brown bear, caribou, and muskox are the species most likely to be affected 

25 by proposed OCS oil and gas activities. The following information describes the life history 

26 attributes, distribution, and seasonal movement for these terrestrial mammal species in the Arctic 

27 region.

28

29 Arctic Fox (Alopex lagopus). In Alaska, the Arctic fox occurs in treeless coastal areas 

30 from the Aleutian Islands north to Point Barrow and east to the U.S./Canadian border 

31 (Stephenson 2008). Pups are born in dens that adults construct in sandy, well-drained soils of 

32 low mounds and river cutbanks (Stephenson 2008). In winter, dens provide shelter. In 

33 developed areas, Arctic foxes also use culverts and road embankments as denning sites 

(Audet et al. 2002). A den may cover more than 50 m2 (540 ft2 34 ) and contain up to 

100 entrances. Den densities range from 1.0 den/2,500 km2 (965 mi2) to 1.0 den/12 km2 (5 mi2 35 ) 

36 (Audet et al. 2002). Arctic fox populations peak whenever lemmings and voles (their main prey) 

37 are abundant (Stephenson 2008). Other food sources include ringed seal pups and the carcasses 

38 of other marine mammals and caribou, which are important throughout the year 

39 (Chesemore 1967; Hammill and Smith 1991). Arctic foxes are the most common predator of 

40 arctic nesting birds and their eggs. They will cache eggs to consume during the winter. A single 

41 Arctic fox is capable of caching hundreds of eggs per nesting season (Audet et al. 2002). Marine 

42 mammals are an important part of the diet of Arctic foxes that occur along the coast of western 

43 Alaska (Anthony et al. 2000). In winter, Arctic foxes primarily feed on remains of polar bear 

44 kills (USFWS 2008b), and many Arctic foxes venture onto sea ice to search for seal remains 

45 (Stephenson 2008). The availability of winter food sources directly affects the Arctic foxes‘ 

46 abundance and productivity (Angerbjorn et al. 1991). During midwinter, Arctic foxes tend to be 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-204

1 solitary except when congregating at carcasses of marine mammals or caribou 

2 (Stephenson 2008). Arctic foxes on the Prudhoe Bay oil field readily use developed sites for 

3 feeding, resting, and denning; their densities are greater in the oil fields than in surrounding 

4 undeveloped areas (Eberhardt et al. 1982; Burgess et al. 1993). Development on the Prudhoe 

5 Bay oil fields probably has led to increases in Arctic fox abundance and productivity 

6 (Burgess 2000).

7

8 Brown Bears (Ursus arctos). Population estimates for brown (grizzly) bears across the 

9 North Slope of Alaska are: 900 to 1,120 in Game Management Unit 26A (western North Slope) 

10 and 659 in Game Management Units 26B and 26C (eastern North Slope) (Shideler and 

11 Hecthel 2000; Carroll 2007). Brown bears are solitary animals except when breeding or 

12 concentrating near high-value food sources. On the North Slope, brown bear densities vary from 

about 0.1 to 2.3 bears/100 km2 (0.3 to 5.9 bears/100 mi2 13 ), with a mean density of 

0.4 bear/100 km2 (1 bear/100 mi2 14 ). The number of brown bears using the Prudhoe Bay and 

15 Kuparuk oil fields adjacent to the Liberty Project in the Beaufort Sea has increased in recent 

16 years. An estimated 60 to 70 brown bears, or approximately 4 bears/1,000 km2

(10 bears/1,000 m2 17 ), inhabit the oil field area (Shideler and Hechtel 2000). Brown bears in the 

oil field area can have large home ranges, between 2,600 to 5,200 km2 (1,000 to 2,000 mi2 18 ), and 

19 travel up to 50 km (31 mi) per day (Shideler and Hechtel 1995). Home range size is influenced 

20 by the distribution of food and by the individual‘s age, sex, social status, condition, and foraging 

21 habits (Pasitschniak-Arts 1993). Home ranges overlap and there is no territorial defense 

22 (Pasitschniak-Arts 1993). Most brown bears den and hibernate during winter when food is 

23 scarce. On the North Slope, den sites are located in pingos, banks of rivers and lakes, sand 

24 dunes, and steep gullies in the uplands (Harding 1976; Shideler and Hechtel 1995). The grass 

25 meadows on the bluffs along the Colville River provide forage for brown bears during the spring. 

26 Common foods include berries, nuts, vegetation, roots, insects, fish, ground squirrels, birds and 

27 their eggs, carrion, and human garbage. In the Arctic region, brown bears will also prey on 

28 newborn muskoxen and particularly caribou and will occasionally prey on healthy adults of these 

29 species. Large males prey on newborn brown bear cubs and occasionally females (Pasitschniak30 Arts 1993). 

31

32 Caribou (Rangifer tarandus). Within the coastal habitats adjacent to the Arctic region 

33 occur two large caribou herds — the Western Arctic Herd (WAH) and the Porcupine Caribou 

34 Herd (PCH) — and two smaller herds — the Teshekpuk Lake Herd (TLH) and the Central Arctic 

35 Herd (CAH) (Figure 3.8.1-6). While the calving areas are separate for each herd, some 

36 intermingling occurs on winter and summer ranges (ADNR 2009; Lenart 2009a). Caribou herd 

37 size naturally fluctuates (e.g., cycles of years of growth followed by years of decline) due to a 

38 number of factors such as weather patterns, overpopulation, predation, disease, and hunting 

39 (Valkenburg and Arthur 2008).

40

The WAH herd, covering about 363,000 km2 (140,000 mi2 41 ) (Dau 2009), ranges over 

42 northwestern Alaska from the Chukchi Coast east to the Colville River and from the Beaufort 

43 Coast south to the Kobuk River. Herd size estimates included 490,000 animals in 2003, 377,000 

44 in 2007, and 348,000 in 2009 (ADFG 2011d).

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-205

1

2 FIGURE 3.8.1-6 Distribution of Caribou Herds in the Arctic Region (Source: MMS 2007a)

3

4

The PCH, covering about 336,700 km2 (130,000 mi2 5 ) (Caikoski 2009), ranges south from 

6 the Beaufort Sea Coast, from the Canning River of Alaska in the west, eastward through the 

7 northern Yukon and portions of the Northwest Territories in Canada, and south to the Brooks 

8 Range. The herd peaked at 178,000 caribou in 1989, but had declined to 123,000 by 2001 

9 (Caikoski 2009). A 2010 photocensus indicates the herd has grown to an estimated 

10 169,000 caribou (ADFG 2011c).

11

12 The TLH primarily inhabits the central coastal plain north of the Brooks Range in spring 

13 and summer; its wintering areas encompass much of northwestern Alaska (Parrett 2009). The 

14 TLH occurs primarily within the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), with its summer 

15 range extending between Barrow and the Colville River. It uses the area around Teshekpuk Lake 

16 for calving, grazing, and insect relief (ADNR 2009). In some years, most of the TLH remains in 

17 the Teshekpuk Lake area all winter. In other years, part or all of the herd winters in the Brooks 

18 Range or within the range of the WAH and CAH. The TLH contained a record 64,106 caribou 

19 in 2008 (Parrett 2009).

20

21 The CAH ranges from the Itkillik River east to the Canning River and from the Beaufort 

22 Coast south into the Brooks Range. It occurs east and west of the Sagavanirktok River, and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-206

1 individuals show considerable movement between the eastern and western segments of the herd

2 (Cronin et al. 1997, 2000). In 2008, the CAH totaled about 67,772 caribou (Lenart 2009).

3

4 Most caribou herds migrate seasonally between their calving area, summer range, and 

5 winter range to take advantage of seasonally available forage resources; however, as previously 

6 mentioned, in some years the TLH may remain in the Teshekpuk Lake area the entire year. If 

7 movements are greatly restricted, caribou are likely to overgraze their habitat, perhaps leading to 

8 a drastic, long-term population decline. The winter diet of caribou consists predominantly of 

9 lichens and mosses, shifting to vascular plants during the spring (Thompson and McCourt 1981). 

10 However, when TLH caribou winter near Teshekpuk Lake, where relatively few lichens are 

11 present, the herd may consume more sedges and vascular plants.

12

13 Spring migration of parturient female caribou from the overwintering areas to the calving 

14 grounds starts in April (Dau 2009). Often the most direct routes are used; however, certain 

15 drainages and routes are used during calving migrations because they tend to be corridors free of 

16 snow or with shallow snow (Lent 1980). Bulls and non-parturient females generally migrate at a 

17 very leisurely pace, with some remaining on winter ranges until June. Severe weather and deep 

18 snow can delay spring migration, with some calving occurring en route. Cows calving en route 

19 usually proceed to their traditional calving grounds (Hemming 1971).

20

21 The spring migration to traditional calving grounds consistently provides high nutritional 

22 forage to lactating females during calving and nursing periods, which is critical for the growth 

23 and survival of newborn calves. Calciphiles such as the sheathed cottonsedge (Eriophorum 

24 vaginatum) appear to be very important in the diet of lactating caribou cows during the calving 

25 season (Lent 1966; Thompson and McCourt 1981; Eastland et al. 1989), while shrubs (especially 

26 willows) are the predominant forage during the post-calving period (Thompson and McCourt 

27 1981). The winter availability of sedges, which are dependent on temperature and snow cover, 

28 probably affects specific calving locations and calving success.

29

30 Cows reach calving grounds by mid- to late May, with calving occurring late May 

31 through early June (Dau 2007; ADNR 2009). The sequential spring migration, first by cows and 

32 later by bulls and the rest of the herd, is a strategy for optimizing the quality of forage as it 

33 becomes available with snowmelt on the arctic tundra (Whitten and Cameron 1980). The earlier 

34 migration of parturient cow caribou to the calving grounds also could reduce forage competition 

35 with the rest of the herd during the calving season.

36

37 Insect-relief areas become important during late summer when oestrid fly and mosquito 

38 harassment peaks (Lawhead 1997). Harassment by insects reduces foraging efficiency and 

39 increases physiological stress (Hagemoen and Reimers 2002). Caribou use various coastal and 

40 upland habitats for relief from insect pests, including areas such as sandbars, spits, river deltas, 

41 some barrier islands, mountain foothills, snow patches, and sand dunes. Stiff breezes in these 

42 settings prevent insects from concentrating and alighting on the caribou. Members of the TLH

43 generally aggregate close to the coast for insect relief, but some small groups gather in other cool 

44 windy areas such as the Pik Dunes located about 30 km (19 mi) south of Teshekpuk Lake 

45 (Hemming 1971; Philo et al. 1993). Caribou aggregations move frequently from insect-relief 

46 areas along the arctic coast (CAH, WAH, and especially the TLH) and in the mountain foothills 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-207

1 (some aggregations of the WAH) to and from green foraging areas. After calving along the 

2 coast, much of the PCH will move back into the Brooks Range foothills for insect relief.

3

4 During the post-calving period in July through August, caribou generally attain their 

5 highest degree of aggregation. They join into increasingly larger groups, foraging primarily on 

6 the emerging buds and leaves of willow shrubs and dwarf birch (Thompson and McCourt 1981). 

7 In the PCH and WAH, continuous masses of animals can number in the tens of thousands. 

8 Cow/calf groups are most sensitive to human disturbance during this period.

9

10 Fall migration begins from mid-August through late September and can last through late 

11 November. Migration is triggered by weather conditions such as the onset of cold weather or a 

12 snowstorm (ADNR 2009). Once on wintering grounds, caribou are relatively sedentary until 

13 spring migration initiates (Dau 2007). The primary winter range of the WAH is located south of 

14 the Brooks Range along the northern fringe of the boreal forest. During winters of heavy 

15 snowfall or severe ice crusting, caribou may overwinter within the mountains or on the Arctic 

16 Slope (Hemming 1971). Even during normal winters, some caribou of the WAH overwinter on 

17 the Arctic Coastal Plain. The TLH primarily resides year-round in the Teshekpuk Lake area; 

18 however, some animals travel great distances to the south, as far as the Seward Peninsula 

19 (Davis et al. 1982; Carroll 1992). The CAH overwinters primarily in the northern foothills of the 

20 Brooks Range (Roby 1980).

21

22 The movement and distribution of caribou over the winter ranges reflect their need to 

23 avoid predators and their response to wind (storm) and snow conditions (depth and snow 

24 density), which greatly influence the availability of winter forage (Henshaw 1968; Bergerud and 

25 Elliot 1986). The numbers of caribou using a particular portion of the winter range are highly 

26 variable from year to year (Davis et al. 1982; Whitten 1990). Range condition, distribution of 

27 preferred winter forage (particularly lichens), and predation pressure all affect winter distribution 

28 and movements (Roby 1980; Miller 1971).

29

30 Muskox (Ovibos moschatus). Indigenous populations of muskox were extirpated in the 

31 1800s in northern Alaska (Smith et al. 2008). As a result of restoration efforts, numbers of 

32 muskoxen in Alaska had grown to about 3,800 individuals by the year 2000. This included 

33 650 on Nunivak Island, 250 on Nelson Island, 550 in northcentral and northeastern Alaska, 

34 450 in northwestern Alaska, 1,800 on the Seward Peninsula, and 100 on the Yukon-Kuskokwim 

35 Delta (Smith et al. 2008). Between the years 2000 and 2006, the numbers in north-central and 

36 northwestern Alaska declined by about 200 individuals. The most likely factors causing this 

37 decline are severe winters, predation by bears and wolves, and the limited availability of winter 

38 forage (Smith et al. 2008). Smith et al. (2008) concluded that muskoxen populations elsewhere 

39 in Alaska will continue to increase and expand their range. Lenart (2009b) stated that the likely 

40 combined population of muskoxen in Game Management Units 26A (eastern portion), 26B, and 

41 26C, which comprise the Arctic Slope area, is less than 300 individuals. There is little or no 

42 overlap of habitat and feeding sites between muskoxen and caribou (Lent 1988).

43

44 Unlike caribou, muskoxen are sedentary, but will engage in limited movement in 

45 response to seasonal changes and variations in snow cover and vegetation. Being poor diggers, 

46 their winter habitat is generally restricted to areas with minimal snow accumulations or areas 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-208

1 blown free of snow (Smith et al. 2008). They also use willow-shrub riparian habitats along the 

2 major river drainages on the Arctic Slope year-round. Calving takes place from mid-April 

3 through June (Lent 1988). Distributions of muskoxen during the calving season, summer, and 

4 winter are similar, with little movement during winter (Reynolds 1992). The breeding season 

5 occurs from August to October with calves born the following April to June (Smith et al. 2008). 

6 During the mating season, harems consist of 5 to 15 females and subadults with one dominant 

7 bull; mixed male and female winter herds may contain up to 75 animals. Some non-breeding 

8 bulls may form bull-only herds during spring (Smith et al. 2008). Muskoxen are herbivores and 

9 consume grasses, sedges, forbs, and woody plants (Smith et al. 2008).

10

11 Climate Change. An increase in temperature associated with climate change is not 

12 expected to directly affect most terrestrial mammals. Physiological tolerance to heat load would 

13 allow most species to survive, but changes in habitat through climate-vegetation linkages are 

14 expected to influence terrestrial mammal distributions (Johnston and Schmitz 1997). Climate 

15 change is predicted to increase the number and geographic range of large rain-on-snow events. 

16 When rain falls on snowpack, the rain either pools at the surface or trickles down to the soil 

17 below the snowpack, then freezes into a sheet of ice. Such events have been known to cause 

18 death due to starvation to muskoxen and caribou because they are unable to break through the ice 

19 to browse on plants under the snow (Putkonen and Roe 2003; Joyce 2009).

20

21 Other effects of climate change on caribou herds potentially include alteration in habitat 

22 use, migration patterns, foraging behavior, quality of forage, and demography (Lenart et al. 

23 2002; Vors and Boyce 2009; Sharma et al. 2009). If climate change brings about a longer 

24 growing season, the amount of plant biomass available for caribou may increase and likely 

25 decrease calf abortion, improve birth mass of calves, and increase parturition rates (Couturier et 

26 al. 2009; Tews et al 2007); this would increase the survival and fecundity of migratory caribou 

27 and may also decrease the dependence of caribou on lichen (Sharma et al. 2009). However, 

28 adverse effects can occur if there is a mismatch between the timing of increased resource 

29 demands by caribou and resource availability. In West Greenland, this has caused an increase in 

30 offspring mortality and a decrease in offspring production (Post and Forchhammer 2008). It is 

31 also possible that climate change may lead to an overlap of herds in spring that could increase 

32 competition on the calving grounds or change their distribution (Post and Forchhammer 2008).

33

34 The absence or incomplete formation of ice on large streams and rivers can result in 

35 delays in crossing and possibly drowning of some migratory caribou (Sharma et al. 2009). 

36 Increased insect harassment appears to be a key climate change related factor that may adversely 

37 impact caribou (Weladji et al. 2002; Sharma et al. 2009). In addition, warming temperatures will 

38 benefit free-living bacteria and parasites whose survival and development is limited by lower 

39 temperatures. Climate warming may also favor the release of persistent environmental 

40 pollutants, some of which can affect wildlife immune systems and may favor the increased rates 

41 of some diseases (Bradley et al. 2005). Overall, climate change is predicted to negatively impact 

42 caribou body condition and demography (Couturier et al. 2009; Miller and Gunn 2003).

43

44 Potential changes in habitat across the North Slope due to development and climate 

45 change may influence the distribution and abundance of muskoxen in the future (Smith et al. 

46 2008). Population declines in muskoxen are proposed to occur due to changes in forage 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-209

1 availability, insect harassment, parasite load, infectious diseases, and habitat availability 

2 (Ytrehus et al. 2008). The absence or incomplete formation of ice on large streams and rivers 

3 can possibly result in drowning of muskoxen (Sharma et al. 2009).

4

5 Red foxes prey on and are superior hunters to Arctic foxes. Their expansion into the 

6 range of the Arctic fox, which has already begun, will continue as the tundra warms. In addition, 

7 Arctic fox prey (lemming and voles) are expected to have their population cycles disrupted and 

8 their numbers decrease as the climate changes (Hersteinsson and Macdonald 1992; Sillero-Zubiri 

9 and Angerbjorn 2009).

10

11 Because brown bears are opportunistic, omnivorous, and highly adaptable, climate 

12 change it is not expected to threaten their populations due to ecological threats or constraints; 

13 however, it may lead to an increase in brown bear/human interactions, in part from later den 

14 entry and earlier den exit (Servheen and Cross 2010).

15

16 Climate Change. An increase in temperature associated with climate change is not 

17 expected to directly affect most terrestrial mammals. Physiological tolerance to heat load would 

18 allow most species to survive, but changes in habitat through climate-vegetation linkages are 

19 expected to influence terrestrial mammal distributions (Johnston and Schmitz 1997). Climate 

20 change is predicted to increase the number and geographic range of large rain-on-snow events. 

21 When rain falls on snowpack, the rain either pools at the surface or trickles down to the soil 

22 below the snowpack, then freezes into a sheet of ice. Such events have been known to cause 

23 death due to starvation to muskoxen and caribou because they are unable to break through the ice 

24 to browse on plants under the snow (Putkonen and Roe 2003; Joyce 2009).

25

26 Other effects of climate change on caribou herds potentially include alteration in habitat 

27 use, migration patterns, foraging behavior, quality of forage, and demography (Lenart et al. 

28 2002; Vors and Boyce 2009; Sharma et al. 2009). If climate change brings about a longer 

29 growing season, the amount of plant biomass available for caribou may increase and likely 

30 decrease calf abortion, improve birth mass of calves, and increase parturition rates (Couturier et 

31 al. 2009; Tews et al 2007); this would increase the survival and fecundity of migratory caribou 

32 and may also decrease the dependence of caribou on lichen (Sharma et al. 2009). However, 

33 adverse effects can occur if there is a mismatch between the timing of increased resource 

34 demands by caribou and resource availability. In West Greenland, this has caused an increase in 

35 offspring mortality and a decrease in offspring production (Post and Forchhammer 2008). It is 

36 also possible that climate change may lead to an overlap of herds in spring that could increase 

37 competition on the calving grounds or change their distribution (Post and Forchhammer 2008).

38

39 The absence or incomplete formation of ice on large streams and rivers can result in 

40 delays in crossing and possibly drowning of some migratory caribou (Sharma et al. 2009). 

41 Increased insect harassment appears to be a key climate change related factor that may adversely 

42 impact caribou (Weladji et al. 2002; Sharma et al. 2009). In addition, warming temperatures will 

43 benefit free-living bacteria and parasites whose survival and development is limited by lower 

44 temperatures. Climate warming may also favor the release of persistent environmental 

45 pollutants, some of which can affect wildlife immune systems and may favor the increased rates 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-210

1 of some diseases (Bradley et al. 2005). Overall, climate change is predicted to negatively impact 

2 caribou body condition and demography (Couturier et al. 2009; Miller and Gunn 2003).

3

4 Potential changes in habitat across the North Slope due to development and climate 

5 change may influence the distribution and abundance of muskoxen in the future (Smith et al. 

6 2008). Population declines in muskoxen are proposed to occur due to changes in forage 

7 availability, insect harassment, parasite load, infectious diseases, and habitat availability 

8 (Ytrehus et al. 2008). The absence or incomplete formation of ice on large streams and rivers 

9 can possibly result in drowning of muskoxen (Sharma et al. 2009).

10

11 Red foxes prey on and are superior hunters to Arctic foxes. Their expansion into the 

12 range of the Arctic fox, which has already begun, will continue as the tundra warms. In addition, 

13 Arctic fox prey (lemming and voles) are expected to have their population cycles disrupted and 

14 their numbers decrease as the climate changes (Hersteinsson and Macdonald 1992; Sillero-Zubiri 

15 and Angerbjorn 2009).

16

17 Because brown bears are opportunistic, omnivorous, and highly adaptable, climate 

18 change it is not expected to threaten their populations due to ecological threats or constraints; 

19 however, it may lead to an increase in brown bear/human interactions, in part from later den 

20 entry and earlier den exit (Servheen and Cross 2010).

21

22

23 3.8.2 Marine and Coastal Birds

24

25

26 3.8.2.1 Marine and Coastal Birds of the Northern Gulf of Mexico

27

28 The northern GOM and its ecoregions possess a diverse bird fauna composed of resident 

29 marine and coastal species (Clapp et al. 1983; Sibley 2000). The bird fauna of the region also 

30 includes many species that inhabit northern latitudes and pass through the region in large 

31 numbers during spring and fall migrations (Russell 2005), or move into coastal habitats of the 

32 GOM to overwinter. For example, in the fall, many migratory species arrive at the northern 

33 GOM coast and then fly several hundred miles directly across the open waters or westward along 

34 the coast to wintering areas in Central and South America (Lincoln et al. 1998).

35

36

37 3.8.2.1.1 Nonendangered Species. The northern GOM, with its diverse array of 

38 terrestrial and aquatic habitats, supports a diverse avifauna of well over 600 species 

39 (Table 3.8.2-1). Many of these species may be found in more than one of the five GOM States, 

40 while a much smaller subset are largely restricted to a particular State or locale. For example, 

41 the brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) is ubiquitous throughout the GOM States, while the 

42 endangered Mississippi sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pulla) is only found in Mississippi.

43

44 Although more than 400 species have been reported in the northern GOM, many of these 

45 species would not be likely to occur in marine and coastal habitats where they could encounter 

46 OCS oil and gas activities. Instead, these species occur in more interior, terrestrial habitats. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-211

1 TABLE 3.8.2-1 Number of Bird Species Reported from the Gulf Coast States

State

Total Number of 

Reported Species

Number of 

Aquatic/Semi-aquatic 

Species that Could 

Occur in Coastal and 

Marine Habitatsa

Number of Aquatic/Semiaquatic Species that are 

Very Uncommon or 

Incidental in Occurrenceb

Floridac 510 189 (37%) 29 (6%)

Mississippid 408 155 (38%) 37 (9%)

Alabamae 413 165 (40%) 35 (8%)

Louisianaf 471 172 (37%) 45 (10%)

Texasg 636 215 (34%) 65 (10%)

a Species that use coastal and marine aquatic habitats for nesting and/or foraging. 

Values in parentheses indicate the percent contribution of the aquatic/semi-aquatic 

species to the total number of species reported for the State.

b Species that are infrequently observed; many are currently in review regarding 

occurrence. Values in parentheses indicate the percent contribution of 

aquatic/semiaquatic species to the total number of species reported for the State.

c Source: Florida Ornithological Society 2010.

d Source: Mississippi Ornithological Society 2007; Mississippi Coast Audubon 

Society 2010.

e Source: Alabama Ornithological Society 2006.

f Source: Louisiana Bird Records Committee 2010.

g Source: Texas Ornithological Society 2010.

2

3

4 Species that would be most likely to encounter, and thus be potentially affected by, OCS oil and 

5 gas activities are the aquatic/semi-aquatic species that rely on coastal and marine habitats. 

6 Within any individual GOM State, these species account for between 34 and 40% of all species 

7 reported from the State. Among these aquatic/semi-aquatic species, several species are very 

8 uncommon or incidental in occurrence, being occasional visitors or transients that in some cases 

9 may only be observed once every few years (Table 3.8.2-1). These species account for no more 

10 than 10% of all species reported from any of the GOM States. The occurrence of some other 

11 species is based on observations of individuals following large storm events such as hurricanes. 

12 For example, the brown noddy (a type of tern) has been reported only six times from Alabama, 

13 and three of those were following the passage of Hurricanes Frederick (1979), Isidore (2002), 

14 and Ivan (2004) (Alabama Ornithological Society 2011).

15

16 There are six general categories of marine and coastal birds that occur in the GOM region 

17 for at least some portion of their life cycle: seabirds, shorebirds, wetland birds, waterfowl, 

18 passerines, and raptors (Table 3.8.2-2). The first four categories represent birds that greatly 

19 utilize marine and coastal habitats (such as beaches, mud flats, salt marshes, coastal wetlands, 

20 and embayments), and thus these birds have the greatest potential for interacting with at least 

21 some phases of OCS-related oil and gas development activities, and for being affected by 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-212

1 TABLE 3.8.2-2 Marine and Coastal Birds of the Gulf of Mexico

Category Order Common Name Representative Types

Seabirds Charadriiformes Gulls and terns

Phalaropes

Ring-billed gull, laughing gull, 

common tern, Caspian tern

Pelicaniformes Frigatebirds

Pelicans

Tropicbirds

Gannets and boobies

Magnificent frigatebird, brown 

pelican, northern gannet

Procellariiformes Storm-petrels

Shearwaters

Band-rumped storm-petrel, 

Audubon‘s shearwater

Shorebirds Charadriiformes Plovers

Oystercatchers

Stilts and avocets

Sandpipers, snipes, and allies

Semipalmated plover, American 

oystercatcher, willet, blacknecked stilt

Wetland birds Ciconiiformes Bitterns, egrets, and herons

Storks

Ibises and spoonbills

Great blue heron, snowy egret, 

wood stork, white ibis

Gruiformes Cranes

Limkins

Rails and coots, and gallinules

Sandhill crane, sora, American 

coot

Pelicaniformes Cormorants Double-crested cormorant

Podicipediformes Grebes Pied-billed grebe, horned grebe

Waterfowl Anseriformes Ducks, geese, and swans Blue-winged teal, mallard, redbreasted merganser, ring-necked 

duck, bufflehead, surf scoter

Gaviiformes Loons Common loon

Passerines Passeriformes Perching birds Warblers, swamp sparrow, 

thrushes, marsh wren, boat-tailed 

grackle

Raptors Falconiformes Birds of prey Osprey, bald eagle

2

3

4 accidental oil spills that reach those habitats. For any of these categories, the occurrence and 

5 abundance of individual species and types of birds varies considerably, both spatially and 

6 temporally.

7

8 Seabirds spend a large portion of their lives on or over seawater and may be found in 

9 both offshore and coastal waters of the northern GOM, where they feed on fish and invertebrates. 

10 This category is represented by four orders of birds, and includes gulls, terns, and phalaropes; 

11 loons; frigatebirds, pelicans, tropicbirds, cormorants, gannets, and boobies; and storm-petrels and 

12 shearwaters (Table 3.8.2-2). Some birds (such as the boobies, petrels, and shearwaters) inhabit 

13 only pelagic habitats in the GOM, including deeper waters of the continental slope and GOM 

14 basin. Most GOM seabird species, however, inhabit waters of the continental shelf and adjacent 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-213

1 coastal and inshore habitats of the estuarine and neritic ecoregions. The temporal occurrence of 

2 seabirds in the GOM varies greatly among species and groups. Some species (e.g., northern 

3 gannet [Morus bassanus], black tern [Chlidonias niger]) may be fairly common in some areas in 

4 winter although they breed outside the GOM, while others (e.g., least tern [Sternula antillarum]) 

5 are most common in summer months when they breed in the GOM. Still other species, such as 

6 many of the gulls and other terns and the brown pelican, may be present year round and nest in 

7 appropriate habitats in the GOM.

8

9 Shorebirds are represented by a single order and include the plovers, oystercatchers, 

10 stilts, avocets, sandpipers, and other similar forms (Table 3.8.2-2). These are typically small 

11 wading birds that feed on invertebrates in shallow waters and along beaches, mudflats, sand bars, 

12 and other similar areas. Shorebirds may be solitary or occur in small- to moderate-sized single13 species flocks, although large aggregations of several species may be encountered, especially 

14 during migration. Shorebirds are generally restricted to coastline margins except when 

15 migrating, and would not be expected to occur over open waters of the continental shelf, 

16 slope, and basin areas of the GOM. Many North American shorebirds seasonally migrate 

17 between the high Arctic and South America, passing through the GOM during migration 

18 (Lincoln et al. 1998). Certain coastal and adjacent inland GOM wetlands serve as important 

19 habitats for overwintering shorebirds, and as temporary feeding and resting habitats for 

20 migrating shorebirds (see the later discussion on important bird areas of the GOM).

21

22 Overwintering shorebird species remain within specific areas throughout the season and

23 typically utilize the same areas year after year; many of these areas in the northern GOM have 

24 been identified important bird areas (for example, ABC 2011; Audubon Society 2011a; see later 

25 discussion in this section). Overwintering shorebirds, as well as those that nest in spring and 

26 summer in specific areas, may be especially susceptible to habitat loss or degradation unless they 

27 move to other suitable habitats (if available) when their habitats are disturbed.

28

29 The wetland birds include a diverse array of birds from four orders (Table 3.8.2-2) that 

30 typically inhabit most coastal aquatic habitats of the northern GOM, including freshwater 

31 swamps and waterways, brackish and saltwater wetlands, and embayments. This group includes 

32 the large and small wading birds such as herons, egrets, cranes, rails, and storks, as well as 

33 diving birds such as cormorants and grebes. Most wetland birds are year-round residents of 

34 GOM coastal areas, with colonial or solitary nesting behaviors. Colonial nesting sites may be 

35 used year after year, typically being abandoned only following some sort of major disturbance 

36 (such as severe storm damage). Wetland birds feed on primarily fish and invertebrates

37 (Sibley 2000). Similar to the shorebirds, this category may be especially susceptible to habitat 

38 loss or degradation unless they move to other suitable habitats when their current habitats are 

39 disturbed; colonial nesting habitats would be most difficult to replace.

40

41 Waterfowl are a diverse and important group that includes ducks, geese, loons, and 

42 swans. More than 30 species have been reported from coastal waters, beaches, flats, sandbars, 

43 and wetland habitats throughout the northern GOM (Sibley 2000). These birds forage on surface 

44 and submerged aquatic vegetation and aquatic invertebrates. There are three general groups of 

45 ducks. The surface-feeding ducks, such as the mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) and American 

46 widgeon (A. americana), use shallow freshwater and saltwater marshes throughout the northern 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-214

1 GOM, and many are present throughout the year. In contrast, bay ducks (such as the ring-necked 

2 duck [Aythya collaris]) are diving ducks that frequent coastal bays and river mouths, typically 

3 overwintering in the northern GOM and nesting elsewhere. The sea ducks are diving ducks that 

4 occur in marine habitats except during the breeding season. Some species have developed salt 

5 glands to aid them in using saltwater habitats. Example species include the bufflehead 

6 (Bucephala albeola) and Barrow‘s goldeneye (B. islandica). The mergansers are fish-eating 

7 diving birds that overwinter in coastal habitats in the GOM. Geese and swans forage on 

8 vegetation in coastal lakes, rivers, and marshes and, with the exception of the Canada goose

9 (Branta canadensis), they overwinter in the GOM and spend the rest of the year in other areas.

10

11 The passerines are perching birds, and include the sparrows, warblers, thrushes, 

12 blackbirds, wrens, and many other types of birds (Table 3.8.2-2). While the northern GOM 

13 provides suitable habitat and supports a wide diversity of year-round resident passerine species, 

14 many species are winter residents that move into the GOM in the fall from farther north to 

15 overwinter before returning to breeding areas in more northern latitudes.

16

17 Raptors are the birds of prey. While most prey on birds and small mammals in terrestrial 

18 habitats, two species are fish eaters and if present may forage in coastal freshwater and saltwater 

19 habitats. These species are the bald eagle and the osprey, and they may be found year round in 

20 the GOM and nesting in suitable habitats.

21

22

23 3.8.2.1.2 Endangered Species. The ESA was passed in 1973 to address the decline of 

24 fish, wildlife, and plant species in the United States and throughout the world. The purpose of

25 the ESA is to conserve ―the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend‖ 

26 and to conserve and recover listed species (ESA; Section 2). The law is administered by the 

27 Department of the Interior‘s USFWS and the Department of Commerce‘s NMFS. The USFWS 

28 has primary responsibility for terrestrial and freshwater organisms, while the NMFS is 

29 responsible primarily for marine species such as salmon and whales.

30

31 Under the law, species may be listed as either ―endangered‖ or ―threatened.‖ The ESA 

32 defines an endangered species as any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

33 significant portion of its range (ESA; Section 3(6)). A threatened species is one that is likely to 

34 become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant part 

35 of its range (ESA; Section 3(20)). All species of plants and animals, except pest insects, are 

36 eligible for listing as endangered or threatened. The ESA also affords protection to ―critical 

37 habitat‖ for threatened and endangered species. Critical habitat is defined as the specific areas 

38 within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed on which are found 

39 physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require 

40 special management considerations or protection (ESA; Section 3(5)(A and B)). Except when 

41 designated by the Secretary of the Interior, critical habitat does not include the entire 

42 geographical area that can be occupied by the threatened or endangered species (ESA; 

43 Section 3(5)(C)).

44

45 Some species may also be listed as ―candidate‖ species (ESA; Section 6(d)(1) and 

46 Section 4(b)(3)). The USFWS defines candidate species as plants and animals for which the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-215

1 USFWS has sufficient information on their biological status and threats to propose them for 

2 listing as endangered or threatened under the ESA, but for which development of a listing 

3 regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities (USFWS 2001). The NMFS 

4 defines candidate species as those whose status is of concern but about which more information 

5 is needed before they can be proposed for listing. Candidate species receive no statutory 

6 protection under the ESA, but by definition these species may warrant future protection under 

7 the ESA.

8

9 Several species of federally endangered, threatened, or candidate species of birds occur in 

10 the northern GOM during at least part of the year (Table 3.8.2-3). These include species that use 

11 primarily coastal beach and wetland habitats. The threatened or endangered species are the

12 Audubon‘s crested caracara (Polyborus plancus audobonii), the Mississippi sandhill crane, the 

13 piping plover (Charadrius melodus), the roseate tern (Sterna dougallii dougallii), the whooping 

14 crane (Grus americana), and the wood stork (Mycteria americana). A single candidate species, 

15 the red knot (Calidris canutus rufa), is also reported from coastal habitats along the northern 

16 GOM. Among the threatened and endangered species, five are found in habitats within the OCS

17 GOM Planning Areas where they could be affected by OCS oil and gas activities, and four are 

18 reported from Florida (two species are exclusive to Florida) in areas where they could be 

19 affected by a catastrophic oil spill but not by normal OCS oil and gas operations.

20

21 The threatened Audubon‘s crested caracara is a large, diurnal raptor that is primarily 

22 associated with open country (pastureland, cultivated fields, and semidesert) but has been 

23 reported from coastal lowlands and beaches in some areas (NatureServe 2011). Because of its 

24 habitat preferences, this species is not expected to occur in areas where it could be affected by 

25 shore-based OCS-related oil and gas activities. However, this species has been reported from 

26 four coastal counties in Texas, Louisiana, and Florida (USFWS 2011d; Figure 3.8.2-1). In the 

27

28

29 TABLE 3.8.2-3 Species Listed as Endangered, Threatened, or 

30 Candidate under the Endangered Species Act That May Occur in 

Coastal or Marine Habitats of the Northern Gulf of Mexico 31 a

Species Status FL AL MS LA TX

Audubon‘s Crested Caracara T + – – + +

Mississippi Sandhill Crane E – – + – –

Piping Plover T – + – + +

Red Knot C + – – +

Roseate Tern T + – – – –

Whooping Crane E – – – –

b +

Wood Stork E + + – – –

a Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Conservation 

Online System (ECOS), Species Reports. Accessed March 31, 2011 at 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public.

b Reintroduced as non-essential experimental population (USFWS 2011c).

32
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-216

1

2 FIGURE 3.8.2-1 Coastal Counties from Which the Federally Endangered Mississippi Sandhill Crane and Roseate Tern, and the 

3 Federally Threatened Audubon’s Crested Caracara, Have Been Reported (Source: USFWS 2011d)

4
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-217

1 event of an oil spill contacting coastlines in these counties, this species could be affected, if 

2 present.

3

4 The endangered Mississippi sandhill crane is a long-necked, long-legged wading bird that 

5 stands about 1.2 m (4 ft) tall. Habitats for this species include open savannas, swamp edges, 

6 young pine plantations, and wetlands along pine forests (NatureServe 2011). It feeds on aquatic 

7 invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, insects, and aquatic plants, picking food items from the 

8 ground surface or probing into the substrate. The only known wild population (about 

9 120 individuals) occurs on or near the Mississippi Sandhill Crane Wildlife Refuge in Jackson 

10 County, Mississippi (Figure 3.8.2-1). Major reasons for the decline of this species include 

11 habitat loss, human predation, and human disturbance (USFWS 1991b).

12

13 The roseate tern is a seabird that commonly ventures into oceanic waters; however, its 

14 western Atlantic population is known to occur in the far southeastern GOM to breed in scattered 

15 colonies along the Florida Keys (NatureServe 2001; Saliva 1993; USFWS 2011d). It is currently 

16 listed as endangered for populations along the U.S. Atlantic Coast from Maine to North Carolina, 

17 Canada, and Bermuda; it is listed as threatened in Florida, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and 

18 the remaining western hemisphere and adjacent oceans. Historically, this species ranged along 

19 the Atlantic temperate coast south to North Carolina; in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and 

20 Quebec, Canada; and in Bermuda (USFWS 2011d). In the northern GOM, this species has only 

21 been reported from Monroe County at the extreme southwest tip of Florida (Figure 3.8.2-1).

22

23 The piping plover is a shorebird that inhabits coastal sandy beaches and mudflats. This 

24 species is currently in decline and listed as endangered in the Great Lakes watershed (breeding 

25 range of the Great Lakes population of this species) and as threatened in the remainder of its 

26 range. It is listed as a result of historic hunting pressure, and loss and degradation of habitat 

27 (USFWS 2011d). This species is reported from coastal counties in each of the GOM States 

28 except Mississippi, and critical wintering habitat has been designated in each of the GOM Coast 

29 States for all three populations (Atlantic, Great Lakes, and Great Plains) of the piping plover 

30 (66 FR 36038–36143) (Figure 3.8.2-2).

31

32 The whooping crane is a wetland species that nests within western Canada and the 

33 north-central United States, and overwinters on salt flats and wetland habitats along the Aransas 

34 National Wildlife Refuge on the Texas Coast (USFWS 2011d). It is currently listed as 

35 endangered over its entire range, except where listed as an experimental population (Louisiana) 

36 (Figure 3.8.2-3). It is endangered because of historic hunting pressure and habitat loss and 

37 degradation. Critical habitat has been designated for this species in the GOM along the Texas 

38 coast (including Aransas National Wildlife Refuge) (43 FR 20938–20942).

39

40 The red knot is the only candidate bird species currently identified as occurring in the 

41 northern GOM. This highly migratory species travels between nesting habitats in mid- and high42 arctic latitudes and southern non-breeding habitats in South America and portions of North 

43 America (southern Atlantic and GOM coasts). Its population has exhibited a large decline in 

44 recent decades, and is now estimated in the low ten thousands (NatureServe 2011). Horseshoe 

45 crab eggs are a critical food resource for this species, and it is believed that overharvest and 

46 population declines of horseshoe crabs may be a major reason for the decline of red knot 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-218

1

2 FIGURE 3.8.2-2 Coastal Counties from Which the Federally Threatened Piping Plover Has Been Reported (USFWS 2011d)

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-219

1

2 FIGURE 3.8.2-3 Coastal Counties from Which the Federally Endangered Whooping Crane and the Federal Candidate Red Knot Have 

3 Been Reported (Source: USFWS 2011d)

4
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-220

1 numbers. Within the northern GOM, this species has been reported from five counties along the 

2 far southwestern Florida coast (USFWS 2011d) (Figure 3.8.2-3), and has been reported to occur 

3 in Louisiana (Louisiana Bird Records Committee 2010). Because of its limited distribution and 

4 occurrence in the GOM, this species is not expected to be affected by shore-based OCS-related 

5 oil and gas activities that could occur in coastal areas along the Central and Western Planning 

6 Areas. In the event of an oil spill contacting the far southwestern coastline of Florida, this 

7 species could be exposed if present there.

8

9 The wood stork is the only stork that regularly occurs in North America. The published 

10 range of this wading bird is Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, where this species is 

11 classified as endangered (USFWS 2011d). While a year-round resident of Florida and Georgia, 

12 the wood stork does occur in other GOM coast States (Figure 3.8.2-4). Wood storks frequent 

13 freshwater and brackish coastal wetland habitats. No critical habitat has been designated for this 

14 species.

15

16

17 3.8.2.1.3 Migratory Birds. The GOM is an important pathway for migratory birds, 

18 including many coastal and marine species and large numbers of terrestrial species 

19 (Lincoln et al. 1998; USGS 2005). Most of the migrant birds (especially passerines or perching 

20 birds) that overwinter in the neotropics (tropical south Florida, Mexico, the Caribbean, Central 

21 America, and South America) and breed in eastern North America either directly cross the GOM

22 (trans-GOM migration) or move north or south by traversing the GOM or the Florida peninsula 

23 (Figure 3.8.2-5) (Lincoln et al. 1998; Russell 2005).

24

25 Birds migrate in large, broad fronts that at times may number 2 million birds or more 

26 (USGS 2005). During the migration seasons, nearly all of the migratory birds of the eastern 

27 United States, as well as many western species, use the coastal plains of the northern GOM. 

28 Florida migrants then remain in place, cross to the Bahamas Archipelago, or travel directly 

29 across the Florida Straits and into the Antilles (Lincoln et al. 1998). Recent studies indicate that 

30 the flight pathways of the majority of the trans-GOM migrant birds during spring are directed 

31 toward the coastlines of Louisiana and eastern Texas (Morrison 2006). As many as 300 million 

32 birds may cross the GOM each spring (Russell 2005). During overwater flights, migrant birds 

33 (other than seabirds) sometimes use offshore structures, such as oil and gas production platforms, 

34 for rest stops or as temporary shelter from inclement weather. Spring migrants fly northward 

35 across the GOM, arrive on coastal habitats (especially those in Louisiana) with depleted energy 

36 reserves, and use those habitats for resting and rebuilding energy reserves. In the fall, migrants 

37 use food resources in the coastal habitats to build up energy reserves for migration southward 

38 either directly across the open waters of the GOM or along the GOM coast to Mexico and 

39 beyond.

40

41

42 3.8.2.1.4 Important Bird Areas. The northern GOM coast provides a diverse range of 

43 habitats that support the many migratory and resident bird species of the area. These habitats 

44 include coastal wetlands and marshes, mud flats, and beaches, which may be used for nesting, 

45 foraging, and for some species staging areas during spring and fall migration. While these 

46 habitats occur along the entire northern GOM coastline, some coastal areas may be especially 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-221

Affected Environment 3-221

1

2 FIGURE 3.8.2-4 Coastal Counties from Which the Federally Endangered Wood Stork Has Been Reported (Source: USFWS 2011d)

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-222

1

2 FIGURE 3.8.2-5 Primary Migration Routes Used by Birds in Passing from North 

3 America to Winter Quarters in the West Indies, Central America, and South America 

4 (The routes crossing the Gulf of Mexico are those most extensively used by birds and are 

5 also used by many species returning to North America in spring; specific routes taken by 

6 migrating birds may vary within and between years, depending on local and regional 

7 weather conditions, including storms and prevailing winds.) (Lincoln et al. 1998)

8

9

10 important to birds living along or using the northern GOM, and it is areas such as these that, if 

11 impacted by oil and gas activities or accidental oil spills, could impact local or regional 

12 populations of the species relying on the affected habitats provided. Some of these areas are 

13 protected by Federal or State regulations (e.g., National Wildlife Refuges and National Parks), 

14 while others may have no legal protection. 

15

16 Since its start in Europe in the 1980s, the Important Bird Area (IBA) concept has led to 

17 the identification and protection of some 3,500 sites worldwide that are considered as 

18 exceptionally important, even essential, for bird conservation (ABC 2011). Both the American 

19 Bird Conservancy (ABC) and the Audubon Society have identified a number of IBAs along the 

20 northern GOM coast (ABC 2011; Audubon Society, see http://web4.audubon.org/bird/iba). 

21 These IBAs are not afforded regulatory protection unless they occur on protected Federal (such 

22 as USFWS National Wildlife Refuges) or State lands or include ESA-designated critical habitat.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-223

1 The ABC has identified 37 important bird areas in coastal counties along the northern 

2 GOM coast (Figure 3.8.2-6). Many of these sites include national wildlife refuges, national 

3 parks, national forests, State lands, conservation organization lands, and even some private lands. 

4 To be included, a site must, during at least some portion of the year, contain habitat that 

5 supports:

6

7 1. A significant population of a threatened or endangered species;

8

9 2. A significant population of a U.S. Watch List species;

10

11 3. A significant population of a species with a limited range; or

12

13 4. A significantly large concentration of breeding, migrating, or wintering birds, 

14 including waterfowl, seabirds, wading birds, raptors, or land birds 

15 (ABC 2011).

16

17 The IBAs along the northern GOM include 17 areas in Texas, 9 in Florida, 5 in 

18 Louisiana, and 3 each in Alabama and Mississippi (Table 3.8.2-4). Because these areas are 

19 located in coastal areas and, in some cases, are islands and seashores, they have a greater 

20 likelihood of interacting with OCS oil and gas activities in the GOM.

21

22 The Audubon Society has identified 52 IBAs for the northern GOM coast (Audubon 

23 Society 2011a). These include 8 sites in Texas, 6 in Louisiana, 7 in Mississippi, 4 in Alabama, 

24 and 27 in Florida; and only 7 of the Audubon IBA sites overlap with the ABC sites 

25 (Figure 3.8.2-7; Table 3.8.2-5).

26

27 Some of these IBAs are associated with specific, individual species. For example, the 

28 Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in Texas was established in 1937 as a refuge and breeding 

29 ground for migratory birds, and hosts the largest wild flock of endangered whooping cranes each 

30 winter. Similarly, the Gulf Coast Least Tern Colony Globally Important Bird Area in 

31 Mississippi supports the largest colony of the least tern.

32

33 Other sites provide important overwintering habitat for federally threatened piping 

34 plover, or provides foraging and resting habitat for large variety of waterfowl, shorebirds, 

35 wading birds, and migrating passerines. For example, Dauphin Island in Alabama is one of the 

36 few known breeding localities for snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrines), mottled duck (Anas 

37 fulvigula), and seaside sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus) (Audubon Society 2011b).

38

39

40 3.8.2.1.5 Effect of the Deepwater Horizon Event on Marine and Coastal Birds. With 

41 the exception of the passerines, most of the bird groups that occur in the northern GOM are 

42 associated with aquatic habitats, whether coastal and estuarine shorelines, wetlands, mudflats,

43 and beaches, or open water areas such as bays and marine waters on the OCS. The DWH event 

44 resulted in the release of oil in the open waters of the OCS, with some of this oil moving to the 

45 coast and contacting coastal and shoreline habitats, and marine and coastal birds were exposed to 

46 the oil in affected coastal and open water habitats. The USFWS, as part of a multi-agency 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-224

12 FIGURE 3.8.2

-6 Important Bird Areas along the Northern Coast of the Gulf of Mexico (ABC 2011)

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-225

1 TABLE 3.8.2-4 Important Bird Areas Identified by the American Bird Conservancy for the 

2 Coastal Counties of the Northern Gulf of Mexico

State Important Bird Area County

Texas Aransas National Wildlife Refuge Aransas

Columbia Bottomlands Brazoria

San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge Brazoria

Matagorda Island Calhoun

Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge Cameron

South Padre Island Preserve Cameron

Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge Chambers

Smith Point Chambers

High Island Galveston

McFadden National Wildlife Refuge Jefferson

Texas Point National Wildlife Refuge Jefferson

Sea Rim State Park Jefferson

Kings Ranch Kenedy, Kleberg, Neuces, Willacy

Padre Island National Seashore Kenedy, Kleberg, Willacy

Big Boggy National Wildlife Refuge Matagorda

Mad Island Marsh Wildlife Complex Matagorda

Hazel Bazemore County Park Neuces

Louisiana Breton National Wildlife Refuge St. Bernard

Catahoula National Wildlife Refuge LaSalle

Delta National Wildlife Refuge Plaquemines

Coastal Louisiana Islands Cameron, Vermillion, Iberia, 

St. Mary, Terrebonne, LaFourche, 

Jefferson, Plaquemines, St. Bernard

Mississippi Gulf Coast Least Tern Colony Harrison

Gulf Islands National Seashorea Harrison, Jackson

Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge Jackson

Alabama Bon Secour National Wildlife Refugea Baldwin

Dauphin Islanda Mobile

Fort Morgan Historical Park Baldwin

Florida Apalachicola National Forest Wakulla, Franklin

Cedar Key Scrub State Reserve Levy

Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge Levy

Dog Islanda Franklin

Elgin Air Force Basea Okaloosa

Gulf Islands National Seashorea Escambia, Santa Rosa

Honeymoon Island State Recreation Area Pinellas

Ochlockonee River State Park Franklin

St. Marks National Wildlife Refugea Wakulla

a Also identified as an IBA by the Audubon Society; see Table 3.8.2-5.

Source: ABC 2011.

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-226

1

2 FIGURE 3.8.2-7 Important Bird Areas Identified by the Audubon Society for the Northern Coast of the Gulf of Mexico 

3 (Audubon Society 2011a)

4
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-227

1 TABLE 3.8.2-5 Important Birds Areas Identified by the Audubon Society for the Coastal 

2 Counties of the Northern Gulf of Mexico

State Important Bird Area County

Texas Deadman Island/Long Reef Aransas

Islands South of South Bird Island

Little Pelican Island Galveston

Mustang Bayou Island Brazonia

Pelican Island

Port Bolivar Bird Sanctuaries-Horseshoe Marsh

Second Chain of Islands

Shamrock Island

Louisiana Active Delta (Mississippi River Birdsfoot Delta) Plaquemines

Atchafalaya Delta Assumption, St. Mary, Terrebonne

Barataria Terrebonne Assumption, Jefferson, LaFrouche, 

Plaquemines, St. Charles, St. James, 

St. John the Baptist, St. Mary, 

Terrebonne

Chenier Plain Calcasieu, Cameron, Iberia, Jefferson 

Davis, St. Mary, Vermillion

East Delta Plain Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, 

St. Tammany

Isles Dernieres-Timbalier Islands Terrebonne

Mississippi Deer Island Harrison

Grand Bay National Estuarine Research 

Reserve/National Wildlife Refuge

Jackson

Gulf Islands National Seashorea Harrison, Jackson

Gulfport Harrison

Hancock County Marsh Coastal Preserve Hancock

Pascagoula River Marsh Coastal Preserve Jackson

Sand Island Jackson

Alabama Bon Secour National Wildlife Refugea and Peninsula Baldwin

Dauphin Islanda Mobile

Grand Bay Savannah Mobile

Mobile/Tensaw Delta Baldwin, Mobile

Florida ABC Islands Collier

Bay County Beaches Bay

Big Bend Ecosystem Dixie, Levy, Taylor

Cayo Costa-Pine Island Lee

Chassahowitzka-Weekiwachee Citrus, Hernando, Pasco

Citrus County Spoil Islands Citrus

Clearwater Harbor-St. Joseph Sound Pinellas

Coastal Pasco Pasco

Cockroach Bay-Terra Ceia Manatee, Hillsborough

Crystal River Tidal Marshes Citrus

Dog Islanda-Lanark Reef Franklin
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-228

TABLE 3.8.2-5 (Cont.) 

State Important Bird Area County

Florida 

(Cont.)

Dry Tortugas National Park Monroe

Elgin Air Force Basea Okaloosa

Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge Monroe

Gulf Islands National Seashorea and Adjacent Areas Escambia, Santa Rosa

J.N. Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge Lee

Johns Pass Pinellas

Little Estero Lagoon Lee

North Lido Beach-Palmer Point Sarasota

Oscar Scherer State Park Sarasota

Pelican Shoal Monroe

Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Collier

Sanibel Lighthouse Park Lee

Sarasota and Roberts Bay Manatee, Sarasota

St. Joseph Bay Gulf

St. Marks National Wildlife RefugeaJefferson, Wakulla, Taylor

Starkey Wilderness Pasco

Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge Collier

Walton County Beaches Walton

a Also identified as an IBA by the ABC; see Table 3.8.2-4.

Source: Audubon Society 2011a.

1

2

3 response to the DWH event, began reporting of oiled and dead birds, and established a program 

4 to provide accurate data regarding not only oiled and dead birds but also marine mammals and 

5 sea turtles (USFWS 2011e). Observations of direct exposure of birds included signs of visible 

6 oiling of feathers and other body surfaces. Indirect exposure through ingestion of oil or of food 

7 items contaminated with oil is expected to have occurred as well. In addition, the shoreline 

8 cleanup efforts of the DWH event may have disturbed nesting populations and degraded or 

9 destroyed habitat in some localized areas.

10

11 Table 3.8.2-6 presents a summary of the most recent DWH event bird impact data 

12 collected by the USFWS (USFWS 2011e). Over 6,600 individuals representing at least 129 bird 

13 taxa had been collected in the DWH event potential impact area as of May 12, 2011. Birds were 

14 reported as dead or alive in one of three categories: visibly oiled from the DWH event, visibly 

15 oiled from an undetermined source; and not visibly oiled. Of the birds most closely associated 

16 with aquatic habitats, seabirds represented the majority (79–90%) of birds reported for any of 

17 these categories, followed by wetland birds (5–10%) and shorebirds (3–7%). In contrast, 

18 relatively few waterfowl (<1%), passerines (<3%), and raptors (<1%) were collected.

19

20 Birds that are heavily oiled usually do not survive. Oiled birds that do not perish shortly 

21 after oiling may experience more chronic physiological effects of oil exposure. Birds exposed 

22 through the ingestion of oil during feeding or grooming, or through inhalation, may also incur 

23 chronic, sublethal physiological effects. Post-DWH event exposure may occur in habitats and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-229

1 TABLE 3.8.2-6 Deepwater Horizon Event Bird Impact Data through May 12, 2011

Visibly Oiled; Attributed 

to DWH Event Not Visibly Oiled

Visibly Oiled; Unknown 

Source

Avian 

Category

No. of 

Taxa Dead

a Live Total Dead Live Total Dead Live Total

Grand 

Total

Seabirds 32 1,822 480 2,302 2,3240 2,324 654 271 925 5,551

Shorebirds 16 70 8 78 2052 207 52 10 62 347

Wetland Birds 28 118 19 137 2490 249 88 29 117 503

Waterfowl 14 9 3 12 340 34 10 8 18 64

Passerines 30 17 3 20 540 54 17 20 37 111

Raptors 9 2 1 3 150 15 4 3 7 25

Total 129 2,038 514 2,552 2,8812 2,883 827 341 1,168 6,603

a

Includes birds that were recovered live but subsequently died.

Source: USFWS 2011e.

2
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-230

1 media where oil in an unweathered toxic form may remain indefinitely. Chronic effects may not 

2 yet be evident, but may become realized at a later date. It is not known how sublethal exposure 

3 to oil from the DWH event may have affected marine and coastal birds of the GOM; any such 

4 effects may not be realized for several years. This information, however, is not needed at the 

5 programmatic stage to make a reasoned choice among alternatives (see Section 1.3.1.1, 

6 Incomplete and Unavailable Information).

7

8

9 3.8.2.2 Marine and Coastal Birds of Alaska – Cook Inlet

10

11 More than 492 naturally occurring species in 64 families and 20 orders have been 

12 identified in Alaska (University of Alaska 2011), and more than 80 species may occur in the 

13 Cook Inlet Planning Area. Birds traveling to and from breeding areas in interior Alaska, the 

14 North Slope, and west coast areas of Alaska use Cook Inlet during these movements. Annual use 

15 patterns of the Cook Inlet are characterized by the sudden and rapid occurrence of very large 

16 numbers of birds in early May followed by an abrupt departure in mid-to-late May; surveys 

17 conducted at this time have had counts of 150,000 birds or more per day (Gill and Tibbitts 1999).

18

19

20 3.8.2.2.1 Nonendangered Species. Representatives of six major groups of birds occur 

21 in the Cook Inlet Planning Area (Table 3.8.2-7). Among these groups, three may have the 

22 greatest potential for being affected by oil and gas leasing and development: (1) seabirds, which 

23 occur in open ocean waters; (2) waterfowl, which utilize a variety of freshwater and nearshore 

24 marine habitats; and (3) shorebirds, which utilize shoreline habitats throughout the planning area. 

25 Many of these species are migratory and may seasonally occur in locally large concentrations 

26 such as nesting colonies or as mobile flocks.

27

28 In the summer, seabirds and sea ducks are found along the coastlines of Cook Inlet. 

29 Colonial seabirds, except for gulls and terns, are mostly confined to the lower portions of the 

30 inlet where foraging areas are more abundant (USFWS 1978; Nature Conservancy 2003). The 

31 intertidal habitats of Cook Inlet are used by millions of shorebirds (such as western sandpipers 

32 [Calidris mauri] and dunlin [C. alpine]) during spring migration, and several species breed in the 

33 planning area. In the summer, Cook Inlet provides breeding habitat for migratory waterfowl, and 

34 during fall migration the inlet may be used by as many as 1 million migrating waterfowl. 

35 Waterfowl are valued as subsistence resources, and they also provide a sport-hunting resource. 

36 In contrast to conditions that lead to large numbers of birds being present in spring, summer, and 

37 fall, ice conditions limit overwinter use of the upper portions of the inlet by birds.

38

39 A number of large seabird colonies (i.e., ranging from 20,000 to multiple hundreds of 

40 thousands of individuals) occur in the subregion, including on the Chisik and Gull Islands in 

41 Cook Inlet, the Barren Islands south of Cook Inlet, and the Kodiak Island group (Stephensen and 

42 Irons 2003). Many smaller colonies, whose aggregate population represents a substantial 

43 concentration of seabirds, also occur in these areas.

44

45 The factors most responsible for the status of bird populations in the Cook Inlet Planning 

46 Area are associated with the availability and quality of wintering, migratory, and nesting habitats 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-231

1 TABLE 3.8.2-7 Major Groups of Marine and Coastal Birds of the Cook Inlet Planning Area

Category Order Common Name Representative Types

Seabirds Charadriiformes Gulls

Terns

Phalaropes

Alcids

Mew gull, glaucius-winged gull, 

Arctic tern, red-necked phalarope, 

common murre, pidgeon 

guillomot, ancient murrelet

Procellariiformes Storm-petrels

Shearwaters

Albatrosses

Fork-tailed storm-petrel, northern 

fulmer, short-tailed albatross

Shorebirds Charadriiformes Jaegers

Plovers

Oystercatchers

Sandpipers, snipes, and allies

Parasitic jaeger, black-bellied 

plover, black oystercatcher, dunlin, 

western sandpiper

Wetland birds Gruiformes Cranes Sandhill crane

Pelicaniformes Cormorants Double-crested cormorant

Podicipediformes Grebes Horned grebe

Waterfowl Anseriformes Ducks, geese, and swans Trumpeter swan, mallard, greater 

scaup, common goldeneye, 

harlequin duck

Gaviiformes Loons Pacific loon, common loon

Passerines Passeriformes Perching birds Warblers, boreal chickadee, 

American pipet, common redpoll

Raptors Falconiformes Birds-of-prey Osprey, bald eagle

2

3

4 and the availability of food in those habitats. Changes in breeding habitat availability or quality 

5 and food resources during breeding could affect egg production and nesting success.

6

7 Bird density and diversity is lowest in winter. Typically, only a single species of 

8 shorebird, the rock sandpiper (Calidris ptilocnemis), remains through the winter in upper Cook 

9 Inlet, although some black turnstones (Arenaria melanocephala) and dunlins also may stay. The 

10 approximately 20,000 individuals may represent the entire Bering Sea breeding population of the 

11 rock sandpiper (Gill and Tibbitts 1999; Gill et al. 2002). The Kodiak area is also an important 

12 wintering ground for several species of waterfowl and seabirds (Forsell and Gould 1981; Larned 

13 and Zwiefelhofer 2001), including cormorants, scoters, long-tailed ducks (Clangula hyemalis), 

14 eiders, common murres (Uria aalge), murrelets, and crested auklets (Aethia cristatella). 

15 Estimates of total birds in the area exceed one-half million, with an excess of 800,000 wintering 

16 over the Kodiak shelf region. Emperor geese winter from the Aleutians to Kodiak. Lower Cook 

17 Inlet also is relatively important for overwintering waterfowl, murres, fulmars, and storm-petrels 

18 (Agler et al. 1995).

19

20

21 3.8.2.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species. Several species of federally 

22 endangered, threatened, or candidate species (see Section 3.8.2.1.2 for a discussion of the ESA 

23 and definitions of these categories) occur in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. These species are 

24 the federally endangered short-tailed albatross (Phobastria albatrus) and the federally 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-232

1 threatened Steller‘s eider (Polysticta stelleri). Two candidate species, and Kittlitz‘s murrelet

2 (Brachyramphus brevirostris) and the yellow-billed loon (Gavia adamsii), also occur in the 

3 planning area.

4

5 The short-tailed albatross is a long-winged seabird that was listed in 2000 as endangered 

6 in the United States (65 FR 46643), making it so designated throughout its range. This species 

7 was originally listed in 1970 under the then-Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, 

8 before passage of today‘s ESA. As a result of an administrative error and not because of any 

9 biological evaluation, this species was listed as endangered throughout its range except within 

10 the United States. This error was corrected in 2000 when this species was listed as endangered 

11 throughout its range. No critical habitat has been designated in marine waters within 

12 U.S. jurisdiction. The greatest current threat to this species is the potential volcanic eruption of 

13 Torishima, where most breeding occurs. Other existing threats include incidental catch in 

14 commercial fisheries, ingestion of plastics, contamination by oil and other pollutants, the 

15 potential for habitat usurpation or degradation by non-native species, and the adverse effects of 

16 climate change (USFWS 2008c).

17

18 Short-tailed albatross occurs in waters throughout the North Pacific, primarily along the 

19 east coasts of Japan and Russia; in the continental shelf edge of the Gulf of Alaska, along the 

20 Aleutian Islands; and in the Gulf of Alaska south of 64 N latitude (USFWS 2008c), and is a 

21 relatively frequent visitor to the South Alaska subregion. While once thought to number 

22 5 million individuals, about 2,400 birds were known to exist in June 2008, with about 

23 450–500 breeding pairs. This albatross is known to breed on only two small islands near Japan, 

24 with 80–85% of all breeding occurring on the active volcanic island of Torishima in the western 

25 Pacific.

26

27 During the non-breeding season, short-tailed albatrosses range along the Pacific Rim 

28 from southern Japan to northern California, primarily along continental shelf margins 

29 (USFWS 2008c). On the basis of ship-based observations and telemetry data, this species may 

30 be relatively common nearshore where upwellings occur near the coast; this species should be 

31 considered a ―continental shelf-edge specialist‖ rather than a coastal or nearshore species 

32 (Piatt et al. 2006). The shelf edge in the vicinity of the Cook Inlet Planning Area occurs about 

33 121 km (75 mi) from the southern boundary of the planning area.

34

35 The Steller‘s eider is the smallest of the four eider duck species. This species breeds in 

36 the Arctic, and the Alaska breeding population was listed as threatened in 1997 (62 FR 31748). 

37 There are three breeding populations, two in Russia and one in Alaska (USFWS 2002). The 

38 Alaska breeding population nests primarily on the Arctic coastal plain, and is the only one of the 

39 three populations listed under the ESA as threatened. While the causes for the population 

40 decline observed for this species are unknown, possible factors affecting the Alaska population 

41 may include predation, hunting, ingestion of spent lead shot, habitat loss or degradation, and 

42 exposure to contaminants (USFWS 2002; NatureServe 2010b).

43

44 On the coastal plain, Steller‘s eiders breed on grassy edges of tundra lakes and ponds, or 

45 within drained lake basins. Although they nest in terrestrial environments, they spend the 

46 majority of their time in shallow marine waters. Steller‘s eider does not breed in the Southern 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-233

1 Alaska Subregion. After nesting in the Arctic coastal plains, they move to protected marine 

2 areas to molt. Molting occurs at a number of locations in southwest Alaska, with the largest 

3 numbers of birds concentrating in four areas along the north side of the Alaska Peninsula 

4 (USFWS 2002). Three lagoons on the north side of the Alaska Peninsula have been designated 

5 as critical habitat for the Steller‘s eider (66 FR 8850).

6

7 After molting, many of the birds disperse to the Aleutian Islands, the south side of the 

8 Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak Island, and lower Cook Inlet (USFWS 2002; Larned 2006). Wintering 

9 birds usually occur in shallow waters (<10 m [30 ft] in depth) within 400 m (1,300 ft) of shore,

10 unless the shallows extend farther offshore into bays and lagoons. Substantial numbers of 

11 Steller‘s eiders remain in lagoons on the north side of the Alaska Peninsula in winter until 

12 freezing conditions force them out. In Cook Inlet, the largest concentrations of sightings in 2004 

13 were from the Homer Spit north to about Ninilchik and along the south central shore of 

14 Kamishak Bay on the inlet‘s west side (Larned 2004).

15

16 The Kittlitz‘s murrelet is a small diving seabird related to the puffins and murres. All of 

17 the North American and most of the world population of this species breed, molt, and winter in 

18 Alaska (USFWS 2006d). The North American population of this small diving seabird occupies 

19 coastal waters discontinuously from northern Southeast Alaska in the Gulf of Alaska, north to 

20 Point Lay in the Chukchi Sea during the nesting season. Wintering areas are not well known, 

21 and are assumed to include offshore waters in at least the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea portions 

22 of the range (USFWS 2006d). Spring migration extends from the third week of March to mid23 June, fall migration from mid-July to late October, and breeding from mid-May to late August.

24

25 This species is an uncommon and secretive breeder, choosing unvegetated scree slopes, 

26 coastal cliffs, talus above timberline, and barren ground, especially in the vicinity of advancing 

27 or stable glaciers or in recently glaciated areas, primarily in coastal areas but also up to 80 km 

28 (50 mi) inland (USFWS 2006d). Nests have been found in most coastal regions from southeast 

29 to western Alaska (Day et al. 1999). During breeding, Kittlitz‘s murrelets are found in 

30 several core population centers in Alaska, including Lower Cook Inlet (Agler et al. 1998; 

31 USFWS 2006d). Based on apparent evidence of a population decline in the Prince William 

32 Sound area, the Kittlitz‘s murrelet was petitioned for listing in 2001 and became a candidate for 

33 listing in a May 2004 Candidate Notice of Review (69 FR 24877). Possible threats to this 

34 species include marine oil pollution, decreases in food stock, gillnet fisheries, and melting of 

35 glaciers (USFWS 2006d; NatureServe 2010c).

36

37 The yellow-billed loon is a migratory, fish-eating seabird that in Alaska nests in solitary 

38 pairs on the Arctic Coastal Plain and winters in more southern coastal waters of the Pacific 

39 Ocean (USFWS 2011d). This species became a candidate for listing as endangered or threatened 

40 in March 2009, primarily due to subsistence use of this species during migration (74 FR 12932). 

41 Yellow-billed loons typically nest near large, deep tundra lakes on low islands or near the edges 

42 of lakes to avoid terrestrial predators. In Alaska, nesting occurs from the Canning River 

43 westward to Point Lay, and migration occurs along coastlines of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas 

44 (North 1994; NatureServe 2010d). During nesting, this species uses nearshore and offshore 

45 marine waters adjacent to their breeding areas for foraging in summer (74 FR 12932).

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-234

1 During non-breeding, this species spends most of its time in marine waters and uses open 

2 water leads for resting and feeding during migration. In Alaska, the yellow-billed loon winters 

3 in sparse numbers in nearshore marine waters from Kodiak Island to Prince William and 

4 throughout southeast Alaska (North 1994). Wintering habitats include sheltered marine waters 

5 less than 30 m (98 ft) deep, from 1.6 to 32 km (1 to 20 mi) offshore (74 FR 12932). Lower Cook 

6 Inlet is used in winter by overwintering birds and by immature and possibly non-breeding adults 

7 throughout the year.

8

9

10 3.8.2.2.3 Use of the Cook Inlet Planning Area by Migratory Birds. The coastal 

11 wetlands and bays along Cook Inlet provide important staging habitats for migratory birds, with 

12 large seasonal aggregations of waterfowl and shorebirds. The highest diversity and density of 

13 birds in coastal waters, particularly over the continental shelf, occur in spring when large 

14 numbers of loons, waterfowl, shorebirds, and seabirds return to nesting areas or stage there 

15 before migrating to areas farther north.

16

17 During spring migration (April–May), large numbers of birds arrive from southern 

18 wintering areas either to occupy breeding habitats along the northern Gulf of Alaska coast or to 

19 use habitats in the area as they stage for further migration northward to breeding areas in interior 

20 Alaska and along the Arctic Coastal Plain. During spring migration, species diversity and 

21 density along the northern Gulf of Alaska are greatest in exposed inshore waters and in bays and 

22 lagoons and associated tidal mudflats (e.g., Kachemak Bay), river deltas (e.g., Copper River 

23 Delta), and salt marshes, as well as along exposed outer coasts where large numbers of seabirds 

24 gather prior to nesting. This latter topography is common in many areas of this subregion, 

25 including the exposed outer coast between Prince William Sound and the lower Kenai Peninsula, 

26 much of the Kodiak Island archipelago, numerous islands and headlands along the south side of 

27 the Alaska Peninsula, and virtually all of the Aleutian Islands. Seabirds most frequently occupy 

28 bays and exposed inshore waters. Geese and dabbling ducks primarily use river floodplains and 

29 marshes, while diving ducks are most prevalent in bays. Shorebirds are found mainly on 

30 mudflats and gravel beaches, and gulls use a variety of habitats. During spring migration, 

31 millions of shorebirds make a critical stop on coastal intertidal mudflats to feed before 

32 continuing their northward migration. The largest number of migrating shorebirds occurs on the 

33 Copper River Delta where 10–12 million birds may stop each spring. At least 20 species of 

34 shorebirds migrate through the northern Gulf of Alaska each spring; their numbers are dominated 

35 by the western sandpiper, representing most of the world‘s population of 3-4 million.

36

37 Pelagic bird densities begin to decline in September, as shearwaters depart for the 

38 southern hemisphere breeding areas. Postbreeding alcids disperse from coastal nesting colonies 

39 for offshore areas, where they will spend the winter. Migration of waterfowl and shorebirds is 

40 more protracted in the fall than in the spring, and there is some evidence that some shorebird 

41 species bypass the Gulf of Alaska during fall. Only goose and dabbling duck densities increase 

42 in fall, as migrating birds move in from areas to the north and west.

43

44 Winter bird densities along the northern Gulf of Alaska are perhaps 20–50% of those in 

45 the summer. Most of the decrease reflects seasonal changes in species composition as many 

46 seabirds leave areas they occupied in summer. While seabird numbers are lowest during the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-235

1 winter, the Gulf of Alaska still is important for species that winter offshore such as the northern 

2 fulmar (Fulmarus glacoalis), fork-tailed storm-petrel (Oceanodroma furcata), black-legged 

3 kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla), and both murre and puffin species. Coastal wintering species along 

4 the northern Gulf of Alaska coast include Pacific (Gavia pacifica), red-throated (G. stellate), and 

5 yellow-billed loons; red-necked grebe (Podiceps grisegena); herring (Larus argentatus), mew

6 (L. canus), and glaucous-winged (L. glaucescens) gulls; ancient (Synthliboramphus antiquus) 

7 and marbled (Brachyramphus marmortus) murrelets; and Cassin‘s (Ptychoramphus aleuticus) 

8 and parakeet (Aethia psittacula) auklets. In the winter, waterfowl densities increase substantially

9 as a number of species migrate south from breeding areas on the Arctic coastal plain to 

10 overwinter along the coast; sea ducks are the most abundant waterfowl present in winter. These 

11 include king (Somateria spectablis) and common (S. mollissima) eiders; long-tailed and 

12 harlequin (Histrionicus histrionicus) ducks; black (Melanitta Americana) and surf scoters 

13 (M. perspicillata) and Barrow‘s goldeneye.

14

15

16 3.8.2.2.4 Important Bird Areas of the Cook Inlet Planning Area. As discussed 

17 above, Cook Inlet and the Cook Inlet Planning Area provide a diversity of habitats for resident 

18 and migratory marine and coastal birds. While habitats such as mudflats, sand and gravel 

19 beaches, lagoons, and islands may be found throughout Cook Inlet and some areas are 

20 considered as being particularly important to birds living along or using the northern Gulf of 

21 Alaska. Areas in Cook Inlet that may be considered as important to overwintering and migratory 

22 birds have been identified by a number of organizations.

23

24 Because of its importance to shorebirds of the Pacific Flyway, Kachemak Bay in Lower 

25 Cook Inlet has been designated as Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve. Western 

26 Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves (WHSR) are designated by the WHSR Network (WHSRN), a 

27 multinational shorebird conservation organization whose mission is to conserve shorebirds and 

their habitats through a network of key sites across the Americas12 28 (http://www.whsrn.org/

29 western-hemisphere-shorebird-reserve-network). The first WHSR designated site was Delaware 

30 Bay in the United States; there are currently 85 sites in 13 countries. Kachemak Bay in Cook 

31 Inlet is a WHSR of international importance, being designated in 1994. WHSR sites are 

32 considered of international importance if they support at least 100,000 shorebirds annually, or at 

33 least 10% of the biogeographic population for a species. Kachemak Bay received international 

34 importance status on the basis of it supporting more than 100,000 shorebirds annually. The bay 

35 has about 515 km (320 mi) of shoreline, which together with tides of as much as 9 m (30 ft), 

36 provides an abundance of intertidal habitat for migrating shorebirds. In addition, 36 species of 

37 shorebird have been reported from the area (http://www.whsrn.org/site-profile/kachemak-bay). 

38 Within Kachemak Bay, the Fox River Flats Critical Habitat Area (managed by the Alaska 

39 Department of Fish and Game) serves as a major staging area for thousands of waterfowl and a 

40 million or more shorebirds during spring migration.

41

 

12 U.S. members of the WHSRN council include, among others, the National Audubon Society, the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, the U.S. Geologic Survey, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

National Wildlife Refuge System, and the Nature Conservancy.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-236

1 Kachemak Bay and Fox River Flats are two of 21 sites that have been identified by the 

2 Audubon Society as Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in the Cook Inlet area (Audubon Alaska 2011; 

3 see discussion of IBAs in Section 3.8.2.1.4). This identification has no regulatory consequences 

4 but does provide information on avian habitats of Cook Inlet. Among these 21 sites 

5 (Table 3.8.2-8), 14 occur adjacent to or within the Cook Inlet Planning Area, and because of their 

6 locations these areas and their avian fauna have a greater likelihood of interacting with OCS oil 

7 and gas activities in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. The remaining sites occur in the upper 

8 reaches of Cook Inlet, above Kalgin Island (Figure 3.8.2-8), and would not be expected to be 

9 affected by normal oil and gas exploration and development activities. While the Swanson 

10 Lakes IBA is located inland of the Cook Inlet coast, the waterfowl and shorebirds that use this 

11 area likely also use Cook Inlet waters and shorelines for foraging, and thus could also be affected 

12 by oil and gas activities. All of the sites provide migratory staging, resting, foraging, and/or 

13 breeding habitat for a wide variety of marine and coastal birds, and especially seabirds, 

14 waterfowl, and shorebirds. Except for the Swanson Lakes IBA, most of the Cook Inlet IBAs are 

15 coastal in nature, several are islands, and one (Cook Inlet, Marine IBA) is an open water area. 

16

17

18 3.8.2.3 Marine and Coastal Birds of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas Planning Areas

19

20 As discussed earlier, more than 492 naturally occurring species in 64 families and 

21 20 orders have been identified from Alaska (Johnson and Herter 1989; Armstrong 2003; 

22 University of Alaska 2011). Because of the limited seasonal nature of open water and snow-free 

23 conditions, the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas support a much smaller number of avian species. For 

24 example, only about 180 species have been reported from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 

25 (Willms 1992), while a 1999–2001 summer survey of birds in the western Beaufort Sea detected 

26 30 species (primarily waterfowl) (Fischer and Larned 2004). Most birds occurring in the 

27 Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and their adjacent coastal habitats are migratory, being present for all 

28 or part of the period between May and early November. The avian fauna of these regions largely 

29 falls into two categories: (1) birds that arrive in spring at coastal breeding areas, breed and raise 

30 young, and then depart in fall to southern wintering areas; and (2) birds that migrate along the 

31 coast on their way to and from breeding areas elsewhere on the arctic coast. Some groups, such 

32 as the passerines, are largely absent from coastal habitats along the arctic coast, generally 

occurring as rare, casual, or accidental visitors.13 33 A majority of species nesting in coastal areas 

34 are waterfowl and shorebirds, although in some locations seabirds occur in large nesting 

35 colonies.

36

37

38 3.8.2.3.1 Nonendangered Species. Although representatives of six major groups of 

39 birds have been reported from the planning areas (Table 3.8.2-9), three may be especially 

40 important because they have the greatest potential for being affected by oil and gas leasing and 

41 development: (1) seabirds, which occur in open ocean waters; (2) waterfowl, which use a variety 

42 of freshwater and nearshore marine habitats; and (3) shorebirds, which use shoreline habitats 

 

13 ―Rare‖ — occurring regularly within its normal range, but in very small numbers; ―casual‖ — beyond normal 

range, but irregular observations occur over several years; ―accidental‖ — far from normal range and 

observations are unlikely and not expected.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-237

1 TABLE 3.8.2-8 Important Birds Areas in Cook Inlet (Audubon Alaska 2011)

Important Bird Area County Importance/important Species/Bird Groups

Kachemak Bay, South Shorea Kenai Peninsula Waterfowl, shorebirds, Steller‘s eider

Redoubt Bay Kenai Peninsula Hosts 70% of all migrating shorebirds in spring; largest known world concentration of Tule 

white-fronted goose; waterfowl

Swanson Lakes Kenai Peninsula Trumpeter swan; highest density of nesting common loons in North America; significant 

assemblage of migratory terrestrial species

Trading Bay Kenai Peninsula Entire population of Wrangell Island snow goose use site and mouth of Kenai River as spring 

migratory staging area; spring stopover site for shorebirds

Tuxedni Baya Kenai Peninsula Supports up to 20% of the estimated 1.2 million shorebirds using western Cook Inlet intertidal 

areas; western sandpiper; waterfowl

Barren Islandsa Kenai Peninsula One of largest populations of nesting seabirds in Gulf of Alaska; 18 breeding species, 

>400,000 seabirds

Clam Gulcha Kenai Peninsula Supports >1% of the biogeographic population of wintering Steller‘s eider

Homer Spita Kenai Peninsula Steller‘s eider; large numbers of shorebirds in spring migration; 5% global population of rock 

sandpipers overwinter

Fox River Flatsa Kenai Peninsula Major world site for migratory birds; thousands of waterfowl and millions of shorebirds; major 

spring staging area for geese and ducks, large wintering waterfowl population

Cook Inlet, Marinea Kenai Peninsula 

Kodiak Island

Short-tailed albatross, shearwaters, seabirds, storm-petrels, fulmers, murres, tufted puffins

Uganik Bay and Viekoda Baya Kodiak Island 14 seabird colonies, >100 resident breeding pairs of black oystercatcher; foraging/nesting habitat 

for Kittlitz‘s murrelet and other alcids

Wide Baya Kodiak Island Waterfowl use in spring and fall; Steller‘s eider; overwintering by Emperor goose; seabird 

colonies; Kittlitz‘s murrelet

Susitna Flats Matanuska-Susitna Waterfowl and shorebirds, especially during spring migration; among highest shorebird diversity 

of any site in Cook Inlet; entire world population of rock sandpiper winters here (October–April)

Kenai River Flats Kenai Peninsula Supports nearly entire population of Wrangell Island (Siberia) snow goose during spring 

migration; shorebirds, waterfowl, sandhill crane; large colonies of herring and mew gulls

Amakdedulia Covea Kenai Peninsula Supports 1% of a subspecies of the double-crested cormorant; large numbers of sea ducks in 

summer
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-238

TABLE 3.8.2-8 (Cont.) 

Important Bird Area County Importance/important Species/Bird Groups

Northwest Afognak Islanda Kodiak Island Nesting and foraging habitat for variety of seabirds and shorebirds; 125–150 breeding pairs of 

black oystercatcher

Goose Bay Matanuska-Susitna Important spring and fall migratory resting/feeding habitat for waterfowl; snow goose, Canada 

goose, trumpeter swan, tundra swan

Anchor Rivera Kenai Peninsula Multi-species assemblages of migratory terrestrial birds

Chugach Islandsa Kenai Peninsula Significant foraging area for seabirds; albatrosses, puffins, cormorants, gulls, all three murrelet 

species

Contact Pointa Kenai Peninsula Over 1,000 seabirds of seven species nest here; high numbers of seaducks, gulls, diving ducks, 

and dabbling ducks in spring

Palmer Hay Flats Matanuska-Susitna Large numbers of waterfowl in spring

a Site occurs adjacent to or within the Cook Inlet Planning Area.

1
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-239

12 FIGURE 3.8.2

-8 Important Bird Areas of the Cook Inlet Planning Area (Source: Audubon Alaska 2011)

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-240

1 TABLE 3.8.2-9 Marine and Coastal Birds of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas Planning Areas

Category Order Common Name Representative Types

Seabirds Charadriiformes Gulls

Terns

Alcids

Jaegers

Glaucous gull, common murre, 

horned puffin, Arctic tern, 

parasitic jaeger

Procellariiformes Storm-petrels

Shearwaters

Albatrosses

Short-tailed shearwater

Shorebirds Charadriiformes Phalaropes

Plovers

Oystercatchers

Sandpipers, snipes, and allies

Dunlin, red phalarope

Wetland birds Gruiformes Cranes Sandhill crane

Podicipediformes Grebes Horned grebe

Passerines Passeriformes Perching birds Warblers, sparrows, raven

Waterfowl Anseriformes

Gaviiformes

Ducks, geese, and swans

Loons

Long-tailed duck, common eider, 

king eider, greater white-fronted 

goose, lesser snow goose, tundra 

swan, Pacific loon, red-breasted 

merganser

Raptors Falconiformes Birds-of-prey Snowy owl

2

3

4 throughout the planning area. Members of these groups are migratory and occur seasonally, and 

5 some may occur in locally large concentrations in locations such as nesting colonies or as mobile 

6 flocks. The bays, inlets, and river mouths along the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas provide 

7 breeding, foraging, and staging areas for millions of shorebirds, seabirds, and waterfowl 

8 (Johnson 1993).

9

10 Seabirds. There are three general categories of seabirds: cliff-nesting species, Bering 

11 Sea breeders and summer residents of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, and high-Arctic species. 

12 The cliff dwelling species, such as the common and thick-billed (Uria lomvia) murres, the 

13 horned (Fratercula corniculata) and tufted (F. cirrhata) puffins, and the black-legged kittiwake, 

14 typically nest on cliffs, rock ledges, and sloping island surfaces on mainland cliffs, rocky 

15 headlands, and islands (Ainley et al. 2002; Audubon Alaska 2011; Baird 2009; Piatt and 

16 Kitaysky 2002a, b). These birds typically feed on fish and invertebrates, and many breed in 

17 colonies (some in mixed colonies) which in some locations may number 100,000 birds or more 

18 (Ainley et al. 2002; Audubon Alaska 2011). During breeding, these species may travel as much 

19 as 80 km (50 mi) from nest sites or colonies to forage on the continental slope and shelf (Gaston 

20 and Hipfner 2000; Hatch et al. 2000; Ainley et al. 2002; Baird 2009). The current status of many 

21 of these species in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas is largely unknown.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-241

1 The Bering Sea breeders and summer residents of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas include 

2 species such as the northern fulmar, the short-tailed shearwater (Puffinus tenuirostris), and the 

3 parakeet least (Aethia pusilla) and crested auklets. These species feed mostly on fish and 

4 invertebrates, and may forage as much as 100 km (62 mi) from breeding areas. They are 

5 colonial breeders (Jones 1993a, b; Jones et al. 2001; USFWS 2006e; Hatch and Nettleship 1998). 

6 Some of these species are among the most abundant birds in Alaskan waters. For example, the 

7 least auklet is one of the most abundant seabirds in North America (Jones 1993a), while the 

8 short-tailed shearwater is one of the most abundant species in pelagic Alaskan waters. Hundreds 

9 of thousands of shearwaters may be found in pelagic areas of the Chukchi Sea in late summer 

10 (USFWS 2006a; Audubon Alaska 2011). The northern fulmar is another very abundant species. 

11 About half of all North American colonies of this species occur in Alaska. Although there are no 

12 known nesting colonies along the Beaufort or Chukchi Seas, tens of thousands of this species 

13 may be found in pelagic waters of the Chukchi Sea in late summer (Audubon Alaska 2011).

14

15 The high-arctic seabirds are species that either breed in or migrate through arctic habitats 

16 along the Arctic Ocean. Representative species include the black guillemot (Cepphus gyrlle), 

17 several species of gull (Ross‘s gull [Rhodostethia rosa], ivory gull [Pagophila eburnean], and 

18 glaucous gull [Larus hyperboreus]), several species of jaegers (pomerine jaeger [Stercorarius 

19 pomarinus], parasitic jaeger [S. parasiticus], and long-tailed jaeger [S. longicaudus]), and the 

20 Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea). The black guillemot occurs in both planning areas, nesting in 

21 isolated pairs or in small colonies along rocky coasts with adjacent shallow waters (Butler and 

22 Buckley 2002). Cooper Island (east of Barrow) supports the largest breeding colony in Alaska, 

23 and the easternmost colony occurs on the Beaufort coast of the Yukon Territory (Butler and 

24 Buckley 2002; Audubon Alaska 2011). Some of the gulls (e.g., Ross‘s and ivory) do not breed 

25 in Arctic Alaska habitats, but are present in fall before moving to wintering areas in the Bering 

26 Sea (Divoky et al. 1988; Mallory et al. 2008). The glaucous gull occurs in both the Beaufort and 

27 Chukchi Seas and breeds along marine and freshwater coasts, tundra, offshore islands, cliffs, 

28 shorelines, and ice edges, and may breed in mixed avian colonies with geese, ducks, and cliff29 breeders (Gilchrist 2001). The jaegers are common in summer in the Chukchi Sea, moving into 

30 the Bering Sea in the fall. The Arctic tern is a rare species that may be found in pelagic waters of 

31 the Chukchi Sea.

32

33 Waterfowl. A variety of waterfowl occur in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning 

34 Areas, including loons (Pacific, yellow-billed, and red-throated), ducks (including the long-tailed 

35 duck, common eider, king eider) and geese (Pacific brant [Branta bernicla nigricans], greater 

36 white-fronted goose [Anser albifrons frontalis], lesser snow goose [Chen caerulescens 

37 caerulescens], and tundra swan [Cygnus columbianus]). Many of the waterfowl migrate along 

38 the west coast of Alaska into the Chukchi Sea and/or Beaufort Sea in spring, where they breed in 

39 freshwater and coastal habitats (e.g., Divoky 1987; Ely and Dzubin 1994; Goudie et al. 2000; 

40 Robertson and Savard 2002). Some species, such as the common eider, breed colonially along 

41 marine coasts (Goudie et al. 2000), while others such as the king eider may breed in more 

42 interior locations. Following nesting, many of the species move to molting areas in coastal areas 

43 of the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea, where they may stay for several weeks before continuing 

44 their fall migrations to wintering grounds farther south. Important molting and fall migration 

45 station areas include Peard Bay, Kasegaluk Lagoon, and Teshekpuk Lake along the Chukchi Sea

46 coast (Johnson 1993; Lysne et al. 2004).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-242

1 Shorebirds. Many of the shorebirds associated with the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas 

2 breed on the tundra, but also rely on coastal areas such as beaches, barrier islands, lagoons, and 

3 mudflats for some portion of their lifecycle. These coastal areas provide important feeding 

4 grounds that prepare the birds for their fall migration to southern winter grounds

5 (Powell et al. 2010). As many as 29 shorebird species have been reported to breed on the Arctic 

6 Coastal Plain; the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska has been estimated to have as many as 

7 6 million breeding shorebirds in summer (Alaska Shorebird Group 2008). Common shorebird 

8 species that breed on or migrate through the Arctic Coastal Plain include the dunlin, pectoral 

9 sandpiper (Caldris melanotos), semipalmated sandpiper (C. pusilla), and red phalarope 

10 (Phalaropus fulicarius) (Alaska Shorebird Group 2008; Powell et al. 2010).

11

12 Breeding species typically use shallow freshwater tundra ponds (polygons), marshes, and 

13 freshwater rivers and deltas (Alaska Shorebird Group 2008). Following breeding, migrating 

14 birds use a number of staging areas along the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea coasts, including river 

15 deltas and coastal lagoons (Alaska Shorebird Group 2008). Important post-breeding shorebird 

16 areas include Elson Lagoon and the Coleville River Delta along the Beaufort Sea, and Peard Bay 

17 and Kasegaluk Lagoon on the Chukchi Sea (Figure 3.8.2-9). Kasegaluk Lagoon is one of the 

18 longest lagoon-barrier island systems in the world, and is used by 19 different species of 

19 shorebirds during fall migration (Alaska Shorebird Group 2008).

20

21

22 3.8.2.3.2 Threatened and Endangered Species. There are two species that are listed as 

23 threatened under the ESA (see Section 3.8.2.1.2 for a discussion of the ESA and for definitions 

24 of listing categories) that occur in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas and that could 

25 be affected by OCS oil and gas activities. These species are the spectacled eider (Somatria 

26 fischeri) and the Alaska breeding population of the Steller‘s eider. In addition, Kittlit‘s murrelet 

27 and the yellow-billed loon, both Federal candidate species, occur in the coastal and inland waters 

28 of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area.

29

30 The spectacled eider was listed in 1993 as threatened throughout its range in Alaska and 

31 Russia (58 FR 27474). The USFWS also has designated critical habitat (wintering area) 

32 considered to be essential for the conservation of spectacled eider (66 FR 9146). On Alaska‘s 

33 North Slope or Arctic Coastal Plain (ACP), an average of 6,841 spectacled eiders (about 2% of 

34 the world population) are present each summer (Larned et al. 2005). Spectacled eiders generally 

nest at low density (about 0.22–0.25 birds/km2 35 ) within about 80 km (50 mi) of the coast, 

36 primarily west of the Sagavanirktok River (Larned and Balogh 1997; Larned et al. 1999). 

37 Highest densities occur south of Oliktok Point, from Harrison Bay to south of Smith Bay, and 

38 Admiralty Bay/Barrow southwest to Wainwright (Larned et al. 2003, 2005).

39

40 Male and female spectacled eiders pursue quite different schedules and movement 

41 patterns between the nesting period and arrival at the wintering area. Males leave the breeding 

42 grounds as incubation begins, usually early June to early July, and begin a molt migration, 

43 stopping in bays and lagoons to molt and stage prior to fall migration. Important molting and 

44 staging areas include Harrison Bay, Smith Bay, Peard Bay (east of Point Belcher), Kasegaluk 

45 Lagoon (south of Icy Cape), and Ledyard Bay (a critical habitat unit) (east of Cape Lisburne) 

46 (Figure 3.8.2-9) (Johnson et al. 1992; Larned et al. 1995a, b; TERA 1999). The median 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-243

12 FIGURE 3.8.2

-9 Important Bird Areas along the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Coasts (Audubon Alaska 2011)

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-244

1 departure of females and young-of-the-year from the breeding grounds is late August 

2 (Petersen et al. 2000). Ledyard Bay is one of the primary molting areas for females breeding on 

3 the ACP (Larned et al. 1995a).

4

5 The Steller‘s eider is the smallest of the four eider species. The Alaskan breeding 

6 population of Steller‘s eider has been listed since 1997 as threatened under the ESA 

7 (62 FR 31748). The USFWS also has designated (2001a) critical habitat for the Steller‘s eider 

8 (66 FR 8850). See Section 3.8.2.2.2 for a discussion of the status of this species. There are 

9 three breeding populations, two in Russia and one in Alaska (USFWS 2002). The Alaska 

10 breeding population nests primarily on the ACP, and is the only one of the three populations 

11 listed under the ESA. On the ACP, this species breeds on grassy edges of tundra lakes and ponds 

12 or within drained lake basins (Fredrickson 2001). Although they nest in terrestrial environments, 

13 they spend the majority of their time in shallow marine waters. After nesting in the ACP, they 

14 move to protected marine areas to molt. Molting occurs at a number of locations in southwest 

15 Alaska, with largest numbers of birds concentrating in four areas along the north side of the 

16 Alaska Peninsula (USFWS 2002).

17

18 The Kittlitz‘s murrelet is a small diving seabird related to the puffins and murres. All of 

19 the North American and most of the world population of this species breed, molt, and winter in 

20 Alaska (USFWS 2006d), where this species may be found in coastal waters discontinuously from

21 northern southeast Alaska in the Gulf of Alaska, north to Point Lay in the Chukchi Sea during 

22 the nesting season (Day et al. 1999). Although wintering areas remain largely unknown, they are 

23 assumed to include offshore waters in this region. This species is an uncommon and secretive 

24 breeder, choosing unvegetated scree slopes, coastal cliffs, talus above timberline, and barren 

25 ground, primarily in coastal areas but also up to 80 km (50 mi) inland. Because of the absence of 

26 suitable habitat, this species is not believed to nest east from Cape Beaufort in the western 

27 Chukchi Sea (Day et al. 1999).

28

29 The yellow-billed loon is a migratory seabird that in Alaska nests in solitary pairs on the 

30 Arctic Coastal Plain and winters in more southern coastal waters of the Pacific Ocean 

31 (USFWS 2011d). Yellow-billed loons typically nest near large, deep tundra lakes on low islands 

32 or near the edges of lakes to avoid terrestrial predators. In the Alaskan Arctic, nesting occurs 

33 from the Canning River westward to Point Lay, and migration occurs along coastlines of the 

34 Beaufort and Chukchi Seas (North 1994; NatureServe 2010d). During nesting, this species uses 

35 nearshore and offshore marine waters adjacent to their breeding areas for foraging in summer 

36 (74 FR 12932).

37

38

39 3.8.2.3.3 Use of the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea Planning Areas by Migratory Birds. 

40 As previously discussed in Section 3.8.2.3.1, the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea Planning Areas 

41 undergo extreme weather variability that results in a very distinct seasonal availability of habitat. 

42 As a consequence of these conditions, virtually all species of birds that have been reported from 

43 the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas are seasonal visitors that for the most part are 

44 absent in winter. In general, birds migrate to or through the area in spring. Some species 

45 (i.e., greater white-fronted goose) migrate to breeding habitats where they nest and raise young. 

46 Other species (i.e., ivory gull) pass through the two planning areas on their way to arctic habitats 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-245

1 in Canada, while still others (i.e., short-tailed shearwater) move into the area to forage in summer 

2 in offshore waters. In late summer and early fall, many species move to molting and staging 

3 areas in preparation for their fall migrations out of the arctic habitats to southern wintering areas.

4

5 Spring. Many of the species that move into the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning 

6 Areas in spring migrate into the area along the Bering Sea coast (e.g., Dickson and 

7 Gilchrist 2002). Arrival times generally coincide with the formation of ice leads. Migration 

8 times vary by species, but for most species spring migration occurs between late March and late 

9 May. For example, waterfowl species such as the long-tailed duck and common eider migrate 

10 northward in spring along the Chukchi Sea coast following the recurrent lead system in the ice 

11 and then migrate eastward in the Beaufort Sea region along a broad front, which may include 

12 inland, coastal, and offshore routes, from early May to mid-June (Johnson and Herter 1989; 

13 Goudie et al. 2000; Robertson and Savard 2002). Arrival dates for various species range from 

14 late April to early June. The availability of open water off river deltas and in leads determines 

15 migratory routes and distribution of loons, waterfowl, and seabirds during this time (Johnson and 

16 Herter 1989).

17

18 Summer. As discussed earlier, birds migrate into the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea 

19 Planning Areas in spring to breed, moving into appropriate habitats where they nest and raise 

20 young. Depending on the species, nesting habitats include islands, rocky coastlines, river deltas, 

21 lagoons, and all types of tundra habitat on the ACP. Shorebirds nest in virtually all types of

22 tundra habitats in the Arctic subregion, shifting to wetter marine littoral, saltmarsh, and barrier 

23 island shoreline types for brood rearing where insects are more abundant (Alaska Shorebird 

24 Group 2008).

25

26 Late Summer and Autumn. After breeding, many species of waterfowl, particularly 

27 sea ducks, undergo a migration to molting areas prior to fall migration to southern wintering 

28 areas (Goudie et al. 2000; Fredrickson 2001; Robertson and Savard 2002; Larned et al. 2006). 

29 Most brood rearing and molting of loons, swans, and geese occurs on large lakes or in coastal 

30 habitats. Major concentrations of molting waterfowl occur from late June through August in 

31 several areas along the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea coasts, including Teshekpuk Lake, Simpson 

32 Lagoon, Peard Bay, Kasegaluk Lagoon, and Ledyard Bay (Figure 3.8.2-9) (Audubon 

33 Alaska 2011).

34

35 Fall migration times also vary by species, and in some cases by gender and age group. 

36 For example, male and nonbreeding or failed-breeding female common eiders migrate to coastal 

37 molting areas in Chukchi Sea lagoons and bays beginning in late June and early July (Johnson 

38 and Herter 1989). Some females with young may molt in Beaufort coastal lagoons before 

39 moving south to wintering areas from August to as late as November (Johnson and Herter 1989; 

40 Goudie et al. 2000). Male king eiders undertake a molt migration to Chukchi and Bering Sea 

41 areas from early July through August (Suydam 2000; Dickson et al. 2000). Females migrate 

42 from mid-August into September, staging an average of 14 km (9 mi) offshore for 9–32 days in 

43 the Beaufort. Young leave the breeding areas in September and October.

44

45 Along the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea coastlines, non-incubating members of 

46 shorebird pairs concentrate in coastal habitats as early as mid-June (Alaska Shorebird Group 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-246

1 2008; Powell et al. 2010). In late June to early July, individuals and flocks of non-breeding and 

2 post-breeding adults of several species move to habitats surrounding small coastal lagoons and 

3 river deltas (Taylor et al. 2010). In late July and early August, adults relieved of parental duties 

4 flock in shoreline areas, followed by juveniles in August and September. Parents with fledged 

5 young follow in several weeks, and juveniles form large flocks in mid- to late August, and most 

6 have departed the area by mid-September. From late September to mid-October, a majority of 

7 the world‘s Ross‘s gull population (4,500–16,000) migrates from the Russian Chukchi to 

8 shoreline habitats from Wainwright to Point Barrow and eastward to the Plover Islands 

9 (Divoky et al. 1988), returning in mid-October. Most black guillemots probably overwinter in 

10 leads in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.

11

12

13 3.8.2.3.4 Important Bird Areas. The Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas 

14 and adjacent coastal areas include 11 sites that have been identified as IBAs (Table 3.8.2-10) 

15 (Audubon Alaska 2011; see discussion of IBAs presented in Section 3.8.2.1.4).

16

17

18 3.8.2.3.5 Climate Change and Arctic Birds. Climate change effects have been 

19 observed to be occurring on all continents and oceans, with atmospheric and ocean warming 

20 being observed in many locations, but especially in the Arctic (see climate change discussions 

21 presented in Section 3.3). Environmental responses in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning 

22 Areas include loss of sea ice (Parkinson 2000) and permafrost thawing (Lemke et al. 2007), 

23 changes in precipitation, and additional concerns that are associated with the climate change24 related sea level rise and potential for high erosion of Beaufort and Chukchi Sea coasts 

25 (Proshutinsky et al. 2001; Mars and Housenecht 2007).

26

27 The potential effects of sea ice loss, permafrost thawing, and sea level rise may have a 

28 variety of adverse effects on marine and coastal birds of the two planning areas, with potential 

29 impacts mostly associated with loss of food and habitat. Sea level rise and altered precipitation, 

30 temperature, and river discharge regimes may affect littoral zone invertebrate communities in 

31 terms of both species composition and total productivity (see discussion of climate change 

32 impacts on aquatic invertebrates in Section 3.8.5.3). Changes in this prey base could affect 

33 shorebirds and waterfowl that forage on these invertebrates during nesting, staging, and 

34 migrating (Rehfisch and Crick 2003; Galbraith et al. 2002; Moller et al. 2008; 

35 Lovvorn et al. 2009; NABCI 2010). Atmospheric warming, coupled with altered precipitation 

36 regimes, is predicted to cause boreal forests to expand northward, displacing tundra-breeding 

37 birds into narrower coastal areas (NABCI 2010) (see Section 3.7.1.3 for a discussion of potential 

38 climate effects on arctic tundra and coastal habitats). The loss of tundra wetlands on the coastal 

39 plain would reduce nesting habitat for a variety of birds as well as affect prey abundance and 

40 distribution of tundra-nesting species. If climate change alters the timing of food abundance, this 

41 could affect both nesting and migrating birds. The arrival, nesting, and hatching of many 

42 shorebird species are closely tied to the emergence of insects upon which the hatchlings depend 

43 (Alaska Shorebird Group 2008).

44

45 The presence of sea ice and landfast ice in the Arctic creates a productive marine ice 

46 biome that is essential for a variety of marine biota. Sea ice in the Arctic has been estimated to 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-247

1 TABLE 3.8.2-10 Important Birds Areas in the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas

Important Bird Area Area Importance/Important Species or Bird Groups

Teshekpuk Lake-E. Dease

Inlet

High densities of breeding shorebirds; large numbers (>50,000) of molting 

geese, including up to 30% of the Pacific Flyway Brant goose population; 

breeding populations of spectacled and Steller‘s eider; some of the highest 

breeding densities of the yellow-billed loon in the Western Hemisphere.

Ledyard Bay, marine Site supports large numbers of sea birds and waterfowl. As many as 

100,000 common murres and thick-billed murres and 10,000 black-legged 

kittiwake have been reported during the breeding season, and more than 

30,000 spectacled eider have been reported outside of the breeding season.

Kasegaluk Lagoon Nineteen shorebird species have been reported from the site, with more than 

25,000 birds present. Most abundant shorebirds include the red phalarope and 

dunlin. Peak single-day bird counts in August of as many as 2,500 birds.

Eastern Beaufort Sea lagoons 

and barrier islands

Used by breeding and post-breeding migratory waterfowl; long-tailed ducks are 

the most abundant species in late summer and early fall; lagoons used during 

molting by Canadian-breeding and Alaska-breeding ducks; 10,000+ phalaropes 

regularly use the lagoons.

Cape Thompson Supports only one of two known seabird colonies on the east coast of the 

Chukchi Sea. Total seabird population estimated to be on the order of 

350,000 birds; species include thick-billed and common murres and blacklegged kittiwakes.

Cape Lisburne Supports only one of two known seabird colonies on the east coast of the 

Chukchi Sea. Total seabird population on the order of 500,000 birds, primarily 

thick-billed and common murres and black-legged kittiwakes.

Peard Bay A large deep bay used for breeding by Brant goose, common eider, and 

spectacled eider, and as a resting/staging area by waterfowl and shorebirds 

during migration.

Northeast Arctic Coastal Plain Used by post-breeding lesser snow goose for pre-migration foraging, with peak 

annual numbers in excess of 300,000.

Cooper Island Supports largest black guillemot colony in Alaska, and is the most northerly 

known breeding site for horned puffins. Also supports very large Arctic tern 

colony.

Southeast Chukchi, marine Tens of thousands of northern fulmers and hundreds of thousands of short-tailed 

shearwaters can be found in this area in late summer; thousands of auklets 

(primarily 1st and 2nd year birds) as far north as Cape Lisburne.

Elson Lagoon Site estimated to support as many as 20,000 shorebirds; wide offshore zone 

important for waterfowl; and common eiders nest on the barrier islands. This

site is pending global/continental status.

Source: Audubon Alaska 2011.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-248

1 be decreasing by 3% per decade since the 1970s (see Section 3.3 for a more detailed discussion 

2 of sea ice and climate change). Loss of sea ice may affect marine productivity as well as the 

3 distribution, composition, and abundance of marine invertebrates (ACIA 2005; Moline et al. 

4 2008) (see Section 3.8.5.3). Such changes could affect the prey base for seabirds, affecting their 

5 ability to provide food for chicks as well as preparing for the fall migration.

6

7 Climate change in the Arctic may be expected to result in short-term and long-term 

8 effects on marine and coastal birds of the region. These effects may be beneficial or detrimental 

9 in nature and could result in population-level effects on marine and coastal birds. Which species 

10 may be most affected and how they may respond to climate change over the several decades are 

11 unknown.

12

13

14 3.8.3 Reptiles

15

16

17 3.8.3.1 Life Stages and Habitats in the Gulf of Mexico

18

19 Five species of sea turtles — the green, hawksbill, Kemp‘s ridley, leatherback, and 

20 loggerhead — are known to inhabit the GOM (Pritchard 1997), and all occur in coastal and 

21 offshore habitats in each of the GOM Planning Areas included in this PEIS. In addition to these 

22 turtles, the federally protected American crocodile occurs in the GOM‘s Eastern Planning Area 

23 along Florida‘s southern coast (Table 3.8.3-1). All six reptile species are listed as either 

24 endangered or threatened species under the ESA. Other reptile species not discussed in this 

25 section that could occur in coastal or brackish environments may be listed as sensitive or species 

26 of concern by the USFWS or the States in the GOM Planning Region (e.g., diamondback 

27 terrapin [Malaclemys terrapin], gulf salt marsh snake [Nerodia clarkia]).

28

29 The life history of sea turtles includes four developmental stages: embryo, hatchling, 

30 juvenile, and adult. Habitats used and turtle mobility at each developmental stage are

31 summarized in Table 3.8.3-2.

32

33 Habitat utilization and migrations of sea turtles vary depending upon these specific 

34 developmental stages and result in differential distributions (Marquez 1990; Ackerman 1997; 

35 Hirth 1997; Musick and Limpus 1997). Consequently, the degree of sea turtle vulnerability to 

36 specific human impacts may also vary between developmental stages. Sea turtle eggs deposited 

37 in excavated nests on sandy beaches are especially vulnerable to coastal impacts. After hatching,

38 hatchling turtles move immediately from these nests to the sea. Most species ultimately move 

39 into areas of current convergence or to mats of floating Sargassum, where they undergo 

40 primarily passive migration within oceanic gyre systems (Carr and Meylan 1980). The passive 

41 nature of hatchling turtles, along with their small size, make them vulnerable in open-ocean 

42 environments. After a period of years, most juvenile turtles (defined as those which have 

43 commenced feeding but have not attained sexual maturity) actively recruit to nearshore 

44 developmental habitats within tropical and temperate zones. Juvenile turtles in some temperate 

45 zones also make seasonal migrations to foraging habitats at higher latitudes in summer months. 

46 The movements of turtles in tropical areas are typically more localized. When approaching 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-249

1 TABLE 3.8.3-1 Reptiles of the Gulf of Mexico That Are Listed under the Endangered Species Act

Species Status

Juveniles or 

Hatchlings 

Potentially 

Present? Habitat and Relative Abundance in the Gulf of Mexico

Family Cheloniidae

 Loggerhead turtle

 (Caretta caretta)

Ta Yes Estuarine, coastal, and shelf waters. The most abundant sea turtle in the GOM (Dodd 1988). 

Total estimated nesting in the U.S. is approximately 68,000 to 90,000 nests per year (NOAA 

2011c). Main U.S. nesting beaches are in southeast Florida and Florida Panhandle. Some 

reported nests in Texas through Alabama (NMFS and USFWS 1991). 

 Green turtle

 (Chelonia mydas)

T,Eb Yes Shallow coastal waters, seagrass beds. Nesting in the U.S. primarily occurs along the central 

and southeast coasts of Florida where an estimated 200 to 1,100 females nest annually 

(NOAA 2011d).

 Hawksbill turtle

 (Eretmochelys imbricata)

E Yes Coral reefs, hard-bottom areas in coastal waters; adults not often sighted in northern GOM. 

Least common of all sea turtles in the GOM; nesting limited to southeast Florida and the 

Florida Keys (NOAA 2011e).

 Kemp‘s ridley turtle

 (Lepidochelys kempi)

E Yes Shallow coastal waters, seagrass beds. Nests mainly at Rancho Nuevo, Mexico. Nesting also 

occurs along the Texas coast and portions of western Florida and Alabama. As many as 

127 nests have been recorded annually along coastal Texas since 2000, and as many as 

8,000 nests have been recorded annually at Rancho Nuevo, Mexico, since 2000 

(NOAA 2011f).

Family Dermochelyidae

 Leatherback turtle

 (Dermochelys coriacea)

E Yes Slope, shelf, and coastal waters; considered the most pelagic of the sea turtles. Some nesting 

in the northern GOM, especially Florida Panhandle; nearest major nesting concentrations are 

in Caribbean and southeast Florida. In Florida, about 35 nests are observed each year 

(USFWS 2001b).

2
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-250

1 TABLE 3.8.3-1 (Cont.)

Species Status

Juveniles or 

Hatchlings 

Potentially 

Present? Habitat and Relative Abundance in the Gulf of Mexico

Family Crocodylidae

 American crocodile

 (Crocodylus acutus)

T,Ec Yes In the continental U.S., this species is known from coastal mangrove swamps, brackish bays, 

and inshore freshwater habitats in southern Florida. Nests at edges of riparian thickets, sandy 

beaches, or on banks of coastal creeks or mangrove swamps. The crocodile population in 

Florida is estimated between 1,400 and 2,000 individuals, not including hatchlings 

(USFWS 2007c).

Status: E = endangered species and T = threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

a The loggerhead turtle is currently listed under the ESA as nine distinct population segments (DPSs). The south Atlantic DPS, which occurs in the 

GOM, is listed as threatened under the ESA (NOAA 2011c).

b Green sea turtles are listed as threatened, except in Florida, where breeding populations are listed as endangered.

c American crocodiles are listed as threatened in Florida; endangered elsewhere.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-251

1 TABLE 3.8.3-2 Sea Turtle Life Stages, Habitats, 

2 and Mobility in the Gulf of Mexico

Developmental 

Stage Habitat Mobility

Embryo Beaches Stationary

Hatchling Ocean/Sargassum Passive migration

Juvenile Sargassum/nearshore Swimmers

Adult Ocean Swimmers

3

4

5 sexual maturity, juvenile turtles move into adult foraging habitats. Thus, both juvenile and adult 

6 sea turtles may be vulnerable to impacts in both open-ocean and near-coastal environments but 

7 (unlike hatchlings) may actively avoid or escape certain impact-producing factors or conditions. 

8 Near the onset of nesting season, adult turtles move between offshore foraging habitats and 

9 nesting beaches. Mating may occur directly off the nesting beaches or remotely, depending on 

10 the species and population. During the nesting season, females become resident in the vicinity of 

11 the nesting beaches and may be more vulnerable to impacts within these near-coastal waters and 

12 on nesting beaches.

13

14 Sea turtles are highly migratory and therefore have a wide geographic range. For this 

15 reason, each turtle species has the potential to occur throughout the entire GOM and may occur 

16 at suitable nesting beaches along the entire northern GOM coast. Areas of greater coastal and 

17 off-shore turtle observations have been provided to the Ocean Biogeographic Information 

18 System-Spatial Ecological Analysis of Megavertebrate Populations (OBIS-SEAMAP) 

19 (Read et al. 2011) and are shown in Figure 3.8.3-1. Also illustrated in Figure 3.8.3-1 are 

20 approximate locations of turtle nesting locations cataloged by the Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle 

21 Nesting Beach Atlas (Dow et al. 2007). Most observations and nesting activity occurs along 

22 western and northwestern Florida and consists of primarily loggerheads, green, leatherback, and 

23 a few Kemp‘s ridley turtles. There are reports of recent nesting in Alabama (loggerhead, 

24 Kemp‘s ridley, and green turtles) along Dauphin Island and the Gulf Islands National Seashore; 

25 in Mississippi (loggerhead turtles) along the Gulf Islands National Seashore; and in Louisiana

26 (loggerhead turtles) within the Breton National Wildlife Refuge (Figure 3.8.3-1). All five sea 

27 turtle species have been observed to nest along areas of the Texas coast (Padre Island National 

28 Seashore) (NPS 2011). Hatchling turtles found in the offshore waters of the northern GOM may 

29 have originated from these nesting beaches or nest beaches in the southern GOM and Caribbean 

30 Sea. Juvenile turtles may move into shallow water developmental habitats across the entire 

31 northern GOM. In some species or populations, adult foraging habitats may be geographically 

32 distinct from their developmental habitats (Musick and Limpus 1997).

33

34 There are no designated critical habitats or migratory routes for sea turtles in the 

35 northern GOM. However, many coastal areas of the GOM may be used as preferred habitats 

36 (i.e., important sensitive habitats that are essential for the species within a specific geographic 

37 area). For example, seagrass beds in Texas lagoons and other nearshore or inshore areas 

38 (including jetties) for green sea turtles (Renaud et al. 1995) and bays and lakes, especially in 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-252

1

2 FIGURE 3.8.3-1 Reported Observations of Reptiles and Suitable Habitat in the GOM (Data 

3 presented in these maps were obtained from various sources including the Environmental 

4 Sensitivity Index [NOAA 1996], OBIS-SEAMAP [Read et al. 2011], and the Wider Caribbean 

5 Sea Turtle Nesting Beach Atlas [Dow et al. 2007].)

6

7

8
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-253

1 Louisiana and Texas, for Kemp‘s ridley sea turtles. Sargassum mats are also recognized as 

2 preferred habitat for hatchlings (Carr and Meylan 1980). In general, however, the entire GOM 

3 coastal and nearshore areas can serve as habitat for marine turtles, as shown in the plot of marine 

4 turtle potential habitat from the USGS‘s GAP database in Figure 3.8.3-1.

5

6 The American crocodile occurs in the continental U.S. in southern Florida. It primarily 

7 inhabits coastal mangrove swamps, brackish bays, and inshore freshwater habitats. This species 

8 does not occur in pelagic regions of the GOM. Nesting occurs in riparian thickets, swamps, 

9 beaches, or along creeks. Designated critical habitat for the American crocodile occurs in 

10 southern Florida, including Everglades National Park and the Florida Keys. Areas of suitable 

11 habitat for the American crocodile, as determined by the Environmental Sensitivity Index 

12 (NOAA 1996), are illustrated in Figure 3.8.3-1.

13

14 Factors That Could Affect Baseline Conditions during the Program.

15

16 Extreme Weather Events. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which hit the GOM coast in 

17 August and September 2005, respectively, adversely affected sea turtle habitats. Some nesting 

18 sites (approximately 50 nests) for Kemp‘s ridley sea turtles were destroyed along the Alabama 

19 coast (Congressional Research Service 2005; USFWS 2006c), and the loss of beaches through 

20 the affected coastal areas has probably affected other existing nests and nesting habitats of this 

21 species as well as the loggerhead turtle. Similarly, impacts to seagrass beds may affect the local 

22 distribution and abundance of species that use these habitats, such as the green sea turtle and the 

23 Kemp‘s ridley sea turtle.

24

25 Catastrophic Oil Spills. The recent oil spill associated with the DWH event may have 

26 had detrimental consequences to sea turtles that had direct contact with spilled oil. Following the 

27 DWH event, a total of 1,146 sea turtles were recovered from the GOM that had come in contact 

28 with or were in the vicinity of spilled oil. The recovered turtles included adults or free29 swimming juveniles of four species: green, hawksbill, Kemp‘s ridley, and loggerhead. 

30 However, the species of some recovered sea turtles could not be identified (Table 3.8.3-3). Of 

31 the total number of turtles recovered, 608 (53%) were found dead and 537 (47%) were found 

32 alive. Most of the recovered sea turtles (dead or alive) were Kemp‘s ridley sea turtles 

33 (Table 3.8.3-3). Approximately 85% of the live turtles recovered were visibly oiled; 

34 approximately 3% of the dead turtles recovered were visibly oiled (Restore the Gulf 2010). The 

35 cause of death of the deceased turtles remains unclear, but it is possible for turtles to ingest or 

36 inhale oil that could be potentially fatal without any noticeable external indications. 

37

38 The DWH event also had the potential to affect sea turtle populations by fouling habitats 

39 such as seagrass beds and nesting beaches. Preliminary reports from the NOAA Natural 

40 Resource Damage Assessment Team have indicated that about 1,600 km (1,000 mi) of shoreline 

41 along the GOM has tested positive for oil, including salt marshes, beaches, mudflats, and 

42 mangroves (NOAA 2010b). The presence of oil in these areas likely affected foraging and 

43 nesting habitats for sea turtles, although the true ecological consequences of these effects are not 

44 known. This information, however, is not needed at the programmatic stage to make a reasoned 

45 choice among alternatives (see Section 1.4, Analytical Issues).

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-254

1 TABLE 3.8.3-3 Sea Turtle Species Recovered, Turtle Nests Translocated, and Turtle 

2 Hatchlings Released in the Atlantic Ocean Following the Deepwater Horizon Event

Species

Recovered 

Alive

Recovered 

Dead

Total 

Recovered

Translocated 

Nests

Hatchlings 

Released

Green turtle

(Chelonia mydas)

172 29 201 4 455

Hawksbill turtle

(Eretmochelys imbricata)

 16 0 16 0 0

Kemp‘s ridley turtle

(Lepidochelys kempii)

328 473 801 5 125

Loggerhead turtle

(Caretta caretta)

 21 66 87 265a 14,216

Unknown turtle species 0 40 40 0 0

Total 537 608 1,145 274 14,796

a Does not include one nest that included a single hatchling and no eggs.

Source: NOAA 2010c.

3

4

5 As a measure to prevent oil fouling of turtle nests and hatchlings, sea turtle nests along 

6 the GOM were collected and hatchlings were translocated to eastern Florida along the Atlantic 

7 coast. In total, turtle nests of three species were translocated following the DWH event: green, 

8 Kemp‘s ridley, and loggerhead. Nests of the Kemp‘s ridley turtle were most commonly 

9 translocated (Table 3.8.3-3) (NOAA 2010c).

10

11 Catastrophic spills such as the DWH event have the potential to affect other reptile 

12 species that may inhabit coastal or estuarine environments. Such species in the GOM Planning 

13 Areas include the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus). This species inhabits brackish and 

14 freshwater environments and is primarily known to occur in coastal mangrove swamps in 

15 southern Florida (Table 3.8.3-3). Depending upon location and magnitude, catastrophic oil spills 

16 in the GOM have the potential to affect coastal mangrove and beach habitats in southern Florida 

17 for the American crocodile. However, there is no evidence that the DWH event affected habitat 

18 for this particular species.

19

20

21 3.8.3.2 Climate Change Effects on Sea Turtles

22

23 Climate change also has the potential to affect marine and coastal reptile species in the 

24 GOM Planning Areas over the next 40–50 yr. Climate change effects, including warming air 

25 and water temperatures, rising sea levels, and more intense storms, have been reported in many 

26 U.S. coastal regions. These climate change effects have been scientifically correlated with 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-255

1 atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Rising water temperatures, increased sea 

2 levels, and intense storms may affect the availability and suitability of foraging and nesting 

3 habitats for coastal and marine reptiles (Hawkes et al. 2009). For reptiles that rely on 

4 temperature to determine the gender of offspring in incubating eggs (referred to as temperature5 dependent sex determination), including sea turtles and crocodilians, subtle increases in 

6 atmospheric temperatures could skew sex ratios of hatchlings, which could have future 

7 population implications (Walther et al. 2002). It is also predicted that global warming and 

8 increased precipitation rates associated with climate change will cause sea levels to rise 

9 (Church et al. 2001). This phenomenon could alter or eliminate sea turtle coastal habitat in many 

10 areas (Hawkes et al. 2009). For example, a study in Hawaii predicted that as much as 40% of 

11 green sea turtle nesting habitat could be affected with a 0.9-m (2.7-ft) sea level rise 

12 (Baker et al. 2006).

13

14

15 3.8.4 Fish

16

17

18 3.8.4.1 Gulf of Mexico

19

20 In the northern GOM, fish assemblages can be categorized by habitat use. Demersal 

21 fishes live on the seafloor and near bottom waters and are distinct from pelagic fishes, which 

22 reside in the water column. Within these categories, fish can be further classified by their depth 

23 preference and their location along the gradient from the continental shelf to the abyssal plain. 

24 Habitat use also varies across life stages. For example, many species of both pelagic and 

25 demersal fish inhabit coastal estuaries during their early life stages to take advantage of the 

26 shelter and abundant food resources provided by coastal habitat. Similarly, demersal fishes may 

27 spend their egg and larval stages in the upper water column, where phytoplankton resources are 

28 concentrated, before ultimately moving to bottom waters. There are also unique categories of 

29 fish, for example, diadromous species (fish migrating between fresh and salt water) that spend 

30 most of their adulthood in saltwater but spawn in freshwater (anadromous) or that live primarily 

31 in freshwater and spawn in saltwater (catadromous).

32

33

34 3.8.4.1.1 Diadromous Fishes. There are three anadromous fish species in the GOM: 

35 Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and Alabama shad 

36 (Alosa alabamae). Anadromous species spawn in rivers but spend part of their lives in oceans. 

37 Gulf sturgeon populations have declined in the last century and they are now a federally listed 

38 threatened species. Striped bass are native to rivers entering the GOM from Florida to Texas,

39 although existing data suggests their numbers were historically small and not sufficient to 

40 support a large commercial fishery. Striped bass populations began declining earlier this 

41 century, and by the mid-1960s had disappeared from all GOM rivers except for the 

42 Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River System and the Mobile-Alabama-Tombigbee River 

43 System of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia (GSMFC 2006). The decline has been attributed to 

44 pollution and dams that reduced access to spawning habitat and created adverse hydrologic 

45 conditions for eggs. The USFWS and the GOM States initiated cooperative efforts to restore and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-256

1 maintain striped bass populations in the late 1960s, primarily through stocking of hatchery-raised 

2 fingerlings, and this effort continues today.

3

4 The historic range of Alabama shad was similar to that of the striped bass but extended 

5 well up the Mississippi River drainage. Populations of Alabama shad have declined significantly 

6 over the years, and they were designated a species of concern by the NMFS in 1997

7 (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/alabamashad_detailed.pdf). Spawning populations 

8 exist in the Apalachicola River, Florida; the Choctawhatchee and Conecuh Rivers, Alabama; and 

9 the Pascagoula River, Mississippi. Dams that have been built on many southeastern rivers are 

10 thought to be a major reason for the decline of anadromous fish species in the GOM. Little is 

11 known about their distribution or habitat use in marine environments.

12

13 The catadromous American eel (Anquilla rostrata) also occurs within waters of the 

14 GOM, with young and maturing individuals found in nearly all the rivers, bays, lakes, and 

15 estuaries associated with the GOM. Adult American eels spend most of their lives in freshwater 

16 but eventually swim to the Sargasso Sea where they spawn and die (Eales 1968). The young 

17 eventually migrate to inland waters. Commercial fishing has significantly reduced eel numbers, 

18 but they have not been extended protected species status (http://www.fws.gov/news/

19 NewsReleases/showNews.cfm?newsId=73C49E66-CA1E-2EC5-22EBD499912EC3E3).

20

21

22 3.8.4.1.2 Pelagic Fishes. Coastal pelagic fishes include larger predatory species such as 

23 mackerels (Scomberomorus spp.), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), cobia (Rachycentron 

24 canadum), dolphin fish (Coryphaena hippurus), jacks (family Carangidae), and little tunny 

25 (Euthynnus alletteratus), as well as smaller forage species such as Gulf menhaden (Brevoortia 

26 patronus), Atlantic thread herring (Opisthonema oglinum), Spanish sardine (Sardinella aurita), 

27 round scad (Decapterus punctatus), and anchovies (family Engraulidae). Coastal pelagic species 

28 typically form schools, undergo migrations, grow rapidly, mature early, and exhibit high 

29 fecundity. These species are either managed by GMFMC or are important prey fish for other 

30 species. The larger predatory species may be attracted to large concentrations of anchovies, 

31 herrings, and silversides (family Atherinidae) that sometimes congregate in nearshore areas.

32

33 Fish inhabiting oceanic waters can be divided into epipelagic, mesopelagic, and 

34 bathypelagic, on the basis of their depth preference. Epipelagic fishes inhabit the upper 200 m 

35 (700 ft) of the water column in oceanic waters, typically beyond the continental shelf edge (Bond 

36 1996). In the GOM, this group includes several shark species, swordfish (family Xiphiidae), 

37 billfishes (family Istiophoridae), flyingfish (Parexocoetus brachypterus), halfbeaks (family 

38 Hemiramphidae), jacks, dolphinfish, and tunas (family Scombridae). A number of the epipelagic 

39 species, such as dolphin fish, sailfish (Istiophorus albicans), white marlin (Tetrapturus albidus), 

40 blue marlin (Makaira nigricans), and tunas, are in decline and have important spawning habitat 

41 in the GOM. All of these epipelagic species are migratory, but specific patterns are not well 

42 understood. Many oceanic species are associated with floating seaweed (Sargassum spp.), 

43 jellyfishes, siphonophores, and driftwood, because they provide forage and/or nursery habitat. 

44 Most fish associated with floating seaweed are temporary residents, for example, juveniles of 

45 species that reside in shelf or coastal waters as adults. However, several larger species, such as 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-257

1 dolphinfish, tuna, and wahoo, feed on the small fishes and fish attracted to Sargassum 

2 (GMFMC 2004).

3

4 Below the epipelagic zone, the water column may be layered into mesopelagic 

5 (200–1,000-m [656–3,281-ft]) and bathypelagic (>1,000-m [>3,281-ft]) zones. Recent surveys 

6 over the continental slope found 126 species (30 families) of juvenile and adult mesopelagic 

7 fishes, which were numerically dominated by lanternfishes (family Myctophidae), bristlemouths 

8 (family Gonostomatidae), and hatchetfishes (family Sternoptychidae) (Ross et al. 2010). 

9 Mesopelagic fishes spend the daytime at depths of 200–1,000 m (656–3,281 ft), but migrate 

10 vertically at night into food-rich near-surface waters. Mesopelagic fishes, while less commonly 

11 known, are important ecologically because they transfer significant amounts of energy between 

12 mesopelagic and epipelagic zones over each daily cycle. The lanternfishes are also important 

13 prey for meso- and epipelagic predators (e.g., tunas) (Hopkins et al. 1997).

14

15 Deeper dwelling (bathypelagic) fishes inhabit the water column at depths greater than 

16 1,000 m (3,000 ft). This group is composed of little-known species such as snipe eels (family 

17 Nemichthyidae), slickheads (family Alepocephalidae), bigscales (family Melamphaidae), and 

18 whalefishes (family Cetomimidae) (McEachran and Fechhelm 1998; Rowe and Kennicutt 2009). 

19 Most species are capable of producing and emitting light (bioluminescence) to aid 

20 communication. In general, deep-water species produce demersal eggs (Bond 1996) that are 

21 attached to the substrate.

22

23

24 3.8.4.1.3 Demersal Fishes. Demersal fish in the GOM can be generally characterized as 

25 soft-bottom fishes or hard-bottom fishes, according to their association with particular substrate 

26 types. Soft-bottom habitat is relatively featureless and has much lower species diversity than the 

27 more structurally complex hard bottom habitat. Thus species richness is lower in the Central and 

28 Western Planning Area compared to the Eastern Planning Area, where hard-bottom habitat is 

29 abundant.

30

31 In recent trawl surveys, Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), longspine porgy 

32 (Stenotomus caprinus), and Atlantic bumper (Chloroscombrus chrysurus) were the most 

33 abundant demersal soft-bottom fishes on the continental shelf from south Texas to Alabama 

34 (Table 3.8.4-1; SEAMAP 2010). However, geographic divisions exist because soft-bottom 

35 fishes generally prefer certain types of sediments over others; this tendency led to the naming of 

36 three primary fish assemblages according to the dominant shrimp species found in similar 

37 sediment/depth regimes (Chittenden and McEachran 1976; reviewed in GMFMC 2004). In the 

38 GOM, pink shrimp are found in waters up to about 45 m (148 ft) over calcareous sediments. 

39 Common members of the pink shrimp assemblage include Atlantic bumper, sand perch 

40 (Diplectrum formosum), silver jenny (Eucinostomus gula), dusky flounder (Syacium papillosum), 

41 and pigfish (Orthopristis chrysoptera). This assemblage is typified by the west Florida shelf in 

42 the Eastern Planning Area. Fishes associated with brown shrimp and white shrimp are found on 

43 more silty sediments and are typical of the Western and Central Planning Areas. The brown 

44 shrimp assemblage extends to 91 m (299 ft). Porgies (family Sparidae), searobins (family

45 Triglidae), batfish (family Ogcocephalidae), goatfish (family Carangidae), lefteye flounders 

46 (family Bothidae), lizardfishes (family Synodontidae), butterfishes (family Stromateidae), 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-258

1 TABLE 3.8.4-1 The Ten Most Abundant Demersal Fish Species in Trawl 

2 Surveys of the Continental Shelf from Texas to Alabama

Species Total number % Frequencya

Summer

 Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulates) 119,000 52.0

 Longspine porgy (Stenotomus caprinus) 77,667 69.9

 Atlantic bumper (Chloroscombrus chrysurus) 44,374 48.9

 Blackwing sea robin (Prionotus rubio) 10,610 37.8

 Gulf butterfish (Peprilus burti) 9,531 46.0

 Largescale lizard fish (Saurida brasiliensis) 8,989 40.6

 Silver seatrout (Cynoscion nothus) 8,230 33.8

 Striped anchovy (Anchoa hepsetus) 6,381 25.6

 Atlantic cutlassfish (Trichiurus lepturus) 5,869 34.4

 Blackear bass (Serranus atrobranchus) 5,219 28.7

Fall

 Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulates) 74,515 70.2

 Longspine porgy (Stenotomus caprinus) 38,520 61.0

 Atlantic bumper (Chloroscombrus chrysurus) 13,713 37.9

 Silver seatrout (Cynoscion nothus) 99,881 50.6

 Shoal flounder (Syacium gunteri) 9,874 53.7

 Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) 8,666 45.5

 Blackear bass (Serranus atrobranchus) 7,328 27.0

 Inshore lizardfish (Synodus foetens) 5,580 60.4

 Star drum (Stellifer lanceolatus) 5,440 18.8

 Bigeye searobin (Prionotus longispinosus) 4,510 31.2

a Percentage of all trawls in which the species was collected. 

Source: SEAMAP 2010.

3

4

5 cusk-eels (family Ophidiidae), toadfishes (family Batrachoididae), and scorpionfishes (family

6 Scorpaenidae) characterize the brown shrimp assemblage. The white shrimp assemblage exists 

7 in 3.5 to 22 m (11 to 72 ft) of water, and dominant fish include drums (family Scianenidae), 

8 Atlantic croaker, snake mackerels (family Trichiuridae), threadfins (family Polynemidae), sea 

9 catfishes (family Ariidae), herrings (family Clupeidae), jacks (family Carangidae), butterfishes 

10 (family Stromateidae), and flounders (family Bothidae). Many fish species in the white and 

11 brown shrimp assemblages spawn in shelf waters and spend their early life stages in estuaries 

12 (GMFMC 2004).

13

14 Another important habitat for demersal fishes on the continental shelf is the hard bottom. 

15 The term ―hard bottom‖ generally refers to exposed rock, but can refer to other substrata such as

16 coral and clay, or even artificial structures. Reef fishes such as sea basses (family Serranidae), 

17 snappers (family Lutjanidae), grunts (family Haemulidae), porgies (family Sparidae), 

18 squirrelfishes (family Holocentridae), angelfishes (family Pomacanthidae), damselfishes (family 

19 Pomacentridae), butterflyfishes (family Chaetodontidae), surgeonfishes (family Acanthuridae), 

20 parrotfishes (family Scaridae), and wrasses (family Labridae) inhabit hard-bottom habitats in the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-259

1 GOM (Dennis and Bright 1988). Recent surveys of reef fish from Texas to Florida indicate 

2 vermillion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens), red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus), and red 

3 porgy (Pagrus pagrus) are the most abundant large reef fish (Table 3.8.4-2; SEAMAP 2010).

4

5 Although reef fish are associated with hard-bottom habitat as adults, some species can be 

6 found over soft sediments as well. Like soft sediment species, many hard-bottom demersal fish 

7 are estuarine dependent and spend their juvenile states in coastal habitat. Oil and gas platforms

8 serve as artificial hard-bottom sites and attract reef-associated species. Almaco jack, amberjack, 

9 red snapper, gray snapper (mangrove snapper), and gray triggerfish dominate the large fish 

10 assemblage near the platforms in the GOM (Stanley and Wilson 1997). Fish density is elevated 

11 near the platforms but declines to background densities within 10–50 m (33–164 ft) of the 

12 structure (Stanley and Wilson 1997).

13

14 The deep-sea demersal fish fauna occur from the shelf-slope transition down to the 

15 abyssal plain in the GOM. Recent trawl studies sponsored by BOEM have investigated deep-sea 

16 demersal fish assemblages from the edge of the continental shelf to the abyssal regions (Rowe 

17 and Kennicutt 2009). Overall, 119 species were collected and distinct depth-species 

18 relationships were observed. The most diverse group are the cod-like fishes such as hakes and 

19 grenadiers (family Macrouridae), followed by cusk-eels (family Ophidiidae) and slickheads 

20 (Alepocephalidae). In general, water depth and proximity to canyons were the primary 

21 determinants of community structure. Fish species richness and abundance were highest in the 

22 upper and mid slope. Across the station transects, the abundance and diversity of fishes was 

23 greatest near the Mississippi Trough and the DeSoto Canyon and lowest at the stations to the 

24 west of the Mississippi River (Rowe and Kennicutt 2009).

25

26 There are few studies of the impacts of the DWH event on fish communities in the GOM. 

27 The spill has the potential to cause population-level impacts to fish species, particularly species 

28

29

30 TABLE 3.8.4-2 The Ten Most Abundant Reef Fish Species Collected in 

31 SEAMAP Trap Collections from South Texas to South Florida

Species Total Number % Frequencya

Vermillion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens) 210 1.5

Red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) 139 2.3

Red porgy (Pagrus pagrus) 45 2.0

Red grouper (Epinephelus morio) 24 1.7

Gray triggerfish (Balistes capriscus) 6 0.6

Lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris) 6 0.3

Bank sea bass (Centropristis ocyura) 5 0.3

Greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili) 4 0.3

Whitebone porgy (Calamus leucosteus) 3 0.3

Scamp (Mycteroperca phenax) 3 0.3

a Percentage of all traps in which the species was collected. 

Source: SEAMAP 2010.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-260

1 that have already depressed populations or with early life stages that rely heavily on marine and 

2 coastal habitats affected by the spill. Several years may be required to fully assess the impacts of 

3 the DWH event on fish populations, given the lag between fish hatching and recruitment. This 

4 information, however, is not needed at the programmatic stage to make a reasoned choice among 

5 alternatives (see Section 1.4, Analytical Issues). The few initial studies suggest that, despite 

6 occurring during the spawning period for many GOM fishes, the DWH event did not have an 

7 immediate negative impact on fish populations (including juvenile age classes, although there 

8 remains the potential for long-term populations impacts from sublethal and chronic exposure 

9 (Fodrie and Heck 2011).

10

11

12 3.8.4.1.4 Threatened or Endangered Species

13

14 Gulf Sturgeon. The Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) is a geographic 

15 subspecies of the Atlantic sturgeon. The Gulf sturgeon is an anadromous fish that migrates from 

16 the sea upstream into coastal rivers to spawn in freshwater. Historically, it ranged from the 

17 Mississippi River to Charlotte Harbor and Florida Bay; today, this range has contracted to 

18 encompass major rivers and inner shelf waters from the Mississippi River to the Suwannee 

19 River, Florida (USFWS and NMFS 2009). Populations have been depleted or driven to localized 

20 extirpation by fishing, boat collision, shoreline development, dredging, erosion, dam 

21 construction, declining water quality, and the species‘ low population growth rate (USFWS and 

22 NMFS 2009). These declines prompted the listing of the Gulf sturgeon as a threatened species in 

23 1991 (56 FR 49653). Subsequently, a recovery plan was developed to ensure the preservation 

24 and protection of Gulf sturgeon spawning habitat (USFWS and Gulf States Marine Fisheries

25 Commission 1995).

26

27 Females lay large numbers of eggs (>3 million) usually in deep areas or holes with hard 

28 bottoms and where some current is present (Sulak and Clugston 1998; Fox et al. 2000). The 

29 young fish remain in freshwater reaches of the rivers for about 2 yr, then begin to migrate back 

30 downstream to feed in estuarine and marine waters. The adults spend March through October in 

31 the rivers and November through February in estuarine or shelf waters. Near the river mouths 

32 and on the inner continental shelf, adults feed on clams, snails, crabs, shrimps, worms, 

33 brachiopods, amphipods, isopods, and small fishes (Gilbert 1992). Genetic studies show that the 

34 populations among different rivers are fairly distinct and that the Gulf sturgeon may even be 

35 river-specific (Stabile et al. 1996). In marine waters, however, Gulf sturgeon from different 

36 river systems were found to inhabit the same winter foraging grounds along the GOM barrier 

37 islands (Ross et al. 2009). In marine and estuarine habitats, Gulf sturgeon are found over 

38 coarse sand and shell substrates in clear and well oxygenated waters less than 7 m (23 ft) deep 

39 (Harris et al. 2005; Ross et al. 2009).

40

41 Currently, seven rivers are known to support reproducing populations of Gulf sturgeon 

42 (USFWS and NMFS 2009). After a review by NMFS in 2003, critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon 

43 was designated (68 FR 13370) and includes multiple areas of riverine, estuarine, and marine 

44 habitat from Louisiana to the Florida Panhandle. Recent trends in abundance over the last 

45 decade indicate populations in Florida rivers are stable or increasing slightly. Populations in 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-261

1 Mississippi and Louisiana Rivers are unknown due to the lack of recent comprehensive surveys 

2 (USFWS and NMFS 2009).

3

4 Smalltooth Sawfish. The smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) was listed as federally 

5 endangered in 2003 (68 FR 15674). Smalltooth sawfish are usually found over muddy and sandy 

6 bottoms in sheltered bays, on nearshore shallow banks, and in estuaries or river mouths at all 

7 ages (NMFS 2009). Juveniles appear to prefer shallow mud or sand bottom (often less than 

8 1 meter [3 ft]) as well as mangrove root habitat. As they grow, sawfish move to deeper water, 

9 and large adults can be found in marine waters in depths up to at least 122 m (400 ft). 

10 Smalltooth sawfish take more than 10 yr to reach maturity. They are livebearers, producing 

11 litters of 15 to 20 pups. Small fish and benthic invertebrates compose most of their diets. The 

12 decline in smalltooth sawfish abundance has been largely attributed to their capture as bycatch in 

13 various fisheries, loss and limited availability of appropriate habitat, and the species‘ low 

14 reproductive rate. Historically, smalltooth sawfish were common throughout the GOM from 

15 Texas to Florida. However, the current range of this species has contracted to peninsular Florida, 

16 and, although no accurate estimates of abundance are available, smalltooth sawfish are now 

17 relatively common only in the Everglades region at the southern tip of the State. In the Western 

18 and Central Planning Areas, smalltooth sawfish were relatively abundant as recently as the 

19 1960s, but are now rare. Most recent records from Texas or the Florida Panhandle occur from 

20 April to August only, suggesting that most smalltooth sawfish are not resident, but rather 

21 seasonal migrants to the northern GOM from south Florida or Mexico (NMFS 2009). Critical 

22 habitat for the smalltooth sawfish was designated in October 2, 2009 (74 FR 45353), and consists 

23 of two units: the Charlotte Harbor Estuary Unit and the Ten Thousand Islands/Everglades Unit 

24 (TTI/E). The two units are located along the southwestern coast of Florida between Charlotte 

25 Harbor and Florida Bay, in the Eastern Planning Area. There is no critical habitat for smalltooth 

26 sawfish located in the Central or Western Planning Areas.

27

28

29 3.8.4.1.5 Climate Change. Climate change could affect fish communities through

30 direct physiological action, through habitat loss, and by altering large-scale oceanographic and 

31 ecosystem processes (Twilley et al. 2001; Rosenzweig et al. 2007; Portner and Peck 2010). At 

32 the level of individual behavior and physiology, increasing water temperature could alter 

33 reproductive rates by speeding growth and altering the timing of migrations (including 

34 reproductive movements). Fish could also be forced to move to other areas if temperatures rise 

35 above their physiological tolerance. Higher temperatures may also increase the spread and 

36 virulence of new and existing pathogens. Fish in river-influenced systems such as the GOM

37 would be particularly susceptible to changes in salinity, turbidity, and temperature linked to 

38 changes in the hydrology of the Mississippi River and Atchafalaya River. In addition, aqueous 

39 concentrations of CO2 projected to exist under certain climate change scenarios have been 

40 demonstrated to reduce the fitness of fish by reducing their ability to detect predators and adult 

41 habitat using olfactory and auditory cues (Munday et al. 2009, 2010; Simpson et al. 2011).

42

43 In addition to direct physiological stress, climate change could reduce or eliminate 

44 critical fish habitats. Many fish in the GOM, including commercially important species, 

45 are estuarine-dependent, meaning they spend some portion of their life in estuarine waters. 

46 The predicted rise in sea level and increased storm frequency and severity could accelerate 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-262

1 the loss of critical estuarine habitats such as salt marshes, lagoons, and barrier islands

2 (Trenberth et al. 2007; CCSP 2009). In offshore areas, climate change may increase the size 

3 of the GOM ―dead zone,‖ reducing the amount of benthic habitat available to demersal fishes

4 (Rabalais et al. 2010). However, the extent and duration of hypoxia could also be decreased by 

5 the projected increase in tropical storms (Rabalais et al. 2010). Similarly, reef fish could suffer 

6 habitat loss if coral reefs decline as predicted by most climate change scenarios because of 

7 increased temperatures and/or ocean acidification (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2007).

8

9 Large-scale changes in oceanographic and ecosystem processes resulting from climate 

10 change could indirectly affect fish population in the GOM in several ways. For example, climate 

11 is a key determinant of fish abundance because climate influences critical recruitment processes 

12 such as the transport of larval fishes and the amount and seasonality of planktonic food 

13 resources. In addition, rising ocean temperatures could promote the expansion and establishment 

14 of tropical fish or allow the establishment of non-native fishes introduced by human activities. 

15 These species could in turn displace existing species and create changes in food web dynamics. 

16 Some have also speculated that climate change could increase the abundance of jellyfish, which 

17 prey heavily on fish larvae (Purcell et al. 2007). However, evidence for this hypothesis is limited 

18 (Purcell et al. 2007). Overall, predictions about the indirect effects of climate change on fish 

19 populations are subject to great uncertainty, given the complexity and compensatory mechanisms 

20 of the ecosystem (see Section 1.3.1.1, Incomplete and Unavailable Information).

21

22

23 3.8.4.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

24

25 Waters of South Alaska support at least 314 fish species representing 72 families

26 (Mecklenburg et al. 2002), and most of these species can be found in Cook Inlet. Fish species 

27 within Cook Inlet have a variety of habitat preferences and life history traits. Demersal fishes 

28 exist on the sea floor and near bottom waters and are distinct from pelagic fishes, which exist in 

29 the water column. In addition, there are anadromous fishes that that spend their adulthood in 

30 saltwater but spawn in freshwater.

31

32

33 3.8.4.2.1 Diadromous Fishes. Cook Inlet serves as a critical migratory corridor and 

34 early-life rearing area for several fish species, including all five species of Pacific salmon

35 (Shields 2010a). Salmonids spawn in freshwater, where their eggs and juveniles develop and 

36 eventually migrate to the ocean as smolts. Salmon grow to maturity in the ocean and then return 

37 to their natal stream to spawn and die. Dolly Varden and steelhead trout also migrate through 

38 Cook Inlet; their life histories are similar to Pacific salmon, except that they are capable of 

39 spawning more than once and therefore make multiple migrations from freshwater to the ocean. 

40 The eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus), known locally as hooligan, is a non-salmonid 

41 anadromous member of the smelt family that migrates through Cook Inlet. Both salmonids and 

42 eulachon provide critical food to marine mammals, predatory fish, and seabirds, and are 

43 important in recreational, commercial, and subsistence fisheries. Large schools of anadromous 

44 fish that seasonally enter freshwater habitat play an important role in the ecosystem; their 

45 carcasses provide food for terrestrial and stream consumers and release nutrients that are 

46 ultimately taken up by riparian forests and stream algae.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-263

1 The Catalog of Waters Important for the Spawning, Rearing or Migration of 

2 Anadromous Fishes and its associated Atlas (the Catalog and Atlas, respectively) specify which 

3 streams, rivers, and lakes within and adjacent to the Cook Inlet Planning Area are important to 

4 anadromous fish species and therefore are afforded protection under State law. Water bodies 

5 that are not ―specified‖ within the Catalog and Atlas are not afforded that protection. The 

6 ADF&G is solely responsible for maintaining anadromous waters data as well as revision to and 

7 publication of the Catalog and Atlas, which can be found at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/

8 sf/SARR/AWC/index.cfm?ADFG=maps.maps.

9

10

11 3.8.4.2.2 Pelagic Fishes. Pelagic species found in Cook Inlet waters include smelt 

12 (Osmerus spp.), Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi), Pacific sand lance, (Ammodytes hexapterus),

13 eulachon, and capelin (Mallotus villosus). Walleye pollock, capelin, and eulachon made up 93% 

14 of all fish collected by mid-water trawls near Shelikof Strait (Wilson 2009). The Shelikof Strait 

15 has important spawning and juvenile nursery areas for pollack and herring (Nagorski et al. 2007). 

16 Pelagic species provide critical food to marine mammals, predatory fish, and seabirds, and are 

17 important in recreational, commercial, and subsistence fisheries. Forage fish are historically 

18 subject to large fluctuation in population size due to variation in environmental conditions 

19 (Robards et al. 1999; Robards et al. 2002; NMFS 2005). Populations of capelin, herring, and 

20 eulachon have been reported at historically low levels, possibly due to natural oscillations in sea 

21 temperatures (NMFS 2005; Litzow 2006; Arimitsu et al. 2008). In addition, sand lance, herring, 

22 and capelin spawn in nearshore and intertidal areas and are therefore extremely vulnerable to oil 

23 spills that contact the shoreline. For example, herring underwent a significant decline following 

24 the Exxon Valdez spill; while numbers have fluctuated since the spill, they remain at very low 

25 levels. However, there is still debate about whether the population crash was due to the Exxon 

26 Valdez spill, disease, climactic shifts, or a combination of these factors (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 

27 Trustee Council 2009).

28

29

30 3.8.4.2.3 Demersal Fishes. Cook Inlet has a variety of substrates and shorelines, 

31 including a significant proportion of hard substrates. The resulting habitat complexity allows 

32 multiple species of demersal fish to inhabit Cook Inlet. These fish are collectively referred to as 

33 groundfish, because they have a common preference for seafloor habitat. Examples found in 

34 Cook Inlet include rockfish (Sebastes spp.), Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus), pollock 

35 (Theragra chalcogramma), lingcod (Ophiodon elongates), Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus 

36 stenolepis), sculpin (family Cottidae), and skates (Nagorski et al. 2007; Trowbridge et al. 2008). 

37 Many groundfish are of great commercial and recreational importance. Halibut are an important 

38 subsistence resource, and other groundfish are taken incidentally. The rockfish are particularly 

39 diverse, and at least 32 rockfish species have been reported to occur in the Gulf of Alaska 

40 (Eschmeyer et al. 1984). Groundfish can have distinct habitat preferences and may specialize in 

41 a particular sediment type. For example, species such as rockfish and lingcod prefer hard 

42 substrate and submerged vegetation, while cod prefer soft sediments. Groundfish typically use 

43 Cook Inlet as a seasonal feeding area, while spawning occurs offshore, often on the continental 

44 shelf edge of the GOA. Most groundfish deposit their eggs on the sea floor, but egg and larval 

45 development occur in the upper water column. Juveniles and adults ultimately transition to 

46 bottom habitat (NMFS 2005).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-264

1 3.8.4.2.4 Protected Species. While Alaskan stocks of Pacific salmon are considered 

2 healthy, there are federally endangered stocks of Chinook salmon, sockeye salmon, and 

3 steelhead trout present in the GOA, and most have natal streams in Washington, California, and 

4 Oregon (NMFS 2005). The ESA-listed salmon are mixed with Alaskan and Asian salmon stocks 

5 and are not visually distinguishable from Alaskan salmon stocks (NMFS 2005). Critical habitat 

6 designations for stocks of Pacific salmon do not include any Alaskan waters.

7

8

9 3.8.4.2.5 Climate Change. Climate change may have a number of effects on fish 

10 communities, including direct effects on physiology and behavior and indirect effects caused by 

11 habitat loss and large-scale changes in ecological processes (Portner and Peck 2010). Under 

12 most climate change models, coastal fish habitats will be subject to hydrologic and thermal 

13 regimes that will be very different from present conditions. Hydrologic changes in Cook Inlet 

14 could result from changes in precipitation and increased glacial and snow pack melt in the 

15 mountains around Cook Inlet. The behavior and physiology of fish in river-influenced systems 

16 such as Cook Inlet would be particularly affected by changes in salinity, turbidity, and 

17 temperature linked to changes in hydrology. In addition, rising surface water temperature has the 

18 potential to affect all aspects of fish growth, feeding, and movement (Portner and Peck 2010). 

19 Similarly, aqueous concentrations of CO2 projected to exist under certain climate change 

20 scenarios have been demonstrated to reduce the fitness of fish by reducing their ability to detect 

21 predators and adult habitat using olfactory and auditory cues (Munday et al. 2009, 2010; 

22 Simpson et al. 2011). 

23

24 Climate change also has the potential to affect the large number of anadromous fishes 

25 that migrate through Cook Inlet. For example, the migratory behaviors of Pacific salmon at all 

26 life stages are adapted to existing hydrology (Bryant 2009). Current behaviors may be 

27 maladaptive if expected changes in sea level and the timing and intensity of rainfall occur,

28 resulting in mismatches between salmon emergence and the availability of their food resources. 

29 In addition to habitat alteration, critical coastal habitats could be reduced or eliminated by rising 

30 sea levels and increased storm damage to nearshore areas. For species spawning in low-lying 

31 areas or the intertidal zone, or species using coastal estuaries as nursery grounds, rising sea levels 

32 could also eliminate spawning or juvenile habitat. Anadromous fish and species using nearshore 

33 marshes are likely to be most affected. Temperature monitoring in the Kenai watershed also 

34 suggests that salmon stream temperatures are increasing and often exceed water quality 

35 guidelines in the summer (Mauger 2005).

36

37 Climate change could potentially effect large-scale changes in ecological processes. In 

38 response, the distribution and species composition of fish communities in Cook Inlet may 

39 change. For example, temperature is a critical ecosystem control in the Gulf of Alaska; fish 

40 communities appear to undergo major shifts following natural oscillations in water temperature 

41 related to the Pacific Decodal Oscillation and the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (Anderson and 

42 Piatt 1999; Litzow 2006; NPFMC 2010). During periods of cold water temperatures, benthic 

43 crustaceans and pelagic forage fish such as capelin and herring dominate the ecosystem biomass. 

44 After the climate cycles to warmer water temperatures, the biomass of forage species declines 

45 and the biomass of higher trophic level fish such as groundfish and salmon increases. These 

46 cycles occur naturally on multi-decadal scales. The current trend of steadily increasing sea 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-265

1 surface temperature may favor higher trophic-level fish by increasing their local productivity or 

2 by promoting the expansion of large temperate predators into Alaskan waters (Litzow 2006).

3 The establishment of temperate species and non-native fish introduced by human activities could 

4 come at the expense of native species, particularly forage fish like herring and capelin. 

5 However, given the complexity and compensatory mechanisms of the ecosystem, predictions 

6 about the indirect effects of climate change on fish populations are subject to great uncertainty

7 (see Section 1.3.1.1, Incomplete and Unavailable Information).

8

9

10 3.8.4.3 Alaska – Arctic

11

12 Aquatic systems of the Arctic undergo extended seasonal periods of frigid and harsh 

13 environmental conditions. Important environmental factors that arctic fishes must contend with 

14 include reduced light, seasonal darkness, prolonged low temperatures and ice cover and low 

15 seasonal productivity (McAllister 1975; Craig 1984, 1989). The lack of sunlight and the 

16 extensive ice cover in arctic latitudes during winter months affect primary and secondary 

17 productivity, making food resources very scarce during this time, so most of a fish‘s yearly food 

18 supply must be acquired during the brief arctic summer. In addition, most fish species inhabiting 

19 the frigid polar waters are thought to grow slowly relative to individuals or species inhabiting 

20 boreal, temperate, or tropical systems. Because of the harsh conditions, many species found in 

21 the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas are at the northern limits of their range.

22

23 Fishes of the Arctic may use one or more aquatic habitats to carry out their respective 

24 life cycles. Such habitats may include, but are not limited to bays; ice; reefs such as the 

25 Boulder Patch; and nearshore, coastal, continental shelf, oceanic, and bathypelagic waters 

26 and/or substrates. The Beaufort and Chukchi Seas support at least 98 fish species from

27 23 families (Mecklenburg et al. 2002). The greatest number of species is found in the Chukchi 

28 Sea (Hopcroft et al. 2008). Other species are likely to be found in the Arctic when deeper 

29 marine waters are more thoroughly surveyed. Additional information concerning the biology, 

30 ecology, and behavior of the fish species of Arctic Alaska is in Moulton and George (2000),

31 Fechhelm and Griffiths (2001), Mecklenburg et al. (2002), and Childs (2004). More recent 

32 assessments of fish populations in the Chukchi Sea can be found in Norcross et al. (2009) and

33 Mecklenburg et al. (2007, 2011). Recent fish surveys for the Beaufort Sea can be found in 

34 Logerwell and Rand (2010) and Logerwell et al. (2011).

35

36 Subsistence fishing has long been an integral part of Native life in the U.S. Arctic, and 

37 abundant local fisheries knowledge exists among these people (see Section 3.15.2.1). 

38 Commercial fishing, which occurred only infrequently and on a very small scale in the past, does 

39 not currently occur in the region, and therefore the typically published stock assessments and 

40 monitoring data do not exist. Because of the logistical difficulties of research and the lack of 

41 commercial fishing data, the published information on fish in the U.S. arctic seas is relatively 

42 small compared to published information on fish in seas bordering other areas of the State of 

43 Alaska and the United States.

44

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-266

1 3.8.4.3.1 Diadromous Fishes. Common diadromous fishes found in the Beaufort and 

2 Chukchi Seas are salmonids and include arctic cisco (Coregonus autumnalis), least cisco 

3 (Coregonus sardinella), humpback whitefish (Coregonus pidschian), broad whitefish 

4 (Coregonus nasus), and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) (Craig 1989). The Colville River 

5 Delta and the Sagavanirktok River Delta have a particularly high abundance and diversity of 

6 diadromous fishes. Spawning occurs in the warmer months of the year. Life history traits of 

7 individual fish species in the Beaufort/Chukchi region are not well understood (DeGange and 

8 Thorsteinson 2011). Although present in arctic waters, all five Pacific salmon species 

9 significantly decrease in abundance north of the Bering Strait (Craig and Haldorson 1986; 

10 Babaluk et al. 2000) and from west to east along the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Pink salmon 

11 and chum salmon are the most common Pacific salmon in arctic waters (Augerot 2005; 

12 Stephenson 2005). Salmon appear to be rare in the Beaufort Sea and extremely rare in the 

13 eastern Beaufort Sea, although chum salmon are natal to the Mackenzie River and are 

14 consistently found there in low numbers (Irvine et al. 2009). Chum and pink salmon may be 

15 natal to other rivers on the North Slope, but this is unconfirmed (Irvine et al. 2009). Recent 

16 studies indicate that most of the juvenile chum salmon caught in the Chukchi Sea site were 

17 genetically related to populations in northwestern Alaska (Kondzela et al. 2009).

18

19

20 3.8.4.3.2 Pelagic Fishes. Common pelagic fish in the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea 

21 include pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus), pacific herring (Clupea pallasii), arctic cod 

22 (Boreogadus saida), capelin (Mallotus villosus), snailfish (Liparidae), and lanternfish 

23 (Benthosema glaciale). Anandromous species of salmonids are found in shallow nearshore 

24 waters. Mid-water trawl sampling in the Beaufort Sea indicated that young-of-the-year fish 

25 arctic cod, sculpin (Cottidae), snailfish, poacher (Agonidae), and capelin dominated the pelagic 

26 biomass and the distribution of fish was related to depth, salinity, water temperature, and 

27 proximity to the Chukchi Sea (Logerwell and Rand 2010). Pelagic fishes can occupy benthic 

28 habitats as well at certain life stages. For example, arctic cod are often demersal as adults, but 

29 young arctic cod are closely associated with the underside of sea ice. Arctic cod are an 

30 ecologically important species because of their numerical dominance (Logerwell et al. 2011) and 

31 their role in linking zooplankton and sea ice invertebrates to higher trophic levels such as marine 

32 mammals and seabirds (Gradinger and Bluhm 2004).

33

34

35 3.8.4.3.3 Demersal Fishes. Most fish in the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea are demersal 

36 species living on or near the bottom. Demersal fish in arctic waters are often migratory species 

37 that originate from the Bering Sea or North Atlantic waters. In recent bottom trawl surveys in 

38 the Chukchi Sea, a total of 33 species were collected and 79% of all fishes caught were arctic 

39 staghorn sculpin (Gymnocanthus tricuspis), shorthorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus scorpius), Bering 

40 flounder, or arctic cod (Mecklenburg et al. 2007). Other recent surveys of the Chukchi Sea 

41 indicated cod (family Gadidae), poachers (family Agonidae), Bering flounder (Hippoglossoides 

42 robustus), and sculpins (family Cottidae) are the most abundant demersal fishes in the Chukchi 

43 Sea (Barber et al. 1997; Norcross et al. 2009). Greenlings (family Hexagrammidae), eelpouts 

44 (family Zoarcidae), smelts (family Osmeridae), wolfish (family Anarhichadidae) and snailfish 

45 (Lycodes spp.) are also present in arctic waters (Barber et al. 1997; Norcross et al. 2009). 

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-267

1 NOAA and BOEM have sponsored recent surveys of benthic fishes in the Beaufort Sea. 

2 In the Beaufort Sea, Arctic cod, eelpouts, and walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma)

3 comprised the majority of the catch in benthic trawl surveys (Logerwell and Rand 2010) 

4 (Table 3.8.4-3). With the exception of arctic cod, fish catch per unit effort (CPUE) is much 

5 lower in the Beaufort Sea compared to trawl CPUEs in the Chukchi and Bearing Seas (Logerwell 

6 and Rand 2010). Species distributions were primarily influenced by depth, temperature, and 

7 salinity (Logerwell et al. 2011). Sculpins were more strongly associated with relatively warm, 

8 low-salinity water, while polar cod and eelpouts were associated with cold, high-salinity bottom 

9 water. Depth was also significant (Logerwell et al. 2011). Sculpin were generally found in 

10 waters less than 100 m (328 ft) deep, in contrast to eelpouts, walleye Pollack, and Arctic cod, 

11 which were most abundant in waters greater than 100 m (328 ft).

12

13 Rocky substrate is uncommon in subtidal areas of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and 

14 occurs primarily in the form of scattered boulders (Figure 3.7.2-4). Data on fish communities 

15 inhabiting these boulder patches are limited. Clingfish (Liparis herschelinus), four-horned 

16 sculpin (Myoxocephalus quadricornis), and the eelpout (Gymnelis viridis) have been observed in 

17 boulder patch habitat, and fish have been observed to lay eggs on boulders or associated 

18 vegetation (Dunton et al. 1982).

19

20

21 3.8.4.3.4 Climate Change. Climate change may have a number of effects on fish 

22 communities, including direct effects on physiology and behavior and indirect effects caused by 

23 habitat loss and large-scale changes in ecological processes. Changes in the magnitude or 

24 seasonality of water temperatures could affect growth rate, food demand, and reproductive 

25 behavior because water temperature is an important trigger for the seasonal fish migrations. 

26 Hydrologic changes in rivers flowing into the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas could result from 

27 changes in precipitation and ice melt. The behavior and physiology of fish in river-influenced 

28 systems such as the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas would be particularly affected by the alteration 

29 of salinity, turbidity, and temperature linked to changes in hydrology. In addition, rising surface 

30 water temperature has the potential to affect all aspects of fish growth, feeding, and movement 

31 (Portner and Peck 2010). Similarly, aqueous concentrations of CO2 projected to exist under

32

33

34 TABLE 3.8.4-3 The Five Most Abundant Fish Taxa Collected during 

35 2008 Bottom Trawls in the Beaufort Sea

Common Name Total Number

Total 

Weight (kg)

Arctic cod (Boreogadus saida) 66,278 1,242

Marbled eelpout (Lycodes raridens) 1,642 142

Walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) 1,082 34

Canadian eelpout (Lycodes polaris) 772 38

Bering flounder (Hippoglossoides robustus) 231 35

Greenland turbot (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) 221 16

Source: Logerwell and Rand (2010).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-268

1 certain climate change scenarios have been demonstrated to reduce the fitness of fish by reducing 

2 their ability to detect predators and adult habitat using olfactory and auditory cues 

3 (Munday et al. 2009, 2010; Simpson et al. 2011). 

4

5 In addition to habitat alteration, critical coastal habitats could be reduced or eliminated by 

6 rising sea levels and increased storm damage to nearshore areas as the amount of open water 

7 increases. Anadromous fish and species that use coastal habitats are likely to be most affected. 

8 In addition, species such as the arctic cod that depend on sea ice will lose habitat with the 

9 reduction in seasonal ice. However, arctic cod may gain from the increase in open water 

10 plankton productivity. The impacts of climate change on arctic habitat in the Beaufort and 

11 Chukchi Seas is discussed in Sections 3.7.2.3 and 3.7.3.3.

12

13 Climate change is also likely to change fish community composition. For example, the 

14 cold temperatures in Alaska are a critical ecosystem feature that limits species distribution. 

15 Historical records suggest that rising seawater temperatures could allow the establishment of 

16 sub-arctic species in arctic waters (reviewed in Loeng 2005). As a consequence of the range 

17 expansions of subarctic species, true Arctic species such as Arctic cod and capelin may be 

18 pushed northward (Loeng 2005). In offshore waters, Logerwell and Rand (2010) noted that 

19 comparison of their recent fish collections with earlier trawl data suggested that pollock and 

20 Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) may have expanded northward into the Beaufort Sea as a 

21 result of rising surface water temperatures. There is also speculation that increasing water 

22 temperatures could allow Pacific salmon to expand their range and numbers into arctic waters 

23 (Irvine et al. 2009). However, recent reviews (Stephenson 2005; Irvine et al. 2009) found there 

24 was no evidence of increased catches of most salmon species, and there is not enough 

25 information to state definitively that salmon are increasing in frequency in the Arctic due to 

26 climate change.

27

28 Large-scale changes in oceanographic and ecosystem processes resulting from climate 

29 change could indirectly affect fish populations in the Arctic in several ways. For example, 

30 climate change could alter ocean currents that govern the transport of larval fish. Temperature is 

31 another climate variable that is a critical feature in arctic ecosystems that influences the amount 

32 and seasonal availability of planktonic food resources. Under the existing temperature regime, 

33 the Chukchi Sea has a food web dominated by benthic consumers and cryopelagic (sea ice34 associated) fishes. The loss of sea ice and the increased surface water temperature may promote 

35 a shift to a pelagic-based food web with high phytoplankton and zooplankton productivity and 

36 greater numbers of predatory fish (Loeng 2005). Ultimately, however, predictions about the 

37 indirect and cascading ecological impacts of climate change on fish populations are subject to 

38 great uncertainty, given the complexity of the ecosystem (see Section 1.3.1.1, Incomplete and 

39 Unavailable Information). 

40

41

42 3.8.5 Invertebrates and Lower Trophic Levels

43

44 Invertebrates (animals without a backbone) occupy multiple habitat types from the 

45 intertidal zone to the deep sea. Invertebrates can occupy benthic (bottom) or pelagic (water 

46 column) habitats, depending on their life histories. Invertebrates that occupy the benthos can 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-269

1 be categorized by their size, location in the substrate, and feeding guild. Benthic invertebrates 

2 that burrow into the sediment are called infauna, and invertebrates that move on the sediment 

3 surface are called epifauna. Size classifications for benthic infauna are mieofauna 

4 (typically 43–500 μm), which are dominated by copepods and nematodes, and macroinfauna 

5 (>500 μm), which are usually dominated by polychaete worms, amphipods, and bivalves. 

6 Benthic invertebrates can be further classified into several trophic guilds, including (1) predators 

7 and scavengers, which feed on live animals or carrion; (2) scrapers, which remove biofilms from 

8 hard substrate; (3) suspension (filter) feeders, which filter food from the water; and (4) deposit 

9 feeders, which consume surface or subsurface sediment organic matter. Invertebrates in the 

10 various feeding guilds often occupy specific sediment types. For example, suspension feeders 

11 prefer clean sandy sediment or hard surfaces where they can avoid fine sediments that tend to 

12 clog their filtering organs. In contrast, deposit feeders prefer silty sediments that are rich in 

13 organic matter. 

14

15 Pelagic invertebrates may drift with the current (zooplankton) or actively swim (nekton). 

16 Pelagic invertebrates can range in size from microscopic protozoans to large megafauna, such as 

17 squid and jellyfish. They play a critical role in the recycling of nutrients and organic matter in 

18 the water column and in the amount of and timing at which these food resources reach benthic 

19 consumers. 

20

21

22 3.8.5.1 Gulf of Mexico

23

24 Following are brief descriptions of the classes of prokaryotes, viruses, and eukaryotic 

25 invertebrates common in marine environments, including the Northern GOM Shelf and Slope 

26 Marine Ecoregions:

27

28 • Prokaryotes. Prokaryotes are distinguished from invertebrates by not having 

29 a nucleus. Based on their genetics and cell membranes, prokaryotes are 

30 divided into Eubacteria and Archaea. Eubacteria are dominant in the benthos 

31 and the water column and are key drivers in a number of ecosystem processes. 

32 One primary function of bacteria is the break down and recycling of organic 

33 matter. In addition, bacteria are critical in nutrient (e.g., nitrogen, 

34 phosphorous, and sulfur) transformation in both the sediment and water 

35 column. Bacteria are heterotrophic and subsist on dissolved and particulate 

36 organic matter. They are consumed by protists and a variety of zooplankton 

37 and macroinvertebrates in the sediment. Although bacterial consumption 

38 of organic matter is an important ecological process, it facilitates the 

39 development of seasonal bottom-water hypoxia in the GOM. Archaea are 

40 prokaryotes found throughout the ocean but are strongly associated with 

41 extreme environments. Prokaryotes are the key biological components of cold 

42 seeps communities in the GOM, where methanogenesis (archaea) and coupled 

43 sulfate reduction (eubacteria) and methane oxidation (archaea) provide the 

44 substrates that support the cold seeps macroinvertebrate communities and 

45 their bacterial symbionts. Prokaryotic communities in the sediment and water 

46 column also play a critical role in the break down of hydrocarbons released by 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-270

1 natural processes and human activities. These activities prevent the 

2 accumulation of hydrocarbons to toxic levels in the environment. Studies 

3 following the DWH event demonstrated that the amount of menthanotropic 

4 and oil-eating bacteria increased greatly after the DWH event

5 (Camilli et al. 2010; Kessler et al. 2011). 

6

7 • Viruses are simple life forms consisting of DNA and RNA in a protein 

8 covering. They reproduce by injecting their genetic material into the cells of 

9 other organisms and replicate their DNA using the cellular machinery of the 

10 host cell after which the host cell lyses and releases the replicated viruses. 

11 Viruses serve as a significant population control on bacteria in the ocean.

12

13 • Protozoans. Protozoans are a broad and diverse group of microorganisms that 

14 include foraminifierans, ciliates, radiolarians, and flagellates. They can 

15 occupy both benthic and pelagic habitats, where they act as parasites or free16 living consumers of phytoplankton, bacteria, or other zooplankton. 

17 Protozoans with carbonate or silicate shells create oozes of relict shells on the 

18 seafloor of the deep ocean. Protozoans are abundant in the water column and 

19 sediments, and they are often dominant planktonic consumers in pelagic food 

20 webs in areas where biological productivity is low and nutrients and carbon 

21 are tightly cycled between small phytoplankton, microplankton, and bacteria. 

22

23 • Porifera. Poriferans (sponges) are primitive sessile animals consisting of 

24 cellular aggregations held in a flexible protein/carbonate housing. Poriferans 

25 are suspension feeders that consume phytoplankton and particulates from the 

26 water column. They are found in all sediment types from the Northern GOM

27 Shelf to the Slope Ecoregions. They may reproduce sexually or asexually. 

28

29 • Cnidarians and Ctenophores. Cnidarians (jellyfish, hydrozoans, sea 

30 anemones, corals) are defined by their radial symmetry and the use of 

31 nematocysts (stinging cells) to capture prey. Comb jellies (Ctenophora) are 

32 similar to cnidarians but lack nematocysts. Cnidarians can reproduce sexually 

33 and asexually; they typically produce free-floating planktonic larvae that 

34 eventually settle to the seafloor. Ctenophores are pelagic throughout their life 

35 cycle. Cnidarians can be found across the shelf and slope of the GOM in both 

36 benthic habitats and water column habitats. Corals form ecologically 

37 significant benthic habitat (see Section 3.7.2.1.2). Jellyfish appear to be 

38 increasing in abundance in the GOM (Graham 2001), possibly because of 

39 higher water temperatures, lack of predators, and their hypoxia tolerance. The 

40 increase in jellyfish abundance could have negative consequences on the eggs 

41 and larvae of fish and invertebrates that they prey upon. 

42

43 • Worms. Worms cover a wide range of taxa that have soft, elongated bodies 

44 and bilateral symmetry in common. As adults, most worms are sediment 

45 dwellers, but some species are pelagic (arrow worms [Chaetognatha]). 

46 Although benthic as adults, many worms produce free-living planktonic 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-271

1 larvae. The GOM supports a diverse array of worms, such as peanut worms 

2 (Sipunculans), flatworms (Platyhelminthes), ribbonworms (Nemertea), 

3 nematodes (Nematoda), and segmented worms (Annelida; including 

4 polychaetes and oligochaetes). Nematodes and polychaetes are particularly 

5 abundant in sediments and are important food sources for higher trophic 

6 levels. In addition to their role as food sources, polychaetes continually

7 displace and mix the sediments, thereby promoting biogeochemical cycling. 

8 Polychaetes can also significantly modify their environment by forming tubes 

9 from sediment particles; thus, they create microhabitats for other benthic 

10 organisms. Worms have a range of diets and feeding strategies; for example, 

11 they may be suspension feeders, predators, or deposit feeders. Worms show a 

12 range of tolerance to contaminants and therefore are important ecological 

13 indicators for assessments of human disturbance. 

14

15 • Mollusks. Mollusks (bivalves, gastropods, and cephalopods) are characterized 

16 by having a muscular foot and mantle tissue that in most species produces a 

17 calcium carbonate shell. Bivalves, which have two shells joined by a hinge, 

18 can be found across coastal and marine sediments from estuaries to the deep 

19 sea. Bivalves reproduce by releasing sperm and eggs into the water column, 

20 where fertilization occurs. Their larvae undergo a temporary planktonic 

21 period before settling to the bottom and developing into adults. The common 

22 bivalves present in the GOM are clams, oysters (Crassostrea virginica), 

23 scallops, and mussels. Clams burrow into the sediments, where they deposit 

24 or suspension feed on small organisms or organic particles. Oysters are 

25 common in estuarine habitats, where they attach to hard substrates and feed by 

26 filtering plankton and particulate organic matter from the water column. 

27 Oysters are ecosystem engineers that provide critical reef habitat in estuaries. 

28 Mussels are relatively rare in marine waters but are common in estuaries and 

29 in deepwater methane seep communities. Bivalves can perform several 

30 ecological functions. Filter-feeding species have historically increased light 

31 penetration by removing particulates and phytoplankton from the water

32 column. Also, because they produce feces that are consumed by other 

33 sediment biota, they can be an important link in the transfer of water column 

34 production to benthic consumers. 

35

36 Gastropods (snails and slugs) typically have a single whorled shell. Most 

37 species are sediment-dwelling, but species with reduced shells or no shell can 

38 also occupy the water column. Soft-sediment marine gastropods typical of the 

39 central and western portions of the Northern GOM Ecoregions are usually 

40 carnivores or scavengers. Most marine gastropods fertilize internally and lay 

41 eggs in the sediment. After larvae hatch, they may undergo a planktonic 

42 stage.

43

44 Cephalopod mollusks are the octopi and squid, which are characterized by a 

45 pronounced head and complex eye development. Cephalopods like the 

46 octopus are benthic, while the squid may be found from relatively shallow to 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-272

1 very deep portions of the water column. Cephalopods are carnivorous and, in 

2 turn, are important food sources for fish and marine mammals. 

3

4 • Crustaceans. Crustaceans possess an exoskeleton and can be found as free5 swimming water column forms, bottom-dwelling mobile forms, and attached 

6 forms. Copepod crustaceans are important phytoplankton grazers; in turn, 

7 they are often the primary food source for fish during their early life stages, 

8 and they represent a key link in transferring energy from primary producers to 

9 predatory consumers at higher trophic levels. Barnacles are examples of 

10 crustaceans that attach to hard substrate (including oil and gas platforms), 

11 where they filter food from the water column. Common epifaunal (on the 

12 sediment surface) crustaceans are the decapods, which include portunid crabs, 

13 stone crabs, and penaeid shrimp, many of which are commercially important. 

14 Decapods are found from the estuarine to the deep sea over soft and hard 

15 substrates and are key food resources for demersal fishes. Decapods usually 

16 have a pelagic larval life stage but are benthic as adults. Many decapods are 

17 estuarine-dependent (reside in an estuary during some period of their life 

18 cycle), and, given their abundance and high biomass, they are important in 

19 transferring nutrients and organic matter between estuarine and marine 

20 habitats. 

21

22 • Echinoderms. Echinoderms are defined by their radial symmetry, tube feet, 

23 and an endoskeleton. Common examples in the Northern GOM Marine 

24 Ecoregions include sea stars (Asteroidea), brittle stars (Ophiuroidea), sea 

25 urchins (Echinoidea), and sea cucumbers (Holothuroidea). Sea stars, brittle 

26 stars, and sea cucumbers, in particular, are common throughout the marine 

27 environment — on soft and hard substrates from coastal waters to the deep 

28 sea. Echinoderms can be grazers (sea urchins), deposit feeders (sea 

29 cucumbers), or predators (sea stars). Echinoderms usually produce planktonic 

30 larvae that settle to the seafloor after some period of time in the water column.

31

32 • Chordates. Chordates have a primitive spinal cord at some point in their 

33 development, yet they are classified as invertebrates because they lack a 

34 backbone. In the GOM, the most common chordates are the filter-feeding 

35 tunicates (sea squirts, salps, and larvaceans). The most important chordate 

36 grazer in the northern GOM is the planktonic larvacean Oikopleura dioica, 

37 which filters bacteria and small phytoplankton out of the water column. 

38 Larvaceans have been reported to consume an average of 20% of the particles 

39 from the upper 5 m (16.4 ft) of the Mississippi River plume each day. Their 

40 abundance is so great that the deposition of their fecal pellets and discarded 

41 gelatinous houses may be great enough to contribute significantly to the 

42 bottom-water hypoxia that occurs seasonally in the GOM (Dagg et al. 2007).

43

44 There are few studies of the impacts of the DWH event on invertebrate communities in 

45 the GOM. Some researchers have reported seeing dead and dying benthic animals as well as 

46 what appear to be thick deposits of oil or flocculants of oil and organic matter on the seafloor 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-273

1 (BOEMRE 2010b). There is some evidence that the DWH event affected habitat-forming 

2 deepwater corals, and investigations are ongoing (http://www.boemre.gov/ooc/press/2010/

3 press1104a.htm). Landings of shrimp do not suggest any reduction in shrimp populations 

4 (http://gomos.msstate.edu/ gomosshrimplandingimpactGOM.html). However, several years may 

5 be required to fully assess the impacts of the DWH event on invertebrate populations. This 

6 information, however, is not needed at the programmatic stage to make a reasoned choice among 

7 alternatives (see Section 1.4, Analytical Issues).

8

9 Climate Change. Several major classes of invertebrates could be affected by the 

10 environmental changes predicted to result from climate change. A significant loss of corals 

11 could result from increased water temperature and ocean acidification. The impacts of climate 

12 change on habitat-forming invertebrates, such as corals, are discussed in detail in Section 3.7.2.1. 

13 As described in Sections 3.7.4.1 and 3.7.3.1, climate change might increase the range and 

14 temporal variability of a water column‘s oxygen, salinity, and temperature, all of which are 

15 critical determinants of invertebrate community distribution, density, and species composition. 

16 Such large-scale changes in benthic and pelagic habitats could significantly alter the existing 

17 invertebrate community structure and ecosystem services. In particular, invertebrates in 

18 nearshore areas would be likely to experience more differences in the physical and chemical 

19 variables brought about by the change in the hydrologic regime. Invertebrates have specific 

20 physiological tolerances; thus, more fluctuations in environmental variables, especially salinity 

21 (Attrill 2002), would probably reduce their abundance and diversity as the more-tolerant species 

22 replaced the less-tolerant ones. Nonmobile or slow-moving benthic invertebrates, such as 

23 echinoderms, mollusks, and macroinfauna, would be most vulnerable to physiological stress. 

24 Invertebrate communities in the Mississippi Estuarine Area Ecoregion would be especially likely 

25 to undergo significant changes, because of the strong influence of Mississippi River discharge on 

26 biological communities. The rise in temperatures could also alter species compositions as more 

27 tropical species expanded north, potentially replacing existing fauna. 

28

29 With the expected increase in water column stratification and nutrient delivery to the 

30 GOM, the extent and duration of hypoxia might increase (Section 3.7.3.1). Mortality to adult 

31 stages of larger mobile invertebrates might be limited because of their ability to avoid hypoxic 

32 waters; however, smaller zooplankton could be affected by hypoxia in several ways. First, 

33 more sensitive species, like copepods, might be replaced by smaller more tolerant species 

34 (Marcus 2001). Hypoxia might also increase the abundance of jellies, which can tolerate low35 oxygen areas (Purcell et al. 2001). In addition, it has been found that hypoxia can disrupt daily 

36 zooplankton migrations from the lower to the upper water column, which could affect food 

37 intake of zooplankton and their predators (Qureshi and Rabalais 2001).

38

39 The increasing inputs of CO2 into the ocean are expected to reduce oceanic pH and, with 

40 it, the availability of calcite and aragonite. Calcifying marine organisms — such as shallow and 

41 deepwater corals, echinoderms, foraminiferans, and mollusks — might decline in abundance 

42 because they require calcite or aragonite to lend structural support to their exoskeletons (Royal 

43 Society 2005). 

44

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-274

1 3.8.5.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

2

3 See Section 3.8.5.1 for a general description of invertebrate groups and their ecological 

4 roles, and see MMS (1996b, 2003a) for a comprehensive description of the invertebrate 

5 zooplankton community of Cook Inlet. The water column invertebrates in Cook Inlet are similar 

6 to those in other subarctic waters (Speckman et al. 2005) and are composed of a mix of oceanic 

7 and coastal species (MMS 1996b). Several species of copepods dominate the macrozooplankton 

8 assemblage. Measurements of zooplankton productivity indicate a peak in late spring and 

9 summer (MMS 1996b). Lower Cook Inlet has a complicated physical and chemical environment 

10 as a result of the mixing of fresh and marine water, and the zooplankton community appears to 

11 be primarily structured by temperature, salinity, bottom depth, and turbidity 

12 (Speckman et al. 2005).

13

14 Benthic invertebrates are important trophic links connecting primary producers to higher15 trophic-level organisms found in Cook Inlet and the Gulf of Alaska, such as crabs, flatfishes, and 

16 cod. In Lower Cook Inlet, there are spatial differences in the compositions of the benthic 

17 invertebrate communities related to differences in ice formation, with arctic species being more 

18 common on the western side of Cook Inlet and the temperate species being more common in the 

19 eastern portion of Cook Inlet (MMS 1996b, 2003a). In addition, benthic invertebrate species 

20 differ by substrate type and tidal zone. The lower rocky intertidal zone contains a diverse mix of 

21 echinoderms (sea urchins and sea stars), mollusks (bivaves, limpets, and snails), polychaete 

22 worms, and crustaceans (barnacles and crabs). Sandy intertidal sediments are dominated by 

23 polychaetes and amphipods, with clams increasing in abundance in deeper waters. Several 

24 distinct subtidal communities have been identified on substrates of rock, sand, silt, and/or shell 

25 debris (Feder and Jewett 1986). Clams were dominant in sandy subtidal sediment, and clams 

26 and polychaetes dominated in muddy sediment. Substrates consisting of shell debris generally 

27 have the most diverse communities and are dominated by mollusks and bryozoans (Feder and 

28 Jewett 1986). Epifauna (invertebrates on the sediment surface) in the region are primarily 

29 crustaceans (tanner crabs, king crabs, pandalid and cragonid shrimp) and echinoderms 

30 (sea cucumbers and sea urchins). Studies in the western side of Shelik of Strait indicated that 

31 limpets, snails, crabs, chitons, barnacles, and mussels dominated the lower and mid rocky 

32 intertidal. Several clam species are found in intertidal and subtidal soft substrates

33 (Nagorski et al. 2007).

34

35 Climate Change. It is predicted that physical and chemical changes to subarctic 

36 invertebrate habitat would result from climate change. These changes could alter the existing 

37 distribution, composition, and abundance of invertebrates in Cook Inlet, since physical and 

38 chemical parameters are the primary influence on invertebrate communities. 

39

40 For example, the increase in seawater temperature will facilitate a northward expansion 

41 of subarctic and temperate invertebrate species. Rising sea water temperatures are also expected 

42 to decrease winter ice extent and duration. Currently, ice formation primarily occurs on the 

43 western side of Cook Inlet, and changes in benthic invertebrate community structure could result 

44 from the reduction in ice scour. Also, hydrologic change can rapidly alter existing invertebrate 

45 communities in the water column and benthos if the new chemical conditions are not within the 

46 physiological tolerance of the existing communities. Changes in the magnitude, frequency, and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-275

1 timing of river discharge are expected to result from climate change (Arctic Council 2005). 

2 Thus, invertebrates in the Cook Inlet Ecoregion where there are strong riverine inputs would 

3 likely be affected by alterations in the salinity, temperature, and sediment delivery regime. 

4

5 Another significant source of physiological stress is the expected increase in ocean 

6 acidification. Crustaceans, echinoderms, foraminiferans, and mollusks could have greater 

7 difficulty in forming shells, which could result in a reduction in their fitness, abundance, and 

8 distribution (Fabry et al. 2008). The loss of shelled invertebrates could affect higher trophic 

9 levels, including benthic mollusks, that are critical food sources for birds and marine mammals.

10

11

12 3.8.5.3 Alaska – Arctic

13

14 See Section 3.8.5.1 for a general description of invertebrate groups and their ecological 

15 roles. At the lowest invertebrate trophic levels, microbes such as bacteria and protists are known 

16 to be important in arctic waters for breaking down and recycling nutrients and organic matter 

17 (Hopcroft et al. 2008). Cilliates and dinoflagellates dominate the microzooplankton biomass in 

18 the Chukchi Sea, but their role in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas is not well studied 

19 (Hopcroft et al. 2008). The most common water column macroinvertebrates in the Arctic are the 

20 copepods (typically Pseudocalanus spp.). In the Chukchi Sea, much of the copepod biomass 

21 originates in the Bering Sea, while true arctic species are most common in the Beaufort Sea 

22 (Hopcroft et al. 2008). Riverine inputs also create an estuarine zone with a distinct zooplankton 

23 assemblage. Other common zooplankton include larvaceans, jellies, euphasid shrimp, 

24 amphipods, pteropod mollusks, and arrow worms. In the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, 

25 invertebrate zooplankton productivity is highly seasonal as a result of the extremely cold winter 

26 temperatures. Many invertebrates (i.e., copepods) have adapted by storing lipids for the winter 

27 and undergoing a winter dormant period during which they rest in the sediment or lower water 

28 column. 

29

30 Across the Beaufort and Chukchi shelf, the benthic infaunal community is dominated 

31 primarily by echinoderms, polychates, sponges, anemones, bivalves, gastropods, and bryozoans 

32 (Grebmeier and Dunton 2000; Dunton et al. 2005). Studies in the Beaufort Sea indicated brittle 

33 stars, crabs (Opilio spp.), ascidians, mussels, sea anemones, and echinoderms dominated the 

34 epifaunal assemblage (NMFS 2010e). Overall, however, larger invertebrate infauna are 

35 relatively sparse in much of the Beaufort Sea when compared to their presence in the Chukchi 

36 Sea, where echinoderms, crabs, and shrimp are more abundant (Hopcroft et al. 2008).

37

38 There are several strong spatial gradients in benthic invertebrate biomass and species 

39 composition across the Beaufort/Chukchi shelf. Benthic biomass is higher in Chukchi Sea 

40 compared to the Beaufort Sea (Grebmeier et al. 2006). Within the Beaufort Sea, benthic biomass 

41 is slightly lower in the eastern and deepwater portions of the Beaufort Sea and slightly higher to 

42 the west, adjacent to the Chukchi Sea. South of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area, the Chukchi Sea 

43 contains some of the highest benthic biomass in the Arctic (Grebmeier et al. 2006; 

44 Hopcroft 2008). The high benthic biomass and richness in the Chukchi Sea have been attributed 

45 to currents that move nutrients onto the shallow Chukchi shelf from the Bering Sea, the resulting 

46 sudden and intense springtime phytoplankton bloom during a period of relative inactivity for 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-276

1 zooplankton, and the subsequent deposition of large amounts of phytoplankton food on the 

2 seafloor (Hopcroft 2008). Nearshore infauna diversity and abundance can be low because of ice 

3 scour and freshwater inputs. Invertebrate biomass also decreases from the mid-shelf to the slope. 

4 For example, trawls in the western Beaufort Sea indicated that invertebrate biomass was 

5 dramatically higher between 100 and 500 m (328 and 1,640 ft) than between 40 and 100 m

6 (131 and 328 ft) (NMFS 2010e). 

7

8 Invertebrate species associated with boulder habitats are located primarily on the 

9 Beaufort shelf. These habitats vary according to their post-disturbance successional stage. 

10 Pioneer colonizing invertebrates include polychaetes, followed by encrusting bryozoans and 

11 hydroids, and ultimately a diverse community of kelp, soft coral, tubeworms, and sponges.

12 Multiple studies have demonstrated that if significantly physically disturbed, communities 

13 associated with boulders are slow (2 or more years) to begin recovery and that full recovery of 

14 boulder invertebrate communities may take 10 or more years (MMS 2002b; Konar 2007 and 

15 references therein). 

16

17 Sea ice invertebrates include microbes, polychaetes, copepods, nematodes, and 

18 amphipods. Like zooplankton, sea ice invertebrates are important in connecting the water 

19 column to the benthos by depositing food on the seafloor and by providing habitat for benthic 

20 invertebrates in their early life stages (Gradinger and Bluhm 2005). Sea ice invertebrates are 

21 also an important food source to certain pelagic fish like arctic cod.

22

23 Climate Change. It is predicted that physical and chemical changes to arctic and 

24 subarctic invertebrate habitat would result from climate change (Section 3.3). Any of these 

25 changes could alter the existing distribution, composition, and abundance of invertebrates, since

26 physical and chemical parameters are the primary influence on invertebrate communities. In 

27 general, the increase in seawater temperature will facilitate a northward expansion of subarctic 

28 invertebrate species from the Bering Sea. Weslawski et al. (2011) identified the Bering Strait as 

29 a major corridor through which new invertebrate species will expand their range northward. 

30 Such expansion will likely increase overall invertebrate species diversity in the Arctic, but the 

31 new species may displace existing species or alter existing inter-specific species interactions. 

32 For example, the movement of large decapod crabs into the Arctic may dramatically alter 

33 existing food webs (Weslawski et al. 2011). The change in species composition may be greatest 

34 in the eastern Beaufort Sea where arctic species currently predominate. The timing and duration 

35 of copepod recruitment as well as copepod biomass are also likely to be affected by the rise in 

36 surface water temperatures. 

37

38 It is predicted that a decrease in sea ice habitat would result from increasing water 

39 temperature. Consequently, the distribution of invertebrates specialized to inhabit sea ice will 

40 contract if they are unable to occupy new habitats. Also, the seasonal deposition of food from 

41 melting sea ice may be reduced, but settled phytoplankton may make up for the loss as the 

42 productivity of open water increases. Overall, an increase in the productivity of water column 

43 invertebrates is expected (Hopcroft et al. 2008). The abundance of benthic invertebrates may 

44 also increase in nearshore areas with the reduction in ice scour extent and duration and the 

45 consequent increase in the area of the seafloor available for colonization by invertebrates 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-277

1 (Weslawski et al. 2011). However, loss of sea ice could also increase benthic disturbance from 

2 severe weather as the amount of open water increases. 

3

4 Changes in the magnitude, frequency, and timing of river discharge into the Beaufort and 

5 Chukchi Seas are expected to result from climate change (Arctic Council 2005). Invertebrates in 

6 marine ecoregions with strong riverine inputs — like the Beaufort Neritic Ecoregion — would 

7 likely be affected by alterations in the salinity, temperature, and sediment delivery regime. 

8 Hydrologic change can rapidly alter existing invertebrate communities in the water column and 

9 benthos, if the new chemical conditions are not within the physiological tolerance of the existing 

10 communities. The greater variability in hydrologic conditions could favor tolerant and 

11 opportunistic species, thereby homogenizing invertebrate species composition and decreasing 

12 overall species diversity in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas (Weslawski et al. 2011).

13

14 The expected increase in ocean acidification is considered to be another significant 

15 source of physiological stress. Crustaceans, echinoderms, foraminiferans, and mollusks could 

16 have greater difficulty in forming shells, which could reduce their fitness, abundance, and 

17 distribution (Fabry et al. 2008). The loss of shelled invertebrates could affect higher trophic 

18 levels. For example, benthic mollusks are critical food sources for birds and marine mammals, 

19 and pteropods (pelagic snails) are abundant in arctic waters and are an important food resource 

20 for salmon (Groot and Margolis 1991). 

21

22

23 3.9 AREAS OF SPECIAL CONCERN

24

25

26 3.9.1 Gulf of Mexico

27

28 Areas of special concern include federally managed areas (e.g., Marine Protected Areas

29 [MPAs], National Marine Sanctuaries, National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges), all of which 

30 are discussed in the following sections. In addition, a number of locations that have been given 

31 special designations by Federal, State, and nongovernmental organizations (e.g., National 

32 Estuarine Research Reserves, National Estuary Program Sites, and Military and National 

33 Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] Use Areas) are also included as areas of special 

34 concern. 

35

36

37 3.9.1.1 Coastal Areas of Special Concern

38

39

40 3.9.1.1.1 Marine Protected Areas. Executive Order 13158 on Marine Protected Areas

41 defines a MPAs as ―any area of the marine environment that has been reserved by federal, state, 

42 territorial, tribal, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or all of the 

43 natural and cultural resources therein.‖ Thus MPAs have greater protection than the surrounding 

44 waters and can also vary widely in purpose, legal authorities, agencies, management approaches, 

45 level of protection, and restrictions on human uses (National Marine Protected Areas 

46 Center 2008a).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-278

1 To strengthen and enhance the nation‘s system of MPAs, Executive Order 13158 directed

2 the U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of the Interior, in consultation with 

3 other departments, to create a National System of MPAs. Section 5 of the Order calls for Federal 

4 agencies to ―avoid harm‖ to National System MPAs and identify any actions that do harm to 

5 National System sites. Each Federal agency is responsible for its own implementation of its 

6 responsibilities under Section 5. As directed by the Order, the National Marine Protected Areas 

7 Center (http://www.mpa.gov), directed by NOAA, has developed a planning and coordination 

8 process for adding existing MPAs into the National System. As described in Framework for the 

9 National System of Marine Protected Areas of the United States of America (National Marine 

10 Protected Areas Center 2008a), to be eligible for National System membership, an MPA must: 

11

12 1. Meet the definitional criteria of an MPA, including each of its key terms —

13 area, marine environment, reserved, lasting, and protection;

14

15 2. Have a management plan; and

16

17 3. Support at least one priority goal and conservation objective of the national 

18 system.

19

20 4. Cultural heritage MPAs also must conform to criteria for including sites on 

21 the National Register of Historic Places.

22

23 The Framework for the National System of Marine Protected Areas of the United States 

24 of America outlines the working relationship for building National System MPA sites, networks, 

25 and systems for areas managed by Federal, State, tribal, or local governments. No existing 

26 Federal, State, local, or tribal MPA laws or programs are altered by the National System or the 

27 Order, and no new legal authorities were established to designate, manage, or change MPAs. 

28

29 Most National System MPAs encompass the National Marine Sanctuaries, National 

30 Parks, and National Wildlife Refuges, and are therefore managed by existing authorities.

31

32 At present, 14 National System MPAs have been designated in the Western and Central 

33 GOM Planning Areas, and 7 National System MPAs have been designated in the Eastern 

34 Planning Area from the Florida/Alabama border to Tampa Bay (Table 3.9.1-1; Figure 3.9.1-1). 

35 Most National System MPAs are National Wildlife Refuges and are described in 

36 Section 3.9.1.1.3.

37

38 In addition to the National System MPA member sites in Table 3.9.1-1, there are several 

39 State-designated and State-managed MPAs, federally managed areas, and partnership areas 

40 under State and Federal management that may or may not be eligible for membership in the 

41 National System MPA program. A complete listing and descriptions of the locations of these 

42 areas can be obtained from the lists on the Marine Protected Areas of the United States website

43 at http://www.mpa.gov/helpful_resources/inventoryfiles/gulf_june_2010.pdf. Florida has 

44 87 State-designated MPAs from the Panhandle to Tampa Bay. The vast majority are 

45 Outstanding Florida Waters, although many are also State Parks and aquatic preserves. 

46 Louisiana and Mississippi have 26 and 10 State-designated MPAs, respectively, most of which 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-279

1 TABLE 3.9.1-1 National System Marine Protected Area Member Sites in the Western 

2 and Central GOM Planning Area and the Eastern GOM Planning Area from Alabama 

3 to Tampa, Florida

Site Namea State Managing Agencyb

Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge AL USFWS

Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve, Barataria Preserve LA NPS

Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary LA NOAA

Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge LA USFWS

Breton National Wildlife Refuge LA USFWS

Delta National Wildlife Refuge LA USFWS

Sabine National Wildlife Refuge LA USFWS

Shell Keys National Wildlife Refuge LA USFWS

Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge MS/AL USFWS

Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge FL USFWS

Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge FL USFWS

Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge FL USFWS

Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge FL USFWS

Pinellas National Wildlife Refuge FL USFWS

St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge FL USFWS

St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge FL USFWS

Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge TX USFWS

Aransas National Wildlife Refuge TX USFWS

Big Boggy National Wildlife Refuge TX USFWS

Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge TX USFWS

San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge TX USFWS

a

Includes sites designated by the USDOI and NOAA. Sites designated by State, Territory, and 

Commonwealth agencies are not included but can be obtained from the lists on the Marine 

Protected Areas of the United States website at http://www.mpa.gov/helpful_resources/

inventoryfiles/gulf_may_2011.pdf. 

b NPS = National Park Service, NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Source: NOAA 2010d. 

4

5

6 are coastal preserves and wildlife management areas. Texas has nine State-designated MPAs, 

7 most of which are State Parks or Wildlife Management Areas.

8

9 Federally managed areas that are eligible for MPA status but are not members of the 

10 National System MPA consist of Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (see Section 3.7.4.1),

11 offshore banks, chemosynthetic communities, and deepwater corals (see Section 3.7.2.1). 

12 National Estuarine Research Reserves are partnership-managed areas under Federal and State 

13 management and are described below.

14

15

16 3.9.1.1.2 National Park System. The National Park System ensures the protection and 

17 interpretation of the country‘s natural, cultural, and recreational resources. Descriptions of 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-280

1

2 FIGURE 3.9.1-1 Map Showing the Location of Specially Protected Areas in the Western, Central, and Eastern Planning Areas
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-281

1 National Parks given below are based on information for individual parks on the National Park 

2 Service (NPS) website (http://www.nps.gov). NPS lands along the coast or in coastal areas of 

3 the GOM include the Padre Island National Seashore (Texas), Jean Lafitte National Historic Park 

4 (Louisiana), Gulf Islands National Seashore (Mississippi and Florida), and DeSoto National 

5 Memorial (Florida). More than 177 km (110 mi) of coastal beaches and barrier islands in Texas, 

6 Mississippi, and Florida are used by millions of visitors each year at Padre Island National 

7 Seashore and Gulf Islands National Seashore. In addition to being a popular tourist destination, 

8 Padre Island National Seashore protects the largest portion of undeveloped barrier island in the 

9 world, supports a wide variety of flora and fauna, and is the most important nesting site for the 

10 Kemp‘s ridley sea turtle in the United States. Padre Island National Seashore also includes 

11 approximately 8,094 ha (20,000 ac) of the Laguna Madre, which is one of only five hypersaline 

12 lagoons in the world. Outside of the Central and Western Planning Areas, the Dry Tortugas 

13 National Monument is located offshore of the southern tip of Florida in the Eastern Planning 

14 Area.

15

16 The Gulf Islands National Seashore includes major portions of the barrier islands off the 

17 coasts of Florida and Mississippi, including beaches, coastal marshes, maritime forests, and 

18 offshore areas. The park also contains historic sites dating to 16th century European exploration 

19 and occupation. DeSoto National Memorial contains information on Hernando DeSoto‘s 

20 exploration of Florida in the 16th century and on Florida‘s history from the Civil War to the 

21 present. Oil from the DWH event reached the shoreline of the Gulf Island National Seashore. 

22 Cleanup efforts continue and the Seashore remains open. Monitoring efforts are ongoing 

23 (http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/oil-spill-response.htm).

24

25 The Jean Lafitte National Historic Park comprises six sites located in southern Louisiana: 

26 Acadian Cultural Center in Lafayette, Prairie Acadian Cultural Center in Eunice, Wetlands 

27 Acadian Cultural Center in Thibodaux, Barataria Preserve in Marrero, Chalmette Battlefield and 

28 National Cemetery in Chalmette, and French Quarter Visitor Center in New Orleans. Barataria 

29 Preserve covers more than 9,308 ha (23,000 ac) and contains bayous, swamps, marshes, forests, 

30 alligators, nutrias, and more than 300 species of birds. The other five sites are dedicated to the 

31 history and cultural preservation of southern Louisiana.

32

33

34 3.9.1.1.3 National Wildlife Refuges. The National Wildlife Refuge System is a 

35 network of U.S. lands and waters managed by the USFWS specifically for the enhancement of 

36 wildlife. There are 27 National Wildlife Refuges located along the coastline or within the coastal 

37 areas of the Western and Central GOM Planning Areas and the Eastern Planning Area from the 

38 Florida/Alabama border to Tampa Bay (Figure 3.9.1-1 and Table 3.9.1-2). Information on 

39 individual refuges can be found at http://www.fws.gov/refuges/refugeLocatorMaps. Most 

40 refuges along the GOM coastline were established to provide wintering areas for ducks, geese,

41 coots, and other migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. Threatened and endangered species, 

42 including the American alligator and manatee, also use the refuges along the GOM.

43

44 Delta NWR, Breton NWR, Grand Bay NWR, and Bon Secour NWR were all contacted 

45 by oil from the DWH event (http://www.fws.gov/refuges/RefugeUpdate/MarchApril_2011/

46 oneyear.html). Breton NWR and Bon Secour NWR appear to have been the most affected. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-282

1 TABLE 3.9.1-2 National Wildlife Refuges along 

2 the GOM Coast from Texas through Tampa Bay, 

3 Florida

National Wildlife Refuge Total Area (ha)a

Texas 141,498

Anahuac 13,880

Aransas 46,296

Big Boggy 2,023

Brazoria 17,767

Laguna Atascosa 23,402

McFadden 22,258

San Bernard 12,249

Texas Point 3,623

Louisiana 34,422

Shell Keys 3

Bayou Sauvage 9,009

Delta 19,749

Breton 3,661

Mississippi 2,072

Grand Bay 2,072

Alabama 3,713

Grand Bay 1,010

Bon Secour 2,703

Florida (Panhandle to Tampa Bay) 45,400

St. Vincent 5,055

St. Marks 27,164

Cedar Keys 361

Chassahowitzka 12,482

Crystal River 19

Pinellas 160

Egmont Key 133

Passage Key 26

Matlacha Pass 159

a To convert hectares to acres, multiply by 2.47.

4

5
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-283

1 Breton NWR was closed immediately following the spill but has since reopened 

2 (http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/Breton2010OilSpillFactSheet.pdf). Monitoring 

3 efforts at Breton NWR are ongoing. Bon Secour NWR was heavily oiled and samples collected 

4 in winter 2010–2011 indicated elevated PAHs in beach sediments (OSAT 2011). The models of 

5 oil degradation for beaches at Bon Secour suggest alkanes and PAHs would degrade to 

6 approximately 15–20% of their current concentration within 2.5 to 5 yr (OSAT 2011).

7

8

9 3.9.1.1.4 National Estuarine Research Reserves. The National Estuarine Research 

10 Reserve Program was established by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and is 

11 administered by NOAA. One of the primary objectives for establishing this program was to 

12 provide research information that could be used by coastal managers and the fishing industry to 

13 help assure the continued productivity of estuarine ecosystems. Four estuarine research reserves 

14 have been established in the GOM area from Texas to Tampa Bay, as detailed below

15 (Figure 3.9.1-1). Summary descriptions of the reserves described below were gathered through 

16 the National Estuarine Research Reserve website (http://nerrs.noaa.gov/ReservesMap.aspx). 

17 Detailed site profiles are available at http://nerrs.noaa.gov/BGDefault.aspx?ID=602.

18

19 1. Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve in coastal Alabama includes 

20 a small estuary covering about 2,641 ha (6,525 ac). The reserve is composed 

21 of open shallow waters, with an average depth of less than 1.5 m (5 ft) and 

22 extensive vegetated wetland areas. Freshwater enters from the Fish and 

23 Magnolia Rivers, and the reserve connects with Mobile Bay through a narrow 

24 opening.

25

26 2. The Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve, southeast of Panama 

27 City, Florida, covers about 99,553 ha (246,000 ac). It consists of forested 

28 flood plains, saltwater and freshwater marshes, barrier islands, and open bays. 

29 A Federal Refuge and a State Park are within the reserve boundaries. A 

30 commercially important oyster fishery is located in the Apalachicola area.

31

32 3. The Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve supports several rare or 

33 endangered plant and animal species, numerous important marine fishery 

34 resources, diverse habitat types, and important archaeological sites. It 

35 contains a diverse range of habitats, including coastal bays, saltwater marshes, 

36 maritime pine forests, pine savannas, and pitcher plant bogs. It supports

37 extensive and productive oyster reefs and seagrass habitats, and it serves as a 

38 nursery area for many important recreational and commercial marine species, 

39 such as shrimp, blue crab, speckled trout, and red drum. Grand Bay NERR 

40 received oil from the DWH event. Baseline mapping of sensitive resources 

41 such as seagrasses and oyster beds was conducted to determine any long-term 

42 impacts from the spill (htpp://grandbaynerr.org/archives/13).

43

44 4. The Mission Aransas National Estuarine Research Reserve is located in 

45 Aransas and Refugio Counties, Texas, about 48 km (30 mi) northeast of 

46 Corpus Christi. It covers about 75,153 ha (185,708 ac) and was designated a 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-284

1 reserve in 2006. Habitats present on the site include coastal prairies, coastal 

2 and freshwater marshes, ponds, bays, seagrass beds, oyster reefs, mangrove 

3 forests, and tidal flats. The University of Texas‘ Marine Science Institute is 

4 the lead State agency overseeing the site. The site is home to wintering 

5 populations of the federally endangered whooping crane (Grus americana).

6

7

8 3.9.1.1.5 National Estuary Program. In 1987, an amendment to the Clean Water Act, 

9 known as the Water Quality Act (P.L. 100-4), established the National Estuary Program. The 

10 purposes of the program are to (1) identify nationally significant estuaries, (2) protect and 

11 improve their water quality, and (3) enhance their living resources. Under the administration 

12 of the USEPA, comprehensive administration plans are generated to protect and enhance the 

13 environmental resources of estuaries designated to be of national importance. The governor 

14 of a State may nominate an estuary for the program and may request that a comprehensive 

15 conservation and management plan be developed. Over a 5-yr period, representatives from 

16 Federal, State, and interstate agencies; academic and scientific institutions; and industry and 

17 citizens groups work to define objectives for protecting the estuary, select the chief problems 

18 to be addressed in the plan, and ratify a pollution-control and resource-management strategy 

19 to meet each objective. The GOM estuaries currently falling within the National Estuary 

20 Program include: Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries, Corpus Christi Bay, Galveston Bay, 

21 Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine Complex, Mobile Bay, Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte 

22 Harbor (USEPA 2011d; Figure 3.9.1-1). 

23

24

25 3.9.1.2 Marine Areas of Special Concern

26

27

28 3.9.1.2.1 Marine Protected Areas. The only National System MPA in the Western and 

29 Central GOM Planning Areas located in marine waters is the FGBNMS. The FGBNMS is 

30 described below. In addition, there are de facto MPAs that are waters where access or activities 

31 are restricted by law for reasons other than conservation or natural resource management, such as 

32 to protect public health and safety, and public and private infrastructure, as well as those that 

33 provide training areas for the military (National Marine Protected Areas Center 2008). Military 

34 installations, anchoring sites, navigational channels, oil and gas transfer areas, and safety, 

35 security, and restricted areas (e.g., power plants) are all examples of de facto MPAs in the 

36 northern GOM. Almost 25% of the GOM regional waters (approximately 200,000 km2

[7,7220 mi2 37 ]) can be considered de facto MPAs. The GOM has 217 individual de facto MPAs 

38 and 64% of the nation‘s total de facto MPA area. Most of these sites are military use areas 

39 (Section 3.9.1.2.3) and areas restricted to protect the oil and shipping industries of the region. 

40 Most de facto MPAs allow multiple commercial and recreational uses with some periodic 

activity restriction. Fewer than 1% (approximately 100 km2 [39 mi2 41 ]) of de facto MPAs 

42 (primarily oil platforms and certain military use areas) are permanent no-access areas (National 

43 Marine Protected Areas Center 2008). Military use areas are discussed in more detail below.

44 Maps and additional information on de facto MPAs can be found at http://www.mpa.gov/

45 helpful_resources/inventoryfiles/defacto_mpa_report_0608.pdf. 

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-285

1 3.9.1.2.2 Marine Sanctuaries. The only National Marine Sanctuary in the Western and 

2 Central GOM Planning Areas is the FGBNMS. The FGBNMS is located about 175 km (109 mi) 

3 southeast of Galveston, Texas (Figure 3.9.1-1). The area containing both the East and West 

Banks covers 143 km2 (55 mi2 4 ) and has 142 ha (351 ac) of reef crest (Gardner et al. 1998). In 

5 October 1996, Congress expanded the sanctuary by adding a small third bank, Stetson Bank, 

6 which is located about 113 km (70 mi) south of Galveston. The FGBNMS represents the 

7 northernmost coral reef system in the United States (Figure 3.9.1-1) and is described in detail in 

8 Section 3.7.2.1.2.

9

10 The most recent FGBNMS management plan (NOAA 2010e) suggests expanding the 

11 current FGBNMS boundary to include banks and topographic features that currently exist 

12 outside it but that may be vulnerable to anthropogenic impacts. 

13

14 BOEM has protected the biological resources of the FGBNMS from potential damage 

15 due to oil and gas exploration by establishing a No Activity Zone and other operational 

16 restrictions in the vicinity of the banks. BOEM management and protection of the FGB and 

17 other topographic features began in 1973 prior to the establishment of the Sanctuary in 1992. 

18 Designating the area as a National Marine Sanctuary has provided other protective measures by 

19 regulating the following (available at http://flowergarden.noaa.gov/about/regulations.html): 

20

21 • Injuring, removing, possessing, or attempting to injure or remove a living or 

22 nonliving sanctuary resource;

23

24 • Feeding fish and certain methods of taking fish;

25

26 • The speed, anchoring, and mooring of vessels; 

27

28 • Destroying sanctuary property, or discharging or depositing outside the 

29 sanctuary boundaries polluting materials that could subsequently enter the 

30 sanctuary and injure a sanctuary resource or worsen its quality; and 

31

32 • Altering the seabed or constructing, placing, or abandoning any structure or 

33 material on the seabed. 

34

35 Recent surveys indicate that the FGBNMS appears to be healthy, with a coral cover of 

36 50 to 70% on both the east and west banks and a low incidence of bleaching or other coral 

37 disease (Precht et al. 2008; Robbart et al. 2009). Data collected from the east and west banks 

38 from 1978 to 2006 do not indicate any long-term trends in the percentage of coral cover 

39 (Hickerson et al. 2008; Robbart et al. 2009). Ongoing stressors on the FGBNMS include 

40 mechanical disturbance from anchors and discarded fishing gear, coastal runoff, and disease 

41 (Hickerson et al. 2008). 

42

43

44 3.9.1.2.3 Military and NASA Use Areas. Military Use Areas, established off all 

45 U.S. coastlines, are required by the U.S. Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Special Operations 

46 Forces for conducting various testing and training missions. Military activities can be quite 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-286

1 varied, but they normally consist of air-to-air, air-to-surface, and surface-to-surface naval fleet

2 training, submarine and antisubmarine training, and Air Force exercises (Figure 3.9.1-2). 

3 Military dumping areas are also shown in Figure 3.9.1-2. Dumping areas can be classified 

4 according to whether spoil, ordinance, chemical waste, or vessel waste is deposited in the area.

5

6 The U.S. Air Force has established multiple surface danger zones and restricted areas. 

7 Danger zones are defined as water areas used for a variety of hazardous operations (Marine 

8 Protected Areas Center 2008; U.S. Fleet Forces 2010). Danger zones may be closed to the 

9 public on a full-time or intermittent basis. Restricted areas are water areas defined as such for 

10 the purpose of prohibiting or limiting public access. Restricted areas generally provide security 

11 for Federal Government property and/or protect the public from the risks of damage or injury 

12 that could arise from the Federal Government‘s use of that area. The regulations pertaining to 

13 the identification and use of these areas are found in 33 CFR Part 334. Units of the 

14 U.S. Department of Defense (USDOD) and NASA use surface danger zones and restricted areas 

15 in coastal and offshore waters for rocket launching, weapons testing, and conducting a variety of 

16 training and readiness operations. Most danger zones and restricted areas in the northern GOM

17 are associated with Elgin Air Force Base (AFB) and Tyndall AFB, both of which are located in 

18 the Florida Panhandle. The danger zones extend from nearshore areas to hundreds of kilometers 

19 off the coast of Florida. There is also a danger zone associated with MacDill AFB in Tampa 

20 Bay.

21

22 The GOM Range Complex is a combined air, land, and sea space that provides realistic 

23 training areas for Navy personnel. In coastal and marine areas, the GOM Range Complex 

24 includes military operating areas (OPAREAs) and overlying Special Use Airspaces (SUAs), the 

25 Naval Support Activity Panama City Demolition Pond, security group training areas, and 

26 supporting infrastructure (U.S. Fleet Forces 2010). Four offshore OPAREAs are located in the 

27 northern GOM: Corpus Christi, New Orleans, Pensacola, and Panama City (Figure 3.9.1-2). 

These offshore surface and subsurface areas total 59,817 km2 (17,440 NM2 28 ) and include 

41,406 km2 (12,072 NM2 29 ) of shallow ocean area less than 185 m (590 ft) deep (U.S. Fleet 

30 Forces 2010). OPAREAs define where the U.S. Navy conducts surface and subsurface training 

31 and operations. The Navy conducts various training activities at sea (e.g., surface target sinking 

32 exercises and mine warfare exercises) and shakedown cruises for newly built ships. 

33

34 Aircraft operated by all USDOD units train within SUAs that overlie the OPAREAs, as 

35 designated by the Federal Aviation Administration (U.S. Fleet Forces 2010). SUAs, also called 

36 warning areas, are the most relevant to the oil and gas leasing program because they are largely 

37 located offshore, extending from 5.6 km (3 NM or 3.5 mi) outward from the coast over 

38 international waters and in international airspace. These areas are designated as airspace for 

39 military activities, but because they occur over international waters, there are no restrictions on 

40 nonmilitary aircraft. The purpose of designating such areas is to warn nonparticipating pilots of 

41 potential danger. When they are being used for military exercises, the controlling agency 

42 notifies civil, general, and other military aviation organizations of the current and scheduled 

43 status of the area (U.S. Department of the Navy 2004). Aircraft operations conducted in warning 

44 areas primarily involve air-to-air combat training maneuvers and air intercepts, which are rarely 

45 conducted at altitudes below 1,524 m (5,000 ft) (U.S. Department of the Navy 2002).

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-287

12 FIGURE 3.

9.1-2 Location of Military Use Areas in the GOM
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-288

1 Security group training areas are also located in marine waters of the GOM Range 

2 Complex. There are two group training areas: one is located 13 km (8 mi) off the coast of 

3 Panama City, Florida; the other is 13 km (8 mi) off the coast of Corpus Christi, Texas. These 

4 areas are used for machine gun and explosives training (U.S. Fleet Forces 2010). 

5

6

7 3.9.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

8

9 The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 designated certain public 

10 lands in Alaska as units of the NPS, NWR, Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Wilderness 

11 Preservation, and National Forest systems. This section describes Alaskan lands managed by the 

12 NPS, USFWS, and USFS. It also describes MPAs, National Estuarine Research Reserves, 

13 National Estuary Program areas, MUAs, and NOAA-designated HCAs. 

14

15

16 3.9.2.1 National Park Service Lands

17

18 Lands managed by the NPS include National Parks, National Monuments and Preserves, 

19 National Historic Areas, and designated Wild and Scenic Rivers. Onshore oil facilities are 

20 permissible only on private land holdings within NPS-managed lands. Even in some of these

21 units, development of onshore oil-support facilities is unlikely because of the associated

22 logistical difficulties that are perceived. Subsistence harvesting is allowed in some NPS units 

23 and may be affected by offshore oil and gas development.

24

25 There are three National Parks and one National Monument that could be affected by 

26 OCS oil and gas activities, including accidental spills. The information on each park provided 

27 below was gathered from NPS websites for individual parks. More information can be found at 

28 http://www.nps.gov/state/ak/index.htm.

29

30 The Katmai National Park and Preserve (which, for management purposes, includes 

31 the Alagnak Wild River and Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve) encompasses 

32 1.9 million ha (4.7 million ac) (Figure 3.9.2-1). Katmai National Park is located in the Cook 

33 Inlet Planning Area on the western shore of Shelikof Strait, about 300 km (186 mi) southwest of 

34 Anchorage.

35

36 The Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve is located on the Alaskan peninsula 

37 about 161 km (100 mi) south of the Cook Inlet Planning Area (Figure 3.9.2-1). The park 

38 contains Aniakchak caldera and the Aniakchak River, which flows 43 km (27 mi) from Surprise 

39 Lake (inside the Aniakchak caldera) to the Pacific Ocean. Sockeye salmon make spawning runs 

40 up the Aniakchak River. The park is relatively pristine because of its remote location and harsh 

41 weather, both of which limit the number of visits by humans. 

42

43 The Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, which borders Cook Inlet, spans 

44 1.6 million ha (4 million ac) and extends roughly 150 km (93 mi) inland. It is a composite of 

45 ecosystems representative of many regions of Alaska, including lakes, rivers, and streams. The 

46 park receives more than 4,000 visitors annually.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-289

12 FIGURE 3.9.2

-1 Map Showing the Location of Specially Protected Areas in the Cook Inlet Planning Area
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-290

1 Kenai Fjords National Park is east of Cook Inlet on the GOA, but it could be affected by 

2 an oil spill associated with OCS activities in Cook Inlet. This park contains the Harding Icefield 

3 and 38 glaciers. 

4

5

6 3.9.2.2 Fish and Wildlife Service Lands

7

8 The USFWS has jurisdiction over NWRs for carrying out the responsibilities of Federal 

9 laws. Oil facility development is discretionary on NWRs in Alaska. Potential use of USFWS 

10 lands as bases for offshore oil and gas exploration as well as onshore oil and gas development 

11 will be determined in part by Title XI (see also Title III) of the Alaska National Interest Lands 

12 Conservation Act (ANILCA). Title XI ROWs are issued according to both ANILCA and the 

13 NWR System Administration Act of 1966 (16 USC 668dd), as amended by the NWR System 

14 Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). Title XI provides a procedural framework for 

15 permitting the use of USFWS lands and access to these lands for transportation and utility 

16 systems, which includes an application and extensive review process. 

17

18 Information on each refuge provided below was gathered from NWR websites for 

19 individual refuges. More information can be found at http://www.fws.gov/refuges. There are 

20 six NWRs in Cook Inlet and the Kenai Peninsula. These include two units of the Alaska 

21 Maritime NWR: (1) the GOA Unit, which includes 1,287 km (800 mi) of coast from southeast 

22 Alaska‘s rainforests across the arc of Prince William Sound to Kodiak Island, and (2) the Alaska 

23 Peninsula Unit, which extends west more than 644 km (400 mi) from Kodiak Island to the 

24 southern tip of the peninsula (Figure 3.9.2-1). 

25

26 The Alaska Peninsula NWR (managed jointly with the Becharof NWR) encompasses 

27 1.5 million ha (3.7 million ac) and contains a variety of habitats, including mountains, rivers, 

28 lakes, volcanoes, and fjords.

29

30 The Becharof NWR encompasses roughly 485,623 ha (1.2 million ac), of which 

31 202,343 ha (500,000 ac) is designated wilderness. The Becharof NWR is located south of 

32 Katmai National Park and Preserve and contains Becharof Lake. Sockeye spawn in Becharof‘s 

33 rivers, and Becharof Lake serves as a nursery for the world‘s second-largest run of sockeye 

34 salmon. The refuge includes vast areas of pristine wildlife and fish habitat and includes a 

35 diversity of mammalian, avian, and fish species.

36

37 The Izembek NWR encompasses 121,406 ha (300,000 ac), most of which is forest land 

38 containing critical streams and land for salmon, waterfowl, seabirds, and mammalian predators 

39 and herbivores. The refuge is located on the Alaska Peninsula near Cold Bay, Alaska, more than 

40 322 km (200 mi) from the Cook Inlet Planning Area. Within the refuge is the Izembek Lagoon,

41 which contains extensive eelgrass beds used by fish and birds as feeding and resting areas. The 

42 American Bird Conservancy designated the Izembek Refuge as a Globally Important Bird Area 

43 in 2001. Marine mammals, including steller sea lions and gray, minke, killer, and humpback 

44 whales, also inhabit or pass through the refuge.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-291

1 The Kenai NWR encompasses roughly 809,371 ha (2 million ac). The refuge is located 

2 on the Kenai Peninsula on the eastern side of upper Cook Inlet. The Kenai NWR attracts many

3 visitors because of its closeness to Anchorage and general accessibility. The area contains 

4 important moose habitat and also a rich array of habitats for an estimated 200 different vertebrate 

5 species. The refuge, including the rivers (Russian and Kenai), streams, and lakes within its 

6 borders, provides important spawning and rearing habitat for trout and all five species of Pacific 

7 salmon. The Harding Icefield lies partially within the refuge boundaries and nearby Kenai 

8 Fjords National Park. The Chickaloon watershed and estuary is a major waterfowl and shorebird 

9 staging area and is the only such area on the refuge. Oil and gas development activities occur on 

10 roughly 89,000 ha (220,000 ac). 

11

12 The Kodiak NWR, encompassing about 768,903 ha (1.9 million ac), covers roughly 

13 two thirds of Kodiak Island, Uganik Island, the Red Peaks area on northwestern Afognak Island, 

14 and all of Ban Island. Biologists have identified 250 species of fish, mammals, and birds 

15 (including both residents and migrants) on the refuge. About 1.5 million marine birds overwinter 

16 in nearshore habitats surrounding Kodiak Island. There are 117 salmon streams on Kodiak 

17 Island that provide spawning and rearing habitat for all five species of Pacific salmon. 

18

19

20 3.9.2.3 Forest Service Lands

21

22 Coastal lands managed by the USFS are at risk from potential impacts from outer 

23 continental shelf oil and gas development. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), in 

24 cooperation with the USFS, manages oil/gas lease operations. The USFS has approval authority 

25 for the surface-use portion of the Federal oil/gas operation (36 CFR Part 228, Subpart E – Oil & 

26 Gas Resources). The USFS will carry out its statutory responsibilities when issuing Federal oil 

27 and gas leases and managing subsequent oil and gas operations on National Forest system lands. 

28

29 The Chugach National Forest borders Prince William Sound and Turnagian Arm and is 

30 the closest National Forest (300 km [186 mi]) to the Cook Inlet Planning Area (Figure 3.9.2-1). 

31 It encompasses 2.2 million ha (5.5 million ac), of which 567,000 ha (1.4 million ac) have been 

32 proposed and are currently managed as wilderness. Though a variety of land uses are permitted 

33 on USFS lands (including timber harvest and mining activities), wilderness areas generally are 

34 exempt from such ―multiple-use‖ activities. The Chugach Forest Management Plan identifies 

35 lands that are open or closed to leasing. Currently, the plan provides for oil and gas exploration 

36 and development in the Katalla area.

37

38

39 3.9.2.4 Marine Protected Areas

40

41 The Alaska Peninsula Unit and GOA Unit of the Alaska Maritime NWR are the only 

42 National System MPAs in the vicinity of the Cook Inlet Planning Area and are described in 

43 Section 3.9.2.2. The Alaska Maritime MPA is categorized as a Natural and Cultural Heritage 

44 Conservation Area and a Sustainable Production Conservation Area. Commercial fishing and 

45 recreational fishing are restricted. 

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-292

1 Although not National System MPAs, there are several State and Federal MPAs present 

2 in Cook Inlet. Cook Inlet itself is eligible for National System membership, and fishing within 

3 Cook Inlet is restricted. There are also several NOAA-designated HCAs and Habitat Protection 

4 Areas (HPAs) in the Gulf of Alaska, including three federally managed steller sea lion protection 

5 areas: the Gulf of Alaska HCA located near Prince William Sound, the Aleutian Islands Coral 

6 HPA, and the Aleutian Islands Habitat HCA located to the west of Cook Inlet. These areas have 

7 prohibitions against specific fishing activities or that target certain species. In addition, Cook 

8 Inlet and the waters around Kodiak Island contain State marine protected areas that are eligible 

9 for MPA membership and that contain shrimp and scallop fishing closure areas and restrictions 

10 on types of commercial fishing gear. A detailed map of State and federally eligible MPAs can be 

11 found at http://www.mpa.gov/helpful_resources/inventoryfiles/AK_Map_090831_final.pdf.

12

13 There are no de facto MPAs (waters whose use is restricted to protect military property, 

14 public health, and private and public infrastructure) within Cook Inlet (National Marine 

15 Protected Areas Center 2008). However, to the east, there are several de facto MPAs within 

16 Prince William Sound. Most are administered by the U.S. Coast Guard to protect shipping. 

17 Maps and additional information on de facto MPAs can be found at http://www.mpa.gov/

18 helpful_resources/inventoryfiles/defacto_mpa_report_0608.pdf. 

19

20

21 3.9.2.5 Other Areas of Special Concern

22

23 There are multiple State parks and State recreation areas near the Cook Inlet Planning 

24 Area, many of which border Cook Inlet or are located in areas that could be contacted by 

25 accidental oil spills. Such areas include Captain Cook State Recreation Area, Clam Gulch State 

26 Recreation Area, Chugach State Park, Kachemak Bay State Park and State Wilderness Park, and 

27 Ninilchik State Recreation Area. 

28

29 Kachemak Bay, Alaska, is a National Estuarine Research Reserve located in Cook Inlet

30 on the southern end of the Kenai Peninsula. The reserve covers 149,734 ha (370,000 ac), and the 

31 bay itself has more than 515 km (320 mi) of shoreline. There is a variety of marine and estuarine 

32 habitat in the reserve, including mudflats, rock shore, beaches, open water, and submerged 

33 aquatic vegetation. Marine mammals use the bay heavily, as do commercially important fish and 

34 shellfish. More information on the Kachemak Bay NERR can be found at http://nerrs.noaa.gov/

35 Reserve.aspx?ResID=KBA.

36

37 There are no military use restrictions (i.e., danger zones and restricted areas) in the waters 

38 of the Cook Inlet Planning Area (National Marine Protected Areas Center 2008). The closest 

39 danger zone is Blying Sound, which is managed by the U.S. Navy and located to the east of 

40 Cook Inlet near Prince William Sound. The Blying Sound Danger Zone is rarely activated, and 

41 there are no use restrictions for most of the year.

42

43
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-293

1 3.9.3 Alaska – Arctic

2

3 The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 designated certain public 

4 lands in Alaska as units of the National Park, NWR, Wild and Scenic Rivers, National 

5 Wilderness Preservation, and National Forest systems. This section describes Alaskan lands 

6 managed by the NPS and USFWS. There are no USFS lands adjacent to the Beaufort or 

7 Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. Also described are MPAs, National Estuarine Research Reserves, 

8 National Estuary Program Areas, Military Use Areas, and NOAA-designated HCAs. 

9

10

11 3.9.3.1 National Park Service Lands

12

13 The Iñupiat Heritage Center in Barrow, Alaska, is the only NPS-managed area along the 

14 coast of the Beaufort and Chukchi Planning Areas (Figure 3.9.3-1). The Iñupiat Heritage Center 

15 uses exhibits, classes, performances, and educational activities to promote and protect Iñupiaq 

16 culture, history, and language. More information on the Iñupiat Heritage Center is available at 

17 http://www.nps.gov/inup/index.htm. The Cape Krusenstern National Monument is located along 

18 the northern shore of Hope Basin, about 150 km (93 mi) south of the Chukchi Planning Area.

19 The Bering Land Bridge National Preserve is located along the southern shore of Hope Basin,

20 about 300 km (186 mi) south of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area (Figure 3.9.3-1). Also located 

21 in Hope Basin are the deltas of Noatak and Kobuk National Park Units. More information on 

22 these parks is available at http://www.nps.gov.

23

24 Onshore oil facilities are permissible only on private land holdings within NPS-managed 

25 lands. In some of these units, development of onshore oil-support facilities is unlikely because 

26 of the logistical difficulties perceived. In addition, subsistence harvesting is allowed in some 

27 NPS units. 

28

29

30 3.9.3.2 Fish and Wildlife Service Lands

31

32 The Arctic NWR and the Chukchi Sea Unit of the Alaska Maritime NWR are the closest 

33 NWRs to the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. The Arctic NWR consists of about

34 7.65 million ha (18.9 million ac) of land in northeastern Alaska along the Beaufort Sea coast 

35 (Figure 3.9.3-1). An additional 277,000 ha (684,000 ac) are either selected for conveyance or 

36 have been conveyed, under the terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 

37 (ANCSA), to the State or to Native corporations. All federally owned land within the refuge is 

38 currently designated as wild rivers, or minimal or wilderness management status. Under the 

39 ANILCA, production of oil and gas from the Arctic NWR is prohibited, and no leasing or other 

40 development leading to production of oil and gas can be undertaken until authorized by an Act of 

41 Congress. However, under the same Act, 607,028 ha (1.5 million ac) along the northern coast,

42 known as the 1002 Area, has been set aside for further study and possible oil development, per 

43 ANILCA (ANILCA Sec. 1002). More information on the Arctic NWR is available at 

44 http://arctic.fws.gov.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-294

1

2 FIGURE 3.9.3-1 Map Showing the Locations of Specially Protected Areas in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-295

1 The Chukchi Sea Unit of the Alaska Maritime NWR includes coastal and offshore islands 

2 and extends 805 km (500 mi) from south of Barrow to south of Cape Thompson (Figure 3.9.3-1). 

3 The Chukchi Sea Unit contains several islands and coastal habitats important to marine birds. 

4 More information on the Chukchi Sea Unit of the Alaska Maritime NWR is available at 

5 http://alaskamaritime.fws.gov.

6

7

8 3.9.3.3 Marine Protected Areas

9

10 The Arctic NWR and the Chukchi Sea Unit of the Alaska Maritime NWR are the two 

11 National System MPAs in or near the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas and are 

12 described in Section 3.9.3.2 (Figure 3.9.3-1). Both NWRs are classified as Natural and Cultural 

13 Heritage Conservation Areas and Sustainable Production Conservation Areas. Commercial

14 fishing is prohibited in the Arctic NWR and is restricted in the Chukchi Sea Unit of the Alaska 

15 Maritime NWR. There are no State MPAs or de facto MPAs in the Beaufort and Chukchi 

16 Planning Areas (http://www.mpa.gov/helpful_resources/inventoryfiles/AK_Map_090831_

17 final.pdf).

18

19

20 3.9.3.4 Other Areas of Special Concern

21

22 There are no National Estuarine Research Reserves, National Estuary Program Areas, or 

23 Habitat Conservation Areas in or adjacent to the Beaufort and Chukchi Planning Areas. There 

24 are four active U.S. Air Force radar sites located on the coast bordering the Beaufort and 

25 Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. They are all Long-Range Radar Sites (LRRSs): Cape Lisburne 

26 LRRS, Point Barrow LRRS, Oliktok LRRS, and Barter Island LRRS. Each site has restricted

27 areas within certain facilities. Access to each is only for personnel on official business and with 

28 approval of the commander of the USAF‘s 611th Air Support Group. 

29

30 A pipeline linking the Chukchi Sea Planning Area to the North Slope will likely cross the 

31 Bureau of Land Management NPR-A. Oil and gas leasing in the NPR-A is authorized under the 

32 Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976 (42 USC 6501 et seq.), as amended, including 

33 the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of 1981 (94 Stat. 2964). 

34 Several lease tracts of NPR-A lands have been sold by BLM for oil and gas development 

35 (http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/energy/oil_gas/npra.html).

36

37 Other areas of special concern include Ivvavik National Park, Herschel Island Territorial 

38 Park, and Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary, all of which are located in Canada on the eastern side 

39 the Beaufort Sea Planning Area.

40

41

42 3.10 POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND INCOME

43

44 Offshore waters of the Western, Central, and Eastern GOM Planning Areas lie adjacent 

45 to coastal Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. For the purposes of the analysis, 

46 the GOM coast region consists of counties (and parishes in Louisiana) in each of the five States 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-296

1 that constitute functional economic areas, defined on the basis of inter-county commuting 

2 patterns using a method suggested by Tolbert and Sizer (1996). There are 129 counties in the 

3 23 Labor Market Areas (LMAs) in the five States located along the GOM coast (MMS 2006b). 

4 Counties in the LMAs adjacent to the Western GOM Planning Area are all within Texas and 

5 include the cities of Brownsville, Corpus Christi, Victoria, Brazoria, Houston-Galveston, and 

6 Beaumont-Port Arthur. Counties in the LMAs adjacent to the Central GOM Planning Area 

7 include Lake Charles, Lafayette, Baton Rouge, Houma, and New Orleans, Louisiana; Biloxi8 Gulfport, Mississippi; and Mobile, Alabama. Counties in the LMAs adjacent to the Eastern 

9 Planning Area are all within Florida and include Pensacola, Panama City, Tallahassee, Lake 

10 City, Gainesville, Ocala, Tampa-St. Petersburg, Sarasota, Ft. Myers, and Miami.

11

12 The south central Alaska region (which corresponds with the Cook Inlet Planning Area)

13 is the most densely populated part of Alaska and includes Anchorage Municipality, and the 

14 entirety of the Kenai Peninsula, Kodiak Island, and Matanuska-Susitna Boroughs. The area 

15 corresponds to the area where many workers on offshore oil and gas platforms would live, at 

16 least temporarily if they live permanently outside Alaska, and spend their wages and salaries 

17 when they are in residence, and the area in which much of the oil and gas infrastructure 

18 associated with development in Cook Inlet and many of the supporting industries would be 

19 located. The Arctic region (Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas) consists of the North 

20 Slope Borough and the Northwest Arctic Borough. The area corresponds to the area where some 

21 of the workers on the offshore oil and gas platforms would live, at least temporarily if they live 

22 permanently elsewhere in Alaska or the U.S., and spend their wages and salaries when they are 

23 in residence, and the area in which much of the oil and gas infrastructure associated with 

24 development would be located.

25

26

27 3.10.1 Population

28

29

30 3.10.1.1 Gulf of Mexico

31

32 Population in the counties in the GOM coast region increased at an average annual rate of 

33 1.6% between 1980 and 1990, 1.2% between 1990 and 2000, and 1.5% between 2000 and 2009 

34 (Table 3.10.1-1). Total population in 2009 was 23.2 million. Within the region, recent annual 

35 population growth has been higher in the Texas counties, with growth of 2% between 1990 and 

36 2000 and 2.1% between 2000 and 2009. Population in the Mississippi counties grew annually at 

37 1.7% between 1990 and 2000, slowing to 0.2% between 2000 and 2009, while growth rates in 

38 the Florida counties have been higher between 2000 and 2009 compared to the previous period; 

39 population growth was negative in the Alabama counties between 1990 and 2000.

40

41 As is the case for the U.S. population as a whole, there is a relative decline in lower age 

42 cohorts over time (Table 3.10.1-2), while the region has shown a steady improvement in the level 

43 of educational attainment; the percentage of persons having attended or graduated from college 

44 increased from 31% in 1980 to 48% in 2000. 

45

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-297

1 TABLE 3.10.1-1 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Region Population (thousands)

State 1980 1990

Average 

Annual 

Percent 

Change 

(1980–

1990) 2000

Average 

Annual 

Percent 

Change 

(1990–

2000) 2009

Average 

Annual 

Percent 

Change 

(2000–

2009)

Texas 4,931.67 5,726.76 1.5 6,969.83 2.0 8,376.1 2.1

Louisiana 3,021.66 3,056.77 0.1 3,343.69 0.9 3,354.07 0.0

Mississippi 370.07 389.02 0.5 458.67 1.7 466.59 0.2

Alabama 581.23 609.33 0.5 599.4 –0.2 647.09 0.9

Florida 6,424.37 8,178.85 2.4 8,955.93 0.9 10,320.23 1.6

Total region 15,329.00 17,960.74 1.6 20,327.54 1.2 23,164.08 1.5

Source: USCB 2010d.

2

3

4 TABLE 3.10.1-2 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Region Population 

5 Composition

Population Segment 1980 1990 2000

Total Population 15,329,000 17,960,740 20,327,536

Age Structure (%)

 Under 5 7.4 7.6 7.0

 5 to 14 15.4 14.5 14.7

 15 to 24 18.1 14.2 13.7

 25 to 34 16.3 16.9 13.8

 35 to 44 11.1 14.6 15.6

 45 to 54 9.7 9.8 13.0

 55 to 64 9.5 8.6 8.8

 65+ 12.6 13.8 13.5

 

Education of Persons Age 25+ (%)

 0 to 8 yr schooling 20.5 12.6 9.6

 9 to 11 yr schooling 15.8 15.9 14.1

 High school graduates 32.1 28.6 27.8

 13 to 15 yr schooling 15.9 24.4 26.9

 College graduates 15.6 18.4 21.6

Source: MMS 2006b.

6

7
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-298

1 3.10.1.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

2

3 Population in the south central Alaska region increased at an average annual rate of 3.5% 

4 between 1980 and 1990, 1.8% between 1990 and 2000, and 1.5% between 2000 and 2009 

5 (Table 3.10.1-3). Total population in Alaska in 2009 was 698,473. Within the region, recent 

6 annual population growth has been higher in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, with growth of 

7 8.3% between 1980 and 1990 and 4.1% between 1990 and 2000, and 4.1% between 2000 and

8 2009. Population in Kenai Peninsula grew annually at 4.9% between 1980 and 1990, slowing to 

9 2.0% between 1990 and 2000. Recent growth rates in Anchorage have also declined, from 2.6% 

10 between 1980 and 1990 to 1.4% between 1990 and 2000. Growth rates in Anchorage and Kenai 

11 Peninsula between 2000 and 2009 are similar to those experienced in the State as a whole.

12

13

14 3.10.1.3 Alaska – Arctic

15

16 Population in the Arctic region increased at an average annual rate of 3.0% between 1980 

17 and 1990, 1.9% between 1990 and 2000, and –0.3% between 2000 and 2009 (Table 3.10.1-3). 

18 Total population in the Northwest Arctic Borough was 7,444 in 2009, with 6,752 residents in the 

19 North Slope Borough. 

20

21

22 TABLE 3.10.1-3 Alaska Regional Population (thousands)

Borough, Region, 

and State 1980 1990

Average 

Annual 

Percent 

Change 

(1980–

1990) 2000

Average 

Annual 

Percent 

Change 

(1990–

2000) 2009

Average 

Annual 

Percent 

Change 

(2000–

2009)

Anchorage 174,431 226,338 2.6 260,283 1.4 286,174 1.0

Kenai Peninsula 25,282 40,802 4.9 49,691 2.0 54,665 1.0

Kodiak Island 9,939 13,309 3.0 13,913 0.4 13,946 –0.4

MatanuskaSusitna17,816 39,683 8.3 59,322 4.1 88,379 4.1

Total region 227,468 320,132 3.5 383,209 1.8 442,564 1.5

North Slope 4,199 5,979 3.6 7,385 2.1 6,752 –1.0

Northwest Arctic 4,831 6,113 2.4 7,208 1.7 7,444 0.3

Total region 9,030 12,092 3.0 14,593 1.9 14,196 –0.3

Alaska 401,851 550,043 3.2 626,932 1.3 698,473 1.2

Source: Department of Labor and Workforce Development 2011; USCB 2011d.

23

24
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-299

1 3.10.2 Community Population and Income

2

3

4 3.10.2.1 Alaska – Cook Inlet

5

6 Anchorage Municipality had 280,389 residents over the period 2005–2009, almost 45% 

7 of the total population of Alaska (Table 3.10.2-1). Median household income in Anchorage was 

8 $70,151 over the period 2005–2009, per capita income stood at $33,436 over the same period. 

9 Only 7.8% of individuals in the borough were living in poverty, and 5.6% of the population 

10 classified themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native.

11

12 Although Kenai Peninsula Borough had 41,109 residents in 22 communities, only three 

13 had more than 3,000 residents over the period 2005 to 2009 (Kenai, 7,661; Kalifornsky, 7,020; 

14 Homer, 5,667; Nikiski 4,683; Soldotna 4,266, and Seward 3,083), constituting 37% of the 

15 population of the Borough (Table 3.10.2-1). While five communities had median household 

16 incomes of more than $60,000 over the period 2005–2009 (Halibut Cove, $127,010; Kasilof, 

17 $77,188; Salamatof, $72,958; Nikiski, $70,000; and Kalifornsky, $66,652), there were nine 

18 communities with median household income of less than $40,000. Nine communities in the 

19 borough had per capita incomes higher than the borough community average over the period 

20 2005–2009 ($25,864), while 13 communities had per capita incomes less than the borough 

21 average over the same period, and per capita incomes in three communities stood at half the 

22 borough average.

23

24 The percentage of individuals living in poverty was greater than the borough average in 

25 11 communities, with a higher number of individuals in two communities (Clam Gulch, 45.1%, 

26 and Port Graham, 40.5%). Two of the larger communities in the borough, Nikiski and Seward, 

27 had higher than average poverty levels. Three communities in the borough (Tyonek, 100%; 

28 Nanwalek, 97.2%; and Port Graham, 82.4%) had a high percentage of American Indian or 

29 Alaska Natives, with higher than average percentages in ten other communities.

30

31 Population in the Kodiak Peninsula Borough is concentrated in Kodiak, with 

32 6,291 residents between 2005 and 2009 constituting more than 47% of the population of the 

33 borough. Two communities had median household incomes of more than $50,000 over the 

34 period 2005–2009 (Kodiak, $57,930, and Larsen Bay, $54,375), while two communities had 

35 median household incomes of less than $10,000. Four communities in the borough had per 

36 capita incomes higher than the borough community average over the period 2005–2009 

37 ($21,288), while three communities had per capita incomes less than the borough average over 

38 the same period, and per capita incomes in one community stood at less than half the borough 

39 average.

40

41 The percentage of individuals living in poverty was higher than the borough average in 

42 four communities, with a high number of individuals in two communities (Karluk, 71.7%; Old 

43 Harbor, 39.9%). Two communities in the borough, Karluk (100%) and Akhiok (90.1%), had a 

44 high percentage of American Indian or Alaska Natives, with higher than average percentages in 

45 four other communities.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-300

1 TABLE 3.10.2-1 South Central Alaska Region Community Population, Income, and 

2 Poverty Status (2005–2009 Average)

Community

Total 

Residents

Median 

Household 

Income 

(2009 $)

Per Capita 

Income 

(2009 $)

Percent of 

Individuals 

Living in 

Poverty

Percent 

American 

Indian/

Alaska Native

State of Alaska 683,142 64,635 29,382 9.6 13.5

Anchorage

 Anchorage 280,389 70,151 33,436 7.8 5.6

Kenai Peninsula Borough 41,109 52,934 25,864 10.5 8.1

 Anchor Point 1,743 50,710 25,615 7.0 2.5

 Clam Gulch 104 32,639 25,075 45.1 0.0

 Cohoe 808 52,125 29,090 9.3 5.3

 Fox River 559 51,750 12,735 18.6 0.0

 Fritz Creek 1,865 44,773 20,694 7.9 1.9

 Halibut Cove 60a 127,010a 89,895a 0.0a 0.0a

 Happy Valley 498 51,875 25,191 16.4 2.2

 Homer 5,667 54,730 30,317 8.2 3.0

 Kalifornsky 7,020 66,652 29,789 11.3 8.5

 Kasilof 370 77,188 36,044 7.0 5.4

 Kenai 7,661 51,875 27,597 8.1 4.5

 Nanwalek 179 29,306 7,731 29.1 97.2

 Nikiski 4,683 70,000 25,713 14.8 8.7

 Nikolaevsk 332 44,333 17,797 9.0 5.1

 Ninilchik 490 42,917 26,121 12.0 5.9

 Port Graham 153 26,875 11,939 40.5 82.4

 Salamatof 969 72,958 19,158 8.1 12.4

 Seldovia City 326 51,111 28,378 7.7 17.5

 Seldovia Village 109 50,417 20,939 12.8 32.2

 Seward 3,083 44,457 18,189 13.5 17.6

 Soldotna 4,266 47,031 26,686 9.1 9.1

 Tyonek 164 22,813 14,149 28.7 100.0

Kodiak Island Borough 7,124 33,937 21,288 12.3 17.9

 Akhiok 101 9,107 10,556 23.8 90.1

 Karluk 53 6,250 7,502 71.7 100.0

 Kodiak 6,291 57,930 24,058 10.8 10.9

 Larsen Bay 79 54,375 43,038 1.3 69.6

 Old Harbor 233 22,813 10,910 39.9 68.7

 Ouzinkie 214 48,333 23,698 13.1 50.5

 Port Lions 153 38,750 29,271 6.5 79.1

Matanuska-Susitna Borough

 Houston 1,628 43,750 20,957 15.0 1.7

 Palmer 7,696 60,000 21,105 14.4 7.8

 Wasilla 9,616 53,977 24,221 14.2 3.4

a 2000 data.

Source: USCB 2011e.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-301

1 Population in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough is dispersed among a large number of 

2 smaller communities. The largest, Wasilla, had 9,616 residents between 2005 and 2009, and 

3 Palmer had 7,696 residents. The population in these communities constituted 20% of the 

4 population of the borough. Two communities had median household incomes of more than 

5 $50,000 over the period 2005–2009 (Palmer, $60,000; Wasilla, $53,977). 

6

7 The percentage of individuals living in poverty was slightly higher than the borough 

8 average in one community, Palmer (15.0%). Palmer (7.8%) had a higher than average 

9 percentage of American Indian or Alaska Natives.

10

11

12 3.10.2.2 Alaska – Arctic

13

14 Population in the North Slope Borough is concentrated in Barrow, with 4,078 residents 

15 between 2005 and 2009 constituting 64.7% the population of the borough (Table 3.10.2-2). Two 

16 communities had median household incomes of more than $70,000 over the period 2005–2009 

17 (Nuiqsut, $85,156; Point Hope, $73,438), while two communities had median household 

18 incomes of less than $50,000. Three communities in the borough had per capita incomes higher 

19 than the borough average over the period 2005–2009 ($19,602), while four communities had per 

20 capita incomes less than the borough average over the same period. In the Northwest Arctic 

21 Borough, population is concentrated in Kotzebue, with 3,152 residents between 2005 and 2009, 

22 constituting 42% of the Borough population. Three communities had median household incomes 

23 of more than $60,000 over the period 2005–2009 (Kobuk, $88,333; Kotzebue, $69,306; and 

24 Noatak, $63,125), while one community (Deering, $21,653) had a median household income of 

25 less than $30,000. Six communities in the borough had per capita incomes higher than the 

26 borough average over the period 2005–2009 ($14,237), while five communities had per capita 

27 incomes less than the borough average over the same period.

28

29 The percentage of individuals living in poverty in the North Slope Borough was higher 

30 than the borough average in one community (Barrow, 17.9%). All but one of communities in the 

31 borough had a high percentage of American Indian or Alaska Natives, with a lower than average 

32 percentage in Barrow. In the Northwest Arctic Borough, the percentage of individuals living in 

33 poverty was higher than the borough average in one community (Barrow, 17.9%). All but one of 

34 communities in the borough had a high percentage of American Indian or Alaska Natives, with a 

35 lower than average percentage in Barrow.

36

37

38 3.10.3 Employment, Unemployment, and Earnings

39

40

41 3.10.3.1 Gulf of Mexico

42

43 Employment in the GOM coast region in 2009 was concentrated in Florida (4.5 million 

44 employed in 2009) and Texas (3.6 million); together these States provide more than 81% of 

45 employment in the region (10.1 million) (Table 3.10.3-1). Unemployment rates for 2009 vary 

46 across the GOM coast region; the highest rates were 10.3% in Alabama and Florida, with rates 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-302

1 TABLE 3.10.2-2 Arctic Region Community Population, Income, and Poverty Status 

2 (2005–2009 Average)

Community

Total 

Residents

Median 

Household 

Income ($)

Per Capita 

Income 

($)

Percent of 

Individuals 

Living in 

Poverty

Percent 

American 

Indian/Alaska 

Native

State of Alaska 683,142 64,635 29,382 9.6 13.5

North Slope Borough 6,307 64,334 19,602 14.7 66.8

 Barrow 4,078 67,411 27,786 17.9 54.9

 Kaktovik 260 44,375 19,022 10.4 87.3

 Nuiqsut 366 85,156 17,849 0.6 94.3

 Point Hope 875 73,438 18,825 8.0 80.7

 Point Lay 194 46,875 14,067 16.8 99.0

 Wainwright 534 68,750 20,063 12.7 94.2

Northwest Arctic Borough

 Ambler

 Buckland

 Deering

 Kiana

 Kivalina

 Kobuk

 Kotzbue

 Noatak

 Noorvik

 Selawik

 Shungnak

 279

 491

 78

 344

 446

 90

 3,152

 506

 676

 801

 303

41,406

44,688

21,563

35,000

59,821

88,333

69,306

63,125

46,042

36,563

36,875

14,741

10,478

14,565

15,581

13,727

16,130

22,535

15,365

13,766

10,633

 9,090

40.5

19.4

10.3

32.3

12.3

16.7

15.5

 9.3

22.1

33.0

26.1

82.4

98.4

75.6

92.2

96.7

82.2

70.8

78.7

90.7

91.3

98.7

Source: USCB 2011e.

3

4

5 between 8.1% and 8.2% in Texas and Mississippi, and a lower rate of 6.5% in Louisiana. The 

6 average for the region as a whole was 8.9%.

7

8 The distribution of earnings in the GOM coast region reflects the concentration of 

9 employment across the five States, the $433.1 billion in combined compensation in Florida 

10 ($218.6 billion) and Texas ($214.5 billion) representing more than 80% of earnings in the region 

11 as a whole in 2009 ($537.7 billion).

12

13

14 3.10.3.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

15

16 Employment in the south central Alaska region in 2009 was concentrated in Anchorage

17 (144,403 employed in 2009), which provides almost 83% of employment in the region (188,218) 

18 (Table 3.10.3-2). Unemployment rates for 2009 vary across the south central Alaska region; the 

19 highest rate was 10.1% in Anchorage, with rates between 6.6% and 7.3% in Anchorage and 

20 Kodiak Island. The average for the region as a whole was 7.2%.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-303

1 TABLE 3.10.3-1 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Region Labor Force, Unemployment, Earnings, and 

2 Employment Composition

Employment Alabama Florida Louisiana Mississippi Texas Total

Labor Force (2009)

 Total 283,507 5,073,188 1,554,441 210,766 3,964,812 11,086,714

 Employed 254,298 4,553,309 1,453,757 193,507 3,644,160 10,099,031

 Unemployment rate 10.3% 10.3% 6.5% 8.2% 8.1% 8.9%

 Earnings ($billion) 12.2 218.6 82.1 10.2 214.5 537.7

Employment by Industrial 

Sector (2008)

 Farm employmenta 6,875 79,691 31,553 6,085 86,928 211,132

 Non-farm proprietors 75,417 1,306,323 395,915 47,781 1,019,572 2,845,008

 Forestry and fishing 1,936 26,788 11,600 2,326 18,126 60,777

 Mining 1,483 8,609 54,474 1,577 142,824 209,267

 Utilities 1,633 14,275 5,954 1,809 22,060 45,731

 Construction 32,661 395,711 165,576 23,982 398,417 1,016,348

 Manufacturing 26,469 195,115 121,830 24,228 329,400 697,042

 Wholesale and retail trade 55,713 864,588 268,537 30,277 668,588 1,887,704

 Transportation and warehousing 12,958 189,625 81,448 6,093 200,447 490,571

 Finance, insurance, and real 

 estate

31,960 644,080 151,177 15,803 403,318 1,246,339

 Services 145,577 2,631,238 818,446 93,704 1,933,388 5,622,353

 Federal civilian government 3,054 75,075 22,278 9,515 46,285 156,207

 Federal military government 3,935 63,428 26,600 13,196 26,275 133,434

 State and local government 39,067 595,626 241,896 30,478 493,954 1,401,021

a Farm employment includes farm proprietors and agricultural services employment.

Source: USDOL 2011; USDOC 2011a,b.

3

4

5 The distribution of earnings in the south central Alaska region reflects the concentration 

6 of employment across the four boroughs, the $11.2 billion in compensation in Anchorage 

7 representing almost 82% of earnings in the region as a whole in 2009 ($13.6 billion).

8

9 Personal incomes in Alaskan Native villages are lower than in the State as a whole, and 

10 unemployment, especially in smaller villages, is high, particularly during the winter when there 

11 is little alternate market-based activity. Because of the key role of subsistence in many village 

12 economies, economic data that is collected for these communities may not fully represent their 

13 economic well-being. For example, many transactions between individuals involving the 

14 exchange of subsistence products that would otherwise provide income if they took place in the 

15 marketplace are not reflected in personal income statistics. Similarly, unemployment data may 

16 not reflect the extent to which additional economic activity may be required if subsistence 

17 activities provide a sufficient alternative to participation in the marketplace. In addition, the 

18 large differences in prices between urban and rural Alaska may exaggerate the corresponding 

19 differences in economic well-being depending on the extent to which local community members 

20 in rural areas have to participate in the local market economy for key consumer items, such as 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-304

1 TABLE 3.10.3-2 South Central Alaska Region Labor Force, Unemployment, Earnings, and 

2 Employment Composition

Anchorage

Kenai 

Peninsula

Kodiak 

Island

MatanuskaSusitna

South Central 

Alaska 

Region Total

Labor Force (2009)

 Total 154,562 27,045 6,611 42,425 230,643

 Employed 144,303 24,326 6,127 38,497 213,253

 Unemployment rate 6.6 10.1 7.3 9.3 8.3

 Earnings ($b) 11.2 1.0 0.4 1.0 13.6

Employment by Industrial Sector, 2008

 Farm employmenta 0 225 0 574 799

 Non-farm proprietors 37,222 11,742 2,613 12,001 63,578

 Forestry and fishing 1,232 2,095 976 832 5,135

 Mining 3,811 1,489 24 345 5,669

 Utilities 557 263 42 143 1,006

 Construction 12,393 2,366 349 3,630 18,738

 Manufacturing 2,750 1,035 1,616 658 6,059

 Wholesale and retail trade 26,606 3,610 885 5,291 36,392

 Transportation and warehousing 12,404 1,233 316 1,360 15,313

 Finance, insurance & real estate 15,768 2,139 329 2,484 20,720

 Services 85,191 11,782 2,869 13,653 113,496

 Federal civilian government 9,464 405 345 207 10,421

 Federal military government 13,425 462 1,049 595 15,531

 State and local government 20,302 4,655 1,108 3,630 29,695

a Farm employment includes farm proprietors and agricultural services employment.

Source: USDOL 2011; USDOC 2011a, b.

3

4

5 food, clothing, and energy, and the extent to which these items can be obtained through 

6 participation in subsistence activities.

7

8 A significant portion of income for lower-income Alaskans is the Alaska Permanent Fund 

9 Dividend, an annual per capita payment from a savings account established in 1976 using a 

10 portion of royalties paid to the State from oil production on State land. Although the fund 

11 principal is constitutionally protected from being spent, the majority of the earnings from the 

12 fund are distributed to every State resident as an annual cash payment. Dividends were first paid 

13 in 1982, and the annual payment has become a growing portion of per capita personal income in 

14 the State (USDOI 2002).

15

16
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-305

1 3.10.3.3 Alaska – Arctic

2

3 Employment by place of residence in the North Slope Borough in 2009 was 5,140

4 (Table 3.10.3-3); in the Northwest Arctic Borough employment stood at 2,623 (Table 3.10.3-3). 

5 The unemployment rate for the North Slope Borough 2009 was 4.7%, and earnings were 

6 $1.4 billion; the unemployment rate for the Northwest Arctic Borough in 2009 was 12.0%, and 

7 earnings were $0.2 billion. 

8

9 Personal incomes in Alaskan Native villages are lower than in the State as a whole, and 

10 unemployment, especially in smaller villages, is high, particularly during the winter when there 

11 is little alternate market-based activity (see Section 3.10.3.2). A significant portion of income 

12 for many Alaskans is the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend, an annual per capita payment from a 

13 savings account established in 1976 using a portion of royalties paid to the State from oil 

14 production on State land (see Section 3.10.3.2).

15

16

17 3.10.4 Employment by Industry

18

19

20 3.10.4.1 Gulf of Mexico

21

22 The largest employing sectors in the GOM coast region in 2008 were services (43.1% of 

23 total employment), retail and wholesale trade (14.5%), and State and local government (10.7%) 

24 (Table 3.10.3-1). The share of total State employment in services — wholesale and retail trade 

25 and finance and insurance and real estate — was slightly higher than the GOM coast average in 

26 Florida, and the share of employment in State and local government was slightly higher in 

27 Louisiana and Mississippi.

28

29 In addition to sectoral employment distributions, counties on the GOM coast can be 

30 classified into economic types indicating primary land use patterns. Using this approach, only 

31 5 of the 129 counties in the GOM coast region are classified as farming-dependent; 9 counties 

32 are defined as mining-dependent, suggesting the importance of oil and gas development to these 

33 local economies (MMS 2005b). Manufacturing dependence is noted for another 27 of the 

34 counties. Local school districts and public facilities, such as hospitals and prisons, are often the 

35 largest employers in sparsely populated rural areas; 16 rural counties and 14 metropolitan 

36 counties are classified as government employment centers. Another 21 counties have economies 

37 tied to service employment. Thirty-nine of the 132 counties are considered major retirement 

38 destinations, and 7 of the rural counties are classified as recreation-dependent.

39

40

41 3.10.4.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

42

43 The largest employing sectors in the south central Alaska region in 2008 were services 

44 (41.0% of total employment), with retail and wholesale trade at 13.1% and State and local 

45 government at 10.7% (Table 3.10.3-2). Of the share of total State employment in services, 

46 wholesale and retail trade was slightly higher than the south central Alaska region average in 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-306

1 TABLE 3.10.3-3 Arctic Region Labor Force, Unemployment, Earnings, and Employment 

2 Composition

North Slope 

Borough

Northwest Arctic 

Borough Arctic Region Total

Labor Force (2009)

 Total 5,394 2,980 8,374

 Employed 5,140 2,623 7,763

 Unemployment rate 4.7 12.0 7.3

 Earnings ($b) 1.4 0.2 1.6

Employment by Industrial Sector, 2008a

 Farm employmentb 0 0 0

 Forestry and fishing 25 68 93

 Mining 8,342 135 8,477

 Utilities 61 15 76

 Construction 272 201 473

 Manufacturing 12 10 22

 Wholesale and retail trade 498 241 740

 Transportation and warehousing 207 197 404

 Finance, insurance and real estate 890 217 1,107

 Services 5,043 983 6,025

 Federal civilian government 24 47 71

 Federal military government 46 52 98

 State and local government 1,757 1,102 2,859

a As labor force data is by place of residence, and employment by sector is by place of work, not all 

individuals working in the North Slope Borough are included in the labor force statistics, with many 

employees commuting to the Borough from other parts of Alaska and the United States.

b Farm employment includes farm proprietors and agricultural services employment.

Source: USDOL 2011; USDOC 2011a, b.

3

4

5 Anchorage, and the share of employment in State and local government was slightly higher in 

6 the Kenai Peninsula Borough and in the Kodiak Island Borough. Employment in manufacturing 

7 and military employment was more important in the Kodiak Island Borough than elsewhere in 

8 the region.

9

10

11 3.10.4.3 Alaska – Arctic

12

13 The largest employing sectors by place of work in the Arctic region in 2008 were mining 

14 (including oil and gas) with 8,477 people employed (49.3% of total employment), services with 

15 6,025 employees (35.0%), and State and local government with 2,859 employees (16.6%) 

16 (Table 3.10.3-3). Between 2001 and 2007, approximately 70% of North Slope workers in the oil 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-307

1 and gas industry in 2001 and 2006 commuted to and from permanent residences elsewhere in 

2 Alaska, primarily in south central Alaska and Fairbanks (MMS 2008).

3

4 The North Slope Borough itself is the largest employer of the resident workforce through 

5 government positions, primarily in Barrow; Borough-provided services; and Capital 

6 Improvement Program construction projects (MMS 2006b). The regional and village 

7 corporations established by the ANCSA also provide local employment. 

8

9

10 3.10.5 Oil and Gas Employment

11

12

13 3.10.5.1 Gulf of Mexico

14

15 Oil and gas employment in the GOM coast States is concentrated in Texas, with 

16 1,639 establishments employing roughly 38,549 people in 2008, representing nearly 62% of 

17 oil and gas industry employment in the GOM States (62,314) (USCB 2011f). Louisiana is 

18 second most important State, with 767 establishments employing 23,061 people. The 

19 Houston LMA had the largest oil and gas sector employment in the GOM coast in 2004, with 

20 564 establishments employing roughly 11,882 people, followed by the New Orleans LMA, 

21 where 70 establishments employed 3,578 people (MMS 2006b).

22

23

24 3.10.5.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

25

26 Oil and gas employment in the south central region in 2007 stood at 8,636, with 

27 3,418 employed directly in oil and gas extraction activities, pipeline and refinery activities, and 

28 5,218 in support activities (AOGA 2011). Oil and gas employment was concentrated in 

29 Anchorage, where there were 5,192 total employees, with 1,649 direct and 3,543 support 

30 workers. Kenai Peninsula (2,213) and Matanuska-Susitna (1,231) supported lower levels of oil

31 and gas employment. 

32

33

34 3.10.5.3 Alaska – Arctic

35

36 Large numbers of Arctic region oil and gas workers reside in other parts of Alaska and 

37 the U.S., relocating temporarily to work locations in the Arctic region as required. Employment 

38 statistics are typically presented by place of residence, meaning that oil and gas employment for 

39 the Arctic region on this basis would be relatively small. Employment by place of work data 

40 show that there were 7,540 oil and gas workers in the Arctic region in 2007, all of whom were 

41 located in the North Slope Borough (AOGA 2011). Of these workers, 1,741 were employed 

42 directly in oil and gas extraction activities, pipeline and refinery activities, and 5,799 in support 

43 activities.

44

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-308

1 3.10.6 Population, Labor Force, and Income Projections

2

3

4 3.10.6.1 Gulf of Mexico

5

6 Projections of demographic and economic data assume the continuation of existing 

7 social, economic, and technological trends at the time of the forecast, including employment 

8 associated with the continuation of current OCS leasing activity, as well as the continuation of 

9 trends in other industries important to the region. Projections in this section are based on growth 

10 rates provided in MMS (2006b) and the most recent population employment and earnings data.

11

12 The GOM coast region is projected to experience average annual increases in population 

13 of 1.3% between 2010 and 2020, with slightly lower average annual rate of 1.2% over the period 

14 2020 to 2030 (Table 3.10.6-1). Differences in age structure, as well as net migration, among the 

15 coastal commuting zone areas could create variations in population growth within the GOM

16 coast region. Southern Florida and western Texas areas are projected to have the highest growth

17 rates, exceeding those expected for Louisiana and Mississippi. 

18

19 Average annual growth in employment of 1.5% between 2010 and 2030 is primarily 

20 driven by growth in services, and while the farming labor force is not expected to experience a 

21 high growth rate over the period, related activities in agricultural services are projected to realize

22 rapid growth rates over the 25-yr period (MMS 2006b). 

23

24 Earnings in the GOM coast region (in 2009 dollars) are projected to grow at an average 

25 annual rate of 2.4% between 2005 and 2025, and 2.5% between 2025 and 2030. Earnings in 

26 services are projected to increase rapidly during this period, contributing more to this increase 

27 than any other industry. In other industries, such as manufacturing, rapid growth in projected 

28 average wages compensate for moderate employment growth, making these industries strong 

29 contributors to overall regional income (MMS 2006b).

30

31

32 3.10.6.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

33

34 Projections of demographic and economic data assume the continuation of existing 

35 social, economic, and technological trends at the time of the forecast, including employment

36 associated with the continuation of current OCS leasing activity, as well as the continuation of 

37 trends in other industries important to the region. Projections in this section are based on 

38 population forecasts provided by the State of Alaska (Alaska Department of Labor and 

39 Workforce Development 2007) and employment and earnings data for 2009.

40

41 The south central Alaska region is projected to experience average annual increases in 

42 population of 1.27% between 2010 and 2020, with a slightly lower average annual rate of 1.07% 

43 over the period 2020 to 2030 (Table 3.10.6-2). Differences in age structure, as well as net 

44 migration, could create variations in population growth within the south central Alaska region. 

45 Between 2010 and 2020, Matanuska-Susitna (2.83%) and Anchorage (0.94%) are projected to 

46 have higher growth rates in the region, with lower rates in the Kenai Peninsula (0.77%). Rates in 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-309

1 TABLE 3.10.6-1 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Region Projections

Regional Characteristics 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Population 23,478,203 25,067,221 26,702,229 28,398,512 30,19 5,698

Employment 10,253,294 11,049,871 11,907,349 12,835,229 13,842,305

Earnings ($billion 2009) 550.8 620.9 700.0 789.7 891.7

Source: MMS 2005b, 2006b.

2

3

4 TABLE 3.10.6-2 South Central Alaska Region Projections

Regional Characteristics 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Population 444,735 473,994 504,529 534,084 561,076

Employment 214,416 228,115 242,476 256,434 269,103

Earnings ($billion 2009) 13.8 14.5 15.3 16.1 16.7

Source: MMS 2006b; Department of Labor and Workforce Development 2007.

5

6

7 Kodiak Island are expected to decline, by 0.32% between 2010 and 2020 and by 0.63% between 

8 2020 and 2030. 

9

10 Based on unemployment and labor force participation rates from 2009, employment in 

11 the south central Alaska region is expected to grow from 214,416 in 2010 to 269,103 in 2030, 

12 with the majority of employment growth occurring in Anchorage during this period. Growth 

13 rates over the 25-yr period will be driven primarily by growth in mining (including oil and gas), 

14 fisheries, and services (MMS 2006b). Earnings in the south central Alaska region (in 

15 2009 dollars) are projected to grow from $13.8 billion in 2010 to $16.7 billion in 2030, with 

16 earnings growth concentrated in Anchorage. 

17

18

19 3.10.6.3 Alaska – Arctic

20

21 Projections of demographic and economic data assume the continuation of existing 

22 social, economic, and technological trends at the time of the forecast, including employment 

23 associated with the continuation of current OCS leasing activity, as well as the continuation of 

24 trends in other industries important to the region. Projections in this section are based on 

25 population forecasts provided by the State of Alaska (Alaska Department of Labor and 

26 Workforce Development 2007) and employment and earnings data for 2009.

27

28 The Arctic region is projected to experience average annual increases in population of 

29 1.08% between 2010 and 2020, with a slightly lower average annual rates of 0.95% over the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-310

1 period 2020 to 2030 (Table 3.10.6-3). Differences in age structure, as well as net migration, 

2 could create variations in population growth within the Arctic region. 

3

4 Based on unemployment and labor force participation rates from 2009, employment in 

5 the Arctic region is expected to grow from 5,550 in 2010 to 10,091 in 2030. Growth rates over 

6 the 25-yr period are driven primarily by growth in mining (including oil and gas), fisheries, and 

7 services (MMS 2006b). Earnings in the Arctic region (in 2009 dollars) are projected to grow 

8 from $1.7 billion in 2010 to $2.1 billion in 2030. 

9

10

11 3.10.7 Economic Impacts of the Deepwater Horizon Event

12

13 The DWH event has produced significant economic impacts throughout the GOM region, 

14 affecting population, employment, and regional earnings and incomes. Impacts coming as a 

15 result of lost production will have indirect impacts in the various industries serving oil and gas 

16 production and providing retail and other services to oil and gas workers. The 6-month 

17 moratorium imposed in May 2010 on all deepwater drilling projects is projected to reduce GOM

18 production by roughly 31,000 bbl per day in the fourth quarter of 2010 and 82,000 bbl per day in 

19 2011 (EIA 2010b), and could lead to the loss of 8,200 jobs in oil and gas and associated sectors 

20 in the GOM coast region, $487 million in lost wages, and $98 million in State and local tax 

21 revenues (Mason 2011). Short-term losses to the tourism and recreation industry are also 

22 expected (see Section 3.13.6).

23

24 The relative decline in the housing market in the GOM coastal States, already stagnant as 

25 a result of the 2008 U.S. housing crisis, was further compounded by the event. Stigmatization 

26 associated with uncertainty surrounding coastal housing markets as a result of the spill have led 

27 to a reported 5–15% decrease in housing value (Seaford 2011). In addition, jurisdictions in 

28 coastal communities may have experienced a decline in property taxes, which could mean a 

29 reduction in services or a necessary increase in revenue to maintain current levels of public 

30 service provision. States that are more dependent on sales taxes from tourist activity 

31 (e.g., Florida) may experience more of an impact than other States.

32

33

34 TABLE 3.10.6-3 Arctic Region Projections

Regional Characteristics 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Population 15,002 15,887 16,699 17,449 18,348

Employment 8,267 8,755 9,194 9,597 10,091

Earnings ($billion 2009) 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1

Source: MMS 2006b; Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce 

Development 2007.

35

36
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-311

1 The long-term economic and financial impact in the GOM coast States may be offset to 

2 some extent by the short-term economic boom associated with oil spill cleanup efforts. In some 

3 communities, cleanup crews have replaced oil field workers and fishermen in some hotels and 

4 restaurants, and some fishermen have used their boats to assist cleanup activities. Companies 

5 that specialize in booms, chemical dispersant, hazardous materials training, and other spill6 related services have experienced a significant boom in business. In communities where cleanup 

7 operations are based, such as Louisiana‘s Plaquemines Parish, State revenue increased by 80% as 

8 rental properties, hotels, restaurants, and other facilities were besieged by cleanup personnel

9 (Associated Press 2010). For the 20,000 workers hired by BP in response to the oil spill, many 

10 have taken up staging areas along the coast in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana 

11 (Seaford 2011).

12

13 Timely payment of damage claims may also mitigate some of the impacts in smaller 

14 fishing communities where property damage has occurred. To assist those affected by the event, 

15 BP established a $20 billion compensation fund, and by September 2010, the fund had already 

16 paid more than $240 million to 19,000 claimants (Kollewe 2010). 

17

18 The full extent, magnitude, and duration of spill-related socioeconomic impacts on the 

19 GOM will continue to be evaluated. BOEMRE will continue to update baseline population, 

20 employment, and regional income numbers in future documents as new information becomes 

21 available from Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., the U.S. Department of Labor‘s Bureau of 

22 Labor Statistics, individual State data, and published reports. This information, however, is not 

23 needed at the programmatic stage to make a reasoned choice among alternatives (see Section 1.4, 

24 Analytical Issues). 

25

26

27 3.11 LAND USE AND INFRASTRUCTURE

28

29

30 3.11.1 Gulf of Mexico

31

32 There are five coastal States within the GOM region containing approximately 2,600 km 

33 (1,600 mi) of coastline. Land use is a heterogeneous mix of urban areas; manufacturing, marine, 

34 shipping, agricultural, and oil and gas activities; recreational areas; and tourist attractions. 

35 There are numerous urban areas in the region, and a complexity of land uses associated with 

36 urbanization can be found there. The area is composed of 67 metropolitan and 65 rural counties. 

37 The GOM coastal region contains one of the United States‘ ten most populous cities (Houston)

38 (as of 2010; Mackum and Wilson 2011), approximately16% of the nation‘s coastal population 

39 (as of 2008; Wilson and Fischetti 2010), and 12 of the nation‘s 20 largest ports (USACE 2009).

40

41 The GOM region contains a mix of bays, estuaries, wetlands, barrier islands, and beaches 

42 of great environmental and economic value. Some of these areas support fishing, shrimping, and 

43 related economic activities, and although accessibility is sometimes limited, many of these areas 

44 are very popular for recreation and tourism. Along the GOM coast are numerous State Parks and 

45 beaches as well as units of both the NPS and the USFWS. For a listing and discussion of many 

46 of these areas, see Section 3.9 (Areas of Special Concern). Notable features in the area include 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-312

1 Padre Island National Seashore, the Atchafalaya Basin, the Mississippi Delta, Mobile Bay, and 

2 Everglades National Park. 

3

4 All of the States in the GOM region participate in the National Coastal Zone 

5 Management (CZM) Program and have taken various approaches to managing their coastal 

6 lands. The National CZM Program is a voluntary partnership between the Federal Government 

7 and U.S. coastal and Great Lakes States and territories (States) authorized by the Coastal Zone 

8 Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) to address national coastal issues. Key elements of the 

9 National CZM Program include the following:

10

11 • Protecting natural resources; 

12

13 • Managing development in high hazard areas;

14

15 • Giving development priority to coastal-dependent uses;

16

17 • Providing public access for recreation; and

18

19 • Coordinating State and Federal actions.

20

21 The coastal area of the States in the GOM region is very diverse. Military facilities and 

22 training areas in this region are discussed in Section 3.9.2.3. Areas of Special Concern, 

23 including the National Marine Sanctuaries, National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and 

24 National Marine Protected Areas, are discussed in Section 3.9. The States along the GOM coast 

25 have authority over submerged lands out to approximately 5.6 km (3 NM [3.5 statute mi]) with 

26 the exception of Texas and Florida, which have jurisdiction out to approximately 14.5 km 

27 (3 leagues [9 statute mi]).

28

29 The U.S. Department of Agriculture‘s Economic Research Service (ERS) classifies 

30 nonmetropolitan counties into economic types that indicate primary land use patterns 

31 (ERS 2011). Land use patterns for counties near the GOM (as of 2004, the latest year for which 

32 figures are available) are shown in Figure 3.11.1-1. Five of the 90 nonmetropolitan counties are 

33 classified by ERS as farming-dependent. Eight counties are defined as mining-dependent, 

34 suggesting the importance of oil and gas activities to these local economies. Manufacturing 

35 dependence is noted for another 25 of the nonmetropolitan counties; while 30 of the 

36 90 nonmetropolitan counties are classified by ERS as government employment centers, and 18 of 

37 the nonmetropolitan counties have economies tied to service employment. The ERS also 

38 classifies counties in terms of their status as a retirement destination. Thirty-eight of the 

39 90 nonmetropolitan counties are considered major retirement destinations by ERS. Of these, 

40 ten are inshore of the Eastern GOM Planning Area where little offshore development has taken 

41 place (see Figure 3.11.1-2).

42

43 Oil and gas development and production play an important role in determining land uses 

44 in many communities surrounding the GOM. These are the locations from which offshore 

45 operations are staged and where the exploration and production equipment, personnel, and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-313

12 FIGURE 3.11.1

-1 Land Use Patterns for Coastal Counties in the GOM Region

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-314

12 FIGURE 3.11.1

-2 Counties with Significant Retirement Economies in the GOM Region

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-315

1 supplies used for oil and gas operations on the OCS in the GOM originate (Louis Berger Group, 

2 Inc. 2004). The use of these facilities and trends in new facility development closely follow the 

3 level of activity in offshore drilling, with increased deepwater drilling having provided an 

4 important stimulus for increased facility use and development in recent decades. Because of the 

5 large size of the structures involved, construction and servicing of remote deepwater facilities 

6 require deeper ports than nearshore operations. There are several ports with deepwater access 

7 along the GOM coast, with deepwater development activities occurring around these ports. With 

8 the expansion of deepwater activities, some onshore facilities have migrated to these ports and 

9 nearby areas that have capabilities for handling deepwater vessels, which require more draft

10 (see Figure 3.11.1-3). As previously indicated, the GOM contains 12 of the nation‘s 20 largest 

11 ports (USACE 2009).

12

13 The western and central portions of the GOM region (offshore Texas, Louisiana, 

14 Mississippi, and Alabama) are major offshore oil and gas areas, and most of the equipment and 

15 facilities supporting offshore GOM oil and gas operations are located in these areas. Only 

16 limited offshore activities (i.e., exploratory activities, a single major project) have occurred in the 

17 eastern portion of the region, and there is very little infrastructure in place to support exploration 

18 and development of offshore oil and gas off the GOM coast of Florida. Current data indicate 

19 there are more than 3,900 fixed structures located in the GOM at depths up to 518 m (1,700 ft) 

20 (Dismukes 2011).

21

22 Oil and gas activities on the OCS are supported by onshore infrastructure industries 

23 consisting of thousands of contractors responsible for virtually every facet of the activity, 

24 including supply, maintenance, and crew bases. These contractors are hired to service 

25 production areas, provide material and manpower support, and repair and maintain facilities 

26 along the coasts. Nearly all of these support industries are found near ports.

27

28 There are hundreds of onshore facilities in the GOM region that support the offshore 

29 industry. Platform fabrication facilities are located along the GOM from the Texas-Mexico 

30 border to the Florida Panhandle, and employ large numbers of workers during periods of active 

31 development. Shipbuilding and repair facilities are located in key ports along the GOM coast. 

32

33 Other offshore support industries are responsible for such products and services as engine 

34 and turbine construction and repair, electric generators, chains, gears, tools, pumps, compressors,

35 and a variety of other tools. In addition, drilling muds, chemicals, and fluids are produced and 

36 transported from onshore support facilities, and these materials and other equipment are stored in 

37 warehouses near GOM ports. Many types of transportation vessels and helicopters are used to 

38 transport workers and materials to and from OCS platforms. Crew quarters and bases are also 

39 near ports, but some helicopter facilities are located farther inland.

40

41 Existing OCS-related infrastructure in the region includes:

42

43 • Port Facilities. Major maritime staging areas for movement between onshore 

44 industries and infrastructure and offshore leases.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-316

12 FIGURE 3.11.1

-3 GOM Port Facilities

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-317

1 • Platform Fabrication Yards. Facilities in which platforms are constructed and 

2 assembled for transportation to offshore areas. Facilities can also be used for 

3 maintenance and storage.

4

5 • Shipyards and Shipbuilding Yards. Facilities in which ships, drilling 

6 platforms, and crew boats are constructed and maintained.

7

8 • Support and Transport Facilities. Facilities and services that support the 

9 offshore activities. This includes repair and maintenance yards, supply bases, 

10 crew services, and heliports.

11

12 • Pipelines. Infrastructure that is used to transport oil and gas from offshore 

13 facilities to onshore processing sites and ultimately to end users.

14

15 • Pipe Coating Yards. Sites that condition and coat pipelines used to transport 

16 oil and gas from offshore production locations.

17

18 • Natural Gas Processing Facilities and Storage Facilities. Sites that process 

19 natural gas and separate its component parts for the market, or that store 

20 processed natural gas for use during peak periods.

21

22 • Refineries. Industrial facilities that process crude oil into numerous end-use 

23 and intermediate-use products.

24

25 • Petrochemical Plants. Industrial facilities that intensively use oil and natural 

26 gas and their associated byproducts for fuel and feedstock purposes.

27

28 • Waste Management Facilities. Sites that process drilling and production 

29 wastes associated with offshore oil and gas activities (Dismukes 2011).

30

31 Figures 3.11.1-4 and 3.11.1-5 show key onshore infrastructure including ports, supply 

32 bases, shipyards, platform fabrication yards, pipe yards, oil refineries, gas processing facilities, 

33 helicopter pads, pipelines, and other infrastructure. 

34

35 A short description of each type of infrastructure facility can be found below. Unless 

36 otherwise indicated, the following information is from the MMS study, Deepwater Program: 

37 OCS-Related Infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico Fact Book (Louis Berger Group, Inc. 2004) 

38 and its update, Infrastructure Fact Book, Volume I: OCS-Related Energy Infrastructure and 

39 Post-Hurricane Impact Assessment (Dismukes 2011); more detailed information can be found in 

40 these two reports.

41

42

43 3.11.1.1 Ports

44

45 States along the GOM provide substantial amounts of support to service the OCS oil and 

46 gas industry. Service bases and other industries at many ports offer a variety of services and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-318

1

2 FIGURE 3.11.1-4 Oil and Gas Infrastructure Locations in the GOM Region Western Planning 

3 Area

4

5
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-319

12 FIGURE 3.11.1

-5 Oil and Gas Infrastructure Locations in the GOM Region Central Planning Area

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-320

1 support activities to assist the industry. Personnel, supplies, and equipment must come from the 

2 land-based support industry and pass through a port to reach drilling sites. In addition to 

3 servicing the offshore oil and gas industry, a number of GOM ports also are commercial ports, 

4 such as those in: Mobile, Alabama; Pascagoula, Mississippi; Lake Charles, Morgan City, 

5 Plaquemines and Venice, Louisiana; and Corpus Christi, Freeport, Galveston, and Port Arthur, 

6 Texas. Other ports include a combination of local recreation and offshore service activity.

7

8 GOM ports include a wide variety of shore-side operations from intermodal transfer to 

9 manufacturing. The ports vary widely in size, ownership, and functional characteristics. Private 

10 ports operate as dedicated terminals to support the operation of an individual company. They 

11 often integrate both fabrication and offshore transport into their activities. Public ports lease 

12 space to individual business ventures and derive benefit through leases, fees charged, and jobs 

13 created. GOM ports, including deepwater ports, are shown in Figures 3.11.1-3.

14

15

16 3.11.1.2 Platform Fabrication Yards

17

18 Offshore drilling and production platforms are fabricated onshore at platform-fabrication 

19 yards and then towed to an offshore location for installation. Production operations at 

20 fabrication yards include cutting and welding of steel components, construction of living quarters 

21 and other structures, and assembly of platform components. According to the Atlantic 

22 Communications 2006 Gulf Coast Oil Directory, there are more than 80 platform fabrication 

23 yards located in the GOM region, with the concentration in Louisiana and Texas (as cited in 

24 Dismukes 2011). The distribution of fabrication yards within the region is shown in 

25 Figures 3.11.1-4 and 3.11.1-5.

26

27 Because platform fabrication yards must be located on navigable channels large enough 

28 to allow for towing of bulky and long structures such as offshore drilling and production 

29 platforms, most fabrication yards in the region are located along the Intracoastal Waterway and 

30 within easy access of the GOM. A number of these plants have deep channel access to their 

31 facilities, which allows them to handle the deeper draft vessels used for deepwater operations.

32

33 Because of the size of the fabricated product and the need to store a large quantity of 

34 materials such as metal pipes and beams, fabrication yards typically occupy large areas, ranging 

35 from just a few acres to several hundred acres. Typical fabrication yard equipment include lifts 

36 and cranes, various types of welding equipment, rolling mills, and sandblasting machinery. 

37 Besides large open spaces required for jacket assembly, fabrication yards also have covered 

38 warehouses and shops. 

39

40 Fabrication yards typically specialize in the production of one type of platform or one 

41 type of platform component. Few facilities have complete capabilities for all facets of offshore 

42 projects, and yards may cooperate in the development of platforms. Despite the large number of 

43 platform fabrication facilities in the GOM region, only a few facilities can handle large-scale 

44 fabrication. Recently, in an attempt to diversify their activities, many fabrication yards have 

45 expanded their operations into areas such as maintenance and renovations of drilling rigs, 

46 fabrication of barges and other marine vessels, drydocking, and surveying of equipment.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-321

1 3.11.1.3 Shipyards

2

3 A 2007 report from USDOT indicated that only 28 private shipyards with major 

4 shipbuilding and repair bases were present within the GOM. This figure represented active 

5 shipbuilding yards, other shipyards with building positions, repair yards with dry dock facilities, 

6 and topside repair yards (USDOT 2007). A private count of shipyards dated August 2011 

indicated that there were 80 shipyards14 7 located on the GOM coast (MarineLog 2011). 

8

9 In addition to the major shipyards, there are about 2,600 other companies that build or 

10 repair other craft such as tugboats, supply boats, ferries, fishing vessels, barges, and pleasure 

11 boats. Major shipyards in the GOM region are located primarily in Texas and Louisiana; 

12 however, several are located in Pascagoula, Mississippi, and other locations east of the 

13 Mississippi River (USDOT 2004). Recent high demand, driven in part by the expansion of 

14 deepwater oil and gas operations, has led to the expansion of capacity by smaller shipyards, 

15 which are building more and larger vessels that are technologically more sophisticated. This 

16 expansion has been accompanied by development of new pipe and fabrication shops, drydock 

17 extensions, military work enhancement programs, automated steel process buildings, and 

18 expanded design programs. The distribution of shipyards within the region is shown in 

19 Figures 3.11.1-4 and 3.11.1-5.

20

21

22 3.11.1.4 Support and Transport Facilities 

23

24 A variety of facilities and services support offshore activities by providing supplies, 

25 equipment repair and maintenance services, services for crews, and transportation, including 

26 boats and heliports. Figures 3.11.1-4 and 3.11.1-5 show the distribution of various support and 

27 transport facilities in the GOM region.

28

29 The main types of vessels used in the GOM offshore industry include anchor handling 

30 towing supply (AHTS), offshore supply vessels (OSVs), and crewboats. There is a large fleet of 

31 offshore tugs (AHTS vessels) whose sole job is to tow rigs from one location to another and to 

32 position the rig‘s anchors. Offshore supply vessels deliver drilling supplies such as liquid mud, 

33 dry bulk cement, fuel, drinking water, drill pipe, casing, and a variety of other supplies to drilling 

34 rigs and platforms. Crewboats transport personnel to, from, and between offshore rigs and 

35 platforms. There are a variety of other types of vessels used by the oil and gas industry, and 

36 these vessels originate in a variety of locations along the GOM coast at or near ports.

37

38 Helicopters are one of the primary modes of transporting personnel between service bases 

39 and offshore platforms, drilling rigs, derrick barges, and pipeline construction barges. 

40 Helicopters are routinely used for normal crew changes and at other times to transport 

41 management and special service personnel to offshore exploration and production sites. In 

 

14 Shipyards consist of builders of large oceangoing naval and/or commercial ships; builders of mid-sized 

oceangoing ships, rigs, oceangoing barges; and builders of small ships, boats, and barges for coastal or inland 

service. It does not include repairers, builders of aluminum boats, or builders of yachts. The number was 

determined by hand counting the individual addresses listed for each of the facilities (MarineLog 2011). 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-322

1 addition, equipment and supplies are sometimes transported. For small parts needed for an 

2 emergency repair or for a costly piece of equipment, it is more economical to get it to and from 

3 offshore fast rather than by supply boat.

4

5

6 3.11.1.5 Pipelines

7

8 Locations where offshore pipelines cross the shoreline to land are referred to as pipeline 

9 landfalls. In the GOM region, about 60% of OCS pipelines entering State waters tie into existing 

10 pipeline systems and thus do not require pipeline landfalls. Only a small percentage of onshore 

11 pipelines in the region are a direct result of oil and gas activities on the OCS. There are more 

12 than 100 active OCS pipelines making landfall (about 80% of these are in Louisiana), resulting 

13 in about 200 km (124 mi) of pipelines onshore. About 80% of the onshore length of OCS 

14 pipelines is in Louisiana, and about 20% are in Texas. The distribution of pipelines by State is 

15 shown in Figures 3.11.1-4 and 3.11.1-5.

16

17 Inland, the pipeline network in the GOM coast States is extensive. Pipelines transport 

18 crude oil and natural gas to processing plants and refineries, natural gas from producing States in 

19 the GOM region to users in other States, refined petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel 

20 from refineries in the GOM region to markets all over the country, and chemical products.

21

22

23 3.11.1.6 Pipecoating Plants and Yards

24

25 Pipecoating plants are facilities where pipe surfaces are coated with metallic, inorganic, 

26 and organic materials to protect against corrosion and abrasion. These facilities generally do not 

27 manufacture or supply pipe, although some facilities are associated with mills where certain 

28 kinds of pipes are manufactured. More typically, the manufactured pipe is shipped by rail or 

29 water to pipecoating plants or their pipe yards. The coated pipe is stored at the pipe yard until it 

30 is needed offshore. It is then placed on barges or layships where the contractors weld the pipe 

31 sections together and clean and coat the newly welded joints. Finally, the pipe is laid.

32

33 Pipecoating plants in the GOM region are located primarily in Texas and Louisiana, with 

34 a small number of plants in the eastern GOM States. In recent years, pipecoating companies 

35 have been expanding capacity or building new plants to respond to increased demand from 

36 deepwater oil and gas operations. The distribution of pipecoating plants within the region is 

37 shown in Figures 3.11.1-4 and 3.11.1-5.

38

39

40 3.11.1.7 Natural Gas Processing Plants and Storage Facilities

41

42 After raw gas is brought to the Earth‘s surface (either dissolved in the crude oil, 

43 combined with crude oil deposits, or from separate non-oil-associated deposits), it is processed 

44 at a gas processing plant to remove impurities and to transform it into a sellable commodity. 

45 Centrally located to serve different fields, natural gas processing plants have two main purposes: 

46 (1) remove essentially all impurities from the gas and (2) separate the gas into its useful 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-323

1 components for eventual distribution to consumers. After processing, the gas is then moved into 

2 a pipeline system for transportation to an area where it is sold. Because natural gas reserves are 

3 not evenly spaced across the continent, an efficient, reliable gas transportation system is 

4 essential.

5

6 As of 2006, there were 249 gas processing plants in the GOM States, representing 

7 58% of U.S. gas processing capacity. The distribution of these plants by State is shown in 

8 Figures 3.11.1-4 and 3.11.1-5. More than half of the current natural gas processing plant 

9 capacity in the United States is located near the GOM coast in Texas and Louisiana. Four of 

10 the largest capacity natural gas processing/treatment plants are found in Louisiana, while the 

11 greatest number of individual natural gas plants is located in Texas. In 2006, Louisiana led the 

12 United States in processing capacity, followed closely by Texas. In Alabama, Mississippi, and 

13 the eastern portion of south Louisiana, new larger plants and plant expansions were built to serve 

14 new offshore production, increasing the average plant capacity significantly (EIA 2006). 

15

16

17 3.11.1.8 Refineries

18

19 A refinery is a complex industrial facility designed to produce various useful petroleum 

20 products from crude oil. Refineries vary in size, sophistication, and cost depending on their 

21 location, the types of crude they refine, and the petroleum products they manufacture. One-third 

22 of operable U.S. petroleum refineries are located in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. 

23 Most of the GOM region‘s refineries are located in Texas and Louisiana. As of 2010, Texas had 

24 23 operating refineries, with a combined crude oil capacity of 4.7 million bbl/day, while 

25 Louisiana had 17 operating refineries with 3.2 million bbl/day of capacity, with the combined 

26 capacity of the two States representing more than 40% of total operating U.S. refining capacity 

27 (EIA 2010a). The distribution of these refineries within the region is shown in Figures 3.11.1-4

28 and 3.11.1-5.

29

30

31 3.11.1.9 Petrochemical Plants

32

33 The chemical industry converts raw materials such as oil, natural gas, air, water, metals, 

34 and minerals into more than 70,000 different products. The industrial organic chemical sector 

35 includes thousands of chemicals and hundreds of processes. The non-fuel components derived 

36 from crude oil and natural gas are known as petrochemicals. The processes of importance in 

37 petrochemical manufacturing are distillation, solvent extraction, crystallization, absorption, 

38 adsorption, cracking, reforming, alkylation, isomerization, and polymerization. Laid out like 

39 industrial parks, most petrochemical complexes include plants that manufacture any combination 

40 of primary, intermediate, and end-use products. Chemical manufacturing facility sites are 

41 typically chosen for their access to raw materials and to transportation routes. And, because the 

42 chemical industry is its own best customer, facilities tend to cluster near such end-users. 

43

44 As of 2007, there were 56 petrochemical manufacturing establishments in the United 

45 States, 32 of which were in Texas and Louisiana (U.S. Census Bureau 2011a). As of 2007, 

46 Texas (with 26 petrochemical manufacturing facilities) and Louisiana (with six petrochemical 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-324

1 manufacturing facilities) contain more facilities than any other States in the United States. 

2 Alabama also had two petrochemical manufacturing facilities, primarily because petroleum and 

3 natural gas feedstocks are available from refineries. The distribution of these plants within the 

4 region is shown in Figures 3.11.1-4 and 3.11.1-5.

5

6

7 3.11.1.10 Waste Management Facilities

8

9 A number of different types of waste are generated as a result of offshore exploration and 

10 production activity. The physical and chemical characters of these wastes make certain 

11 management methods preferable over others. The infrastructure network needed to manage the 

12 spectrum of waste generated by OCS exploration and production activities and returned to land 

13 for management can be divided into three categories:

14

15 1. Transfer facilities at ports, where the waste is transferred from supply boats to 

16 another transportation mode, either barge or truck, toward a final point of 

17 disposition;

18

19 2. Special-purpose, oil field waste management facilities, which are dedicated to 

20 handling particular types of oil field waste; and

21

22 3. Generic waste management facilities, which receive waste from many

23 American industries, with waste generated in the oil field being only a small 

24 part.

25

26 Regulations governing waste management facilities regarding storage, processing, and 

27 disposal vary depending on the type of waste. Waste management facilities in the GOM region 

28 that handle OCS oil and gas activity-related waste include transfer facilities, commercial salt 

29 dome disposal facilities, and landfills. Locations of major waste management facilities within 

30 the region (not including landfills) are shown in Figures 3.11.1-4 and 3.11.1-5.

31

32

33 3.11.1.11 Effects of Deepwater Horizon Event

34

35 As a result of the DWH event, land use experienced a short-term impact because 

36 temporary waste staging areas and decontamination areas were set up to handle the spill-related 

37 waste. 

38

39 The impacts of the drilling moratorium put in place after the DWH event and subsequent 

40 permitting delays have affected some GOM ports and OCS infrastructure. Demand for services 

41 and supplies has dropped as a result. Some companies have removed a large portion of their 

42 equipment from Port Fourchon, and there has been a substantial decrease in helicopter flights 

43 and servicing of rigs. Many companies have had to cut staff hours and salaries. Support services 

44 companies, such as chemical suppliers and welders, have also been affected (Lohr 2010). The 

45 effects of this decreased demand will ripple through the various infrastructure categories 

46 (e.g., fabrication yards, shipyards, port facilities, pipecoating facilities, gas processing facilities, 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-325

1 and waste management facilities) and will affect the oil and gas support sector businesses 

2 (e.g., drilling contractors, offshore support vessels, helicopter hubs, and mud/drilling 

3 fluid/lubricant suppliers). 

4

5 It is too early to determine substantial, long-term changes in routine event impacts on 

6 land use and infrastructure as a result of the DWH event. BOEM anticipates that these changes 

7 will become apparent over time, and it will continue to monitor all resources for changes that are 

8 applicable to land use and infrastructure. This information, however, is not needed at the 

9 programmatic stage to make a reasoned choice among alternatives (see Section 1.4, Analytical 

10 Issues).

11

12

13 3.11.1.12 Climate Change

14

15 Coastal Louisiana provides an unstable land surface for development in many areas 

16 because of ongoing subsidence, exposure to tropical storms and hurricanes, and upstream and 

17 downstream alterations of the hydrology and sediment load and redistribution processes of the 

18 Mississippi River (see Section 3.4.4.1, Marine and Coastal Habitats). Even without considering 

19 the effects of climate change, coastal Louisiana is expected to undergo considerable landscape 

20 change during the life of the Program as a result of these processes. A 2004 U.S. Geological 

21 Survey (USGS) report includes projections of the areas of coastal Louisiana that are expected to 

22 experience land loss and land gain by 2050, a date that nearly coincides with the end of the 

23 40–50-yr life of the Program (Barras et al. 2004). Projected areas of land gain and loss are 

24 shown in Figure 3.11.1-6 along with the locations of existing coastal OCS-related infrastructure. 

25 A visual inspection of the map shows a clear association between infrastructure locations and 

26 land loss in some areas.

27

28 The authors of the 2004 USGS report did not consider the effects of climate change on 

29 coastal processes that are expected to occur between now and 2050 as a factor affecting land loss

30 (Barras et al. 2004). The USGS developed the data shown in Figure 3.11.1-6 by projecting into 

31 the future land loss patterns and rates that have been observed and studied for more than two 

32 decades. Climate change related effects that could affect land loss patterns include projected 

33 acceleration in the rate of rise of sea level, increase in the frequency and intensity of tropical 

34 weather systems in the GOM, and possible alterations in the hydrology and hydraulics of the 

35 Mississippi River system (IPCC 2007; Barras et al. 2004). The USGS projections should 

36 therefore be considered a minimum land loss scenario for the year 2050 because the climate 

37 change effects that were not considered in the analysis, such as accelerated submergence and 

38 increased occurrence of large storms, should act to favor land loss over land accretion.

39

40 Table 3.11.1-1 lists the types of infrastructure facilities discussed in the previous parts of 

41 this section in decreasing order of the percentage of facilities of that type that are projected to be 

42 affected by land loss. A facility was considered potentially affected by land loss if its location 

occurred within the 1-km2 (0.4-mi2 43 ) cell that the original USGS data projected would experience 

44 land loss by 2050. The table shows that 38% of all terminal locations (or 145 individual 

45 terminals) are located in cells projected to experience land loss. Only 2% of electric generator 

46 locations, in contrast, are located in cells projected to experience land loss. The table also shows 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-326

12 FIGURE 3.11.1

-6 Land Loss Effects on Infrastructure Sites 2000-2050, GOM Region 

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-327

1 TABLE 3.11.1-1 Land Loss Effects on OCS-Related Facilities

Facility Type

Percent of 

Facilities with 

Local Land Loss

Number 

of Sites 

Affected

Average 

Percent of 

Nearby 

Land Loss

Terminals 38 145 10

Ship repair yard 32 25 10

Services bases 32 18 7

Heliports 23 45 6

Ports 18 3 10

Waste handling sites 15 5 20

Platform fabrication 14 5 4

Refineries 13 2 7

Electric generators 2 4 2

Petrochemical plants 0 0 0

Pipe coating yards 0 0 0

Gas storage and processing 0 0 0

2

3

4 that all petrochemical plants, pipe coating yards, and gas storage and processing facilities, and 

5 nearly all electric generator facilities are located in areas where land loss is not expected to occur 

6 and therefore this would not be an issue affecting the viability of these kinds of facilities.

7

8 This analysis suggests that land conditions in coastal Louisiana could become more 

9 unsuitable for some infrastructure uses during the life of the Program. Based on the data 

10 analyzed, terminals, ship repair yards, and service bases have the highest percentages of facility 

11 sites located in areas expected to experience land loss. These facilities are also located in areas 

12 expected to experience a relatively large amount of land loss, averaging nearly 10% of the 

13 nearby land, and would therefore likely be the most affected by the land changes expected to 

14 occur by 2050. As mentioned previously, the effects of climate change during the Program will 

15 likely act to increase the land loss amounts shown in the table.

16

17 This analysis focuses on land loss in coastal Louisiana. These are the result of ongoing 

18 coastal processes. Climate change will in all probability exacerbate land loss, but there are no 

19 quantified projections of land loss resulting from climate change. The intent of the analysis is to 

20 illustrate the potential effect on the viability of existing OCS-related coastal infrastructure during 

21 the life of the Program.

22

23 The analysis suggests that this possibility exists and that the potential effect varies among 

24 infrastructure facility types. The effects of land loss and submergence on OCS-related 

25 infrastructure in coastal Louisiana have already begun to be addressed by the LA 1 Coalition, a 

26 non-profit organization working to improve transportation along the energy corridor through 

27 coastal Louisiana to the GOM. They have evaluated highway closures that could occur along 

28 LA 1 highway, a critical transportation link for OCS-related service and support bases, as a result 

29 of coastal submergence by 2050. Their analysis suggests that by 2030 critical sections of the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-328

1 highway could be closed up to 6% of the time and that by 2050 closures could occur 55% of the 

2 time (LA1 Coalition 2011). Such closures could have large effects on the OCS industry because 

3 of the high volume of OCS-related support and service products and materials transported across 

4 the highway.

5

6

7 3.11.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

8

9 The Municipaility of Anchorage, the Kenai Peninsula Borough, and the Matanuska10 Susitna Borough in south central Alaska, along with the Kodiak Island Borough along the 

11 southern Cook Inlet, are the population centers of the State, with 60–65% of its population 

12 (USCB 2011b). Anchorage is the State center for scheduled aircraft and the regional center for 

13 chartered aircraft. Anchorage has a cargo facility that is served by a railroad connecting it to 

14 Alaska‘s interior and the port at Seward. Anchorage is home to two military bases and the center 

15 for the State‘s overall road network. As of 2010, the Borough of Anchorage had a population of 

16 approximately 291,826 (USCB 2011b). This estimate is seasonally variable.

17

18 The Cook Inlet and Kenai Peninsula area has an extensive road network and is served by 

19 the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport in Anchorage, as well as numerous smaller 

20 airfields and facilities. The more remote west side of Cook Inlet is not connected to the road 

21 system, and is home to the village of Tyonek, Alaska, a number of commercial set-net fish sites, 

22 and a number of oil camps.

23

24 The lands in the vicinity of the Cook Inlet Planning Area include large National Parks, 

25 National Wildlife Refuges, and a National Forest, including the Lake Clark National Park and

26 Preserve, the Katmai Park and Preserve, the Kenai Fjords National Park, the Kenai National 

27 Wildlife Refuge, the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, and the Chugach National Forest (for a 

28 listing and discussion of these areas, see Section 3.9.2). The region also has numerous smaller 

29 State and municipal parks and refuges, and is economically important as a transportation hub, 

30 business center, tourism destination, and area of oil and gas activities.

31

32 The Port of Anchorage is the fourth largest port in Alaska (after Valdez, Nikiski, and 

33 Kivilina), and was ranked as the 96th largest port in the United States in 2009 (USACE 2010). 

34 The Port of Anchorage generally is limited to the use of barges and small container ships because 

35 of its shallow water depths and extreme tide variations. The port also serves as a staging and 

36 fabrication site for modules that are shipped to the North Slope for use in oil and gas activities.

37

38 Two ports are located on the east side of Cook Inlet, the Port of Homer in Kachemak Bay 

39 and a collection of special-purpose docks located in and around the town of Nikiski. The Port of 

40 Nikiski is the second largest port in Alaska (after Valdez), and was ranked as the 69th largest 

41 port in the United States in 2007 (USACE 2009).

42

43 Oil and gas are produced both onshore and offshore on State lands in the region; 

44 however, there are currently no active Federal leases in Cook Inlet. There are 16 active offshore 

45 production platforms in the Cook Inlet (Cook Inlet Regional Citizens Advisory Council 2011) on 

46 State submerged lands, north of the Cook Inlet Planning Area. There are onshore treatment 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-329

1 facilities along the shores of the upper Cook Inlet and approximately 356 km (221 mi) of 

2 undersea pipelines, 126 km (78 mi) of oil pipeline, and 240 km (149 mi) of gas pipeline. These 

3 facilities, in addition to onshore pipelines, are listed in Tables 3.11.2-1 and 3.11.2-2 and shown 

4 in Figure 3.11.2-1.

5

6 Existing Cook Inlet region crude oil production (offshore and onshore) is handled 

7 through the Trading Bay production facility (Figure 3.11.2-1) and the Tesoro Refinery. Cook

8 Inlet–produced gas is consumed by a variety of users: it is burned for electric power at Chugach 

9 Electric Association‘s Beluga power-generation plant or transported to Anchorage for local 

10 usage.

11

12 The Trading Bay facility pipelines its received crude oil production to the Drift River 

13 tanker-loading facility at the Drift River Terminal. Facilities on both the Kenai Peninsula and in 

14 Anchorage have been used to fabricate large support modules for oil and gas development and 

15 production. With oil reserves mostly depleted, development in Cook Inlet in recent years has 

16 focused on natural gas; however, the Nikiski liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant, the only LNG 

17 export facility in the United States, closed in February 2011 (LNG World News 2011). The 

18 Agrium U.S., Inc., chemical plant, which also utilized Cook Inlet-produced gas, closed in 2008 

19 (Agrium, Inc. 2007).

20

21 Since 1996, all Drift River tanker loadings are transported to the Tesoro Nikiski refinery, 

22 north of the city of Kenai. The Tesoro Refinery can process up to 72,000 barrels per day (bpd). 

23 The refinery produces ultra low sulfur gasoline, jet fuel, ultra low sulfur diesel, heating oil, 

24 heavy fuel oils, propane, and asphalt. Crude oil is delivered by double-hulled tankers via the

25 Cook Inlet and Kenai Peninsula pipelines. A 114-km (71-mi), 40,000 bpd common-carrier 

26 products pipeline transports jet fuel, gasoline, and diesel to the Port of Anchorage and the 

27 Anchorage International Airport. Wholesale delivery occurs through terminals in Kenai, 

28 Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Tesoro‘s Nikiski dock (Tesoro Corporation 2011).

29

30 In addition to oil- and gas-related activities, the Cook Inlet Planning Area and the land 

31 surrounding it are also important for commercial and recreational fisheries and hunting, as well 

32 as tourism and recreation. Subsistence use patterns of Cook Inlet are varied. As shown in 

33 Section 3.14.2, both urban and rural populations participate in hunting and fishing activities.

34

35 While facilities are present to support exploration and development of offshore oil and 

36 gas resources, existing and planned activities associated with exploration activities still would 

37 need to be consistent with current, local plans and initiatives. Within the State, Alaska Statutes 

38 provide certain cities and boroughs (i.e., municipalities) the authority for planning and land use 

39 regulation (Alaska Department of Commerce 2007; Freer 2003); activities that occur within the 

40 boundaries of the coastal zones of these municipalities, including their offshore coastal zones, 

41 would require permitting and approval from the relevant municipality prior to those activities 

42 proceeding (MMS 2003a). The Inlet is primarily comprised of land located within the Kenai 

43 Peninsula Borough, with some portions within the municipality of Anchorage, the Kodiak Island 

44 Borough, and other governmental jurisdictions.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-330

1 TABLE 3.11.2-1 Past and Present Operational Gas Pipelines in Cook Inlet and Cook Inlet Basin

ID Current Operator

Location of 

Field or Pool Location Installed

Length 

in 

Miles

a

Line 

Diameter in 

Inches

Offshore Cook Inlet Pipelines a Unocal Offshore Baker to Platform A 1965 2.5 

8

b Cross Timbers Offshore Platform A to C 1967 2.2 8

c Cross Timbers Offshore Platform C to Dillon 1967 2.2 8

d Unocal Offshore Dillion to shore 1966 5.6 8

e Unocal Offshore Grayling to shore 1967 6.0 10 f Unocal Offshore King Salmon to shore 1967 7.0 8 g Unocal Offshore Dolly Varden to shore 1967 5.7 8 h Unocal Offshore Steelhead to shore 1986 6.5

(13)

2–10 lines

i Unocal Offshore Monopod to shore 1966 9.0 8

j Unocal Offshore Spurr to shore 1968 8.4 6

k Marathon Offshore Spark to shore 1968 7.2 6

l Unocal Offshore Anna to Bruce 1966 1.6 8

m Unocal Offshore Bruce to shore 19745 6

n Unocal Offshore Granite Point to shore 1966 6.0 8

o Phillips Offshore Tyonek ―A‖ to shore 1968 13

(26)

2–10 lines

p Marathon Offshore Marine CIGGS, Granite Point to Nikiski

b 1972 21

(42)

2–10 lines

Onshore Kenai Peninsula Pipelines q Kenai Pipeline Onshore Swanson River to Nikiski 1960 19.2 16 r Marathon Onshore Beaver Creek Field to Enstar Royalty Line 1982 4 12 s Phillips Onshore Onshore continuation of Tyonek ―A‖ to Nikiski 1968 26 16 t Marathon Onshore Kenai Gas Field to Nikiski 1965 17 20 u Enstar Onshore Kenai Mainline: Kenai Gas Field to Anchorage Variousc 71

(142)

2–12 lines

v Military Pipeline (Enstar Lease) Onshore Anchorage to Whittier 1966

d 47 

8

w Marathon Onshore Kenai Gas Field to Enstar Kenai Mainline 1965

e

3 8

x Enstar Onshore Enstar Royalty Line: Nikiski to Enstar Kenai Mainline 1978 25 8
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-331

TABLE 3.11.2-1 (Cont.)

ID Current Operator

Location of 

Field or Pool Location Installed

Length 

in 

Milesa

Line 

Diameter in 

Inches

Onshore West Cook Inlet Pipelines

y Unocal Onshore Stump Lake and Ivan River Fields to Entar 1990 14 6 and 8

z Forest Oil Onshore West Forelands #1 Well to Trading Bay 1994 5 6

aa Enstar Onshore Lewis River Field to Enstar West Cook Mainline 1984 4 4

bb Enstar Onshore West Cook Mainline, Beluga Gas Field to Anchorage 1984 99 20

cc Marathon Onshore West Side CIGGS, Trading Bay to Granite Point 1972 27 16

dd Marathon Onshore Granite Point to Beluga 1990 16.1 16

a Roughly estimated, there are 486 route miles for all gas pipelines offshore and onshore in the Cook Inlet region. Considering dual pipelines, actual 

pipe length is approximately 598 miles. These figures do not include gathering and connection pipelines that are internal to a field. To convert 

miles to kilometers, multiply by 1.6.

b CIGGS = Cook Inlet Gas Gathering System.

c Kenai Mainline pipeline: segments placed into service in various years beginning in 1961. Latest initial pipeline pressure test occurred in 1978.

d Year of Enstar pressure test and operational assumption.

e Pipeline not in use.

Source: Roberstson 2000; Enstar 2001; MMS 2002.

1
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-332

1 TABLE 3.11.2-2 Past and Present Operational Oil and Liquid Petroleum Pipelines in Cook Inlet 

2 and Cook Inlet Basin

ID Current Operator

Location of 

Field or Pool Location Installed

Length 

in 

Milesa

Line 

Diameter 

in Inches

Offshore Cook Inlet Pipelines

a Cross Timbers Offshore A to shore 1965 7.0 

(14)

2–8 lines

b Cross Timbers Offshore C to A 1967 2.2 8

c Unocal Offshore Baker to A 1965 2.5 8

d Unocal Offshore Grayling to shore 1967 6.0 10

e Unocal Offshore King Salmon to shore 1967 7.0 8

f Unocal Offshore Dolly Varden to shore 1967 5.7 8

g Unocal Offshore Steelhead to shore 1986 6.5 8

h Unocal Offshore Monopod to shore 1966 9.0 8

i Unocala Offshore Spurr to shoreb 1968 8.4 6

j Marathon Offshore Spark to shoreb 1968 7.2 6

k Unocal Offshore Anna to Bruce 1966 1.6 8

l Unocal Offshore – 1966 1.6 8.625

m Unocal Offshore Granite Point to shore 1966 6.0 8

Kenai Peninsula Pipelines

n Tesoro Onshore Tesora Refinery to the Port of Anchorage 1974 70 10

o Tesoro Onshore Nikiski Terminal to Tesoro Refinery 1983 <1 24

p Kenai Onshore Swanson River to Kikiski 1960 19.2 8

West Cook Inlet Pipelines

q Cook Inlet Pipeline Onshore Drift River loading lines 1966 3.6 30 and 42

r Cook Inlet Pipeline Onshore Granite Point to Drift River 1966 42.0 20 and 12

s Forest Oil Onshore West McArthur to Trading Bay 1994 3.12 8

a Roughly estimated, there are 211 route miles for actual pipeline route and 218 miles of actual pipe length. This estimate 

does not take into account gathering lines that are internal to a producing field. To convert miles to kilometers, multiply 

by 1.6.

b Spurr and Spark oil pipelines are shut in. Marathon only operates gas lines.

Source: Robertson 2000; MMS, Alaska OCS Region.

3

4

5 Furthermore, much of the land within the Cook Inlet is managed by Federal land 

6 management agencies; for instance, approximately 65% of the Kenai Peninsula Borough is 

7 Federal land (Kenai Peninsula Borough, 2005) (see Figure 3.9.3-2). Therefore, each of these 

8 agencies and their respective regulations would need to be considered for exploration and 

9 production activities that might affect lands or waters managed by the agencies.

10

11

12 3.11.3 Alaska – Arctic

13

14 The Arctic region includes the Beaufort Sea Planning Area and the Chukchi Sea Planning 

15 Area. Only the Beaufort Sea Planning Area has a well-developed oil and gas industry 

16 infrastructure on adjacent land and in State waters. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-333

1

2 FIGURE 3.11.2-1 Oil and Gas Fields and Infrastructure Locations in Cook Inlet
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-334

1 Land use in much of the Arctic region is not intense, with much of the region being used 

2 primarily for subsistence pursuits, except for the oil- and gas-related activities described above. 

3 There are only a few small communities located in the area, the largest of which is the city of 

4 Barrow, with an estimated population of about 4,212 persons (USCB 2010). Barrow is the 

5 economic, transportation, and administrative center for the North Slope Borough. The North 

6 Slope Borough includes other communities adjacent to the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea Planning 

7 Areas, including Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik, each with 

8 populations under 1,000 persons. Deadhorse is an unincorporated oil field service community at 

9 the end of the Dalton Highway, with fewer than 50 permanent residents, but with up to 2,000 or 

10 more oil workers present at a given time.

11

12 Various Federal agencies oversee large amounts of land in the North Slope Borough. 

13 federally managed lands include the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS), Gates of the 

14 Arctic National Park (NPS), the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (BLM), and a number of 

15 Chukchi Sea coastal headlands and islands administered by the Alaska Maritime National 

16 Wildlife Refuge (USFWS) (for a listing and discussion of these areas, see Section 3.9.3).

17

18 Transportation-related infrastructure is minimal, but concentrated in the Prudhoe Bay oil 

19 field area. Marine shipping to North Slope communities is by barge and by lightering 

20 (transferring cargo between vessels of different sizes) of cargo to shore because of the shallow 

21 coastal waters and the lack of dredging and heavy-lift equipment. Heavy-lift cranes and 

22 protected small boat shelters are found only at Prudhoe Bay‘s West Dock. The communities 

23 within this region are not connected by a permanent road system. Paved and unpaved roads are 

24 generally limited to the area within communities. During the winter, village residents travel to 

25 other villages via snowmobile. However, the residents of the community of Nuiqsut are close 

26 enough to active oil fields that they can use winter ice roads to access Prudhoe Bay and then 

27 travel down the Dalton Highway into the interior of Alaska.

28

29 Airports and related service facilities are also limited. Airports at Barrow, Kotzebue, and 

30 Deadhorse have scheduled jet service and are owned and maintained by the State of Alaska. 

31 ConocoPhillips maintains an airport near its operating headquarters at Ugnu-Kuparuk. This 

32 airfield serves chartered corporate passenger and cargo jets, as well as other types of air traffic. 

33 The most active airfield in Arctic Alaska is the Deadhorse airport, with most flights at that 

34 airport related to oil field activities. The second-most active facility is Barrow‘s Wiley Post–

35 Will Rogers Airport; there are other smaller airports at Nuiqsut and other locations in the region 

36 as well.

37

38 Exploration activities moved offshore into the Beaufort and Chukchi seas in the 1970s, 

39 and development and production in the nearshore Beaufort Sea began in the early 1980s. 

40 Individual oil pools have been developed together as fields that share common wells, production 

41 pads, and pipelines. As of 2007, 35 fields and satellites had been developed on the North Slope 

42 and nearshore areas of the Beaufort Sea and were producing oil. Over time, fields also have 

43 been grouped into production units with common infrastructure, such as processing facilities 

44 (MMS 2008b).

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-335

1 Oil and gas infrastructure occurs intermittently along the arctic coast from the northeast 

2 corner of the NPR-A to the Canning River. The core of production activity occurs in an area 

3 between the Kuparuk field and the Sagavanirktok River. The Prudhoe Bay/Kuparuk oil field 

4 infrastructure is served by nearly 483 km (300 mi) of interconnected gravel roads. These roads 

5 serve more than 644 km (400 mi) of pipeline routes and related processing and distribution 

6 facilities.

7

8 According to BLM (as cited in MMS 2008b), as of 2007, oil and gas activities had 

9 resulted in the development of 202 ha (500 ac) of peat roads, 3,642 ha (9,000 ac) of gravel roads 

10 and pads, 2,428 ha (6,000 ac) of gravel mines, and 809 ha (2,000 ac) of other facilities on the 

11 North Slope. Few of these acres had been restored to their original condition.

12

13 Oil and gas exploration activities are ongoing in the northeast NPR-A. No permanent 

14 roads have been constructed into the NPR-A; all activities there are currently supported by ice 

15 roads. Some lands within the NPR-A have special designations, including the Teshekpuk Lake, 

16 Kasegaluk Lagoon, Colville River, and Utukok Uplands Special Areas, established in 

17 recognition of the areas‘ outstanding wildlife resources, including geese and other birds, caribou, 

18 bears, fish, and other animals.

19

20 In 2008, the BLM issued a record of decision (ROD) for the Northeast NPR-A making 

nearly 17,800 km2 21 (4.4 million acres) available for oil and gas leasing, though it deferred leasing 

on 1,740 km2 22 (430,000 acres) north and east of Teshekpuk Lake for 10 yr. The decision also 

23 established performance-based stipulations and required operating procedures (ROPs), which 

24 apply to oil and gas and, in some cases, to other activities (BLM 2008).

25

26 The Prudhoe Bay/Kuparuk area is also served by the Dalton Highway. This road extends 

27 more than 644 km (400 mi) from Livengood (121 km [75 mi] north of Fairbanks) to Deadhorse. 

28 The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) roughly parallels much of the Dalton Highway.

29

30 Because new facilities would be necessary to develop offshore oil and gas resources, 

31 exploration and production activities would need to be coordinated with local jurisdictions in 

32 order to ensure consistency with local land use plans, zoning regulations (if present), and future 

33 land use initiatives. Alaska Statutes provide certain cities and boroughs (i.e., municipalities) the 

34 authority for planning and land use regulation; as such, planning commissions and/or city 

35 councils may review projects that would impact a municipality under its jurisdiction. Comments 

36 or recommendations may be provided to the agencies undertaking the action in order to account 

37 for local needs, or if local permits are needed (Alaska Department of Commerce 2007; 

38 Freer 2003).

39

40 Furthermore, a significant percentage of the land near the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas is 

41 owned by the Federal government, although it is located within the North Slope Borough. For 

42 instance, more than half of the North Slope Borough‘s land is included with the NPR-A and the 

43 ANWR. Other major landholders include the State, the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, and 

44 eight Native village corporations (BOEMRE 2010a). Each of these agencies and their respective 

45 regulations would need to be considered for exploration and production activities that might 

46 affect lands or waters managed by the agencies.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-336

1 3.12 COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL FISHERIES

2

3

4 3.12.1 Commercial Fisheries

5

6

7 3.12.1.1 Gulf of Mexico

8

9 Commercial fisheries are very important to the economies of the GOM coast States; in 

10 2009, commercial fishery landings in the GOM, which includes western Florida, Alabama, 

11 Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, reached almost 649,000 metric tons, which was worth more 

12 than $629 million (NMFS 2011d). When related processor, wholesale, and retail businesses are 

13 included, the GOM seafood industry supports more than 200,000 jobs with related income 

14 impacts of $5.5 billion. Louisiana led the GOM coast States in total landings and value in 2009,

15 with 455,931 metric tons worth $284 million. Mississippi was second, with landings exceeding 

16 104,456 metric tons, worth $47 million, followed by Texas (45,132 metric tons, worth 

17 $150 million), Florida‘s west coast (29,626 metric tons, worth $116.1 million), and Alabama 

18 (13,469 metric tons, worth $41 million) (NMFS 2011d).

19

20 Commercially important species groups in the GOM include oceanic pelagic (epipelagic) 

21 fishes, reef (hard bottom) fishes, coastal pelagic species, and estuarine-dependent species 

22 (Table 3.12.1-1). On the basis of reported commercial fishery landing data, the two most 

23 valuable commercial fisheries in the GOM were white and brown shrimp, which accounted for 

24 25% and 23%, respectively, of the entire GOM commercial fishery in 2009 (NMFS 2010; 

25 Table 3.12.1-1). Other invertebrates such as blue crab, spiny lobster, and stone crab (Menippe

26 spp.) also contributed significantly to the value of commercial landings. Finfish species that 

27 contributed substantially to the overall commercial value of the GOM fisheries in 2009 included 

28 menhaden ($60.6 million), red grouper ($10.5 million), red snapper ($7.9 million), and yellowfin 

29 tuna ($7.9 million). In terms of landing weight, Atlantic menhaden far surpassed other 

30 commercial fish species in the GOM, accounting for approximately 70% of the total weight of 

31 landed commercial species (Table 3.12.1-1). However, Atlantic menhaden accounted for only 

32 about 9.6% of the total value of the GOM commercial fishery.

33

34 Each species or species group is caught using various methods and gear types. Shrimps 

35 are taken by bottom trawling; menhaden are caught in purse nets; yellowfin tuna are caught on 

36 surface longlines; snapper and grouper are caught by hook and line; and pots and traps are used 

37 for crab, spiny lobster, and some fish species. Generally, the GOM fishing activities with the 

38 highest potential for interactions (or conflicts) with OCS oil and gas activities (e.g., oil and gas 

39 operations) are bottom trawling (potential for snagging on pipelines, cables, and debris) and 

40 surface longlining (potential for space use conflicts with seismic survey vessels and possible 

41 entanglement with thrusters on dynamically positioned drillships). The portion of commercial 

42 fishery landings that occurred in nearshore and offshore waters of the GOM States is presented 

43 in Table 3.12.1-2.

44

45 Fishery statistics for major U.S. ports in the GOM region are presented in Table 3.12.1-3. 

46 In terms of reported total landing weight, the top U.S. ports in the GOM region in 2009 were 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-337

1 TABLE 3.12.1-1 Total Weights and Values of Commercially Important Fishery 

2 Species in the GOM Region

Species

Weight

(metric tons) Weight (pounds) Value ($)

%

Weight

% 

Value

Menhaden 454,761.20 1,002,566,613 60,603,671 70.1 9.6

Shrimp, brown 55,887.10 123,208,776 142,752,499 8.6 22.7

Shrimp, white 51,988.20 114,613,215 155,736,392 8.0 24.7

Crab, blue 26,823.20 59,134,370 43,673,691 4.1 6.9

Oyster, eastern 10,226.60 22,545,582 72,455,368 1.6 11.5

Crayfish 8,437.20 18,600,732 14,980,231 1.3 2.4

Mullet, striped 4,691.20 10,342,230 5,580,700 0.7 0.9

Shrimp, pink 3,485.80 7,684,797 14,202,829 0.5 2.2

Stone crab claws 2,389.80 5,268,490 17,567,663 0.4 2.8

Black drum 2,257.80 4,977,457 3,827,342 0.3 0.68

Red grouper 1,988.80 4,384,414 10,481,382 0.3 1.7

Lobster, Caribbean spiny 1,791.50 3,949,586 12,173,600 0.3 1.9

Vermillion snapper 1,722.20 3,796,731 8,230,448 0.3 1.3

Red snapper 1,134.30 2,500,630 7,963,886 0.2 1. 3

Bait and feed fish 1,120.50 2,470,199 471,243 0.2 0.1

Yellowfin tuna 1,118.20 2,465,234 7,935,150 0.2 1.3

Shrimp, Dendrobranchiata 1,080.60 2,382,249 9,950,718 0.2 1.6

Total 648,613.40 1,429,933,053 629,276,230

Source: NMFS 2010g.

3

4

5 TABLE 3.12.1-2 Value of Gulf Coast Fish 

6 Landings by Distance from Shore and State 

7 for 2009 ($1,000)

Distance from Shore (mi)

State 0 3 3 200

Florida (GOM) 11,319 36,390

Alabama 2,006 1,637

Mississippi 18,211 456

Louisiana 64,164 13,213

Texas 2,443 5,045

Total 98,143 56,741

Source: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/

landings/ds_8850_bystate.html.

8

9
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-338

1 TABLE 3.12.1-3 Reported Total Landing Weights and Values for 

2 Major Ports in the GOM Region in 2009

Ranka Port State

Total Landing

(million lb)

Total Landing

(million $)

2 Empire-Venice LA 411.8 67.1

5 Intracoastal City LA 244.7 30.2

6 Pascagoula-Moss Point MS 217.4 18.6

7 Cameron LA 178.8 No data

22 Dulac-Chauvin LA 42.4 50.9

27 Brownsville-Port Isabel TX 27.0 41.0

28 Lafitte-Barataria LA 25.9 25.9

29 Golden Meadow-Leeville LA 25.6 27.4

33 Galveston TX 22.0 35.0

34 Bayou La Batre AL 21.0 30.0

37 Palacios TX 20.0 27.0

43 Port Arthur TX 16.0 27.0

46 Delacroix-Yscloskey LA 13.4 19.7

47 Gulfport-Biloxi MS 12.9 19.3

a Rank among all U.S. commercial fishing ports based on landings.

Source: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/fus/fus09/02_commercial2009.pdf.

3

4

5 Empire-Venice, Louisiana; Intracoastal City, Louisiana; and Pascogoula-Moss Point, 

6 Mississippi. GOM ports with the highest reported total catch values were Empire-Venice, 

7 Louisiana ($67.2 million), and Dulac-Chauvin, Louisiana ($50.9 million). 

8

9 The DWH event had immediate effects on the GOM fishing industry between April and 

10 November 2010, with up to 40% of Federal waters being closed to commercial fishing in June 

11 and July (CRS 2010). Portions of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida State waters 

12 have also been closed. These areas are some of the richest fishing grounds in the GOM for 

13 major commercial species such as shrimp, blue crab, and oysters, and as prices for these items 

14 have increased, imports of these species have likely taken the place of lost GOM coast 

15 production. NOAA continued to reopen areas to fishing once chemical tests revealed levels of 

16 hydrocarbons or dispersants in commercial species were not of concern to human health. 

17

18 The impact of the DWH event on fishery landings is still being investigated. This 

19 information, however, is not needed at the programmatic stage to make a reasoned choice 

20 among alternatives (see Section 1.4, Analytical Issues).

21

22 Commercial shrimp landings in the GOM in 2010 were below the 2007 to 2009 average 

23 from May to August, but equaled or exceeded the average during the remainder of the year 

24 (http://curis.msstate.edu/gomosshrimplandingimpactGOM.html). In addition, as consumer 

25 perceptions of GOM seafood and seafood products may affect demand, future sales of GOM

26 fisheries production may be lost (CRS 2010).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-339

1 3.12.1.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

2

3 Commercial fisheries of the Gulf of Alaska and Cook Inlet are diverse and chiefly target 

4 groundfish, Pacific halibut, Pacific salmon, herring, crab, shrimp, clams, scallops, sea urchins, 

5 and sea cucumbers. An assortment of gear, such as gill nets, seines, purse seines, trawls, 

6 dredges, pots, jigs, and/or diving equipment, is employed to harvest the various target species. 

7 The groundfish fisheries accounted for the largest share ($640 million; 48%) of the ex-vessel 

8 value of all commercial fisheries in Alaska in 2009 (Hiatt et al. 2010). The Pacific salmon 

9 fishery is the second most valuable ($345 million) with 26% of the total Alaska ex-vessel 

10 value. The value of the shellfish fishery was $195 million, or 15% of the total for Alaska 

11 (Hiatt et al. 2010). Fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska are described in Hiatt et al. (2010), including 

12 gear, geographic distribution, fisheries effort, and existing economic conditions.

13

14 The State of Alaska divides Cook Inlet into the Lower Cook Inlet (LCI) Management 

15 Area comprised of all waters west of the longitude of Cape Fairfield, north of the latitude of 

16 Cape Douglas, and south of the latitude of Anchor Point; and the Upper Cook Inlet (UCI) 

17 Management Area, which consists of Cook Inlet north of the latitude of the Anchor Point Light. 

18 All five species of Pacific salmon, razor clams, Pacific herring, and smelt are commercially 

19 harvested in UCI. The LCI area supports commercial fisheries for salmon, groundfish, and 

20 scallops, but herring, king crab, Dungeness crab, and shrimp fisheries are currently restricted 

21 or closed while stocks rebuild. There are also gear restrictions in Cook Inlet, where the use 

22 of non-pelagic trawl gear is prohibited north of a line extending between Cape Douglas 

23 (58°51.10' N latitude) and Point Adam (59°15.27' N latitude).

24

25 Groundfish are primarily harvested by trawl, although hook and line (including 

26 longline and jigs) and pot gear are also used. In general, groundfish fisheries in the 

27 U.S. EEZ (5.6–370 km [3–200 NM] offshore) fall under Federal authority, while the State 

28 of Alaska manages groundfish within State territorial (0–5.6 km [0–3 NM]) waters 

29 (Trowbridge et al. 2008). The ADF&G, Division of Commercial Fisheries, manages all 

30 commercial groundfish fisheries in Cook Inlet, where groundfish are typically harvested in the 

31 LCI Management Area. Commercial fisheries of groundfish in State waters have historically 

32 targeted Pacific cod, pollock, sablefish, ling cod, and rockfish (Trowbridge et al. 2008). 

33

34 Pacific halibut fishery grounds occur throughout the entire Gulf of Alaska shelf. The 

35 commercial fishery is conducted exclusively using hook and line (NMFS 2004). The Pacific 

36 halibut fishery is managed by the International Pacific Halibut Commission 

37 (http://www.iphc.washington.edu/halcom).

38

39 The Pacific salmon commercial fisheries in State waters of the Gulf of Alaska are 

40 important to the economy of the region and are the second most valuable fisheries in Alaska 

41 ($345 million in 2009 [Hiatt et al. 2010]). The UCI supports gill net fisheries targeting Chinook, 

42 coho, pink, chum, and sockeye salmon. The LCI fisheries use gill net or seine gear and target 

43 pink, chum, and sockeye salmon. Total salmon harvest in LCI and UCI was approximately 

44 3.85 million fish ($17.9 million ex-vessel value) in 2009 (Hammarstrom and Ford 2010; 

45 Shields 2010b). Pink salmon and sockeye salmon dominate the Cook Inlet salmon fishery by 

46 weight and monetary value. Commercial fishing seasons in these areas for salmon are species-
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-340

1 specific and are published on the ADF&G, Commercial Fisheries Division, website 

2 (http://www.cf.adfg.state.ak.us). 

3

4 Pacific herring are targeted for food, bait, or herring roe. Depending on the area, herring 

5 harvested as food or bait may be commercially fished using trawl, seine, or gill net gear. Sac roe 

6 may be harvested using seine, purse seine, or gill net gear. In Cook Inlet, herring harvests are 

7 greatest in Kamishak Bay. Over the last decade, the abundance of Pacific herring has been 

8 stable, but historically very low, and the commercial Pacific herring fishery in LCI was closed 

9 during 2010 for the 12th successive season (Hammarstrom and Ford 2010). The decline in 

10 herring may be attributable to the protozoan pathogen Ichthyophonus. In the UCI Management 

11 Area, eulachon and smelt are commercially harvested. The smelt harvest in the UCI has 

12 generally increased from 1978 (0.2 tons) to 2010 (63 tons [Shields 2010b]). Smelt are primarily 

13 sold as bait and have low commercial value.

14

15 Commercial fisheries of crab and shrimp in the Gulf of Alaska are managed by the State 

16 of Alaska. Four species of king crab are harvested: red, blue, golden, and scarlet. Other 

17 commercially important crabs include golden king crabs, Tanner crabs, snow crabs, and 

18 Dungeness crabs. Commercial crab fisheries of the Gulf of Alaska chiefly operate in the 

19 following areas: Yakutat (king crab), Kodiak (Dungeness and Tanner crabs), and the Alaska 

20 Peninsula (Dungeness and Tanner crabs). Shrimp fisheries conducted in the Gulf of Alaska use 

21 pot, trawl, or otter-trawl gear. The commercial fisheries operate primarily in the Yakutat, Prince 

22 William Sound/Copper River, Kodiak, Chignik, and Alaska Peninsula areas. Cook Inlet 

23 historically supported king crab, Dungeness crab, and shrimp fisheries, but these fisheries are 

24 currently closed while stocks rebuild. 

25

26 Commercial fisheries of bivalves (scallops or clams) occur in the Prince William 

27 Sound/Copper River, Cook Inlet, Kodiak, and Alaska Peninsula areas. Scallops are harvested 

28 using dredging gear. Razor clams are harvested exclusively by hand digging on the west shore 

29 of upper Cook Inlet, principally from the Polly Creek and Crescent River sandbar areas 

30 (Shields 2010b). The 2010 harvest of razor clams was approximately 380,000 lb and valued at 

31 $235,000. Steamer clams are also harvested in Cook Inlet.

32

33 Diver-based fisheries targeting sea cucumbers also exist around Chignik and Kodiak 

34 Island. Currently, each fishery is a competitive limited entry fishery. More information is 

35 available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=commercialbyfisherydive.main.

36

37

38 3.12.1.3 Alaska – Arctic

39

40 The Arctic Management Area, consisting of the U.S. EEZ of the Chukchi and Beaufort 

41 Seas from 6 km (3 NM) offshore the coast of Alaska is currently closed to commercial fishing 

42 (NPFMC 2009). In the State waters of the Beaufort Sea, there is a single commercial fishery 

43 targeting cisco and whitefish in the Colville River Delta that operates in the summer months. 

44 Markets for these fish are primarily regional, although some fish are sent to Anchorage and to 

45 more distant markets (NPFMC 2009). In the Chukchi Sea, there is a relatively small summer 

46 salmon fishery (MMS 2006a).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-341

1 3.12.2 Recreational Fisheries

2

3

4 3.12.2.1 Gulf of Mexico

5

6 Data collected by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for Alabama, Florida, 

7 Louisiana, and Mississippi indicate that more than 4.5 million people engaged in some form of 

8 recreational fishing in the GOM States in 2010 (Table 3.12.2-1). Of the four States, western 

9 Florida had the highest number of anglers and fishing trips in 2010 (3.0 million), followed by 

10 Louisiana (0.8 million), Alabama (0.6 million), and Mississippi (0.2 million). Almost 67% of 

11 the fishing trips in the GOM coast left out of west Florida, followed by Louisiana (17%), 

12 Alabama (7%), Mississippi (5%), and Texas (4%). These anglers took more than 23 million trips 

13 and caught more than 173 million fish (NMFS 2011e). In 2004, it is estimated that 

14 1,059,634 fishing license holders fished for one or more days in Texas (Tseng et al. 2006).

15

16 The most popular mode of fishing in all GOM States was private/rental boat, comprising 

17 59.7% of trips in each State, followed by fishing from shore (37.5%) and fishing from charter 

18 vessels (2.8%) (Table 3.12.2-2). More than 69% of anglers fishing from shore confined their 

19 trips to inland waters, the remaining trips taking place within 16 km (10 mi) of shore. Most 

20 anglers (75.6%) using private or rental boats also preferred inland waters for their trips, or fished 

21 less than 16 km (10 mi) from the coast (17.2%). Only 30.7% of charter boats trips were made 

22 inland, while 36.1% were made more than 16 km (10 mi) from the coast, and 27.6% of trips were 

23 less than 16 km (10 mi) from shore.

24

25 A large majority of angling trips in Mississippi (98.6%) and Louisiana (97.7%) were 

26 made in inland waters in 2010, as opposed to waters up to 5 km (3 mi) from shore and farther 

27 distances. In Florida (66.2%) and Alabama (46.5%), inland trips were less important, with the 

28 more trips in Alabama made to State and Federal waters (46.7% and 6.8%, respectively), and to 

29 the same waters in Florida (28.5% and 5.3%, respectively).

30

31 Of the 145.3 million fish caught in the four GOM coast States in 2010, the majority 

32 (95.3 million, 65.6% of the total) were landed in Florida; landings by weight are more evenly 

33 distributed across the four States, with 41.8% of landings in Florida, 40.1% in Louisiana, 12.8% 

34 in Alabama, and 5.3% in Mississippi (Table 3.12.2-3). Almost all landings were made in inland 

35 waters in Mississippi (98.6%) and Louisiana (94.8%). While the inland catch was important in 

36 Alabama (50.0%) and Florida (44.0%), the offshore catch was larger in these States, with 34.1% 

37 of the total catch landed up to 5 km (3 mi) from shore, and 16% at more than 5 km (3 mi) in 

38 Alabama and 28.7% at less than 16 km (10 mi), and 27.3% at more than 16 km (10 mi) in 

39 Florida. 

40

41 Types of fish caught in 2010 varied by State and by distance from shore (Table 3.12.2-3). 

42 In Alabama and Louisiana, drum, seatrout and herring were popular fish less than 5 km (3 mi)

43 from shore, with shark, ray, and snapper caught at this distance in Mississippi. Snapper were 

44 commonly caught more than 5 km (3 mi) from shore in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, 

45 together with drum and seatrout in Louisiana. Jack, catfish, and tuna were also caught up to 

46 16 km (10 mi) from shore in Florida. Inland species caught in Alabama were drum, mullet, 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-342

1 TABLE 3.12.2-1 Estimated Number of People Participating in 

GOM Marine Recreational Fishing, 2010 2 a

Coastal Non-Coastal Out-of-State Total

West Florida 1,542,556 0 1,473,928 3,016,485

Louisiana 601,240 66,340 118,292 785,872

Alabama 193,721 138,730 218,532 550,982

Mississippi 136,504 28,542 49,804 214,850

GOM Total 2,474,021 233,612 1,860,556 4,568,189

a ―Coastal,‖ ―non-coastal,‖ and ―out-of-State‖ refer to place of 

residence of participants in marine recreation in each State.

Source: NMFS 2011e.

3

4

5 TABLE 3.12.2-2 Estimated Number of Trips and Trip 

6 Range by Trip Mode in GOM Marine Recreational Fishing, 

7 2010

Fishing Mode Trip Range Number of Trips

Shore fishing 5 km (3 mi) or less 680,556

Less than 16 km (10 mi) 1,707,550

Inland 5,402,102

Total – 7,790,208

Charter boats 5 km (3 mi) or less 10,378

More than 5 km (3 mi) 21,892

Less than 16 km (10 mi) 157,977

More than 16 km (10 mi) 206,673

Inland 175,939

Total – 572,859

Private or rental boat 5 km (3 mi) or less 219,504

More than 5 km (3 mi) 126,227

Less than 16 km (10 mi) 2,132,905

More than 16 km (10 mi) 540,061

Inland 9,376,983

Total – 12,395,680

Source: NMFS 2011e.

8

9
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-343

1 TABLE 3.12.2-3 Estimated Number of Trips and Catch Weights in GOM Marine 

2 Recreational Fishing, 2010

Number of 

Angler Trips Catch (pounds) Major Fish Types Caught

Alabama

 ≤5 km (3 mi) 836,397 2,582,437 Drum, seatrout, herring

>5 km (3 mi) 121,006 1,210,837 Snapper

 Inland 832,027 3,789,035 Drum, mullet, flounder, porgy

 Total 1,789,430 7,582,309

West Florida

 ≤16 km (10 mi) 3,998,432 7,094,311 Herring, drum, seatrout, jack, catfish, 

seabass, tuna, snapper

 >16 km (10 mi) 746,735 6,748,134 Snapper, grunt, herring

 Inland 9,287,570 10,875,884 Porgy, mullet, tuna, mackerel

 Total 14,032,737 24,718,329

Louisiana

 ≤5 km (3 mi) 61,274 771,959 Drum, seatrout

 >5 km (3 mi) 22,980 450,170 Snapper, drum, seatrout

 Inland 3,634,782 22,460,692 Drum, seatrout, porgy, catfish

 Total 3,719,036 23,682,821

Mississippi

 ≤5 km (3 mi) 12,767 34,924 Shark, ray, snapper

 >5 km (3 mi) 4,132 9,237 Snapper

 Inland 1,200,644 3,093,236 Drum, seatrout, flounder, porgy

 Total 1,217,543 3,137,397

Source: NMFS 2011e.

3

4

5 flounder, and porgy, with seatrout also caught in Mississippi and catfish in Louisiana. In 

6 Florida, porgy, mullet, seatrout, and mackerel were popular. Most fishing occurred in State and 

7 inland waters (NMFS 2010g). 

8

9 In 2004, a total of 1,276,667 Texas resident fishing licenses were purchased 

10 (Tseng et al. 2006). It is estimated that 1,059,634 (or 83%) of these license holders actually 

11 fished one or more days in Texas during the year. Of those who fished, 74% participated in 

12 freshwater fishing and 61% participated in saltwater fishing. Freshwater anglers fished an 

13 average of 27 days, while saltwater anglers fished an average of 20 days (Tseng et al. 2006).

14

15 When freshwater anglers were asked to name the fish they prefer to catch in Texas, 52% 

16 indicated a first-choice preference for black bass. Other species preferred by freshwater anglers 

17 included largemouth bass, catfish, crappie, and temperate basses (white bass, striped bass, and 

18 hybrid striped bass). Most saltwater anglers in Texas (40%) indicated a first-choice preference 

19 for red drum, followed by speckled trout, the drum family, and flounder (Tseng et al. 2006).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-344

1 Recreational fishing off Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas often occurs around 

2 oil and gas platforms. BOEMRE supports and encourages the reuse of obsolete oil and gas 

3 facilities as artificial reefs and will grant a lessee/operator a departure from removal 

4 requirements provided that (1) the structure becomes part of a State artificial reef program that 

5 complies with the criteria in the National Artificial Reef Plan; (2) the responsible State agency 

6 acquires a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and accepts title and liability for the 

7 reefed structure once removal/reefing operations are concluded; (3) the operator satisfies any 

8 U.S. Coast Guard navigational requirements for the structure; and (4) the reefing proposal 

9 complies with Regional Engineering, Stability, and Environmental Reviewing Standards and 

10 Reef Approval Guidelines (http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/rigs-to11 reefs/Rigs-to-Reefs-Policy-Addendum.pdf).

12

13 The DWH event had immediate effects on recreational fishing in the GOM. By July 14, 

2010, NOAA had closed 217,370 km2 (83,927 mi2 14 ) of the GOM to commercial and recreational 

15 fishing, or approximately 35% of the federally managed waters in the GOM (CRS 2010). 

16 Portions of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida State waters have also been closed. 

17 These areas are some of the richest fishing grounds in the GOM for major species caught by 

18 recreational fishermen. Bookings and trips for recreational fishing charters have decreased, 

19 especially in Louisiana, and sport fishing tournaments have been cancelled (CRS 2010).

20

21

22 3.12.2.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

23

24 Recreational fishing in the south central Alaska region includes marine sport fishing, 

25 freshwater fishing, and shellfish gathering activities, which together contribute substantially to 

26 the area‘s economy. Sport fishing in lower Cook Inlet is primarily for Pacific salmon, rockfish, 

27 cod, and Pacific halibut. Shellfish are collected near the shoreline as well. Kachemak Bay is 

28 particularly popular for recreational fishing, with halibut sport fishing in the Bay producing 

29 $8.7 million in angler expenditures in 1986 (Jones and Stokes Associates 1987), and for shellfish 

30 gathering. There is also a substantial salmon fishery in Kachemak Bay and in the rivers and 

31 streams flowing into Cook Inlet. Salmon fishing in the Kenai River, for example, generated up 

32 to $70 million annually in 1997 (Dorava 1999), while red salmon fishing in the Russian River 

33 generated $5.2 million in angler spending in 1986 (Jones and Stokes Associates 1987). Razor 

34 clams and other clams are gathered in Kachemak Bay and at various locations along the western 

35 side of the Kenai Peninsula and the shorelines bordering Cook Inlet. 

36

37 In northern Cook Inlet, on the western bank, there exist recreational fisheries for razor 

38 clams and several species of hardshell clams, as well as Tanner crab and Dungeness crab. 

39 Extensive freshwater fishing also occurs throughout south central Alaska, and all five species of 

40 Pacific salmon can be found there, as well as trout, arctic grayling, Dolly Varden, and northern 

41 pike. The Susitna River drainage is particularly important for recreational fishing in northern 

42 Cook Inlet. 

43

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-345

1 3.12.2.3 Alaska – Arctic

2

3 There is little data on recreational fishing in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The North 

4 Pacific Fishery Management Council concluded that there are few recreational fisheries in the 

5 Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. Sport fishing likely occurs at the larger population 

6 centers such as Barrow (NPFMC 2009). Any recreational fisheries that do occur in State waters 

7 would be regulated by Alaska State law. The available data is not adequate to determine the 

8 population trends in recreational and subsistence harvests in the Arctic Management Area.

9

10 Subsistence fishing is widespread in coastal areas of the Arctic, and fisherman typically 

11 use gill nets, jigging, and hook and line methods to capture Pacific herring, Dolly Varden char, 

12 whitefish, arctic cod, and sculpin. 

13

14

15 3.13 TOURISM AND RECREATION

16

17

18 3.13.1 Recreational Resources

19

20

21 3.13.1.1 Gulf of Mexico

22

23 The GOM coastal zone is one of the major recreational regions of the United States, with 

24 marine fishing and beach-related activities particularly popular. The tourist industry contributed 

25 620,000 jobs and more than $9 billion in wages to the GOM region (NMFS 2011e). The coasts 

26 of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas offer diverse natural and developed 

27 landscapes and seascapes, and the beaches, barrier islands, estuarine bays and sounds, river 

28 deltas, and tidal marches are visited by residents of the GOM coast States and by tourists from 

29 throughout the United States and overseas. Publicly owned and administered areas (such as 

30 national seashores, parks, beaches, and wildlife lands), as well as specially designated 

31 preservation areas (such as historic and natural sites and landmarks, wilderness areas, wildlife 

32 sanctuaries, and scenic rivers), attract residents and visitors throughout the year. Commercial 

33 and private recreational facilities and establishments, such as resorts, marinas, amusement parks, 

34 and ornamental gardens, are also popular with tourists and in-State visitors. In 2000, Florida was 

35 the most important destination for marine recreation, with more than 22 million people 

36 participating in the State (NOAA 2005). Texas ranked fifth, with a little under 6.2 million 

37 participants, while in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi (2.5 million, 2.2 million, and 

38 1.8 million, respectively) participation was lower, but still significant. 

39

40

41 3.13.1.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

42

43 Opportunities for recreational activities such as hunting, hiking, boating, wildlife 

44 viewing, and sightseeing are abundant in the Cook Inlet area. Tour ships from the lower 

45 48 States regularly traverse southeast Alaska, and many independent travelers use the Alaska 

46 Maritime Highway (ferry) system to access the subregion. Helicopter and small aircraft 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-346

1 sightseeing tours have developed locally, along with a generally robust tourism sector. This 

2 includes a fleet of small regional tour ships, river jet-boat tours, fishing charters, bed-and3 breakfast operations, and associated tourism-based enterprises (MMS 2006b). 

4

5 The Kenai Peninsula and Prince William Sound are in close proximity to Cook Inlet and 

6 Anchorage, which is the population and logistical center of the State. Thus, these areas receive 

7 the heaviest recreational use, both by residents and nonresidents. The Kenai Peninsula has a 

8 developed road system and is directly connected to Anchorage. Prince William Sound also is 

9 connected by road to Anchorage via Whittier. Local boat tours of Prince William Sound and 

10 Kenai Fjords National Park are popular attractions. Cook Inlet and rivers and streams in the 

11 area, especially the Kenai River, are heavily fished by sport fishers. The Kenai Peninsula also is 

12 a popular hunting area. The Chugach National Forest attracts hikers, campers, and other users. 

13 An extensive tourism infrastructure is centered in Anchorage and extends into the surrounding 

14 region (MMS 2006b).

15

16

17 3.13.1.3 Alaska – Arctic

18

19 Tour groups to the North Slope Borough, primarily visiting Barrow or Deadhorse, make 

20 up most of the nonresident recreational activity. Both locations have lodging available, and

21 Barrow has developed a limited tourism sector. Travel to these areas primarily is by air, 

22 although bus tours occasionally arrive via the Dalton Highway between Deadhorse and 

23 Fairbanks. Hikers and river rafters also visit the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other 

24 areas, using scheduled (to Kaktovik) or chartered (for remote locations) airplanes for access. An 

25 increasing number of cruise ships enter the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, and a growing number of 

26 hikers and rafters visit coastal areas of the Chukchi; lodging is currently available in Kaktovik. 

27 Gates of the Arctic National Park receives limited visitation, accessed through Anuktuvuk Pass 

28 or by chartered airplane. Hunters also visit the area using aircraft for access, and some hunters 

29 may enter the area using the Dalton Highway (MMS 2006b).

30

31

32 3.13.2 Beach Recreation

33

34

35 3.13.2.1 Gulf of Mexico

36

37 With 408 beaches in 22 coastal counties located on the GOM coast (USEPA 2004), beach 

38 visitation was the most important marine recreation activity, attracting tourists and residents for 

39 fishing, swimming, shelling, beachcombing, camping, picnicking, bird watching, and other 

40 activities. The Florida coast is the second longest in the United States, consisting of 13,518 km 

41 (8,400 mi) of tidally influenced shoreline, with approximately 1,328 km (825 mi) of sandy 

42 beaches on the Atlantic Ocean and GOM, attracting 15.2 million visitors in 2000. Tourists 

43 visiting Florida‘s beaches in 2000 spent approximately $21.9 billion, producing an indirect 

44 economic effect of $19.7 billion and a total economic impact of $41.6 billion (Florida Sea 

45 Grant 2005). Texas has 1,004 km (624 mi) of GOM coast, about 772 km (480 mi) of which are 

46 beach (National Research Defense Council 2004), with 166 distinct beaches in 14 counties 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-347

1 (USEPA 2004). Texas ranks fifth, with 3.9 million visitors. Most marine recreation occurs in 

2 Harris, Nueces, Cameron, and Galveston counties (NOAA 2005).

3

4 Louisiana has about 639 km (397 mi) of coastline and 12,426 km (7,721 mi) of tidal 

5 shoreline, behind only Alaska and Florida in length of marine shore. Louisiana‘s coastline is 

primarily wetlands, and much of the State‘s 19,829 km2 (7,656 mi2 6 ) of estuarine water is largely 

7 inaccessible to swimmers. There are 16 coastal beaches in seven counties along the GOM, half 

8 of which are in Cameron Parish (USEPA 2004). Louisiana beaches are primarily used by local 

9 and State residents, and use is highest during the spring and summer seasons (Louisiana 

10 Department of Health and Hospitals 2005). Over 600,000 visitors visited Louisiana beaches in 

11 2000 (NOAA 2005). Mississippi‘s coastline on the GOM includes 578 km (359 mi) of beach 

12 bays, inlets, and promontories, and a series of low barrier islands, the largest being Cat, Ship, 

13 Horn, and Petit Bois Islands. The 12 coastal beaches in Harrison County, 6 in Jackson, and 3 in 

14 Hancock County (USEPA 2004) had over 1.0 million visitors in 2000 (NOAA 2005). Alabama 

15 has approximately 80 km (50 mi) of Gulf Beach (52 km [32 mi] in Baldwin County and 26 km 

16 [16 mi] on Dauphin Island) and an estimated 105 to 113 km (65 to 70 mi) of bay beaches, 

17 including Mobile Bay, Mississippi Sound, Perdido Bay, and Wolf Bay (Alabama Department of 

18 Environmental Management 2005) with a total of 95 coastal beaches in the State, 90 of which 

19 are in Baldwin County (USEPA 2004). In 2003, visitors to Baldwin County contributed more 

20 than $1.8 billion to the economy of the State (Economic Development Partnership of 

21 Alabama 2005), with more than 1.2 million visitors having visited Alabama beaches 

22 (NOAA 2005).

23

24

25 3.13.3 Casino Gambling

26

27

28 3.13.3.1 Gulf of Mexico

29

30 In addition to the variety of beach activities available to visitors to the GOM coast, casino 

31 gambling has attracted a large number of visitors to the region since 1990. There are numerous 

32 casinos in Mississippi‘s GOM coast area, generating $0.8 billion in 2009 (American Gaming 

33 Association 2010). Gambling is one of the most popular activities for nonresident visitors to 

34 Louisiana, with 23% of nonresident visitors having gambled on their trip to the State in 2003 

35 (Travel Industry Association of America 2004). In Louisiana, casinos in Lake Charles generated 

36 $0.7 million in revenues in 2009, with those in the New Orleans area producing $0.7 million. 

37

38

39 3.13.3.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet and Arctic

40

41 Casino gambling is relatively unimportant in Alaska, with only nine casinos in the State 

42 as a whole, which primarily support pull tab and bingo gambling (500 Nations.com). In the 

43 south Alaska region there were 26 gambling establishments in 2008 that employed

44 approximately 230 people, while in the North Slope Borough there were 3 establishments, 

45 employing approximately 30 people (USCB 2011c). 

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-348

1 3.13.4 Recreational Benefits of Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms

2

3

4 3.13.4.1 Gulf of Mexico

5

6 The more than 4,000 petroleum structures in the northern GOM have provided significant 

7 benefits to recreational fishing (Brashier 1988). Witzig (1986) found that approximately 60% of 

8 the fish caught near structures within 5 km (3 mi) of the shore were kept, compared to less than 

9 10% caught at sites with no oil and gas structures. The proportion of the catch kept on fishing 

10 trips greater than 5 km (3 mi) from shore was over 70% for trips to sites with oil and gas 

11 structures and approximately 35% to sites with no structures. Gallaway and Lewbel (1982) 

12 determined that structures constitute approximately 28% of the known hard bottom habitat off 

13 the Louisiana and Texas coasts.

14

15 Of the 11,911 boats observed fishing near major offshore structures off the Louisiana 

16 coast between April 1980 and March 1981, 10,881 were recreational boats (Ditton and 

17 Auyong 1984). This included 8,983 private fishing boats, 1,624 charter/party fishing boats, and 

18 274 scuba boats. One charter boat operator in the northern GOM stated that he takes more than 

19 10,000 people deep sea fishing annually, with all fishing activities on these trips conducted while 

20 tied up to oil and gas structures. Approximately one-quarter of all the offshore wean fishing 

21 originating in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi was directly associated with oil and gas 

22 structures. Ditton and Graefe (1978) found that oil and gas structures off the Texas coast 

23 attracted 87% of the boats and 50% of all offshore recreational fishing.

24

25 Research on sport fishing in the central GOM region suggests fishermen are often 

26 prepared to travel distances of up to 42 km (26 mi) to take advantage of reef fisheries established 

27 on oil and gas structures (Myatt and Ditton 1986), while Stanley and Wilson (1989) found larger 

28 travel distances of up to 80 km (50 mi) for platforms established under the Louisiana Artificial 

29 Reef Initiative, with distances travelled sometimes being as high as 167 km (104 mi). The highly 

30 specialized marine recreational fisherman profiled by Stanley and Wilson (1989) used equipment 

31 with sophisticated navigational and safety equipment in order to use reef structures located 

32 further offshore. Beyond 161 km (100 mi), structures have been used by fishemen drawn to

33 deepwater habitat or for charter and commercial uses. More distant offshore locations were also 

34 found to benefit the tournament fishing community, who were prepared for more offshore travel 

35 than were non-tournament anglers (Gordon 1993). 

36

37 Hiett and Milon (2001) estimated demand, expenditures, and economic impact associated 

38 with recreational fishing and diving near offshore oil and gas structures and artificial reefs 

39 created from these structures in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Data came from 

40 field surveys of fishermen and divers using private, charter, and party boats. A subsample from 

41 each group received follow-up telephone interviews to obtain expenditure data. The survey data 

42 were combined with information from regional surveys of fishermen to generate State and 

43 regional estimates of aggregate expenditures. To expand the results from the sample to an 

44 estimate of impacts for the region, the authors relied on information from an annual survey 

45 conducted by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Their resulting estimates were that 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-349

1 $324.6 million in economic activity and 5,560 jobs in coastal counties of the GOM region 

2 resulted annually from fishing and diving activities near oil and gas structures.

3

4

5 3.13.4.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet and Arctic

6

7 Although offshore oil and gas structures may provide benefits to recreational fishermen 

8 and for diving, there is little documentation of visitation numbers, either by charter vessel or 

9 individual boating trips, and the distribution of fishing trips according to the depth of structures. 

10 Given the climatic restrictions on recreational fishing and especially on diving in the Arctic, the 

11 number of visitor trips to offshore areas is not known, but is likely to be small.

12

13

14 3.13.5 Recreation and Tourism Employment

15

16

17 3.13.5.1 Gulf of Mexico

18

19 Recreation and tourism are major sources of employment along the GOM coast, with 

20 total employment of 1,015,662 in these sectors (Table 3.13.5-1). The greatest concentration of 

21 tourism-related employment in 2008 was in Florida, with 46% of GOM coast region employment 

22 in the tourism and recreation sectors. Within the State, tourism-related employment is 

23 concentrated in the Miami and Tampa-St. Petersburg LMAs (MMS 2006b). Elsewhere in the 

24 GOM coast region, Texas had 31.9% of regional employment in tourism and recreational 

25 activities and Louisiana had 16.2%, with employment concentrated in the Houston-Galveston 

26 LMA and the New Orleans LMA (MMS 2006b).

27

28

29 3.13.5.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

30

31 Recreation and tourism are major sources of employment in the south central Alaska 

32 region, with total employment of 21,302 in these sectors (Table 3.13.5-2). The greatest 

33 concentration of tourism-related employment in 2008 was in Anchorage, with 78.4% of south 

34 central Alaska region employment in the various tourism and recreation sectors. 

35

36

37 3.13.5.3 Alaska – Arctic

38

39 Recreation and tourism are not major sources of employment in the Arctic region, with 

40 total employment of 619 in these sectors (Table 3.13.5-3). The greatest concentration of 

41 tourism-related employment in 2008 was in North Slope Borough, with 79% of Arctic region 

42 employment in the various tourism and recreation sectors. 

43

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-350

1 TABLE 3.13.5-1 GOM Coastal Region Recreation and Tourism Employment 

2 Composition, 2008

Employment Alabama Florida Louisiana Mississippi Texas Total

Sporting goods retailers 353 6,155 2,715 224 6,269 15,716

Scenic tours 50 1,440 599 25 781 2,895

Automotive rental 221 9,582 2,406 110 4,866 17,185

Museums and historic sites 277 3,049 2,272 87 3,725 9,410

Amusement and recreation 2,085 44,670 14,052 4,036 24,801 89,644

Hotels and lodging places 3,001 74,192 24,351 14,895 27,087 143,526

RV parks and campsites 93 1,336 446 102 759 2,736

Eating and drinking places 21,542 326,287 117,648 13,333 255,740 734,550

Total 27,622 466,711 164,489 32,812 324,028 1,015,662

Source: USCB 2011f.

3

4

5 TABLE 3.13.5-2 South Central Alaska Region Recreation and Tourism Employment 

6 Composition, 2008

Anchorage

Kenai 

Peninsula

Kodiak 

Island

MatanuskaSusitna

South Central 

Alaska Region 

Total

Sporting goods retailers 498 10 10 96 614

Scenic tours 175 80 10 60 325

Automotive rental 324 14 10 10 358

Museums and historic sites 156 60 60 4 280

Amusement and recreation 1,511 204 60 237 2,012

Hotels and lodging places 3,076 439 59 265 3,839

RV parks and campsites 60 60 10 43 173

Eating and drinking places 10,894 1,167 295 1,345 13,701

Total 16,694 2,034 514 2,060 21,302

Source: USCB 2011f.

7

8

9 3.13.6 Impact of Oil Spills on Recreation and Tourism

10

11 Oil from the DWH event reached many central GOM beaches, and visits to these areas in 

12 the immediate aftermath of the accident have decreased significantly; cancellations were 

13 reported for areas that are clear of oil, with the spill contributing to negative perceptions of the 

14 GOM region (CRS 2010). To counter these perceptions, BP has funded tourism promotion 

15 programs in Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida (CRS 2010). Although oil spills can have 

16 potentially devastating impacts on the marine and coastal environment, evidence of the longer-
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-351

1 TABLE 3.13.5-3 Arctic Region Recreation and Tourism Employment 

2 Composition, 2008

North Slope 

Borough

Northwest 

Arctic Borough

Arctic Region 

Total

Sporting goods retailers 0 0 0

Scenic tours 0 0 0

Automotive rental 0 0 0

Museums and historic sites 0 0 0

Amusement and recreation 53 60 113

Hotels and lodging places 61 10 71

RV parks and campsites 0 0 0

Eating and drinking places 375 60 435

Total 489 130 619

Source: USCB 2011f.

3

4

5 term impacts of spills on tourism and recreation in coastal areas impacted by oil spills is 

6 inconclusive. This information, however, is not needed at the programmatic stage to make a 

7 reasoned choice among alternatives (see Section 1.4, Analytical Issues).

8

9 Following the Exxon Valdez oil spill, visitor spending decreased 8% in south central 

10 Alaska and by 35% in southwest Alaska, resulting in an overall loss of $19 million in visitor 

11 spending (Alaska Visitor Statistics Program 1990a). Of all visitors who did travel to Alaska, 

12 16% indicated that the spill influenced their trip planning; nearly half indicated they avoided 

13 Prince William Sound during their trip. One in 5 visitors to southwest and south central Alaska 

14 stated that their plans were affected significantly more than for other regions of the State. 

15 Independent visitors were more affected than package visitors, particularly those who planned to 

16 purchase sightseeing packages on arrival in Alaska (Alaska Visitors Statistic Program 1990b).

17

18 Another study found that 9% of high potential visitors reported the spill impacted travel 

19 into Alaska. As a result, 4% either changed or postponed their trip to Alaska in 1989. Of the 

20 population, 8% reported the spill impacted interest in travel to Alaska. As a result, 1% canceled, 

21 changed, or postponed a trip to Alaska in 1989. By March 1990, 5% of the general population 

22 reported the spill impacted interest in travel to Alaska, with 1% indicating that they did not want 

23 to travel to Alaska (Alaska Visitors Association 1990). The same research showed an estimated

24 decline in visitation of 9,400 in the summer of 1989, representing a loss of $5.5 million in in25 State expenditures. The 428,200 tourists visiting for vacation and pleasure or to visit friends and 

26 relatives in the summer of 1989 represents 97.8% of the total number of visitors who would have 

27 come to Alaska, meaning that only 2.2% of all vacation visits were negatively affected by the 

28 spill (Alaska Visitors Association 1990). 

29

30 Perceptions of the extent of the impacts of the spill on the Alaskan economy seem to be 

31 in conflict with the results of visitor surveys. Using interviews, executives of tourist-affected 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-352

1 businesses and relevant government agencies and organizations (The McDowell Group 1990) 

2 found decreased resident and nonresident vacation and pleasure visitor traffic in the spill-affected 

3 areas of Valdez, Homer, Cordova, and Kodiak due to lack of available accommodation, charter 

4 boats, and air taxis. Of the businesses surveyed in spill-affected areas, 43% felt their business 

5 had been significantly or completely affected by the oil spill. A severe labor shortage occurred 

6 in the visitor industry throughout the State due to traditional service industry workers seeking 

7 high-paying spill cleanup jobs, resulting in a higher cost of doing business among visitor 

8 industry businesses. Fifty-nine percent of businesses in the most spill-affected areas reported 

9 spill-related cancellations and 16% reported business was less than expected due to the spill. 

10 Business segments most negatively affected by the spill included lodges and resorts, Alaska11 based tour companies, guided outdoor activities, and charter and sightseeing boats. These 

12 businesses did not have the opportunity to reap spill benefits (such as spending for 

13 accommodations) because they were located away from spill cleanup operations or operated a 

14 business that could not serve cleanup needs (The McDowell Group 1990). 

15

16 There were major positive effects of the Exxon Valdez spill, with spill-related business in 

17 some major cleanup areas, and in recreation-related business sectors, such as hotels/motels, car 

18 and RV rental, air taxi and boat charters. This business offset the lack of vacation and pleasure 

19 business normally experienced in these areas (The McDowell Group 1990; USDOI 2002).

20

21 A study by Ellis et al. (1991) used the model proposed by David M. Dornbusch and 

22 Company (1987) to evaluate the impacts of the Huntingdon Beach, California, spill of 1990. The 

23 model was used to predict changes in beach recreational patterns in response to the closure of 

24 beaches due to an oil spill, with the results compared to independent estimates of actual impacts 

25 generated by the spill. As a result of cleanup activities and natural variations in terrain, 

26 individual beaches were closed for different lengths of time. Average beach closure times of 

27 13.5 days in February and 3.1 days in March were used in the Dornbusch model. This results in 

28 a total of 2.28% of yearly beach attendance lost due to closures by the spill.

29

30 In the area most physically impacted by the spill, the Dornbusch model estimated a loss 

31 in water-based recreation (water-enhanced plus water-dependent) of 720,210 user days, 

32 representing a total loss of 2.28% of the yearly recreation days. Immediately south of the 

33 impacted area, there was an estimated decrease of 5,448 user days for water-based beach 

34 recreation, while immediately north of the impacted area, there was an estimated increase of 

35 46,680 user days. There were significant increases in attendance in other beach areas. The 

36 associated consumer surplus changes for the impacted beach areas were $4,959,012 for 

37 combined water-dependent and water-enhanced recreation in the main area of impact, an

38 increase of $253,695 in the area immediately south, and a decrease of $56,661 for the area 

39 immediately to the north. Total statewide consumer surplus decreased by $1,106,667, a 3.4% 

40 decrease from the baseline value of $32,355,916.

41

42 Oil spills present a unique set of impacts on recreation relative to the various forms of 

43 OCS development activity (A.T. Kearney, Inc. 1991). Whereas industrial development and other 

44 scenarios create permanent aesthetic impacts, oil spills are random events that have impacts for 

45 only a limited period of time. An oil spill is not considered to have a permanent impact on 

46 tourism, but rather significant impacts in the period immediately following an accident and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-353

1 smaller residual impacts in the succeeding months. While it is recognized that long-term 

2 ecological effects may occur, past experience with spills indicates that visitation returns to 

3 baseline levels within a number of years. 

4

5 More recent research has focused on the relationship between the possibility of oil spills 

6 and the potential for a spill to degrade marine resources and inhibit recreation and tourism. 

7 Pulsipher et al. (1999) examined the social and economic impacts of a 5,000 bbl oil spill that 

8 occurred offshore in the Lake Barre region of the Louisiana coast in 1997. Based on interviews 

9 and information obtained from Texaco (responsible for cleanup), the cleanup contractors, and 

10 local area officials, business owners, and residents, the short-term social and economic effects 

11 were quite small. The major negative effect was a concern about long-term impacts on marine 

12 resources (shrimp, oysters, and fish), but there was no local consensus about whether such 

13 effects had occurred.

14

15 Although much has been learned in the aftermaths of major oil spills in the past several 

16 decades, and the nature and extent of their impacts, despite the attenuation of information from 

17 the media and other sources, social amplification of risk has tended to reduce public acceptance 

18 of the continued risk of oil production and oil transport by sea, at least in the short term

19 (Leschine 2002) with the consequent potential impacts on recreation and tourism.

20

21

22 3.14 SOCIOCULTURAL SYSTEMS AND SUBSISTENCE

23

24 Sociocultural systems consist of the beliefs, ideas, tools, and behavioral patterns 

25 including social structure, culture, and institutional organizations that humans use to adapt to 

26 their physical and social environments. The sociocultural systems considered here are mostly 

27 associated with ethnic and social groups living along the coasts of the GOM and Alaska. While 

28 these coasts share the potential for offshore oil and gas development, they are ethnically and 

29 demographically dissimilar and are treated somewhat differently here. For example, the northern 

30 coast of Alaska is sparsely inhabited. Widely spaced Alaska Native communities dot the coast. 

31 They are largely isolated from enclaves of transient oil and gas workers. Few are employed in 

32 the oil and gas industry, while many are culturally and economically reliant on subsistence 

33 hunting and fishing, which are emphasized here. While subsistence harvesting exists along the 

34 GOM coast, it is of minor cultural and socioeconomic importance. Unlike Alaska‘s north coast, 

35 the offshore oil and gas industry is well developed and draws the majority of its workforce from 

36 the GOM coast counties. This relationship is discussed in the sections that follow. South central 

37 Alaska supports a more ethnically diverse population than the North Slope and includes isolated 

38 Alaska Native villages, ethnically diverse towns and cities dependent on commercial fishing, and 

39 a well-developed offshore oil and gas industry along with its supporting infrastructure.

40

41
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-354

1 3.14.1 Gulf of Mexico

2

3

4 3.14.1.1 Sociocultural Systems

5

6 The counties along the U.S. coast of the GOM are home to a large and heterogeneous mix 

7 of cultures, subcultural groups, and populations. Within this region, the effects of the offshore 

8 oil and gas industry are felt most directly by populations residing within the coastal community 

9 commuting zone where industry-support facilities are located and the people who work at them 

10 reside (see Figure 3.14.1-1). Coastal cultures and populations include Hispanic enclaves in 

11 southern Texas, Acadian (Cajun) and Native American populations in the bayou country of 

12 southern Louisiana, Vietnamese communities along the coast of Texas, Louisiana, and 

13 Mississippi, and substantial Caucasian and African American populations (see tables and maps 

14 in Sections 3.10.1 and 3.15.1). Native American populations include the federally recognized 

15 (Table 3.14.1-1) and State-recognized tribes (Table 3.14.1-2). The metropolitan areas of the 

16 GOM coast are located in estuaries and are set back from the open coast. They have well17 developed port facilities, with waterborne commerce playing an important role in their 

18 economies. Cities such as Houston and New Orleans and their surrounding suburban 

19 communities have served as destinations of opportunity and have attracted racially and ethnically 

20 diverse populations. However, many smaller communities maintain sociocultural environments 

21 that are less diverse, often supporting a single or small number of cultural groups in their most 

22 important activities. Beginning in the 1930s (and increasingly after World War II), coastal 

23 populations have been involved in the oil and gas industry to varying degrees.

24

25 Involvement in oil and gas industry activities has been uneven along the coast. Some 

26 areas are heavily involved, while other communities have little or no involvement. There is thus 

27 variability in the effects of the ups and downs of the industry‘s business cycle. However, there 

28 do appear to have been aggregate effects. These include rapid migration of workers in and out of 

29 communities, volatility in social problems, and volatility in income distribution patterns. 

30 Communities with dense social networks based on kinship, culture, and other enduring 

31 relationships are less affected by industry volatility (Tootle et al. 1999).

32

33 The most heavily affected areas are located within the states of Texas and Louisiana, 

34 where both upstream and downstream activities are concentrated. Beginning in the early 1930s, 

35 the oil industry attracted new workers to Louisiana, affecting the ethnic composition, self36 identity, and cultural persistence of groups already in the area and contributing to a rich ethnic 

37 mix, as both the immigrants and receiving communities adjusted socially and culturally through 

38 the assimilation process. Industry development has also affected the identity of existing ethnic 

39 groups. Blue collar jobs in the oil and gas industry have helped to maintain the Cajun culture in 

40 Louisiana. However, involvement in the oil and gas industry has affected some aspects of 

41 certain cultures. For example, the discouragement of the use of Cajun French on oil rigs and 

42 supply boats has reduced the usage of this language in coastal Louisiana (Henry and 

43 Bankston 2002). While the oil and gas industry brought an increased exposure of the Cajun 

44 communities to a wider cultural mix and resulted in the adoption of some characteristics of 

45 broader American culture, the exposure to outsiders also reinforced behaviors held to be 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-355

12 FIGURE 3.14.1

-1 GOM Coastal Community Commuting Zone

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-356

1 TABLE 3.14.1-1 Federally Recognized Tribes in the 

2 Coastal Community Commuting Zone

State County/Parish Tribe

Alabama Escambia Poarch Band of Creek Indians

Florida Escambia Poarch Band of Creek Indians

Florida Hillsborough Seminole Tribe of Florida

Louisiana Allen Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana

Louisiana St. Mary Chittimacha Tribe of Louisiana

Texas Polk Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas

Source: NPS 2010.

3

4

5 TABLE 3.14.1-2 State-Recognized Tribes in the Coastal 

6 Community Commuting Zone

State County/Parish Tribe

Alabama Mobile MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians

Louisiana East Baton Rouge Biloxi-Chitimacha Confederation/ 

Bayou Larouche Band

Louisiana Vernon Four Winds Tribe

Louisiana Terrebonne Point-Au-Chien Tribe

Louisiana Lafourche United Houma Nation

Louisiana Terrebonne Grand Caillou/Dulac Band

Texas Nueces Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas

Sources: AIAC 2011; FGCIA 2011; LATT 2009; LGOIA 2011.

7

8

9 characteristically Cajun, including festivals and the preparation of certain foods such as crawfish 

10 (Esman 1982).

11

12

13 3.14.1.2 Subsistence and Renewable Resource Harvesting

14

15 The coastal estuaries along the GOM have long provided a wealth of wild resources 

16 suitable for harvesting. While the bulk of the harvest currently comes in the form of commercial 

17 shrimping, fishing, and oystering, traditional subsistence harvesting including fishing and 

18 hunting continues among some ethnic groups and low-income minorities (Hemmerling and 

19 Colton 2004). In the words of Tim Melancon, a Cajun shrimper, ―We‘re the last of the 

20 Mohicans. We still live off the land. Everything we need is right here‖ (Tidwell 2003). 

21 Although most Cajuns are now urban dwellers with blue collar jobs, the cultural ideal of 

22 harvesting the bounty of the bayous remains and is practiced recreationally (Henry and 

23 Bankston 2002). Native American groups such as the State-recognized United Houma Nation 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-357

1 and the federally recognized Chittimacha Tribe in southern Louisiana depend on fishing, 

2 hunting, and gathering for at least part of their domestic subsistence (Brightman 2004;

3 Campisi 2004). Despite being primarily commercial fishers, Vietnamese fishers normally retain 

4 up to 25% of their catch for family use and for barter (Alexander-Bloch 2010). 

5

6

7 3.14.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

8

9

10 3.14.2.1 Sociocultural Systems 

11

12 The region surrounding the Cook Inlet Planning Area, referred to as south central Alaska, 

13 including both the southern portions of Cook Inlet and the Shelikof Strait, is quite diverse 

14 (Figure 3.14.2-1). It includes economically complex cities such as Anchorage and its suburbs, 

15 the largest urban community in the State; towns such as Kenai, Soldotna, and Nikiski that are 

16 centers of the oil and gas industry, on the Kenai Peninsula, as well as commercial fishing; 

17 smaller towns such as Port Lions that are dependent on commercial fishing; and small, 

18 predominantly Alaska Native communities. The northern Knik Arm of Cook Inlet extends into 

19 the Borough of Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su), which includes both urban communities tied to 

20 Anchorage and remote rural settlements. Subsistence harvesting plays some role in communities 

21 of all types. 

22

23 Anchorage is the major service center for the area. It is located between the Knik and 

24 Turnagain Arms of upper Cook Inlet northeast of the Cook Inlet Planning Area. Oil and Gas 

25 activities in the Cook Inlet Planning Area would affect Anchorage to the extent that they affect 

26 the waters of the upper inlet and the oil and gas companies located there. It is the center of the 

27 local road network and serves as a hub for scheduled and charter air traffic. Although majority 

28 Caucasian, it is home to significant Alaska Native, Asian, Black, and Hispanic populations. It is 

29 the center of commerce for the State, serving as the headquarters for the oil and gas industry, 

30 finance and real estate, communications, government offices, and military facilities, as well as 

31 much of the tourist industry (DCRA 2011). In spite of its urban character, the Anchorage 

32 community partakes in Alaskan values of independence and accessibility to the wild and remote. 

33 The ADF&G estimates that 34 Anchorage households currently participate in subsistence 

34 harvesting (ADFG 2011e).

35

36 Lying north of Anchorage, the Mat-Su Borough, although including the northern reach of 

37 Knik Arm, is farther from the Cook Inlet Planning Area. Activities in the planning area would 

38 affect Mat-Su communities in much the same way as they would the Anchorage area. Palmer 

39 and Wasilla are major Mat-Su communities. Connected to Anchorage by the road network, they 

40 serve partly as bedroom communities for Anchorage, but also are home to a variety of retail, 

41 service, and light manufacturing enterprises. Seventy-seven Palmer residents have commercial 

42 fishing permits and would be affected by oil and gas activities in Cook Inlet (DCRA 2011). The 

43 ADF&G has tracked subsistence use in four Mat-Su communities. Subsistence harvest includes 

44 marine resources (ADFG 2011e), indicating that subsistence users are harvesting in areas beyond 

45 the upper inlet, very likely within the planning area.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-358

12 FIGURE 3.14.

2-1 Native Communities around Cook Inlet

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-359

1 The Kenai Peninsula forms the southeastern coast of Cook Inlet with direct access to the 

2 Cook Inlet Planning Area from its southern end. The Kenai-Soldota area (Kenai, Soldotna, 

3 Nikiski, Sterling, Ridgeway, and Kasilof) serves as a diversified center for the central Kenai 

4 Peninsula. Homer serves as a smaller-scale hub for the southern part of the peninsula. All 

5 communities on the peninsula except those lying south of Katchemak Bay are connected to 

6 Anchorage by a road network. Most communities are of mixed ethnicity or predominantly non7 Native. Small communities that are not connected to the road network include Tyonek, 

8 Nanwalek, Port Graham, and Seldovia. These four communities share many of the same 

9 characteristics as communities in the less economically developed areas of the State. All but 

10 Seldovia are predominantly Alaska Native with limited commercial economic activities 

11 primarily related to fishing and fish processing. Tyonek is a Dena‘ina village, while Nanwalek 

12 and Port Graham are Chugachmuit. In these communities, subsistence activities retain 

13 significant importance and reinforce their fundamental kin-based social organization.

14

15 The Cook Inlet Planning Area extends southwest beyond Cook Inlet proper and includes 

16 the heart of the Shelikof Strait. The Shelikof Strait lies between Kodiak Island and the Alaska 

17 Peninsula. The small communities along the northwestern coast of Kodiak Island, Ahiok, 

18 Karluk, Larsen Bay, and Port Lions are reachable only by sea and by air. Similar to the small 

19 isolated communities on the Kenai Peninsula, they have a high proportion of Alaska Native 

20 inhabitants and rely mostly on commercial fishing and subsistence harvesting (DCRA 2011). 

21 Given their reliance on marine resources, these communities have the potential to be directly 

22 affected by oil and gas development in the Cook Inlet Planning Area.

23

24 At the time of European contact, the area around Cook Inlet was inhabited by Dena‘ina 

25 Athabascans. The southern end of the Kenai Peninsula was inhabited by the Chugachmuit, while 

26 Kodiak Island and the southwestern shores of the inlet were inhabited by Koniagmiut. The area 

27 covered by Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI), a regional Alaska Native corporation established 

28 under the ANCSA, closely follows traditional Dena‘ina lands, but draws its membership from a 

29 cross section of Native cultures whose descendants now live in the Anchorage metropolitan area. 

30 Native lands on the southern end of the Kenai Peninsula are now part of the Chugachmuit Alaska 

31 regional Alaska Native corporation, while the Native communities along the Shelikof Strait are 

32 part of the Koniag, Inc. or Bristol Bay regional Native corporations. Table 3.14.2-1 lists south 

33 central Alaska communities with Alaska Native populations (Davis 1984).

34

35

36 3.14.2.2 Subsistence

37

38 Alaskans generally place a high value on being able to hunt, fish, and to live off the land, 

39 if desired. The Alaska Constitution guarantees equal access to fish, wildlife, and waters for all 

40 State residents. Traditionally Alaska Natives hunted, fished, and lived off the land of necessity. 

41 They view subsistence hunting and gathering as a core value of their traditional cultures. For 

42 them, most subsistence activities are group activities that further core values of community, 

43 kinship, cooperation, and reciprocity. In Alaska, State and Federal definitions of subsistence 

44 and who is permitted to participate in the subsistence harvest differ. The ADF&G defines 

45 subsistence fishing as ―the taking of, fishing for, or possession of fish, shellfish or other fisheries 

46 resources by a resident of the State for subsistence uses [customary and traditional uses of fish]‖ 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-360

1 TABLE 3.14.2-1 Alaska Natives in Communities around the Cook Inlet

Community

Population 

(2010)

Percent 

Native

Local Native 

Corporation

Federally Recognized 

Tribal Government Incorporated?

Cook Inlet Region Inc.

Anchorage 291,826 8 None None 1920

Big Lake 529 23 None None No

Chickaloon 272 6 Chickaloon-Moose 

Creek Native 

Association

Chickalonn Native Village

Eklutna 384 13 Eklutna, Inc. Native Village of Eklutna No

Fishhook 4,679 4 None None No

Glacier View 234 1 None None No

Houston 1,912 7 None None 1966

Kenai 7,100 9 Kenai Natives 

Association, Inc.

Kenaitze Indian Tribe 1960

Knik Fairview 14,923 5 Knikatnu, Inc. Knik Tribal Council No

Knik River 744 4 None None No

Lake Louise 48 2 None None No

Ninilchik 883 5 Ninilchik Native 

Association, Inc.

Ninilchik Traditional 

Council

No

Palmer 5,937 9 Montana Creek Native 

Association

Point Mackenzie 529 23 None None No

Salamatof 980 18 Salamatof Native 

Association, Inc.

Native Village of Salamatof No

Seldovia 255 14 Seldovia Native 

Association, Inc.

Seldovia Village Tribe 1945

Trapper Creek 481 6 None None No

Tyonek 171 88 Tyonek Native Corp. Native Village of Tyonek No

Wasilla 7,831 5 1951

Chugach Alaska Corp.

Nanwalek 254 80 English Bay 

Corporation

Native Village of Nanwalek No

Port Graham 177 71 Port Graham Corp. Native Village of Port 

Graham

No

Koniag Inc.

Akhiok 71 51 Ayakulik Inc. Native Village of Ahiok

Karluk 37 95 None Native Village of Karluk

Larsen Bay 87 71 None Native Village of Larsen 

Bay

Port Lions 194 59 Afognak Native Corp. Native Village of Port Lion

Source: DCRA 2011.

2

3

4
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-361

1 (ADFG 2011f). Current Federal regulations define subsistence use as ―the customary and 

2 traditional use by rural Alaska residents of wild, renewable resources for direct personal or 

3 family consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools of transportation; for making and 

4 selling handicraft articles out of nonedible byproducts of fish and wildlife resources taken for 

5 personal or family consumption; for barter, or sharing for personal or family consumption; and 

6 for customary trade‖ (FSMP 2010). The State definition makes subsistence harvesting available 

7 to all Alaska residents, while Federal land managers restrict the harvest to those whose primary 

8 residence is rural, and may restrict a particular harvest area to a specified community or group of 

9 communities. The entire State is defined as rural except for designated non-rural areas 

10 (FSMP 2011). Priority for subsistence harvesting in land management is expressed in the 

11 ANILCA, passed by Congress in 1980. Similar State legislation was struck down as violating

12 the State Constitution. ANILCA now applies only to Federal lands. Both approaches to 

13 subsistence are represented in south central Alaska.

14

15 Subsistence resources on Federal lands and waters are managed by the Federal 

16 Subsistence Board (FSB). For some resources in certain areas, the FSB has determined that all 

17 rural Alaskans are qualified subsistence users. For other areas, the FSB has made more 

18 restrictive ―customary and traditional‖ determinations of eligibility. For example, only the 

19 communities of Copper Landing, Hope, and Ninilchik may harvest salmon with dipnets in the 

20 Kenai River drainage. Customary and traditional use means ―a long-established, consistent 

21 pattern of use, incorporating beliefs and customs transmitted from generation to generation. This 

22 use plays an important role in the economy of the community‖ (FSMP 2011) 

23

24 Some marine resources are subject to Federal regulation. Subsistence hunting of marine 

25 mammals is governed by the MMPA, and is restricted to Alaska Natives who reside on the coast 

26 of the North Pacific Ocean or the Arctic Ocean. Halibut may be harvested by residents of rural 

27 communities through the Federal subsistence halibut program (ADFG 2011f).

28

29 While the State of Alaska makes regulated subsistence harvesting available to all 

30 residents of at least a year, it also designates some areas as nonsubsistence use areas. Alaska 

31 statutes define nonsubsistence use areas as ―areas where dependence upon subsistence 

32 (customary and traditional uses of fish and wildlife) is not a principal characteristic of economy 

33 culture and way of life‖ (AS 16.05.258(c)). In south central Alaska, the Anchorage-Mat-Su34 Kenai Nonsubsistence Use Area includes FSB-designated non-rural areas in Anchorage, the 

35 Mat-Su Borough, and on the Kenai Peninsula. The State does allow ―personal use‖ fisheries 

36 within nonsubsistence use areas. Alaska defines ―personal use‖ fishing as ―the taking, fishing 

37 for, or possession of finfish, shellfish, or other fishery resources, by Alaska residents for personal 

38 use and not for sale or barter, with gill or dip net, seine, fish wheel, long line, or other means 

39 defined by the Board of Fisheries‖ (ADFG 2011f). Personal use harvest is for food rather than 

40 sport. It is illegal to buy, sell, trade or barter personal use finfish, shellfish, or aquatic plants.

41

42 A discussion of subsistence in and around the Cook Inlet Planning Area must take into 

43 account, both Native and non-Native populations, urban and rural communities, Federal and 

44 State jurisdiction; and the Anchorage-Mat-Su-Kanai Nonsubsistence Use Area, and personal use 

45 fisheries. The Anchorage-Mat-Su-Kanai Nonsubsistence Use Area includes all but the southern 

46 tip of the Kenai Peninsula, State waters within Cook Inlet, and Anchorage and its suburbs and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-362

1 extends northward into Mat-Su Borough as far as Chickaloon, Talkeetna, and Petersville. 

2 Although subsistence harvesting is excluded from this area, personal use fishing does provide 

3 opportunities for harvesting fish with gear other than rod and reel within nonsubsistence areas at 

4 designated locations and seasons. These include a salmon fishery off the mouth of the Kenai 

5 River, a razor clam fishery on the beaches between Homer and Kenai, and a hooligan and herring 

6 fishery in Cook Inlet (ADFG 2011f). The urban Anchorage area is home to 42% of the State‘s 

7 population. Its residents hunt and fish under personal use, sport, and subsistence regulations in 

8 other parts of the area, especially the Kenai Peninsula. 

9

10 These hunting and fishing options are available to Alaska residents living in Mat-Su as 

11 well. The small Caucasian community of Chase, located just outside the nonsubsistence area, 

12 relies almost entirely on subsistence harvesting and gardening, and Trappers Creek with a small 

13 Native population, relies substantially on subsistence harvesting as well (DCRA 2011) (see 

14 Table 3.14.2-1). The most recent subsistence harvest data for Mat-Su communities dates to the 

15 1980s (Table 3.14.2-2). While the bulk of the harvested species reported are terrestrial species or 

16 anadromous fish, subsistence harvesters were taking marine finfish and shellfish as well, 

17 suggesting that the effects of gas and oil activities in the Cook Inlet Planning Area would not be 

18 confined to communities directly on the coast.

19

20 In the predominantly Alaska Native communities (Table 3.14.2-1) adjacent to the 

21 planning area — Port Graham, Nanwelek, Tyonek, Akhiok, Karluk, Larsen Bay, and Port Lions 

22 — subsistence resources are an important part of household economy in terms of variety,

23 amount, and sharing (see Table 3.14.2-3). The communities connected to the road network are 

24 of mixed ethnicity or predominantly non-Native and display somewhat different patterns of 

25 subsistence resource use.

26

27 Many species, often migratory species, play an important role in the annual cycle of 

28 subsistence-resource harvests. Thus, specific effects on subsistence can be serious, depending on 

29 the season in which they occur, seasonally specific effects on subsistence can be serious, even if 

30 the annual net quantity of available food does not decline. Subsistence use patterns vary 

31 considerably in and adjacent to the the Cook Inlet Planning Area. Smaller, more traditional 

32 villages harvest salt and freshwater fishes and small sea mammals in summer and fall, hunt 

33 moose in the fall, and harvest invertebrates and some sea mammals all year. Residents in the 

34 more urban-based communities tend to fish in the summer and hunt in the fall.

35

36 Where Alaska Natives are located in urban areas, such as the Kenaitze Indian Tribe, 

37 located in Kenai, a yearly Educational Fishery Permit has been issued so that they can instruct 

38 the younger generation in traditional food harvesting and preparation skills. In 2008, a quota of 

39 8,000 salmon was allotted to the Kenaitze Tribe during a season lasting from May 1 to 

40 November 30 (Kenaitze Indian Tribe 2011). In 2010, due to low escapement numbers in the 

41 Ninilchik River, the Ninilchik Village Tribe was allotted 100 king salmon and 200 coho salmon 

42 during an educational fishery season lasting from May 1 through May 20 (NTC 2010).

43
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-363

1 TABLE 3.14.2-2 Reported Subsistence Use at Mat-Su Borough Communities

Resource Scientific Name

Chase 1986Chickaloon 1982Lake Louise 1987Trapper Creek 1985

Marine Mammals – – – –

Terrestrial Mammals

 Deer Species not reported X – X –

 Bison Bison bison – X X

 Dall Sheep Ovis dalli X – – –

 Moose Alces alces X X X X

 Brown Bear Ursus arctos X – X –

 Black bear Ursus americanus X X X X

 Fox Species not reported X X X X

 Wolf Canis lupus X – X –

 Coyote Canis latrans X X – –

 Wolverine Gulo gulo X – – –

 Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum X X – X

 Beaver Castor Canadensis X X – X

 Marten Martes spp. X X X X

 Mink Species not reported X – X X

 Weasel Species not reported X – X –

 Hare Species not reported X X – X

 Land otter Lutra canadensis X – – –

 Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus – X – –

Fish

 Salmon Species not reported X X X X

 Chum Oncorhynchus keta X – – X

 Pink (humpback) O. gorbuscha X X – X

 Silver (coho) O. kisutch X X X X

 Chinook O. tshawytscha X X X X

 Sockeye O. nerka X X X X

 Herring Clupea spp. X – – –

 Halibut Hippoglosus spp. X – X X

 Dolly varden Salverlinus mallma miyabei X X – –

 Char Species not reported X – X –

 Rock fish Species not reported – – X –

 Trout Species not reported X X – X

 Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush X X X –

 Smelt Species not reported X X – –

 Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus – – – X

 Burbot Lota lota X X X –

 Pike Species not reported – – X –

 Grayling Thymallus arcticus X X X X

 Greenling Species not reported – X – –

 White fish Coregonus spp. X – X X

 Eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus X X – –
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-364

TABLE 3.14.2-2 (Cont.)

Resource Scientific Name

Chase 1986Chickaloon 1982Lake Louise 1987Trapper Creek 1985

Marine Invertebrates

 Mussels Species not reported – – – X

 Clams Species not reported X – – X

 Crab Species not reported X – – –

 Shrimp Species not reported X – – –

Birds X X X X

 Ducks Species not reported X X X X

 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos – X – –

 Geese Species not reported X – – –

 Ptarmigan Lagopus spp. X X X X

 Grouse Species not reported X X X X

Other Resources

 Berries Species not reported X X X X

Greens/roots/mushrooms Species not reported X X X X

 Wood Species not reported X – X –

Source: ADFG 2011e.

1

2

3 Residents of Seldovia, Port Graham, and Nanwalek are the primary subsistence 

4 harvesters of the lower Kenai Peninsula, and, since the Exxon Valdez oil spill fouled local 

5 traditional clamming areas, residents of Nanwalek and Port Graham have used the area around 

6 Ninilchik for the harvest of clams. Subsistence harvesting of fish, wildlife, and vegetation also 

7 occurs at the head and along the southern shore of Kachemak Bay. Area residents harvest seals, 

8 sea lions, and sea otters around Yukon Island and Tutka Bay. Primary waterfowl harvest areas 

9 are in the vicinity of Seldovia, Tutka, and China Poot Bays and McKeon and Fox River flats. 

10 Seabirds and their eggs also are harvested. Moose, black bear, and mountain goats are hunted 

11 along local shorelines. Port Graham and Nanwalek residents harvest salmon in Nanwalek and 

12 Koyuktolik (―Dogfish‖) Bays. Seldovians gather berries in larger quantities than any of the other 

13 Kenai Peninsula subsistence communities (ADNR 1999).

14

15 Resources preferred by Nanwalek and Port Graham residents include clams, chitons, 

16 bear, and especially salmon. These provide large quantities of food during a short period of the 

17 year and also are preserved for use throughout the remainder of the year. A combination of 

18 commercial, subsistence, personal use, and rod-and-reel fisheries provide salmon for domestic 

19 use. Residents of Nanwalek and Port Graham participate in permitted general subsistence and 

20 personal-use fisheries that have existed in upper Cook Inlet since 1991 and are open to Natives 

21 and non-Natives. Dipnet fisheries take place on the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers and on Fish Creek. 

22 A set gillnet fishery takes place on the Kasilof River beginning June 21. In addition, a general 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-365

1 TABLE 3.14.2-3 Reported Subsistence Use at Selected Alaska Native Villages Adjacent to the 

2 Cook Inlet Planning Area

Resource Scientific Name

Nanwalek 2003Port Graham 2003Tyonek 2006Akhiok2003Larsen Bay2003Poort Lions2003

Marine Mammals

 Harbor seal Phoca vitulina Xa X X X X X

 Steller sea lion Eumetopias jubatus X X X X — —

 Beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas —a — X — — —

 Bowhead whale Balaena mysticetus — — X — — —

 Sea otter Enhydra lutris X X — — — X

Terrestrial Mammals

 Deer Species not reported — X X X X X

 Moose Alces alces — X X — — X

 Elk Cervus canadensis — — — — — X

 Black bear Ursus americanus X X X — — —

 Fox Species not reported — — X — — X

 Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum X X X — — —

 Beaver Castor Canadensis — — X — — X

 Coyote Canis latrans — — X — — —

 Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus — — — — X X

Fish

 Salmon Species not reported X X X X X X

 Chum Oncorhynchus keta X X X X X X

 Pink (humpback) O. gorbuscha X X X X X X

 Silver (coho) O. kisutch X X X X X X

 Chinook O. tshawytscha X X X — — —

 Sockeye O. nerka X X X X X X

 Steelhead O. mykiss — — — — X X

 Herring Clupea spp. — X X — X X

 Halibut Hippoglosus spp. X X X X X X

 Dolly varden Salverlinus mallma miyabei X X X X X X

 Char Species not reported X X X X X X

 Rock fish Species not reported X X — X X X

 Sculpin Species not reported X — — — — —

 Trout Species not reported X — X — X X

 Smelt Species not reported X X X — — —

 Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus X X — X X X

 Tomcod Eleginus gracilis X X X — — —

 Flounder Liopsetta glacialis X X — — — X

 Eel Species not reported X X — — — —

 Walleye Pollock Theragra chalcogramma — — — — — X

 Greenling Species not reported — — — — — X

 Shark Species not reported — — — — — X

 Sole Hippoglossoides elassodon — — — — — X
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-366

TABLE 3.14.2-3 (Cont.) 

Resource Scientific Name

Nanwalek2003Port Graham2003Tyonek2006Akhiok2003Larsen Bay2003Poort Lions2003

Marine Invertebrates

 Chitons Species not reported X X — X — —

 Limpets Species not reported X — — — — —

 Mussels Species not reported X X — — — X

 Clams Species not reported X X X X X X

 Oysters Species not reported — X — — — —

 Snails Species not reported X X — — X —

 Crab Species not reported X — — X X X

 Shrimp Species not reported X — — — — —

 Cockles Species not reported — — — X — —

 Sea urchins Species not reported — — — X — X

 Octopus Species not reported X X — — — —

Birds

 Ducks Species not reported X X X X X X

 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos X X X X X X

 Pintail Anas acuta — — X — — —

 Canvasback Aythya valisineria — — X — — —

 Eider Somerteria spp. — — — — — X

 Bufflehead Bucephala albeola — — — — — X

 Gadwall Anas strepera — — — — — X

 Harlequin Histrionicus histrionicus — — — — — X

 Green-winged teal Anas carolinensis — — X X — X

 Scoter Species not reported X X — — — X

 Merganser Mergus merganser — X — — — X

 Goldeneye Bucephala spp. — X — X X X

 Snow goose Chen caerulescens — — X — — —

 Canada goose Branta canadensis — — X — — X

 Emperor goose Chen canagica — — — X — —

 Sandhill crane Grus canadensis — — X — — —

 Ptarmigan Lagopus spp. — — X X — X

 Grouse Species not reported X X X — — —

 Gulls Species not reported X — — — — —

Other Resources

 Kelp Species not reported X X — — — X

 Berries Species not reported X X X X X X

 Bird eggs Species not reported X X X X X X

 Gull eggs Species not reported X X X X X X

 Greens/roots/mushrooms Species not reported X X X X X X

 Wood Species not reported X X X X X X

a X = Reported; — = Not reported.

Source: ADFG 2011e.

1
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-367

1 Kachemak Bay subsistence and personal-use salmon fishery has taken place since before 

2 statehood. This fishery uses Fox River drainage salmon runs and hatchery stocks returning to the 

3 fishing lagoon on Homer Spit and to Fox Creek (ADNR 1999).

4

5 Other resources such as trout, cod, halibut, chitons, snails, whelks, and crabs are used 

6 fresh in season. Harbor seals and sea lions are highly valued marine mammals, are harvested by 

7 local Alaska Native residents year-round, and are extensively shared by the Alaska Natives in 

8 any community. A variety of plants also are harvested in Kachemak Bay and Cook Inlet. Bull 

9 kelp, rockweed, and brown seaweeds are collected from intertidal areas, and shoreline areas 

10 provide seaside plantain, rye grass, beach pea, wild parsley, and cow parsnip. Seldovia, 

11 Kasitsna, and Jakolof Bays are important areas for the harvest of marine invertebrates.

12

13 The Native villages on Kodiak Island rely on a varying mix of commercial fishing, fish 

14 processing, tourism, and subsistence harvesting. While the extent to which they rely on 

15 subsistence varies, all of these villages rely on subsistence harvesting to a greater or lesser 

16 degree. Salmon and halibut are subsistence mainstays, as are seals and migrating birds along 

17 with invertebrates such as clams and crabs (Table 3.14.2-3) (DCRA 2011).

18

19 Often overlooked, gardening has been part of village subsistence life since Russian times. 

20 Potatoes, cabbage, and turnips were brought to the Kenai Peninsula by Russian settlers who 

21 planted gardens due to the need for fresh vegetables (Fall 1981). A variety of local wild berries 

22 are picked, particularly low- and high-bush cranberries, rosehips, blueberries, moss berries, and 

23 wild raspberries. Locally harvested subsistence foods are distributed widely among community 

24 households.

25

26 Tyonek, on the west side of Cook Inlet, has a subsistence harvest area that extends from 

27 the Susitna River south to Tuxedni Bay; harvests concentrate in areas west and south of Tyonek. 

28 Moose and salmon are the most important subsistence resources, although important components 

29 of the harvest include non-salmon fishes such as smelt, waterfowl, and clams (ADNR 1999). In 

30 the past, the subsistence use of beluga in Cook Inlet was traditionally important to the village of 

31 Tyonek. Declines in the beluga population have led Cook Inlet beluga stock to be classified as 

32 depleted under the MMPA and endangered under the ESA (see Section 3.8.1.2.1) In 1999 and 

33 2000, Federal laws established a moratorium on beluga whale harvests except for subsistence 

34 hunts under cooperative agreements between the NMFS and affected Alaska Native 

35 organizations. Co-management agreements between NMFS and the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal 

36 Council representing Native subsistence hunters were signed for 2000–2003 and 2005–2006. 

37 Two belugas were harvested from Cook Inlet as recently as 2005. Currently, harvest limits are 

38 determined in 5-yr increments based on the average beluga population over the preceding 5 yr 

39 and the population growth rate over the previous 10 yr. When that average falls below 350, no 

40 harvest is allowed. Since the 2003–2007 average abundance was below 350, there is no 

41 allowable beluga harvest for the years 2008–2012 (Allen and Angliss 2011). In April of 2011, 

42 the NMFS designated upper Cook Inlet, Katchemak Bay, and the eastern coastal waters of lower 

43 Cook Inlet as critical habitat for beluga whales. The taking of belugas in these waters is 

44 prohibited (76 FR 69:20180–20194).

45

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-368

1 3.14.3 Alaska – Arctic

2

3

4 3.14.3.1 Sociocultural Systems 

5

6 Since the planning areas under consideration here are for the most part located adjacent to 

7 sparsely populated rural areas that are largely inhabited by indigenous Alaskans, this section 

8 focuses on Alaska Native sociocultural systems, although non-Native populations are considered 

9 as well. Unlike many of the indigenous populations in the lower 48 States, Alaskan Natives 

10 continue to occupy and use their traditional lands. They maintain many traditions with respect to

11 social organization and cultural values. Among the most prized values retained are those placed 

12 on social cohesion and group activities expressed in subsistence harvesting of wildlife and plant 

13 resources. Alaska Natives have been able to maintain these values partly because of the 

14 interaction between ecological possibilities, history of contact with non-Natives, and a 

15 commitment to retaining their culture and identity. The sociocultural systems of modern Alaska 

16 Natives have been modified to some extent from those existing prior to Euro-American contact;

17 however, much of the earlier systems survive, resulting in modern sociocultural systems that to 

18 various degrees blend traditional and Euro-American characteristics.

19

20 Native populations in Alaska are involved in a complex network of institutions, unique to 

21 Native populations in the United States, that have allowed them to retain or regain control over 

22 much of their traditional homelands and modify western institutions of government and business 

23 to further traditional values. These include municipal governments, tribal councils, and regional 

24 and local ANSCA Native village and regional corporations, as well as non-governmental 

25 organizations (NGOs) such as the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) and the Alaska Eskimo 

26 Whaling Commission (AEWC). Under the terms of the Alaska Statehood Act (P.L. 85-508), the 

27 State of Alaska and Alaska Natives were allowed to select Federal lands as their own. In most 

28 cases, lands selected by the State were also claimed by Natives. The ANCSA, passed by 

29 Congress in 1971, authorized Alaska Natives to select 18 million ha (44 million ac) of their 

30 traditional lands in fee title and in exchange for extinguishing claims to the remainder of the 

31 State in return for compensation. Under ANCSA, titles to the lands were given to 12 regional 

32 for-profit corporations and more than 200 village corporations that could be organized on either a 

33 non-profit or for-profit basis. Corporation shares were divided among Alaska Natives. In most 

34 cases, village corporations hold title to the surface estate while the regional corporations hold 

35 title to the subsurface estate. Despite initial concerns that Native cultural values would be 

36 enveloped by American corporate culture and that they could eventually lose control of their 

37 corporations and corporation lands, Alaska Natives have modified corporate culture to support 

38 traditional cultural values including sharing and subsistence (ASRC 2011). To make it more 

39 likely that Natives will maintain control of their corporations in the future, ANSCA was 

40 modified in 1987 to allow corporations to allocate shares to the younger generation not covered 

41 under the original Act and to restrict share ownership to Alaska Natives.

42

43 Given these multiple layers of jurisdiction and control, a Native community might be 

44 governed by a local municipal government, a wider borough government, and a local and 

45 regional tribal council. The land surface might be owned and administered by a village 

46 corporation while subsurface resources would be under the control of a regional corporation. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-369

1 The multiple concerned institutions do not always see eye to eye, and there is some tension 

2 between successful and less profitable corporations (Zellen 2008).

3

4 This section discusses the regional and community systems found on Alaska‘s North 

5 Slope and Northwest Arctic Borough (NWAB) (Figure 3.14.3-1) that could be affected by future 

6 oil and gas activities on the Arctic OCS. Most directly affected would be the communities lying 

7 along the shore of the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas are part of the North Slope 

8 Borough (NSB). These include the predominantly Alaska Native communities of Kaktovik, 

9 Nuiqsut, Barrow, Wainwright, Point Lay, and Point Hope, as well as the unincorporated 

10 community of Deadhorse that serves primarily to house as many as 5,000 transient workers in 

11 the nearby Prudhoe Bay oil fields. NWAB communities along the Bering Sea, (Kivalina, those 

12 near Kotzebue, Buckland, and Deering) would be less directly affected. 

13

14 North Slope

15

16 Barrow is the largest permanent community on the North Slope and serves as the 

17 administrative and commercial hub of the region. At the 2010 Census, the population of the 

18 NSB was 9,430, almost 54% of which are Alaska Natives (USCB 2011c). These Alaska Natives

19 living in the communities lying along the shore of the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea Planning Areas 

20 are primarily Iñupiaq Eskimo whose traditional culture is based on cooperation, kinship ties, and 

21 subsistence hunting and gathering. In particular, traditional coastal North Slope cultures are 

22 specially adapted to whaling (Spencer 1984).

23

24 Traditionally, the Iñupiat occupied small, independent, kin-based communities or camps 

25 dispersed across the North Slope. Communities were situated to take seasonal advantage of 

26 subsistence resources. Not all Iñupiat communities practiced whaling, but most were tied to 

27 whaling through ties of kinship and trade. For the most part, Iñupiat subsistence activities and 

28 whaling in particular were and continue to be group activities requiring cooperative efforts 

29 (SRBA 2010). Whaling crews, comprised of those pursuing whales on the water and their 

30 support teams on shore or ice, bound the society together (Spencer 1984; Burch 2006).

31

32 The presence of Yankee commercial whalers in the in the mid- to late nineteenth century

33 (Bockstoce 1995) prompted Iñupiat settlement patterns to begin to change. The desire for 

34 Western trade goods drew an increasing number of Alaska Natives to the coast, where permanent 

35 communities remain today. In spite of significant population loss resulting from exposure to 

36 European disease, the Iñupiat were slowly drawn into the world economy (Chance 1984;

37 Spencer 1984). Even after Alaska was organized as a U.S. territory, Alaska Natives 

38 outnumbered immigrants from the south until the military buildup during World War II. 

39 Communities on the arctic coast remained relatively isolated from Western culture. Western 

40 influence increased when many Alaska Natives served in the Alaskan Territorial Guard, and as a 

41 result of the military buildup on the North Slope during the Cold War, the construction of the 

42 Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line and the White Alice communication network, and the 

43 establishment of the Naval Arctic Research Laboratory (NARL) at Barrow in 1947. This 

44 military presence on the North Slope increased the exposure of the Iñupiat to industrialized Euro45 American culture. Exposure to industrialization was significantly increased by the discovery of 

46 the Prudhoe Bay oil fields in 1967 and the construction of the TAPS along with the construction 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMAffected Environment 3-370

12 FIGURE 3.14.

3-1 Native Communities around the Arctic Region

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-371

1 of the Dalton Highway connecting the North Slope to the south. The increasing presence of 

2 modern American culture has stressed traditional Native culture, yet the Iñupiat have managed to 

3 remain in and retain control over much of their traditional homeland. They have successfully 

4 incorporated modern technology into their subsistence way of life. Rifles and whale bombs have 

5 replaced spears and harpoons, aluminum skiffs are employed along with seal-skin boats (umiat) 

6 in the whale hunt, whaling crews use electronic global positioning and communication devices in 

7 the hunt, and snow machines and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) have replaced dog teams and sleds 

8 (Roderick 2010; SRBA 2010). With increasing local control of land and resources has come a 

9 resurgence of traditional culture, as local and regional corporations and governments have 

10 supported the preservation of traditional languages and culture, and teaching of traditional values 

11 to the rising generation (Zellen 2008).

12

13 Local control has been increased through adaptation of Western business and 

14 governmental institutions to local values and needs. The municipal government of the NSB,

15 established in 1972, is dominated by Alaska Natives. With ample resources from the taxation of 

16 the developing energy industry in the region, the NSB has been able to make marked 

17 improvements in municipal services and education. The Arctic Slope Regional Corporation 

18 (ASRC) is the regional corporation covering the arctic coast. It is one of the more profitable 

19 regional corporations. It receives and distributes royalties from the development of mineral 

20 resources on Native lands. Half of the Alpine Oil Field lies on ASRC lands. ASRC has 

21 extended membership to Iñupiat born after 1971 and encourages the preservation and 

22 transmission of traditional Iñupiat values including the maintenance of subsistence resources 

23 (ASRC 2011). As shown in Table 3.14.3-1, each Iñupiat village is subject to multiple 

24 jurisdictions. Village corporations own the surface lands and further Iñupiat business interests. 

25

26

27 TABLE 3.14.3-1 Coastal North Slope Alaska Native Communities

Community

Population

(2010)

Percent 

Alaska 

Native Native Corporation

Federally Recognized Tribal 

Government

State 

Incorporated 

Municipality?

Atqasuk 233 92 Atqasuk Village Corp. Native Village of Atqasuk Yes

1982

Barrow 4,212 61 Ukpeagvik Iñupiat Corp. Native Village of Barrow Yes

1959

Kaktovik 239 89 Kaktovik Iñupiat Corp. Native Village of Kaktovik Yes

1971

Nuiqsut 402 87 Kuupik Village Corp. Native Village of Nuiqsut Yes

1975

Point Hope 674 90 Tikigaq (Tigara) Corp. Native Village of Point Hope Yes

1966

Point Lay 189 88 Cully Corp. Native Village of Point Lay No

Wainwright 556 90 Olgoonik Corp. Native Village of Wainwright Yes

1962

Sources: ASRC 2011; DCRA 2011; NSB 2011; BIA 2010.

28
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-372

1 Local and regional municipal governments provide social services, public safety, education, and 

2 utilities. Tribal government councils, both village councils and the regional Iñupiat Community 

3 of Arctic Slope, are recognized by the Federal Government and have jurisdiction in the domestic 

4 affairs of tribal members and serve to transmit traditional culture to the next generation 

5 (Roderick 2010; Zellen 2008). The corporations tend to support tribal values, traditional culture, 

6 and subsistence activities. Through the NSB, Alaska Natives exert some measure of control over 

7 their traditional homeland beyond the lands retained by the Native corporations (Zellen 2008).

8

9 Based on past experience, many Alaska Natives approach their relationship with the 

10 Federal Government with some degree of mistrust. For much of the last century, the government 

11 either neglected or sought to acculturate Alaska Natives. Even today, Alaska Natives express 

12 skepticism that Native input at public hearings will have much, if any, effect on project decisions 

13 and the overall direction of the leasing program. In the past, Alaska Natives have expressed fear 

14 of losing or diluting their traditional culture as industrial development of oil fields results in an 

15 influx of outsiders (MMS 2007b). Native communities are small (see Table 3.14.2-3) and 

16 relatively poor.

17

18 Northwest Arctic Borough 

19

20 The Northwest Arctic Borough (NWAB) lies south of the western portion of the NSB. 

21 Its 2010 population was 7,523, 81% of which were Alaska Natives (USCB 2011b). NWAB 

22 includes eleven communities, most of which are predominantly Alaska Native. Seven of these 

23 are on the coast or are regularly involved is subsistence harvesting of marine resources 

24 (Table 3.14.3-2). Of these, Kotzebue is the administrative and communications hub. As is the 

25

26

27 TABLE 3.14.3-2 Coastal Northwest Arctic Borough Native Communities

Community

Population

(2010)

Percent 

Alaska 

Native Native Corporation

Federally Recognized Tribal 

Government

State 

Incorporated 

Municipality?

Buckland 416 95 Merged with NANA Native Village of Buckland Yes

1966

Deering 122 87 Merged with NANA Native Village of Deering Yes

1970

Kiana 361 90 Merged with NANA Native Village of Kiana Yes

1964

Kivalina 374 96 Merged with NANA Native Village of Kivalina Yes

1969

Kotzebue 3,201 74 Kikiktagruk Iñupiat 

Corporation

Native Village of Kotzebue Yes

1958

Noatak 514 95 Merged with NANA Native Village of Noatak No

Noorvik 668 88 Merged with NANA Noorvik Native Community Yes

1964

Sources: ASRC 2011; Burch 1984.

28
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-373

1 case with the NSB, Native Alaskans strongly influence local municipal government; however, 

2 unlike the NSB, most villages have no Native village corporations. These small communities 

3 found it difficult to support village corporations. All local corporations except the Kikiktagruk 

4 Iñupiat Corporation in Kotzebue merged with the Northwest Alaska Native Association (NANA) 

5 Regional Corporation in 1976 (Burch 1984).

6

7 The traditional lifeway of the Alaska Natives living along and upstream from the Bering 

8 Sea and Kotzebue Sound was similar to that found on the North Slope. Mobile kin-based groups 

9 dispersed across the landscape taking seasonal advantage of a variety of wild food sources. Kin 

10 groups came together for a regional summer fair at Sheshalik, or combined in smaller groups in 

11 messenger feasts (Burch 1984). Even after first European contact in 1816, they maintained their 

12 traditional lifestyle until mid-century. The latter half of the nineteenth century was a time of 

13 stress. Increased contacts with American and European traders lead to the introduction of 

14 disease, alcohol and firearms. This, combined with a rapid decline in the caribou herd led to out15 migration and depopulation of much of the NWAB in the 1880s. A period of consolidation 

16 began in 1897 followed by a gold rush along the Noatak and Kobuk Rivers and Seward 

17 Peninsula. Missions and schools established and domesticated reindeer introduced in the first 

18 decades of the twentieth century became the foci for the Natives who continued for the most part 

19 to live in dispersed camps hunting and herding reindeer. The decline of the reindeer herds and 

20 the collapse of the fur market during the 1930s resulted in sedentarization in mission-school 

21 villages that have mostly persisted to the present day. An increase in caribou population and the 

22 arrival of a moose population in the 1940s and 50s, in combination with the maintenance of 

23 marine resources allowed a subsistence lifeway to continue. By the 1960s, each community had 

24 a school, a store, a National Guard armory, and an all weather airstrip and Natives lived on a 

25 combined, the subsistence harvest, with welfare, and wage labor (Burch 1984). NANA was 

26 formed in 1966, and Natives in the area began to have increased control of the development of 

27 the area. The NWAB was established in 1986. NANA worked to develop resources, such as the 

28 Red Dog Mine. Currently, the economy of the NWAB relies on a combination, of subsistence 

29 harvesting, employment in the government sector, mining, other commercial ventures, and 

30 commercial fishing. Each of the villages along the coast has at least one inhabitant with a 

31 commercial fishing permit, while Kotzebue is home to 115 permitees (DCRA 2011).

32

33 The Russian Chukchi Coast 

34

35 Oil and gas activities on the OCS could also affect communities to the east of the 

36 Chukchi and Bering Seas located in Russia. The indigenous Chukotan peoples on the eastern 

37 shore of the Chukchi Sea are citizens of the Chukotsky Autonomous Okrug. Important coastal 

38 lagoons and near-shore subsistence harvest areas for beluga, gray, and bowhead whales; as well 

39 as other marine mammals and seabirds could be affected by a large oil spill. The concept of 

40 subsistence harvesting as known in Alaska does not exist on the Russian side of the sea, however 

41 local native leaders and activists are in support of indigenous concerns and initiatives. The NSB 

42 has cooperated with the Eskimo Society of Chukotka to aid in reestablishing whaling traditions 

43 and to help facilitate the gray whale harvest (MMS 2008b).

44

45 On the Russian side, the arctic tundra region starting at East Cape and extending 200 mi 

46 west includes the coastal indigenous communities of Naukan (population 350); Uelen 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-374

1 (population 678); Inchoun (population 362); Chegitun (a seasonal subsistence camp); Enurmino 

2 (population 304); Neshkan (population 628); Alyatki (a seasonal subsistence camp); Nutpel‘men 

3 (population 155); and Vankarem (population 186). The former seasonal hunting and fishing sites 

4 of Naukan, Chegitun, and Alyatki may have been reoccupied. Uelen, Inchoun, Enurmino, 

5 Neshkan, Nutpel‘men, and Vankarem are permanent indigenous settlements where subsistence 

6 hunting and fishing occur year-round. Both Naukan and Uelen are important areas for hunting 

7 polar bears. The area west of Inchoun, including the communities of Enurmino and Neshkan, 

8 was particularly hard hit by socioeconomic disintegration during the collapse of the Soviet Union 

9 in the 1990s (MMS 2008b) 

10

11 Historically, there were a number of indigenous settlements in the region from Vankarem 

12 west and north to Cape Billings. In general, there has been a trend toward repopulating 

13 settlements (and reoccupying seasonal hunting and fishing camps) abandoned earlier due to 

14 forced relocation by the Soviet government into larger urban and centralized communities. 

15 Repopulation also has occurred to exploit natural food sources, as subsidies from Moscow to 

16 support employment and infrastructure have disappeared. The coastal settlements westward 

17 from Vankarem are Rigol (population unknown); Mys Shmidta (Cape Shmidt; population 717); 

18 Rypkarpyy (population 915); Polyarnyy (population unknown); Pil‘gyn (population unknown); 

19 Leningradskii (population 835); Billings (Cape Billings; population 272); and Ushakovskoe 

20 (population 8) on Wrangel Island. Of all these named settlements, only Ushakovskoe is known 

21 to still have functioning subsistence-harvest practices. Many names that still appear on maps of 

22 the region are historical villages that no longer exist and, in some cases, they may be small 

23 family camps where a few Native inhabitants live on a seasonal basis (MMS 2008b).

24

25

26 3.14.3.2 Subsistence

27

28 The majority of permanent residents of the arctic and Bering Sea coasts are Alaska 

29 Natives. For them, many subsistence activities are group activities that further core values of 

30 community, kinship, cooperation, and reciprocity. Current regulations define subsistence use as 

31 ―the customary and traditional use by rural Alaska residents of wild renewable resources for 

32 direct personal or family consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools of transportation; for 

33 making and selling handicraft articles out of nonedible byproducts of fish and wildlife resources 

34 taken for personal or family consumption; for barter, or sharing for personal or family 

35 consumption; and for customary trade‖ (FSMP 2010). Section 109 of the MMPA applies the 

36 same definition explicitly to the subsistence harvesting of marine mammals.

37

38 Priority for subsistence harvesting in land management is expressed in ANILCA, passed 

39 by Congress in 1980. Similar State legislation was struck down as violating the Alaska 

40 constitution, which guarantees equal access to fish, wildlife, and waters for all State residents. 

41 ANILCA applies only to Federal lands (excluding the OCS).

42

43 Management of subsistence resources on Federal lands and navigable waters along the 

44 coast are managed by the FSB. For some areas, the FSB has determined that all rural Alaskans 

45 are qualified subsistence users. For other areas, the FSB has made more restrictive ―customary 

46 and traditional‖ determinations of eligibility. Customary and traditional use means ―a long-
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-375

1 established, consistent pattern of use, incorporating beliefs and customs transmitted from 

2 generation to generation. This use plays an important role in the economy of the community‖ 

3 (FSMP 2010). 

4

5 While a subsistence lifestyle is a rural preference and not confined to Native Alaskans in 

6 rural communities, subsistence is inextricably intertwined with Alaska Native culture and is key 

7 to cultural identity. The harvest and consumption of wild resources are only the most visible 

8 aspects of a complex set of behaviors and values that extend far beyond the food quest. Kinship, 

9 sharing, and subsistence resource use behaviors (such as preparation, harvest, processing, 

10 consumption, and celebration) are inseparable. Beyond dietary benefits, subsistence resources 

11 provide materials for personal and family use, and the sharing of resources helps maintain 

12 traditional family organization. 

13

14 Subsistence is a central focus of North Slope and NWAB personal and group cultural 

15 identity (MMS 2007b, 2008b). Subsistence on the North Slope provides cultural identity, social 

16 integration and solidarity, and diet that Alaska Natives view as more healthy (BOEMRE

17 2001c–f). Many of the most important subsistence resources are found in or near the sea and are 

18 thus potentially subject to the effects of oil and gas exploration, production, and any spills on the

19 continental shelf. The cultural value placed on subsistence harvesting and whaling in particular 

20 is found throughout the North Slope and in northwestern Alaska. For example, the CEO of the 

21 ASRC describes himself as a part-time subsistence hunter (ASRC 2011). Subsistence has been 

22 described as the ―organizing concept for the NSB.‖ The NSB has been described as ―the most 

23 organized, strongest, and best-funded subsistence economy in Alaska‖ (MMS 2007b). Within 

24 the NSB and NWAB, both subsistence activities and wage economic opportunities are highly 

25 developed and highly interdependent. Since money is needed to purchase resources, such as 

26 rifles, ammunition, fuel, snow machines, ATVs, boats, and motors, to most effectively harvest 

27 resources, Native communities most active in subsistence activities tend to also be very involved 

28 in the wage economy (MMS 2007b).

29

30 In general, subsistence foods consist of a wide range of fish and game products that have 

31 substantial nutritional benefits. They tend to be rich in nutrients and low in fats. In addition to 

32 health benefits, there are social and cultural benefits to subsistence food harvesting and sharing 

33 (MMS 2007b). Marine mammals are culturally most important even in villages where caribou or 

34 fish supply more meat. Bowhead whale meat is most preferred, and seal oil is a necessary 

35 adjunct to meals based on the sea harvest (MMS 2008b). Subsistence species supply more than 

36 meat. Skins and furs go into the production of clothing and umiat. Bone, baleen, and ivory 

37 provide raw materials for handicrafts.

38

39 The subsistence harvest plays an important role in all Native communities of the North 

40 Slope and northwest Alaska. However, each community has its unique harvest pattern and 

41 preferences. Table 3.14.3-3 provides information on the subsistence harvest by hunters and 

42 fishers from the villages of Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik (SRBA 2010). Table 3.14.3-4

43 provides a fuller listing of species reported as harvested by communities along the Beaufort and 

44 Chukchi Seas. Table 3.14.3-5 provides a listing of species reported harvested by coastal NWAB 

45 communities (MMS 2008b). Subsistence harvesting follows a seasonal pattern constrained by 

46 changes in climate and by the migration patterns of whales, fishes, and birds. Subsistence 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-376

1 TABLE 3.14.3-3 Important Subsistence Species Harvested from Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, and Barrowa

Marine Mammals

 Bowhead whale Taken in spring and fall migrations; mostly within 32–40 km (20–25 mi) of the 

coast, but as far as 80 km (50 mi). Primarily for food.

 Bearded seal Taken in summer on ice mostly within 40 km (25 mi) of the coast, but as far out as 

80 km (50 mi). Skins used for umiat construction by Barrow whalers. Seal oil is 

an important part of the diet.

 Ringed seal Taken year-round. Formerly used to feed sled dogs.

 Walrus As opportunity arises. Mostly in summer and fall on ice within 40 km (25 mi), as 

far out as 120 km (75 mi).

Terrestrial Mammals

 Caribou A major meat source taken year-round, but primarily in summer, mostly inland but 

in summer hunted by boat along the coast.

 Wolves and wolverines Inland during winter.

Fish

 Broad white fish Mostly summer and fall; major fish source along coast and in rivers.

 Arctic cisco Mostly summer and fall; along coast and in rivers.

 Arctic char/Dolly varden Mostly late summer/early fall along coast and in rivers.

Waterfowl

 Geese In spring and fall, mostly inland but as far as 80 km (50 mi) offshore.

 Eider On ice in spring and fall mostly within 40 km (25 mi) of shore, but as far as 64 km

(40 mi).

Source: SRBA 2010.

a The species listed here were the objects of mapped subsistence harvesting from three villages near the 

Beaufort Seas. It is not a complete inventory of species harvested from those villages.

2

3

4 marine harvesting can occur anywhere along the coast, but tends to be concentrated in areas 

5 directly offshore from the villages and Cross Island where the village of Nuiqsut stages its fall 

6 bowhead hunt. Most seaward harvesting occurs within 40 km (25 mi) of shore but may extend to 

7 as much as three times that distance depending on the conditions of ice and sea. Preference is 

8 given to locations where returning harvesters do not have to fight against the currents to bring 

9 their harvest home (SRBA 2010).

10

11 Bowhead whales are harvested during both their spring and fall migrations. Barrow and 

12 Wainwright crews hunt in both the spring and fall. Point Hope whale only in the spring. In the 

13 NWAB, Kivalina and Kiana take occasional bowhead in the spring if they follow nearshore 

14 leads, areas of open water resulting from the breaking up of ice flows, but more frequently hunt 

15 belugas, as do Buckland and Deering (MMS 2008b; ADFG 2011e). Nuiqsut and Kaktovik hunt 

16 only in the fall. Point Lay has traditionally hunted only beluga whales, but now hunts bowheads 

17 in the spring. In the spring, when whales are migrating toward the pole, Barrow and Point Hope 

18 crews bring light seal-skin umiat to leads in the ice. Aluminum skiffs are used in open water for 

19 the fall harvest, which targets younger, smaller whales (MMS 2008b). In addition to boat crews, 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-377

TABLE 3.14.3-4 Reported Subsistence Use at Arctic Coast Alaska Native Villages 1 a

Native Villages

Resource Iñupiaq Name Scientific Name

Point LayPoint HopeWainwrightBarrowAtqasukNuisqutKaktovik

Marine Mammals

Bearded seal Ugruk Erignathus barbatus Xb X X X X X X

Ringed seal Natchiq Phoca hispida X X X X X X X

Spotted seal Qasigiaq Phoca largha X —b X X X X X

Ribbon seal Qaigulik Phoca fasciata X — X X X — —

Beluga whale Quilalugaq Delphinapterus leucas X X X X X — X

Bowhead whale Agviq Balaena mysticetus X X X X X X X

Polar bear Nanuq Ursus maritimus X X X X X X X

Walrus Aiviq Odobenus rosmarus X X X X X — X

Terrestrial Mammals

Caribou Tuttu Rangifer tarandus X X X X X X X

Moose Tuttuvak Alces alces — X X X X X —

Brown bear Aklaq Ursus arctos X — X X X X —

Dall sheep Imnaiq Ovis dalli — X X X X X X

Muskox Uminmaq Ovibus moschatus — — X — X X X

Arctic fox (blue) Tigiganniaq Alopex lagopus X — X X X X X

Red fox Kayuqtuq Vulpes fulva X — X X X X —

Porcupine Qinagluk Erethizon dorsatum — — X X — — —

Ground squirrel Siksrik Spermophilus parryii X — X X X X X

Wolverine Qavvik Gulo gulo X — X X X X X

Weasel Itigiaq Mustela erminea — — X — X X —

Wolf Amaguk Canis lupus X — X X X X X

Marmot Siksrikpak Marmota broweri X — X — X X X

Fish

Salmon Species not reported Species not reported X X X X X X —

Chum Iqalugruaq Oncorhynchus keta X X X X X X —

Pink (humpback) Amaqtuuq O. gorbuscha — X X X X X —

Silver (coho) Iqalugruaq O. kisutch — X — — — — —

Whitefish Aanaakliq Coregonus spp. — X X X X — —

Round whitefish Aanaakliq Prosopium

cylindraceum

— — X X — — —

Broad whitefish Aanaakliq Coregonus nasus — — X X X X X

Humpback whitefish Pikuktuuq C. clupeaformis — — X X X X —

Least cisco Iqalusaaq C. sardinella — — X X X X X

Bering and Arctic cisco Qaaktaq C. autumnalis X — X X X X X

2
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-378

TABLE 3.14.3-4 (Cont.) 

Native Villages

Resource Iñupiaq Name Scientific Name

Point LayPoint HopeWainwrightBarrowAtqasukNuisqutKaktovik

Other Freshwater Fish

Arctic grayling Sulukpaugaq Thymallus arcticus X X X X X X X

Arctic char Iqalukpik Salvelinus alpinus X X X X X X X

Burbot (ling cod) Tittaaliq Lota lota — — X X X X —

Lake trout Iqaluaqpak Salvelinus namaycush — — X X X X —

Northern pike Siulik Esoxlucius — — X X — — —

Other coastal fish

Rainbow smelt Ilhuagniq Osmerus morda X — X X — X —

Arctic cod Iqalugaq Boreogadus saida — — X X X X X

Tomcod Uugaq Eleginus gracilis X X X X X — X

Flounder Nataagnaq Liopsetta glacialis — X — — — — X

Birds

Snowy owl Ukpik Nyctea scandiaca — X X — — X —

Red-throated loon Qaqsraupiagruk Gavia stellata X — X X — — —

Tundra swan Qugruk Cygnus columbianus — — X — X X X

Eider Species not reported Species not reported — X — — — — X

Common eider Amauligruaq Somateria mollissima X — X X X X —

King eider Qinalik Somateria spectabilis X — X X X X —

Spectacled eider Tuutalluk Somateria fischeri X — X X — — —

Steller‘s eider Igniqauqtuq Polysticta stelleri X — X X — — —

Other ducks Qaugak Species not reported — X X X X — —

Pintail Kurugaq Anas acuta X — X — X — X

Long-tailed duck Aaqhaaliq Clangula hyemalis X — X X X — X

Surf scoter Aviluktuk Melanitta perspicillata — — X X — — —

Geese Species not reported Species not reported — X — — — — X

Brant Niglingaq Branta bernicla n. X X X X X X X

White-fronted goose Niglivialuk Anser albifrons X — X X X X X

Snow goose Kanuq Chen caerulescens X — X X X X X

Canada goose Iqsragutilik Branta canadensis X — X X X X X

Ptarmigan Aqargiq Lagopus spp. — — X X X X X

Willow ptarmigan Nasaullik L. lagopus X — X X — — —

Other Resources

Berries Species not reported Species not reported X X X X X X

Cranberry Kimminnaq V. vitisidaea — — X X — — —

Salmonberry Aqpik Rubus spectabilis — — X X — — —

Bird eggs Mannik Species not reported X X X X X — —

Gull eggs Species not reported Species not reported — — X — X — —

Goose eggs Species not reported Species not reported — — X — X — —

Eider eggs Species not reported Species not reported — — X X X — —

Greens/roots Species not reported Species not reported — — X X X X —
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-379

TABLE 3.14.3-4 (Cont.) 

Native Villages

Resource Iñupiaq Name Scientific Name

Point LayPoint HopeWainwrightBarrowAtqasukNuisqutKaktovik

Wild rhubarb Qunulliq Oxyric digyna — — X X — — —

Wild chives Quagaq Allium schoenoprasum — — X X — — —

Clams Imaniq Species not reported X — X X — — —

Crab Puyyugiaq Species not reported X X X — X X —

Source: MMS 2008b.

a This table is based on a variety of surveys conducted at different times between 1987 and 2006. The 

underlying data were not uniformly collected. The range of resources used in some communities, particularly 

Point Hope, may be underreported.

b X = Reported; — = Not reported.

1

2

3 there are camp crews on ice or shore that provide food and other support to the whalers. They 

4 may hunt ringed seals to provide camp food. Crews help one another in hauling and butchering 

5 their take. Whale meat and blubber are distributed according to cultural norms relating to the 

6 roles played in the hunt and support, kin and other social ties, and the values placed on 

7 generosity and the social responsibility to provide for widows and others unable to hunt. With 

8 the Nalukataq festival, an important Iñupiat ceremony, the community the marks the end of the 

9 whale hunt (SRBA 2010).

10

11 In recent public meetings, Alaska Natives on the North Slope have voiced concerns 

12 regarding the effects of oil and gas exploration on subsistence resources and are concerned that 

13 traditional knowledge of subsistence resources is not regularly taken into account. They express 

14 concerns that noise, particularly from seismic testing, disturbs whales and other sea mammals,

15 causing them to avoid the noise source and stay farther out to sea, making the whale hunt in 

16 small craft more difficult and more dangerous, and exposing the whalers to rougher seas, more 

17 shifting ice, and stronger offshore currents. They are concerned that any oil spill, even if rare, 

18 could result in harm to subsistence species and could cause others to avoid the area. They also 

19 feel that existing pipelines on land had altered caribou migration patterns (BOEMRE 2011c–f).

20

21

22 3.15 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

23

24 Executive Order 12898,  ̳ ̳Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

25 Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations‘‘ (59 FR 7629), formally requires Federal 

26 agencies to incorporate environmental justice as part of their missions. Environmental justice is 

27 defined by the Executive Order as ―the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people 

28 regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-380

1 TABLE 3.14.3-5 Reported Subsistence Harvest by Coastal NWAB Communities

Native Villages

Resource Scientific Name

Kivalina 2007Noatak 2007Kiana 2006Kotzebue 1991Noorvik 1996Buckland 1996Deering 1997

Marine Mammals X

Seal Species not reported – – – – – X X

Bearded seal Erignathus barbatus X X X – – – –

Ringed seal Phoca hispida X X X – – – –

Spotted seal Phoca largha X X X – – – –

Ribbon seal Phoca fasciata X – – – – – –

Beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas X X X X – X X

Bowhead whale Balaena mysticetus X – X – – – –

Polar bear Ursus maritimus X – X – – – –

Walrus Odobenus rosmarus X X X X – – –

Terrestrial Mammals

Caribou Rangifer tarandus X X X – X – –

Moose Alces alces X X X – X – X

Brown bear Ursus arctos X X – – – – –

Black Bear Ursus americanus – X X – – – –

Dall sheep Ovis dalli X X – – – – –

Muskox Ovibus moschatus – – – – – – –

Arctic fox (blue) Alopex lagopus X – – – – – –

Red fox Vulpes fulva – X X – – – –

Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum X – X – – – –

Ground squirrel Spermophilus parryii X – – – – – –

Wolverine Gulo gulo X X X – – –

Wolf Canis lupus X X X – – – –

Beaver Castor Canadensis – X X – – – –

Land otter Lutra canadensis – X – – – – –

Marten Martes sp. – X – – – – –

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus – X X – – – –

Fish

Salmon Species not reported X – – X – – –

Chum Oncorhynchus keta – X X – – – –

Pink (humpback) O. gorbuscha X X X – – – X

Silver (coho) O. kisutch X X X – – – –

Chinook O. tshawytscha X X X – – – –

Sockeye O. nerka – X X – – – –

Whitefish Coregonus sp. X X – X – – –

Broad whitefish Coregonus nasus – – – X – – –

Humpback whitefish C. clupeaformis – – – X – – –

Least cisco C. sardinella – – X X – – –

Bering and Arctic cisco C. autumnalis – – – X – – –

2
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-381

TABLE 3.14.3-5 (Cont.)

Native Villages

Resource Scientific Name

KivalinaNoatakKianaKotzebueNoorvikBucklandDeering

Other Freshwater Fish X

Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus X X X X – – –

Arctic char Salvelinus alpinus X X X X – – –

Burbot (ling cod) Lota lota X X X X – – –

Dolly Varden Trout Salvelinus malma malma X X X X – – –

Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush – X X – – – –

Northern pike Esoxlucius – X X X – – –

Sheefish Stenodus leucicthyes X X – X – – –

Other coastal fish

Rainbow smelt Osmerus morda X – – X – – –

Arctic cod Boreogadus saida X – – – – – –

Tomcod (Saffron cod) Eleginus gracilis X – – X – – X

Herring Clupea sp – – – X – – X

Halibut Hippoglosus sp – – X X – – –

Flounder Liopsetta glacialis – – – X – – –

Birds

Snowy owl Nyctea scandiaca X X – – – – –

Ptarmigan Lagopus sp. X X X X X – X

Grouse Species not reported – X X X X – –

Murres Mutiple species X – – – – – X

Waterfowl Species not reported – X X X X – X

Red-throated loon Gavia stellata – – – X – – –

Tundra swan Cygnus columbianus X X X X X X –

Eider Species not reported – – – X X X X

Common eider Somateria mollissima X – – – – – X

King eider Somateria spectabilis X – – – X – –

Spectacled eider Somateria fischeri – – – – X – –

Pintail Anas acuta – – – X X X X

Long-tailed duck Clangula hyemalis – – – – X X –

Scoters Multiple species – – – – X X X

Other ducks Species not reported X X X X X X X

Geese Species not reported X – – – – – –

Brant Branta bernicla n. X X X X X X X

White-fronted goose Anser albifrons X X X X – X X

Snow goose Chen caerulescens X X X – – X X

Canada goose Branta canadensis X X X X X X X

Sandhill crane Grus canadensis – – – – X X X

Bird eggs Species not reported X X – – X – –

Gull eggs Species not reported X X – – – – –

Goose eggs Species not reported X X – – – – –

Eider eggs Species not reported X – – – – – X
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-382

TABLE 3.14.3-5 (Cont.)

Native Villages

Resource Scientific Name

KivalinaNoatakKianaKotzebueNoorvikBucklandDeering

Other Resources

Berries Species not reported – – X X – – –

Cranberry V. vitisidaea X X X – – – –

Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis X X X – – – –

Blueberry Vsccinium sp. X X X – – – –

Blackberry Rubus sp. X X – – – – –

Crowberry Empetrum sp. – – X – – – –

Greens/roots Species not reported – – – X – – –

Wild rhubarb Oxyric digyna – – – – – – –

Wild celery Vallisneria americana X X – – – – –

Eskimo potato Species not reported X X X – – – –

Stinkweed Species not reported – X X – – – –

Sourdock Rumex crispus – X X – – – –

Willow leaves Species not reported X X X – – – –

Clams Species not reported – – – X – – –

Crab Species not reported X X – X – – –

Shrimp Species not reported – – – X – – –

This table is based primarily on data from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 

Subsistence harvest data are not uniformly reported. Data for Noorvik, Buckland, and 

Deering are mostly confined to migrating bird species. The date next to the community 

name is the date of the subsistence harvest data designated as ―most representative‖ on the 

ADF&G subsistence website.

Sources: ADFG 2011; ASRC 2011; MMS 2008b.

1

2

3 implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair 

4 treatment means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group should 

5 bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from 

6 industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of Federal, State, local, and 

7 tribal programs and policies.‖ Specifically, it directs them to address, as appropriate, any 

8 disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions, 

9 programs, or policies on minority and low-income populations.

10

11 The analysis of the impacts of offshore oil and gas development projects on 

12 environmental justice issues follows guidelines described in the Council on Environmental 

13 Quality‘s (CEQ‘s) Environmental Justice Guidance under the National Environmental Policy 

14 Act (CEQ 1997). The analysis method has three parts: (1) a description of the geographic 

15 distribution of low-income and minority populations in the affected area is undertaken; (2) an 

16 assessment is conducted to determine whether oil and gas activities would produce impacts that 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-383

1 are high and adverse; and (3) if impacts are high and adverse, a determination is made as to 

2 whether these impacts would disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations.

3

4 Construction and operation of offshore oil and gas development projects could affect 

5 environmental justice if any adverse health and environmental impacts resulting from either 

6 phase of development are significantly high and if these impacts disproportionately affect 

7 minority and low-income populations. If the analysis determines that health and environmental 

8 impacts are not significant, there can be no disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income 

9 populations. In the event impacts are significant, disproportionality would be determined by 

10 comparing the proximity of any high and adverse impacts with the location of low-income and 

11 minority populations.

12

13 A description of the geographic distribution of minority and low-income groups in the 

14 affected area was based on demographic data from the 2000 Census (USCB 2011g,h). The 

15 following definitions were used to define minority and low-income population groups:

16

17 • Minority. Persons are included in the minority category if they identify 

18 themselves as belonging to any of the following racial groups: (1) Hispanic, 

19 (2) Black (not of Hispanic origin) or African American, (3) American Indian 

20 or Alaska Native, (4) Asian, or (5) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.

21

22 Beginning with the 2000 Census, where appropriate, the census form allows 

23 individuals to designate multiple population group categories to reflect their 

24 ethnic or racial origins. In addition, persons who classify themselves as being 

25 of multiple racial origin may choose up to six racial groups as the basis of 

26 their racial origins. The term minority includes all persons, including those 

27 classifying themselves in multiple racial categories, except those who classify 

28 themselves as not of Hispanic origin and as White or ―Other Race‖ 

29 (USCB 2009d).

30

31 • Low-Income. Individuals who fall below the poverty line. The poverty line 

32 takes into account family size and age of individuals in the family. In 1999, 

33 for example, the poverty line for a family of five with three children below the 

34 age of 18 was $19,882. For any given family below the poverty line, all 

35 family members are considered as being below the poverty line for the 

36 purposes of analysis (USCB 2009e).

37

38 The CEQ guidance proposed that minority and low-income populations be identified 

39 where either (1) the minority or low-income population of the affected area exceeds 50% or 

40 (2) the minority or low-income population percentage of the affected area is greater than the 

41 minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic 

42 analysis.

43

44 This PEIS applies both criteria in using the U.S. Census Bureau data, wherein 

45 consideration is given to the minority and population that is both greater than 50% and 

46 20 percentage points higher than in the State as a whole (the reference geographic unit).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-384

1 3.15.1 Gulf of Mexico

2

3 The analysis of environmental justice issues associated with the development of offshore 

4 oil and gas development facilities considered impacts within the 129 counties that constitute the 

5 23 Labor Market Areas (LMAs) located along the GOM coast, defined on the basis of inter6 county commuting patterns using a method suggested by Tolbert and Sizer (1996). Analysis at 

7 the county level for each LMA allows the inclusion of impacts that would potentially occur at the 

8 various facilities and infrastructure directly and indirectly associated with the construction and 

9 operation of offshore oil and gas developments. 

10

11 The data in Table 3.15.1-1 show the minority and low-income composition of the total 

12 population located within the LMA counties along the GOM coast based on 2000 Census data 

13 and CEQ guidelines. Individuals identifying themselves as Hispanic or Latino are included in 

14 the table as a separate entry. However, because Hispanics can be of any race, this number also 

15 includes individuals identifying themselves as being part of one or more of the population groups 

16 listed in the table.

17

18 A large number of minority and low-income individuals are located in the LMA counties 

19 along the GOM coast. Within the combined LMA counties in each State along the GOM coast, 

20 the percentage of the total population classified as minority varies between 23.6% in Mississippi 

21 and 55.8% in Texas. The number of minority individuals in the LMAs combined exceeds 50% 

22 of the total population in Texas, but the number of minority individuals does not exceed the State 

23 average by 20 percentage points or more in any of the combined LMA counties in each State; 

24 thus, there is a minority population only in the LMA counties in Texas, based on 2000 Census 

25 data and CEQ guidelines. The number of low-income individuals in the combined LMA 

26 counties in each State does not exceed the State average by 20 percentage points or more and 

27 does not exceed 50% of the total population in any of the LMA counties; thus, there are no low28 income populations in any of the combined LMA counties in any of the five States.

29

30 In the Alabama portion of the GOM coast, more than 50% of the population is classified 

31 as minority in Wilcox County, northeast of Mobile, where the low-income population is more 

32 than 20 percentage points higher than the State average. In Florida, more than 50% of the 

33 population is classified as minority in Gadsden County, west of Tallahassee, and in Miami-Dade 

34 County. In Louisiana, Iberville Parish, to the southwest of Baton Rouge; St. Helena Parish, to 

35 the northeast of Baton Rouge; and West Feliciana Parish, to the north of Baton Rouge, have 

36 populations in which more than 50% is classified as minority. The case is similar in Orleans 

37 Parish, in central New Orleans, and St. James Parish, to the west of New Orleans.

38

39 In Texas, more than 50% of the population in Brooks County, southwest of Corpus 

40 Christi, is classified as minority, where the low-income population is more than 20 percentage 

41 points higher than the State average. Elsewhere in the Corpus Christi area, in Duval County, Jim 

42 Wells County, Kenedy County, Kleburg County, Nueces County, and Refugio County, more

43 than 50% of the population is classified as minority. In the Brownsville area, Harris and Starr 

44 Counties have more than 50% of the population classified as minority, and have a low-income 

45 population that is more than 20 percentage points higher than the State average. The low-income 

46 population in Starr County also exceeds 50% of the total population. In Cameron and Willacy 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-385

1 TABLE 3.15.1-1 Gulf Coastal Region Minority and Low-Income Populations, 2000

Population Segment Alabama Florida Louisiana Mississippi Texas Total

Total Population 599,405 8,955,931 3,382,809 458,674 6,939,834 20,336,653

White, Non-Hispanic 401,434 5,297,536 2,116,976 350,300 3,068,665 11,234,911

Hispanic or Latino 7,790 2,002,650 91,720 9,761 2,584,430 4,696,351

Non-Hispanic or Latino minorities 190,181 1,655,745 1,174,113 98,613 1,286,739 4,405,391

 One Race 184,863 1,520,754 1,143,483 93,437 1,215,951 4,158,488

 Black or African American 173,361 1,341,280 1,073,021 83,554 942,898 3,614,114

 American Indian or Alaskan Native 4,751 23,724 17,988 1,778 16,203 64,444

 Asian 6,193 135,194 47,637 7,470 247,451 443,945

 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 124 3,574 793 234 2,254 6,979

 Some Other Race 434 16,982 4,044 401 7,145 29,006

 Two or More Races 5,318 134,991 30,630 5,176 70,788 246,903

Total Minority 197,971 3,658,395 1,265,833 108,374 3,871,169 9,101,742

Percent Minority 33.0% 40.8% 37.4% 23.6% 55.8% 44.8%

Low-Income 101,236 1,200,105 611,737 65,629 1,194,653 3,173,360

Percent Low-Income 16.9% 13.4% 18.1% 14.3% 17.2% 15.6%

Source: USCB 2011g, h.

2

3

4 Counties, more than 50% of the population is classified as minority. In the Houston area, in Fort 

5 Bend County, Harris County, and Waller County, more than 50% of the population is classified 

6 as minority.

7

8 There are 81 counties and parishes in the GOM coast region that contain oil-related 

9 infrastructure, including platform fabrication yards, port facilities, shipyards, shipbuilding yards, 

10 support facilities, transport facilities, waste management facilities, pipelines, pipe coating yards, 

11 natural gas processing facilities, natural gas storage facilities, refineries, and petrochemical 

12 facilities (MMS 2006b). Thirty-nine counties contain more than five facilities. Ten counties (or 

13 parishes in Louisiana) have a high concentration of oil-related infrastructure (50 or more 

14 facilities). Of these 10 counties, 5 have higher minority percentages than their respective State 

15 average. These counties include Mobile, Alabama; St. Mary, Louisiana; and Galveston, Harris, 

16 and Jefferson, Texas. Two of the 10 high infrastructure concentration counties also have higher 

17 poverty rates than their respective State rate. St. Mary Parish, Louisiana, and Jefferson, Texas, 

18 have higher poverty rates than the average poverty rate in their States. Fifteen counties (or 

19 parishes in Louisiana) are considered to have a medium concentration of oil-related 

20 infrastructure (15–49 facilities). Five of these counties have a higher poverty rate than the mean 

21 rate in their States: Iberia, Orleans, and Vermillion, Louisiana; and Nueces and San Patricio, 

22 Texas. Eight of the 15 medium concentration counties also have higher minority populations 

23 than their State average. These counties include Hillsborough, Florida; East Baton Rouge, 

24 Iberia, Orleans, and St. James, Louisiana; and Calhoun, Nueces, and San Patricio, Texas. 

25
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-386

1 3.15.1.1 Oil Spills and Human Health Effects

2

3 The potential health effects of oil spills include effects related to worker safety, 

4 toxicological effects in workers and community members, and mental health effects emanating 

5 from social and economic disruption (Goldstein et al. 2011). Toxicological effects include 

6 chemical effects such as respiratory and dermal irritation, headaches, eye irritation, nausea, and 

7 dizziness. The short-term and long-term natures of these impacts are dependent on the 

8 contaminants involved and the characteristics of the exposed populations.

9

10 Crude oil contains many different hydrocarbons, and the relative amounts of trace metal 

11 and sulfur content can vary significantly (Goldstein et al. 2011). Some crude oil components can 

12 cause respiratory, hepatic, renal, endocrine, neurologic, hematologic effects at high doses after a 

13 threshold concentration has been exceeded. Mutagenic effects, on the other hand, can result 

14 from a single molecular DNA alternation (Goldstein et al. 2011). Carcinogens in crude oil 

15 include benzene, which is present at a concentration of between 1 and 6%, and PAHs, which are 

16 present at lower, variable concentrations. Benzene and PAHs are also present from the offshore 

17 controlled burning of crude oil (Goldstein et al. 2011). Benzene is a known hematotoxicant and 

18 hematocarcinogen (Goldstein and Witz 2009). Benzene affects the circulating blood cells in 

19 workers exposed to concentrations below current occupational health standards (Lan et al. 2004), 

20 and has reproductive and developmental effects (Xing et al. 2010). Benzene is only a risk close 

21 to an oil source; it appears to evaporate, with other VOCs, before reaching shore, meaning that 

22 community exposures are relatively minimal (Morita et al. 1999). PAHs are more persistent, and 

23 can cause skin and lung cancer, in addition to reproductive and neurological effects (Department 

24 of Health and Human Services 2010). All organic components of crude oil may contribute to 

25 acute short-term effects, but are unlikely to be present in sufficient concentrations to cause long26 term health effects (Goldstein et al. 2011). During summer months VOCs are converted to 

27 ozone, which can cause respiratory irritation, including asthma (Eggleston 2007; Leikauf 2002).

28

29 Surfactants used as dispersants during the DWH spill contained petroleum distillate, 

30 propylene glycol, and sulfonic acid salt, which contained dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate, or stool 

31 softener (Goldstein et al. 2011). Another surfactant used was 2-butoxyethnol, known to cause 

32 hepatic angiosarcoma and hemolytic anemia in rodents (Gualtieri et al. 2003). Exposure to trace 

33 quantities of metals such as arsenic, chromium, lead, and nickel could be a toxicological concern, 

34 and statistical evidence of association with endocrine and genotoxic effects after spills has been 

35 established (Perez-Cadahia et al. 2008). Water monitoring by the USEPA did not find positive 

36 evidence of benzene or PAHs in water samples, and air monitoring did not find evidence of 

37 VOCs except for trace levels of naphthalene (USEPA 2011f).

38

39 Approximately 52,000 workers responded to the DWH spill (NIOSH 2011), and a 

40 number of symptoms were reported in evaluations undertaken by NIOSH, including chemically 

41 induced upper respiratory illnesses, throat and eye irritation, headaches, dizziness, nausea, and 

42 vomiting (Goldstein et al. 2011). Longer-term health effects in workers include pulmonary 

43 abnormalities (Meo et al. 2009), bronchial hyperesponsiveness, acute and persistent genotoxic 

44 effects, and endocrine effects (Aguilera et al. 2010).

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-387

1 The DWH spill affected many communities that had health disparities compared to others 

2 in the United States, and that were also still suffering from the impacts of Hurricane Katrina 

3 (Goldstein et al. 2011). Louisiana, for example, is currently ranked among the most severely 

4 affected states in the nation in terms of rates of infant death, death from cancer, premature death, 

5 death from cardiovascular disease, children in poverty, and violent crime (United Health 

6 Foundation 2009). Children are particularly at risk for effects of environmental exposure; they 

7 breathe more air per unit of body mass, detoxify chemicals less effectively, and may suffer from 

8 accidental exposure more readily than adults (Goldstein et al. 2011). No evidence has been 

9 found regarding the risk of asthma or impaired respiratory function in children (Crum 1993), 

10 although indoor exposure may pose additional risk for children with asthma 

11 (Barbeau et al. 2010). The effects of crude oil components, such as higher-weight molecular 

12 compounds, are unknown (Xu et al. 2005).

13

14 Although symptoms of deterioration in mental health following an oil spill are reflected 

15 in increases in calls to mental health and violence hotlines (Yun et al. 2010), assessments of 

16 factors leading to deterioration in mental health, lack of adequate baseline data, study design,

17 and delay in study initiation have limited the validity of studies on mental health impacts 

18 (Savitz et al. 2008). In addition, in the case of the DWH spill, many communities were still 

19 recovering from Hurricane Katrina, complicating the response by community members to the 

20 spill (Goldstein et al. 2011). After Katrina, the severity and frequency of mental health 

21 symptoms seems to have increased, but there has also been a decline in the use of mental health 

22 services and the use of prescribed medication (Kessler et al. 2008). The Centers for Disease 

23 Control reported that 50% of adults in New Orleans had psychological stress, while post24 traumatic stress disorder was prevalent among first responders, leading to alcohol and domestic 

25 abuse (Goldstein et al. 2011). Another survey found that in 2005–2006, 48% of returning 

26 students in the main parishes affected by Katrina had mental health symptoms, a rate that had 

27 only dropped to 30% by 2009–2010, indicating that repeated trauma increases vulnerability to 

28 deterioration in mental health (Kronenberg et al. 2010).

29

30 Minority communities may have specific concerns related to their psychosocial welfare. 

31 Working-age Vietnamese residents in New Orleans had numerous unresolved problems in the 

32 aftermath of Katrina, and then 1 yr later, including inadequate access to healthcare 

33 (Vu et al. 2009). Suspension of free health services led to the reemergence of disparities 

34 between racial and ethnic groups (Do et al. 2009). Symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder 

35 were found in this population group, especially among members with a low degree of 

36 acculturation and high exposure to floods, together with long stays in emigration transit camps 

37 (Norris et al. 2009). As was the case for small, isolated Alaskan native communities with the 

38 Exxon Valdez spill (Goldstein et al. 2011), it is likely that the DWH spill could lead to higher 

39 levels of depression, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, violence, and 

40 other psychological problems among minority communities.

41

42

43 3.15.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

44

45 The analysis of environmental justice issues associated with the development of offshore 

46 oil and gas development facilities considered impacts for the south central Alaska region, which 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-388

1 includes Anchorage Municipality, Kenai Peninsula Borough, Kodiak Island Borough, and 

2 Matanuska-Susitna Borough. 

3

4 The data in Table 3.15.2-1 show the minority and low-income composition of the total 

5 population located within the south Alaska region based on 2000 Census data and CEQ 

6 guidelines. Individuals identifying themselves as Hispanic or Latino are included in the table as 

7 a separate entry. However, because Hispanics can be of any race, this number also includes 

8 individuals identifying themselves as being part of one or more of the population groups listed in 

9 the table.

10

11 A large number of minority and low-income individuals are located in the south central 

12 Alaska region. However, the number of minority individuals in each of the boroughs does not 

13 exceed 50% of the total population, and the number of minority individuals does not exceed the 

14 State average by 20 percentage points or more in any of the boroughs; thus, there is no minority 

15 population in the south central Alaska region, based on 2000 Census data and CEQ guidelines. 

16 The number of low-income individuals in the three boroughs does not exceed the State average 

17 by 20 percentage points or more and does not exceed 50% of the total population; thus, there are 

18 no low-income populations in any of the boroughs.

19

20

21 3.15.2.1 Consumption of Fish and Game

22

23 Subsistence is ―an activity performed in support of the basic beliefs and nutritional need 

24 of the residents of the borough and includes hunting, whaling, fishing, trapping, camping, food 

25 gathering, and other traditional and cultural activities‖ (ADNR 1997). Subsistence fishing is for

26 direct personal or family consumption. Many thousands of Alaskans participate in subsistence

27 fishing and processing, and it is an important element of Alaska‘s social and cultural heritage. 

28 For a more complete discussion of subsistence and its cultural and nutritional importance, 

29 see Section 3.5.5.6. In rural Alaska, subsistence fisheries harvest produces about 230 lb per 

30 person per year (MMS 2006b). Although important as a source of food, subsistence fisheries are 

31 only about 2% of the fisheries harvest. Commercial fisheries account for about 97% of the wild 

32 harvest, and sport fisheries the remaining 1% (MMS 2006b).

33

34 Subsistence fishing and hunting are an important part of the economies of rural Alaskan 

35 communities, providing sources of food, clothing, and employment. While the harvest of 

36 animals, birds, shellfish, and plants only represents 2% of the fish and game harvested annually 

37 (MMS 2006b), the subsistence harvest contains about 35% of the caloric requirements of the 

38 rural population. In some areas of Alaska, notably the interior and western areas, subsistence 

39 products provide up to 50% of the daily requirement (MMS 2006b; Bersamin et al. 2007). 

40 Approximately 2% of the daily requirement of the urban population is met through subsistence 

41 activities.

42

43 Although it is difficult to establish the economic importance of subsistence harvests 

44 because the consumption and exchange of subsistence products do not occur in the marketplace, 

45 estimates of their importance have been made based on the dollar value of replacing subsistence 

46 products in the market. Using a replacement value of $3/lb, the replacement value of subsistence 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-389

1 TABLE 3.15.2-1 South Central Alaska Region Minority and Low-Income Populations, 2000

Anchorage 

Municipality

Kenai 

Peninsula

Kodiak 

Island

MatanuskaSusitna

South Central 

Alaska Region

Total

Total population 260,283 49,691 13,913 59,322 383,209

White, Non-Hispanic 181,982 42,263 8,001 51,175 283,421

Hispanic or Latino 14,799 1,087 848 1,485 18,219

Non-Hispanic or Latino Minorities 63,502 6,341 5,064 6,662 81,569

 One Race 50,119 4,549 4,439 4,195 63,302

 Black or African American 14,667 220 129 398 15,414

 American Indian or Alaskan Native 18,326 3,644 1,997 3,168 27,135

 Asian 14,208 471 2,193 401 17,273

 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 2,335 85 105 66 2,591

 Some Other Race 583 129 15 162 889

 Two or More Races 13,383 1,792 625 2,467 18,267

Total Minority 78,301 7,428 5,912 8,147 99,788

Percent Minority 30.1 14.9 42.5 13.7 26.0

Low-Income 18,682 4,861 901 6,419 30,863

Percent Low-Income 7.3 10.0 6.6 11.0 8.2

Source: USCB 2011g, h.

2

3

4 harvests in rural Alaska is estimated to be $131 million annually; at $5/lb, the replacement value 

5 of these products would be $219 million. In Alaska as a whole, the replacement value of 

6 subsistence products is estimated to be between $160 million and $267 million (MMS 2006b).

7

8

9 3.15.2.2 Oil Spills and Subsistence

10

11 Subsistence activities of Native communities could be affected by accidental oil spills, 

12 with the potential health effects of oil spill contamination of subsistence foods being the main 

13 concern. After the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, testing of subsistence foods for hydrocarbon 

14 contamination between 1989 and 1994 revealed very low concentrations of petroleum 

15 hydrocarbons in most subsistence foods, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concluded 

16 that eating food with such low levels of hydrocarbons posed no significant risk to human health 

17 (Hom et al. 1999). Human health risks can be reduced through timely warnings about spills, 

18 forecasts about which areas may be affected, and even evacuations of people and avoidance of

19 marine and terrestrial foods that may be affected. Avoidance of shellfish, which accumulates 

20 hydrocarbons, would be recommended, and Federal and State agencies with health care 

21 responsibilities would have to sample the food sources and test for possible contamination.

22
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-390

1 Whether subsistence users will use potentially tainted foods would depend on the cultural 

2 ―confidence‖ in the purity of these foods. Based on surveys and findings in studies of the Exxon 

3 Valdez spill, Natives in affected communities largely avoided subsistence foods as long as the oil 

4 remained in the environment. Perceptions of food tainting and avoiding use lingered in Native 

5 communities after the Exxon Valdez spill, even when the testing agency maintained that 

6 consumption posed no risk to human health (MMS 2006b).

7

8 The assessment and communication of the contamination risks of consuming subsistence 

9 resources following an oil spill is a continuing challenge to health and natural resource 

10 managers. After the Exxon Valdez spill, analytical testing and rigorous reporting procedures 

11 failed to convince many subsistence consumers because test results were often inconsistent with 

12 Native perceptions about environmental health. According to MMS (2006b), a discussion of 

13 subsistence food issues must be cross-disciplinary, reflecting a spectrum of disciplines from 

14 toxicology, to marine biology, to cultural anthropology, to cross-cultural communication, to 

15 ultimately understanding disparate cultural definitions of risk perception itself. Any effective 

16 discussion of subsistence resource contamination must understand the conflicting scientific 

17 paradigms of Western science and traditional knowledge in addition to the vocabulary of the 

18 social sciences in reference to observations throughout the collection, evaluation, and reporting 

19 processes. True restoration of environmental damage ―must include the re-establishment of a 

20 social equilibrium between the biophysical environment and the human community‖ (Picou and 

21 Gill 1996; Field et al. 1999; Nighswander and Peacock 1999; Fall et al. 1999). Since 1995, 

22 subsistence restoration resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill has improved by taking a more 

23 comprehensive approach by partnering with local communities and by linking scientific 

24 methodologies with traditional knowledge (Fall et al. 1999; Fall and Utermohle 1999). 

25

26

27 3.15.3 Alaska – Arctic

28

29 The analysis of environmental justice issues associated with the development of offshore 

30 oil and gas development facilities considered impacts for the Arctic region, which consists of the 

31 NSB and the Northwest Arctic Borough. 

32

33 The data in Table 3.15.3-1 show the minority and low-income composition of the total 

34 population located within the Arctic region, based on 2000 Census data and CEQ guidelines. 

35 Individuals identifying themselves as Hispanic or Latino are included in the table as a separate 

36 entry. However, because Hispanics can be of any race, this number also includes individuals 

37 identifying themselves as being part of one or more of the population groups listed in the table.

38

39 A large number of minority and low-income individuals are located in the Arctic region. 

40 The number of minority individuals in the region exceeds 50% of the total population, and the 

41 number of minority individuals exceeds the State average by 20 percentage points; thus, there is 

42 a minority population in the Arctic region, based on 2000 Census data and CEQ guidelines. The 

43 number of low-income individuals in the region does not exceed the State average by 

44 20 percentage points or more and does not exceed 50% of the total population; thus, there are no 

45 low-income populations in the region.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-391

1 TABLE 3.15.3-1 Arctic Region Minority and Low-Income Populations, 2000

North Slope 

Borough

Northwest 

Arctic Borough

Arctic 

Region Total

Total Population 7,385 7,208 14,593

White, Non-Hispanic 1,228 878 2,106

Hispanic or Latino 175 57 232

Non-Hispanic or Latino Minorities 5,982 6,273 12,255

 One Race 5,530 6,101 11,540

 Black or African American 51 15 66

 American Indian or Alaskan Native 4,982 5,919 10,901

 Asian 435 64 499

 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 59 4 63

 Some Other Race 3 8 11

 Two or More Races 452 263 715

Total Minority 6,157 6,330 12,487

Percent Minority 83.4 87.8 85.6

Low-Income 663 1,243 1,906

Percent Low-Income 9.1 17.4 13.2

Source: USCB 2011g, h.

2

3

4 3.15.3.1 Health Status of Alaska Native Communities

5

6 The potential health effects of oil spills, including effects related to worker safety, 

7 toxicological effects in workers and community members, and mental health effects emanating 

8 from social and economic disruption, can disproportionately impact Alaska Native and other 

9 minority population groups and low-income communities (see Section 3.15.1.1). In addition to 

10 the impacts of oil spills, there are more general concerns regarding the possible health effects of 

11 oil and gas exploration and development on minority and low-income populations. Based on 

12 analysis undertaken for MMS, this section summarizes the current health status of the North 

13 Slope Iñupiat, the changes that have taken place over the past 50 yr, and the important 

14 determinants of public health in the North Slope communities, based on a series of meetings 

15 between the NSB and BOEMRE on this issue (MMS 2006b). Although specifically related to 

16 health issues in the North Slope Borough, many of the health issues identified in this section are 

17 also relevant to Alaskan Native populations in south central Alaska. ―Health‖ is defined as ―a

18 state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease 

19 or infirmity‖ (MMS 2006b). The disease and mortality figures discussed are age-adjusted unless 

20 otherwise specified. 

21
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-392

1 Alaska Native health has undergone profound changes over the last 50 yr, and the 

2 changes in health status among the Iñupiat residents of the North Slope mirrors Statewide trends 

3 in Alaska Native health status in many respects. Since 1950, infant mortality, overall mortality, 

4 and life expectancy have improved significantly, as has been the case in American Indian tribes 

5 throughout the United States. However, over the same time period, cancer, chronic diseases 

6 (such as diabetes, hypertension, and asthma), and social pathology have increased (MMS 2006b).

7

8 Much of the overall improvement in mortality figures is attributable to decreased rates of 

9 infectious diseases such as tuberculosis. In 1950, tuberculosis was the leading cause of death, 

10 causing over 45% of deaths; by 2000, the proportion of deaths caused by infection had fallen to 

11 1.3%; life expectancy at birth had increased from 46.6 to 69 yr, and infant mortality had 

12 decreased from 90/100,000 to 9.5/100,000. The most rapid improvement in general health 

13 indicators occurred in the 1950s and 1960s. However, since 1979, health status has continued to 

14 improve based on general indicators, with a decline of roughly 20% in all-cause mortality 

15 (MMS 2006b).

16

17 Health improvements have been facilitated by a combination of region-wide increases in 

18 general socioeconomic status (a powerful determinant of health); improved housing, sanitation, 

19 and health care; and specific infection-control efforts. Since 1979, much of the continued 

20 improvement in mortality figures can be accounted for by decreasing fatality from injuries. 

21 Mortality from unintentional injury, the second leading cause of death in Alaska Natives, 

22 accounts for much of the more recent improvement, with a decline of roughly 40% between 1979 

23 and 1998. Much of this change can be attributed to local health departments‘ injury prevention 

24 programs and the efficacy of local alcohol control and local prohibition ordinances 

25 (MMS 2006b). 

26

27 Despite these improvements in overall mortality figures, significant health disparities 

28 remain, and cancer, social pathology, and chronic diseases are rapidly increasing. Health 

29 disparities between Alaska Natives and American Indians and the general U.S. population 

30 constitute one of the top priorities in current public health efforts. Life expectancy at birth for 

31 Alaska Natives remains significantly lower than for the general population (69 compared with 

32 76 yr). Since 1979, Alaska Native mortality rates remain roughly 30% higher than the 

33 U.S. population, and on the North Slope, overall mortality rates are 1.5 times higher than the 

34 U.S. population. Rates of assault, domestic violence, and unintentional and intentional 

35 (homicide and suicide) injury and death on the North Slope remain far higher than in the general 

36 U.S. population, despite the improvements noted above in unintentional injuries (MMS 2006b).

37

38 To understand the changes in Iñupiat health status and the reasons behind the current 

39 health disparities in general health indicators, it is useful to examine the prevalent health issues 

40 among the North Slope Iñupiat communities individually.

41

42 Cancer. Cancer has increased roughly 50% since 1969, and is now the leading cause of 

43 death on the North Slope. Three cancers — breast, colon, and lung — account for much of the 

44 overall increase. North Slope Alaska Natives have the highest incidence of cancer in Alaska, at 

45 579/100,000. Cancer mortality rates for all Alaska Natives, including North Slope residents, at
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-393

1 303/100,000, are significantly higher than the U.S. rate of 163/100,000, a disparity of great 

2 concern to health care providers in the State (MMS 2006b).

3

4 A substantial percentage of the increase in cancer incidence, particularly for lung cancer, 

5 is attributable to smoking. There may be other, much less significant environmental factors at 

6 work as well, such as environmental contamination due to increases in industrialization, the use 

7 of locally generated electricity and of vehicles, and the adoption of highly insulated housing. 

8 Cancer mortality rates due to these factors are less well understood. The possible contribution of 

9 environmental factors such as contaminants in subsistence resources is of great concern to local 

10 residents, but does not likely constitute the sole or perhaps the most likely explanation. Current 

11 public health efforts focus on smoking cessation efforts, early detection, surveillance of 

12 carcinogens in subsistence foods, and curtailing exposure to known carcinogenic compounds as 

13 much as possible while discouraging their continued use (MMS 2006b).

14

15 Psychological and Social Problems. Alcohol and drug problems, accidental and 

16 intentional injury (a high percentage of which are associated with alcohol use), depression, 

17 anxiety, and assault and domestic violence are now highly prevalent in the North Slope Borough 

18 (as they are in many rural Alaska Native villages) and cause a disproportionate burden of 

19 suffering and mortality for these communities. Suicide rates among Alaska Natives have 

20 increased dramatically since 1960 (MMS 2006b). The prevalence of suicide on the North Slope 

21 in recent years has been estimated at roughly 45/100,000, more than four times the rate in the 

22 general U.S. population. Still more strikingly, the age distribution of suicide has shifted to 

23 become a phenomenon of youth; before 1960, it was exceedingly rare and generally occurred 

24 primarily among elderly individuals. The rate of suicide among young Iñupiat men in the 

25 Alaskan Arctic has been documented as high as 185/100,000, nearly 16 times the national rate 

26 (MMS 2006b).

27

28 Domestic violence and child abuse are also now generally acknowledged as epidemic 

29 problems in rural Alaska and, internationally, in other arctic indigenous communities as well. 

30 Unprocessed arrest data from the U.S. Department of Health and Social Services in 2000–2003, 

31 for example, show rates of rape and assault 8–15 times the national rate (MMS 2006b). 

32 Homicide rates have dropped more than 50% since 1979, but remain markedly higher than the 

33 U.S. population. Alcohol and substance abuse are thought to contribute substantially to the rates 

34 of these problems (MMS 2006b).

35

36 Research in circumpolar Inuit societies suggests that social pathology and related health 

37 problems, which are common across the Arctic, relate directly to the rapid sociocultural changes 

38 that have occurred over the same time period (MMS 2006b). In the North Slope Borough, 

39 suicide rates increased dramatically in the 1960s and 1970s, and since 1979 have remained 

40 relatively constant but dramatically higher than the overall U.S. rates.

41

42 Injury Rates. Injury — including unintentional (or accidental) injury, suicide, assault, 

43 and homicide — is the second leading cause of death on the North Slope. Accidental injury rates 

44 have declined 43% since 1979, but mortality from accidental injury remains 3.5 times more 

45 common for Alaska Natives than U.S. whites (MMS 2006b). Injury is the second leading reason 

46 for hospitalization, after childbirth. Figures from the Alaska Trauma Registry indicated that the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-394

1 hospitalization rate for injuries in the North Slope Borough was the highest in the State, at 

2 141/10,000 residents, and over twice the State average. Alcohol has been estimated to be 

3 involved in up to 40% of injuries and traumatic deaths in Alaska Natives (MMS 2006b).

4

5 Unintentional injury rates are high in the North Slope, not only because of the challenges 

6 of life in Arctic Alaska, but also because of factors such as high rates of alcohol and substance 

7 abuse and risk-taking behavior in youth (MMS 2006b). Many public health officials in Alaska 

8 have speculated that many ―accidental‖ injuries in younger people may actually reflect abnormal 

9 risk-taking or latent suicidal behaviors.

10

11 Diabetes and Metabolic Diseases. Diabetes, obesity, and related metabolic disorders 

12 were previously rare or nonexistent in the Iñupiat. Diabetes rates in the North Slope Borough are 

13 low compared with other Alaska Native groups — and extremely low compared with all 

14 American Indians — but have begun to climb quite rapidly (MMS 2006b). The prevalence of 

15 diabetes in the North Slope is estimated at only 2.4% compared with the U.S. rate of roughly 7%. 

16 However, between 1990 and 2001, the rate of diabetes climbed roughly 110%, nearly three times 

17 the rate of increase in the general U.S. population (MMS 2006b). Subsistence diets and the 

18 associated active lifestyle are known to be the main protective factors against diabetes. The 

19 increase in diabetes is felt to reflect increased use of store-bought food, and a more sedentary 

20 lifestyle, potentially against the backdrop of a baseline genetic susceptibility (MMS 2006b).

21

22 Cardiovascular Disease. Cardiovascular disease rates, the second leading cause of death 

23 in Alaska, are significantly lower in Alaska Natives than in U.S. non-Natives. In the North Slope

24 Borough, recent mortality figures show death rates roughly 10% less than the U.S. population 

25 (MMS 2006b). However, as discussed above, many of the risk factors are increasing, and 

26 smoking rates are already extremely high (MMs 2006b). As in the case of diabetes, many public 

27 health researchers have explained the lower mortality from cardiovascular disease as stemming 

28 primarily from subsistence diets and the associated active lifestyle.

29

30 Chronic Pulmonary Disease. Chronic pulmonary disease mortality rates in Alaska 

31 Natives have climbed 192% since 1979. North Slope Borough residents have the highest 

32 mortality in the State from chronic lung diseases, at nearly three times the mortality rate for the 

33 United States (130/100,000 compared with 45/100,000) (MMS 2006b). As in the case of cancer, 

34 the primary reason for the disparate rates of increase and mortality in pulmonary disease is 

35 ascribed to the high smoking rates in the North Slope Borough. However, there may be 

36 environmental reasons for the rates of increase as well, such as air pollution generated by 

37 industrialization and changes in local energy use (see discussion on cancer above). Because 

38 there are no available data on local fine particulate concentrations, no data on hazardous air 

39 pollutants, and little data on intra-regional variation in other USEPA criteria pollutants, it is 

40 difficult to determine the possible contribution of these environmental factors.

41

42 In the United States in recent years, the field of public health has focused on efforts to 

43 explain and address health disparities between ethnic groups and social classes (MMS 2006b). 

44 That health disparities tend to accrue predominantly in minority and low-income populations is 

45 an indication of the vulnerability of these groups to outside societal-level influences on health 

46 status. An impressive body of data has demonstrated a direct association between measurable 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-395

1 societal factors, which have been collectively termed the ―social determinants of health‖ —

2 including income inequity within a society, the ―social gradient‖ (or disparities of social class), 

3 stress, social exclusion, decreasing social capital (the social support networks that provide for 

4 needs within a group or community), unemployment, cultural integrity, and environmental 

5 quality — and the incidence, prevalence, and mortality rates of many specific diseases. These 

6 disparities persist and can be dramatic, even after controlling for standard risk factors such as 

7 smoking rates, cholesterol and blood pressure levels, and overall poverty (MMS 2006b). 

8

9 The determinants of health status in North Slope Iñupiat communities are complex and 

10 reflect a wide array of considerations, including genetic susceptibility, behavioral change, 

11 environmental factors, diet, and sociocultural inputs (MMS 2006b). Identifying the potential 

12 influences, or ―determinants,‖ of health status is an essential step for public health programs 

13 seeking to address health disparities. State, regional, and village-specific influences on health 

14 and health behavior can be directly or indirectly associated with past oil and gas development on 

15 the North Slope. For example, modernization and socioeconomic change are common to all of 

16 rural Alaska, and are one of the dominant influences on the evolution of health status. As noted 

17 above, North Slope petroleum development provided the economic tax base that funded many of 

18 the programs and activities that define these changes in rural Alaska. The associations between 

19 these influences and oil and gas development can be very complex and indeterminate

20 (MMS 2006b). For example, regional differences exist between the NSB and other rural regions, 

21 such as the Northwest Arctic Borough, in terms of family income and employment status, largely 

22 related to oil and gas taxation and employment opportunities that came into being not because of 

23 the oil development alone, but because of the establishment and policymaking of the NSB. 

24 Similarly, residents of the North Slope village of Nuiqsut have experienced socioeconomic 

25 changes related not only to the State and regional-level influences discussed above, but also from 

26 local social and economic influences of the petroleum industry from the Alpine oilfield such as

27 profits of the Kuukpik Corporation, shifts in income distribution, oilfield-related employment, 

28 the increased presence of oil workers in the village, a new road connection to the Alaska road 

29 system, and changes in hunting patterns and the availability of game due to oil-related 

30 infrastructure (MMS 2006b).

31

32 Public testimony on prior NEPA-based onshore and offshore actions in the region has 

33 indicated a persistent concern that regional industrialization may be at the root of some of the 

34 human health disparities described above. For example, testifying in 2001 on the MMS‘ Liberty 

35 draft EIS, Rosemary Ahtuangaruak, a former health aide who received advanced training as a 

36 physician‘s assistant, stated: 

37

38 ―Increased incidents of community social ills associated with rapid technological and 

39 social change cause problems with truancy, vandalism, burglary, child abuse, domestic violence, 

40 alcohol and drug abuse, suicide, and primarily the loss of self-esteem. This has materialized 

41 during transient employment cycles. The influx of construction workers brings their own 

42 problems to a village impacted by oil development activities already. Historically, from past 

43 experience, we know that the incidents of alcohol and drug use increase dramatically‖

44 (MMS 2006b).

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-396

1 Similarly, former North Slope Borough Mayor George Ahmaogak noted: ―The benefits 

2 of oil development are clear — I don‘t deny that for a moment. The negative impacts are more 

3 subtle. They‘re also more widespread and more costly than most people realize. We know the 

4 human impacts of development are significant and long-term. So far, we‘ve been left to deal 

5 with them on our own. They show up in our health statistics, alcohol treatment programs, 

6 emergency service needs, police responses — you name it‖ (MMS 2006b).

7

8 The health status of the North Slope Iñupiat people has improved significantly since the 

9 1950s; however, significant new pathologies, most importantly cancer, cardiovascular and 

10 metabolic problems, and social pathology, have emerged during this period. The reasons for the 

11 improvements, the continuing disparities, and the new problems are very complex and originate 

12 in many different sources. However, while there is little definitive data linking degradation of 

13 environmental quality and local health impacts, and no data indicating specific health impacts of 

14 a particular oil and gas development project, a consideration of regional health data does allow 

15 for the recognition of risks associated with projects, and for the development of mitigation 

16 strategies. In general, the field of health impact assessment responds to concerns of 

17 environmental health impacts through efforts to control exposure to environmental contaminants 

18 rather than through attempts to identify specific increases in disease rates with specific exposures

19 (MMS 2006b).

20

21

22 3.16 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES

23

24

25 3.16.1 Gulf of Mexico

26

27 As defined in the ACHP regulations at 36 CFR 800.16, ―historic property‖ means any 

28 prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for 

29 inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The term includes properties of 

30 traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization

31 and that meet the NRHP criteria. As used in this analysis, the more general term 

32 ―cultural resources‖ also includes those historic resources not yet determined eligible for the 

33 NRHP. 

34

35 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA; 

36 16 USC 470(f)) requires that Federal agencies such as BOEMRE take into account the effect of 

37 an undertaking under their jurisdiction on significant cultural resources. A cultural resource is 

38 considered significant when it meets the eligibility criteria for listing on the NRHP

39 (36 CFR 60.4). The Section 106 process requires the identification of cultural resources within 

40 the area of potential effect of a Federal project, consideration of a project‘s impact on cultural 

41 resources, and the mitigation of adverse effects on significant cultural resources. The process 

42 also requires consultation with State Historic Preservation Officers, the ACHP, Native American 

43 tribes, and interested parties. In the case of oil, gas, and sulfur leases, BOEMRE has established 

44 regulations (e.g., 30 CFR 250.194) and issues guidance to lessees (e.g., Notice to Lessees 

45 [NTL] No. 2005-G07 and G10, NTL No. 2006-G07, NTL No. 2005-A03, NTL No. 2006-PO3) 

46 to ensure compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations in 36 CFR 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-397

1 Part 800. The NTLs provide guidance on the regulations regarding archaeological discoveries 

2 and the conduct of archaeological surveys and identify specific OCS lease blocks with a high 

3 potential for containing cultural resources on the basis of previous studies.

4

5 BOEMRE can only consider the effects on cultural resources of projects over which it 

6 has permitting authority (Sansonetti 1987). BOEMRE does not have the legal authority to 

7 manage cultural resources on the OCS outside of its lease areas (Solicitor 1980). The only 

8 impacts that BOEMRE can consider off of the OCS are the visual impacts on historic properties 

9 on land. BOEMRE intends to develop additional guidance on the issue of indirect visual impacts 

10 through consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and other interested 

11 parties. Once a project‘s footprint enters State waters, the project is no longer under BOEMRE 

12 control but is subject to the requirements identified by the State.

13

14

15 3.16.1.1 Offshore Prehistoric Resources

16

17 The GOM region consists of approximately 2,600 km (1,600 mi) of coastline. Onshore 

18 cultural resources are highly varied in coastal areas. Prehistoric cultural resources range from 

19 small, temporary use sites to substantial permanent settlements ranging in age from the earliest 

20 known human occupation of the area, approximately 12,000 yr ago, through the post-contact 

21 period (e.g., the last several hundred years). It is estimated that the current water levels of the 

22 GOM were reached approximately 3,000 yr ago (Stright et al. 1999). Therefore, sites predating 

23 this period could be located under water. 

24

25 Approximately 19,000 yr ago, during the late Wisconsinan glacial advance, much of the 

26 OCS constituted dry land, as the sea level was approximately 120 m (390 ft) lower than present 

27 levels. During the earliest period of uncontested human prehistoric populations in the GOM

28 coast region (approximately 12,000 yr ago), the sea level would have been approximately 45 to 

29 60 m (150 to 200 ft) lower than present (CEI 1982). The submerged area between the 

30 paleoshoreline (vicinity of the 45- to 60-m [150- to 200-ft] bathymetric contour) to the present31 day shoreline would, therefore, have the potential to contain prehistoric sites. Studies conducted 

32 in the 1980s and 1990s confirmed that inundated former terrestrial archaeological sites do exist 

33 in the GOM (Dunbar et al. 1989; Anuskiewicz and Dunbar 1993). A growing body of 

34 information suggests that North America may have been populated much earlier than 12,000 yr 

35 ago (e.g., Waters et al. 2011). If an earlier date can be established for the settling of North 

36 America, the depth and extent of areas with the potential for inundated terrestrial sites could 

37 expand.

38

39

40 3.16.1.2 Offshore Historic Resources 

41

42 From the historic period (1492 to present), offshore cultural resources primarily consist 

43 of numerous shipwrecks dating from as early as the sixteenth century. However, other historic 

44 structures can also be found offshore, such as the Ship Shoal Lighthouse. Literature searches can 

45 be completed for reported ship losses and known shipwrecks, but they offer only a partial 

46 understanding of the resources that may be present. It can be assumed that some percentage of 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-398

1 the reporting is inaccurate, some locations were imprecisely recorded, some of the ships were 

2 badly broken up and widely dispersed during drift, and additional ship losses may not have been 

3 documented (e.g., the losses of small coastal fishing boats were largely unreported, and the 

4 regular reporting of other larger boats did not occur until the nineteenth century). Often there is 

5 only a record that a ship was lost in the GOM region.

6

7 The preservation potential of shipwrecks varies throughout the GOM. The preservation 

8 of shipwrecks is dependent on several factors including the level of sedimentation at a wreck 

9 site, the depth the wreck, the strength and extent of water current activity near a site, and the 

10 temperature of the water. Shipwrecks in areas with high sediment loads are expected to be better 

11 preserved. The sediment protects the sites from the effects of severe storms and wood-eating 

12 shipworms. The coasts of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama are likely to have 

13 sufficient sediment load to preserve shipwrecks. However, as a result of differences in 

14 sedimentation rates, it is anticipated that preservation would be slightly better off the 

15 Mississippi/Alabama coast than off the Louisiana coast due to the greater amount of sediment 

16 being discharged and deposited from the Mississippi River (CEI 1977). Deepwater shipwrecks 

17 are expected to have a moderate to high preservation potential. Studies conducted in 2004 and 

18 2008 for BOEMRE suggest that the high level of preservation in deep water is partially 

19 attributable to these areas being low-energy environments (Church et al. 2004; Ford et al. 2008). 

20 In addition, the water is colder at deepwater sites; this slows the oxidation process. Finally, the 

21 cause of a shipwreck could also affect its preservation potential. Shipwrecks nearer to the 

22 shoreline have a greater potential to be broken up and scattered by subsequent storms.

23

24 Several studies have been conducted for the BOEMRE to model areas in the GOM where 

25 shipwrecks have the highest potential to exist. The first study, conducted in 1977, concluded that 

26 two-thirds of all shipwrecks in the northern GOM are located within 1.5 km (0.9 mi) of the shore 

27 (CEI 1977). A second study in 1989 (Garrison et al. 1989) concluded that the highest frequency 

28 of shipwrecks occurred in areas of the highest volume of marine traffic (e.g., approaches to 

29 seaports and mouths of navigable rivers and straits). This study also reported an increased 

30 frequency in shipwrecks in the open sea of the eastern GOM that was double that reported for the 

31 western or central GOM, attributed to changes in sailing routes in the late nineteenth and early 

32 twentieth centuries. In addition, the study looked at distribution patterns of shipwrecks relative 

33 to ocean currents, storm tracks, natural navigational hazards, and economic histories of ports. 

34 The final study, conducted in 2003 (Pearson et al. 2003), incorporated new data that had been 

35 compiled over 15 yr of high-resolution shallow hazard surveys for oil and gas development and 

36 sonar surveys. To date, shipwrecks have been discovered in water depths up to 1,981 m 

37 (6,500 ft). Many of the deepwater wrecks, at least their locations, were not previously known;

38 several of the deepwater shipwrecks date to the World War II era. As a result of the findings in 

39 this study, BOEMRE updated its guidelines to include lease blocks in deepwater areas within the 

40 approach to the Mississippi River as high-potential areas requiring archaeological survey (NTL 

41 No. 2006-G07).

42

43
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-399

1 3.16.1.3 Onshore Archaeological and Historic Resources 

2

3 Geographic features associated with onshore prehistoric archaeological sites in coastal 

4 areas in the western and central GOM include river channels and associated floodplains, terraces, 

5 levees and point bars, barrier islands, back barrier embayments, and salt domes. In the eastern 

6 GOM, off the coast of Florida, additional features include chert outcrops, solution caverns, and 

7 sinkholes. These same types of features are present on the OCS, are submerged and often buried 

8 by estuarine and marine sediments, and have the same potential for being associated with 

9 prehistoric site locations in this region. BOEMRE requires high-resolution remote sensing 

10 surveys prior to any bottom-disturbing activities associated with oil, gas, and sulfur leasing. 

11

12 Historic resources located in coastal regions can include historic residences and 

13 communities, lighthouses, historic forts, and piers and docks. Onshore historic resources can 

14 also include shipwrecks that have been buried on beaches.

15

16

17 3.16.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet 

18

19

20 3.16.2.1 Offshore Prehistoric Resources

21

22 Minimal research has been conducted in the Cook Inlet Planning Area concerning the 

23 potential for submerged landforms that could contain archaeological material. During the time 

24 that Alaska was first populated (c. 13,000 yr ago), sea levels were significantly lower than today 

25 (Dixon et al. 1986). Much of the shoreline, where the first peoples would have lived, is now 

26 inundated in water up to 60 m (197 ft) in depth. Most of the research concerning identification 

27 of these old shorelines has occurred in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas (see Section 3.6.5.8.1). 

28 However, an archaeological baseline study completed by Dixon et al. (1986) compiled available 

29 geologic, bathymetric, geophysical, climatic, and archaeological data in an effort to outline those 

30 areas of the Alaska OCS that may have the highest potential for preserved prehistoric 

31 archaeological sites. The primary indicators used to evaluate offshore prehistoric site potential 

32 were coastal geomorphic features onshore, relict geomorphic features offshore, and ecological 

33 data. It was proposed in the baseline study that these lines of evidence, taken together, indicate 

34 areas where subsistence resources used by prehistoric human populations would have been 

35 concentrated for sustained periods of time. However, actual geophysical data would be required 

36 to reconstruct the offshore paleogeography and determine specific areas where prehistoric 

37 archaeological sites might occur. The results of the baseline study suggest that the area around 

38 the Aleutian Islands has potential for preserved prehistoric sites. While the information 

39 contained in the Dixon et al. (1986) report is useful for understanding Alaskan prehistory, the 

40 Alaska SHPO requires that baseline reports be updated regularly (personal comm. 

41 McMahan 2011). Since the report has not been updated, it can no longer be used as the primary 

42 resource for determining the likelihood of the presence of prehistoric resources. 

43

44 Portions of Cook Inlet are subject to high-energy tidal movements. The seafloor of lower 

45 Cook Inlet contains seafloor characteristics such as lag gravels, sand ribbons, and sand wave 

46 fields (MMS 2003a). These features are only formed in areas of high energy. High-energy 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-400

1 water movement may have removed the potential for archaeological resources to be present. 

2 Additional research is needed to determine the extent of the disturbance.

3

4

5 3.16.2.2 Offshore Historic Resources

6

7 A total of 108 shipwrecks were lost in Cook Inlet between 1799 and 1954 (Tornfelt and 

8 Burwell 1992). With some exceptions, the sites of most of these shipwrecks are within State 

9 waters. However, the best-preserved shipwrecks are likely to be found on the OCS, because 

10 wave action and ice are less likely to contribute to the breakup of ships in deeper waters. No 

11 shipwreck studies have been done in Cook Inlet since 1992.

12

13

14 3.16.2.3 Onshore Archaeological and Historic Resources

15

16 Records for known onshore archaeological and historic resources around Cook Inlet are 

17 maintained by the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology (Alaska OHA). Along the 

18 shoreline surrounding Cook Inlet, the predominant types of prehistoric resources are house pits 

19 containing the household and subsistence artifacts (stone lamps, sinkers, arrowheads, etc.) of 

20 prehistoric people. Historic sites found onshore consist of early Russian houses, churches, 

21 roadway inns, fish camps, and mining camps. 

22

23

24 3.16.3 Alaska – Arctic 

25

26

27 3.16.3.1 Offshore Prehistoric Resources

28

29 At the height of the late Wisconsinan glacial advance (approximately 19,000 yr ago), the 

30 global (eustatic) sea level was approximately 120 m (394 ft) lower than present. During this 

31 time, large expanses of what is now the OCS were exposed as dry land. Where the actual 

32 shorelines were located varied depending on the location and the amount of ice that was present. 

33 The lower sea levels created land bridges between the Asian continent and the North American 

34 continent. It is commonly thought that it was over these land bridges that the first people came 

35 to North America roughly 13,000 yr ago (Dariago et al. 2007). It is also commonly held that the 

36 first inhabitants of North America would have settled along the coasts. Therefore, if the relic 

37 coastlines or landforms (which are now completely inundated) can be found and identified, it is 

38 possible that archaeological evidence for the populating of North America could be found. 

39

40 Studies using data collected during various explorations in the Beaufort Sea attempted to 

41 clarify if landforms dating to the early Holocene Period (between 13,000 and 11,000 yr ago) 

42 could be found and whether there was any potential for intact archaeological material to remain 

43 in these areas (Dariago et al. 2007). The studies found that the shoreline at 13,000 yr ago 

44 was approximately 60 m (197 ft) below sea level and that landforms do appear to exist from 

45 that time period. Similarly, in 1992, studies conducted in the Chukchi Sea also seem to indicate 

46 that landforms from the early Holocene may remain (Elias et al. 1992). However, major
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-401

1 disturbances have occurred to these landforms. Ice gouging resulting from large pieces of ice 

2 dragging along the bottom of the ocean may have altered the landform sediments and removed 

3 all archaeological evidence of the first peoples. The full extent of the disturbance is not known. 

4 Some areas near barrier islands or areas that are protected by shorefast ice show less evidence of 

5 ice gouging (Dariago et al. 2007). The amount of disturbance also varies between the Beaufort 

6 and Chukchi Seas. Because more investigations have occurred in the Beaufort Sea, there is a 

7 better understanding of the situation in that area. Ultimately, sonar and seismic surveys are 

8 needed to determine the condition of the sediments and underlying strata. 

9

10

11 3.16.3.2 Offshore Historic Resources

12

13 Numerous shipwrecks have been documented in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Most of 

14 the shipwrecks off of Alaska‘s north coast were associated with commercial whaling, which 

15 occurred between 1849 and 1921 (Bockstoce and Burns 1993). Archival research has identified 

16 numerous reports of shipwrecks (Bockstoce 1977; Tornfelt and Burwell 1992; Rozell 2000). 

17 BOEMRE maintains an Alaska Shipwreck Database which includes information on all known 

18 shipwrecks. As a result of the studies conducted on shipwrecks, BOEMRE has identified some 

19 areas in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas as having high probability for containing wrecks. Most 

20 of the wrecks off northern Alaska are likely in State waters and are not under the direct 

21 jurisdiction of BOEMRE. High resolution geophysical surveys are needed to determine 

22 shipwreck locations. The following contains some information on the types and locations of 

23 shipwrecks in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. 

24

25 Based on archival research cited above, between 1849 and 1921, 34 shipwrecks occurred 

26 within a few miles of Barrow; another 13 wrecks occurred to the west and east of Barrow in the 

27 waters of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. No surveys of these shipwrecks have been made; 

28 therefore, no exact locations are known. These wrecks would be important finds, providing 

29 information on past cultural norms and practices, particularly with regard to the whaling industry 

30 (Tornfelt and Burwell 1992). 

31

32 At Point Belcher near Wainwright, 30 ships were frozen in the ice in September 1871; 

33 13 others were lost in other incidents off Icy Cape and Point Franklin. Another 7 wrecks 

34 occurred off Cape Lisburne and Point Hope. From 1865 to 1876, 76 whaling vessels — an 

35 average of more than 6 per year — were lost because of ice and also because of raids by the 

36 Shenandoah, which burned 21 whaling ships near the Bering Strait during the Civil War 

37 (Bockstoce 1977). The possibility exists that some of these shipwrecks have not been 

38 completely destroyed by ice and storms. The probabilities for preservation are particularly high 

39 around Point Franklin, Point Belcher, and Point Hope (Tornfelt and Burwell 1992).

40

41 A remote sensing survey in the Beaufort Sea recorded a large side-scan sonar target. The 

42 size and shape of this object and historical accounts suggest that it may be the crash site of the 

43 Sigismund Levanevsky, a Russian airplane that was lost during a transpolar flight in 1939 

44 (Rozell 2000). Subsequent attempts at relocating the object and confirming its identity were 

45 unsuccessful.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-402

1 3.16.3.3 Onshore Archaeological and Historic Resources

2

3 Archaeological and historic resources are found along the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea 

4 coasts. Onshore archaeological resources near the Chukchi Sea coast receive less damage from 

5 the eroding shoreline than those on the Beaufort Sea coast, which is subjected to more slumping 

6 because of water action and permafrost (Lewbel 1984). Therefore, known onshore 

7 archaeological resources exist in greater numbers in the Chukchi Sea area; additional unknown 

8 resources are also more likely to exist. Known historic and archaeological resources are 

9 cataloged in the Alaska Heritage Resources Files maintained by the Alaska OHA. The types of 

10 onshore archaeological and historic resources known to exist include prehistoric and historic 

11 villages, graves, whaling camps, fishing/hunting camps, and whaling ship remains (Tornfelt and 

12 Burwell 1992; Beebe and Jensen 2006, 2007). In addition, Cold War era historic sites including 

13 former Distant Early Warning line outposts, radar stations associated with the Aircraft Control 

14 and Warning System, missile sites, and others can be found along the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea 

15 coasts (Whorton and Hoffecker 1999).

16

17 Significant resources found along the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas include the Ipiutak Site 

18 National Historic Landmark at Point Hope, the Cape Krusenstern National Monument, the 

19 Bering Land Bridge National Preserve, and the Birnirk Site National Historic Landmark at 

20 Barrow. These areas are known to contain significant archaeological resources, occasionally in 

21 large numbers. 

22

23

24 3.17 REFERENCES

25

26 Aarimitsu, M.L., J.F. Piatt, M.A. Litzow, A.A. Abookire, M.D. Romano, and M.D. Robards, 

27 2008, ―Distribution and Spawning Dynamics of Capelin (Mallotus villosus) in Glacier Bay, 

28 Alaska: A Cold Water Refugium,‖ Fisheries Oceanography 17:137–146.

29

30 ABC (American Bird Conservancy), 2011, Globally Important Bird Areas of the United States. 

31 The Plains, Virginia. Available at http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/domestic/iba/

32 index.html. Accessed April 20, 2011

33

34 ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment), 2005, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Cambridge 

35 University Press, New York, N.Y.

36

37 Ackerman, R.A., 1997, ―The Nest Environment and the Embryonic Development of Sea 

38 Turtles,‖ in The Biology of Sea Turtles, P.L. Lutz and J.A. Musick (eds.), CRC Press, Boca 

39 Raton, Fla., p. 83–106.

40

41 ACRC (Alaska Climate Research Center), 2011, Alaska Climatology. Available at 

42 http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/Climate/index.html. Accessed May 30, 2011.

43

44 ADEC (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation), 2010a, Alaska‘s Final 2010 

45 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, July 15.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-403

1 ADEC, 2010b, Alaska‘s 2011 Air Monitoring Network Plan, Chapter 1 – Monitoring Plan, 

2 Anchorage, Alaska. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/networkplans/

3 AKPlan2010.pdf. Accessed May 29, 2011.

4

5 ADFG (Alaska Department of Fish and Game), 2011a, Species Profiles: Mammals, Juneau, 

6 Alaska. Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=animals.listmammals. 

7 Accessed May 10, 2011.

8

9 ADFG, 2011b, Sitka Black-tailed Deer Hunting in Alaska, Juneau, Alaska. Available at 

10 http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=deerhunting.main. Accessed May 9, 2011.

11

12 ADFG, 2011c, Porcupine Caribou Herd Shows Growth, Press Release No. 11-14, 

13 Juneau, Alaska, March 2. Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=

14 pressreleases.pr03022011. Accessed April 8, 2011.

15

16 ADFG, 2011d, Western Arctic Caribou Herd Count Revised, Press Release No. 11-20, Juneau, 

17 Alaska, March 24. Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=pressreleases.

18 pr03242011. Accessed April 8, 2011.

19

20 ADFG, 2011e, Subsistence in Alaska, Harvest Data and Reports Community Subsistence 

21 Information System. Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=

22 subsistence.harvest. Accessed June 17, 2011.

23

24 ADFG 2011f, Subsistence in Alaska, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Available at

25 http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=subsistence.main. Accessed August 2011.

26

27 ADNR (Alaska Department of Natural Resources), 1997, Oil and Gas Lease Sale 86, Central 

28 Beaufort Sea: Final Finding of the Director, ADNR, Division of Oil and Gas Anchorage, 

29 Alaska.

30

31 ADNR, 1999, Best Interest Finding, Cook Inlet Areawide 1999 Oil and Gas Lease Sale: Final 

32 Finding of the Director, Division of Oil and Gas, Anchorage, Alaska.

33

34 ADNR, 2008, Best Interest Finding, North Slope Areawide Oil and Gas Lease Sale: Final 

35 Finding of the Director. Anchorage, AK: State of Alaska/ADNR, Division of Oil and Gas.

36

37 ADNR, 2009, Beaufort Sea Areawide Oil and Gas Lease Sale Final Finding of the Director, 

38 Division of Oil and Gas, Anchorage, Alaska, Nov. 9. 

39

40 AFN (Alaska Federation of Natives), 2006, Subsistence History, AFN Subsistence Forum, 

41 Anchorage, Oct. 25.

42

43 Agler, B.A., S.J. Kendall, and D.B. Irons, 1998, ―Abundance and Distribution of Marbled and 

44 Kittlitz‘s Murrelets in Southcentral and Southeast Alaska.‖ The Condor 100: 254–265.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-404

1 Agrium, Inc., 2007, Agrium Announces Closure of Kenai Nitrogen Facility. Available at 

2 http://www.agrium.com/news/05784_8346.jsp. Accessed July 2011.

3

4 Aguilera, F., J. Méndez, E. Pásaro, and B. Laffon, 2010, ―Review on the Effects of Exposure to 

5 Spilled Oils on Human Health,‖ Journal of Applied Toxicology 30: 291–301.

6

7 Aharon, P., D. Van Gent, B. Fu, and L.M. Scott, 2001, Fate and Effects of Barium and Radium8 Rich Fluid Emissions from Hydrocarbon Seeps on the Benthic Habitats of the Gulf of Mexico 

9 Offshore Louisiana, prepared by Louisiana State University, Coastal Marine Institute, OCS 

10 Study MMS 2001-004, MMS, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La.

11

12 AIAC (Alabama Indian Affairs Commission), 2011, Tribes Recognized by the State of 

13 Alabama, State of Alabama Indian Affairs Commission, Montgomery, Ala. Available at 

14 http://aiac.alabama.gov/tribes.aspx. Accessed 28 February 2011.

15

16 Ainley, D.G., D.N. Nettleship, H.R.C. Storey, and A.E. Storey, 2002, Common Murre

17 (Uria aalge), Issue 666, The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.), Cornell Lab of 

18 Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/666. 

19 Accessed August 18, 2011.

20

21 Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2005, Coastal Alabama Beach Monitoring 

22 Program. 

23

24 Alabama Ornithological Society, 2006, Field Checklist of Alabama Birds. Alabama 

25 Ornithological Society, Dauphin Island, Ala.

26

27 Alabama Ornithological Society, 2011, Annotated Alabama Record Pelagic List. Available at 

28 http://www.aosbirds.org/pelagicrecords.php. Accessed April 11, 2011.

29

30 Alaska Department of Administration, 2004, 2004 Final Gas Disposition Report. Available at 

31 http://doa.alaska.gov/ogc/annual/2004/2004_Gas_Disposition_Final.pdf. Accessed August 31, 

32 2011.

33

34 Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, 2007, Alaska Population Projections, 

35 2007-2030. Available at http://laborstats.alaska.gov/pop/projected/pub/popproj0730.pdf. 

36 Accessed July 29, 2011.

37

38 Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA), 2008, The Role of Oil and Gas in Alaska‘s Economy, 

39 June. Available at http://www.aoga.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/report2008.pdf. Accessed 

40 September 9, 2011. 

41

42 Alaska Regional Assessment Group, 1999, The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability 

43 and Change: Alaska, report prepared for U.S. Global Change Research Program, Center for 

44 Global Change and Arctic System Research, Fairbanks, Alaska.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-405

1 Alaska Shorebird Group, 2008, Alaska Shorebird Conservation Plan, Version II, Alaska 

2 Shorebird Group, Anchorage, Alaska. Available at http://alaska.fws.gov/mbsp/mbm/

3 shorebirds/plans.htm. Accessed August 18, 2011.

4

5 Alaska Visitors Statistics Program, 1990a, Alaska Visitor Expenditures, Summer 1989, prepared 

6 for the State of Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of 

7 Tourism, by The McDowell Group, August.

8

9 Alaska Visitor Statistics Program, 1990b, Visitor Patterns, Opinions, Planning, Summer 1989,

10 prepared for the State of Alaska, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, 

11 Division of Tourism, by The McDowell Group, October.

12

13 Alaska Visitors Association, 1990, Oil Spill Impact on Tourism, May.

14

15 Alexander-Bloch, B., 2010, ―Vietnamese-American Fishers Fight for Oil Spill Claim Approval,‖ 

16 nola.com. Available at http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/12/vietnamese17 american_fishermen.html. Accessed June 17, 2011.

18

19 Alkire, M.B., and J.H. Trefry, 2006, ―Transport of Spring Floodwater from Rivers under Ice to 

20 the Alaskan Beaufort Sea,‖ Journal of Geophysical Research 111:C12008.

21

22 Allen, B.N., and R.P. Angliss, 2010a, Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2009, NOAA 

23 Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-206, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

24 National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Wash., Feb.

25

26 Allen, B.N., and R.P. Angliss, 2010b, Draft Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2010, 

27 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska 

28 Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Wash., April.

29

30 Allen, B.N., and R.P. Angliss, 2011, Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2010, NOAA, 

31 Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-223, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

32 National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Wash., May.

33

34 Alter, S.E., M.P. Simmonds, and J.R. Brandon, 2010, ―Forecasting the Consequences of 

35 Climate-driven Shifts in Human Behavior on Cetaceans,‖ Marine Policy 34(5):943–954.

36

37 AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme), 1997, Arctic Pollution Issues: A State 

38 of the Arctic Environment Report, Oslo, Norway, 188 p. 

39

40 AMAP, 2002, Arctic Pollution 2002, Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Oslo, 

41 Norway.

42

43 AMAP, 2004, AMAP Assessment 2002: Persistent Organic Pollutants in the Arctic, Oslo, 

44 Norway: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-406

1 American Cetacean Society, 2006, Harbor Porpoise Phocoena phocoena, ACS Cetacean Fact 

2 Packs, Sept. 18. 

3

4 American Gaming Association, 2010, State of the States: The AGA Survey of Casino 

5 Entertainment, 2010, Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.americangaming.org/

6 files/aga/uploads/docs/sos/aga-sos-2010.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2011.

7

8 Amstrup, S.C., 2003, ―Polar Bear Ursus maritimus,‖ pp. 587–610 in Wild Mammals of North 

9 America: Biology, Management, and Conservation, 2nd edition, G.A. Feldhamer, 

10 B.C. Thompson, and J.A. Chapman (eds.), John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md. 

11

12 Amstrup, S.C., and C.L. Gardner, 1994, ―Polar Bear Maternity Denning in the Beaufort Sea,‖ 

13 Journal of Wildlife Management 58:1–10. 

14

15 Amstrup, S.C., G.M. Durner, I. Stirling, N.J. Lunn, and F. Messier, 2000, ―Movements and 

16 Distribution of Polar Bears in the Beaufort Sea,‖ Canadian Journal of Zoology 78(6):948–966.

17

18 Anderson, P.J., and J.F. Piatt, 1999, ―Community Reorganization in the Gulf of Alaska 

19 Following Ocean Climate Regime Shift,‖ Marine Ecology Progress Series 189:117–123.

20

21 Andrews, R.K., B.M. Howe, J.A. Mercer, and M.A. Dzieciuch, 2002, ―Ocean Ambient Sound:

22 Comparing the 1960s with the 1990s for a Receiver Off the California Coast,‖ Acoustics 

23 Research Letters Online 3(2):65–70.

24

25 Angerbjorn, A., B. Arvidson, E. Noren, and L. Stromgren, 1991, ―The Effect of Winter Food on 

26 Reproduction in the Arctic Fox, Alopex lagopus: A Field Experiment,‖ Journal of Animal 

27 Ecology 60:705–714. 

28

29 Anisimov, O.A., D.G. Vaughan, T.V. Callaghan, C. Furgal, H. Marchant, T.D. Prowse, 

30 H. Vilhjálmsson and J.E. Walsh, 2007, ―Polar Regions (Arctic and Antarctic),‖ in Climate 

31 Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the 

32 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, 

33 O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.), Cambridge University 

34 Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp. 653–685.

35

36 Anuskiewicz, R.J., and J.S. Dunbar, 1993, ―Evidence of Prehistoric Man at Ray Hole Springs: A

37 Drowned Sinkhole Located 32 km Offshore on the Continental Shelf in 12 m of Seawater,‖ 

38 Proceedings of the American Academy of Underwater Sciences Thirteenth Annual Scientific

39 Diving Symposium, September 19–22, 1993, Pacific Grove, Calif.

40

41 Anthony, R.M., N.M. Barten, and P.E. Seiser, 2000, ―Foods of Arctic Foxes (Alopex lagopus) 

42 during Winter and Spring in Western Alaska,‖ Journal of Mammalogy 81(3):820–828. 

43

44 Aquarone, M.C., and S. Adams, 2009, ―XIV-46 Gulf of Alaska: LME #2,‖ LME Briefs. 

45 Available at http://www.lme.noaa.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=

46 48:lme2&catid=41:briefs&Itemid=72. Accessed January 28, 2011.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-407

1 Archer, F.I., and W.F. Perrin, 1999, ―Stenella coeruleoalba,‖ Mammalian Species 603:1–9.

2

3 Arctic Council, 2005, Arctic Climate Impacts Assessment, Cambridge University Press, 

4 Cambridge, U.K.

5

6 Armstrong, R.H., 2003, Guide to the Birds of Alaska, Alaska Northwest Books, Portland, 

7 Oregon.

8

9 Arp, C.D., B.M. Jones, J.A. Schmutz, F.E. Urban, M.T. Jorgenson, 2010, ―Two Mechanisms of 

10 Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitat Change along an Alaskan Arctic Coastline,‖ Polar Biology

11 33:1629–1640.

12

13 ASRC (Arctic Slope Regional Corporation), 2011, Communities. Available at 

14 http://www.asrc.com/Communities/Pages/Communities.aspx. Accessed June 17, 2011.

15

16 Associated Press, 2010, Gulf Spill Cleanup Winners and Losers. Available at 

17 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/26/gulf-oil-spill-cleanup-winners-and-losers_n_

18 696416.html. Accessed July 15, 2011.

19

20 A.T. Kearney, Inc., 1991, Impacts of Oil and Gas Development on the Recreation and Tourism 

21 Activity in the Florida Straits, OCS Study MMS 91-039, Minerals Management Service. 

22 Available at http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/1/1980.pdf. Accessed July 15, 

23 2011.

24

25 Attrill, M.J., 2002, ―A Testable Linear Model for Diversity Trends in Estuaries,‖ Journal of 

26 Animal Ecology 71(2):262–269, March. 

27

28 Au, W.W.L., 1993, The Sonar of Dolphins, Springer-Verlag, New York, N.Y.

29

30 Au, W.W.L., D.A. Carder, R.H. Penner, and B.L. Scronce, 1985, ―Demonstration of Adaptation 

31 in Beluga Whale Echolocation Signals,‖ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 77(2):726–730.

32

33 Au, W.W.L., R.H. Penner, and C.W. Turl, 1987, ―Propagation of Beluga Whale Echolocation 

34 Signals,‖ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 82(3): 807–813.

35

36 Audet, A.M., C.B. Robbins, and S. Lariviere, 2002, ―Alopex lagopus,‖ Mammalian Species 

37 No. 713:1–10.

38

39 Audubon Alaska, 2011, Important Bird Areas. Audubon Alaska, Anchorage. Available at 

40 http://ak.audubon.org/birds-science-education/important-bird-areas-0. Accessed July 12, 2011.

41

42 Audubon Society, 2011a, Important Bird Areas Along the Gulf Coast: Priority Sites. Available 

43 at http://web4.audubon.org/bird/iba/gulfIBAs_list.html. Accessed April 27, 2011.

44

45 Audubon Society, 2011b, Dauphin Island Site Report. Available at http://iba.audubon.org/iba/

46 siteSearch.do. Accessed April 25, 2011.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-408

1 Augerot, X., 2005, Atlas of Pacific Salmon, University of California Press, Berkeley, Calif. 

2

3 Aumack, C.F., K.H. Dunton, A.B. Burd, D.W. Funk, and R.A. Maffione, 2007, ―Linking Light 

4 Attenuation and Suspended Sediment Loading to Benthic Productivity within an Arctic Kelp5 Bed Community,‖ Journal of Phycology 43:853–863.

6

7 Bacheler, N.M., K.M. Bailey, L. Ciannelli, V. Bartolino, and K.-S. Chan, 2009, ―Density8 Dependent, Landscape, and Climate Effects on Spawning Distribution of Walleye Pollock 

9 Theragra chalcogramma,‖ Marine Ecology Progress Series 391:1–12.

10

11 Bailey, R.G., 2005, ―Identifying Ecoregion Boundaries,‖ Environmental Management 34 

12 (Supplement 1):S14–S26.

13

14 Bailey, H., and P. Thompson, 2010, ―Effect of Oceanographic Features on Fine-Scale Foraging 

15 Movements of Bottlenose Dolphins,‖ Marine Ecology Progress Series 418:223–233.

16

17 Baird, P.H., 2009a, Black-legged Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla), Issue 092, The Birds of North 

18 America Online (A. Poole, ed.), Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available at 

19 http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/092. Accessed August 18, 2011.

20

21 Baird, R.W., 2009b, A Review of False Killer Whales in Hawaiian Waters: Biology, Status, and 

22 Risk Factors, prepared by Cascadia Research Collective, Olympia, Washington for U.S. Marine 

23 Mammal Commission, Dec. 23. Available at http://www.mmc.gov/reports/workshop/pdf/

24 killerwhale_review_mmc09.pdf. Accessed September 9, 2011.

25

26 Baker, J.D., C.L. Littnan, and D.W. Johnston, 2006, ―Potential Effects of Sea Level Rise on the 

27 Terrestrial Habitats of Endangered and Endemic Megafauna in the Northwestern Hawaiian 

28 Islands,‖ Endangered Species Research 4:1–10.

29

30 Baker, C.S., S.R. Palumbi, R.H. Lambertsen, M.T. Weinrich, J. Calambokidis, and S.J. O‘Brien, 

31 1990, ―Influence of Seasonal Migration on Geographic Distribution of Mitochondrial DNA 

32 Haplotypes in Humpback Whales,‖ Nature 344:238–240. 

33

34 Bakun, A., 1990, ―Global Climate Change and Intensification of Coastal Ocean Upwelling,‖ 

35 Science 247:198–201.

36

37 Balcomb, K.C., J.R. Boran, R.W. Osborne, and N.J. Haenel, 1980, Observations of Killer 

38 Whales (Orcinus orca) in Greater Puget Sound, State of Washington, Report No. 78/13, Marine 

39 Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C.

40

41 Barbeau, D.N., L.F. Grimsley, L.E. White, J.M. El-Dahr, and M. Lichtveld, 2010, ―Mold 

42 Exposure and Health Effects Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita,‖ Annual Review of Public 

43 Health 31: 165–178.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-409

1 Barras, J.A., J.C. Bernier, and R.A. Morton, 2008, Land Area Change in Coastal Louisiana: A 

2 Multidecadal Perspective (from 1956 to 2006), U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

3 Map 3019, scale 1:250,000, 14 p. pamphlet.

4

5 Barber, W.E., R.L. Smith, M. Vallarino, and R.M. Meyer, 1997, ―Demersal Fish Assemblages of 

6 the Northeastern Chukchi Sea, Alaska,‖ Fishery Bulletin 95:195–209.

7

8 Barnes, V.G., Jr., 1990, ―The Influence of Salmon Availability on Movements and Range of 

9 Brown Bears on Southwest Kodiak Island,‖ International Association for Bear Research and 

10 Management 8:305–313. 

11

12 Barr, N., and L. Barr, 1972, ―An Observation of Killer Whale Predation on a Dall Porpoise,‖ 

13 Canadian Field-Naturalist 86:170–171.

14

15 Barras, J., S. Beville, D. Britsch, S. Hartley, S. Hawes, J. Johnston, P. Kemp, Q. Kinler, 

16 A. Martucci, J. Porthouse, D. Reed, K. Roy, S. Sapkota, and J. Suhayda, 2004, Historical and 

17 Projected Coastal Louisiana Land Changes: 1978-2050, USGS Open File Report, OFR 03-334, 

18 U.S. Geological Survey, Revised January 2004. 

19

20 Barry A. Vittor & Associates, Inc., 1985, Tuscaloosa Trend Regional Data Search and Synthesis 

21 Study, Synthesis Report, Volume I, OCS Study MMS 85-0056, MMS, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

22 Regional Office, New Orleans, La.

23

24 Bates, N.R., and J.T. Mathis, 2009, ―The Arctic Ocean Marine Carbon Cycle: Evaluation of Air25 Sea CO2 Exchanges, Ocean Acidification Impacts and Potential Feedbacks,‖ Biogeosciences 

26 6:2433–2459.

27

28 Bates, N.R., B. Moran, D.A. Hansell, L.A. Codispoti, and J.R. Swift, 2005, ―Seasonal and 

29 Spatial Distribution of Suspended and Large Aggregate Particulate Organic Matter (POM) in the 

30 Chukchi Sea,‖ Deep-Sea Research II 52:3324–3323.

31

32 Baumgartner, M.F., 1997, ―The Distribution of Risso‘s Dolphin (Grampus griseus) with Respect 

33 to the Physiography of the Northern Gulf of Mexico,‖ Marine Mammal Science 13(4):614–638.

34

35 Baustian, M.M., and N.N. Rabalais, 2009, ―Seasonal Composition of Benthic Macroinfauna 

36 Exposed to Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico,‖ Estuaries Coasts 32:975–982.

37

38 Becker, P.R., and C.A. Manen, 1988, Natural Oil Seeps in the Alaskan Marine Environment, 

39 Final Report, Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program Research Unit 703, 

40 May.

41

42 Beebe, R.G., and A.M. Jensen, 2006, Searching for the Wrecks of the 1871 Whaling Disaster in 

43 the Chukchi Sea: A Minimalist Approach to Remote Sensing in Remote Areas, unpublished 

44 report, Barrow Arctic Science Consortium, Barrow, Alaska.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-410

1 Beebe, R.G., and A.M. Jensen, 2007, Searching for the Wrecks of the 1871 Whaling Disaster in 

2 the Chukchi Sea: Final Report, unpublished report, Barrow Arctic Science Consortium, Barrow, 

3 Alaska.

4

5 Belkin, I.M., 2009, ―Rapid Warming of Large Marine Ecosystems,‖ Progress in Oceanography

6 81:207–213.

7

8 Belkin, I., M.C. Aquarone, and S. Adams, 2009, ―XI-30 Beaufort Sea: LME #55,‖ LME Briefs. 

9 Available at http://www.lme.noaa.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=

10 101:lme55&catid=41:briefs&Itemid=72. Accessed January 28, 2011.

11

12 Bentzen, R.L., A.N. Powell, and R.S. Suydam, 2009, ―Strategies for Nest-Site Selection by King 

13 Eiders,‖ Journal of Wildlife Management 73(6):932–938.

14

15 Bergerud, A.T., 1987, ―An Assessment of Petroleum on the Status of the Porcupine Caribou 

16 Herd,‖ pp. 4–19 in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska Coastal Plain Resource Assessment, 

17 Report and Recommendation to the Congress of the U.S., and Final Legislative Environmental 

18 Impact Statement, Vol. 2, Appendix, Public Comments and Responses, U.S. Department of the 

19 Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

20

21 Bergerud, A.T., and J.P. Elliot, 1986, ―Dynamics of Caribou and Wolves in Northern British 

22 Columbia,‖ Canadian Journal Zoology 64:1515–1529. 

23

24 Berkes, F., and D. Jolly, 2001, ―Adapting to Climate Change: Social-Ecological Resilience in a 

25 Canadian Western Arctic Community,‖ Conservation Ecology 5(2):18. 

26

27 Bersamin, A., S. Zidenberg-Cherr, J. Stern, and B. Luick, 2007, ―Nutrient Intakes Are 

28 Associated with Adherence to a Traditional Diet Among Yupi‘ik Eskimos Living in Remote 

29 Alaska Native Communities: The Canhr Study,‖ International Journal of Circumpolar Health

30 66(1):62–70. Available at http://ijch.fi/issues/661/Bersamin%20vol%2066%20no%201.pdf. 

31 Accessed September 9, 2011.

32

33 Berzin, A.A., and A.A. Rovnin, 1966, ―The Distribution and Migrations of Whales in the 

34 Northeastern Part of the Pacific, Chukchi, and Bering Seas,‖ pp. 103–136 in Soviet Research on 

35 Marine Mammals of the Far East, K.I. Panin (ed.), U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

36 Commercial Fisheries, Washington, D.C. (translation).

37

38 BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs), 2010, Tribal Leaders Directory: Summer 2010, Washington, 

39 D.C.

40

41 Bianchi, T.S., M.A. Allison, E.A. Canuel, D.R. Corbett, B.A. McKee, T.P. Sampere, 

42 S.G. Wakeham, and E. Waterson, 2006, ―Rapid Export of Organic Matter to the Mississippi 

43 Canyon,‖ Eos Trans. AGU 87(50):565. 

44

45 Bigg, M.A., 1969, ―The Harbour Seal in British Columbia,‖ Fisheries Research Board of 

46 Canada Bulletin 172.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-411

1 Bigg, M.A., 1981, ―Harbour Seal, Phoca vitulina, Linnaeus, 1758 and Phoca largha, Pallas, 

2 1811,‖ pp. 1–77 in Handbook of Marine Mammals, Vol. 2: Seals, S.H. Ridgeway and 

3 R.J. Harrison (eds.), Academic Press, New York.

4

5 Bindoff, N.L., J. Willebrand, V. Artale, A, Cazenave, J. Gregory, S. Gulev, K. Hanawa, 

6 C. Le Quéré, S. Levitus, Y. Nojiri, C.K. Shum, L.D. Talley, and A. Unnikrishnan, 2007, 

7 ―Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level,‖ in Climate Change 2007: The 

8 Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of 

9 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, 

10 M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.), Cambridge University Press, 

11 Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, N.Y.

12

13 Bird, B.L., L.C. Branch, and M.E. Hostetler, 2009, Beach Mice, Publication WEC 165, 

14 University of Florida IFAS Extension. Available at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/uw173. Accessed 

15 March 16, 2011.

16

17 Blackwell, S.B., C.R. Greene, Jr., and W.J. Richardson, 2004, ―Drilling and Operational Sounds 

18 from an Oil Production Island in the Ice-Covered Beaufort Sea,‖ J. Acoust. Soc. Am.

19 116(5):3199–3211.

20

21 Blackwell, S.B., and C.R. Greene, Jr., 2002, Acoustic Measurements in Cook Inlet, Alaska,

22 during August 2001, Greeneridge Report 271-1, prepared by Greeneridge Sciences, Inc., Aptos 

23 and Santa Barbara, Calif., for NMFS, Protected Resources Division, Anchorage, Alaska.

24

25 Blackwell, S.B., and C.R. Greene, Jr., 2005, ―Underwater and In-Air sounds from a Small 

26 Hovercraft,‖ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118(6):3646–3652.

27

28 BLM (Bureau of Land Management), 2002, Renewal of the Federal Grant for the Trans-Alaska 

29 Pipeline System Right-of-Way, Final Environmental Impact Statement, BLM/AK/PT30 03/005+2880+990, BLM, Anchorage, Alaska.

31

32 BLM, 2003, Northwest National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, Final Integrated Activity 

33 Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, November.

34

35 BLM, 2008, Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska Supplemental Integrated Activity 

36 Plan Record of Decision, BLM/AK/PL-08/021+1610+930, July.

37

38 BLM and MMS (Bureau of Land Management and Minerals Management Service), 2003, 

39 Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, Final Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental 

40 Impact Statement, BLM/AK/PL-04/002+3130+930, BLM, Anchorage, Alaska.

41

42 Bluhm, B.A, and R. Gradinger, 2008, ―Regional Variability in Food Availability for Arctic 

43 Marine Mammals,‖ Ecological Applications 18:2 Supplement, pp. S77–S96.

44

45 Blum, M.D., and H.H. Roberts, 2009, ―Drowning of the Mississippi Delta Due to Insufficient 

46 Sediment Supply and Global Sea-Level Rise,‖ Nature Geoscience, Vol. 2, July.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-412

1 Blunden J., D.S. Arndt, and M.O. Baringer, 2011, ―State of the Climate in 2010,‖ Bulletin of the 

2 American Meteorological Society 92(6):S1–S266.

3

4 Bockstoce, J., 1977, Steam Whaling in the Western Arctic, New Bedford Whaling Museum,

5 New Bedford, Mass.

6

7 Bockstoce, J.R., 1995, Whales, Ice, and Men The History of Waling in the Western Arctic, 

8 University of Washington Press.

9

10 Bodkin, J., D. Mulcahy, and C. Lensink, 1993, ―Age-Specific Reproduction in Female Sea Otters 

11 (Enhydra lutris) from South-Central Alaska: Analysis of Reproductive Tracts,‖ Canadian 

12 Journal of Zoology 71(9):1811–1815.

13

14 Boehm, P.D., 2001, Sediment Quality in Depositional Areas of Shelikof Strait and Outermost 

15 Cook Inlet, Final Report, OCS Study MMS 2000-024, prepared by Arthur D. Little, Inc., 

16 Cambridge, Mass., for Minerals Management Service, Anchorage, Alaska. 

17

18 Boehm, P.D., J. Brown, C. Howell, H. Tsomides, S.E. Graham, J. Trefry, S. Metz, J. Gold, L. 

19 Cook, C.F. Newton, W. Smith, and R. Spies, 2001a, Sediment Quality in Depositional Areas of 

20 Shelikof Strait and Outermost Cook Inlet, OCS Study, MMS 2000-024, MMS, Alaska OCS 

21 Region, Anchorage, Alaska.

22

23 Boehm, P.D., J. Brown, H. Camp, L. Cook, J. Trefry, R.P. Trocine, R.D. Rember, and 

24 G. Shepard, 2001b, ANIMIDA Phase I: Arctic Nearshore Characterization and Monitoring of 

25 the Physical Environment in the Northstar and Liberty Development Areas, Final Report, OCS 

26 Study, MMS Study 2001-104, MMS, Anchorage, Alaska.

27

28 BOEMRE (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement), 2008,

29 Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sales 209, 212, 217 and 221,

30 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2008-0055.

31

32 BOEMRE, 2010a, Revised Offshore Environmental Cost Model (OECM): Guide to Cost Benefit 

33 Calculations, prepared by Industrial Economics, December.

34

35 BOEMRE, 2010b, ―Federal and Academic Scientists Return from Deep-Sea Research Cruise in 

36 Gulf of Mexico: Scientists Observe Damage to Deep-Sea Corals, press release, November 4. 

37 Available at http://www.boemre.gov/ooc/press/2010/press1104a.htm. Accessed April 24, 2011.

38

39 BOEMRE (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement), 2011a, 

40 Platform Structures Online Query. Available at http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/fastfacts/

41 platform/master.asp. Accessed February 2011.

42

43 BOEMRE, 2011b, Commercial Wind Lease Issuance and Site Characterization Activities on the 

44 Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, Draft 

45 Environmental Assessment, OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2011-037, USDOI/BOEMRE, Office of 

46 Offshore Alternative Energy Programs, July.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-413

1

2 BOEMRE, 2011c, 2012-2017 Five-Year Scoping Meeting for Programmatic Environmental 

3 Impact Statement Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, 

4 U.S. Department of the Interior, Kaktovik, Alaska, transcript reported by Mary A. Vavrik, 

5 Midnight Sun Court Reporters, February 23.

6

7 BOEMRE, 2011d, 2012-2017 Five-Year Scoping Meeting for Programmatic Environmental 

8 Impact Statement Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, 

9 U.S. Department of the Interior, Nuiqsut, Alaska, transcript reported by Mary A. Vavrik, 

10 Midnight Sun Court Reporters, February 22.

11

12 BOEMRE, 2011e, 2012-2017 Five-Year Scoping Meeting for Programmatic Environmental 

13 Impact Statement Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, 

14 U.S. Department of the Interior, Wainwright, Alaska, transcript reported by Mary A. Vavrik, 

15 Midnight Sun Court Reporters, February 15.

16

17 BOEMRE, 2011f, 2012-2017 Five-Year Scoping Meeting for Programmatic Environmental 

18 Impact Statement Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, 

19 U.S. Department of the Interior, Barrow, Alaska, transcript reported by Mary A. Vavrik, 

20 Midnight Sun Court Reporters, February 21.

21

22 Boesch, D.F., J.C. Field, and D. Scavia (eds.), 2000, The Potential Consequences of Climate 

23 Variability and Change on Coastal Areas and Marine Resources: Report of the Coastal Areas 

24 and Marine Resources Sector Team, U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of 

25 Climate Variability and Change, U.S. Global Change Research Program, Decision Analysis 

26 Series No. 21, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Ocean Program, Silver 

27 Spring, Md. 

28

29 Bond, C.E., 1996, Biology of Fishes, 2nd Edition, Saunders College Publishing, Harcourt Brace 

30 and Company, Orlando, Fla. 

31

32 Born, E.W., J. Teilmann, M. Acquarone, and F.F. Riget, 2004, ―Habitat Use of Ringed Seals 

33 (Phoca hispida) in the North Water Area (North Baffin Bay),‖ Arctic 57(2):129–142.

34

35 Boudreaux, P., 2011, personal communication, August 30.

36

37 Boveng, P.L., J.L. Bengtson, T.W. Buckley, M.F. Cameron, S.P. Dahle, B.A. Megrey, 

38 J.E. Overland, and N.J. Williamson, 2008, Status Review of the Ribbon Seal (Histriophoca 

39 fasciata), NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-191, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

40 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska 

41 Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Wash., Dec. Available at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/

42 protectedresources/seals/ice/ribbon/statusreview08.pdf. Accessed May 24, 2011.

43
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-414

1 Boveng, P.L., J.L. Bengtson, T.W. Buckley, M.F. Cameron, S.P. Dahle, B.P. Kelly, 

2 B.A. Megrey, J.E. Overland, and N.J. Williamson, 2009, Status Review of the Spotted Seal 

3 (Phoca largha), NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-200, U.S. Department of 

4 Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

5 Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Wash., Oct. Available at http://www.afsc.

6 noaa.gov/publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-200.pdf. Accessed May 24, 2011.

7

8 Bowen, W.W., 1968, ―Variation and Evolution of Gulf Coast Populations of Beach Mice, 

9 Peromyscus polionotus,‖ Bulletin of the Florida State Museum 12(1):1–91. 

10

11 Bowyer, R.T., V.V. Ballenberghe, and J.G. Kie, 1998, ―Timing and Synchrony of Parturition in 

12 Alaskan Moose: Long-term Versus Proximal Effects of Climate,‖ Journal of Mammalogy

13 79(4):1332–1344.

14

15 Bradley, M.J., S.J. Kutz, E. Jenkins, and T.M. O‘Hara, 2005, ―The Potential Impact of Climate 

16 Change on Infectious Diseases of Arctic Fauna,‖ International Journal of Circumpolar Health

17 64(5):468–477.

18

19 Bradstreet, M.S.W., and W.E. Cross, 1982, ―Tropic Relationships at High Arctic Ice Edges,‖ 

20 Arctic 35:1–12. 

21

22 Braham, H.W., and M.E. Dahlheim, 1982, ―Killer Whales in Alaska Documented in the 

23 Platforms of Opportunity Program,‖ Report of the International Whaling Commission 32:643–

24 646, International Whaling Commission, Cambridge, U.K. 

25

26 Braham, H.W., and D.W. Rice, 1984, ―The Right Whale, Balaena glacialis,‖ Marine Fisheries 

27 Review 46(4):38–47. 

28

29 Braham, H.W., M.A. Fraker, and B.D. Krogman, 1980, ―Spring Migration of the Western Arctic 

30 Population of Bowhead Whales,‖ Marine Fisheries Review 42:36–46. 

31

32 Brashier, J., 1988, Coexistence of Fishing and Oil and Gas Industries in the Gulf of Mexico. 

33 Available at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=00794841. Accessed July 15, 

34 2011.

35

36 Braund, S.R., and J. Kruse, 2009, Synthesis: Three Decades of Research on Socioeconomic 

37 Effects Related to Offshore Petroleum Development in Coastal Alaska, MMS 2009-006,

38 Minerals Management Service, Outer Continental Shelf Study.

39

40 Brickhill, M.J., S.Y. Lee, and R.M. Connolly, 2005, ―Fishes Associated with Artificial Reefs: 

41 Attributing Changes to Attraction or Production Using Novel Approaches,‖ Journal of Fish 

42 Biology 67:53–71.

43

44 Bright, T.J., G.P. Kraemer, G.A. Minnery, and S.T. Viada, 1984, ―Hermatypes of the Flower 

45 Garden Banks, Northwestern Gulf of Mexico: A Comparison to Other Western Atlantic Reefs,‖ 

46 Bull. Mar. Sci. 34:461–476. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-415

1 Bright, M., C. Plum, L.A. Riavitz, N. Nikolov, P. Martinez Arbizu, E.E. Cordes, and S. Gollnera, 

2 2010, ―Epizooic Metazoan Meiobenthos Associated with Tubeworm and Mussel Aggregations 

3 from Cold Seeps of the Northern Gulf of Mexico,‖ Deep Sea Research, Part 2, Top. Stud. 

4 Oceangr. 57(21-23):1982–1989. 

5

6 Brigham, L., and B. Ellis (eds.), 2004, Arctic Marine Transport Workshop, funded by 

7 Circumpolar Infrastructure Task Force, Secretariat at the Institute of the North; United States 

8 Arctic Research Commission; and International Arctic Science Committee, held at Scott Polar 

9 Research Institute, Cambridge University, U.K., Sept. 28–30.

10

11 Brightman, R.A, 2004, ―Chitimacha,‖ pp. 642–652 in Handbook of North American Indians, 

12 Vol. 14 Southeast, R.A. Fogelson (ed.) Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

13

14 Brook, R.K., and E.S. Richardson, 2002, ―Observations of Polar Bear Predatory Behaviour 

15 toward Caribou,‖ Arctic 55(2): 193–196.

16

17 Brooks, J.M. (ed.), 1991, Mississippi-Alabama Continental Shelf Ecosystem Study: Data 

18 Summary and Synthesis, Volume I: Executive Summary, Volume II: Technical Narrative, 

19 Volume III: Appendices, Part 1 (Appendices A–D), Part 2 (Appendix E), OCS Study 

20 MMS 91-0062 (I), 91-0063 (II), 91-0064 (III), Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

21 OCS Regional Office, New Orleans, La. 

22

23 Brooks, J.M., and C.P. Giammona (eds.), 1991, Mississippi-Alabama Continental Shelf 

24 Ecosystem Study: Data Summary and Synthesis, OCS Study MMS 91-0062 (I), 91-0063 (II), 

25 91-0064 (III), MMS, Gulf of Mexico OCS Regional Office, New Orleans, La.

26

27 Brooks, J.M., C. Fisher, H. Roberts, B. Bernard, I. McDonald, R. Carney, S. Joye, E. Cordes, 

28 G. Wolff, and E. Goehring, 2008, Investigations of Chemosynthetic Communities on the Lower 

29 Continental Slope of the Gulf of Mexico: Interim Report 1, OCS Study MMS 2008-009, 

30 Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La. 

31

32 Brown, J., 2003, ANIMIDA Task 2 Hydrocarbon and Metal Characterization of Sediment Cores 

33 in the ANIMIDA Study Area, Special Report, MMS OCS Study 2004-024, MMS, Alaska OCS 

34 Region, Anchorage, Alaska.

35

36 Brown, L.F., Jr., et al., 1977, Environmental Geological Atlas of the Texas Coastal Zone: 

37 Kingsville Area, University of Texas, Bureau of Economic Geology, Austin, TX.

38

39 Brownell, R.L., Jr., P.J. Clapham, T. Miyashita, and T. Kasuya, 2001, ―Conservation Status of 

40 North Pacific Right Whales,‖ Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 2 (Special 

41 Issue):269–286.

42

43 Brueggeman, J.J., R.A. Grotefendt, and A.W. Erickson, 1984, Endangered Whale Surveys of the 

44 Navarin Basin, Alaska, Final Report, Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment 

45 Program Research Unit 625, prepared by Envirosphere Company, Bellevue, Wash., for Minerals 

46 Management Service.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-416

1 Brueggeman, J.J., G.A. Green, R.W. Tressler, and D.G. Chapman, 1988, Shipboard Surveys of 

2 Endangered Cetaceans in the Northwest Gulf of Alaska, Final Report, Outer Continental Shelf 

3 Environmental Assessment Program Research Unit 673, prepared by Envirosphere Company, 

4 Bellevue, Wash., for Minerals Management Service, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region, and 

5 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Anchorage, Alaska.

6

7 Brueggeman, J.J., G.A. Green, R.A. Grotefendt, and R.W. Tressler, 1989, ―Marine Mammal 

8 Habitat Use on the North Aleutian Basin, St. George Basin, and Gulf of Alaska,‖ pp. 97–108 in

9 Proceedings of the Gulf of Alaska, Cook Inlet, and North Aleutian Basin Information Update 

10 Meeting, L.E. Jarvela and L.K. Thorsteinson (eds.), National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

11 Administration, Anchorage, Alaska. 

12

13 Brueggeman, J., 2009, 90-Day Report of the Marine Mammal Monitoring Program for the 

14 ConocoPhillips Alaska Shallow Hazards Survey Operations during the 2008 Open Water 

15 Season in the Chukchi Sea, prepared by Canyon Creek Consulting LLC, Seattle, Wash., for 

16 ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., revised March. Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/

17 permits/cpai_90day_report.pdf. Accessed May 3, 2011.

18

19 Brueggeman, J.J., R.A. Grotefendt, and A.W. Erickson, 1984, Endangered Whale Survey of the 

20 Navarin Basin, Alaska, Envirosphere Company, prepared for MMS, Bellevue, Wash. 

21

22 Brunner, R.D., A.H. Lynch, J.C. Pardikes, E.N. Cassano, L.R. Lestak, and J.M. Vogel, 2004, 

23 ―An Arctic Disaster and Its Policy Implications,‖ Arctic 57(4):336–346.

24

25 Bryant, M.D., 2009, ―Global Climate Change and Potential Effects on Pacific Salmonids in 

26 Freshwater Ecosystems of Southeast Alaska,‖ Climatic Change 95:169–193.

27

28 Bryden, H.L., E.L. McDonagh, and B.A. King, 2003, ―Changes in Ocean Water Mass Properties:

29 Oscillations or Trends?‖ Science 300:2086–2088.

30

31 Burch, E.S., 1984, ―Kotzebue Sound Eskimo,‖ pp. 303-219 in D. Dams, ed. Handbook of North 

32 American Indians, Vol. 5, Arctic, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

33

34 Burch, Ernest S., Jr., 2006, Social Life in Northwest Alaska: The Structure of Iñupiaq Eskimo 

35 Nations, University of Alaska Press.

36

37 Buesseler, K.O., 1998, ―The Decoupling of Production and Particulate Export in the Surface 

38 Ocean,‖ Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 12:297–310.

39

40 Burgess, M., 2000, ―Arctic Fox,‖ Chapter 8 in The Natural History of an Arctic Oil Field 

41 Development and the Biota, J.C. Truett and S.R. Johnson (eds.), Academic Press, San Diego, 

42 Calif. 

43

44 Burgess, R.M., J.R. Rose, P.W. Banyas, and B.E. Lawhead, 1993, Arctic Fox Studies in the 

45 Prudhoe Bay Unit and Adjacent Undeveloped Areas, 1992, report prepared for British Petroleum 

46 Exploration (Alaska), Inc., Alaska Biological Research, Inc., Fairbanks, Alaska.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-417

1 Burgess, W.C., and C.R. Greene, Jr., 1999, ―Physical Acoustic Measurements,‖ in Marine 

2 Mammal and Acoustical Monitoring of Western Geophysical's Open-Water Seismic Program in 

3 the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 1998, W.J. Richardson (ed.), LGL Report TA2230-3, prepared by 

4 LGL Ltd., King City, Ontario, Canada, and Greeneridge Sciences, Inc., Santa Barbara, Calif., for 

5 Western Geophysical, Houston, Texas, and NMFS, Anchorage, Alaska, and Silver Spring, Md.

6

7 Burns, J.J., 1967, The Pacific Bearded Seal, Pittman-Robertson Project Reports W-6-R and 

8 W-14-R, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 

9

10 Burns, J.J., 1981, ―Bearded Seal — Erignathus barbatus Erxleben, 1777,‖ pp. 145–170 in 

11 Handbook of Marine Mammals, Vol. 2, Seals, S.H. Ridgeway and R.J. Harrison (eds.), Academic 

12 Press, New York, N.Y. 

13

14 Butler, R.G., and D.E. Buckley, 2002, ―Black Guillemot (Cepphus grylle),‖ Issue 675, The Birds 

15 of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.), Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. 

16 Available at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/675. Accessed August 18, 2011.

17

18 Cai, W., X. Hu, W. Huang, M.C. Murrell, J.C. Lehrter, S.E. Lohrenz, Y. Wang, X. Guo, F. Chen, 

19 and K. Gundersen, 2010, ―Enhanced Ocean Acidification in the Northern Gulf of Mexico 

20 Hypoxic Bottom Waters,‖ Abstract #OS22A-07, presented at American Geophysical Union 2010 

21 Fall Meeting. 

22

23 Caikoski, J.R., 2009, ―Units 25A, 25B, 25D, and 26C Caribou,‖ pp. 240–258 in Caribou 

24 Management, Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2006–30 June 2008, Project 3.0,

25 P. Harper (ed.), Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. 

26

27 Calambokidis, J., B.L. Taylor, S.D. Carter, G.H. Steiger, P.K. Dawson, and L.D. Antrim, 1987, 

28 ―Distribution and Haul-out Behavior of Harbor Seals in Glacier Bay, Alaska,‖ Canadian Journal 

29 of Zoology 65:1391–1396.

30

31 Caldeira, K., and M.E. Wickett, 2005, ―Ocean Model Predictions of Chemistry Changes from 

32 Carbon Dioxide Emissions to the Atmosphere and Ocean,‖ Journal of Geophysical Research

33 110:C09S04.

34

35 Calvert, W., and I. Stirling, 1990, ―Interactions between Polar Bears and Overwintering 

36 Walruses in the Central Canadian High Arctic,‖ International Conference on Bear Research and 

37 Management 8:351–356.

38

39 Cameron, M., and P. Boveng, 2009, Habitat Use and Seasonal Movements of Adult and 

40 Sub-Adult Bearded Seals, Alaska Fisheries Science Center Quarterly Report, Oct., Nov., Dec. 

41 Available at http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Quarterly/ond2009/OND09feature.pdf. Accessed 

42 March 17, 2011.

43

44 Camilli, R., C.M. Reddy, D.R. Yoerger, B.A. S. Van Mooy, M.V. Jakuba, J.C. Kinsey, 

45 C.P. McIntyre, S.P. Sylva, and J.V. Maloney, 2010, ―Tracking Hydrocarbon Plume Transport 

46 and Biodegradation at Deepwater Horizon,‖ Science 330:201–204.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-418

1 Campisi, J., 2004, ―Houma,‖ pp. 632–641 in Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 14 

2 Southeast, R.A. Fogelson (ed.), Washington, D.C.

3

4 Carmack, E., D. Barber, J. Christensen, R. Macdonald, B. Rudels, and E. Sakshaug, 2006,

5 ―Climate Variability and Physical Forcing of the Food Webs and the Carbon Budget on Panarctic 

6 Shelves,‖ Progress in Oceanography 71:145–181.

7

8 Carr, A., and A.B. Meylan, 1980, ―Evidence of Passive Migration of Green Turtle Hatchlings in 

9 Sargassum,‖ Copeia 2:366–368.

10

11 Carretta, J.V., K.A. Forney, M.S. Lowry, J. Barlow, J. Baker, D. Johnston, B. Hanson, 

12 R.L. Brownell, Jr., J. Robbins, D.K. Matilla, K. Ralls, M.M. Muto, D. Lynch, and L. Carswell, 

13 2009, U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2009, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-453, 

14 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

15 Southwest Fisheries Science Center. Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/

16 po2009.pdf. Accessed March 15, 2009.

17

18 Carroll, G.M., 1991, ―Game Management Unit 26A Western North Slope,‖ in Brown Bear, 

19 Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Annual Performance Report of Survey-Inventory Activities, 

20 1 July 1990–30 June 1991, XXII, Part V, Project W-23-4, Study 4.0, S.M. Abbott (ed.), Alaska 

21 Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Juneau, Alaska. 

22

23 Carroll, G.M., 1992, ―Caribou Survey-Inventory Progress Report, Unit 26A,‖ pp. 177–186 in

24 Caribou, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Survey-Inventory Management Report, 1 July 

25 1989–30 June 1991, Project W-23-3, Study 3.0, S.M. Abbott (ed.), Alaska Department of Fish 

26 and Game, Juneau, Alaska. 

27

28 Carroll, G., 2007, ―Unit 26A Furbearer,‖ pp. 335–343 in Furbearer Management, Report of 

29 Survey and Inventory Activities, 1 July 2003–30 June 2006, Project 7.0, P. Harper (ed.), Alaska 

30 Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. 

31

32 Carroll, G.M., J.C. George, L.F. Lowry, and K.O. Coyle, 1987, ―Bowhead Whale (Balaena 

33 mysticetus) Feeding near Point Barrow, Alaska, during the 1985 Spring Migration,‖ 

34 Arctic 40:105–110. 

35

36 CCSP (Climate Change Science Program), 2009, ―Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-Level Rise: A 

37 Focus on the Mid-Atlantic Region,‖ in A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program 

38 and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, J.G. Titus (Coordinating lead author), 

39 K.E. Anderson, D.R. Cahoon, D.B. Gesch, S.K. Gill, B.T. Gutierrez, E.R. Thieler, and 

40 S.J. Williams (lead authors), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.

41

42 CEC (Commission for Environmental Cooperation), 2008, North American Environmental 

43 Atlas – Marine Ecoregions Level III, 2008.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-419

1 CEI (Coastal Environments, Inc.), 1977, Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Northern Gulf of 

2 Mexico Continental Shelf, prepared by CEI, Baton Rouge, La., for the National Park Service, 

3 Interagency Archaeological Service, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, 

4 Washington, D.C.

5

6 CEI, 1982, Sedimentary Studies of Prehistoric Archaeological Sites, prepared by CEI, Baton 

7 Rouge, La., for National Park Service, Division of State Plans and Grants. 

8

9 CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality), 1997, Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the 

10 National Environmental Policy Act, Executive Office of the President.

11

12 Chance, N.A., 1984, ―Alaska Eskimo Modernization,‖ pp. 646–656 in Handbook of North 

13 American Indians, Vol. 5 Arctic, D. Damas (ed.), Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

14

15 Chapin, F.S., III, E.S. Zavaleta, V.T. Eviner, R.L. Naylor, P.M. Vitousek, H.L. Reynolds, D.U. 

16 Hooper, S. Lavorel, O.E. Sala, S.E. Hobbie, M.C. Mack, and S. Diaz, 2000, ―Consequences of 

17 Changing Biodiversity,‖ Nature 405:234–242.

18

19 Chesemore, D.L., 1967, Ecology of the Arctic Fox in Northern and Western Alaska, M.S. thesis, 

20 University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska. 

21

22 Chittenden, M.E., Jr., and J.D. McEachran, 1976, Composition, Ecology, and Dynamics of 

23 Demersal Fish Communities on the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf, with a 

24 Similar Synopsis for the Entire Gulf, Texas A&M University, Sea Grant Publication TAMU25 SG76-208. 

26

27 Childs, J., 2004, Background Information on the Fish Resources of the Alaskan-Beaufort Sea 

28 Region. Administrative File for the Lease Sale 195 Environmental Assessment, MMS, Alaska 

29 OCS Region, Anchorage, Alaska.

30

31 Christensen, J.H., B. Hewitson, A. Busuioc, A. Chen, X. Gao, I. Held, R. Jones, R.K. Kolli, 

32 W.-T. Kwon, R. Laprise, V. Magaña Rueda, L. Mearns, C.G. Menéndez, J. Räisänen, A. Rinke, 

33 A. Sarr, and P. Whetton, 2007, ―Regional Climate Projections,‖ in Climate Change 2007: The 

34 Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

35 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, 

36 M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.), Cambridge University Press, 

37 Cambridge, U.K., and New York, N.Y.

38

39 Church, J.A., 2007, ―A Change in Circulation?‖ Science 317:908–909.

40

41 Church, J., J.M. Gregory, P. Huybrechts, M. Kuhn, K. Lambeck, M.T. Nhuan, D. Qin, and 

42 P.L. Woodworth, 2001, Changes in Sea Level, in Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, 

43 Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

44 on Climate Change, J.T. Houghton et al. (eds.), pp. 639–693, Cambridge University Press, 

45 New York.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-420

1 Church, R.A., D.J. Warren, J.B. Weirich, and D.A. Ball, 2004, Return to the U-166: Working 

2 Together to Meet the Challenge of Deepwater Archaeology.

3

4 Citizens Advisory Committee, 2002, Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management 

5 Plan. , Feb. Available at http:www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/about/management/wildlife

6 planning/pdfs/kabcmp.pdf. Accessed April 7, 2011.

7

8 Citta, J., 2008, Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series: Ringed Seal, Alaska Department of Fish and 

9 Game, Juneau, Alaska. Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/education/wns/

10 ringed_seal.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2011. 

11

12 Citta, J., and L. Lowry, 2008, Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series: Beluga Whale, Alaska 

13 Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/

14 static/education/wns/beluga_whale.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2011.

15

16 City of Barrow, 2011, About Barrow. Available at http://www.cityofbarrow.org/content/

17 view/5/5/. Accessed June 2011.

18

19 Clapham, P.J., and J.G. Mead, 1999, ―Megaptera novaeangliae,‖ Mammalian Species

20 No. 604:1–9.

21

22 Clapp, R.B., D. Morgan-Jacobs, and R. Banks,1983, Marine Birds of the Southeastern 

23 United States and Gulf of Mexico. Contract No. 14-16-0009-78-917. Washington, D.C.: 

24 USDOI/FWS, Division of Biological Services; USDOI/BLM. Vols. I–III.

25

26 Clark, C.W., W.T. Ellison, and K. Beeman, 1986, An Acoustic Study of Bowhead Whales, 

27 Balaena mysticetus, Off Point Barrow, Alaska during the 1984 Spring Migration, prepared by 

28 Marine Acoustics, Clinton, Mass., for Department of Wildlife Management, North Slope 

29 Borough, Barrow, Alaska.

30

31 Clark, R., A. Ott, M. Rabe, D. Vincent-Lang, and D. Woodby, 2010, The Effects of a Changing 

32 Climate on Key Habitats in Alaska, Special Publication No. 10-14, Alaska Department of Fish 

33 and Game, Anchorage, Alaska, September.

34

35 Cleator, H.J., and I. Stirling, 1990, ―Winter Distribution of Bearded Seals (Erignathus barbatus) 

36 in the Penny Strait Area, Northwest Territories, as Determined by Underwater Vocalizations,‖ 

37 Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47:1071–1076. 

38

39 Cleator, H.J., I. Stirling, and T.G. Smith, 1989, ―Underwater Vocalizations of the Bearded Seal 

40 (Erignathus barbatus),‖ Can. J. Zool. 67(8):1900–1910.

41

42 Coles, R.R.A., G.R. Garinther, D.C. Hodge, and C.G. Rice, 1968, ―Hazardous Exposure to 

43 Impulse Noise,‖ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 43(2):336–343.

44

45 Comiso, J.C., 2002, ―A Rapidly Declining Perennial Sea Ice Cover in the Arctic,‖ Geophysical 

46 Research Letters 29:17-1 through 17-4.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-421

1 Congressional Research Service, 2005, The Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Biological 

2 Resources, CRS Report for Congress, October 18, 2005, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

3

4 Consiglieri, L.D., H.W. Braham, M.E. Dahlheim, C. Fiscus, P.D. McGuire, C.E. Peterson, and 

5 D.A. Pippenger, 1982, Seasonal Distribution and Relative Abundance of Marine Mammals in the 

6 Gulf of Alaska, pp. 189–343, Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program 

7 (OCSEAP) Final Reports of Principal Investigators, Vol. 61, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

8 Administration, OCSEAP, Anchorage, Alaska.

9

10 Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 1987, Southwest Florida Shelf Regional Biological 

11 Communities Survey, Year 3, Final Report, prepared for Minerals Management Service. 

12

13 Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 1992, Mississippi-Alabama Shelf Pinnacle Trend Habitat 

14 Mapping Study, OCS Study MMS 92-0026, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

15 Regional Office, New Orleans, La. 

16

17 Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 1996, Baseline Environmental Surveys for the Destin Dome 

18 Unit, Final Report to Chevron U.S.A., Inc., New Orleans, La.

19

20 Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., and Texas A&M University, Geochemical and Environmental 

21 Research Group, 1999, Northeastern Gulf of Mexico Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Program: 

22 Ecosystem Monitoring, Mississippi/Alabama Shelf, Third Annual Interim Report, OCS Study 

23 MMS 99-0055, USGS/BRD/CR-1999-0005, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

24 OCS Region, New Orleans, La., and U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division.

25

26 Cook Inlet Regional Citizens Advisory Council, 2011, Cook Inlet Oil and Gas Platforms and 

27 Related Facilities Map. Available at http://www.circac.org/CI_interactivemap.html. Accessed 

28 June 2011.

29

30 Cooper, L.W., J.M Grebmeier, I.L. Larsen, V.G. Egorov, C. Theodorakis, H.P. Kelly, and 

31 J.R. Lovvorn, 2002, ―Seasonal Variation in Sedimentation of Organic Materials in the 

32 St. Lawrence Island Polynya Region, Bering Sea,‖ Marine Ecology Progress Series 226:13–26.

33

34 Cordes, E.E., E.L. Becker, S. Hourdez, and C.R. Fisher, 2010, ―Influence of Foundation Species, 

35 Depth, and Location on Diversity and Community Composition at Gulf of Mexico Lower Slope 

36 Cold Seeps,‖ Deep Sea Research II 57:1870–1881.

37

38 Core and Technical Working Groups, 2010, MC 252 Stage III SCAT — Shoreline Treatment 

39 Implementation Framework for Louisiana, September 9.

40

41 Courbis, S.S., and G.A.J. Worthy, 2003, ―Opportunistic Carnivory by Florida Manatees 

42 (Trichechus manatus latirostris),‖ Aquatic Mammals 22.1:104–107.

43

44 Couturier, S., S.D. Côté, R.D. Otto, R.B. Weladji, and J. Huot, 2009, ―Variation in Calf Body 

45 Mass in Migratory Caribou: The Role of Habitat, Climate, and Movements,‖ Journal of 

46 Mammalogy 90(2):442-452.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-422

1 Craig, P.C., 1984, ―Fish Use of Coastal Waters of the Alaskan Beaufort Sea: A Review.‖ 

2 Transaciton of the American Fisheries Society 113:265–282.

3

4 Craig, P.C., 1989, ―An Introduction to Anadromous Fishes in the Alaskan Arctic,‖ pp. 27–54

5 in Research Advances on Anadromous Fish in Arctic Alaska and Canada, Nine Papers 

6 Contributing to an Ecological Synthesis, D.W. Norton (ed.), Biological Papers of the University 

7 of Alaska No. 24, Institute of Arctic Biology, Fairbanks, Alaska.

8

9 Craig, P.C., and L. Haldorson, 1986, ―Pacific Salmon in the North American Arctic,‖ 

10 Arctic 39(1):2–7. 

11

12 Craig, P.C., R.R. Emerson, R.G. Fechhelm, C. George, J.D. Hall, J.P. Houghton, C. Johnson, 

13 T.K. Newbury, and D.R. Schmidt, 1984, ―Fish Resources,‖ pp. 117–131 in The Barrow Arch 

14 Environment and Possible Consequences of Planned Offshore Oil and Gas Development,

15 J.C. Truett (ed.), NOAA and MMS, Anchorage, Alaska.

16

17 Cronin, M.A., B.J. Pierson, S.R. Johnson, L. Noel, and W.B. Ballard, 1997, ―Caribou Population 

18 Density in the Prudhoe Bay Region of Alaska,‖ Wildlife Resources 2(1):59–68. 

19

20 Cronin, M.A., H.A. Whitlaw, and W.B. Ballard, 2000, ―Northern Alaska Oil Fields and 

21 Caribou,‖ Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):919–922. 

22

23 Crouse, J., S. Crouse, R.A. Rausch, B. Gasaway, and C. Schwartz, 2008, Alaska Wildlife 

24 Notebook Series: Moose, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. Available at 

25 http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/education/wns/moose.pdf. Accessed August 30, 2011.

26

27 CRS (Congressional Research Service), 2010, Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Selected Issues for 

28 Congress, July 30. Available at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41262.pdf. Accessed July 15, 

29 2011.

30

31 Crum, J.E., 1993, ―Peak Expiratory Flow Rate in Schoolchildren Living Close to Braer Oil 

32 Spill,‖ British Medical Journal 307: 23–4.

33

34 CSA (Continental Shelf Associates), 2006, Effects of Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

35 at Selected Slope Sites in the Gulf of Mexico, Volume I, OCS Study MMS 2006-004, MMS, Gulf 

36 of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La.

37

38 CSA International, Inc., 2007, Characterization of Northern Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Hard 

39 Bottom Communities with Emphasis on Lophelia Coral, OCS Study MMS 2007-044, Minerals 

40 Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La. 

41

42 Culik, B.M., 2010, Odontocetes: The Toothed Whales: Distribution, Behaviour, Migration and 

43 Threats, compiled for the Convention of Migratory Species (CMS/UNEP) Secretariat, Bonn, 

44 Germany, Feb. 4. Available at http://www.cms.int/reports/small_cetaceans/index.htm. Accessed 

45 March 25, 2011.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-423

1 Cummings, W.C., and D.V. Holliday, 1985, ―Passive Acoustic Location of Bowhead Whales in 

2 a Population Census Off Point Barrow, Alaska,‖ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 78(4):1163–1169.

3

4 Cummings, W.C., and P.O. Thompson, 1971, ―Underwater Sounds from the Blue Whale, 

5 Balaenoptera musculus,‖ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 50(4B): 1193–1198.

6

7 Cummings, W.C., and P.O. Thompson, 1994, ―Characteristics and Seasons of Blue and Finback 

8 Whale Sounds along the U.S. West Coast as Recorded at SOSUS Stations,‖ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 

9 95(5, Part 2): 2853–2853.

10

11 Cummings, W.C., D.V. Holliday, W.T. Ellison, and B.J. Graham, 1983, Technical Feasibility of 

12 Passive Acoustic Location of Bowhead Whales in Population Studies Off Point Barrow, Alaska, 

13 T-83-06-002, prepared by Tracor Applied Sciences, Inc., San Diego, Calif., for North Slope 

14 Borough, Barrow, Alaska.

15

16 Cummings, W.C., D.V. Holliday, and B.J. Lee, 1984, Potential Impacts of Man-Made Noise on 

17 Ringed Seals: Vocalizations and Reactions, Final Report, Outer Continental Shelf 

18 Environmental Assessment Program, Research Unit 636, Dec. Available at 

19 http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/0/390.pdf. Accessed July 4, 2011.

20

21 Dagg, M.J., J.W. Ammerman, R.M.W. Amon, and W.S. Gardner, 2007, ―A Review of Water 

22 Column Processes Influencing Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico,‖ Estuaries and 

23 Coasts 30:735–752. 

24

25 Dahlheim, M., A. York, R. Towell, J. Waite, and J. Breiwick, 2000, ―Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena 

26 phocoena) Abundance in Alaska: Bristol Bay to Southeast Alaska, 1991–1993,‖ Marine 

27 Mammal Science 16:28–45. 

28

29 Dai, A., T. Qian, K.E. Trenberth, and J.D. Milliman, 2009, ―Changes in Continental Freshwater 

30 Discharge from 1948 to 2004,‖ Journal of Climate 22:2773–2792.

31

32 Dames & Moore, Inc., 1979, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida Outer Continental Shelf Baseline 

33 Environmental Survey, MAFLA, 1977/78, Vol. II: Compendium of Work Element Reports, Final 

34 Report for USDOI/BLM, Contract No. AA550-CT7-34.

35

36 Darigo, N., O. Mason, and P. Bowers, 2007, Review of Geological/Geophysical Data and Core 

37 Analysis to Determine Archaeological Potential of Buried Landforms, Beaufort Sea Shelf, 

38 Alaska, OCS Study MMS 2007-004, prepared by Northern Land Use Research, Inc., URS 

39 Corporation, and GeoArch Alaska for MMS, Alaska OCS Region.

40

41 Dau, J., 2009, ―Units 21D, 22A, 22B, 22C, 22D, 22E, 23, 24 and 26A Caribou Management 

42 Report,‖ pp. 176–239 in Caribou Management, Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 

43 2006 –30 June 2008, Project 3.0, P. Harper (ed.), Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, 

44 Alaska. 

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-424

1 David M. Dornbusch and Company, 1987, Impacts of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) 

2 Development on Recreation and Tourism, OCS Study MMS 87-0064, prepared for the Minerals 

3 Management Service, April. Available at http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/

4 1/1928.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2011.

5

6 Davis, N.Y., 1984, ―Contemporary Pacific Eskimo,‖ pp. 198–204 in Handbook of North 

7 American Indians, Vol. 5 Arctic, D. Damas (ed.), Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

8

9 Davis, R.A., C.R Greene, Jr., and P.L. McLaren, 1985, Studies of the Potential for Drilling 

10 Activities on Seal Island to Influence Fall Migration of Bowhead Whales through Alaskan 

11 Nearshore Waters, prepared by LGL Ltd., King City, Ontario, Canada, for Shell Western E&P 

12 Inc., Anchorage, Alaska.

13

14 Davis, R.W., and G.S. Fargion (eds.), 1996, Distribution and Abundance of Cetaceans in the 

15 North-Central and Western Gulf of Mexico: Final Report, Volume II: Technical Report, OCS 

16 Study MMS 96-0027, prepared by Texas Institute of Oceanography and National Marine 

17 Fisheries Service, New Orleans, La., for Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Outer 

18 Continental Shelf Region. 

19

20 Davis, R.W., G.S. Fargion, N. May, T.D. Leming, M. Baumgartner, W.E. Evans, L.J. Hansen, 

21 and K. Mullin, 1998, ―Physical Habitat of Cetaceans along the Continental Slope in the North22 central and Western Gulf of Mexico,‖ Marine Mammal Science 14:490–507.

23

24 Davis, R.W., W.E. Evans, and B. Würsig (eds.), 2000, Cetaceans, Sea Turtles and Seabirds in 

25 the Northern Gulf of Mexico: Distribution, Abundance and Habitat Associations, Volume II: 

26 Technical Report, USGS/BRD/CR-1999-005, OCS Study MMS 2000-003, prepared by Texas 

27 A&M University at Galveston and the National Marine Fisheries Service for U.S. Geological 

28 Survey, BRD, and Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf 

29 Region, New Orleans, La. 

30

31 Davis, J.L., P. Valkenburg, and R. Boertje, 1982, Home Range Use, Social Structure, and 

32 Habitat Selection of the Western Arctic Caribou Herd, Final Research Report, prepared by 

33 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fairbanks, Alaska, for National Park Service. 

34

35 Davis, W.B., and D.J. Schmidly, 1997, The Mammals of Texas, Online Edition, Texas Tech 

36 University, Lubbock, Texas. Available at http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/tmot1/Default.htm. Accessed 

37 May 19, 2011.

38

39 Day, R.H., K.J. Kuletz, and D.A. Nigro. 1999, ―Kittlitz‘s Murrelet (Brachyramphus brevistris).‖

40 Issue 435, Birds of North America Online, A. Poole (ed.), Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Imaca, 

41 New York. Available at http://bna.birds.Cornell.edu/bna/species/435. Accessed August 18, 

42 2011.

43

44 DCRA (Alaska Division of Community and Regional Affairs), 2011, Alaska Community 

45 Database Community Information Summaries. Available at http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/

46 dca/commdb/CF_CIS.htm. Accessed February 2011.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-425

1 Defenbaugh, R.E., 1976, A Study of the Benthic Macro-Invertebrates of the Continental Shelf of 

2 the Northern Gulf of Mexico, Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. 

3

4 DeGange, A.R., and L. Thorsteinson, 2011, ―Chapter 3: Exological and Subsistence Context,‖

5 pp. 13–40 in An Evaluation of the Science Needs to Inform Decisions on Outer Continental Shelf 

6 Energy Development in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, L. Holland-Bartels and B. Pierce (eds.),

7 U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1370, Alaska.

8

9 Delgado, J.P. (ed.), 1998, Encyclopedia of Underwater and Maritime Archaeology, Yale 

10 University Press, New Haven, Conn., and London. 

11

12 Dennis, G.D., and T.J. Bright, 1988, ―Reef Fish Assemblages on Hard Banks in the 

13 Northwestern Gulf of Mexico,‖ Bull. Mar. Sci. 43:280–307.

14

15 Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 2010, Toxicological Profile 

16 for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Atlanta: Agency for Toxic Substances and 

17 Disease Registry. Available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles /tp69.pdf.

18

19 Department of Labor and Workforce Development, 2011, Research and Analysis, Historical 

20 Data: Boroughs/Census Areas. Available at http://laborstats.alaska.gov/pop/popest.htm. 

21 Accessed September 9, 2011.

22

23 Derocher, A.E., and O. Wiig, 1999, ―Infanticide and Cannibalism of Juvenile Polar Bears (Ursus

24 maritimus) in Svalbard,‖ Arctic 52:307–310.

25

26 Derocher, A.E., O. Wiig, and G. Bangjord, 2000, ―Predation of Svalbard Reindeer by Polar 

27 Bears,‖ Polar Biology 23:675–678.

28

29 DFO, 2008, Total Allowable Harvest Recommendations for Nunavut Narwhal and Beluga 

30 Populations, DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science Advisory Report 2008/035. 

31 Available at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/CSAS/Csas/Publications/SAR-AS/2008/SAR32 AS2008_035_E.pdf. Accessed September 9, 2011.

33

34 Dickson, D.L., and H.G. Gilchrist, 2002, ―Status of Marine Birds of the Southeastern Beaufort 

35 Sea,‖ Arctic 55(Supplement 1):46–58.

36

37 Dickson, D.L., R.S. Suydam, and G. Balogh, 2000, Tracking the Movement of King Eiders from 

38 Nesting Grounds at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, to their Molting and Wintering Areas Using Satellite 

39 Telemetry, 1999/2000 Progress Report, Canadian Wildlife Service, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

40

41 Diercks, A.R., V.L. Asper, R.C. Highsmith, D.J. Joung, Z. Zhau, L. Guo, S.E. Lohrenz, 

42 A.M. Shiller, S.B. Joye, A.P. Teske, N. Guiasso, and T.L. Wade, 2010, ―Characterization of 

43 Subsurface Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons at the Deepwater Horizon Site,‖ Geophys. Res. 

44 Lett., 37:L20602.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-426

1 Di Silvestro., R., 2006, Natural Acts: When Hurricanes Hit Habitat. National Wildlife 

2 Federation, National Wildlife, August/September 2006, 44:5. Available at http://www.nwf.org/

3 nationalwildlife/article.cfm?issueID=109%articleId=1378.

4

5 Ditton, R., and J. Auyong, 1984, 1983 An Analysis of the Recreational and Commercial Fishing 

6 Use of 164 Major Offshore Petroleum Structures in the Central Gulf of Mexico, prepared by the 

7 Texas Agricultural Experiment Station for Minerals Management Service, August.

8

9 Ditton, R., and A. Graefe, 1978, Recreational Fishing Use of Artificial Reefs on the Texas Coast,

10 prepared for the Texas Coast and Marine Council. 

11

12 Ditty, J.G., 1986, ―Ichthyoplankton in Neretic Waters of the Northern Gulf of Mexico off 

13 Louisiana: Composition, Relative Abundance, and Seasonality,‖ Fishery Bulletin 84(4):935–

14 946.

15

16 Ditty, J.G., G.G. Zieske, and R.F. Shaw, 1988, ―Seasonality and Depth Distribution of Larval 

17 Fishes in the Northern Gulf of Mexico above 26°00' N,‖ Fishery Bulletin 86:811–823.

18

19 Divoky, G.J., G.A. Sanger, S.A. Hatch, and J.C. Haney, 1988, Fall Migration of Ross‘ Gull 

20 (Rhodostethia rosea) in Alaskan Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Final Report OCS Study 

21 MMS 88-0023, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Fish and Wildlife Research Center, 

22 Anchorage. 

23

24 Dixon, E.J., G. Sharma, and S. Stoker, 1986, Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf Cultural Resource 

25 Compendium, Technical Report No. 119, OCS Study MMS 86-0018, MMS, Alaska Outer 

26 Continental Shelf Office, Anchorage, Alaska.

27

28 Do, M.P., P.L. Hutchinson, K.V. Mai, and M.J. Vanlandingham, 2009, ―Disparities in Health 

29 Care among Vietnamese New Orleanians and the Impacts of Hurricane Katrina,‖ Research in the 

30 Sociology of Health Care 27: 301–319.

31

32 Dodd, C.K., Jr., 1988, Synopsis of the Biological Data on the Loggerhead Turtle, Caretta caretta

33 (Linnaeus, 1758), USDOI/FWS Biol. Rep. 88. 100 p.

34

35 Dokken, Q.R., I.R. MacDonald, J.W. Tunnell, Jr., C.R. Beaver, G.S. Boland, and D.K. Hagman, 

36 1999, Long-Term Monitoring of the East and West Flower Garden Banks, 1996–1997, OCS 

37 Study MMS 99-0005, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

38 Orleans, La. 

39

40 Doney S.C., V.J. Fabry, R.A. Feely, and J.A. Kleypas, 2009, ―Ocean Acidification: The Other 

41 CO2 Problem,‖ Annual Review of Marine Science 1:169–192.

42

43 Doty, S.R., B.L. Wallace, and G.C. Holzworth, 1976, A Climatological Analysis of Pasquill 

44 Stability Categories Based on  ̳STAR‘ Summaries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

45 Administration, Environmental Data Service, National Climatic Center, April.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-427

1 Dow, W., K. Eckert, M. Palmer, and P. Kramer, 2007, An Atlas of Sea Turtle Nesting Habitat for 

2 the Wider Caribbean Region, WIDECAST Technical Report No. 6, the Wider Caribbean Sea 

3 Turtle Conservation Network and the Nature Conservancy, Beaufort, N.C. 

4

5 Dunbar, J.S., S.D. Webb, M. Faught, R.J. Anuskiewicz, and M.I. Stright, 1989, ―Archaeological 

6 Sites in the Drowned Tertiary Karst Region of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico,‖ pp. 25–31 in

7 Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference,

8 J.B. Arnold, III (ed.), Society for Historical Archaeology, Baltimore, Md.

9

10 Dunton, K.H., and S.V. Schonberg, 2000, ―The Benthic Faunal Assemblage of the Boulder Patch 

11 Community,‖ in The Natural History of an Arctic Oil Field, Development of the Biota,

12 J.C. Truett and S.R. Johnson (eds.), Academic Press, San Diego, Calif.

13

14 Dunton, K.H., E. Reimnitz, and S. Schonberg, 1982, ―An Arctic Kelp Community in the Alaskan 

15 Beaufort Sea,‖ Arctic 35:465–484.

16

17 Dunton, K.H., A. Burd, D. Funk, and R. Maffione, 2004, Linking Water Turbidity and Total 

18 Suspended Solids Loading to Kelp Productivity within the Stefansson Sound Boulder Patch,

19 ANIMIDA Task 6 (Boulder Patch) Final Report, OCS Study MMS 2005-0011, MMS, Alaska 

20 OCS Region, Anchorage, Alaska.

21

22 Dunton, K.H., J.L. Goodall, S.V. Schonberg, J.M Grebmeier, and D.R. Maidment, 2005, ―Multi23 decadal Synthesis of Benthic-Pelagic Coupling in the Western Arctic: Role of Cross-Shelf 

24 Advective Processes,‖ Deep Sea Research II 52:3462–3477.

25

26 Dunton, K.H., T. Weingartner, and E.C. Carmack, 2006, ―The Nearshore Western Beaufort Sea 

27 Ecosystem: Circulation and Importance of Terrestrial Carbon in Arctic Coastal Food Webs,‖

28 Progress in Oceanography 71:362–378.

29

30 Durner, G.M., S.C. Amstrup, and A.S. Fischbach, 2003, ―Habitat Characteristics of Polar Bear 

31 Terrestrial Maternal Den Sites in Northern Alaska,‖ Arctic 56(1):55–62.

32

33 Durner, G.M., S.C. Amstrup, R. Neilson, and T. McDonald, 2004, The Use of Sea Ice Habitat by 

34 Female Polar Bears in the Beaufort Sea, MMS 2004-014, U.S. Geological Survey Outer 

35 Continental Shelf Study, Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, Alaska.

36

37 Dushaw, B.D., et al., 2009, ―A Decade of Acoustic Thermometry in the North Pacific Ocean,‖ J. 

38 Geophys. Res. 114:C07021, doi:10.1029/2008JC005124.

39

40 Dyck, M.G., and K.J. Daley, 2002, ―Cannibalism of a Yearling Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) at 

41 Churchill, Canada,‖ Arctic 55:190–192.

42

43 Eales, J.G., 1968, The Eel Fisheries of Eastern Canada, Fisheries Research Board of Canada 

44 Bulletin 166. 

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-428

1 Eastland, W.G., R.T. Bowyer, and S.G. Fancy, 1989, ―Effects of Snow Cover on Selection of 

2 Calving Sites by Caribou,‖ Journal of Mammalogy 70:824–828. 

3

4 Eberhardt, L.E., W.C. Hanson, J.L. Bengtson, R.A. Garrott, and E.E. Hanson, 1982, ―Arctic Fox 

5 Home Range Characteristics in an Oil-Development Area,‖ Journal of Wildlife Management

6 46(1):183–190. 

7

8 Eggleston, P.A., 2007, ―The Environment and Asthma in U.S. Inner Cities,‖ Chest 132, 

9 Suppl: 782S–788S.

10

11 EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration), 2006, Natural Gas Processing: The Crucial 

12 Link between Natural Gas Production and Its Transportation to Market, Office of Oil and Gas, 

13 Washington, D.C., Jan.

14

15 EIA, 2010a, Ranking of U.S. Refineries, U.S. Refineries Operable Capacity. Available at 

16 http://www.eia.gov/neic/rankings/refineries.htm. Accessed June 2011.

17

18 EIA, 2010b, Short-Term Energy Outlook, Washington, D.C, July 7. Available at 

19 http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html. Accessed July 15, 2011.

20

21 Eide, S., S. Miller, and L. Van Daele, 2008, Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series: Brown Bear, 

22 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/

23 static/education/wns/brown_bear.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2011.

24

25 Elias, S., S. Short, and R.L. Phillips, 1992, ―Paleoecology of Late-Glacial Peats from the Bering 

26 Land Bridge, Chukchi Sea Shelf Region, Northwestern Alaska,‖ Quaternary Research

27 38(3):371–378.

28

29 Ellis, G., N. Johnson, and D. Chapman, 1991, Inventory and Evaluation of Washington and 

30 Oregon Coastal Recreational Resources: Assessing Economic Impacts to Coastal Recreation 

31 and Tourism from Oil and Gas Development in the Oregon and Washington Outer Continental 

32 Shelf, OCS Study MMS 91-0046. Available at http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PI/PDFImages/

33 ESPIS/1/1894.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2011.

34

35 Ely, C.R., and A.X. Dzubin, 1994, Greater White-Fronted Goose (Anser albifrons), Issue 131,

36 The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.), Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, 

37 New York. Available at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/131. Accessed August 18, 

38 2011.

39

40 ENSR Consulting and Engineering, 1996, Prudhoe Bay Air Quality Monitoring Program, 

41 Annual Data Report, January through December 1995, prepared for BP Exploration (Alaska) 

42 Inc., Fort Collins, Colo.

43

44 Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., 1987, Kuparuk Aerometric Monitoring Program,

45 Annual Data Summary, prepared by ARCO Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-429

1 ERS (Economic Research Service), 2011, Data Sets, County Typology Codes, U.S. Department 

2 of Agriculture. Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/TypologyCodes/. Accessed 

3 February 2011. 

4

5 ERT Company, 1987, Prudhoe Bay Air Quality Monitoring Program Quarterly and Annual 

6 Data Report, Report No. D816, Standard Alaska Production Co., Anchorage, Alaska.

7

8 Eschmeyer, W.N., E.S. Herald, H. Hammann, and K.P. Smith, 1984, A Field Guide to Pacific 

9 Coast Fishes of North America from the Gulf of Alaska to Baja California, Houghton-Mifflin, 

10 Boston, Mass.

11

12 Eslinger, D.L., R.T. Cooney, C.P. McRoy, A. Ward, T.C. Kline, E.P. Simpson, J. Wang, and 

13 J. Allen, 2001, ―Plankton Dynamics: Observed and Modeled Responses to Physical Conditions 

14 in Prince William Sound, Alaska,‖ Fisheries Oceanography 10:81–96.

15

16 Esman, M.R., 1982, ―Festivals, Change, and Unity: The Celebration of Ethnic Identity among 

17 Louisiana Cajuns,‖ Anthropological Quarterly 55(4):199–210.

18

19 Estes, J.A., R.J. Jameson, and A.M. Johnson, 1981, ―Food Selection and Some Foraging Tactics 

20 of Sea Otters,‖ in Worldwide Furbearer Conference Proceedings, D.A. Chapman and D. Pursley 

21 (eds.), Frostburg, Md., Aug. 3–11. 

22

23 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, 2009, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2009 

24 Status Report. Available at http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/Universal/Documents/Publications/

25 AnnualStatus/2009AnnualReport.pdf. Accessed May 10, 2011.

26

27 Ezoe, M., T. Ishita, M. Kinugasa, X. Lai, K. Norisue and Y. Sohrin, 2004, ―Distributions of 

28 Dissolved and Acid-dissolvable Bioactive Trace Metals in the North Pacific Ocean,‖ Geochem. 

29 J. 38:535–550.

30

31 Fabry, V.J., B.A. Seibel, R.A. Feely, and J.C. Orr, 2008, ―Impacts of Ocean Acidification on 

32 Marine Fauna and Ecosystem Processes,‖ ICES Journal of Marine Sciences 65:414–432.

33

34 Fabry, V.J., J.B. McClintock, J.T. Mathis, and J.M. Grebmeier, 2009, ―Ocean Acidification at 

35 High Latitudes: The Bellwether,‖ Oceanography 22:160–171.

36

37 Fall, J.A., 1981, Traditional Resource Use in the Knik Arm Area: Historical and Contemporary 

38 Patterns, State of Alaska/ADF&G, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska.

39

40 Fall, J.A., and C.J. Utermohle, 1999, Subsistence Harvests and Uses in Eight Communities Ten 

41 Years after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, Technical Paper No. 252, ADF&G, Division of 

42 Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska.

43
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-430

1 Fall, J.A., L.J. Field, T.S. Nighswander, N. Peacock, and U. Varansi (eds.), 1999, ―Overview of 

2 Lessons Learned from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: A 10-Year Retrospective,‖ in Evaluating and 

3 Communicating Subsistence Seafood Safety in a Cross-Cultural Context, SETAC Press,

4 Pensacola, Fla.

5

6 Fay, F.H., 1982, ―Ecology and Biology of the Pacific Walrus, Odobenus rosmarus divergens

7 Illiger,‖ North American Fauna 74.

8

9 Fay, F.H., 1985, ―Odobenus rosmarus,‖ Mammalian Species 238:1–7.

10

11 Fechhelm, R.G., and W.B. Griffiths, 2001, Status of Pacific Salmon in the Beaufort Sea, LGL 

12 Alaska Research Assocs., Inc., Anchorage, Alaska.

13

14 Feder, H.M., and S.C. Jewett, 1986, The Subtidal Benthos, The Gulf of Alaska, Physical 

15 Environment and Biological Resources, OCS Study MMS 86-0095, D.W. Hood and 

16 S.T. Zimmerman (eds.), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C., 

17 and Minerals Management Service, Washington, D.C., pp. 347–396.

18

19 Feely, R.A., and G.J. Massoth, 1982, Sources, Composition, and Transport of Suspended 

20 Particulate Matter in Lower Cook Inlet and Northwestern Shelikof Strait, NOAA Technical 

21 Report ERL 415—PMEL 34, USDOC/NOAA/ERL/PMEL, Seattle, Wash.

22

23 Feely, R.A., S.R. Alin, J. Newton, C.L. Sabine, M. Warner, A. Devol, C. Krembs, and C. Maloy, 

24 2010, ―The Combined Effects of Ocean Acidification, Mixing, and Respiration on pH and 

25 Carbonate Saturation in an Urbanized Estuary,‖ Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science

26 88:442–449.

27

28 Ferguson, S.H., I. Stirling, and P. McLoughlin, 2005, ―Climate Change and Ringed Seal (Phoca

29 hispida) Recruitment in Western Hudson Bay,‖ Marine Mammals Science 21(1):121–135.

30

31 Ferrero, R.C., and W.A. Walker, 1996, ―Age, Growth, and Reproductive Patterns of Pacific 

32 White-Sided Dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) Taken in High Seas Driftnets in the Central 

33 North Pacific Ocean,‖ Canadian Journal of Mammalogy 74:1673–1687. 

34

35 Fertl, D., T.A. Jefferson, I.B. Moreno, A.N. Zerbini, and K.D. Mullin, 2003, ―Distribution of the 

36 Clymene Dolphin Stenella clymene,‖ Mammal Review 33(3):253–271.

37

38 FGCIA (Florida Governor‘s Council on Indian Affairs), 2011, Florida‘s American Indian and 

39 Alaska Native Population, Florida Governor‘s Council on Indian Affairs, Inc., Tallahassee, Fla. 

40 Available at http://www.fgcia.com/FLORIDA_NDNs_07.pdf. Accessed 1 March 2011.

41
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-431

1 Field, C.B., L.D. Mortsch,, M. Brklacich, D.L. Forbes, P. Kovacs, J.A. Patz, S.W. Running,

2 and M.J. Scott, 2007, North America, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and 

3 Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

4 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, 

5 P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 

6 pp. 617–652.

7

8 Field, L.J., J.A. Fall, T.J. Nighswander, N. Peacock, and U. Varanasi (eds.), 1999, Evaluating 

9 and Communicating Subsistence Seafood Safety in a Cross-Cultural Context, SETAC Press,

10 Pensacola, Fla.

11

12 Finney, B., I. Gregory-Eaves, J. Sweetman, M. Douglas, and J. Smol, 2000, ―Impacts of 

13 Climatic Change and Fishing on Pacific Salmon Abundance over the Past 300 Years,‖

14 Science 290:795–799. 

15

16 Fischbach, A.S., S.C. Amstrup, and D.C. Douglas, 2007, ―Landward and Eastward Shift of 

17 Alaskan Polar Bear Denning Associated with Recent Sea Ice Changes,‖ Polar Biology 30:1395–

18 1405.

19

20 Fischer, J.B., and W.W. Larned, 2004, ―Summer Distribution of Marine Birds in the Western 

21 Beaufort Sea,‖ Arctic 57(2):143–159.

22

23 Fisher, H.D., 1952, ―The Status of the Harbour Seal in British Columbia, with Particular 

24 Reference to the Skeena River,‖ Fisheries Research Board Canada Bulletin 93.

25

26 Fisher, W.L., et al., 1973, Environmental Geologic Atlas of the Texas Coastal Zone: Beaumont–

27 Port Arthur Area, University of Texas, Bureau of Economic Geology, Austin, TX.

28

29 Fisher, C.R., I. Urcuyo, M.A. Simpkins, and E. Nix, 1997, ―Life in the Slow Lane: Growth and 

30 Longevity of Cold-Seep Vestimentiferans,‖ Marine Ecology 18:83–94. 

31

32 Florida Ornithological Society, 2010, Official Florida State Bird List. Records Committee, 

33 Florida Ornithological Society, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, Fla. 

34 December 31, 2010.

35

36 Florida Sea Grant, 2005, Economics of Florida‘s Beaches: The Impact of Beach Restoration.

37

38 FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory), 2001, ―Field Guide to the Rare Animals of Florida 

39 Online,‖ Tallahassee, Fla. Available at http://www.fnai.org/FieldGuide/index.cfm. Accessed 

40 March 4, 2010. 

41

42 Fodrie, F.J., and K.L. Heck, Jr., 2011, ―Response of Coastal Fishes to the Gulf of Mexico Oil 

43 Disaster,‖ PLoS One. 6: e21609. 

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-432

1 Ford, B., A. Borgens, W. Bryant, D. Marshall, P. Hitchcock, C. Arias, and D. Hamilton, 2008, 

2 Archaeological Excavation of the Mardi Gras Shipwreck (16GM01), Gulf of Mexico Continental 

3 Slope, OCS Report MMS 2008-037, prepared by Texas A&M University for Minerals 

4 Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La.

5

6 Fox, D.A., J.E. Hightower, and F.M. Paruka, 2000, ―Gulf Sturgeon Spawning Migration and 

7 Habitat in the Choctawhatchee River System, Alabama-Florida,‖ Transactions of the American 

8 Fisheries Society 129:811–826.

9

10 Frame, G.W., 1974, ―Black Bear Predation on Salmon at Olsen Creek, Alaska,‖ Zeitschrift für 

11 Tierpsychologie 35(1):23–38. 

12

13 Fredrickson, L.O.H, 2001, ―Steller‘s Eider (Polysticta stelleri),‖ Issue 571, The Birds of North 

14 America Online (A. Poole, ed.), Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available at

15 http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/571. Accessed August 18, 2011.

16

17 Freeman, M.M.M., 1973, ―Polar Bear Predation on Beluga in the Canadian Arctic,‖ 

18 Arctic 26(2):162–163.

19

20 Frost, K., and S. Karpovich, 2008, Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series: Gray Whale, Alaska 

21 Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/

22 static/education/wns/gray_whale.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2011.

23

24 FSMP (Federal Subsistence Management Program), 2010, Subsistence Management Regulations 

25 for the Harvest of Wildlife on Federal Public Lands in Alaska, Effective July 1, 2010–June 30, 

26 2012, Office of Subsistence Management, Anchorage, Alaska.

27

28 Fu, B., and P. Aharon, 1998, ―Sources of Hydrocarbon-Rich Fluids Advecting on the Seafloor 

29 in the Northern Gulf of Mexico,‖ Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies 

30 Transactions 48:73–81.

31

32 Funk, D.W., L.E. Noel, and A.H. Freedman, 2004, ―Environmental Gradients, Plant Distribution, 

33 and Species Richness in Arctic Salt Marsh near Prudhoe Bay, Alaska,‖ Wetlands Ecology and 

34 Management 12: 215–233.

35

36 Galbraith, H., R. Jones, R. Park, J. Clough, S. Herrod-Julius, B. Harrington, and G. Page, 2002, 

37 ―Global Climate Change and Sea Level Rise: Potential Losses of Intertidal Habitat for 

38 Shorebirds,‖ Waterbirds 25(2):173–183.

39

40 Gales, R.S., 1982, Effects of Noise of Offshore Oil and Gas Operations on Marine Mammals, An 

41 Introductory Assessment, NOSC TR 844, 2 vols., U.S. Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, 

42 Calif., Sept.

43

44 Gallant, A.L., E.F. Binnian, J.M. Omernik, and M.B. Shasby, 1995, Ecoregions of Alaska, USGS 

45 Professional Paper 1567, USGS, Washington, D.C.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-433

1 Gallaway, B.J., and G.S. Lewbel, 1982, The Ecology of Petroleum Platforms in the Northwestern 

2 Gulf of Mexico: A Community Profile, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS/OBS 82/27),

3 Washington, D.C., and Bureau of Land Management, Gulf of Mexico Regional Office (Open 

4 File Report 82-03), New Orleans, La.

5

6 Gallaway, B.J., and M.C. Kennicutt II, 1988, ―Characterization of Benthic Habitats of the

7 Northern Gulf of Mexico,‖ Chapter 2 in Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Slope Study, Final 

8 Report, Year 4, Volume II: Synthesis Report, B.J. Gallaway (ed.), OCS Study MMS 88-0053, 

9 MMS, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La.

10

11 Gardner, J.V., L.A. Mayer, J.E. Hughes Clarke, and A. Kleiner, 1998, ―High-Resolution 

12 Multibeam Bathymetry of East and West Flower Gardens and Stetson Banks, Gulf of Mexico,‖

13 Gulf of Mexico Science 16:131–143.

14

15 Garrison, E.G., et al., 1989, Historic Shipwrecks and Magnetic Anomalies of the Northern Gulf 

16 of Mexico: Reevaluation of Archaeological Resource Management Zone, OCS Study 

17 MMS 89-0023, 89-0024, and 89-0025, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

18 Region, New Orleans, La.

19

20 Garshelis, D.L., and J.A. Garshelis, 1984, ―Movements and Management of Sea Otters in 

21 Alaska,‖ Journal of Wildlife Management 48(3):665–678. 

22

23 Garshelis, D.L., J.A. Garshelis, and A.T. Kimker, 1986, ―Sea Otter Time Budgets and Prey 

24 Relationships in Alaska,‖ Journal of Wildlife Management 50(4):637–647.

25

26 Gaskin, D.E., 1984, ―The Harbor Porpoise Phocoena phocoena (L.): Regional Populations, 

27 Status, and Information on Direct and Indirect Catches,‖ Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 34:569–586.

28

29 Gaston, A.J., and J.M. Hipfner, 2000, ―Thick-billed Murre (Uria lomvia),‖ Issue 497, The Birds 

30 of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.), Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. 

31 Available at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/497. Accessed August 18, 2011.

32

33 Gatto, L.W., 1976, Baseline Data on the Oceanography of Cook Inlet, Alaska, CRREL 

34 Report 76-25, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CRREL, Hanover, N.H.

35

36 Geoplatform, 2011a, SCAT Latest Ground Observations 01-12-11, Louisiana Sector. Available 

37 at http://www.geoplatform.gov/gulfresponse. Accessed January 13, 2011.

38

39 Geoplatform, 2011b, SCAT Latest Ground Observations 01-12-11, Mobile Sector. Available at 

40 http://www.geoplatform.gov/gulfresponse. Accessed January 13, 2011.

41

42 Gilbert, C.R. (ed.), 1992, Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Vol. II, Fishes, University 

43 Press of Florida, Gainesville, Fla.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-434

1 Gilchrist, H.G., 2001, ―Glaucous Gull (Larus hyperboreus),‖ Issue 573, The Birds of North 

2 America Online (A. Poole, ed.), Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available at 

3 http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/573. Accessed August 18, 2011.

4

5 Gill, R.E., Jr., and T.L. Tibbitts, 1999, Seasonal Shorebird Use of Intertidal Habitats in Cook 

6 Inlet, Alaska. Final Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological 

7 Resources Division and OCS Study, MMS 99–0012.

8

9 Gill, S., J. Sprenke, J. Kent, and M. Zieserl, 2011, ―Tides under the Ice: Measuring Water 

10 Levels at Barrow, Alaska 2008-2010, in Proceedings of U.S. Hydro 2011, April 25–28, meeting 

11 of the Hydrographic Society of America, Tampa Fla.

12

13 Gittings, S.R., 1998, ―Monitoring at the Flower Gardens: History and Status,‖ in Proceedings of 

14 the 17th Information Transfer Meeting, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

15 Region, New Orleans, La. 

16

17 GMFMC (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council), 1998, Generic Amendment for 

18 Addressing Essential Fish Habitat Requirements in the Following Fishery Management Plans of 

19 the Gulf of Mexico: Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico United States Waters; Red Drum 

20 Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Coastal Migratory 

21 Pelagic Resources (Mackerels) in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Stone Crab Fishery in 

22 the Gulf of Mexico; Spiny Lobster in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Coral and Coral 

23 Reefs of the Gulf of Mexico, Tampa, Fla. 

24

25 GMFMC (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council), 2004, Final Environmental Impact 

26 Statement for the Generic Essential Fish Habitat Amendment to the Following Fishery 

27 Management Plans of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM): Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Red 

28 Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Stone Crab 

29 Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Coral and Coral Reef Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, and South 

30 Atlantic Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic, 

31 Vol. 1, Tampa, Fla. 

32

33 Goddard, P.D., and D.J. Rugh, 1998, ―A Group of Right Whales Seen in the Bering Sea in 

34 July 1996, Marine Mammal Science 1(2):344–349.

35

36 Goldstein, B., M. Howard, J. Osofsky, and M. Lichtveld, 2011, ―The Gulf Oil Spill,‖ The New 

37 England Journal of Medicine, 364: 1334–1348.

38

39 Goldstein, B.D., and G. Witz, 2009, ―Benzene,‖ in Environmental Toxicants: Human Exposures 

40 and Their Health Hffects, 3rd ed., M. Lippmann (editor), John Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.

41

42 Goolsby, D.A., W.A. Battaglin, G.B. Lawrence, R.S Artz, B.T. Aulenbach, R.P Hooper, 

43 D.R. Keeney, and G.J. Stensland, 1999, ―Flux and Sources of Nutrients in the Mississippi44 Atchafalaya River Basin,‖ in Topic 3 Report for the Integrated Assessment of Hypoxia in the 

45 Gulf of Mexico, NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 17, NOAA Coastal 

46 Ocean Program, Silver Spring, Md.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-435

1 Gorbics, C.S., and J.L. Bodkin, 2001, ―Stock Structure and Sea Otters (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) 

2 in Alaska,‖ Marine Mammal Science 17(3):632–647.

3

4 Gordon, W., 1993, ―Travel Characteristics of Marine Anglers Using Oil and Gas Platforms in the 

5 Central Gulf of New Mexico,‖ Marine Fisheries Review 55:25–31. Available at 

6 http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/mfr551/mfr5514.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2011.

7

8 Gosho, M.E., D.W. Rice, and J.M. Breiwick, 1984, ―The Sperm Whale, Physeter 

9 macrocephalus,‖ Marine Fisheries Review 46(4):54–64.

10

11 Goudie, R.I., G.J. Robertson, and A. Reed, 2000, ―Common Eider (Somateria mollissima),‖

12 Issue 546, The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.), Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 

13 Ithaca, New York. Available at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/546. Accessed 

14 August 18, 2011.

15

16 Gower, J., and S. King, 2008, ―Satellite Images Show the Movement of Floating Sargassum in 

17 the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean,‖ posted on precedings.nature.com, May 15. Available at 

18 http://precedings.nature.com/documents/1894/version/1/files/npre20081894-1.pdf. Accessed 

19 June 29, 2011.

20

21 Gradinger, R., 2009, ―Sea-Ice Algae: Major Contributors to Primary Production and Algal 

22 Biomass in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas during May/June 2002,‖ Deep Sea Research Part II:

23 Topical Studies in Oceanography 56:1201–1212.

24

25 Gradinger, R.R., and B.A. Bluhm, 2004, ―In-situ Observations on the Distribution and Behavior 

26 of Amphipods and Arctic Cod (Boreogadus saida) under the Sea Ice of the High Arctic Canada 

27 Basin,‖ Polar Biology 27:595–603.

28

29 Gradinger R.R., and B.A. Bluhm, 2005, Susceptibility of Sea Ice Biota to Disturbances in the 

30 Shallow Beaufort Sea: Phase 1: Biological Coupling of Sea Ice with the Pelagic and Benthic 

31 Realms, Final Report, OCS Study MMS 2005-062, Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS 

32 Region, Anchorage, Alaska.

33

34 Graham, W.M., 2001, ―Numerical Increases and Distributional Shifts of Chrysaora 

35 quinquecirrha (Desor) and Aurelia aurita (Linné) (Cnidaria: Scyphozoa) in the Northern Gulf 

36 of Mexico,‖ Hydrobiologia 451:97–111.

37

38 Graham, W.M, R.H. Condon, R.H. Carmichael, I. D‘Ambra, H.K. Patterson, L.J. Linn, and 

39 F.J. Hernandez, Jr., 2010, ―Oil Carbon Entered the Coastal Planktonic Food Web during the 

40 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill,‖ Environmental Research Letters 5(4):045301.

41

42 Grebmeier, J.M., and K.H. Dunton, 2000, ―Benthic Processes in the Northern Bering/Chukchi 

43 Seas: Status and Global Change,‖ pp. 61–71 in Impacts of Changes in the Sea Ice and Other 

44 Environmental Parameters in the Arctic, H.P. Huntington (ed.), Report of the Marine Mammal 

45 Commission Workshop, Girdwood, Alaska., Feb. 15–17, Marine Mammal Commission, 

46 Bethesda, Md.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-436

1 Grebmeier, J.M., J.E. Overland, S.E. Moore, E.V. Farley, E.C. Carmack, L.W. Cooper, 

2 K.E. Frey, J.H. Helle, F.A. McLaughlin, and S.L. McNutt, 2006, ―A Major Ecosystem Shift in 

3 the Northern Bering Sea,‖ Science 311: 14611464.

4

5 Green, G.A., and J.J. Brueggeman, 1991, ―Sea Otter Diets in a Declining Population in Alaska,‖ 

6 Marine Mammal Science 7(4):395–401.

7

8 Greene, C.R., 1981, ―Underwater Acoustic Transmission Loss and Ambient Noise in Arctic 

9 Regions,‖ in The Question of Sound from Icebreaker Operations: The Proceedings of a 

10 Workshop, N.M. Peterson (ed.), Arctic Pilot Project, Petro-Canada, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

11

12 Greene, C.R., 1985a, ―Characteristics of Waterborne Industrial Noise, 1980-1984,‖ in Behavior, 

13 Disturbance Responses and Distribution of Bowhead Whales Balaena mysticetus in the Eastern 

14 Beaufort Sea, 1980-84, OCS Study MMS 85-0034, prepared by W.J. Richardson (ed.), LGL 

15 Ecological Research Associates Inc., Bryan, Texas, for MMS, Reston, Va.

16

17 Greene, C.R., Jr., 1985b, A Pilot Study of Possible Effects of Marine Seismic Airgun Array 

18 Operation on Rockfish Plumes, prepared by Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, Calif., for 

19 Seismic Steering Committee.

20

21 Greene, C.R., Jr., 1987, ―Characteristics of Oil Industry Dredge and Drilling Sounds in the 

22 Beaufort Sea,‖ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 82(4):1315–1324.

23

24 Greene, C.R., Jr., 1995, ―Ambient Noise,‖ Chapter 5 in Marine Mammals and Noise,

25 Richardson et al., Academic Press, San Diego, Calif.

26

27 Greene, C.R., Jr., and S.E. Moore, 1995, ―Man-Made Noise,‖ Chapter 6 in Marine Mammals and 

28 Noise, Richardson et al., Academic Press, San Diego, Calif.

29

30 Greene, C.R., Jr., and W.J. Richardson, 1988, ―Characteristics of Marine Seismic Survey Sounds 

31 in the Beaufort Sea,‖ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 83(6):2246–2254.

32

33 Gregor, D.J., and W.D. Gummer, 1989, ―Evidence of Atmospheric Transport and Deposition of 

34 Organochlorine Pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Canadian Arctic Snow,‖ 

35 Environmental Science and Technology 23(5):561–565.

36

37 Groot, C., and L. Margolis, 1991, Pacific Salmon Life Histories, UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C.

38

39 GSMFC, 2006, The Striped Bass Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States: A Regional 

40 Management Plan, Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Ocean Springs, Miss.

41

42 Gualtieri, J.F., L. DeBoer, C.R. Harris, and R. Corley, 2003, ―Repeated Ingestion of 2-

43 Butoxyethanol: Case Report and Literature Review,‖ Journal of Toxicology, Clinical 

44 Toxicology 41: 57–62.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-437

1 Hagemoen, R.I.M., and E. Reimers, 2002, ―Reindeer Summer Activity Pattern in Relation to 

2 Weather and Insect Harassment,‖ Journal of Animal Ecology 71:883–892.

3

4 Hagstrom, A., F. Azam, A. Andersson, J. Wikner, and F. Rassoulzadegan, 1988, ―Microbial 

5 Loop in an Oligotrophic Pelagic Marine Ecosystem: Possible Roles of Cyanobacteria and 

6 Nanoflagellates in the Organic Fluxes,‖ Marine Ecology Progress Series 49:171–178.

7

8 Hall, J.D., M.L. Gallagher, K.D. Brewer, P.R. Regos, and P.E. Isert, 1994, 1993 Kuvlum

9 Exploration Area Site Specific Monitoring Program, final report, prepared by Coastal & 

10 Offshore Pacific Corp., Walnut Creek, Calif., for ARCO Alaska Inc., Anchorage, Alaska.

11

12 Hammarstrom, L.F., and E.G. Ford, 2010, 2009 Lower Cook Inlet Annual Finfish Management 

13 Report, Fishery Management Report No. 10-17, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

14 Anchorage.

15

16 Hammill, M.O., and T.G. Smith, 1991, ―The Role of Predation in the Ecology of the Ringed Seal 

17 in Barrow Strait, Northwest Territories, Canada,‖ Marine Mammal Science 7:123–135. 

18

19 Hancock, D., 1965, ―Killer Whales Kill and Eat a Minke Whale,‖ Journal of Mammalogy

20 46:341–342.

21

22 Harding, L.E., 1976, ―Den-Site Characteristics of Arctic Coastal Grizzly Bears (Ursus arctos) on 

23 Richards Island, Northwest Territories, Canada,‖ Canadian Journal of Zoology 54:1357–1363. 

24

25 Harington, C.R., 1968, Denning Habits of the Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) Phipps, Canadian 

26 Wildlife Service Report, Series 5. 

27

28 Harper, J., S. Saupe, and M. Morris, 2004, ―A Shore Zone Mapping Protocol for Use in Mapping 

29 Regional Variations of Nearshore Habitat along the Gulf of Alaska Coast,‖ in 2004 Symposium, 

30 Marine Science in Alaska (Abstracts),, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, Anchorage, 

31 Alaska.

32

33 Hashagen, K.A., G.A. Green, and B. Adams, 2009, ―Observations of Humpback Whales, 

34 Megaptera novaeangliae, in the Beaufort Sea, Alaska,‖ Northwestern Naturalist 90(2):160–162.

35

36 Hasselbach, L., J. Ver Hoef, J. Ford, P. Neitlich, E. Crecelius, S. Berryman, B. Wolk, and 

37 T. Bohle, 2005, Spatial Patterns of Cadmium and Lead Deposition on and Adjacent to National 

38 Park Service Lands near Red Dog Mine, Alaska, NPS Final Report. Available at 

39 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/natlpark/12. Accessed January 20, 2011.

40

41 Hatch, L.T., and A.J. Wright, 2007, ―A Brief Review of Anthropogenic Sound in the Oceans,‖

42 International Journal of Comparative Psychology 20:121–133. Available at 

43 http://comparativepsychology.org/ijcp-vol20-2-3-2007/04.Hatch&Wright_PDF.pdf. Accessed 

44 April 19, 2011.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-438

1 Hatch, S.A., and D.N. Nettleship, 1998, ―Northern Fulmar (Fulmaris glacialis),‖ Issue 361, The 

2 Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.), Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. 

3 Available at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/361. Accessed August 18, 2011.

4

5 Hatch, S.A., P.M. Meyers, D.M. Mulcahy, and D.C. Douglas, 2000, ―Seasonal Movements and 

6 Pelagic Habitat Use of Murres and Puffins Determined by Satellite Telemetry,‖ Condor

7 102:145–154.

8

9 Haubold, E.M., C. Deutsch, and C. Fonnesbeck, 2006, ―Final Biological Status Review of the 

10 Florida Manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris),‖ Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

11 Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, St. Petersburg, Fla., April. Available at 

12 http://www.fwc.state.fl.us/media/201862/finalreport_3230.pdf. Accessed September 9, 2009.

13

14 Hawkes, L.A., A.C. Broderick, M.H. Godfrey, and B.J. Godley, 2009, ―Climate Change and 

15 Marine Turtles,‖ Endangered Species Research 7:137–154.

16

17 Hazard, K., 1988, ―Beluga Whale, Delphinapterus leucas,‖ in Selected Marine Mammals of 

18 Alaska: Species Accounts with Research and Management Recommendations, in J.W. Lentfer 

19 (ed.), Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C. 

20

21 Hazen, T.C., et al., 2010, ―Deep-Sea Oil Plume Enriches Indigenous Oil-Degrading Bacteria,‖ 

22 Science 330:204–208. 

23

24 Heard, D.C., and T.M. Williams, 1992, ―Distribution of Wolf Dens on Migratory Caribou 

25 Ranges in the Northwest Territories,‖ Canadian Journal of Zoology 70(8):1504–1510. 

26

27 Hecker, B., 1985, ―Fauna from a Cold Sulfur-Seep in the Gulf of Mexico: Comparison with 

28 Hydrothermal Vent Communities and Evolutionary Implications,‖ in Hydrothermal Events of the 

29 Eastern Pacific: An Overview, M.L. Jones (ed.), Bulletin of the Biological Society of 

30 Washington 6:465–473. 

31

32 Heileman, S., and I. Bekin, 2009, ―XI-31 Chukchi Sea: LME #54,‖ LME Briefs. Available at 

33 http://www.lme.noaa.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=100:lme54&catid=

34 41:briefs&Itemid=72. Accessed January 28, 2011.

35

36 Heileman, S., and N. Rabalais, 2009, ―XV-50 Gulf of Mexico: LME #5,‖ LME Briefs. 

37 Available at http://www.lme.noaa.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=

38 51:lme5&catid=41:briefs&Itemid=72. Accessed January 28, 2011.

39

40 Heimlich-Boran, J.R., 1988, ―Behavioral Ecology of the Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) in the 

41 Pacific Northwest,‖ Canadian Journal of Zoology 66:565–578. 

42

43 Hemmerling, S.A., and C.E. Colton, 2004, Environmental Justice Considerations in Lafourche 

44 Parish, Louisiana, OCS Study MMS 2003-038, prepared by Louisiana State University Coastal 

45 Studies Institute, Baton Rouge, La., for MMS, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La., 

46 Jan.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-439

1 Hemming, J.E., 1971, The Distribution and Movement Patterns of Caribou in Alaska, Federal 

2 Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project W-17-R, Wildlife Technical Bulletin No. 1, Alaska 

3 Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Juneau, Alaska. 

4

5 Hennick, D.P., 1973, Sea Scallop, Patinopectin caurinus, Investigations in Alaska, Completion 

6 Report 5-23-R, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, 

7 Juneau, Alaska.

8

9 Henry, J.M., and C.L. Bankston, III, 2002, Blue Collar Bayou: Louisiana Cajuns in the New 

10 Economy of Ethnicity, Praeger, Westport, Conn.

11

12 Henshaw, J., 1968, ―The Activities of the Wintering Caribou in Northwestern Alaska in Relation 

13 to Weather and Snow Conditions,‖ International Journal of Biometeorology 12:18–24. 

14

15 Hersteinsson, P., and D.W. Macdonald, 1992, ―Interspecific Competition and the Geographical 

16 Distribution of Red and Arctic Foxes Vulpes vulpes and Alopex lagopus,‖ Oikos 64:505-515.

17

18 Hester, K.C., E.T. Peltzer, W.J. Kirkwood, and P.G. Brewer, 2008, ―Unanticipated 

19 Consequences of Ocean Acidification: A Noisier Ocean at Lower pH,‖ Geophys. Res. 

20 Lett. 35:L19601, doi:10.1029/2008GL034913. Available at http://iod.ucsd.edu/courses/

21 sio278/documents/hester_et_al_08_ocean_noisier_pH_jrl.pdf. Accessed May 4, 2011.

22

23 Heyland, J.D., and K. Hay, 1976, ―An Attack by a Polar Bear on a Juvenile Beluga,‖ 

24 Arctic 29:56–57.

25

26 Heyning, J.E., 1989, ―Cuvier‘s Beaked Whale — Ziphius cavirostris (G. Cuvier, 1823),‖ 

27 pp. 289–308 in Handbook of Marine Mammals: River Dolphins and the Larger Toothed Whales,

28 S.H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds.), Academic Press, New York.

29

30 Hiatt, T., M. Dalton, R. Felthoven, B. Fissel, B. Garber-Yonts, A. Haynie, S. Kasperski, D. Lew, 

31 C. Package, J. Sepez and C. Seung, 2010, Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report of 

32 the Groundfish Fisheries of the Gulf of Alaska and Bearing Sea/Aleutian Islands Area: 

33 Economic Status of the Groundfish Fisheries of Alaska, 2009. Available at 

34 http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/refm/docs/2010/economic.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2011.

35

36 Hickerson, E.L., G.P. Schmahl, M. Robbart, W.F. Precht, and C. Caldow, 2008, ―The State of 

37 Coral Reef Ecosystems of the Flower Garden Banks, Stetson Bank, and Other Banks in the 

38 Northwestern Gulf of Mexico,‖ in The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and 

39 Pacific Freely Associated States: 2008, Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 73, J.E. Waddell 

40 and A.M. Clarke (eds.), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Centers for 

41 Coastal Ocean Science, Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment, Silver Spring, Md. 

42
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-440

1 Hiett, R.L., and J.W. Milon, 2001, Economic Impact of Recreational Fishing and Diving 

2 Associated with Offshore Oil and Gas Structures in the Gulf of Mexico, Final Report, OCS Study 

3 MMS 2002-010, prepared by QuanTech, Inc. for the Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

4 Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La. Available at http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PI/PDFImages/

5 ESPIS/2/3058.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2011.

6

7 Highsmith, R.C., S.M. Saupe, and A.L. Blanchard, 2001, Kachemak Bay Experimental and 

8 Monitoring Studies: Recruitment, Succession, and Recovery in Seasonally Disturbed Rocky9 Intertidal Habitat, OCS Study MMS 2001-053, MMS, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, Alaska.

10

11 Hildebrand, J.A., 2009, ―Anthropogenic and natural sources of ambient noise in the ocean,‖ 

12 Marine Ecology Progress Series 395:5-20.

13

14 Hinzman, L.D., N.D. Bettez, W.R. Bolton, F.S. Chapin, M.B. Dyurgerov, C.L. Fastie, 

15 B. Griffith, R.D. Hollister, A. Hope, H.P. Huntington, A.M. Jensen, G.J. Jia, R. Jorgenson, 

16 D.L. Kane, D.R. Klein, G. Kofinas, A.H. Lynch, A.H. Lloyd, A.D. McGuire, F.E. Nelson, 

17 W.C. Oechel, T.E. Osterkamp, C.H. Racine, V.E. Romanovsky, R.S. Stone, D.A. Stow, 

18 M. Sturm, C.E. Tweedie, G.L. Vourlitis, M.D. Walker, D.A. Walker, P.J. Webber, J.M. Welker, 

19 K.S. Winker, and K. Yoshikawa, 2005, ―Evidence and Implications of Recent Climate Change in 

20 Northern Alaska and Other Arctic Regions, Climatic Change 72:251–298

21

22 Hirth, H.H., 1997, Synopsis of Biological Data on the Green Turtle, Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus, 

23 1758), Report to the USFWS, Washington, D.C., Biological Report 97(1). 120 p.

24

25 Hoegh-Guldberg, O., P.J. Mumby, R.S. Hooten, A.J. Steneck, P. Greenfield, E. Gomez, 

26 C.D. Harvell, P.F. Sale, A.J. Edwards, K. Caldeira, N. Knowlton, C.M. Eakin, R. Iglesias-Prieto, 

27 N. Muthiga, R.H. Bradbury, A. Dubi, and M.E. Hatziolos, 2007, ―Coral Reefs under Rapid 

28 Climate Change and Ocean Acidification,‖ Science 318:1737. 

29

30 Holler, N.R., D.W. Mason, R.M. Dawson, T. Simons, and M.C. Wooten, 1989, ―Reestablishment 

31 of the Perdido Key Beach Mouse (Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis) on Gulf Islands National 

32 Seashore,‖ Conservation Biology 3:397–403. 

33

34 Holliday, D.V., W.C. Cummings, and B.J. Lee, 1984, Acoustic and Vibration Measurements 

35 Related to Possible Disturbance of Ringed Seals, Phoca hispida, T-84-06-001-U. Rep. from 

36 Tracor Applied Sciences, San Diego, Calif., for Outer Continental Shelf Environmental 

37 Assessment Program, NOAA, Juneau, Alaska.

38

39 Holzworth, G.C., 1972, Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds, and Potential for Urban Air Pollution 

40 throughout the Contiguous United States, Publication No. AP-101, U.S. Environmental 

41 Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, N.C., Jan.

42

43 Hom, W., et al., 1999, ―Measuring the Exposure of Subsistence Fish and Marine Mammal 

44 Species to Aromatic Compounds following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill,‖ in Evaluating and 

45 Communicating Subsistence Seafood Safety in a Cross-Cultural Context, L.J. Field, J.A. Fall, 

46 T.S. Nighswander, N. Peacock, and U. Varanasi (eds), SETAC Press, Pensacola, Fla.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-441

1 Hopcroft, R., B. Bluhm, and R. Gradinger, 2008, Arctic Ocean Synthesis: Analysis of Climate 

2 Change Impacts in the Chukhi and Beaufort Seas with Strategies for Future Research, Institute 

3 of Marine Sciences, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska.

4

5 Hopkins, T.L., T.T. Sutton, and T.M. Lancraft, 1997, ―The Trophic Structure and Predation 

6 Impact of a Low Latitude Midwater Fish Assemblage,‖ Prog. Oceanogr. 38:205–239.

7

8 Houck, W.J., and T.A. Jefferson, 1999, ―Dall‘s Porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli),‖ pp. 443–472 in 

9 Handbook of Marine Mammals, Vol. 6: The Second Book of Dolphins and Porpoises,

10 S.H. Ridgeway and R. Harrison (eds.), Academic Press, San Diego, Calif. 

11

12 Houghton, J.P., D.A. Segar, and J.E. Zeh, 1984, Beaufort Sea Monitoring Program: 

13 Proceedings of a Workshop (September 1983) and Sampling Design Recommendations, prepared 

14 for the Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program, Juneau, Alaska, by 

15 USDOC, Anchorage, Alaska.

16

17 Howard, Z., 2011, ―Climate Change Raising Tick Threat for Northern Moose: Officials,‖ 

18 Reuters June 18, 2011. Available at http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/18/us-moose-ticks19 idUSTRE75H1UJ20110618. Accessed September 7, 2011.

20

21 Hubbard, H.H. (ed.), 1995, Aeroacoustics of Flight Vehicles, Theory and Practice, Vol. 1, Noise 

22 Sources, Acoustical Society of America, Woodbury, N.Y.

23

24 Huff, J.A., 1975, ―Life History of Gulf of Mexico Sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi, in 

25 Suwannee River, Florida,‖ Florida Marine Research Publications 16:1–32.

26

27 Hulbert, E.M., and N. Corwin, 1972, ―A Note on the Phytoplankton Distribution in the Offshore 

28 Water of the Eastern and Central Gulf of Mexico,‖ Caribbean Journal of Science 12:29–38.

29

30 Hummell, R.L., 1990, Main Pass and the Ebb-Tidal Delta of Mobile Bay, Alabama. Circular 

31 146. Geological Survey of Alabama, Energy and Coastal Geology Division.

32

33 Hung, C.-C., C. Xu, P.H. Santschi, S.-J. Zhang, K. A. Schwehr, A. Quigg, L. Guo, G.-C. Gong, 

34 J.L. Pinckney, R.A. Long, and C.-L. Wei, 2010, ―Comparative Evaluation of Sediment Trap and 

35 234Th-derived POC Fluxes from the Upper Oligotrophic Waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the 

36 Subtropical Northwestern Pacific Ocean,‖ Mar. Chem. 121:132–144.

37

38 Iken, K., 2009, ―Monitoring the Boulder Patch: Biodiversity Assessments,‖ in Long-Term 

39 Monitoring of the Kelp Community in the Stefansson Sound Boulder Patch: Detection of 

40 Change Related to Oil and Gas Development, OCS Study MMS 2009-040, cANIMIDA Final 

41 Report: Summers 2004–2007.

42

43 Impact Assessment, Inc., 2001, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, Cleanup and Litigation: A Collection 

44 of Social-Impact Information and Analysis, OCS Study MMS 2001-058, MMS, Alaska OCS 

45 Region, Anchorage, Alaska.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-442

1 Incze, L.S., D.W. Siefert, and J.M. Napp, 1997, ―Mesozooplankton of Shelikof Strait, Alaska: 

2 Abundance and Community Composition,‖ Continental Shelf Research 17:287–305.

3

4 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2002, Climate Change and Biodiversity,

5 IPCC Technical Paper V, H.Gitay, A. Suarez, D.J. Dokken, and R.T. Watson (eds).

6

7 IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change), 2007a, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, 

8 Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

9 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and 

10 A. Reisinger (eds.), Geneva, Switzerland.

11

12 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2007b, Climate Change 2007: The 

13 Physical Science Basis, contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

14 IPCC, S. Solomon et al. (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. 

15

16 Irvine, J.R., R.W. Macdonald, R.J. Brown, L. Godbout, J.D. Reist, and E.C. Carmack, 2009, 

17 ―Salmon in the Arctic and How They Avoid Lethal Low Temperatures,‖ North Pacific 

18 Anadromous Fish Commission Bulletin No. 5:39–50.

19

20 Jacob, D.J., and D.A. Winner, 2009, ―Effect of climate change on air quality,‖ Atmospheric 

21 Environment 43(2009):51–63.

22

23 Jameson, R.J., and A.M. Johnson, 1993, ―Reproductive Characteristics of Female Sea Otters,‖ 

24 Marine Mammal Science 9:156–167.

25

26 Janetos, A., L. Hansen, D. Inouye, B.P. Kelly, L. Meyerson, B. Peterson, and R. Shaw, 2008, 

27 ―Biodiversity,‖ in The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water 

28 Resources, and Biodiversity, A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the 

29 Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Washington, D.C. 

30

31 Jefferson, T.A., 1988, ―Phocoenoides dalli,‖ Mammalian Species 319:1–7.

32

33 Jefferson, T.A., and N.B. Barros, 1997, ―Peponocephala electra,‖ Mammalian Species 553:1–6.

34

35 Jefferson, T.A., and B.E. Curry, 2003, ―Stenella clymene,‖ Mammalian Species 726:1–5.

36

37 Jefferson, T.A., and A.J. Schiro, 1997, ―Distributions of Cetaceans in the Offshore Gulf of 

38 Mexico,‖ Mammal Review 27(1):27–50. 

39

40 Jefferson, T.A., D.K. Odell, and K.T. Prunier, 1995, ―Notes on the Biology of the Clymene 

41 Dolphin (Stenella clymene) in the Northern Gulf of Mexico,‖ Marine Mammal 

42 Science 11(4):564–573.

43

44 Jefferson, T.A., S. Leatherwood, and M.A. Webber, 2006, Marine Mammals of the World, 

45 ETI — Projects in the World Biodiversity Database. Available at http://nlbif.eti.uva.nl/bis/

46 marine_mammals.php?menuentry=inleiding. Accessed March 15, 2011.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-443

1 Jochens, A.E., S.F. DiMarco, W.D. Nowlin, Jr., R.O. Reid, and M.C. Kennicutt II, 2002, 

2 Northeastern Gulf of Mexico Chemical Oceanography and Hydrography Study: Synthesis 

3 Report, OCS Study MMS 2002-005, MMS, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La.

4

5 Jochens, A.E., L.C. Bender, S.F. DiMarco, J.W. Morse, M.C. Kennicutt II, M.K. Howard, and 

6 W.D. Nowlin, Jr., 2005, Understanding the Processes that Maintain the Oxygen Levels in the 

7 Deep Gulf of Mexico: Synthesis Report, OCS Study MMS 2005-032, MMS, Gulf of Mexico 

8 OCS Region, New Orleans, La.

9

10 Jochens, A., D. Biggs, K. Benoit-Bird, D. Engelhaupt, J. Gordon, C. Hu, N. Jaquet, M. Johnson, 

11 R. Leben, B. Mate, P. Miller, J. Ortega-Ortiz, A. Thode, P. Tyack, and B. Würsig, 2008, Sperm 

12 Whale Seismic Study in the Gulf of Mexico: Synthesis Report, OCS Study MMS 2008-006, 

13 Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region, New Orleans, 

14 La. 

15

16 Johnson, J.H., and A.A. Wolman, 1984, ―The Humpback Whale, Megaptera novaeangliae,‖ 

17 Marine Fisheries Review 46(4):300–337.

18

19 Johnson, L., 2008, Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series: Black Bear, Alaska Department of Fish and 

20 Game, Juneau, Alaska. Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/education/wns/

21 black_bear.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2011.

22

23 Johnson, S.R., 1979, ―Fall Observations of Westward Migrating White Whales (Delphinapterus 

24 leucas) along the Central Alaskan Beaufort Sea Coast,‖ Arctic 32(3):275–276. 

25

26 Johnson, S.R., 1993, ―An Important Early-Autumn Staging Area for Pacific Flyway Brant: 

27 Kasegaluk Lagoon, Chukchi Sea, Alaska,‖ Journal of Field Ornithology 64(4):539–548.

28

29 Johnson, S.R., and D.R. Herter, 1989, The Birds of the Beaufort Sea, BP Exploration (Alaska) 

30 Inc., Anchorage, Alaska.

31

32 Johnston, J., 2003, 100+ Years of Land Change for Coastal Louisiana. Presentation by 

33 J. Johnston, U.S. Geological Survey, Society of Environmental Journalists Annual Meeting, 

34 New Orleans, Louisiana, September 11, 2003.

35

36 Johnston, K.M., and O.J. Schmitz, 1997, ―Wildlife and Climate Change: Assessing the 

37 Sensitivity of Selected Species to Simulated Doubling of Atmospheric CO2,‖ Global Change 

38 Biology 3:531-544.

39

40 Johnston, R.C., and B. Cain, 1981, ―Marine Seismic Energy Sources: Acoustic Performance 

41 Comparison,‖ presented at 102nd Meet. Acoust. Soc. Am., Miami Beach, Fla., Dec.

42

43 Jones, I.L., 1993a, ―Least Auklet (Aethia pusilla),‖ Issue 069, The Birds of North America 

44 Online (A. Poole, ed.), Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available at 

45 http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/069/articles/introduction. Accessed August 18, 2011.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-444

1 Jones, I.L., 1993b, ―Crested Auklet (Aethia cristatella), Issue 070, The Birds of North America 

2 Online (A. Poole, ed.), Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available at 

3 http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/070. Accessed August 18, 2011.

4

5 Jones, I.L., N.B. Konyukhov, J.C. Williams, and G.V. Byrd, 2001, ―Parakeet Auklet (Aethia 

6 psittacula),‖ Issue 594, The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.), Cornell Lab of 

7 Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/594. 

8 Accessed August 18, 2011.

9

10 Jorgenson, M.T., and J. Brown, 2005, ―Classification of the Alaskan Beaufort Sea Coast 

11 and Estimation of Carbon and Sediment Inputs from Coastal Erosion,‖ Geo-Marine 

12 Letters 25:69–80.

13

14 Joyce, C., 2009, ―When Rain Falls on Snow, Arctic Animals May Starve,‖ NPR News July 28, 

15 2009. Available at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111109436. Accessed 

16 September 7, 2011.

17

18 Justic, D., N.N. Rabalais, and R.E. Turner, 1996, ―Effects of Climate Change on Hypoxia in 

19 Coastal Waters: A Doubled CO2 Scenario for the Northern Gulf of Mexico,‖ Limnology and 

20 Oceanography 41:992–1003.

21

22 Kajimura, H., and T.R. Loughlin, 1988, ―Marine Mammals in the Oceanic Food Web of the 

23 Eastern Subarctic Pacific,‖ Bull. of the Ocean Res. Inst. Univ. of Tokyo 26(II):187–223.

24

25 Karl, T.R., J.M. Melilo, and T.C. Peterson (eds.), 2009, Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

26 United States, U.S. Global Change Research Program, Cambridge University Press, New 

27 York, N.Y.

28

29 Kavalok, T., 2007, ―Unit 16 Brown Bear Management Report,‖ in Brown Bear Management 

30 Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2004–30 June 2006, P. Harper (ed.), Alaska 

31 Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska.

32

33 Kawamura, A., 1980, ―A Review of Food of Balaenopterid Whales,‖ pp. 155–197 in Scientific 

34 Reports of the Whale Research Institute 32, Whales Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan. 

35

36 Kellett, D.K., and R.T. Alisauskas, 1997, ―Breeding Biology of King Eiders Nesting on Karrak 

37 Lake, Northwest Territories,‖ Arctic 50(1):47–54.

38

39 Kelly, B.P., 1988a, ―Ribbon Seal, Phoca fasciata,‖ pp. 96–106 in Selected Marine Mammals of 

40 Alaska: Species Accounts with Research and Management Recommendations, J.W. Lentfer 

41 (ed.), Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C. 

42

43 Kelly, B.P., 1988b, ―Ringed Seal, Phoca hispida,‖ pp. 57–77 in Selected Marine Mammals of 

44 Alaska: Species Accounts with Research and Management Recommendations, J.W. Lentfer 

45 (ed.), Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C. 

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-445

1 Kelly, B.P., 2001, ―Climate Change and Ice Breeding Pinnipeds,‖ In: Walther, G.-R., 

2 C.A. Burga, and P.J. Edwards (eds.), ―Fingerprints‖ of Climate Change – Adapted Behaviour 

3 and Shifting Species Ranges, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp. 43–55.

4

5 Kelly, B.P., O.H. Badajos, M. Kunnasranta, J.R. Moran, M. Martinez-Bakker, D. Wartzok, and 

6 P. Boveng, 2010a, ―Seasonal Home Ranges and Fidelity to Breeding Sites among Ringed Seals,‖ 

7 Polar Biology 33(8):1095–1109.

8

9 Kelly, B.P., J.L. Bengtson, P.L. Boveng, M.F. Cameron, S.P. Dahle, J.K. Jansen, 

10 E.A. Logerwell, J.E. Overland, C.L. Sabine, G.T. Waring, and J.M. Wilder, 2010b, Status 

11 Review of the Ringed Seal (Phoca hispida), NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-212, 

12 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska 

13 Fisheries Center, Seattle, Wash., Dec. Available at http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/publications/

14 AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-212.pdf. Accessed April 17, 2011.

15

16 Kenaitze Indian Tribe, 2011, Introduction to Kenaitze Indian Tribe‘s Cultural & Educational 

17 Fishery, Sovereign Nation of the Kenaitze, Kenai, Alaska. Available at http://www.kenaitze.org/

18 tribal/fishery/index.html. Accessed June 17, 2011.

19

20 Kendall, A.W., J.D. Schumacher, and S. Kim, 1996, ―Walleye Pollock Recruitment in Shelikof 

21 Strait: Applied Fisheries Oceanography,‖ Fisheries Oceanography 5:4–18.

22

23 Kessler, R.C., S. Galea, M.J. Gruber, N.A. Sampson, R.J. Ursano, and S. Wessely, 2008, ―Trends 

24 in Mental Illness and Suicidality after Hurricane Katrina,‖ Molecular Psychiatry 13: 374–384.

25

26 Kessler, J.D., D.L. Valentine, M.C. Redmond, M. Du, E.W. Chan, S.D. Mendes, E.W. Quiroz, 

27 C.J. Villanueva, S.S. Shusta, L.M. Werra, S.A. Yvon-Lewis, and T.C. Weber, 2011, 

28 ―A Persistent Oxygen Anomaly Reveals the Fate of Spilled Methane in the Deep Gulf of 

29 Mexico,‖ Science 331(6015):312–315.

30

31 Kinkhart, E., K. Pitcher, and G. Blundell, 2008, Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series: Harbor Seal, 

32 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/

33 static/education/wns/harbor_seal.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2011.

34

35 Kinney, P.J., J. Groves, and D.K. Button, 1970, Cook Inlet Environmental Data, R/V Acona 

36 Cruise 065, May 21–28, 1968, Report No. R-70-2, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, 

37 Alaska.

38

39 Kollewe, J., 2010, BP Oil Spill Cost Hits Nearly $10bn. Available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/

40 environment/2010/sep/20/bp-oil-spill-deepwater-horizon-costs-10bn. Accessed July 15, 2011.

41

42 Konar, B., 2007, ―Recolonization of a High Latitude Hard Bottom Nearshore Community,‖

43 Polar Biology 30:663–667.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-446

1 Kondzela, C., M. Garvin, R. Riley, J. Murphy, J. Moss, S. A. Fuller, and A. Gharrett, 2009, 

2 Preliminary Genetic Analysis of Juvenile Chum Salmon from the Chukchi Sea and Bering Strait, 

3 North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Bulletin No. 5: 25-27.

4

5 Koski, W.R., R.A. Davis, G.W. Miller, and D.E. Withrow, 1993, ―Reproduction,‖ pp. 239–274 

6 in The Bowhead Whale, Special Publication, J.J. Burns et al. (eds.), The Society for Marine 

7 Mammalogy, Lawrence, Kansas. 

8

9 Kovacs, K.M., C. Lydersen, and I. Gjertz, 1996, ―Birth-Site Characteristics and Prenatal Molting 

10 of Bearded Seals (Erignathus barbatus),‖ Journal of Mammalogy 77(4):1085–1091.

11

12 Kovacs, K.M., C. Lydersen, J.E. Overland, and S.E. Moore, 2011, ―Impacts of Changing Sea-ice 

13 Conditions on Arctic Marine Mammals,‖ Marine Biodiversity 28:181–194.

14

15 Krishnamurti, T.N., C.M. Kishtawal, Z. Zhang, T. LaRow, D. Bachiochi, E. Williford, S. Gadgil, 

16 and S. Surendran, 2000, ―Multimodel Ensemble Forecasts for Weather and Seasonal Climate,‖ 

17 Journal of Climate 13:4196–4216.

18

19 Kronenberg, M.E., T.C. Hansel, A.M. Brennan, H.J. Osofsky, J.D. Osofsky, and B. Lawrason, 

20 2010, ―Children of Katrina: Lessons Learned about Postdisaster Symptoms and Recovery 

21 Patterns,‖ Child Development 81: 1241–1259.

22

23 Kujawinski, E.B., M.C. Kido Soule, D.L. Valentine, A.K. Boysen, K. Longnecker, and 

24 M.C. Redmond, 2011, ―Fate of Dispersants Associated with the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill,‖ 

25 Environmental Science and Technology 45:1298–1306.

26

27 Kvenvolden, K.A., and C.K. Cooper, 2003, ―Natural Seepage of Crude Oil into the Marine 

28 Environment,‖ Geo-Marine Letters 23:140–146.

29

30 Kvitek, R.G., C.E. Bowlby, and M. Staedler, 1993, ―Diet and Foraging Behavior of Sea Otters in 

31 Southeast Alaska,‖ Marine Mammal Science 9(2):168–181.

32

33 Kwok, R., and G.F. Cunningham, 2010, ―Contribution of Melt in the Beaufort Sea to the Decline 

34 in Arctic Multiyear Sea Ice Coverage: 1993-2009,‖ Geophysical Research Letters

35 37(20):L20501.

36

37 Kwok, R., and G.F. Cunningham, 2011, ―Deformation of the Arctic Ocean Ice Cover after the 

38 2007 Record Minimum in Summer Ice Extent,‖ in Cold Regions Science and Technology, in 

39 press, doi: 10.1016/j.coldregions.2011.04.003.

40

41 Kwok, R., G. F. Cunningham, M. Wensnahan, I. Rigor, H. J. Zwally, and D. Yi, 2009, ―Thinning 

42 and Volume Loss of Arctic Sea Ice: 2003-2008,‖ Journal of Geophysical Research.

43

44 LA 1 Coalition, 2011, ―Studies Show Existing LA 1 under Water by 2050,‖ In One to One: An 

45 Update on the Efforts of the LA 1 Coalition, Spring/Summer 2011.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-447

1 Lackmann, G.M., 1988, ―Evaluation of the Rossby Radius for Offshore-Directed Flow Near a 

2 Mountainous Coast,‖ in Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Meteorology and 

3 Oceanography of the Coastal Zone, Anaheim, Calif., Jan. 3–5.

4

5 Laidre, K.L., K.E.W. Shelden, D.J. Rugh, and B.A. Mahoney, 2000, ―Beluga, Delphinapterus 

6 leucas, Distribution and Survey Effort in the Gulf of Alaska,‖ Marine Fisheries 

7 Review 62(3):27–36.

8

9 Laidre, K.L., I. Stirling, L.F. Lowry, Ø. Wiig, M.P. Heide-Jørgensen, and S.H. Ferguson, 2008, 

10 ―Quantifying the Sensitivity of Arctic Marine Mammals to Climate-induced Habitat Change,‖ 

11 Ecological Applications 18(2):S97–S125.

12

13 Laist, D.W., and J.E. Reynolds, III, 2005, ―Florida Manatees, Warm-Water Refuges, and an 

14 Uncertain Future,‖ Coastal Management 33:279–295.

15

16 Lan, Q., et al., 2004, ―Hematotoxicity in Workers Exposed to Low Levels of Benzene,‖ 

17 Science 306: 1774–1776.

18

19 Larned, W.W., 2006, Winter Distribution and Abundance of Steller‘s Eiders (Polysticta stelleri) 

20 in Cook Inlet, Alaska 2004–2005, OCS Study MMS 2006-066. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

21 Minerals Management Service, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region, Anchorage, AK.

22

23 Larned, W.W., R. Stehn, and R. Platte, 2006, Eider Breeding Population Survey Arctic Coast 

24 Plain, Alaska 2006, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Available at 

25 http://alaska.fws.gov/mbsp/mbm/waterfowl/surveys/pdf/nse2006rpt.pdf. Accessed August 18, 

26 2011.

27

28 Larsen, D.N., 1984, ―Feeding Habits of River Otters in Coastal Southeastern Alaska,‖ Journal 

29 Wildlife Management 48:1446–1452. 

30

31 LATT (Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas), 2009, State Recognition of the Lipan Apache 

32 Tribe of Texas, Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas, Corpus Christi, Texas. Available at 

33 http://www.lipanapache.org/StateRecognition/StateRecognitionEvent.html. Accessed 

34 March 2, 2011.

35

36 Law, K.S., and A. Stohl, 2007, ―Arctic Air Pollution: Origins and Impacts,‖ 

37 Science 315:1537–1540.

38

39 Lawhead, B.E., 1997, ―Caribou and Oil Development in Northern Alaska: Lessons from the 

40 Central Arctic Herd,‖ in NPR — A Symposium Proceedings, Science, Traditional Knowledge, 

41 and the Resources of the Northeast Planning Area of the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska, 

42 Anchorage, Alaska, April 16–18, 1997, OCS Study MMS 97-0013, D. Yokel (ed), Minerals 

43 Management Service, and Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska. 

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-448

1 LCWCRTF (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force), 1998,

2 Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Natural 

3 Resources, Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the 

4 Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority, Baton Rouge, LA.

5

6 LCWCRTF, 2001, The 2000 Evaluation Report to the U.S. Congress on the Effectiveness of 

7 Louisiana Coastal Wetland Restoration Projects. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, 

8 Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

9

10 LCWCRTF, 2003, The 2003 Evaluation Report to the U.S. Congress on the Effectiveness of 

11 Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act Projects. Louisiana Department of 

12 Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

13

14 Learmonth, J.A., C.D. MacLeod, M.B. Santos, G.J. Pierce, H.Q.P. Crick, and R.A. Robinson, 

15 2006, ―Potential Effects of Climate Change on Marine Mammals,‖ Oceanography and Marine 

16 Biology: An Annual Review 44:431–464.

17

18 Leatherwood, S., and R.R. Reeves, 1987, The Sea World Book of Dolphins, Harcourt Brace 

19 Jovanovich, San Diego, Calif. 

20

21 Leatherwood, S., R.R. Reeves, W.F. Perrin, and W.E. Evans, 1982, Whales, Dolphins and 

22 Porpoises of the Eastern North Pacific and Adjacent Arctic Waters: Guide to Their 

23 Identification, NOAA Technical Report, NMFS Circular 444, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

24 Juneau, Alaska.

25

26 LeDuc, R., W.L. Perryman, J.W. Gilpatrick, Jr., J. Hyde, C. Stinchcomb, J.V. Carretta, and 

27 R.L. Brownell, Jr., 2001, ―A Note on Recent Surveys for Right Whales in the Southeastern 

28 Bering Sea,‖ Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, Special Issue 2:287–289. 

29

30 Leikauf, G.D., 2002, ―Hazardous Air Pollutants and Asthma,‖ Environmental Health 

31 Perspectives 110, Suppl: 505–526.

32

33 Lemke, P., J. Ren, R.B. Alley, I. Allison, J. Carrasco, G. Flato, Y. Fujii, G. Kaser, P. Mote, 

34 R.H. Thomas, and T. Zhang, 2007, ―Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground,‖

35 in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the 

36 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, S. Solomon et al.

37 (eds.), Cambridge University Press, New York, N.Y.

38

39 LeMone, M.A., 1978, ―The Marine Boundary Layer,‖ pp.182–234 in Proceedings of Workshop 

40 on the Planetary Boundary Layer, American Meteorological Society.

41

42 Lenart, E.A., 2009a, ―Units 26B and 26C Caribou,‖ pp. 299–325 in Caribou Management, 

43 Report of Survey and Inventory Activities, 1 July 2006–30 June 2008, Project 3.0, P. Harper 

44 (ed.), Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. 

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-449

1 Lenart, E.A., R.T. Bowyer, J. Ver Hoef, and R.W. Ruess, 2002, ―Climate Change and Caribou: 

2 Effects of Summer Weather on Forage,‖ Canadian Journal of Zoology 80:664–678.

3

4 Lenart, E.A., 2009b, ―Units 26B and 26C Muskox,‖ pp. 48–69 in Muskox Management, Report 

5 of Survey and Inventory Activities, 1 July 2006–30 June 2008, Project 16.0, P. Harper (ed.), 

6 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska.

7

8 Lent, P.C., 1966, ―Chapter 19: The Caribou of Northwestern Alaska,‖ pp. 481–516, in 

9 Environment of the Cape Thompson Region, Alaska, N.J. Wilimovsky and J. Wolfe (eds.), 

10 Atomic Energy Commission, Division of Technical Information, Oak Ridge, Tenn. 

11

12 Lent, P.C., 1980, ―Synoptic Snowmelt Patterns in Arctic Alaska in Relation to Caribou Habitat 

13 Use,‖ in Proceedings of the Second International Reindeer/Caribou Symposium, Roros, Norway, 

14 Sept. 17–21, 1979, E. Reimers et al. (eds.), Direktoratet for Vilt og Ferskvannsfisk, Trondheim, 

15 Norway. 

16

17 Lent, P.C., 1988, ―Ovibos moschatus,‖ Mammalian Species 302:1–9.

18

19 Lentfer, J.W., and R.J. Hensel, 1980, ―Alaskan Polar Bear Denning,‖ International Conference 

20 on Bear Research and Management 4:101–108. 

21

22 Lentfer, J., and B. Small, 2008, Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series: Polar Bear, Alaska 

23 Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/

24 static/education/wns/polar_bear.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2011.

25

26 Leschine, T., 2002, ―Oil Spills and the Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk,‖ Spill 

27 Science & Technology Bulletin 7:63–73.

28

29 Levinsky, I., F. Skov, J.C. Svenning, and C. Rahbek, 2007, ―Potential Impacts of Climate 

30 Change on the Distributions and Diversity Patterns of European Mammals,‖ Biodiversity and 

31 Conservation 16:3803–3816.

32

33 Lewbel, G.S., 1984, ―Environmental Hazards to Petroleum Industry Development,‖ pp. 31–46 in 

34 Proceedings of a Synthesis Meeting: The Barrow Arch Environment and Possible Consequences 

35 of Planned Offshore Oil and Gas Development (Sale 85), J.C. Truett (ed.), Girdwood, Alaska, 

36 Oct. 30–Nov. 1, 1983, USDOC, NOAA, OCSEAP, and MMS, Anchorage, Alaska.

37

38 LGL and Greeneridge, 1987, Responses of Bowhead Whales to an Offshore Drilling Operation 

39 in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, Autumn 1986, prepared by LGL Ltd., King City, Ontario, Canada, 

40 and Greeneridge Sciences, Inc., Santa Barbara, Calif., for Shell Western E & P Inc., Anchorage, 

41 Alaska.

42

43 LGL Ltd., 2005, Environmental Assessment of a Marine Geophysical Survey by the Coast Guard 

44 Cutter Healy across the Atlantic Ocean, LGL Report 4122-1, King City, Ontario, Canada.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-450

1 LGOIA (Louisiana Governor‘s Office of Indian Affairs), 2011, State Recognized Tribes, 

2 Louisiana Governor‘s Office of Indian Affairs, Baton Rouge, La. 

3

4 Lincoln, F.C., S.R. Peterson, and J.L. Zimmerman, 1998, Migration of Birds. U.S. Department 

5 of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Circular 16. Jamestown, N.D.

6

7 Lindstedt, D., and E. Swenson, 2006, The Case of the Dying Marsh Grass. Prepared for Coastal 

8 Restoration Division, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources.

9

10 Lipkin, R., 1997, ―Known Rare or Sensitive Plant Species Within the Planning Area,‖ in The 

11 NPR-A Symposium: Science, Traditional Knowledge, and the Resources of the Northeast 

12 Planning Area of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, April 16-18, 1997, Anchorage, AK,

13 OCS Study Report MMS 97-0013, BLM and MMS, Anchorage, Alaska.

14

15 Little, J., 2001, ―Authorities Investigate Death of Western Cook Inlet‘s Resident Walrus,‖ 

16 Peninsula Clarion October 4, 2001. Available at http://peninsulaclarion.com/stories/100401/

17 ala_100401alapm0010001.shtml. Accessed September 5, 2011.

18

19 Litzow, M.A., 2006, ―Climate Regime Shifts and Community Reorganization in the Gulf 

20 of Alaska: How Do Recent Shifts Compare with 1976/1977?‖ ICES Journal of Marine 

21 Science 63:1386–1396.

22

23 Liu, Z., and M. Alexander, 2007, ―Atmospheric Bridge, Oceanic Tunnel, and Global Climatic 

24 Teleconnections,‖ Review of Geophysics 45:RG2005. 

25

26 LMEW (Large Marine Ecosystems of the World), 2009, ―Large Marine Ecosystems of the 

27 World,‖ United Nations Environment Programme. Available at http://www.lme.noaa.gov. 

28 Accessed February 1, 2011.

29

30 LNG World News, 2011, ConocoPhillips, Marathon to Shut Kenai LNG Plant (USA). Available 

31 at http://www.lngworldnews.com/conocophillips-marathon-to-shut-kenai-lng-plant-usa/. 

32 Accessed June 2011.

33

34 Loeng, H., 2005, ―Marine Systems,‖ Arctic Climate Impact Assessment: Scientific Report, 

35 ACIA, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., pp. 454–538.

36

37 Logerwell, E., and R. Kimberly, 2008, Beaufort Sea Marine Fish Monitoring 2008: Pilot Survey 

38 and Test of Hypotheses, Final Report, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, NOAA National Marine 

39 Fisheries Service.

40

41 Logerwell, E., and K. Rand, 2008, Beaufort Sea Marine Fish Monitoring 2008: Pilot Survey and 

42 Test of Hypotheses, Final Report, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, NOAA National Marine 

43 Fisheries Service.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-451

1 Lohr, K., 2010, Louisiana Gulf Coast Businesses Lament Losses, National Public Radio, Oct. 13.

2 Available at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130537922. Accessed 

3 June 2011.

4

5 Loughlin, T.R., 1993, Status and Pelagic Distribution of Otariid Pinnipeds in the Bering Sea 

6 during Winter, OCS Study MMS 93-0026, prepared by National Marine Fisheries Service, 

7 National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Seattle, Wash., funded by Minerals Management Service, 

8 Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region, Anchorage, Alaska. 

9

10 Loughlin, T.R., 1997, ―Using the Phylogeographic Method to Identify Steller Sea Lion Stocks,‖ 

11 pp. 159–171 in Molecular Genetics of Marine Mammals, Special Publication No. 3, A. Dizon, 

12 S.J. Chivers, and W.F. Perrin (eds.), Society for Marine Mammalogy, San Francisco, Calif. 

13

14 Loughlin, T.R., G. Antonelis, J. Baker, R. Everitt, S. Jeffries, R. Ferraro, L. Fritz, B. Kelly, 

15 J. Lewis, R. Ream, J. Sease, and R. Towell, 1994, Abundance and Distribution of Harbor Seals 

16 Phoca vitulina richardsi in Southeast Alaska during 1993, annual report under Marine Mammal 

17 Protection Act Population Assessment Program, National Marine Fisheries Service, National 

18 Marine Mammal Laboratory, Seattle, Wash. 

19

20 Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004, OCS-Related Infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico Fact Book,

21 AOCS Study MMS 2004-027, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental 

22 Shelf Region. Available at http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/2/2984.pdf.

23 Accessed June 2011.

24

25 Louisiana Bird Records Committee, 2010, Official Louisiana Field Check-list. Louisiana 

26 Ornithological Society, Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, 

27 La.

28

29 Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Office of Public Health, 2005, Beach Monitoring 

30 Program. 

31

32 Lovvorn, J.R., J.M. Grebmeier, L.W. Cooper, J.K. Bump, and S.E. Richman, 2009, ―Modeling 

33 Marine Protected Areas for Threatened Eiders in a Climatically Changing Bering Sea,‖ 

34 Ecological Applications 19(6):1596–1613.

35

36 Lowry, L.F., and K.J. Frost, 1984, ―Foods and Feeding of Bowhead Whales in Western and 

37 Northern Alaska,‖ Scientific Reports of Cetacean Research 35:1–16.

38

39 Lowry, L.F., J.J. Burns, and R.R. Nelson, 1987, ―Polar Bear, Ursus maritimus, Predation 

40 on Belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, in the Bering and Chukchi Seas,‖ Canadian Field41 Naturalist 101:141–146.

42

43 Lowry, L.F., V.N. Burkanov, K.J. Frost, M.A. Simpkins, R. Davis, D.P. DeMaster, R. Suydam, 

44 and A. Springer, 2000, ―Habitat Use and Habitat Selection by Spotted Seals (Phoca largha) in 

45 the Bering Sea,‖ Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:1959–1971. 

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-452

1 Lubard, S.C., and P.M. Hurdle, 1976, ―Experimental Investigation of Acoustic Transmission 

2 from Air into a Rough Ocean,‖ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 60(5):1048–1055.

3

4 Lubchenco, J., M. McNutt, B. Lehr, M. Sogge, M. Miller, S. Hammond, and W. Conner, 2010, 

5 BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget: What Happened to the Oil? Available at 

6 http://www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/imported_pdfs/posted/2931/Oil_Budget_

7 description_8_3_FINAL.844091.pdf. Accessed February 22, 2011.

8

9 Lucas, K.L., and G.A. Carter, 2010, ―Decadal Changes in Habitat-Type Coverage on Horn 

10 Island, Mississippi, USA,‖ Journal of Coastal Research 26:1142–1148.

11

12 LUMCON, 2011, Hypoxia in Northern Gulf of Mexico, Research, Shelfwide Cruises. Available 

13 at http://www.gulfhypoxia.net/Research/Shelfwide%20Cruises. Accessed September 8, 2011.

14

15 Lunn, N.J., and G.B. Stenhouse, 1985, ―An Observation of Possible Cannibalism by Polar Bears 

16 (Ursus maritimus),‖ Canadian Journal of Zoology 63:1516–1517.

17

18 Lynch, A., M. Rothstein, L. Cassano, M. Koslow, and J. Maslanki, 2001, ―Climate Change in 

19 Barrow: Average Conditions and Big Storms,‖ poster presented at Barrow, Alaska, Aug. 21, 

20 University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo.

21

22 Lynn, W.J., 2000, Social Organization and Burrow-Site Selection of the Alabama Beach Mouse 

23 (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates), Master‘s Thesis, Auburn University, Auburn, Ala. 

24

25 Lysne, L.A., E.J. Mallek, and C.P. Dau, 2004, ―Near Shore Surveys of Alaska‘s Arctic Coast, 

26 1999-2003,‖ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management Waterfowl Branch. 

27 Available at http://alaska.fws.gov/mbsp/mbm/waterfowl/surveys/pdf/NSSANC.pdf. Accessed

28 September 6, 2011.

29

30 MacDonald, I.R., 1998, ―Natural Oil Spills,‖ Scientific American 279:56–61.

31

32 MacDonald, I.R., 2000, ―Seep Communities,‖ Chapter 8, in Narrative Report, Vol. I of 

33 Deepwater Gulf of Mexico Environmental and Socioeconomic Data Search and Literature 

34 Synthesis, OCS Study MMS 2000-049, prepared by Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. for 

35 Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La., pp. 209–230. 

36

37 MacDonald, K.B., 1977, ―Plant and Animal Communities of Pacific North American Salt 

38 Marshes,‖ pp. 167–192 in Wet Coastal Ecosystems, Ecosystems of the World, V.J. Chapman 

39 (ed.), Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

40

41 MacDonald, I.R., N.L. Guinasso, Jr., S.G. Ackleson, J.F. Amos, R. Duckworth, R. Sassen, 

42 and J.M. Brooks, 1993, ―Natural Oil Slicks in the Gulf of Mexico Visible From Space,‖ 

43 J. Geophysical Res. 98:16351–16364.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-453

1 MacDonald, I.R., B. Bluhm, K. Iken, S. Gagaev, and S. Robinson, 2005, ―Benthic Community 

2 Composition and Seabed Characteristics of a Chukchi Sea Pockmark,‖ presented at the 

3 American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2005.

4

5 Mackum, P., and S. Wilson, 2011, Population Distribution and Change: 2000 to 2010, 2010 

6 Census Briefs. Available at http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-01.pdf. 

7 Accessed September 8, 2011.

8

9 MacLeod, C.D., S.M. Bannon, G.J. Pierce, C. Schweder, J.A. Learmonth, J.S. Herman, and 

10 R.J. Reid, 2005, ―Climate Change and the Cetacean Community of North-West Scotland,― 

11 Biological Conservation 124:477–483.

12

13 MacLeod, C.D., W.F. Perrin, R. Pitman, J. Barlow, L. Balance, A. D‘Amico, T. Gerrodette, 

14 G. Joyce, K.D. Mullin, D.L. Palka, and G.T. Waring, 2006, ―Known and Inferred Distributions 

15 of Beaked Whale Species (Cetacea: Ziphidae),‖ Journal of Cetacean Research and 

16 Management 7(3):271–286.

17

18 Madsen, P.T., M. Wahlberg, J. Tougaard, K. Lucke, and P. Tyack, 2006, ―Wind turbine 

19 underwater noise and marine mammals: Implications of current knowledge and data needs,‖

20 Marine Ecology Progress Series 309: 279-295.

21

22 Mallory, M.L., I.J. Stenhouse, G. Gilchrist, and G. Robertson, 2008, ―Ivory Gull (Pagophila 

23 eburnea),‖ Issue 175, The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.), Cornell Lab of 

24 Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/175. 

25 Accessed August 18, 2011.

26

27 Malme, C.I., 1995, ―Sound Propagation,‖ Chapter 4 in Marine Mammals and Noise, 

28 Richardson et al., Academic Press, San Diego.

29

30 Marcus, N.H., 2001, ―Zooplankton: Responses to and Consequences of Hypoxia,‖ Chapter 3 in 

31 Coastal Hypoxia: Consequences for Living Resources and Ecosystems, N.N. Rabalais and 

32 R.E. Turner (eds.), American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C. 

33

34 MarineLog, 2011, Directory of U.S. and Canadian Shipyards, updated August 26, 2011. 

35 Available at http://shipbuildinghistory.com/today/directory.htm. Accessed September 8, 2011.

36

37 Marquez, M.R., 1990, FAO Species Catalogue, Vol 11: Sea Turtles of the World. An Annotated 

38 and Illustrated Catalogue of Sea Turtle Species Known to Date, FAO Fisheries Synopsis 

39 No. 125, FAO, Rome. 

40

41 Mars, J., and D. Houseknecht, 2007, ―Quantitative Remote Sensing Study Indicates Doubling of 

42 Coastal Erosion Rate in Past 50 Years along a Segment of the Arctic Coast of Alaska,‖ Geology

43 35(7):583–586, July.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-454

1 MASGC (Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium), 2011, Peer Listeners Prepare to Lend 

2 an Ear. Available at http://masgc.org/page.asp?id=593 Accessed March 8, 2011. Accessed 

3 June 30, 2011.

4

5 Mason, J.R., 2011, The Economic Cost of a Moratorium on Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration to 

6 the Gulf Region, Louisiana State University. Available at http://www.saveusenergyjobs.com/

7 wp-content/uploads/2010/07/The_Economic_Cost_of_a_Moratorium_on_Offshort%20_Oil_

8 and_Gas_Exploration_to_the_Gulf_Region.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2011.

9

10 McAllister, D.E., 1975, ―Ecology of the Marine Fishes of Arctic Canada,‖ in Proceedings of the 

11 Circumpolar Conference on Northern Ecology, Ottawa, Sept. 15–18, 1975, Ottawa, Ontario, 

12 Canada, National Research Council of Canada.

13

14 McCammon, M., P. Mundy, and B. Spies, 2002, The Gulf of Alaska Ecosystem Monitoring and 

15 Research (GEM) Program Document, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, July 9.

16

17 McCauley, R.D., 1994, ―Seismic Surveys,‖ in Environmental Implications of Offshore Oil and 

18 Gas Development in Australia: The Findings of an Independent Scientific Review, J.M. Swan, 

19 J.M. Neff, and P.C. Young (eds.), Australian Petroleum Exploration Association, Sydney, 

20 N.S.W.

21

22 McDonough, T., 2007, ―Units 7 & 15 Furbearer,‖ pp. 91–96 in Furbearer Management Report 

23 of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2003—30 June 2006, Project 7.0, P. Harper (ed.), 

24 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. 

25

26 McEachran, J.D., and J.D. Fechhelm, 1998, Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico, Vol. 1, University of 

27 Texas Press, Austin, Texas. 

28

29 McIlroy, C.W., 1970, Aspects of the Ecology and Hunter Harvest of the Black Bear in Prince 

30 William Sound, M.S. thesis, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. 

31

32 McMahan, D., 2011, personal communication from McMahan (Alaska Office of History and 

33 Archaeology) to D. O‘Rourke (EVS, Argonne National Laboratory), Sept. 7.

34

35 McMahon, G., S.M. Gregonis, S.W. Waltman, J.M. Omernik, T.D. Thorson, J.A. Freeouf, 

36 A.H. Rorick, and J.E. Keys, 2001, ―Developing a Spatial Framework of Common Ecological 

37 Regions for the Conterminous United States,‖ Environmental Management 28(3):293–316.

38

39 McWilliams, J.C., 2007, ―Irreducible Imprecision in Atmospheric and Oceanic Simulations,‖ 

40 PNAS 104(21):8709–8713.

41

42 Mecklenburg, C.W., T.A. Mecklenburg, and L.K. Thorsteinson, 2002, Fishes of Alaska, 

43 American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Md.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-455

1 Mecklenburg, C.W., D.L. Stein, B.A. Shieko, N.V. Chernova, T.A. Mecklenburg, and 

2 B.A. Holladay, 2007, ―Russian-American Long Term Census of the Arctic: Benthic 

3 Fishes Trawled in the Chukchi Sea and Bering Strait, August 2004,‖ Northwestern 

4 Naturalist 88:168–187.

5

6 Mellinger, D.K, K.M. Stafford, S.E. Moore, L.M. Munger, and C.G. Fox, 2004, ―Detection of 

7 North Pacific Right Whale (Eubalaena japonica) Calls in the Gulf of Alaska,‖ Marine Mammal 

8 Science 20:872–879. 

9

10 Meo, S.A., A.M. Al-Drees, and S. Rasheed, 2009, ―Effect of Duration of Exposure to Polluted 

11 Air Environment on Lung Function in Subjects Exposed to Crude Oil Spill into Sea Water,‖ 

12 International Journal Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health 22: 35–41.

13

14 Merriam, H., J. Schoen, and D. Hardy, 2008, Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series: Sitka Black15 Tailed Deer, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. Available at http://www.

16 adfg.alaska.gov/static/education/wns/sitka_blacktailed_deer.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2011.

17

18 Meyers, C.R., 1985, Vegetation of the Beaufort Sea Coast Alaska: Community Composition, 

19 Distribution, and Tidal Influences, M.S. thesis, University of Alaska-Fairbanks.

20

21 Michener, W.K., E.R. Blood, K.L. Bildstein, M.K. Brinson, and L.R. Gardner, 1997, ―Climate 

22 Change, Hurricanes and Tropical Storms, and Rising Sea Level in Coastal Wetlands,‖ Ecological 

23 Applications 7(3):770–801.

24

25 Miles, P.R., C.I. Malme, and W.J. Richardson, 1987, Prediction of Drilling Site-Specific 

26 Interaction of Industrial Acoustic Stimuli and Endangered Whales in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 

27 BBN Report No. 6509 and OCS Study MMS 87-0084, prepared by BBN Laboratories Inc., 

28 Cambridge, Mass., and LGL Ltd., King City, Ontario, Canada, for MMS, Anchorage, Alaska, 

29 Nov.

30

31 Miller, C.B., 2004, Chapter 11 in Biological Oceanography, Blackwell Publishing, Malden 

32 Mass.

33

34 Miller, D.R., 1971, ―Seasonal Changes in the Feeding Behavior of Barren-Ground Caribou on 

35 the Taiga Winter Range,‖ pp. 744–755 in The Behavior of Ungulates and Its Relation to 

36 Management 24, V. Geist and F. Walther (eds.). 

37

38 Miller, F.L., and A. Gunn, 2003, ―Catastrophic Die-off of Peary Caribou on the Western Queen 

39 Elizabeth Islands, Canadian High Arctic,‖ Arctic 56(4):381–390.

40

41 Miller, F.L., A. Gunn, and E. Broughton, 1985, ―Surplus Killing as Exemplified by Wolf 

42 Predation on Newborn Caribou,‖ Canadian Journal of Zoology 63(2):295–300. 

43

44 Milne, A.R., and J.H. Ganton, 1964, ―Ambient Noise under Arctic Sea Ice,‖ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 

45 36(5):855–863.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-456

1 Mississippi Coast Audubon Society, 2010, Birds of the Mississippi Coastal Counties. 

2 Mississippi Coast Audubon Society. Available at www.mscoastaudubon.org.

3

4 Mississippi Ornithological Society, 2007, Checklist of Birds of Mississippi. Records Committee, 

5 Mississippi Ornithological Society, Mississippi State University, Oxford, Miss.

6

7 Mississippi Gulf Coast Alliance for Economic Development, 2007, Mississippi Gulf Coast 

8 Shipbuilding 2007. Available at http://www.mscoastshipbuilding.com/files/shipbuilding_

9 corridor_guts_031207.pdf. Accessed June 2011.

10

11 Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force, 2009, Moving Forward on 

12 Gulf Hypoxia: Annual Report 2009, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, 

13 D.C.

14

15 Mizroch, S.A., D.W. Rice, and J.M. Breiwick, 1984, ―The Fin Whale, Balaenoptera physalus,‖ 

16 Marine Fisheries Review 46(4):20–24.

17

18 MMS (Minerals Management Service), 1995, Cook Inlet Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease 

19 Sale 149, Final Environmental Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA MMS 95-0066, MMS, Alaska 

20 OCS Region, Anchorage, Alaska.

21

22 MMS, 1996a, Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 1997-2002, Final 

23 Environmental Impact Statement. OCS EIS/EA MMS 96-0043. USDOI/MMS, Environmental 

24 Projects Coordination Branch, Herndon, VA.

25

26 MMS, 1996b, Cook Inlet Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 149, Final Environmental 

27 Impact Statement, Volume 1, OCS EIS/EA MMS 95-0066, Minerals Management Service, 

28 Alaska OCS Region. Available at http://alaska.boemre.gov/ref/eis_ea.htm. Accessed May 10, 

29 2011.

30

31 MMS, 1999, Destin Dome 56 Unit Development and Production Plan and Right-of-Way Pipeline 

32 Application, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA MMS 99-0040, Minerals 

33 Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La.

34

35 MMS, 2002a, Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 2002-2007, Final 

36 Environmental Impact Statement, April 2002, OCS EIS/EA MMS 2002-006, Minerals 

37 Management Service, Herndon, Va. 2 vols. 

38

39 MMS, 2002b, Liberty Development and Production Plan, Final Environmental Impact 

40 Statement, OCS Report 2002-019, Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region, 

41 Anchorage, Alaska, May. 

42

43 MMS, 2002c, Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 2002-2007, Final 

44 Environmental Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA MMS 2002-006, MMS Herndon, Va., April.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-457

1 MMS, 2003a, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf, Cook Inlet Planning Area: Oil and Gas 

2 Lease Sales 191 and 199, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume I, OCS EIS/EA 

3 MMS 2003-055, MMS, Alaska OCS Region, November.

4

5 MMS, 2003b, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf, Beaufort Sea Planning Area, Oil and Gas Lease 

6 Sales 186, 195, and 202, Final Environmental Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA MMS 2003-001,

7 Minerals Management Service, Alaska Region, Anchorage, Alaska.

8

9 MMS, 2004, Geological and Geophysical Exploration for Mineral Resources on the Gulf of 

10 Mexico Outer Continental Shelf, Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment, OCS EIS/EA 

11 MMS 2004-054, MMS, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La.

12

13 MMS, 2005a, Structure-Removal Operations on the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf, 

14 Programmatic Environmental Assessment, OCS EIS/EA MMS 2005-013, MMS, Gulf of Mexico 

15 OCS Region, New Orleans, La., Feb. Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/

16 permits/mms2005_013.pdf. Accessed August 31, 2011.

17

18 MMS, 2005b, Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2007-2012 Western Planning Area 

19 Sales 204, 207, 210, 215 and 218, Central Planning Area Sales 205, 206, 208, 213, 216, and 

20 222, Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

21

22 MMS, 2006a, Impact Assessment of Offshore Facilities from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, news 

23 release, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La., 

24 January 19.

25

26 MMS, 2006b, Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2007-2012, Draft 

27 Environmental Impact Statement, July.

28

29 MMS, 2006c, Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment, Arctic Ocean Outer Continental 

30 Shelf Seismic Surveys – 2006, OCS EIS/EA 2006-038, MMS, Alaska OCS Region, June. 

31 Available at http://www.alaska.boemre.gov/ref/EIS%20EA/Final_PEA/Final_PEA.pdf. 

32 Accessed September 1, 2011.

33

34 MMS, 2007a, Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 2007-2012, Final 

35 Environmental Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-003, Minerals Management Service,

36 April.

37

38 MMS 2007b, Chukchi Sea Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 and Seismic 

39 Surveying Activities in the Chukchi Sea Final Environmental Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA 

40 MMS 2007-026, Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region, May.

41

42 MMS, 2007c, Liberty Development and Production Plan Ultra Extended Reach Drilling from 

43 Endicott – Satellite Drilling Island (SDI), Environmental Assessment, OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-

44 054.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-458

1 MMS, 2008a, Gulf of Mexico OCS Gas Lease Sales: 2009-2012, Central Planning Area 

2 Sales 208, 213, 216, and 222, Western Planning Area Sales 210, 215, and 218, Final 

3 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA MMS 2008-041, Minerals 

4 Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans.

5

6 MMS, 2008b, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf, Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas 

7 Oil and Gas Lease Sales 209, 212, 217, and 221 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, OCS 

8 EIS/EA MMS 2008-0055, Minerals Management Service, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf 

9 Region. Nov.

10

11 MMS, 2010, Chukchi Sea Planning Area, Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 in the Chukchi Sea, 

12 Alaska, Draft Supplemental EIS, OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2010-034, Office of Leasing and 

13 Environment, Alaska OCS Region.

14

15 Moline, M.A., N.J. Karnovsky, Z. Brown, G.J. Divoky, T.K. Frazer, C.A. Jacoby, J.J. Torres, 

16 and W.R. Fraserf, 2008, ―High Latitude Changes in Ice Dynamics and Their Impact on Polar 

17 Marine Ecosystems,‖ Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1134:267–319. 

18

19 Moller, A.P., D. Rubolini, and E. Lehikoinen, 2008, ―Populations of Migratory Bird Species 

20 That Did Not Show a Phenological Response to Climate Change Are Declining,‖ Proceedings of 

21 the National Academy of Sciences 105(42):16195–16200.

22

23 Monnett, C., and J.S. Gleason, 2006, ―Observations of Mortality Associated with Extended 

24 Open-water Swimming by Polar Bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea,‖ Polar Biology 29:681–687.

25

26 Montgomery, R.A., J.M. Ver Hoei, and P.L. Boveng, 2007, ―Spatial Modeling of Haul-out Site 

27 Use by Harbor Seals in Cook Inlet, Alaska,‖ Marine Ecology Progress Series 341:257–264.

28

29 Moore, J.C., 1963, ―The Goose-Beaked Whale Where in the World?‖ Chicago Natural History 

30 Museum Bulletin 34(2):2–3, 8.

31

32 Moore, S.E., 2008, ―Marine Mammals as Ecosystem Sentinels.‖ Journal of Mammalogy

33 89(3):534–540.

34

35 Moore, S.E., and H.P. Huntington, 2008, ―Arctic Marine Mammals and Climate Change: 

36 Impacts and Resilience, Ecological Applications 18(2):S157–S165.

37

38 Moore, S.E., and K.L. Laidre, 2006, ―Trends in Sea Ice Cover within Habitats Used by Bowhead 

39 Whales in the Western Arctic,‖ Ecological Applications 16(3):932–944.

40

41 Moore, S.E., and R.R. Reeves, 1993, ―Distribution and Movement,‖ pp. 313–386 in The 

42 Bowhead Whale, J.J. Burns, J.J. Montague, and C.J. Cowles (eds.), Special Publication, Society 

43 for Marine Mammalogy, Lawrence, Kansas. 

44

45 Moore, S.E., D.P. DeMaster, and P.K. Dayton, 2000a, ―Cetacean Habitat Selection in the 

46 Alaskan Arctic during Summer and Autumn,‖ Arctic 53(4):432–447. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-459

1 Moore, S.E., J.M. Waite, L.L. Mazzuca, and R.C. Hobbs, 2000b, ―Mysticete Whale Abundance 

2 and Observations of Prey Associations on the Central Bering Sea Shelf,‖ Journal of Cetacean 

3 Research and Management 2:227–234. 

4

5 Moore, S.E., K.E.W. Shelden, L.K. Litzky, B.A. Mahoney, and D.J. Rugh, 2000c, ―Beluga, 

6 Delphinapterus leucas, Habitat Associations in Cook Inlet, Alaska,‖ Marine Fisheries Review

7 62(3): 60-80.

8

9 Morel, F.M.M., D. Archer, J.P. Barry, G.D. Brewer, J.E. Corredor, S.C. Doney, V.J. Fabry, 

10 G.E. Hofmann, D.S. Holland, J.A. Kleypas, F.J. Millero, U. Riebesell, S. Park, S. Roberts, and 

11 K. Hughs, 2010, Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a 

12 Changing Ocean, Committee on the Development of an Integrated Science Strategy for Ocean 

13 Acidification Monitoring, Research, and Impacts Assessment, National Research Council, 

14 National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

15

16 Morgan, S.G., C.S. Manooch III, D.L. Mason, and J.W. Goy, 1985, ―Pelagic Fish Population on 

17 Cerataspis, A Rare Larval Genus of Oceanic Penaeoid,‖ Bull. Mar. Sci. 36(2):249–259.

18

19 Morita, A., Y. Kusaka, and Y. Deguchi, 1999, ―Acute Health Problems among the People 

20 Engaged in the Cleanup of the Nakhodka Oil Spill,‖ Environment Research 81: 185–194.

21

22 Morrison, M.L., 2006, Bird Movements and Behaviors in the Gulf Coast Region: Relation to 

23 Potential Wind Energy Developments,‖ National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available at 

24 http://www.nrel.gov/wind/pdfs/39572.pdf. Accessed September 6, 2011.

25

26 Morton, R., N. Buster, and M. Krohn, 2002, ―Subsurface Controls, on Historical Subsidence 

27 Rates and Associated Wetland Loss in Southcentral Louisiana,‖ Transactions Gulf Coast 

28 Association of Geological Societies 52:767–778.

29

30 Morton, R., G. Tiling, and N. Ferina, 2003, ―Causes of Hot-Spot Wetland Loss in the Mississippi 

31 Delta Plain,‖ Environmental Geosciences 10(2):71–80.

32

33 Moss, J.H., J.M. Murphy, E.V. Farley, Jr., L.B. Eisner, and A.G. Andrews, 2009, Juvenile Pink 

34 and Chum Salmon Distribution, Diet, and Growth in the Northern Bering and Chukchi Seas. 

35 North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Bulletin No. 5: 191-196.

36

37 Moulton, L.L., and J.C. George, 2000, ―Freshwater Fishes in the Arctic Oil-Field Region and 

38 Coastal Plain of Alaska,‖ in The Natural History of an Arctic Oil Field: Development and the 

39 Biota, J.C. Truett and S.R. Johnson (eds.), Academic Press, New York.

40

41 Mowry, T., 2009, ―2 Alaska Caribou Herds See Big Growth,‖ Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, 

42 April 15.

43

44 Muench, R.D., H.O. Mofjeld, and R.L. Charnell, 1978, ―Oceanographic Conditions in Lower 

45 Cook Inlet, Spring and Summer 1973,‖ Journal of Geophysical Research 83(10):5090–5098.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-460

1 Mueter, F.J., C. Broms, K.F. Drinkwater, K.D. Friedland, J.A. Hare, G.L. Hunt Jr., W. Melle, 

2 and M. Taylor, 2009, ―Ecosystem Responses to Recent Oceanographic Variability in High3 Latitude Northern Hemisphere Ecosystems,‖ Progress In Oceanography 81:93–110.

4

5 Mulholland, P.J., G.R. Best, C.C. Coutant, G.M. Hornberger, J.L. Meyer, P.J. Robinson, 

6 J.R. Stenberg, E. Turner, F. Vera-Herrera, and R.G. Wetzel, 1997, ―Effects of Climate Change 

7 on Freshwater Ecosystems of the South-Eastern United States and the Gulf of Mexico,‖ 

8 Hydrological Processes 11:949–970.

9

10 Mullin, K.D., and G.L. Fulling, 2004, ―Abundance of Cetaceans in the Oceanic Northern Gulf of 

11 Mexico, 1996–2001,‖ Marine Mammal Science 20:787–807. 

12

13 Mullin, K., W. Hoggard, C. Roden, R. Lohoefener, C. Rogers, and B. Taggart, 1991, Cetaceans 

14 on the Upper Continental Slope in the North-Central Gulf of Mexico, OCS Study MMS 91-0027, 

15 Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Regional Office, New Orleans, La. 

16

17 Mullin, K.D., T.A. Jefferson, L.J. Hansen, and W. Hoggard, 1994, ―First Sightings of Melon18 Headed Whales (Peponocephala electra) in the Gulf of Mexico,‖ Marine Mammal 

19 Science 10:342–348. 

20

21 Munk, W.H., R.C. Spindel, A. Baggeroer, and T.G. Birdsall, 1994, ―The Heard Island Feasibility 

22 Test,‖ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 96(4):2330–2342.

23

24 Murray, S.P., 1997, An Observational Study of the Mississippi-Atchafalaya Coastal Plume:

25 Final Report, OCS Study MMS 98-0040, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

26 Region, New Orleans, La.

27

28 Musick, J.A., and C.J. Limpus, 1997, ―Habitat Utilization and Migration in Juvenile Sea 

29 Turtles,‖ pp. 137-164 in The Biology of Sea Turtles, P.L. Lutz and J.A. Musick (eds.), CRC 

30 Press, Boca Raton, Fla.

31

32 Myatt, D.O., and R.B. Ditton, 1986, Exclusion Mapping for Artificial Reef Site Selection to 

33 Maximize Recreational Fishing Benefits in the Gulf of Mexico, Sport Fish. Institute, Artificial 

34 Reef Development Center.

35

36 NABCI, 2010, State of the Birds Report. Available at http://www.stateofthebirds.org/2010/

37 pdf_files/State%20of%20the%20Birds_FINAL.pdf. Accessed September 7, 2011.

38

39 Nagorski, S., G. Eckert, E. Hood, and S. Pyare, 2007, Assessment of Coastal Water Resources 

40 and Watershed Conditions at Katmai National Park and Preserve, Alaska, Natural Resource 

41 Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR—2007/372, National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colo.

42

43 Naidu, A.S., J.J. Kelley, J.J. Goering, and M.I. Venkatesan, 2001, Historical Changes in Trace 

44 Metals and Hydrocarbons in the Inner Shelf Sediments, Beaufort Sea: Prior and Subsequent to 

45 Petroleum-Related Industrial Developments, OCS Study, MMS 2001-061, Minerals 

46 Management Service, Anchorage, Alaska.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-461

1 Naidu, A.S., J.J. Kelley, D. Misra, and M.I. Venkatesan, 2005, Trace Metals and Hydrocarbons 

2 in Sediments of the Beaufort Lagoon, Northeast Arctic Alaska, Exposed to Long-term 

3 Natural Oil Seepage, Recent Anthropogenic Activities and Pristine Conditions, OCS Study 

4 MMS 2005-041, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Coastal Marin Institute, Fairbanks, Alaska.

5

6 Napp, J.M., L.S. Incze, and P.B. Ortner, 1996, ―The Plankton of Shelikof Strait, Alaska: 

7 Standing Stock, Production, Mesoscale Variability and Their Relevance to Larval Fish Survival,‖ 

8 Fisheries Oceanography 5:19–38.

9

10 NAST (National Assessment Synthesis Team), 2001, Climate Change Impacts on the 

11 United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, Cambridge 

12 University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

13

14 Nasu, K., 1963, ―Oceanography and the Whaling Grounds in the Subarctic Regions of the Pacific 

15 Ocean,‖ Scientific Reports of the Whales Research Institute 17:105–156. 

16

17 National Commission, 2011, Deep Water, The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore 

18 Drilling, Report to the President, prepared by the National Commission on the BP Deepwater 

19 Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, January.

20

21 National Marine Protected Areas Center, 2008, State of the Nation‘s de Facto Marine Protected 

22 Areas, R. Grober-Dunsmore and L. Wooninck (eds.), Silver Spring, Md. 

23

24 Nature Conservancy, 2003, Cook Inlet Basin Ecoregional Assessment, The Nature Conservancy 

25 of Alaska, Anchorage, AK.

26

27 NatureServe, 2010a, NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life, Version 7.1, 

28 Arlington, Va. Available at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed March 21, 2011.

29

30 NatureServe, 2010b, Comprehensive Species Report — Polysticta stelleri. Available at 

31 http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?init=Species. Accessed July 11, 2011.

32

33 NatureServe, 2010c, Comprehensive Species Report — Brachyramphus brevisostris. Availalble 

34 at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?init=Species. Accessed July 11, 

35 2011.

36

37 NatureServe 2010d. ―Comprehensive Species Report – Gavia adamsii.‖ Available at 

38 http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Gavia+adamsii. 

39 Accessed September 6 11, 2011.

40

41 NatureServe, 2011a, An Online Encyclopedia of Life. Available at http://www.natureserve.org/

42 explorer/index.htm.

43

44 NatureServe, 2011b, Comprehensive Species Report—Ursus arcos, NatureServe Explorer: An 

45 Online Encyclopedia of Life, Version 7.1, NatureServe, Arlington, Va. Available at 

46 http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed September 8, 2011.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-462

1 NCCOS (National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science), 2006, Interagency Environmental 

2 Assessment of Hurricane Katrina: Preliminary Results from the NOAA National Status and 

3 Trends (NS&T) Mussel Watch Survey: Post-storm Assessment and 20 Year Retrospective 

4 Analysis.

5

6 NCDC (National Climatic Data Center), 1995, 1994 Local Climatological Data, Annual 

7 Summary with Comparative Data, Galveston, Texas, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

8 Administration, Satellite and Information Service. Available at http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/

9 IPS/lcd/lcd.html. Accessed March 28, 2011.

10

11 NCDC, 2011a, 2010 Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary with Comparative Data: 

12 Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Beaumont/Port Arthur, Texas; Brownsville, Texas; Corpus Christi, 

13 Texas; Houston, Texas; Lake Charles, Louisiana; Mobile, Alabama; New Orleans, Louisiana; 

14 Pensacola, Florida; Victoria, Texas, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

15 Satellite and Information Service. Available at http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/lcd/lcd.html. 

16 Accessed March 28, 2011.

17

18 NCDC (National Climatic Data Center), 2011b, 2010 Local Climatological Data, Annual 

19 Summary with Comparative Data: Homer, Alaska (PAHO) and Kodiak, Alaska (PADQ), 

20 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Available at http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/

21 IPS/lcd/lcd.html. Accessed May 27, 2011.

22

23 NCDC, 2011c, Storm Events, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Satellite and 

24 Information Service. Available at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~

25 Storms. Accessed May 27, 2011.

26

27 NCDC, 2011d, Climates of the States (CLIM60): Climate of Alaska, National Oceanic and 

28 Atmospheric Administration, Satellite and Information Service. Available at http://hurricane.

29 ncdc.noaa.gov/climatenormals/clim60/states/Clim_AK_01.pdf. Accessed May 27, 2011.

30

31 NCDC, 2011e, Integrated Surface Data (ISD), DS3505 format, database, Asheville, N.C. 

32 Available at ftp://ftp3.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/noaa. Accessed May 31, 2011.

33

34 NCDC, 2011x, State of the Climate, National Overview, August 2011. Available at 

35 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/. Accessed Sept. 15, 2011.

36

37 NDBC (National Data Buoy Center), 2011, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

38 National Data Buoy Center, Center of Excellence in Marine Technology, U.S. Department of 

39 Commerce. Available at http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/rmd.shtml. Accessed May 30, 2011.

40

41 Neff, J.M., 2005, Composition, Environmental Fates, and Biological Effect of Water Based 

42 Drilling Muds and Cuttings Discharged to the Marine Environment: A Synthesis and Annotated 

43 Bibliography, prepared by Battelle, Duxbury, Md., for the Petroleum Environmental Research 

44 Forum and American Petroleum Institute.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-463

1 Nelson, M., 2008a, Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series: Bearded Seal, Alaska Department of Fish 

2 and Game, Juneau, Alaska. Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/education/wns/

3 bearded_seal.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2011.

4

5 Nelson, M., 2008b, Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series: Ribbon Seal, Alaska Department of Fish 

6 and Game, Juneau, Alaska. Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/education/wns/

7 ribbon_seal.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2011.

8

9 Nelson, M., 2008c, Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series: Spotted Seal, Alaska Department of Fish 

10 and Game, Juneau, Alaska. Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/education/wns/

11 spotted_seal.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2011.

12

13 NHC (National Hurricane Center), 2011a, Tropical Cyclone Climatology, National Oceanic and 

14 Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service. Available at http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/

15 pastprofile.shtml. Accessed March 28, 2011.

16

17 NHC (National Hurricane Center), 2011b, Hurricane Basics, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

18 Administration, National Weather Service. Available at http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/HAW2/

19 english/basics.shtml. Accessed March 28, 2011.

20

21 Nicholls, R.J., P.P. Wong, V.R. Burkett, J.O. Codignotto, J.E. Hay, R.F. McLean, 

22 S. Ragoonaden, and C.D. Woodroffe, 2007, ―Coastal Systems and Low-Lying Areas,‖

23 pp. 315–356 in Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of 

24 Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

25 Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.), 

26 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

27

28 Nieukirk, S.L., K.M. Stafford, D.K. Mellinger, R.P. Dziak, and C.G. Fox, 2004, ―Low29 Frequency Whale and Seismic Airgun Sounds Recorded in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean,‖ J. Acoust. 

30 Soc. Am. 115(4):1832–1843.

31

32 Nighswander, T.S., and N. Peacock, 1999, ―The Communication of Health Risk from 

33 Subsistence Food in a Cross Cultural Setting: Lessons Learned from the Exxon Valdez Oil 

34 Spill,‘ in Evaluating and Communicating Subsistence Seafood Safety in a Cross-Cultural 

35 Context, L.J. Field, J.A. Fall, T.S. Nighswander, N. Peacock, and U. Varanasi (eds.), SETAC 

36 Press, Pensacola, Fla.

37

38 Ning, Z.H., R.E. Turner, T. Doyle, and K.K. Abdollahi, 2003, Preparing for a Changing 

39 Climate: Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change — Gulf Coast Region, 

40 findings of the Gulf Coast Regional Assessment, prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection 

41 Agency, GCRCC, Baton Rouge, La.

42

43 NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), 2011, NIOSH Voluntary Roster 

44 of Deepwater Horizon Response Workers, Education and Information Division. Available at 

45 http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/oilspill response/workerroster.html.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-464

1 Nix, E.R., C.R. Fisher, J. Vodenichar, and K.M. Scott, 1995, ―Physiological Ecology of a Mussel 

2 with Methanotrophic Endosymbionts at Three Hydrocarbon Seep Sites in the Gulf of Mexico,‖ 

3 Marine Biology 122(4):605–617. 

4

5 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), 1991, Final Recovery Plan for the Humpback Whale 

6 Megaptera novaeangliae, prepared by Humpback Whale Recovery Team for National Oceanic 

7 and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Springs, Md., Nov. 

8 Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/whale_humpback.pdf. Accessed 

9 April 15, 2011.

10

11 NMFS, 1993, ―Designated Critical Habitat; Steller Sea Lion,‖ Federal 

12 Register 58(165):45269–45285.

13

14 NMFS, 1998, Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Report for the Scallop Fisheries off the Coast of 

15 Alaska, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Anchorage, Alaska. 

16

17 NMFS, 2004, Alaska Groundfish Fisheries Final Programmatic Supplemental Environmental 

18 Impact Statement, NOAA/NMFS, Alaska Region, Juneau, Alaska.

19

20 NMFS, 2005, Final Environmental Impact Statement for Essential Fish Habitat Identification 

21 and Conservation in Alaska, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/NMFS Alaska 

22 Regional Office. Available at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/habitat/seis/efheis.htm. Accessed 

23 May 10, 2011.

24

25 NMFS, 2006, Review of the Status of the Right Whales in the North Atlantic and North Pacific 

26 Oceans, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dec.

27

28 NMFS, 2008a, ―Endangered and Threatened Species; Endangered Status for the Cook Inlet 

29 Beluga Whale,‖ Federal Register 73(205):62919–62930.

30

31 NMFS, 2008b, Recovery Plan for the Steller Sea Lion Eastern and Western Distinct Population 

32 Segments (Eumetopias jubatus) Revision, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

33 Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, Md., March.

34

35 NMFS, 2009, Recovery Plan for Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata), prepared by the 

36 Smalltooth Sawfish Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, 

37 Md.

38

39 NMFS, 2010a, Essential Fish Habitat: A Marine Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate for 

40 Federal Agencies-Gulf of Mexico Region. Available at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/pdfs/

41 efhdocs/gom_guide_2010.pdf. Accessed May 25, 2011.

42

43 NMFS, 2010b, Final Recovery Plan for the Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus), Silver Springs, 

44 Md., July 30.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-465

1 NMFS, 2010c, ―Endangered and Threatened Species; Proposed Threatened and Not Warranted 

2 Status for Subspecies and Distinct Population Segments of the Bearded Seal,‖ Federal 

3 Register 75(237):77496–77515.

4

5 NMFS, 2010d, ―Endangered and Threatened Species; Proposed Threatened Status for Subspecies 

6 of the Ringed Seal,‖ Federal Register 75(237):77476–77495.

7

8 NMFS, 2010e, Beaufort Sea Marine Fish Monitoring 2008: Pilot Survey and Test of 

9 Hypotheses, Final Report, BOEMRE 2010-048, prepared by National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

10 Administration, NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Wash., for Minerals 

11 Management Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Available at http://alaska.boemre.gov/reports/

12 2010rpts/2010_048.pdf. Accessed May 10, 2011.

13

14 NMFS, 2010f, ―BP Oil Spill: NOAA Modifies Commercial and Recreational Fishing Closure in 

15 the Oil-Affected Portions of the Gulf of Mexico,‖ Southeast Fishery Bulletin FB10-050, June 2.

16

17 NMFS, 2010g, Fisheries of the United States, 2009, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of 

18 Science and Technology, Silver Spring, Md.

19

20 NMFS, 2011a, Marine Mammals, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected 

21 Resources, Silver Spring, Md. 

22

23 NMFS, 2011b, ―Endangered and Threatened Species: Designation of Critical Habitat for Cook 

24 Inlet Beluga Whale,‖ Federal Register 76(69):20180–20214.

25

26 NMFS, 2011c, ―BP Oil Spill: NOAA Re-opens Federal Waters to Royal Red Shrimp Fishing,‖ 

27 Southeast Fishery Bulletin FB11-010, February 1.

28

29 NMFS, 2011d, Annual Commercial Landing Statistics. Available at http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.

30 gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html. Accessed July 15, 2011.

31

32 NMFS, 2011e, Recreational Fisheries Statistics Queries. Available at http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.

33 gov/st1/recreational/queries/index.html. Accessed July 15, 2011.

34

35 NMFS and USFWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 

36 1991, Recovery Plan for U.S. Populations of Loggerhead Turtle, USDOC/NOAA/NMFS, 

37 Washington, D.C. 

38

39 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 1991

40

41 NOAA, 1994, ―Cook Inlet and Kenai Peninsula, Alaska: Environmentally Sensitive Areas: 

42 Summer (June-August),‖ 1-page chart, NOAA, Anchorage, Alaska.

43

44 NOAA, 1996, South Florida Environmental Sensitivity Index, Office of Response and 

45 Restoration, ESI data and maps, CD-ROM. 

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-466

1 NOAA, 1999, Coastal Assessment Framework – Coastal Estuarine Watersheds (EDA/CDA) –

2 Land Only, NOAA‘s Ocean Service, Special Projects, vector digital data, Silver Spring, Md.. 

3 Available at http://coastalgeospatial.noaa.gov/data_gis.html. Accessed September 9, 2011.

4

5 NOAA, 2004, ―Regional Trends,‖ in Population Trends along the Coastal United States:

6 1980–2008, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Ocean Service, Sept. Available at 

7 http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/programs/mb/pdfs/3_regional_trends.pdf. Accessed Feb. 2011.

8

9 NOAA, 2005, National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE).

10

11 NOAA, 2008, Cruise Report for the 2008 Beaufort Sea Survey, July 27–August 30, 2008, 

12 National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Available at 

13 http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/REFM/Stocks/fit/PDFS/Beaufort_sea_cruise_report.pdf. Accessed 

14 March 11, 2011. 

15

16 NOAA, 2010a, NRDA by the Numbers — December 1, 2010, Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill 

17 Natural Resources Damage Assessment (NRDA). Available at http://www.gulfspillrestoration.

18 noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/FINAL-NRDA-by-the-Numbers-for-12-1-10.pdf. 

19 Accessed February 22, 2011.

20

21 NOAA, 2010b, Deepwater BP Oil Spill, Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA), NRDA 

22 By the Numbers – November 1, 2010. Available at http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/

23 wp-content/uploads/2010/11/FINAL-NRDA_by_the_Numbers_11.03.pdf.pdf. Accessed 

24 November 10, 2010.

25

26 NOAA, 2010c, Sea Turtles, Dolphins, and Whales and the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill. Turtles 

27 Documented by Species. Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/oilspill/turtles.htm. 

28 Accessed November 23, 2010.

29

30 NOAA, 2010d, The Marine Protected Areas Inventory, National Marine Protected Areas Center. 

31 Available at http://www.mpa.gov/dataanalysis/mpainventory/. Accessed December 1, 2010.

32

33 NOAA, 2010e, Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan,

34 Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, Md. 

35

36 NOAA, 2011a, ―Surface Washing Agents,‖ in Encyclopedia of Earth, C.J. Cleveland (ed.), 

37 Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment, 

38 Washington, D.C. [First published in the Encyclopedia of Earth September 30, 2010; last revised 

39 date October 7, 2010]. Available at http://www.eoearth.org/article/Surface_washing_agents. 

40 Accessed January 5, 2011.

41

42 NOAA, 2011b, Vaisala‘s National Lightning Detection Network (NLDN), Cloud-to-Ground 

43 Lightning Incidence in the Continental U.S. (1997–2007), U.S. Department of Commerce. 

44 Available at http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/stats/08_Vaisala_NLDN_Poster.pdf. 

45 Accessed April 13, 2011.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-467

1 NOAA, 2011c, Loggerhead Turtle, NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources. Available 

2 at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/loggerhead.htm#population. Accessed 

3 September 19, 2011.

4

5 NOAA, 2011d, Green Turtle, NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources. Available at 

6 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/green.htm#population. Accessed September 2, 

7 2011.

8

9 NOAA, 2011e, Hawksbill Turtle, NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources. Available at 

10 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/hawksbill.htm#population. Accessed September 2, 

11 2011.

12

13 NOAA, 2011f, Kemp‘s Ridley Turtle, NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources. Available 

14 at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/kempsridley.htm#population. Accessed 

15 September 2, 2011.

16

17 NOAA, 2011g, NRDA by the Numbers — January 20, 2010, Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill 

18 Natural Resources Damage Assessment (NRDA). Available at http://www.gulfspillrestoration.

19 noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Final-NRDA-by-the-Numbers-Jan-20111.pdf. Accessed 

20 September 6, 2011.

21

22 NOAA and NMFS (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Marine 

23 Fisheries Service), 2007, Impact of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma on Commercial and 

24 Recreational Fishery Habitat of Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Marine 

25 Fisheries Service, July.

26

27 Noel, L.G., and J.D. McKendrick, 2000, ―Land Cover Map for the Liberty Mine Site,‖ BPXA,

28 Anchorage, Alaska.

29

30 Norcross, B.L., B.A. Holladay, M.S. Busby, and K.L. Mier, 2009, ―Demersal and Larval Fish 

31 Assemblages in the Chukchi Sea,‖ Deep-Sea Research II 57:57–70.

32

33 Norris, F.H., M.J. Vanlandingham, and L. Vu, 2009, ―PTSD in Vietnamese Americans 

34 Following Hurricane Katrina: Prevalence, Patterns, and Predictors,‖ Journal of Trauma and 

35 Stress 22: 91–101.

36

37 North, M.R., 1994, ―Yellow-billed Loon (Gavia adamsii),‖ Issue 121, The Birds of North 

38 America Online, A. Poole (ed.), Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available at 

39 http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/121. Accessed September 8, 2011.

40

41 Northern Economics, 1990, Economic Impacts of the S.S. Glacier Bay Spill, OCS Study MMS 

42 90-0081, November. Available at http://alaska.boemre.gov/reports/1990rpts/90_0081.pdf. 

43 Accessed July 15, 2011.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-468

1 Northern Economics, 1993, Commercial Fishing Industry of the Gulf of Alaska, Technical 

2 Report No. 159, prepared for the MMS, Alaska OCS Office, Alaska OCS Socioeconomic 

3 Studies Program, Anchorage, Alaska. 

4

5 Northrop, J., W.C. Cummings, and P.O. Thompson, 1968, ―20-Hz Signals Observed in the 

6 Central Pacific,‖ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 43(2): 383–384.

7

8 Northrop, J., W.C. Cummings, and M.F. Morrison, 1971, ―Underwater 20-Hz Signals Recorded 

9 near Midway Island,‖ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 49(6B): 1909–1910.

10

11 Nowlin, W.D., Jr., 1972, ―Winter Circulation Patterns and Property Distributions,‖ in

12 Contributions on the Physical Oceanography of the Gulf of Mexico, L.R.A. Capurra and 

13 J.L. Reid (eds.), Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas.

14

15 NPFMC (North Pacific Fishery Management Council), 2002, Fishery Management Plan for 

16 Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska. 

17

18 NPFMC, 2004, Fishery Management Plan for the Scallop Fishery off Alaska. Available at 

19 http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/fmp/scallop/ScallopFMP04.pdf. Accessed May 10, 2011. 

20

21 NPFMC, 2009, Fishery Management Plan for Fish Resources of the Arctic Management Area. 

22 Available at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/fmp/arctic/ArcticFMP.pdf. Accessed 

23 May 10, 2011.

24

25 NPFMC, 2010, Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska. Available at 

26 http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/fmp/goa/GOA.pdf. Accessed May 10, 2011.

27

28 NPFMC and NMFS, 1990, Fishery Management Plan for the Salmon fisheries in the EEZ off the 

29 coast of Alaska. North Pacific Fisheries Management Council.

30

31 NPS (National Park Service), 2010, Native American Consultation Database, U.S. National Park 

32 Service, Washington, D.C., Sep. 23. Available at http://grants.cr.nps.gov/nacd/index.cfm. 

33 Accessed June 17, 2011.

34

35 NPS, 2011, Reptiles of Padre Island National Seashore, National Park Service, U.S. Department 

36 of the Interior. Available at http://www.nps.gov/pais/naturescience/reptiles.htm. Accessed 

37 January 17, 2011.

38

39 NRC (National Research Council), 1998, Decade-to-Century-Scale Climate Variability and 

40 Change: A Science Strategy, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

41

42 NRC, 2003a, Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals, The National Academies Press, Washington, 

43 D.C.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-469

1 NRC, 2010, America‘s Climate Choices: Advancing the Science of Climate Change, Panel on 

2 Advancing the Science of Climate Change, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, 

3 Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

4

5 NSB (North Slope Borough), 2011, North Slope Borough: Villages, North Slope Borough, 

6 Barrow, Alaska. Available at http://www.co.north-slope.ak.us/. Accessed June 17, 2011.

7

8 NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center), 2010, Weather and Feedbacks Lead to Third9 lowest Extent, NSIDC press release, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental 

10 Sciences, Boulder, Colo., October 4. Available at http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2010/

11 100410.html. Accessed September 2, 2011. 

12

13 NSIDC, 2011, Ice Extent Low at Start of Melt Season; Ice Age Increases over Last Year, NSIDC 

14 press release, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, Boulder, Colo.,

15 April 5. Available at http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2011/040511.html. Accessed September 

16 6, 2011.

17

18 NSSL (National Severe Storms Laboratory), 2003, Severe Thunderstorm Climatology, National 

19 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, updated Aug. 29, 2003. Available at http://www.nssl.

20 noaa.gov/hazard/totalthreat.html. Accessed April 5, 2011.

21

22 NTC (Ninilchik Traditional Council), 2010, Ninilchik Traditional Council 2010 Educational 

23 Fishery Rules and Regulations, Ninilchik Traditional Council, Ninilchik, Alaska.

24

25 O‘Clair, C.E., and S.T. Zimmerman, 1986, ―Biogeography and Ecology of Intertidal and Shallow 

26 Subtidal Communities,‖ in Gulf of Alaska, Physical Environment and Biological Resources,

27 D.W. Hood and S.T. Zimmerman (eds.), OCS Study MMS 86-0095, NOAA and MMS, Alaska 

28 OCS Region Anchorage, Alaska.

29

30 Ohsumi S., M. Nishiwaki, and T. Hibiya, 1958, ―Growth of Fin Whale in the Northern Pacific,‖ 

31 The Scientific Reports of the Whales Research Institute 13:97–133.

32

33 Oil Spill Commission (National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and 

34 Offshore Drilling), 2011, The Use of Surface and Subsea Dispersants during the BP Deepwater 

35 Horizon Oil Spill, Staff Working Paper No. 4, January 11.

36

37 Oli, M.K., N.R. Holler, and M.C. Wooten, 2001, ―Viability Analysis of Endangered Gulf Coast 

38 Beach Mice (Peromyscus polionotus) Populations,‖ Biological Conservation 97:107–118.

39

40 Omernik, J.M., 1987, ―Ecoregions of the Conterminous Unites States (map supplement),‖ Annals 

41 of the Association of American Geographers 77(1):118–125.

42

43 Omernik, J.M., 2004, ―Perspectives on the Nature and Definition of Ecological Regions,‖ 

44 Environmental Management 34 (Supplement 1):S27–S38.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-470

1 OMP (Office of Marine Programs), 2010, Discovery of Sound in the Sea, University of Rhode 

2 Island. Available at http://www.dosits.org/. Accessed Aug. 2, 2010.

3

4 Omura, H., 1955, ―Whales in the Northern Part of the North Pacific,‖ Nor. Hvalfangst5 Tidende 44(6):323–345. 

6

7 Orr, J.C., V.J. Fabry, O. Aumont, L. Bopp, S.S. Doney, R.A. Feely, A. Gnanadesikan, N. Gruber, 

8 A. Ishida, F. Joos, R.M. Key, K. Lindsay, E. Maier-Reimer, R. Matear, P. Monfray, A. Mouchet, 

9 R.G. Najjar, G.K. Plattner, K.B. Rodgers, C.L. Sabine, J.L. Sarmiento, R. Schlitzer, R.D. Slater, 

10 I.J. Totterdell, M.F. Weirig, Y. Yamanaka, and A. Yool, 2005, ―Anthropogenic Ocean 

11 Acidification over the Twenty-First Century and Its Impact on Calcifying Organisms,‖ 

12 Nature 437:681–686.

13

14 OSAT (Operational Science and Advisory of the Unified Area Command), 2010, Summary 

15 Report for Sub-Sea and Sub-Surface Oil and Dispersant Detection: Sampling and Monitoring, 

16 Dec. 17.

17

18 OSAT, 2011, Summary Report for Fate and Effects of Remanant Oil Remaining in the Beach 

19 Environment. Prepared for Lincoln D. Stroh, CAPT, U.S. Coast Guard Federal On-Scene 

20 Coordinator Deepwater Horizon MC252. Available at http://www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/

21 default/files/u316/OSAT-2%20Report%20no%20ltr.pdf.

22

23 OSAT-2 (Operational Science Advisory Team), 2011, Summary Report for Fate and Effects of 

24 Remnant Oil in the Beach Environment, prepared by Operational Science Advisory Team Gulf 

25 Coast Incident Management Team for Lincoln D. Stroh, CAPT, U.S. Coast Guard, Federal 

26 On-Scene Coordinator, Deepwater Horizon MC252, Feb 10.

27

28 Otvos, E.G., 1980, ―Barrier Island Formation through Nearshore Aggradation – Stratigraphic and 

29 Field Evidence.‖ Marine Geography 43: 195–243.

30

31 Overland, J.E., and M. Wang, 2010, ―Large-Scale Atmospheric Circulation Changes Are 

32 Associated With the Recent Loss of Arctic Sea Ice,‖ Tellus. Series a: Dynamic Meteorology and 

33 Oceanography 62(1): 1–9.

34

35 Pacyna, J.M., 1995, ―The Origin of Arctic Air Pollutants: Lessons Learned and Future 

36 Research,‖ The Science of the Total Environment 160/161(1995):39–53.

37

38 Palinkas, L., J. Russell, M. Downs, and J. Petterson, 1992, ―Ethnic Differences in Stress, Coping, 

39 and Depressive Symptoms after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill,‖ Journal of Nerv. Mental 

40 Disease180:287–295.

41

42 Pardue, J.H., W.M. Moe, D. McInnis, L.J. Thibodeaus, K.T. Valsaraj, E. Maciasz, 

43 I. Van Heerden, N. Korevec, and Q.Z. Yuan, 2005, ―Chemical and Microbiological Parameters 

44 in New Orleans Floodwater Following Hurricane Katrina,‖ Environmental Science and 

45 Technology 39:8591–8599.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-471

1 Park, Y.H., and B.L. Edge, 2011, ―Beach Erosion along Northeast Texas Coast,‖ Journal of 

2 Coastal Research 27:502–514.

3

4 Parkinson, C.L., 2000, ―Variability of Arctic Sea Ice: The View from Space, an 18-Year 

5 Record,‖ Arctic 53:341–358.

6

7 Parrett, L.S., 2009, ―Unit 26A, Teshekpuk Caribou Herd,‖ pp. 271–298 in Caribou Management, 

8 Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2006—30 June 2008, Project 3.0, P. Harper 

9 (ed.), Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. 

10

11 Parrott, R., 1991, Seismic and Acoustic Systems for Marine Survey Used by the Geological 

12 Survey of Canada: Background Information for Environmental Screening, Atlantic Geosciences 

13 Center, Geological Survey of Canada, Dartmouth, N.S.

14

15 Pasitschniak-Arts, M., 1993, ―Ursus arctos,‖ Mammalian Species 439:1–10.

16

17 Patterson, B., and G.R. Hamilton, 1964, ―Repetitive 20 Cycle per Second Biological 

18 Hydroacoustic Signals at Bermuda,‖ In: Marine Bio-acoustics, W.N. Tavolga (ed.), Pergamon, 

19 Oxford, U.K.

20

21 Paull, C.K., B. Hecker, R. Commeau, R.P. Freeman-Lynde, C. Neumann, W.P. Corso, 

22 S. Golubic, J.E. Hook, E. Sikes, and J. Curray, 1984, ―Biological Communities at the Florida 

23 Escarpment Resemble Hydrothermal Vent Taxa,‖ Science 226:965–967. 

24

25 Pauly, D., A. Trites, E. Capuli, and V. Christensen, 1995, ―Diet Composition and Trophic Levels 

26 of Marine Mammals,‖ ICES Journal of Marine Science 55:467–481.

27

28 Pearson, C.E., et al., 2003, Refining and Revising the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf 

29 Region High-Probability Model for Historic Shipwrecks, OCS Study MMS 2003-60, 61, and 62 

30 prepared by Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Memphis, Tenn., and Coastal Environments, Inc., 

31 Baton Rouge, La., for Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

32 Orleans, La.

33

34 Peel, M.C., B.L. Finlayson, and T.A. McMahon, 2007, ―Updated World Map of the Köppen35 Geiger Climate Classification,‖ Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 11:1633–1644. Available at 

36 http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/11/1633/2007/hess-11-1633-2007.pdf. Accessed 

37 April 5, 2011.

38

39 Peltier, T.C., 2007, ―Unit 14 Furbearer,‖ pp. 155–176 in Furbearer Management Report of 

40 Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2003–30 June 2006, Project 7.0, P. Harper (ed.), Alaska 

41 Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. 

42

43 Peltier, T., 2008, ―Unit 16 Black bear Management Report,‖ pp. 187–198 in Black Bear 

44 Management Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2004–30 June 2007, Project 17.0,

45 P. Harper (ed.), Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. 

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-472

1 Pendleton, E.A., J.A. Barras, S.J. Williams, and D.C. Twichell, 2010, Coastal Vulnerability 

2 Assessment of the Northern Gulf of Mexico to Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Change, Report 

3 Series 2010–1146, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va.

4

5 Pequegnat, W.E. (ed.), 1983, The Ecological Communities of the Continental Slope and Adjacent 

6 Regimes of the Northern Gulf of Mexico, prepared for the Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

7 Mexico OCS Office, Metairie, La., Contract No. AA851-CT1-12, TerEco Corporation.

8

9 Pérez-Cadahia, B., B. Laffon, and M. Porta, 2008, ―Relationship Between Blood Concentrations 

10 of Heavy Metals and Cytogenetic and Endocrine Parameters Among Subjects Involved in 

11 Cleaning Coastal Areas Affected by the  ̳Prestige‘ Tanker Oil Spill,‖ Chemosphere 71: 447–

12 455.

13

14 Perovich, D.K., B. Light, H. Eicken, K.F. Jones, K. Runciman, and S.V. Nghiem, 2007, 

15 ―Increasing Solar Heating of the Arctic Ocean and Adjacent Seas, 1979–2005: Attribution and 

16 Role in the Ice-Albedo Feedback,‖ Geophysical Research Letters 34, L19505. 

17

18 Perovich D., W. Meier, J. Maslanik, and J. Richter-Menge, 2010, ―Sea Ice Cover‖ in Arctic 

19 Report Card: Update for 2010. Available at http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html. 

20 Accessed September 7, 2011.

21

22 Perrin, W.F., 1998, ―Stenella longirostris,‖ Mammalian Species 599:1–7.

23

24 Perrin, W.F., 2001, ―Stenella attenuata,‖ Mammalian Species 683:1–8.

25

26 Perrin, W.F., 2002, ―Stenella frontalis,‖ Mammalian Species 702:1–6.

27

28 Perry, A., C.S. Baker, and L.M. Herman, 1990, Population Characteristics of Individually 

29 Identified Humpback Whales in the Central and Eastern North Pacific: A Summary and 

30 Critique, Report of the International Whaling Commission, Special Issue 12:307–317. 

31

32 Perry, S.L., D.P. DeMaster, and G. K. Silber, 1999, ―The Great Whales: History and Status of 

33 Six Species Listed as Endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973,‖ Marine 

34 Fisheries Review 61(1):7–58. 

35

36 Perry, A.L., P.J.Low, J.R. Ellis, and J.D. Reynolds, 2005, ―Climate Change and Distribution 

37 Shifts in Marine Fishes,‖ Science 308:1912–1915.

38

39 Phillips, R.L., T.E. Reiss, E. Kempema, and E. Reimnitz, 1984, Near Shore Marine Geologic 

40 Investigations, Wainwright to Skull Cliff, Northeast Chukchi Sea, U.S. Geological Survey Open41 File Report 84-108.

42

43 Philo, L.M., G.M. Carroll, and D.A. Yokel, 1993, Movements of Caribou in the Teshekpuk Lake 

44 Herd as Determined by Satellite Tracking, 1990–1993, North Slope Borough, Barrow, Alaska. 

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-473

1 Piatt, J.F., and A.S. Kitaysky, 2002a, ―Tufted Puffin (Fratercula comiculata),‖ Issue 603, The 

2 Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.), Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. 

3 Available at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/708. Accessed August 18, 2011.

4

5 Piatt, J.F., and A.S. Kitaysky, 2002b, ―Horned Puffin (Fratercula cirrhata),‖ Issue 708, The 

6 Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.), Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. 

7 Available at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/603. Accessed August 18, 2011.

8

9 Piatt, J.F., J. Wetzel, K. Bell, A.R. DeGange, G.R. Balogh, G.S. Drew, T. Greernaert, C. Ladd, 

10 and G.V. Byrd, 2006, ―Predictable Hotspots and Foraging Habitat of the Endangered Short-tailed 

11 Albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) in the North Pacific: Implications for Conservation,‖ Deep Sea 

12 Research II 53:387–398.

13

14 Piatt, J.F., J. Wetzel, K. Bell, A.R. DeGange, G.R. Balogh, G.S. Drew, T. Greernaert, C. Ladd, 

15 and G.V. Byrd, 2006, ―Predictable Hotspots and Foraging Habitat of the Endangered Short-tailed 

16 Albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) in the North Pacific: Implications for Conservation.‖ Deep 

17 Sea Research II 53: 387–398.

18

19 Pickart, R.S., G.W.K. Moore, D.J. Torres, P.S. Fratantoni, R.A. Goldsmith, and J. Yang, 2009, 

20 ―Upwelling on the Continental Slope of the Alaskan Beaufort Sea: Storms, Ice, and 

21 Oceanographic Response,‖ Journal of Geophysical Research 114.

22

23 Picou, J.S., and C. Arata, 1997, ―Chronic Psychological Impacts of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: 

24 Resource Loss and Commercial Fishers,‖ Appendix J in Coping with Technological Disasters:

25 A User Friendly Guidebook, Prince William Sound Regional Citizens‘ Advisory Council, 

26 Anchorage, Alaska.

27

28 Picou, J.S., and D.A. Gill, 1996, ―The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill and Chronic Psychological Stress,‖

29 pp. 879–893in Proceedings of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Symposium, Anchorage, Alaska, Feb. 

30 2–5, 1993, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Md.

31

32 Picou, J.S., C. Formichella, B.K. Marshall, and C. Arata, 2009 ―Community Impacts of the 

33 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: A Synthesis and Elaboration,‖ pp. 279–310 in Synthesis: Three 

34 Decades of Research on Socioeconomic Effects Related to Offshore Petroleum Development in 

35 Coastal Alaska, S.R. Braud and J. Kruse (eds.), MMS OCS Study No. 2009-006, Stephen R. 

36 Braud & Associates, Anchorage, Alaska.

37

38 Picou, J.S., G.D. Johnson, and D.A. Gill, 1999, ―Mitigating the Chronic Community Impacts of 

39 Localized Environmental Degradation: A Case Study of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill,‖ 

40 Appendix K in Coping with Technological Disasters: A User Friendly Guidebook, Prince 

41 William Sound Regional Citizens‘ Advisory Council, Anchorage, Alaska.

42

43 Picou, S., 2010, Helping Others: A Community Peer Listener Training Program, training 

44 session presented at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, La., July 28. Available at

45 http://130.39.4.49/mediasite/Viewer/?peid=594f72ab89f54d8285cbc7054145be2c. Accessed 

46 June 17, 2011.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-474

1 Ping, C.-L., G.J. Michaelson, L. Guo, M.T. Jorgenson, M. Kanevskiy, Y. Shur, F. Dou, and 

2 J. Liang, 2011, ―Soil Carbon and Material Fluxes across the Eroding Alaska Beaufort Sea 

3 Coastline,‖ Journal of Geophysical Research 116, G02004.

4

5 Pitcher, K.W., 1989, Studies of Southeastern Alaska Sea Otter Populations — Distribution, 

6 Abundance, Structure, Range Expansion, and Potential Conflicts with Shellfisheries, Final 

7 Report Part 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Cooperative Agreement No. 14-16-0009-954, 

8 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. 

9

10 Pitcher, K.W., and D.C. Calkins, 1979, ―Biology of the Harbor Seal, Phoca vitulina richardii, 

11 pp. 231–310 in the Gulf of Alaska,‖ Environmental Assessment of the Alaskan Continental Shelf,

12 Final Reports of Principal Investigators, Vol. 19 (Dec. 1983), National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

13 Administration, Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program, and Bureau of 

14 Land Management, Juneau and Anchorage, Alaska. 

15

16 Pomeroy, L., P.L. Williams, F. Azam, and J.E. Hobbie, 2007, ―The Microbial Loop,‖ 

17 Oceanography 20:28–33.

18

19 Poole, F.W. and G.L. Hufford, 1982, ―Meteorological and Oceanographic Factors Affecting Sea 

20 Ice in Cook Inlet,‖ Journal of Geophysical Research 87C3:2061–2070.

21

22 Post, E., and M.C. Forchhammer, 2008, ―Climate Change Reduces Reproductive Success of and 

23 Arctic Herbivore through Trophic Mismatch,‖ Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 

24 B 3363:2369–2375.

25

26 Powell, A.N., A.R. Taylor, and R.B. Lanctot, 2010, Pre-migratory Ecology and Physiology of 

27 Shorebirds Staging on Alaska‘s North Slope, Coastal Marine Institute, University of Alaska, 

28 Fairbanks, Alaska.

29

30 Powell, J.A., and G.B. Rathbun, 1984, ―Distribution and Abundance of Manatees along the 

31 Northern Coast of the Gulf of Mexico,‖ Northeast Gulf Science 7:1–28.

32

33 Precht, W.F., R.B. Aronson, K.J.P. Deslarzes, M.L. Robbart, D.J. Evans, B. Zimmer, and 

34 L. Duncan, 2008, Long-Term Monitoring at the East and West Flower Garden Banks, 2004–

35 2005 – Interim Report, Vol. I: Technical Report, OCS Study MMS 2008-027, Minerals 

36 Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La. 

37

38 Prince, R.C., E.H. Owens, and G.A. Sergy, 2002, ―Weathering of an Arctic Oil Spill over 

39 20 Years: The BIOS Experiment Revisited, Baffin Island Oil Spill,‖ Marine Pollution Bulletin

40 44(11):1236–1242.

41

42 Pritchard, P.C.H., 1997, ―Evolution, Phylogeny, and Current Status,‖ pp. 1–28in The Biology of 

43 Sea Turtles, P.L. Lutz and J.A. Musick (eds.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla. 

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-475

1 Proshutinsky, A.Y., T. Proshutinsky, and T. Weingartner, 1999, Environmental Conditions 

2 Affecting Commercial Shipping on the Northern Sea Ports, International Northern Sea Route 

3 Programme, Working Paper No. 126-1999, I.5.8.

4

5 Proshutinsky, A., V. Pavlov, and R.H. Bourke, 2001, ―Sea Level Rise in the Arctic Ocean,‖ 

6 Geophysical Research Letters 28:2237–2240.

7

8 Pulsipher, A.G., D. Tootle, and R. Pincomb, 1999, Economic and Social Consequences of the Oil 

9 Spill in Lake Barre, Louisiana, OCS Report MMS 99-0028, prepared by the Louisiana State 

10 University, Center for Energy Studies for the Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

11 OCS Region, Louisiana State University, Coastal Marine Institute, New Orleans, La.

12

13 Purcell, J.E., D.L. Breitburg, M.B. Decker, W.M. Graham, M.J. Younbluth, and K.A. Raskoff, 

14 2001, ―Pelagic Cnidarians and Ctenophores in Low Dissolved Oxygen Environments: A 

15 Review,‖ Chapter 5 in Coastal Hypoxia: Consequences for Living Resources and Ecosystems, 

16 N.N. Rabalais and R.E. Turner (eds.), American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C. 

17

18 Purcell, J.E., S.-I. Uye, and W.-T. Lo, 2007, ―Anthropogenic Causes of Jellyfish Blooms and 

19 Direct Consequences for Humans: A Review,‖ Marine Ecology Progress Series 350:153–174.

20

21 Purdy, B.A. (ed.), 1988, Wet Site Archaeology, Telford Press, Caldwell, N.J. 

22

23 Putkonen, J., and G. Roe, 2003, ―Rain-on-Snow Events Impact Soil Temperatures and Affect 

24 Ungulate Survival.‖ Geophysical Research Letters 30(4):37-1 – 37-4.

25

26 Quakenbush, L., 2008, Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series: Bowhead Whale, Alaska Department of 

27 Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/education/wns/

28 bowhead_whale.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2011.

29

30 Qureshi, N.A., and N.N. Rabalais, 2001, ―Distribution of Zooplankton on a Seasonally Hypoxi 

31 Continental Shelf,‖ Chapter 4 in Coastal Hypoxia: Consequences for Living Resources and 

32 Ecosystems, N.N. Rabalais and R.E. Turner (eds.), American Geophysical Union, Washington, 

33 D.C. 

34

35 Raabe, E.A., and L.C. Gauron, 2005, Florida Salt Marsh Vole Habitat: Lower Suwannee 

36 National Wildlife Refuge, Open-File Report 2005-1417, U.S. Geological Survey, St. Petersburg, 

37 Fla. 

38

39 Rabalais, N.N, R.E. Turner, and D. Scavia, 2002, ―Beyond Science into Policy: Gulf of Mexico 

40 Hypoxia and the Mississippi River,‖ BioScience 52:129–142.

41

42 Rabalais, N.N., R.J. Díaz, L.A. Levin, R.E. Turner, D. Gilbert, and J. Zhang, 2010, ―Dynamics 

43 and Distribution of Natural and Human-Caused Hypoxia,‖ Biogeosciences 7:585–619.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-476

1 Rabe, B., M. Karcher, U. Schauer, J.M. Toole, R.A. Krishfield, S. Pisarev, F. Kauker, R. Gerdes, 

2 and T. Kikuchi, 2011, ―An Assessment of Arctic Ocean Freshwater Content Changes from the 

3 1990s to the 2006-2008 Period,‖ Deep Sea Research Part 1: Oceanographic Research Papers

4 58:173–185.

5

6 Ragen, T.J., H.P. Huntington, and G.K. Hovelsrud, 2008, ―Conservation of Arctic Marine 

7 Mammals Faced with Climate Change,‖ Ecological Applications 18(2):S166–S174.

8

9 Rahn, K.A., 1982, ―On the Causes, Characteristics and Potential Environmental Effects of 

10 Aerosol in the Arctic Atmosphere,‖ in The Arctic Ocean: The Hydrographic Environment and 

11 the Fate of Pollutants, L. Ray (ed.), John Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y.

12

13 Rahn, K.A., R.D. Borys, and G.E. Shaw, 1977, ―The Asian Source of Arctic Haze Bands,‖ 

14 Nature 268:713–715.

15

16 Randall, D.A., R.A. Wood, S. Bony, R. Colman, T. Fichefet, J. Fyfe, V. Kattsov, A. Pitman, 

17 J. Shukla, J. Srinivasan, R.J. Stouffer, A. Sumi, and K.E. Taylor, 2007, ―Climate Models and 

18 Their Evaluation,‖ in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of 

19 Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

20 Change, S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and 

21 H.L. Miller (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., and New York, N.Y.

22

23 Rathbun, G.B., J.P. Reid, and G. Carowan, 1990, ―Distribution and Movement Patterns of 

24 Manatees (Trichechus manatus) in Northwestern Peninsular Florida,‖ Florida Marine Research 

25 Publication No. 48, Florida Department of Natural Resources, Florida Marine Research Institute, 

26 St. Petersburg, Fla. Available at http://research.myfwc.com/publications/publication_info.asp?id

27 =26075. Accessed June 3, 2010.

28

29 Ray, C.E., 1971, ―Polar Bear and Mammoth on the Pribilof Islands,‖ Arctic 24:9–19. 

30

31 Raynolds, M.K., D.A. Walker, and H.A. Maier, 2006, ―Alaska Arctic Tundra Vegetation Map, 

32 Scale 1:4,000,000, Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) Map No. 2,‖ U.S. Fish and 

33 Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska.

34

35 Read, A.J., P.N. Halpin, L.B. Crowder, B.D. Best, and E. Fujioka (eds.), 2011, OBIS-SEAMAP: 

36 Mapping Marine Mammals, Birds, and Turtles, Ocean Biogeographic Information System, Web 

37 electronic publication. Available at http://seamap.env.duke.edu. Accessed March 15, 2011.

38

39 Reese, C.S., J.A. Calvin, J.C. George, and R.A. Tarpley, 2001, ―Estimation of Gestation 

40 in Bowhead Whales (with Discussion),‖ Journal of the American Statistical 

41 Association 96:915–938.

42

43 Reeves, R.R., B.S. Stewart, and S. Leatherwood, 1992, The Sierra Club Handbook of Seals and 

44 Sirenians, Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, Calif. 

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-477

1 Reeves, R.R., G.K. Silber, and P.M. Payne, 1998, Draft Recovery Plan for the Fin Whale 

2 Balaenoptera physalus and Sei Whale Balaenoptera borealis, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

3 Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, Md. 

4

5 Regehr, E.V., S.C. Amstrup, and I. Stirling, 2006, Polar Bear Population Status in the Southern 

6 Beaufort Sea, USGS Open-File Report 2006-1337, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va. 

7 Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1337/pdf/ofr20061337.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2011. 

8

9 Regehr, E.V., C.M. Hunter, H. Caswell, S.A. Amstrup, and I. Stirling, 2010, ―Survival and 

10 Breeding of Polar Bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea in Relation to Sea Ice,‖ Journal of Animal 

11 Ecology 79:117–127.

12

13 Rehfisch, M.M., and H.Q.P. Crick, 2003, ―Predicting the Impact of Climate Change on Arctic14 Breeding Waders,‖ Wader Study Group Bulletin 100:86–95.

15

16 Reist, J.D., F.J. Wrona, T.D. Prowse, M. Power, J.B. Dempson, R.J. Beamish, J.R. King, 

17 T.J. Carmichael, and C.D. Sawatzky, 2006, ―General Effects of Climate Change on Arctic Fishes 

18 and Fish Populations,‖ Ambio 35:370–380. 

19

20 Renaud, M.L., J.A. Carpenter, and J.A. Williams, 1995, ―Activities of Juvenile Green Turtles, 

21 Chelonia mydas, at a Jettied Pass in South Texas,‖ Fishery Bulletin 93:586–593.

22

23 Restore the Gulf, 2010, Deepwater Horizon Response Consolidated Fish and Wildlife Collection 

24 Report, November 2, 2010. Available at http://www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/

25 documents/pdf/Consolidated%20Wildlife%20Table%20110210.pdf. Accessed 

26 November 10, 2010.

27

28 Reynolds, P.E., 1992, ―Seasonal Differences in the Distribution and Movements of Muskoxen 

29 (Ovibos moschatus) in Northeastern Alaska,‖ Rangifer 13:171–172. 

30

31 Rezak, R., T.J. Bright, and D.W. McGrail, 1983, Reefs and Banks of the Northwestern Gulf of 

32 Mexico: Their Geological, Biological, and Physical Dynamics, Northern Gulf of Mexico 

33 Topographic Features Monitoring and Data Synthesis, Executive Summary and Final Report 

34 prepared by Texas A&M University, Department of Oceanography, for Minerals Management 

35 Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Office, Metairie, La. 

36

37 Rezak, R., T.J. Bright, and D.W. McGrail, 1985, Reefs and Banks of the Northern Gulf of 

38 Mexico: Their Geological, Biological, and Physical Dynamics, John Wiley and Sons, 

39 New York, N.Y. 

40

41 Rice, D.W., 1974, ―Whales and Whale Research in the Eastern North Pacific,‖ in The Whale 

42 Problem: A Status Report, W.E. Schevill (ed.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 

43

44 Rice, D.W., 1986, ―Beaked Whales,‖ pp. 102–109 in Marine Mammals of the Eastern North 

45 Pacific and Arctic Waters, D. Haley (ed.), Pacific Search Press, Seattle, Wash. 

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-478

1 Rice, D.W., 1988, ―Sperm Whale Physeter macrocephalus, Linnaeus 1758,‖ pp. 177–233 in 

2 Handbook of Marine Mammals, Vol. 4, S.H. Ridgway and R.J. Harrison (eds.), Academic Press, 

3 London, England. 

4

5 Rice, D.W., 1989, ―Sperm Whale, Physeter macrocephalus,‖ pp. 177–233 in Handbook of 

6 Marine Mammals, Vol. 4. River Dolphins and the Larger Toothed Whales, S.H. Ridgway and 

7 R. Harrison (eds.), Academic Press, New York. 

8

9 Rice, D.W., 1998, Marine Mammals of the World: Systematics and Distribution, Marine 

10 Mammal Science Special Publication 4, Society for Marine Mammals, Allen Press, 

11 St. Lawrence. 

12

13 Rice, D.W., and A.A. Wolman, 1971, The Life History and Ecology of the Gray Whale 

14 (Eschrichtius robustus), Special Publication No. 3, The American Society of Mammalogists, 

15 Seattle, Wash. 

16

17 Rice, D.W., and A.A. Wolman, 1982, ―Whale Census in the Gulf of Alaska June to August 

18 1980,‖ Report of the International Whaling Commission 32:491–497. 

19

20 Rice, D.W., A.A. Wolman, D.E. Withrow, and L.A. Fleischer, 1981, ―Gray Whales on 

21 the Winter Grounds in Baja California,‖ Report of the International Whaling 

22 Commission 31:477–493.

23

24 Richard, P.R., A.R. Martin, and J.R. Orr, 2001, ―Summer and Autumn Movements of Belugas of 

25 the Eastern Beaufort Sea Stock,‖ Arctic 54(3): 223–236. 

26

27 Richards, W.J., and T. Potthoff, 1980, ―Distribution and Seasonal Occurrence of Larval Pelagic 

28 Stages of Spiny Lobsters (Palinuridae, Panulirus) in the Western Tropical Atlantic,‖

29 Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fishery Institute 33:244–252.

30

31 Richards, W.J., M.F. McGowan, T. Leming, J.T. Lampkin, and S. Kelley, 1993, ―Larval Fish 

32 Assemblages at the Loop Current Boundary in the Gulf of Mexico,‖ Bulletin of Marine Science

33 53(2):475–537.

34

35 Richardson, W.J. (ed.), 2011, Monitoring of Industrial Sounds, Seals, and Bowhead Whales near 

36 BP‘s Northstar Oil Development, Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 2010: Annual Summary Report, LGL 

37 Report P1182, prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates Inc., Anchorage, Alaska, and LGL 

38 Ltd. environmental research associates, King City, Ontario, Canada, for BP Exploration (Alaska) 

39 Inc., Anchorage, Alaska, Feb. 22.

40

41 Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson, 1995, Marine Mammals and 

42 Noise, Academic Press, San Diego.

43
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-479

1 Richardson, W.J., and D.H. Thomson (eds.), 2002, Bowhead Whale Feeding in the Eastern 

2 Alaskan Beaufort Sea: Update of Scientific and Traditional Information, Vols. 1 and 2, OCS 

3 Study MMS 2002-012, LGL Report TA2196-7, prepared by LGL Ltd., King City, Ontario, 

4 Canada, for Minerals Management Service, Anchorage, Alaska, and Herndon, Va. 

5

6 Richter-Menge, J., and M. Jeffries, 2011, ―The Arctic,‖ in State of the Climate in 2010, Bulletin 

7 of the American Meteorological Society 92(6):S143–S160.

8

9 Riedman, M.L., and J.A. Estes, 1990, The Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris): Behavior, Ecology, and 

10 Natural History, Biological Report 90(14), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., 

11 Sept.

12

13 Riedman, M.L., J.A. Estes, M.M. Staedler, A.A. Giles, and D.R. Carlson, 1994, ―Breeding 

14 Patterns and Reproductive Success of California Sea Otters,‖ Journal of Wildlife 

15 Management 58(3):391–399.

16

17 Roach, E.R., M.C. Watzin, J.D. Scurry, and J.B. Johnston, 1987, ―Wetland Trends in Coastal 

18 Alabama.‖ In: Symposium on the Natural Resources of the Mobile Bay Estuary, p. 92–101, T.A. 

19 Lowery (ed.). Auburn University. Alabama Sea Grant Extension Service, MASGP-87-007.

20

21 Robards, M.D., J.F. Piatt, A.B. Kettle and A.A. Abookire, 1999, ―Temporal and Geographic 

22 Variation in Fish Communities of lower Cook Inlet, Alaska,‖ Fishery Bulletin 97:962–977. 

23

24 Robards, M.D., G.A. Rose, and J.F. Piatt, 2002, ―Growth and Abundance of Pacific Sand Lance, 

25 Ammodytes hexapterus, under Differing Oceanographic Regimes,‖ Environmental Biology of 

26 Fishes 64:429–441.

27

28 Robbart, M.L., R.B. Aronson, K.J.P. Deslarzes, W.F. Precht, L. Duncan, B. Zimmer, and 

29 T. DeMunda, 2009, Post-Hurricane Assessment of Sensitive Habitats of the Flower Garden 

30 Banks Vicinity, OCS Study MMS 2009-032, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

31 OCS Region, New Orleans, La. 

32

33 Robertson, G.J., and J.-P.L. Savard, 2002, ―Long-tailed Duck (Clangula hyemalis),‖ Issue 651,

34 The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.), Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, 

35 New York. Available at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/651. Accessed August 18, 

36 2011.

37

38 Roby, D.D., 1980, ―Winter Activity of Caribou on Two Arctic Ranges,‖ in Proceedings of the 

39 Second International Reindeer/Caribou Symposium, Roros, Norway, R. Reimers, E. Gaare, and 

40 S. Skjensberg (eds.), Direktorat for Vilt og Freskvannsfisk, Trondheim, Norway. 

41

42 Roderick, L. (ed.), 2010, Alaska Native Cultures and Issues: Responses to Frequently Asked 

43 Questions, University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks, Alaska.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-480

1 Rogner, H.-H., D. Zhou, R. Bradley, P. Crabbé, O. Edenhofer, B. Hare, L. Kuijpers, and 

2 M. Yamaguchi, 2007, ―Introduction,‖ in Climate Change 2007: Mitigation, Contribution of 

3 Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

4 Change, B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, and L.A. Meyer (eds.), Cambridge 

5 University Press, Cambridge, U.K., and New York, N.Y.

6

7 Rosenberg, D.H., D.C. Burrell, K.V. Natarajan, and D.W. Hood, 1967, Oceanography of Cook 

8 Inlet with Special Reference to the Effluent from the Collier Carbon and Chemical Plant, Report 

9 No. IMS-67-5, University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science, College, Alaska.

10

11 Rosenzweig, C., G. Casassa, D.J. Karoly, A. Imeson, C. Liu, A. Menzel, S. Rawlins, T.L. Root, 

12 B. Seguin, and P. Tryjanowski, 2007, ―Assessment of Observed Changes and Responses in 

13 Natural and Managed Systems,‖ pp. 79–131 in Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and 

14 Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

15 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, 

16 P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. 

17

18 Ross, D., 1976, Mechanics of Underwater Noise, Pergamon Press, New York.

19

20 Ross, S.T., W.T. Slack, R.J. Heise, M.A. Dugo, H. Rogillio, B.R. Bowen, P. Mickle, and 

21 R.W. Heard, 2009, ―Estuarine and Coastal Habitat Use of Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

22 desotoi) in the North-Central Gulf of Mexico,‖ Estuaries and Coasts 32:360–374.

23

24 Ross S.W., A.M. Quattrini, A.Y. Roa-Varón, and J.P. McClain, 2010, ―Species Composition and 

25 Distributions of Mesopelagic Fishes over the Slope of the North-Central Gulf of Mexico,‖ Deep 

26 Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 57:1926–1956. 

27

28 Rothrock, D.A., and J. Zhang, 2005, ―Arctic Ocean Sea Ice Volume: What Explains Its Recent 

29 Depletion?‖ Journal of Geophysical Research 110(C1), C01002.

30

31 Rowe, G.T., and M.C. Kennicutt II (eds.), 2009, Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Slope 

32 Habitats and Benthic Ecology Study, Final Report, OCS Study MMS 2009-039, Minerals 

33 Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La., July. Available at 

34 http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PI/PDFimages/ESPIS/4/4842.pdf. Accessed June 30, 2011.

35

36 Royal Society, 2005, Ocean Acidification Due to Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, 

37 Policy Document 12/05, Science Policy Section, London, U.K. Available at http://royalsociety.

38 org/Ocean-acidification-due-to-increasing-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/. Accessed 

39 June 28, 2011.

40

41 Rozell, N., 2000, The Search for Russia‘s Lindbergh, Alaska Science Forum, September 10, 

42 1999, Article #1456, University of Alaska, Fairbanks Geophysical Institute. Available at 

43 http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF14/1456.html. Accessed July 5, 2011.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-481

1 Rugh, D.J., and H. Braham, 1979, ―California Gray Whale (Eschrichtius robustus) Fall 

2 Migration through Unimak Pass, Alaska, 1977: A Preliminary Report,‖ Report of the 

3 International Whaling Commission 29:315–320. 

4

5 Rugh, D.J., M.M. Muto, S.E. Moore, and D.P. DeMaster, 1999, Status Review of the Eastern 

6 North Pacific Stock of Gray Whales, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-103, 

7 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska 

8 Science Center, Seattle, Wash. 

9

10 Rugh, D., D. Demaster, A. Rooney, J. Breiwick, K. Shelden, and S. Moore, 2003, ―A Review of 

11 Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus) Stock Identity,‖ Journal of Cetacean Research and 

12 Management 5(3):267–279.

13

14 Rugh, D.J., K.E.W. Shelden, and R.C. Hobbs, 2010, ―Range Contraction in a Beluga Whale 

15 Population,‖ Endangered Species Research 12:69–75.

16

17 Russell, R.W., 2005, Interactions between Migrating Birds and Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms 

18 in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: Final Report. OCS Study MMS 2005 009. U.S. Department of 

19 the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La.

20

21 Sage, B., 1996, Terrestrial Mammals of the Arctic. Available at http://lynx.uio.no/jon/lynx/

22 arctmam.html. Accessed August 30, 2011.

23

24 Sager, W.W., W.W. Schroeder, J.S. Laswell, K.S. Davis, R. Rezak, and S.R. Gittings, 1992, 

25 ―Topographic Features of the Mississippi-Alabama Outer Continental Shelf and Their 

26 Implications for Sea Level Fluctuations during the Late Pleistocene-Holocene Transgression,‖ 

27 Geo-Mar. Lett. 12:41–48. 

28

29 SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation), 1997, Northeastern Gulf of Mexico 

30 Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Program: Data Search and Synthesis; Synthesis Report, 

31 USGS/BRD/CR-1997-0005, prepared by SAIC for U.S. Geological Survey, Biological 

32 Resources Division; OCS Study MMS 96-0014 and MMS, Minerals Management Service, Gulf 

33 of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La.

34

35 Saliva, J.E., 1993, Caribbean Roseate Tern Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

36 Southeast Region, Atlanta, Ga.

37

38 SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration), 2010, Tips for Coping 

39 with the Oil Spill Disaster: Managing Your Stress, U.S. Department of Health and Human 

40 Services, July.

41

42 Sammarco P.W., A.D., Atchison, and G.S. Boland, 2004, ―Expansion of Coral Communities 

43 within the Northern Gulf of Mexico via Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms,‖ Marine Ecology 

44 Progress Series 280:129–143.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-482

1 Sansonetti, T.L., 1987, ―MMS Responsibility for Onshore Activities under the National Historic 

2 Preservation Act,‖ memorandum from Sansonetti (Associate Solicitor, Energy and Resources, 

3 Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.) to Director (Minerals 

4 Management Service), Aug.

5

6 Sassen, R., J.M. Brooks, M.C. Kennucutt II, I.R. MacDonald, and N.L. Guinasso, Jr., 1993a, 

7 ―How Oil Seeps, Discoveries Relate in Deepwater Gulf of Mexico,‖ Oil & Gas Journal

8 91(16):64–69.

9

10 Sassen, R., J. Brooks, I. MacDonald, M. Kennicutt II, and N. Guinasso, 1993b, ―Association of 

11 Oil Seeps and Chemosynthetic Communities with Oil Discoveries, Upper Continental Slope, 

12 Gulf of Mexico,‖ Bull. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. 77:1599.

13

14 Saupe, S.M., J. Gendron, and D. Dasher, 2005, The Condition of Southcentral Alaska Coastal 

15 Bays and Estuaries, a statistical summary for the National Coastal Assessment Program, Alaska 

16 Department of Environmental Conservation.

17

18 Savitz, D.A., R.T. Oxman, and K.B. Metzger, 2008, ―Epidemiologic Research on Manmade

19 Disasters: Strategies and Implications of Cohort Definition for World Trade Center Worker and 

20 Volunteer Surveillance Program,‖ Mt. Sinai Journal of Medicine 75: 77–87.

21

22 Scarff, J.E., 1986, ―Historic and Present Distribution of the Right Whale, Eubalaena glacialis, in 

23 the Eastern North Pacific South of 50 N and East of 180 W,‖ Report of the International Whaling 

24 Commission, Special Issue 10, pp. 43–63. 

25

26 Scavia, D., J.C. Field, D.F. Boesch, R.W. Buddemeier, V. Burkett, D.R. Cayan, M. Fogarty, 

27 M.A. Harwell, R.W. Howarth, C. Mason, D.J. Reed, T.C. Royer, A.H. Sallenger, and J.G. Titus, 

28 2002, ―Climate Change Impacts on U.S. Coastal and Marine Ecosystems,‖ Estuaries

29 25(2):149–164.

30

31 Scavia, D., et al., 2003, ―Predicting the Response of Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia to Variations in 

32 Mississippi River Nitrogen Load,‖ Limnology & Oceanography 48:951–956.

33

34 Scheffer, V.B., and J.W. Slipp, 1944, ―The Harbor Seal in Washington State,‖ American 

35 Midland Naturalist 32:373–416. 

36

37 Schliebe, S., T.J. Evans, S. Miller, C.J. Perham, J.M. Wilder, and L.J. Lierheimer, 2005, Polar 

38 Bear Management in Alaska, 2000–2004, Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska.

39

40 Schneider, K., and B. Ballachey, 2008, Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series: Sea Otter, Alaska 

41 Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/

42 static/education/wns/sea_otter.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2011.

43

44 Schroeder, W.W., M.R. Dardeau, J.J. Dindo, P. Fleisher, K.L. Heck, Jr., and A.W. Shultz, 1989, 

45 ―Geophysical and Biological Aspects of Hard Bottom Environments on the L'MAFLA Shelf, 

46 Northern Gulf of Mexico,‖ pp. 17–21 in Proceedings of Oceans ‘88 Conference. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-483

1 Schuur, E.A.G., J.G. Vogel, K.G. Crummer, H. Lee, J.O. Sickman, and T.E. Osterkamp, 2009,

2 ―The Effect of Permafrost Thaw on Old Carbon Release and Net Carbon Exchange from 

3 Tundra,‖ Nature 459:556–559. 

4

5 Schwartz, C.C., S.D. Miller, and A.W. Franzmann, 1987, ―Denning Ecology of Three 

6 Black Bear Populations in Alaska,‖ International Conference Bear Research and 

7 Management 7:281–291.

8

9 Schwing, F.B., R. Mendelssohn, S.J. Bograd, J.E. Overland, M. Wang, and S.-I. Ito, 2010, 

10 ―Climate Change, Teleconnection Patterns and Regional Processes Forcing Marine Populations 

11 in the Pacific,‖ Journal of Marine Systems 79:245–257.

12

13 Scott, R.L., D.C. Biggs, and S.F. DiMarco, 200l, Spatial and Temporal Variability of Plankton 

14 Stocks on the Basis of Acoustic Backscatter Intensity and Direct Measurements in the 

15 Northeastern Gulf of Mexico, OCS Study MMS 2001-063, Minerals Management Service, Gulf 

16 of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La. 

17

18 Seaford, J., 2011, The Impact of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Available at 

19 http://jseaford.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/the-impact-of-the-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill/. 

20 Accessed July 15, 2011.

21

22 SEAMAP (Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program), 2010, Environmental and 

23 Biological Atlas of the Gulf of Mexico, 2006, Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, No. 179.

24

25 Selinger, J., 2008, ―Units 7 & 15 Black bear Management Report,‖ pp. 143–148 in Black Bear 

26 Management Report for Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2004–30 June 2007, Project 17.0,

27 P. Harper (ed.),Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. 

28

29 Semenov, V.N., 1965, ―Quantitative Distribution of Bottom Fauna on Shelf and Upper Part of 

30 [Continental] Slope of the Alaska Gulf,‖ Proceed. All-Union Res. Inst. Mar. Fish. and Oceanogr. 

31 (VNIRO) 58:49–77 (in Russian).

32

33 Sergeant, D.E., and P.F. Brodie, 1969, ―Body Size in White Whales, Delphinapterus leucas,‖ 

34 Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 26:2561–2580. 

35

36 Serreze, M.C., and J.A. Francis, 2006, ―The Arctic Amplification Debate,‖ Climatic 

37 Change 76:241–264.

38

39 Servheen, C., and M. Cross, 2010, Climate Change Impacts on Grizzly Bears and Wolverines in 

40 the Northern U.S. and Transboundary Rockies: Strategies for Conservation, Report on a 

41 workshop held Sept. 13–15 in Fernie, British Columbia.

42

43 Sharma, G.D., 1979, The Alaskan Shelf: Hydrographic, Sedimentary and Geochemical 

44 Environment, Springer-Verlag, New York, N.Y.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-484

1 Sharma, S., S. Couturier, and S.D. Côté, 2009, ―Impacts of Climate Change on the Seasonal 

2 Distribution of Migratory Caribou,‖ Global Change Biology 15:2549–2562.

3

4 Sheikh, P.A., 2006, The Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Biological Resources, Congressional 

5 Research Service Report for Congress, February 22. Available at 

6 http://www.nbii.gov/images/uploaded/156209_1216400089496_Impact_of_Hurricane_Katrina.p

7 df. Accessed September 8, 2011.

8

9 Shelden, K.E.W., and D.J. Rugh, 1995, ―The Bowhead Whale, Balaena mysticetus: Its Historic 

10 and Current Status,‖ Marine Fisheries Review 57(3–4):1–20. 

11

12 Shelden, K.E.W., D.J. Rugh, B.A. Mahoney, and M.E. Dahlheim, 2003, ―Killer Whale Predation 

13 on Belugas in Cook Inlet, Alaska: Implications for a Depleted Population,‖ Marine Mammal 

14 Science 19(3):529–544.

15

16 Shelden, K.E.W., S.E. Moore, J.M. Waite, P.R. Wade, and D.J. Rugh, 2005, ―Historic and 

17 Current Habitat Use by North Pacific Right Whales (Eubalaena japonica) in the Bering Sea and 

18 Gulf of Alaska,‖ Mammal Review 35:129–155. 

19

20 Shell Offshore, Inc., 2005, Application for Incidental Harassment Authorization for the 

21 Non-lethal Taking of Whales and Seals in Conjunction with a Proposed Marine Geophysical 

22 (Seismic Acquisition) Program in the Northern Chukchi Sea, Alaska, during 2006, Shell 

23 Exploration & Production Company, Robert, La. Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/

24 pdfs/permits/iha_Shell_chukchi.pdf. Accessed Jan. 22, 2007. 

25

26 Sherman, K., 2003, Physical, Biological and Human Forcing of Biomass Yields in Large Marine 

27 Ecosystems, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Session P, Physical-Biological 

28 Interactions in Marginal and Shelf Seas. Available at http://www.ices.dk/products/CMdocs/

29 2003/P/P1203.PDF. Accessed March 11, 2011.

30

31 Sherman, K., M. Aquarone, and S. Adams, 2007, Global Applications of the Large Marine 

32 Ecosystem Concept 2007-2010, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

33 Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-208.

34

35 Shideler, R., and J. Hechtel, 1995, ―Grizzly Bear Use of Oil Fields around Prudhoe Bay, 

36 Alaska,‖ in Tenth International Conference on Bears Resources and Management, Fairbanks, 

37 Alaska, July 16–20, 1995. 

38

39 Shideler, R., and J. Hechtel, 2000, ―Grizzly Bear,‖ pp. 105–132 in The Natural History of an 

40 Arctic Oil Field: Development and the Biota, J.C. Truett and S.R. Johnson (eds.), Academic 

41 Press, San Diego, Calif. 

42

43 Shields, P., 2010a, Upper Cook Inlet Commercial Fisheries Annual Management Report, 2010,

44 Fishery Management Report No. 10-54, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Anchorage.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-485

1 Shields, P., 2010b, Upper Cook Inlet Commercial Fisheries Annual Management Report, 2009,

2 Fishery Management Report No. 10-27, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage.

3

4 Short, J.W., 2004, ―Exxon Valdez Oil in the Nearshore Environment of Prince William Sound:

5 Persistence and Chemistry,‖ in 2004 Symposium, Marine Science in Alaska (Abstracts), Exxon 

6 Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, Anchorage, Alaska.

7

8 Sibley, D.A., 2000, The Sibley Guide to Birds. Alfred A Knopf, Inc., N.Y.

9

10 Sillero-Zubiri, C., and A. Angerbjorn, 2009, Arctic Foxes and Climate Change, Available at 

11 http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/fact_sheet_red_list_arctic_foxes.pdf. Accessed September 12, 

12 2011.

13

14 Simmonds, M.P., and S.J. Isaac, 2007, ―The Impacts of Climate Change on Marine Mammals: 

15 Early Signs of Significant Problems,‖ Oryx 41:19–26.

16

17 Simmonds, M.P., and W.J. Eliott, 2009, ―Climate Change and Cetaceans: Concerns and 

18 Recent Developments,‖ Journal of Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom

19 89(1):203–210.

20

21 Smith, T., J. Coady, and R. Kacyon, 2008, Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series: Muskox, Alaska 

22 Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/

23 static/education/wns/muskox.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2011.

24

25 Sneckenberger, S., 2001, Factors Influencing Habitat Use by the Alabama Beach Mouse 

26 Peromyscus polionotus ammobates, Master‘s thesis, Auburn University, Auburn, Ala. 

27

28 Solf, J.D., and H. Golden, 2008, Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series: River Otter, Alaska 

29 Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/

30 static/education/wns/river_otter.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2011.

31

32 Solicitor, 1980, ―Clarification of Authorities and Responsibilities for Identifying and Protecting 

33 Cultural Resources on the Outer Continental Shelf,‖ memorandum from Office of the Solicitor 

34 (U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.) to Director (Bureau of Land Management) 

35 and Director (U.S. Geological Survey), Nov.

36

37 Solomon, S., et al., 2007, ―Technical Summary,‖ in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science 

38 Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

39 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, 

40 M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.), Cambridge University Press, 

41 Cambridge, U.K., and New York, N.Y.

42

43 Speckman, S.G., J.F. Piattb, C.V. Minte-Veraa, and J.K. Parrisha, 2005, ―Parallel Structure 

44 among Environmental Gradients and Three Trophic Levels in a Subarctic Estuary,‖ Progress In 

45 Oceanography 66:25–65. 

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-486

1 Spencer, R.F., 1984, ―North Alaska Coast Eskimo,‖ pp. 320–337 in Handbook of North 

2 American Indians, Vol. 5 Arctic, D. Damas (ed.), Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

3

4 SRBA (Stephen R. Braud and Associates), 2010, Subsistence Mapping of Nuisquit, Kaktovik, 

5 and Barrow, MMS OCS Study No. 2009-003, prepared for the Minerals Management Service, 

6 Alaska, by Stephen R. Braud and Associates, Anchorage, Alaska, April.

7

8 Staal, P.R., 1985, ―Acoustic Effects of Underwater Explosive Discharges,‖ in Proceedings of 

9 Workshop on Effects of Explosives Use in the Marine Environment, Halifax, Jan. 29–31, Canada 

10 Oil and Gas Lands Administration, Environmental Protection Branch, Technical Report No. 5.

11

12 Stabile, J., J.R. Waldman, F. Paruka, and I. Wirgin, 1996, ―Stock Structure and Homing Fidelity 

13 in Gulf of Mexico Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) Based on Restriction Fragment 

14 Length Polymorphism and Sequence Analysis of Mitochondrial DNA,‖ Genetics 144:767–775.

15

16 Stacey, P.J., and R.W. Baird, 1991, ―Status of the Pacific White-Sided Dolphin (Lagenorhynchus 

17 obliquidens) in Canada,‖ Canadian Field-Naturalist 105(2):219–232. 

18

19 Stacey, P.J., S. Leatherwood, and R.W. Baird, 1994, ―Pseudorca crassidens,‖ Mammalian 

20 Species No. 456:1–6.

21

22 Stanley, D.R., and C.A. Wilson, 1997, ―Seasonal and Spatial Variation in Abundance and Size 

23 Distribution of Fishes Associated with a Petroleum Platform,‖ International Council on the 

24 Exploration of the Sea, Journal of Marine Science 202:473–475.

25

26 Stanley, D.R., and C.A. Wilson, 2000, Seasonal and Spatial Variation in the Biomass and Size 

27 Frequency Distribution of Fish Associated with Oil and Gas Platforms in the Northern Gulf of 

28 Mexico, OCS Study MMS 2000-005, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

29 Region, New Orleans, La. 

30

31 Stanley, D., and C. Wilson, 1989, ―Utilization of Offshore Platforms by Recreational Fishermen 

32 and Scuba Divers off the Louisiana Coast,‖ in Petroleum Structures as Artificial Reefs: A 

33 Compendium, comp. by V.C. Reggio, Jr., Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

34 Regional Office.

35

36 Stedman, S., and T.E. Dahl, 2008, Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Coastal Watersheds of 

37 the Eastern United States 1998 to 2004. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

38 National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

39 Service.

40

41 Steinacher, M., F. Joos, T.L. Froelicher, G.K. Plattner, and S.C. Doney, 2009, ―Imminent Ocean 

42 Acidification in the Arctic Projected with the NCAR Global Coupled Carbon Cycle-Climate 

43 Model,‖ Biogeosciences 6:515–533.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-487

1 Steinhauer, M.S., and P.D. Boehm, 1992, ―Composition and Distribution of Saturated and 

2 Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Nearshore Sediments, River Sediments, and Coastal Peat of the 

3 Arctic Beaufort Sea: Implications for Detecting Anthropogenic Hydrocarbon Inputs,‖ Marine 

4 Environmental Research 33(4):223–253.

5

6 Stephenson, S.A., 2005, ―The Distribution of Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) in the 

7 Canadian Western Arctic,‖ Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2737:vi.

8

9 Stephenson, B., 2008, Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series: Arctic Fox, Alaska Department of Fish 

10 and Game, Juneau, Alaska. Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/education/wns/

11 arctic_fox.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2011.

12

13 Stewart, B.E., and R.E.A. Stewart, 1989, ―Delphinapterus leucas,‖ Mammalian Species

14 No. 336:1–8.

15

16 Stirling, I., and W.R. Archibald, 1977, ―Aspects of Predation of Seals by Polar Bears,‖ Journal 

17 of Fisheries Research Board of Canada 34:1126–1129. 

18

19 Stirling, I., and P.B. Latour, 1978, ―Comparative Hunting Abilities of Polar Bear Cubs of 

20 Different Ages,‖ Canadian Journal of Zoology 56(8):1768–1772. 

21

22 Stirling, I., and N.J. Lunn, 1997, ―Environmental Fluctuations in Arctic Marine Ecosystems as 

23 Reflected by Variability in Reproduction of Polar Bears and Ringed Seals,‖ In: Woodin, S.J., 

24 and M. Marquiss (eds.), Ecology of Arctic Environments, Special Publication No. 13 of the 

25 British Ecology Society, Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford, England, pp. 167–181.

26

27 Stirling, I., and E. McEwan, 1975, ―The Caloric Value of Whole Ringed Seals (Phoca hispida) 

28 in Relation to Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) Ecology and Hunting Behavior,‖ Canadian Journal 

29 of Zoology 53:1021–1027. 

30

31 Stirling, I., N.J. Lunn, and J. Iacozza, 1999, ―Long-term Trends in the Population Ecology of 

32 Polar Bears in Western Hudson Bay in Relation to Climate Change,‖ Arctic 52:294–306.

33

34 Stright, M.J., E.M. Lear, and J.F. Bennett, 1999, Spatial Data Analysis of Artifacts Redeposited 

35 by Coastal Erosion: A Case Study of McFaddin Beach, Texas, OCS Study MMS 99-0068, 

36 MMS.

37

38 Stroeve, J.C., J. Maslanik, M.C. Serreze, I. Rigor, W. Meier, and C. Fowler, 2011, ―Sea Ice 

39 Response to an Extreme Negative Phase of the Arctic Oscillation during Winter 2009/2010,‖

40 Geophysical Research Letters 38(2):L02502.

41

42 Sulak, K.J., and J.P. Clugston, 1998, ―Early Life History Stages of Gulf Sturgeon in the 

43 Suwannee River, Florida,‖ Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:758–771.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-488

1 SUSIO (State University System of Florida, Institute of Oceanography), 1975, Compilation and 

2 Summation of Historical and Existing Physical Oceanographic Data from the Eastern Gulf of 

3 Mexico, Final Report, Contract 08550-CT4-16, BLM.

4

5 SUSIO, 1977, Baseline Monitoring Studies: Mississippi, Alabama, Florida Outer Continental 

6 Shelf, 1975-1976, Volume I: Executive Summary, Contract 08550-CT5-30, BLM.

7

8 Suydam, R.S., 2000, ―King Eider (Somateria spectabilis),‖ Issue 491, The Birds of North 

9 America Online (A. Poole, ed.), Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available at

10 http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/491. Accessed August 18, 2011.

11

12 Suydam, R.S., L.F. Lowry, K.J. Frost, G.M. O‘Corry-Crowe, and D. Pikok, Jr., 2001, ―Satellite 

13 Tracking of Eastern Chukchi Sea Beluga Whales into the Arctic Ocean‖ Arctic 54(3):237–243. 

14

15 Swilling, W.R., Jr., M.C. Wooten, N. R. Holler, and W. J. Lynn, 1998, ―Population Dynamics of 

16 Alabama Beach Mice (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates) following Hurricane Opal,‖ 

17 American Midland Naturalist 140:287–298.

18

19 Szepanski, M.M., 2007, ―Units 25A, 25B, 25D, 26B, and 26C Furbearer,‖ pp. 313–334 in 

20 Furbearer Management, Report of Survey and Inventory Activities, 1 July 2003–30 June 2006, 

21 Project 7.0, P. Harper (ed.), Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. 

22

23 Taylor, M., T. Larsen, and R.E. Schweinsburg, 1985, ―Observations of Intraspecific Aggression 

24 and Cannibalism in Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus),‖ Arctic 38:303–309.

25

26 Taylor, A.R., R.B. Lanctot, A.N. Powell, F. Huettmann, D.A. Nigro, and S.J. Kendall, 2010, 

27 ―Distribution and Community Characteristics of Staging Shorebirds on the Northern Coast of 

28 Alaska,‖ Arctic 63(4): 451–467.

29

30 Tesoro Corporation, 2011, Tesoro Kenai Fact Sheet. Available at http://www.tsocorp.com/

31 stellent/groups/public/documents/documents/alaskafact.pdf. Accessed July 2011.

32

33 Tews, J., M.A.D. Ferguson, and L. Fahrig, 2007, ―Potential Net Effects of Climate Change on 

34 High Arctic Peary Caribou: Lessons from a Spatially Explicit Simulation Model,‖ Ecological 

35 Modeling 2007:85–98.

36

37 Texas Ornithological Society, 2010, Accepted Texas Species. Texas Bird Records Committee, 

38 Texas Ornithological Society, Fort Worth, Tex. October 22, 2010.

39

40 TFISG (The Federal Interagency Solutions Group, Oil Budget Calculator Science and 

41 Engineering Team), 2010, Oil Budget Calculator, Deepwater Horizon, Technical 

42 Documentation, November.

43
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-489

1 The McDowell Group, 1990, An Assessment of the Impact of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill on The 

2 Alaska Tourism Industry, prepared for Preston, Thorgrimson, Shidler, Gates and Ellis, Seattle, 

3 Wash., August. Available at http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/Universal/Documents/Publications/

4 Economic/Econ_Tourism.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2011.

5

6 Thieler, E.R., and E.S. Hammar-Klose, 2000, National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to 

7 Future Sea-Level Rise: Preliminary Results for the U.S. Gulf of Mexico Coast, U.S. Geological 

8 Survey Open-File Report 00-179.

9

10 Thompson, D.C., and K.J. McCourt, 1981, ―Seasonal Diets of the Porcupine Caribou Herd,‖ 

11 American Midland Naturalist 105(1):70–76. 

12

13 Thompson, M.J., W.W. Schroeder, and N.W. Phillips, 1999, Ecology of Live Bottom Habitats of 

14 the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico: A Community Profile, USGS/BRD/CR–1999-0001 and OCS 

15 Study MMS 99-0004, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

16 Orleans, La.

17

18 Thompson, P.O., W.C. Cummings, and S.J. Ha, 1986, ―Sounds, Source Levels, and Associated 

19 Behavior of Humpback Whales, Southeast Alaska,‖ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 80(3): 735–740.

20

21 Thomsen, F., K. Lüdemann, R. Kafemann, and W. Piper, 2006, Effects of offshore wind farm 

22 noise on marine mammals and fish, biola, Hamburg, Germany on behalf of COWRIE Ltd, 

23 July 6. Available at http://www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk/Assets/BIOLAReport06072006

24 FINAL.pdf. Accessed Sept. 8, 2011.

25

26 Thomson, D.H., and W.J. Richardson, 1995, ―Marine Mammal Sounds,‖ Chapter 7 in Marine 

27 Mammals and Noise, Richardson et al. (eds.), Acamdic Press, San Diego, Calif.

28

29 Tidwell, M., 2003, Bayou Farewell: The Rich Life and Tragic Death of Louisiana‘s Cajun 

30 Coast, Pantheon Books, New York.

31

32 Tietsche, S., D. Notz, J.H. Jungclaus, and J. Marotzke, 2011, ―Recovery Mechanisms of Arctic 

33 Summer Sea Ice,‖ Geophys. Res. Lett. 38(2):L02707. doi: 10.1029/2010GL045698.

34

35 Titus, J.G., K.E. Anderson, D.R. Cahoon, D.B. Gesch, S.K. Gill, B.T. Gutierrez, E.R. Thieler, 

36 and S.J. Williams, 2009, Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic 

37 Region, prepared by U.S. Climate Change Science Program and Subcommittee on Global 

38 Change Research for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

39

40 Tolbert, C, and M. Sizer, 1996, U.S. Commuting Zones and Labor Market Areas: A 1990 

41 Update, U.S. Department of Agriculture: Staff Paper No. AGES-9614. 

42
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-490

1 Tootle, D., C. Tolbert, and E. Shihadeh, 1999, ―Sustainable Development in Oil and Gas 

2 Country: A Case Study of Abbeville, Louisiana,‖ pp. 228–36 in Proceedings: Seventeenth 

3 Annual Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer Meeting, December 1997, OCS Study 

4 MMS 99-0042, MMS, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region,

5 New Orleans, La.

6

7 Tornfelt 1982 (Section 3.16.2.3) 

8

9 Tornfelt, E.E., and M. Burwell, 1992, Shipwrecks of the Alaskan Shelf and Shore: The April 1, 

10 1999 Database, OCS Study MMS 92-0002, MMS, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, Alaska.

11

12 Travel Industry Association of America, 2004, 2004 Business Travelers Survey, National 

13 Business Travellers Association/Institute of Business Travel Management, September.

14

15 Trefry, J.H., 1981, ―A Review of Existing Knowledge on Trace Metals in the Gulf of Mexico,‖ 

16 p. 225–259 in Proceedings of a Symposium on Environmental Research Needs in the Gulf of 

17 Mexico (GOMEX), Vol. II B, NOAA, Environmental Research Laboratory.

18

19 Trefry, J.H., R.D. Rember, R.P. Trocie, and J.S. Brown, 2004, ANIMIDA Task 7 Partitioning of 

20 Potential Anthropogenic Chemicals Between Dissolved and Particulate Phases in Arctic Rivers 

21 and the Coastal Beaufort Sea, OCS Study MMS 2004-031, Minerals Management Service, 

22 Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, Alaska.

23

24 Trefry, J.H., R.P. Trocine, M.B. Alkire, C.M. Semmler, M. Savoie, R.D. Rember, 2009, 

25 cAMINIDA Tasks 3 and 4: Sources, concentrations, composition, partitioning and dispersion 

26 pathways for suspended sediments and potential metal contaminants in the coastal Beaufort Sea, 

27 OCS Study MMS 2009-014, Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, 

28 Alaska.

29

30 Trenberth, K.E., P.D. Jones, P. Ambenje, R. Bojariu, D. Easterling, A. Klein Tank, D. Parker, 

31 F. Rahimzadeh, J.A. Renwick, M. Rusticucci, B. Soden, and P. Zhai, 2007, ―Observations: 

32 Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change,‖ in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science 

33 Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

34 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, 

35 M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.), Cambridge University Press, 

36 Cambridge, U.K., and New York, N.Y.

37

38 Trowbridge, C.E., W.R. Dunne, M.A. Lambdin, M.M. Byerly, and K.J. Goldman, 2008, Cook 

39 Inlet Area Groundfish Management Report 1996–2004, Fishery Management Report No. 08-06, 

40 Alaska Department of Gish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska.

41

42 Tseng, Y.-P., N.R. Wolber, and R.B. Ditton, 2006, Demographics, Participation, Attitudes, and 

43 Management Preferences of Texas Anglers, Technical Document HD-631, Texas A&M 

44 University, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, College Station, Texas. Available at 

45 http://essm.tamu.edu/people/msorice/ditton/projects/docs/P65.pdf. Accessed September 2, 2011.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-491

1 Turner, R.E., 2001, ―The Effects of Eutrophication on Pelagic and Demersal Marine Food 

2 Webs,‖ pp. 371–398 in Coastal Hypoxia Consequences for Living Resources and Ecosystems,

3 N.N. Rabalais and R.E. Turner (eds.), Coastal and Estuarine Studies 58, American Geophysical 

4 Union, Washington, D.C. 

5

6 Turner, R.E., and D.R. Cahoon, 1988, Causes of Wetland Loss in the Coastal Central Gulf of 

7 Mexico. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

8 Region, New Orleans, LA.

9

10 Turner, R.E., E.B. Overton, N.N. Rabalais, and B.K. Sen Gupta (eds.), 2003, Historical 

11 Reconstruction of the Contaminant Loading and Biological Responses in the Central Gulf of 

12 Mexico Shelf Sediments, OCS Study MMS 2003-063, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

13 Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La.

14

15 Twilley, R.R., E.J. Barron, H.L. Gholz, M.A. Harwell, R.L. Miller, D.J. Reed, J.B. Rose, 

16 E.H. Siemann, R.G. Wetzel, and R.J. Zimmerman, 2001, Confronting Climate Change in the 

17 Gulf Coast Region: Prospects for Sustaining Our Ecological Heritage, Union of Concerned 

18 Scientists, Cambridge, Mass., and Ecological Society of America, Washington, D.C.

19

20 Tynan, C.T., and D.P. DeMaster, 1997, ―Observations and Predictions of Arctic Climate Change:

21 Potential Effects on Marine Mammals,‖ Arctic 50(4):308–322.

22

23 Tynan, C.T., D.P. De Master, and W.P Peterson, 2001, ―Endangered Right Whales on the 

24 Southeastern Bering Sea Shelf,‖ Science 294:1, 894. 

25

26 United Health Foundation, 2009, America‘s Health Rankings 2009: Louisiana. Available at 

27 http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/offices/publications/pubs-81/American_Health_Rankings_

28 Louisiana.pdf.

29

30 University of Alaska, 2011, Checklist of Alaska Birds. 17th Edition , 2011. University of Alaska 

31 Museum Bird Collection, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK.

32

33 Urick, R.J., 1971, ―The Noise of Melting Icebergs,‖ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 50(1, Part 2):337–341.

34

35 Urick, R.J., 1984, Ambient Noise in the Sea, Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C.

36

37 USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 1999, Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

38 Beaufort Sea Oil and Gas Development/Northstar Project, U.S. Army Engineer District, 

39 Anchorage, Alaska.

40

41 USACE, 2010, Tonnage for Selected U.S. Ports in 2009, Navigation Data Center, Waterborne 

42 Commerce Statistics Center. Available at http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil//wcsc/

43 portton09.htm. Accessed February 2011.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-492

1 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau), 2010, Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 

2 2010. City of Barrow. Available at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/

3 productview.xhtml?src=bkmk.

4

5 USCB, 2011a, 2007 Economic Census: Sector 31: EC0731SA1: Manufacturing: Subject 

6 Series: Location of Manufacturing Plants: Employment Size for Subsectors and Industries by 

7 U.S., State, County and Place: 2007. Available at 

8 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=EC0731SA11&-

9 NAICS2007=325110&-ib_type=NAICS2007&-geo_id=04000US01&-geo_id=04000US22&-

10 geo_id=04000US48&-search_results=01000US&-_lang=en. Accessed June 2011.

11

12 USCB, 2011b, State and County Quick Facts. Available at http://www.census.gov/. Accessed 

13 March 2011.

14

15 USCB, 2011c, ―North Slope Borough‖ in State and County Quick Facts. Available at 

16 http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/02/02185.html. Accessed February 14, 2011.

17

18 USCB, 2011d, Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) – 100 Percent Data, Minority. Available at

19 http://www.esri.com/data/download/census2000-tigerline/index.html. Accessed July 18, 2011.

20

21 USCB, 2011e, Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) – Sample Data, Low-Income. Available at 

22 http://www.esri.com/data/download/census2000-tigerline/index.html. Accessed July 18, 2011.

23

24 USCB, 2011f, 2008 County Business Patterns (North American Industry Classification System). 

25 Last Revised: August 26, 2010. Available at http://www.census.gov/

26 econ/cbp/index.html. Accessed July 15, 2011.

27

28 USCB, 2011g, Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data, Minority.

29

30 USCB, 2011h, Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3)—Sample Data, Low-Income.

31

32 USCB, 2011i, Table 1. The Most Populous County Equivalents and Incorporated Places in 

33 2010 in Alaska: 2000 and 2010. Available at http://2010.census.gov/news/xls/

34 cb11cn83_ak_2010redistr.xls. Accessed September 6, 2011.

35

36 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, 2004, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century, Final 

37 Report, Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/

38 full_color_rpt/welcome.html. Accessed May 11, 2011.

39

40 U.S. Department of the Navy, 2002, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the 

41 Introduction of F/A-18 E/F (Super Hornet) Aircraft, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 

42 Atlantic Division, Norfolk, Va., pp. 3-1, 3-2, 9-1, and 9-2.

43

44 U.S. Department of the Navy, 2004, Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental 

45 Assessment for East Coast Testing of the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile, Naval Facilities 

46 Engineering Command, Atlantic Division, Norfolk, Va., pp. 3-1 to 3-6.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-493

1 USDOC (U.S. Department of Commerce), 2011a, CA25N: Total Employment by Industry, 2008, 

2 Bureau of Economic Analysis, last updated: December 21, 2010. 

3

4 USDOC, 2011b, CA06: Compensation by Industry, 2009, Bureau of Economic Analysis, last 

5 updated: December 21, 2010. 

6

7 USDOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1997, Sale of Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1 (Elk Hills) 

8 Kern County, California, Draft Supplemental EIS for the Sale of NPR-1, DOE/SEIS/PEIR9 0158S, Washington, D.C.

10

11 USDOI (U.S. Department of the Interior), 2002, Environmental Impact Statement for the 

12 Renewal of the Federal Grant for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System Right-of-Way (TAPS),

13 BLM/AK/PT-02/026+2880+990, Argonne National Laboratory, prepared for Bureau of Land 

14 Management, Joint Pipeline Office, December.

15

16 USDOI and USGS (U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Geographical Survey), 1988, ―Map 

17 of Coastal Erosion and Accretion,‖ National Atlas of the U.S.A. Reston, VA.

18

19 USDOL (U.S. Department of Labor), 2011, Local Area Unemployment Statistics, County Data: 

20 Labor Force Data by County, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

21

22 USDOT (U.S. Department of Transportation), 2004, Report on Survey of U.S. Shipbuilding 

23 and Repair Facilities 2004, Maritime Administration, Office of Shipbuilding and Marine 

24 Technology, Dec. Available at http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/2004_-_Report_on_

25 Survey_of_US_Shipbuilding_and_Repair_Facilities.pdf. Accessed June 2011.

26

27 USDOT, 2007, Maritime Trade and Transportation 2007, Research and Innovative Technology 

28 Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Available at http://www.bts.gov/

29 publications/maritime_trade_and_transportation/2007/pdf/entire.pdf. Accessed September 8, 

30 2011.

31

32 USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1992, Status and Trends of Emergent and 

33 Submerged Vegetated Habitats, Gulf of Mexico, U.S.A., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

34 Office of Water, Gulf of Mexico Program, Stennis Space Center, MS. EPA 800-R-92-003, 

35 September.

36

37 USEPA, 2000, Effluent Guidelines: Environmental Assessment of Final Effluent Limitations 

38 Guideline and Standards for Synthetic-Based Drilling Fluids and Other Non-Aqueous Drilling 

39 Fluids in the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category, EPA-821-B-00-014, December. 

40

41 USEPA, 2001, National Coastal Condition Report, EPA-620/R-01/005, Office of Research and 

42 Development/Office of Water, Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/

43 oceans/nccr. Accessed February 22, 2011.

44

45 USEPA, 2004, National List of Beaches, EPA-823-R-04-004. 

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-494

1 USEPA, 2005, Environmental Justice, Basic Information. 

2

3 USEPA, 2006, Level III Ecoregions of the North America (revision of Omernik 1987), 

4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Health and Environmental Effects Research 

5 Laboratory, Map M-1. Available at http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/na_eco.htm. 

6 Accessed March 11, 2011.

7

8 USEPA, 2008, National Coastal Condition Report III, EPA/842-R-08-002, Office of Research 

9 and Development/Office of Water, Washington, D.C., Dec. Available at http://water.epa.gov/

10 type/oceb/assessmonitor/downloads.cfm. Accessed February 1, 2011.

11

12 USEPA, 2010, Summary of Water Testing: Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Available at 

13 http://www.epa.gov/katrina/testresults/water/index.html. Accessed December 13, 2010.

14

15 USEPA, 2011a, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Available at 

16 http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html, last updated June 3, 2010. Accessed March 29, 2011.

17

18 USEPA, 2011b, The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. Available at 

19 http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/, last updated Dec. 17, 2010. Accessed March 29, 2011.

20

21 USEPA, 2011c, AirData: Access to Air Pollution Data. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oar/

22 data/. Accessed April 3, 2011.

23

24 USEPA, 2011d, Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans, National Estuary 

25 Program. Available at http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/nep/ccmp_index.cfm. Accessed 

26 January 5, 2011.

27

28 USEPA, 2011e, Level III Ecoregions of the Continental United States, National Health and 

29 Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Revised January.

30

31 USEPA, 2011f, EPA Response to BP Spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Available at 

32 http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/index.html.

33

34 USEPA, 2011g, Basic Information – Contaminated Sediments in Water, Available at 

35 http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/sediments/cs/aboutcs.cfm. Accessed August 30, 2011.

36

37 U.S. Fleet Forces, 2010, Gulf of Mexico Range Complex Final Environmental Impact 

38 Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. 1. Available at 

39 http://gomexrangecomplexeis.com/Documents/GOMEX_Range_Complex_Final_EIS_OEIS_

40 Vol_1.pdf. Accessed May 10, 2011.

41

42 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 1978, Catalogue of Alaskan Seabird Colonies. 

43 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program. FWS/OBS-78/78. Department of 

44 the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-495

1 USFWS, 1987, Recovery Plan for the Choctawhatchee, Perdido Key and Alabama Beach 

2 Mouse, U.S. Department of the Interior, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Ga. 

3

4 USFWS, 1991a, ―Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for the 

5 Florida Salt Marsh Vole,‖ Federal Register 56(9):1457–1459.

6

7 USFWS, 1991b, Mississippi Sandhill Crane Grus candensis pulla Recovery Plan. Third 

8 revision, September 6, 1991. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Ga.

9

10 USFWS, 1994, Conservation Plan for the Polar Bear in Alaska, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

11 Marine Mammal Management, Anchorage, Alaska, June. Available at http://alaska.fws.gov/

12 fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pdf/THEFINALplan.pdf. Accessed May 16, 2011. 

13

14 USFWS, 1996, Spectacled Eider Recovery Plan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, 

15 Alaska.

16

17 USFWS, 1997, Recovery Plan for the Florida Salt Mouse Vole, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

18 Southeast Region, Atlanta, Ga. 

19

20 USFWS, 1999, Guide to Management of Alaska‘s Land Mammals, U.S. Department of the 

21 Interior, Office of Subsistence Management, Anchorage, Alaska.

22

23 USFWS, 2001a, Candidate Species, Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Fish and 

24 Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Program, Arlington, Va. Available at 

25 http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/candidate_species.pdf. Accessed July 7, 2011.

26

27 USFWS, 2001b, Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Fact Sheet. Available at 

28 http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/Turtle%20Factsheets/PDF/Leatherback-Sea29 Turtle.pdf. Accessed September 2, 2011.

30

31 USFWS, 2002, Steller‘s Eider Recovery Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and 

32 Wildlife Service, Fairbanks, AK.

33

34 USFWS, 2004, Perdido Key Beach Mouse Final Translocation Report, U.S. Department of the 

35 Interior, Panama City Ecological Services Field Office, Panama City, Fla., July. 

36

37 USFWS, 2006a, ―Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical 

38 Habitat for the Perdido Key Beach Mouse, Choctawhatchee Beach Mouse, and St. Andrew 

39 Beach Mouse,‖ Federal Register 71(197):60238–60370.

40

41 USFWS, 2006b, ―Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Special Rule for the 

42 Southwest Alaska Distinct Population Segment of the Northern Sea Otter,‖ Federal Register

43 71(157):46864–46870.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-496

1 USFWS, 2006c, Impacts of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2 and Its Trust Resources, Bell City, LA: Southwest Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

3 Available at http://www.fws.gov/swlarefugecomplex/pdf/Impact.pdf. Accessed June 30, 2011.

4

5 USFWS, 2006d, Kittlitz‘s Murrelet Brachyramphus brevirostris. Alaska Seabird Information 

6 Series, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK.

7

8 USFWS, 2006e, Short-tailed Shearwater Puffinus tenuirostris, Alaska Seabird Information 

9 Series, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska.

10

11 USFWS, 2007a, West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus) 5-Year Review: Summary and 

12 Evaluation, U.S. Department of the Interior, Southeast Region, Jacksonville, Fla., and Caribbean 

13 Field Office, Boqueron, Puerto Rico. Available at http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Manatee/

14 2007%205-yr%20Review/2007-Manatee-5-Year-Review-Final-color-signed.pdf. Accessed 

15 Aug. 31, 2009.

16

17 USFWS, 2007b, ―Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Designation of Critical 

18 Habitat for the Alabama Beach Mouse,‖ Federal Register 72(19):4330–4369.

19

20 USFWS, 2007c, ―Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification of the 

21 American Crocodile Distinct Population Segment in Florida From Endangered to Threatened,‖ 

22 Federal Register 72: 13027-13041.

23

24 USFWS, 2008a, Florida Salt Marsh Vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus dukecampbelli) 5-Year 

25 Review: Summary and Evaluation, U.S. Department of the Interior, Southeast Region, 

26 Jacksonville Ecological Services Field Office, Jacksonville, Fla.

27

28 USFWS, 2008b, ―Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 

29 Threatened Status for the Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) throughout Its Range,‖ Federal 

30 Register 73(95):28212–28303.

31

32 USFWS, 2008c, Short-Tailed Albatross Recovery Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

33 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK.

34

35 USFWS, 2009a, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Profile: West Indian Manatee 

36 (Trichechus manatus). Available at http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.

37 action?spcode=A007. Accessed May 27, 2009.

38

39 USFWS, 2009b, Alabama Beach Mouse (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates, Bowen 1968) 

40 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation, U.S. Department of the Interior, Southeast Region, 

41 Alabama Ecological Services Field Office, Daphne, Ala. 

42

43 USFWS, 2009c, St. Andrew Beach Mouse (Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis) 5-Year Review: 

44 Summary and Evaluation, U.S. Department of the Interior, Southeast Region, Panama City Field 

45 Office, Panama City, Fla. 

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-497

1 USFWS, 2009d, ―Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical 

2 Habitat for the Southwest Alaska Distinct Population Segment of the Northern Sea Otter,‖ 

3 Federal Register 74(194):51988–52012.

4

5 USFWS, 2009e, Pacific Walrus Odobenus rosemarus divergens, Fact Sheet, U.S. Department of 

6 the Interior, Alaska Region, Anchorage, Alaska, Aug. Available at http://alaska.fws.gov/

7 fisheries/mmm/walrus/pdf/Walrus_FS.pdf. Accessed March 15, 2011.

8

9 USFWS, 2009f, Polar Bears and Humans Safety Guidelines, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

10 Marine Mammals Management Office, Anchorage, Alaska, March. Available at 

11 http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/sites/default/files/pdf/polar-bears-humans.pdf. Accessed 

12 March 15, 2011.

13

14 USFWS, 2010a, St. Andrew Beach Mouse Recovery Plan (Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis), 

15 U.S. Department of the Interior, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Ga. 

16

17 USFWS, 2010b, ―Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 

18 Critical Habitat for the Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) in the United States,‖ Federal 

19 Register 75(234):76086–76137.

20

21 USFWS, 2010c, Southwest Alaska Distinct Population Segment if the Northern Sea Otter 

22 (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) – Draft Recovery Plan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 7, 

23 Alaska. Available at http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/seaotters/pdf/draft_sea_otter_

24 recovery_plan_small_file.pdf. Accessed March 15, 2011.

25

26 USFWS, 2011a, ―Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding

27 on a Petition to List the Pacific Walrus as Endangered or Threatened,‖ Federal 

28 Register 76(28):7634–7679.

29

30 USFWS, 2011b, Pacific Walrus Range, Map, U.S. Department of the Interior, Alaska Region, 

31 Marine Mammals Management, Anchorage, Alaska. Available at http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/

32 mmm/walrus/pdf/walrus_range_map.pdf. Accessed March 15, 2011.

33

34 USFWS, 2011c, Interior Clears the Way for Return of Whooping Cranes to Louisiana, 

35 Reintroduction of Cranes Expected Later This Month. News Release, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

36 Service, Southeast Region, February 9, 2011. Available at www.fws.gov/southeast/news/

37 2011/11-02-012.html.

38

39 USFWS, 2011d, Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS), Species Reports. 

40 Available at http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public. Accessed March 31, 2011.

41

42 USFWS, 2011e, FWS Deepwater Horizon Spill Response. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

43 U.S. Department of the Interior. Available at http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill. Accessed 

44 July 5, 2011.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-498

1 USFWS and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, 1995, Gulf Sturgeon Recovery Plan, 

2 Atlanta, Ga.

3

4 USFWS and NMFS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service), 

5 1994, ―Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to Remove the Eastern North 

6 Pacific Population of the Gray Whale from the List of Endangered Wildlife,‖ Federal Register

7 59(115):31094–31095.

8

9 USFWS and NMFS, 2009, Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 5-Year Review: 

10 Summary and Evaluation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Panama City 

11 Ecological Services Field Office and National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Region Office 

12 of Protected Resources.

13

14 USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program), 2009, Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

15 United States, T.R. Karl, J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson (eds.), Cambridge University Press. 

16 Available at http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf. 

17 Accessed July 5, 2011.

18

19 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 1988, ―Map of Coastal Erosion and Accretion,‖ National Atlas 

20 of the U.S.A. Reston, VA.

21

22 USGS, 2001b, Wetland Subsidence, Fault Reactivation, and Hydrocarbon Production in the 

23 U.S. Gulf Coast Region. USGS Fact Sheet FS-091-01. September.

24

25 USGS, 2003, 100+ Years of Land Change for Coastal Louisiana, prepared for USGS National 

26 Wetlands Research Center, Lafayete, Louisiana, Map ID: USGS-NWRC 2003-03-085.

27

28 USGS, 2005, Migratory Bird Pathways and the Gulf of Mexico. Fact Sheet 2005-3069. 

29 National Wetland Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

30 Lafayette, La. June.

31

32 USGS, 2008, Characterization of Northern Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Hard Bottom 

33 Communities with Emphasis on Lophelia Coral-Lophelia Reef Megafaunal Community 

34 Structure, Biotopes, Genetics, Microbial Ecology, and Geology, K.J. Sulak, M.T. Randall, 

35 K.E. Luke, A.D. Norem, and J.M. Miller (eds.), USGS Open-File Report 2008-1148 and OCS 

36 Study MMS 2008-015, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

37 Orleans, La., April 15. 

38

39 Valentine, D.L., J.D. Kessler, M.C. Redmond, S.D. Mendes, M.B. Heintz, C. Farwell, L. Hu, 

40 F.S. Kinnaman, S. Yvon-Lewis, M. Du, E.W. Chan, F. Garcia Tigreros, and C. J. Villanueva, 

41 2010, ―Propane Respiration Jump-Starts Microbial Response to a Deep Oil Spill,‖ Science, 

42 330:208–211.

43

44 Valkenburg, P., and S. Arthur, 2008, Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series: Caribou, Alaska 

45 Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/

46 static/education/wns/caribou.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2011.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-499

1 van Beek, J.L., and K.J. Meyer-Arendt (eds.), 1982, Louisiana‘s Eroding Coastline: 

2 Recommendations for Protection. Prepared for Coastal Management Section, Louisiana 

3 Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, LA.

4

5 Van Daele, L.J., 2007a, ―Unit 8 Brown Bear,‖ pp. 75–108 in Brown Bear Management Report of 

6 Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2004–30 June 2006, P. Harper (ed.), Alaska Department 

7 of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. 

8

9 Van Daele, L.J., 2007b, Population Dynamics and Management of Brown Bears on Kodiak 

10 Island, Alaska, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Idaho College of Graduate Studies, Boise, 

11 Idaho, Feb. Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/propubs/

12 vandaele_dissertation.pdf. Accessed March 5, 2011.

13

14 Van Daele, L., 2011, Kodiak Bear Fact Sheet, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, 

15 Alaska. Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=brownbear.trivia. Accessed 

16 May 9, 2011.

17

18 Van Daele, L.J., and J.R. Crye, 2007, ―Unit 8 Furbearer,‖ pp. 97–106 in Furbearer Management 

19 Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2003–30 June 2006, Project 7.0, P. Harper (ed.), 

20 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. 

21

22 Van Daele, L.J., and J.R. Crye, 2009, ―Unit 8 Deer Management Report,‖ pp. 96–112 in Deer 

23 Management Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2006–30 June 2008, P. Harper 

24 (ed.), Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. 

25

26 Veil, J.A., T.A. Kimmell, and A.C. Rechner, 2005, Characteristics of Produced Water 

27 Discharged to the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxic Zone, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill. 

28 Available at http://www.evs.anl.gov/pub/doc/ANL-hypoxia-report.pdf. Accessed May 11, 2011.

29

30 Viereck, L.A., C.T. Dyrness, A.R. Batten, and K.J. Wenzlick, 1992, The Alaska Vegetation 

31 Classification, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-286, USDOA, Pacific Northwest Research 

32 Station.

33

34 Vors, L.S., and M.S. Boyce, 2009, ―Global Declines of Caribou and Reindeer,‖ Global Change 

35 Biology 15:2626–2633.

36

37 Vu, L., M.J. Vanlandingham, M. Do, and C.L. Bankston III, 2009, ―Evacuation and Return of 

38 Vietnamese New Orleanians Affected by Hurricane Katrina,‖ Organ Environment 22: 422–436.

39

40 Wade, P.R., A. De Robertis, K.R. Hough, R. Booth, A. Kennedy, R.G. LeDuc, L. Munger, 

41 J. Napp, K.E.W. Shelden, S. Rankin, O. Vasquez, and C. Wilson, 2011, ―Rare Detections of 

42 North Pacific Right Whales in the Gulf of Alaska, with Observations of Their Potential Prey,‖ 

43 Endangered Species Research 13:99–109.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-500

1 Walker, N.D., R.R. Leben, and S. Balasubramanian, 2005, ―Hurricane-Forced Upwelling and 

2 Chlorophyll a Enhancement within Cold-Core Cyclones in the Gulf of Mexico,‖ Geophysical 

3 Research Letters 32:L18610.

4

5 Walther, G., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, T.J.C. Beebee, J. Fromentin, 

6 O. Hoegh-Guldberg, and F. Bairlein, 2002, ―Ecological Responses to Recent Climate Change,‖ 

7 Nature 416:389–395.

8

9 Wallace, R.K., 1996, Coastal Wetlands in Alabama, Circular ANR-831, MASGP-96-018, 

10 Auburn University, Marine Extension and Research Center, Mobile, AL.

11

12 Wang, J., G.F. Cota, J.C. Comiso, 2005, ―Phytoplankton in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas: 

13 Distribution, Dynamics, and Environmental Forcing,‖ Deep-Sea Research Part II 52:24–26.

14

15 Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, and P.E. Rosel (eds.), 2010, U.S. Atlantic and Gulf 

16 of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments — 2010, NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-NE 213, 

17 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast 

18 Fisheries Science Center, Dec. Available at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm219. 

19 Accessed July 29, 2011.

20

21 Wassmann, P., C.M. Duarte, S. Augusti, and M.K. Sejr, 2011, ―Footprints of Climate Change in 

22 the Arctic Marine Ecosystem,‖ Global Change Biology 17:1235–1249.

23

24 Waters, M.R., S.L. Forman, T.A. Jennings, L.C. Nordt, S.G. Driese, J.M. Feinberg, J.L. Keene, 

25 J. Halligan, A. Lindquist, J. Pierson, C.T. Hallmark, M.B. Collins, and J.E. Wiederhold, 2011,

26 ―The Buttermilk Creek Complex and the Origins of Clovis at the Debra L. Friedkin Site, Texas,‖

27 Science 331:1599.

28

29 Watkins, W.A. 1981, ―Activities and Underwater Sounds of Fin Whales,‖ Sci. Rep. Whales Res. 

30 Inst. 33: 83–117.

31

32 Watkins, W.A., P. Tyack, K.E. Moore, and J.E. Bird, 1987, ―The 20-Hz Signals of Finback 

33 Whales (Balaenoptera physalus),‖ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 82(6): 1901–1912.

34

35 Watts, A.J. (ed.), 1994, Jane‘s Underwater Warfare Systems 1994-95, 6th ed., Jane‘s 

36 Information Group Inc., Surrey, U.K.

37

38 Watwood, S.L., P.J.O. Miller, M. Johnson, P.T. Madsen, and P.L. Tyack, 2006, ―Deep-Diving 

39 Foraging Behavior of Sperm Whales (Physeter macrocephalus),‖ Journal of Animal 

40 Ecology 75:814–825.

41

42 Wawrik, B., and J.H. Paul, 2004, ―Phytoplankton Community Structure and Productivity along 

43 the Axis of the Mississippi River Plume in Oligotrophic Gulf of Mexico Waters,‖ Marine 

44 Ecology Progress Series 35:185–196.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-501

1 Wei, C., G. Rowe, G. Hubbard, A. Scheltema, G. Wilson, I. Petrescu, J. Foster, M. Wicksten, 

2 M. Chen, R. Davenport, Y. Soliman, and Y. Wang, 2010, ―Bathymetric Zonation of Deep-Sea 

3 Macrofauna in Relation to Export of Surface Phytoplankton Production,‖ Marine Ecology 

4 Progress Series 399:1–14.

5

6 Weladji, R.B., D.R. Klein, Ø. Holand, and A. Mysterud, 2002, ―Comparative Response of 

7 Rangifer tarandus and Other Northern Ungulates to Climate variability,‖ Rangifer 22(1):29–46.

8

9 Wenz, G.M., 1962, ―Acoustic Ambient Noise in the Ocean: Spectra and Sources,‖ J. Acoust. 

10 Soc. Am. 34(12):1936–1956.

11

12 Węsławski, J., M. Kendall, M. Włodarska-Kowalczuk, K. Iken, M. Kędra, J. Legezynska, and 

13 M. Sejr, 2011, ―Climate Change Effects on Arctic Fjord and Coastal Macrobenthic Diversity —

14 Observations and Predictions,‖ Marine Biodiversity 41:71–85.

15

16 White, W.A., T.R. Calnan, R.A. Morton, R.S. Kimble, T.G. Littleton, J.H. McGowen, 

17 H.S. Nance, and K.E. Schmedes, 1986, Submerged Lands of Texas, Brownsville-Harlingen Area. 

18 University of Texas, Bureau of Economic Geology, Austin , TX.

19

20 Whitten, K.R.,1990, Movement Patterns of the Porcupine Caribou Herd in Relation to Oil 

21 Development, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Progress Report, Project W-232 Study 3.34, 

22 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Juneau, Alaska.

23

24 Whitten, K.R., and R.D. Cameron, 1980, ―Nutrient Dynamics of Caribou Forage on Alaska‘s 

25 Arctic Slope, pp. 159–166 in Proceedings of the Second International Reindeer/Caribou 

26 Symposium, Roros, Norway.

27

28 Wilcox, W.J., II, and C.F. Cahill, 2003, ―Regional Haze Trends in Alaska: Implications for 

29 Protected Class I Visibility Areas,‖ Environmental Manager Dec. 2003:34–39.

30

31 Wilkinson, T.E., J. Bezaury-Creel, T. Hourigan, T. Agardy, H. Herrmann, L. Janishevski,

32 C. Madden, L. Morgan, and M. Padilla, 2009, Marine Ecoregions of North America, 

33 Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Montreal, Canada. Available at 

34 http://www.cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=924&ContentID=2715. Accessed March 11, 2011.

35

36 Wille, P.C., and D. Geyer, 1984, ―Measurements on the Origin of the Wind-Dependent Ambient 

37 Noise Variability in Shallow Water,‖ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 75(1):173–185.

38

39 Williams, K., Z.S. Pinzon, R.P. Stumpf, and E.A. Raabe, 1999, Sea-Level Rise and Coastal 

40 Forests on the Gulf of Mexico, Open-File Report 99-441, U.S. Geological Survey.

41

42 William, R., S. Gero, L. Bejder, J. Calambokidis, S.D. Kraus, D. Lusseau, A.J. Read, and J. 

43 Robbins, 2011, ―Underestimating the Damage: Interpreting Cetacean Carcass Recoveries in the 

44 Context of the Deepwater Horizon/BP Incident,‖ Conservation Letters 4(3):228–233.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-502

1 Willms, M.A., 1992, Checklist to the Birds of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska,

2 Version 22, May 1998, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

3 Center, Jamestown, North Dakota. Available at http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/

4 chekbird/r7/arcticwr.htm. Accessed August 18, 2011.

5

6 Wilson, M.T., 2009, ―Ecology of Small Neritic Fishes in the Western Gulf of Alaska. 

7 I. Geographic Distribution in Relation to Prey Density and the Physical Environment,‖ Marine 

8 Ecology Progress Series 392:223–237.

9

10 Wilson, S.G., and T.R. Fischetti, 2010, Coastline Population Trends in the United States: 1960 

11 to 2008, Population Estimates and Projections, Current Population Reports. Available at 

12 http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p25-1139.pdf. Accessed September 8, 2011.

13

14 Winn, H.E., and N.E. Reichley, 1985, ―Humpback Whale — Megaptera novaeangliae,‖

15 pp. 241–274.in Handbook of Marine Mammals, Vol. 3. The Sirenians and Baleen Whales,

16 S.H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds.), Academic Press, Inc., London, England. 

17

18 Witzig, J., 1986, ―Fishing in the Gulf of Mexico: 1984 Marine Recreational Fishing Results,‖

19 pp. 103–105 in Proceedings, Sixth Annual Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer Meeting, 

20 New Orleans. OCS Study MMS86-0073, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

21 Reg., New Orleans.

22

23 Woodward-Clyde Consultants and Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 1983, Southwest Florida 

24 Shelf Ecosystem Study – Year 1. Contract No. 14-12-0001 – 29142, Minerals Management 

25 Service, Metairie, La. 

26

27 WRCC (Western Regional Climate Center), 2011, Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries. 

28 Available at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/Climsum.html. Accessed June 1, 2011.

29

30 Wright, F.F., G.D. Sharma, and D.C. Burbank, 1973, ―ERTS-1 Observations of Sea Surface 

31 Circulation and Sediment Transport, Cook Inlet, Alaska,‖ in Proceedings of a Symposium on 

32 Significant Results Obtained from the Earth Resources Technology Satellite-1, New Carrolton, 

33 Md., NASA, Washington, D.C., March 5–9.

34

35 Würsig, B., T.A. Jefferson, and D.J. Schmidly, 2000, The Marine Mammals of the Gulf of 

36 Mexico, Texas A&M Press, College Station, Texas. 

37

38 Xing, C., F. Marchetti, and G. Li, 2010, ―Benzene Exposure near the U.S. Permissible Limit is 

39 Associated with Sperm Aneuploidy,‖ Environmental Health Perspectives 118: 833–839.

40

41 Xu, Y., M.C. Ross, R. Ryan, and B. Wang, 2005, ―Cancer Risk Factors among Southeast Asian

42 American Residents of the U.S. Central Gulf Coast,‖ Public Health Nursing 22: 119–129.

43

44 Yanez-Arancibia, S., and J. Day, 2004, ―Environmental Sub-regions in the Gulf of Mexico 

45 Coastal Zone: The Ecosystem Approach as an Integrated Management Tool,‖ Ocean and 

46 Coastal Management 47(11-12):727–757.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-503

1 Yeoman, B., 2010, ―These Men Don‘t Cry: Hard Times for Gulf Coast Vietnamese,‖ OnEarth 

2 Magazine, Dec. 1. Available at http://www.onearth.org/article/these-men-dont-cry-hard-times3 for-gulf-coast-vietnamese. Accessed June 17, 2011.

4

5 Yochem, P.K., and S. Leatherwood, 1985, ―Blue Whale — Balaenoptera musculus (Linnaeus, 

6 1758),‖ pp. 193–240 in Handbook of Marine Mammals. Volume 3: The Sirenians and Baleen 

7 Whales, S. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds.), Academic Press, London, England, and Orlando, 

8 Fla. 

9

10 Ytrehus, B., T. Bretten, B. Bergsjø, and K. Isaksen, 2008, ―Fatal Pneumonia Epizootic in Musk 

11 Ox (Ovibos moschatus) in a Period of Extraordinary Weather Conditions,‖ EcoHealth

12 5:213–223.

13

14 Yun, K., N. Lurie, and P.S. Hyde, 2010, ―Moving Mental Health into the Disaster-Preparedness 

15 Spotlight,‖ New England Journal of Medicine 363: 1193–1195.

16

17 Yvon-Lewis, S.A., L. Hu, and J.D. Kessler, 2011, ―Methane Flux to the Atmosphere from the 

18 Deepwater Horizon Oil Disaster,‖ Geophys. Res. Lett. 38:L01602.

19

20 Zavala-Hidalgo, J., A. Gallegos-García, B. Martínez-López, S.L. Morey, and J.J. O‘Brien, 2006, 

21 ―Seasonal Upwelling on the Western and Southern Shelves of the Gulf of Mexico,‖ Ocean 

22 Dynamics 56:333–338.

23

24 Zellen, B.S., 2008, Breaking the Ice: From Land Claims to Tribal Sovereignty in the Arctic, 

25 Lexington Books, New York.

26

27 Zhang, J., M. Steele, and A. Schweiger, 2010, ―Arctic Sea Ice Response to Atmospheric 

28 Forcings with Varying Levels of Anthropogenic Warming and Climate Variability,‖ Geophys. 

29 Res. Lett. 37(20):L20505; ISSN: 0094-8276.

30

31 Zimmerman, S.T., and L. Jemison, 2008, Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series: Northern Fur Seal, 

32 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/

33 static/education/wns/northern_fur_seal.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2011.

34

35 Zimmerman, S.T., and S.A. Karpovich, 2008, Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series: Humpback 

36 Whale, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. Available at http://www.adfg.

37 alaska.gov/static/education/wns/humpback_whale.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2011.

38

39 Zimmerman, S.T., and M.J. Rehberg, 2008, Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series: Steller Sea Lion, 

40 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/

41 static/education/wns/steller_sea_lion.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2011.

42

43 Zimmerman, S., and B. Small, 2008, Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series: Orca, Alaska Department 

44 of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/education/

45 wns/orca.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2011.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Affected Environment 3-504

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 This page intentionally left blank.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-1

1 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

2

3

4 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITH OCS OIL AND 

5 GAS ACTIVITIES

6

7 This programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) evaluates 8 alternatives, 

8 including no action (see Chapter 2). All of the action alternatives identify Outer Continental 

9 Shelf (OCS) Planning Areas in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM), Cook Inlet, and the Arctic where 

10 lease sales may occur under the 2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program (the Program). 

11 Chapter 3 of this PEIS describes the nature and condition of natural and socioeconomic resources 

12 that have a potential to be affected by oil and gas (O&G) activities within those OCS Planning 

13 Areas under the Program. In general, O&G development follows a four-phase process, 

14 beginning with (1) exploration to locate viable deposits, (2) development of the production well 

15 and support infrastructure, (3) operation (oil or gas production), and (4) decommissioning of the 

16 well once it is no longer productive or profitable.

17

18 Since lease- and project-specific details are not known at this time, the analyses in this 

19 PEIS take a programmatic approach and evaluate resources on a larger, more regional scale 

20 rather than at a lease-block scale (the scale at which project-specific impacts could occur). The 

21 evaluation of environmental consequences presented in this PEIS focuses on those resources 

22 most likely to be affected during future O&G development under each of the alternatives 

23 considered in this PEIS. Some information is currently unavailable, particularly with regard to 

24 affected environment baseline changes; however, this information is not essential in order to 

25 make a reasoned choice among alternatives at this programmatic stage (see Section 1.3.1.1: 

26 Incomplete and Unavailable Information). Exploration and development scenarios have been 

27 prepared that identify potential levels of O&G development that may occur as a result of lease 

28 sales in the GOM, the Cook Inlet, and the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea Planning Areas under the 

29 Program. These scenarios are presented for each alternative later in this chapter and are used for 

30 the programmatic impact analyses of this PEIS. More detailed, location-specific impact analyses 

31 would be conducted in subsequent lease sale-specific National Environmental Policy Act 

32 (NEPA) analyses.

33

34 The programmatic evaluation of environmental or socioeconomic impacts presented in 

35 this PEIS provides useful information for considering the effects of O&G development on the 

36 resources of the OCS (and associated coastal environments) under each alternative. The 

37 programmatic analyses identify the types of activities that typically occur during exploration, 

38 development, production, and decommissioning; the resources that could be affected by those 

39 activities; and the nature and relative magnitude of effects those resources could incur.

40

41

42 4.1.1 Routine Operations and Common Impact-Producing Factors

43

44 Impacts from OCS O&G development originate from the specific activities that occur 

45 following OCS leasing, and both activities and impacts will vary by the phase of O&G 

46 development. Each phase will have a set of impact-producing factors (some unique to a 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-2

1 particular phase) that represent O&G development activities that produce physical or 

2 environmental conditions that may affect one or more natural, cultural, or socioeconomic 

3 resources, and these may vary within each phase depending on the specific activity. For 

4 example, an impact-producing factor associated with exploration is noise, which will differ in its 

5 nature, magnitude, and duration depending on how it is generated. Noise generated by seismic 

6 survey equipment will differ in magnitude, frequency, and duration from noise generated during 

7 exploration well drilling or by ship traffic. The resources that could be affected by noise and the 

8 nature and magnitude of potential effects will also vary, depending on the source and 

9 characteristics of the noise (duration, frequency, magnitude) that is generated.

10

11 The nature, magnitude, and duration of each impact-producing factor (and any 

12 subsequent environmental effects) will also vary among the four phases of O&G development. 

13 For example, noise generated by seismic survey equipment will be relatively short term in 

14 duration but very high in magnitude, and will cease once the survey portion of the exploration 

15 phase is completed. Similarly, noise from the explosive removal of a platform during the 

16 decommissioning phase would be of very short-term duration (effectively a one-time event). In 

17 contrast, noise from ship and helicopter traffic that supports production platforms could be 

18 generated for 20 years or more, depending on the production lifespan of the platform. 

19 Table 4.1.1-1 presents the major categories of impact-producing factors associated with O&G 

20 development on the OCS. It is important to note that many impact-producing factors can be 

21 associated with multiple O&G development phases, and can be subject to mitigation measures to 

22 help reduce impacts.

23

24 The following discussions summarize the general types of activities that may be expected 

25 during each of the four O&G development phases and identify likely impact-producing factors 

26 for each phase. These impact-producing factors, the resources that each may affect, and the 

27 nature, magnitude, and duration of possible effects are discussed in more detail in the resource28 specific impact sections presented later in this chapter.

29

30

31 4.1.1.1 Exploration

32

33 During exploration, typical activities include the conduct of geophysical seismic surveys 

34 and possibly the development of exploration wells. During seismic surveys, one or more air 

35 guns (or other sound sources) are towed behind a ship at depths of 5–10 m (16–33 ft) and 

36 produce acoustic energy pulses that are directed towards the seafloor. The acoustic signals then 

37 reflect off subsurface sedimentary boundaries and are recorded by hydrophones, which are 

38 typically also towed behind the survey ship. Following analysis of the acoustic data, one or more 

39 exploratory wells may be drilled to confirm the presence and determine the viability of the 

40 potential hydrocarbon reservoirs identified by the survey. Development of an exploration well 

41 typically involves the use of a mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) (such as a jackup rig, a 

42 semisubmersible rig, or drillship) and the placement of infrastructure (such as a drilling template 

43 and a blowout preventer) on the seafloor to aid in the drilling. Both the seismic surveys and 

44 exploration well development involve the use of ships, whether to tow air guns and hydrophones 

45 or to bring drilling equipment and other support materials to the well location.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-3

1 TABLE 4.1.1-1 Impact-Producing Factors Associated with OCS O&G Development Phases

O&G Development Phase

Exploration

Impact-Producing Factor

Seismic 

Survey

Exploration 

Well Development Operation Decommissioning

Noise X X X X X

Seismic noise X

Ship noise X X X X X

Aircraft noise X X X X X

Drilling noise X X

Trenching noise X

Production noise X

Onshore construction X

Platform removal X

Traffic X X X X X

Aircraft traffic X X X X

Ship traffic X X X X X

Drilling Mud/Debris X X

Bottom/Land Disturbance X X

Drilling X X

Pipeline trenching X

Onshore construction X

Air Emissions X X X X

Offshore X X X X

Onshore X X X

Explosives X

Platform removal X

Lighting X X X

Offshore facilities X X X

Onshore facilities X X

Visible Infrastructure X X X

Offshore X X X

Onshore X X

Space Use Conflicts X X X X

Offshore facilities X X X X

Onshore facilities X X

Accidental Spills X X X

2
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-4

1 Impact-producing factors associated with exploration include noise, ship traffic, drilling 

2 mud and debris, seafloor disturbance, air emissions, lighting, visible infrastructure, and space use 

3 conflicts (Table 4.1.1-1). Noise will be generated by operating air gun arrays, vessel traffic, 

4 drilling, and support aircraft traffic. Resources of primary concern from noise impacts are 

5 marine mammals, sea turtles, and fish.

6

7 Ship traffic during the seismic surveys or in support of exploration well development has 

8 the potential for collisions with marine mammals and sea turtles, while the presence of ship and 

9 support aircraft traffic could affect normal behaviors of nearby biota (especially marine 

10 mammals). The disposal of drilling mud and debris during exploration well development will 

11 also affect local water quality and possibly biota.

12

13 Exploration well development will involve seafloor disturbance, primarily through the 

14 placement of drilling support infrastructure. This disturbance may affect overlying water quality 

15 as well as benthic biota and archeological resources (if present). Air emissions from the MODUs 

16 may affect local air quality, while MODU lighting may affect birds. Depending on location, 

17 MODUs may also present a visual impact. The conduct of seismic surveys and exploration well 

18 development could conflict with other uses of the marine environment at that location.

19

20

21 4.1.1.2 Development

22

23 Once exploration has confirmed the presence of a commercially viable reservoir, the next 

24 phase of O&G development is the construction of the production platform and drilling of 

25 production wells. Production wells are drilled using MODUs, and the type of production 

26 platform installed will depend on the water depth of the site and, to a lesser extent, on the 

27 expected facility lifecycle, the type and quantity of hydrocarbon product (e.g., oil or gas) 

28 expected, and the number of wells to be drilled. The number of wells per production platform 

29 depends on the type of production facility, the size of the hydrocarbon reservoir, and the 

30 drilling/production strategy for the drilling program. Production platforms may be fixed, 

31 floating, or subsea (only in deep water). Fixed platforms rigidly attached to the seafloor are 

32 typical in water depths up to 400 m (1,312 ft), while floating or subsea platforms are typically in 

33 waters deeper than 400 m (1,312 ft). Floating platforms are attached to the seafloor using line34 mooring systems and anchors. Development will also include installation of seafloor pipelines 

35 for conveying product to existing pipeline infrastructure or to new onshore production facilities. 

36 In shallower waters (<60 m [<200 ft]), pipelines are typically buried to a depth of at least 0.91 m 

37 (3 ft) below the mudline. Pipelines may also be buried (trenched) in deeper waters, depending 

38 on conditions along the subsea pipeline corridor.

39

40 Impact-producing factors of development include noise, ship and helicopter traffic, 

41 drilling mud and debris, seafloor and land disturbance, air emissions, lighting, and visible 

42 infrastructure. During the development phase, noise will be generated during drilling, by ship 

43 and helicopter traffic, pipeline trenching, and onshore construction. Resources that could be 

44 affected by development-related noise include marine mammals, sea turtles, marine and coastal 

45 birds, and fish. Marine mammals and sea turtles could be affected by collisions with ship traffic 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-5

1 supporting platform construction and drilling, while the presence of ship and helicopter traffic 

2 could disturb normal behaviors of marine mammals and birds.

3

4 The disposal of drilling muds and fluids may affect local water quality and aquatic biota. 

5 Some amount of seafloor disturbance will occur as a result of drilling, platform mooring, and 

6 pipeline trenching, which would result in some loss of habitat and biota as well as reductions in 

7 overlying water quality. Seafloor disturbance could also affect archeological resources if present 

8 in the project area. Air emissions from platforms where drilling is occurring as well as at 

9 onshore construction sites could affect local air quality. The lighting of offshore platforms could 

10 affect birds, while lighting at onshore facilities could affect sea turtles. Visual impacts may be 

11 incurred for some developments, depending on the location and nature (size) of the offshore 

12 platform or onsite facilities. Development of production wells and platforms as well as of new 

13 pipelines and onshore processing facilities could result in some space use conflicts in the project 

14 area.

15

16

17 4.1.1.3 Operation

18

19 Following completion of the production wells and platform, the facilities are operated to 

20 extract the hydrocarbon resource and transport it to onshore processing facilities. During the 

21 operation phase, activities center on maintenance of the production wells (workover operations) 

22 and platforms. Impact-producing factors associated with normal operations include noise, ship 

23 and helicopter traffic, air emissions, lighting, and visible infrastructure (Table 4.1.1-1).

24

25 During normal operations, noise will be generated by maintenance activities and by ship 

26 and helicopter traffic and may affect marine mammals and fish. Collisions with support ships 

27 could affect marine mammals and sea turtles, while ship and helicopter traffic could disturb 

28 normal behaviors of nearby biota. As noted for the development phase, lighting of onshore 

29 facilities could affect sea turtles, while lighting of offshore platforms could affect birds. Any 

30 visual impacts identified for the development phase could continue for the duration of the 

31 operation phase. Similarly, some of the space use conflicts incurred during the development 

32 phase would continue through production.

33

34

35 4.1.1.4 Decommissioning

36

37 Following lease termination or relinquishment, all platforms and seafloor obstructions are 

38 required to be removed. All bottom-founded infrastructure is severed at least 5 m (15 ft) below 

39 the mudline. Production infrastructure could be removed using explosive or nonexplosive 

40 methods. Impact-producing factors associated with decommissioning include noise, ship and 

41 helicopter traffic, air emissions, and explosives.

42

43 Noise would be generated during either explosive or nonexplosive structure removal, as 

44 well as by ship and helicopter traffic supporting removal activities, and could affect marine 

45 mammals, sea turtles, and fish. Ship traffic could result in collisions with marine mammals and 

46 sea turtles, while ship and helicopter traffic could disturb behaviors of biota in the vicinity of the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-6

1 platform undergoing decommissioning. Air emissions could affect local air quality. Pressure 

2 from explosive detonations could injure marine mammals, sea turtles, and fish. Some additional 

3 space use conflicts could arise with explosive platform removal.

4

5

6 4.1.2 Accidental Events and Spills

7

8 A variety of accidental events or spills may occur during OCS O&G development 

9 (Table 4.1.2-1). During normal operations, ship and platform activities generate a variety of 

10 solid waste materials, such as plastic containers, nylon rope and fasteners, and plastic bags. The 

11 accidental release of such solid waste materials could affect marine mammals, sea turtles, and 

12 birds. While sanitary and domestic wastes produced in ships and platforms are routinely 

13 processed through onsite waste treatment facilities, the accidental discharge of such releases 

14 could affect local water quality and biota.

15

16 Ships supporting platform activities may accidentally collide with MODUs or platforms, 

17 releasing diesel fuel, which could affect water quality and biota. Loss of well control results in 

18 the uncontrolled release of a reservoir fluid that may result in the release of gas, condensate or 

19 crude oil, drilling fluids, sand, or water. Historically, most losses of well control have occurred 

20 during development drilling operations, but loss of well control can happen during exploratory 

21 drilling, production, well completions, or workover operations (MMS 2008a). Releases 

22 associated with loss of well control may affect water quality, biota, and space use.

23

24 Oil spills are unplanned accidental events. Depending on the phase of O&G development 

25 and the location, magnitude, and duration of a spill, natural resources that may be affected 

26 include marine mammals, marine and coastal birds, sea turtles, fish, benthic and pelagic 

27 invertebrates, water quality, marine and coastal habitats, and areas of special concern (such as 

28 marine parks and protected areas). In addition, spills may also affect a variety of socioeconomic 

29 conditions such as local employment, commercial and recreational fisheries, tourism, 

30 sociocultural systems, and subsistence. Spill scenarios for the GOM, Cook Inlet, and Arctic 

31 planning areas have been developed for use in this PEIS and are presented in detail in 

32 Section 4.4.2. This draft PEIS also considers the potential effects of a catastrophic discharge 

33 event (i.e., a low probability, very large volume accidental oil spill).

34

35

36 4.1.3 Assessment Approach

37

38 The environmental consequences discussed in subsequent sections of Chapter 4 address 

39 the potential impacts that could be incurred under any of the seven action alternatives 

40 (Alternatives 1–7). Because Alternative 1, the Proposed Action, encompasses the six OCS 

41 Planning Areas considered for inclusion in the Program, OCS oil and gas activities that could 

42 occur following leasing under Alternative 1 may be expected to have the potential to cause 

43 impacts over the greatest geographic area. Any such potential impacts could also occur under 

44 the other action alternatives (Alternatives 2–7), as each represents a subset of the planning areas 

45 included in the proposed action. Thus, the analyses presented in Chapter 4, while focused on the 

46 proposed action, are fully applicable to each of the other action alternatives.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-7

1 TABLE 4.1.2-1 Accidental Events and Spills That May Be Associated with OCS O&G 

2 Development Phases

O&G Development Phase

Exploration

Accidental Event or Spill

Seismic 

Survey

Exploration 

Well Development Operation Decommissioning

Solid waste release X X X X X

Sanitary waste release X X X X X

Vessel collisions X X X X X

Loss of well control X X X

Oil spills X X X X

3

4

5 It is not possible to identify specific impacts from future OCS O&G development 

6 activities without development-specific location and design details. There are, however, general 

7 impacts that are typical of offshore O&G development, regardless of where development occurs. 

8 For example, the placement of a seafloor pipeline crossing shallow waters to a landfall will 

9 require trenching, which will disturb the seafloor and affect the overlying water quality, 

10 regardless of whether that pipeline is located in Cook Inlet or in the Western GOM Planning 

11 Area. The potential effects of pipeline placement will, however, differ between shallow and 

12 deep waters and by the nature of the seafloor communities present along the actual pipeline 

13 route.

14

15 As previously discussed, lease- and project-specific details are not known at this time. 

16 Thus, the analyses in this PEIS take a programmatic approach and evaluate resources on a larger, 

17 more regional scale rather than at a lease-block scale (the scale at which project-specific impacts 

18 could occur). Thus, the evaluation of environmental consequences presented in this PEIS has 

19 focused on those resources most likely to be affected during future O&G development on the 

20 OCS under the alternatives presented in Chapter 2.

21

22 For each resource, the impact-producing factors identified in Tables 4.1.1-1 and 4.1.2-1

23 were further examined and refined to identify aspects of those factors specific to the resource 

24 under evaluation. The analyses also identified, as applicable, important components of each 

25 resource to further refine the relationship between the impacting factors and the resource. For 

26 example, for sea turtles, the impact analyses identified four life stages (eggs, hatchlings, 

27 juveniles, and adults), four habitat types (nesting, foraging, overwintering, and nursery), and 

28 three important behaviors (courtship/nesting, foraging, migration) that could be affected by OCS 

29 O&G development activities. The impact analyses then focused on the impact-producing factors 

30 that could affect any of these life stages, habitats, or behaviors. Table 4.1.3-1 illustrates the 

31 refinement and linkage of impacting factors and important resource components.

32

33
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-8

1 TABLE 4.1.3-1 Relationships among Development Phase Impacting Factors and Habitats, Life 

2 Stage, and Behavior of Sea Turtles

Sea Turtle Resource Component

Habitat Disturbance 

or Loss Life Stage Affected

Behavior 

Affected

Development Phase and Impacting Factor

NestingForagingOverwinteringNurseryEggsHatchlingsJuvenilesAdultsForagingCourtship/ NestingMigration

Vessel noise X X X X

Aircraft noise

Drilling noise X X

Trenching noise X X X

Onshore construction noise X X

Offshore air emissions

Onshore air emissions

Aircraft traffic

Vessel traffic X X X

Hazardous materials X X X

Solid wastes X X X

Drilling mud/debris X X X

Bottom disturbance from drilling

Bottom disturbance from pipeline trenching X X X X X X X

Offshore lighting

Onshore construction X X X X X

Onshore lighting X X X X

Aircraft noise

Offshore air emissions

Onshore air emissions

Vessel traffic X X X

Aircraft traffic

Hazardous materials X X X

Solid wastes X X X

Explosive platform removal X X X

Offshore lighting

3

4

5 4.1.4 Definition of Impact Levels

6

7 The conclusions for most resource analyses use a four-level classification scheme to 

8 characterize the impacts that could result with OCS O&G development under the alternatives 

9 presented in this PEIS.

10

11
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-9

1 4.1.4.1 Impact Levels for Biological and Physical Resources 

2

3 The following impact levels for biological and physical resources are used for the 

4 analysis of water quality, air quality, marine and terrestrial mammals, marine and coastal birds, 

5 fish resources, sea turtles, coastal and seafloor habitats, and areas of special concern (such as 

6 essential fish habitats [EFHs], marine sanctuaries, parks, refuges, and reserves). For biota, these 

7 levels are based on population-level impacts rather than impacts on individuals.

8

9 • Negligible: No measurable impacts. 

10

11 • Minor:

12 Most impacts on the affected resource could be avoided with proper 

13 mitigation.

14 If impacts occur, the affected resource will recover completely without 

15 mitigation once the impacting stressor is eliminated.

16

17 • Moderate:

18 Impacts on the affected resource are unavoidable.

19 The viability of the affected resource is not threatened although some 

20 impacts may be irreversible, or

21 The affected resource would recover completely if proper mitigation is 

22 applied during the life of the project or proper remedial action is taken 

23 once the impacting stressor is eliminated.

24

25 • Major:

26 Impacts on the affected resource are unavoidable.

27 The viability of the affected resource may be threatened, and

28 The affected resource would not fully recover even if proper mitigation is 

29 applied during the life of the project or remedial action is implemented 

30 once the impacting stressor is eliminated.

31

32

33 4.1.4.2 Impact Levels for Societal Issues 

34

35 The following impact levels are used for the analysis of demography, employment, and 

36 regional income; land use and infrastructure; commercial and recreational fisheries; tourism and 

37 recreation; sociocultural systems; environmental justice; and archeological and historic 

38 resources.

39

40 • Negligible: No measureable impacts.

41

42 • Minor:

43 Adverse impacts on the affected activity, community, resource could be 

44 avoided with proper mitigation.

45 Impacts would not disrupt the normal or routine functions of the affected 

46 activity or community.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-10

1 Once the impacting stressor is eliminated, the affected activity or 

2 community will, without any mitigation, return to a condition with no 

3 measureable effects.

4

5 • Moderate:

6 Impacts to the affected activity, community, or resource are unavoidable.

7 Proper mitigation would reduce impacts substantially during the life of the 

8 project.

9 A portion of the affected resource would be damaged or destroyed.

10 The affected activity or community would have to adjust somewhat to 

11 account for disruptions due to impacts of the project, OR

12 Once the impacting stressor is eliminated, the affected activity or 

13 community will return to a condition with no measurable effects if proper 

14 remedial action is taken.

15

16 • Major:

17 Impacts on the affected activity, community, or resource are unavoidable.

18 Proper mitigation would reduce impacts somewhat during the life of the 

19 project.

20 All of the affected resource would be permanently damaged or destroyed.

21 The affected activity or community would experience unavoidable 

22 disruptions to a degree beyond what is normally acceptable, and

23 Once the impacting agent is eliminated, the affected activity or community 

24 may retain measurable effects for a significant period of time or 

25 indefinitely, even if remedial action is taken.

26

27

28 4.2 RELATIONSHIP OF THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT TO OIL AND GAS

29 OPERATIONS

30

31

32 4.2.1 Physiography, Bathymetry, and Geologic Hazards

33

34

35 4.2.1.1 Gulf of Mexico

36

37

38 4.2.1.1.1 Physiography and Bathymetry. The GOM is a small ocean basin measuring 

39 900 km (660 mi) from north to south and 1,600 km (990 mi) from east to west with a mean water 

40 depth of about 1,615 m (5,300 ft) (Bryant et al. 1991; GulfBase 2011). The basin is almost 

41 completely surrounded by continental landmasses. Its shoreline runs 5,700 km (3,500 mi) from 

42 Cape Sable, Florida, to the tip of Mexico‘s Yucatan Peninsula, with another 380 km (240 mi) of 

43 shoreline on the northwest tip of Cuba (GulfBase 2011).

44

45 The continental shelf extends from the coastline to a water depth of about 200 m (660 ft). 

46 Width of the shelf varies, ranging from 10 km (6 mi) near the Mississippi Delta to about 280 km
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-11

1 (175 mi) off the southern tip of Florida and the Yucatan Peninsula. Its topographic relief is 

2 relatively low. Extending from the edge of the shelf to the abyssal plain is the continental slope, 

3 a steep area with high topographic relief and diverse geomorphic features (canyons, troughs, and 

4 salt structures). The base of the slope occurs at a median depth of about 2,800 m (9,190 ft). The 

5 Sigsbee Deep, located within the Sigsbee Abyssal Plain in the southwestern part of the basin, is 

6 the deepest region of the GOM with a maximum depth ranging from 3,750 m (12,300 ft) to 

4,330 m (14,200 ft). The GOM basin contains a volume of 2,434,000 km3 7 (6.43 1017 gal) of 

8 water (Shideler 1985; GulfBase 2011).

9

10 Antoine (1972) has divided the GOM into physiographic provinces, the components of 

11 which correspond to the ecological regions delineated by the Commission for Environmental 

12 Cooperation (CEC) (Wilkinson et al. 2009). The physiographic regions presented below are 

13 organized from north to south. They are based on the CEC‘s nomenclature (Level II seafloor 

geomorphological regions1 14 ) and incorporate the physiographic descriptions of Antoine (1972), 

15 Bryant et al. (1991), Shideler (1985), Wilhelm and Ewing (1972), and GulfBase (2011).

16

17 Northern Gulf of Mexico Shelf and Slope. On its west side, the northern GOM shelf 

18 and slope extends from the Rio Grande (Texas) to Alabama and from 320 km (200 mi) inland of 

19 today‘s shoreline to the Sigsbee Escarpment. It encompasses the Texas-Louisiana Shelf and 

20 Slope and the Mississippi-Alabama Shelf (Figure 4.2.1-1). The major geologic feature in this 

21 province is the Mississippi Fan, which extends from the Mississippi River Delta to the central 

22 abyssal plain. The upper part of the fan (to a water depth of about 2,500 m or 8,200 ft) has a 

complex and rugged topography attributed to salt diapirism,2 23 slumping, and current scour; the 

24 lower part of the fan by contrast is smooth, with a gently sloping surface that merges with the 

25 abyssal plain to the southeast and southwest. The Mississippi Canyon cuts the eastern side of the 

26 Texas-Louisiana Shelf to the southwest of the Mississippi River Delta. The submarine canyon is 

27 thought to have formed from large-scale slumping along the shelf edge. The area is 

28 characterized by thick sediments and widespread salt deposits.

29

30 To the east, the northern GOM shelf and slope extends from just east of the Mississippi 

31 River Delta near Biloxi, Mississippi, to the eastern side of Apalachee Bay (west Florida) and 

32 encompasses the West Florida Shelf and Terrace (Figure 4.2.1-1). The shelf in this region is 

33 characterized by soft terrigenous (land-derived) sediments. Sediments are thick west of DeSoto 

34 Canyon; Mississippi River-derived sediments cover the western edge of the carbonate platform 

35 of the West Florida Shelf. The Florida Escarpment, with slopes as high as 45° in places, 

 

1 The CEC‘s Level II seafloor geomorphological regions are determined by large-scale physiography 

(e.g., continental shelf, slope, and abyssal plain) and extend offshore to a depth of 370 km (200 mi). The 

designation of Level II regions is helpful to understanding marine ecosystems because it illustrates the 

importance of depth as a major determinant of benthic marine communities and shows how physiographic 

features can influence current flows and upwelling (Wilkinson et al. 2009). Other sections (e.g., Section 3.2 on 

Marine and Coastal Ecoregions) provide finer scale Level III region descriptions that take into account local 

variables such as water mass, regional landforms, and biological community types on the continental shelf.

2 Salt diapirism refers to a process by which natural salt (mainly halite but also including anhydrite and gypsum) 

in the subsurface deforms and flows in response to loading pressures from overlying sediments. Because of its 

low density, salt tends to flow upward from its source bed, forming intrusive bodies known as diapirs. Salt 

diapirs are common features of sedimentary basins like the Gulf of Mexico (Nelson 1991).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences 4-12

12 FIGURE 4.2.1

-1 Physiographic Regions of the GOM (based on Bryant et al. 1991)
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-13

1 separates the West Florida Shelf from the deeper GOM basin and also forms the southeastern 

2 side of DeSoto Canyon.

3

4 South Florida/Bahamian Shelf and Slope. This region is the submerged portion of the 

5 Florida Peninsula. The region extends along the West Florida coast from Apalachee Bay 

6 southward to the Straits of Florida and includes the Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas. Sediments 

7 become progressively more carbonate (ocean-derived) from north to south with thick 

8 accumulations in the Florida Basin. The basin may have been enclosed by a barrier reef system 

9 at one time. The Jordon Knoll, located within the Straits of Florida, is composed of remnants of 

10 the ancient reef system.

11

12 Gulf of Mexico Basin. The GOM Basin consists of the continental rise, the Sigsbee 

13 Abyssal Plain, and the Mississippi Cone. The continental rise is situated between the Sigsbee 

14 Escarpment and the Sigsbee Abyssal Plain (Figure 4.2.1-1). It is a large wedge of sediments 

15 originating from the unstable continental slope (deposited by gravity flows). The Sigsbee 

16 Abyssal Plain is the deep, flat portion of the GOM bottom just northwest of the Campeche 

17 Escarpment. It is 450 km (280 mi) long and 290 km (180 mi) wide and covers an area of more 

than 103,600 km2 (40,000 mi2 18 ). The plain is underlain by very thick sediments (up to 9 km, or 

19 5.6 mi); the only major topographical features in this region are the small salt diapirs that form 

20 the Sigsbee Knolls. The Mississippi Cone lies between the Mississippi Canyon to the west and 

21 DeSoto Canyon to the east. It is the portion of the Mississippi River Delta that has accumulated 

22 at the base of the continental slope.

23

24

25 4.2.1.1.2 Geologic Hazards. Several types of geologic hazards are known to occur in 

26 the marine environment of the GOM region, most of which present a risk to offshore oil and gas 

27 activities because they contribute directly or indirectly to seafloor instability. As a result, 

28 seafloor instability is likely the principal engineering constraint to the emplacement of bottom29 founded structures, including pipelines, drilling rigs, and production platforms. 

30

31 Geologic hazards within the GOM are common on the northern continental slope 

32 (Figure 4.2.1-1) because of its high sedimentation and subsidence rates and the compensating 

33 movement of underlying salt. Geologic hazards are frequently concentrated in the areas along 

the edges of intraslope basins 34 3 where topography is high and complex. These intervening 

35 regions are created by shallow diapiric salt bodies and are steeply sloped and highly faulted. 

36 They are also areas of natural fluid and gas migration to the seafloor surface 

37 (Roberts et al. 2005). The potential geologic hazards in the GOM region are described below.

38

39 Irregular Topography. The regional topography of the continental slope is irregular, 

40 consisting predominantly of domes, ridges, and basins. On a more local scale, topographic 

features include slope failures, mounds, depressions, and scarps4 41 (Roberts 2001). Such features 

 

3 Intraslope basins are flat, featureless areas on the continental slope of the northwestern GOM where sediment 

depositional processes predominate.

4 Scarps (or escarpments) are steep bluff-like features formed by the downward displacement of sediments or 

rocks along a vertical fault plane.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-14

1 produce a wide range of potential hazards to drill rigs, bottom-laid and buried pipelines, and 

2 production platforms. The most topographically rugged province in the region is the TexasLouisiana Slope, a 120,000- km2 (46,300-mi2 3 ) area of banks, knolls, basins, and domes where 

4 local slope gradients can exceed 20°. Topographic variability in this area is attributed to the 

5 movement of salt in the subsurface and the natural venting and seepage of petroleum and other 

6 fluids at the seafloor surface (Roberts et al. 2005; Bryant and Lui 2000; Kennicutt and 

7 Brooks 1990; Roberts et al. 1998).

8

Substrate types range from lithified (rock-like) hard bottoms5 9 (bioherms, hardgrounds, 

10 carbonate banks, and outcrops) to extremely soft, fluid mud bottoms. Hard-bottom substrates are 

11 associated with topographic highs (most often created by salt diapirs) and present hazards to 

12 activities such as drilling, locating production platforms, and laying pipelines. The coral reefs of 

13 the Flower Garden Banks in the northwestern GOM are an example (Roberts et al. 2005; Roberts 

14 and Aharon 1994; Schmahl et al. 2011; see also Sections 3.7.2.1.2 and 3.9.1.2.1).

15

16 Bedforms and Bedform Migration. Bedforms are depositional features on the seabed 

17 that form by the movement of sediment caused by bottom currents. An extensive field of 

18 bedforms, ranging in size from small ripples and mudwaves to large furrows, is present at the 

19 base of the continental slope (along the Sigsbee Escarpment) in the GOM (Bean 2005; Bryant 

20 and Liu 2000). Large bedforms and their migration create potential navigation hazards and may 

21 undermine submarine pipelines. Numerous studies of these features relate their morphology and 

22 migration to water depth, availability of sediment, grain size, and current velocity (Whitmeyer 

23 and FitzGerald 2008).

24

25 Deep tow surveys conducted by Texas A&M University have found that the 30-m (98-ft) 

26 wide and 10-m (32-ft) deep furrows to the south of the Sigsbee Escarpment parallel the regional 

27 contours and extend for tens to hundreds of kilometers. These features indicate the long-term 

28 presence of high-velocity bottom currents along the base of the escarpment (Bryant and 

29 Liu 2000). Bean (2005) estimates current velocities in this region to be as high as 95 cm/s 

30 (37 in./s), significant enough to affect structures on the seafloor or in the water column. The 

31 bedforms have steep upstream-facing sides (where deposition takes place), suggesting they 

32 migrate in an upcurrent direction (Bean 2005).

33

34 Bottom Scour. Vigorous tidal circulation and storm waves have an important effect on 

35 the transport of sediments on the surface of the continental shelf. Episodic sediment movement 

36 caused by waves and ocean currents can undermine foundational structures and move 

37 unanchored bottom-laid pipelines (as reported by Thompson et al. 2005 and Coyne and 

38 Dollar 2005). Teague et al. (2006) estimate that in 2004 Hurricane Ivan displaced as much as 

100 million m3 (3.5 billion ft3 39 ) of sediment from a 35 by 15 km (22 by 9 mi) region in the

40 storm‘s path, causing up to 36 cm (14 in.) of scour at moorings in areas over which the 

41 maximum wind stress occurred. Bottom scour occurs as a result of sediment resuspension by 

 

5 Hard bottoms formed on diapiric high areas beyond the shelf edge during periods of lowered sea level in the late 

Pleistocene. During this time, the areas provided a substrate for the colonization of sedentary marine organisms. 

As sea level rose, the remains of the colonized organisms in these areas became fossilized, forming bioherms 

(e.g., fossilized coral reefs) and shallow banks (Robert et al. 2005).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-15

1 waves and current-driven transport of entrained sediments. Sediments entrained in bottom 

2 currents increase water density and mass, giving the strength to cause further scouring. In 

3 addition, wind-generated surface waves apply cyclic pressure to bottom sediments causing 

4 seabed motion (liquefaction). 

5

Fluid and Gas Expulsion. There are a wide range of natural fluid and gas6 6 expulsion 

7 processes in seafloor sediments across the northern GOM continental slope. The geologic 

8 features related to these processes are variable and depend largely on the rate and duration of 

9 delivery as well as the composition of the fluid and gas expelled (Hardage 2011; Roberts 2001a). 

10 These include mud volcanoes, flows, and vents, resulting from rapid-flux or mud-prone 

11 processes; gas hydrate mounds and chemosynthetic communities, resulting from moderate-flux 

12 processes; and hard bottoms (carbonate mounds, hardgrounds, and nodular masses), resulting 

13 from slow-flux or mineral-prone processes (Roberts 2001a, 2002). Below water depths of about 

14 500 m (1,640 ft), moderate-flux processes dominate, promoting gas hydrate formation at or near 

15 the seafloor and creating conditions optimal for sustaining dense and diverse chemosynthetic 

16 communities. Rapid- and slow-flux processes may also occur on a more local scale at these 

17 depths (Roberts 2002). Pockmarks — circular to oval depressions resulting from the removal of 

18 sediment near areas of rapid (and possibly explosive) gas expulsion — have been mapped along 

19 the northern continental shelf and slope. Some of these features are over 300 m (1,000 ft) in 

20 diameter (BOEMRE 2011n).

21

22 The main geologic hazard stemming from the processes of fluid and gas expulsion (seeps 

23 and eruptions) is seabed slope failure (submarine slumps and slides), especially on the 

24 continental slope and within active river deltas and submarine canyons. Fluid and gas releases 

25 lower sediment shear strengths and as a result can destabilize seabed structures such as cables, 

26 pipelines, and platforms. 

27

28 Studies using high-resolution seismic and side-scan sonar have shown that the linear 

29 spatial distribution of seafloor features caused by fluid and gas expulsion can usually be 

30 correlated with faults intersecting the modern seafloor. Faults are important conduits for the 

31 upward natural migration of fluids and gases through the sedimentary column to the seafloor 

32 (Roberts 2001b). Neurater and Bryant (1990) report that it is the churning action of upwelling 

33 fluids and gases that causes a ―slurry‖ of unconsolidated mud to form and migrate to the surface 

34 of the seafloor. 

35

36 Along the Texas-Louisiana Shelf, shallow gas accumulations are most common in old 

37 channel systems. Shallow gas accumulations are also found in areas affected by salt uplift where 

38 numerous faults form pathways to near-surface sediments, creating small gas pockets that 

39 become sealed in thin clay layers (Foote and Martin 1981). 

40

 

6 Gases (predominantly methane) migrating from the seabed originate from both deep sources (termed 

thermogenic gases because they are heat-generated) and more shallow sources (termed biogenic or microbial 

gases because they are derived from the activity of microorganisms). Regardless of origin, high-pressure 

methane is highly mobile, flammable, and buoyant and poses a great hazard to drilling operations when 

encountered (Judd and Hovland 2007).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-16

1 Natural Gas Hydrates. Gas hydrates are naturally occurring solids composed of 

2 hydrogen-bonded water lattices (also known as clathrates) that trap methane and other low3 weight gas molecules (e.g., carbon dioxide, propane, and ethane). They form in deepwater ocean 

4 sediments within a surface-parallel layer referred to as the hydrate stability zone under 

5 conditions of high pressure and low temperature. In the GOM, gas hydrate deposits are found in 

6 localized deepwater areas at or near the seafloor (intersecting the seafloor at a water depth of 

7 about 500 m, or 1,640 ft). They occur as a disseminated accumulation in the pore spaces of 

8 sedimentary units across vertical sections ranging in thickness from a few centimeters to several 

9 hundred meters. In more massive form, they occur in faults, fractures, and nodules and range in 

10 thickness from a few centimeters to several hundred meters. The size and shape of the hydrate 

11 stability zone are influenced by the presence of numerous salt features (Boatman and 

12 Peterson 2000; Roberts 2001b; MMS 2006a; Frye 2008).

13

14 Because they are pressure- and temperature-sensitive, gas hydrates (if present) can easily 

15 dissociate and rapidly release large amounts of gas during a drilling operation. Hydrate 

16 dissociation may trigger seafloor slumps and catastrophic landslides, which pose significant 

17 hazards for offshore oil and gas operations, including the loss of support for drilling and 

18 production platforms and pipelines, collapse of wellbore casings, and seafloor subsidence around 

19 wellbores where gas has leaked to the surface. As drilling operations in the GOM move into 

20 deeper waters, gas hydrate outcrops are likely to be encountered more frequently (Boatman and 

21 Peterson 2000; Roberts 2001b; MMS 2006a).

22

23 In addition to their natural occurrence in sediments, gas hydrates may also form on 

24 drilling equipment and in pipelines in deep water, trapping methane and other gas molecules and 

25 posing hazards such as drilling difficulties, blockages and pressure buildup in valves and 

26 pipelines, and an increased risk of well control loss (Boatman and Peterson 2000). 

27

28 Shallow Water Flow. Shallow water flow is a deepwater drilling hazard that occurs 

29 when overpressured, unconsolidated sands are encountered at shallow depths, 460 to 2,100 m 

30 (1,500 to 7,000 ft) below the seabed (Huffman and Castagna 2001). When encountered, these 

31 sands are prone to uncontrolled flow, potentially damaging the well and causing well casing 

failure — which could result in the loss of the well.7 32 In extreme cases, overpressured sands have 

33 been known to erupt, creating seafloor craters (due to collapse), mounds, and cracks. Shallow 

34 water flow sands are difficult to detect seismically because there is little contrast in acoustic 

35 impedance at sand/shale interfaces at shallow depths (Lu et al. 2005; Ostermeier et al. 2002); 

36 however, some investigators are having success using high-resolution multi-component seismic 

37 data to delineate anomalies to identify zones that might produce shallow water flow 

38 (e.g., Hoffman and Castagna 2001).

39

40 Slope Failure. Submarine slope failures result from processes that reduce the shear 

41 strength of sediment on submarine slopes and/or increase the main driving force (gravity) that 

42 promotes the downslope movement of sediments. Hance (2003) summarizes the published 

43 literature on submarine slope failure and identifies 14 triggering mechanisms, a subset of which 

 

7 Shallow water flow is estimated to have occurred in about 70% of all deepwater wells (Hoffman and 

Castagna 2001).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-17

1 is relevant to the GOM shelf and slope: (1) sedimentation processes that involve rapid 

2 deposition, especially in offshore delta areas and at the base of submarine canyons; (2) increased 

3 fluid pressures resulting from the disassociation of gas hydrates and the release and accumulation 

4 of free gas; (3) ocean storm waves and subsurface current (internal) waves; (4) tidal events, 

5 especially along coastlines; (5) human activities such as construction and dredging, usually along 

6 coastlines; (6) salt diapirism, which oversteepens soils on the flanks of diapirs; (7) mud-related 

7 volcanic activity; and (8) sediment creep, a process involving the slow movement of large 

8 masses of sediment.

9

10 Mudflows occur within well-defined gullies along the submerged portion of the 

11 Mississippi Delta, creating unstable conditions vulnerable to failure. Areas between the 

12 mudflow gullies have lower sedimentation rates and are considered to be generally stable. 

13 Active deposition takes place downslope of the gullies. Damage to pipelines and production 

14 facilities due to mudflow overruns has been documented in this region (Hitchcock et al. 2010). 

15 Other forms of sediment instability along the delta front include collapse depressions, submarine 

16 landslides, and shelf-edge slumps (Coleman et al. 1991; Coleman and Prior 1988).

17

18 Nodine et al. (2006) also reported pipeline damage by mudslides within (and confined to) 

19 the mudflow lobes along the delta front during Hurricane Ivan in 2004. 

20

21 Faulting. Faulting occurs on a range of scales within the GOM continental shelf and 

slope, from major growth faults8 22 that cut across thousands of meters of sedimentary section to 

23 much smaller faults related primarily to salt movement in the shallow subsurface. Vertical 

24 offsets along faults create steep scarps on the seafloor, leading to various forms of subaqueous 

25 mass movement (falls, slides or slumps, flows, and turbidity flow) that contributes to the 

26 seafloor‘s irregular topography. Faults also provide pathways for the upward migration and 

27 expulsion of fluids and gas at the seafloor surface (Roberts 2001b; Coleman and Prior 1988). 

28

29 Active faults could pose a hazard to oil and gas activities in areas of rapid deposition and 

30 subsidence (such as the Mississippi Delta), especially in areas where formation fluids such as 

31 water and oil are withdrawn. In the GOM, fault activity is thought to be most prevalent on steep 

32 slopes at the shelf edge where sediment accumulation creates loading stress that is periodically 

33 relieved by sudden faulting and associated with active salt diapirs on the upper slope (Foote and 

34 Martin 1981).

35

36

37 4.2.1.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

38

39 The Cook Inlet Planning Area encompasses the lower half of Cook Inlet (referred to as 

40 lower Cook Inlet) and Shelikof Strait. The following descriptions of physiography, bathymetry, 

 

8 Growth faults are normal (extensional) faults that form at the same time massive volumes of sediments are 

accumulating within an area of high deposition, such as the Mississippi Delta. The fault plane is typically welldefined and is linear or concave and fairly steep. Growth faults exhibit greater offset with increasing depth and 

extend more than 150 m (500 ft) below the sea floor. They are most common on the outer shelf and upper slope 

where sediment accumulation and subsidence are greatest (Foote and Martin 1981; MMS 2006; 

Teague et al. 2006). 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-18

1 and geologic hazards address physiographic features and geologic processes throughout Cook 

2 Inlet (including the upper inlet) for completeness.

3

4

5 4.2.1.2.1 Physiography and Bathymetry. Cook Inlet is a northeast-trending, 350-km 

6 (220-mi) long tidal estuary on the south-central coast of Alaska. It is situated between the 

7 Kenai Peninsula and Alaska Peninsula and extends from Anchorage to the Gulf of Alaska 

8 (Figure 4.2.1-2). The inlet is composed of three distinct physiographic regions: the head, the 

9 upper inlet, and the lower inlet. The head region lies at the northernmost end of Cook Inlet and 

10 consists of two long and narrow bays: Knik and Turnagain Arms, both of which have extensive 

11 tidal marsh flats during low tide. Knik Arm begins at the confluence of the Knik and Matanuska 

12 Rivers, about 50 km (31 mi) inland; it ranges in width from about 2 to 10 km (1.2 to 6.2 mi). 

13 The Port of Anchorage is located on the southeast shore of Knik Arm, at the mouth of Ship 

14 Creek. Turnagain Arm extends about 75 km (47 mi) inland to the railroad depot at Portage; it 

15 ranges in width from about 2 to 26 km (1.2 to 16 mi). Fire Island is located at the midpoint 

16 between Knik and Turnagain Arms, just off the coast of Anchorage (Mulherin et al. 2001).

17

18 Upper Cook Inlet is about 95 km (59 mi) long and extends from Point Campbell to the 

19 East and West Forelands (Figures 4.2.1-2 and 4.2.1-3). It ranges in width from 20 to 30 km 

20 (12 to 19 mi) and narrows to 16 km (10 mi) between the Foreland peninsulas. Several shallow 

21 shoals occur in this region, including Middle Ground Shoal, just north of the Forelands and north 

22 of the inlet‘s midline; Beluga Shoal, due south of the mouth of Susitna River, at the inlet‘s 

23 midline; and Fire Island Shoal, due west of Fire Island. Water depths in upper Cook Inlet are 

24 generally less than 37 m (120 ft), with the greatest depths at Trading Bay, the largest bay in the 

25 upper inlet, just east of the mouth of McArthur River (Mulherin et al. 2001; ADNR 2009a).

26

27 Lower Cook Inlet is about 200 km (120 mi) long and lies between the Foreland 

28 peninsulas and the inlet‘s mouth, which opens to the Gulf of Alaska between Cape Douglas on 

29 the Alaska Peninsula and Cape Elizabeth on the Kenai Peninsula (Figures 4.2.1-2 and 4.2.1-4). 

30 There are several islands within the lower inlet, including Augustine Island, in Kamishak Bay; 

31 Chisik Island, at the mouth of Tuxedini Bay; and Kalgin Island, about 30 km (19 mi) south of the 

32 Forelands. The Barren Islands and Chugach Islands are located at the inlet‘s mouth. The 

33 bathymetry is characterized as having sloping sides forming a central depression (Cook Trough) 

34 that gradually deepens to the south and widens as it approaches the Cook Plateau near the mouth 

35 of the inlet. The depression bifurcates to the north into two channels, divided by a narrow shoal 

36 (Kalgin Platform) extending southward from Kalgin Island. The Cook Plateau lies between the 

37 lower end of the Cook Trough and the top of Cook Ramp, a gently sloping ramp delineating the 

38 sandy sediments to the north and muddy sands to the south. The Cook Plateau and parts of the 

39 Cook Ramp are covered by bedforms of various sizes. The ramp slopes from a water depth of 

40 about 70 m (230 ft) to about 120 to 130 m (390 to 430 ft) as it approaches the north end of the 

41 Shelikof Trough (Mulherin et al. 2001; ADNR 2009a; Bouma 1981; Bouma et al. 1978a).

42

43 The Chinitna Platform covers most of the western part of lower Cook Inlet 

44 (Figure 4.2.1-2). Its surface is smooth with numerous small topographic highs and lows. Most 

45 of the bottom is hard and covered by coarse-grained sediment and shells (although embayments 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-19

1

2 FIGURE 4.2.1-2 Physiographic Features of Cook Inlet (Earthquake data from USGS 2011a; map data for faults from Labay and 

3 Haeussler 2001; Troutman and Stanley 2003; and Clough 2011.)

4
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-20

1

2 FIGURE 4.2.1-3 Upper Cook Inlet (Map data for faults from Labay and Haeussler 2001; Troutman and Stanley 2003; and 

3 Clough 2011; mudflat data from Mulherin et al. 2001.)

4
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-21

1

2 FIGURE 4.2.1-4 Lower Cook Inlet (Earthquake data from USGS 2011a; map data for faults from Labay and Haeussler 2001; 

3 Troutman and Stanley 2003; and Clough 2011.)

4
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-22

1 may have muddy bottoms). Augustine Island is located on the platform, and a shallow area, 

2 known as the Augustine Apron, encircles the island (Bouma 1981).

3

4 There are three entrances to the lower inlet from the Gulf of Alaska; these are the 

5 Kennedy and Stevenson Entrances on either side of the Barren Islands off the northeastern end of 

6 the Kodiak Islands and the opening of Shelikof Strait on the inlets‘ southwestern end.

7

8 Shelikof Strait lies between the Kodiak Island group and the Alaska Peninsula and also 

9 has a northeast orientation (Figure 4.2.1-2). The strait is about 200 km (120 mi) long, with an 

10 average width of about 45 km (27 mi). The seafloor in this region consists of a flat, central 

11 platform (coinciding with the Shelikof Trough) that slopes gently to the southwest. The platform 

12 is flanked by narrow marginal channels than run alongside the Kodiak Islands and the Alaska 

13 Peninsula. Relief on the platform and within the marginal channels can be as high as 100 m 

14 (330 ft) locally. Water depths in Shelikof Strait increase gradually in a southwestward direction, 

15 ranging from about 80 m (260 ft) at the mouth of Cook Inlet to more than 300 m (980 ft) off the 

16 west end of the Kodiak Islands (Hampton et al. 1978; Bouma 1981; Hampton et al. 1981). Deep 

17 subsurface faults (offsetting rocks of Tertiary age or older) occur along the margins of Shelikof 

18 Strait and run parallel to the shorelines of Kodiak Island and the Alaska Peninsula. Shallow 

19 faults are more recently active and occur throughout the strait — along its margins, as growth 

20 faults, and in association with structural highs (horsts or remnant volcanic necks) — and trend 

21 predominantly to the northeast (Hoose and Whitney 1980).

22

23

24 4.2.1.2.2 Geologic Hazards. Several types of geologic hazards are known to occur in 

25 the marine environment of Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait and may present a risk to offshore oil 

26 and gas activities because they are dangerous to navigation or potentially damaging to marine 

27 structures. The potential geologic hazards in Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait, except for sea ice, 

28 which is addressed in Section 4.2.2.1.1, are described below.

29

30 Seafloor Instability. The generally shallow nature and large tidal range of Cook Inlet 

31 (9 m [30 ft]) produce rapid currents. The Coriolis effect is also pronounced at this latitude, and

32 during peak flow, all these factors combine to create strong cross-currents and considerable 

33 turbulence (strong currents and turbulence are also generated as tides flow through the 

34 constricted Forelands area). High current velocities and turbulence keep fine sediments (silt and 

35 clay) in suspension, so they are transported far from their source in the head region — the 

36 Susitna and Knik Rivers — and then back again with the incoming tide. As a result, bottom 

37 sediments throughout most of the inlet are predominantly coarse-grained (cobbles, pebbles, and 

38 sand) with only minor amounts of silt and clay. Grain size distribution in the inlet, which 

39 reflects the type and energy of transportation during the tidal cycle, is as follows: (1) sand, in the 

40 head region to the east of the Susitna River; (2) sandy-gravel and gravel, in the upper inlet and 

41 the upper part of the lower inlet (to Chinitna Bay); and (3) gravelly sand with minor silt and clay, 

42 in the lower inlet as far as the Barren Islands (Sharma and Burrell 1970).

43

44 MMS (1995a) concluded that the bottom sediments in Cook Inlet provide a stable 

45 substrate with no unusual geotechnical issues. This conclusion was based on the nature of 

46 bottom sediments in Cook Inlet (mainly coarse-grained), the low rate of sediment accumulation, 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-23

1 and the low relief of the seafloor. Previous studies found no areas of soft, unconsolidated 

sediments or evidence of failed or unstable slopes. 2 9

3

4 Bedforms and Bedform Migration. Bedforms are depositional features on the seabed 

5 that form by the movement of sediment by strong bottom currents. Bedforms are common in 

6 Cook Inlet and occur as sand waves, dunes, sand ribbons, sand ridges, and megaripples with 

7 wavelengths ranging from 50 to 800 m (160 to 2,600 ft) and heights from 2.0 to 14 m (6.6 to 

8 46 ft). The type of bedform occurring at a given location depends on factors such as sediment 

9 size and availability, water depth, and current velocity (Hampton 1982a). Bedform migration 

10 and the strong bottom currents that cause it are known to be hazardous to offshore operations in 

11 upper Cook Inlet because they undermine or bury bottom-founded structures such as anchors and 

12 pipelines (Bouma et al. 1978b; Bouma and Hampton 1986; Whitney et al. 1979; Bartsch13 Winkler 1982). Several pipeline failures in Cook Inlet have been attributed to sediment 

14 movement that results from current-sediment interaction (ADNR 2009a). 

15

16 The largest bedform fields in lower Cook Inlet occur in its central and southern parts 

17 (especially on Cook Plateau and Cook Ramp) where bottom current velocities may be as high as 

18 50 cm/s (20 in./s) (Whitney and Thurston 1977; Bouma et al. 1978b; Bouma 1981). Studies 

19 conducted in the lower inlet indicate sand grains move mainly during storm events and in 

20 response to ebb and flood cycles, especially during spring tide (Bouma and Hampton 1986). 

21

22 Shallow Gas. Shallow gas is a hazard to drilling operations when encountered because it 

increases the potential for loss of well control. Shallow gas-charged sediments 23 10 have been 

24 documented in Cook Inlet, and loss of well control incidents have occurred at the Steelhead 

25 platform (well M-26; 1987–1988) and Grayling platform (well G-10RD; 1985) in upper Cook 

26 Inlet north of the West Foreland. The incident at the Grayling platform stopped on its own as a 

27 result of well bore collapse that naturally sealed off the escaping fluids and gases. At the 

28 Steelhead platform, however, some injuries to workers and damage to the platform occurred as a 

29 result of escaping gases that caught fire (ADNR 2009a).

30

31 Whitney and Thurston (1981) delineated shallow gas-charged sediment areas at depths of 

32 less than 50 m (160 ft) below the seafloor in lower Cook Inlet based on high-resolution seismic 

33 profiles. The areas occur to the west of the Barren Islands between bathymetric contours 150 km 

34 and 180 km (93 mi and 110 mi) and to the southeast of Augustine Island between bathymetric 

 

9 Studies of sediments in the head region (at the northernmost end of Cook Inlet), however, do indicate soft 

sediments (e.g., in Knik Arm) that have unstable banks and bottoms and a high liquefaction potential. Surface 

bedforms are common features in these sediments (Bartsch-Winkler 1982).

10 Natural gas (predominantly methane) in Cook Inlet sediments likely originates from the decay of trapped organic 

matter in recent sediments and seepage from deeper sources, as reported by Molnia et al. (1979) for the Gulf of 

Alaska. Gas from deeper sources in the Cook Inlet basin has two types of occurrences: (1) the shallow reserves 

of biogenic gas in the Sterling, Beluga, and upper Tyonek Formations of the nonmarine Kenai Group of Tertiary 

age, at depths less than 2,300 m (7,500 ft); and (2) the oil-associated (thermogenic) gas in the lower Tyonek 

Formation, the Hemlock Conglomerate, and the West Foreland Formation at the base of the Tertiary section, 

having migrated from underlying marine source rocks of Jurassic age (Claypool et al. 1980). Regardless of 

origin, high-pressure methane is highly mobile, flammable, and buoyant and poses a great hazard to drilling 

operations when encountered (Judd and Hovland 2007).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-24

1 contours 20 km and 100 km (12 mi and 62 mi) (Whitney and Thurston 1981). Although areas of 

2 gas-charged sediments can be identified in high-resolution marine seismic data, the 

3 concentrations of gas in sediments are highly variable over small lateral and vertical distances

4 (Hampton 1982b).

5

6 Hoose and Whitney (1980) mapped possible gas-charged sediments in the shallow 

7 subsurface at the northeast end of Shelikof Strait (also based on high-resolution marine seismic 

8 data).

9

10 Seismicity. Seismicity in the Cook Inlet region is related to movement along the Alaska11 Aleutian megathrust fault as the northwestward-moving Pacific plate subducts into the mantle 

12 beneath the North American plate (Figure 4.2.1-5). Shallow crustal earthquakes are generated as

13 a result of deformation of the overriding North American plate; deeper earthquakes occur along 

14 the interface of the plates (Benioff Zone) that extends from the trench to depths of 40 to 60 km 

15 (25 to 37 mi), deepening to the northwest. Within the subducting Pacific plate, earthquakes can 

16 be as deep as 300 km (186 mi) (Rhea et al. 2010).

17

18 Major fault systems occur along the margins of the Cook Inlet basin. They include the 

19 Castle Mountain, Lake Clark, and Bruin Bay Faults, located to the north and northwest; and the 

20 Border Ranges Fault, on the Kenai Peninsula to the southeast (Figure 4.2.1-2). The faults have a 

21 northeast strike and are among the largest strike-slip fault systems in Alaska. Of these, only the 

22 Castle Mountain Fault has been active in recent times (with several earthquakes with an inferred 

23 Mw of 7.1 occurring in the past 4,100 years along the southern slopes of the Talkeetna 

24 Mountains) (Labay and Haeussler 2001; Haeussler et al. 2000). There is no evidence of recent or 

25 Quaternary movement along the Lake Clark or Bruin faults. Haessler and Saltus (2004) 

26 identified a 26-km (16-mi) right-lateral offset on the Lake Clark Fault that likely occurred in the 

27 past 34 to 39 million years (Late Eocene), based on aeromagnetic data. The most recent activity 

28 on the Border Ranges fault system likely occurred less than 24 million years ago (Neogene); 

29 some investigators suggest activity may have been as recent as several thousand years ago 

30 (Stevens and Craw 2004).

31

32 The highest magnitude earthquakes in Alaska are associated with the Alaska-Aleutian 

33 megathrust zone and are common in the Aleutian Islands, the Alaska Peninsula, and the Gulf of 

34 Alaska. Since 1900, six earthquakes over magnitude 8.4 have occurred in these regions (some of 

35 which predate oil and gas activities in Cook Inlet) (Rhea et al. 2010).

36

37 Since 1973, more than 1,200 earthquakes have been recorded in the Cook Inlet region 

38 (USGS 2011a). Of these, 10 had magnitudes greater than 6.0. The two largest earthquakes 

39 occurred in 1999 and 2001 and were located on Kodiak and Sitkalidak Islands (Figure 4.2.1-2). 

Each earthquake registered a moment magnitude (Mw) 40 11 of 7.0 (Figure 4.2.1-2).

 

11 Moment magnitude (Mw) is used for earthquakes with magnitudes greater than 3.5 and is based on the moment 

of the earthquake, equal to the rigidity of the earth times the average amount of slip on the fault times the amount 

of fault area that slipped. Moment magnitude is the preferred magnitude for all earthquakes listed in USGS 

databases. It replaces the more general usage of ―M,‖ which is used to describe historical earthquakes in the 

literature. An ―M‖ denotes a magnitude consistent with the Richter scale (USGS 2010).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-25

1

2 FIGURE 4.2.1-5 The Alaska-Aleutian Megathrust Fault and Subduction Zone (Aleutian Trench) with Seismicity Depth 

3 Profile across Cook Inlet (Rhea et al. 2010)
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-26

1 Earthquakes greater than M 6.0 pose a risk to the Cook Inlet region by triggering floods 

2 and landslides. Earthquakes greater than M 7.0 may trigger a tsunami and cause emergency 

3 events such as fires, explosions, and hazardous material spills and a disruption of vital services 

4 (water, sewer, power, gas, and transportation).

5

6 Cook Inlet lies within an area where the peak horizontal accelerations of 0.30 and 0.40 g 

7 have a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (USGS 1999). Shaking associated with this 

8 level of acceleration is generally perceived as very strong to severe, and the potential for damage 

9 to structures is moderate to heavy (Wald et al. 2005). Given the high intensity of ground shaking 

10 and the high incidence of historic seismicity in the Cook Inlet region (i.e., 1,200 earthquakes in 

11 the past 40 years with 10 exceeding M 6.0) the potential for liquefaction in inlet sediments is also 

12 likely to be high, but only in areas like the head region and upper inlet where sediments are 

13 composed of glacial silt and fine sands, as demonstrated by the widespread liquefaction 

14 documented in Turnagain Arm during the Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964. Areas like the OCS 

15 where bottom sediments are more coarse-grained are not likely to be affected (Greb and 

16 Archer 2007).

17

18 Volcanic Activity. There are four monitored volcanoes located in the Cook Inlet region 

19 (from north to south): Spurr, Redoubt, Iliamna, and Augustine (Figure 4.2.1-2; Table 4.2.1-1). 

20 These volcanoes are part of the Aleutian Island Arc, a chain of volcanoes extending from 

21 south central Alaska to the far western tip of the Aleutian Islands. Three of these volcanoes 

22 (Spurr, Redoubt, and Iliamna) are located to the west of Cook Inlet. Augustine is an island 

23 volcano in lower Cook Inlet; it is the most active volcano in the region. All but Iliamna 

24 have erupted several times in the past 150 to 200 years and may erupt again in the future 

25 (Waythomas et al. 1997; Waythomas and Waitt 1998). Because of their composition, volcanoes 

26 in the Cook Inlet region are prone to explosive eruptions. Hazards in the immediate vicinity of 

27 the eruption include volcanic ash fallout and ballistics, lahars (mudflows) and floods, pyroclastic 

28 flows and surges, debris avalanches, directed blasts, and volcanic gases. Lease areas in Cook 

29 Inlet would be out of the range of most of these eruption hazards except during very large 

30 eruptions (on the scale of the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption), which tend to be rare events 

31 (Combellick et al. 1995; ADNR 2009a). Ash fall associated with the 2009 eruption of Redoubt 

32 forced the temporary closure of the Anchorage Airport (ADN 2009); however, there were no 

33 reports that it affected oil and gas operations or damaged infrastructure within or around Cook 

34 Inlet.

35

36 Drainages with headwaters near the three onshore Cook Inlet volcanoes are susceptible to 

37 lahars (mudflows) and floods during volcanic eruptions due to the permanent snow and ice 

38 stored in snowfields and glaciers on the upper flanks of the volcanoes that can generate flooding 

39 upon melting. For example, the Redoubt eruption that occurred in 1989–1990 caused significant 

40 melting of the Drift Glacier, generating lahars that inundated the Drift River valley and 

41 threatened the Drift River Oil Terminal. Oil storage tanks were damaged (although the tanks did 

42 not rupture) and loading operations at the terminal (and associated pipeline and platform 

43 services) were interrupted for several months, but resumed once a protective dike was installed 

44 around the tank farm and support facilities. The interruption in operations at the terminal caused

45 a significant financial impact to the area (Waythomas et al. 1997; ADNR 2009a; KPB 2011). 

46 Drainages vulnerable to volcanically induced floods are the Chakachatna River drainage (from 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-27

TABLE 4.2.1-1 Monitored Volcanoes near Cook Inlet 1 a

Volcano Description/Location Historical Eruptions Potential Hazards

Mount Spurr Ice- and snow-covered stratovolcano 

on the west side of Cook Inlet, about 

120 km (75 mi) west of Anchorage.

Peak; elevation is 3,374 m 

(11,070 ft).

1953 and 1992 (Crater 

Peak flank vent about 

3.5 km [2 mi] south of 

summit).

Ash clouds, ash fall and bombs, pyroclastic 

flows and surges, and mudflows (lahars) 

that could inundate drainages on all sides of 

the volcano, but primarily on south and east 

flanks. Eruptions at the Crater Peak vent 

were brief and explosive, producing 

columns of ash.

Redoubt Stratovolcano on the west side of 

Cook Inlet, about 170 km (106 mi) 

southwest of Anchorage. Peak 

elevation is 3,108 m (10,197 ft).

1902, 1966–1968, 

1989–1990, and 2009. 

Ash clouds, ash fall and bombs, pyroclastic 

flows and surges, debris avalanches, 

directed blasts, volcanic gases, tsunamis, 

and mudflows (lahars) and floods that could 

inundate drainages on all sides of the 

volcano, primarily on the north flank. The 

1989–1990 eruption produced a lahar that 

traveled down the Drift River and partially 

flooded the Drift River Oil Terminal 

facility. Significant ash plume. Ash fall 

from the 2009 eruption forced the airport in 

Anchorage to close temporarily (ADN 

2009); there were no reports of damage to 

oil and gas operations in Cook Inlet. Tephra 

from future eruptions could travel several 

hundred kilometers from the volcano 

(carried by prevailing winds to the 

northeast).

Iliamna Ice- and snow-covered stratovolcano 

on the west side of lower Cook Inlet, 

about 225 km (140 mi) southwest of 

Anchorage and 113 km (70 mi) 

southwest of Homer. Peak elevation 

is 3,053 m (10,016 ft).

No historical activity. Ash clouds, ash fall and bombs, pyroclastic 

flows and surges, debris avalanches, and 

mudflows (lahars) and floods that could 

inundate drainages on all sides of the 

volcano.

Augustine Island stratovolcano in lower Cook 

Inlet, about 290 km (180 mi) 

southwest of Anchorage and 120 km 

(75 mi) southwest of Homer. Peak 

elevation is 1,260 m (4,134 ft).

Most active volcano in 

region with significant 

eruptions in 1812, 

1883, 1908, 1935, 

1963–1964, 1976, 

1986, and 2006.

Ash clouds, ash fall and volcanic bombs, 

pyroclastic flows and surges, debris 

avalanches, directed blasts, mudflows 

(lahars) and floods, volcanic gases, 

tsunamis, and lava flows. A large avalanche 

on the volcano‘s north flank during the 

1883 eruption flowed into Cook Inlet and 

may have initiated a tsunami at Nanwalek, 

about 90 km (56 mi) to the east.

a Volcanoes listed are monitored by the Alaska Volcano Observatory in Anchorage. Other volcanoes in the region west of 

Cook Inlet include Hayes and Double Glacier. The Hayes volcano is a stratovolcano remnant, almost completely icecovered; no fumeroles have been observed. Most recent eruptions were more than 3,000 years ago. The Double Glacier 

volcano is a dome remnant surrounded by the Double Glacier; it is considered to be inactive. There are also numerous 

unmonitored volcanoes (e.g., Mt. Douglas and Fourpeaked Mountain) on the Alaska Peninsula to the west of the Kodiak 

Islands.

Sources: USGS 2011b; Waythomas and Waitt 1998; Waythomas et al. 1997; Till et al. 1990.

2
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-28

1 Trading Bay to the McArthur River), the Drift River drainage (from Montana Bill Creek to Little 

2 Jack Slough), Redoubt Creek, and the Crescent River. The Drift and Chakachatna Rivers are the 

3 most likely to host such floods. Volcanogenic mudflows and floods could affect roads and 

4 onshore and offshore infrastructure such as pipelines (Combellick et al. 1995; ADNR 2009a).

5

6 Other (more distal) volcanic-related hazards include volcanic ash clouds and tsunamis. 

7 Volcanic ash is ejected high into the atmosphere and stratosphere by explosive eruptions and 

8 drifts downwind, eventually falling to the ground. Hazards related to ashfalls include damage to 

9 mechanical and electronic equipment (e.g., engines, computers, and transformers) and, in more 

10 rare events, building collapse. Volcanic ashfalls in Cook Inlet are typically less than a few 

11 millimeters in thickness and occur with an average frequency of a few every 10 to 20 years 

12 (Combellick et al. 1995; ADNR 2009a).

13

14 An eruption from Augustine volcano in 1883 caused a debris avalanche that entered 

15 Cook Inlet and initiated a tsunami that caused four 4.6 to 9.1 m (15 to 30 ft) waves to hit 

16 Nanwalek about 90 km (56 mi) to the east (Waythomas and Waitt 1998; KBP 2011). Waves of 

17 4.6 m (15 ft) also reportedly struck Port Graham. Boats were swept into the harbor and several 

18 residences were flooded, but damage was minor because the tide was low at the time 

19 (KBP 2011). While the risk of coastal damage from locally generated tsunamis is potentially 

20 high, the probability of occurrence is low. The configuration of Cook Inlet and its narrow 

21 entrances reduce the likelihood that a tsunami generated outside the inlet would create a 

22 significant hazard (Bouma and Hampton 1986).

23

24 Flooding. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reports that floods in the Cook Inlet 

25 drainage basin result from intense, warm rains originating in the Pacific Ocean. They are also 

26 caused by the release of water from glacier-dammed lakes or ice jams (and by tsunamis and 

27 seiches, discussed in the next section). Nearly all major floods occur between July and early 

28 October, but they can also occur during snowmelt season (May to June) if the snowpack is above 

29 average (Brabets et al. 1999). 

30

31 Since streamflow monitoring began in the late 1940s, at least four major floods have 

32 occurred in the drainage basin, covering large areas of the basin and causing considerable 

33 property damage (Brabets et al. 1999):

34

35 • May 1971. Snow cover was greater than average along the Alaska Range, and 

36 below-normal air temperatures delayed snowmelt until July, creating 

37 conditions conducive to flooding. Inundated areas included northeast and 

38 west Anchorage and parts of the Susitna and Matanuska River basins. 

39

40 • October 1986. A large Pacific storm system moved onshore over south

41 central Alaska, causing record-setting rainfall that caused flooding in the 

42 lower Susitna River Valley, with recurrence intervals greater than 100 years.

43

44 • August 1989. Record rainfall caused several streams in the Anchorage area to 

45 exceed prior record peak discharges. The Knik River also recorded a peak 

46 discharge at a 100-year recurrence.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-29

1 • September 1995. Remnants of a tropical storm caused flooding along the 

2 Skwentna River, the Knik River and tributaries, the Kenai River, and along 

3 Glacier Creeks (Girdwood). Several rivers discharging to Knik Arm had peak 

4 flows estimated to have been greater than the 100-year flood.

5

6 Other floods in the Cook Inlet drainage basin have occurred from glacier-dam outbursts 

7 that result when glacial movement opens a pathway for water trapped behind a glacier to be 

8 released. Rivers on the west side of the upper inlet are subject to outburst floods of great 

9 magnitude as a result of sudden drainage of large, glacier-dammed lakes; among these are the 

10 Beluga, Chakachatna, Middle, McArthur, Big, and Drift Rivers. One of the largest outburst 

11 floods occurred in 1969 (and again in 2007) when water released from glacier-dammed Skilak 

12 Lake lifted ice on the frozen river and severely scoured the river banks as a surge of water and 

13 large chunks of ice travelled downstream. Outburst floods also occur on the Kenai River (east of 

14 Cook Inlet) where a glacier-dammed lake at the headwaters of the Snow River fails every two to 

15 2–5 years. Historically, the Knik River near Palmer (at the northernmost end of Cook Inlet) has 

16 flooded when glacier-dammed Lake George fails. Such floods occur more frequently in the fall

17 and can be especially severe if the lakes or the Kenai River are already high or frozen 

18 (Brabets et al. 1999; Combellick et al. 1995; ADNR 2009a; KPB 2011).

19

20 Ice jam flooding occurs during the spring breakup process when strong ice or 

21 constrictions in a river (bends or obstructions like islands or gravel bars) create jam points that 

22 cause moving ice along the breakup front to stop (NOAA 2011a). It also occurs when low23 density ice masses (frazil ice) become trapped and pile up under surface ice. The ice stoppage 

24 causes water levels to rise and flood the adjacent land. Ice jams are more often associated with 

25 single-channel rivers in interior and northern Alaska than in rivers of the Cook Inlet drainage 

26 basin, but a flood from an ice jam downstream of Skilak Lake in the Kenai River watershed (east 

27 of Cook Inlet) occurred in 1969 after an outburst from Skilak Glacier at the head of Skilak Lake, 

28 creating a record high river stage (74.25 m [22.63 ft]) and causing severe damage in Soldotna. 

29 Ice jams are unpredictable and have the potential to be worse than 100- or 500-year events, 

30 causing heavy damage to bridges, piers, levees, jetties, and other structures along the riverbank 

31 (Brabets et al. 1999; NOAA 2011a; ADNR 2009a; KPB 2011).

32

33 Hazards from flooding result from inundation, riverbank instability and erosion, high 

34 bedload transport, deposition at the river mouth, and channel modification and mainly affect 

35 onshore facilities (e.g., terminal facilities and pipelines) (ADNR 2009a). Assessing flood 

36 potential and community vulnerability is difficult because significant natural and man-made 

37 changes occur within floodplains over short time intervals. The KPB has begun Federal 

38 Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate mapping updates, which are 

39 scheduled to be completed in late 2010. A vulnerability assessment to identify the population, 

40 property, and environment that may be exposed to flooding is also planned for Seward 

41 (KPB 2011).

42

43 Tsunamis and Seiches. A tsunami is a series of long ocean waves generated by the 

44 displacement of a large volume of water caused by earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, submarine 

45 landslides, or onshore landslides that rapidly release large volumes of debris into the water. 

46 Most tsunami waves affecting south central Alaska are generated along subduction zones 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-30

1 bordering the Pacific Ocean where motion along a dip-slip fault and the elastic rebound of 

2 subducting crust, produced by an earthquake of magnitude greater than 6.5 on the Richter scale, 

3 causes vertical displacement of the seafloor. The great seismicity associated with the subduction 

4 zone of the Aleutian-Alaskan megathrust fault system makes the southern coastal region of 

5 Alaska, especially the Gulf of Alaska and the Aleutian Islands, highly susceptible to tsunamis

6 (Costello 1985). 

7

8 Tsunamis are typically not hazardous to vessels and floating structures on the open ocean 

9 because of their small wave heights (less than a few feet). However, they are potentially very 

10 damaging to coastal regions and nearshore facilities because wave heights can increase 

11 significantly as tsunamis approach shallow water. High, breaking waves that reach the shoreline 

12 at high tide cause much more damage than waves that are low and nonbreaking or that occur at 

13 low tide (Combellick and Long 1983; MMS 1992).

14

15 Because of the shallow, elongated configuration of Cook Inlet and its narrow entrances, 

16 the hazard from distant tsunamis is low. The hazard from local tsunamis is also low because 

17 there are no active surface faults in the inlet, no adjacent steep slopes to serve as sources of 

18 massive slides into the inlet, and no evidence of thick, unstable seafloor deposits that could fail 

19 and create massive underwater slides. Local landslide-generated tsunamis, however, can be 

20 quite large and potentially damaging, as demonstrated by the series of 4.6 to 9.1 m (15 to 30 ft) 

21 waves that reportedly hit Nanwalek and Port Graham on the east side of lower Cook Inlet as a 

22 result of a debris avalanche caused by the eruption of Augustine volcano in 1883 (Waythomas 

23 and Waitt 1998; KBP 2011). Future eruptions of Augustine could potentially generate a tsunami 

24 in lower Cook Inlet if significant volumes of volcanic debris were to enter the sea rapidly 

25 (although this remains a topic of debate). Modeling studies indicate that a moderate wave is 

26 possible (with lead times of about 27 to 125 min), but the likelihood of a tsunami is considered to 

27 be low. None of the last five eruptions of Augustine volcano, including the latest one in 2006, 

28 resulted in a tsunami; nevertheless, the West Coast and Alaska Tsunami Warning Center and the 

29 Alaska Volcano Observatory continue to refine their public outreach strategy to deal with a 

30 volcanogenic tsunami because local consequences of such an event could be high 

31 (Neal et al. 2011; Waythomas and Waitt 1998; ADNR 2009a).

32

33 Seiches are periodic oscillations of standing waves in partially or completely enclosed 

34 water-filled basins like lakes, bays, or rivers triggered by changes in wind stress or atmospheric 

35 pressure and, less commonly, by landslides and earthquakes (McCulloch 1966). In Alaska, they 

36 may also be generated by the collapse of deltas into deep glacial lakes (KPB 2011). An example 

37 is the Lituya Bay earthquake of 1958 (Mw 8.2), which caused a landslide at the head of Lituya 

38 Bay (on the Gulf of Alaska) and generated a seiche with a wave run-up of about 530 m (1,750 ft) 

39 (MMS 1992; Bouma and Hampton 1986).

40

41 During the Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964 (Mw 9.2), tsunamis were generated by uplift 

42 of the seafloor and seiches were generated by landslides in semiconfined bays and inlets 

43 (USGS 2011b; MMS 1992). Because the Kenai Peninsula is susceptible to earthquakes with 

44 magnitudes greater than M 6.0, the Kenai Peninsula borough mitigation plan rates the coastal 

45 communities and facilities in lower Cook Inlet (south of the Forelands) as highly vulnerable to 

46 tsunamis — vulnerable communities include Port Graham, Nanwalek, Seldovia, Homer, Anchor 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-31

1 Point, and Ninilchik. The tsunami risk for upper Cook Inlet, however, is considered low because 

2 of its relatively shallow depth and its distance from the lower end of the inlet (KPB 2011).

3

4

5 4.2.1.3 Alaska – Arctic

6

7

8 4.2.1.3.1 Physiography and Bathymetry. The Arctic region is located along the arctic 

9 coastline of Alaska. It is composed of the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, and Hope Basin Planning 

10 Areas (Figure 4.2.1-6). The Beaufort Sea stretches from the Alaska-Yukon border westward to 

11 Point Barrow. Here, the continental shelf has very low relief (on average 1 m/km; 

12 Craig et al. 1985) and extends 60 to 120 km (37 to 75 mi) from shore to water depths of 60 to 

13 70 m (200 to 230 ft). Large-scale physiographic features are rare on the shelf, although barrier 

14 islands (rising several meters above sea level) and shoals (rising 5 to 10 m [16 to 33 ft] above the 

15 seabed) occur in a chain on the inner shelf along the 20-m (66-ft) depth contour, parallel to the 

16 shoreline. These features are migrating to the west at rates of about 20 to 30 m (66 to 98 ft) each 

17 year (MMS 2008c). Beyond the shelf is the Alaska rise and slope, an area where gravity-driven 

18 slope failures greatly influence the seafloor morphology (Grantz et al. 1994). 

19

20 The Chukchi Sea is a broad embayment of the Arctic Ocean. It lies to the west of the 

21 Beaufort Sea, between Point Barrow to the east and Cape Prince of Wales to the west 

22 (Figure 4.2.1-6). The continental shelf in this region has low relief and a gentle slope to the 

23 north. Water depths range from about 30 to 60 m (98 to 200 ft) on the shelf and drop sharply to 

24 greater than 3,000 m (9,800 ft) into the Arctic basin to the north and east. There are several 

25 shoals on the shelf. Two prominent shoals, Herald Shoal to the west and Hanna Shoal to the east 

26 (at depths less than 20 m [66 ft] below sea level), are separated by a broad area that is about 35 to 

27 40 m (110 to 130 ft) deep with a central channel. Isolated shoals also occur in the nearshore 

28 region (along the north and west coasts) in water depths of 20 to 30 m (66 to 98 ft). Hope Basin, 

29 a broad and shallow valley with water depths of about 50 m (160 ft), is located to the southwest 

30 of Point Hope (MMS 2008c). The outer edge of the shelf is dissected by gullies and large 

31 erosional features (Phillips et al. 1988).

32

33 The Beaufort and Chukchi shelves are separated by the Barrow Sea Valley, a 200-km 

34 (120-mi) long, flat-bottomed basin incised by fluvial erosion during the Pleistocene epoch and 

35 interglacial marine currents (Figure 4.2.1-6). The valley ranges in depths from about 100 to 

36 250 m (330 to 820 ft) (Craig et al. 1985; Phillips et al. 1988).

37

38

39 4.2.1.3.2 Geologic Hazards. Several types of geologic hazards are known to occur in 

40 the marine environment of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and may present a risk to offshore oil 

41 and gas activities because they are dangerous to navigation or potentially damaging to marine 

42 structures. The potential geologic hazards in the Arctic region, except for sea ice and permafrost, 

43 which are addressed in Section 4.2.2.1.2 and 4.2.2.2, are described below.

44

45 Offshore and Coastal Currents. Marine currents along the central Beaufort shelf are 

46 primarily wind-driven and are strongly regulated by the presence or absence of ice. Sediment is 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences 4-32

FIGURE 4.2.1-6 Physiographic Features of the Arctic Region
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-33

1 transported by these currents along the barrier islands and the coastal promontories, although, 

2 because of the short open water season, the annual rate of longshore sediment transport is 

3 relatively low. The currents along the inner shelf generally flow to the west in response to the 

4 prevailing northeast wind, with current reversals occurring close to shore during storms. Farther 

5 from the shoreline, on the open shelf, the currents average between 7 and 10 cm/s (2.8 to 

6 3.9 in./s). During storms, east-flowing currents have been measured with velocities of up to 

7 95 cm/s (37 in./s), although typical storm current velocities are an order of magnitude lower. 

8 Under the ice in the winter, the currents are usually less than 2 cm/s (0.79 in./s), although some 

9 currents have been measured at up to 25 cm/s (9.8 in./s) in areas around grounded ice blocks 

10 (Hopkins and Hartz 1978; ADNR 2009a).

11

12 Geostrophic currents occur on the outer shelf, flowing parallel to the shelf-slope break. 

13 These currents have been measured at velocities of up to 50 cm/s (20 in./s) and can travel in both 

14 easterly and westerly directions. Since the tidal range on the central Beaufort shelf is small, 

15 approximately 15 to 30 cm (5.9 to 12 in.), the tidal currents exert only minor influences on the 

16 sedimentary regime. When the water flow on the shelf is restricted by bottomfast ice, these 

17 currents can act as important scouring agents (Craig et al. 1985; ADNR 2009a).

18

19 Offshore structures must be designed to withstand strong marine currents, loading from 

20 ice forces, and severe storms in the Beaufort Sea. Production platforms will typically be bottom21 founded (gravity base) to withstand conditions that change with the seasons. Drill ships for 

22 exploration are not bottom-founded; therefore, they can only operate in low ice cover conditions. 

23 Artificial or natural gravel islands must be fortified and built to withstand coastal currents as well 

24 as the forces of moving sea ice for the lifespan of the producing field. To this end, they may 

25 require periodic maintenance in response to heavy storms (ADNR 2009a).

26

27 Flooding. Floods due to seasonal snowmelt and ice jams occur annually along most of 

28 the rivers in the Arctic region and many of the adjacent low terraces. Spring ice breakup on 

29 rivers often occurs over the first few days of a three-week period of flooding in late May through 

30 early June. Up to 80% of the flow occurs during this period. The impact of flooding is in large 

31 part related to the magnitude and timing of seasonal ice breakup. The formation of ice jams is 

32 especially associated with catastrophic flooding. Some of the most damaging floods are 

33 associated with an above-average snowpack that is melted by rainstorms and sudden warming 

34 (ADNR 2009a).

35

36 Significant bank erosion may occur during flooding, depending on the amount of water 

37 and its level with respect to the river bank and the nature of the sediment (or ice) load. Ice 

38 carried along by rivers can produce significant erosion, especially if breakup occurs during a low 

39 river stage. Spring floodwaters inundate large areas of the deltas, and on reaching the coast 

40 spread over stable ground and floating ice up to 30 km (19 mi) from shore. When floodwater 

41 reaches openings in the ice often associated with tidal cracks, thermal cracks, and seal breathing 

42 holes, it rushes through with enough force to scour the bottom to depths of several meters 

43 (a process known as strudel scouring) (ADNR 2009a).

44

45 Along the Beaufort shelf, strudel scour craters have formed up to 6 m (20 ft) deep and 

46 20 m (66 ft) across. In a study for the Northstar Pipeline, strudel scours were found in water 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-34

1 depths of 2.2 to 5.4 m (7.2 to 18 ft), with the greatest scour occurring at depths of 3 to 4 m 

2 (9.8 to 13 ft). Sheltered coastal areas and bays adjacent to major rivers (such as the Colville, 

3 Sagavanirktok, and Canning) are particularly susceptible to strudel scouring. In these areas, 

4 deltas can be totally reworked by strudel scouring in several thousand years, although the scours 

5 can be filled in very rapidly (ADNR 2009a).

6

7 In addition to seasonal flooding, many rivers along the coast are subject to seasonal icing 

8 before spring thaw. This is due to overflow of the stream or groundwater under pressure, often 

9 where frozen or impermeable bed sections force the winter flow to the surface to freeze in a 

10 series of thin overflows, or where spring-fed tributaries overflow wide braided rivers. In areas of 

11 repeated overflow, residual ice sheets often become thick enough to extend beyond the 

12 floodplain margin. These large overflows and residual ice sheets have been documented on the 

13 Sagavanirktok, Shaviovik, Kavik, and Canning Rivers (ADNR 2009a).

14

15 Seasonal flooding of lowlands and river channels is extensive along major rivers of the 

16 Arctic region. Thus, measures must be taken before facility construction and field development 

17 to prevent impacts on structures and environmental damage (ADNR 2009a).

18

19 Barrier Island and Bedform Migration. Barrier islands along the Beaufort shelf 

20 consist of dynamic constructional islands and remnants of the Arctic coastal plain (ACP). As the 

21 barrier islands along the Beaufort shelf are migrating westward and landward due to erosion and 

22 redeposition by waves and currents, they are generally becoming narrower and breaking up into 

23 smaller segments (Hopins and Hartz 1978). During the open water season, longshore drift, storm 

24 surges, and ice push contribute to the erosion, migration, and breakup of these islands, which 

25 may permanently affect their size and influence on coastal processes.

26

27 Along the Chukchi shelf, asymmetrical bedform features, including small sand waves, 

28 larger shore-parallel shoals, and the grouped features of the Blossom Shoals, occur in water 

29 depths ranging from less than 15 m (50 ft) to approximately 60 m (200 ft) and extend to

30 distances of up to 160 km (100 mi) offshore. The migration of sand waves and other bedforms 

31 can cause problems to offshore facilities by undermining or burying fixed structures, anchors, 

32 moorings for submersibles, and pipelines, which can rupture (Bouma and Hampton 1986). 

33

34 Overpressured Sediments. Along the Beaufort and Chukchi shelves, extremely high 

35 pore pressures are likely to be found in deep basins (Kaktovik, Camden, and Nuwuk) where 

36 Cenozoic strata are very thick. For example, in the Point Thomson area, pore pressure gradients 

37 as high as 0.8 psi/ft (far exceeding the normal gradient of 0.433 psi/ft) have been measured in 

38 sediments at burial depths of 4,000 m (13,100 ft) (Craig et al. 1985; ADNR 2009a).

39

40 Encountering overpressured sediments during drilling can result in a loss of well control 

41 or uncontrolled flow (if formation pressures exceed the weight of drilling mud in the well bore). 

42 Identifying locations of overpressured sediments by seismic data analysis and adjusting the 

43 drilling mud mixture accordingly reduce this risk (ADNR 2009a). 

44

45 Shallow Gas Deposits and Natural Gas Hydrates. Shallow gas deposits have been 

46 mapped using high-resolution seismic data in isolated areas within the continental shelf and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-35

1 slope regions of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. A recent investigation by the Joint Russian2 American Long-Term Census of the Arctic Project team identified a pockmark field on the 

3 Chukchi Plateau. The pockmarks are typically related to the explosive release of gas (or gassaturated water or oil)12 4 (Astakhov et al. 2010). On the middle and inner shelf, gas is 

5 concentrated in buried Pleistocene delta and channel systems, along active faults overlying 

6 natural gas sources and in pockets within and beneath permafrost very near to shore. On the 

7 outer shelf and slope, shallow gas is likely to occur in association with a large body of gas 

8 hydrate and at the head of the landslide terrain on the outermost region of the shelf and upper 

9 slope. The origins of shallow gas may be biogenic or thermogenic; in either case, its presence 

10 poses a hazard to bottom-founded structures because it can reduce the shear strength of 

11 sediments. Loss of well control may also occur when drilling operations encounter 

12 overpressured gas below the seabed (Grantz et al. 1982a, b; ADNR 1999). 

13

14 Natural gas hydrates are unique compounds consisting of ice-like substances composed 

15 of gas trapped within water molecules. They are common in offshore regions under low16 temperature, high-pressure conditions as well as at shallower depths associated with permafrost. 

17 In the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, gas hydrates have been found at shallow depths under 

18 permafrost along the inner shelf and onshore at Prudhoe Bay and at the Mount Elbert well in 

19 Milne Point where downhole coring and logging operations were recently completed 

20 (ADNR 2009a).

21

22 One of the main problems associated with gas hydrates is dissociation, which causes 

23 unstable conditions by increasing fluid pressure and reducing sediment shear strength. Natural 

24 mechanisms leading to gas hydrate dissociation include sea level decrease and sediment 

25 temperature increase. Man-made mechanisms include heat transfer during petroleum production 

26 that leads to melting of hydrates. During drilling, rapid decomposition of gas hydrates can cause 

27 a rapid increase in pressure in the wellbore, gasification of the drilling mud, and the possible loss 

28 of well control. If the release of the hydrate gas is too rapid, a loss of well control can occur, and 

29 the escaping gas could ignite. In addition, the flow of hot hydrocarbons past a hydrate layer 

30 could result in hydrate decomposition around the wellbore and loss of strength of the affected 

31 sediments (ADNR 2009a).

32

33 Dissociation of gas hydrates is a potential cause of submarine slope failures. Acoustic 

34 records indicate a stretch of slumps in the Beaufort Sea along the shelf-edge break. The slumps 

35 extend for at least 500 km (310 mi) in an area of known gas hydrates and should be considered 

36 during exploration and development activities (ADNR 2009a). 

37

38 Because gas hydrates and shallow gas deposits pose risks similar to overpressured 

39 sediments, the same mechanisms for well control should be employed to reduce the danger of 

40 loss of life or damage to the environment (ADNR 2009a).

41

42 Sediment Sliding, Slumping, and Subsidence. Locally high rates of deposition of 

43 unconsolidated sediments on the increased gradient of the continental shelf edge may form 

 

12 On the Chukchi Plateau, pockmarks may indicate areas of rapid gas release; however, their size and morphology 

are also consistent with thermokarst depressions developed along the Arctic shoreline (Astakhov et al. 2010).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-36

1 unstable slopes that lead to intensive soil movements such as slumping, gravitational creep, 

2 turbidity or debris flows, and mudslides. A chaotic sediment slide terrane exists along the length 

3 of the Beaufort shelf and upper slope, seaward to the 50- to 60-m (160- to 200-ft) isobath. The 

4 distinct landslide types in this area include large bedding-plane slides and block glides. 

5 Sediment slumping, possibly associated with permafrost melting, has been observed north of the 

6 Mackenzie Delta in Canadian waters and may also disrupt buried pipelines and damage drilling 

7 structures (Grantz et al. 1982b). 

8

9 Sediment slumping may also occur in association with active faulting. Regionally high 

10 rates of deposition on the continental shelf may cause isostatic adjustments and deep-seated 

11 gravity faulting (active faulting). Active gravity faults related to large rotational slump blocks 

12 occur on the outer Beaufort shelf and upper slope due to increased gradients along the shelf13 slope break (Grantz and Dinter 1980).

14

15 Seismicity. Ground shaking during a major earthquake can cause consolidation problems 

16 in artificial gravel islands used as drilling platforms and affect bottom-founded structures. 

17 Earthquakes can also cause vertical and/or horizontal displacement along faults, uplift or 

18 subsidence, surface tilt, ground failure, and inundation (due to tsunamis) — all of which may 

19 affect the integrity of development infrastructure.

20

21 Several types of shallow faults occur on the Beaufort shelf, including high-angle, 

22 basement-involved normal faults (Barrow Arch in Harrison Bay); listric growth faults; and 

23 down-to-the-north gravity faults along the shelf-slope break. There has been no seismicity 

24 associated with the high-angle faults in Harrison Bay in recent times and there is little evidence 

25 of Quaternary movement, but these faults may act as conduits for gas migration 

26 (Grantz et al. 1982a, b; Craig et al. 1985). 

27

28 The Camden Bay area, located at the northern end of a north-northeast trending band of 

29 seismicity extending northward from east-central Alaska, is seismically active, and near-surface 

30 faults show marked evidence of Quaternary movement. Since monitoring began in 1978, 

31 numerous earthquakes have occurred in the area along the axis of the northeast-southwest 

32 trending Camden anticline, ranging in magnitude from 1 to 6 (Craig et al. 1985; 

33 Grantz et al. 1982a, b). 

34

35 There is no historical record of seismicity on the Chukchi shelf; however, sediment36 covered fault scarps in the northern Chukchi Sea suggest Quaternary movement along faults in 

37 this region (Thurston and Theiss 1987; Grantz et al. 1982a).

38

39 The region along Alaska‘s northern coast lies within an area where the peak horizontal 

40 acceleration with a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years is between 0.03 and 0.07 g 

41 (Wesson et al. 2007). Shaking associated with this level of acceleration is generally perceived as 

42 weak, and the potential for damage to structures is negligible (Wald et al. 2005). 

43

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-37

1 4.2.2 Sea Ice and Permafrost

2

3

4 4.2.2.1 Sea Ice

5

6

7 4.2.2.1.1 Cook Inlet. Ice cover in Cook Inlet is seasonal, forming in the fall (October to 

8 November; although the lower inlet is usually still ice-free in December) and disappearing 

9 completely in the spring. However, the dates of onset and clearance can vary considerably from 

10 year to year. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers‘ (USACE) report Marine Ice Atlas for Cook 

11 Inlet, Alaska (Mulherin et al. 2001) provides a description of the factors that favor and 

12 discourage ice growth. It notes that offshore platforms built in Cook Inlet follow ice design 

13 criteria specified by the American Petroleum Institute. Since 1984, the National Weather 

14 Service (NWS) has provided analysis and forecasts for the extent, concentration, and stage of 

15 development of ice to aid commercial navigation, as well as fishing and tourist activities in the 

16 inlet (NWS ice chart archives are maintained by the Alaska State Climate Center in Anchorage); 

17 the National Ice Center also prepares semiweekly analyses throughout the ice season. 

18

19 There are four types of ice that form in Cook Inlet: pack ice, shorefast ice, stamukhi, and 

20 estuarine and river ice. Pack ice is freely floating sea ice that forms directly from the freezing of 

21 seawater. In the shallow and turbulent waters of Cook Inlet, a major component of pack ice is 

22 ―frazil‖ ice, which occurs as low-density masses of slushy, unconsolidated ice on the water 

23 surface. Floating ice poses the greatest hazard to navigation and marine structures. Between 

24 1964 and 1986, at least eight incidents involving sea ice in Cook Inlet were recorded by the 

25 U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), most resulting in damaged pilings and docks in the Port of 

26 Anchorage area. In 1988, a small crude oil spill resulted when a tanker was punctured by ice. 

27 Several similar ice-related incidents have been recorded since then (Mulherin et al. 2001).

28

29 Shorefast ice is unmoving ice that remains firmly attached to the shoreline or other 

30 stationary structures once it forms. It forms directly by the freezing of seawater and from the 

31 piling and refreezing of ice or the flooding of snow on top of the ice. One form of shorefast ice, 

32 ―beach ice,‖ forms during flood tide as water freezes with mud and bonds to the sea bottom. 

33 When the air temperature is colder than seawater, this ice becomes progressively thicker with 

34 each successive high tide, accumulating as much as 2.5 cm (1 in.) of ice per tidal flood. The ice 

35 usually breaks free before it reaches about 0.5 m (1.6 ft) in thickness. Once freed, it becomes 

36 floating (pack) ice and drifts into deeper water (Mulherin et al. 2001).

37

38 Stamukhi are a form of sea ice that have broken and piled upward (hummocked) due to 

39 winds, tides, or thermal expansion. Under the right conditions (e.g., repeated wetting and 

40 accretion of seawater), they form the massive ice blocks (ice cakes) common to Cook Inlet. 

41 Stamukhi as thick as 12 m (40 ft) have been reported. Their large size makes them very 

42 hazardous to shipping vessels (Mulherin et al. 2001).

43

44 Much of the ice in Cook Inlet derives from freshwater sources — estuaries and rivers —

45 especially in the head region and upper inlet. Estuarine ice is similar to sea ice but is 

46 significantly stronger. It is commonly entrained in pack ice and presents the same hazards to 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-38

1 navigation and marine (shoreline) structures. River ice is discharged into the inlet during spring 

2 breakup; ice pieces can be as thick as 2 m (6.7 ft) (Mulherin et al. 2001).

3

4

5 4.2.2.1.2 Arctic Region. The Beaufort shelf is ice-covered between mid-October and 

6 mid-June, with a typical ice-free period during August and September. Sea ice begins forming in 

7 late September to early October and becomes continuous nearshore by mid-October. This ice 

8 remains through the winter and starts to break up in July, but the nearshore region is not ice-free 

9 until early August. In recent years, breakup has occurred earlier by as many as 21 and 6 days 

10 along the Beaufort and Chukchi coasts, respectively. Ice-free coastlines now occur over a month 

11 earlier along the Beaufort coast (ADNR 2009a; MMS 2008c).

12

13 During the winter months, ice occurs within three main nearshore and offshore zones: 

14 the landfast zone, the shear zone (also called the active or stamukhi zone), and the pack ice zone. 

15 Landfast ice forms along the shore and develops seaward in the early fall, extending 25 to 50 km 

16 (16 to 31 mi) from shore by late winter. This ice is up to 2 m (6.6 ft) thick and is considered 

17 stable because it is relatively stationary (moving less than a few meters after it forms). Small 

18 movements of the ice are related to storm fronts, which cause narrow leads and rubble fields in 

19 this zone (Reimnitz and Barnes 1974; MMS 2008c; ADNR 2009a).

20

21 The shear zone (stamukhi zone) is a transitional zone between landfast ice and the highly 

22 mobile pack ice, occurring approximately 20 to 60 km (12 to 37 mi) from the coast in water 

23 depths of about 20 to 100 m (60 to 330 ft). Fragments of seasonal ice and multiyear ice ridges 

24 are common in this zone. Ice ridges range in thickness from 10 to 12 m (33 to 39 ft) with an 

25 average thickness of 6 m (20 ft). It is here where ice is constantly being reworked and shifted 

26 and ice gouging (discussed below) occurs most intensely (ADNR 2009a; MMS 2008c).

27

28 Seaward of the stamukhi zone is the pack ice zone, which marks the shoreward edge of 

29 the permanent polar ice cap. It consists of multiyear ice, ice ridges, and ice island fragments that 

30 migrate westward in response to the clockwise circumpolar gyre (Reimnitz and Barnes 1974; 

31 ADNR 2009a). The drift rate of ice in this zone can be as high as 20 km/day (12 mi/day) 

32 (MMS 2008c). 

33

34 The Chukchi shelf is largely covered by ice between mid-November and mid-June; 

35 August and September are typically ice-free. Ice thicknesses in the region are generally less than 

36 1.2 to 1.4 m (3.9 to 4.6 ft) during the annual cycle. Multiyear ice is common in the Chukchi Sea; 

37 extensive ridging (with a ridge frequency of 3 to 5 per kilometer and sail heights of 1.5 to 3.7 m 

38 [4.9 to 12 ft]) is also common (MMS 2008c). 

39

40 Sea ice poses a potential hazard to coastal and offshore structures; for example, concrete 

41 island drilling structures could be pushed off location, ice could override a fixed structure, or a 

42 marine pipeline could be damaged where it comes ashore. Facilities exposed to the potential 

43 risks of each sea ice zone must be designed and fortified to accommodate ice forces 

44 (ADNR 2009a).

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-39

1 Ice Scouring (Ice Gouging and Strudel Scour). The continental shelf below the 

2 Beaufort and Chukchi Seas is vulnerable to ice gouging and strudel scour, both of which must be 

3 taken into consideration when siting and designing subsea pipelines. Ice gouging results when 

4 ice ridges or icebergs with deep keels, moving under the influence of forces such as wind and 

5 ocean currents, run aground and penetrate the seabed, leaving linear to curvilinear deep furrows. 

6 Strudel scour occurs in relatively shallow water in the spring during river breakup when

7 overflood waters spreading over bottomfast ice sheets and draining with high velocity through 

8 holes in the ice sheet (e.g., tidal cracks, thermal cracks, and seal breathing holes) erode the 

9 underlying sediments, leaving behind circular or linear areas of scour in the seabed. The 

10 magnitude and frequency of strudel scour events are affected by the timing and location of 

11 overflooding river discharge (and the effects of ice jams), and the types of surface features 

12 present (e.g., drainage cracks and fissures). Pipelines should be trenched to depths below the 

13 predicted scour depth and should be designed to withstand the forces associated with the gouging 

14 process, which can cause significant soil displacement (MMS 2008c; ADNR 2009a).

15

16 Although ice gouges are found across the entire Beaufort shelf, they are concentrated in 

17 the stamuhki zone, between the 10- and 30-m (33- and 98-ft) depth contours, with the most 

18 intense gouging on the up-drift side of shoals and islands bordering the stamuhki zone. In this 

19 region, crossing frequencies of 1 to 6 gouges/km/yr and a maximum gouge depth of 3.9 m (13 ft) 

20 have been reported. Ice gouges have a general east-west orientation, reflecting the prevailing 

21 wind and surface current directions; however, on the inner shelf where shoals and other bottom 

22 features deflect the ice, orientations are more variable. Off Prudhoe Bay, the inner boundary of 

23 high-intensity ice gouging is controlled by the location of the island chains, about 15 to 20 km 

24 (9.3 to 12 mi) offshore. In Harrison Bay, where there are no barrier islands, ice gouges are 

25 concentrated in areas of abundant ice ridge formation (MMS 2008c; Craig et al. 2005).

26

27 Ice gouging is less frequent inshore of the stamuhki zone (with reported crossing 

28 frequencies ranging from 1 to 2 gouges/km/yr) (MMS 2008c). It is also less severe in this region 

29 because gouges are rapidly buried by sand waves or sediment sheets (loose, coarser grained 

30 sediments in the nearshore region degrade more rapidly than the more cohesive, fine-grained 

31 sediments offshore). The incidence of ice gouging also decreases with increasing water depth 

32 offshore of the stamuhki zone since the number of ice keels large enough to reach the bottom 

33 decreases. Along the outer shelf edge, strong geostrophic currents smooth the older ice gouges 

34 by eroding or filling them in (ADNR 2009a).

35

36 Little survey data on ice gouging features are available for the Chukchi Sea, and

37 repetitive mapping that would allow observed gouges to be dated and gouge rates to be estimated 

38 has not been done. However, gouge geometry (depth and width) and density have been recorded 

39 over broad areas in the Chukchi Sea, to a maximum water depth of 60 m (200 ft). The most 

40 significant ice gouging occurs on the main part of the continental shelf at water depths of 30 to 

41 60 m (98 to 200 ft) where surficial sediments consist of thin deposits of sand and gravel 

42 overlying stiff consolidated clay or dense sandy gravel. In this region, a maximum gouge depth 

43 of 4.5 m (15 ft) was observed within a water depth of 35 to 40 m (110 to 130 ft). Gouges may be 

44 many kilometers long and tens of meters wide, and their dominant orientation is northeast45 southwest (MMS 2008c; Phillips et al. 1978). 

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-40

1 The areas adjacent to the Herald and Hanna shoals have only limited ice gouging 

2 (no gouge depths were recorded). Nearshore areas where water is shallow (less than 30 m 

3 [98 ft]) have an average gouge depth of 0.8 m (2.6 ft) and also have a low ice gouging density 

4 (MMS 2008c; Toimil 1978). Nearshore sediments are reworked by waves and currents to the 

5 extent that ice gouge morphology is readily obliterated by erosion and/or burial (Barnes and 

6 Reimnitz 1979). In general, ice gouging is more prevalent in the northern part of Chukchi Sea 

7 because the extent and duration of ice cover is greater. In the southern part of the Sea, the longer 

8 open water season allows for more reworking of the seabed by wave and current action, which 

9 likely masks evidence of past gouging (MMS 2008c).

10

11 Ice Movement (Ice Ride-up, Ice Override, and Icebergs). Continuous, large-scale ice 

12 movements in the Beaufort Sea are caused by major current systems (e.g., the Beaufort Gyre), 

13 tidal currents, or geostrophic winds. Local, short-term movements result mainly from wind, 

14 wave, and current action, particularly during storms. During a single ice season, ice movements 

15 create zones of landfast and pack ice. Zone boundaries fluctuate with seasonal ice growth and 

16 movement. Ice movements at a given site may have a predominant direction due to geography 

17 and environmental conditions (ADNR 2009a).

18

19 On islands and coastal regions throughout the Beaufort Sea, both ice ride-up (or ice push) 

20 and ice override events erode and transport significant amounts of sediment. Ice ride-up occurs 

21 where strong wind or currents force ice blocks onshore, pushing the sediment from the coast into 

22 the ridges farther inland. These processes are particularly important to consider for the outer 

23 barrier islands, where ice ride-up ridges may be as high as 2.5 m (8.2 ft) and extend 100 m 

24 (330 ft) inland, and man-made structures are along the coast. They also have the potential to 

25 alter shorelines and nearshore bathymetry, increasing the risk of damage to man-made structures 

26 by erosion. Several accounts of damage to structures due to ice ride-up events have been 

27 documented along the Beaufort coast. For example, in January 1984, ice overtopped the 

28 Kadluck, an 8-m (26-ft) high caisson-retained drilling island located in Mackenzie Bay 

29 (MMS 2003e; ADNR 2009a).

30

31 Ice override occurs both offshore and onshore wherever ice overrides rafted ice or ice 

32 ride-ups along the coastline. Ice override onshore will add an additional dead load to a buried 

33 pipeline in the transition area from offshore to onshore beginning where the ice contacts the sea 

34 floor. This dead load, along with the force being exerted by the ice and the strength of soil, must 

35 be considered in pipeline design (ADNR 2009a).

36

37 Icebergs in the Beaufort Sea are rare but may be present as a result of calving off Nansen 

38 Island. Natural ice islands have also been observed on occasion. Ice islands are produced by the 

39 breakup of portions of the Ellesmere Ice Shelf and occur as tabular icebergs of the Arctic Ocean. 

40 They are usually 40 to 50 m (130 to 160 ft) thick with lateral dimensions that range from tens of 

41 meters to tens of kilometers. The annual risk of an iceberg or ice island impacting an offshore 

42 production facility is estimated to be 1 in 1,000 years; however, there is no threat to exploration 

43 or development activities in more shallow, nearshore regions (MMS 2008c; ADNR 2009a).

44

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-41

1 4.2.2.2 Subsea and Coastal Permafrost (Arctic Region)

2

3 Bonded permafrost formed on the Beaufort shelf during the Pleistocene lowstands of sea 

4 level to several hundred meters below the exposed shelf (Wang et al. 1982; Hunter and 

5 Hobson 1974). During the subsequent highstands of sea level, melting of the permafrost 

6 occurred, in part due to geothermal heating and saline advection of seawater into the sediments 

7 (MMS 1985; MMS 2003e). Currently, permafrost is known to be present onshore and is inferred 

8 to be present offshore in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area (MMS 1985). Subsea permafrost is 

9 inferred but has not been identified beneath the Chukchi Sea shelf (MMS 1987). Depths to the 

10 top of subsea permafrost in the Beaufort shelf are highly variable, and the thickness of the 

11 permafrost is unknown (MMS 1985). There is a transition from bonded permafrost on land that 

12 is unstable when thawed to generally thaw-stable materials offshore.

13

14 Thaw subsidence (also known as thermokarst subsidence) and frost heave associated with 

15 permafrost in the Arctic region can create potential hazards to onshore oil and gas operations. 

16 The geologic record during the last Arctic glacial-to-interglacial transition indicates that global 

17 warming played a key role in disrupting the thermal balance of permafrost and initiating regional 

18 thaw subsidence. And some of the thermokarst activity (e.g., melting of ice wedges) over the 

19 last 100 to 150 years can also be attributed to global warming (Murton 2008). Oil and gas 

20 related activities may also contribute to this process. These include drilling through permafrost 

21 layers; building and maintaining crude oil pipelines; placement and operation of bottom-founded 

22 structures; and construction of artificial islands, causeways, and berms. Subsea permafrost that 

23 contains trapped gas may melt during the drilling of wells or the subsequent production activities 

24 in areas surrounding the borehole, causing subsidence and rupture of the well casings and 

25 potentially leading to loss of well control.

26

27

28 4.2.3 Physical Oceanography

29

30

31 4.2.3.1 Gulf of Mexico

32

33 The physical conditions of ocean waters have the potential to disrupt activities relating to 

34 oil and gas production that occur on the continental shelf and slope, as well as in deepwater 

35 regions of the GOM. Coherent water motions and breaking waves can fatigue and damage oil 

36 and gas platforms and facilities, limit the timing of supply boats and drilling operations, and 

37 suspend all operations during extreme conditions such as hurricanes or tropical storms 

38 (MMS 2005a; Kaiser and Pulsipher 2007). As waves approach deck heights of platforms and 

39 supply ships, they can put equipment and personnel at risk (MMS 2005b). Storm events can 

40 also produce large forces near the ocean bottom that can scour sediments and affect pipelines 

41 and platform structures (Det Norske Veritas 2007; Cruz and Krausmann 2008; 

42 Wijesekera et al. 2010). Additionally, water currents and waves affect the horizontal and vertical 

43 transport of spilled oil, as well as contribute to the physical conditions that control natural 

44 weathering processes such as evaporation, emulsification, and oxidation (NOAA 2002; 

45 NRC 2003b). 

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-42

1 The GOM is a partially enclosed sea covering an area of approximately 1.5 million km2

(579,153 mi2 2 ) and is connected to the Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. The bathymetry of 

3 the GOM can be generalized as having a wide continental shelf along its northern and southern 

4 edges, prominent escarpments, and a relatively flat ocean floor (Bouma and Roberts 1990; see 

5 Figure 4.2.1-1. Circulation patterns in the GOM are the result of complex interactions among the 

6 bathymetry of the basin and forcing mechanisms that include winds, atmospheric conditions, 

7 water density (related to temperature and salinity), and the Loop Current (described below) 

8 (e.g., Oey et al. 2004; Sturges and Kenyos 2008). The GOM can be characterized as a two9 layered system with respect to circulation patterns having a surface layer of up to 1,000 m 

10 (3,281 ft) in depth and a deep layer reaching down to the ocean floor at depths of approximately 

11 4,000 m (13, 123 ft) (Lugo-Fernandez and Green 2011). 

12

13 A generalized depiction of major circulation patterns and bathymetry of the GOM is 

14 shown in Figure 4.2.3-1. The Loop Current and its associated meso-scale eddies are the 

15 dominant circulation features (Oey et al. 2005). Effects associated with Earth‘s rotation set up a 

16 western boundary current that is a part of an anticyclonic (clockwise) circulation pattern found 

17 in the western half of the GOM (Sturges and Blaha 1975; Sturges 1993). Over the continental 

18 shelf of Texas and Louisiana, wind-driven downcoast currents are common, with an opposite 

19 current along the continental slope (Cochrane and Kelly 1986; Nowlin et al. 1998; Zavala20 Hidalgo et al. 2003). Currents along the continental shelf off Mississippi-Alabama show a 

21 pattern of complex cyclonic and anticyclonic eddy pairs with strong inter-annual variability, and 

22 they are also influenced by the positioning of the Loop Current (Brooks and Giammona 1991; 

23 Jochens et al. 2002). Deepwater circulation follows a counterclockwise pattern and consists 

24 primarily of low-frequency waves that receive energy from the Loop Current and its eddies 

25 (Hamilton 1990, 2007). 

26

27 Understanding the circulation patterns and physical oceanographic conditions is vital for 

28 improving oil and gas production and exploration activities with respect to preserving the 

29 environment (Ji 2004; Lugo-Fernandez and Green 2011). In the GOM, the energetic water 

30 currents and waves that have the greatest potential to affect oil and gas activities can be 

31 characterized as those associated with episodic weather events (e.g., hurricanes and tropical 

32 storms), large-scale circulation patterns including the Loop Current and its associated meso-scale 

33 eddies, vertically coherent deepwater currents, and high-speed jets (DiMarco et al. 2004). 

34

35

36 4.2.3.1.1 Hurricanes and Tropical Storms. Tropical conditions normally prevail over 

37 the GOM from June until October, and in a typical year, 11 tropical storms will form in the 

38 region with approximately 6 reaching hurricane status (Blake et al. 2007). Hurricanes and 

39 tropical storms can increase surface current speeds to between 1 and 2 m/s (3.2 and 6.8 ft/s) in 

40 continental shelf regions (Nowlin et al. 1998; Teague et al. 2007), as well as produce current 

41 speeds of more than 0.5 m/s (1.6 ft/s) in deeper waters on the continental slope (Brooks 1983; 

42 Teague et al. 2007). Recorded wave heights during recent hurricanes have shown an increasing 

43 pattern, with maximum wave heights exceeding 30 m (98 ft), which are greater than the current 

44 100-year storm criteria for platform deck heights (MMS 2005b; Jeong and Panchang 2008). 

45 Storm surges can impact infrastructure along coasts and have been reported to range between 

46 2 and 8 m (7 and 26 ft) for hurricanes reaching the northern coast of the GOM (NOAA 2011b). 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences 4-43

12 FIGURE 4.2.3

-1 Generalized Circulation Patterns in the GOM
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-44

1 Extensive observations of hurricane-induced currents and waves were not available until 

2 recent years, starting with Hurricane Ivan in 2004, which passed over an extensive array of 

3 instrumented moorings of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory‘s Slope to Shelf Energetics and 

4 Exchange Dynamics (SEED) program (Stone et al. 2005; Teague et al. 2006a). As Hurricane 

5 Ivan approached the northern GOM in the fall of 2004, wind stresses produced downwelling 

6 conditions on the continental shelf with advective onshore surface currents and offshore currents 

7 in the lower portion of the water column (Mitchell et al. 2005; Teague et al. 2007). Current 

8 speeds on the continental shelf were often greater than 1.1 m/s (3.6 ft/s) with many flow 

9 reversals during the passage of the hurricane, and strong waves prevailed for up to 10 days in the 

10 wake of the hurricane‘s passage (Teague et al. 2007; Wijesekera et al. 2010). Sediment scour on 

the continental shelf was observed to be more than 100 million m3 11 (81071 ac-ft) over a region of 

525 km2 (203 mi2 12 ) (Teague et al. 2006b). Maximum wave heights associated with Hurricane 

13 Ivan reached 28 m (92 ft) with significant wave heights (average wave height of the upper-third14 largest waves) reach 16 m (52 ft) (Jeong and Panchang 2008). 

15

16 Hurricanes Ivan, Katrina, and Rita (2004 and 2005) were some of the most powerful 

17 hurricanes to enter the GOM (Stone et al. 2005) and were very damaging to oil and gas facilities 

18 and production operations (Cruz and Krausmann 2008). The strong winds, rapid currents, high 

19 waves, and sediment scour associated with Hurricane Ivan damaged offshore platforms, 

20 production wells, and pipeline systems resulting in a disruption of 10% of the GOM‘s production 

21 over a four-month period (MMS 2005c). Hurricanes Katrina and Rita resulted in more than 

22 150 platforms (approximately 4% of the total number of platforms in the GOM) being damaged 

23 or destroyed primarily by effects associated with wave inundation (Cruz and Krausmann 2008). 

24 In response to these recent and severe hurricane events, industry and regulators are reexamining 

25 offshore oil and gas structural designs to improve their resistance to hurricanes, especially with 

26 respect to deck heights to resist wave inundation, as well as mooring anchors and pipeline 

27 designs to prevent damage by sediment scouring and mudslides (Abraham 2005; MMS 2005b). 

28

29

30 4.2.3.1.2 Loop Current and Loop Current Eddies. The dominant circulation pattern 

31 in the GOM is the Loop Current, which can be generalized as a horseshoe-shaped circulation 

32 pattern that enters through the Yucatan Channel and exits through the Florida Straits 

33 (Figure 4.2.3-1). The Loop Current covers approximately 10% of the GOM‘s area 

34 (Hamilton et al. 2000; Lugo-Fernandez and Green 2011), has surface current speeds up to 

35 1.8 m/s (5.9 ft/s) (Oey et al. 2005), and is present down to an 800-m (2,625-ft) depth 

36 (Nowlin et al. 2000; Lugo-Fernandez 2007). The incoming water of the Loop Current through 

37 the Yucatan Channel is typically warmer and saltier than the GOM waters, which in combination 

38 with its highly inertial circulation pattern generates energetic conditions that drive circulation 

39 patterns throughout the entire GOM (Lugo-Fernandez 2007; Jochens and DiMarco 2008; 

40 Lugo-Fernandez and Green 2011). 

41

42 The Loop Current is not a stagnant circulation, as it alters its orientation angle and 

43 periodically extends northwesterly into the GOM with filaments being observed to intrude 

44 onto the continental slope near the Mississippi River Delta (Muller-Karger et al. 2001; 

45 Oey et al. 2005). As the Loop Current extends north to approximately 27°N, an instability 

46 causes the formation of an anticyclonic eddy (Loop Current Eddy) to separate off from the Loop 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-45

1 Current (Hamilton et al. 2000; Vukovich 2007). The physical mechanisms that trigger these 

2 Loop Current Eddy separations and their frequency of occurrence are not fully understood 

3 (Chang and Oey 2010; Sturges et al. 2010), but the period between Loop Current Eddy 

4 separations ranges from 0.5 to 18.5 months (e.g., Vukovich 2007). A linear relationship that 

5 exists between the period between Loop Current Eddy separations and the retreat latitude of the 

6 Loop Current following separation results from a balance in vorticity between water entering and 

7 water exiting the GOM that is displaced by the intrusion of the Loop Current moving toward the 

8 northern slope region (Lugo-Fernandez and Leben 2010). Loop Current Eddies typically have a 

9 diameter of 300 to 400 km (186 to 248 mi), current speeds between 1.5 to 2 m/s (4.9 to 6.6 ft/s), 

10 and speeds up to 0.1 m/s (0.3 ft/s) at a 500-m (1,640-ft) depth (Brooks 1984; Cooper et al. 1990). 

11 Loop Current Eddies migrate to the west and southwest under forces induced by the Earth‘s 

12 curvature and rotation with translation speeds ranging from 2 to 5 km/day (1.2 to 3.1 mi/day) 

13 (Brooks 1984; Oey et al. 2005). 

14

15 Loop Current Eddies typically affect deepwater regions (depths greater than 400 m

16 [1,312 ft]) of the GOM and have the potential to disrupt exploration, drilling, and production 

17 activities (Crout 2009). Currents associated with Loop Current Eddies have the ability to cause 

18 vortex-induced vibrations that can damage platforms and drilling equipment (Kaiser and 

19 Pulsipher 2007). It has been estimated that a sustained current of 2 m/s (6.6 ft/s) can use up the 

20 fatigue life of certain mooring system components in 1 week (DiMarco et al. 2004). 

21

22

23 4.2.3.1.3 Deepwater Currents and Subsurface Jets. Oil and gas exploration and 

24 production activities are expanding more and more to deepwater regions of the GOM, which is 

25 what motivates the current research emphasis in deepwater currents (McKone et al. 2007; Lugo26 Fernandez and Green 2011). Energetic waves and high-speed jets can affect the transport of 

27 pollutants such as drilling fluids and oil, as well as physical structures relating to oil and gas 

28 operations (DiMarco et al. 2004). For example, the Deep Water Horizon oil spill of 2010 

29 demonstrated the need to understand how deepwater currents affect underwater oil spill plumes 

30 (e.g., Adcroft et al. 2010). 

31

32 Deepwater currents (depths greater than 1,000 m [3,281 ft]) along the northern GOM are 

33 typically characterized as meandering waves (referred to as topographic Rossby waves [TRWs])

34 that are vertically coherent with some degree of bottom intensification, have periods greater than 

35 10 days, are largely decoupled from surface circulations, and have a propagation velocity on the 

36 order of 9 km/day (5.6 mi/day) (Hamilton 1990, 2009; Sturges et al. 2004). The energy source 

37 of these deepwater currents is not fully realized, but recent studies suggest that the Loop Current 

38 generates deepwater eddies near the Campeche Terrace that excite wave propagation westward 

39 along the continental slope of the northern GOM (Oey 2008). Additionally, high-energy 

40 waves (with periods of less than 10 days) have been observed locally along the Sigsbee 

41 Escarpment with maximum speeds of 0.9 m/s (3 ft/s) at depths below 1,500 m (4,921 ft) 

42 (Donohue et al. 2008). The analysis by Hamilton (2009) suggests that highly energetic TRWs 

43 along the Sigsbee Escarpment generate a mean deepwater flow to the west along the steep 

44 escarpment, which acts as the main deepwater transport pathway from the western to the eastern 

45 GOM, and that in the western GOM, TRWs are less energetic but interact in a similar fashion 

46 with the continental slope to form a generalized mean deepwater flow to the south along the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-46

1 base of the continental slope off Mexico (the generalized deepwater flow path is shown in 

2 Figure 4.2.3-1). 

3

4 Subsurface jets are characterized as currents with no surface expression, having durations 

5 on the order of hours to days, speeds in excess 0.4 m/s (1.3 ft/s), and observed currents up to 

6 2 m/s (6.6 ft/s) (DiMarco et al. 2004). Subsurface jets occur at shallow depths (150–600 m

7 [492–1,968 ft]) and in deep waters, and they are typically produced by the downward 

8 propagation of inertia in the wake of a storm passage or the interactions of eddy circulations and 

9 the topography of the continental slope (DiMarco et al. 2004; Fan et al. 2007). Deepwater jets 

10 are difficult to measure because of their limited spatial and temporal extents, but observations 

11 from moored instruments in the northwestern GOM show deepwater jets having maximum 

12 currents speeds between 0.5 and 0.8 m/s (1.5 and 2.6 ft/s) with durations on the order of 1 to 

13 8 days (Hamilton and Badan 2009).

14

15

16 4.2.3.2 Alaska Region

17

18 Sea ice, ocean currents, tides, waves, and storm surges affect offshore oil and gas 

19 operations on the Alaska continental shelf and facilities located near the coastline. Typical 

20 currents and waves do not threaten the physical integrity of production equipment; however, cold 

21 air temperatures and the spray from waves can freeze on structures, causing structural damage as 

22 well as affecting the buoyancy of supply and drilling vessels to the extent of capsizing ships 

23 (Jones and Andreas 2009). Tides are considered minor along the coastal regions of the Arctic 

24 Ocean (NRC 2003a; Weingartner 2003), but tidal ranges in Cook Inlet are considered among the 

25 largest in the world (Archer and Hubbard 2003). Impacts of storm surges vary by season from 

26 coastal flooding during summer and fall events to ice gouging and damage associated with ice 

27 ride-up (wind-driven surge of ice onto shore) during winter and spring storm events 

28 (Lynch et al. 2008). While all these oceanographic factors influence oil and gas operations, the 

29 primary design consideration for platforms, vessels, pipelines, and other structures is the 

30 presence of sea ice and its interactions with currents, tides, and the bathymetry of the Alaska

31 continental shelf (Weeks and Weller 1984; NRC 2003a).

32

33 The climate of the Arctic region is complex because of its multiple interactions with 

34 oceanic and terrestrial systems, and effects associated with global climate change have resulted 

35 in significant changes to the Arctic‘s atmospheric and oceanographic conditions over the past 

36 couple of decades (e.g., Morison et al. 2000; Arctic Council and IASC 2005). Air temperatures 

37 in the regions north of 60°N have warmed at a faster rate than that of the overall northern 

38 hemisphere over the past century (Arctic Council and IASC 2005). During the 1990s, several 

39 studies revealed a warming trend in the layer of Arctic Ocean water with origins from the 

40 Atlantic Ocean (Carmack et al. 1995; Grotefendt et al. 1998; Gunn and Muench 2001), as well as 

41 an overall increase in Arctic Ocean sea surface temperatures and lower surface-layer salinities 

42 along regions of the Beaufort Sea and the Chukchi Sea (Morison et al. 2000; Comiso 2003; 

43 Comiso et al. 2003).

44

45 The warming of air and water temperatures in Arctic regions generates variability in key 

46 factors and processes controlling oceanographic conditions, which include precipitation and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-47

1 snow patterns, freshwater and sediment inputs to oceans, thermohaline circulation patterns 

2 (controlled by temperature and salinity gradients), and the aerial coverage and composition of 

3 sea ice (Morison et al. 2000; Arctic Council and IASC 2005; Bonsal and Kochtubajda 2009). 

4 Changes in oceanic conditions have also corresponded with sea level rise in the Arctic Ocean 

5 (Proshutinsky et al. 2001). Predicting oceanic responses to climate change is difficult because of 

6 complex interactions (often nonlinear) among factors such as water and air temperatures, sea ice, 

7 sea level rise, and thermohaline circulation patterns (e.g., Wang et al. 2003). 

8

9 Alaskan coastal waters are largely covered by sea ice with some open-water areas for 

10 three-quarters of the year, from October until June, with the minimum sea ice extent occurring 

11 in September as sea ice begins to form and the maximum extent in March (Weeks and 

12 Weller 1984). Sea ice properties vary according to its age and the physical conditions under 

13 which it forms, melts, refreezes, and reforms (Gow and Tucker 1991). A general classification 

14 of sea ice includes ice formed along shores known as landfast ice and ice formed at sea called 

15 drift ice, which can conglomerate to form pack ice or ice floes (Mulherin et al. 2001). Landfast 

16 ice gradually advances seaward in the fall, rapidly retreats in the spring, and can break up and 

17 reform several times in between. Ice floes move according to wind and currents and can collide 

18 and pile on top of one another to form pressure ridges, as well as converge to form well-defined 

19 ice-free openings, or polynyas (Mahoney et al. 2007). Another important distinction in sea ice is 

20 the difference between newly formed first-year sea ice and multiyear sea ice, which by definition 

21 is summer minimum sea ice extent (Lemke et al. 2007).

22

23 The spatial and temporal variability in sea ice extent and thickness are controlled by local 

24 climate and oceanic factors, with many studies indicating a decreasing trend in Arctic sea ice 

25 over recent decades (e.g., Johannesen et al. 1995; Parkinson 2000; Comiso 2002). Sea ice 

26 extent, as observed mainly by remote sensing methods, has decreased at a rate of approximately 

27 3% per decade starting in the 1970s (Johannesen et al. 1995; Parkinson et al. 1999). However, 

28 multiyear sea ice has decreased at a rate of nearly 9 to 12% per decade since the 1980s 

29 (Comiso 2002; Perovich et al. 2010). Since 2000, the extent of summer sea ice was at record 

30 lows in 2002 (Serreze et al. 2003), 2004 (Stroeve et al. 2005), 2007 (Perovich et al. 2008), and 

31 2010 (Richter-Menge and Jeffries 2010). Sea ice thickness has also decreased during recent 

32 decades, with average sea ice draft (the depth of ice below sea level) values decreasing by as 

33 much as 1.3 m (4 ft) (Rothrock et al. 1999) and sea ice volumes decreasing at a rate of 4% per 

34 decade since 1948 (Rothrock and Zhang 2005). These recent trends in declining sea ice are a 

35 result of anthropogenic influences and natural climate variability, and recent climate simulations 

36 suggest that natural climate variability has the potential to cause a stabilization to a slight 

37 recovery of sea ice trends over short times scales on the order of a decade or less in the 

38 beginning part of the twenty-first century (Kay et al. 2011).

39

40 The interactions of sea ice with currents and waves have the potential to create hazardous 

41 conditions and damage physical structures though ice gouging, ice ride-up, and scouring, and to

42 block vessel traffic (Weeks and Weller 1984). Landfast ice is typically not a concern as it exerts 

43 nominal internal stresses to structures, but ice floes formed during breakup conditions near shore 

44 or out in open pack ice areas have velocities on the order of 1 m/s (3 ft/s) (Stringer and 

45 Sackinger 1976). Ice gouging is caused by grounded ice keels within ice floes moving in 

46 response to wind and currents that typically occur in regions parallel to shorelines (Shapiro and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-48

1 Barnes 1991). Ice gouging is of particular concern for pipelines, as seabed gouging depths can 

2 often exceed 3 m (10 ft), affecting coastal regions with up to 50 m (164 ft) of water depth 

3 (Weeks and Weller 1984). Ice ride-up occurs as repeated ice floes converge on shore, pile on top 

4 of each other, and pile shoreward under continued momentum. Ice ride-up events frequently 

5 occur during the spring and fall and can affect structures that are on the order of 50 m (164 ft)

6 inland (Kovacs and Sodhi 1980). In spring, river floodwaters can inundate coastal areas covered 

7 by sea ice and potentially break through the ice, generating jet flows and scour craters in the 

8 sediments below (process referred to as strudel scour), which can damage pipelines and support 

9 structures. Strudel scour craters can be more than 4 m (13 ft) deep and 15 m (49 ft) across and 

10 can last up to 2–3 years before being refilled (Reimnitz and Kempema 1982). Strudel scour 

11 occurs most commonly near river deltas extending outward to water depths of 6 m (20 ft)

12 (Hearon et al. 2009).

13

14 Sea ice also affects oil spill cleanup and weathering processes, as well as acting as a 

15 transport mechanism for spilled oil (Stringer 1980). Oil transport and reaction processes are 

16 significantly altered for waters that contain more than 30% aerial coverage of sea ice in 

17 comparison to open ocean waters (NRC 2003b). The presence of ice and lower water 

18 temperatures typically result in lower rates of oil weathering processes such as evaporation, 

19 emulsification, and oxidation (Thomas 1983); lower rates of dispersion because of the increased 

20 viscosity of oil at lower temperatures (Payne et al. 1991) and the presence of sea ice also has the 

21 potential to confine oil spills (Weeks and Weller 1984). Conversely, enhanced transport of oil 

22 by sea ice conditions can occur along open water channels or polynyas or by oil incorporation 

23 into moving ice floes (Payne et al. 1987). Empirical relationships describing the fate and 

24 transport of spilled oil-sea ice interactions are presented in Buist et al. (2008). Ultimately, the 

25 fate of oil in the presence of sea ice largely depends on the season (summer ice free, winter ice 

26 cover, and fall ice formation), as well as the age and morphology of the sea ice, because these 

27 factors determine the ability of the oil to reach reactive areas for oil weathering processes to 

28 occur as well as the weathering reaction rates (Payne et al. 1991; NRC 2003b). 

29

30

31 4.2.3.2.1 Arctic Ocean: Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea. The Beaufort Sea and 

32 Chukchi Sea are semi-enclosed seas connected to the Arctic Ocean located along the northern 

33 coast of Alaska. The Chukchi Sea is a shallow, continental shelf sea with depths typically 

34 less than 50 m (164 ft) that receives Pacific Ocean water through the Bering Strait 

35 (Woodgate et al. 2005). The Beaufort Sea consists of a narrow (approximately 100 km [62 mi] 

36 wide) continental shelf before a shelfbreak that occurs near the 200-m (656-ft) water depth 

37 contour followed by a portion of the Canadian Basin of the Arctic Ocean (Weingartner 2003). 

38 The continental shelf region of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas contains small shoals and barrier 

39 islands that affect shelf circulation patterns and are typically associated with the location of ice 

40 ridges (NRC 2003a). 

41

42 The general circulation patterns in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas are shown in 

43 Figure 4.2.3-2. Circulation in the Canadian Basin of the Arctic Ocean is dominated by the 

44 Beaufort Gyre, which is typically a clockwise (anticyclonic) circulation forced by prevailing 

45 atmospheric high pressure over the Arctic, but can reverse to a counterclockwise (cyclonic) 

46 circulation during summer months or prolonged periods of atmospheric low pressure 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences 4-49

12 FIGURE 4.2.3

-2 Generalized Circulation Patterns in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-50

1 (Proshutinsky et al. 2003; Asplin et al. 2009). The sea level slope between the Pacific Ocean and 

2 the Arctic Ocean drives water through the Bering Strait into the Chukchi Sea, which separates 

3 into three principal branches of northward flow among Herald Shoal, Hanna Shoal, and the 

4 Alaskan coast (Weingartner et al. 2005; Woodgate et al. 2005; Weingartner et al. 2010). 

5 Currently, it is not fully understood how Pacific Ocean waters moving across the Chukchi Sea 

6 interact with circulation patterns off the shelfbreak of the Beaufort Sea, but evidence suggests 

7 the presence of narrow currents near the Beaufort shelfbreak with prevailing eastward flow 

8 and seasonal variability in surface and subsurface intensified currents (Pickart 2004; 

9 Spall et al. 2008; Nikolopoulos et al. 2009; Okkonen et al. 2009; Pickart et al. 2010; 

10 Weingartner et al. 2010). During the summer open-water season, current speeds along 

11 continental shelf areas often exceed 0.2 m/s (0.7 ft/s) with maximum speeds as high as 1 m/s 

12 (3 ft/s) in certain regions of constricted flow such as the Bering Strait and Barrow Canyon; 

13 during ice-covered seasons, current speeds are generally less than 0.1 m/s (0.3 ft/s) 

14 (Weingartner et al. 1998, 2009; Weingartner and Okkonen 2001). 

15

16 The coasts of the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea consist of river deltas, barrier islands, 

17 exposed bluffs, and large inlets; inland is characterized by low-relief lands underlain by 

18 permafrost (Jorgenson and Brown 2005). The combination of wind-driven waves, river erosion, 

19 and sea ice scour with highly erodible coastal lands creates the potential for high erosion rates 

20 along the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea coasts (Kowalik 1984; Mars and Houseknecht 2007). 

21 From 1950 to 1980, the coastal erosion rates averaged 0.6 m/yr (2 ft/yr), and over the period 

22 from 1980 to 2000 this rate has increased to 1.2 m/yr (3.9 ft/yr) (Ping et al. 2011).

23

24 Present and future offshore oil and gas operations in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas need 

25 to take into account climate change impacts on circulation and sea ice patterns. The complex 

26 circulation patterns on the Arctic continental shelf are affected by water temperature and density 

27 gradients and freshwater inputs of varying temperature from rivers as well as increased sea ice 

28 and glacier melting over recent years (Yamamoto-Kawai et al. 2009). Furthermore, reductions in 

29 sea ice have been more apparent in nearshore areas associated with landfast ice (typically 

30 extending out between 5 and 50 km [3 and 31 mi] from shore) in comparison to offshore regions 

31 (Mahoney et al. 2007; Fissel et al. 2009). A recent study has also shown that remote-sensing of 

32 sea ice extent may not always distinguish between first-year and multiyear sea ice, which is an 

33 important distinction in sea ice quality for supporting exploration activities, biotic habitats, and 

34 waterway access (Barber et al. 2009). The summer open ice season that determines when ships 

35 can enter the coastal regions along the north Alaskan coast has trended toward an earlier opening 

36 date in the spring and a later closing date in the fall (Fissel et al. 2009; Markus et al. 2009). 

37 While decreased sea ice has the potential to support more shipping activity in the Arctic, it is 

38 likely that hazardous ice floes will persist (Stewart et al. 2007), and decreases in landfast ice 

39 could result in increased impacts on coastlines through wave damage and ice ride-up (Arctic 

40 Council and IASC 2005). 

41

42

43 4.2.3.2.2 Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait. Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait are located on 

44 the continental shelf of the Gulf of Alaska, which is a semi-enclosed basin of the Pacific Ocean 

45 surrounded by the steep terrain of the Alaskan coast. The continental shelf region is 

46 characterized as having a complex bathymetry of channels, island chains, and embayments. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-51

1 Cook Inlet is a large embayment with a length of 330 km (205 mi) along a northeast to southwest 

2 axis that is approximately 37 km (23 mi) wide in the northeast near Anchorage and 83 km 

3 (52 mi) wide at its mouth (Gatto 1975). The upper and lower portions of Cook Inlet are formed 

4 by the coastline constriction that occurs near the West Forelands to the north of Kalgin Island. 

5 The Shelikof Strait, located southwest of Cook Inlet between the Alaskan coast and the Kodiak 

6 Islands, forms a fairly uniform channel that is approximately 270 km (168 mi) in length and 

7 45 km (28 mi) wide (Muench and Schumacher 1980). Figure 4.2.3-3 shows the location of Cook 

8 Inlet and Shelikof Strait along with major circulation patterns. 

9

10 The circulation along the continental shelf of the Gulf of Alaska is dominated by the 

11 Alaskan Coastal Current, which is driven by winds and freshwater runoff of the numerous rivers 

12 and glaciers along the Alaskan coast (Stabeno et al. 2004). Alaskan Coastal Current waters enter 

13 Cook Inlet through the Kennedy and Stevenson Entrances and flow northward along the eastern 

14 side of the inlet as the result of Coriolis forces (induced by the rotation of the Earth) and then 

15 cross over to the western side of the inlet because of the shoreline geometry near the Forelands 

16 (Rappeport 1982). Observed circulation patterns suggest a net outflow of surface flows out of 

17 the inlet, which implies that there is a net inflow of deepwater flows into the inlet (Potter and 

18 Weingartner 2010). Cook Inlet is estuarine in character because of the mixing of marine waters 

19 from the Alaskan Coastal Current and freshwater inflows from several rivers, resulting in 

20 complex density-driven circulation patterns (Rappeport 1982; Mulherin et al. 2001). The 

21 Matanuska River, Knik River, and Susitna River combined contribute more than 70% of the 

22 freshwater inputs to Cook Inlet in the northern basin, as well as act as a significant source of 

23 suspended sediments that can reach concentrations greater than 1,700 mg/L (Gatto 1975). 

24 Riverine inputs of freshwater and sediments to the northern portion of Cook Inlet vary 

25 seasonally, and their resulting influences on temperatures and salinity generate seasonal 

26 variability in circulation patterns in Cook Inlet (Okkonen et al. 2009).

27

28 The circulation patterns in Cook Inlet are significantly influenced by the strong 

29 semidiurnal tide pattern with corresponding tidal amplitudes that range between 4.2 and 5 m 

30 (14 and 16.4 ft) in the lower portion and up to 9.0 m (29.5 ft) in the upper portion of Cook Inlet 

31 near Anchorage (Rappeport 1982; Archer and Hubbard 2003). Tidal currents travel at speeds 

32 ranging between 1 and 4 m/s (3 and 13 ft/s) (Whitney 2000; Oey et al. 2007). Average water 

33 depths in Cook Inlet vary from 18.3 m (60 ft) in the upper portion to 36.6 m (120 ft) near its 

34 mouth, with several deep channels along its longitudinal axis that contain sand dunes with 

35 heights on the order of 2 m (7 ft) (Haley et al. 2000). The interaction of density-driven 

36 circulation and tidal currents results in rip currents that form persistently along the deep channels 

37 (Haley et al. 2000; Whitney 2000), which can often be observed by turbidity color changes, as 

38 well as the accumulation of surface debris and foam along rip current edges (Rappeport 1982). 

39 The ebbing flow out of Cook Inlet combines with Alaskan Coastal Current waters and enters the 

40 Shelikof Strait, where water depths are on the order of 200 m (656 ft) and average current speeds 

41 range between 0.2 m/s (0.7 ft/s) in the winter and 0.1 m/s (0.3 ft/s) in the summer (Muench and 

42 Schumacher 1980). The southwest flow out of the Shelikof Strait merges with the Alaskan 

43 Stream (the western boundary current of the Gulf of Alaska) approximately 200 km (124 mi) 

44 southwest of Kodiak Island (Stabeno et al. 2004; Rovegno et al. 2009). 

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences 4-52

12 FIGURE 4.2.3

-3 Generalized Circulation Patterns in Cook Inlet and the Shelikof Strait
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-53

1 Significant wave heights (average wave height of the upper-third-largest waves) are 

2 typically 0.6 m (2 ft) in the lower portion of Cook Inlet and the Shelikof Strait, but maximum 

3 wave heights of 5.5 m (18 ft) have been recorded during storm events (Rappeport 1982). 

4 Tsunamis can occur in response to volcanic activity of Mount St. Augustine on Augustine Island 

5 in the southwestern portion of lower Cook Inlet. Modeling results of the 1883 tsunami suggested 

6 wave heights of amplitude 1.2 to 1.8 m (3.9 to 5.9 ft) (Kienle et al. 1986). However, more recent 

7 modeling results suggest that the timing of a tsunami with the tidal phase can result in a fivefold 

8 amplification of wave heights near the shores of Anchor Point (Kowalik and Proshutinsky 2010). 

9

10 Ice floes moving with tidal currents are the largest threat to navigation and marine 

11 structures in Cook Inlet. According to Mulherin et al. (2001), three types of sea ice form in 

12 Cook Inlet: pack ice, landfast ice, and stamukhi ice (forms by stacking of low-tide formed ice 

13 sheets on the sediment surface). The sea ice forms in the upper portion of Cook Inlet in the fall, 

14 while the lower portion is typically ice free until December. Stamukhi ice stacks can reach 7.5 to 

15 12.2 m (24.6 to 40 ft) in thickness and typically become ice floes that move away from the shore

16 because of buoyancy forces. During the fall-winter ice-covered season, the ice pack can cover 

17 between 10 and 80% of Cook Inlet, which becomes completely ice free each spring (Muench and 

18 Schumacher 1980; Mulherin et al. 2001). 

19

20

21 4.3 ASSESSMENT OF ISSUES OF PROGRAMMATIC CONCERN

22

23

24 4.3.1 Multiple Use Issues and Marine Spatial Planning

25

26 The activities that may occur and the facilities that may be installed on the OCS as a 

27 result of the Program are described in Section 4.4.1, which presents a scenario for the projected 

28 amounts of oil and gas exploration and development activities and the number of facilities and 

29 pipelines that are estimated to take place or be installed during the program, if Alternative 1, the 

30 Proposed Action, is implemented. Comparisons with other alternatives are provided later in the 

31 document, but the analyses presented in Sections 4.3 and 4.4 would apply, as appropriate, across 

32 all the alternatives. Much of the rest of this chapter is concerned with assessing potential 

33 impacts from these activities and facilities on the environmental resources that are analyzed in 

34 the PEIS. In some areas, these oil and gas facilities and activities also create a potential for space 

35 use conflicts with other activities and facility sitings not related to oil and gas development. This 

36 section discusses the other major activities and facilities on the OCS that could occur and coexist 

37 with oil and gas construction and activities during the program and, as a result, create potential 

38 space use conflicts. These conflicts could include situations in which the presence of oil and gas 

39 infrastructure and associated support, exploration, and production activities preclude, or are 

40 precluded by, other uses of the OCS; or situations in which oil and gas facilities and activities in 

41 combination with other types of activities and infrastructure could threaten the ecological 

42 sustainability of the area. Typically, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has 

43 managed OCS space and multiple use issues through coordination with other State and Federal 

44 agencies that manage and regulate activities on or near the OCS, and has developed regulations, 

45 lease stipulations, and other mechanisms to restrict oil and gas activities to avoid conflict with 

46 other activities taking place in the same area. In recent years, Coastal and Marine Spatial 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-54

1 Planning (CMSP) has emerged as a new paradigm and planning strategy for coordinating all 

2 marine and coastal activities and facility constructions within the context of a national zoning 

3 plan.

4

5

6 4.3.1.1 Multiple Use Issues

7

8

9 4.3.1.1.1 Department of Defense Use Areas. Military Use Areas, established off all 

10 U.S. coastlines, are required by the U.S. Air Force (USAF), Navy, Marine Corps, and Special 

11 Operations Forces for conducting various testing and training missions. Military activities can 

12 be quite varied, but they normally consist of air-to-air, air-to-surface, and surface-to-surface 

13 naval fleet training; submarine and antisubmarine training; and Air Force exercises. Offshore 

14 military areas (including military dumping areas) are present in some OCS planning areas. 

15 Section 3.9.1.2.3 of this draft PEIS discusses offshore military use areas in the OCS planning 

16 areas being considered for the proposed action.

17

18 Aircraft operated by all U.S. Department of Defense (USDOD) units train within a 

19 number of special use airspace (SUA) locations that overlie the military operating areas, as 

20 designated by the Federal Aviation Administration (U.S. Fleet Forces 2010). SUAs are the most 

21 relevant to the oil and gas leasing program because they are largely located offshore, extending 

22 from 5.6 km (3 NM or 3.5 mi) outward from the coast over international waters and in 

23 international airspace.

24

25 There are 21 U.S. military bases along the coasts of the planning areas being considered 

26 for oil and gas leasing in the proposed action: 18 bases along the GOM coast and 3 in the 

27 vicinity of the Cook Inlet Planning Area. In addition, there are four active USAF radar sites 

28 located on the coast bordering the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. They are all Long29 Range Radar Sites, and each site has restricted areas within certain facilities. Access to each is 

30 only for personnel on official business and with approval of the commander of the USAF‘s 

31 611th Air Support Group. While there are a number of military use restriction areas (danger 

32 zones or restricted areas) in the GOM (see Figure 3.9.1-2), there are no such restrictions in the 

33 waters of the Cook Inlet Planning Area or the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas 

34 (National Marine Protected Areas Center 2008). In the Cook Inlet Planning Area, the closest 

35 danger zone is Blying Sound, which is managed by the U.S. Navy and located to the east of 

36 Cook Inlet near Prince William Sound. The Blying Sound Danger Zone is rarely activated, and 

37 there are no use restrictions for most of the year.

38

39 Danger zones are defined as water areas used for a variety of hazardous operations 

40 (Marine Protected Areas Center 2008; U.S. Fleet Forces 2010). Danger zones may be closed to 

41 the public on a full-time or intermittent basis. Restricted areas are water areas defined as such 

42 for the purpose of prohibiting or limiting public access. Restricted areas generally provide 

43 security for Federal Government property and/or protect the public from the risks of damage or 

44 injury that could arise from the Federal Government‘s use of that area.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-55

1 There are more than 40 military warning areas in the northern GOM area, designated by 

2 the USAF for the conduct of various testing and training missions, and by the U.S. Navy for 

3 various naval training and testing operations. Most of these areas overlie waters that are less 

4 than 800 m (2,600 ft) in depth (Figure 3.9.1-2).

5

6 Although offshore oil and gas activities have the potential to affect military activities, the 

7 USDOD and U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI) have cooperated on these issues for many 

8 years and have developed mitigation measures that minimize the potential for conflicts. For 

9 example, stipulations are applied to oil and gas leases in critical military use areas. Whenever 

10 possible, close coordination between oil and gas operators and the military authorities for 

11 specific operational areas is encouraged and, in some cases, is required under these lease 

12 stipulations. In some instances where the military requires unimpeded access to specific areas on 

13 the OCS, specific lease blocks have been deleted from one or more proposed lease sales.

14

15 The USDOI will continue to coordinate with the USDOD regarding future lease 

16 offerings, new areas of industry interest, and current or proposed areas of military operations. As 

17 part of this coordination, applicable stipulations would continue to be routinely evaluated and 

18 modified, as necessary, to minimize or eliminate conflicts. An example of this process was the 

19 inclusion of three previously deferred blocks (Mustang Island Blocks 793, 799 and 816) in the 

20 Western GOM Planning Area in OCS Lease Sales 192 and 196, subject to a recently revised 

21 Lease Stipulation of Operations in the Naval Mine Warfare Area.

22

23 Offshore oil and gas development under the proposed action within the Alaska Region 

24 would not interfere with standard or routine military practices. Additional vessel traffic resulting 

25 from industry development and exploration would simply increase existing traffic and not affect 

26 military activities. The BOEM works in cooperation with the USCG regarding industry 

27 exploration and development in waters off the coast of Alaska.

28

29

30 4.3.1.1.2 Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities. Natural gas is liquefied to concentrate a 

31 much greater volume of product in a given space to facilitate storage and/or transportation. Use 

32 of liquefied natural gas (LNG) reduces the volume it occupies by a factor of more than 600, 

33 making the transportation of gas in tankers economical. Environmental effects specific to LNG 

34 transportation and facilities are associated with explosions and fires and with the cryogenic and 

35 cooling effects of either an accidental release of LNG or the release of cooled water during the 

36 vaporization process. In the GOM, most, if not all, LNG facilities are expected to use an open37 loop vaporization process that uses a throughput of approximately 130 to 250 million gallons per 

38 day of seawater to raise the temperature of the LNG from –260°F to 40°F. This process 

39 produces a discharge of seawater that has been cooled by as much as 20 F. These discharges are 

40 expected to occur in water depths ranging from 18 to 55 m (60 to 280 ft). This large volume of 

41 cool, dense water could create an impact on the surrounding environment, rendering the area 

42 uninhabitable by local species of invertebrates and fish, especially in the GOM. The magnitude 

43 of this impact is still unknown since there is only one facility (the Gulf Gateway facility) 

44 currently operating. The potential cumulative effect of multiple facilities also needs 

45 consideration. In addition to the thermal discharge, biocides are added to prevent fouling of the 

46 flow through the system.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-56

1 These facilities operate by offloading vaporized LNG from tankers into the existing 

2 offshore natural gas pipeline system. Although BOEM does not permit or regulate these 

3 facilities, their increased presence and use on the OCS will create space use issues and will add 

4 to the existing mix of potential offshore cumulative impacts. Currently, only one LNG facility

5 has been constructed and is operating on the GOM OCS. The Gulf Gateway Energy Bridge, 

6 which was brought into service in March 2005, is located in 85.3 m (280 ft) of water in West 

7 Cameron, South Addition Block 603, approximately 116 mi (187 km) offshore of the Texas–

8 Louisiana border. The Gulf Gateway Energy Bridge is capable of delivering natural gas at a 

9 base load rate of 500 Bcf per day.

10

11 Other LNG facilities on the OCS are currently in some stage of the permitting process. 

12 The Bienville Offshore Energy Terminal is a planned LNG facility located 63 mi (101 km) south 

13 of Mobile Point, Alabama. The initial application for the facility was withdrawn on October 9, 

14 2008, and a revised application, submitted on June 30, 2009, featured a redesigned terminal 

15 using ―closed-loop‖ ambient air technology for LNG vaporization. The application was 

16 approved in 2010. In Louisiana, the Main Pass Energy Hub is a converted sulfur and brine 

17 mining facility. This LNG facility is expected to begin operations sometime in 2011 or 2012.

18

19

20 4.3.1.1.3 Alternate Energy Development. In April 2009, the President and the 

21 Secretary of the Interior announced the final regulations for the OCS Renewable Energy 

22 Program, which was authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The final regulations 

23 (74 CFR Part 81: 19638–19871) govern management of the BOEM Renewable Energy Program 

24 by establishing a program to grant leases, easements, and right-of-ways (ROWs) for renewable 

25 energy development activities on the OCS. Renewable energy from the OCS may come from 

26 technologies and projects that harness offshore wind energy, ocean wave (hydrokinetic) energy, 

27 or ocean current (hydrokinetic) energy.

28

29 Multiple Federal agencies have responsibilities for the regulation and oversight of 

30 renewable energy development on the OCS. The BOEM issues leases and grants for both OCS 

31 wind and hydrokinetic projects and permits the construction and operation of wind facilities. 

32 The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will permit the construction and operation of 

33 hydrokinetic facilities on BOEM-issued wave and current energy leases. The BOEM also has 

34 the authority to issue ROWs for offshore transmission lines that would link OCS renewable 

35 energy projects in order to facilitate efficient interconnection of the OCS projects to the onshore 

36 electric grid.

37

38 As required by the Energy Policy Act, the BOEM will issue leases on a competitive basis 

39 unless it determines that no competitive interest exists. After a lease is acquired, the developer 

40 must submit and receive approval of appropriate plans (for wind energy projects) or license 

41 applications (for hydrokinetic projects). At the end of the lease term, the developer must 

42 decommission the facilities in compliance with BOEM regulations.

43

44 There are currently no commercial hydrokinetic or wind energy projects on the OCS in 

45 the planning areas under consideration for the Program. The BOEM, in coordination with 

46 relevant states, has identified Wind Energy Areas (WEAs) offshore of the mid-Atlantic coast. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-57

1 Although OCS oil and gas leasing and development activities could interfere with future OCS 

2 wind energy renewable energy projects (and vice-versa), the BOEM offshore oil and gas and 

3 offshore renewable energy programs will be coordinated to ensure that leasing and development

4 activities under both programs are carried out with as little conflict between the two programs as 

5 possible. The identification of any future WEAs in areas with high or expected levels of oil and 

6 gas development (such as the GOM) will also be closely coordinated between the two programs. 

7 No such WEAs, however, have been identified in any of the BOEM OCS planning areas being 

8 considered for oil and gas leasing under the proposed action, nor are any wind or kinetic energy 

9 developments anticipated there during the program.

10

11

12 4.3.1.2 Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning

13

14 On July 19, 2010, the President signed Executive Order (EO) 13547, Stewardship of the 

15 Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes, establishing a national policy for the stewardship of 

16 these resources. This national policy identifies Coastal and Marine Planning (CSMP) as one 

17 of the nine objectives. Furthermore, it outlines a framework for effective CMSP to address 

18 conservation, economic activity, user conflict, and sustainable use of the ocean, coasts, and 

19 Great Lakes.

20

21 Despite the existence of numerous articles on CMSP (e.g., see papers in Marine Policy, 

22 Vol. 32, 2008) and the incorporation of marine spatial planning (MSP) principles by various 

23 nations into their resource management practices (e.g., EO 13547; the National Oceanic and 

24 Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) CSMP Program, http://www.cmsp.noaa.gov/program/

25 index.html), a standard, universally accepted definition of MSP currently does not exist. Most 

26 existing definitions are phrased in broad terms and objectives, such as the United Nations 

27 Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) definition, ―[MSP] ... is a public 

28 process of analyzing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in 

29 marine areas to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives that have been specified 

30 through a political process‖ (UNESCO-IOC 2010).

31

32 Although NEPA is not usually seen as a spatial planning exercise, the PEIS for the 

33 Program and subsequent NEPA evaluations effectively are, at least in part, just that. The draft 

34 PEIS identifies broad areas of the OCS where oil and gas leasing may occur and identifies in a 

35 spatial and temporal context the potential for impacts on natural and social resources and systems 

36 that could occur with subsequent oil and gas leasing in those areas. The subsequent lease sale 

37 and post-lease NEPA analyses identify the specific areas and time frames where and when 

38 mitigating measures need to be applied to address potentially unacceptable impacts on natural 

39 resources and socioeconomic resources and systems. One outcome of this NEPA process, 

40 therefore, is the identification of areas on the OCS where BOEM regulates and manages oil and 

41 gas operations to meet economic and social objectives in a manner compatible with 

42 environmental sustainability objectives.

43

44 Table 4.3.1-1 describes ways in which the objectives and methods of CMSP are 

45 compatible with or differ from those of the Five-Year Programmatic EIS. While there are 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-58

1 TABLE 4.3.1-1 Comparison of the Objectives and Methods of CMSP with Those of the 2012-2017 

2 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program PEISa

Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning Programmatic EIS

Envisioned as a tool to make ecosystem-based 

management of marine resources possible.

Uses a broad scale appropriate for an ecoregional 

approach for evaluating potential impacts.

Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) used to define 

spatial boundaries.

Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) used to define spatial 

boundaries.

Based on hierarchal scale-based approach 

addressing different issues and at different scales 

at each level of analysis, and in which each level 

provides context for the next lower level.

The NEPA concept of tiering is based on a hierarchal 

scale-based approach in which the programmatic EIS 

provides the general context for the more detailed analyses 

in the lease sale EIS.

Used to develop areas identifying ecologically 

sensitive regions as well as areas suitable for 

specific human uses.

Used as the first step in a planning process to develop 

areas where oil and gas operations will be regulated to be 

consistent, in combination with other uses of the area, with 

current environmental sustainability objectives.

Used to plan for existing and proposed offshore 

uses, while reconciling economic, social, and 

environmental demands on an area.

Programmatic cumulative analysis evaluates all differing 

economic, social, and environmental demands on an area

to inform the decision on program timing, size, and 

locations.

Based on multiple sector planning approach. Focused on the effects of a single sector on other sectors.

a Highlighted text shows areas of particular similarity.

3

4

5 fundamental similarities and overlaps between the objectives and approaches of CMSP and the 

6 2012-2017 PEIS, a major distinction between the two planning approaches is that the PEIS 

7 perspective focuses on the single use of the OCS for hydrocarbon exploration, extraction, and 

8 transportation, whereas the CMSP focuses on reconciling all economic, social, and ecosystem 

9 uses of an area in developing a CMS plan.

10

11 The National Ocean Policy framework document divides U.S. waters (mean high water 

12 mark to 200 NM) into nine regions based on Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) boundaries. CMS 

13 plans will be created and implemented at the regional level though stakeholder input. It is 

14 anticipated that the plans will serve as an overlay for decisions made under existing regulatory 

15 mandates. In effect, regional CMS plans once approved by the National Ocean Council (NOC) 

16 will assist the BOEM programmatic EIS process in making informed decisions.

17

18
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-59

1 4.3.2 Health Impact Assessment

2

3

4 4.3.2.1 National Environmental Policy Act

5

6 The National Environmental Policy Act and its related Federal guidelines 

7 (40 CFR 1508.8; 1978) have explicit language that requires the evaluation of both direct and 

8 indirect effects of the oil and gas industry on human health as well as the effects on low-income 

9 and minority populations (CEQ 1997). NEPA regulations instruct agencies to evaluate ―the 

10 degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety‖ (Berner 2011). Although 

11 these mandates exist, limited health information is currently included in Federal EISs. With the 

12 addition of the discussion of health issues in the planning stages, the impacts on human health 

13 can be considered beforehand, public and decision-maker awareness can be promoted, and 

14 prevention or mitigation can be built into the operations (Bhatia 2007; Niven and McLeod 2009). 

15 This would, in essence, change the process from reactionary to precautionary, thus attempting to 

16 remove or control health issues at the source (Niven and McLeod 2009). 

17

18

19 4.3.2.2 Potential Impacts on the Human Environment

20

21 Offshore oil and gas activities have the potential to cause both adverse and beneficial 

22 impacts on human health. The exploration and development phases of oil and gas activities are 

23 beneficial because they require a large and diverse labor force to build the platforms, exploratory 

24 rigs, and various ships, boats, and barges necessary for working offshore (Luton and Cluck 

25 2003). Increases in the labor force can promote the economy and development of infrastructure 

26 in these communities (Berner 2011).

27

28 Effects on the human environment can be both positive and negative, specifically with 

29 respect to psychological effects. The announcement of a leasing decision can affect humans in a 

30 positive way because it can boost the economy and bring much needed infrastructure 

31 development, while possible negative effects could be related to additional stress and anxiety 

32 over oil spills and impacts on the natural resources that communities use for a subsistence 

33 lifestyle (NRC 2003). Negative impacts on the human environment vary based on whether they 

34 are the result of routine events or the result of the threat/event of an accidental oil spill.

35

36

37 4.3.2.3 Potential Impacts of Routine Events Oil and Gas Activities

38

39 The North Slope Borough, Alaska, and the Alaska regional office of BOEM, through a 

40 Memorandum of Understanding, have evaluated the effects of the oil and gas industry on 

41 humans in the region. Appendix J of the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas Oil and Gas 

42 Lease Sales 209, 212, 217, and 221 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (OCS EIS/EA MMS 

43 2008-0055) presents a full evaluation of these effects and is hereby incorporated by reference in 

44 this PEIS (http://www.alaska.boemre.gov/ref/EIS%20EA/ArcticMultiSale_209/_DEIS.htm).

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-60

1 Public concerns regarding pollution of locally harvested fish and game, loss of traditional 

2 food sources and hunting grounds, and rapid social changes are examples of negative impacts on 

3 humans in Alaska. The harvesting of wildlife resources in the North Slope of Alaska contributes 

4 widely to the cultural, nutritional, and economic way of life of the residents living there (NRC

5 2003). These impacts could affect both physical and mental health of Native tribal communities. 

6 Changes in the traditional way of life can lead to deteriorating physical well-being and mental 

7 health as well as increased domestic violence and substance abuse. North Slope tribal 

8 communities are concerned about the impacts of noise associated with routine operations on 

9 bowhead whale migration routes, as they depend on these whales for subsistence (NRC 2003). If 

10 the whales migrate farther offshore, there are increased safety risks for the whalers themselves 

11 who must travel in more dangerous seas to hunt. Increased stress and anxiety from oil and gas 

12 development may contribute to the mental health issues of Alaskans (NRC 2003).

13

14 The increased development has increased the smog and haze near some villages, which 

15 could be the cause for increased instances of asthma. Air quality is a major concern for the 

16 residents who live there (NRC 2003). The impacts of the proposed action on air quality and 

17 related health concerns are discussed in Section 4.4.4. Increased rates of diabetes are likely 

18 the result of residents consuming higher concentrations of nonsubsistence foods such as 

19 shortening, lard, butter, and bacon, and consuming less fish and marine mammal products 

20 (Ebbesson et al. 1999 referenced in NRC 2003).

21

22 However, the increased revenue from the oil and gas industry can promote the economy 

23 and improve infrastructure of these more remote locations, resulting in beneficial impacts 

24 (Berner 2011). Alaska Natives have recognized that they have benefited by receiving monies to 

25 spend on public works and facilities, as well as better health care and counseling centers 

26 (NRC 2003). 

27

28 As discussed in Section 4.4.14, Environmental Justice, much of the Alaska Native 

29 population resides in the coastal areas of Alaska. Any new onshore and offshore infrastructure 

30 occurring between 2012 and 2017 could be located near these populations or near areas where 

31 subsistence hunting occurs. Any adverse environmental impacts on fish and mammal 

32 subsistence resources from installation of infrastructure and routine operations of these facilities 

33 could have disproportionately higher health or environmental impacts on Alaska Native 

34 populations. Mitigation measures, cooperative agreements between Native and industry groups, 

35 and government-to-government consultations are designed to limit the effects from routine 

36 events.

37

38

39 4.3.2.4 Potential Impacts of Accidental Spills

40

41

42 4.3.2.4.1 Gulf of Mexico. The impacts on human health as a result of oil spills can be 

43 broken down into several categories. Goldstein et al. (2011) list the categories as ―those related 

44 to worker safety; toxicological effects in workers, visitors, and community members; mental 

45 health effects from social and economic disruption; and ecosystem effects that have 

46 consequences for human health.‖ Initial concerns focus on the short-term toxicological effects to 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-61

1 humans such as nausea, dizziness, eye irritation, headaches, and respiratory and dermal irritation,

2 but more research is necessary to understand long-term effects (Goldstein et al. 2011). Impacts 

3 on air quality include the emission of pollutants from the oil and the fire emissions that are 

4 hazardous and possibly fatal to humans, as well as the dispersant mist resulting from the 

5 application of the chemical dispersants on the oil (BOEMRE 2011). The impacts of the 

6 proposed action on air quality are fully discussed in Section 4.4.4. 

7

8 After an accidental release of oil into the environment, the more volatile, water-soluble, 

9 and degradable compounds will be weathered and degraded, leaving behind the heavier, less 

10 degradable elements. These heavier elements, when combined with sand on beaches, form tar 

11 balls, which can be encountered by beachgoers for some time. Humans walking along the beach 

12 can absorb these heavier elements through the soles of their feet and subsequently into their 

13 bloodstream (OSAT-2 2011). Beachgoers may also inhale petroleum hydrocarbons present as 

14 vapors or attached to airborne particles (OSAT-2 2011). Other immediate effects of particular 

15 concern are heat stroke and exhaustion and the inappropriate use of personal protective 

16 equipment by cleanup crews, especially in the GOM. In the case of the Deepwater Horizon 

17 event, elevated rates of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, alcohol abuse, and conflicts 

18 between domestic partners were observed (Goldstein et al. 2011). A large part of the GOM

19 region‘s economy is based on the oil and gas industry and the harvesting of seafood.

20 Restrictions placed on these industries due to an oil spill can increase the anxiety levels of 

21 humans and may contribute mental health issues (Goldstein et al. 2011). 

22

23 Oil spills have the potential to impact certain groups of people more than others based on 

24 their current state of health. For example, GOM coast populations include communities that are 

25 still recovering from Hurricane Katrina, and ―among the 50 States, Louisiana ranks 44th to 49th

26 (depending on the metric used, with 1st being the best) in the overall health of residents, rates of 

27 infant death, death from cancer, premature death, death from cardiovascular causes, high-school 

28 graduation, children living in poverty, health insurance coverage, and violent crime‖ 

29 (United Health Foundation 2009 as referenced in Goldstein et al. 2011). As discussed in 

30 Section 4.4.14, there are areas in the GOM of environmental justice concern. It is possible these 

31 low-income and minority populations could be affected to a greater extent than the general 

32 population because of their dietary reliance on wild coastal resources, their reliance on these 

33 resources for other subsistence purposes such as sharing and bartering, their limited flexibility in 

34 substituting wild resources with those purchased, and their likelihood of participating in cleanup 

35 efforts and other mitigating activities.

36

37

38 4.3.2.4.2 Arctic and Cook Inlet. The Native tribes of the North Slope have serious 

39 concerns about what would happen if there was an accidental oil spill in the Arctic region. An 

40 oil spill could have physical, psychological, social, economic, spiritual, and cultural impacts on 

41 the Native Alaskans. Major areas of concern are with impacts on subsistence resources, air 

42 quality, and oil spill cleanup. These concerns are related to how and if it would be cleaned up 

43 and how the International Whaling Commission would react if the spill greatly impacted the 

44 bowhead whale population (NRC 2003). The impacts of the proposed action on air quality are 

45 discussed in Section 4.4.4. The North Slope Borough, Alaska, and the Alaska regional office of 

46 BOEM have, through a Memorandum of Understanding, evaluated the effects of the oil and gas 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-62

1 industry on humans in the region. Appendix J of the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas 

2 Oil and Gas Lease Sales 209, 212, 217, and 221 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3 (MMS 2008) presents a full evaluation of these effects. 

4

5 Oil spills can affect human health in Alaska through the same ways as discussed for the 

6 GOM; additionally, major concerns involving the impacts on human health due to oil spills relate 

7 to the subsistence lifestyle of Native Alaskans. Humans can be affected through contact with the 

8 contaminants, such as through inhalation, skin contact, or intake of contaminated foods; through 

9 reduced availability of subsistence resources; through interference with subsistence harvest 

10 patterns; and stress due to fears of long-term implications of the spill (MMS 2007d as referenced 

11 in MMS 2008).

12

13 As discussed in Section 4.4.14, there are areas in the Alaska region that are of 

14 environmental justice concern. Much of the Alaska Native population resides in the coastal 

15 areas of Alaska, and subsistence activities of Native communities could be affected by accidental 

16 oil spills, with the potential health effects of oil spill contamination of subsistence foods being 

17 the main concern. Mitigation measures, cooperative agreements between Native and industry 

18 groups, and government-to-government consultations are designed to limit the effects from oil 

19 spills.

20

21

22 4.3.2.5 Conclusion

23

24 Health effects are discussed throughout this PEIS, as appropriate. The State of Alaska is 

25 currently developing an approach to integrate health analysis into the EIS by way of a Health 

26 Impact Assessment (HIA) (Berner 2011). An HIA is a scientific method used to assess the 

27 potential effects of a policy on the health of a population and the distribution of those effects, 

28 and it brings together stakeholders to find a solution (Quigley 2006, CEQ 1981, referenced in 

29 Berner 2011). The overall purpose of HIAs is ―to inform and influence decision making on 

30 proposals and plans, so health protection and promotion are effectively integrated into them‖ 

31 (Quigley et al. 2006). This programmatic-level EIS acknowledges that there will be impacts 

32 on human health, both positive and negative, from the proposed action, but it is a broad-level 

33 document discussing the impacts over entire planning areas. It would be more appropriate to 

34 discuss impacts to site-specific populations at the lease sale level when a better understanding 

35 of who will be affected is clear. 

36

37

38 4.3.3 Invasive Species

39

40 EO 13112, Invasive Species, defines invasive species as species that are non-native 

41 (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to 

42 cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. Invasive species can be plants, 

43 animals, or pathogens. Nationwide, invasive species are associated with environmental damages 

44 and losses totaling over $138 billion annually (Pimentel et al. 2000). More than 50,000 invasive 

45 species have been documented to date in the United States, and roughly 42% of threatened and 

46 endangered species in this country are considered at risk primarily because of invasive species 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-63

1 (Pimentel et al. 2005). Effects of invasive species can be devastating on both habitat and native 

2 species and may (1) include a decrease in biological diversity of native ecosystems, (2) decrease 

3 the quality of important habitats for native fish and invertebrate species, (3) reduce habitats 

4 needed by threatened and endangered species, (4) increase direct and indirect competition with 

5 aquatic plants and animals, and (5) pose human health risks 

6 (http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/whatis.shtml).

7

8 Oil and gas activities may play a part in the introduction of invasive species or may 

9 provide substrate and habitat encouraging the establishment of invasive species. Drillships and 

10 semisubmersibles are used and relocated throughout the world‘s oceans. Over time, fouling, 

11 encrusting, and boring organisms will attach to these devices. Unintentional introductions may 

12 occur when these drilling rigs are relocated to a new region such as the GOM. These same 

13 drillships and semisubmersibles may transport and release ballast water containing invasive 

14 plankton, larval invertebrates, or even fish, which may then become established due to the 

15 availability of acceptable habitat, plentiful food supply, and lack of predators.

16

17 Since 1998, there have been at least 16 documented cases of rigs being brought into the 

18 GOM from other parts of the world. Some rigs operating in the GOM were constructed or 

19 recently modified in Singapore, Taiwan, and Scotland. Newly built rigs undergoing their last 

20 year of construction stand in waters of surrounding shipyards. A year is sufficient time for 

21 fouling and encrusting organisms to colonize rig surfaces. One large semisubmersible was kept 

22 in Mobile Bay, Alabama, for 1 yr. Prior to being placed in Mobile Bay, it had spent 6 months 

23 drilling off the coast of Trinidad.

24

25 Oil and gas drilling rigs, platforms, and pipelines provide substrate and habitat for sessile 

26 organisms. Invasive mussels, barnacles, and corals are known to use rigs and platforms as 

27 attachment sites. Many marine organisms require hard surfaces to use as attachment sites for all 

28 or part of their natural history. Jellyfish have a polyp stage that requires hard substrate. Polyps 

29 settling on rigs in one location and then transported to another region can asexually reproduce. 

30 One polyp can produce up to 300 new jellyfish. Currently, there are thousands of oil and 

31 gas platforms in the GOM, each of which can provide a hectare or more of hard substrate that 

32 can support algae, mollusks, and other sessile invertebrates (Atchison et al. 2008). No-activityzone natural reefs provide 104.5 km2 (40.3 mi2 33 ) of hard substrate, which could be used for 

34 settlement sites.

35

36 Above-water platform structures may also encourage the colonization of new habitat by 

37 invasive species. Many migratory bird species use the platform structures as stopover spots 

38 while crossing the GOM (Russell 2005). Ongoing research funded by the BOEMRE is studying 

39 the interactions between migrating birds and oil and gas structures off the Louisiana coast.

40

41 A number of invasive species have been recorded from the OCS planning areas 

42 considered for oil and gas leasing in the proposed action. In the GOM, invasive species reported 

43 since the mid-1900s include the brown mussel (Perna perna), the Australian spotted jellyfish 

44 (Phyllorhiza punctata), the pink jellyfish (Drymonema dalmatina), two species of hydroids 

45 (Cordylophora caspia and Garveia franciscana), a sea anemone (Diadumene lineata), 

46 a polychaete worm (Hydroides elegans and Ficopomatus enigmaticus), the Atlantic copepod 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-64

1 (Centropages typicus), four barnacle species (Balanus amphitrite, B. reticulatus, B. trigonus, and 

2 Tetraclita stalactifera stalactifera), and four species of isopod (Sphaeroma walkeri, S. terebrans,

3 Limnoria spp., and Ligia exotica). Some of these species are native to other parts of the world 

4 (e.g., the brown mussel is native to Africa and South America), while other species are native to 

5 North American marine habitats but not to the GOM (e.g., the Atlantic copepod Centropages 

6 typicus). Suggested avenues of initial introduction of these various species include discharge of 

7 ballast water, dumping of ballast rock, or attachment to vessel surfaces.

8

9 Although invasive species are a worldwide problem, Alaska has far fewer invasive 

10 species compared to the rest of the nation (Piorkowski 2003a). Relatively few aquatic invasive 

11 species have been introduced and become established in Alaska compared to other States. This 

12 is, in part, due to Alaska‘s plant and animal transportation laws, geographic isolation, northern 

13 climate, small human population, and relatively few concentrated disturbed habitat areas 

14 (Fay 2002). However, a non-native amphipod and a colonial tunicate have been found in 

15 Alaskan waters. Potential introduction pathways include the movement of large ships and ballast 

16 water from the United States west coast and Asia, and the relocation of previously used docks 

17 and pier timbers (ADFG 2011). While invasive species impacts, to date, are low, potential 

18 threats must be monitored because a significant portion of Alaska‘s economy, including sport 

19 and commercial fishing, depends upon the pristine and natural quality of its aquatic ecosystems. 

20 Climate change may also affect the ability of marine invasives to become established (Invasive 

21 Species Advisory Committee 2010). For example, changes in water temperature or precipitation 

22 regimes (and associated runoff into coastal waters) may make areas more favorable for an 

23 invasive species to become established or spread.

24

25 Exploratory drilling of Federal leases offshore of Alaska requires bringing rigs and/or 

26 vessels to Alaska. Such rigs or vessels may come from the GOM, the West Coast, or foreign 

27 waters and be contaminated with species alien to Alaska. Such species may be attached to the 

28 hull structure (e.g., sponges and barnacles), hitch a ride on the vessel (e.g., rats, insects, 

29 crustaceans, and mollusks), or be transported via ballast water (e.g., crustaceans and mollusks). 

30 Once brought to Alaska, alien species contaminating a rig or vessel may subsequently disperse 

31 into Alaska‘s ecosystems.

32

33 Although introduction of invasive species to Alaskan waters could occur through the 

34 import and placement of offshore oil/gas structures, the threat has not been considered 

35 significant. The Alaska Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan (Fay 2002) considers 

36 activities other than oil/gas structures major pathways for the introduction of aquatic alien 

37 species, including aquaculture; aquarium trade; biological control; boats, ships, and aircraft; 

38 channels, canals, and locks; live bait; nursery industry; scientific research institutions, schools, 

39 and public aquariums; recreational fisheries enhancement; restaurants; and seafood retail and 

40 processing.

41

42 Vessels, including those used by the oil/gas industry, do pose more potential for 

43 introducing invasive species than oil/gas structures. For example, Hines and Ruiz (2000) 

44 reported finding 13 species of crustaceans and 1 species of fish arriving at Port Valdez in the 

45 ballast water of oil tankers voyaging from San Francisco Bay or Long Beach, California. The 

46 issue of invasive species and ballast water is managed by the USCG under the National Invasive 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-65

1 Species Act of 1996. The USCG has promulgated regulations (33 CFR Part 151) to make 

2 compliance with ballast water guidelines mandatory. Therefore, oil- or gas-related vessels are 

3 required to abide by these requirements in order to reduce the potential for introduction of 

4 invasive species.

5

6

7 4.3.4 Risk of a Low-probability, Catastrophic Discharge Event

8

9

10 4.3.4.1 Introduction

11

12 The risk of potentially severe consequences of oil spills, especially the risk and 

13 consequence of low-probability, large volume spills, is an issue of programmatic concern. 

14 Although unexpected and accidental, large spills may result from OCS exploration or 

15 development operations involving facilities, tankers, pipelines, and/or support vessels. Incidents 

16 with the greatest potential for catastrophic consequences are losses of well control with 

17 uncontrolled releases of large volumes of oil, where primary and secondary barriers fail, the well 

18 does not bridge (bridging occurs when the wellbore collapses and seals the flow path), and the 

19 flow is of long duration (Holand 1997). The term ―catastrophic discharge event‖ is used in this 

20 section to describe an event that results in a very large discharge into the environment that may 

21 cause long-term and widespread effects on marine and coastal environments.

22

23 In general, historical data show that loss of well control events resulting in oil spills are 

24 infrequent and that those resulting in large accidental oil spills are even rarer events (Anderson 

25 and Labelle 2000; Anderson in preparation; Bercha Group 2006, 2008; Izon et al., 2007). The 

26 Norwegian SINTEF Offshore Blowout Database, which tracks worldwide offshore oil and gas 

27 blowouts, where risk-comparable drilling operations are analyzed, supports the same conclusion 

28 (IAOGP 2010). New drilling regulations and recent advances in containment technology may 

29 further reduce the frequency and size of oil spills from OCS operations. However, as the 2010 

30 DWH event illustrated, there is a small risk for very large spills to occur and result in 

31 unacceptable impacts, some of which have the potential to be catastrophic.

32

33 A fundamental challenge is to accurately describe this very small risk, especially since 

34 there have been relatively few large oil spills that can serve as benchmarks (Scarlett et al. 2011). 

35 Prior to the DWH event, the three largest spills on the OCS were 80,000, 65,000 and 53,000, and 

36 all occurred before 1971. From 1971 to 2010 there were 253 well control incidents, 53 of which 

37 spilled oil. Excluding the DWH event, less than 2,000 bbl were spilled from these 53 well 

38 control incidents. During this same period, more than 41,500 wells were drilled on the OCS and 

39 almost 16 Bbbl of oil produced. The National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil 

40 Spill and Offshore Drilling has recently argued for a more rigorous and transparent oil spill risk 

41 and planning process to support government and industry decision making (2011). At the 

42 present time, there is a not an ideal, standardized approach to characterizing the risk of spill 

43 occurrence and consequence across all relevant space and time scales, consistent with inherent 

44 uncertainties associated with different regional factors and different exploration or production 

45 operations (Pritchard and Lacy 2011).

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-66

1 Historically, BOEM has characterized oil spill risk using the Oil Spill Risk Analysis 

2 (OSRA) model to identify the risk of oil released from numerous locations on the OCS 

3 contacting environmental resources. BOEM performs OSRA modeling in support of individual 

4 lease sales and certain exploration/development plans. BOEM also considers risk during the 

5 review of an operator‘s Exploration Plan, Development and Production Plan (or Development 

6 Operations Coordination Document), and/or Application for Permit to Drill (APD). The same 

7 OSRA runs often form the basis for spill risk and resource contact analysis in industry-submitted 

8 plans. The APD describes the drilling procedures and technology that are planned to be used to 

9 drill a specific well under the specific geologic, geophysical, and environmental conditions that 

10 exist at the site. BOEM evaluates the APD to determine whether the operator‘s drilling plan is 

11 appropriate for the drilling risk of the site.

12

13 Industry often prepares sophisticated, well-specific risk assessments for exploration or 

14 development wells. The hazards-based or well-specific approach can use event-tree, fault-tree, 

15 and ―safety case‖ analytical methods (Cooke et al. 2011; DNV 2010). Well-specific quantitative 

16 risk analysis (QRA) is frequently performed by operators (e.g., Mechanical Risk Integrity, 

17 BlowFAM, BowTieXP), where risk is quantified and compared to acceptance criteria and 

18 thresholds. Such quantitative risk analysis considers formation/well characteristics, technology 

19 and procedures, and human error/management (which is frequently a root cause of many well 

20 control incidents). The recently promulgated Safety and Environmental Management System 

21 (SEMS) rule, building on API Recommended Practices (RPs) 14C, 14J, and 75, now requires all 

22 OCS operators to identify, address, and manage safety and environmental hazards during design, 

23 construction, start-up, operation, and maintenance activities.

24

25 To support the planning decision involved in establishing a 5-yr schedule of lease sales, 

26 detailed analyses of highly variable, region-specific and/or well-specific risk is neither feasible 

27 nor appropriate. At this decision juncture, the critical realization is that the risk of a spill with 

28 catastrophic consequences albeit small, is not zero. Different OCS regions and operations may 

29 have different risk profiles (Scarlett et al. 2011). This section assesses the importance of 

30 different catastrophic discharge event risk factors in different program areas. This discussion is 

31 presented to bring into focus critical risk factors, acting individually or in combination, that may 

32 occur in program areas so that additional consideration is given to these issues during the 

33 Program. In addition, recent regulatory changes implemented since the DWH event that BOEM

34 believes contributes to risk reduction are summarized.

35

36

37 4.3.4.2 Risk Factors Influencing Occurrence, Size, Containment, Response, and 

38 Fate/Consequence of a Catastrophic Discharge

39

40 Risk is the combination of the probability of an event and the magnitude of the 

41 consequences of that event. While BOEM primarily analyzes spills in context of routine small 

42 spills and accidental large spills, this programmatic discussion on risk focuses on low43 probability, very large volume, long-duration OCS spills with the potential for catastrophic 

44 effects (40 CFR 1502.22). Such a catastrophic discharge event may result in ―large-scale 

45 damage involving destruction of species, ecosystems, infrastructure, or property with long-term 

46 effects, and/or major loss of human life‖ (Eccleston 2010). Such a spill is defined by the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-67

1 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan as a ―spill of national 

2 significance‖ or ―a spill which due to its severity, size, location, actual or potential impact on the 

3 public health and welfare or the environment, or the necessary response effort, is so complex that 

4 it requires extraordinary coordination of federal, state, local, and responsible party resources to 

5 contain and cleanup the discharge‖ (40 CF. Part 300, Appendix E). For a spill to be considered a 

6 catastrophic discharge event, its potential discharge volume must be such that catastrophic 

7 effects could occur. As previously discussed, long duration uncontrolled flows from a well 

8 control incident provide the greatest volumes of potential flow and are the spill sources 

9 considered in this section. A scenario of maximum spill volume and duration is presented in 

10 Table 4.3.4-1, describing catastrophic discharge characteristics in different program areas. The 

11 discharge rate, volume, extent, and duration varies with geologic formation, well design, and 

12 engineering characteristics, spill response capabilities, and time to containment. The potential 

13 volume of oil that could enter the environment fundamentally depends on the success of 

14 intervention, containment, response efforts at the incident site, or the length of time needed to 

15 stop the flow from the well by drilling a relief well. The effect of discharged oil not recovered is 

16 influenced by various weathering processes and response measures, such as use of dispersants 

17 and burning. The potential adverse effects also vary with time of year and location of release 

18 relative to winds, currents, land, and sensitive resources, specifics of the well (i.e., flow rates, 

19 hydrocarbon characteristics, and infrastructure damage), and response capability (i.e., speed and 

20 effectiveness). A catastrophic discharge event does not inherently equate to a spill with 

21 catastrophic effect. Instead, impacts depend critically on the spill size, oil type, environmental 

22 conditions, resources present and exposed, toxicity and other impact mechanisms, and 

23 population/ecosystem resilience and recovery following direct exposure.

24

25 Industrial Economics, Inc., and Environmental Research Consulting, under contract to 

26 BOEM, identified a suite of factors that may contribute to loss of well control and affect the size 

27 and duration of catastrophic discharge event, differences in efficacy of containment and 

28 response, and differences in fate. They include the following:

29

30 • Geologic formation and hazards;

31

32 • Water depth and hazards;

33

34 • Geographic location (including water depth);

35

36 • Well design and integrity;

37

38 • Loss of well control prevention and intervention;

39

40 • Scale and expansion;

41

42 • Human error;

43

44 • Containment capability;

45

46 • Response capability; 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-68

1 TABLE 4.3.4-1 Risk Factors That Affect a Catastrophic Discharge Event

Risk Factors Factors That Affect Occurrence

Factors That Contribute to

Catastrophic Consequences

Geology Drilling location, drill depth; mature 

vs. frontier areas

Reservoir pressure and volume

Seabed complexity 

Shelf hazards

Larger reservoir volume

Higher reservoir pressures

Uncertainty associated with drilling in 

frontier areas

Water Depth Increased water depth increases 

complexity of operation

Shallow water depth increases probability 

of contact with humans, sensitive species 

and sensitive environments

Well Design and 

Integrity

Drill string length

Cementing and casing design

Well integrity

New technologies (e.g., associated 

with expansion)

Prevention systems (e.g., BOPs, 

Backup control systems, ROVs)

Human error

Scale of operations and expansion

Exploratory drilling and improper well 

construction

Prevention system failure

Source of blowout: wells and platforms 

(as opposed to pipelines)

Human error, often involving lack of 

understanding of new technologies

Loss of well control 

prevention and 

intervention

Improperly maintained equipment Mechanical failure

Equipment failure

Scale and expansion Complexity of operations both 

physical and operational

Human error

Coordination and management

Human error

Coordination and management

Human error Lack of training and preparedness

Extreme working environments

Lack of training

Failure to take precautionary measures

Containment Capability N/A Subsea vs. surface containment

Response Capability N/A Distance from shore (duration)

Response capability in remote areas

Capping at the well vs. drilling relief well 

vs. chemical and mechanical response 

Geography Region-specific meteorology: 

temperature, extreme weather, 

prevalence of ice

Distance to shore: proximity to coastline 

increases probability of catastrophe

Hurricanes associated with high-volume 

spills
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-69

TABLE 4.3.4-1 (Cont.)

Risk Factors Factors That Affect Occurrence

Factors That Contribute to

Catastrophic Consequences

Oil types, weathering 

and fate

Temperature of oil: higher oil 

temperatures and lower water 

temperatures (e.g., Arctic) increase 

likelihood of breakage

Tidal patterns

Currents and hurricanes

Oil weathering and evaporation

Mechanical recovery, dispersal, or burning

Transport/ice

Oil persistence

Ambient temperatures affect rate of oil 

flow from blowout location

1

2

3 • Oil types and weathering/fate; and

4

5 • Specific regional geographic considerations, including oceanography and 

6 meteorology.

7

8 Many of these factors apply to drilling, abandonment, containment, response, and effects 

9 of the event and contribute to the overall catastrophic discharge risk associated with an OCS 

10 area, or even a particular well. The interplay of these factors is relevant to evaluating the risk of 

11 a catastrophic discharge event and ensuing consequences (Table 1). As the BP report concluded

12 on the DWH event, a complex series of connected mechanical failures, human judgments, 

13 engineering design mistakes, and operational, implementation, and team interactions often 

14 contribute to incidents (BP 2010). Many of the risk factors are interrelated, and some factors 

15 both increase and decrease cumulative risk depending upon whether one is evaluating the risk of 

16 occurrence or the consequence of that occurrence. Moreover, some risk factors may contribute 

17 to more or less risk depending on the specific situation.

18

19

20 4.3.4.2.1 Loss of Well Control Occurrence.

21

22 Geologic Conditions. Depending on the region, the geology of the OCS varies greatly in 

23 character and oil and gas exploration potential. Risk assessments of mature areas (areas where 

24 prior drilling operations have occurred) benefit from previous geological exploration and well 

25 development. Alternatively, frontier areas, such as the Arctic, are relatively underexplored and 

26 do not have long registries of geological data or previous attempts at well drilling. This adds 

27 additional risk to frontier operations. Though improvements in seismic technology allow three28 dimensional modeling of sub-seafloor geology, frontier areas inherently are characterized by 

29 greater risk (USGS 2011; National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and 

30 Offshore Drilling 2011). Geologic data in deepwater and ultra-deepwater frontiers in the GOM 

31 is growing, as is the industry‘s understanding of the geological variability and risks, especially as 

32 operators continue to develop leases tied to these oil-rich areas.

33

34 Because of variations in shallow and deep geologic framework, exploration and drilling 

35 often encounter numerous challenges including shallow hazards, such as seafloor instability, 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-70

1 shallow water flow, permafrost, and gas hydrate, shallow gas and sour gas zones, as well as

2 relatively deeper hazards, such as salt, and tar zones (Close et al. 2008; Nuka and Pearson 2010; 

3 Shaughnessy et al. 2007). In deepwater reservoirs in the GOM, narrow margins in pore pressure 

4 and fracture gradient, over-pressurized and low pressure zones, and reservoir 

5 compartmentalization (including low flow assurance) can represent key engineering challenges 

6 (Cunha et al. 2009; IHS/GPT 2011). Such geological differences across the different regions 

7 represent key concerns for the potential influence geology exerts on wellbore integrity, a key 

8 element in drilling and developing wells.

9

10 Most of the larger reservoirs being targeted on the shallow GOM shelf produce natural 

11 gas. There are comparatively fewer plays capable of very large oil discharges as compared to 

12 deep water. In shallow water, the relatively lower formation pressure typically results in a higher 

13 margin of safety, although encountering shallow gas represents a substantial hazard. The 

14 pressure margin allows operators to change the weight of the drilling mud by several pounds per 

15 gallon to balance formation pressures. In additional, a large number of shallow-water wells 

16 actually require positive external stimulation to produce and facilitate flow of the product from 

17 the drilling site.

18

19 In general, geologic pressure (pore pressure) and temperature increase with depth. 

20 Offshore oil reservoirs can be highly pressurized and compressed under thousands of feet of 

21 unconsolidated sediment, salt bodies, and sedimentary rock. The true vertical depth of some 

22 reservoirs may exceed 9,144 m (30,000 ft). Deep wells are known to have pressure ratings 

23 exceeding 20,000 pounds per square inch (psi) (USDOI 2010; Midé 2010). As pressure and 

24 pressure gradients increase, drilling operations become more challenging and necessitate careful 

25 balancing of pressures to prevent either the collapse of the well (from excessive pore pressures) 

26 or fracturing of the rock and loss of circulation (from excessive drilling pressure). Deeper 

27 reservoirs also tend to feature larger volumes of oil. In the event of a well blowout, wells tapped 

28 into larger reservoirs can potentially release more oil into the environment and at greater 

29 discharge rates since flow rates depend in part on temperature and pressure. Uncontrolled flow 

30 rate, or ―open flow potential,‖ can be over 100,000 bbl per day.

31

32 Water Depth: Rig and Well Complexity. Water depth alone is not a strong predictor 

33 of well control incidents, but it is related to the complexity of technology and operations

34 (Jablonowski 2007; Malloy, 2008; Cohen and Krupnick 2011). Exploration wells are most often 

35 drilled in open water where no platform exists. Jackups, submersibles, semisubmersibles, and 

36 drillships, collectively referred to as mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs), are commonplace 

37 in exploration drilling, whereas modular rigs installed on platforms are more commonly used in 

38 production wells. Drilling of a production well often involves interaction with a production 

39 platform and the existing wells on the platform. Water depth not only drives the drilling 

40 technology, but also influences well design and construction practices, as well as safety measures 

41 used to mitigate risk of well control incidents. As oil prices remain relatively high, exploration 

42 and production firms venture into deeper waters where larger reservoirs of oil are known to exist. 

43 While contingent on a number of factors, deepwater and ultra-deepwater oil operations may have 

44 higher safety incidence rates owing to rig complexity, although there have been and continue to 

45 be a greater number of loss of well control events in shallow water (Shultz 1999; 

46 Jablonowski 2007; Izon et al. 2007; Cohen and Krupnick 2011).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-71

1 Alhough definitions of exact depth ranges vary, shallow water depths are generally 

2 defined as less than 200 m (656 ft). Shallow water exploration and development rigs involve

3 comparatively simple well construction, allow direct access to well control prevention 

4 mechanisms, are less susceptible to deepwater currents (although waves and strong coastal 

5 currents are in play), and do not face complications with pressure and temperature variations 

6 found with deepwater and ultra-deepwater wells. In addition, shallow water depths allow surface 

7 blowout preventer (BOP) placement where preventative maintenance and service can be done 

8 directly by rig operators. At the same time, GOM infrastructure in shallow water tends to be 

9 older and may be more prone to mechanical failure. Depending on water depth, OCS 

10 exploration wells in the Arctic may be drilled from an artificial island; large, usually bottom11 anchored drilling structures; or a drill ship.

12

13 The greater complexity of wells and specialized equipment used on deepwater and ultra14 deepwater rigs may present more opportunity for mechanical breakdown and accidents

15 (Jablonowski 2007). Well complexity increases the number of routine operations and incidence 

16 of unusual operations, such as stuck pipe and complex casing and cementing programs 

17 (Jablonowski 2007). Complexity also increases the number of individual tasks that need to be 

18 performed on a well, complicating procedures and communication.

19

20 Deepwater depths are roughly defined as seabed depths that exceed 200 m (656 ft) but 

21 are less than 1,500 m (4,921 ft). Because of the extreme depths of deepwater drilling, these 

22 operators can no longer utilize traditional fixed platforms directly on the seabed, and different 

23 technologies and procedures are required. Deepwater drilling rigs are multi-point moored to the 

24 sea floor or, more recently, dynamically positioned. More complex operations such as mooring,

25 station keeping, riser management, and deepwater well control may complicate operations and 

26 increase the number of procedures prone to errors and equipment prone to failure. The newest 

27 platforms incorporate advanced technology, about which few data on long-term success or 

28 incidents have been gathered (USDOI 2011b). The technologically advanced BP Thunder Horse 

29 platform, for instance, intended to be BP‘s largest producer in the GOM, flooded because of the 

30 backward installation of a valve. Deepwater wells require subsea BOP placement at depths 

31 unreachable for human service; ROVs become necessary. Maintenance, repair, and assurance of 

32 proper functioning of such mechanisms are more difficult at greater depths. 

33

34 Ultra-deepwater is a relatively new class of wells defined as exceeding wellhead depths 

35 of 1,500 m (4,921 ft). Similar to deepwater platforms, ultra-deepwater rigs are floating semi36 submersibles and dynamic positioned drill ships. Ultra-deepwater wells require intricate and 

37 complex platforms, structures, and equipment to operate. High hydrostatic pressures and low 

38 ambient temperatures in such deep waters necessitate heavier and more specialized equipment. 

39 The extended depth demands larger platforms and operating rigs to handle the added drilling 

40 materials, as well as storage capacity.

41

42 Well Design and Integrity. Well construction is a process with numerous stages 

43 preceding well abandonment or production. Construction of an offshore well involves different 

44 types of setting agents, pipe, casing, cements, wellhead technology, rigs and platforms, drilling 

45 muds (synthetic or water based), and cleaning/preparation agents. These differ by environment, 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-72

1 with deepwater wells requiring distinctly different construction and technologies to withstand 

2 conditions at extreme hydrostatic pressures and lower temperatures.

3

4 Since the process of sub-seabed drilling cannot be directly observed, drilling operators in 

5 an offshore environment are reliant on secondary indicators to ensure proper construction of the 

6 well. Geophysical imaging, pressure readings, and reclaimed fluid testing are some of the 

7 secondary indicators used in drilling at depth. Though these tests lend accuracy in mapping 

8 pressure zones, impediments such as pockets of gas, shallow water flows, faults, salt deposits, or 

9 rubble zones are not always forecast.

10

11 The primary function of a well system is to reliably contain, control, and transport 

12 hydrocarbons to the surface. In general, risks are determined by well bore parameters and an 

13 operator‘s familiarity with the well bore. Drilling engineers must constantly monitor pore 

14 pressures, fracture gradients, fluid circulation, and abnormal pressure zones to avoid loss of well 

15 control. When drilling into frontier or new reservoirs, limited knowledge of wellbore parameters 

16 can increase risk of accidents. The number of barriers are often scaled with the likely 

17 consequence of failure; multiple barriers are often used to achieve adequate reliability and avoid 

18 leaks. Complex hole sizing, drilling string, wellhead technology, and mud programs, as well as

19 casing and cementing designs are required to reach target depths in deep water and ultra-deep 

20 water. Mud, casing, and cementing programs must be designed, refined, and implemented as 

21 well bore parameters and formation characteristics are being monitored.

22

23 Drilling mud/completion fluid pressure is the primary well control barrier for drilling and 

24 well intervention operations (PCCI 1999). When this fluid hydrostatic pressure drops below that 

25 of the formation, a kick occurs, which means that formation fluid enters the wellbore. Casing 

26 and cementing programs, diverters, BOPs, and wellheads can provide backup (secondary or 

27 redundant) barriers to prevent a blowout when a kick occurs. Casing and cement, as well as 

28 drilling or completion fluids, are used to ensure the fluids in a formation do not enter the 

29 wellbore during drilling and completion operations. For production operations, a packer/tubing 

30 string and tree may provide the primary well control barrier. The production casing and 

31 wellhead system provide a backup barrier in case of a packer or tubing string leak.

32

33 In 2008, BOEMRE published guidelines on the various steps towards managed pressure 

34 drilling, a process that avoids the continuous flow of formation fluids, to facilitate better

35 planning of drilling operations (Eschenbach and Harper 2011). Further drilling safety 

36 procedures and practice guidelines have been submitted by BOEMRE in recent years due to the 

37 2010 DWH incident, including the new Drilling Safety Rule and SEMS rule. Under these and 

38 other rules, drilling practices must properly address and manage known and possible risks with 

39 adequate mitigation and safety technology (USDOI 2010; USGS 2011). 

40

41 Well integrity issues arise with the cement used in construction. Fluids used to clean and 

42 prepare the well for cement are either water-, synthetic-, or oil-based, which can contaminate 

43 cement. At sub-seabed depths of 5,486 m (18,000 ft) or more, heavy cleaning fluids run the risk 

44 of not filling their intended purpose and contaminating subsequent cementing jobs. Cementing 

45 problems were associated with 18 of 39 blowouts between 1972 and 1999 in the GOM

46 (Izon et al. 2007). However, the majority of these cement-related blowouts were of short 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-73

1 duration, primarily released natural gas, and involved shallow strings in a well-surface casing. 

2 Mechanical indicators such as negative pressure testing and pressure and heat gauges to test 

3 cement integrity have also come under scrutiny for lack of accuracy; the pressure gauges used 

4 for negative pressure testing for Macondo were accurate to ± 400 psi, a rather imprecise measure 

5 (OPG 2011). It is presumed both cementing issues and mechanical failure may have been a 

6 factor in the Macondo well blowout (National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil 

7 Spill and Offshore Drilling 2011; JITF 2011). 

8

9 When considering the risk of loss of well control, it is important to distinguish among the 

10 different types of wells, including exploration, development, and production wells. Exploration 

11 wells are drilled in open water from a mobile offshore drilling unit, whereas production and 

12 development wells are often drilled under an existing platform. In general, exploration may 

13 involve greater uncertainty due to the availability of geologic data, nature of drilling technology, 

14 and unique barrier factors, such as BOP placement (Eschenbach and Harper 2011). From 1971

15 to 2010, there have been over a total of 41,781 wells drilled in the OCS. Of these, 26,245 were 

16 development wells, 15,491 were exploration wells, and 43 were core tests or relief wells. The 

17 overall OCS well control incident rate for drilling was 1 loss of well control incident per 292 

18 wells drilled (1 per 201 for exploration wells, and 1 per 410 for development wells). These well 

19 control incident rates include all well control incident rates related to drilling operations whether 

20 or not a spill occurred. Despite the increased risk of drilling wells on undeveloped frontiers, 

21 procedures followed in drilling exploratory wells may be more conservative (i.e., safer) to 

22 account for this increased level of uncertainty (Eschenbach and Harper 2011).

23

24 In the GOM from 1980 through 2004, there was a relatively higher number of well 

25 releases during development drilling and well workover operations as compared to exploration 

26 drilling. This contrasts with worldwide trends where more well releases tend to occur during 

27 exploratory drilling (Holand 2006). Holand (2006) attributes this to the fact that more 

28 development wells are actually drilled. Hurricanes or ship collisions caused approximately 50% 

29 of the production blowouts (Holand 2006). Simultaneous operations of drilling and production 

30 also increase the risk of incidents when drilling production wells. Another root cause of 

31 sustained blowouts during completion and workover is the positive potential for pressurized 

32 hydrocarbons and limited bridging tendency with flow through perforations or gravel pack 

33 (Flak 1997).

34

35 In general, the riskier wells include wildcat wells (first well into formation), offset wells 

36 (wells drilled near another well that encountered drilling trouble zones or past well control 

37 problems), and extended or ultra-deep drilling (SPE Advisory Summit 2011). Deepwater and 

38 ultra-deepwater wells require complex infrastructure, planning, and execution to construct;

39 therefore, facilities and volume of production tend to get larger with distance from shore and 

40 water depth (Shultz 1999). The complex nature of the formations, combined with the drilling 

41 depths in high-pressure/high-temperature conditions required to reach the target zones, presents a 

42 challenge to drilling engineers (Close et al. 2008). This challenge is highlighted in the greater 

43 number of casing strings required to drill to target depth, which in turn creates the challenge in 

44 achieving good cement isolation in a tight tolerance annuli (Close et al. 2008; Chatar et al. 2010). 

45 Despite such challenges, over 2,300 deepwater development wellbores and approximately 

46 2,600 deepwater exploration wellbores have been drilled. Of these, the Macondo well is the only 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-74

1 exploration well to involve a blowout and large oil spill. No spills have occurred for deepwater 

2 development wells.

3

4 Loss Well of Control Prevention and Intervention. A blowout occurs when there is 

5 failure to control a kick and regain pressure control, and can be defined as an uncontrolled flow 

6 of formation fluids. Oskarsen (2004) classifies offshore operations blowouts in three groups:

7

8 • Surface blowouts characterized by fluid flow from a permeable formation to 

9 the rig floor;

10

11 • Subsurface blowouts characterized by fluid flow at the well at the mudline, 

12 where the exit conditions are controlled by the seawater; and

13

14 • Underground blowouts characterized by fluid flow from one formation zone 

15 to another, typically by using the wellbore as a flow path.

16

17 Potential scenarios for each blowout type are described in Oskarsen (2004). Blowout 

18 rates by different phases of exploration and production operations and relative water depths are 

19 available in Holand (2006). Although high hydrostatic pressures at depth will aid in choking any 

20 flow from potential blowout points (PCCI 1999), two independent barriers are typically used for 

21 well control. The primary barrier is usually the hydrostatic pressure exerted by the well 

22 mud/synthetic fluid column (either static or dynamic). The secondary barriers typically include

23 the pressure control equipment such as the BOP, the diverter system, the wellhead (innermost 

24 casing hanger seal), and the choke/kill line valves. These barriers are routinely used during 

25 drilling, completion and workover operations. If the well is flowing (i.e., producing oil and/or 

26 gas), the primary barrier is that closest to the reservoir (PCCI 1999).

27

28 Individual BOP systems are used during drilling operations to prevent unrestrained 

29 release of crude oil from reservoirs. BOPs are composed of all systems required to operate them, 

30 including flexible joint, annular preventer, ram preventer, connector, choke and kill lines, choke 

31 manifold and auxiliary equipment (USDOI 1996). The specific type of BOP may influence the 

32 loss of well control and well releases. For example, fault tree analysis in the DNV Beaufort Sea 

33 Study showed that there is substantial risk reduction with BOPs having two sets of blind shear 

34 rams spaced at least 1.2 m (4 ft) apart. The study concluded that the reliability of a two blind 

35 shear system is 99.32%, compared to 99% for a single blind shear ram (Midé, 2010). Despite the 

36 seemingly low percentage, an increase of 0.32% in BOP reliability raises the estimated number 

37 of wells that can be drilled before an uncontrolled blowout to 6,213 from 4,225 (Midé 2010).

38

39 In shallow-water wells, BOPs are placed above the sea on the rig, allowing for periodic 

40 repair and maintenance. The operations of surface BOPs are not subject to all of the 

41 complicating factors associated with subsea BOPs, and they are more accessible for repair and 

42 intervention. However, surface BOPs that are placed on floating facilities (as opposed to jack-up 

43 rigs) present other significant risks. The high-pressure riser and casing from the seafloor to the 

44 rig can be exposed to dynamic stresses. A failure of a high-pressure riser due to these stresses 

45 can lead to uncontrolled flow below the surface BOP system located on the floating facility. 

46 Well operations from a floating platform with a surface BOP stack and a high-pressure riser 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-75

1 (through the water column) are higher risk operations than drilling from a jack-up rig or a fixed 

2 platform. The single high-pressure riser (or in some cases, a dual riser system) used by floating 

3 platforms is subject to environmental forces such as current induced vibration that make it more 

4 susceptible to stress fatigue. Jack-up rigs and fixed production platforms have more casing 

5 strings tied back to the surface of the rig or platform, which provide additional external support 

6 for the pressured casing. In addition, because these tied-back casing strings are used in 

7 shallower water operations with a shorter water column, they are less exposed to current-induced 

8 stress. 

9

10 Deepwater and ultra-deepwater wells have subsea BOPs that are affixed directly to the 

11 well on the seafloor. Deepwater and ultra-deepwater seafloor depths exceed depths at which 

12 human operators can work, thus requiring submersibles and emergency backup control systems. 

13 These systems can demonstrate failures. For example, the main control system of BOPs has a 

14 failure rate of approximately 50% at depths of 800–1,200 m (2,625–3,937 ft), and approximately 

15 7% at depths of 1,200–2,100 m (3,937–6,890 ft) (Midé 2010). Midé (2010) suggested that this is 

16 because less variability exists in relatively calmer waters at deepest depths (e.g., currents and 

17 marine life do not affect machinery as much in deep water). Important technology includes the 

18 acoustic backup system, which communicates with the BOP system in the event of electrical and 

19 hydraulic connection loss with the wellhead. DNV (2010) reported a 25% reliability of current 

20 acoustic backup systems. ROV activation of the BOP using the secondary control system has a 

21 75% success rate.

22

23 Overall, more research and development is necessary to increase the success rates of 

24 control systems in order to reduce the risk of deepwater drilling operations. Evidence for the 

25 containment response to the DWH incident, as well as a review of industrial and governmental 

26 containment response, suggests that mitigation technology has not kept pace with extraction 

27 technology that enabled industry to drill in increasingly deeper waters (IPIECA 2008; 

28 Cohen et al. 2010). However, industry and regulatory enhancements are under development to 

29 address control systems (USDOI 2010; DNV 2010).

30

31 Scale and Expansion. Scale and expansion of OCS operations increases the complexity 

32 of drilling and production operations. Factors associated with scale include the number of wells, 

33 new types of production facilities, new methods of transporting oil, higher levels of production, 

34 the addition of simultaneous operations during production, and higher rates of pumping. 

35 Expansions in scale of oil production require more well and platform construction, along with 

36 higher production volumes. New technologies necessitated by an increased scale of operations 

37 may be associated with higher levels of risk, especially when technologies are not fully 

38 developed. The number of incidents reported increases with more complex operations, in 

39 particular with deepwater operations which, by their very nature, often entail greater scale, 

40 expansion, and complexity (Cohen and Krupnick 2011). Large-scale oil production involves the 

41 use of subsea well complexes and large central processing and storage facilities, about which 

42 little data on long-term success and incidents have been gathered. The OCS operations in the 

43 GOM are moving farther offshore and incorporate more complex drilling and production 

44 operations. For example, the Shell Perdido Project is simultaneously connected to 22 different 

45 wellhead sites (Shell 2011b). A production facility of this scale, in addition to being in ultra46 deep water, typifies the trend in scale and expansion (Shell 2011a).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-76

1

2 More complex facilities and operations require equally complex management structures. 

3 Operations of greater scale entail a complex set of relations between different operators, 

4 contractors, and management groups. While the probability of release on more complex 

5 facilities has not been actively studied, it is noted that the Macondo well suffered from 

6 insufficient correction of known concerns prior to blowout because of management and 

7 communication issues between operators and contractors (National Academy of Sciences 2010; 

8 JITF 2011).

9

10 Human Error. Human error, or combinations of human and mechanical failure, are the 

11 root cause of many OCS accidents and spills (Jablonowski 2007; Muehlenbachs et al. 2010). 

12 Low-probability, high-impact failures such as the Macondo well blowout indicated more 

13 stringent requirements were necessary (Winter 2010; DOI 2010). In the case of the Macondo 

14 well, operators misread pressure readings, authorized high-risk activities, disregarded warning 

15 signs, and overlooked the checks and balances that exist in regulatory assignments, while 

16 mechanical BOP failure compounded the severity of the release (Winter 2010; National Oil Spill 

17 Commission 2011). The new SEMS rule recognizes this gap and establishes a mandatory

18 program to ensure OCS operators identify, address, and manage safety and environmental 

19 hazards and impacts during design, construction, start-up, operation, inspection, and maintenance 

20 activities. This systemic approach to managing risk and ensuring safety and environmental 

21 protection should provide more focus on the risk of system failures as well as on the human 

22 factors that could contribute to an incident (SPE Advisory Summit 2011).

23

24 Level of training and safety culture are important factors in determining the number of 

25 safety and well control incidents (Jablonowski 2007; Vinnem et al. 2010). A well-trained crew 

26 that has participated in numerous practice exercises will decrease the probability of a spill caused 

27 by human error. Lack of proper training has been a significant issue in the last decade, probably 

28 because of a lack of incidents (Etkin 2011). Previously, standard industry practice often 

29 permitted operation of technical equipment with on-the-job training or one-week training 

30 courses. The MMS published final regulations for Well Control and Production Safety Training 

31 (30 CFR 250, SubpartO) in 1997 (amended on August 14, 2000). Recently, the advent of new 

32 regulations (the SEMS rule) and requirements for personnel on platforms and working on 

33 drilling operations aims to eliminate the current gaps in industry-required trainings. Individuals 

34 working in specific technical jobs are now required to attend annual training and certification,

35 and operators are required to perform job safety and hazards analyses (DOI 2010; 

36 BOEMRE 2010; OGP 2011). Other factors such as climate and temperature could affect worker 

37 performance. For instance, colder temperatures in the Arctic lead to higher probabilities of 

38 human error due to the extreme working conditions (Eschenbach and Harper 2011).

39

40

41 4.3.4.2.2 Containment and Response. The effectiveness of containment and spill 

42 response dictates the amount of oil released in the environment. Area and operation-specific oil 

43 spill contingency plans, as well as actual containment and response efforts, will be designed 

44 around many of factors that contribute to the risk of spill occurrence and fate of oil in the water. 

45 Assuming the correct containment plan is in place, the risk of poor planning and containment 

46 execution still exists (USCG 2011).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-77

1 If the BOP fails, other options are available to control the blowout, including

2 capping/shut-in, capping/diverting, surface stinger, vertical intervention, offset kill, and relief 

3 wells (Neal Adams Firefighters, Inc. 1991). Of these methods, a relief well is often considered 

4 most important, and may be required immediately (even if it is not the first choice), since it is 

5 typically considered the principal solution for well control. The amount of time required to drill 

6 a relief well may depend upon the complexity of the intervention (e.g., depth of formation), the 

7 location of a suitable rig, the operations that may be required to release the rig, and any problems 

8 mobilizing personnel/equipment.

9

10 Once the oil has reached the sea‘s surface, the first few hours of a spill are the most 

11 critical for response efforts. Boomers and skimmers should be deployed immediately to contain 

12 the oil and in situ burning and dispersant use should be evaluated to supplement mechanical 

13 collection methods. Since in situ burning and dispersant use are time sensitive, responders 

14 should ensure the necessary supplies for either method (e.g., flame-resistant booms) are 

15 available.

16

17 If a spill cannot be contained at the site‘s wellhead (subsea), a response effort may be 

18 required to restrict the surface spreading of oil in the water, especially from the shore. The 

19 following sections outline the methods of containment, as well as the risks and considerations 

20 unique to each.

21

22 Water Depth, Distance from Shore, and Other Variables. As shown by the DWH 

23 event, the loss of well control in deeper depths presents containment obstacles and challenges 

24 that would not necessarily be encountered during a loss of well control in shallow waters. 

25 Although many of the same techniques used in shallow water were used to attempt to control the 

26 Macondo well, the well control efforts were hindered by water depth, which required reliance 

27 solely upon the use of ROVs for all well intervention efforts. This is a concern in deep water 

28 because the inability to quickly regain control of a well increases the size of a spill, as occurred 

29 during the DWH event. Other complications associated with responding to a deepwater blowout 

30 include inaccessibility of the well, methane hydrate formation at lower seafloor water 

31 temperatures, and the need to work with larger and less-available support equipment due to the 

32 greater water pressure. The inverse relationship holds true for emergency response to spills. The 

33 closer the well is to shore, the quicker the potential response.

34

35 Distance from shore, coupled with response measures, fundamentally drive the size of the 

36 impacted area. Oil-spill contact potential, the likelihood of released oils contaminating areas or 

37 materials of interest (e.g., beaches, wildlife, sensitive environments), decreases with greater 

38 distance from shoreline (IPIECA 2008; JITF 2010). As physical distance from sensitive areas 

39 and shores increases, sea waters, currents, waves, and other biological processes are able to 

40 dilute and digest more of the spilled oil. Volume alone does not determine the impact of the 

41 releases. Releases close to shore may have greater effects, especially when concentrated into 

42 inlets or smaller areas (IPIECA 2008).

43

44 In some respects, offshore spill events in the Arctic and sub-Arctic may offer a few 

45 advantages to responders. Ice can serve as a natural oil boom and dampen surface waves, while 

46 cold weather slows the rate of oil evaporation – making it easier to burn. Shore ice may also
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-78

1 provide a physical barrier, limiting shore contact to oil. However, spill removal companies have 

2 testified that icy waters actually make traditional techniques (booming and skimming) 

3 significantly less effective (CRRC 2009). A spill during the fall freeze-up would be the most 

4 dangerous time for a spill, and even chemical response methods would be limited (Nuka and 

5 Pearson 2011). The Arctic is sparsely populated and infrastructure is not abundant. Thus, the 

6 ability to appropriately respond to incidents remains a concern (USGS 2011). Ice-free seasons 

7 are relatively short (around three months a year), and ice state may influence the ability to drill a 

8 relief well. The relatively shallow Arctic depths could result in more contact potential in the 

9 event of a catastrophic spill. Should spilled oil persist in the water column, there is concern that 

10 suspended oil could become trapped in ice.

11

12 Status of Technology to Physically Contain. OCS operators are now required to submit 

13 documentation that they are able to deploy adequate containment resources to respond to a 

14 blowout or other loss of well control. In general, subsea containment at the wellhead is ideal and 

15 most effective because it contains the oil at the source. Perhaps the most significant hurdle to the 

16 development of containment at the blowout point (subsea) has been cost (BOEMRE 2010; 

17 PCCI 1999). Given the low historical probability of a significant blowout occurrence and 

18 limited use of subsea containment equipment, industry development of cost-effective equipment 

19 has not historically occurred, although that has changed in response to new regulatory 

20 requirements.

21

22 As mentioned, containing oil at the wellhead is the ultimate goal in the event of a 

23 blowout. However, subsea collector technologies have historically presented some operational 

24 challenges given design and installation difficulties (PCCI 1999). For subsea oil containment,

25 the technical hurdles to be overcome during a deepwater blowout include the behavior of 

26 deepwater currents; the ability to manipulate heavy objects on the seabed; the ability to design 

27 subsea collectors that are flexible enough to cap a large range of subsea wellhead assemblies and 

28 accommodate a high volume of recovered oil, gas, and water; the ability to approach the blowing 

29 well and install containment devices on the seafloor; and the lack of standardization in subsea 

30 wellhead design.

31

32 ROVs capable of manipulating heavy objects, especially collector technologies, near the 

33 seafloor and in turbulent conditions caused by the blowout, are limited. In fact, even relatively 

34 minor blowout plumes have rendered many ROVs useless. Aside from the risk of physical 

35 damage from plumes, the following risk factors exist related to ROV use:

36

37 • Sufficient surface support or subsea lifting devices such as syntactic foam 

38 buoys are required to assist the ROV with heavy object lifting;

39

40 • Subsea currents can complicate ROV use; and

41

42 • Navigation systems and/or sensors can be damaged from the blowout plume.

43

44 In comparison, subsea containment in shallow water is less complicated; for example, it 

45 is easier to mobilize equipment and avoid hydrate formation at the relatively warmer seafloor 

46 temperatures.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-79

1 The DWH event and implementation of NTL No. 2010-N10, however, has created new 

2 impetus for industry-driven containment technology. For example, Marine Well Containment 

3 Company (MWCC) – a partnership between ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Shell –

4 has announced the release of its seabed containment system (Helman 2011). According to the 

5 company, the unit features the ability to do the following:

6

• Contain 60,000 bbl per day of liquid and 120 million standard ft 7 3 of gas;

8

9 • Inject dispersants; and

10

11 • Be placed in water up to 3,048 m (10,000 ft) deep.

12

13 This system is intended to address the weakness of the BP containment dome that caused 

14 its failure during the DWH event (Helman 2011). The system can inject antifreeze-like 

15 chemicals to inhibit natural gas hydrate build-up, which created spill containment complications 

16 during the DWH event. Of course, whether Marine Well Containment Company‘s system will 

17 work as effectively as it claims will not be known until another blowout event occurs.

18

19 Another option for source control and containment is through the use of the equipment 

20 stockpiled by Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. The Helix initiative involves more than 

21 20 smaller energy companies and supplements the MWCC response effort. Helix has maintained 

22 the equipment it found useful in the DWH event response and is offering it to oil and gas 

23 producers for use. Together, the ships and related equipment can accommodate up to 55,000 bbl 

24 of oil/day, 70,000 bbl of liquid natural gas, and 95 MMcf of natural gas at depths up to 2,438 m 

25 (8,000 ft).

26

27 Shell is developing equivalent shallow-water containment technology for use in the 

28 Arctic. The company is under increasing scrutiny from industry stakeholders to ensure that an

29 event similar to the one that happened in the GOM will not occur in the Arctic. Shell has pre30 staged response equipment and vehicles designed for Arctic conditions that can be activated 

31 immediately (Dyer 2011). For example, in the 2011 Revised Outer Continental Shelf Lease 

32 Exploration Plan, Shell‘s spill response plan includes oil spill response (OSR) vessels with an 

33 ice-capable Oil Spill Response Barge (OSRB) and associated tug (Point Oliktok tug and 

34 Endeavor barge), a tank vessel for storage of any recovered liquids (Mikhal Ulyanov), and 

35 associated smaller workboats. In addition, Shell‘s plan includes two vessel of opportunity 

36 skimming systems (VOSSs) to assist with containment and recovery, along with an arctic oil 

37 storage tanker to provide storage of recovered oil (BOEMRE 2011). Shell has committed to 

38 having a pre-fabricated subsea collection system with surface capability to capture and dispose 

39 of oil, and has indicated that this system is in final design.

40

41 Aside from subsea containment, subsea dispersant injection into the well or blowout jet 

42 zone is considered to be one of the most promising measures to contain the effects of the oil spill. 

43 Design concepts to date require advanced planning to incorporate the appropriate equipment for 

44 dispersant injection into the drilling infrastructure/equipment (e.g., subsea stack or BOP). The 

45 industry is now focused on wellhead-independent injection systems; this method involves 

46 applying dispersants into the blowout plume. As noted above, MWCC‘s system includes a 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-80

1 subsea injection capability. However, the environmental tradeoffs of subsea dispersant use 

2 (similar to surface dispersant use, discussed in the following section) continue to be debated and 

3 have been poorly documented based on limited prior application (USEPA 2011b).

4

5 Mechanical Recovery Methods. Mechanical recovery methods include the use of 

6 booms, barriers, and skimmers, as well as natural and synthetic sorbent materials (NRC 2003).

7 Of all response efforts, mechanical methods exhibit the least impact on the environment and are 

8 considered to be the first line of defense against surface oil spread (USEPA 2011d).

9

10 Booming and skimming are the two most widely used mechanical containment methods. 

11 The effectiveness of these two measures will depend on the volume of the oil spill, location of 

12 the well, and sea conditions. For example, at remote open-sea well locations, the immediate 

13 availability of sufficient oil storage and/or oil-water separators may be limited (BOEMRE 2010; 

14 PCCI 1999). Booms and skimmers become less effective in higher wave swells and wind, and in 

15 fast currents. Three main types of skimmers exist, each with characteristics that may make them

16 more effective given certain ocean and spill conditions. Weir and suction skimmers operate best 

17 on smooth water with little debris; oleophilic skimmers are the most flexible, can be used on 

18 spills of any thickness, and may work most effectively on water that has rough ice debris (e.g., in 

19 Alaska) (USEPA 2011e). Although oil recovery efforts must withstand the harsher climate 

20 conditions of the Arctic, a research program conducted by SINTEF in 2010 concluded that the 

21 mechanical recovery of oil spills is possible despite difficulties associated with maneuvering 

22 skimmers through ice (Sorstrom et al. 2010). In any environment, collection rates of 20% are 

23 considered exceptional in most cases (USEPA 2011e). In the case of the DWH event, skimmers 

24 only accounted for the removal of 3 or 4% of the released oil because of relatively low efficiency 

25 (USCG 2011).

26

27 The DWH event tested new, ―enhanced‖ booms and skimmers, which may help expand 

28 the range and efficiency of recovery in open water and near shore. Advances have been made to 

29 create booms that can withstand rough sea conditions and more viscous oil, including in cold30 water conditions offshore Norway (McKay 2011). As a result, the effectiveness of recovery both 

31 on open water and near shore can be expected to increase, especially given the attention of the 

32 USCG to this matter (USCG 2011).

33

34 Sorbent materials capture oil through absorption or adsorption and are often used to 

35 supplement booming and skimming. Lighter oil products (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, benzene) 

36 are absorbed more easily, while thicker oil responds better to adsorption (USEPA 2011f). While 

37 generally effective, the use of sorbents is less practical with extremely large spills or in windy 

38 conditions.

39

40 Chemical and Biological Methods. Surface dispersants (chemical-based) can be 

41 applied via boats, aircraft, or helicopters. A two- to three-day window following an event 

42 generally exists to use dispersants (BOEMRE 2010); therefore, pre-approval of dispersal as a 

43 contingency method and of specific dispersant use is essential (NRC 2006). Since the toxicity of 

44 dispersants is an important consideration (IPIECA 2008; NRC 2005), mechanical containment 

45 methods are the preferred initial response. Very large spills may require immediate application 

46 of dispersants.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-81

1 The effectiveness of dispersants (compared to booming and skimming methods) is more 

2 dependent on sea conditions. Studies indicate that dispersants are most effective at salinities 

3 close to that of normal seawater (NRC 2005). In addition, dispersants work best in warmer water 

4 (USEPA 2011b).

5

6 Gelling agents react with oil to form rubber-like solids that can then be removed from the 

7 water via nets or skimmers. Gelling agents can be most effective for small to moderate spills in 

8 moderately rough seas. The volume of gelling agent required can be as much as three times that 

9 of the oil spill; therefore, for larger spills, it is impractical to use this method. Moderately rough 

10 seas provide increased mixing effect of the agents with the oil, resulting in greater solidification 

11 (USEPA 2011c).

12

13 The use of biological agents (i.e., bioremediation) for oil spill response is an emerging 

14 area of research. Bioremediation is the act of adding materials (e.g., microorganisms) to the 

15 environment to increase the rate of natural biodegradation. Currently, two technologies –

16 fertilization and seeding – are being used in the United States for oil spill remediation

17 (USEPA 2011a). Unlike the other methods covered in this section, bioremediation is a longer18 term response effort.

19

20 In Situ Burning. Burning is an effective method to remove much of the oil once it has 

21 reached the water‘s surface and reduces the need for storage of recovered oil. Weathering 

22 properties of the oil will affect whether or not surface burning is a viable option. For burning to 

23 work effectively, oil thickness must be at least 1 to 2 mm and water-in-oil emulsion must be 50%

24 or less (NOAA 1997).

25

26 The weathering properties of oil in icy waters are also important for recovery efforts. 

27 Studies have shown that, in general, oil in icy waters weathers at a slower rate than in open 

28 waters. The slower weathering process of oil in the Arctic Ocean increases the opportunity of 

29 successful in situ burning, which efficiently reduces free floating oil and oil collected in booms 

30 (Sorstrom et al. 2010). In situ burning has been successful in cases where oil was trapped in ice

31 (Nuka and Pearson 2010; S.L. Ross Environmental 2010).

32

33 A factor that could limit the application of in situ burning is the impact on human health 

34 due to gas and particulate release from oil burning. Studies estimate that 5 to 15% of the oil is 

35 converted to particulates (mostly soot) but that public exposure is not expected unless the smoke 

36 plume sinks to ground level. However, in situ burning raises general concerns over air quality 

37 impacts (NOAA 1997).

38

39

40 4.3.4.2.3 Fate.

41

42 Oil Type. Various oil types have varying characteristics, including pour point, viscosity, 

43 weight, and composition. In general, lighter oils tend to be less viscous and can be byproducts of 

44 crude oils such as diesel and gasoline. Lighter oils tend to be less toxic, although some from the 

45 GOM tend to have higher concentrations of toxic compounds (Etkin 2011). Heavier oils tend to 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-82

1 resist weathering and dispersant application, and then may persist in the water column for long 

2 periods of time (USGS 2011; USDOI 2010; Etkin 2011).

3

4 Evaporation. Evaporation occurs when oil comes in contact with air on the surface of 

5 the water. Evaporation rates are a function of numerous dynamics including oil viscosity, 

6 ambient temperature, sunlight exposure, and oil type (IPIECA 2008). In general, lighter oils 

7 such as diesel or gasoline will dissipate quickly or evaporate from the water, although 

8 evaporation is slower in colder temperatures. More viscous or heavy forms of oil will tend to 

9 persist longer and resist evaporation (USDOI 2011b). Compared to other oil-producing regions, 

10 a greater portion of oils extracted from the GOM tend to be lighter crude oils. Because such oils 

11 persist for a shorter period of time, they may cause less long-term damage and lower cleanup 

12 costs. The viscosity of Arctic oils varies, but due to colder surface temperatures and a generally 

13 cooler average climate, these oils are thought to evaporate more slowly, become trapped in ice,

14 or become viscous and suspended in the water column (USGS 2011; USDOI 2011b).

15

16 Weathering. Weathering of oil in the sea results from a number of factors, including 

17 exposure to atmosphere, currents, biological organisms, and tidal patterns. In general, lighter 

18 oils such as diesel and gasoline weather quickly (Dickins 2011; IPIECA 2008; Etkin 2011). 

19 Higher ambient temperatures also accelerate weathering. The warm waters of the GOM are 

20 thought to help oil to dissipate, although this may not be the case for all oils, especially those 

21 generated in deepwater environments where ambient temperatures can be lower (USDOI 2010; 

22 IPIECA 2008; Etkin 2011). In cases where releases become suspended in the water column, 

23 long-term persistence may occur and potentially threaten marine life and economic activity tied 

24 to the marine environment.

25

26 The weathering characteristics of spilled oil influence the range of drift and spreading 

27 considered within spill trajectory assessments and dictate the effectiveness of chemical 

28 dispersants, in situ burning, or mechanical responses. Conditions in the Arctic may lead to 

29 longer term oil persistence. Denser, more viscous oils in colder temperatures weather at very 

30 slow rates, potentially persisting on rocks for years (USGS 2011). Cold water also increases the 

31 probability that oil from a spill will solidify in the water, persisting indefinitely and rendering 

32 cleanup more difficult. However, weathering in the Arctic will be contingent on the season and 

33 weather (Dickins 2011). If oil is exposed to more air and sunlight, evaporation and dispersion 

34 due to weathering may also accelerate. Due to the variability in seasons (and in particular the ice 

35 pack), it is important to consider the timing of the release in the Arctic to evaluate the potential 

36 for long-term damage to the surrounding marine and coastal environments.

37

38 Transport. The transport and behavior of oil and gas released into oceans varies greatly 

39 depending on the conditions of the area. The magnitude and spread of transport may depend on 

40 water depth, ocean currents, meteorological events, and geographic specific factors including the 

41 prevalence of ice. Fluids released into deep water, for instance, are subject to high hydrostatic 

42 pressure and low ambient temperature, increasing the oil‘s persistence and its potential to 

43 transport to coastlines. A shallow water release from a high-pressure formation with a high 

44 velocity may result in a turbulent mixing of the gas, oil, and water, with the mixture quickly 

45 transported to the surface by the expanding gas under decreasing hydrostatic pressure (PCCI

46 1999). Research as part of the DeepSpill Joint Industry Project indicates that above the point of 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-83

1 separation, gas bubbles and large oil droplets rise toward the surface while smaller, dispersed oil 

2 droplets may be entrained in deepwater currents at the terminus of the jet phase (Johansen et al.

3 2001; S.L. Ross Environmental 1997). Deepwater spills increase the potential for oil remaining 

4 trapped throughout the water column, and this increases the risk of oil transport to other regions 

5 and water bodies, although the oil is expected to be highly dispersed.

6

7 Meteorological events specific to the GOM may potentially transport spilled oil to 

8 shallow and coastal areas, increasing the risk of catastrophic consequences. Major 

9 meteorological events specific to the GOM are cold fronts and hurricanes. The wind force and 

10 magnitude of the storms in the area have the potential to expand the affected area of an oil spill. 

11 Typically occurring between June 1 and November 30, hurricanes also have the potential to 

12 destroy production facilities and precipitate releases. Data on platform spills also show that oil 

13 spills that result from hurricane damage in the GOM have been larger in volume, accounting for 

14 approximately 43% of large (>1,000 bbl) spills (Eschenbach and Harper 2011). During 

15 hurricane passages in the GOM, production is shut-in and facilities are evacuated. This reduces 

16 the probability of a very large release of oil from facilities.

17

18 Another major cause of physical transport that is specific to the GOM is the Loop 

19 Current, a warm ocean current that wraps around the western coast of Cuba and the panhandle of 

20 Florida. The current dominates upper ocean circulation in the eastern and central GOM, and 

21 transports approximately 30 million m3 of water per second, with a variance of about 10%. 

22 Speeds may exceed 150 cm/s at the surface with velocities as high as 5 cm/s at 1,000-m

23 (3,280-ft) depths. In both shallow and deep water, currents are dominated by cyclonic and 

24 anticyclonic eddies that vary in magnitude and frequency, which increases the uncertainty 

25 associated with effects on drilling operations (Donohue et al. 2006). The these characteristics 

26 exhibited by the GOM Loop Current impose uncertainties during drilling operations and in the 

27 event of an oil release. The vast amount of water transported throughout the GOM by the Loop 

28 Current highlights the potential for the current and its associated eddies to transport oil from a 

29 spill to the shelf and coastal areas, as well as water bodies outside of the GOM (USDOI 2007). 

30 Due to the proximity of the current to the shelf and sensitive coastal areas, there is concern 

31 regarding the rapid transport of oil in the event of a release. In many cases, the frontal boundary 

32 at the edge of the Loop Current may limit the extent of transport. In addition, highly persistent 

33 oil, especially in deepwater locations, may remain in the ocean for an indefinite period of time, 

34 increasing the potential for the Loop Current to carry oil to sensitive coastal areas 

35 (USDOI 2007).

36

37 In the Arctic Ocean, an important transport vehicle and barrier is ice. Offshore of the 

38 shore-fast zone, the motion of the ice will be expected to transport the oil that is associated with 

39 the ice. Field tests conducted by SINTEF Materials and Chemistry demonstrated that ice can 

40 help contain a spill, and act as a natural barrier to the spread of oil (Brandvik et al. 2010). 

41 Studies have shown that when ice coverage exceeds 10–20%, the higher ice coverage can trap 

42 spilled oil within newly formed ice (Sorstrom et al. 2010). Oil trapped in ice naturally prevents 

43 the spilled oil from affecting sensitive habitats and coastal areas, and prevents it from dispersing 

44 and spreading to other bodies of water. Physically removing ice that encases spilled oil is a 

45 potential solution in extreme cold temperatures. During the winter of 1998, 90% of the oil 

46 spilled in the St. Lawrence River was recovered by removing 1,369 tons of ice (recovering 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-84

1 10 tons of oil) (S.L. Ross Environmental 2010). Ocean currents in the Arctic are influenced by 

2 cyclonic and anticyclonic eddies pushing released oil in numerous directions.

3

4

5 4.3.4.3 Regional Risk Profiles

6

7 The previous discussion of risk factors has been used to develop generalized regional risk 

8 profiles for the areas under consideration for the Program. Figure 4.3.4-1 presents a conceptual 

9 framework for considering the sequence of events, circumstances, and factors that define a low10 probability discharge event and contribute to the even lower potential for catastrophic 

11 consequences. The catastrophic discharge event sequence is divided into two principal phases: 

12 risk of occurrence and containment, and risk of fate and consequence. This framework 

13 conservatively assumes that a relief well is needed to kill a wild well following a loss of well 

14 control incident.

15

16 The top part of Figure 4.3.4-1 shows risk factors related to the occurrence of a well 

17 incident and the ability to contain and recover oil discharge at the well site up to the time needed 

18 to drill a relief well. The ability to mitigate these risks factors directly reduces the duration and 

19 volume of the oil spill and likelihood that the spill will be a catastrophic event. Reducing the 

20 risk of well control incidents, particularly for frontier exploration wells with the potential to 

21 release catastrophic discharge volumes, is of primary importance to avoid any risk of oil in the 

22 environment. As detailed in Section 4.3.4.3.4, BOEM implemented substantive regulatory 

23 improvements following the DWH event to identify and mitigate risk factors that contribute to 

24 well integrity and operational safety incidents.

25

26 If well barriers and intervention fails, containment and response at the well site becomes 

27 the next critical line of defense to minimize the volume of oil being released into the ocean. 

28 Mitigating the factors that constrain the ability to contain oil at the well site minimizes the degree 

29 and duration of exposure that may otherwise occur prior to a relief well being completed weeks 

30 to months later (or potentially longer in the Arctic depending on location and ice conditions). 

31 New seabed containment systems developed for the GOM have the potential to contain 

32 60,000 bbl of oil per day. This system, if as effective as stated, could contain over 5,000,000 bbl

33 of oil during a 90-day discharge period and significantly reduce the nature of exposure. 

34 Equivalent systems and/or capabilities are being developed to enhance containment in the Arctic. 

35 As detailed in the subsequent discussion in Section 4.3.4.3.4, BOEM has implemented 

36 substantive regulatory improvements following the DWH event to ensure industry has 

37 appropriate containment capability.

38

39 The lower part of Figure 4.3.4-1 shows factors that affect the fate and, in part, drive the 

40 consequences of oil released into and transported through the larger environment. These factors 

41 are not absolute risk factors, per se, because they do not operate in one direction, either 

42 increasing or decreasing risk, across all ecological and human use resources. Usually response 

43 actions taken to manage the fates or consequences of a spill involve considerations of tradeoffs 

44 among potential impacts. For example, dispersants may be applied to protect coastal habitats 

45 and resources from contact with a heavy, surface oil slick, but at the risk of exposing resources 

46 occupying the marine water column to the effects of dispersants and dispersed oil. Physical 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-85

1

2 FIGURE 4.3.4-1 Factors Affecting a Catastrophic Discharge Event

3

4

5 processes such as the Loop Current in the GOM could transport dispersed oil across large areas 

6 within and outside the GOM, but whether or not this effect is considered a risk factor depends on 

7 whether the ecological or human use concerns focus on the effects of a widespread but dilute oil 

8 presence or on the effects of higher oil concentrations on critical resources within a more 

9 localized area. Even distance to shore does not operate unambiguously as a risk factor since 

10 drilling in deeper waters located farther offshore could increase drilling risk and potential 

11 impacts to pelagic marine resources, but at the same time reduce the risk of contact with coastal 

12 habitats and resources.

13

14

15 4.3.4.3.1 Catastrophic Discharge Event Scenarios. BOEM has prepared credible 

16 scenarios of catastrophic discharge for each planning area that are used in later effects analyses 

17 (Table 4.3.4-2). The scenarios do not account for potential discharge mitigating factors such as

18 well barriers, well intervention, or effective containment and response. Instead, oil is 

19 conservatively assumed to flow from the well until the well is killed using a relief well. The 

20 volume presented is a potential volume released. When accounting for containment, subsurface 

21 and surface dispersion, evaporation, mechanical recovery, and in situ burning, the actual amount 

22 released is assumed to be less. The principal factors driving the potential release amount and 

23 duration are geologic, well design, and oil type properties (which determine maximum discharge 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-86

TABLE 4.3.4-2 Program Area Catastrophic Discharge Scenarios 1 a

Program Area

Volume

(Mbbl)

Duration

(days) Factors Affecting Duration

Gulf of Mexico 0.9–7.2 30–90 Water depth and drill depth determines timing of relief well

Arctic

 Chukchi Sea 1.4–2.2 40–75 Timing relative to ice free season and/or

 Beaufort Sea 1.7–3.9 60–300 availability of rig to drill relief well

Cook Inlet 0.075–0.125 50–80 Availability of rig to drill relief well

a The GOM OCS region has estimated the discharge rate, volume of a spill, and the extent and duration for 

a catastrophic spill event for both shallow and deep water (in part) based on information gathered and 

estimates developed for the 1979 Ixtoc (1979) and the DWH (2010) oil spills. The Alaska OCS Region 

has estimated a very large oil spill scenario based on a reasonable, maximum flow rate for each OCS 

planning area, taking into consideration existing geologic conditions and information from well logs. 

The number of days until a hypothetical blowout and discharge from a well could be contained was also 

estimated. These are discharge volumes and do not account for decreases in volume from containment or 

response operations.

2

3

4 rate) and time frame required for drilling a relief well. The time frame required for drilling a 

5 relief well is principally governed by water and reservoir depth, timing of year, and availability 

6 of drilling rigs.

7

8 Such a scenario is a low-probability, accidental event. Bercha (2008) has reported the 

9 historical spill frequency for a spill greater than or equal to 150,000 bbl for GOM and North Sea 

10 well drilling as 3.42 × 10-4 per well. Accounting for Arctic specific variables, Bercha calculated 

11 a slightly smaller frequency of 3.94 × 10-4 per well for a spill greater than or equal to 

12 150,000 bbl.

13

14 The principal risk factors that would affect drilling operations, containment, and response 

15 in Gulf of Mexico and Arctic program areas are summarized below. Cook Inlet is not considered 

16 further because of the relatively small size of the estimated catastrophic discharge event there 

17 compared to other program areas.

18

19

20 4.3.4.3.2 Gulf of Mexico Risk Profile. Drilling operations in deep water came under 

21 close scrutiny following the DWH event in April, 2010. A suspension on approving drilling 

22 plans and permits in deep water was imposed by the Secretary in July 2010. The Secretary lifted 

23 the suspension in October 2010 based on the implementation of new regulatory reforms to 

24 improve OCS drilling safety and a better understanding of the root causes of the DWH event. 

25 The safety of drilling in deepwater areas of the GOM remains an issue of concern, as witnessed 

26 by comments received during scoping. As stated earlier, water depth by itself does not impose 

27 risk; rather, it is the drilling technology and the relative inaccessibility of the well site on the 

28 seafloor that imposes risk from deepwater operations. Figure 4.3.4-2 highlights risk factors that 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-87

1

2 FIGURE 4.3.4-2 Principal Factors Affecting a Catastrophic Discharge Event in the Gulf of Mexico

3

4

5 apply to risks particular to deepwater wells (red text). The figure also highlights risk reduction 

6 factors associated with drilling in deep water compared to drilling in shallow water (green text).

7

8

9 Loss of Well Control.

10

11 Geologic Properties. Deepwater geologic formations tend to have higher temperatures 

12 and pressures than shallow water formations. In addition to varying oil properties, the 

13 differences in pressure regimes may contribute to relatively greater discharge rates. In addition,

14 deepwater formations tend to hold larger volumes of hydrocarbons. The combination of the high 

15 temperature and pressure regime and comparatively large reservoir volumes create conditions 

16 that favor potentially catastrophic releases. When considering all OCS wells, the average 

17 vertical drill depth for boreholes in shallow water (less than 201 m [660 ft]) is approximately 

18 2,864 m (9,400 ft), compared to 4,115 m (13,500 ft) in waters deeper than 201 m (660 ft). The 

19 drill depth required to reach target reservoirs requires more information about shallow and deep 

20 geologic hazards to avoid engineering and well integrity challenges. The time required to 

21 intervene using a relief well is also greater, because of the relative depth of the intervention zone. 

22 Because of the steeper gradient of the continental slope where deepwater wells are often drilled,

23 compared to the gentler slope on the continental shelf, deepwater wells may be more subject to 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-88

1 mass movement and other seafloor instabilities that, if unanticipated, may increase the risk of a 

2 loss of well control incident. To avoid these complications, BOEM requires well shut-in prior to

3 the passage of hurricanes, which are the most frequent cause of large-scale seafloor movements.

4

5 Well Complexity, Technology Failure and Human Performance. More complex wells 

6 and technology are often required in deepwater drilling to address the higher pressures and 

7 temperatures and greater drilling depths that will be encountered. This places greater demands 

8 on human and technology performance, especially where hydrostatic pressures are substantial 

9 greater due to an average 762-m (2,500-ft) greater water depth. Furthermore, the inaccessibility 

10 of the seafloor to humans at deepwater well sites means that the subsea BOP systems used at 

11 deepwater drill sites are inaccessible to human maintenance, inspection, and intervention in the 

12 event they are activated as a result of a loss of well control event. Deepwater drilling sites use 

13 ROVs and other indirect methods of intervening in a loss of well control incident at the seafloor.

14

15 Containment and Response. The drilling of a relief well in deep water will likely take 

16 longer than in shallow water because of the greater water depth, greater drill depth, and more 

17 complex drilling conditions the relief well would encounter. Table 4.3.4-2 estimates that up to 

18 90 days may be needed after the loss of well control event to drill the relief well and kill the wild 

19 well. During that time, the success of containment and response at the well site would be a 

20 critical factor governing whether sufficient oil is released into the environment to have 

21 catastrophic consequences. Containment and response is expected to be more challenging in 

22 areas with deeper water because of the greater distances from land support bases and staging 

23 areas. Progress has been made in the GOM to develop effective containment and response 

24 technology for deepwater conditions, including deep dispersant application.

25

26 Fate and Consequence. Should containment and response at the well site fail to prevent 

27 discharge of oil into the ocean environment, response and oil recovery would continue as the oil 

28 discharge spreads. Response operations could be more challenging to support in deeper water 

29 because of the greater distances from shore bases, as well as the fact that the area of surfaced oil 

30 would continue to increase as deepwater currents exported oil to the shelf.

31

32 Because deepwater wells are located at greater distances offshore than shallow wells, 

33 high concentrations of oil are less likely to contact important ecological and human use coastal 

34 resources. In addition, the risk of persistence of the oil in the environment would likely be less 

35 in deepwater events because oil released there would be less likely to contact coastal wetland and 

36 estuarine areas where it could become incorporated into wetland soils and persist for long 

37 periods of time.

38

39 Summary. The principal risk that applies to deepwater drilling in the GOM occurs as a 

40 result of drilling and containment/response risks associated with the use of drilling technologies 

41 at these depths. As described below, BOEM has been aggressively pursuing regulatory changes 

42 to address and mitigate risks associated with these deepwater drilling and containment issues. It 

43 is not necessarily true that a deepwater, large volume spill would have more environmental 

44 consequences than a smaller spill occurring in shallow water. Deepwater spills may, in part,

45 impose less risk on highly valued coastal areas because of their distance offshore, which allows 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-89

1 for more natural weathering and dispersion. In comparison, shallow shelf spills may more 

2 rapidly contact low-energy estuarine and wetland areas.

3

4

5 4.3.4.3.3 Arctic Risk Profile. An ongoing concern in the Arctic is the environmental 

6 effects of a large oil spill on sensitive marine and coastal habitats that occur there within a land7 sea-ice biome that supports a traditional subsistence life style for Alaska native populations and 

8 provides important habitats for migratory and local faunal populations. The ability to respond to 

9 and contain a very large discharge event under the extreme climatic conditions and seasonal 

10 presence of ice is of particular concern. Figure 4.3.4-3 highlights factors that apply to risks 

11 particular to operations in the Arctic related to extreme cold and the presence of ice.

12

13 Loss of Well Control. While some formation properties of the Arctic OCS are expected 

14 to have pressures, temperatures, and volumes sufficient to produce a discharge that could result 

15 in catastrophic consequences (Table 4.3.4-2), drilling risks associated with these formation 

16 characteristics are not directly related to issues of extreme cold and presence of ice. Instead, the 

17 fact that the Arctic OCS is largely a frontier geologic province contributes risk to Arctic drilling 

18 operations (USGS 2011).

19

20 Human error while working under extreme weather conditions on the Arctic OCS could 

21 increase the risk of loss of well control in certain circumstances where established procedures are 

22 not followed. However, when accounting for other Arctic specific variables, the incident rate of 

23 loss of well control is expected to be lower than for exploration and development operations in 

24 the GOM (Bercha et al. 2008).

25

26 To address some of the risk inherent in Arctic operations, the BOEM regulations include 

27 specific requirements for conducting operations in the Arctic, such as locating the BOP in a well 

28 cellar (a hole constructed in the sea bed) to position the top of the BOP below the maximum 

29 potential ice gouge depth, using special cements in areas where permafrost is present, enclosing 

30 or protecting equipment to assure it will function under subfreezing conditions, and developing 

31 critical operations and curtailment procedures which detail the criteria and process through 

32 which the drilling program would be stopped, the well shut in and secured and the drilling unit 

33 moved off location before environmental conditions (such as ice) exceed the operating limits of 

34 the drilling vessel.

35

36 Containment and Response. Much of risk from a catastrophic event that is particular to 

37 the extreme climate of the Arctic is associated with containment and response issues at the well 

38 site. The time needed to drill a relief well varies from 40 to 300 days depending on the timing of 

39 the event relative to the ice free season, since the well site may become inaccessible when solid 

40 or broken ice is present. During that time, the ability to mount effective containment and 

41 response efforts under broken or solid ice conditions is a critical factor.

42

43 Fate and Consequence. Response away from the well site could also be hindered and/or 

44 aided by broken and solid ice. In addition, some options available to manage fates of spills have 

45 not been previously used in larger-scale operations the Arctic to fully evaluate their 

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-90

1

2 FIGURE 4.3.4-3 Principal Factors Affecting a Catastrophic Discharge Event in the Arctic

3

4

5 effectiveness, such as burning and dispersant use, although state-of-the art research on these 

6 response techniques suggest they could decrease the volume of oil in the water (SINTEF 2010).

7

8

9 4.3.4.3.4 Recent Regulatory Reforms Implemented to Reduce Risk. In the event of a 

10 spill, there is no single method of containment and response that would be 100% effective. 

11 While recent enhancements in intervention, containment, and response should reduce spill 

12 volume and mitigate certain environmental effects, the principal corrective action is still a relief 

13 well, and drilling a relief well to kill a wild well takes time. This highlights the fundamental 

14 importance of prevention. In response to the DWH event and in recognition that advances in 

15 prevention were critical, BOEM overhauled the offshore regulatory process reforming, through 

16 both prescriptive and performance-based regulation and guidance, as well as OCS safety and 

17 environmental protection requirements. The reforms strengthen the requirements for all aspects 

18 of OCS operations from well design to workplace safety to corporate accountability. The other 

19 logical capability needing improvement is spill response. New measures and reforms adopted by 

20 BOEM to strengthen safety, spill prevention, and spill response include the following:

21

22 • Drilling Safety Rule, Interim Final Rule to Enhance Safety Measures for 

23 Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (Drilling Safety Rule);
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-91

1 • Workplace Safety Rule, Safety and Environmental Management Systems 

2 (SEMS Rule):

3

4 • NTL 2010-N06, Information Requirements for Exploration Plans, 

5 Development and Operations Coordination Documents on the OCS 

6 (Plans NTL);

7

8 • NTL 2010-N10, Statement of Compliance with Applicable Regulations and 

9 Evaluation of Information Demonstrating Adequate Spill Response and Well 

10 Containment Resources (Certification NTL); and

11

12 • Enhanced inspection and enforcement procedures, including strengthened 

13 training program.

14

15 Drilling Safety Rule. The prescriptive Drilling Safety Rule addresses well bore integrity 

16 and well control equipment and procedures. The rule effectively implements many of the 

17 recommendations made in the May 27, 2010, USDOI report Increased Safety Measures for 

18 Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (USDOI 2010). BOEMRE amended 

19 drilling regulations related to subsea and surface blowout preventers, well casing and cementing, 

20 secondary intervention, unplanned disconnects, recordkeeping, well completion, and well 

21 plugging.

22

23 Well integrity provides the first line of defense against a blowout by preventing a loss of 

24 well control. It includes the appropriate use of drilling fluids and the well bore casing and 

25 cementing program. These are used to balance pressure in the borehole against the fluid pressure 

26 of the formation, preventing an uncontrolled influx of fluid into the wellbore. Provisions in the 

27 rule addressing well bore integrity include the following:

28

29 • Making mandatory American Petroleum Institute‘s (API) standard, RP 65 –

30 Part 2, Isolating Potential Flow Zones During Well Construction (an industry 

31 standard program);

32

33 • Requiring submittal of certification by a professional engineer that the casing 

34 and cementing program is appropriate for the purposes for which it is intended 

35 under expected wellbore pressure;

36

37 • Requiring two independent test barriers across each flow path during well 

38 completion activities (certified by a professional engineer);

39

40 • Ensuring proper installation, sealing, and locking of the casing or liner;

41

42 • Requiring BOEM approval before replacing a heavier drilling fluid with a

43 lighter fluid; and

44

45 • Requiring enhanced deepwater well control training for rig personnel.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-92

1 Well control equipment is used to bring a well back under control in the event of a loss of 

2 well control. Well control equipment includes the BOP and control systems that activate the 

3 BOP, either through a control panel on the drilling rig or through ROVs that directly

4 interface with the BOP to activate appropriate rams. Provisions in the rule that focus on the 

5 enhancement of well control equipment include the following: 

6

7 • Submittal of documentation and schematics for all control systems;

8

9 • Requirements for independent third party verification that the blind-shear 

10 rams are capable of cutting any drill pipe in the hole under maximum 

11 anticipated surface pressure;

12

13 • Requirement for a subsea BOP stack equipped with ROV intervention 

14 capability (at a minimum the ROV must be capable of closing one set of pipe 

15 rams, closing one set of blind-shear rams, and unlatching the lower marine 

16 riser package);

17

18 • Requirement for maintaining a ROV and having a trained ROV crew on each 

19 floating drilling rig on a continuous basis;

20

21 • Requirement for auto shear and deadman systems for dynamically positioned 

22 rigs;

23

24 • Establishment of minimum requirements for personnel authorized to operate 

25 critical BOP equipment;

26

27 • Requirement for documentation of subsea BOP inspections and maintenance 

28 according to API RP 53, Recommended Practices for Blowout Prevention 

29 Equipment Systems for Drilling Wells;

30

31 • Require testing of all ROV intervention functions on subsea BOP stack during 

32 stump test and testing at least one set of rams in initial seafloor test;

33

34 • Require function testing auto shear and deadman systems on the subsea BOP 

35 stack during the stump test and testing the deadman system during the initial 

36 test on the seafloor; and

37

38 • Require pressure testing if any shear rams are used in an emergency.

39

40 A section-by-section summary of major regulatory changes is provided below.

41

42 Subsea ROV and Deadman Function Testing — Drilling. Previous regulations at 

43 30 CFR 250.449(b) required a stump test of the subsea BOP system. In a stump test, the subsea 

44 BOP system is placed on a simulated wellhead (the stump) on the rig floor. The BOP system is 

45 tested on the stump to ensure that the BOP is functioning properly. The new regulatory section 

46 at 30 CFR 250.449(j) requires that all ROV intervention functions on the subsea BOP stack must 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-93

1 be tested during the stump test and one set of rams must be tested by an ROV on the seafloor.

2 Autoshear and deadman control systems activate during an accidental disconnect or loss of 

3 power, respectively. The new regulatory section at 30 CFR 250.449(k) requires that the 

4 autoshear and deadman systems be function-tested during the stump test, and the deadman 

5 system tested during the initial test on the seafloor. The initial test on the seafloor is performed 

6 as soon as the BOP is attached to the subsea wellhead. These new requirements will confirm that 

7 a well will be secured in an emergency situation and prevent a possible loss of well control. The 

8 ROV test requirement will ensure that the dedicated ROV has the capacity to close the BOP 

9 functions on the seafloor. The deadman-switch test on the seafloor verifies that the wellbore 

10 closes automatically if both hydraulic pressure and electrical communication are lost with the 

11 drilling rig. These regulatory changes will not affect shallow wells or facilities since they do not 

12 use subsea BOPs or ROVs.

13

14 Subsea ROV and Deadman Function Testing—Workover/Completions. Previous 

15 regulations did not require subsea ROV function testing of the BOP during workover or well 

16 completion operations. The new regulatory sections 30 CFR 250.516(d)(8) and 250.616(h)(1) 

17 extend the requirements added to deepwater drilling operations (discussed in the previous 

18 section) to well completion operations and workover operations using a subsea BOP stack.

19

20 Negative Pressure Tests. Previous regulation at 30 CFR 250.423 required a positive 

21 pressure test for each string of casing, except for the drive or structural casing string. This test 

22 confirms that fluid from the casing string is not flowing into the formation. The new regulatory 

23 section at 30 CFR 250.423(c) requires that a negative pressure test be conducted for all 

24 intermediate and production casing strings. This test will reveal whether gas or fluid from 

25 outside the casing is flowing into the well and ensures that the casing and cement provide an 

26 effective seal. Maintenance of pressure under both tests ensures proper casing installation and 

27 the integrity of the casing and cement.

28

29 Installation of Dual Mechanical Barriers. Previous regulations did not require the 

30 installation of dual mechanical barriers. The new regulatory section at 30 CFR 250.420(b)(3) 

31 requires the operator install dual mechanical barriers in addition to cement barriers for the final 

32 casing string. These barriers prevent hydrocarbon flow in the event of cement failure at the 

33 bottom of the well. The operator must document the installation of the dual mechanical barriers 

34 and submit this documentation to BOEM within 30 days after installation. These new 

35 requirements will ensure that the best casing and cementing design will be used for a specific 

36 well.

37

38 Professional Engineer Certification for Well Design. Previous regulations at 30 CFR 

39 250.420(a) specified well casing and cementing requirements, but did not require verification by 

40 a registered professional engineer. The new regulatory section at 30 CFR 250.420(a)(6) requires 

41 that well casing and cementing specifications must be certified by a registered professional 

42 engineer. The registered professional engineer will verify that the well casing and cementing 

43 design is appropriate for the purpose for which it is intended under expected wellbore conditions.

44

45 Emergency Cost of Activated Shear Rams. Previous regulations did not address BOP 

46 inspection following use of the blind-shear ram or casing shear ram. The new regulatory section 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-94

1 at 30 CFR 250.451(i) requires that, if a blind-shear ram or casing shear ram is activated in a well 

2 control situation where the pipe is sheared, the BOP stack must be retrieved, fully inspected, and 

3 tested. This provision will ensure the integrity of the BOP and that the BOP will still function 

4 and hold pressure after the event.

5

6 Third Party Shearing Verification. Regulation 30 CFR 250.416(e) requires information 

7 verifying that BOP blind-shear rams are capable of cutting through any drill pipe in the hole 

8 under maximum anticipated conditions. This regulation has been modified to require the BOP 

9 verification be conducted by an independent third party. The independent third party provides an 

10 objective assessment that the blind-shear rams can shear any drill pipe in the hole if the shear 

11 rams are functioning properly.

12

13 Workplace Safety Rule. The BOEMRE promulgated the performance-based SEMS rule 

14 on October 15, 2010, requiring full implementation for all OCS facilities and operators no later 

15 than November 15, 2011. The SEMS Rule establishes a holistic, performance-based 

16 management tool in which offshore operators are required to establish and implement programs 

17 and systems to identify potential safety and environmental hazards when they drill, clear 

18 protocols for addressing those hazards, and strong procedures and risk-reduction strategies for all 

19 phases of activity, from well design and construction to operation, maintenance, and 

20 decommissioning. It also requires operators to have a comprehensive safety and environmental 

21 impact program designed to reduce human and organizational errors. SEMS applies to all OCS 

22 oil and gas operations and facilities under BOEM and BSEE jurisdiction including drilling, 

23 production, construction, well workover, well completion, well servicing, and DOI pipeline 

24 activities. SEMS also applies to all OCS oil and gas operations on new and existing facilities 

25 under BOEM and BSEE jurisdiction including design, construction, start-up, operation, 

26 inspection, and maintenance. The performance-based SEMS rule helps to define clear roles and 

27 responsibilities, in which BOEM define the performance goals while the operator is responsible 

28 to ensure that these goals are met. Operators do not rely on the authorities to ensure safety. 

29 Empowering industry to develop the framework specific to improve safety and environmental 

30 performance of facilities and operations and holding them responsible to that greater standard 

31 should eliminate the most frequent causes of historic incidents that have occurred during OCS 

32 activities. Training and auditing are an integral part of the SEMS rule to ensure contractors and 

33 subcontractors have robust policies and procedures in place.

34

35 The SEMS Rule is based on API RP 75, which was previously a voluntary program to 

36 identify, address, and manage safety hazards and environmental impacts in oil and gas 

37 operations. The 13 elements of API RP 75 that 30 CFR 250 Subpart S now make mandatory 

38 include:

39

40 • Defining the general provisions for implementation, planning and 

41 management review, and approval of the SEMS program;

42

43 • Identifying safety and environmental information needed for any facility such 

44 as design data, facility process such as flow diagrams, and mechanical 

45 components such as piping and instrument diagrams;

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-95

1 • Requiring a facility-level hazard risk assessment;

2

3 • Addressing any facility or operational changes including management 

4 changes, shift changes, contractor changes;

5

6 • Evaluating operations and written procedures;

7

8 • Specifying safe work practices, manuals, standards, and rules of conduct;

9

10 • Training, safe work practices, and technical training, including contractors;

11

12 • Defining preventive maintenance programs and quality control requirements

13

14 • Requiring a pre-startup review of all systems;

15

16 • Responding to and controlling emergencies, evacuation planning, and oil-spill 

17

18 • Contingency plans in place and validated by drills;

19

20 • Investigating incidents, procedures, corrective action, and follow-up;

21

22 • Requiring audits every 4 yr, to an initial 2-yr reevaluation and then subsequent

23 3-yr audit intervals; and

24

25 • Specifying records and documentation that describes all elements of the 

26 SEMS program.

27

28 Implementation of SEMS requires periodic lessee or independent third party 

29 comprehensive audits of the 13 elements defined in API RP 75 and included above. BSEE may 

30 participate in lessee or independent third party audits and may also conduct independent audits. 

31 BSEE-conducted audits may be announced or unannounced. Any deficiencies found in SEMS 

32 audits must be addressed in a corrective action plan (CAP) and must be submitted to BSEE 

33 within 30 days of submittal of the audit report. If BSEE determines that an operator‘s SEMS 

34 program is not in compliance, BSEE may issue an incidence of non-compliance (INC), assess 

35 civil penalties, or initiate probationary or disqualification procedures from serving as an OCS 

36 operator. The required SEMS plan and audits are designed to improve, enhance, communicate 

37 and document the identification and mitigation of safety and environmental hazards for offshore 

38 facilities and activities resulting in safer and environmentally sound working conditions through 

39 teamwork, training and communication among all parties for all activities on the OCS.

40

41 One of the most important elements that fosters improved industry-wide risk 

42 management is the facility-level hazard analysis. The purpose of the analysis is to identify, 

43 evaluate, and reduce the likelihood and/or minimize the consequences of uncontrolled releases of 

44 oil and gas and other safety or environmental incidents. API RP 14 C, Recommended Practice 

45 for Analysis, Design, Installation, and Testing of Basic Surface Safety Systems for Offshore 

46 Production Platforms and API RP 14J, Recommended Practice for Design and Hazards Analysis 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-96

1 for Offshore Production Facilities, identify accepted practices. In addition, this element requires 

2 a job hazard analysis (operations/task level) be performed to identify and evaluate hazards of a 

3 job/task for the purpose of hazards control or elimination.

4

5 Information Requirements for Exploration Plans, Development and Production Plans, 

6 and Development Operations Coordination Documents on the OCS (Plans NTL). The Plans 

7 NTL, effective June 18, 2010, set new standards regarding the content of information needed in 

8 exploration and development plan submittals to describe a blowout and worse-case discharge 

9 scenario. This NTL explains the procedures for the lessee or operator to submit supplemental 

10 information for new or previously submitted Exploration Plans (EP) or Development and 

11 Production Plans (DPP). The required supplemental information includes the following: (1) a 

12 description of the blowout scenario as required by 30 CFR 250.213(g) and 250.243(h); (2) a 

13 description of their assumptions and calculations used in determining the volume of the worst14 case discharge required by 30 CFR 250.219(a)(2)(iv) or 30 CFR 250.250(a)(2)(iv) and (3) a 

15 description of the measures proposed that would enhance the ability to prevent a blowout, to 

16 reduce the likelihood of a blowout, and to conduct effective and early intervention in the event of 

17 a blowout, including the arrangements for drilling relief wells and any other measures proposed.

18 The early intervention methods of the third requirement could include the surface and subsea 

19 containment resources that BOEMRE announced in NTL2010-N10 (Certification NTL).

20

21 Statement of Compliance with Applicable Regulations and Evaluation of Information 

22 Demonstrating Adequate Spill Response and Well Containment Resources (Certification 

23 NTL). The Certification NTL, effective on November 8, 2010, requires lessees and operators 

24 using subsea or surface BOPs on floating facilities (i.e., deepwater) to provide a statement 

25 verifying compliance with new well containment and oil spill response requirements prior to 

26 being granted a Permit to Drill/Modify (APD/APM). Specifically, the statement, signed by an 

27 authorized company official, indicates that authorized activities will be in compliance with all 

28 applicable regulations, including the requirements of the Drilling Safety Rule.

29

30 The NTL also informs lessees that BOEM will be evaluating whether or not each 

31 operator has submitted adequate information demonstrating that it has access to and can deploy 

32 surface and subsea containment resources to promptly respond to a blowout or other loss of well 

33 control. Although the NTL does not provide that operators submit revised OSRPs that include 

34 this containment information at this time, operators were notified of BOEM‘s intention to 

35 evaluate the adequacy of each operator to comply in the operator‘s current OSRP; therefore, 

36 there is an incentive for voluntary compliance.

37

38 The benefits of the new requirements include the following:

39

40 • Improving the response time for offshore vessels to remove damaged 

41 equipment and install a capping stack;

42

43 • Reducing the amount of time a well flows into the sea compared with 

44 previous well blowouts;

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-97

1 • Providing more robust well designs relative to expected pressures and fluids 

2 in the well to fully contain the well after installation of the capping stack;

3

4 • Determining the well‘s potential to broach to the seafloor if the well design 

5 fails under the shut-in pressure with installed capping stack, and

6

7 • Determining the surface vessels configuration and containment capacities if 

8 the well has to flow to the surface for processing and capture.

9

10 In the event of a well blowout, OCS operators must demonstrate the capability to remove 

11 damaged well equipment and install a capping stack (with a pressure rating higher than the 

12 calculated mud line shut-in pressure) to stop the uncontrolled flow of oil from the well. If the 

13 well design fails under the shut-in pressure, the operator must demonstrate the capability to flow 

14 and process the oil and gas from the well into surface containment vessels. Although not 

15 explicitly stated in the Certification NTL notice, BOEM requires operators to demonstrate that 

16 the well design is adequate to contain an uncontrolled flow. BOEM uses a Level 1 Well 

17 Containment Screening Tool (WCST) for all initial reviews prior to APD approval. The Level 1 

18 WCST is useful for wells that can be fully shut-in without causing underground flow, using very 

19 conservative assumptions and simple calculations (no requirement for computer simulations). 

20 However, not all wells can pass a Level 1 screening successfully due to high pressure and/or 

21 light formation fluids expected in the well. The Level 2 WCST Analysis uses field/offset data 

22 and more advanced calculations to demonstrate equipment and well integrity. The Level 2 

23 WCST Analysis also identifies failure points and possible loss zones which must be addressed in 

24 a consequence analysis. The WCST developed by BOEM and offshore operators working 

25 together on the design of the containment approval process under oil spill response has resulted 

26 in more robust well designs that reduce the risk of prolonged well flow into the sea and increase 

27 the chance of successfully capping and stopping the flow of oil in less than 15 to 30 days. 

28

29 On December 13, 2010, BOEMRE issued additional guidance to encourage operators to 

30 voluntarily include additional subsea containment information in their OSRPs. The guidance 

31 indicates that BOEM will review OSRPs, in support of plan submittals, for the following specific 

32 information relating to subsea containment (in addition to that listed in the Certification NTL):

33

34 • Source abatement through direct intervention;

35

36 • Relief wells;

37

38 • Debris removal; and

39

40 • If a capping stack is the single containment option offered, the operator must 

41 provide

42

43 • the reasons that the well design is sufficient to allow shut-in without broach to 

44 the

45

46 • seafloor.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-98

1 Enhanced Inspection and Enforcement Procedures, Including Strengthened Training 

2 Program. As of October 1, 2011 the new BSEE is responsible for enforcement of safety and 

3 environmental regulations. BSEE undertakes both annual scheduled inspections and periodic 

4 unscheduled (unannounced) inspections of oil and gas operations on the OCS. The inspections 

5 are to assure compliance with all regulatory constraints that allowed commencement of the 

6 operation. The annual inspection examines all safety equipment designed to prevent blowouts, 

7 fires, spills, or other major accidents. These annual inspections involve the inspection for 

8 installation and performance of all facilities‘ safety-system components. The primary objective 

9 of an initial inspection is to assure proper installation and functionality of their safety and 

10 pollution prevention equipment. After operations begin, additional announced and unannounced 

11 inspections are conducted. Unannounced inspections are conducted to foster a climate of safe 

12 operations, to maintain a BSEE presence, and to focus on operators with a poor performance 

13 record. These inspections are also conducted after a critical safety feature has previously been 

14 found defective. Poor performance generally means that more frequent, unannounced 

15 inspections may be conducted on a violator‘s operation. The inspectors follow the guidelines as 

16 established by the regulations, API RP 14C, and the specific BOEM-approved plan. The BSEE 

17 inspectors perform these inspections using a national checklist called the PINC list. This list is a 

18 compilation of yes/no questions derived from all regulated safety and environmental 

19 requirements.

20

21 BSEE administers an active civil penalties program (30 CFR 250 Subpart N). A civil 

22 penalty in the form of substantial monetary fines may be issued against any operator that 

23 commits a violation that may constitute a threat of serious, irreparable, or immediate harm or 

24 damage to life, property, or the environment. BSEE may make recommendations for criminal 

25 penalties if a willful violation occurs. In addition, the regulation at 30 CFR 250.173(a) 

26 authorizes suspension of any operation if the lessee has failed to comply with a provision of any 

27 applicable law, regulation, or order or provision of a lease or permit. Furthermore, the Secretary 

28 may invoke his authority under 30 CFR 250.185(c) to cancel a nonproductive lease with no 

29 compensation. Exploration and development activities may be canceled under 30 CFR 250.182 

30 and 250.183.

31

32 Predecessor bureaus to BSEE established a robust training program for inspectors to 

33 ensure that personnel involved in installing, inspecting, testing, and maintaining safety devices 

34 are qualified. As a preventive measure, all offshore personnel must be trained to operate oil-spill 

35 cleanup equipment, or the lessee must retain a trained contractor(s) to operate the equipment for 

36 them. BSEE offers numerous technical seminars to ensure that personnel are capable of 

37 performing their duties and are incorporating the most up-to-date safety procedures and 

38 technology in the petroleum industry. In 1994, the Office of Safety Management created this 

39 Agency‘s Offshore Training Institute to develop and implement an inspector training program. 

40 The Institute introduced state-of-the-art multimedia training to the inspector work force and has 

41 produced a series of interactive computer training modules. As of June 2011, BOEMRE 

42 established the National Offshore Training Center, thereby developing the agency‘s first formal 

43 training curriculum, which has been piloted with new inspectors. Twenty-four additional courses 

44 will be developed covering specific areas of offshore inspections.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-99

1 Following the DWH oil spill, BSEE now requires multiple-person inspection teams for 

2 offshore oil and gas inspections. This internal process will improve oversight and help ensure 

3 that offshore operations proceed safely and responsibly. The new process will allow teams to 

4 inspect multiple operations simultaneously and thoroughly, and enhance the quality of 

5 inspections on larger facilities. In addition, BSEE engineers and inspectors now fly offshore to 

6 witness required testing of all ROV intervention functions on the subsea BOP stack during the 

7 stump test (on the rig floor at surface) and testing at least one set of rams during the initial test on 

8 the seafloor, and required function testing of autoshear and deadman systems on the subsea BOP 

9 stack during the stump test and testing the deadman system during the initial test on the seafloor. 

10 These reviews and inspections of the BOP systems and maintenance provide additional oversight 

11 by BSEE to reduce the risk of an uncontrolled blowout by ensuring that BOP systems are 

12 maintained and functional in the event of a well control event.

13

14 Relevance to Risk Reduction in Drilling Operations (including deep water). In the 

15 aftermath of the DWH Event, President Obama directed the Secretary of the Interior to identify 

16 new precautions, technologies, and procedures needed to improve the safety of oil and gas 

17 development on the OCS. At the same time, the Secretary directed BOEMRE to exercise its 

18 authority under the OCSLA to suspend certain drilling activities so that the bureau could 

19 (1) ensure that drilling operations similar to those that lead to the DWH oil spill could operate in 

20 a safe manner when drilling resumed, (2) ensure extensive spill response resources directed 

21 toward the spill would be available for other spill events, and (3) provide adequate time to obtain 

22 input enhance intervention and containment capability and promulgate regulations that address 

23 issues described in the Safety Measures Report (USDOI 2010).

24

25 BOEMRE collected a large amount of information through public hearings and other 

26 meetings held specifically on the DWH oil spill and through public comments on rulemaking 

27 efforts. The information collection, review, and analysis efforts resulted in new regulations, 

28 planned Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs), and BOEM/BSEE procedures that address 

29 drilling safety, oil-spill response, and enhanced inspection procedures. New exploration plans, 

30 applications for permits to drill, and OSRP plans are be subject to higher engineering and 

31 environmental review standards. In addition, the oil and gas industry has cooperatively formed 

32 Joint Industry Task Forces in subsea well control and containment and oil spill preparedness and 

33 response. While Joint Industry Task Force recommendations will not have the force of 

34 regulation, the recommendations may provide the basis for enhanced industry standards or future 

35 rulemaking processes. Similarly, the Secretary of the Interior established the Ocean Energy 

36 Safety Advisory Committee to facilitate the development of new regulations, collaborative 

37 research and development, advanced training, and implementation of best practices in drilling 

38 safety, well intervention and containment, and oil spill response.

39

40 The DWH event demonstrated that advances in drilling, safety, and spill response did not 

41 keep pace with increasingly complex operations, and evidenced the need to strengthen oversight 

42 of offshore drilling operations by raising the standards for drilling and workplace safety, spill 

43 containment, and spill response. The measures described above create a more robust regulatory 

44 system that strikes the right balance to ensure that energy development is conducted safely and in 

45 an environmentally responsible manner, while also being more efficient, transparent and 

46 responsive.

47
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-100

1 4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 – PROPOSED ACTION

2

3

4 4.4.1 Exploration and Development Scenario

5

6

7 4.4.1.1 Gulf of Mexico

8

9 Oil and gas leasing and development have been occurring in the GOM for over 50 years. 

There are a total of 29,097 lease blocks (each approximately 23 km2 10 [3 mi × 3 mi]) and a total of 

11 3,280 active platforms in the Western, Central, and Eastern GOM OCS Planning Areas. 

12 Predictable patterns of activity have become established for the planning areas, and these were 

13 used to estimate future activity within the GOM OCS Region Planning Areas that could occur 

14 under this scenario (Table 4.4.1-1). This scenario of future development and activity was 

15 generated using best professional judgment for the purpose of analysis only and does not 

16 constitute official forecasts or policy recommendations. 

17

18 The scenario information in Table 4.4.1-1 is initially assumed to have the potential to 

19 occur anywhere within the areas of the GOM Planning Areas included in the proposed action 

20 (Figure 4.4.1-1). 

21

22 In the analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the leasing program, 

23 additional assumptions are used to identify potential oil and gas development activity levels to 

24 more specific marine and coastal areas under consideration in a particular analysis. The GOM 

25 OCS may be divided into continental shelf and slope regions, and this distinction is important to 

26 both the occurrence of oil and gas within the GOM hydrocarbon basin and to ecosystem 

27 characteristics and processes within the GOM Large Marine Ecosystem. Assumed levels of oil 

28 and gas infrastructure and production that would occur on the continental slope and shelf are 

29 shown in Table 4.4.1-2. This information suggests that while the amounts of well drilling and 

30 gas production will be approximately the same on the shelf as on slope (51% versus 49%, 

31 respectively), most new platforms will be installed in shallow water (in depths <200 m [<660 ft]) 

32 on the continental shelf. In contrast, most oil production (93%) will occur in deeper water (at 

33 depths >200 m [>660 ft]) on the continental slope.

34

35 This assumed difference by depth of infrastructure development and oil and gas 

36 production suggests similar differences in the resources that could be affected by normal 

37 exploration and development (E&D) activities on the OCS. For example, 87% of all new 

38 platform development is assumed to occur in waters of the inner continental shelf at depths of 

39 60 m (about 200 ft) or less (Table 4.4.1-2). Thus, resources occurring in these shallower areas 

40 may be expected to be more likely to encounter, and be affected by, normal well development 

41 and operation than would resources restricted to deeper areas of the OCS.

42
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-101

1 TABLE 4.4.1-1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) –

2 Exploration and Development Scenario for the GOM

Scenario Element Gulf of Mexico

Number of sales 12

Years of activity 40–50

Potentially available oil (Bbbl)a 2.7–5.4

Potentially available natural gas (tcf) 12–24

Platforms 200–450

FPSOsb 0–2

No. of exploration and delineation wells 1,000–2,100

No. of development and production wells 1,300–2,600

Miles of new pipeline 2,400–7,500

Vessel trips/week 300–600

Helicopter trips/week 2,000–5,500

New pipeline landfalls 0–<12

New pipe yards 4–6

New natural gas processing facilities 0–12

Platforms removed with explosives 150–275

Drill Muds/Well (tons)

 Exploration and delineation wells 1,000

 Development and production wells 1,000

Drill Cuttings/Well (tons)

 Exploration and delineation wells 1,200

 Development and production wells 1,200

Produced Water/Well/yr (tbbl)c

 Oil well 130

(highly variable)

 Natural gas well 35

(highly variable)

Bottom Area Disturbed (ha)d

 Platforms 150–2,500

 Pipeline 2,000–11,500

a Bbbl = billion barrels.

b Floating production, storage, and offloading systems.

c Based on 1.04 bbl produced water/bbl of oil, and 86 bbl 

produced water/1 million cf gas (Clark and Veil 2009); 

tbbl = thousand barrels.

d Assumes 0.67 ha (1.6 ac) per platform and 0.8–1.6 ha 

(2.0–4.0 ac) per mile of pipeline.

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-102

1

2 FIGURE 4.4.1-1 OCS Planning Areas Where Leasing for Oil and Gas Development May Occur under the 2012-2017 OCS 

3 Leasing Program
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-103

1 TABLE 4.4.1-2 Depth Distribution of New Infrastructure and Expected Natural Gas and Oil 

2 Production on the GOM OCS

% of New 

Wells

% of New 

Platforms

% of New 

Gas 

Production

% of New Oil 

Production

OCS Depth 

Zone (m)

OCS 

Area

OCS 

SubareaOCS 

Area

OCS 

SubareaOCS 

Area

OCS 

SubareaOCS 

Area

OCS 

SubareaOCS 

Area

OCS 

Subarea

0–60 Shelf Inner 52 37 95 87 51 37 7 5

60–200 Outer 15 8 14 2

200–800 Slope Upper 48 12 5 2 49 7 93 12

800–1,600 Mid 20

-

a

2

-

22

-

44

1,600–2,400 -

>2,400 Lower 16 1 20 37

a No wells, platforms, or production are expected for this depth range.

3

4

5 4.4.1.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

6

7 The Cook Inlet has had oil and gas operations in State waters since the late 1950s and 

8 currently possesses a well-established oil and gas infrastructure. There has been no oil and gas 

9 activity in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. A single sale in Cook Inlet is included in the proposed 

10 action as a special interest sale, meaning that the planning process for the sale will not start until 

11 industry expresses an interest in holding the sale. The most recent OCS lease sale in Cook Inlet 

12 was in 2004 when no leases were purchased. The most recent sale in which OCS leases were 

13 purchased occurred in 1997 when two leases were purchased.

14

15 Table 4.4.1-3 summarizes the assumed levels of exploration and development that could 

16 occur under the proposed action (Alternative 1). Oil and gas development that could occur in the 

17 Cook Inlet OCS Planning Area under the proposed action is expected to use both new and 

18 existing infrastructure. Exploration drilling would employ fixed rigs (such as jack-up and mobile 

19 gravity-base rigs) in water depths up to 150 ft (46 m) and floating rigs (semisubmersible rigs, 

20 drill ships, or barges) in deeper water areas. Production wells will most likely use fixed 

21 platforms with subsea well tie-backs to supplement on-platform wells. New subsea pipelines 

22 would connect offshore installations to existing onshore facilities. Oil and gas would be carried 

23 by new onshore pipelines over relatively short distances to existing oil refineries in Nikishi and 

24 natural gas transmission facilities in the Kenai area, respectively.

25

26
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-104

1 TABLE 4.4.1-3 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) – Exploration and 

2 Development Scenario for Cook Inlet

Scenario Element Cook Inlet

Number of sales 1

Years of activity 40

Oil production (Bbbl)a 0.1–0.2

Natural gas production (tcf)a 0–0.7

Platforms 1–3

No. of exploration and delineation wells 4–12

No. of development and production wells 42–114

Miles of new offshore pipeline 25–150

Miles of new onshore pipelineb 50–105

Vessel trips/week 1–3

Helicopter trips/week 1–3

New pipeline landfalls 0–1

New shore bases 0

New processing facilities 0

New waste disposal facilities 0

Platforms removed with explosives 0

Drill Fluids/Well (bbl)

 Exploration and delineation wells 500 – discharged at well site.

 Development and production wells All treated and disposed of in the well.

Drill Cuttings (dry rock)/Well (tons)

 Exploration and delineation wells 600 – discharged at well site.

 Development and production wells All treated and disposed in the well.

Bottom Area Disturbed (ha)

 Platforms (1.5 ha/platform) 1.5–4.5

 Pipeline (1.4 ha/mile) 35–210

a Bbbl = billion barrels; tcf = trillion cubic feet.

b New onshore pipelines would deliver oil to existing refineries in Nikiski and

natural gas to transmission facilities in the Kenai area.

3

4

5 4.4.1.3 Alaska – Arctic

6

7 In contrast to oil and gas development in the GOM OCS, and with the exception of a 

8 single production site (Northstar) that has an actual surface location in Alaskan State waters, 

9 there has been no development activity from a structure in Arctic OCS areas. Since 1979, ten 

10 lease sales have been held in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area and three in the Chukchi Sea 

11 Planning Area (http://www.alaska.boemre.gov/lease/hlease/LeasingTables/lease_sales.pdf). The 

12 2008 Lease Sale 193 for the Chukchi Sea Planning Area (MMS 2007a) is of note because of the

13 high industry interest expressed through the acquisition of 487 leases and the more than 

14 $2.7 billion received by the government in high bids. No activity has resulted from this lease 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-105

1 sale because of litigation that remains unresolved at the time this draft PEIS is being written. 

2 The scenario put forth for the Arctic in the 2012–2017 program in Table 4.4.1-4, however, 

3 assumes that the exploration and development activities anticipated as a result of Sale 193 will 

4 have occurred prior to the beginning of the development and production activities listed in the 

5 table. In particular, the scenario was developed using the assumptions that the discovery and 

6 development of a 1-Bbbl oil field has already occurred, a pipeline has been installed from the 

7 OCS production area in the Chukchi Sea to Point Belcher near Wainwright, Alaska, and support 

8 base facilities have been constructed there as well. As a result of these assumptions, the scenario 

9 in Table 4.4.1-4 includes no new pipeline landfalls or support bases, since these would have 

10 already been constructed as a result of Sale 193 (BOEMRE 2011n). Also, oil discoveries less 

11 than 1 Bbbl were assumed not to be economically feasible in the Program, because an initial 

12 larger field needed to justify the construction of a pipeline to shore and coastal service facilities. 

13 It is assumed that development as a result of lease sales under the Proposed Action Alternative 

14 would utilize existing infrastructure, and that fields smaller than 1.0 Bbbl could be produced.

15

16 The draft PEIS assumes that the most likely locations for oil and gas activities in the 

17 Arctic OCS will be in the areas that have been already leased in recent sales. While activities 

18 within the entire Chukchi and Beaufort Sea Planning Areas will be considered in the analyses 

19 that follow, the analyses assume that the most likely locations for exploration and development 

20 activities will occur in the areas shown in Figure 4.4.1-2. It is assumed that these areas reflect 

21 industry‘s current assessment of the best hydrocarbon prospects through its large investments in 

22 acquiring the leases. It is reasonable to assume that industry will explore and develop these areas 

23 before moving into other areas currently considered less promising.

24

25 In the Beaufort Sea Planning Area, exploration is assumed to use artificial gravel islands 

26 or extended-reach drilling in shallow waters (<6 m [20 ft]), mobile platforms in mid-depths (6–

27 18 m [20–60 ft]), and drill ships in deeper areas of the shelf. Because of severe winter ice pack 

28 conditions, it is assumed that development would be limited to the shelf and to depths less than

29 91 m (300 ft) and platform installation would occur only in the summer (open water) season. 

30 Production operations will use gravity-base platforms or gravel islands in shallow water (<12 m 

31 [40 ft]) and larger gravity-base platforms in deeper waters (up to 91 m [300 ft]). Oil produced at 

32 the platforms will be delivered via trenched subsea pipelines to existing onshore facilities. 

33

34 In the Chukchi Sea Planning Area, with its greater water depths (>30 m [100 ft]) and 

35 more remote location, exploration drilling is expected to employ drill ships. As in the Beaufort 

36 Sea, concerns regarding severe winter ice conditions will also limit exploration and development 

37 to the shelf and depths <91 m (300 ft) and only in the summer (open water) season. Production 

38 operations will use large gravity-base structures with trenched subsea pipelines to transport the 

39 oil to landfalls.

40

41 In both areas, elevated onshore pipelines will convey the oil and gas from the landfall 

42 facilities to production facilities at Prudhoe Bay for ultimate entry to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline 

43 System (TAPS). Based on the assumption that a natural gas pipeline connecting the North Slope 

44 with the lower 48 States will be in place and operational by 2020, natural gas from the Chukchi 

45 and Beaufort Seas may be transported by new and existing aboveground pipelines for entry into 

46 such a pipeline (assuming capacity is available in the 2030–2035 time frame).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-106

1 TABLE 4.4.1-4 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) – Exploration and Development 

2 Scenario for Arctic Alaska

Scenario Element Beaufort Sea Chukchi Sea

Number of sales 1 1

Years of activity 50 50

Oil production (Bbbl)a 0.2–0.4 0.5–2.1

Natural gas production (tcf)b 0–2.2 0–8.0

Platforms 1–4 1–5

No. of exploration wells 6–16 6–20

No. of production wells 40–120 60–280

No. of subsea production wells 10 18–82

Miles of new offshore pipeline 30–155 25–250

Miles of new onshore pipeline 10–80 0

Vessel trips/week 1–12 1–15

Helicopter trips/week 1–12 1–15

New pipeline landfalls 0 0

New shore bases 0 0

Drill Fluids/Well (bbl)

 Exploration and delineation wells 500 – discharged at well site 500 – discharged at well site

 Development and production wells All treated and disposed of 

in the well.

All treated and disposed of 

in the well.

Drill Cuttings (dry rock)/Well (tons)

 Exploration and delineation wells 600 – discharged at well site 600 – discharged at well site

 Development and production wells All treated and disposed in 

the well.

All treated and disposed in 

the well.

Bottom Area Disturbed

 Platforms (1.5 ha/platform) 1.5–6.0 1.5–7.5

 Pipeline (1.4 ha/mile) 42–217 35–350

Surface Soil Disturbed

 Pipelinec 73–584 0

a Bbbl = billion barrels.

b Assumes that a natural gas pipeline from the North Slope will be operating by 2020 and have 

capacity for new supplies in 2030–2035; tcf = trillion cubic feet.

c Assumes 46 m (150 ft) wide construction ROW; 7.3 ha (18 ac)/mi.

3

4

5 4.4.2 Accidental Spill Scenario

6

7 Oil spills are unplanned accidental events. Depending on the phase of O&G development 

8 and the location, magnitude, and duration of a spill, natural resources that may be affected 

9 include marine mammals, marine and coastal birds, sea turtles, fish, benthic and pelagic 

10 invertebrates, water quality, marine and coastal habitats, and areas of special concern (such as 

11 marine parks and protected areas). Spills may also affect a variety of socioeconomic conditions 

12 such as local employment, commercial and recreational fisheries, tourism, and subsistence. For 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences 4-107

12 FIGURE 4.4.1

-2 Areas of Historical Lease Sales in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas OCS Planning Areas

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-108

1 this draft PEIS, assumptions have been made about the occurrence and location of small and 

2 large oil spills associated with the Program. Table 4.4.2-1 presents the assumptions for the 

3 GOM, the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, and Cook Inlet. The draft PEIS also considers the 

4 potential impacts of a very large but low probability catastrophic discharge events (CDE), and 

5 the assumptions for such events are presented in Table 4.4.2-2.

6

7 The source and number of assumed accidental spills were based on the volume of 

8 anticipated oil production in each area, the assumed mode of transportation (pipeline and/or 

9 tanker), and the spill rates for large spills. It is also assumed that these spills would occur with 

10 uniform frequency over the life of the proposed action. Platform spills are assumed to occur in 

11 areas proposed for lease consideration. Pipeline spills are assumed to occur between the 

12 proposed lease areas and existing infrastructure. Tanker and barge spills are assumed to occur 

13 along the tanker and barge routes from the lease areas to shore facilities.

14

15 Spills from tankers carrying oil produced in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning 

16 Areas are assumed to occur outside of those planning areas. It is assumed that oil produced in 

17 the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas would be delivered by offshore and onshore pipe 

18 to TAPS, with subsequent delivery to the Valdez terminal facilities followed by tanker transport 

19 to West Coast ports. Some tankering could also occur in the GOM to transport oil from floating 

20 production, storage, and offloading (FPSO) facilities expected to operate in areas of the GOM

21 distant from existing pipelines. 

22

23

24 4.4.2.1 Spill Size Assumptions

25

26 Spill size will vary greatly depending on the amount of oil released over a period of time 

27 as a result of a single accidental event. For this draft PEIS, hypothetical spill sizes were 

28 developed using OCS and U.S. tanker spill databases. The sizes of the assumed spills for each 

29 spill type (platform, pipeline, tanker, or barge) are approximately equal to the median spill sizes 

30 of historical spills for each spill type. Three categories of spill sizes are considered: small, large, 

31 and catastrophic.

32

33 Small Spills. Analysis of historical data from the GOM, Pacific, and Alaska OCS 

34 regions (Anderson, in preparation; MMS 2007b, 2008a). Examination of these data shows that 

35 most offshore oil spills have been <1 bbl, accounting for approximately 95% of all OCS spills, 

36 yet only less than 5% of the total volume of oil spills on the OCS (Anderson, in preparation; 

37 Anderson and LaBelle 2000). Most of the total volume of OCS oil spilled (95%) has been from 

38 spills ≥10 bbl. Between 1971 and 2009, 41,514 exploratory and development/production 

39 operation wells were drilled on the OCS, and almost 16 billion bbl (Bbbl) of oil was produced. 

40 During this period, there were 249 well control incidents during exploratory and 

41 development/production operations on the OCS. These incidents were associated with 

42 exploratory and development drilling, completion, workover, and production operations. Of 

43 these well control incidents, 50 resulted in releases of crude oil ranging from <1 bbl to 450 bbl. 

44 In 2010, there were 4 additional well control events. The loss of well control, explosion, and fire 

45 on the DWH MODU resulted in the release of an estimated 4.9 million bbl of crude oil until the 

46 well was capped on July 15, 2010. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-109

1 TABLE 4.4.2-1 Oil Spill Assumptions for the Proposed Action (Alternative 1)

Number of Spill Eventsa

Gulf of Mexico 

Region Arctic Region

Western, 

Central, Beaufort and

South Alaska 

Region

Scenario Elements

Assumed 

Spill Volume

and Eastern 

Planning Areas

Chukchi 

Planning Areas Cook Inlet

Oil Production (Bbbl)b 2.7–5.4 0.7–2.5 0.1–0.2

Large (bbl) ≥1,000

 pipeline 1,700c 2–5 1–2 1 spill from 

 platform 5,100 either d 1–2 1

 tanker 3,100–5,800e 1

Small (bbl)f ≥50 to <1,000 35–70 10–35 1–3

≥1 bbl to <50 200–400 50–190 7–15

a The assumed number of spills are estimated using the 1996–2010 spill rates in Anderson (in preparation). 

For the Alaska OCS region, the 1996–2010 spill rates were compared to fault-tree rates in Bercha Group Inc 

(2008a, b, 2006). The greater number of spills from Anderson (in preparation) is represented here.

b Bbbl = billion barrels.

c During the last 15 years (1996–2010), 7 oil spills ≥1,000 bbl occurred from U.S. OCS pipelines. The 

median spill size was 1,720 bbl. The maximum spill size between 1996 and 2010 from U.S. OCS pipelines 

was 8,212 bbl.

d During the last 15 years (1996–2010), 2 oil spills ≥1,000 bbl occurred from U.S. OCS platforms. During 

Hurricane Rita, one platform and two jack-up rigs were destroyed, and a combined total of 5,066 bbl was 

spilled. The median spill size, when not accounting for a decreasing trend in the rate of platform spills, over 

1964–2010, is 7,000 bbl. 

e 3,100 bbl for tankers in the GOM; 5,800 bbl for TAPS tankers transporting Alaska OCS oil.

f The number of spills <1000 bbl is estimated using the total spill rate for both pipeline and platform spills.

2

3

4 On the basis of the historical OCS spill data, for this draft PEIS small spills are 

5 considered to be ≤1,000 bbl in volume (Table 4.4.2-1). Small spills are further divided into two 

6 groups: small spills ≤50 bbl and small spills >50 bbl but ≤1,000 bbl (Table 4.4.2-1).

7

8 Large Spills. The spill-size assumptions used for large spills are based on the reported 

9 spills from production in the GOM and Pacific OCS and what is anticipated as likely to occur 

10 (Anderson, in preparation; MMS 2007b, 2008a; Anderson and LaBelle 2000); there have been 

11 no large oil spills in the Alaska OCS region. For this PEIS, a large spill is considered to be 

12 ≥1,000 bbl. Between 1964 and 1999, there were 11 platform spills and 16 pipeline spills 

13 ≥1,000 bbl on the OCS (Anderson and LaBelle 2000). Between 2000 and 2010, there were 

14 2 platform spills and 4 pipeline spills ≥1,000 bbl (Anderson, in preparation). The median sizes 

15 of these large spills from pipelines and platforms for 1964–2010 are 4,550 and 7,000 bbl, 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-110

TABLE 4.4.2-2 Catastrophic Discharge Event Assumptions 1 a

Program Area

Volume

(million bbl)

Duration

(days) Factors Affecting Duration

Gulf of Mexico 0.9–7.2 30–90 Water depth

Arctic

 Chukchi Sea 1.4–2.2 40–75 Timing relative to ice-free season and/or

 Beaufort Sea 1.7–3.9 60–300 availability of rig to drill relief well

Cook Inlet 0.075–0.125 50–80 Availability of rig to drill relief well

a The Gulf of Mexico OCS region has estimated the discharge rate, volume of a spill, and 

the extent and duration for a catastrophic spill event for both shallow and deep water 

(in part) based on information gathered and estimates developed for the Ixtoc (1979) 

and the Deepwater Horizon (2010) oil spills. The Alaska OCS region has estimated a 

very large oil spill scenario based on a reasonable, maximum flow rate for each OCS 

Planning Area, taking into consideration existing geologic conditions and information

from well logs. The number of days until a hypothetical blowout and discharge from a 

well could be contained was also estimated. These are discharge volumes and do not 

account for decreases in volume from containment or response operations.

2

3

4 respectively (Anderson, in preparation). The median sizes of these large spills from pipelines 

5 and platforms for 1996–2010 are 1,700 and 5,100 bbl, respectively (Anderson, in preparation). 

6 From 1971 to 2010, the DWH event in 2010 was the only loss of well control incident on the 

7 OCS that resulted in a spill volume ≥1,000 bbl. This catastrophic discharge event is discussed 

8 separately below.

9

10 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The CDE estimate is intended to provide a scenario for 

11 a low-probability event with the potential for catastrophic consequences. Past oil spills that may 

12 be relevant include the Exxon Valdez oil spill (262,000 bbl) (non-OCS program related) in 

13 Prince William Sound, south central Alaska, the Ixtoc oil spill (3,500,000 bbl) (non-OCS 

14 program related) in the western GOM, and the DWH event (4,900,000 bbl) in the northern GOM 

15 (McNutt et al. 2011). For this draft PEIS, CDEs were developed for each program area, taking 

16 into account considerations of water depth, weather conditions (such as ice cover) and the 

17 potential availability of response equipment for drilling relief wells. For the GOM Planning 

18 Areas, the CDE volumes range from 900,000 to 7,200,000 bbl, depending on the depth at which 

19 the loss of well control occurs (Table 4.4.2-2). For the Cook Inlet Planning Area, the CDE 

20 volume estimates range from 75,000 to 125,000 bbl, depending on the availability of a rig to drill 

21 a relief well. For the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea Planning Areas, the CDE volume estimates 

22 range from 1,400,000 to 2,100,000 bbl and 1,700,000 to 3,900,000 bbl, respectively. For these 

23 CDE estimates, the range in volumes depends on the timing of the CDE relative to the ice-free 

24 (open water) season and on the availability of a rig to drill a relief well.

25

26
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-111

1 4.4.2.2 Spill Number Assumptions

2

3 The number of spills <1,000 bbl assumed to occur during the years of activity of the 

4 proposed action is estimated by multiplying the oil spill rate for each of the spill size groups by 

5 the projected oil production as a result of the proposed action. Details on the methodology for 

6 estimating spill rates (and thus spill number) can be found in Anderson (in preparation). As 

7 shown in Table 4.4.2-1, most spills assumed to occur during the duration of the proposed action 

8 would be in the small-volume category (≤1,000 bbl). As the spill size increases, the occurrence 

9 rate decreases, so the number of estimated spills decreases. Estimates of the number of large 

10 spills for the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas were also derived from fault-tree 

11 modeled rates and compared to the rates from Anderson (in preparation) (Bercha Group, 

12 Inc. 2008).

13

14

15 4.4.3 Potential Impacts on Water Quality

16

17

18 4.4.3.1 Gulf of Mexico

19

20 This section analyzes impacts on GOM coastal and marine waters. Coastal waters, as 

21 defined here, include the bays and estuaries along the coast and State waters extending out to the 

22 inward boundary of the territorial seas. Marine waters extend from this boundary out to the 

23 Exclusive Economic Zone, or approximately 322 km (200 mi) from the coast.

24

25 Table 4.1.1-1 details impacting factors associated with oil and gas activities and the 

26 development phase in which they can occur. The following factors affecting water quality have 

27 been identified: disturbance of bottom sediments, wastes and disposal, vessel traffic, and 

28 accidental spills. The water quality stressor activities associated with oil and gas development 

29 are shown in Table 4.4.3-1.

30

31 Discharges to waters of the GOM are regulated by National Pollution Discharge 

32 Elimination System (NPDES) OCS General Permit No. GMG290000 until Sept 30, 2012, for the 

33 western GOM (off of Texas and Louisiana) and NPDES OCS General Permit No. GMG460000 

34 until March 31, 2015, for the eastern GOM, including the Mobile and Viosca Knoll lease blocks 

35 in the Central Planning Area.

36

37 Common impacts on water quality in both coastal and marine areas include impacts from 

38 vessel traffic, well drilling, and operational discharges. During drilling, drilling muds are 

39 circulated down a hollow drill pipe, through the drill bit, and up the annulus between the drill 

40 pipe and the borehole. Drilling muds are used for the lubrication and cooling of the drill bit and 

41 pipe. The muds also remove the cuttings that come from the bottom of the oil well and help 

42 prevent loss of well control by acting as a sealant. The drilling muds carry drill cuttings 

43 (i.e., crushed rock produced by the drill bit) to the surface. The drilling muds are then processed 

44 on the platform to remove the cuttings and recycled back down the well. The separated cuttings 

45 are, in most cases, discharged to the ocean. There are three classes of drilling muds used in the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-112

1 TABLE 4.4.3-1 Water Quality Impact Matrix

Water Quality

Stressor and O&G Activity Coastal Water Shelf Water Deepwater Marine Water

Vessel Traffic Exploration, Construction, 

Operation, Decommissioning

X X X X

Well Drilling: Exploration, Development X X X X

Pipelines: Trenching, Landfalls, Construction X X X

Chemical Releases: Drilling, Normal Operational

Discharges, Sanitary Wastes

X X X X

Platforms: Anchoring, Mooring, Removal X X X X

Onshore Construction X

Oil Spills X X X X

2

3

4 industry: water-based muds (WBMs), oil-based muds (OBMs), and synthetic-based muds 

5 (SBMs) (Neff et al. 2000). The WBMs used in most offshore drilling operations in U.S. waters 

6 consist of fresh- or saltwater, barite, clay, caustic soda, lignite, lignosulfonates, and/or water7 soluble polymers. The OBMs use mineral oil or diesel oil as the base fluid rather than fresh- or 

8 saltwater. They offer several technical advantages over WBMs for difficult drilling operations; 

9 however, because of their persistence and adverse environmental effects, OBMs and associated 

10 cuttings have been banned from ocean discharges in U.S. waters and must be transported to 

11 shore for disposal (Neff et al. 2000). The synthetic-based fluids (SBFs) are a family of products 

12 developed in the 1990s to provide drilling performance similar to that of oil-based fluids, but 

13 with improved biodegradation characteristics and decreased ecotoxicity (Neff et al. 2000). The 

14 types that would be used most frequently would be those that meet the requirements of the 

15 NPDES permit. The SBF-wetted cuttings are permitted for ocean discharge, while the spent 

16 fluid is transported to shore for reuse or disposal (Neff et al. 2000). 

17

18 Discharges of drilling muds and cuttings during normal operations are regulated by 

19 NPDES general permits issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). In areas 

20 where disposal of drilling muds and/or cuttings at sea are permitted under an NPDES general 

21 permit and BOEM and BSEE regulations, their environmental effects are localized because of 

22 settling, mixing, and dilution (Montagna and Harper 1996; Neff et al. 2000; Continental Shelf 

23 Associates 2004c). The majority of cuttings are found within 250 m (820 ft) of a drilling site 

24 (Continental Shelf Associates 2004c). Constituents of SBF cuttings have been found in an 

25 approximately 1 ha (2.5 ac) area surrounding a drilling rig at concentrations that may cause harm 

26 to wildlife (Neff et al. 2000).

27

28 Produced water is water that is brought to the surface from an oil-bearing formation 

29 during oil and gas extraction. It is the largest individual discharge produced by normal 

30 operations. Small amounts of oil are routinely discharged in produced water during OCS 

31 operations. The USEPA has set an effluent limitation of 29 mg/L for the oil content of produced 

32 waters (MMS 2007b). Produced water may contain specialty chemicals added to the well for 

33 process purposes (e.g., biocides and corrosion inhibitors) and chemicals added during treatment 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-113

1 of the produced water before its release to the environment (e.g., water clarifiers). Produced 

2 water can have elevated concentrations of several constituents, including salts, petroleum 

3 hydrocarbons, some metals, and naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM). Petroleum 

4 hydrocarbons in produced water discharges are a major environmental concern. The most 

5 abundant hydrocarbons in produced water are benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes

6 (BTEX) and low-molecular-weight saturated hydrocarbons. The BTEX compounds rapidly 

7 evaporate into the atmosphere, leaving behind less volatile, heavier compounds (weathering) 

8 (NRC 2003b). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are heavier hydrocarbons in produced 

9 water and are a concern because of the toxicity of some PAHs and their persistence in the marine 

10 environment (Rabalais et al. 1991). 

11

12 The NORM waste in produced water includes the radium isotopes Ra-226 and Ra-228 

13 and is a concern because it is radioactive. However, in produced water discharges, radium 

14 coprecipitates with barium sulfate and is not available for uptake by organisms (Neff 2002). 

15

16 Generally, the amount of produced water is low when production begins but increases 

17 over time near the end of the field life. In a nearly depleted field, production may be as high as 

18 95% water and 5% fossil fuels (Rabalais et al. 1991). The National Research Council (2003a) 

19 estimated that the total amount of produced water being released into GOM waters was 

20 660 million bbl/yr in the 1990s. Between 1996 and 2005, the annual volume of produced water 

21 varied between 432 million bbl/yr and 686 million bbl/yr, with an average discharge of 596 

22 million bbl/yr (MMS 2007b).

23

24 Before being discharged into the ocean, produced water is typically treated and must 

25 meet NPDES requirements regarding discharge rate, contaminant concentration, and toxicity, 

26 thereby reducing the potential for contamination. However, the discharge of produced water into 

27 the sea may degrade water and sediment quality in the immediate vicinity of the discharge point 

28 because of its potential constituents. Studies have shown contaminated sediments exist in areas

29 up to 1,000 m (3,280 ft) from a produced water discharge point, indicating water quality in that 

30 zone has been affected by produced water discharges (Rabalais et al. 1991). Because discharge 

31 points are typically much farther apart than 1,000 m (3,280 ft), no interactions that would 

32 measurably affect water quality are expected between them, and background concentrations are 

33 expected to exist away from the immediate discharge location. Two recent studies have shown 

34 that produced water discharges do not make a significant contribution to the hypoxic conditions 

35 that are seen in the GOM (Veil et al. 2005; Bierman et al. 2007).

36

37 Normal operations for the proposed action would also involve the use of vessels with 

38 associated impacts. Compliance with NPDES permits and USCG regulations would prevent or 

39 minimize most impacts on the environment caused by ship traffic.

40

41 The placement of drilling units and platforms would disturb bottom sediments and 

42 produce turbidity in the water. This impact would be unavoidable; however, these impacts 

43 would be temporary and water quality would return to normal (e.g., background concentrations 

44 of suspended solids) within minutes to hours without mitigation because of mixing, settling, and 

45 dilution.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-114

1 4.4.3.1.1 Routine Operations.

2

3 Coastal Waters. Routine activities potentially affecting coastal water quality include 

4 pipeline landfalls, well completion activities, platform construction, and operation discharges. 

5 The estimated exploration and development scenario for the GOM for the proposed action is 

6 presented in Table 4.4.1-1 and estimated depth distribution of the activities in Table 4.4.1-2.

7

8 Construction and installation of exploratory and development wells (up to 100 and 600, 

9 respectively), platforms (up to 450), and offshore pipelines (up to 12,000 km [7,500 mi]) would 

10 affect water quality and disturb habitats (see Table 4.4.1-1). Such activities would disturb 

11 bottom sediments and increase the turbidity of the water in the area of construction. Trenching 

12 operations to bury pipelines would produce turbidity (i.e., increased suspended solids) in the 

13 coastal waters along pipeline corridors. The disturbance of bottom sediments caused by these 

14 operations would be unavoidable. However, these impacts would be temporary, and water 

15 quality would return to normal (i.e., background concentrations) without mitigation, once these 

16 activities were completed because of settling and mixing.

17

18 Construction of new onshore support facilities (up to 11 pipeline landfalls, 6 pipe yards,

19 and 12 processing facilities) could affect the quality of nearshore and fresh waters in the GOM 

20 Planning Areas. During land site preparation, vegetation is typically cleared from the area, 

21 compacting the topsoil, because of the constant movement of heavy machinery. This 

22 compaction would reduce the water retention properties of the soil and increase erosion and 

23 surface runoff from the site. Water quality would be degraded by increases in site runoff of 

24 particulate matter, heavy metals, petroleum products, and chemicals to local streams, estuaries, 

25 and bays. Proper siting of facilities and requirements associated with NPDES construction 

26 permits should largely mitigate these impacts. 

27

28 The OCS service and construction vessel traffic to and from platform sites within the 

29 planning area (up to 600 vessel trips per week) would also affect water quality through the 

30 permitted release of operational wastes. Routine vessel-associated discharges that could affect 

31 coastal water quality include sanitary wastes and bilge water. Bilge water discharges from 

32 support vessels could contain petroleum and metals from machinery. Bilge water and sanitary 

33 discharges to larger coastal water channels would produce local and temporary effects because of 

34 the large volume of water available to dilute the discharges and the presence of currents that 

35 would promote mixing. However, in confined portions of some channels, there might be 

36 insufficient water volume or currents for mixing and dilution. In such regions, water quality 

37 could be degraded. Compliance with applicable NPDES permits and USCG regulations would 

38 prevent or minimize most impacts on receiving waters. Discharges in coastal areas are regulated 

39 by State-issued or Federal NPDES permits specifically for coastal areas.

40

41 Produced water discharges were banned in coastal waters of the GOM in the late 1990s, 

42 and reinjection of produced water is practiced in coastal areas to avoid discharges (NRC 2003b; 

43 Wilson 2007).

44

45 Marine Waters. Marine waters can be divided into continental shelf waters and deep 

46 waters. Continental shelf waters are defined as those waters that lie outside of the coastal waters 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-115

1 and have a depth less than 305 m (1,000 ft). Deep waters are located in regions that are equal to 

2 or deeper than 305 m (1,000 ft).

3

4 Routine operations that could affect water quality include anchoring, mooring, drilling

5 and well completion activities, well testing and cleanup operations, flaring/burning, facility 

6 installation and operations, support service activities, decommissioning, and site clearance. 

7 Construction and installation of exploratory and development wells (up to 1,200), platforms 

8 (up to 450), and offshore pipelines (up to 12,000 km [7,500 mi]) would affect water quality and 

9 disturb habitats (see Table 4.4.1-1).

10

11 As with coastal areas, OCS vessel traffic to and from platform sites within the planning 

12 area (up to 600 vessel trips per week) would also affect water quality through the permitted 

13 release of operational wastes (such as bilge water). Because of the relatively small volumes that 

14 would be discharged, these waste materials would be quickly diluted and dispersed, and any 

15 impacts on water quality would be highly localized and temporary. Compliance with applicable 

16 NPDES permits and USCG regulations would prevent or minimize most impacts on receiving 

17 waters.

18

19 Sanitary and domestic waste and deck drainage would occur from platforms, drilling 

20 vessels, and service vessels as part of normal operations and could contribute to water quality 

21 degradation. However, sanitary and domestic wastes would be routinely processed through 

22 onsite waste treatment facilities before being discharged overboard, and deck drainage would be 

23 treated onsite to remove oil and then discharged. Sand and sludge recovered from the treatment 

24 processes would be containerized and shipped to shore for disposal. Impacts on water quality 

25 from such discharges would require no mitigation because of the treated nature of the wastes, the 

26 small quantities of discharges involved, and the mixing and dilution of the wastes with large 

27 volumes of water.

28

29 Discharges associated with drilling and production are discussed in Section 4.4.3.1. 

30 Normal operations for the proposed action would also involve the use of vessels with associated 

31 impacts, such as those discussed for related impacts on coastal areas. Compliance with NPDES 

32 permits and USCG regulations would prevent or minimize most impacts on the environment.

33

34 The placement of drilling units and platforms would disturb bottom sediments and 

35 produce turbidity in the water. Pipeline trenching, required in water depths less than 61 m 

36 (200 ft), would also produce turbidity along pipeline corridors. This impact would be 

37 unavoidable; however, these impacts would be temporary, and water quality would return to 

38 normal (e.g., background concentrations of suspended solids) within minutes to hours without 

39 mitigation because of mixing, settling, and dilution.

40

41 As discussed in Section 3.4.1.2, hypoxic conditions exist on the Louisiana-Texas shelf. 

42 The size of the hypoxic zone varies from year to year. The hypoxic zone attained a maximum 

measured extent in 2002, when it encompassed about 22,000 km2 (8,494 mi2 43 ). Normal 

44 operations from oil and gas production in the GOM could affect the extent and severity of the 

45 hypoxic zone through discharges and accidental releases. Very preliminary calculations reveal 

46 that ammonium and oil and grease contained in produced water are a small percentage of that 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-116

1 contributed by the Mississippi River to the hypoxic zone (Rabalais 2005). A study that 

2 monitored oxygen-demanding substances and nutrients in the produced water discharges from 

3 50 platforms found that produced water discharges contributed less than 1% of the oxygen4 demanding substances to the hypoxic zone (Veil et al. 2005).

5

6 For the proposed action, the compositions and volumes of discharges would be expected 

7 to be about the same as those observed historically, and compliance with existing NPDES 

8 permits would minimize impacts on receiving waters (e.g., through limitations on concentrations 

9 of toxic constituents). Water quality likely would recover without mitigation when discharges 

10 ceased because of dilution and dispersion.

11

12 Although deepwater operations and practices are similar to those used in shallower 

13 environments, there are some significant differences. Three of these are seafloor discharges 

14 from pre-riser and riserless drilling operations, discharge of cuttings wetted with SBFs, and more 

15 extensive and frequent use of chemical products to enhance oil and gas throughput because of 

16 the temperatures and pressures present at the seafloor, including their use within pipelines to 

17 facilitate the transport of large quantities of methanol and other chemicals to and from the shore. 

18

19 Floating production facilities are used in deepwater rather than conventional, bottom20 founded (i.e., fixed) platforms. These deepwater facilities include floating production 

21 semisubmersibles, tension leg platforms, and spars (Harbinson and Knight 2002). Often these 

22 facilities are surface hubs for several subsea systems. Therefore, in deep water, there will be far 

23 fewer and more widely spaced surface facilities than on the shelf, but these facilities will have 

24 increased discharges of produced waters over time due to the larger volume being processed. 

25

26 In order to enhance the throughput of oil and gas in deep water, more extensive and 

27 frequent use of some chemical products is anticipated because of the temperatures and 

28 pressures encountered at the seafloor. Chemicals most likely to be present in deepwater 

29 operations and drilling include monoethylene glycol, methanol, corrosion inhibitors, and 

30 biocides (Grieb et al. 2008). The toxicity of these substances varies, but the impact on water 

31 quality would be temporary and localized (within feet of a release), due to the small quantities in 

32 which they would likely be released and the amount of dilution and mixing that would occur in a 

33 subsea environment (Grieb et al. 2008).

34

35 Deepwater activities could incrementally increase support activities and the expansion, 

36 construction, or modification of onshore support bases due to the deeper draft of these support 

37 vessels. The impacts resulting from this growth would be common to all OCS support facilities 

38 (point-source waste discharges, runoff, dredging, and vessel discharges) and not specific to 

39 deepwater activities. Short-term degradation of water quality might increase at a few support 

40 base locations that would be expected to grow as a consequence of deepwater activities 

41 (including Corpus Christi, Galveston, and Port Fourchon).

42

43
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-117

1 4.4.3.1.2 Accidents.

2

3 Coastal Waters. Accidental releases could affect the quality of coastal water in the 

4 GOM. The magnitude and severity of impacts would depend on spill location and size, type of 

5 product spilled, weather conditions, and the water quality and environmental conditions at the 

6 time of the spill.

7

8 Under the proposed action, the number and types of spills assumed to occur in the GOM 

9 Planning Area include up to seven large spills (i.e., 1,000 bbl), up to five spills at a volume of 

10 1,700 bbl from pipelines, up to two spills at a volume of 5,000 bbl from platforms, and up to one 

11 spill at a volume of 3,100 bbl from a tanker. Between 35 and 70 small spills with volumes 

12 between 50 and 999 bbl are assumed to occur, as well as between 200 and 400 very small spills 

13 with volumes between 1 and 50 bbl (Table 4.4.2-1).

14

15 Weathering processes that transform the oil, such as volatilization, emulsification, 

16 dissolution, chemical oxidation, photo-oxidation, and microbial oxidation, may reduce impacts 

17 of oil spills in the GOM Planning Areas on coastal water quality (NRC 2003b; NOAA 2005). 

18 Dissolution, which is a small component of weathering, can be important to biological 

19 communities because the most soluble fractions are often the most toxic (Shen and Yapa 1988). 

20 Because oil is generally less dense than water, it would tend to float on the sea surface. Lighter 

21 oil fractions such as BTEX would readily evaporate from the surface and, therefore, would not 

22 be a continuing source of potential water contamination. Following a spill, light crude oils can 

23 lose as much as 75% of their initial volume to evaporation as the lighter components 

24 (e.g., BTEX) change from the liquid to the gas phase; medium-weight crude oils can lose as 

25 much as 40% (NRC 2003b).

26

27 If a large spill occurred in enclosed coastal waters or was driven by winds, tides, and 

28 currents into an enclosed coastal area, water quality would be adversely affected. These impacts 

29 could be increased if they occurred in areas with degraded water quality, such as areas 

30 continuing to be affected by the DWH. Similarly, if a large tanker spill were to happen near 

31 port, adverse impacts on coastal waters could occur. In such a low-energy environment (i.e., an 

32 environment in which there is limited wave and current activity), the oil would not be easily 

33 dispersed, and weathering could be slower than it would be in the open sea. Effects on water 

34 quality could persist if oil reached coastal wetlands and was deposited in fine sediments, 

35 becoming a long-term source of pollution because of remobilization. In such locations, spill 

36 cleanup might be necessary for the recovery of the affected areas. Potential impacts from spill 

37 response and cleanup activities are discussed below. As a result of the DWH event, residual oil 

38 was still being removed from shorelines as of January 2011 (Geoplatform 2011a, b). However, 

39 supratidal buried oil, small surface residue balls, and submerged oil mats are three types of 

40 residual oil from the DWH spill in the nearshore zone that were identified as being more 

41 damaging to completely remove from coastal habitats than to let them remain and naturally 

42 attenuate (OSAT-2 2011). Oiled shorelines might also be washed with warm or cold water, 

43 depending on the shore‘s location. 

44

45 Small oil spills (<1,000 bbl) or very small oil spills (<50 bbl) would produce small but 

46 measurable impacts on water quality. Assuming that all small and very small spills would not 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-118

1 occur at the same time and place, water quality would rapidly recover without mitigation because

2 of mixing, dilution, and weathering. However, impacts could be increased if they occurred in 

3 areas with degraded water quality, such as areas continuing to be affected by the DWH event.

4

5 Marine Waters. Accidental releases could affect the quality of marine waters in the 

6 GOM Planning Areas. The number and types of spills assumed to occur in the GOM Planning 

7 Areas are the same as those discussed above for coastal waters. The magnitude of these impacts 

8 and the rate of recovery would depend on the location and size of the spill, the type of product 

9 spilled, weather conditions, and environmental conditions at the time of the spill. Failures of 

10 production-related piping, seals, and connections have been identified as key risks for releases 

11 that may affect water quality in deepwater environments, with loss of well control presenting the 

12 highest risk of environmental impacts (Grieb et al. 2008). Because of the depths of some 

13 deepwater drilling operations, servicing any leak identified during subsea drilling and production 

14 operations would be more difficult and require remotely operated vehicles for depths greater than 

15 610 m (2,000 ft) (Grieb et al. 2008). Each piping connection presents a potential for leakage due 

16 to human error, corrosion, or erosion (Grieb et al. 2008). In general, oil spilled below the surface 

17 rises rapidly as droplets that coalesce to form a slick. Standard response procedures for a spill 

18 could then be used.

19

20 Because deepwater operations can be located far from shore, tankers could be used to 

21 shuttle crude oil to shore stations. This transport of oil from operations in deep water has the 

22 potential to produce spills that could affect coastal waters within a very short time if the spill 

23 occurred near the port. It is expected that such spills could release approximately 3,100 bbl of 

24 oil. Such a release could retain a large volume of oil in the slick at the time it contacted land.

25

26 Small oil spills (<1,000 bbl) and very small oil spills (<50 bbl) would have measurable 

27 impacts on water quality. If it is assumed that all small and very small spills would not occur at 

28 the same time and place, water quality would rapidly recover without mitigation because of 

29 mixing, dilution, and weathering.

30

31 Spill Response and Cleanup. Spill response and cleanup activities in coastal and marine 

32 water could include, depending on location, use of chemical dispersants, in situ burning, use of 

33 vessels and skimmers, and beach cleaning and booming (BOEMRE 2011k). 

34

35 Dispersants are combinations of surfactants and solvents that work to break surface oil 

36 into smaller droplets that then disperse on the surface and into the water column. Many factors 

37 affect the behavior, efficacy, and toxicity of a particular dispersant, including water temperature, 

38 surface salinity, wave and wind energy, light regime, water depth, type of oil, concentration of 

39 dispersant, how the dispersant is applied (constant or intermittent spikes), and exposure time to 

40 organisms. Dispersants are used to degrade an oil spill more quickly through increasing surface 

41 area and to curtail oil slicks from reaching shorelines (Word et al. 2008). As oil breaks into 

42 smaller droplets, it can distribute vertically in the water column. If oil droplets adhere to 

43 sediment, the oil can be transported to the seafloor and interstitial water in the sediment. In

44 shallow nearshore waters, wind, wave, and current action would more likely mix the dispersant45 oil mixture into the water column and down to the seafloor environment. Chemically dispersed 

46 oil is thought to be more toxic to water column organisms than physically dispersed oil, but the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-119

1 difference is not clear-cut, and generally the toxicity is within the same order of magnitude 

2 (NRC 2005b).

3

4 In situ burning is used to reduce an oil spill more quickly and to curtail oil slicks from 

5 reaching shorelines. In situ burning could increase the surface water temperature in the 

6 immediate area and produce residues. The uppermost layer of water (upper millimeter or less) 

7 that interfaces with the air is referred to as the microlayer. Important chemical, physical, and 

8 biological processes take place in this layer, and it serves as habitat for many sensitive life stages 

9 and microorganisms (GESAMP 1995). Disturbance to this layer through temperature elevation 

10 could cause negative effects on biological, chemical, and physical processes.

11

12 Residues from in situ burning can float or sink depending on the temperature and age of 

13 the residue. Floating residue can be collected; however, residues that sink could expose the 

14 benthic waters and sediment to oil components as the residue degrades on the seafloor.

15

16 The NOAA Office of Response and Restoration states, ―Overall, these impacts [from 

17 open water in situ burning] would be expected to be much less severe than those resulting from 

18 exposure to a large, uncontained oil spill‖ (NOAA 2011d).

19

20 Oiled shorelines might be washed with warm or cold water, depending on the shore‘s 

21 location. Oil dispersants and surface washing agents used to clean up a spill could also be a 

22 source of impacts to water quality for coastal areas in the event of a spill (EIC and NCSE 2010; 

23 Coastal Response Research Center 2010). Beach cleaning and booming activities could result in 

24 effects from suspended sediment in waters and resettlement of sediments elsewhere, possible 

25 resuspension of hydrocarbons, and runoff of treatment-laden waters that could affect nearshore 

26 temperature and nutrient concentrations (BOEMRE 2011k).

27

28 Catastrophic Discharge Event. For the GOM Planning Areas, a low-probability CDE 

29 could have a volume of 900,000 to 7,200,000 bbl (Table 4.4.2-2). A catastrophic discharge 

30 event in either coastal or marine water could present sustained degradation of water quality from

31 hydrocarbon contamination in exceedence of State and Federal water and sediment quality 

32 criteria. These effects could be significant depending upon the duration and area impacted by the 

33 spill. Additional effects on water quality would occur from response and cleanup vessels, in situ

34 burning of oil, dispersant use, discharges and seafloor disturbance from relief well drilling, and 

35 activities on shorelines associated with cleanup, booming, beach cleaning, and monitoring.

36

37

38 4.4.3.2 Alaska Cook Inlet

39

40 This section analyzes impacts on coastal and marine waters in the Cook Inlet Planning 

41 Area. Coastal waters, as defined here, include the bays and estuaries along the coast and State 

42 waters extending out to the inward boundary of the territorial seas. Marine waters extend from 

43 this boundary out to a water depth of 200 m (656 ft).

44

45 Section 4.1.1 details impacting factors for activities associated with oil and gas activities 

46 and the development phases in which they can occur. The following factors affecting water 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-120

1 quality have been identified: disturbance of bottom sediments, wastes and disposal, vessel 

2 traffic, and accidental spills. The water quality stressor activities associated with oil and gas are 

3 shown in Table 4.4.3-1. Note that no onshore construction or pipeline landfalls are anticipated 

4 for the Cook Inlet Planning Area for the lease sales during 2012-2017 period.

5

6 Discharges to waters of Cook Inlet are regulated by NPDES OCS General Permit 

7 No. AKG-31-5000 until July 2, 2012.

8

9 Common impacts on water quality in both coastal and marine areas include those from 

10 vessel traffic, well drilling, and operational discharges. The types of impacts expected are the 

11 same as those discussed above in Section 4.4.3.1.

12

13

14 4.4.3.2.1 Routine Operations.

15

16 Coastal Waters. Routine activities potentially affecting coastal water quality include 

17 pipeline landfalls, well completion activities, platform construction, and operational discharges. 

18 The estimated exploration and development scenario for Cook Inlet is presented in Table 4.4.1-3.

19

20 Construction and installation of exploratory and development wells (up to 12 and 114, 

21 respectively), platforms (up to 3), and offshore pipelines (up to 240 km [150 mi]) would affect 

22 water quality and disturb habitats (see Table 4.4.1-3). Trenching operations to bury pipelines 

23 would produce turbidity (i.e., increased suspended solids) in the coastal waters along pipeline 

24 corridors. Increased water turbidity would also result from placing drilling units and platforms. 

25 The disturbance of bottom sediments caused by these operations would be unavoidable. 

26 However, these impacts would be temporary, and water quality would return to normal 

27 (i.e., background concentrations) without mitigation, once these activities were completed,

28 because of settling and mixing.

29

30 Construction of new onshore pipelines (up to 169 km [105 mi]) would also impact coastal 

31 water quality in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. Proper siting of facilities and requirements 

32 associated with NPDES construction permits would largely mitigate these impacts. The impacts 

33 on water quality would range from negligible to minor, depending on site location and 

34 construction and mitigation activities.

35

36 Increased turbidity from construction and installation activities would occur in the 

37 immediate area of the activity. Contaminants introduced into Cook Inlet waters by these 

38 activities would be diluted and dispersed by complex currents associated with the tides (diurnal 

39 tidal variations at the upper end of the Cook Inlet at Anchorage can be 9 m [30 ft]), estuarine 

40 circulation, wind-driven waves, and Coriolis forces (MMS 2003a; Royal Society of 

41 Canada 2004). Seawater enters the Lower Cook Inlet from the Gulf of Alaska at the Kennedy 

42 Entrance south of the Kenai Peninsula, and fresh water enters the inlet from numerous streams 

43 along the east, north, and west shorelines; major freshwater inputs include the Susitna and Kenai 

44 Rivers. Seawater circulates northward in Cook Inlet along its eastern boundary, mixes with fresh

45 water in the northern end, and flows southward along the western boundary. Water exits the 

46 lower Cook Inlet through Shelikof Strait and discharges into the Gulf of Alaska (MMS 2002a). 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-121

1 Surface currents in Cook Inlet can exceed 5 knots (5.7 mph), and bottom currents can reach 

2 1.5 knots (1.7 mph) (Royal Society of Canada 2004). Approximately 90% of waterborne 

3 contaminants would be flushed from the lower Cook Inlet within about 10 months 

4 (MMS 2003a). Contaminants flushed from Cook Inlet would pass through Shelikov Strait and 

5 enter the Gulf of Alaska. Because of dilution, settling, and flushing, impacts from these 

6 activities would be local and temporary.

7

8 In addition to affecting the turbidity of coastal waters in the Cook Inlet, construction 

9 activities would produce waste materials. The majority of wastes generated during construction 

10 and developmental drilling would consist of drill cuttings and spent muds (MMS 2002a). 

11 Drilling muds and cuttings generated when installing exploration and delineation wells would be 

12 discharged at the well site. The volume of drilling fluids and cuttings vary depending upon the 

13 well characteristics, but, in general, fluids average approximately 500 bbl/well, and drill cuttings 

14 would comprise the equivalent of approximately 600 tons/well of dry rock. Thus, under the 

15 proposed action, up to 6,000 bbl of drilling fluids and up to 7,200 tons of drill cuttings could be 

16 disposed of in the waters of the Cook Inlet Planning Area. All drilling muds and cuttings

17 associated with development and production wells would be treated and reinjected into the well.

18 Discharge of drilling muds and cuttings would increase turbidity in the vicinity of the well. The 

19 discharge would contain trace metal and hydrocarbon constituents that would be suspended in 

20 the water column and subsequently deposited on the seafloor. These drilling discharges must 

21 comply with NPDES permit requirements regarding the discharge amount, rate, and toxicity, 

22 which would greatly reduce the impact to water quality.

23

24 Because all produced water would be discharged down hole, there would be no impacts 

25 on water quality from these operational discharges. Domestic wastewater would also be 

26 generated by these activities. This material would be injected into a disposal well. Solid wastes, 

27 including scrap metal, would be hauled offsite for disposal at an approved facility.

28

29 The OCS service and construction vessel traffic to and from platform sites within the 

30 planning area (up to nine vessel trips per week) would also affect quality through the permitted 

31 release of operational wastes. Routine vessel-associated discharges that could affect coastal 

32 water quality include sanitary wastes and bilge water. Bilge water discharges from support 

33 vessels could contain petroleum and metals from machinery. Bilge water and sanitary discharges 

34 to larger coastal water channels would produce local and temporary effects because of the large 

35 volume of water available to dilute the discharges and the presence of currents that would 

36 promote mixing. However, in confined portions of some channels, there might be insufficient 

37 water volume or currents for mixing and dilution. In such regions, water quality could be 

38 degraded. Compliance with applicable NPDES permits and USCG regulations would prevent or 

39 minimize most impacts on receiving waters. Discharges in coastal areas are regulated by State40 issued or Federal NPDES permits specifically for coastal areas.

41

42 The National Research Council (2003b) estimated that the total amount of produced 

43 water being released into Cook Inlet waters was 45.7 million bbl/yr in the 1990s. Produced 

44 water can contain hydrocarbons, salts, and metals at levels toxic to marine organisms. Before 

45 being discharged into the ocean, produced water is typically treated and must meet NPDES 

46 requirements regarding discharge rate, contaminant concentration, and toxicity, thereby reducing 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-122

1 the potential for sediment contamination. However, under the current NPDES permits, new 

2 facilities would not be allowed to discharge produced water into Cook Inlet. Under the proposed 

3 action, it is anticipated that all produced waters would be treated and reinjected into the well. 

4 Therefore, no impacts on water quality are expected to result from produced water.

5

6 Marine Waters. Routine operations that could affect marine water quality in the Cook 

7 Inlet Planning Area include anchoring, mooring, drilling and well completion activities, well 

8 testing and cleanup operations, flaring/burning, facility installation and operations, support 

9 service activities, decommissioning, and site clearance. These activities would disturb the 

10 seafloor and increase the suspended sediment load in the water column. Offshore pipelines in 

11 Alaska are normally placed in a dredged trench in waters less than about 60 m (197 ft) deep.

12 Dredged material from the trenches can be used to cover the pipeline. Fill deposited during 

13 artificial island construction also increases turbidity. As these operations are reversed and 

14 structures removed, increased turbidity would reoccur. In general, plumes from these activities 

15 extend a few hundred meters to a few kilometers down current, but the length of the plume 

16 would depend on rate and duration of discharge, sediment grain size, current regime, source type, 

17 water column turbulence, and season. The direction of plume movement would be influenced by 

18 the general circulation pattern in the planning area and local ambient conditions. Suspended 

19 sediments in the plumes are expected to have toxicity ranges that are generally described as 

20 nontoxic to slightly toxic (National Academy of Sciences 1983). Overall, it is anticipated that 

21 the impacts on water quality from routine operations would be localized and temporary. As with 

22 coastal water impacts, dilution, settling, and rapid flushing would minimize any long-lasting 

23 impacts on water quality.

24

25 Adverse water quality impacts would also be produced by routine discharges of domestic 

26 waste (e.g., wash water, sewage, and galley wastes) and deck drainage (platform and deck 

27 washings, and gutters and drains, including drip pans and work areas). Domestic waste would 

28 increase suspended solids in the receiving water, thereby increasing turbidity and biological 

29 oxygen demand. Sanitary and domestic wastes are monitored in accordance with the NPDES 

30 permit. Established effluent limitations and guidelines published in 40 CFR Part 435, and 

31 operator compliance should minimize impacts on ambient water quality. Such impacts would be 

32 local and temporary.

33

34 The principal discharges of concern during drilling would be muds and cuttings. Drilling 

35 muds and cuttings generated when installing exploration and delineation wells would be 

36 discharged at the well site. All drilling muds and cuttings associated with development and 

37 production wells would be treated and reinjected into the well. See the discussion above for 

38 coastal waters for further information on potential impacts of discharging drilling muds and 

39 cuttings.

40

41 During operations, all produced water would be reinjected into the well in the Cook Inlet 

42 Planning Area, there produced water generated from activities associated with the proposed 

43 action would have no impacts on marine water quality.

44

45 As with coastal waters, OCS vessels traveling to and from platform sites within the 

46 planning area (up to three vessel trips per week per platform) could affect local water quality as a 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-123

1 result of operational discharge of waste fluids. Because of dilution, settling, and flushing, water 

2 quality impacts from such discharges would be localized and temporary.

3

4

5 4.4.3.2.2 Accidents. 

6

7 Coastal Waters. Accidental releases could affect the quality of coastal water in the 

8 Cook Inlet. The magnitude and severity of impacts would depend on the spill location and size, 

9 type of product spilled, weather conditions, and the water quality and environmental conditions 

10 at the time of the spill.

11

12 Under the proposed action, the number and types of spills assumed to occur in the Cook 

13 Inlet Planning Area include up to one large spill (i.e., 1,000 bbl) from either a platform

14 (5,100 bbl) or a pipeline (1,700 bbl), up to three small spills with volumes between 50 and 

15 999 bbl; and up to 15 very small spills with volumes between 1 and 50 bbl (Table 4.4.2-1). For 

16 conservative analysis (i.e., one in which impacts would be greater than those that would actually 

17 occur), all the spills are assumed to occur in Cook Inlet coastal waters. Such spills would 

18 adversely affect water quality. A spill in isolated coastal waters, in shallow waters under thick 

19 ice, or in rapidly freezing ice could cause sustained degradation of water quality to levels that are 

20 above State or Federal criteria for hydrocarbon contamination. Concentrations could exceed the 

21 chronic criterion of 0.015 ppm total hydrocarbons, but this exceedance would probably occur 

22 over a relatively small area. Persistent small spills in such areas could result in local chronic 

23 contamination. In most cases, spills would be rapidly diluted. In some cases, however, water 

24 quality could be degraded to a greater extent.

25

26 Weathering processes that transform the oil, such as volatilization, emulsification, 

27 dissolution, chemical oxidation, photo-oxidation, and microbial oxidation, may reduce impacts 

28 of oil spills on coastal water quality in the Cook Inlet Planning Area (NRC 2003b; NOAA 2005). 

29 Dissolution, which is a small component of weathering, can be important to biological 

30 communities because the most soluble fractions are often the most toxic (Shen and Yapa 1988). 

31 Because oil is generally less dense than water, it would tend to float on the sea surface. Lighter 

32 oil fractions such as BTEX would readily evaporate from the surface and, therefore, would not 

33 be a continuing source of potential water contamination. Following a spill, light crude oils can 

34 lose as much as 75% of their initial volume to evaporation as the lighter components 

35 (e.g., BTEX) change from liquid to gas phase; medium-weight crude oils can lose as much as 

36 40% (NRC 2003b).

37

38 Spills would tend to move in directions consistent with established circulation patterns 

39 for the planning area (i.e., northward along the Kenai Peninsula and southward along the Alaska 

40 Peninsula). Actual flow paths would be affected by winds, tides, ice cover, temperature, and 

41 cleanup activities.

42

43 If a large spill were to happen near port, there could be adverse impacts on coastal waters. 

44 In such a low-energy environment (i.e., an environment in which there is limited wave and 

45 current activity), the oil would not be easily dispersed, and weathering could be slower than it 

46 would be in the open sea. Effects on water quality could persist if oil reached coastal wetlands 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-124

1 and was deposited in fine sediments, becoming a long-term source of pollution because of 

2 remobilization. In such locations, spill cleanup might be necessary for the recovery of the 

3 affected areas. Potential impacts to water quality from spill cleanup activities are discussed 

4 below.

5

6 Small oil spills (<1,000 bbl) or very small oil spills (<50 bbl) would produce small but 

7 measurable impacts on water quality. Assuming that all intermediately sized and small spills 

8 would not occur at the same time and place, water quality would rapidly recover without 

9 mitigation because of mixing, dilution, and weathering.

10

11 Under arctic conditions (i.e., cold water and cold air temperatures), weathering processes,

12 such as volatilization, would also be much slower than in warmer climates (MMS 2008b); under 

13 calm conditions and cold temperatures in restricted waters, vertical mixing and dissolution would 

14 be reduced (MMS 2008b). If the spill were to occur on ice or under ice, oil would be trapped 

15 and essentially remain unchanged until breakup occurred and the ice began to melt. The volatile 

16 compounds from such a spill would be more likely to freeze into the ice within hours to days 

17 rather than dissolve or disperse into the water below the ice. A hydrocarbon plume in the water 

18 column underneath the ice could persist with concentrations that exceed ambient standards and 

19 background levels for a distance greater than that in the open sea (MMS 2008b). Impacts on 

20 coastal waters from a large spill would depend on the season, type, and composition of the spill, 

21 weather conditions, and size of the spill.

22

23 Marine Waters. Accidental hydrocarbon releases in the marine environment can occur 

24 at the surface from tankers or platforms or at the seafloor from the wellhead or pipelines. The 

25 number of potential spills estimated for Cook Inlet marine waters are conservatively assumed to 

26 be the same as those discussed above for coastal waters. In general, oil spilled below the surface 

27 rises rapidly as droplets that coalesce to form a slick. Standard response procedures for a spill 

28 could then be used. In open marine waters, evaporation, advection, and dispersion generally 

29 reduce the effects of toxic oil fractions and their degradation products to below State and Federal 

30 criteria for hydrocarbon contamination. Sustained degradation of water quality to levels 

31 exceeding the chronic criterion of 0.015 ppm total hydrocarbon contamination is unlikely. 

32 However, levels could exceed this standard over several thousand square kilometers for a short 

33 period of time (about 30 days), depending on the size, location, and season of the spill. Marine 

34 spills would tend to move in directions consistent with established circulation patterns for the 

35 planning area (i.e., northward along the Kenai Peninsula and southward along the Alaska 

36 Peninsula). Actual flow paths would be affected by winds, tides, ice cover, temperature, and 

37 cleanup activities. The persistence of oil slicks would generally last less than 1 year. Large oil 

38 spills assumed under this alternative would become more likely as the volume of assumed oil 

39 production increases. Water quality would eventually recover, but recovery time could be 

40 decreased by oil-spill cleanup activities.

41

42 Spill Response and Cleanup. Spill response and cleanup activities in both coastal and 

43 marine waters could include, depending on location, use of chemical dispersants, in situ burning, 

44 use of vessels and skimmers, drilling of a relief well, and beach cleaning and booming 

45 (BOEMRE 2011k). Potential impacts to water quality from each of these spill response and 

46 cleanup activities are discussed above in Section 4.4.3.1.2. However, clean up of large spills in 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-125

1 the open sea off of south central Alaska could be hindered by several factors. There could be 

2 limited access to oil slicks contained between ice floes during a large part of the year. There 

3 could also be reduced oil flow into recovery devices because of increased viscosity and 

4 precipitation of wax crystals, as well as decreased oil adhesion to the recovery unit material and 

5 a high percentage of free water in the recovered product due to mixing of the oil slick with slash 

6 ice and snow (MMS 2008b). In winter, icebreakers could affect the movement of spilled oil that 

7 may be trapped beneath or in the ice (BOEMRE 2011k). 

8

9 If an oil spill occurred in winter, in situ burning would be limited by the lack of open 

10 water to collect oil and open water in which to burn it. If burning could occur in winter on a 

11 limited scale, sea ice would melt in the immediate vicinity of the burn.

12

13 Catastrophic Discharge Event. For the Cook Inlet Planning Area, a low-probability 

14 CDE could have a volume of between 75,000 and 125,000 bbl (Table 4.4.2-2). A catastrophic 

15 discharge event in coastal or marine water could present sustained degradation of water quality 

16 from hydrocarbon contamination in exceedence of State and Federal water and sediment quality 

17 criteria. These effects could be significant depending upon the duration and area impacted by the 

18 spill. Additional effects on water quality could occur from response and cleanup vessels, in situ

19 burning of oil, dispersant use, discharges and seafloor disturbance from relief well drilling, and 

20 activities on shorelines associated with cleanup, booming, beach cleaning, and monitoring. 

21 Impacts from the spill would again depend on the spill size and composition, weather conditions, 

22 and the location of the spill.

23

24

25 4.4.3.3 Alaska – Arctic

26

27 This section analyzes impacts on coastal and marine waters in the Arctic region. Coastal 

28 waters, as defined here, include the bays and estuaries along the coast and State waters extending 

29 out to the inward boundary of the territorial seas. Marine waters extend from this boundary out 

30 to a water depth of 200 m (656 ft).

31

32 Table 4.1.1-1 details impacting factors associated with oil and gas activities and the 

33 development phase in which they can occur. The following factors affecting water quality have 

34 been identified: disturbance of bottom sediments, wastes and disposal, vessel traffic, and 

35 accidental spills. The water quality stressor activities associated with oil and gas development 

36 are shown in Table 4.4.3-1.

37

38 The current Arctic NPDES General Permit for wastewater discharges from Arctic oil and 

39 gas exploration (No. AKG-33-0000) expired on June 26, 2011. USEPA will reissue separate 

40 NPDES exploration General Permits for the Beaufort Sea and the Chukchi Sea prior to the 2012 

41 drilling season. USEPA expects that tribal consultation and public comment on the new 

42 proposed Arctic oil and gas exploration permits would occur in fall 2011. The USEPA Region 

43 10 website will post updates to its website as they become available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/

44 r10/water.nsf/npdes+permits/arctic-gp.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-126

1 Common impacts on water quality in both coastal and marine areas include those from 

2 vessel traffic, well drilling, and operational discharges. The types of impacts expected are the 

3 same as those discussed above in Section 4.4.3.1.

4

5

6 4.4.3.3.1 Routine Operations.

7

8 Coastal Waters. Construction and installation of exploratory wells (up to 16 in the 

9 Beaufort Sea Planning Area and up to 20 in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area), development wells 

10 (up to 120 in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area and up to 280 in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area), 

11 subsea production wells (up to 10 in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area and up to 82 in the Chukchi 

12 Sea Planning Area), platforms (up to 4 in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area and up to 5 in the 

13 Chukchi Sea Planning Area), and offshore pipelines (up to 249 km [155 mi] in the Beaufort Sea 

14 Planning Area and up to 402 km [250 mi] in the Chukchi) would affect water quality. Such 

15 activities would disturb bottom sediments and increase the turbidity of the water in the area of 

16 the construction. Because pipelines in shallow waters are buried using a trenching method, 

17 installation would initially release sediment to the water column. Moderate impacts on water 

18 quality (i.e., turbidity) from such construction and installation activities would occur in the 

19 immediate area of the activity. These impacts would be local and short term as settling and 

20 mixing occurred.

21

22 Drilling muds and cuttings generated when installing exploration and delineation wells 

23 would be discharged at the well site. All drilling muds and cuttings associated with development 

24 and production wells would be treated and reinjected into the well. For exploration wells, the 

25 volume of drilling fluids and cutting vary depending upon the well characteristics, but, in 

26 general, fluids average approximately 500 bbl/well and drill cuttings would comprise the 

27 equivalent of approximately 600 tons/well of dry rock. Thus, under the proposed action, up to 

28 8,000 bbl of drilling fluids and up to 9,600 tons of drill cuttings could be disposed of in the 

29 waters of the Beaufort Sea Planning Area and up to 10,000 bbl of drilling fluids and up to 

30 12,000 tons of drill cuttings could be disposed of in the waters of the Chukchi Sea Planning 

31 Area. Discharge of drilling muds and cuttings would increase turbidity in the vicinity of the 

32 well. The discharge would contain trace metal and hydrocarbon constituents that would be 

33 suspended in the water column and subsequently deposited on the sea floor. These drilling 

34 discharges must comply with NPDES permit requirements regarding the discharge amount, rate, 

35 and toxicity, which would greatly reduce the impact to water quality. 

36

37 Because of climatic conditions in the Arctic region, there would be a number of 

38 additional operations specific to the Arctic (e.g., constructing and maintaining ice roads 

39 [MMS 2002c] and ice islands). In addition to affecting the turbidity of coastal waters in the 

40 Arctic region, construction activities would also produce waste materials. Contaminants would 

41 also be released to the coastal waters during every ice breakup from fluids entrained in ice roads 

42 and ice islands (Skolnik and Holleyman 2005). Entrained contaminants from vehicle exhaust, 

43 grease, antifreeze, oil, and other vehicle-related fluids would pass directly into the sea at each 

44 breakup (MMS 2002c). These discharges are not expected to be major; however, they would 

45 occur throughout the life of a development area.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-127

1 Construction of new onshore pipelines (up to 129 km [80 mi] in the Beaufort Sea 

2 Planning Area and none in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area) would also affect coastal water 

3 quality in the Arctic region. Proper siting of facilities and requirements associated with 

4 construction permits would largely mitigate these impacts. The impacts on water quality would 

5 range from negligible to minor, depending on site location and construction and mitigation 

6 activities.

7

8 The OCS service and construction vessel traffic to and from platform sites within the 

9 planning area (up to 12 vessel trips per week in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area and up to 

10 15 vessel trips per week in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area) would also affect water quality 

11 through the permitted release of operational wastes. Compliance with applicable NPDES 

12 permits and USCG regulations would prevent or minimize most impacts on receiving waters.

13

14 Marine Waters. Routine operations that could affect marine water quality in the Arctic 

15 region include anchoring, mooring, drilling and well completion activities, well testing and 

16 cleanup operations, flaring/burning, facility installation and operations, support service activities, 

17 decommissioning, and site clearance. Activities such as dredging trenches for pipelines and 

18 constructing artificial islands would disturb the seafloor and increase the suspended sediment 

19 load in the water column. These suspended sediments have toxicity ranges that are generally 

20 described as nontoxic to slightly toxic (National Academy of Sciences 1983). Turbidity and 

21 plumes containing sediments would depend on the season, sediment grain size, the rate and 

22 duration of discharge within the disturbed areas, and the currents present. This additional 

23 suspended sediment load would be temporary, and impacts on water quality would be localized.

24

25 The majority of wastes generated during construction and development would consist of 

26 drill cuttings and spent muds (MMS 2002c). Drilling muds and cuttings generated when 

27 installing exploration and delineation wells would be discharged at the well site. All drilling 

28 muds and cuttings associated with development and production wells would be treated and 

29 reinjected into the well. Some waste also would be generated during operations from 

30 well-workover rigs. Domestic wastewater and produced waters generated by these activities 

31 would also be injected into the disposal well. Solid wastes, including scrap metal, would be 

32 hauled offsite for disposal at an approved facility. Impacts on water quality from these activities 

33 would be negligible.

34

35 Turbidity on a smaller scale would also result from retrieving anchors used to control the 

36 movement of vessels while dredging and setting pipes or placing platforms. These types of 

37 disturbances would not occur if drillships, which use dynamic positioning rather than anchors, 

38 were used, a standard procedure in Chukchi Sea exploration.

39

40 The OCS service and construction vessel traffic to and from platform sites within the 

41 planning area (up to 12 vessel trips per week in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area and up to 15 

42 vessel trips per week in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area) would also affect water quality through 

43 the permitted release of operational wastes. Compliance with applicable NPDES permits and 

44 USCG regulations would prevent or minimize most impacts on receiving waters.

45

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-128

1 4.4.3.3.2 Accidents.

2

3 Coastal Waters. Accidental releases could affect the quality of coastal water in the 

4 Arctic region. The magnitude and severity of impacts would depend on the location of the spill, 

5 spill size, type of product spilled, weather conditions, and the water quality and environmental 

6 conditions at the time of the spill. Under the proposed action, the number and types of spills 

7 assumed to occur in the Arctic region include up to three large spills (i.e., 1,000 bbl): up to two 

8 spills at a volume of 1,700 bbl from pipelines and up to one spill at a volume of 5,000 bbl from a 

9 platform. Between 10 and 35 small spills with volumes between 50 and 999 bbl are assumed to 

10 occur and between 50 and 190 very small spills with volumes between 1 and 50 bbl 

11 (Table 4.4.2-1).

12

13 If a large spill were to occur in enclosed coastal waters or were driven by winds, tides, 

14 and currents into a semi-enclosed coastal area, water quality would be adversely affected. With 

15 limited wave and current activity in coastal waters, the oil would not be easily dispersed, and 

16 weathering could be slower than in the open sea (see discussion in Section 4.4.3.1.2). Under 

17 arctic conditions (i.e., cold water and cold air temperatures), weathering processes, such as 

18 volatilization, would also be much slower than in warmer climates (MMS 2008b); under calm 

19 conditions and cold temperatures in restricted waters, vertical mixing and dissolution would be 

20 reduced (MMS 2008b). If the spill were to occur on ice or under ice, oil would be trapped and 

21 essentially remain unchanged until breakup occurred and the ice began to melt. The volatile 

22 compounds from such a spill would be more likely to freeze into the ice within hours to days 

23 rather than dissolve or disperse into the water below the ice. A hydrocarbon plume in the water 

24 column underneath the ice could persist with concentrations that exceed ambient standards and 

25 background levels for a distance greater than that in the open sea (MMS 2008b). Impacts on 

26 coastal waters from a large spill would depend on the season, type and composition of the spill, 

27 weather conditions, and size of the spill.

28

29 Effects on water quality could persist even longer if oil were to reach coastal wetlands 

30 and be deposited in fine sediments, becoming a long-term source of pollution because of 

31 remobilization. In such locations, spill cleanup could be necessary for recovery of the affected 

32 areas. Shoreline cleanup operations could involve crews working with sorbents, hand tools, and 

33 heavy equipment. The magnitude and severity of impacts from such spills would depend on the 

34 nature of the coastal area associated with the spill, the spill size and composition, and the water 

35 quality and condition of resources affected by the spill.

36

37 Cleanup of large spills in the open sea could be hindered by several factors. There could 

38 be limited access to oil slicks contained between ice floes during a large part of the year. There 

39 could also be reduced oil flow into recovery devices because of increased viscosity and 

40 precipitation of wax crystals, as well as decreased oil adhesion to the recovery unit material and 

41 a high percentage of free water in the recovered product due to mixing of the oil slick with slash 

42 ice and snow (MMS 2008b). Impacts from the spill would again depend on the spill size and 

43 composition, weather conditions, and the location of the spill.

44

45 Small oil spills (<1,000 bbl) or very small oil spills (<50 bbl) would produce measurable 

46 impacts on water quality. Based on the assumption that all small and very small spills do not 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-129

1 occur at the same time and place, water quality would rapidly recover without mitigation, due to 

2 mixing, dilution, and weathering.

3

4 Marine Waters. Under arctic conditions (i.e., cold water and air temperatures), 

5 weathering processes would be much slower than in warmer climates (MMS 2008b). 

6 Seasonality and the specific spill location would cause variability in effects (e.g., summer versus

7 winter in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas). If a spill were to occur, oil would be trapped and 

8 essentially remain unchanged until breakup occurred and the ice began to melt. The volatile 

9 compounds from such a spill would be more likely to freeze into the ice within hours to days 

10 rather than dissolve or disperse into the water below the ice. A hydrocarbon plume in the water 

11 column underneath the ice could persist with concentrations that are above ambient standards 

12 and background levels for a distance that would be five times greater than that in the open sea 

13 (MMS 2008b).

14

15 Small oil spills (<1,000 bbl) or very small oil spills (<50 bbl) would have measurable 

16 impacts on water quality. If it is assumed that all small and very small spills would not occur at 

17 the same time and place, water quality would rapidly recover without mitigation because of 

18 mixing, dilution, and weathering.

19

20 Spill Response and Cleanup. Spill response and cleanup activities in both coastal and 

21 marine waters could include, depending on location, use of chemical dispersants, in situ burning, 

22 use of vessels and skimmers, drilling of a relief well, and beach cleaning and booming 

23 (BOEMRE 2011k). Potential impacts to water quality from each of these spill response and 

24 cleanup activities are discussed above in Section 4.4.3.1.2. However, cleanup of large spills in 

25 the open sea within the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas could be hindered by several factors. There 

26 could be limited access to oil slicks contained between ice floes during a large part of the year. 

27 There could also be reduced oil flow into recovery devices because of increased viscosity and 

28 precipitation of wax crystals, as well as decreased oil adhesion to the recovery unit material and 

29 a high percentage of free water in the recovered product due to mixing of the oil slick with slash 

30 ice and snow (MMS 2008b). In winter, icebreakers could affect the movement of spilled oil that 

31 may be trapped beneath or in the ice (BOEMRE 2011k). 

32

33 If an oil spill occurred in winter, in situ burning would be limited by the lack of open 

34 water to collect oil and open water in which to burn it. If burning could occur in winter on a 

35 limited scale, sea ice would melt in the immediate vicinity of the burn.

36

37 Catastrophic Discharge Event. For the Chukchi Sea Planning Area, a low-probability 

38 CDE could have a volume of between 1,400,000 and 2,200,000 bbl (Table 4.4.2-2). For the 

39 Beaufort Sea Planning Area, a catastrophic discharge event could have a volume of between 

40 1,700,000 and 3,900,000 bbl (Table 4.4.2-2). A catastrophic discharge event in either coastal or 

41 marine waters could present sustained degradation of water quality from hydrocarbon 

42 contamination in exceedence of State and Federal water and sediment quality criteria. These 

43 effects could be significant depending upon the duration and area impacted by the spill. 

44 Additional effects on water quality could occur from response and cleanup vessels, in situ

45 burning of oil, dispersant use, discharges and seafloor disturbance from relief well drilling, and 

46 activities on shorelines associated with cleanup, booming, beach cleaning, and monitoring. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-130

1 Impacts from the event would again depend on the spill size and composition, weather 

2 conditions, and the location of the spill.

3

4

5 4.4.3.4 Conclusions

6

7 Overall coastal and marine water quality impacts due to routine operations and 

8 operational discharges under the proposed action would be unavoidable. Compliance with 

9 NPDES permit requirements would reduce or prevent most impacts on receiving waters caused 

10 by discharges from normal operations. Water quality would recover when discharges ceased 

11 because of dilution, settling, and mixing. Impacts on water quality from routine operations 

12 associated with the Program are expected to be minor to moderate.

13

14 Oil spills could reduce water quality, and these impacts would be unavoidable. In the 

15 presence of cold temperatures and ice, cleanup activities could be more difficult than in more 

16 temperate environments. The magnitude of the impacts would depend on the specific location 

17 affected and the nature and magnitude of the activity/accident. Small spills would be expected to 

18 result in short-term, temporary impacts on coastal and marine water quality. A large spill in 

19 coastal waters could result in longer term impacts on water quality, but cleanup efforts would 

20 reduce the likelihood of permanent impairment. A large spill in marine waters would be 

21 expected to have temporary impacts on water quality; however, cleanup efforts and evaporation, 

22 dilution, and dispersion would minimize the long-term impacts. 

23

24 A catastrophic discharge event could present sustained degradation of water quality from

25 hydrocarbon contamination in exceedence of State and Federal water and sediment quality 

26 criteria. These effects would be significant depending upon the duration and area impacted by 

27 the spill. Impacts from the event would again depend on the spill size and composition, weather 

28 conditions, and the location of the spill.

29

30

31 4.4.4 Potential Impacts on Air Quality

32

33

34 4.4.4.1 Gulf of Mexico

35

36 In the GOM west of 87.5 W longitude, OCS air emissions are regulated by BOEM

37 according to 30 CFR 250.302-304. BOEM reviews projected air emissions information from an 

38 operator submitting a plan for exploration or development activities. If the projected annual 

39 emissions exceed a certain threshold, which is determined by the distance from shore, the 

40 operator needs to perform a modeling analysis to assess air quality impacts on onshore areas. If 

41 the modeled concentrations exceed defined significance levels in an attainment area, which is an 

42 area that meets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), best available control 

43 technology would be required on the facility. If the affected area is classified nonattainment, 

44 further emission reductions or offsets may be required. Projected contributions to onshore 

45 pollutant concentrations are also subject to the same limits that the USEPA applies to the 

46 onshore areas under its Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program (MMS 2007c).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-131

1 Facilities located east of 87.5° W longitude would be under the USEPA jurisdiction, 

2 which regulates air emissions as prescribed in 40 CFR Part 55. For facilities located within 

3 40 km (25 mi) of a State‘s seaward boundary, the regulations are the same as would be 

4 applicable if the emission source were located in the corresponding onshore area and would 

5 include State and local requirements for emission controls, emission limitations, offsets, 

6 permitting, testing, and monitoring. For facilities located beyond 40 km (25 mi) of a State‘s 

7 seaward boundary, the basic Federal air quality regulations apply, which include the USEPA 

8 emission standards for new sources, the PSD regulations, and Title V permits. Both PSD and 

9 Title V requirements apply to major sources that, depending on the source type, could potentially 

10 emit more than either 100 tpy or 250 tpy of a criteria pollutant. Which threshold applies to a 

11 particular source, how the potential emissions are calculated, and what controls are required if 

12 the applicable threshold is exceeded are all issues determined in discussions with regulators 

13 during the air permit application and approval process (MMS 2007c).

14

15 The USEPA has established NAAQS for six criteria pollutants — nitrogen dioxide 

16 (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM; PM10, PM with an aerodynamic diameter of 

17 10 m or less; and PM2.5, PM with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 m or less), carbon 

18 monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), and ozone (O3) — because of their potential adverse effects on 

19 human health and welfare. The health and environmental effects of air pollutants have been 

20 summarized by the USEPA (USEPA 2011a). Ambient levels of criteria pollutants except Pb can 

21 contribute to respiratory illnesses, especially in persons with asthma, children, and the elderly, 

22 and PM and CO can also aggravate cardiovascular diseases.

23

24 Ozone Formation. O3 in the atmosphere is formed by photochemical reactions 

25 involving primarily nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). It is formed 

26 most readily in the summer season, with high temperatures, lower wind speeds, intense solar 

27 radiation, and an absence of precipitation; high O3 episodes are typically associated with slow28 moving, high-pressure systems characterized by light winds and a shallow boundary layer 

29 (NRC 1992). O3 can irritate the respiratory system, reduce lung function, and aggravate asthma. 

30 Repeated exposure to O3 pollution for several months may cause permanent lung damage. 

31 Children, adults who are active outdoors, and people with respiratory problems are the most at 

32 risk from high O3. High levels of O3 are also accompanied by a mix of organic radicals, which 

33 also causes adverse health effects. O3 interferes with the ability of plants to produce and store 

34 food, which makes them more susceptible to disease, insects, other pollutants, competition, and 

35 harsh weather. It may also cause damage to the leaves of trees and other plants, thereby 

36 affecting the health and appearance of vegetation in cities, National Parks, and recreation areas. 

37 O3 may reduce forest growth and crop yields, potentially affecting species diversity in 

38 ecosystems (USEPA 2011a).

39

40 Acid Deposition and Visibility. Gaseous pollutants undergo various chemical reactions 

41 in the atmosphere to form small particles, which remain airborne for extended periods of time. 

42 NOx compounds react with ammonia and moisture to form ammonium nitrate particles, which 

43 contribute to PM2.5 concentrations. SO2 combines with moisture to form tiny sulfate particles, 

44 which may also contribute to adverse health effects. In addition, gaseous NOx and SO2 can 

45 dissolve into cloud water. These acidic chemicals eventually return to the ground in either wet 

46 (e.g., rain, snow) or dry (e.g., gases, particles) forms, commonly referred to as acid deposition or 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-132

1 acid rain (USEPA 2011b). Dry deposition is equally as important as wet deposition. The 

2 deposition often takes place hundreds of kilometers from the source. Acid deposition can 

3 damage forests and crops, change the makeup of soil, and may, in some cases, make lakes and 

4 streams acidic and unsuitable for fish. Deposition of nitrogen from NOx emissions also 

5 contributes to nitrogen load in water bodies, especially estuaries and near-coastal ecosystems. 

6 Acid deposition accelerates the decay of building materials and paints, including irreplaceable 

7 monuments, statues, sculptures, and other cultural resources. Particulate matter, including 

8 sulfate and nitrate particles and organic aerosols that form part of photochemical smog, 

9 significantly reduce atmospheric visibility in areas including National Parks, Monuments, and 

10 Wilderness Areas (USEPA 2011b).

11

In general, the most important source of visibility degradation is from PM2.5 12 in the 0.1 to 

13 1 m size range, which covers the range of visible light (0.4–0.7 m) (Malm 1999). These 

14 particles are directly emitted into the atmosphere through fuel burning. However, other sources 

15 arise through chemical transformation of NO2, SO2, and VOCs into nitrates, sulfates, and 

16 carbonaceous particles. Existing visibility in the eastern United States, including the GOM

17 States, is impaired due to PM2.5 containing primarily sulfates and carbonaceous material. High 

18 relative humidity (over 70%) can play an important factor in visibility impairment, especially in 

19 the GOM coastal areas, where relative humidity is higher than 70% throughout the year. These 

20 particles are generally hygroscopic, and thus the absorption of water by the particulate matter 

21 makes them grow to a size that enhances their ability to scatter light and hence aggravates 

22 visibility reduction. Over the open waters of the GOM, a study of visibility from platforms off 

23 Louisiana revealed that significant reductions in Louisiana coastal and offshore visibility are 

24 almost entirely due to transient natural occurrences of fog (Hsu and Blanchard 2005). Episodes 

25 of haze are short-lived and affect visibility much less. Offshore haze can result from plume drift 

26 generated from coastal sources (MMS 2007c).

27

28

29 4.4.4.1.1 Routine Operations.

30

31 Under the proposed action, construction and operation of up to 2,100 exploration and 

32 delineation wells, up to 2,600 development and production wells, and up to 12,100 km 

33 (7,500 mi) of new pipeline as well as up to 12 new pipeline landfalls, up to 6 new pipe yards, and 

34 up to 12 new natural gas processing facilities and the removal of up to 275 platforms with 

35 explosives will result in emissions that could affect air quality in the GOM. These activities 

36 would generate emissions from stationary sources at the drilling/well sites and from support 

37 vessels and aircraft over the 40- to 50-year period of the Program (Table 4.4.1-1). There could 

38 be up to 600 vessel trips/wk and 5,500 helicopter trips/wk under the proposed action. 

39

40 Emissions. The type and relative amounts of air pollutants generated by offshore 

41 operations vary according to the phase of activity. There are three principal phases of oil and gas 

42 activities operations: exploration, development, and production. Activities affecting air quality 

43 include seismic surveys, drilling activities, platform construction and emplacement, pipeline 

44 laying and burial operations, platform operations, flaring, fugitive emissions, support vessel and 

45 helicopter operations, and evaporation of VOCs during transfers and spills. Principal emissions 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-133

1 TABLE 4.4.4-1 Estimated Highest Annual Air Emissions from OCS Activities in the Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas, 

2 Proposed 2012-2017 Leasing Program

Activity

Pollutant (tons/yr)

NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 VOC CO

Exploration/Delineation Well Drilling 15,359–29,403a 1,956–3,745 271–518 267–511 364–696 3,662–7,002

Development/Production Well Drilling 8,190–15,529 1,043–1,978 144–274 142–270 194–368 1,952–3,698

Platform Installation and Removal 540–998 77–142 18–21 18–23 18–23 98–129

Pipeline Installation 3,180–9,939 540–1,688 120–375 120–375 120–375 660–2,063

Production Platforms 11,634–21,887 284–535 108–204 107–202 7,432–13,981 13,031–24,514

Support Vessels 20,943–39,400 2,822–5,309 363–682 363–682 363–682 1,995–3,753

Helicopters 173–325 43–80 34–63 34–63 417–785 2,112–3,973

Tankers Loading 0–326 0–55 0–12 0–12 0–2,456 0–68

Tankers in Transit 0–7,035 0–853 0–107 0–107 0–2,164 0–586

Tankers Unloading 0–326 0–55 0–12 0–12 0–1,162 0–68

Total 60,019–125,167 6,765–14,440 1,058–2,268 1,051–2,257 8,907–22,692 23,510–45,853

a The range of values reflects the low and high end of the exploration and development scenarios for the Program.

Source: Herkhof 2011; Wilson et al. 2010.

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-134

of concern are the criteria pollutants and their precursors: NOx, sulfur oxides (SOx), 1 13 PM10 and 

2 PM2.5, CO, and VOC. Releases of toxic chemicals could be a concern around oil spills and 

3 in situ burning and especially during accidental releases of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) at platforms. 

4

5 Wilson et al. (2010) provided a comprehensive emission inventory of oil and gas 

6 activities in the GOM for the year 2008, showing that support vessels and platforms rank first 

7 and second, respectively, as NOx emitters with natural gas engines being the largest source on 

8 platforms. Support vessels are the largest SOx emitters, while the drilling rigs also emit 

9 significant SOx. Albeit small, the primary SOx sources on platforms are diesel engines used in 

10 drilling. The largest sources of PM10 are support vessels, drilling rigs, and production platforms. 

11 VOCs come mostly from production platforms, where the primary sources are cold vents, 

12 followed by fugitive sources. Fugitive sources include oil and gas processing, pump and 

13 compressor seals, valves, connectors, and storage tanks. Natural gas engines on platforms 

14 account a considerable portion of CO emissions (Wilson et al. 2010).

15

16 Air emissions from the proposed action were estimated using the most recently available 

17 exploration and development scenario for 2012-2017, as shown in Table 4.4.4-1. These 

18 emissions were estimated by BOEM (Herkhof 2011) using emission factors from the 2008 

19 Gulfwide Emission Inventory Study (Wilson et al. 2010).

20

21 In terms of absolute amounts, the largest emissions would be NOx followed by CO, with 

22 lesser amounts of VOC, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 in order of descending emissions. Under both 

23 the high and low scenarios, support vessels would be the largest source of NOx, SOx, PM10, and 

24 PM2.5 and production platforms would be the largest source of VOC and CO. Emissions from 

25 the Program would initially be lower in the first few years as exploratory wells were drilled and 

26 platforms started producing oil and gas. During the last half of the Program, emissions would 

27 decrease as production decreased and some platforms were removed (MMS 2007c).

28

29 It is estimated that about 10% of the crude oil produced in deep water in the GOM would 

30 be transported to shore via tanker, while in shallow waters about 1% of production would be 

31 transported by barge. The transport of crude oil would result in VOC emissions from loading 

32 operations and breathing losses during transit. VOC emissions would also occur during 

33 unloading and ballasting in port. There would also be emissions of NOx, SO2, and PM10 from 

34 the ships‘ engines (MMS 2007c). 

35

36 Impacts on Criteria Pollutants Other Than Ozone. BOEM performed a cumulative 

37 air quality modeling analysis of platform emissions in a portion of the GOM in 1992 

38 (MMS 1997b). The area modeled included most of the coastline of Louisiana and extended 

39 eastward to include coastal Mississippi and Alabama. Facility emissions were obtained from the 

40 emissions inventory used in the GOM air quality study (MMS 1995b). The emission values 

41 were multiplied by a factor of 1.4 to account for growth. The modeled onshore annual average 

NO2 concentrations were generally somewhat greater than 1 microgram per cubic meter (μg/m3 42 ). 

43 The highest values appeared in the Mississippi River Delta region, where a maximum 

 

13 Sulfur dioxide (SO2

) belongs to the family of sulfur oxides (SOx). For emissions, SO2 accounts for most of 

SOx, and thus these are used interchangeably.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-135

1 concentration of 6 μg/m3 was calculated, which is 6% of the national standard for NO2. The 

2 highest predicted annual, maximum 24-hr, and maximum 3-hr average SO2 concentrations were 

1.1, 13, and 98 μg/m3 3 , respectively. These values are 1, 4, and 7% of the NAAQS for the 

4 respective averaging periods. Modeling was not performed for PM10 or PM2.5, but the 

5 concentrations would be lower because of lower emission rates. The projected emissions for the 

6 proposed action would be lower than the emissions used in the modeling and scattered further 

7 offshore; thus, the impacts would be correspondingly lower. Existing concentrations of NO2, 

SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 8 in the GOM coast States are well within the NAAQS, so emissions from 

9 the proposed action would not result in any exceedance of the NAAQS.

10

11 The highest predicted NO2 and SO2 concentrations in the 1992 emissions modeling were 

12 well within the maximum allowable PSD Class II increments for those pollutants. Any 

13 concentrations resulting from the emissions associated with the proposed action should also be 

14 within the PSD Class II increments.

15

16 The maximum allowable increase for the annual average NO2 concentration in the Class I 

Breton National Wilderness Area (NWA) is 2.5 μg/m3 17 . The highest predicted annual average 

NO2 concentration in Breton from the year 1992 emission sources was 3.6 μg/m3 18 , which exceeds 

19 the Class I increment and indicates that the question of increment consumption at Breton NWA 

20 could be of concern (MMS 2007c, 1997b).

21

22 The highest predicted SO2

23 concentrations in Breton NWA were 0.3, 4.5, 

and 9.7 μg/m3 24 for the annual, maximum 24-hr 

25 average, and maximum 3-hr average 

26 concentrations, respectively. The maximum 

27 allowable concentration increases for PSD 

Class I areas are 2.0, 5.0, and 25 μg/m3 28 , 

29 respectively. Based on this result, SO2

30 concentrations from the proposed action would 

31 be within the Class I maximum allowable 

32 increases (MMS 1997b, 2007c).

33

34 Because of continuing concern about 

35 the combined impact of offshore and onshore 

36 emission sources on the PSD Class I increments 

37 in Breton NWA, BOEMRE has collected an 

38 emission inventory for OCS facilities located 

39 within 100 km (62 mi) of the Breton Class I 

40 area. A modeling study (2000–2001) to the 

41 baseline years (1977 for SO2 and 1988 for 

42 NO2) revealed that none of the allowable SO2

43 or NO2 increments had been fully consumed 

44 (Wheeler et al. 2008). The maximum annual, 

45 24-hr, and 3-hr SO2 increments consumed with the Breton NWA were –1.07, 1.18, and 

1.80 μg/m3 46 , respectively. A decrease in annual SO2 concentration resulted from a general 

Comparing Impacts to PSD Increments

Several points should be considered when air 

quality impacts are compared to PSD increments. 

First, the PSD program applies to individual 

sources, not programs. Emissions from an 

individual source such as a platform or set of 

platforms could differ from the emissions being 

modeled in a particular study. Second, increment 

tracking is a cumulative process that sets a 

maximum allowable increase above a baseline 

concentration. It is unlikely that a permitting 

agency would permit a single source to consume 

all of the increment. Last, PSD applies only to 

major sources, generally sources with the potential 

to emit more than 250 tons/yr, except for the 

100 tons/yr threshold for 28 source categories. 

OCS oil and gas production activities are subject to 

a 250 tons/yr threshold. Regardless of the actual

emissions, a source‘s potential emissions could 

exceed the 250 tons/yr threshold. Determining 

potential emissions and available PSD increment 

allowances requires consultation with the 

cognizant regulators.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-136

1 decrease in SO2 emissions from onshore and offshore sources since 1977. The maximum 

allowable concentration increases for PSD Class I areas are 2.0, 5.0, and 25 μg/m3 2 , respectively. 

The maximum annual NO2 increment consumed within the Breton NWA was 0.10 μg/m3 3 , for 

which the maximum allowable NO2 increment is 2.5 μg/m3 4 . In addition, the BOEM consults 

5 with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Federal land manager of the Breton NWA 

6 area, for plans within 100 km (62 mi) of Breton that exceed a certain emission threshold. 

7 Mitigation measures, such as the use of low-sulfur fuel, may be applied (MMS 2007c).

8

9 No modeling has been performed for CO. In OCS waters, CO emission sources less

10 than about 7,000 tons/year would not have any significant effect on onshore air quality and 

11 are exempt from air quality review under BOEM air quality regulations (MMS 2007c). This is 

12 based on air quality modeling that was performed to support the BOEM air quality rules. As 

13 shown in Table 4.4.4-1, CO emissions from the proposed action are higher than 7,000 tons/year. 

14 However, CO emissions are comparable to NO2 and SO2 emissions, and their associated impacts 

15 are well within the NAAQS discussed above. In addition, CO standards (40,000 and 

10,000 μg/m3 16 for 1- and 8-hr averages, respectively) are more than one order of magnitude 

17 higher than those for NO2 and SO2. Therefore, no significant impacts from CO associated with 

18 the proposed action would be anticipated. 

19

20 Impacts on Ozone. As discussed in MMS (2007c), the impacts from OCS activities on 

21 O3 were evaluated in the GOM air quality study (MMS 1995b). The study focused on the O3

22 nonattainment areas in southeast Texas and the Baton Rouge, Louisiana, areas. It was 

23 determined through modeling that OCS sources contributed little to onshore O3 concentrations in 

24 either of these areas. At locations where the model predicted 1-hr average O3 levels above 

25 120 parts per billion (ppb), which was then the NAAQS, the OCS emissions contributed less 

26 than 2 ppb to the total concentrations. These contributions occurred in only a small geographic 

27 area during any particular episode. At locations where the model predicted O3 levels were much 

28 less than 120 ppb, the highest OCS contributions were about 6–8 ppb. When the modeling was 

29 performed after doubling the OCS emissions, the highest OCS contributions at locations where 

30 the predicted O3 levels exceeded the standard was 2–4 ppb. 

31

32 Again, as noted in MMS (2007c), more recent O3 modeling was performed using a 

33 preliminary GOM-wide emissions inventory for the year 2000 to examine the O3 impacts with 

34 respect to the 1997 8-hr O3 standard of 80 ppb (effective May 27, 2008, the 8-hr O3 standard was 

35 lowered to 75 ppb). One modeling study focused on the coastal areas of Louisiana extending 

36 eastward to Florida (Haney et al. 2004). This study showed that the impacts of OCS emissions 

37 on onshore O3 levels were very small, with the maximum contribution of 1 ppb or less at 

38 locations where the standard was exceeded. The other modeling effort dealt with O3 levels in 

39 southeast Texas (Yarwood et al. 2004). The results of this study indicated a maximum 

40 contribution of 0.2 ppb or less to areas exceeding the standard. 

41

42 Due to the complex, nonlinear nature of the photochemical production of ozone in the 

43 atmosphere, changing emissions of ozone precursors by a given percentage may not produce a 

44 corresponding percentage change in O3 concentrations. However, the projected emissions from 

45 the proposed action would be smaller than the emissions used in the models to ensure that 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-137

1 contributions to O3 levels from actions associated with the proposed action would be smaller 

2 than the figures above. 

3

4 Impacts on Visibility. The application of the VISCREEN visibility screening model 

5 (USEPA 1992) to individual OCS facilities has shown that the emissions are not large enough to 

6 significantly impair visibility. It is not known to what extent aggregate OCS sources contribute 

7 to visibility reductions. However, the individual emission sources from the proposed action are 

8 relatively small and scattered over a large area, and it is not expected that they would have a 

9 measurable impact on acid deposition or visibility. The impacts on visibility would be negligible 

10 (MMS 2007c).

11

12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change. Estimates were made of the total 

13 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O for all projected OCS oil and gas 

14 Program activities (Herkhof 2011). Emission estimates for the various activities were largely 

15 based on a comprehensive inventory of air emissions from oil and gas activities in the GOM for 

16 2008 (Wilson et al. 2010). Air emissions resulting from the Program were estimated by 

17 considering the exploration and development scenarios presented in Table 4.4.4-1. Emissions 

18 are given in terms of teragrams (Tg) of CO2-equivalent, where one Tg is 1012 g (106 metric 

19 tons). This measure takes into account a global warming potential (GWP) factor, which accounts 

20 for the relative effectiveness of a gas to contribute to global warming with respect to the same 

21 amount CO2. In these calculations, CH4 is given a GWP of 21, while N2O is given a GWP 

22 of 310.

23

24 Table 4.4.4-2 lists the total calculated emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O from activities 

25 associated with the Program and compare them with current (2009) U.S. greenhouse gas 

26 emissions from all sources (USEPA 2011l). The projected CO2 emissions from the Program are 

27 about 0.068–0.14% of all current CO2 emissions in the United States. The Program CH4

28 emissions are about 0.087–0.17% of the current CH4 emissions in the United States, which is 

29 slightly higher than that for CO2. The projected N2O emissions from the Program are about 

30 0.009–0.020% of all current N2O emissions in the United States. If CO2, CH4, and N2O 

31 emissions are combined, the Program emissions are about 0.067–0.14% and 0.066–0.13% of the 

32 Nationwide total of three GHG emissions and of all GHG emissions, respectively. The estimated 

33 total global GHG emissions in 2005 were approximately 38,726 Tg CO2-equivalent 

34 (74 FR 66539). The estimated Program GHG emissions are about 0.011–0.023% of the total 

35 global GHG emissions.

36

37 As noted in Section 3.3, GHG emissions are one of the causes of climate change. 

38 Climate change is a global phenomenon and predicting climate change impacts requires 

39 consideration of large scale or even worldwide GHG emissions, not just emissions at a local 

40 level. Climate change predictive capability (modeling) lacks the ability to estimate the impact of 

41 GHGs from a particular source or sources such as oil and gas activities associated with the 

42 Program. What their impact, if any, would be is determined not only by the emissions from the 

43 oil and gas activities themselves, but also by the GHG emissions of other sources throughout the 

44 world and whether these other emissions are expected to increase or decrease. In addition, since 

45 some GHG gases, such as CO2, may persist in the atmosphere for up to a century, the potential 

46 impacts of any source may extend well beyond the active lifetime of the source or program. This 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-138

1 TABLE 4.4.4-2 Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Oil and Gas Activities in 

2 the Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas, 2012-2017 Leasing Program

Pollutant

2012-2017 Program

(Tg CO2-equivalent)a

Total 2009 U.S. Emissions 

from All Sources

(Tg CO2-equivalent)

2012-2017 Program as 

Percentage of Total 2009 

U.S. Emissions

CO2 3.75–7.65 5,505.2 0.068–0.39

CH4 0.59–1.14 686.3 0.087–0.166

N2O 0.03–0.06 295.6 0.009–0.020

CO2 + CH4 + N2O 4.37–8.85 6,487.1 0.067–0.136

All GHGb 4.37–8.85 6,633.2b 0.066–0.133

a One Tg is equal to 1012 g, or 106 metric tons. The CO2

-equivalent for a gas is derived by 

multiplying the mass of the gas by the associated GWP, which accounts for the relative 

effectiveness of a gas to contribute to global warming with respect to the same amount CO2. In 

these calculations, CH4is given a GWP of 21, while N2O is given a GWP of 310.

b Total U.S. GHG emissions also include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur 

hexafluoride emissions. Estimates of emissions from the Program were not made for these 

compounds, but they are assumed to be very small.

Source: USEPA 2011l; Herkhof 2011.

3

4

5 said, given the small percentage contributions of oil and gas activities in the GOM to global 

6 GHG emissions, the potential impact on climate change would probably be small. Section 3.3 

7 provides some baseline considerations for climate change and Section 4.4.3 and Sections 4.4.6 

8 through 4.4-15 discuss potential impacts to specific impact areas.

9

10

11 4.4.4.1.2 Accidents.

12

13 Under the proposed action, the number and types of spills assumed to occur in the GOM 

14 include up to eight large spills ( 1,000 bbl) from both pipeline and platforms including one 

15 tanker spill and between 235 and 470 small spills (<1,000 bbl) over the 40- to 50-year period of 

16 the Program (Table 4.4.2-1). Evaporation of oil from these spills and emissions from spill 

17 response and cleanup activities including in situ burning, if used, have the potential to affect air 

18 quality in the GOM. 

19

20 Spills and In Situ Burning. Evaporation of small accidental oil spills would cause 

21 small, localized increases in VOCs. Most of the emissions would occur within a few hours of 

22 the spill and would decrease after that period. Large spills would result in emissions over a large 

23 area and a longer period of time. Hanna and Drivas (1993) modeled the emissions of various 

24 hydrocarbon compounds from a large spill. A number of these compounds, including BTEX and 

25 hexane, are classified by the USEPA as hazardous air pollutants. The results showed that these 

26 compounds evaporate almost completely within a few hours after the spill occurs. Ambient 

27 concentrations peak within the first several hours after the spill starts and are reduced by two 

28 orders of magnitude after about 12 hr. The heavier compounds take longer to evaporate and may 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-139

1 not peak until about 24 hr after spill occurrence. Total ambient VOC concentrations are 

2 significant in the immediate vicinity of an oil spill, but concentrations are much reduced after the 

3 first day (MMS 2007c). Spreading of the spilled oil and action by winds, waves, and currents 

4 would further disperse VOC concentrations to extremely low levels over a relatively larger area. 

5 Concentrations of criteria pollutants would remain well within NAAQS (MMS 2008b). 

6

7 Diesel fuel oil could be spilled either in transit or from accidents involving vehicles, 

8 vessels, or equipment. A diesel spill would evaporate faster than a crude oil spill. Ambient 

9 hydrocarbon concentrations would be higher than those of a crude oil spill but would persist for a 

10 shorter time. Also, because any such spill probably would be smaller than some potential crude 

11 oil spills, any air quality effects from a diesel spill likely would be lower than those for other 

12 spills (MMS 2008b). 

13

14 In situ burning of spilled crude or diesel would generate a plume of black smoke and 

emissions of NO2, SO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 15 that would temporarily affect air quality, but the 

16 effects would be small. Fingas et al. (1995) describe the results of a monitoring program of a 

17 burn experiment at sea. The program involved extensive ambient measurements during two 

18 experiments in which approximately 300 bbl of crude oil was burned. During the burn, CO, 

19 SO2, and NO2 were measured only at background levels and were frequently below detection 

20 levels. Ambient levels of VOCs were high within about 100 m (328 ft) of the fire, but were 

21 significantly lower than those associated with a nonburning spill. It appeared that a major 

22 portion of these compounds was consumed in the burn. Effects of in situ burning for spilled 

23 diesel fuel would be similar to those associated with a crude oil spill (MMS 2008b). 

24

25 A significant component of the pollution from a fire would be soot. Soot would cling 

26 to plants near the fire but would tend to clump and wash off vegetation in subsequent rains. 

27 Potential contamination of shoreline and onshore vegetation would be limited, however, because

28 oil and gas activities under the proposed action would be at least 15 km (8 NM) offshore, with 

29 the exception of any oil- or gas-transport pipelines (MMS 2008b). 

30

31 Smoke from burning crude oil would contain PAHs. Benzo(a)pyrene, which often is 

32 used as an indicator of the presence of carcinogenic varieties of PAHs, is present in crude oil 

33 smoke in very small amounts, but in quantities approximately three times larger than in unburned 

34 oil (Evans 1988). Investigators have found that, overall, the oily residue in smoke plumes from 

35 crude oil is mutagenic, although not highly so. McGrattan et al. (1995) modeled smoke plumes 

36 associated with in situ burning. Modeling has shown that the surface concentrations of 

37 particulate matter do not exceed the health criterion of 150 μg/m3 beyond about 5 km (3 mi) 

38 downwind of an in situ burn. This result appears to be supported by field experiments conducted 

39 off Newfoundland and in Alaska (MMS 2007c). This is quite conservative, as this health 

40 standard is based on a 24-hr average concentration rather than a 1-hr average concentration. 

41

42 Catastrophic Discharge Events. In the GOM, a low-probability CDE event could range 

43 in size from 900,000 and 7,200,000 bbl, and have a duration of 30–90 days (Table 4.4.2-2). 

44 Evaporation of oil from these spills and emissions from spill response and cleanup activities 

45 including in situ burning, if used, have the potential to affect air quality in the GOM. 

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-140

1 In a catastrophic discharge event, oil may be burned to prevent it from entering sensitive 

2 habitats. During an in situ burn, the conditions exist (i.e., incomplete hydrocarbon combustion 

3 and the presence of chlorides in seawater) such that dioxins and furans could potentially form. 

4 (Dioxins and furans are a family of extremely persistent chlorinated compounds that magnify in 

5 the food chain, and dioxins are a group of potentially cancer-causing chemicals.) A total of 

6 410 controlled burns (corresponding to about 5% of the total leaked oil) were conducted during 

7 the DWH event (Lubchenco 2010). Measurements of dioxins and furans during the DWH event 

8 in situ burning were made and their emission factors were derived (Aurell and Gullett 2010). 

9 The estimated levels of dioxins and furans produced by the in situ burns were similar to those 

10 from residential woodstove fires and slightly lower than those from forest fires, according to 

11 USEPA researchers (Schaum et al. 2010), and thus, concerns about bioaccumulation in seafood 

12 were alleviated. The reports found that while small amounts of dioxins were created by the 

13 burns, the levels that workers and residents would have been exposed to were below USEPA‘s 

14 levels of concern.

15

16 The effects of a catastrophic discharge event on public health and the environment can be 

17 classified as short-term and long-term effects. The short-term effects include watery and irritated 

18 eyes, skin itching and redness, coughing, and shortness of breath or wheezing. 

19

20 Although there are relatively few studies on air quality impacts to human health 

21 following oil spills, some lessons can be learned from the 1991 Kuwaiti oil field fires and the 

22 effects of oil burning during the DWH event. In the Kuwaiti event, 600 oil wells were set on 

23 fire. These burnings produced a composite smoke plume of gaseous constituents (e.g., NOx, 

24 SOx, CO2, etc.), acid aerosols, VOCs, metal compounds, PAHs, and particulate matter. Military 

25 personnel deployed to the Persian Gulf War have reported a variety of symptoms attributed to 

26 their exposures, including asthma and bronchitis, but Lange et al. (2002) did not find that 

27 exposures to oil fire smoke caused respiratory symptoms among veterans. 

28

29 There would be some residual air quality impacts after the well is capped or ―killed.‖ As 

30 most of the oil would have been burned, evaporated, or weathered over time, air quality would 

31 return to pre-oil spill conditions. While impacts on air quality are expected to be localized and 

32 temporary, adverse effects that may occur from the exposure of humans and wildlife to air 

33 pollutants could have long-term consequences (BOEMRE 2011).

34

35 Hydrogen Sulfide. An accidental release of H2S in the atmosphere could present a 

36 serious hazard to platform workers and persons in close proximity to a platform. H2S

37 concentrations of 20 ppm, the OSHA ceiling level that must not be exceeded during any part of 

38 the workday, causes irritation to exposed persons within minutes and concentrations of 500 ppm 

39 are deadly. All OCS operators involved in production of sour gas or oil that could result in 

40 atmospheric H2S concentrations above 20 ppm are required to file an H2S Contingency Plan 

41 with BOEM. The plan contains measures to prevent serious injury or death to personnel. Under 

42 a worst-case scenario of an accidental release at a very large facility with a throughput of 

43 100 million cubic feet of gas per day with high H2S concentration levels (on the order of 

44 20,000 ppm), near-calm wind, and stable atmospheric conditions, the H2S levels are predicted to 

45 be 500 ppm at about 1 km (0.6 mi) from the facility and 20 ppm at several kilometers from the 

46 source (MMS 2001c). Most ―sour gas‖ facilities have H2S concentrations below 500 ppm, 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-141

1 which would result in H2S levels of 20 ppm that are confined to an area within the dimensions of 

2 a typical platform (MMS 2007c). 

3

4 In the case of an aquatic H2S release, the gas is soluble in water, so a small gas leak 

5 would result in almost complete dissolution into the water column. Larger leaks would result in 

6 less dissolution and could result in release into the atmosphere if the surrounding waters reach 

7 saturation. Because the oxidation of H2S in water takes place slowly, there should not be any 

8 appreciable zones of hypoxia. H2S levels can have adverse impacts on mammals, birds, and fish 

9 (MMS 2001c). 

10

11

12 4.4.4.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

13

14 The OCS facilities located off the coast of Alaska would be under the jurisdiction of the 

15 USEPA, which regulates air emissions as prescribed in 40 CFR Part 55. For facilities located 

16 within 40 km (25 mi) of a State‘s seaward boundary, the regulations are the same as would be 

17 applicable if the emission source were located in the corresponding onshore area, and would 

18 include State and local requirements for emission controls, emission limitations, offsets, 

19 permitting, monitoring, testing, and reporting. For facilities located more than 40 km (25 mi) 

20 from a State‘s seaward boundary, the basic Federal air quality regulations apply, including the 

21 USEPA emission standards for new sources, PSD regulations, and Title V permits. Both PSD 

22 and Title V requirements apply to major sources that, depending on the source type, could 

23 potentially emit more than either 100 tons/yr or 250 tons/yr of a criteria pollutant. Which 

24 threshold applies to a particular source, how the potential emissions are calculated, and what 

25 controls are required if the applicable threshold is exceeded are all issues determined in 

26 discussions with regulators during the air permit application and approval process.

27

28 The USEPA has established NAAQS for six criteria pollutants — NO2, SO2, PM10 and 

29 PM2.5, CO, Pb, and O3 — because of their potential adverse effects on human health and 

30 welfare. The health and environmental effects of air pollutants have been summarized by the 

31 USEPA (USEPA 2011a). Ambient levels of criteria pollutants other than Pb can contribute to 

32 respiratory illnesses, especially in persons with asthma, children, and the elderly, and PM and 

33 CO can also aggravate cardiovascular diseases.

34

35 Ozone Formation. O3 in the atmosphere is formed by photochemical reactions 

36 involving primarily NOx and VOCs. It is formed most readily in the summer season, with high 

37 temperatures, lower wind speeds, intense solar radiation, and an absence of precipitation; high38 O3 episodes are typically associated with slow-moving, high-pressure systems characterized by 

39 light winds and shallow boundary layers (NRC 1992). However, conditions in Alaska are 

40 seldom favorable for significant O3 formation, primarily due to low ambient temperature. At 

41 Kodiak, for example, the highest monthly mean daily maximum of 61.0 F occurs in August, 

42 when the highest temperature is 86 F (NCDC 2011a).

43

44 Acid Deposition and Visibility. Gaseous pollutants undergo various chemical reactions 

45 in the atmosphere to form small particles, which remain airborne for extended periods of time. 

46 NOx compounds react with ammonia and moisture to form ammonium nitrate particles, which 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-142

1 contribute to PM2.5 concentrations. SO2 combines with moisture to form tiny sulfate particles, 

2 which may also contribute to adverse health effects. In addition, gaseous NOx and SO2 can 

3 dissolve into cloud water. These acidic chemicals eventually return to the ground in either wet 

4 (e.g., rain, snow) or dry (e.g., gases, particles) forms, commonly referred to as acid deposition or 

5 acid rain (USEPA 2011b). Dry deposition and wet deposition are equally important. The 

6 deposition often takes place hundreds of miles from the source. Acid deposition can damage 

7 forests and crops, change the makeup of soil, and in some cases may make lakes and streams 

8 acidic and unsuitable for fish. Deposition of nitrogen from NOx emissions also contributes to 

9 nitrogen load in water bodies, especially estuaries and near-coastal ecosystems. Acid deposition 

10 accelerates the decay of building materials and paints, including those of irreplaceable 

11 monuments, statues, sculptures, and other cultural resources. Particulate matter, including 

12 sulfate and nitrate particles and organic aerosols that form part of photochemical smog, 

13 significantly reduce atmospheric visibility. Atmospheric pollutants adversely affect visibility in 

14 many national parks and monuments, as well as wilderness areas (USEPA 2011b).

15

The most important source of visibility degradation is from PM2.5 16 in the 0.1- to 1- m

17 size range, which covers the range of visible light (0.4–0.7 m) (Malm 1999). These particles 

18 are directly emitted into the atmosphere through fuel burning. However, other sources arise 

19 through the chemical transformation of NO2, SO2, and VOCs into nitrates, sulfates, and 

20 carbonaceous particles. Existing visibility in Alaska is generally good because of the absence of 

21 large emission sources.

22

23 Arctic Haze. Arctic haze is a reduction in visibility that often appears in distinct bands 

24 at different heights. It was initially observed during weather reconnaissance flights in the High 

25 Arctic. The haze is seasonal, with a peak in the spring, and originates from anthropogenic 

26 sources outside the Arctic. The most severe episodes occur when stable high-pressure systems 

27 produce clear, calm weather; these episodes can reduce visibility (~30.6 km [~19 mi]) in spite of 

28 the otherwise clear weather. Coal burning appears to be the principle source of haze particles. 

29 Haze particles consist of sulfate (up to 90%), soot, and sometimes dust, most of which originate 

30 in Eurasia and are picked up by the Arctic airmass that moves northward over the North Pole in 

31 winter. The cold, dry air in the polar regions allows particles to remain airborne for weeks, thus 

32 permitting the contaminants to spread over the Arctic and into North America. Arctic haze 

33 reduces visibility, but the levels of sulfur compounds in haze are lower than those found in 

34 heavily polluted cities (AMAP 1997).

35

36

37 4.4.4.2.1 Routine Operations. The Cook Inlet OCS experiences open-water conditions 

38 throughout the year, except in small northern portions of the planning area from January to 

39 March (MMS 2003a). 

40

41 Under the proposed action, construction and operation of up to 12 exploration and 

42 delineation wells, up to 114 development and production wells, up to 241 km (150 mi) of new 

43 offshore pipeline, up to 169 km (105 mi) of new onshore pipeline, and up to 1 new pipeline 

44 landfall will result in emissions that could affect air quality in Cook Inlet. These activities would 

45 generate emissions from stationary sources at the drilling/well sites and from support vessels and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-143

1 aircraft over the 40-year period of the Program (Table 4.4.1-3). There could be up to 3 vessel 

2 trips/wk and 3 helicopter trips/wk under the proposed action. 

3

4 Emissions. The type and relative amounts of air pollutants generated by offshore 

5 operations vary according to the phase of activity. There are three principal phases of OCS 

6 operations: exploration, development, and production. Activities affecting air quality include 

7 seismic surveys; drilling activities; platform construction and emplacement; pipeline laying and 

8 burial operations; platform operations; flaring; fugitive emissions; support vessel and helicopter 

9 operations; and evaporation of VOCs during transfers and spills. Principal emissions of concern 

10 are the criteria pollutants and their precursors: NOx, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5, CO, and VOCs.

11

12 Releases of toxic chemicals could be a concern around oil spills and in situ burning and

13 especially during accidental releases of H2S at platforms. Other sources of pollutants related to 

14 OCS operations are accidents such as losses of well control and oil spills. Spill emissions consist 

15 primarily of VOCs, while fires and in situ burning produce criteria pollutants along with 

16 hazardous air pollutants.

17

18 Air emissions from the proposed action in the Cook Inlet were estimated using the 

19 most recent available exploration and development scenarios for 2012–2017 as shown in 

20 Table 4.4.4-3. These emissions were estimated by BOEM (Herkhof 2011) using emission 

21 factors from the 2008 Gulfwide Emission Inventory Study (Wilson et al. 2010). Although the 

22 study is specific to the GOM, these factors should be applicable in the Cook Inlet, since many of 

23 the same types of sources are involved in oil and gas activities in both areas.

24

25

26 TABLE 4.4.4-3 Estimated Highest Annual Air Emissions from OCS Activities in the Cook 

27 Inlet Planning Area, Proposed 2012-2017 Leasing Program

Activity

Pollutant (tons/yr)

NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 VOC CO

Exploration/Delineation Well Drilling 38–38a 8–8 3–3 3–3 7–7 0–0

Development/Production Well Drilling 229–382 46–77 16–27 16–27 41–68 1–2

Platform Installation and Removal 213–213 31–31 5–5 5–5 5–5 28–28

Pipeline Installation 331–663 56–113 13–25 13–25 13–25 69–138

Production Platforms 53–53 1–1 0–0 0–0 34–34 60–60

Support Vessels 96–96 13–13 2–2 2–2 2–2 9–9

Helicopters 1–1 0–0 0–0 0–0 2–2 10–10

Tankers Loading 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0

Tankers in Transit 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0

Tankers Unloading 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0 0–0

Total 961–1,445 156–243 39–62 39–62 103–143 177–246

a The range of values reflects the low and high end of the exploration and development scenarios for the 

Program.

Source: Herkhof 2011; Wilson et al. 2010.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-144

1 Oil and gas activity emissions from the Program for the Cook Inlet are relatively small in 

2 comparison to those other planning areas. For all pollutants under both low and high scenarios, 

3 Cook Inlet emissions are 4% or less of the GOM emissions. They are up to 12% of Arctic 

4 regions emissions. In terms of absolute amount, the main emissions would be NOx followed by 

5 CO, with lesser amounts of SOx, VOCs, PM10 and PM2.5 in order of descending emissions. 

6 Emissions from the Program would initially be lower in the first few years as exploratory wells 

7 were drilled and platforms started producing oil and gas. During the last half of the 40-yr

8 Program, emissions would decrease as production decreased and some platforms were removed 

9 (MMS 2007c).

10

11 Impacts on Criteria Pollutants Other 

12 Than Ozone. Air quality modeling for NO2, 

13 SO2, and PM10 were conducted for a lease sale 

14 in the Cook Inlet Planning Area (MMS 2003a). 

15 Potential air quality impacts were estimated by 

16 using the Offshore and Coastal Dispersion 

17 model for both exploratory drilling and a 

18 production facility. Potential emission sources 

19 were placed so as to maximize potential air 

20 quality impacts on the Tuxedni Wilderness 

21 Area (WA), which is a PSD Class I area in the 

22 Cook Inlet. The highest predicted NO2

23 concentration in the Tuxedni WA was 

0.27 μg/m3 24 , about 11% of PSD Class I 

maximum allowable increment of 2.5 μg/m3 25 . 

26 For SO2, the highest predicted annual average, 

27 maximum 24-hr, and maximum 3-hr average 

28 concentrations in the Tuxedni WA were 0.02,

0.58, and 2.7 μg/m3 29 , respectively, for which 

30 PSD Class I incremental limits are 2, 5, and 

25 μg/m3 31 . For PM10, the highest annual 

32 average and 24-hr average concentrations in 

33 Tuxedni WA were predicted to be 0.02 and 

0.51 μg/m3, for which PSD Class I incremental limits are 4 and 8 μg/m3 34 . The highest onshore 

35 pollutant concentrations were lower than or comparable to those in the Tuxedni WA and thus 

36 less than the NAAQS and the PSD Class II incremental limits.

37

38 Each project in the Program would apply the best available control technology according 

39 to USEPA and State regulations, and pollutant concentrations would have to meet the PSD 

40 incremental limits. Existing pollutant concentrations in the Cook Inlet are well within the 

41 NAAQS (MMS 2003a). The small additional concentrations from the Program would result in 

42 levels that are still well within the NAAQS.

43

44 Impacts on Ozone. As noted above, conditions in Alaska are seldom favorable for 

45 significant O3 formation because of the low ambient temperature. Precursor emissions NOx and 

46 VOCs are relatively small, and a significant increase in O3 concentrations onshore is not likely to 

Comparing Impacts to PSD Increments

Several points should be considered when air 

quality impacts are compared to PSD increments. 

First, the PSD program applies to individual 

sources, not programs. Emissions from an 

individual source such as a platform or set of 

platforms could differ from the emissions being 

modeled in a particular study. Second, increment 

tracking is a cumulative process that sets a 

maximum allowable increase above a baseline 

concentration. It is unlikely that a permitting 

agency would permit a single source to consume 

the entire increment. Last, PSD applies only to 

major sources, generally sources with the potential 

to emit more than 250 tons/yr, except the 

100 tons/yr threshold for 28 source categories. 

OCS oil and gas production activities are subject to 

a 250 tons/yr threshold. Regardless of the actual

emissions, a source‘s potential emissions could 

exceed the 250 tons/yr threshold. Determining 

potential emissions and available PSD increment 

allowances require consultation with the cognizant 

regulators.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-145

1 result from oil and gas activities associated with the proposed action. OCS activities would also 

2 be relatively small and separated from each other, diminishing the combined effects from these 

3 activities and greatly increasing atmospheric dispersion of pollutants before they reach shore. 

4 The proposed activities would not be expected to cause any exceedances of the O3 standard

5 (MMS 2008b).

6

7 Impacts on Visibility. A number of visibility screening runs were performed using the 

8 VISCREEN model to evaluate potential effects of oil and gas activities on visibility in the 

9 Tuxedni WA (MMS 2003a). For an exploration project located 12 km (7.5 mi) distant from the 

10 Tuxedni WA, the model results exceed the screening criteria when the wind blows directly from 

11 the facility to the Tuxedni WA, under the worst-case meteorological conditions with a wind 

12 speed of 1 m/s (2.2 mph) and stable atmosphere. If the screening criteria are exceeded, it 

13 indicates the possibility that a plume generated by the emissions would be visible by an observer 

14 within Tuxedni WA. However, it does not provide a measure of any general visibility effects in 

15 the area, such as regional haze. It is estimated that this scenario would occur less than 1% of the 

16 time. For distances larger than 50 km (31 mi), the screening criteria were not exceeded. Under 

17 average meteorological conditions, it is estimated that a plume would not be visible.

18

19 Given that oil and gas sources are relatively small and would be scattered over a large 

20 area, it is not expected that they would have a measureable impact on visibility. However, a 

21 more refined analysis might be needed during the permitting process to more precisely evaluate 

22 any effects of oil and gas activities on visibility.

23

24 Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Estimates were made of the total GHG emissions of CO2, 

25 CH4, and N2O for all projected activities associated with the Program (Herkhof 2011). Emission 

26 estimates for the various activities were largely based on a comprehensive inventory of air 

27 emissions from oil and gas activities in the GOM for 2008 (Wilson et al. 2010). Air emissions 

28 resulting from the Program were estimated by considering the exploration and development 

29 scenarios presented in Table 4.4.1-3. Emissions are given in terms of Tg of CO2-equivalent, 

30 where 1 Tg is 1012 g (106 metric tons). This measure takes into account a GWP factor that

31 accounts for the relative effectiveness of a gas to contribute to global warming with respect to the 

32 same amount of CO2. In these calculations, CH4 is given a GWP of 21, while N2O is given a 

33 GWP of 310.

34

35 Table 4.4.4-4 lists the total calculated emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O from activities 

36 associated with the Program and compares them with current (2009) U.S. greenhouse gas 

37 emissions from all sources (USEPA 2011l). The projected CO2 emissions from the Program are 

38 about 0.0025–0.0038% of all current CO2 emissions in the United States. The Program CH4 and 

39 N2O emissions are about 0.0004% or less of the current their respective emissions in the 

40 United States. If CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions are combined, the Program emissions are about 

41 0.0022–0.0033% and 0.0021–0.0032% of the nationwide total of three GHG emissions and of all 

42 GHG emissions, respectively. The estimated total global GHG emissions in 2005 were 

43 approximately 38,726 Tg CO2-equivalent (74 FR 66539). The estimated Program GHG 

44 emissions are about 0.00036–0.00055% of the total global GHG emissions.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-146

1 TABLE 4.4.4-4 Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Oil and Gas Activities in 

2 the Cook Inlet Planning Area, 2012-2017 Leasing Program

Pollutant

2012-2017 Program

(Tg CO2-equivalent)a

Total 2009 U.S. Emissions 

from All Sources

(Tg CO2-equivalent)

2012-2017 Program 

as Percentage of Total 

2009 U.S. Emissions

CO2 0.1363–0.2100 5,505.2 0.00247–0.00382

CH4 0.0028–0.0028 686.3 0.00041–0.00041

N2O 0.0006–0.0010 295.6 0.00021–0.00032

CO2 + CH4 + N2O 0.1397–0.2138 6,487.1 0.00215–0.00330

All GHGb 0.1397–0.2138 6,633.2b 0.00211–0.00322

a One Tg is equal to 1012 g, or 106 metric tons. The CO2

-equivalent for a gas is derived by 

multiplying the mass of the gas by the associated GWP, which accounts for the relative 

effectiveness of a gas to contribute to global warming with respect to the same amount CO2. In 

these calculations, CH4is given a GWP of 21, while N2O is given a GWP of 310.

b Total U.S. GHG emissions also include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur 

hexafluoride emissions. Estimates of emissions from the Program were not made for these 

compounds, but they are assumed to be very small.

Source: USEPA 2011l; Herkhof 2011.

3

4

5 As noted in Section 3.3, GHG emissions are one of the causes of climate change. 

6 Climate change is a global phenomenon and predicting climate change impacts requires 

7 consideration of large-scale or even worldwide GHG emissions, not just emissions at a local 

8 level. Climate change predictive capability (modeling) lacks the ability to estimate the impact of 

9 GHGs from a particular source or sources such as oil and gas activities associated with the 

10 Program. What their impact, if any, would be is determined not only by the emissions from the 

11 oil and gas activities themselves, but also by the GHG emissions of other sources throughout the 

12 world and whether these other emissions are expected to increase or decrease. In addition, since 

13 some GHG gases, such as CO2, may persist in the atmosphere for up to a century, the potential 

14 impacts of any source may extend well beyond the active lifetime of the source or program. This 

15 said, given the small percentage contributions of oil and gas activities in Cook Inlet to global 

16 GHG emissions, the potential impact on climate change would probably be small. Section 3.3 

17 provides some baseline considerations for climate change and Section 4.4.3 and Sections 4.4.6 

18 through 4.4-15 discuss potential impacts on specific impact areas.

19

20

21 4.4.4.2.2 Accidents. Under the proposed action, the number and types of spills assumed 

22 to occur in Cook Inlet include up to one large spill ( 1,000 bbl) from either a pipeline or 

23 platform and between 8 and 18 small spills (<1,000 bbl) over the 40-year period of the Program 

24 (Table 4.4.2-1). Evaporation of oil from these spills and emissions from spill response and 

25 cleanup activities including in situ burning, if used, have the potential to affect air quality in 

26 Cook Inlet. 

27
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-147

1 Spills and In Situ Burning. Small accidental oil spills would cause small, localized 

2 increases in concentrations of VOCs because of evaporation of the spill. Most of the emissions 

3 would occur within a few hours of the spill and would decrease drastically after that period. 

4 Large spills would exhibit similar behavior but would affect a somewhat larger area and cause 

5 elevated pollutant concentrations to persist somewhat longer. Hanna and Drivas (1993) modeled 

6 the emissions of various hydrocarbon compounds from a large spill. A number of these 

7 compounds, including BTEX and hexane, are classified by the USEPA as hazardous air 

8 pollutants. Many of these contaminants may be carcinogenic to humans and/or animals. The 

9 results showed that these compounds evaporate almost completely within a few hours after the 

10 spill occurs. Ambient concentrations peak within the first several hours after the spills starts and 

11 are reduced by two orders of magnitude after about 12 hr. The heavier compounds take longer to 

12 evaporate and may not peak until about 24 hr after spill occurrence. Total ambient VOC 

13 concentrations are significant in the immediate vicinity of an oil spill, but concentrations are 

14 much reduced after the first day (MMS 2007c). There is no information about any possible 

15 effect from the inhalation of air contaminants by subsistence animals, but this effect would be 

16 expected to be much less than any contamination by contact with hazardous compounds in the 

17 water. These effects on subsistence are described in Section IV.B.3.k of MMS (2007c).

18

19 In situ burning is a potential technique for cleanup and disposal of spilled oil. In situ

20 burning of a spill results in emissions of NO2, SO2, CO, and PM10 and generates a plume of 

21 black smoke. Fingas et al. (1995) describes the results of a monitoring program of a burn 

22 experiment at sea. The program involved extensive ambient measurements during two 

23 experiments in which approximately 300 bbl of crude oil was burned. It found that during the 

24 burn, CO, SO2, and NO2 were measured only at background levels and were frequently below 

25 detection levels. Ambient levels of VOCs were high within about 100 m (328 ft) of the fire but 

26 significantly lower than those associated with a nonburning spill. Measured concentrations of 

27 PAHs were low. It appeared that a major portion of these compounds was consumed in the burn. 

28 The appearance of a black plume from in situ burning around a subsistence hunting area could 

29 have an adverse effect on subsistence hunting practices because of the creation of a perception 

30 that wildlife has been contaminated. Subsistence hunters may avoid areas where such incidents 

31 have occurred.

32

33 McGrattan et al. (1995) modeled smoke plumes associated with in situ burning. The 

34 results showed that the surface concentrations of particulate matter did not exceed the health 

35 criterion of 150 μg/m3 beyond about 5 km (3 mi) downwind of an in situ burn. This appears to 

36 be supported by field experiments conducted off Newfoundland and in Alaska (MMS 2007c). 

37 This is quite conservative because this health standard is based on a 24-hr average concentration 

38 rather than a 1-hr average concentration.

39

40 Air quality impacts from accidental oil spills in open water during the proposed action 

41 would be similar to those described above. However, albeit limited to a small northern area and 

42 short duration (January to March), a spill in Cook Inlet during broken ice or melting ice 

43 conditions could result in more concentrated emissions over a smaller area than would be the 

44 case under open-water conditions because the ice would act to reduce spreading of the oil 

45 compared to the spreading of a spill in open water. An oil spill on solid sea ice would spread 

46 relatively slowly compared to a spill in open water. The more volatile components of the oil 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-148

1 would evaporate rather rapidly, but the heavier compounds would linger on the surface. The 

2 effects on air quality would result in more concentrated emissions over a smaller area than would 

3 be the case for a spill in open water.

4

5 Catastrophic Discharge Event. In the Cook Inlet Planning Area, a low-probability 

6 CDE could range in size from 75,000 and 125,000 bbl, with a duration of 50–80 days 

7 (Table 4.4.2-2). Evaporation of oil from these spills and emissions from spill response and 

8 cleanup activities including in situ burning, if used, have the potential to affect air quality in 

9 Cook Inlet. 

10

11 The air impacts of a CDE and any associated in situ burning in the Cook Inlet would be 

12 similar to those open water impacts discussed in Section 4.4.4.1.2. Potential impacts from a 

13 large spill under the ice are discussed in the ―Spills and In Situ Burning‖ subsection above.

14

15 A CDE in South Central Alaska could emit regulated pollutants into the atmosphere. 

16 This may cause major air quality impacts during some phases of the event. The greatest impacts 

17 on air quality conditions would occur during the initial explosion of gas and oil and during the 

18 spill response and cleanup, particularly if the event occurs during the winter. Impacts could 

19 continue for days during the initial event and could continue for months during spill response 

20 and clean up. Therefore, while the impacts may be major during these two phases, overall, the 

21 emissions from a CDE would be temporary and, over time, air quality in South Central Alaska 

22 would return to pre-oil-spill conditions (BOEMRE 2011k).

23

24 Hydrogen Sulfide. An accidental release of H2S at a platform and its associated impacts 

25 on platform workers and persons in close proximity to a platform are discussed in detail in 

26 Section 4.4.4.1.2 for the GOM. Potential impacts at or around the platform would be similar in 

27 the Cook Inlet.

28

29

30 4.4.4.3 Alaska – Arctic

31

32 General air emission sources and potential impacts on ambient air quality associated with 

33 OCS oil and gas activities are covered in detail in Section 4.4.4.1 for the GOM. Air quality 

34 impacts for both the Beaufort and the Chukchi Seas are similar and are discussed together. 

35 Differences are noted where appropriate.

36

37 The OCS facilities located off Alaska would be under the jurisdiction of the USEPA, 

38 which regulates air emissions as prescribed in 40 CFR Part 55. For facilities located within 

39 40 km (25 mi) of a State‘s seaward boundary, the regulations are the same as would be 

40 applicable if the emission source were located in the corresponding onshore area, and would 

41 include State and local requirements for emission controls, emission limitations, offsets, 

42 permitting, testing, and monitoring. For facilities located more than 40 km (25 mi) from a 

43 State‘s seaward boundary, the basic Federal air quality regulations apply, which include the 

44 USEPA emission standards for new sources, the PSD regulations, and Title V permits. Both 

45 PSD and Title V requirements apply to major sources that, depending on the source type, could 

46 potentially emit more than either 100 tpy or 250 tpy of a criteria pollutant. Which threshold 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-149

1 applies to a particular source, how the potential emissions are calculated, and what controls are 

2 required if the applicable threshold is exceeded are all issues determined in discussions with 

3 regulators during the air permit application and approval process (MMS 2007c).

4

5 The USEPA has established NAAQS for six criteria pollutants — NO2, SO2, PM10 and 

6 PM2.5, CO, Pb, and O3 — because of their potential adverse effects on human health and 

7 welfare. The health and environmental effects of air pollutants have been summarized by the 

8 USEPA (USEPA 2011a). Ambient levels of criteria pollutants other than Pb can contribute to 

9 respiratory illnesses, especially in persons with asthma, children, and the elderly, and PM and 

10 CO can also aggravate cardiovascular diseases.

11

12 Ozone Formation. O3 in the atmosphere is formed by photochemical reactions 

13 involving primarily NOx and VOCs. It is formed most readily in the summer season, with high 

14 temperatures, lower wind speeds, intense solar radiation, and an absence of precipitation; high15 O3 episodes are typically associated with slow-moving, high-pressure systems characterized by 

16 light winds and shallow boundary layers (NRC 1992). However, conditions in Alaska are 

17 seldom favorable for significant O3 formation, primarily due to low ambient temperature. At 

18 Barrow, for example, the highest monthly mean daily maximum of 45.9 F occurs in July, when 

19 the highest temperature is 79 F (NCDC 2011b).

20

21 Acid Deposition and Visibility. Gaseous pollutants undergo various chemical reactions 

22 in the atmosphere to form small particles, which remain airborne for extended periods of time. 

23 NOx compounds react with ammonia and moisture to form ammonium nitrate particles, which 

24 contribute to PM2.5 concentrations. SO2 combines with moisture to form tiny sulfate particles, 

25 which may also contribute to adverse health effects. In addition, gaseous NOx and SO2 can 

26 dissolve into cloud water. These acidic chemicals eventually return to the ground in either wet 

27 (e.g., rain, snow) or dry (e.g., gases, particles) forms, commonly referred to as acid deposition or 

28 acid rain (USEPA 2011b). Dry deposition is just as important as wet deposition. The deposition 

29 often takes place hundreds of miles from the source. Acid deposition can damage forests and 

30 crops, change the makeup of soil, and in some cases may make lakes and streams acidic and 

31 unsuitable for fish. Deposition of nitrogen from NOx emissions also contributes to nitrogen load 

32 in water bodies, especially estuaries and near-coastal ecosystems. Acid deposition accelerates 

33 the decay of building materials and paints, including those of irreplaceable monuments, statues, 

34 sculptures, and other cultural resources. Particulate matter, including sulfate and nitrate particles 

35 and organic aerosols that form part of photochemical smog, significantly reduce atmospheric 

36 visibility. Atmospheric pollutants adversely affect visibility in many of national parks and 

37 monuments, and in wilderness areas (USEPA 2011b).

38

The most important cause of visibility degradation is from PM2.5 39 in the 0.1- to 1- m size 

40 range, which covers the range of visible light (0.4–0.7 m) (Malm 1999). These particles are 

41 directly emitted into the atmosphere through fuel burning. However, other sources arise through 

42 chemical transformation of NO2, SO2, and VOCs into nitrates, sulfates, and carbonaceous 

43 particles. Existing visibility in Alaska is generally good because of the absence of large emission 

44 sources. However, the phenomenon of arctic haze, which occurs in Arctic Alaska during the 

45 winter and spring, is caused primarily by long-range transport of pollutants from industrial 

46 Eurasia (Rahn 1982).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-150

1 Arctic Haze. Arctic haze is a reduction in visibility that often appears in distinct bands 

2 at different heights. It was initially observed during weather reconnaissance flights in the High 

3 Arctic. The haze is seasonal, with a peak in the spring, and originates from anthropogenic 

4 sources outside the Arctic. The most severe episodes occur when stable high pressure systems 

5 produce clear, calm weather and can reduce visibility (~30.6 km [~19 mi]) in spite of the 

6 otherwise clear weather. Coal burning appears to be the principle source of haze particles. Haze 

7 particles consists of sulfate (up to 90%), soot, and sometimes dust, most of which originate in 

8 Eurasia and are picked up by the Arctic airmass that moves northward over the North Pole in 

9 winter. The cold, dry air in the polar regions allows particles to remain airborne for weeks, thus 

10 permitting the contaminants to spread over the Arctic and into North America. Arctic haze 

11 reduces visibility, but the levels of sulfur compounds in haze are lower than those found in 

12 heavily polluted cities (AMAP 1997).

13

14

15 4.4.4.3.1 Routine Operations. OCS operations in the Arctic Ocean are unique in a 

16 number of ways because of the sea ice that is present much of the year. In waters 5–10 m 

17 (16–33 ft) deep, exploratory wells may be drilled from an ice or gravel island (MMS 2003e). 

18 Construction of an ice island would need to take place in winter (November–January), and 

19 material and personnel would be carried to the site by vehicles operating on an ice road. In 

20 water 10–20 m (33–66 ft) deep, movable platforms attached to the seafloor may be used for 

21 exploration. Drilling operations from these platforms are usually conducted during open-water 

22 season from July through October. Ice islands are not projected for the Chukchi Sea, because 

23 activities there would not occur close to shore. In deeper waters, drillships or floating platforms 

24 would be used, and drilling would be limited less than 4 months during the summer. Material 

25 and supplies would be ferried using barges or supply boats. In addition, icebreakers would 

26 operate in the vicinity of the drilling rig and vessels to control incursions of sea ice. Because of 

27 the arctic conditions, the pace of development is slower as activities are limited to certain rather 

28 narrow time frames. Air emission rates tend to be higher because activities are more 

29 concentrated and additional vessels such as icebreakers may be needed. In shallow waters, 

30 production may take place from gravel islands, while in deeper waters production facilities 

31 would be installed on large gravity-base platforms. As in the case of exploration, a gravel island 

32 would be constructed during winter. The modules for production facilities would be installed 

33 during the ice-free period using barges, tugboats, and supply vessels (MMS 2007c).

34

35 Under the proposed action, construction and operation of up to 36 exploration wells, up 

36 to 400 production wells, up to 92 subsea wells, up to 652 km (405 mi) of new offshore pipeline, 

37 and up to 129 km (80 mi) of new onshore pipeline will result in emissions that could affect air 

38 quality in the Arctic Alaska. These activities would generate emissions from stationary sources 

39 at the drilling/well sites and from support vessels and aircraft over the 50-year period of the 

40 Program (Table 4.4.1-4). There could be up to 27 vessel trips/wk and 27 helicopter trips/wk 

41 under the proposed action. 

42

43 Emissions. The type and relative amounts of air pollutants generated by offshore 

44 operations vary according to the phase of activity. There are three principal phases of OCS 

45 operations: exploration, development, and production. Activities affecting air quality include 

46 seismic surveys; drilling activities; platform construction and emplacement; pipeline laying and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-151

1 burial operations; platform operations; flaring; fugitive emissions; support vessel and helicopter 

2 operations; and evaporation of VOCs during transfers and spills.

3

4 Releases of toxic chemicals could be a concern around spills and during in situ burning 

5 and especially during accidental releases of H2S at platforms. Other sources of pollutants related 

6 to OCS operations are accidents such as losses of well control and oil spills. Spill emissions 

7 consist primarily of VOCs, while fires and in situ burning produce criteria pollutants along with 

8 hazardous air pollutants.

9

10 Air emissions from the proposed action for the Beaufort Sea and the Chukchi Sea were 

11 estimated by using the most recent available exploration and development scenarios for 2012–

12 2017, as shown in Table 4.4.4-5. These emissions were estimated by BOEM (Herkhof 2011) 

13 using emission factors from the 2008 Gulfwide Emission Inventory Study (Wilson et al. 2010). 

14 Although the study is specific to the GOM, these factors should be applicable in the Arctic 

15 region, since many of the same types of sources are involved in oil and gas activities in both 

16 areas.

17

18 In terms of absolute amount, the main emissions would be NOx, followed by CO, with 

19 lesser amounts of VOCs, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5. Tankers in transit are projected to be the 

20 largest source of emissions associated with oil and gas activities in the Arctic. However, much 

21 of the emissions would be at some distance from the lease areas. For sources located in or near 

22 the lease areas, platform installation and removal would be the largest source of NOx, SOx, 

23 PM10, and PM2.5 emissions under the low scenario, while pipeline installation would be the 

24 largest source of these pollutants under the high scenario. Production platforms would be the 

25 largest source of VOC and CO emissions under both scenarios. Emissions from the Program 

26 would initially be lower in the first few years as exploratory wells were drilled and platforms 

27 started producing oil and gas. During the last half of the Program, emissions would decrease as 

28 production decreased and some platforms were removed (MMS 2007c).

29

30 Impacts on Criteria Pollutants Other Than Ozone. Air quality modeling using the 

31 Offshore and Coastal Dispersion Model (OCD) has been performed in past studies to assess 

32 impacts from planned lease sales in the Beaufort Sea (MMS 1996). The highest predicted 

onshore annual average NO2 concentrations were in the range of 0.5–1.5 μg/m3 33 , which is well 

below the PSD Class II maximum allowable increment of 25 μg/m3 34 . Concentrations of SO2 and 

35 PM10 were not modeled; however, when the results are scaled according to the respective 

36 emission rates, the levels would be below the PSD Class II maximum allowable increments.

37

38 An examination of the air quality modeling analysis performed for the Northstar facility 

39 and proposed Liberty development project in the Beaufort Sea provides a measure of the 

40 expected impacts over water near an OCS production facility on a gravel island in the Beaufort 

41 Sea. The highest predicted concentrations for NO2, SO2, and PM10 for the Northstar and Liberty 

42 projects occurred within 200 m (656 ft) of the facility boundary and were close to but still lower 

43 than PSD Class II maximum allowable increments (MMS 2002c; USACE 1999). The highest

44 onshore concentrations were considerably lower. The combined facility concentrations for 

45 Liberty plus background were well within NAAQS (between 2 and 30% of the standards).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-152

1 TABLE 4.4.4-5 Estimated Highest Annual Air Emissions from OCS Activities in the Arctic (Beaufort and Chukchi Seas) 

2 Planning Area, Proposed 2012-2017 Leasing Program

Activity

Pollutant (tons/yr)

NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 VOC CO

Exploration/Delineation Well Drilling 1,977–1,977a 512–512 89–89 82–82 86–86 2–2

Development/Production Well Drilling 535–1,375 108–279 38–97 38–97 96–246 2–6

Platform Installation and Removal 925–1,851 217–435 37–73 34–67 32–64 29–58

Pipeline Installation 398–861 68–146 15–33 15–33 15–33 83–179

Production Platforms 53–106 1–3 0–1 0–1 34–68 60–119

Support Vessels 96–191 13–26 2–3 2–3 2–3 9–18

Helicopters 1–2 0–0 0–0 0–0 2–4 10–19

Tankers Loading (Valdez) 47–158 8–27 2–6 2–6 878–2,955 10–33

Tankers in Transit 6,016–20,253 1,022–3,439 227–764 227–764 1,264–4,256 1,249–4,203

Tankers Unloading (West Coast Port) 47–158 8–27 2–6 2–6 440–1,481 10–33

Total 10,095–26,933 1,957–4,893 411–1,072 401–1,059 2,848–9,194 1,462–4,669

a The range of values reflects the low and high end of the exploration and development scenarios for the Program.

Source: Herkhof 2011; Wilson et al. 2010.

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-153

1 Results of OCD modeling for 

2 development from a proposed lease sale in the 

3 Chukchi Sea indicated that the highest annual 

average NO2 concentration was 1.29 μg/m3 4 , 

5 which is about 5% of PSD Class II maximum 

allowable increment of 25 μg/m3 6 (MMS 1991). 

7 No modeling was performed for SO2 and 

8 PM10, but concentration should be well within 

9 the PSD Class II increments considering that 

10 NOx emissions are an order of magnitude 

11 higher than SO2 and PM10 emissions.

12

13 These activities in the Arctic Alaska are 

14 not anticipated to affect Class I areas in Alaska, 

15 which are several hundred miles away.

16

17 The most significant source of industrial 

18 emissions in the Arctic Alaska, the Prudhoe 

19 Bay-Kuparuk-Endicott oil-production complex,

20 was the subject of monitoring programs during 

21 1986–1987 and from 1990 through 1996. Five 

22 monitoring sites were selected; three were 

23 considered subject to maximum air pollutant 

24 concentrations, and two were considered more representative of the air quality of the general 

25 Prudhoe Bay area. All the values meet Federal and State ambient air quality standards. These 

26 results indicate that ambient pollutant concentrations from oil and gas activities, even for sites 

27 subject to maximum concentrations, are likely to meet the ambient air quality standards 

28 (MMS 2008b).

29

30 The Program would result in a rather slow rate of development involving a small number 

31 of facilities that would be spread over a wide area. Each project would apply the best available 

32 control technology according to USEPA and State regulations, and pollutant concentrations 

33 would have to meet the PSD incremental limits. Existing pollutant concentrations in coastal 

34 Alaska are well within the NAAQS. The small additional concentrations from the Program 

35 would result in levels that are still well within the NAAQS.

36

37 Impacts on Ozone. As noted above, conditions in Alaska are seldom favorable for 

38 significant O3 formation. Precursor NOx and VOC emissions are relatively small, and a 

39 significant increase in O3 concentrations onshore is not likely to result from oil and gas activity 

40 scenarios associated with the proposed action. Although sunshine is present in the Beaufort Sea 

41 program area most of each day during summer, temperatures remain relatively low. At a number 

42 of air-monitoring sites in the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk areas, O3 measurements show that the 

43 highest 1-hr maximum O3 concentrations generally are in the range of 0.04–0.09 ppm. The 

44 highest 8-hr average ozone concentrations would be well below the NAAQS of 0.075 ppm. 

45 Because the projected O3 precursor emissions from any of the proposed activities are 

46 considerably lower than the existing emissions from the Prudhoe Bay-Kuparuk-Endicott 

Comparing Impacts to PSD Increments

Several points should be considered when air 

quality impacts are compared to PSD increments. 

First, the PSD program applies to individual 

sources, not programs. Emissions from an 

individual source such as a platform or set of 

platforms could differ from the emissions being 

modeled in a particular study. Second, increment 

tracking is a cumulative process that sets a 

maximum allowable increase above a baseline 

concentration. It is unlikely that a permitting 

agency would permit a single source to consume 

all the increment. Last, PSD applies only to major 

sources, generally sources with the potential to 

emit more than 250 tons/yr, other than the 

100 tons/yr threshold for 28 source categories. 

OCS oil and gas production activities are subject to 

250 tons/yr threshold. Regardless of the actual

emissions, a source‘s potential emissions could 

exceed the 250 tons/yr threshold. Determining 

potential emissions and available PSD increment 

allowances requires consultation with the 

cognizant regulators.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-154

1 complex, the proposed activities would not be expected to cause any violations of the O3

2 standard (MMS 2008b).

3

4 Impacts on Visibility. For the proposed Liberty Project in the Beaufort Sea, British 

5 Petroleum (Exploration) Alaska (BPXA) ran the VISCREEN model, which calculates the 

6 potential impact of a plume of specified emissions for specific transport and dispersion

7 conditions (MMS 2002c). It found noticeable effects on a limited number of days, ones that had 

8 the most restrictive meteorological conditions, but no effects at all during average meteorological 

9 conditions. This model tends to overestimate impacts, and it is not known to what extent OCS 

10 sources contribute to the predicted visibility reductions. The OCS sources are relatively small 

11 and would be scattered over a large area. It is not expected that they would have a measureable 

12 impact on visibility. Overall, the impacts from the proposed action would be expected to be 

13 small or negligible (MMS 2007c).

14

15 Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Estimates were made of the total GHG emissions of CO2, 

16 CH4, and N2O for all projected activities associated with the Program (Herkhof 2011). Emission 

17 estimates for the various activities were largely based on a comprehensive inventory of air 

18 emissions from oil and gas activities in the GOM for 2008 (Wilson et al. 2010). Air emissions 

19 resulting from the Program were estimated by considering the exploration and development 

20 scenarios presented in Table 4.4.1-4. Emissions are given in terms of Tg of CO2-equivalent, 

21 where 1 Tg is 1012 g (106 metric tons). This measure takes into account a GWP factor, which 

22 accounts for the relative effectiveness of a gas to contribute to global warming with respect to the 

23 same amount CO2. In these calculations, CH4 is given a GWP of 21, while N2O is given a GWP 

24 of 310.

25

26 Table 4.4.4-6 lists the total calculated emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O from activities 

27 associated with the Program and compares them with current (2009) U.S. GHG emissions from 

28 all sources (USEPA 2011l). The projected CO2 emissions from the Program are about 

29 0.014–0.038% of all current CO2 emissions in the United States. Both the projected CH4 and 

30 N2O emissions from the Program are about 0.002–0.006% of all their current respective 

31 emissions in the United States. If CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions are combined, the Program 

32 emissions are about 0.013–0.033% and 0.012–0.032% of the Nationwide total of three GHG 

33 emissions and of all GHG emissions, respectively. The estimated total global GHG emissions in 

34 2005 were approximately 38,726 Tg CO2-equivalent (74 FR 66539). The estimated Program 

35 GHG emissions are about 0.002–0.006% of the total global GHG emissions.

36

37 As noted in Section 3.3, GHG emissions are one of the causes of climate change. 

38 Climate change is a global phenomenon and predicting climate change impacts requires 

39 consideration of large scale or even worldwide GHG emissions, not just emissions at a local 

40 level. Climate change predictive capability (modeling) lacks the ability to estimate the impact of 

41 GHGs from a particular source or sources such as oil and gas activities associated with the 

42 Program. What their impact, if any, would be is determined not only by the emissions from the 

43 oil and gas activities themselves, but also by the GHG emissions of other sources throughout the 

44 world and whether these other emissions are expected to increase or decrease. In addition, since 

45 some GHG gases, such as CO2, may persist in the atmosphere for up to a century, the potential 

46 impacts of any source may extend well beyond the active lifetime of the source or program. This 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-155

1 TABLE 4.4.4-6 Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Oil and Gas Activities in 

2 the Arctic (Beaufort and Chukchi Seas) Planning Area, 2012-2017 Leasing Program

Pollutant

2012-2017 Program

(Tg CO2-equivalent)a

Total 2009 U.S. Emissions 

from All Sources

(Tg CO2-equivalent)

2012-2017 Program as 

Percentage of Total 

2009 U.S. Emissions

CO2 0.80–2.07 5,505.2 0.014–0.038

CH4 0.01–0.04 686.3 0.002–0.006

N2O 0.006–0.019 295.6 0.002–0.006

CO2 + CH4 + N2O 0.82–2.14 6,487.1 0.013–0.033

All GHGb 0.82–2.14 6,633.2b 0.012–0.032

a One Tg is equal to 1012 g or 106 metric tons. The CO2

-equivalent for a gas is derived by 

multiplying the mass of the gas by the associated GWP, which accounts for the relative 

effectiveness of a gas to contribute to global warming with respect to the same amount CO2. In 

these calculations, CH4is given a GWP of 21, while N2O is given a GWP of 310.

b Total U.S. GHG emissions also include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur 

hexafluoride emissions. Estimates of emissions from the Program were not made for these 

compounds, but they are assumed to be very small.

Source: USEPA 2011l; Herkhof 2011.

3

4

5 said, given the small percentage contributions of oil and gas activities in Arctic region to global 

6 GHG emissions, the potential impact on climate change would probably be small. Section 3.3 

7 provides some baseline considerations for climate change and Section 4.4.3 and Sections 4.4.6 

8 through 4.4-15 discuss potential impacts to specific impact areas.

9

10

11 4.4.4.3.2 Accidents. Under the proposed action, the number and types of spills assumed 

12 to occur in Arctic Alaska include up to 3 large spills ( 1,000 bbl) from pipelines or platforms 

13 and between 60 and 225 small spills (<1,000 bbl) over the 50-year period of the Program 

14 (Table 4.4.2-1). Evaporation of oil from these spills and emissions from spill response and 

15 cleanup activities including in situ burning, if used, have the potential to affect air quality in the 

16 Arctic Alaska. 

17

18 Spills and In Situ Burning. Small accidental oil spills would cause small, localized 

19 increases in concentrations of VOCs because of evaporation of the spill. Most of the emissions 

20 would occur within a few hours of the spill and would decrease drastically after that period. 

21 Large spills would exhibit similar behavior but would affect a somewhat larger area and cause 

22 elevated pollutant concentrations to persist somewhat longer. Hanna and Drivas (1993) modeled 

23 the emissions of various hydrocarbon compounds from a large spill. A number of these 

24 compounds, including BTEX and hexane, are classified by the USEPA as hazardous air 

25 pollutants. Many of these contaminants may be carcinogenic to humans and/or animals. The 

26 results showed that these compounds evaporate almost completely within a few hours after the 

27 spill occurs. Ambient concentrations peak within the first several hours after the spills starts and 

28 are reduced by two orders of magnitude after about 12 hr. The heavier compounds take longer to 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-156

1 evaporate and may not peak until about 24 hr after spill occurrence. Total ambient VOC 

2 concentrations are significant in the immediate vicinity of an oil spill, but concentrations are 

3 much reduced after the first day (MMS 2007c). There is no information about any possible 

4 effect from the inhalation of air contaminants by subsistence animals, but this effect would be 

5 expected to be much less than any contamination by contact with hazardous compounds in the 

6 water. These effects on subsistence are described in Section IV.B.3.k of MMS (2007c).

7

8 In situ burning is a potential technique for cleanup and disposal of spilled oil. In situ

9 burning of a spill results in emissions of NO2, SO2, CO, and PM10 and generates a plume of 

10 black smoke. Fingas et al. (1995) describes the results of a monitoring program of a burn 

11 experiment at sea. The program involved extensive ambient measurements during two 

12 experiments in which approximately 300 bbl of crude oil was burned. It found that during the 

13 burn, CO, SO2, and NO2 were measured only at background levels and were frequently below 

14 detection levels. Ambient levels of VOCs were high within about 100 m (328 ft) of the fire, but 

15 were significantly lower than those associated with a nonburning spill. Measured concentrations 

16 of PAHs were low. It appeared that a major portion of these compounds was consumed in the 

17 burn. The appearance of a black plume from in situ burning around a subsistence hunting area 

18 could have an adverse effect on subsistence hunting practices because of the creation of a 

19 perception that wildlife has been contaminated. Subsistence hunters may avoid areas where such 

20 incidents have occurred.

21

22 McGrattan et al. (1995) modeled smoke plumes associated with in situ burning. The 

23 results showed that the surface concentrations of particulate matter did not exceed the health 

24 criterion of 150 μg/m3 beyond about 5 km (3 mi) downwind of an in situ burn. This appears to 

25 be supported by field experiments conducted off Newfoundland and in Alaska (MMS 2007c). 

26 This is quite conservative as this health standard is based on a 24-hr average concentration rather 

27 than a 1-hr average concentration.

28

29 Air quality impacts from accidental oil spills in open water during the proposed action 

30 would be similar to those described above. However, a spill in the Arctic during broken ice or 

31 melting ice conditions could result in more concentrated emissions over a smaller area than 

32 would be the case under open-water conditions because the ice would act to reduce spreading of 

33 the oil compared to the spreading of a spill in open water. An oil spill on solid sea ice would 

34 spread relatively slowly compared to a spill in open water. The more volatile components of the 

35 oil would evaporate rather rapidly, but the heavier compounds would linger on the surface. The 

36 effects on air quality would result in more concentrated emissions over a smaller area than would 

37 be the case for a spill in open water. 

38

39 Catastrophic Discharge Event. In the Arctic, a low-probability CDE could range in 

40 size from 1,700,000 and 3,900,000 bbl with a duration of 60–300 days in the Beaufort Planning 

41 Area, and from 1,400,000 and 2,100,000 bbl with a duration of 

42 40–75 days in the Chukchi Planning Area (Table 4.4.2-2). Evaporation of oil from these spills 

43 and emissions from spill response and cleanup activities including in situ burning, if used, have 

44 the potential to affect air quality in Arctic Alaska.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-157

1 The air impacts of a CDE and any associated in situ burning in the Arctic would be 

2 similar to impacts discussed in Section 4.4.4.1.2. Potential impacts from a large spill under the 

3 ice are discussed in the ―Spills and In Situ Burning‖ subsection above.

4

5 A CDE in Arctic Alaska could emit regulated pollutants into the atmosphere. This may 

6 impact local air quality during some phases of the event. The greatest impacts on air quality 

7 conditions would occur during the initial explosion of gas and oil and during spill response and 

8 clean up, particularly if the event occurs during the winter. Impacts could continue for days 

9 during the initial event and could continue for months during spill response and clean up. 

10 Therefore, while the impacts may be large during these two phases, overall, the emissions from a 

11 CDE would be temporary and, over time, air quality in Arctic Alaska would return to pre-oil12 spill conditions (BOEMRE 2011k).

13

14 Hydrogen Sulfide. An accidental release of H2S at a platform and its associated impacts 

15 on platform workers and persons in close proximity to a platform are discussed in detail in 

16 Section 4.4.4.1.2 for the GOM. Potential impacts at or around the platform would be similar in 

17 Arctic Alaska.

18

19

20 4.4.4.4 Conclusions

21

22 Routine Program operations in any of the GOM and Alaska Planning Areas would result 

23 in levels of NO2, SO2, PM10, and CO that are well within NAAQS. The incremental 

24 concentrations of NO2, SO2, and PM10 would be within the maximum allowable PSD increases. 

25 Routine Program activities were modeled to contribute less than 1% of the total O3

26 concentrations from all OCS oil and gas activities in the GOM, where at some locations, 

27 concentrations from all sources (OCS-related and non-OCS sources) exceed standards at times; 

28 no exceedance of O3 standards are expected in the Cook Inlet and Arctic Planning Areas. 

29 Therefore, impacts to air quality from routine operations associated with the Program are 

30 expected to be minor.

31

32 Air quality impacts from large and small accidental oil spills or in situ burning would be 

33 localized and short-term. Air quality impacts from a large spill (and especially from a CDE)

34 would emit regulated pollutants into the atmosphere. This may cause localized large air quality 

35 impacts during some phases of the event. The greatest impacts on air quality conditions would 

36 occur during the initial explosion of gas and oil and during the spill response and cleanup, 

37 particularly if the spill occurs during the winter. Impacts could continue for days during the 

38 initial event and could continue for months during spill response and cleanup. Therefore, while 

39 the impacts may be large at times, overall, the emissions from a CDE would be temporary and, 

40 over time, air quality would return to pre-oil-spill conditions.

41

42
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-158

1 4.4.5 Potential Impacts on the Acoustic Environment

2

3 This section identifies impact producing factors and potentially impacted resources (such 

4 as marine mammals). Details on impacted resources (such as individual species) are provided in 

5 the specific resource sections of Chapter 4.

6

7

8 4.4.5.1 Introduction

9

10 The BOEM has screened seismic, deep-tow sonar, electromagnetic survey, geological 

11 and geological sampling, remote sensing, and marine magnetic survey activities for potential 

12 impacts on marine mammals; sea turtles; fishes; commercial, personal, and recreational fisheries; 

13 coastal and marine birds; benthic communities; cultural resources; subsistence uses of natural 

14 resources; military uses; and recreational and commercial diving in the GOM (BOEM 

15 unpublished), but did not cover other routine operations such as construction, drilling, 

16 explosives, and support vessels and aircraft. The study reviewed EAs, EISs, and relevant 

17 literature pertinent to OCS activities and identified resources such as marine mammals for 

18 impact analysis. A preliminary screening using resource-specific significance criteria based on 

19 accepted threshold levels was conducted to identify those G&G seismic survey activities and 

20 resources with potential for non-negligible impacts. Various technologies were evaluated for 

21 each type of activity, and impacts from air gun noise, sonar noise, vessel traffic, towed streamers, 

22 and aircraft traffic were considered. Only seismic surveys were determined to have potential 

23 adverse impacts on marine mammals, sea turtles, fishes, and commercial and recreational 

24 fisheries. The other survey activities screened were determined to have negligible or no 

25 measurable acoustic impacts. These results should also be relevant to the Arctic region and 

26 south central Alaska and include potential for impacts to personal-use and subsistence fisheries 

27 and taking of marine mammals.

28

29

30 4.4.5.1.1 Routine Operations. Table 4.4.1-1 details impact producing factors for 

31 routine activities associated with oil and gas activities and the project phases in which they can 

32 occur. Noise associated with offshore OCS oil and gas activities results from exploration 

33 activities, construction of onshore and offshore facilities and pipelines involving activities such 

34 as pile driving, trenching, earth moving, and building, the operation of fixed structures such as 

35 offshore platforms and drilling rigs, maintenance, aircraft and service-vessel traffic including 

36 icebreakers, and platform removal, and results in changed ambient noise conditions during those 

37 activities.

38

39 During exploration, noise is generated by operating air gun arrays, drilling, and support 

40 vessels and aircraft. During the development phase, noise is generated by drilling, ship and 

41 aircraft traffic, pipeline trenching, platform and other offshore construction, and onshore 

42 construction. During production operations, noise is generated by maintenance activities, ship 

43 and aircraft traffic, and various production activities and associated equipment such as pumps. 

44 During production, air gun–supported deep penetration 4D seismic operations that incorporate 

45 changes in reservoirs over time, if used, will also cause noise. Workover rigs also conduct 

46 drilling activity during the production phase, albeit with lesser noise levels than original drilling. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-159

1 Decommissioning noise is generated by explosive and nonexplosive structure removal, and 

2 supporting ship and aircraft traffic.

3

4 Noise generated from these activities can be transmitted through both air and water and 

5 may be extended or transient, and pulsed or constant. Offshore drilling and production involves 

6 various activities that produce a composite underwater noise field. As described in Section 3.6, 

7 the intensity level and frequency of the noise emissions are highly variable, both between and 

8 among the various industry sources. Noise from proposed OCS activities may affect resources. 

9 Whether a sound is or is not detected by marine organisms will depend both on the acoustic 

10 properties of the source (spectral characteristics, intensity, and transmission patterns) and 

11 sensitivity of the hearing system in the marine organism. Anthropogenic noise can cause 

12 physical damage to or death of an exposed animal; intense levels can damage hearing, and, if 

13 particularly loud or novel, may induce disruptive behavior and cause stress-related responses, 

14 such as endocrine responses (MMS 2006a, 2008a).

15

16

17 4.4.5.1.2 Accidents. Accidental events with the potential for affecting ambient noise 

18 conditions include oil spills involving transport and support vessels and tankers, loss of well 

19 control, and spill response activities. Oils spills can occur both offshore and at coastal facilities 

20 and have occurred in coastal waters at shoreline storage, processing, or transport facilities.

21

22 Improperly balanced well pressures that result in sudden, uncontrolled releases of fluids 

23 from a wellhead or wellbore are referred to as loss of well control. Loss of well control can 

24 occur during exploratory drilling, development drilling, production, completion, or workover 

25 operations. In the event of a loss of well control, the eruption of gases and fluids may generate 

26 significant pressure waves and noise. During a loss of well control, the pressure waves and noise 

27 generated by the eruption of gases and fluids might be significant enough to harass or injure 

28 marine mammals, depending on the proximity of the animal to the site of the loss of well control 

29 (MMS 2006a).

30

31 Accident response and support activities, including support aircraft and vessels, involved 

32 in mitigating loss of well control and spills affect ambient noise conditions. For smaller spills, 

33 response actions (and associated changes in ambient noise) in open water would be expected to 

34 be localized and of relatively short duration. In the event of a large spill or a catastrophic spill 

35 event covering a greater ocean area and contacting the shore or moving into coastal and inland 

36 wetlands, longer term response activities including seismic surveys, skimmers, and other 

37 mechanical equipment, would affect ambient noise conditions over a wider area and for a longer 

38 time than would response activities for small spills. The nature, magnitude, and duration of 

39 noise-related impacts depends on the magnitude, frequency, location, and date of accidents, 

40 characteristics of spilled oil, spill-response capabilities and timing, and various meteorological 

41 and hydrological factors (MMS 2006a, 2007c). For spills, accident response and cleanup 

42 activities, including intentional hazing, would be the primary sources of acoustic impacts.

43

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-160

1 4.4.5.2 Gulf of Mexico

2

3

4 4.4.5.2.1 Routine Operations. Routine activities that affect ambient noise conditions in 

5 some portions of the GOM include seismic surveys, drilling noise, ship and aircraft noise, 

6 offshore and onshore construction, operational activities, and decommissioning (see 

7 Section 3.6.1 for details on the noise levels and frequencies associated with routine operational 

8 activities).

9

10 Under the proposed action, seismic surveys would be conducted to identify locations for 

11 up to 2,100 exploration wells (Table 4.4.1-1). Noise from these seismic surveys and the 

12 associated survey and support vessels would affect the acoustic environment. Air gun noise can 

13 be detected up to 100 km (62 mi) from the source, so, under appropriate conditions (see 

14 Section 3.6.1.4.4), the affected area can be extensive, but the greatest changes to ambient noise 

15 levels would occur at locations closer to the air gun. Effects could include behavioral and 

16 physical effects on marine mammals and sea turtles. Impacts of seismic surveys on marine 

17 mammals and sea turtles are presented in Sections 4.4.7.1 and 4.4.7.4, respectively. In addition 

18 to the noise, the high-pressure pulse and associated particle motion in the near field is a concern 

19 for fish. Potential impacts on fish are discussed in Section 4.4.7.3. Commercial and recreational 

20 fishing could be affected if behavioral changes in target species (MMS 2007c) occur as a result 

21 of exposure to seismic surveys (see Section 4.4.11). These impacts would continue for the 

22 duration of the survey, and the affected area would move along with the survey and support 

23 vessels. Because these activities would be short term, potential impacts on ecological resources 

24 may be equated to incur short-term effects.

25

26 Under the proposed action, construction and installation of exploration and delineation 

27 wells (up to 2,100), development and production wells (up to 2,600), platforms (up to 450), 

28 FPSOs (up to 2), and offshore pipelines (up to 12,000 km [7,500 mi]) will result in increases in 

29 noise levels in the vicinity of these construction activities. With the exception of pipeline 

30 trenching, construction and installation activities would generate noise from stationary noise 

31 sources at the drilling/well sites and from support vessels and aircraft.

32

33 Noise from pile driving, construction of offshore platforms and pipelines and noise from 

34 the associated support vessels and aircraft would cause noise that would disturb marine 

35 mammals (Section 4.4.7.1) and sea turtles (Section 4.4.7.4) in the vicinity of the construction 

36 activity and may cause fish to leave the construction area (see Section 4.4.7.3). Pipeline 

37 trenching and onshore construction could cause behavioral effects in birds, especially if the

38 noises occur near nesting colonies during nesting periods (see Section 4.4.7.2). Marine species 

39 in nearby waters could also be affected. These effects would persist for the duration of the 

40 activity and would be strongest at the construction site or along the line of the trenching activity

41 or routes of the vessels or aircraft. Multiple construction projects in the same vicinity could have 

42 increased noise impacts.

43

44 Additional noise-related impacts could be caused by dredging operations. Noise from 

45 dredging generally reaches background levels within 25 km (16 mi), but can extend even farther 

46 and thus can affect a fairly wide area.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-161

1 Under the proposed action, drilling noise during exploration and production would be 

2 relatively constant for the duration of the drilling. Drilling noise generally would be less than 

3 ambient background levels beyond 30 km (19 mi) from the drill site (see Section 3.6.1.4) and 

4 would be strongest near the well. Noise levels would increase if several wells were located in 

5 proximity to one another. The principal noise concern in the GOM is the potential to affect 

6 marine mammals, sea turtles, and fish (see Sections 4.4.7.1, 4.4.7.4, and 4.4.7.3, respectively).

7

8 In addition to drilling noise, machinery on platforms also generates noise during 

9 operation. Such noise could be continuous or transient and variable in intensity, depending on

10 the nature and role of the machinery. Underwater noise would be relatively low intensity 

11 because the noise sources are on decks well above the surface of the water and because of the 

12 small surface area of the legs in contact with the water, but it could affect marine mammals (see 

13 Section 3.6.1.4.3).

14

15 Under the proposed action, vessel traffic (up to 600 trips per week for up to 45 platforms) 

16 and helicopter traffic (up to 5,500 trips per week) will result in increases in noise levels along the 

17 traffic routes and at the platforms during construction and operation. Sound generated by these 

18 activities will be transient at any one location, may be variable in intensity (MMS 2006a), and 

19 may affect marine mammals, sea turtles, and birds (see discussions in Section 4.4.7). Noise from 

20 vessel traffic generally reaches background levels within 10 km (6 mi) of the source, but may be 

21 detectable at very large distances in deep water. Flights over land would also affect terrestrial 

22 mammals (see Section 4.4.7.1). How far sounds travel from vessels is highly variable, 

23 depending on environmental conditions and the type of vessel. However, noise would be 

24 transient along the traffic path but would recur as long as trips continue. Frequent overflights 

25 could produce longer term consequences (MMS 2007c, 2008a).

26

27 Noise from decommissioning could result from dismantlement of above-platform 

28 structures and the use of underwater explosive or mechanical means to collapse or sever the 

29 platform. Marine mammals, sea turtles, and fish could be affected by the noise and shock wave, 

30 especially that associated with the use of explosives (see Sections 4.4.6 and 4.4.7). 

31 Nonexplosive impacts from dismantling activities and support vessels and aircraft would 

32 continue for the duration of the activity and be localized around the facility being 

33 decommissioned. Noise and the pressure pulse from explosive detonation would be short term, 

34 but the pressure pulse could cause serious impacts on nearby marine mammals (MMS 2007c, 

35 2008a) (also see Section 4.4.7.1). Explosive detonation impacts would be strongest near the 

36 detonation site.

37

38

39 4.4.5.2.2 Accidents.

40

41 Spills. Under the proposed action, the number and types of spills assumed to occur in the 

42 GOM Planning Area include up to 7 large spills ( 1,000 bbl) from both pipeline and platforms, 

43 and as many as 470 smaller spills (<1,000 bbl) and up to one tanker spill of up to 3,100 bbl

44 (Table 4.4.2-1). Noise from emergency and spill-response activities and support vessels and 

45 aircraft has the potential to disturb marine mammals, sea turtles, fish, and birds. For smaller 

46 spills, noise generated from response actions in open water would be expected to be localized 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-162

1 and of relatively short duration. In the event of a large spill covering a greater ocean area and 

2 contacting the shore or moving into coastal and inland wetlands, longer term response activities, 

3 including seismic surveys, skimmers, and other mechanical equipment, over a wider area would 

4 be required and associated noise would occur over a wider area. Noise from response equipment 

5 and support vessels and aircraft could disturb animals in the vicinity of the response action, 

6 temporarily for smaller spills and for longer periods for larger spills (see the biota-specific 

7 discussion in Section 4.4.7). Noise along the trajectories of support vessels and aircraft would be 

8 transient and localized along the trajectory but would recur for the duration of the spill response. 

9 Response activities for onshore spills or offshore spills that reached the land would have similar 

10 impacts but would also affect terrestrial species (MMS 2006a, 2007c).

11

12 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE that may range in size from 

13 900,000 to 7,200,000 bbl (Table 4.4.2-2). Sources of noise and impacts would be similar to 

14 those above for spills. The pressure wave and noise generated from an incident involving a loss 

15 of well control could affect marine mammals and could be large enough to harass or disturb them 

16 if they were close enough to the site of the event (MMS 2006a). In addition, accident response 

17 and support activities, including support aircraft and vessel activity, have the potential to cause 

18 noise impacts. These impacts would occur both at the site of the response activity and along the 

19 trajectories of support vessels and aircraft. For smaller spills, the noise would be localized and 

20 occur throughout the duration of the response activities. Noise along support vessel and aircraft 

21 routes would be transient and localized along the route but would recur for the duration of the 

22 response. For larger spills and CDEs, the ensonified area would depend on the size of the spill 

23 and the extent of the response area. The impacts could cover a larger area, as was the case for 

24 the DWH event, and be more sustained over a longer time depending on the volume, location, 

25 duration, and weather conditions during the CDE and the response and cleanup activities. 

26

27

28 4.4.5.3 Alaska – Cook Inlet

29

30 The impact producing factors for noise that may be expected for the Cook Inlet Planning 

31 Area under the proposed action include seismic surveys, ship and aircraft traffic, drilling and 

32 trenching, offshore construction, and production operations. There would be no onshore new 

33 construction involving pipeline landfalls, shore bases, processing facilities, or waste facilities and 

34 no platform removals in the Cook Inlet Planning Area under the proposed action (see 

35 Table 4.4.1-3).

36

37

38 4.4.5.3.1 Routine Operations. Routine activities that could potentially cause changes in 

39 ambient noise levels in Cook Inlet include seismic surveys, drilling noise, ship and aircraft noise, 

40 offshore construction, and operational activities. See Section 3.6.1.4 for details on the noise 

41 levels and frequencies associated with routine operational activities.

42

43 Under the proposed action, seismic surveys would be conducted to identify locations for 

44 up to 12 exploration and delineation wells (Table 4.4.1-3). Air gun noise can be detected up to 

45 100 km (62 mi) from the source and beyond under appropriate conditions (see Section 3.6.1.4.4), 

46 so the affected area can be extensive, although changes in ambient noise levels would be greatest 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-163

1 at locations closest to the air gun. Noise from these seismic surveys and the associated survey 

2 and support vessels would alter the acoustic environment and affect ecological resources in the 

3 planning area. Effects could include physical and behavioral changes in marine mammals and 

4 fish and disturbance of birds. See Section 4.4.7 for discussions of noise impacts on ecological 

5 resources of the planning area. Targeted species for commercial, personal-use, subsistence, and 

6 recreational fishing could also be affected (MMS 2007c). These impacts would continue for the 

7 duration of the survey, and the affected area would move along with the survey and support 

8 vessels.

9

10 Noise from construction of as many as 3 offshore platforms, up to 114 development and 

11 production wells, 241 km (150 mi) of offshore pipeline, and 169 km (105 mi) of onshore 

12 pipeline, as well as noise from the associated support vessels and aircraft, could disturb marine 

13 mammals (see Section 4.4.7.1) as well as birds (see Section 4.4.7.2) in the vicinity of the 

14 construction activity. Construction activity may cause fish to leave the construction area (see 

15 Section 4.4.7.3). These effects would persist for the duration of the activity and could persist for 

16 weeks after the end of the activity and would be strongest at the construction site or along the 

17 line of any required offshore trenching activity. Multiple construction projects occurring 

18 simultaneously in the same vicinity or over multiple years would have increased noise impacts. 

19 Any effects would persist for the duration of the construction and be strongest near the 

20 construction site.

21

22 Under the proposed action, pile driving drilling noise during exploration, development,

23 and production would be relatively constant for the duration of the drilling. Drilling noise 

24 generally would be less than ambient background levels beyond 30 km (19 mi) from the drill site

25 (see Section 3.6.1.4.3) and would be strongest near the well. Noise levels would increase if 

26 several wells were operating simultaneously in close proximity to one another. The noise could 

27 have impacts on mammals, fish, and birds in Cook Inlet as discussed in Section 4.4.7. Noise 

28 and vessel traffic associated with oil and gas activities in offshore areas adjacent to boundaries of 

29 the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, the Katmai National Park and Preserve, and State 

30 wildlife refuges and ranges bordering Cook Inlet could temporarily disturb some wildlife and 

31 negatively affect recreational values for park users (Section 4.4.12) (MMS 2007c).

32

33 In addition to drilling noise, machinery on platforms generates noise during operation. 

34 Such noise could be continuous or transient and variable in intensity depending on the nature and 

35 the role of the machinery. Underwater noise would be relatively weak because of the small 

36 surface area in contact with the water, but it could affect marine mammals (MMS 2006a). 

37 Because there would be no more than three platforms developed as a result of leasing under the 

38 Proposed Action Alternative, noise impacts from platform operation are anticipated to localized.

39

40 Under the proposed action, vessel traffic (up to three trips per week) and helicopter traffic 

41 (up to three trips per week) will result in increases in noise levels along the traffic routes and at 

42 platforms during construction and operation. Sound generated by these activities is transient and 

43 variable in intensity; it may affect mammals, fish, and birds, as discussed in Section 4.4.7. Noise 

44 from vessel traffic generally reaches background levels within 10 km (6 mi) of the source, but 

45 may be detectable at very great distances in deep water. Flights over land would also affect 

46 terrestrial mammals (see Section 4.4.7.1). The noise would be transient along the traffic path but 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-164

1 would recur as long as trips continue. Frequent overflights could produce longer term 

2 consequences (MMS 2007c, 2008a).

3

4 Although Cook Inlet is generally more than 90% ice free and the Federal waters of Cook 

5 Inlet are not seasonally icebound, any icebreaker activity may increase as a result of the proposed 

6 action and could result in increased disturbance of marine mammals. However, most exploration 

7 activity takes place during the open-water season, minimizing the effects on polar bears 

8 (MMS 2008b). Icebreakers operate in support of exploration including seismic survey, 

9 construction, and operation activities. Icebreakers do not operate during the open-water season. 

10 Icebreaking vessels produce louder, but also more variable, sounds than those associated with 

11 other vessels of similar power and size. Icebreaker noise can be substantial out to at least 5 km 

12 (3 mi) and may be detectable from more than 50 km (31 mi) away. Icebreaker noise would add 

13 to the impacts discussed above for the particular activity they were supporting, but any increases 

14 would not occur during the open-water season. Impacts would be transient along the path of the 

15 icebreaker and would be strongest near the path.

16

17 There is currently no subsistence whaling in Cook inlet, but there is some potential for 

18 noise-induced alterations in marine mammal behavior. Local residents have consistently 

19 indicated that whales and other marine mammals are very sensitive to noise and that they have 

20 been disturbed from their normal patterns of behavior by past seismic and drilling activities

21 (Section 4.4.13). Lease stipulations have minimized such problems in the recent past, so noise 

22 and disturbance effects are expected to be effectively mitigated (MMS 2006a). See 

23 Sections 4.4.10.2.1 and 4.4.13.2.1 for discussions of noise impacts on land use and subsistence 

24 harvests, respectively.

25

26

27 4.4.5.3.2 Accidents. 

28

29 Spills. Under the proposed action, the number and types of spills assumed to occur in the 

30 Cook Inlet Planning Area include up to one large spill ( 1,000 bbl) from either a pipeline or a 

31 platform and as many as 18 small (<1,000 bbl) spills (Table 4.4.2-1). Noise from emergency and 

32 spill-response activities and support vessels and aircraft has the potential to disturb marine 

33 mammals, fish, and birds. For smaller spills, noise generated from response actions in open 

34 water would be expected to be localized and of relatively short duration. In the event of a large 

35 spill covering a greater ocean area and contacting the shore or moving into coastal and inland 

36 wetlands, longer term response activities over a wider area would be required and associated 

37 noise would occur over a wider area. Noise from response equipment and activities including 

38 seismic surveys, skimmers, and other mechanical equipment and support vessels and aircraft 

39 could disturb animals in the vicinity of the response action, temporarily for smaller spills and for 

40 longer periods for larger spills and catastrophic discharge events (see biota-specific discussions 

41 in Section 4.4.7). Noise along the routes of support vessels and aircraft would be transient and 

42 localized along the route but would recur for the duration of the response. Response activities 

43 for onshore spills or offshore spills that reached coastal areas would have similar acoustic 

44 impacts on nearby marine mammals and birds and affect terrestrial species (see Section 4.4.7).

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-165

1 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE that may range in size from 

2 75,000 to 125,000 bbl (Table 4.4.2-2). Sources of noise and impacts would be similar to those 

3 above for spills. The pressure wave and noise generated from an incident involving a loss of 

4 well control could affect marine mammals and could be large enough to harass or disturb them if 

5 they were close enough to the site of the event (MMS 2006a). In addition, accident response and 

6 support activities, including support aircraft and vessel activity, have the potential to cause noise 

7 impacts. These impacts would occur both at the site of the response activity and along the routes 

8 of support vessels and aircraft. Noise would be localized and occur throughout the duration of 

9 the response activities. Noise along support vessel and aircraft routes would be transient and 

10 localized along the route but would be recurring for the duration of the response. However, the 

11 spill itself and the response and cleanup activities would likely occur over a larger ocean area, 

12 could contact larger coastal and inland areas, and take place over a longer time. Thus, the 

13 impacts could cover a larger area and be more sustained over a longer time depending on the 

14 volume, location, duration, and weather conditions during the CDE and the response and cleanup 

15 activities.

16

17

18 4.4.5.4 Alaska – Arctic

19

20 The impact-producing factors for noise that may be expected in Arctic Alaska under the 

21 proposed action include seismic surveys, ship and aircraft traffic, drilling and trenching, offshore 

22 construction, construction of onshore pipeline, and production operations. There would be no 

23 onshore construction involving pipeline landfalls or shore bases and no platform removals in 

24 Arctic Alaska under the proposed action (see Table 4.4.1-4).

25

26

27 4.4.5.4.1 Routine Operations. Routine activities that will affect ambient noise 

28 conditions in the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas include seismic surveys, drilling 

29 noise, ship and aircraft noise, icebreaker noise, offshore construction, onshore pipeline 

30 construction, and operational activities. See Section 3.6.1.4 for details on the noise levels and 

31 frequencies associated with routine operational activities.

32

33 Under the proposed action, seismic surveys would be conducted to identify locations for 

34 up to 36 exploration wells (16 in the Beaufort Sea Planning area and 20 in the Chukchi Sea 

35 Planning Area). Air gun noise can be detected up to 100 km (62 mi) from the source and beyond 

36 under appropriate conditions (see Section 3.6.1.4.4), so the affected area can be extensive, 

37 although changes in ambient noise levels would be greatest at locations closest to the air gun. 

38 Noise from these seismic surveys and the associated survey and support vessels would alter the 

39 acoustic environment and affect ecological resources in the planning area. Effects would include 

40 physical and behavioral changes and disturbance in marine mammals and fish. Marine and 

41 coastal birds could also be affected. See Section 4.4.7 for discussions of noise impacts on 

42 ecological resources of the two planning areas. The potential for affecting ecological resources 

43 would continue for the duration of the survey activities.

44

45 Under the proposed action, construction and installation of exploratory and production 

46 wells (up to 36 and 400, respectively), platforms (up to 9), onshore pipelines (up to 129 km 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-166

1 [80 mi]), offshore pipelines (up to 652 km [405 mi]), and subsea wells (up to 92 [up to 10 in the 

2 Beaufort Sea Planning Area and up to 81 in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area]) will result in 

3 increases in noise levels in the vicinity of these construction activities. With the exception of 

4 pipeline trenching, construction and installation activities would generate noise from stationary 

5 noise sources at the drilling/well sites and from support vessels and aircraft.

6

7 Noise from pile driving, construction of offshore platforms and pipelines, support vessel 

8 and aircraft traffic, and gravel placement activities could disturb normal behaviors in marine 

9 mammals, birds, and fish in the vicinity of the construction activities (see Section 4.4.7). These 

10 effects would persist for the duration of the activity and would be strongest at the construction 

11 site(s) or along the line of any required trenching activity. Multiple construction projects 

12 occurring simultaneously in the same vicinity or over multiple years would have increased noise 

13 impacts.

14

15 Construction of up to 129 km (80 mi) of onshore pipeline on areas adjacent to the 

16 Beaufort Sea would cause noise that would disturb terrestrial mammals (see Section 4.4.7.1). 

17 Impacts would depend on the season and proximity to critical habitat and would persist for the 

18 duration of the construction activity. Affected areas would move as the active construction area 

19 progressed along the pipeline route. Marine mammals, birds, and fish in nearby waters could be 

20 affected. Given that there would be no new pipeline landfalls and no new shore bases 

21 constructed, little or no additional onshore construction is anticipated under the proposed action, 

22 any noise-related impacts would be limited to relatively few terrestrial mammals and birds. Any 

23 effects would persist for the duration of the construction and be strongest near the construction 

24 site. Additional noise-related impacts could be caused by gravel excavation activities.

25

26 Under the proposed action, drilling noise would be relatively constant during exploration 

27 phase drilling and during development and production phase drilling. Drilling noise generally 

28 would be less than ambient background levels beyond 30 km (19 mi) from the drill site (see 

29 Section 3.6.1.4.3) and strongest near the well. Noise levels would increase if several wells were 

30 located in close proximity to one another. The drilling noise could affect marine mammals, 

31 birds, and fish (see the biota-specific discussion in Section 4.4.7).

32

33 In addition to drilling noise, machinery on platforms generates noise during operation. 

34 Such noise could be continuous or transient and variable in intensity depending on the nature and 

35 the role of the machinery. Underwater noise would be relatively weak because of the small 

36 surface area in contact with the water, but it could affect marine mammals (MMS 2006a).

37

38 Under the proposed action, vessel traffic (up to 27 trips per week) and helicopter traffic 

39 (up to 27 trips per week) will result in increases in noise levels along the traffic routes and at the 

40 platforms during construction and operation. Vessel traffic in Arctic Alaska occurs primarily in 

41 the summer (MMS 2007c). Sound generated by these activities is transient and variable in 

42 intensity and may affect terrestrial and marine mammals, marine and coastal birds, and fish, as

43 discussed in Section 4.4.7. Noise from vessel traffic generally reaches background levels within 

44 10 km (6 mi) of the source, but may be detectable at very large distances in deep water. Flights 

45 over land would also affect terrestrial mammals (see Section 4.4.7.1). The noise would be 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-167

1 transient along the traffic path but would recur as long as trips continue. Frequent overflights 

2 could produce longer term consequences (MMS 2007c, 2008a).

3

4 Icebreaker activity in the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea areas could increase under the 

5 proposed action if needed to support exploration, construction, and operation activities. In 

6 addition to icebreaking activities when there is ice cover, icebreakers also engage in ice 

7 management activities during the summer. Icebreakers do not operate during the open-water 

8 season. Icebreaking vessels produce louder, but also more variable, sounds than those associated 

9 with other vessels of similar power and size. Icebreaker noise can be substantial out to at least 

10 5 km (3 mi) and may be detectable from more than 50 km (31 mi) away (see Section 3.6). 

11 Icebreaker noise would add to the impacts discussed above for the particular activity they were 

12 supporting. Impacts would be transient along the path of the icebreaker and would be strongest 

13 near the path.

14

15 Noise during staging activities for exploration, development, and production would likely 

16 occur in areas with existing infrastructure, such as Deadhorse, and cause little direct impact on 

17 local native communities. Noise from vessel and aircraft traffic, seismic surveys, and 

18 icebreakers could also disturb marine mammals, birds, and fish and thus potentially affect 

19 subsistence harvests and resources. Lease stipulations have minimized such problems in the 

20 recent past, so noise and disturbance effects are expected to be effectively mitigated 

21 (ArcMS 2008).

22

23

24 4.4.5.4.2 Accidents. 

25

26 Spills. Under the proposed action, the number and types of spills assumed to occur in the 

27 Arctic region include up to 3 large spills ( 1,000 bbl) from pipelines and platforms and between 

28 60 and 225 small (<1,000 bbl) spills over the 50-yr period of the Program (Table 4.4.2-1). Noise 

29 generated from response actions in open water would be expected to be localized and of 

30 relatively short duration. In the event of large spills covering a greater ocean area and contacting 

31 the shore or moving into coastal and inland wetlands, longer term response activities over a 

32 wider area would be required and the associated noise would occur over a wider area. Noise 

33 from response equipment and activities including seismic surveys, skimmers, and other 

34 mechanical equipment and support vessels and aircraft could disturb marine mammals, birds, and 

35 fish, as well as invertebrate prey species in the vicinity of the response action; the impact would 

36 be temporary for smaller spills and of longer duration for larger spills (see biota-specific 

37 discussions in Section 4.4.7). Noise along the routes of support vessels and aircraft would be 

38 transient and localized but would recur for the duration of the spill response. Response activities 

39 for onshore spills or offshore spills that reached the land could have similar impacts but would 

40 also affect terrestrial species (MMS 2006a, 2007c).

41

42 Catastrophic Discharge Events. In the Arctic Planning Areas, the PEIS analyzes a 

43 CDE that may range in size between 1,700,000 and 3,900,000 bbl in the Beaufort Planning Area 

44 and a CDE of between 400,000 and 2,100,000 bbl in the Chukchi Planning Area (Table 4.4.2-2).

45 Sources of noise and impacts would be similar to those above for spills. The pressure wave and 

46 noise generated from an incident involving a loss of well control would affect marine mammals 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-168

1 and could be large enough to harass or disturb them if they were close enough to the site of the 

2 event (MMS 2006a). In addition, accident response and support activities, including support 

3 aircraft and vessel activity, have the potential to cause noise impacts. These impacts would 

4 occur both at the site of the response activity and along the routes of support vessels and aircraft. 

5 Noise would be localized and occur throughout the duration of the response activities. Noise 

6 along support vessel and aircraft routes would be transient and localized along the route but 

7 would recur for the duration of the response. However, the spill itself and the response and 

8 cleanup activities would likely occur over a larger ocean area, could contact larger coastal and 

9 inland areas, and take place over a longer time. Thus, the impacts could cover a larger area, as 

10 was the case for the DWH event, and be more sustained over a longer time depending on the 

11 volume, location, duration, and weather conditions during the CDE and the response and cleanup 

12 activities.

13

14

15 4.4.5.5 Conclusion

16

17 Noise impacts due to routine operations under the proposed action would be unavoidable. 

18 Noise could affect terrestrial and marine mammals, fish, and birds primarily through disturbance 

19 and disruption of normal activities (see Section 4.4.7). Terrestrial mammals could be similarly 

20 affected by onshore construction activities. Noise may also affect the ability of subsistence users 

21 and others to gather resources. The magnitude of the impact would vary with the type of 

22 resource affected, the timing of the noise-generating activity, the noise footprint, and location of 

23 the resource in relationship to the noise-generating activity. In general, the nature and magnitude 

24 of impacts from single transient and short-term noises would be different than those associated 

25 with continuous, long-term noise. Impacts to ambient noise levels from routine operations 

26 associated with the Program are expected to be minor.

27

28 Noise from emergency and spill-response activities and activities including seismic 

29 surveys, skimmers, and other mechanical equipment and support vessels and aircraft has the 

30 potential to disturb marine mammals, fish, and birds. The noise impacts would persist for the 

31 duration of the response efforts. Response noise for small spills would be expected to have 

32 short-term temporary impacts; response noise for large spills (and especially for CDE-level 

33 spills) would have longer term impacts because of the longer duration of spill response activities. 

34 As the time over which the response activities continue increases, the chance for permanent 

35 noise impacts on some resources (e.g., mammals, birds) may also increase.

36

37

38 4.4.6 Potential Impacts on Marine and Coastal Habitats

39

40

41 4.4.6.1 Coastal and Estuarine Habitats

42

43

44 4.4.6.1.1 Gulf of Mexico (GOM). Coastal and estuarine habitats could be directly or 

45 indirectly affected by a number of factors associated with oil and gas activities (Table 4.4.6-1). 

46 These factors include vessel traffic, maintenance dredging of navigational canals, construction 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-169

1 TABLE 4.4.6-1 Impacting Factors for Coastal and Estuarine Habitats in the Gulf 

2 of Mexico

Habitat Type

Oil and Gas Impacting Factorsa

Barrier 

Landforms Wetlands Seagrasses

Vessel traffic (all phases) X X X

Navigation channel maintenance dredging 

 (operations)

X X X

Pipeline emplacement (construction) X X X

Construction of onshore facilities (construction) X X

Expansion of onshore facilities (construction) X X X

Use of existing facilities (operations) X X X

Expansion of ports and docks (construction) X X X

Disposal of OCS-related wastes (all phases) X X

Accidental spills (all phases) X X X

a X = Potential impacts on the resource attributable to the impacting factor.

3

4

5 and operation of onshore facilities, installation and maintenance of pipelines, expansion of ports 

6 and docks, and operation of offshore oil and gas facilities. The potential for impacts would be 

7 largely influenced by site-specific factors, such as the habitat types and distribution in the 

8 vicinity of oil and gas activities. Many of the activities associated with oil and gas, such as 

9 platform construction, would occur in offshore waters, with minimal impacts on coastal habitats 

10 other than for potential accidents.

11

12

13 Routine Operations. 

14

15 Barrier Landforms. The potential effects on coastal barrier islands, beaches, and dunes 

16 from routine operations would primarily be associated with indirect effects from maintenance 

17 dredging and vessel traffic. Impacts of pipeline landfalls and use or expansion of coastal 

18 facilities could also occur.

19

20 Maintenance dredging of navigation channels in barrier inlets and bar channels can 

21 remove sediments from the longshore sediment drift. Maintained channels intercept and capture 

22 sediments, and dredged materials are often discharged to ocean dump sites. Dredging may 

23 contribute to the reduction of sediment deposition and affect the stability of downdrift barrier 

24 landforms (MMS 2007b). Reductions in sediment supply could subsequently contribute to 

25 minor local losses of adjacent downdrift barrier beach habitat, with impacts over a broader area 

26 where the sediment supply is low, such as along the Louisiana coastal barrier islands in the 

27 Central Planning Area (CPA). However, dredged sediments are used in beach restoration 

28 projects where feasible (MMS 2008a). The installation of erosion control structures, such as 

29 jetties, for OCS-related facilities built near barrier shorelines may also accumulate sediments and 

30 induce erosion of downdrift areas (MMS 2007b). In some locations, the potential exists for 

31 dredging to result in the resuspension and transport of oil spilled during the DWH event.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-170

1 Service vessel traffic to exploration and production wells could contribute to erosion of 

2 barrier beaches. Approximately 300 to 600 vessel trips per week would occur in the GOM under 

3 the proposed action. Waves generated by service vessels can erode unprotected shorelines and 

4 areas that currently experience barrier beach losses from ongoing shoreline degradation, 

5 particularly the coastal areas of Louisiana; vessel traffic can contribute to the accelerated erosion 

6 of sediments along beaches through increased wave activity. Erosion from vessel activity along 

7 unarmored navigation channels has resulted in channel widening in the Western Planning Area 

8 (WPA) and CPA and land loss in some areas. However, restoration and stabilization of channel 

9 margins have been effective in minimizing channel widening. Wave activity could be minimized 

10 by maintaining reduced vessel speeds in the vicinity of barrier islands.

11

12 The proposed action would include approximately less than 12 new pipeline landfalls in 

13 the GOM region. Impacts on barrier landforms would likely be avoided during pipeline 

14 construction by the use of modern construction techniques, such as directional (trenchless) 

15 boring, under barrier islands and beaches (MMS 2008a). These construction methods result in 

16 minimal impacts on the barrier systems (Wicker et al. 1989). If nonintrusive techniques were not 

17 used, impacts on beach and dune communities from ground-disturbing activities during pipeline 

18 construction could occur, with the potential for accelerated beach erosion and island breaching.

19

20 Up to 12 new natural gas processing facilities and 4 to 6 new pipe yards would be 

21 constructed. No new facilities would be expected to be constructed on barrier beaches or 

22 associated dunes; however, impacts on other coastal upland habitats would likely occur. Habitat 

23 losses would be minimized if facilities were located in previously disturbed areas. Expansion of 

24 existing facilities located on barrier beaches or dunes would result in losses of those habitats. 

25 The continued use of facilities that have become located in the barrier beach and dune zone 

26 because of ongoing shoreline recession may result in accelerated erosion of those habitats.

27

28 Wetlands. The potential effects on wetlands from routine operations would primarily be 

29 associated with direct impacts from pipeline emplacement and maintenance and navigation 

30 channel maintenance dredging, as well as indirect impacts from decreased water quality (such as 

31 from disposal of OCS-related wastes), altered hydrology, and vessel traffic. Impacts from 

32 ground-disturbing activities during construction or expansion of support facilities, such as 

33 processing facilities and pipeline yards, could also occur.

34

35 The construction of pipelines through coastal wetlands could result in direct losses of 

36 marsh habitat, depending on avoidance of wetlands in pipeline route selection and the 

37 emplacement technique used. The use of directional boring under wetlands during pipeline 

38 construction would likely avoid impacts, or result in negligible impacts, on wetlands. Trenching 

39 for pipeline emplacement would result in direct impacts on marsh habitat from excavation. 

40 Long-term reduction in vegetation productivity above and adjacent to the pipeline, including 

41 areas backfilled, would likely occur, with potential losses of wetland habitat, depending on 

42 factors such as the success of backfilling, time of year, and duration of construction 

43 (Turner et al. 1994; MMS 2007b). 

44

45 Maintenance dredging of navigation channels would contribute to increased flushing and 

46 draining of interior marsh areas by tides and storms, which could result in shifts in species 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-171

1 composition, habitat deterioration, erosion, and wetland loss (LCWCRTF 1998, 2003). Channels 

2 alter the hydrology of coastal marshes by affecting the amount, timing, and pathways of water 

3 flow (Day et al. 2000a). Hydrologic alterations can result in changes in salinity and inundation, 

4 causing a dieback of marsh vegetation and a subsequent loss of substrate and conversion to open 

5 water (LCWCRTF 2001; Day et al. 2000a). Saltwater intrusion into brackish and freshwater 

6 wetlands further inland could result in mortality of salt-intolerant species and loss of some 

7 wetland types such as cypress swamp, or transition of wetland types such as freshwater marsh to 

8 brackish and saltmarsh or open water (MMS 2007b). The deposition of dredged material onto 

9 adjacent disposal banks could potentially result in a localized and minor contribution to ongoing 

10 impacts of disposal banks, such as preventing the effective draining of some adjacent areas, 

11 resulting in higher water levels or more prolonged tidal inundation, or restricting the movement 

12 of water, along with sediments and nutrients, into other marsh areas (Day et al. 2000a). Impacts 

13 on marsh habitats from navigation channels would be expected to be mitigated by the beneficial 

14 use of dredged material (MMS 2008a), through the application of dredged material onto marsh 

15 surfaces to increase substrate elevations for marsh restoration or creation. Small areas of marsh 

16 would likely be lost during dredging by the occasional inadvertent deposition of dredged 

17 material, as well as created by material deposition into shallow water (MMS 2007b). 

18

19 Service vessel traffic to exploration and production wells would contribute to erosion of 

20 marsh habitat. Wetland losses would likely occur along unarmored navigation channels because 

21 of the widening that would result from the continued erosion of adjacent marsh substrates due to 

22 waves generated by vessel traffic (LCWCRTF 2003). Erosion from vessel activity along 

23 navigation channels has resulted in channel widening in the WPA and CPA and land loss in 

24 some areas. However, restoration and stabilization of channel margins have been effective in 

25 minimizing channel widening. Erosion of wetlands would not occur along armored channels, 

26 which are frequently used by OCS-related vessel traffic.

27

28 The construction or expansion of facilities near the coastline, including the potential 

29 expansion of port facilities, could potentially result in the direct loss of wetlands from the 

30 placement of fill material during building construction, as well as the construction of pipelines, 

31 access roads, and transmission corridors. However, construction in wetlands is discouraged by 

32 State and Federal permitting agencies. Indirect impacts of construction could include habitat 

33 fragmentation, altered hydrology from changes in surface drainage patterns or isolation of 

34 wetland areas from water sources, conversion to upland communities or open water, 

35 sedimentation and turbidity, and introduction of contaminants in stormwater runoff. Resulting 

36 changes in affected wetlands could include a reduction in biodiversity and the establishment and 

37 predominance of invasive plant species. Impacts on wetlands from construction could be 

38 minimized by maintaining buffers around wetlands and by using best management practices for 

39 erosion and sedimentation control. Construction in wetlands is managed and regulated by the 

40 appropriate State agencies and the USACE. It is assumed that standard mitigation measures 

41 would be applied to any construction project associated with the Program.

42

43 Impacts on wetlands near constructed facilities might also result from other factors, such 

44 as disposal of wastes at upland disposal sites, which could introduce contaminants into wetlands. 

45 Contaminants from land storage or disposal sites might migrate into groundwater or could be 

46 present in stormwater runoff that could flow into wetlands. Contaminants might also be released 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-172

1 to surface water in service vessel discharges, which might affect wetlands. State requirements 

2 would be enforced to prevent and address potential occurrences. Impacts on wetlands would be 

3 minimized by implementing water quality practices. 

4

5 Seagrasses. The potential effects on seagrass communities from routine operations 

6 would primarily be associated with effects from vessel traffic, pipeline emplacement, and 

7 maintenance dredging. Impacts from use or expansion of coastal facilities could also occur.

8

9 Coastal seagrass communities might be damaged by vessel traffic outside established 

10 traffic routes, which could result in long-term scars on seagrass beds (MMS 2003d). The 

11 recovery rate would be greater for larger scars and low-density vegetation. Seagrass 

12 communities might also be affected by trenching for pipeline installation, which could bury 

13 adjacent seagrasses and deposit lighter sediments onto leaves of more distant seagrasses. 

14 Turbidity from pipeline emplacement, maintenance dredging of navigation canals, or vessel 

15 traffic might adversely affect seagrass communities by decreasing seagrass cover and 

16 productivity, and changing species composition, as a result of reduced light levels (MMS 2007b). 

17 It is assumed that the USACE and State agency requirements regarding the mitigation of 

18 turbidity impacts on submerged vegetation from pipeline emplacement and maintenance 

19 dredging of navigation channels would be followed. Salinity changes resulting from dredging 

20 can also result in changes in species composition of seagrass communities. Because activities 

21 associated with the Program would be located far from Florida coastal waters, which contain 

22 approximately 98.5% of all coastal seagrasses in the U.S. GOM, the Program would be expected 

23 to have minimal effects on the overall condition of seagrass communities in the GOM. 

24 However, localized impacts on small areas of seagrass could occur in coastal areas west of 

25 Florida. 

26

27 Accidents. The potential effects on coastal and estuarine habitats from accidents would 

28 primarily be associated with impacts from spills of oil and other petroleum hydrocarbons, such 

29 as fuel oil or diesel fuel, and subsequent cleanup efforts. Large ( 1,000 bbl) and small 

30 (<1,000 bbl) oil spills could occur as a result of tanker and barge spills, pipeline spills, or 

31 platform spills. Spills from vessels should be minimized by compliance with USCG

32 requirements for spill prevention and control. Section 4.4.2 provides details of spill assumptions. 

33 Oil or other spilled materials might be transported to barrier landforms and wetland habitats by 

34 currents or tides. The amount of oil deposited on coastal habitats would depend on various 

35 factors, such as spill volume, distance from shoreline, ambient conditions, degree of weathering, 

36 and effectiveness of response actions. Large spills would potentially result in heavy or 

37 widespread deposits of oil. 

38

39 Beaches could be affected by oil spills, and the direct mortality of biota could result. 

40 Spilled oil that reaches barrier beaches might be restricted to beach surfaces, or it could penetrate 

41 into subsurface layers. Permeable substrates, generally associated with larger sand grain sizes, 

42 and holes created by infauna could increase oil penetration, especially that of light oils and 

43 petroleum products (NOAA 2000). Oil may become buried under sediments by wave action. 

44 Although beach and foredune areas are often sparsely vegetated, impacts on vegetation might 

45 occur if oil was carried to higher elevations by storm waves and tides. Oiled beach sediments 

46 could weaken dune and other beach vegetation, resulting in accelerated erosion. Because of the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-173

1 changes in barrier beach and dune profiles as a result of hurricanes, such as Katrina and Rita, 

2 habitat between the shoreline and beach ridge may be more vulnerable to impacts of spills

3 (MMS 2008a).

4

5 Impacts on coastal marsh vegetation from oil spills could range from a short-term 

6 reduction in photosynthesis to extensive mortality and subsequent loss of marsh habitat as a 

7 result of substrate erosion and conversion to open water (Hoff 1995; Proffitt 1998). Vegetation 

8 that dies back could recover, even following the death of all existing leaves. Long-term impacts 

9 could include reduced stem density, biomass, and growth (Proffitt 1998). Mangroves might 

10 decrease canopy cover or die over a period of weeks to months (Hensel et al. 2002; 

11 Hayes et al. 1992). Other effects of spills could include a change in plant community 

12 composition or the displacement of sensitive species by more tolerant species. In locations 

13 where soil microbial communities were affected, effects might be long term, and wetland 

14 recovery might be slowed. The degree of impacts on wetlands from spills are related to the oil 

15 type and degree of weathering, amount of oil, duration of exposure, season, plant species, 

16 percentage of plant surface oiled, substrate type, and oil penetration (Hayes et al. 1992; 

17 Hoff 1995; Proffitt 1998; Hensel et al. 2002). Higher mortality and poorer recovery of 

18 vegetation generally result from spills of lighter petroleum products (such as diesel fuel), heavy 

19 deposits of oil, spills during the active growing period of a plant species, contact with sensitive 

20 plant species (especially those located in coastal fresh marsh), completely oiled plants, and deep 

21 penetration of oil and accumulation in substrates. Most spills in deepwater areas would require 

22 an extended period of time to reach a shoreline or marsh and would undergo natural degradation 

23 and dispersion, which, in addition to expected containment actions, would reduce potential

24 impacts. Because of the changes in barrier island profiles as a result of hurricanes Katrina, Rita, 

25 and Ivan, there is a greater potential for oil spill impacts on coastal marshes (MMS 2008a).

26

27 Impacts on seagrass communities would generally be short term, resulting from contact 

28 with oil dispersed in the water column, from reduced light and oxygen levels due to the sustained 

29 presence of an oil slick in protected areas, or from reduced populations of epiphyte grazers 

30 (MMS 2007b). Recovery would generally occur in about 1 yr. Permanent losses of seagrass 

31 habitat would not be expected to occur from a spill unless unusually low tides result in direct 

32 contact of seagrass leaf surfaces with an oil slick.

33

34 Although any residual oil that might remain on barrier beaches following cleanup could 

35 be largely removed in highly exposed locations through wave action, oil could remain in the 

36 shallow subsurface for extended periods of time. In some locations, oil might become buried by 

37 new sand deposition (NOAA 2000). Natural degradation and persistence of oil on beaches are 

38 influenced by the type of oil spilled, the amount present, sand grain size, the degree of 

39 penetration into the subsurface, the exposure to the weathering action of waves, and sand 

40 movement onto and off the shore. Spilled oil might be entirely absent from affected beaches 

41 within a year or less, or it might persist for many years (Dahlin et al. 1994; Hayes et al. 1992; 

42 Petrae 1995; Irvine 2000). On sheltered beaches, heavy oiling left for long periods could form 

43 an asphalt pavement relatively resistant to weathering (Hayes et al. 1992). Spilled oil remaining 

44 in wetlands after cleanup degrades naturally by weathering processes and biodegradation caused 

45 by microbial communities in the soil. Full recovery of coastal wetlands might occur in less than 

46 1 yr or might require more than 5 yr, depending on site and spill characteristics (Hoff 1995). Oil 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-174

1 might degrade very slowly in saturated soils under mangroves; more than 30 yr could be required 

2 for mangroves to recover (Hensel et al. 2002). Oil could remain in some coastal substrates for 

3 decades, even if it was cleaned from the surface. Heavy deposits of oil in sheltered areas or in 

4 the supratidal zone could form asphalt pavements resistant to degradation (Hoff 1995). 

5

6 Spill cleanup operations might adversely affect barrier beaches and dunes if large 

7 volumes of contaminated substrates were removed. Such removal could affect beach stability, 

8 resulting in accelerated shoreline erosion, especially in areas of sand deficit, such as along the 

9 Louisiana coastline in the CPA. However, sand removal is generally minimized during spill 

10 cleanup (MMS 2007b). Foot traffic during cleanup might mix surface oil into the subsurface, 

11 where it might persist for a longer time. Spill cleanup actions might damage coastal wetlands 

12 through trampling of vegetation, incorporation of oil deeper into substrates, increased erosion, 

13 and inadvertent removal of plants or sediments, all of which could have long-term effects 

14 (Hoff 1995; Proffitt 1998; NOAA 2000). These actions could result in plant mortality and delay 

15 or prevent recovery. In locations where spill cleanup would include the excavation and removal 

16 of contaminated soils and biota, increased erosion and lowered substrate elevation could result in 

17 marsh loss by conversion to open water, unless new sediments were applied. Effective low18 impact cleanup actions could include bioremediation, low-pressure flushing, or use of chemical 

19 cleaners (Mendelssohn and Lin 2003; Hoff 1995; Proffitt 1998).

20

21 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE with an assumed volume of 

22 0.9–7.2 million bbl (Table 4.4.2-2). The amount of oil deposited on coastal habitats would 

23 depend on various factors, such as spill volume, distance from shoreline, ambient conditions, 

24 degree of weathering, and effectiveness of response actions. A CDE would potentially result in 

25 heavy or widespread deposits of oil and would have a greater likelihood for extensive areas of 

26 shoreline affected and heavy deposits of oil in multiple locations. For example, the DWH event 

27 affected more than 1,046 km (650 mi) of the GOM coastal habitat, from the Mississippi River 

28 Delta to the Florida panhandle. More than 209 km (130 mi) of coastal habitat were moderately 

29 to heavily oiled, including a substantial number of Louisiana beaches (see Section 3.7.1.1.5).

30

31

32 4.4.6.1.2 Alaska Region – Cook Inlet.

33

34 Routine Operations. The potential effects on coastal habitats from routine operations 

35 would primarily be associated with direct impacts from ground-disturbing activities during 

36 pipeline construction as well as indirect impacts from service vessels and the operation of 

37 existing facilities (see Table 4.4.6-2).

38

39 Up to one new pipeline landfall would be constructed in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. 

40 Pipeline installation would include trench excavation through intertidal and shallow subtidal 

41 areas. Installation could directly disturb tidal marshes, beaches, rocky shores, or other coastal

42 habitats, depending on the location of the landfall. A few acres of habitat would likely be altered 

43 at each landfall site, and some intertidal and shallow subtidal organisms would be displaced 

44 (MMS 2003b). Intertidal and shallow subtidal vegetation could be indirectly impacted by 

45 excavation for pipeline installation. Areas adjacent to the trench may be covered by excavated 

46 sediments, and organisms could be affected by sedimentation and turbidity associated with the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-175

1 TABLE 4.4.6-2 Impacting Factors for Coastal and Estuarine Habitats in the Alaska Region –

2 Cook Inlet

Habitat Type

Oil and Gas Impacting Factorsa

Cook Inlet 

Coastal Habitats

Arctic Barrier 

Landforms

Arctic 

Wetlands

Vessel traffic (all phases) X X X

Construction of onshore pipelines (construction) X X

Use of existing facilities (operations) X X

Disposal of OCS-related wastes (all phases) X X

Accidental spills (all phases) X X X

a X = Potential impacts on the resource attributable to the impacting factor.

3

4

5 disturbance of bottom sediments during trench excavation and backfilling. Impacts could be 

6 reduced by implementing measures to restrict the dispersal of sediments.

7

8 Approximately 80–169 km (50–105 mi) of new onshore pipeline would be constructed. 

9 Pipelines would deliver oil to existing refineries in Nikiski and natural gas to transmission 

10 facilities in the Kenai area, both on the eastern side of Cook Inlet. Indirect effects could include 

11 habitat fragmentation, reduced infiltration and increased surface runoff from soil compaction on 

12 the construction site, altered hydrology including increased or reduced inundation or saturation 

13 of substrates, sedimentation and turbidity, deposition of fugitive dust, and introduction of 

14 contaminants in stormwater runoff. Impacts to local streams could affect coastal wetlands.

15 Impacts could result in changes in plant community structure, reduction in plant biodiversity, and 

16 the establishment and dominance of invasive plant species. However, activities that may 

17 potentially impact wetlands are regulated by State agencies and the USACE. Standard 

18 mitigation measures would be applied to any construction project associated with these activities. 

19 For example, construction-related impacts could be minimized by maintaining buffers around 

20 wetlands and implementing best management practices for erosion and sediment control. 

21 Although wetlands along the pipeline route could be affected by construction, impacts could be 

22 reduced if pipelines were located in existing utility or transportation system rights-of-way, when 

23 possible, and if natural drainage patterns were maintained. Indirect impacts to coastal habitats 

24 from sedimentation originating along the pipeline route could be reduced by minimizing 

25 crossings of anadromous fish streams and consolidating pipeline crossings with other utility and 

26 road crossings.

27

28 Construction of a pipeline gravel service road, haul road, and access roads would replace 

29 habitat with unvegetated surfaces or result in altered habitat having few species in common with 

30 nearby undisturbed habitats. Habitat may also be disturbed by the establishment of work camps. 

31 Resulting changes in affected wetlands could include a reduction in biodiversity, replacement of 

32 one wetland type for another (such as by dewatering or ponding), conversion to upland 

33 communities, or conversion of vegetated wetlands to open water. 

34
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-176

1 No new shore bases, processing facilities, or waste disposal facilities would be 

2 constructed. Existing shore bases, gas processing facilities, and waste disposal facilities would 

3 be used for all new oil and gas activities in the planning area. Operation of existing facilities 

4 could have local indirect effects on wetland vegetation from exhaust emissions or atmospheric 

5 releases from processing facilities. Contaminants could be introduced into wetlands from the use 

6 of existing waste storage or disposal sites, if contaminants migrate into groundwater or enter 

7 stormwater that flows into wetlands. Service vessels would make one to three trips per week for 

8 each of the one to three new platforms in the planning area. Discharges from service vessels that 

9 support drilling platforms may contain materials that adversely affect coastal wetlands or other 

10 intertidal or shallow subtidal habitats. Wetland impacts could be avoided or minimized by 

11 implementing practices that eliminate or minimize impacts on water quality.

12

13 Accidents. The potential impacts on coastal habitats from accidents would primarily 

14 be associated with impacts from spills of oil or other petroleum hydrocarbons, such as fuel 

15 oil or diesel fuel, and the methods used for spill cleanup. This analysis assumes 1 large spill 

16 of 4,600 bbl from a pipeline or 1,500 bbl from a platform, as well as 2 smaller spills 

17 (>50–1,000 bbl) and 10 spills up to 50 bbl. Currents and tides within Cook Inlet could transport 

18 oil or other materials to coastal habitats from drilling platforms, pipeline leaks, or vessel 

19 accidents. The Cook Inlet Planning Area is unlike any other OCS Planning Area in that it is 

20 almost entirely surrounded by coastal habitat. Therefore, there is a very high likelihood that 

21 spills in the planning area would make contact with coastal habitats. Because of the patterns of 

22 Cook Inlet surface currents, habitats along the western shoreline of the inlet and along Shelikof 

23 Strait would have the greatest likelihood of contact from spills within the planning area, while 

24 the eastern shoreline would have a lower potential for contamination from spills (MMS 2003a). 

25 Extensive winter ice can develop along the western shores of Cook Inlet, and epibiota are 

26 seasonally removed by ice scour. Along the Shelikof Strait mainland, intertidal communities are 

27 affected by glacier ice melt and are subject to turbidity and freshwater stresses 

28 (McCammon et al. 2002).

29

30 Intertidal habitats would be highly vulnerable to spills that reach the coastline, and 

31 repeated influxes of oil may contaminate intertidal surfaces with each subsequent tidal cycle. 

32 Because of the wide tidal range (more than 9 m [30 ft] in some portions of upper Cook Inlet, 

33 north of the planning area), extensive areas of shoreline habitat may be affected by a spill, 

34 especially soft bottom habitats (sands and muds), which typically have a relatively flat 

35 topography. Shallow subtidal habitats could be affected by oil that slumps from intertidal areas 

36 and accumulates below the low-tide line.

37

38 Vulnerable intertidal habitats sensitive to disturbance from oil spills extend around most 

39 of lower Cook Inlet (MMS 2003a). Highly sensitive shoreline habitats include marshes, 

40 sheltered tidal flats, and sheltered rocky shores (NOAA 1994). The vulnerability of intertidal 

41 habitats is generally rated as highest for vegetated wetlands and semipermeable substrates, such 

42 as mud, that are sheltered from wave energy and strong tidal currents. Oil contacting these 

43 habitats is less likely to be removed by waves. Cleanup activities are very difficult to conduct on 

44 soft mud substrates, such as on tidal flats (NOAA 1994, 2000).

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-177

1 Direct mortality of biota could result from spilled oil contacting intertidal habitats. Oil 

2 readily adheres to marsh vegetation (NOAA 1994, 2000; Hayse et al. 1992), and effects may 

3 range from a short-term reduction in photosynthesis to extensive vegetation injury or mortality. 

4 Many invertebrates are sensitive to oil exposure. Studies of the Exxon Valdez oil spill provide 

5 valuable information on oil spill effects and recovery. Following the Exxon Valdez oil spill, 

6 the abundance of many species of algae and invertebrates were reduced at affected sites 

7 (NOAA 1997; Peterson 2000; Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2003). In particular, the 

8 abundance and reproductive potential of Fucus gardneri, a common and important brown alga 

9 species, was reduced in oiled areas and remained unstable at some locations for extended 

10 periods (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2003, 2010a). Although adult Fucus appear 

11 to have some resistance to oil toxicity, earlier life stages appear to be much more sensitive 

12 (NOAA 1998). In shallow subtidal habitats, impacts were less severe, although kelp, eelgrass, 

13 and many invertebrates were adversely affected (Peterson 2000). 

14

15 Spilled oil that contacts intertidal habitats can cause changes in community structure and 

16 dynamics. Toxic compounds in oil can selectively remove the more sensitive organisms, such 

17 as echinoderms and some crustaceans, while organic enrichment from oil can stimulate the 

18 growth and abundance of opportunistic infaunal invertebrates, such as some polychaetes and 

19 oligochaetes (McCammon et al. 2002). Some opportunistic species, such as species of barnacle, 

20 oligochaetes, and filamentous brown algae, colonized affected shorelines following the Exxon

21 Valdez oil spill and cleanup (Peterson 2000; Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2003). 

22 Indirect effects also included the spread of Fucus gardneri onto lower shoreline areas in some 

23 regions, which inhibited the return of red algae (Peterson 2000). The reduction of predators or 

24 herbivores can also result in changes in lower trophic levels for extended periods. The adverse 

25 effects of oil on intertidal organisms, such as macroalgae, clams, and mussels, can last for more

26 than a decade (MMS 2003e; Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2003).

27

28 Extended periods of time may be required for intertidal communities to fully recover 

29 from an oil spill. The degree of effects and length of recovery depend on a number of factors 

30 such as the type of oil, extent of biota exposure, substrate type, degree of sediment 

31 contamination, time of year, and species sensitivity (NOAA 1998; Hayse et al. 1992; Hoff 1995). 

32 Although the most acutely toxic components of crude oil are rapidly lost through weathering, the 

33 more persistent components have been associated with long-term pathologies such as 

34 carcenogenicity (NOAA 1997). Full recovery of wetlands including invertebrate communities 

35 may require more than 10 years (Hoff 1995). Studies indicate that full recolonization of 

36 sheltered rocky shorelines in Cook Inlet may require 5–10 years (Highsmith et al. 2001). 

37 Although studies in Prince William Sound indicate that some organisms can recover quickly, 

38 recovery in some intertidal and shallow subtidal habitats takes more than a decade 

39 (Peterson 2000; Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2003). More than 20 years after the 

40 Exxon Valdez oil spill, intertidal communities were considered to be recovering, but had not yet 

41 fully recovered from the effects of the spill (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2010a).

42

43 Spilled oil may penetrate into subsurface layers or may remain on the surface. Oil can 

44 remain in intertidal sediments and organisms for more than a decade and may remain a long-term 

45 source of exposure (NOAA 1997; MMS 2003e; Short et al. 2004; Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee 

46 Council 2003). Lingering oil, in some areas only slightly weathered, persists in intertidal beach 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-178

1 substrates at a number of locations more than 20 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill (Exxon 

2 Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2009b, 2010a,b). Coarse-grained sand beaches are more 

3 conducive to subsurface penetration than fine-grained sands (NOAA 2000), and subsequent 

4 deposition of sand may bury oil deposits. Natural removal of subsurface oil from gravel beaches 

5 is greatly reduced by surface armoring of boulders, as observed in Prince William Sound 

6 (NOAA 1997). Although oil is not likely to adhere to the surface of mudflats, oil may be 

7 deposited if concentrations are high; penetration of the surface is unlikely except for entering 

8 burrows or crevices (NOAA 2000).

9

10 Cleanup activities may also adversely affect intertidal habitats and biota, as occurred 

11 following the Exxon Valdez oil spill (NOAA 1997; McCammon et al. 2002; Exxon Valdez Oil 

12 Spill Trustee Council 2003). The removal of organisms from affected surfaces and washing out 

13 of fine particles from substrates likely inhibited and slowed the recovery of intertidal 

14 communities in some areas. Trampling of vegetation and other biota during cleanup activities as 

15 well as working oil deeper into sediments from foot traffic and equipment can also delay 

16 recovery from oil spills. Extensive vessel traffic during cleanup operations may increase 

17 turbidity and adversely affect organisms, such as eelgrass, in shallow subtidal communities 

18 (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2003).

19

20 Catastrophic Discharge Event. For the Cook Inlet Planning Area, the PEIS analyzes a 

21 CDE with an assumed volume of 75,000–125,000 bbl (Table 4.4.2-2). Currents and tides within 

22 Cook Inlet could transport oil, and there is a very high likelihood that spills in the planning area 

23 would make contact with coastal habitats. A CDE would potentially result in heavy or 

24 widespread deposits of oil and would have a greater likelihood for extensive areas of shoreline 

25 affected and heavy deposits of oil in multiple locations. The degree of effects and length of 

26 recovery depend on a number of factors such as the type of oil, extent of biota exposure, 

27 substrate type, degree of sediment contamination, time of year, and species sensitivity. More 

28 than 20 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, intertidal communities were considered to be 

29 recovering, but had not yet fully recovered from the effects of the spill (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 

30 Trustee Council 2010a).

31

32

33 4.4.6.1.3 Alaska – Arctic.

34

35 Routine Operations.

36

37 Coastal Barrier Beaches. The potential effects on coastal barrier beaches from routine 

38 operations would primarily be associated with direct impacts from ground-disturbing activities 

39 during pipeline construction and indirect effects from vessel traffic.

40

41 No new pipeline landfalls would be constructed in the Arctic region. However, 

42 16–129 km (10–80 mi) of new onshore pipeline would be constructed for the Beaufort Sea, 

43 connecting to existing infrastructure on the Arctic Coastal Plain (ACP). Pipeline construction 

44 may affect sand beaches and dunes on the margins of lakes and rivers on the ACP, and erosion of 

45 sand beaches and dunes adjacent to pipelines could be promoted. Stabilization of dune margins 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-179

1 could be difficult, and establishment of vegetation cover might be slow, possibly resulting in 

2 prolonged losses of dune habitat near pipeline routes.

3

4 No new shore bases, processing facilities, or waste disposal facilities would be 

5 constructed in the Arctic region. Existing shore bases, gas processing facilities, and waste 

6 disposal facilities would be used for all new oil and gas activities in the region. Operation of 

7 existing facilities could have local indirect effects on vegetation from exhaust emissions or 

8 atmospheric releases from processing facilities. 

9

10 Arctic coastal habitats are exposed to strong wave and sea ice action, and the shoreline is 

11 generally unstable and prone to erosion (MMS 2002c; Viereck et al. 1992; Macdonald 1977). 

12 Service vessel traffic to exploration and production wells and barge traffic in support of shore 

13 bases could contribute to erosion along barrier beaches. Under the proposed action, up to three 

14 vessel trips per week would be made to each of the up to five new platforms along the Chukchi 

15 Sea and up to four along the Beaufort Sea. Increases in wave activity from vessel traffic could 

16 contribute to the removal of sediments along barrier beaches. Wave activity could be minimized 

17 by maintaining reduced vessel speeds in the vicinity of barrier islands. 

18

19 Wetlands. The potential effects on wetlands from routine operations would primarily be 

20 associated with direct impacts from ground-disturbing activities during construction of pipelines 

21 and roads, as well as the indirect impacts from decreased water and air quality, altered 

22 hydrology, and facility maintenance. Wetland losses could result in the localized reduction or 

23 loss of wetland functions, such as fish and wildlife habitat, attenuation of flooding and shoreline 

24 erosion, and removal of substances that reduce water quality. Avoidance of wetlands during 

25 route selection for pipelines or roads might be difficult on the ACP because of the high density 

26 of wetlands. Activities that would potentially affect wetlands are regulated by State agencies and 

27 the USACE. Standard measures would help mitigate construction-related impacts.

28

29 Although no new pipeline landfalls would be constructed in the Arctic region, 

30 16–129 km (10–80 mi) of pipeline would be constructed onshore to transport oil from the 

31 Beaufort Sea to existing North Slope pipelines. With a 46-m (150-ft) wide construction ROW, 

32 approximately 73–584 ha (180–1,443 ac) of land would be disturbed. A number of wetland 

33 types, including wet or moist tundra habitat, lakes, ponds, or marshes (including those occurring 

34 within lakes and ponds), could be affected by pipeline construction. Construction of a pipeline 

35 gravel workpad (service roadway), haul road, and access roads would replace wetland habitat 

36 with unvegetated surfaces or result in upland habitat having few species in common with nearby 

37 undisturbed habitats. Because of the high density of wetlands on the coastal plain, wetland 

38 habitat expected to constitute a large proportion of the disturbed area would likely be lost, as 

39 occurred during the construction of the TAPS (Pamplin 1979; BLM 2002). Construction of 

40 buried pipeline segments would affect similar amounts of wetland habitat as a workpad. 

41 However, construction of aboveground pipeline segments without a workpad would result in the 

42 loss of only small areas of wetland habitat at the locations of the vertical support members. 

43 Wetland areas may also be disturbed by the establishment of work camps. Additional impacts of 

44 construction could include altered hydrology from changes in surface drainage patterns or 

45 isolation of wetland areas from water sources, such as from blocking natural surface flows. 

46 Changes in the moisture regime, natural drainage patterns, or snow-drift patterns in adjacent 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-180

1 areas would likely result in thermokarst, with resulting changes in the species composition of 

2 plant communities (NRC 2003a). Wetland impacts associated with degraded water quality could 

3 include sedimentation and turbidity and introduction of contaminants in stormwater runoff. 

4 Resulting changes in affected wetlands could include a reduction in biodiversity, replacement of 

5 one wetland type for another (such as by dewatering or ponding), conversion to upland 

6 communities, or conversion of vegetated wetlands to open water. Wetlands adjacent to a gravel 

7 workpad would be indirectly affected by deposition of airborne dust. Additional wetland habitat 

8 may be lost through thermokarst associated with new impoundments and heavy dust 

9 accumulations (BLM 2002).

10

11 Deposition of fugitive dust can affect plant communities and alter wetland characteristics, 

12 primarily by reducing canopy cover and altering species composition (Auerbach et al. 1997; 

13 Everett 1980; Walker and Everett 1987). Impacts may include reduced growth and density of 

14 vegetation and changes in community composition to more tolerant species. Reductions in plant 

15 cover can reduce the insulation of the ground surface, leading to thawing of the underlying ice16 rich permafrost (NRC 2003a). Nonvascular species, primarily mosses and lichens, are highly 

17 sensitive. The reduction or loss of sphagnum mosses, which are important components of many 

18 plant communities on the ACP, can occur in acidic tundra habitat, especially within 10 m (33 ft) 

19 of a road (Walker et al. 1987a), potentially contributing to thermokarst. Deposition of dust on 

20 snowdrifts along roads promotes earlier melting. Roads and construction/excavation equipment 

21 can also provide a means for the introduction and spread of non-native plants and noxious weeds.

22

23 The construction of access roads and transmission corridors would likely result in the 

24 direct loss of wetlands from the placement of fill material during construction. Additional 

25 wetland habitat could be disturbed by other forms of infrastructure such as employee camps, 

26 airstrips, and power stations. The construction of these facilities could permanently eliminate 

27 wetland habitat within the immediate footprints of the facilities. While this wetland loss would 

28 be long term, the areas disturbed represent an extremely small portion of habitat that occurs on 

29 the ACP adjacent to the Arctic region. Impacts on wetlands from construction could be 

30 minimized by maintaining buffers around lakes and ponds and by using best management 

31 practices for erosion and sedimentation control.

32

33 The impacts of road construction on the North Slope are often reduced by the restriction 

34 of construction activities to the winter months when the ground is frozen and the use of ice roads 

35 rather than gravel roads. Although ice roads avoid the permanent loss of habitat associated with 

36 gravel roads, they may affect some vegetation communities. Effects may result from delayed 

37 melting in spring, damage to plants, plant mortality, and removal of dead material from the 

38 canopy (Walker et al. 1987a). Tundra communities generally recover from such effects, 

39 however, within several years (MMS 2002c, 2003e). Drier communities, elevated microsites, 

40 and tussock tundra are more affected (Pullman et al. 2003), while moist or wet meadow 

41 communities are little affected (Payne et al. 2003). 

42

43 Large amounts of gravel may be required for permanent road construction. On the North 

44 Slope, gravel is often extracted from the floodplains of large rivers (Pamplin 1979; BLM 2002). 

45 The excavation of gravel from these material sites and the creation of stockpile areas may affect 

46 wetland communities on river floodplains. Wetland areas may be modified by gravel excavation 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-181

1 and other mining operations that alter stream channels. Revegetation of the affected area is 

2 expected to be relatively rapid, within a few years.

3

4 Additional factors, such as reduced air quality, might also affect wetlands because of

5 activities associated with pipeline or platform construction. Exhaust emissions, such as from 

6 construction equipment or pump stations, or fugitive dust generated from exposed soils or 

7 roadways could have adverse effects on nearby wetland communities. 

8

9 Existing shore bases, gas processing facilities, and waste disposal facilities would be used 

10 for all new oil and gas activities in the region. Operation of existing facilities could have local 

11 indirect effects on vegetation from exhaust emissions or atmospheric releases from processing 

12 facilities. Contaminants could be introduced into wetlands from the use of existing land storage 

13 or disposal sites, if contaminants migrate into groundwater or enter stormwater that flows into 

14 wetlands. Contaminants might also be released to surface waters in service vessel discharges, 

15 and might subsequently affect wetlands. Impacts on wetlands could be minimized by the 

16 implementation of air and water quality practices.

17

18 Accidents.

19

20 Coastal Barrier Beaches. The potential effects on coastal barrier beaches and dunes 

21 from accidents would primarily be associated with impacts from spills of oil and other petroleum 

22 hydrocarbons, such as fuel oil or diesel fuel, and subsequent cleanup efforts. Oil or other spilled 

23 materials might be transported to barrier island beaches, coastal beaches, or lagoon beaches by 

24 currents or tides. Contamination of beaches from platform spills, pipeline spills, or vessel spills 

25 could occur. Because platforms in the Chukchi Sea would be at least 40 km (25 mi) from the 

26 coastline, platform spills there would have a lower potential for contacting beaches and dunes 

27 than spills nearer the coast in the Beaufort Sea, and the point of contact may be a greater distance 

28 down the coastline due to longshore currents. Greater weathering of the lighter, more acutely 

29 toxic components of crude oil may therefore also occur prior to contact with the coastline. 

30 Beach habitat could be affected by oil spills, and the direct mortality of biota could result. 

31 Although beach and foredune areas are often sparsely vegetated, impacts on vegetation might 

32 occur if oil were carried to higher elevations by storm waves and tides.

33

34 Spilled oil that becomes stranded on beaches might occur only on the surface, or it could 

35 penetrate into subsurface layers. Permeable substrates, generally associated with larger sand 

36 grain sizes, and holes created by infauna could increase oil penetration, especially that of light 

37 oils and petroleum products. Penetration into coarse-grained sand beaches may be up to 25 cm 

38 (0.8 ft) (NOAA 1994, 2000). Light oils may penetrate peat shores; however, peat resists 

39 penetration by heavy oils (NOAA 2000).

40

41 Although any residual oil that could remain following cleanup might be largely removed 

42 in highly exposed locations through wave action, oil could remain in the shallow subsurface for 

43 extended periods of time. In some locations, oil might become buried by new sand or gravel 

44 deposition. Natural degradation and persistence of oil on beaches are influenced by the type of 

45 oil spilled, amount present, sand grain size, degree of penetration into the subsurface, exposure to 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-182

1 weathering action of waves, and sand movement onto and off shore. Although petroleum2 degrading microbial communities are present, biodegradation along arctic coastlines would 

3 likely be slow (Prince et al. 2002; Braddock et al. 2003; Braddock et al. 2004) and is limited to 

4 only a few months per year. Spilled oil might persist for many years, with continued effects on 

5 infauna and potential recovery of infaunal communities. On sheltered beaches, heavy oiling 

6 left for long periods could form an asphalt pavement relatively resistant to weathering 

7 (Hayes et al. 1992). Lagoon shorelines include low-energy beaches where spilled oil would 

8 likely persist for many years. Spilled oil may persist for extended periods on peat shores; 

9 however, if cleaned up, it would be expected to persist for less than a decade (Owens and 

10 Michel 2003).

11

12 Spill cleanup operations might adversely affect beaches and dunes, if the removal of 

13 contaminated substrates affects beach stability and results in accelerated shoreline erosion. 

14 Vehicular and foot traffic during cleanup could mix surface oil into the subsurface, where it 

15 would likely persist for a longer time. Manual cleanup rather than use of heavy equipment 

16 would minimize the amount of substrate removed.

17

18 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE in the Beaufort Sea of 

19 1.7–3.9 million bbl, and in the Chukchi Sea of 1.4–2.2 million bbl. Oil might be transported to 

20 barrier island beaches, coastal beaches, or lagoon beaches by currents or tides, even from a 

21 discharge in the Chukchi Sea; however, the point of contact may be a greater distance down the 

22 coastline due to longshore currents. Greater weathering of the lighter, more acutely toxic 

23 components of crude oil may therefore also occur prior to contact with the coastline. A CDE 

24 would potentially result in heavy or widespread deposits of oil and would have a greater 

25 likelihood for extensive areas of shoreline affected and heavy deposits of oil in multiple 

26 locations. Natural degradation and persistence of oil on beaches are influenced by the amount 

27 present, sand grain size, degree of penetration into the subsurface, exposure to weathering action 

28 of waves, and sand movement onto and off shore. Spilled oil might persist for many years, with 

29 continued effects on infauna and potential recovery of infaunal communities. 

30

31 Wetlands. The potential effects on wetlands from accidents would primarily be 

32 associated with impacts from spills of oil and other petroleum hydrocarbons, such as fuel oil or 

33 diesel fuel, and subsequent cleanup efforts. Oil or other spilled materials might be transported 

34 from offshore areas to coastal wetlands by currents or tides, and may result from spills involving 

35 platforms, pipelines, or service vessels. Because platforms in the Chukchi Sea would be at least 

36 40 km (25 mi) from the coastline, platform spills there would have a lower potential for 

37 contacting coastal wetlands than spills nearer the coast in the Beaufort Sea, and the point of 

38 contact may be a greater distance down the coastline due to longshore currents. Greater 

39 weathering of the lighter, more acutely toxic components of crude oil may therefore also occur 

40 prior to contact with the coastline. The potential for impacts on marshes, estuaries, and low41 lying tundra would depend on wind and wave conditions, because the rates of abrasion and 

42 dispersal of stranded oil by littoral processes are generally low, due to the small tidal range along 

43 the arctic coast. Oil may be deposited at higher elevations of marshes, tundra, and river deltas by 

44 spring tides or storm surges and would be expected to persist for long periods due to the low 

45 rates of dispersion and degradation. 

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-183

1 Freshwater wetlands on the ACP could be affected by spills from onshore pipelines. Oil 

2 spilled on the ACP could potentially flow into a nearby stream. Vegetation along the path of the 

3 spill would be injured or killed, including wetland vegetation along the stream. Oil reaching the 

4 arctic coastline may persist for extended periods of time and slow or reduce vegetation recovery. 

5 Wetlands in river deltas and estuaries could be affected by oil spilled in upstream areas.

6

7 Impacts on wetlands from oil spills could result in extensive injury or mortality of 

8 vegetation and invertebrates in or on the substrate. Other effects of spills could include a change 

9 in plant community composition or the displacement of sensitive species by more tolerant 

10 species. Impacts on soil microbial communities might result in long-term wetland effects, and 

11 wetland recovery would likely be slowed. Various factors influence the extent of impacts on 

12 wetlands. Impacts would depend on site-specific factors at the location and time of the spill. 

13 The degree of impacts is related to the oil type and degree of weathering, the quantity of the 

14 spill (lightly or heavily oiled substrates), duration of exposure, season, plant species, percentage 

15 of plant surface oiled, substrate type, soil moisture level, and oil penetration into the soil 

16 (Hayes et al. 1992; Hoff 1995; NOAA 1994). Higher mortality and poorer recovery of 

17 vegetation generally result from spills of lighter petroleum products (such as diesel fuel), heavy 

18 deposits of oil, spills during the growing season, contact with sensitive plant species, completely 

19 oiled plants, and deep penetration of oil and accumulation in substrates. Oil that reaches the root 

20 system would result in high levels of mortality. Vegetation regrowth and recovery are generally 

21 better where oil spills occur in flooded areas or on saturated soils, than on unsaturated soils 

22 (BLM 2002). Coastal wetlands in sheltered areas, such as bays and lagoons, which are not 

23 exposed to strong water circulation or wave activity, would be expected to retain oil longer with 

24 longer-lasting effects on biota (Culbertson et al. 2008).

25

26 Oil spills on ice or snow in winter would likely be easily cleaned up with little oil 

27 remaining; however, spills during other times may be difficult to clean up, and considerable 

28 amounts of oil may remain. Following cleanup, the spilled oil remaining degrades naturally by 

29 weathering and biodegradation by soil microbial communities. However, biodegradation would 

30 likely be slow due to generally cool temperatures and a short growing season. Full recovery of 

31 wetlands, including invertebrate communities, might require more than 10 years depending on 

32 site and spill characteristics (Hoff 1995; Culbertson et al. 2008). Oil could remain in some 

33 wetland substrates for decades, even if it was cleaned from the surface. Heavy deposits of oil in 

34 sheltered areas of coastal wetlands or in the supratidal zone could form asphalt pavements 

35 resistant to degradation (Hoff 1995; Culbertson et al. 2008).

36

37 Spill cleanup actions might damage wetlands through trampling of vegetation, 

38 incorporation of oil deeper into substrates, increased erosion, and inadvertent removal of plants 

39 or sediments, all of which could have long-term effects (NOAA 1994, 2000; Hoff 1995). These 

40 actions could result in plant mortality and delay or prevent recovery. Complete recovery of 

41 coastal wetlands disturbed by cleanup activities could take several decades. Effective low42 impact cleanup actions could include bioremediation, low-pressure flushing, or use of chemical 

43 cleaners.

44

45 The NOAA Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) shoreline classification system 

46 classifies coastal habitats on a scale of 1 to 10, according to habitat sensitivity to spilled oil, 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-184

1 oil-spill retention, and difficulty of cleanup (NOAA 1994). Habitats with high ESI values are 

2 given a higher priority for protection. The ESI shoreline classification for the Beaufort and 

3 Chukchi Sea coasts includes habitats with high values, such as inundated lowland tundra or 

4 salt/brackish-water marshes, both ranked 10 (MMS 2002d, Owens and Michel 2003).

5

6 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE in the Beaufort Sea of 

7 1.7–3.9 million bbl, and in the Chukchi Sea of 1.4–2.2 million bbl. Oil or other spilled materials 

8 might be transported from offshore areas to coastal wetlands by currents or tides, even from a 

9 discharge in the Chukchi Sea; however, the point of contact may be a greater distance down the 

10 coastline due to longshore currents. Greater weathering of the lighter, more acutely toxic 

11 components of crude oil may therefore also occur prior to contact with the coastline. A CDE 

12 would potentially result in heavy or widespread deposits of oil and would have a greater 

13 likelihood for extensive areas of shoreline affected and heavy deposits of oil in multiple 

14 locations. The potential for impacts on marshes, estuaries, and low-lying tundra would depend 

15 on wind and wave conditions. The degree of impacts is related to the degree of weathering, 

16 whether substrates are lightly or heavily oiled, duration of exposure, season, plant species, 

17 percentage of plant surface oiled, substrate type, soil moisture level, and oil penetration into the 

18 soil.

19

20

21 4.4.6.1.4 Conclusion. Routine Program activities in the GOM, Cook Inlet, and the 

22 Arctic would result in minor to moderate localized impacts. Although routine operations in the 

23 GOM could have impacts on coastal barrier beaches and dunes, primarily as a result of pipeline 

24 construction, maintenance dredging of inlets and channels, and vessel traffic, modern methods of 

25 pipeline construction could result in minimal beach erosion. Studies have shown few effects of 

26 pipeline landfalls and navigation channels on barrier beach stability. 

27

28 Routine operations in the GOM could have direct impacts on wetlands as a result of 

29 direct losses of habitat from construction activities, pipeline landfalls, and channel dredging, and 

30 indirect impacts as a result of altered hydrology caused by channel dredging. Construction 

31 impacts, while unavoidable, would be mitigated by State and Federal regulations governing 

32 construction in wetland areas. Spills could potentially affect both the surface and subsurface of 

33 beach and dune substrates in the GOM. Oiled beach sediments could weaken dune and other 

34 beach vegetation, resulting in accelerated erosion. Oil spills could have direct impacts on 

35 wetlands by weakening and killing vegetation. Weakened wetland vegetation could lead to long36 term or permanent loss of wetland areas, particularly in an already stressed environment such as 

37 the Mississippi River deltaic plain. Cleanup operations themselves could also affect wetlands.

38

39 Routine operations in Cook Inlet could affect coastal habitats as a result of vessel traffic, 

40 as well as infrastructure maintenance and repair activities. Direct loss of habitat could occur as a 

41 result of damaging habitats during maintenance. Direct losses would be minimized through 

42 existing Federal and State environmental review and permitting procedures that would attempt to 

43 mitigate impacts through appropriate requirements. Secondary impacts on wetlands could occur 

44 from water and air quality degradation. Because the Cook Inlet Planning Area is almost entirely 

45 surrounded by coastal habitat, it is likely that a large spill would contact these habitats. Habitats 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-185

1 along the western shoreline have the greatest likelihood of contact based on surface currents in 

2 the inlet. Spills could result in changes in community structure and direct loss of habitat.

3

4 Routine operations in the Arctic could affect coastal habitats as a result of pipeline 

5 construction, gravel mining on floodplains (for pipeline workpads and offshore islands), vessel 

6 traffic, and infrastructure maintenance and repair activities. These activities could result in direct 

7 loss of habitat by replacing habitat with infrastructure and by damaging habitats during 

8 maintenance. These direct losses would be minimized through existing Federal and State 

9 environmental review and permitting procedures that would attempt to mitigate impacts through 

10 appropriate siting and construction requirements. Secondary impacts on wetlands could occur 

11 from water and air quality degradation, ice roads, fugitive dust, and altered drainage caused by 

12 pipelines and roads.

13

14 A catastrophic discharge event with an assumed volume of 0.9–7.2 million bbl in the 

15 GOM would be associated with a loss of well control; a 75,000–125,000 bbl CDE in Cook Inlet 

16 would be associated with a loss of well control or pipeline break; a 1.7–3.9 million bbl CDE in 

17 the Beaufort Sea or a 1.4–2.1 million bbl CDE in the Chukchi Sea would be associated with a 

18 loss of well control. Oil or other spilled materials might be transported from offshore areas to 

19 coastal wetlands by currents or tides. The amount of oil deposited on coastal habitats would 

20 depend on various factors, such as spill volume, distance from shoreline, ambient conditions, 

21 degree of weathering, and effectiveness of response actions. A catastrophic discharge event 

22 would potentially result in heavy or widespread deposits of oil and would have a greater 

23 likelihood for extensive areas of shoreline affected and heavy deposits of oil in multiple 

24 locations. The degree of effects and length of recovery depend on a number of factors such as 

25 the type of oil, extent of biota exposure, substrate type, degree of sediment contamination, time 

26 of year, and species sensitivity.

27

28

29 4.4.6.2 Marine Benthic Habitats

30

31

32 4.4.6.2.1 Gulf of Mexico. 

33

34 Soft Sediments.

35

36 Routine Operations.

37

38 Exploration and Site Development. Impacting factors for the exploration and site 

39 development phase are shown in Table 4.4.6-3. The vast majority of marine benthic habitat 

40 affected by the Program would be soft sediments. Drilling wells would temporarily reduce 

41 habitat quality by generating temporary turbidity and sedimentation for some distance around the 

42 disturbed area. It is estimated that 1,000 to 2,100 exploration and delineation wells and 1,300 to 

43 2,600 development and production wells will be drilled in the WPA and CPA. Drilling can 

44 occur from fixed platforms, floating platforms, or drillships. The installation of floating or fixed 

45 platforms would disturb soft sediment habitat where the legs or mooring structures (anchors and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-186

1 TABLE 4.4.6-3 Impacting Factors by Phase and Potential Effects on Marine Benthic Habitat in 

2 the CPA and WPA of the GOM

Disturbance Potential Effectsa

Exploration and Site Development 

Seismic surveys Noise; localized anchoring disturbance

Anchoring and mooring of platforms, drillships,

and seismic survey vessels

Sediment scour; temporary turbidity and sedimentation; 

localized alteration in sediment grain size and 

biogeochemical functions

Drilling and production platform placement Noise; temporary sediment resuspension and turbidity; 

loss of natural habitat creation of artificial reef

Drilling Noise; small habitat loss; local alteration of sediment 

characteristics; temporary turbidity and sedimentation 

in surrounding areas

Miscellaneous discharges (deck washing; sanitary

waste; vessel releases of bilge and ballast water)

Sediment contamination

Solid wastes Sediment contamination

Discharge of drilling muds/cuttings Sediment and water column contamination; alteration in 

sediment granulometry and biogeochemical functions

Pipeline trenching and placement Noise; long-term loss and degradation of existing benthic 

habitat; temporary sediment resuspension and turbidity; 

substrate for growth

Production

Scour from anchors and the movement of pipelines

and mooring structures

Chronic, long-term disturbance of bottom sediments; 

turbidity 

Platform production Noise; loss of natural habitat creation of artificial reef

Produced water discharge Sediment contamination

Miscellaneous discharges Sediment contamination

Solid wastes and debris Sediment contamination

Decommissioning

Miscellaneous discharge Sediment contamination

Solid wastes and debris Sediment contamination

Platform removal Explosive noise; temporary turbidity and disturbance of 

bottom sediments

a Colors indicate impact level: white = negligible; blue = minor; yellow = moderate; red = major.

3

4

5 chains) encountered the seabed and where subsea equipment (such as reentry collars and blowout 

6 preventers) was installed. Chronic local bottom disturbance would result from subsequent 

7 movements of anchors and mooring lines associated with floating production platforms and 

8 support vessels. The actual area of seafloor affected by anchoring operations would depend 

9 upon water depth, currents, size of the vessels and anchors, and length of anchor chain. The 

10 amount of bottom affected by anchored structures would increase with water depth because of

11 the use of larger anchors and longer anchor chains. Anchor scars were detected in a radial 

12 pattern up to 3 km (2 mi) from a well located on the GOM continental slope (Continental Shelf 

13 Associates, Inc. 2006). Drilling vessels would use either anchors or dynamic positioning to 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-187

1 maintain station. Drilling vessels using dynamic positioning systems rather than anchors would 

2 not generate mooring impacts on the seafloor. Exploratory well platforms can be fixed or 

3 floating. 

4

5 Under the proposed action, it is estimated that 200 to 450 new production platforms will 

6 be constructed, which is expected to disturb 150 to 2,500 ha (370 to 6,178 ac) of seafloor. 

7 Ninety-five percent of these new platforms will be located in water depths less than 200 m 

8 (656 ft). In deep water, floating platforms (including those associated with a FPSO system) 

9 requiring mooring structures will typically be used, while platforms in more shallow water would 

10 likely have legs and not require mooring. Impacts from fixed and floating production platforms 

11 would be similar to those described above for the exploration phase. 

12

13 Under the proposed action, it is estimated that 3,862 to 12,070 km (2,400 to 7,500 mi) of 

14 new pipeline would be placed in the CPA and WPA, resulting in disturbance to 2,000 to 

15 11,500 ha (4,942 to 28,417 ac) of seafloor. Up to two FPSO systems could potentially be used in 

16 deep water, which would reduce the need for pipelines. In water depths less than 60 m (197 ft), 

17 pipelines must be buried; benthic organisms within the trenched corridor could be killed or 

18 injured and organisms to either side of the pipeline could be buried by sediments. Pipelines 

19 placed on the sediment surface would permanently replace the existing soft sediments with man20 made substrate that sessile invertebrates may colonize over time. Vessel anchoring during 

21 pipeline placement would also disturb soft sediment. Anchor and mooring impacts from pipeline 

22 placement vessels would be eliminated if dynamic positioning systems rather than anchors were 

23 used during pipeline placement. The recovery period for soft sediment benthic habitat disturbed 

24 by pipeline placement would depend on factors such as water depth, sediment type, and 

25 community composition. Disturbed sediments with a greater proportion of sand to mud may fill 

26 in with fine silty material, which would alter grain size and potentially inhibit the colonization by 

27 species that existed prior to the disturbance. 

28

29 During the exploration and development phase, drill cuttings and drilling muds (including 

30 synthetic drilling fluids adhering to the cuttings) could contaminate and alter the grain size of 

31 sediments immediately around the wellhead and below the discharge area. Drilling wastes are 

32 regulated by the USEPA under NPDES permits and can be discharged into the ocean only if they 

33 meet USEPA toxicity and discharge rate requirements. These requirements greatly reduce the 

34 potential for sediment contamination. Drill cuttings and muds rapidly reach the sediment 

35 surface. Therefore, the discharged drilling muds and cuttings could be deposited in highly 

36 concentrated thick layers if deposited in shallow water or near the sediment surface. In the case 

37 of near-surface discharge in deep water, drilling muds would spread out in a thin veneer over a 

38 wide area. Settled muds could cause smothering of organisms, changes in sediment 

39 characteristics and biogeochemical functions, and the loss of food resources in the immediate 

40 area. The biodegradable synthetic drilling fluids attached to the drilling waste may deplete 

41 oxygen (Trannum et al. 2010) and therefore may create local sediment anoxia. 

42

43 Studies at multiple sites on the Louisiana continental shelf and slope provide the most 

44 relevant information on the potential ecological effects of drilling and drilling mud discharges on 

45 soft sediment habitat. These studies found drill cuttings were detectable up to 1 km (0.6 mi) 

46 from the well site, depending on whether cuttings were discharged near the water surface or near 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-188

1 the bottom (Continental Shelf Associates Inc. 2004, 2006). Concentrations of barium, 

2 hydrocarbons, and synthetic drilling fluids in the sediment were patchily distributed within the 

3 sampling radius (up to 500 m [1,640 ft] from the well) but, overall, were higher than at the 

4 control sites (Continental Shelf Associates Inc. 2004, 2006). Several other alterations in habitat 

5 were also detected, including anoxic bottom patches, elevated metal concentrations, coarser grain 

6 size (all typically less than 300 m [984 ft] from well), and anchor scars (up to 3 km [1.9 mi] from 

7 well). Within 250 m (820 ft) of the well, sediment toxicity to certain invertebrates based on 

8 bioassays was also reported at several sites, and metrics of invertebrate community health were 

9 lower and more variable (Continental Shelf Associates Inc. 2004). However, a greater 

10 abundance of certain species of mieofauna, macrofauna, and fish compared to controls was also 

11 detected, potentially because of the organic enrichment of sediments near the well (Continental 

12 Shelf Associates Inc. 2006). The spatial extent of the biological, physical, and chemical effects 

13 cannot be precisely determined, but drilling discharges, hydrocarbons, and sediment toxicity all 

14 dropped off rapidly with distance from the well (Continental Shelf Associates Inc. 2004, 2006). 

15 Habitat recovery time is also unknown, but evidence for biological, physical, and chemical 

16 recovery was detected after 1 yr, so full recovery may occur over several years as sediment 

17 contaminants are biodegraded and buried by natural deposition and bioturbation (Continental 

18 Shelf Associates Inc. 2004, 2006). 

19

20 Miscellaneous discharges (deck washing, sanitary waste, and vessel discharge) also have 

21 the potential to disturb soft sediment habitats. Miscellaneous discharges could contaminate 

22 sediments if discharged in relatively shallow water. However, contaminants in surface 

23 discharges would most likely be diluted to negligible concentrations before reaching the 

24 sediment, especially for platforms located in deep water. Many vessel and platform wastes are 

25 disposed of on land, and those that are discharged at sea must meet USEPA and/or USCG 

26 regulatory requirements that limit their environmental effects. 

27

28 Noise from seismic surveys and drilling could kill or injure organisms close enough to 

29 the noise source and reduce habitat suitability because some species would avoid the area. The 

30 severity and duration of noise would vary with site and development scenario, but overall the 

31 impacts would be temporary and localized with overall minimal effects on soft sediment habitat. 

32 See Section 4.4.7 for detailed discussions of the effects of noise and different categories of biota.

33

34 Overall, site development and exploration represents a moderate, but localized, long-term 

35 disturbance, with the severity of the impacts generally decreasing dramatically with distance 

36 from the well site. 

37

38 Production. Production activities that could affect soft sediment habitat are shown in 

39 Table 4.4.6-3 and include operational noise, miscellaneous discharges, bottom disturbance from 

40 the movement of anchors and mooring structures, and the releases of process water. In addition, 

41 the platform would replace existing featureless soft sediments and serve as an artificial reef. The 

42 potential impacts of miscellaneous discharges would continue on from the exploration and 

43 development phase and are described above. Impacts on soft sediment habitats from vessel and 

44 operational noise are expected to be negligible, but long term, with the impacts lasting the 

45 duration of the production phase. 

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-189

1 Chronic bottom disturbance from the movement of anchors and chains associated with 

2 platforms and support vessels would affect soft sediment habitats as described above for the 

3 exploration and site development phase. Pipelines in water less than 60 m (197 ft) must be 

4 buried, which would reduce the potential for pipeline movement. However, pipelines could 

5 become unearthed or moved following severe storms. These disturbances would be long term 

6 and chronic and cause scour, turbidity, and sedimentation of soft sediment habitats. 

7

8 The platforms and pipelines would also create novel hard substrate, and the area on and 

9 immediately around the platform would have habitat functions and biological communities very 

10 different from these in the preconstruction period. Algae and sessile invertebrates would attach 

11 to the platform and would in turn attract reef-oriented organisms. The ecological function and 

12 value of artificial reef habitat are controversial as some species may benefit while others do not. 

13 In addition, sediment grain size and the biogeochemical processes around the platform could be 

14 altered by the flux of biogenic material from the platform to the seafloor. For example, an 

15 increase in shell material and organic matter would likely result along with a transition to benthic 

16 species adapted to these conditions (Montagna et al. 2002). The replacement of soft sediment 

17 with artificial reef would exist only during the production phase, unless the platform was 

18 permitted to remain in place after decommissioning. In deep sea soft sediment, communities 

19 may form on mooring structures, but colonization would likely be slow, and mooring structures 

20 would be completely removed during decommissioning, so impacts, if any, would be temporary.

21

22 Produced water is a normal product of oil and gas extraction that contains contaminants 

23 such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals and therefore represents a 

24 potential source of contamination to benthic habitats. Before being discharged into the ocean, 

25 produced water is typically treated and must meet NPDES requirements regarding discharge rate, 

26 contaminant concentration, and toxicity, thereby reducing the potential for sediment 

27 contamination. In addition, contaminants in produced water would be rapidly diluted with 

28 distance from the discharge point and are expected to reach sediments only in biologically 

29 negligible concentrations. A major study of produced water discharges across the northern GOM

30 indicated that despite the large volume discharged, the contribution of produced water to bottom 

31 water hypoxia is minimal when compared to riverine inputs (Bierman et al. 2007). Overall, 

32 produced water did not make a significant contribution to the hypoxic zone (Rabalais 2005). 

33

34 The results of the GOM Offshore Monitoring Experiment funded by BOEM provide a 

35 good summary of the long-term changes to soft sediment habitats resulting from oil and gas 

36 development (Kennicutt et al. 1995). For the study, stations at 30–50, 100, 200, 500, and 

37 3,000 m (98–164, 328, 656, 1,640, and 9,842 ft) distances from petroleum wells were sampled in 

38 a radial pattern surrounding the platforms. Elevated sediment concentrations of sand, organic 

39 matter, hydrocarbons, and metals were generally restricted to sediments less than 200 m (656 ft) 

40 from the platforms. PAH levels in sediments were well below levels considered to be toxic to 

41 invertebrates, and no significant hydrocarbon bioaccumulation was observed in megafaunal 

42 invertebrates near platforms. However, metal levels in invertebrate tissues were higher at the 

43 study sites (Kennicutt et al. 1995). The physical and chemical changes to sediments near the 

44 platforms were enough to alter the soft sediment communities, but the effects were restricted to 

45 within 200 m (656 ft) of the platforms. Overall, the authors concluded that oil and gas 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-190

1 development and production resulted in moderate, highly localized changes to soft sediment 

2 habitat (Montagna and Harper 1996). 

3

4 Decommissioning. Miscellaneous discharges and solid waste releases discussed above 

5 would continue during the decommissioning phase (Table 4.4.6-3). Platform and mooring 

6 structure removal activities could result in increased turbidity, temporary suspension of bottom

7 sediments, and explosive shock-wave impacts. Impacts from decommissioning will vary with 

8 platform removal scenario, which ranges from complete to partial removal. The impacts from 

9 the explosive removals of the platforms would be attenuated by the movement of the shock wave 

10 through the seabed, because the charges typically would be set at 5 m (16 ft) below the seafloor 

11 surface. Under the proposed action, it is assumed that a total of 150 to 275 platforms would be 

12 removed using explosives. A small area would be disturbed, compared with total seafloor area 

13 in the entire GOM. In addition, because soft-bottom benthic habitats are typically recolonized 

14 relatively quickly following disturbances, benthic communities in disturbed areas would be 

15 expected to recover over a period of months to years without mitigation. If the platform is 

16 toppled and left in place, the remains would serve as hard bottom habitat that would permanently 

17 replace the existing soft sediment habitat. Artificial reefs provide habitat to fish, algae, and 

18 invertebrates; however, their ecological and population effects are controversial. Overall, 

19 impacts on soft sediment resources from decommissioning activities are expected to be 

20 negligible.

21

22 Accidents. Accidental hydrocarbon releases in marine habitat can occur at the surface 

23 from tankers or platforms or at the seafloor from the wellhead or pipelines. Natural gas would 

24 quickly rise above the sediment surface, which would minimize its impacts on benthic habitat. 

25 Natural gas is also less persistent in the environment than oil. Evidence from the DWH event 

26 indicates that methane gas released from the well was rapidly broken down by bacterial action 

27 with little oxygen drawdown (Camilli et al. 2010; Kessler et al. 2011). Consequently, the 

28 remainder of the discussion focuses on oil spills. It is assumed that up to 8 large spills 

29 ( 1,000 bbl), up to 70 spills between 50 and 999 bbl, and up to 400 smaller spills between 1 and 

30 50 bbl could occur during the lease period under the proposed action (Table 4.4.2-1). Modeling 

31 indicates that oil spilled at the surface could mix to a depth of 20 m (66 ft) at highly diluted 

32 concentrations (MMS 2008a). Therefore, most surface spills would likely reach the sediment at 

33 biologically negligible concentrations. Most subsea spills would be minor, and the hydrocarbon 

34 concentrations would typically be diluted to background levels within a few hundred meters to a 

35 few kilometers of the spill site. The soft sediment habitat would recover without mitigation 

36 because of natural breakdown of the oil, sediment movement by currents, and reworking by 

37 benthic fauna.

38

39 Oil spill-response activities such as burning, skimming, and chemical release 

40 (e.g., dispersants or coagulants) could affect benthic habitat and biota. Skimming and burning 

41 could kill pelagic live stages of benthic biota. The chemicals used during a spill response are 

42 toxic, but there is controversy about whether the combination of oil and dispersant is more toxic 

43 than oil alone (NRC 2005b; Fingas 2008; Holland-Bartels and Kolak 2011). The use of 

44 dispersant would likely reduce oiling of nearshore benthic habitat, but may increase the exposure 

45 of subtidal benthic habitat and biota to toxic fractions of oil (NRC 2005b). In shallow water, the 

46 presence of, and noise generated by, oil spill-response equipment and support vessels could 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-191

1 temporarily disturb benthic habitat in the vicinity of the response action, potentially reducing 

2 habitat use or disturbing migration. As with the spill itself, the location and time of the year the 

3 cleanup occurs would be an important determinant of impacts on benthic habitat and biota. 

4

5 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE up to 7.2 million bbl

6 (Table 4.4.2-2). Lethal or sublethal concentrations of hydrocarbons or mixtures of hydrocarbon 

7 and dispersant (if used) could accumulate in soft sediments, reducing habitat function. The 

8 magnitude of the impact depends primarily on the location of the well, the volume released, and 

9 the speed at which the well is capped. Typically oil rises from the seafloor to the surface,

10 forming a surface slick. However, a subsurface plume capable of traveling long distances could 

11 form if dispersants are used or if the well releases a mixture of oil and gas. However, even in the 

12 case of a subsurface plume, most oil would stay above the sediment. Sediment contamination 

13 could occur from the deposition of oiled sediment and organic matter (dead plankton and organic 

14 flocculants) falling from the water column. Such deposition is expected to decrease significantly 

15 with distance from the well. 

16

17 Benthic habitat would probably recover more quickly from a shallow-water spill than 

18 from a deepwater spill because of the greater microbial activity and potential for sediment 

19 resuspension in shallow water, which would facilitate the breakdown of hydrocarbons. Because 

20 of the widespread presence of soft-bottom habitats on the continental shelf and slope and the 

21 tendency of oil to stay suspended above the sediment, it is anticipated that impacts from oil spills 

22 would affect only a very small proportion of such habitat within the GOM. Oiled sediments 

23 would eventually recover their habitat value as hydrocarbons broke down or were buried by 

24 natural processes, and communities would soon recover through larval recruitment from adjacent 

25 areas. However, recovery time would vary with local conditions and the degree of oiling. 

26 Overall, impacts on soft sediment habitat from accidents could be moderate and potentially long

27 term, but no permanent degradation of soft sediment habitat is expected to result from accidental 

28 spills. 

29

30 Warm Water Coral Reefs and Hard-Bottom Habitat. 

31

32 Routine Operations. BOEM has several protections in place to minimize and mitigate 

33 the adverse effects of oil and gas exploration and development on coral reefs and hard-bottom 

34 habitat. It is assumed that these current protections will also be implemented during this 

35 Program. The mitigations as described in the Topographic Features Stipulation and NTL 

36 No. 2009-G39 (available at http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/regulate/regs/ntls/2009NTLs/

37 09-G39.pdf) create avoidance and mitigation requirements for biologically sensitive hard bottom 

38 areas and topographic features in waters 300 m (984 ft) or less. 

39

40 Four hard bottom or reef habitats are designated for the various protections: (1) banks 

41 offshore of Texas and Louisiana (including the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary

42 [FGBNMS]), (2) the Pinnacle Trend off the Louisiana-Alabama coast, (3) seagrass and low43 relief live-bottom areas primarily located in the CPA and Eastern Planning Area (EPA), and 

44 (4) potentially sensitive biological features of moderate to high relief that are not protected by 

45 (1) and (2). These protections are explained in greater detail below.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-192

1 Exploration and Site Development. Topographic features (banks). Because FGBNMS is 

2 a national sanctuary, no oil and gas exploration or site development would be allowed there. To 

3 protect other hard-bottom topographic features, BOEM instituted a Topographic Features 

4 Stipulation that established No Activity Zones prohibiting structures, drilling rigs, pipelines, and 

5 anchoring around 22 underwater topographic features out to a specified isobaths (typically 85 m

6 [279 ft]) (Table 4.4.6-3). The continuation of this same practice is assumed here. To limit 

7 impacts from drilling discharges, the stipulation also requires all drilling muds and cuttings be 

8 shunted to within 10 m (33 ft) of the seafloor at distances ranging from 1 to 6.4 km (0.6 to 4 mi)

9 away from topographic features depending on their nature and biological sensitivity. This 

10 shunting protects biota by confining the effluent to a level deeper than that of the living 

11 components of a high-relief topographic feature. For low-relief banks in the WPA, shunting 

12 drilling effluents is not required because it would put the potentially harmful drilling muds and 

13 cuttings in the same water depth range as the topographic features. In addition, NTL No. 2009-

14 G39 prohibits bottom-disturbing activities, including the use of anchors, chains, cables, and wire 

15 ropes within 152 m (500 ft) of a No Activity Zone without first consulting NOAA. Maps of the 

16 protected banks in the WPA and CPA are available at http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/

17 lsesale/topo_features_package.pdf.

18

19 Ninety five percent of the 200 to 450 anticipated new production platforms would be 

20 located in water depths less than 200 m (656 ft), which is within the depth range at which coral 

21 reefs and live-bottom features are found. Turbidity and sedimentation from bottom disturbance 

22 and the discharge of drilling wastes can adversely affect coral in multiple ways, including 

23 mortality, decreased growth, and loss of xoozanthelle (Thompson et al. 1980; Nugues and 

24 Roberts 2003; Fabricius 2005). The protections described above would minimize the impacts 

25 from direct bottom disturbance and sediment resuspension to designated banks from anchoring, 

26 drilling, platform placement, and pipeline trenching and placement. It is possible but not likely 

27 that turbidity would affect hard-bottom habitat if bottom disturbance occurred near the boundary 

28 of a No Activity Zone. The shunting requirements should minimize the adverse effects of 

29 discharged drilling muds and cuttings, although low-relief banks in more shallow water may be 

30 adversely affected to some degree. The topographic feature stipulations have been very effective 

31 in protecting the communities associated with topographic features. For example, despite the 

32 proximity of oil and gas development activities, long-term monitoring studies do not indicate any 

33 significant detrimental impact on the coral reefs of the FGBNMS (Gittings 1998). 

34

35 Pinnacle trend. The Live-Bottom/Pinnacle Trend Stipulation, which currently applies to 

36 certain blocks in the CPA and EPA, requires a biological interpretation of bathymetric and 

37 geophysical surveys to determine the distribution of pinnacle features before any bottom38 disturbing activities can occur. Also, NTL No. 2009-G39 currently requires consultation with 

39 NOAA before any bottom-disturbing activities (including those caused by pipelines, anchors, 

40 chains, cables, or wire ropes) planned within 30 m (100 ft) bottoms/pinnacles with vertical relief 

41 of 2.4 m (8 ft) or more. There are no specific measures requiring drilling muds and cuttings to 

42 be discharged near the seafloor, because modeling studies suggest that the discharge would be 

43 transported over the pinnacles (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. and Texas A&M 2001). 

44 Limitations on drilling mud discharges required by NPDES permit and the fact that the pinnacle 

45 trend area is subject to high levels of natural turbidity and sedimentation should limit impacts on 

46 pinnacle features. If it is determined that the live-bottoms might be adversely affected by the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-193

1 proposed activity, BOEM can further require economically, environmentally, and technically 

2 feasible measures to protect the pinnacle area. These measures may include, but are not limited 

3 to, the relocation of operations and monitoring to assess the impact of the activity on the live4 bottoms. See the BOEM Web site at http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/

5 topoblocks.pdf for the list and http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/topomap.pdf 

6 for the map of the identified pinnacle trend features.

7

8 Continued implementation of the Live-Bottom/Pinnacle Trend Stipulations and the 

9 requirements in NTL No. 2009-G39 would minimize bottom disturbance within 30 m (100 ft) of 

10 the majority of known pinnacle features. Because of these protections, direct effects such as 

11 benthic habitat disturbance from drilling, platform placement, trenching, and placement of 

12 pipelines would be minimal. However, if these activities occurred in the vicinity of the 

13 pinnacles, then sedimentation and turbidity could kill or inhibit respiration, filter feeding, and 

14 photosynthesis by hard-bottom biota. Because of the lower vertical relief pinnacles, the effects 

15 of turbidity and sedimentation could be greater in their vicinity. In addition, noise from seismic 

16 surveys, construction, and drilling could injure, kill, or cause avoidance behavior in organisms 

17 within a certain distance from the noise source. Noise disturbance would be temporary and the 

18 community would recover if the initial impact did not result in major injury or mortality to 

19 organisms associated with a pinnacle trend. 

20

21 Impacts from drilling discharges would be reduced by compliance with the Pinnacle 

22 Trend/Live-Bottom Stipulation, NPDES permit restrictions that limit the amounts and types of 

23 drilling discharges and the depth at which the pinnacles are located. However, studies in the 

24 pinnacle region indicated that discharges of drilling muds may reach background levels within 

25 1,500 m (4,921 ft) of the discharge point (Shinn et al. 1993). Therefore, pinnacles could be 

26 affected by discharges occurring at the surface and outside of the 30-m (98-ft) buffer required by 

27 NTL-2009-G39. As described above, increased turbidity and sediment deposition from 

28 discharges of muds and cuttings in the vicinity of pinnacles may reduce habitat quality and 

29 ecological function. However, biota associated with live-bottom/pinnacle features are usually 

30 adapted to life in somewhat turbid conditions and are often observed coated with a sediment 

31 veneer (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. and Texas A&M 2001). The existing bottom currents 

32 would also prevent the accumulation of large amounts of mud and cuttings. Documentation of 

33 an exploratory well adjacent to hard-bottoms in the pinnacle trend at a depth of 103 m (338 ft), 

34 15 months after drilling, showed cuttings and other debris covering an area of approximately 

35 0.6 ha (1.5 ac) (Shinn et al. 1993), but the hard-bottom feature was still found to support a 

36 diverse community, including gorgonians, sponges, ahermatypic stony corals, and antipatharians. 

37 If turbidity and sediment deposition did result in extensive damage, existing studies suggest that 

38 recovery could take years (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. and Texas A&M 2001). 

39

40 Pinnacles not detected may be subject to direct damage from construction activities and 

41 discharges during site exploration and development. Previously undiscovered pinnacle features 

42 are also protected by the Potentially Sensitive Biological Features component of NTL 

43 No. 2009-G39. To minimize impacts on unmapped pinnacle features, the BOEM also supports 

44 investigations through its Environmental Studies Program to locate hard- and live-bottom 

45 features and to understand their ecologies (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. and Texas A&M 

46 University 2001). The BOEM updates regulations and mitigations based on the data from these 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-194

1 studies and from the biological interpretations of geophysical surveys, which reduces the risk of 

2 accidental damage. 

3

4 Live-bottom (low-relief) features (CPA and EPA) and potentially sensitive biological 

5 features. NTL No. 2009-G39 and the Live-Bottom (Low-Relief) Stipulation pertains to seagrass 

6 communities and low-relief hard-bottom reef within the GOM EPA blocks in water depths of 

7 100 m (328 ft) or less and portions of Pensacola Area Blocks and Destin Dome Area Blocks in 

8 the CPA. NTL No. 2009-G39 also covers potentially sensitive biological features, which are 

9 features of moderate to high relief (about 2.4 m [8 ft] or higher) that provide habitat but are not 

10 protected by a biological lease stipulation.

11

12 NTL No. 2009-G39 requires that no bottom-disturbing activities (including drilling, 

13 platform placement, or the use of anchors, chains, cables, or wire ropes) may cause impacts on 

14 live-bottoms (low-relief features) or potentially sensitive biological communities. It is also 

15 required that any exploration or development activity planned within 30 m (100 ft) of either must 

16 be reviewed by BOEM. If it is determined that these habitats might be adversely affected by the 

17 proposed activity, then BOEM will require measures that may include, but are not limited to, 

18 relocation of operations, shunting of all drilling fluids and cuttings to avoid live-bottom areas, 

19 and monitoring to assess the adequacy of any mitigating measures. For further information on 

20 the live-bottom (low-relief) area stipulation and the protections for potentially sensitive 

21 biological features in the GOM, see NTL No. 2009-G39.

22

23 Overall, the protections in NTL No. 2009-G39 should minimize the potential for direct 

24 disturbance to coral reefs and live-bottom habitat. However, sediment disturbance and the 

25 discharge of drilling muds and cuttings in nearby areas could result in turbidity and 

26 sedimentation around these features that could kill or inhibit respiration, filter feeding, and 

27 photosynthesis by hard-bottom biota. Because of their generally shallow depth, low-relief 

28 habitats are particularly vulnerable to turbidity and sedimentation. In addition, low-relief live29 bottom areas and potentially sensitive biological features not detected would be subject to direct 

30 mechanical damage from site exploration and development activities. Thus, appropriately siting 

31 discharge locations in pre-disturbance mitigation plans would be critical in minimizing the 

32 effects of bottom disturbance and discharges. NTL No. 2009-G39 states that the developer must 

33 provide a map showing the activity, structures, and maximum area of disturbance in relation to 

34 the feature. Such mapping would minimize impacts on these habitats and minimize the chance 

35 of disturbing as-yet-unmapped features.

36

37 Overall, impacts on coral reef and live-bottom habitat from exploration and site 

38 development activities should be minimized by existing protections. However, low-relief or 

39 small, isolated, unmapped live-bottom habitat could be affected by direct mechanical damage 

40 and turbidity and sedimentation. Given the frequent natural bottom disturbance that occurs in 

41 the GOM shelf, coral reef and live-bottom communities should be resistant to some extent to the 

42 adverse physiological impacts from periodic sedimentation. Live-bottom and coral reef habitat 

43 should recover, if they are adversely affected by exploration and site development activities. 

44 Recovery could be short term to long term depending on the extent and nature of the impact, 

45 species affected, and the suitability for recolonization of the habitat affected.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-195

1 Production. Impacts on hard-bottom and coral reef habitat during the production phase 

2 could result from miscellaneous discharges, the movement of vessel anchors and mooring 

3 structures, produced water discharge, and the creation of artificial reef habitat (Table 4.4.6-3). 

4 Turbidity and sedimentation generated by chronic movement of anchors could affect coral reefs 

5 and hard-bottom habitat if they were located close enough to the disturbance. Impacts on coral 

6 and hard-bottom habitat from bottom disturbance would be minimized by existing mitigation 

7 measures.

8

9 Ninety-five percent of the 200 to 450 anticipated new production platforms would be 

10 located on the continental shelf. Algae and sessile invertebrates would rapidly colonize the 

11 platform and pipelines and would also attract mobile reef-oriented organisms. Thus, platforms 

12 would provide new hard-bottom habitat for a variety of species. However, oil and gas 

13 production platforms have been implicated in promoting the establishment of new species 

14 through natural range expansion or by providing suitable habitat for introduced exotic species 

15 (Sammarco et al. 2004; Page et al. 2006; Hickerson et al. 2008). Introduced species could 

16 displace native species and in doing so alter the ecological function of existing hard-bottom and 

17 coral habitat. For example, oil and gas platforms may have expedited the establishment of 

18 several exotic species on the FGBNMS including sergeant majors (Abudefduf saxatilis), 

19 yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus), and orange cup coral (Tubastraea coccinea)

20 (Hickerson et al. 2008). It is likely that these species would have spread even without the 

21 platforms, although the platforms may have expedited the process. If floating platforms with 

22 moorings are used, organisms could colonize mooring structures. Thus the overall benthic 

23 footprint may be small depending on the design. Also, in deep sea areas, most platforms and 

24 mooring structures would likely be completely removed during decommissioning, so impacts, if 

25 any, would be temporary.

26

27 Produced water discharges could introduce petroleum hydrocarbons and metals into hard28 bottom habitat. However, impacts would be minimized by discharge and toxicity limitations 

29 imposed by NPDES permits, as well as restrictions that prevent the placement of oil and gas 

30 platforms in the immediate vicinity of these habitats. In addition, the depth of many of the coral 

31 reef and hard-bottom habitats, the prevailing current speeds, and the offsets of the discharges 

32 from these habitats would substantially dilute produced waters before they could come in contact 

33 with sensitive biological communities. As a result, the impact of produced water discharges is 

34 expected to be minor. 

35

36 Decommissioning. Coral reefs are not likely to be affected by platform removal because 

37 of existing stipulations. Hard-bottom habitat could be adversely affected by explosive platform 

38 removal (estimated 150 to 275), which could cause turbidity and sedimentation in nearby hard39 bottom habitat. Deposition of suspended sediments could smother and kill the filter-feeding 

40 sessile animals that inhabit much of the hard-bottom habitat. Explosive impacts on large 

41 topographic features covered by the No Activity Zone Stipulations would be minimized because 

42 of their distance from the seafloor and the existing stipulations precluding the placement of 

43 structures on or near these communities. However, hard-bottom features located closer to 

44 production platforms may be more susceptible to damage. In the event that live-bottom areas 

45 were affected during removal of existing platforms, recovery times would vary with damage and 

46 species. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-196

1 Pipelines on the surface of the seafloor that are left in place would continue to provide 

2 hard substrate of structure-oriented organisms. In addition, many of the decommissioned 

3 platforms will be converted into artificial reefs. By acting as stepping stones across the GOM, 

4 oil platforms have been implicated in the introduction of a non-native coral species (Tubastraea 

5 coccinea) and fishes such as sergeant majors (Abudefduf saxatilis) and yellowtail snapper 

6 (Ocyurus chrysurus) into the FGB (Hickerson et al. 2008). 

7

8 Accidents. Accidental spills in the CPA and WPA could affect hard-bottom and coral 

9 reef habitat from south Texas to the west Florida shelf in the EPA. Accidental hydrocarbon 

10 releases in marine habitat can occur at the surface or at the seafloor. Natural gas would quickly 

11 rise above the sediment surface, which would minimize its impacts on benthic habitat, although 

12 natural gas could temporarily reduce the habitat quality of high-relief benthic features. Natural 

13 gas is also less persistent in the environment than oil. Evidence from the DWH event indicates 

14 that methane gas released from the well was rapidly broken down by bacterial action with little 

15 oxygen drawdown (Camilli et al. 2010; Kessler et al. 2011). Consequently, the remainder of the 

16 discussion focuses on oil spills. 

17

18 It is assumed that up to 8 large spills ( 1,000 bbl), up to 70 spills between 50 and

19 999 bbl, and up to 400 smaller spills between 1 and <50 bbl could occur during the lease period 

20 under the proposed action (Table 4.4.2-1). Most spills would be small and occur at the surface 

21 from the platform or vessels or at the seafloor from pipeline leaks. Oil from surface spills can 

22 sometimes penetrate the water column to documented depths of 20 m (66 ft) or more, which is 

23 within the depth range of the crests of some coral reefs and topographic features including the 

24 FGBNMS. However, at these depths, the concentrations of the various chemical components of 

25 spilled oil are typically several orders of magnitude lower than those demonstrated to have an 

26 effect on marine organisms (MMS 2008a). Therefore, it is likely that only low concentrations of 

27 oil from surface spills would reach the sensitive benthic habitats (MMS 2008a). Small 

28 subsurface spills could rise and come into contact with corals and hard-bottom habitat. Offshore 

29 banks are less likely to be affected because of the No Activity Zone stipulation that would create 

30 a large buffer between the banks and oil and gas development and production activities. A 

31 buffer of only 30 m (98 ft) applies to most hard-bottom areas and therefore low-relief, hard32 bottoms could be contacted by small subsurface oil spills. However, because rapid dilution 

33 would occur as spilled oil was transported by currents and rose toward the water surface, 

34 subsurface oil spills would likely have to come into contact with a topographic feature almost 

35 immediately to have detrimental effects on the associated community. Consequently, the risk of 

36 a most accidental oil spills to these communities is relatively small. 

37

38 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE up to 7.2 million bbl 

39 (Table 4.4.2-2). A CDE oil spill from a pipeline rupture, a loss of well control, or a tanker 

40 associated with a FPSO system could degrade coral reef and hard-bottom habitat if it came into 

41 contact with large quantities of oil as it moved through the water column. Hydrocarbons have 

42 been shown to have lethal and sublethal (reproduction, larval settlement, photosynthesis, and 

43 feeding) effects on corals, although no effects on corals following oil spills are also frequently 

44 reported (Loya and Rinkevich 1980; Bak 1987; Guzman et al. 1991; Dodge et al. 1995; 

45 Haapkyla et al. 2007). Water currents moving around the banks would tend to carry oil around 

46 the banks rather than directly over the features, thereby lessening the severity of the impact 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-197

1 (Rezak et al. 1983). Corals have the capacity to recover quickly from hydrocarbon exposure. 

2 For example, Knap et al. (1985) found that when Diploria strigosa, a common massive brain 

3 coral at the Flower Garden Banks, was dosed with oil, it rapidly exhibited sublethal effects but 

4 also recovered quickly. However, larval stages of coral are far more sensitive than adults. 

5 Therefore, the impact magnitude of a spill is partly dependent on whether the spill occurs during 

6 a period of coral spawning. 

7

8 If dispersants were used or if oil released from the wellhead had a high ratio of gas, a

9 subsurface hydrocarbon plume covering a large area could form, which would increase the 

10 potential for contact with hard-bottom and coral reef habitat. The effect of chemically dispersed 

11 oil on corals is equivocal, with some studies finding large effects of oil and dispersant mixtures 

12 on corals and others finding only minor effects (Dodge et al. 1984; Wyers et al. 1986; Epstein 

13 et al. 2000; Haapkvla et al. 2007; Shafir et al. 2007). If used, dispersants may slow the natural 

14 breakdown of oil, resulting in persistent toxicity. In most cases, effects on sensitive biota would 

15 be sublethal, with recovery occurring within months to a few years (MMS 2002a). For lethal 

16 exposures, the community would likely recover once the area had been cleared of oil, although

17 full recovery could take many years (Haapkvla et al. 2007). Consequently, it is anticipated that 

18 impacts of lethal concentrations of oil reaching coral reef or hard-bottom habitat would be long

19 term but temporary.

20

21 Deepwater Corals and Chemosynthetic Communities.

22

23 Routine Operations.

24

25 Exploration and Site Development. In the GOM, both deepwater coral and 

26 chemosynthetic communities are currently protected under NTL No. 2009-G40 (available at 

27 http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/regulate/regs/netls/2009NTLs/09-G40.pdf), which covers 

28 all high-density deepwater communities (HDDC) in depths 300 m (984 ft) or greater. Impacts on 

29 deepwater corals and chemosynthetic communities (HDDC) from exploration and site 

30 development could potentially occur during platform and pipeline placement, the discharge of 

31 drilling muds and cuttings, and miscellaneous discharges (Table 4.4.6-3). NTL No. 2009-G40 

32 (MMS 2010b) currently prohibits the discharge of drilling muds and cuttings within 610 m 

33 (2,000 ft) of HDDC. In addition, NTL No. 2009-G40 requires that all proposed seafloor 

34 disturbances (including those caused by anchors, anchor chains, wire ropes, seafloor template 

35 installation, and pipeline construction) must be maintained at a distance of at least 76 m (250 ft) 

36 from HDDC habitat. In addition, any seafloor disturbances planned within 152 m (500 ft) of a 

37 high-density deepwater coral community must be reviewed and approved by BOEM, and the 

38 developer must demonstrate that the communities will not be adversely affected by exploration 

39 or site development. It is assumed that BOEM will continue to require and implement these 

40 measures at the lease sale phase. While these requirements and procedures are believed to be 

41 effective in identifying and avoiding most HDDC, it is possible that some unmapped or lower 

42 density communities could be mechanically damaged. In addition, despite the 76-m (250-ft) 

43 buffer, turbidity and sedimentation created by ground-disturbing activities could contact HDDC 

44 habitats. Although data are limited, studies in the GOM indicate that Lophelia corals are 

45 generally tolerant of turbidity and sedimentation, but at high enough levels suspended sediments 

46 can have lethal and sublethal effects (Brooke et al. 2009). Sediment could clog filtering organs, 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-198

1 thereby inhibiting food intake and increasing metabolic costs associated with sediment removal. 

2 Chronic bottom disturbance by drilling platform moorings could be particularly large in the deep 

3 ocean depending on the technology employed. Impacts from pipeline placement barges could be 

4 minimized by the use of dynamic positioning when possible. An FPSO system may be 

5 employed for deepwater wells. Under the FPSO system, oil would be transported from the well 

6 to a surface vessel and ultimately to shore. By eliminating the need for pipelines, an FPSO 

7 system would greatly reduce bottom disturbance and the chance for disturbing HDDC.

8

9 It is estimated that less than 1% of the deepwater GOM is occupied by features or areas 

10 that could support HDDC (NTL No. 2009-G40). HDDC are spread throughout the deep areas of 

11 the northern GOM (Figure 3.7.2-2 and Figure 3.7.2-3), which makes it unlikely that the damage 

12 to small areas of the bottom would threaten this resource as a whole. The BOEM Environmental 

13 Studies Program funds research to locate and understand the ecology of chemosynthetic 

14 communities. The BOEM updates regulations and mitigations based on the data from studies 

15 and from the biological interpretations of geophysical surveys, and this reduces the risk of 

16 accidental damage. If affected by exploration and site development activities, HDDC could be 

17 repopulated from nearby undisturbed areas, although the rate of recovery could be slow or 

18 nonexistent, particularly for chemosynthetic communities (MacDonald 2000). Recent studies 

19 have shown that chemosynthetic communities can be dynamic and that changes in species 

20 composition and colonization rates can operate on the order of years to decades 

21 (Lessard-Pilon et al. 2010). This suggests chemosynthetic communities could begin recovery 

22 relatively quickly if adversely affected by oil and gas activities, although full recovery would 

23 take much longer. 

24

25 Miscellaneous discharges would occur at the surface and are not expected to reach 

26 HDDC. HDDC communities are also not likely to be buried or stressed by drilling muds and 

27 cuttings because NTL No. 2009-G40 (MMS 2010b) prohibits their discharge within 610 m 

28 (2,000 ft) of HDDC. Also, drilling muds and cutting would typically be discharged at the 

29 surface, and the depth of most HDDC communities make it unlikely that drilling muds and 

30 cuttings would be deposited in thick layers capable of adversely affecting these habitats.

31

32 Overall, impacts on HDDC from exploration and site development activities are expected 

33 to be minimal because of the provisions in place to protect HDDC and the review required for all 

34 drilling plans in water deeper than 300 m (984 ft). The likelihood of the undetected communities 

35 is greatly reduced through continuing improvements in the use of remote sensing data and 

36 groundtruthing. However, small and unmapped HDDC may be completely or partially destroyed 

37 by bottom-disturbing activities. In such cases, recovery would likely be long term, although 

38 permanent loss of the affected feature is also possible. 

39

40 Production. Impacts on HDDC from routine operations could result from production 

41 platform placement; operational noise; miscellaneous discharges; the movement of anchors and 

42 chains, and the releases of process water (Table 4.4.6-3). In addition, the platform, pipelines,

43 and mooring structure will create new artificial reef habitat. A general discussion of these 

44 impacts can be found in the soft sediments section above. 

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-199

1 Impacts from bottom disturbing activities would be similar to those discussed above in 

2 the exploration and site development phase. The direct effects of production noise, platform 

3 placement, and anchor and chain damage on HDDC would be minimized by the 76-m (250-ft)

4 buffer required between HDDC and ground-disturbing activities, although turbidity plumes 

5 resulting from those activities could reach HDDC. Impacts from produced water discharge 

6 should also be minimal, given the NPDES requirements and the distance of HDDC from the 

7 surface where produced water will likely be discharged. Cold water coral species may colonize 

8 the well, pipeline, and platform structures relatively quickly (Gass and Roberts 2005), although 

9 growth in the GOM appears to be slower than in other areas (Brooke and Young 2009). Over 

10 time, petroleum structures may become an artificial reef functioning in a manner similar to 

11 existing coral habitat. Colonization could benefit cold water corals by increasing suitable habitat 

12 and improving gene flow among populations (Macreadie et al. 2011). The artificial reef would 

13 only exist during the production phase, except in the cases where pipelines remain on the seabed 

14 and if tension leg platform templates are allowed to remain on the seabed. There is also possible 

15 decommissioning options including leaving portions of deepwater platforms in place.

16

17 There is evidence from California that oil and gas extraction reduces the natural release 

18 of hydrocarbons that support deep-sea chemosynthetic communities (Quigley et al. 1999). 

19 However, there is no evidence for this in the GOM. More research may be needed, but oil and 

20 gas operations are not likely to remove enough hydrocarbons to affect seep communities, given 

21 the volume of the overall resource. Unlike chemosynthetic communities, Lophelia corals do not 

22 depend on hydrocarbon seepage to meet their metabolic requirements (Becker et al. 2009) and 

23 presumably would not be affected.

24

25 Overall, impacts on HDDC from routine operations are expected to be minimal. 

26 However, small and unmapped HDDC may suffer major impacts.

27

28 Decommissioning. Explosive platform removals would not occur because floating 

29 platforms would be used in the deep sea. The removal of anchors and chains could affect nearby 

30 HDDC by suspending sediments in the water column as described above. Restrictions that 

31 prevent oil and gas extraction activities on or near HDDC would reduce the impacts of sediment 

32 disturbance. In the event that HDDC were affected during removal of existing platforms, 

33 recovery times would vary with the species affected and the extent and nature of the damage. 

34 Cold water corals are likely to recover much more rapidly than chemosynthetic communities. 

35 Overall, the effects of decommissioning on HDDC should be negligible.

36

37 Accidents. It is assumed that up to 8 large spills ( 1,000 bbl), up to 70 spills between 

38 50 and 999 bbl, and up to 400 smaller spills between 1 and <50 bbl could occur during the lease 

39 period under the proposed action (Table 4.4.2-1). Most accidental spills would be small releases 

40 at the surface that are not expected to reach waters deep enough to contact HDDC. Much of the 

41 impact magnitude depends on the location of the spill, the direction of bottom currents, and the 

42 amount of oil released. The impact of a small pipeline leak would also be reduced by the 

43 requirement that pipelines be located 76 m (250 ft) away from HDDC habitats. Much of the 

44 impact magnitude depends on the location of the spill, the direction of bottom currents, and the 

45 amount of oil released. Oil from accidental releases would be dispersed by currents, rapidly 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-200

1 broken down by natural chemical and microbial processes, and would rise in the water column, 

2 thereby limiting the extent of HDDC habitat that would be affected by any given spill. 

3

4 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE up to 7.2 million bbl 

5 (Table 4.4.2-2). A CDE resulting from pipeline ruptures, tanker spills, and a loss of well control 

6 would cause high turbidity and sedimentation and the potential release of large quantities of oil. 

7 A loss of well control or pipeline rupture in deep water would be particularly difficult to repair, 

8 given the tremendous depth. Although petroleum hydrocarbons serve as a nutrient source for 

9 symbiotic microorganisms associated with chemosynthetic communities, hydrocarbon toxicity 

10 and the partial or complete destruction of the habitat could occur if a large concentration of oil 

11 were to contact chemosynthetic communities. Similarly, oil covering deepwater corals could kill 

12 all or part of the community or cause sublethal physiological and reproductive effects. Oil 

13 typically rises to the surface over the release site. However, if dispersants are used in the 

14 subsurface or if the released oil has a significant fraction of gas, a subsurface plume may form 

15 that would increase the potential for contact with a HDDC habitat. A subsurface plume 200 m 

16 (656 ft) high and 2 km (1.2 mi) wide was found at a 1,000 m (3,280 ft depth for a distance of 

17 35 km (22 mi) from the DWH site (Camilli et al. 2010). Whether there is a synergistic toxicity 

18 from dispersants and oil mixtures for chemosynthetic communities or deepwater corals is not 

19 known. There is evidence that oil released from the DWH event was mixed with dispersant 

20 (Kujawinski et al. 2011) and may have killed deepwater corals located 11 km (7 mi) from the 

21 well (see http://www.boemre.gov/ooc/press/2010/press1104a.htm). Certain organismal 

22 components of chemosynthetic HDDC are slow-growing, and if damaged, recovery would be 

23 long term (potentially hundreds of years), if they recover at all. Recent studies have shown that 

24 seep communities can be dynamic and that changes in species composition and colonization 

25 rates can operate on the order of years to decades (Lessard-Pilon et al. 2010). This suggests 

26 chemosynthetic communities could begin recovery relatively quickly if adversely affected by oil 

27 and gas activities, although full recovery would take much longer.

28

29

30 4.4.6.2.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet.

31

32 Routine Operations.

33

34 Exploration and Site Development. Impacting factors for the exploration and site 

35 development phase are shown in Table 4.4.6-4. Noise from seismic surveys and drilling could 

36 kill or injure organisms close enough to the noise source and reduce habitat suitability, because 

37 some species would avoid the area. The severity and duration of noise would vary with site and 

38 development scenario, but overall the impacts would be temporary and localized with overall 

39 minimal effects on benthic habitat. See Section 4.4.7 for detailed discussions of the effects of 

40 noise on different categories of biota.

41

42 Drilling exploratory wells would temporarily reduce habitat quality by generating 

43 turbidity and sedimentation for some distance around the disturbed area. It is estimated that 4 to 

44 12 exploration wells and 42 to 114 production wells will be drilled in the Cook Inlet Planning

45 Area. Exploration would use jack-up rigs and gravity rigs in water up to 46 m (150 ft), while
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-201

1 TABLE 4.4.6-4 Impacting Factors by Phase and Potential Effects on Marine Benthic Habitat in the 

2 Cook Inlet Planning Area

Impacting Factor Potential Effectsa

Exploration and Site Development

Seismic surveys Noise; localized anchoring disturbance

Anchoring and mooring of platforms, 

drillships, and seismic survey vessels

Sediment scour; temporary turbidity and sedimentation; 

localized alteration in sediment grain size and biogeochemical 

functions

Drilling and production platform placement Noise; temporary sediment resuspension and turbidity; loss of 

natural habitat creation of artificial reef; 

Drilling Noise; small habitat loss; local alteration of sediment 

characteristics; temporary turbidity and sedimentation in 

surrounding areas

Miscellaneous discharges (deck washing, 

sanitary waste, vessel discharges)

Sediment contamination

Solid wastes Sediment contamination

Discharge of drilling muds/cuttings Sediment and water column contamination; alteration in 

sediment granulometry and biogeochemical functions

Pipeline trenching and placement Noise; long-term loss and degradation of existing benthic 

habitat; temporary sediment resuspension and turbidity

Production

Scour from anchors and the movement of 

pipelines and mooring structures

Chronic long-term disturbance of bottom sediments; turbidity 

Platform production Noise; loss of natural habitat creation of artificial reef

Produced water Sediment contamination

Miscellaneous discharges Sediment contamination

Solid wastes and debris Sediment contamination

Decommissioning

Miscellaneous discharge Sediment contamination

Solid wastes and debris Sediment contamination

Platform removal Temporary turbidity and disturbance of bottom sediments

a Colors indicate impact level: white = negligible; blue = minor; yellow = moderate; red = major.

3

4

5 drilling ships or semisubmersible or floating drilling rigs would be used in deeper water. One to 

6 three production platforms may be installed under the proposed action. Production operations 

7 will most likely be carried out from fixed platforms. The installation of floating or fixed 

8 platforms would eliminate soft sediment where the legs or mooring structures (anchors and 

9 chains) encountered the seabed and where subsea equipment (such as reentry collars and blowout 

10 preventers) was installed. Chronic local bottom disturbance could result from subsequent 

11 movements of anchors and mooring lines associated with floating drilling platforms and support 

12 vessels. Because these types of drilling rigs affect only small areas of the bottom, the 

13 disturbance to benthic habitat would be minor.

14
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-202

1 Under the proposed action, it is estimated that 80 to 241 km (50 to 150 mi) of offshore 

2 pipeline may be placed in the Cook Inlet Planning Area, resulting in disturbance of up to 210 ha 

3 (519 ac) of seafloor in Cook Inlet. Pipelines would be trenched or installed and anchored on the 

4 sediment surface, which would temporarily disturb a large area of benthic habitat by generating 

5 turbidity and sedimentation. Placing the pipeline on the sediment surface would result in 

6 permanent loss of soft sediment habitat. Vessel anchoring during pipeline placement would also 

7 disturb soft sediment. It is anticipated that pipeline placement would displace benthic 

8 communities and temporarily alter grain size in areas of the seafloor with soft sediments. Cook

9 Inlet waters are naturally high in suspended sediments, and analyses conducted for pipeline 

10 construction for previous lease sales indicated that turbidity from pipeline construction was 

11 expected to be within the natural range of turbidities for Cook Inlet (MMS 2003a).

12

13 It is assumed that drilling muds and cutting would be discharged into Cook Inlet for 

14 exploration wells only. Drilling wastes from development and production wells would be 

15 reinjected into the wells. Drill cuttings and drilling muds (including synthetic drilling fluids 

16 adhering to the cuttings) could contaminate and alter the sediments immediately around the 

17 wellhead and below the area where drilling wastes are discharged. Drill cuttings and muds 

18 rapidly reach the sediment surface and could be deposited in highly concentrated thick layers if 

19 deposited in shallow water or near the sediment surface. In the case of near-surface discharge in 

20 deep water, drilling muds would spread out in a thin veneer over a wide area. Settled muds 

21 could cause smothering of organisms, local hypoxia, changes in sediment characteristics and 

22 biogeochemical functions, and the loss of food resources in the immediate area. Although such 

23 releases could result in temporary impacts, the amount of discharge would be small compared to 

24 the more than 44 million tons of suspended sediment carried annually into Cook Inlet by runoff 

25 from area rivers (Brabets et al. 1999). The currents in lower Cook Inlet are likely strong enough 

26 to prevent the accumulation of muds and cuttings on the bottom; therefore, benthic habitats 

27 affected by drilling discharges would recover their natural grain size. In addition, the discharge 

28 of these drilling wastes is regulated by the USEPA under NPDES permits and can be discharged 

29 into the ocean only if they meet USEPA toxicity and discharge rate requirements. These 

30 requirements greatly reduce the potential for sediment contamination. A study of sediment 

31 quality in depositional areas of Shelikof Strait and Cook Inlet in 1997–1998 found that the 

32 concentrations of metals and polyaromatic hydrocarbons in sediments (1) posed no significant 

33 risk to benthic biota or fish and (2) were not linked to oil and gas development in upper Cook 

34 Inlet (MMS 2001a). Consequently, degradation of benthic habitat in Cook Inlet from drilling 

35 waste is not expected.

36

37 Other miscellaneous discharges (deck washing, sanitary waste, and vessel discharge) also 

38 have the potential to degrade benthic habitats. Miscellaneous discharges could contaminate 

39 sediments if discharged in relatively shallow water. However, considering the high flow rate of 

40 Cook Inlet, contaminants in surface discharges would most likely be diluted to negligible 

41 concentrations before reaching the sediment (MMS 2003a). Many vessel and platform wastes 

42 are disposed of on land, and those that are discharge at sea must meet USEPA and/or USCG 

43 regulatory requirements that limit their environmental effects.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-203

1 Overall, activities conducted during the exploration and site development phase are 

2 expected to have minor to moderate effects on benthic habitat. Recovery of benthic habitat could 

3 range from short term to long term.

4

5 Production. Production activities that could affect soft sediment habitat are shown in 

6 Table 4.4.6-4 and include operational noise; miscellaneous discharges; bottom disturbance from 

7 the movement of anchors and mooring structures, and releases of process water. In addition, the 

8 platform would replace existing featureless soft sediments and serve as an artificial reef. The 

9 potential impacts of miscellaneous discharges would continue on from the exploration and 

10 development phase and are described above. Impacts on soft sediment habitats from vessel and 

11 operational noise are expected to be negligible but long term, with the impacts lasting the 

12 duration of the production phase.

13

14 Chronic bottom disturbance from the movement of anchors and chains associated with 

15 support vessels would affect soft sediment habitats as described above for the exploration and 

16 site development phase. Production platforms will most likely be fixed structures, but benthic 

17 disturbance from the movement of mooring anchors is possible if floating production platforms 

18 are used. The movement of pipelines following severe storms could be a long-term chronic 

19 disturbance to benthic habitat causing scour, turbidity, and sedimentation of soft sediment 

20 habitats. However, pipelines would either be anchored securely or trenched which would 

21 minimize the potential for bottom disturbance. 

22

23 The platform structure would also create novel hard substrate, and the area on and 

24 immediately around the platform may have very different habitat functions and biological 

25 communities compared to the preconstruction period. Algae and sessile invertebrates could 

26 attach to the platform and in turn attract reef-oriented organisms. Sediments grain size, benthic 

27 communities, and biogeochemical processes in sediments around the platform could be altered 

28 by the flux of biogenic material (e.g., organic matter and shell material) from the platform to the 

29 seafloor.

30

31 Produced water can contain hydrocarbons, salts, and metals at levels toxic to marine 

32 organisms. Before being discharged into the ocean, produced water is typically treated and must 

33 meet NPDES requirements regarding discharge rate, contaminant concentration, and toxicity, 

34 thereby reducing the potential for sediment contamination. Under the proposed action, it is 

35 assumed that all produced waters would be treated and reinjected into the disposal well. 

36 Therefore, no impacts on pelagic habitat are expected to result from produced water.

37

38 Overall, activities conducted during the production phase are expected to have minor 

39 effects on benthic habitat on a regional scale. Platforms would alter benthic habitat on a local 

40 scale.

41

42 Decommissioning. Platform removal activities would result in loss of the platforms reef 

43 function, bottom disturbance, and a temporary increase in turbidity and sedimentation 

44 (Table 4.4.6-4). Over time, most sediments will recover their normal physical characteristics, 

45 ecological functions, and biological communities. No explosives would be used during platform 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-204

1 removal. Pipelines installed and anchored on the seafloor would be capped and left in place, 

2 although there is the potential for chronic sediment disturbance from pipeline movement.

3

4 Overall, impacts on benthic habitat associated with removal of platforms are expected to 

5 be negligible.

6

7 Accidents. It is assumed that 1 to 3 small spills between 50 and 999 bbl and 7 to 

8 15 smaller spills between 1 and <50 bbl, and large spills ( 1,000 bbl) could occur under the 

9 proposed action (Table 4.4.2-1). Much of the impact magnitude depends on the location of the 

10 spill, the direction of bottom currents, and the amount of oil released. Oil from accidental 

11 releases would be dispersed by currents, rapidly broken down by natural chemical and microbial 

12 processes, and would rise in the water column, thereby limiting the extent of benthic habitat that 

13 would be affected by any given spill. A few of these spills might be large enough and persist 

14 long enough to drift to shore where they could contaminate benthic habitat. However, it is 

15 anticipated that only a small amount of shoreline would be affected by these spills and they 

16 would not, therefore, present a substantial risk to the overall resource. The benthic habitat would 

17 recover without mitigation because of natural breakdown of the oil, sediment movement by 

18 currents, and reworking by benthic fauna.

19

20 Oil spill-response activities such as burning, skimming, and chemical release 

21 (e.g., dispersants or coagulants) could affect benthic habitat and biota. Skimming and burning 

22 could kill pelagic live stages of benthic biota. The chemicals used during a spill response are 

23 toxic, but there is controversy about whether the combination of oil and dispersant is more toxic 

24 than oil alone (NRC 2005b; Fingas 2008; Holland-Bartels and Kolak 2011). The use of 

25 dispersant would likely reduce oiling of nearshore benthic habitat but may increase the exposure 

26 of subtidal benthic habitat and biota to toxic fractions of oil (NRC 2005b). In shallow water, the 

27 presence of, and noise generated by, oil spill-response equipment and support vessels could 

28 temporarily disturb benthic habitat in the vicinity of the response action, potentially reducing 

29 habitat use or disturbing migration. As with the spill itself, the location and time of the year the 

30 cleanup occurs would be an important determinant of impacts to benthic habitat and biota.

31

32 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE of 75,000 to 125,000 bbl. In 

33 the case of a CDE, the likelihood of oil contacting shoreline benthic habitat and biota is 

34 relatively high because the Cook Inlet Planning Area is located within a confined estuary. Oil 

35 reaching intertidal benthic habitat would likely be drawn below the sediment surface by capillary 

36 action. Subsurface oil is more persistent because it is spread throughout a matrix of sediment 

37 types and is less subject to physical weathering from sunlight and wave action (Taylor and 

38 Reimer 2008). Decades after the Exxon Valdez spill, highly weathered, asphalt-like or tar 

39 deposits may still be present beneath the surface of intertidal sediments of Prince William Sound, 

40 especially in the intertidal zone of low-energy, protected, unexposed bays and beaches with 

41 boulder/cobble or pebble/gravel sediments (Short et al. 2007; Taylor and Reimer 2008; Exxon 

42 Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2010c). NOAA reported that 97 metric tons (tonnes) (107 tons) 

43 of oil may still be present in subsurface sediments in discontinuous patches, although this is only 

44 a small fraction of the >20,000 metric tons of oil initially deposited on beaches. After a initial 

45 rapid decline of 68% per year during 1991–1992, the oil is currently decreasing in concentration 

46 at a rate of 0–4% per year (NOAA 2010d; Short et al. 2007). Overall, studies of the Exxon 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-205

1 Valdez spill indicate that a catastrophic spill could result in long-term degradation of benthic 

2 habitat and sublethal effects on benthic biota. As of 2010, intertidal sediments and communities 

3 are considered to still be recovering from the Exxon Valdez spill (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee 

4 Council 2010c).

5

6 Following the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, highly elevated hydrocarbon concentrations 

7 in intertidal sediments were found at heavily oiled sites followed by an apparent migration of the 

8 oil into the shallow subtidal zone in 1991 (Wolfe et al. 1993). Oil in the intertidal and subtidal 

9 zones can affect not only lower trophic-level organisms but also higher trophic-level organisms, 

10 such as marine and coastal birds (Section 4.4.7.2.2) and fish (Section 4.4.7.3.2; 

11 Peterson et al. 2003). However, subtidal sediment may be less likely to suffer long-term 

12 contamination because oil tends to float and natural weathering, bottom scour, and depositional 

13 processes would reduce the oil concentration in the sediment. Biological impacts on subtidal 

14 biota are also typically short term (Lee and Page 1997). Oiled subtidal sediments were detected 

15 shortly after the Exxon Valdez spill, but not in follow-up studies conducted in 2001, and subtidal 

16 sediment concentrations of oil are much lower than concentrations in intertidal sediments (Lee 

17 and Page 1997). Subtidal habitat and communities are considered to be very likely recovered by 

18 the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council (2010c). 

19

20 Broken ice occurs in the northern and western portions of lower Cook Inlet during fall 

21 and winter. If an open water spill were to occur at this time, the ice would contain the oil 

22 somewhat and reduce spreading and contacting intertidal benthic habitat. However, oil cleanup 

23 is also more difficult in broken ice conditions. Oil from spills occurring in the winter may be 

24 trapped under ice, resulting in localized, persistent degradation of habitat quality and ecosystem 

25 function.

26

27

28 4.4.6.2.3 Alaska – Arctic.

29

30 Routine Operations.

31

32 Exploration and Site Development. Impacting factors for the exploration and site 

33 development phase relevant to seafloor habitat are shown in Table 4.4.6-5. It is assumed that oil 

34 and gas development activity would be restricted to waters less than 91 m (300 ft). Exploration 

35 drilling would employ gravel islands or mobile platforms in waters between 6 to 18 m (20 and 

36 60 ft) in depth and drillships in deeper water. Production operations will be conducted from 

37 subsea wells, gravel islands, or gravity-based platforms in water less than 12 m (40 ft) in depth,

38 and from larger gravity-based platforms in deeper waters. It is assumed that as many as

39 92 subsea production wells and 9 artificial islands could be constructed during the lease period 

40 with a footprint of approximately 1.5 ha (4 ac) per platform or island. Under the proposed 

41 action, it is estimated that 89 to 652 km (55 to 405 mi) of new offshore pipeline would be placed 

42 in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas, resulting in disturbance to 77 to 567 ha (190 to 

43 1,402 ac) of seafloor. 

44

45 Drilling, platform and pipeline placement, and construction and maintenance of artificial 

46 islands have the potential to reduce benthic habitat quality by disturbing the seafloor and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-206

1 TABLE 4.4.6-5 Impacting Factors by Phase and Potential Effects on Marine Benthic Habitat in the 

2 Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas

Impacting Factor Potential Effectsa

Exploration and Site Development 

Vessel traffic Noise

Seismic surveys Noise; localized anchoring disturbance

Anchoring and mooring of platforms, 

drillships, and seismic survey vessels

Sediment scour; temporary turbidity and sedimentation; localized 

alteration in sediment grain size and biogeochemical functions

Drilling and subsea well and production 

platform placement (including artificial 

islands) 

Noise; temporary sediment resuspension and turbidity; loss of 

natural habitat creation of artificial reef; loss of benthic habitat 

due to artificial islands

Drilling Noise; small habitat loss; local alteration of sediment 

characteristics; temporary turbidity and sedimentation in 

surrounding areas

Miscellaneous discharges (deck washing; 

sanitary waste, vessel discharges)

Sediment contamination

Solid wastes Sediment contamination

Discharges of drilling muds/cuttings Sediment and water column contamination; alteration in sediment 

grain size and biogeochemical functions

Pipeline trenching and placement Noise; long-term loss and degradation of existing benthic habitat; 

temporary sediment resuspension and turbidity

Production

Scour from anchors and the movement of 

pipelines and mooring structures

Chronic, long-term disturbance of bottom sediments; turbidity 

Platform production Noise; loss of natural habitat creation of artificial reef

Produced water Sediment contamination

Miscellaneous discharges Sediment contamination

Solid wastes and debris Sediment contamination

Decommissioning

Miscellaneous discharge Sediment contamination

Solid wastes and debris Sediment contamination

Platform removal Temporary turbidity and disturbance of bottom sediments

a Colors indicate impact level: white = negligible; blue = minor; yellow = moderate; red = major.

3

4

5 generating noise, turbidity, and sedimentation for some distance around the disturbed area and 

6 potentially adversely affecting benthic biota. Such activities could reduce benthic habitat quality 

7 by displacing benthic organisms and interrupting the movement and dispersal of species of all 

8 life stages. Chronic bottom disturbance would result from movements of anchors associated 

9 with floating drilling vessels and support vessels. The installation of platforms would eliminate 

10 soft sediment where the platform and mooring structures (anchors and chains) encountered the 

11 seabed and where subsea equipment (such as reentry collars and blowout preventers) was 

12 installed and depending on location, habitat loss for benthic feeders could be important. The 

13 area of burial around constructed islands could increase over time because of erosion from storm 

14 action and ice gouging on island slopes. The construction of subsea wells and gravel islands 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-207

1 would eliminate soft sediment habitat, but the total bottom area that could be disturbed would be 

2 relatively small compared to the overall area of benthic habitat available in the Beaufort and 

3 Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. 

4

5 Pipelines would be buried in waters less than 50 m (156 ft) to prevent damage from ice 

6 gouges, and pipelines in deeper water would be installed and anchored on the seafloor. Pipelines 

7 installed and anchored on the seafloor would replace natural soft sediment habitat with hard8 bottoms, which would alter species composition and biogeochemical habitat function. For 

9 buried pipelines, benthic organisms within the trenched corridor would be killed or injured, and 

10 organisms to either side of the pipeline would be buried by sediments. Disturbed sediments with 

11 a greater proportion of sand to mud may fill in with fine, silty material that would alter grain size 

12 and potentially inhibit the colonization by species that existed prior to the disturbance. The 

13 recovery period for soft sediment benthic habitat affected by bottom disturbance would depend 

14 on factors such as water depth, sediment type, and community composition. In the Arctic, the 

15 benthic community in these areas experiences a naturally high amount of disturbances from ice 

16 gouging, strudel scour, and severe storms, and hyposaline and highly turbid conditions occur 

17 naturally during spring breakup. Therefore, seafloor biota in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas may 

18 be adapted to such conditions. Turbidity plumes from construction activities under the proposed 

19 action would be temporary and disturbed areas would probably be recolonized within a few years 

20 (Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1996), although recovery could take more than a decade (Conlan 

21 and Kvitek 2005). 

22

23 Increased water turbidity and sedimentation from ground-disturbing activities discussed 

24 above could directly affect kelp growth by burying kelps and other organisms, altering the 

25 optical properties of the water column, and limiting photosynthesis (Maffione 2000;

26 Dunton et al. 2009). It is estimated that kelp contributes 50–56% of annual productivity in the 

27 Boulder Patch and is an important source of organic matter that supports various members of the 

28 epilithic community (Dunton 1984). Overall, measurements have indicated natural inputs of 

29 suspended sediment from runoff and erosion are large relative to any anthropogenic inputs of 

30 sediment (Trefry et al. 2004). Therefore, unless activities are located in the immediate vicinity 

31 of the Boulder Patch, the proposed action is not expected to substantially increase turbidity or 

32 sedimentation on the Boulder Patch. Planning and permitting procedures and requirements will 

33 likely be sufficient to avoid such occurrences. Under current regulations, proposed development 

34 near the Boulder Patch area requires detailed surveys to identify the boundaries of the Boulder 

35 Patch habitat, and the expected levels of impacts from proposed activities must be identified, 

36 which will likely be sufficient to minimize impacts from pipeline construction within the 

37 Boulder Patch area. However, the construction of offshore pipelines could affect kelp habitat 

38 area outside of the Boulder Patch. Recovery would be slow if kelp communities were 

39 mechanically damaged by drilling or anchor and chain scour. It is estimated that recovery of 

40 kelp growth in areas trenched for pipeline construction could occur within a decade in some 

41 cases or could be much longer depending on the proportion of hard substrate exposed after 

42 pipeline construction was completed (Konar 2006). Although habitat loss may be minor when 

43 compared to the large size of the Arctic Planning Areas, even small habitat loss can be 

44 significant to specific populations depending on where it occurs. Overall, moderate but 

45 temporary impacts on seafloor habitat are expected to result from pipeline placement.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-208

1 It is assumed that drilling muds and cutting would be discharged into the Beaufort and 

2 Chukchi Sea Planning Areas for exploration wells only. Drilling wastes from development and 

3 production wells would be reinjected into the wells. Drill cuttings and drilling muds (including 

4 synthetic drilling fluids adhering to the cuttings) could contaminate and alter the grain size of 

5 sediments immediately around the wellhead and below the area where these drilling wastes are 

6 discharged. Drill cuttings and muds rapidly reach the sediment surface and could be deposited in 

7 highly concentrated thick layers if deposited in shallow water or near the sediment surface. In 

8 the case of near-surface discharge in deep water, drilling muds would spread out in a thin veneer 

9 over a wide area. Settled muds could cause smothering of organisms, local hypoxia, changes in 

10 sediment characteristics and biogeochemical functions, and the loss of food resources in the 

11 immediate area. Arctic sediments are constantly changing in grain size (Neff & Associates 

12 LLC 2010) due to natural disturbances. Thus, after they reach the sediment, discharged muds 

13 and cuttings are likely over time to be redistributed over a broad area. Although such releases 

14 could result in temporary, localized increases in sediment load and deposition, this amount of 

15 discharge would be small compared to the more than 6.35 million tons of suspended sediment 

16 carried annually into the Beaufort Sea alone by runoff from area rivers (Neff and Associates 

17 LLC 2010). In addition, drilling muds or cuttings that are discharged into the ocean are 

18 regulated by the USEPA under NPDES permits and can be discharged into the ocean only if they 

19 meet USEPA toxicity and discharge rate requirements. These requirements greatly reduce the 

20 potential for sediment contamination. Discharges of drilling wastes in the vicinity of the 

21 Steffansson Sound Boulder Patch are regulated under NPDES Permit Number AKG280000. 

22 Consequently, there should be minimal impacts on Boulder Patch habitat from drilling wastes.

23 Therefore, the impacts from drilling waste discharges are expected to be minor.

24

25 Miscellaneous discharges (deck washing, sanitary waste, and vessel discharge) also have 

26 the potential to degrade seafloor habitats. Miscellaneous discharges could contaminate 

27 sediments if discharged in relatively shallow water. However, many vessel and platform wastes 

28 are disposed of on land, and those that are discharged at sea must meet USEPA and/or USCG 

29 regulatory requirements that limit their environmental effects. In addition, stratification of the 

30 water column prevents diffusion of chemicals to bottom layers in many areas.

31

32 Noise from seismic surveys and drilling could kill or injure organisms close enough to 

33 the noise source and reduce habitat suitability as some species would avoid the area. The 

34 severity and duration of noise would vary with site and development scenarios, but the impacts 

35 would be temporary and localized with overall minimal effects on soft sediment habitat. See 

36 Section 4.4.7 for detailed discussions of the effects of noise on different categories of biota.

37

38 Overall, activities conducted during the exploration and site development phase are 

39 expected to have minor to moderate effects on seafloor habitat on a planning area scale. 

40 Recovery of seafloor habitat could range from short-term (months) to long-term (decades).

41

42 Production. Production activities that could affect soft sediment habitat are shown in 

43 Table 4.4.6-5. The potential impacts of miscellaneous discharges would continue on from the 

44 exploration and development phase and are described above. Impacts on soft sediment habitats 

45 from vessel and operational noise are expected to be negligible but long term, with the impacts 

46 lasting the duration of the production phase. Chronic bottom disturbance from the movement of 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-209

1 anchors and chains associated with support vessels would affect soft sediment habitats as 

2 described above for the exploration and site development phase. These disturbances would be 

3 long term and chronic and cause scour, turbidity, and sedimentation of soft sediment habitats. 

4

5 Platforms and gravel islands would provide additional habitat for marine plants and 

6 animals (e.g., kelp and mussels) that require a hard substrate. Therefore, the overall probable 

7 effect of platform placement and island construction would be to alter local species composition. 

8 In addition, sediment grain size and biogeochemical processes around the platform would be 

9 altered by the flux of biogenic material (shell and organic matter) from the platform to the 

10 seafloor. Data from other hard-bottom habitats suggest colonization would be slow and seasonal 

11 ice cover may restrict colonization to short-lived opportunistic species. Any artificial reef 

12 function the platform does serve would exist only during the production phase, so impacts, if 

13 any, would be temporary but lasting decades. However, gravel islands would remain in place. 

14 The islands may eventually erode and form a subsea gravel bed that would provide habitat to

15 species attracted to hard substrate.

16

17 Produced water is a normal product of oil and gas extraction that contains contaminants 

18 such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heavy metals and therefore represents a potential 

19 source of contamination to benthic habitats. It is assumed that all produced water will be 

20 disposed of onshore or reinjected into the well rather than discharged into the ocean. If produced 

21 water is discharged into the ocean, it is typically treated and must meet NPDES requirements 

22 regarding discharge rate, contaminant concentration, and toxicity, thereby reducing the potential 

23 for sediment contamination. Consequently, no impacts from the discharge of produced water are 

24 expected.

25

26 The results of the Arctic Nearshore Impacts Monitoring in the Development Area study 

27 funded by BOEM provide a good summary of the long-term changes to benthic habitats resulting 

28 from oil and gas production in the Arctic (Neff and Associates LLC 2010). No relationship 

29 between the location of oil and gas production and the concentration of metals and hydrocarbons 

30 in sediment and marine animals was detected. The study concluded that metals and PAHs in 

31 Beaufort Sea sediments were primarily derived from sediments delivered by rivers, not oil and 

32 gas activities. Overall, activities conducted during the production phase are expected to have 

33 minor effects on benthic habitat. 

34

35 Decommissioning. Miscellaneous and solid waste releases discussed above would 

36 continue during the decommissioning phase (Table 4.4.6-5). Platform and mooring structure 

37 removal activities would result in bottom disturbance and a temporary increase in turbidity and 

38 sedimentation. No platforms are expected to be removed using explosives. Over time, 

39 sediments will recover their normal physical characteristics, ecological functions, and biological 

40 communities. Overall, activities conducted during the decommissioning phase are expected to 

41 have negligible effects on benthic habitat. 

42

43 Accidents. It is assumed that large spills ( 1,000 bbl), up to 35 small spills (50 to 

44 999 bbl), and up to 190 smaller spills (>1 and <50 bbl) could occur during the lease period under 

45 the proposed action (Table 4.4.2-2). Much of the impact magnitude depends on the location of 

46 the spill, the direction of bottom currents, and the amount of oil released. Oil from accidental 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-210

1 releases would rise in the water column, thereby limiting the extent of benthic habitat that would 

2 be affected by any given spill. Oil from most small surface spills is likely to reach the sediment 

3 only at biologically negligible concentrations. Most subsea spills would be minor, and the 

4 hydrocarbon concentrations would typically be diluted to background levels within a few 

5 hundred meters to a few kilometers of the spill site. Large spills would affect a wider area of 

6 benthic habitat and potentially persist in the sediment for an extended period. Benthic habitat 

7 would recover without mitigation because of natural breakdown of the oil, sediment movement 

8 by currents, and reworking by benthic fauna.

9

10 Oil spill-response activities such as burning, skimming, and chemical release 

11 (e.g., dispersants or coagulants) could affect benthic habitat and biota. Skimming and burning 

12 could kill pelagic live stages of benthic biota. The chemicals used during a spill response are 

13 toxic, but there is controversy about whether the combination of oil and dispersant is more toxic 

14 than oil alone (NRC 2005b; Fingas 2008; Holland-Bartels and Kolak 2011). The use of 

15 dispersant would likely reduce oiling of nearshore benthic habitat, but may increase the exposure 

16 of subtidal benthic habitat and biota to toxic fractions of oil (NRC 2005b). In shallow water, the 

17 presence of, and noise generated by, oil spill-response equipment and support vessels could 

18 temporarily disturb benthic habitat in the vicinity of the response action, potentially reducing 

19 habitat use or disturbing migration. As with the spill itself, the location and time of the year the 

20 cleanup occurs would be an important determinant of impacts on benthic habitat and biota. 

21

22 Catastrophic Discharge Event. This PEIS analyzes a CDE up to 2.2 million bbl in the 

23 Chukchi Sea Planning Area and up to 3.9 million bbl in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area 

24 (Table 4.4.2-2) that could result in lethal or sublethal concentrations of hydrocarbons or mixtures 

25 of hydrocarbons and dispersants (if used), which could accumulate in soft sediments, reducing 

26 habitat function. The magnitude of the impact depends primarily on the location of the well, the 

27 volume released, and the speed at which the well was capped. Most oil released in a surface or 

28 seafloor spill would float above the sediment, but sediment contamination could occur from the 

29 deposition of oiled sediment and organic matter (dead plankton and organic flocculants) falling 

30 from the water column. In addition, oil could reach the shoreline and contaminate coastal 

31 benthic habitat (see Sections 4.4.6.1.3 and 4.4.6.2.2 for a detailed discussion of the impacts of oil 

32 spills on coastal habitat). The soft sediment habitat would recover without mitigation because of

33 natural breakdown of the oil, sediment movement by currents, and reworking by benthic fauna. 

34 However, the cold temperatures of the Arctic may allow hydrocarbons to persist in the sediments 

35 longer than in temperate areas. Overall, impacts on soft sediments from catastrophic releases 

36 could be major and potentially long-term.

37

38 The magnitude of impacts on the Boulder Patch from an oil spill would depend on the 

39 location and severity of the spill. Oil spills contacting the Stefansson Sound Boulder Patch 

40 community could cause both lethal and sublethal effects on marine plants and invertebrates. 

41 Sublethal effects occur at lower concentrations and include reduced growth and/or fecundity, 

42 increased physiological stress, and behavioral changes. Laminaria solidungula, found in the 

43 Stefansson Sound Boulder Patch, has not been studied directly, but other Laminaria species from 

44 the Canadian Beaufort Sea showed marked physiological impairment when exposed to oils of 

45 several types and concentrations (Hsiao et al. 1978; Shiels et al. 1973). Photosynthesis would 

46 probably be reduced by the floating oil because of reduced light penetration, and if the floating 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-211

1 oil persisted long enough, it could affect growth and reproduction of the kelp. Benthic animal 

2 communities have also been shown to have major shifts in species composition following 

3 exposure to oil (Dean and Jewett 2001). Impacts on kelp habitat from an oil spill could be long

4 term, but are not expected to be permanent. Laminaria beds oiled by the Exxon Valdez spill 

5 recovered within 10 years (Dean and Jewett 2001). 

6

7 If the spill were to occur during winter, cleanup would be much more difficult because 

8 sea ice would limit access to the spill (reviewed in Holland-Bartels and Kolak 2011). Oil 

9 cleanup response plans and technologies for ice-covered spills are still evolving, and the efficacy 

10 of many proposed spill countermeasures is as yet unknown (Holland-Bartels and Kolak 2011). If 

11 the spill were to occur under ice, oil would be trapped and essentially remain unchanged until 

12 breakup occurred and the ice began to melt. Oil could float or freeze within the ice, which would 

13 limit the potential for oil to reach deeper subtidal seafloor habitat. However, oil transported 

14 under ice to nearshore areas would remain unweathered and could degrade intertidal and shallow 

15 subtidal benthic habitat throughout the winter and after the ice thaws. The effects on primary 

16 and secondary biological productivity could be severe as well, because of loss of epontic and ice17 associated fish assemblages due to oil toxicity. Oil under landfast ice would be more easily 

18 accessed and cleaned, which could reduce the duration and severity of impacts.

19

20

21 4.4.6.2.4 Conclusion. Routine Program activities conducted during the exploration, 

22 development, and production phases could result in moderate impacts on benthic habitat in the 

23 GOM, Cook Inlet, and Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. The primary impacts would 

24 be on soft sediments from ground disturbance during drilling and pipeline and platform 

25 placement as well as the discharge of drilling muds and cuttings and produced water. Existing 

26 mitigation measures, if applied, should ameliorate most direct impacts on sensitive benthic 

27 marine habitats, including soft sediments, hard-bottoms, coral reefs, and HDDC in the GOM and 

28 Boulder Patch communities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. However, in some cases 

29 activities that generate noise, turbidity, and sedimentation may affect sensitive habitats 

30 depending on their proximity to these activities. In addition, unmapped sensitive benthic habitats 

31 not covered by the stipulations may be damaged or destroyed. If sensitive benthic live-bottom 

32 and associated biota were damaged or killed, the impacts could be long term or permanent 

33 because living benthic habitats are slow-growing and have highly specific habitat requirements. 

34 Overall, moderate, temporary, and localized impacts, primarily on soft sediment benthic habitats, 

35 are expected to result from routine exploration, site development, and production activities.

36

37 Small hydrocarbon spills are not likely to result in the degradation of benthic marine 

38 habitat because spills at the surface would likely reach the benthic marine habitats only in low 

39 concentrations. However, large or CDE spills from a loss of well control and pipeline ruptures 

40 would physically disturb the seafloor around the spill site, and a subsurface plume extending a 

41 large distance from the spill could form if dispersants are used or if the oil released is mixed with 

42 gas. The impact of accidental releases of oil depends on several factors such as the size, 

43 duration, timing, and location of the spill, and the nature of the benthic habitat contacted by the 

44 oil. The season in which the spill occurs is especially important in Alaskan waters due to heavy 

45 seasonal ice cover that could hinder cleanup efforts. In the unlikely event that a CDE occurred, 

46 sensitive benthic habitats could suffer long-term loss of ecological function because of both 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-212

1 hydrocarbon toxicity and the subsequent cleanup activities. Hydrocarbons could persist at 

2 sublethal concentrations in sediments for decades, and sensitive habitats (i.e., kelp beds, 

3 intertidal zones; live-bottom and coral reef) damaged by a spill would likely recover slowly and 

4 possibly not recover at all. However, hydrocarbons would be broken down by natural processes,

5 and most benthic habitats are likely to eventually recover. Many sensitive benthic habitats are 

6 widely scattered; therefore, individual spills would be unlikely to threaten the resource as a 

7 whole.

8

9

10 4.4.6.3 Marine Pelagic Habitats

11

12

13 4.4.6.3.1 Gulf of Mexico.

14

15 Water Column.

16

17 Routine Operations.

18

19 Exploration and Site Development. See Section 4.4.3.1.1 for a general discussion of the 

20 impacts of exploration and site development on water quality. During the exploration and site 

21 development phase, pelagic habitat would be affected by platform and pipeline placement, 

22 drilling activity, seismic surveys, platform lighting, and aircraft and vessel traffic, and 

23 miscellaneous vessel and platform discharges (Table 4.4.6-6). Noise impacts would be greatest 

24 near the source and would temporarily reduce habitat quality (i.e., induce physiological stress, 

25 injury, or behavioral changes) for certain species whose noise tolerance is below that of the noise 

26 level generated by the exploration and development activities. See Section 4.4.7 for detailed 

27 discussions of the effects of noise on different categories of biota. Construction lighting would 

28 alter the pelagic light regime of a small area and would attract phototaxic organisms to the 

29 platform. Studies in the northern GOM suggest that platform lighting could enhance 

30 phytoplankton productivity around the platform, potentially increase prey availability, and 

31 improve the visual foraging environment for fishes (Keenan et al. 2007).

32

33 Bottom water quality would be temporarily affected by turbidity from sediment 

34 disturbance during drilling, platform placement, and pipeline trenching and placement. Turbidity 

35 from bottom-disturbing activities could kill zooplankton, although the population-level effects 

36 would be negligible. Photosynthetic productivity of phytoplankton that specialize in near-bottom 

37 habitats may be reduced if the turbidity plume reduced solar irradiance at depth. However, the 

38 turbidity plume would be temporary, and phytoplankton populations have rapid replacement 

39 times (Behrenfeld et al. 2006). Therefore no permanent impacts on phytoplankton populations 

40 are anticipated. FPSO systems could potentially be used in deep water, which would reduce the 

41 need for pipeline placement and greatly reduce water quality impacts.

42

43 The discharge of drilling muds and cuttings can occur near the water‘s surface or the 

44 seafloor. Releases at the seafloor would affect bottom waters in ways similar to those of bottom45 disturbing activities, resulting in a temporary reduction in water quality. Surface discharge of 

46 drilling muds and cuttings would create a turbidity plume that would diminish within some 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-213

1 TABLE 4.4.6-6 Impacting Factors by Phase and Potential Effects on Marine 

2 Pelagic Habitat in the CPA and WPA of the GOM

Impacting Factor Disturbancea

Exploration and Site Development

Vessel traffic Noise

Seismic surveys Noise

Miscellaneous discharges (deck washing, sanitary waste, 

bilge and ballast water) 

Degraded water quality

Drilling and discharge of drilling muds/cuttings Noise; degraded water quality

Pipeline trenching Noise; turbidity

Drilling platform placement Noise; turbidity

Offshore lighting Alteration of light field

Production

Production platform placement Noise; turbidity

Production Noise

Produced water discharge Degraded water quality

Miscellaneous discharges (deck washing, sanitary waste) Degraded water quality

Offshore lighting Alteration of light field

Decommissioning

Miscellaneous discharges (deck washing, sanitary waste, 

bilge and ballast water) 

Degraded water quality

Explosive platform removal Noise, turbidity

Offshore lighting Alteration of light field

a Colors indicate impact level: white = negligible; blue = minor; yellow = moderate; 

red = major.

3

4

5 distance from the release point. The turbidity plume could smother or stress small zooplankton 

6 and reduce phytoplankton productivity by decreasing the depth and intensity of light penetration. 

7 While synthetic drilling fluids are not discharged directly, they do enter the pelagic environment 

8 by adhering to drilling cuttings (Neff et al. 2000). These cuttings tend to aggregate and settle 

9 rapidly to the sea floor. This tendency for aggregation increases the higher the concentration of 

10 adhered synthetic fluid. The rapid settling of the cuttings reduces their dispersion in the water 

11 column and water column turbidity (Neff et al. 2000). In addition, synthetic drilling fluids have 

12 low toxicity (Neff et al. 2000). Consequently, the release of such cuttings and associated 

13 synthetic drilling fluids should result in minor, short-term, and relatively localized impacts. 

14 Similarly, in well-mixed ocean waters, water-based drilling muds and cuttings are diluted by 

15 100-fold within 10 m (33 ft) of the discharge and by 1000-fold at a distance of about 100 m 

16 (330 ft) from the platform (Neff 2005). These estimates are for well-mixed water, and therefore 

17 the size of the turbidity field will vary with hydrology. The generally rapid dilution would limit 

18 the degradation of pelagic habitat to a localized area, and impacts on pelagic habitat would be 

19 minor. Degradation of pelagic habitat would also be limited by NPDES permits regulating the 

20 discharge of drill cuttings in a way that reduced impacts on water quality (Neff et al. 2000; 

21 Neff 2005). 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-214

1 Pelagic habitat would be affected minimally and temporarily by miscellaneous discharges 

2 (deck drainage, sanitary and domestic waste, bilge and ballast water) during site development. 

3 Such releases would be minor in quantity, would be rapidly diluted, and would likely have only 

4 negligible impacts on pelagic habitat. In addition, many vessel and platform wastes are disposed 

5 of on land, and those that are discharged at sea must meet USEPA and/or USCG regulatory 

6 requirements that limit their environmental effects.

7

8 Production. Impacts from offshore lighting, miscellaneous discharges, and bottom 

9 disturbance from the movement of platform and support vessel anchors and chains will also exist 

10 in the production phase and are described above. In addition, production noise and produced 

11 water discharge could affect pelagic habitat quality (Table 4.4.6-6). Production noise is not 

12 expected to appreciably degrade habitat quality, as production platforms are known to have high 

13 biological abundance and diversity. Impacts on pelagic habitat from produced water should be 

14 minor because produced water is treated before being discharged and must meet NPDES 

15 permitting guidelines regarding discharge rate and toxicity. Produced water is high in organic 

16 matter and has the potential to generate local hypoxia (Rabalais 2005). However, a major study 

17 of produced water discharges across the northern GOM indicated that despite the large volume 

18 discharged, the contribution of produced water to bottom water hypoxia is minimal when 

19 compared to riverine inputs, and produced water did not make a significant contribution to the 

20 hypoxic zone in the GOM (Rabalais 2005; Bierman et al. 2007).

21

22 Algae and sessile invertebrates would rapidly colonize the platform and would in turn 

23 attract mobile reef-oriented organisms. Thus, the platform structure would serve as a novel 

24 artificial reef in formerly open water habitat. The platform would function in a manner similar to 

25 existing reefs, banks, and topographic features and may increase zooplankton densities around 

26 the platform. A floating platform would extend from the surface to some depth below the 

27 waterline, potentially creating a floating reef habitat that would attract organisms to adjacent 

28 surface waters. The artificial reef would only exist during the production phase, unless the 

29 platform was permitted to remain in place after decommissioning. In deep sea areas, the 

30 platform and mooring structures would likely be completely removed during decommissioning, 

31 so impacts from bottom disturbance would be temporary.

32

33 Decommissioning. Impacts from vessel noise, platform lighting, and miscellaneous 

34 discharges are discussed above and would continue throughout the decommissioning phase 

35 (Table 4.4.6-6). In addition, bottom disturbance during platform removal (potentially including 

36 the use of explosives) would temporarily disturb pelagic habitat by increasing noise and turbidity 

37 for some length of the water column (see individual sections on marine biota for discussions of 

38 the impacts of explosive platform removal). These impacts would temporarily degrade habitat 

39 quality, but conditions would return to normal as suspended sediments dispersed and resettled,

40 and the long-term impacts to pelagic habitat would be negligible.

41

42 Accidents. Accidental hydrocarbon releases can occur at the surface or at the seafloor. 

43 Natural gas would tend to rise in the water column and could degrade habitat quality in a large 

44 portion of the water column. However, natural gas is also less persistent in the environment than 

45 oil. Evidence from the DWH event indicates that methane gas released from the well was 

46 rapidly broken down by bacterial action with little oxygen drawdown (Camilli et al. 2010; 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-215

1 Kessler et al. 2011). Consequently, the remainder of the discussion focuses on oil spills. It is 

2 assumed that large spills ( 1,000 bbl), up to 70 spills between 50 and 999 bbl and 400 smaller 

3 spills between 1 and 50 bbl could occur during the lease period under the proposed action

4 (Table 4.2.2-1). Impacts on pelagic habitat from accidental oil spills could result from surface 

5 releases from platforms or vessels or from seafloor releases from pipelines and the wellhead. 

6 Modeling indicates that oil spilled at the surface could mix to a depth of 20 m (66 ft) at highly 

7 diluted concentrations (MMS 2008a). Accidental oil releases from pipeline leakage would 

8 degrade bottom water quality at local scales, but would be broken down over time through

9 natural processes, and the long-term effects on pelagic habitat and biota would be minor. Large 

10 spills would degrade pelagic habitat quality over a wider area and potentially reduce the habitat 

11 value and ecosystem function in the areas affected. Eventually, the oil would be broken down by 

12 natural processes, and pelagic habitat would recover. See Section 4.4.3.2.1 for a further 

13 discussion of the effects of oil spills on water quality in the GOM. 

14

15 Oil spill-response activities such as burning, skimming, and chemical release 

16 (e.g., dispersants or coagulants) could affect pelagic habitat and biota. Burning would kill 

17 pelagic biota in the burn area, and skimming would remove aquatic organisms from the water 

18 column or trap them in oiled water. The chemicals used during a spill response are toxic, but 

19 there is controversy about whether the combination of oil and dispersant is more toxic than oil 

20 alone (NRC 2005b; Fingas 2008; Holland-Bartels and Kolak 2011). The use of dispersant would 

21 likely increase the areal extent of oil dispersion and the exposure of pelagic biota to oil. The 

22 presence of, and noise generated by, oil spill-response equipment and support vessels could 

23 temporarily disturb pelagic habitat in the vicinity of the response action, potentially reducing 

24 habitat use or disturbing migration. As with the spill itself, the location and time of the year the 

25 cleanup occurs would be an important determinant of impacts on pelagic habitat and biota.

26

27 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE up to 7.2 million bbl 

28 (Table 4.4.2-2). Pelagic organisms could be exposed to lethal or sublethal concentrations of 

29 hydrocarbons or mixtures of hydrocarbons and dispersants (if used). The extent and magnitude 

30 of the impact depend primarily on the location of the well, the volume of oil released, and the 

31 season in which the spill occurs. Typically oil rises from the seafloor to the sea surface forming 

32 a surface slick. However, a subsurface plume capable of traveling long distances could form if 

33 dispersants are used or if the well releases a mixture of oil and gas. In the case of the DWH 

34 event, hydrocarbons were detected as far as 56 km (35 mi) northeast and southwest of the well 

35 (Camilli et al. 2010; Haddad and Murawski 2010). The DWH event also changed pelagic 

36 microbial communities. Menthanotropic and oil-eating bacteria were greatly increased following 

37 the DWH event (Camilli et al. 2010; Kessler et al. 2011). However, the increase in microbial 

38 biomass did not result in significant oxygen depletion, even in deep water. The hydrocarbons 

39 appeared to be assimilated by bacteria and transferred up through the zooplankton food web 

40 (Graham et al. 2010).

41

42 These studies suggest the GOM has a tremendous natural capacity to assimilate 

43 accidental oil spills, and pelagic habitats would eventually recover their ecological function as 

44 hydrocarbons broke down. However, recovery time would vary with local conditions and the 

45 degree of oiling. For example, the shallow pelagic habitats would probably recover more 

46 quickly than deepwater pelagic habitats because of the greater physical and biological activity in 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-216

1 shallow water. Overall, impacts on pelagic habitats from a CDE could be negligible to moderate 

2 and potentially short term to long term, but no permanent degradation of pelagic habitats is 

3 expected to result.

4

5 Sargassum.

6

7 Routine Operations.

8

9 Exploration and Site Development. Sargassum could be affected by several activities 

10 during the exploration and site development phase of OCS oil and gas development including 

11 vessel traffic, miscellaneous discharge, and drilling waste discharge. Drilling muds and cuttings 

12 are typically discharged near surface waters and could come into contact with Sargassum mats. 

13 Turbidity generated by the discharge could reduce photosynthesis in Sargassum and cause 

14 physiological stress on associated animal communities. The cuttings should settle to the bottom 

15 within 1,000 m (3,280 ft) of the release point (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2006), so the 

16 contact should be minimal. NPDES permit requirements regulating the toxicity and amount of 

17 drilling wastes discharged would also limit the potential for impacts on Sargassum. 

18 Miscellaneous discharges (deck drainage, sanitary and domestic waste, bilge and ballast water) 

19 are not expected to affect Sargassum because the releases would be minor in quantity and would 

20 be rapidly diluted. Service vessels and drilling ships could damage Sargassum mats with their 

21 propeller or by entraining Sargassum in their cooling water intake. The effects on individual 

22 Sargassum mats and the associated communities could be complete or partial loss of the 

23 Sargassum. Given the small area affected relative to the size of known Sargassum habitat, 

24 vessel traffic is not expected to measurably reduce the biomass or productivity of Sargassum in 

25 the northern GOM.

26

27 Sargassum appears to originate in the northwestern GOM, and little new oil and gas 

28 development is expected to occur in this region. Given the small overall area of seafloor affected 

29 by new oil and gas development, and the new spring production of Sargassum that occurs in the 

30 GOM (Gower and King 2008), no detectable population level effects on Sargassum are 

31 anticipated.

32

33 Production. Miscellaneous discharges and vessel traffic will continue through the 

34 production phase, but they are not expected to affect Sargassum for the reasons described above. 

35 Contaminants in produced water discharged from the platform could affect Sargassum and 

36 associated biota. However, produced water is treated before discharge and must meet NPDES 

37 permitting guidelines. Consequently, impacts on Sargassum should be negligible. Other 

38 production activities would primarily affect subsurface habitat and are not anticipated to affect 

39 Sargassum.

40

41 Decommissioning. Miscellaneous discharges and vessel traffic will continue through the 

42 decommissioning phase, but they are not expected to affect Sargassum for the reasons described 

43 above. Platform removal activities would primarily affect subsurface communities, and while 

44 they are not anticipated to affect adult Sargassum, they could affect sediment-dwelling 

45 germlings. However, decommissioning impacts will be highly localized over a relatively small 

46 area.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-217

1 Accidents. Spills could occur at the surface or at the seafloor. Surface spills as well as 

2 seafloor spills that rise to the surface could contact Sargassum, potentially resulting in complete 

3 or partial mortality of the Sargassum mat and lethal or sublethal effects to associated biota. 

4 Surface slicks would pose a potential threat to Sargassum communities until dilution and natural 

5 chemical, physical, and biological processes reduced the toxicity of the oil. Upon release, 

6 hydrocarbons would be rapidly diluted and broken down by natural processes, which would limit 

7 the potential for contact with and toxicity to Sargassum communities. The warm waters of the 

8 GOM are particularly conducive to rapid chemical and microbial breakdown of hydrocarbons.

9

10 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The effects from a CDE would depend on the location 

11 of the particular spill and on various environmental factors, including water depth, currents, and 

12 wave action. Seafloor releases could reach Sargassum in surface waters if the spill occurred in 

13 shallow water or if dispersants were used or the oil released was well mixed with gas. A CDE 

14 could affect a large portion of the Sargassum population if the spill occurred in an area of high 

15 Sargassum density or if toxic concentrations of oil were spread over a large area of surface 

16 water. Surprisingly little is known about the lifecycle of Sargassum. Sargassum is generally 

17 only present in the WPA and CPA in spring through early fall, and recent data suggest

18 Sargassum originates in the northwest GOM and is exported from the GOM by ocean currents 

19 (Gower and King 1998). Therefore, the potential for impacts on Sargassum are highly 

20 dependent on when the spill occurs. Sargassum reproduces every year, so it is expected that the 

21 population will recover if affected by an oil spill.

22

23

24 4.4.6.3.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet.

25

26 Routine Operations.

27

28 Exploration and Site Development. See the Section 4.4.3.2.1 for a general discussion of 

29 the impacts of exploration and site development on water quality. During the exploration and 

30 site development phase, pelagic habitat would be affected by platform and pipeline placement, 

31 drilling activity, seismic surveys, platform lighting, and aircraft and vessel traffic (Table 4.4.6-7). 

32 Noise impacts would be greatest near the source and would temporarily reduce habitat quality for 

33 certain species. Construction lighting would alter the pelagic light regime of a small area and 

34 would attract phototaxic organisms to the platform. 

35

36 Bottom water quality would be temporarily affected by turbidity from sediment 

37 disturbance during drilling, platform placement, and pipeline placement. Turbidity from bottom38 disturbing activities could kill phytoplankton, although the population-level effects would be 

39 negligible. Photosynthetic productivity of phytoplankton that specialize in near-bottom habitats 

40 may be reduced if the turbidity plume reduced solar irradiance at depth. The turbidity plume 

41 would be temporary, and the effects on pelagic habitat are expected to be short term and minor.

42

43 It is assumed that drilling muds and cutting would be discharged into Cook Inlet for 

44 exploration wells only. Drilling wastes from development and production wells would be 

45 reinjected into the wells. The discharge of drilling muds and cuttings can occur near the water‘s 

46 surface or the seafloor, and both would create a turbidity plume that would diminish within some 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-218

1 TABLE 4.4.6-7 Impacting Factors by Phase and Potential Effects on Marine Pelagic 

2 Habitat in the Cook Inlet Planning Area

Impacting Factor Disturbancea

Exploration and Site Development

Vessel traffic Noise

Seismic surveys Noise

Miscellaneous discharges (deck washing, sanitary waste, bilge and 

ballast water) 

Degraded water quality

Drilling and discharge of drilling muds/cuttings Noise; degraded water quality

Pipeline trenching Noise; turbidity

Drilling platform placement Noise; turbidity

Offshore lighting Alteration of light field

Production

Production platform placement Noise; turbidity

Production Noise

Produced water discharge Degraded water quality

Miscellaneous discharges (deck washing, sanitary waste) Degraded water quality

Offshore lighting Alteration of light field

Decommissioning

Miscellaneous discharges (deck washing, sanitary waste, bilge and 

ballast water) 

Degraded water quality

Platform removal Noise, turbidity

Offshore lighting Alteration of light field

a Colors indicate impact level: white = negligible; blue = minor; yellow = moderate; red = major.

3

4

5 distance from the release point. The turbidity plume could smother or stress small zooplankton 

6 and reduce phytoplankton productivity by decreasing the depth and intensity of light penetration. 

7 In well-mixed ocean waters, water-based drilling muds and cuttings are diluted by 100-fold 

8 within 10 m (33 ft) of the discharge and by 1,000-fold at a distance of about 100 m (330 ft) from 

9 the platform (Neff 2005). These estimates are for well-mixed water, and therefore the size of the 

10 turbidity field will vary with hydrology. Because the waters of Cook Inlet generally are 

11 vertically well mixed with a relatively large tidal range, dilution of drilling discharges would be 

12 expected to occur rapidly. Drilling wastes that are discharged are regulated by the USEPA under 

13 NPDES permits and must meet the toxicity, water quality, and discharge rate standards set by the 

14 permits, thereby reducing impacts on water quality (Neff et al. 2000; Neff 2005). Although such 

15 releases could result in temporary, localized increases in sediment load and deposition, this 

16 amount of sediment is small compared to the more than 40 million tons of suspended sediment 

17 carried annually into Cook Inlet by runoff from area rivers (Brabets et al. 1999). For all these 

18 reasons, long-term impacts from drilling waste discharges are expected to be minor.

19

20 Pelagic habitat would be affected minimally and temporarily by miscellaneous discharges 

21 (deck drainage, sanitary and domestic waste, bilge and ballast water) during site development. 

22 Such releases would be minor in quantity and would be rapidly diluted and are expected to have 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-219

1 only negligible impacts on pelagic habitat. In addition, many vessel and platform wastes are 

2 disposed of on land, and those that are discharged at sea must meet USEPA and/or USCG 

3 regulatory requirements that limit their environmental effects.

4

5 Overall, activities conducted during the exploration and site development phase are 

6 expected to have minor effects on pelagic habitat. 

7

8 Production. Impacts from offshore lighting, miscellaneous discharges, and bottom 

9 disturbance from the movement of support vessel anchors and chains will also exist in the 

10 production phase and are described above. In addition, production noise and produced water 

11 discharge could impact pelagic habitat quality (Table 4.4.6-7). Production noise is expected to 

12 have negligible impacts on habitat quality, because production platforms are known to have high 

13 biological abundance and diversity (Stanley and Wilson 2000). Impacts on pelagic habitat from 

14 produced water should be negligible because it is assumed that all produced water will be 

15 reinjected into the well. Overall, activities conducted during the production phase are expected 

16 to have negligible effects on pelagic habitat.

17

18 Decommissioning. Impacts from vessel noise, platform lighting, and miscellaneous 

19 discharges are discussed above and would continue throughout the decommissioning phase. In 

20 addition, bottom disturbance during platform removal would temporarily disturb pelagic habitat 

21 by increasing noise and turbidity for some length of the water column. These impacts would 

22 temporarily degrade habitat quality, but conditions would return to normal as suspended 

23 sediments dispersed and resettled. The use of explosives to remove platforms is not expected. 

24 Overall, activities conducted during the decommissioning phase are expected to have minor 

25 effects on pelagic habitat.

26

27 Accidents. Impacts on pelagic habitat from accidental oil spills could result from surface 

28 releases from platforms or vessels or from seafloor releases from pipelines and the wellhead. 

29 Spills could vary in size. It is assumed that 1 large spill ( 1,000 bbl), 1 to 3 small spills between 

30 50 and 999 bbl and 7 to 15 smaller spills between 1 and 50 bbl could occur under the proposed 

31 action (Table 4.4.2-1). Such releases would reduce the habitat value and ecosystem function of 

32 pelagic habitat at local scales. Most spills would be small and the overall impacts on pelagic 

33 habitat resources will be minor and short term, given the natural dilution and breakdown of 

34 hydrocarbons. Large spills would degrade pelagic habitat quality over a wider area and 

35 potentially reduce the habitat value and ecosystem function in the areas affected. Eventually, the 

36 oil would be broken down by natural processes, and pelagic habitat would recover. Overall, 

37 impacts on pelagic habitat from accidental hydrocarbon spills could be negligible to moderate, 

38 and impacts could be short term to long term, but no permanent degradation of pelagic habitat is 

39 expected. See Section 4.4.3.2.2 for a further discussion of the effects of oil spills on water 

40 quality in Cook Inlet. 

41

42 Oil spill-response activities such as burning, skimming, and chemical release 

43 (e.g., dispersants or coagulants) could affect pelagic habitat and biota. Burning would kill 

44 pelagic biota in the burn area, and skimming would remove aquatic organisms from the water 

45 column or trap them in oiled water. The chemicals used during a spill response are toxic, but 

46 there is controversy about whether the combination of oil and dispersant is more toxic than oil 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-220

1 alone (NRC 2005b; Fingas 2008; Holland-Bartels and Kolak 2011). The use of dispersant would 

2 likely increase the areal extent of oil dispersion and the exposure of pelagic biota to oil. The 

3 presence of, and noise generated by, oil spill-response equipment and support vessels could 

4 temporarily disturb pelagic habitat in the vicinity of the response action, potentially reducing 

5 habitat use or disturbing migration. As with the spill itself, the location and time of the year the 

6 cleanup occurs would be an important determinant of impacts to pelagic habitat and biota. 

7

8 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE of 75,000 to 125,000 bbl 

9 (Table 4.4.2-2). Oil from a CDE (Table 4.4.2-2) would form a surface slick and kill, injure, or 

10 displace pelagic biota over a large area of Cook Inlet. The extent and magnitude of the impact 

11 depend primarily on the time of year, the location of the well, the volume released, and the speed 

12 at which the well was capped. Most oil released would be rapidly diluted and broken down in 

13 the water column by physical and biological processes, so pelagic habitats would eventually 

14 recover their habitat value. Studies of water quality after the Exxon Valdez spill indicated that 

15 the hydrocarbon concentrations were highest in the first two months after the spill, but were well 

16 below the State of Alaska‘s water quality standard (Neff and Stubbenfield 1995). PAH 

17 concentrations in the water column of the sound reached background concentrations by 5 to 6 

18 months after the spill. Toxicity tests also indicated no lethal or sublethal toxicity to pelagic 

19 phytoplankton, invertebrates, or larval fish test organisms due to exposure to water from Prince 

20 William Sound (Neff and Stubbenfield 1995). Within 1 yr of the Exxon Valdez spill, PAH 

21 concentrations generally declined to background levels (Boehm et al. 2007). However, in 

22 heavily oiled areas, toxic fractions of oil trapped in intertidal sediments can be periodically 

23 resuspended into the water column, where they are available to filter-feeding biota 

24 (Boehm et al. 2007). However, data from the Exxon Valdez spill suggest resuspended oil 

25 represented a contamination threat for biota less than 1 to 2 yr, with the highest PAH 

26 concentrations in intertidal waters (Boehm et al. 2007). 

27

28 Broken ice occurs in the northern and western portions of lower Cook Inlet during fall 

29 and winter. If an open water spill were to occur at this time, the ice would contain the oil 

30 somewhat and reduce spreading. However, oil cleanup is also made more difficult in broken ice 

31 conditions. Oil from spills occurring in winter would likely freeze in ice where it could be 

32 transported hundreds of kilometers. If the spilled oil became frozen in the ice, cleanup would not 

33 be possible and the unweathered oil would be released into pelagic habitat as the ice melted. 

34 However, oil frozen into shorefast ice could be recovered using terrestrial cleanup methods, 

35 assuming the ice was stable and thick enough to support the cleanup activities.

36

37

38 4.4.6.3.3 Alaska – Arctic.

39

40 Routine Operations.

41

42 Exploration and Site Development. See Section 4.4.3.3.1 for a general discussion of the 

43 impacts of exploration and site development on water quality. During the exploration and site 

44 development phase, pelagic habitat would be affected by multiple activities (Table 4.4.6-8). 

45 Noise impacts would be greatest near the source and would temporarily reduce habitat quality for 

46 certain species. (See Section 4.4.7 for detailed discussions of the effects of noise on different 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-221

1 TABLE 4.4.6-8 Impacting Factors by Phase and Potential Effects on Marine 

2 Pelagic Habitat in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas

Impacting Factor Disturbance

Exploration and Site Development

Vessel traffic Noise; air emissions

Seismic surveys Noise

Miscellaneous discharges (deck washing, sanitary waste, 

bilge and ballast water) 

Degraded water quality

Drilling and discharge of drilling muds/cuttings Noise; degraded water quality

Pipeline trenching Noise; turbidity

Drilling and subsea well an platform placement Noise; turbidity

Offshore lighting Alteration of light field

Production

Production platform placement Noise; turbidity

Production Noise

Produced water discharge Degraded water quality

Miscellaneous discharges (deck washing, sanitary waste) Degraded water quality

Offshore lighting Alteration of light field

Decommissioning

Miscellaneous discharges (deck washing, sanitary waste, 

bilge and ballast water) 

Degraded water quality

Platform removal Noise, turbidity

Offshore lighting Alteration of light field

a Colors indicate impact level: white = negligible; blue = minor; yellow = moderate; 

red = major.

3

4

5 categories of biota.) Construction lighting would alter the pelagic light regime of a small area 

6 and would attract phototaxic organisms to the platform. 

7

8 Bottom water quality would be temporarily affected by turbidity from sediment 

9 disturbance during drilling, placement of subsea wells, platforms and pipelines, and the 

10 construction of artificial islands. In addition to lethal or sublethal impacts to benthic organisms 

11 (Section 4.4.7.5), turbidity from bottom-disturbing activities could kill plankton, although the 

12 population-level effects would be negligible. Photosynthetic productivity of phytoplankton that 

13 specialize in near-bottom habitats may be reduced if the turbidity plume reduced solar irradiance 

14 at depth. However, the turbidity plume would be temporary, and the effects on pelagic habitat 

15 are expected to be short term and minor.

16

17 It is assumed that drilling muds and cuttings would be discharged into the Beaufort and 

18 Chukchi Sea Planning Areas for exploration wells only. Drilling wastes from development and 

19 production wells would be reinjected into the wells. The discharge of drilling muds and cuttings 

20 can occur near the water‘s surface or the seafloor, and both would create a turbidity plume that 

21 would diminish within some distance from the release point. The turbidity plume could smother 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-222

1 or stress small zooplankton and reduce phytoplankton productivity by decreasing the depth and 

2 intensity of light penetration. In well-mixed ocean waters, water-based drilling muds and 

3 cuttings are diluted by 100-fold within 10 m (33 ft) of the discharge and by 1,000-fold at a 

4 distance of about 100 m (330 ft) from the platform (Neff 2005). These estimates are for well5 mixed water, and therefore the size of the turbidity field will vary with hydrology. Although the 

6 release of drilling muds and cuttings could result in temporary, localized impacts, the amount of 

7 material released is small compared to the more than 6.35 million tons of suspended sediment 

8 carried annually into the Beaufort Sea alone by runoff from area rivers (Neff and Associates 

9 LLC 2010). In addition, the drilling wastes that are discharged are regulated by the USEPA 

10 under NPDES permits and must not exceed the toxicity, water quality, and discharge rate 

11 standards set by the permits. These requirements greatly reduce the potential for sediment 

12 alteration and contamination.

13

14 Pelagic habitat would be affected minimally and temporarily by miscellaneous discharges 

15 (deck drainage, sanitary and domestic waste, bilge and ballast water) during site development. 

16 Such releases would be minor in quantity and rapidly diluted and are expected to have negligible 

17 impacts on pelagic habitat. In addition, many vessel and platform wastes are disposed of on 

18 land, and those that are discharged at sea must meet USEPA and/or USCG regulatory 

19 requirements that limit their environmental effects.

20

21 Overall, activities conducted during the exploration and site development phase are 

22 expected to have minor effects on pelagic habitat.

23

24 Production. See Section 4.4.3.3.1 for a general discussion of the impacts of exploration 

25 and site development on water quality. Impacts from offshore lighting, miscellaneous 

26 discharges, and bottom disturbance from support vessel anchors and chains will also exist in the 

27 production phase and are described above. In addition, production noise and produced water 

28 discharge could impact pelagic habitat quality (Table 4.4.6-8). Recent analyses indicate that the 

29 discharge of produced water into the Chukchi Sea could result in elevated PAH concentrations in 

30 shallow water areas or in the winter (MMS 2007a). However, impacts on pelagic habitat from 

31 produced water should be minor because it is assumed that all produced water will be reinjected 

32 into the well. 

33

34 Overall, activities conducted during the production phase are expected to have negligible 

35 effects on pelagic habitat.

36

37 Decommissioning. Impacts from vessel noise, platform lighting, and miscellaneous 

38 discharges are discussed above and would continue throughout the decommissioning phase. In 

39 addition, bottom disturbance during platform removal would temporarily disturb pelagic habitat 

40 by increasing noise and turbidity for some length of the water column. In addition, gravel 

41 islands would be left in place where they would wash away and introduce fine sediments into the 

42 water column over time. These impacts would temporarily degrade habitat quality, but 

43 conditions would return to normal as suspended sediments dispersed and resettled. Overall, only 

44 negligible impacts on pelagic habitat are expected to result from decommissioning activities.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-223

1 Accidents. See Section 4.4.3.3.2 for a detailed discussion of the effects of oil spills on 

2 water quality in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. Accidental oil spills could result 

3 from surface releases from platforms or vessels or from seafloor releases from pipelines and the 

4 wellhead. It is assumed that up to 3 large oil spills ( 1,000 bbl) up to 35 small spills (50 to 

5 999 bbl) and up to 190 smaller spills (>1 and <50 bbl) could occur during the lease period under 

6 the proposed action (Table 4.4.2-1). Small releases would degrade bottom water quality, but the 

7 overall contaminant impacts on pelagic habitat resources will be minor and short term, given the 

8 localized nature of a small release and the natural dilution and breakdown of hydrocarbons. 

9 Large spills would degrade pelagic habitat quality over a wider area and potentially reduce the 

10 habitat value and ecosystem function in the areas affected. Eventually, the oil would be 

11 transported from the area as well as broken down by natural processes. Oil is not expected to 

12 persist in marine pelagic habitat for an extended period (Section 4.4.3.3). 

13

14 Spills in open water could be contained and much of the oil removed by standard oil 

15 spill-response methods. Oil spill-response activities such as burning, skimming, and chemical 

16 release (e.g., dispersants or coagulants) could affect pelagic habitat and biota. Burning would 

17 kill pelagic biota in the burn area, and skimming would remove aquatic organisms from the 

18 water column or trap them in oiled water. The chemicals used during a spill response are toxic, 

19 but there is controversy about whether the combination of oil and dispersant is more toxic than 

20 oil alone (NRC 2005b; Fingas 2008; Holland-Bartels and Kolak 2011). The use of dispersant 

21 would likely increase the areal extent of oil dispersion and the exposure of pelagic biota to oil. 

22 The presence of, and noise generated by, oil spill-response equipment and support vessels could 

23 temporarily disturb pelagic habitat in the vicinity of the response action, potentially reducing 

24 habitat use or disturbing migration. As with the spill itself, the location and time of the year the 

25 cleanup occurs would be an important determinant of impacts on pelagic habitat and biota. 

26

27 If the spill were to occur under ice or during winter, cleanup would be much more 

28 difficult because sea ice would limit access to the spill (reviewed in Holland-Bartels and 

29 Kolak 2011). For spills affecting areas of broken ice, the ice would contain the oil somewhat 

30 and reduce spreading. However, cleanup is also more difficult in broken ice conditions. Oil 

31 cleanup response plans and technologies for ice-covered areas are still evolving, and the efficacy 

32 of many proposed spill countermeasures is as yet unknown (Holland-Bartels and Kolak 2011). 

33 The oil could freeze into the ice where it could be transported hundreds of kilometers. Oil under 

34 ice or frozen in ice would undergo little weathering (Holland-Bartels and Kolak 2011) and could 

35 therefore degrade pelagic habitat for an extended period of time, with the extent of the impacts 

36 increasing with the size of the oiled area. Sea ice habitat could be degraded or lost if contact 

37 with oil spills results in lethal or sublethal effects on biota growing beneath the ice (e.g., fish, 

38 invertebrates, and algae). Overall, moderate and potentially long-term degradation of pelagic 

39 habitat could result from accidental spills occurring under ice or frozen in ice.

40

41

42 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE of up to 2.2 million bbl in 

43 the Chukchi Sea Planning Area and 3.9 million bbl in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area. A CDE

44 may affect pelagic habitats (Table 4.4.2-2). The extent and magnitude of the impact depend

45 primarily on the time of year, the location of the well, the volume released, and the speed at 

46 which the well was capped. Typically oil rises from the seafloor to the surface, forming a 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-224

1 surface slick capable of traveling greater than 50 km (31 mi) (MMS 2007a). Pelagic organisms 

2 could be exposed to lethal or sublethal concentrations of hydrocarbons or mixtures of 

3 hydrocarbons and dispersants (if used). Pelagic habitats would eventually recover their habitat 

4 value as hydrocarbons broke down and were diluted. Recovery time would vary with local 

5 conditions and the degree of oiling. Overall, impacts on pelagic habitat from accidental 

6 hydrocarbon spills in open water could range from negligible to moderate, and impacts could be 

7 short term to long term, but no permanent degradation of pelagic habitat is expected.

8

9

10 4.4.6.3.4 Conclusion. Impacts on pelagic habitat in the GOM, Cook Inlet, and Beaufort 

11 and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas could occur during the exploration through decommissioning 

12 phases. In all Planning Areas, most impacts would be negligible to minor for routine Program 

13 activities and would range from short term for the exploration, site development, and 

14 decommissioning phases to long term for those impacts occurring throughout the production 

15 phase. Impacts would primarily occur from turbidity generated by bottom-disturbing activities. 

16 Temporary reduction in habitat quality could also result from the discharge of produced water 

17 and drilling muds and cuttings. Overall, no permanent degradation of pelagic habitat is 

18 anticipated to result from routine OCS activities because of the nature of the impacts and the 

19 small area potentially affected compared to the total area available.

20

21 Most accidental oil spills would be small and result in only negligible, localized impacts 

22 on pelagic habitat. However, large or CDE spills could potentially reduce habitat quality over 

23 potentially much broader areas. The effects from oil spills would depend on the size, timing, 

24 duration, and location of the spill and on various environmental factors. Pelagic habitat in 

25 nearshore areas would likely have the greatest potential for long-term contamination. Unique 

26 pelagic habitat and associated biota such as Sargassum mats in the GOM and sea ice in the 

27 Arctic could also be affected by oil spills. Contact with spilled oil could completely or partially 

28 kill Sargassum and cause lethal or sublethal effects to associated biota. 

29

30 In the Alaskan planning areas, oil could become trapped under sea ice for an extended 

31 period, where it would remain relatively unweathered and capable of being transported large 

32 distances. Oil under ice or frozen in ice could therefore degrade pelagic habitat for an extended 

33 period of time with the extent of the impacts increasing with the size of the oiled area; the largest 

34 area affected would occur with a CDE-level spill. Sea ice habitat could be degraded or lost if 

35 contact with oil spills results in lethal or sublethal effects on biota growing beneath the ice. In all 

36 pelagic habitats, hydrocarbons would be diluted and broken down by natural processes, and 

37 pelagic habitat would eventually recover its ecological functions. 

38

39

40 4.4.6.4 Essential Fish Habitat

41

42

43 4.4.6.4.1 Gulf of Mexico. As described in Section 3.7.4.1, most of the coastal and 

44 marine waters of the GOM are considered EFH for life stages of one or more managed species,

45 and any oil and gas development activity that degrades coastal or marine benthic and pelagic 

46 environments would affect EFH. Also, several offshore banks are considered HAPC 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-225

1 (Section 3.7.4.1). EFH consists of benthic and water column habitats in marine coastal areas. 

2 The potential effects of exploration, site development, and production activities on these habitats 

3 are discussed in individual sections including coastal and estuarine habitats (Sections 4.6.1.1),

4 marine benthic habitats (Section 4.4.6.2.1), and the marine water column (Section 4.4.6.3.1). 

5 Impacts on fish and fisheries from the Program are discussed in Sections 4.4.7.3.1 and 4.4.1.1.1.

6

7 Routine Operations.

8

9 Exploration and Site Development. During the exploration and site development phase, 

10 impacts on EFH could occur as a result of drilling and drilling waste discharge, seismic surveys, 

11 and the placement of drilling units, production platforms, and pipelines. Noise from drilling, 

12 construction, and seismic surveys would temporarily disturb EFH and potentially kill, injure, or 

13 displace managed species. See Section 4.4.7.3.1 for a discussion of the impacts of noise on fish. 

14 It is anticipated that behavioral and distributional responses to such acoustic stimuli would be 

15 small and that these temporary effects would not persist for more than several hours after 

16 acoustic surveys are ended. All the noise associated with these activities would be temporary 

17 and affect a small area; therefore, it is expected to result in only negligible to minor impacts on 

18 EFH and managed species in the northern GOM.

19

20 The vast majority of marine EFH affected by the Program would be soft sediments. The 

21 estimated bottom habitat that may be directly disturbed by new pipeline and platform installation 

22 ranges from 2,150 to 14,000 ha (5,313 to 34,594 ac) over the entire GOM. Pipelines placed on 

23 the sediment surface would eliminate natural soft sediment EFH. Sediment-disturbing activities 

24 would result in increased turbidity, which would lower the water quality of EFH in small areas 

25 for a limited time. Although mobile, adult managed species are not likely to be directly affected 

26 by bottom disturbance, bottom-disturbing activities could injure, displace, or kill early life stages 

27 of managed species or bury the benthic prey of managed species. Bottom disturbance would 

28 affect a small area relative to the size of the GOM, and no population-level effects on managed 

29 species are expected. Also, FPSO systems could potentially be used in deep water, and would 

30 reduce the need for pipelines.

31

32 The potential for bottom-disturbing activities to affect sensitive marine EFH such as

33 hard-bottoms, deepwater corals, and chemosynthetic communities would be reduced by 

34 stipulations requiring buffers between these features and bottom-disturbing activities 

35 (Section 4.4.6.2.1). Up to two FPSO systems may be employed for deepwater wells. Under the 

36 FPSO system, oil would be transported from the well to a surface vessel and ultimately to shore. 

37 By eliminating the need for pipelines, an FPSO system would greatly reduce bottom disturbance 

38 and the chance for disturbing deepwater corals and chemosynthetic communities. Topographic

39 features classified as HAPC are also protected by the Topographic Features stipulation, which 

40 prohibits direct bottom disturbance or the deposition of drilling muds and cuttings in areas 

41 containing such habitat. Therefore, HAPC should be minimally affected by exploration and site 

42 development activities.

43

44 Coastal EFH could be affected by the estimated 0 to 12 new pipeline landfalls that are 

45 anticipated under the proposed action. Routing the pipelines through the most sensitive coastal 

46 EFH (i.e., mangroves and seagrass) is not likely to be permitted, but saltmarsh wetlands may be 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-226

1 permanently lost due to construction activity. The overall area of coastal EFH affected by oil 

2 and gas activities would be minor, and impacts are not expected to permanently reduce the EFH 

3 available to managed species or result in population-level impacts on managed species.

4

5 A total of up to 4,700 exploration and production wells will be drilled in the WPA and 

6 CPA under the proposed action. The subsequent discharges of drilling cuttings and muds would 

7 alter the grain size distribution and chemical characteristics of sediments immediately 

8 surrounding the drill sites and for some distance around the wells (typically less than 1 km 

9 [3,281 ft]), depending on the depth at which the material is discharged (Kennicutt et al. 1994; 

10 Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2004, 2006). The deposited material could alter benthic 

11 habitat for EFH prey species and potentially affect spawning sites, which are often chosen on the 

12 basis of sediment grain size. Elevated sediment metal and PAH concentrations near the well 

13 (<500 m [1,640 ft]) would also likely result from drilling discharge, but with the exception of 

14 some metals, elevated tissue concentrations of contaminants have not been found in demersal 

15 fish or their benthic invertebrate food sources sampled around platforms in the GOM

16 (Kennicutt et al. 1994; Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2004, 2006).

17

18 It is expected that the overall impacts of exploration and site development activities on 

19 marine EFH would be moderate, and impacts are not expected to permanently reduce the EFH 

20 available to managed species or result in population-level impacts on managed species. 

21 Recovery rates of EFH habitat and benthic food resources could range from short term to long

22 term depending on the spatial and temporal scope of the disturbance.

23

24 Production. The primary production activities that could affect EFH include chronic 

25 bottom disturbance from the movement of platform mooring structures and the discharge of 

26 produced water. Bottom disturbance represents chronic, long-term, but moderate and localized 

27 impacts on marine EFH. NPDES permits would limit the potential for produced water 

28 discharges to contaminate sediment and water column EFH. Fish and invertebrates collected 

29 near platforms in the GOM do not appear to bioaccumulate the common contaminants in 

30 produced water such as radionuclides, metals, and hydrocarbons and do not exceed the USEPA31 specified tissue concentrations considered to be harmful (Continental Shelf Associates, 

32 Inc. 1997).

33

34 After new platforms have been established, sessile fouling organisms would colonize the 

35 underwater portions of the structures, which would attract managed reef species such as snapper, 

36 grouper, and some coastal migratory pelagics. Over time, this could change the spawning, 

37 breeding, and feeding patterns of some managed fish. The effects of artificial reefs on fish 

38 populations are controversial (Section 4.4.7.3.1), as the reefs may benefit some species and 

39 adversely affect others. The benefit or detriment of artificial reefs as habitat depends on how 

40 fisheries on the reef are managed and on the individual life histories and habitat requirements of 

41 the species present (Bohnsack 1989; Macreadie et al. 2011). Unless platforms are permitted to 

42 remain, the reef function of the platforms would last only through the production phase.

43

44 It is expected that the effects of production activities on marine EFH would be minor, and 

45 impacts are not expected to permanently reduce the EFH available to managed species or result 

46 in population-level impacts on managed species.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-227

1 Decommissioning. During decommissioning and structure removal, both explosive and 

2 nonexplosive methods may be used to sever conductors and pilings. With the exception of some 

3 water quality concerns, nonexplosive removals (e.g., abrasive, mechanical, or diver cutters) have 

4 little impact on the fish resources. With explosive removal, impacts on managed species range

5 from disturbance and habitat loss to injury and death. From 150 to 275 explosive platform 

6 removals are expected, and most would occur in relatively shallow water. Floating platforms 

7 would not require explosive removals, although the seafloor would be temporarily disturbed by 

8 the removal of platform mooring structures. Removing structures would also remove the 

9 associated fouling communities that serve as prey for managed fish species, thereby forcing these 

10 species to relocate to other foraging areas. Pipelines would typically be left in place. Pipelines 

11 on the sediment surface could periodically move, resulting in chronic bottom disturbance to soft 

12 sediment EFH. Pipelines not buried, in both shallow and deepwater, would provide hard 

13 substrate and habitat. Overall, it is expected that the effects of decommissioning activities on 

14 marine EFH would be minor, and impacts are not expected to permanently reduce the EFH 

15 available to managed species or result in population-level impacts on managed species.

16

17 Accidents. Small accidental hydrocarbon releases occurring in surface or near-bottom 

18 offshore habitats would temporarily degrade EFH in the vicinity of the release, but are not likely 

19 to reach large-scale sensitive marine EFH such as hard-bottom EFH (Section 4.4.6.2.1). Large 

20 spills ( 1,000 bbl) have the potential to degrade EFH over a wider area that potentially reduce 

21 the habitat value and ecosystem function in the areas affected. Impacts would be greatest if oil 

22 from the spill were to contact sensitive marine habitat such as seagrass beds and wetlands. 

23 However, in most cases, the area affected would likely be small compared to the overall 

24 resources and eventually the oil would be transported from the area as well as broken down by

25 natural processes. 

26

27 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE up to 7.2 million bbl 

28 (Table 4.4.2-2). However, much of the hydrocarbon would likely be consumed relatively 

29 quickly by bacteria (Camilli et al. 2010; Kessler et al. 2011). The potential for oil from an 

30 accidental release to reach marine HAPC at lethal concentrations would be reduced by the 

31 Topographic Features Stipulation prohibiting oil and gas development near these features. 

32 However, topographic features as well as unique deepwater communities could be partly or 

33 completely destroyed if contacted by a large quantity of oil. Oil from surface and subsurface 

34 spills contacting nearshore EFH has the greatest potential to degrade EFH such as intertidal and 

35 estuarine habitats with emergent and submerged vegetation, sand and mud flats, and shell and 

36 oyster reefs. These areas provide food and rearing substrate for a variety of federally managed 

37 juvenile fish and shellfish. Most nearshore spills would be small so they are not likely to 

38 degrade a large fraction of EFH because the hydrocarbons would be rapidly metabolized and 

39 diluted. However, moderate and long-term but temporary degradation of EFH could occur if a 

40 catastrophic coastal area was oiled following a large offshore spill. In most cases, the coastal 

41 habitat would recover as the hydrocarbons were metabolized or buried, but marsh grasses 

42 currently stressed by subsidence may not recover.

43

44 A catastrophic spill occurring offshore could affect all life stages of federally managed 

45 species and their food sources. Managed species could be affected by the spill directly due to 

46 lethal or sublethal toxicity or indirectly by long-term reduction in food resources and juvenile 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-228

1 and reproductive habitat. Adult life stages will likely avoid heavily oiled areas, although 

2 sublethal exposures are possible (Roth and Baltz 2009). Early life stages of managed species 

3 may be most vulnerable to hydrocarbon spills, which could trap and kill planktonic eggs and 

4 larvae in the affected area. Mortality to pelagic eggs and larvae contacting the oil could be 

5 particularly high in the case of a catastrophic spill at the surface that spreads over a wide area. In 

6 addition to the size of the spill, the location of the spill and the season in which the spill occurred 

7 would be important determinants of the impact magnitude. For example, catastrophic spills 

8 occurring during recruitment periods or spills that oil critical spawning areas could result in 

9 temporary population-level impacts on managed fish and invertebrates. Also, managed species 

10 currently in serious population decline, such as sharks and bluefin tuna, may experience 

11 population-level impacts if the spill were to kill a significant number of eggs and larvae in a 

12 given year. For example, the HAPC for bluefin tuna extends from the 100 m (328 ft) isobath and 

13 could also be affected by oil spills, and population-level impacts to Bluefin tuna could result 

14 from catastrophic spills (Teo et al. 2007; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Status Review Team 2011). The 

15 effects of a CDE on such managed species could be major.

16

17 Wave and wind action, weathering, and biological degradation would dissipate oil in the 

18 surface water, and suitable habitat condition would eventually return. The period of time needed 

19 to reestablish appropriate habitat conditions following a spill would depend upon the 

20 characteristics of the individual spill and would be related to many factors, including the EFH 

21 resource affected, the location of the spill, the nature of transporting currents, the magnitude of 

22 the spill, and the chemical characteristics of the spilled oil. With the exception of sensitive 

23 habitats such as corals and chemosynthetic communities, EFH affected by oil spills is expected 

24 to fully recover within a few years. Sensitive habitats with slow-growing biota may take longer 

25 to recover or may not recover at all. Overall, accidental large spills could have negligible to 

26 moderate effects on marine EFH. The effects for a CDE could be more severe depending on the 

27 volume, duration, and persistence.

28

29

30 4.4.6.4.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet. The Cook Inlet Planning Area contains EFH for a 

31 variety of fish and invertebrate species that can be broadly categorized into three groups based

32 upon the relevant Fishery Management Plans (FMPs): Gulf of Alaska groundfish, Alaska 

33 salmon, and Alaska weathervane scallop. As identified in the FMPs, the EFH includes bottom 

34 and water-column habitat in streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and marine and coastal waters. 

35 Consequently, activities that degrade these aquatic habitats could adversely affect EFH for one or 

36 more species. For the purposes of this analysis, potential impacts on EFH resources in the Cook 

37 Inlet Planning Area and adjacent waters are generally addressed. EFH in Cook Inlet potentially 

38 affected by exploration, site development, and production activities are discussed in detail in 

39 individual sections including coastal and estuarine (Sections 4.4.6.1.2) and marine benthic 

40 habitats (Section 4.4.6.2.2) and the marine water column (Section 4.4.6.3.2). Impacts on Cook 

41 Inlet fish and fisheries from the Program are discussed in (Sections 4.4.7.3.2 and 4.4.11.2). 

42 Because of the connection with adjacent marine areas, this evaluation also considers the potential 

43 for effects on fish populations in the overall Gulf of Alaska.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-229

1 Routine Operations.

2

3 Exploration and Site Development. During the exploration and site development phase, 

4 the primary impacts on EFH could occur as a result of drilling and drilling waste discharge, 

5 seismic surveys, and the placement of drilling units, production platforms, and pipelines. Each 

6 seismic survey would be completed within weeks. While it is anticipated that there would be no 

7 permanent population-level effects on managed species in Cook Inlet or the Gulf of Alaska from 

8 seismic surveys, individual fishes, especially egg and larval life stages in close proximity (1 to 

9 5 m [3 to 16 ft]) to air gun arrays (Dalen and Knutsen 1986; Holliday et al. 1987; Turnpenny and 

10 Nedwell 1984), could suffer mortality or injury, and adult fishes located farther from the noise 

11 could exhibit short-term avoidance and behavioral alteration. The migration of managed salmon 

12 could also be temporarily disrupted. Additional sources of noise from drilling, construction of 

13 platforms and pipelines, and boat traffic could also temporarily disturb or displace individual 

14 fish. All the noise associated with these activities would be temporary and is expected to result 

15 only in minor impacts on EFH and managed species in Cook Inlet.

16

17 The vast majority of marine EFH affected by the Program would be soft sediments. It is 

18 anticipated that 1.5 to 4.5 ha (4 to 11 ac) of seafloor habitat in the Cook Inlet Planning Area 

19 could be affected by platform construction under the proposed action. It is also estimated that 

20 80 to 241 km (50 to 150 mi) of new pipelines would be installed offshore. Pipelines could be 

21 trenched or installed and anchored on the sediment surface. Placing the pipeline on the sediment 

22 surface could result in permanent loss of soft sediment EFH. Ground-disturbing activities would 

23 result in increased turbidity, which would lower the water quality of EFH in small areas for a 

24 limited amount of time. Although adult managed fish are not likely to be killed or injured during 

25 bottom disturbance, bottom-disturbing activities could injure, displace, or kill early life stages of 

26 managed species or bury the benthic prey of managed species. Scallops have less mobility than 

27 fish and may be killed, injured, or displaced by bottom disturbance. The migration of managed 

28 salmon could also be temporarily disrupted by bottom disturbance.

29

30 Pipeline construction in nearshore subtidal habitats could damage marine plant EFH by 

31 mechanically removing the plants or smothering them through sedimentation. Areas containing 

32 high densities of aquatic vegetation are typically avoided during construction activities due to a 

33 lease stipulation calling for protection of important or unique biological populations or habitats. 

34 Pipeline crossings of streams could affect EFH for several life stages of anadromous salmon, 

35 including eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

36 (ADF&G) reviews plans for construction activities for potential impacts on salmon and other 

37 fish species and requires permits to be issued before stream pipeline crossings can be installed. 

38 Therefore, it is anticipated that impacts on anadromous salmon from freshwater pipeline 

39 crossings would be minimized through appropriate permitting and management actions once 

40 site-specific assessments are conducted.

41

42 It is anticipated that 4 to 12 exploration and delineation wells and 42 to 114 production 

43 wells will be drilled in Cook Inlet under the proposed action. It is assumed that drilling muds 

44 and cuttings from the exploration and delineation wells would be discharged into Cook Inlet and 

45 could temporarily affect benthic and water-column EFH resources. While the toxicity of those 

46 cuttings is expected to be low and within permitted levels, the drilling wastes that are discharged 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-230

1 would temporarily increase turbidity and sediment deposition, and small numbers of managed 

2 species could be temporarily displaced. In the mixing area near the discharge site, eggs and 

3 larvae of managed groundfish and scallops could be killed or injured. Settlement of discharged 

4 cuttings on the seafloor could smother some prey species and change substrate composition in 

5 the area where the cuttings settle. However, the discharge of all drilling muds and cuttings 

6 would be subject to NPDES permitting requirements that would greatly reduce the impacts on

7 EFH and managed species.

8

9 Overall, exploration and site development activities are expected to result in moderate 

10 impacts on EFH and managed species. Recovery of EFH habitat and benthic food resources 

11 could range from short term to long term.

12

13 Production. The primary production activities that could affect EFH include bottom 

14 disturbance from anchors and the discharge of produced water. Bottom disturbance represents a

15 chronic, long-term but moderate and localized impact on EFH. It is assumed that all produced 

16 water would be disposed of by injection into permitted disposal wells. Therefore, the effects of

17 produced water discharges on sediment and water-column EFH are expected to be minimal.

18

19 After new platforms have been established, sessile fouling organisms would colonize the 

20 underwater portions of the structures, and they would attract prey for unmanaged species as well 

21 as managed species such as rockfish. Over time, this could change the spawning, breeding, and 

22 feeding patterns of some managed fish.

23

24 Overall, production activities are expected to result in minor impacts on EFH and 

25 managed species.

26

27 Decommissioning. During decommissioning and structure removal, only nonexplosive 

28 methods would be used to sever conductors and pilings. Nonexplosive removals (e.g., abrasive, 

29 mechanical, or diver cutters) are expected to have little impact on EFH resources and managed 

30 species (Section 4.4.7.3.2). Many platforms would be floating, and the seafloor would be 

31 temporarily disturbed by the removal of platform mooring structures. Removing structures 

32 would also remove the associated biological communities that serve as prey for managed fish 

33 species, thereby forcing these species to relocate to other foraging areas. Overall, 

34 decommissioning activities are expected to result in negligible impacts on EFH and managed 

35 species.

36

37 Accidents. Most accidental hydrocarbon releases in the Cook Inlet Planning Area would 

38 be small and would result in only negligible effects on EFH and managed species, while larger 

39 releases could have a greater adverse impact on EFH and various life stages of managed species 

40 depending upon the timing, location, and magnitude of an oil spill. Impacts from spills would be 

41 greatest if a large spill occurred during a reproductive period or contacted a location important 

42 for spawning or growth such as intertidal and nearshore subtidal habitats. Small releases would 

43 degrade bottom water quality, but the overall contaminant impacts on pelagic habitat resources 

44 will be minor and short-term, given the localized nature of a small release and the natural 

45 dilution and breakdown of hydrocarbons. Large spills have the potential to degrade EFH over a 

46 wider area than small spills and could potentially reduce the habitat value and ecosystem 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-231

1 function in the areas affected. Eventually, the oil would be transported from the area as well as 

2 broken down by natural processes. 

3

4 The period of time needed to reestablish appropriate EFH conditions following a spill 

5 would depend upon the characteristics of the individual spill and many factors, including the 

6 location of the spill, the nature of transporting currents, the magnitude of the spill, and the 

7 chemical characteristics of the spilled oil. For example, while most of the waters within the 

8 Cook Inlet Planning Area remain open throughout the winter, currents could transport oil under 

9 ice to surrounding areas. Oil spilled under ice is more difficult to locate and clean than surface 

10 spills. As evidenced by effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, recovery of some EFH resources 

11 could occur within less than a year, while shoreline resources could continue to be affected at 

12 some level for 10 yr or more (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2009a). Wave and wind 

13 action, weathering, and biological degradation would dissipate spilled oil in the surface water, 

14 and water-column EFH resources would likely recover most quickly. Sediments could recover 

15 much more slowly. Following the Exxon Valdez oil spill, contamination persisted in some 

16 freshwater benthic habitats for at least 4 yr (Murphy et al. 1999) and oil contaminating intertidal 

17 sediments continued to reduce survival of eggs for anadromous salmon for a number of years 

18 after the spill (Peterson et al. 2003). Similarly, intertidal sediments and benthic communities are 

19 still listed as recovering (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2010c). Like EFH, managed 

20 species would eventually recover from catastrophic spills, although the recovery could take 

21 many years. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council evaluated the status of several 

22 managed species following the Exxon Valdez spill, including sockeye salmon, pink salmon, and 

23 rockfish. The salmon were listed as recovered within a decade after the spill and rockfish as very 

24 likely recovered (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2010c).

25

26 Overall, accidental hydrocarbon releases could have negligible to moderate effects on 

27 EFH largely depending on the size of spill, location, environmental factors, and uniqueness of 

28 the affected EFH.

29

30 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE of 75,000 to 125,000 bbl 

31 (Table 4.4.2-2). Deeper subtidal sediment EFH may be less affected because hydrocarbons 

32 would tend to float over the sediments. The potential for severe impacts from accidents would 

33 be greatest from oil washed inshore into wetlands, intertidal zones, and shorelines where spilled 

34 oil could contaminate nearshore habitat and associated prey species. Spilled oil could also kill 

35 kelp and other marine plants that provide food and nursery habitat for managed salmon and 

36 groundfish. Spilled oil concentrated along the coastline at the mouths of streams or rivers may 

37 disrupt migration patterns for some species, such as eulachon or salmon, by causing fish to avoid 

38 contaminated areas. In some cases, toxic fractions (e.g., PAHs) of spilled oil could also reach 

39 freshwater areas where salmon eggs are deposited in stream bottoms. PAHs in the parts-per40 billion range can cause sublethal impacts on developing fishes (MMS 2007a). Depending on the 

41 timing and severity of an oil spill, adult anadromous fish migrating from marine waters to 

42 freshwater to spawn and juveniles migrating seaward from freshwater could be harmed by high 

43 concentrations of hydrocarbons. Large, mobile adult managed species in Cook Inlet would 

44 likely avoid hydrocarbon spills by temporarily moving to other areas. However, small obligate 

45 benthic species as well as pelagic eggs and larvae of some managed species and organisms that 

46 serve as their prey may be unable to avoid the oil.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-232

1 4.4.6.4.3 Alaska – Arctic. There are two FMPs designating EFH in the 

2 Beaufort/Chukchi Planning Areas: one for Alaska salmon and one for arctic fishes (NPFMC and 

3 NMFS 1990; NPFMC 2009). Activities that degrade these aquatic habitats could adversely 

4 affect EFH for one or more species. For the purposes of this analysis, potential impacts on EFH 

5 resources in the Beaufort/Chukchi Planning Area and adjacent waters are generally addressed. 

6 EFH in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas potentially affected by exploration, site development, and 

7 production activities are discussed in detail in individual sections including coastal and estuarine 

8 (Sections 4.4.6.13) and marine benthic habitats (Section 4.4.6.2.3) and the marine water column 

9 (Section 4.4.6.3.3). Impacts on Beaufort/Chukchi Planning Area fish and fisheries from the 

10 Program are discussed in Section 4.4.7.3.3 and Section 4.4.11.3.

11

12 Routine Operations.

13

14 Exploration and Site Development. During the exploration and site development phase, 

15 impacts on EFH could occur as a result of drilling and drilling waste discharge, seismic surveys, 

16 the placement of subsea drilling units, production platforms, pipelines, and construction of 

17 artificial islands. While it is anticipated that there would be no permanent population-level 

18 effects on fishes in the Beaufort/Chukchi Planning Area from seismic surveys, individual fishes, 

19 especially egg and larval life stages, in close proximity (1 to 5 m [3 to 16 ft]) to air gun arrays 

20 could suffer mortality or injury, and juvenile and adult fishes located farther away could exhibit 

21 temporary behavioral alteration including spawning/migratory behavior (Dalen and 

22 Knutsen 1986; Holliday et al. 1987; Turnpenny and Nedwell 1994). Additional sources of noise 

23 from activities such as drilling, platform and pipeline placement, and boat traffic could also 

24 temporarily disturb or displace individual fish. All the noise associated with these activities 

25 would be temporary and affect a small area and therefore is expected to result in only minor 

26 impacts on EFH and managed species in the Beaufort/Chukchi Planning Area.

27

28 The vast majority of marine EFH affected by the Program would be soft sediments on the 

29 continental shelf in less than 91 m (300 ft) of water. Under the proposed action, up to 13.5 ha 

30 (33 ac) of seafloor habitat could be permanently covered by up to 9 artificial islands, and as 

31 much as 567 ha (1,401 ac) of seafloor habitat could be disturbed by pipeline placement. 

32 Pipelines located in water less than 50 m (165 ft) would be trenched to avoid damage from ice 

33 scour. In addition, up to 92 subsea production wells could be constructed. The construction of 

34 artificial islands and the placement of pipelines on the sediment surface would alter existing 

35 seafloor EFH and the associated communities. Sediment-disturbing activities would increase 

36 turbidity, which would lower the water quality of EFH in small areas for a limited amount of 

37 time, typically causing fish to leave the areas until water quality improves. The migration of 

38 managed salmon could also be temporarily disrupted by bottom disturbance, although salmon are 

39 relatively uncommon in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Although adult managed species are 

40 less likely to be killed or injured during bottom disturbance, bottom-disturbing activities could 

41 injure, displace, or kill early life stages of managed species or bury the benthic prey of managed 

42 species. However, the sediments would eventually settle out and would not experience 

43 permanent effects. Pipeline trenching and island construction could damage marine plants 

44 associated with EFH by mechanically removing the plants or smothering them through 

45 sedimentation. Marine vegetation is concentrated in relatively few areas within the Beaufort Sea 

46 and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas (e.g., the Stefansson Sound Boulder Patch Community), and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-233

1 impacts on such areas are typically minimized during construction activities by stipulations 

2 protecting sensitive biological habitats.

3

4 It is assumed that drilling muds and cuttings from the exploration and delineation wells 

5 would be discharged into the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The discharges of drilling fluids and

6 cuttings could temporarily affect some EFH resources. While the toxicity of those cuttings is 

7 expected to be low and within permitted levels, the drilling wastes that are discharged would 

8 temporarily increase turbidity and sediment deposition, and a small number of managed species 

9 could be temporarily displaced. In the mixing area near the discharge site, eggs and larvae of 

10 managed arctic fishes could be killed or injured. Settlement of discharged cuttings on the 

11 seafloor could smother some prey species and change substrate composition in the area where 

12 the cuttings settle. However, the discharge of all drilling muds and cuttings would be subject to 

13 NPDES permitting requirements that would greatly reduce the impacts on EFH and managed 

14 species. 

15

16 Gravel island and ice road construction may affect freshwater EFH depending on the 

17 location and timing of the activities. Gravel for island construction is mined from river bars, and 

18 water for construction of ice roads is pumped from local rivers and lakes to desired areas to build 

19 a rigid surface. Removal of gravel and water could increase turbidity and reduce the water 

20 quality of EFH in affected rivers. The ADF&G requires reviews of such activities for potential 

21 impacts on salmon and other fish species and requires permits to be issued before gravel mining 

22 and water withdrawals can be initiated.

23

24 Overall, the impacts of exploration and site development activities on EFH and managed 

25 species are expected to be moderate.

26

27 Production. The primary production activities that could affect EFH include bottom 

28 disturbance from anchors and the discharge of produced water. Bottom disturbance represents

29 chronic, long-term, but moderate and localized impacts on EFH. Pipelines not buried would be 

30 anchored in place which would minimize their movement and potential to disturb sediment EFH. 

31 It is assumed that all produced water would be disposed of by injection into permitted disposal 

32 wells. Therefore, the effects of produced water discharges on sediment and water-column EFH 

33 are expected to be minimal. Platform and island construction will introduce floating or benthic 

34 hard substrate that may attract managed species and their prey. Over time, this could change the 

35 spawning, breeding, and feeding patterns of some managed fish.

36

37 Chronic discharges of contaminants in ice roads would occur during every breakup from 

38 fluids entrained in the roads. Entrained contaminants from vehicle exhaust, grease, antifreeze, 

39 oil, and other vehicle-related fluids could potentially affect EFH. These discharges are not 

40 expected to be major; however, they would exist over the life of the field.

41

42 Overall the impacts of production activities on EFH and managed species are expected to 

43 be minor.

44

45 Decommissioning. Bottom disturbance during platform removal would temporarily 

46 disturb EFH by increasing noise and turbidity for some length of the water column. During 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-234

1 decommissioning and structure removal, only nonexplosive methods would be used to sever 

2 conductors and pilings. Nonexplosive removals (e.g., abrasive, mechanical, or diver cutters) are 

3 expected to have little impact on EFH resources and managed species (Section 4.4.7.3.2). These 

4 impacts would temporarily degrade EFH quality and potentially kill or injure managed species, 

5 but conditions would return to normal as suspended sediments dispersed and resettled, and the 

6 long-term impacts on EFH would be negligible. Removing structures would also remove the 

7 associated fouling communities that serve as prey for managed fish species, thereby forcing these 

8 species to relocate to other foraging areas. Gravel islands would be left in place where they 

9 would wash away and introduce fine sediments into the water column over an extended period of 

10 time.

11

12 Overall, only negligible impacts on EFH are expected to result from decommissioning 

13 activities.

14

15 Accidents. Most accidental hydrocarbon releases in the Beaufort and Chukchi Planning 

16 Areas would be small. Small releases would degrade bottom water quality, but the overall 

17 contaminant impacts on pelagic habitat resources will be minor and short-term, given the 

18 localized nature of a small release and the natural dilution and breakdown of hydrocarbons. 

19 Large spills would degrade EFH over a wider area than small spills and potentially reduce the 

20 habitat value and ecosystem function in the areas affected. Impacts from spills would be greatest 

21 if a large spill occurred during a reproductive period or contacted a location important for 

22 spawning or growth such as intertidal and nearshore subtidal habitats. Eventually, the oil would 

23 be transported from the area as well as broken down by natural processes. 

24

25 Toxic fractions of oil in the parts-per-billion range can cause sublethal impacts on 

26 developing fishes (MMS 2007a). Depending on the timing and severity of an oil spill, adult 

27 anadromous fish migrating from marine waters to fresh water to spawn and juveniles migrating 

28 seaward from freshwater could be harmed by high concentrations of hydrocarbons. Most adult 

29 managed species in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas are highly mobile and would likely avoid oil 

30 spills by temporarily moving to other areas. However, small obligate benthic species and egg 

31 and larval life stages of managed species as well as planktonic organisms that serve as their prey 

32 may be unable to avoid hydrocarbon spills. In addition, oil reaching the intertidal zone can 

33 persist in the sediments and cause sublethal impacts on fish eggs and larvae for multiple years 

34 (Peterson et al. 2003).

35

36 Wave and wind action, weathering, and biological degradation by microbes would 

37 dissipate oil in the surface water, and EFH would be reestablished after some period of time. 

38 The period of time needed to reestablish appropriate EFH conditions following a spill would 

39 depend upon the characteristics of the individual spill and would be related to many factors, 

40 including the habitat affected, the location of the spill, the nature of transporting currents, the 

41 magnitude of the spill, and the chemical characteristics of the spilled oil. Studies following the 

42 Exxon Valdez spill found that water column EFH recovered in less than 1 to 2 years

43 (Boehm et al. 2007). Subtidal habitat and communities are considered to be very likely 

44 recovered by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council (2010c), but as of 2010, intertidal 

45 sediments and communities are considered to still be recovering from the Exxon Valdez spill 

46 (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2010c). Impacts to kelp habitat from an oil spill could 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-235

1 be long-term, but are not expected to be permanent. Laminaria beds oiled by the Exxon Valdez

2 spill recovered within 10 years (Dean and Jewett 2001). Overall, accidental oil spill could have 

3 negligible to moderate effects on EFH largely depending on the size of the spill, its location, 

4 environmental factors, and the uniqueness of the affected EFH.

5

6 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE up to 2.2 million bbl in the 

7 Chukchi Sea Planning Area and up to 3.9 million bbl in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area. Deeper 

8 subtidal sediment EFH may be less affected because hydrocarbons would tend to float over the 

9 sediments. The potential for severe impacts from accidents would be greatest if large quantities 

10 of oil from catastrophic spills washed inshore into wetlands, intertidal zones, and shorelines 

11 where spilled oil could contaminate nearshore EFH and associated prey species. Spilled oil 

12 reaching wetland habitat could kill vegetation and associated invertebrates and small fish that are 

13 prey species for managed species. Deeper subtidal sediment EFH may be less affected because 

14 hydrocarbons would tend to float over the sediments. Similar effects are expected to those 

15 described above, but managed species that suffer large losses of early life stages or that are 

16 currently in decline could suffer population-level effects from catastrophic oil spills. A single 

17 catastrophic spill could cause long-term declines of managed species that rely on shallow coastal, 

18 intertidal, and freshwater areas. Spilled oil could smother kelp and other marine plants, reducing 

19 habitat and substrate for potential prey of managed species. Oil spilled under ice is more 

20 difficult to locate and remove than surface spills. Since weathering would be greatly reduced by 

21 ice cover, managed species with mobility could continue to be harmed or killed as they drift into 

22 the trapped oil. In addition, the sea ice that provides habitat for managed species such as 

23 juvenile arctic cod could be uninhabitable.

24

25

26 4.4.6.4.4 Conclusion. Most impacts on EFH from oil and gas exploration and 

27 production activities would likely result from bottom disturbance and the creation of artificial 

28 reefs by production platforms. The magnitude of impacts on sensitive marine and coastal EFH 

29 would be limited by specific lease stipulations and site-specific analyses conducted for particular 

30 lease sales. Managed species, particularly egg and larval stages, could be killed, injured, or 

31 displaced from the immediate vicinity of oil and gas activities. No more than moderate impacts 

32 on EFH are expected to result from routine Program activities and no population-level impacts 

33 on managed species are expected. Recovery of EFH habitat and benthic food resources from oil 

34 and gas activities would range from short term to long term.

35

36 The severity of effects of accidental hydrocarbon spills on EFH would depend on the size 

37 of the spill, its location, environmental factors, and the uniqueness of the affected EFH. While 

38 most accidents would be small and would have relatively small impacts on EFH, large or CDE39 level spills that reach coastal EFH could have more persistent impacts and could require 

40 remediation. A single CDE spill could cause long-term declines of managed species that rely on 

41 shallow coastal, intertidal, and freshwater areas. Adult managed species would probably not be 

42 greatly affected by a hydrocarbon spill in open water areas, but small obligate benthic species, 

43 eggs, larvae, and some managed species and their prey could experience lethal and sublethal 

44 effects from contact with hydrocarbons. In Alaskan waters, spills occurring under ice could 

45 result in long-term degradation of EFH and managed species because of the cleanup difficulties; 

46 largest impacts would be incurred with a CDE-level spill. Managed species that suffer large 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-236

1 losses of early life stages or that are currently in decline could suffer population-level effects 

2 from catastrophic oil spills.

3

4

5 4.4.7 Potential Impacts on Marine and Coastal Fauna

6

7

8 4.4.7.1 Mammals

9

10 This section addresses the potential impacts to both marine mammals and terrestrial 

11 mammals in context of each program area. It should be noted that both NMFS and FWS have 

12 statutory and regulatory mandates under the ESA and MMPA for mammals. Under the MMPA 

13 (16 USC 1371; 50 CFR Subpart 1), the taking of marine mammals without a permit or 

14 exemption is prohibited. The term ―take‖ under the MMPA means ―to harass, hunt, capture, kill 

15 or collect, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, kill or collect.‖ The MMPA has defined takes by 

16 ―harassment‖ in two ways: (1) level A harassment is ―any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance 

17 which has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild,‖ and 

18 (2) level B harassment is ―any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which has the potential to 

19 disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of 

20 behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

21 feeding, or sheltering but which does not have the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine 

22 mammal stock in the wild.‖ In 30 CFR 250 Subpart B, BOEM requires operators of Federal oil 

23 and gas leases to meet the requirements of ESA and MMPA. The regulations outline the 

24 environmental, monitoring, and mitigation information that operators must submit with proposed 

25 plans for exploration, development, and production. 

26

27

28 4.4.7.1.1 Gulf of Mexico.

29

30 Marine Mammals. There are 29 species of marine mammals, including six endangered 

31 whale species and the endangered West Indian manatee, that may occur in the northern GOM

32 (Section 3.4.4.2.1), and which therefore could be affected by normal operations associated with 

33 the proposed action. 

34

35 Routine Operations. As part of the proposed action, 1,000 to 2,100 exploration and 

36 delineation wells and 1,300 to 2,600 development and production wells are projected to be 

37 drilled, while 200 to 450 new platforms and up to 2 FPSOs are projected to be used. Additional 

38 activities planned as part of the proposed action include 3,862 to 12,070 km (2,400 to 7,500 mi) 

39 of new pipeline (Table 4.4.1-1). Although a specific scenario for geophysical operations has not 

40 been prepared, exploratory and on-lease seismic surveys are expected to result from the Program.

41 Table 4.4.7-1 illustrates how each of the impacting factors associated with OCS oil and gas 

42 development may affect marine mammals and their habitats, while Figure 4.4.7-1 presents a 

43 conceptual model of potential impacting factors for marine mammals from oil- and gas-related 

44 activities (including accidental oil spills). 

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-237

TABLE 4.4.7-1 Impact Factor Data Matrix for Marine Mammals 1 a

Resource 

Receptor Category 

Potentially 

Affected

O&G Impacting Factor

Collisions 

with Support 

Vessels

Noise

Presence of 

Support Vessels

Onshore Construction 

and Operation

Offshore 

Infrastructure 

Construction, 

Operation, 

Decommissioning

Produced Water, 

Drill Cuttings 

and Mud

Solid Wastes 

and Debris

Accidental Oil 

Spills

Seismic 

Exploration

Construction, 

Operation, and 

Decommissioning

Individuals (adults 

and juveniles)

Injury from 

ship strikes 

Injury; disruption 

of normal behavior

Disruption of 

normal behavior

Disruption of 

normal behavior Physical disturbance or 

reduced habitat quality 

associated with noise 

and/or human presence

Physical disturbance 

or reduced habitat 

quality associated with 

noise and/or human 

presence

Toxicity Ingestion 

and/or 

entanglement

Fouling, 

toxicity

Onshore Habitats 

(e.g., haul-out sites 

and rookeries)

– – – – Physical disturbance or 

loss; reduced habitat 

quality

– – – Physical habitat 

loss; reduced 

quality

Offshore Habitats 

(e.g., calving 

grounds, foraging 

areas, or wintering 

grounds)

– – – – – Temporary habitat 

disturbance during 

construction; possible 

long-term increase in 

habitat

Reduced habitat 

quality

– Physical habitat 

loss; reduced 

quality

Migration Displacement 

or impediment

Displacement or 

impediment

Displacement or 

impediment

Displacement or 

impediment

Displacement or 

impediment for 

terrestrial movements 

(e.g., polar bears)

Displacement or 

impediment

– – Displacement 

or impediment

a A dash indicates that no impact is anticipated.

2
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-238

1

2 FIGURE 4.4.7-1 Conceptual Model for Anticipated Impacting Factors for Marine Mammals 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-239

1 Because of differences in the distribution and ecology of marine mammal species, routine 

2 operations under the proposed action would not equally affect marine mammal species. All of 

3 the mysticetes (baleen whales), except for the Bryde‘s whale, are considered extralimital or rare

4 in the northern GOM (Würsig et al. 2000). Because of their rarity, it is unlikely that individuals 

5 of these species would be present where OCS-related activities would occur, and thus they would 

6 not be affected by routine operations of the proposed action. Although the Bryde‘s whale is the 

7 most frequently sighted mysticete whale, it is uncommon. While the Bryde‘s whale is present 

8 throughout the year, it occurs primarily in the Eastern Planning Area (Davis et al. 2000; 

9 Würsig et al. 2000; MMS 2004a). Waring et al. (2010) estimate a population size of 

10 15 individuals. Thus, it would not be expected to be affected to any great extent by routine

11 operations under the proposed action.

12

13 In contrast to the mysticetes, many of the odontocetes (toothed whales) are considered 

14 relatively common in the GOM OCS (Davis et al. 2000; MMS 2004a). Thus, there is a greater 

15 potential that some individuals of these species to occur in areas where OCS-related activities 

16 occur and to be affected during routine operations. The only odontocete listed as endangered is 

17 the sperm whale, which is the most common large whale in the GOM. Sperm whales occur year18 round in all deepwater areas of the U.S. GOM, with a well-documented aggregation consistently 

19 found in the shelf-edge waters around the 305-m (1,000-ft) depth contour south of the 

20 Mississippi River Delta (Davis et al. 2000; MMS 2004a). Thus, this species may encounter 

21 OCS-related activities occurring within the northern GOM, especially in deepwater areas of the 

22 Central Planning Area.

23

24 Although manatees appear to prefer nearshore habitats, there are rare observations around 

25 structures at offshore sites. Negligible impacts on the West Indian manatee are anticipated 

26 because the 2012-2017 proposed action does not include routine operations in most of the 

27 Eastern Planning Area. The potential for impacts on manatees would occur in nearshore habitats 

28 where interactions with OCS-related activities (i.e., vessel traffic) exist. Service vessel impacts 

29 would mainly occur in the Central and Western Planning Areas where manatees occasionally 

30 occur.

31

32 The following analysis presents an overview of impacts on marine mammals from the 

33 following routine operations: (1) seismic surveys, (2) construction of offshore facilities and 

34 pipelines, (3) operations of offshore facilities and drilling rigs, (4) discharges and waste 

35 generation, (5) service vessel and helicopter traffic, and (6) decommissioning.

36

37 Seismic Surveys. Sections 4.4.1.1 and 4.4.5.1.1 provide descriptions of seismic survey 

38 technologies, energy outputs, operations, and general acoustic impacts. The type of O&G 

39 activities presently occurring in the GOM include:

40

41 • Seismic surveys (includes high-resolution site surveys and various types of 

42 seismic exploration and development surveys, including narrow azimuth, 

43 multi azimuth and wide azimuth);

44

45 • Side-scan sonar surveys;

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-240

1 • Electromagnetic surveys;

2

3 • Geological and geochemical sampling; and

4

5 • Remote sensing (including gravity, gravity gradiometry, and magnetic 

6 surveys).

7

8 Marine mammals produce and use sound to communicate as well as to orient, locate and 

9 capture prey, and to detect and avoid predators (Hofman 2004; Southall et al. 2007). A panel of 

10 experts in acoustic research from behavioral, physiological, and physical disciplines generated a

11 report, Marine Mammal Noise Exposure Criteria: Initial Scientific Recommendations 

12 (Southall et al. 2007), which summarized existing acoustic and marine mammal data and made 

13 recommendations for regulatory criteria and research. Noise generated by seismic surveys may 

14 have physical and/or behavioral effects on marine mammals, such as (1) permanent or temporary 

15 hearing loss, discomfort, and injury; (2) masking of important sound signals; and (3) behavioral 

16 responses such as fright, avoidance, and changes in physical or vocal behavior 

17 (Richardson et al. 1995; Davis et al. 1998b; Gordon et al. 1998; Nowacek et al. 2004, 2007). 

18 Seismic surveys may also indirectly impact marine mammals by altering prey availability 

19 (Gordon et al. 2003, 2004). 

20

21 Southall et al. (2007) synthesized the understanding of underwater and aerial hearing in 

22 some marine mammal groups and recommended some acoustic criteria. A precautionary 

23 approach was used to derive frequency-specific marine mammal weighting functions; the marine 

24 mammal hearing groups are broken down into five categories: (1) low-frequency cetaceans, 

25 which are the mysticetes, have an estimated lower and upper frequency range of 7 to 22 kHz; 

26 (2) mid-frequency species are estimated to have lower and upper frequency limits of hearing at 

27 approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz, respectively; (3) high-frequency cetaceans have an 

28 estimated functional hearing between approximately 200 and 180 kHz; (4) pinnipeds in air have 

29 an estimated functional hearing between 75 and 30 kHz; and (5) pinnipeds in water have an 

30 estimated functional hearing between 75 and 75 kHz. 

31

32 Almost all impacts of seismic surveys have been inferred or assumed by implication 

33 rather than observed. There have been no documented instances of deaths, physical injuries, or 

34 auditory (physiological) effects on marine mammals from seismic surveys. Behavioral responses 

35 have been observed but the biological importance of such behavioral responses (to the individual 

36 animals and populations involved) has not been determined.

37

38 The types of potential effects can be broken down into non-auditory injury, auditory 

39 effects, behavioral effects, and masking. Nowacek et al. (2007), Richardson et al. (1995), and 

40 Southall et al. (2007) have reviewed the effects of anthropogenic sound on marine mammals and 

41 are incorporated by reference. 

42

43 Permanent loss of hearing in a marine mammal (i.e., permanent threshold shift [PTS]) is 

44 defined as the deterioration of hearing due to prolonged or repeated exposure to sounds that 

45 accelerate the normal process of gradual hearing loss (Kryter 1985), or the permanent hearing 

46 damage due to brief exposure to extremely high sound levels (Richardson et al. 1995). PTS 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-241

1 results in a permanent elevation in hearing threshold — an unrecoverable reduction in hearing 

2 sensitivity (Southall et al. 2007) and this is considered level A harassment under the MMPA. 

3 Noise may cause a temporary threshold shift (TTS), a temporary and reversible loss of hearing 

4 that may last for minutes to hours. Animals suffering from TTS over longer time periods, such 

5 as hours or days, may be considered to have a change in a biologically significant behavior, 

6 because they could be prevented from detecting sounds that are biologically relevant, including 

7 communication sounds, sounds of prey, or sounds of predators. TTS is considered level B 

8 harassment under the MMPA. To date, for level B harassment, NMFS uses the 160-decibel (dB) 

9 root-mean squared (rms) isopleth to indicate where level B harassment begins for acoustic 

10 impulse sounds, such as seismic surveying. Also, NMFS‘ policy has been to use the 180-dB rms 

11 isopleth where on-set level A harassment from acoustic sources potentially begins for cetaceans

12 (whales, dolphins and porpoises) and 190-dB rms isopleth for pinnipeds (seals, sea lions).

13

14 For the purpose of analysis, it is assumed that operators will implement survey and 

15 monitoring mitigation (e.g., ramp-up, marine mammal observers, speed restrictions, exclusion 

16 zones) currently required in the GOM to minimize or avoid impacts of seismic on marine 

17 mammals with an emphasis on prevention of injury (auditory and non-auditory). Assuming the 

18 implementation of these mitigations, the potential for injury is minimized. There remains a 

19 greater potential for behavioral effects; therefore, the following discussion focuses on the 

20 potential behavioral changes resulting from exposure to seismic operations. More detailed 

21 discussions of impacts to marine mammals from seismic surveys in the GOM can be found in 

22 MMS (2004). 

23

24 Non-Auditory Injury. Non-auditory injury could include direct acoustic impact on tissue, 

25 indirect acoustic impact on tissue surrounding a structure, acoustically mediated bubble growth 

26 within tissues from supersaturated dissolved nitrogen gas, or resonance. However, resonances 

27 are not anticipated given that the resonance frequencies of marine mammal lungs are generally 

28 below that of the G&G seismic survey source signal (Nowacek et al. 2007; Zimmer and 

29 Tyack 2007).

30

31 Auditory Effects (PTS and TTS). The hearing of marine mammals varies based on 

32 individuals, thresholds of the species, location in relation to the sound source, frequency 

33 discrimination, and the motivation of an individual to change behaviors due to the sound 

34 (Richardson et al. 1995). PTS results in a permanent elevation in hearing threshold — an 

35 unrecoverable reduction in hearing sensitivity (Southall et al. 2007). TTS is defined as a 

36 temporary and reversible loss of hearing that may last for minutes to hours. The duration of TTS 

37 depends on a variety of factors including intensity and duration of the stimulus. Therefore, 

38 animals suffering from TTS over longer time periods, may be considered to have a change in a 

39 biologically significant behavior, as they could be prevented from detecting sounds that are 

40 biologically relevant, including communication sounds, sounds of prey, or sounds of predators. 

41

42 Behavioral Effects. A number of studies have documented behavioral effects in response 

43 to seismic surveys, primarily for marine mammals (Richardson et al. 1995, Southall et al. 2007).

44 The Bryde‘s whale is the only mysticete species occurring regularly in the GOM. As discussed 

45 in Southall et al. (2007), the expected frequencies of best hearing sensitivity in mysticetes and 

46 maximal air gun output at source may overlap. Given that no direct audiograms of mysticetes 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-242

1 have been obtained, it is impossible to define what level of sound above hearing threshold may 

2 cause behavioral effects, which would be expected to be variable, complicated, and dependent 

3 upon more than just the received sound level. For this reason, observations at sea have 

4 concentrated on relating received sound levels to observed behavioral changes 

5 (Malme et al. 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988; Reeves et al. 1984; Richardson et al. 1986; 

6 Ljungblad et al. 1988; McDonald et al. 1993; Richardson and Malme 1993; Richardson 1998; 

7 McCauley et al. 2000a, b). 

8

9 Auditory thresholds of adult sperm whales have not been obtained. Ridgeway and Carder 

10 (2001) studied the vocalizations of a neonate sperm whale which led them to believe that they 

11 are sensitive to a wide range of frequencies. This was also hypothesized by Bowles et al. (1994). 

12 Sperm whales are a highly vocal species under natural conditions (i.e., they click almost 

13 continuously during dives). Jochens et al. 2008 synthesized the findings of the Sperm Whale 

14 Seismic Study (SWSS) in the GOM. They stated that it does not appear that sperm whales in the 

15 SWSS study area showed any horizontal avoidance to controlled exposure of seismic air gun sounds. 

16 The data analysis suggested that, for at least some individuals, it is more likely that some decrease in 

17 foraging effort may occur during exposure to full-array air gun firing as compared to the post18 exposure condition. Sperm whales are most likely acoustically aware of their environment and 

19 can exhibit behavioral reactions in a number of ways, including interruption of vocal activity and 

20 foraging. However, there are insufficient data to assign thresholds for acoustic disturbance to 

21 sperm whales. Sperm whales are also deep divers, spending relatively little time at the surface 

22 while feeding. Therefore, they may be less likely to receive any surface shielding afforded by 

23 refractive effects caused by near surface hydrographic conditions, which can sometimes occur. 

24 As air gun arrays are generally configured to produce a maximum, low frequency energy lobe 

25 directly downwards toward the seabed, sperm whales may enter a region of increased 

26 ensonification.

27

28 Dwarf and pygmy sperm whales are also deep-diving and use echolocation clicks in the 

29 sonic and low ultrasonic frequency range (Willis and Baird 1998). Few audiograms have been 

30 obtained for pygmy sperm whales, dwarf sperm whales, or beaked whales (Cook et al. 2006; 

31 Finneran et al. 2009; Ridgway and Carder 2001), so there still are insufficient data to determine

32 avoidance thresholds. Like sperm whales, they may be sensitive to a wide range of sound 

33 frequencies, including those produced by air gun arrays. Similarly, beaked whales are also deep 

34 divers, use echolocation clicks to find their prey, and have been shown to be susceptible to 

35 acoustic disturbance (Frantzis 1998; Balcomb and Claridge 2001). Since they have similar 

36 deep-diving habits and relatively widespread distributions in the GOM, this may warrant concern 

37 for dwarf and pygmy sperm whales and beaked whales.

38

39 Delphinids include dolphins, killer whales, and pilot whales. Several studies have been 

40 conducted documenting the effects of seismic operations on delphinid species. Finneran et al. 

41 (2000a) discuss a behavioral response study measuring masked underwater hearing thresholds in 

42 bottlenose dolphin and beluga whale, before and after exposure to seismic pulses from a 

43 watergun. Ridgway et al. (1997) showed that captive delphinids produced behavioral reactions 

44 at levels at least 10 dB below those that induced TTS. Soto et al. (2006) and Van Parijs and 

45 Corkeron (2001) showed vessel presence is sufficient to change behavior in some species and 

46 situations. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-243

1 Dolphin species are generally mid- to high-frequency hearing specialists 

2 (Southall et al. 2007). While air guns are primarily low frequency (<200 Hz), they are 

3 considered broadband and therefore there is energy at higher frequencies. These energies 

4 encompass the entire audio frequency range of 20 Hz to 20 kHz (Goold and Fish 1998), and 

5 extend well into the ultrasonic range up to 50 kHz (Sodal 1999). This high-frequency energy 

6 must be taken into account when considering seismic interactions with Delphinids. The high7 frequency components of air gun emissions are of sufficient level to exceed the dolphin auditory 

8 threshold curve at these low frequencies, even after spreading loss (Goold and Fish 1998).

9

10 Some studies, such as Wakefield (2001), have shown that vocal behaviors of common 

11 dolphins may be altered by air guns. Stone (1996, 1997a, b, 1998) reported that common 

12 dolphins, white beaked dolphins, and white sided dolphins were sighted in the vicinity of seismic 

13 surveys less often when the guns were firing than when they were not firing. However, some 

14 marine mammals are known to continue calling in the presence of seismic pulses. Their calls 

15 can be heard between the seismic pulses (e.g., Richardson et al. 1986; McDonald et al. 1995; 

16 Greene et al. 1999; Nieukirk et al. 2004; Smultea et al. 2004). Although Delphinids specialize in 

17 hearing ranges generally outside of the majority of seismic survey impulse sounds, there is still 

18 the potential for sounds from these surveys to fall within the acoustic sensitivity of toothed 

19 whales and for behavioral responses to seismic noise to occur.

20

21 Masking. Auditory masking occurs when a sound signal that is of importance to a marine 

22 mammal (e.g., communication calls, echolocation, environmental sound cues) is rendered 

23 undetectable due to the high noise-to-signal ratio in a frequency band relevant to a marine 

24 mammal‘s hearing range. In other words, noise can cause the masking of sounds that marine 

25 mammals need to hear to in order to function effectively (Erbe et al. 1999). If sounds used by 

26 the marine mammals are masked to the point where they cannot provide the individual with 

27 needed information, critical natural behaviors could be disrupted and harm could result (Erbe and 

28 Farmer 1998). 

29

30 In the case of seismic surveys, where potential masking noise takes a pulsed form with a 

31 low duty cycle (~10%, or 1 s of active sound for every 10 s of ambient noise) (MMS 2004), the 

32 effect of masking is likely to be low relative to continuous sounds such as ship noise. Some 

33 marine mammals are known to continue calling in the presence of seismic pulses. Their calls 

34 can be heard between the seismic pulses (e.g., Richardson et al. 1986; McDonald et al. 1995; 

35 Greene et al. 1999; Nieukirk et al. 2004; Smultea et al. 2004). Bowles et al. (1994) reported that 

36 sperm whales ceased calling when exposed to pulses from a very distant seismic ship, while 

37 other studies reported that sperm whales continued calling in the presence of seismic pulses 

38 (Madsen et al. 2002; Tyack et al. 2003; Smultea et al. 2004; Holst et al. 2006; 

39 Jochens et al. 2006).

40

41 Some marine mammals are known to increase the source levels of their calls in the 

42 presence of elevated sound levels, or to shift their peak frequencies in response to strong sound 

43 signals (Dahlheim 1987; Au 1993; review in Richardson et al. 1995;Lesage et al. 1999; Terhune 

44 1999; Nieukirk et al. 2005; Parks et al. 2007). However, these studies tested other anthropogenic 

45 sounds, not seismic pulses, and it is not known if air guns would elicit this same response. If so, 

46 these adaptations would all reduce the importance of masking.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-244

1 Construction of Offshore Facilities and Pipelines. Figure 4.4.7-2 presents a conceptual 

2 model for potential effects of infrastructure construction on marine mammals. Construction and 

3 trenching activities may affect habitat use for the short or long-term. Marine mammals are 

4 mobile and able to avoid areas where construction or trenching is occurring so they are less 

5 likely to be injured or killed but their behavior may be altered. Noise and human activity 

6 associated with the construction of offshore facilities and pipelines (e.g., pile driving, vessel 

7 presence) could disturb marine mammals that may be present in the vicinity of the construction 

8 activity. Construction activities could disturb normal behaviors (e.g., feeding, social 

9 interactions), mask calls from conspecifics, disrupt echolocation capabilities, temporarily affect 

10 localized air/water quality and mask sounds generated by predators. Depending on the size of 

11 the project, at any single location, offshore construction and trenching activities would be of 

12 relatively short duration since the majority of construction activities would occur on land. The 

13 length of time necessary for offshore construction depends on what is being constructed, the 

14 water depth, procurement activities, the climatic conditions to install the platform could be 

15 considered. It also depends on if the construction project is a fixed platform, semi-submersible 

16 platform, or jack-up drilling platform and each one could take approximately 1 to 2 months to set

17 up, depending on the contractor. In addition, running a pipeline likely would not take more than 

18 2–3 weeks.

19

20 Animals may leave the vicinity of a constructions area. Some known locations for the 

21 endangered sperm whale includes, but is not limited to, the continental slope waters off the 

22 Mississippi River Delta in the Central Planning Area (Jochens 2007; Davis et al. 2000; 

23 MMS 2004a). Portions of the GOM that would be disturbed by the construction of new wells 

24 and pipelines would be largely limited to the immediate footprint of the new structure and its 

25 surroundings. Animals would be expected to locate to other suitable habitat nearby. Some 

26 permanent displacement may occur, but would be largely limited to the local environment 

27 surrounding individual wells or areas with well aggregations, and thus would not be expected to 

28 affect overall habitat availability or cetacean access.

29

30 Currently in the northern GOM, the West Indian manatee is the only marine mammal that 

31 has a federally designated critical habitat, and this habitat is limited to specific coastal and inland 

32 marine and freshwater areas in peninsular Florida (west, southeast, and northeast Florida). As 

33 pipeline landfalls and land-based facilities associated with the proposed action would not be 

34 located in Florida, no impacts to West Indian manatee critical habitat would occur.

35

36 Under the proposed action, only a few individuals or small groups of marine mammals 

37 would be temporarily disturbed behaviorally by routine construction of offshore facilities, and 

38 disturbance of these individuals, given their localized nature, would not be expected to result in 

39 population-level effects. Any impacts on marine mammals incurred from structure placement or 

40 trenching would be short term and localized to the construction area and immediate 

41 surroundings, and therefore unlikely to cause more than minor impacts to marine mammals. 

42 Onshore construction and operation activities are unlikely to impact cetacean and sirenian 

43 populations. Overall, the impacts associated with construction of offshore facilities and pipelines 

44 are unlikely to have significant adverse effects on the size and recovery of any marine mammals 

45 species or population in the GOM. It is assumed that BOEM will continue to implement GOM 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences 4-245

12 FIGURE 4.4.7

-2 Conceptual Model for Potential Effects of Infrastructure Construction on Marine Mammals
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-246

1 guidelines currently in place to reduce impacts to marine mammals such as vessel strike 

2 avoidance measures and marine debris awareness.

3

4 Operations of Offshore Facilities and Drilling Rigs. Noise from drilling could be 

5 intermittent, sudden, and at times could be high intensity as operations take place. Sound from a 

6 fixed, ongoing source like an operating drillship is continuous. However, the distinction between 

7 transient and continuous sounds is not absolute on a drillship, as generators and pumps operate 

8 essentially continuously; however, there are occasional transient bangs and clangs from various 

9 impacts during operations (Richardson et al. 1995). Estimated frequencies from drilling by 

10 semisubmersible vessels are broadband from 80 to 4,000 Hz, with an estimated source level of 

11 154 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m. Tones of 60 Hz had source levels of 149 dB, 181 Hz was 137 dB, and 

12 301 Hz was 136 dB (Greene 1986). The potential effects that water-transmitted noise have on 

13 marine mammals include disturbance (subtle changes in behavior, interruption of previous 

14 activities, or short- or long-term displacement), masking of sounds (calls from conspecifics, 

15 reverberations from own calls, and other natural sounds such as surf or predators), physiological 

16 stress, and hearing impairment. Individual marine mammals exposed to recurring disturbance 

17 could be negatively affected. Malme et al. (1986) observed the behavior of feeding gray whales 

18 in the Bering Sea during four experimental playbacks of drilling sounds (50–315 Hz; 21-minute 

19 overall duration and 10% duty cycle; source levels of 156–162 dB re: 1 μPa-m). In two cases for 

20 received levels 100–110 dB re: 1 μPa, there was no observed behavioral reaction. Avoidance 

21 behavior was observed in two cases where received levels were 110–120 dB re: 1 μPa. These 

22 source levels are all below NMFS‘s current 160-dB level B harassment threshold under the 

23 MMPA. 

24

25 The source levels from drilling are relatively low (154 dB and below, as cited by Greene 

26 [1986] in Richardson et al. [1995]), below the level B (behavioral) harassment threshold of 

27 160 dB (set by NMFS). According to Southall et al. (2007), for behavioral responses to 

28 nonpulses (such as drill noise), data indicate considerable variability in received levels associated 

29 with behavioral responses. Contextual variables (such as novelty of the sound to the marine 

30 mammal and operation features of the sound source) appear to have been at least as important as 

31 exposure level in predicting response type and magnitude. While there is some data from the 

32 Arctic on baleen whales, there is little data on the behavioral responses of marine mammals in 

33 the GOM from the sound of drilling. Southall et al. (2007) summarized the existing research, 

34 stating that the probability of avoidance and other behavioral effects increases when received 

35 levels increase from 120 to 160 dB. Marine mammals may exhibit some avoidance behaviors, 

36 but their behavioral or physiological responses to noise associated with the proposed action, 

37 however, are unlikely to have population-level impacts to marine mammals in the northern 

38 GOM.

39

40 Discharges and Waste Generation. Table 4.4.1-1 presents information on drilling fluids, 

41 drill cuttings, and produced waters discharged offshore as a result of the proposed action. 

42 Produced water, drilling muds, and drill cuttings are discharged into offshore marine waters in 

43 compliance with applicable regulations and permits. Compliance with regulations and permits 

44 will limit the exposure of marine mammals to waste discharges. The discharge or disposal of 

45 solid debris into offshore waters from OCS structures and vessels is prohibited by the BOEM 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-247

1 (30 CFR 250.40) and the USCG (International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from 

2 Ships [MARPOL], Annex V, P.L. 100-220 [101 Statute 1458]). 

3

4 Most operational discharges are diluted and dispersed when released in offshore areas 

5 and are considered to have sublethal effects (NRC 1983; API 1989; Kennicutt 1995; 

6 Kennicutt et al. 1996). Any potential impacts from drilling fluids would be indirect, either as a 

7 result of impacts to prey species or possibly through ingestion via the food chain 

8 (Neff et al. 1989). However, marine mammals are generally not considered good 

9 bioaccumulators of petroleum compounds from eating contaminated prey due to rapid 

10 metabolism and excretion rates (Neff 1990). As such, impacts from discharges related to the 

11 proposed action would not be expected to result in long term impacts to marine mammals 

12 because these compounds would not assimilated.

13

14 Many types of plastic materials end up as solid waste during drilling and production 

15 operations. Some of this material is accidentally lost overboard where cetaceans could consume 

16 it or become entangled in it. The incidental ingestion of marine debris and entanglement could 

17 adversely affect marine mammals. Industry has made good progress in debris management on 

18 vessels and offshore structures in the last several years. It is assumed that BOEM will continue 

19 to require implementation of current trash and debris elimination guidelines that appreciably 

20 reduce the likelihood of marine mammals encountering marine debris from the proposed action. 

21 Thus, impacts to marine mammals from entanglement in or ingestion of OCS-related trash and 

22 debris under the proposed action would be negligible to minor.

23

24 Service Vessel and Helicopter Traffic. There may be 300 to 600 vessel and 2,000 to 

25 5,500 helicopter trips per week under the proposed action (Table 4.4.1-1). Figure 4.4.7-3

26 presents a conceptual model for the potential effect of vessel traffic on marine mammals. Vessel 

27 traffic could occur during seismic exploration, drilling and platform construction, platform

28 operation, and platform decommissioning. 

29

30 Ship strikes are a concern for marine mammals. There have been documented reports of 

31 cetaceans being struck by ships in the oceans throughout the world (Laist et al. 2001; Jensen and 

32 Silber 2004; Glass et al. 2008), although none to date in the GOM as a result of offshore oil/gas 

33 operations. Analyses by Vanderlaan and Taggart (2007) provides evidence that as vessel speeds 

34 fall below 15 knots (27.75 km/hr or 17.25 mph), there is a substantial decrease in the probability 

35 of a vessel strike to prove lethal to a large whale. Collisions with vessels greater than 80 m 

36 (260 ft) in length are usually either lethal or result in severe injuries (Laist et al. 2001). In 

37 addition, a majority of ship strikes seemed to occur over or near the continental shelf. Collisions 

38 with vessels can cause major wounds on marine mammals and/or be fatal. Debilitating injuries 

39 may have negative effects on a population through impairment of reproductive output 

40 (MMS 2003e). Cetaceans are more likely to be struck by vessels if they are young or sick, slow 

41 swimmers, distracted by feeding or mating activities, habituated to vessels, or congregated in an 

42 area for feeding or breeding (Dolman et al. 2006). Vessel strikes in inland waterways are a 

43 major cause of death in the manatee population. Because this species is rare in these planning 

44 areas, encounters with OCS-related vessels in these areas would be unlikely.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-248

1 Deep-diving whales, such as the sperm whale, may be more vulnerable to vessel strikes 

2 given the longer surface period required to recover from extended deep dives. NMFS has 

3 determined that vessel strikes are a ―discountable‖ concern for sperm whales when vessel 

4 avoidance measures are implemented (USDOC, NMFS 2007b); it is assumed for the purpose of 

5 this analysis that BOEM will continue to requirement operator implementation of such avoidance 

6 criteria and speed limitations.

7

8 It is possible that noise produced from vessels and, to a lesser extent helicopters, can 

9 cause disturbance, masking of sounds, and physiological stress. The dominant source of noise 

10 from vessels is from the propeller operation, and the intensity of this noise is largely related to 

11 ship size and speed. Vessel noise from activities resulting from the proposed action will produce 

12 low levels of noise, generally in the 150- to 170-dB re 1 μPa-m at frequencies below 1,000 Hz. 

13 Vessel noise is transitory and generally does not propagate at great distances from the vessel. 

14

15 The noise and the shadow from helicopter overflights, take-offs, and landings can cause a 

16 startle response and can interrupt whales and dolphins while resting, feeding, breeding, or 

17 migrating (Richardson et al. 1995). The Federal Aviation Administration‘s Advisory 

18 Circular 91-36D (September 17, 2004) encourages pilots to maintain higher than minimum 

19 altitudes over noise-sensitive areas. Guidelines and regulations put in place by NOAA Fisheries 

20 under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act include provisions specifying that 

21 helicopter pilots maintain an altitude of 305 m (1,000 ft) within 91 m (300 ft) of marine 

22 mammals. Helicopter occurrences would be temporary and pass within seconds. Marine 

23 mammals are not expected to be adversely affected by routine helicopter traffic operating at 

24 prescribed altitudes.

25

26 Decommissioning. Under the proposed action, 150 to 275 platforms may be removed 

27 with explosives from the northern GOM. Figure 4.4.7-4 presents a conceptual model for 

28 potential impacts of decommissioning on marine mammals. 

29

30 BOEM published a programmatic EA on decommissioning operations (MMS 2005) that, 

31 in part, addresses the potential impacts of explosive- and nonexplosive-severance activities on 

32 OCS resources, particularly upon marine mammals and sea turtles. Pursuant to 30 CFR 250 

33 Subpart Q, operators must obtain a permit from BOEM before beginning any platform removal 

34 or well-severance activities. The NMFS has issued regulations (50 CFR Part 216) under the 

35 MMPA for ―Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Explosive Removal of Offshore 

36 Structures in the Gulf of Mexico,‖ and operators are required to obtain a Letter of Authorization 

37 from NMFS in accordance with these regulatory conditions. This analysis assumes the 

38 continued implementation of current BOEM guidelines on decommissioning which specify 

39 limits on the type and size of explosives that can be used and the times when detonations can 

40 occur; require explosives to be placed at a minimum depth of 15 m (49 ft) below the sediment 

41 surface; and require a monitoring plan that uses qualified observers to monitor the detonation 

42 area for protected species, including all marine mammals, prior to and after each detonation. The 

43 detection of a marine mammal (or other applicable biota) within the blast zone would, without 

44 exception, would delay explosive detonation. Thus, explosive platform removals conducted 

45 under the proposed action and complying with BOEM guidelines would not be expected to 

46 adversely affect marine mammals in the GOM.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences 4-249

12 FIGURE 4.4.7

-3 Conceptual Model for Potential Effects of Vessel Traffic on Marine Mammals

34
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences 4-250

12 FIGURE 4.4.7

-4 Conceptual Model for Potential Effects of Decommissioning on Marine Mammals

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-251

1 Accidents. Potential effects on marine mammal species may occur from accidental 

2 activities associated with the proposed action and may be direct or indirect. Accidental oil spills 

3 could occur in the GOM under the proposed action (Section 4.4.2.1). Tables 4.4.2-1 and 4.4.2-2 

4 presents the oil spill assumptions for the purpose of analyzing the proposed action, while 

5 Figure 4.4.7-5 presents a conceptual model for potential effects of oil spills on marine mammals. 

6

7 The major potential impact-producing factors include accidental blowouts, platform and 

8 pipeline oil spills, and spill-response activities. Impacts (i.e., acute vs. chronic impacts) depend 

9 on the magnitude, frequency, location, and date of accidents; characteristics of spilled oil; spill10 response capabilities and timing; and various meteorological and hydrological factors. Impacts 

11 could include decreased health, reproductive fitness, and longevity; and increased vulnerability 

12 to disease). Spilled oil can cause soft tissue irritation, fouling of baleen plates, respiratory stress 

13 from inhalation of toxic fumes, food reduction or contamination, direct ingestion of oil and/or 

14 tar, and temporary displacement from preferred habitats (St. Aubin and Lounsbury 1990; Geraci 

15 and St. Aubin 1990). The long-term impacts to marine mammal populations are poorly 

16 understood but could include decreased survival and lowered reproductive success. Impacts 

17 from dispersants are unknown but may be irritants to tissues and sensitive membranes 

18 (NRC 2005). Chronic or acute exposure may result in harassment, harm, or mortality to marine 

19 mammals. In some cases, marine mammals made no apparent attempt to avoid spilled oil in 

20 some cases (Smultea and Würsig 1995); however, marine mammals have been observed 

21 apparently detecting and avoiding slicks in other reports (Geraci and St. Aubin 1990). 

22

23 Impacts on marine mammals from smaller accidental events may adversely affect 

24 individual marine mammals in the spill area, but are unlikely to rise to the level of population 

25 effects (or significance) given the size and scope of such spills. Assuming that all small spills 

26 would not occur at the same time and place, water quality would rapidly recover and therefore 

27 would not have significant effects on marine mammals or their prey species. The potential 

28 effects associated with a large spill may be more adverse than a smaller accidental spill and 

29 could potentially contribute to longer-lasting effects. The long-term impacts to marine mammal 

30 populations could include decreased survival and lowered reproductive success. For example, 

31 the oil from an oil spill can adversely affect cetaceans by causing soft tissue irritation, fouling of 

32 baleen plates, respiratory stress from inhalation of toxic fumes, food reduction or contamination, 

33 direct ingestion of oil and/or tar, and temporary displacement from preferred habitats. However, 

34 the range of toxicity and degree of sensitivity to oil hydrocarbons and the effects of cleanup 

35 activities on cetaceans are not fully understood. Similarly, impacts to marine mammals from 

36 dispersants are not fully understood, but may be irritants to tissues and sensitive membranes 

37 (NRC 2005). One assumption concerning the use of dispersants is that the chemical dispersion 

38 of oil will considerably reduce the impacts to marine mammals, primarily by reducing their 

39 exposure to petroleum hydrocarbons (French-McCay 2004; NRC 2005). However, the impacts 

40 to marine mammals from chemical dispersants could include nonlethal injury (e.g., tissue 

41 irritation, inhalation), long-term exposure through bioaccumulation, and potential shifts in 

42 distribution from some habitats.

43

44 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE up to 7.2 million bbl 

45 (Table 4.4.2-2). If a CDE occurs, there is greater potential for more severe effects compared to 

46 the risk of effects from a large oil spill. A CDE would result in sustained degradation of water 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences 4-252

12 FIGURE 4.4.7

-5 Conceptual Model for Potential Effects of Oil Spills on Marine Mammals

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-253

1 quality and, to a lesser extent, air quality that would impact marine mammals from direct contact, 

2 inhalation, and ingestion (either directly or indirectly through the consumption of oiled forage or 

3 prey species). These effects would be significant, causing a multitude of acute and chronic 

4 effects. Additional effects on marine mammals would occur from water and air quality 

5 degradation associated with response and cleanup vessels, in situ burning of oil, dispersant use, 

6 discharges and seafloor disturbances from relief well drilling, and activities on shorelines 

7 associated with cleanup, booming, beach cleaning, and monitoring. A CDE has the potential to 

8 increase the area and duration of an oil spill, thereby increasing the potential for population-level 

9 effects, or at a minimum, an increase in the number of individuals killed. For example, 

10 following the DWH event, dead marine mammals collected from April 30, 2010, through 

11 April 12, 2011, included 142 bottlenose dolphins, 3 spinner dolphins, and 2 each of Kogia spp., 

12 melon-headed whales, and sperm whales (NMFS 2011b).

13

14 Terrestrial Mammals. The terrestrial mammals considered in this section are those 

15 species listed as endangered under the ESA that may be affected by routine OCS operations or 

16 accidents under the proposed action. These include the Alabama, Choctawhatchee, Perdido Key, 

17 and St. Andrew beach mice (subspecies of the old-field mouse) and the Florida salt marsh vole 

18 (Section 3.8.1.1.2).

19

20 Routine Operations. The endangered beach mice subspecies inhabit mature coastal 

21 barrier sand dunes on the Alabama and northwest Florida coasts; the Florida salt marsh vole 

22 inhabits salt marsh habitats and is known from two locations (Waccasassa Bay in Levy County, 

23 Florida, and the Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge), in southeastern Dixie and 

24 northwestern Levy Counties, Florida; Figure 3.8.1-1). Under the proposed action, no new OCS25 related facilities or activities would occur in close proximity to the known habitats for these 

26 species; therefore, routine operations would not affect any of the species.

27

28 Accidents. Three types of oil residues on or near beach environments are particularly 

29 challenging or potentially damaging to the environment if removed (OSAT 2011):

30

31 • Supratidal buried oil — oil residue typically buried below the 15-cm (6-in.) 

32 surface cleaning depth near sensitive habitats, removal of which would 

33 damage these sensitive habitats and affect protected species;

34

35 • Small surface residual balls — oil residue left behind after beaches are 

36 cleaned (removal would involve sieving sand so finely that it could remove 

37 material used for habitat by organisms, thus altering the natural condition of 

38 the beach; and

39

40 • Surf zone submerged oil mats — submerged oil mats in nearshore surf zone in 

41 troughs between sand bars.

42

43 In the event of an accidental offshore or coastal oil spill, the four beach mice subspecies 

44 and the vole species could be affected by oil washing up on their beach habitats, and by 

45 subsequent spill containment and cleanup activities. Individuals coming in direct contact with 

46 spilled oil may experience skin, ear, eye, throat, and mucous membrane irritations. Oiling of fur 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-254

1 may affect thermoregulation. Individuals inhaling petroleum vapors may aggravate linings of 

2 the respiratory system and in extreme cases may result in asphyxiation. Oil may be ingested 

3 through contaminated food or during cleaning of oiled fur. Exposure to oil via inhalation or 

4 ingestion may lead to a variety of lethal and sublethal effects, including lung, liver, and kidney 

5 damage. Beach mice could be exposed to small surface residual balls via ingestion of residual 

6 oil in soil and by exposure in their burrows (OSAT 2011).

7

8 In addition to affecting individuals, an oil spill may also affect the habitats of these small 

9 mammals. Oil contacting their habitats could result in a reduced food supply (oiled vegetation), 

10 reduced physical habitat quality (oiled sands), and fouling of nests and burrows. The fouling of 

11 nests and burrows may also lead to a temporary displacement from or permanent abandonment 

12 of these habitats. Depending on the persistence of the oil in these habitats and the effectiveness 

13 of spill cleanup, long-term reductions in overall habitat quality and quantity may be possible.

14

15 An accidental spill fairly close to shore would have the potential to contact beaches 

16 adjacent to beach mouse habitat, particularly if a spill were to occur nearshore or within inshore 

17 waterways. However, beach mice are generally restricted to interior dune habitats, which would 

18 not be expected to come in contact with spilled oil unless the accident occurred during a period 

19 of high storm surge. In contrast, habitats of the Florida salt marsh vole may be more vulnerable 

20 to an oil spill because of their being connected to coastal waters. However, the location of this 

21 species and its habitat on the western Florida coast are far removed from those portions of the 

22 GOM OCS where exploration and development might occur under the proposed action.

23

24 If an oil spill occurs and contacts a coastal area associated with these species, oil spill 

25 response activities, including beach cleanup activities and vehicular and pedestrian traffic, could 

26 result in habitat degradation. However, cleanup activities would be designed and conducted in 

27 consultation with the USFWS and other appropriate stakeholders so that the potential for impacts 

28 on these species and their habitats would be minimized or avoided.

29

30 Large-scale oiling of beach mice or vole habitats could result in extinctions, and if not 

31 properly regulated, oil spill-response and cleanup activities could have a significant impact on 

32 the species and their habitats. Vehicle traffic and activity associated with oil spill cleanup can 

33 trample or bury nests and burrows or cause displacement from preferred habitat (MMS 2008b). 

34 If disturbance results in the temporary abandonment of young by adults, survival of young may 

35 be reduced (MMS 2007d).

36

37 The probabilities of large oil spills ( 1,000 bbl) resulting from the proposed action 

38 occurring and contacting beach mouse or Florida salt marsh vole habitat within 3 to 30 days from 

39 a spill in various locations in the WPA, CPA, and far western EPA is ≤5%. In most instances, 

40 the probabilities were 0% to 1% (MMS 2004a). Direct contact with spilled oil that has washed 

41 ashore can cause skin and eye irritation, asphyxiation from inhalation of fumes, oil ingestion, and 

42 reduction or contamination of food sources. A slick cannot wash over the fore dunes unless 

43 carried by a heavy storm swell. High seas would be necessary to cause a spill slick to landfall 

44 and affect beach mice, Florida salt marsh voles, or their habitats. However, erosion with high 

45 seas during storms is likely to do more damage to rodent habitat than oiling.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-255

1 Protective measures required under the ESA should prevent any oil spill-response and 

2 cleanup activities from having more than minor impacts on beach mice, the Florida salt marsh 

3 vole, and their habitats (MMS 2003e).

4

5 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE up to 7.2 million bbl 

6 (Table 4.4.2-2). If a CDE occurs, there is greater potential for more severe effects compared to 

7 the risk of effects from a large oil spill. A CDE would potentially result in sustained degradation 

8 of water quality, shoreline terrestrial habitats, and, to a lesser extent, air quality that could impact 

9 terrestrial mammals from direct contact, inhalation, and ingestion (either directly or indirectly 

10 through the consumption of oiled forage or prey species). These effects could be significant, 

11 causing a multitude of acute and chronic effects. Additional effects on terrestrial mammals 

12 would occur from land and air quality degradation associated with response and cleanup vessels, 

13 in situ burning of oil, dispersant use, and activities on shorelines associated with cleanup, 

14 booming, beach cleaning, and monitoring. A CDE has the potential to alter terrestrial mammal 

15 habitats and populations, and, could foreseeably contribute to population-level effects on one or 

16 more of the beach mice subspecies and/or the Florida salt marsh vole. The potential for these 

17 impacts would be more probable if the catastrophic discharge event occurs coincident with a 

18 severe storm event (e.g., a hurricane).

19

20

21 4.4.7.1.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet.

22

23 Marine Mammals. There are 18 species of marine mammals that occur in south 

24 Alaskan waters and that may either occur in or near (such as the Gulf of Alaska, Kenai 

25 Peninsula, and Kodiak Archipelago) the Cook Inlet Planning Area (Section 3.8.1.2.1; 

26 Table 3.8.1-2). Nine of these species or species stocks are threatened or endangered under the 

27 ESA. These species include the North Pacific right, sei, blue, fin, humpback, sperm, and beluga 

28 whales; the Steller sea lion; and the sea otter. The non-listed species commonly occur in 

29 portions in or near the Cook Inlet Planning Area (MMS 2003e). Marine mammals may be 

30 exposed to OCS-related oil and gas exploration, development, and operations that could occur 

31 under the proposed action.

32

33 Routine Operations. As part of the proposed action, a maximum of 4 to 12 exploration 

34 and delineation wells and 42 to 114 development and production wells will be drilled and 1 to 

35 3 new platforms are projected to be used. Additional activities planned as part of the proposed 

36 action include 40 to 241 km (25 to 150 mi) of new offshore pipeline. No onshore facilities or 

37 pipelines are proposed under the proposed action (Section 4.4.1.2). Table 4.4.7-1 

38 (Section 4.4.7.1) illustrates how each of the impacting factors associated with OCS oil and gas 

39 development may affect marine mammals and their habitats, while Figure 4.4.7-1 

40 (Section 4.4.7.1) presents a conceptual model of potential impacting factors for marine mammals 

41 from oil- and gas-related activities (including accidental oil spills). The following text presents 

42 an overview of potential impacts to marine mammals in and near Cook Inlet from the following 

43 routine operations (seismic surveys, construction of offshore facilities and pipelines, operations 

44 of offshore facilities and drilling rigs, discharges and waste generation, service vessel and 

45 helicopter traffic, and decommissioning) and from accidents.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-256

1 Seismic Surveys. Section 4.4.7.1 provides a detailed discussion of the issues surrounding 

2 anthropogenic noise. In Cook Inlet, noise generated by seismic surveys may have physical 

3 and/or behavioral effects on marine mammals, such as (1) permanent or temporary hearing loss, 

4 discomfort, and injury; (2) masking of important sound signals; and (3) behavioral responses 

5 such as fright, avoidance, and changes in physical or vocal behavior (Richardson et al. 1995; 

6 R.A. Davis et al. 1998b; Gordon et al. 1998; Nowacek et al. 2004, 2007). Seismic surveys may 

7 also indirectly impact marine mammals by altering prey availability (Gordon et al. 2003, 2004). 

8

9 Non-Auditory Injury. Direct acoustic impact on tissue, indirect acoustic impact on tissue 

10 surrounding a structure, and acoustically mediated bubble growth within tissues from 

11 supersaturated dissolved nitrogen gas (if source intense and animals within short distance to 

12 source: Nowacek et al. 2007; Zimmer and Tyack 2007); resonance (although not anticipated 

13 given resonance frequencies of marine mammal lungs are generally below that of the G&G 

14 seismic survey source signal).

15

16 Auditory Injury (Temporary or Permanent Hearing Loss). The hearing of marine 

17 mammals varies based on individuals, absolute threshold of the species, masking, localization, 

18 frequency discrimination, and the motivation to be sensitive to a sound (Richardson et al. 1995).

19 As stated previously, Southall et al. (2007) described the frequency sensitivity in five functional 

20 hearing. Similarly, the previous discussion in Section 4.4.7.1 on permanent and temporary loss 

21 of hearing in a marine mammal (i.e., PTS, TTS) is incorporated.

22

23 Masking. In the case of seismic surveys in Cook Inlet, , the effect of masking is likely to 

24 be low relative to continuous sounds such as ship noise. In addition, a few cetaceans are known 

25 to increase the source levels of their calls in the presence of elevated sound levels, or to shift 

26 their peak frequencies in response to strong sound signals (Dahlheim 1987; Au 1993; review in 

27 Richardson et al. 1995; Lesage et al. 1999; Terhune 1999; Nieukirk et al. 2005; 

28 Parks et al. 2007). These studies involved exposure to other types of anthropogenic sounds, not 

29 seismic pulses, and it is not known whether these types of responses ever occur upon exposure to 

30 seismic sounds. If so, these adaptations, along with directional hearing and preadaptation to 

31 tolerate some masking by natural sounds (Richardson et al. 1995), would all reduce the 

32 importance of masking.

33

34 Behavioral Change. As described in Section 4.4.7.1, a number of studies have 

35 documented behavioral effects in response to seismic surveys, primarily for mysticetes 

36 (Richardson et al. 1995), given their possible overlap between the expected frequencies of best 

37 hearing sensitivity (low threshold) in mysticetes and maximal air gun output at source. Given 

38 that no direct audiograms of mysticetes have been obtained, it is impossible to define what level 

39 of sound above hearing threshold may cause behavioral effects, which could be expected to be 

40 variable, complicated and dependent upon more than just the received sound level. For this 

41 reason, observations at sea have concentrated on relating received sound levels to observed 

42 behavioral changes. 

43

44 Beluga whales are mid-frequency hearing specialists. The Southall et al. (2007) data 

45 review discussed the Finneran et al. (2002b) experiment using a seismic watergun which 

46 produced a single acoustic pulse. They conducted this test on one beluga and one bottlenose 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-257

1 dolphin. Based on Finneran et al. (2002), for belugas exposed to a single pulse, TTS-onset 

2 occurred with unweighted peak levels of 224 dB re: 1 μPa (peak) and 186 dB re: 1 μPa2-s. The 

3 latter is equivalent to a weighted (M- weighting for mid-frequency marine mammals) SEL 

4 exposure of 183 dB re: 1 μPa2-s as some of the energy in the pulse was at low frequencies to

5 which the beluga is less sensitive. Adding 6 dB to the former (224 dB) values, Southall et al. 

6 (2007) estimates the pressure criterion for injury for mid-frequency cetaceans is 230 dB re: 1 μPa 

7 (peak).

8

9 Southall et al. (2007) also went on to discuss pinnipeds, which include 16 species and 

10 subspecies of sea lions and fur seals (otariids), 23 species and subspecies of true seals (phocids), 

11 and two subspecies of walrus (odobenids). They produce a variety of social signals, most 

12 occurring at relatively low frequencies but lack the highly specialized active biosonar systems of 

13 toothed cetaceans. Because of they are active both in and out of water, pinnipeds communicate 

14 acoustically in air and water, have significantly different hearing capabilities in the air versus 

15 water, and may be subject to both aerial and underwater noise exposure (Schusterman 1981; 

16 Kastak & Schusterman 1998, 1999 in Southall et al. 2007). Therefore, pinnipeds have two 

17 different hearing criteria. However, since seismic surveys are less likely to affect pinnipeds, 

18 such as Steller sea lions, in air, the in-water criteria is discussed here. It is also acknowledged 

19 that there are ―among species differences in the exposure conditions that elicited TTS under 

20 water‖ (Southall et al. 2007). Steller sea lion hearing has not specifically been studied but for the 

21 purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that their hearing is comparable to that of California sea 

22 lions. Comparative analyses of the combined underwater pinniped data (Kastak et al. 2005) 

23 indicated that, in the harbor seal, a TTS of ca. 6 dB occurred with 25-min exposure to 2.5 kHz 

24 OBN with SPL of 152 dB re: 1 μPa (SEL: 183 dB re: 1 μPa2-s). Under the same test conditions, 

25 a California sea lion showed TTS-onset at 174 dB re: 1 μPa (SEL: 206 dB re: 1 μPa2-s), and a 

26 northern elephant seal experienced TTS-onset at 172 dB re: 1 μPa (SEL: 204 dB re: 1 μPa2-s). 

27 Data on underwater TTS-onset in pinnipeds exposed to pulses are limited to a single study.

28 Finneran et al. (2003) exposed two California sea lions to single underwater pulses from an arc29 gap transducer. They found no measurable TTS following exposures up to 183 dB re: 1 μPa 

30 (peak-to-peak) (SEL: 163 dB re: 1 μPa2-s).

31

32 The Southall et al. (2007) criteria do not cover sea otter due to a lack of key hearing data. 

33 Further, there is little information on the effects of noise associated with oil and gas exploration 

34 on sea otters. Their production and use of sound underwater has not been studied. Airborne 

35 sounds are diverse and include high-pitched screams, whines, whistles, deep-throated growls, 

36 cooing, chuckles, and snarls (Kenyon 1981). Mothers and their pups communicate by calling, 

37 and both call to one another if separated. Most of the sounds in these mother-pup 

38 communications are 3-5 Hertz, but there are higher harmonics. Sandegren, Chu, and Vandervere 

39 (1973) recorded these calls from a distance of 50 meters in air. It is not known how far sea otters 

40 can hear these sounds. Available data do not indicate that sea otters are likely to be seriously 

41 impacted by seismic exploration. Riedman (1983, 1984) reported no evident disturbance 

42 reactions by sea otters in California coastal waters in response to noise from a full-scale array of 

43 air guns (67 L) and a single air gun. No disturbance was noted either when the operating seismic 

44 ship passed as close as 1.85 and 0.9 kilometers to sea otters. Sea otters continued to feed, groom, 

45 interact with pups, rest, and to engage in other normal behaviors. Riedman (1983, 1984) 

46 reported there was also no apparent reaction to the single air gun. Riedman (1983) cautioned 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-258

1 that there are no data for the reactions of sea otters more than 400 meters offshore. Riedman 

2 (1983, 1984) reported no evidence of changes in behavior of sea otters during underwater 

3 playbacks of drillship, semisubmersible, and production platform sound. Most of the animals 

4 studied were 400 or more meters from the source of the sound. Foraging otters continued to dive 

5 and feed.

6

7 Whales and other marine mammals sometimes continue with important behaviors even in 

8 the presence of noise. Some marine mammals may be motivated by feeding opportunities to the 

9 extent that they subject themselves to increased noise levels. For example, Native hunters 

10 reported to Huntington (2000) that beluga whales often ignore the approach of hunters when 

11 feeding, but at other times will attempt to avoid boats of hunters. There is a potential for effects 

12 from geophysical survey operations on marine mammals found in Cook Inlet from non-auditory 

13 or auditory effects, including PTS, but this is expected to be negligible. Local effects could 

14 result to endangered species near noise and other disturbance caused by exploration. For 

15 example, in specific areas, particularly near the Barren Islands, these disturbances could affect 

16 the haulouts and behavior of Steller sea lions; cause local, short-term effects on the feeding of 

17 mysticetes; and locally affect some Cook Inlet beluga whales. Behavior of sea otters could be 

18 affected and some displacement of sea otters could occur near areas of activity. Although small 

19 numbers of individuals could be affected, regional population or migrant populations of 

20 non-endangered marine mammals would experience a negligible effect from disturbance and 

21 habitat alteration. The potential for injury is greatly lessened through effective implementation 

22 of assumed mitigation. Mitigation that is often implemented to reduce impacts includes use of 

23 marine mammal observers, survey vessel speed reductions, and establishment of exclusion 

24 zones.

25

26 Construction and Operation of Offshore Platforms and Pipelines. Figure 4.4.7-2

27 (Section 4.4.7.1.1) presents a conceptual model for potential effects of infrastructure construction 

28 on marine mammals. Under the proposed action, up to 1 to 3 offshore platforms and 40 to 

29 241 km (25 to 150 mi) of offshore pipeline could be constructed in the Cook Inlet Planning Area 

30 (Table 4.4.1-3). 

31

32 If exploration leads to development and production, impacts likely could occur from the 

33 following:

34

35 • Noise from construction of pipelines and production facilities;

36

37 • Routine and recurring traffic associated with crew and supply activities;

38

39 • Domestic wastewaters generated at the offshore facility (the scenario assumes 

40 on-platform disposal wells will reinject drilling fluids, muds, cuttings, and 

41 produced waters generated from production wells. Discharges and Wastes are 

42 described further below.);

43

44 • Trash and debris from production activities;

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-259

1 • Gaseous emissions from production facilities, both onshore and offshore, and 

2 from transportation vessels and aircraft; and

3

4 • Physical placement, presence, and removal of offshore production facilities, 

5 including platforms and pipelines to onshore common carrier pipelines.

6

7 Noise generated by industrial activities can come from a variety of sources, such as 

8 transportation, general machinery use, construction, and human activity. Noise, whether carried 

9 through the air or under water, may cause some species to alter their feeding routines, movement, 

10 and reproductive cycles. For cetaceans, effects from noise and disturbance associated with 

11 development would be much the same as discussed for exploration. The most likely impacts 

12 could be the disturbance of sea otters and Steller sea lions that are hauled out and the 

13 displacement of females and pups that occur near regions of focused activity. These effects are 

14 expected to be extremely local and have no population-level impacts on sea otters or Steller sea 

15 lions.

16

17 Construction may also cause an alteration in habitat and water quality for marine 

18 mammals. However, the activities associated with construction are not likely to significantly 

19 affect water quality. Construction activities would increase the turbidity in the water column 

20 along segments of the 40-km (25-mi) corridors for up to a few months, but no significant water 

21 quality degradation could occur. Further, construction activities could affect benthic organisms 

22 and fish (prey species) in the immediate vicinity. Organisms in soft substrates (bivalves and 

23 polychaetes) could be adversely affected; however, platforms would add a hard substrate to the 

24 marine environment, providing additional habitat for marine plants and animals (for example, 

25 kelp and mussels) that require a hard substrate. Therefore, the overall effect of platform and 

26 pipeline installation could be to alter species diversity in a small area. Construction activities 

27 may disturb pelagic and demersal finfishes and shellfishes, potentially displacing them from 

28 preferred habitat, as turbidity, vibrations, and noise from construction increases. Positive effects 

29 may accrue because following construction, offshore structures provide refugia to some species 

30 and their prey. Any disturbance or displacement should be localized and short term (hours to 

31 days to months), limited to only the time of construction and shortly thereafter. Effects are 

32 expected to be limited to negligible numbers of individuals in the immediate vicinity of 

33 construction activities. 

34

35 The landfall of a pipeline would avoid sensitive aquatic habitat. The route for the 

36 pipeline would be sited inland from shorelines and beaches, and pipeline crossings of 

37 anadromous fish streams would be minimized and consolidated with other utility and road 

38 crossings of such streams. Pipelines would be buried wherever possible and sited in existing 

39 rights-of-way for other utilities or transportation systems wherever possible, such as that 

40 provided by the Sterling Highway. The pipelines would be designed, constructed, and 

41 maintained to minimize risk to fish habitats from a spill, pipeline break, or other construction 

42 activity. Habitat alteration due to pipeline laying and platform construction are expected to be 

43 localized and should not cause significant impacts to mobile species.

44

45 The immediate response of disturbed individuals or groups could be to leave or avoid the 

46 construction areas. This displacement or avoidance could be short or long term in duration, 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-260

1 depending on the duration of the construction activity. Because relatively few individuals would 

2 be expected to be affected by the limited amount of construction and few new facilities that 

3 would be operating, the construction and operation of new offshore facilities would not be 

4 expected to result in population-level effects to affected marine mammals.

5

6 Facilities to be constructed and operated under the proposed action may occur in or near

7 beluga whale critical habitat area 2 (76 FR 20180). Construction and operation of offshore 

8 platforms and pipelines are expected to have negligible impact to beluga habitat and would not 

9 be expected to affect movement of belugas within Cook Inlet. However, if activities were to 

10 occur in or near the beluga whale critical habitat, ESA consultation would occur to ensure the 

11 protection of the species and their habitat.

12

13 Critical habitat designation for the Steller sea lion (50 CFR 226.202) includes a 0.9-km

14 (3,000-ft) radius no-entry zone around designated rookeries within the Cook Inlet Planning Area, 

15 as well as a 37-km (20-NM or 23-mi) aquatic avoidance zone around all major rookeries and 

16 haulouts. Additional restrictions (50 CFR 223.202) associated with Steller sea lion critical 

17 habitat include a 5.5-km (3-NM or 3.4-mi) radius vessel approach zone around listed rookeries, 

18 and 1.9-km a (1-NM or 1.2-mi) minimum distance for vessel passing near rookery sites 

19 (50 CFR 223.202). Compliance with these critical habitat designations, restrictions, and buffer 

20 zones could greatly reduce the likelihood of exposure of Steller sea lion rookeries and haulouts 

21 to OCS activities that could occur in the Cook Inlet Planning Area.

22

23 Discharges and Wastes. Table 4.4.1-3 presents information on drilling fluids, drill 

24 cuttings, and produced waters discharged offshore as a result of the proposed action. 

25 Figure 4.4.7-3 (Section 4.4.7.1.1) presents a conceptual model for potential effects of operational 

26 waste discharges on marine mammals. Produced water, drilling muds, and drill cuttings are 

27 discharged into offshore marine waters in compliance with applicable regulations and permits. 

28 Compliance with regulations and permits will limit the exposure of marine mammals to waste 

29 discharges.

30

31 Up to 500 bbl of drill fluids and 600 tons of drill cuttings will be discharged at each 

32 exploration and delineation well (Table 4.4.1-3). Heavier components of these muds and 

33 cuttings (such as rock) would settle to the bottom, while lighter components could increase 

34 turbidity around the drill site. While this increased turbidity could cause marine mammals to 

35 avoid the area, any increase in suspended solids associated with the discharge of drilling wastes 

36 would be rapidly diluted and dispersed, and thus not be expected to adversely affect marine 

37 mammals in the area. Drilling fluids and cuttings associated with development and production 

38 wells would be treated and disposed of in the wells; therefore, negligible impacts to marine 

39 mammals from these wastes are expected.

40

41 The OCS-related vessels supporting exploration activities and the construction and 

42 operation of offshore platforms and pipelines will generate waste fluids (such as bilge water) 

43 which may be discharged to the surface water. Such discharges, if allowed, would be regulated 

44 under applicable NPDES permits. Sanitary and domestic wastes would be processed through 

45 shipboard waste treatment facilities before being discharged overboard, and deck drainage would 

46 also be processed aboard ship to remove oil before being discharged. Because of the low level of 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-261

1 expected vessel traffic, relatively small volumes of operational wastes would be discharged, and 

2 these would be rapidly diluted and dispersed. Thus, permitted waste discharges from OCS 

3 construction and service vessels are expected to have negligible impacts on marine mammals.

4

5 Solid debris can adversely impact marine mammals through ingestion or entanglement 

6 (Marine Mammal Commission 2003). Mammals that ingest debris, such as plastics, may 

7 experience intestinal blockage, which in turn may lead to starvation, while toxic substances 

8 present in the ingested materials (especially in plastics) could lead to a variety of lethal and 

9 sublethal toxic effects. Entanglement in plastic debris can result in reduced mobility, starvation, 

10 exhaustion, drowning, and constriction of, and subsequent damage to, limbs caused by tightening 

11 of the entangling material. The discharge or disposal of solid debris into offshore waters from 

12 OCS structures and vessels is prohibited by the BOEM (30 CFR 250.40) and the USCG 

13 (International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships [MARPOL], Annex V, 

14 P.L. 100-220 [101 Statute 1458]). Thus, impacts to marine mammals from entanglement in or 

15 ingestion of OCS-related trash and debris under the proposed action are expected to be negligible 

16 to minor.

17

18 Drilling fluids and produced waters are not anticipated to be discharged during 

19 production. The hydrodynamic processes in the Cook Inlet suggest the water column generally 

20 is well mixed, and dilution would reduce the concentration of the substances in the discharges.

21 Degradation processes also act to continuously reduce the concentrations of many substances 

22 deliberately or accidentally released into the environment. We do not expect the discharge of 

23 drilling muds and cuttings and other discharges associated with exploration drilling to have any 

24 effect on the overall quality of Cook Inlet water. Within a distance of between 100 and 200 m

25 (328 and 656 ft) from the discharge point, the turbidity caused by suspended-particulate matter in 

26 the discharged muds and cuttings would dilute to levels that are less than the chronic criteria 

27 (100–1,000 parts per million) and within the range associated with the variability of naturally 

28 occurring suspended particulate matter concentrations. Mixing in the water column would 

29 reduce the toxicity of the drilling muds that already fall into the ―practically nontoxic‖ category 

30 to levels that would not be harmful to organisms in the water column. In general, the amounts of 

31 additives in the other discharges are likely to be relatively small (from 4 to 400 or 

32 800 liters/month and diluted with seawater several hundred to several thousand times before 

33 being discharged into the receiving waters. The potential effects in any of the areas where there 

34 are permitted discharges would last for about 3–4 months for each exploration well drilled.

35

36 Vessel and Aircraft Traffic. There may be up to 9 surface vessels and 9 helicopter trips 

37 per week under the proposed action (Table 4.4.1-3). Figure 4.4.7-4 (Section 4.4.7.4) presents a 

38 conceptual model for potential effect of vessel traffic on marine mammals. Vessel traffic could 

39 occur during seismic exploration, drilling and platform construction, platform operation, and 

40 platform decommissioning. Generally, marine mammals may be affected by direct collisions 

41 with vessels or by visual and noise disturbances. 

42

43 In addition to possible collision-related injuries and/or mortalities, cetaceans and 

44 pinnipeds in the vicinity of an OCS-related vessel may be disturbed by the presence of vessels 

45 and helicopters and the noise they generate. Noises emitted by shipping vessels are expected to 

46 range between 140 dB re 1 μPa for smaller vessels to 198 dB re 1 μPa for larger tankers and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-262

1 cargo ships (Heathershaw et al. 2001; Erbe 2002; Hildebrand 2004). Helicopters flying at 150 m 

2 (492 ft) altitude are expected to emit noises received at ground level of approximately 80 to 

3 86 dB re 20 μPa (Born et al. 1999). Reactions of cetaceans, including both odontocetes and 

4 mysticetes, may include apparent indifference, cessation of vocalizations or feeding activity, 

5 increases in vocal behavior, and evasive behavior (e.g., turns, diving, etc.) 

6 (Richardson et al. 1995; Nowacek and Wells 2001; Buckstaff 2004; Doyle et al. 2008). Noise 

7 from service vessels may also mask cetacean sound reception (MMS 2003e). Disturbed 

8 individuals would be expected to cease their normal behaviors and likely move away from the 

9 vessel. Following passage of the vessel, affected individuals may return and resume normal 

10 behaviors. 

11

12 Cetaceans, such as humpback whales, near the Barren Islands and the southern portions 

13 of the Cook Inlet also could be negatively affected by vessel transport and construction activities.

14 However, this area has a high volume of fishing- and tourism-related vessel traffic in the summer 

15 months when the whales are present. The incremental addition of noise from two vessels per day 

16 associated with the proposed action is unlikely to add significantly to this existing noise.

17

18 Based on their distributions, humpbacks are more vulnerable to aircraft noise than fin 

19 whales. Shallenberger (1978) reported that some humpbacks were disturbed by overflights at 

20 305 m (1,000 ft), whereas others showed no response at 152 m (500 ft). As with the response to 

21 air gun noise, pods varied in their response. Humpbacks in large groups showed little or no 

22 response but some adult-only groups exhibited avoidance (Herman et al. 1980). Other authors 

23 report no response (for example, Friedl and Thompson, 1981). Due to concerns about the 

24 impacts of helicopters in Hawaiian waters, helicopters are prohibited from approaching within a 

25 slant range of 1,000 ft, or 305 m, from humpbacks (National Marine Fisheries Service 1987).

26

27 Belugas could be disturbed by noise and disturbance from exploration and development28 related aircraft, especially helicopters. Belugas reacted to aircraft flying at 150–200 m

29 (492–656 ft) by diving for longer periods, reducing surfacing time and sometimes swam away 

30 (see references cited in Richardson et al. 1995). They did not respond to aircraft at 500 m

31 (1,640 ft). Richardson et al. (1991) found variable reactions to turbine helicopters and fixed 

32 wing aircraft in offshore waters near Alaska. Some individuals exhibited no discernible response 

33 even when the aircraft was within 100–200 m (328–656 ft), whereas other individuals dove 

34 abruptly, looked upward, or turned sharply in response to aircraft at altitudes up to 460 m

35 (1,510 ft). In shallow summering areas, belugas sometimes respond to aircraft by diving or 

36 swimming away (Finley et al. 1982; Gales 1982; Caron and Smith 1990).

37

38 Vessel traffic may disturb pinnipeds and sea otters (which are discussed further below) in 

39 the water and hauled out on ice or terrestrial habitats. For example, when approached too closely 

40 or disturbed too often, harbor seals are known to abandon their favorite haul-out sites or their 

41 pups (Kinkhart et al. 2008). Hauled out pinnipeds may exhibit behavioral reactions to the 

42 physical disturbance of an approaching vessel or aircraft by exhibiting startle reactions, slipping 

43 into the water. In recognition of their vulnerability to loud and startling noises, Steller sea lion 

44 critical habitat has been defined to include a terrestrial zone that extends 914 m (3,000 ft)

45 landward from the baseline or base point of each Steller sea lion major rookery or major haulout 

46 and an air zone that extends 914 m (3,000 ft) above the terrestrial zone, as measured at sea level 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-263

1 around them. Assuming aircraft flying to any platforms maintain sufficient distances from these 

2 rookeries, based on recognition of this critical habitat, it not likely this form of disturbance 

3 would have a major impact on Steller sea lions. However, given observations by Withrow et al.

4 (1985) cited above, it is possible that sea lions could be negatively affected by oil- and gas5 activity-related helicopters (and possibly by other noise) operating at further distances. Under 

6 the proposed scenario, one to two helicopter trips per day would be made to oil and gas 

7 operations from Kenai or other sites along the western Kenai Peninsula shore. In most of the 

8 proposed Cook Inlet multiple-sale area, these flights would not require transit over any terrestrial 

9 components of Steller sea lion critical habitat and adverse effects could easily be avoided. The 

10 greatest potential for such disturbance could come from helicopters transiting to blocks on the far 

11 side of the Barren Islands if flights originated on the Kenai Peninsula and stayed, as geography 

12 permits, near land until crossing of the entrances of Cook Inlet was required to reach drill (or 

13 production) sites on the far sides of the Barren Islands.

14

15 Major rookeries in and near the Cook Inlet include Outer Island, Sugarloaf Island, 

16 Marmot Island, Chirikof Island, and Chowiet Island. There are several major haulouts in and 

17 near the Cook Inlet, 20-NM aquatic zones, and an aquatic foraging area in Shelikof Strait. All of 

18 these are part of Steller sea lion critical habitat. Support-vessel traffic would be unlikely to 

19 adversely affect these habitats as long as operators avoided transiting near to the rookeries or 

20 haulouts or deliberately approaching sea lions in the water. Critical habitat of Steller sea lions is 

21 unlikely to be impacted by exploration activities. As noted above, terrestrial zones are legally 

22 protected from activities degrading them by disturbance. Shelikof Strait was designated as 

23 critical habitat because of its proximity to major rookeries and important haulouts, its use by 

24 foraging sea lions and its value as an area of high forage-fish production. Any adverse impacts 

25 of oil and gas development that adversely affect the production and availability of prey to Steller 

26 sea lions in this and other critical habitat could adversely modify the habitat. Aircraft restrictions 

27 associated with Steller sea lion critical habitat protection (50 CFR 223.202; 50 CFR 226.202) 

28 could further reduce the likelihood of helicopter flights impacting designated rookery sites for 

29 this listed species. Careful planning of flight paths to avoid rookeries and haulouts of other 

30 pinnipeds could further reduce or eliminate the potential for disturbing animals in these habitats.

31

32 Boat traffic associated with OCS oil and gas exploration activity could disturb sea otters 

33 in specific areas. In summer, these impacts are likely to be insignificant compared to the 

34 quantity of fishing, tourism, shipping, and other boat traffic in the region. In winter, boat traffic 

35 in a remote region could have local impacts on distribution of females and pups. While male sea 

36 otters sometimes habituate to heavy boat traffic, female sea otters, particularly those with pups, 

37 are sensitive to disturbance. Garshelis and Garshelis (1984) reported that sea otters in Prince 

38 William Sound avoided waters with frequent boat traffic but reoccupy these areas when boats are 

39 less frequent. Rotterman and Monnett (2002) concluded that disturbance after the Exxon Valdez 

40 oil spill was sufficient to keep sea otters from feeding habitat in certain bays in oiled areas of 

41 Prince William Sound. Udevitz et al. (1995) reported that about 15% of sea otters along boat 

42 survey transects are not detected because they move away from the approaching boat. Boat 

43 traffic could disturb resting patterns of sea otters. Sea otters in Alaska haul out regularly. Sea 

44 otters that are hauled out will often move into the water with the approach of a boat. Garrott, 

45 Eberhardt, and Burn (1993) reported that sea otters on shore would move into the water with 

46 approach of a single small motorboat moving parallel to and 100 m (328 ft) from shore.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-264

1 As previously discussed, the FAA Advisory Circular 91-36D (FAA 2004) encourages 

2 pilots to maintain higher than minimum altitudes over noise-sensitive areas. Also, guidelines 

3 and regulations issued by NMFS under the authority of the MMPA include provisions specifying 

4 helicopter pilots to maintain an altitude of 305 m (1,000 ft) within 91 m (300 ft) of marine 

5 mammals (MMS 2007d). Helicopter operations would only be expected to occur below 

6 specified minimums during inclement weather. In MMS (2007d), it was concluded that this 

7 could occur for about 10% of helicopter operations. Because of the low level of vessel and 

8 aircraft traffic that could occur under the proposed action, potential impacts to marine mammals 

9 from this traffic would likely be limited to a few individuals, be largely short-term in nature, and 

10 not result in population-level effects.

11

12 Decommissioning. Under the proposed action, no platforms will be removed with 

13 explosives from the Cook Inlet Planning Area. Therefore, potential impacts of decommissioning 

14 on marine mammals, as summarized in Figure 4.4.7-4 (Section 4.4.7.1.1), will not occur.

15

16 Accidents. Accidental oil spills could occur in Cook Inlet under the proposed action 

17 (Section 4.4.2). Table 4.4.2-1 presents the oil spill assumptions for the proposed action, while 

18 Figure 4.4.7-5 (Section 4.4.7.1.1) presents a conceptual model for potential effects of oil spills on 

19 marine mammals. Small oil spills (≤1,000 bbl) break-up and dissipate within hours to a day 

20 (MMS 2009a). Larger spills, particularly those that continue to flow fresh hydrocarbons into 

21 waters for extended periods (i.e., days, weeks, or months), pose an increased likelihood of 

22 impacting marine mammal populations (MMS 2008b). While the numbers have been steadily 

23 decreasing since the 1970s, operational discharges such as tank washing with seawater, oil 

24 content in ballast water, and fuel oil sludge are among the sources of small oil spills from tankers 

25 (Jernelöv 2010). Large oil spills from tankers have decreased significantly in recent years 

26 (modern tankers have double hulls and are sectioned to prevent losing the ship‘s entire cargo and 

27 sea lanes have been established) while spills from ageing, ill-maintained or sabotaged pipelines 

28 have increased. 

29

30 Characteristics of impacts (i.e., acute vs. chronic impacts) depend on the magnitude, 

31 frequency, location, and date of accidents; characteristics of spilled oil; spill-response 

32 capabilities and timing; and various meteorological and hydrological factors. Chronic or acute 

33 exposure may result in harassment, harm, or mortality to marine mammals. Studies have shown 

34 varying results. Marine mammals made no apparent attempt to avoid spilled oil in some cases 

35 (Smultea and Würsig 1995); however, marine mammals have been observed apparently detecting 

36 and avoiding slicks in other reports (Geraci and St. Aubin 1990). Since there are reports of oiled 

37 marine mammals exposure to hydrocarbons persisting in the sea following the dispersal of an oil 

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

39 and increased vulnerability to disease) to marine mammals. 

40

41 Small and large spills occurring in the Cook Inlet Planning Area are not expected to 

42 affect the listed blue, sei, sperm, or North Pacific right whales, as these species occur only 

43 infrequently, if at all, within the area (MMS 2003e). However, it is important to note that any 

44 impacts to individuals of species already in decline (listed species) that affect their survival or 

45 reproductive capacity could result in population-level impacts. The endangered fin and 

46 humpback whales, as well as the minke and killer whales, which do occur within the planning 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-265

1 area, could be affected by accidental spills occurring in or reaching the Shelikof Strait. Gray 

2 whales migrating past Cook Inlet could be exposed to accidental spills occurring near the 

3 Kennedy and Stevenson entrances to Cook Inlet. Accidental spills in the Cook Inlet Planning 

4 Area could also expose smaller cetacean species (such as Dall‘s porpoise) and pinnipeds 

5 foraging in open marine waters. Because of the small number and mostly small size of potential 

6 spills that could occur under the proposed action, exposures of these species to spilled oil would 

7 be temporary and likely affect only a few individuals (MMS 2003e).

8

9 Oil spills could have serious impacts on pinnipeds during periods when they are 

10 concentrated at rookeries (typically, late spring, summer, and early fall). At such times, spills 

11 and/or spill response operations have the potential to disturb hundreds of pinnipeds. If a spill 

12 contaminates a rookery, a significant population decline could occur (Calkins et al. 1994). Sea 

13 otters, sea lions, and harbor seals had elevated hydrocarbon levels in areas contaminated by the 

14 Exxon Valdez oil spill, but only sea otters and harbor seals showed population declines 

15 associated with the spill (Loughlin et al. 1996).

16

17 Spills occurring in or reaching coastal areas, especially sheltered coastal habitats such as 

18 bays and estuaries, pose the greatest risk to marine mammals. These spills may be more likely to 

19 affect species such as the sea otter and the Steller sea lion that use coastal habitats for pupping, 

20 foraging, and resting. A large spill contacting an active pinniped rookery site could result in 

21 population-level effects for some species, while spills in nearshore areas could result in the direct 

22 oiling of large numbers of pinnipeds and sea otters, and adversely affect local populations of 

23 some of these species (primarily the sea otter and fur seals), while sublethal effects may be 

24 incurred by all individuals ingesting or inhaling spilled oil.

25

26 An estimated 3,905 sea otters were killed by the Exxon Valdez oil spill (EVOS), and sea 

27 otter abundance in some oiled areas remains under pre-spill estimates, suggesting that sea otters 

28 have not fully recovered (USFWS 2008). Oiling and ingestion of oil-contaminated shellfish may 

29 have affected reproduction and caused a variety of long-term sublethal effects (Fair and 

30 Becker 2000). The recovery of sea otters may be constrained by residual spill effects resulting 

31 from elevated mortality and emigration (Bodkin et al. 2002). According to Frost and Lowry

32 (1994), initially following the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska

33 (Frost et al. 1994a, b; Lowry et al. 1994; Spraker et al. 1994), it was claimed an estimated 

34 300+ harbor seals died as a result of crude oil exposure. Subsequent investigations revealed that 

35 there were no significant quantities of oil in the tissues (liver, blubber, kidney and skeletal 

36 muscles) of harbor seals exposed to the Exxon Valdez spill (Bence and Burns 1995), and that the 

37 cause of the decreasing trend in harbor seal numbers since the spill (4.6% per year) is 

38 complicated because seal populations were declining prior to the spill (Frost et al. 1999). A 

39 further analysis of harbor seal population trends and movements in Prince William Sound 

40 concluded harbor seals moved away from some oiled haul-outs during the Exxon Valdez spill 

41 (Hoover-Miller et al. 2001) and that the original estimate of 300 or more harbor seal mortalities

42 may have been overstated. St. Aubin (1990) found that the greatest effect of a spill was on 

43 young seals in cold water and that no mortalities were reported after a well blowout near Sable 

44 Island in 1984. 

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-266

1 As discussed in Section 4.4.7.1.1, oil spill response activities may affect marine 

2 mammals through exposure to spill response chemicals (e.g., dispersants or coagulants) and 

3 through behavioral disturbance during cleanup and restoration operations. The chemicals used 

4 during a spill response are toxic, but are considered much less so than the constituents of spilled 

5 oil (Wells 1989), although there is little information regarding their potential effects on marine 

6 mammals. The presence of, and noise generated by, oil spill response equipment and support 

7 vessels could temporarily disturb marine mammals in the vicinity of the response action, with 

8 affected individuals likely leaving the area. While such displacement may affect only a small 

9 number of animals, cleanup operations disturbing adults in pup-rearing areas may decrease pup 

10 survival and result in population-level effects. While some smaller animals can be collected and 

11 examined closely, impacts on whales from oil spills are difficult to assess because large numbers 

12 of most of the species cannot be easily captured, examined, weighed, sampled, or monitored 

13 closely for extended periods of time. Some authors have attempted to link beached carcasses 

14 with spill effects, particularly gray whales. Large numbers of gray whale carcasses were 

15 discovered previously in other parts of the range (see examples in Loughlin 1994). During the 

16 oil spill off Santa Barbara in 1969, an estimated 80,000 bbl of oil may have entered the marine 

17 environment. Gray whales were beginning their annual migration north during the spill. Whales 

18 were observed migrating northward through the slick. Several dead whales were observed and 

19 carcasses recovered, including six gray whales. Brownell (1971, as reported by Geraci 1990) 

20 acknowledged that these whales totaled more than the usual number of gray whales and dolphins 

21 stranding annually on California shores, and concluded that increased survey efforts had led to 

22 the higher counts. Several of the whales examined were thought to have died from natural 

23 causes, and one may have been harpooned. No evidence of oil contamination was found on any 

24 of the whales examined. The Battelle Memorial Institute concluded the whales were either able 

25 to avoid the oil, or were unaffected when in contact with it. Similarly, extensive beached carcass 

26 surveys made after the EVOS revealed a number of gray whales. The number of carcasses found 

27 was the result of such an atypical survey effort and were comparable to gray whale strandings 

28 along the pacific coast, well south of the EVOS area. 

29

30 Catastrophic Discharge Event. If a catastrophic discharge event occurs, there is greater 

31 potential for more severe effects compared to the risk of effects from a large oil spill. A 

32 catastrophic discharge event would result in sustained degradation of water quality and, to a 

33 lesser extent, air quality that would impact marine mammals from direct contact, inhalation, and 

34 ingestion (either directly or indirectly through the consumption of oiled forage or prey species). 

35 These effects would be significant, causing a multitude of acute and chronic effects. Additional 

36 effects on marine mammals would occur from water and air quality degradation associated with 

37 response and cleanup vessels, in situ burning of oil, dispersant use, discharges and seafloor 

38 disturbances from relief well drilling, and activities on shorelines associated with cleanup, 

39 booming, beach cleaning, and monitoring. A catastrophic discharge event has the potential to 

40 increase the area and duration of an oil spill, thereby increasing the potential for population-level 

41 effects, or at a minimum, an increase in the number of individuals killed. A catastrophic 

42 discharge event in Cook Inlet would potentially impact marine mammals throughout much of 

43 south central Alaska and has the potential to increase the area and duration of an oil spill, thereby 

44 increasing the potential for population-level effects, or at a minimum, an increase in the number 

45 of individuals killed. For example, one resident killer whale pod (AB Pod) and one transient 

46 killer whale population (AT1 Group) suffered losses of 33 and 41%, respectively, in the year 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-267

1 following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Sixteen years after the spill, the resident pod had not 

2 returned to pre-spill numbers, while the transient population lost nine members following the 

3 spill and continued to decline to the point that it is listed as depleted under the MMPA 

4 (Matkin et al. 2008). Additionally, sea otters and harbor seals showed population declines 

5 associated with the spill (Loughlin et al. 1996). An estimated 3,905 sea otters were killed by the 

6 Exxon Valdez oil spill and sea otter abundance in some oiled areas remains under pre-spill 

7 estimates, suggesting that sea otters have not fully recovered (USFWS 2008). An estimated 

8 302 harbor seals were killed by the Exxon Valdez oil spill, probably due to the inhalation of toxic 

9 fumes (Frost and Lowry 1994). Contraction of the Cook Inlet beluga whale population 

10 northward into the upper portions of the inlet makes the population more vulnerable to a 

11 catastrophic discharge event (NMFS 2008).

12

13 Terrestrial Mammals. There are approximately 40 species of terrestrial mammal that 

14 occur in southern Alaska. Among these, 10 species may regularly use mainland and island 

15 habitats adjacent to or near the Cook Inlet Planning Area (Section 3.8.1.2.2), and thus could be 

16 affected by OCS-related activities.

17

18 Routine Operations. Under the proposed action, up to 80 km (50 mi) of new onshore 

19 pipeline would be installed along Cook Inlet, which could result in up to 364 ha (900 ac) of soil 

20 disturbance. The area disturbed represents an extremely small portion of terrestrial wildlife 

21 habitat that occurs inshore of the Cook Inlet Planning Area. Wildlife are expected to avoid the 

22 area where construction of new pipeline is occurring. Few additional impacts, other than those 

23 that might occur from helicopter overflights, would occur on terrestrial mammals. Helicopter 

24 traffic could disturb wildlife near the existing onshore facilities and pipelines or along the 

25 overland portions of flight paths between the existing onshore facilities and new offshore 

26 platforms. The aircraft effects on wildlife vary by species, habitat type, and the wildlife activity 

27 occurring at the time of the overflight. During overflights, some wildlife will cease their normal 

28 behaviors until the aircraft has passed and then resume their normal activity; others may flee the 

29 area, while some species may become habituated and experience no disturbance (Harting 1987). 

30 Aircraft overflights would be relatively infrequent (no more than three flights per week per 

31 offshore platform). Thus, no long-term, population-level effects are expected from aircraft 

32 overflights associated with routine operations.

33

34 Accidents. An offshore oil spill that contaminates beaches and shorelines could affect

35 terrestrial mammals, such as the Sitka black-tailed deer, brown bear, and river otter, that forage 

36 in intertidal habitats (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustees 1992). An onshore oil spill could similarly 

37 affect terrestrial animals, such as American black bear or moose that may forage in the area of 

38 the onshore pipeline. Spills contacting high-use areas, such as coastal habitats along Shelikof 

39 Strait heavily used by brown bears, could locally affect a relatively large number of animals 

40 (MMS 2003e). The impacts on wildlife from an oil spill would depend on such factors as the 

41 time of year and volume of the spill, type and extent of habitat affected, and home range or 

42 density of the wildlife species. The potential effects on wildlife from oil spills could occur from 

43 direct contamination of individual animals, contamination of habitats, and contamination of food 

44 resources (ADNR 1999). Acute (short-term) effects usually occur from direct oiling of animals,

45 while chronic (long-term) effects generally result from such factors as accumulation of 

46 contaminants from food items and environmental media (e.g., sediments).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-268

1 Terrestrial mammals directly contaminated by an accidental release could inhale volatile 

2 organics and/or ingest oil while grooming contaminated fur (MMS 1996b). Exposure may also 

3 occur through the consumption of contaminated foods. The moose and opportunistic omnivores, 

4 such as brown and American black bears, may experience a greater potential of exposure than 

5 many other wildlife species.

6

7 Staging and support activities for a large spill cleanup could temporarily displace 

8 terrestrial mammals not only from the contaminated habitats but also from nearby 

9 uncontaminated habitats. Depending on the effectiveness of the cleanup activities, chronic oil 

10 exposure may continue for years in some habitats.

11

12 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE of 75 to 125 thousand bbl 

13 (Table 4.4.2-2). If a CDE occurs, there is greater potential for more severe effects compared to 

14 the risk of effects from a large oil spill. A catastrophic discharge event would result in sustained 

15 degradation of water quality, shoreline terrestrial habitats, and, to a lesser extent, air quality that 

16 could impact terrestrial mammals from direct contact, inhalation, and ingestion (either directly or 

17 indirectly through the consumption of oiled forage or prey species). These effects could be 

18 significant, causing a multitude of acute and chronic effects. Additional effects on terrestrial 

19 mammals would occur from land and air quality degradation associated with response and 

20 cleanup vessels, in situ burning of oil, dispersant use, and activities on shorelines associated with 

21 cleanup, booming, beach cleaning, and monitoring. A CDE has the potential to alter terrestrial 

22 mammal habitats and populations. However, only minor impacts to terrestrial mammals were 

23 observed from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. No Sitka black-tailed deer were found whose death 

24 could be attributed to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. However, some deer that fed on kelp in the 

25 intertidal areas had slightly elevated concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in their tissues 

26 (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustees 1992). Several river otter carcasses were found following the 

27 Exxon Valdez oil spill. Analysis showed that they accumulated petroleum hydrocarbons. Also, 

28 home ranges in oiled areas were twice that of unoiled areas, suggesting that increased foraging 

29 was required to find sufficient food resources. Body lengths, weights, and dietary diversity were 

30 also lower in oiled areas (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustees 1992). Lewis et al. (1991) examined 

31 the impacts of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on Katmai National Park coastal brown bears. Of the 

32 27 bears captured, 4 had been exposed to crude oil. Bears were also observed with oil on their 

33 fur, consuming oiled carcasses, and presumably feeding on razor clams in the intertidal area. 

34 One yearling bear was found dead with high concentrations of aromatic hydrocarbons in its bile. 

35 Crude oil elements were also found in the fecal samples of the bear‘s mother. However, no 

36 population-level impacts on the bears of Katmai were indicated.

37

38

39 4.4.7.1.3 Alaska – Arctic.

40

41 Marine Mammals. There are 14 resident or seasonal species of marine mammals in the 

42 Arctic region, including 8 species of cetaceans, 5 species of pinnipeds, and 1 fissiped species 

43 (Table 3.8.1-4; Section 3.8.1.3.1). All of the species occur in the Chukchi Sea; the Pacific 

44 walrus and the bearded and ribbon seals also occur in the western portions of the Beaufort Sea, 

45 while the ringed and spotted seals, bowhead and beluga whales, and polar bear occur throughout 

46 both seas (Section 3.8.1.3.1). The endangered fin and humpback whales are only occasional 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-269

1 transients in the southern portion of the Chukchi Sea during summer. The endangered bowhead 

2 whale migrates through the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas between its wintering grounds in the 

3 Bering Sea and its summering grounds primarily in the Canadian portion of the Beaufort Sea 

4 (Figure 3.8.1-4; Section 3.8.1.3.1). However, some individuals remain in the Alaska portion of 

5 the Beaufort Sea and in the Chukchi Sea during summer. Thus, the bowhead whale has the 

6 greatest potential of the endangered whale species to occur in areas where OCS-related activities 

7 are occurring and be affected by normal operations or oil spills. The potential for this would be 

8 most probable during the bowhead whale‘s spring and fall migrations that generally occur from 

9 March through June and September through November, respectively (Hill and DeMaster 1998).

10

11 There are at least 9 species of seasonal or resident cetaceans- bowhead, fin, humpback, 

12 minke, gray, beluga, and killer whales; harbor porpoise (Suydam and George, 1992) occur with 

13 rare or observational accounts of narwhals. Bearded seals occur throughout the Beaufort Sea and 

14 into the Canadian High Arctic and Greenland. There are more seasonal residents (3,150) than 

15 year-long resident bearded seals, but some seals remain in the Beaufort year-round. Spotted 

16 seals have small haul-outs east to the Colville River Delta and historically to Prudhoe Bay. 

17 Spotted seals are rare past Harrison Bay and are not known to occur throughout the Beaufort Sea. 

18 Gray whales occur primarily nearshore and are occasionally found as far east as the Canadian 

19 Beaufort Sea. The continental shelf in the Beaufort is much narrower than in the Chukchi, and 

20 therefore it can support fewer gray whales. Humpback whales have been observed nearshore in 

21 the Chukchi Sea and as far east as the Western Beaufort Sea. Observations of fin whales have 

22 occurred in the southern and east central Chukchi Sea. Observations of a few individuals have 

23 been more consistent over the last five years during the open water period.

24

25 Routine Operations. Table 4.4.7-1 (Section 4.4.7.1) illustrates how each of the 

26 impacting factors associated with OCS oil and gas development may affect marine mammals and 

27 their habitats, while Figure 4.4.7-1 (Section 4.4.7.1) presents a conceptual model of potential 

28 impacting factors for marine mammals from oil and gas-related activities (including accidental 

29 oil spills). The following text presents an overview of potential impacts to marine mammals in 

30 and near the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas from the following routine operations 

31 (seismic surveys, construction of offshore facilities and pipelines, operations of offshore 

32 facilities and drilling rigs, discharges and waste generation, service vessel and helicopter traffic, 

33 and decommissioning) and from accidents.

34

35 Seismic Surveys. During offshore exploration, seismic surveys conducted in offshore 

36 areas and in lagoon systems could affect marine mammals. Seismic surveys generally occur 

37 during the ice-free periods, normally from July to October (NMFS 2001b). In the Beaufort Sea, 

38 there are also on-ice seismic surveys, which may impact ice seals and polar bear. Noise 

39 generated by seismic surveys may have physical and/or behavioral effects on marine mammals, 

40 such as hearing loss, discomfort, and injury; masking of important natural sound signals, 

41 including communications among individual whales; behavioral responses such as flight, 

42 avoidance, displacement of migration route, and changes in physical or vocal behavior 

43 (Richardson et al. 1995; Davis et al. 1998; Gordon et al. 1998; MMS 2003e). It has not been 

44 possible to predict the type or magnitude of responses to such surveys (and other oil and gas 

45 activities) nor to evaluate the potential effects on populations (NRC 2003a). However, there is 

46 no evidence to suggest that routine seismic surveys may result in population-level effects for any 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-270

1 of the marine mammal species. There have been no documented instances of deaths, physical 

2 injuries, or physiological effects on marine mammals from seismic surveys (MMS 2004c). 

3

4 Cudahy and Ellison (2002) indicated that tissue damage from exposure to underwater low 

5 frequency sound will occur at a damage threshold on the order of 180 to 190 dB or higher. The 

6 onset of level A harassment impacts per the MMPA (i.e., the potential to injure a marine 

7 mammals or marine mammal stock) for cetaceans and walrus is 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) RL and 

8 for pinnipeds and polar bears is 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) RL, while the onset of level B harassment 

9 impacts per the MMPA (i.e., the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock 

10 by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, 

11 nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering) for marine mammals is 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) RL.

12

13 Noise from air guns and survey vessels could disturb nearby marine mammals that may 

14 be foraging in open waters or using floe ice for resting, birthing, and the rearing of young. These 

15 disturbances would be largely limited to the immediate area of the survey vessel, although 

16 animals within a few kilometers of seismic operations may be affected (Richardson et al. 1986). 

17 Because cetaceans and pinnipeds are highly mobile species, they may leave an area when a 

18 seismic survey is initiated, thereby greatly reducing their exposure to maximal sound levels and, 

19 to a lesser extent, masking frequencies. However, if they surveys occur during the winter or 

20 spring when areas of open water are restricted or isolated, young ringed or bearded seals may 

21 have some difficulty avoiding the on-ice seismic surveying, and if there are ice breakers, some 

22 ringed seal pups could be crushed inside of their lairs. If an animal is able to relocate, would 

23 likely resume its normal behavioral patterns. During the open water season, displaced or 

24 disturbed individuals may return to the area and/or resume normal behavioral patterns after the 

25 survey activities have ceased, but this is not necessarily also true for individuals displaced from 

26 on-ice seismic surveys.

27

28 Among cetaceans, the odontocetes generally demonstrate relatively poor low-frequency 

29 hearing sensitivity, and thus might not be expected to experience hearing loss from seismic 

30 surveys (unless they are in close proximity to air gun arrays) (MMS 2004a). The odontocetes in 

31 the Arctic region (beluga and killer whales and the less frequently encountered harbor porpoise 

32 and rare narwhal) may respond behaviorally to seismic surveys by leaving the areas where 

33 seismic surveys are being conducted. Unless the surveyed area is further developed, such 

34 displacement would be temporary and not expected to result in long-term impacts to either 

35 individual animals or populations of these species.

36

37 The mysticetes, which include the endangered bowhead, fin, humpback whales, as well 

38 as gray and minke whales, are considered to possess good hearing sensitivity at low frequencies 

39 down to approximately 10 Hz, and many of their vocalizations occur in the low tens to a few 

40 hundred Hz (Richardson et al. 1995; Crane and Lashkari 1996; Ketten 1998; 

41 Stafford et al. 1998). Seismic survey air gun arrays output maximal energy in the region of a few 

42 tens of Hz, which overlaps with the expected lower end of the hearing sensitivity of mysticetes. 

43 Thus, the mysticetes that occur regularly in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas may be affected by 

44 seismic surveys. Exposure of these whales to maximal air gun output during a seismic survey 

45 may result in behavioral changes such as area avoidance or short-term or long-term hearing loss, 

46 while less than maximal exposure could result in masking effects (Ljungblad et al. 1988b; 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-271

1 Malme et al. 1989). It may also alter or deter migration paths and displacement may then result 

2 in fewer feeding opportunities where prey are aggregated.

3

4 Bowhead whales can detect sounds produced by seismic pulses from 10 to 100 km (6 to 

5 62 mi) away from the source (MMS 2002a). Bowheads have been rarely observed within 20 km 

6 (12 mi) of where air guns are operating. However, occurrences of bowheads within 20 km 

7 (12 mi) are similar to those outside this radius about 12 to 24 hours after seismic operations 

8 cease (MMS 2002a). At seismic pulses as high as 248 dB re 1 μPa-m, bowhead whales 

9 respond by orienting away from the seismic vessels at distances up to 7.5 km (4.7 mi) 

10 (Richardson et al. 1986). While high-frequency seismic noises have the potential to permanently 

11 harm cetaceans, there is evidence that some cetaceans may habituate to lower-level seismic 

12 noises. For example, Richardson et al. (1986) found that bowhead whales initially responded to 

13 moderate underwater noise frequencies (110 to 115 dB re 1 μPa-m) by avoiding areas in which 

14 seismic exploration activities were occurring, but later became tolerant to prolonged noise 

15 exposure. Migrating bowhead whales have also been shown to exhibit avoidance of a 20-km 

16 (12-mi) area around seismic surveying where received levels were estimated to be approximately 

17 120 to 130 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m (Richardson et al. 1999). Given their mobility and avoidance 

18 reactions to approaching seismic vessels, it is unlikely that whales would occur close to injurious 

19 noise levels (MMS 2003e). Some bowhead whales may tolerate noise levels that may reach 

20 injury levels when they are engaged or highly motivated during behaviors such as feeding, while 

21 others may exhibit more sensitivity, such as females with calves.

22

23 Todd et al. (1996) found that humpback whales exhibited little behavioral reaction to 

24 underwater anthropogenic noises as high as 153 dB re 1 μPa. However, Richardson et al. (1990) 

25 observed that bowhead whales in close proximity to underwater anthropogenic noise sources 

26 (<1 km [0.6 mi]) reacted to sound levels as low as 122 dB re 1 μPa by ceasing their feeding 

27 behaviors and moving away from the noise source. Watkins and Scheville (1975) observed 

28 sperm whales cease vocalization behaviors in the presence of underwater anthropogenic sounds 

29 at frequencies between 6 and 13 kHz. Anthropogenic underwater noises as low as 180 dB re 

30 1 μPa can elicit startle reactions and avoidance behaviors in sperm whales and gray whales 

31 (Malme et al. 1984; Andre et al. 1997). Malme et al. (1984) also observed behavioral reactions 

32 (avoidance) in gray whales in response to received levels of around 164 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m 

33 (3 ft); and Richardson et al. (1995) reported that individual gray whales that reacted to noise 

34 generally slowed, turned away from the noise source, and increased their respiration rates. 

35 Humpback whales off the western coast of Australia changed course at 3 to 6 km (1.9 to 3.7 mi) 

36 from an operating seismic survey vessel, with most animals maintaining a distance of 3 to 4 km 

37 (1.9 to 2.5 mi) from the vessel. Humpback whale groups containing females involved in resting 

38 behavior were more sensitive than migrating animals and showed an avoidance response 

39 estimated at 7 to 12 km (4.3 to 7.5 mi) from a large seismic source (McCauley et al. 2000).

40

41 As discussed for the GOM (Section 4.4.7.1.1), it is assumed that BOEM will continue to 

42 require ramp-up of seismic activities coupled with visual monitoring and clearance within an 

43 exclusion zone around a seismic array. These actions would reduce the potential for cetaceans to 

44 be exposed to sound levels that could affect hearing or behavior. The avoidance reactions of 

45 whales to approaching seismic vessels would normally prevent exposure to potentially injurious 

46 noise pulses (NMFS 2001b). The geographic scale of any potential noise effect is probably 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-272

1 relatively small compared to the total habitat used by whales in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas 

2 (MMS 2004c). For example, in the Chukchi Sea, fall migrating bowhead whales are commonly 

3 seen from the coast to about 150 km (93 mi) offshore (MMS 2004c), while fall migration in the 

4 Beaufort Sea occurs over a 100 km (62 mi) wide corridor (Malme et al. 1989).

5

6 Pinnipeds in close proximity to sources of seismic noise may experience intense sound 

7 pressure levels that could cause temporary hearing loss by masking ambient noise levels, causing 

8 damage to hearing structures and body tissues (Richardson et al. 1995). Generally seals move 

9 away from seismic vessels, although some are observed swimming in the bubbles generated by 

10 large seismic air gun arrays (MMS 2003e).

11

12 Walrus hearing has been reviewed in the Pacific Walrus Status Review (Garlich 

13 Miller et al. 2011). If exposed to seismic surveys, some walruses may be temporarily displaced 

14 or may even experience temporary threshold shifts in hearing. Seismic surveys occur in open 

15 water where walruses may be feeding or passing through but are less likely to be present in large 

16 numbers (USFWS 2008; BOEMRE 2010e).

17

18 Noises associated with seismic surveys are less likely to harm fissipeds than cetaceans 

19 (MMS 2007d). It is unlikely that polar bears are affected by seismic noise in water, as they swim 

20 with their heads above water, reducing the risk of hearing damage. In contrast, on-ice seismic 

21 work during the winter is more apt to disturb polar bears. Females with cubs will abandon den 

22 sites when a seismic crew is operating nearby (Amstrup 1993; Linnell et al. 2000). Premature 

23 den abandonment could lead to an increase in cub mortality. Polar bears may not be very 

24 sensitive to noise (Richardson 1995 in Richardson et al. 1995), but bears in the vicinity of a 

25 seismic survey may leave the area. Female bears excavate dens in snow on drifting pack ice and 

26 on land. Pregnant females and females with newborn cubs in maternity dens are sensitive to 

27 noise and may be disturbed by seismic exploration, and have been reported to abandon den sites 

28 when seismic crews are operating nearby (Amstrup 1993). Such abandonment of a maternity 

29 den, even if short-term, could reduce cub survival. In addition, polar bears encountered along 

30 seismic survey lines may be killed in defense of life and property, although regulatory agencies 

31 and the oil and gas industry have made serious efforts to minimize interactions with polar bears 

32 (NRC 2003a). However, companies are required to search for dens prior to the onset of work 

33 and are also required to maintain a 1-mile buffer around the dens, which, so far, appears to be an 

34 effective mitigation measure.

35

36 For more information on potential effects to marine mammals from seismic exploration, 

37 see the MMS Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Arctic Ocean Outer Continental 

38 Shelf Seismic Surveys (MMS 2006c). In summary, seismic noise can alter ambient noise levels, 

39 damage marine mammal hearing structures, and cause direct physical injury to marine mammals. 

40 Potential effects caused by these stressors include:

41

42 • Temporary increased susceptibility to injury, mortality, or predation due to 

43 noise masking (e.g., communication, predator avoidance);

44

45 • Temporary disturbance of normal behavior;

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-273

1 • Temporary avoidance of habitat;

2

3 • Increased susceptibility to injury, mortality, or predation due to hearing loss; 

4 and

5

6 • Reduced survival due to physical injury.

7

8 Construction of Offshore Platforms and Pipelines. As part of the proposed action, 6 to 

9 16 exploration wells and 40 to 120 production wells will be drilled in the Beaufort Sea, while 

10 1 to 20 exploration wells and 60 to 280 production wells will be drilled in the Chukchi Sea. 

11 There will also be 1 to 4 platforms in the Beaufort Sea and 1 to 5 platforms in the Chukchi Sea. 

12 Additional offshore activities planned as part of the proposed action include 10 subsea

13 production wells and 48 to 217 km (30 to 135 mi) of new offshore pipeline in the Beaufort Sea,

14 and between 18 and 82 subsea production wells and 40 to 402 km (25 to 250 mi) of new offshore 

15 pipeline in the Chukchi Sea (Table 4.4.1-4).

16

17 Noise and human activity associated with construction of offshore facilities and pipelines 

18 could disturb marine mammals that may be present in the vicinity of the construction site. 

19 Construction activities could disturb normal behaviors (e.g., feeding, social interactions), mask 

20 calls from conspecifics, disrupt echolocation capabilities, and mask sounds generated by 

21 predators or prey. Generally, the immediate response of disturbed individuals is to leave or 

22 avoid the construction area. From a behavioral perspective, increased anthropogenic noise could 

23 interfere with communication among cetaceans, such as gray, minke, beluga, and killer whales 

24 and harbor porpoise, mask important natural and conspecific sounds, or alter natural behaviors 

25 (i.e., displacement from migration routes or feeding areas, disruption of feeding or nursing). 

26 Behavioral impacts appear to be affected by the animal‘s sex and reproductive status, age, 

27 accumulated hearing damage, type of activity engaged in at the time, group size, and/or whether 

28 the animal has heard the sound previously (e.g., Olesiuk et al. 1995; Richardson et al. 1995a; 

29 Kraus et al. 1997; National Research Council 2003a, 2005a). Toothed whales can be particularly 

30 sensitive to high-frequency sounds given their use of high-frequency sound pulses in 

31 echolocation, and moderately high-frequency calls for communication. Baleen whales, a group 

32 including gray and minke whales, are similarly sensitive to the low frequency noise that is often 

33 characteristic of construction, machinery operation, vessel noise, and aircraft noise. Bowhead 

34 whales stop feeding and move from within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of experimental dredge sounds to 

35 more than 2 km (1.2 mi) away (MMS 2002a). In addition, some individuals may habituate to 

36 dredging and other construction activities (MMS 2002a). Because some marine mammal species 

37 exhibit seasonal changes in distribution and are absent or infrequent in the Beaufort and Chukchi 

38 Sea Planning Areas in winter, winter construction of offshore platforms would affect relatively 

39 few animals. In spring and summer, species present in construction area would be expected to 

40 leave the area to other habitats. Displacement could be of short- or long-term duration and could 

41 affect survival of young if adults abandon young or are displaced from important foraging areas

42 as well as adults if they are kept from their feeding areas for a long period of time. The 

43 construction of new infrastructure in polar bear habitat has the potential to adversely impact 

44 these animals through disturbance and displacement.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-274

1 To date, documented impacts to polar bears in Alaska by oil and gas development 

2 activities are few. The potential for adverse impacts is largely associated with increases in 

3 industrial activity or expansion of industrial footprints, as well as related increases in 

4 human/polar bear interactions. Minimal impacts could result from the potential increase in 

5 human/polar bear interactions associated with expanding the onshore facility, installing the 

6 offshore and onshore pipelines, and extending the production timeframe within the action area. 

7 The FWS and USGS have predicted that polar bears may be extirpated throughout much of their 

8 range within the next 40 to 75 yr if current trends in sea ice reduction continue (73 FR 28212 

9 [15 May 2008]). Nonetheless, impacts to bears as a direct result of routine, OCS-related oil and 

10 gas activities appear to be minimal. 

11

12 Any activity causing noise reaching 160 re 1 μPa would risk level B harassment take of 

13 whales, and require a take authorization under the MMPA. Additional mitigation measures 

14 required to avoid significant adverse impacts would be required by later BOEM and NMFS 

15 review processes. Detailed analysis of potential Exploration Plans and Development & 

16 Production Plans, along with mitigation measures incorporated into any necessary Incidental 

17 Take Authorizations (ITA), would further reduce the potential for any significant adverse 

18 impacts. Overall, while development activities may impact whales through masking and 

19 avoidance, significant impacts are not expected. Such effects would likely be limited to 

20 individuals or small groups, be limited in duration to the construction period, and be sublethal. 

21

22 Pipeline trenching may also disrupt mammal species (e.g., Pacific walrus, gray whale, 

23 bowhead whale). Despite the long, linear nature of pipelines, their construction is a slow24 moving, relatively stationary operation. Thus, pipeline construction represents a temporary and 

25 avoidable source of disturbance. The extent to which benthic food sources are affected and the 

26 subsequent impact to marine mammals depend on the type and amount of benthic habitat that 

27 would be permanently disturbed by trenching, the importance of the specific habitats in 

28 providing food resources to marine mammals, and the marine mammal species and numbers of 

29 individuals that could be affected. 

30

31 Pipeline construction could cross barrier island and nearshore coastal habitats. Polar 

32 bears may be temporarily displaced, or their behavior modified (e.g., by changing direction or 

33 speed of travel), by construction activities. As explained in a recent biological opinion, 

34 ―disturbance from stationary activities could elicit several different responses in polar bears. 

35 Noise may act as a deterrent to bears entering the area, or conversely, it could attract bears.

36 Bears attracted to development facilities may result in human–bear encounters, leading to 

37 unintentional harassment, or intentional hazing of the bear‖ (USFWS 2009). Mitigation 

38 measures (such as implementation of a human-bear conflict management plan) generally 

39 required under MMPA Incidental Take Authorizations (typically a Letter of Authorization) 

40 would reduce the potential for these impacts. Any adverse impacts would be localized and 

41 negligible.

42

43 Because no more than 13.5 ha (33.4 ac) of bottom area would be disturbed by platform 

44 construction and no more than 567 ha (1,401 ac) of bottom area would be disturbed by pipeline 

45 construction under the proposed action (Table 4.4.1-4), relatively little benthic habitat would be 

46 disturbed compared to that present in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. Natural 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-275

1 recovery of the disturbed benthic habitats would occur within 3 to 10 yr of initial disturbance 

2 (Section 4.4.6.2.3). Pipeline trenching is expected to have a limited effect on the overall 

3 availability of food sources for marine mammals. Impacts to marine mammal food sources 

4 would be localized and would not result in population-level impacts. To avoid or minimize 

5 adverse impacts, relevant organizations (i.e., project proponents, BOEMRE, NMFS) will need to 

6 develop timing guidelines and operational protocols to govern the specifics of this project. This 

7 review would take place at a later stage of review, when more site-specific information would be 

8 known. 

9

10 Construction of Onshore Pipelines. Under the proposed action, 16 to 129 km (10 to 

11 80 mi) of new pipelines onshore of the Beaufort Sea will occur, causing up to 584 ha (1,443 ac) 

12 of soil disturbance (Table 4.4.1-4). No other onshore construction will occur under the proposed 

13 action (Section 4.4.1.3). Onshore construction activities would not affect most of the marine 

14 mammals in the Arctic region because these species typically occur in offshore open-water 

15 habitats and ice floes and along pack ice away from coastal areas where construction might 

16 occur. Individuals that might be present in nearshore waters adjacent to a construction area 

17 would leave the area. Onshore pipeline construction has the potential to directly affect pinnipeds 

18 and fissipeds and their habitats through impacts associated with direct contact with construction 

19 equipment or infrastructure, as well as indirect impacts associated with perceived habitat loss. 

20 Most pinnipeds and fissipeds are alert and mobile enough to be able to avoid areas where 

21 construction is occurring. Juveniles are smaller and less mobile than adults; therefore, human 

22 disturbances associated with construction activities may have a greater effect on younger 

23 pinniped and fissiped individuals.

24

25 The activities associated with onshore construction may also indirectly affect pinniped 

26 and fissiped species by reducing habitat quality, and thereby affecting the distribution of the 

27 species. Pinnipeds and fissipeds may avoid certain areas of human disturbance. Polar bears may 

28 be affected by oil and gas development by abandoning dens in close proximity to onshore 

29 disturbances, which may lead to range conflicts with other polar bears or greater cub mortality 

30 (Amstrup 1993; Linnell 2000). However, there is evidence that some species or individuals of 

31 pinnipeds and fissipeds may be capable of habituating to moderate levels of oil and gas 

32 exploration and development activities (Moulton et al. 2003; Blackwell et al. 2004; 

33 Smith et al. 2007).

34

35 The spotted seal, Pacific walrus, and polar bear are the three species of marine mammals 

36 in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas likely to occur in coastal habitats, and therefore 

37 to be affected by onshore construction. The spotted seal uses coastal habitats such as beaches 

38 and river delta sandbars for sunning and resting, while the polar bear forages along shore ice 

39 locations, and may have onshore maternity dens located as much as 8 to 10 km (5 to 6 mi) inland 

40 of the coast (Section 3.6.4.2.1). Walrus also haul out in large numbers along the Chukchi Sea 

41 Coast and beluga use the near shore areas, such as Kaseguluk Lagoon, in the spring. Foraging 

42 bears and resting seals would probably leave or avoid areas where onshore construction is 

43 occurring. If an active maternity den is present at or near the construction site, construction may 

44 cause the female to abandon the den and her cubs, potentially decreasing cub survival 

45 (Linnell et al. 2000); however, there is evidence that denning polar bears can become tolerant of 

46 low levels of human activity (Amstrup 1993). This was also recently seen (2011) when a sow 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-276

1 with cubs denned on Spy Island next to an offshore facility. As only a small number of 

2 individuals of either species might be disturbed, no population-level effects are expected.

3

4 Given the small amount of onshore construction that could occur under the proposed 

5 action, it is unlikely that onshore construction would have long-term impacts to pinniped and 

6 fissiped populations. Onshore construction activities would be sited to avoid areas of known 

7 sensitive habitats (e.g., polar bear dens), minimizing the potential for affecting pinniped and 

8 fissiped populations.

9

10 Operations of Offshore and Onshore Facilities. Noise associated with OCS 

11 drilling and production is of relatively low frequency, typically between 4.5 and 30 Hz 

12 (Richardson et al. 1995). Potential effects on marine mammals may include disturbance 

13 (e.g., changes in behavior, short- or long-term displacement) and masking of calls from 

14 conspecifics or other natural sounds (e.g., surf, predators).

15

16 Because odontocetes use sounds at frequencies that are generally higher than the 

17 dominant sounds generated by offshore drilling and production activities, they may not be 

18 sensitive to or affected by these sounds. In contrast, mysticetes (the minke, gray, humpback, fin 

19 and bowhead whales) are considered to have good low-frequency hearing and exhibit 

20 vocalizations at low frequencies, and thus may be affected by drilling and production noise. 

21 Effects would be similar to those identified for exploration and construction activities, namely, 

22 behavioral disruption and avoidance of or displacement from the immediate vicinity of the 

23 operating facility. For example, bowhead whales have been observed to deflect from their 

24 migratory path by 20 km (12 mi) or more in response to drilling noises (MMS 2002a). However, 

25 bowhead whales tolerate high levels of continuous drilling noise when necessary to continue 

26 with migration (MMS 2002a).

27

28 Avoidance or displacement can be of short- or long-term duration, depending on whether 

29 or not affected individuals may become acclimated to the operational activities. Because 

30 affected individuals would most likely leave the area for other appropriate habitats, neither 

31 behavioral disturbance nor the displacement of individuals by normal operations would be 

32 expected to result in long-term effects to either individuals or populations. The presence of an 

33 operating onshore facility could reduce the suitability of some areas for use by denning female 

34 polar bears, while normal operations of offshore facilities could decrease the suitability of 

35 offshore areas as pinniped foraging or pup-rearing habitats. Exposure events that elicit a 

36 response also may induce stress and further energy expenditure. The frequency that an 

37 individual is exposed and reacts to noise levels throughout a given season or lifetime can reach 

38 thresholds whereby individual health or reproductive performance could be adversely affected.

39

40 Under the Final Rule designating critical habitat for polar bears, terrestrial denning 

41 habitat (Critical Habitat Unit 2) was not designated along the U.S. Chukchi Sea coastline 

42 (75 FR 76086 [Dec. 7, 2010]). In the Bering and Chukchi Seas, the majority of dens that have 

43 been documented occur on Wrangel and Herald islands, and on the Chukotka Peninsula in 

44 Russia. In recent years, sea ice formation along the coastline is occurring later in winter, which 

45 may preclude access to coastal denning areas along the U.S. Chukchi Sea coastline. While the 

46 USFWS has determined that the coastlines of the Chukchi and Bering Seas are not critical 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-277

1 habitat, some dens may occur along the coast. Disturbance at den sites from construction or 

2 other human activities could result in a female with cubs abandoning the den site, resulting in 

3 death from hypothermia or predation to the cubs. Should construction activities be proposed 

4 near an active den, mitigation measures (such as den detection and avoidance) generally required 

5 under the Letter of Authorization would reduce the potential for these impacts. The raised 

6 onshore pipeline would not pose a physical barrier to polar bear movement, and once away from 

7 the coast, would not be in polar bear habitat.

8

9 Discharges and Wastes. Table 4.4.1-4 presents information on drilling fluids, drill 

10 cuttings, and produced waters discharged offshore as a result of the proposed action in the 

11 Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Figure 4.4.7-4 (Section 4.4.7.1.1) presents a conceptual model for 

12 potential effects of operational waste discharges on marine mammals. Produced water, drilling 

13 muds, and drill cuttings will be discharged into offshore marine waters in compliance with 

14 applicable regulations and permits. Compliance with regulations and permits will limit the 

15 exposure of marine mammals to waste discharges. In some cases, drilling muds may be recycled 

16 and not discharged and cuttings may be transported offsite.

17

18 Up to 500 bbl of drill fluids and 600 tons of drill cuttings will be discharged at each 

19 exploration and delineation well (Table 4.4.1-4). Heavier components of these muds and 

20 cuttings (such as rock) would settle to the bottom, while lighter components could increase 

21 turbidity around the drill site. While this increased turbidity could cause marine mammals to 

22 avoid the area, any increase in suspended solids associated with the discharge of drilling wastes 

23 would be rapidly diluted and dispersed, and thus not be expected to adversely affect marine 

24 mammals in the area. Drilling fluids and cuttings associated with development and production 

25 wells would be treated and disposed of in the wells; therefore, negligible impacts to marine 

26 mammals from these wastes are expected.

27

28 Some marine mammals may be exposed to waste fluids (such as bilge water) generated 

29 by and discharged from OCS vessels. Discharges of such wastes from OCS service and 

30 construction vessels, if allowed, would be regulated under applicable NPDES permits and would 

31 also be rapidly diluted and dispersed. Sanitary and domestic wastes would be processed through 

32 shipboard waste treatment facilities before being discharged overboard, and deck drainage would 

33 also be processed shipboard to remove oil before being discharged. Thus, permitted waste 

34 discharges from OCS service and construction vessels would not affect marine mammals.

35

36 Ingestion or entanglement with solid debris can adversely impact marine mammals 

37 (Marine Mammal Commission 2004). Mammals that have ingested debris, such as plastic, may 

38 experience intestinal blockage which, in turn, may lead to starvation, while toxic substances 

39 present in the ingested materials (especially in plastics) could lead to a variety of lethal and 

40 sublethal toxic effects. Entanglement in plastic debris can result in reduced mobility, starvation, 

41 exhaustion, drowning, and constriction of, and subsequent damage to, limbs caused by tightening 

42 of the entangling material. The discharge or disposal of solid debris into offshore waters from 

43 OCS structures and vessels is prohibited by the BOEM (30 CFR 250.40) and the USCG 

44 (MARPOL, Annex V, Public Law 100-220 [101 Statute 1458]). Thus, entanglement in or 

45 ingestion of OCS-related trash and debris by marine mammals would not be expected under the 

46 proposed action during normal operations.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-278

1 Vessel and Aircraft Traffic. There would be up to 12 surface vessels and 12 helicopter 

2 trips per week in the Beaufort Sea and up to 15 surface vessels and 15 helicopter trips per week 

3 in the Chukchi Sea under the proposed action (Table 4.4.1-4). The majority of vessel traffic in 

4 the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas primarily occurs during summer, at which time it could 

5 contribute to ambient noise and potential disturbance to marine mammals (MMS 2002a). Which 

6 species could be affected by vessel and aircraft traffic, the nature of their response, and the 

7 potential consequences of the disturbance, will be a function of a variety of factors, including the 

8 specific routes, the number of trips per day, the altitude of the aircraft overflights, the seasonal 

9 habitats along the routes, the species using the habitats and the level of their use, and the 

10 sensitivity of the mammals to vessel and aircraft traffic. Traffic over heavily used feeding or 

11 calving habitats could result in population-level effects for some species, while impacts from 

12 traffic over other areas with less sensitive species would likely be limited to a few individuals 

13 and not result in population-level effects.

14

15 Marine mammals may be affected by this traffic either by disturbance from passing 

16 vessels or helicopters or by direct collisions with vessels. Among the cetaceans, the beluga, 

17 gray, and bowhead whales are the most abundant in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning 

18 Areas. Thus, these species have the potential to encounter OCS-related vessels. The other 

19 cetaceans are present in relatively low numbers (e.g., less than 2,000 throughout the entire 

20 planning area), and thus are less likely to encounter OCS-related vessels. During their spring 

21 migration (April through June), bowhead whales would likely encounter few, if any, vessels 

22 along their migration route, as NMFS (in their IHAs) and FWS (in their LOAs) restrict access to 

23 the Chukchi Sea to protect animals in the spring lead system. 

24

25 Bowheads react to the approach of vessels at greater distances than they react to most 

26 other industrial activities. According to Richardson and Malme (1993), most bowheads begin to 

27 swim rapidly away when vessels approach rapidly and directly. This avoidance may be related 

28 to the historic commercial and continuing subsistence hunting. Avoidance usually begins when a 

29 rapidly approaching vessel is 1–4 km (0.62–2.5 mi) away. A few whales may react at distances 

30 from 5–7 km (3–4 mi), and a few whales may not react until the vessel is <1 km (<0.62 mi) 

31 away. Received noise levels as low as 84 dB re 1 μPa (decibels relative to one micropascal) or 

32 6 dB above ambient may result in strong avoidance of an approaching vessel at a distance of 

33 4 km (2.5 mi) (Richardson and Malme 1993). Vessel disturbance has been known to disrupt 

34 activities and social groups. Fleeing from a vessel generally stopped within minutes after the 

35 vessel passed, but scattering may persist for a longer period. Parks et al. (2011) note for North 

36 Atlantic right whales (a species similar to bowhead whales) and Holt and Noren (2008) note for 

37 killer whales that individuals modified calls in response to increased background and vessel 

38 noise, respectively, by increasing the amplitude of their calls. McDonald, Hildebrand, and 

39 Mesnick (2009), however, noted the decline in blue whale song tonal frequencies was not fully 

40 explained by the hypothesis of increasing ocean noise. But these authors suggest that post 

41 whaling population increase is altering sexually selected trade-offs for singing males between 

42 song intensity (ability to be heard at a greater distance) and song frequency (ability to produce 

43 songs of lower pitch). 

44

45 Where vessels approach slowly or indirectly, bowheads are much more tolerant, and 

46 reactions are generally less dramatic. The encounter rate of bowhead, humpback, and fin whales 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-279

1 with vessels associated with natural gas development would depend on the location of the 

2 platform in relation to both shipping routes and areas of heavy use. During their spring 

3 migration (April through June), bowheads likely would encounter few, if any, vessels along their 

4 migration route, because ice at this time of year typically would be too thick for supply vessels to 

5 operate in. Bowheads, as with other ―right whales‖ (family Balaenidae), are among the slowest 

6 moving of whales, which may make them particularly susceptible to ship strikes. Despite their 

7 likely greatest susceptibility to vessel strikes, records of strikes on bowheads are rare compared 

8 with records of strikes on some other large whales (Laist et al. 2001). About 1% of the bowhead 

9 whales taken by Alaskan Iñupiat bore scars from ship strikes (George et al. 1994). Until 

10 recently, few large ships have passed through most of the Western Arctic bowhead‘s range but 

11 this situation is changing and the potential for increasing opportunity for vessel strikes may be 

12 increasing as northern sea routes become more navigable with the decline in sea ice. At present, 

13 bowheads, humpback, and fin whales probably would adjust their individual swimming paths to 

14 avoid approaching within several kilometers of vessels attending the production platform, and 

15 would also move away from vessels that approached them within a few kilometers 

16 (Richardson et al. 1995).

17

18 Worldwide, at least 11 species of cetaceans have been documented as being hit by ships 

19 (Laist et al. 2001; Jensen and Silber 2003). In most cases, the whales are not seen beforehand or 

20 are seen too late to avoid collision. Most lethal or severe injuries involve ships traveling 

21 ≥14 knots (26 km/hr or 16 mph) or faster, and collisions with vessels greater than 80 m (262 ft) 

22 in length are usually either lethal or result in severe injuries (Laist et al. 2001). Most seismic 

23 vessels typically operate around 4–5 knots. Gray whale use of shallow coastal habitat during 

24 migration makes ship strikes a potential source of mortality. Only one ship strike mortality has 

25 been reported in Alaska when a killer whale hit the prop during a groundfish trawl in the Bering 

26 Sea (MMS 2008b; Allen and Angliss 2011), however, to-date, there have been no vessel strikes 

27 reported in the Arctic. Although, harvested bowhead whales have had scarring, indicating they 

28 had been hit by the prop of a ship (Rosa 2008). Pinnipeds may also be struck by vessels. There 

29 is a possible, but unlikely, potential for polar bears to be struck by vessels (MMS 2009a).

30

31 In addition to possible collision-related injuries, cetaceans may be disturbed by the 

32 observation of the vessel and the noise it generates. Disturbed individuals would be expected to 

33 cease their normal behaviors and likely move away from the vessel. Following passage of the 

34 vessel, affected individuals may return and resume normal behaviors. However, if vessel traffic 

35 occurs along a consistent route, some species may permanently leave the area. If the abandoned 

36 areas represent important feeding or calving areas, physical condition and reproductive success 

37 may be adversely affected. Of 236 bowhead whales examined between 1976 and 1992, only 

38 three ship-strike injuries were documented, indicating that they do not often encounter vessels, 

39 avoid interactions with vessels, or that interactions usually result in the death of the animals 

40 (Shelden and Rugh 1995; Rosa 2008). Current rates of vessel strikes of bowheads are low, and 

41 there are no known fin or humpback strikes in the Alaskan Arctic (BOEMRE 2010e). Bowhead 

42 whales do not seem to react to aircraft overflights at altitudes above 300 m (984 ft). Most 

43 bowheads do not deflect more than a few kilometers from a single noise disturbance, and 

44 behavioral responses last only a few minutes. Most reactions include a change in migration 

45 speed and swimming direction to avoid the sound source (Richardson et al. 1991). Bowhead 

46 whales typically avoid vessels at distances ranging from 1 to 4 km (0.6 to 2.5 mi); drilling noise 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-280

1 may deflect individuals 20 km (12.4 mi) or more from their migratory paths. Schick and Urban 

2 (2000) suggest that the spatial pattern of bowhead distribution is highly correlated with distance 

3 from drilling rigs, and the presence of drilling rigs results in a temporary loss of available habitat. 

4 Miles et al. (1987) suggest icebreakers pushing ice would cause half of the bowheads within 

5 4.6 to 20 km (2.9 to 12.4 mi) of the source to demonstrate an avoidance behavior. Beluga whales 

6 are also known to avoid ice breakers by long distances (Erbe 1997, 2000; Cosens 2003).

7

8 Fixed wing aircraft may serve as whale spotters during pipeline route surveys or pipeline 

9 installation activities in the nearshore areas. The use of spotter aircraft could be an important 

10 mitigation technique that would reduce the overall potential for gas development to cause 

11 adverse impacts to whales. Helicopters are likely to be used to transport crews and supplies in 

12 support of modification of the production platform for gas development. Aircraft noise may 

13 elicit a response, such as a turn or hasty dive, from a whale or group of whales. But given the 

14 altitude at which these aircraft are expected to fly, the potential for adverse reactions is small. 

15 Any impacts that did occur would be temporary and minor. To avoid potential disturbance 

16 effects on marine mammals, aircraft maintain minimum flight altitudes — human safety will take 

17 precedence at all times over this recommendation.

18

19 Construction- and operation-related noises that have the greatest potential to impact 

20 pinnipeds, including those generated from vessel and aircraft traffic. Noises emitted by shipping 

21 vessels range between 140 dB re 1 μPa for smaller vessels to 198 dB re 1 μPa for larger tankers 

22 and cargo ships (Heathershaw et al. 2001; Erbe 2002; Hildebrand 2004). Helicopters flying at 

23 150 m (492 ft) altitude are expected to emit noises received at ground level of approximately 

24 80 to 86 dB re 20 μPa (Born et al. 1999). These noises may impact nearby pinniped species, 

25 which typically have in-air hearing thresholds between 20 to 80 dB and underwater hearing 

26 thresholds between 60 to 120 dB (Kastak and Schusterman 1998; NRC 2005). Noises associated

27 with approaching vessels and helicopters may cause hauled out pinnipeds to flee to aquatic 

28 habitats. Fay et al. (1984) observed Pacific walruses diving into the water from pack ice when 

29 approached by a helicopter within 400 to 600 m (1,300 to 1,968 ft) upwind and 1,000 to 1,800 m 

30 (3,280 to 5,905 ft) downwind. Ringed, spotted, and bearded seals have also been known to 

31 avoid approaching vessels by fleeing from haul out sites into the water (Frost et al. 1993; 

32 Born et al. 1999; Burns and Frost 1999; COSEWIC 2003). During pinniped flight reactions, 

33 young pups could be trampled or become isolated from their mothers, leading to injury or 

34 making them more susceptible to predators. Despite this, there is evidence that pinnipeds may 

35 habituate to moderate levels of human activity (Moulton et al. 2003; Blackwell et al. 2004); 

36 therefore, the impacts to pinnipeds from operational noises are expected to be either negligible 

37 or minor depending on the species affected.

38

39 Vessel traffic may disturb pinnipeds in the water and hauled out on ice or terrestrial 

40 habitats. Hauled out pinnipeds may exhibit behavioral reactions to the physical disturbance of an 

41 approaching vessel or aircraft (sometimes >1 km [0.6 mi] away) by exhibiting startle reactions, 

42 escaping the immediate area into the water. Project aircraft has the greatest potential to 

43 adversely affect pinnipeds haul out and rookery sites (Frost et al. 1993), where disturbed adults 

44 may temporarily cease normal behaviors (such as feeding of young), leave the rookery site, and 

45 thereby increase predation risks of unattended pups, or risk of trampling while adults are fleeing. 

46 However, pinnipeds may habituate to the presence of project vessels (Moulton et al. 2003; 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-281

1 Blackwell et al. 2004), and the escape reactions of hauled out pinnipeds may be minimized over 

2 time. At times, many of these species, such as seals, are attracted to moving vessels. Pinnipeds 

3 could be injured or killed by ship collisions. 

4

5 Vessel traffic associated with icebreaking activities in the Alaskan OCS may alter the 

6 behaviors of walruses at greater distances (sometimes >2 km [1.2 mi] away) than ordinary ship 

7 traffic (Fay et al. 1984). In response to icebreaking vessels, female and young walruses typically 

8 react more than males do. Hauled out females and young typically responded to approaching 

9 icebreaking vessels by fleeing into the water at distances of 0.5 to 1 km (0.3 to 0.6 mi); males 

10 responded by entering the water at distances of 0.1 to 0.3 km (0.06 to 0.2 mi) 

11 (Brueggeman et al. 1991; Johnson et al. 1988). 

12

13 Vessel and aircraft traffic may disturb fissipeds in aquatic and terrestrial habitats. It is 

14 unlikely for polar bears to be directly impacted by vessel collisions; instead, impacts to polar 

15 bears from vessel and aircraft traffic may occur from the physical disturbance associated with 

16 such activities. Fissipeds are generally considered to be more tolerant than other marine 

17 mammals to noises associated with the construction of offshore oil and gas platforms 

18 (MMS 2007d). However, construction-related noises may still affect fissiped populations. 

19 Vessel, terrestrial vehicle, and aircraft activities can affect polar bear behavior. Vessel traffic 

20 associated with natural gas development activity is not expected to cause impacts to polar bears,

21 because they show little reaction to vessels and generally do not linger in open water where 

22 vessels are more likely to travel. As explained in a Biological Opinion (USFWS 2009), ―During 

23 the open-water season, most polar bears remain offshore on the pack ice. Barges and vessels 

24 transporting materials for construction and on-going operations of facilities usually travel in 

25 open-water and avoid large ice floes. Therefore, there is some spatial separation between vessels 

26 and polar bears.‖ If there is an encounter between a vessel and a bear, it would most likely result 

27 in short-term behavioral disturbance only. Polar bear responses to vessels are brief, and 

28 generally include walking toward, stopping and watching, and walking/swimming away from the 

29 vessel. 

30

31 Polar bears typically flee from low flying aircraft that are at an altitude of <200 m 

32 (656 ft) and a lateral distance of <400 m (1,312 ft) (Shideler 1993). Extensive or repeated 

33 overflights by helicopters travelling to and from offshore facilities could disturb polar bears.

34 Polar bears have been known to run from other sources of noise and the sight of aircraft, 

35 especially helicopters. According to a Biological Opinion (USFWS 2009), ―Behavioral reactions 

36 of polar bears would likely be limited to short-term changes in behavior and have no long-term 

37 impact on individuals. In addition, [BOEMRE] requires these types of flights to operate at an 

38 altitude of >1,500 ft AGL where possible, which would significantly reduce disturbance.‖ It is 

39 expected that flight altitude requirements will minimize disturbances and that adverse impacts 

40 from this activity will be temporary and minimal. 

41

42 The effects of air traffic on pinnipeds in the action area are expected to be localized and 

43 transient. Some seals may be disturbed on the ice or at haulouts on land and enter the water, 

44 although their responses may be highly variable and brief in nature (Born et al. 1999; 

45 Boveng et al. 2008, 2009; Burns and Harbo 1972; Cameron et al. 2010; Kelly et al. 2010). 

46 Mitigation measures prohibiting aircraft overflights below 457 m (1,500 ft) will lessen aircraft 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-282

1 impacts to these pinnipeds. Results from studies of an existing facility (specifically, the 

2 Northstar development) are roughly analogous to what is contemplated under the present natural 

3 gas development scenario and suggest that any adverse impacts to phocids would be minor, 

4 short-term, and localized, with no measurable consequences to seal populations.

5

6 Pacific walrus are particularly vulnerable to disturbance events given their tendency to 

7 aggregate in large groups. Reactions to disturbances when on ice are highly variable 

8 (Richardson et al. 1995a). Reactions at group haulouts (on land) are more consistent; walrus will 

9 flee haulout locations in response to disturbance from aircraft and ship traffic, though walrus in 

10 the water are thought to be more tolerant. Females with dependent young are considered the 

11 least tolerant of disturbances. Walrus are particularly sensitive to helicopters and changes in 

12 engine noise, and are more likely to stampede when aircraft turn or bank overhead. Disturbances 

13 caused by vessel and air traffic may cause walrus groups to abandon land or ice haulouts. Severe 

14 disturbance events could result in trampling injuries or cow-calf separations, both of which are 

15 potentially fatal. But while adverse impacts can be severe, they are also to a large extent 

16 avoidable. The USFWS has concluded that a minimum altitude of 1000 ft ASL is sufficient in 

17 sea ice habitats (see p. 24 of the USFWS Chukchi Sea EA, 2008) with a 0.5-mi (80-m) horizontal 

18 buffer. BOEMRE has taken the more precautionary approach of a 1-mi horizontal buffer and 

19 1500-ft AGL or ASL based in part on industry data and on unpublished ADFG and USFWS 

20 haulout monitoring data. While BOEMRE does not regulate air space within the project area, 

21 direct overflights of terrestrial or sea ice walrus haulouts by industry are strongly discouraged.

22 Typical mitigation measures include flight corridors, a minimum of 1 to 2 mi inland and directly 

23 from shore to the exploration site, while maintaining a minimum of 1 horizontal mi from groups 

24 of walrus hauled out on ice or land. Overall, the potential for adverse impacts to individuals or 

25 groups of walrus do exist, but the probability is minimal in light of mitigation techniques, such as 

26 minimum altitude requirements for aircraft. Impacts to walrus are expected to be minor.

27

28 Decommissioning. Under the proposed action, no platforms will be removed with 

29 explosives from the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. Therefore, potential impacts of 

30 decommissioning on marine mammals, as summarized in Figure 4.4.7-4 (Section 4.4.7.1.1), will 

31 not occur.

32

33 Accidents. Accidental oil spills could occur in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning 

34 Areas under the proposed action (Section 4.4.2). Table 4.4.2-1 presents the oil spill assumptions 

35 for the proposed action; while Figure 4.4.7-5 (Section 4.4.7.1.1) presents a conceptual model for 

36 potential effects of oil spills on marine mammals. Small oil spills (≤1,000 bbl) break up and 

37 dissipate within hours to a day (MMS 2009a). Large spills, particularly those that continue to 

38 flow for extended periods (i.e., days, weeks, or months), pose an increased likelihood of 

39 impacting marine mammal populations (MMS 2008b). Operational discharges such as tank 

40 washing with seawater, oil content in ballast water, and fuel oil sludge are among the sources of 

41 small oil spills from tankers (Jernelöv 2010). Large oil spills from tankers have decreased 

42 significantly in recent years while spills from ageing, ill-maintained, or sabotaged pipelines have 

43 increased. 

44

45 Oil spills could affect marine mammals in a number of ways, and the magnitude and 

46 severity of potential impacts would depend on the location and size of the spill, the type of 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-283

1 product spilled, weather conditions, the water quality and environmental conditions at the time of 

2 the spill, and the species and habitats exposed to the spill. Marine mammals may be exposed to 

3 spilled oil by direct contact, inhalation, and ingestion (directly, or indirectly through the 

4 consumption of contaminated prey species). Such exposures may result in a variety of lethal and 

5 sublethal effects (Geraci 1990).

6

7 Fresh crude oil releases toxic vapors that when inhaled may irritate or damage respiratory 

8 membranes, congest lungs, and cause pneumonia. Following inhalation, volatile hydrocarbons 

9 may be absorbed into the bloodstream and accumulate in the brain and liver, leading to 

10 neurological disorders and liver damage (Geraci and St. Aubin 1982; Geraci 1990). Toxic vapor 

11 concentrations may occur just above the surface of a fresh oil spill, and thus be available for 

12 inhalation by surfacing cetaceans. Inhalation would be a threat only during the first few hours 

13 after a spill (Hayes et al. 1992; ADNR 1999). Prolonged exposure to freshly spilled oil could 

14 kill some whales (including bowheads, pinnipeds, and polar bear), but the numbers would be 

15 small due to a low chance of such contact. This would most likely occur if oil spilled into a lead 

16 that bowhead whales could not escape (MMS 2001).

17

18 Direct contact of oil may irritate, inflame, or damage skin and sensitive tissues (such as 

19 eyes and other mucous membranes) (Geraci and St. Aubin 1982). Prolonged contact to 

20 petroleum products may reduce food intake; foul baleen on mysticete whales, elicit agitated 

21 behavior; alter blood parameters, respiration rates, and gas exchange; and depress nervous 

22 functions (Lukina et al. 1996). Under less extreme exposures (lower concentrations or shorter 

23 durations), oil does not appear to readily adhere to or be absorbed through cetacean skin, which, 

24 due to a thick fat layer, may provide a barrier to the uptake of oil-related aromatic hydrocarbons 

25 through the body surface (Geraci and St. Aubin 1982, 1985; Harvey and Dahlheim 1994).

26

27 Effects of oil spills would depend on how many whales contacted oil, the duration of 

28 contact, and the age/degree of weathering of the spilled oil. The number of whales contacting 

29 spilled oil would depend on the size, timing, and duration of the spill; how many whales were 

30 near the spill; the whales‘ inclination or ability to avoid contact; and the effectiveness of cleanup 

31 activities (MMS 2001, 2004c). Some displacement of bowhead whales may occur in the 

32 event of a large oil spill, and avoidance of the contaminated area may last for several years 

33 (MMS 2001; NMFS 2001b). This indicates that bowhead whales may have some ability to 

34 detect an oil spill and would avoid surfacing in the oil by detouring away from the spill area 

35 (NMFS 2001b). Modeling efforts have indicated that only up to 2% of the Beaufort Sea 

36 bowhead whale population would be affected by a large oil spill (NMFS 2001b).

37

38 An oil spill into ice leads or polynyas in the spring could have devastating effects, 

39 trapping bowhead whales where they may encounter fresh crude oil. Calves would be more 

40 vulnerable than adults because they need to surface more often to breathe. Feeding bowhead 

41 whales are also sometimes observed aggregating in large numbers during the summer open-water 

42 season, when they could also be vulnerable to a spill. Beluga whales, that also use the spring 

43 lead system to migrate, would be susceptible to a spill that concentrates in these leads (Nuka 

44 Research and Planning Group, LLC and Pearson Consulting, LLC 2010).

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-284

1 Pinnipeds and fissipeds may be exposed while coming ashore onto oiled beaches. In 

2 addition, adults and juveniles may also be indirectly affected if an accidental spill reduces the 

3 quality or quantity of foraging or breeding habitats. Impacts to calving grounds could result in 

4 population-level effects. Fouling of fur of some species (e.g., ringed seal pups, polar bear cubs) 

5 could affect thermoregulation and reduce survival of the affected young. Ice seals tend to be 

6 solitary and would most likely be exposed to oil at sea or on ice. Walrus and spotted seals would 

7 most likely be exposed at sea, on ice, or at coastal haulouts. Polar bears would most likely come 

8 into contact with spilled oil at sea, on ice, or on shore.

9

10 Oil would affect pinnipeds if it were to directly contact individuals, haulouts, or major 

11 prey species. For example, bearded seals and walrus are vulnerable to spilled oil from direct 

12 exposure and from the indirect effects through the benthic organisms on which they feed 

13 (Cameron and Boveng 2009). Although some adult pinnipeds (e.g., walruses) have thick skin 

14 that would protect them from absorption of oil, direct contact with oil would affect sensitive 

15 tissue areas, causing irritation to eyes, nasal passages, and lungs. Inhalation of hydrocarbon 

16 vapors may damage or irritate lung tissue. These injuries may affect already stressed adults and 

17 could lead to some fatalities. While adult ice seals depend on a thick fat layer for insulation, seal 

18 pups rely on a dense layer of underfur until they are several weeks old. The fouling of this 

19 underfur in young pups could reduce its insulating properties, increasing the potential for 

20 hypothermia and increasing pup mortality. While there is no conclusive evidence of past oil 

21 spills causing a decline in prey species sufficient to result in a decline in any marine mammal 

22 population, there is still the possibility of such an effect occurring. Because pinniped species in 

23 the Arctic do not congregate in rookeries, the overall effects of accidental oil spills on pinnipeds 

24 will be species-specific.

25

26 An oil spill that contacts an aggregation of walruses or displaces them from their haulouts 

27 may have a severe impact on the population. Walruses could also be impacted by consuming 

28 contaminated molluscs and being exposed to oil residues in sediments. As they have a long life 

29 span, they could suffer severe effects from the bioaccumulation of oil-derived contaminants 

30 (Nuka Research and Planning Group, LLC and Pearson Consulting, LLC 2010). According to 

31 Geraci and St. Aubin (1990), ice seals have the ability to metabolize oil if ingested in low 

32 amounts and some researchers believe walrus may share this ability (GarlichMiller, 

33 Pers. Comm.).

34

35 Accidental oil spills could potentially affect polar bears through contamination of prey or 

36 reduction of prey availability, fouling of fur, and oiling of ice. Polar bears are very sensitive to 

37 oil contact (Engelhardt 1981). Fouling of fur greatly reduces its ability to insulate, and can result 

38 in hypothermia and death. Direct contact with oil or secondary contact with contaminated ice 

39 could be fatal. However, in most areas, polar bears occur at low densities; therefore, small 

40 numbers of bears would be affected by a single spill. Multiple spills or spills along the ice edge 

41 where bear density is greater would potentially increase mortality rate. Ringed seals are the 

42 primary prey of polar bears and are, therefore, directly linked to their survival. If seal density is 

43 affected by oil spills or cleanup operations, polar bears could experience increased stress and 

44 possibly lower survivorship.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-285

1 Marine mammals may incidentally ingest floating or submerged oil or tar, and may 

2 consume oil-contaminated prey (Geraci 1990). Spilled oil may also foul the baleen fibers of 

3 mysticete whales, temporarily impairing food-gathering efficiency or resulting in the ingestion of 

4 oil or oil-contaminated prey (Geraci and St. Aubin 1987). Ingested oil can remain within the 

5 gastrointestinal tract and be absorbed into the bloodstream, thus irritating and/or destroying 

6 epithelial cells in the stomach and intestine. Oil ingested during grooming of fouled fur has been 

7 reported to result in liver and kidney damage in polar bears and ringed seals (NRC 2003a; 

8 Oritsland et al. 1981). It should be noted that ringed seals and likely other ice seals can detoxify 

9 their bodies by renal and bilary pathways. Further, seals do not typically orally groom 

10 themselves and are therefore less likely to ingest toxins in that way (Kooyman et al. 1976; Geraci 

11 and Smith 1976).

12

13 An accidental oil spill may result in the localized reduction, extirpation, or contamination 

14 of prey species. Invertebrate and vertebrate species (such as zooplankton, crustaceans, mollusks, 

15 and fishes) may become contaminated and subsequently expose marine mammals that feed on 

16 these species.

17

18 Depending on their habitat preferences, feeding styles, and migration patterns, some 

19 species may be more vulnerable to exposure than other species. Spills occurring in spring may 

20 affect a greater number of individuals due to animals congregating during migration. Spills 

21 occurring in or reaching coastal areas, especially sheltered coastal habitats such as bays and 

22 estuaries, would be more likely to affect species such as the beluga whale and spotted seal that 

23 use coastal habitats for calving and resting. Bowheads are most sensitive to oil contamination 

24 during the spring migration when calves are present and their movements are restricted to open 

25 leads in the ice (MMS 2002a). 

26

27 Polar bears may be directly affected by an oil spill, since they spend the majority of their 

28 time on ice, through oiling of fur, ingestion of oil from grooming, or by feeding on oiled prey or 

29 carcasses. Large oil spills could have a significant impact on polar bear habitat and can result in 

30 food chain effects. Spills associated with onshore facilities (and especially any onshore 

31 pipelines) would potentially affect polar bears. While it is unlikely that a bear would be directly 

32 exposed to an accidental pipeline release, bears could be affected by feeding on contaminated 

33 prey. However, because of the relatively low density of bears in the Arctic region, no more than 

34 a few individuals would be expected to be affected by an onshore release. Onshore spills that 

35 enter a stream system may be carried to coastal areas, where other marine mammals may be 

36 exposed.

37

38 Because benthic organisms (such as crustaceans and mollusks) accumulate oil 

39 compounds more readily and to higher levels than pelagic biota, the potential for ingesting oil40 contaminated prey is highest for benthic feeding species, such as the gray whale, less so for 

41 zooplankton-feeding cetaceans, and least for fish-eating cetaceans (Würsig 1990). Similar 

42 differences in exposure via food ingestion may be expected among benthic and fish-eating 

43 pinnipeds (i.e., Pacific walrus, spotted seals). Species with a dependence on or preference for 

44 offshore areas or habitats for feeding, shelter, or reproduction would be more likely to be 

45 affected by a spill than would other marine mammals (Würsig 1990).

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-286

1 Spills occurring in winter may accumulate and may be incorporated into the ice matrix 

2 and move with the ice pack. In spring, this oil may be released into ice leads that are used by 

3 migrating whales (such as beluga and bowhead whales) and by pinnipeds that use these areas, 

4 resulting in the exposure of relatively large numbers of individuals. Spills under ice or 

5 associated with leads may affect haulout sites, causing either abandonment or repeated exposure 

6 through use of the contaminated haulout. Because some species are relatively restricted to open7 water areas associated with ice, individuals may not be able to disperse from spills in these areas, 

8 and thus may incur increased exposures. Because polar bears are closely associated with ice 

9 edges, spills accumulating along these areas may expose the greatest number of bears to an 

10 offshore spill. An oil spill in areas where polar bears congregate (e.g., leads or polynyas and 

11 beachcast marine mammal carcasses) could have negative population effects.

12

13 Marine mammals that frequently groom, such as polar bears, would be most likely to 

14 ingest oil. Feeding on contaminated prey or carcasses also causes ingestion of oil (Fair and 

15 Becker 2000). With the exception of bearded seals who may enter the water within hours of 

16 being born, newborn seals are more sensitive to oil than adult seals, as they have little fat and 

17 rely on a dense layer of fur (lanugo). Loss of this waterproofing by oil could cause hypothermia 

18 and death (Fair and Becker 2000).

19

20 The magnitude and extent of any adverse effects will also depend on how quickly a spill 

21 is contained and how quickly and effectively cleanup is accomplished (USFWS 2004). Arctic 

22 conditions (i.e., sea ice, wind, temperature, limited visibility, and sea state) can potentially 

23 impact oil spill responses. Other than high sea state (choppy waves), which can enhance the 

24 effectiveness of chemical dispersants, most extremes in arctic conditions hinder spill response 

25 activities (Nuka Research and Planning Group 2007). Lessees are required to have contingency 

26 plans to prevent, address, and clean up oil spills (ADNR 1999). Spill cleanup operations could 

27 result in short-term disturbance of marine mammals in the vicinity of the cleanup activity, while 

28 a collision with a cleanup vessel could injure or kill marine mammals. Disturbance of adults 

29 with young during cleanup could reduce survival of the young animals. For example, vessel and 

30 human activities associated with cleanup efforts may cause pinnipeds to abandon coastal haulout 

31 areas and/or rookeries for an extended period of time. Cleanup operations, including helicopter 

32 overflights and vessel traffic, could also potentially increase pup mortality if operations were to 

33 occur near rookeries. Aircraft readily disturb pinnipeds and walruses, which can cause adults to 

34 stampede into the water, trampling pups in the process. Any increased mortality in a pinniped 

35 population could impact the population as a whole, especially for sensitive or declining 

36 populations (e.g., Pacific walruses).

37

38 An approved oil spill response plan would be required for all exploration and production 

39 activities. Oil-containment and cleanup activities would be initiated a short time following an oil 

40 spill (MMS 2003e). Oil spill response activities may affect marine mammals through exposure 

41 to spill response chemicals (e.g., dispersants or coagulants) or through behavioral disturbance by 

42 cleanup operations or habitat disturbance. The chemicals used during a spill response are toxic, 

43 but are considered much less so than the constituents of spilled oil (Wells 1989), although there 

44 is little information regarding their potential effects on marine mammals. The presence of, and 

45 noise generated by, oil spill response equipment and support vessels could temporarily disturb 

46 marine mammals in the vicinity of the response action, with affected individuals likely leaving 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-287

1 the area. While such displacement may affect only a small number of animals and not result in 

2 population-level effects, cleanup operations disturbing adults in pup-rearing areas may decrease 

3 pup survival. Oil spill response support vessels may also increase the risk of collisions between 

4 these vessels and marine mammals in the vicinity of the spill response. During oil spill cleanup 

5 activities, interactions with humans could cause polar bear disturbance, injury, or death. For 

6 example, cleanup operations that disturb a den could result in the death of cubs through 

7 abandonment and perhaps death of the mother.

8

9 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE of 1.4 to 2.2 million bbl for 

10 the Chukchi Sea and 1.7 to 3.9 million bbl for the Beaufort Sea (Table 4.4.2-2). If a CDE 

11 occurs, there is greater potential for more severe effects compared to the risk of effects from a 

12 large oil spill. A CDE would result in sustained degradation of water quality and, to a lesser 

13 extent, air quality that would impact marine mammals from direct contact, inhalation, and 

14 ingestion (either directly or indirectly through the consumption of oiled forage or prey species). 

15 These effects would be significant, causing a multitude of acute and chronic effects. Additional 

16 effects on marine mammals would occur from water and air quality degradation associated with 

17 response and cleanup vessels, in situ burning of oil, dispersant use, discharges and seafloor 

18 disturbances from relief well drilling, and activities on shorelines associated with cleanup, 

19 booming, beach cleaning, and monitoring. A CDE has the potential to increase the area and 

20 duration of an oil spill, thereby increasing the potential for population-level effects, or at a 

21 minimum, an increase in the number of individuals killed. For example, a catastrophic 

22 discharge event contaminating ice leads or polynyas in the spring could have devastating effects, 

23 trapping bowhead whales where they may encounter fresh crude oil. Beluga whales that also use 

24 the spring lead system to migrate would also be susceptible to a spill that concentrates in these 

25 leads.

26

27 Terrestrial Mammals. The terrestrial mammal communities present within the Beaufort 

28 and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas include a variety of small mammals (e.g., rodents), big game, 

29 and furbearer species. Species of particular concern are the caribou, muskoxen, grizzly bear, and 

30 arctic fox. Section 3.6.4.2.1 provides an overview of these species.

31

32 Routine Operations. Under routine operations for the proposed action, terrestrial 

33 mammals could be affected by the construction and operation of new onshore pipelines and from 

34 vehicle traffic and helicopter overflights.

35

36 Construction and Operation of Onshore Pipelines. Under the proposed action, 16 to 

37 129 km (10 to 80 mi) of new onshore pipeline would be installed along the Beaufort Sea, which 

38 could result in 73 to 584 ha (180 to 1,443 ac) of soil disturbance (Table 4.4.1-4). The areas 

39 disturbed represent an extremely small portion of terrestrial wildlife habitat that occurs inshore 

40 of the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas.

41

42 Caribou. In general, caribou use coastal areas of the North Slope largely in June, July, 

43 and August, although a portion of the Western Arctic Herd may overwinter in coastal habitats 

44 bordering the Chukchi Sea, and in some years, the Teshekpuk Lake Herd may remain on the 

45 Arctic Coastal Plain throughout the winter. Because onshore pipeline construction would likely 

46 occur in winter to minimize impacts on the ground surface and vegetation, construction activities
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-288

1 would not affect caribou calving or foraging in summer. Construction could, however, disturb 

2 caribou in overwintering areas, causing them to vacate preferred overwintering areas and move 

3 into less suitable habitats. Such displacement could affect individuals or local populations as a 

4 result of increased energy expenditure associated with movement to, and use of, suboptimal 

5 habitat, with subsequent mortality and reduced productivity (NRC 2003a).

6

7 If construction were to occur in late spring and summer, calving caribou, females with 

8 newborn calves, and older foraging calves could be disturbed. Affected individuals would likely 

9 leave or avoid habitats in the vicinity of the construction activities and move into potentially less 

10 suitable habitats. During the calving season from late May until late June, which includes the 

11 actual calving dates and the following 2 to 3 weeks, cows with calves are particularly susceptible 

12 to disturbance by human activities, and such displacement could result in population-level effects 

13 if calving success and calf survival are reduced (NRC 2003a).

14

15 Overall, caribou may be disturbed during construction or affected by the presence of new 

16 onshore pipeline. The response of caribou may include the avoidance or abandonment of 

17 preferred habitats in the vicinity of the new pipeline, with subsequent displacement to other 

18 potentially suboptimal areas. The magnitude of any such effects would be a function of the 

19 specific location of the new pipeline relative to preferred habitats (such as calving and foraging 

20 grounds and insect-avoidance areas), the location and length of the pipeline, and the number of 

21 individuals affected — the greater the length and distance of the new pipeline from existing 

22 pipelines (particularly TAPS), the greater the potential for affecting caribou and the greater the 

23 number of caribou and caribou herds that could be affected.

24

25 While pipelines built lower than 1.5 m (4.9 ft) above the ground surface may act as 

26 physical barriers to movement (NRC 2003a), a pipeline constructed to current clearance 

27 standards (with a minimum clearance of 1.5 m [4.9 ft]) would not be expected to physically 

28 hinder caribou crossings (Curatolo and Murphy 1986). Caribou have been shown to be reluctant 

29 in approaching pipelines and to exhibit reduced crossing success of pipelines located in close 

30 proximity to roadways with traffic. Thus, the presence of a new pipeline may affect daily or 

31 seasonal movements of some individuals and herds.

32

33 Muskoxen. Muskoxen are expected to avoid the area where construction of new pipeline 

34 is occurring. It is not known how construction disturbance or the presence of a completed 

35 pipeline would affect muskoxen habitat use and reproductive success. However, muskoxen may 

36 be particularly vulnerable to disturbance in winter because of limited habitat, the length of the 

37 arctic winter, the need to conserve energy throughout the winter, and, for females, the need to 

38 maintain good body condition throughout winter and spring for calving (Reynolds et al. 2002). 

39 However, because of the small population size of muskoxen, disturbance from pipeline 

40 construction could result in population-level effects, especially if this species is disturbed during 

41 winter. The limited distribution and small population size of muskoxen in the coastal and inland 

42 areas adjacent to the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas would greatly reduce the 

43 likelihood for disturbance of this species.

44

45 The presence of a completed pipeline may hinder movement by muskoxen if there is 

46 insufficient pipeline clearance for this species. However, muskoxen do not exhibit as extensive 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-289

1 seasonal or daily movements as caribou. If undisturbed, muskoxen remain in relatively small 

2 areas throughout the winter, while in summer they exhibit longer movements that track the 

3 emergence of high-quality forage plants (Reynolds et al. 2002). In summer, most daily 

4 movements of radio-tracked individuals in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) were 

5 reported to be less than 5 km (3 mi) in length, and many were typically less than 1 km (0.6 mi) in 

6 length (Reynolds et al. 2002). Existing pipelines associated with the North Slope oil fields and 

7 TAPS do not appear to have hindered the westward expansion of muskoxen from ANWR. For 

8 muskoxen to have expanded their range from ANWR to the Colville River, some individuals had 

9 to cross the TAPS ROW or travel through the oil fields on the North Slope (BLM 2002). Thus, 

10 the presence of a new pipeline is not expected to adversely affect muskoxen populations in 

11 onshore areas adjacent to the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas.

12

13 Brown Bear. The brown bear uses the coastal environments and/or terrestrial oil 

14 transportation routes onshore of the entire Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. Winter 

15 construction of onshore pipeline could disrupt individual bear dens. In summer, some 

16 individuals may temporarily leave habitats in the vicinity of active construction. However, 

17 because bears often habituate to human activities and facilities (Follmann and Hechtel 1990), the 

18 presence of new pipeline is not expected to directly adversely affect the grizzly bear.

19

20 Arctic Fox. Arctic foxes occur throughout the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas, 

21 using the coastal and shore-fast ice habitats. The arctic fox would not be adversely affected by 

22 the construction or operation of new pipeline. Individuals would likely abandon habitats 

23 temporarily in the vicinity of construction activities. Because the completed pipeline could 

24 provide increased shelter and den habitat, populations of arctic fox could increase along the 

25 pipeline corridor. An increase in fox abundance could lead to increased outbreak of disease 

26 (rabies, canine distemper) among foxes living along the pipeline corridor, as well as increased 

27 predation pressures on populations of prey species.

28

29 Foxes are highly mobile, and in late autumn and winter, they disperse out onto the sea ice 

30 in search of food. Because of this mobility, foxes may visit new offshore facilities (e.g., drilling 

31 platforms, ice roads, exploratory seismic trains) in search of food when sea ice is present. Arctic 

32 foxes were regularly observed near Seal Island in the Northstar development during the ice33 covered season (MMS 2002a). Thus, depending on their number and distance from shore, new 

34 offshore platforms may provide additional winter food supplies and increase winter survival of 

35 some individuals.

36

37 Vehicle Traffic and Helicopter Overflights. Vehicle traffic associated with operations of 

38 a pipeline (e.g., pipeline monitoring) could affect wildlife along the new pipeline and any 

39 associated access roads. In addition, new access roads may also increase the incidence of 

40 vehicles associated with recreation, subsistence hunting, and other activities. Vehicle traffic 

41 could disturb wildlife foraging along roadways, causing affected wildlife to temporarily stop 

42 normal activities (e.g., foraging, resting) or leave the area. Collision with vehicles could result in 

43 mortality, especially in areas with concentrations of wildlife or along migration corridors. 

44 Vehicle traffic along any access road associated with the proposed action would likely be light. 

45 Thus, the incidence of such collisions would be very low and not expected to result in 

46 population-level impacts on wildlife.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-290

1 Helicopter overflights associated with pipeline monitoring and transport of personnel 

2 and supplies may disturb wildlife. The effects of helicopters on wildlife vary by species, 

3 populations, habitat type, and environmental variables. Some species may become habituated 

4 and experience no adverse effects (e.g., see Harting 1987). Routine overflights by surveillance 

5 helicopters would result in a short-term disturbance to animals along the pipeline route, causing 

6 them to temporarily alter behaviors, and would not be expected to result in long-term population7 level effects.

8

9 Caribou. Responses to vehicle and helicopter traffic by caribou can vary from no 

10 response to panic behavior. Cow and calf groups appear to be most sensitive (Valkenburg and 

11 Davis 1984; MMS 1998). Because caribou tend to avoid transportation corridors (Dau and 

12 Cameron 1986; Griffith et al. 2002; Cameron et al. 2002; NRC 2003a), disturbance of caribou by 

13 vehicle traffic associated with normal operations of an onshore pipeline would be infrequent. 

14 Single passes by helicopters may result in short-term disturbances that should not adversely 

15 affect caribou (MMS 1998). Low-flying helicopters are more likely to produce negative 

16 responses from caribou than are light, fixed-wing aircraft (Maier et al. 1998). McKechnie and 

17 Gladwin (1993) evaluated altitude tolerance thresholds below which aircraft overflights elicit 

18 panic and escape responses and determined that the tolerance threshold for a fixed-wing aircraft 

19 was 61 m (200 ft), with few or no response reactions observed above 153 m (500 ft). In contrast, 

20 the tolerance threshold for helicopters was determined to be 306 m (1,000 ft) in altitude (Miller 

21 and Gunn 1979).

22

23 Muskoxen. Vehicle traffic along a pipeline access road would likely result in temporary 

24 disturbance of muskoxen in the immediate vicinity of the roadway. The response of muskoxen 

25 to aircraft overflights has been reported to range from calm to excitable, and the nature of the 

26 response depends in part on the altitude of the overflight, terrain, climate, sex, group size, 

27 number of calves present in a group, and habituation (Miller and Gunn 1979, 1980). Helicopter 

28 and low-flying aircraft overflights can cause muskoxen to stampede and abandon their calves 

29 (NRC 2003a). While responses of muskoxen to vehicle traffic and aircraft overflights associated 

30 with the proposed action are not expected to adversely affect muskoxen populations, energetic 

31 costs associated with forced movements (especially if frequent) in winter could adversely affect 

32 spring calving and could result in population-level effects.

33

34 Brown Bear. Some brown bears may be injured or killed by collisions with vehicles 

35 along access roads, while bears in the vicinity of vehicle traffic may be disturbed and temporarily 

36 cease normal behavior or leave the area until the vehicle has passed. Aircraft overflights have 

37 been reported to elicit a variety of responses in brown bears, including escape behavior and 

38 hiding (Larkin 1996). While vehicle traffic and aircraft overflights associated with the proposed 

39 action may on occasion temporarily disturb individual bears, long-term population-level effects 

40 would not be expected from normal operations.

41

42 Arctic Fox. The Arctic fox may experience temporary disturbance from vehicle traffic 

43 and aircraft overflights, resulting in hiding, departure from the immediate area, or cessation of 

44 normal behaviors. Some individuals crossing or traveling along access roads may be injured or 

45 killed by vehicle traffic. Relatively few individuals are expected to be affected, and population46 level impacts would not be expected under normal operations.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-291

1 Accidents. Accidents under the proposed action that could affect terrestrial wildlife 

2 would be largely limited to an oil spill from a new pipeline. The impacts on wildlife from an oil 

3 spill would depend on such factors as the time of year and volume of the spill, type and extent of 

4 habitat affected, and home range or density of the wildlife species. The potential effects on

5 wildlife from oil spills could occur from direct contamination of individual animals, 

6 contamination of habitats, and contamination of food resources. Acute (short-term) effects 

7 usually occur from direct oiling of animals (e.g., exposure to toxic hydrocarbons via inhalation 

8 and/or by ingestion of oil while grooming contaminated fur), while chronic (long-term) effects 

9 generally result from such factors as accumulation of contaminants from food items and 

10 environmental media (e.g., water).

11

12 Up to two large pipeline spills are expected to occur over the lifetime of the proposed 

13 action (Table 4.4.2-1). For the most part, expected spills would occur at offshore facilities rather 

14 than from the onshore pipeline. Wildlife may be exposed to spilled oil by eating a variety of 

15 oiled vegetation, wildlife, and/or contaminated carrion. In addition, animals occurring within a 

16 spill area may also be exposed via inhalation of aromatic hydrocarbons. Such exposure would 

17 likely result in sublethal or lethal effects. The magnitude of the effect will depend on the level of 

18 exposure, the life stage of the exposed bear (i.e., adult, cub), and the condition of the exposed 

19 animal (i.e., healthy, injured).

20

21 Oil spills could potentially affect arctic foxes through contamination of prey, reduction of 

22 prey availability, and fouling of fur, causing loss of its insulating capacity. Arctic foxes would 

23 be vulnerable to oil ingestion from grooming their fur (Nuka Research and Planning Group, LLC 

24 and Pearson Consulting, LLC 2010). Although arctic foxes are abundant predators on the North 

25 Slope, their mobility allows them to disperse from oiled areas, if necessary. Because arctic foxes 

26 are opportunistic carnivores, they may prey on oiled birds and small mammals and consume 

27 oiled carcasses, thereby increasing their potential for incurring lethal and sublethal exposure to 

28 the spilled oil and its breakdown products. While some loss of arctic foxes may occur as a result 

29 of this exposure, this loss would be limited to animals in the vicinity of the spill. While a local 

30 population-level effect may result, recruitment from other areas would likely quickly replace the 

31 lost individuals.

32

33 Staging and support activities for cleanup of a large offshore spill could temporarily 

34 displace terrestrial mammals. Oil spill cleanup activities on land may displace these animals 

35 from not only contaminated habitats but also nearby uncontaminated habitats. This displacement 

36 could reduce energy reserves (especially in winter), which in turn could affect body condition 

37 and calving success.

38

39 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE of 1.4–2.2 million bbl in the 

40 Chukchi Sea and 1.7-3.9 million bbl in the Beaufort Sea (Table 4.4.2-2). If a CDE occurs, there 

41 is greater potential for more severe effects compared to the risk of effects from a large oil spill.

42 A CDE would result in sustained degradation of water quality, shoreline terrestrial habitats, and, 

43 to a lesser extent, air quality that could impact terrestrial mammals from direct contact, 

44 inhalation, and ingestion (either directly or indirectly through the consumption of oiled forage or 

45 prey species). These effects could be severe where persistent, heavy oil makes contact with 

46 important habitat and prey base, causing a multitude of acute and chronic effects. Additional 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-292

1 effects on terrestrial mammals would occur from land and air quality degradation associated with 

2 response and cleanup vessels, in situ burning of oil, dispersant use, and activities on shorelines 

3 associated with cleanup, booming, beach cleaning, and monitoring. A CDE has the potential to 

4 alter terrestrial mammal habitats and populations. The potential for a population-level impact 

5 would occur in the unlikely event that a spill occurred in an area where a large number of 

6 individual animals are concentrated. For instance, population-level effects to caribou would be 

7 most likely from spills occurring in calving areas and along migration corridors. For the 

8 muskoxen, the potential for population-level effects would be greatest for a spill occurring in 

9 winter when this species remains in small areas, restricted by the availability of forage 

10 (Reynolds et al. 2002).

11

12

13 4.4.7.1.4 Conclusion.

14

15 Routine Operations.

16

17 Marine Mammals.

18

19 Under the proposed action, routine operations could affect marine mammals in the 

20 northern GOM. The levels of impacts to marine mammals for each of the planning areas are:

21

22 • GOM: Impacts on cetaceans could range from negligible to moderate, while 

23 impacts on the West Indian manatee would be negligible. Rare or extralimital 

24 species are not likely to be affected by routine operations.

25

26 • Cook Inlet: Impacts to marine mammals could range from negligible to 

27 moderate. Many of the listed cetacean species occur infrequently, if at all, 

28 within the Cook Inlet Planning Area and thus would not be expected to be 

29 affected by normal operations. Cook Inlet belugas primarily occur in the 

30 upper portion of Cook Inlet that is not in the Cook Inlet Planning Area.

31

32 • Arctic: Impacts to marine mammals could range from negligible to moderate.

33

34 Noise generated during seismic surveys, exploration and production activities, platform 

35 removal, and by OCS-related vessels and helicopters may temporarily disturb some individuals. 

36 Contaminants in waste discharges and drilling muds might indirectly affect marine mammals 

37 through food-chain biomagnification, although the scope of effects and their magnitude are not 

38 known. However, this information is not essential to the determination of a reasoned choice 

39 among alternatives. Small numbers of marine mammals could be killed or injured by chance 

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

41 from service vessels, drilling rigs, and platforms (including FPSO facilities for the GOM). 

42 While vessels may collide with marine mammals, the most likely impact on marine mammals 

43 would be changes in behavior (e.g., avoidance responses). Normal behavior is expected to return 

44 once a vessel or helicopter has passed. It is expected that structure removal would cause only 

45 minor behavioral changes and non-injurious physiological effects on cetaceans as a result of the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-293

1 implementation of BOEM guidelines and the NOAA Fisheries Observer Program for explosive 

2 removals. 

3

4 Terrestrial Mammals.

5

6 Gulf of Mexico. The four federally endangered GOM coast beach mice subspecies and 

7 the federally endangered Florida salt marsh vole and their habitats would not be affected by 

8 normal operations under the proposed action.

9

10 Cook Inlet. Overall, routine activities associated with the proposed action will have 

11 negligible to minor impacts on the size and productivity of terrestrial mammal species along the 

12 shorelines of Cook Inlet. Up to 120 km (75 mi) of onshore pipeline would be constructed and 

13 operated as part of the proposed project; thus, impacts to terrestrial mammals would include a 

14 minor loss or modification of habitat and behavioral responses associated with occasional 

15 helicopter traffic to and from new platforms. Loss or modification of habitat for the pipeline 

16 would affect a very minor amount of wildlife habitat within the Cook Inlet area. The disturbance 

17 of wildlife by helicopter flights would be short-term in nature and not expected to result in 

18 population-level effects. 

19

20 Arctic. Impacts to terrestrial mammals could range from negligible to moderate. The 

21 construction and normal operations of up to 129 km (80 mi) of new pipeline could result in a 

22 variety of short-term and long-term impacts to terrestrial mammals. Short-term impacts would 

23 largely be behavioral in nature, with affected animals avoiding or vacating the construction 

24 areas. Similarly, vehicle and aircraft traffic associated with the proposed action could 

25 temporarily disturb mammals near access roads or under flight paths. While the disturbance of 

26 these animals would be short-term in nature, the energetic costs incurred by some of the 

27 disturbed biota (especially overwintering muskoxen and pre-calving female caribou) could affect 

28 reproductive success. Therefore, disturbances could result in longer term impacts to animal 

29 populations. The presence of a new onshore pipeline may result in the displacement from 

30 preferred habitats to less suitable habitats for overwintering muskoxen, calving female caribou, 

31 and female caribou and their calves. Such displacement may reduce overwinter conditioning or 

32 survival as well as calving success. While population-level effects may not be likely for caribou, 

33 local population-level effects may occur for muskoxen because of the small population size in 

34 Alaska. While vehicle traffic and aircraft overflights associated with the proposed action may on 

35 occasion temporarily disturb brown bears and arctic foxes, long-term population-level effects 

36 would not be expected from normal operations. Overall, routine activities associated with the 

37 proposed action are not expected to have long-term major impacts on the size and productivity of 

38 terrestrial mammal species of the North Slope of Alaska. 

39

40 Accidents.

41

42 Marine Mammals. Any of the oil spill scenarios developed for the proposed action 

43 (Section 4.4.2) may expose marine mammals to oil or its weathering products. Overall, oil spills 

44 are expected to have small to medium impacts to marine mammals, while impacts from oil spill 

45 response activities are expected to be small. In the case of a low probability CDE, there is 

46 greater potential for more severe and population-level effects compared to a large oil spill. The 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-294

1 magnitude of effects from accidental spills would depend on the location, timing, and volume of 

2 the spills; the environmental settings of the spills (e.g., restricted coastal waterway, deepwater 

3 pelagic location); and the species (and its ecology) exposed to the spills. Spill cleanup 

4 operations could result in short-term disturbance of marine mammals in the vicinity of the 

5 cleanup activity, while a collision with a cleanup vessel could injure or kill the affected 

6 individual. In general, oil spill impacts on species that are extralimital to rare are expected to be 

7 small, but could be larger depending on the number of individuals contacted by a spill.

8

9 Terrestrial Mammals.

10

11 GOM. Because of their locations on inner dunes, the habitats of the beach mice are 

12 unlikely to be affected by an accidental offshore oil spill. While the habitat of the Florida salt 

13 marsh vole could be affected by an oil spill, this species and its habitat are located far from areas 

14 where oil leasing and development may occur under the proposed action. Thus, it is highly 

15 unlikely that this habitat would be contacted by an accidental oil spill from OCS oil and gas 

16 activities. Potential impacts of accidents on terrestrial mammals are not expected.

17

18 Cook Inlet and Arctic. Overall, oil spills are expected to have minimal to small impacts 

19 to terrestrial mammals, while impacts from oil spill response activities are expected to be very 

20 small. In the event of an accidental spill, terrestrial mammals may be exposed via ingestion of 

21 contaminated food, inhalation of airborne oil droplets, and direct ingestion of oil during 

22 grooming, which may result in a variety of lethal and sublethal effects. However, because most 

23 spills would be relatively small (≤ 1,000 bbl), relatively few individuals would likely be exposed. 

24 While some individuals may incur lethal effects, population-level impacts would not be expected 

25 for most species. Cleanup activities could temporarily disturb terrestrial mammals in the vicinity 

26 of the cleanup operation, causing those animals to move from preferred to less optimal habitats, 

27 which, in turn, could affect overall condition. Such displacement would be limited to those 

28 relatively few animals in the vicinity of the cleanup activity, and thus would not be expected to 

29 result in population-level effects.

30

31

32 4.4.7.2 Marine and Coastal Birds

33

34 Each of the four phases of OCS oil and gas development have associated impact35 producing factors (Table 4.1.1-1), some of which may affect marine and coastal birds in the 

36 Planning Areas included in the proposed action. Oil and gas development activities that may 

37 occur following lease sales under the proposed action and that may affect marine and coastal 

38 birds include (1) offshore structure placement and pipeline trenching; (2) offshore structure 

39 removal; (3) operational discharges and wastes; (4) OCS vessel and aircraft traffic; 

40 (5) construction and operation of onshore infrastructure (including new pipeline landfalls); and 

41 (6) noise. Table 4.4.7-2 identifies the impacting factors associated with routine operations that 

42 could affect birds and the aspects of marine and coastal birds that could be affected by those 

43 factors.

44

45 In general, routine operations associated with oil and gas development are not expected to 

46 result in population-level effects on marine and coastal birds. Most impacts from routine 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-295

1 TABLE 4.4.7-2 Impacting Factors and the Marine and Coastal Bird Resource 

2 Components That Could Be Affected with Oil and Gas Development under the 

3 Proposed Action

Resource Component Potentially Affected

Habitata Life Stageb Behavior

Development Phase and Impacting Factors 

That May Affect Marine and Coastal Birds

NestingForagingOverwinteringNestlingsJuvenilesAdultsForagingCourtship/NestingMigration/Staging

Impacting Factors Common to All Phases

Helicopter noise -

c

- - + + + + + -

Helicopter traffic - - - + + + + + -

Ship noise - - - - - - - - -

Ship traffic - - - + + + + + +

Hazardous materials - - - + + + - - -

Solid wastes - - - + + + - - -

Offshore lighting - - - - + + - - +

Offshore air emissions - - - - - - - - -

Exploration – Exploratory Drilling

Seismic noise - - - - + + + - -

Drilling noise - - - - + + - - -

Drilling mud/debris - - - - + + - - -

Offshore Development

Drilling noise - - - - + + + - -

Trenching noise - - - + + + + + -

Drilling mud/debris - - - - + + + - -

Pipeline trenching - + + + + + + - -

Wellhead and platform placement - - - - + + + - -

Onshore Development

Site clearing ++ ++ - ++ + + ++ ++ +

Construction activity - - - + + + + + +

Construction noise - - - + + + + + +

Production

Platform collisions - - - - + + - - -

Production noise - - - - + + - - -

Produced water - - - - + + - - -

Drill mud/debris - - - - - - - - -

Decommissioning

Explosive platform removal - - - - + + + - -

Non-explosive platform removal - - - - + + + - -

a Reflects only direct loss or physical degradation of the habitat and not habitat use.

b Reflects only injury or mortality of affected life stage.

c A dash (-) indicates no or negligible effect anticipated; ―+‖ indicates potentially minor impacts, ―++‖

indicates potentially moderate impacts, and ―+++‖ indicates possible major impacts and possible populationlevel effects. See Section 4.1.4 for impact level definitions.

4
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-296

1 operations would be localized to the site of the project infrastructure or along support vehicle 

2 routes, would for most operations be short term or transient, and would likely affect relatively 

3 few individuals or habitats. The greatest potential for longer term and possibly population-level 

4 impacts would be associated with very large accidental oil spills. In most areas, small spills 

5 would likely affect relatively small numbers of birds and habitats. In contrast, very large spills 

6 could affect habitats along extensive areas of coastline and large numbers of birds and important 

7 habitats (such as nesting colonies or wintering grounds). Depending on the timing, duration, 

8 size, and location of a very large spill, population-level impacts could be incurred by some 

9 species.

10

11

12 4.4.7.2.1 Gulf of Mexico.

13

14 Routine Operations. Routine activities associated with the proposed action that may 

15 affect marine and coastal birds in the northern GOM include (1) offshore structure placement and 

16 pipeline trenching, (2) offshore structure removal, (3) operational discharges and wastes, 

17 (4) OCS vessel and aircraft traffic, (5) construction and operation of onshore infrastructure 

18 (including new pipeline landfalls), and (6) noise. Potential impacts associated with these 

19 activities may include injury or mortality of birds from collisions with platforms, vessels, and 

20 aircraft; exposure to operational discharges; ingestion of trash or debris; loss or degradation of 

21 habitat due to construction; and behavioral disturbance due to the presence of, and noise 

22 generated by, equipment and human activity (Russell 2005). The nature and magnitude of 

23 effects on birds will depend on the specific location of an activity or completed structure 

24 (e.g., with greater impacts if a pipeline landfall construction would occur adjacent to a heron 

25 rookery), the timing of the activity (e.g., construction that occurs during nesting), and the nature 

26 and magnitude of the activity (e.g., the number of miles of trenching through nearshore coastal 

27 habitats, the quantity and concentrations of the production water discharges).

28

29 Offshore Structure Placement and Pipeline Trenching. The construction of new 

30 offshore infrastructure is not expected to adversely affect marine and coastal birds. Pipeline 

31 trenching may affect birds in nearshore coastal areas if trenching occurs in or near foraging or 

32 nesting areas. For many species, the effects would be primarily behavioral, namely, the short33 term avoidance or abandonment of habitats in the immediate area of trenching. Pipeline 

34 trenching near nesting colonies (such as heron rookeries) may disturb adults that are incubating 

35 eggs or feeding young, potentially affecting nesting success. Because trenching could result in 

36 some long-term loss of coastal habitat (see Section 4.4.6.1.1), habitat loss for some species may 

37 also occur. Such impacts could be avoided or minimized by locating pipeline corridors away 

38 from nesting aggregations and/or by scheduling trenching activities to avoid the nesting period.

39

40 Seabirds such as the brown pelican often use offshore oil and gas production platforms as 

41 rest areas or as temporary shelters during inclement weather. In addition, offshore platforms are 

42 also used in spring and fall for resting and feeding stopovers by birds migrating to and from 

43 more southern wintering areas (Baust et al. 1981; Russell 2005). For example, in the fall, many 

44 migratory species (including waterfowl, shorebirds, and passerines) arrive at the GOM coast and 

45 then fly several hundred miles across the open GOM waters directly for to Central and South 

46 America (Lincoln et al. 1998). This route appears to be preferred over the safer but more 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-297

1 circuitous land or island routes by way of Texas or Florida. The use of offshore platforms may 

2 increase the survivability of individuals using these structures to rest or as shelter during bad 

3 weather conditions in the open waters of the GOM (Russell 2005).

4

5 Migrating birds may collide with offshore platforms. Annual bird mortality from 

6 collisions with offshore platforms has been estimated at 200,000 birds in the northern GOM, 

7 with an average of 50 collision deaths per platform per year (Russell 2005). This is probably an 

8 underestimate of actual collision mortality incurred by migrating birds, because it is based only 

9 on birds recovered from the platforms; birds falling into the water are not reflected in these 

10 mortality estimates (Russell 2005). Applying the 50 collision deaths per platform per year 

11 estimate, new platforms that could be constructed following lease sales held under the proposed 

12 action may result in a total incremental increase of about 10,000 to 22,500 bird collision 

13 mortalities. By comparison, hundreds of millions of birds are killed each year colliding with 

14 communication towers, windows, electric transmission lines, and other structures (e.g., see 

15 Klem 1989, 1990; Dunn 1993). Migrating birds may also be drawn to a lighted platform and 

16 circle the platform before moving on or stopping on the platform (Russel 2005). Such circling 

17 behavior could increase the potential for a platform collision and use up valuable energy reserves 

18 needed for completing the trans-GOM migration.

19

20 Offshore Structure Removal. Under the proposed action, up to 275 existing platforms 

21 could be removed from the GOM planning areas. Because many marine birds, as well as 

22 migratory birds, are attracted to platforms, there is a potential for some individuals to be affected 

23 if they are present during platform removal activities. Typical platform decommissioning 

24 involves dismantling many of the above-platform structures, followed by the use of underwater 

25 explosives to collapse the platform proper. Birds using a platform undergoing decommissioning 

26 would likely leave the platform during dismantling activities. Any remaining birds would be 

27 startled by the underwater detonations and quickly leave the collapsing structure. Thus, only 

28 negligible minor impacts on relatively few individual birds would be expected from 

29 decommissioning activities under the proposed action.

30

31 The explosive removal of offshore structures is not expected to affect any of the birds 

32 listed under the ESA that occur in the three planning areas. Only two species, the roseate tern 

33 and the red knot (a candidate species), are likely to visit offshore platforms either during 

34 migration (red knot) or during normal foraging activities (roseate tern). The NMFS has 

35 previously evaluated the explosive removal of offshore platforms in the GOM and issued a 

36 Biological Opinion that concluded that such structure removal would not jeopardize birds listed 

37 under the ESA (NMFS 1988). In addition, the BOEMRE has established guidelines for 

38 explosive platform removals (30 CFR 250). These guidelines require structure removal–specific 

39 plans to protect marine life and the environment and specify procedures and mitigation measures 

40 to be taken to minimize potential impacts. BOEMRE conducts detailed technical and 

41 environmental reviews of proposed removal projects to ensure that listed species would not be 

42 affected; these reviews include consultation with NMFS and USFWS. Thus, compliance with 

43 the BOEMRE guidelines should further reduce the likelihood that offshore structure removal 

44 would affect either the red knot or the roseate tern.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-298

1 Operational Discharges and Wastes. Normal operational wastes may include produced 

2 water, drilling muds, and drill cuttings discharged from offshore platforms, waste fluids 

3 produced on OCS vessels, and trash and debris generated on platforms and vessels. A number of 

4 normal operational discharges and wastes have the potential to affect marine and coastal birds.

5

6 The discharge of production wastes into open water is prohibited in coastal waters but 

7 permitted in marine waters under the NPDES program (see Section 4.4.3.1). Produced water, 

8 drilling muds, and drill cuttings are routinely discharged from production platforms in the GOM 

9 into offshore marine waters in compliance with applicable regulations and permits, and would 

10 continue to be so discharged with any development following lease sales under the proposed 

11 action. The discharged materials may contain a variety of constituents (e.g., trace metals, 

12 hydrocarbons) that may be toxic to birds. In marine waters, birds could be exposed to these 

13 materials by direct contact or through the ingestion of contaminated food items. Birds most 

14 likely to be present at offshore production locations where operational discharges are occurring 

15 are those that forage on fish in offshore waters and may frequent offshore facilities; these include 

16 pelicans, frigatebirds, gannets, and terns.

17

18 Upon discharge in accordance with permit specifications, production wastes would be 

19 rapidly diluted in the water column (i.e., to ambient levels within several thousand meters of 

20 discharge [see Section 4.4.3.1.1]) and dispersed by currents, thus greatly reducing the magnitude 

21 of exposure that a bird might incur. If constituents of the discharged materials bioaccumulate or 

22 biomagnify, there is a potential that some birds may be exposed through their food. Field studies 

23 have shown that the concentrations of trace metals, hydrocarbons, or NORM in the tissues of 

24 fishes collected around production platforms are within background levels (Neff 1997a). Thus, 

25 food chain uptake is likely not a major exposure pathway for fish-eating birds at offshore 

26 facilities.

27

28 Among the threatened and endangered species present in the northern GOM planning 

29 areas (see Section 3.8.2.1.2), only the roseate tern and the candidate red knot may be expected at 

30 offshore platforms. The roseate tern, which is known to occur in oceanic waters, occurs within 

31 the Florida Keys and southeastern Florida (USFWS 1999; FFWCC 2003). Because these areas 

32 are hundreds of kilometers away from the portion of the EPA where oil and gas leasing and 

33 development might occur under the proposed action, the roseate tern would not be expected to be 

34 exposed to production wastes generated at offshore facilities. The red knot is a shorebird that 

35 would occur only at a platform during spring and fall migrations, and then only if stopping to rest 

36 on a platform while crossing the GOM. As this species is not an open-water feeder or swimmer, 

37 no exposure to operational discharges would be expected for the red knot.

38

39 Some bird species may also be affected indirectly if the discharges reduce the abundance 

40 of prey species (NRC 1983; API 1989; Kennicutt 1995). However, because of the rapid dilution 

41 that would occur, potential impacts on prey populations inhabiting the water column (e.g., fish, 

42 plankton) would likely be limited in extent and not be expected to significantly affect overall 

43 prey abundance (see Sections 4.4.7.3.1 and 4.4.7.5.1). While some production-related 

44 contaminants may reach sediments and reduce macroinfaunal abundance (Rabalais et al. 1998), 

45 the potentially affected macroinvertebrate biota would be at depths beyond the diving limits of 

46 birds. Sediment impacts can last for years after the discharge period has ended (Rye et al. 2008) 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-299

1 and can cause an overall impoverishment of the benthic community (Daan and Mulder 1996). 

2 These sediment changes may affect benthic larval or juvenile stages of species which would 

3 eventually become prey for seabirds.

4

5 Many species of marine birds (especially gulls) often follow ships and forage in their 

6 wake on fish and other prey injured or disoriented by the passing vessel. In doing so, these birds 

7 may be affected by discharges of waste fluids (such as bilge water) generated by OCS vessels. 

8 Discharges of such wastes from OCS service and construction vessels, when allowed, would be 

9 regulated under applicable NPDES permits (see Section 4.4.3.1); any discharged wastes would 

10 be quickly diluted and dispersed and thus not be expected to affect marine birds.

11

12 Marine and coastal birds may become entangled in or ingest floating, submerged, and 

13 beached debris (Heneman and the Center for Environmental Education 1988; Ryan 1987, 1990). 

14 Entanglement may result in strangulation, the injury or loss of limbs, entrapment, or the 

15 prevention or hindrance of the ability to fly or swim, and all these effects may be considered 

16 lethal. Ingestion of debris may irritate, block, or perforate the digestive tract, suppress appetite, 

17 impair digestion of food, reduce growth, or release toxic chemicals (Fry et al. 1985; Dickerman 

18 and Goelet 1987; Ryan 1988; Derraik 2002). Because the discharge or disposal of solid debris 

19 into offshore waters from OCS structures and vessels is prohibited by the BOEMRE 

20 (30 CFR 250.40) and the USCG (MARPOL, Annex V, Public Law 100-220 [101 Statute 1458]), 

21 entanglement in or ingestion of OCS-related trash and debris by marine and coastal birds would 

22 not be expected under normal operations.

23

24 Vessel and Aircraft Traffic. Under the proposed action, up to 600 vessel and 

25 5,500 helicopter trips may take place weekly within the northern GOM planning areas. Birds 

26 may be affected in the following ways by this traffic: (1) they may be induced by vehicle noise 

27 to cease a particular activity (such as nesting or feeding) and leave the area, (2) they may incur 

28 injury or mortality through collision with a ship or helicopter, or (3) nests may be disturbed by 

29 excessive boat wakes.

30

31 Disturbance from noise is addressed later in this section. Birds disturbed by the presence 

32 of an OCS vessel may flee an area. Displaced birds would move to other habitats and may or 

33 may not return. In most cases, such displacement would be short term and transient and would 

34 not be expected to result in any lasting effects. However, if the displaced birds were occupying 

35 active nests, incubating eggs, or feeding and protecting hatchlings, even a short-term absence of 

36 the adult birds could increase predation of eggs or unfledged young, or reduce hatching success. 

37 However, because of the heavy commercial and recreational boat traffic in the northern GOM, 

38 most birds of the area are likely habituated to ship traffic and may only minimally react to 

39 passing OCS support vessels. In addition, OCS vessel traffic would likely occur within 

40 designated traffic lanes and not in waterways where birds may be nesting on beaches or other 

41 shoreline habitats. For this same reason, wakes from OCS-related vessels are also not expected 

42 to affect coastal birds and their nests. In addition, low-wake or wake-free vessel speeds are 

43 required while transiting across waterways that have sensitive shoreline resources (such as 

44 shorebird nesting colonies). Thus, compliance with such requirements would further minimize 

45 potential wake-induced impacts on birds.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-300

1 A number of studies have examined the responses of birds to low-flying aircraft and 

2 atypical noise (see Noise discussion below). The results of many of these studies have indicated 

3 that although habituation may vary among species (Conomy et al. 1998), many species of birds 

4 will habituate to low-flying aircraft and noise and exhibit no effects on reproductive success 

5 (Black et al. 1984; Andersen et al. 1989; Delaney et al. 1999).

6

7 FAA guidelines for helicopter operations in the GOM request that pilots maintain a 

8 minimum altitude of 213 m (600 ft) while in transit offshore, 305 m (1,000 ft) over unpopulated 

9 areas or across coastlines, and 610 m (2,000 ft) over populated areas and sensitive habitats such 

10 as wildlife refuges and park properties (FAA 2010). Compliance with these guidelines regarding 

11 service altitudes for OCS helicopters would minimize disturbance of nesting or roosting birds 

12 within coastal areas.

13

14 Construction and Operation of Onshore Infrastructure. Loss or alteration of preferred 

15 habitat due to new OCS pipeline landfalls could result in the displacement of individuals or 

16 groups of birds from the affected area(s), including a possible decrease in nesting activities. 

17 Some pipelines in the central and western GOM have been brought to shore using a directional 

18 drilling process (MMS 2006a, 2008a) in which pipelines pass beneath coastal habitats to emerge 

19 inland at an onshore receiving facility, away from coastal habitats. Where used, this process 

20 could greatly reduce or avoid impacts on coastal habitats that are important to listed and non21 listed marine and coastal birds.

22

23 Under the proposed action, up to 12 landfalls would be expected in the Western and 

24 Central GOM Planning Areas, with none occurring in the EPA. The location and small number 

25 of landfalls that could occur with development associated with the proposed action would greatly 

26 limit the amount of coastal bird habitat that might be disturbed. In addition, siting of pipeline 

27 landfalls would consider the presence of sensitive habitats and areas, and avoid such areas to the 

28 maximum extent possible, further reducing the likelihood of affecting coastal bird habitats and 

29 the magnitude and extent of impacts on such habitats.

30

31 Noise. Noise generated during facility and pipeline construction, production operations, 

32 and platform removal activities, and by OCS ships and helicopters, may affect birds in a variety 

33 of ways. Unexpected noise can startle birds and potentially affect feeding, resting, or nesting 

34 behavior, and often causes flocks of birds to abandon the immediate area.

35

36 Much of the wildlife-related noise effects research has shown that noise may affect 

37 territory selection, territorial defense, dispersal, foraging success, fledging success, and song 

38 learning (e.g., Anderson et al. 1986; Gladwin et al. 1988; Larkin 1996). In many cases, the 

39 effects are temporary, with the birds becoming habituated to the noise. For example, weapons 

40 testing noise has been reported to have no significant effect on bald eagle activity or reproductive 

41 success, suggesting habituation of the birds to the noise (e.g., Brown et al. 1999). Studies of 

42 birds exposed to frequent low-level military jet aircraft overflights and simulated (with mortars, 

43 shotguns, and propane cannons) mid- to high-altitude sonic booms have shown aircraft and 

44 detonation noise to elicit some short-term behavioral responses but to have little effect on 

45 reproductive success (Ellis et al. 1991). Birds of prey have been reported to habituate to low46 level helicopter flights and exhibit no effects on their reproductive success (Delaney et al. 1999; 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-301

1 Andersen et al. 1989), and low-level (<500 ft AGL) military training flights have been shown to 

2 have no effects on the establishment, size, and reproductive success of wading bird colonies in 

3 Florida (Black et al. 1984). On the basis of these studies, noise generated during normal 

4 operations is expected to have only short-term and transient effects on birds, and would not be 

5 expected to result in long-term disturbance or population-level effects.

6

7 Accidents. The accidental oil spill scenario for the GOM under the proposed action 

8 identifies as many as 8 large ( 1,000 bbl) and as many as 470 small (<1,000 bbl) oil spills 

9 potentially occurring with development that could result through the lease sales of the proposed 

10 action (Table 4.4.2-1). In the event of an accidental oil spill, birds may be adversely affected 

11 through direct contact with the spilled oil, by the fouling of their habitats and contamination of 

12 their food by the oil, and as a result of oil spill-response activities. Exposure of eggs, young, and 

13 adult birds to oil may result in a variety of lethal and sublethal effects. Fouling of habitats can 

14 reduce habitat quality, while contamination of foods may lead to a variety of lethal and sublethal 

15 toxic and physiological effects. Finally, oil spill-response activities may disturb birds in nearby 

16 habitats that are unaffected by an oil spill.

17

18 Adult and young birds may come in direct contact with oil on the water‘s surface or on 

19 oiled beaches, mudflats, and other shore features. Oil may also be physically transferred by 

20 nesting adults to eggs or young. Direct contact with oil by young and adult birds may result in 

21 the fouling or matting of feathers, which would affect flight and/or diving capabilities, affecting 

22 such activities as foraging and fleeing predators. Birds that have been fouled by oil also 

23 experience a loss in the insulating properties of their feathers, making them susceptible to 

24 hypothermia during cold weather periods. Oil making contact with skin, eyes, or other sensitive 

25 tissues may result in an irritation or inflammation of skin or sensitive tissues (Fry and 

26 Lowenstine 1985), while oiled eggs would incur reduced gas exchange.

27

28 Birds may ingest oil incidentally while foraging and while preening oiled feathers. 

29 Ingested oil may depress egg-laying activity or may result in the death or deformities of young 

30 (Fry et al. 1985; Leighton 1990). Direct effects of oil contact may be amplified under conditions 

31 of environmental stress such as low temperatures, migration movements, and molting. Indirect 

32 effects of oil contact include toxic effects from the consumption of contaminated food or 

33 starvation from the reduction of food resources (Lee and Socci 1989). The latter effects may 

34 hinder the recovery of impacted bird populations after a spill (Hartung 1995; Piatt and 

35 Anderson 1996; Piatt and Ford 1996).

36

37 Certain species of marine and coastal birds may be more susceptible to contact with 

38 spilled oil than others, based on their life histories. For example, diving birds and underwater 

39 swimmers such as loons, cormorants, and diving ducks may be the most susceptible to spilled oil 

40 because of their relatively long exposure time within the water and at the sea surface

41 (Camphuysen 2007; Williams et al. 1995). Shorebirds and wetland birds may also be susceptible 

42 to direct oiling if a spill were to reach the beach intertidal zone or inshore wetland habitats, 

43 respectively, where these species forage and raise young (King and Sanger 1979). Oiled birds 

44 collected during response actions to the DWH event included seabirds, shorebirds, wetland birds, 

45 waterfowl, passerines, and raptors, with the majority of oiled birds being seabirds (see 

46 Section 3.8.2.1.5 and Table 3.8.2-6).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-302

1 The magnitude of the impact would depend on the size, location, and timing of the spill;

2 the species and life stage when exposed; and the size of the local bird population.

3

4 Spills in deep water are not likely to affect the listed and candidate bird species identified 

5 for the northern GOM (Table 3.8.2-3). Only the roseate tern and the red knot would be expected 

6 in areas of the outer inner continental shelf where deepwater spills could occur, and these 

7 occurrences would be transient and not expected to result in direct exposure to spilled oil. In 

8 contrast, all the listed and candidate species with the exception of the roseate tern could be 

9 exposed if a deepwater spill were to move into coastal waters and reach coastal habitats utilized 

10 by these species. Even if a deepwater spill were to reach coastal habitats, because of the great 

11 distance from shore at which a deepwater spill would originate, the oil would be greatly 

12 weathered, and therefore reduced in toxicity, by the time it reached the shore (see 

13 Section 4.4.3.1.2).

14

15 In contrast, a number of non-listed seabird species (e.g., terns, gulls, shearwaters, 

16 boobies, frigatebirds) could be exposed to deepwater spills. Some of these species are found 

17 only in pelagic areas of the GOM, while others inhabit waters of the continental shelf (see 

18 Section 3.1.2.3.2) (Duncan and Havard 1980; Davis et al. 2000). A number of these species 

19 forage in deepwater areas, are attracted to offshore platforms, and often follow vessels. These 

20 birds may be directly exposed while feeding or resting in spills originating from deepwater 

21 platforms or transport tankers and could incur lethal or sublethal effects. Depending on its size, 

22 location, and timing, a deepwater spill may affect only a few individuals or, as in the case of 

23 aggregations of overwintering gannets, a relatively large number of birds.

24

25 A shallow water spill in an offshore or nearshore area has the potential to affect a greater 

26 number of bird species than a deepwater spill of comparable size. Most threatened or 

27 endangered avian species are not likely to be affected by a spill unless a hurricane were to occur 

28 and spread oil inland to freshwater and terrestrial habitats. The piping plover and red knot could 

29 be exposed if their beach habitats become fouled by a spill. Because shorebirds tend to be 

30 flocking species, spills reaching habitats used by these species could result in the exposure of a 

31 relatively large number of individuals. While the sandhill crane, wood stork, and whooping

32 crane could be exposed if a spill were to foul their coastal wetland habitats. Because of the very 

33 specific and limited winter habitat that supports the majority of whooping cranes, a spill 

34 affecting this habitat could result in a major impact on this species. Audubon‘s crested caracara, 

35 while reported to use coastal dune habitats, is generally more of a terrestrial species and would 

36 not be expected to occur along beach and wetland habitats. The roseate tern breeds in scattered 

37 colonies along the Florida Keys (see Section 3.8.2.1.2) and could be exposed if a spill were to 

38 occur in the extreme southeastern portion of the EPA. Under the proposed action, however, 

39 lease sales would be limited to the extreme western portion of this planning area, hundreds of 

40 miles from the nearest nesting colony of this tern. Thus, this species would not be expected to be 

41 exposed to any accidental spills that might occur in association with a lease sale under the 

42 proposed action.

43

44 Accidental spills in shallow water could affect a wide variety of non-listed species. In 

45 offshore locations, shallow water spills could expose any of a large number of ducks, 

46 cormorants, terns, grebes, and gulls. Spills reaching shoreline habitats such as beaches, 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-303

1 mudflats, and wetlands could affect shorebirds (e.g., sandpipers, plovers), wading birds 

2 (e.g., herons, bitterns), wetland birds (e.g., rails, coots, blackbirds), and a wide variety of 

3 migratory birds. Spills occurring during the fall or spring migrations have the potential to expose 

4 large numbers of birds in both nearshore coastal waters and in coastal habitats such as beaches, 

5 flats, and wetlands. The magnitude of impacts that could result from an accidental spill in 

6 shallow water would depend on the timing, duration, location, and size of the spill; the habitats 

7 that came in contact with the spill; and the species and numbers of birds exposed to the spill.

8

9 Besides being affected by the spill itself, marine and coastal birds may be affected during 

10 spill containment and cleanup activities. During cleanup, some oiled birds could be successfully 

11 cleaned, and cleanup of the affected habitat could be necessary to avoid chronic exposure. 

12 Nesting or roosting birds in nearby habitats unaffected by the spill could be disturbed by cleanup 

13 of contaminated habitats. Coastal cleanup and remediation activities in coastal habitats may 

14 impact local populations of coastal birds, resulting in their temporary displacement from these 

15 areas. If the abandoned area is an important nesting habitat (especially during the breeding 

16 season), local population-level impacts may be incurred. The application of dispersant chemicals 

17 to spilled surface oil could also affect birds. While dispersant chemicals contain constituents that 

18 are considered to have low levels of toxicity when compared to toxic constituents of spilled oil 

19 (Wells 1989), the effects of these dispersants on seabirds are poorly understood. Because the use 

20 of these chemicals and spill cleanup activities would be localized and infrequent, potential 

21 impacts from spill response activities would largely be short term (e.g., avoidance of the cleanup 

22 area).

23

24 The specific nature and magnitude of effects of an oil spill on marine and coastal birds of 

25 the GOM will depend on the size, location, timing, and duration of the spill and the birds and 

26 habitats exposed to the spill. Small spills may be expected to affect relatively small numbers of 

27 birds and habitats and would not be expected to cause population-level impacts.

28

29 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE with a volume ranging from 

30 900,000 to 7,200,000 bbl (Table 4.4.2-2). A low probability CDE would have similar impacts on 

31 bird populations as spills of other magnitudes; however, the area affected would increase and the 

32 degree of impact would be more severe. A much greater number of birds and habitats could be 

33 affected, and population-level impacts for some species could be incurred as CDEs can affect 

34 extensive areas of shoreline. For example, the Gulf Coast Least Tern Colony (see 

35 Section 3.8.2.1.4) on the Mississippi coast has one of the world‘s largest colonies of least tern. A 

36 catastrophic discharge event reaching this colony site during the nesting season could foul 

37 several thousand nests and result in the loss of an entire reproductive season, the effects of which 

38 may cause long-term population effects.

39

40

41 4.4.7.2.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet.

42

43 Routine Operations. Oil and gas development that could occur in the Cook Inlet 

44 Planning Area following a lease sale under the proposed action would include (1) offshore 

45 exploration; (2) construction of offshore platforms and pipelines; (3) construction of onshore 

46 pipeline landfalls and pipelines; (4) operations of offshore and onshore facilities; and (5) OCS-
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-304

1 related vessel and aircraft traffic (Table 4.4.1-3). While activities supporting this development 

2 may be expected to affect marine and coastal birds in the vicinity of the development activities, 

3 these impacts would largely be short term, generally affect only a relatively small number of 

4 birds at any one time, and not be expected to result in population-level impacts on any species.

5

6 Offshore Exploration. Under the proposed action, oil and gas exploration could include 

7 the placement of up to 12 exploration and development wells in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. 

8 Seismic surveys and placement and operation of the wells could affect some birds. Disturbance 

9 of birds during seismic surveys would be limited to the immediate area around survey vessels, be 

10 short term, and be largely behavioral (MMS 2005e). For example, noise from air guns and 

11 disturbance from survey vessel traffic could displace foraging seabirds in offshore waters, 

12 especially if exploration were to occur in areas with high seabird density (such as the open 

13 waters adjacent to the Stevenson and Kennedy Entrances to Cook Inlet and off the northwestern 

14 coast of Kodiak Island [see Section 3.8.2.2.4]) where seabirds are likely to be encountered. If 

15 disturbed, affected birds would likely cease foraging activities and leave the vicinity to feed in 

16 other areas. Because the lease sale would occur no closer than 3 NM from shore, offshore 

17 exploration activities (including the placement of exploration and development wells) would not 

18 be expected to disturb marine or coastal birds or their habitats (such as seabird colonies or 

19 wintering grounds) in coastal areas. Thus, normal offshore exploration activities are expected to 

20 have negligible or minor effects on marine and coastal birds, and are not expected to result in any 

21 population-level effects for local bird populations.

22

23 Construction of Offshore Platforms and Pipelines. Under this proposed action, up to 

24 three offshore platforms could be constructed in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. These platforms 

25 would likely be constructed outside of the planning area and towed to their final location, and 

26 marine and coastal birds could be temporarily disturbed during the transportation and placement 

27 of the platforms. Disturbance would likely result in affected birds leaving the immediate area of 

28 activity (either the platform location or the transportation route). Because of the small number of 

29 platforms, the transient nature of their transport and construction, and their offshore locations 

30 being well away from coastal habitats and seabird colonies, any impacts on marine and coastal 

31 birds may be expected to be short term, affect relatively few birds, and not result in long-term 

32 population-level effects for any species.

33

34 In addition to the new platforms, up to 241 km (150 mi) of new offshore pipeline could 

35 be constructed following leasing under the proposed action. Pipeline trenching could affect birds 

36 in nearshore coastal habitats if trenching occurs in or near foraging, overwintering, or staging 

37 areas or near seabird colonies. Trenching may also disturb marine species foraging in offshore 

38 waters. For many species, disturbance from pipeline trenching would result primarily in a 

39 behavioral response, namely, the short-term abandonment or avoidance of habitats in the 

40 immediate area of trenching. Pipeline trenching near seabird colonies could cause adults to 

41 abandon nests (at least temporarily) and cease incubating eggs or feeding young, and thereby 

42 potentially affecting nesting success. If nests are permanently abandoned, some population-level 

43 effects may be incurred by the affected species. Potential impacts could be avoided or 

44 minimized by locating pipeline corridors and the landfall away from nesting aggregations 

45 (seabird colonies), and by scheduling trenching activities to avoid staging, overwintering, and 

46 nesting periods.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-305

1 Construction of up to 241 km (150 mi) of new offshore pipeline could affect as much as 

2 210 ha (519 ac) of benthic habitat within the Cook Inlet Planning Area and locally affect the 

3 availability of foraging habitat for some marine and coastal birds. Because portions of the new 

4 pipelines would be in water depths potentially unavailable for most marine and coastal birds, 

5 pipeline construction may be expected to have limited effect on the overall availability of 

6 foraging habitat for marine and coastal birds. Any impacts on food sources would be localized 

7 to the pipeline footprint and are expected to have negligible or minor impacts on local marine 

8 and coastal bird populations.

9

10 Construction of Onshore Pipelines and Landfalls. Under the proposed action, up to 

11 169 km (105 mi) of new pipeline and possibly one new pipeline landfall could be constructed in 

12 onshore areas adjacent to the Cook Inlet Planning Area. Construction of new pipelines would 

13 likely be located in the general vicinity of existing oil and gas infrastructure, delivering oil to 

14 existing refineries in Nikiski and natural gas to existing transmission facilities in the Kenai area 

15 (Table 4.4.1-3). Depending on the proximity of the new onshore pipelines or a new pipeline 

16 landfall to existing roads, one or more new access roads could be needed to bring in construction 

17 equipment and supplies to the construction areas. The construction of new pipelines would 

18 permanently eliminate a relatively small amount of habitat (about 4.9 ha [12 ac], assuming a 

19 30.5-m [100-ft] construction ROW) along the pipeline routes, while construction camps to 

20 support onshore construction activities would affect an additional very small amount of 

21 terrestrial habitat. Siting new pipelines and facilities away from coastal areas would reduce the 

22 amount of marine or coastal bird habitat that could be affected. Potential habitat impacts could 

23 be reduced by locating the new pipelines within existing utility or transportation ROWs. 

24 Because there are relatively few nesting colonies along the Kenai Peninsula north of Anchor 

25 Point (USGS undated), only a few seabird colonies could be affected by onshore construction 

26 activities. The disturbance of birds in these colonies could be reduced or avoided by siting any 

27 new onshore infrastructure away from colony sites and by scheduling construction activities to 

28 avoid nesting periods. Overall, onshore construction activities are expected to affect only a 

29 relatively small number of birds and not to result in population-level effects for any affected 

30 species.

31

32 Operations of Offshore Facilities. During normal operations, birds may be affected by 

33 noise and human activities at onshore and offshore facilities and by the presence of the facilities 

34 themselves. Noise and human activities (such as normal maintenance) could affect birds moving 

35 through Cook Inlet during spring and fall migration, as well as birds moving into nesting, fall 

36 molting, or overwintering habitats in the planning area. Affected birds would likely avoid the 

37 platforms and nearby habitats. Although operational noise and human activity may cause birds 

38 to avoid areas where platforms are located, affected birds would likely select other suitable areas 

39 of the planning area. Because of the small number of new platforms (no more than three), the 

40 disturbance of birds in offshore waters by operational noise and human activity would be limited 

41 to only a few areas around the platforms and is not expected to adversely affect marine or coastal 

42 bird populations.

43

44 Offshore platforms may pose a collision hazard to birds, especially during migration 

45 and/or periods of low visibility. No information is available regarding bird collisions with 

46 platforms and other structures in Cook Inlet or elsewhere in Alaskan waters. However, a 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-306

1 reasoned estimate of the potential number of such collisions can be made from information 

2 available about potential collisions in the GOM. Annual bird mortality in the northern GOM (a 

3 major migratory area with several hundred million migrants estimated to pass through annually) 

4 from collisions with offshore platforms has been estimated to average 50 collision deaths per 

5 platform per year (Russell 2005). Applying a similar collision mortality rate to development that 

6 could occur under the proposed action, about 150 bird collision mortalities might be expected 

7 annually for the three new platforms.

8

9 Operational Discharges and Wastes. Oil and gas development occurring following a 

10 lease sale under the proposed action would result in the generation of drilling fluids and debris 

11 (Table 4.4.1-3). Produced water, drilling muds, and drill cuttings generated by development and 

12 production wells would be disposed of through down-hole injection. Thus, no impacts on marine 

13 and coastal birds from these wastes would be expected under normal operations. In contrast, 

14 produced water, drilling muds, and drill cuttings generated by exploration and delineation wells 

15 would be discharged at the well sites in compliance with applicable regulations and permits. The 

16 discharged materials may contain a variety of constituents (e.g., trace metals, hydrocarbons) that 

17 may be toxic to birds. In marine waters, birds could be exposed to these materials by direct 

18 contact or through the ingestion of contaminated food items. Birds most likely to be present at 

19 well sites are those that forage on invertebrates and fish in offshore waters; these include 

20 seabirds such as the alcids (such as the common murre, pidgeon guillemot, and ancient murrelet), 

21 gulls and terns (such as the mew gull and Arctic tern), and others.

22

23 Upon discharge in accordance with permit specifications, production wastes would be 

24 rapidly diluted in the water column (i.e., to ambient levels within several thousand meters of 

25 discharge [see Section 4.4.3.2.1]) and dispersed by currents, thus greatly reducing the potential 

26 for, and the magnitude of, exposure. If constituents of the discharged materials bioaccumulate or 

27 biomagnify, there is a potential for some birds to be exposed through their food. Field studies 

28 have shown that the concentrations of trace metals, hydrocarbons, or NORM in the tissues of 

29 fishes collected around production platforms are within background levels (Neff 1997a).

30

31 Normal operations may be expected to generate a variety of operational wastes, such as 

32 waste oils, bilge water on support ships, and sanitary wastes. Hazardous waste materials such as 

33 lubricating oils, paint, and industrial cleaners would be controlled and disposed of at licensed 

34 onshore facilities. Domestic wastewater and sanitary wastes generated on platforms or support 

35 vessels would be treated and then discharged to surrounding waters, where they would be 

36 quickly diluted (Section 4.4.3.2.1). Many species of marine birds (such as gulls) often follow 

37 ships and forage in their wake on fish and other prey injured or disoriented by the passing vessel. 

38 Because there would be up to 3 platforms and no more than three weekly vessel trips, only a 

39 relatively small volume of operational wastes would be discharged. Any such discharges would 

40 be quickly diluted and dispersed and thus not expected to affect marine or coastal birds that 

41 could be following the vessels or visiting waters immediately around the production platform.

42

43 Marine and coastal birds may become entangled in or ingest floating, submerged, and 

44 beached debris (Ryan 1987, 1990). Because the discharge or disposal of solid debris into 

45 offshore waters from OCS structures and vessels is prohibited by the BOEMRE (30 CFR 250.40) 

46 and the USCG (MARPOL, Annex V, Public Law 100-220 [101 Statute 1458]), entanglement in 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-307

1 or ingestion of OCS-related trash and debris by marine and coastal birds would not be expected 

2 under normal operations.

3

4 Vessel and Helicopter Traffic. There could be up to three helicopter trips and three 

5 vessel trips each week supporting up to three offshore platforms that could be installed following 

6 leasing under the proposed action. Vessel and helicopter traffic could disturb birds in foraging, 

7 molting, and staging area habitats as well as in nesting areas (such as seabird colonies) that may 

8 occur along the traffic routes. Birds may also be injured as a result of collisions with aircraft. 

9 Birds responding to approaching support vessels may be expected to cease normal behaviors and 

10 move away from the oncoming vessel; this would have little overall impact on affected birds.

11

12 In contrast to ship traffic, helicopter overflights likely have a greater potential for 

13 disturbing birds. Both the relatively sudden appearance (compared to an approaching ship) and 

14 the noise of helicopter overflights may startle birds, causing them to cease their normal behaviors 

15 and flee. The reactions of birds to aircraft overflights will depend on a variety of factors, 

16 including the species present, the altitude of the flights, and the frequency of the flights (e.g., see 

17 Gladwin et al. 1988; Ellis et al. 1991; Derksen et al. 1992; Miller et al. 1994; Larkin 1996; 

18 Delany et al. 1999). Helicopter overflights of open water may startle birds that are resting or 

19 foraging on the water surface, causing them to cease normal behavior and possibly try to flee the 

20 area. Should birds be disturbed while nesting, nesting success may be affected, especially if the 

21 disturbance results in nest abandonment and/or increased nest predation. Alternately, some birds 

22 may become habituated to aircraft disturbance. For example, no significant decrease in 

23 reproductive success was reported in a thick-billed murre colony located near an airport 

24 compared to other thick-billed murres that nested away from the airport (Curry and 

25 Murphy 1995). FAA guidelines for helicopter oceanic operations request that pilots maintain a 

26 minimum altitude of 213 m (600 ft) while in transit offshore, 305 m (1,000 ft) over unpopulated 

27 areas or across coastlines, and 610 m (2,000 ft) over populated areas and sensitive habitats such 

28 as wildlife refuges and park properties (FAA 2010). 

29

30 It is assumed that helicopter support for the new platform would originate from the 

31 municipal airport in the Kenai-Nikiski area, north of the Cook Inlet Planning Area, and potential 

32 for disturbance of marine and coastal birds would be greatest along the east coast of Cook Inlet 

33 in this area and southward into the planning area. This area has several areas that provide 

34 important habitat for migrating shorebirds and waterfowl in spring, and some of which provide 

35 important overwintering habitat for Steller‘s eider (Table 3.8.2-2). Although there are no large 

36 seabird colonies in this area, small numbers of nesting seabirds could be affected by the 

37 overflights. Because of the low amount and transient nature of daily support traffic that might 

38 occur under the proposed action, relatively few birds may be expected to be affected by vessel or 

39 aircraft traffic, with negligible or minor impacts on affected birds. While disturbance of nesting 

40 birds has the potential for moderate impacts, the number of affected birds would likely be very 

41 limited, and if seabird colonies are present, the disturbance of nesting birds could be avoided by 

42 using flight paths and vessel routes that avoid the colonies.

43

44 Potential Effects on ESA-listed Species in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. Normal 

45 operations may affect listed bird species in the same manner as non-listed species (i.e., primarily 

46 behavioral disturbance). Compliance with ESA regulations and coordination with the NMFS 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-308

1 and USFWS would ensure that lease-specific operations would be conducted in a manner that 

2 avoids or greatly minimizes the potential for affecting these species.

3

4 The endangered short-tailed albatross, the threatened Steller‘s eider, and the candidate 

5 Kittlitz‘s murrelet occur in or near the Cook Inlet Planning Area and thus could be affected by 

6 oil and gas development in the area. The short-tailed albatross does not breed in or near the 

7 Cook Inlet Planning Area, occurring only as an occasional visitor that forages on the continental 

8 shelf edge beyond the southern boundary of the planning area (see Section 3.8.2.2.2). The 

9 Steller‘s eider also does not nest in the Cook Inlet Planning Area, but does overwinter in lower 

10 Cook Inlet and in the Shelikof Strait. Thus, normal operations would not be expected to affect 

11 nesting habitats or reproductive success of either of these species.

12

13 Because of its uncommon occurrence in marine waters in and around the Cook Inlet 

14 Planning Area, relatively few short-tailed albatross would be expected to be present in areas 

15 where seismic exploration, offshore platform and pipeline construction, or OCS vessel and 

16 aircraft traffic is occurring. If present, disturbed individuals would likely move to areas away 

17 from the OCS activity and not be adversely affected. While it is possible for a bird to collide 

18 with an OCS-related aircraft, the combination of the very low number of short-tailed albatrosses 

19 that could be present around platforms or along associated flight lines with the very small 

20 amount of aircraft traffic supporting only new platforms means that few, if any, birds would be 

21 expected to incur collisions with support aircraft or with a platform. While such collisions would 

22 likely result in the mortality of the affected individual, population-level effects would not be 

23 expected to result from such collisions.

24

25 Overwintering flocks of Steller‘s eider could be temporarily disturbed by seismic 

26 exploration and by the construction of offshore platforms and pipelines, if those activities were 

27 to occur in or near areas where the birds are overwintering. Overwintering birds may also be 

28 disturbed by OCS-related vessel and aircraft traffic. If affected, birds would be expected to 

29 move away from oncoming vessels and would not be adversely affected. Overwintering birds 

30 may be startled by helicopter overflights and may or may not take flight and flee the immediate 

31 vicinity. Some birds could be killed or injured as a result of collisions with platforms or OCS32 related aircraft. Because there would only be no more than three new platforms and three flights 

33 per week to the platforms by support aircraft, such collisions are not expected, few if any 

34 individuals would be affected, and no population-level effects would be expected.

35

36 While Kittlitz‘s murrelet can be found in the Cook Inlet Planning Area, it is present in a 

37 very patchy and clumped distribution, preferring areas of heavy glaciation, high turbidity, and 

38 partial ice cover (Day et al. 2000b; Van Pelt and Piatt 2003). This species has been reported to 

39 be sensitive to excessive noise and human activity (Day and Nigro 1999). Offshore platform or 

40 pipeline construction activities occurring near concentrations of this species could result in the

41 short- or long-term displacement of birds from the construction areas. Construction of onshore 

42 pipelines and facilities could disturb nesting birds and affect nest sites, although it is unlikely that 

43 more than a few individuals would be affected. This species nests on cliffs and scree slopes, in a 

44 terrain typically avoided when pipelines are being sited. Long-term platform operations and 

45 daily vessel and aircraft traffic may also result in the long-term displacement of birds from 

46 platform locations and along frequently used flight line locations. In addition, some individuals 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-309

1 could collide with OCS-related aircraft. Because of the disjunct distribution of this species, 

2 exposure to routine operations would be expected to be infrequent and localized.

3

4 Accidents. Under the proposed action, no more than one large spill (between 1,700 and 

5 5,000 bbl from either a platform or a pipeline), and as many as 18 small spills (<1,000 bbl) may 

6 be expected over the lifetime of the lease. The magnitude and extent of impacts on marine and 

7 coastal birds from such spills will be a function of a variety of factors, including (1) the time of 

8 year of the spill, (2) the volume of the spill, (3) the habitats exposed to the spill, and (4) the 

9 species exposed to the spill or that utilize the impacted habitats. Oil spills from onshore 

10 pipelines may affect terrestrial habitats and birds. Because of the lower number of birds that 

11 would be present in winter, as well as their more limited winter distribution, a greater number of 

12 birds may be expected to be affected by an accidental oil spill in summer than in winter. Birds in 

13 areas near habitats that have been affected by oil may also be disturbed during spill cleanup 

14 operations. Spill cleanup activities may displace birds from nearby habitats, which, depending 

15 on the nature of those habitats (e.g., nesting, molting, staging), could result in reduced 

16 reproductive success or survival. In addition, the duration of cleanup activities may preclude 

17 birds from using the area for quite some time.

18

19 Exposure of eggs and young and adult birds to oil may result in a variety of lethal and 

20 sublethal effects, while oil may foul habitats, reducing habitat quality and contaminating foods;

21 these potential effects apply to both non-listed and listed bird species of the Cook Inlet Planning 

22 Area. The short-tailed albatross, Steller‘s eider, and Kittlitz‘s murrelet may be directly affected 

23 by an accidental oil release in the same manner as described for non-listed birds, namely, via 

24 direct contact and through the ingestion of contaminated foods. These three species may also be 

25 indirectly affected as a result of spill-related impacts on their habitats, which may also be 

26 affected during oil spill cleanup activities. Direct exposure of birds or their habitats could result 

27 in a variety of lethal and nonlethal effects that may affect survival and reproductive success, 

28 potentially resulting in population-level effects on the exposed species (e.g., see Hartung 1995; 

29 Piatt and Anderson 1996; Day et al. 1997; Esler et al. 2000; Lance et al. 2001; Golet et al. 2002; 

30 Esler et al. 2002). The types of effects that exposed birds could incur are discussed in 

31 Section 4.4.7.1. 

32

33 During ice-free conditions (i.e., summer), accidental spills (especially small ones) may be 

34 expected to be quickly diluted (see Section 4.4.3.2.2). In contrast, spills occurring under ice may 

35 persist for a longer period of time and be transported by currents to areas much more distant 

36 from the site of the accidental spill. Previous modeling of similar size oil spills in Cook Inlet 

37 indicate that land segments with the highest chance of contact with an offshore platform or 

38 pipeline spill are generally along the western shore of lower Cook Inlet in Kamishak Bay and 

39 Shelikof Strait (MMS 2003a). Several areas that provide important habitat to migrating and 

40 overwintering birds (see Figure 3.8.2-8 and Table 3.8.2-8), as well as a number of seabird 

41 colonies, occur in these areas (USGS undated).

42

43 Offshore spills that reach coastal areas may expose species that forage or nest in coastal 

44 habitats along Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait. As discussed in Section 3.8.2.2, these areas 

45 support thousands of migrating shorebirds and waterfowl, provide important wintering habitat 

46 for Steller‘s eider, and include numerous seabird colonies. Spills reaching these areas could 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-310

1 directly or indirectly expose adults, eggs, young, and food resources. Because of the large 

2 number of Steller‘s eider that overwinter in coastal areas of Cook Inlet (in the vicinity of Homer 

3 Spit and Kamishak Bay) (Larned 2005), an accidental spill reaching wintering areas could 

4 expose a large number of birds. This species concentrates in shallow, vegetated nearshore 

5 habitats, and spills contacting such areas could locally reduce foraging habitat and food resources 

6 and contaminate potential prey. The number of birds affected would depend on the size and 

7 location of the spill, the number of birds directly exposed to the spill, and the amount of habitat 

8 affected.

9

10 Offshore spills in marine waters may also expose migrating seabirds and waterfowl, as 

11 well as pelagic seabirds that forage in areas such as the offshore marine waters of Cook Inlet 

12 near the Barren Islands (Figure 3.8.2.2-1). The short-tailed albatross is considered to be highly 

13 vulnerable to the impacts of oil pollution (King and Sanger 1979). Because this species does not 

14 breed in the planning area, accidental spills would not be expected to affect nesting colonies. 

15 Because this species is widely dispersed and is only a regular visitor to the marine waters of the 

16 planning area, few individuals would be expected to be exposed to an accidental spill, and few 

17 individuals would be expected to be disturbed during spill cleanup activities. The exposure of a 

18 very small number of short-tailed albatross would not be expected to result in population-level 

19 impacts on the species. This species forages in open marine waters, and no specific foraging 

20 habitat type or location has been identified as being of prime importance for this species. In the 

21 event of an accidental spill, members of this species would likely relocate their foraging 

22 activities, with no resulting significant impacts expected. Thus, accidental spills would not be 

23 expected to adversely affect foraging habitats and associated prey items available to the short24 tailed albatross in the Cook Inlet Planning Area.

25

26 Spills may also indirectly affect bird populations by reducing food resources and prey 

27 availability in affected habitats. These indirect effects could reduce foraging success and energy 

28 assimilation, which may affect growth, survival, and reproductive success. Depending on the 

29 species affected, these effects could result in population-level effects. Because of the small 

30 number and size of spills assumed for development that might occur under the proposed action 

31 (Table 4.4.2-1), widespread exposure and impacts such as those observed for the Exxon Valdez

32 oil spill in Prince William Sound are not expected for this alternative. 

33

34 Because of the preference of Kittlitz‘s murrelet for glacially influenced habitats and its 

35 patchy and disjunct distribution among coastal areas, accidental oil spills would generally not be 

36 expected to affect more than a few individuals. A moderate to large spill in a high-use area 

37 could, however, result in the oiling of a relatively large number of birds. While the chronic 

38 effects of long-term exposure of this species are not known, studies on the effects of the Exxon 

39 Valdez oil spill on marine birds indicate that while murrelets as a whole are especially vulnerable 

40 to and adversely affected by large oil spills, this group recovers within a relatively short time 

41 following the initial spill and exposure (Day et al. 1997a,b; Murphy et al. 1997). The greatest 

42 potential for population-level impacts would be associated with offshore spills occurring in 

43 spring and summer and affecting breeding adults. Because this species nests in terrestrial 

44 habitats up to 129 km (80 mi) inland (see Section 3.8.2.2.2), nest sites would not be expected to 

45 be affected by offshore spills but could be affected by spills from onshore pipelines. However, 

46 because this species nests in habitats such as coastal cliffs, scree slopes, and talus above 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-311

1 timberline, which are typically considered unsuitable and thus are avoided when a pipeline is 

2 being sited, nest sites are unlikely to be affected by an onshore oil spill.

3

4 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE with a volume ranging from 

5 75,000 to 125,000 bbl (Table 4.4.2-2). A low-probability CDE would have similar impacts on 

6 bird populations as spills of other magnitudes; however, the area affected would increase and the 

7 degree of impact would be more severe. A much greater number of birds and habitats could be 

8 affected, and population-level impacts for some species could be incurred as CDEs can affect 

9 extensive areas of shoreline. Such a spill contacting important migratory staging areas for 

10 waterfowl and shorebirds could have major adverse effects on a variety of species. Similarly, a 

11 catastrophic discharge event reaching wintering areas for waterfowl could have serious 

12 population-level effects, especially with the increased difficulty in addressing spills under winter 

13 conditions.

14

15

16 4.4.7.2.3 Alaska – Arctic.

17

18 Routine Operations. Under the proposed action, a number of facilities could be 

19 constructed and operated in offshore and onshore portions of the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea 

20 Planning Areas (Table 4.4.1-4). Under the exploration and development scenarios for these two 

21 planning areas, it is assumed that development would be limited to the shelf areas of both 

22 planning areas and to water depths less than 91 m (300 ft). Because the shelf is relatively narrow 

23 in the Beaufort Sea, ranging from 90 km (about 60 mi) in the west to 50 km (30 mi) in the east, 

24 oil and gas activities would occur within 200 km (100 mi) of shore. In contrast, the Chukchi Sea 

25 Planning Area has a very wide shelf area with water depths less than 91 m (300 ft), and oil and 

26 gas activities may occur in areas 200 km (120 mi) or more from shore. Figure 4.4.1-2 shows the 

27 locations of historic lease sales in the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas; future lease 

28 sales and development may be expected to occur in similar areas. Thus, coastal birds are more 

29 likely to be affected by development in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area than in the Chukchi Sea 

30 Planning Area following lease sales under the proposed action. Marine and coastal birds could 

31 be affected during routine operations at these locations by (1) offshore exploration, 

32 (2) construction of offshore platforms and pipelines, (3) construction of onshore pipelines, 

33 (4) operation of offshore platforms, (5) operational discharges and wastes, and (6) vessel and 

34 aircraft traffic.

35

36 Offshore Exploration. During offshore exploration, seismic surveys conducted in 

37 offshore areas could affect primarily seabirds, because these are the species most likely to be 

38 foraging or otherwise using pelagic open waters areas of the two planning areas. Potentially 

39 affected birds may include puffins, murres, auklets, gulls and terns. Noise from air guns and 

40 disturbance from survey vessel traffic could displace birds from nearby habitats. These 

41 disturbances would be limited to the immediate area around survey vessels, would be short term, 

42 and would not be expected to result in adverse impacts on local bird populations.

43

44 Construction of Offshore Platforms and Pipelines. Under the proposed action, one to 

45 four offshore platforms could be constructed in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area, and one to five 

46 in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area (Table 4.4.1-4). Construction of offshore platforms would 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-312

1 likely involve the construction of gravel islands to support drilling operations, and seabirds and 

2 waterfowl that utilize offshore waters could be affected by construction of these islands. 

3 However, construction of these offshore islands would occur in winter when most species are 

4 absent. Thus, construction of offshore platforms would not be expected to affect seabirds or 

5 waterfowl.

6

7 The exploration and development scenario for the proposed action identifies the 

8 construction of many miles of new offshore pipeline in the two planning areas: 48 to 2,422 km 

9 (30 to 1,505 mi) for the Beaufort Sea and 40 to 402 km (25 to 250 mi) for the Chukchi Sea. 

10 Because pipeline construction would also occur in winter when most species have left the area, 

11 few birds would be affected by this construction.

12

13 Construction of the offshore gravel islands to support drilling operations would likely use 

14 gravel mined from the vicinity of the offshore islands. On the North Slope, gravel is generally 

15 extracted from the floodplains of large rivers (Pamplin 1979; BLM 2002). Because the mining 

16 of gravel would occur in winter along with other construction activities, gravel mining would not 

17 be expected to disturb seabirds, waterfowl, or shorebirds, because these would normally be 

18 absent during that time. The winter excavation of gravel could result in the conversion of some 

19 riverine floodplain habitats into open water habitats, potentially affecting the distribution and 

20 availability of nesting and foraging habitats for some species arriving the following spring after 

21 gravel excavation has occurred.

22

23 A variety of waterfowl and shorebird species nest in floodplain habitats along the Arctic 

24 coast. The extent to which some of these species could be affected by gravel excavation will 

25 depend on the specific habitats excavated, the extent of habitat disturbance, and the level of 

26 nesting use that the affected habitat typically supported. Because gravel excavation would occur 

27 in winter, active nests would not be disturbed. Instead, birds arriving in spring searching for 

28 suitable nesting habitat would simply search for other nesting locations. Because the relatively 

29 small number of offshore facilities that could be constructed under the proposed action (no more 

30 than nine platforms total for the two planning areas) would require a relatively limited amount of 

31 gravel, excavation activities (and associated habitat impacts) would likely be limited to a few 

32 locations.

33

34 Although pipeline trenching would also be carried out in winter when most seabird and 

35 waterfowl species are not present, seafloor trenching could locally disrupt benthic invertebrate 

36 communities that may serve as food sources for waterfowl during other seasons. The extent to 

37 which benthic food sources could be affected and the subsequent impact on waterfowl will 

38 depend on the type and amount of benthic habitat that would be permanently disturbed by 

39 trenching, the importance of the specific habitats in providing food resources to waterfowl, and 

40 the number of waterfowl that could be affected.

41

42 Pipeline trenching could disturb as much as 13.5 ha (33 ac) and 567 ha (1,400 ac) of 

43 benthic habitat in the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas, respectively. Much of this 

44 disturbance would occur in water depths of 30 m (100 ft) or more and thus affect benthic habitats 

45 that are largely inaccessible by seabirds and diving ducks. Trenching could, however, affect the 

46 egg or larval survival/development (through direct mortality and increased turbidity) of fish 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-313

1 species that will eventually become prey for seabirds (SAFMC 2005). The environmental 

2 changes caused by trenching would be temporary and would only affect more sensitive prey 

3 species. Thus, pipeline trenching is expected to have limited effects on the overall availability of 

4 waterfowl food sources, and any impacts on food sources would be very localized and would not 

5 be expected to result in population-level impacts on local seabird and waterfowl populations.

6

7 The winter construction would also utilize ice roads to build and access gravel island 

8 construction sites during the winter. Ice roads may be constructed over both tundra habitats and 

9 frozen ocean habitats. During the construction of ice roads, water from local rivers and lakes 

10 would be pumped onto the desired area to build up a rigid surface. Ice roads over frozen ocean 

11 habitats would have little effect on most bird species because few species would be present in 

12 this season. However, species that do overwinter (such as ptarmigan and snowy owl) may 

13 temporarily leave the construction area and move to similar habitats in nearby locations.

14

15 Construction of Onshore Pipelines. Under the proposed action, up to 129 km (80 mi) of 

16 new onshore pipeline could be constructed in onshore areas adjacent to the Beaufort Sea 

17 Planning Area; no onshore pipelines would be constructed in support of new development in the 

18 Chukchi Sea Planning Area (Table 4.4.1-4). The construction and operation of up to 129 km 

19 (80 mi) of new overland pipelines could disturb coastal and tundra species; it could degrade or 

20 eliminate as much as 390 ha (970 acres; assumes 30.5-m [100-ft] pipeline ROW) of potential 

21 nesting or post-molting habitat that would be permanently lost within the footprint of the new 

22 pipelines, causing birds to select habitats in other locations. Construction camps to support 

23 onshore construction activities would temporarily disturb some areas and limit use by birds; this 

24 disturbance would be short or long term, depending on the nature and effectiveness of camp 

25 abandonment and restoration activities following completion of construction activities. The 

26 impacts on potential habitat would be temporary and localized, and birds would likely respond 

27 by selecting other areas for nesting or post-molting. Regardless of the duration of the effect, the 

28 amount of habitat that would be disturbed would be relatively small and not be expected to affect 

29 more than a few birds. Careful pipeline ROW siting to avoid important nesting or post-molting 

30 habitats, and avoiding construction during post-molting and staging periods near such habitats, 

31 would further reduce the magnitude of any potential effects on local bird populations.

32

33 Operations of Offshore Platforms. During normal operations, birds may be affected by 

34 noise and human activities at the platforms, as well as by the presence of the platforms 

35 themselves. Noise generated during drilling and production activities could affect the use of 

36 surrounding waters by birds arriving during spring migration, foraging in surrounding waters 

37 during nesting season, and later in the year during fall molting and staging periods. Some 

38 species may react by avoiding areas immediately in the vicinity of the platforms, other species 

39 may show little avoidance or become acclimated, and still others may be attracted to the offshore 

40 platforms. Because of the small number of offshore platforms (no more than nine for both 

41 planning areas), the disturbance of birds by operational noise and activity would likely be limited 

42 to relatively few individuals and would not be expected to result in population-level effects for 

43 any species.

44

45 Operational platforms may pose collision threats to migrating and nesting birds alike. 

46 Many coastal nesting species travel out to open waters of the shelf to forage, while many species 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-314

1 of waterfowl and seabirds migrate along the shelf in spring and summer (Section 3.8.2.3). While 

2 little information is available regarding bird collisions with platforms in the Arctic, annual bird 

3 mortality from collisions with offshore platforms in the northern GOM has been estimated to 

4 average 50 collision deaths per platform per year (Russell 2005). By applying a similar collision 

5 mortality rate to the platforms that would be developed in the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea 

6 Planning Areas, a total of 200 annual bird collision mortalities might be expected for the four 

7 new platforms in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area, and 250 total annual collision mortalities for 

8 the five new platforms in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area. The incidence of bird collisions in the 

9 GOM may be much greater than the incidence that could occur in the two Arctic planning areas 

10 because of the much greater number of migrants in the GOM. However, some Arctic species 

11 such as the murres and puffins) are present in very large numbers (Section 3.8.2.3.1) in some 

12 locations along the Arctic coast and exhibit daily migrations between coastal nesting areas and 

13 foraging areas as far as 80 km (50 mi) or more offshore, which could increase the potential for 

14 encountering offshore platforms.

15

16 Operational Discharges and Wastes. Produced water, drilling muds, and drill cuttings

17 generated by development and production wells would be disposed of through down-hole 

18 injection. Thus, no impacts on marine and coastal birds from these wastes would be expected 

19 under routine operations. In contrast, produced water, drilling muds, and drill cuttings generated 

20 by exploration and delineation wells would be discharged at the well sites in compliance with 

21 applicable regulations and permits. In marine waters, birds could be exposed to these materials 

22 by direct contact or through the ingestion of contaminated food items. Birds most likely to be 

23 present at well sites are those that forage on invertebrates and fish in offshore waters; these 

24 include seabirds such as the murres and puffins, gulls, and jaegers.

25

26 Many species of marine birds (especially gulls) often follow ships and forage in their 

27 wake on fish and other prey injured or disoriented by the passing vessel. In doing so, these birds 

28 may be affected by discharges of waste fluids (such as bilge water) generated by OCS vessels. 

29 The discharge of such wastes from OCS service and construction vessels, if allowed, would be 

30 regulated under applicable NPDES permits, and any discharged wastes would be quickly diluted 

31 and dispersed and thus not be expected to affect marine birds.

32

33 Marine and coastal birds may become entangled in or ingest floating, submerged, and 

34 beached debris (Heneman and the Center for Environmental Education 1988; Ryan 1987, 1990). 

35 Entanglement may result in strangulation, the injury or loss of limbs, entrapment, or the 

36 prevention or hindrance of the ability to fly or swim, and all these effects may be considered 

37 lethal. Ingestion of debris may irritate, block, or perforate the digestive tract, suppress appetite, 

38 impair digestion of food, reduce growth, or release toxic chemicals (Fry et al. 1985; Dickerman 

39 and Goelet 1987; Ryan 1988; Derraik 2002). Because the discharge or disposal of solid debris 

40 into offshore waters from OCS structures and vessels is prohibited by the BOEMRE 

41 (30 CFR 250.40) and the USCG (MARPOL, Annex V, Public Law 100-220 [101 Statute 1458]), 

42 entanglement in or ingestion of OCS-related trash and debris by marine and coastal birds would 

43 not be expected under routine operations.

44

45 Vessel and Aircraft Traffic. Development occurring under the proposed action could 

46 include up to 12 weekly vessel and helicopter trips in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area and as 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-315

1 many as 15 weekly helicopter and vessel trips in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area. The presence 

2 of ships and helicopters, as well as noise associated with their passage, can disturb birds and 

3 potentially affect feeding, resting, or nesting behavior, and may cause affected birds to abandon 

4 the immediate area. Which birds could be affected, the nature of their response, and the potential 

5 consequences of the disturbance will be a function of a variety of factors, including the specific 

6 routes, the number of trips per day, the altitude of the flights, the seasonal habitats along the 

7 routes, the species using the habitats and the level of their use, and the sensitivity of the birds to 

8 vessel and aircraft traffic. Traffic near or over heavily utilized feeding or nesting habitats of 

9 sensitive species could result in population-level effects, while impacts from traffic in other areas 

10 with less sensitive species would largely be limited to a few individuals and would not result in 

11 population-level effects. The use of shipping lanes and aircraft routes avoiding sensitive bird

12 areas would greatly reduce or eliminate the potential for vessel and aircraft traffic to cause 

13 population-level effects in marine and coastal birds.

14

15 Helicopter overflights are generally conducted at low altitudes and have the potential for 

16 disturbing birds in onshore and offshore locations (Ward and Stein 1989; Ward et al. 1994; 

17 Miller 1994; Miller et al. 1994). FAA guidelines for helicopter oceanic operations request that 

18 pilots maintain a minimum altitude of 213 m (600 ft) while in transit offshore, 305 m (1,000 ft) 

19 over unpopulated areas or across coastlines, and 610 m (2,000 ft) over populated areas and 

20 sensitive habitats such as wildlife refuges and park properties (FAA 2010). The type of response 

21 elicited from the birds and the potential effect on the birds will depend in large part on the time 

22 of year for the overflights and the species disturbed. Helicopter overflights during spring 

23 breakup of pack ice may disturb marine species feeding in open water leads and waterfowl in 

24 open coastal waters, causing birds to leave the area. Similarly, overflights in summer could 

25 displace waterfowl and seabirds from preferred foraging areas and from coastal nesting or brood26 rearing areas such as seabird colonies and the lagoon systems of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. 

27 Molting and staging waterfowl may temporarily leave an area experiencing helicopter overflights 

28 (Derksen et al. 1992), while geese have been reported to exhibit alert behavior and flight in 

29 response to helicopter overflights (Ward and Stein 1989; Ward et al. 1994).

30

31 While bird strikes are possible, any such events would affect only an occasional 

32 individual and not result in any population-level effects. However, the increased energy demand 

33 associated with birds leaving foraging or staging areas for other, potentially less favorable areas 

34 could result in a lowered fitness of the affected birds. While birds disturbed from nesting or 

35 brood-rearing habitats by occasional overflights would be expected to return, birds experiencing 

36 frequent overflights may permanently relocate to less favorable habitats (MMS 2002b). In 

37 addition, the temporary absence of adult birds may increase the potential for predation of 

38 unguarded nests and young (NRC 2003a).

39

40 Accidents. Marine and coastal birds could be affected by accidental oil spills from 

41 offshore platforms and pipelines, as well as from onshore processing facilities and pipelines. 

42 The magnitude and extent of impacts will be a function of a variety of factors, including (1) the 

43 time of year of the spill, (2) the volume of the spill, (3) the habitats exposed to the spill, and 

44 (4) the species exposed to the spill or that utilize the exposed habitats. Exposure of eggs and

45 young and adult birds to oil may result in a variety of lethal and sublethal effects. Oil moving 

46 into coastal and inshore areas may foul habitats, reducing habitat quality and contaminating 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-316

1 vegetation and invertebrate foods. Ingestion of contaminated foods may lead to a variety of 

2 lethal and sublethal toxic and physiological effects. Finally, oil spill-response activities may 

3 disturb birds in nearby habitats that are unaffected by an oil spill.

4

5 Certain species of marine and coastal birds may be more susceptible to contact with 

6 spilled oil than others, based on their life histories. For example, diving seabirds and underwater 

7 swimmers such as loons and diving ducks may be the most susceptible to offshore spills because 

8 of their extensive use of such areas and their relatively long exposure time on the sea surface. In 

9 contrast, shorebirds and waterfowl may be most susceptible to spills that reach the beach 

10 intertidal zone, coastal lagoons, or inshore wetland habitats where these species forage and raise 

11 young. The magnitude of the impact will depend on the size of the spill, the species and life 

12 stage when exposed, and the size of the local bird population.

13

14 Offshore spills in spring that reach coastal barrier islands and mainland coastal wetland 

15 areas may expose common eiders, gulls, and other birds that nest in these habitats along the 

16 Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Some of these areas support large nesting colonies, and direct and 

17 indirect exposure of adults, eggs, young, and food resources may adversely affect reproductive 

18 success and result in population-level effects on some species.

19

20 Offshore spills in spring may also expose migrating seabirds and waterfowl. Exposed 

21 individuals may experience lethal or sublethal effects from the exposure. Depending on the 

22 species, mortality or subsequent impacts on reproduction could result in population-level impacts 

23 on some species. Species with naturally low reproductive rates, such as the long-tailed duck and 

24 red-throated loon, may be especially vulnerable to population-level impacts. Because these 

25 species have a low reproductive rate that limits natural population growth, the loss of 

26 comparatively few individuals could result in more substantive population impacts.

27

28 Spring spills contacting shoreline areas have the potential to expose thousands of 

29 migrating shorebirds, as well as contaminating nesting and foraging habitats and oiling nests and 

30 eggs. Exposure of individuals could result in lethal or sublethal effects, while oiling of nests 

31 and/or eggs would reduce reproductive success.

32

33 Spills occurring in late summer through autumn and that enter coastal lagoons and delta 

34 areas could expose large numbers of waterfowl (loons, tundra swans, king eiders, long-tailed 

35 duck) that use these habitats for molting and staging, and potentially result in adverse 

36 population-level effects. For example, mortality estimates of long-tailed ducks in the central 

37 Beaufort Sea from a hypothetical spill ranged as high as 35%, depending on the amount of oil 

38 spilled and the number of birds present (MMS 2003a). A winter spill under the ice could 

39 contaminate ice leads that develop during spring breakup, exposing eiders and other waterfowl 

40 that use these features while migrating.

41

42 Oil spills from onshore pipelines would likely be limited to a much smaller area than 

43 would a spill in an offshore location. Those birds exposed could incur a variety of lethal or 

44 sublethal effects; however, because relatively few individuals or nests would be expected to be 

45 exposed, no population-level impacts would be expected. However, an oil spill from an onshore 

46 pipeline that reaches an aquatic habitat such as a stream, wetland, or lake on the Arctic coastal 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-317

1 plain may have greater impacts on shorebirds and waterfowl. Many such aquatic habitats are 

2 used by a variety of waterfowl and shorebirds for brood rearing, molting, and staging. Thus, a 

3 terrestrial spill reaching such habitats could expose a much larger number of birds than a spill 

4 restricted to a terrestrial environment.

5

6 Spill cleanup activities may disturb and displace birds from nearby habitats. Depending 

7 on the use of those habitats (e.g., nesting, molting, staging), displaced birds could incur reduced 

8 reproductive success or survival. In addition, the duration of cleanup activities may not only 

9 displace birds currently present but also preclude birds using the area for quite some time. For 

10 example, cleanup activities associated with a large spill may involve hundreds of workers and 

11 numerous boats, aircraft, and onshore vehicles, operating in the affected area for a year or more. 

12 During this time, migrating birds arriving in spring would be expected to bypass habitats that are 

13 near areas undergoing active cleanup operations.

14

15 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes CDEs for the Chukchi Sea and 

16 Beaufort Sea Planning Areas with volumes ranging from 1,400,000 to 2,200,000 bbl and 

17 1,700,000 to 3,900,000 bbl, respectively (Table 4.4.2-2). A low-probability CDE would have 

18 similar impacts on bird populations as spills of other magnitudes; however, the area affected 

19 would increase and the degree of impact would be more severe. A much greater number of birds 

20 and habitats could be affected, and population-level impacts for some species could be incurred 

21 as impacts of CDEs in this region are prolonged by the cold water and cold air temperatures.

22

23

24 4.4.7.2.4 Conclusion. Routine operations may be expected to affect some birds in each 

25 of the planning areas included in the proposed action. The nature and magnitude of effects on 

26 birds would depend on the specific location, the timing, and the nature and magnitude of the 

27 operation, as well as the species that would be exposed to the operation. For routine Program 

28 activities, the primary effects would be the disturbance of birds (and their normal behaviors) by 

29 noise, construction and development equipment, and human activity, and habitat loss in areas of 

30 infrastructure construction. Birds may also incur injury or mortality as a result of collisions with 

31 infrastructure and support vessels. Impacts to birds from routine operations associated with the 

32 Program are expected to range from negligible to moderate. 

33

34 Because birds tend to habituate to human activities and noise, potential impacts for many 

35 species associated with such disturbance would be short term and would not be expected to result 

36 in population-level effects. This could be especially true in the GOM planning areas, where 

37 local bird populations are regularly exposed to noise, construction, and vessel traffic associated 

38 with commercial and recreational activities. However, depending on the time of year, 

39 construction activities near coastal habitats could disrupt breeding and nesting activities of 

40 colonial nesting birds, potentially affecting local populations. In most cases, the disturbance of 

41 birds would be short term or transient, and would not be expected to result in population-level 

42 effects on affected species.

43

44 Construction of pipelines, landfalls, and offshore gravel islands (to support Arctic drilling 

45 platforms) would result in the permanent disturbance of habitat within the immediate footprint of 

46 the new facilities and gravel excavation areas. Because of the relatively small amount of habitat 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-318

1 that could be disturbed, as well as the limited use of some of the affected habitats (such as deep 

2 water benthic habitat), habitat disturbance or loss is expected to have only minor impacts on 

3 marine and coastal birds. However, the level of impact that could be incurred by any species 

4 will depend on the type of habitats affected and the importance of those habitats to local bird 

5 populations. Loss of nesting, molting, or staging habitats (especially in the Alaska Planning 

6 Areas) has the potential to affect reproductive success, foraging success, and survival of some 

7 species, and may result in population-level impacts on affected species. Careful siting of 

8 infrastructure to avoid sensitive and important habitats would greatly reduce or eliminate the 

9 potential for population-level effects.

10

11 Some mortality may be expected for birds colliding with offshore platforms and, to a 

12 lesser extent, with helicopters providing support services to offshore platforms. Impacts from

13 such collisions are anticipated to affect relatively few birds and result in only minor impacts on 

14 bird populations, with no population-level effects. Because the discharge of production wastes 

15 and other materials generated at offshore platforms and OCS-related vessels is regulated and 

16 because permitted production wastes discharged into marine waters would be quickly diluted and 

17 dispersed, relatively few birds would be exposed to these waste materials and impacts from such 

18 discharges would likely be negligible.

19

20 While normal operations could affect listed bird species in the same manner as non-listed 

21 species (primarily behavioral disturbance), compliance with ESA regulations and coordination 

22 with the USFWS would ensure that lease-specific operations would be conducted in a manner 

23 that avoids or greatly minimizes impacts on these species.

24

25 Accidental oil spills (and especially those associated with a CDE) pose the greatest threat 

26 to marine, coastal, and migratory birds, and could affect both birds and their habitats. Exposed 

27 birds may experience a variety of lethal or sublethal effects, including reduced reproductive 

28 success. The magnitude and ecological importance of any effects would depend upon the size of 

29 the spill, the species and life stages that are exposed, and the size of the local bird population. A 

30 spill associated with a CDE would affect the greatest number of species, individuals, and 

31 habitats, and have the potential to cause population-level impacts to affected species. Exposure 

32 to spills in deep water would be largely limited to pelagic birds, while shallow-water spills could 

33 affect the greatest variety and number of birds, including shorebirds, waterfowl, wading birds, 

34 gulls and terns. Birds that become heavily oiled by direct contact with a spill would likely 

35 perish, while lightly oiled birds may experience a variety of lethal or sublethal effects. Oil 

36 washing ashore may contaminate eggs and nest sites, as well as foul foraging areas and food 

37 resources.

38

39 In the GOM, spills in deep water are not likely to affect listed marine and coastal birds

40 because, with the exception of the roseate tern, none of the seven listed species would be 

41 expected offshore where deepwater spills could occur. The roseate tern does not normally 

42 frequent waters in close proximity to the Western, Central, and Eastern GOM Planning Area 

43 where lease sales and subsequent oil and gas activities may occur under the proposed action. In 

44 the Alaskan Planning Areas, only the short-tailed albatross would be expected with any 

45 regularity in OCS areas more than 200 km (124 mi) from shore. For the GOM and Alaskan OCS 

46 Planning Areas, most of the listed and candidate species could be exposed to shallow-water spills 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-319

1 or to large deepwater spills (especially large or CDE-level spills) that have moved into coastal 

2 waters. In coastal areas, most of the listed species could be directly exposed while foraging in 

3 oiled flats, beaches, and coastal wetlands. Because all of the wild populations of the endangered 

4 whooping crane use limited habitats on the GOM coast (in Texas, Florida, and Louisiana), the 

5 entire population of this species may be especially vulnerable to a spill that reaches these 

6 locations. In Alaska, the threatened spectacled eider congregates in specific habitats during 

7 molting and when staging for fall migration, this listed species may also be particularly 

8 vulnerable to population-level effects should a spill contact molting or staging habitats with large 

9 numbers of individuals. Similarly, the threatened Steller‘s eider overwinters in Cook Inlet and a 

10 large spill could locally affect a relatively large number of birds. Spills occurring in glacially

11 influenced coastal habitats could expose relatively large numbers of Kittlitz‘s murrelet, a 

12 candidate species for listing under the ESA. This species has been reported to be particularly 

13 vulnerable to oil exposure. Because neither the albatross nor the eider breeds in the Cook Inlet 

14 Planning Area, accidental spills would not be expected to affect nest sites of these species. 

15 While Kittlitz‘s murrelet breeds in Cook Inlet, it nests on cliffs, scree slopes, and other areas 

16 where its nests would not be expected to come in contact with accidental oil spills.

17

18

19 4.4.7.3 Fish

20

21

22 4.4.7.3.1 Gulf of Mexico.

23

24 Fish Resources.

25

26 Routine Operations. See individual habitat sections for detailed discussions of the 

27 impacts of oil and gas activities on fish habitat in the GOM. Potential OCS oil and gas 

28 development impacting factors for fish in the GOM are shown by phase in Table 4.4.7-3. 

29 Impacting factors common to all phases include platform lighting, increased ship traffic, vessel 

30 discharges (bilge and ballast water), and miscellaneous discharges (deck washing, sanitary 

31 waste). Impacts from waste discharges would be localized and temporary and are expected to 

32 have negligible impacts on fish populations. Many of these waste streams are disposed of on 

33 land, and all vessel and platform wastes that are discharged into surface waters must meet 

34 USEPA and/or USCG regulatory requirements. Studies conducted in the northern GOM suggest 

35 that platform lighting could alter predator-prey dynamics by enhancing phytoplankton 

36 productivity around the platform, potentially improving food availability and the visual foraging 

37 environment for fishes (Keenan et al. 2007). Potential impacts from platform lighting would be 

38 localized but long term and are expected to have minimal impacts on fish populations.

39

40 Exploration and Site Development. During the OCS oil and gas exploration and 

41 development phase, fish could be affected by noise from seismic surveys and noise and bottom 

42 disturbance from drilling, platform placement, and pipeline trenching and placement activities. 

43 Releases of drilling muds and cuttings could also affect fish by contaminating food resources in 

44 sediments and surrounding surface waters (Table 4.4.7-3).

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-320

1 TABLE 4.4.7-3 Impacting Factors on Fish and Their Habitat in the GOM

2 Planning Areas

Life Stage Affecteda

Development Phase and Impacting Factor Eggs Larvae Adults

Impacting Factors Common to All Phases

Vessel noise X X X

Vessel traffic X X X

Hazardous materials X X X

Solid wastes X X X

Offshore lighting X X X

Aircraft noise

Offshore air emissions

Onshore air emissions

Aircraft traffic

Miscellaneous platform discharges X X X

Vessel discharges X X X

Bottom disturbance from vessel anchors X X X

Exploration and Development

Seismic noise X X X

Noise from drilling and construction X X X

Bottom disturbance from platform placement, drilling,

and pipeline placement and trenching

X X X

Discharge of drilling muds and cuttings X X X

Production

Production noise X X X

Produced water discharge X X X

Artificial reef X X X

Decommissioning

Platform removal (non-explosive) X X X

Platform removal (explosive) X X X

a Colors indicate impact level: white = negligible; blue = minor; yellow = moderate; red = 

major.

3

4

5 All fish species in the GOM are presumed to be able to hear with varying degrees of 

6 sensitivity and within the frequency range of sound produced by exploration site development 

7 activities. Noises generated during platform and pipeline placement, vessel traffic, and seismic 

8 surveys are all potential sources of disturbance to fish communities. Noise could kill or injure 

9 fish, induce behavioral alterations, produce generalized stress, and interfere with communication 

10 (Smith et al. 2004; Vasconcelos et. al. 2007; see Popper and Hastings 2009 for a recent review). 

11 A primary source of noise during exploration and site development would be air guns used 

12 during seismic surveys. There is some experimental evidence that noise generated by seismic 

13 surveys could kill or injure organisms typically within a few meters of the noise source, but other 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-321

1 studies found no injury or mortality even for sensitive, early life stages (Dalen and 

2 Knutsen 1986; Holliday et al. 1987; reviewed in NSF and USGS 2010). Several researchers 

3 have also documented startle responses or temporary avoidance of areas exposed air gun noise, 

4 but these effects are not found consistently (Turnpenny and Nedwell 1994; reviewed in Popper 

5 and Hastings 2009 and NSF and USGS 2010). Continuous long-term exposure to high-pressure 

6 sound waves has been shown to cause damage to the hair cells of the ears of some fishes under 

7 some circumstances (Popper 2003). Several studies have found that species with gas bladders, 

8 which includes many of the pelagic and demersal fish species in the GOM, are more vulnerable 

9 to injury or mortality from explosions than species without gas bladders such as flatfish 

10 (MMS 2004a). For adult fishes, continuous exposures would not exist under natural 

11 circumstances as fish could move from the area. However, fish larvae may suffer greater 

12 mortality because of their small size and relative lack of mobility. The severity and duration of 

13 noise impacts would vary with site and development scenario, but overall the impacts would be 

14 temporary, localized, and minor. A recent review of seismic survey noise on marine fish 

15 concluded that although data were limited, there would be no significant impacts on marine fish 

16 populations from seismic surveys (BOEMRE 2010c; NSF and USGS 2010).

17

18 Bottom-disturbing activities such as coring and drilling, platform placement and mooring, 

19 and pipeline trenching and placement would displace fish in the vicinity of the activities. Bottom 

20 disturbance would result in temporary sedimentation and increased turbidity, which could 

21 damage fish gills and bury benthic invertebrate prey resources within some distance of the 

22 disturbance. Fish mortality may also be greater if bottom disturbance occurs in areas of high 

23 larval and juvenile fish density such as estuaries and nearshore areas. In addition, the physical 

24 changes to benthic habitat resulting from drilling could affect food resources for benthic fishes 

25 by altering benthic invertebrate community composition. Soft sediment fishes, particularly in 

26 shallow water, are subject to frequent bottom disturbance from human activities such as trawling 

27 and natural occurrences such as storms and are presumably well adapted to such conditions.

28

29 The discharge of drilling muds and cuttings (including synthetic drilling fluids adhering 

30 to the cuttings) can affect fish in several ways. Impacts from turbidity would be similar to those 

31 described above and could damage respiratory structures, cause fish to temporarily move from 

32 the area, and disrupt food acquisition. Drilling muds and cuttings released near the sediment 

33 surface or in shallow water would bury benthic food resources in the release area although 

34 conditions would eventually recover. Trace metal and hydrocarbon constituents in drilling fluids 

35 can be toxic to all life stages of fishes if exposed to high enough concentrations. Planktonic eggs 

36 and larvae that contact the mixing zone would be at greatest risk (e.g., Kingsford 1996), while 

37 juveniles and adults passing through a discharge are not likely to be adversely affected. The 

38 disturbance would be short, and based on the assumption of a relatively widespread distribution 

39 of eggs, larvae, and prey, only a very small proportion of the population of a given fish species is 

40 likely to be affected. In addition, all discharges must comply with NPDES permit requirements 

41 regarding the discharge amount, rate, and toxicity, which would greatly reduce the impact on fish 

42 communities. BOEM-sponsored research on the biological effects of drilling fluids on marine 

43 communities in the GOM (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2004, 2006) found that fish 

44 densities were elevated near the platforms compared to control locations and certain classes of 

45 benthic invertebrate food sources were also more abundant within 300 m (984 ft) of the well 

46 compared to control areas (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2006).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-322

1 There are several protective measures in place to protect sensitive fish habitat from oil 

2 and gas activities. Impacts on hard-bottom areas from bottom-disturbing activities would be 

3 minimized by the Topographic Features Stipulation that establishes No Activity Zones, where no 

4 operations, anchoring, or structures are allowed. There is also a lease stipulation that requires 

5 avoidance of low-relief live-bottom and pinnacle features. In deep water, there are stipulations 

6 requiring the avoidance of chemosynthetic communities and deepwater corals.

7

8 Based on the discussion above, the site development and exploration represent a minor 

9 disturbance, primarily affecting demersal fishes, with the severity of the impacts generally 

10 decreasing dramatically with distance from bottom-disturbing activities.

11

12 Production. Production activities that could affect soft sediment habitat include 

13 operational noise, bottom disturbance, and the release of process water. In addition, the platform 

14 would replace existing featureless soft sediments and serve as an artificial reef (Table 4.4.7-3).

15

16 Chronic bottom disturbance could result from the movement of anchors and chains 

17 associated with support vessels and floating platform moorings. Bottom disturbance would 

18 affect fish and their food resources in a manner similar to that described above for the 

19 exploration and site development phase. Some of the disturbance could be episodic and 

20 temporary, but others would last for the lifetime of the platform.

21

22 Sessile epifaunal invertebrates requiring hard substrate (i.e., barnacles and corals) as well 

23 as small motile invertebrates (amphipods and worms) would colonize fixed or floating platform 

24 structures, creating an artificial reef. Pipelines not buried would also provide hard substrate for 

25 sessile and structure-oriented fish species. Reef fish and epipelagic fishes such as tunas, dolphin 

26 fish, and jacks would be attracted to these platforms in concentrations greater than those of 

27 surrounding soft sediments and even natural reefs (Wilson et al. 2003). The platforms could 

28 possibly enhance feeding of predators by attracting and concentrating smaller prey species. 

29 However, concerns have been expressed that highly migratory species could be diverted from 

30 normal migratory routes and consequently from normal spawning or feeding areas because of 

31 attraction to structures such as oil platforms (Carney 1997). Similarly, platforms may attract reef 

32 fish from natural hard-bottom areas. Thus platforms may simply attract fish rather than 

33 increasing fish production and at the same time make them easier to harvest by commercial and 

34 recreational fisheries (Brickhill et al. 2005). Because of the wide distribution of reef and 

35 epipelagic species and the great number and spatial extent of production platforms, such effects 

36 could extend to the regional scale. Ultimately, the benefit or detriment of artificial reefs as 

37 habitat depends on how fisheries are managed on the reef and the individual life histories and 

38 habitat requirements of the species present (Bohnsack 1989; Macreadie et al. 2011).

39

40 Produced water contains several toxic elements (Neff 1997a), and direct and continuous 

41 exposure to produced waters can be lethal to all life stages of fishes. Because more chemicals 

42 are required to maintain adequate flow in deep waterwells, produced water from deepwater wells 

43 is expected to contain more chemical contaminants than wells in shallow water. Direct exposure 

44 would occur only in the water column near the discharge point; thus pelagic adults and 

45 planktonic eggs and larvae would be most susceptible. Higher impacts would be realized if eggs 

46 and larvae were unusually concentrated. Thus, local circulation patterns greatly influence the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-323

1 degree of potential impact. Nevertheless, population-level effects on fishes are not likely, as 

2 contaminants are not expected to reach toxic levels in the sediment and water column because of

3 dilution and NPDES permitting requirements regarding discharge rate, contaminant 

4 concentration, and toxicity. In studies of the potential long-term ecological effect of oil and gas 

5 development, no significant bioaccumulations of hydrocarbons or metals were observed in fish 

6 collected near platforms, and histopathological evaluations of fish found no damage to liver 

7 tissue (Peterson et al. 1996). In addition, benthic invertebrate food sources collected in 

8 sediments near platforms do not appear to bioaccumulate the common contaminants in produced 

9 water, and their tissues did not exceed USEPA-specified concentrations considered harmful 

10 (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1997). Organisms attached to oil platforms have not been 

11 found to accumulate metals, although they have been found to bioaccumulate organic 

12 contaminants (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1997). Produced water discharge has also not 

13 been found to contribute significantly to hypoxia in the GOM (Rabalais 2005; 

14 Bierman et al. 2007). Thus, production activities are expected to result in minor impacts on fish 

15 communities.

16

17 Decommissioning. Platform removal in general would temporarily affect fish by 

18 displacing resident fishes, disturbing sediments, and increasing noise and turbidity for some 

19 length of the water column. In addition, it is assumed that up to 275 platforms would be 

20 removed using explosives, which could kill or cause sublethal injury to many of the fishes 

21 associated with the structures. Small fish and fish with swimbladders are most susceptible to 

22 injury and mortality from underwater blasts. In a study of 792 explosive platform removals in 

23 the GOM, an average of 567 dead fish were observed floating at the surface, although the actual 

24 number dead is likely to be higher (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2004b). Mark and 

25 recapture studies conducted at platform removal sites in the central and western GOM

26 (Gitschlag 2000) estimated that between 2,000 and 5,000 fishes greater than 8 cm (3 in.) in 

27 length and more than 6,200 fish less than 8 cm (3 in.) were killed during explosive removals in 

28 water depths ranging from 14 to 32 m (46 to 105 ft). Sheepshead, spadefish, red snapper, and 

29 blue runner accounted for 89% of the mortality estimated by these studies. Mortality estimates 

30 of red snapper associated with the platform ranged from 57 to 90%. Assuming 275 explosive 

31 removals, a large number of fish could potentially be killed during the Program. Displaced fish 

32 would repopulate the area over a short period of time, although the species composition would 

33 likely shift to soft sediment species and away from reef and migratory pelagic species of fish. 

34 Overall, decommissioning activities are expected to result in up to moderate effects on fish 

35 communities.

36

37 If fixed platforms are toppled and left in place, the platform would continue to serve as an 

38 artificial reef, although the density and composition of fish may change. For example, the high 

39 vertical relief of the platform is important in attracting fish; thus fish density may decline once 

40 the platform is toppled (Wilson et al. 2003). Pipelines not buried, in both shallow and deepwater 

41 would provide hard substrate and habitat for structure-oriented fishes. As discussed above, the 

42 ability of artificial reefs to enhance fish production is controversial. In addition, artificial reefs 

43 may allow the spread of non-native fish species across the GOM, especially as waters warm due 

44 to climate change (Hickerson et al. 2008). For example, lionfish (Pterois volitans) have spread 

45 from the reefs of the West Florida shelf to the central and western GOM, where they are often 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-324

1 found associated with oil platforms (http://www.lsu.edu/seagrantfish/biological/invasive/

2 redlionfish.htm). In the future, other species could become established through range expansion 

3 or human introductions. Ultimately, the benefit or detriment of artificial reefs as habitat depends 

4 on how fisheries are managed on the reef and the individual life histories and habitat 

5 requirements of the species present (Bohnsack 1989; Macreadie et al. 2011).

6

7 Accidents. Impacts of most accidental hydrocarbon releases on fish and their habitat are 

8 expected to be relatively minor, as most spills would be small and hydrocarbons would be 

9 diluted and broken down by natural processes. The location of the spill, habitat preference of the 

10 fish, and the season in which the spill occurred would be important determinants of the impact 

11 magnitude of the spill.

12

13 Toxic fractions of PAHs in spilled oil can cause death or illness in adult fishes. Less is 

14 known about the impacts of natural gas on fish, but natural gas could have lethal or sublethal 

15 impacts as well, depending on concentration. Impacts of hydrocarbons differ among various life 

16 stages of fishes. For example, pelagic eggs and larval stages of fish, whose movements are 

17 largely controlled by water currents, could be killed if they came into contact with surface oil 

18 spills (Patin 1999). Conversely, oil and gas would typically rise above the seafloor, which would 

19 limit direct contact with demersal fishes. Evidence also indicates that the majority of adult 

20 pelagic fish can likely detect and avoid heavily oiled waters in the open sea, thereby avoiding 

21 acute effects (Patin 1999; Roth and Baltz 2000). However, adult fish could still be exposed to 

22 sublethal hydrocarbon concentrations through direct contact with gills or through ingestion of 

23 spilled oil. In addition, oil could ultimately enter the benthic food web as oil-contaminated 

24 pelagic organic matter and biota settled to the seafloor.

25

26 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE up to 7.2 million bbl could 

27 result from pipeline ruptures, a loss of well control, and from tanker spills associated with an 

28 FPSO system (Table 4.4.2-2). At the population level, hydrocarbon spills could affect fish by 

29 causing high mortality of eggs, larvae, juveniles, or adults; triggering abnormal development; 

30 impeding the access of migratory fishes to spawning habitat; displacing individuals from 

31 preferred habitat; reducing or eliminating prey populations available for consumption; impairing 

32 feeding, growth, or reproduction; causing adverse physiological responses; increasing 

33 susceptibility to predation, parasitism, diseases, or other environmental perturbations; and 

34 increasing or introducing genetic abnormalities. Most of the fishes inhabiting shelf or oceanic 

35 waters of the GOM have planktonic eggs and larvae (Ditty 1986; Ditty et al. 1988; 

36 Richards et al. 1993). Catastrophic spills occurring during recruitment periods or spills that 

37 affect areas with high larval fish concentrations such as estuaries could result in population-level 

38 impacts. Because of the wide dispersal of early life history stages of most fishes in the GOM, it 

39 is anticipated that only a relatively small proportion of early life stages present at a given time 

40 would be affected by a particular oil spill event, and this would limit the potential for population41 level effects. For example, an evaluation of the response of coastal fishes to the DWH event 

42 suggests that large-scale losses of 2010 cohorts were largely avoided and that there were no 

43 discernible shifts in species composition following the spill (Fodrie et al. 2011). However, the 

44 impact magnitude would also depend on the temporal and spatial scope of the oil spill. Since 

45 some species of fish spawn in a limited geographic area(s) during a small temporal window, a 

46 spill could have population-level impacts if the spill coincided in time and space with spawning 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-325

1 activity. In addition, fish species such as tuna, swordfish, and other billfish that currently have 

2 depressed populations and critical spawning grounds in the GOM could experience major 

3 impacts if high numbers of early life stages were killed by a spill.

4

5 Protected Species: Gulf Sturgeon.

6

7 Routine Operations.

8

9 Exploration and Site Development. No information is available on the hearing or 

10 acoustic biology of Gulf sturgeon from which to assess effects. The only noise sources strong 

11 enough to produce impacts other than behavioral disruption are seismic surveys. Since the 

12 seismic sources (air guns) are fired in the upper water column, Gulf sturgeon are unlikely to be 

13 injured, but the noise could have behavioral effects such as disruption of feeding and movement 

14 behaviors. Adult Gulf sturgeon wintering in shelf waters of the GOM may be affected by sounds 

15 emanating from working platforms and their attendant operations. However, the most likely 

16 effects would be short-term behavioral disruption or avoidance of certain areas.

17

18 The placement of bottom-founded structures during the exploratory drilling phase may 

19 affect adult Gulf sturgeon and their designated critical habitat (50 CFR 226.214) directly and 

20 indirectly. As with all fish, the drilling platform and pipeline placement could injure or displace

21 Gulf sturgeon and reduce or eliminate their benthic food resources. These disturbances could 

22 affect adult Gulf sturgeon during cooler months, which is their primary feeding period of the 

23 year when they move from coastal rivers into inner shelf waters of the eastern and central GOM 

24 (Huff 1975; Mason and Clugston 1993). However, most new oil and gas production activities 

25 would not occur in the shallow coastal waters less than 10 m (33 ft) in depth (67 FR 39106–

26 39199) preferred by Gulf sturgeon. Consequently, only a small proportion of the areas of bottom 

27 disturbance would potentially be used by Gulf sturgeon.

28

29 Drilling muds and cuttings can be released at or near the sea surface or the seafloor. 

30 Muds and cuttings are diluted and dispersed rapidly in the ocean; therefore, cuttings released at 

31 the surface are unlikely to have measurable impacts on Gulf sturgeon. However, food resources 

32 for Gulf sturgeon may be buried by muds and cuttings released near the seafloor or settling in 

33 thick accumulations in shallow water. Gulf sturgeon are known not to have an affinity for 

34 structured habitat, and they occur in water shallower than that typically used for drill sites. Thus, 

35 accumulations of drilling muds and cuttings are not likely to affect Gulf sturgeon or their habitat.

36

37 Production. Produced water discharges dilute rapidly in the open ocean, and direct 

38 exposure would occur only in the water column near the discharge point where adult sturgeon 

39 are not likely to be located. Vulnerable early life stages of Gulf sturgeon exist only in rivers far 

40 removed from produced water discharges, making exposure unlikely. The discharge of produced 

41 water is not thought to contribute to significantly increasing the size or severity of the hypoxic 

42 zone in the GOM (Rabalais 2005). Consequently, it is believed that discharges resulting from 

43 the proposed action will not affect dissolved oxygen levels in areas used by Gulf sturgeon.

44

45 Decommissioning. Under the proposed action, it is assumed that explosives would be 

46 used to remove up to 275 platforms in the entire GOM. Explosive blasts can be lethal to fishes 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-326

1 that may be present near the structure (Gitschlag 2000). However, the Gulf sturgeon are known 

2 not to have an affinity for offshore structures; thus, they are not likely to be affected.

3

4 Accidents. Hydrocarbons could affect adult sturgeon by direct contact with gills or via 

5 direct ingestion. Adult and juvenile fishes would likely avoid oil from a spill. Eggs and larvae 

6 of fishes could die or become deformed if exposed to certain toxic fractions of spilled oil 

7 (Longwell 1977; Collier et al. 1996; Kingsford 1996). However, contact with early life stages of 

8 Gulf sturgeon is unlikely because floating oil is not likely to penetrate to the middle reaches of 

9 most rivers where eggs are deposited and because oil would float on the freshwater outflow and 

10 never reach or settle directly on demersal eggs (Sulak and Clugston 1998; Fox et al. 2000).

11

12 Protected Species: Smalltooth Sawfish.

13

14 Routine Operations.

15

16 Exploration and Site Development. Smalltooth sawfish are considered rare from Texas 

17 to the Florida panhandle (NMFS 2009) and are not likely to be present in the Central and 

18 Western Planning Areas where exploration and site development, production, and 

19 decommissioning activities occur. In addition, smalltooth sawfish are livebearers; therefore 

20 sensitive egg and larval life stages are not present in the water column, which makes them less 

21 susceptible to impacts from exploration and production activities.

22

23 Noise from underwater construction and seismic surveys could produce impacts ranging 

24 from lethal to sublethal and behavioral (Popper and Hastings 2009). Since the seismic sources 

25 (air guns) are fired in the upper water column, smalltooth sawfish are unlikely to be affected. 

26 Juvenile smalltooth sawfish occupy shallow estuaries and nearshore areas away from noise27 generating oil and gas exploration and development activities. Adult smalltooth sawfish are 

28 found in waters up to 122 m (400 ft) or deeper and could be affected by exploration and 

29 production noises. However, the most likely effects would be short-term behavioral disruption 

30 or avoidance of certain areas.

31

32 The placement of bottom-founded structures during the exploratory drilling phase may 

33 affect adult smalltooth sawfish and their designated critical habitat (50 CFR 226.214) directly 

34 and indirectly. As with all fish, the drilling platform and pipeline placement could injure or 

35 displace smalltooth sawfish and reduce or eliminate their benthic food resources. Small 

36 juveniles typically occupy shallow estuarine waters and would not be located in the vicinity of 

37 most bottom disturbance. However, most new platform and drilling activity would occur at the 

38 depth range occupied by large juveniles and adults. Given their size, most adults would likely be 

39 able to swim away from bottom-disturbing activities, thereby avoiding injuries. However, 

40 foraging habitat would be temporarily eliminated and food resources in the disturbed area may 

41 be reduced.

42

43 Drilling muds and cuttings can be released at or near the sea surface or the seafloor. 

44 Muds and cuttings are diluted and dispersed rapidly in the ocean; therefore, cuttings released at 

45 the surface are unlikely to have measurable impacts on smalltooth sawfish. However, food 

46 resources for smalltooth sawfish may be buried by muds and cuttings released near the seafloor 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-327

1 or settling in thick accumulations in shallow water. Small juvenile smalltooth sawfish occur in 

2 water shallower than that typically used for drill sites and are not likely to be affected.

3

4 Production. Vulnerable early life stages of smalltooth sawfish exist only in shallow 

5 estuarine areas far removed from produced water discharges, making exposure unlikely. Adults 

6 and larger juveniles do occupy coastal waters where produced water discharge would occur. 

7 Produced water discharges dilute rapidly in the open ocean, and direct exposure would occur 

8 only in the water column near the discharge point where adult sawfish are not likely to be 

9 located. The discharge of produced water is not thought to contribute to significantly increasing 

10 the size or severity of the hypoxic zone in the GOM (Rabalais 2005). Consequently, it is 

11 believed that discharges resulting from the proposed action will not affect dissolved oxygen 

12 levels in areas used by smalltooth sawfish.

13

14 Decommissioning. Under the proposed action, it is assumed that explosives would be 

15 used to remove up to 700 platforms in the entire GOM. Explosive blasts can be lethal to fishes 

16 that may be present near the structure (Gitschlag 2000). However, smalltooth sawfish are known 

17 not to have an affinity for offshore structures; thus, they are not likely to be affected.

18

19 Accidents. Smalltooth sawfish are considered rare from Texas to the Florida panhandle 

20 and are not likely to be present in the Central and Western Planning Areas where accidental oil 

21 spills would occur. Adult and juvenile fishes would likely avoid oil from a spill, although they 

22 could be exposed to sublethal concentrations through aqueous or dietary routes. Smalltooth 

23 sawfish are livebearers and the exposure of eggs to hydrocarbons would occur only by adult 

24 exposure. Contact with early small juvenile smalltooth sawfish is unlikely unless oil penetrates 

25 shallow estuarine areas. However, actively reproducing populations are thought to exist only in 

26 south Florida, and therefore small juveniles are not likely to be exposed to oil spills 

27 (NMFS 2009).

28

29

30 4.4.7.3.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet.

31

32 Routine Operations. Potential OCS oil and gas development impacting factors for fish 

33 in the Cook Inlet Planning Area are shown by phase in Table 4.4.7-4. Impacting factors 

34 common to all phases include vessel traffic, platform lighting, vessel discharges (bilge and 

35 ballast water), and miscellaneous discharges (deck washing, sanitary waste). Impacts from waste 

36 discharges would be localized and temporary and are expected to have negligible impacts on fish 

37 populations. Many of these waste streams are disposed of on land, and those that are discharged 

38 must meet USEPA and/or USCG regulatory requirements that minimize environmental impacts. 

39 Studies of platform lighting suggest the lights could alter predator-prey dynamics by enhancing 

40 phytoplankton productivity around the platform, potentially improving food availability and the 

41 visual foraging environment for fishes (Keenan et al. 2007). Potential impacts from platform 

42 lighting would be localized but long term and expected to have minimal impacts on fish 

43 populations.

44

45 Exploration and Site Development. During the OCS oil and gas exploration and 

46 development phase, fish could be affected by noise from seismic surveys and noise and bottom 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-328

1 TABLE 4.4.7-4 Impacting Factors on Fish and Their Habitat in the 

2 Cook Inlet Planning Area

Life Stage Affecteda

Development Phase and Impacting Factor Eggs Larvae Adults

Impacting Factors Common to All Phases

Vessel noise X X X

Vessel traffic X X X

Hazardous materials X X X

Solid wastes X X X

Offshore lighting X X X

Aircraft noise

Offshore air emissions

Onshore air emissions

Aircraft traffic

Miscellaneous platform discharges X X X

Vessel discharges X X X

Bottom disturbance from vessel anchors X X X

Exploration and Development

Seismic noise X X X

Noise from drilling and construction X X X

Bottom disturbance from platform placement, 

drilling, and pipeline placement and trenching

X X X

Discharge of drilling muds and cuttings X X X

Production

Production noise X X X

Produced water discharge X X X

Artificial reef X X X

Decommissioning

Platform removal (non-explosive) X X X

a Colors indicate impact level: white = negligible; blue = minor; yellow =

moderate; red = major.

3

4

5 disturbance from drilling, platform placement, and pipeline trenching and placement activities 

6 (Table 4.4.7-4).

7

8 Noise disturbance from drilling, construction, and seismic surveys could potentially kill, 

9 injure, or displace fish depending on the magnitude of the noise, fish size, and distance from the 

10 noise source. Seismic survey data are usually collected by discharging compressed air from 

11 arrays of air guns towed behind ships. All fish species in Cook Inlet are presumed to be able to 

12 hear, with varying degrees of sensitivity, within the frequency range of sound produced by 

13 exploration and site development activities. The effects of air gun discharges on fishes depend 

14 on the fish life history stage and biology, distance to and type of the sound source, and the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-329

1 magnitude of the explosion. Noise generated by seismic surveys could kill or injure organisms 

2 typically within 1 to 5 m (3 to 16 ft) of the air gun or cause some species to temporarily avoid the 

3 area (Turnpenny and Nedwell 1994; Popper and Hastings 2009). Noise might also produce 

4 generalized stress (Smith et al. 2004) and interfere with communication (Vasconcelos et al. 

5 2007). Several studies have found that species with gas bladders (e.g., salmonids, coregonids, 

6 and gadids) are more vulnerable to injury or mortality from explosions than species without gas 

7 bladders such as flatfish (MMS 2004a). The juvenile and adult fish in Cook Inlet likely to be 

8 affected by the noise generated from seismic surveys include salmon, cod, whitefishes, and 

9 herring. Continuous, long-term exposure to high-pressure sound waves has also been shown to 

10 cause damage to the hair cells of the ears of some fishes under some circumstances (Popper and 

11 Hastings 2009). For adult fishes, continuous exposures would not exist under natural 

12 circumstances, as fish could move from the area. However, fish larvae may suffer greater 

13 mortality because of their small size and relative lack of mobility. In a confined area such as 

14 Cook Inlet, noise from seismic surveys can also alter fish behavior. For example, disruption of 

15 normal behaviors during critical spawning and feeding periods in spring and summer has the 

16 potential to adversely affect survival and reproduction. The severity and duration of noise 

17 impacts would vary with site and development scenario, but overall the impacts would be 

18 temporary. Recent reviews of seismic survey noise on marine fish concluded that although data 

19 were limited, significant impacts on marine fish populations from seismic surveys were not 

20 likely (BOEMRE 2010c; National Science Foundation and USGS 2010).

21

22 Bottom-disturbing activities such as coring and drilling, platform placement and mooring, 

23 and pipeline trenching and placement would displace fish in the vicinity of the activities and

24 result in temporary sedimentation and turbidity, which could damage fish gills and bury benthic 

25 invertebrate prey resources within some distance of the disturbance. Fish mortality may be 

26 greater if bottom disturbance occurred in areas of high larval and juvenile fish density such as 

27 estuaries and nearshore areas. The migrations of anadromous species common in Cook Inlet 

28 such as Pacific salmon and eulachon could also be disrupted. Soft sediments in Cook Inlet are 

29 subject to frequent bottom disturbance from high discharge and storms and Cook Inlet waters are 

30 naturally high in suspended sediments. Thus, fish communities in Cook Inlet are presumably 

31 well adapted to such conditions.

32

33 It is assumed that drilling muds and cuttings would be discharged into Cook Inlet for 

34 exploration wells only, while drilling wastes from development and production wells would be 

35 reinjected into the wells. The discharge of drilling muds and cuttings (including synthetic 

36 drilling fluids adhering to the cuttings) can adversely affect fish in several ways. Impacts from 

37 turbidity associated with drilling waste discharge would be similar to those described above and 

38 could damage respiratory structures, cause fish to temporarily move from the area, and disrupt 

39 food acquisition. Drilling wastes released near the sediment surface or in shallow water would 

40 bury benthic food resources in the release area, although conditions would eventually recover. 

41 Trace metal and hydrocarbon constituents in drilling fluids can be toxic to fish at all life stages if 

42 they are exposed to high enough concentrations. Impacts would be greatest for planktonic eggs 

43 and larvae that contact the mixing zone, while juveniles and adults passing through a discharge 

44 are not likely to be adversely affected. Based on the assumption of a relatively widespread 

45 distribution of eggs, larvae, and prey in Cook Inlet, drilling waste discharge is not likely to alter 

46 the population dynamics of fisheries resources in Cook Inlet or the Gulf of Alaska. In addition, 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-330

1 drilling discharges must comply with NPDES permit requirements regarding the discharge 

2 amount, rate, and toxicity, which would greatly reduce the impact on fish communities.

3

4 While an exact route cannot be determined at this time, any onshore pipeline route would 

5 be required to comply with various Alaska Coastal Management Program policies. As a 

6 consequence, construction activities in sensitive aquatic habitat would be minimized. 

7 Specifically, the route for onshore pipeline facilities would be sited inland from shorelines and 

8 beaches, and crossings of anadromous fish streams would be minimized and consolidated with 

9 other utility and road crossings of such streams. In addition, onshore pipelines would be 

10 designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize risk to fish habitats from a spill, pipeline 

11 break, or construction activities.

12

13 Overall, site development and exploration activities represent a minor and temporary 

14 disturbance primarily affecting demersal fishes, with the severity of the impacts generally 

15 decreasing dramatically with distance from the disturbance.

16

17 Production. Production activities that could affect fish communities in Cook Inlet 

18 include operational noise, bottom disturbance from anchors and the release of process water. In 

19 addition, the platform would replace existing featureless soft sediments and serve as an artificial 

20 reef (Table 4.4.7-4).

21

22 Chronic disturbance to demersal fish communities could result from the movement of 

23 pipelines and anchors and chains associated with support vessels. Bottom disturbance would 

24 affect fish in a manner similar to that described above for the exploration and site development 

25 phase. The disturbance would be episodic and temporary, but would last for the lifetime of the 

26 platform.

27

28 Produced water contains metals, hydrocarbons, salts, and radionuclides, and their 

29 discharge could contaminate habitat, resulting in lethal and sublethal effects on fish, particularly 

30 early life stages. However, NPDES permitting requirements regarding discharge rate, 

31 contaminant concentration, and toxicity would greatly reduce the potential for impacts on fish. It 

32 is assumed that all produced water would be disposed of by injection into permitted disposal 

33 wells. Therefore, the effects of produced water discharges on fish are expected to be minimal.

34

35 Platforms would add a hard substrate to the marine environment, providing additional

36 habitat for marine plants and animals (e.g., kelp and mussels) that require a hard substrate. Fish 

37 species in Cook Inlet that prefer hard substrate, such as rockfish, may be attracted to platforms. 

38 The platform would likely increase shell material and organic matter in the sediments 

39 surrounding the platform, potentially resulting in a shift in benthic invertebrate food sources.

40

41 A two-year (1997–1998) study of contaminant levels in the sediments of the Shelikof 

42 Strait and Cook Inlet provide information on potential effects of oil and gas development in the 

43 Cook Inlet Planning Area (MMS 2001a). Samples of sediment from depositional areas (where 

44 sediment contamination is expected to be greatest) suggested that metals and PAHs in sediments 

45 derived primarily from natural sources rather than past oil and gas developments (MMS 2001a). 

46 In addition, sediment concentrations of metals and organic contaminants in outermost Cook Inlet 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-331

1 and Shelikof Strait (1) have not increased significantly since offshore oil exploration and 

2 production began in Cook Inlet (circa 1963) and (2) posed only minor risks to benthic biota or 

3 fish (MMS 2001a). Consequently, it is expected that production activities would have negligible 

4 effects on fish communities in Cook Inlet.

5

6 Decommissioning. No explosive platform removals are anticipated under the proposed 

7 action. Nonexplosive removals (e.g., abrasive, mechanical, or diver cutters) would have 

8 negligible long-term impacts to fish populations, although individuals associated with the 

9 platform would experience a loss of habitat. Pipelines installed and anchored on the seafloor 

10 would be capped and left in place, although there is the potential for chronic sediment 

11 disturbance from pipeline movement. If fixed platforms are left in place, the changes to fish 

12 communities resulting from the initial platform installation would be permanent. Overall, 

13 impacts on fish populations associated with decommissioning activities are expected to be 

14 negligible.

15

16 Accidents. Accidental hydrocarbon releases in Alaska may have greater ecological 

17 consequences than in temperate areas because oil is likely to persist in the environment due to 

18 the colder temperatures. Hydrocarbons can have a range of effects on fish depending on the 

19 concentration, the length of exposure, and the life history stage of the fish involved 

20 (Starr et al. 1981; C.I. Hamilton et al. 1979; Malins 1977; Neff and Stubblefield 1995). 

21 Prolonged exposure to elevated levels of petroleum hydrocarbons can result in lethal or sublethal 

22 (reproduction, recruitment, physiology, growth, development, and behavior) impacts at the level 

23 of the individual, while catastrophic oil spills could result in population-level effects in some 

24 cases (Peterson et al. 2003). Fishes most likely to be affected by an oil spill would be those that 

25 migrate extensively (e.g., arctic cisco and salmon), those with high fidelity to natal streams 

26 (e.g., Dolly Varden), and those confined to nearshore environments (e.g., broad whitefish and 

27 rainbow smelt). Gas and particularly oil releases in Cook Inlet could affect fish populations by 

28 causing mortality of eggs, larvae, juveniles, or adults; triggering abnormal development; 

29 impeding the access of migratory fishes (e.g., salmon and herring) to spawning habitat; altering 

30 behaviors; displacing individuals from preferred habitat; reducing or eliminating prey 

31 populations available for consumption; impairing feeding, growth, or reproduction; causing 

32 adverse physiological responses; increasing susceptibility to predation, parasitism, diseases or 

33 other environmental perturbations; and increasing or introducing genetic abnormalities. It is 

34 anticipated that pelagic eggs and larval stages of fish, whose movements are largely controlled 

35 by water currents, would be killed if they came into contact with surface oil spills (Patin 1999). 

36 Conversely, evidence indicates that the majority of adult pelagic fish can likely detect and avoid 

37 heavily oiled waters in the open sea, thereby avoiding acute effects (Patin 1999). Adult salmon 

38 are able to return to natal streams and hatcheries even under very large oil spill conditions 

39 (Brannon et al. 1986; Nakatani and Nevissi 1991), as evidenced by the return of pink and 

40 sockeye salmon to Prince William Sound and sockeye salmon to Cook Inlet during and after the 

41 Exxon Valdez oil spill.

42

43 Impacts from spills would be greatest if a large spill occurred during a reproductive 

44 period or contacted a location important for spawning or growth such as intertidal and nearshore 

45 subtidal habitats. However, it is anticipated that only a small amount of shoreline would be 

46 affected by these smaller oil spills and would not, therefore, present a substantial risk to fish 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-332

1 populations. Most small hydrocarbon releases would be rapidly diluted and are expected to 

2 primarily affect fish in the water column, as most oil and gas would float above the sediment 

3 surface. Because pelagic species of fishes in Cook Inlet are relatively abundant and widely 

4 distributed in waters across much of the central Gulf of Alaska, even a large oil spill (up to 

5 4,600 bbl) is not likely to cause population-level impacts on most fish populations inhabiting the 

6 central Gulf of Alaska (i.e., South Alaskan Peninsula, Kodiak Archipelago, Shelikof Strait, Cook 

7 Inlet, and Prince William Sound). 

8

9 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE of 75 to 125 thousand bbl in 

10 the Cook inlet Planning Area. The likelihood of oil from a CDE (Table 4.4.2-2) contacting part 

11 of the shoreline is relatively high because the Cook Inlet Planning Area is located within a 

12 relatively confined estuary. Spilled oil affecting nearshore and intertidal areas would likely 

13 result in the greatest impacts on fisheries resources. Oil may persist for years in intertidal areas 

14 and could represent a persistent source of exposure for fish such as herrings that generally spawn 

15 near shorelines. Oil spills in intertidal areas also have the potential to contaminate or alter the 

16 composition and abundance of benthic food resources. For example, evidence from the Exxon 

17 Valdez oil spill suggests stress-tolerant invertebrates such as polychaetes and snails would not 

18 suffer long-term population declines in oiled areas, but clams and mussels could be contaminated 

19 and reduced in abundance for several years (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2010c). A 

20 catastrophic oil spill and/or multiple smaller spills could result in a decline in local abundances 

21 of fish stocks or subpopulations, with recovery potentially requiring multiple generations. Some 

22 stocks are already in decline due to non-OCS anthropogenic and natural impact-producing 

23 factors (e.g., commercial fisheries, climatic shifts). 

24

25 Some of the potential effects that catastrophic oil spills in Cook Inlet could have on fish 

26 resources can be inferred based upon the impacts of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, which

27 released approximately 257,000 bbl of oil into nearby Prince William Sound. The potential 

28 effects of the Valdez spill are best known for salmon and Pacific herring. Population-level 

29 effects on salmon were primarily through exposure of eggs and larvae to oil in sediments. 

30 Because of their long incubation period in intertidal gravel and because salmon embryos have a 

31 large lipid-rich yolk that can accumulate hydrocarbons from low-level exposures, salmon 

32 embryos are vulnerable to contamination from oil spills that reach intertidal areas 

33 (Peterson et al. 2003). For example, pink salmon embryos in oiled intertidal streams of Prince 

34 William Sound continued to show higher mortality than those in non-oiled streams until 1993 

35 (Bue et al. 1998), and from 1989 to 1990, the growth rates of cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden in 

36 oiled streams were lower than those in clean streams (Hepler et al. 1993). However, salmonid 

37 populations appeared to recover within 15 years. Pink and sockeye salmon populations were 

38 considered to have recovered in 1999 and 2002, respectively (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee 

39 Council 2010c). Dolly Varden char were considered recovered in 2002, and cutthroat trout are 

40 considered to have very likely recovered (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2010c).

41

42 Although the Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred a few weeks before Pacific herring spawned 

43 in Prince William Sound, adult herring appeared to be relatively unaffected by the spill. About 

44 half of the herring egg biomass was deposited within the oil trajectory, and toxicity tests 

45 suggested egg-larval mortality in the oiled areas was twice as great as in the non-oiled areas and 

46 that larval growth rates in oiled areas were depressed compared to those in areas unaffected by 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-333

1 the spill (Brown et al. 1996; McGurk and Brown 1996). After a record harvest in 1992 

2 (following the Exxon Valdez spill), the Pacific herring population in Prince William Sound 

3 collapsed and has remained depressed, with reduced or no commercial harvest allowed. The 

4 Pacific herring stock of Prince William Sound is still classified as ―not recovered‖ from the 

5 Exxon Valdez oil spill (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2010c). However, because of

6 natural variability in population and confounding environmental factors, there has not been full 

7 consensus among researchers that the currently low herring numbers are fully attributable to the 

8 effects of spilled oil. Pathogens, rather than lingering effects of the Valdez spill, may be 

9 primarily responsible for the lack of recovery (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2010c).

10

11 Although the effects of the spill on rockfish, a common demersal fish in Cook Inlet, were 

12 never well understood, their populations and habitat are considered recovered from the Exxon 

13 Valdez spill (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2010c). In general, adult demersal fishes 

14 are believed to avoid oil slicks, although individuals in coastal shallow waters with slow water 

15 exchange could be exposed to sublethal hydrocarbon concentrations (Patin 1999). A large or 

16 catastrophic spill could adversely affect hundreds of millions of eggs and juvenile stages, 

17 especially spills that reach nearshore areas, which are important to many species of demersal 

18 fishes as juveniles (Moles and Norcross 1998). Adult demersal and bentho-pelagic fish, 

19 including pollock, sablefish, Pacific cod, eulachon, and Pacific sand lance, would probably not 

20 be harmed by spilled oil at the surface. However, many demersal fishes such as walleye pollock, 

21 halibut, and cod all have buoyant eggs and larvae that float near the surface where they could be 

22 exposed to spilled oil (NPFMC 2010).

23

24

25 4.4.7.3.3 Alaska – Arctic.

26

27 Routine Operations. Potential OCS oil and gas development impacting factors for fish 

28 are shown by phase in Table 4.4.7-5. Impacting factors common to all phases include vessel 

29 traffic, platform lighting, vessel discharges (bilge and ballast water), and miscellaneous 

30 discharges (deck washing, sanitary waste). Impacts from waste discharges would be localized 

31 and temporary and would be expected to have negligible impacts on fish populations. Many of 

32 these waste streams are disposed of on land, and any discharges into surface waters must meet 

33 USEPA and/or USCG regulatory requirements before discharge. Studies of platform lighting 

34 suggest that the lights could alter predator-prey dynamics by enhancing phytoplankton 

35 productivity around the platform, potentially improving food availability and the visual foraging 

36 environment for fishes (Keenan et al. 2007). Potential impacts from platform lighting would be 

37 localized but long term and are expected to have minimal impacts on fish populations.

38

39 Exploration and Site Development. During the OCS oil and gas exploration and 

40 development phase, fish could be affected by noise from seismic surveys and noise and bottom 

41 disturbance from drilling, subsea well, gravel island, and platform placement, and pipeline 

42 trenching and placement activities (Table 4.4.7-5). The effects of these activities on fish 

43 communities are described in detail in Section 4.4.7.3.2.

44

45 Fish in the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas most likely to be affected by 

46 the noise generated from drilling, vessel traffic, and seismic surveys include salmon, cod,
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-334

1 TABLE 4.4.7-5 Impacting Factors on Fish and Their Habitat in the 

2 Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas

Life Stage Affecteda

Development Phase and Impacting Factor Eggs Larvae Adults

Impacting Factors Common to All Phases

Vessel noise X X X

Vessel traffic X X X

Hazardous materials X X X

Solid wastes X X X

Offshore lighting X X X

Aircraft noise

Offshore air emissions

Onshore air emissions

Aircraft traffic

Miscellaneous platform discharges X X X

Vessel discharges X X X

Bottom disturbance from vessel anchors X X X

Exploration and Development

Seismic noise X X X

Noise from drilling and construction X X X

Bottom disturbance from drilling and placement of 

subsea wells, platforms, and pipelines

X X X

Discharge of drilling muds and cuttings X X X

Production

Production noise X X X

Produced water discharge X X X

Artificial reef X X X

Decommissioning

Platform removal (non-explosive) X X X

a Colors indicate impact level: white = negligible; blue = minor; yellow = moderate; 

red = major.

3

4

5 whitefishes, and herring. The effect on the overall fish population would be negligible since 

6 fishes are distributed over wide geographic areas and air gun operations are localized 

7 (Section 4.4.7.3.2). While it is anticipated that there would be no permanent population-level 

8 effects on managed species from seismic surveys, individual fish, especially egg and larval life 

9 stages in close proximity (1 to 5 m [3 to 16 ft]) to air gun arrays (Dalen and Knutsen 1986; 

10 Holliday et al. 1987; Turnpenny and Nedwell 1994), could suffer mortality or injury, and adult 

11 fishes more distant from the noise could exhibit short-term avoidance and behavioral alteration. 

12 A recent review of seismic survey noise on marine fish concluded that although data were 

13 limited, there would be no significant impacts on marine fish populations from seismic surveys 

14 (BOEMRE 2010c; National Science Foundation and USGS 2010).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-335

1 Development and construction activities that could affect fish in the Beaufort and 

2 Chukchi Sea Planning Areas include drilling, installation of pipelines and construction of subsea 

3 wells, platforms, artificial islands, and ice roads. Bottom disturbance would result in temporary 

4 sedimentation and turbidity, which could damage fish gills and bury benthic invertebrate prey 

5 resources within some distance of the disturbance. Individual fish would likely temporarily 

6 move away from affected areas (Section 4.4.7.3.2). The total area affected by seafloor 

7 disturbance under the proposed action would be relatively small compared to the availability of 

8 similar seafloor habitat in surrounding areas.

9

10 Onshore, up to 129 km (80 mi) of oil pipeline could be constructed. While an exact route 

11 cannot be determined at this time, the pipeline route would be required to comply with various 

12 Alaska Coastal Management Program policies. As a consequence, construction activities in 

13 sensitive aquatic habitats would be minimized. Specifically, the route for onshore pipeline 

14 facilities would be sited inland from shorelines and beaches, and crossings of anadromous fish 

15 streams would be minimized and consolidated with other utility and road crossings of such 

16 streams. In addition, onshore pipelines would be designed, constructed, and maintained to 

17 minimize risk to fish habitats from a spill, pipeline break, or construction activities.

18

19 It is assumed that drilling muds and cuttings would be discharged into the Beaufort and 

20 Chukchi Sea Planning Areas for exploration wells only and that drilling wastes from 

21 development and production wells would be reinjected into the wells. The discharge of drilling 

22 muds and cuttings (including synthetic drilling fluids adhering to the cuttings) can adversely 

23 affect fish in several ways. Impacts from turbidity associated with drilling waste discharge 

24 would be similar to those described above and could damage respiratory structures, cause fish to 

25 temporarily move from the area, and disrupt food acquisition. Drilling wastes released near the 

26 sediment surface or in shallow water would bury benthic food resources in the release area,

27 although conditions would eventually recover. Trace metal and hydrocarbon constituents in 

28 drilling fluids can be toxic to fish at all life stages if they are exposed to high enough 

29 concentrations. Impacts would be greatest for planktonic eggs and larvae that contact the mixing 

30 zone, while juveniles and adults passing through a discharge are not likely to be adversely 

31 affected. Assuming a relatively widespread distribution of eggs, larvae, and prey in the Beaufort 

32 and Chukchi Seas, drilling waste discharge is not likely to alter the population dynamics of 

33 fisheries resources. In addition, drilling discharges must comply with NPDES permit 

34 requirements regarding the discharge amount, rate, and toxicity, which would greatly reduce the 

35 impact on fish communities.

36

37 Overall, site development and exploration activities represent a minor and temporary 

38 disturbance primarily affecting demersal fishes, with the severity of the impacts generally 

39 decreasing dramatically with distance from the disturbance.

40

41 Production. Production activities that could affect fish communities in the Beaufort and 

42 Chukchi Seas include operational noise, bottom disturbance from anchors and the release of 

43 process water. In addition, the platform would replace existing featureless soft sediments and 

44 serve as an artificial reef (Table 4.4.7-5). Chronic disturbance to demersal fish communities 

45 would result from the movement of anchors and chains associated with support vessels. 

46 Pipelines not buried would be anchored in place which would minimize their movement and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-336

1 potential to disturb fish habitat. Bottom disturbance would affect similar to that described above 

2 for the exploration and site development phase. The disturbance would be episodic and 

3 temporary, but would last for the lifetime of the platform.

4

5 Artificial islands would increase the diversity of habitat available on an otherwise 

6 homogeneous ocean. Specifically, such construction would introduce an artificial hard substrate 

7 that opportunistic benthic species, especially those that prefer gravel substrate, could colonize. 

8 Fishes may be attracted to the newly formed habitat complex, and fish population numbers in the 

9 immediate vicinity of the platforms are likely to be higher than in surrounding waters away from 

10 the structures. The overall change in habitat could result in changes in local community 

11 assemblage and diversity (Howarth 1991). The number of platforms projected for the Beaufort 

12 and Chucki Sea Planning Areas under the proposed action (up to nine) would create a small 

13 amount of hard substrate habitat and would likely have little effect on overall fish populations.

14

15 Produced water contains metals, hydrocarbons, salts, and radionuclides, and their 

16 discharge could contaminate habitat, resulting in lethal and sublethal effects on fish, particularly 

17 early life stages. It is assumed that all produced water would be disposed of by injection into 

18 permitted disposal wells. Therefore, the effects of miscellaneous and produced water discharges 

19 on fish communities are expected to be minimal.

20

21 The results of the Arctic Nearshore Impacts Monitoring in the Development Area study 

22 funded by BOEM provide a good summary of the long-term changes to benthic communities 

23 resulting from oil and gas development in the Arctic. Hydrocarbons are primarily derived from 

24 river inputs rather than oil and gas development (Brown 2005; Neff and Associates LLC 2010). 

25 Tissue hydrocarbon and metals concentrations in fish and their invertebrate food sources 

26 sampled near the Northstar development and Liberty prospect area were similar to or lower than 

27 invertebrate tissue levels found elsewhere in the world. No increase in hydrocarbons and metals 

28 in fish or invertebrate tissues was attributable to oil and gas production (Neff and Associates 

29 LLC 2010).

30

31 Overall, production activities would result in negligible and temporary effects on fish 

32 communities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas.

33

34 Decommissioning. No explosive platform removals are anticipated under the proposed 

35 action. Nonexplosive removals (e.g., abrasive, mechanical, or diver cutters) would have 

36 negligible long-term impacts to fish populations, although fish associated with the platform 

37 would experience a loss of habitat. Pipelines installed and anchored on the seafloor would be 

38 capped and left in place, although there is the potential for chronic sediment disturbance from 

39 pipeline movement. Overall, impacts on fish populations associated with decommissioning 

40 activities are expected to be negligible.

41

42 Accidents. Most accidental hydrocarbon releases would be small and rapidly diluted and 

43 are expected to primarily affect fish in the water column, as most oil and gas would float above 

44 the sediment surface. Impacts from spills would be greatest if a large spill occurred during a 

45 reproductive period or contacted a location important for spawning or growth such as intertidal 

46 and nearshore subtidal habitats. However, it is anticipated that in most cases only a small 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-337

1 amount of shoreline would be affected by these smaller oil spills and would not, therefore, 

2 present a substantial risk to fish populations. Most small hydrocarbon releases would be rapidly 

3 diluted and are expected to primarily affect fish in the water column, as most oil and gas would 

4 float above the sediment surface. Because pelagic species of fishes in the Beaufort and Chukchi 

5 Sea Planning Areas are widely distributed, even a large oil spill (up to 4,600 bbl) is not likely to 

6 cause population-level impacts on most fish populations. 

7

8 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE of 1.4 to 2.2 million bbl in 

9 the Chukchi Sea and 1.7 to 3.9 million bbl in the Beaufort Sea (Table 4.4.2-2). A CDE 

10 (Table 4.4.2-2) has the potential to affect multiple species in the Arctic Planning Areas. Such 

11 spills can have a range of effects on fish depending on the concentration, the length of exposure, 

12 and the life history stage of the fish involved (Starr et al. 1981; Hamilton et al. 1979; 

13 Malins 1977; Neff and Stubblefield 1995). During the spill, adult and juvenile fish may be 

14 temporarily displaced, which could interfere with movements to feeding, overwintering, or 

15 spawning areas. Fish eggs, larvae, and juveniles are the most sensitive life history stages 

16 (Section 4.4.7.3.2). Spilled petroleum hydrocarbons may persist for years (Howarth 1991; 

17 Wiedmer et al. 1996), especially in sediments of cold waters, making it likely that some fish 

18 species would be exposed to low levels of hydrocarbons for an extended time after an oil spill. 

19 Similarly, petroleum hydrocarbons could remain available for uptake and bioaccumulation by 

20 benthic food sources for years following a spill (Howarth 1991). 

21

22 Among the most abundant marine fish in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas 

23 are arctic cod, sculpin, eelpout, pricklebacks, and flatfish. Of these, the arctic cod may be the 

24 most susceptible to lethal hydrocarbon effects because the larvae are pelagic and most likely to 

25 come into contact with oil and gas, which tend to float on the surface. Arctic cod are also 

26 susceptible because they are dependent on algal production in open water and under sea ice, 

27 which could be affected by oil and gas exposure. Among the most abundant anadromous species 

28 are the arctic and least cisco, broad whitefish, Dolly Varden, and rainbow smelt. Fishes most 

29 likely to be affected by an oil spill would be those that migrate extensively (e.g., Arctic cisco), 

30 those with high fidelity to natal streams (e.g., Dolly Varden), and those confined to nearshore 

31 environments (e.g., broad whitefish and rainbow smelt). Some pelagic species (e.g., Pacific 

32 herring; capelin) spawn in intertidal zones where their eggs may be susceptible to oil 

33 (Rice et al. 1984). Herring generally spawn near shorelines over 3–4 week periods, and oil 

34 driven onshore could contact spawning adults and developing eggs (MMS 1996a). Larval 

35 herring are also susceptible after moving into deeper water because they rise diurnally to feed on 

36 plankton and could be exposed to surface oil repeatedly if a spill occurs. Demersal fishes such as 

37 walleye pollock, halibut, and cod all have buoyant eggs and larvae that float near the surface 

38 where they could be exposed to spilled oil (MMS 1996a). 

39

40 A CDE spill could have population-level consequences if vital habitat areas were affected 

41 or if it occurred in spawning areas or juvenile feeding grounds when fish populations are highly 

42 concentrated (e.g., the Arctic cisco population concentrated near the Colville River). In such 

43 cases, catastrophic spills could cause substantial reductions in population levels for one or more 

44 years. However, no permanent impacts on fish populations are expected. See Section 4.4.7.3.2 

45 for a detailed discussion of oil spills on fish following the catastrophic Exxon Valdez spill.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-338

1 4.4.7.3.4 Conclusion. The primary potential impacts on fish communities from Program 

2 activities could result from seismic surveys and bottom-disturbing activities such as drilling, 

3 platform placement and mooring, and pipeline trenching and placement, which could displace, 

4 injure, or kill fish in the vicinity of the activity. Fixed platforms, particularly the large number 

5 projected for the GOM, would also serve as artificial reefs that would attract substantial numbers 

6 of fish. Oil and gas activities would be temporary, and no permanent or population-level impacts 

7 on fish are expected. Displaced fish and invertebrate food sources would repopulate the area 

8 over a short period of time in the GOM, but fish habitat recovery may be long term in Alaskan 

9 waters. The effects of drilling muds and produced water discharge on fish would be localized,

10 and no population-level effects are expected. Drilling waste and produced water discharge 

11 would be far less in Alaska because fewer wells would be drilled in Alaska and because it is 

12 assumed that drilling muds and cuttings from production wells and all produced water would be 

13 reinjected into the wells. Overall, impacts to fish from routine Program activities are expected to 

14 range from negligible to minor, and no impacts on threatened or endangered fish species are 

15 expected.

16

17 Small spills would be localized and are unlikely to affect a substantial number of fish 

18 before dilution and weathering would reduce concentrations of toxic fractions to nontoxic levels. 

19 Large and especially CDE-level spills would affect a wider area, with the magnitude of the 

20 impacts depending on the location, timing, and volume of spills, distribution and ecology of 

21 affected fish species, and other environmental factors. Most adult fish are highly mobile and 

22 would likely avoid lethal hydrocarbon exposures, although they may be subjected to sublethal 

23 concentrations. Smaller species and egg and larval life stages are more likely to suffer lethal or 

24 sublethal exposures from oil contact because of their relative lack of mobility. Under most 

25 circumstances, any single large or CDE spill would affect only a small proportion of a given fish 

26 population; therefore, overall population levels may not be affected. However, fish species that 

27 currently have depressed populations or have critical spawning grounds present in the affected 

28 area could experience population-level impacts. Oil contacting shoreline areas used for 

29 spawning or providing habitat for early life stages of fish could result in large-scale lethal and 

30 long-term sublethal effects on fish. In Alaskan waters, where oil may be slow to break down,

31 coastal oiling could measurably depress some fish populations for several years especially if the 

32 spill were very large (such as a CDE spill). However, no permanent impacts on fish populations 

33 are expected.

34

35

36 4.4.7.4 Reptiles

37

38

39 4.4.7.4.1 Routine Operations. The discussion of impacts to reptile species from OCS oil 

40 and gas development is primarily focused on sea turtles that may occur throughout the GOM. 

41 There is the potential for other reptile species to be affected from a small number of impacting 

42 factors related to OCS oil and gas development. Additional reptile species (e.g., American 

43 crocodile) will be identified as impacting factors are discussed in this PEIS.

44

45 There are five species of sea turtle that may be encountered in the GOM OCS Planning 

46 Areas: green, hawksbill, Kemp‘s ridley, leatherback, and loggerhead. All of these species have 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-339

1 the potential to occur throughout the planning areas as hatchlings, juveniles, and adults. All but 

2 the hawksbill have been reported to nest on beaches within the GOM Planning Areas, and the 

3 number and distribution of nests differ dramatically among these species across bordering States 

4 (Section 3.8.3; Figure 3.8.3-1). Sea turtles may be affected in all phases of OCS oil and gas 

5 development. Under the proposed action, one or more of the sea turtle life stages could be 

6 affected under routine operations due to (1) airborne and underwater noise, (2) offshore structure 

7 placement and pipeline trenching, (3) removal of offshore structures, (4) OCS vessel traffic, 

8 (5) construction and operation of onshore infrastructure, and (6) exposure to operational 

9 discharges and wastes. In addition, reptiles may be affected by unexpected and accidental spills 

10 of oil and other contaminants. Table 4.4.7-6 illustrates how each of the various impact factors 

11 associated with OCS oil and gas development may affect sea turtles and their habitats in the 

12 GOM. Many of these impacting factors could occur during multiple project phases. Conceptual 

13 models illustrated in Figures 4.4.7-6 through 4.4.7-10 show how various activities associated 

14 with seismic surveys, onshore and offshore construction, normal O&G operations, 

15 decommissioning, and accidental oil releases may impact sea turtles. While OCS O&G projects 

16 have the potential to affect sea turtles of all life stages, it has been determined that impacts to 

17 later life stages (large juveniles and adults) result in greater population-level impacts 

18 (Crouse et al. 1987).

19

20 As discussed in Section 3.3.1, climate change in the GOM is expected to affect coastal 

21 systems through processes such as warming temperatures, changes in precipitation, sea level rise, 

22 and more frequent intense storms. Rising water temperatures, increased sea levels, and intense 

23 storms may affect the availability and suitability of foraging and nesting habitats for coastal and 

24 marine reptiles (Hawkes et al. 2009). For reptiles that rely on temperature to determine the 

25 gender of offspring in incubating eggs (referred to as temperature-dependent sex determination), 

26 including sea turtles and crocodilians, subtle increases in atmospheric temperatures could skew 

27 sex ratios of hatchlings, which could have future population implications (Walther et al. 2002). 

28 It is also predicted that global warming and increased precipitation rates associated with climate 

29 change will cause sea levels to rise (Church et al. 2001). This phenomenon could alter sea turtle 

30 coastal habitat in many areas (Hawkes et al. 2009). For example, a study in Hawaii predicted 

31 that as much as 40% of green sea turtle nesting habitat could be affected with a 0.9 m (2.7 ft) sea 

32 level rise (Baker et al. 2006).

33

34 Noise. Hearing sensitivity includes the hearing threshold (the minimum sound level that 

35 an animal can perceive in the absence of significant background noise) and the hearing 

36 bandwidth (the range of frequencies that an animal can hear). There is very little published data 

37 on sea turtle hearing sensitivities, but the little available data suggests that sea turtle species 

38 exhibit best hearing at low frequencies 200–700 Hz (BOEMRE 2010c), with an upper hearing 

39 limit of 1,600 Hz (Dow et al. 2008). Reported hearing thresholds are also of low frequency, 

40 estimated to be between 50 and 1,000 Hz (Tech Environmental, Inc. 2006). Threshold detection 

41 levels for these species over this frequency range are relatively high (>100 dB referenced to 

42 1 micropascal within 1 meter of the source [dB re 1 μPa-m]) (Tech Environmental, Inc. 2006).

43

44 Potential responses to noises generated during normal operations may be expected to be 

45 behavioral and may include avoidance of the noise source, disorientation, and disturbance of 

46 normal behaviors such as feeding. Evidence suggests that sea turtles may be affected by seismic
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-340

1 TABLE 4.4.7-6 Potential OCS Oil and Gas Development Impacting Factors for Reptiles in the GOM

O&G Impacting Factor

Noise Produced Water,

Resource 

Receptor Category 

Potentially Affected

Seismic 

Exploration

Construction, 

Operation, and 

Decommissioning

Collisions with 

OCS Vessels

Presence of 

OCS Vessels

Construction and 

Decommissioning of 

Onshore and Offshore 

Infrastructure

Offshore and 

Onshore Lighting

Drill Cuttings and 

Mud, Liquid 

Wastes, Hazardous 

Materials

Solid Wastes 

and Debris Accidental Oil Spills

Sea turtle nest sites 

– individual nests 

and nesting beaches

– – – – Destruction of nests; 

degradation or loss of 

nesting beaches

– – – Physical disturbance 

and reduced quality 

from fouling

Sea turtle hatchlings Injury; 

disruption of 

normal 

behavior 

(feeding, 

nesting)

Disruption of 

normal behavior 

(feeding, nesting)

Injury of 

mortality from 

ship strikes

Disruption of 

normal 

behavior 

(feeding, 

nesting)

Injury; disruption of 

normal behavior

Attraction of 

reproductive adults to 

low quality nesting 

habitats

Toxicity Ingestion 

and/or 

entanglement

Fouling, toxicity

Sea turtle juveniles Injury; disruption of 

normal behavior

Attraction of 

reproductive adults to 

low quality nesting 

habitats

Fouling, toxicity

Sea turtle adults Injury; disruption of 

normal behavior

Attraction of 

reproductive adults to 

low quality nesting 

habitats

Fouling, toxicity

Sea turtle migration Displacement 

or impediment

Displacement or 

impediment

– Displacement 

or impediment

Displacement or 

impediment

Attraction of 

reproductive adults to 

low quality nesting 

habitats

– – Displacement or 

impediment

Sea turtle juvenile 

foraging habitats

– – – – Temporary habitat 

disturbance during 

construction; possible 

long-term increase in 

habitat

Attraction of 

reproductive adults to 

low quality nesting 

habitats

Reduced habitat 

quality

– Physical disturbance; 

reduced habitat 

quality

Sea turtle adult 

foraging habitats

– – – – Temporary habitat 

disturbance during 

construction; possible 

long-term increase in 

habitat

Attraction of 

reproductive adults to 

low quality nesting 

habitats

Reduced habitat 

quality

– Physical disturbance; 

reduced habitat 

quality
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-341

TABLE 4.4.7-6 (Cont.) 

O&G Impacting Factor

Noise Produced Water,

Resource 

Receptor Category 

Potentially Affected

Seismic 

Exploration

Construction, 

Operation, and 

Decommissioning

Collisions with 

OCS Vessels

Presence of 

OCS Vessels

Construction and 

Decommissioning of 

Onshore and Offshore 

Infrastructure

Offshore and 

Onshore Lighting

Drill Cuttings and 

Mud, Liquid 

Wastes, Hazardous 

Materials

Solid Wastes 

and Debris Accidental Oil Spills

Sea turtle wintering 

grounds

– – – – Temporary habitat 

disturbance; possible 

long-term increase in 

habitat

Attraction of 

reproductive adults to 

low quality nesting 

habitats

Reduced quality – Physical disturbance; 

reduced quality

American crocodile 

nest sites, adults, 

juveniles, 

hatchlings, and their 

habitat

– – – – – – – – Fouling, toxicity;

physical disturbance;

reduced habitat 

quality

a

– = No impact anticipated.

1
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-342

1

2 FIGURE 4.4.7-6 Conceptual Model for Potential Effects of Seismic Survey Activities on Turtles in the GOM

3

IMPACTING FACTOR STRESSOR MODE OF ACTION POTENTIAL EFFECTS RECEPTOR

Seismic 

Survey Survey vessel traffic

Temporary disturbance of normal behavior

Vessel presence

Temporary avoidance of habitat

Juveniles 

Adults 

Hatchlings 

Juveniles 

Adults 

Vessel collisions Direct physical injury

Hatchlings 

Juveniles 

Adults 

Exposure to liquid 

wastes and solid

debris

Lethal or sublethal toxic effects Acute exposure to liquid 

wastes

Ingestion of or entanglement 

in solid debris Direct physical injury or mortality Hatchlings 

Juveniles 

Adults 

Air gun or 

hydrophone sound 

and pressure levels

Damage to hearing structures

Direct physical injury

Temporary or permanent hearing loss

Damage to non-auditory tissues

Hatchlings 

Juveniles 

Adults 

Behavioral Disturbance Cessation of normal behavior; disorientation
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-343

1

2 FIGURE 4.4.7-7 Conceptual Model for Potential Effects of OCS-Related Construction Activities on Turtles in the GOM

3

4

Drilling noiseIMPACTING 

FACTOR

Visual 

intrusions

(dependent on 

surrounding 

land 

use)RECPTOR

STRESSOR MODE OF ACTION POTENTIAL EFFECTS

Physical 

landscape 

and 

infrastructu

reOffshore 

and Onshore 

Construction 

Construction noise Behavioral disturbance 

Hatchlings 

Juveniles 

Adults 

Temporary disturbance of normal behavior;

Increased stress

Temporary avoidance of habitat

Juveniles 

Adults 

Exposure to liquid 

wastes, solid debris,

and hazardous 

materials Lethal or sublethal toxic effects

Direct physical injury or mortality Hatchlings 

Juveniles 

Adults Acute exposure to hazardous materials

Ingestion of or entanglement in solid 

debris

Construction vessel 

presence

Vessel presence 

Hatchlings 

Juveniles 

Adults 

Temporary disturbance of normal behavior

Temporary avoidance of habitat

Juveniles 

Adults 

Hatchlings 

Juveniles 

Adults 

Collisions with 

construction vessels

Support Vessel and Construction 

Equipment Collisions

Direct physical injury or mortality 

Pipeline placement Juveniles 

Adults 

Increase in turbidity Temporary avoidance of habitat

Discharge of drilling 

wastes 

Increase in turbidity

Acute exposure to toxic materials Reduced growth or survival due to toxic effects

Temporary disturbance of normal behavior

Hatchlings 

Juveniles 

Adults 

Collisions with trenching equipment Direct physical injury or mortality 

Hatchlings 

Hatchlings 

Juveniles 

Adults 

Habitat disturbance Direct disruption of habitats Long- or short-term habitat loss or reduction in 

quality
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-34

4

1

2 FIGURE 4.4.7-8 Conceptual Model for Potential Effects of OCS Operation on Turtles in the GOM

3

IMPACTING FACTOR STRESSOR MODE OF ACTION POTENTIAL EFFECTS RECEPTOR

Normal 

Operations

Platform operational 

noise Behavioral disturbance 

Hatchlings 

Juveniles 

Adults 

Disturbance of normal behavior; Increased stress

Avoidance of habitat

Juveniles 

Adults 

Support vessel 

activity Vessel presence 

Hatchlings 

Juveniles 

Adults 

Temporary disturbance of normal behavior

Temporary avoidance of habitat

Juveniles 

Adults 

Hatchlings 

Juveniles 

Adults 

Vessel collisions Support vessel collisions Direct injury or mortality 

Liquid wastes, solid 

debris, and 

hazardous materials

Reduced growth or survival due to toxic effects

Direct physical injury or mortality Hatchlings 

Juveniles 

Acute exposure Adults to hazardous materials

Ingestion of or entanglement in solid 

debris

Hatchlings 

Hatchlings 

Juveniles 

Adults 

Onshore lighting Direct disruption of habitats Long- or short-term habitat loss or reduction in 

quality
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-345

1

2 FIGURE 4.4.7-9 Conceptual Model for Potential Effects of Platform Decommissioning on Turtles in the GOM

3

IMPACTING FACTOR STRESSOR MODE OF ACTION POTENTIAL EFFECTS RECEPTOR

Decommissioning

Explosive platform 

removal

Hatchlings 

Juveniles 

Adults 

Blast noise

Organ damage; temporary hearing impairment; 

behavioral disturbance

Blast pressure Direct physical injury or mortality 

Support vessel 

activity

Hatchlings 

Juveniles 

Adults 

Vessel collisions Direct physical injury or mortality 

Vessel presence 

Temporary disturbance of normal behavior

Temporary avoidance of habitat

Juveniles 

Adults 

Hatchlings 

Juveniles 

Adults 

Above-water 

structure removal

Hatchlings 

Hatchlings 

Juveniles 

Adults 

Noise and human activity Temporary disturbance of normal behavior

Liquid wastes, solid 

debris, and 

hazardous materials

Lethal and sublethal toxic effects

Direct physical injury or mortality Hatchlings 

Juveniles 

Acute exposure to hazardous materials Adults 

Ingestion of or entanglement in solid 

debris
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-346

1

2 FIGURE 4.4.7-10 Conceptual Model for Potential Effects of Oil Spill on Reptiles in the GOM

O&G 

Activity Stressor Stressor Action Mode Receptor Potential Effects

Accidental 

Oil Release Oil

Fouling of individuals

Reduced swimming and feeding capability due to 

physical coating of oil, resulting in reduced 

condition and increased susceptibility to predation

Hatchlings 

Juveniles 

Adults 

Adults 

Reduced survival due to toxic effects, such as 

reduced immune system, histological skin 

abnormalities, altered blood parameters, and 

reduced salt excretion and minor ion regulation

Acute exposure to oil 

Hatchlings 

Juveniles 

Fouling of nesting areas

Avoidance of fouled beaches

Eggs

Adults 

Reduction in gas exchange of eggs, reducing egg 

survival and hatchability

Fouling of nursery habitats Temporary or long-term reduction in habitat quality; 

possible long-term habitat loss Hatchlings

Reduced food production in affected habitats; 

temporary avoidance of affected habitats; reduced 

condition of individuals due to reduced food 

availability

Fouling of juvenile and adult 

foraging habitats

Juveniles 

Adults 

Temporary avoidance of affected habitats; 

temporary reduction in habitat quality, resulting in 

reduced condition or survival of individuals using 

affected habitats

Fouling of juvenile and adult 

wintering grounds

Juveniles 

Adults 

Hatchlings Reduced ability to emerge from nests
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-347

1 noises (McCauley et al. 2000; BOEMRE 2010c; NSF and USGS 2010), but it is largely 

2 unknown how sea turtles may respond to and be affected by noise generated during structure 

3 placement, drilling and production, pipeline trenching, vessel traffic, and explosive structure 

4 removal (Geraci and St. Aubin 1987). Because some sea turtles, such as the loggerhead, may be 

5 attracted to OCS structures, these may be more susceptible to sounds produced during routine 

6 operations.

7

8 Noise generated by seismic surveys may affect sea turtles (Figure 4.4.7-6). Seismic 

9 surveys generate both high-frequency and low-frequency noise at levels up to 250 dB re 1 μPa10 m, with emitted energy levels in the low-frequency range of 10–120 Hz (IACMST 2006). These 

11 survey noises are expected to be detected by sea turtles. Table 4.4.7-7 provides a general 

12 summary of available information on the effects of exposure to seismic noises (e.g., sonar) on 

13 sea turtles. It has been suggested that sound levels above 175 dB re 1 μPa-m induce behavioral 

14 reactions in sea turtles. Air guns and pingers typically used in seismic surveys have nominal 

15 source outputs ranging from 192 to 265 dB re 1 μPa-m. Therefore, depending on the species of 

16 turtle, its age class, and proximity to the acoustic source, there is potential for air gun blasts to 

17 affect sea turtle behavior. Currently, the effects of seismic noise on sea turtle physiology are

18 unknown (BOEMRE 2010c; NSF and USGS 2010; Table 4.4.7-7).

19

20 Offshore drilling and production structures produce a broad array of sounds at 

21 frequencies and levels that may be detected by sea turtles within the area of the installation 

22 (Geraci and St. Aubin 1987). These sounds are generally of relatively low frequencies, typically 

23 4.5–30 Hz, and may be generated at sound levels up to 190 dB re 1 μPa-m. Helicopters and 

24 service and construction vessels may affect sea turtles due to machinery noise and/or visual 

25 disturbances (NRC 1990). The effects of noise generated from construction and operations are 

26 illustrated in Figures 4.4.7-7 and 4.4.7-8.

27

28 Underwater explosions associated with the explosive removal of offshore facilities may 

29 generate noises that disturb sea turtles (Figure 4.4.7-9; MMS 2005d). Underwater explosions 

30 associated with the explosive removal of offshore facilities may generate sound levels in excess 

31 of 267 dB re 1 μPa-m. Exposure criteria developed by the U.S. Navy (as cited in Frankel and 

32 Ellison 2005) to evaluate the potential for impacts of impulsive sounds (i.e., underwater 

33 detonations) on marine biota include a sound level of 182 dB re 1 μPa-m. Using this criterion, a 

34 sea turtle may be affected if exposed to a sound level that exceeds 182 dB re 1 μPa-m. 

35 Depending on the size of the charges used in an explosive detonation, the surrounding water 

36 depth, and the distance to the nearest sea turtles, individual turtles in the vicinity of the facility 

37 undergoing explosive removal may be exposed to sound at or above this level. Based on 

38 responses reported for marine mammals, sea turtles exposed to explosive noise may experience 

39 temporary hearing loss as well as behavioral changes (NRC 2003c, 2005). Behavioral responses 

40 may include avoidance of the noise source, disorientation, and disturbance of normal behaviors 

41 such as resting or feeding. Turtles may also sustain organ or tissue damage when exposed to 

42 explosive noise (Klima et al. 1988).

43

44 In advance of explosive severance activities, BOEMRE and NOAA fisheries have 

45 implemented protocols to detect the presence of sea turtles within a 1,000-yard radius around 

46 decommissioning sites through observer programs operated by vessels, platforms, and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-348

1 TABLE 4.4.7-7 Summary of Known and Anticipated Effects of Seismic Noise on Sea Turtles in the GOM

Species Masking Disturbance

Temporary Hearing 

Impairment Injury

Other 

Physiological 

Effects Comments

Green Unknown Possible –

Short-term

Possible if close to highenergy acoustic sourceUnknown Unknown Potential for limited adverse effects due to 

frequency overlap between seismic source and 

green sea turtle hearing, based on airborne sounds 

not measured behaviorally (Ridgway et al. 1969; 

Bartol and Ketten 2006; Dow et al. 2008)

Hawksbill Unknown Possible –

Short-term

Possible if close to highenergy acoustic sourceUnknown Unknown No studies available

Kemp‘s ridley Unknown Possible –

Short-term

Possible if close to highenergy acoustic sourceUnknown Unknown Potential for limited adverse effects due to 

frequency overlap between seismic source and 

juvenile Kemp‘s ridley sea turtle hearing (Bartol 

and Ketten 2006)

Leatherback Unknown Possible –

Short-term

Possible if close to highenergy acoustic sourceUnknown Unknown Potential for limited adverse effects due to 

frequency overlap between seismic source and 

leatherback vocalizations (Mrosovksy 1972)

Loggerhead Unknown Possible –

Short-term

Possible if close to highenergy acoustic sourceUnknown Unknown Potential for limited adverse effects due to 

frequency of seismic source and a study 

indicating that loggerheads avoided lowfrequency sound (O‘Hara and Wilcox 1990)

Source: 2010 Marine Seismic Research PEIS (NSF and USGS 2010, Table 3.4-5).

2
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-349

1 helicopters. Since 1987, these observer programs have documented takes of four sea turtles (all 

2 loggerheads) in the GOM as a result of explosive severance. Of these four takes, one animal was 

3 killed, one stunned, and two injured (MMS 2005d). BOEMRE continues to require these 

4 mitigation measures (see Appendix F of MMS 2005d) and, with compliance, expects these 

5 requirements to reduce the potential for negative impacts to sea turtles from explosive removals.

6

7 Noise related to exploration, construction vessel passage, and facility removal may be 

8 expected to be transient, while noise generated during production may be more long-term. The 

9 dominant source of noise from vessels is propeller operation, and the intensity of this noise is 

10 largely related to ship size and speed. Vessel noise resulting from O&G activities in the GOM is 

11 expected to occur at low levels, generally 150 to 170 dB re 1 μPa-m at frequencies below 

12 1,000 Hz. Vessel noise is transitory and generally does not propagate at great distances from the 

13 vessel. Also, available information suggests that sea turtles are not thought to rely on acoustics; 

14 the effects to sea turtles from vessel noise are discountable (NMFS 2007).

15

16 As few studies on sea turtle hearing sensitivities or noise-induced stress exist, a full 

17 understanding of physical and behavioral impacts from sounds generated during exploration, 

18 normal operations, and explosive facility removal is not available. Experiments using air guns to 

19 try to repel turtles to avoid hopper dredges have been inconclusive (O‘Hara and Wilcox 1990; 

20 Moein et al. 1995), while sea turtles exposed to an operating seismic source of 166 dB re 1μPa-m 

21 were shown to increase their swimming speed in response to the sound (McCauley et al. 2000). 

22 In addition, BOEM has implemented mitigation measures for seismic surveys in the GOM 

23 requiring ramp-up, protected species observer training, visual monitoring, and reporting for all 

24 surveys potentially affecting marine mammals and sea turtles (MMS 2004b). These measures 

25 were developed in consultation with NOAA fisheries, and with operator compliance, they are 

26 expected to reduce the potential for impacts to sea turtles.

27

28 Offshore Structure Placement and Pipeline Trenching. The placement of offshore 

29 structures and pipeline trenching may affect hatchling, juvenile, and adult sea turtles in two ways 

30 (Figure 4.4.7-7). Individuals coming in contact with construction or trenching equipment may be 

31 injured or killed; construction and trenching activities may also temporarily affect habitat use as 

32 habitats may experience short-term and long-term changes in abundance and quality.

33

34 During placement, pipelines are placed on or in the seafloor to connect offshore platforms

35 with onshore facilities (MMS 2001b). Burial of pipelines using equipment such as jetting sleds 

36 physically digs a trench in the bottom sediment and results in a temporary, localized increase in 

37 turbidity. This increased turbidity may temporarily affect habitat use by sea turtles, with sea 

38 turtles avoiding such areas. Increases in turbidity from trenching at any particular location may 

39 be expected to be short-lived, as jet sleds can lay pipe at an average of 1.6 km/day (1 mi/day) 

40 (MMS 2001b). While some turtles may alter their use of habitats in the vicinity of a pipeline, 

41 affected turtles would likely return to these areas following a return to more normal turbidity 

42 levels and experience little adverse affect from any temporary avoidance of the area.

43

44 Because hatchlings are not strong swimmers and undergo passive transport by ocean 

45 currents, it is unlikely that they would be able to avoid or leave areas where pipeline trenching or 

46 structure placement is occurring, and, if present during offshore construction or trenching, they 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-350

1 could be injured or killed. In contrast, juvenile and adult sea turtles are active swimmers, and 

2 thus may be able to avoid areas where construction or trenching is occurring. Sea turtles have 

3 been known to be killed or injured during dredging operations (Dickerson 1990; 

4 Dickerson et al. 1992), and thus may also be affected during trenching activities. Juveniles or 

5 adults may also be affected if the placement of new structures occurs in foraging or 

6 developmental habitats or offshore of nesting beaches (see Section 3.6.4.1 for a discussion of 

7 these habitats and areas). Following several years out in open water as growing hatchlings, 

8 juvenile sea turtles move into nearshore habitats for further growth and maturation. Adults also 

9 utilize nearshore habitats for feeding and may mate in nearshore habitats directly off nesting 

10 beaches. In addition, females may become residents in the vicinity of nesting beaches. Offshore 

11 construction and trenching may reduce the quality or availability of foraging habitat for juveniles 

12 and adults, and may affect adult nesting behavior or access to nest sites. It is assumed that 

13 habitats such as seagrass beds and live-bottom areas commonly used by turtles for feeding or 

14 resting would be avoided during facility siting and pipeline routing, and that some soft-bottom 

15 areas affected by construction or trenching would recover (see Section 4.4.6.2.1).

16

17 Based on exploration and development (E&D) scenario estimates (Section 4.4.1.1), up to 

18 2,100 exploration wells and 2,600 production wells may be constructed and up to 12,000 km

19 (7,500 mi) of new pipeline may be installed among the GOM planning areas under the proposed 

20 action. At any single location, construction and trenching activities would be of relatively short 

21 duration (only until the offshore structure or pipeline is in place). Thus, any impacts incurred 

22 from structure placement or trenching would be short-term and localized to the construction area 

23 and immediate surroundings and, therefore, would likely affect relatively few juveniles or adults. 

24 Because they are passively aggregated by currents, a greater number of hatchlings may be 

25 affected if present in a construction or trenching area. However, these effects are not expected to 

26 result in population-level impacts.

27

28 Removal of Offshore Structures. Sea turtles are known to be attracted to offshore 

29 platforms (Lohoefener et al. 1990); therefore, they may be killed or injured during explosive 

30 platform removal (Klima et al. 1988; Gitschlag and Herczeg 1994). Even if turtles are not 

31 capable of hearing the acoustic properties of an explosion, physiological or behavioral responses 

32 (startle) to detonations may still result (MMS 2007b). The effects of blast pressure on sea turtles 

33 during explosive platform removal activities are illustrated in Figure 4.4.7-9. Exposure to 

34 explosion pressure could result in internal injuries, such as lung hemorrhaging, and individuals 

35 may be rendered unconscious by the force of the blasts (Duronslet et al. 1986; Klima et al. 1988). 

36 However, evidence of sea turtle mortality or injury from blast pressure is sparse, probably due to 

37 the difficulty in observing submerged turtles and because affected turtles may remain submerged 

38 rather than float to the surface (NRC 1990). Despite this, the relative importance of oil platform 

39 removal to overall sea turtle mortality (from human activities) is considered to be low 

40 (NRC 1990; NOAA 2003). Under the proposed action, approximately 150 to 275 existing 

41 platforms could be removed from the planning areas using explosives.

42

43 Mitigation measures in the form of guidelines for explosive platform removals have been 

44 established by BOEMRE with the cooperation of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 

45 These guidelines require a mitigation plan that uses qualified observers to monitor the detonation 

46 area for protected species prior to and after each detonation. The detection of sea turtles within a 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-351

1 predetermined radius from the structure prior to detonation would, without exception, delay 

2 structure removal. As long as operators comply with these mitigating measures, it is expected 

3 that impacts other than short-term behavioral disturbance would be avoided or greatly reduced, 

4 and no population-level effects would occur.

5

6 OCS Vessel Traffic. Sea turtles could be disturbed by the presence of OCS project 

7 vessels traveling from port locations to the construction area, as well as ships supporting pipeline 

8 trenching activities. It is unknown whether or how the presence of passing project vessels might 

9 affect nearby sea turtles. Sea turtles exposed to a passing vessel could exhibit short-term 

10 cessation of normal behaviors and possibly exhibit behavioral responses such as fleeing 

11 (Hazel et al. 2007). Construction vessel traffic would be expected in both offshore and coastal 

12 areas, and thus could affect sea turtles in coastal nest staging, foraging, and wintering habitats, as 

13 well as in offshore foraging areas and along migration routes. Several studies have reported sea 

14 turtles to exhibit strong fidelity to migration corridors, habitat foraging grounds, and nesting 

15 areas (e.g., see Morreale et al. 1996; Morreale and Standora 1998, Avens et al. 2003; and 

16 Casale et al. 2007). Many important coastal habitats for sea turtles are in areas with high levels 

17 of commercial and recreational boat traffic (e.g., see USDOT 2008). In such areas, construction 

18 vessel traffic would likely result in only a very small incremental increase in overall vessel 

19 traffic in many locations.

20

21 Boat collisions are reported to be a major cause of injury and mortality in sea turtles 

22 (Lutcavage et al. 1997; TEWG 2007). While juvenile and adult sea turtles may avoid areas with 

23 heavy vessel traffic, most species generally exhibit considerable tolerance to ships. Because of 

24 their limited swimming abilities, hatchlings would likely not be able to avoid oncoming vessels,

25 and thus may be more susceptible to vessel collisions, especially if aggregated in areas of current 

26 convergence or in mats of floating Sargassum. To date, there is no direct evidence of OCS 

27 vessel collisions with sea turtles (of any life stage) in the GOM from oil and gas activities.

28

29 The likelihood of such a collision would vary depending upon species and life stage 

30 present, the location of the vessel, its speed, and its visibility. Hatchling turtles, including those 

31 aggregated in convergence zones or patches of Sargassum, would be difficult to spot from a 

32 moving vessel because of their small size and generally cryptic coloration patterns, which blend 

33 in with the color and patterns of the Sargassum. While adult and juvenile turtles are generally 

34 visible at the surface during periods of daylight and clear visibility, they may also be very 

35 difficult to spot from a moving vessel when resting below the water surface and during nighttime 

36 and periods of inclement weather.

37

38 While sea turtles are distributed within nearshore waters and waters of the continental 

39 shelf throughout the GOM, they appear to occur in greatest abundance east of Mobile, Alabama, 

40 in the Eastern Planning Area (Davis et al. 2000). Only a small portion of the Eastern GOM 

41 located greater than 160 km (100 mi) from the Florida coast (Figure 1-2) is being considered for 

42 the Program. Service vessels that would go to this area are assumed to originate from bases 

43 located in coastal areas adjacent to the Central Planning Area; thus the potential for sea turtle 

44 collisions with OCS project boats may be very low for the Eastern Planning Area. In contrast, 

45 there may be a greater potential for turtle-vessel collisions in the Western and Central Planning 

46 Areas, due to the large number of vessel trips in these areas. Under the proposed action, it is 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-352

1 estimated that between 300 and 600 vessel trips would occur per week; most of this activity 

2 would occur in the Central and Western Planning Areas. However, BOEMRE has implemented 

3 measures for all oil and gas operators in the GOM that require actions to minimize the risk of 

4 vessel strikes to protected species, including sea turtles and reporting observations of injured or 

5 dead animals (see NTL 2003-G10 [MMS 2003b]). In lieu of a formal observer program, this 

6 Notice to Lessees and Operators (NTL) also provides specific guidelines for operators to follow 

7 to avoid injury to marine mammals and sea turtles. With compliance, the BOEM expects these 

8 measures to reduce the potential for negative impacts to sea turtles from vessel collisions.

9

10 Construction and Operation of Onshore Infrastructure. Unless existing onshore 

11 facilities are available, new platforms and pipelines will require the construction of new onshore 

12 infrastructure such as pipeline landfalls. Onshore construction activities may disturb nesting 

13 adults, hatchlings, and nest sites along the northern GOM coastline.

14

15 If present in a construction area, nests containing eggs or emerging hatchlings could be 

16 destroyed by site clearing and grading activities. Females ready to nest may avoid disturbed 

17 historic nesting beaches or may dig nests in poor quality locations where hatchling success may 

18 be greatly reduced. Lighting from construction areas may disorient hatchings emerging from 

19 nearby nests, which could increase exposure to predators, cause entanglement in vegetation, or 

20 lead hatchlings away from the surf (NRC 1990; Witherington and Martin 1996; Lorne and 

21 Salmon 2007). Onshore lighting may also draw hatchlings back out of the surf, as well as 

22 disorient adult females seeking to nest on nearby beaches.

23

24 Although disturbed beaches may undergo restoration activities, such as placement of new 

25 sand in disturbed areas, the effectiveness of such actions to restore nesting activity is unknown. 

26 Constructed beaches often differ physically from natural beaches and depending on the type of 

27 sand used may exhibit sand temperatures quite different from the original pre-disturbed beaches 

28 (NMFS and USFWS 2008). Loggerhead nesting activity on restored beaches was found to be 

29 reduced the first season following restoration, but much less reduced by the second season, 

30 suggesting that nesting activity may return to pre-disturbance levels within a few years 

31 (Rumbold et al. 2001). Because nest temperatures affect the sex of hatchlings, restored beach 

32 sites with cooler temperatures may skew sex ratios toward males (Milton et al. 1997). Similar 

33 impacts could be incurred to more inland reptile species that may occur in brackish environments 

34 that are listed as species of concern by the USFWS (e.g., diamondback terrapin [Malaclemys 

35 terrapin], gulf salt marsh snake [Nerodia clarkia]).

36

37 Given the small amount of onshore construction that could occur with a pipeline landfall, 

38 it is unlikely that onshore construction would impact more than a few nests. The implementation 

39 of all mitigation measures required by statutes, regulations, and/or lease stipulations that have 

40 applied in past lease sales would also greatly limit the potential for impacts to nests and 

41 emerging hatchlings. Applicable mitigation measures may include preconstruction surveys for 

42 nest sites and delay of construction activities until hatchlings have emerged and moved into open 

43 water. In addition, onshore facilities could be located such that known nesting beaches would 

44 not be affected by construction and operation of such facilities.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-353

1 Operational Discharges and Wastes. Normal operations generate a variety of wastes 

2 such as produced water, drilling muds and cuttings, sanitary and other waste fluids, and 

3 miscellaneous trash and debris. Hatchling, juvenile, and adult sea turtles may be exposed to 

4 these wastes by permitted and accidental discharges from onshore and offshore facilities and 

5 OCS service and construction vessels. Produced water and drilling muds may contain a variety 

6 of constituents, such as trace metals, hydrocarbons, and NORM (Neff 1997b), which may be 

7 toxic to fish and wildlife, including sea turtles. Exposure to these wastes may occur through 

8 direct contact with the wastes in the ocean water and through the ingestion of food contaminated 

9 by one or more of the waste constituents. Because produced water and other liquid wastes would 

10 be rapidly diluted in the open ocean (i.e., to ambient levels within several thousand meters of the 

11 discharge), sea turtles would be expected to experience only very low levels of exposure from 

12 the water column. Species such as loggerheads and Kemp‘s ridleys that feed at the top of the 

13 food chain have been found to have higher tissue levels of bioaccumulative compounds than 

14 species feeding at lower trophic levels (Pugh and Becker 2001).

15

16 While there is limited information regarding the levels of some contaminants (such as 

17 polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs] and metals) in sea turtle tissues, little is known about what 

18 concentrations are within normal ranges of a particular species or what tissue levels may result in 

19 acute or chronic effects (Pugh and Becker 2001; NOAA 2003). In loggerhead turtles, chlordane 

20 concentrations have been negatively correlated with blood parameters indicative of anemia, and 

21 several classes of organic contaminants have been correlated with hepatocellular damage and 

22 possible alterations of protein and ion regulation (Keller et al. 2004).

23

24 Ingestion of, or entanglement with, discarded solid debris can adversely impact sea 

25 turtles. Ingestion of plastic and other nonbiodegradable debris has been reported for almost all 

26 sea turtle species and life stages (NOAA 2003). Ingestion of waste debris can result in gut 

27 strangulation, reduced nutrient uptake, and increased absorbance of various chemicals in plastics 

28 and other debris (NOAA 2003). Sublethal quantities of ingested plastic debris can result in 

29 various effects including positive buoyancy, making them more susceptible to collisions with 

30 vessels, increasing predation risk, or reducing feeding efficiency (Lutcavage et al. 1997). Some 

31 species of adult sea turtles, such as loggerheads, appear to readily ingest appropriately sized 

32 plastic debris. In oceanic waters, floating or subsurface translucent plastic material and sheeting 

33 may be mistaken for gelatinous prey items such as jellyfish. Entanglement in debris (such as 

34 rope and discarded fishing line) can result in reduced mobility, drowning, and constriction of and 

35 subsequent damage to limbs (Lutcavage et al. 1997). However, the discharge or disposal of solid 

36 debris into offshore waters from OCS structures and vessels is prohibited by BOEMRE 

37 (30 CFR 250.40) and the USCG (MARPOL, Annex V, Public Law 100-220 [101 Statute 1458]). 

38 Assuming compliance with these regulations and laws and only accidental releases occur, very 

39 little exposure of sea turtles to solid debris generated during normal operations is expected.

40

41 Produced waters, drilling muds, and drill cuttings are routinely discharged into offshore 

42 marine waters and regulated by USEPA NPDES permits and USCG regulations. Compliance 

43 with these permits and regulations will greatly limit the exposure of sea turtles to produced water 

44 and other wastes generated at offshore facilities and on OCS vessels. Most operational 

45 discharges, as regulated, are diluted and dispersed when released in offshore areas and are 

46 considered to have sublethal effects (API 1989; Kennicut 1995). Any potential for impact on sea 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-354

1 turtles from drilling fluids would be indirect, either by impact on prey items or through ingestion 

2 via the food chain (API 1989). Contaminants in drilling muds or waste discharge may 

3 biomagnify and bioaccumulate in the food web, which may kill or debilitate prey species or 

4 species lower in the food web. Sea turtles may bioaccumulate chemicals (Sis et al. 1993), which 

5 may ultimately reduce fitness characteristics, such as reproductive output.

6

7

8 4.4.7.4.2 Accidents. All sea turtle life stages, as well as nest sites and eggs, may be 

9 exposed to accidental oil releases in the GOM planning areas. In extreme catastrophic oil spills, 

10 all life stages of the American crocodile and their habitats may also be exposed to oil 

11 (Table 4.4.7-6). The American crocodile inhabits brackish and freshwater environments and is 

12 primarily known to occur in coastal mangrove swamps in southern Florida. Depending on 

13 location and magnitude, catastrophic oil spills in the GOM have the potential to affect coastal 

14 mangrove and beach habitats in southern Florida for the American crocodile.

15

16 The effects of accidental oil spills on reptiles are illustrated in Figure 4.4.7-10. Nests 

17 may be exposed by oil washing ashore and soaking through overlying soils onto buried eggs, 

18 while hatchlings may be exposed as they emerge from nests. Hatchlings, juveniles, and adults 

19 may be exposed while swimming through oil on the water surface, through inhalation of 

20 petroleum vapors, and through ingestion of contaminated foods and floating tar. Nesting adults 

21 (females) may also be exposed while coming ashore on oiled beaches. In addition to direct 

22 adverse effects from such exposures, adults and juveniles may also be indirectly affected if an 

23 accidental spill reduces the quality or quantity of foraging or nesting habitats. Impacts to nesting 

24 habitats could result in population-level effects. Similar impacts could be incurred to more 

25 inland reptile species that may occur in brackish environments that are listed as species of 

26 concern by the USFWS (e.g., diamondback terrapin [Malaclemys terrapin], gulf salt marsh snake 

27 [Nerodia clarkia]).

28

29 Sea turtle behavior may put the turtles at greater risk of oil exposure in the event of an 

30 accidental spill. Sea turtles are air breathers and must surface frequently to breathe. Many 

31 turtles surface at convergence areas, highly productive areas where ocean currents converge and 

32 where spilled oil could be pushed by the ocean currents. These convergence areas also provide 

33 food, shelter, and habitat for sea turtles, especially young individuals. Therefore, the 

34 accumulation of oil in GOM convergence areas increases the risk of sea turtle exposure to oil 

35 (NOAA 2010a).

36

37 Sea turtles accidentally exposed to oil or tarballs have been reported to incur a variety of 

38 conditions, including inflammatory dermatitis, breathing disturbance, salt gland dysfunction or 

39 failure, hematological disturbances, impaired immune responses, and digestive disorders or 

40 blockages (Vargo et al. 1986; Lutz and Lutcavage 1989).

41

42 Sea turtle nest sites and emerging hatchlings may be exposed to and subsequently 

43 affected by oil spills that wash up on nesting beaches and contaminate active nests. Oil may 

44 interfere with gas exchange within an oiled nest, may alter hydric conditions of the sand so that it 

45 is too wet or too dry for optimal nesting, or may alter nest temperatures by changing the color or 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-355

1 thermal conductivity of the overlying sand (NOAA 2003). Adult females may refuse to use oiled 

2 beaches (NOAA 2003).

3

4 Eggs exposed to freshly oiled sands may incur a significant decrease in hatching success 

5 and an increase in developmental abnormalities in hatchlings (Fritts and McGehee 1982). In 

6 contrast, eggs exposed to weathered oil did not produce measurable impacts on hatchling 

7 survival or development, suggesting that impacts to nest sites would be greatest if the accidental 

8 spill occurred during the nesting season. Because most sea turtles nest above the high-tide line 

9 and oil washing ashore would be deposited at and just above the high-tide line, oiling of actual 

10 nests is unlikely except possibly in the event of exceptionally high tides or storms.

11

12 Hatchlings may become oiled while traveling from the nest to water, and a heavy oil 

13 layer or tar deposits on the beach may prevent the hatchlings from reaching water. Oiled 

14 hatchlings may have difficulty crawling and swimming, increasing the potential for predation. 

15 Open-water convergence zones where hatchlings may aggregate are also areas where oil slicks 

16 may aggregate. For example, the Sargasso Sea has been estimated to annually entrap 

17 70,000 metric tons of tar (NOAA 2003). Because hatchlings spend more time at the sea surface, 

18 they will be more likely to be exposed to surface oil slicks than adults or juveniles. Post19 hatchling sea turtles have been collected from convergence zones off Florida with tar in their 

20 mouths, esophagi, and stomachs, and tar caking their jaws (Loehefener et al. 1989; Witherington 

21 1994). Ingested tar may result in starvation from gut blockage and decreased food adsorption 

22 efficiency, absorption of toxins, local necrosis or ulceration associated with gut blockage, 

23 interference with fat metabolism, and buoyancy problems (NOAA 2003).

24

25 Sea turtles surfacing and diving in an oil spill may inhale petroleum vapors and aspirate 

26 small quantities of oil. While no information is available about the effects of petroleum vapors 

27 or aspirated oil on sea turtles, inhalations by mammals of small amounts of oil or petroleum 

28 vapors have been shown to result in acute fatal pneumonia, absorption of hydrocarbons in organs 

29 and other tissues, and damage to the brain and central nervous system.

30

31 Ingested oil, particularly the lighter fractions, could be toxic to sea turtles. Ingested oil 

32 may remain within the gastrointestinal tract, irritate and/or destroy epithelial cells in the stomach 

33 and intestine, and subsequently be absorbed into the bloodstream (NOAA 2003). Certain 

34 constituents of oil, such as aromatic hydrocarbons and PAHs, include some well-known 

35 carcinogens. These substances, however, do not show significant biomagnification in food 

36 chains and are readily metabolized by many organisms. Hatchling and juvenile turtles feed 

37 opportunistically at or near the surface in oceanic waters and may be especially vulnerable and 

38 sensitive to spilled oil and oil residues such as floating tar (Lutz and Lutcavage 1989; 

39 Lutcavage et al. 1995). Tar found in the mouths of turtles may have been selectively eaten or 

40 ingested accidentally while feeding on organisms or vegetation bound by tar (Geraci and 

41 St. Aubin 1987; Geraci 1990).

42

43 Certain species of sea turtles may be at greater risk of exposure to spilled oil based on 

44 their distributions and habitat preferences and also on the timing of a spill. For example, 

45 loggerhead and Kemp‘s ridley sea turtles frequent current-restricted areas such as bays and 

46 estuaries. Because oil entering these areas may remain for longer periods of time due to reduced 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-356

1 weathering rates and natural dispersion, sea turtles using habitats in these areas may incur longer 

2 exposure periods. Spills occurring in coastal waters of the Western Planning Area may affect 

3 greater numbers of green, hawksbill, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles during summer 

4 months when nearshore densities are greater than offshore densities.

5

6 Oil spill response activities that may adversely affect sea turtles include artificial lighting 

7 at night, machine and human activity and related noise, sand removal and cleaning, and the use 

8 of dispersant or coagulant chemicals. Lights used to support nighttime cleanup activities may 

9 attract sea turtles to the spill location or disorient hatchlings emerging from nearby nests. 

10 Machine and human activity may cause a temporary avoidance of nearby habitats (including nest 

11 sites) by sea turtles, produce noise that may disturb sea turtles, and also increase the potential for 

12 sea turtle collisions with vessels and onshore vehicles. Onshore activities may also crush 

13 existing nests and result in beach compaction, reducing the suitability of existing nest sites for 

14 future use. Sand removal may also directly impact nest site habitat quality. While oil 

15 dispersants or coagulants contain constituents that are considered to be low in toxicity when 

16 compared to many of the constituents of spilled oil (Wells 1989), there are little available data 

17 regarding the effects of these chemicals on sea turtles (Tucker and Associates, Inc. 1990).

18

19 The magnitude and severity of impacts that could result from such exposures would 

20 depend on the location of the spill, spill size, type of product spilled, weather conditions, the 

21 water quality and environmental conditions at the time of the spill, and the species and life stage 

22 of the sea turtle exposed to the spill. The magnitude and extent of any adverse effects would also 

23 depend on how quickly a spill is contained and how quickly and effectively cleanup is 

24 accomplished. Based upon spill scenario estimates provided in Section 4.4.2, between 200 and 

25 400 spills of <50 bbl of oil and up to 70 spills of ≥50 bbl of oil could be expected in the GOM 

26 under the proposed action.

27

28 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE up to 7.2 million bbl 

29 (Table 4.4.2-2). The recent oil spill associated with the DWH oil rig explosion, which occurred 

30 in April 2010 approximately 66 km (41 mi) off the Louisiana coast, may have had detrimental 

31 consequences to sea turtles that had direct contact with spilled oil. A total of 1,146 sea turtles 

32 were recovered from the GOM that had come in contact with or were in the vicinity of spilled 

33 oil. The recovered turtles included adults or free-swimming juveniles of four species: green, 

34 hawksbill, Kemp‘s ridley, and loggerhead. However, some recovered sea turtle species could 

35 not be identified (Table 4.4.7-7). Of the total number of turtles recovered, 608 (53%) were found 

36 dead and 537 (47%) were found alive. Most of the recovered sea turtles (dead or alive) were 

37 Kemp‘s ridley sea turtles (Table 4.4.7-7). Approximately 85% of the live turtles recovered were 

38 visibly oiled; approximately 3% of the dead turtles recovered were visibly oiled (Restore the 

39 Gulf 2010a). While in the case of the DWH event, the cause of death of the deceased turtles 

40 remains unclear, it is possible for turtles to ingest or inhale oil during a CDE that could be 

41 potentially fatal without any noticeable external indications.

42

43 A CDE spill also has the potential to affect sea turtle populations by fouling habitats such 

44 as seagrass beds and nesting beaches. In the case of the DWH event, preliminary reports on the 

45 DWH event from the NOAA Natural Resource Damage Assessment Team have indicated that 

46 about 1,600 km (1,000 mi) of shoreline along the GOM has tested positive for oil, including salt 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-357

1 marshes, beaches, mudflats, and mangroves (NOAA 2010b). The presence of oil in these areas 

2 likely affected foraging and nesting habitats for sea turtles, although the true ecological 

3 consequences of these effects are not known. 

4

5 4.4.7.4.3 Conclusion. Under the proposed action, some routine operations could affect 

6 individual sea turtles, but population-level impacts are not expected. Noise generated during 

7 exploration and production activities and platform removal may result in the temporary 

8 disturbance of some sea turtles, while some turtles may be injured or killed during the use of 

9 underwater explosives for platform removal. Sea turtles could be directly affected by 

10 construction of offshore and onshore facilities and pipeline trenching, and also indirectly by 

11 short-term and long-term impacts to habitats. The construction and operation of new onshore 

12 facilities may impact nest sites, possibly result in eggs being crushed, and disturb hatchling 

13 movement from the nest sites to the water. Sea turtles may also be injured or killed by collisions 

14 with OCS vessels. Sea turtles may also be exposed to a variety of waste materials which have 

15 the potential to cause a variety of lethal and sublethal effects. Accidental spills have the 

16 potential to foul habitats and injure or kill exposed sea turtles. Depending on magnitude and 

17 location, catastrophic accidental oil spills have the potential to affect American crocodile habitats 

18 and exposed individuals. Many of these impacts would be of relatively short duration and 

19 localized and would likely affect relatively few individuals in the immediate project area. 

20 Existing permit requirements, regulatory stipulations, and BOEM guidelines and mitigation 

21 measures, if applied, target many of the routine operations and could limit the potential effects. 

22 Impacts to reptiles from routine operations associated with the Program are expected to range 

23 from minor to moderate.

24

25 Any of the oil-spill scenarios developed for the proposed action (Section 4.4.2) may 

26 result in the exposure of one or more life stages of reptiles to oil or its weathered products. Oil 

27 may reduce egg hatching and hatchling survival and may inhibit hatchling access to water. 

28 Hatchlings, juveniles, and adults may inhale or ingest oil and oil vapors and may incur any of a 

29 variety of physiological impacts. The presence of oil slicks or oiled beaches may alter habitat 

30 use and affect nest site access and use. Small spills that may occur under the proposed action are 

31 unlikely to affect a large number of sea turtles or their habitats and are not expected to have long32 term effects on sea turtle populations in the GOM. A large spill could affect many more 

33 individuals and habitats, including nesting beaches, and, in the case of a CDE, potentially may 

34 incur population-level effects. The magnitude of effects from accidental spills would depend on 

35 the location, timing, and volume of the spills; the environmental settings of the spills; and the 

36 species and life stages of sea turtle exposed to the spills. Because 93% of the new oil production

37 that is expected to occur during the Program is assumed to occur far from the coast in deep water

38 (>200 m [656 ft] deep), the likelihood of a large spill occurring close enough to the coastline to 

39 affect turtle nesting beaches is expected to be small. However, a CDE occurring in deep water 

40 has a greater likelihood of reaching coastal areas, although this will depend on the specific 

41 location of the spill and the prevailing currents in that area. The rapid deployment of spill42 response teams and implementation of cleanup activities could limit the magnitude of impacts 

43 incurred by sea turtles in the event of an accidental spill; however, cleanup operations 

44 themselves could also impact sea turtle habitats.

45

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-358

1 4.4.7.5 Invertebrates and Lower Trophic Levels

2

3

4 4.4.7.5.1 Gulf of Mexico.

5

6 Routine Operations. Impacting factors common to all phases include vessel discharges 

7 (bilge and ballast water), miscellaneous discharges (deck washing, sanitary waste), and offshore 

8 lighting. Many of these waste streams are disposed of on land, and all vessel and platform waste 

9 streams must meet USEPA and/or USCG regulatory requirements before discharge into surface 

10 waters. Impacts from waste discharges would be localized and temporary and are expected to 

11 have negligible impacts on invertebrate populations. Studies conducted in the northern GOM

12 suggest that platform lighting could alter predator-prey dynamics by enhancing phytoplankton 

13 productivity around the platform, attracting phototaxic pelagic invertebrates, and potentially 

14 improving the visual foraging environment for fishes (Keenan et al. 2007). Consequently, 

15 increased predation of invertebrates may occur in the vicinity of the platform. Potential impacts 

16 from platform lighting would be localized but long-term and are expected to have minimal 

17 impacts on invertebrate populations.

18

19 Exploration and Site Development. During the OCS oil and gas exploration and 

20 development phase, invertebrates could be affected by noise from seismic surveys and noise and 

21 bottom disturbance from drilling, platform placement, and pipeline trenching and placement 

22 activities. Releases of drilling muds and cuttings could also affect invertebrates by 

23 contaminating sediments and surrounding surface waters (Table 4.4.7-8).

24

25 Noise from vessel traffic, construction, seismic surveys, and drilling could kill or injure 

26 invertebrates close enough to the noise source, as well as reducing habitat suitability, as some 

27 species would avoid the area. For example, decapods and cephalopods, two numerically 

28 abundant and commercially important groups of invertebrates, are known to detect vibrations 

29 from underwater noise and may be sensitive to noise from vessel traffic, seismic surveys, and 

30 drilling (DFO 2004; National Science Foundation and USGS 2010). Recent reviews of the 

31 impacts of anthropogenic noise on invertebrates indicates that invertebrates exposed to noise 

32 could exhibit pathological effects (i.e., injury and mortality), physiological changes (i.e., changes 

33 in hormone, protein, and enzyme levels), and/or behavioral changes (such as a startle response)

34 and change swimming and movement patterns (DFO 2004; National Science Foundation and 

35 USGS 2010). Although data is limited, zooplankton and larvae stages may be injured because of 

36 their small size and relative lack of mobility, while noise is often found to have negligible effects 

37 on adult invertebrates (reviewed in DFO 2004 and National Science Foundation and 

38 USGS 2010). The studies typically suggested that injury was limited to within 10 m (33 ft) of 

39 the noise source. The numbers of invertebrates that could be affected by noise during the 

40 exploration and site development phase make it unlikely that noise impacts would have 

41 appreciable effects on invertebrate populations in the Western and Central Planning Areas. A 

42 recent review of the effects of seismic survey activities on marine invertebrates concluded that 

43 although data were limited, mortality and injury of invertebrates would be limited to organisms 

44 located within a few meters of the air gun, and that there would be no significant impacts on

45 marine invertebrate populations from air gun and sonar sounds (National Science Foundation and 

46 USGS 2010). The severity and duration of noise impacts would vary with site and development 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-359

1 TABLE 4.4.7-8 Impacting Factors Potentially Affecting Invertebrates and Their 

2 Habitat in the GOM Planning Areas

Life Stage Affecteda

Development Phase and Impacting Factor Eggs Larvae Adults

Impacting Factors Common to All Phases

Vessel noise X X X

Vessel traffic X X X

Hazardous materials X X X

Solid wastes X X X

Offshore lighting X X X

Aircraft noise

Offshore air emissions

Onshore air emissions

Aircraft traffic

Miscellaneous platform discharges X X X

Vessel discharges X X X

Bottom disturbance from vessel anchors X X X

Exploration and Development

Seismic noise X X X

Noise from drilling and construction X X X

Bottom disturbance from platform placement, drilling, 

and pipeline placement and trenching

X X X

Discharge of drilling muds and cuttings X X X

Production

Production noise X X X

Produced water discharge X X X

Artificial reef X X X

Decommissioning

Platform removal (non-explosive) X X X

Platform removal (explosive) X X X

a colors indicate impact level: white = negligible; blue = minor; yellow = moderate; 

red = major.

3

4

5 scenario, but given the temporary and localized nature of the noise generating activities, impacts 

6 on invertebrates are expected to be negligible.

7

8 Bottom-disturbing activities such as coring and drilling, platform placement and mooring, 

9 and pipeline trenching and placement would displace, injure, or kill invertebrates in the vicinity 

10 of the activities. The estimated bottom habitat that may be directly disturbed by new pipeline 

11 and platform installation ranges from 2,150 to 14,000 ha (5,313 to 34,594 ac) over the entire 

12 GOM. In the initial drilling phase before a riser is installed, drilling muds would accumulate 

13 around the well and bury benthic invertebrates as well as create a turbidity plume that could 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-360

1 impact pelagic invertebrates located near the bottom. Drilling is also expected to increase the 

2 amount of sand in sediments surrounding the well for at least 300 m (984 ft) (Continental Shelf 

3 Associates, Inc. 2006). This change in grain size could alter community composition and 

4 prevent the settlement of some species. In addition, bottom disturbance during platform and 

5 pipeline placement would result in sedimentation and turbidity, which could bury benthic 

6 infauna and damage the gills of water-column and benthic invertebrates present within some 

7 distance of the disturbance. These disturbances would be localized and temporary. Species most 

8 likely to be affected are sessile benthic organisms and small zooplankton, which lack the 

9 mobility to avoid the direct disturbance and the associated turbidity plumes. An FPSO system 

10 may be employed for deepwater wells. Under the FPSO system, oil would be transported from 

11 the well to a surface vessel and ultimately to shore. By eliminating the need for pipelines, an 

12 FPSO system would greatly reduce bottom disturbance and the chance for disturbing benthic and 

13 near-bottom invertebrates and their habitat. Most disturbed areas would be recolonized quickly, 

14 but, if grain size is significantly altered, the benthic community may take several years to return 

15 to its pre-disturbance composition (Bolam and Rees 2003 and references therein).

16

17 The effects of drilling muds and cuttings (including drilling fluids adhering to the 

18 cuttings) on invertebrates can be chemical such as toxicity or physical such as gill abrasion, 

19 burial, or displacement from turbidity and sedimentation. Impacts from turbidity and 

20 sedimentation would be similar to those described above and could damage respiratory structures 

21 and disrupt food acquisition at all trophic levels. Drilling wastes released near the sediment 

22 surface or in shallow water would bury benthic organisms in the release area. Muds released in 

23 deeper water or near the water‘s surface would be spread over a greater area in a thinner layer 

24 and may not result in high mortality, although impacts to water-column invertebrates may be 

25 greater under this scenario. The disturbance would be short in duration, with repopulation of the 

26 affected area occurring by larval recruitment. In addition, drilling discharges must comply with 

27 NPDES permit requirements regarding the discharge amount, rate, and toxicity, which would 

28 greatly reduce the impact to invertebrate communities. 

29

30 The USEPA and BOEM have sponsored research on the biological effects of drilling 

31 fluids on benthic invertebrates. In studies conducted on the GOM continental shelf and slope, 

32 synthetic drilling fluids in sediments were elevated within 500 m (1,640 ft) of the well 

33 (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2004, 2006). Meiofaunal and macroinvertebrate abundance 

34 were typically highest near the well, and were often found to increase with the concentration of 

35 drilling fluids in the sediment (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2006). However, the effects of 

36 drilling muds appears to be species-dependent. Amphipod, ophiuroid, and ostrocod densities 

37 were depressed within 300 m (984 ft) of the well compared to control areas, while copepods, 

38 nematodes, and several classes of dominant infauna including worms, clams, and snails were 

39 more abundant within 300 m (984 ft) of the well (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2006). 

40 Sediments collected near the well were found to be toxic to amphipods, which explains their 

41 depressed abundance (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2004, 2006). The elevated abundance 

42 of most infauna may have been due to the high organic matter content of the drilling fluids 

43 adhering to the muds and cuttings. Some sites showed particularly high abundance of species 

44 tolerant of organic enrichment (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2006). However, the high 

45 organic matter content also created anoxic patches along the seafloor that contained very few 

46 infauna. The recovery time for benthic communities will depend on impact magnitude and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-361

1 species present, and existing data suggest recovery will begin rapidly but may take years for 

2 recovery to pre-disturbance communities (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2004, 2006).

3

4 Overall, the site development and exploration represent a moderate disturbance primarily 

5 affecting benthic invertebrates, with the severity of the impacts generally decreasing dramatically 

6 with distance from bottom-disturbing activities. Recovery of invertebrate communities could 

7 range from short-term to long-term.

8

9 Production. Production activities that could affect soft sediment habitat include 

10 operational noise, bottom disturbance from the movement of mooring anchors, chains, and 

11 cables, and the release of process water. In addition, the platform would replace existing 

12 featureless soft sediments and potentially serve as an artificial reef (Table 4.4.7-8).

13

14 Chronic bottom disturbance would result from the movement of anchors and chains 

15 associated with support vessels and floating platform moorings. Bottom disturbance would 

16 impact invertebrates in a manner similar that described above for the exploration and site 

17 development phase. The disturbance would be episodic and temporary, but would last for the 

18 lifetime of the platform.

19

20 Sessile epifaunal invertebrates requiring hard substrate (i.e., barnacles and corals) as well 

21 as small motile invertebrates (amphipods and worms) would be able to colonize the structure of 

22 the platform, resulting in an artificial reef. Unburied pipelines would also provide hard substrate 

23 for sessile and structure-oriented invertebrates. Although densities of some zooplankton species 

24 were elevated near the platforms in the northern GOM, the effect was not consistent (Keenan and 

25 Benfield 2003). The platform would likely increase shell material and organic matter in the 

26 surrounding sediments, potentially resulting in a shift in benthic invertebrate community 

27 composition. The replacement of soft sediment with artificial reef would only exist during the 

28 production phase, unless the platform was permitted to remain in place after decommissioning. 

29 Because platforms are spread across a large area of the GOM, they could provide habitat for non30 native invertebrate species that prefer hard substrate. Such species could be introduced by a 

31 number of mechanisms both natural and anthropogenic (commercial shipping and human 

32 introduction). In the deep sea, floating production platforms are used that could create a floating 

33 reef habitat at the surface. In deep sea soft sediment, communities may form on mooring 

34 structures, but colonization would likely be slow and mooring structures would be completely 

35 removed during decommissioning, so impacts, if any, would be temporary.

36

37 Produced water contains metals, hydrocarbons, salts, and radionuclides, and its discharge 

38 could contaminate habitat resulting in lethal and sublethal effects on invertebrates. Organisms 

39 attached to oil platforms have not been found to accumulate metals, although they have been 

40 found to bioaccumulate organic contaminants (Neff 2005; Trefry et al. 1995). Produced water 

41 from deepwater wells is expected to contain more chemical contaminants to maintain adequate 

42 flow. Contaminants from produced water discharges are not expected to reach toxic levels in the 

43 sediment and water column due to dilution and NPDES permitting requirements regarding 

44 discharge rate, contaminant concentration, and toxicity. Invertebrates collected in sediments 

45 near platforms in the GOM do not appear to bioaccumulate the common contaminants in 

46 produced water, such as radionuclides, metals, and hydrocarbons, and in most cases, the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-362

1 concentration of these contaminants in their tissues did not exceed USEPA-specified 

2 concentrations considered harmful (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1997). Produced water is 

3 also not expected to contribute significantly to the creation of hypoxic bottom water conditions 

4 (Rabalais 2005; Bierman et al. 2007). Consequently, impacts to water-column and benthic 

5 invertebrates should be minor.

6

7 The results of the GOM Offshore Monitoring Experiment, funded by BOEM, provide a 

8 good summary of the long-term sublethal impacts of oil and gas development on invertebrates at 

9 the individual, population, and community level (Kennicutt et al. 1995). Stations surrounding 

10 petroleum wells were sampled in a radial pattern with stations at 30–50, 100, 200, 500, and 

11 3,000 m distances (98–164, 328, 656, 1,640, and 9,842 ft). Elevated sediment concentrations of 

12 sand, organic matter, hydrocarbons, and metals were generally restricted to sediments within 

13 200 m (656 ft) of the platforms. Overall, there was no evidence of sublethal physiological stress 

14 or change in distribution of epifaunal invertebrates attributable to the presence of the platform. 

15 Oil and gas development activities resulted in altered infaunal communities within 100 m 

16 (328 ft) of the platform, with reduced density and diversity of crustaceans (primarily amphipods 

17 and copepods) near the platform and enhanced density of polychaetes and deposit-feeding 

18 nematodes. The patterns in invertebrate density were often attributable to changes in a few 

19 species. Differences in abundance between near- and far-field stations were the product of toxic 

20 response of sensitive crustacean species and sediment organic enrichment, which increased the

21 density of worms (Kennicutt et al. 1995). Toxicity tests indicated copepod survival, 

22 reproduction, and genetic diversity were lower near the platforms due to metal concentrations 

23 (Kennicutt 1996; Montagna and Harper 1996) or the reef effect of the platform 

24 (Montagna et al. 2002). Thus, production activities are expected to result in minor impacts to 

25 invertebrates.

26

27 Decommissioning. Platform removal (potentially using explosives) would temporarily 

28 affect benthic and pelagic invertebrates, as described above, by disturbing sediments and 

29 increasing noise and turbidity for some length of the water column. Deposition of suspended 

30 sediments could bury, smother, or kill some benthic organisms in the vicinity of work sites. 

31 Mortality to epifauna should be limited to within a few meters of the blast (O‘Keeffe and 

32 Young 1984). In addition, the explosive charges typically would be set at 5 m (16 ft) below the 

33 seafloor surface, which would significantly attenuate the shock wave as it moved through the 

34 seabed. Displaced invertebrate communities would repopulate the area over a short period of 

35 time, although a return to the pre-disturbance community may take longer. No permanent 

36 change in benthic communities would result from floating platform removal. However, if fixed 

37 platforms are toppled and left in place, the changes to invertebrate communities resulting from 

38 the initial platform installation would be permanent. Pipelines installed and anchored on the 

39 seafloor would be capped and left in place, although there is the potential for chronic sediment 

40 disturbance from pipeline movement. Pipelines not buried would also continue to serve as hard 

41 substrate for sessile invertebrates and structure oriented invertebrates. Overall, impacts to 

42 invertebrates associated with decommissioning activities are expected to be minor.

43

44 Accidents. Accidental hydrocarbon spills can occur at the surface or at the seafloor, 

45 potentially affecting pelagic and benthic invertebrates. Exposure to hydrocarbons can result in

46 lethal or sublethal (reproduction, recruitment, physiology, growth, development, and behavior) 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-363

1 impacts at the level of the individual, while catastrophic oil spills could result in population-level 

2 effects and complex indirect effects on species interactions (i.e., competition and predation) in 

3 some cases. Invertebrates differ in their sensitivity to hydrocarbon pollution both by organism 

4 class and life stage (Laws 1992). For example, crustaceans appear to be among the taxa most 

5 sensitive to oil pollution, while certain species of worms, such as Capitellid polychates, appear to 

6 be tolerant of oil pollution (Blumer et al. 1971; Laws 1992; NRC 2003b). Among meiofauna, 

7 nematodes may be less sensitive to oil than copepods.

8

9 Most oil and gas spills would be small and rapidly be diluted and are expected to 

10 primarily affect invertebrates in the water column, as most hydrocarbons would float above the 

11 sediment surface. However, even a small spill (<999 bbl) could affect intertidal and subtidal 

12 invertebrates. After the spill of 600 bbl of crude oil in Barataria Bay, Louisiana, Roth and Baltz 

13 (2009) found a reduction in total number of decapod crustaceans as well as reduction in grass 

14 shrimp (Palaeomonetes pugio) 3 weeks after the spill occurred. The impact magnitude of these 

15 small oil spills on invertebrates is primarily a function of the invertebrate species and habitat 

16 affected. Impacts from spills would be greatest if a large spill occurred during a reproductive 

17 period or contacted a location important for spawning or growth such as intertidal and nearshore 

18 subtidal habitats. However, it is anticipated that only a small amount of shoreline would be 

19 affected by these smaller oil spills and would not, therefore, present a substantial risk to 

20 invertebrate populations. Impacts from small and large spills are expected to be temporary as oil 

21 is diluted and broken down by natural chemical and microbial processes.

22

23 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE up to 7.2 million bbl 

24 (Table 4.4.2-2). Spilled oil has been found to affect pelagic and sediment-dwelling invertebrates 

25 (Laws 1992; reviewed in NRC 2003b). Pelagic invertebrates are concentrated in the upper water 

26 column so oil and gas reaching the surface from a surface or subsurface CDE spill have the 

27 potential to affect the greatest number of invertebrates. Hydrocarbon releases at the seafloor 

28 would typically rise in the water column, which would limit direct contact with benthic 

29 invertebrates. However, benthic invertebrates could be affected directly by oil reaching intertidal 

30 or shallow subtidal habitats or natural deposition of oil contaminated pelagic organic matter and 

31 biota, which could ultimately enter the benthic invertebrate food web. The location of the CDE 

32 and the season in which the CDE occurred would be important determinants of the impact 

33 magnitude of the spill. For example, catastrophic spills occurring during recruitment periods or 

34 spills that affect areas with high larval invertebrate concentrations (i.e., estuaries) would have the 

35 greatest impact. In addition, the magnitude of a spill‘s impacts on invertebrates and their habitat 

36 would likely increase with the degree of shoreline oiling, as estuaries have high biological 

37 productivity and serve as critical habitat for invertebrates. Oil would persist longer in the 

38 environment than gas and oil could be transported to the shoreline where it could reduce local 

39 populations of shallow subtidal and intertidal coastal habitat for an extended period of time. 

40 However, a spill of this kind is unlikely to occur, and invertebrates typically have short 

41 generation times and should recover from even a catastrophic spill. Therefore, no permanent 

42 impacts to invertebrate communities are expected to result from an accidental oil spill.

43

44 Prior studies provide insight into the potential long-term effects of an oil spill on 

45 invertebrate populations in the GOM. A large oil spill in Panama affected intertidal and subtidal 

46 infauna and epifauna, with the impact magnitude and recovery time varying with the habitat, 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-364

1 organism, and degree of oiling (Jackson et al. 1989; Keller and Jackson 1993). Oysters and 

2 mussels within mangroves, as well as amphipods, tanaids, and ophiurods in seagrass habitats,

3 displayed long-term (>9 months) reduction in abundance compared to unoiled areas. Corals and 

4 associated biota were also affected by the spill, especially at the reef edge that received the 

5 heaviest oiling. Although many species recovered within a few months to 2 years, certain 

6 crustaceans and oysters had not recovered within 5 years (Keller and Jackson 1993). 

7 Guzman et al. (1993) estimated a total recovery time of 10 to 20 years. The 1979 Ixtoc I spill in 

8 the Bay of Campeche was not well studied; therefore it is difficult to assess the extent of impacts 

9 on invertebrates (ERCO/Energy Resources Co. Inc 1982). Most studies of the Ixtoc spill 

10 occurred in south Texas far from the spill site. In these studies, sediment contamination was not 

11 detected and no strong links between Ixtoc oil and changes in invertebrate communities could be 

12 found (ERCO/Energy Resources Co. Inc 1982; Laws 1993). In a study of upper Galveston Bay, 

13 a site of heavy oil and gas activity with a history of spills, Rozas et al. (2000) found no consistent 

14 significant relationships between sediment oil concentration and invertebrate densities, despite 

15 testing multiple species. Although sediment contamination did not appear to affect habitat use, 

16 sublethal exposure impacts could have been possible.

17

18

19 4.4.7.5.2 Alaska– Cook Inlet.

20

21 Routine Operations. Potential OCS oil and gas development impacting factors relevant 

22 to invertebrates are shown by phase in Table 4.4.7-9. Impacting factors common to all phases 

23 include vessel noise and discharges (bilge and ballast water), miscellaneous discharges (deck 

24 washing, sanitary waste), and offshore lighting. Impacts from these activities would be localized 

25 and temporary and would range from short-term to long-term. Overall, vessel and miscellaneous 

26 discharges are not expected to impact invertebrate communities in the sediment or water column, 

27 because many of these waste streams are disposed of on land or must meet USEPA and/or USCG 

28 regulatory requirements before being discharged into surface waters. Studies of platform 

29 lighting suggest the lights would alter predator-prey dynamics by enhancing phytoplankton 

30 productivity around the platform, attracting phototaxic invertebrates and potentially improving 

31 the visual foraging environment for fishes (Keenan et al. 2007).

32

33 Exploration and Site Development. During the OCS oil and gas exploration and 

34 development phase, invertebrates could be affected by noise from seismic surveys and noise and 

35 bottom disturbance from drilling, platform placement, and pipeline trenching and placement 

36 activities. 

37

38 Noise from vessel traffic, construction, seismic surveys, and drilling could kill or injure 

39 invertebrates close enough to the noise source, as well as reducing habitat suitability, as some 

40 species would avoid the area. For example, decapods and cephalopods, two numerically 

41 abundant and commercially important groups of invertebrates, are known to detect vibrations 

42 from underwater noise and may be sensitive to noise from vessel traffic, seismic surveys, and 

43 drilling (DFO 2004; National Science Foundation and USGS 2010). Recent reviews of the 

44 impacts of anthropogenic noise on invertebrates indicates that invertebrates exposed to noise 

45 could exhibit pathological effects (i.e., injury and mortality), physiological changes (i.e., changes 

46 in hormone, protein, and enzyme levels), and/or behavioral changes (such as a startle response)
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-365

1 TABLE 4.4.7-9 Impacting Factors Potentially Affecting Invertebrates and Their 

2 Habitat in the Cook Inlet Planning Area

Life Stage Affecteda

Development Phase and Impacting Factor Eggs Larvae Adults

Impacting Factors Common to All Phases

Vessel noise X X X

Vessel traffic X X X

Hazardous materials X X X

Solid wastes X X X

Offshore lighting X X X

Aircraft noise

Offshore air emissions

Onshore air emissions

Aircraft traffic

Miscellaneous platform discharges X X X

Vessel discharges X X X

Bottom disturbance from vessel anchors X X X

Exploration and Development

Seismic noise X X X

Noise from drilling and construction X X X

Bottom disturbance from platform placement, 

drilling, and pipeline placement and trenching

X X X

Discharge of drilling muds and cuttings X X X

Production

Production Noise X X X

Produced water discharge X X X

Artificial reef X X X

Decommissioning

Platform removal (non-explosive) X X X

a Colors indicate impact level: white = negligible; blue = minor; yellow = moderate; 

red = major.

3

4

5 and change swimming and movement patterns (DFO 2004; National Science Foundation and 

6 USGS 2010). Although data is limited, zooplankton and larvae stages may be injured because of 

7 their small size and relative lack of mobility, while noise is often found to have negligible effects 

8 on adult invertebrates (reviewed in DFO 2004 and National Science Foundation and 

9 USGS 2010). The studies typically suggested that injury was limited to within 10 m (33 ft) of 

10 the noise source. The numbers of invertebrates that could be affected by noise during the 

11 exploration and site development phase make it unlikely that noise impacts would have 

12 appreciable effects on invertebrate populations in the overall Cook Inlet Planning Area. A recent 

13 review of the effects of seismic survey activities on marine invertebrates concluded that although 

14 data were limited, mortality and injury to invertebrates would be limited to organisms located 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-366

1 within a few meters of the air gun, and that there would be no significant impacts on marine 

2 invertebrate populations from air gun and sonar sounds (National Science Foundation and 

3 USGS 2010). The severity and duration of noise impacts would vary with site and development 

4 scenario, but given the temporary and localized nature of the noise generating activities, impacts 

5 on invertebrates are expected to be negligible.

6

7 Bottom-disturbing activities such as coring and drilling, platform placement and mooring, 

8 and pipeline trenching and placement would displace, injure, or kill invertebrates in the vicinity 

9 of the activities. Exploration would involve semisubmersible or floating drilling rigs, jack-up 

10 rigs, and bottom-founded rigs depending on water depth. Production rigs would most likely be 

11 fixed platforms. In the initial drilling phase before a riser is installed, drilling muds and cuttings 

12 would accumulate around the well and bury benthic invertebrates as well as create a turbidity 

13 plume that could adversely impact pelagic invertebrates located near the bottom. This change in 

14 grain size could alter community composition and prevent the settlement of some species. In 

15 addition, bottom disturbance during platform and pipeline placement would result in sediment 

16 resuspension and turbidity, which could bury benthic infauna and damage the gills of water17 column and benthic invertebrates present within some distance of the disturbance. Platforms and 

18 pipeline placement would disturb 1.5 to 4.5 ha (4 to 11 ac) and 35 to 210 ha (86 to 519 ac) of 

19 bottom habitat, respectively. In addition, up to one pipeline landfill may result from the 

20 proposed action. Species most likely to be affected by bottom-disturbing activities are sessile 

21 and infaunal benthic organisms and small zooplankton that lack the mobility to avoid the direct 

22 disturbance and the associated turbidity plumes. Pipelines would be installed and anchored on 

23 the surface or buried. Pipelines could crush, injure, or displace invertebrates, as well as shift 

24 invertebrate community composition to those species preferring hard substrate. Soft-sediment 

25 invertebrates, particularly in shallow water, are subject to frequent bottom disturbance and 

26 sediment resuspension due to human activities such as trawling and natural occurrences such as

27 storms. Thus, disturbed areas would likely be recolonized quickly, but, if grain size is greatly 

28 altered and slow to recover, the benthic community may take from a few months to several years 

29 to return to its pre-disturbance composition (Bolam and Rees 2003 and references therein).

30

31 The discharge of drilling muds and cuttings (including synthetic drilling fluids adhering 

32 to the cuttings) can adversely affect invertebrates in several ways. The effects of drilling muds 

33 and cuttings (including drilling fluids adhering to the cuttings) on invertebrates can be chemical 

34 such as toxicity or physical such as gill abrasion, burial, or displacement from turbidity and 

35 sedimentation. Impacts from turbidity and sedimentation would be similar to those described 

36 above and could damage respiratory structures and disrupt food acquisition at all trophic levels. 

37 Drilling wastes released near the sediment surface or in shallow water would bury benthic 

38 organisms in the release area. Muds released in deeper water or near the water‘s surface would 

39 be spread over a greater area in a thinner layer and may not result in high mortality, although 

40 impacts to water column invertebrates may be greater under this scenario. The disturbance 

41 would be short in duration, with repopulation of the affected area occurring by larval 

42 recruitment. In addition, drilling discharges must comply with NPDES permit requirements 

43 regarding the discharge amount, rate, and toxicity, which would greatly reduce the impact to 

44 invertebrate communities. 

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-367

1 Overall, site development and exploration activities would result in moderate and 

2 temporary effects on primarily benthic invertebrates, with the severity of the impacts generally 

3 decreasing dramatically with distance from the disturbance. Recovery of benthic habitat could 

4 range from short-term to long-term.

5

6 Production. Production activities that could affect invertebrates in Cook Inlet include 

7 operational noise, bottom disturbance from anchors and the release of process water. In addition, 

8 the platform would replace existing featureless soft sediments and serve as an artificial reef 

9 (Table 4.4.7-9). 

10

11 Chronic disturbance to benthic invertebrates would result from the movement of 

12 pipelines and anchors and chains associated with support vessels. Pipelines not buried would be 

13 anchored in place which would minimize their movement and potential to disturb benthic 

14 invertebrate communities. Bottom disturbance would impact invertebrates in a manner similar 

15 that described above for the exploration and site development phase. The disturbance would be 

16 episodic and temporary, but would last for the lifetime of the platform.

17

18 Produced water contains metals, hydrocarbons, salts, and radionuclides, and their

19 discharge could contaminate habitat resulting in lethal and sublethal effects on invertebrates, 

20 particularly non-mobile benthic infauna. However, NPDES permitting requirements regarding 

21 discharge rate, contaminant concentration, and toxicity would greatly reduce the potential for 

22 impacts to invertebrates. In addition, it is assumed that all produced water would be disposed of 

23 by injection into permitted disposal wells. Therefore, the effects of produced water discharges 

24 on invertebrates are expected to be minimal.

25

26 Platforms would add a hard substrate to the marine environment, providing additional 

27 habitat for marine plants and animals (e.g., kelp and mussels) that require a hard substrate. The 

28 platform would likely increase shell material and organic matter in the sediments surrounding the 

29 platform, potentially resulting in a shift in benthic invertebrate community composition.

30

31 A two-year (1997–1998) study of contaminant levels in the sediments of the Shelikof 

32 Strait and Cook Inlet provide information on the overall, long-term potential effects of oil and 

33 gas development in the Cook Inlet Planning Area (MMS 2001a). Samples of sediment from

34 depositional areas (where sediment contamination is expected to be greatest) suggested that 

35 metals and PAHs in sediments derived primarily from natural sources rather than past oil and gas 

36 developments (MMS 2001a). In addition, sediment concentrations of metals and organic 

37 contaminants in outermost Cook Inlet and Shelikof Strait (1) have not increased significantly 

38 since offshore oil exploration and production began in Cook Inlet (circa 1963) and (2) posed 

39 only minor risks to benthic biota or fish (MMS 2001a). Consequently, it is expected that 

40 production activities would have negligible effects on invertebrate communities in Cook Inlet.

41

42 Decommissioning. No explosive platform removals are anticipated under the proposed 

43 action. Nonexplosive removals (e.g., abrasive, mechanical, or diver cutters) would have 

44 negligible long-term impacts to invertebrates, although individuals associated with the platform 

45 would experience, injury, mortality, or loss of habitat. Most sediments will recover their normal 

46 physical characteristics, ecological functions, and biological communities. Pipelines installed 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-368

1 and anchored on the seafloor would be capped and left in place, although there is the potential 

2 for chronic sediment disturbance from pipeline movement. If fixed platforms are left in place, 

3 the changes to invertebrate communities resulting from the initial platform installation would be 

4 permanent. Overall, impacts associated with decommissioning activities are expected to be 

5 negligible.

6

7 Accidents. Accidental hydrocarbon releases can occur at the surface or at the seafloor, 

8 potentially affecting pelagic and benthic invertebrates. Exposure to hydrocarbons can result in 

9 lethal or sublethal (reproduction, recruitment, physiology, growth, development, and behavior)

10 impacts. Most small hydrocarbon releases would rapidly be diluted and are expected to 

11 primarily affect invertebrates in the water column as most oil and gas would float above the 

12 sediment surface. The impact magnitude of these oil spills on invertebrates is primarily a 

13 function of the invertebrate species and habitat affected. Impacts from spills would be greatest if 

14 a large spill occurred during a reproductive period or contacted a location important for 

15 spawning or growth such as intertidal and nearshore subtidal habitats. However, it is anticipated 

16 that only a small amount of shoreline would be affected by these smaller spills and they would 

17 not, therefore, present a substantial risk to invertebrate populations.

18

19 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE of 75 to 125 thousand bbl in 

20 the Cook Inlet Planning Area (Table 4.4.2-2). Because the Cook Inlet Planning Area is located 

21 within a relatively confined estuary, the likelihood of oil from a catastrophic spill contacting part 

22 of the shoreline is relatively high and is a function of assumed spill location. Site-specific 

23 evaluations would have to be conducted to fully evaluate potential spill trajectories from future 

24 lease sales. Benthic invertebrates in intertidal and shallow subtidal areas are likely to be 

25 contacted by an oil spill. In addition, some oil spill-response activities could adversely affect 

26 lower trophic-level organisms. For example, dispersants could increase oil toxicity, and cleanup 

27 techniques, the presence of large numbers of people, or the use of heavy equipment on shorelines 

28 could kill some coastal organisms during cleanup responses.

29

30 The toxicity of released hydrocarbons would probably decrease rapidly because of 

31 evaporation, dispersion, and dilution. Thus, it is concluded that planktonic organisms within the 

32 area of lethal hydrocarbon concentration could be killed during the first few days of a 

33 hydrocarbon spill; after that, the primary effects would be sublethal responses such as reduction 

34 in growth or reproductive rates except at the surface boundary of an oil slick. Large-scale 

35 changes in overall plankton populations in Cook Inlet are considered unlikely. However, 

36 intertidal invertebrates could experience long-term exposures, as oil could persist in intertidal 

37 sediments for decades. Thus invertebrate populations could be depressed for a decade or more

38 (Highsmith et al. 2001; Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2009a).

39

40 Studies following the Exxon Valdez spill give insight into the impacts of a catastrophic oil 

41 spill on vertebrate communities and their subsequent recovery. Amphipods, sea stars, and 

42 certain crabs were less abundant in oiled sites compared to areas not affected by the spill (Exxon 

43 Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2010c). Studies of mussels indicated hydrocarbons 

44 accumulated in their tissue in the decade after the spill at sites where oil did not break down. 

45 However, by 1999, contaminant levels in mussels from the most heavily oiled beds in Prince 

46 William Sound were similar to background levels even though sediment contamination was still 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-369

1 present (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2010c). Stress-tolerant invertebrates like 

2 polychaetes and snails did not appear to suffer long-term population declines in oiled areas. As 

3 late as 2002, studies of clams indicated differences in population structure between areas affected 

4 by the spill and clean areas (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2010c). However, much of 

5 the long-term reduction in clam densities may have been due to the high-pressure beach washing 

6 that occurred after the spill (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2009a). In intertidal areas, 

7 the Exxon Valdez spill created large density fluctuations in kelp communities that serve as 

8 habitat for benthic invertebrates. Intertidal experimental studies have demonstrated that rocky 

9 intertidal communities are particularly slow to recover (+10 years) following disturbance 

10 (Highsmith et al. 2001). As of 2009, clams, mussels, and intertidal communities are still listed as 

11 recovering (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2009a).

12

13

14 4.4.7.5.3 Alaska – Arctic. Impacting factors common to all phases include vessel 

15 discharges (bilge and ballast water), miscellaneous discharges (deck washing, sanitary waste), 

16 and offshore lighting. Impacts from these activities would be localized and temporary and would 

17 range from short-term to long-term. These discharges are expected to have no or negligible 

18 impacts on invertebrate communities in the sediment and water column because many of these 

19 waste streams are disposed of on land or must meet USEPA and/or USCG regulatory 

20 requirements before being discharged into surface waters. Studies of platform lighting suggest 

21 the lights would alter predator-prey dynamics by enhancing phytoplankton productivity around 

22 the platform, attracting phototaxic invertebrates, and potentially improving the visual foraging 

23 environment for fishes (Keenan et al. 2007).

24

25 Routine Operations.

26

27 Exploration and Site Development. During the OCS oil and gas exploration and 

28 development phase, invertebrates could be affected by noise from seismic surveys and noise and 

29 bottom disturbance from drilling, subsea well, gravel island, and platform placement, and 

30 pipeline trenching and placement activities. See Section 4.4.7.5.2 for a complete discussion of 

31 the effects of exploration and site development activities on invertebrates.

32

33 Noise from seismic surveys and drilling could kill or injure invertebrates close enough 

34 to the noise source and reduce habitat suitability as some species would avoid the area. Noise is 

35 expected to have negligible effects on invertebrate populations in the overall Beaufort and 

36 Chukchi Planning Areas (see Section 4.4.7.5.2).

37

38 Bottom-disturbing activities such as drilling, subsea well and platform placement, and 

39 pipeline trenching and placement would displace, injure, or kill invertebrates in the vicinity of 

40 the activities, as described in Section 4.4.7.5.2. In addition to burying and displacing benthic 

41 communities, the construction of artificial islands would permanently alter sediment composition 

42 and shift benthic invertebrate communities to species adapted to coarse gravel substrate. 

43 Platform and pipeline placements in the Beaufort and Chukchi Planning Areas would disturb 3 to 

44 13.5 ha (7 to 33 ac) and 77 to 567 ha (190 to 1,401 ac) of bottom habitat, respectively. Pipelines 

45 would be installed and anchored on the surface or buried in waters less than 50 m (156 ft) to 

46 prevent damage from ice gouges. Pipelines could crush, injure, or displace invertebrates, as well 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-370

1 as shift invertebrate community composition to those species preferring hard substrate. Benthic 

2 habitats such as the Steffanson Boulder Patch and kelpbeds would be protected by stipulations

3 that require surveys for and avoidance of sensitive biological habitat. Although pipeline and 

4 platform placement would disturb a large area of the seafloor, it is not expected to have a 

5 measurable effect on regional populations. The benthic community in these areas experiences 

6 similar naturally occurring disturbances from ice gouging, strudel scour, and severe storms. In 

7 the Arctic, recolonization by benthic invertebrates can be slow to begin, and the benthic 

8 community may take several years to return to its pre-disturbance composition following bottom9 disturbance activities (Conlan and Kvitek 2005). Overall, moderate but temporary impacts to

10 invertebrates are expected to result from platform and pipeline placement.

11

12 The discharge of drilling muds and cuttings from exploration wells could adversely affect 

13 pelagic and benthic invertebrates (Section 4.4.7.5.2). However, drilling discharges must comply 

14 with NPDES permit requirements regarding the discharge amount, rate, and toxicity, which 

15 would greatly reduce the impact to invertebrate communities. 

16

17 Overall, site development and exploration activities represent a moderate and temporary 

18 disturbance that would primarily affect benthic invertebrates. The severity of the impacts would 

19 generally decrease dramatically with distance from bottom-disturbing activities. Recovery of 

20 benthic habitat could range from short-term to long-term.

21

22 Production. Production activities that could affect invertebrates include operational 

23 noise, bottom disturbance from the movement of mooring anchors, chains, and cables, and the 

24 release of process water. In addition, the platform and gravel islands would replace existing 

25 featureless soft sediments and serve as artificial reefs (Table 4.4.7-10).

26

27 Chronic disturbance to benthic invertebrates would result from the movement of anchors 

28 and chains associated with support vessels. Bottom disturbance would impact invertebrates in a 

29 manner similar to that described above for the exploration and site development phase. The 

30 disturbance would be episodic and temporary, but would last for the lifetime of the platform.

31

32 Produced water contains metals, hydrocarbons, salts, and radionuclides, and its discharge 

33 could contaminate habitat resulting in lethal and sublethal effects on invertebrates, particularly 

34 nonmobile benthic infauna. However, it is assumed that produced water would be reinjected into 

35 the well rather than discharged into the ocean. In addition, produced water discharges must 

36 comply with NPDES permit requirements regarding the discharge amount, rate, and toxicity, 

37 which would greatly reduce the impact to invertebrate communities (Section 4.4.7.5.2).

38

39 The presence of platforms or artificial islands would favor invertebrates requiring or 

40 preferring hard substrates, thus shifting community composition in some areas. The platform 

41 would likely increase shell material and organic matter in the sediments surrounding the 

42 platform, potentially resulting in a shift in benthic invertebrate community composition.

43

44 The results of the study Arctic Nearshore Impacts Monitoring in the Development Area 

45 funded by BOEM provide a good summary of the long-term changes to benthic communities 

46 resulting from oil and gas development in the Arctic. Boehm (2001) determined that 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-371

1 TABLE 4.4.7-10 Impacting Factors Potentially Affecting Invertebrates and Their 

2 Habitat in the Beaufort and Chukchi Planning Areas

Life Stage Affecteda

Development Phase and Impacting Factor Eggs Larvae Adults

Impacting Factors Common to All Phases

Vessel noise X X X

Vessel traffic X X X

Hazardous materials X X X

Solid wastes X X X

Offshore lighting X X X

Aircraft noise

Offshore air emissions

Onshore air emissions

Aircraft traffic

Miscellaneous platform discharges X X X

Vessel discharges X X X

Bottom disturbance from vessel anchors X X X

Exploration and Development

Seismic noise X X X

Noise from drilling and construction X X X

Bottom disturbance from drilling and placement of 

platforms, subsea wells, artificial islands, and pipelines

X X X

Discharge of drilling muds and cuttings X X X

Production

Production noise X X X

Produced water discharge X X X

Artificial reef X X X

Decommissioning

Platform removal (nonexplosive) X X X

a Colors indicate impact level: white = negligible; blue = minor; yellow = moderate; 

red = major.

3

4

5 hydrocarbons in sediments (largely attributable to natural sources) were not readily bioavailable 

6 to marine filter feeders and deposit-feeders, and concluded that small incremental contaminant 

7 additions from future development activities are unlikely to cause immediate ecological harm to 

8 organisms in the Beaufort Sea study area. After reviewing tissue samples between 2000 and 

9 2006, hydrocarbon and metals concentrations in invertebrates sampled near the Northstar 

10 development and Liberty Prospect area were found to be similar to or lower than invertebrate 

11 tissue levels found elsewhere in the world (Neff and Associates LLC 2010). No increase in 

12 hydrocarbons and metals in marine invertebrate tissues was attributable to oil and gas 

13 production, even for benthic infauna such as amphipods and clams. Concentrations of metals 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-372

1 and hydrocarbons in benthic invertebrates collected in the Boulder Patch were similar to 

2 concentrations in invertebrates collected elsewhere in the development area.

3

4 Overall, the effects of production activities on invertebrates are expected to be negligible.

5

6 Decommissioning. No explosive platform removals are anticipated under the proposed 

7 action. Nonexplosive removals (e.g., abrasive, mechanical, or diver cutters) would have 

8 negligible long-term impacts on invertebrates, although individuals associated with the platform 

9 would experience injury, mortality, and loss of habitat. Pipelines installed and anchored on the 

10 seafloor would be capped and left in place, although there is the potential for chronic sediment 

11 disturbance from pipeline movement. The changes to invertebrate communities resulting from 

12 the construction of artificial gravel islands would be permanent. Overall, impacts associated 

13 with decommissioning activities are expected to be negligible.

14

15 Accidents. See Section 4.4.6 for a general discussion of hydrocarbon spills in marine 

16 habitat and Section 4.4.7.5.2 for a discussion of their impacts on invertebrates. Hydrocarbons 

17 can cause both lethal and sublethal effects to marine invertebrates. Sublethal effects occur at 

18 lower concentrations and include reduced growth and/or fecundity, increased physiological

19 stress, and behavioral changes that may reduce fitness and population size.

20

21 Accidental hydrocarbon releases can occur at the surface or at the seafloor, potentially 

22 affecting pelagic and benthic invertebrates. Most hydrocarbon releases would be rapidly diluted 

23 and are expected to primarily affect plankton, as most oil and gas would float above the sediment 

24 surface. Most accidental releases would be small, and any impacts would be sublethal except in 

25 the immediate vicinity of the spill where lethal concentrations of oil may be present. The impact 

26 magnitude of these oil spills on invertebrates is primarily a function of the invertebrate species 

27 and habitat affected. Impacts from spills would be greatest if a large spill occurred during a 

28 reproductive period or contacted a location important for spawning or growth such as intertidal 

29 and nearshore subtidal habitats. However, it is anticipated that only a small amount of shoreline 

30 would be affected by these smaller oil spills and would not, therefore, present a substantial risk 

31 to invertebrate populations. Impacts from small and large spills are expected to be temporary as 

32 oil is diluted and broken down by natural chemical and microbial processes. 

33

34 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE of 1.4 to 2.2 million bbl in 

35 the Chukchi Sea and 1.7 to 3.9 million bbl in the Beaufort Sea (Table 4.4.2-2). A CDE oil spill 

36 could contaminate sediments and the water column for some distance around the leak or rupture. 

37 Most released oil and gas would float above the seafloor, so direct contact with benthic 

38 communities in deeper water should be relatively low. If large quantities of oil from a 

39 catastrophic oil spill were to reach intertidal sediments or shallow subtidal sediment, benthic

40 invertebrates in the affected areas could experience high levels of contamination and mortality, 

41 and, given the slow rate of oil breakdown in the Arctic, benthic invertebrate populations could be 

42 depressed for many years. See Section 4.4.7.5.2 for a detailed discussion of oil spills on 

43 invertebrates following the catastrophic Exxon Valdez spill.

44

45 Hydrocarbon releases contacting the Stefansson Sound Boulder Patch community could 

46 have direct impacts on organisms inhabiting the area. The magnitude of impacts to the Boulder 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-373

1 Patch would depend on the location and severity of the spill. Studies show that the Boulder 

2 Patch communities are slow to recolonize (Konar 2007 and references therein). Kelp associated 

3 benthic animal communities have also been shown to have major shifts in species composition 

4 following exposure to oil (Dean and Jewett 2001). Impacts to kelp habitat from an oil spill could 

5 be long-term, but are not expected to be permanent. Laminaria beds oiled by the Exxon Valdez

6 spill recovered within 10 years (Dean and Jewett 2001). Planning and permitting procedures 

7 requiring no impacts to sensitive biological communities will also minimize spill impacts to the 

8 Boulder Patch area.

9

10 Oil from a CDE occurring under ice is more difficult to locate and clean than surface 

11 spills. Since weathering would be greatly reduced by ice cover, pelagic invertebrates could 

12 continue to be harmed or killed as they drift into the trapped oil. In addition, invertebrates living 

13 beneath the ice are a crucial food source in the Arctic food web that could be degraded or lost by 

14 contact with oil spills.

15

16

17 4.4.7.5.4 Conclusion. The primary impacts of oil and gas activities on invertebrates in 

18 the GOM and Alaska Planning Areas would be from drilling waste discharges and from bottom19 disturbing activities during the exploration and site development phase, which could displace, 

20 bury, injure, or kill invertebrates in the vicinity of the activities. Displaced invertebrate 

21 communities would generally repopulate the area over a short-period of time, although a return 

22 to the pre-disturbance community may take longer, particularly in the Arctic. Where floating 

23 platforms are used, scour from the movement of mooring structures represents a chronic 

24 disturbance to benthic invertebrates lasting the life of the production phase. If discharged into 

25 open water, the effects of drilling wastes and produced water on invertebrates would be localized 

26 and no population-level effects are expected. Changes in benthic invertebrate community 

27 structure and function should be restricted to the vicinity of the platform. Overall, activities 

28 conducted during exploration and site development, production, and decommissioning phases

29 could result in moderate impacts to benthic and pelagic invertebrates. Bottom-disturbing 

30 activities would be temporary and recovery could be short-term to long-term. No permanent or 

31 population-level impacts to invertebrates are expected. Overall impacts from routine Program 

32 activities would range from negligible to moderate.

33

34 Small surface or subsurface hydrocarbon spills would be rapidly diluted and would likely 

35 result in only small localized, sublethal impacts to invertebrates. Large or CDE-level spills could 

36 affect a large number of benthic and pelagic invertebrates and their habitats. The location of the 

37 spill and the season in which the spill occurred would be important determinants of the impact 

38 magnitude of the spills. A large or CDE spill would likely contact shoreline areas, and benthic

39 invertebrates in sensitive intertidal and shallow subtidal habitats could experience large-scale 

40 lethal and long-term sublethal effects. In Alaska, local populations of intertidal organisms 

41 affected by such large spills could be measurably depressed for several years and oil could 

42 persist in shoreline sediments for decades (especially in the case of a CDE spill). However, large 

43 or CDE spills are unlikely to occur, and invertebrates typically have short generation times and 

44 should recover. 

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-374

1 4.4.8 Potential Impacts to Areas of Special Concern

2

3

4 4.4.8.1 Gulf of Mexico

5

6

7 4.4.8.1.1 Routine Operations.

8

9 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). National System MPAs in the Western and Central 

10 Planning Areas consist of the FGBNMS, Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve, 

11 Barataria Preserve, and a number of National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) (Table 3.9.1-1). MPAs 

12 would primarily be affected by pipeline landfalls and potentially by accidental oil spills 

13 occurring nearshore as well as large offshore oil spills. Impacts on the FGBNMS and NWRs are 

14 described below. De facto MPAs are primarily military use areas and are also discussed below.

15

16 National Marine Sanctuaries of Texas and Louisiana in the Western Gulf of Mexico 

17 Planning Area (Figure 3.9.1-1). Potential impacts on the FGBNMS resulting from site 

18 exploration and development activities are discussed in detail in (Section 4.4.6.2.1). Direct

19 impacts on the FGBNMS from bottom disturbance would be prevented by the Topographic 

20 Features Stipulation, which prohibits exploration and development activities and the deposition 

21 of drilling muds and cuttings in the vicinity of the FGBNMS. During the production phase, 

22 produced water discharges are not likely to impact the FGBNMS because of the Topographic 

23 Features Stipulation requiring large buffers between the FGBNMS and oil and gas development 

24 activities (Section 4.4.6.2.1).

25

26 New oil and gas production platforms could act as artificial reef habitat and potentially 

27 act as stepping stones allowing the establishment of invasive species in the FGBNMS 

28 (Section 4.4.6.2.1). However, there is no conclusive evidence this has occurred historically, and 

29 it is more likely that invasive species would establish at the FGBNMS even without the 

30 platforms, although the platforms may speed the process.

31

32 National Parks, National Seashores, Reserves, and Refuges. See Section 4.4.6.1.1 for 

33 a discussion of the potential impacts of the Program on coastal habitats. It is assumed that 

34 pipeline landfalls, shore bases, and waste facilities would not be located in National Parks, 

35 NWR, or National Estuarine Research Reserves because of their special status and protections. 

36 Consequently, impacts to these areas from oil and gas exploration and production activities are 

37 not expected to occur.

38

39 It is possible that shore bases and waste facilities may be located in one or more estuaries 

40 in the Western or Central GOM Planning Area. It is assumed that new shore bases and waste 

41 facilities would be constructed in existing developed or upland areas and would not be sited in 

42 coastal habitats such as barrier beaches or wetlands. Therefore, impacts on parks, seashores, 

43 refuges, and reserves are not likely to occur.

44

45 Trash and debris from various sources, including OCS operations, frequently wash up on 

46 beaches, which could affect Gulf Shores or Padre Island National Seashore. The discharge or 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-375

1 disposal of solid debris from OCS structures and vessels is prohibited, and assuming that 

2 operators comply with regulations, most potential impacts would be avoided, although some 

3 accidental loss of materials is inevitable. 

4

5 NPS lands, wildlife refuges, and research reserves could potentially be affected by 

6 increased boat and aircraft traffic associated with OCS oil and gas activities. Existing mitigation 

7 measures limit vessel speeds in inland waterways and aircraft altitudes over Areas of Special 

8 Concern. With these measures in place, most impacts on these Areas of Special Concern due to 

9 vessel and aircraft traffic would be avoided.

10

11 Military Uses. The Military Areas Stipulation applies to all blocks leased in military 

12 areas and requires lessees to coordinate their activities with the relevant military authorities and 

13 also states that the U.S. Government is not responsible for any accidents involving military 

14 operations. The Military Areas Stipulation reduces use conflicts and improves safety but does 

15 not reduce or eliminate the actual physical presence of oil and gas operations. Accidents and use 

16 conflicts involving oil and gas and military operations would be minimized or eliminated by 

17 adherence to the Military Areas Stipulation. Currently, both activities coexist in the GOM, and 

18 there has never been an accident involving the military and oil and gas lessees.

19

20

21 4.4.8.1.2 Accidents. It is assumed that up to 8 large spills (between 1,700 and 

22 5,300 bbl), up to 70 spills between 50 and 999 bbl, and up to 400 smaller spills between 1 and 

23 50 bbl could occur during the lease period under the proposed action. Small spills at the seafloor 

24 would rise in the water column but are not likely to contact the FGBNMS at concentrations toxic 

25 to marine life (see Section 4.4.6.2.1). Small platform spills and tanker spills at the ocean surface 

26 could penetrate the water column to documented depths of 20 m (66 ft) or more, which is within 

27 the depth range of the crests of some coral reefs and topographic features including the 

28 FGBNMS. However, at these depths, the contaminant concentrations are typically several orders 

29 of magnitude lower than those demonstrated to have an effect on marine organisms 

30 (MMS 2008a). Therefore, it is likely that only small concentrations of oil from surface spills 

31 would reach the FGBNMS (MMS 2008a). 

32

33 An oil spill reaching sensitive coastal habitats could impact National Parks, NWRs, 

34 National Estuarine Research Reserves, or National Estuary Program sites. Impacts could result 

35 from both oiling of the shoreline and mechanical damage during the cleanup process. Small or 

36 large spills (>1,000 bbl) would be rapidly diluted and degraded by natural processes and, given 

37 the small size of most spills, impacts to a significant area of the shoreline are unlikely. 

38

39 Catastrophic Discharge Event. This PEIS analyzes a CDE up to 7.2 million bbl in the 

40 GOM. It is possible that such a spill originating from outside the No Activity Zones established 

41 by the Topographic Features Stipulations could reach the vicinity of the FGBNMS. However, 

42 because of the tendency for oil components to rise toward the surface and to be diluted as they 

43 are transported by water currents, any impacts associated with a large or catastrophic spill 

44 reaching sensitive corals would most likely be sublethal. Hydrocarbons have been shown to 

45 have lethal and sublethal (reproduction, larval settlement, photosynthesis, and feeding) effects on 

46 corals, although no effects on corals following oil spills are also frequently reported (Loya and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-376

1 Rinkevich 1980; Bak 1987; Guzman et al. 1991; Dodge et al. 1995; Haapkyla et al. 2007). 

2 Corals have the capacity to recover quickly from hydrocarbon exposure. For example, 

3 Knap et al. (1985) found that when Diploria strigosa, a common massive brain coral at the 

4 Flower Garden Banks, was dosed with oil, it rapidly exhibited sublethal effects but also 

5 recovered quickly. However, larval stages of coral are far more sensitive than adults. Therefore, 

6 the impact magnitude of a spill is partly dependent on whether the spill occurs during a period of 

7 coral spawning. For lethal exposures, the community would likely recover once the area had 

8 been cleared of oil, although full recovery could take many years (Haapkvla et al. 2007). 

9 Consequently, it is anticipated that impacts of lethal concentrations of oil reaching coral reef or 

10 hard-bottom habitat would be long-term but temporary.

11

12 A CDE taking place near shore or in deeper water could affect coastal parks, reserves, 

13 and refuges if the oil was transported to these areas by currents. Impacts on parks, preserves, and 

14 refuges would depend on the size and specific location of the oil spill and the effectiveness of 

15 cleanup procedures. If a large volume of heavy oil were to reach these areas, that situation could 

16 result in park closure and reduced visitation. In general, oil spills affecting parks, refuges, and 

17 reserves would diminish their function by reducing habitat value for wildlife and aquatic biota 

18 and interrupting monitoring and research activities.

19

20 The impacts of oil spills on parks, preserves, and refuges could include death of wetland 

21 vegetation and associated wildlife, oil saturation and trapping by vegetation and sediments (thus 

22 causing it to become a chronic source of pollution), and mechanical destruction of the wetland 

23 area during cleanup. Spills that damage wetland vegetation protecting canal and waterway banks 

24 could accelerate erosion of those banks (see Section 4.4.6.1.1). Some areas may recover 

25 completely if proper remedial action was taken. Others may not recover completely. Oil could 

26 remain in some coastal substrates for decades, depending on the type of oil spilled, the amount 

27 present, sand grain size, the degree of penetration into the subsurface, the exposure to the 

28 weathering action of waves, and sand movement onto and off the shore. See Section 4.4.6.1.1

29 for a discussion of the potential impacts of oil spills on coastal habitats.

30

31

32 4.4.8.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

33

34

35 4.4.8.2.1 Routine Operations.

36

37 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). The Alaska Peninsula unit and Gulf of Alaska unit of 

38 the Alaska Maritime NWR are the only Federal MPAs in the vicinity of the Cook Inlet Planning 

39 Area. NWRs could primarily be affected by pipeline landfalls and potentially by accidental oil 

40 spills, as described below.

41

42 National Parks, National Forests, National Seashores, Reserves, and Refuges. 

43 Impacts on National Parks, Forests, Reserves, and Refuges could result from facilities developed 

44 to support offshore oil drilling and production, and could include effects from pipeline landfall; 

45 dredging and construction; and the construction of roads, processing and waste facilities, and 

46 onshore pipelines. In addition, subsistence hunting and fishing, which are permitted on all 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-377

1 refuges in Alaska, could be affected by oil and gas operations. It is assumed that pipeline 

2 landfalls, shore bases, and waste facilities would not be located in National Parks, National 

3 Forests, NWRs, or National Estuarine Research Reserves because of the special status and 

4 protections afforded these areas. See Section 4.4.6.1.2 for a discussion of the potential impacts 

5 of OCS oil and gas activities on coastal habitats. 

6

7 National Park Service (NPS) lands are potentially susceptible to impacts from activities 

8 related to OCS oil and gas development as a consequence of the Program in Cook Inlet. The 

9 potentially affected lands include the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, the Katmai 

10 National Park and Preserve, and Aniachak National Monument. Kenai Fjords National Park is 

11 east of Cook Inlet on the GOA, but it could be affected by an oil spill associated with OCS 

12 activities in Cook Inlet. 

13

14 Impacts from routine OCS operations could come from facilities developed to support oil 

15 drilling and production, and could include effects from pipeline landfalls, dredging, air pollution, 

16 and the construction of roads and new facilities. Onshore oil facilities are permissible only on 

17 private acreage within each national park land. All of these national parks, monuments, and 

18 preserves contain privately held acreage, and development of onshore oil support facilities is 

19 possible in these areas. Because of the more confined nature of Cook Inlet, OCS construction of 

20 facilities within the Cook Inlet Planning Area could have some negative effects on scenic values 

21 for some users of the Lake Clark and Katmai National Parks and Preserves, if the facilities were 

22 visible from shore or the air during flightseeing. 

23

24 Noise and vessel traffic associated with construction activities in offshore areas adjacent 

25 to park and refuge boundaries could temporarily disturb some wildlife and could negatively 

26 affect recreational values for park users. It is anticipated that noise generated by offshore 

27 construction activities would be at low levels, intermittent, and would not occur for more than a 

28 few months. Scenic values for some park users could be negatively affected in the long term by 

29 the presence of platforms visible from park areas. 

30

31 National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) in the vicinity of Cook Inlet are identified in 

32 Section 3.9.2.2. NWRs potentially affected by OCS activities in the Cook Inlet Planning Area 

33 include the Alaska Peninsula NWR, Becharof NWR, Kodiak NWR, Kenai NWR, and Izembek 

34 NWR. Section 22(g) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA) requires 

35 that new development on National Wildlife Refuge lands must be in accordance with the purpose 

36 for which the refuge was formed. Therefore, although development of onshore oil and gas 

37 support facilities is technically possible, such projects would be subject to intensive review. The 

38 potential effects of routine operations and accidental events on these NWRs are essentially the 

39 same as those discussed above for the NPS lands. Noise and vessel traffic associated with 

40 construction activities in offshore areas adjacent to park and refuge boundaries could temporarily 

41 disturb some wildlife and could negatively affect recreational values for park users. It is 

42 anticipated that noise generated by offshore construction activities would be at low levels, 

43 intermittent, and would not occur for more than a few months. Scenic values for some park 

44 users could be negatively affected in the long term by the presence of platforms visible from park 

45 areas. In addition, subsistence hunting and fishing are permitted on all refuges in Alaska and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-378

1 could, therefore, be affected by accidents and routine operations in the immediate vicinity of 

2 refuge properties.

3

4 The only national forest within the vicinity of the Cook Inlet Planning Area is the 

5 Chugach National Forest, which is located mainly on the eastern side of the Kenai Peninsula 

6 (Figure 3.9.2-1). Because there would be no OCS-related development, such as pipelines or 

7 other onshore facilities, within the Chugach National Forest, it would not be affected by routine 

8 OCS activities associated with lease sales in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. The Chugach 

9 National Forest also borders Prince William Sound and is close to Valdez. The Chugach 

10 National Forest is, therefore, potentially susceptible to effects of routine oil-related operations 

11 from transport and tanker loading of oil produced (OCS and non-OCS) in other regions (e.g., the 

12 Beaufort Sea Planning Area) and transported by pipeline to the Port of Valdez. Potential effects 

13 include increased noise and air pollution from tanker traffic.

14

15 Other Areas of Special Concern. There are multiple State parks and State recreation 

16 areas near the Cook Inlet Planning Area, many of which border Cook Inlet or are located in areas 

17 that could be contacted by accidental oil spills. Such areas include Captain Cook State 

18 Recreation Area, Clam Gulch State Recreation Area, Chugach State Park, Kachemak Bay State 

19 Park and State Wilderness Park, and Ninilchik State Recreation Area. In addition, the Kachemak 

20 Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve is located in Cook Inlet on the southern end of the 

21 Kenai Peninsula. Impacts from OCS activities would be similar to those described above for 

22 National Parks and Refuges. Existing protections and restrictions on uses should limit the direct 

23 terrestrial impacts from OCS activities on these areas. It is assumed that pipeline landfalls, shore 

24 bases, and waste facilities would not be located in the State parks and recreation areas. It is 

25 anticipated that noise generated by OCS offshore construction activities would be at low levels, 

26 intermittent, and would not persist for more than a few months at any one time. It is considered 

27 unlikely that these additional activities would noticeably affect wildlife or park user values 

28 compared to current (non-OCS) activities within the considered planning areas. There are no 

29 Military Use Areas in the Cook Inlet Planning Area; therefore, no conflicts between OCS 

30 activities and the military are expected to occur.

31

32

33 4.4.8.2.2 Accidents. Accidental oil spills could occur from land-based pipelines and 

34 facilities, vessels, and offshore platforms and pipelines. It is assumed that 2 small spills between 

35 50 and 999 bbl and 10 smaller spills between 1 and 50 bbl could occur under the proposed 

36 action. It is assumed that one large spill between 1,500 and 7,800 bbl could occur in Cook Inlet. 

37

38 Spills on land are not likely to affect National Parks, Refuges, or National Forests 

39 because pipelines and other oil and gas infrastructure would not likely be permitted in these 

40 areas. However, there are several NWRs and National Parks along the shorelines of the Cook 

41 Inlet Planning Area, as well as one National Estuarine Research Reserve, and coastal areas of all 

42 could be significantly affected by large or catastrophic spills. A section of the Chugach National 

43 Forest borders Turnagain Arm and could be affected by spills originating in Cook Inlet as well as 

44 tanker spills associated with the Port of Valdez. The Lake Clark National Park and Preserve has 

45 approximately 50 km (31 mi) of shoreline along Cook Inlet, including shoreline areas in Tuxedni 

46 and Chinitna Bays that are considered to contain sensitive habitats. Katmai National Park and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-379

1 Preserve also contains extensive shoreline in proximity to the Cook Inlet Planning Area and the 

2 Shelikof Strait, and it is also adjacent to Katmai Bay, which is considered a sensitive resource 

3 area. If a large amount of oil were to contact a National Park, visitation would be likely to 

4 decrease or be temporarily prohibited. The several NWRs located in and around Cook Inlet, 

5 such as the Kodiak NWR and the Alaska Maritime NWR, could also experience a loss of habitat 

6 value if they experienced heavy oiling from offshore spills. Site-specific evaluations would be 

7 conducted to fully evaluate potential spill trajectories and spill probabilities in a lease sale EIS. 

8

9 Several State parks and recreational areas border Cook Inlet and could be affected by 

10 accidental releases of oil spilled from onshore facilities and offshore drilling rigs. An oil spill 

11 contacting shoreline habitats could affect subsistence harvests in those parks in which recreation 

12 and subsistence hunting and fishing are allowed and could affect the number of park visitors. 

13 Impacts would depend primarily on the spill location, size, and time of year. 

14

15 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes the impacts of a CDE up to 

16 125,000 bbl in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. If a large volume of oil were to reach the shoreline 

17 following a catastrophic spill, NWRs could suffer a reduction in their primary function, which is 

18 to support wildlife and aquatic biota. Given the cold temperatures in Alaska, oil could 

19 contaminate nearshore refuge habitats for several years to decades and result in lethal and long20 term sublethal impacts to refuge biota. Impacts would depend primarily on spill location, spill 

21 size, and timing of the spill. In general, directly affected coastal fauna would include marine 

22 mammals; fishes that reproduce in, inhabit, or migrate through coastal areas; terrestrial mammals 

23 that forage on fish; and marsh and seabirds that use these habitats for nesting and/or foraging. 

24 Spilled oil could also affect subsistence harvests in those parks in which subsistence hunting and 

25 fishing are allowed. See Sections 4.4.6.1.2 and 4.4.6.1.3 for a description of potential impacts of 

26 catastrophic oil spills on coastal areas and biota. Oil could contaminate nearshore habitats for 

27 several years to decades and result in lethal and long-term sublethal impacts on refuge biota

28 (Short et al. 2007; Taylor and Reimer 2008; Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2010c). The 

29 degree of effects and length of recovery depend on a number of factors such as the type of oil, 

30 extent of biota exposure, substrate type, degree of sediment contamination, time of year, and 

31 species sensitivity (NOAA 1998; Hayse et al. 1992; Hoff 1995). Sheltered intertidal areas are 

32 particularly slow to recover. More than 20 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, intertidal 

33 communities were considered to be recovering, but had not yet fully recovered from the effects 

34 of the spill (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2010a). 

35

36

37 4.4.8.3 Alaska – Arctic

38

39

40 4.4.8.3.1 Routine Operations.

41

42 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and 

43 the Chukchi Sea unit of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge are the two Federal 

44 system MPAs in or adjacent to the Beaufort and Chukchi Planning Areas, and are described in 

45 Section 3.6.5.1. NWRs could primarily be affected by pipeline landfalls and potentially by 

46 accidental oil spills, as described below.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-380

1 National Forests, Parks and Refuges. There are no National Forests in the vicinity of 

2 the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Area; therefore, no impacts on U.S. Forest Service lands 

3 are expected. Impacts on NWRs could result from facilities developed to support offshore oil 

4 drilling and production, and could include effects from onshore pipelines and pipeline landfalls, 

5 dredging and construction, air pollution and the construction of roads, and processing and waste 

6 facilities. In addition, subsistence hunting and fishing, which are permitted on all NWRs in 

7 Alaska, could be affected by OCS activities. See Section 4.4.6.1.3 for a discussion of the 

8 potential impacts of the Program on coastal habitats. Oil facility development currently is 

9 prohibited on the ANWR and is discretionary on all other NWRs within Alaska. Although 

10 numerous refuge lands have been conveyed to private ownership and Native corporations, 

11 Section 22(g) of ANCSA requires that new development on these lands must be in accordance 

12 with the purpose for which the refuge was formed. Therefore, development of onshore oil and 

13 gas support facilities, though technically possible, would be subject to an exhaustive 

14 environmental review process. Therefore, it is currently considered unlikely that onshore oil and 

15 gas activities would be developed on refuge lands. Indirect impacts resulting from OCS 

16 activities, such as noise pollution or emissions associated with transportation of oil from adjacent 

17 planning areas, could occur but would be unlikely to have substantial effects on resources within 

18 refuge boundaries.

19

20 The Iñupiat Heritage Center, located in Barrow, Alaska, is the only NPS-managed area 

21 along the coast of the Beaufort and Chukchi Planning Areas. The area is already urbanized and 

22 would not be adversely affected by OCS activities. Although not an NPS land, the National 

23 Petroleum Reserve is managed by BLM and has a large shoreline component that borders the 

24 Chukchi Sea. Cape Krusenstern National Monument and the Bering Land Bridge National 

25 Preserve are south of the Chukchi Planning Area. Although oil transport through the Cape 

26 Krusenstern National Monument is permitted under the ANCSA and an existing road is present 

27 that could be used to access or create support facilities, such development is considered unlikely 

28 under the proposed action. Onshore oil and gas development within the boundaries of the Bering 

29 Land Bridge National Preserve is also considered to be unrealistic. Consequently, there are 

30 likely to be no effects in either of these National Parks from the proposed action.

31

32

33 4.4.8.3.2 Accidents. It is assumed that up to 3 large oil spills between 1,700 and 

34 5,100 bbl, up to 35 small spills (50 to 999 bbl) and up to 190 smaller spills (>1 and <50 bbl) 

35 could occur during the lease period under the proposed action. Oil spills can occur from offshore 

36 drilling platforms, from vessels, or from pipelines located onshore and offshore. OCS 

37 infrastructure and activities are not likely to be permitted in NPS lands or in NWRs. Therefore, 

38 impacts to these areas from onshore pipeline spills are not likely. While small oil spills would 

39 likely only have limited influence on potentially affected resources within these refuges, a large 

40 spill could result in more drastic effects on coastal habitats and fauna. 

41

42 Catastrophic Discharge Event. This PEIS analyzes the impacts of a CDE up to 

43 2.2 million bbl in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area and 3.9 million bbl in the Beaufort Sea 

44 Planning Area (Table 4.4.2-2). Large catastrophic oil spills from offshore pipelines or platforms

45 could potentially contact shoreline habitats and communities in NWRs and NPS lands. 

46 However, Cape Krusenstern National Monument and the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-381

1 are located more than 322 km (200 mi) south of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area and are therefore 

2 unlikely to be adversely affected by accidental spills occurring offshore in the Beaufort and 

3 Chukchi Seas. The Arctic NWR and the Chukchi Sea unit of the Alaska Maritime NWR would 

4 be susceptible to oil spilled from subsea pipelines or drilling platforms.

5

6 If a large volume of heavy oil were to reach the shoreline following a catastrophic spill, 

7 NWRs could suffer a reduction in their primary function which is to support wildlife and aquatic 

8 biota. Given the cold temperatures in Alaska, oil could contaminate nearshore refuge habitats for 

9 several years to decades and result in lethal and long-term sublethal impacts to refuge biota. 

10 Impacts would depend primarily on spill location, spill size, and timing of the spill. In general, 

11 directly affected coastal fauna would include marine mammals; fishes that reproduce in, inhabit, 

12 or migrate through coastal areas; terrestrial mammals that forage on fish; and marsh and seabirds 

13 that use these habitats for nesting and/or foraging. Spilled oil could also affect subsistence 

14 harvests in those parks in which subsistence hunting and fishing are allowed. See 

15 Section 4.4.6.1.3 for a description of potential impacts of catastrophic oil spills on coastal areas 

16 and biota.

17

18

19 4.4.8.4 Conclusion

20

21 Overall, impacts on areas of special concern resulting from routine Program activities are 

22 expected to be negligible to moderate because of the existing protections and use restrictions 

23 applicable to these areas. However, increased vessel and aircraft traffic and the construction of 

24 pipelines and platforms could have temporary and localized effects on wildlife and reduce the 

25 scenic value of National Parks and NWRs for some visitors. 

26

27 Impacts on areas of special concern from hydrocarbon spills are unlikely because most 

28 spills would be small. Should oil from large or CDE-level spills reach an area of special 

29 concern, the impacts would depend on the location and size of the spill, the type of product 

30 spilled, weather conditions, the type of area affected, the effectiveness of cleanup operations, and 

31 other environmental conditions at the time of the spill. Although unlikely, if oil from a large or 

32 CDE spill were to reach an area of special concern, coastal habitats and fauna, as well as 

33 subsistence use, commercial or recreational fisheries, and tourism, could be negatively affected

34 (especially in the case of a CDE spill). In Alaska, oil in some coastal habitats would likely 

35 persist for multiple years.

36

37

38 4.4.9 Potential Impacts on Population, Employment, and Income

39

40

41 4.4.9.1 Gulf of Mexico

42

43

44 4.4.9.1.1 Routine Operations. Under the proposed action alternative, between 200 and 

45 400 new platforms would be located in the GOM over the 40-year planning period. Using 

46 impact estimates provided by the MAG-PLAN Model (MMS 2006b), Table 4.4.9-1 shows total 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-382

1 TABLE 4.4.9-1 Average Annual 

2 Impacts of the Proposed Action 

3 (Alternative 1) on Regional 

Employment and Income 4 a

Area Employment Income

Alabama

Low

High

350

800

15

35

Florida

Low

High

950

2,150

45

95

Louisiana

Low

High

7,500

16,500

350

765

Mississippi

Low

High

225

525

10

25

Texas

Low

High

10,900

22,000

630

1,270

Total GOM region

Low

High

20,000

41,825

1,050

2,180

a Totals may not add due to rounding. All 

estimates are totals of direct, indirect, and 

induced impacts. Employment estimates 

are in employee years; personal income 

estimates are in millions of 2010 dollars.

Source: BOEMRE 2011.

5

6

7 (direct, indirect, and induced) employment and regional income for the Labor Market Areas 

8 (LMAs) in each State in the GOM coast region (see Section 3.10). Average annual impacts of 

9 the proposed action in the GOM coast region would be between 20,000 and 41,825 jobs, 

10 which would amount to less than 1% of total GOM coast regional employment. Between 

11 $1,050 million and $2,180 million in income would be produced. The largest employment 

12 impacts would be in Texas, ranging from 10,900 to 22,000, with smaller impacts in Louisiana, 

13 where the employment created would range from 7,500 to 16,500 jobs. Income impacts in these 

14 States would range between $630 million and $1,270 million in Texas and between $350 million 

15 and $765 million in Louisiana. Employment impacts are lower in the other GOM coast States;

16 the total number of jobs created would be between 950 and 2,150 in Florida, between 350 and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-383

1 800 in Alabama, and between 225 and 525 in Mississippi. Although only a small amount of 

2 OCS oil and gas activity is proposed for the Eastern Planning Area, economic impacts would 

3 occur in Florida associated with expenditures on material and equipment supplied by sectors 

4 located in Florida, and the and use of ports and infrastructure for the associated transportation.

5

6 The additional jobs would create small but noticeable increases in the population of these 

7 regions. Using a historically observed ratio of 2.59 persons per new job (MMS 2006b), 

8 population increases of between 28,231 and 56,980 would be expected in Texas on average in 

9 each year of the proposed action, with increases of between 19,425 and 42,735 occurring in 

10 Louisiana. Smaller increases in population of between 2,461 and 5,569 per new job would occur 

11 in Florida, with increases of between 907 and 2,072 in Alabama, and between 583 and 1,360 in 

12 Mississippi.

13

14 Installation and operation of new offshore oil and gas platforms have the potential to 

15 impact property values in coastal areas within viewing distances of offshore activities. However, 

16 although the extent of the impact of any given platform would vary according to distance to 

17 shore, location within a maximum viewing range, and regional visibility conditions, the impact 

18 of additional platforms on coastal property values in areas where there is substantial existing 

19 offshore oil and gas is likely to be relatively small. There are currently 3,679 offshore platforms 

20 in the Western and Central Planning Areas in Federal waters in the GOM. Under the proposed 

21 action alternative, between 200 and 450 platforms would be added over the 40-year planning 

22 period, an average of between five and ten platforms per year. It is also anticipated that between 

23 150 and 275 platforms would be removed over the same period. Although the location of 

24 additional offshore platforms is not known, with some new platforms conceivably located in 

25 areas of the GOM with relatively little existing oil and gas development, the majority of new 

26 platforms are likely to be located in areas already hosting existing platforms. Given these 

27 considerations, it is likely that the impacts of oil and gas development under the proposed action 

28 would only have a minor impact on property values in coastal areas in the GOM.

29

30

31 4.4.9.1.2 Accidents. Up to 8 large spills greater than 1,000 bbl, between 35 and 70 spills 

32 between 50 and 1,000 bbl, and up to 400 small spills less than 50 bbl could occur in the GOM 

33 from the proposed action. It is expected that many of these spills will occur in deepwater areas 

34 located away from the coast, based on the established trend for greater oil production activity to 

35 move into deepwater located for the most part at a substantial distance from the coast.

36

37 In previous oil spill analyses, there is a less than 0.5% probability that an oil spill greater 

38 than or equal to 1,000 bbl would reach the shores of the majority of coastal counties and parishes 

39 in Texas and Louisiana within 10 days of a spill occurring over the 40-yr leasing period in the 

40 Western and Central Planning Areas (BOEMRE 2005). Six counties in Texas and one parish in 

41 Louisiana have a 1–5% chance of an OCS offshore oil spill greater than or equal to 1,000 bbl 

42 reaching their shoreline within 10 days. BOEM also estimates that between 5 and 15 chemical 

43 spills associated with the OCS program are anticipated each year, with a small percentage of 

44 these associated with the proposed action. The majority of spills are expected to be less than 

45 50 bbl in size; a chemical spill of greater than or equal to 1,000 bbl as a result of the proposed 

46 action is very unlikely.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-384

1 The immediate socioeconomic impact of a larger oil spill would include the loss of 

2 employment, income, and property value; increased traffic congestion; increased cost of public 

3 service provision, and possible shortages of commodities or services. In the short term, the 

4 impacts of a spill are expected to be modest, measured in terms of projected cleanup 

5 expenditures and the number of people employed in cleanup and remediation activities. Longer6 term impacts may be more substantial if fishing, shrimping, oystering, and/or tourism were to 

7 suffer due to the real or perceived impacts of the spill, or if there were substantial changes to the 

8 energy industries in the region as a result of the spill.

9

10 The employment and regional income impact from an oil spill would likely be greatest in 

11 Texas and Florida, with the highest concentration of tourism-related employment occurring in 

12 Florida, particularly in the Miami and Tampa-St. Petersburg areas and the Houston-Galveston

13 areas. In the Central GOM Planning Area, the New Orleans area would also be affected due to 

14 their high concentration of tourism-related employment. Net employment impacts from a spill 

15 are not expected to exceed 1% of baseline employment for any LMA in any given year, even if 

16 they are included with employment associated with routine oil and gas development activities 

17 associated with the proposed action.

18

19 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE up to 7.2 million bbl 

20 (Table 4.4.2-2). The socioeconomic impact of a CDE would include the loss of employment, 

21 income, and possible shortages of commodities or services in both coastal and inland areas. In 

22 coastal areas, losses of property value and increased traffic congestion could also occur, with 

23 increases in the cost of public service provision also possible. In the short term, impacts of a 

24 CDE, measured in terms of projected cleanup expenditures and the number of people employed 

25 in cleanup and remediation activities, would be expected to be large. Longer-term impacts may 

26 also be substantial if fishing activities and tourism were to suffer as a result of the real or 

27 perceived impacts of the event, or if there were substantial changes to energy industries in the

28 region as a result of the event.

29

30

31 4.4.9.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

32

33

34 4.4.9.2.1 Routine Operations. Under the proposed action alternative, between 1 and 

35 3 new platforms would be located in Cook Inlet over the 40-year planning period. Table 4.4.9-2

36 shows total (direct, indirect, and induced) employment and regional income in Alaska and the 

37 rest of the United States. Average annual impacts of the proposed action in the Alaska region

38 would be between 302 and 575 jobs, which would amount to less than 5% of total Alaska 

39 employment. An additional 567 to 1,431 jobs would be created in the rest of the United States. 

40 Personal income would increase by between $25.4 million and $52.9 million annually in Alaska, 

41 and by between $27.0 million and $69.1 million in the rest of the United States.

42

43 Based on current trends, it is assumed that most of the workers directly associated with 

44 OCS oil and gas activity will work offshore or onshore in worker enclaves separated from local 

45 communities, and that most OCS workers will likely commute to work sites from Alaska‘s larger 

46 population centers or from outside the immediate area. It is also assumed that OCS jobs would 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-385

1 TABLE 4.4.9-2 Average Annual Impacts of 

2 the Proposed Action (Alternative 1) on 

Regional Employment and Income 3 a

Area Employment Income

Cook Inlet

 Low

 High

302

575

25.4

52.9

Rest of United States

 Low

 High

567

1,431

27.0

69.1

a All estimates are totals of direct, indirect, and 

induced impacts. Employment estimates are in 

employee years; labor income estimates are in 

millions of 2010 dollars. 

4

5

6 be available to the local populations in all areas, but that rural Alaskan employment in the 

7 petroleum industry, especially among Alaska Natives, will remain relatively low.

8

9 Many workers on oil rigs in the Cook Inlet Planning Area (and onshore oil and gas 

10 facilities on the Kenai Peninsula and the North Slope) currently live in Anchorage or on the 

11 Kenai Peninsula. The larger populations and more diverse economies of south central Alaska 

12 compared to other Alaskan communities will tend to lessen the potential effect of proposed 

13 leasing on their economies. As a result, employment generated by OCS activity in the Cook 

14 Inlet Planning Area at its peak is only expected to account for less than 5% of total Alaska 

15 employment.

16

17 Installation and operation of new offshore oil and gas platforms have the potential to 

18 impact property values in coastal areas within viewing distances of offshore activities. However, 

19 although the extent of the impact of any given platform would vary according to distance from 

20 shore, location within a maximum viewing range, and regional visibility conditions, the impact 

21 of additional platforms on coastal property values in areas where there is substantial existing 

22 offshore oil and gas is likely to be relatively small. Under the proposed action alternative, 

23 between one and three platforms would be added over the 40-yr planning period. It is also 

24 anticipated that between one and three platforms would be removed over the same period. 

25 Although the location of additional offshore platforms is not known, with some new platforms 

26 conceivably being located in areas of the Cook Inlet area, the majority of new platforms are 

27 likely to be located in the vicinity of areas already hosting existing platforms. Given these 

28 considerations, it is likely that the impacts of oil and gas development under the proposed action 

29 would only have a minor impact on property values in coastal areas in the Cook Inlet area.

30

31
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-386

1 4.4.9.2.2 Accidents. One large spill greater than 1,000 bbl, up to 3 spills between 50 bbl 

2 and 1,000 bbl, and up to 15 small spills less than 50 bbl could occur in the Cook Inlet Planning 

3 Area under the proposed action. Although an oil spill could occur anywhere in the lease sale 

4 area, cleanup-related employment would likely occur in the area directly affected, generally in 

5 locations remote from communities. The hiring of cleanup workers will likely draw from labor 

6 markets in both the region and the rest of Alaska. Oil spills will generate only temporary 

7 employment (and population) increases during cleanup operations, because such operations are 

8 expected to be of short duration. Employment generated by spills will be a function of the size 

9 and frequency of spills.

10

11 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE of 75 to 125 thousand bbl 

12 (Table 4.4.2-2). The socioeconomic impact of a CDE would include the loss of employment, 

13 income, and possible shortages of commodities or services in both coastal and inland areas. In 

14 coastal areas, losses of property value and increased traffic congestion could also occur, with 

15 increases in the cost of public service provision also possible. In the short term, impacts of a 

16 CDE, measured in terms of projected cleanup expenditures and the number of people employed 

17 in cleanup and remediation activities, would be expected to be large. Longer-term impacts may 

18 also be substantial if fishing activities and tourism were to suffer as a result of the real or 

19 perceived impacts of the event, or if there were substantial changes to energy industries in the

20 region as a result of the event.

21

22

23 4.4.9.3 Alaska – Arctic

24

25

26 4.4.9.3.1 Routine Operations. Under the proposed action alternative, between one and 

27 five new platforms would be located in the Chukchi Sea and one and four platforms in the 

28 Beaufort Sea over the 50-yr planning period. Table 4.4.9-3 shows the potential effects of the 

29 proposed action alternative in the Arctic region and the rest of the United States. Average annual 

30 impacts of the proposed action in the Arctic region would be between 1,466 to 3,646 jobs, which 

31 would amount to less than 1% of total Alaska employment. An additional 3,759 to 10,083 jobs 

32 would be created in the remainder of the United States. Personal income would increase by 

33 between $136.1 million and $329.8 million annually in the Arctic region and between 

34 $156.6 million and $398.2 million in the rest of the United States.

35

36 Most of the workers directly associated with OCS oil and gas activity will work offshore 

37 or onshore in worker enclaves separated from local communities, and most workers will likely 

38 commute to work sites from Alaska‘s larger population centers, including Anchorage and 

39 Fairbanks, or from outside Alaska (MMS 2006b). While OCS jobs would be available to the 

40 local populations in all areas, rural Alaskan employment in the petroleum industry, especially 

41 among Alaska Natives, would likely remain relatively low.

42

43 Employment in the North Slope oil and gas industry has little direct impact on the 

44 communities of the North Slope Borough. While actively working, most North Slope oil and gas 

45 workers stay in enclave housing separate from local communities, permanently residing in south

46 central Alaska (Anchorage, the Kenai Peninsula Borough, and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough), 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-387

1 TABLE 4.4.9-3 Average Annual Impacts of 

2 the Proposed Action (Alternative 1) on 

3 Regional and National Employment and 

Income 4 a

Area Employment Income

Beaufort Sea

 Low

 High

800

2,052

72.0

192.1

Chucki Sea

 Low

 High

667

1,594

64.1

137.7

Rest of United States

 Low

 High

3,759

10,083

156.6

398.2

a All estimates are totals of direct, indirect, and 

induced impacts. Employment estimates are in 

employee years; labor income estimates are in 

millions of 2007 dollars. 

5

6

7 or the Fairbanks area, and commute to their homes (or other locations) when not working. As 

8 population, employment, and income impacts affect the regional economies in which employees 

9 permanently reside, BOEM has not included these impacts in the discussion of impacts of the 

10 proposed action in the Arctic region.

11

12 The most important benefit of oil and gas development in the Arctic region is revenue 

13 from taxation of oil industry facilities. Although jurisdictions in the North Slope Borough and 

14 Northwest Arctic Borough are unable to tax offshore OCS facilities, the borough collects 

15 property tax revenue from new onshore pipelines and other facilities. The borough also receives 

16 indirect benefits from Alaska Native corporation investments in petroleum service companies. 

17 The effects of the proposed action on employment and income in Arctic region communities are 

18 likely to be significant, especially when combined with the continued decline in Prudhoe Bay 

19 and other North Slope production areas, and continued OCS production would allow 

20 jurisdictions in the Arctic region to maintain revenue collection from onshore facilities 

21 associated with continued offshore production.

22

23

24 4.4.9.3.2 Accidents. Up to 3 large spills greater than 1,000 bbl, 10 and 35 spills between 

25 50 and 1,000 bbl, and up to 190 small spills of less than 50 bbl could occur in the Beaufort and 

26 Chukchi Sea area from the proposed action. Although an oil spill could occur anywhere in the 

27 lease sale area, cleanup-related employment would likely occur in the area directly affected, 

28 generally in locations remote from communities. The hiring of cleanup workers would have a 

29 regional and State of Alaska emphasis. Oil spills will generate only temporary employment (and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-388

1 population) increases during cleanup operations, because such operations are expected to be of 

2 short duration. Employment generated by spills will be a function of the size and frequency of 

3 spills. Large spills of over 1,000 bbl would generate 60 to 90 jobs for up to 6 months and would 

4 generate moderate local effects (BOEMRE 2008).

5

6 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE of 1.4 to 2.2 million bbl in 

7 the Chukchi Sea and 1.7 to 3.9 million bbl in the Beaufort Sea (Table 4.4.2-2). The

8 socioeconomic impact of a CDE would include the loss of employment, income, and possible 

9 shortages of commodities or services in both coastal and inland areas. Losses of property value

10 could also occur in coastal communities, with increased cost of local public service provision

11 also possible. In the short term, impacts of a CDE, measured in terms of projected cleanup 

12 expenditures and the number of people employed in cleanup and remediation activities, would be

13 expected to be large. Longer-term impacts would likely be small, unless recreational activities 

14 and tourism suffered as a result of the real or perceived impacts of the event, or if there were 

15 substantial changes to energy production in the region as a result of the event.

16

17

18 4.4.9.4 Conclusions

19

20 Routine Program activities would result in negligible impacts in the GOM from small 

21 increases in population, employment, and income, and in minor impacts in the Alaska Planning 

22 Areas. In the GOM, increases in population, employment, and income would increase by less 

23 than 1% of baseline levels, and by less than 5% in Alaska.

24

25 Small accidental oil spills would have little socioeconomic impact. In contrast, large and 

26 especially CDE-level spills could result in the loss of employment, income, and possible 

27 shortages of commodities or services in both coastal and inland areas affected by the spill. 

28 Losses of property value could also occur in coastal communities, with increased cost of local 

29 public service provision also possible. In the short term, impacts of a CDE, measured in terms of 

30 projected cleanup expenditures and the number of people employed in cleanup and remediation 

31 activities, would be expected to be large. Longer-term impacts would likely be small, unless 

32 recreational activities and tourism suffered as a result of the real or perceived impacts of the 

33 event, or if there were substantial changes to energy production in the region as a result of the 

34 accidental spill; this would be more likely in the event of a CDE spill.

35

36

37 4.4.10 Potential Impacts to Land Use and Infrastructure

38

39 The development of oil and gas facilities within the GOM, the Cook Inlet, and the Arctic 

40 would have both direct and indirect impacts on existing and future land use, development 

41 patterns, and infrastructure. Impacts of routine activities of the Proposed Action Alternative are 

42 presented below. These routine activities include seismic explorations and exploratory drilling, 

43 onshore and offshore construction, normal operations, and decommissioning. Impacts on land 

44 use and infrastructure potentially resulting from an accident (an oil spill or release) occurring in 

45 the three areas also are presented. In general, the nature and magnitude of these impacts would 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-389

1 depend upon the level and location of new construction, the degree to which the area is already 

2 developed, and, in the case of accidental spills, the size and location of the spill.

3

4 Table 4.4.10-1 provides a summary of the resource receptors that pertain to routine 

5 activities. As shown in this table, potential receptors include the following:

6

7 • Land use categorization,

8

9 • Land use plans and initiatives,

10

11 • Development patterns, and

12

13 • Onshore infrastructure.

14

15 Conceptual models illustrated in Figures 4.4.10-1 through 4.4.10-3 show how various 

16 activities associated with seismic surveys, onshore and offshore construction, and normal oil and 

17 gas operations may impact land use, development patterns, and infrastructure. These figures are 

18 applicable to the GOM, the Cook Inlet, and the Arctic. 

19

20 As shown in these figures, the potential effects of oil and gas activities typically include 

21 the following: 

22

23 • Incompatibility with local land use/comprehensive planning patterns,

24

25 • Incompatibility with existing/planned development,

26

27 • Loss of use (intended or perceived) to existing landowners or users, and

28

29

30 TABLE 4.4.10-1 Impacting Factors Associated with Each Phase of Oil and Gas 

Activities 31 a

O&G Activities Phase

Exploration

Resource Receptor 

Category Potentially 

Affected

Seismic 

Survey

Exploratory 

Wells

Development/

Construction

Production/

Normal 

Operations Decommissioning

Land use categorization I I X I X

Land use plans/initiatives I I X I X

Development patterns I I X I X

Onshore infrastructure I I X I X

a

I = Indirect impacts are anticipated; X = Both direct and indirect impacts are anticipated.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-390

1

2 FIGURE 4.4.10-1 Conceptual Model for Potential Direct and Indirect Effects of Seismic Survey Activities on Land Use, Development 

3 Patterns, and Infrastructure
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-391

1

2 FIGURE 4.4.10-2 Conceptual Model for Potential Direct and Indirect Effects of Onshore/Offshore Construction Activities on 

3 Land Use, Development Patterns, and Infrastructure
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-392

1

2 FIGURE 4.4.10-3 Conceptual Model for Potential Direct and Indirect Effects of Normal Operations on Land Use, Development 

3 Patterns, and Infrastructure
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-393

1 • Potential changes to the physical and/or infrastructural composition of the 

2 coast.

3

4 Each of these impacts is discussed in the context of seismic explorations, construction of 

5 onshore and offshore facilities, normal operations, and decommissioning. A more general 

6 discussion of impacts is provided for accidental releases or spills.

7

8 For the purpose of this discussion, land use refers to the activity that occurs on a specific 

9 area of land and within the structures that occupy it, whereas zoning regulations include such 

10 things as requirements for building size, bulk, and density. General land use is assumed to be the 

11 primary factor in determining existing and future development decisions. Specific zoning 

12 regulations were not evaluated for areas located within the GOM, the Cook Inlet, or the Arctic 

13 due to the large scale of the planning areas. Individual environmental assessments generally 

14 would account for localized regulations.

15

16 In addition, for the purposes of this discussion, intended land use is that prescribed by 

17 regulations or formalized land use plans. For instance, if a parcel of land is dedicated as 

18 agricultural land, the intended activities likely would include farming, animal husbandry, or a 

19 combination of rural activities. The actual use, however, may differ. For the purpose of this 

20 evaluation, ―actual use‖ is the manner in which people physically use the land that may or may 

21 not be regulated or prescribed by laws or formal plans. Instead, the use may involve traditional 

22 practices or activities occurring for long periods of time.

23

24

25 4.4.10.1 Gulf of Mexico

26

27 As indicated in Table 4.4.1-1, potentially available oil includes a range of 2.7 to 

28 5.4 billion barrels (Bbbl) within the GOM, along with 12–24 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of natural 

29 gas. In order to provide for production of these resources, a number of routine activities are 

30 necessary. As previously indicated, these activities have the potential to impact existing and 

31 future land use, development patterns, and infrastructure.

32

33 The following analysis provides a description of those impacts that would occur on land 

34 use within the Western and Central Planning Areas. No additional or new development is 

35 anticipated to occur within the Eastern Planning Area.

36

37

38 4.4.10.1.1 Routine Operations. Impacts from routine activities including exploration, 

39 development, production, and decommissioning are presented below.

40

41 Seismic Explorations and Exploratory Drilling. Activities associated with exploration 

42 typically include a seismic survey, exploratory well construction, and aircraft and vessel traffic 

43 (see Figure 4.4.10-1).

44

45 Local Land Use/Comprehensive Planning and Development Patterns. Seismic 

46 explorations and exploratory drilling would not impact land use, development patterns, and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-394

1 infrastructure directly, as a majority of the activities would be located offshore. In general, 

2 existing and future land use categorizations would remain unchanged, along with current 

3 development patterns. Existing and planned activities associated with local planning initiatives 

4 and plans likely would not be hindered, as the jurisdiction of these plans typically would not 

5 extend to the offshore activities. State and Federal planning initiatives, such as the National 

6 Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program, would generally be consistent with seismic surveys 

7 and exploratory drilling due to the need for prioritizing coastal-dependent uses (see 

8 Section 3.11.1 for more information on this program).

9

10 Loss of Use to Existing Landowners or Users. Seismic explorations and exploratory 

11 drilling activities would not impact access or use of a particular land area. Some safety-related 

12 temporary restrictions on access may be necessary both onshore and offshore; however, these 

13 restrictions likely would be temporary, lasting only as long as the exploration activities, with 

14 access restrictions lifted afterwards.

15

16 In addition, the use of individual properties may be affected indirectly if excessive noise 

17 and air emissions generated by survey equipment/vessels and onshore/offshore vehicular and air 

18 traffic (e.g., helicopters and automobiles) were to occur, or if a small increase in the amount of 

19 trash and debris washing ashore were to result from exploration. These occurrences may cause a 

20 temporary disturbance or annoyance among particular landholders or users and thereby interfere 

21 with their intended or actual use of the land. These impacts would be temporary in nature due to 

22 the short time frame of these activities. The level of impact would depend on the specific 

23 location of the exploration activities within the GOM, but generally would be anticipated to be 

24 minimal.

25

26 Physical and/or Infrastructural Composition. While additional infrastructure, such as 

27 machinery and staging area improvements, may be needed to accommodate equipment and 

28 workers associated with the exploration activities, the increase likely would be negligible at this 

29 stage of oil and gas development. In general, existing infrastructure within the GOM would 

30 likely be able to accommodate activities associated with exploration (see Section 3.11.1 for 

31 further information regarding existing GOM infrastructure).

32

33 Onshore and Offshore Construction. Impacts on land use, development patterns, and 

34 infrastructure associated with onshore and offshore construction are presented below. As 

35 indicated in Figure 4.4.10-2, activities associated with this phase include production well 

36 placement, pipeline placement, onshore construction, and aircraft and vessel traffic. Similar to 

37 the exploration phase, these activities have the potential to impact local land use and 

38 comprehensive planning and existing and planned development; access and use of particular 

39 properties; and the physical and infrastructural makeup of the GOM as pertaining to emissions, 

40 waste, noise, and traffic; each is discussed below.

41

42 Local Land Use/Comprehensive Planning and Development Patterns. As indicated in 

43 Section 3.11.1, a number of onshore and offshore facilities are associated with the development 

44 of offshore oil and gas. Among these are ports, ship and shipbuilding yards, support and 

45 transport, pipelines, pipe coating yards, natural gas processing and storage, refineries, 

46 petrochemical plants, and waste management facilities. Current BOEM data suggests that more 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-395

1 than 3,900 offshore production facilities are located within the GOM within Federal waters. 

2 Most of these facilities are located within the Western and Central Planning Areas.

3

4 According to previous government documents, a steady pace of offshore leasing has 

5 persisted in the GOM for nearly six decades with the first Federal lease sale in 1954

6 (MMS undated). Consequently, land use categorizations in the Western and Central Planning 

7 Areas often would be able to accommodate this type of industry. Therefore, negligible impacts 

8 on land use categorizations (i.e., receptor) are predicted by the continuation of leasing and 

9 subsequent exploration and development activities in the Western and Central GOM Planning 

10 Areas. In addition, the development of oil and gas facilities likely would be compatible with 

11 existing local land use, zoning, and comprehensive planning in these areas. Land use likely 

12 would evolve over time, with most changes occurring as a result of general regional growth 

13 rather than specific activities associated with the production of oil and gas (BOEMRE 2011).

14

15 As a result of the DWH event, the overall climate for development of oil and gas has 

16 been altered in response to a recent suspension and changes in Federal requirements for drilling 

17 safety in the whole of the GOM (BOEMRE 2011a). In some areas of the GOM, for instance, 

18 local planning initiatives have been drafted in response to the recent event that could impact the 

19 construction of new and/or infill facilities. Some of these initiatives focus on the economic 

20 diversification of the GOM coast, rather than upon oil and gas activities, while other strategies 

21 focus on the investment of monies for necessary human services (Restore the Gulf 2010b). In 

22 this manner, perceptions about the spill may influence future decisions regarding the need for oil 

23 and gas investments, improvements to existing infrastructure, and the construction of new oil and 

24 gas facilities.

25

26 Likewise, individual businesses and organizations have adapted to the altered, post-DWH 

27 environment. For instance, some companies have removed a portion of their equipment, and a 

28 substantial decrease in helicopter flights and servicing of rigs has occurred. Companies have 

29 trimmed budgets by cutting hours and salaries of workers; associated support services, such as 

30 chemical suppliers and welders, also have been affected by the DWH event.

31

32 The effects of this decreased demand have rippled through the various infrastructure 

33 categories (e.g., fabrication yards, shipyards, port facilities, pipecoating facilities, gas processing 

34 facilities, and waste management facilities) and have affected the oil and gas support sector 

35 businesses (e.g., drilling contractors, offshore support vessels, helicopter hubs, and mud/drilling 

36 fluid/lubricant suppliers) (BOEMRE 2011a). Land use has been impacted indirectly through 

37 various economic incentives, compliance with permitting requirements, and the lack of use of 

38 existing facilities. As indicated in a 2011 lease sale, some locations offered a 30% reduction in 

39 rental rates in order to keep businesses (BOEMRE 2011a). Actions of this nature influence the 

40 overall development pattern. As a consequence, BOEM anticipates monitoring the overall oil 

41 and gas development climate as it pertains to the DWH event (BOEMRE 2011a).

42

43 If new infrastructure is needed onshore, some developments may be subject to local, 

44 State, and/or other Federal permitting and regulations. Within the Western and Central Planning 

45 Areas, infill development likely would occur in areas already established for oil and gas 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-396

1 development. Specific timelines and requirements would vary by location, as the BOEM

2 typically is not the permitting or regulating agency for development activities that occur onshore. 

3

4 Loss of Use to Existing Landowners or Users. In addition to receiving proper permitting 

5 and approvals, onshore and offshore construction generally would not interfere with or prevent 

6 use by existing owners or users within areas of immediate development. During construction 

7 activities, a temporary loss of access to some areas may be required for safety reasons, with 

8 access restored upon completion of the activities. Some users of surrounding land may be 

9 inconvenienced by closure or restrictions on access routes, as well. Permanent loss of use is not

10 anticipated. If new land were necessary in order to construct onshore facilities, the acquisition 

11 would follow all pertinent local, State, and Federal requirements.

12

13 In addition, the use of individual properties in the vicinity of the construction activities 

14 may be affected indirectly if excessive noise and air emissions generated by the construction 

15 equipment and onshore/offshore vehicular and air traffic (e.g., helicopters and automobiles) were 

16 to occur, or if a small increase in the amount of trash and debris washing ashore were to result 

17 from the activities. These occurrences may cause a temporary disturbance or annoyance among 

18 particular landholders or users, thereby inhibiting the intended or actual use of a property. The 

19 level of impact would depend on the specific location within the GOM, but generally would be 

20 anticipated to be minimal.

21

22 Physical and/or Infrastructural Composition. Physical land disturbance also would 

23 occur in locations where new facilities are needed. As indicated in Table 4.4.1-1, the Western 

24 and Central Planning Areas may require up to 12 new pipeline landfalls, four to six new pipe 

25 yards, and the potential for up to 12 new natural gas processing facilities. Approximately 

26 3,862–12,070 km (2,400–7,500 mi) of new pipeline could be needed, as well.

27

28 The creation of pipeline landfalls could involve such activities as clearing land, preparing 

29 a ROW, and digging and backfilling trenches. These activities could alter the physical 

30 composition of the landscape, thus potentially limiting the intended use of a parcel unless located 

31 in existing utility ROWs. Likewise, the construction of new shore bases and waste facilities 

32 could involve, but would not be limited to, the preparation of a site through grading and clearing, 

33 excavations, and foundation building. As with a pipeline, these types of activities would alter the 

34 existing landscape and, depending on the scale and location, could alter the intended use of a 

35 parcel. While these changes would be necessary in some locations within the GOM, the 

36 activities associated with the oil and gas construction would not likely cause an extensive change 

37 to existing development patterns; as such, the impacts would be anticipated to be minimal.

38

39 The construction of more permanent facilities could be a positive impact or a negative 

40 impact depending on the specific location within the GOM. For instance, where new roads 

41 would provide additional routes and capacity for coastline travel, they may be perceived as a 

42 positive impact by some stakeholders. However, if the same roadways added large traffic 

43 volumes to existing roadways that already were over capacity, the construction could be seen as 

44 a negative impact.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-397

1 Additional indirect impacts include those associated with climate change. Siting of new 

2 facilities may account for potential changes resulting from rises in sea level, increased storm 

3 frequency and intensity, and temperature changes. Figure 4.4.10-4 provides an illustration of the 

4 potential sea rise levels in the GOM. Potential solutions to account for these changes include 

5 facility relocation, the construction of seawalls and storm surge barriers, dune reinforcement, and 

6 land acquisitions to create buffer areas (IPCC 2007).

7

8 Consequently, indirect impacts on land use, development patterns, and infrastructure 

9 could include locating facilities further inland and/or strengthening the foundations or building 

10 materials of existing facilities. These actions potentially could increase costs associated with 

11 development or lead to the construction of new facilities rather than the reuse or expansion of 

12 existing properties associated with oil and gas production. These decisions may be influenced by 

13 the potential for increased flooding and/or erosion.

14

15 Routine Operations. Routine operation activities would consist of production well 

16 operation, onshore facility operation, and vessel and aircraft traffic, and would also include the 

17 transport of oil from offshore to onshore locations using ships or pipelines (see Figure 4.4.10-3). 

18 Potential impacts associated with these activities would range in extent from negligible to 

19 minimal.

20

21 Local Land Use/Comprehensive Planning and Development Patterns. Once in 

22 operation, negligible to minimal impacts are anticipated to result on land use, development 

23 patterns, and infrastructure, because a majority of the activities would be located offshore. As 

24 previously indicated, land use likely would evolve over time, with most changes occurring as a 

25 result of general regional growth rather than through activities associated with oil and gas 

26 production (BOEMRE 2011a). Some regions within the GOM may be impacted to a greater 

27 extent than others depending on the site-specific conditions.

28

29 Loss of Use to Existing Landowners or Users. Once the new offshore oil and gas 

30 facilities were in operation, temporary or permanent loss of use is not anticipated. As indicated 

31 in Section 3.11.1, many facilities already are located within the GOM to support oil and gas 

32 development. At times, some access to particular areas may be restricted within surrounding 

33 lands to accommodate a brief alteration in normal operations, such as an emergency response. 

34 These impacts would be limited and temporary.

35

36 Similar to construction, the use of individual properties in the vicinity of the operating 

37 platforms may be affected indirectly if excessive noise and air emissions were generated from 

38 equipment and onshore/offshore vehicular and air traffic (e.g., helicopters and automobiles), or if 

39 a small increase in the amount of trash and debris washing ashore were to result from the 

40 activities. These occurrences may cause disturbances or annoyance among particular 

41 landholders or users, thereby inhibiting the intended or actual use of a property. The level and 

42 extent of impact would depend on the specific location within the GOM, but generally would be 

43 anticipated to be minimal.

44

45 Physical and/or Infrastructural Composition. To the extent possible, existing facilities 

46 would be used to support activities under new leases, and new facilities would be built only 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences 4-398

12 FIGURE 4.4.10

-4 Coastal Vulnerability Index
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-399

1 where necessary, which would tend to limit the potential to create lasting changes to the physical 

2 and/or infrastructural makeup of the GOM during operations.

3

4 Decommissioning. Typical activities during the decommissioning/reclamation phase 

5 could include, but are not limited to, the closure of all wells, removal of access roads (not 

6 maintained or intended for other uses) and associated facility sites, and revegetation. These 

7 activities have the potential to directly impact land use, development patterns, and infrastructure.

8

9 Impacts associated with decommissioning, however, generally would be site-specific. In 

10 some cases, return to pre-exploration and preconstruction conditions may not be feasible.

11

12 Local Land Use/Comprehensive Planning and Development Patterns. Depending on 

13 the location of the production wells and associated infrastructure, decommissioning activities 

14 onshore may be regulated by local land use, zoning, and comprehensive planning initiatives or 

15 requirements. The continued use of the facilities after production could impact planned 

16 development in a positive manner, either by providing an opportunity for reuse of facilities or 

17 allowing for the potential for additional or future oil and gas development.

18

19 Loss of Use to Existing Landowners or Users. No permanent loss of use is anticipated

20 to occur during the decommissioning/reclamation phase. Some temporary loss may occur if road 

21 or area closures are necessary to accommodate equipment, workers, or specific activities 

22 associated with this type of process. Access typically would be restored to its preconstruction or 

23 operations state.

24

25 In addition, the use of individual properties in the vicinity of the activities may be 

26 affected indirectly if excessive noise and air emissions generated by the decommissioning 

27 equipment, activities, and onshore/offshore vehicular and air traffic (e.g., helicopters and 

28 automobiles) were to occur, or if a small increase in the amount of trash and debris washing 

29 ashore were to result from the activities. These occurrences may cause a temporary disturbance 

30 or annoyance among particular landholders or users, thereby inhibiting the intended or actual use 

31 of a property. The level of impact would depend on the specific location within the GOM, but 

32 generally would be anticipated to be minimal.

33

34 Physical and/or Infrastructural Composition. In addition, potential changes to the 

35 physical and infrastructural makeup of the GOM coast could occur. Any equipment added may 

36 be removed; defunct equipment also could be removed. These alterations would be site-specific 

37 and the extent of their impact likely could range from negligible to minimal with regard to the 

38 existing composition of land use and infrastructure.

39

40

41 4.4.10.1.2 Accidents. Oil spills are the principal accidental impact-causing event. If oil 

42 spills were to occur and were to contact the coast, overall impacts on land use and existing 

43 infrastructure typically would be minor. Approximately 8 large spills, 35–70 medium-sized 

44 spills, and 200–400 small spills are anticipated to occur in the GOM as a result of new 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-400

development (see Table 4.4.2-1).14 1 Oil spilled in offshore areas usually is localized and has a 

2 low probability of contacting coastal areas, because much of the oil volatilizes or is dispersed by 

3 currents (MMS 2008a). In most cases, coastal or nearshore spills would have short-term adverse 

4 effects on coastal infrastructure requiring cleanup of any oil or chemicals spilled (MMS 2006a).

5

6 Potential impacts on land use and existing infrastructure would likely include ―stresses of 

7 the spill response on existing infrastructure, direct land-use impact (such as impacts of oil 

8 contamination to a recreational area or to agricultural land), and restrictions of access to a 

9 particular area, while the cleanup is being conducted‖ (MMS 2007c). These impacts generally 

10 would be temporary and localized. However, as shown by recent events in the GOM (i.e., the 

11 Deepwater Horizon event), the degree of impact is influenced by many factors including, but not 

12 limited to, spill location, spill size, type of material spilled, prevailing wind and current 

13 conditions, the vulnerability and sensitivity of the land use and infrastructure, and response 

14 capability.

15

16 Catastrophic Discharge Event. In addition to small and large releases, the PEIS 

17 analyzes the impacts of a CDE of 0.9 to 7.2 million bbl in size (Table 4.4.2-2). While no direct 

18 major land use impacts would be expected following a CDE, post-spill habitat restoration efforts 

19 could result in enhanced barrier islands and wetlands. A number of indirect effects may result, 

20 including adaptations in commercial industries, such as fishing and tourism, fluctuating 

21 economic patterns, and changes in demographic distributions; all of these impacts could affect 

22 land use or development patterns by altering spending patterns of consumers and developers. 

23 Following the DWH event, perceptions regarding emergency planning have created a need for 

24 future planning and accounting for potential events of greater magnitude than typically 

25 anticipated. Trickle-down effects of the DWH event may include more stringent safety protocols 

26 in the operation and construction of infrastructure, which may include onshore facilities as well 

27 as offshore facilities. Similar types of effects would be anticipated if a catastrophic discharge 

28 event were to occur during the life of the Program.

29

30

31 4.4.10.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

32

33 New oil and gas production is anticipated in the Cook Inlet, an area previously used for 

34 offshore production. As indicated in Table 4.4.1-3, oil production is anticipated to include a 

35 range of 0.1 to 0.2 Bbbl within south central Alaska; currently no active Federal leases are 

36 located within the Inlet. However, 16 active offshore producing platforms are located within the 

37 Cook Inlet in State submerged land. These platforms are served by more than 320 km (200 mi) 

38 of undersea gas and oil pipelines, as well as onshore facilities (see Section 3.11.2).

39

40 A number of routine activities would be necessary to provide for additional production; 

41 these activities have the potential to impact existing and future land use, development patterns, 

42 and infrastructure. This analysis of impacts, therefore, focuses solely on new production within 

43 the Cook Inlet.

 

14 As indicated in Section 4.4.2.1, large spills are categorized as those that result in over 1,000 barrels of oil being 

released; medium-sized are those between 50 and 1,000 barrels, and small spills are those under 50 barrels. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-401

1 4.4.10.2.1 Routine Operations. 

2

3 Seismic Explorations and Exploratory Drilling. As previously noted, activities 

4 associated with exploration typically include a seismic survey, exploratory well construction, and 

5 aircraft and vessel traffic (Figure 4.4.10-1). The impacts resulting from these activities are 

6 discussed below.

7

8 Local Land Use/Comprehensive Planning and Development Patterns. Seismic 

9 explorations and exploratory drilling would not directly impact land use, development patterns, 

10 and infrastructure within the Cook Inlet, because a majority of the activities would be located 

11 offshore. During this phase, existing and future land use categorizations would remain largely 

12 unchanged, along with current development patterns.

13

14 In general, activities to support exploration would be located onshore within existing 

15 developments in order to act as staging areas for the seismic surveys and exploratory wells. 

16 Temporary onshore service bases could be needed to support offshore exploratory drilling 

17 operations. These bases would transfer materials between land and the offshore drilling rigs. In 

18 addition, supply vessels and helicopters would be used to shuttle personnel, equipment, and 

19 supplies. Existing facilities generally would be used within the Cook Inlet, if they were available 

20 in the selected location for exploration; if necessary, new facilities would be built, or 

21 prefabricated modules could be moved to the base of the exploration activities (Kenai Peninsula 

22 Borough 2008).

23

24 Loss of Use to Existing Landowners or Users. Activities associated with seismic 

25 explorations and exploratory drilling could impact access or use of a particular land area, 

26 although to a minimal extent. Some temporary onshore and offshore access restrictions could be 

27 necessary for safety reasons; however, these restrictions likely would be temporary, lasting only 

28 as long as the exploration activities.

29

30 The perception of loss of land or use, however, might increase among tribal 

communities,15 31 local inhabitants, and visitors within the Cook Inlet. As offshore exploration 

32 includes the temporary siting of large drilling rigs and discharges of drilling muds and cuttings, 

33 some people using the coastal area for subsistence hunting and gathering or for recreation and 

34 tourism might perceive the effects of the drilling as a disruption to their regular activities 

35 (see Sections 4.4.13 and 4.4.14 for a further discussion of subsistence activities, Section 4.4.12

36 for a discussion of recreation and tourism, and Section 4.4.3.2 for a discussion of water quality). 

37 If the perceived disruption or ―nuisance‖ becomes too intense, users may relocate to other parts 

38 of the Inlet in order to conduct their regular activities in anticipation of the new oil and gas 

39 activities. Thus, the actual use of the land may be impacted, even if the intended land use 

40 designation or categorization is not altered. Within the Cook Inlet, this impact would be 

41 anticipated to be minimal, due to the presence of the existing oil and gas industry.

 

15 Approximately 8.9% of all land within the Kenai Peninsula Borough is owned by Native Village and Regional 

Corporations. Large tracts of this type of land surround Nanwalek, Port Graham, Tyonek, Ninilchik, Seldovia,

and Kenai. Some of the parcels have been used for logging, oil and gas extraction, and mining (Kenai Peninsula 

Borough 2005).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-402

1 In addition, the use of individual properties in the vicinity of the exploration activities 

2 may be affected indirectly if excessive noise and air emissions generated by the exploratory 

3 equipment, activities, and onshore/offshore vehicular and air traffic (e.g., helicopters and 

4 automobiles) were to occur, or if a small increase in the amount of trash and debris washing 

5 ashore were to result from the activities. These occurrences may cause a temporary disturbance 

6 or annoyance among particular landholders or users, thereby inhibiting the intended or actual use 

7 of a property. The level of impact would depend on the specific location within the Cook Inlet, 

8 but generally would be anticipated to be minimal.

9

10 Physical and/or Infrastructural Composition. As noted in Table 4.4.1.2-1, 

11 approximately 4–12 exploration wells would be drilled within south central Alaska. Due to the 

12 existing oil and gas infrastructure already present, a minimal amount of additional machinery and 

13 staging area improvements would be needed in order to accommodate equipment and workers 

14 associated with exploration activities.

15

16 Onshore and Offshore Construction. Onshore and offshore construction could impact 

17 local land use and comprehensive planning and existing and planned development; access and 

18 use of particular properties; the physical and infrastructural composition of the Cook Inlet; and 

19 existing conditions as they pertain to emissions, waste, noise, and traffic (see Figure 4.4.10-2).

20

21 As indicated in Section 4.1.1-2, construction activities often include production well 

22 placement, pipeline placement, onshore construction, and aircraft and vessel traffic. Per the 

23 proposed development scenario within south central Alaska, construction of approximately one

24 to three new platforms is anticipated, along with 40–241 km (25–150 mi) of new offshore

25 pipeline and 80–169 km (50–105 mi) of onshore pipeline. Up to one new pipeline landfall also 

26 may be needed, as indicated in Table 4.4.1.1-3. Potential impacts of these activities are 

27 presented below.

28

29 Local Land Use/Comprehensive Planning and Development Patterns. Due to a long 

30 history of oil and gas development, existing land use categorizations in Cook Inlet often would 

31 be able to accommodate new leases for the proposed development scenario. As indicated in 

32 Section 4.4.1.2, existing infrastructure would be used to the extent possible, limiting the need for 

33 the acquisition of new sites for development. Therefore, negligible to minor impacts on land use 

34 categorizations (i.e., receptors) are predicted by the addition of new leases and subsequent 

35 construction activities.

36

37 Loss of Use to Existing Landowners or Users. Onshore and offshore construction 

38 generally would not interfere with or prevent use by existing owners or users within areas 

39 already used for oil and gas. As previously indicated, the use of existing facilities generally 

40 would be preferred over new construction. However, during construction activities, a temporary 

41 loss of access for some users may occur, even within an existing oil and gas development area. 

42 Restrictions on access may be put in place for safety reasons or to allow certain activities to 

43 occur. Depending on the location of the activities, the restrictions would be lifted after the 

44 completion of construction.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-403

1 Likewise, some users of surrounding land may be inconvenienced by closure or 

2 restrictions on access routes or within areas used for subsistence activities. For example, within 

3 the Cook Inlet, as in other parts of Alaska, air carriers generally provide a large share of the 

4 cargo and passenger service to and within the State. Water transport, especially for large and 

5 heavy materials, also is an important component of the transportation network. Activities related 

6 to the construction may impact Alaska‘s air routes, air-terminal facilities, and barge-cargo 

7 services, causing delays or changes in scheduling or service (MMS 2002a). Consequently, the 

8 perceived impact associated with these restrictions or closures to access routes or land areas may 

9 weigh more heavily on permanent communities using surrounding lands or routes for subsistence 

10 activities or for daily employment than on temporary visitors or tourists.

11

12 While plans for oil and gas development generally would limit the amount of permanent 

13 loss of use, especially during construction, some users may be subject to this type of impact

14 dependent on the specific location chosen. A permanent loss of use generally would be 

15 associated with land parcels in which land use categorizations were amended to allow for oil and 

16 gas construction activities. If new land were necessary in order to construct onshore facilities, 

17 such as a new pipeline or landfall, the acquisition process would need to follow all pertinent 

18 local, State, and Federal requirements.

19

20 In addition, the use of individual properties in the vicinity of the construction activities 

21 may be affected indirectly if excessive noise and air emissions generated by the construction 

22 equipment and onshore/offshore vehicular and air traffic (e.g., helicopters and automobiles) were 

23 to occur, or if a small increase in the amount of trash and debris washing ashore were to result 

24 from the activities. These occurrences may cause a temporary disturbance or annoyance among 

25 particular landholders or users, thereby inhibiting the intended or actual use of a property. The 

26 level of impact would depend on the specific location within the Cook Inlet, but generally would 

27 be anticipated to be minimal.

28

29 Physical and/or Infrastructural Composition. The physical and infrastructural 

30 composition of south central Alaska would be altered by the expansion and/or improvement of 

31 existing facilities, as well as by new construction. The extent of the impacts associated with 

32 these activities ultimately would depend on their specific location within the Cook Inlet. For 

33 example, this region has an inland network of oil and gas gathering distribution pipelines; one 

34 such community is Nikiski, which has existing oil and gas support facilities to account for 

35 current leasing (MMS 2007a). The basic onshore support and processing infrastructure that 

36 would be necessary to support the anticipated levels of activity are already in place within the 

37 Cook Inlet; these transport, loading, and storage capabilities would require expansion to handle 

38 an increased volume of produced crude oil rather than extensive construction of new facilities 

39 (MMS 2002a, 2007a).

40

41 While the oil and gas industry within Cook Inlet was one of the largest sources of high 

42 paying jobs within the last decade, natural gas production recently has provided a more stable 

43 source of employment. As a result, some of the aging infrastructure associated with offshore 

44 drilling is in poor repair, and thus would require updates, expansion, and/or other improvements 

45 (Fried and Windisch-Cole 2004). In these locations, new construction could be a more 

46 appropriate solution to accommodate offshore oil and gas production.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-404

1 If new infrastructure were needed, it would be built either as infill within an existing 

2 industrial or port area or within an area recently designated for this type of development. 

3 A greater impact on the existing physical landscape would be experienced in those areas not 

4 already used for oil and gas production. For instance, the construction of the pipeline landfall

5 could involve clearing land, preparing a ROW, and digging and backfilling trenches. Additional 

6 clearance could be necessary in order to accommodate the new on shore pipeline, as well. These

7 types of activities or similar ones could alter the physical composition of the landscape, thus 

8 potentially limiting the intended, actual, or future use of a parcel. If needed, this type of 

9 construction would have extensive impacts in lands used for subsistence hunting or other similar 

10 activities.

11

12 Additional indirect impacts concern those associated with climate change. New facilities 

13 may be sited in different locations in response to anticipated rises in sea level, increased storm 

14 frequency and intensity, and temperature changes. Other activities that might be undertaken in 

15 response to real or potential climate change–induced rises in sea level include facility relocation,

16 the construction of seawalls and storm surge barriers, and land acquisitions to create buffer areas 

17 (IPCC 2007).

18

19 Consequently, indirect impacts on land use, development patterns, and infrastructure 

20 could include locating further inland and/or strengthening foundations or building materials of 

21 existing facilities. These actions potentially could increase costs associated with development or 

22 force the construction of new facilities rather than the reuse or expansion of existing properties 

23 associated with oil and gas production. These decisions may be influenced by the potential for 

24 increased flooding and/or erosion, as well.

25

26 Routine Operations. Routine operations would include production well operation, 

27 onshore facility operation, and vessel and aircraft traffic, as well as the transport of oil from 

28 offshore to onshore locations using pipelines. Potential impacts associated with these activities 

29 would range in extent from negligible to minimal (see Figure 4.4.10-3).

30

31 Local Land Use/Comprehensive Planning and Development Patterns. Once offshore 

oil and gas facilities were in operation, 32 16 negligible to minimal impacts on land use, 

33 development patterns, and infrastructure would be expected, because a majority of the activities 

34 would be located offshore, with some activity occurring within onshore bases and transportation 

35 facilities.

36

37 In addition, as shown in Table 4.4.1-3, no new shore bases, processing facilities, or waste 

38 disposal facilities are associated with the proposed action. Since existing infrastructure would be 

39 used to the extent possible, the anticipated use of onshore facilities during normal operations 

40 would not be expected to generate noticeable changes to the current setting that would impact the 

41 overall land use, development patterns, or infrastructure of Cook Inlet.

42

 

16 For the purposes of this evaluation, normal operations exclude events leading up to the production of offshore oil 

and gas. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-405

1 Loss of Use to Existing Landowners or Users. Once offshore oil and gas facilities were 

2 in operation, a temporary or permanent loss of use would not be anticipated, because a sufficient 

3 number of facilities already are located within Cook Inlet to support the increased oil and gas 

4 development. At times, some access may be restricted within surrounding lands to accommodate 

5 a brief alteration in normal operations (e.g., an emergency response).

6

7 Furthermore, the use of individual properties in the vicinity of the operating platforms 

8 may be affected indirectly if excessive noise and air emissions were generated from equipment 

9 and onshore/offshore vehicular and air traffic (e.g., helicopters and automobiles), or if a small 

10 increase in the amount of trash and debris washing ashore were to result from the activities. 

11 These occurrences may cause disturbances or annoyance among particular landholders or users, 

12 thereby inhibiting the intended or actual use of a property. The level and extent of impact would 

13 depend on the specific location within the Cook Inlet, but generally would be anticipated to be 

14 minimal.

15

16 Physical and/or Infrastructural Composition. To the extent possible, existing facilities 

17 would be used and new facilities would be built only where necessary, once initial construction 

18 was completed. Since the anticipated new development is modest, large impacts on the physical 

19 and/or infrastructural composition of Cook Inlet during the operation phase would not be 

20 expected.

21

22 Decommissioning. When activities for oil and gas become uneconomical to continue

23 production operations or when a lease expires, many of the structures built for production would 

24 be dismantled, shut down, or converted to other uses. Typical government regulations require 

25 that offshore structures be cut off below the mud line and entirely removed, while pipelines often 

26 are left in place due to the high cost of removal. Offshore wells would be cemented in, and sea 

27 bottom well sites would be dragged to remove obstructions (Kenai Peninsula Borough 2008). 

28 Due to the physical nature of these activities, land use, development patterns, and infrastructure 

29 might be impacted directly. These impacts generally would be site-specific. In some cases, a 

30 return to pre-exploration and preconstruction conditions might not be feasible.

31

32 Local Land Use/Comprehensive Planning and Development Patterns. Depending on 

33 the location of the production wells and associated infrastructure, decommissioning activities 

34 onshore might be regulated by local land use, zoning, and comprehensive planning initiatives or 

35 requirements. In turn, local planning initiatives often account for developments of this nature in 

36 future planning. For instance, the continued use of the facilities after production could impact 

37 planned development in a positive manner, either by providing an opportunity for reuse of 

38 facilities or allowing for additional or future oil and gas activities (MMS 2007b).

39

40 Loss of Use to Existing Landowners or Users. No permanent loss of use is anticipated 

41 to occur during the decommissioning/reclamation phase. Some temporary loss might occur if 

42 road or area closures were necessary to accommodate equipment, workers, or specific 

43 deconstruction activities. If feasible, access would be restored to its preconstruction or 

44 operations state.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-406

1 During decommissioning, the use of individual properties in the vicinity of the activities 

2 may be affected indirectly if excessive noise and air emissions were generated from equipment 

3 and onshore/offshore vehicular and air traffic (e.g., helicopters and automobiles), or if a small 

4 increase in the amount of trash and debris washing ashore were to result from the activities. 

5 These occurrences may cause temporary disturbances or annoyance among particular 

6 landholders or users, thereby inhibiting the intended or actual use of a property. The level and 

7 extent of impact would depend on the specific location, but generally would be anticipated to be 

8 minimal.

9

10 Physical and/or Infrastructural Composition. In addition, potential changes to the 

11 physical and infrastructural makeup of Cook Inlet could occur. Any equipment added may be 

12 removed; other defunct equipment also could be removed. Impacts on land use and 

13 infrastructure would be site-specific and could range from negligible to minor. Moreover, if any 

14 offshore or onshore infrastructure were deemed a visual intrusion within the landscape for the 

15 duration of the project, removal of the structure during decommissioning would remove the 

16 feature, and thus help to alleviate the impact (MMS 2003a).

17

18

19 4.4.10.2.2 Accidents. The risk of a spill is present whenever crude oil or petroleum 

20 products are handled. Oil spills could be associated with the exploration, development, 

21 production, storage, and/or transportation processes and might occur from losses of well control 

22 or pipeline or tanker accidents. As indicated in Table 4.4.2-1, approximately 1 large spill, 1 to 

23 3 medium-sized spills, and 7 to 15 small spills are anticipated to occur as part of new 

24 development within Cook Inlet. From 1999 to 2008, 18 crude oil spills of 380 L (100 gal) or 

25 more from pipelines, platforms, onshore production facilities, storage facilities, and marine 

26 tankers have occurred in Cook Inlet. Six of these were more than 1,900 L (500 gal)

27 (ADNR 2009b). 

28

29 Based upon knowledge acquired from previous spills, potential impacts to land use and 

30 infrastructure resulting from an oil spill would likely include moderate temporary stresses of the 

31 spill response on existing community infrastructure, increased boat and air traffic to respond to 

32 the spill and cleanup operations, and restrictions of access to a particular area while the cleanup 

33 is conducted (MMS 2007c). These stresses could lead to a temporary loss of use of certain 

34 parcels both for their intended and actual uses, but generally no permanent land use 

35 categorization changes.

36

37 Within Cook Inlet, a geographic response strategy (GRS) has been formulated to account 

38 for 17 sites within the central Cook Inlet, 18 sites for the southwest, 21 sites for Kachemak Bay, 

39 and 22 sites for the southeast. Strategies within this plan focus on minimizing the environmental 

40 damage, using a small response footprint, and selecting sites for equipment deployment that 

41 would not cause further harm (ADNR 2009b).

42

43 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes the impacts of a CDE that could 

44 range in size from 75 to 125 thousand bbl (see Table 4.4.2-2). These events have the potential to 

45 impact future development patterns if irreversible changes to the land composition occur within 

46 certain areas. For example, one of the largest events of this type occurred in 1989; it consisted of 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-407

1 the Exxon Valdez discharge. This event led to the closure or disruption of many Cook Inlet 

2 businesses, including fisheries (ADNR 2009b). 

3

4 However, only one spill of this size is anticipated to occur within this region (see 

5 Table 4.4.2-2). It would likely be a result of oil transport from a tanker carrying Arctic and Cook 

6 Inlet OCS oil from the Valdez terminal to U.S. ports (see Section 4.4.2.1 for additional 

7 information). In most cases, a worst-case oil discharge from an exploration facility, production 

8 facility, pipeline, or storage facility would be restricted by the maximum tank or vessel storage 

9 capacity or by a well‘s ability to produce oil.

10

11 Potential impacts to land use and infrastructure resulting from a CDE would likely 

12 include moderate to high temporary stresses of the spill response on existing community 

13 infrastructure, increased boat and air traffic to respond to the spill and cleanup operations, and 

14 restrictions of access to a particular area while the cleanup is conducted (MMS 2007c). Some of 

15 these impacts may lead to more permanent changes in the way land is used, such as closure or 

16 disruptions of business as occurred for the Exxon Valdez event (ADNR 2009b).

17

18

19 4.4.10.3 Alaska – Arctic

20

21 Oil and gas production within the Arctic as a whole is not as developed as that in the 

22 GOM and Cook Inlet; however, this region includes the Beaufort Sea Planning Area, which has 

23 well-developed oil and gas industry infrastructure on adjacent land and in State waters. For 

24 instance, the Prudhoe Bay complex is located within the Beaufort Sea Planning Area. This is 

25 part of a large oil producing field, which contains extensive infrastructure (MMS 2007c).

26

27 As indicated in Table 4.4.1-4, oil production is anticipated to include 0.2 to 2.1 Bbbl

28 within the Beaufort Sea and the Chukchi Sea. Therefore, a number of routine activities would be 

29 necessary to more fully develop this industry in order to provide for additional production within 

30 the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas region. As noted for the other areas, these activities have the 

31 potential to impact existing and future land use, development patterns, and infrastructure.

32

33

34 4.4.10.3.1 Routine Operations. Routine activities include exploration, development, 

35 production, and decommissioning. Impacts on land use, development patterns, and infrastructure 

36 within the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas regions from each of these activities are presented below.

37

38 Seismic Explorations and Exploratory Drilling. Activities associated with exploration 

39 typically include a seismic survey, exploratory well construction, and aircraft and vessel traffic.

40

41 Local Land Use/Comprehensive Planning and Development Patterns. Seismic 

42 explorations and exploratory drilling would not directly impact land use, development patterns, 

43 and infrastructure, because a majority of the activities would be located offshore. During this 

44 phase, existing and future land use categorizations would remain largely unchanged.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-408

1 Loss of Use to Existing Landowners or Users. Activities associated with seismic 

2 explorations and exploratory drilling could potentially impact access or use of a particular land 

3 area, although to a minimal extent. Some temporary safety-related restrictions on access might 

4 be necessary both onshore and offshore; however, these restrictions likely would last only as 

5 long as the exploration activities.

6

7 For this area of Alaska, a scattered exploration pattern may be necessary due to the lack 

8 of existing oil and gas infrastructure. For this type of exploration pattern, more frequent and 

9 longer-duration helicopter and support boat trips would be needed than if a clustered pattern of 

10 exploration were utilized. For instance, platforms located beyond the landfast ice zone would 

11 require substantial helicopter support, especially during the developmental drilling phase, 

12 because they would be unreachable by ice roads. In addition, platforms located in the landfast 

13 ice zone could be served by vehicles traveling over ice roads (MMS 2007c). Local access to 

14 these transportation modes could be impacted, although to a minimal extent, to account for the 

15 additional trips and traffic associated with this type of exploration. This would result in a 

16 perceived loss of use for some people either living, visiting, or working within the area.

17

18 Perceived loss of land or use might also increase among tribal communities, local 

19 inhabitants, and visitors within the coastal areas of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Since 

20 offshore exploration includes the placement of wells and the production of drilling muds and 

21 cuttings, which may be discharged into the marine environment, some people using the coastal 

22 area may perceive the effects of the drilling as a disruption to their regular activities. If the 

23 perceived disruption or ―nuisance‖ becomes too intense, users may relocate to other parts of the 

24 coast in order to conduct their regular activities. Thus, the actual use of the land may be 

25 impacted, even if the intended land use designation or categorization is not altered. 

26

27 For example, as indicated in Section 4.4.13.3, residents of the Chukchi Sea communities

28 have noted a concern over the loss of a subsistence lifestyle and the imposition of additional 

29 demands on communities to maintain new infrastructure either directly or indirectly related to 

30 oil and gas exploration and eventual production. ―Residents of the Chukchi Sea coastal 

31 communities have been remarkably consistent in their primary concerns during the more than 

32 20 years of public hearings and meetings on State and Federal oil development on the North 

33 Slope‖ (BOEMRE 2010a, 2011k). Sections 4.4.13.3.1 and 4.4.14.3.1 provide additional 

34 information on the impacts to subsistence and tribal communities within the Arctic region 

35 resulting from oil and gas activities.

36

37 In addition, the use of individual properties in the vicinity of the exploration activities

38 may be affected indirectly if excessive noise and air emissions were generated from equipment 

39 and onshore/offshore vehicular and air traffic (e.g., helicopters and automobiles), or if a small 

40 increase in the amount of trash and debris washing ashore were to result from the activities. 

41 These occurrences may cause disturbances or annoyance among particular landholders or users, 

42 thereby inhibiting the intended or actual use of a property. The level and extent of the indirect 

43 impacts would depend on the specific location within the Arctic region, but generally would be 

44 anticipated to be minimal to moderate (BOEMRE 2011k).

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-409

1 Physical and/or Infrastructural Composition. As noted in Table 4.4.1-4, approximately 

2 6–20 exploration and delineation wells and 40–280 development and production wells would be 

3 drilled within the Arctic. Machinery and staging area improvements would be needed in order to 

4 accommodate equipment and workers associated with these exploration activities. The increase 

5 in physical infrastructure likely would be negligible to minimal at this stage of oil and gas 

6 development due to the temporary nature of the exploration activities and the anticipated use of 

7 existing facilities, where available.

8

9 Onshore and Offshore Construction. Similar to the exploration phase, onshore and 

10 offshore construction have the potential to impact local land use and comprehensive planning 

11 and existing and planned development; access and use of particular properties; and the physical 

12 and infrastructural composition of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.

13

14 As indicated in Figure 4.4.10-2, activities associated with this phase often include

15 production well placement, pipeline placement, onshore construction, and aircraft and vessel 

16 traffic. Per the proposed development scenario within the Arctic region, approximately 

17 1–5 platforms are anticipated, along with 16–130 km (10–80 mi) of onshore pipeline. No new 

18 pipeline landfalls or shore bases are anticipated. This section provides a discussion of impacts 

19 associated with land use as they pertain to onshore and offshore construction.

20

21 Local Land Use/Comprehensive Planning and Development Patterns. Due to the 

22 minimal level of current oil and gas development within the whole of the Beaufort and Chukchi 

23 Seas, existing land use plans and designations may not provide for areas that are able to 

24 accommodate new leases. Therefore, minimal to moderate impacts to land use and 

25 comprehensive planning decisions, such as a conditional use permit or zoning change, are 

26 predicted as a result of the leasing and subsequent development activities, including construction. 

27 The need to address existing land use would depend on the specific location selected for onshore 

28 construction and on the activity to be conducted (e.g., the construction of onshore pipeline routes 

29 or new transportation routes).

30

31 For instance, according to the North Slope Borough (NSB) comprehensive plan, five 

32 major zoning districts are present, including the Village, Barrow, Conservation, Resource 

33 Development, and Transportation Corridor (MMS 2007a). ―All areas within the NSB are in the

34 Conservation District, unless they are specifically designated within the limited boundaries of a 

35 village or Barrow, a unitized oil field within the Resource Development District, or within the 

36 Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) corridor‖ (MMS 2007a). As indicated by this statement, 

37 major land uses generally are divided between subsistence use and petroleum-resource extraction 

38 (MMS 2007a). 

39

40 Due to the recognition of oil and gas activities, all of the NSB land management 

41 regulations address oil and gas leasing activities, including onshore and offshore (MMS 2007a). 

42 Therefore, within the NSB, conditional use permits may be requested that would allow for 

43 specific, temporary activities; in some cases, the more permanent development associated with 

44 production would require that a master plan be prepared describing anticipated activities. In 

45 addition, use of non-Federal land within the NSB may require rezoning from the Conservation 

46 District to the Resource Development District or Transportation Corridor (MMS 2007a).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-410

1 While not a direct cause and effect relationship, if changes to overall land use 

2 categorizations or planning initiatives were needed to begin construction and subsequent 

3 development of oil and gas facilities, future development patterns could be impacted. If onshore 

4 construction were to occur within the Arctic region, various government agencies and 

5 jurisdictions would be involved in the change. Land ownership within the North Slope area 

6 consists of overlapping ownership interests, at times vague boundary descriptions, and informal 

7 or unrecorded land transfers. Surface and subsurface ownership interests are held by the Federal

8 Government, State government, the borough, villages, regional and village Native corporations, 

9 and private individuals, including Native allotments. As in many areas, surface and subsurface 

10 owners may differ, particularly in communities and Native allotments (URS Corporation 2005).

11

12 In addition, if new infrastructure would be needed onshore, some facilities and 

13 infrastructure would be subject to other local, State, and/or other Federal permitting and 

14 regulations, including provisions for the siting of facilities. Specific timelines and requirements 

15 would vary by location, as BOEM typically is not the permitting or regulating agency for 

16 development activities that occur onshore.

17

18 Loss of Use to Existing Landowners or Users. Onshore and offshore construction 

19 generally has the potential to interfere with or prevent use by existing owners or users within 

20 areas not already used for oil and gas activities (see Section 4.4.13.3 and 4.4.14.3 regarding 

21 impacts on subsistence activities). While the use of existing facilities generally is preferred over 

22 new construction, few of these facilities exist within the whole of the Arctic region as compared 

23 to the GOM and Cook Inlet. As previously indicated, the Chukchi Sea Planning Area has 

24 relatively little established infrastructure, while well-developed oil and gas facilities are located 

25 within the Beaufort Sea Planning Area, such as at the Prudhoe Bay complex. Therefore, during 

26 construction, a temporary loss of access to some users may occur. Restrictions on access may be 

27 put in place as safety precautions or to allow certain activities to occur. Depending on the 

28 location of the activities, these restrictions could be lifted after construction was completed.

29

30 Users of surrounding lands also may be inconvenienced by closure or restrictions on 

31 access routes or within areas used for subsistence activities during construction. For instance, if 

32 platforms were constructed in part onshore, some marine subsistence hunters may have to avoid 

33 or navigate around them when preparing their crafts from an onshore location. Another example 

34 would include the construction of temporary roads for exploration drilling or permanent roads 

35 that may be constructed as a result of proposed activities. While roads could increase access to 

36 previously inaccessible areas, they also could also create community-development, land use37 planning, or fish and game-management problems (ADNR 2009). Consequently, the perceived 

38 impact associated with these restrictions or closures may weigh more heavily on communities 

39 using surrounding lands for subsistence activities than recreational users or tourists

40 (see Sections 4.4.13.3.1 and 4.4.14.3.1 for additional information regarding subsistence 

41 activities).

42

43 In addition, the use of individual properties in the vicinity of the construction activities 

44 may be affected indirectly if excessive noise and air emissions were generated from equipment 

45 and onshore/offshore vehicular and air traffic (e.g., helicopters and automobiles), or if a small 

46 increase in the amount of trash and debris washing ashore were to result from the activities. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-411

1 These occurrences may cause disturbances or annoyance among particular landholders or users, 

2 thereby inhibiting the intended or actual use of a property. The level and extent of impact would 

3 depend on the specific location within the Arctic, but generally would be anticipated to be 

4 minimal to moderate.

5

6 Physical and/or Infrastructural Composition. The physical presence of the shore-based

7 and pipeline infrastructure within the Arctic region would represent an initial industrialization of 

8 the area and a long-term and significant change in land use patterns. This would result due to the 

9 change from an isolated and often pristine environment to one that supports oil and gas 

10 infrastructure. While new technologies and practices tend to be less damaging than those 

11 associated with past activities, the addition of these facilities has the potential to permanently 

12 alter the land use within the region (AMAP 2010).

13

14 In areas already developed with oil and gas infrastructure, such as in the Beaufort Sea 

15 Planning Area, the construction of oil and gas infrastructure would represent a continuation of 

16 industrial/commercial activity; however, in areas lacking existing infrastructure, it would account 

17 for a more substantial change in the industrial/commercial activity and diversity of individual 

18 villages (MMS 2007a). The extent of the impacts associated with these activities ultimately 

19 would depend on the specific location within the Arctic and the particular community in which 

20 facilities would be placed.

21

22 Impacts on infrastructural composition also would result from the development of 

23 onshore pipeline and a permanent road network in locations that do not already have existing oil 

24 and gas facilities. Depending on the location of a pipeline landfall, the path of an associated road 

25 to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) might open up areas not previously reached by 

26 permanent roads. The positive benefits of this construction would be to aid future ice road and 

27 permanent road construction, as well as providing a connection to the North Slope communities

28 (MMS 2007c). Some of the negative impacts of roadway construction would be the interference 

29 with subsistence uses and animal movement and the potential for increased traffic (see 

30 Sections 4.4.13.3.1 and 4.4.14.3.1 for more information).

31

32 Additional indirect impacts concern those associated with climate change. Siting of new 

33 facilities may account for potential changes resulting from rises in sea level, increased storm 

34 frequency and intensity, and temperature changes. One of the more noticeable effects would be 

35 the thawing of permafrost on land. In the Arctic, facilities often use permafrost as a solid 

36 foundation for buildings, pipelines, and roads, and for containing waste materials. Warming may 

37 degrade permafrost, which can harm existing facilities and prevent the use of permafrost in the 

38 future (AMAP 2007; MMS 2007c).

39

40 Consequently, indirect impacts on land use, development patterns, and infrastructure can 

41 include locating further inland and/or strengthening foundations or building materials of existing 

42 facilities. These actions potentially can increase costs associated with development or force the 

43 construction of new facilities rather than the reuse or expansion of existing properties associated 

44 with oil and gas production. These decisions also may be influenced by the potential for 

45 increased flooding and/or erosion.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-412

1 Routine Operations. Routine operation activities would consist of production well 

2 operation, onshore facility operation, and vessel and aircraft traffic. It also would include the 

3 transport of oil from offshore to onshore locations using ships or pipelines (see Figure 4.4.10-3). 

4 As indicated in Section 4.4.1.3, the PEIS assumes that the most likely locations for the 

5 occurrence of activities would be in areas that already have been leased in recent sales. One to 

6 15 helicopter trips and 1 to 15 vessel trips would be anticipated. Potential impacts associated 

7 with these activities would range in extent from negligible to moderate.

8

9 Local Land Use/Comprehensive Planning and Development Patterns. Once in 

operation, 10 17 negligible to minimal impacts are anticipated to result on land use, development 

11 patterns, and infrastructure, since a majority of the activities would be located offshore, and no 

12 additional construction would be anticipated. In general, the production of oil and gas would 

13 need to be consistent with Federal, State, and local planning initiatives.

14

15 Loss of Use to Existing Landowners or Users. Once in operation, an additional loss of 

16 use is not anticipated. At times, some access may be restricted within surrounding lands to 

17 accommodate a brief alteration in operations or a peak in normal activities, or to conduct 

18 maintenance.

19

20 During operation, the use of individual properties in the vicinity of the operating 

21 platforms may be affected indirectly if excessive noise and air emissions were generated from 

22 equipment and onshore/offshore vehicular and air traffic (e.g., helicopters and automobiles), or if 

23 a small increase in the amount of trash and debris washing ashore were to result from the 

24 activities. These occurrences may cause disturbances or annoyance among particular 

25 landholders or users, thereby inhibiting the intended or actual use of a property. The level and 

26 extent of impact would depend on the specific location within the Arctic, but generally would be 

27 anticipated to be minimal to moderate. For instance, in locations where subsistence activities 

28 occur, the impacts may be more noticeable and have a larger impact on certain communities as 

29 compared to other areas of the Arctic; a discussion of these impacts is provided in 

30 Sections 4.4.13.3.1 and 4.4.14.3.1.

31

32 Physical and/or Infrastructural Composition. To the extent possible, no new facilities 

33 would be built during normal operations. Therefore, the potential to create lasting changes to the 

34 physical and/or infrastructural composition of the Arctic region during the operation phase would 

35 be limited.

36

37 Decommissioning. When activities for oil and gas production operations become 

38 uneconomical to continue, or when a lease is expired, many of the structures built for production 

39 are dismantled, shut down, or converted to other uses. Decommissioning activities in the Arctic 

40 typically involve permanently plugging wells (with cement), removing wellhead equipment, and 

41 removing the processing module from the platform. Pipelines also must be decommissioned, 

42 which involves cleaning the pipeline, plugging the ends, and leaving it in place, buried within the 

43 seabed. Onshore pipelines may be used for other purposes, if not removed (MMS 2008b). All 

 

17 For the purposes of this evaluation, normal operations are considered exclusive of events leading up to the 

production of offshore oil and gas. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-413

1 decommissioning activities would abide by Federal regulations. Due to the physical nature of 

2 these activities and the length of the leases, land use, development patterns, and infrastructure 

3 may be impacted directly. These impacts, however, generally would be site-specific. In some 

4 cases, pre-exploration and preconstruction conditions may not be able to be reestablished.

5

6 Local Land Use/Comprehensive Planning and Development Patterns. Depending on 

7 the location of the production wells and associated infrastructure, decommissioning activities 

8 onshore may be regulated by local land use, zoning, and comprehensive planning initiatives or 

9 requirements. 

10

11 In turn, local planning initiatives often account for developments of this nature in future 

12 planning due to the length of operation. For instance, the continued use of the facilities after 

13 production could impact planned development in a positive manner, either by providing an 

14 opportunity for reuse of facilities or by allowing for the potential for additional or future oil and 

15 gas development.

16

17 Loss of Use to Existing Landowners or Users. No permanent loss of use is anticipated 

18 to occur during the decommissioning/reclamation phase. Some temporary loss may occur if road 

19 or area closures are necessary to accommodate equipment, workers, or specific activities 

20 associated with this type of process. Access to and the physical composition of the 

21 industrial/port areas typically would be restored to its preconstruction or operations state to the 

22 extent possible.

23

24 In addition, the use of individual properties in the vicinity of the decommissioning 

25 activities may be affected indirectly if excessive noise and air emissions were generated from 

26 equipment and onshore/offshore vehicular and air traffic (e.g., helicopters and automobiles), or if 

27 a small increase in the amount of trash and debris washing ashore were to result from the 

28 activities. These occurrences may cause disturbances or annoyance among particular 

29 landholders or users, thereby inhibiting the intended or actual use of a property. The level and 

30 extent of impact would depend on the specific location within the Arctic, but generally would be 

31 anticipated to be minimal.

32

33 Physical and/or Infrastructural Composition. In addition, potential changes to the 

34 physical and infrastructural composition of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas would occur. Any 

35 equipment added may be removed; other defunct equipment also could be removed. These 

36 alterations would be site-specific and likely could range from negligible to minimal in the extent 

37 of their impact with regard to the existing composition of land use and infrastructure. Moreover, 

38 if any offshore or onshore infrastructure were deemed a visual intrusion within the landscape for 

39 the duration of the project, removal of the structure during decommissioning would remove the 

40 feature, and thus alleviate the intrusion (MMS 2003a).

41

42

43 4.4.10.3.2 Accidents. One anticipated effect of oil and gas development within the 

44 Arctic is to extend infrastructure (e.g., landfalls and platforms) and associated activities 

45 westward. As a result of this construction, new areas of Alaska adjacent to the Beaufort and 

46 Chukchi Seas would be exposed to the potential effects of crude oil spills. Approximately 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-414

1 3 large spills, 10 to 35 medium-sized spills, and 50 to 190 small spills are anticipated to occur 

2 with the proposed development of the Arctic Beaufort Sea (see Table 4.4.2-1). Consequently, 

3 crude oil spill-response equipment and personnel would be needed in those locations 

4 (MMS 2007c).

5

6 As with other areas of Alaska, potential indirect impacts on land use and infrastructure 

7 resulting from small, medium, or large spills would likely include moderate temporary stresses 

8 from the spill response on existing community infrastructure; oil contamination at a coastal area; 

9 increased boat and air traffic to respond to the spill and cleanup operations; and restrictions of 

10 access to a particular area while the cleanup is conducted (MMS 2007c). These occurrences

11 could lead to a temporary loss of use of certain parcels for both their intended and actual uses.

12

13 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE as large as 1.4 to 

14 2.2 million bbl in the Chukchi Sea and 1.7 to 3.9 million bbl in the Beaufort Sea (Table 4.4.2-2). 

15 A CDE would have similar types of impacts as spills of other magnitudes; however, the degree 

16 of impact would be more severe. For instance, the length of time in which the impacts would be 

17 experienced generally would be longer for this type of event (MMS 2007c; BOEMRE 2011k). 

18 Likewise, communities that are in close proximity to the event may experience a displacement of 

19 existing sociocultural patterns that could affect how they use the land (BOEMRE 2011k). In 

20 particular, this type of event would have major effects on communities using land for subsistence 

21 activities. These impacts are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.13.3.2. 

22

23

24 4.4.10.4 Conclusion

25

26 The addition of new oil and gas leases within the GOM Planning Areas would result in 

27 negligible to minor impacts on land use, development patterns, and infrastructure. In general, the 

28 existing infrastructure would be expected to be sufficient to handle exploration and development 

29 associated with potential new leases.

30

31 Additional leases for oil and gas development would have a more noticeable impact on 

32 land use, development patterns, and infrastructure within Alaska. While Cook Inlet currently 

33 supports some oil and gas production, some minor impacts on land use, development patterns, 

34 and infrastructure would be anticipated to occur as a result of new leases. These impacts would 

35 vary in intensity dependent on specific location within the Inlet. The existing infrastructure 

36 would help to limit the intensity of the impacts as compared to Arctic locations, in which limited 

37 infrastructure is present and where communities are much smaller than within Cook Inlet.

38

39 Within the Arctic, minor to moderate impacts would be anticipated to result from the 

40 development of new oil and gas leases within the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Existing land use 

41 and infrastructure likely would be able to accommodate new leases. In general, land use changes 

42 would be needed only in locations where new onshore pipeline routes would be constructed, and 

43 in areas requiring new transportation networks (MMS 2007a).

44

45 In all three areas, the potential for accidents to occur would be present. These types of 

46 events could have both direct and indirect effects on land use, depending on the type, size, 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-415

1 location, and duration of the incident. Impacts generally would be more intense in areas with 

2 little infrastructure in place to handle accidents and where a greater reliance is placed on coastal 

3 activities for subsistence and would be greater in the event of a CDE-level spill.

4

5

6 4.4.11 Potential Impacts on Commercial and Recreational Fisheries

7

8

9 4.4.11.1 Gulf of Mexico

10

11

12 4.4.11.1.1 Routine Operations. 

13

14 Commercial Fisheries. Routine operations could affect commercial fisheries by causing 

15 changes in the distribution or abundance of fishery resources, reducing the catchability of fish or 

16 shellfish, precluding fishers from accessing viable fishing areas, or causing losses of or damage 

17 to equipment or vessels. Between 200 and 450 new platforms would be established under the 

18 proposed action, with up to 2,500 ha (6,177 ac) of seafloor likely to be disturbed by offshore 

19 platforms and up to 11,500 ha (28,417 ac) by pipelines. Impacts on commercial fishing activities 

20 would vary depending on the nature of a particular structure, the phase of operation, the fishing 

21 method or gear, and the target species group. Impacts would be higher for drifting gear such as 

22 purse nets, bottom longlines, and pelagic longlines than for trawls and handlines (MMS 2005). 

23 Nevertheless, areas in which commercial fishing would be affected are small relative to the 

24 entire fishing area available to surface longliners or purse seiners.

25

26 To avoid potential conflicts and to maintain safety at large deepwater structures, a safety 

27 zone for vessels longer than 30 m (100 ft) may be established up to 500 m (1,640 ft) around each 

28 production platform, which would encompass up to approximately 80 ha (198 ac) of surface area 

29 per platform. The Fisherman‘s Contingency Fund, established under OSCLA, can compensate 

30 fisherman for property and economic losses related to obstructions caused by oil and gas 

31 development in the OCS. The Fund is composed of assessments paid by offshore oil and gas 

32 operations and administered by the NMFS (see www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mb/financial_services/

33 fcf.htm).

34

35 Federal regulations (30 CFR 250.702(I)) require that, during decommissioning, all 

36 wellheads, casings, pilings, and other obstructions be removed to a depth of at least 5 m (15 ft)

37 below the mud line or to a depth approved by the District Supervisor; the size of the area left 

38 untrawlable due to abandoned components would represent only a fraction of the total area 

39 excluded by oil and gas operations. Longlining would still be possible following 

40 decommissioning and removal because surface waters would not be affected by the presence of 

41 the remaining underwater components.

42

43 The impact of oil and gas structures on commercial fisheries at various depth ranges can 

44 be estimated using data in the Offshore Environmental Cost Model (OECM) (BOEMRE 2010d). 

45 The model assumes that there will be buffer zones of up to 0.8 km (0.5 mi) around new oil and 

46 gas structures, decreasing the area of ocean available for fishing. Although harvesting levels are 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-416

1 not affected by offshore structures and pipelines, as these levels are below federally mandated 

2 levels, it is assumed that fishing activity will continue in areas still open for fishing, with existing 

3 harvesting levels remaining, but that there will be an increase in fishing costs.

4

5 The impacts of oil and gas development on commercial fishing costs would vary 

6 considerably by planning region and placement depth (Table 4.4.11-1). In the Western Planning 

7 Area, the largest cost increases would occur with structures located in water between 150 and 

8 300 m (492 and 984 ft) deep, with an annual increase of $93 in costs from a single structure; a 

9 single structure in each depth range would increase annual costs by $147. In the Central 

10 Planning Area, overall increases in costs would be much larger at $1,080 per year, with the 

11 largest increase coming with a single structure placed in water between 150 and 300 m (492 and 

12 984 ft). Cost impacts in the Eastern Planning Area would be minimal, at $2 per year with a 

13 structure in each depth range. In each of the planning areas, single structures would have 

14 relatively insignificant impacts compared to fishery revenues in each depth range.

15

16 Under the proposed action alternative, between 44 and 80 platforms would be located in 

17 the depth range 0 to 60 m (0 to 197 ft) in the Western Planning Area, with between 122 and 

18 257 such platforms in the Central Planning Area. Offshore oil and gas structures placed within 

19 this depth range would increase annual commercial fishing costs by between $1,993 and 

20 $3,819 in the Western Planning Area, while reducing costs by between $2,507 and $11,243 in 

21 the Central Planning Area. No data is currently available on the placement of offshore platforms 

22 in the Eastern Planning Area, and consequently, their impact on commercial fishing costs.

23

24 Recreational Fisheries. The level of impacts on recreational fisheries in the GOM due 

25 to routine operations under the proposed action would be similar to impacts during the previous 

26 lease period. Biological resources that serve as the basis for recreational fisheries in the GOM 

27 are expected to be only minimally affected by activities associated with routine operations. 

28 Construction activities would primarily affect soft bottom species such as red drum, sand sea 

29 trout, and spotted sea trout that are sought by anglers in private or charter/party vessels. Such 

30 conflicts would be temporary, however, as fishes would eventually return to disturbed areas. 

31 The presence of offshore platforms may have a positive effect on the availability of recreational 

32 fishing opportunities. During 1999, for example, approximately 20% of private boat fishing

33 trips, 32% of charter boat fishing trips, and 51% of party boat fishing trips in the western and 

34 central GOM (Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas) took recreational fishers within 91 m 

35 (300 ft) of oil or gas structures (Hiett and Milon 2002), as the presence of structures is known to 

36 aggregate pelagic (e.g., king mackerels, tunas, and cobia) and reef-associated fish species 

37 (e.g., red snapper, gray triggerfish, and amberjack) that are targeted by many recreational fishers.

38

39

40 4.4.11.1.2 Accidents.

41

42 Commercial Fisheries. Under the proposed action, up to 8 large spills greater than 

43 1,000 bbl, between 35 and 70 spills between 50 bbl and 1,000 bbl, and up to 400 small spills less 

44 than 50 bbl could occur within the northern GOM. Most of the fish species inhabiting shelf or 

45 oceanic waters of the GOM have planktonic eggs and larvae (Ditty 1986; Ditty et al. 1988;

46 Richards and Potthoff 1980; Richards et al. 1993). Certain species, such as triggerfishes, deposit 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-417

1 TABLE 4.4.11-1 Impacts of Single Oil and Gas Structures on Commercial Fisheries, by 

2 Placement Depth ($2010)

Western Planning Area Central Planning Area Eastern Planning Area

Placement Depth 

Range

Fishery 

Revenue 

($m)

Cost Impact 

($)

Fishery 

Revenue 

($m)

Cost Impact 

($)

Fishery 

Revenue 

($m)

Cost Impact 

($)

0 to 60 m 103.4 41.24 153.5 –165.82 64.4 –0.52

60 to 150 m 22.6 16.73 40.4 21.00 17.7 0.24

150 to 300 m 8.3 92.89 26.1 916.09 9.4 –0.92

300 to 1,500 m 74.4 –5.95 180.3 224.17 22.3 2.15

More than 1,500 m 45.4 2.11 402.7 84.91 54.4 0.76

All depths 254.1 147.03 803.1 1,080.40 168.2 1.70

Source: BOEMRE 2010d.

3

4

5 demersal eggs but have larvae that take up residence in the water column, meaning that these 

6 species would also be affected by oil spills. Depending on the location and timing of particular 

7 spills, effects would be greater if local water currents retained planktonic larvae and floating oil 

8 within the same water mass for extended periods of time. In deepwater areas, adults of highly 

9 migratory fish species, including pelagic species such as tunas, sharks, and billfish, would move 

10 away from surface oil spills. Pelagic larvae and neuston would not be able to move away from 

11 the spilled oil on the surface and would most likely be killed or injured. However, these impacts 

12 are not expected to cause population reductions in most commercially exploited species. In 

13 coastal areas, moderate and long-term but temporary degradation of estuarine habitat could occur 

14 if a large coastal area was oiled following a large or very large oil spill. Although some wetland 

15 areas may not recover completely, it is anticipated that spills considered possible as a result of 

16 the proposed action are not likely to substantially threaten the overall viability of wetland 

17 habitats used by commercially important species. On the basis of the potential level of impacts 

18 on coastal habitats including wetlands and submerged seagrass beds under the proposed action, 

19 major declines in fish population are not likely to occur.

20

21 In general, the level of effects from accidental spills would depend on the location, 

22 timing, and volume of spills in addition to other environmental factors. Small spills would be 

23 unlikely to affect a large number of fish or commercial fishing before dilution and weathering 

24 reduced concentrations; therefore, they would not have long-term effects on commercial fisheries 

25 in the GOM. It is anticipated that any single large spill would affect only a small proportion of a 

26 given fish population within the GOM and that fish resources would not be permanently 

27 affected. However, localized effects on commercial fishing could result as a consequence of 

28 reduced catch, loss of gear, or loss of fishing opportunities during cleanup and recovery periods.

29

30 Recreational Fisheries. The magnitude of effects from accidental spills would depend 

31 on the location, timing, and volume of spills, in addition to other environmental factors. Small 

32 spills that may occur under the proposed action are unlikely to affect a large number of fish or 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-418

1 have a substantial effect on recreational fishing before dilution and weathering reduced 

2 concentrations of oil in the water. Consequently, it is anticipated that small spills would not have 

3 substantial or long-term effects on recreational fishing in the GOM. Any single large spill would 

4 likely affect only a small proportion of a given fish population within the GOM, and it is unlikely 

5 that fish resources would be permanently affected. However, spills could have localized effects 

6 on recreational fishing as a consequence of contamination of fish tissues, degradation of aesthetic 

7 values that attract fishers, or temporary closure of fishing areas. A CDE, such as occurred 

8 following the DWH accident, could have more noticeable impacts on recreational fishing 

9 activity, as well as on individuals and firms that depend on angler spending. Spill effects can be 

10 mitigated to some extent through financial compensation and through policies of Federal and 

11 State fisheries management agencies. On the basis of the number and size of spills assumed for 

12 the proposed action, persistent degradation of shorelines and waters are not likely to occur; 

13 therefore, impacts on recreational fishing are not expected to be significant. Impacts of spills on 

14 subsistence resources are also discussed in Section 4.4.13 and 4.4.14.

15

16 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE that ranges in size from 

17 0.9 to 7.2 million bbl (Table 4.4.2-2). The magnitude of effects from a CDE would depend on 

18 the location, timing, and volume of the oil associated with the event. Oil from a CDE could 

19 contact intertidal habitat and subsequently contaminate or reduce the abundance of commercial 

20 and recreational species that depend on nearshore habitat. However, it is likely that an event

21 would only affect a small proportion of fish species population, and it is unlikely that fish 

22 resources would be permanently affected. In the short term, there would be local or regional

23 effects on commercial fishing that as a result of reduced catch, loss of gear, or loss of fishing 

24 opportunities during cleanup and recovery periods, and on recreational fishing as a consequence 

25 of contamination of fish tissues, the degradation of aesthetic values that attract fishers, and the 

26 likely temporary closure of fishing areas. 

27

28

29 4.4.11.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

30

31

32 4.4.11.2.1 Routine Operations.

33

34 Commercial Fisheries. With one to three new platforms to be established under the 

35 proposed action, up to 4.5 ha (11 ac) of seafloor would be disturbed by offshore platforms, and 

36 up to 210 ha (519 ac) by pipelines. Impacts on commercial fishing activities would vary, 

37 depending on the nature of a particular structure, the phase of operation, fishing method or gear, 

38 and target species group. Routine operations could affect commercial fisheries by causing 

39 changes in the distribution or abundance of fishery resources, by reducing the catchability of fish 

40 or shellfish, by precluding fishers from accessing viable fishing areas, or by causing losses of or 

41 damage to equipment or vessels. It is anticipated that routine operations would not result in 

42 detectable effects on overall populations of fishery resources in Cook Inlet. Temporary 

43 displacement of fishery resources from localized areas could occur as a consequence of noise and 

44 activities associated with construction activities during development; however, these resources 

45 would be expected to return once construction disturbances have been terminated. Following 

46 platform construction, there could be some highly localized long-term changes in fish densities 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-419

1 and species diversity in the vicinity of platforms due to attraction of some invertebrate and fish 

2 species.

3

4 Some exploration, development, and production activities have a potential to result in 

5 space use conflicts with commercial fishing activities. Seismic exploration vessels towing long 

6 cables have had a history of conflicts with the commercial fishing industry in Cook Inlet 

7 (MMS 2003a), including losses of crab pots, longlines, or other gear. In some cases, commercial 

8 fishing vessels could be excluded from normal fishing grounds to avoid the potential for gear 

9 loss. Such conflicts can sometimes be avoided by conducting seismic surveys during closed 

10 fishing periods or closed seasons. A potential also exists for loss of gear or access to fishing 

11 areas when floating drill rigs used for exploration are being moved and during other vessel 

12 operations.

13

14 Offshore construction of platforms could infringe on commercial fishing activities by 

15 excluding commercial fishing from adjacent areas due to safety considerations. It is assumed 

16 that up to three production platforms could be constructed as a consequence of leasing in the 

17 Cook Inlet Planning Area. If it is assumed that a safety zone of 500 m (1,640 ft) is maintained 

18 by larger vessels around each production platform, commercial fishing could be excluded from 

19 up to 160 ha (395 ac) of surface area within the planning area. Drilling discharges associated 

20 with exploration activities would likely affect only a small area near a drilling platform, and are 

21 not expected to interfere with commercial fishing. During development and production phases, 

22 potential effects of such discharges would cease because all muds, cuttings, and produced water 

23 would be discharged into wells instead of being released to open waters. Potential effects of 

24 platform construction and operation are expected to be highly localized. Because only a very 

25 small area of the Cook Inlet would be affected, interference with commercial fisheries is also 

26 expected to be small.

27

28 Construction of pipelines can result in entanglement hazards for some types of fishing 

29 gear. The presence of an offshore pipeline would not typically interfere with the use of 

30 longlines, purse seines, drift nets (MMS 2004a), or beach seines. However, a bottom trawl, such 

31 as those employed by the commercial groundfish industry in Cook Inlet, has a potential to 

32 become snagged on exposed pipelines. It is estimated that up to 241 km (150 mi) of additional

33 offshore pipeline could result from lease sales in the Cook Inlet Planning Area, thereby 

34 increasing the potential for snagging on pipelines by bottom trawling equipment, unless subsea 

35 pipelines are buried in trenches.

36

37 It is anticipated that the small increase in vessel activity that could occur as a result of 

38 additional lease sales in Cook Inlet under the proposed action (up to six additional trips per 

39 week) would not measurably affect commercial fishing opportunities, catchability of fish and

40 shellfish resources, or navigation by commercial fishing vessels.

41

42 The impact of oil and gas structures on commercial fisheries at various depth ranges can 

43 be estimated using data from the OECM (BOEMRE 2010d). The model assumes that there will 

44 be buffer zones of up to 0.8 km (0.5 mi) around new oil and gas structures, decreasing the area of 

45 ocean available for fishing. Although harvesting levels are not affected by offshore structures 

46 and pipelines, as these levels are below federally mandated levels, it is assumed that fishing 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-420

1 activity will continue in areas still open for fishing, with harvesting levels remaining, but that 

2 there will be an increase in fishing costs.

3

4 The impacts of oil and gas development on commercial fishing costs would vary 

5 considerably by placement depth (Table 4.4.11-2). In the Kodiak area, the largest cost increases 

6 would occur with structures located in water between 300 and 1,500 m (984 and 4,921 ft) deep,

7 with an annual increase of $34 in costs from a single structure; a single structure in each depth 

8 range would increase annual costs by $44. In the Cook Inlet area, the largest increase would 

9 come with a single structure placed in water between 150 and 300 m (492 and 984 ft), with an 

10 overall increase in costs of $57 per year. In each of the areas, single structures would have 

11 relatively insignificant impacts compared to fishery revenues in each depth range.

12

13 Recreational Fisheries. In general, routine operations associated with exploration, 

14 development, or production activities could affect recreational fisheries by causing changes in 

15 the distribution or abundance of fishery resources, by reducing the catchability of fish and 

16 shellfish, by precluding fishers from accessing viable fishing areas, or by causing losses of or 

17 damage to equipment or vessels. It is anticipated that routine operations would not result in 

18 detectable effects on overall populations of fishery resources in Cook Inlet. Temporary 

19 displacement of fishery resources from localized areas could occur as a consequence of noise and 

20 bottom-disturbing activities associated with routine operations. Following platform construction, 

21 there could be long-term localized changes in fish densities and species diversity due to the 

22 attraction of some invertebrate and fish species to platforms.

23

24 Seismic surveys could temporarily affect the behavior of some targeted species, thereby 

25 affecting catch rates in the immediate area of the surveys. Some recreational anglers could 

26 decide to avoid areas during seismic surveys due to the potential for loss of fishing gear, due to 

27 the increased vessel activity, or because of perceived or actual changes in catchability. It is 

28 estimated that new areas in the Cook Inlet Planning Area could be subjected to seismic surveys

29

30

31 TABLE 4.4.11-2 Impacts of Single Oil and Gas Structures on 

32 Commercial Fisheries, by Placement Depth ($2010)

Kodiak Cook Inlet

Placement Depth 

Range

Fishery 

Revenue 

($m)

Cost 

Impact ($)

Fishery 

Revenue 

($m)

Cost 

Impact ($)

0 to 60 m 15.6 –3.34 7.3 –0.04

60 to 150 m 43.7 9.87 2.6 3.88

150 to 300 m 22.8 3.32 7.0 53.50

300 to 1,500 m 23.4 34.07 0.1 0.0

More than 1,500 m 1.3 0.26 0.0 0.0

All depths 106.9 44.18 17.0 57.35

Source: BOEMRE 2010d.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-421

1 during the Program. However, given the relatively small proportion of the available Cook Inlet 

2 area that would be affected at any particular time, it is not anticipated that seismic surveys would 

3 greatly disrupt recreational fishing activities.

4

5 Offshore construction of platforms could infringe on some recreational fishing activities 

6 by excluding recreational fishing boats from adjacent areas for safety considerations. It is 

7 assumed that up to three production platforms could be constructed as a consequence of lease 

8 sales in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. However, the area lost to recreational fishing would be 

9 limited to the immediate footprint of the platforms plus a small safety zone surrounding each 

10 platform; only a very small proportion of available recreational fishing areas in Cook Inlet would 

11 be affected. The presence of such platforms could also benefit anglers by aggregating some 

12 pelagic or groundfish species.

13

14 Vessel traffic to provide support to OCS activities could increase by one to three trips per 

15 week. This would constitute a very small increase in overall vessel traffic in Cook Inlet. The 

16 potential increase in daily helicopter trips in the Cook Inlet area would not be expected to affect 

17 recreational fishing activities. Disturbances of recreational fishing opportunities from other 

18 activities associated with routine operations (e.g., pipeline construction) are also expected to be 

19 relatively minor and temporary.

20

21

22 4.4.11.2.2 Accidents. 

23

24 Commercial Fisheries. Fisheries resources could become exposed to oil as a 

25 consequence of accidental oil spills. One large spill greater than 1,000 bbl, up to 3 spills 

26 between 50 and 1,000 bbl, and up to 15 small spills less than 50 bbl could occur in the Cook Inlet 

27 area from the proposed action.

28

29 Although pelagic fishes would be less likely to be affected than fishes in shallow subtidal 

30 or intertidal areas, oil spills could contaminate gear used for commercial fishing, such as purse 

31 seines and or drift nets. A large oil spill before or during the season when such fishing gears are 

32 in use could result in closures of some short-period, high-value commercial fisheries in order to 

33 protect gears or harvests from potential contamination. Lines from longline fisheries for halibut, 

34 Pacific cod, black cod, and other fish species could also be affected by oil. Some lines and 

35 buoys fouled with small amounts of oil could be unfit for future use. Although it is unlikely that 

36 a trawler would be operating in an oiled area, the trawl catches could be contaminated by oil and 

37 rendered unfit for consumption if the trawler did pass through such an area.

38

39 The bays and beaches of Cook Inlet have a number of setnet sites where gillnets are 

40 anchored to the beach or slightly offshore, and are used to harvest salmon and herring. Oil spills 

41 could damage setnet fisheries, as evidenced by the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989. While only a 

42 relatively small volume of weathered oil entered the lower Cook Inlet region as a result of the 

43 Exxon Valdez spill, the commercial salmon fishery was closed to protect both gear and the 

44 harvest from possible contamination.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-422

1 Multiple small spills or a single large spill could cause declines in subpopulations of 

2 some species inhabiting the Cook Inlet Planning Area, although the level of effects would 

3 depend on a variety of factors. It is anticipated that there would be no long-term effects on 

4 overall fish populations in the central Gulf of Alaska. However, even localized decreases in 

5 stocks of fish could have effects on some commercial fisheries by reducing their catch or 

6 increasing the amount of effort or the distances that must be traveled to obtain adequate catches. 

7 Even if fish stocks are not reduced as a consequence of a spill, specific fisheries could be closed 

8 due to actual or perceived contamination of fish or shellfish tissues. Larger spills in Cook Inlet 

9 would probably result in the area being temporarily closed to commercial fishing until cleanup 

10 operations or natural processes reduced oil concentrations in fishery areas to levels considered 

11 safe. The Cook Inlet commercial shellfish industry is likely to be affected by closures because 

12 such a spill would be likely to affect shellfish in nearshore subtidal and intertidal areas. Fisheries 

13 for shellfish that occur in deeper waters, where oil residues seldom reach, are less likely to be 

14 closed. Shellfish from deeper areas could become commercially unacceptable for market due to 

15 actual or perceived contamination and tainting.

16

17 Closure of Cook Inlet to commercial fishing activities could result in considerable loss of 

18 income. Based on analyses conducted by MMS for Cook Inlet oil spills of the same sizes 

19 assumed for large spills in this analysis and assumptions about the value of commercial fisheries 

20 in Cook Inlet, it was estimated that a large oil spill in lower Cook Inlet could result in economic 

21 losses to commercial fisheries for up to 2 yr (MMS 2003a), and, depending on the timing and 

22 location of a spill, it was also considered possible that the fishery could be closed for a whole 

23 season, resulting in a 100% loss for a given year.

24

25 Recreational Fisheries. Recreational fishery resources could be exposed to oil as a 

26 consequence of accidental oil spills. Up to 1 large spill greater than 1,000 bbl, up to 2 spills 

27 between 50 and 1,000 bbl, and up to 10 small spills less than 50 bbl could occur in the Cook Inlet 

28 area from the proposed action.

29

30 While it is anticipated that these spills would not affect the overall populations of fishes 

31 in the central Gulf of Alaska, some fish stocks in localized areas of Cook Inlet could be affected. 

32 Populations of intertidal organisms could be depressed measurably for a year or more in 

33 intertidal areas contacted by spilled oil. Oil contacting beaches could affect clam gathering by 

34 depressing clam populations or tainting tissues of clams. The magnitude of such effects would 

35 depend upon many factors, including the volume of oil spilled, weather conditions, prevailing 

36 currents, locations, oil spill response actions, and whether the oil reached sensitive habitats for 

37 fishery resources. Declines in localized fish stocks could affect recreational fishing success and 

38 businesses associated with providing recreational and sport fishing opportunities.

39

40 An oil spill could result in a closure of ports in an effort to protect the ports and vessels 

41 from being oiled. Oil spills could potentially cause economic losses for boat owners and anglers 

42 by contaminating vessels and fishing gear. Oiled vessels would need to be cleaned and oiled 

43 gear either cleaned or replaced; potential individual costs are expected to be relatively small. It 

44 is anticipated that many anglers would choose to fish in alternate areas in the event of port 

45 closures. Charter operators could be inclined to temporarily avoid going out of port into Cook 

46 Inlet to avoid fouling their gear and vessels with oil. Public perception of oil spill damage could 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-423

1 temporarily reduce the number of anglers. If so, anglers would likely target alternate fishing 

2 areas until they deemed that the quality of the fishing experience in the oil spill area had returned 

3 to previous conditions.

4

5 While charter operators could lose business in the event of a large spill, a report on the 

6 July 2, 1987, Glacier Bay tanker oil spill found ―no measurable impacts‖ on sportfishing from 

7 that spill (Northern Economics 1990). It is estimated that 3,100 bbl of oil were spilled. 

8 Although several popular sportfishing runs had already ended when the spill occurred, the 

9 busiest season was beginning for the halibut charter boat fishery, and the second-run Kenai 

10 salmon sport fishing season was just opening for the year. The study found no evidence of losses 

11 in these sportfisheries due to oil-fouled boats or gear, loss of fishing opportunity, or harvest of 

12 oil-fouled fish that had to be discarded (with only one exception). In addition, the numbers of 

13 fish caught did not appear to be affected, and customers did not cancel reservations because of 

14 concerns about the spill. Very large oil spills could have greater impacts, especially if the oil 

15 reached large areas of intertidal habitat. Studies following the Exxon Valdez oil spill suggest that 

16 a very large oil spill could have the potential to reduce or contaminate populations of 

17 recreationally popular salmon and shellfish in heavily oiled areas for more than 10 yr. For 

18 example, pink salmon had elevated egg mortality for at least 4 yr after the spill 

19 (Peterson et al. 2003), and littleneck and butter clam populations were reduced for a decade after 

20 the spill, although much of the slow recovery may have resulted from cleanup methods used in 

21 intertidal areas (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2009a). Contamination of shellfish may 

22 persist even after populations recover. Species less dependent on intertidal soft sediments, such 

23 as rockfish, are less likely to be affected. Impacts of spills on subsistence resources are 

24 discussed in Section 4.4.13 and Section 4.4.14.

25

26 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE that ranges in size from 

27 75 to 125 thousand bbl (Table 4.4.2-2). The magnitude of effects from a CDE would depend on 

28 the location, timing, and volume of the oil associated with the event. Oil from a CDE could 

29 contact intertidal habitat and subsequently contaminate or reduce the abundance of commercial 

30 and recreational species that depend on nearshore habitat. However, it is likely that an event

31 would only affect a small proportion of fish species population, and it is unlikely that fish 

32 resources would be permanently affected. In the short term, there would be local or regional

33 effects on commercial fishing that as a result of reduced catch, loss of gear, or loss of fishing 

34 opportunities during cleanup and recovery periods, and on recreational fishing as a consequence 

35 of contamination of fish tissues, the degradation of aesthetic values that attract fishers, and the 

36 likely temporary closure of fishing areas. 

37

38

39 4.4.11.3 Alaska – Arctic

40

41

42 4.4.11.3.1 Routine Operations. There is a relatively small salmon fishery in Kotzebue 

43 Sound in Hope Basin, but there are no commercial fisheries in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area 

44 where routine operations would occur (MMS 2006b). Consequently, no impacts from routine 

45 operations are anticipated. The single commercial fishery in the Beaufort Sea is for cisco and 

46 whitefish on the Colville River during the summer and fall months. The potential for negative 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-424

1 effects on this fishery would be related to the timing of exploration and development activities 

2 and the proximity of those activities to the mouth of the Colville River. Because exploration and 

3 development of this area has already occurred, it is considered unlikely that there would be 

4 substantial levels of additional development as a result of the proposed action. In addition, 

5 impacts would be limited in scope as a result of adherence to mitigation measures and 

6 compliance with Federal, State, and local requirements. Therefore, impacts on this fishery are 

7 also anticipated to be limited in scope. Similarly, impacts on recreational fisheries from routine 

8 operations are expected to be negligible, as little recreational fishing occurs in the Beaufort and 

9 Chukchi Sea Planning Areas (NPFMC 2009).

10

11

12 4.4.11.3.2 Accidents. Up to 3 large spills greater than 1,000 bbl, between 10 and 

13 35 spills between 50 and 1,000 bbl, and up to 190 small spills of less than 50 bbl could occur in 

14 the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea areas from the proposed action.

15

16 Recreational fishing in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas is very limited and 

17 generally occurs only at larger population centers. However, where and when recreational 

18 fishing does occur, an oil spill could reduce fishing activity or contaminate fishery resources. 

19 Commercial fishing in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas is restricted to the Colville 

20 River. The occurrence of an oil spill near commercial fishing areas during the fishing season 

21 could have effects on particular fisheries and the local economies that depend on them. Oil spills 

22 typically result in the closure of fishing grounds and reduced or lack of harvest. Even if harvest 

23 continues, the perception of a tainted product could reduce the economic value of fish harvested 

24 in the vicinity of an oil spill or could even cause fish to be removed from markets.

25

26 Spills could foul fishing gear, result in fish contamination and mortality, and potentially 

27 close some fishing grounds or entire fisheries for one or more years. A large spill could also 

28 increase competition on alternative fishing areas that remain open, resulting in increased costs 

29 and/or reduced harvests for individual fishermen. There is a reduced chance of a spill occurring 

30 during pulse fisheries of short duration, such as those for salmon, herring, or whitefish, because 

31 of the relatively short period of time that such fisheries are open. However, if a spill were to 

32 occur during operation of such a fishery, potential impacts would include a total loss of 

33 commercial fishing harvest due to the inability to switch to an alternative fishing time or area. 

34 Impacts of spills on subsistence resources are discussed in Section 4.4.13 and Section 4.4.14.

35

36 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE that ranges in size from 

37 1.4 to 2.2 million bbl in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area and from 1.7 to 3.9 million bbl in the 

38 Beaufort Sea Planning Areas (Table 4.4.2-2). The magnitude of effects from a CDE would 

39 depend on the location, timing, and volume of the oil associated with the event. Oil from a CDE 

40 could contact intertidal habitat and subsequently contaminate or reduce the abundance of 

41 commercial and recreational species that depend on nearshore habitat. However, it is likely that 

42 an event would only affect a small proportion of fish species population, and it is unlikely that 

43 fish resources would be permanently affected. Although commercial and recreational fishing in 

44 the Arctic region are of minor economic significance, in the short term, there would be local and 

45 regional economic impacts resulting from reduced catch, loss of gear, or loss of fishing 

46 opportunities during cleanup and recovery periods, and on recreational fishing as a consequence 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-425

1 of contamination of fish tissues, the degradation of aesthetic values that attract fishers, and the 

2 likely temporary closure of fishing areas. 

3

4

5 4.4.11.4 Conclusion

6

7 Routine operations could affect commercial fisheries by causing changes in the 

8 distribution or abundance of fishery resources, by reducing the catchability of fish or shellfish, 

9 precluding fishers from accessing viable fishing areas, or causing losses of or damage to 

10 equipment or vessels. No population-level effects or permanent loss of fishery resources are 

11 expected to result from routine operations in the GOM or Cook Inlet. Commercial and 

12 recreational fisheries in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas are relatively small and 

13 localized. Impacts on these fisheries are unlikely, since OCS activities would not occur in the 

14 immediate area near these fisheries. Impacts to commercial and recreational fisheries from 

15 routine Program activities are expected to be minor.

16

17 The magnitude of effects from accidental spills would depend on the location, timing, 

18 and volume of spills, in addition to other environmental factors, and would be greatest in the 

19 event of a CDE-level spill. Small spills that may occur under the proposed action are unlikely to 

20 affect a large number of fish or have a substantial effect on recreational fishing before dilution 

21 and weathering reduced concentrations of oil in the water. Consequently, it is anticipated that 

22 small spills would have little effect on commercial and recreational fishing. Any single large 

23 spill would likely affect only a small proportion of a given fish population within the GOM, 

24 Cook Inlet, and Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, and it is unlikely that fish resources would be 

25 permanently affected. However, large spills could have localized effects on commercial fishing 

26 that could result as a consequence of reduced catch, loss of gear, or loss of fishing opportunities 

27 during cleanup and recovery periods, and on recreational fishing as a consequence of 

28 contamination of fish tissues, degradation of aesthetic values that attract fishers, or temporary 

29 closure of fishing areas. Oil from large or very large spills could contact intertidal habitat and 

30 subsequently contaminate or reduce the abundance of commercial and recreational species that 

31 depend on nearshore habitat. Impacts from a large spill could be long term, but are not expected 

32 to result in permanent loss of fishery resources. In the event of a CDE-level spill, fisheries 

33 recoveries could be impacted on a manner similar to that from a large spill. However, a larger 

34 proportion of a fish population could be affected, and impacts could be much more long-term on 

35 duration.

36

37

38 4.4.12 Potential Impacts to Tourism and Recreation

39

40

41 4.4.12.1 Gulf of Mexico

42

43

44 4.4.12.1.1 Routine Operations. In addition to the continuing use of existing onshore 

45 support and processing facilities, between 4 and 6 new pipeyards, less than 12 new pipeline 

46 landfalls, and as many as 12 new gas processing facilities are projected to be built as a result of 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-426

1 the Program. Additional offshore construction could include increased noise and traffic, air and 

2 water pollution, impacts on residential property values, and land use changes. As it is likely that 

3 onshore facilities would be placed near other commercial areas zoned for such development, 

4 certain coastal areas could also be closed temporarily to accommodate the construction of new 

5 facilities, while underground pipeline construction could occur near important recreational areas. 

6 Routine operations would have limited effects on recreation and tourism, with potential adverse 

7 aesthetic impacts on beach recreation and sightseeing and potential positive impacts on diving 

8 and recreational fishing.

9

10 The proposed action is expected to result in 300 to 600 service-vessel trips and 2,000 to 

11 5,500 helicopter operations weekly. Although service vessels are assumed to use established 

12 nearshore traffic lanes and helicopters are assumed to comply with areal clearance restrictions at 

13 least 90% of the time, additional helicopter and vessel traffic would add a low level of noise 

14 pollution that could affect beach users. Routine OCS traffic can cause minor disturbances to 

15 recreational resources, particularly beaches, through increased levels of noise, debris, and rig 

16 visibility. Although the proposed action has the potential to directly and indirectly impact 

17 recreational resources along the GOM coast, the small scale of OCS activities relative to the 

18 scale of the existing oil and gas industry is such that these potential impacts on recreational 

19 resources are likely to be minimal. There may also be minor space-use conflicts with 

20 recreational fishermen during the initial phases of the proposed action and low-level 

21 environmental degradation of fish habitat, which would negatively impact recreational fishing 

22 activity. However, these minor negative effects would likely be outweighed by the beneficial 

23 role that oil rigs serve as artificial reefs for fish populations. The degree to which oil platforms 

24 will become a part of a particular State‘s rigs-to-reefs program will be an important determinant 

25 of the degree to which the proposed action will impact recreational fishing activity in the long 

26 term.

27

28 The broader economic implications of the proposed action would be felt primarily on the 

29 GOM coast of Texas. The Texas coastline features an important barrier island system that 

30 supports a broad range of beach-related activity, and the visual, debris, and noise related issues 

31 could impact beach-related activity at these locations. However, given the expansive oil and gas 

32 industry already in place, as well as the distance oil platforms in Texas maintained from shore, 

33 beach-related disruptions due to OCS operations are expected to be minimal.

34

35

36 4.4.12.1.2 Accidents. Up to 8 large spills greater than 1,000 bbl, between 35 and 

37 70 spills between 50 and 1,000 bbl, and up to 400 small spills less than 50 bbl could occur in the 

38 GOM from the proposed action. It is reasonable to expect that most of these spills will occur in 

39 deepwater areas located away from the coast, based on the established trend for oil and gas 

40 activity to move into deep waters located for the most part at a substantial distance from the 

41 coast.

42

43 Temporary impacts would occur if an oil spill reached a beach or other recreational use 

44 area. The magnitude of these impacts would depend on factors such as the size and location of 

45 the spill, and would likely be greatest if the spill occurred during the peak recreational season. A 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-427

1 number of studies (see Section 3.1.3) have shown that there could be a one-time seasonal decline 

2 in tourist visits of 5 to 15% associated with a major oil spill.

3

4 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE that ranges from 0.9 to 

5 7.2 million bbl (Table 4.4.2-2). The effects from a catastrophic discharge event would likely 

6 include beach and coastal access restrictions, including restrictions on visitation, fishing, or 

7 hunting while cleanup is being conducted, and aesthetic impacts associated with the event itself

8 and with cleanup activities. These impacts are expected to be temporary, with the magnitude 

9 dependent on the location and size of the event and the effectiveness of cleanup operations. 

10 Longer-term impacts may also be substantial if tourism were to suffer as a result of the real or 

11 perceived impacts of the event, or if there were substantial changes to tourism and recreation 

12 sectors in the region as a result of the event.

13

14

15 4.4.12.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

16

17

18 4.4.12.2.1 Routine Operations. Although no new pipe yards, pipeline landfalls, or gas 

19 processing facilities would be built as a result of the proposed 5-yr program, additional offshore 

20 construction could include increased noise and traffic, air and water pollution, impacts on 

21 residential property values, and land use changes. Oil and gas development under the proposed 

22 action in the south central Alaska region would occur in the vicinity of previous development. 

23 The additional development would not alter the character of the area, because similar 

24 infrastructure is already present. Effects on scenic quality would be temporary and localized, 

25 and would be most noticeable during heavy periods of industrial activity, such as during drilling 

26 or pipelaying. Temporary closure of certain areas to recreation would likely be necessary, but 

27 would be limited in size and duration. A small increase in the amount of trash and debris 

28 washing ashore may also occur as a result of the development. The frequency of helicopter and 

29 vessel traffic to and from the new platforms would be consistent with that of existing platforms, 

30 but would contribute marginally to the impact on scenic quality and add to the industrial noise. 

31 The magnitude of these impacts would be small and vary with the distance of these activities 

32 from existing parks and wildlife refuges, primary recreational use areas, and cruise line paths. 

33 During the short period of construction, the increased workforce could impact lodging 

34 accommodations for tourists during peak times; however, impacts would depend on the timing 

35 and location of the activities and the availability of a local workforce.

36

37

38 4.4.12.2.2 Accidents. One large spill greater than 1,000 bbl, up to 3 spills between 

39 50 and 1,000 bbl, and up to 15 small spills less than 50 bbl could occur in the Cook Inlet area 

40 from the proposed action. These oil spills would be responded to primarily by existing response 

41 facilities along the coast and existing shore bases according to spill response protocols. Potential 

42 impacts on recreation and tourism resulting from an oil spill would likely include direct land use 

43 impacts (e.g., from oil contamination at a coastal area), access restrictions to a particular area 

44 (e.g., no fishing or hunting while cleanup is conducted), and aesthetic impacts of the spill itself 

45 and cleanup operations. These impacts are expected to be temporary, but could last an entire 

46 season. However, because of public perceptions resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-428

1 Prince William Sound, tourism in the region may respond more strongly than would tourism in 

2 other regions. The magnitude of the impacts would depend on the location and size of the spill 

3 and the effectiveness of cleanup operations.

4

5 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE that ranges in size from 75 to 

6 125 thousand bbl (Table 4.4.2-2). The effects from a CDE would likely include beach and 

7 coastal access restrictions, including restrictions on visitation, fishing, or hunting while cleanup 

8 is being conducted, and aesthetic impacts associated with the event itself and with cleanup 

9 activities. These impacts are expected to be temporary, with the magnitude dependent on the 

10 location and size of the event and the effectiveness of cleanup operations. Longer-term impacts 

11 may also be substantial if tourism were to suffer as a result of the real or perceived impacts of the 

12 event, or if there were substantial changes to tourism and recreation sectors in the region as a 

13 result of the event.

14

15

16 4.4.12.3 Alaska – Arctic

17

18

19 4.4.12.3.1 Routine Operations. Although no new pipe yards, pipeline landfalls, or gas 

20 processing facilities would be built as a result of the proposed 5-yr program, additional offshore 

21 construction could include increased noise and traffic, air and water pollution, impacts on 

22 residential property values, and land use changes. Oil and gas development activities could 

23 result in minor impacts on recreation and tourism in the Arctic region. The main recreation and 

24 tourism activities that could be impacted by routine oil and gas operations would be sightseeing, 

25 hiking, and rafting. Fishing in this region is primarily a subsistence activity rather than a 

26 recreational activity. Impacts on sightseeing might be viewed as being negative, with adverse 

27 aesthetic impacts from offshore platforms and possible increases in construction projects for gas

28 processing facilities and new offshore pipelines to connect to existing onshore pipelines in the 

29 Chukchi Sea area. Impacts on these recreational activities would depend on the proximity of the 

30 new construction to the recreational use areas (such as whether they are in view of existing parks 

31 and refuges).

32

33 The additional development would not alter the character of the area, as similar 

34 infrastructure is already present. Effects on scenic quality would be temporary and localized, 

35 and would be most noticeable during heavy periods of industrial activity, such as during drilling 

36 or pipelaying. Temporary closure of certain areas to recreation would likely be necessary, but 

37 would be limited in size and duration. A small increase in the amount of trash and debris 

38 washing ashore may also occur as a result of the development. The frequency of helicopter and 

39 vessel traffic to and from the new platforms would be consistent with that of existing platforms, 

40 but would contribute marginally to the impact on scenic quality and add to the industrial noise. 

41 The magnitude of these impacts would be small and vary with the distance of these activities 

42 from existing parks and wildlife refuges and primary recreational use areas. During the short 

43 period of construction, the increased workforce could impact lodging accommodations for 

44 tourists during peak times; however, impacts would depend on the timing and location of the 

45 activities and the availability of a local workforce.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-429

1 4.4.12.3.2 Accidents. Up to 3 large spills greater than 1,000 bbl, up to 35 spills between 

2 50 and 1,000 bbl, and up to 190 small spills of less than 50 bbl could occur in the Beaufort and 

3 Chukchi Sea area from the proposed action. These spills would be responded to primarily by 

4 existing response facilities along the coast and existing shore bases according to spill response 

5 protocols. Potential impacts to recreation and tourism resulting from an oil spill would likely 

6 include direct land use impacts (e.g., from oil contamination at a coastal area), access restrictions 

7 to a particular area (e.g., no fishing or hunting while cleanup is being conducted), and aesthetic 

8 impacts (e.g., view of spill and cleanup activities). These impacts are expected to be temporary, 

9 and the magnitude of the impacts would depend on the location and size of the spill and the 

10 effectiveness of cleanup operations. The greatest potential impacts would occur from large spills 

11 in shallow water. The potential for impact would likely decrease with decreasing spill size and 

12 increasing water depth.

13

14 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE that ranges from 1.9 to 

15 2.2 million bbl in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area, and from 1.7 to 3.9 million bbl on the 

16 Beaufort Sea Planning Area (Table 4.4.2-2). The effects from a CDE would likely include beach 

17 and coastal access restrictions, including restrictions on visitation, fishing, or hunting while 

18 cleanup is being conducted, and aesthetic impacts associated with the event itself and with 

19 cleanup activities. These impacts are expected to be temporary, with the magnitude dependent

20 on the location and size of the event and the effectiveness of cleanup operations. Longer-term 

21 impacts may also be substantial if tourism were to suffer as a result of the real or perceived 

22 impacts of the event, or if there were substantial changes to tourism and recreation sectors in the

23 region as a result of the event.

24

25

26 4.4.12.4 Conclusion

27

28 Routine operations would have minor, short-term negative effects on recreation and 

29 tourism, with potential adverse aesthetic impacts on beach recreation and sightseeing and 

30 potential positive impacts on diving and recreational fishing in the GOM coast; sightseeing, 

31 boating, fishing, and hiking activities in the Cook Inlet area; and sightseeing, hiking, and rafting 

32 activities in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea Planning Areas. 

33

34 Temporary impacts would occur if an oil spill reached a beach or other recreational-use 

35 area in the GOM or Cook Inlet. The magnitude of these impacts would depend on factors such 

36 as the size and location of the spill, and would likely be greatest if the spill occurred during the 

37 peak recreational season. In the event of a CDE-level spill, impacts to tourism and recreation 

38 would be long-term and substantial.

39

40
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-430

1 4.4.13 Potential Impacts to Sociocultural Systems

2

3

4 4.4.13.1 Gulf of Mexico

5

6 As discussed in Section 3.4.1.1, the counties in the GOM coastal commuting zone 

7 include a diverse mixture of social classes, cultures, ethnic groups, and communities. They also 

8 include a well-established oil and gas industry and support structure focused mainly in Louisiana 

9 and Texas. The activities covered under the Program would tend to maintain existing onshore 

10 facilities rather than require new ones (MMS 2006a, 2008a). While oil and gas facilities are 

11 dispersed along the central and western coast of the GOM, they are not spread evenly. 

12 Terrebonne, Plaquemine, and Lafourche parishes in Louisiana are the heart of the oil and gas 

13 support industry (MMS 2008a) with Port Fourchon catering to 90% of all GOM deepwater 

14 production (BOEMRE 2011a). Sociocultural impacts from routine operations would be small, 

15 while impacts from a low-probability catastrophic discharge event could be significant.

16

17

18 4.4.13.1.1 Routine Operations. Routine OCS gas and oil operations include 

19 exploration, development, operation, and decommissioning. Although tied to the shore by 

20 aircraft, supply vessels, and pipelines, these activities occur well offshore and in increasingly 

21 deeper water. The global nature of deepwater activities has contributed to cultural heterogeneity 

22 with the importation of migrant workers. A recent study reports that industry employers often 

23 hire foreign-born Mexican and Laotian workers in upstream support sectors such as ship and 

24 fabrication yards (Hemmerling and Colton 2004). The greater distance of deepwater platforms 

25 from coastal communities has resulted in workers being drawn from a wider range of locations in 

26 the GOM region, making the ties between local subcultural groups and the offshore industry less 

27 consistent. The move father offshore into deep water has also led to longer offshore work shifts 

28 and to more ―on call‖ schedules for many workers, including technical experts and mariners 

29 (Austin et al. 2002). In the past, development of infrastructure within coastal wetlands has 

30 contributed to the shrinking of wetlands and loss of land in Louisiana, resulting in a loss of both 

31 subsistence and commercial harvesting areas. However, most new production will be able to tie 

32 into the existing pipeline system, so it is unlikely that many new pipeline channels will need to 

33 be dredged. Current practice is for pipeline channels to be backfilled, reducing wetland erosion 

34 and partitioning of habitat (Hemmerling and Colton 2004).

35

36

37 4.4.13.1.2 Accidents. Accidental spills, including oil spills, chemical spills, vessel 

38 collisions, and loss of well control, are possible under the Program (MMS 2008a)

39 (see Section 4.4.2). Between 200 and 400 spills of 50 bbl or less, 35 to 70 spills between 50 and

40 1,000 bbl, and 8 large spills greater than 1,000 bbl are posited for the GOM Program. Most 

41 accidental spills on this scale are likely to be short term and localized. Those occurring well 

42 offshore are likely to be cleaned up or dissipate before reaching shore, and would thus have little 

43 effect on onshore communities (MMS 2006a). Those occurring in coastal waterways involving 

44 OCS support vessels or pipelines (BOEMRE 2011a) would have localized effects on wild 

45 resources harvested either commercially or for subsistence purposes. Intertidal and estuarian 

46 habitats, where shellfish are harvested and the juveniles of harvested species develop, are the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-431

1 most vulnerable. Most adult fish species seem to be better able to avoid oiled waters. Impacts 

2 from small and moderate coastal spills are likely to have localized and short-lived effects. Large 

3 spills (over 1,000 bbl) and especially spills of sufficient size to overwhelm cleanup and booming 

4 efforts, could significantly affect communities dependent on harvesting renewable wild resources 

5 either commercially or for subsistence purposes.

6

7 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE that ranges in size from 

8 0.9 to 7.2 million bbl (Table 4.4.2-2). A CDE would have significant sociocultural consequences 

9 for populations employed in offshore oil and gas production and in commercial fishing and 

10 shrimping, and engaged in subsistence harvesting. A catastrophic discharge event would result 

11 in negative and long-lasting social effects (BOEMRE 2011b). Recent studies have shown that 

12 major oil releases result in negative and long-lasting social effects. Unlike devastation from 

13 hurricanes or other natural disasters that tend to bring communities together to face a common 

14 tragedy, oil spills tend to have divisive effects. Technical disasters such as oil spills are deemed 

15 as preventable, have a person or organization viewed as primarily responsible, and often can lead 

16 to litigation that can last for years (Picou et al. 2009). For example, during the DWH release, 

17 large areas of the GOM were closed to all shrimping and fishing (NMFS 2010, 2011). The loss 

18 of work placed financial stress on workers in that industry. Some, but not all, shrimpers and 

19 fishing boats were employed in the cleanup, creating a division between those who received 

20 some financial relief through the cleanup effort and those who did not. The loss of income and 

21 potential loss of some subsistence sources create emotional stress stemming from financial 

22 stress, often resulting in depression and post-traumatic stress disorder in those who depend on 

23 the renewable resources of the sea for their livelihood. An increase in sociological disorders

24 such as domestic violence, substance abuse, and suicide was observed in communities affected 

25 by the Exxon Valdez spill (Picou and Arata 1997). Similar patterns appear to be emerging 

26 among populations that are heavily dependent on fishing along the GOM coast 

27 (Picou et al. 1999; Picou 2010), especially among fishing communities already hard hit by 

28 Hurricane Katrina (Yeoman 2010). Methods for mitigating social stress by creating a therapeutic 

29 community based on a model developed for the Exxon Valdez spill are being implemented in the 

30 GOM (SAMHSA 2010; MASGC 2011).

31

32 While only a small portion of those who live along the northern coast of the GOM are 

33 engaged in subsistence harvesting, if oil from a catastrophic discharge event were to reach the 

34 shore, it could affect the barrier islands and wetlands important to the harvesting of subsistence 

35 resources, including waterfowl, fish, shrimp, and shellfish. If coastal fisheries were 

36 contaminated or closed, it would have a significant effect on subsistence harvesting. As a result 

37 of the DWH event, close to 30,000 emergency advance payment claims were filed based on the 

38 loss of subsistence resources (BOEMRE 2011a). Loss of subsistence resources has economic, 

39 nutritional, and cultural consequences.

40

41

42 4.4.13.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

43

44 Finding and developing oil and gas resources on the Cook Inlet OCS has the potential to 

45 create adverse effects on sociocultural systems and subsistence. Such effects would range from 

46 minor to major depending on the timing, location, and scale of the activity. Many negative 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-432

1 consequences could be minimized through appropriate mitigation procedures. The most central 

2 of these is establishing and maintaining communication among Native villages, oil companies, 

3 and appropriate Federal agencies, including both government-to-government consultation in 

4 compliance with legal requirements and U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI) policy 

5 (USDOI 2001) and ongoing dialogue leading to adaptive management of adverse effects.

6

7 The areas surrounding the Cook Inlet Planning Area are demographically diverse, 

8 including isolated subsistence-based Native villages, towns that rely primarily on commercial 

9 fishing, and ethnically and economically diverse cities partly dependent on the oil industry. 

10 There have been oil and gas operations in Cook Inlet since the late 1950s, and the surrounding 

11 area is home to a well-established gas and oil infrastructure that could accommodate much of 

12 any newly developed resource. As discussed in Section 4.4.1.2, under the proposed action, no 

13 new shore bases would be constructed, and one new pipeline landfall and possibly one new 

14 natural gas processing facility would be built.

15

16 Rural communities in the area benefit from oil and gas development throughout the State. 

17 However, currently the Federal Government does not share revenues from oil and gas leasing on 

18 the OCS with the States, although Alaska has received Federal Coastal Impact Assistance 

19 Program (CIAP) funding, because it is an OCS State (Hess 2011; BOEMRE 2011m). Benefits 

20 from revenue sharing would only occur if Congress authorizes the sharing of OCS revenues with 

21 the OCS States. If such sharing were to occur, OCS activities could be expected to have effects 

22 on Alaskan rural communities, through various State programs, proportionate to the percentage 

23 of the State budget that relies on revenues from OCS oil and gas production and that is allocated 

24 to the affected communities. For the period of the Program, the allocated revenues from OCS oil 

25 and gas production would be relatively small.

26

27

28 4.4.13.2.1 Routine Operations. Routine operations under the Program would include 

29 exploration for oil and gas resources, development of the resources including infrastructure,

30 operation of the facilities, and decommissioning of the facilities. Each of these phases is 

31 characterized by different levels of activity, different extent, and different timing. Because the 

32 region as a whole has already undergone oil and gas development, each of these phases can take 

33 advantage of and tie into existing infrastructure and can draw on an existing pool of experienced 

34 workers (MMS 2003a). The Cook Inlet area has already experienced the impacts of oil and gas 

35 development, and would also experience both the positive and negative effects of increased 

36 population and employment from the proposed OCS activities. Most area communities are 

37 ethnically diverse, with Caucasian majority populations. Native communities tend to be more 

38 remote and more difficult to access than non-Native communities, and would be somewhat 

39 buffered from the impacts of the proposed action. Overall, impacts of routine operations on 

40 sociocultural systems are expected to be minor.

41

42 Exploration activities include seismic surveys and the drilling of test wells, activities that 

43 are typically conducted from self-contained vessels. Exploration crews would be drawn from an 

44 existing pool of trained oil and gas workers in the Cook Inlet area. In-migration for these jobs is 

45 expected to be minimal and to have little effect on the current ethnic composition or social 

46 structure of the area (MMS 2003a). Exploration activities would likely be supported from 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-433

1 existing air and marine facilities on the Kenai Peninsula. No additional facilities would be 

2 required. Industrial activities associated with exploration would not be new to the area, but 

3 would continue existing operations. There would be very little in-migration for exploration jobs 

4 because of the existing trained labor pool and the fact that exploration rig crews are normally 

5 contracted with the vessel. Exploration activities are not expected to result in measurable 

6 changes in the availability or accessibility of subsistence resources.

7

8 Exploration activities could have temporary effects on subsistence harvesting, but are not 

9 expected to result in measurable changes in the availability or accessibility of subsistence 

10 resources. Cook Inlet personal use and subsistence fisheries are important to all residents of 

11 South Central Alaska. Since the Cook Inlet Planning Area lies outside of the Anchorage-Mat12 Su-Kenai Peninsula Nonsubsistence Use Area, effects on personal use fishing are not expected. 

13 Most of upper Cook Inlet north of Ninilchik is included in the Anchorage-Mat-Su-Kenai 

14 Peninsula Nonsubsistence Use Area. While subsistence fishing is not authorized by the Alaska 

15 Board of Fisheries in this area, personal use fisheries, open to all Alaska residents who have 

16 lived in the state for at least a year, do exist on the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers and Fish Creek that 

17 provide an important food source for many families in the Mat-Su-Anchorage-Kenai area 

18 (SCADA 2011). More remote subsistence fisheries are accessible to rural communities where 

19 customary and traditional uses of fish and wildlife are a principal characteristic of the economy, 

20 culture, and way of life. These include Alaska Native communities (ADFG 2011), such as the 

21 community of Tyonek, on the west shore of Cook Inlet, and Port Graham and Nanwalek, located 

22 on the southern Kenai Peninsula and the Alaska Native communities along the northwestern 

23 shore of Kodiak Island.

24

25 The effects of exploration on subsistence fishing would be similar to the effects discussed 

26 for recreational and commercial fishing in Section 4.4.11.2. Seismic exploration vessels tow 

27 long lines that could be entangled with seines, gillnets, long lines, and other gear used by 

28 subsistence fishers (MMS 2003a), who may choose to avoid seismic vessels to prevent the loss 

29 of gear and thus be kept from their normal fishing grounds. Fishers may also choose to avoid 

30 floating exploratory drilling rigs being moved from one location to another for safety reasons and 

31 to prevent the loss of gear. Seismic surveys could temporarily affect the behavior of some 

32 targeted species, thereby temporarily affecting catch rates in the immediate area of the surveys. 

33 Some subsistence fishers could decide to avoid areas during seismic because of perceived or 

34 actual changes in catchability. New areas in the Cook Inlet Planning Area could be subjected to 

35 seismic surveys during the Program. However, given the relatively small proportion of the 

36 available Cook Inlet area that would be affected at any particular time, it is not anticipated that 

37 seismic surveys would greatly disrupt subsistence fishing activities. Platform installation 

38 activities associated with exploration could temporarily displace seals and possibly some whales 

39 from installation sites and because of the noise and movement of aircraft. It is estimated that 

40 displaced animals would return to normal behavior and distribution once the operation is 

41 complete (MMS 2003a). Effects on subsistence harvesting would vary with the size and 

42 duration of the operation.

43

44 There would be some direct effects on the subsistence harvest from noise and drilling 

45 discharges. Under Federal authority, limited sea mammal harvest and subsistence halibut (and 

46 some other non-salmon species) fishing can take place in Cook Inlet. Alaska Natives can hunt 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-434

1 marine mammals under the MMPA. Traditionally, beluga whales have been one of the most 

2 important marine mammal subsistence resources taken from Cook Inlet at Tyonek. However,

3 this population has experienced a sharp decline and is now endangered. Under current 

4 co-management agreements, subsistence harvesting has been suspended to allow the population 

5 to recover (Allen and Angliss 2011). After recovery, belugas would once again be available for 

6 the village of Tyonek to hunt. Proposed actions should have negligible effects upon this

7 potential harvest. While belugas occasionally inhabit areas where exploration noise and 

8 disturbance could occur, in recent years their use of such areas appears to be low. In summer,

9 belugas tend to be concentrated in the extreme upper inlet outside the planning area. 

10

11 The drilling of exploratory wells would have minimal impact on fish species (see 

12 Section 4.4.7.3.2) and subsistence fishers. The estimated volume of drilling discharges from 

13 exploration wells would have no effect on fish other than bottom dwellers in the immediate area 

14 (within 100 m [328 ft]) of the well at the time of discharge (see Section 4.4.7.1). Drilling muds 

15 and cuttings may temporarily limit subsistence fishers to portions of traditional fishing grounds, 

16 since the fishers would be required to remain at least 500 m (1,640 ft) away from the drilling 

17 platform for safety reasons. Only a very small portion of the available subsistence fishing areas 

18 in Cook Inlet would be taken up.

19

20 Impacts on marine and coastal birds from exploration activities would be limited to the 

21 effects of helicopter flights on nesting or roosting individuals directly or in close proximity to 

22 regular flight paths. Effects could include abandonment of roosting or foraging areas, nest 

23 abandonment, and lower reproductive success. These effects could last from 1 to 2 years if birds 

24 adapt and for the life of the project if they fail to do so (MMS 2003a). Cook Inlet is an important 

25 seabird breeding area. All Alaska Native communities surrounding the Cook Inlet Planning Area 

26 report the harvesting of seabird eggs and marine and coastal birds including migratory waterfowl 

27 (Table 3.14.2-2). This localized, probably temporary displacement of bird populations from 

28 traditional subsistence harvest areas would affect subsistence bird and egg harvesters by reducing 

29 the availability of the resource and/or requiring harvesters to extend their harvesting range. It is 

30 not expected that any resource would become unavailable or that there would be an overall 

31 population decrease (MMS 2003a).

32

33 Sociocultural effects could result from development and production phases, if the 

34 resulting employment were to cause an in-migration into the area that is beyond the capacity of 

35 existing sociocultural systems to absorb, or if subsistence harvest patterns were changed. 

36 Although new development is likely to create jobs, many of these jobs could be filled from the 

37 reservoir of skilled petroleum industry workers in the Cook Inlet area (particularly on the Kenai 

38 Peninsula) or filled by others who would commute from outside the area and return home at the 

39 end of their shifts or contracted work assignments (MMS 2003a). The effect of job creation on 

40 population growth is thus likely to be small. The characteristics of any new population segment 

41 are likely to be compatible with the towns and cities in which they choose to reside. It is not 

42 likely that they will choose to reside in isolated Native villages, unless they are of Native 

43 heritage. Any in-migration should do little to change existing sociocultural patterns.

44

45 Because oil and gas industry infrastructure already exists in and around Cook Inlet, new 

46 construction would be limited to tying new production wells to the existing system. This could 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-435

1 entail the construction of new offshore platforms, offshore and onshore pipelines, and a new 

2 landfall. Increased turbidity from the construction of platforms and pipelines could disturb 

3 pelagic fish important to subsistence fishers and commercial fishers alike, and displacing the fish

4 from their preferred habitat and decreasing their catchability by subsistence fishers. However, 

5 disturbance or displacement should be short term — limited to the time of construction and a few 

6 hours or days thereafter. The drilling structures themselves may result in changes in species 

7 distribution as offshore structures attract and protect some species (MMS 2003a). Cuttings and 

8 fluids from production wells would be treated and disposed of in the well. Longlines and hand9 held trolls used for bottom fishing and gear such as beach and purse seines could snag on 

10 submerged pipelines, causing some loss of gear for subsistence fishers.

11

12 A small increase in vessel activity to support platforms (up to six additional trips per 

13 week) is anticipated. This small increase should not measurably affect subsistence harvesting 

14 opportunities, catchability of fish and shellfish resources, or navigation by subsistence fishers.

15

16 Noise associated with drilling rig and support vessel traffic, helicopter flights, platform 

17 construction and operation, pipeline construction, and vessel traffic to and from drilling 

18 platforms could temporarily disturb belugas, particularly in the winter when they are more often 

19 in the lower inlet. While the beluga population in the inlet is in decline and the Cook Inlet stock 

20 is endangered, routine industry activities have not been found to contribute significantly to this 

21 decline (MMS 2003a). The effects of increased routine industry activity on beluga populations 

22 are assessed in Section 4.4.7.1.1.

23

24 Effects on marine and coastal birds important to subsistence harvesters would result from 

25 helicopter flights and would be similar to those described above for exploration activities.

26

27 Airborne and underwater noise would be the main sources of disturbance for marine 

28 mammals harvested by Native communities. Noise and disturbance would come from flights 

29 and vessel traffic to platforms, offshore pipelaying, platform installation, and very local costal 

30 habitat modification at the pipeline landfall. There would also be brief displacement of 

31 terrestrial mammals harvested by some communities (see Table 3.14.2-2) (e.g., brown bears, 

32 moose) on the Kenai Peninsula from helicopter flights and supply vessel traffic between 

33 platforms and onshore facilities. 

34

35 Effects from well abandonment and decommissioning on wildlife important to 

36 subsistence harvesters would be similar to those from construction.

37

38

39 4.4.13.2.2 Accidents. The activities associated with the proposed action are susceptible 

40 to oil spills and natural gas releases. While developers are required to submit oil spill response 

41 plans, the Exxon Valdez oil spill has shown that a catastrophic discharge event can overwhelm 

42 existing plans and cause damage to resources important to subsistence harvesters, affect fish 

43 populations important to commercial fishers, and have sociological impacts in affected 

44 communities.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-436

1 It is assumed that as many as 15 very small oil spills (50 bbl or less), 3 small oil spills 

2 between 50 and 1,000 bbl, and 1 large spill greater than 1,000 bbl and one catastrophic discharge 

3 event (250,000 bbl) could occur under the Program (see Section 4.4.2). While most small spills 

4 are likely to be contained, small spills may have effects on subsistence resources. Because small 

5 amounts of oil spread out rapidly over the ocean surface, forming a thin sheen, and tend to break 

6 up into small patches and streamers, an oil spill has to be at least several barrels, perhaps as 

7 many as 50, before birds important to subsistence hunters would be at risk. A limited number of 

8 birds would be lost. Small oil spills are estimated to have minor effects on mammals sought by 

9 subsistence hunters, such as harbor seals, other marine mammals, and terrestrial mammals, with 

10 perhaps the loss of a few individuals to oiling and some minor, transient, and local 

11 contamination. Subsistence harvesters would consider animals from an oiled context to be 

12 tainted and would be less likely to harvest them. Recovery from small spills would probably 

13 require no more than a year (MMS 2003a).

14

15 One large spill (over 1,000 bbl) is assumed here. Effects of a large spill are likely to be 

16 greatest in parts of the Cook Inlet Planning Area that are relatively confined, since oil is more 

17 likely to reach the shore and affect important intertidal zones that support the young of many fish 

18 species as well as shellfish that form a part of the subsistence harvest. Fishes most likely to be 

19 affected by large spills include many that are important to subsistence fishers. They include 

20 those that migrate extensively, such as the arctic cisco; those with strong ties to the streams 

21 where they were spawned, such as the Dolly Varden; and those tied to nearshore environments

22 (see Section 4.4.7.2.3).

23

24 As the ongoing experience with the results of the Exxon Valdez oil spill and subsequent 

25 cleanup efforts has shown, a major oil spill in the waters of southern Alaska can have significant 

26 consequences for sociocultural systems (Fall 2009). Such effects could reduce the availability 

27 and/or accessibility of subsistence resources. Typically, this would last for a single season or 

28 less, but potentially for longer periods. Resources subject to such impacts include those that are 

29 most significant for the area — fish and shellfish — as well as marine mammals and, to some 

30 extent, terrestrial mammals. Birds and marine plants (seaweed) would also be at-risk resources 

31 that are used locally. A pipeline or platform spill in Cook Inlet could affect subsistence activities 

32 on the Kenai Peninsula, Kodiak Island, and the Alaska Peninsula. Lesser spills would have more 

33 confined and more limited impacts.

34

35 A large spill and cleanup effort can have long-lasting social and psychological 

36 repercussions. The sociocultural impacts of oil spills are of at least two types. The first is the 

37 result of direct effects upon resources that are used in some way by local residents 

38 (i.e., subsistence, tourism, recreation, and elements of quality of life). This includes economic 

39 losses for commercial fishers and support businesses. 

40

41 The second is the impact of spill cleanup efforts in terms of short-term increases in 

42 population and economic opportunities, as well as increased demand on community services and 

43 increased stress to local communities. In communities based on commercial fishing, the 

44 increased demand on community services coincides with a decrease in tax revenues as income 

45 from commercial fishing declines. Competition for employment in the cleanup process creates 

46 division within communities (Picou et al. 2009).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-437

1 As is evident from the Exxon Valdez event, cleanup efforts can be quite disruptive 

2 socially, psychologically, and economically for an extended period of time. While the 

3 magnitude of impacts declines rapidly in the first year or two after a large spill, long-term effects 

4 continue to be evident. Technological disasters, such as oil spills, have been shown to have more 

5 divisive community effects than those of natural disasters (Picou et al. 2009). Such effects can 

6 be reduced by the early implementation of coping and mitigation measures (Picou et al. 1999). 

7 One important coping measure is the establishment of, and local participation in, an effective 

8 spill-response effort that has been formulated into an explicit spill-response plan. Such local 

9 programs do have a number of benefits. They provide local employment, a sense of local 

10 empowerment, and a means for local resident/oil industry communication. Another coping 

11 measure is the establishment of intervention programs such as peer listening programs based on 

12 community participation (MMS 2003a; Picou et al. 1999, 2009; Picou 2010).

13

14 Oil spills have the potential for significant and long-lasting effects on subsistence-based 

15 Native villages and communities. However, Native communities have proven to be flexible and 

16 adaptive, mitigating to some extent immediate losses to subsistence harvest resources. Of major 

17 concern to Native wild food harvesters relating to oil spills is the contamination of the natural 

18 environment. After the Exxon Valdez spill, Alaska Natives were fearful that marine and near 

19 shore resources had been tainted, placing more trust in traditional environmental knowledge than 

20 government agencies. Harvesting of traditional resources dropped off and Alaska Natives relied 

21 on stored foods from previous seasons augmented by relief supplies of traditional foods supplied 

22 by unaffected villages with whom they had traditional ties and exchange relationships. 

23 Nonetheless, over time, social ties appear to have weakened. In the years following the spill, 

24 harvesting slowly rebounded, but the composition of the harvest changed, attributed both to 

25 long-term loss of resources and continuing fears of tainting (Fall 2009). Nanwalek Native Tom 

26 Evans reported in 2003 that ―our resources have not recovered‖ (MMS 2003c). Other 

27 sociocultural effects included changes in wild food preferences, changes in traditional roles and 

28 status in the communities, disruption of the instruction of children in traditional subsistence 

29 knowledge and practices and thus the disruption of the transmission of Native culture, and 

30 conflicts with outsiders (MMS 2003a).

31

32 Cleanup efforts would also affect subsistence resources. While cleanup strategies would 

33 reduce the amount of spilled oil in the environment, thus mitigating negative effects to some 

34 extent, disturbance and displacement of subsistence resources would increase from cleanup 

35 activities such as offshore skimmers, workboats, barges, aircraft overflights, and in situ burning. 

36 Deflection of resources resulting from the combination of a large oil spill and cleanup efforts 

37 could persist beyond one season, perhaps lasting several years. The result could be a major 

38 effect on subsistence harvests and subsistence users, who would suffer nutritional and cultural 

39 impacts (MMS 2003a). In addition to effects on subsistence, during the Exxon Valdez cleanup, 

40 culturally important archaeological resources were damaged or stolen (Picou et al. 2009).

41

42 If a natural gas loss of well control occurred, with possible explosion and fire, subsistence 

43 resources such as fish, birds, and beluga whales in the immediate vicinity of the loss of well 

44 control could be killed, if the loss of well control occurred below or on the water surface. 

45 Natural gas and gas condensates that did not burn would be hazardous to any organism exposed 

46 to high natural gas and gas condensate concentrations. Natural gas vapors and condensates 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-438

1 disperse rapidly and would not affect subsistence resources beyond the immediate area. High 

2 concentrations would not occur if the loss of well control occurred on the top of a platform

3 where they would disperse more rapidly. Effects from losses of well control are likely to be 

4 short term and local, lasting a year or less and extending for about 1.6 km (1 mi) (MMS 2003a).

5

6 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE that ranges from 75 to 

7 125 thousand bbl (Table 4.4.2-2). It is likely that a CDE would cause significant damage to 

8 resources important to subsistence harvesters, affect fish populations important to commercial 

9 fishers, and have sociological impacts in affected communities. Alaska Native subsistence 

10 harvesters would consider marine mammals from an oiled context to be tainted and would be 

11 less likely to harvest them. Since the waters of the Cook Inlet Planning Area are relatively 

12 confined, oil from a catastrophic discharge is likely to reach the shore and affect important 

13 intertidal zones that support the young of many fish species as well as shellfish that form a part 

14 of the subsistence harvest. Fishes most likely to be affected by large spills include many that are 

15 important to subsistence fishers. They include those that migrate extensively, such as the arctic 

16 cisco; those with strong ties to the streams where they were spawned, such as the Dolly Varden; 

17 and those tied to nearshore environments. 

18

19 A CDE in the waters of south central Alaska and the resulting cleanup are likely to have 

20 significant consequences for sociocultural systems and can have long-lasting social and 

21 psychological repercussions. The sociocultural impacts would include effects upon resources 

22 that are used in some way by local residents (i.e., subsistence, tourism, recreation, and elements 

23 of quality of life), and economic losses for commercial fishers and support businesses. In past 

24 catastrophic discharge events, the loss of livelihood for both commercial and subsistence fishers 

25 can result in depression and an increase in suicide and other pathological behavior, as can 

26 participation in protracted litigation resulting from the spill (Picou et al. 2009, Fall et al. 2009). 

27

28 Cleanup efforts resulting from a CDE would result in short-term increases in population 

29 and economic opportunities, as well as increased demand on community services and increased 

30 stress to smaller local communities. In communities based on commercial fishing, the increased 

31 demand on community services coincides with a decrease in tax revenues as income from 

32 commercial fishing declines. Competition for employment in the cleanup process creates 

33 division within communities (Picou et al. 2009).

34

35 Disturbance and displacement of subsistence resources would increase from cleanup 

36 activities such as offshore skimmers, workboats, barges, aircraft overflights, and in situ burning. 

37 Deflection of resources resulting from the combination of a large oil spill and cleanup efforts 

38 could persist beyond one season, perhaps lasting several years. The result could be a major 

39 effect on subsistence harvests and subsistence users, who would suffer nutritional and cultural 

40 impacts (MMS 2003a). 

41

42

43 4.4.13.3 Alaska – Arctic

44

45 As was the case for Cook Inlet, finding and developing oil and gas resources on the arctic 

46 OCS has the potential for creating adverse effects on sociocultural systems and subsistence. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-439

1 Such effects would range from minor to major depending on the timing, location, and scale of 

2 the activity. Many negative consequences could be minimized through appropriate mitigation 

3 procedures. The most central of these would be establishing and maintaining communication 

4 among Native villages, oil companies, and appropriate Federal agencies, including both 

5 government-to-government consultation in compliance with legal requirements and USDOI 

6 policy (USDOI 2001) and ongoing dialogue leading to adaptive management of adverse effects.

7

8 As discussed in Section 3.14.3.1, the northern and northwestern coasts of Alaska are the 

9 home of indigenous Iñupiat communities confronted with increasing industrialization tied to 

10 mineral extraction. While it is clear that industrialization in northern Alaska has had significant 

11 economic and social effects, until now, the industrial workforce building and operating the 

12 expanding oil and gas extraction facilities has been largely non-local and transient, residing in 

13 self-sufficient enclaves far removed from Native villages and, for the most part, placing little 

14 strain on village government resources. However, as expressed by Alaska Natives in scoping 

15 meetings (BOEMRE 2011c–f), as oil and gas production infrastructure expands both onshore 

16 and into the Arctic Ocean, the indigenous villagers feel their traditional subsistence-based 

17 lifeway is being constrained and their cultural values threatened.

18

19 As expressed by Carla Sims Kayotuk in the 2011 Kaktovik scoping meetings: ―I do not 

20 want to see that [sociocultural] change for our community. It has changed some, but I don‘t 

21 want to see any more negative changes happen. And I strongly believe that if offshore 

22 development, even onshore development [continues], that‘s going to happen and our community 

23 will never be the same again. And I know change happens. Culture changes, traditions change, 

24 but I think it‘s going to be a very negative impact on us‖ (BOEMRE 2011c).

25

26 The Iñupiat are closely tied to the land and the sea. Subsistence harvesting and the 

27 distribution of the subsistence harvest through kin and social networks based on cultural ideals of 

28 community and sharing are core values of Iñupiat culture. To the extent that oil and gas 

29 activities in or close to Native villages adversely affect the subsistence harvest or limit cultural 

30 continuity, they have a negative impact on Iñupiat sociocultural systems. In addition, new 

31 development may result in an influx of outsiders who do not share Iñupiat values and mores,

32 resulting in stress on indigenous sociocultural systems. For example, all Iñupiat villages on the 

33 North Slope are ―dry,‖ and in some of them the importation of alcohol is illegal. These values 

34 may not be shared by oil workers coming from outside Iñupiat communities.

35

36 The Iñupiat harvest a wide range of wild animal and plant resources including bowhead 

37 and beluga whales, seals, walrus, polar bears, fish, waterfowl, and caribou (see Section 3.14.3.1). 

38 For coastal communities, the most iconic harvests are the bowhead and beluga whale hunts. 

39 These lie at the heart of Iñupiat social system and sense of cultural identity.

40

41 ―If you ever see this young kid as a young man [become] a whaler, it‘s like an individual 

42 that lives in [the city], has a dream of becoming a pilot or [having] a career of some sort. But 

43 when you are a Native, it‘s always been being a provider to the community, be a hunter. That‘s 

44 the culture of Iñupiat. Pass on the traditions that‘s been passed on to us for thousands of years,‖ 

45 said Isaac Nukapigak from the village of Nuiqsut (BOEMRE 2011d).

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-440

1 Native Alaskans often refer to the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas as the Iñupiat garden or 

2 Garden of Eden and are extremely concerned about loss of resources from oil spills and 

3 pollution, and from changes in patterns of wildlife migration resulting from industrial activities. 

4 In the words of Raymond Aguvluk, a local resident, at the 2011 Wainwright scoping meeting for 

5 this PEIS ―We eat from out there, you know. And [are] you guys going to send us chicken or 

6 steak? No way. We love our garden out there‖ (BOEMRE 2011e) 

7

8 Marine mammals and fish are the resources of most concern, as they constitute a major 

9 part of the subsistence harvest and typically are the resources most likely to be directly affected 

10 by oil and gas activities on the OCS. Land mammals, particularly caribou, are also important 

11 subsistence resources, but would be affected more by transportation pipelines and other support 

12 infrastructure tied to OCS development than directly by oil and gas activities on the OCS. Oil 

13 spills that have occurred elsewhere in Alaska have resulted in negative consequences for

14 subsistence resources and activities, but routine exploration, development, and operation could 

15 also potentially result in negative effects.

16

17

18 4.4.13.3.1 Routine Operations. Routine oil and gas operations may be divided into four 

19 categories or phases: exploration, development, operations, and decommissioning. Exploration 

20 on the OCS, whether using seismic surveys or test wells, is done from largely self-contained 

21 ocean-going vessels, and in the past has had little direct impact on the infrastructure of local 

22 communities (MMS 2007a, 2008b). Exploration ships do require onshore support facilities. 

23 Exploration in the Beaufort Sea using existing facilities at Prudhoe Bay/Deadhorse and Barrow 

24 would result in little new impact. Conversely, exploration plans filed for the Chukchi Sea 

25 include development of an onshore base in Wainwright that would use some village 

26 infrastructure and services. With a staff of 22 to 64 individuals, it would include a helipad, fuel 

27 storage, lift and hoist facilities near existing boat ramps, and temporary housing for vessel crews 

28 weathered in while being changed (Shell 2009a,b). The local village corporation has built is 

29 crew quarters (Burwell 2011; Anchorage Daily News 2010). Having the shore base in the 

30 village would likely increase interaction between transient workers and Wainwright Native 

31 Alaskans, with the potential for changing cultural dynamics, including conflicts arising from 

32 differing behavioral norms and the adoption of Western cultural traits by indigenous 

33 communities. The presence of the onshore base would also provide some employment 

34 opportunities for Native Alaskans (Shell 2009b). Cultural conflicts may be minimized through 

35 cultural awareness orientation stipulated in lease contracts so in-migrant workers are made aware 

36 of Native Alaskan cultural values including the importance of the subsistence harvest to local 

37 communities. Lease stipulations would require developers to submit plans that orient new 

38 in-migrant workers to the local Alaska Native culture, including subsistence, in advance 

39 (MMS 2007a).

40

41 Of great concern to local populations is the noise created by seismic survey air guns and 

42 test drilling rigs during exploration and their potential for disturbing or driving away the 

43 migratory sea mammals upon which subsistence communities depend. Iñupiat whalers generally 

44 agree that whales and other marine mammals are more sensitive to noise than Western scientific 

45 studies suggest and will avoid noise sources, and that they have been disturbed from their normal 

46 patterns of behavior by past seismic and drilling activities. According to Kaktovik whaling 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-441

1 captain George Kaleak, Sr., ―The sound can go over 50 miles, and whales can hear it‖ 

2 (BOEMRE 2011c). Noise and other associated activities can make whales less predictable and 

3 more dangerous to those who hunt them. They can be deflected from their usual migration 

4 routes into deeper, more dangerous waters, where they are more difficult to take and bring home 

5 successfully. Whalers from Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik have been especially vocal on this 

6 issue, as they are most likely to be directly affected by such activities during the fall open water 

7 season. 

8

9 Isaac Nukapigak, a Nuiqsut whaling captain explained at scoping meetings held in 2011: 

10 ―At one point, I remember us being out there for 7 weeks and didn‘t meet our quota because of 

11 [oil and gas exploration] activities and weather prediction where our subsistence hunt and the 

12 whales were disrupted because of this heavy activity going on in the Beaufort. We had to go 

13 30 miles north. That‘s where we finally were able to see whales because there was so much 

14 activity east of Cross Island. And that time we had no choice because a whale was got 35 miles 

15 north of Cross Island because of ... safety [in] these small boats that we go out in to harvest, 

16 weather prediction got bad on us. We had no choice but to let go of the whale even though we 

17 didn‘t want to. And that year was so harsh because we didn‘t meet our quota. It was very 

18 noticeable in this community. There was no whale meat stored in our cellars. People were 

19 hurting‖ (BOEMRE 2011d).

20

21 According to Tom Albert, a former non-Iñupiat senior scientist for the North Slope 

22 Borough (NSB) Department of Wildlife Management, ―When a captain came in to talk to me, I 

23 knew he was going to say that the whales are displaced [by noise] farther than you scientists 

24 think they are. But some of them would also talk about  ̳spookiness,‘ when the whales were 

25 displaced out there and when the whaler would get near them, they were harder to approach and 

26 harder to catch‖ (MMS 1997a).

27

28 That marine mammals are sensitive to noise disturbance is clear, although thresholds in 

29 terms of signal characteristics and distance for each species have not been established. 

30 Generally, such effects would be confined to the vicinity of the seismic vessel and to the actual 

31 time of operation. Seismic surveys would occur after July 1 in the open water season, and would 

32 thus not affect the spring whale hunt. Deferral of leasing from a corridor along the coast 

33 provides a sea mammal migration corridor in the Chukchi Sea. Villagers along the Beaufort 

34 coast have requested a similar deferral corridor (BOEMRE 2011d,f). Without mitigation in 

35 place, seismic surveys could affect the more important fall hunt and cause subsistence resources 

36 to be unavailable and have a major effect on subsistence harvesting. Lease stipulations for 

37 whaler-oil industry conflict avoidance agreements (CAAs) and other ―non-disturbance‖ 

38 agreements have minimized such problems in the recent past so that noise and disturbance 

39 effects of single actions have been, and are expected to be, effectively mitigated. However, such 

40 agreements become more difficult to implement if multiple vessels are surveying at the same 

41 time. It is expected that required adaptive mitigation and management plans (AMMPs), the 

42 requirements of National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

43 (USFWS) incidental take authorizations, and required consultation with local communities 

44 would ensure that impacts on marine mammals would be minimal. Typical requirements include 

45 monitoring for the presence of sea mammals and ensuring that supply aircraft routinely fly above 

46 elevations that would disturb sea mammals (MMS 2007a, 2008b).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-442

1 Development would involve the construction of onshore and offshore infrastructure 

2 including gravel drilling pads, onshore and offshore pipelines, landfalls, pumping stations, roads,

3 and additional facilities to house an influx of construction workers. While construction has the 

4 potential of providing additional local employment, the noise and human presence associated 

5 with construction activities are likely to have temporary and localized effects on some 

6 subsistence resources and, depending on the location of construction worker enclaves, place 

7 stress on the infrastructure of local communities. Operation of the facilities may require fewer 

8 workers than construction, many of whom are likely to be transient shift-workers based in other 

9 parts of Alaska. The sociocultural impact of these transient workers would depend on the 

10 location of new shore-based facilities, and associated enclaves. With a shore-based facility for 

11 Chukchi Sea exploration and development is established at Wainwright, it is likely to expand 

12 beyond that required for exploration, further increasing the interaction between transient workers 

13 and the previously relatively isolated Alaska Native population.

14

15 The potential direct and indirect effects of development in the Arctic would result from 

16 noise, visual, and traffic disturbances from the construction of pipelines and other offshore and 

17 shore-based facilities. Construction activities, including the delivery of fuel and supplies, are 

18 limited in time and space and can be scheduled to minimize impacts to subsistence resources. In 

19 the past, they have been effectively limited in specified areas during critical periods on 

20 subsistence use through industry/subsistence user cooperation (MMS 2008b). The need to install 

21 additional platforms in the Arctic could increase the areas and times where either industry or 

22 subsistence activities are restricted. This would increase the possibility for significant harvest 

23 disruption. Disruption would be made worse if construction and production activities were 

24 concentrated in critical subsistence-use areas, which may include cabins and camps. Potential 

25 cumulative effects of multiple projects are discussed in Section 4.6.5.3.

26

27 Onshore pipeline effects on subsistence would occur during the 1- or 2-year construction 

28 period. The major onshore pipeline to be constructed for the proposed action would connect 

29 Chukchi Sea oil production with the TAPS or to a possible deepwater port at Kotzebue. 

30 Offshore pipeline effects on subsistence would generally be confined to the period of 

31 construction and could be mitigated through lease stipulations that would restrict industry 

32 activities during critical subsistence-use periods. 

33

34 The potential disturbance effects of production operations may be more difficult to 

35 mitigate, because such activities would be longer term and operate year round. As with 

36 construction, the potential direct and indirect effects of routine OCS operations in the Arctic 

37 regions derive from noise, visual, and traffic disturbances from the operation of pipelines and 

38 other shore-based facilities. 

39

40 Even when construction is complete, new infrastructure such as roads and pipelines could 

41 serve to restrict the movement of land mammals and the access by indigenous populations to 

42 onshore subsistence resources such as caribou herds. For example, a pipeline connecting the 

43 Chukchi Sea Planning Area with the TAPS would cross a large area that is currently 

44 undeveloped except for isolated and relatively small airstrips. This could restrict access by 

45 Nuiqsut subsistence hunters, who already could be restricted by oil and gas development in the 

46 Coleville River delta the westward expansion of the Prudhoe Bay facilities, and the potential for 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-443

1 development to their west in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (BOEMRE 2011d). The 

2 potential impact of the pipeline on subsistence resource-use patterns, while unavoidable, can be 

3 at least partially mitigated and minimized with proper pipeline design, location, and routing. 

4 Potential effects of a pipeline on subsistence users (perceptions of areas they wish to avoid or 

5 that are difficult for them to access for hunting) can be addressed with design considerations (for 

6 instance, by elevating or burying segments of the pipeline) and by including subsistence users 

7 early in the consultation process. The most difficult potential onshore pipeline effects to mitigate 

8 would be those related to pipeline servicing and access. If a service road is constructed for this 

9 purpose, it would greatly increase impacts on caribou movement and access to subsistence 

10 resources on the western part of the North Slope (MMS 2007a). This effect would be greater if 

11 such a road were eventually opened to public access, on the model of the Dalton Highway. 

12 Roads are also reported to impose substantial maintenance costs on subsistence equipment (snow 

13 machines and sleds) and to present some safety issues (Impact Assessment, Inc. 1990). Current 

14 practices aim to minimize the construction of new roads. If pipeline servicing was conducted 

15 using aircraft, and perhaps ice roads or other ground transport in winter, such potential access 

16 effects would be minimized. Increased aircraft traffic in the summer could have a moderate 

17 effect on subsistence uses, but such impacts could be reduced through coordination with 

18 subsistence users.

19

20 The potential effect of pipelines on subsistence resources themselves (in terms of 

21 population and behavior) are discussed in Section 4.4.7.13. With regard to caribou, onshore 

22 facilities and activities associated with the proposed offshore development program in northern 

23 Alaska should have temporary impacts on individual caribou but negligible effects on caribou 

24 herds, although development may change their migration patterns and make them less accessible 

25 or less desirable. Caribou habituation to gravel pads and oil field infrastructure alters the value 

26 of the caribou to subsistence users, who view these habituated caribou as contaminated and not 

27 behaving correctly. Frank Long, Jr., stated in the Nuiqsut Alpine Satellite Development Project 

28 scoping meeting: ―We will have the same problem we did in the Prudhoe Bay and the Kuparuk 

29 area with our caribou. Right now, I call our caribou that are existing around here that don‘t go 

30 nowhere our  ̳industrial dope addict caribou.‘ They are already sick and nobody‘s doing anything 

31 about them‖ (MMS 2007a). 

32

33 Fish are another important subsistence resource. Most petroleum industry activities 

34 would occur far from the freshwater or nearshore locations where subsistence harvests are 

35 concentrated. However, the construction of gravel causeways has the potential to affect fish 

36 migration routes. This can be mitigated by including culverts that allow the fish to pass through. 

37 Other effects would include potential reductions in fish populations (or health effects), which 

38 have been evaluated in Section 4.4.7.3.3.

39

40 Many Iñupiat villagers take the long view of their presence on the North Slope. The 

41 Iñupiat lived as subsistence hunters for centuries before the arrival of oil development and expect 

42 to remain after the oil and gas reserves have been depleted. They are concerned with 

43 decommissioning. The impacts of decommissioning are expected to be similar to those of the 

44 construction process. Likewise short-lived and spatially restricted, impacts of noise and traffic 

45 on subsistence resources can be mitigated through consultation and scheduling.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-444

1 The principal sociocultural systems impacts of the proposed action in the Arctic would be 

2 due to developing a Shore Base within an Alaska Native community. Additional significant 

3 effects would be in the area of subsistence harvesting, with implications for health, population, 

4 and the economy. All of these topics, except for health, are discussed in other sections

5 (see Sections 4.4.9, 4.4.10, and 4.4.14). Potential OCS activity would support these established 

6 trends. Activity under the proposed program could exert sociocultural effects at the Statewide, 

7 regional, and local levels. Income related to OCS development could be expected to support 

8 many of the preexisting State programs. At a regional level, OCS activity would constitute one 

9 component of continued economic development — primarily onshore and related to the Prudhoe 

10 Bay ―oil patch‖ — which has become the prime source of support for most of the infrastructure 

11 and local economic development. At a local level, communities might experience adverse 

12 sociocultural impacts if development leads to the establishment of shore based facilities, new 

13 onshore access routes into the communities, an influx of oil industry personnel into local 

14 communities, or local economic benefits from increased local employment opportunities.

15

16 Social systems and cultures are seldom, if ever, static. Many changes viewed as

17 sociocultural concerns could also be seen as adaptive change. What is often perceived as the 

18 ―erosion of cultural values‖ may only be a transformation or change in the behavioral expression 

19 of those values (modes of sharing, expressions of respect). On the other hand, some behavioral 

20 changes are more important indicators of cultural and value change than others. That is perhaps 

21 why public testimony on the impacts of petroleum development in Arctic Alaska — especially 

22 that of Native Elders — has focused on subsistence resources and practices, the relationship of 

23 people to the land and its resources, health, increased social pathologies, and the use (and loss) of 

24 Native languages. While OCS activity from the proposed action would only contribute 

25 incrementally to these effects, it should be recognized that these activities would occur within 

26 this context.

27

28 Some of the vectors of sociocultural change that have been commonly noted in studies of 

29 Arctic Alaska, lease sale documents, or testimony during the lease sale process can be briefly 

30 summarized as follows (see MMS 2008b, p. 4-327, and reference therein):

31

32 • Changes in community and family organization (availability of wage-labor 

33 opportunities locally or regionally, ethnic composition, factionalism, 

34 household size);

35

36 • Institutional dislocation and continuity (introduction of new institutions, 

37 ―loss‖ or de-emphasis of older or more traditional ones, and adaptation of new 

38 forms to old content or values, and vice versa);

39

40 • Changes in the patterns of overall subsistence activities (time allocation, 

41 access, effort, equipment, and monetary needs) and the potential disruption of 

42 subsistence harvest activities by industrial development;

43

44 • Changes in health measures (a combination of increased access to health care, 

45 changes in diet, increased exposure to disease, substance use and abuse, 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-445

1 concern over possible exposure to contaminants of various sorts, and other 

2 factors); 

3

4 • Perceived erosion of cultural values and accompanying behaviors (increased 

5 social pathologies such as substance abuse, suicide, and crime/delinquency in 

6 general; decreased fluency in Native languages; decreased respect for elders; 

7 less sharing); and

8

9 • Cultural ―revitalization‖ efforts such as dance groups, Native language 

10 programs, and official and regular traditional celebrations (such as the 

11 reestablishment of Kivgiq [the Messenger Feast], for example, in the NSB and 

12 the NWAB).

13

14 While these are all in some sense generalizations and ―analytical constructs,‖ all are also 

15 supported by specific testimony of Native residents of the region. These dynamics are not 

16 generally viewed as specific to oil and gas development (let alone OCS), but rather as the overall 

17 context within which Iñupiat culture must continue to exist (MMS 2008b).

18

19

20 4.4.13.3.2 Accidents. The high degree of dependence of Arctic Native communities on 

21 the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas for their subsistence is reflected in the frequency and urgency 

22 with which they expressed their concerns over oil spills in the Arctic at public meetings. They 

23 are aware of the long-lasting consequences of the Exxon Valdez oil spill and of the scale of the 

24 effort that was required to cap and clean up after the DWH event in the GOM. 

25

26 Oil spills have the most potential for adverse effects attributable to the proposed action. 

27 Negative effects on specific subsistence species, as well as on the more general patterns of 

28 subsistence resource use, persisted in Prince William Sound for years after the Exxon Valdez oil 

29 spill and the subsequent cleanup effort (Fall 2009).

30

31 The impacts of both large and small oil spills are expected to be significant in the Arctic, 

32 where oil is more likely to persist in the environment due to colder temperatures. An oil spill of 

33 more than 1,000 bbl could, depending on the time and location of the spill event, affect the 

34 subsistence use of marine mammals in the region where it occurs. In 1978, Thomas P. Bower, 

35 Sr., a whaler from Barrow, reported the results of a 1944 oil spill when a Liberty Ship, the 

36 S.S. Jonathan Harrington, ran aground southeast of Barrow and dumped fuel oil into the sea to 

37 lighten the ship:

38

39 According to Bower, about 25,000 gallons of oil were deliberately spilled into the 

40 Beaufort Sea in this operation. In the cold, arctic water, the oil formed a mass several inches 

41 thick on top of the water. Both sides of the barrier islands in that area — the Plover Islands —

42 became covered with oil. ―That first year ... I observed how seals and birds who swam in the 

43 water would be blinded and suffocated by contact with the oil. It took approximately 4 years for 

44 the oil to finally disappear.... I observed that for 4 years after that oil spill, the whales made a 

45 wide detour out to sea from these islands‖ (MMS 2007a).

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-446

1 Although this episode shows that a species can recover after 4 years without cleanup, 

2 those years are remembered by subsistence harvesters as a time when subsistence harvest was 

3 severely reduced.

4

5 It is assumed that as many as 190 very small oil spills (50 bbl or less) and between 35 and 

6 70 small oil spills (more than 50 bbl but no greater than 1,000 bbl) would be associated with the 

7 Program in the Arctic (see Section 4.4.2). While most small spills are likely to be contained, 

8 small spills may have effects on subsistence resources. Because small amounts of oil spread out 

9 rapidly over the ocean surface, forming a thin sheen, and tend to break up into small patches and 

10 streamers, an oil spill has to be at least several barrels, perhaps as many as 50, before birds 

11 important to subsistence hunters would be at risk. A limited number of birds would be lost. 

12 Small oil spills are estimated to have minor effects on mammals sought by subsistence hunters,

13 such as harbor seals, other marine mammals, and terrestrial mammals, with perhaps the loss of a 

14 few individuals to oiling and some minor, transient, and local contamination. Subsistence 

15 harvesters would consider animals from an oiled context to be tainted and would be less likely to 

16 harvest them. Recovery from small spills would probably require no more than a year 

17 (MMS 2003a). The effects of prolonged exposure to elevated levels of petroleum hydrocarbons 

18 on fish are discussed in Section 4.4.7.3.3. The effects can be lethal or sublethal and have the 

19 greatest effect on eggs, larvae, and juveniles, particularly in intertidal zones.

20

21 As many as three large spills (over 1,000 bbl) could occur in the Beaufort Sea and 

22 Chukchi Sea Planning Areas under the proposed action. As the result of a large spill, the 

23 bowhead whale hunt could be disrupted, as could the beluga harvest and the more general and 

24 longer hunt for walrus west of Barrow. Animals could be directly oiled, or oil could contaminate 

25 the ice floes or onshore haulouts they use on their northern migration. Such animals could be 

26 more difficult to hunt because of the physical conditions. Animals could be ―spooked‖ and/or 

27 wary, either because of the spill itself or because of the ―hazing‖ of marine mammals, which is a 

28 standard spill-response technique in order to encourage them to leave the area affected by a spill. 

29 Oiled animals are likely to be considered tainted by subsistence hunters and would not be 

30 harvested, as occurred after the Exxon Valdez spill. This would also apply to terrestrial animals, 

31 such as bears that scavenge oiled birds and animals along the shore, or caribous that seasonally 

32 spend time along the shore or on barrier islands seeking relief from insects. 

33

34 Although developers must submit oil spill response plans and have spill response vessels 

35 available, there has been little experience with under-ice or broken-ice oil spills. While the 

36 concern is most typically phrased in terms of the potential effects of oil spills on whales and 

37 whaling, it can be generalized to a concern for marine mammals and ocean resources in general. 

38 Fishes most likely to be affected by large spills include many that are important to subsistence 

39 fishers. They include those that migrate extensively, such as the arctic cisco; those with strong 

40 ties to the streams where they were spawned, such as the Dolly Varden; and those tied to 

41 nearshore environments, such as broad whitefish (see Section 4.4.7.3.3). Marine mammals and 

42 fish typically comprise 60% of a coastal community‘s diet. Pipeline and platform spills could 

43 also impact migrating anadromous fish in the river deltas, as well as species that use oiled coastal 

44 and nearshore habitat, such as nesting birds, breeding caribou, and the like. Overall, the impacts 

45 of oil spills on subsistence practices and resources are variable, ranging from minor to major, 

46 depending on the size, location, and timing of the spill. As shown by the results of the Exxon 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-447

1 Valdez spill, subsistence harvesters in unaffected areas are likely to share resources with 

2 impacted villages through established social networks. While local ties are regularly 

3 strengthened through mutual exchange, they can weaken when there is less to exchange 

4 (Picou et al. 2009).

5

6 Cleaning up a major spill is likely to have negative consequences as well. Cleanup 

7 activities and increased human presence could displace subsistence species from their usual 

8 harvesting locations. There are relatively few vessels on the northern coast that could participate 

9 in the cleanup of a major spill. It is likely that whaling boats and their crews would be diverted 

10 for this purpose. Depending on the timing of the spill, this would make them unavailable for the 

11 whale hunt. While local villagers would be employed in the cleanup, it is likely that many 

12 additional workers would be necessary, placing stress on village facilities. An influx of outsiders 

13 is likely to result in some cultural conflict, stressing the local sociocultural systems.

14

15 As is evident from the Exxon Valdez oil spill event, such cleanup efforts can be disruptive 

16 socially, psychologically, and economically for an extended period of time. While the 

17 magnitude of impacts declines rapidly in the first year or two after a large spill, long-term effects 

18 continue to be evident (Picou et al. 2009). Such effects can be reduced by the early 

19 implementation of coping and mitigation measures (Picou et al. 1999). One important coping 

20 measure is the establishment of, and local participation in, an effective spill-response effort that 

21 has been formulated into an explicit spill-response plan. Such local programs do have a number 

22 of benefits. They provide local employment, a sense of local empowerment, and a means for 

23 local resident–oil industry communication. Another possible coping measure would be the 

24 establishment of intervention programs, such as peer listening programs based on community 

25 participation (MMS 2003a; Picou et al. 1999, 2009; Picou 2010).

26

27 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE that ranges in size from 

28 1.4 to 2.2 million bbl in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area, and for 1.7 to 3.9 million bbl in the 

29 Beaufort Sea Planning Area (Table 4.4.2-2). Local Alaska Natives have grave concerns over the 

30 possibility of a CDE. They are concerned that oil from such an event would spread quickly in 

31 the shallow Arctic waters, that oil companies lack the technology to clean up a spill in ice and 

32 lack an understanding of how dispersants would act in Arctic waters, and that there is not enough 

33 equipment nearby and insufficient infrastructure such as harbors and airports to handle a major 

34 spill. They are particularly concerned about the effects of a spill in the whale migration path and 

35 the resulting loss and/or contamination of a major food source. In the words of Waska Williams 

36 at the 2011 Barrow scoping meetings, ―In the event that a major spill happens, our way of life is 

37 in jeopardy‖ (BOEMRE 2011f).

38

39 Depending on the time and place it occurred, a CDE could have significant effects on the 

40 marine mammals, fishes, migratory birds, and terrestrial mammals upon which Alaska Native 

41 subsistence harvesters depend. Oil is more likely to persist in the Arctic environment due to the 

42 colder temperatures prolonging the effects of such an event. As the result of a catastrophic 

43 discharge event, the economically, socially, and culturally important bowhead whale hunt could 

44 be disrupted, as could the beluga harvest and the more general and longer hunt for walrus west of 

45 Barrow. Animals could be directly oiled, or oil could contaminate the ice floes or onshore 

46 haulouts they use on their northern migration. Such animals could be more difficult to hunt 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-448

1 because of the physical conditions. Animals could be ―spooked‖ and/or wary, either because of 

2 the spill itself or because of the ―hazing‖ of marine mammals, which is a standard spill-response 

3 technique in order to encourage them to leave the area affected by a spill. Oiled animals are 

4 likely to be considered tainted by subsistence hunters and would not be harvested, as occurred 

5 after the Exxon Valdez spill. This would also apply to terrestrial animals, such as bears that 

6 scavenge oiled birds and animals along the shore, or caribous that seasonally spend time along 

7 the shore or on barrier islands seeking relief from insects. The loss of subsistence harvest 

8 resources, particularly marine mammals, would have significant effects on Alaska native culture 

9 and society. As shown by the results of the Exxon Valdez spill (Picou et al. 2009), subsistence 

10 harvesters in unaffected areas are likely to share resources with impacted villages through 

11 established social networks. While local ties are regularly strengthened through mutual 

12 exchange, they can weaken when there is less to exchange.

13

14 Cleaning up a CDE would have negative consequences as well. Cleanup activities and 

15 increased human presence could displace subsistence species from their usual harvesting 

16 locations. There are relatively few vessels on the northern coast that could participate in the 

17 cleanup of a major spill. It is likely that whaling boats and their crews would be diverted for this 

18 purpose. Depending on the timing of the spill, this would make them unavailable for the whale 

19 hunt. While local villagers would be employed in the cleanup, it is likely that many additional 

20 workers would be necessary, placing stress on village facilities. An influx of outsiders is likely 

21 to result in some cultural conflict, stressing the local sociocultural systems. As is evident from 

22 the Exxon Valdez oil spill event, such cleanup efforts can be disruptive socially, psychologically, 

23 and economically for an extended period of time. 

24

25

26 4.4.13.4 Conclusion

27

28

29 4.4.13.4.1 Gulf of Mexico. Few impacts on GOM sociocultural systems are anticipated 

30 from the proposed action. The oil and gas industry is well developed along the coast, and the 

31 proposed action is more likely to support the existing industry than to create industry growth. 

32 Any expansion of deepwater activities will result in jobs that require longer, unbroken periods of 

33 work offshore, specialized skills, and potential in-migration of part of the workforce. Such 

34 changes can affect workers, their families, and the communities in which they reside. Impacts to 

35 sociocultural systems from routine Program activities in the GOM planning areas are expected to 

36 be minor.

37

38 Impacts from small spills are likely to have small, localized, and short-lived effects. In 

39 the unlikely event of a CDE, there will be economic repercussions for the oil and gas industry, 

40 commercial fishers, and subsistence harvesters. These could result in social and cultural stress, 

41 leading to possible social pathologies.

42

43

44 4.4.13.4.2 Cook Inlet. Oil and gas exploration, development, and production activities 

45 are a continuation of long-time economic characteristics of the area. The proposed action would 

46 not introduce new kinds of activities to the area that would alter existing socioeconomic systems. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-449

1 The relatively small number of new residents that would come into the area because of the 

2 proposed action should likewise not alter existing sociocultural systems. These activities are not 

3 likely to affect commercial fishing (see Section 4.4.11.2); however, they may periodically result 

4 in temporary and localized displacement of subsistence resources or limit subsistence access, 

5 making the subsistence harvest by Native Alaskans more difficult, but no resource would 

6 experience an overall decrease in population, and no harvest would be curtailed for part of the 

7 harvest season. Impacts to sociocultural systems from routine Program activities in the Cook 

8 Inlet Planning Area are expected to be minor.

9

10 A large oil spill could contact environmental resource areas where important subsistence 

11 resources are present. Some harvest areas and resources in these locations would be too 

12 contaminated to harvest. Some subsistence resource populations could suffer losses and, as a 

13 result of tainting, an even larger array of resources could be rendered unavailable for use. 

14 Tainting concerns in communities nearest the spill could seriously curtail traditional practices for 

15 harvesting, sharing, and processing resources and threaten pivotal practices of traditional Alaska 

16 Native culture. Harvesting, sharing, and processing of subsistence resources would continue but 

17 would be hampered to the degree these resources were contaminated. In the case of 

18 contamination, harvests would cease until such time as local subsistence hunters perceived 

19 resources as safe. In the event of a CDE-level spill, similar impacts would be incurred, although 

20 the extent, duration, and magnitude of impacts would be greater. Oil spill cleanup would 

21 increase overall effects by displacing subsistence species, altering or reducing subsistence hunter 

22 access, and altering or extending the normal period of the subsistence hunt (MMS 2003).

23

24

25 4.4.13.4.3 Arctic. Finding and developing oil and gas resources on the arctic OCS has 

26 the potential to create adverse effects on sociocultural systems and subsistence in the Arctic 

27 Planning Areas. Such effects would range from minor to major for the routine Program 

28 activities, depending on the nature, timing, location, and scale of the activity. Many potential 

29 effects are expected to be limited or mitigable. Of greatest concern to the Alaska Natives who 

30 inhabit the area are threats to their subsistence base and way of life. Not only does subsistence 

31 harvesting provide them with a substantial portion of their food supply, but subsistence-related 

32 activities are central to their cultural identity. For many, the most iconic subsistence activity is 

33 the whale hunt.

34

35 Lease sales on the Arctic OCS are likely to result in the search for and development of oil 

36 and gas resources. These activities could have direct and indirect effects on Alaska Native 

37 culture. Noise from seismic surveys and exploratory drilling has the potential to deflect whales 

38 and other marine mammals from their accustomed migration routes, making them more difficult 

39 to harvest. The effects can be reduced through cooperative scheduling and exploration design 

40 based on dialogue among the villages, oil companies, and Federal and State agencies. The noise 

41 and increased human presence resulting from the construction and operation of drilling pads, 

42 pipelines, and shore base facilities has the potential to disturb subsistence species. The increased 

43 presence of non-Natives in and around previously isolated villages increases the chance of cross44 cultural misunderstanding and could result in financial and cultural stress on Native 

45 communities. Lease stipulations requiring conflict avoidance agreements between oil developers 

46 and Native villages, along with training of in-migrating work force, will reduce negative impacts. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-450

1 Impacts on freshwater fish and terrestrial subsistence species such as caribou from onshore 

2 pipelines can be ameliorated by cooperative planning efforts that take subsistence needs into 

3 account. Effects are likely to be compounded by concern over cumulative effects, which are 

4 discussed in Section 4.6.5.3. Of greatest concern to the villagers are the effects of any oil spill.

5 Potential impacts on sociocultural systems from accidents under the proposed action could vary

6 greatly, depending on the size, location, and timing of a spill with greatest impacts occurring 

7 with a CDE-level spill. A catastrophic discharge event could prove challenging for existing 

8 response capacity and capability, especially if the spill were under ice or in broken ice.

9

10

11 4.4.14 Potential Impacts on Environmental Justice

12

13

14 4.4.14.1 Gulf of Mexico

15

16

17 4.4.14.1.1 Routine Operations. In addition to the continuing use of existing onshore 

18 support and processing facilities, between 4 and 6 new pipe yards, up to 12 new pipeline 

19 landfalls, and as many as 12 new gas processing facilities are projected to be built as a result of 

20 the proposed 5-yr program. Impacts of new onshore construction impacts could include 

21 increased noise and traffic, air and water pollution, impacts on residential property values, and

22 land use changes. Air emissions from onshore facilities and helicopter and vessel traffic 

23 traversing coastal areas will be highest in the areas containing the greatest amounts of 

24 infrastructure, which again will be Texas and Louisiana. Lesser amounts will occur in 

25 Mississippi and Alabama. No onshore infrastructure supporting OCS operations currently exists 

26 in Florida, and none will be built as a result of the proposed program.

27

28 It is assumed that 75% of the activity from the proposed 5-yr program will occur in deep 

29 and ultra-deep waters, with offshore air emissions greatest in the coastal areas of Texas and 

30 Louisiana, the areas with the greatest amounts of oil and gas activity, and lesser amounts in 

31 occurring in Mississippi and Alabama. The coastal areas of Florida are located so far from OCS 

32 activities that no environmental justice issues from offshore air emissions are expected to impact 

33 the coastal parts of the State. 

34

35 The effects of the OCS program on air quality have been analyzed in Section 4.4.4. This 

36 analysis concluded that routine operations associated with the proposed 5-yr program would 

37 result in NO2, SO2, PM10, and CO levels that are well within the National Ambient Air Quality 

38 Standards (NAAQS). Coastal effects from offshore activities are expected to be small, based on 

39 the established and increasing trend toward movement of oil and gas activities into deeper waters 

40 of the GOM.

41

42 The proposed 5-yr program will result in levels of infrastructure use and construction 

43 similar to that which has occurred in the GOM coast region during previous programs. These 

44 activities are not expected to expose residents to notably higher risks than currently occur. While 

45 the distribution of offshore-related activities and infrastructure indicates that some places and 

46 populations in the GOM region will continue to be of environmental justice concern, the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-451

1 incremental contribution of the proposed OCS program is not expected to affect those places and 

2 populations.

3

4

5 4.4.14.1.2 Accidents. Up to 8 large spills greater than 1,000 bbl, between 35 and 

6 70 spills between 50 and 1,000 bbl, and between 200 and 400 small spills less than 50 bbl could 

7 occur in the GOM from the proposed action. It is reasonable to expect that most of these spills 

8 will occur in deepwater areas located away from the coast, based on the established trend for oil 

9 and gas activity to move into deep waters located for the most part at a substantial distance from 

10 the coast. However, according to MMS (2002b), the probability of an offshore oil spill occurring 

11 and impacting coastal populations is low. While the location of possible oil spills cannot be 

12 determined and while low-income and minority populations reside in some areas of the coast, in 

13 general the coasts are home to more affluent groups. Low-income and minority groups are not 

14 more likely to bear more negative impacts than other groups. 

15

16 Chemical and drilling-fluid spills may be associated with exploration, production, or 

17 transportation activities that result from the proposed action. Low-income and minority 

18 populations might be more sensitive to oil spills in coastal waters than is the general population 

19 because of their dietary reliance on wild coastal resources, their reliance on these resources for 

20 other subsistence purposes such as sharing and bartering, their limited flexibility in substituting 

21 wild resources with those purchased, and their likelihood of participating in cleanup efforts and 

22 other mitigating activities. With the exception of a catastrophic accidental event, such as that 

23 which occurred following the DWH accident, the impacts of oil spills, vessel collisions, and 

24 chemical/drilling fluid spills are not likely to be of sufficient duration to have adverse and 

25 disproportionate long-term effects for low-income and minority communities in the analysis 

26 area.

27

28 A CDE could have adverse and disproportionate effects for low-income and minority 

29 communities in the analysis area. Many of the long-term impacts of the DWH accident on low30 income and minority communities are unknown. While economic impacts have been partially 

31 mitigated by employers retaining employees for delayed maintenance or through the Gulf Coast 

32 Claims Facility (GCCF) program‘s emergency funds, the physical and mental health effects on 

33 both children and adults within these communities could potentially unfold for many years. As 

34 studies of past oil spills have highlighted, different cultural groups can possess varying capacities 

35 to cope with these types of events (Palinkas et al. 1992). Likewise, some low-income and/or 

36 minority groups may be more reliant on natural resources and/or less equipped to substitute 

37 contaminated or inaccessible natural resources with private market offerings. Because lower

38 income and/or minority communities may live near and be directly involved with spill cleanup 

39 efforts, the vectors of exposure can be higher for them than for the general population, increasing 

40 the potential risks of long-term health effects. To date, there have been no longitudinal 

41 epidemiological studies of possible long-term health effects for oil spill cleanup workers. 

42

43 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE that ranges in size from 

44 0.9 to 7.2 million bbl (Table 4.4.2-2). Although the magnitude of impacts of a CDE would partly 

45 depend on the location, size, and timing of the event, many of the long-term impacts of a CDE 

46 on low-income and minority communities are unknown. A spill as large as that which occurred 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-452

1 following the DWH accident could have adverse and disproportionate effects for low-income 

2 and minority communities in coastal and inland areas. Different cultural groups would likely

3 possess varying capacities to cope with catastrophic events, with some low-income and/or 

4 minority groups more reliant on subsistence resources and/or less equipped to substitute 

5 contaminated or inaccessible subsistence resources with those purchased in the marketplace. 

6 Because lower income and/or minority communities may live near and be directly involved with 

7 CDE cleanup efforts, the vectors of exposure can be higher for them than for the general 

8 population, increasing the potential risks of long-term health effects.

9

10

11 4.4.14.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

12

13

14 4.4.14.2.1 Routine Operations. Although only one pipeline landfall and no new pipe 

15 yards or gas processing facilities would be built as a result of the Program, additional offshore 

16 construction could include increased noise and traffic, air and water pollution, impacts on 

17 residential property values, and land use changes. Much of the Alaska Native population resides 

18 in the coastal areas of Alaska. New offshore infrastructure resulting from this program could be 

19 located near areas where subsistence hunting occurs. The Program will result in levels of 

20 infrastructure use and construction similar to that which has occurred in the south central Alaska 

21 region during previous programs, and, in many of the same locations. These activities are not 

22 expected to expose residents to notably higher risks than those that currently occur. 

23

24 Any adverse environmental impacts on fish and mammal subsistence resources from 

25 installation of infrastructure and routine operations of these facilities could have 

26 disproportionately higher health or environmental impacts on Alaska Native populations, 

27 particularly with regard to air quality impacts and impacts on animal species used for subsistence 

28 purposes. 

29

30 Air emissions from onshore facilities and helicopter and vessel traffic traversing coastal 

31 areas will be highest in areas containing the greatest amounts of infrastructure. It is assumed that 

32 the majority of the activity from the Program will occur in deep and ultra-deep waters, with 

33 offshore air emissions greatest in the coastal areas with the greatest amounts of oil and gas 

34 activity, and lesser amounts occurring elsewhere. The effects of the OCS program on air quality 

35 have been analyzed in Section 4.4.4. This analysis concluded that routine operations associated 

36 with the proposed 5-yr program would result in NO2, SO2, PM10, and CO levels that are well 

37 within the NAAQS. Coastal effects from offshore activities are expected to be small, based on 

38 the established and increasing trend toward movement of oil and gas activities into deeper 

39 waters.

40

41 Critical subsistence species that are most likely to be disturbed by noise-producing 

42 activities include bowhead and beluga whales, seals, fish, caribou, and birds. Noise disturbance 

43 would be associated with aircraft and vessel support of modifications to platform facilities, 

44 installation of oil and gas pipelines from platforms to shore, and the expansion of shore facilities. 

45 While OCS oil and gas activities are not expected to appreciably reduce any populations of 

46 subsistence species, it is possible that disturbance caused by these activities could alter the local 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-453

1 availability of these resources to harvesters. These impacts would be considered short term and 

2 localized, and would not rise to the level of significant adverse effects.

3

4

5 4.4.14.2.2 Accidents. One large spill greater than 1,000 bbl, between 1 and 3 spills 

6 between 50 and 1,000 bbl, and up to 15 small spills less than 50 bbl could occur in the Cook Inlet 

7 area from the proposed action. It is reasonable to expect that most of these spills will occur in 

8 deepwater areas located away from the coast, based on the established trend for oil and gas 

9 activity to move into deep waters located for the most part at a substantial distance from the 

10 coast. The magnitude of impacts from such spills cannot be predicted, should they contact the 

11 coast, and depends on their location, size, and timing. However, according to MMS (2002b), the 

12 probability of an offshore oil spill occurring and impacting coastal populations is low. While the 

13 location of possible oil spills cannot be determined and while low-income and minority 

14 populations are resident in some areas of the coast, in general the coasts are home to more 

15 affluent groups. Low-income and minority groups are not more likely to bear more negative 

16 impacts than are other groups. 

17

18 Subsistence activities of Alaska Native communities could be affected by accidental oil 

19 spills, with the potential health effects of oil spill contamination on subsistence foods being the 

20 main concern. After the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, testing of subsistence foods for hydrocarbon 

21 contamination between 1989 and 1994 revealed very low concentrations of petroleum 

22 hydrocarbons in most subsistence foods, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concluded 

23 that eating food with such low levels of hydrocarbons posed no significant risk to human health 

24 (Hom et al. 1999). Human health risks can be reduced through timely warnings about spills, 

25 forecasts about which areas may be affected, and even evacuating people and avoiding marine 

26 and terrestrial foods that may be affected. Avoidance of shellfish, which accumulate

27 hydrocarbons, would be recommended, and Federal and State agencies with health care 

28 responsibilities would have to sample the food sources and test for possible contamination.

29

30 Whether subsistence users will use potentially tainted foods would depend on the cultural 

31 ―confidence‖ in the purity of these foods. Based on surveys and findings in studies of the Exxon 

32 Valdez spill, Natives in affected communities largely avoided subsistence foods as long as the oil 

33 remained in the environment. Perceptions of food tainting and avoiding use lingered in Native 

34 communities after the Exxon Valdez spill, even when agency testing maintained that 

35 consumption posed no risk to human health (MMS 2006b).

36

37 The assessment and communication of the contamination risks of consuming subsistence 

38 resources following an oil spill is a continuing challenge to health and natural resource 

39 managers. After the Exxon Valdez spill, analytical testing and rigorous reporting procedures 

40 failed to convince many subsistence consumers because test results were often inconsistent with 

41 Native perceptions about environmental health. Any effective discussion of subsistence resource 

42 contamination must understand the conflicting scientific paradigms of Western science and 

43 traditional knowledge in addition to the vocabulary of the social sciences in reference to 

44 observations throughout the collection, evaluation, and reporting processes. True restoration of 

45 environmental damage, according to Picou and Gill (1996), ―must include the re-establishment 

46 of a social equilibrium between the bio-physical environment and the human community‖ 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-454

1 (Field et al. 1999; Nighswander and Peacock 1999; Fall et al. 1999). Since 1995, subsistence 

2 restoration resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill has improved by taking a more 

3 comprehensive approach by partnering with local communities and by linking scientific 

4 methodologies with traditional knowledge (Fall et al. 1999; Fall and Utermohle 1999). 

5

6 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE that ranges in size from 75 to 

7 125 thousand bbl (Table 4.4.2-20). Although the magnitude of impacts of a CDE would partly 

8 depend on the location, size, and timing of the event, many of the long-term impacts of a CDE 

9 on low-income and minority communities are unknown. A spill as large as that which occurred 

10 following the DWH accident could have adverse and disproportionate effects for low-income 

11 and minority communities in coastal and inland areas. Different cultural groups would likely

12 possess varying capacities to cope with catastrophic events, with some low-income and/or 

13 minority groups more reliant on subsistence resources and/or less equipped to substitute 

14 contaminated or inaccessible subsistence resources with those purchased in the marketplace. 

15 Because lower income and/or minority communities may live near and be directly involved with 

16 catastrophic discharge event cleanup efforts, the vectors of exposure can be higher for them than 

17 for the general population, increasing the potential risks of long-term health effects.

18

19

20 4.4.14.3 Alaska – Arctic

21

22

23 4.4.14.3.1 Routine Operations. Although only one pipeline landfall and no new pipe 

24 yards or gas processing facilities would be built as a result of the Program, additional offshore 

25 construction could include increased noise and traffic, air and water pollution, impacts on 

26 residential property values, and land use changes. Much of the Alaska Native population resides 

27 in the coastal areas of Alaska. Any new onshore and offshore infrastructure resulting from this 

28 program could be located near these populations or near areas where subsistence hunting occurs. 

29 The Program will result in levels of infrastructure use and construction similar to what has 

30 occurred in the Arctic region during previous programs. These activities are not expected to 

31 expose residents to notably higher risks than currently occur. 

32

33 Air emissions from onshore facilities and helicopter and vessel traffic traversing coastal 

34 areas will be highest in the areas containing the greatest amount of infrastructure. It is assumed 

35 that the majority of the activity from the Program will occur in deep and ultra-deep waters, with 

36 offshore air emissions greatest in the coastal areas with the greatest amounts of oil and gas 

37 activity, and lesser amounts in occurring elsewhere. The effects of the OCS program on air 

38 quality have been analyzed in Section 4.4.4. This analysis concluded that routine operations 

39 associated with the Program would result in NO2, SO2, PM10, and CO levels that are well within 

40 the NAAQS. 

41

42 Any adverse environmental impacts on fish and mammal subsistence resources from 

43 installation of infrastructure and routine operations of these facilities could have 

44 disproportionately higher health or environmental impacts on Alaska Native populations, 

45 particularly with regard to air quality impacts and impacts on animal species used for subsistence 

46 purposes. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-455

1 The NSB Municipal Code defines subsistence as ―an activity performed in support of the 

2 basic beliefs and nutritional needs of the residents of the borough and includes hunting, whaling, 

3 fishing, trapping, camping, food gathering, and other traditional and cultural activities‖ 

4 (ADNR 1997). While this is, at best, a partial view of the significance of these activities to the 

5 Iñupiat (and more generally to Alaskan Natives) as individuals, culturally it stresses subsistence 

6 as a primary cultural and nutritional set of activities upon which Alaskan Natives depend.

7

8 Critical subsistence species that are most likely to be disturbed by noise-producing 

9 activities include bowhead and beluga whales, seals, fish, caribou, and birds. Noise disturbance 

10 would be associated with aircraft and vessel support of modifications to platform facilities, 

11 installation of oil and gas pipelines from platforms to shore, and the expansion of shore facilities. 

12 While natural gas development and production are not expected to appreciably reduce any 

13 populations of subsistence species, it is possible that disturbance caused by these activities could 

14 alter the local availability of these resources to harvesters. These impacts would be considered 

15 short term and localized, and would not rise to the level of significant adverse effects.

16

17

18 4.4.14.3.2 Accidents. Up to 3 large spills greater than 1,000 bbl, between 10 and 

19 35 spills between 50 and 1,000 bbl, and up to 190 small spills of less than 50 bbl could occur in 

20 the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea area from the proposed action. The magnitude of impacts from 

21 such spills cannot be predicted, should they contact the coast, and depends on their location, size, 

22 and timing. However, according to MMS (2002b), the probability of an offshore oil spill 

23 occurring and impacting coastal populations is low. While the location of possible oil spills 

24 cannot be determined, and while low-income and minority populations are resident in some areas 

25 of the coast, low-income and minority groups are not more likely to bear more negative impacts 

26 than are other groups. 

27

28 Subsistence activities of Native communities could be affected by accidental oil spills, 

29 with the potential health effects of oil spill contamination of subsistence foods being the main 

30 concern. After the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, testing of subsistence foods for hydrocarbon 

31 contamination between 1989 and 1994 revealed very low concentrations of petroleum 

32 hydrocarbons in most subsistence foods, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concluded 

33 that eating food with such low levels of hydrocarbons posed no significant risk to human health 

34 (Hom et al. 1999). Human health risks can be reduced through timely warnings about spills, 

35 forecasts about which areas may be affected, and even evacuating people and avoiding marine 

36 and terrestrial foods that may be affected. Avoidance of shellfish, which accumulate

37 hydrocarbons, would be recommended, and Federal and State agencies with health care 

38 responsibilities would have to sample the food sources and test for possible contamination.

39

40 Whether subsistence users will use potentially tainted foods would depend on the cultural 

41 ―confidence‖ in the purity of these foods. Based on surveys and findings in studies of the Exxon 

42 Valdez spill, Natives in affected communities largely avoided subsistence foods as long as the oil 

43 remained in the environment. Perceptions of food tainting and avoiding use lingered in Native 

44 communities after the Exxon Valdez spill, even when agency testing maintained that 

45 consumption posed no risk to human health (MMS 2006b).

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-456

1 The assessment and communication of the contamination risks of consuming subsistence 

2 resources following an oil spill is a continuing challenge to health and natural resource 

3 managers. After the Exxon Valdez spill, analytical testing and rigorous reporting procedures 

4 failed to convince many subsistence consumers, because test results were often inconsistent with 

5 Native perceptions about environmental health. Any effective discussion of subsistence resource 

6 contamination must understand the conflicting scientific paradigms of Western science and 

7 traditional knowledge in addition to the vocabulary of the social sciences in reference to 

8 observations throughout the collection, evaluation, and reporting processes. True restoration of 

9 environmental damage, according to Picou and Gill (1996), ―must include the re-establishment 

10 of a social equilibrium between the bio-physical environment and the human community‖ 

11 (Field et al. 1999; Nighswander and Peacock 1999; Fall et al. 1999). Since 1995, subsistence 

12 restoration resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill has improved by taking a more 

13 comprehensive approach by partnering with local communities and by linking scientific 

14 methodologies with traditional knowledge (Fall et al. 1999; Fall and Utermohle 1999).

15

16 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE that ranges from 1.4 to 

17 2.2 million bbl in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area and from 1.7 to 3.9 million bbl in the Beaufort 

18 Sea Planning Area (Table 4.4.2-2). Although the magnitude of impacts of a CDE would partly 

19 depend on the location, size, and timing of the event, many of the long-term impacts of a CDE 

20 on low-income and minority communities are unknown. A spill as large as that which occurred 

21 following the DWH accident could have adverse and disproportionate effects for low-income 

22 and minority communities in coastal and inland areas. Different cultural groups would likely

23 possess varying capacities to cope with catastrophic events, with some low-income and/or 

24 minority groups more reliant on subsistence resources and/or less equipped to substitute 

25 contaminated or inaccessible subsistence resources with those purchased in the marketplace. 

26 Because lower income and/or minority communities may live near and be directly involved with 

27 catastrophic discharge event cleanup efforts, the vectors of exposure can be higher for them than 

28 for the general population, increasing the potential risks of long-term health effects.

29

30

31 4.4.14.4 Conclusion

32

33 The Program would result in levels of infrastructure use and construction similar to those 

34 that have already occurred along the GOM coast during previous programs. Routine Program 

35 operations are not expected to expose residents to notably higher risks than currently occur. 

36 While the distribution of offshore Program activities and infrastructure indicates that some places 

37 and populations in the GOM region will continue to be of environmental justice concern, the 

38 incremental contribution of the Program is not expected to affect those places and populations. 

39 Air emissions from the proposed program are not expected to result in air quality impacts on 

40 minority or low-income populations, with emissions from the proposed program not being 

41 expected to exceed the NAAQS in any affected area. Impacts to environmental justice from 

42 routine Program activities in the GOM Planning Areas are expected to be negligible. No 

43 environmental justice impacts from accidental oil spills are expected in the GOM because of the 

44 movement of oil and gas activities farther away from coastal areas and the demographic pattern 

45 of more affluent groups living in coastal areas. 

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-457

1 In Alaska, much of the Alaska Native population resides in the coastal areas. Any new 

2 onshore and offshore infrastructure occurring under the Program could be located near these 

3 populations or near areas where subsistence hunting occurs. Any adverse environmental impacts 

4 on fish and mammal subsistence resources from Program infrastructure and routine operations 

5 could result in health or environmental justice impacts on Alaska Native populations although 

6 impacts are expected to be minor. A large oil spill, and especially a CDE-level spill, that 

7 contacts subsistence resources could also have disproportionately high impacts on the Alaska 

8 Native population, particularly if the subsistence resources were diminished or tainted as a result 

9 of the spill. In the event of a CDE, long-term impacts to subsistence resources may be expected, 

10 and these may lead to longer and greater environmental justice impacts. Mitigation measures, 

11 cooperative agreements between Native and industry groups, and government-to-government 

12 consultations are designed to limit the effects from oil spills and routine operations. 

13

14

15 4.4.15 Potential Impacts to Archeological and Historic Resources

16

17

18 4.4.15.1 Gulf of Mexico

19

20 Archaeological resources in the GOM region that may be impacted by the proposed 

21 action include historic shipwrecks and inundated prehistoric sites offshore as well as historic and 

22 prehistoric sites onshore. Historic shipwrecks tend to concentrate in the shallow, nearshore 

23 waters of the GOM (CEI 1977; Garrison et al. 1989; Pearson et al. 2003); however, numerous 

24 recent discoveries of well-preserved historic shipwrecks in deepwater areas of the GOM have 

25 increased understanding of shipwreck potential on the OCS (Atauz et al. 2006; Church and 

26 Warren 2008; Church et al. 2004; Ford et al. 2008). BOEM has expanded its archaeological 

27 survey requirements to ensure the detection of these deepwater shipwrecks prior to approving 

28 bottom-disturbing activities in areas where it has reason to believe that archaeological resources 

29 might exist. Inundated prehistoric sites may exist on the continental shelf shoreward of about the 

30 50-m (164-ft) isobath. The depth may increase as our understanding of the timing for the 

31 peopling of North America is pushed ever earlier. 

32

33 Onshore historic properties include sites, structures, and objects such as historic 

34 buildings, forts, lighthouses, homesteads, cemeteries, and battlefields. Onshore prehistoric 

35 archaeological resources include sites, structures, and objects such as shell middens, earth 

36 middens, campsites, kill sites, tool manufacturing areas, ceremonial complexes, and earthworks. 

37 Adverse effects on historic properties require mitigation. The appropriate mitigation would be 

38 developed through consultation among BOEM, the appropriate SHPO, and any Native American 

39 tribes who have an interest in the resources. 

40

41 All archaeological sites identified through surveys conducted for BOEM permitting 

42 activities require avoidance or evaluation for listing on the NRHP. Only archaeological and 

43 historic resources that are determined eligible for listing on the NRHP require consideration 

44 during Federal undertakings (36 CFR Part 800).

45

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-458

1 4.4.15.1.1 Routine Operations. Routine operations associated with offshore oil and gas 

2 fall into four stages: exploration, development, operations, and decontamination and 

3 decommissioning. Impacts can occur on archaeological and historic resources during any stage 

4 but would be most likely during the exploration and development stages when the seafloor is 

5 first altered by an activity. It is assumed that operations and decontamination and 

6 decommissioning would affect seafloor that had been previously altered by the earlier activities. 

7 The potential for impacting a cultural resource is dependent upon the specific activity and 

8 whether a cultural resource is present within the area of potential effect for that activity.

9

10 Routine activities associated with exploration and development that are likely to affect 

11 archaeological and historic resources include drilling wells, platform installation, and pipeline 

12 installation and anchoring, as well as onshore facility and pipeline construction projects. While 

13 the source of potential impacts will vary with the specific location and nature of the routine 

14 operation, the goal of archaeological resource management remains the protection and/or 

15 retrieval of unique information contained in intact archaeological deposits. 

16

17 Direct impacts occur when permitted activities physically alter significant archaeological 

18 or historic resources. The result of direct impacts on shipwrecks would be the loss of 

19 archaeological data on ship construction, cargo, and the social organization of the vessel‘s crew, 

20 as well as loss of information on maritime cultures for the time period from which the ship dates. 

21 Other indirect impacts can result from the visual intrusion resulting from oil and gas 

22 development on the OCS and its effect on onshore historic properties. An indirect effect of oil 

23 and gas development on archaeological and historic resources is that metal debris from a 

24 permitted activity could settle near a shipwreck and could mask magnetic signatures of 

25 significant historic archaeological resources, making them more difficult to detect with 

26 magnetometers. Direct impacts from a routine activity on a prehistoric archaeological site could 

27 include destruction of artifacts or site features, as well as disturbance of the stratigraphic context 

28 of the site. This would result in the loss of archaeological data on prehistoric migrations, 

29 settlement patterns, subsistence strategies, and archaeological contacts for North America, 

30 Central America, South America, and the Caribbean. 

31

32 Regulations in 30 CFR 250.194 allow the BOEM Regional Director to require that an 

33 archaeological report based on geophysical data be prepared, if there are indications that a 

34 significant archaeological resource may exist within a lease area. For historic resources, this 

35 decision can be based on whether a lease block falls within an area assessed as having a high 

36 potential for shipwreck occurrence, such as the entrances to historic ports and harbors, or on the 

37 Regional Director‘s determination that a survey is warranted. For prehistoric resources, a survey 

38 is required if there is the potential for landforms to be present that could contain prehistoric 

39 material. If the survey finds evidence of a possible archaeological resource within the lease area, 

40 the lessee must either move the proposed activity to avoid the possible resource or conduct 

41 further investigations to determine whether an archaeological resource actually exists at the 

42 location. If an archaeological resource is present at the location of proposed activity and cannot 

43 be avoided, BOEM procedures require consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office to 

44 develop mitigating measures prior to any exploration or development. 

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-459

1 BOEM has used predictive models based on various parameters to determine when and 

2 where archaeological surveys should be required. Studies conducted between 2006 and 2008 

3 suggest that the models used in the past are not adequate (Church and Warren 2008; 

4 Ford et al. 2008; Atauz et al. 2006). These studies document significant effects on shipwrecks 

5 resulting from routine activities that occurred in areas where wrecks were not anticipated. As a 

6 result of these discoveries, BOEM may require surveys in all areas outside those already 

7 identified as having the potential for archaeology that could be affected by a project. 

8

9 Federal, State, and local laws and ordinances, including the National Historic 

10 Preservation Act provide a process to facilitate the consideration of known sites and as-yet11 unidentified archaeological resources in the planning phases of a proposed project. Where there 

12 is reason to believe that an archaeological resource might exist in a lease area, regulations require 

13 archaeological surveys to be conducted prior to permitting any activity that might disturb a 

14 significant archaeological site. When required, these archaeological surveys have been found to 

15 be effective in locating most archaeological resources prior to any construction on the OCS; 

16 however, even with surveys, there is the potential that a shipwreck or an inundated terrestrial site 

17 could be missed due to sedimentation on the wreck or other factors, resulting in a routine activity 

18 contacting a shipwreck or site. Such an event could result in the disturbance or destruction of 

19 unique or significant historic archaeological information. 

20

21

22 4.4.15.1.2 Accidents. Impacts on archaeological and historical resources from an 

23 accidental oil spill can result from either direct contact of crude oil with archaeological material 

24 or from effects caused by cleanup workers and their equipment (i.e., anchor drags, dredging of 

25 contaminated soils, or unauthorized collecting by cleanup workers). The following are 

26 discussions of the potential effects from an accidental oil spill on various resource types based on 

27 location and water depth. 

28

29 Shipwrecks in shallow waters and coastal historic and prehistoric archeological sites 

30 could be impacted by an accidental oil spill. Archaeological resource protection during an oil 

31 spill requires specific knowledge of the resource‘s location, condition, nature, and extent prior to 

32 impact; however, the GOM coastline has not been systematically surveyed for archaeological 

33 sites. Existing information indicates that, in coastal areas of the GOM, prehistoric sites occur 

34 frequently along the barrier islands and mainland coast and the margins of bays and bayous. 

35 Thus, any spill that contacted the land would involve a potential impact on a prehistoric site. 

36

37 Shipwrecks can be affected by contact with crude oil. Shallow water shipwrecks often 

38 serve as artificial reefs when they are covered by corals and other organisms. The organisms that

39 attach to the wreck protect the wood from deterioration. An oil spill could destabilize a balanced 

40 ecosystem covering the wreck, thus potentially increasing deterioration of the wreck until the 

41 wreck comes into equilibrium with its new environment. Some terrestrial studies have suggested 

42 that, while oil contamination of wood initially restricts deterioration, it can later increase 

43 deterioration (Ejechi 2003). It is not known how this situation would be altered in a marine 

44 environment. It is also not known whether dispersants used to break up concentrations of oil 

45 have any effect on shipwrecks or the vegetation that forms on the wrecks (BOEMRE 2011a).

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-460

1 Should an oil spill contact a coastal historic site, such as a fort or a lighthouse, the major 

2 impact would be visual due to oil contamination of the site and its environment. Any effects 

3 from contact with oil to historic materials could be mitigated through cleaning of the historic 

4 material. The visual impact would most likely be temporary, lasting up to several weeks 

5 depending on the time required for cleanup. Gross crude oil contamination of shorelines is a 

6 potential direct impact that may affect archaeological site recognition. Heavy oiling conditions 

7 (Whitney 1994) could conceal intertidal sites that may not be recognized until they are 

8 inadvertently damaged during cleanup. Crude oil may also contaminate organic material used in 

14C dating, and, although there are methods for cleaning contaminated 9 14C samples, greater 

10 expense is incurred (Dekin et al. 1993). An Alaskan study examining the effects of the 1989 

11 Exxon Valdez oil spill on archaeological deposits revealed that oil in the intertidal zone had not 

12 penetrated the subsoil, apparently due to hydrostatic pressure (Dekin et al. 1993); however, 

13 because of the different environments, these results should not be translated into the GOM

14 coastal environment without further study. 

15

16 Spill Response and Cleanup. Cleanup activities have the potential to alter 

17 archaeological sites and shipwrecks. Inadvertent damage from anchors can greatly impact

18 archaeological sites and shipwrecks (Church and Warren 2008). The potential amount of 

19 damage depends on several factors including the presence and density of shipwrecks and 

20 archaeological material in the area of activity, the number of vessels being employed in the 

21 cleanup activities, and whether offshore decontamination stations were needed and where these 

22 facilities were established. These types of impacts could be avoided or minimized if wreck 

23 locations are known. In 2007, 2,100 shipwrecks were reported to have been lost in the GOM;

24 however, specific location information is known for only 233 of these wrecks 

25 (BOEMRE 2011a). This issue makes avoiding wrecks difficult.

26

27 Another source of potential impact from oil spills is the harm that could result from 

28 unmonitored shoreline cleanup activities. Unmonitored booming, cleanup activities involving 

29 vehicle and foot traffic, mechanized cleanup involving heavy equipment, and high-pressure 

30 washing on or near archaeological sites pose risks to the resources. Unauthorized collecting of 

31 artifacts by cleanup crew members is also a concern, albeit one that can be mitigated with 

32 effective training and supervision. As Bittner (1996) described in her summary of the Exxon 

33 Valdez oil spill, ―Damage assessment revealed no contamination of the sites by oil, but 

34 considerable damage resulted from vandalism associated with cleanup activities and lesser 

35 amounts were caused by the cleanup process itself.‖

36

37 The National Response Team‘s Programmatic Agreement on Protection of Historic 

38 Properties during Emergency Response under the National Oil and Hazardous Substances 

39 Pollution Contingency Plan clarifies interagency and regulatory aspects of archaeological site 

40 protection during oil spill response. The agreement was followed during the DWH event and it 

41 is assumed that the agreement was effective; however, no reports on the utility of the agreement 

42 for that event are currently available.

43

44 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE that ranges in size from 

45 0.9 to 7.2 million bbl (Table 4.4.2-2). A CDE could result in extensive impacts on a large

46 number of archaeological and historic resources. Due to the large area affected by a catastrophic 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-461

1 event, some resources such as coastal historic sites that are sensitive to prolonged contact with 

2 oil could be more heavily impacted. Cleanup crews would be needed in a greater number of 

3 locations. This could allow oil to be in contact with resources for a significant amount of time 

4 before cleanup efforts could be applied, which could result in impacts to these resources. A 

5 greater threat to archaeological and historic resources during a catastrophic discharge event 

6 would result from the larger number of response crews being employed. Historically most 

7 impacts to archaeological and historic resources during a spill response were the result of 

8 vandalism or physical damage from spill response activities (Bittner 1996). A catastrophic 

9 discharge event would result in major impacts to numerous archaeological and historic resources 

10 from response activities.

11

12 The Programmatic Agreement on Protection of Historic Properties during Emergency 

13 Response under the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan would 

14 be followed during the response to a CDE. As mentioned above, it is assumed that the process 

15 identified in the agreement would be effective; however, no assessments of the agreement‘s 

16 application during the DWH event are available. 

17

18

19 4.4.15.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

20

21 Archaeological and historic resources in the Alaska region include historic shipwrecks, 

22 submerged aircraft, inundated prehistoric sites offshore, and historic and prehistoric sites 

23 onshore. These resources have the potential to be affected by the proposed action. The locations 

24 of most of the cultural resources in Cook Inlet are currently unknown, but if any are discovered 

25 during OCS oil and gas activities, they would be subject to archaeological surveys, and other 

26 activities and mitigations required by applicable laws and BOEM policies. There is currently no 

27 archaeological baseline study for Alaska on which to base decisions concerning where cultural 

28 resources should be present. An archaeological baseline study was done for Alaska in the mid29 1980s (Dixon et al. 1986); however, this research was never updated and should be assessed for 

30 its validity when compared with current research and scientific findings. Some research 

31 attempting to identify landforms that may contain archaeological remains has been done in the 

32 Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, but no new studies have been conducted in Cook Inlet. Research on 

33 historic shipwrecks has identified 108 shipwrecks in Cook Inlet (Tornfelt and Burwell 1992). As 

34 discussed in Section 3.16.2, portions of Cook Inlet are subject to high-energy tidal movements 

35 (MMS 2003a). This high-energy environment may have destroyed some of the archaeological 

36 evidence that once existed in Cook Inlet, but this can only be verified through science-based 

37 methods of inquiry. 

38

39

40 4.4.15.2.1 Routine Operations. Routine activities associated with the proposed action

41 that could affect cultural resources include well drilling, platform installation, pipeline 

42 installation, and onshore facility and pipeline construction projects that involve ground 

43 disturbance. Effects on cultural resources can be determined only on a case-by-case basis. Only 

44 through project-specific surveys can cultural resources be identified. The determination that a 

45 survey is required depends on several factors including the potential for landforms to exist that 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-462

1 may contain archaeological sites (i.e., submerged coastlines) or archival records suggesting that 

2 shipwrecks could be present. 

3

4 As previously discussed, regulations at 30 CFR 250.194 allow the BOEM Regional 

5 Director to require that an archaeological report based on geophysical data be prepared, if there 

6 are indications that a significant archaeological resource may exist within a lease area. For 

7 historic resources, this decision is based on whether a historic shipwreck is reported to exist 

8 within or adjacent to a lease area. For prehistoric resources, an analysis is completed prior to 

9 each lease sale to consider the relative sea level history, the depth of burial of the late 

10 Wisconsinan land surface (i.e., lands that could contain archaeological sites), the type and 

11 thickness of sediments burying the old land surface, and the severity of ice gouging at the present 

12 seafloor. Lease areas that are shown by this analysis to have the potential for prehistoric 

13 archaeological resources are required to have an archaeological survey prior to initiating

14 exploration and development activities. If the survey finds evidence of a possible archaeological 

15 resource within the lease area, the lessee must either move the proposed activity to avoid the 

16 possible resource or conduct further investigations to determine whether an archaeological 

17 resource actually exists at the location. If an archaeological resource is present at the location of 

18 proposed activity and cannot be avoided, BOEM procedures require consultation with the State 

19 Historic Preservation Office to develop mitigation measures prior to any exploration or 

20 development. 

21

22 Federal, State, and local laws and ordinances, including the National Historic 

23 Preservation Act and the Alaska Historic Preservation Act, provide a process to facilitate the 

24 consideration of known sites and as-yet-unidentified archaeological resources both onshore and 

25 offshore. Where there is reason to believe that an archaeological resource might exist in a lease 

26 area, regulations require archaeological surveys to be conducted prior to permitting any activity 

27 that might disturb a significant archaeological site. When required, these surveys have been 

28 found to be effective in locating most archaeological resources prior to any construction or 

29 offshore bottom-disturbing activity on the OCS. However, even with surveys there is the 

30 potential that a shipwreck or an inundated terrestrial site could be missed due to sedimentation 

31 on the wreck or other factors, resulting in a routine activity contacting a shipwreck or site. Such 

32 an event could result in the disturbance or destruction of unique or significant historic 

33 archaeological information. However, regulations in 30 CFR 250.194(c) require that if any 

34 archaeological resource is discovered, operations must be immediately halted in the area of the 

35 discovery and a report of the discovery must be made so that further investigation may determine 

36 the significance of the resource.

37

38

39 4.4.15.2.2 Accidents. Oil spills and their subsequent cleanup could impact the 

40 archaeological resources of the Alaska region directly and/or indirectly. The geologic history of 

41 specific shorelines generally affects the presence or absence, condition, and age of 

42 archaeological sites on or near Alaska region shorelines. However, some types of archaeological 

43 resources are present on or adjacent to nearly all Alaska region shorelines. Existing data indicate 

44 that archaeological resources are particularly abundant along Gulf of Alaska shorelines 

45 (Mobley et al. 1990).

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-463

1 Archaeological resource protection during an oil spill requires specific knowledge of the 

2 resource‘s location, condition, nature, and extent prior to impact. However, large portions of the 

3 Cook Inlet coastline have not been systematically surveyed for archaeological sites. While some 

4 response groups have compiled known archaeological site data in a form useful for mitigation 

5 during an emergency response (Wooley et al. 1997), these data have not been compiled for all 

6 areas of the Alaska region. 

7

8 Gross crude oil contamination of shorelines is a potential direct impact that may affect 

9 archaeological site recognition. Heavy oiling conditions (Whitney 1994) could conceal intertidal 

10 sites that may not be recognized until they are inadvertently damaged during cleanup. Crude oil 

may also contaminate organic material used in 11 14C dating, and, although there are methods for 

cleaning contaminated 12 14C samples, greater expense is incurred (Dekin et al. 1993). However,

13 many other anthropogenic sources of hydrocarbons and other possible contaminants also exist, 

14 so caution should always be taken when analyzing radiocarbon samples from coastal Alaska 

15 (see Reger et al. 1992). A study examining the effects of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill on 

16 archaeological deposits revealed that oil in the intertidal zone had not penetrated the subsoil, 

17 apparently due to hydrostatic pressure (Dekin et al. 1993).

18

19 Spill Response and Cleanup. The major source of potential impact from oil spills 

20 resulting from the proposed action is the harm that could result from unmonitored shoreline 

21 cleanup activities. Cleanup activities could impact beached shipwrecks, or shipwrecks in 

22 shallow waters, as well as coastal historic and prehistoric archaeological sites. Unmonitored 

23 booming, cleanup activities involving vehicle and foot traffic, mechanized cleanup involving 

24 heavy equipment, and high-pressure washing on or near archaeological sites pose risks to the 

25 resources. Inadvertent damage from anchors can greatly alter archaeological sites and 

26 shipwrecks (Church and Warren 2008). The potential amount of damage depends on several 

27 factors including the presence and density of shipwrecks and archaeological material in the area 

28 of activity, the number of vessels being employed in the cleanup activities, and whether offshore 

29 decontamination stations were needed and where these facilities were established. These types 

30 of impacts could be avoided or minimized if wreck locations are known. Unauthorized 

31 collecting of artifacts by cleanup crew members is also a concern, albeit one that can be 

32 mitigated with effective training and supervision. As Bittner (1996) described in her summary of 

33 the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, ―Damage assessment revealed no contamination of the sites by 

34 oil, but considerable damage resulted from vandalism associated with cleanup activities, and 

35 lesser amounts were caused by the cleanup process itself.‖

36

37 The National Response Team‘s Programmatic Agreement on Protection of Historic 

38 Properties during Emergency Response under the National Oil and Hazardous Substances 

39 Pollution Contingency Plan clarifies interagency and regulatory aspects of archaeological site 

40 protection during oil spill response. The agreement also outlines the Federal On-Scene 

41 Coordinator‘s role in protecting archaeological resources, the type of expertise needed for site 

42 protection, and the appropriate process for identifying and protecting archaeological sites during 

43 an emergency response. The agreement was followed during the DWH event, and it is assumed 

44 that the agreement was effective; however, no reports on the utility of the agreement for that 

45 event are currently available.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-464

1 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE that ranges from 75 to 

2 125 thousand bbl (Table 4.4.2-2). A CDE could result in extensive impacts on a large number of 

3 archaeological and historic resources. Due to the large area affected by a catastrophic event 

4 some resources such as coastal historic sites that are sensitive to prolonged contact with oil could 

5 be more heavily impacted. Cleanup crews would be needed in a greater number of locations. 

6 This could allow oil to be in contact with resources for a significant amount of time before 

7 cleanup efforts could be applied, which could result in impacts to these resources. A greater 

8 threat to archaeological and historic resources during a catastrophic discharge event would result 

9 from the larger number of response crews being employed. Historically most impacts to 

10 archaeological and historic resources during a spill response were the result of vandalism or 

11 physical damage from spill response activities (Bittner 1996). A catastrophic discharge event 

12 would result in major impacts to numerous archaeological and historic resources from response 

13 activities.

14

15 The Programmatic Agreement on Protection of Historic Properties during Emergency 

16 Response under the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan would 

17 be followed during the response to a CDE. As mentioned above, it is assumed that the process 

18 identified in the agreement would be effective; however, no assessments of the agreement‘s 

19 application during the DWH event are available. 

20

21

22 4.4.15.3 Alaska – Arctic

23

24 Archaeological and historic resources in the Alaska region include historic shipwrecks, 

25 submerged aircraft, inundated prehistoric sites offshore, and historic and prehistoric sites 

26 onshore. These resources have the potential to be affected by the proposed action. Several 

27 factors must be considered when assessing any potential impacts on offshore resources in 

28 Alaska. First, the locations of most of the cultural resources in the Arctic are currently unknown; 

29 this is especially true of submerged cultural resources. If any are discovered during OCS oil and 

30 gas activities, they would be subject to archaeological surveys and other activities and 

31 mitigations required by applicable laws and BOEM policies. The goal of much of the 

32 archaeological research being done in the Arctic is to identify locations and landforms that have 

33 the potential to contain archaeological and historic resources. The focus on submerged 

34 prehistoric resources in Alaska is due to the theory that North America was first populated by 

35 nomadic hunters following game across the submerged land mass known as Beringia that once 

36 linked Asia with North America (Hoffecker and Elias 2003). A second factor is that, unlike the 

37 GOM region, there is no current archaeological baseline study for Alaska on which to base 

38 decisions concerning where cultural resources should be present. A third factor is that sea levels 

39 have risen over the last 13,000 years. Human activity tends to concentrate on coasts. Regions 

40 that were once coastal are now submerged. The coastline that existed 13,000 years ago is now 

41 found at roughly the 50-m (164-ft) bathymetry line (Darigo et al. 2007). It is thought that people 

42 first came to North America approximately 13,000 years ago. A fourth factor is that natural 

43 processes such as ice gouging may have modified much of the ocean bottom to the extent that 

44 many cultural resources no longer exist. Studies conducted in 2007 suggest some nearshore 

45 locations may remain intact due to shorefast ice, which kept the ice which normally would scrape 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-465

1 the sea floor away from the coast. Other factors such as the amount of sediment that has 

2 collected on a location may improve the potential for some resources to remain intact. 

3

4

5 4.4.15.3.1 Routine Operations. Routine activities associated with the proposal that 

6 could affect cultural resources include well drilling, platform installation, pipeline installation, 

7 and onshore facility and pipeline construction projects that involve ground disturbance. Effects 

8 on cultural resources can be determined only on a case-by-case basis. Only through project9 specific surveys can cultural resources be identified. The determination that a survey is required 

10 depends on several factors, including the potential for landforms to exist that may contain 

11 archaeological sites (i.e., submerged coastlines) or archival records suggesting that shipwrecks 

12 could be present. 

13

14 Regulations at 30 CFR 250.194 allow the BOEM Regional Director to require that an 

15 archaeological report based on geophysical data be prepared if there are indications that a 

16 significant archaeological resource may exist within a lease area. For historic resources, this 

17 decision is based on whether an historic shipwreck is reported to exist within or adjacent to a 

18 lease area. For prehistoric resources, an analysis is completed prior to each lease sale to consider 

19 the relative sea level history, the depth of burial of the late Wisconsinan land surface (i.e., lands 

20 that could contain archaeological sites), the type and thickness of sediments burying the old land 

21 surface, and the severity of ice gouging at the present seafloor. Lease areas that are shown by 

22 this analysis to have the potential for prehistoric archaeological resources are required to have an 

23 archaeological survey prior to initiating exploration and development activities. If the survey 

24 finds evidence of a possible archaeological resource within the lease area, the lessee must either 

25 move the proposed activity to avoid the possible resource or conduct further investigations to 

26 determine whether an archaeological resource actually exists at the location. If an archaeological 

27 resource is present at the location of proposed activity and cannot be avoided, BOEM procedures 

28 require consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office to develop mitigation measures 

29 prior to any exploration or development. 

30

31 Federal, State, and local laws and ordinances, including the National Historic 

32 Preservation Act and the Alaska Historic Preservation Act provide a process to facilitate the 

33 consideration of known sites and as-yet-unidentified archaeological resources both onshore and 

34 offshore. Where there is reason to believe that an archaeological resource might exist in a lease 

35 area, existing regulations require archaeological surveys to be conducted prior to permitting any 

36 activity that might disturb a significant archaeological site. When required, these archaeological 

37 surveys have been found to be effective in locating most archaeological resources prior to any 

38 onshore construction project or offshore bottom-disturbing activity; however, even with surveys 

39 there is the potential that a shipwreck or an inundated terrestrial site could be missed due to 

40 sedimentation on the wreck or other factors, resulting in a routine activity contacting a shipwreck 

41 or site. Such an event could result in the disturbance or destruction of unique or significant 

42 historic archaeological information. 

43

44

45 4.4.15.3.2 Accidents. Oil spills and their subsequent cleanup could impact the 

46 archaeological resources of the Alaska region directly and/or indirectly. The geologic history of 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-466

1 specific shorelines generally affects the presence or absence, condition, and age of 

2 archaeological sites on or near Alaska region shorelines; however, some type of archaeological 

3 resource is present on or adjacent to nearly all Alaska region shorelines. Existing data indicate 

4 that archaeological resources are particularly abundant along Gulf of Alaska shorelines 

5 (Mobley et al. 1990).

6

7 Archaeological resource protection during an oil spill requires specific knowledge of the 

8 resource‘s location, condition, nature, and extent prior to impact; however, large portions of the 

9 Alaska region coastline have not been systematically surveyed for archaeological sites. While 

10 some response groups have compiled known archaeological site data in a form useful for 

11 mitigation during an emergency response (Wooley et al. 1997), these data have not been 

12 compiled for all areas of the Alaska region. 

13

14 Gross crude oil contamination of shorelines is a potential direct impact that may affect 

15 archaeological site recognition. Heavy oiling conditions (Whitney 1994) could conceal intertidal 

16 sites that may not be recognized until they are inadvertently damaged during cleanup. Crude oil 

may also contaminate organic material used in 17 14C dating, and, although there are methods for 

cleaning contaminated 18 14C samples, greater expense is incurred (Dekin et al. 1993). Many other 

19 anthropogenic sources of hydrocarbons and other possible contaminants also exist, so caution 

20 should always be taken when analyzing radiocarbon samples from coastal Alaska 

21 (see Reger et al. 1992). A study examining the effects of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill on 

22 archaeological deposits revealed that oil in the intertidal zone had not penetrated the subsoil, 

23 apparently due to hydrostatic pressure (Dekin et al. 1993).

24

25 Spill Response and Cleanup. The major source of potential impact from oil spills 

26 resulting from the proposed action is the harm that could result from unmonitored shoreline 

27 cleanup activities. Cleanup activities could impact beached shipwrecks, or shipwrecks in 

28 shallow waters, as well as coastal historic and prehistoric archaeological sites. Unmonitored 

29 booming, cleanup activities involving vehicle and foot traffic, mechanized cleanup involving 

30 heavy equipment, and high-pressure washing on or near archaeological sites pose risks to the 

31 resource. Inadvertent damage from anchors can greatly alter archaeological sites and shipwrecks 

32 (Church and Warren 2008). The potential amount of damage depends on several factors,

33 including the presence and density of shipwrecks and archaeological material in the area of 

34 activity, the number of vessels being employed in the cleanup activities, and whether offshore 

35 decontamination stations were needed and where these facilities were established. These types 

36 of impacts could be avoided or minimized if wreck locations are known. Unauthorized 

37 collecting of artifacts by cleanup crew members is also a concern, albeit one that can be 

38 mitigated with effective training and supervision. As Bittner (1996) described in her summary of 

39 the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, ―Damage assessment revealed no contamination of the sites by 

40 oil, but considerable damage resulted from vandalism associated with cleanup activities, and 

41 lesser amounts were caused by the cleanup process itself.‖

42

43 The National Response Team‘s Programmatic Agreement on Protection of Historic 

44 Properties during Emergency Response under the National Oil and Hazardous Substances 

45 Pollution Contingency Plan clarifies interagency and regulatory aspects of archaeological site 

46 protection during oil spill response. The agreement also outlines the Federal On-Scene 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-467

1 Coordinator‘s role in protecting archaeological resources, the type of expertise needed for site 

2 protection, and the appropriate process for identifying and protecting archaeological sites during 

3 an emergency response. The agreement was followed during the DWH event, and it is assumed 

4 the agreement was effective; however, no reports on the utility of the agreement for that event 

5 are currently available.

6

7 Catastrophic Discharge Event. The PEIS analyzes a CDE that ranges from 1.4 to 

8 2.2 million bbl in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area and from 1.7 to 3.9 million bbl in the Beaufort 

9 Sea Planning Area (Table 4.4.2-2). A CDE could result in extensive impacts on a large number 

10 of archaeological and historic resources. Due to the large area affected by a catastrophic event 

11 some resources such as coastal historic sites that are sensitive to prolonged contact with oil could 

12 be more heavily impacted. Cleanup crews would be needed in a greater number of locations. 

13 This could allow oil to be in contact with resources for a significant amount of time before 

14 cleanup efforts could be applied, which could result in impacts to these resources. A greater 

15 threat to archaeological and historic resources during a catastrophic discharge event would result 

16 from the larger number of response crews being employed. Historically most impacts to 

17 archaeological and historic resources during a spill response were the result of vandalism or 

18 physical damage from spill response activities (Bittner 1996). A catastrophic discharge event 

19 would result in large impacts to numerous archaeological and historic resources from response 

20 activities.

21

22 The Programmatic Agreement on Protection of Historic Properties during Emergency 

23 Response under the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan would 

24 be followed during the response to a CDE. As mentioned above, it is assumed that the process 

25 identified in the agreement would be effective; however, no assessments of the agreement‘s 

26 application during the DWH event are available. 

27

28

29 4.4.15.4 Conclusion

30

31 Assuming compliance with existing Federal, State, and local archaeological regulations 

32 and policies, most impacts on archaeological resources resulting from routine activities under the 

33 proposed action should be avoided. BOEM may alter its requirements for archaeological surveys 

34 because currently BOEM does not require the submission of archaeological reports based on 

35 high-resolution geophysical survey data in all lease sale areas. Without the data analysis 

36 included in the archaeological reports, it is impossible to assess whether a proposed activity may 

37 impact an unknown cultural resource in the area of potential effect. When required, 

38 archaeological reports based on high-resolution geophysical data are believed to provide the 

39 information needed by BOEM to develop appropriate avoidance or mitigation strategies to 

40 protect cultural resources within the area of potential effect from impacts associated with oil and 

41 gas activities on the OCS. Impacts to archeological and historic resources from routine Program 

42 activities are expected to range from negligible to major. 

43

44 In the case of accidental oil spills, and especially CDE-level spills, some impacts could 

45 occur on coastal historic and prehistoric archaeological resources. Although it is not possible to 

46 predict the precise numbers or types of sites that would be affected, contact with archaeological 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-468

1 sites would probably be unavoidable, and the resulting loss of information would be 

2 irretrievable. The magnitude of the impacts would depend on the number of resources affected 

3 and on the significance and uniqueness of the information lost. Impacts can result from both 

4 direct contact with oil and from cleanup operations. Based on experience gained from the Exxon 

5 Valdez oil spill, no or very limited impacts from direct contact with oil from even a CDE-level 

6 spill are expected, but some impacts are expected during cleanup activities. Response actions 

7 associated with a CDE-level spill have the greatest potential for adversely impacting 

8 archeological and historic resources

9

10

11 4.5 OTHER ALTERNATIVES

12

13

14 4.5.1 Alternative 2 – Defer the Eastern Planning Area for the Duration of the 2012-2017 

15 Program

16

17

18 4.5.1.1 Description of Alternative 2

19

20 Under Alternative 2, no sales would be held in the Eastern GOM Planning Area under the 

21 Program, and there would be no change from the proposed action for the other planning areas. 

22 Under Alternative 2, the following would take place:

23

24 • Five area-wide lease sales in the Central GOM Planning Area;

25

26 • Five area-wide lease sales in the Western GOM Planning Area; 

27

28 • One lease sale with a whaling deferral in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area; 

29

30 • One lease sale with a 40-km (25-mi) buffer in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area; 

31 and

32

33 • One special interest lease sale in Cook Inlet.

34

35

36 4.5.1.2 Summary of Impacts

37

38 Excluding the Eastern GOM Planning Area from the Program would reduce the number 

39 of potential lease sales in the GOM from 12 to 10, and there would be no offshore and onshore 

40 oil and gas development activities in the Eastern GOM Planning Area. As a result, none of the 

41 localized impacts (short or long term) on water quality, air quality, marine and coastal biota and 

42 habitats, or archeological or historic resources that would be associated with development in the 

43 Eastern GOM Planning Area would be expected to occur. However, water and air quality, as 

44 well as marine and coastal biota and habitats, in some portions of the Eastern GOM Planning 

45 Area could be affected by oil and gas leasing and development in the eastern portions of the 

46 Central GOM Planning Area.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-469

1 Because of the relatively small amount of development that would occur in the Eastern 

2 GOM Planning Area under the proposed action (no more than 1 installed platform, no more than 

3 17 wells), the population, employment, and income impacts identified for the GOM under the 

4 proposed action would be only slightly reduced, and would remain unchanged in the other 

5 planning areas.

6

7 Under Alternative 2, potential impacts on natural, physical, and socioeconomic resources 

8 in Alaska would be the same as those identified from the proposed action.

9

10 Under Alternative 2, no oil spills from oil and gas development activities under the 

11 Program would occur directly in the Eastern GOM Planning Area. However, spills from 

12 development in the other planning areas (especially a large or very large spill in the Central 

13 Planning Area) could be carried by currents into the Eastern GOM Planning Area and affect 

14 marine and coastal resources, tourism and recreation, commercial fisheries, and local economies. 

15 The nature and magnitude of any such impacts on those resources (as described in earlier 

16 sections of this chapter) will depend on the location, size, and duration of a spill in the other 

17 GOM planning areas.

18

19

20 4.5.2 Alternative 3 – Defer the Western Planning Area for the Duration of the 2012-2017 

21 Program

22

23

24 4.5.2.1 Description of Alternative 3

25

26 Under Alternative 3, no lease sales would be held in the Western Planning Area under the 

27 Program, and there would be no change from the proposed action for the other planning areas. 

28 Under Alternative 3, the following would take place:

29

30 • Five area-wide lease sales in the Central GOM Planning Area; 

31

32 • One or two lease sales in the extreme western portion of the Eastern GOM 

33 Planning Area; 

34

35 • One lease sale with a whaling deferral in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area; 

36

37 • One lease sale with a 40-km (25-mi) buffer in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area; 

38 and

39

40 • One special interest lease sale in Cook Inlet.

41

42

43 4.5.2.2 Summary of Impacts

44

45 Excluding the Western GOM Planning Area from the Program would reduce the number 

46 of potential lease sales in the GOM from 12 to 7. Under the proposed action, there could be as 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-470

1 many as 96 platforms and 534 wells (and associated pipelines, landfalls, and onshore processing 

2 facilities) developed in the Western GOM Planning Area. Under Alternative 3, this development 

3 would not occur, and as a result none of the short- or long-term localized impacts identified for 

4 the proposed action on water quality, air quality, marine and coastal biota and habitats, 

5 archeological or historic resources, or land use and infrastructure that would be associated with 

6 development and operation of this infrastructure and support activities (such as support vessel 

7 and helicopter traffic) in the Western GOM Planning Area would be expected to occur. 

8 However, water and air quality, as well as marine and coastal biota and habitats, in some 

9 portions of the Western GOM Planning Area could still be affected by oil and gas leasing and 

10 development in the western portions of the Central GOM Planning Area, especially if that 

11 development uses existing commercial infrastructure (such as shipyards, support centers, 

12 processing facilities) and shipping lanes in coastal areas of the Western GOM Planning Area.

13

14 Even though a relatively large amount of development would occur in the Western GOM 

15 Planning Area under the proposed action, the increases in population, employment, and income 

16 identified to occur under the proposed action would be only slightly reduced under Alternative 3, 

17 and would remain unchanged in the other planning areas.

18

19 Under Alternative 3, potential impacts on natural, physical, and socioeconomic resources 

20 in Alaska would be the same as those identified from the proposed action.

21

22 Under Alternative 3, no oil spills from oil and gas development activities would occur 

23 directly in the Western GOM Planning Area under the Program. However, spills that may occur 

24 under Alternative 3 from development in the other planning areas (especially large or very large 

25 spills in the Central Planning Area) could be carried by currents into the Western GOM Planning 

26 Area and affect marine and coastal resources, tourism and recreation, commercial fisheries, and 

27 local economies. The nature and magnitude of any such impacts on those resources (as 

28 described in earlier sections of this chapter) will depend on the location, size, and duration of any 

29 spills in the other GOM Planning Areas.

30

31

32 4.5.3 Alternative 4 – Defer the Central Planning Area for the Duration of the 2012-2017 

33 Program

34

35

36 4.5.3.1 Description of Alternative 4

37

38 Under Alternative 4, no lease sales would be held in the Central Planning Area under the 

39 Program, and there would be no change from the proposed action for the other planning areas. 

40 Under Alternative 4, the following would take place:

41

42 • Five area-wide lease sales in the Western GOM Planning Area; 

43

44 • One or two lease sales in the extreme western portion of the Eastern GOM 

45 Planning Area; 

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-471

1 • One lease sale with a whaling deferral in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area; 

2

3 • One lease sale with a 40-km (25-mi) buffer in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area; 

4 and

5

6 • One special interest lease sale in Cook Inlet.

7

8

9 4.5.3.2 Summary of Impacts

10

11 Excluding the Central GOM Planning Area from the Program would reduce the number 

12 of potential lease sales in the GOM from 12 to 7. Under the proposed action, the greatest amount 

13 of oil and gas development in the GOM would occur in the Central GOM Planning Area, with as 

14 many as 316 platforms and 749 wells (and associated pipelines, landfalls, and onshore 

15 processing facilities). Under Alternative 4, this development would not occur, and as a result 

16 none of the localized impacts (short or long term) on water quality, air quality, marine and 

17 coastal biota and habitats, archeological or historic resources, or land use and infrastructure that 

18 would be associated with development and operation of this infrastructure and support activities 

19 (such as support vessel and helicopter traffic) in the Central GOM Planning Area would be 

20 expected to occur. However, water and air quality, as well as marine and coastal biota and 

21 habitats could still be affected in some portions of the Central Planning Area by oil and gas 

22 activities in portions of the Western and Eastern GOM Planning Areas that abut the Central 

23 GOM Planning Area, especially if those activities use existing commercial infrastructure (such 

24 as shipyards, support centers, processing facilities) that are located in the Central GOM Planning 

25 Area.

26

27 Under Alternative 4, potential impacts on natural, physical, and socioeconomic resources 

28 in Alaska would be the same as those identified from the proposed action.

29

30 Even with the large amount of development that could occur in the Central GOM 

31 Planning Area under the proposed action, under Alternative 4 the increases in population, 

32 employment, and income likely to occur under the proposed action would be only slightly 

33 reduced, and would remain unchanged in the other planning areas.

34

35 Under Alternative 4, no oil spills from oil and gas development activities associated with 

36 the Program would occur directly in the Central GOM Planning Area. However, spills from 

37 development in the Western or Eastern GOM Planning Areas could be carried by currents into 

38 the Central GOM Planning Area and affect marine and coastal resources, tourism and recreation, 

39 commercial fisheries, and local economies. The nature and magnitude of any such impacts on 

40 those resources (as described in earlier sections of this chapter) will depend on the location, size, 

41 and duration of any spills in the other GOM planning areas.

42

43
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-472

1 4.5.4 Alternative 5 – Defer the Beaufort Sea Planning Area for the Duration of the 

2 2012-2017 Program

3

4

5 4.5.4.1 Description of Alternative 5

6

7 Under Alternative 5, no lease sales would be held in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area 

8 under the Program, and there would be no change from the proposed action for the other 

9 planning areas. Under Alternative 5, there would be:

10

11 • Five area-wide lease sales in the Western GOM Planning Area; 

12

13 • Five area-wide lease sales in the Central GOM Planning Area; 

14

15 • One or two lease sales in the extreme western portion of the Eastern GOM 

16 Planning Area; 

17

18 • One lease sale with a 40-km (25-mi) buffer in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area; 

19 and

20

21 • One special interest lease sale in Cook Inlet.

22

23

24 4.5.4.2 Summary of Impacts

25

26 Excluding the Beaufort Sea Planning Area from the Program would reduce the number of 

27 potential lease sales in the Arctic from 2 to 1. Under the proposed action, there could be as many 

28 as 4 platforms, 136 wells, 249 km (155 mi) of offshore pipeline, and 129 km (80 mi) of onshore 

29 pipeline developed in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area and adjacent coastal areas. Under 

30 Alternative 5 this development would not occur, and as a result none of the localized impacts 

31 (short or long term) on water quality, air quality, marine and coastal biota and habitats, 

32 archeological or historic resources, or land use and infrastructure that would be associated with 

33 development and operation of this infrastructure and any supporting activities (such as support 

34 vessel and helicopter traffic) in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area would be expected to occur. 

35 However, water quality, as well as marine and coastal biota and habitats in some portions of the 

36 Beaufort Sea Planning Area and adjacent coastal areas, could still be affected by oil and gas 

37 leasing and development in the eastern portions of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area.

38

39 Under Alternative 5, the increases in population, employment, and income likely to occur 

40 under the proposed action would be only slightly reduced, and would remain unchanged in the 

41 other planning areas.

42

43 Under Alternative 5, potential impacts on natural, physical, and socioeconomic resources 

44 in the GOM planning areas would be the same as those identified from the proposed action.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-473

1 Under Alternative 5, no oil spills from oil and gas development activities associated with 

2 the Program would occur directly in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area. However, a spill that may 

3 occur under this alternative in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area could be carried by coastal 

4 currents into the Beaufort Sea Planning Area and affect marine and coastal resources, subsistence 

5 whaling, tourism and recreation, and local economies and communities. The nature and 

6 magnitude of any such impacts on those resources (as described in earlier sections of this 

7 chapter) will depend on the location, size, and duration of a spill in the Chukchi Sea Planning 

8 Area.

9

10

11 4.5.5 Alternative 6 – Defer the Chukchi Sea Planning Area for the Duration of the 

12 2012-2017 Program

13

14

15 4.5.5.1 Description of Alternative 6

16

17 Under Alternative 6, no lease sales would be held in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area 

18 under the Program, and there would be no change from the proposed action for the other 

19 planning areas. Under Alternative 6, the following would take place:

20

21 • Five area-wide lease sales in the Western GOM Planning Area; 

22

23 • Five area-wide lease sales in the Central GOM Planning Area; 

24

25 • One or two lease sales in the extreme western portion of the Eastern GOM 

26 Planning Area; 

27

28 • One lease sale with a whaling deferral in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area; and

29

30 • One special interest lease sale in Cook Inlet.

31

32

33 4.5.5.2 Summary of Impacts

34

35 Excluding the Chukchi Sea Planning Area from the Program would reduce the number of 

36 potential lease sales in the Arctic from 2 to 1. Under the proposed action, there could be as many 

37 as 5 platforms, 300 wells, and 402 km (250 mi) of offshore pipeline developed in the Chukchi 

38 Sea Planning Area. Under Alternative 6, this development would not occur, and as a result none 

39 of the localized impacts (short or long term) on water quality, air quality, marine and coastal 

40 biota and habitats, archeological or historic resources, or land use and infrastructure that would 

41 be associated with development and operation of this infrastructure and any supporting activities 

42 (such as support vessel and helicopter traffic) in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area would be 

43 expected to occur. However, water quality, as well as marine and coastal biota and habitats, and 

44 land use and infrastructure in some portions of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area and adjacent 

45 coastal areas, could still be affected by oil and gas leasing and development in the western 

46 portions of the Beaufort Sea Planning Area.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-474

1 Under Alternative 6, the increases in population, employment, and income likely to occur 

2 under the proposed action would be only slightly reduced, and would remain unchanged in the 

3 other planning areas.

4

5 Under Alternative 6, potential impacts on natural, physical, and socioeconomic resources 

6 in the GOM planning areas would be the same as those identified from the proposed action.

7

8 Under Alternative 6, no oil spills from oil and gas development activities under the 

9 Program would occur directly in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area. However, spills from 

10 development in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area could be carried by coastal currents into the 

11 Chukchi Sea Planning Area and affect marine and coastal resources, subsistence whaling, 

12 tourism and recreation, and local economies and communities. The nature and magnitude of any 

13 such impacts on those resources (as described in earlier sections of this chapter) will depend on 

14 the location, size, and duration of a spill in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area.

15

16

17 4.5.6 Alternative 7 – Defer the Cook Inlet Planning Area for the Duration of the 

18 2012-2017 Program

19

20

21 4.5.6.1 Description of Alternative 7

22

23 Under Alternative 7, no lease sales would be held in the Cook Inlet Planning Area during 

24 the Program, and there would be no change from the proposed action for the other planning 

25 areas. Under Alternative 7, the following leasing activities could take place:

26

27 • Five area-wide lease sales in the Western GOM Planning Area;

28

29 • Five area-wide lease sales in the Central GOM Planning Area;

30

31 • One or two lease sales in the extreme western portion of the Eastern GOM 

32 Planning Area;

33

34 • One lease sale with a whaling deferral in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area; and

35

36 • One lease sale with a coastal deferral in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area.

37

38

39 4.5.6.2 Summary of Impacts

40

41 Excluding the Cook Inlet Planning Area could result in one less potential lease sale in the 

42 Alaska Region. All offshore and onshore oil and gas activities and production associated with 

43 this sale would not occur. The small amount of oil assumed to be developed under Alternative 1 

44 in Cook Inlet would be compensated for by imported oil. It is unlikely that the additional 

45 amount of imported oil that could occur under Alternative 7 will measurably affect the number 

46 of tanker oil spills that occur in other offshore areas in the United States.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-475

1 The analyses of impacts of Alternative 1, the Proposed Action, in Cook Inlet showed in 

2 almost all cases temporary and localized impacts. Any disturbance to existing environmental 

3 conditions associated with routine operations or an oil spill would be expected to be ameliorated

4 on a time scale of days to a year or two. Under Alternative 7, these short-term localized impacts 

5 would not occur. Under the Proposed Action, no population-level impacts were predicted for

6 biological resources, although several endangered and/or threatened bird species would be 

7 vulnerable to mortality from oil spills. A moderate to large oil spill could affect a relatively large 

8 number of Steller‘s eiders, which overwinter in Cook Inlet. However, because the eider does not 

9 breed in Cook Inlet, the breeding populations would not be directly affected, although the 

10 number of eiders that arrive in the Arctic for breeding could be reduced. The endangered short11 tailed albatross occurs uncommonly in Cook Inlet, so large numbers of birds would not be 

12 affected by a spill. Furthermore, the albatross breeds outside Cook Inlet, so the breeding 

13 population would not be affected. Kittlitz‘s murrelets, a candidate for listing under the 

14 Endangered Species Act, also occur in Cook Inlet and would be expected to come in contact with 

15 spilled oil while foraging. Impacts on these species under Alternative 1 would be contained 

16 within the Cook Inlet area and would not extend to other planning areas in Alaska where these 

17 species also occur during different life stages or seasons. Under Alternative 7, none of these 

18 localized impacts on protected species would occur from OCS activity.

19

20 While no long-term population-level impacts on terrestrial mammals in the Cook Inlet 

21 area are expected under Alternative 1, increased mortality of brown and black bears could occur 

22 if previously remote areas were converted to industrial use, resulting in increased conflict 

23 between bears and humans. A large oil spill that affected intertidal areas could lead to 

24 significant mortality of eggs and juvenile fish of pelagic species, such as the salmon, leading to 

25 reduced adult survival. The overall fish populations in South Alaska, however, would not be 

26 affected. A large spill could temporarily affect fisheries in the area that were contacted by the 

27 spill. While no long-term impacts on the fish populations are expected, economic impacts on

28 commercial and recreational fisheries could result as a result of loss of gear, closings of affected 

29 areas, and unavailability of fishing areas during cleanup operations. These temporary and 

30 localized impacts in Cook Inlet, which are unlikely given the small amount of activity expected 

31 under Alternative 1, would be precluded under Alternative 3.

32

33 Impacts on air and water quality under Alternative 1 in Cook Inlet are expected to be 

34 short-term and localized because of the small amount of activity anticipated and the largely 

35 pristine quality of the air and water environments there. Therefore, Alternative 3 will not result 

36 in a major difference from Alternative 1 for these resources.

37

38 The analysis of archaeological resources indicated that existing BOEM requirements for 

39 archaeological surveys would be expected to eliminate most of the possible impacts on historic 

40 and prehistoric resources. Impacts were possible from cleanup operations after an oil spill. 

41 Given the small amount of liquid hydrocarbons expected to be produced under Alternative 1 in 

42 Cook Inlet, compounded with the requirement that the spill would have to contact areas with 

43 historic or prehistoric resources for impacts to occur, Alternative 3 is not expected to result in a 

44 significant difference from Alternative 1 with regard to the potential for archaeological resource 

45 impacts.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-476

1 The population, employment, and income impacts anticipated under Alternative 1 in the 

2 Cook Inlet area would not occur under Alternative 3. Table 4.4.9-2 shows estimates of 

3 4,520 jobs and $152 million in income resulting from Alternative 1 in the Cook Inlet area during 

4 the life of the Program.

5

6

7 4.5.7 Alternative 8 – No Action

8

9 The National Environmental Policy Act requires consideration of a No Action 

10 Alternative to every major Federal action that could result in significant impacts on the 

11 environment. In the context of the Program, the No Action Alternative is defined as the scenario 

12 in which BOEM holds no OCS oil and gas lease sales during the Program. Under this scenario, 

13 none of the potential environmental impacts associated with oil and gas related activities under 

14 the proposed action that have been evaluated in Section 4.4 would occur. These precluded 

15 impacts would include both the anticipated effects under the proposed action of routine 

16 operations and accidental discharges on ecological conditions and the effects of leasing on 

17 regional employment, regional income, and sociocultural stability. In addition, the oil and 

18 natural gas that would have been produced as a consequence of sales over the 5-yr program 

19 period would not be available to consumers, who would therefore need to obtain energy from 

20 other sources. The energy substitutes needed to replace the lost OCS production would be 

21 associated with their own potential environmental effects that could occur throughout the United 

22 States or the world depending on the mix of specific energy substitutes that would be used. The 

23 analysis that follows considers these factors to evaluate the overall effects of implementing the 

24 No Action Alternative. Information is first presented on the various uses of energy in the 

25 economy and on the current and projected uses of oil and gas compared to other fuel or alternate 

26 energy sources in each economic sector. Substantial discussions of the current status and 

27 projected developments in alternate energy sources for each sector of the economy are provided. 

28 A scenario of energy substitutes is then developed that projects the mix of energy substitutes that 

29 would be used to replace lost OCS production during the life of the program. This scenario is 

30 used to evaluate the anticipated broad effects of implementing the No Action Alternative in each 

31 program area as well as in other areas that could be affected by the energy substitutes used to 

32 replace lost OCS production.

33

34

35 4.5.7.1 Oil and Gas Uses and Alternatives

36

37 The primary energy sources used in the United States are petroleum, coal, natural gas, 

38 nuclear energy, and hydroelectric and non-hydroelectric power, the latter of which includes 

39 geothermal, wind, and solar power. The U.S. Energy Information Administration‘s Annual 

40 Energy Review for 2009 reports that the largest portion (over 39%) of our energy comes from 

41 liquid fuels, primarily petroleum, and natural gas adds another 23% (EIA 2009a).

42

43

44 4.5.7.1.1 Transportation Sector. Total energy use in the transportation sector has 

45 grown by an average of just over 1% per year over the last 20 yr. As of 2008, the transportation 

46 sector accounted for an estimated 28% of all energy consumption in the United States, a 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-477

1 proportion that has been slowly rising since the 1960s. The vast majority of this energy has 

2 come from oil — nearly three-fourths of all petroleum consumed in the United States in 2008 

3 was used for transportation — with natural gas, electricity, and other alternatives playing much 

4 smaller roles (EIA 2008a). In this section, we discuss recent trends in the use of oil and gas in 

5 the transportation sector and the potential for substitutes for these energy sources within the time 

6 frame of the 40- to 50-yr life of the Program.

7

8 Uses of Oil and Gas in the Transportation Sector.

9

10 Ground Travel. Oil is the dominant energy source for ground travel. Approximately 

11 141 billion gal of gasoline and 45 billion gal of diesel fuel were consumed for ground travel in 

12 2007. Growth in consumption has been slow but steady in recent years, averaging about 1% per 

13 year from 2003 to 2007 (EIA 2007a). However, motor gasoline use fell by about 3% from 2007 

14 to 2008, the first time total annual consumption has fallen since 1988–1991. Preliminary data 

15 show consumption remaining flat from 2008 to 2009 (EIA 2009b).

16

17 The use of natural gas as a vehicle fuel (in both compressed and liquid forms) has 

18 increased significantly in recent years, with an average annual growth rate of 8.5% from 2003 to 

19 2007. However, natural gas still represents a small fraction of the total (just over 200 million gal 

20 of gasoline-equivalent in 2007, or about 1% of total vehicle fuel). In 2007, approximately 

21 117,000 gas-fueled vehicles were in use, many of which were buses and other fleet vehicles 

22 (EIA 2007b).

23

24 Ethanol is currently the most used alternative fuel; consumption increased from 

25 1.9 million gal of gasoline equivalent in 2003 to 4.7 million gal in 2007 (mostly as an additive in 

26 modest proportions to gasoline, although it is sometimes used as the dominant fuel source in an 

27 85/15 ethanol-gasoline mix). Biodiesel use rose even more quickly over that period, but remains 

28 relatively modest overall at 470,000 gasoline equivalent gallons. Electricity, hydrogen, and other 

29 fuels contributed very little; electricity use for vehicle transportation actually declined slightly 

30 over this period (EIA 2007b).

31

32 Air Travel. Certified U.S. air carriers used 18.9 billion gal of fuel in 2008, which was 

33 7.6% of the total consumed by the U.S. transportation sector. Fuel use for air travel has risen 

34 much faster than use for ground travel; total consumption rose by 4.6% per year from 2003 to 

35 2007 before falling in 2008 (USDOT 2009c), indicating a strong linkage to larger economic 

36 factors. Petroleum-derived kerosene-style jet fuel accounts for nearly all of the fuel used for air 

37 travel.

38

39 Marine Travel. Marine travel accounts for a relatively small proportion of total oil 

40 consumption in the transportation sector and, as with air travel, there is no natural gas 

41 consumption. Total fuel consumption for marine travel was about 1,367 trillion Btu in 2007, 

42 roughly three-fourths the amount used by air travel and 6% of the total for the sector. Marine 

43 travel does show greater variation in fuels; residual fuel oil makes up about 70% of oil use, 

44 distillate and diesel fuel oil another 20%, with the remainder in gasoline. This mix has remained 

45 fairly consistent over time (USDOT 2010).

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-478

1 Total oil consumption for marine travel has shown no clear trend over time, with periods 

2 of sharp declines following years of growth, and vice versa. After dropping by nearly 30% from 

3 2000 to 2003, fuel use increased nearly as dramatically to reach comparable levels by 2007. 

4 Consumption decreased in 2008. Taking a longer-term view does little to clarify the situation 

5 (USDOT 2010).

6

7 Rail Travel. Similar to marine travel, rail travel constitutes a small proportion of total oil 

8 consumption and virtually no natural gas consumption. Total oil use was 576 trillion Btu in 

9 2007; the overwhelming majority of this was for freight transport, rather than passengers. 

10 Distillate and diesel are the fuels used (USDOT 2010).

11

12 Following a low of 414 trillion Btu in 1990, oil consumption for rail transportation grew 

13 steadily to 594 trillion Btu in 2006, before falling to 576 trillion in 2007 (USDOT 2010). Thus, 

14 it appears that fuel use for rail transportation is in the midst of a long-term increase, although the 

15 slide during the 1980s indicates that this is by no means inevitable.

16

17 Analysis of Energy Substitutes in the Transportation Sector. In this section we 

18 analyze the potential for substitution away from fossil fuels within the time frame of the 40- to 

19 50-yr life of the Program. Our focus is primarily on ground transportation, which could 

20 demonstrate lower fuel consumption through efficiency improvements, a shift toward greater use 

21 of public transportation, or use of alternative fuels. We also discuss the potential for oil 

22 substitution in air travel through both efficiency improvements and fuel switching.

23

24 More Efficient Vehicles. Automobiles in the United States currently have a lifespan of 

25 about 14 years. While some individual vehicles will remain in use for a longer period of time, it 

26 seems safe to assume that the Nation‘s fleet will have turned over nearly in its entirety within 

27 20 years. As of 2007, there were 254.4 million registered highway vehicles, of which 

28 135.9 million were passenger cars, 7.1 million were motorcycles, and 111.3 million were other 

29 vehicles (primarily light- and heavy-duty trucks); population growth is likely to add substantially 

30 more vehicles, even if the number of vehicles per capita continues to fall (USDOT 2009d). 

31 Thus, there is huge potential for oil reductions through efficiency improvements in the Nation‘s 

32 automobiles. Since natural gas makes up such a small proportion of fuel used for transportation,

33 we do not consider it further.

34

35 In the near term, the efficiency of the Nation‘s vehicle fleet is likely to be determined 

36 more by stricter regulatory requirements than by a demand from consumers for yet-more37 efficient vehicles. CAFE standards currently stand at 27.5 mpg for passenger cars and 23.1 mpg 

38 for light trucks. Building on requirements in the 2007 Energy Policy Act, however, the Obama 

39 Administration has established stricter targets, setting a schedule that steadily raises the 

40 requirements to an end point of 35.7 mpg in 2015 for cars and 28.6 mpg for trucks. The new 

41 vehicles subject to these limits will replace older, retired vehicles manufactured in the late 1990s 

42 and early 2000s, whose fuel efficiency was, on average, about 8 mpg lower. This is equivalent

43 to a 23% savings in fuel use for passenger cars, or a 28% savings for light trucks. If we hold the 

44 number of miles driven per vehicle steady at 2007 levels, we can expect a total savings of 

45 12.3 billion gal of gasoline per year by 2015 as a result of the stricter vehicle standards.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-479

1 Hybrid Vehicles. Hybrid vehicles are already fairly well established, with all of the 

2 major automakers now mass-producing hybrid models. While hybrids will remain somewhat 

3 more expensive than conventional cars in terms of the upfront cost, the premium will likely fall 

4 as technology improves and manufacturers continue to scale up production. With sufficiently 

5 strong tax incentives or other forms of policy support, hybrids could theoretically entirely replace 

6 conventional automobiles.

7

8 Rough calculations of the scale of the impacts that such a shift would entail suggest a 

9 large potential for reducing the consumption of gasoline. If population growth continues at its 

10 current pace, there will be about 393 million people in the United States in 2035; this will likely 

11 translate into roughly 300 million vehicles. Projecting a 30% savings per vehicle (based on the 

12 hybrid and traditional Toyota Camry models) would imply a total savings of 49 billion gal of 

13 gasoline — more than one-fourth of total current consumption for ground transportation. 

14 Clearly, this is a very rough, illustrative figure, but it nonetheless shows that hybrid vehicles 

15 have the potential to offset a significant fraction of oil use. While we do not discuss other types 

16 of fuel efficiency improvements (such as switching from trucks to cars or using more lightweight 

17 materials), the scope for potential gains would be similar.

18

19 Electric and Plug-in Vehicles. The impact of plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles is 

20 likely to be comparatively modest, even over a fairly long 25-year horizon. Plug-in hybrids use 

21 20 to 55% less gasoline than traditional hybrids, depending on the mix of electricity and gasoline 

22 used (NRC 2010); electric vehicles, of course, use no oil at all. The existence of 40 million plug23 in hybrids, the high estimate from the National Research Council (NRC), would imply a savings 

24 of about 12 billion gal of gasoline per year. While the NRC report did not consider all-electric 

25 vehicles, a similar number of electric vehicles (a very aggressive assumption) would save about 

26 22 billion gal of gasoline per year. The 13 million vehicles considered a more likely figure 

27 would produce savings of 4 to 7 billion gal.

28

29 The keys to future rates of adoption of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids are the 

30 batteries used to replace (in whole or in part) the gasoline-powered combustion engine. Both 

31 plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles currently use lithium-ion batteries; conventional hybrids use 

32 nickel-metal hydride technology, but are expected to switch over to lithium-ion batteries as well 

33 (Pike Research 2009). Within the broad characterization of lithium-ion batteries, there are 

34 several different subtypes, each of which can be evaluated on six basic criteria: energy storage 

35 capacity, power, safety, performance, life span, and cost. Significantly, none of the battery types 

36 currently in use performs well across all six criteria. As a result, the Boston Consulting Group 

37 concluded that, absent a major breakthrough, fully electric vehicles that are as convenient as 

38 conventional cars will likely not be available by 2020 (Boston Consulting Group 2010).

39

40 Similarly, a report from the NRC explored the prospects for plug-in hybrid vehicles by 

41 2030. NRC estimates that, under optimistic assumptions, the maximum number of plug-in 

42 electric vehicles on the road at that time would be 40 million; cost and convenience factors 

43 suggest that 13 million may be more likely. The NRC report did not anticipate significant cost 

44 improvements in lithium-ion batteries in the foreseeable future (NRC 2010).

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-480

1 Ethanol Vehicles. Perhaps the single most important factor driving the long-term 

2 adoption of ethanol is the cost of producing cellulosic ethanol. Unlike traditional corn- or sugar3 based ethanol, which is derived from starch, cellulosic ethanol uses cellulose as its basis, a 

4 structural component of plant cell walls and the most common organic compound on earth. A 

5 cost-effective method to produce cellulosic ethanol would allow for the use of a wide variety of 

6 feedstocks, including inedible crop residues and plants that grow on marginal agricultural land 

7 with little or no active cultivation. This would, in turn, enable far greater use of ethanol as a 

8 substitute for petroleum-based fuel.

9

10 At this time, cellulosic ethanol production is too expensive to justify large-scale use, due 

11 largely to the cost of producing enzymes to convert cellulose into a useable form. However, 

12 many observers expect significant cost reductions in the coming years. For example, 

13 Novozymes, the world‘s largest manufacturer of industrial enzymes, announced in 

14 February 2010 that it was launching a line of enzymes that it expects will lower overall 

15 production costs to under $2 a gallon, which is in line with costs for corn-based ethanol and 

16 gasoline (Leber 2010; Motavalli 2010). 

17

18 If ethanol production costs fall below those of petroleum, further policy support may be 

19 unnecessary, as ethanol will become the preferred transportation fuel. Failing this, however, 

20 energy policy could play a major role in determining future levels of ethanol use. As was noted 

21 above, the Energy Independence and Security Act requires the use of 36 billion gal of ethanol in 

22 2022, of which 16 billion is to be cellulosic ethanol. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

23 (USEPA) has not yet established targets for later years (USEPA 2010a).

24

25 Another important consideration is whether there is sufficient agricultural capacity to 

26 support substantially greater reliance on biofuels — and to do so without causing an 

27 unacceptable rise in the price of basic foods, due to upward pressure on demand for agricultural 

28 land. A 2005 U.S. Department of Energy/U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDOE/USDA)

29 report examined the feasibility of displacing 30% of the country‘s petroleum consumption with 

30 biomass-based energy, which the authors estimated would require a dry biomass potential of 

31 about 1 billion tons per year. That report identified the potential for 368 million dry tons 

32 biomass potential per year from forestlands and 998 million dry tons biomass potential from 

33 agricultural lands, with ―relatively modest changes in land use and agricultural and forestry 

34 practices.‖ Agricultural biomass would comprise a mix of crop residues, grains for biofuels, 

35 process residues, and dedicated perennial crops. Not all of this would be suitable for conversion 

36 to liquid fuels for transportation. Nonetheless, the report makes clear that the United States has 

37 the productive capacity to meet a significant portion, but not all, of its transportation fuel demand 

38 from biofuels (USDOE and USDA 2005).

39

40 The USDOE/USDA study cited above noted several potential environmental impacts 

41 from increased use of forest and agricultural land for biofuel production:

42

43 • Increased logging could result in greater soil erosion and elevated levels of 

44 sediment in surface waters.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-481

1 • Removing crop residues could reduce soil quality, increase erosion, and 

2 release carbon from the soil into the atmosphere.

3

4 • In addition, removing the nutrients embodied in crop residues could lead to 

5 increased fertilizer use, leading to increased nutrients in water runoff and 

6 greater use of fossil fuels for fertilizer manufacture (USDOE and 

7 USDA 2005).

8

9 In addition, agriculture is relatively fuel-intensive; reliance on petroleum to power 

10 machinery and equipment, and to manufacture fertilizers and other inputs, could offset much of 

11 the potential for biofuels to reduce overall petroleum consumption. Cellulosic ethanol is 

12 expected to have a more favorable lifecycle profile than corn ethanol, but it will nonetheless be 

13 unable to reduce petroleum consumption on a 1-to-1 basis.

14

15 Overall, if cellulosic ethanol becomes cost-competitive with other liquid fuel sources, 

16 and/or if it is given sufficiently strong policy support, it will likely displace a significant amount 

17 of petroleum in the long term, possibly as much as 30% or more of total consumption. It is 

18 unlikely to have any appreciable impact on natural gas consumption.

19

20 Public Transportation. In the short term, cities that have established public 

21 transportation systems could see increased ridership on their existing routes. To expand the 

22 impact of public transportation over the longer term, cities could build new mass transit systems 

23 or expand existing systems, thereby allowing residents to reduce their use of gasoline-fueled 

24 automobiles. There are no firm rules regarding how much time is needed to develop new 

25 systems, but anecdotal information from cities that have recently created or expanded their 

26 transit networks suggests that a 10- to 15-yr time horizon should generally be sufficient for large 

27 cities to create or expand light rail systems. Bus-based systems could presumably be 

28 implemented in much shorter time frames. 

29

30 Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicles. Hydrogen has been discussed for some time as the 

31 ―fuel of the future,‖ touted as being advantageous because of its abundance as an element, its 

32 density as an energy carrier, and its lack of harmful emissions. In vehicles, hydrogen fuel can be 

33 used in two different ways: burning in an internal combustion engine, or in a chemical reaction 

34 in a fuel cell. The focus of this section is on the latter, which has the potential for greater 

35 efficiency in the long term. Fuel cells work by separating a chemical fuel, such as hydrogen, into 

36 negatively charged electrons and positively charged ions. The electrons are forced through a 

37 wire to create an electrical current and power the vehicle. The electrons are then reunited with 

38 the ions and oxygen to form pure water. Since there are no moving parts, fuel cells are 

39 exceptionally reliable and can last for a very long time.

40

41 While hydrogen is one of the most abundant elements on earth, it occurs only rarely in 

42 pure elemental form. Hydrogen for fuel must be gathered from another source. Currently, 95%

43 of the hydrogen used in the United States is produced through steam reforming of natural gas, in 

44 which high-pressure steam reacts with methane to produce hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and a 

45 small amount of carbon dioxide (EERE 2008). A potentially more environmentally friendly, 

46 though more expensive, alternative is to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen through 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-482

1 the process of hydrolysis. Since hydrolysis is powered by electricity, renewable power sources 

2 such as wind or solar power could theoretically be used to produce the hydrogen needed to fuel 

3 vehicles.

4

5 All of the technology needed for hydrogen-powered, fuel cell operated cars is already in 

6 existence, but not at a stage that would permit cost-effective widespread commercial 

7 deployment. Key areas of ongoing research include the materials and manufacturing process for 

8 fuel cells and, in particular, a reduction in the amount of platinum used. Another area of ongoing 

9 research is to develop a more efficient means of producing hydrogen through hydrolysis or from 

10 other non-fossil fuel sources, which would ultimately be more environmentally beneficial than 

11 production from natural gas.

12

13 Perhaps a more critical issue is the ―chicken-and-egg‖ problem inherent in deploying 

14 hydrogen fuel on a wide scale. Widespread adoption of hydrogen vehicles will necessitate 

15 enormous investments in infrastructure, to make the fuel as widely available as gasoline is at 

16 present. However, it will be difficult to justify investment on the scale required until there are 

17 enough hydrogen-fueled cars on the road to create sufficient demand to support the industry. So 

18 long as there is a sufficient supply of petroleum or biofuels that can use existing infrastructure to 

19 meet the needs of the Nation‘s vehicle fleet, this will pose a serious problem. Sustained policy 

20 support will likely be necessary to establish adequate hydrogen fueling infrastructure.

21

22 The California Fuel Cell Partnership estimates that if fuel cell vehicles are introduced 

23 into the market on a limited scale over the next decade, as expected, they could be widely 

24 available by 2030. Due to the significant lag in vehicle turnover, then, it would likely be another 

25 10 to 20 yr before hydrogen could replace oil as the dominant transportation fuel. Ultimately, 

26 hydrogen has the potential to replace substantially all of the petroleum used by the transportation 

27 sector, but only over a very long time horizon (NREL 2007).

28

29 Summary. The review of potential sources of oil and gas savings from the transportation 

30 sector showed that the ground transportation sector accounted for about 180 billion gal of 

31 gasoline and diesel fuel use in 2008. Air travel consumed roughly 19 billion gal of fuel; marine 

32 travel used somewhat less. Natural gas did not play a significant role as a transportation fuel.

33

34 In the near term, major sources of potential fuel savings include more efficient gasoline35 powered automobiles and substitution of biofuels for gasoline in automobiles. These two 

36 sources could save approximately 17 billion gal of gasoline per year by 2015, or about 10% of 

37 the total for ground transportation. Hybrid and electric vehicles and increased use of public 

38 transportation could contribute more modest savings.

39

40 The potential for oil savings is greater in the longer term. Cellulosic ethanol could 

41 displace as much as 30% of total oil consumption. Hybrid and electric vehicles, increased use of 

42 public transportation, and more efficient planes could generate oil savings as well, albeit in more 

43 modest amounts (likely on the order of 9 billion to 14 billion gal gasoline-equivalent). Finally, if 

44 adopted on a wide scale, hydrogen fuel could replace substantially all of the petroleum used by 

45 the transportation sector, but only over a very long time horizon, beyond what is under 

46 consideration for the Program.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-483

1 4.5.7.1.2 Electricity Generation Sector.

2

3 Uses of Oil and Gas in the Electricity Generation Sector. Petroleum plays a very 

4 modest role in electricity generation, and the proportion of U.S. electricity generation from oil5 fired power plants has been on a steep decline since the late 1970s. For natural gas, the converse 

6 is true; gas-fueled electricity generation nearly doubled over the 10 years from 1997 to 2007. 

7 The electricity generation sector is second only to industrial use in terms of overall consumption 

8 of natural gas. This section analyzes the use of oil and gas for electricity generation. We begin 

9 with an examination of recent trends and current use of oil and gas in the sector, and then discuss 

10 the near- and long-term potential for substitutes. A particular focus is on the circumstances 

11 under which these fuels are used for electricity generation, and how this affects the ability of 

12 renewable energy sources to substitute for these fossil fuels.

13

14 Electricity generation consumed 81 million barrels of petroleum in 2008, or about 

15 3.4 billion gal; this translates into total primary energy use of about 469 trillion Btu (EIA 2010c). 

16 This represents a steep decline from 2005, when electricity production consumed nearly three 

17 times as much oil. Prior to that, oil consumption had remained at approximately the same level 

18 since the mid-1980s. Oil consumption in the electricity generation sector peaked in 1977 at 

19 3,900 trillion Btu, more than eight times the current level (EIA 2009c).

20

21 Within the electricity generation sector, petroleum is used primarily to fuel ―peaker‖

22 plants — facilities that stand idle most of the time and are used only at times of very high 

23 demand. Generally, such plants are relatively cheap to build but expensive to operate, as the 

24 per-unit fuel costs are more expensive than other plants; thus, they are only used when all other 

25 options have been exhausted. As a result, oil provides the fuel for only a small fraction of 

26 electricity generated in the United States. Petroleum was used to produce 46 million megawatt27 hours of electricity in 2008, about 1% of the 4,119 million megawatt-hour total. This was far 

28 less than the generation provided by coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, or even biomass 

29 and wind resources (EIA 2010d).

30

31 Since most petroleum-fired plants are used relatively infrequently, these plants contribute 

32 a larger proportion of generating capacity to the total than they do actual generation. In 2008, 

33 oil-fired plants accounted for 57,445 MW of net summer generating capacity, or 5.7% of total 

34 U.S. capacity. This figure has remained fairly steady since 2002, despite the significant drop in 

35 petroleum-fueled electricity generation over that time period (during which overall peak 

36 electricity demand increased) (EIA 2008c, 2010d). What this indicates is that, for peaker plants 

37 in particular, there may not be a strong correlation over the short run between available capacity 

38 and actual use. Thus, oil price changes may be reflected to some degree in electricity generation, 

39 but it will take a longer time (and a more sustained price change) before total capacity of oil40 fired plants is similarly affected.

41

42 The use of oil predominantly as a peak fuel means that most oil-fired plants are relatively 

43 small, and that there are a relatively high number of them in use. There were 1,205 oil-fired 

44 generating stations in 2008, with an average capacity of less than 50 MW each. By comparison, 

45 there were half as many coal-fired plants, with an average generating capacity of more than 

46 500 MW.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-484

1 Thermodynamically, the conversion of fossil fuels into electricity is not particularly 

2 efficient; that is, a significant amount of usable energy is lost as waste heat in the process. The 

3 use of 469 trillion Btu of petroleum products to produce 46 million megawatt-hours translates 

4 into an efficiency of about 34% (100% efficiency would require 3,412 Btu per kilowatt-hour). 

5 However, due to the nature of the technologies involved, there is relatively little room for 

6 efficiency gains using conventional combustion engines. 

7

8 Much larger quantities of natural gas are used for electricity generation than petroleum. 

9 In 2008, 6,896 billion cubic feet of natural gas, or 7,089 trillion Btu, were consumed in 

10 electricity generation — an energy content 15 times greater than that supplied by petroleum. 

11 Natural gas use has risen sharply in recent years, growing by an average of 6.3% annually from 

12 2003 to 2008. While that rate may seem modest, it was five times greater than the overall 

13 increase in electricity generation. Only coal supplied a larger share of the nation‘s electricity in 

14 2008 (EIA 2010d). 

15

16 In terms of generating capacity, natural gas ranks as the largest component of the 

17 electricity generation sector, producing 397 million MW in 2008, or 40% of the total. Growth in 

18 gas-fired capacity has outpaced overall capacity expansion in recent years (2.2% vs. 1.3% per 

19 year), albeit not to the same extent as has generation. Notably, gas generation expanded much 

20 more rapidly in the early years of the last decade than in later years, growing more than 16% per 

21 year from 1999 to 2003. This was largely in response to the relative flexibility of natural gas 

22 power plants, which can be used for baseload, intermediate, or peak generation, and the 

23 comparatively favorable environmental profile of such plants compared to coal or nuclear power. 

24 As of 2008, there were 1,653 gas-fired power plants in operation in the United States, with an 

25 average capacity of about 240 MW (EIA 2010d). 

26

27 Electricity generation is somewhat more efficient using gas than oil, with an average 

28 42.5% thermodynamic efficiency in 2008. This is partially due to the nature of the combustion 

29 engines used for each fuel; since gas engines are more expensive and run more frequently, there 

30 is a greater incentive for efficient combustion. However, efficiency has also been rising in recent 

31 years as the result of greater use of natural gas combined cycle plants. In a combined cycle 

32 plant, the exhaust gases from the gas turbine are used to heat steam which is used to turn a 

33 second turbine, thereby capturing the ―waste‖ heat from the first cycle. As these secondary 

34 steam turbines are installed in new gas power plants or placed into existing ones, the efficiency 

35 of gas-fired electricity generation should continue to improve.

36

37 Analysis of Energy Substitutes in the Electricity Generation Sector. As of 2008, 

38 natural gas accounted for 40% of electricity generation and petroleum provided an additional 

39 1.8%. Both oil and gas fossil fuel generators have an expected lifespan of about 20 to 25 years. 

40 In this time frame, therefore, we can expect a complete turnover of the Nation‘s oil and gas 

41 generators, as well as new additions necessitated by growth in demand. There is significant 

42 potential for substitution away from these fuels over that period, depending upon the availability 

43 and suitability of other power sources.

44

45 Biofuels represent the most obvious potential substitute for petroleum and gas in terms 

46 of fuel characteristics, although, as noted above, they are more likely to be used in the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-485

1 transportation sector, which represents a much larger source of demand. Even assuming 

2 significant scale-up of new biofuel production capabilities, the maximum amount available from 

3 domestic sources would likely not be enough to meet current levels of both transportation and 

4 electricity fossil fuel demand. We therefore exclude biofuels from further consideration here.

5

Wind and solar power are more likely alternatives to oil and gas as electricity sources. 6 18

7 Due to their status as intermittent resources (i.e., generating electricity on an irregular time frame 

8 according to the vagaries of weather), however, there are limits to the maximum amount of near9 term penetration that these energy sources will likely achieve in a cost-effective manner. A

10 report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) projected that wind power could 

11 achieve 20–30% penetration in the eastern United States by 2024, given sufficient investment in 

12 transmission upgrades; in the absence of such investment, this level of wind penetration would 

13 require significant curtailment (shutting down) of wind plants, with a high associated cost 

14 (EnerNex Corporation 2010). Furthermore, a similar study found that 30% wind penetration is 

15 technically feasible in the western United States as well, with some modifications to current 

16 practice by grid managers (GE Energy 2010). A substantial portion of the long-term wind 

17 potential also identified by NREL, 54 gigawatts, is to come from offshore wind. The U.S. has 

18 areas appropriate for offshore wind power development near large coastal urban areas. With 

19 growing electricity demand and space constraints on land-based electricity generation and 

20 transmission, offshore wind is favorably positioned to play a role in meeting future energy 

21 demand, though regulatory and permitting requirements may pose challenges in the near term

22 (NREL 2010. In simple terms of magnitude, therefore, wind could theoretically entirely displace 

23 oil and gas for electricity generation. Wind is already reasonably cost-competitive with oil and 

24 gas, and will become more so if fuel prices rise and/or if climate policy results in a carbon tax or 

25 cap-and-trade mechanism. For wind, therefore, the most important constraint will be the ability 

26 of the electric grid to accommodate significant amounts of an intermittent resource as well as 

27 constructing sufficient transmission infrastructure. Much of the wind potential evaluated by 

28 NREL would come from the Great Plains, and while the report emphasizes the benefits of 

29 regional integration and coordination, this geographic dynamic suggests that a portion of the 

wind power is likely to be replacing coal rather than oil or gas.19 30 For the coastal areas of the 

31 U.S. which rely more heavily on natural gas (and small amounts of oil) for electricity generation 

32 than the Midwest for example, any offshore wind development that does come about would help 

33 to further educe dependence on fossil fuels. In addition, some amount of oil or gas will be 

34 needed to balance the intermittency of wind resources. Nonetheless, wind power could 

35 potentially replace a major portion of oil- and gas-fired electricity generation. 

36

 

18 This is true in terms of electricity produced and thus fuel used on an ongoing basis; with regard to capacity, it is 

a more dubious proposition. Since wind and solar are not firm resources, a certain level of natural gas or oil 

capacity will generally be required as ―backstop‖ resources to protect against grid problems in times when the 

supply of these renewables cannot meet the instantaneous demand for electricity. 

19 Although coal is a baseload power source, and thus not directly replaceable by a given wind plant, a widely 

dispersed network of wind plants could provide sufficiently firm power in the aggregate to eliminate the need for 

a portion of the region‘s coal-fired capacity. The NREL report frames its results in terms of smaller increases in 

capacity of fossil plants, rather than absolute reductions, but it appears that it forecasts wind to displace a mix of 

coal and gas plants.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-486

1 Solar power, although not expected to play a significant role in electricity generation over 

2 the next few years, could become more important, given the right mix of technological 

3 improvements and market or policy influences. A study by the research firm Clean Edge, Inc.,

4 and the non-profit Co-op America found that photovoltaic and concentrated solar power could 

5 reach 10% of electricity generation by 2025, although this would require a capital investment of 

6 hundreds of billions of dollars. As a resource that is generally available during times of peak 

7 demand (i.e., warm-weather periods), widespread use of solar power would imply significant 

8 displacement of both oil and gas. Such a scenario is dependent on significant cost decreases in 

9 the manufacturing process, to be driven both by the realization of economies of scale and by 

10 other technological improvements (Clean Edge, Inc. and Co-op America 2008).

11

12 All in all, given favorable conditions, solar and wind power could be used to replace a 

13 significant portion of oil and gas used for electricity generation. The technical constraints posed 

14 by their status as intermittent resources mean that these energy sources cannot be used to 

15 completely replace fossil fuels, however, even with investments in the transmission grid and/or 

16 in battery storage. While it is not the aim of this report to develop a detailed forecast, some 

17 simple math can illustrate the potential scope of the substitution. The EIA‘s 2010 Annual 

18 Energy Outlook forecasts electricity generation to grow at 1% annually over the next 25 yr 

19 (EIA 2009d). At that rate, total electricity generation would be approximately 

20 5,389 billion MW-hr in 2035, up from 4,119 billion MW-hr in 2008. If wind is in fact able to 

21 reach 20% penetration, and solar to reach 10%, this would imply a total of about 1,078 and 

22 539 billion MW-hr, respectively, produced from these sources. (By way of comparison, wind 

23 accounted for 1.34% of all generation in 2008, while solar was virtually zero.) If we assume that 

24 half of the growth in these renewables replaces oil and gas, and half coal, then this suggests that 

25 they could displace 772 billion MW-hr of oil- and gas-fired electricity annually. This could 

26 result in more than 80% of the current total produced from these sources, or roughly two-thirds 

27 of what would come from these fossil fuels in 2035 if they were to continue to hold their current 

28 proportions of total generation. 

29

30 Nuclear power represents another potential substitute for natural gas. After years of no 

31 new construction, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is actively reviewing applications for 

32 operating licenses for 22 new nuclear power plants; power companies are considering additional 

33 plants as well. However, since natural gas is used primarily as an intermediate or peak power 

34 source, whereas nuclear power is a baseload resource, the potential for substitution is limited. 

35 Furthermore, the extent to which nuclear power will be able to successfully compete with other 

36 baseload resources, such as coal or biomass, will depend on climate policy, the relative ease or 

37 difficulty of gaining regulatory approval, and fuel cost and availability. 

38

39 Finally, we note that climate change and energy policy could have a significant effect on 

40 shaping the electricity sector. There are several means by which the industry could be shifted 

41 away from natural gas and oil. These include: 

42

43 • USEPA regulation of greenhouse gases as criteria pollutants under the CAA. 

44 In April 2009, the USEPA declared CO2 and five other greenhouse gases to 

45 be endangering public health and welfare, setting the stage for the agency to 

46 regulate them under the CAA. Electric utilities would be a likely first target 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-487

1 for rules that would most likely either take the form of a cap-and-trade system 

2 similar to the SO2 regime already in place or firm facility-level emissions 

3 limits. If put in place, such regulations would most likely have the greatest 

4 impact on coal, which is more greenhouse gas intensive, and could actually 

5 result in greater use of oil and gas as a result (as well as greater use of 

6 renewable power sources). The prospects for such regulation are unclear; 

7 Congress is considering legislation to preclude the USEPA from issuing such 

8 regulations.

9

10 • A Nationwide renewable energy standard. A renewable energy standard, such 

11 as that included in the Waxman-Markey climate bill passed by the House of 

12 Representatives, would require electric utilities to meet a minimum amount of 

13 electricity demand (e.g., 20%) through renewable sources. In this case, 

14 natural gas and oil would likely be impacted more heavily, since they are 

15 more expensive than coal and thus are more economically inefficient 

16 tradeoffs.

17

18 • Subsidies for renewable energy production. Finally, policymakers could 

19 continue existing incentives for generation from renewable sources, such as 

20 the production tax credit of 2.1 cents per kilowatt-hour for wind or the 

21 investment tax credit of 30% of the cost of solar installations. This would 

22 have largely the same effect (albeit on a more modest scale) as a renewable 

23 energy standard, making renewables more cost-competitive compared to other 

24 energy sources. Again, as higher-cost resources, natural gas and oil would 

25 likely be impacted more heavily than coal.

26

27 These or other policy measures will influence the mix of renewables, oil, gas, and other 

28 resources in the electricity sector, but they will be unlikely to change the maximum potential 

29 levels of substitution described above. Even over a 25-year time horizon, natural gas is likely to 

30 contribute a significant portion of electricity generation in the United States.

31

32

33 4.5.7.1.3 Oil and Gas Uses and Alternatives – Industrial Sector.

34

35 Current Use of Oil and Gas in the Industrial Sector. The industrial sector used 

36 1.68 billion barrels of petroleum in 2008, with primary energy use of 8,586 trillion Btu. It 

37 consumed a similar 8,149 trillion Btu in natural gas, slightly more than was used for electricity 

38 generation. The industrial sector was therefore the second-largest petroleum-consuming sector 

39 of the economy after transportation and the highest gas-consuming sector (EIA 2009e, f).

40

41 Industrial oil use peaked in the United States in 1979 at just less than two billion barrels. 

42 More recently, levels of consumption have remained relatively steady from year to year; from 

43 1998 to 2007, annual industrial petroleum use held between 1.77 and 1.91 billion barrels, a 

44 difference of less than 10%. Oil use was lower in 2008, likely due to the broad economic 

45 downturn in that year. What has changed over the past decades is the composition of the sector‘s 

46 petroleum inputs. Liquid petroleum gases, or LPGs, have steadily increased as a proportion of 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-488

1 total petroleum, from 5% in 1950 to 24.2% in 1980 to 33.3% in 2008. As LPG use has grown, 

2 residual fuel oil has virtually disappeared, dropping from 33.4% of industrial oil in 1950 to just 

3 1.7% in 2008 (EIA 2009g). Since LPGs are comparatively cleaner than residual fuel oil, this 

4 indicates that the net environmental impact of industrial oil use has moderated over time.

5

6 Natural gas use peaked in 1973 at 10,388 trillion Btu, industrial natural gas consumption 

7 fell sharply in the late 1970s and early 1980s, before climbing back during the 1990s. Natural 

8 gas use has been falling again in recent years, from 9,933 trillion Btu in 1997 to 8,149 trillion 

9 Btu in 2008 (EIA 2009f). This could reflect a response to a long-term trend of rising natural gas 

10 prices over that time period.

11

12 Oil and gas are used for three broad purposes within the industrial sector: (1) to generate 

13 heat and steam for industrial processes, either in boilers or in direct process heating; (2) for 

14 heating and air-conditioning of ambient air; and (3) as nonfuel feedstocks for a variety of 

15 products, including solvents, lubricants, plastics, asphalt, and various chemicals. Oil and natural 

16 gas are also used by many industrial facilities for cogeneration, which produces electricity as 

17 well as usable heat and steam to be consumed either onsite or by neighboring facilities. These 

18 end uses are discussed in greater detail below.

19

20 Process Heating. Process heating is the practice of heating particular materials used in 

21 manufacturing, including metals, plastics, and ceramics. Process heating softens, melts or 

22 evaporates materials, and may be used to catalyze chemical reactions. This can be accomplished 

23 through a variety of equipment types, including furnaces, ovens, dryers, and specially designed 

24 heaters for the process in question. Process heating systems may use fuel directly or may be 

25 electricity- or steam-based; we consider only direct fuel-burning equipment here.

26

27 Process heating is the largest industrial fuel use of natural gas. Excluding onsite 

28 transportation within industrial facilities, electricity generation, and unspecified uses, process 

29 heating accounted for 47% of industrial natural gas use in 2006. In 2002 (the date of EIA‘s 

30 previous Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey [MECS]), this number stood at 49%. 

31 Total gas use for process heating dropped by 9% over that time period.

32

33 Process heating is also a major industrial use of petroleum, if nonfuel applications are 

34 excluded. Process heating represented 32% of industrial petroleum fuel use in 2006 (once again 

35 excluding transportation, electricity generation, and unspecified uses). Petroleum use for process 

36 heating dropped 23% from 2002, at which point it had accounted for 42% of industrial petroleum 

37 fuel use. If nonfuel applications are included, however, process heating accounted for less than 

38 5% of total petroleum use in both 2002 and 2006 (EIA 2009h, i).

39

40 Boilers and Cogeneration. Boilers use a fuel source such as oil or gas to produce steam, 

41 which is, in turn, used to heat other materials and/or the ambient environment or to drive 

42 turbines. Conventional boilers accounted for 28% of industrial petroleum use for fuel in 2006, 

43 with cogeneration responsible for another 20%, a total of 48%. The numbers were somewhat 

44 lower for natural gas, at 24% and 16%, respectively, for a total of 40%. Again, these figures 

45 exclude onsite transportation, non-cogeneration electricity production, nonfuel applications, and 

46 unspecified uses. There was relatively little change in these proportions from 2002. Including 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-489

1 nonfuel use has only a modest impact on natural gas, but drops the proportion of petroleum use 

2 for boilers and cogeneration dramatically, to 4% for boilers and 3% for cogeneration. Both 

3 natural gas and petroleum use for boilers and cogeneration were virtually unchanged in absolute 

4 terms from 2002 to 2006 (EIA 2009j, k).

5

6 Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC). After process heating and boilers 

7 and cogeneration, HVAC is the only significant industrial end use of petroleum and natural gas 

8 except use as chemical feedstocks. HVAC accounted for 4% of petroleum and 7% of natural gas 

9 fuel use in both 2002 and 2006. The proportion of petroleum use drops to less than 1% when 

10 nonfuel applications are factored in. Natural gas use for HVAC saw a modest decline in absolute 

11 terms from 2002, matching the overall pattern in industrial gas use, while petroleum remained 

12 constant (EIA 2009j, k).

13

14 Non-energy Uses. While nonfuel applications make up a relatively small proportion of 

15 industrial gas use — just 7% in 2006, down from 11% in 2002 — they account for nearly 90% of 

16 petroleum consumption. Thus, the use of petroleum products as chemical feedstocks deserves 

17 particular attention.

18

19 Over half of the nonfuel consumption of petroleum takes place at petroleum refineries. 

20 In addition to various forms of petroleum fuels, refineries also produce a range of 

21 petrochemicals, including lubricating oils, paraffin wax, and asphalt and tar; however, the 

22 information available is not sufficiently detailed to indicate petroleum use for each of these 

products (EIA 2009k). 23 20

24

25 The next most significant source of demand is plastics materials and resins, which 

26 accounts for nearly 20% of nonfuel petroleum consumption (EIA 2009k). Plastics come in a 

27 wide variety of forms and are used for an equally wide variety of applications, but almost all 

28 plastics are composed of chains of carbon and hydrogen (sometimes with other elements 

29 included). This structure makes petroleum an ideal feedstock for plastics. Most plastic 

30 manufacturing processes have very little material waste and incorporate virtually all of the 

31 petroleum input into the final product (Graedel and Howard-Grenville 2005).

32

33 The other major consuming sectors of nonfuel petroleum are classified as 

34 ―petrochemicals‖ and ―other basic organic chemicals.‖ Again, the information available does not 

35 provide any further detail. ―Other basic organic chemicals‖ is also a major nonfuel user of 

36 natural gas. However, the most significant nonfuel consumer of natural gas is nitrogenous 

37 fertilizers, which are widely used throughout the agricultural sector (EIA 2009k).

38

39 Notably, nonfuel use of both petroleum and natural gas was significantly lower in 2006 

40 than in 2002. The most significant decline for each came in chemicals. Detailed information 

41 was not available for petroleum. For natural gas, the decline was especially significant in 

 

20 The input source for this sector is classified as ―other‖ in the MECS table regardless of the actual material type 

(petroleum, natural gas, coal). However, given the function of oil refineries, this energy is almost certainly taken 

from petroleum products. This discrepancy accounts for much of the ―other‖ nonfuel consumption in the table 

above.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-490

1 nitrogenous fertilizers (which fell by 40%), basic organic chemicals (which dropped by 54%), 

2 and plastics (83%). Although there is less detail, data from earlier years suggests this may be a 

3 sustained decrease rather than an isolated phenomenon. There was relatively little change in 

4 nonfuel consumption of petroleum at petroleum refineries or for plastics, the only major 

5 categories for which data are available for both years (EIA 2009k).

6

7 Analysis of Energy Substitutes in the Industrial Sector. Industrial equipment is 

8 typically long-lived. The Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) lists the 

9 ―indicative life expectancy‖ for boilers at 15–25 yr, and gas- or oil-fired furnaces at 15 yr 

10 (CIBSE undated). In addition, such equipment often represents a significant expenditure. As a 

11 result, turnover rates are relatively low. Only in extreme circumstances would a change in fuel 

12 prices prompt a facility manager to replace petroleum- or gas-fired equipment significantly in 

13 advance of its planned retirement date. For that reason, we consider any form of fuel switching 

14 that would require replacing major equipment for industrial facilities as a long-term possibility.

15

16 The potential for biofuel production has already been discussed in the transportation 

17 section and is not repeated in detail here. Biofuels could displace a significant portion of 

18 petroleum use over the next 25 yr, perhaps up to 30% of total nationwide consumption, but most 

19 petroleum substitution will take place in the transportation sector. Most likely there is 

20 comparatively little room for expanded biofuel use in the industrial realm. Furthermore, due to 

21 the limits on potential biofuel supply (based on available land to dedicate to growing fuel crops), 

22 if overall biofuel use does approach the upper boundary of 30%, any substitution of biofuels for 

23 petroleum that did happen in the industrial sector would come at the expense of similar 

24 substitution elsewhere. This would be true for bio-based inputs for plastics manufacturing as 

25 well as for fuel use.

26

27 Industrial facilities could also use equipment powered by electricity instead of oil- and 

28 gas-fired equipment. Given that most industrial oil- and gas-using equipment is used simply to 

29 provide heat (e.g., for process heating or in boilers), such a move would generally be 

30 thermodynamically inefficient; while electricity generation and consumption produce 

31 considerable energy losses, combustion for heat is far more efficient at using embodied energy 

32 from a fuel source. Even so, electricity is a viable option, and if generated from renewable 

33 sources, it may result in lower environmental impacts. 

34

35 For non-fuel uses such as plastics, there may be greater potential for substitution away 

36 from petroleum. The manufacture of bio-based plastics, mostly produced from starch, sugar, and 

37 cellulose, increased by 600% between 2000 and 2008, although they still represent a small 

38 proportion of total plastics (Ceresana Research 2009). Globally, demand for bio-plastics is 

39 forecast to grow at approximately 25% annually from 2010 to 2015 (Pira International 2010). 

40 This suggests the potential for bio-based plastics to replace a portion of conventional plastics.

41

42 Plastics manufacturing accounted for the equivalent of 1,198 trillion Btu of petroleum 

43 consumption in 2006. While it is not clear what proportion of total plastic produced in the 

44 United States currently derives from non-petroleum sources, 5–10% appears to be reasonable,

45 based on global estimates (U.K. National Nonfood Crop Centre 2010; Nova Institute 2009). 

46 From this base, the projected growth rates in bio-plastic manufacture just reported would suggest 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-491

1 that an additional 130–260 trillion Btu of petroleum for plastics manufacturing could be replaced 

2 by biological feedstocks over the next 5 years. This amounts to approximately 1.5–3% of total 

3 industrial petroleum use (EIA 2009g).

4

5 Increased plastic recycling would be a form of substitution away from industrial 

6 petroleum use. A recent report on the European plastics industry notes that Germany recycled 

7 the highest proportion of its post-consumer plastic waste of any European country, at 33.9%; an 

8 additional 60% of Germany‘s plastic waste was sent to waste-to-energy plants (PlasticsEurope, 

9 EuPC, EuPR, and EPRO 2010). Compared to the United States‘ current 7.1% recycling rate, this 

10 would constitute an ambitious goal. We therefore use it as an upper boundary on the potential 

11 for long-term recycling in the United States.

12

13 Thirty million tons of plastic waste was generated in the United States in 2009; this figure 

14 has held relatively constant in recent years (USEPA 2010b). If this level of waste production 

15 continues into the future, 33.9% recycling would represent an increase of 26.8% above current 

16 levels, or an additional 8 million tons of plastic. This level of recycling would save 192 trillion 

17 Btu of petroleum, or about 2.2% of total industrial petroleum use (EIA 2009g).

18

19

20 4.5.7.1.4 Residential and Commercial Sector.

21

22 Uses of Oil and Gas in the Residential and Commercial Sector. Oil and gas use in 

23 residences and commercial establishments is dominated by only a few particular end uses. There 

24 has been a long-term shift away from oil use and toward electricity in these applications, while 

25 natural gas use has not changed as dramatically. The potential substitutes for commercial and 

26 residential use of oil and gas are also similar to those for the commercial sector, consisting 

27 mainly of electricity and biogas, although efficiency could also be considered a feasible 

28 substitute in certain applications.

29

30 The commercial and residential sectors consume negligible amounts of petroleum 

31 compared to the transportation and industrial sectors, but contribute more substantially to 

32 gas consumption. Residences used 1,204 trillion Btu of petroleum in 2008; commercial 

33 buildings used another 638 trillion Btu, for a total of 1,842 trillion Btu (378 million barrels) 

34 (EIA 2009l, m). This amounts to just 5% of nationwide petroleum consumption (EERE 2011a).

35 For natural gas, the residential sector consumed 4,989 trillion Btu in 2008 and the commercial 

36 sector consumed 3,211 trillion Btu, for a total of 8,200 trillion Btu (EIA 2009l). Combined, 

37 these sectors accounted for 34% of gas consumption, nearly equivalent to industrial levels and 

38 more than electricity generation (EERE 2011b).

39

40 Petroleum consumption has been falling steadily in both the residential and commercial 

41 sectors since the early 1970s. Residential petroleum consumption reached its highest point in 

42 1972, at 2,856 trillion Btu, while commercial use peaked one year later at 1,604 trillion Btu. 

43 Overall oil use has fallen by nearly 60% for both sectors since that time (EIA 2009l).

44

45 Most residential petroleum and natural gas use is for space heating and water heating. To 

46 a lesser extent, these fuels are also used for appliances such as ranges, ovens, and refrigerators. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-492

1 Similarly, commercial gas and oil use is dominated by space heating and water heating, with 

2 additional small amounts for cooking and miscellaneous other applications. Electricity was 

3 another major energy source for these applications. 

4

5 Space Heating. Space heating is the most significant use of petroleum and natural gas in 

6 both the residential and commercial sectors. Space heating accounted for three-fourths of all 

7 residential oil use and 62% of residential gas use in 2005. Electricity use for space heating was 

8 comparatively small. A similar proportion of natural gas use in the commercial sector was for 

9 space heating in 2008 (63%), but oil use was minimal and electricity more substantial 

10 (EIA 2009n; EERE 2011c).

11

12 The proportion of homes with natural gas as their primary heating fuel has declined only 

13 slightly over the past several years. In 1980, 55% of homes used gas for space heating; in 2005

14 the number stood at 52%. The proportion of homes using oil has been cut nearly in half, from

15 20% to 12%. Perhaps surprisingly, given the low total amount of electricity used for residential 

16 space heating, 30% of homes used electricity as their primary heating type in 2005, a figure that 

17 has climbed steadily since 1980 (EIA 2009p). The apparent mismatch between total 

18 consumption and proportional use suggests that electricity is used for heating primarily in areas 

19 with mild winters, and thus low heating demand.

20

21 Water Heating. After space heating, water heating is the other most significant end use 

22 of oil and gas in the residential and commercial sectors, comprising 21% of residential oil use 

23 and 29% of residential gas use in 2005. In the commercial sector, water heating used negligible 

24 amounts of oil, but accounted for 18% of natural gas use in 2008 (EIA 2009n; EERE 2011c).

25

26 As might be expected, the proportion of homes that use natural gas for water heating is 

27 similar to space heating, 53% in 2005. This has remained essentially unchanged since 1980. 

28 Just 8% of homes use petroleum for water heating, down from 13%. The remaining 39% of 

29 homes relied on electricity for water heating in 2005, a modest increase from 33% in 1980. Less 

30 than 1% of homes used other energy sources, such as solar water heating (EIA 2009p).

31

32 Cooking and Appliances. Cooking and appliances represent the final major end uses of 

33 residential and commercial gas. About 9% of residential and 7% of commercial gas use went 

34 toward cooking and appliances; residences also used a small amount of petroleum for these 

35 purposes. There is no information readily available on the proportion of homes using oil, gas, 

36 and other fuels for these end uses. In absolute terms, however, natural gas for appliance 

37 applications grew by about 20% from 1980 to 2005, less than the rate of population growth. 

38 Meanwhile, oil use remained essentially unchanged and electricity use increased by 80% 

39 (EIA 2009n; EERE 2011c). The rise in total electricity use could be due in part to increased 

40 per-capita consumption, but it seems more likely that, matching the trend with space heating and 

41 water heating, an increasing proportion of homes are using electricity rather than oil or gas as 

42 their primary fuel. It would stand to reason that a home that used gas (or oil) for one major end 

43 use would be more likely to use it for others as well. 

44

45 Analysis of Energy Substitutes in the Commercial and Residential Sector. Furnaces 

46 and boilers, water heaters, and cooking appliances — the equipment directly responsible for oil 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-493

1 and gas consumption in the commercial and residential sectors – are durable, long-lived goods. 

2 Water heaters have an average life span of 13 years, while furnaces, boilers, and range/ovens 

3 typically last for 20 years or more (California Energy Commission undated a). Such items also 

4 represent significant investments for most buyers. Thus, similar to industrial consumers, 

5 residential and commercial consumers would be unlikely to replace their oil- or gas-fired 

6 equipment any earlier than necessary except under extreme conditions. For that reason, we 

7 consider any fuel-saving strategy that required major new equipment to be a long-term process. 

8 Commercial and residential consumers will have an opportunity to shift away from oil- and gas9 fired equipment when their space and water heating equipment and appliances reach the end of 

10 their useful lifespan. Construction of new building stock and renovations of existing buildings 

11 allow further prospects for substitution. 

12

13 The easiest mode of substitution would be to replace oil- or gas-fired space and water 

14 heating equipment and appliances with electric-powered units, which are readily available and 

15 widely used. As noted above, 30% of households used electricity as the primary energy source 

16 for space heating in 2005, and 39% used it for water heating. Both of these proportions have 

17 been growing over the past several years (EIA 2009p).

18

19 However, in most cases there is no clear advantage for any given residence or 

20 commercial building to switch to electricity, which is thermodynamically inefficient at delivering 

21 heat. The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) estimates the annual energy cost of a 

22 typical gas water heater as at approximately half the cost of an electric unit (EERE 2010), while 

23 the California Energy Commission reports that electricity usually costs three times as much as 

24 gas (California Energy Commission undated b). While gas water heaters are generally more 

25 expensive up front, the difference in fuel costs outweighs this initial price premium. Similarly, 

26 higher operating costs mean that electric furnaces and electric oven/ranges are generally 

27 uneconomical compared to gas or oil units (EERE 2011d; California Energy Commission 

28 undated c). Nonetheless, electricity remains a viable, if unlikely, substitute for these end uses. 

29 The associated environmental impacts would depend on the fuel mix used to produce the 

30 electricity. These issues have been discussed previously, and we do not repeat them here.

31

32 A second substitute comes in the form of renewable energy, and specifically, solar water 

33 heaters. Solar water heaters use collectors to gather solar energy, which is then used to heat 

34 water in a storage tank. Active solar water heaters contain a circulating pump, while passive 

35 systems do not. Although solar water heaters are most effective in warm, sunny areas such as 

36 Florida or California, they can be used in colder locations as well; Germany, for example, has 

37 more than 9,800 MW(t) of solar thermal capacity installed, while Austria has more than 

38 3,200 MW(t); most, but not all, of this is for water heating (Eurobserv‘er 2011). In the 

39 United States, all 50 States have some form of incentive for solar water heating systems, while 

40 the Federal Government provides a tax credit covering 30% of the installed cost of such systems 

41 (N.C. Solar Center and Interstate Renewable Energy Council, undated).

42

43 Solar water heaters usually have a gas or electric backup, to provide supplemental heating 

44 on cloudy days, in cold seasons, or in high-demand hours. As a result, they do not eliminate gas 

45 use entirely; the Solar Rating & Certification Corporation and the Energy Star program both 

46 estimate that typical solar water heaters cut gas consumption in half (Solar Rating and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-494

1 Certification Corporation undated; USDOE and USEPA undated a). If applied nationwide, this 

2 would imply residential gas savings of 700 trillion Btu and an additional oil savings of 

3 150 trillion Btu. Solar water heating in the commercial sector could contribute modest further 

4 savings. For example, a 10% adoption, with savings of 70 trillion and 15 trillion Btu, would 

5 represent an enormous increase over current levels (less than 1% of U.S. homes used solar water 

6 heaters in 2005) (EIA 2009p). However, this would require massive policy support; without 

7 generous tax credits or other incentives, the higher upfront cost of a solar water heating system 

8 would make it uneconomical for most consumers to purchase them, especially in less favorable 

9 climates, therefore, wide-spread adoption of the use of solar water heating is at present unlikely.

10

11 The other options for long-term substitution involve improvements to the building stock 

12 itself. Improved building envelope efficiency has already been discussed as a short-term option. 

13 We estimated above that if 200,000 homes per year are renovated, the resulting savings could 

14 reach 8.5 trillion Btu annually after 5 yr. Simply extending this trend to a 25-yr period would 

15 indicate that renovations to 5 million homes could save 42.5 trillion Btu in oil, gas, or electricity 

16 used for space heating. Of course, a more aggressive approach covering more homes would see 

17 proportionally greater impacts. 

18

19 Over the long run, the building stock will also go through a more fundamental 

20 transformation, as new buildings are built to replace aging ones and to accommodate population 

21 growth. One well-regarded analysis estimates that 89 million new or replaced homes and 

190 billion ft 22 2 of nonresidential building will be constructed by 2050, and that two-thirds of 

23 buildings that will exist at that time did not exist in 2007 (Ewing et al. 2008). For context, in 

24 2005 there were an estimated 111 million households nationwide (EIA 2009p).

25

26 Given the massive scale of building expected, more efficient construction could produce 

27 substantial savings in oil and gas use for space heating (as well as electricity, for both heating 

28 and cooling). This could take the form of a greater number of high-efficiency buildings, such as 

29 those constructed to the Energy Star or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

30 (LEED), managed by the EPA and the Department of Energy (USDOE and USEPA undated b), 

31 and the U.S. Green Building Council‘s LEED family of standards (U.S. Green Building 

32 Council 2011a). Further, improvements to building codes that raise minimum performance 

33 requirements for all buildings would contribute to substantial savings in oil and gas use for space 

34 heating.

35

36 Specifically, the Energy Star program reports that 14,475 commercial buildings are 

37 currently Energy Star-certified, which means they must be more efficient than 75% of 

38 comparable buildings nationwide. This is roughly equivalent to 25% less energy use. As of 

39 March 2011, there were just over 30,000 registered commercial LEED building projects A 

40 2008 study found that, while there was considerable variation between projects, the average 

41 LEED-certified commercial building had energy use 25% below that of conventional buildings 

42 (Turner and Frankel 2008). Overall then, we can assume that new commercial buildings meeting 

43 either the LEED or the Energy Star standard will result in at least a 25% reduction in energy use 

44 below current levels.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-495

1 Both Energy Star and LEED also have programs addressing homes. Energy Star homes 

2 must be at least 15% more efficient than the 2004 International Residential Code, but with the 

3 additional energy-saving features included, they are, again, typically 25–30% more efficient than 

4 standard homes. There are currently more than 1 million Energy Star homes in the United States 

5 (USDOE and USEPA undated c). The LEED for Homes program has not been as popular, with 

6 just under 50,000 registered homes as of March 2011. As with commercial buildings, LEED 

7 measures energy gains versus standard new buildings. It estimates an average of 30% energy 

8 savings for LEED-certified homes (U.S. Green Building Council 2011b).

9

10 We can safely assume that most if not all new residential and commercial buildings will 

11 meet the stricter minimum standards envisioned by the latest IECC and ASHRAE energy codes. 

12 Meanwhile, the overall impact of LEED, Energy Star, and other voluntary green building 

13 standards will depend on market penetration. While not attempting a definitive analysis, we can 

14 make some rough, order-of-magnitude approximations to demonstrate the scale of potential 

15 savings. If, over the next 25 years, half of all currently existing residences and commercial 

16 buildings are replaced, through new construction or retrofits, with buildings that are 25% more 

17 efficient in space heating (a conservative estimate, since space heating will likely account for a 

18 disproportionate level of total energy savings), this would translate into an aggregate 12.5%

19 reduction in space heating energy demand, or about 564 trillion Btu of natural gas and 

20 164 trillion Btu of oil. If 10% of these buildings met Energy Star and/or LEED standards and 

21 realized a further 25% improvement from the new baseline, they would save an additional 

22 42 trillion Btu of natural gas and 12 trillion Btu of oil from space heating. In total, then, under 

23 these assumptions, more efficient new buildings could save approximately 782 trillion Btu of oil 

24 and natural gas per year within 25 years.

25

26

27 4.5.7.2 Analysis of the Environmental Effects of the No Action Alternative

28

29 The selection of the No Action Alternative would eliminate all oil and gas activities that 

30 were projected to occur under the Program. OCS-related activities could still occur, however, in 

31 these areas as a result of leasing activity during previous and future programs. At the same time, 

32 the No Action Alternative would require energy substitutes to replace the oil and gas production 

33 that would not occur as a result of the Program. The energy substitutions would be associated 

34 with their own potential environmental impacts that could occur within or outside program areas 

35 that were considered in the proposed action. 

36

37

38 4.5.7.2.1 Energy Substitutions for OCS Oil and Gas. With less oil and gas available 

39 from the OCS under the No Action Alternative, consumers could obtain oil and gas from other 

40 sources, substitute to other types of energy, or consume less energy overall. Similarly, energy 

41 production may shift from OCS oil and gas to onshore oil and gas, overseas oil and gas 

42 production, or domestic production of oil and gas alternatives (e.g., coal). Each of these shifts in 

43 consumption and production relative to the proposed action yield environmental impacts that this 

44 section evaluates.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-496

1 The process for calculating these impacts begins with the application of MarketSim, a 

2 multi-market equilibrium model that simulates the energy supply, demand, and price effects of 

3 OCS oil and gas production compared with baseline projections from the EIA‘s Annual Energy 

4 Outlook. In addition to simulating oil and natural gas markets, MarketSim includes separate 

5 modules for coal and electricity, enabling the model to capture the broad effects of the No Action 

6 Alternative across individual segments of the energy market. Modeling each of these sectors, 

7 MarketSim produces an estimate of the energy market‘s response to the absence of production 

8 that would occur as a result of the No Action Alternative.

9

10 Table 4.5.7-1 presents the changes in energy markets projected by MarketSim for the 

11 No Action Alternative. The table presents the quantities of the energy sources that would be 

12 used to replace the lost production of OCS hydrocarbons under the NAA. The quantities of 

13 domestic onshore production of both oil and natural gas is projected to increase but will make up 

14 for only a fraction of foregone OCS production. To ensure that demands for oil and gas are met, 

15 MarketSim projects a sharp increase in oil and gas imports under the No Action Alternative, via 

16 both tanker and pipeline. The model also projects that the reduction in OCS oil and gas 

17 production under the No Action Alternative will be replaced by an increase in domestic coal and 

18 electricity production and by energy conservation.

19

20

21 TABLE 4.5.7-1 Cumulative Energy Substitutions 

22 for Oil and Gas Under the No Action Alternative

Energy Sector Quantitya

Replacement 

Percent (%)

Domestic Onshore Oil 53–402 1–3

Domestic Onshore Gas 759–2,326 13–17

Oil Imports 3,540–7,870 56–62

Gas Imports 458–1,224 8–9

Other 108–274 2

Coal 335–925 6–7

Electricityb 146–388 3

Reduced Demandc 330–814 6

a Quantities expressed as energy equivalents of a 

million bbl (Mbbl) of oil. Values derived from 

MarketSim output rounded to the nearest Mbbl. 

Range of values based on price assumptions of 

$60 and $160/bbl for oil and $4.27 and $11.39 per 

million cubic feet of gas. Quantities were calculated 

for a 40 year time period, which is slightly different 

than the 40-50 year assumed life of the program.

b Electricity generated from sources other than oil, gas 

or coal such as nuclear, hydro, solar and wind.

c Demand reductions resulting from energy 

conservation.

23
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-497

1 MarketSim projects that natural gas consumption will decline, while domestic 

2 consumption of oil, coal, and electricity will increase. Given that domestic oil production

3 declines under the No Action Alternative, the increase in oil consumption may be somewhat 

4 unexpected. This increase in consumption reflects the fact that oil and gas are substitutes within 

5 the industrial sector and, to a lesser extent, the residential and commercial sectors. Therefore, as 

6 natural gas prices increase under the No Action Alternative, consumption of substitutes, 

7 including oil, increases. The increase in oil prices under the No Action Alternative may cause 

8 substitution in the opposite direction (i.e., from gas to oil), but the impact of increased gas prices 

9 is the more dominant of the two effects.

10

11

12 4.5.7.2.2 Impact Analysis.

13

14 Oil Spills. Table 4.5.7-2 shows the amount of oil projected to be developed in the 

15 planning areas considered in the Program and the amount of additional oil imported into 

16 planning areas that would be at risk from tanker spills because of their location relative to ports 

17 and terminals that would receive oil imports under the No Action Alternative. The table presents 

18 volumes of oil as a single quantity, rather than as a range of values, to simplify the comparison of 

19 quantities. The number of oil spills greater than 1,000 bbl that could result from import tanker 

20 accidents under the No Action Alternative and from accidents at OCS facilities and pipelines 

21 under the Proposed Action are presented. The number of spills was calculated by applying oil 

22 spill rates to the volume of OCS production and to the volume of import tankering projected 

23 under the two alternatives. Notably, the GOM is projected to experience four fewer large spills 

24 under the No Action Alternative. Part of this reduction is explained by the fact that the volume 

25 of oil imports under the No Action Alternative is smaller than the precluded volume of OCS oil

26 that would have been produced under the No Action Alternative. Another factor is that tankering 

27 has a lower spill risk than OCS production in part because OCS production includes the risk of 

28 spills during both the production and the transportation phases, while tankering involves only 

29 risk during transportation. The production risk associated with oil import substitutes would 

30 occur in oil-exporting nations. It is interesting to note that while the Central GOM Planning 

31 Area accounts for most of the OCS oil production, and therefore would experience the greatest 

32 amount of reduction in oil spill risk under the No Action Alternative, the Western GOM 

33 Planning Area would experience the greatest amount of risk from the increased import tankering 

34 that is projected to occur.

35

36 Cook Inlet is projected to produce a small amount of oil under the proposed action and to 

37 import a small amount of oil as an energy substitute under the No Action Alternative. As a 

38 result, there would be no appreciable difference in oil spill risk between the two alternatives. 

39 Since there are no oil import ports or terminals in the Alaskan Arctic program area, the No 

40 Action Alternative would eliminate the risk from OCS sources without introducing any risk from 

41 oil tankers. It is important to keep in mind, however, that a reduction in the risk of oil spills from 

42 OCS production redistributes, rather than totally eliminates, the spill risk. As Table 4.5.7-2

43 shows, the Atlantic and Pacific coasts could each be exposed to an additional import tanker spill 

44 occurrence along these coasts under the No Action Alternative, whereas these areas would have 

45 no exposure to oil spill risk from OCS activities under the proposed action.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-498

1 TABLE 4.5.7-2 Projected Large Spill Occurrences under the No Action 

2 Alternative

Volume of Oil at 

Risk for Spilla

(Bbbl)

Change in Spill 

Occurrence under the 

No Action Alternativea Planning Area

Proposed 

Action

Oil 

Imports

Atlantic Coast 0 1.3

North Atlantic 0 0.6 +1

Mid-Atlantic 0 0.5

South Atlantic 0 0.1

Straits of Florida 0 0.1

Total Atlantic Coast 0 1.3 +1

Gulf of Mexico 4.1 2.7

Central GOM 3.2 0.7 –2

Western GOM 0.8 1.9 1

Eastern GOM <0.1 <0.1 0

Total GOM 4.1 2.7 -1

Pacific/South Alaska Coasts 0 1.6

Southern California 0 0.4 +1

Central California 0 0.5

Washington/Oregon 0 0.4

Gulf of Alaska 0 0.2

Shumagin 0 0.1

Total Pacific/South Alaska Coasts 0 1.6 +1

Alaska Program Areas

Cook Inlet 0.2 0.1 0

Arctic 1.6 0 –2

Alaska Program Area 1.8 0,01 -2

a OCS spill rate calculated as platform spill rate (0.25 spills/Bbbl) plus the pipeline 

spill rate (0.88 spills/Bbbl) since spills could occur at the platform or during 

transport. The tanker spill rate was calculated as 0.34 spills/Bbbl in lower 48 and 

0.46 spills/Bbbl in Alaska.

3

4

5 Routine Operations. Routine OCS operations, such as installing offshore facilities and 

6 pipelines, transporting materials and personnel from the coast to offshore, and conducting 

7 seismic surveys, are associated with impact factors that could have potential environmental 

8 effects. The effects of noise, collisions with service vessels, air emissions, drilling and 

9 production discharges, and other impact factors associated with OCS activities were analyzed in 

10 Section 4.4 of this draft PEIS. With no new OCS activity occurring under the No Action 

11 Alternative, the potential for impacts from these factors would be eliminated within the program 

12 areas considered in the proposed action. The elimination of potential impacts in these program 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-499

1 areas could redistribute a range of other environmental impacts that would result from the 

2 development and transportation of energy substitutions. These impacts could occur on or near 

3 the OCS, or elsewhere. While insufficient data are available for quantification of these 

4 substituted impacts, some issues of particular environmental concern from energy substitutions 

5 are listed below.

6

7 Acid Mine Drainage from Coal Mining. Runoff from coal mining sites may increase the 

8 acidity of surface waters near and downstream from coal mining sites, adversely affecting habitat 

9 for aquatic organisms and limiting human recreational uses.

10

11 Contamination of Groundwater from Oil and Gas Extraction. The extraction of oil and 

12 gas from onshore sources can, in some cases, lead to the contamination of local groundwater 

13 supplies. For example, focusing on shale gas extracted from wells in Pennsylvania and New 

14 York, Osborn et al. (2011) found that average methane concentrations in drinking water wells 

15 increased with proximity to the nearest gas well and were 17 times greater than wells not located 

16 near extraction sites (Osborn et al. 2011). In addition, oil and gas wells may lead to groundwater 

17 contamination from accidental spills, losses of well control, and/or pipeline leaks.

18

Water Discharges from Oil and Gas Operations. 19 21 To facilitate resource extraction 

20 from subsurface formations, oil and gas producers use water to develop pressure, causing oil and 

21 gas to rise to the surface (e.g., enhanced oil recovery and hydraulic fracturing). Producers must 

22 manage these waters as well as waters extracted from geologic formations during oil/gas 

23 extraction. The environmental impacts associated with this ―produced water‖ vary based on the 

24 geologic characteristics of the reservoir that produced the water and the separation and treatment 

25 technologies employed by producers.

26

27 Coal Combustion Impacts. Coal consumed in place of gas under the No Action 

28 Alternative will result in environmental costs associated with diminished air quality and the 

29 disposal of coal combustion residuals. The combustion of coal in power plants or industrial 

30 boilers produces higher emissions of NOx, SOx, and PM than the combustion of natural gas and 

results in greater CO2 emissions.22 31 In addition, coal combustion residuals generated by power 

32 plants or coal-fired industrial boilers may pose a risk to local groundwater supplies when 

33 disposed in surface impoundments or landfills when such units are not properly maintained.

34

35 Socioeconomic and Sociocultural Effects. Sections 4.4.9.1 and 4.4.13.1 describe the 

36 effects of the proposed action on socioeconomic and sociocultural conditions, respectively, in the 

37 GOM. OCS oil- and gas-related activities have been an important source of employment and 

38 income in GOM coastal areas. According to Henry et al. (2002), the nature of blue-collar jobs in 

39 the oil and gas industry has been instrumental in the formation and persistence of Cajun culture 

40 in South Louisiana. The No Action Alternative would result in reduced employment and income 

41 opportunities and potentially could affect the stability and cohesion of communities and cultures. 

42 The No Action Alternative could also be interpreted as a boom-bust event. The infrastructure 

 

21 This discussion is based on USEPA (2008).

22 For detailed emissions data for power plants, see USEPA (2010d).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-500

1 and population of affected areas in the GOM have developed over decades in association with a 

2 regular occurrence of lease sales and resulting OCS activities. The No Action Alternative could 

3 result in situations in which local infrastructure and populations could not be maintained, 

4 resulting in out-migration and a reduction in public services. Furthermore, the No Action 

5 Alternative‘s disruption of a continuous process of activity in the GOM could affect future 

6 investments which would compound the social, economic, and cultural effects associated with 

7 the No Action Alternative.

8

9 Conclusion. No potential impacts from routine operations or from accidental discharges 

10 described in Section 4.4 would occur under the No Action Alternative. Most of the oil that was 

11 projected to be developed in the Arctic under the Proposed Action would be replaced by tanker 

12 imports that would offload at U.S. ports, none of which are located within the arctic area. Under 

13 the NAA, arctic program areas would therefore not receive any impacts from the Program or 

14 from energy substitutions such as tankering. The spill risk associated with replacing the lost 

15 OCS Arctic oil production would be transferred to other Planning Areas along the Atlantic, 

16 GOM, and Pacific coasts where increases in oil imports and associated risks of tanker spills 

17 would occur. The Pacific and Atlantic coasts would each be exposed to the risk of one additional 

18 tanker spill under the NAA. About two-thirds of the lost OCS production in the GOM would be 

19 replaced by tanker imports into GOM terminals. The spill risk from tankering would be greater 

20 in the Western GOM Planning Area than in the Central GOM based on the location of terminals. 

21 There would be effects of the NAA on socioeconomic conditions in the GOM and potential 

22 effects on community cohesion and levels of public services available there. The potential risk 

23 from impacts associated with routine OCS operations and activities removed under the NAA 

24 would be transferred to other areas within and beyond the OCS where energy substitutes such as 

25 imported and onshore oil and gas, and coal would be developed and transported.

26

27

28 4.6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE CUMULATIVE CASE

29

30

31 4.6.1 Cumulative Case Scenario

32

33 Cumulative effects are the impacts on the environment that result from the incremental 

34 impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

35 future actions regardless of what agency, industry, or person undertakes the other actions. The 

36 cumulative analyses presented in this chapter evaluate OCS activities associated with the 

37 Program (the proposed action), as well as activities resulting from other past and future 5-yr OCS 

38 programs that could occur over the next 40 to 50 yr. It is reasonable to analyze cumulative 

39 impacts in the context of the proposed action (Alternative 1) because of all the action 

40 alternatives, it proposes the most geographically extensive lease sale scenario under the Program 

41 (and presumably, the most extensive potential impacts). The cumulative analyses also evaluate 

42 impacts from activities and processes that are not related to OCS development. These activities 

43 and processes will be identified in the following analyses where they apply. There are some 

44 activities and processes, however, that are pandemic actions (oil and gas programs in State 

45 waters and imported oil), emerging trends affecting multiple-use issues on the OCS (alternate 

46 energy), or phenomena that could affect the regional geophysical environment (climate change). 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-501

1 Because these activities have widespread importance as potential cumulative impacting factors, 

2 we describe them in this section to provide a framework for their inclusion in the appropriate 

3 cumulative analyses.

4

5

6 4.6.1.1 OCS Program Oil and Gas Activities

7

8 Tables 4.6.1-1 and 4.6.1-2 show the numeric estimates for all OCS program activities for 

9 the GOM and Alaska, respectively, that could occur on the OCS over the next 40 to 50 yr. These 

10 estimates include activities that will be part of the Program, as well as those from previous and 

11 future 5-yr programs. It should be noted that the cumulative scenario for the arctic planning 

12 areas reflects inherent uncertainty about the future of OCS oil and gas activities. To date, there 

13 have been no activities on the arctic OCS due largely to operational issues related to the extreme 

14 environmental conditions as well as legal issues associated with approving activities in the 

15 region. Table 4.6.1-2 presents the exploration and development scenarios for the cumulative 

16 case and the proposed action for Alaska; the values for the cumulative case reflect a small 

17 increase in activity in Alaska as a result of future leasing beyond the Program. These values are 

18 for analytical purposes only and are not intended as forecasts of future activity. At this time, 

19 future activity is unpredictable and could span a considerable range. Transportation and other 

20 scenario assumptions that were used in the proposed action explanation and development 

21 scenario and impact analyses (Section 4.4.1) also apply to the cumulative analyses.

22

23 Estimates of the assumed numbers of large and small oil spills that could result from all 

24 OCS oil and gas activities are presented in Table 4.6.1-3. The source and number of assumed 

25 OCS spills were based on the volume of anticipated oil production in each region, the assumed 

26 mode of transportation (pipeline and/or tanker), and the spill rates for large spills. Assumptions 

27 regarding the number of large oil spills from import tankers were based on the estimated level of 

28 crude oil imports and worldwide tanker spill rates. We assume that these spills would occur with 

29 uniform frequency over the life of the proposed action.

30

31 There are currently a total of 29,097 lease blocks in the GOM OCS Planning Areas; of 

32 these, 7,800 are active (Section 4.4.1.1). Shallow-water oil production in the GOM OCS has 

33 been in decline since 1997, and is expected to be offset by deepwater production over the life of 

34 the proposed action. Over the next 5 yr, BOEM projects that GOM OCS oil production will 

35 exceed 1.7 Mbbl/day (620 Mbbl annually). Gas production is expected to increase, then level off 

36 to about 8 Bcf/day (2,920 Bcf annually) (Karl et al. 2007).

37

38 The Cook Inlet Planning Area has had oil and gas operations in State waters since the late 

39 1950s and currently has a well-established oil and gas infrastructure. The most recent sale in 

40 which leases were purchased occurred in 1997 (when two leases were purchased). A lease sale 

41 was held in 2004, but no leases were purchased (Section 4.4.1.2). There are currently no existing 

42 OCS activities in Cook Inlet.

43

44 There has been no oil and gas development activity in the arctic Program areas. Since 

45 1979, 10 lease sales have been held in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area and three in the Chukchi 

46 Sea Planning Area, but no activity has resulted to date (Section 4.4.1.3).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-502

1 TABLE 4.6.1-1 Offshore Exploration and Development Scenario for 

2 the OCS Program GOM Cumulative Case and Proposed Actiona

Scenario Elements Cumulative Case Proposed Action

Years of activity 40–50 40–50

Oil (Bbbl)b 18–26 2.7–5.4

Gas (Tcf)c 76–112 12–24

Platforms 1,400–2,000 200–450

FPSOsd 1–6 0–2

No. of exploration and delineation wells 6,900–9,800 1,000–2,100

No. of development and production wells 8,500–12,000 1,300–2,600

Miles of pipeline 19,000–43,000 2,400–7,500

Service vessel trips/week 1,400–1,900 300–600

Helicopter trips/week 12,000–24,000 2,000–5,500

New pipeline landfalls 0–40 0–12

New natural gas processing facilities 0–14 0–12

Platforms removed with explosives 870–1,200 150–275

Drill Muds/Well (tons)

 Exploration and delineation wells 1,000 1,000

 Development and production wells 1,000 1,000

Drill Cuttings/Well (tons)

 Exploration and delineation wells 1,200 1,200

 Development and production wells 1,200 1,200

Produced Water/yr (Mbbl)

e

 Oil well 19,000–27,000 73–140

 Natural gas well 161–247 26–52

Bottom Area Disturbed (ha)f

 Platforms 960–12,000 150–2,500

 Pipeline 9,500–69,000 2,000–11,500

a Values for the cumulative case represent the proposed action (under the 2012 to 

2017 OCS program) and actions associated with ongoing and future OCS 

program oil and gas activities.

b Bbbl = billion barrels.

c Tcf = trillion cubic feet.

d FPSOs = floating, production, storage, and offloading systems.

e Based on 1.04 bbl produced water/bbl of oil, and 86 bbl produced water/1 Mcf 

gas (Clark and Veil 2009); Mbbl = million barrels. Calculations based on the 

total volume of oil or gas produced; actual discharges at a well are highly 

variable depending on geologic formation and age of well.

f Assumes 0.7–6 ha (1 ac) per platform and 0.5–1.6 ha (1.2–2.5 ac) per mile of 

pipeline.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-503

1 TABLE 4.6.1-2 Offshore Exploration and Development Scenario for the OCS Program Alaska Cumulative Case and Proposed Actiona

Arctic Region South Central Alaska Region

Beaufort Sea Chukchi Sea Cook Inlet

Scenario Elements Cumulative Case

Proposed 

Action Cumulative Case

Proposed 

Action Cumulative Case

Proposed 

Action

Years of activity 40–0 40–50 40–50 40–50 40–50 40–50

Oil (Mbbl)b 500–1,350 200–400 1,500–7,700 500–2,200 100–200 100–200

Gas (Tcf)c 0–7.0 0–2.2 0–31 0–8.0 0–0.68 0–0.68

Platforms 2–12 1–4 3–20 1–5 1–3 1–3

No. of exploration and delineation wells 12–48 6–16 12–66 6–20 6–12 6–12

No. of platform production wells 90–375 40–120 180–1,100 60–280 42–110 42–110

No. of subsea production wells 20–30 10 54–290 18–82 0 0

Miles of new offshore pipelines 50–520 30–155 150–1,300 25–250 25–150 25–150

Miles of new onshore pipelines 40–375 10–80 250–750 0 50–105 50–105

Service vessel trips/weekd 1–18 1–12 1–23 1–15 1–3 1–3

Helicopter trips/week 1–18 1–12 1–23 1–15 1–3 1–3

New pipeline landfalls 0 0 0 0 0–1 0–1

New shore bases 0 0 0 0 0 0

New waste facilities 2–4 0 2–4 0 0 0

New natural gas processing facilities 2–4 0 2–4 0 0 0

Docks/causeways 2–4 0 2–4 0 0 0

Exploration well muds, cuttings, 

produced water

425 tons dry mud with 

80% recycled; 525 tons 

dry rock cuttings, totaling 

610 tons discharged at 

each well site.

425 tons dry mud with 

80% recycled; 525 tons 

dry rock cuttings, totaling 

610 tons discharged at 

each well site.

360 tons dry mud, with 

80% recycled; 450 tons 

dry rock cuttings; totaling 

522 tons per site.

Development wells muds, cuttings, 

produced water

All muds, cuttings, and 

produced water treated 

and disposed of in wells.

All muds, cuttings, and 

produced water treated 

and disposed of in wells.

All muds, cuttings, and 

produced water 

discharged down hole.

Bottom Area Disturbed (ha)e

Platforms 1–72 1–24 2–180 1–30 1–18 1–18

Pipelinesf 25–830 15–250 75–2,100 13–400 13–240 13–240
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-504

TABLE 4.6.1-2 (Cont.)

Arctic Region South Central Alaska Region

Beaufort Sea Chukchi Seaa Cook Inlet

Scenario Elements Cumulative Case

Proposed 

Action Cumulative Case

Proposed 

Action Cumulative Case

Proposed 

Action

Surface Soil Disturbed (ha)

Pipeline 20–600 5–130 130–1,200 0 25–170 25–170

a Values for the cumulative case represent the proposed action (under the 2012 to 2017 OCS program) and actions associated with ongoing and future OCS program oil and 

gas activities. Because no OCS program oil and gas activities other than those associated with the 5-yr 2012–2017 OCS program are anticipated in the Cook Inlet Planning 

Area, the cumulative case scenario for the Cook Inlet Planning Area is the same as for the proposed action.

b Mbbl = million barrels.

c Tcf = trillion cubic feet.

d

In the Arctic region, service vessel trips will only occur during open-water and broken-ice conditions (typically during August and September).

e Assumes 0.7–6 ha (1.7–15 ac) per platform and 0.5–1.6 ha (1.2–4.0 ac) per mile of pipeline.

f Value represents bottom area disturbance from offshore pipeline construction only.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-505

1 TABLE 4.6.1-3 Large and Small Oil Spill Assumptions for the Cumulative Case

Number of Spill Eventsa

Arctic Region South Alaska

Region

Scenario Elements

Assumed 

Spill Volume

Gulf of Mexico 

Region

Beaufort and 

Chukchi Seas Cook Inlet

Oil Production (Bbbl)b 18–26 2–6 0.1–0.2

Large (bbl) ≥1,000

 Pipeline 1,700c 16–23 1–6 1 spill from either

 Platform 5,000d 4–7 1–2

 Tanker 3,100–5,800e 5–10

Small (bbl)f ≥50 to 

<1,000

230–330 25–80 1–3

≥1 bbl to <50 1,350–1,950 150–450 7–15

a The assumed number of spills are estimated using the 1996–2010 spill rates in Anderson (in preparation). For 

the Alaska OCS region, the 1996–2010 spill rates were compared to fault-tree rates in Bercha Group, Inc. 

(2008a, b, 2006). The greater number of spills from Anderson (in preparation) is represented in Table 4.4.2-1. 

The values provided for the Arctic region are the combined totals for the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.

b Bbbl = billion barrels.

c During the last 15 years (1996–2010), 7 oil spills ≥1,000 bbl occurred from U.S. OCS pipelines. The median 

spill size was 1,720 bbl. The maximum spill size between 1996 and 2010 from U.S. OCS pipelines was 

8,212 bbl.

d During the last 15 years (1996–2010), 2 oil spills ≥1,000 bbl occurred from U.S. OCS platforms. During 

Hurricane Rita, one platform and two jack-up rigs were destroyed, and a combined total of 5,066 bbl were 

spilled. The median spill size, when not accounting for a decreasing trend in the rate of platform spills over 

1964–2010, is 7,000 bbl. The low-probability very large spill occurrence, such as the DWH event, is represented 

as a catastrophic spill event.

e 3,100 bbl for tankers in the GOM; 5,800 bbl for TAPS tankers transporting Alaska OCS oil.

f The number of spills <1,000 bbl is estimated using a spill rate for both pipeline and platform spills.

2

3

4 4.6.1.2 Non-OCS Program Oil and Gas Activities

5

6

7 4.6.1.2.1 Offshore and Coastal Oil and Gas.

8

Gulf of Mexico. All the GOM States except Florida 9 23 have active oil and natural gas 

10 programs in both offshore State waters and on coastal lands. In 2009, oil and natural gas 

11 produced in GOM State waters totaled 503 million barrels (Mbbl) and 114 Bcf, respectively 

 

23 A drilling moratorium in Florida State waters has been in effect since July 1990 and there has been no 

leasing of tracts since the early 1980s (Lloyd et al. 1991).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-506

1 (EIA 2010a, b). Offshore State oil and gas activity levels are highest in Texas and Louisiana, a 

2 long-established trend that will likely continue through the life of the Program.

3

4 Crude oil production in Texas has a long history, but has declined over the past decade 

5 (from approximately 449 Mbbl in 1999 to 404 Mbbl in 2009). During the same period, its 

6 offshore production increased from 475,000 to 897,000 bbl (EIA 2000, 2010a). From 2005 to 

7 2009, the State‘s offshore gas withdrawals (from gas and oil wells) totaled 38 Bcf (EIA 2010b). 

8 Louisiana‘s offshore program produced 5.5 Mbbl of crude oil in 2009; from 2005 to 2009, its 

9 offshore gas withdrawals totaled 76 Bcf (EIA 2010a, b).

10

11 Although Mississippi ranked eleventh in the nation in both crude oil and natural gas 

12 production in 2009 (EIA 2010a, b), the State does not currently have an offshore program. 

13 Alabama did not produce crude oil from offshore waters in 2009; however, from 2005 to 2009 its 

14 offshore gas withdrawals totaled 109 Bcf (EIA 2010b).

15

16 Alaska. The Beaufort Sea and Cook Inlet are the only areas in Alaska with producing

17 offshore leases. About 92% of Alaska‘s oil production takes place on the North Slope, and as of 

2009 about 16,200 Mbbl of oil 18 24 have been produced from North Slope oil fields. Oil produced

19 from the North Slope (including Beaufort Sea) is transported down the TAPS pipeline to

20 Valdez, Alaska, where it is loaded onto tankers and exported. Significant volumes of natural gas

(a net 21 25 of about 6.5 Tcf) have been produced along with oil recovery in North Slope fields; 

22 much of this gas has been reinjected into reservoirs (ADNR 2009c).

23

24 We assume that the North Slope fields will continue to account for most of Alaska‘s 

25 production during the life of the proposed action, although projections from the State of Alaska 

26 anticipate a 60% production decline by 2021 (ADNR 2000). Remaining North Slope oil reserves 

27 through 2050 are estimated by the State of Alaska to be about 5,200 Mbbl (ADNR 2009c). Over 

28 this period, almost half of the oil produced is expected to come from the Prudhoe Bay oil field 

29 (2,450 Mbbl) (ADNR 2009c). Natural gas reserves of 35 Tcf have been discovered within 

30 existing North Slope oil fields, with 93% located in four fields: Prudhoe Bay (23 Tcf), Point 

31 Thomson (8 Tcf), Lisburne (1 Tcf), and Kuparak (1 Tcf) (EIA 2009q). About 3.7 Tcf of natural 

32 gas from these reserves has been produced. This gas has been used as a fuel for facilities or has 

33 been reinjected into the hydrocarbon reservoir to enhance oil recovery.

34

35 There are also some leases in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. As of 2009, about 

36 1,300 Mbbl of oil and 7,800 Bcf of natural gas (net) have been produced from reserves in Cook 

37 Inlet. Remaining reserves (including oil and natural gas liquids) through 2034 are estimated to 

38 be about 34 Mbbl, with annual production declining from 3.4 Mbbl in 2010 to about 0.52 Mbbl 

39 in 2034 (ADNR 2009c).

40

41

 

24 Historic figures include both oil and natural gas liquids produced at Prudhoe Bay and surrounding fields.

25 Net gas production is the difference between total gas injected (to enhance oil recovery) and total gas recovered.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-507

1 4.6.1.2.2 Other Federal and Canadian Arctic Activities. The National Petroleum 

2 Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A) is a 9.3-million-ha [23-million-ac] site on the North Slope of Alaska 

3 that is managed by the BLM. The USGS has estimated that there is between 1.3 and 5.6 Bbbl 

4 and 39.1 and 83.2 Tcf of natural gas on Federal lands within the NPR-A. Integrated activity 

5 plans have been developed by BLM (2004, 2006a) that identify the lands within the NPR-A 

6 available for leasing, as well as those restricted from leasing, and identify stipulations and 

7 restrictions on surface activities in the lease areas of the NPRA. To date, there have been four

8 lease sales in the NPR-A (in 1999, 2002, 2004, and 2006), and as a result of these sales, the BLM 

9 currently administers 381 Federal oil and gas leases on the NPR-A. To date, no production wells 

10 have been established in the NPR-A, although 23 exploration wells have been drilled within the 

11 reserve since 2000, and as many as an additional 11 exploration wells may be established by 

12 2011 (BLM 2006b). It is uncertain at this time whether or not production facilities will be 

13 established within the NPR-A during the life of the Program.

14

15 Northern Canada contains about a quarter of Canada‘s remaining discovered resources of 

16 conventional petroleum and a third to a half of the country‘s estimated potential (Northern Oil 

17 and Gas Directorate 2007). This resource is distributed throughout northern Canada as follows:

18

19 • Mackenzie Valley and onshore Yukon. Twenty-six significant discoveries and 

20 three producing fields: the Norman Wells oil field produces oil at rates of 

30,000 bbl per day (6.294 bbl = 1 m3 21 ) with initial recoverable reserves of 

22 235 Mbbl; the Kotaneelee and Pointed Mountain fields close to the British 

Columbia-Alberta border had produced 417 billion ft3 (35.3 ft3 = 1 m3 23 ) of gas 

24 by the end of 1997.

25

26 • Arctic Islands. Nineteen significant discoveries after fewer than 

27 200 exploration wells; the Bent Horn field in the Arctic Islands, which 

28 produced high-quality light oil for many years on a seasonal basis, has only 

29 recently been abandoned.

30

31 • Mackenzie Delta/Beaufort Sea. Discovered resources of in excess of 1 Bbbl 

32 of oil and 9 Tcf of gas in 53 significant discoveries. Four Tcf of marketable 

33 gas have been discovered in three onshore discoveries, and offshore 

34 discoveries include over 200 Mbbl in the Amauligak field. On the Mackenzie 

35 Delta, the Ikhil gas discovery is being developed to supply natural gas to the 

36 town of Inuvik, where it will replace imported diesel oil for power generation 

37 and domestic use.

38

39

40 4.6.1.2.3 Imported Oil. U.S. imports of crude oil and petroleum products grew steadily 

41 every year from 1981, when the annual total was 2.2 Bbbl, to a peak in 2005, when the annual 

42 total was 5.0 Bbbl. Since 2005, imports have been in decline, dropping to an annual total of 

43 4.3 Bbbl in 2009 (its lowest point since 2000). The Gulf Coast district was the largest importer 

44 of crude oil, with a total of 1.9 Bbbl in 2009 (EIA 2010, 2011a). The USDOE estimates that 

45 crude oil imports will continue to decline from 2009 to 2035 as the growth in demand is met by 

46 domestic production (EIA 2011b). Canadian oil imports, representing about 21% of the total in 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-508

1 2009, are delivered by pipeline (EIA 2010a). The remaining oil arrives in the United States on 

2 tankers.

3

4

5 4.6.1.3 Mining Activity

6

7 Because mining is such a large component of the Alaskan economy (McDowell Group, 

8 Inc. 2006) and activity could occur in the future in areas potentially affected by OCS oil and gas 

9 activity, we have included a description of other mining activities. Alaska‘s mining industry 

10 includes exploration, mine development, and mineral production, and produces zinc, lead, gold, 

11 silver, and coal, as well as construction minerals such as sand, gravel, and rock (Research 

12 Development Council 2007). Approximately 73 open-pit, underground, mechanical placer, and 

13 suction dredge mines were in production in Alaska in 2005. In addition, there are at least 

14 37 rock quarries and 71 active sand and gravel operations in the State (Research Development 

15 Council 2007). Two large mines, the Kensington Gold Project and the Pogo Gold Project, are 

16 expected to begin operation in 2007. The three largest mines in Alaska are the Red Dog, 

17 Ft. Knox, and Greens Creek mines. The Red Dog Mine, located in the Northwest Arctic 

18 Borough, is the world‘s largest zinc producer.

19

20 Among the large active mines currently operating in the State, only the Red Dog Mine is 

21 located adjacent to any of the Alaska OCS planning areas addressed in this PEIS. This mine, 

22 located in the DeLong Mountains approximately 88.5 km (55 mi) east of the Chukchi Sea, 

23 discharges treated water into Red Dog Creek, whose waters eventually feed into the Wulik River 

24 and drain into the Chukchi Sea.

25

26 In addition to the active and planned mine sites in the State, there are numerous 

27 exploration projects for gold, copper, nickel, silver, lead, zinc, and coal. In July 2006, BHP 

28 Billiton Energy Coal entered into an exploration agreement with the Arctic Slope Regional 

29 Corporation (ASRC) to conduct a 5-yr exploration program on corporation lands in the 

30 Northwest Arctic. Coal deposits in the Northwest Arctic run from the Colville River north to the 

31 Arctic Ocean. The coal reserves in the area are thought to be the largest coal resource in the 

32 United States and one of the largest worldwide, with estimated reserves of 5 billion tons of coal 

underlying 77,700 km2 (30,000 mi2 33 ). In early 2009, BHP Billiton suspended all exploration 

34 activities, and in the summer of 2009, the company terminated its agreement with ASRC. The 

35 company indicated that the decision was based on the current economic situation.

36

37

38 4.6.1.4 Alternate Energy 

39

40 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 amended Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 

41 Act (OCSLA) (43 USC 1337) to give the Secretary of the Interior authority to issue a lease, 

easement, or ROW on the OCS26 42 for activities that are not otherwise authorized by the OCSLA 

43 or other applicable law, if those activities:

 

26 This excludes areas on the OCS within the exterior boundaries of any unit of the National Park System, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, National Marine Sanctuary System, or any National Monument.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-509

1 • Produce or support production, transportation, or transmission of energy from 

2 sources other than oil and gas; or

3

4 • Use, for energy-related purposes or other authorized marine-related purposes, 

5 facilities currently or previously used for activities authorized under the 

6 OCSLA, except that any oil and gas energy-related uses shall not be 

7 authorized in areas in which oil and gas preleasing, leasing, and related 

8 activities are prohibited by a moratorium.

9

10 In response to this new authority, the BOEM of the USDOI, formerly the Minerals 

11 Management Service (MMS), established an Alternative Energy and Alternate Use Program 

12 on the OCS (now referred to as its Renewable Energy Program) to approve and manage these 

13 potential activities. The BOEM completed its PEIS to evaluate the potential environmental 

14 impacts of implementing the program and established initial policies and best management 

15 practices to mitigate these impacts in October 2007 (MMS 2007d). Each project developed 

16 under this new program will be subject to environmental reviews under the National NEPA, and 

17 each project may have additional project-specific mitigation measures. On April 22, 2009, the 

18 BOEM published its final regulations to establish an environmentally responsible Renewable 

19 Energy Program on the OCS. Documents and information related to the program can be found at

20 http://www.boemre.gov/offshore/RenewableEnergy/index.htm.

21

22 While it is too early to predict the number and types of alternate uses and renewable 

23 energy projects that could be developed during the life of the Program, several OCS renewable 

24 energy projects have been proposed at the current time. Most of these are wind energy projects. 

25 The first commercial wind lease (Cape Wind off the coast of Massachusetts) was signed by the 

26 Secretary of the Interior in 2010 and its construction is expected to begin by the end of 2011 

27 (BOEMRE 2011g). Noncompetitive leases for 14 lease areas off the coasts of New Jersey (6), 

28 Delaware (1), Georgia (3), and southeast Florida (4) have also been approved. These leases are 

29 for data collection and technology testing activities related to the development of wind and 

30 ocean current resources (BOEMRE 2011h). None of these leases are within the subject regions 

31 for this PEIS.

32

33

34 4.6.1.5 Climate Change

35

36 Because a growing body of evidence shows that climate change is occurring 

37 (Section 3.3), we have included it as an impacting factor in the cumulative analysis of some 

38 resources. The resources that include climate change as a cumulative impact factor meet one or 

39 both of the following two criteria:

40

41 • The resource is already experiencing impacts from climate change, so the 

42 effects are observable and not speculative. In Alaska, for example, the effects 

43 of climate change in recent decades have resulted in decreased extent and 

44 thickness of sea ice and other changes that could affect biological resources 

45 and subsistence.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-510

1 • The resource will be directly affected by warming temperatures. An example 

2 of direct impacts of warming is increased melting of continental ice that leads 

3 to accelerated sea-level rise and inundation of coastal wetlands and beaches in 

4 the GOM.

5

6 We have not analyzed impacts from climatic and hydrologic changes that are the indirect 

7 result of temperature change because these indirect impacts are too uncertain to predict. For 

8 example, it is reasonable to expect changes in precipitation regimes as a result of climate 

9 change. Furthermore, it is also likely that precipitation changes would, in turn, affect the coastal 

10 salinity balance between freshwater flow and tidal influence in some areas, and that these 

11 changes would affect fisheries and fish populations in some way. Both the magnitude and 

12 direction of each factor in this sequence of occurrences, however, are uncertain. While we 

13 acknowledge that continuing climate change could result in changing regional ecological and 

14 socioeconomic patterns and distributions, at this stage of our understanding of underlying 

15 processes, the rates and directions of many of these changes are too speculative to include in the 

16 cumulative analyses that follow. A more in-depth discussion of climate change is provided in 

17 Section 3.3.

18

19

20 4.6.2 Marine and Coastal Physical Resources

21

22

23 4.6.2.1 Gulf of Mexico Region

24

25

26 4.6.2.1.1 Water Quality. Section 4.4.3 discusses water quality impacts in coastal, 

27 continental shelf, and deepwater environments in the GOM resulting from the proposed action

28 (OCS program activities from 2012 to 2017). Cumulative impacts on water quality result from 

29 the incremental impacts of the proposed action (described in Section 4.4.3) when added to 

30 impacts from existing and reasonably foreseeable future OCS program activities (that are not 

31 part of the proposed action) and other non-OCS program activities. Table 4.6.1-1 presents the 

32 exploration and development scenario for the GOM cumulative case (encompassing the 

33 proposed action and other OCS program activities). Non-OCS program activities contributing to 

34 adverse cumulative impacts on water quality in the GOM are summarized in Table 4.6.2-1.

35

36 Ongoing and future routine OCS program activities, including those of the proposed 

37 action, involve vessel traffic, well drilling, pipelines (trenching, landfalls, and construction), 

38 chemical releases (drilling, operation discharges, and sanitary wastes), platforms (anchoring, 

39 mooring, and removal, except in deep waters), and onshore construction (coastal waters only). 

40 All of these have the potential to adversely affect water quality in the GOM. Accidental oil spills 

41 are also counted among OCS program-related activities; assumptions for oil spills under the 

42 cumulative case scenario are provided in Table 4.6.1-3. 

43

44 OCS program-related marine vessel traffic in the GOM could be as high as 1,900 trips 

45 per week over the next 40 to 50 yr; vessel traffic associated with the proposed action (600 trips 

46 per week) represents about 30% of this traffic. Extensive non-OCS program marine traffic also 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-511

1 TABLE 4.6.2-1 Ongoing and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Non-OCS Activities Contributing to Cumulative Impacts on Water Quality

Type of Action

Associated Activities and

Facilities (Impacting Factors) Description

Marine vessel traffic Discharges of bilge water and waste

Accidental oil spills

Marine traffic includes crude oil and LNG tankers, commercial container vessels, 

military and USCG vessels, cruise ships, commercial fishing, and small 

watercraft. In 2009, a total 18,956 vessel calls were made in GOM ports, 

comprising about 34% of all U.S. vessel calls; U.S. vessel calls overall have been 

in decline in recent years (down 7% in 2009 from 5 yr earlier) (USDOT 2011b). 

It is estimated that about 60% of all crude oil imports into the United States are 

delivered by tanker ships entering through the GOM (VesselTrax 2007). See 

Section 4.6.1.2.2 on imported oil.

Wastewater discharge to 

coastal and marine waters

Permitted discharge points

Pollutant releases via surface runoff

(non-point discharges)

The major point sources of pollution include discharges (by discrete conveyances 

such as pipes or man-made ditches) from sewage treatment plants, industrial 

facilities, and power generating plants. Discharges are regulated through the 

NPDES permit program. Section 403 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) established 

the Ocean Discharge Criteria, which provide additional requirements for these 

types of discharges (USEPA 2011g).

Non-point sources of pollution include rainfall, snowmelt, or irrigation water that 

runs over land or through the ground, entraining pollutants and depositing them 

into rivers, lakes, and coastal waters (including wetlands and estuaries). 

Pollutants such as fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides; oil, grease, and toxic 

chemicals; sediment; and bacteria and nutrients can make their way to coastal 

waters and have harmful effects on drinking water supplies, recreation, fisheries, 

and wildlife. Non-point source management programs under Section 319 of the 

CWA regulate these pollutant sources. The USEPA and NOAA also coadminister State Coastal Non-Point Pollution Control Programs under 

Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 

(USEPA 2011g).

2
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-512

TABLE 4.6.2-1 (Cont.)

Type of Action

Associated Activities and

Facilities (Impacting Factors) Description

Excess nutrients (particularly nitrogen and phosphorus) released to the GOM 

have created an oxygen-depleted zone (the hypoxic zone) at the bottom of the 

continental shelf off Louisiana and Texas that is harmful to aerobic organisms. 

The USEPA predicts that the hypoxic zone will cover an average area of 

24,400 km2 (9,420 mi2) in the summer of 2011, the largest area recorded since 

systematic mapping of the zone began. The hypoxic zone is attributed to the 

discharge of excess nutrients (from agricultural runoff) carried to the GOM from 

the Mississippi River and stratification (due to salinity and temperature 

differences across the water column) that prevents mixing of water 

(USEPA 2011f). 

Dredging and marine disposal Excavation of subaqueous sediments

Transport of sediments (by dredger or 

pipeline)

Relocation and disposal of sediments

The USEPA is responsible for designating and managing Ocean Dredged 

Material Disposal Sites as authorized by the Marine Protection, Research and 

Sanctuaries Act. Permits for ocean dumping of dredged materials are granted by 

the USACE, subject to USEPA review and concurrence, as authorized by 

Section 404 of the CWA (USEPA 2011c).

There are currently 27 designated ocean dredged material disposal sites in the 

GOM, including 21 off the coast of Texas and Louisiana and in the Mississippi 

River GOM outlet (USEPA Region 6) and six off the coasts of Mississippi, 

Alabama, and Florida (USEPA Region 4) (USEPA 2011d, e). The largest 

quantities of disposed materials come from dredging of the Mississippi River bar 

channel (USACE 2011).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-513

TABLE 4.6.2-1 (Cont.)

Type of Action

Associated Activities and

Facilities (Impacting Factors) Description

Liquefied \natural gas (LNG) 

terminals

Construction and operation of new LNG 

facilities on the OCS

Increased risk of explosions and fires

Increased LNG tanker traffic

Cooled water releases

The United States is an importer and exporter of natural gas (EIA 2010b). The 

USDOE projects a significant increase in overall natural gas consumption 

between 2009 and 2035; estimates of LNG imports over this period are variable, 

ranging from 140 to 2,140 Bcf by 2035 (EIA 2011b). The United States currently 

operates five LNG import terminals, only one of which is located offshore (Gulf 

Gateway Deepwater Port off the coast of Louisiana). It is reasonably foreseeable 

that additional LNG terminals will be constructed in the GOM to offload LNG 

from tankers into the existing offshore natural gas pipeline system. Currently in 

the GOM, there are 16 applications for licenses to import LNG (seven licenses 

have been issued) (USDOT 2011a). See Section 4.3.1.1.2.

Oil and gas production in 

State-owned marine waters

Exploratory drilling and seismic testing

Drilling of production wells

Operation of infrastructure (pipelines

and platforms)

Transportation (by pipeline or tanker)

Onshore refineries

Hazardous spills/releases (e.g., loss of 

well control events)

Decommissioning (plugging production 

wells and removing infrastructure)

Most of the historical production of oil and natural gas in State-owned marine 

waters in the GOM has occurred offshore of Texas and Louisiana. See 

Section 4.6.1.2.1.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-514

TABLE 4.6.2-1 (Cont.)

Type of Action

Associated Activities and

Facilities (Impacting Factors) Description

Hard mineral mining Vessel traffic

Bottom sampling and shallow coring

Mining

Hard minerals, such as quartz sand, sulfur, and sand, are currently being extracted 

for commercial purposes in the northern part of the GOM. Mineral resource 

deposits within coastal waters include phosphate, oyster shell, limestone, sand 

and gravel, and magnesium (Continental Shelf Associates 2004d).

Mining from the cap rock of coastal and offshore salt domes has been active 

along the Texas–Louisiana coast since the 1890s (Kyle 2002). Currently, the 

Main Pass Block 299 mine, operated by Freeport-McMoRan, is leased to mine 

sulphur and salt in Federal waters of the GOM (lease OCS-G9372). The mine is 

located about 26 km (16 mi) offshore, east of Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. It 

was closed in 2002 and proposed to be used as a disposal facility for exploration 

and production waste (67 FR 5847).

Oil- and gas-related 

infrastructure 

Ports

Oil and gas pipelines

Tanker vessels

Onshore fuel storage tanks and transfer 

stations

Hazardous spills/releases

The oil and gas industry in the GOM is one of the most developed in the world. 

There are currently 3,172 active platforms in operation at water depths less than 

61 m (200 ft) and 63 active platforms at water depths greater than 61 m (200 ft) 

(26 of which are in waters greater than 300 m [1,000 ft] deep). An estimated 

41,843 km (26,000 mi) of oil and gas pipeline stretches across the seafloor. As of 

July 2011, there were more than 37,000 approved applications to drill in the 

GOM (BOEMRE 2011j; NOAA 2011c). 

USDOD and U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security marine 

operations

Surface vessels

Aircraft

Aerial operations (e.g., flight training)

Submarine operations

Numerous U.S. military bases are located along the GOM coast (see Section 4.3). 

Several U.S. Navy air stations serve as training bases in jet aviation, sea and air 

rescue, and coastal mine countermeasures, as well as home ports for various ships 

and operations. Some support U.S. Army and USCG activities. The USCG (part 

of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security) conducts routine missions, such as 

search, rescue, environmental protection, and homeland security on sea vessels 

and aircraft. The U.S. Air Force conducts training activities over the deepwater 

region of the GOM.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-515

TABLE 4.6.2-1 (Cont.)

Type of Action

Associated Activities and

Facilities (Impacting Factors) Description

Renewable energy 

development

Wind, wave, and ocean current

technologies

Technology testing (bottom sampling,

deep-tow sonar surveys, borings)

Facility construction and operation

Facility decommissioning (removal of 

facility)

To date, the United States has no offshore renewable energy projects, but the first 

commercial wind lease (Cape Wind off the coast of Massachusetts) was signed by 

the Secretary in 2010. See Section 4.3.1.1.3. 

1
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-516

1 occurs in the GOM, one of the world‘s most concentrated shipping areas (USACE 2010). Non2 OCS program traffic includes that related to crude oil and natural gas imports, commercial 

3 container vessels, military and USCG vessels, cruise ships, commercial fishing, and small 

4 watercraft. In 2010, the Port of New Orleans alone handled about 7,500 vessel calls (mainly 

5 tanker and dry bulk carrier), about 140 vessel calls per week (USDOT 2011b). Impacts on water 

6 quality from marine traffic arise from regular discharges of bilge water and waste, leaching of 

7 antifouling paints, and incidental spills (MMS 2001d), although operational discharges and 

8 spillage from marine vessels have declined substantially in the past few decades (NRC 2003b).

9

10 The number of production wells and oil platforms constructed over the period of the 

11 Program (at most 2,600 and 450, respectively) will be proportional to the amount of oil 

12 produced; these numbers represent about 21% of the total number of production wells and 

13 platforms (respectively) anticipated to be built in the GOM over the next 45 yr as part of the 

14 OCS program. The length of new pipeline (at most 12,070 km [7,500 mi]) added as part of the 

15 Program represents about 17% of that anticipated as part of the OCS program.

16

17 The area of disturbed sea bottom from construction of platforms and pipelines over the 

18 period of the Program (as much as 14,000 ha [34,600 ac] total) represents about 18% of that 

19 associated with the OCS program over the next 40 to 50 yr. Bottom disturbance degrades water 

20 quality by increasing water turbidity in the vicinity of the operations and adding contaminants to 

21 the water column. It also changes sediment composition as suspended sediments (and 

22 contaminants, if present) are entrained in currents and deposited in new locations.

23

24 An inventory conducted by NOAA found that there were about 766 major and 

25 8,147 minor land-based point sources of pollution releasing to watersheds and coastal drainage 

26 areas of the GOM; these included discharges from industrial facilities (6,909), wastewater 

27 treatment plants (1,925), and power plants (79) — most of which were located in the watersheds 

28 of the Atchafalaya/Vermilion Bays and Galveston Bays at the time of the inventory 

29 (NOAA 1995). The kinds of contaminants released range from nitrogen (from organic 

30 chemicals, petroleum refining, industrial plants, and pesticide sources), phosphorus, metals (zinc, 

31 arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury), and oil and grease, to elevated suspended solids 

32 (turbidity) and biocides and heat (from power plant cooling water discharges). Nonpoint sources 

33 release pollutants to the GOM via rivers and on-land drainages and are primarily from urban and 

34 agricultural runoff (containing animal waste and residual fertilizer, in particular nitrogen and 

35 phosphorous compounds), but also originate from seepage from landfills and industrial facilities 

36 and various kinds of on-land spills. These sources (together with similar sources from Mexico) 

37 combine to degrade water quality in the GOM, especially in coastal waters. Coastal water 

38 quality is also adversely affected by the loss of wetlands (Section 3.7.1).

39

40 Activities taking place within GOM waters also contribute to the degradation of water 

41 quality in the GOM. These include sediment dredging and disposal (suspended sediments and 

42 contaminants), LNG terminal operations (biocide-laden, cooled water), and activities related to 

43 the oil and gas industry, which operates hundreds of platforms in State and Federal waters and 

44 discharges large volumes of drilling wastes, produced water, and other industrial waste streams 

45 into GOM waters. Hydrocarbon releases through natural oil seeps along the continental slope 

46 and accidental oil spills are additional sources of water and sediment contamination. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-517

1 There are 27 designated ocean dredged material disposal sites in the GOM, including 

2 21 off the coast of Texas and Louisiana and in the Mississippi River GOM outlet. Dredging 

3 operations are routinely conducted for channel construction and maintenance, pipeline 

4 emplacement, access to support facilities, creation of harbor and docking areas, and siting for

5 onshore facilities. Offshore disposal, authorized under Title I of the Marine Protection, Research

6 and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended (33 USC 1401), and the Federal Water Pollution

7 Control Act, as amended (33 USC 1251), consists primarily of dredged sediments but may also 

8 include fish wastes and vessels. The site management and monitoring plans for many of these 

9 sites are available on the USEPA‘s website (http://www.epa.gov). The USACE maintains an 

10 online database that tracks the projects (including quantities of materials, dredging and transport 

11 methods, and dumping frequency, size, and location) that dispose of materials at designated 

12 offshore disposal sites (http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/odd). The direct impacts of dredging on 

13 water quality (increased turbidity and decreased dissolved oxygen at the dredge site) are fairly 

14 short lived; however, the long-term landscape-scale changes can have significant adverse 

15 impacts on aquatic organisms and their habitats (Nightingale and Simenstad 2001) 

16 (Sections 4.6.3 and 4.6.4).

17

18 Currently, there is only one offshore LNG terminal in the GOM (Gulf Gateway 

19 Deepwater Port off the coast of Louisiana). However, natural gas demand growth in the 

20 United States has accelerated since the 1980s, and LNG imports are expected to increase 

21 significantly to meet this demand. As a result, 25 LNG terminal proposals have been approved 

22 to serve the U.S. market (Parfomak and Vann 2009). At least seven new licenses have been 

23 issued for additional facilities in the GOM, and it is anticipated that more LNG facilities will be 

24 built over the coming decades (USDOT 2011c) (Section 4.6.1.5). The impacts of LNG transport

25 and LNG receiving terminals are associated with explosions and fires and with the cryogenic and 

26 cooling effects of either an accidental release of LNG or the release of cooled water during the 

27 vaporization process.

28

29 The majority of oil released to the GOM comes from chronic releases, mainly from 

30 naturally occurring seeps and runoff from land-based sources (NRC 2003b). Oil seeps are 

31 estimated to contribute up to 62% of the oil input in U.S. marine waters overall; runoff from 

32 land-based sources, about 21% (NRC 2003b). As many as 350 crude oil and tar seeps have been 

33 identified in the GOM. Seepage rates for the northern part of the GOM (along the continental 

slope) have been estimated at about 73,000 tons (526,000 bbl) per year,27 34 about twice that 

35 estimated for spills from the OCS program (based on a worst-case scenario of about 230,000 bbl 

36 per year, excluding catastrophic events; Table 4.6.2-3). Spills associated with the proposed 

37 action (based on a worst-case scenario of about 44,300 bbl per year, excluding catastrophic 

38 events (Table 4.4.2-1) represent a small fraction, about 6%, of the combined annual oil inputs 

39 from oil seeps and oil spills (from pipelines, platforms, and tankers/barges and incidental spills) 

40 from the OCS program over the next 40 yr. Natural gas seeps are also common, but little is 

41 known about their seepage rates (Kvenvolden and Cooper 2003). 

42

 

27 Total estimates for the GOM, taking into account oil seeping from the Campeche Basin offshore of Mexico in 

the southern part of the Gulf, run as high as 140,000 tons (1 Mbbl) per year (Kvenvolden and Cooper 2003). 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-518

1 The second largest contribution to oil releases in U.S. marine waters overall is related to 

2 oil consumption (about 32%): land-based runoff and river discharge (21%), recreational marine 

3 and non-tank vessels (2.6%), tank vessel operational discharges (<1%), atmospheric deposition 

4 (8.1%), and jettisoned aircraft fuel (<1%). Other important sources of oil releases include those 

5 associated with non-OCS program oil extraction/transportation activities (about 4.7% in total): 

6 platforms, produced water, atmospheric deposition, pipeline and tank vessel spills, operational 

7 discharges (cargo washings), and coastal facility spills (NRC 2003b).

8

9 Another issue of importance to the water quality in the GOM concerns the hypoxic zone 

10 in the GOM coast shelf waters (offshore of Louisiana and Texas to the west of the Mississippi 

11 Delta). The hypoxic zone is an area near the sea bottom that contains less than 2 ppm of 

12 dissolved oxygen, causing a condition of hypoxia that is inhospitable to fish and causes stress or 

13 death to benthic organisms (USGS 2011c). It is the second largest area of oxygen-depleted 

waters in the world, with an area of about 22,015 km2 (98,500 mi2 14 ) (in 2002). The hypoxic zone 

15 is attributed to water column stratification (driven by weather and river flow) and the 

16 decomposition of organic matter in bottom waters, as well as organic matter and nutrients (that 

17 fuel phytoplankton growth) carried by the Mississippi River. The USEPA predicts that the 

hypoxic zone will cover an average area of 24,400 km2 (9,420 mi2 18 ) in the summer of 2011, the 

19 largest area recorded since systematic mapping of the zone began (USEPA 2011f). The 

20 proposed action is not expected to have a large effect on the hypoxic zone, because inflows of 

21 contaminants causing hypoxia are mainly from Mississippi River waters discharging to the 

22 GOM.

23

24 Catastrophic oil spills are rare events, but their releases have a high potential to degrade 

25 water quality in both coastal and deep waters. The 2010 DWH event released an estimated 

4.9 Mbbl. In response to the spill, 7,000 m3 26 (1.84 million gal) of chemical dispersants were also 

27 released (Section 3.4.1.3). The short- and long-term impacts of the spill on water quality in the 

28 GOM are still being assessed, but as of January 2011, oiling was still present on many shorelines 

29 and on barrier islands. Although traces of oil and dispersant were found in the offshore and 

30 deepwater zones, water quality benchmarks (for oil- and dispersant-related chemicals) were not 

31 exceeded in samples collected. In its August 2010 assessment, the National Incident Command 

32 (NIC) estimated that half of the oil was removed from the water column either by direct 

33 recovery, by burning or skimming, or by evaporation and dissolution. Another 24% was 

34 dispersed. About 26% of the oil (an estimated 1.3 Mbbl) remained on or near the water surface, 

35 or was deposited onshore, or buried in sand and sediments. The Georgia Sea Grant Oil Spill 

36 Update, published on August 17, 2010, estimated that between 70 and 79% (2.9 and 3.2 Mbbl) of 

37 the oil spilled during the 2010 DWH event remains at or below the water surface. It 

38 recommended further assessment of dispersed and dissolved forms of oil to determine its 

39 potential threat to the ecosystem because such forms of oil remain highly toxic 

40 (Hopkinson 2010).

41

42 Climate change predictions are based on models that simulate all relevant physical 

43 processes under a variety of projected greenhouse gas emission scenarios (Section 3.3). Because 

44 the complexity of modeling global and regional climate systems is so great, uncertainty in 

45 climate projections can never be eliminated. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-519

1 (IPCC) projections relating generally to water and water quality over the next two decades 

2 include:

3

4 • Sea level will rise by 0.18 to 0.59 m (0.6 to 2 ft) by the end of the twenty-first

5 century;

6

7 • Sea ice, glaciers, and ice sheets in polar regions will continue melting;

8

9 • Ocean pH will decrease by 0.14 to 0.35 over the twenty-first century;

10

11 • Tropical cyclones will become more intense (>66% likely);

12

13 • Precipitation will increase at high latitudes (>90% likely); and

14

15 • Annual river discharges (runoff) will increase by 10 to 40% at high latitudes 

16 and decrease by 10 to 30% in the dry regions at mid-latitudes.

17

18 The GOM region has already experienced increasing atmospheric temperatures since the 

19 1960s. From 1900 to 1991, sea surface temperatures increased in coastal areas and decreased in 

20 offshore areas. Sea level rise along the northern coast is as high as 0.01 m/yr (0.03 ft/yr) and has 

21 contributed to the loss of coastal wetland and mangroves and increased the rates of shoreline 

22 erosion. Future sea level rise is expected to cause saltwater intrusion into coastal aquifers, 

23 potentially making some unsuitable as potable water supplies (Section 3.3.1).

24

25 Significant changes (increases or decreases) in precipitation and river discharges to the 

26 GOM would affect salinity and water circulation — which in turn affects water quality. Water 

27 quality impacts associated with increased river discharges result from increases in nutrients 

28 (nitrogen and phosphorous) and contaminants to estuaries, increases in harmful algal blooms, 

29 and an increase in stratification. Such changes could also affect dissolved oxygen content and 

30 the extent of the GOM hypoxic zone. Decreased discharge would diminish the flushing of 

31 estuaries and increase concentrations of pathogens. 

32

33 Conclusion. Water quality in coastal and marine waters would be impacted by the 

34 following activities associated with the proposed action: vessel traffic, well drilling, pipelines 

35 (trenching, landfalls, and construction), chemical releases (drilling, operation discharges, and 

36 sanitary wastes), platforms (anchoring, mooring, and removal, except in deep waters), 

37 construction of shore-based infrastructure (coastal waters only), and accidental oil spills. Coastal 

38 water in the GOM is also affected by numerous other factors, including river inflows, 

39 urbanization, agricultural practices, municipal waste discharges, and coastal industry. Non-OCS 

40 program activities likely to contribute to cumulative impacts include marine vessel traffic, 

41 wastewater discharge to coastal and marine waters, dredging and marine disposal, oil and gas 

42 production in State-owned marine waters, hard mineral mining, oil- and gas-related 

43 infrastructure, military operations, and renewable energy development. Natural seepage of oil 

44 along the continental slope is also significant. The cumulative impacts on GOM water quality 

45 from all OCS and non-OCS activities in the GOM over the next 40 to 50 yr are expected to be 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-520

1 moderate, and the incremental contribution of the routine Program activities to water quality 

2 impacts would be small (see Section 4.4.3.1). 

3

4 The USEPA, in collaboration with other Federal and coastal State agencies, has assessed 

5 the coastal conditions of each region of the United States, including the GOM coast, by 

6 evaluating five indicators of condition, one of which was water quality, based on such 

parameters as dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a, nitrogen, phosphorus, and water clarity. 7 28 The 

8 most recent assessment found the overall condition of the coastal waters of the GOM coast 

9 region to be fair to poor, with an overall condition rating score of 2.2 (on a 5.0-point scale) and 

10 an individual indicator score of 3.0 for water quality. Parameters such as dissolved oxygen and 

water clarity vary in relation to climatic factors (e.g., annual rainfall) (USEPA 2008b).29 11 In 

12 addition, the hypoxic zone is predicted to cover a larger area of the GOM shelf than in any other 

13 year since it has been measured. 

14

15 The number of accidental spills in GOM waters for most activities associated with the 

16 proposed action would represent only a small increase over the number of expected spills from 

17 ongoing OCS and non-OCS program activities, and a very small increase relative to releases 

18 from naturally occurring oil seeps (except for catastrophic spills). The incremental increase in 

19 adverse water quality impacts from these spills would depend on the weather and sea conditions 

20 at the spill location, the type of waves and tidal energy at the spill locations, the type of oil 

21 spilled (very light to very heavy), the depth of the spill event (deep water, shallow water, or 

22 surface water), and the volume and rate of spillage. Spill response and cleanup activities 

23 (e.g., in situ burning and use of chemical dispersants) could contribute to these impacts. A more 

24 detailed discussion of the effects of oil spills on water quality in the GOM is presented in 

25 Section 4.4.3.1.2.

26

27

28 4.6.2.1.2 Air Quality. Section 4.4.4 discusses air quality impacts on onshore and 

29 offshore areas of the GOM resulting from the proposed action (OCS program activities from 

30 2012 to 2017). Cumulative impacts on air quality result from the incremental impacts of the 

31 proposed action (described in Section 4.4.4) when added to impacts from existing and reasonably 

32 foreseeable future OCS program activities (that are not part of the proposed action) and other 

33 non-OCS program activities. Table 4.6.1-1 presents the exploration and development scenario 

34 for the GOM cumulative case (encompassing the proposed action and other OCS program 

35 activities). Non-OCS program activities also contribute to adverse cumulative impacts on air 

36 quality in the GOM; they are discussed below.

37

38 Ongoing and future routine OCS program activities, including those of the proposed 

39 action, involve production platforms, exploration wells, platform construction and removal, 

 

28 Other indicators used to assess coast conditions include sediment quality (toxicity, contaminants, and total 

organic carbon), benthic community condition, coastal habitat loss, and fish tissue contaminants. The 

assessment found sediment quality in the Gulf coast region also to be poor (with sediments containing pesticides, 

metals, PCBs, and PAHs) (USEPA 2008b).

29 The water quality score does not include the impact of the hypoxic zone in offshore Gulf coast waters or the 

recent DWH oil spill (USEPA 2008b).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-521

1 marine vessels (pipelaying, support, and survey), helicopters, and tanker and barge transport. All 

2 these activities have the potential to adversely affect air quality in the GOM. Accidental oil 

3 spills are also counted among OCS program-related activities; assumptions for oil spills under 

4 the cumulative case scenario are provided in Table 4.6.1-3. Other emission sources on the OCS 

5 that are not associated with oil and gas development activities include commercial marine 

6 vessels, commercial and recreational fishing, tanker lightering, military vessels, and natural 

7 sources such as oil or gas seeps. Onshore emission sources include power generation, industrial 

8 processing, manufacturing, refineries, commercial and home heating, on-road vehicles, and non9 road engines (e.g., aircraft, locomotives, and construction equipment). 

10

11 Criteria Pollutants. Over the past 20 yr, the USEPA has promulgated a series of 

12 measures to reduce regional and nationwide emissions from fuel combustion sources (e.g., diesel 

13 marine engines), and the beneficial effects of these measures are evident in the data collected in 

14 2006 (the most recent year for which data are reported). NOx emissions, mainly from 

15 transportation and fuel combustion sources, decreased nationwide by about 29% between 1990 

16 and 2006. Most of the reductions in NOx emissions occurred between 1998 and 2006 and are 

17 attributed to implementation of the Acid Rain Program and the NOx State Implementation Plan 

18 (SIP) Call. SO2 emissions, mainly from fuel combustion, industrial processes, and transportation 

19 sources, also decreased nationwide by about 38% between 1990 and 2006. During this same 

20 period, emissions from PM2.5, PM10, and CO decreased by 14, 30, and 38%, respectively 

21 (USEPA 2008c). At the State level, data collected between 1990 and 2002 indicate overall 

22 emissions have also declined in the five GOM coast States (Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, 

23 Mississippi, and Texas) in total: NOx, down by 31%; SO2, down by 15%; PM10, down by 34%; 

24 and VOCs, down by 8%. Increases were observed only in Florida (NOx up by 15% and VOCs 

25 up by 20%) and Alabama (VOCs up by 2%) during this period (USEPA 2011h).

26

27 Table 4.6.2-2 lists the estimated annual emissions associated with all ongoing and future 

28 OCS oil and gas activities in the GOM over the next 40 to 50 yr. These emissions were 

29 estimated by BOEM using emission factors from the 2008 Gulfwide Emission Inventory Study

30 (Wilson et al. 2010). In terms of absolute amounts, the largest emissions would be NOx, 

31 followed by CO, with lesser amounts of VOC, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5, in order of decreasing 

32 emissions. Under both the high and low scenarios, support vessels would be the largest source of 

33 NOx, SOx, and PM; production platforms would be the largest source of VOC and CO. 

34 Emissions from the Program (proposed action) generally represent about 27% of the cumulative 

35 case emissions.

36

37 Table 4.6.2-2 also presents the emissions calculated from an inventory of all non-OCS 

38 activities collected by Wilson et al. (2010) in calendar year 2008. The non-OCS program 

39 emissions estimates are based on the same source categories as for the OCS oil and gas program, 

40 but also include biogenic/geogenic sources; commercial fishing, marine, and military vessels; the 

41 Louisiana offshore oil port; and vessel lightering. The estimated OCS program annual emissions 

42 for the cumulative case are greater than those measured for non-OCS program activities in 

43 calendar year 2008 for all pollutants except SOx. Many OCS and non-OCS program activities 

44 (e.g., support, commercial, and military marine vessel trips) are expected to increase in the 

45 future; however, emissions related to these activities are expected to be reduced by meeting 

46 USEPA standards.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-522

1 TABLE 4.6.2-2 Estimated Total Air Emissions for OCS and Non-OCS Program Activities for the 

2 Gulf of Mexico Cumulative Case

Activity

Pollutant (tons/yr)a

NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO VOC

Well drilling (E&D) 34,865–44,826 4,437–5,705 615–791 606-779 8,385–

10,780

830-1,067

Well drilling (D&P) 33,924-48,418 4,318–6,162 599–854 590-841 8,158–

11,644

807–1,152

Platform installation/removal 1,257–1,842 176–258 29–42 29-42 159–234 29–42

Pipeline installation 10,925–23,762 1,855–4,035 412–897 412-897 2,268–4,932 412–897

Production platforms 71,080–

104,176

1,738–2,547 661–969 656-961 79,611–

116,680

45,404–

66,545

Support vessels 127,954–

187,532

17,242–

25,270

2,216–3,248 2,216-

3,248

12,188–

17,863

2,216–3,248

Helicopters 1,054–1,545 260–381 205–301 205-301 12,903–

18,911

2,548–3,735

Tankers loading 0-536 0-261 0-58 0-58 0-318 0-10,935

Tankers in transit 0-33,114 0-4,014 0-502 0-502 0-2,759 0-10,184

Tankers unloading 0-1,534 0-261 0-58 0-58 0-318 5,497

Total (Cumulative OCS) 281,059–

448,283

30,026–

44,619

4,738–7,720 4,714-

7,687

123,672–

181,361

52,247–

87,621

Total (Proposed Action)b 60,019-

125,167

6,765-

14,440

1,058-2,268 1,051-

2,268

8,907-

22,692

23,510-

45,853

Year 2008 non-OCS 

emissionsc

100,880 52,022 7,004 6,481 8,432 22,442

a The range of values reflects the low and high end of the exploration and development scenarios for the cumulative 

scenario.

b Values from Table 4.4.4-1.

c Emissions are from inventory collected in calendar year 2008 and reported in Wilson et al. (2010).

3

4

5 The USEPA‘s Acid Rain Program (established under Title IV of the 1990 CAA

6 amendments) sets a permanent cap on the total amount of SO2 that can be released from the 

7 electric power sector, with the final 2010 cap set at 8.95 million tons (about half of the emissions 

8 from the electric power industry in 1980). NOx emissions from coal-fired boilers were also 

9 limited under the program (to about 8.1 million tons). Between 1980 and 2008, SO2 emissions 

10 were reduced by about 52% compared to 1990 levels. In 2008, SO2 emissions had already fallen 

11 below the emissions cap set for 2010 and monitoring data indicated the national composite 

12 average of SO2 mean ambient concentrations declined by 71% between 1980 and 2008. NOx

13 emissions from the electric power sector in 2008 were also greatly reduced (by as much as 63% 

14 relative to projected levels in 2000 without the program). The USEPA also reports significant 

15 improvements in acid deposition indicators (wet sulfate and nitrogen deposition) 

16 (USEPA 2011i).

17
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-523

1 The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule was finalized in 2011 (replacing the USEPA‘s 2005 

2 Clean Air Interstate Rule) and will take effect in 2012. The rule requires 27 States in the eastern 

3 half of the United States (including all of the GOM coast States) to reduce power plant emissions 

4 contributing to ozone and/or fine particulate pollution in other States by mandating significant 

5 reductions in SO2 and NOx emissions from power plants. The USEPA estimates that these 

6 actions will reduce SO2 and NOx emissions by 73% and 54%, respectively, from 2005 levels 

7 (USEPA 2011j).

8

9 The MMS (currently BOEM) performed a cumulative air quality modeling analysis of 

10 platform emissions in a portion of the GOM in 1992 (MMS 1997b). The modeling incorporated 

11 a 40% increase in emissions above the 1992 levels to account for growth in oil and gas 

12 development. Predicted concentrations were well within the NAAQS and the Prevention of 

13 Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class II maximum allowable increases. An inventory study in 

14 the Breton National Wilderness Area (BNWA), a Class I area under the USEPA‘s PSD

15 regulations, was conducted by the MMS to estimate the contribution of OCS and non-OCS 

program emissions to concentrations of NOx and SO2 in the BNWA30 16 (Billings and 

17 Wilson 2004). A recent modeling-based cumulative increment analysis for SO2 and NO2, 

18 conducted by MMS, considered the cumulative effect of all onshore and offshore emission 

19 sources in the area with respect to the baseline year (Wheeler et al. 2008). The model results are 

20 summarized as follows:

21

22 • The increase in the 3-hr SO2 concentration within the BNWA since 1977 (the 

baseline year) ranges from 0.42 to 1.70 μg/m3 23 ; the maximum increment of 

24 25.0 μg/m3 has not been exceeded within the BNWA but a small portion of 

25 the increment may have been consumed. The largest change within a 50-km 

(31-mi) radius of the BNWA is 2.6 μg/m3 26 and occurs to the south and east of 

27 Breton Island.

28

29 • The increase in the 24-hr SO2 concentration within the BNWA since 1977 

ranges from 0.11 to 1.18 μg/m3 30 ; the maximum increment of 5.0 μg/m3 has not 

31 been exceeded within the BNWA but a portion of the increment may have 

32 been consumed. The maximum 24-hr average SO2 has increased over most of 

33 the GOM since 1977; it has increased or decreased over land, depending on 

34 location. For example, it has decreased as much as 7.7 μg/m3 near Mobile, 

35 Alabama. In areas east of the Chandeleur Islands and southeast of the Breton 

Islands, it has increased between 1.0 and 1.64 μg/m3 36 .

37

38 • The annual SO2 concentration within the BNWA has decreased by 1.07 to 

1.89 μg/m3 39 since 1977. The decrease in annual SO2 is less than 0.5 μg/m3 

over much of the GOM and is greatest (more than 1.5 μg/m3 40 ) near the GOM

41 coast and inland over south Mississippi, Alabama, and eastern Louisiana. 

 

30 Under the CAA, water quality degradation is limited in Class I areas by establishing stringent ―increment‖ limits 

for NOx and SO2. These increments are the maximum increases in ambient pollutant concentrations allowed 

over baseline concentrations (Billings and Wilson 2004).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-524

1 Isolated increases at grid points in Louisiana and the GOM are likely due to 

2 local additions of SO2 point sources since 1977.

3

4 • The maximum increase in annual NO2 concentration within the BNWA since 

1988 (the baseline year) is 0.10 μg/m3 5 , well below the maximum allowable 

increment of 2.5 μg/m3 6 . Only a very small portion of the increment has been 

7 consumed. Since 1988, annual NO2 concentrations have decreased over land 

8 where controls have been implemented, but have increased over the GOM due 

9 to the addition of offshore NOx emission sources. The boundary between 

10 decreased onshore concentrations and increased offshore concentrations 

11 follows the southern Louisiana coastline then turns northeastward away from 

12 the Louisiana coast and over the GOM where it crosses the BNWA and runs 

13 through the northern part of the Chandeleur Island chain. Part of the BNWA 

14 has experienced an increase in NO2 concentrations since 1988. Larger 

15 increases are observed in areas within 75 km (47 mi) of the BNWA 

16 boundaries.

17

18 The BOEM continues to consult with the USFWS, which manages the BNWA, on any 

19 plans within 100 km (62 mi) of the BNWA. 

20

21 Ozone Formation. In the Nation‘s ozone (O3) nonattainment areas, emissions of NOx 

22 and VOCs are being reduced through the SIP process in order for those areas to achieve 

23 compliance with the national O3 standard. Prior to the revocation of the 1-hr O3 standard in 

24 2004, the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (Texas) and Baton Rouge (Louisiana) areas were 

25 classified as severe nonattainment; the Beaumont-Port Arthur (Texas) nonattainment 

26 classification was serious. While the 1-hr O3 standard no longer applies, the same emission 

27 controls will remain in effect while each State develops its plan to reach compliance with the 

28 new 8-hr standard. In October 2008, the USEPA reclassified the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 

29 O3 nonattainment area from a moderate 8-hr O3 attainment area to a severe 8-hr O3

30 nonattainment area and required the State to submit a revised SIP addressing the severe O3

31 requirements of the CAA (73 FR 56983). In September 2010, the USEPA published a notice 

32 that the Baton Rouge moderate 8-hr O3 attainment area had attained the 1997 8-hr O3 NAAQS 

33 (75 FR 54778); the Beaumont-Port Arthur area was also designated an attainment area for the 

34 1997 8-hr O3 NAAQS in 2010 (75 FR 64675). There are no O3 nonattainment areas in 

35 Alabama, Florida, or Mississippi.

36

37 Ozone levels in the southeast Texas have been in a steady downward trend since 1995.

38 The maximum observed fourth highest 8-hr O3 concentration in the Houston-Galveston area

39 decreased from about 0.140 parts per million (ppm) in 1995 to around 0.100 ppm in 2005. 

40 Ozone levels in the Baton Rouge area remained steady over the same period, but the number of 

41 exceedances of the O3 standard decreased. This data indicates that emission-reduction measures 

42 have been effective in reducing O3 levels. 

43

44 Modeling studies were performed using the preliminary emissions inventory prepared by 

45 Wilson et al. (2004) to examine the O3 impacts with respect to the 8-hr O3 standard of 80 parts 

46 per billion (ppb). One modeling study focused on the coastal areas of Louisiana extending 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-525

1 eastward to Florida (Haney et al. 2004). This study showed that the impacts of OCS emissions 

2 on onshore O3 levels were very small, with the maximum contribution at locations where the 

3 standard of 1 ppb or less was exceeded. Another study, conducted by Yarwood et al. (2004), 

4 evaluated O3 levels in southeast Texas. The results of this study indicated a maximum 

5 contribution to areas exceeding the standard of 0.2 ppb or less. The projected emissions for the 

6 cumulative case would be about the same as the emissions used in these modeling studies. The 

7 contributions to O3 levels would therefore be similar. As emissions within the nonattainment 

8 areas are expected to decrease further in the future, the cumulative impacts from the OCS oil and 

9 gas program on O3 levels would likely be reduced. 

10

11 Visibility Impairment. Gaseous and fine particulate matter in the atmosphere can 

12 potentially degrade atmospheric visibility. Existing visibility in the eastern United States, 

13 including the GOM coast States, is impaired due to fine particulate matter containing primarily 

14 sulfates and carbonaceous material. High humidity is an important factor in visibility 

15 impairment in the GOM coastal areas. The absorption of water by the particulate matter makes 

16 them grow to a size that enhances their ability to scatter light and reduce visibility. The 

17 estimated natural mean visibility in the eastern United States is 97 to 129 km (60 to 80 mi) 

18 (Malm 1999).

19

20 Based on data presented by Malm (2000), the observed mean visual range in coastal 

21 Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama is about 38 to 48 km (24 to 30 mi). In the Texas coastal 

22 areas, the average visibility is about 48 to 64 km (30 to 40 mi). In the GOM coast States, about 

23 60 to 70% of the human-induced visibility degradation (impairment) is attributed to sulfate 

24 particles, while about 20% is from organic or elemental carbon particles. About 8% of the 

25 visibility degradation is attributed to nitrate particles (Malm 2000; USEPA 2001).

26

27 Visibility degradation in large urban areas, such as Houston, can be especially 

28 pronounced during air pollution episodes. In some severe cases, it may hinder navigation by 

29 boats and aircraft. Degraded visibility also adds to the perception by the observer of bad air 

30 quality even when monitors do not record unhealthful pollutant levels. 

31

32 A study of visibility from platforms off Louisiana revealed that significant reductions in 

33 Louisiana coastal and offshore visibility are almost entirely due to transient occurrences of fog 

34 (Hsu and Blanchard 2005). Episodes of haze are short-lived and affect visibility much less. 

35 Offshore haze often appears to result from plume drift generated from coastal sources. The 

36 application of visibility screening models to individual OCS facilities has shown that the 

37 emissions from a single facility are not large enough to significantly impair visibility. It is not 

38 known to what extent aggregate OCS sources contribute to visibility reductions; however, the 

39 effects from OCS sources are likely to be very minor because offshore emissions are 

40 substantially smaller than the onshore emissions. 

41

42 In July 1999, the USEPA published its Regional Haze Regulations Final Rule to address 

43 visibility impairment in the Nation‘s National Parks and Wilderness Areas (64 FR 35714). 

44 These regulations established goals for improving visibility in Class I areas through long-term 

45 strategies for reducing emissions of air pollutants that cause visibility impairment. The rule 

46 requires States to establish goals for each affected Class I area to improve visibility on the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-526

1 haziest days and to ensure no degradation occurs on the clearest days. Since visibility 

2 impairment involves considerable cross-boundary transport of air pollutants, States are 

3 encouraged to coordinate their efforts through regional planning organizations. Texas and 

4 Louisiana are part of the Central States Regional Air Planning Association. Mississippi, 

5 Alabama, and Florida are members of the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of 

6 the Southeast. The USEPA provides funding to the regional planning organizations to address 

7 regional haze by developing regional strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter and 

8 other pollutants that lead to haze (USEPA 2011k). 

9

10 The Regional Haze Regulations along with the rules on ozone and acid rain should result 

11 in a lowering of regional emissions and improvement in visibility. Projected emissions from all 

12 cumulative OCS program activities are not expected to be substantially different from year 2000 

13 emissions. The contribution of OCS program-related emissions to visibility impairment is 

14 expected to be very minor. 

15

16 Conclusion. The effects of various USEPA regulations and standards are expected to 

17 result in a steady, downward trend in future air emissions. This trend should be realized in spite 

18 of continued industrial and population growth along the GOM coast. Previous O3 nonattainment 

19 areas in the GOM coast region (Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas, and Baton Rouge, Louisiana) 

20 were reclassified as attainment areas in 2010. States such as Texas are required to implement 

21 SIPs to reduce emissions in their O3 nonattainment areas. The overall cumulative impacts on air 

22 quality in the GOM over the next 40 to 50 yr are expected to be minor to moderate, and the 

23 incremental contribution of the routine Program activities to air quality impacts would be small 

24 (see Section 4.4.4.1).

25

26 The OCS program contributes slightly to onshore levels of NO2, SO2, and PM10, but 

27 concentrations are well within the national standards and PSD increments. The effects from 

28 future OCS program activities are expected to remain about the same as in previous years. 

29 Portions of the GOM coast region have O3 levels that exceed the Federal standard, but the 

30 contribution from all OCS program activities to ozone levels is very small (about 1%; see 

31 Section 4.4.4.1.1). Ozone levels are on a declining trend due to air pollution control measures 

32 that have been implemented by the States. This trend is expected to continue as a result of local 

33 as well as nationwide control efforts. The contribution of the Program to onshore O3 would 

34 therefore remain very small. The GOM coast region has significant visibility impairment from 

35 anthropogenic emission sources. However, visibility is expected to improve somewhat as a 

36 result of regional and national programs to reduce emissions. The contribution from OCS 

37 program activities to visibility impairment, therefore, is expected to remain small. 

38

39 Impacts from the evaporation of accidental oil spills for the cumulative case would be 

40 similar to those for the Program (see Section 4.4.4.1.2). Since impacts from individual spills 

41 would be localized and temporary (due to the spreading of oil and action by winds, waves, and 

42 currents that disperse volatile compounds to extremely low levels over a relatively larger area), 

43 the magnitude of their impacts would be no different from those associated with the proposed 

44 action. However, as many as 330 small (greater than 50 bbl and less than 1,000 bbl) and 40 large 

45 oil spills (greater than 1,000 bbl; with the largest spills from tanker vessels) are projected to 

46 occur over the 40 to 50 yr. Impacts from fires would also be localized and short in duration. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-527

1 A more detailed discussion of the effects of oil spills on air quality in the GOM is presented in 

2 Section 4.4.4.1.2.

3

4

5 4.6.2.1.3 Acoustic Environment. Section 4.4.5.1 discusses impacts on the acoustic 

6 environment in the GOM resulting from the proposed action (OCS program activities from 2012 

7 to 2017). Section 4.4.7 evaluates the direct and indirect impacts of noise on marine fauna 

8 (mammals, birds, and fish), and Section 4.6.4 addresses the cumulative impacts of noise on 

9 marine fauna. Cumulative impacts on the acoustic environment result from the incremental 

10 impacts of the proposed action when added to impacts from existing and reasonably foreseeable 

11 future OCS program activities (that are not part of the proposed action) and other non-OCS 

12 program activities. Table 4.6.1-1 presents the exploration and development scenario for the 

13 GOM cumulative case (encompassing the proposed action and other OCS program activities). 

14 Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable non-OCS program activities contributing to adverse 

15 cumulative impacts on the acoustic environment in the GOM include marine subsurface and 

16 surface vessel traffic, aircraft traffic (helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft), dredging, construction 

17 of onshore and offshore facilities (e.g., production platforms and drilling rigs in State waters), 

18 LNG facility operations, renewable energy projects (foreseeable), marine geophysical (seismic) 

19 surveys, active sonars, underwater explosions, ocean science studies, and mining operations. 

20 This section addresses the quality of the acoustic environment only; the cumulative impacts of 

21 noise on GOM marine fauna are discussed in Section 4.6.4.1. 

22

23 Ambient (background) noise has numerous natural and man-made sources that vary with 

24 respect to season, location, depth of occurrence, time of day, and noise characteristics 

(e.g., frequency and duration).31 25 Natural sources of ambient noise include wind and waves, surfs 

26 (produced by waves breaking onshore), precipitation (rain and hail), lightning, volcanic and 

27 tectonic noise, and biological noise (from fishes, shrimp, and marine mammals). Vessels are the 

28 greatest man-made contributors to overall marine noise in the GOM. Underwater explosions in 

29 open water are the strongest point sources of man-made sound. Baseline acoustic conditions in 

30 the GOM are discussed in more detail in Section 3.6.1.

31

32 Ongoing and future routine OCS program activities, including those of the proposed 

33 action, that generate noise include operating air gun arrays (during marine seismic surveys), 

34 drilling, pipeline trenching, and onshore and offshore construction and decommissioning of 

35 platforms and drilling rigs. Vessel and aircraft traffic (including those associated with 

36 emergency-response and cleanup activities in the event of a spill), accidental releases (e.g., loss 

37 of well control events), and vessel collisions also contribute to noise. A preliminary study of the 

38 noise impacts of OCS-related geophysical surveys found that marine seismic surveys have the 

39 greatest impact on marine mammals, sea turtles, fish, and commercial and recreational fisheries 

40 (MMS 2004a). Noise generated from OCS and non-OCS program activities would be 

41 transmitted through both air and water, and may be transient or more extended (occurring over 

42 the long term).

 

31 Higher frequencies are attenuated with distance from the source more rapidly than lower frequencies. Traffic 

noise generated in deep water contributes to background noise levels at greater distances than traffic noise 

generated in shallow water.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-528

1 Conclusion. The quality of the acoustic environment in the GOM would continue to be 

2 adversely affected by ongoing and future OCS program and non-OCS program activities. 

3 Activities under the proposed action would contribute to adverse cumulative impacts on the 

4 quality of the acoustic environment in the GOM. The magnitude of cumulative impacts in the 

5 GOM is time- and location-specific and could range from minor to major, depending on the 

6 ambient acoustic conditions and the nature and combination of all OCS and non-OCS program 

7 activities in the GOM over the next 40 to 50 yr, and the incremental contributions due to noise 

8 generated by routine Program activities (minor impacts) would also vary with time and location 

9 and would depend on the characteristics of noise sources present (e.g., their frequency and 

10 duration). The cumulative impacts of noise on marine fauna are discussed in Section 4.6.4.

11

12

13 4.6.2.2 Alaska Region – Cook Inlet

14

15

16 4.6.2.2.1 Water Quality. Section 4.4.3.2 discusses water quality impacts in coastal and 

17 marine waters in the Cook Inlet resulting from the proposed action (OCS program activities from 

18 2012 to 2017). Cumulative impacts on water quality result from the incremental impacts of the 

19 proposed action when added to impacts from reasonably foreseeable future non-OCS program 

20 activities. Table 4.6.1-2 presents the exploration and development scenario for the Cook Inlet 

21 cumulative case. Non-OCS program activities contributing to adverse cumulative impacts on 

22 water quality in Cook Inlet are summarized in Table 4.6.2-3.

23

24 OCS program activities (i.e., those of the proposed action; there are no existing OCS 

25 program activities) involve vessel traffic, chemical releases (permitted discharges), and 

26 disturbance of bottom sediments. Accidental oil spills are also counted among OCS program27 related activities; assumptions for oil spills under the cumulative case scenario are provided in 

28 Table 4.6.1-3. All these activities have the potential to adversely affect water quality in Cook 

29 Inlet. 

30

31 OCS program-related marine vessel traffic in Cook Inlet could be as high as one to 

32 three trips per week over the next 40 yr, all of which are associated with the proposed action. 

33 Extensive non-OCS program marine traffic also occurs in Cook Inlet. Non-OCS program traffic 

34 includes that related to crude oil and finished product transport, LNG and ammonia carriers (at 

35 the Nikiski industrial complex), commercial fishing boats, and cruise ships. Fuel barge traffic is 

36 minimal since much of the refined oil for regional consumption is transported to Anchorage by a 

37 pipeline from the Tesoro refinery in Nikiski. An estimated 704 large vessels (other than fuel 

38 barges on domestic trade) called at Cook Inlet ports between January 1, 2005, and July 15, 2006. 

39 About 65% of these were made by container vessels, roll-on/roll-off cargo ships, or ferries; 29% 

40 were gas or liquid tank ships calling at Nikiski. The remaining traffic consisted of bulk carriers, 

41 general cargo ships, tugs, and fishing and passenger vessels. Impacts on water quality from 

42 vessel traffic in Cook Inlet result mainly from oil and gasoline spills when vessels run aground, 

43 collide, catch fire, or sink (Eley 2006).

44

45 The number of production wells and oil platforms constructed over the period of the 

46 Program (at most, 114 and 3, respectively) will be proportional to the amount of oil produced 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-529

1 TABLE 4.6.2-3 Ongoing and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Non-OCS Activities Contributing to Cumulative Impacts on Water 

2 Quality – Cook Inlet

Type of Action

Associated Activities and

Facilities (Impacting Factors) Description

Marine vessel traffic Accidental oil spills Large vessel calls at marine facilities and terminals totaled 704 between 

January 1, 2005, and July 15, 2006. Most of these calls (65%) were container 

vessels, roll-on/roll-off cargo ships, or ferries; 29% were gas or liquid 

tankships. Another 6% were bulk carriers and general cargo; another 2% 

were tugs and fishing and passenger vessels. Facilities in Cook Inlet include 

the Nikiski industrial complex terminals (between Homer and Anchorage), 

the Port of Anchorage docks, and the Drift River terminal (37 km [23 mi] 

west-southwest of Nikiski) (Eley 2006).

Nikiski industrial complex Permitted discharge points

Pollutant releases via surface runoff 

(non-point discharges)

Accidental oil or chemical spills

Increased risk of explosions and fires

Cooled water and biocide releases 

(LNG plant)

Increased vehicle and marine traffic

The LNG plant on the East Foreland peninsula of Cook Inlet (at Nikiski) is 

currently the only LNG export operation in the United States; it exported 

about 30 Bcf of gas in 2010. The USDOE has extended the plant‘s export 

license to 2013; however, in February 2011, ConocoPhillips announced it 

would close the plant, citing concerns over the gas supply and the 

deteriorated LNG market in Asia (Bradner 2011).

See entry under ―Oil- and gas-related activities and infrastructure‖ (this 

table).

Wastewater discharge to Cook 

Inlet

Permitted discharge points

Pollutant releases via surface runoff

(non-point discharges)

The major point sources of pollution in Cook Inlet include discharges (by 

discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches) from municipal 

wastewater treatment plants (e.g., Anchorage), seafood processors, and the 

petroleum industry (MMS 1995a). Most of these activities would remain at 

present levels for the foreseeable future and are not expected to affect the 

overall water quality in Cook Inlet. Discharges are regulated through the 

USEPA NPDES permit program. Section 403 of the CWA established the 

Ocean Discharge Criteria, which provide additional requirements for these 

types of discharges. The Alaska Department of Environmental Quality issues 

all NPDES permits in Alaska except for those related to oil and gas, 

munitions, cooling water, pesticides, and offshore seafood processors, and

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-530

TABLE 4.6.2-3 (Cont.)

Type of Action

Associated Activities and

Facilities (Impacting Factors) Description

those on tribal lands. Current NPDES permits in Alaska are available on the 

USEPA website at http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/NPDES+Permits/

CurrentAK822.

Non-point sources of pollution include stormwater and snowmelt that runs 

over land or through the ground, entraining pollutants and depositing them 

into the inlet. (The Cook Inlet watershed is home to two-thirds of Alaska‘s 

population; therefore, the quality of runoff in the watershed is heavily 

influenced by human activity.) The most common forms of pollution in 

Alaska‘s urban runoff include fecal coliform, sedimentation, and petroleum. 

Snow disposal into the marine environment also introduces oil, grease, 

antifreeze, chemicals, trash, animal wastes, salt, and sediments (sand, gravel, 

suspended and dissolved solids) (ADEC 2007b). Non-point source 

management programs under Section 319 of the CWA regulate these 

pollutant sources. The USEPA and NOAA also co-administer State Coastal 

Non-Point Pollution Control Programs under Section 6217 of the Coastal 

Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (USEPA 2011).

Dredging and marine disposal Excavation of subaqueous sediments

Transport of sediments (by dredger or 

pipeline)

Relocation and disposal of sediments

The USACE currently has dredging projects in Anchorage Harbor, Homer 

Small Boat Harbor, and Ninilchik Harbor (Anderson 2010).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-531

TABLE 4.6.2-3 (Cont.)

Type of Action

Associated Activities and

Facilities (Impacting Factors) Description

Oil- and gas-related activities 

and infrastructure 

Port of Anchorage

Nikiski industrial complex

Exploration wells

Oil and gas pipelines

Tanker vessels

Onshore fuel storage tanks and transfer 

stations

Hazardous spills/releases

Except for the Beaver Creek Unit, all other oil-producing fields in Cook Inlet 

are in State waters (MMS 2003a). There are 15 active offshore production 

platforms in the inlet. Crude oil production is handled through the Trading 

Bay facility and the Tesoro refinery in Nikiski; natural gas is consumed 

locally and processed through several plants in Nikiski. There is also a LNG 

plant (Phillips Marathon) at Nikiski (slated to close in 2011. Most of Cook 

Inlet‘s oil reserves have been produced; oil production in the region, 

therefore, has been in decline since 1970. 

The Port of Anchorage stages all of the refined petroleum products from 

Fairbanks and facilitates petroleum deliveries from refiners on the Kenai 

Peninsula and in Valdez (it does not receive foreign crude oil imports). The 

port is currently undergoing expansion that would likely begin in 2013 

(Municipality of Anchorage 2011).

1
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-532

1 and reflects the total number of production wells and platforms anticipated to be built in Cook 

2 Inlet over the next 40 to 50 yr as part of the OCS program. The length of new pipeline (at most 

3 241 km [150 mi] offshore and 169 km [105 mi] onshore) added as part of the Program represents 

4 all of that anticipated over the next 40 yr as part of the OCS program.

5

6 The area of sea bottom disturbed from construction of platforms and pipelines over the 

7 period of the Program (as much as 260 ha [640 ac] total) also represents that associated with the 

8 OCS program over the next 40 to 50 yr. Bottom disturbance degrades water quality by 

9 increasing water turbidity (i.e., suspended sediment concentration) in the vicinity of the 

10 operations and adding contaminants to the water column. It also changes sediment composition 

11 as suspended sediments (and contaminants, if present) are entrained in currents and deposited in 

12 new locations.

13

14 As summarized in Section 3.4.2, the principal point sources of pollution in Cook Inlet 

15 include municipal discharges, as well as discharges from seafood processors and the petroleum 

16 industry. Point-source pollution is rapidly diluted by the energetic tidal currents in Cook Inlet, 

17 and the USEPA National Coastal Condition Report III has rated the coastal waters of south

18 central Alaska, including Cook Inlet, as good (although water clarity in upper Cook Inlet was 

19 rated poor because of very high loadings of glacial river sediments) (USEPA 2008b). Non-point 

20 sources release a range of contaminants via rivers and on-land drainages and are primarily from 

21 urban runoff (related to land development); forest practices (e.g., timber harvest operations); 

22 harbors and marinas; roads, highways, and bridges; hydromodification (related to dams, channel 

23 modification, and stream bank erosion); mining; and agriculture (ADEC 2007). Point-source 

24 discharges are anticipated to remain at present levels for the foreseeable future; non-point-source 

25 discharges should improve as a result of Alaska‘s water pollution control strategy (as outlined in 

26 ADEC 2007). Low concentrations of hydrocarbons are found throughout the waters of Cook 

27 Inlet and are attributed to natural sources — natural oil seeps, river discharges carrying carbon 

28 compounds of biogenic origin, and the deposition of fuel and natural organic matter (e.g., from 

29 fires) (MMS 2003a).

30

31 Activities taking place within Cook Inlet waters also contribute to the degradation of 

32 water quality. These include oil spills associated with vessel traffic, sediment dredging and 

33 disposal in local harbors (suspended sediments and contaminants), and activities related to the oil 

34 and gas industry, which operates platforms in State waters and discharges drilling wastes, 

35 produced water, and other industrial waste streams into Cook Inlet waters (MMS 2003a). 

36

37 Most of the oil released to Cook Inlet is from commercial and recreational vessels 

38 (MMS 2003a). Smalls spills (less than 1,000 bbl) from commercial and recreational vessels or 

39 from OCS program activities (e.g., accidental releases) are not expected to affect the overall 

40 quality of Cook Inlet water (because they would be localized and short in duration); however, 

41 large spills (greater than 1,000 bbl) could temporarily degrade the overall quality of its water 

42 (MMS 2003a). Oil spills in ice-covered waters during winter months are generally contained 

43 within a much smaller area (compared with spills in open waters) because oil weathering 

44 (i.e., spreading, evaporation, and migration) is much slower and some oil may solidify. While 

45 such factors have proven to be favorable for most response strategies, the presence of ice can 

46 also complicate response efforts. Spills on ice are fairly easy to detect and map, unless there is 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-533

1 fresh snowfall at the time of the spill; however, oil spilled within and under the ice can be hidden 

2 from view. Broken ice also makes spilled oil difficult to detect and map, and it can reduce the 

3 effectiveness of conventional recovery systems (MMS 2009b; DF Dickens Associates, 

4 Ltd. 2004).

5

6 Climate change predictions are based on models that simulate all relevant physical 

7 processes under a variety of projected greenhouse gas emission scenarios (Section 3.3). Because 

8 the complexity of modeling global and region climate systems is so great, uncertainty in climate 

9 projections can never be eliminated. The IPCC projections relating generally to water and water 

10 quality over the next two decades include:

11

12 • Sea level will rise by 0.18 to 0.59 m (0.6 to 2 ft) by the end of the twenty-first

13 century;

14

15 • Sea ice, glaciers, and ice sheets in polar regions will continue melting;

16

17 • Ocean pH will decrease by 0.14 to 0.35 over the twenty-first century;

18

19 • Precipitation will increase at high latitudes (>90% likely); and

20

21 • Annual river discharges (runoff) will increase by 10 to 40% at high latitudes 

22 and decrease by 10 to 30% in the dry regions at mid-latitudes.

23

24 Alaska has experienced extensive regional warming since the 1960s, with a rise in annual 

25 temperature of about 3°C (5°F) since the 1960s. The general effects of warming include the 

26 extensive melting of glaciers, thawing of permafrost, and increased precipitation (Section 3.3). 

27 Modeling studies of warming in Cook Inlet project very large warming trends, ranging from 4°C 

28 to 10°C (7°F to 18°F) by the year 2100; precipitation is projected to increase by 20 to 25% (Kyle 

29 and Brabets 2001).

30

31 Conclusion. Water quality in Cook Inlet would be impacted by the following activities 

32 associated with the proposed action: vessel traffic, chemical releases (sanitary wastes), 

33 disturbance of bottom sediments, and accidental oil spills (from vessels and the oil and gas 

34 industry). Water quality is also affected by many other factors, including river inflows, 

35 urbanization, forest practices, mining, and agriculture. Non-OCS program activities likely to 

36 contribute to cumulative impacts include marine vessel traffic, wastewater discharge to the inlet, 

37 dredging and marine disposal, and oil and gas related activities, as well as infrastructure in State38 owned marine waters. Natural seepage of oil along the west part of the inlet may also 

39 significant. The cumulative impacts on Cook Inlet water quality from all OCS and non-OCS 

40 activities in Cook Inlet over the next 40 to 50 yr are expected to be minor to moderate, and the 

41 incremental contribution of the routine Program activities to water quality impacts would be 

42 minor. These impacts may lessen with time since oil and gas production in the Cook Inlet is 

43 currently on the decline (see Section 4.4.3.2). 

44

45 The USEPA, in collaboration with other Federal and coastal State agencies, has assessed 

46 the coastal conditions of each region of the United States, including Cook Inlet, by evaluating 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-534

1 five indicators of condition, one of which was water quality, based on such parameters as 

2 dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a, nitrogen, phosphorus, and water clarity. The most recent 

3 assessment found the overall condition of the coastal waters of south-central Alaska, including 

4 Cook Inlet, good (although water clarity in upper Cook Inlet was rated poor). Point source 

5 discharges are anticipated to remain at present levels for the foreseeable future; non-point source 

6 discharges should improve as a result of Alaska‘s water pollution control strategy. Low 

7 concentrations of hydrocarbons are found throughout the waters of Cook Inlet and are attributed 

8 to natural sources.

9

10 The number of accidental spills in Cook Inlet waters for most activities associated with 

11 the proposed action would represent only a small increase over the number of expected spills 

12 from ongoing non-OCS program activities. The incremental increase in adverse water quality 

13 impacts from these spills would depend on the weather and sea conditions at the spill location

14 (e.g., whether ice is present), the type of waves and tidal energy at the spill locations, the type of 

15 oil spilled (very light to very heavy), the depth of the spill event (deep water, shallow water, or 

16 surface water), and the volume and rate of spillage. A more detailed discussion of the effects of 

17 oil spills on water quality in Cook Inlet is presented in Section 4.4.3.2.2.

18

19

20 4.6.2.2.2 Air Quality. Section 4.4.4.2 discusses air quality impacts in onshore and 

21 offshore areas of Cook Inlet resulting from the proposed action (OCS program activities from 

22 2012 to 2017). Cumulative impacts on air quality result from the incremental impacts of the 

23 proposed action when added to impacts from other reasonably foreseeable future OCS program 

activities.32 24 Table 4.6.1-2 presents the exploration and development scenario for the Cook Inlet 

25 cumulative case. Non-OCS program activities may also contribute to adverse cumulative 

26 impacts on air quality in the Cook Inlet region; they are discussed below.

27

28 OCS program activities, i.e., those of the proposed action (there are no existing OCS 

29 program activities), involve production platforms, exploration wells, platform construction and 

30 removal, marine vessels (pipelaying, support, and survey), helicopters, and tanker and barge 

31 transport. All these activities have the potential to adversely affect air quality in the Cook Inlet 

32 region via direct emissions or other releases to air (e.g., volatile components of fuel). Accidental 

33 oil spills are also counted among OCS program-related activities; assumptions for oil spills under 

34 the cumulative case scenario are provided in Table 4.6.1-3. Existing emission sources in the 

35 Cook Inlet Planning Area include oil production activities in State waters, onshore petroleum 

36 processing and refining, onshore oil and gas production, marine terminals, and commercial 

37 shipping. 

38

39 Except for a few population centers such as Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau, the 

40 existing air quality in Alaska is relatively pristine, with pollutant concentrations well within 

41 ambient standards (Section 3.5.2.2). The primary industrial emissions in the Cook Inlet region 

42 are associated with oil and gas production, power generation, small refineries, paper mills, and 

43 mining. Other sources include vessel traffic in Cook Inlet and emissions from on-land motor 

 

32 Currently, there are no existing OCS activities in Cook Inlet and no future activities other than those planned for 

the 2012-2017 OCS program.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-535

1 vehicles and refuse burning (MMS 2003a). While some growth of these activities is likely to 

2 take place in the future, overall emissions are expected to remain low. More stringent emission 

3 standards on motor vehicles and new USEPA standards on non-road engines and marine vessels 

4 would result in a downward trend in emissions.

5

6 Modeling studies of proposed OCS production facilities in the Cook Inlet show that 

7 concentrations of NO2, SO2, and PM10 are within the PSD Class II and Class I maximum 

8 allowable increments and the NAAQS. Pollutant concentrations within the Tuxedni NWA, the 

9 only Class I area adjacent to the Cook Inlet Planning Area, exceed the Class I significance levels. 

10 As a consequence, any proposed facilities that would exceed the Class I significance levels, 

11 would need a comprehensive PSD increment consumption analysis done before permitting 

12 (MMS 2003a). 

13

14 The baseline conditions and impacts from OCS activities on ozone and visibility are 

15 discussed in Sections 3.5.2.2 and 4.4.4.2, respectively. Because conditions in Alaska are seldom 

16 favorable for significant O3 formation, the contribution of leasing activity associated with the 

17 Program to O3 levels in the Cook Inlet region is expected to be small. OCS emission sources 

18 affecting visibility are also small; however, preliminary visibility screening for the Tuxedni 

19 NWA suggests sources within about 50 km (30 mi) may result in a plume visible from the site 

20 (MMS 2003a). 

21

22 Accidental oil spills are sources of gaseous emissions. No more than one large spill 

23 (greater than 1,000 bbl) and 15 small spills (less than 50 bbl) are projected for the Cook Inlet 

24 Planning Area cumulative case as a result of the OCS program. Most accidental spills in the 

25 Cook Inlet region are of non-crude products caused by onshore train derailments, pipeline 

26 failures, and leaks (crude oil comprises about 4% of all product spills) (ADEC 2007). Since 

27 1976, there have been nine major crude oil spills in the inlet, ranging in volume from 10,000 to 

28 396,000 gal (with the largest of these coming from construction barges, offshore platforms, and 

29 jet fuel releases); the last major oil spill occurred in 1997 as a result of a loss of well control 

30 incident at the Steelhead Platform (State of Alaska 2011). Oil spills cause localized increases in 

31 VOC concentrations (proportional to the size of the spill) due to evaporation. Most of these 

32 emissions would be expected to occur within a few hours of the spill and decrease (by 

33 dispersion) drastically after that period (MMS 2003a). However, oil spills in ice-covered waters 

34 during winter months would be contained within a much smaller area (compared with spills in 

35 open waters) because oil weathering (i.e., spreading, evaporation, and migration) is much slower 

36 and some oil may solidify (MMS 2009b). A more detailed discussion of the effects of oil spills 

37 on air quality in Cook Inlet is presented in Section 4.4.4.2.

38

39 Catastrophic events at well locations may result in fires; in situ burning is also a preferred 

40 technique for cleanup and disposal of oil spills (documented in soil spill contingency plans). 

41 Smoke generated from such fires would be expected to reach shore quickly (within a day), but 

42 would be limited in geographic extent (MMS 2003a). A discussion of the effects of fires on air 

43 quality in the Arctic region is presented in Section 4.4.4.2.

44

45 Conclusion. OCS program activities in combination with other oil and gas exploration, 

46 development, and production activities in the Cook Inlet Planning Area could affect air quality in 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-536

1 the region over the next 40 to 50 yr. Air pollutant concentrations associated with offshore and 

2 onshore emission sources are expected to remain well within applicable State and Federal 

3 standards over the life of the Program. Therefore, the overall cumulative impacts on air quality 

4 in Cook Inlet from all OCS and non-OCS activities in the GOM over the next 40 to 50 yr are 

5 expected to be minor to moderate, and the incremental contribution of the routine Program 

6 activities to air quality impacts would be small (see Section 4.4.4.2).

7

8 Impacts from the evaporation of accidental oil spills for the cumulative case would be 

9 similar to those for the Program (see Section 4.4.4.2.2). Since impacts from individual spills 

10 would be localized and temporary (due to the spreading of oil and action by winds, waves, and 

11 currents that disperse volatile compounds to extremely low levels over a relatively larger area or 

12 solidification of oil during winter months), the magnitude of their impacts would be no different 

13 from those associated with the proposed action. However, as many as three small (greater than 

14 50 bbl and less than 1,000 bbl) and one large oil spills are projected to occur over the next 40 to 

15 50 yr. Impacts from fires would also be localized and short in duration. A more detailed 

16 discussion of the effects of oil spills on air quality in Cook Inlet is presented in Section 4.4.4.2.2.

17

18

19 4.6.2.2.3 Acoustic Environment. Section 4.4.5.2 discusses impacts on the acoustic 

20 environment in Cook Inlet resulting from the proposed action (OCS program activities from 

21 2012 to 2017). Section 4.4.7 evaluates the direct and indirect impacts of noise on marine fauna 

22 (mammals, birds, and fish), and Section 4.6.4 addresses the cumulative impacts of noise on 

23 marine fauna. Cumulative impacts on the acoustic environment result from the incremental 

24 impacts of the proposed action when added to impacts from reasonably foreseeable future OCS 

25 program activities (that are not part of the proposed action) and other non-OCS program 

activities.33 26 Table 4.6.1-1 presents the exploration and development scenario for the Cook Inlet 

27 cumulative case (encompassing the proposed action and other OCS program activities). 

28 Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable non-OCS program activities contributing to adverse 

29 cumulative impacts on the acoustic environment in the Cook Inlet include aircraft overflights, 

30 vessel activities and traffic, construction and decommissioning of onshore and offshore facilities 

31 (e.g., related to ongoing oil and gas exploration and development in State waters), and other 

32 activities (e.g., seismic surveys) conducted as part of the existing oil and gas industry in the inlet. 

33 This section addresses the quality of the acoustic environment only; the cumulative impacts of 

34 noise on Cook Inlet marine fauna are discussed in Section 4.6.4.2.

35

36 Ambient (background) noise has numerous natural and man-made sources that vary with 

37 respect to season, location, depth of occurrence, time of day, and noise characteristics 

(e.g., frequency and duration).34 38 Natural sources of ambient noise include wind and wave 

39 action, strong tidal fluctuations, currents, ice, precipitation (rain and hail), lightening, volcanic 

40 and tectonic noise, and biological noise (from marine mammals and coastal birds). Vessels 

41 (e.g., tankers, supply ships, tugboats, barges, and fishing boats) are the greatest man-made 

 

33 Currently, there are no existing OCS program activities in Cook Inlet.

34 Higher frequencies are attenuated with distance from the source more rapidly than lower frequencies. Traffic 

noise generated in deep water contributes to background noise levels at greater distances than traffic noise 

generated in shallow water.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-537

1 contributors to overall marine noise in Cook Inlet. Baseline acoustic conditions in Cook Inlet are 

2 discussed in more detail in Section 3.6.2.

3

4 Ongoing and future routine OCS program activities, including those of the proposed 

5 action, that generate noise include operating air gun arrays (during marine seismic surveys), 

6 drilling, pipeline trenching, and onshore and offshore construction of platforms and drilling rigs. 

7 Vessel and aircraft traffic (including that associated with emergency response and cleanup 

8 activities in the event of a spill), accidental releases (e.g., loss of well control events), and vessel 

9 collisions also contribute to noise. A preliminary study of the noise impacts of OCS-related 

10 geophysical surveys found that marine seismic surveys have the greatest impact on marine 

11 mammals, sea turtles, fish, and commercial and recreational fisheries (MMS 2004a). Noise 

12 generated from OCS and non-OCS program activities would be transmitted through both air and 

13 water, and may be transient or more extended (occurring over the long term).

14

15 Conclusion. The quality of the acoustic environment in Cook Inlet would continue to be 

16 adversely affected by ongoing and future non-OCS program activities and by future OCS 

17 program activities (currently there are no existing OCS activities). Activities under the proposed 

18 action would contribute to adverse cumulative impacts on the quality of the acoustic 

19 environment in the inlet. The magnitude of cumulative impacts due to noise in Cook Inlet from 

20 all OCS and non-OCS activities in Cook Inlet over the next 40 to 50 yr is time- and location21 specific and could range from minor to major, depending on the ambient acoustic conditions and 

22 the nature of activities taking place. The incremental contribution of the routine Program 

23 activities (minor impacts) would also vary with time and location and would depend on the 

24 characteristics of noise sources present (e.g., their frequency and duration). The cumulative 

25 impacts of noise on marine fauna are discussed in Section 4.6.4.

26

27

28 4.6.2.3 Alaska Region – Arctic

29

30

31 4.6.2.3.1 Water Quality. Section 4.4.3.3 discusses water quality impacts in coastal and 

32 marine waters in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas resulting from the proposed action (OCS 

33 program activities from 2012 to 2017). Cumulative impacts on water quality result from the 

34 incremental impacts of the proposed action when added to impacts from existing and reasonably 

35 foreseeable future OCS program activities (that are not part of the proposed action) and other 

non-OCS program activities.35 36 Table 4.6.1-2 presents the exploration and development scenario 

37 for the Arctic region cumulative case. Non-OCS program activities contributing to adverse 

38 cumulative impacts on water quality in Beaufort and Chukchi Seas are summarized in 

39 Table 4.6.2-4.

40

 

35 Currently, there are no existing OCS program activities in the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas, but 

it is assumed that exploration and development activities as a result of Sale 193 (Chukchi Sea) will have 

occurred before commencement of the exploration and development activities associated with the proposed 

action (Section 4.4.1.3).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-538

1 TABLE 4.6.2-4 Ongoing and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Non-OCS Activities Contributing to Cumulative Impacts on Water 

2 Quality – Arctic Region

Type of Action

Associated Activities and

Facilities (Impacting Factors) Description

Marine vessel traffic Discharges of bilge water and waste

Accidental oil spills

Current level of vessel traffic is low, consisting mainly of vessels supporting 

the oil and gas industry (e.g., cargo vessels, tugs/barges, service vessels, spillresponse vessels, and hovercraft. Other vessels include those used by the 

military, arctic researchers (icebreakers), and by local communities for 

hunting and between-village transportation during the open water period. As 

open water season begins earlier and ends later, vessel traffic is likely to 

increase for shipping, research, and cruise-ship tourism (MMS 2008b).

There is substantial international vessel traffic in the Bering Strait (the narrow 

international strait that connects the north Pacific Ocean to the Arctic Ocean) 

and Chukchi Sea; activity in this region increased from 245 marine vessel 

transits in 2008 (in the Bering Strait) to 325 transits in 2010. This trend is

expected to continue with ongoing exploration and drilling activities on the 

U.S. and possibly the Russian portion of the Chukchi shelf (USCG 2011).

Wastewater discharges Permitted discharge points

Pollutant releases via surface runoff

(non-point discharges)

Point-source discharges to the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas include those from 

facilities related to the oil and gas industry, hard-rock and placer mining, 

military operations, and seawater treatment (ADEC 2010; USEPA 2010c). 

Most of these activities would remain at present levels for the foreseeable 

future and are not expected to affect the overall water quality in these regions. 

Discharges are regulated through the USEPA NPDES permit program. 

Section 403 of the CWA established the Ocean Discharge Criteria, which 

provide additional requirements for these types of discharges. The Alaska 

Department of Environmental Quality issues all NPDES permits in Alaska 

except for those related to oil and gas, munitions, cooling water, pesticides, 

and offshore seafood processors, and those on tribal lands. Current NPDES 

permits in Alaska are available on the USEPA Web site at 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/NPDES+Permits/CurrentAK822.

3
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-539

TABLE 4.6.2-4 (Cont.)

Type of Action

Associated Activities and

Facilities (Impacting Factors) Description

Non-point sources of pollution include stormwater and snowmelt that run 

over land or through the ground, entraining pollutants and depositing them 

into Arctic waters. The most common forms of pollution in Alaska‘s urban 

runoff include fecal coliform, sedimentation, and petroleum. Snow disposal 

into the marine environment also introduces oil, grease, antifreeze, chemicals, 

trash, animal wastes, salt, and sediments (sand, gravel, suspended and 

dissolved solids) (ADEC 2007b). Non-point source management programs 

under Section 319 of the CWA regulate these pollutant sources. The USEPA 

and NOAA also co-administer State Coastal Non-Point Pollution Control 

Programs under Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization 

Amendments of 1990.

Dredging and marine disposal Excavation of subaqueous sediments

Transport of sediments (by dredger or 

pipeline)

Relocation and disposal of sediments

Mechanical and hydraulic dredges have been used to excavate materials to 

construct artificial islands (drilling platforms), helipads, and coastal 

harbors/shipping corridors in the Beaufort Sea. All past dredging activities 

have been conducted to support the oil and gas industry — in the 1950s and 

1960s, it was for shipping and transportation; in the 1970s and 1980s, it was 

mainly for the construction of islands (30 islands were built during this time). 

Most dredging occurred during the open water season in water depths less 

than 50 m (150 ft). Harbors, channels, and mooring basins were dredged in 

MacKinley Bay, Tuft Point, and Tuktoyaktuk. Several regulations govern the 

dredging operations in arctic waters (IMG Golder Corp. 2004). The 

likelihood of future dredging projects is not known but is considered to be 

low.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-540

TABLE 4.6.2-4 (Cont.)

Type of Action

Associated Activities and

Facilities (Impacting Factors) Description

Oil- and gas-related activities 

and infrastructure 

Ports and terminals

Exploration wells

Oil and gas pipelines

Tanker vessels

Onshore fuel storage tanks and transfer 

stations

Hazardous spills/releases

Thirty-five oil-producing fields and satellites have been developed on the 

North Slope and nearshore areas of the Beaufort Sea. Industrial development 

centers on Prudhoe Bay; infrastructure includes roadways, pipelines, 

production and processing facilities, gravel mines, and docks. After 30 yr of 

leasing in the Alaska OCS, there are no commercial oil or gas facilities 

located on Federal OCS lands. Most projects are located offshore in the State 

waters of the Beaufort Sea (MMS 2008b).

Two large diesel fuel spills have occurred in the Beaufort Sea — one of 

2,440 bbl from a diesel tank on an eroded gravel island in the Canadian 

Beaufort Sea (September 1985) and one of 1,600 bbl from a punctured barge 

delivering fuel to Kaktovik (August 1988) (MMS 2008b).

There were 4,481 spills of seawater, produced water, crude oil, diesel, and 

drilling muds on the Alaska North Slope subarea between 1995 and 2005 

(totaling 45,000 bbl); 98% of the volume released resulted from spills greater 

than 99 gal. Oil exploration and production facilities were responsible for 

more than 90% of the spills and about 90% of the volume. Over the past 

20 yr, most large spills were of diesel fuel and occurred in local villages 

(ADEC 2007a; MMS 2008b).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-541

TABLE 4.6.2-4 (Cont.)

Type of Action

Associated Activities and

Facilities (Impacting Factors) Description

Red Dog Mine Transport by barge The Red Dog Mine, operated by Teck Cominco Alaska, is one of the largest

lead and zinc mines in the world and the only base-metal lode mine currently

in production in northwest Alaska. The open-pit mine (with processing mill, 

tailings impoundment, and support facilities) is located in the DeLong 

Mountains about 130 km (82 mi) north of Kotzebue and 74 km (46 mi) 

inland from the Chukchi seacoast; it has produced more than a million 

tons of zinc and lead concentrates annually but is estimated to be mined 

out by 2012. Teck Cominco Alaska is proposing to mine an adjacent 

deposit (Aqqaluk Deposit) and continue its operations until 2031 

(ADNR 2011; USEPA 2009).

Processed ore (concentrate) is transported from the Red Dog Mine by an 

84-km (52-mi) road to the DeLong Mountain Terminal, a port facility located 

on the Chukchi Sea. The terminal consists of a housing unit, six diesel 

storage tanks, two concentrate storage buildings, a laydown area, and a 

concentrate conveyor/ship loading system. Although concentrate is shipped 

from the mine to the terminal year-round, shipping of concentrate by barge 

(to deep sea cargo ships) occurs only during months when the waters are icefree (generally from July through October). The port site also includes a 

small domestic wastewater treatment system that discharges to the Chukchi 

Sea under a NPDES permit (USEPA 2009).

The Red Dog Mine may be a source of trace metals in the Chukchi Sea 

(Section 3.4.3).

Gold (placer mining) on 

Seward Peninsula (Chukchi 

Sea)

Use of mercury for amalgamation Mining of placer gold in beach deposits and bench gravels continued 

through 1900 and could present a risk of contamination to nearby water and 

sediments.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-542

1 Ongoing and future routine OCS program activities (i.e., those of the proposed action and 

2 existing OCS program activities) involve vessel traffic, waste disposal, chemical releases 

3 (permitted discharges), and disturbance of bottom sediments. All these activities have the 

4 potential to adversely affect water quality in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Accidental oil 

5 spills are also counted among OCS program-related activities; assumptions for oil spills under 

6 the cumulative case scenario are provided in Table 4.6.1-3. 

7

8 OCS program-related marine vessel traffic in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas could be as 

9 high as 41 trips per week (up to 18 in the Beaufort Sea and 23 in the Chukchi Sea) over the next 

10 40 to 50 yr; vessel traffic associated with the proposed action represents about 66% of this traffic

11 but would occur only during open-water and broken ice conditions (typically during August and 

12 September). Non-OCS program traffic in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas is relatively low and 

13 includes that related to the oil and gas industry (e.g., cargo vessels, spill response vessels, and 

14 hovercraft), military operations, and arctic research. Small vessels are used by local 

15 communities for hunting and between-village transportation during the open water period 

16 (MMS 2008b). Impacts on water quality from marine traffic arise from regular discharges of 

17 bilge water and waste, leaching of anti-fouling paints, and incidental spills (MMS 2001).

18

19 In the Beaufort Sea Planning Area, the number of production wells and oil platforms 

20 constructed over the period of the Program (at most 120 and 4, respectively) will be proportional 

21 to the amount of oil produced; these numbers represent about 32 and 33% (respectively) of the 

22 total number of production wells and platforms anticipated to be built in the planning area over 

23 the next 40 to 50 yr as part of the Program. The lengths of new onshore and offshore pipeline (at 

24 most 129 km [80 mi] and 250 km [155 mi], respectively) added as part of the Program represent 

25 about 21 and 30%, respectively, of that anticipated as part of the OCS program.

26

27 In the Chukchi Sea Planning Area, the number of production wells and oil platforms 

28 constructed over the period of the Program (at most 280 and 5, respectively) will be proportional 

29 to the amount of oil produced; these numbers represent about 25% (for each) of the total number 

30 of production wells and platforms anticipated to be built in the planning area over the next 40 yr

31 as part of the OCS program. The lengths of new onshore and offshore pipeline (at most 0 km 

32 [0 mi] and 402 km [250 mi], respectively) added as part of the Program represent about 0 and 

33 19%, respectively, of that anticipated as part of the OCS program.

34

35 The area of sea bottom disturbed from construction of platforms and pipelines over the 

36 period of the Program (as much as 430 ha [1,100 ac] in the planning areas combined) represents 

37 about 19% of that associated with the OCS program over the next 40 yr. Bottom disturbance 

38 degrades water quality by increasing water turbidity in the vicinity of the operations and adding 

39 contaminants to the water column. It also changes sediment composition as suspended 

40 sediments (and contaminants, if present) are entrained in currents and deposited in new locations.

41

42 As summarized in Section 3.4.3, the water quality in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas is 

43 relatively uncontaminated by anthropogenic pollutants (compared to other regions that typically 

44 receive pollutants from industrial, agricultural, and municipal discharges and related runoff). 

45 The principal point sources of pollution are facilities related to the oil and gas industry, hard-rock 

46 and placer mining, military operations, and seawater treatment. Non-point sources release a 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-543

1 range of contaminants via rivers and onland drainages that could include contaminated runoff 

2 related to mining operations (e.g., gold mining on the Seward Peninsula). Most of these 

3 activities would remain at present levels for the foreseeable future and are not expected to affect 

4 the overall water quality in these regions.

5

6 Activities taking place within arctic waters also contribute to the degradation of water 

7 quality. These include oil spills associated with vessel traffic, sediment dredging and disposal in 

8 local harbors (suspended sediments and contaminants), and activities related to the oil and gas 

9 industry, which operates platforms in State waters and discharges drilling wastes, produced 

10 water, and other industrial waste streams into the Beaufort Sea (MMS 2008b; ADEC 2007a). 

11

12 Most of the oil released to arctic waters is from leaks related to the oil industry 

13 (ADEC 2007a). Smalls spills (less than 1,000 bbl) from commercial and recreational vessels or 

14 from OCS program activities (e.g., accidental releases) are not expected to affect the overall 

15 quality of the Beaufort or Chukchi Seas because they are localized and short in duration; 

16 however, large spills (greater than 1,000 bbl) could temporarily degrade the overall quality of 

17 their water (MMS 2003a). Oil spills in ice-covered waters are generally contained within a much 

18 smaller area (compared with open-water spills) because in the cold arctic environment, oil 

19 weathering (i.e., spreading, evaporation, and migration) is much slower and some oil may 

20 solidify. While such factors have proven to be favorable for most response strategies, the 

21 presence of ice can also complicate the response strategy. Spills on ice are fairly easy to detect 

22 and map, unless there is fresh snowfall at the time of the spill; however, oil spilled within and 

23 under the ice can be hidden from view. Broken ice also makes spilled oil difficult to detect and 

24 map, and it can reduce the effectiveness of conventional recovery systems (MMS 2009b; 

25 DF Dickens Associates, Ltd. 2004).

26

27 Climate change predictions are based on models that simulate all relevant physical 

28 processes under a variety of projected greenhouse gas emission scenarios (Section 3.3). Because 

29 the complexity of modeling global and region climate systems is so great, uncertainty in climate 

30 projections can never be eliminated. Changes to the arctic climate include:

31

32 • Atmospheric temperature increases of 1 to 2°C (2–4°F) since the 1960s and 

33 continuing increases at a rate 1°C (2°F) per decade in winter and spring;

34

35 • Precipitation increases at a rate of about 1% per decade;

36

37 • Decreases in sea ice extent at a rate of about 3% per decade (since the 1970s);

38

39 • Multi-year ice decreases at a rate of about 9% per decade (since the 1980s);

40

41 • Temperatures increases at the top of the permafrost layer by up to 3°C (5°F)

42 since the 1980s; and

43

44 • Thawing of the permafrost base at a rate of up to 0.04 m/yr (0.13 ft/yr).

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-544

1 The retreat of sea ice is increasing impacts on coastal areas from storms. In areas where 

2 permafrost has thawed, coastlines are more vulnerable to erosion from wave action.

3

4 Conclusion. Water quality in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas would be affected by the 

5 following activities associated with the proposed action: vessel traffic, waste disposal, chemical 

6 releases (permitted discharges), disturbance of bottom sediments, and accidental oil spills (from 

7 vessels and the oil and gas industry). Non-OCS program activities likely to contribute to 

8 cumulative impacts include marine vessel traffic, wastewater discharge, dredging and marine 

9 disposal, oil-related, and gas-related activities and infrastructure in State-owned marine waters, 

10 and activities related to the Red Dog Mine. The cumulative impacts on arctic water from all 

11 OCS and non-OCS activities in the Arctic over the next 40 to 50 yr are expected to be moderate

12 and the incremental contribution of the routine Program activities (such as non-OCS program oil 

13 and gas activities to water quality impacts would be minor to moderate (see Section 4.4.3.3). 

14 The number of large spills in arctic waters for most activities associated with the proposed action 

15 would represent only a small increase over the number of expected spills from ongoing OCS and 

16 non-OCS program activities. The incremental increase in adverse water quality impacts from 

17 these spills would depend on the weather and sea conditions at the spill location (e.g., whether 

18 ice is present), the type of waves and tidal energy at the spill locations, the type of oil spilled 

19 (very light to very heavy), the depth of the spill event (deep water, shallow water, or surface 

20 water), and the volume and rate of spillage. A more detailed discussion of the effects of oil spills 

21 on water quality in arctic waters is presented in Section 4.4.3.3.2.

22

23

24 4.6.2.3.2 Air Quality. Section 4.4.4.1 discusses air quality impacts on onshore and 

25 offshore areas of the Arctic region resulting from the proposed action (OCS program activities 

26 from 2012 to 2017). Cumulative impacts on air quality result from the incremental impacts of 

27 the proposed action when added to impacts from existing and reasonably foreseeable future OCS 

28 program activities (that are not part of the proposed action) and other non-OCS program 

activities. 29 36 Table 4.6.1-2 presents the exploration and development scenario for the Arctic 

30 region cumulative case (encompassing the proposed action and future OCS program activities). 

31 Non-OCS program activities also contribute to adverse cumulative impacts on air quality in the 

32 region; they are discussed below.

33

34 Ongoing and future routine OCS program activities, including those of the proposed 

35 action, involve production platforms, exploration wells, platform construction and removal, 

36 marine vessels (pipelaying, support, and survey), helicopters, and tanker and barge transport. All 

37 these activities have the potential to adversely affect air quality in the Beaufort and Chukchi 

38 Seas. Accidental oil spills are also counted among OCS program-related activities; assumptions 

39 for oil spills under the cumulative case scenario are provided in Table 4.6.1-3. Existing emission 

40 sources in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas include oil and gas exploration, 

41 development, and production activities in State waters (Beaufort Sea only); onshore petroleum 

 

36 Currently, there are no existing OCS program activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas, but it is 

assumed that exploration and development activities as a result of Sale 193 (Chukchi Sea) will have occurred 

before commencement of the exploration and development activities associated with the proposed action 

(Section 4.4.1.3).
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-545

1 processing and refining; marine terminals (e.g., DeLong Mountain Terminal on the Chukchi 

2 Sea); aircraft traffic; and vessel traffic. 

3

4 Except for a few population centers such as Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau, the 

5 existing air quality in Alaska is relatively pristine with pollutant concentrations well within 

6 ambient standards (Section 3.5.2.3). This is also the case in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas and 

7 the North Slope area, with the exception of ―arctic haze,‖ which is attributed to combustion 

8 sources in Russia (MMS 2010). The primary industrial emissions in the Beaufort and Chukchi 

9 Sea Planning Areas are associated with onshore oil development and production, offshore oil 

10 development and production (in State waters), power generation, mining (Red Dog Mine), and 

11 marine transportation. While some growth of these activities is likely to take place in the future, 

12 overall emissions are expected to remain low. More stringent emission standards on motor 

13 vehicles and new USEPA standards on non-road engines and marine vessels would result in a 

14 downward trend in emissions. 

15

16 On the Alaska North Slope, the main sources of air emissions are associated with onshore 

17 oil production from the Prudhoe Bay, Kuparuk River, Colville River, Oooguruk, Milne Point, 

18 and Badami fields and oil production in State waters (Northstar and Duck Island fields). As of 

2009, about 16.2 Bbbl 19 37 of oil have been produced from North Slope reservoirs, including the 

20 Beaufort Sea (ADNR 2009). Production from the region peaked at about 730 Mbbl in 1988 and 

21 has been in decline since then (EIA 2011c). The USDOE projects that the annual production of 

22 oil will continue to decline, from about 234 Mbbl in 2010 to 37 Mbbl in 2050 (EIA 2009q). 

23 There are a number of planned and potential future oil development projects, both onshore and in 

24 State and Federal waters in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area. There are very few other emission 

25 sources in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area. 

26

27 Air monitoring at a number of sites in the Kuparuk and Prudhoe Bay fields has shown 

28 that concentrations of NO2, SO2, and PM10 are well within the NAAQS. Modeling studies for 

29 the Liberty project indicate that emissions from these areas have little effect on ambient 

30 concentrations in other locations (with maximum concentrations occurring within 100 to 200 m 

31 [330 to 660 ft] from the facility boundary and considerably lower concentrations at a distance of 

32 1 km [0.62 mi]) (MMS 2010). For this reason, it is anticipated that emissions from new facilities 

33 would be small and localized with little interaction between facilities.

34

35 The baseline conditions and impacts from OCS activities on ozone and visibility are 

36 discussed in Sections 3.5.2.3 and 4.4.4.3, respectively. Because conditions in Alaska are seldom 

37 favorable for significant O3 formation, the contribution of leasing activity associated with the 

38 Program to O3 levels in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas is expected to be small. 

39 OCS emission sources affecting visibility are also small. 

40

41 Accidental oil spills are a source of gaseous emissions. No more than six large spills 

42 (of volume greater than 1,000 bbl) and 450 small spills (of volume less than 50 bbl) are projected 

43 for the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas cumulative case as a result of the OCS 

44 program (Table 4.6.1-3). Most of the accidental spills in the North Slope region are of non-crude 

 

37 Historic figures include both oil and natural gas liquids produced at Prudhoe Bay and surrounding fields.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-546

1 products during fuel transfer operations at remote villages (ADEC 2007a). While there is no 

2 discernable trend in the annual number of spills or total volume released, there is a seasonal 

3 pattern to spill events, with increases occurring during winter months (likely coinciding with 

4 increased exploration activities). Since 1976, there have been no major crude oil spills in arctic 

5 waters (State of Alaska 2011). Oil spills cause localized increases in VOC concentrations 

6 (proportional to the size of the spill) due to evaporation. Most of these emissions would be 

7 expected to occur within a few hours of the spill and decrease (by dissipation) drastically after 

8 that period (MMS 2010). However, oil spills in ice-covered waters during winter months would 

9 be contained within a much smaller area (compared with spills in open waters) because oil 

10 weathering (i.e., spreading, evaporation, and migration) is much slower and some oil may 

11 solidify (MMS 2009b). A more detailed discussion of the effects of oil spills on air quality in the 

12 Arctic region is presented in Section 4.4.4.3.

13

14 Catastrophic events at well locations may result in fires; in situ burning is also a preferred 

15 technique for cleanup and disposal of oil spills (documented in oil spill contingency plans). 

16 Smoke generated from such fires would be expected to reach shore quickly (within a day), but 

17 would be limited in geographic extent (MMS 2003a). A discussion of the effects of fires on air 

18 quality in the Arctic region is presented in Section 4.4.4.3.

19

20 Conclusion. OCS program activities in combination with other oil and gas exploration, 

21 development, and production activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas could 

22 affect air quality in the region. Air pollutant concentrations associated with offshore and onshore 

23 emission sources are expected to remain well within applicable State and Federal standards over 

24 the life of the Program. Therefore, the overall cumulative impacts on air quality in the Beaufort 

25 and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas are expected to be minor to moderate, and the incremental 

26 contribution of routine Program activities to air quality impacts would be small (see 

27 Section 4.4.4.3). 

28

29 Impacts from the evaporation of accidental oil spills for the cumulative case would be 

30 similar to those for the Program (see Section 4.4.4.3.2). Since impacts from individual spills 

31 would be localized and temporary (because in the cold arctic environment oil weathering is 

32 slower and some oil may solidify), the magnitude of their impacts would be no different from 

33 those associated with the proposed action. However, as many as 80 small (greater than 50 bbl

34 and less than 1,000 bbl) and eight large oil spills are projected to occur over the next 40 to 50 yr. 

35 Impacts from fires would also be localized and short in duration. A more detailed discussion of 

36 the effects of oil spills on air quality in the Arctic region is presented in Section 4.4.4.3.2.

37

38

39 4.6.2.3.3 Acoustic Environment. Section 4.4.5.3 discusses impacts on the acoustic 

40 environment in the Arctic region resulting from the proposed action (OCS program activities 

41 from 2012 to 2017). Section 4.4.7 evaluates the direct and indirect impacts of noise on marine 

42 fauna (mammals, birds, and fish), and Section 4.6.4 addresses the cumulative impacts of noise on 

43 marine fauna. Cumulative impacts on the acoustic environment result from the incremental 

44 impacts of the proposed action when added to impacts from reasonably foreseeable future OCS 

45 program activities (that are not part of the proposed action) and other non-OCS program 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-547

activities.38 1 Table 4.6.1-1 presents the exploration and development scenario for the Beaufort 

2 Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas cumulative case (encompassing the proposed action and 

3 other OCS program activities). Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable non-OCS program activities 

4 contributing to adverse cumulative impacts on the acoustic environment in the Arctic region 

5 include aircraft overflights, vessel activities and traffic, construction of onshore and offshore 

6 facilities (e.g., related to ongoing oil and gas exploration and development in State waters), and 

7 other activities (e.g., seismic surveys) conducted as part of the existing oil and gas industry in the 

8 Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. This section addresses the quality of the acoustic environment only; 

9 the cumulative impacts of noise on marine fauna in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas are discussed 

10 in Section 4.6.4.3.

11

12 Ambient (background) noise has numerous natural and manmade sources that vary with 

13 respect to season, location, depth of occurrence, time of day, and noise characteristics 

(e.g., frequency and duration).39 14 Natural sources of ambient noise include wind and wave 

15 action, currents, ice, precipitation (rain and hail), lightening, and biological noise (from marine 

16 mammals and coastal birds). Vessels (e.g., tankers, supply ships, tugboats, barges, and fishing 

17 boats) are the greatest man-made contributors to overall marine noise in the Arctic region. 

18 Baseline acoustic conditions in the region are discussed in more detail in Section 3.6.3.

19

20 Ongoing and future routine OCS program activities, including those of the proposed 

21 action, that generate noise include operating air gun arrays (during marine seismic surveys), 

22 drilling, pipeline trenching, and onshore and offshore construction and decommissioning of 

23 platforms (including artificial islands and causeways), and drilling rigs. Vessel and aircraft 

24 traffic (including that associated with emergency response and cleanup activities in the event of a 

25 spill), accidental releases (e.g., loss of well control events), and vessel collisions also contribute 

26 to noise. A preliminary study of the noise impacts of OCS related geophysical surveys found 

27 that marine seismic surveys have the greatest impact on marine mammals, sea turtles, fish, and 

28 commercial and recreational fisheries (MMS 2004a). Noise generated from OCS and non-OCS 

29 program activities would be transmitted through both air and water, and may be transient or more 

30 extended (occurring over the long term).

31

32 Conclusion. The quality of the acoustic environment in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas 

33 would continue to be adversely affected by ongoing and future non-OCS program activities and 

34 by future OCS program activities (currently there are no existing OCS activities). Activities 

35 under the proposed action would contribute to adverse cumulative impacts on the quality of the 

36 acoustic environment in the Arctic region. The magnitude of cumulative impacts due to noise in 

37 the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas from all OCS and non-OCS activities in the Arctic over the next 

38 40 to 50 yr is time- and location-specific and could range from minor to major, depending on the 

39 ambient acoustic conditions and the nature of activities taking place. The incremental 

 

38 Currently, there are no existing OCS program activities in the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas, but 

it is assumed that exploration and development activities as a result of Sale 193 (Chukchi Sea) will have 

occurred before the proposed action (Section 4.4.1.3).

39 Higher frequencies are attenuated with distance from the source more rapidly than lower frequencies. Traffic 

noise generated in deep water contributes to background noise levels at greater distances than traffic noise 

generated in shallow water.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-548

1 contribution due to noise generated by the routine Program activities (minor impacts) would vary 

2 with time and location and would depend on the characteristics of noise sources present 

3 (e.g., their frequency and duration). The cumulative impacts of noise on marine fauna are 

4 discussed in Section 4.6.4.

5

6

7 4.6.3 Marine and Coastal Habitats

8

9

10 4.6.3.1 Gulf of Mexico Region

11

12

13 4.6.3.1.1 Coastal and Estuarine Habitats. A number of activities associated with the 

14 proposed action could result in impacts on coastal and estuarine habitats (Section 4.4.6.1). These 

15 activities include construction of pipelines and shoreline facilities, maintenance dredging of 

16 inlets and channels, and vessel traffic. Impacts associated with these activities could include 

17 (1) losses of beach and dune habitat and indirect effects that contribute to reductions in beach 

18 habitat in areas of ongoing shoreline degradation; and (2) elimination of wetland habitat and 

19 indirect effects that contribute to reductions in wetland habitat. Similar activities will be 

20 occurring from previous and future sales during the life of the Program (see Table 4.6.1-1). 

21 Excluding the estimated number of offshore pipelines installed, which is not relevant to this 

22 analysis, the activities associated with the proposed action will be about 15–30% of the total 

23 amount of OCS program activity that will occur during the life of the Program.

24

25 Barrier Beaches and Dunes. Impacts on barrier beaches and dunes primarily result 

26 from factors that reduce sediment input to downdrift areas or that directly contribute to increased 

27 erosion of beaches and dunes. Construction projects may reduce the sediment contribution to the 

28 GOM barrier landforms from inflowing rivers, or they may restrict the movement of sediments 

29 to downdrift areas and natural replenishment of barrier beaches. Other activities may disturb 

30 barrier dune vegetation, thereby promoting dune erosion, or directly disturb beach and dune 

31 substrates, resulting in increased erosion of beaches and dunes. Increases in wave action can 

32 also contribute to beach erosion.

33

34 Ongoing non-OCS activities that could affect barrier beaches and dunes include those 

35 related to State oil development, commercial shipping, coastal development, and recreation. 

36 These activities can be reasonably expected to continue into the future. A number of activities 

37 reduce the sediment supply to barrier beaches and dunes. Past activities that have contributed to 

38 sediment deprivation and submergence of coastal lands have contributed to erosion and land 

39 losses, particularly along the Louisiana coast, and are expected to continue into the foreseeable 

40 future. Channelization and diversion of Mississippi River flows, as well as the construction of 

41 Mississippi River dams and reservoirs, and subsequent reductions in sediment supply to deltaic 

42 areas to the west have resulted in the continued extensive erosion of coastal habitats. Past 

43 construction of dams on other rivers discharging to the western GOM has also resulted in a 

44 reduction in sediments delivered to the coast, which, along with natural causes of sediment 

45 supply reductions, have resulted in ongoing land loss along the Texas coast. The emplacement 

46 of groins, jetties, and seawalls for beach stabilization in much of the GOM contributes to the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-549

1 reduction of sediment inputs and the acceleration of coastal erosion in downdrift areas. 

2 Maintenance dredging of barrier inlets and bar channels, in combination with channel jetties, has 

3 resulted in impacts on adjacent barrier beaches down-current due to sediment deprivation, 

4 especially on the sediment-starved coastal areas of Louisiana. Maintenance dredging is an 

5 ongoing practice and is expected to continue to be an impacting factor into the future; this

6 includes, for example, efforts to accommodate larger cargo vessels. The past construction of 

7 canals for pipelines and navigation has resulted in losses of coastal barrier habitat. Although 

8 new navigation canals from the GOM to inland areas are unlikely to be needed and current 

9 pipeline construction methods result in little, if any, impacts on barrier landforms, existing 

10 pipeline canals are expected to continue to be sediment sinks and to promote the reduction of 

11 adjacent barrier island dunes and beaches. However, the replenishment of barrier beaches with 

12 sand obtained from OCS sources and the beneficial use of dredged material are expected to 

13 continue to aid in the restoration of barrier islands. The impacts on barrier beaches and dunes 

14 from sediment removal activities associated with maintenance dredging under the proposed 

15 action would represent a very small contribution to the past, ongoing, and expected future 

16 degradation of barrier beaches and dunes from non-OCS activities.

17

18 Although coastal barrier islands in most of the Central GOM Planning Area generally 

19 receive minimal recreational use, most barrier beaches in Texas, Alabama, and Florida are 

20 accessible and extensively used for recreation. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic on beaches and 

21 dunes can destabilize substrates, either by reducing vegetation density—and thus increasing 

22 erosion by wind, waves, and traffic—or by directly disturbing or displacing substrates. In 

23 addition, considerable private and commercial development has occurred on many barrier islands 

24 in the GOM, resulting in losses of beach and dune habitat. The impacts on barrier beaches and 

25 dunes from substrate-disturbance activities associated with pipeline construction under the 

26 proposed action are expected to be greatly minimized by non-intrusive construction techniques 

27 and would not be expected to appreciably add to the cumulative effects of other substrate28 disturbing activities.

29

30 Activities that increase wave action along barrier beaches and dunes can contribute to 

31 their erosion. The construction of seawalls, groins, and jetties in Texas and Louisiana has 

32 contributed to coastal erosion in part by increasing or redirecting the erosional energy of waves. 

33 Vessel traffic related to shipping and transportation can result in wake erosion of channels 

34 between barrier islands. A large number of vessels use the navigation channels near the GOM 

35 coast. A portion of the impacts related to vessel traffic would be associated with the proposed 

36 action; however, activities conducted under the proposed action would contribute a relatively 

37 small number of vessel trips to the total.

38

39 Barrier beaches and dunes could be impacted by accidental spills of oil or petroleum 

40 products resulting from cumulative OCS activities (Section 4.6.1.1). Although the majority of 

41 these spills would be small (less than 50 bbl), catastrophic releases can impact extensive areas of 

42 shoreline. Oil released into coastal waters as a result of the DWH event, April–July 2010, 

43 affected more than 1,046 km (650 mi) of the GOM coastal habitat, from the Mississippi River 

44 delta to the Florida panhandle, with the Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida coasts all 

45 affected (OSAT-2 2011; National Commission 2011). The greatest impacts were in Louisiana.

46 More than 209 km (130 mi) of coastal habitat were moderately to heavily oiled, with only 32 km 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-550

1 (20 mi) occurring outside of Louisiana (National Commission 2011). Little or no oil affected 

2 Texas coastal habitats. Heavy to moderate oiling occurred along a substantial number of 

3 Louisiana beaches, with the heaviest oiling on the Mississippi Delta, in Barataria Bay, and on the 

4 Chandeleur Islands (OSAT-2 2011). The majority of Mississippi barrier islands had light oiling 

5 to trace oil, although heavy to moderate oiling occurred in some areas. Some heavy to moderate 

6 oiling also occurred on beaches in Alabama and Florida, with the heaviest stretch of oiling 

7 extending from Dauphin Island, Alabama, to near Gulf Breeze, Florida (OSAT-2 2011). Light to 

8 trace oiling occurred from Gulf Breeze to Panama City, Florida. Deposition of oil occurred in 

9 the supratidal zone (above the high tide mark), deposited and buried during storm events;

10 intertidal zone; and subtidal zone, there remaining as submerged oil mats (OSAT-2 2011). On 

11 Grand Isle, Louisiana, and Bon Secour, Alabama, oil was found up to 105 cm (41 in.) below the 

12 surface (OSAT-2 2011). Although much of the oil remaining after cleanup is highly weathered, 

13 several constituents have the potential to cause toxicological effects (OSAT-2 2011). Non-OCS 

14 activities, such as the domestic transportation of oil, foreign crude oil imports, and State oil 

15 development may also result in accidental spills that could potentially impact coastal barrier 

16 beaches and dunes. The amount of oil contacting barrier islands from a spill would depend on a 

17 number of factors such as the location and size of the spill, waves and water currents, and 

18 containment actions. Naturally occurring seeps may also be a source of crude oil introduced into 

19 GOM waters (NRC 2003b; Kvenvolden and Cooper 2003). The magnitude of resulting impacts 

20 and the persistence of oil would depend on factors such as the amount of oil deposited, 

21 remediation efforts, substrate grain size, and localized erosion and deposition patterns. In areas 

22 of barrier beach erosion, such as Louisiana, remediation would likely include the minimization 

23 of sand removal or replacement of removed sand. The impacts of potential oil spills associated 

24 with the proposed action would be expected to add a small contribution to the impacts of other 

25 sources of oil.

26

27 Indirect effects on coastal barrier beaches and dunes could result from global climate 

28 change. Factors associated with global climate change include changes in temperature and

29 rainfall, alteration in stream flow and river discharge, sea level rise, changes in hurricane 

30 frequency and strength, sediment yield, mass movement frequencies and coastal erosion, and 

31 subsidence (Yanez-Arancibia and Day 2004). Potential thermal expansion of ocean water and 

32 melting of glaciers and ice caps could result in a global rise in mean sea level (Section 4.6.1.6). 

33 Recent rates of sea level rise have been approximately 3 mm/yr (0.12 in./yr), but this rate may 

34 increase to 4 mm/yr (0.16 in./yr) by 2100 (Blum and Roberts 2009). Sea-level rise could result 

35 in increased inundation of barrier beaches and increases in losses of beach habitat. Effects of sea 

36 level rise include damage from inundation, floods and storms; and erosion (Nicholls et al. 2007). 

37 Effects of increased storm intensity include increases in extreme water levels and wave heights; 

38 increases in episodic erosion, storm damage, risk of flooding, and defence failure 

39 (Nicholls et al. 2007). Patterns of erosion and accretion can also be altered along coastlines 

40 (Nicholls et al. 2007). The small tidal range of the GOM coast increases the vulnerability of 

41 coastal habitats to the effects of climate change.

42

43 Hurricanes and other severe storm events can affect coastal barrier beaches and dunes. 

44 Increased wave action and intensity on barrier habitats may result in increased erosion and 

45 changes in beach and dune topography or losses of habitat. Hurricanes and tropical storms are 

46 inherent components of the GOM ecosystem that have long influenced coastal habitats and are 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-551

1 expected to continue to be sources of impacts. Anthropogenic impacts on barrier beaches and 

2 dunes may be greatly exacerbated by severe storm events such as hurricanes. In 2005, 

3 Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused extensive erosion of barrier landforms in the central and 

4 western GOM. Extreme storms such as these can result in relatively permanent change to these 

5 habitats, particularly in areas that are already experiencing erosion and retreat as a result of 

6 sediment deprivation, sea level rise, and coastal development.

7

8 Wetlands. Factors that affect coastal wetlands include the direct elimination of wetland 

9 habitat by excavation or filling, the reduction of sediment inputs, the erosion of wetland 

10 substrates, and the degradation of wetland communities by reduced water quality or hydrologic 

11 changes. Construction projects may fill wetlands for facility siting or excavate wetlands for the 

12 construction of canals or pipelines. Other projects may reduce the sediment delivered to coastal 

13 wetlands from inflowing rivers. A number of activities may degrade wetlands or promote 

14 wetland losses indirectly by causing changes to wetland hydrology or introducing contaminants. 

15 Routine OCS operations could have direct impacts on wetlands as a result of direct losses of 

16 habitat from construction activities, pipeline landfalls and channel dredging, and indirect impacts 

17 as a result of altered hydrology caused by channel dredging.

18

19 Ongoing non-OCS activities that could affect coastal wetlands include those related to 

20 State oil and gas development, commercial shipping, coastal development, dredging operations, 

21 discharge of municipal wastes and other effluents, domestic transportation of oil and gas, and 

22 foreign crude oil imports. These activities can be reasonably expected to continue into the 

23 future. A number of these activities result in the localized destruction of wetlands. The 

24 construction of pipelines and navigation channels would result in direct losses of wetlands that 

25 are crossed, due to excavation. In addition, the creation of spoil banks along canals would bury 

26 wetland habitat. Large areas of coastal wetlands are also lost by drainage and filling, due to 

27 urban development and agricultural use (Gosselink et al. 1979; Bahr and Wascom 1984). 

28 Although activities that impact wetlands are regulated by State and Federal agencies, 

29 construction of industrial facilities, commercial sites, and residential developments would be 

30 expected to result in continued wetland losses. Pipeline installation and vessel traffic outside of 

31 established traffic routes could have short-term impacts on seagrass communities, which are 

32 primarily located in the eastern GOM. The direct impacts on coastal wetlands from pipeline, 

33 navigation canal, or facility construction under the proposed action would represent a small 

34 contribution to the past, ongoing, and expected future losses of wetlands from non-OCS 

35 activities.

36

37 Indirect impacts on wetlands from non-OCS activities are expected to continue to 

38 contribute to wetland degradation and conversion of wetlands to open water. A major factor that 

39 has contributed to the ongoing loss of coastal wetlands, particularly in the Mississippi River 

40 Delta region of Louisiana, is the reduction in sediments provided to coastal marshes. Reductions 

41 in sediment supply, in combination with natural subsidence, have contributed significantly to the 

42 conversion of coastal marsh to open water. The construction of dams and levees and 

43 channelization along the Mississippi River restrict the sediment supply and overbank flow of 

44 floodwaters, limiting the release of sediments and fresh water to coastal marshes 

45 (LCWCRTF 1998, 2003; USACE 2004).

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-552

1 Coastal wetlands are also lost due to the effects of large storm events, and the continuing 

2 erosion of barrier islands reduces their capacity to act as buffers for coastal wetlands 

3 (LCWCRTF 2001). Construction of canals for pipelines and navigation would result in future 

4 continuing progressive losses from canal widening and failure of mitigation structures, which 

5 would contribute to the conversion of wetlands to open water. Canal construction and 

6 maintenance dredging of navigation canals result in hydrologic changes, primarily high levels of 

7 tidal and storm flushing and draining potential of interior wetland areas. Such alterations of 

8 water movement can result in erosion of marsh substrates and increase inundation levels, and can 

9 result in substantial impacts on the hydrologic basin. Construction and maintenance of canals 

10 through coastal wetlands can increase the impacts of coastal storms, such as hurricanes, in the 

11 conversion of wetlands to open water. Saltwater intrusion results from canal construction and 

12 reduced freshwater inputs due to river channelization, and causes considerable deterioration of 

13 coastal wetlands. Wetland losses due to subsidence have also been attributed to extraction of oil 

14 in some portions of the Mississippi River Delta, or the withdrawal of groundwater along the 

15 Texas coast. Changes in wetland hydrology, as well as increases in turbidity and sedimentation, 

16 as a result of construction projects, can affect wetlands.

17

18 Degradation of wetlands can result from water quality impacts due to stormwater 

19 discharges and discharges of waste water from vessels, municipal treatment plants, and industrial 

20 facilities. Water quality may also be impacted by waste storage and disposal sites. The direct 

21 and indirect impacts on coastal wetlands under the proposed action would represent a small 

22 contribution to the past, ongoing, and expected future impacts on wetlands from non-OCS 

23 activities.

24

25 Accidental spills of oil or petroleum products from OCS activities (Section 4.4.6.1) could 

26 impact coastal wetlands. The majority of these spills would be small (less than 50 bbl). Should 

27 spills occur in shallow water from vessel accidents and pipelines, they could contact and affect 

28 coastal wetlands. Most spills that occur in deep water would be unlikely to contact and impact 

29 wetlands. Catastrophic releases in deep water, however, can impact extensive areas of shoreline.

30 Oil released into coastal waters as a result of the DWH event, April–July 2010, affected more 

31 than 1,046 km (650 mi) of the GOM coastal habitat, from the Mississippi River delta to the 

32 Florida panhandle, with the Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida coasts all affected 

33 (OSAT-2 2011; National Commission 2011). Non-OCS activities, such as State oil 

34 development, the domestic transportation of oil, and foreign crude oil imports, may also result in 

35 accidental spills that could potentially impact coastal wetlands. Naturally occurring seeps may 

36 also be a source of crude oil that could potentially affect coastal wetlands. The amount of oil 

37 contacting wetlands, the magnitude of resulting impacts, and the length of time for recovery 

38 would depend on a number of factors such as the location and size of the spill, containment 

39 actions, waves and water currents, type of oil, types of remediation efforts, amount of oil 

40 deposition, duration of exposure, season, substrate type, and extent of oil penetration. Impacts 

41 from oil spills would be expected to range from short-term effects on vegetation growth to 

42 permanent loss of wetlands and conversion to open water. The impacts of potential oil spills 

43 associated with the proposed action would be expected to constitute a small addition to the 

44 impacts of all other sources of oil in the GOM.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-553

1 Global climate change could result in indirect effects on coastal wetlands. Factors 

2 associated with global climate change include changes in temperature and rainfall, alteration in 

3 stream flow and river discharge, wetland loss, salinity, sea level rise, changes in hurricane 

4 frequency and strength, sediment yield, mass movement frequencies and coastal erosion, and 

5 subsidence (Yanez-Arancibia and Day 2004). Effects of sea level rise include damage from 

6 inundation, floods and storms; erosion; saltwater intrusion; rising water tables/impeded drainage; 

7 and wetland loss and change (Nicholls et al. 2007). Effects of increased storm intensity include 

8 increases in extreme water levels and wave heights; increases in episodic erosion, storm damage, 

9 risk of flooding, and defence failure (Nicholls et al. 2007). Patterns of erosion and accretion can 

10 also be altered along coastlines (Nicholls et al. 2007). The small tidal range of the GOM coast 

11 increases the vulnerability of coastal habitats to the effects of climate change. A study of coastal 

12 vulnerability along the entire U.S. GOM coast found that 42% of the shoreline mapped was 

13 classified as being at very high risk of coastal change due to factors associated with future sea

14 level rise (Thieler and Hammar-Klose 2000). A revised coastal vulnerability index study of the 

15 coast from Galveston, Texas, to Panama City, Florida, indicated that 61% of that mapped 

16 coastline was classified as being at very high vulnerability, with coastal Louisiana being the most 

17 vulnerable area of this coastline (Pendleton et al. 2010). Potential thermal expansion of ocean 

18 water and melting of glaciers and ice caps could result in a global rise in mean sea level 

19 (Section 4.6.1.6). Sea level rise would result in greater inundation of coastal wetlands and likely 

20 result in an acceleration of coastal wetland losses, particularly in Louisiana, as wetlands are 

21 converted to open water. In addition, large changes in river flows into the GOM could affect 

22 salinity and water circulation in estuaries, which, in turn, could impact estuarine wetland 

23 communities.

24

25 Hurricanes and other severe storm events impact coastal wetlands through increased 

26 wave action and intensity, resulting in increased erosion of wetland substrates and conversion of 

27 coastal wetlands to open water. Hurricanes and tropical storms are inherent components of the 

28 GOM ecosystem that have long influenced coastal habitats and are expected to be continuing 

29 sources of impacts. However, impacts on wetlands as a result of human activities, such as those 

30 that create marsh openings that enhance tidal and storm-driven water movements, may be 

31 amplified by severe storm events such as hurricanes. In 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

32 caused extensive impacts on wetlands in the Central and Western GOM. For example, up to 

259 km2 (100 mi2 33 ) of coastal wetlands in Louisiana may have been converted to open water as a 

34 result of the storms, and up to 60,700 ha (150,000 ac) of coastal wetlands and bottomland forests 

35 were damaged in national wildlife refuges along the GOM coast (FWS 2006). It is possible that 

36 extreme storms such as these could result in relatively permanent change to these habitats, 

37 particularly in areas that are already experiencing erosion and conversion of wetlands to open 

38 water as a result of sediment deprivation, sea-level rise, channelization, and coastal development.

39

40 Seagrass Beds. As identified in Section 4.4.6.1, the principal OCS activities under the 

41 proposed action that could potentially affect seagrass beds include placement of structures 

42 (e.g., pipelines) and vessel traffic within the vicinity of the beds. In addition, coastal 

43 development associated with OCS oil and gas activities could contribute to cumulative impacts 

44 on submerged seagrass beds. Most of the seagrass beds in the GOM are in the Eastern GOM

45 Planning Area, where no OCS activities are proposed during the Program.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-554

1 Non-OCS activities that may contribute to cumulative effects on seagrass habitats include 

2 anchoring, fishing/trawling, offshore shipping, diving, and continued onshore development. The 

3 extensive seagrass beds located in the eastern GOM may be susceptible to impacts from non4 OCS activities such as dredging and onshore development that contribute to increased 

5 sedimentation, turbidity, nutrient input, and various types of point and non-point source 

6 contamination.

7

8 As noted in Section 4.4.6.1, oil spills reaching coastal areas could affect submerged 

9 seagrass beds. The majority of these spills would be small (less than 50 bbl). Should spills 

10 occur in shallow water from vessel accidents and pipelines, they could contact and affect 

11 seagrass beds. Most spills that occur in deep water would be very unlikely to contact and impact 

12 seagrasses; however, catastrophic releases can impact extensive areas of shoreline. As identified 

13 in Table 4.6.1-3, it is assumed that up to 40 large oil spills (>1,000 bbl), up to 330 small-sized 

14 spills 50 to 999 bbl, and up to 1,950 small oil spills of less than 50 bbl could occur as a result of 

15 ongoing and currently planned OCS activities. A catastrophic spill event would have an 

16 assumed spill size of 4,000,000 bbl. As discussed previously, non-OCS activities and oil seeps 

17 could also contribute substantially to releases of oil in the GOM. Oil spills in shallow water in 

18 the GOM from OCS and non-OCS activities could have significant effects on submerged 

19 seagrass beds. The magnitude and severity of potential effects on seagrass beds from oil spills 

20 would be a function of the location, timing, duration, and size of the spill; the proximity of the 

21 spill to seagrass beds; and the timing and nature of spill containment and cleanup activities.

22 Releases that occur in the shallow portions of the eastern GOM have the potential to be of 

23 greatest significance, due to the more extensive growth of seagrasses along that coastline. It is 

24 unlikely that OCS spills would contact the extensive seagrass areas offshore Florida and along its 

25 coast because of the great distance between these resources and locations in the Central and 

26 Western GOM Planning Areas where leasing will occur.

27

28 Conclusion. Ongoing OCS and non-OCS program activities in combination with 

29 naturally occurring events have resulted in considerable losses of coastal and estuarine habitats 

30 in the GOM; cumulative impacts on these resources, therefore, are considered to be moderate to 

31 major. Operations under the proposed action would result in small localized impacts, primarily 

32 due to facility construction, pipeline landfalls, channel dredging, and vessel traffic; however, the 

33 incremental contribution of routine Program activities to cumulative impacts would be small 

34 (see Section 4.4.6.1.1). 

35

36 The cumulative impacts of past, present, and future oil spills and natural seeps on 

37 submerged seagrass beds would be moderate to major. The incremental impacts of accidental oil 

38 spills associated with the proposed action on seagrass beds would be small to large, depending 

39 on the location, timing, duration, and size of the spill; the proximity of the spill to seagrass beds; 

40 and the timing and nature of spill containment and cleanup activities (see Section 4.4.6.1.1). The 

41 majority of these spills would be small (less than 50 bbl). Large oil releases that occur in or 

42 reach shallower nearshore areas have the greatest potential to affect coastal and estuarine 

43 habitats. Most spills would be unlikely to contact and affect coastal and estuarine habitats. 

44 Large oil spills and catastrophic discharge events, however, can affect extensive areas of 

45 shoreline.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-555

1 4.6.3.1.2 Marine Benthic and Pelagic Habitats. Cumulative impacts could result from 

2 the combination of the proposed action and past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future OCS 

3 and non-OCS activities. Impacts on marine benthic and pelagic habitat resulting from ongoing 

4 and future routine OCS program activities, including those of the proposed action, could result 

5 from noise (vessel, seismic surveys, and construction), well drilling, pipeline placement 

6 (trenching, landfalls, and construction), platform placement (anchoring, mooring, and removal, 

7 except in deep waters) and routine discharges (drilling, production, platform, and vessel). 

8 Accidental oil spills are also counted among OCS program-related activities. 

9

10 Up to 12,000 development and production wells and 2,000 oil platforms are anticipated 

11 to be built in the GOM under the cumulative scenario (Table 4.6.1-1). In addition, up to 

12 69,200 km (43,000 mi) of offshore pipeline could be added. The construction of platforms and 

13 pipelines would disturb as much as 81,000 ha (200,200 ac) in total over the next 40 to 50 yr 

14 (Table 4.6.1-1). Bottom disturbance resulting from the proposed action may degrade water 

15 quality by increasing water turbidity in the vicinity of the operations and adding contaminants to 

16 the water column. It also changes sediment composition as suspended sediments (and 

17 contaminants, if present) are entrained in currents and deposited in new locations. The increased 

18 amount of drilling anticipated under the proposed action will result in OCS discharges of drill 

19 muds, cuttings, and produced waters. Impacts of OCS routine operations (exploration, 

20 production and decommissioning activities) on marine benthic and pelagic habitat are discussed 

21 in detail in Sections 4.4.6.2.1 and 4.4.6.3.1. Overall, routine operations represent a negligible to 

22 moderate long-term disturbance, with the severity of the impacts generally decreasing 

23 dramatically with distance from the well site.

24

25 Non-OCS activities with a potential to impact marine benthic and pelagic habitats in the 

26 GOM include sediment dredging and disposal, sand mining, anchoring, fishing/trawling, and 

27 tankering of imported oil. Anchoring by non-OCS vessels could cause significant chronic 

28 disturbance the benthic habitat and biota and temporarily reduce water quality by generating 

29 turbidity in the water column. Anchoring could involve boats used for recreational and 

30 commercial fishing or scuba diving, and commercial ship traffic. The amount of damage that 

31 could result from anchoring activity would depend upon vessel size, the size of the anchor and 

32 chain, sea conditions at the time of anchoring, and the location or position of the anchor on the 

33 feature. Areas damaged by anchors may take more than 10 years to recover, depending upon the 

34 severity of the damage. Due to a lack of regulation of non-OCS activities on these features, there 

35 is a likelihood of damages increasing due to heavier usage of the resources in the future. Sand 

36 mining and dredging operations in conjunction with ship channel maintenance and construction, 

37 pipeline placement and burial, and support facility access occur throughout the GOM as part of 

38 non-OCS activities. Sediments dredged and sidecast or transported to approved dredged material 

39 disposal sites would alter bottom habitat and communities and remove, injure, or kill local biotic 

40 communities in addition to generating turbidity over the length of the water column. Similarly, 

41 bottom trawling degrades benthic habitats and temporarily increases the turbidity of the water 

42 (Jones 1992).

43

44 Other non-OCS activities with a potential to impact marine benthic and pelagic habitats 

45 include offshore marine transportation, and pollutant inputs from point and non-point sources. 

46 Vessel traffic is a source of chronic noise that could temporarily and episodically reduce local 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-556

1 habitat quality by disturbing pelagic and shallow water benthic organisms. Multiple contaminant 

2 sources exist from nearshore point sources and contaminants can also be delivered to the 

3 continental shelf during storms and high river discharge. A primary example is the cultural 

4 eutrophication of the GOM, which has resulted in a large seasonal hypoxic zone off the coasts of 

5 Louisiana and Texas and restricts the use of benthic and bottom water habitat by marine biota 

6 over a wide area. In addition to non-point source pollution, LNG terminal operations (biocide7 laden, cooled water), and activities related to the oil and gas industry, which operates hundreds 

8 of platforms in State and Federal waters, discharges large volumes of drilling wastes, produced 

9 water, and other industrial waste streams to GOM waters. Pollutant inputs into the GOM and 

10 their impact on water quality are discussed in Section 4.6.2.1. The impacts of these activities on 

11 marine pelagic habitat can be temporary or long term and could result in reduced habitat quality 

12 for marine biota.

13

14 In the benthic and pelagic habitats of the GOM, climate change may cause the temporal 

15 variability of key chemical and physical parameters — particularly hydrology, dissolved oxygen, 

16 salinity, and temperature — to change or increase, which could significantly alter the existing 

17 structure of the benthic and phytoplankton communities (Rabalais et al. 2010). For example, 

18 freshwater discharge into the GOM has been increasing and is expected to continue to increase 

19 as a result of the increased rainfall in the Mississippi River Basin (Dai et al. 2009). Such 

20 changes could result in severe long-term or short-term fluctuations in temperature and salinity 

21 that could reduce or eliminate sensitive species. Such changes are most likely to occur in the 

22 Mississippi Estuarine Ecoregion, where freshwater inputs are highest. In addition, greater 

23 rainfall may increase inputs of nutrients into the GOM, potentially resulting in more intense 

24 phytoplankton blooms that could promote benthic hypoxia (Rabalais et al. 2010). Hypoxic or 

25 anoxic conditions can reduce or eliminate the suitability of benthic habitat for marine organisms.

26

27 Marine benthic and pelagic habitat and biota could be affected by oil spills from both 

28 OCS program activities and non-OCS activities such as the domestic transportation of oil, the 

29 import of foreign crude oil, and State development of oil. Storms, operator error, and 

30 mechanical failures may result in accidental oil releases from a variety of non-OCS related 

31 activities. Assumptions for oil spills under the cumulative case scenario are provided in 

32 Table 4.6.2-3, and for catastrophic spills, in Table 4.4.2-2. Large and potentially catastrophic 

33 spills could result from pipeline ruptures, tanker spills associated with an FPSO system, or loss 

34 of well control. In addition, crude oil enters the environment of the GOM from naturally 

35 occurring seeps. At least 63 seeps have been identified in the GOM (mostly off the coast of 

36 Louisiana) (MacDonald et al. 1996), and more than 350 naturally occurring and constant oil 

37 seeps that produce perennial slicks of oil at consistent locations may be present in the GOM 

38 (MacDonald and Leifer 2002, as cited in Kvenvolden and Cooper 2003). Seeps in the northern 

39 GOM have been estimated to discharge more than 28,000 bbl of crude oil annually to overlying 

40 GOM waters (MacDonald 1998b).

41

42 For both OCS and non-OCS oil spills, it is assumed that the magnitude and severity of 

43 the potential effects on benthic and pelagic habitat would be a function of the location, timing, 

44 duration, and size of the spill and the timing and nature of spill containment and cleanup 

45 activities. Detailed discussion of the impacts of OCS accidental hydrocarbon releases on marine 

46 benthic and pelagic habitat can be found in Sections 4.4.6.2.1 and 4.4.6.3.1.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-557

1 Coral Reefs and Hard-Bottom Habitat. Sensitive coral reef and hard-bottom benthic 

2 habitats in the GOM may be more susceptible to OCS impacts and take longer to recover if 

3 impacts were to occur. Consequently, these habitats receive special protection. Four coral reef 

4 and hard-bottom habitats are designated for the various protections: (1) banks offshore of Texas 

5 and Louisiana (including the FGBNMS), (2) the Pinnacle Trend off the Louisiana-Alabama 

6 coast, (3) seagrass and low-relief live-bottom areas primarily located in the Central and Eastern 

7 Planning Areas, and (4) potentially sensitive biological features of moderate to high relief that 

8 are not protected by (1) and (2). As identified in Section 4.4.6.2.1, NTL No. 2009-G39 has 

9 several protections in place to minimize and mitigate the adverse effects of oil and gas 

10 exploration and development on coral reefs and hard-bottom habitat.

11

12 Cumulative impact factors for coral reef and hard-bottom habitat include both OCS and 

13 non-OCS cumulative activities. Impacts of OCS exploration, production and decommissioning 

14 activities on coral reefs and hard-bottom habitat could result from noise, well drilling, pipeline 

15 placement (trenching, landfalls, and construction), chemical releases (drilling discharges, 

16 operation discharges, and sanitary wastes), and platforms placement (anchoring, mooring, and 

17 removal, except in deepwaters). Impacts of OCS exploration, production and decommissioning 

18 activities on marine benthic and pelagic habitat are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.6.2.1. 

19 Overall, impacts on coral reef and live-bottom habitat from routine activities should be 

20 minimized by the protection stipulated by NTL 2009-G39. However, low-relief or small, 

21 isolated, unmapped live-bottom could be affected by direct mechanical damage and turbidity and 

22 sedimentation.

23

24 Non-OCS activities with a potential to impact these habitats include anchoring by non25 OCS activity vessels, fishing/trawling, discharges by non-OCS offshore marine transportation, 

26 and tankering of imported oil. Anchoring could involve boats used for recreational and 

27 commercial fishing or scuba diving, and commercial ship traffic. The amount of damage that 

28 could result from anchoring activity would depend upon vessel size, the size of the anchor and 

29 chain, sea conditions at the time of anchoring, and the location or position of the anchor on the 

30 feature. Recovery of areas damaged by anchors may be long term, depending upon the severity 

31 of the damage. Due to a lack of regulation of non-OCS activities on these features, there is a 

32 likelihood of damages increasing due to heavier usage of the resources in the future.

33

34 Trawling activities are another source of damage to coral and hardbottom habitat. 

35 Because anchoring and collection activities by scuba divers on the living reef areas of the Flower 

36 Garden Banks are prohibited, biota associated with the Flower Garden Banks are unlikely to be 

37 significantly affected by these activities. Similarly, use of spiny lobster and stone crab traps may 

38 also damage bottom substrate such as seagrasses and corals. Strings of traps deployed without 

39 buoys are sometimes retrieved by dragging 18-kg (40-lb) grapnels and chains across the bottom 

40 until the trap string is hooked, potentially damaging bottom habitats in the process.

41

42 Impacts could also occur due to discharges from other non-OCS activities, including 

43 tankers or other marine traffic passing in the vicinity of coral reef and hard-bottom habitat. 

44 Because water depths are typically greater than 20 m (66 ft) at the tops of most of the banks, 

45 dilution of discharges would greatly reduce concentrations of potentially toxic components 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-558

1 before they could come in contact with these features; consequently, it is assumed that 

2 discharges from such activities would not be concentrated enough to reduce habitat quality.

3

4 Climate change has the potential to profoundly affect coral communities on coral and 

5 hard-bottom features in several ways including (Section 3.7.1.1.4):

6

7 • Increased frequency of bleaching as a stress response to warming water 

8 temperatures (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2007);

9

10 • Excessive algal growth on reefs and an increase in bacterial, fungal, and viral 

11 agents (Boesch et al. 2000; Twilley et al. 2001);

12

13 • Greater frequency of mechanical damage to corals from greater severity of 

14 tropical storms and hurricanes (Janetos et al. 2008);

15

16 • Decreases in the oceanic pH and carbonate concentration are expected to 

17 reduce the reef formation rate, weaken the existing reef structure, and alter the 

18 composition of coral communities (Janetos et al. 2008); and

19

20 In addition, climate change may allow the range expansion of non-native species. Many 

21 of the decommissioned platforms will be converted into artificial reefs. By acting as stepping 

22 stones across the GOM, oil platforms have been implicated in the introduction of a non-native 

23 coral species (Tubastraea coccinea) and fishes such as sergeant majors (Abudefduf saxatilis) and 

24 yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus) into the FGB (Hickerson et al. 2008).

25

26 Oil spills from both OCS and non-OCS activities could affect coral reef and hard-bottom 

27 habitat and biota. Detailed discussion of the impacts of OCS accidental hydrocarbon releases on 

28 hard-bottom and coral reef habitat can be found in Section 4.4.6.2.1. It is assumed that 

29 accidental oil releases from most non-OCS activities would be at the surface or located 

30 sufficiently far from coral reef and hard-bottom habitat and biota that they would be unlikely to 

31 greatly affect these habitats. The magnitude and severity of potential effects on coral reef and 

32 hard-bottom habitat and biota from such exposure would be a function of the location, timing, 

33 duration, and size of the spill; the proximity of the spill to the features; and the timing and nature 

34 of spill containment and cleanup activities. Depending upon location, spills from non-OCS 

35 sources and releases from natural seeps could contribute to the overall exposure of communities 

36 associated with topographic features in the GOM OCS planning areas to oil, with corresponding 

37 lethal or sublethal effects.

38

39 High Density Deepwater Communities (HDDC). High density deepwater communities 

40 (HDDCs) include coldwater corals and chemosynthetic communities. Cumulative impact factors 

41 for HDDCs include both OCS and non-OCS cumulative activities. Potential impacts on HDDCs

42 resulting from ongoing and future routine OCS program activities, including those of the 

43 proposed action, could result from noise, well drilling, pipeline placement (trenching, landfalls, 

44 and construction), chemical releases (drilling discharges, operation discharges, and sanitary 

45 wastes), and platform placement (anchoring, mooring, and removal, except in deep waters). 

46 Mitigation measures instituted to protect these HDDCs include Notice to Lessee (NTL) 2009-
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-559

1 G40, which requires the avoidance of HDDCs or areas that have a high potential for supporting 

2 these community types, as interpreted from geophysical records. Impacts of OCS exploration, 

3 production, and decommissioning activities on HDDCs are discussed in detail in 

4 Section 4.4.6.2.1. Overall, impacts on HDDCs from exploration and site development activities 

5 are expected to be minimal because of the provisions in NTL 2009-G40 that protect HDDCs

6 from oil and gas development activities. However, small and unmapped HDDCs may be 

7 completely or partially destroyed by bottom-disturbing activities. In such cases, recovery would 

8 likely be long term, although permanent loss of the affected feature is also possible.

9

10 Non-OCS activities that have the potential to adversely affect HDDCs include 

11 fishing/trawling, anchoring, and offshore marine transportation. Due to the water depths of these 

12 areas and the widely scattered nature of these habitats, such activities are unlikely to greatly 

13 affect HDDCs in the GOM. However, deepwater trawling could destroy HDDCs and recover 

14 could be long term or may not occur at all. Generally, commercially important deepwater fish 

15 species use Lophelia reefs as juveniles (SAFMC 1998).

16

17 As climate change has the potential to affect warm water corals, it could affect coldwater 

18 Lophelia reefs (Section 3.7.2.1.7). The saturation depth of aragonite (the primary carbonate 

19 formed used by hard corals) appears to be a primary determinant of deepwater coral distribution, 

20 with reefs forming in areas of high aragonite solubility (Orr et al. 2005). The depth at which the 

21 water is saturated with aragonite is projected to become shallower over the coming century, and 

22 most coldwater corals may be in undersaturated waters by 2100 (Orr et al. 2005). Consequently, 

23 the spatial extent, density, and growth of deepwater corals may decrease, diminishing their 

24 associated ecosystem functions (Orr et al. 2005). There is evidence that oil and gas extraction 

25 reduces the natural release of hydrocarbons that support deep-sea chemosynthetic communities 

26 (Quigley et al. 1999). Unlike chemosynthetic communities, Lophelia corals do not depend on 

27 hydrocarbon seepage to meet their metabolic requirements (Becker et al. 2009) and presumably 

28 would not be affected.

29

30 Oil spills from both OCS and non-OCS activities could affect HDDCs. Detailed 

31 discussion of the impacts of OCS accidental hydrocarbon releases can be found in 

32 Section 4.4.6.2.1. The magnitude and severity of potential effects on biota associated with 

33 topographic features from such exposure would be a function of the location, timing, duration, 

34 and size of the spill, the proximity of the spill to the features, and the timing and nature of spill 

35 containment and cleanup activities. It is assumed that most accidental oil releases would be at 

36 the surface or located sufficiently far from HDDCs that they would be unlikely to greatly affect 

37 communities associated with the topographic features.

38

39 Conclusion. Impacting factors for marine benthic and pelagic habitats include both OCS 

40 and non-OCS activities. For OCS activities, planning and permitting procedures and stipulations 

41 that promote identification and avoidance of sensitive habitats should minimize the potential for 

42 direct impacts on sensitive seafloor areas during routine OCS activities. In the GOM, 

43 stipulations that are currently in place restrict OCS activities in the immediate vicinity of seafloor 

44 areas containing important topographic features, live bottom habitat, and HDDC, and there is 

45 relatively little likelihood that cumulative OCS activities will affect overall viability of 

46 ecological resources in such areas. Non-OCS activities with a potential to impact marine benthic 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-560

1 and pelagic habitats in the GOM include oil and gas production in State waters, sediment 

2 dredging and disposal, sand mining, anchoring, fishing/trawling, and tankering of imported oil. 

3 Disturbances from these activities such as noise, vessel discharges, and bottom disturbance 

4 would occur in addition to similar impacts from OCS Program activities. Cumulative impacts to 

5 major topographic features, live bottom habitats and HDDC as a result of OCS and non OCS 

6 Program activities would be minor, either because impacts would occur to relatively small 

7 proportions of the available habitats or because there are various restrictions in place to limit the 

8 potential for impacts. The incremental contribution of routine Program activities to these 

9 impacts would be small (see Section 4.4.6.2.1).

10

11 Oil spills could result from both OCS and non-OCS activities. The cumulative impacts 

12 of past, present, and future oil spills on seafloor habitats would be minor to major. The

13 incremental impacts of accidental oil spills associated with the proposed action on these 

14 resources would be small to large, depending on the location, timing, duration, and size of spills; 

15 the proximity of spills to particular habitats; and the timing and nature of spill containment and 

16 cleanup activities (see Section 4.4.6.2.1). Spills in deeper water, whether from OCS or non-OCS 

17 sources, are unlikely to have overall community-level effects on seafloor habitats because of the 

18 relatively small proportion of seafloor area that would come in contact with released oil at 

19 concentrations great enough to elicit toxic effects. Catastrophic oil spills that affect shallow and 

20 intertidal habitats have the potential to be of greatest significance. Although pelagic habitat is 

21 likely to recover quickly following an oil spill, the recovery time for intertidal and shallow 

22 subtidal benthic habitat directly impacted by oil spills could be long term.

23

24

25 4.6.3.1.3 Essential Fish Habitat. This section identifies activities that could affect fish

26 resources in the GOM, including non-OCS activities and current and planned OCS activities that 

27 would occur during the life of the Program, and the potential incremental effects of 

28 implementing the proposed action. Cumulative effects on EFH could occur from a variety of 

29 OCS and non-OCS activities that have a potential to directly kill managed fish species, disturb 

30 ocean bottom habitats, increase sediment suspension, degrade water quality, or affect the food 

31 supply for fishery resources.

32

33 Cumulative impacting factors for EFH include both OCS and non-OCS activities. 

34 Impacts on marine benthic and pelagic habitat resulting from ongoing and future routine OCS 

35 program activities, including those of the proposed action, could result from noise, well drilling, 

36 pipeline placement (trenching, landfalls, and construction), platform placement (anchoring, 

37 mooring, and removal, except in deep waters) and routine discharges (drilling, production, 

38 platform, and vessel). Accidental oil spills are also counted among OCS program-related 

39 activities.

40

41 Routine OCS activities could disturb bottom areas due to the installation of platforms and 

42 pipelines and the anchoring of vessels and structures. Up to 12,000 production wells and 

43 2,000 oil platforms are anticipated to be built in the GOM under the cumulative scenario 

44 (Table 4.6.1-1). In addition, up to 69,200 km (43,000 mi) of offshore pipeline could be 

45 constructed. The construction of platforms and pipelines over the period of the Program would 

46 disturb as much as 81,000 ha (200,200 ac) in total (Table 4.6.1-1). Under the cumulative 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-561

1 scenario, it is anticipated that less than 40 new pipeline landfalls could occur in the GOM

2 (Table 4.6.1-1) with up to 12 of these resulting from the proposed action. As discussed in 

3 Section 4.4.6.4, deposition of drilling muds and cuttings could potentially affect EFH by altering 

4 grain-size distributions and chemical characteristics of sediments such that benthic prey of some 

5 managed fish species would be affected in the immediate area surrounding drill sites. Produced 

6 water will also be released into the GOM during the production phase.

7

8 Platform removals using explosives will likely kill some fish, including managed species 

9 for which EFH has been established, and would remove platform-associated fouling 

10 communities that serve as prey for managed species. Up to 280 platforms may be removed 

11 under the proposed action compared with up to 1,200 platforms removed using explosives as a 

12 result of cumulative OCS activities during the life of the Program. If large numbers of fish are 

13 killed as the result of removal of platforms using explosives, there could be effects on managed 

14 species and their prey in the immediate vicinity of the removed platforms. Once a platform is 

15 removed, the fouling community that serves as a food source for some managed and prey fish 

16 species in the vicinity would no longer be available, and the associated fishes would be forced to 

17 relocate to other foraging areas. However, given the relatively small area that would be affected 

18 by such removals, Gulfwide effects on managed species are not anticipated.

19

20 See Section 4.4.6.4.1 for a detailed discussion of the impacts of routine operations on 

21 EFH and managed species in the GOM. Overall, it is expected that the cumulative impacts of 

22 exploration and site development activities on marine EFH would be moderate, and impacts are 

23 not expected to permanently reduce the EFH available to managed species or result in 

24 population-level impacts to managed species. The most sensitive benthic habitats, such as those 

25 associated with hard bottoms and topographic features, should not be affected by routine 

26 operations, and effects would be minimized or eliminated by existing lease stipulations. 

27

28 There are also State oil and gas activities that can affect EFH. Louisiana and Texas have 

29 experienced substantial oil and gas development within their coastal areas including exploratory 

30 drilling, production platform installation, and pipeline installation. Factors that could affect EFH 

31 from these activities would be similar to those described above for OCS activities. However, the 

32 effects from non-OCS oil and gas activities could possibly be more severe than the effects from 

33 routine OCS activities because the activities are closer to shore and in shallower environments. 

34 As a consequence, more benthic EFH may be damaged, and resulting changes in sedimentation 

35 and turbidity could affect a greater proportion of the water column.

36

37 Other non-OCS activities that influence EFH may include commercial fishing, 

38 commercial shipping (tanker transportation), land development, water quality degradation, 

39 dredge and fill and dredge disposal operation, and construction of channel stabilization structures 

40 such as jetties could affect EFH (GMFMC 1998). As discussed below, these non-OCS activities

41 when combined with OCS activities could result in cumulative impacts on EFH over time, 

42 especially if these impacts occur frequently or are of sufficient magnitude that habitat recovery 

43 times are prolonged. 

44

45 Barges carrying cargo arrive and depart through ports and travel through the GOM 

46 Intracoastal Water Way, which serves as a major route for needed goods and supplies. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-562

1 Discharges of treated wastes or hazardous chemicals could negatively affect water quality 

2 (Section 4.6.2.1.1), a component of EFH, as well as aquatic vegetation. Pollutants generated 

3 from boat maintenance activities on land and water could also negatively impact water quality. 

4 Oil and grease are commonly found in bilge water, especially in vessels with inboard engines, 

5 and these products may be discharged during vessel pump out (USEPA 1993).

6

7 Sand mining and routine dredging operations for channel construction and maintenance, 

8 pipeline emplacement, and creation of harbor and docking areas can affect EFH in the GOM by 

9 suspending sediments and affecting water quality. As suspended sediments settle to the bottom, 

10 the benthic prey of some managed fish species could be smothered. In most cases, benthic 

11 organisms would recolonize such areas unless maintenance dredging operations are repeated 

12 frequently. Dumping sites for dredge spoils in the GOM, most of which are located within State 

13 waters, could also alter water quality and affect benthic organisms that serve as prey for some 

14 managed fish species.

15

16 See individual sections on water quality, coastal habitats, and marine and pelagic habitats 

17 for a discussion of the effects of climate change on EFH in the GOM. One primary impact 

18 expected to result from climate change is the loss of wetland habitat, which is an important EFH 

19 for many larval and juvenile stages of managed species. Wetland loss could be caused by 

20 several factors including erosion, sea level rise, discharging nutrient-laden waters to the 

21 environment, reduced sediment load of the Mississippi River, and human-induced subsidence 

22 from groundwater withdrawals, among others. Cumulative effects on wetlands are discussed in 

23 Section 4.6.3.1.1.

24

25 Commercial and recreational fisheries in the GOM also impact EFH. For example, most 

26 of the wild shrimp caught are harvested using bottom trawls. The nets are held open with bottom 

27 sled devices made from wood or steel. In addition to capturing and killing some nontarget fish 

28 and invertebrate species, the sleds, or ―doors,‖ drag along the bottom, potentially digging up 

29 sediments and hard substrate. Such activities could disrupt the benthic community and increase 

30 the turbidity of the water (Jones 1992). Similarly, use of spiny lobster and stone crab traps may 

31 also damage bottom substrate such as seagrasses and corals. 

32

33 Other events, including hurricanes, turbidity plumes, and hypoxia, could also affect 

34 various managed fish or their habitat, although the GOM fish community as a whole should be 

35 adapted to such events. For example, a hurricane or a series of hurricanes could temporarily 

36 degrade the quality of large areas of wetlands that serve as nursery and feeding areas for a 

37 variety of managed fish and invertebrate species. 

38

39 Oil spills from OCS and non-OCS activities may cumulatively affect several resources 

40 that contribute to EFH, including sediments, water quality, fish resources, coastal habitats, and 

41 seafloor habitats and benthic communities (see Sections 4.6.2 and 4.6.3). Large, potentially 

42 catastrophic spills could result from pipeline ruptures, tanker spills associated with an FPSO 

43 system, or loss of well control. Other potential sources of oil spills that could affect EFH include 

44 non-OCS oil development activities and non-OCS tankering activities. Spills from import 

45 tankers could occur offshore in shipping lanes or in coastal waters as tankers prepare to make 

46 landfall.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-563

1 Oil from shallow-water spills could impact life stages of managed fish species that use 

2 surface waters as part of their lifecycle, especially those that release pelagic eggs and have 

3 pelagic larvae. Unlike adult fish that can move away from oiled waters, pelagic eggs and larvae 

4 are largely transported by wind and water currents. Those that come into contact with surface oil 

5 could be injured or killed through smothering or an accumulation of oil on the gills. Thus, oiled 

6 surface waters would temporarily reduce the amount of EFH available for these life stages. 

7 Detailed discussion of the impacts of oil spills on fish can be found in Section 4.4.7.3.1.

8

9 In marine waters, several individual reefs and banks located offshore of the Louisiana10 Texas border have been designated HAPCs by the GMFMC (NMFS 2010a). As identified in 

11 Section 4.4.6.2.1, NTL No. 2009-G39 has several protections in place to minimize and mitigate 

12 the adverse effects of oil and gas exploration and development on these banks. However, large 

13 or catastrophic spills could adversely affect hard-bottom HAPC by causing lethal or sublethal 

14 impacts to corals (Section 4.4.6.2.1). The HAPC for bluefin tuna extends from the 100 m 

15 (328 ft) isobath seaward to the EEZ. The HAPC could also be affected by oil spills, and 

16 population-level impacts to bluefin tuna could result from catastrophic spills. Habitat areas of 

17 particular concern in nearshore areas include intertidal and estuarine habitats with emergent and 

18 submerged vegetation, sand and mud flats, and shell and oyster reefs that may provide food and 

19 rearing for managed juvenile fish and shellfish. Shallow-water spills may reach these coastal 

20 EFH areas and have negative impacts. Shallow-water wave action could increase entrainment of 

21 oil and tar balls in the water column. This could temporarily diminish the quality and quantity of 

22 benthic EFH. Settled tar balls may be ingested by bottom-feeding fishes and may harm or prove 

23 fatal to them. During a spill, aquatic vegetation, which provides habitat for juveniles and for 

24 prey of some managed species, could become coated with oil. In such cases, organisms that are 

25 sessile or that have limited ability to avoid spills could be killed. These areas represent 

26 important nursery areas for fishes and invertebrates that contribute to estuarine, coastal, and shelf 

27 food webs. Loss of such habitat by oil spills would be compounded by the existing high natural 

28 loss of wetlands.

29

30 The actual locations of the spills will determine the degree to which EFH would be 

31 affected. The HAPC in the Eastern Planning Area that could be affected by oil spills from the 

32 Central or Western Planning Areas include the Florida Middle Grounds, the Madison-Swanson 

33 Marine Reserve. Pulley Ridge, and Tortugas North and South Ecological Reserve are also

34 located in the southern tip of Florida, and are unlikely to be contacted by oil. Spills have the 

35 greatest potential to harm EFH resources if they occur in shallow waters, where benthic habitats 

36 or wetlands can be affected, or if they occur when large numbers of pelagic eggs and larvae of 

37 managed species are present. If the location of a spill coincided with the location of eggs and 

38 larvae, large numbers of these organisms would be injured or killed. Oil reaching the surface 

39 from deepwater pipeline spills and deepwater tanker spills could affect EFH for the eggs and 

40 larvae of federally managed pelagic fish species, neuston prey species, and Sargassum and its 

41 associated fauna. Pelagic eggs and larvae contacting the spilled oil would be smothered, and 

42 Sargassum within affected areas would be fouled and potentially killed.

43

44 Conclusion. Impacting factors for EFH include both OCS and non-OCS activities. Non45 OCS activities with a potential to impact EFH in the GOM include oil and gas production in 

46 State waters, sediment dredging and disposal, and vessel traffic. Impacts from OCS activities 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-564

1 would be limited by specific lease stipulations. Cumulative impacts to EFH as a result of OCS 

2 and non-OCS program activities would be minor, due to the small proportion of EFH area that 

3 would likely be affected. The incremental contribution of routine Program activities to these 

4 impacts would be small (see Section 4.4.6.3.1). 

5

6 Accidental releases of oil and gas from OCS and non-OCS facilities could also have 

7 effects on EFH. The cumulative impacts of past, present, and future oil spills on EFH would be 

8 minor to moderate. The incremental impacts of accidental spills associated with the proposed 

9 action on EFH would be small to large, depending on the location, timing, duration, and size of 

10 spills; the proximity of spills to particular fish habitats; and the timing and nature of spill 

11 containment and cleanup activities (see Section 4.4.6.3.1). While most accidents related to OCS 

12 activities assumed under the cumulative spill scenario would be small and would have relatively 

13 small incremental impacts on EFH, spills that reach coastal wetlands could have more persistent 

14 impacts and could require remediation. Spills in deeper water, whether from OCS or non-OCS 

15 sources, are unlikely to have overall population-level effects on fish resources because of the 

16 relatively small proportion of similar available fish habitats that would come in contact with 

17 released oil at concentrations great enough to elicit toxic effects. Oil spills that have the greatest 

18 potential to impact EFH and managed species are those that occur in shallower subtidal and 

19 intertidal areas and spills that reach areas at the same time where substantial numbers of eggs or 

20 larvae of managed species are present.

21

22

23 4.6.3.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

24

25

26 4.6.3.2.1 Coastal and Estuarine Habitats. A number of activities associated with the 

27 proposed action could result in impacts on coastal and estuarine habitats in the Cook Inlet 

28 Planning Area (Section 4.4.6.1.2). These activities include construction of pipelines and pipeline 

29 landfalls and operation of service vessels and existing facilities. Impacts could include losses of 

30 beach and wetland habitat and indirect effects that contribute to reductions in these habitats or 

31 impacts on biota. There are no past or ongoing OCS activities in the Cook Inlet Planning Area.

32

33 Pipeline landfalls could directly disturb tidal marshes, beaches, rocky shores, or other 

34 coastal habitats, depending on the location of the landfalls. Sedimentation from physical 

35 disturbance of substrates may affect biota in intertidal or shallow subtidal habitats. In addition, 

36 accidental spills may impact shoreline habitat. 

37

38 Ongoing non-OCS activities that could affect coastal and estuarine habitats include those 

39 related to State oil and gas development, commercial shipping and other marine vessels, coastal 

40 development, discharge of municipal wastes and other effluents, domestic transportation of oil 

41 and gas, and logging. These activities can be reasonably expected to continue into the future.

42

43 Factors that impact coastal wetlands include the direct elimination of wetland habitat by 

44 excavation or filling and the degradation of wetland communities by reduced water quality or 

45 hydrologic changes. The construction of pipelines, docks, or shorebases associated with State oil 

46 and gas exploration and development could result in direct losses of habitat. Habitats and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-565

1 associated biota within the Cook Inlet Planning Area could also be impacted by routine 

2 discharges from marine vessels, discharges of municipal and industrial wastewater, or

3 sedimentation from upland areas, including erosion from logging operations within the Cook 

4 Inlet watershed. Activities that increase wave action along beaches could contribute to their 

5 erosion. Barge and service vessel traffic supporting State oil and gas development may result in 

6 wake erosion. The direct and indirect impacts on wetlands from pipeline construction, service 

7 vessel operation, and operation of existing facilities under the proposed action would represent a 

8 very small contribution to the past, ongoing, and expected future impacts on coastal and 

9 estuarine habitats from non-OCS activities.

10

11 Accidental spills of oil or other liquid hydrocarbons, resulting from activities conducted 

12 under the proposed action, could impact shoreline habitats. As under the proposed action, the 

13 majority of these spills would be small (less than 50 bbl). Spills from onshore pipelines and 

14 facilities could impact freshwater wetlands, or tidal wetlands if carried to coastal habitats by 

15 streams. Non-OCS activities, such as State oil and gas development, domestic transportation of 

16 oil or refined petroleum products, including LNG from Cook Inlet and the Alaska Peninsula, the 

17 production and storage of petroleum products and LNG, and commercial shipping, may also 

18 result in accidental spills that could potentially impact shoreline habitats. Oil spills have resulted 

19 in past impacts on beaches and other intertidal habitats, as in the case of the Exxon Valdez oil 

20 spill. Spills can result in short- or long-term effects on vegetation growth and changes in the 

21 composition of intertidal or shallow subtidal communities, or extensive mortality of biota 

22 associated with shoreline habitats, and may persist in substrates for decades. The amount of oil 

23 contacting shoreline habitats from a spill depends on a number of factors such as the location and 

24 size of the spill, waves and water currents, and containment actions. Naturally occurring seeps 

25 may also be a source of crude oil introduced into nearshore waters (Kvenvolden and 

26 Cooper 2003). The magnitude of resulting impacts and the persistence of oil would depend on 

27 factors such as the amount of oil deposited, remediation efforts, substrate grain size, and 

28 localized erosion and deposition patterns. Recovery of affected wetlands could require several 

29 decades. The impacts of potential spills associated with the proposed action would be expected 

30 to add a small contribution to the impacts of other sources of oil in the planning area.

31

32 Indirect effects on coastal and estuarine habitats could result from global climate change. 

33 Potential thermal expansion of ocean water and melting of glaciers and ice caps could result in a 

34 global rise in mean sea level (Section 4.6.1.6). Sea-level rise could result in increased inundation 

35 of shorelines and erosion of beach habitat and conversion of wetlands to open water. In addition, 

36 large changes in river flows into nearshore marine waters could affect salinity and water 

37 circulation in estuaries, which, in turn, could impact estuarine wetland communities.

38

39 Conclusion. Future OCS program and ongoing and future non-OCS program activities 

40 in combination with naturally occurring events have resulted in losses of coastal habitats in Cook 

41 Inlet; cumulative impacts on these resources, therefore, are considered to be moderate to major. 

42 Operations under the proposed action would result in small localized impacts, primarily due to 

43 facility construction, pipeline landfalls, channel dredging, and vessel traffic; however, the 

44 incremental contribution of routine Program activities to cumulative impacts would be small 

45 (see Section 4.4.6.2.2).

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-566

1 The cumulative impacts of past, present, and future oil spills on coastal and estuarine 

2 habitats would be moderate. The incremental impacts of accidental oil spills associated with the 

3 proposed action on these resources would be small to large, depending on the location, timing, 

4 duration, and size of the spill; the proximity of the spill to particular habitats; and the timing and 

5 nature of spill containment and cleanup activities (see Section 4.4.6.2.2). The majority of these 

6 spills would be small (less than 50 bbl). Large oil releases that occur in or reach shallower 

7 nearshore areas have the greatest potential to affect coastal and estuarine habitats. Most spills 

8 would be unlikely to contact and affect coastal and estuarine habitats. Large oil spills and 

9 catastrophic discharge events, however, can affect extensive areas of shoreline. 

10

11

12 4.6.3.2.2 Marine Benthic and Pelagic Habitats. Cumulative impacting factors for 

13 marine benthic and pelagic habitats in Cook Inlet Planning Area include both OCS and non-OCS 

14 activities. Potential impacts on marine benthic and pelagic habitat resulting from ongoing and 

15 future routine OCS program activities, including those of the proposed action, could result from 

16 noise (vessel, seismic surveys, construction, operations), well drilling, pipeline placement 

17 (trenching, landfalls, and construction), platform placement (anchoring, mooring, and removal), 

18 and discharges (drilling, vessel and platform). All these activities have the potential to adversely 

19 affect marine benthic habitats in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. Accidental oil spills are also 

20 counted among OCS program-related activities; assumptions for oil spills under the cumulative 

21 case scenario are provided in Table 4.6.2-3, and catastrophic spill assumptions are provided in 

22 Table 4.4.2-2. 

23

24 Because there is no OCS activity in Cook Inlet Planning Area, the new OCS activities 

25 under the proposed action represent a 100% increase in all associated OCS activities in Cook 

26 Inlet. Over the life of the Program, up to 114 production wells and up to three oil platforms are 

27 anticipated. In addition, up to 241 km (150 mi) of new offshore pipeline is anticipated. Bottom 

28 disturbance resulting from OCS program activities degrades water quality by increasing water 

29 turbidity in the vicinity of the operations and adding contaminants to the water column. It also 

30 changes sediment composition as suspended sediments (and contaminants, if present) are 

31 entrained in currents and deposited in new locations. Construction of platforms in areas 

32 previously lacking hard substrate could have localized effects on the biodiversity and distribution 

33 of benthic communities by favoring organisms that prefer a hard substrate. Impacts of OCS 

34 routine operations (exploration, production and decommissioning activities) on marine benthic 

35 and pelagic habitat in the Cook Inlet Planning Area are discussed in detail in Sections 4.4.6.2.2 

36 and 4.4.6.3.2. Overall, routine operations represent a negligible to moderate long-term 

37 disturbance, with the severity of the impacts generally decreasing dramatically with distance 

38 from the well site. 

39

40 The increased amount of drilling in Cook Inlet anticipated under the proposed action will 

41 result in OCS discharges of drill muds and cuttings from exploration and delineation wells. 

42 Drilling muds and cuttings from production wells as well as all produced waters will be disposed 

43 of in the well rather than discharged into Cook Inlet. The OCS discharges of drill muds, 

44 cuttings, and produced waters could potentially affect benthic and pelagic habitat by increasing 

45 turbidity and altering grain size distributions and chemical characteristics of sediments. The 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-567

1 impacts of drilling discharges on benthic and pelagic habitats are discussed in detail in 

2 Sections 4.4.6.2.3 and 4.4.6.3.3.

3

4 Various non-OCS activities in Cook Inlet, including State oil and gas programs, dredging 

5 and disposal of dredging spoils in OCS waters, anchoring, and commercial or sportfishing 

6 activities, and commercial shipping (including imported oil) could contribute to cumulative 

7 effects on pelagic and seafloor habitats. Drilling of wells in State waters could also require 

8 construction of platforms and pipelines in waters of Alaska. Effects on seafloor and pelagic 

9 habitat and biota would be similar to those described above for OCS oil and gas programs 

10 (Sections 4.4.6.2.2 and 4.4.6.3.2). Dredging operations in conjunction with ship channel 

11 maintenance and construction, pipeline placement and burial, and support facility access occur 

12 throughout the Cook Inlet Planning Area as part of non-OCS activities. Non-OCS dredging and 

13 marine disposal activities would involve excavation of nearshore sediments and subsequent 

14 disposal in offshore or nearshore areas, thereby disturbing seafloor habitats and generating 

15 temporary turbidity in the water column. Sediments dredged and sidecast or transported to 

16 approved dredged material disposal sites could cause smothering and some mortality of sessile 

17 animals in the vicinity of the activity. Anchoring of non-OCS activity vessels on these features 

18 could cause significant chronic disturbance to benthic and bottom water habitat and biota. 

19 Anchoring could involve boats used for recreational and commercial fishing and commercial 

20 ship traffic. The amount of damage that could result from anchoring activity would depend upon 

21 vessel size, the size of the anchor and chain, sea conditions at the time of anchoring, and the 

22 location or position of the anchor on the feature. Similarly, some fishing methods, such as 

23 trawling and shellfish dredging, could damage seafloor habitats and increase the turbidity of the 

24 water column (Jones 1992). The effects of dredging, anchoring, and trawling activities on 

25 marine benthic and pelagic habitats are expected to be similar to those described for OCS bottom 

26 disturbing activities (Sections 4.4.6.2.2 and 4.4.6.3.2). Impacts on pelagic habitat would be 

27 localized and temporary, while benthic habitat damaged by anchors may take more than 10 years 

28 to recover, depending upon the nature of the habitat and severity of the damage.

29

30 As a heavily river influenced system, climate change may cause the temporal variability 

31 of key chemical and physical parameters the Cook Inlet Planning Area — particularly hydrology, 

32 dissolved oxygen, salinity, and temperature. These changes could significantly alter the existing 

33 benthic and pelagic habitat and biota. A predicted increase in river discharge could change the 

34 salinity, temperature, and turbidity regimes in nearshore areas and alter the composition of 

35 existing phytoplankton and benthic communities. Other changes could result from:

36

37 • Ocean acidification from increasing CO2 inputs into the ocean that may 

38 reduce the availability of calcite and aragonite to calcifying marine organisms.

39

40 • The expected reduction in landfast ice extent and duration resulting from 

41 rising temperatures may reduce the scouring of intertidal and shallow subtidal 

42 habitats on the western side of Cook Inlet.

43

44 • Warmer temperatures may also increase phytoplankton productivity,

45 potentially resulting in greater food inputs to benthic habitats and subsequent 

46 increases in the productivity of benthic biota. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-568

1 Oil spills from both OCS and non-OCS activities could affect benthic and pelagic habitat 

2 in Cook Inlet. The total number of oil spills and the extent of affected seafloor habitat would 

3 likely increase under the cumulative scenario, in conjunction with increased levels of petroleum 

4 exploration and production. Accidental hydrocarbon releases can occur at the surface from 

5 tankers or platforms or at the seafloor from the wellhead or pipelines. Non-OCS activities, such 

6 as oil and gas development in State waters, domestic transportation of oil or refined petroleum 

7 products, and commercial shipping, may also result in accidental spills that could affect benthic 

8 and pelagic habitats within the Cook Inlet Planning Area.

9

10 For both OCS and non-OCS oil spills, it is assumed the magnitude and severity of 

11 potential impacts on benthic and pelagic habitat would be a function of the location (including 

12 habitats affected), timing, duration, and size of the spill and containment and cleanup activities. 

13 It is anticipated that most small to medium spills would have limited effects because of the 

14 relatively small areas likely to be exposed to high concentrations of hydrocarbons and the short 

15 period of time during which potentially toxic concentrations would be present. Oil spills would 

16 likely have the greatest impacts on benthic habitat and communities in shallow subtidal waters 

17 and in intertidal areas. Although pelagic habitat is likely to recover quickly following an oil 

18 spill, the recovery time for intertidal and shallow subtidal benthic habitat directly impacted by oil 

19 spills could be long term (Section 4.4.6.2.2). Multiple spills would further contribute to 

20 cumulative effects. Detailed discussion of the impacts of OCS accidental hydrocarbon releases 

21 on marine benthic and pelagic habitat can be found in Sections 4.4.6.2.2 and 4.4.6.3.2.

22

23 Conclusion. Impacting factors for marine benthic and pelagic habitats include both OCS 

24 and non-OCS activities. Non-OCS activities in Alaskan waters, including oil and gas

25 development in State waters, commercial fishing and sportfishing, sediment dredging and 

26 disposal, anchoring, and tankering of imported oil, could also contribute to cumulative effects on 

27 seafloor habitats. Disturbances from these activities including noise, vessel discharges, and 

28 bottom disturbance would occur in addition to similar impacts from OCS activities. Cumulative 

29 impacts to marine benthic and pelagic habitats, as a result of OCS and non-OCS program 

30 activities, would be minor, either because of the limited time frame over which most individual 

31 activities would occur or the small proportion of available habitats that would be affected during 

32 a given period. The incremental contribution of routine Program activities to these impacts 

33 would be small (see Section 4.4.6.2.2). 

34

35 Oil spills could result from both OCS and non-OCS activities. The cumulative impacts 

36 of past, present, and future oil spills on seafloor habitats would be moderate. The incremental 

37 impacts of accidental oil spills associated with the proposed action on these resources would be 

38 small to large, depending on the location, timing, duration, and size of spills; the proximity of 

39 spills to particular seafloor habitats; and the timing and nature of spill containment and cleanup 

40 activities (see Section 4.4.6.2.2). Oil from catastrophic spills that reach shallow and intertidal 

41 habitats have the potential to be of greatest significance. Although pelagic habitat is likely to 

42 recover quickly following an oil spill, the recovery time for intertidal and shallow subtidal 

43 benthic habitat directly impacted by oil spills could be long-term.

44

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-569

1 4.6.3.2.3 Essential Fish Habitat. This section identifies activities that could affect fish

2 resources in Cook Inlet, including non-OCS activities and current and planned OCS activities 

3 that would occur during the life of the Program, and the potential incremental effects of 

4 implementing the proposed action. Cumulative effects on EFH could occur from a variety of 

5 OCS and non-OCS activities that have a potential to directly kill managed fish species, disturb 

6 ocean bottom habitats, increase sediment suspension, degrade water quality, or affect the food 

7 supply for fishery resources.

8

9 Cumulative impacting factors for EFH include both OCS and non-OCS activities. 

10 Impacts on marine benthic and pelagic habitat from ongoing and future routine OCS program 

11 activities, including those of the proposed action, could result from noise, well drilling, pipeline

12 placement (trenching, landfalls, and construction), platform placement (anchoring, mooring, and 

13 removal), and routine discharges (drilling, platform, and vessel). Accidental oil spills are also 

14 counted among OCS program-related activities. 

15

16 Because there is no OCS activity in Cook Inlet Planning Area, the new OCS activities 

17 under the proposed action represent a 100% increase in all associated OCS activities in Cook 

18 Inlet. Over the next Program life, up to 114 production wells and up to three oil platforms are 

19 anticipated. In addition, up to 241 km (150 mi) of new offshore pipeline are anticipated. 

20 Implementation of the proposed action would also result in seismic survey activity and the 

21 release of drilling muds and cuttings to offshore areas (Table 4.6.2-2). 

22

23 Although there are is no oil and gas development in OCS waters, oil and gas operations 

24 have existed in State waters of Cook Inlet for decades. Impacting factors from OCS and non25 OCS oil and gas activities would be similar. Overall, it is expected that the cumulative impacts 

26 of exploration and site development activities on marine EFH would be moderate, and impacts 

27 are not expected to permanently reduce the EFH available to managed species or result in 

28 population-level impacts on managed species. The most sensitive benthic habitats, such as those 

29 associated with hard-bottoms and kelp communities, should not be affected by routine 

30 operations, and effects would be minimized or eliminated by existing protections. The 

31 construction of all platforms and pipelines would disturb bottom habitats to some degree.

32 Deposition of drilling fluids and cuttings could potentially affect EFH by altering grain size 

33 distributions and chemical characteristics of sediments such that benthic prey of some managed 

34 fish species or water quality in offshore areas would be affected in the immediate area 

35 surrounding drill sites. Although muds and cuttings from exploration and delineation wells 

36 could be discharged to surrounding waters, it is assumed that muds, cuttings, and produced 

37 waters from production wells would be discharged into wells and not released to open waters.

38 See Section 4.4.6.4.2 for a detailed discussion of the impacts of routine operations on EFH and 

39 managed species in Cook Inlet Planning Area. 

40

41 Freshwater areas used by salmon and other anadromous fish are considered to be EFH 

42 and could be affected by nearshore OCS and non-OCS oil and gas activity such as pipeline 

43 dredging or by onshore pipelines that cross bodies of water, especially streams. The primary 

44 effects of pipeline crossings would be increasing turbidity and sedimentation of the benthic 

45 environment during construction and blocking migration of anadromous fish following 

46 construction. As a consequence, crossings of anadromous fish streams would be minimized and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-570

1 consolidated with other utility and road crossings of such streams. In addition, onshore pipelines 

2 would be designed, constructed, and maintained to reduce risks to fish habitats from a spill, 

3 pipeline break, or construction activities. Other non-OCS activities, such as logging, road 

4 construction, and development in general could also contribute to water quality degradation and 

5 blockage of fish passage in anadromous fish streams.

6

7 Other non-OCS activities that could impact fish communities include land use practices, 

8 point and non-point source pollution, logging, dredging/ and disposal of dredging spoils in OCS 

9 waters, anchoring, and commercial or sportfishing activities, and commercial shipping (including 

10 imported oil). Many of these activities would result in bottom disturbance that would affect 

11 bottom dwelling fishes as well as their food sources in a manner similar to those described for 

12 OCS activities (Section 4.4.7.3.2). These non-OCS activities when combined with OCS 

13 activities could over time result in cumulative impacts on EFH and managed species especially if 

14 these impacts occur frequently or are of sufficient magnitude that habitat recovery times are 

15 prolonged. See Section 4.6.3.2.1 and Section 4.6.3.2.2 for a discussion of impacts of these non16 OCS activities on benthic and pelagic EFH.

17

18 Logging could also degrade riverine habitats that are important reproductive and juvenile 

19 habitat for managed migratory fish species. Erosion from areas undergoing commercial logging 

20 could increase the silt load in streams and rivers, which could reduce levels of invertebrate prey 

21 species and adversely affect spawning success and egg survival. The introduction of fine 

22 sediments into spawning gravels may render these habitats unsuitable for salmon spawning. 

23 Logging could also remove riparian canopies along some streams, which could increase solar 

24 heating of freshwater habitats. Downed timber could physically block salmon migrations. 

25 Because of past damage inflicted by commercial logging, improved forestry practices have been 

26 initiated, and timber harvests have been curtailed. Continued implementation of effective forest 

27 management techniques should help mitigate the adverse effects of logging in the future. 

28 Cumulative impacts on migratory species could also occur as a result of activities that obstruct 

29 fish movement in marine environments during migration periods. 

30

31 Commercial fishing practices that are indiscriminate, such as trawling and pots, are 

32 responsible for significant amounts of bycatch that can injure or kill juveniles of many fish 

33 species. These types of fishing practices could damage future year classes, reduce available prey 

34 species, and damage benthic habitat for many Cook Inlet fish resources. A wide variety of 

35 methods are used to target numerous species of fishes and shellfishes, including longlines, 

36 seines, setnets, trawls, and traps. Some fisheries target particular fish species returning to their 

37 natal stream or river, while other fisheries take place in pelagic waters and target mixed stocks of 

38 fishes or shellfishes. 

39

40 As a consequence of the pressure commercial fishing places on fishery resources, 

41 appropriate management is required to reduce the potential for depletion of stocks due to 

42 overharvesting. Fisheries in Alaskan waters and in adjacent offshore areas are managed by the 

43 Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council of the 

44 National Marine Fisheries Service through implementation of fishing regulations such as fishing 

45 seasons and harvest limits and through hatchery production of some fishery resources (primarily 

46 salmon). Even with management, the possibility of overfishing still exists. Occasionally 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-571

1 fisheries are closed when stocks are considered insufficient to support harvesting, and will 

2 sometimes remain closed for multiple seasons before stocks are deemed sufficient. While 

3 occasional or sustained declines in fishery stocks may not be fully attributable to commercial 

4 fishing, it appears that commercial fishing is an important factor in the abundance, or lack 

5 thereof, of fishery resources. 

6

7 Although the magnitude of harvests is considerably smaller than for commercial fisheries

8 (Fall et al. 2009), sportfishing also contributes to cumulative effects on the abundance of some 

9 fishery resources. Recreational fisheries are managed to prevent overharvesting, but recreational 

10 harvests can be a substantial portion of fisheries landings. Consequently, recreational fishing 

11 activities have a potential to result in overharvest of managed species over the life of the 

12 Program. However, recreational fishing methods are less destructive of EFH compared to 

13 commercial fisheries. 

14

15 Subsistence fishing may also contribute to the cumulative effects on the abundance of 

16 some fishery resources. Alaska State law defines subsistence as the ―noncommercial customary 

17 and traditional uses‖ of fish and wildlife. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game defines 

18 subsistence fishing to include ―the taking of, fishing for, or possession of fish, shellfish, or other 

19 fisheries resources by a resident of the State for subsistence uses with gill net, seine, fish wheel, 

20 long line, or other means defined by the Board of Fisheries.‖ These fishing methods have more 

21 limited impacts on EFH compared to commercial fishing methods. Subsistence fishing is subject 

22 to harvest limits that reduce the potential for overfishing and much of Cook Inlet is defined as a 

23 nonsubsistence area, and subsistence fishing is therefore not authorized. Consequently, 

24 subsistence fishing makes a relatively minor contribution to the reduction in fish stocks 

25 compared to commercial fishing (Fall et al. 2009).

26

27 Another source of cumulative impacts to fishery resources are personal use fisheries 

28 which are a legally defined as ―the taking, fishing for, or possession of finfish, shellfish, or other 

29 fishery resources, by Alaska residents for personal use and not for sale or barter, with gill or dip 

30 net, seine, fish wheel, long line, or other means defined by the Board of Fisheries.‖ In the Cook 

31 Inlet Planning Area, there are areas designated for personal use fisheries for salmon, tanner crab, 

32 herring, and eulachon, all of which are managed species. All personal use fisheries are subject to 

33 harvest limits that reduce the potential for overfishing. Personal use fishing makes a relatively 

34 minor contribution to the reduction in fish stocks compared to commercial fishing.

35

36 See individual sections on water quality, coastal habitats, and marine and pelagic habitats 

37 for a discussion of the effects of climate change on EFH in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. As a 

38 heavily river-influenced system, climate change may cause the temporal variability of key 

39 chemical and physical parameters, which could significantly alter the existing benthic and 

40 pelagic habitat and biota. A predicted increase in river discharge could change the salinity, 

41 temperature, and turbidity regimes in nearshore areas and alter the composition of existing 

42 phytoplankton and benthic communities. Other changes could result from ocean acidification, 

43 reduction in landfast ice extent and duration, and increase phytoplankton productivity. 

44

45 The total number of oil spills and the extent of affected EFH areas would likely increase 

46 under the proposed action in conjunction with increased levels of petroleum exploration and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-572

1 production. The proposed action would contribute 100% of the OCS spills in the Cook Inlet 

2 Planning Areas. See Table 4.6.2-3 for oil spill assumptions for Alaska. Catastrophic spills 

3 assumptions are provided in Table 4.4.2-2. Non-OCS activities, such as oil and gas development

4 in State waters, domestic transportation of oil or refined petroleum products, and commercial 

5 shipping, may also result in accidental spills that could potentially impact fish resources within 

6 the Cook Inlet Planning Area. While effects on EFH resources would depend on the timing, 

7 location, and magnitude of specific oil spills, it is anticipated that most small to medium spills 

8 that occur in OCS waters would have limited effects on EFH, due to the relatively small areas 

9 likely to be exposed to high concentrations of hydrocarbons and the short period of time during 

10 which potentially toxic concentrations would be present. See Section 4.4.6.4 for a detailed 

11 discussion of the impact of oil spills on EFH.

12

13 Because of the high concentrations of individuals likely to be present, EFH for 

14 anadromous salmon are at higher risk from an OCS oil spill in the Cook Inlet Planning Areas.

15 The greatest potential for damage to salmon stocks would be if a spill were to occur along 

16 migration routes. However, because of the limited area affected by even large oil spills relative 

17 to the wide pelagic distribution and migratory patterns of salmonids, it is anticipated that most 

18 impacts would be limited to small fractions of exposed salmon populations. Oil spills occurring 

19 at constrictions in migration routes would have an increased potential for adversely affecting 

20 salmon. Adverse effects of oil spills on EFH for groundfishes of southern Alaska would also be 

21 a function of spill magnitude, location, and timing. Adult groundfishes are primarily demersal 

22 and would generally be subjected only to the insoluble oil and water-soluble fractions of oil that 

23 reach deeper strata. Insoluble oil fractions would sink to the bottom and be distributed diffusely 

24 as tar balls over a wide area, and would be unlikely to produce a reduction in the population of 

25 adult fishes. Egg and larval stages would be at greater risk of exposure to oil spills because 

26 spawning aggregations of many groundfish species (e.g., walleye pollock) produce pelagic eggs 

27 that could come into contact with surface oil slicks. Herring are also potentially susceptible to 

28 oil spills because they spawn in nearshore waters for protracted periods of time. 

29

30 Managed shellfish stocks (such as tanner, snow, and red king crab) are unlikely to be 

31 exposed to surface oil. However, oil reaching shallow subtidal and intertidal shellfish or crab 

32 habitat could measurably reduce crab populations. Pelagic crab larvae could also be affected if a 

33 large surface oil spill occurred during the spring spawning season. However, because the area 

34 affected by most spills would be expected to be small relative to overall distributions of crab 

35 larvae, overall population levels are unlikely to be noticeably affected.

36

37 Conclusion. Impacting factors for EFH include both OCS and non-OCS activities. 

38 Non-OCS activities with a potential to impact EFH in the Cook Inlet Planning Area include oil 

39 and gas production in State waters, coastline development, commercial and recreational fishing, 

40 sediment dredging and disposal, and vessel traffic. Impacts from OCS activities would be 

41 limited by specific lease stipulations. Cumulative impacts to EFH as a result of OCS and 

42 non-OCS program activities would be minor to moderate, proportional to the EFH area affected. 

43 The incremental contribution of routine Program activities to these impacts would be small 

44 (see Section 4.4.6.3.2). 

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-573

1 Accidental releases of oil and gas from OCS and non-OCS facilities could also have 

2 effects on EFH. The cumulative impacts of past, present, and future oil spills on EFH would be 

3 minor to moderate. The incremental impacts of accidental spills associated with the proposed 

4 action on EFH would be small to large, depending on the location, timing, duration, and size of 

5 spills; the proximity of spills to particular fish habitats; and the timing and nature of spill 

6 containment and cleanup activities (see Section 4.4.6.3.2). While most accidents related to OCS 

7 activities assumed under the cumulative spill scenario would be small and would have relatively 

8 small incremental impacts on EFH, oil that reaches coastal wetlands could have more persistent 

9 impacts and could require remediation. Spills in deeper water, whether from OCS or non-OCS 

10 sources, are unlikely to have overall population-level effects on fish resources because of the 

11 relatively small proportion of similar available fish habitats that would come in contact with 

12 released oil at concentrations great enough to elicit toxic effects. Oil spills that have the greatest

13 potential to impact EFH and managed species are those that occur in shallower subtidal and 

14 intertidal areas and spills that reach areas at the same time substantial numbers of eggs or larvae 

15 of managed species are present.

16

17

18 4.6.3.3 Alaska Region – Arctic

19

20

21 4.6.3.3.1 Coastal and Estuarine Habitats.

22

23 Coastal Barrier Beach and Dunes. Vessel traffic associated with the proposed action 

24 could result in indirect impacts on coastal barrier beaches and dunes in the Arctic region

25 (Section 4.4.6.1.3). Onshore pipeline construction may impact sand beaches and dunes on the 

26 margins of lakes and rivers on the Arctic Coastal Plain (ACP). Similar activities are associated 

27 with current and planned OCS sales in the Alaska region and would occur during the life of the 

28 Program (see Table 4.6.1-2). In the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas, vessel traffic

29 associated with the proposed action would represent approximately 25–35% of such OCS 

30 activities, and onshore pipelines associated with the proposed action would represent 

31 approximately 30% for the Beaufort Sea Planning Area. 

32

33 Impacts on barrier beaches and dunes primarily result from factors that contribute to 

34 increased erosion of beaches and dunes. Activities may disturb dune vegetation, thereby 

35 promoting dune erosion, or directly disturb beach and dune substrates, resulting in increased 

36 erosion of beaches and dunes. Increases in wave action could also contribute to the erosion of 

37 beaches. Sedimentation from physical disturbance of substrates or erosion may affect biota in 

38 intertidal or shallow subtidal habitats. In addition, accidental spills may impact beach or dune 

39 habitat. 

40

41 Ongoing non-OCS activities that could affect barrier beaches and dunes include those 

42 related to State oil and gas development, commercial shipping and other marine vessels, and 

43 coastal development. These activities can be reasonably expected to continue into the future.

44

45 The construction of pipelines, docks, causeways, or shorebases associated with State oil 

46 and gas exploration and development could result in direct losses of beach or dune habitat. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-574

1 Construction of facilities on barrier islands could impact beach, dune, or tundra habitat. Erosion 

2 of beach or dune substrates adjacent to these constructions may result in additional habitat losses. 

3 Intertidal and shallow subtidal organisms in nearby areas may be buried by excavated materials 

4 or indirectly impacted by turbidity and sedimentation. Sand beaches and dunes along lagoon 

5 shorelines and on the margins of lakes and rivers on the ACP may also be impacted by pipeline 

6 construction. The impacts on barrier beaches and dunes from substrate-disturbance activities 

7 associated with construction under the proposed action would represent a small contribution to 

8 the past, ongoing, and expected future impacts on barrier beaches and dunes from non-OCS 

9 activities. Vegetated dunes in the Arctic region may be impacted by vehicles associated with 

10 seismic activities (ADNR 2009). Beaches and associated biota within the Beaufort and Chukchi 

11 Sea Planning Areas could also be impacted by routine discharges from marine vessels, 

12 discharges of municipal and industrial wastewater, or sedimentation from upland areas.

13

14 Activities that increase wave action along barrier beaches and dunes could contribute to 

15 their erosion. Barge and service vessel traffic supporting State oil and gas development may 

16 result in wake erosion along barrier islands in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. A 

17 portion of the impacts related to vessel traffic would be associated with the proposed action; 

18 however, activities conducted under the proposed action would contribute a relatively small 

19 number of vessel trips to the total.

20

21 Accidental spills of oil or other liquid hydrocarbons, resulting from activities conducted 

22 under the proposed action, could impact beaches and dunes. Such spills would represent 

23 approximately 20–40% of the spills resulting from ongoing OCS activities and planned future 

24 sales in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas (Table 4.6.1-3). As under the proposed 

25 action, the majority of these spills would be small (less than 50 bbl). Non-OCS activities, such 

26 as State oil and gas development, domestic transportation of oil or refined petroleum products, 

27 and commercial shipping, may also result in accidental spills that could potentially impact 

28 coastal barrier beaches and dunes. Spills can result in short- or long-term changes in the 

29 composition of intertidal or shallow subtidal communities, or extensive mortality of biota 

30 associated with coastal habitats, and may persist in substrates for decades. The amount of oil 

31 contacting beaches from a spill depends on a number of factors such as the location and size of 

32 the spill, waves and water currents, and containment actions. Naturally occurring seeps may also 

33 be a source of crude oil introduced into nearshore waters (Kvenvolden and Cooper 2003). The 

34 magnitude of resulting impacts and the persistence of oil would depend on factors such as the 

35 amount of oil deposited, remediation efforts, substrate grain size, and localized erosion and 

36 deposition patterns. The impacts of potential spills associated with the proposed action would be 

37 expected to add a small contribution to the impacts of other sources of beach degradation in the 

38 Arctic region.

39

40 Indirect effects on coastal barrier beaches and dunes could result from global climate 

41 change. Potential thermal expansion of ocean water and melting of glaciers and ice caps could 

42 result in a global rise in mean sea level (Section 4.6.1.6). Sea-level rise could result in increased 

43 inundation of barrier landforms and erosion of beach habitat. In the Arctic, greater wave activity 

44 during storms due to decreases in sea-ice cover, as well as changes in permafrost due to 

45 temperature increases, could result in increased coastal erosion.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-575

1 Wetlands. A number of activities associated with the proposed action could result in 

2 impacts on coastal wetlands in the Alaska region (Section 4.4.6.1.3). These activities include 

3 construction of pipelines, road construction, and facility maintenance, and activities that result in 

4 poorer water and air quality and altered hydrology. Impacts associated with these activities 

5 could include elimination of wetland habitat and indirect effects that contribute to reductions in 

6 wetland habitat. Similar activities are associated with current and planned OCS lease sales in the 

7 Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas, and would occur during the life of the Program (see 

8 Table 4.6.1-2). In the Beaufort Sea Planning Area, the activities associated with the proposed 

9 action would represent approximately 30% of such OCS activities; the proposed action does not

10 include new onshore pipelines in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area. 

11

12 Factors that impact coastal wetlands include the direct elimination of wetland habitat by 

13 excavation or filling and the degradation of wetland communities by reduced water or air quality 

14 or hydrologic changes. Construction projects may fill wetlands for facility siting or excavate 

15 wetlands for the construction of pipelines, causeways, or shore bases or for gravel mining. A 

16 number of activities may degrade wetlands or promote wetland losses indirectly by causing 

17 changes to wetland hydrology or introducing contaminants.

18

19 Ongoing non-OCS activities that could affect coastal wetlands include those related to 

20 State oil and gas development, commercial shipping and other marine transportation, coastal 

21 development, discharge of municipal wastes and other effluents, and domestic transportation of 

22 oil and gas. These activities can reasonably be expected to continue into the future. 

23

24 A number of these activities result in the localized destruction of wetlands. The 

25 construction of pipeline landfalls, docks, or shorebases associated with State oil and gas 

26 exploration and development could result in direct losses of tidal wetlands. The construction of 

27 onshore facilities to support State oil and gas development and the exploration of oil reserves on 

28 the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska on the ACP have impacted freshwater wetlands, and 

29 future impacts associated with oil and gas development are expected to continue. The 

30 construction of buried pipelines results in direct impacts on wetlands due to excavation, and the 

31 construction of gravel pads and gravel roads eliminates wetland habitat by filling. Current 

32 technology allows for smaller and fewer drilling pads, and some new developments in the Arctic 

33 region would not include interconnecting roads. On the ACP, gravel has been used in support of 

34 oil development to construct pads for camps, drilling sites, operations and maintenance facilities, 

35 airports, and roads for facility access as well as the Dalton Highway/haul road, offshore islands, 

36 and causeways (MMS 2003a). Gravel mining operations often result in the excavation of 

37 wetland habitat in and near rivers and other water bodies. Over 730 ha (1,800 ac) of tundra have 

38 been removed by gravel mining on the ACP (MMS 2003a). The construction of vertical support 

39 members for elevated pipelines also contributes to small localized wetland losses. Although 

40 activities that impact wetlands are regulated by State and Federal agencies, construction of 

41 industrial facilities, commercial sites, and residential developments would be expected to result 

42 in continued wetland losses. On the ACP, over 3,900 ha (9,600 ac) of tundra habitat, most of 

43 which is wetland, have been impacted by oil development activities (MMS 2002b, 2003a). The 

44 direct impacts on coastal wetlands from pipeline construction under the proposed action would 

45 represent a very small contribution to the past, ongoing, and expected future losses of wetlands 

46 from non-OCS activities.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-576

1 Indirect impacts of many activities have also resulted in wetland losses. The construction 

2 of gravel roads and pads has resulted in altered hydrology in some areas, by blocking natural 

3 drainage patterns, converting vegetated wetlands to open water, or drying wetlands by restricting 

4 water inflow. Snow accumulations adjacent to pads and roads can result in vegetation changes 

5 and thermokarst. Windblown dust near gravel pads and roads causes changes in plant 

6 communities, reduction of vegetation, and thermokarst, leading to wetland losses. Sedimentation 

7 from gravel pads, roads, gravel mining operations, and vehicular impacts on streambanks 

8 adversely affect wetlands and may result in losses of vegetation or other associated biota. Ice 

9 roads in the Arctic could result in compression of vegetation, microtopography, and tundra soils, 

10 altering wetland communities. Vehicles used for seismic surveys could compress 

11 microtopography and cause changes in the vegetation community. Organisms in wetland areas 

12 near construction activities may be buried by excavated materials or indirectly impacted by 

13 turbidity and sedimentation. Degradation of wetlands could result from water quality impacts 

14 due to discharges of waste water from vessels, municipal treatment plants, and industrial 

15 facilities, and stormwater discharges. Water quality may also be impacted by waste storage and 

16 disposal sites. Spills of produced water could kill vegetation and other biota in freshwater 

17 wetlands. Impacts on air quality near construction sites or industrial facilities could result in 

18 local effects on wetland vegetation, and may include sources such as fugitive dust, off-gassing 

19 from processing facilities, or exhaust emissions. Indirect impacts on wetlands from non-OCS 

20 activities are expected to continue to contribute to wetland degradation and losses in the Arctic 

21 region. The indirect impacts on wetlands from pipeline construction under the proposed action 

22 would represent a very small contribution to the past, ongoing, and expected future impacts on 

23 wetlands from non-OCS activities. 

24

25 Accidental spills of oil or petroleum products as a result of activities conducted under the 

26 proposed action could impact tidal or freshwater wetlands (see Section 4.4.6.1.3). Such spills 

27 would represent approximately 20–40% of the spills resulting from ongoing OCS activities and 

28 planned future sales in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas (Table 4.6.1-3). Most of 

29 these spills (1,350–1,950) would be small (less than 50 bbl), as under the proposed action. Spills 

30 in shallow water, primarily those from vessel accidents and pipelines, would be most likely to 

31 affect coastal wetlands, whereas deepwater spills, such as those from platforms, would be less 

32 likely to impact wetlands. Spills from onshore pipelines and facilities could impact freshwater 

33 wetlands or tidal wetlands if carried to coastal habitats by streams. Non-OCS activities such as 

34 State oil and gas development, the domestic transportation of oil or refined petroleum products,

35 the production and storage of petroleum products, and commercial shipping may also result in 

36 accidental spills that could potentially impact wetlands. Naturally occurring seeps may also be a 

37 source of crude oil that could potentially affect coastal wetlands. The amount of oil contacting 

38 wetlands, the magnitude of resulting impacts, and the length of time for recovery would depend 

39 on a number of factors such as the location and size of the spill, containment actions, waves and 

40 water currents, type of oil, types of remediation efforts, amount of oil deposition, duration of 

41 exposure, season, substrate type, and extent of substrate penetration. Impacts from oil spills 

42 would be expected to range from short-term effects on vegetation growth to extensive mortality. 

43 Recovery of affected wetlands could require several decades. The impacts of potential oil spills 

44 associated with the proposed action would be expected to constitute a small addition to the 

45 impacts of all other sources of oil in the Arctic region.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-577

1 Global climate change could result in indirect effects on coastal wetlands. Potential 

2 thermal expansion of ocean water and melting of glaciers could result in a global rise in mean 

3 sea level (Section 4.6.1.6). Sea-level rise would result in greater inundation of coastal wetlands, 

4 and likely result in conversion of wetlands to open water. In addition, large changes in river 

5 flows into nearshore marine waters could affect salinity and water circulation in estuaries, which, 

6 in turn, could impact estuarine wetland communities.

7

8 Conclusion. Future OCS program and ongoing and future non-OCS program activities 

9 in combination with naturally occurring events have resulted in losses of coastal habitats in the 

10 Arctic region; cumulative impacts on these resources, therefore, are considered to be moderate to 

11 major. Operations under the proposed action would result in small localized impacts, primarily 

12 due to facility construction, pipeline landfalls, channel dredging, and vessel traffic; however, the 

13 incremental contribution of routine Program activities to cumulative impacts would be small 

14 (see Section 4.4.6.1.3). 

15

16 The cumulative impacts of past, present, and future oil spills on coastal and estuarine 

17 habitats would be moderate. The incremental impacts of accidental oil spills associated with the 

18 proposed action on these resources would be small to large, depending on the location, timing, 

19 duration, and size of the spill; the proximity of the spill to particular habitats; and the timing and 

20 nature of spill containment and cleanup activities (see Section 4.4.6.1.3). The majority of these 

21 spills would be small (less than 50 bbl). Large oil releases that occur in or reach shallower 

22 nearshore areas have the greatest potential to affect coastal and estuarine habitats. Most spills 

23 would be unlikely to contact and affect coastal and estuarine habitats. Large oil spills and 

24 catastrophic discharge events, however, can affect extensive areas of shoreline. 

25

26

27 4.6.3.3.2 Marine Benthic and Pelagic Habitats. Cumulative impacting factors for 

28 marine benthic and pelagic habitats in Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas include both 

29 OCS and non-OCS activities. Potential impacts on marine benthic and pelagic habitat resulting 

30 from ongoing and future routine OCS program activities, including those of the proposed action, 

31 could result from noise (vessel, seismic surveys, construction, operations), well drilling, pipeline 

32 placement (trenching, landfalls, and construction), discharges (drilling, vessel and platform), and 

33 platform placement (anchoring, mooring, and removal). All these activities have the potential to 

34 adversely affect marine benthic and pelagic habitats in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning 

35 Areas. Accidental oil spills are also counted among OCS program-related activities; 

36 assumptions for oil spills under the cumulative case scenario are provided in Table 4.6.2-3, and 

37 catastrophic spill assumptions are provided in Table 4.4.2-2. 

38

39 Potential environmental impacts associated with the building and operation of OCS 

40 facilities such as platforms, subsea wells, artificial islands, and pipelines would increase in 

41 conjunction with the increased number of wells (approximately 9 ha [22 ac] for artificial islands 

42 versus less than 1.5 ha [3.7 ac] for platforms) and complete burial of existing substrates during 

43 construction. Under the cumulative scenario, it is anticipated that up to 1,795 production wells, 

44 up to 32 oil platforms, and up to 2,900 km (1,820 mi) of new offshore pipeline would be 

45 constructed in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. Bottom substrates would be 

46 significantly altered by the construction of artificial islands. Marine benthic and pelagic habitats 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-578

1 would be affected by bottom disturbance, by temporary increases in turbidity, and by deposition 

2 of disturbed sediment. Construction of artificial islands would result in a more complete loss of 

3 benthic habitat, due to larger footprints. Bottom disturbance degrades water quality by 

4 increasing water turbidity in the vicinity of the operations and adding contaminants to the water 

5 column. It also changes sediment composition as suspended sediments (and contaminants, if 

6 present) are entrained in currents and deposited in new locations. Construction of platforms and 

7 artificial islands in areas previously lacking hard substrate could have localized effects on the 

8 biodiversity and distribution of benthic communities by favoring organisms that prefer a hard 

9 substrate. Impacts of OCS routine operations (exploration, production and decommissioning 

10 activities) on marine benthic and pelagic habitat in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas 

11 are discussed in detail in Sections 4.4.6.2.3 and 4.4.6.3.3. Regulations and mitigating measures 

12 should preclude construction of platforms or artificial islands and placements of pipelines or 

13 wells in environmentally sensitive areas, such as the Stefansson Sound Boulder Patch in the 

14 Beaufort Sea (Section 4.4.6.2.3). Overall, routine operations represent a negligible to moderate

15 long-term disturbance, with the severity of the impacts generally decreasing dramatically with 

16 distance from the well site.

17

18 The increased amount of drilling anticipated under the proposed action will result in OCS 

19 discharges of drill muds and cuttings from exploration and delineation wells. Deposition of 

20 drilling fluids and cuttings could potentially affect benthic and pelagic habitat by increasing 

21 turbidity and altering grain size distributions and chemical characteristics of sediments. The 

22 impacts of drilling discharges on benthic and pelagic habitats are discussed in detail in 

23 Sections 4.4.6.2.3 and 4.4.6.3.3.

24

25 Various non-OCS activities, including oil and gas activities in State waters, commercial 

26 shipping (including tanker vessels), dredging and disposal of dredging spoils in OCS waters, and 

27 anchoring could contribute to cumulative effects on pelagic and seafloor habitats in the Beaufort 

28 and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. Drilling of wells and oil and gas activities in State waters 

29 could also require construction of artificial islands, platforms, and pipelines in waters of Alaska. 

30 Effects on seafloor and pelagic habitat and biota would be similar to those described above for 

31 OCS oil and gas programs (Sections 4.4.6.2.3 and 4.4.6.3.3). Dredging operations in conjunction 

32 with ship channel maintenance and construction, pipeline placement and burial, and support 

33 facility access occur throughout the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas as part of non34 OCS activities. Dredging and marine disposal activities would involve excavation of nearshore 

35 sediments and subsequent disposal in offshore or nearshore areas and could cause temporary 

36 turbidity in the water column and smothering of sessile animals in the vicinity of the activity. 

37 Anchoring of non-OCS activity vessels on these features could cause significant chronic 

38 disturbance to benthic and bottom water habitat and biota. The amount of damage that could 

39 result from anchoring activity would depend upon vessel size, the size of the anchor and chain, 

40 sea conditions at the time of anchoring, and the location or position of the anchor on the feature. 

41 The effects of dredging, anchoring, and trawling activities on marine benthic and pelagic habitats 

42 are expected to be similar to those described for the installation of pipelines (Sections 4.4.6.2.2 

43 and 4.4.6.3.2). Impacts on pelagic habitat would be localized and temporary, with recovery time 

44 depending upon the nature of the habitat and severity of the damage.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-579

1 Climate change is expected to have multiple effects on the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea 

2 Planning Areas that could impact benthic and pelagic habitat. Increased river discharge could 

3 alter the salinity, temperature, and turbidity regimes in nearshore areas (Hopcroft et al. 2008). 

4 Several rivers flow into the Beaufort shelf, and this region may be more heavily affected than the 

5 western Chukchi shelf. The increase in total suspended solids due to coastal erosion and the 

6 greater riverine sediment loading could increase turbidity in the water column and consequently 

7 decrease the penetration of photosynthetically active radiation available for kelp production 

8 (Hopcroft et al. 2008).

9

10 Climate change is expected to decrease the spatial extent and temporal duration of sea ice 

11 and make the ice thinner. Several possible consequences could result, including:

12

13 • Reduction in the spatial and temporal extent of subtidal and intertidal benthic 

14 scouring, but an increase in wave generated subtidal and intertidal 

15 disturbance;

16

17 • An increase in the sloughing of sediments from shoreline during storms, 

18 adding to the sediment loads and changing water chemistry in nearshore areas; 

19

20 • An overall increase in biological productivity in the open water with 

21 increasing temperature and ice retreat and a shift to a pelagic-based rather than 

22 a benthic-based food web (Hopcroft et al. 2008); and

23

24 • Reduction in the amount and seasonal availability of sea ice algae.

25

26 In addition, ocean acidification from increasing CO2 inputs into the ocean is also 

27 predicted to continue in arctic waters, which may reduce the availability of calcite and aragonite 

28 to calcifying marine organisms in the sediment and water column.

29

30 Oil spills from both OCS and non-OCS activities could affect benthic and pelagic habitat 

31 in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. The total number of oil spills and the extent of 

32 affected seafloor habitat would likely increase under the cumulative scenario, in conjunction 

33 with increased levels of petroleum exploration and production. Accidental hydrocarbon releases 

34 can occur at the surface from tankers or platforms or at the seafloor from the wellhead or 

35 pipelines. The total number of oil spills and the extent of affected seafloor habitat would likely 

36 increase under the cumulative scenario, in conjunction with increased levels of petroleum 

37 exploration and production. Non-OCS activities, such as oil and gas development in State waters 

38 and domestic transportation of oil, may also result in accidental spills that could affect benthic 

39 and pelagic habitats within the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas.

40

41 For both OCS and non-OCS oil spills, it is assumed the magnitude and severity of 

42 potential impacts on benthic and pelagic habitat would be a function of the location (including 

43 habitats affected), timing, duration, and size of the spill and containment and cleanup activities. 

44 It is anticipated that most small to medium spills would have limited effects because of the 

45 relatively small areas likely to be exposed to high concentrations of hydrocarbons and the short 

46 period of time during which potentially toxic concentrations would be present. Oil spills would 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-580

1 likely have the greatest impacts on benthic habitat and communities in shallow subtidal waters 

2 and in intertidal areas. Although pelagic habitat is likely to recover quickly following an oil 

3 spill, the recovery time for intertidal and shallow subtidal benthic habitat directly impacted by oil 

4 spills could be long term. If a large amount of oil from a spill were to sink and inundate 

5 sensitive boulder communities, the recovery of sensitive species could be long term 

6 (Section 4.4.6.2.3). Detailed discussion of the impacts of accidental hydrocarbon releases on 

7 marine benthic and pelagic habitat potentially resulting from the Program in the Beaufort and 

8 Chukchi Sea Planning Areas can be found in Sections 4.4.6.2.3 and 4.4.6.3.3.

9

10 Conclusion. Impacting factors for marine benthic and pelagic habitats include both OCS 

11 and non-OCS activities. Non-OCS activities with a potential to impact marine benthic and 

12 pelagic habitats in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas include oil and gas production 

13 in State waters, sediment dredging and disposal, and vessel traffic. Disturbances from these 

14 activities including noise, vessel discharges, and bottom disturbance would occur in addition to 

15 similar impacts from OCS activities. For OCS activities, planning and permitting procedures 

16 should minimize the potential for direct impacts on sensitive boulder habitats during routine 

17 OCS activities. Cumulative impacts to marine benthic and pelagic habitats as a result of OCS 

18 and non-OCS program activities would be minor, either because of the limited time frame over 

19 which most individual activities would occur or the small proportion of available habitats that 

20 would be affected during a given period. The incremental contribution of routine Program 

21 activities to these impacts would be small (see Section 4.4.6.2.3). 

22

23 Oil spills could result from both OCS and non-OCS activities. The cumulative impacts

24 of past, present, and future oil spills on seafloor habitats would be moderate. The incremental 

25 impacts of accidental oil spills associated with the proposed action on these resources would be 

26 small to large, depending on the location, timing, duration, and size of spills; the proximity of 

27 spills to particular seafloor habitats; and the timing and nature of spill containment and cleanup 

28 activities (see Section 4.4.6.2.3). Spills in deeper water, whether from OCS or non-OCS sources, 

29 are unlikely to have overall community-level effects on seafloor habitats because of the 

30 relatively small proportion of seafloor area that would come in contact with released oil at 

31 concentrations great enough to elicit toxic effects. Catastrophic oil releases that affect shallow 

32 and intertidal habitats have the potential to be of greatest significance. Although pelagic habitat 

33 is likely to recover quickly following an oil spill, the recovery time for intertidal and shallow 

34 subtidal benthic habitat directly impacted by oil spills could be long-term.

35

36

37 4.6.3.3.3 Essential Fish Habitat. This section identifies activities that could affect EFH 

38 resources in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas, including non-OCS activities and 

39 current and planned OCS activities that would occur during the life of the Program, and the 

40 potential incremental effects of implementing the proposed action. Cumulative effects on EFH 

41 could occur from a variety of OCS and non-OCS activities that have a potential to directly kill 

42 managed fish species, disturb ocean bottom habitats, increase sediment suspension, degrade 

43 water quality, or affect the food supply for fishery resources.

44

45 Cumulative impacting factors for EFH include both OCS and non-OCS activities. 

46 Impacts on marine benthic and pelagic habitat resulting from ongoing and future routine OCS 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-581

1 program activities, including those of the proposed action, could result from noise, well drilling, 

2 pipeline placement (trenching, landfalls, and construction), subsea production well and platform

3 placement (anchoring, mooring, and removal), and routine discharges (drilling, platform, and 

4 vessel). Accidental oil spills are also counted among OCS program-related activities. 

5

6 Under the cumulative scenario it is anticipated that up to 1,795 production wells, up to 

7 32 oil platforms, and up to 2,900 km (1,820 mi) of new offshore pipeline would be constructed in 

8 the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas over the period of the Program. Drilling muds and 

9 cuttings from exploration wells would also be released in to OCS waters. 

10

11 Overall, it is expected that the impacts of exploration and site development activities on 

12 marine EFH would be moderate, and impacts are not expected to permanently reduce the EFH 

13 available to managed species or result in population-level impacts on managed species. The 

14 most sensitive benthic habitats, such as those associated with hard-bottoms and kelp 

15 communities, should not be affected by routine operations since impacts would be minimized or 

16 eliminated by existing protections. Although construction of platforms, artificial islands, and 

17 pipelines would all disturb bottom habitats to some degree, artificial islands (Beaufort and 

18 Chukchi Seas only) would result in a more complete loss of benthic habitat due to larger 

19 footprints (approximately 9 ha [22 ac] for artificial islands versus less than 1.5 ha [3.7 ac] for 

20 platforms) and complete burial of existing substrate. Deposition of drilling muds and cuttings 

21 could potentially affect EFH by altering sediment characteristics such that benthic prey of some 

22 managed fish species, certain stages of the managed species themselves, or water quality in 

23 offshore areas would be affected in the immediate area surrounding drill sites. See 

24 Section 4.4.6.4.3 for a detailed discussion of the impacts of routine operations on EFH and 

25 managed species in the Arctic. 

26

27 Various non-OCS activities, such as subsistence fishing, commercial shipping (including 

28 tankers), coastal modifications, hardrock mining, dredging and disposal of dredging spoils in 

29 OCS waters, and anchoring could contribute to cumulative effects on pelagic and seafloor EFH 

30 in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. Commercial fishing does not occur in the 

31 Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas and sportfishing is minor in the Arctic but could 

32 increase if regulations change and if warming temperatures allow an increase in vessel traffic. 

33 Impacts from these non-OCS activities including noise, vessel discharges, and bottom 

34 disturbance would occur in addition to similar impacts from OCS activities. Many of these 

35 activities would result in bottom disturbance that would affect bottom dwelling fishes as well as 

36 their food sources in a manner similar to those described for OCS activities (MMS 2008; 

37 ADEC 2007a; Section 4.4.7.3.3). 

38

39 EFH and managed species in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea fall in the Kotzebue Sound 

40 and Northern Subsistence fishing areas (http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=

41 subsistence.main). Subsistence fishing may contribute to the cumulative effects on the 

42 abundance of some fishery resources. Alaska State law defines subsistence as the 

43 ―noncommercial customary and traditional uses‖ of fish and wildlife. The Alaska Department of 

44 Fish and Game defines subsistence fishing to include ―the taking of, fishing for, or possession of 

45 fish, shellfish, or other fisheries resources by a resident of the State for subsistence uses with gill 

46 net, seine, fish wheel, long line, or other means defined by the Board of Fisheries.‖ These 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-582

1 fishing methods have more limited impacts on EFH compared to commercial fishing methods. 

2 In addition, subsistence fishing is subject to harvest limits that reduce the potential for 

3 overfishing. Consequently, subsistence fishing makes a relatively minor contribution to the 

4 reduction in fish stocks.

5

6 Cumulative impacts on anadromous or diadromous managed species could also occur as 

7 a result of activities that obstruct fish movement in marine environments during migration 

8 periods. For example, some structures along the Beaufort Sea mainland (e.g., the West Dock) 

9 have been shown to block the movements of diadromous fishes, particularly juveniles, under 

10 certain meteorological conditions (Fechhelm 1999; Fechelm et al. 1999). Causeways such as the 

11 40 m (131 ft) wide and 60 m (197 ft) long structure associated with the Red Dog Mine may 

12 impede coastal movement either by directly blocking fish or by modifying nearshore water 

13 conditions to the point where they might become too cold and saline for some species 

14 (Fechhelm et al. 1999). Although the presence of causeways has been an issue associated with 

15 oil development activities in the Beaufort Sea, the small size of the Red Dog causeway would 

16 likely have little effect on the coastal movements and distributions of Chukchi Sea fishes and 

17 shellfishes. However, it is anticipated that proper placement and design considerations for future 

18 causeway construction along the North Slope would alleviate the potential for such effects on 

19 fish movement.

20

21 There are several contaminant sources in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. 

22 The Red Dog Mine in Alaska is the largest lead and zinc mine in the world, and is presently the 

23 only base-metal lode mine operating in northwest Alaska. A study for the National Park Service 

24 (Hasselbach et al. 2004) showed extensive airborne transport of cadmium and lead from Red 

25 Dog Mine; although the study was focused only on the limits of the Cape Krusenstern National 

26 Monument, these contaminants are probably carried out into the Chukchi Sea. There are also 

27 natural sources of metals and hydrocarbons. Sediments, peats, and soils from the Sagavanirktok, 

28 Kuparuk, and Colville Rivers are the largest source of dissolved and particulate metals and 

29 saturated and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the development area. However, background 

30 concentrations in fish sampled in the Arctic Planning Areas are typically at background levels 

31 (Neff & Associates 2010).

32

33 There are also State oil and gas activities that can affect EFH in the Beaufort and Chukchi 

34 Seas. Factors that could affect EFH from these activities would be similar to those described 

35 above for OCS activities including underwater noise, habitat loss and disturbance, seismic survey 

36 and exploratory drilling, as well as other ancillary activities. However, the effects from non37 OCS oil and gas activities could possibly be more severe than the effects from routine OCS 

38 activities because the activities are closer to shore and in shallower environments. As a 

39 consequence, more benthic EFH may be damaged, and resulting changes in sedimentation and 

40 turbidity could affect a greater proportion of the water column.

41

42 Freshwater areas used by salmon and other anadromous fish are considered to be EFH 

43 and could be affected by nearshore OCS and non-OCS oil and gas activities such as pipeline 

44 dredging or by onshore pipelines that cross bodies of water, especially streams. The primary 

45 effects of pipeline crossings would be increasing turbidity and sedimentation of the benthic 

46 environment during construction and blocking migration of anadromous fish following 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-583

1 construction. Any pipeline route would be required to comply with various Alaska Coastal 

2 Management Program policies. As a consequence, crossings of anadromous fish streams would 

3 be minimized and consolidated with other utility and road crossings of such streams. In addition, 

4 onshore pipelines would be designed, constructed, and maintained to reduce risks to fish habitats 

5 from a spill, pipeline break, or construction activities. 

6

7 See individual sections on water quality, coastal habitats, and marine and pelagic habitats 

8 for a discussion of the effects of climate change on EFH in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea 

9 Planning Areas. As a heavily river-influenced system, increased river discharge could alter the 

10 salinity, temperature, and turbidity regimes in nearshore areas (Hopcroft et al. 2008). Climate 

11 change is also expected to decrease the spatial extent and temporal duration of sea ice as well as 

12 make the ice thinner, an overall increase in biological productivity in the open water, and a shift 

13 to a pelagic-based rather than a benthic-based food web (Hopcroft et al. 2008). In addition, 

14 ocean acidification may reduce the availability of calcite and aragonite to marine organisms.

15

16 The total number of oil spills and the extent of affected EFH areas would likely increase 

17 under the proposed action in conjunction with increased levels of petroleum exploration and 

18 production. See Table 4.6.2-3 for oil spill assumptions for Alaska. Non-OCS activities, such as 

19 oil and gas development in State waters, domestic transportation of oil, and commercial 

20 shipping, may also result in accidental spills that could potentially impact fish resources within 

21 the Arctic. While effects on EFH resources would depend on the timing, location, and 

22 magnitude of specific oil spills, it is anticipated that most small to medium spills that occur in 

23 OCS waters would have limited effects on EFH, due to the relatively small areas likely to be 

24 exposed to high concentrations of hydrocarbons and the short period of time during which 

25 potentially toxic concentrations would be present. Large or catastrophic spills could result in 

26 long-term impacts to EFH habitat quality and managed species populations. See Section 4.4.6.4 

27 for a detailed discussion of the impact of oil spills on EFH.

28

29 Arctic fishes could also be susceptible to adverse effects of oil spills (see 

30 Section 4.4.6.4.2). Most offshore spills would be small and likely have little effect on overall 

31 populations, since the areas with significant hydrocarbon concentrations would be localized 

32 relative to the broad distributions of most marine and anadromous fishes of the Beaufort and 

33 Chukchi Seas. However, population level effect could occur if large amounts of oil from a 

34 catastrophic spill were to reach shallow subtidal and intertidal sediments. Some anadromous 

35 species of the Alaskan North Slope could be at greater risk because of their unique life-history 

36 cycles. Juveniles of some species of whitefish (including broad whitefish, humpback whitefish, 

37 and least cisco) are intolerant of highly saline marine conditions. During their summer feeding 

38 dispersals in the Beaufort Sea, these species tend to remain within a narrow band of warm, low39 salinity water along the coast. Offshore barrier islands offer additional protection by helping to 

40 maintain low-salinity corridors. Thus, unlike most subarctic fishes, whitefish along the North 

41 Slope have a reduced capacity to bypass localized disruptions to their migration corridor by 

42 moving offshore and around the impasse. An oil spill, even one of limited area, could block the 

43 narrow nearshore corridor and prevent fishes from either dispersing along the coast to feed or 

44 returning to their overwintering grounds in rivers of the North Slope. If a spill were localized in 

45 the sensitive nearshore zone, its location would also make it more amenable to cleanup by 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-584

1 environmental response teams. There is no tanker traffic on the North Slope, which eliminates 

2 the possibility of a collision spill in that area.

3

4 Oil from spills occurring under the ice in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas could remain 

5 trapped there throughout the winter unless removed, which, while difficult, could be done. 

6 Water quality would be negatively impacted, and overwintering eggs, larvae, and invertebrate 

7 prey would likely be killed in affected areas. Surface spills occurring in the summer months 

8 would temporarily reduce EFH for surface-dwelling eggs, larvae, and pelagic prey species. Oil 

9 reaching nearshore areas could travel short distances upriver in anadromous fish streams as a 

10 result of tidal water movements, and some oil could become trapped in the interstitial spaces of 

11 the sediments. In such cases, EFH for salmon eggs and larvae could be affected. See 

12 Section 4.4.3.3 for a detailed discussion of accidental oil spills in ice and ice-free conditions.

13

14 Conclusion. Impacting factors for EFH include both OCS and non-OCS activities. Non15 OCS activities with a potential to impact EFH in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas 

16 include oil and gas production in State waters, sediment dredging and disposal, and vessel traffic. 

17 Impacts from OCS activities would be limited by specific lease stipulations. Cumulative impacts 

18 to EFH as a result of OCS and non-OCS program activities would be minor to moderate, 

19 proportional to the EFH area affected. The incremental contribution of routine Program 

20 activities to these impacts would be small (see Section 4.4.6.3.3). 

21

22 Accidental releases of oil and gas from OCS and non-OCS facilities could also have 

23 effects on EFH. The cumulative impacts of past, present, and future oil spills on EFH would be 

24 minor to moderate. The incremental impacts of accidental spills associated with the proposed 

25 action on EFH would be small to large, depending on the location, timing, duration, and size of 

26 spills; the proximity of spills to particular fish habitats; and the timing and nature of spill 

27 containment and cleanup activities (see Section 4.4.6.3.3). While most accidents related to OCS 

28 activities assumed under the cumulative spill scenario would be small and would have relatively 

29 small incremental impacts on EFH, oil that reaches coastal wetlands could have more persistent 

30 impacts and could require remediation. Spills in deeper water, whether from OCS or non-OCS 

31 sources, are unlikely to have overall population-level effects on fish resources because of the 

32 relatively small proportion of similar available fish habitats that would come in contact with 

33 released oil at concentrations great enough to elicit toxic effects. Oil spills that have the greatest 

34 potential to impact EFH and managed species are those that occur in shallower subtidal and 

35 intertidal areas and spills that reach areas at the same time substantial numbers of eggs or larvae 

36 of managed species are present.

37

38

39 4.6.4 Marine and Coastal Fauna

40

41 Previous BOEM/MMS NEPA documents for OCS lease sales have addressed cumulative 

42 impacts on marine and coastal fauna. Unless referenced otherwise, the following cumulative 

43 impacts discussion includes information provided in those NEPA documents prepared for the 

44 GOM (see http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/nepa/nepaprocess.html) and 

45 for Alaska (see http://alaska.boemre.gov/ref/eis_ea.htm).

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-585

1 4.6.4.1 Gulf of Mexico Region

2

3

4 4.6.4.1.1 Mammals. 

5

6 Marine Mammals. The cumulative analysis considers past, ongoing, and foreseeable 

7 future human and natural activities that may occur and adversely affect marine mammals in the 

8 same general area. These activities include effects of the OCS Program (proposed action and 

9 prior and future OCS sales), oil and gas activities in State waters, commercial shipping, 

10 commercial fishing, recreational fishing and boating activities, military operations, scientific 

11 research, and natural phenomena. Specific types of impact-producing factors considered include 

12 noise from numerous sources, pollution, ingestion and entanglement in marine debris, vessel 

13 strikes, habitat degradation, military activities, industrial development, community development, 

14 climate change, and natural catastrophes. Section 4.4.7.1.1 provides the major impact-producing 

15 factors related for the proposed action.

16

17 Routine Activities.

18

19 OCS Activities. Marine mammals and their habitats in the GOM could be affected by a 

20 variety of exploration, development, and production activities as a result of the proposed and 

21 future OCS leasing actions (see Section 4.4.7.1.1). These activities include seismic exploration, 

22 offshore and onshore infrastructure construction, discharge of operational wastes, vessel and 

23 aircraft traffic, and explosive removal of platforms. Impacts on marine mammals from these 

24 activities may include physical injury or death; behavioral disturbances; lethal or sublethal toxic 

25 effects; and loss of reproductive, nursery, feeding, and resting habitats. 

26

27 Potential impacts (primarily behavioral disturbance) on marine mammals from OCS28 related seismic activity would be short term and temporary, and not expected to result in 

29 population level impacts for any affected species with implementation of appropriate mitigation 

30 measures.

31

32 Impacts from OCS construction and operation activities could include the temporary 

33 disturbance and displacement of individuals or groups by construction equipment and long-term 

34 disturbance of some individuals from operational noise. No long-term, population-level effects 

35 are expected because individuals most affected by these impacts would be those in the immediate 

36 vicinity of the construction site or operational platform and disturbance of individuals during 

37 construction would be largely temporary. 

38

39 Operational and waste discharges (e.g., produced water, drilling muds, and drill cuttings) 

40 would be disposed of through downhole injection into NPDES-permitted disposal wells, and 

41 would not be expected to result in any incremental impacts on marine mammals. Liquid wastes 

42 (such as bilge water) may also be generated by OCS support vessels and on production 

43 platforms. While these wastes may be discharged (if permitted) into surface waters, they would 

44 be rapidly diluted and dispersed, and are expected to result in minor incremental impacts on 

45 marine mammals. Drilling and production wastes may contain materials such as metals and 

46 hydrocarbons, which can bioaccumulate through the food chain into the tissues of marine 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-586

1 mammals. Although the bioaccumulation of anthropogenic chemicals has been reported for a 

2 variety of marine mammals, adverse impacts or population-level effects resulting from such 

3 bioaccumulation have not been demonstrated (Norstrom and Muir 1994; Muir et al. 1999).

4

5 Marine mammals could be temporarily disturbed by OCS vessel traffic (all species) or 

6 incur injury or death from collisions with support vessels (primarily larger, slower moving 

7 cetaceans). The addition of up to 600 OCS vessel trips per week under the proposed actions 

8 could result in minor to moderate incremental impacts to marine mammals, be largely short term, 

9 and not result in population-level effects. Noise from helicopter overflights would be transient. 

10 Impacts on marine mammals would be behavioral in nature, primarily resulting in short-term 

11 disturbance in normal activities, and would not be expected to result in population-level effects. 

12 Appropriate mitigation measures could lessen the potential for incremental impacts from vessel 

13 and helicopter traffic.

14

15 There have been no documented losses of marine mammals resulting from explosive 

16 removals of offshore oil and gas structures, but there are sporadic incidents reported of marine 

17 mammals being killed by underwater detonations (Continental Shelf Associates 2004; 

18 MMS 2007, 2008). Harassment of marine mammals as a result of a non-injurious physiological 

19 response to the explosion-generated shock wave as well as to the acoustic signature of the 

20 detonation is also possible. However, explosive platform removals would comply with BOEM

21 guidelines and would not be expected to adversely affect marine mammals in the GOM.

22

23 All of the marine mammals in the GOM are potentially exposed to OCS-industrial 

24 activities (particularly noise) due to the rapid advance into the GOM deep oceanic waters by the 

25 oil and gas industry in recent years; whereas, over two decades ago, the confinement of industry 

26 to shallower coastal and continental shelf waters generally only exposed the bottlenose dolphin, 

27 Atlantic spotted dolphin, and West Indian manatee to industry activities and their related sounds. 

28 Industry noise sources include seismic operations, fixed platforms and drilling rigs, drilling 

29 ships, helicopters, vessel traffic, and explosive operations (particularly for structure removal).

30

31 Non-OCS Activities. A number of non-OCS activities such as State oil and gas 

32 exploration and development, commercial and recreational fishing, vessel traffic, industrial and 

33 municipal discharges, climate change, and invasive species could also affect marine mammals in 

34 the GOM. 

35

36 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development in State Waters. Exploration, construction, 

37 and operation activities associated with State leases would occur in nearshore and coastal areas, 

38 while OCS platforms and pipelines would be located away from coastal areas (with the exception 

39 of relatively few pipeline landfalls and onshore bases and processing facilities). Thus, State oil 

40 and gas leasing activities may be expected to have a greater potential for affecting marine 

41 mammals in coastal habitats than would the proposed OCS actions. The marine mammal species 

42 most likely affected by State leases are the bottlenose dolphin, Atlantic spotted dolphin, and the 

43 West Indian manatee. 

44

45 Commercial Fisheries. Commercial fisheries are an impacting factor for marine 

46 mammals in the GOM. These fisheries employ a variety of methods, such as longlines, seines, 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-587

1 trawls, and traps, which can result in the entanglement, injury, and death of mammal mammals. 

2 For more than a decade, few human-induced mortalities or serious injuries of marine mammals 

3 due to commercial fishery interactions have occurred in the GOM. The following interactions 

4 with commercial fisheries were reported by Waring et al. (2010):

5

6 • In 2008, one mortality and two serious injuries of Risso‘s dolphins in the 

7 GOM related to entanglement interactions with the pelagic longline fishery.

8

9 • In 2008, there was one killer whale released alive after an entanglement 

10 incident with the pelagic longline fishery.

11

12 • In 1999, there was one reported stranding of a false killer whale that was 

13 likely caused by fishery interactions or other human-related causes evidenced 

14 by its fins and flukes having been amputated.

15

16 • From 1998 through 2007, there were no reported fishing-related mortalities of 

17 short-finned pilot whales in the GOM. However, one animal was released 

18 alive after an entanglement interaction with the pelagic longline fishery.

19

20 • From 1998 through 2007, there were no reported fishing-related mortalities of 

21 beaked whales in the GOM. However, during 2007, one unidentified beaked 

22 whale was released alive after an entanglement interaction with the pelagic 

23 longline fishery.

24

25 • From 1998 through 2008, there were no reported fishing-related mortalities of 

26 sperm whales in the GOM. However, one animal was released alive with no 

27 serious injuries after an entanglement interaction with the pelagic longline 

28 fishery.

29

30 • Some bottlenose dolphins have suffered mortalities associated with the shark 

31 bottom longline fishery, pelagic longline fishery, shrimp trawl fishery, blue 

32 and stone crab trap/pot fisheries, menhaden purse seine fishery, and gillnet 

33 fishery. Strandings of bottlenose dolphins have also occurred throughout the 

34 northern GOM from both human-caused and natural events. Human-caused 

35 strandings result from gear entanglement, mutilation, gunshot wounds, vessel 

36 strikes, contaminants, and ingestion of foreign objects.

37

38 • Fishery interactions likely caused the stranding of two Atlantic spotted 

39 dolphins in 2004.

40

41 • A stranded spinner dolphin had monofilament line around its tail and 

42 abrasions around its flukes as though it had been towed. It also had possible 

43 propeller marks.

44

45 Vessel Traffic. There are a number of non-OCS activities that are occurring in the GOM 

46 that could result in collisions between marine mammals and ships. These activities include 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-588

1 dredging and marine disposal, the domestic transportation of oil and gas, State oil and gas 

2 development, foreign crude oil imports, commercial shipping and recreational boating, 

3 commercial fisheries, and military training and testing activities. Vessel traffic associated with 

4 these activities may also disturb normal behaviors with unknown long-term consequences. With 

5 all of these activities, the GOM is one of the world‘s most concentrated shipping areas 

6 (USACE 2003a, b). The GOM also supports an extensive commercial fishery, as well as 

7 recreational boating. Because of the very large number of vessels typically present in the GOM, 

8 the potential for vessel-marine mammal collisions is high, and may be expected to increase for 

9 the foreseeable future. The amount of OCS-related vessel traffic anticipated as a result of the 

10 Program is provided in Table 4.4.1-1.

11

12 Contaminants. There are a number of non-OCS facilities or activities that discharge 

13 wastes to GOM waters, and thus may expose marine mammals to potentially toxic materials or 

14 solid debris that could become entangled or ingested. These facilities or activities include 

15 sewage treatment plants, industrial manufacturing or processing facilities, electric generating 

16 plants, cargo and tanker shipping, cruise ships, commercial fishing, and recreational pleasure 

17 craft. In addition, the Mississippi River (and to a lesser extent, other rivers and streams that 

18 discharge to the northern GOM) discharges waters containing suspended sediments, fertilizers, 

19 herbicides, and urban runoff (Rabalais et al. 2001, 2002). While marine mammals are exposed 

20 to a variety of contaminants from these discharges, little is known about the levels of 

21 contaminants at which lethal or sublethal effects may be incurred. These discharges may also 

22 affect habitat quality in the vicinity of the discharges.

23

24 The role of exposure to toxins to marine mammal mortality is unknown. Elevated levels 

25 of chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and pesticides have been measured in 

26 individuals sampled from waters that receive municipal, industrial, and agricultural inputs and 

27 have high concentrations of contaminants (such as in the immediate vicinity of Tampa Bay) 

28 (NOAA 2004b). There is little information, however, regarding the level at which tissue 

29 concentrations of contaminants may result in lethal or sublethal effects.

30

31 Climate Change. Marine mammal populations throughout the GOM may be adversely 

32 affected by climate change and, to a lesser extent, by hurricane events. There is growing 

33 evidence that climate change is occurring, and potential effects in the GOM may include a 

34 change (i.e., rise) in sea level or a change in water temperatures. Such changes could affect the 

35 distribution, availability, and quality of feeding habitats and the abundance of food resources. It 

36 is not possible at this time to identify the likelihood, direction, or magnitude of any changes in 

37 the environment of the GOM due to changes in the climate, so it is too speculative to further 

38 discuss climate change impacts on marine mammals. 

39

40 Natural Catastrophes. Severe storm events such as hurricanes may result in direct or 

41 indirect mortality of manatees and have the potential to impact their nearshore habitats 

42 (Langtimm and Beck 2003). Heightened wave action and intensity could alter nearshore 

43 channels affecting the abundance and distribution of shallow-water habitats such as lagoons and 

44 bays, while sediments deposited into foraging habitats by storm waves may alter the thermal 

45 environment and affect aquatic vegetation in feeding habitats. Because hurricanes are annual 

46 events that are an inherent component of the overall GOM ecosystem, it may be assumed that 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-589

1 marine mammals of the GOM have experienced hurricane impacts in the past and may be 

2 expected to continue to experience future hurricane events.

3

4 Other Impacting Factors. Marine mammals may also be impacted by other factors such 

5 as unusual mortality events (UMEs) and invasive species. A UME is an unexpected stranding 

6 that involves a significant die-off of any marine mammal population, and demands immediate 

7 response (NMFS 2011b). Since establishment of the UM program in 1991, there have been 53 

8 formally recognized UMEs in the U.S., with 33% of them occurring in the GOM (NMFS 2011b). 

9 Species in the GOM most commonly involved in UMEs are bottlenose dolphins and manatees. 

10 Causes of UMEs have been determined for 25 of the UMEs, and include infections, biotoxins 

11 (particularly domoic acid and brevetoxin), human interactions, and malnutrition. Red tides in the 

12 GOM, caused by annual blooms of the dinoflagellate Karenia brevis, are the source of UMEs 

13 caused by biotoxins in the GOM (NMFS 2011b). Invasive species could affect some marine 

14 mammals by disrupting local ecosystems and fisheries of the GOM. As examples, the Australian 

15 jellyfish (Phylloriza punctata) introduced to the northern GOM may feed heavily on juvenile fish 

16 and fish eggs (Ray 2005), while exotic shrimp viruses may affect shrimp and other crustaceans 

17 such as copepods and crabs (Batelle 2001). These could affect the prey base for some marine 

18 mammals.

19

20 Accidents. Marine mammals could be exposed to oil accidentally released from 

21 platforms, pipelines, and vessels (Table 4.4.2-1). Potential non-OCS sources of oil spills in the 

22 planning area include the domestic transportation of oil, State oil and gas development, and 

23 natural sources such as oil seeps. Accidental oil releases from OCS activities and other sources 

24 could expose marine mammals to oil by direct contact or through the inhalation or ingestion of 

25 oil or tar deposits. The magnitude and duration of exposure will be a function of the location, 

26 timing, duration, and size of the spill; the proximity of the spill to feeding and other important 

27 habitats; the timing and nature of spill containment; and the status of the affected animals.

28 Depending on their location, as well as the location of non-OCS oil sources, accidental spills 

29 associated with the proposed action could contribute to the overall exposure of marine mammals 

30 in the northern GOM. Most of the small to medium spills would have limited effects on marine 

31 mammals due to the relatively small areas likely to incur high concentrations of hydrocarbons 

32 and the short period of time during which potentially toxic concentrations would be present. The 

33 magnitude of impact would be expected to increase should a spill occur in habitats important to 

34 marine mammals or affect a number of individuals from a population listed under the ESA. 

35 However, some spills from OCS activity may locally represent the principal source of oil 

36 exposure for some species, especially for spills contacting important coastal and island habitats.

37

38 Conclusion. Cumulative impacts on marine mammals in the GOM as a result of ongoing 

39 and future OCS and non-OCS activities and natural phenomena could be minor to moderate over 

40 the next 40 to 50 yr. Non-OCS activities or phenomena include climate change, natural 

41 catastrophes, contaminant releases, vessel traffic, commercial fishing, and invasive species. The 

42 incremental contribution of routine Program activities to these impacts would be small 

43 (see Section 4.4.7.1.1). 

44

45 Marine mammals may also be adversely affected by exposure to oil that is accidentally 

46 released from OCS and non-OCS activities as well as naturally occurring seeps. The cumulative 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-590

1 impacts of past, present, and future oil spills on marine mammals would be minor to moderate. 

2 The incremental impacts of accidental spills associated with the proposed action on marine 

3 mammals would be small to large, depending on the location, timing, duration, and size of the 

4 spill; the proximity of the spill to feeding and other important habitats; the timing and nature of 

5 spill containment; and the status of the affected animals (see Section 4.4.7.1.1). 

6

7 Terrestrial Mammals. Under the proposed action, terrestrial mammals in the GOM are 

8 not expected to be affected by normal OCS-related activities (Section 4.4.7.1.1). The terrestrial 

9 mammals considered in the impact analysis for the proposed action are four federally endangered

10 GOM coast beach mouse subspecies and the federally endangered Florida salt marsh vole. 

11 Because of the listing of these species under the ESA, as well as their occurrence in protected 

12 areas, the siting and construction of any onshore facilities associated with the proposed action 

13 would be required to take into account these species and their habitats, and construction activities 

14 would not be allowed in the habitats of these species.

15

16 Present beach mice habitat is no longer of optimal quality because of historical beach 

17 erosion, construction, and tropical storm damage. Dredge-and-fill activities occur throughout the 

18 nearshore areas of the U.S. and disrupt beach and transport, which could affect coastal systems 

19 of dunes where beach mice live. Coastal construction and traffic can be expected to threaten 

20 beach mice populations on a continual basis. Natural catastrophes including storms, floods, 

21 droughts, and hurricanes can substantially reduce or eliminate beach mice. Storms can wash 

22 large amounts of debris into dune and marsh habitats. Trash and debris may be mistakenly 

23 consumed by beach mice or may entangle them. Cleanup efforts to remove debris could result in 

24 adverse habitat impacts. Other activities that threaten beach mice and the Florida salt marsh vole 

25 include predation and competition, artificial lighting, and coastal spills. Predation from feral and 

26 free-ranging cats and dogs, feral hogs, coyotes, and red foxes, and competition with common 

27 house mice could reduce beach mice and Florida salt marsh vole populations. Isolation of small 

28 populations of beach mice due to habitat fragmentation can preclude gene flow between 

29 populations and cause a loss of genetic diversity. Separation of frontal dune habitat from scrub 

30 habitat by a highway can make a beach mouse especially vulnerable to hurricane impacts.

31 Global climate change and sea level rise could also impact the species (Bird et al. 2009; 

32 Hatley 2003; USFWS 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010; Wooten 2008).

33

34 Activities in the GOM that could result in the accidental release of oil and may affect 

35 terrestrial mammals and their habitats include oil production from prior, proposed, and future 

36 OCS sales; domestic transportation of oil; State oil development; foreign crude oil imports; and 

37 military training activities involving open-water ship refueling. If spills from these activities 

38 occur in the vicinity of, or are transported by GOM currents to, the habitats of the beach mice or 

39 the Florida salt marsh vole, potential impacts would be similar in nature to those identified for 

40 the proposed action. Impacts associated with an oil spill may include loss of thermoregulatory 

41 ability from oiling of fur, lethal and sublethal toxic effects from inhalation or ingestion of oil or 

42 oil-contaminated foods, a decrease in food supply due to oiled vegetation, a decrease in habitat 

43 quantity and quality due to oiling of beach sands, and the fouling of burrows and nests. In 

44 addition, spill response activities could further impact habitats due to beach cleanup activities 

45 and vehicle and pedestrian traffic.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-591

1 Given the relatively small number of spills that are expected under the proposed action 

2 and during the life of the Program (Table 4.4.2-1), the requirement under the Oil Pollution Act of 

3 1990 to prevent contact of protected or sensitive habitats (such as the habitats of the beach mice 

4 and the salt marsh vole) with spilled oil, and the need of a spill to be associated with 

5 environmental conditions (such as a storm surge sufficient to transport the spilled oil over 

6 foredunes) that could favor exposure of the species and their habitats, relatively few cumulative 

7 impacts may be expected from accidental oil spills from all potential sources, and the 

8 contribution of spills associated with the proposed action is expected to be limited.

9

10 Conclusion. Cumulative impacts on terrestrial mammals in the GOM as a result of 

11 ongoing and future OCS and non-OCS program activities could be minor to moderate over the 

12 next 40 to 50 yr. Non-OCS activities or phenomena that may affect populations of terrestrial 

13 mammals include climate change, natural catastrophes, contaminant releases, vehicle traffic, and 

14 invasive and feral species. The incremental contribution of routine Program activities to these 

15 impacts would be small (see Section 4.4.7.1). 

16

17 Terrestrial mammals may also be adversely affected by exposure to oil that is 

18 accidentally released from OCS and non-OCS operations. The cumulative impacts of past, 

19 present, and future oil spills on terrestrial mammals would be minor to moderate. The 

20 incremental impacts of accidental spills associated with the proposed action on terrestrial 

21 mammals would be small to large, depending on the location, timing, duration, and size of the 

22 spill; the proximity of the spill to feeding and other important habitats; the timing and nature of 

23 spill containment; and the status of the affected animals (see Section 4.4.7.1).

24

25

26 4.6.4.1.2 Marine and Coastal Birds. Section 4.4.7.2.1 discusses impacts on marine and 

27 coastal birds in the GOM resulting from the proposed action (OCS program activities from 2012 

28 to 2017). Cumulative impacts on marine and coastal birds result from the incremental impacts of 

29 the proposed action when added to impacts from existing and reasonably foreseeable future OCS 

30 program activities (that are not part of the proposed action) and other non-OCS program 

31 activities. Table 4.6.1-1 presents the exploration and development scenario for the GOM 

32 cumulative case (encompassing the proposed action and other OCS program activities) over the 

33 next 40 to 50 yr. A number of OCS program activities could affect GOM marine or terrestrial 

34 birds or their habitats; these include offshore structure placement and pipeline trenching, 

35 offshore structure removal, operational discharges and wastes, service vessel and aircraft traffic, 

36 construction and operation of onshore infrastructure (including new pipeline landfalls), and 

37 noise. Potential impacts on marine and coastal birds from service program activities include 

38 injury or mortality of birds from collisions with platforms, vessels, and aircraft; exposure to 

39 operational discharges and ingestion of trash or debris; loss or degradation of habitat due to 

40 construction activities; and behavioral disturbance due to the presence of, and noise generated 

41 by, equipment and human activity.

42

43 Non-OCS program activities affecting marine and coastal birds include dredging and 

44 marine disposal; coastal and community development; onshore and offshore construction and 

45 operations of facilities associated with State oil and gas development and with the extraction of 

46 nonenergy minerals; commercial and recreational boating; and small aircraft traffic. Potential 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-592

1 impacts on marine and coastal birds from these activities are similar to those under the OCS 

2 program and include injury or mortality of birds from collisions with platforms associated with 

3 State oil and gas development and other onshore and offshore structures (e.g., radio, television, 

4 cell phone towers or wind towers); non-energy mineral mines (e.g., sand and gravel and other 

5 hard minerals mined in the northern part of the GOM; onshore industrial, commercial, and 

6 residential development; exposure to discharges from permitted point sources such as sewage 

7 treatment discharges and nonpoint sources such as irrigation runoff, or accidental releases 

8 (e.g., oil spills), as described in Section 4.6.2.1.1 and Table 4.6.2-1; exposure to emissions from 

9 various onshore and offshore sources (e.g., power generating stations, refineries, and marine 

10 vessels), as described in Section 4.6.2.1.2; ingestion of trash or debris; loss or degradation of 

11 habitat due to construction and operations activities; and behavioral disturbance due to the 

12 presence of noise generated by equipment and human activity. Other trends such as sea level 

13 rise and increasing seawater temperature brought on by global climate change, as well as 

14 extreme wind conditions from storm events, are also expected to adversely affect marine and 

15 coastal birds over the next 40 to 50 yr.

16

17 Injury or Mortality from Collisions. Annual bird collision mortalities under the 

18 proposed action (estimated at about 10,000 to 22,500) represent less than 0.01% of the hundreds 

19 of millions of birds that annually migrate across the GOM (Russell 2005). Under the cumulative 

20 scenario, annual collision mortality (estimated at 200,000 birds under current OCS activities in 

21 the GOM) could increase by about 8%. During the life of the proposed action from 2012 to 

22 2017, older platforms would be decommissioned and removed as new platforms are installed, so 

23 it is likely that the estimated 200,000 collision-related deaths per year would persist throughout 

24 the life of the program. The proposed action would likely result in a small incremental increase 

25 of the total annual bird collision mortality in the GOM that occurs from collisions with other 

26 OCS and non-OCS structures (Klem 1990; Kerlinger 2000).

27

28 Exposure to Wastewater Discharges and Air Emissions. The discharge of operational 

29 wastes and air emissions from current OCS- and non-OCS-related vessel traffic and platform 

30 operations is strongly regulated and would continue to be regulated over the next 40 to 50 yr. 

31 However, such wastes and emissions would still expose marine and coastal birds to potentially 

32 toxic materials or to solid debris that could be ingested or result in entanglement. In addition, the 

33 Mississippi River, and, to a lesser extent, other rivers and streams annually discharge waters 

34 containing suspended sediments, agricultural fertilizers and herbicides, and urban runoff to the 

35 northern GOM (Rabalais et al. 2001, 2002). Birds and their habitats in the vicinity of these 

36 discharges may be exposed to lethal and sublethal levels of contaminants. Operational 

37 wastewater discharges and air emissions associated with the proposed action would contribute to 

38 the overall cumulative risk of toxic exposure and debris ingestion or entanglement of existing 

39 OCS and non-OCS wastewater discharges and air emissions in the GOM, but the incremental 

40 increase in impact is expected to be small relative to these other activities.

41

42 Under the proposed action, marine and coastal birds could be exposed to oil accidentally 

43 released from platforms, pipelines, and marine vessels, and would be most susceptible to adverse 

44 impacts from spills occurring in coastal areas and affecting feeding and nesting areas. 

45 Accidental oil releases occur in the GOM from a variety of non-OCS related activities, such as 

46 the domestic transportation of oil, import of foreign crude oil, and State development of oil. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-593

1 Crude oil may also enter the environment of the northern GOM from naturally occurring seeps 

2 (MacDonald et al. 1996; MacDonald 1998b; Mitchell et al. 1999; NRC 2003). Oil releases from 

3 all sources may expose marine and coastal birds via direct contact or through the inhalation or 

4 ingestion of oil or tar deposits (see Section 4.4.7.2.1).

5

6 The spills that could occur in the cumulative scenario are shown in Table 4.6.1-3. Spills 

7 from non-OCS sources could occur from import tankers, State oil and gas operations, and coastal 

8 transportation of crude and refined petroleum products. Releases from natural seeps in the 

9 northern part of the GOM have been estimated at about 73,000 tons (526,000 bbl) per year 

10 (Kvenvolden and Cooper 2003). Most spills associated with the proposed action would be 

11 relatively small (less than 50 bbl) (Table 4.4.2-1). Depending on their location, accidental spills 

12 associated with the proposed action could represent a major component of the overall exposure 

13 of marine and coastal birds in the GOM OCS Planning Areas.

14

15 The magnitude and duration of exposure, and any subsequent adverse effects, would be a 

16 function of the location, timing, duration, and size of the spill; the proximity of the spill to 

17 feeding habitats; and the timing and nature of spill containment. Spills in nearshore coastal areas 

18 have the greatest potential for impacting high concentrations of bird populations. Most activities 

19 associated with the Program would take place in deep or ultradeep waters. Some seabirds spend 

20 a significant amount of time offshore and could be exposed to accidental oil spills that occur in 

21 these deep waters, but even marine birds that remain in coastal waters could be exposed to 

22 accidental oil spills if they were to occur closer to shore.

23

24 Loss and Degradation of Habitat. Marine and coastal birds could be affected by 

25 platform construction and removal activities, and pipeline trenching, which could disrupt 

26 behaviors of nearby birds. Platforms constructed under the proposed action would increase the 

27 number of offshore platforms present in open-water areas of the northern GOM; and these

28 structures may be used by birds to rest or avoid bad weather conditions during spring and fall 

29 migrations across the GOM (see Section 4.4.7.2). The proposed action would increase the 

30 number of platforms to be removed by only 9% of current OCS numbers, and up to 75% of the 

31 construction of new platforms would occur in deep water (i.e., 300 m [1,000 ft] or greater), well 

32 away from coastal areas. Under the proposed action, there would also be construction associated 

33 with no more than 12 new pipeline landfalls and offshore pipeline placement (Table 4.4.1-1). 

34 These platform and pipeline construction activities could add to the overall disturbance level of 

35 birds and their habitats from all construction sources in the GOM.

36

37 Platform construction and removal under the proposed action would be localized 

38 (primarily in deep water areas) and short in duration, and would result in only a small increase in

39 the overall level of disturbance incurred by birds and their habitats from all construction 

40 activities in the GOM OCS Planning Areas. Pipeline trenching and landfall construction that 

41 would occur under the proposed action would similarly be of short duration and limited in extent 

42 (associated with no more than 12 new landfalls), and would be expected to contribute little to 

43 overall levels of bird disturbance that occur in coastal areas of the GOM on a much more regular 

44 basis from existing OCS and non-OCS construction activities, such as channel construction and 

45 maintenance, creation of harbor and docking areas and facilities, State oil and gas development 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-594

1 (including platform construction and removal), non-energy minerals extraction, and pipeline 

2 emplacement.

3

4 Vessel traffic potentially disturbs, feeding and nesting birds with unknown long-term 

5 consequences. The GOM is one of the world‘s most concentrated commercial shipping areas 

6 (COE 2003a,b), and it supports extensive commercial fishing and recreational boating. As a 

7 result, OCS and non-OCS program-related vessel traffic disturbs birds on a daily basis. This 

8 trend is expected to increase as marine traffic in the GOM increases over the next 40 to 50 yr

9 (see Table 4.6.2-1). OCS program-related marine vessel traffic in the GOM could be as high as 

10 1,900 trips per week over the next 40 to 50 yr; vessel traffic associated with the proposed action 

11 represents about 27% of this traffic (Section 4.6.2.1). Non-OCS program traffic includes that 

12 related to crude oil and natural gas imports, commercial container vessels, military and USCG 

13 vessels, cruise ships, commercial fishing, and small watercraft. In 2010, the Port of New Orleans 

14 alone handled about 7,500 vessel calls (mainly tanker and dry bulk carrier), about 140 vessel 

15 calls per week (USDOT 2011b). Impacts on water quality from marine traffic arise from regular 

16 discharges of bilge water and waste, leaching of antifouling paints, and incidental spills 

17 (MMS 2001d), although operational discharges and spillage from marine vessels have declined 

18 substantially in the past few decades (NRC 2003b). Vessel traffic associated with the proposed 

19 action would result in a small increase in the overall disturbance of birds in the GOM region.

20

21 Disturbance Due to Noise. Noise generated during construction activities and normal 

22 operations (e.g., helicopter overflights) may disturb marine and coastal birds, causing a short23 term change in normal behavior and potentially disrupting feeding and nesting activities. 

24 Non-OCS activities that currently generate noise in the GOM include construction and/or 

25 operation of offshore structures for State oil and gas development; offshore LNG facilities and 

26 tankers; hard mineral extraction; dredging and marine disposal; commercial and recreational 

27 vessel traffic; small aircraft flight; and military training and testing activities. These activities 

28 are expected to continue or increase in the foreseeable future. Although noise generated as a 

29 result of the proposed action would likely add only a small increment to the overall (cumulative) 

30 noise levels in the GOM, locally it could represent the dominant noise in the environment, 

31 resulting in more moderate impacts on marine and coastal birds.

32

33 Climate Change and Storm Events. Populations of marine and coastal birds 

34 throughout the GOM may be adversely affected by climate change and, to a lesser extent, by 

35 storm events (including hurricanes). As discussed in Section 3.3, there is growing evidence that 

36 climate change is occurring, and potential effects in the GOM may include sea level rise and 

37 increases in water temperatures in the GOM. Over time these changes will result in a loss of 

38 wetlands in the GOM, important water bird habitat. Climate change could also affect the 

39 distribution, availability, and quality of feeding habitats and the abundance of food resources. It 

40 is not possible at this time to identify the likelihood, direction, or magnitude of any changes in 

41 the environment of the GOM due to changes in climate, so it is too speculative to identify the 

42 extent of effects on GOM populations of marine and coastal birds. It should be noted that such 

43 information is not essential to a reasoned choice among OCS program alternatives, even in a 

44 cumulative analysis, because the information missing here is missing across the board for all 

45 action alternatives.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-595

1 Severe storm events such as hurricanes may result in direct or indirect mortality of 

2 marine and coastal birds and may impact important coastal habitats. Heightened wave action 

3 and intensity could alter nearshore channels, affecting the abundance and distribution of shallow4 water habitats such as lagoons and bays, while sediments deposited into foraging habitats by 

5 storm waves may alter the thermal environment and affect aquatic vegetation in feeding habitats. 

6 Extreme wind conditions could damage or destroy historic rookery sites or disrupt nesting birds. 

7 Because storms (including hurricanes) are annual events that are an inherent component of the 

8 overall GOM ecosystem, it could be assumed that marine and coastal birds have experienced and 

9 largely tolerated extreme weather conditions in the past and may be expected to continue to do so 

10 in the foreseeable future. The occurrences and aftermaths of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 

11 2004, however, have impacted avian habitats on a large scale throughout the GOM. Large areas 

12 of coastal wetlands have been converted to open-water habitat, potentially affecting avian 

13 species that utilized the wetlands for foraging, nesting, and as stopover points during migration 

14 (Congressional Research Service 2005). Impacts on these habitats have the potential to result in 

15 population-level impacts affecting both abundance and distribution of some species. For 

16 example, the coastal habitats that were significantly impacted in southeastern Louisiana and the 

17 Galveston Bay area of Texas support nesting by up to 15% of the world‘s brown pelicans and 

18 30% of the world‘s sandwich terns (FWS 2006). Impacts on these habitats could reduce future 

19 nesting success and affect overall population levels of these species.

20

21 Hurricane impacts on bottomland forest habitat along the Louisiana and Mississippi 

22 coasts represent further loss of avian habitat affecting many different species; up to 70% of the 

23 cavity trees used by the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker at Big Branch Marsh National 

24 Wildlife Refuge were destroyed by Hurricane Katrina (FWS 2006). The long-term effects of 

25 avian habitat loss due to these hurricanes is not known, and agencies such as the USFWS and 

26 USGS are implementing numerous studies and monitoring programs to determine the extent and 

27 magnitude of impacts on affected avian populations. The occurrence of similar magnitude 

28 storms during the life of the 5-year OCS program could result in population-level impacts on 

29 some bird species.

30

31 Conclusion. Marine and coastal birds in the GOM could be adversely affected by 

32 activities associated with the proposed action as well as those associated with other OCS 

33 program and non-OCS program activities. Potential impacts include injury or mortality of birds 

34 from collisions with platforms associated with OCS and State oil and gas development and other 

35 onshore and offshore structures (e.g., radio, television, cell phone, or wind towers), non-energy 

36 mineral mines; onshore industrial, commercial, and residential development; exposure to 

37 discharges from permitted point sources or accidental releases; exposure to emissions from 

38 various onshore and offshore sources; ingestion of trash or debris; loss or degradation of habitat 

39 due to construction and operations activities; and behavioral disturbance due to the presence of,

40 and noise generated by, equipment and human activity. Other trends such as sea level rise and 

41 increasing seawater temperature brought on by global climate change, as well as extreme wind 

42 conditions from storm events, are also expected to adversely affect marine and coastal birds over 

43 the next 40 to 50 yr. While the cumulative impact of all OCS and non-OCS activities in the 

44 GOM is expected to be moderate, the incremental impact due to the proposed action would be 

45 small (see Section 4.4.7.2.1).

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-596

1 Marine and coastal birds may also be adversely affected by exposure to oil (via direct 

2 contact or through the inhalation or ingestion of oil or tar deposits) that is accidentally released 

3 from OCS and non-OCS activities, especially near coastal areas and affecting feeding and 

4 nesting areas. The incremental impacts of accidental spills associated with the proposed action 

5 on marine and coastal birds would be small to large, depending on the location, timing, duration, 

6 and size of the spill; the proximity of the spill to feeding and nesting areas; the timing and nature 

7 of spill containment; and the status of the affected birds (see Section 4.4.7.2.1). 

8

9

10 4.6.4.1.3 Fish. There are numerous fish species that inhabit different niches throughout 

11 the surface waters, water column, and benthic environments of the GOM. Routine activities will 

12 cumulatively have varied effects on these fish populations depending on their habitat and life 

13 history. Impacts on fish resulting from ongoing and future routine OCS program activities, 

14 including those of the proposed action, could result primarily from noise (vessel, seismic 

15 surveys, and construction), well drilling, pipeline placement (trenching, landfalls, and 

16 construction), platform placement (anchoring, mooring, and removal, except in deep waters) and 

17 routine discharges (drilling, production, platform, and vessel). Accidental oil spills are also 

18 counted among OCS program-related activities. Cumulative impacts could result from the 

19 combination of the proposed action and past present and reasonably foreseeable future OCS and 

20 non-OCS activities.

21

22 Routine OCS activities that temporarily disturb sediments and increase turbidity include 

23 installation of new pipelines and platforms and discharges of drill cuttings and associated fluids. 

24 This could cause soft-bottom fish such as Atlantic croaker, sand sea trout, Atlantic bumper, sea 

25 robins, and sand perch to temporarily move from or be attracted to the disturbed area. Fish 

26 species that are normally associated with reefs, such as snappers, groupers, grunts, and 

27 squirrelfishes, may also move from areas of increased turbidity. Sedimentation could smother 

28 eggs, larvae, and juvenile fishes as well as the benthic prey of some of these fish species. See 

29 Table 4.6.2-1 for a quantification of bottom disturbance and drilling and operational discharges 

30 expected during the life of the Program. The impacts of routine activities (exploration and site 

31 development, production and decommissioning) on fish communities are discussed in detail in 

32 Section 4.4.7.3.1. Overall, routine activities represent up to a minor disturbance, primarily 

33 affecting demersal fishes, with the severity of the impacts generally decreasing dramatically with 

34 distance from bottom-disturbing activities. 

35

36 Up to 2,100 additional platforms would be constructed under ongoing and future OCS 

37 activities, including up to 450 from the proposed action. The addition of new platforms may act 

38 as fish attracting devices (FADs). Many reef species, as well as highly migratory species, use 

39 platforms as habitat. There has been some speculation that an increase in FADs could impact the 

40 migration patterns of highly migratory species. While many platforms may be allowed to remain 

41 as artificial reefs, removal of platforms will reduce available substrate and structures for these 

42 fish and some of their prey species. Some fish will be killed in the process of these platform 

43 removals, especially when explosives are used to accomplish the removals. A total of up to 

44 1,250 platforms would be subject to explosive removal over the life of the Program, including up 

45 to 275 platforms under the proposed action. A detailed discussion of oil platforms as FADs can 

46 be found in Section 4.4.7.3.1.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-597

1 Non-OCS actions may also negatively influence fish resources in various life stages and 

2 habitats. Non-OCS oil and gas exploration and production activities in GOM State waters occur 

3 primarily off Louisiana and Texas, and off Alabama in the vicinity of Mobile Bay. The States of 

4 Florida and Mississippi have had limited activities in State waters, with a moratorium on drilling 

5 activity now in effect in Florida waters. The increasing presence of offshore LNG facilities 

6 could lead to impacts associated with entrainment and impingement of eggs, larvae, and juvenile 

7 lifestages and discharges of water used in the vaporization process. In addition to the thermal 

8 discharge, biocides are also discharged from the facilities. Other non-OCS activities that could 

9 impact fish communities include non-OCS activities with a potential to impact marine benthic 

10 and pelagic habitats, such as sand mining, sediment dredging and disposal, anchoring, offshore 

11 marine transportation, and pollutant inputs from point and non-point sources. Many of these 

12 activities would affect bottom-dwelling fishes at various life stages as well as their food sources 

13 in a manner similar to OCS bottom-disturbing activities (Section 4.4.7.3.1).

14

15 Commercial fishing practices that are indiscriminate, such as some types of trawling and 

16 pots, are responsible for significant amounts of bycatch that can injure or kill juveniles of many 

17 fish species. These types of fishing practices could damage future year classes, reduce available 

18 prey species, and damage benthic habitat for many GOM fish resources. Sportfishing may also 

19 contribute significantly to cumulative effects on some fishery resources. As a consequence of 

20 the pressure fishing places on fishery resources, appropriate management is required to reduce 

21 the potential for depletion of stocks due to overharvesting. Even with management, the 

22 possibility of overfishing still exists. 

23

24 The eutrophication that has contributed to the hypoxic zone in the GOM will continue to 

25 act as a source of lethal and sublethal stress to fish communities. In addition, natural events, 

26 including hurricanes and turbidity plumes, could also cause localized damage to important 

27 habitat areas and could affect individuals or populations. However, the GOM fish community as 

28 a whole should be adapted to such natural events. 

29

30 Climate change could affect fish communities through direct physiological action, habitat 

31 loss, and by altering large-scale oceanographic and ecosystem processes (Section 3.8.4.1). At 

32 the level of individual behavior and physiology, increasing water temperature could increase the 

33 spread and virulence of new and existing pathogens, and alter reproductive rates by speeding

34 growth and altering the timing of migrations (including reproductive movements). Fish in river35 influenced systems such as the GOM would be particularly susceptible to changes in salinity, 

36 turbidity, and temperature linked to changes in the hydrology of the Mississippi River and 

37 Atchafalaya River. At larger scales, climate change could promote the range expansion of new 

38 species into the GOM, reduce or eliminate critical fish habitats including estuarine waters and 

39 coral reef due to sea level rise, and increase the size of the GOM ―dead zone,‖ reducing the 

40 amount of benthic habitat available to demersal fishes (Rabalais et al. 2010). 

41

42 Oil spills resulting from both OCS and non-OCS activities could impact fish communities 

43 in the GOM. See Table 4.6.1-3 for anticipated oil spills over the life of the Program. 

44 Catastrophic spill assumptions are provided in Table 4.4.2-2. Crude oil may also enter the 

45 environment from naturally occurring seeps. Large spills may also occur from tankers carrying 

46 imported oil in the GOM. The potential effects of spills from non-OCS activities would be 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-598

1 similar to those described for OCS activities (Section 4.4.7.3.1). Most adult fish in marine 

2 environments are highly mobile and are capable of avoiding high concentrations of 

3 hydrocarbons, although they may be subject to sublethal exposures. However, eggs and larvae 

4 do not have the ability to avoid spills and may therefore suffer lethal or sublethal effects. Any 

5 oil spills reaching shallow seagrass, estuarine, or coastal marine habitats could affect fish species 

6 that use the affected areas as spawning or juvenile nursery habitat. Coastal pelagic fish and 

7 highly migratory species throughout the GOM could come into contact with surface oil, but 

8 would most likely move away from affected areas. Because of the wide dispersal of early life 

9 history stages of fishes in the GOM surface waters, it is anticipated that only a relatively small 

10 proportion of early life stages present at a given time would be impacted by a particular oil spill, 

11 which would limit the potential for population-level effects. However, the impact magnitude

12 would also depend on the temporal and spatial scope of the oil spill. Since some species of fish 

13 spawn in a limited geographic area(s) during a small temporal window, a spill could have

14 population-level impacts if the spill coincided in time and space with spawning activity. In 

15 addition, fish species such as tuna, swordfish, and billfish that currently have depressed 

16 populations and important spawning grounds in the GOM could experience population-level 

17 impacts if high numbers of early life stages were killed by a spill. The potential impacts of oil 

18 spills on fish communities are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.7.3.1.

19

20 Threatened or Endangered Species. Routine activities such as placement and removal 

21 of structures, discharges of operational wastes, and accidental spills of oil have the potential to 

22 physically harm or disturb individual Gulf sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, or their respective 

23 habitats; cause sedimentation of areas that provide food; or elicit lethal or sublethal toxic effects. 

24 As described in Section 3.8.4.1.4, most routine activities would not take place in shallow 

25 nearshore habitat preferred by Gulf sturgeon. Gulf sturgeon are also not likely to be directly 

26 affected by routine operations that impact estuarine areas because the more vulnerable egg and 

27 larval stages are not present in estuarine areas and juveniles and adults will be able to avoid most 

28 disturbances. Consequently, it is anticipated that effects on Gulf sturgeon from routine OCS 

29 activities would be limited. Smalltooth sawfish are primarily found in peninsular Florida away 

30 from the Central and Western Planning Areas. Vulnerable early life stages of smalltooth sawfish 

31 exist only in shallow estuarine areas far removed from most routine OCS activities. Adults and 

32 larger juveniles do occupy coastal waters where OCS activities would occur. However, it is 

33 expected that, given their size, they will be able to avoid direct impacts from routine operations, 

34 although their habitat would be disturbed. 

35

36 In addition to potential effects from OCS oil and gas activities identified above, Gulf 

37 sturgeon and smalltooth sawfish could be affected by non-OCS activities such as commercial 

38 fishing, water quality degradation, coastal and upland development, dredge and fill activities, and 

39 damming of major spawning rivers (Section 3.8.4.1.4). Even though it is illegal to fish for Gulf 

40 sturgeon or smallthooth sawfish, some individuals, particularly smalltooth sawfish, may be 

41 harmed or killed when captured as bycatch during trawling activities. Dredging and fill activities 

42 in estuaries may disturb smalltooth sawfish and Gulf sturgeon habitat. Increased barriers 

43 (e.g., locks or dams) to major spawning sites may result in Gulf sturgeon reproducing in less 

44 desirable locations. The eggs and fry of Gulf sturgeon are also susceptible to other fish and 

45 invertebrate predators as well as anthropogenic effects, such as artificially increased water 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-599

1 temperatures due to the release of cooling water from power plants and exposure to pesticides 

2 and heavy metals.

3

4 Other events, including hurricanes, turbidity plumes, and hypoxia, could also affect Gulf 

5 sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, or their habitat. Regardless, a severe event could cause localized 

6 damage to important habitat areas and could result in the introduction of contaminants via 

7 surfacewater runoff. Therefore, such events could affect individual Gulf sturgeon or population 

8 levels for some period of time.

9

10 Oil is released in GOM waters by accidental oil spills (OCS and non-OCS) and natural 

11 seepage, primarily in deep water. Non-OCS oil and gas exploration and production activities in

12 GOM State waters occur primarily off Louisiana and Texas, and off Alabama in the vicinity of 

13 Mobile Bay. The States of Florida and Mississippi have had limited activities in State waters, 

14 with a moratorium on drilling activity now in effect in Florida waters. Non-OCS spills in the 

15 GOM could have impacts similar to those for OCS spills. Smalltooth sawfish are primarily 

16 found in peninsular Florida and are uncommon in most of the Central and Western GOM

17 Planning Areas. Therefore, oil spills in the GOM have the greatest potential to impact Gulf 

18 sturgeon populations. Most spills would be minor and are unlikely to reach estuarine and shelf 

19 habitat of adult sturgeon. Spills in shallow areas have the greatest potential to affect Gulf 

20 sturgeon. As identified in Section 3.8.4.1, eggs and larvae of Gulf sturgeon are typically located 

21 in freshwater areas, and oil from OCS-related spills are unlikely to come into contact with these 

22 life stages. Because adult sturgeons are benthic feeders, they are relatively unlikely to come into 

23 contact with surface oil in deeper waters.

24

25 Conclusion. Cumulative impacts on fish communities in the GOM Planning Areas could 

26 result from OCS and non-OCS activities. Overall, routine activities represent up to a minor 

27 disturbance, primarily affecting demersal fishes, with the severity of the impacts generally 

28 decreasing dramatically with distance from bottom-disturbing activities. In addition to routine 

29 OCS activities, non-OCS actions including oil and gas development in State waters, sand mining, 

30 sediment dredging and disposal, LGN facilities, hypoxia, anchoring, fishing/trawling, 

31 commercial shipping, and pollutant inputs from point and non-point sources could also adversely 

32 affect invertebrate populations. Many of these activities would affect bottom-dwelling fish at 

33 various life stages as well as their food sources in a manner similar to OCS bottom-disturbing 

34 activities. Fish could also be affected by the environmental changes predicted to result from 

35 climate change. The proposed action is expected to contribute only a small increment (impacts 

36 ranging from negligible to minor) to the potential for overall cumulative effects on fish resources

37 because of existing regulations, the limited time frame over which most individual activities 

38 would occur, and the small proportion of available habitats that would be affected during a given 

39 period (see Section 4.4.7.3.1). Therefore, it is anticipated that the cumulative effects of OCS and 

40 non-OCS activities on fish species in the GOM Planning Areas would be similar to the effects of 

41 non-OCS activities alone.

42

43 The magnitude and severity of potential effects to fish resources from oil spills would be 

44 a function of the location, timing, duration, and size of spills; the proximity of spills to particular 

45 fish habitats; and the timing and nature of spill containment and cleanup activities. Small spills, 

46 whether from OCS or non-OCS sources, are unlikely to have overall population-level effects on 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-600

1 fish resources. However, oil from catastrophic spills that contacted shallow nearshore areas of 

2 these planning areas has the potential to be of greatest significance to fish communities. Such 

3 spills could result in long-term, population-level impacts on fish communities.

4

5 Although Gulf sturgeon may be affected by a variety of OCS and non-OCS activities, 

6 most OCS activities occur in deeper areas that are outside of the normal habitat areas used by 

7 Gulf sturgeon. Similarly, smalltooth sawfish are primarily found in peninsular Florida away 

8 from the Central and Western Planning Areas. Consequently, it is anticipated that the 

9 cumulative effects of OCS and non-OCS activities on Gulf sturgeon and smalltooth sawfish 

10 would be similar to the effects of non-OCS activities alone, and the proposed action is expected 

11 to contribute little to any overall incremental impacts on these species.

12

13

14 4.6.4.1.4 Reptiles. Section 4.4.7.4 discusses impacts on reptiles in the GOM coastal 

15 environment resulting from the proposed action. Cumulative impacts result from the incremental 

16 impacts of the proposed action when added to impacts from existing and reasonably foreseeable 

17 future OCS program activities (that are not part of the proposed action) and other non-OCS 

18 program activities. Table 4.6.1-1 presents the exploration and development scenario for the 

19 GOM cumulative case (encompassing the proposed action and other OCS program activities). 

20 Non-OCS program activities contributing to adverse cumulative impacts on reptiles include

21 activities associated with offshore construction (e.g., seismic surveys, dredging and marine 

22 disposal, extraction of nonenergy minerals, State oil and gas development, domestic 

23 transportation of oil and gas, and foreign crude oil imports), onshore construction (e.g., coastal 

24 and community development), the discharge of municipal and other waste effluents, and vessel 

25 traffic (e.g., commercial shipping, recreational boating, and military training and testing 

26 activities).

27

28 Ongoing and future routine OCS program activities include seismic surveys, onshore and 

29 offshore construction (including pipeline trenching and removal of offshore structures), the 

30 discharge of operational wastes (such as produced water and ship wastes), and vessel traffic. All 

31 these activities have the potential to adversely affect reptiles in the GOM via physical injury or 

32 death, lethal or sublethal toxic effects, or loss of reproductive, nursery, and feeding habitats 

33 (Section 4.4.7.4). Accidental oil spills are also counted among OCS program-related activities; 

34 assumptions for oil spills under the cumulative case scenario are provided in Table 4.6.1-3.

35

36 Anthropogenic mortality in sea turtles has been attributed to a number of sources 

37 (NRC 1990; NOAA 2003). Human activities responsible for mortality of sea turtle eggs and 

38 hatchlings include (in descending order of relative importance) beach development, beach 

39 lighting, beach use, entanglement in trash and debris, and beach replenishment. Each of these 

40 activities is associated, either exclusively or to a large degree, with coastal development. In 

41 addition, the contributions of exposure of eggs and hatchlings to toxins and of the ingestion of 

42 plastics and debris by hatchlings are unknown (NRC 1990; NOAA 2003). Human activities 

43 responsible for mortality of juvenile and adult turtles include shrimp trawling and other fisheries, 

44 beach lighting, beach use, vessel collisions, dredging, entanglement, power plant entrainment, 

45 and oil platform removal (NRC 1999; NOAA 2003). The role of exposure to toxins in overall 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-601

1 sea turtle mortality is unknown. However, this information is not necessary to make a reasoned 

2 choice among the alternatives.

3

4 Non-OCS offshore (deepwater and nearshore) construction activities in the GOM that 

5 could affect sea turtles include channel construction and maintenance activities (e.g., dredging) 

6 conducted by Federal, State, and local governments and the public; the offshore extraction of 

7 nonenergy minerals; State oil and gas development; and the transport of domestic and foreign oil 

8 and gas (requiring loading and offloading facilities). Potential impacts on sea turtles from these 

9 activities may include physical injury or death of individuals present in the immediate 

10 construction area. In addition, construction or removal of offshore OCS facilities may result in a 

11 relatively small incremental increase in the potential for adverse impacts on sea turtles within the 

12 GOM planning areas. However, the mitigation measures established by BOEMRE for 

13 construction and platform removal activities may be expected to reduce the contribution of these 

14 proposed activities to cumulative impacts to sea turtles from all offshore construction activities 

15 throughout the GOM planning areas (MMS 2003, 2004, 2005).

16

17 Onshore construction in coastal areas can impact sea turtle nesting habitat. Coastal 

18 development is an ongoing activity throughout the GOM and may be expected to continue or 

19 increase for the foreseeable future. Residential (i.e., housing developments) and commercial 

20 (i.e., casinos) development near nesting beaches may disrupt nesting adults and disorient 

21 emerging hatchlings, while increasing the potential for recreational human activities on nesting 

22 beaches. Compliance with regulatory requirements and the implementation of appropriate 

23 mitigation measures may be expected to reduce the potential for the siting, construction, and 

24 operation of onshore facilities.

25

26 There are a number of types of facilities or activities that discharge wastes to GOM

27 waters and thus expose sea turtles to potentially toxic materials or solid debris that could 

28 entangle or be ingested by sea turtles. These facilities or activities include sewage treatment 

29 plants, industrial manufacturing or processing facilities, electric generating plants, cargo and 

30 tanker shipping, cruise ships, commercial fishing, pleasure craft, and vessel traffic associated 

31 with the Program. In addition, the Mississippi River (and to a lesser extent other rivers and 

32 streams that discharge to the northern GOM) annually discharges waters containing suspended 

33 sediments, agricultural fertilizers and herbicides, and urban runoff (Rabalais et al. 2001, 2002). 

34 The exposure of sea turtles to these discharges may result in physical injury or death, or a variety 

35 of lethal or sublethal toxic effects on adults, juveniles, and hatchlings. These discharges may 

36 also affect habitat quality in the vicinity of the discharges.

37

38 Operational discharges and wastes associated with OCS activities could adversely affect 

39 sea turtles, especially those in the immediate vicinity of discharging platforms and vessels 

40 (Section 4.4.7.4). However, discharges from OCS program-related vessels and platforms would 

41 be strongly regulated under the proposed action (as they are for current OCS program-related 

42 discharges). Thus, the potential for sea turtles to be exposed to discharges under the proposed 

43 action may be expected to be much less than the potential of exposure to many of the nonpoint 

44 and non-OCS related discharge sources. Similarly, because of existing USCG and USEPA 

45 regulations, the nature of the OCS discharges that could occur are expected to be less toxic or 

46 less likely to cause entanglement than discharges from non-OCS program sources. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-602

1

2 The GOM is one of the world‘s most concentrated shipping areas, with extensive 

3 commercial traffic transporting a variety of materials ranging from agricultural products to 

4 domestic and foreign oil (USACE 2003a). For example, in 2003, the Port of New Orleans 

5 handled over 255,000 domestic and foreign container vessels, while the port at Gulfport, 

6 Mississippi, handled more than 161,000 foreign container vessels (USACE 2003b). The GOM

7 also supports extensive commercial fisheries as well as recreational boating. For example, there 

8 were 2 million recreational watercraft between 4 and 20 m (12 and 64 ft) in length registered in 

9 the GOM States, many of which are used in GOM waters (USCG undated). The GOM also 

10 supports training by U.S. Navy vessels as well as routine USCG activities. Because of the very 

11 large number of vessels typically present in the GOM, the potential for sea turtles colliding with 

12 watercraft is high, and may be expected to continue and increase into the foreseeable future. In 

13 comparison with the overall level of vessel traffic in the GOM, the additional numbers of vessel 

14 trips that would occur to support OCS program activities is expected to result in a minor 

15 incremental increase to the overall potential for sea turtle–vessel collisions in the GOM planning 

16 areas.

17

18 The information on the extent to which sea turtles may be affected by noise is very 

19 limited (Section 4.4.7.4). However, this information is not necessary to make a reasoned choice 

20 among the alternatives Current noise generating activities in the GOM unrelated to OCS 

21 activities or the proposed action include the construction of offshore structures (such as those 

22 supporting State oil and gas development or nonenergy minerals extraction), dredging, 

23 commercial and recreational vessel traffic, and military training and testing activities. These 

24 may be expected to continue or increase in the foreseeable future.

25

26 Sea turtles could be exposed to OCS oil spills that could occur from platform, pipeline, 

27 and/or vessel accidents (see Section 4.4.7.4). Most spills associated with the proposed action 

28 would be relatively small (less than 50 bbl), and most would be expected to occur in water 

29 depths of 300 m (984 ft) or more (BOEMRE 2011). 

30

31 Storms, operator error, and mechanical failures may result in accidental oil releases from 

32 a variety of non-OCS related activities, such as the domestic transportation of oil, the import of 

33 foreign crude oil, and State development of oil. Crude oil may also enter the environment of the 

34 northern GOM from naturally occurring seeps. At least 63 seeps have been identified in the 

35 northern GOM (mostly off the coast of Louisiana) (MacDonald et al. 1996), and more than 

36 350 naturally occurring and constant oil seeps that produce perennial slicks of oil at consistent 

37 locations may be present in the GOM (MacDonald and Leifer [2002], as cited in Kvenvolden and 

38 Cooper [2003]). Seeps in the northern GOM have been estimated to discharge more than 

39 1.2 million gal of crude oil annually to overlying GOM waters (MacDonald 1998). Using 

40 remotely sensed satellite data, Mitchell et al. (1999) identified approximately 1,000 km2

(390 mi

2 41 ) of floating oil in the northern GOM, presumably from natural seeps.

42

43 Accidental oil releases from these activities and from naturally occurring seeps could 

44 impact reptiles by oiling (fouling) nesting beaches and nest sites and hatchlings, and through the 

45 inhalation or ingestion of oil or tar deposits. The magnitude and severity of potential effects on 

46 reptiles from such exposure will be a function of the location, timing, duration, and size of the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-603

1 spill; the proximity of the spill to nesting beaches and feeding habitats; and the timing and nature 

2 of spill containment and cleanup activities. Depending on their location, as well as the location 

3 of spills from other sources and releases from natural seeps, accidental spills associated with the 

4 proposed action could contribute to the overall exposure of nest beaches, eggs, and hatchlings to 

5 oil, and subsequent lethal and sublethal effects, in the GOM planning areas. For example, 

6 American crocodiles in southern Florida might only be affected by natural seepage and 

7 accidental releases of oil in the Eastern Planning Area or from catastrophic spills in the Central 

8 and Western Planning Areas. 

9

10 Reptile populations throughout the GOM may be adversely affected by climate change or 

11 hurricane events. As previously discussed (Section 4.4.7.4), there is growing evidence that 

12 climate change is occurring, and potential effects in the GOM may include a change (i.e., rise) in 

13 sea level or a change in water temperatures. Climate change could affect the availability or 

14 quality of nesting beaches, the location and duration of current convergence areas utilized by 

15 hatchlings in the open waters of the GOM, and the distribution, availability, and quality of 

16 feeding habitats. For reptiles that rely on temperature to determine the gender of offspring in 

17 incubating eggs (referred to as temperature-dependent sex determination), including sea turtles 

18 and crocodilians, subtle increases in atmospheric temperatures could skew sex ratios of 

19 hatchlings, which could have future population implications (Walther et al. 2002).

20

21 Severe storm events such as hurricanes have the potential to impact nesting beaches if 

22 they result in a change in beach topography or in the composition of beach materials. 

23 Heightened wave action and intensity could erode nesting beach sites, storm surges could flood 

24 beaches and drown eggs and hatchlings, and sediments deposited onto beach surfaces by storm 

25 waves may alter the thermal and structural environment of nest sites, potentially decreasing the 

26 availability and/or quality of the nesting areas (Milton et al. 1994; Hays et al. 2001; Holloman 

27 and Godfrey 2005). Hurricanes Katrina and Rita adversely affected sea turtle habitats in 2005. 

28 Approximately 50 Kemp‘s ridley sea turtle nesting sites were destroyed along the Alabama coast 

29 (Congressional Research Service 2005; FWS 2006). The loss of beaches through the affected 

30 coastal areas has probably affected other existing nests and nesting habitats of this species, as 

31 well as the loggerhead turtle. Similarly, impacts on seagrass beds may affect the local 

32 distribution and abundance of species that use these habitats, such as the green sea turtle and 

33 Kemp‘s ridley sea turtle. Although hurricanes are annual events that are an inherent component 

34 of the overall GOM ecosystem, including sea turtle nesting beaches, if hurricanes similar in 

35 magnitude to Katrina and Rita occur during the life of the Program, population-level impacts on 

36 reptiles could occur, particularly since the availability of nesting habitat (e.g. beaches) has

37 become limited because of coastal residential and commercial development. 

38

39 Conclusion. Impacts on reptiles may occur in the future as a result of normal activities 

40 related to the proposed action, as a result of activities related to ongoing and expected OCS 

41 leasing, and as a result of non-OCS program activities. The potential impacts associated with 

42 normal OCS operations represent a relatively small incremental increase in the impacts incurred 

43 by reptiles from non-OCS program activities in the GOM (see Section 4.4.7.4). Accidental oil 

44 spills under the proposed action would result in a comparatively small incremental increase in 

45 the overall impact of exposure to oil from other anthropogenic activities (such as spills from 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-604

1 foreign tankers). Additional impacts on reptiles may occur as a result of habitat loss or alteration 

2 due to climate change and hurricanes, and from exposure to oil from naturally occurring seeps.

3

4

5 4.6.4.1.5 Invertebrates and Lower Trophic Levels. Cumulative impacts could result 

6 from the combination of the proposed action and past present and reasonably foreseeable future 

7 OCS and non-OCS activities. Routine activities will cumulatively have varied effects on 

8 invertebrate populations in the sediment and water column depending on their habitat and life 

9 history. Impacts resulting from ongoing and future routine OCS program activities, including 

10 those of the proposed action, could result primarily from noise (vessel, seismic surveys, and 

11 construction), well drilling, pipeline placement (trenching, landfalls, and construction), platform 

12 placement (anchoring, mooring, and removal, except in deep waters) and routine discharges 

13 (drilling, production, platform, and vessel). Accidental oil spills are also counted among OCS 

14 program-related activities. 

15

16 Routine activities that temporarily disturb sediments and increase turbidity include 

17 installation of new pipelines and platforms and discharges of drill cuttings and associated fluids.

18 Under the cumulative scenario, as much as 55,450 ha (137,020 ac) of sea bottom would be 

19 disturbed by construction of platforms and pipelines over the period of the Program 

20 (Table 4.6.1-1). Bottom-disturbing impacts would most directly affect benthic and near bottom 

21 invertebrates. The impacts of routine activities (exploration and site development, production 

22 and decommissioning) on invertebrate communities are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.7.5.1. 

23 Overall, routine activities represent up to a moderate disturbance, with the severity of the impacts 

24 generally decreasing dramatically with distance from bottom-disturbing activities. 

25

26 The addition of up to 2,100 new platforms over the life of the Program (up to 450 new 

27 platforms under the proposed action) would allow the colonization of invertebrates requiring 

28 hard substrate. While many platforms may be allowed to remain as artificial reefs, removal of 

29 platforms will reduce available substrate and structures for invertebrates and injure or kill them 

30 during removal. 

31

32 Non-OCS actions may negatively influence invertebrate resources in various life stages 

33 and habitats. Non-OCS oil and gas exploration and production activities in GOM State waters 

34 occur primarily off Louisiana and Texas, and off Alabama in the vicinity of Mobile Bay. The 

35 States of Florida and Mississippi have had limited activities in State waters, with a moratorium 

36 on drilling activity now in effect in Florida waters. The increasing presence of offshore LNG 

37 facilities could lead to impacts associated with discharges of water used in the vaporization 

38 process. In addition to the thermal discharge, biocides are also discharged from the facilities. 

39 Other non-OCS activities that could impact invertebrate communities include non-OCS activities 

40 with a potential to impact marine benthic and pelagic habitats, such as sand mining, sediment 

41 dredging and disposal, anchoring, fishing/trawling, offshore marine transportation, and pollutant 

42 inputs from point and non-point sources. Many of these activities would affect bottom-dwelling 

43 invertebrates at various life stages as well as their food sources in a manner similar to OCS 

44 bottom-disturbing activities (Section 4.4.7.5.1).

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-605

1 The eutrophication that has contributed to the hypoxic zone in the GOM will continue to 

2 act as a source of lethal and sublethal stress to invertebrate communities. Natural events, 

3 including hurricanes and turbidity plumes, could also cause localized damage to important 

4 habitat areas and could affect individuals or populations, although the invertebrate community as 

5 a whole should be adapted to such natural events. 

6

7 Commercial fishing practices that are indiscriminate, such as some types of trawling and 

8 pots, are responsible for significant amounts of bycatch that can injure or kill large numbers of 

9 invertebrates. Bottom trawling also degrades benthic habitats and temporarily increases the 

10 turbidity of the water, both of which represent chronic disturbances to invertebrates. Bottom 

11 trawling is particularly common in the GOM because of the importance of the shrimp fishery. 

12

13 Several major classes of invertebrates could be affected by the environmental changes 

14 predicted to result from climate change. Climate change could affect invertebrate communities 

15 through direct physiological action, habitat loss, and by altering large-scale oceanographic and 

16 ecosystem processes (Section 3.8.5.1). A significant loss of habitat-forming invertebrates like 

17 corals could result from increased water temperature and ocean acidification. The impacts of 

18 climate change on habitat-forming invertebrates are discussed in detail in Section 3.7.2.1. 

19 Potential impacts on benthic and water column invertebrates resulting from climate change 

20 include:

21

22 • An increase in the range and temporal variability of a water column‘s oxygen, 

23 salinity, and temperature, which could significantly alter the existing 

24 invertebrate community structure, particularly in nearshore areas;

25

26 • A reduction in important estuarine habitats from sea level rise;

27

28 • A range expansion of new invertebrate species into the GOM;

29

30 • An increase in the extent and duration of the GOM hypoxic zone that could 

31 kill or displace existing invertebrate communities and reduce the amount of 

32 suitable habitat available; and

33

34 • Reduced oceanic pH, which could reduce the fitness of calcifying marine 

35 organisms like corals, echinoderms, foraminiferans, and mollusks.

36

37 Oil spills resulting from both OCS and non-OCS activities could impact invertebrate 

38 communities in the GOM. See Table 4.6.1-3 for anticipated oil spills over the life of the 

39 Program. Crude oil also enters the environment from naturally occurring seeps. Spills could 

40 occur from tankers carrying imported oil in the GOM. The potential effects of spills from non41 OCS activities would be similar to those described for OCS activities (Section 4.4.7.5.1). In 

42 general, larger benthic and water column invertebrates that come into contact with oil would 

43 most likely move away from affected areas, while zooplankton and sessile or small infauna 

44 would not be able to avoid spills. Oil contacting invertebrates could have lethal or sublethal 

45 impacts. Any oil spills reaching shallow seagrass, estuarine, or coastal marine habitats could 

46 affect commercially important species such as shrimp, oysters, and blue crab that use these areas 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-606

1 as spawning or juvenile nursery habitat. If they were to occur, deepwater surface spills could 

2 also affect invertebrate eggs and larvae, neuston communities such as jellyfish species, and 

3 Sargassum, together with any associated vertebrate and its invertebrate organisms. Because of 

4 the wide dispersal of invertebrates in the GOM surface waters, it is anticipated that only a 

5 relatively small proportion of early life stages present at a given time would be impacted by a 

6 particular oil spill event, which would limit the potential for population-level effects. The 

7 potential impacts of oil spills on invertebrate communities are discussed in Section 4.4.7.5.1.

8

9 Conclusion. Cumulative impacts on invertebrate communities in the GOM Planning 

10 Areas could result from OCS and non-OCS activities. Overall, routine activities represent up to 

11 a moderate disturbance, with the severity of the impacts generally decreasing dramatically with 

12 distance from bottom-disturbing activities. In addition to routine OCS activities, non-OCS 

13 actions including offshore LNG facilities, sand mining, sediment dredging and disposal, hypoxia, 

14 anchoring, fishing/trawling, offshore marine transportation, and pollutant inputs from point and 

15 non-point sources could also adversely affect invertebrate populations. Many of these activities 

16 would affect bottom-dwelling invertebrates at various life stages as well as their food sources in 

17 a manner similar to OCS bottom-disturbing activities. Several major classes of invertebrates 

18 could also be affected by the environmental changes predicted to result from climate change. It 

19 is anticipated that the cumulative effects of OCS and non-OCS activities on invertebrates would 

20 be similar to the effects of non-OCS activities alone, and routine Program activities, with impacts 

21 ranging from negligible to minor, are expected to contribute only a small increment to the 

22 potential for overall cumulative effects on invertebrate resources. 

23

24 The magnitude and severity of potential effects to invertebrate resources from oil spills 

25 would be a function of the location, timing, duration, and size of spills; the proximity of spills to 

26 particular habitats; and the timing and nature of spill containment and cleanup activities. Spills 

27 in deeper water, whether from OCS or non-OCS sources, are unlikely to have overall population28 level effects on invertebrate resources because of the relatively small proportion of similar 

29 available habitats that would come in contact with released oil at concentrations great enough to 

30 elicit toxic effects. Oil from catastrophic spills that reaches shallower, nearshore areas of these 

31 planning areas has the potential to be of greatest significance to invertebrate communities. 

32 Impacts from such spills could result in long-term, population level impacts on invertebrate 

33 communities.

34

35

36 4.6.4.1.6 Areas of Special Concern. Section 4.4.8.1 identified potential effects of the 

37 proposed action on areas of special concern in the GOM. This section identifies activities that 

38 could affect such areas in the GOM, including non-OCS activities and current and planned OCS 

39 activities that would occur during the life of the Program, and the potential incremental effects of 

40 implementing the proposed action.

41

42 National Marine Sanctuaries. The FGBNMS is the only National Marine Sanctuary 

43 located in the Western and Central GOM Planning Areas. The Flower Gardens Bank sanctuary 

44 is protected from direct mechanical damage due to oil and gas exploration and development by 

45 an MMS Topographic Features Stipulation, which includes a No Activity Zone (Section 4.4.6.2). 

46 Additional OCS activities that could affect the marine sanctuaries include discharges of drilling 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-607

1 cuttings, drilling muds, and produced waters. However, as identified in Section 4.4.6.2, the 

2 Topographic Features Stipulation does not allow discharges from OCS activities to be released 

3 within the vicinity of the FGBNMS. Consequently, it is anticipated that the sanctuary would not 

4 be affected by discharges from OCS activities. 

5

6 Non-OCS activities that could affect the marine sanctuaries include fishing, diving, 

7 offshore marine transportation, and tankering. Natural events such as hurricanes could also 

8 impact the sanctuaries. Fishing and diving impacts are controlled by sanctuary guidelines 

9 regulating these activities. The distance of the Flower Garden Banks from shore (over 160 km

10 [99 mi]) serves to reduce the number of visitors to the sanctuary, further reducing the potential 

11 for impacts from fishing and diving activities. Sanctuary regulations also prohibit collecting 

12 activities and ban anchoring within the sanctuary in order to minimize structural damage to the 

13 reef system from commercial and recreational vessels.

14

15 Climate change has the potential to profoundly affect coral communities on topographic 

16 features in several ways, including:

17

18 • Increased frequency of bleaching as a stress response to warming water 

19 temperatures (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2007);

20

21 • Excessive algal growth on reefs and an increase in bacterial, fungal, and viral 

22 agents (Boesch et al. 2000; Twilley et al. 2001);

23

24 • Greater frequency of mechanical damage to corals from greater severity of 

25 tropical storms and hurricanes (Janetos et al. 2008);

26

27 • Decreases in the oceanic pH and carbonate concentration are expected to 

28 reduce the reef formation rate, weaken the existing reef structure, and alter the 

29 composition of coral communities (Janetos et al. 2008); and

30

31 • Invasive species may expand their range into the GOM due to climate change.

32

33 Impacts on the marine sanctuaries could occur due to surface hydrocarbon discharges 

34 from platform spills, OCS and non-OCS tankers, or other marine traffic passing in the vicinity of 

35 the sanctuary. Discharges in the vicinity of the FGBNMS should be greatly diluted before they 

36 could reach reef features because water depths within the sanctuary are greater than 20 m (66 ft). 

37 Consequently, it is anticipated that concentrations of contaminants within such discharges would 

38 be diluted to levels unlikely to have toxic effects on reef organisms. Oil spills could also impact 

39 the Flower Garden Banks communities. The No Activity Zone mandated in the Topographic 

40 Features Stipulation and adopted as a regulation for the Flower Garden Banks precludes 

41 placement of platforms or pipelines immediately adjacent to the marine sanctuary and reduces 

42 the likelihood that oil from a pipeline leak would reach bank communities. If oil from a series of 

43 subsurface spills were to reach one of these banks, sensitive biota could be affected. Potential 

44 impacts have been discussed in Section 4.4.6.2. It is anticipated that impacts of a large oil spill 

45 reaching coral reef or hard-bottom habitat may be long term.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-608

1 National Parks, Reserves, and Refuges. As identified in Section 4.4.8.1, routine OCS 

2 activities potentially affecting parks, reserves, and refuges include placement of structures, 

3 pipeline landfalls, operational discharges and wastes, and vessel and aircraft traffic. It is 

4 assumed that pipeline landfalls, shore bases, and waste facilities would not be located in national 

5 parks, NWRs, or national estuarine research reserves because of the special status and 

6 protections afforded these areas. Consequently, there would be no direct impacts from these 

7 activities on any GOM national parks, reserves, or refuges.

8

9 It is possible that future pipeline landfalls, shore bases, and waste facilities could be 

10 located in one or more estuaries in the Western or Central GOM Planning Areas that are included 

11 in the National Estuary Program. This includes Corpus Christi Bay (Coastal Bend Bays and 

12 Estuaries), Galveston Bay, Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine Complex, and Mobile Bay. Under 

13 the cumulative scenario, it is anticipated that less than 40 new pipeline landfalls could occur in 

14 the GOM, with less than 12 of these resulting from the proposed action (Table 4.4.1-1). In 

15 addition, gas-processing facilities could be built in the GOM area under the cumulative scenario. 

16 It is assumed that new onshore facilities and structures would be subject to additional evaluations 

17 under the NEPA and that they would be sited to avoid national parks, reserves, and refuges and 

18 to limit impacts on estuarine and coastal habitats.

19

20 Trash and debris are a recognized problem affecting enjoyment and maintenance of 

21 recreational beaches along the GOM coast. From extensive aerial surveys conducted by NMFS 

22 over large areas of the GOM, floating offshore trash and debris was characterized by Lecke23 Mitchell and Mullin (1997) as a ubiquitous, Gulfwide problem. Not surprisingly, such trash and 

24 debris frequently washes up on beaches, including those associated with areas of special concern 

25 such as the Padre Island National Seashore. Trash and debris can detract from the aesthetic 

26 quality of beaches, can be hazardous to beach users and wildlife, and can increase the cost of 

27 maintenance programs.

28

29 Trash and debris in the GOM originates from various sources, including OCS operations, 

30 offshore and onshore oil and gas operations in State waters, naval operations; merchant vessels, 

31 commercial and recreational fishing activities, and onshore residences and businesses (Miller and 

32 Echols 1996). The discharge or disposal of solid debris from OCS structures and vessels is 

33 prohibited by the MMS (30 CFR 250.40) and by the USCG (MARPOL, Annex V, Public 

34 Law 100-220 [101 Statute 1458]). Assuming that operators of OCS facilities comply with 

35 regulations, most potential impacts would be avoided, although some accidental loss of materials 

36 is inevitable. Natural phenomena (such as storms, hurricanes, and river outflows) contribute to 

37 movement of trash and debris onto the beaches in the GOM.

38

39 Vessel wakes from a large number of vessel trips can, over time, erode shorelines along 

40 inlets, channels, and harbors. The GOM is one of the world‘s most concentrated shipping areas, 

41 and the Port of New Orleans supports extensive commercial shipping traffic. The GOM also 

42 supports extensive commercial fisheries as well as recreational boating. The GOM also supports 

43 training by U.S. Navy vessels as well as routine USCG activities (Section 4.3). The additional 

44 vessel activity that would occur under the proposed action will result in an increase in the overall 

45 potential for wakes to affect sensitive shorelines in the GOM OCS Planning Areas.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-609

1 Overall, it is assumed that there could be 1,400–1,900 OCS-related vessel trips per week 

2 in the GOM under the cumulative scenario; 300 to 600 of these would occur as a result of OCS 

3 activities attributable to the proposed action (Table 4.4.1.1-1). The majority of such vessel trips 

4 would occur in offshore waters, thereby precluding effects on shorelines associated with national 

5 parks, reserves, and refuges. Existing regulations typically limit vessel speeds in the sensitive 

6 inland waterways of areas of special concern. With these measures in place, most impacts due to 

7 vessel traffic in such areas would be avoided.

8

9 Under the proposed action, national parks, NWRs, national estuarine research reserves, or 

10 national estuary program sites could be exposed to oil accidentally released from platforms, 

11 pipelines, and vessels (see Section 4.4.8.1). In addition to the potential for spills from OCS 

12 sources, storms, operator error, and mechanical failures could also result in accidental oil 

13 releases from a variety of non-OCS-related activities including domestic transportation of oil, 

14 importing foreign crude oil, and development of oil production under State programs. The 

15 potential exists for impacts to National Parks, Reserves, and Refuges that could result from both 

16 oiling of the shoreline and mechanical damage during the cleanup process. Most spills 

17 associated with the proposed action would be relatively small (less than 50 bbl), and most would 

18 be expected to occur in waters depths of 200 m (656 ft) or more (Table 4.4.2-1) where they are 

19 not likely to affect coastal areas. Because of the expected distribution of leasing activities, it is 

20 assumed that such spills would occur in either the Western or Central GOM Planning Areas.

21

22 Based on the expected distribution of activities and facilities associated with current or 

23 proposed activities under OCS leasing programs, it is assumed that any accidental oil spills from 

24 OCS-activities would occur in either the Western or Central GOM Planning Area. In contrast, 

25 non-OCS spills could occur anywhere in the GOM. Thus, while it is considered likely that only 

26 national seashores, NWRs, national estuarine research reserves, and National Estuary Program 

27 sites in the Western or Central GOM are at risk from spills due to ongoing or proposed OCS 

28 activities, any of these types of properties located along the GOM coast has a potential to be 

29 affected by non-OCS accidental spills. Regardless of the source, oil from a large or catastrophic 

30 spill that reached the shoreline of any of these sites could have adverse effects on resources or 

31 resource values.

32

33 Hurricanes and tropical storms occur regularly in the GOM area. The natural 

34 environments that parks and refuges preserve and maintain have developed in a setting of regular 

35 occurrences of severe storms. In 2004 and 2005, however, Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Ivan 

36 severely impacted numerous national parks, NWRs, and national estuaries. In 2004, Hurricane 

37 Ivan damaged 10 NWRs between the Florida panhandle and Louisiana. In 2005, Hurricane 

38 Katrina affected 16 refuges in the same area, temporarily closing all of them. Impacts included 

39 damage to beaches, dunes, vegetation and infrastructure. Breton NWR in Louisiana was reduced 

40 to about one-half its pre-Katrina size. Many impacted refuges remain impacted by huge 

41 quantities of debris and hazardous gases and liquids spread over large areas of wetlands within 

42 the sanctuaries. Should storms of similar strength and size occur during the life of the Program, 

43 long-term impacts on areas of special concern in the GOM could occur.

44

45 Conclusion. In addition to OCS activities, non-OCS activities that could affect National 

46 Sanctuaries, Parks, Reserves and Refuges include fishing, diving trash and debris, vessel wakes, 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-610

1 vessel traffic, tinkering, and oil and gas activities in State waters. Hurricanes and tropical storms 

2 also occur regularly in the GOM area potentially causing damage. Due to existing protections, it 

3 is anticipated that the FGBNMS would not be affected by OCS activities. Development of OCS 

4 onshore facilities within National Park lands is considered unlikely, making impacts from 

5 cumulative routine OCS operations unlikely in these areas. Offshore construction of pipelines 

6 and platforms could contribute to cumulative effects on wildlife and on scenic values for park 

7 visitors. Impacts could also include increases to the amount of trash or debris that currently 

8 washes up on shorelines, and increases in shoreline erosion due to increased vessel traffic in 

9 inshore waters. Overall, routine Program activities could result in minor incremental increases in 

10 effects on areas of special concern compared to existing non-OCS activities within the Gulf of 

11 Mexico (see Section 4.4.8.1).

12

13 The proposed action would be expected to result in a small incremental increase in the 

14 risk of impacts from oil spills to areas of special concern. The cumulative level of impacts from 

15 spills would depend on spill frequency, location, and size; the type of product spilled; weather 

16 conditions; effectiveness of cleanup operations; and other environmental conditions at the time 

17 of the spill. Large and catastrophic oil spills in areas adjacent to the National Parks, NWRs, or 

18 National Forests, whether from OCS or non-OCS sources, could negatively impact the FGBNMS 

19 and coastal habitats and fauna and could also affect subsistence uses, commercial or recreational 

20 fisheries, and tourism.

21

22

23 4.6.4.2 Alaska Region – Cook Inlet

24

25

26 4.6.4.2.1 Marine Mammals.

27

28 Marine Mammals. The cumulative analysis considers past, ongoing, and foreseeable 

29 future human and natural activities that may occur and adversely affect marine mammals in the 

30 same general area. These activities include effects of the OCS Program (proposed action and 

31 prior and future OCS sales), oil and gas activities in State waters, commercial and subsistence 

32 shipping, commercial fishing, recreational fishing and boating activities, military operations, 

33 scientific research, and natural phenomena. Specific types of impact-producing factors 

34 considered include noise from numerous sources, pollution, ingestion and entanglement in 

35 marine debris, vessel strikes, habitat degradation, subsistence harvests, military activities, 

36 industrial development, community development, climate change, and natural catastrophes. 

37 Section 4.4.7.1.2 provides the major impact-producing factors for the proposed action in Cook 

38 Inlet.

39

40 Routine Activities.

41

42 OCS Activities. Marine mammals and their habitats in the Cook Inlet Planning Area 

43 could be affected by a variety of exploration, development, and production activities as a result 

44 of the proposed and future OCS leasing actions (see Section 4.4.7.1.2). These activities include 

45 seismic exploration, offshore and onshore infrastructure construction, the discharge of 

46 operational wastes, and vessel and aircraft traffic. Impacts on marine mammals from these 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-611

1 activities may include physical injury or death; behavioral disturbances; lethal or sublethal toxic 

2 effects; and loss of reproductive, nursery, feeding, and resting habitats. The degree of impact at 

3 the population level depends greatly on the status of the population (reflected in its listing under 

4 the ESA) and the degree of disturbance or harm from OCS-related activities in areas important to 

5 species survival (i.e., feeding, breeding, molting, rookery, or haulout areas).

6

7 Potential impacts (primarily behavioral disturbance) on marine mammals from OCS8 related seismic activity would be short term and temporary, and not expected to result in minor 

9 impacts on any affected species.

10

11 Impacts from OCS construction and operation activities could include the temporary 

12 disturbance and displacement of individuals or groups by construction equipment and long-term 

13 disturbance of some individuals from operational noise. No long-term, population-level effects 

14 would be expected because individuals most affected by these impacts would be those in the 

15 immediate vicinity of the construction site or operational platform and disturbance of individuals 

16 during construction would be largely temporary. In addition, appropriate mitigation measures 

17 could lessen the potential for impacts.

18

19 Operational and waste discharges (e.g., produced water, drilling muds, and drill cuttings) 

20 would be disposed of through downhole injection into NPDES-permitted disposal wells, and thus 

21 would not be expected to result in any incremental impacts on marine mammals. Liquid wastes 

22 (such as bilge water) may also be generated by OCS support vessels and on production 

23 platforms. While these wastes may be discharged (if permitted) into surface waters, they would 

24 be rapidly diluted and dispersed and would result in minor incremental impacts on marine 

25 mammals. Drilling and production wastes may contain materials such as metals and 

26 hydrocarbons, which can bioaccumulate through the food chain into the tissues of marine 

27 mammals. Although the bioaccumulation of anthropogenic chemicals has been reported for a 

28 variety of marine mammals, adverse impacts or population-level effects resulting from such 

29 bioaccumulation have not been demonstrated (Norstrom and Muir 1994; Muir et al. 1999).

30

31 Marine mammals could be temporarily disturbed by OCS vessel traffic (all species) or 

32 incur injury or death from collisions with support vessels (primarily larger, slower moving 

33 cetaceans). The low level of expected OCS vessel trips in the Cook Inlet Planning Area under

34 the proposed action (one to three trips per week) would be a minor contribution to all vessel 

35 traffic occurring in the Cook Inlet. Noise from the one to three helicopter overflights expected 

36 each week would be transient in nature and be a minor component of all aircraft flights that 

37 occur within Cook Inlet. Overflights disturbing active rookery sites could result in decreased 

38 pup survival and in population-level impacts on some species, although overflight restrictions 

39 and flightline selection to avoid rookeries would greatly limit the potential for adversely 

40 affecting animals at these locations. 

41

42 No platforms would be removed under the proposed action for the Cook Inlet Planning 

43 Area. It is possible that platforms would be removed from future lease sales or from platforms 

44 associated with oil and gas activities in State waters. There have been no documented losses of 

45 marine mammals resulting from explosive removals of offshore oil and gas structures, but there 

46 are sporadic incidents reported of marine mammals being killed by underwater detonations 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-612

1 (Continental Shelf Associates 2004; MMS 2007, 2008). Harassment of marine mammals as a 

2 result of a non-injurious physiological response to the explosion-generated shock wave, as well 

3 as to the acoustic signature of the detonation, is also possible. However, explosive platform 

4 removals would comply with appropriate BOEM or State guidelines and would not be expected 

5 to adversely affect marine mammals in Cook Inlet.

6

7 Non-OCS Activities. A number of non-OCS activities such as oil and gas exploration 

8 and development in State waters: commercial, subsistence, and recreational fishing; vessel 

9 traffic; and climate change could also affect marine mammals in the Cook Inlet Planning Area 

10 (or portions of the Gulf of Alaska that could be affected by activities in Cook Inlet). Many of the 

11 effects of these activities on marine mammals would be similar in nature to those resulting from 

12 OCS-related activities, namely, behavioral disturbance, habitat disturbance, injury or mortality, 

13 and exposure to toxic substances. Marine mammals may also be adversely affected by climate 

14 change.

15

16 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development in State Waters. The State of Alaska has 

17 made nearshore State lands available for leasing along the northern portion of Cook Inlet (above 

18 Homer). Exploration, construction, and operation activities associated with State leases would 

19 occur in nearshore and coastal areas, while OCS platforms and pipelines would be located away 

20 from coastal areas. Thus, State oil and gas leasing activities may be expected to have a greater 

21 potential for affecting marine mammals in coastal habitats than would the proposed OCS actions.

22

23 Commercial and Subsistence Fishing and Harvesting. Commercial and subsistence 

24 fishing has been identified as impacting many of the marine mammals in Alaskan waters (Allen 

25 and Angliss 2011). These fisheries employ a variety of methods, such as longlines, seines, 

26 trawls, and traps, and can result in the entanglement, injury, and death of individuals of marine 

27 mammal species. Fisheries also remove a portion of the prey base for some marine mammals. 

28 Subsistence harvest has targeted and continues to target some marine mammal species, 

29 especially some of the whale species.

30

31 The following are minimum reported estimated annual mortality rates incidental to 

32 commercial fisheries and subsistence harvests for marine mammals that occur in Cook Inlet 

33 and/or in the Gulf of Alaska that could be affected by the proposed action in Cook Inlet (Allen 

34 and Angliss 2011):

35

36 • The estimated minimum mortality rate for Western U.S. Stock of the Steller 

37 sea lion incidental to Alaska commercial fisheries is 26.2 animals per year.

38 The best estimate of annual subsistence harvest of the Steller sea lion is 

39 197 animals.

40

41 • The estimated minimum mortality rate for Eastern Pacific Stock of the 

42 northern fur sea lion incidental to Alaska commercial fisheries is 1.9 animals

43 per year. The best estimate of annual subsistence harvest of the northern fur 

44 seal is 562 animals.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-613

1 • The estimated minimum mortality rate for Gulf of Alaska Stock of the harbor 

2 seal incidental to Alaska commercial fisheries is 24 animals per year. The 

3 best estimate of annual subsistence harvest of the harbor seal is 807 animals.

4

5 • There are no reports of mortality incidental to commercial fisheries for the 

6 Cook Inlet Stock of the beluga whale. Annual subsistence harvest of Cook 

7 Inlet beluga whales ranged from 30 to over 100 between 1993 and 1999. 

8 Since 2000, subsistence harvests totaled only 11 whales, with no subsistence 

9 harvests allowed between 2008 and 2012 (Allen and Angliss 2011;

10 NMFS 2008b).

11

12 • The estimated minimum mortality rate for the Alaska Resident Stock of the 

13 killer whale incidental to Alaska commercial fisheries is 1.2 animals per year.

14 There are no reports of subsistence harvests of killer whales in Alaska.

15

16 • The estimated minimum mortality rate for the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian 

17 Islands, and Bering Sea Transient Stock of the killer whale incidental to 

18 Alaska commercial fisheries is 0.4 animal per year. There are no reports of 

19 subsistence harvests of killer whales in Alaska.

20

21 • There are no reports of mortality incidental to commercial fisheries or 

22 subsidence harvest for the ATI Transient Stock of the killer whale.

23

24 • There were no serious injuries or mortalities observed or reported incidental to 

25 commercial fisheries between 2002 and 2006 for the North Pacific Stock of 

26 the Pacific white-sided dolphin. However, between 1978 and 1991, thousands 

27 of individuals died annually incidental to high seas fisheries (these fisheries 

28 have not operated in the central North Pacific since 1991). There are no 

29 reports of subsistence harvests of Pacific white-sided dolphins.

30

31 • The estimated minimum mortality rate for the Gulf of Alaska Stock of the

32 harbor porpoise incidental to commercial fisheries is 71.4 animals per year.

33 There are no reports of subsistence harvests of the harbor porpoise. Two 

34 harbor porpoises were taken incidentally in subsistence gillnets in 1995.

35

36 • The estimated minimum mortality rate for the Alaska Stock of the Dall‘s 

37 porpoise incidental to commercial fisheries is 29.6 animals per year. There 

38 are no reports of subsistence harvests of the Dall‘s porpoise.

39

40 • The estimated minimum mortality rate for the North Pacific Stock of the 

41 sperm whale incidental to commercial fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska is 

42 2.01 animals per year. There are no reports of subsistence harvests of the 

43 sperm whale. The sperm whale was the dominant species killed by the 

44 commercial whaling industry in the North pacific in the years following the 

45 Second World War.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-614

1 • The estimated annual mortality rate for the Alaska Stock of Cuvier‘s beaked 

2 whale incidental to commercial fisheries is zero. There are no reports of 

3 subsistence harvests of the Cuvier‘s beaked whale.

4

5 • Serious injuries to or mortalities of Eastern North Pacific Stock of the gray 

6 whale occur throughout their range incidental to commercial fisheries and 

7 from strandings due to various causes. The annual mortality rate incidental to 

8 U.S. commercial fisheries is 3.3 whales. Annual subsistence take averaged 

9 121 whales between 2003 to 2007. Russian Chukotka people take most of the 

10 gray whales. The U.S. Makah Indian Tribe has a yearly average quota of only

11 4 whales. In 2005, an unlawful subsistence hunt and kill of a gray whale 

12 occurred in Alaska.

13

14 • The Western North Pacific Stock of the humpback whale‘s feeding area 

15 includes the Gulf of Alaska. The estimated annual mortality incidental to 

16 U.S. commercial fisheries is 0.2 humpback whales per year based on one 

17 mortality observed in the Bering Sea sablefish pot fishery from 2002 through 

18 2006. Bycatch in Japan and Korea average 1.1 to 2.4 humpback whales per 

19 year. The annual mortality rate for subsistence takes for the 2003 to 2007 

20 period was 0.2 whales. The species received full protection in 1965; however, 

21 the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) continued illegal catches until 

22 1972. From 1961 through 1971, 6,793 humpback whales were illegally killed. 

23 Many of these were taken from the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea.

24

25 • The Central North Pacific Stock of the humpback whale feeding area includes 

26 the Gulf of Alaska area that encompasses Cook Inlet. Based on observations 

27 from 2003 through 2007, the estimated annual mortality in Alaska is 

28 3.4 animals per year from commercial fishery, 0.2 animals per year from 

29 recreational fishery, and 1.6 animals per year from vessel collisions.

30 Subsistence harvesting is not allowed for humpback whales from the Central 

31 North Pacific Stock.

32

33 • There was one observed incidental mortality of a fin whale from the Northeast 

34 Pacific Stock in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Island pollock trawl fishery. No 

35 current or historical subsistence takes of this stock are reported from Alaska or 

36 Russia. Between 1925 and 1975, commercial whaling throughout the North 

37 Pacific killed 47,645 fin whales.

38

39 • For the Alaska Stock of the minke whale, the total estimated mortality and 

40 serious injury incidental to U.S. commercial fisheries for 2002 through 2006 

41 was zero. Prior to that time, whale mortalities were very rare. Subsistence 

42 take by Alaska Natives is rare (e.g., only nine between 1930 and 1995).

43

44 • There are no records of North Pacific right whale mortalities incidental to 

45 U.S. commercial fisheries. There are no reported subsistence takes of the 

46 species in Alaska or Russia. Up to 37,000 North Pacific right whales were 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-615

1 killed by whaling from 1839 to 1909; while 742 were killed by whaling from 

2 1900 to 1999, in addition to 372 killed illegally, taken by the U.S.S.R., from 

3 1963 through 1967, primarily in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea, that left 

4 the population at an estimated 50 individuals (Allen and Angiss 2011; 

5 Encyclopedia of Life 2011).

6

7 • Based on commercial fisheries observer program results, fishing mortality and 

8 serious injury for the south central Alaska Stock of the northern sea otter is 

9 insignificant (i.e., approaches zero mortalities and serious injuries). The mean 

10 annual report of subsistence take for the stock from 2002 through 2006 was 

11 346 animals.

12

13 • The total fishery mortality and serious injury rate for the Southwest Alaska 

14 stock of the northern sea otter is less than 10 animals per year. The mean 

15 annual report of subsistence take for the stock from 2002 through 2006 was 

16 91 animals.

17

18 In addition to the above, no serious injuries or mortalities due to fisheries or subsistence have 

19 been reported for blue whales in Alaska (Carretta et al. 2011).

20

21 Climate Change. A concern regarding marine mammals in polar regions is the potential 

22 for climate change and associated changes in the extent of sea ice in some arctic and subarctic 

23 waters. It is not possible at this time to identify the likelihood, direction, or magnitude of any 

24 changes in the environment of Cook Inlet waters due to changes in the climate, or how climate 

25 change could impact marine mammals in these waters. The current state of climate change and 

26 its impacts on marine mammals would also be further considered in any subsequent 

27 environmental reviews for lease sales or other OCS-related activities; therefore, this information 

28 is not essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives presented in this PEIS.

29

30 Other Impacting Factors. Marine mammals in the Cook Inlet area may also be impacted 

31 by other factors such as UMEs and invasive species. A UME is an unexpected stranding that 

32 involves a significant die-off of any marine mammal population, and demands immediate 

33 response (NMFS 2011b). Since establishment of the UM program in 1991, there have been 

34 53 formally recognized UMEs in the U.S.; only one UME occurred in Alaska and involved sea 

35 otters (NMFS 2011b). Causes have been determined for 25 of the UMEs, and include infections, 

36 biotoxins (particularly domoic acid and brevetoxin), human interactions, and malnutrition. The 

37 cause of the UME in Alaska is undetermined (NMFS 2011b). Invasive species could affect some 

38 marine mammals by disrupting local ecosystems and fisheries of the area of Cook Inlet. For 

39 example, introduced northern pike (Esox lucius) consume salmon, trout, and whitefish, affecting 

40 total populations of these prey species where pike become established. The potential 

41 introductions of other invasive species of concern, such as the Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir

42 sinensis), which could eat and/or out compete native invertebrate species, could adversely affect 

43 natural communities (McClory and Gotthardt 2008). These and other invasive species could 

44 affect the prey base for some marine mammals. As climate change continues to warm Alaskan 

45 waters, Alaska may become more susceptible to invasive species (McClory and Gotthardt 2008).

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-616

1 Accidents. Marine mammals could be exposed to oil accidentally released from 

2 platforms, pipelines, and vessels in each of the areas offshore Alaska included in the proposed 

3 Program (Table 4.4.2-1). Non-OCS sources of oil in Cook Inlet may include the domestic 

4 transportation of oil, State oil and gas development, and natural sources such as seeps. 

5 Accidental oil releases from OCS activities and other sources could expose marine mammals to 

6 oil by body contact or through the inhalation or ingestion of oil or tar deposits. Indirect effects 

7 may occur as a result of loss or displacement of prey resources or habitat loss resulting from oil. 

8 The magnitude and duration of exposure will be a function of the location, timing, duration, and 

9 size of the spill; the proximity of the spill to feeding and other important habitats; the timing and 

10 nature of spill containment; and the status of the affected animals.

11

12 It is anticipated that most of the small to medium spills would have limited effects on 

13 marine mammals due to the relatively small areas likely to incur high concentrations of 

14 hydrocarbons and the short period of time during which potentially toxic concentrations would 

15 be present. The magnitude of impact would be expected to increase should a spill occur in 

16 habitats important to marine mammals or affect a number of individuals from a population listed 

17 under the ESA, and, as such, a significant spill would have a high probability of producing 

18 significant, population-level cumulative impacts on Cook Inlet beluga whales.

19

20 Conclusion. Cumulative impacts on marine mammals in the Cook Inlet Planning Area as 

21 a result of future OCS program and ongoing and future non-OCS program activities could be 

22 minor to moderate over the next 40 to 50 yr. Non-OCS program activities or phenomena include

23 climate change, natural catastrophes, contaminant releases, vessel traffic, commercial fishing, 

24 subsistence harvests, and invasive species. The incremental contribution of routine Program 

25 activities to these impacts would be small (see Section 4.4.7.1.2). 

26

27 Marine mammals may also be adversely affected by exposure to oil that is accidentally 

28 released from OCS and non-OCS activities as well as naturally occurring seeps. The cumulative 

29 impacts of past, present, and future oil spills on marine mammals would be minor to moderate. 

30 The incremental impacts of accidental spills associated with the proposed action on marine 

31 mammals would be small to large, depending on the location, timing, duration, and size of the 

32 spill; the proximity of the spill to feeding and other important habitats; the timing and nature of 

33 spill containment; and the status of the affected animals (see Section 4.4.7.1.2). 

34

35 Terrestrial Mammals. Terrestrial mammals and their habitats could be affected by a 

36 variety of activities associated with the proposed OCS actions (Section 4.4.7.1.2). These 

37 activities include the construction and operation of onshore pipelines and aircraft traffic. Impacts 

38 on terrestrial mammals may include physical injury or death; behavioral disturbances; lethal or 

39 sublethal toxic effects; and loss of reproductive, nursery, feeding, and resting habitats. There are 

40 currently no ongoing OCS activities in the Cook Inlet; thus all OCS development and any 

41 associated impacts on terrestrial wildlife in the Cook Inlet Planning Area would result from the 

42 proposed action and future actions.

43

44 Impacts from OCS pipeline construction and operation could include the injury or death 

45 of smaller mammals (such as mice and voles) and the disturbance and displacement of 

46 individuals or groups of larger species (such as deer and bear). Individuals most affected by 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-617

1 these impacts would be those in the immediate vicinity of the pipeline. Because of the limited 

2 areal extent of new facilities under the proposed action, disturbance (primarily behavioral in 

3 nature) of most of these species during construction would be largely temporary, and no long4 term population-level effects would be expected. However, careful siting of pipelines to avoid 

5 important habitats could minimize the potential impacts.

6

7 Under the proposed action, vehicle traffic associated with normal construction, operation, 

8 and maintenance of the onshore pipelines could disturb wildlife. Vehicle traffic could disturb 

9 wildlife foraging along pipelines or access roads, causing affected wildlife to temporarily stop 

10 normal activities (e.g., foraging, resting) or leave the area, while collision with vehicles could 

11 injure or kill some individuals. Because vehicle traffic would be infrequent, vehicle-related 

12 impacts associated with the proposed action would be minimal. In the Cook Inlet, vehicle traffic 

13 along any new access roads would be very light and infrequent and, thus, not expected to affect 

14 more than a few individuals or result in population-level impacts on wildlife.

15

16 In the Cook Inlet area, terrestrial mammals are mostly habituated to aircraft due to year17 round military and civilian aircraft operations. Only up to three weekly helicopter trips are 

18 projected in the Cook Inlet Planning Area under the proposed action. Impacts on terrestrial 

19 mammals from helicopter overflights would be behavioral in nature, primarily resulting in short20 term disturbance in normal activities, and would not result in population-level effects. 

21

22 Terrestrial mammals could also be affected by a number of non-OCS activities, including 

23 oil and gas exploration and development in State waters, and coastal and community 

24 development. Many of the effects of these activities on terrestrial mammals would be similar in 

25 nature to those resulting from OCS-related activities, namely behavioral disturbance, habitat 

26 disturbance, and injury or mortality. The State of Alaska has made leases of State waters 

27 available along the northern portion of Cook Inlet (above Homer) since the 1950s. Impacts on 

28 terrestrial mammals that could result with oil and gas lease sales in State waters may exceed 

29 potential impacts that could occur under the OCS proposed action because of the greater extent 

30 of offshore and onshore development. In addition, much of the infrastructure is over 40 yr old, 

31 and many of the pipes are aging and corroded (NMFS 2008c). Terrestrial mammals may be 

32 affected as a result of coastal and community development. Such development may result in the 

33 loss of habitat and the permanent displacement of some species from the developing areas. 

34 Implementation of the proposed action could increase coastal and community development, 

35 indirectly adding to impacts on terrestrial mammals and their habitats.

36

37 Terrestrial wildlife could be adversely affected by the accidental release of oil from an 

38 onshore pipeline, or by offshore spills contacting beaches and shorelines utilized by terrestrial 

39 mammals (such as Sitka black-tailed deer or brown bear). Impacts on terrestrial mammals from 

40 an oil spill would depend on such factors as the time of year, volume of the spill, type and extent 

41 of habitat affected, food resources used by the species, and home range or density of the wildlife 

42 species. Spills contacting high-use areas could locally affect a relatively large number of 

43 animals. It is anticipated that most of the spills would have limited effects on terrestrial 

44 mammals, due to the relatively small, mostly offshore, areas likely to be directly exposed to the 

45 spills and due to the small number and size of spills projected for the proposed action and for any 

46 future OCS oil and gas developments.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-618

1 State oil and gas development poses a major potential for accidental oil releases in the 

2 Cook Inlet Planning Area. Because of the much greater level of oil and gas development in State 

3 waters and the aging infrastructure associated with many of these developments, accidental spills 

4 associated with the proposed OCS action could contribute relatively little to the overall potential 

5 exposure of terrestrial mammals to accidental oil releases in Cook Inlet. 

6

7 Conclusion. Cumulative impacts on terrestrial mammals in the Cook Inlet Planning Area 

8 as a result of future OCS program and ongoing and future non-OCS activities could be minor to 

9 moderate over the next 40 to 50 yr. Non-OCS activities or phenomena that may affect 

10 populations of terrestrial mammals include climate change, natural catastrophes, contaminant

11 releases, and vehicle traffic. The incremental contribution of routine Program activities to these 

12 impacts would be small (see Section 4.4.7.1.2). 

13

14 Terrestrial mammals may also be adversely affected by exposure to oil that is 

15 accidentally released from OCS and non-OCS operations. The cumulative impacts of past, 

16 present, and future oil spills on terrestrial mammals would be minor to moderate. The 

17 incremental impacts of accidental spills associated with the proposed action on terrestrial 

18 mammals would be small to large, depending on the location, timing, duration, and size of the 

19 spill; the proximity of the spill to feeding and other important habitats; the timing and nature of 

20 spill containment; and the status of the affected animals (see Section 4.4.7.1.2).

21

22

23 4.6.4.2.2 Marine and Coastal Birds. Section 4.4.7.2.2 discusses impacts on marine and 

24 coastal birds in Cook Inlet resulting from the proposed action (OCS program activities from 

25 2012 to 2017). Cumulative impacts on marine and coastal birds result from the incremental 

26 impacts of the proposed action when added to impacts from existing and reasonably foreseeable 

27 future OCS program activities (that are not part of the proposed action) and other non-OCS 

28 program activities. Table 4.6.1-2 presents the exploration and development scenario for the 

29 Cook Inlet cumulative case (encompassing the proposed action and other OCS program 

30 activities) over the next 40 yr. A number of OCS program activities could affect Cook Inlet

31 marine or terrestrial birds or their habitats; these include offshore exploration, construction of 

32 offshore platforms and pipelines, construction of onshore pipeline landfalls and pipelines,

33 operations of offshore and onshore facilities, and OCS-related marine vessel and aircraft traffic.

34 Potential impacts on marine and coastal birds from OCS program activities include injury or 

35 mortality from collisions with platforms, vessels, and aircraft; lethal and sublethal exposure to 

36 operational discharges; injury or mortality from the ingestion of trash or debris from OCS vessels 

37 and platforms; loss or degradation of habitat due to construction; and behavioral disturbance due 

38 to the presence of, and noise generated by, equipment and human activity.

39

40 Non-OCS program activities affecting marine and coastal birds in Cook Inlet (both inside 

41 and outside of the Planning Area proper) include dredging and marine disposal; coastal and 

42 community development; onshore and offshore construction and operations of facilities 

43 associated with State oil and gas development and other industrial complexes (e.g., at Nikiski);

44 commercial and recreational boating; and small aircraft traffic. Potential impacts on marine and 

45 coastal birds from these activities are similar to those under the OCS program and include injury 

46 or mortality of birds from collisions with platforms associated with State oil and gas 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-619

1 development and other onshore and offshore structures (e.g., radio, television, or cell phone 

2 towers), onshore industrial, commercial, and residential development; exposure to discharges 

3 from permitted point sources such as sewage treatment discharges and nonpoint sources such as 

4 urban runoff, or accidental releases (e.g., oil spills), as described in Section 4.6.2.1.2 and 

5 Table 4.6.2-3; exposure to emissions from various onshore and offshore sources (e.g., power 

6 generating stations, refineries, and marine vessels), as described in Section 4.6.2.1.2; ingestion of 

7 trash or debris; loss or degradation of habitat due to construction and operations activities; and 

8 behavioral disturbance due to the presence of, and noise generated by, equipment and human 

9 activity. Other trends such as extensive melting of glaciers (and increasing river discharges) and 

10 increased precipitation brought on by global climate change are also expected to adversely affect 

11 marine and coastal birds over the next 40 yr.

12

13 Injury or Mortality from Collisions. Under the cumulative scenario, annual collision 

14 injury or mortality in Cook Inlet could increase in the near term as platforms are built under the 

15 proposed action. Such impacts would be minor relative to those that currently involve non-OCS 

16 structures. Over time, the injury or mortality impacts from collisions could decrease as oil and 

17 gas production in the inlet declines.

18

19 Exposure to Wastewater Discharges and Air Emissions. The discharge of operational 

20 wastes and air emissions from current non-OCS related vessel traffic and platform operations in 

21 Cook Inlet is strongly regulated and would continue to be so regulated over the next 40 yr. 

22 However, such wastes and emissions would still expose marine and coastal birds to potentially 

23 toxic materials or to solid debris that could be ingested or result in entanglement. These facilities 

24 and activities include sewage treatment plants, industrial manufacturing or processing facilities, 

25 electric generating plants, dredging and marine disposal, and vessel traffic (e.g., cargo and tanker 

26 ships, cruise ships, commercial fishing vessels, and recreational vessels). Operational 

27 wastewater discharges and air emissions associated with the proposed action would contribute to 

28 the overall cumulative risk of toxic exposure and debris ingestion or entanglement of existing 

29 non-OCS wastewater discharges and air emissions in the inlet, but the incremental increase in 

30 impact is expected to be small relative to these other activities.

31

32 Under the proposed action, marine and coastal birds could be exposed to oil accidentally 

33 released from platforms, pipelines, and vessels, and would be most susceptible to adverse 

34 impacts from spills occurring in coastal areas and affecting feeding and nesting areas. Most of 

35 the oil released to Cook Inlet is from commercial and recreational vessels (Section 4.6.2.2.1). 

36 Oil releases from all sources may expose marine and coastal birds via direct contact or through 

37 the inhalation or ingestion of oil or tar deposits (see Section 4.4.7.2.1).

38

39 Marine and coastal birds may become entangled in, or ingest, floating, submerged, and 

40 beached debris (Heneman and the Center for Environmental Education 1988; Ryan 1987, 1990). 

41 Entanglement may result in strangulation, injury or loss of limbs, entrapment, or the prevention 

42 or hindrance of the ability to fly or swim; all of these effects may be considered lethal. Ingestion 

43 of debris may irritate, block, or perforate the digestive tract, suppress appetite, impair digestion 

44 of food, reduce growth, or release toxic chemicals (Fry et al. 1985; Dickerman and Goelet 1987; 

45 Ryan 1988; Derraik 2002). Because the discharge or disposal of solid debris into offshore waters 

46 from OCS structures and vessels is prohibited by BOEM (30 CFR 250.40) and the USCG
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-620

1 (MARPOL, Annex V, Public Law 100 220 [101 Statute 1458]), entanglement in or ingestion of 

2 OCS-related trash and debris by marine and coastal birds would not be expected under normal 

3 operations.

4

5 Oil Spills and Cleanup Activities. Oil spills under the cumulative scenario are shown in 

6 Table 4.6.1-3. No more than one large spill (between 1,000 and 5,300 bbl from either a platform 

7 or a pipeline) and 18 small spills (less than 1,000 bbl) would be expected as a result of the Cook 

8 Inlet Planning Area OCS program over the next 40 yr. Previous modeling of similar-sized oil 

9 spills in Cook Inlet indicates that land segments with the highest chance of contact with an 

10 offshore platform or pipeline spill are generally along the western shore of lower Cook Inlet in 

11 Kamishak Bay and Shelikof Strait (MMS 2002b). A large number of seabird colonies occur in 

12 these areas (USGS undated) and could be affected by oil spills reaching these areas.

13

14 Nesting and brood-rearing seabirds, waterfowl, and a few shorebirds, as well as the many 

15 species of waterfowl/loons, seabirds, and shorebirds that molt, stage, migrate through, or 

16 overwinter in large numbers in south central Alaska would be vulnerable to the potential 

17 disturbance resulting from elevated vessel and aircraft activity associated with cleanup of an oil 

18 spill. For all species, the degree of impact depends heavily on the location of the spill and 

19 cleanup response and its timing with critical natural behaviors (e.g., breeding, molting, feeding). 

20 Survival and fitness of individuals may be affected, but this infrequent disturbance is not 

21 expected to result in significant population losses.

22

23 As a result of response to the EVOS of 1989, and subsequent study of its effect on 

24 regional bird populations, there exists an extensive literature concerning the effects of a large oil 

25 spill in the South Alaska region (e.g., Agler and Kendall 1997; Boersma et al. 1995; 

26 Day et al. 1997a,b; EVOS Trustee Council 2004; Irons et al. 2000; Klowsiewski and Laing 1994; 

27 Lanctot et al. 1999; Murphy et al. 1997; Piatt and Ford 1996; Piatt et al. 1990; Rosenberg and 

28 Petrula 1998; van Vliet and McAllister 1994; Wiens et al. 2001). An estimated 100,000 to 

29 300,000 marine birds died as a result of this spill (Piatt and Ford 1996), which occurred in 

30 March, when substantial numbers of overwintering birds were present in Prince William Sound 

31 and downstream to the west, and large numbers of seabirds were aggregating near colonies from 

32 Prince William Sound to the western Gulf of Alaska, prior to the breeding season. Although 

33 surveys and other studies carried out every year since the spill occurred indicate that populations 

34 of some marine bird species have recovered from their initial losses (e.g., common murre, black 

35 oystercatcher [EVOS Trustee Council 2004]), or are recovering (e.g., marbled murrelet), several 

36 species have shown little or no recovery (e.g., common loon, three cormorant species, harlequin 

37 duck, pigeon guillemot) or the recovery status is unknown (Kittlitz‘s murrelet). Although the 

38 effect on a bird population that is observed immediately following a spill to have suffered a large 

39 mortality is quite obvious, without frequent monitoring of each species following a spill it 

40 usually is difficult to be certain whether changes in measured population parameters are the 

41 result of lingering spill effects or natural variations that generally occur in all populations over 

42 time (Wiens and Parker 1995; Wiens 1996; Wiens et al. 2001). For example, forage fish 

43 populations utilized by many marine bird species may have experienced lingering spill effects of 

44 severe mortality or interruption of the annual cycle, in turn affecting food availability following 

45 the spill and thus influencing the effect of the spill on these bird populations or their recovery 

46 from it.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-621

1 In addition to the birds occupying the open water of bays and inlets, shorebirds 

2 numbering in the tens to hundreds of thousands are at risk of oiling where they occupy various 

3 shore habitats during their spring passage to northern breeding areas (Gill and Tibbitts 1999). 

4 Particularly large numbers would be at risk on the southern Redoubt Bay, Fox River Delta, 

5 northern Montague Island, Kachemak Bay, and Copper River Delta, but substantial numbers 

6 may be at risk along most shorelines of the region during this season (Gill et al. 1994; Gill and 

7 Senner 1996; Gill and Tibbitts 1999; Alaska Shorebird Working Group 2000). Based on the 

8 experience of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, where studies extending 15 yr after the event continue 

9 to find oil or effects on organisms from exposure to oil, it is highly probable that not all oil 

10 spilled would be removed from the environment. Because substantial numbers of birds are 

11 present year round in the marine environment of south central Alaska, major effects are expected 

12 to result from a spill at any time of year.

13

14 Loss or Degradation of Habitat. Marine and coastal birds could be affected by 

15 platform construction and removal activities, and pipeline trenching, which could disrupt 

16 behaviors of nearby birds. Platforms constructed under the proposed action would increase the 

17 number of offshore platforms present in the inlet by three, and up to 241 km (150 mi) of new 

18 offshore pipeline could be constructed. Platform emplacement could disturb birds temporarily; 

19 pipeline trenching may also affect birds in nearshore coastal habitats if it occurs in or near 

20 foraging, overwintering, or staging areas, or near seabird colonies. About 169 km (105 mi) of 

21 new pipeline and one pipeline landfall may be constructed under the proposed action. The 

22 pipelines would likely result in the short- and/or long-term disturbance of a small amount of 

23 habitat along the pipeline routes. 

24

25 While habitat impacts from the construction and operations of onshore facilities could be 

26 long term in nature, the areas disturbed would be largely limited to the immediate vicinity of the 

27 pipelines and represent a very small portion of habitat available in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. 

28 Siting new pipelines and facilities away from coastal areas would reduce the amount of marine 

29 or coastal bird habitat that could be affected. Potential habitat impacts could be further reduced 

30 by locating the new pipelines within existing utility or transportation rights-of-way, and by 

31 locating the new pipeline landfalls away from active colony sites or coastal staging areas of 

32 migratory birds. Because there are relatively few nesting colonies in Cook Inlet of Anchor Point 

33 (USGS undated), only a few seabird colonies could be affected by onshore construction activities

34 in this area. The disturbance of birds in these colonies could be reduced or avoided by siting 

35 new pipelines and facilities away from colony sites, and by scheduling construction activities to 

36 avoid nesting periods. Overall, onshore construction activities are expected to affect only a 

37 relatively small number of birds and not result in population-level effects.

38

39 Only small numbers of nesting birds are likely to be displaced away from the vicinity of 

40 onshore pipeline corridors (a few hundred meters) by construction activity and support vessel 

41 traffic in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. Onshore habitat alteration is likely to be relatively minor 

42 in most of the development support centers. Offshore, disturbance of bottom habitats by 

43 platform placement may disrupt small areas of potential diving duck and seabird foraging 

44 habitat, but these small removals would be inconsequential.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-622

1 Construction of landfalls, onshore pads, and roads is not expected to affect the relatively 

2 low numbers of loons, waterfowl, and shorebirds nesting in south central Alaska adjacent to 

3 likely oil development areas, particularly because construction may take place mainly during the 

4 winter season. Like loons and waterfowl that do not migrate out of State, seabirds disperse into 

5 nearshore or offshore waters in winter, away from likely development activity.

6

7 Disturbance Due to Noise. Noise and human activities (such as normal maintenance) 

8 could disturb birds arriving in the area during spring migration and later in the year during 

9 nesting, fall molting, and staging periods, causing them to avoid the area and nearby habitats. 

10 Because of the small number of new platforms (no more than three), the disturbance of birds in 

11 offshore waters by operational noise and human activity would likely be limited to the 

12 individuals that might be present around a platform. Potential impacts on colonies could be 

13 avoided or mitigated by siting platforms and onshore facilities away from colony sites. Noise 

14 from air guns and disturbance from survey vessel traffic could displace foraging seabirds in 

15 offshore waters, especially if exploration occurs in high seabird density areas such as the open 

16 waters adjacent to the Stevenson and Kennedy Entrances to Cook Inlet and off of the 

17 northwestern coast of Kodiak Island (MMS 2003b).

18

19 Nesting, staging, migrant, or overwintering loons, waterfowl, and seabirds occurring in 

20 areas closer to primary Cook Inlet support facilities on the Kenai Peninsula and vicinity, for 

21 example, are more likely to be overflown by aircraft than those in more distant lease areas. This 

22 is due to the convergence of routes from offshore sites to the support area, and is expected to be 

23 the case in the Gulf of Alaska, Kodiak Island, and Alaska Peninsula areas, where there are few 

24 communities capable of adequate support activity. Effects from noise disturbance would be 

25 greater in areas where higher concentrations of birds occurred and less where birds were more 

26 dispersed and in fewer numbers. The degree of effect is also dependent on whether birds are 

27 engaged in critical aspects of their seasonal activity, as well as the intensity and type of 

28 disturbance (aircraft overflights, seismic surveys, vessel traffic). In addition, several open-water 

29 areas in the vicinity of Kachemak and Kamishak Bays represent important wintering areas 

30 (December–April) for the threatened Steller eider (USFWS unpublished data), and disturbance 

31 during the winter in these areas has a greater potential to affect this listed species.

32

33 Effects on ESA-Listed Species in South Central Alaska. The cumulative effects of 

34 OCS and non-OCS program activities on the endangered short-tailed albatross, threatened 

35 Steller‘s eider, formerly threatened Aleutian Canada goose, and proposed Kittlitz‘s murrelet are 

36 expected to be similar to those noted for nonlisted species over the next 40 yr. Continued 

37 compliance with ESA regulations and coordination with the USFWS would ensure that lease38 specific OCS operations would be conducted in a manner likely to avoid or greatly minimize the 

39 potential for affecting these species.

40

41 Short-tailed albatrosses occur in waters of south central Alaska, and particularly in 

42 continental shelf waters, which places them at considerable oil-spill risk. Although their small 

43 population is spread throughout the North Pacific Ocean and few would be expected to be 

44 present during any given oil-spill event, the species has a high oil vulnerability index (King and 

45 Sanger 1979), and the loss of a few individuals could be detrimental to their small population 

46 size (MM 2003b). Because Aleutian Canada geese are not known to occupy marine waters 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-623

1 during migration to any great extent, their risk of oil-spill contact in that habitat is considered 

2 low. It is unlikely that infrastructure development would occur near the two nesting areas, thus 

3 avoiding disturbance and onshore spills that could contact the species.

4

5 Factors such as disturbance due to increased boat traffic related to wildlife cruises and 

6 offshore oil and gas development, impacts related to oil spills, and a high oil vulnerability index 

7 (King and Sanger 1979) make the Kittlitz‘s murrelet particularly vulnerable to population 

8 declines. Although impacts of oil spills have been documented (van Vliet and McAllister 1994; 

9 Carter and Kuletz 1995), little is known about potential impacts of disturbance on courtship 

10 behavior, foraging ecology and feeding, or energetics (Day et al. 1999). The relatively small 

11 population size, limited distribution, apparent periodic breeding failures and low reproductive 

12 potential (Beissinger 1995), in conjunction with the above factors, has led to Kittlitz‘s status as a 

13 candidate species (priority 5; 50 CFR 17) under the ESA.

14

15 Steller‘s eiders occupying nearshore areas of the eastern Aleutian Islands to Cook Inlet 

16 from late fall to early spring could be exposed to the disturbance of air and vessel traffic, seismic 

17 surveys, oil-spill cleanup, and pipeline construction. Such activities would be scattered in 

18 occurrence, as are the flocks of eiders, or confined to specific corridors in the case of aircraft and 

19 vessels, which the flocks are likely to avoid. In general, interactions are expected to result in 

20 short-term and localized displacement. Pipeline construction is expected to result in the loss of a 

21 small amount of eider nearshore bottom-feeding habitat. Steller‘s eiders could be killed or 

22 injured as a result of collisions with platforms. This is most likely during migration; when visual 

23 conditions are reduced, such as in foggy weather; and during movement among habitats on 

24 wintering grounds. Because they typically are present throughout the winter, they are at risk of 

25 oil-spill contact, particularly in the northern portion of the region including Cook Inlet, where 

26 development may first occur, and potentially in the Kodiak Archipelago. However, mortality 

27 from a spill is difficult to estimate because of the substantial variation in between-year, seasonal, 

28 or even weekly presence and distribution of eiders and uncertainties of where an oil spill might 

29 occur. Based on USFWS assumptions, there is greater potential for the majority of individuals 

30 affected by factors discussed above to be from the Russian breeding population rather than the 

31 ESA-listed Alaska breeding population.

32

33 Kittlitz‘s murrelets typically show a very patchy distribution and are generally found in 

34 the vicinity of glaciated fjords of Cook Inlet, Prince William Sound, and southeast Alaska 

35 (Kendall and Agler 1998; Dat et al. 1999; Kuletz et al. 2003a). Exploration and development 

36 activities are expected to be separated in time, so exposure to disturbing factors such as aircraft 

37 and vessel traffic, seismic surveys, and pipeline construction could be infrequent and localized in 

38 areas where this species concentrates. There is a greater potential for effects if disturbance 

39 occurs in areas where murrelets concentrate and displacement becomes a possibility. In addition, 

40 the potential impacts from oil spills vary depending on the timing and location of the spill. For 

41 example, oil spills in College or Harrison Fjords during peak breeding or post-breeding would 

42 have larger impacts and could cause population-level effects, especially if birds come in contact 

43 with spilled oil or larger numbers of breeding age females are impacted. A large spill is likely to 

44 spread over a sufficiently large area to contact one or more bays where they may be concentrated 

45 during the summer breeding season, or offshore areas where they may be wintering in the Gulf 

46 of Alaska. For example, the EVOS spill resulted in the loss of an estimated 500 to 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-624

1 1,000 individuals, probably a substantial proportion of the world population, and certainly a 

2 major effect on this species.

3

4 Conclusion. Marine and coastal birds in Cook Inlet, including those that are ESA-listed, 

5 could be adversely affected by activities associated with the proposed action, as well as those 

6 associated with future OCS and non-OCS program activities. Potential impacts include injury or 

7 mortality of birds from collisions with platforms associated with OCS and State oil and gas 

8 development and other onshore and offshore structures (e.g., radio, television, or cell phone 

9 towers), onshore industrial, commercial, and residential development; exposure to discharges 

10 from permitted point sources such as sewage treatment discharges and nonpoint sources such as 

11 urban runoff, or accidental releases (e.g., oil spills); exposure to emissions from various onshore 

12 and offshore sources; ingestion of trash or debris; loss or degradation of habitat due to 

13 construction and operations activities; and behavioral disturbance due to the presence of, and 

14 noise generated by, equipment and human activity. Other trends such as extensive melting of 

15 glaciers (and increasing river discharges) and increased precipitation brought on by global 

16 climate change are also expected to adversely affect marine and coastal birds over the next 40 to 

17 50 yr. While the cumulative impact of all OCS and non-OCS activities in Cook Inlet could be 

18 minor to moderate, the incremental impact due to routine Program activities would be small 

19 (see Section 4.4.7.2.2). Compliance with ESA regulations and coordination with the USFWS 

20 would ensure that lease-specific OCS operations would be conducted in a manner that is likely to 

21 avoid or to greatly minimize the potential for affecting these species.

22

23 Marine and coastal birds may also be adversely affected by exposure to oil (via direct 

24 contact or through the inhalation or ingestion of oil or tar deposits) that is accidentally released 

25 from OCS and non-OCS activities, especially near coastal areas and affecting feeding and 

26 nesting areas. The incremental impacts of accidental spills associated with the proposed action 

27 on marine and coastal birds would be small to large, depending on the location, timing, duration, 

28 and size of the spill; the proximity of the spill to feeding and nesting areas; the timing and nature 

29 of spill containment; and the status of the affected birds (see Section 4.4.7.2.2). 

30

31 Whether net cumulative impacts are minor or moderate depends on the nature and 

32 duration of activities that reduce bird survival and productivity. Losses would be limited in areas 

33 occupied by scattered flocks during relatively brief staging and migration periods or scattered 

34 nest sites during the brief nesting season; however, in cases for which exposure to localized 

35 disturbance is greater, impacts have the potential to rise to the population level.

36

37

38 4.6.4.2.3 Fish. This section evaluates the cumulative effects of the proposed action, 

39 future OCS activities, and non-OCS activities on populations of fishes in Cook Inlet that could 

40 occur during the life of the Program. The primary routine OCS activities in the Cook Inlet 

41 Planning Area that could result in impacts on fish include seismic surveys, drilling, platform and 

42 pipeline placement; releases of permitted discharges from wells; and removal of existing 

43 structures. Potential environmental impacts associated with the building and operation of OCS 

44 facilities such as platforms and pipelines would increase in conjunction with the increased 

45 number of wells. The impacts of routine activities (exploration and site development, 

46 production, and decommissioning) on fish communities are discussed in detail in 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-625

1 Section 4.4.7.3.2. Overall, routine activities represent up to a minor disturbance, primarily 

2 affecting demersal fishes, with the severity of the impacts generally decreasing dramatically with 

3 distance from bottom-disturbing activities. 

4

5 In the Cook Inlet Planning Area, up to three platforms would be constructed, all of which 

6 would result from the proposed action. The addition of new platforms may act as FADs that 

7 would attract rockfish and cod-like fishes in Cook Inlet. While some platforms may be allowed 

8 to remain as artificial reefs, removal of platforms would reduce available substrate and structures 

9 for these fish and some of their prey species. Some fish would be killed in the process of these 

10 platform removals although the chance of mortality would be greatly reduced by the fact that 

11 explosives would not be used in removal. 

12

13 Oil and gas exploration and development in State waters could also contribute to 

14 cumulative effects on fishery resources in the Cook Inlet. Drilling of wells in State waters could 

15 also require construction of platforms and pipelines in waters of Alaska. The effects on fish 

16 would be similar to those described above for OCS oil and gas programs (Section 4.4.7.3.2). 

17 Other non-OCS activities that could impact fish communities include land use practices, point 

18 and non-point source pollution, logging, dredging and disposal of dredging spoils in OCS waters, 

19 anchoring, and commercial or sportfishing activities, and commercial shipping (including 

20 imported oil). Many of these activities would result in bottom disturbance that would affect 

21 bottom-dwelling fishes as well as their food sources in a manner similar to those described for 

22 OCS activities (Section 4.4.7.3.2). 

23

24 Logging could also degrade riverine habitats that are important reproductive and juvenile 

25 habitat for migratory fish species. Erosion from areas undergoing commercial logging could 

26 increase the silt load in streams and rivers, which could reduce levels of invertebrate prey species 

27 and adversely affect spawning success and egg survival. The introduction of fine sediments into 

28 spawning gravels may render these habitats unsuitable for salmon spawning. Logging could also 

29 remove riparian canopies along some streams, which could increase solar heating of freshwater 

30 habitats. Downed timber could physically block salmon migrations. Because of past damage 

31 inflicted by commercial logging, improved forestry practices have been initiated, and timber 

32 harvests have been curtailed. Continued implementation of effective forest management 

33 techniques should help mitigate the adverse effects of logging in the future. Cumulative impacts 

34 on migratory species could also occur as a result of activities that obstruct fish movement in 

35 marine environments during migration periods. 

36

37 Commercial fishing practices that are indiscriminate, such as trawling and pots, are 

38 responsible for significant amounts of bycatch that can injure or kill juveniles of many fish 

39 species (Cooke and Cowx 2006). These types of fishing practices could damage future year 

40 classes, reduce available prey species, and damage benthic habitat for many Cook Inlet fish 

41 resources. A wide variety of methods are used to target numerous species of fishes and 

42 shellfishes, including longlines, seines, setnets, trawls, and traps. Some fisheries target particular 

43 fish species returning to their natal stream or river, while other fisheries take place in pelagic 

44 waters and target mixed stocks of fishes or shellfishes. 

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-626

1 Commercial fishing practices that are indiscriminate, such as trawling and pots, are 

2 responsible for significant amounts of bycatch that can injure or kill juveniles of many fish 

3 species. These types of fishing practices could damage future year classes, reduce available prey 

4 species, and damage benthic habitat for many Cook Inlet fish resources. A wide variety of 

5 methods are used to target numerous species of fishes and shellfishes, including long lines, 

6 seines, setnets, trawls, and traps. Some fisheries target particular fish species returning to their 

7 natal stream or river, while other fisheries take place in pelagic waters and target mixed stocks of 

8 fishes or shellfishes. 

9

10 As a consequence of the pressure commercial fishing places on fishery resources, 

11 appropriate management is required to reduce the potential for depletion of stocks due to 

12 overharvesting. Fisheries in the Cook Inlet Planning Area are managed by State (Alaska 

13 Department of Fish and Game) and Federal (North Pacific Fishery Management Council of the 

14 National Marine Fisheries Service) agencies. Even with management, the possibility of 

15 overfishing still exists. Occasionally fisheries are closed when stocks are considered insufficient 

16 to support harvesting, and will sometimes remain closed for multiple seasons before stocks are 

17 deemed sufficient. 

18

19 Although the magnitude of harvests is considerably smaller than for commercial fisheries 

20 (Fall et al. 2009), sportfishing also contributes to cumulative effects on the abundance of some 

21 fishery resources. Recreational fisheries have a potential to result in overharvest of managed 

22 species over the life of the Program. Recreational fishing is subject to harvest limits that reduce 

23 the potential for overfishing and recreational fishing methods are less destructive of EFH 

24 compared to commercial fisheries. 

25

26 Subsistence fishing may also contribute to the cumulative effects on the abundance of 

27 some fishery resources. Alaska State law defines subsistence as the ―noncommercial customary 

28 and traditional uses‖ of fish and wildlife. Subsistence fishing is subject to harvest limits that 

29 reduce the potential for overfishing. Also, much of Cook Inlet is defined as a nonsubsistence 

30 area and subsistence fishing is therefore not authorized. Consequently, subsistence fishing 

31 makes a relatively minor contribution to the reduction in fish stocks compared to commercial 

32 fishing (Fall et al. 2009).

33

34 Another source of cumulative impacts to fishery resources is the ―personal use‖ fishery 

35 which is a legally defined as ―the taking, fishing for, or possession of finfish, shellfish, or other 

36 fishery resources, by Alaska residents for personal use and not for sale or barter, with gill or dip 

37 net, seine, fish wheel, long line, or other means defined by the Board of Fisheries.‖ In the Cook 

38 Inlet Planning Area, there are personal use fisheries for salmon, herring, and eulachon. Personal 

39 use fisheries are subject to harvest limits that reduce the potential for overfishing. Like 

40 subsistence fishing, the personal use fishery is a relatively minor contributor to the reduction in 

41 fish stocks compared to commercial fishing.

42

43 Climate change may affect fish communities in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. Climate 

44 would only be one of several factors that regulate fish abundance and distribution. Many fish 

45 populations are already subject to stresses, and global climate change may aggravate the impacts 

46 of ongoing and future commercial fishing and human use of the coastal zone. Fish respond 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-627

1 directly to climate fluctuations, as well as to changes in their biological environment including 

2 predators, prey, species interactions, disease, and fishing pressure. Projected changes in 

3 hydrology and water temperatures, salinity, and currents could affect the growth, survival, 

4 reproduction, and spatial distribution of marine fish species and of the prey, competitors, and 

5 predators that influence the dynamics of these species (Watson et al. 1998). Changes in primary 

6 production levels in the ocean because of climate change may affect fish stock productivity.

7

8 Climate change could potentially affect large-scale ecological processes. Important 

9 coastal habitats could be reduced or eliminated by rising sea levels and increased storm damage. 

10 For species spawning in low-lying areas or the intertidal zone, or species using coastal estuaries 

11 as nursery grounds, rising sea levels could eliminate spawning or juvenile habitat. Anadromous 

12 fish and species using nearshore marshes are likely to be most affected. In addition, the current 

13 trend of steadily increasing sea surface temperature may favor higher trophic-level fish by 

14 increasing their local productivity or by promoting the expansion of large temperate predators 

15 into Alaskan waters (Litzow 2006). The establishment of temperate species and non-native fish 

16 introduced by human activities could come at the expense of native species, particularly forage 

17 fish like herring and capelin. However, given the complexity and compensatory mechanisms of 

18 the ecosystem, predictions about the indirect effects of climate change on specific fish species 

19 are subject to great uncertainty.

20

21 Oil spills could result from OCS and non-OCS activities. The total number of oil spills 

22 and the extent of affected areas would likely increase under the proposed action in conjunction 

23 with increased levels of petroleum exploration and production (Table 4.6.2-3). Non-OCS 

24 activities, such as oil and gas development in State waters, domestic transportation of oil or 

25 refined petroleum products, and commercial shipping, may also result in accidental spills that 

26 could potentially impact fish resources within the Cook Inlet Planning Area. While effects on 

27 fishery resources would depend on the timing, location, and magnitude of specific oil spills, it is 

28 anticipated that most small to medium spills that occur in OCS waters would have limited effects 

29 on fishery resources due to the relatively small areas likely to be exposed to high concentrations 

30 of hydrocarbons and the short period of time during which potentially toxic concentrations 

31 would be present. Most adult fish in marine environments are highly mobile and may avoid high 

32 concentrations of hydrocarbons, although they may be subject to sublethal exposures. However, 

33 eggs and larvae as well as small obligate benthic species do not have the ability to avoid spills 

34 and may therefore suffer lethal or sublethal effects. Oil from a catastrophic spill that reaches 

35 shallower, nearshore areas of these planning areas has the potential to be of greatest significance 

36 to fish communities. Impacts from such spills could result in long-term, population level impacts 

37 on fish communities. The potential impacts of OCS oil spills on fish communities in Cook Inlet 

38 are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.7.3.2.

39

40 Oil reaching salmon spawning areas, nursery areas, or migration routes has the greatest 

41 potential to reduce salmon stocks. However, because of the limited area affected by oil spills 

42 relative to the wide pelagic distribution and highly mobile migratory patterns of salmonids, it is 

43 anticipated that most impacts would be limited to small fractions of exposed salmon populations. 

44 Oil spills occurring at constrictions in migration routes would have an increased potential for 

45 adversely affecting salmon. However, the weathering and dispersal of the spilled oil would limit 

46 the length of time that an area would be affected. Pacific salmon are also able to detect and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-628

1 avoid oil spills in marine waters (Weber et al. 1981), which would help to reduce the potential 

2 for contact. Aggregations of salmon in marine waters typically consist of mixed stocks, so even 

3 in the unlikely event of contact with an oil spill, it is anticipated that only a small fraction of any 

4 unique spawning population would be adversely affected.

5

6 Adverse effects of oil spills on groundfishes of southern Alaska would also be a function 

7 of spill magnitude, location, and timing. Adult groundfishes are primarily demersal and would 

8 generally be subjected only to the insoluble oil and water-soluble fractions of oil that reach 

9 deeper strata. Insoluble oil fractions would sink to the bottom and be distributed diffusely as tar 

10 balls over a wide area, and would be unlikely to produce noticeable reductions in the overall 

11 numbers of adult fishes. Egg and larval stages would be at a greater risk of exposure to oil spills 

12 because spawning aggregations of many groundfish species (e.g., walleye pollock) produce 

13 pelagic eggs that could come into contact with surface oil slicks. Herring are also potentially 

14 susceptible to oil spills because they spawn in nearshore waters for protracted periods of time.

15

16 Conclusion. Cumulative impacts on fish communities in the Cook Inlet Planning Area

17 could result from OCS and non-OCS activities. Overall, routine OCS activities represent up to a 

18 minor disturbance, with the severity of the impacts generally decreasing dramatically with 

19 distance from bottom-disturbing activities. In addition to routine OCS activities, non-OCS 

20 actions including oil and gas development in State waters, sediment dredging and disposal, 

21 logging, anchoring, fishing/trawling, commercial shipping, and pollutant inputs from point and 

22 non-point sources could also adversely affect fish populations. Many of these activities would 

23 affect fish at various life stages as well as their food sources in a manner similar to OCS 

24 activities. Fish could also be affected by the environmental changes predicted to result from 

25 climate change. The proposed action is expected to contribute only a small increment to the 

26 potential for overall cumulative effects on fish resources because of existing regulations, the 

27 limited timeframe over which most individual activities would occur, and the small proportion of 

28 available habitats that would be affected during a given period (see Section 4.4.7.3.2).

29 Therefore, it is anticipated that the cumulative effects of OCS and non-OCS activities on fish 

30 species in the Cook Inlet Planning Areas would be similar to the effects of non-OCS activities 

31 alone.

32

33 The magnitude and severity of potential effects to fish resources from oil spills would be 

34 a function of the location, timing, duration, and size of spills; the proximity of spills to particular 

35 fish habitats; and the timing and nature of spill containment and cleanup activities. Small spills, 

36 whether from OCS or non-OCS sources, are unlikely to have overall population-level effects on 

37 fish resources. However, oil from catastrophic spills that contacted shallow nearshore areas of 

38 these planning areas has the potential to be of greatest significance to fish communities. Such 

39 spills could result in long-term, population-level impacts on fish communities (see 

40 Section 4.4.7.3.2).

41

42

43 4.6.4.2.4 Invertebrates and Lower Trophic Levels. This section evaluates the 

44 cumulative effects of the proposed action, and any past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

45 future actions from OCS activities, and non-OCS activities on invertebrates in the Cook Inlet 

46 Planning Area that could occur during the life of the Program. The primary routine OCS 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-629

1 activities that could result in impacts on invertebrates include seismic surveys, drilling, platform

2 and pipeline placement; releases of permitted discharges from wells; and removal of existing 

3 structures. Potential environmental impacts associated with the building and operation of OCS 

4 facilities such as platforms and pipelines would increase in conjunction with the increased 

5 number of wells. The impacts of routine activities (exploration and site development, production 

6 and decommissioning) on invertebrate communities are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.7.5.2. 

7 Overall, routine activities represent up to a moderate disturbance, primarily affecting benthic 

8 infaunal invertebrates, with the severity of the impacts generally decreasing dramatically with 

9 distance from bottom-disturbing activities. 

10

11 Up to three platforms could be constructed over the life of the Program, all of which 

12 would result from the proposed action, would allow the colonization of invertebrates requiring 

13 hard substrate. While some platforms may be allowed to remain as artificial reefs, removal of 

14 platforms will reduce available substrate and structures for invertebrates and injure or kill them 

15 during removal. 

16

17 Oil and gas exploration and development in State waters could also contribute to 

18 cumulative effects on invertebrates in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. Drilling of wells in State 

19 waters could also require construction of platforms and pipelines in waters of Alaska. The 

20 effects on invertebrates would be similar to those described above for OCS oil and gas programs 

21 (Section 4.4.7.5.2). Other non-OCS activities that could impact invertebrate communities 

22 include land use practices, point and non-point source pollution, logging, dredging and disposal 

23 of dredging spoils in OCS waters, anchoring, commercial or sportfishing activities, and 

24 commercial shipping (including shipping of imported oil). Many of these activities would affect 

25 bottom-dwelling invertebrates at various life stages as well as their food sources in a manner 

26 similar to OCS bottom-disturbing activities (Section 4.4.7.5.2). Other non-OCS activities 

27 generating pollution and noise may contribute to general habitat degradation (Section 4.6.3.2.2).

28

29 Commercial fishing practices that are indiscriminate, such as trawling and pots, are 

30 responsible for significant amounts of bycatch that can injure or kill juveniles of many 

31 invertebrate species. These types of fishing practices could also damage benthic habitat for 

32 many Cook Inlet invertebrate resources.

33

34 Physical and chemical changes to invertebrate habitat resulting from climate change 

35 could alter the existing distribution, composition, and abundance of invertebrates in Cook Inlet, 

36 since physical and chemical parameters are the primary influence on invertebrate communities. 

37 For example, the increase in seawater temperature may facilitate a northward expansion of 

38 subarctic and temperate invertebrate species. Rising seawater temperatures are also expected to 

39 decrease winter ice extent and duration. Currently, ice formation primarily occurs on the western 

40 side of Cook Inlet, and changes in benthic invertebrate community structure could result from 

41 the reduction in ice scour. In addition, in heavily river influenced systems like Cook Inlet, the 

42 predicted hydrologic alterations associated with climate change can rapidly alter existing 

43 invertebrate communities in the water column and benthos if the new chemical conditions are not 

44 within the physiological tolerance of the existing communities. Another significant source of 

45 physiological stress is the expected increase in ocean acidification. Crustaceans, echinoderms, 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-630

1 foraminiferans, and mollusks could have greater difficulty in forming shells, which could result 

2 in a reduction in their fitness, abundance, and distribution (Fabry et al. 2008). 

3

4 Oil spills could result from OCS and non-OCS activities. The total number of oil spills 

5 and the extent of affected areas would likely increase under the proposed action in conjunction 

6 with increased levels of petroleum exploration and production (Table 4.6.1-3). Non-OCS 

7 activities, such as oil and gas development in State waters, domestic transportation of oil or 

8 refined petroleum products, and commercial shipping, may also result in accidental spills that 

9 could potentially impact invertebrate resources within the Cook Inlet Planning Area. While 

10 effects on invertebrate resources would depend on the timing, location, and magnitude of 

11 specific oil spills, it is anticipated that most small to medium spills that occur in OCS waters 

12 would have limited effects due to the relatively small areas likely to be exposed to high 

13 concentrations of hydrocarbons and the short period of time during which potentially toxic 

14 concentrations would be present. Large water column and benthic invertebrates are mobile and 

15 therefore have the potential to avoid high concentrations of hydrocarbons although they may be 

16 subject to sublethal exposures. However, zooplankton and infauna do not typically have the 

17 ability to avoid spills and may therefore suffer lethal or sublethal effects. Oil from catastrophic 

18 spills that reaches shallower, nearshore areas of the Cook Inlet Planning Area has the potential to 

19 be of greatest significance to invertebrate communities. Impacts from such spills could result in 

20 long-term, population-level impacts on intertidal invertebrate communities. The potential 

21 impacts of OCS oil spills on invertebrate communities in Cook Inlet are discussed in detail in 

22 Section 4.4.7.5.2.

23

24 Commercial shellfish stocks (such as tanner, snow, and red king crab) are unlikely to be 

25 exposed to surface oil. Although soluble and insoluble hydrocarbon fractions could reach deeper 

26 strata, these fractions would be distributed diffusely over wide areas and would likely not 

27 constitute a threat to shellfish stocks. Pelagic crab larvae could be affected if a large surface oil 

28 spill occurred during the spring spawning season. However, because the area affected by most 

29 spills would be expected to be small relative to overall distributions of crab larvae, overall 

30 population levels are unlikely to be noticeably affected.

31

32 Conclusion. Cumulative impacts on invertebrate communities in the Cook Inlet

33 Planning Area could result from OCS and non-OCS activities. Overall, routine activities 

34 represent up to a moderate disturbance, primarily to benthic and near bottom invertebrates, with 

35 the severity of the impacts generally decreasing dramatically with distance from bottom36 disturbing activities. Non-OCS actions including oil and gas development in State waters, 

37 sediment dredging and disposal, logging, anchoring, fishing/trawling, commercial shipping, and 

38 pollutant inputs from point and non-point sources could also adversely affect invertebrate 

39 populations. Several major classes of invertebrates could also be affected by the environmental 

40 changes predicted to result from climate change. The proposed action is expected to contribute 

41 only a small increment to the potential for overall cumulative effects on invertebrate resources 

42 because of existing regulations, the limited timeframe over which most individual activities 

43 would occur, and the small proportion of available habitats that would be affected during a given 

44 period (see Section 4.4.7.5.2). Therefore, it is anticipated that the cumulative effects of OCS and 

45 non-OCS activities on invertebrates in the Cook Inlet Planning Areas would be similar to the 

46 effects of non-OCS activities alone.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-631

1 4.6.4.2.5 Areas of Special Concern. Section 4.4.8.2 identifies potential impacts that 

2 could result from routine activities or accidents related to the proposed leasing program on areas 

3 of special concern adjacent to and in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. In considering the potential 

4 cumulative effects of OCS activities on these areas, the level of routine activities and the 

5 potential for accidental spills under the proposed action must be considered with other past, 

6 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that would occur during the 40-yr life of the 

7 proposed program. Overall cumulative impacts on these areas of special concern in Cook Inlet

8 consider impacts from both OCS and non-OCS activities.

9

10 National Park Service Lands. As identified in Section 4.4.8.2, NPS lands are 

11 potentially susceptible to cumulative impacts from activities related to OCS oil and gas 

12 development as a consequence of the proposed 5-yr leasing program in Cook Inlet. The 

13 potentially affected lands include the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve and the Katmai 

14 National Park and Preserve and Aniachak National Monument. Kenai Fjords National Park is 

15 east of Cook Inlet on the GOA, but it could be affected by an oil spill associated with OCS 

16 activities in Cook Inlet. 

17

18 Impacts from routine OCS operations could come from facilities developed to support oil 

19 drilling and production, and could include effects from pipeline landfalls, dredging, air pollution, 

20 and the construction of roads and new facilities. Onshore oil facilities are permissible only on 

21 private acreage within each national park. All of these national parks, monuments, and preserves 

22 contain privately held acreage, and development of onshore oil support facilities is possible in 

23 these areas. Because of the more confined nature of Cook Inlet, OCS construction of facilities 

24 within the Cook Inlet Planning Area could have some negative effects on scenic values for some 

25 users if the facilities were visible from shore or air during flightseeing. It is assumed that 

26 pipeline landfalls, shore bases, and waste facilities would not be located in national parks, 

27 because of the special status and protections afforded these areas.

28

29 Increased traffic (i.e., land, sea, and air) and development within the vicinity of NPS 

30 lands could also contribute to cumulative impacts on these areas. Because the amount of traffic 

31 is restricted and activities within the parks regulated, traffic would likely create a minor addition 

32 to cumulative impacts on the NPS lands. It is anticipated that noise generated by OCS offshore 

33 construction activities would be at low levels and intermittent, and would not persist for more 

34 than a few months at any one time. It is considered unlikely that these additional activities 

35 would noticeably affect wildlife or park user values compared to current (non-OCS) activities 

36 within the considered planning areas. Increased traffic may also affect air quality 

37 (see Section 4.4.4.2 and Section 4.6.2.1.2). Air quality in Alaska is expected to remain good, 

38 with pollutant concentrations associated with offshore and onshore emission sources well within 

39 applicable State and Federal standards. The contribution of OCS program activities to 

40 cumulative air quality impacts would be small. Air quality impacts from oil spills and fires 

41 would be localized and short in duration.

42

43 Impacts on these areas could occur due to accidental releases of oil spilled from onshore 

44 facilities and offshore drilling rigs (Table 4.6.1-3). Non-OCS activities, such as oil and gas 

45 development in State waters, the domestic transportation of oil or refined petroleum products

46 including LNG from Cook Inlet and the Alaska Peninsula, the production and storage of 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-632

1 petroleum products and LNG, and commercial shipping, could also result in accidental spills that 

2 could affect park lands. In addition to affecting the National Parks mentioned above, oil spills

3 from tankering to and from Valdez could also affect Kenai Fjords NP and Wrangell St Elias 

4 NPP. Naturally occurring seeps may also be a source of crude oil introduced into nearshore 

5 waters (Kvenvolden and Cooper 2003). An oil spill would have the greatest effect if it came into 

6 contact with shoreline habitats. Impacts would depend primarily on the spill location, size, and 

7 time of year. In general, directly affected coastal fauna could include invertebrates; marine 

8 mammals; fishes that reproduce in, inhabit, or migrate through coastal areas; terrestrial mammals 

9 that feed on these fishes; and marsh birds and seabirds. Spilled oil could also affect subsistence 

10 harvests in those parks in which subsistence hunting and fishing are allowed (see Section 4.6.5.2) 

11 and could affect the number of park visitors.

12

13 National Wildlife Refuges. NWRs in the vicinity of Cook Inlet are identified in 

14 Section 3.9.2.2. NWRs potentially affected by OCS activities in the Cook Inlet Planning Areas

15 include the Alaska Peninsula NWR, Becharof NWR, Kodiak NWR, Kenai NWR, and Izembek 

16 NWR. These refuges could be contaminated by oil spilled from offshore projects or could be 

17 subject to negative effects from routine operations associated with the development of onshore 

18 oil and gas support facilities. They could also be affected by non-OCS activities within or 

19 adjacent to refuges, including oil and gas development in State waters, the domestic 

20 transportation of oil or refined petroleum products including LNG from Cook Inlet and the 

21 Alaska Peninsula, the production and storage of petroleum products and LNG, and commercial 

22 shipping. Numerous refuge lands have been conveyed to private owners and Native 

23 corporations. Section 22(g) of ANCSA requires that new development on these lands must be in 

24 accordance with the purpose for which the refuge was formed. Thus, while development of 

25 onshore oil and gas support facilities is technically possible, such development would be subject 

26 to intensive review (as would any other development).

27

28 The potential cumulative effects of routine operations and accidental events on these 

29 NWRs are essentially the same as those discussed above for the NPS lands. In addition, 

30 subsistence hunting and fishing are permitted on all refuges in Alaska and could, therefore, be 

31 affected by accidents and routine operations in the immediate vicinity of refuge properties.

32

33 National Forests. The only national forest within the vicinity of the Cook Inlet Planning 

34 Area is the Chugach National Forest, which is located mainly on the eastern side of the Kenai 

35 Peninsula (Figure 3.9.2-1). Because there would be no OCS-related development, such as 

36 pipelines or other onshore facilities, within the Chugach National Forest, it would not be affected 

37 by routine OCS activities associated with lease sales in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. Because 

38 of the forest location, oil spills from OCS platforms or pipelines within the Cook Inlet Planning 

39 Area would not be expected to affect shoreline areas or other resources within Chugach National 

40 Forest.

41

42 The Chugach National Forest is adjacent to the Gulf of Alaska. It also borders Prince 

43 William Sound and is close to Valdez. The Chugach National Forest is, therefore, potentially 

44 susceptible to cumulative effects of routine oil-related operations from transport and tanker 

45 loading of oil produced (OCS and non-OCS) in other regions (e.g., the Beaufort Sea Planning 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-633

1 Area) and transported by pipeline to the Port of Valdez. Potential effects include increased noise 

2 and air pollution from tanker traffic.

3

4 Additional, non-OCS-related cumulative impacts in the national forest could result from 

5 mining operations (e.g., for gold or gravel/stone), hunting, flightseeing, ski resorts, trains, and 

6 tourism. However, the impacts of these activities are regulated through a permitting process 

7 following an approved resource use plan.

8

9 The Chugach National Forest would be potentially susceptible to oil (mostly non-OCS) 

10 spilled from tankers that utilize the loading facilities at the Port of Valdez. Oil spills that reached 

11 the coastline could affect coastal fauna; subsistence, recreational, and commercial fishing; and 

12 tourism. Impacts would depend on the size and timing of a spill and would be expected to be 

13 minor to moderate.

14

15 Other Areas of Special Concern. There are multiple State parks and State recreation 

16 areas near the Cook Inlet Planning Area, many of which border Cook Inlet or are located in areas 

17 that could be contacted by accidental oil spills. Such areas include Captain Cook State 

18 Recreation Area, Clam Gulch State Recreation Area, Chugach State Park, Kachemak Bay State 

19 Park and State Wilderness Park, and Ninilchik State Recreation Area. In addition, the Kachemak 

20 Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve is located in Cook Inlet on the southern end of the 

21 Kenai Peninsula. Cumulative impacts from offshore activities would be similar to those 

22 described above for National Parks and Refuges. Existing protections and restrictions on uses 

23 should limit the direct terrestrial cumulative impacts from OCS and non OCS activities on these 

24 areas. There is existing oil and gas infrastructure in State waters of Cook Inlet and the addition 

25 of OCS infrastructure and activities could have negative effects on scenic values for some users 

26 if the facilities were visible from shore or the air during flightseeing. It is assumed that pipeline 

27 landfalls, shore bases, and waste facilities would not be located in the State parks and recreation 

28 areas. Increased traffic (i.e., land, sea, and air) and development within the vicinity of State 

29 parks lands could also contribute to cumulative impacts on these areas. It is anticipated that 

30 noise generated by OCS offshore construction activities would be at low levels, intermittent, and 

31 would not persist for more than a few months at any one time. It is considered unlikely that 

32 these additional activities would noticeably affect wildlife or park user values compared to 

33 current (non-OCS) activities within the considered planning areas.

34

35 As described above, impacts on State parks and recreational areas could occur due to 

36 accidental releases of oil spilled from onshore facilities and offshore drilling rigs. An oil spill 

37 contacting shoreline habitats could affect subsistence harvests in those parks in which recreation 

38 and subsistence hunting and fishing are allowed and could affect the number of park visitors. 

39 Impacts would depend primarily on the spill location, size, and time of year. 

40

41 Conclusion. Overall, routine OCS operations could result in minor incremental increases 

42 in effects on national sanctuaries, parks, refuges, and estuarine research reserves compared to 

43 existing non-OCS activities (see Section 4.4.8.2). Development of onshore facilities within 

44 national park lands in the vicinity of the areas included in the Program is considered unlikely, 

45 thereby making impacts from cumulative routine OCS operations unlikely in these areas. 

46 Offshore construction of pipelines and platforms could contribute to cumulative effects on 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-634

1 wildlife and on scenic values for park visitors due to noise and activity levels, particularly in the 

2 vicinity of Cook Inlet. However, such effects would be localized, intermittent, and temporary. 

3

4 Compared to the existing potential for oil spills to affect such areas, the activities under 

5 the proposed action would be expected to result in a small incremental increase in the risk of 

6 impacts from oil spills to areas of special concern. The cumulative level of impacts from spills 

7 would depend on spill frequency, location, and size; the type of product spilled; weather 

8 conditions; effectiveness of cleanup operations; and other environmental conditions at the time 

9 of the spill. Large and catastrophic oil spills in areas adjacent to the national parks, NWRs, or 

10 national forests, whether from OCS or non-OCS sources, could negatively impact coastal 

11 habitats and fauna and could also affect subsistence uses, commercial or recreational fisheries, 

12 and tourism.

13

14

15 4.6.4.3 Alaska Region – Arctic

16

17

18 4.6.4.3.1 Marine Mammals.

19

20 Marine Mammals. The cumulative analysis considers past, ongoing, and foreseeable 

21 future human and natural activities that may occur and adversely affect marine mammals in the 

22 Arctic Planning Areas. These activities include effects of the OCS Program (proposed actions 

23 and prior and future OCS sales), oil and gas activities in State waters, vessels, subsistence 

24 harvests, recreational fishing and boating activities, military operations, scientific research, and 

25 natural phenomena. Specific types of impact-producing factors considered include noise from 

26 numerous sources, pollution, ingestion and entanglement in marine debris, vessel strikes, habitat 

27 degradation, subsistence harvests, military activities, industrial development, community 

28 development, climate change, and natural catastrophes. Section 4.4.7.1.3 provides the major 

29 impact-producing factors related to the proposed action in Cook Inlet.

30

31 Routine Activities.

32

33 OCS Activities. Marine mammals and their habitats in the Arctic Planning Areas could 

34 be affected by a variety of exploration, development and production activities as a result of the 

35 proposed and future OCS leasing actions (see Section 4.4.7.1.3). These activities include seismic 

36 exploration, offshore and onshore infrastructure construction, the discharge of operational 

37 wastes, and vessel and aircraft traffic. Impacts to marine mammals from these activities may 

38 include physical injury or death; behavioral disturbances; lethal or sublethal toxic effects; and 

39 loss of reproductive, nursery, feeding, and resting habitats. The degree of impact at the 

40 population level depends greatly on the status of the population (reflected in its listing under the 

41 ESA) and the degree of disturbance or harm from OCS-related activities in areas important to 

42 species survival (i.e., feeding, breeding, molting, rookery or haulout areas).

43

44 Potential impacts (primarily behavioral disturbance) to marine mammals from OCS45 related seismic activity would be short-term and temporary, and not expected to result in 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-635

1 population level impacts for any affected species if appropriate mitigation measures are 

2 implemented.

3

4 Impacts from OCS construction and operation activities could include the temporary 

5 disturbance and displacement of individuals or groups by construction equipment and long-term 

6 disturbance of some individuals from operational noise. No long-term, population-level effects 

7 would be expected because individuals most affected by these impacts would be only those in 

8 the immediate vicinity of the construction site or operational platform and disturbance of 

9 individuals during construction would be largely temporary. In addition, appropriate mitigation 

10 measures could lessen the potential for impacts.

11

12 Operational and waste discharges (e.g., produced water, drilling muds, and drill cuttings) 

13 would be disposed of through downhole injection into NPDES-permitted disposal wells, and thus 

14 would not be expected to result in any incremental impacts to marine mammals. Liquid wastes 

15 (such as bilge water) may also be generated by OCS support vessels and on production 

16 platforms. While these wastes may be discharged (if permitted) into surface waters, they would 

17 be rapidly diluted and dispersed, and would not be expected to result in any incremental impacts 

18 to marine mammals from exposure to these wastes. Drilling and production wastes may contain 

19 materials such as metals and hydrocarbons, which can bioaccumulate through the food chain into 

20 the tissues of marine mammals. Although the bioaccumulation of anthropogenic chemicals has 

21 been reported for a variety of marine mammals, adverse impacts or population-level effects 

22 resulting from such bioaccumulation have not been demonstrated (Norstrom and Muir 1994; 

23 Muir et al. 1999).

24

25 Marine mammals could be temporarily disturbed by OCS vessel traffic (all species) or 

26 incur injury or death from collisions with support vessels (primarily larger, slower moving 

27 cetaceans). The low level of OCS vessel trips in the Arctic Planning Areas under the proposed 

28 actions would likely limit potential cumulative impacts to a few individuals, be largely short29 term in nature, and not result in population-level effects. Noise from helicopter overflights 

30 would be transient in nature. Impacts to marine mammals would be behavioral in nature, 

31 primarily resulting in short-term disturbance in normal activities, and would not be expected to 

32 result in population-level effects. Overflights and vessels could disturb pinnipeds on rookeries 

33 and haul-outs. In particular, disturbance of walruses can cause stampedes, where younger 

34 animals and calves can be killed, possibly causing population-level impacts to some species. 

35 Appropriate mitigation measures such as overflight restrictions and flightline selection to avoid 

36 rookeries and haul-outs would limit the potential for adversely affecting animals at these 

37 locations. 

38

39 No platforms would be removed under the proposed action for the Arctic Planning Areas.

40

41 Non-OCS Activities. A number of non-OCS activities such as oil and gas exploration 

42 and development in State waters, subsistence harvests, vessel traffic, and climate change could 

43 also affect marine mammals in the Arctic Planning Areas. Many of the effects of these activities 

44 on marine mammals would be similar in nature to those resulting from OCS-related activities, 

45 namely, behavioral disturbance, habitat disturbance, injury, or mortality, and exposure to toxic 

46 substances. Marine mammals may also be adversely affected by climate change.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-636

1 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development in State Waters. The State of Alaska has 

2 made nearshore State lands available for leasing along the Beaufort Sea coast. The exploration 

3 activities (and associated impacts to marine mammals) that could result with State oil and gas 

4 lease sales may greatly outnumber exploration activities (and potential impacts to marine 

5 mammals) that could occur under the OCS proposed action.

6

7 Exploration, construction, and operation activities associated with State leases would 

8 occur in nearshore and coastal areas, while OCS platforms and pipelines would be located away 

9 from coastal areas (with the exception of relatively few pipeline landfalls and onshore bases and 

10 processing facilities). Thus, State oil and gas leasing activities may be expected to have a greater 

11 potential for affecting marine mammals in coastal habitats than would the proposed OCS actions. 

12

13 Subsistence Harvesting. Subsistence harvesting has been identified as impacting marine 

14 mammals in Alaskan waters (Allen and Angliss 2011). However, annual mortality from 

15 subsistence harvests is considered to have little adverse effect on most marine mammal 

16 populations or stocks. The following are the reported estimated annual Alaska-wide subsistence 

17 harvests for marine mammals that occur in the Beaufort and/or Chukchi Seas (Allen and 

18 Angliss 2011):

19

20 • The best estimate of annual subsistence harvest of spotted seals is 

21 5,265 animals.

22

23 • The best estimate of annual subsistence harvest of bearded seals is 

24 6,788 animals.

25

26 • The best estimate of annual subsistence harvest of ringed seals is 

27 9,567 animals.

28

29 • The best estimate of annual subsistence harvest of ribbon seals is 193 animals.

30

31 • The best estimate of annual subsistence harvest for the Beaufort Sea whale 

32 stock is 139 animals, which includes 25 individuals in Alaska and 

33 114 individuals in Canada.

34

35 • The best estimate of annual subsistence harvest for the Eastern Chukchi Sea 

36 beluga whale stock is 59 animals.

37

38 • There are known subsistence harvests of narwhals by Alaska Natives.

39

40 • There are no known subsistence harvests of the Bering Sea stock of harbor 

41 porpoises by Alaska Natives. However, Suydam and George (1992) noted 

42 that individuals from this stock have been entangled in subsistence nets.

43

44 • Annual subsistence take of grey whales averaged 121 individuals between 

45 2003 to 2007. Russian Chukotka people take most of the gray whales. The 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-637

1 U.S. Makah Indian Tribe has a yearly average quota of 4 whales. In 2005, an 

2 unlawful subsistence hunt and kill of a gray whale occurred in Alaska.

3

4 • No subsistence takes of the Northeast Pacific stock of fin whales are reported 

5 from Alaska or Russia.

6

7 • Subsistence take of minke whales by Alaska Natives is rare (e.g., only nine 

8 between 1930 and 1995).

9

10 • Alaska Native subsistence hunters take 14 to 72 bowhead whales per year (0.1 

11 to 0.5% of the population). Russian and Canadian subsistence hunters also 

12 take a few bowhead whales. The annual subsistence take from 2004 to 2008 

13 for Alaska, Russian, and Canadian Natives averaged 41.2 bowhead whales. 

14 Several cases of fishing rope or net entanglement have been reported from 

15 whales taken in subsistence hunts.

16

17 • The 1925 to 1953 estimated annual Alaska harvests of polar bears for 

18 subsistence, handicrafts, and recreation was 120 animals. Recreational 

19 harvests by non-Native sports hunters using aircraft averaged 150 annually 

20 from 1951 to 1960 and 260 annually from 1960 to 1972. A prohibition on 

21 non-Native hunting became effective in 1973. The annual subsistence 

22 harvests for the Chukchi/Bering Seas stock was 92/year in the 1980s, 49/year 

23 in the 1990s, and 43/year in the 2000s.

24

25 • The annual harvests for the Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear stock was 

26 39/year in the 1980s, 33/year in the 1990s, and 32/year in the 2000s.

27

28 • The estimated annual subsistence harvests for the Pacific walrus from 2003 to 

29 2007 were at 4,960 to 5,457 animals/year and included those harvested in the 

30 U.S. and Russia.

31

32 Climate Change. A concern regarding marine mammals in polar regions is the potential 

33 for climate change and associated loss in the extent of sea ice in some Arctic and subarctic 

34 waters. Some species, such as the bearded seal and polar bear, are dependent on sea ice for at 

35 least part of their life history, and may be more sensitive to changes in arctic weather, sea-surface 

36 temperatures, or extent of ice cover (Allen and Angliss 2011). Ice edges are biologically 

37 productive systems where ice algae form the base of the food chain. The ice algae are crucial to 

38 arctic cod, which is a pivotal species in the arctic food web. As ice melts, there is concern that 

39 there will be loss of prey species of marine mammals, such as arctic cod and amphipods, that are 

40 associated with ice edges (MMS 2004a). Changes in the extent, concentration, and thickness of 

41 the sea ice in the Arctic may alter the distribution, geographic ranges, migration patterns, 

42 nutritional status, reproductive success, and, ultimately, the abundance of ringed seals and other 

43 ice-dependent pinnipeds that rely on the ice platform for pupping, resting, and molting 

44 (MMS 2004a). Reductions in sea ice coverage would adversely affect the availability of 

45 pinnipeds as prey for polar bears. More polar bears may stay onshore during the summer 

46 (MMS 2004a). If the arctic climate continues to warm and early spring rains become more 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-638

1 widespread, ringed seal lairs might collapse prematurely, exposing ringed seal pups to increased 

2 predation by polar bears and Arctic foxes, negatively impacting the ringed seal population and, 

3 therefore, eventually the polar bear population (MMS 2004a).

4

5 The loss of sea ice could have several potential effects on bowhead whales. These would 

6 include increased noise and disturbance related to increased shipping, increased interactions with 

7 commercial fisheries, including noise and disturbance, incidental intake, and gear entanglement; 

8 changes in prey species concentrations and distribution; changes in subsistence-hunting 

9 practices; increased predation from expanding killer whale range; and competition from 

10 expanding fin, humpback, and other baleen whale ranges. Bowhead whale seasonal distribution 

11 may change with changes in seasonal ice distribution as well.

12

13 Other Impacting Factors. Marine mammals may also be impacted by other factors such 

14 as UMEs and invasive species. A UME is an unexpected stranding that involves a significant 

15 die-off of any marine mammal population, and demands immediate response (NMFS 2011b). 

16 Causes of UMEs include infections, biotoxins, human interactions, and malnutrition 

17 (NMFS 2011b). Since establishment of the UM program in 1991, there have been 53 formally 

18 recognized UMEs in the U.S., none of which occurred Arctic Planning Areas (NMFS 2011b). 

19 Invasive species could affect some marine mammals by disrupting local species and ecosystems, 

20 affecting the prey base for some marine mammals. Currently, invasive species are not a major 

21 factor in the Arctic Planning Areas. However, as climate change continues to warm Alaskan 

22 waters, the Arctic Planning Areas may become more susceptible to invasive species (e.g., from 

23 ballast discharges associated with increased vessel traffic).

24

25 Accidents. Marine mammals could be exposed to oil accidentally released from 

26 platforms, pipelines, and vessels from the Program (Table 4.4.2-1). Potential non-OCS sources 

27 of oil spills include the domestic transportation of oil, oil and gas development in State waters, 

28 and natural sources such as seeps. Accidental oil releases could expose marine mammals to oil 

29 by direct contact or through the inhalation or ingestion of oil or tar deposits. The magnitude and 

30 duration of exposure will be a function of the location, timing, duration, and size of the spill; the 

31 proximity of the spill to feeding and other important habitats; the timing and nature of spill 

32 containment; and the status of the affected animals. It is anticipated that most of the small to 

33 medium spills would have limited effects on marine mammals due to the relatively small areas 

34 likely to incur high concentrations of hydrocarbons and the short period of time during which 

35 potentially toxic concentrations would be present. The magnitude of impact would be expected 

36 to increase should a spill occur in habitats important to marine mammals or affect a number of 

37 individuals from a population listed under the ESA. Some spills from OCS activity may locally 

38 represent the principal source of oil exposure for some species, especially for spills contacting 

39 important coastal and island habitats or collecting along ice leads.

40

41 Conclusion. Cumulative impacts on marine mammals in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea 

42 Planning Areas as a result of future OCS program and ongoing and future non-OCS program 

43 activities could be minor to moderate over the next 40 to 50 yr. Non-OCS program activities or 

44 phenomena that may affect populations of marine mammals include climate change, contaminant

45 releases, vessel traffic, subsistence harvests, and invasive species. The incremental contribution 

46 of routine Program activities to these impacts would be small (see Section 4.4.7.1.3). 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-639

1 Marine mammals may also be adversely affected by exposure to oil that is accidentally 

2 released from OCS and non-OCS activities. The cumulative impacts of past, present, and future 

3 oil spills on marine mammals would be minor to moderate. The incremental impacts of 

4 accidental spills associated with the proposed action on marine mammals would be small to

5 large, depending on the location, timing, duration, and size of the spill; the proximity of the spill 

6 to feeding and other important habitats; the timing and nature of spill containment; and the status 

7 of the affected animals (see Section 4.4.7.1.3). 

8

9 Terrestrial Mammals. Terrestrial mammals and their habitats could be affected by a 

10 variety of activities associated with the proposed OCS actions (Section 4.4.7.1.3). These 

11 activities include construction and operation of onshore pipelines and vehicle and aircraft traffic. 

12 Impacts to terrestrial mammals from these activities may include physical injury or death; 

13 behavioral disturbances; lethal or sublethal toxic effects; and loss of reproductive, nursery, 

14 feeding, and resting habitats. In the Arctic Planning Areas, these impacts would be in addition 

15 to similar (in nature) impacts resulting from ongoing and planned OCS lease sales under the 

16 Program.

17

18 Impacts from OCS construction and operation activities could include the injury or death 

19 of smaller mammals (such as mice and voles) and the disturbance and displacement of 

20 individuals or groups of larger species (such as caribou, muskoxen, and brown bear). Because of 

21 the limited areal extent of new pipeline under the proposed action, disturbance (primarily 

22 behavioral in nature) of most of these species during construction would be largely temporary, 

23 and no long-term population level effects would be expected. However, construction activities 

24 in the Arctic could disturb caribou in calving, foraging, or insect avoidance habitats, which could 

25 affect adult and calf survival. However, the potential for such impacts could be minimized by 

26 careful siting of new pipelines to avoid important habitats.

27

28 Species such as the Arctic fox that habituate to human activity and facilities could 

29 experience local increases in density, while bears may experience increases in mortality 

30 associated with defense of life and property killings. In the Arctic, pipelines and roads 

31 associated with the proposed action have the potential to incrementally affect local and seasonal 

32 movements of caribou.

33

34 Under the proposed action, vehicle traffic associated with normal operations and 

35 maintenance of onshore pipelines could disturb wildlife. Vehicle traffic could disturb wildlife 

36 foraging along pipelines or access roads, causing affected wildlife to temporarily stop normal 

37 activities (e.g., foraging, resting) or leave the area, while collision with vehicles could injure or 

38 kill some individuals. Because vehicle traffic would be infrequent, vehicle-related impacts 

39 associated with the proposed action would result in little incremental increase in vehicle-related 

40 impacts from current or ongoing OCS activities in the Arctic.

41

42 Up to 27 weekly helicopter trips would occur to platforms in the Arctic Planning Areas. 

43 Impacts to terrestrial mammals from helicopter overflights would be behavioral in nature, 

44 primarily resulting in short-term disturbance in normal activities, and would not be expected to 

45 result in population-level effects. Overflights disturbing active calving and overwintering sites 

46 could result in decreased survival of young or adults, and potentially result in population level 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-640

1 impacts to some species. Selection of flight lines to avoid overflights of important habitats 

2 would greatly limit the potential for adversely affecting calving or overwintering animals.

3

4 Terrestrial mammals in the Arctic Planning Area could also be affected by a number of 

5 non-OCS activities, including oil and gas exploration and development in State waters, and 

6 coastal and community development, and climate change. Many of the effects of these activities 

7 on terrestrial mammals would be similar in nature to those resulting from OCS-related activities, 

8 namely behavioral disturbance, habitat disturbance, and injury or mortality. The State of Alaska 

9 has made leases of State waters available along much of the Beaufort Sea coast. Because these 

10 leases are closer to shore than those for the proposed action, impacts on terrestrial mammals may 

11 exceed the potential impacts that could occur under the OCS proposed action. Implementation 

12 of the proposed action could increase coastal and community development, indirectly adding to 

13 impacts to terrestrial mammals and their habitats. Terrestrial mammals could be adversely 

14 affected by the accidental release of oil from an onshore pipeline, or by offshore spills contacting 

15 beaches and shorelines utilized by terrestrial mammals (such as caribou or brown bears). 

16 Impacts to terrestrial mammals from an oil spill would depend on such factors as the time of year 

17 and volume of the spill, type and extent of habitat affected, and home range or density of the 

18 species. Spills contacting high-use areas (such as caribou calving areas) could locally affect a 

19 relatively large number of animals. It is anticipated that most of the spills would have limited 

20 effects on terrestrial mammals, due to the relatively small areas likely to be directly exposed to 

21 the spills, and the small number and size of spills projected for the proposed action and for 

22 current and planned OCS oil and gas developments. However, some spills may locally represent 

23 the principal source of oil exposure for some species, especially for spills contacting important 

24 calving or overwintering habitats.

25

26 Conclusion. Cumulative impacts on terrestrial mammals in the Beaufort and Chukchi 

27 Sea Planning Areas as a result of future OCS program and ongoing and future non-OCS 

28 activities could be minor to moderate over the next 40 to 50 yr. Non-OCS activities or 

29 phenomena that may affect populations of terrestrial mammals include climate change, natural 

30 catastrophes, contaminant releases, and vehicle traffic. The incremental contribution of routine 

31 Program activities to these impacts would be small (see Section 4.4.7.1.3). 

32

33 Terrestrial mammals may also be adversely affected by exposure to oil that is 

34 accidentally released from onshore (e.g., Prudhoe Bay) and State offshore oil and gas activities. 

35 The cumulative impacts of past, present, and future oil spills on terrestrial mammals would be 

36 minor to moderate. The incremental impacts of accidental spills associated with the proposed 

37 action on terrestrial mammals would be small to large, depending on the location, timing, 

38 duration, and size of the spill; the proximity of the spill to feeding and other important habitats; 

39 the timing and nature of spill containment; and the status of the affected animals (see 

40 Section 4.4.7.1.3).

41

42

43 4.6.4.3.2 Marine and Coastal Birds. Section 4.4.7.2.3 discusses impacts to marine and 

44 coastal birds in the Arctic region resulting from the proposed action (OCS program activities 

45 from 2012 to 2017). Cumulative impacts on marine and coastal birds result from the incremental 

46 impacts of the proposed action when added to impacts from existing and reasonably foreseeable 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-641

1 future OCS program activities (that are not part of the proposed action) and other non-OCS 

2 program activities. Table 4.6.1-2 presents the exploration and development scenario for the 

3 Beaufort and Chukchi Seas cumulative cases (encompassing the proposed action and other OCS 

4 program activities) over the next 50 yr. A number of OCS program activities could affect Arctic

5 marine or terrestrial birds or their habitats; these include offshore exploration, construction of 

6 offshore platforms and pipelines, construction of onshore pipelines, operations of offshore 

7 platforms, operational discharges and wastes, and OCS-related marine vessel and aircraft traffic. 

8 Potential impacts on marine and coastal birds from OCS program activities include injury or 

9 mortality of birds from collisions with platforms, vessels, and aircraft; exposure to operational 

10 discharges; ingestion of trash or debris; loss or degradation of habitat due to construction; and 

11 behavioral disturbance due to the presence of, and noise generated by, equipment and human 

12 activity.

13

14 Non-OCS program activities affecting marine and coastal birds in the Beaufort Sea and 

15 Chukchi Sea Planning Areas include dredging and marine disposal; coastal and community 

16 development; onshore and offshore construction and operations of facilities associated with State 

17 oil and gas development (mainly Prudhoe Bay); commercial and recreational boating; and small 

18 aircraft traffic. Potential impacts on marine and coastal birds from these activities are similar to 

19 those under the OCS program and include injury or mortality of birds from collisions with 

20 platforms associated with State oil and gas development and other onshore and offshore 

21 structures (e.g., radio, television, or cell phone towers); onshore industrial, commercial, and 

22 residential development; exposure to discharges from permitted point sources such as sewage 

23 treatment discharges and nonpoint sources such as snowmelt and stormwater runoff; or 

24 accidental releases (e.g., oil spills), as described in Section 4.6.2.1.3 and Table 4.6.2-4; exposure 

25 to emissions from various onshore and offshore sources (e.g., power generating stations and 

26 marine vessels), as described in Section 4.6.2.1.3; ingestion of trash or debris; loss or 

27 degradation of habitat due to construction and operations activities; and behavioral disturbance 

28 due to the presence of, and noise generated by, equipment and human activity. Other trends such 

29 as extensive melting of glaciers (and increasing river discharges), thawing of permafrost, and 

30 increased precipitation brought on by global climate change are also expected to adversely affect 

31 marine and coastal birds over the next 50 yr.

32

33 Injury or Mortality from Collisions. Under the cumulative scenario, annual collision 

34 injury or mortality in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas could increase in the near 

35 term as platforms are built under the proposed action. Such impacts would be minor relative to 

36 those that currently involve non-OCS structures. Over time, the injury or mortality impacts from 

37 collisions could decrease as oil and gas production in the inlet declines.

38

39 Exposure to Wastewater Discharges and Air Emissions. The discharge of operational 

40 wastes and air emissions from current non-OCS related vessel traffic and platform operations in 

41 the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas is strongly regulated and would continue to be so regulated over 

42 the next 50 yr. Many wastes (such as produced water, drilling muds, and drill cuttings) would be 

43 disposed of through onsite injection into NPDES-permitted disposal wells. However, such 

44 wastes and emissions would still expose marine and coastal birds to potentially toxic materials or 

45 to solid debris that could be ingested or result in entanglement. These facilities and activities 

46 include sewage treatment plants, industrial manufacturing or processing facilities, electric 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-642

1 generating plants, dredging and marine disposal, and vessel traffic (e.g., cargo and tanker ships 

2 and military and research vessels). Operational wastewater discharges and air emissions 

3 associated with the proposed action would contribute to the overall cumulative risk of toxic 

4 exposure and debris ingestion or entanglement of existing non-OCS wastewater discharges and 

5 air emissions in the inlet, but the incremental increase in impact is expected to be small relative 

6 to these other activities.

7

8 Under the proposed action, marine and coastal birds could be exposed to oil accidentally 

9 released from platforms, pipelines, and vessels, and would be most susceptible to adverse 

10 impacts from spills occurring in coastal areas and affecting feeding and nesting areas. Most of 

11 the oil released to arctic waters is from leaks related to the oil industry (Section 4.6.2.3.1). Oil 

12 releases from all sources may expose marine and coastal birds via direct contact or through the 

13 inhalation or ingestion of oil or tar deposits (see Section 4.4.7.3.1).

14

15 Marine and coastal birds may become entangled in, or ingest, floating, submerged, and 

16 beached debris (Heneman and the Center for Environmental Education 1988; Ryan 1987, 1990). 

17 Entanglement may result in strangulation, injury or loss of limbs, entrapment, or the prevention 

18 or hindrance of the ability to fly or swim; all of these effects may be considered lethal. Ingestion 

19 of debris may irritate, block, or perforate the digestive tract, suppress appetite, impair digestion 

20 of food, reduce growth, or release toxic chemicals (Fry et al. 1985; Dickerman and Goelet 1987; 

21 Ryan 1988; Derraik 2002). Because the discharge or disposal of solid debris into offshore waters 

22 from OCS structures and vessels is prohibited by BOEM (30 CFR 250.40) and the USCG

23 (MARPOL, Annex V, Public Law 100 220 [101 Statute 1458]), entanglement in or ingestion of 

24 OCS-related trash and debris by marine and coastal birds would not be expected under normal 

25 operations.

26

27 Oil Spills and Cleanup Activities. Oil spills under the cumulative scenario are shown in 

28 Table 4.6.1-3. No more than six large spills (between 1,000 and 5,300 bbl from either a platform 

29 or a pipeline) and 530 small spills (less than 1,000 bbl) would be expected as a result of the 

30 Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas OCS program over the next 50 yr. 

31

32 Loons, waterfowl, and shorebirds in onshore habitats are generally at low risk of 

33 contacting a spill while nesting, but risk of exposure increases as they leave the mainland nesting 

34 areas and concentrate in coastal or marine habitats for brood rearing, molting, or staging prior to 

35 southward migration. In addition, some species (e.g., red-throated loons) forage almost 

36 exclusively offshore and bring food back to their nestlings or young, so impacts of oil spills may 

37 be greater on these species (Eberl and Picman 1993). Likewise, species nesting on barrier 

38 islands, such as common eider, gulls, and terns, are at risk when post-nesting individuals join 

39 other species in lagoons and other nearshore habitats. Substantial numbers occupy Simpson and 

40 other Beaufort Sea lagoons, Harrison and Smith Bays, Kasegaluk Lagoon, and Peard and 

41 Ledyard Bays in the Chukchi Sea at this time. For example, tens of thousands of long-tailed 

42 ducks molting in Beaufort Sea lagoons, far outnumbering other species, are at risk in July and 

43 August, and in late August and early September, a large proportion of the Pacific flyway brant 

44 population could be exposed to a spill that enters Kasegaluk Lagoon. Substantial numbers of 

45 non-breeding, foraging, or staging birds that occupy offshore areas in both the Beaufort and 

46 Chukchi Seas, when open water beyond the barrier islands is available, could be exposed to an 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-643

1 oil spill. Most brood rearing of loons, swans, and geese occurs on large lakes or coastal 

2 saltmarsh. Risk of oil spill contact is much greater for those using the latter habitat. The most 

3 important molting area for brant and several other species of geese (and to a lesser extent ducks) 

4 is the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area (Derksen et al. 1979, 1982). Beached oil along these 

5 coastlines could expose hundreds to low thousands or possibly greater numbers of shorebirds 

6 that pause along the coast during migration (Connors et al. 1979; Smith and Connors 1993; 

7 Andres 1994). In the southeastern Chukchi Sea, large numbers of murres and kittiwakes nesting 

8 in seabird colonies at Capes Lisburne and Thompson, together with nonbreeding individuals, 

9 form foraging flocks containing tens to hundreds of individuals that also could be exposed to an 

10 oil spill. Major effects on bird populations during the open water season are expected to follow a 

11 spill. A spill occurring in winter, when birds are virtually absent, still may have serious impacts 

12 if substantial quantities of oil are entrained in the ice and then released during the following 

13 breeding season.

14

15 Large flocks of long-tailed ducks molting in Beaufort Sea lagoons and common eiders 

16 occupying barrier islands or lagoons are particularly susceptible to oil spill impacts if they are 

17 nesting, brood rearing, or flightless. Likewise, brant staging in Kasegaluk Lagoon in the 

18 Chukchi Sea would be particularly vulnerable. For all species, the degree of impact depends 

19 heavily on the location of the spill and its timing with respect to critical natural behaviors 

20 (e.g., breeding, molting, feeding). Survival and fitness of individuals may be affected, but in 

21 many cases, this infrequent disturbance is not expected to result in significant population losses. 

22 However, effects may be greater if a spill and cleanup were to occur in the spring when large 

23 numbers of king and common eiders, long-tailed ducks, and other waterfowl, seabirds, and 

24 shorebirds are present following spring ice-lead systems. In addition, it is unlikely that all 

25 spilled oil would be removed from the environment, especially in winter; thus the remaining 

26 accumulations could move under the ice and into leads.

27

28 In addition to the potential impacts from spilled oil, the oil spill cleanup process may also 

29 affect marine and coastal birds in the Arctic region. The presence of large numbers of workers, 

30 boats, and additional aircraft during the breeding season following a spill is expected to displace 

31 waterfowl or other seabirds occupying affected offshore or nearshore waters, and shorebirds in 

32 coastal habitats for one to several seasons. Cleanup in coastal areas late in the breeding season 

33 may disturb brood-rearing, juvenile, or staging birds. Cleanup and the presence of oil can 

34 dramatically influence avian species composition and distribution (Piatt et al. 1990). It is 

35 extremely difficult to separate the effects of oiling and disturbance from cleanup activities, but 

36 either separately or together they have the potential to influence habitat use by birds (Wiens 

37 1996). Survival and fitness of individuals may be affected to some extent, but this infrequent 

38 disturbance is not expected to result in significant population losses.

39

40 Loss or Degradation of Habitat. Marine and coastal birds could be affected by 

41 platform construction and removal activities, and pipeline trenching, which could disrupt 

42 behaviors of nearby birds. The proposed action would include the placement of up to 

43 36 exploration and development wells and 9 offshore platforms; up to 652 km (405 mi) of new 

44 offshore pipeline and 129 km (80 mi) (0 in the Chukchi Sea) of onshore pipeline could be 

45 constructed (Table 4.4.1.1-4). Platform emplacement could disturb birds temporarily; pipeline 

46 trenching may also affect birds in nearshore coastal habitats if it occurs in or near foraging, 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-644

1 overwintering, or staging areas, or near seabird colonies. No pipeline landfalls would be 

2 constructed under the proposed action. Depending on where they are sited, the pipelines would 

3 likely result in the permanent elimination of a small amount of habitat along pipeline routes. 

4

5 Any construction activities that take place in summer (one season) (e.g., platform 

6 installation for field development) could displace birds from within about 1 km (0.62 mi) of the 

7 construction site. However, localized burial of potential prey and destruction of a few square 

8 kilometers of foraging habitat as a result of pipeline trenching or island construction are not 

9 expected to cause a significant decline in prey availability. It is likely that much construction, 

10 particularly of gravel islands, roads, pads, and pipelines, would take place during winter when 

11 most birds are absent. Several studies speculate that increased predator populations sustained by 

12 scavenging opportunities around human habitation may indirectly contribute to long-term 

13 declines of common eiders and long-tailed duck populations currently in evidence (Day 1998;

14 S.R. Johnson 2000; Troy 2000). The effect of any habitat loss on the species‘ productivity 

15 would likely be localized to these areas but may persist over the life of any offshore field and 

16 beyond. The potential exists for long-term adverse effects to occur (e.g., fecundity reduced after 

17 location to suboptimal habitat due to disturbance).

18

19 Gravel placement (for artificial islands) results in nesting and foraging habitat loss for

20 most shorebirds (Troy 2000). On the North Slope, gravel is generally extracted from the 

21 floodplains of large rivers (Pamplin 1979; BLM 2002). The effects of gravel 

22 extraction/placement would be reduced if areas where particular species seasonally concentrate 

23 are avoided.

24

25 Winter construction would also utilize ice roads to build and access gravel island 

26 construction sites. Ice roads may be constructed over both tundra habitats and frozen ocean 

27 habitats. Ice roads constructed in tundra habitats may delay ice-off and snow melt 

28 (NRC, 2003b), potentially reducing the availability of such areas for early nesting species. Ice 

29 roads could also flatten underlying vegetation, which may discourage use of the area by tundra30 nesting birds (Walker et al., 1987a, b). Water removal from lakes and ponds for ice road 

31 construction may reduce the quality or quantity of aquatic habitats important for breeding and 

32 postmolting for some species. In each of these cases, the impacts to potential nesting habitat 

33 would be temporary and localized, and birds would likely respond by selecting other areas for 

34 nesting or postmolting.

35

36 Construction camps to support onshore construction activities would temporarily remove 

37 some areas from potential use by birds, and this loss may be short- or long-term depending on 

38 the nature and effectiveness of camp abandonment following completion of construction 

39 activities. Regardless of the duration of the effect, the amount of habitat that would be disturbed 

40 would be relatively small and not be expected to affect more than a few birds.

41

42 The construction and operation of up to 320 km (200 mi) of new overland pipelines 

43 would be expected to affect bird populations in a manner similar to that identified for the 

44 construction and operation of new onshore processing facilities and associated infrastructure 

45 (especially access roads). Potential nesting or post-molting habitat would be permanently lost 

46 within the footprint of the new pipelines, causing birds to select habitats in other locations.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-645

1 Although pipeline trenching would also be carried out in winter when most seabird and 

2 waterfowl species are not present, seafloor trenching could locally disrupt benthic invertebrate 

3 communities that may serve as food sources for waterfowl during other seasons. The extent to 

4 which benthic food sources could be affected and the subsequent impact to waterfowl will 

5 depend on the type and amount of benthic habitat that would be permanently disturbed by 

6 trenching, the importance of the specific habitats in providing food resources to waterfowl, and 

7 the number of waterfowl that could be affected. Because no more than three new pipelines could 

8 be built under the proposed action within the entire Arctic region, relatively little benthic habitat 

9 could be disturbed (no more than 120 ha [297 ac] within the entire region). In addition, portions 

10 of the new pipelines would be in water depths down to 60 m (200 ft) and potentially unavailable 

11 for many marine birds and waterfowl. Thus, any impacts to food sources from pipeline 

12 trenching would be very localized and short-term, and not expected to result in population-level 

13 impacts to local waterfowl populations.

14

15 The construction of new facilities and pipelines would permanently eliminate potential 

16 bird habitat at the construction sites. While this habitat loss would be long-term, the areas 

17 disturbed would represent a small portion of the habitat present in the Arctic region. Careful 

18 siting of any new facilities to avoid important nesting or post-molting habitat would further 

19 reduce the magnitude of any potential effects on local bird populations. 

20

21 Helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft overflights are generally conducted at low altitudes and 

22 could disturb birds in onshore and offshore locations (Ward and Stein 1989; Ward et al. 1994; 

23 Miller 1994; Miller et al. 1994). Helicopter and aircraft overflights during spring breakup of 

24 pack ice may disturb marine species feeding in open waters and waterfowl in coastal waters, 

25 causing birds to leave the area. Similarly, overflights in summer could displace waterfowl and

26 seabirds from preferred foraging areas and waterfowl from coastal nesting or brood-rearing areas 

27 such as the lagoon systems of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Molting and staging waterfowl 

28 may temporarily leave an area experiencing helicopter overflights (Derksen et al. 1992), while 

29 geese have been reported to exhibit alert behavior and flight in response to helicopter overflights 

30 (Ward and Stein 1989; Ward et al. 1994). The type of response elicited by the birds and the 

31 potential effect on the birds will depend in large part on the time of year for the overflights and 

32 the species disturbed. Birds experiencing frequent overflights may permanently relocate to less 

33 favorable habitats (MMS 2002b). In addition, the temporary absence of adult birds may increase 

34 the potential for predation of unguarded nests and young (NRC 2003b).

35

36 Marine vessel trips could disturb seabirds and waterfowl in preferred foraging, molting, 

37 and staging areas, causing them to leave the area and move to potentially less favorable habitats. 

38 Vessel traffic that displaces nesting seabirds or waterfowl may result in an increased predation 

39 rate on eggs and young, especially in areas near gull colonies (Day 1998; S.R. Johnson 2000; 

40 Noel et al. 2005). However, the amount of vessel and aircraft traffic that could occur under the 

41 proposed action would be relatively limited. Which birds could be affected, the nature of their 

42 response, and the potential consequences of the disturbance will be a function of a variety of 

43 factors, including the specific routes, the number of trips per day, the seasonal habitats along the 

44 routes, the species using the habitats and the level of their use, and the sensitivity of the birds to 

45 vessel traffic. Traffic over heavily used feeding or nesting habitats of sensitive species could 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-646

1 result in population-level effects, while impacts from traffic over other areas with less sensitive 

2 species would largely be limited to a few individuals and not result in population-level effects.

3

4 Marine and coastal birds could be affected by accidental oil spills from offshore 

5 platforms and pipelines, as well as from onshore processing facilities and pipelines. In general, 

6 loons, waterfowl, seabirds, and shorebirds are not expected to survive moderate to heavy oil 

7 contact. Oiled feathers lose their insulative and water repellent characteristics, and birds die of 

8 hypothermia (Albers and Gay 1982). Swallowed oil is toxic and causes impaired physiological 

9 function and production of fewer young. Oiled eggs have significantly reduced hatching success 

10 (Albers 1980). Vulnerability of bird populations to an oil spill is highly variable because of their 

11 seasonally patchy distribution in areas where the probability of spill contact also is variable and 

12 depends on location, oceanography, weather patterns, and habitats typically occupied by and 

13 habits of, the particular species. Because they are unable to fly, molting birds probably are the 

14 most vulnerable. For all species, the degree of impact depends heavily on the location of the 

15 spill and its timing with respect to critical natural behaviors (e.g., breeding, molting, feeding). 

16

17 If losses are substantial in a species with a low reproductive rate, including most marine 

18 species, recovery may take many years, or populations may not recover to their prespill size. 

19 Rate of recovery from oil spill mortality depends both on the numbers lost from a particular 

20 species population and its prevailing population trend, which in turn are determined by 

21 reproductive rate and survival rate. Oil contamination of food resources may influence recovery 

22 of a local population by affecting reproductive success and survival, with the degree of impact 

23 largely dependent on the patterns of prey distribution. Species dependent on widely dispersed 

24 prey would have more limited effects. However, seabirds, in particular, are attracted to patchy 

25 prey sources found on oceanic fronts (Piatt and Springer 2003) and would experience greater 

26 effects from prey reduction. In addition, nonbreeding individuals and those that have completed 

27 annual parental activities are better able to search for prey in uncontaminated areas. However, 

28 those individuals actively feeding young and dependent upon nearby food resources would be 

29 unable to seek uncontaminated prey elsewhere. If a leak in an onshore pipeline were to occur on 

30 a pad, the extent of the spill likely would be restricted by containment berms. If the spill 

31 occurred along the off-pad portion of the pipeline, the area covered may include several acres; if 

32 the spill were to enter streams or lakes, a larger area could be affected as the oil spreads over a 

33 water surface or is carried down a watercourse. From mid- to late summer, such an occurrence 

34 could contact broodrearing females and their young, as well as potentially large flocks of 

35 nonbreeding and postbreeding individuals undergoing wing molt.

36

37 Most bird species are absent from the Arctic region from late October to at least early 

38 April. During spring migration, substantial numbers of migrants moving north along the spring 

39 lead system in the Chukchi Sea are at risk if oil enters this habitat, since there are few 

40 alternatives until open water off river deltas is available as the ice breaks up in late spring. The 

41 most numerous species include king eider, common eider, long-tailed duck, brant, and murres. 

42 Likewise, a similar rather restricted open water situation exists in both the Beaufort and Chukchi 

43 Seas for migrants that pause awaiting further melting to the north or east, and for birds 

44 occupying delta waters and nearshore areas that have melted prior to general ice breakup and 

45 awaiting the availability of onshore habitats.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-647

1 Disturbance Due to Noise. Noise and human activities (such as normal maintenance) 

2 could disturb birds. Operational facilities may provide additional nesting and feeding 

3 opportunities for some species. Unexpected noise can startle birds and potentially affect feeding, 

4 resting, or nesting behavior, and often causes flocks of birds to abandon the immediate area. 

5 Some species may react by avoiding nearby habitats, while other species may show little 

6 response or become habituated. Because of the small number of new onshore facilities (no more 

7 than four in the entire Arctic region), the disturbance of birds by operational noise and activity 

8 would likely be limited to relatively few individuals and would not be expected to result in 

9 population-level effects. Prolonged or repeated periods of maintenance activities could have a 

10 greater impact on nesting birds by increasing cooling periods of eggs, and on brood-rearing birds 

11 by increasing the time that young and adult birds are separated.

12

13 Effects on ESA-Listed Species in the Arctic Region. The cumulative effects of OCS 

14 and non-OCS program activities on ESA-listed species in the Arctic region, including the 

15 spectacled eiders and Steller‘s eider, are expected to be similar to those noted for nonlisted 

16 species over the next 50 yr. Continued compliance with ESA regulations and coordination with 

17 the USFWS would ensure that lease-specific OCS operations would be conducted in a manner 

18 likely to avoid or greatly minimize the potential for impacting these species.

19

20 The risk of oil contact to spectacled eiders using the spring lead system to move north 

21 into the Chukchi Sea during spring migration could be high if a spill entered the area of the 

22 leads. Since most spectacled eiders probably use overland routes from the Chukchi to complete 

23 their spring migration to nesting areas on the ACP, they are not likely to be contacted by an oil 

24 spill during migration. During the broodrearing period, when the young are led to watercourses 

25 and ultimately to nearshore marine environments for further development, staging, and fall 

26 migration, the risk of oil contact is much greater. Males could be exposed to an oil spill in any of 

27 the several bays and lagoons occupied for molting and staging in both the Beaufort and Chukchi 

28 Seas (Petersen et al. 1999). The period of highest exposure risk for a given individual migrating 

29 across the Beaufort is about 3–5 days. Females and young are at risk of contact primarily when 

30 they occupy Smith Bay in the Beaufort (Troy 2003) and Ledyard and Peard Bay (Laing and 

31 Platte 1994) in the Chukchi (this area is used by nonbreeding, failed breeding, and successful 

32 breeders, as well as both sexes) for the molt prior to fall migration (Petersen et al. 1999). 

33 Ledyard Bay has been defined as critical habitat for spectacled eiders. Since most, if not all, of 

34 the successfully breeding females (and their young) from the ACP could be concentrated in 

35 Ledyard Bay critical habitat area during the molt period, a spill affecting this group in this 

36 location could have a long-term population-level effect.

37

38 The small ACP population of Steller‘s eider is not likely to be exposed to an oil spill 

39 during nesting or postnesting periods, since most presumably move to the Russian side of the 

40 Chukchi prior to migrating south to molting areas. However, there is some evidence to suggest 

41 use of Peard Bay by postbreeding Steller‘s eiders (Martin unpubl. data; Dau and Larned 2004, 

42 2005).

43

44 Climate Change. Climate change could have dramatic impacts on the Beaufort Sea and 

45 Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. The expected changes in air temperature would have the most 

46 immediate effect on the distribution and biology of arctic seabirds and the seabird species most 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-648

1 dependent on the presence of ice and snow would be expected to be among the first affected. If 

2 temperature increases in the Arctic region are as high as predicted, the Beaufort Sea pack ice 

3 could retreat more than 100 km (62 mi) from mainland Alaska (Meehan et al. 1998). This sea 

4 ice retreat could have major adverse effects on seabirds that rely on prey associated with ice 

5 edges.

6

7 Conclusion. Marine and coastal birds in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas, 

8 including those that are ESA-listed, could be adversely affected by activities associated with the 

9 proposed action as well as those associated with future OCS and non-OCS program activities. 

10 Potential impacts include injury or mortality of birds from collisions with platforms associated 

11 with OCS and State oil and gas development and other onshore and offshore structures 

12 (e.g., radio, television, or cell phone towers), onshore industrial, commercial, and residential 

13 development; exposure to discharges from permitted point sources such as sewage treatment 

14 discharges and nonpoint sources such as urban runoff, or accidental releases (e.g., oil spills); 

15 exposure to emissions from various onshore and offshore sources; ingestion of trash or debris; 

16 loss or degradation of habitat due to construction and operations activities; and behavioral 

17 disturbance due to the presence of, and noise generated by, equipment and human activity. Other 

18 trends such as extensive melting of glaciers (and increasing river discharges) and increased 

19 precipitation brought on by global climate change are also expected to adversely affect marine 

20 and coastal birds over the next 40 to 50 yr. While the cumulative impact of all OCS and non21 OCS activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas could be minor to moderate, the incremental 

22 impact due to the proposed action would be small (see Section 4.4.7.2.3). Compliance with ESA 

23 regulations and coordination with the USFWS would ensure that lease-specific OCS operations 

24 would be conducted in a manner that is likely to avoid or to greatly minimize the potential for 

25 impacting these species.

26

27 Marine and coastal birds may also be adversely affected by exposure to oil (via direct 

28 contact or through the inhalation or ingestion of oil or tar deposits) that is accidentally released 

29 from OCS and non-OCS activities, especially near coastal areas and affecting feeding and 

30 nesting areas. The incremental impacts of accidental spills associated with the proposed action 

31 on marine and coastal birds would be small to large, depending on the location, timing, duration, 

32 and size of the spill; the proximity of the spill to feeding and nesting areas; the timing and nature 

33 of spill containment; and the status of the affected birds (see Section 4.4.7.2.3). 

34

35 Whether net cumulative impacts are minor or moderate depends on the nature and 

36 duration of activities that reduce bird survival and productivity. Losses would be limited in areas 

37 occupied by scattered flocks during relatively brief staging and migration periods or scattered 

38 nest sites during the brief nesting season; however, in cases where exposure to localized 

39 disturbance is greater, impacts have the potential to rise to the population level. Population-level 

40 effects could be incurred due to the tendency for large numbers of individuals of some bird 

41 species to concentrate in certain coastal arctic locations.

42

43

44 4.6.4.3.3 Fish. This section evaluates the cumulative effects of the proposed action, 

45 ongoing or planned OCS activities that would occur during the life of the Program, and non-OCS 

46 activities on populations of fishes in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. The primary 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-649

1 routine OCS activities that could result in impacts on fish include seismic surveys; construction 

2 of artificial islands, ice roads, drilling, platforms and pipeline placement; releases of permitted 

3 discharges from wells; and removal of existing structures. Potential environmental impacts 

4 associated with the building and operation of OCS facilities such as subsea production wells, 

5 platforms, artificial islands, and pipelines would increase in conjunction with the increased 

6 number of wells. Although all of these activities would disturb bottom habitats to some degree, 

7 artificial islands result in a more complete loss of benthic habitat due to larger footprints 

8 (approximately 9 ha for artificial islands versus less than 1.5 ha for platforms) and due to 

9 complete burial of existing substrate during construction. The impacts of routine activities 

10 (exploration and site development, production and decommissioning) on fish communities are 

11 discussed in detail in Section 4.4.7.3.3. Overall, routine activities represent up to a minor 

12 disturbance, primarily affecting demersal fishes, with the severity of the impacts generally 

13 decreasing with distance from bottom-disturbing activities. 

14

15 Oil and gas exploration and development in State waters could also contribute to 

16 cumulative effects on fishery resources in the Beaufort and Chukchi Planning Areas. Drilling of 

17 wells in State waters could also require construction of platforms and pipelines in waters of 

18 Alaska. The effects on fish would be similar to those described above for OCS oil and gas 

19 programs (Section 4.4.7.3.2). Other non-OCS activities that could impact fish communities 

20 include subsistence fishing, hardrock mining, sediment dredging and disposal of dredging spoils 

21 in OCS waters, and commercial shipping (tanker vessels) and anchoring. Many of these 

22 activities would result in bottom disturbance that would affect bottom dwelling fishes as well as 

23 their food sources in a manner similar to those described for OCS activities (MMS 2008; 

24 ADEC 2007a; Section 4.4.7.3.3). Commercial fishing does not occur in the Beaufort and 

25 Chukchi Sea Planning Areas, and sportfishing is minor in the Arctic but could increase if 

26 regulations change and if warming temperatures allow an increase in vessel traffic. Effects on 

27 fish resources from non-OCS dredging and marine disposal activities are expected to be similar 

28 to those described for OCS bottom disturbing activities (Section 4.4.7.3.3). Due to the small 

29 number and limited use of disposal sites in the vicinity of the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning 

30 Areas, these activities are not expected to noticeably alter fish populations.

31

32 Beaufort and Chukchi Seas fall in the Kotzebue Sound and Northern Subsistence fishing 

33 areas. Subsistence fishing may contribute to the cumulative effects on the abundance of some 

34 fishery resources. Alaska State law defines subsistence as the ―noncommercial customary and 

35 traditional uses‖ of fish and wildlife. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game defines 

36 subsistence fishing to include ―the taking of, fishing for, or possession of fish, shellfish, or other 

37 fisheries resources by a resident of the state for subsistence uses with gill net, seine, fish wheel, 

38 long line, or other means defined by the Board of Fisheries.‖ These fishing methods have more 

39 limited impacts on fish and fish habitat compared to commercial fishing methods. In addition, 

40 subsistence fishing is subject to harvest limits that reduce the potential for overfishing.

41 Consequently, subsistence fishing makes a relatively minor contribution to the reduction in fish 

42 stocks.

43

44 Cumulative impacts on diadromous species could also occur as a result of activities that 

45 obstruct fish movement in marine environments during migration periods. For example, some 

46 structures along the Beaufort Sea mainland (e.g., the West Dock) have been shown to block the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-650

1 movements of diadromous fishes, particularly juveniles, under certain meteorological conditions

2 (Fechhelm 1999; Fechelm et al. 1999). Causeways such as the 40 m wide and 60 m long 

3 structure associated with the Red Dog Mine may impede coastal movement either by directly 

4 blocking fish or by modifying nearshore water conditions to the point where they might become 

5 too cold and saline for some species (Fechhelm et al. 1999). Although the presence of 

6 causeways has been an issue associated with oil development activities in the Beaufort Sea, the 

7 small size of the Red Dog causeway would likely have little effect on the coastal movements and 

8 distributions of Chukchi Sea fishes and shellfishes. However, it is anticipated that proper 

9 placement and design considerations for future causeway construction along the North Slope 

10 would alleviate the potential for such effects on fish movement.

11

12 There are several contaminant sources in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. 

13 The Red Dog Mine in Alaska is the largest lead and zinc mine in the world, and is presently the 

14 only base-metal lode mine operating in northwest Alaska. A study for the National Park Service 

15 (Hasselbach et al. 2004) showed extensive airborne transport of cadmium and lead from Red 

16 Dog Mine; although the study was focused only on the limits of the Cape Krusenstern National 

17 Monument, these contaminants are probably carried out into the Chukchi Sea. There are also 

18 natural sources of metals and hydrocarbons. Sediments, peats, and soils from the Sagavanirktok, 

19 Kuparuk and Colville Rivers are the largest source of dissolved and particulate metals and 

20 saturated and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the development area. However, 

21 concentrations of metals and organics in fish sampled in the Arctic Planning Areas are typically 

22 at background levels (Neff & Associates 2010).

23

24 Climate change may affect fish communities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning 

25 Areas. Climate would only be one of several factors that regulate fish abundance and 

26 distribution. Many fish populations are already subject to stresses, and global climate change 

27 may aggravate the impacts of ongoing and future human use of the coastal zone. Fish respond 

28 directly to climate fluctuations, as well as to changes in their biological environment including 

29 predators, prey, species interactions, and disease. Projected changes in hydrology and water 

30 temperatures, salinity, and currents can affect the growth, survival, reproduction, and spatial 

31 distribution of marine fish species and of the prey, competitors, and predators that influence the 

32 dynamics of these species (Watson et al. 1998). Changes in primary production levels in the 

33 ocean because of climate change may affect fish stock productivity. Climate change may have a 

34 number of effects on fish communities, including:

35

36 • Changes in the timing of seasonal fish migrations;

37

38 • Increased storm damage to nearshore areas as the amount of open water 

39 increases and their reduction or elimination by rising sea levels;

40

41 • Reduction in habitat for sea ice dependent species; and

42

43 • Replacement of true Arctic species such as Arctic cod and capelin by the 

44 range expansions of subarctic species.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-651

1 Large-scale changes in oceanographic and ecosystem processes resulting from climate 

2 change could indirectly affect fish populations in the Arctic in several ways. For example, under 

3 the existing temperature regime, the Chukchi Sea has a food web dominated by benthic 

4 consumers and cryopelagic (sea ice-associated) fishes. The loss of sea ice and the increased 

5 surface water temperature may promote a shift to a pelagic-based food web with high 

6 phytoplankton and zooplankton productivity and greater numbers of predatory fish (Loeng 2005; 

7 Hopcraft et al. 2008). Ultimately, however, predictions about the indirect and cascading 

8 ecological impacts of climate change on specific species are subject to great uncertainty, given 

9 the complexity of the ecosystem. 

10

11 Oil spills could result from OCS and non-OCS activities. The total number of oil spills 

12 and the extent of affected areas would likely increase under the proposed action in conjunction 

13 with increased levels of petroleum exploration and production. The potential impacts of OCS oil 

14 spills on fish communities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea are discussed in detail in 

15 Section 4.4.7.3.3. Non-OCS activities, such as oil and gas development in State waters, 

16 domestic transportation of oil or refined petroleum products, and commercial shipping (including 

17 tinkering), may also result in accidental spills that could potentially impact fish resources within 

18 the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. While effects to fishery resources would depend 

19 on the timing, location, and magnitude of specific oil spills, it is anticipated that most small to 

20 medium spills that occur in OCS waters would have limited effects on fishery resources due to 

21 the relatively small areas likely to be exposed to high concentrations of hydrocarbons and the 

22 short period of time during which potentially toxic concentrations would be present. In general, 

23 adult fish in marine environments are highly mobile and capable of avoiding high concentrations 

24 of hydrocarbons although they may be subject to sublethal exposures. However, fish eggs and 

25 larvae as well as small benthic obligate fish species do not typically have the ability to avoid 

26 spills and may therefore suffer lethal or sublethal effects. Oil from large and catastrophic spills 

27 that reaches shallower, nearshore areas of these planning areas has the potential to be of greatest 

28 significance to fish communities. The potential impacts of OCS oil spills on fish communities in 

29 the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.7.3.3.

30

31 Some diadromous species of the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas could be at 

32 greater risk from oil spills because of their unique life-history cycles. Oil spills occurring at 

33 constrictions in migration routes, nursery areas, and spawning areas would have an increased 

34 potential for adversely affecting diadromous fishes, and catastrophic spills could result in long35 term, population-level impacts on diadromous fish communities. Pacific salmon are also able to 

36 detect and avoid oil spills in marine waters (see Section 4.4.7.3.2), which would help to reduce 

37 the potential for contact. Aggregations of salmon in marine waters typically consist of mixed 

38 stocks, so even in the unlikely event of contact with an oil spill, it is anticipated that only a small 

39 fraction of any unique spawning population would be adversely affected. Juveniles of some 

40 species of whitefish (including broad whitefish, humpback whitefish, and least cisco) are 

41 intolerant of highly saline marine conditions. During their summer feeding dispersals in the 

42 Beaufort Sea, these species tend to remain within a narrow band of warm, low-salinity water 

43 along the coast. Thus, unlike most subarctic fishes, North Slope whitefish have a reduced 

44 capacity to bypass localized disruptions to their migration corridor by moving offshore and 

45 around the impasses. An oil spill, even one of limited area, could block the narrow nearshore 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-652

1 corridor and prevent fishes from either dispersing along the coast to feed or returning to their 

2 overwintering grounds in North Slope rivers. 

3

4 Conclusion. Cumulative impacts on fish communities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea 

5 Planning Areas could result from OCS and non-OCS activities. It is anticipated that the 

6 cumulative effects of OCS and non-OCS activities on fish species in the Beaufort and Chukchi 

7 Sea Planning Areas would be similar to the effects of non-OCS activities alone, and the proposed 

8 action is expected to contribute only a small increment to the potential for overall cumulative 

9 effects on fish resources (see Section 4.4.7.3.3). because of existing regulations, the limited 

10 timeframe over which most individual activities would occur and the small proportion of 

11 available habitats that would be affected during a given period.

12

13 The magnitude and severity of potential effects to fish resources from oil spills would be 

14 small to large, depending on the location, timing, duration, and size of spills; the proximity of 

15 spills to particular fish habitats; and the timing and nature of spill containment and cleanup 

16 activities. Small spills, whether from OCS or non-OCS sources, are unlikely to have overall 

17 population-level effects on fish resources. However, oil from catastrophic spills that contacted 

18 shallow nearshore areas of these planning areas has the potential to be of greatest significance to 

19 fish communities. Such spills could result in long-term, population-level impacts on fish 

20 communities.

21

22

23 4.6.4.3.4 Invertebrates and Lower Trophic Levels. This section evaluates the 

24 cumulative effects of the proposed action, ongoing or planned OCS activities that would occur 

25 during the life of the Program, and non-OCS activities on invertebrates in the Beaufort and 

26 Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. The primary routine OCS activities that could result in impacts on

27 invertebrates include seismic surveys, drilling, the placement of subsea wells, platforms, and 

28 pipelines; releases of permitted discharges from wells; and removal of existing structures. 

29 Potential environmental impacts associated with the building and operation of OCS facilities 

30 such as platforms, and pipelines would increase in conjunction with the increased number of 

31 wells. The impacts of routine activities (exploration and site development, production and 

32 decommissioning) on invertebrate communities are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.7.5.3. 

33 Overall, routine activities represent up to a moderate disturbance, primarily affecting benthic 

34 infaunal invertebrates, with the severity of the impacts generally decreasing dramatically with 

35 distance from bottom-disturbing activities. 

36

37 The placement of new platforms over the life of the Program would allow the 

38 colonization of invertebrates requiring hard substrate. While some platforms may be allowed to 

39 remain as artificial reefs, removal of platforms will reduce available substrate and structures for 

40 invertebrates and injure or kill them during removal. 

41

42 Oil and gas exploration and development in State waters could also contribute to 

43 cumulative effects on invertebrates in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. Drilling of

44 wells in State waters could also require construction of platforms and pipelines in waters of 

45 Alaska. The effects on invertebrates would be similar to those described above for OCS oil and 

46 gas programs (Section 4.4.7.5.3). Other non-OCS activities that could impact invertebrate 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-653

1 communities include land use practices, point and non-point source pollution, logging, dredging/ 

2 and disposal of dredging spoils in OCS waters, and anchoring. Commercial fishing does not 

3 occur in the Arctic and therefore is not expected to add to cumulative impacts on invertebrate 

4 communities. However, this could change if regulations change and if warming temperatures 

5 allow an increase in vessel traffic. Effects on invertebrates from non-OCS dredging and marine 

6 disposal activities are expected to be similar to those described for OCS bottom disturbing 

7 activities (Section 4.4.7.5.3). Recovery of benthic invertebrates at the dredge and disposal sites 

8 to their pre-disturbance composition would likely take multiple years. Many of these activities 

9 would affect bottom dwelling invertebrates at various life stages as well as their food sources in a 

10 manner similar to OCS bottom disturbing activities (Section 4.4.7.5.1). Other non-OCS 

11 activities generating pollution and noise may contribute to general habitat degradation 

12 (Section 4.6.3.2.2).

13

14 There are several contaminant sources in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. 

15 The Red Dog Mine in Alaska is the largest lead and zinc mine in the world, and is presently the 

16 only base-metal lode mine operating in northwest Alaska. A study for the National Park Service 

17 (Hasselbach et al. 2004) showed extensive airborne transport of cadmium and lead from Red 

18 Dog Mine; although the study was focused only on the limits of the Cape Krusenstern National 

19 Monument, these contaminants are probably carried out into the Chukchi Sea. There are also 

20 natural sources of contaminants. Sediments, peats, and soils from the Sagavanirktok, Kuparuk 

21 and Colville Rivers are the largest sources of dissolved and particulate metals and saturated and 

22 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the development area. However, contaminant 

23 concentrations in the benthic invertebrates collected in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning 

24 Areas are typically at background levels (Neff & Associates 2010).

25

26 It is predicted that physical and chemical changes to arctic and subarctic invertebrate 

27 habitat could result from climate change (Section 3.3). These changes could alter the existing 

28 distribution, composition, and abundance of invertebrates, since physical and chemical 

29 parameters are the primary influence on invertebrate communities. In general, the increase in 

30 seawater temperature will facilitate a northward expansion of subarctic invertebrate species from 

31 the Bering Sea. Weslawski et al. (2011) identified the Bering Strait as a major corridor through 

32 which new invertebrate species will expand their range northward. Such expansion will likely 

33 increase overall invertebrate species diversity in the Arctic, but the new species may displace 

34 existing species or alter existing inter-specific species interactions. The change in species 

35 composition may be greatest in the eastern Beaufort Sea where arctic species currently 

36 predominate. It is predicted that a decrease in sea ice habitat would result from increasing water 

37 temperature. This may have several impacts on invertebrate communities in the Arctic 

38 including:

39

40 • Loss of habitat for invertebrates specialized to inhabit sea ice;

41

42 • An increase in the productivity of water column invertebrates with increasing 

43 temperature and open water;

44

45 • An increase in the abundance of benthic invertebrates in nearshore areas with 

46 the reduction in ice scour extent and duration (Weslawski et al. 2011); and
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-654

1 • An increase in benthic disturbance from severe weather as the amount of open 

2 water increases. 

3

4 Changes in the magnitude, frequency, and timing of river discharge into the 

5 Beaufort/Chukchi Shelf Ecoregion are expected to result from climate change (Arctic 

6 Council 2005). Invertebrates in marine ecoregions with strong riverine inputs — like the 

7 Beaufort Neritic Ecoregion — would likely be affected by alterations in the salinity, temperature, 

8 and sediment delivery regime. Hydrologic change can rapidly alter existing invertebrate 

9 communities in the water column and benthos, if the new chemical conditions are not within the 

10 physiological tolerance of the existing communities. The greater variability in hydrologic 

11 conditions could favor tolerant and opportunistic species, thereby homogenizing invertebrate 

12 species composition and decreasing overall species diversity in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas 

13 (Weslawski et al. 20011).

14

15 The expected increase in ocean acidification is considered to be another significant 

16 source of physiological stress. Crustaceans, echinoderms, foraminiferans, and mollusks could 

17 have greater difficulty in forming shells, which could reduce their fitness, abundance, and 

18 distribution (Fabry et al. 2008). 

19

20 Oil spills could result from OCS and non-OCS activities. The total number of oil spills 

21 and the extent of affected areas would likely increase under the proposed action in conjunction 

22 with increased levels of petroleum exploration and production (Table 4.6.1-3). The potential 

23 impacts of OCS oil spills on invertebrate communities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea are

24 discussed in detail in Section 4.4.7.5.3. Non-OCS activities, such as oil and gas development in 

25 State waters, domestic transportation of oil or refined petroleum products, and commercial 

26 shipping, may also result in accidental spills that could potentially impact invertebrate resources 

27 within the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. While effects to invertebrates would 

28 depend on the timing, location, and magnitude of specific oil spills, it is anticipated that most 

29 small to medium spills that occur in OCS waters would have limited effects due to the relatively 

30 small areas likely to be exposed to high concentrations of hydrocarbons. Oil from catastrophic 

31 spills that reach shallower, nearshore areas of these planning areas has the potential to be of 

32 greatest significance to invertebrate communities. Large, mobile epifaunal invertebrates are 

33 capable of avoiding high concentrations of hydrocarbons although they may be subject to 

34 sublethal exposures. However, infauna and invertebrate eggs and larvae do not typically have 

35 the ability to avoid spills and may therefore suffer lethal or sublethal effects. Catastrophic spills 

36 could result in long-term alterations in the abundance of intertidal and shallow subtidal 

37 invertebrate communities. The potential impacts of OCS oil spills on invertebrate communities 

38 in the Arctic planning areas are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.7.5.3.

39

40 Conclusion. Cumulative impacts on invertebrate communities in the Beaufort and 

41 Chukchi Sea Planning Areas could result from OCS and non-OCS activities. Multiple non-OCS 

42 activities could impact invertebrate populations. It is anticipated that the cumulative effects of 

43 OCS and non-OCS activities on invertebrates would be similar to the effects of non-OCS 

44 activities alone, and the proposed action is expected to contribute only a small increment to the 

45 potential for overall cumulative effects on invertebrate resources (see Section 4.4.7.5.3). 

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-655

1 The magnitude and severity of potential effects to invertebrate resources from oil spills 

2 would be a function of the location, timing, duration, and size of spills; the proximity of spills to 

3 particular habitats; and the timing and nature of spill containment and cleanup activities. Spills 

4 in deeper water, whether from OCS or non-OCS sources, are unlikely to have overall population5 level effects on invertebrate resources because of the relatively small proportion of similar 

6 available habitats that would come in contact with released oil at concentrations great enough to 

7 elicit toxic effects. Oil from catastrophic spills that reaches shallower, nearshore areas of these 

8 planning areas has the potential to be of greatest significance to invertebrate communities. 

9 Impacts from such spills could result in long-term, population level impacts on invertebrate 

10 communities.

11

12

13 4.6.4.3.5 Areas of Special Concern. Cumulative impacts to these areas of special 

14 concern include impacts from both OCS and non-OCS activities. Section 4.4.8.3 identifies

15 potential impacts that could result from routine activities or accidents related to the proposed 

16 leasing program on areas of special concern adjacent to and in the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea 

17 Planning Areas.

18

19 National Park Service Lands. In the Arctic, activities associated with the Red Dog 

20 Mine and its port facility south of Kivalina on the Chukchi Sea would contribute to cumulative 

21 impacts on the Cape Krusenstern National Monument. The road from the mine (located just 

22 outside the monument) to the port crosses the northern boundary of the monument. Impacts 

23 from this facility, such as habitat loss or disturbance, are expected to be minor due to the limited 

24 activity associated with the mine.

25

26 There is minor land and air traffic in the Arctic and most visitors would arrive by sea.

27 Because the amount of traffic is restricted and activities within the parks regulated, traffic would 

28 likely create a minor addition to cumulative impacts on the NPS lands. It is anticipated that 

29 noise generated by OCS offshore construction activities would be at low levels, intermittent, and 

30 would not persist for more than a few months at any one time. It is considered unlikely that 

31 these additional activities would noticeably affect wildlife or park user values compared to 

32 current (non-OCS) activities within the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas.

33

34 Impacts on these areas could occur due to accidental releases of oil spilled from onshore 

35 facilities and offshore drilling rigs. Non-OCS activities, such as oil and gas development in State 

36 waters, the domestic transportation of oil or refined petroleum products, the production and 

37 storage of petroleum products, and commercial shipping (tanker traffic) could also result in 

38 accidental spills that could affect park lands. Naturally occurring seeps may also be a source of 

39 crude oil introduced into nearshore waters (Kvenvolden and Cooper 2003). Noatak National 

40 Preserve, Kobuuk River National Preserve, Cape Krusenstern National Monument, and Bering 

41 Land Bridge National preserve all have coastlines on or near the Chukchi Sea and could 

42 potentially be affected by spills from tanker traffic. Although not an NPS land, the National 

43 Petroleum Reserve is managed by BLM and has a large shoreline component that borders the 

44 Chukchi Sea. An oil spill would have the greatest effect if it came into contact with shoreline 

45 habitats. Impacts would depend primarily on the spill location, size, and time of year. In 

46 general, directly affected coastal fauna could include marine mammals; fishes that reproduce in, 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-656

1 inhabit, or migrate through coastal areas; terrestrial mammals that feed on these fishes; and 

2 marsh birds and seabirds. Spilled oil could also affect subsistence harvests in those parks in 

3 which subsistence hunting and fishing are allowed and could affect the number of park visitors.

4

5 National Wildlife Refuges. NWRs in the vicinity of the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea 

6 Planning Areas are identified in 3.9.3.2 for the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. NWRs (including 

7 three units of the Alaska Maritime NWR) potentially affected by OCS activities include the 

8 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the Alaska Maritime NWR (Chukchi Sea Unit, 

9 Gulf of Alaska Unit, Alaska Peninsula Unit).

10

11 Oil drilling and facility development are prohibited in the ANWR and are discretionary 

12 on all other refuges; however, refuges could potentially be affected by OCS oil and gas 

13 development from adjacent regions under the cumulative case scenario. These refuges could be 

14 contaminated by oil spilled from offshore projects, or could be subject to negative effects from 

15 routine operations associated with the development of onshore oil and gas support facilities.

16 They could also be affected by non-OCS activities within or adjacent to refuges including State 

17 oil and gas development, the domestic transportation of oil or refined petroleum products, the 

18 production and storage of petroleum products and LNG, and commercial shipping. Numerous 

19 refuge lands have been conveyed to private owners and Native corporations. Section 22(g) of 

20 the Arctic Native Claims Settlement Act (1971) requires that new development on these lands 

21 must be in accordance with the purpose for which the refuge was formed. Thus, while 

22 development of onshore oil and gas support facilities is technically possible, such development 

23 would be subject to intensive review (as would any other development). 

24

25 The potential cumulative effects of routine operations and accidental events on these 

26 NWR‘s are essentially the same as those discussed above for the NPS lands. In addition, 

27 subsistence hunting and fishing are permitted on all refuges in Alaska and could, therefore, be 

28 affected by accidents and routine operations in the immediate vicinity of refuge properties.

29

30 National Forests. There are no national forests in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea 

31 Planning Areas.

32

33 Conclusion. Overall, routine OCS operations could result in small incremental increases 

34 in effects on national parks and wildlife refuges compared to existing non-OCS activities.

35 Development of onshore facilities within national park lands in the vicinity of the areas included 

36 in the Program is considered unlikely, thereby making impacts from cumulative routine OCS 

37 operations unlikely in these areas. Offshore construction of pipelines and platforms could 

38 contribute to cumulative effects on wildlife and on scenic values for park visitors due to noise 

39 and activity levels. However, such effects would be localized, intermittent, and temporary. It is 

40 anticipated that lease stipulations applied at the lease sale stage could minimize the potential for 

41 cumulative impacts from routine operations on these areas.

42

43 Compared to the existing potential for oil spills to affect such areas, the activities under 

44 the proposed action would be expected to result in a small incremental increase in the risk of 

45 impacts from oil spills to areas of special concern. The cumulative level of impacts from spills 

46 would depend on spill frequency, location, and size; the type of product spilled; weather 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-657

1 conditions; effectiveness of cleanup operations; and other environmental conditions at the time 

2 of the spill. Large and catastrophic oil spills in areas adjacent to the national parks or refuges, 

3 whether from OCS or non-OCS sources, could negatively impact coastal habitats and fauna and 

4 could also affect subsistence uses.

5

6

7 4.6.5 Social, Cultural, and Economic Resources

8

9

10 4.6.5.1 Gulf of Mexico Region

11

12

13 4.6.5.1.1 Population, Employment, and Income. Section 4.4.9.1 discusses the 

14 potential impacts from the proposed action (OCS program activities from 2012 to 2017) on 

15 population, employment, and income in the GOM coast region. Cumulative impacts on these 

16 resources result from the incremental impacts of the proposed action when added to impacts 

17 from existing and reasonably foreseeable future OCS program activities (that are not part of the 

18 proposed action) and other non-OCS program activities. Specific types of impact-producing 

19 factors related to OCS program activities considered in this analysis include total employment 

20 and regional income for counties in the 23 LMAs in the five States in the GOM coast region 

21 (described in Section 3.10). Non-OCS program activities affecting the region include 

22 employment and earnings related to various other industrial sectors (e.g., construction, 

23 manufacturing, services, and State and local government) and the high unemployment rates in 

24 the five GOM coast States.

25

26 The population in the GOM coast counties increased at an average annual rate of 1.6% 

27 between 1980 and 1990, 1.2% between 1990 and 2000, and 1.5% between 2000 and 2009. 

28 During each of these periods, the greatest increases consistently occurred in Texas (with an 

29 average annual increase of 2.1% between 2000 and 2009) and Florida (with an average annual 

30 increase of 1.6% between 2000 and 2009). The components of population increase include the 

31 natural increase due to births and net positive domestic and international migration; these trends 

32 will likely continue in the GOM coast region over the next 40 to 50 yr.

33

34 Although the proposed action would add an average of 9,084 to 14,839 jobs annually 

35 between 2012 and 2017, this increase is considered minor (though positive) since it would 

36 amount to less than 1% of total GOM coast regional employment. The largest increases would 

37 occur in Louisiana and Texas. Likewise, income produced in the region would range from 

38 $648.6 million to $1,066.2 million, with the greatest impacts occurring in Louisiana and Texas.

39

40 Population increases of 7,455 to 16,497 would be expected in Louisiana on average in 

41 each year of the proposed action, with increases of 6,260 to 14,131 occurring in Texas. Smaller 

42 population increases of 1,065 to 2,311 per new job would occur in Florida, with increases of 

43 342 to 750 in Alabama and 283 to 620 in Mississippi. These increases also represent small 

44 changes (about 1% in the region overall), assuming a 1.5% average annual increase in population 

45 between 2009 and 2017.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-658

1 Employment impacts of oil spills reaching landfall can vary considerably depending upon 

2 the total volume of oil reaching land, land area affected, and sensitivity of local environmental 

3 conditions to oil impacts. The primary impacts of oil spills would most likely fall on such 

4 activities as beach recreation, diving, commercial fishing, recreational fishing, and sightseeing. 

5 Oil spills reaching land can have both short- and long-term effects on these recreational coastal 

6 activities. Past studies (Sorenson 1990) have shown that there could be a one-time seasonal 

7 decline in tourist visits of 5 to 15% associated with a major oil spill. Since tourist movement to 

8 other coastal areas in the region often offsets a reduction in the number of visits to one area, the 

9 associated loss of business tends to be localized. As discussed in Section 4.4.9, the employment 

10 and regional income impact from an oil spill related to the proposed action would likely be 

11 greatest in Texas and Florida and this would likely continue over the next 40 to 50 yr. Oil spills 

12 will generate only temporary employment (and population) increases during cleanup operations, 

13 because such operations are expected to be of short duration. 

14

15 Hurricanes are recurring events in the GOM area to which the demographic and 

16 economic patterns have adjusted. In 2005, however, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita resulted in 

17 major socioeconomic changes throughout the GOM region, affecting population, employment, 

18 and regional income. Katrina-related flooding affected 49 counties in Alabama, Louisiana, and 

19 Mississippi, resulting in estimated damage of more than $155 billion (Burton and Hicks 2005). 

20 Damage or loss of hundreds of thousands of homes has resulted in the out-migration of hundreds 

21 of thousands of individuals from the region, with varying levels of long-term population 

22 displacement. Estimated declines in employment due to hurricane damage and population 

23 displacement have ranged from 150,000 to 500,000 jobs, although employment is expected to 

24 increase as reconstruction of impacted areas proceeds (Congressional Budget Office 2005). 

25 Estimated declines in the 2005 total annual personal income in the GOM range from $10 million 

26 in Texas to more than $18 million in Louisiana (Bureau of Economic Analysis 2006).

27

28 Conclusion. The cumulative impacts of ongoing and future OCS program and non-OCS 

29 program activities would be considered beneficial because these activities would increase 

30 employment and earnings in the region over the next 40 to 50 yr. The proposed action would 

31 add to these beneficial impacts, especially in Texas and Louisiana. The incremental impact of 

32 the proposed action is expected to be small, however, because the added employment demands 

33 are less than 1% of the total GOM coast regional employment (see Section 4.4.9.1). 

34

35 In areas with a large proportion of impact-sensitive industry (such as tourism), the 

36 cumulative impacts of accidental oils spills could be moderate to major, depending on the total 

37 volume of oil reaching land, the land area affected, and the sensitivity of local environmental 

38 conditions to oil impacts. The incremental impacts of oil spills associated with the proposed 

39 action would be small to medium relative to those associated with ongoing and future OCS 

40 program and non-OCS program activities.

41

42

43 4.6.5.1.2 Land Use and Infrastructure. Localized site-dependent impacts to land use 

44 and existing infrastructure are anticipated as a result of the construction of new OCS program oil 

45 and gas facilities in the GOM over the next 40 to 50 yr. Depending on the location selected, 

46 onshore development may necessitate minimal changes of existing or potential future uses, as 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-659

1 well as minor increases in demands on roads, utilities, and public services (MMS 2007c). Land 

2 use generally would evolve over time, with a majority of change to occur from general, regional 

3 economic, and demographic growth rather than from activities associated with the existing OCS 

4 program and/or State offshore petroleum production or future planned OCS or State lease sales 

5 (BOEMRE 2011a). 

6

7 Recently, deepwater gas production has increased while gas production along the coast 

8 has substantially decreased. These trends have combined to lower the need for new gas 

9 processing facilities along the GOM coast. As a result, BOEM has concluded that ―spare 

10 capacity at existing facilities should be sufficient to satisfy new gas production for many years, 

11 although there remains a slim chance that a new gas processing facility may be needed‖ 

12 (BOEMRE 2011a). With some modifications, current facilities and land use classifications 

13 would be expected to support oil and gas production associated with new leases. Likewise, 

14 service-based infrastructure would be able to support offshore petroleum-related activities in 

15 both the OCS and State waters (BOEMRE 2011a). 

16

17 Ongoing non-OCS program activities that could affect land use and onshore 

18 infrastructure are expected to continue into the foreseeable future. These include offshore and 

19 onshore construction, the discharge of municipal and other waste effluents, and vessel traffic 

20 (MMS 2007c).

21

22 Activities within the GOM may be affected by post-DWH event conditions. A

23 significant amount of information has been generated regarding the consequences of the oil spill

24 and subsequent drilling moratorium. As the post-DWH event situation is dynamic, BOEM has 

25 been conducting ongoing monitoring of post-DWH event impacts on land use and coastal

26 infrastructure. BOEM plans to continue to conduct targeted and peer-reviewed research, as long 

27 as the monitoring identifies long-term impacts of concern (BOEMRE 2011a).

28

29 Accidental oil releases may occur as a result of both OCS and non-OCS activities. Oil is 

30 also released from naturally occurring seeps. The extent of the impacts would depend on the 

31 location and size of the releases, but could include stresses of spill response on the community 

32 infrastructure, increased traffic to respond to cleanup, and restricted access to particular lands 

33 while cleanup is conducted. In general, these releases would be expected to have a temporary 

34 impact on land use and infrastructure (MMS 2007c).

35

36 Conclusion. Localized site-dependent impacts to land use and existing infrastructure are 

37 anticipated as a result of ongoing and future OCS program and non-OCS program activities in 

38 the GOM. These impacts could range from minor to major depending on the nature (extent and 

39 duration) of the land use change. Minimal changes of existing or potential future uses, as well as 

40 minor increases in demands on roads, utilities, and public services would be expected at 

41 locations of OCS program development. Ongoing non-OCS program activities (e.g., offshore 

42 and onshore construction and municipal discharges) that could affect land use and onshore 

43 infrastructure are expected to continue into the foreseeable future (see Section 4.4.10.1). 

44 Activities within the GOM also may be affected by the post-DWH event conditions; BOEM

45 continues to monitor the region to identify long-term impacts of concern. 

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-660

1 The extent of land use-related impacts resulting from accidental oil spills and naturally 

2 occurring seeps could be minor to major, depending on the location and size of the releases.

3

4

5 4.6.5.1.3 Commercial and Recreational Fisheries. 

6

7 Commercial Fisheries. Routine OCS activities over the next 40 to 50 yr could harm or 

8 kill individual fishes, resulting in temporary movements of fishes away from areas where 

9 activities were being conducted. Impacts would vary depending on the nature of a particular 

10 structure, the phase of operation, the fishing method or gear, and the target species group. 

11 Impacts would be higher for drifting gear such as purse nets, bottom longlines, and pelagic 

12 longlines than for trawls and handlines (MMS 2005). Nevertheless, areas in which commercial 

13 fishing would be affected are small relative to the entire fishing area available to surface 

14 longliners or purse seiners. Although long-term effects on populations of most fishes in the 

15 GOM as a whole are not anticipated, populations of rare fishes or those that have highly limited 

16 distributions within the GOM could be more substantially affected if activities occurred in areas 

17 with high concentrations of individuals.

18

19 Offshore oil and gas structures placed within the depth range 0 to 60 m (0 to 200 ft) 

20 would increase annual commercial fishing costs by between $1,993 and $3,819 in the Western 

21 Planning Area, while reducing costs by between $2,507 and $11,243 in the Central Planning 

22 Area. Currently, there are no data available on the placement of offshore platforms in the 

23 Eastern Planning Area; consequently, we can draw no conclusions regarding their impact on 

24 commercial fishing costs.

25

26 Depending upon the location, magnitude, and timing of accidental oil spills from OCS 

27 platforms or pipelines, lethal or sublethal toxic effects could occur, especially for species that 

28 have pelagic eggs and larvae. If spills occurred in areas with high concentrations of eggs or 

29 larvae of a particular species, the abundance of a particular year-class could be affected. The 

30 effects of spilled oil on commercial fisheries include fishing ground area closures, contaminated 

31 fish, fouled fishing gear and associated equipment, and degradation of fishing grounds. 

32 Accidental oil releases from non-OCS activities are possible anywhere on the OCS or in State 

33 waters (i.e., from vessel collisions or transfer/lightering operations); crude oil also enters the 

34 environment from naturally occurring seeps. Although such releases typically occur in deeper 

35 water, the released oil should rise to the surface relatively quickly, and although it is anticipated 

36 that most adult fish would be able to avoid the resulting plumes of oil, larvae or eggs of some 

37 fish species could be affected and commercial fishing gear could become fouled with oil. In 

38 many cases, commercial fisheries would be able to return to the area after slicks have been 

39 cleaned up or dispersed. However, shallow coastal spills could contaminate tissues of target 

40 organisms (e.g., oyster beds and shallow benthic fishes), and affected commercial fisheries could 

41 be closed for one or more seasons.

42

43 Non-OCS program activities and factors that could affect fish populations in the GOM

44 include State oil and gas activities, commercial shipping, land development, dredging and 

45 dredge-disposal operations, marine mineral extraction, and water quality degradation from both 

46 point and nonpoint pollution sources. In particular, space-use conflicts resulting from
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-661

1 exploration and delineation activities and establishment of development and production 

2 platforms could affect commercial fisheries, with some areas precluded from commercial 

3 fisheries. There are temporary exclusions from fishing in areas during exploration and 

4 delineation activities. Underwater OCS structures such as pipelines could also cause space- and 

5 gear-related conflicts, and increased vessel traffic to and from the rigs and platforms will also 

6 increase the amount of marine traffic and possible conflicts with commercial fishers. The 

7 potential for spatial preclusion also exists in both nearshore and offshore waters with increased 

8 levels of seismic survey activity. 

9

10 Recreational Fisheries. While space-use conflicts with recreational fisheries caused by 

11 routine OCS operations would be minimal, there is recreational shrimp trawling for wild shrimp, 

12 and trawls could become entangled with OCS structures in the water. Deepwater recreational 

13 rod-and-reel anglers typically target oil and gas platforms because these structures usually attract 

14 target species. Noise from rig and platform installation and from seismic surveys during 

15 exploration and delineation activities could scatter target species away from some recreational 

16 fishing areas while activities are occurring and potentially for some period afterward. 

17 Temporary reductions in hook-and-line captures have been reported in some areas following 

18 seismic surveys. This may result in decreased recreational catch. Platform removal using 

19 explosives may also impact recreational fisheries. The noise would drive some fish away, some 

20 fish would be killed, and a structure that may be targeted as a fishing location by recreational 

21 anglers could be eliminated.

22

23 Oil spills from OCS or non-OCS sources could affect recreational fisheries by fouling 

24 gear with oil, tainting the catch, and degrading water quality and fishing grounds. Accidental oil 

25 releases from non-OCS activities are possible anywhere on the OCS or in State waters, and crude 

26 oil also enters the environment from naturally occurring seeps. The OCS oil spills most likely to 

27 affect recreational anglers would be shallow water spills, since recreational anglers are less likely 

28 to venture far offshore. Non-OCS oil and gas activities likely pose a greater risk in terms of 

29 potential oil spills that could affect recreational fisheries, because such activities are located 

30 closer to shore. Closure of some areas to fishing, perhaps for multiple seasons, could occur as a 

31 result of oil spills. In addition, public perception of the effects of a spill on marine life and its 

32 extent could result in a loss of revenue for the fishing-related recreation industry. Party and 

33 charter boat recreational fisheries often have losses of income because of reduced interest in 

34 fishing when a spill has occurred. Local hotels, restaurants, bait-and-tackle shops, and boat 

35 rental companies associated with recreational fisheries may experience reduced sales because of 

36 public perception related to an oil spill.

37

38 Conclusion. The proposed action would represent a small increment to the potential for 

39 overall cumulative effects on fisheries in the GOM. Routine OCS program activities would be 

40 unlikely to have cumulative population- or community-level effects on fishery resources because 

41 of the limited timeframe over which most individual activities would occur, because a small 

42 proportion of habitat, relative to similar available habitat, could be affected during a given period 

43 and because existing stipulations are in place to avoid impacts on sensitive habitats such as hard44 bottom areas and topographic features. Non-OCS program activities, including State oil and gas 

45 development, commercial fishing, and sportfishing, could also contribute to cumulative effects 

46 on fisheries. Depending on specific conditions during a large spill, there could be substantial 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-662

1 economic losses for commercial fisheries as a consequence of reduced catch, loss of gear, or loss 

2 of fishing opportunities during cleanup and recovery periods. Non-OCS program sources of 

3 spills, including State oil and gas production, have a potential to cause similar effects. The 

4 occurrence of a very large spill, such as could occur from a tanker accident, could have 

5 substantially greater effects on fisheries.

6

7 It is anticipated that the proposed action would represent a small increment to the overall 

8 cumulative effects on recreational fisheries in the GOM. Routine OCS activities from the 

9 proposed action, as well as from ongoing and planned OCS activities would be unlikely to have 

10 cumulative population- or community-level effects on fishery resources because of the limited 

11 timeframe over which most individual activities would occur, because only a small proportion of 

12 habitat, relative to similar available habitat, could be affected during a given period, and because 

13 of existing stipulations that are in place to avoid impacts to sensitive habitats such as hard bottom 

14 areas and topographic features. Construction of new platforms could represent a small increase 

15 in the availability of desirable recreational fishing locations for recreational anglers.

16

17

18 4.6.5.1.4 Tourism and Recreation. Noise from platform installation and platform 

19 removal can affect recreational fishing by temporarily disturbing fish and by possible fish kills if 

20 explosives are used to remove platforms. Platforms installed within 16 km (10 mi) of coastal 

21 recreation areas, such as beaches, parks, and wilderness areas, can affect recreational experiences 

22 by affecting ocean views. Transportation of oil and gas, combined with other commercial, 

23 industrial, and recreational transportation activities that continue to occur within the GOM, can 

24 impact recreational experiences through increased noise, boat wake disturbances, visual 

25 intrusions, and increased trash and debris washing ashore. In addition to transportation and oil 

26 and gas, other activities contribute to the trash and debris found on the beaches including (but not 

27 limited to) beach visitors, commercial and recreational fishing, merchant shipping, naval 

28 operations, and cruise lines. 

29

30 Non-OCS activities that might impact recreation and tourism include offshore 

31 construction (e.g., dredging and marine disposal, extraction of non-energy minerals, State oil and 

32 gas development, domestic transportation of oil and gas, and foreign crude oil imports), onshore 

33 construction (e.g., coastal and community development), the discharge of municipal and other 

34 waste effluents, and vessel traffic (e.g., commercial shipping, recreational boating, and military 

35 training and testing).

36

37 Accidental oil releases may occur as a result of both OCS and non-OCS activities, and oil 

38 is also released from naturally occurring seeps. The magnitude of the impacts would depend on 

39 the location and size of the releases, as well as their timing with respect to peak tourism seasons. 

40 These releases are expected to have a temporary impact on recreation and tourism in the GOM

41 region. Closures of recreational areas for up to 6 weeks could occur to accommodate cleanup 

42 operations. Releases identified under the proposed action are anticipated to be small, for the 

43 most part, and to occur in waters greater than 200 m (660 ft) in depth. These releases would be a 

44 small addition to releases associated with other OCS and non-OCS activities.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-663

1 Severe storm events such as hurricanes have the potential to impact the recreation and 

2 tourism economy if they result in severe beach damage and/or destruction of existing public 

3 infrastructure. While hurricanes are regularly occurring events in the GOM, Hurricanes Katrina 

4 and Rita in 2005 caused unusually large amounts of damage to the tourism and recreation 

5 infrastructure in the area. These storms destroyed recreational beaches, public piers, hotels, 

6 casinos, marinas, recreational pleasure craft and charter boats, and numerous other recreational 

7 infrastructure. Almost 70% of the recreational fishing assets in Mississippi alone were damaged 

8 by Katrina (Posadas 2005). Of the 13 casino-barge structures present along the Mississippi coast 

9 prior to Katrina, most suffered severe external damage, seven broke completely free of their 

10 moorings, two partially broke free and damaged adjoining structures, one sank, and one was 

11 deposited inland by the storm surge (National Institute of Standards and Technology, draft). The 

12 full extent of impacts to tourism and recreation by the hurricanes has yet to be fully quantified, 

13 but it will likely take years for tourism and recreation to return to pre-hurricane levels. 

14

15 Conclusion. Cumulative impacts on recreation and tourism from OCS and non-OCS 

16 program activities in the GOM would be limited for most routine activities, with the exception of 

17 impacts associated with large oil spills during the peak tourist season, which could be moderate 

18 (but short-term). The incremental contribution of routine Program activities to cumulative 

19 impacts would be minor, resulting from small incremental increases in construction and 

20 transportation noise and related visual intrusions, potential increases in trash and debris related to 

21 these activities, and the potential for a relatively small number of accidental releases

22 (see Section 4.4.12.1).

23

24

25 4.6.5.1.5 Sociocultural Systems. The GOM coastal commuting zone is ethnically and 

26 culturally diverse and includes a well-established oil and gas industry focused mainly in 

27 Louisiana and Texas (Section 3.14.1.1). For the most part, oil and gas development on the OCS 

28 will make use of existing pipelines and onshore infrastructure. Increases in activities associated 

29 with OCS program development are anticipated to be incremental and qualitatively similar to 

30 current patterns. However, as deepwater drilling expands, jobs that require longer, unbroken 

31 periods of offshore work will increasingly attract a more international workforce promoting 

32 sociocultural heterogeneity in coastal support communities, particularly in Texas and Louisiana.

33

34 Non-OCS program activities and processes affecting sociocultural systems are expected 

35 to continue. These include oil and gas development in State waters, coastal habitat changes, 

36 coastal land loss, regional economic changes, and recovery from storms and major oil spills. 

37 These activities and processes can lead to major impacts related to population change, job 

38 creation and loss, and changes in social institutions including family, government, politics, and 

39 education.

40

41 Accidental oil and other spills could result from both OCS and non-OCS activities. The 

42 magnitude of spill impacts depends on their size, location, and timing. With the exception of 

43 major spills (such as occurred with the DWH event), they are expected to have only temporary 

44 physical and economic effects and therefore should not significantly alter sociocultural systems. 

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-664

1 The wetlands that supply subsistence resources are susceptible to oil spills. The 

2 Louisiana parishes of St. Mary, Terrebonne, and Lafourche, are home to populations engaged in 

3 renewable resource harvesting, are also areas of heavy to moderate concentrations of oil and gas 

4 industry facilities. As discussed in Section 3.7, the wetlands in coastal Louisiana are rapidly 

5 diminishing because of engineering projects to control the Mississippi River, natural subsidence, 

6 the development of the oil and gas industry, and climate change (Field et al. 2007). Because of 

7 the construction of flood-control structures, the Mississippi River no longer floods Louisiana‘s 

8 wetlands; these floods previously deposited new silt to offset coastal erosion. Extraction of oil 

9 and gas from coastal areas may have resulted in some subsidence of bayou lands. In many areas, 

10 Louisiana‘s coastal wetlands have been cut by a network of canals constructed to lay pipes 

11 bringing oil and gas to onshore refining facilities (Field et al. 2007). Cut in straight lines from 

12 the shore, these canals exacerbate the erosive force of tides and storm surges. Climate change 

13 has resulted in slowly increasing sea levels and an increased intensity of coastal storms and 

14 hurricanes. The end result has been an overall decrease in Louisiana‘s wetlands and a reduction 

15 in fresh and brackish wetlands and the subsistence species they support, along with an increase in 

16 salt marshes. Cumulatively, these changes constitute major impacts on a way of life that was 

17 once common along the GOM coast.

18

19 It is anticipated that global climate change will result in increased temperatures and rising 

20 relative sea levels along the GOM coast and these changes will be accompanied by an increase in 

21 severe storms in the coming decades. Rising relative sea levels and increased erosion have been 

22 observed all along the coast (Field et al. 2007). Those who rely at least in part on harvesting 

23 renewable resources from the sea, either as subsistence or commercial fishers and shrimpers, are 

24 predicted to be most vulnerable to adverse effects resulting from these changes 

25 (Nicholls et al. 2007). 

26

27 Conclusion. Absent a major oil spill, the greatest contribution to cumulative impacts 

28 from the proposed action is expected to come from the expansion of deepwater activities, which 

29 would create jobs that require longer, unbroken periods of work offshore, specialized skills, and 

30 in-migration of part of the workforce. These are already trends in the OCS oil and gas industry. 

31 Since these and other potential sociocultural effects are expected to be minimal additions to 

32 existing trends, the incremental impact on sociocultural systems during the life of the Program

33 would not result in significant changes to these systems and would, therefore, be small 

34 (see Section 4.4.13.1).

35

36 In terms of subsistence and renewable resource harvesting, non-OCS activities such as 

37 flood control along the Mississippi River and natural trends such as global climate change have 

38 produced major adverse impacts on the GOM coast region. Ongoing and future OCS and non39 OCS program activities would add to these impacts. The relative contribution of the proposed 

40 action to cumulative impacts on subsistence harvesting is expected to be small to medium.

41

42

43 4.6.5.1.6 Environmental Justice. Over the next 40 to 50 yr, air emissions from OCS 

44 and non-OCS onshore facilities and helicopter and vessel traffic traversing coastal areas would 

45 be highest in the States such as Texas and Louisiana that contain the greatest amounts of 

46 infrastructure. Lesser amounts of infrastructure would occur in Mississippi and Alabama. No 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-665

1 onshore infrastructure supporting OCS operations currently exists in Florida, and none will be 

2 built as a result of the proposed action. It is assumed that 75% of the activity from the Program 

3 will occur in deep and ultra-deep waters, with offshore air emissions greatest in the coastal areas 

4 of Texas and Louisiana, the areas with the greatest amounts of oil and gas activity, with lesser 

5 amounts in occurring in Mississippi and Alabama. The coastal areas of Florida are located so far 

6 from OCS activities that no environmental justice issues from offshore air emissions are 

7 expected to impact the coastal parts of the State. The effects of the OCS program on air quality 

8 have been analyzed in Section 4.4.4. This analysis concluded that routine operations associated 

with the proposed 5-yr program would result in NO2, SO2, PM10 9 , and CO levels that are well 

10 within the NAAQS. Disproportionate impacts on low-income or minority populations would be 

11 minor, because the coastal effects from offshore activities are expected to be small, based on the 

12 established and increasing trend toward movement of oil and gas activities into deeper waters of 

13 the GOM.

14

15 The proposed action would result in levels of infrastructure use and construction similar 

16 to those which have already occurred in the GOM coast region during previous programs. These 

17 activities are not expected to expose residents to notably higher risks than currently occur. While 

18 the distribution of offshore-related activities and infrastructure indicates that some places and 

19 populations in the GOM region would continue to be of environmental justice concern, the 

20 incremental contribution of the Program is not expected to affect those places and populations.

21

22 Non-OCS activities and processes that are ongoing, expected to continue into the 

23 foreseeable future, and that have the potential for creating environmental justice impacts include 

24 non-OCS oil and gas development, coastal habitat changes, coastal land loss, economic 

25 development, regional economic changes, and recovery from storms. These activities and 

26 processes could disproportionately impact low-income and minority populations. 

27

28 In addition to oil and chemical spills that could occur with the proposed action, oil 

29 releases and spills could also occur from other non-OCS sources such as natural oil seeps, State 

30 oil and gas activity, and petrochemical refining and processing. While the timing and location of 

31 these spills cannot be determined and some low-income and minority populations are resident in 

32 some areas of the GOM coast, in general the coasts are home to more affluent groups. Low33 income and minority groups are not more likely to bear more negative impacts than are other 

34 groups.

35

36 Conclusion. In the GOM, ongoing and future OCS and non-OCS program activities in 

37 combination with the effects of storm and hurricane damage and regional economic issues would 

38 result in disproportionate moderate to major adverse cumulative impacts on low-income and 

39 minority populations. The incremental contribution of routine Program activities to these 

40 impacts would be small (see Section 4.4.14.1).

41

42 The incremental impacts of accidental oil spills associated with the proposed action 

43 would be small to large, depending on the size, location, and timing of the spill (see 

44 Section 4.4.14.1).

45

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-666

1 4.6.5.1.7 Archeological and Historic Resources. Section 4.4.1.5 discusses the potential 

2 impacts from the proposed action (OCS program activities from 2012 to 2017) on onshore and 

3 offshore environments in the GOM. Cumulative impacts on archeological and historic resources 

4 result from the incremental impacts of the proposed action when added to impacts from existing 

5 and reasonably foreseeable future OCS program activities (that are not part of the proposed 

6 action) and other non-OCS program activities. Table 4.6.1-1 presents the exploration and 

7 development scenario for the GOM cumulative case (encompassing the proposed action and 

8 other OCS program activities). Specific types of impact-producing factors related to OCS 

9 program activities considered in this analysis include drilling rig and platform emplacement, 

10 pipeline emplacement, anchoring, new onshore facilities, ferromagnetic debris associated with 

11 OCS activities, and oil spills. Non-OCS program activities include trawling, sport diving, 

12 commercial treasure hunting, and channel dredging. Natural phenomena such as waves, 

13 currents, and tropical storms are also considered.

14

15 Prehistoric Resources. Offshore development could result in an interaction between a 

16 drilling rig, platform, pipeline, or anchors and an inundated prehistoric site. This direct physical 

17 contact with a site could destroy artifacts or site features and could disturb the stratigraphic 

18 context of the site. The result would be the loss of archaeological data on prehistoric migrations, 

19 settlement patterns, subsistence strategies, and archaeological contacts for the Americas and the 

20 Caribbean. 

21

22 Since 1973, BOEM (formerly the MMS) has required that an archaeological survey be 

23 conducted prior to development of mineral leases determined to have potential for cultural 

24 resources including prehistoric archaeological sites. High-probability areas for the occurrence of

25 prehistoric sites in the GOM include the region of the OCS shoreward of the 45-m (50-ft) 

26 isobath. Although an archaeological survey would identify most of the cultural resources in the 

27 APE for the project and routine operations related to OCS program activities would avoid all 

28 known cultural resources, it is likely that impacts to prehistoric resources may have already 

29 occurred as a result of OCS program and non-program activities that took place before 

30 implementation of the 1973 archaeological survey requirement. 

31

32 Onshore development could result in direct physical contact between the construction of 

33 new onshore facilities or pipeline trenches and previously unidentified prehistoric sites. This 

34 direct physical contact with a prehistoric site could cause physical damage to or complete 

35 destruction of information on the prehistory of the region and North America. Federal and State 

36 laws and regulations initiated in the 1960s began requiring archaeological surveys prior to 

37 permitting any activity that might disturb a significant archaeological site. Therefore, it can be 

38 assumed that, since the introduction of the archaeological resource protection laws, most coastal 

39 archaeological sites have been located, evaluated, and mitigated prior to construction. However, 

40 impacts to coastal prehistoric resources may have already occurred as a result of various onshore 

41 construction activities prior to enactment of the archaeological resource protection laws. 

42

43 Trawling activity in the GOM affects only the uppermost portion of the sediment column 

44 (Garrison et al. 1989). This zone would already have been disturbed by natural factors relating 

45 to the destructive effects of marine transgression and continuing effects of wave and current 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-667

1 action. Therefore, the effect of future trawling on most prehistoric archaeological sites is 

2 expected to be minor.

3

4 Tropical storms and hurricanes are yearly occurrences in the GOM and may be increasing 

5 in intensity as a result of global climate change (Section 3.3.1). Past storm events have affected 

6 all areas of the GOM, from west Texas to south Florida, and broad areas are affected by each 

7 storm (DeWald 1980). Prehistoric sites in shallow waters or coastal beach sites are exposed to 

8 the destructive effects of wave action and scouring currents during these events. Under such 

9 conditions, it is highly likely that artifacts would be dispersed and the site context disturbed, 

10 resulting in the loss of archaeological information. Overall, a significant loss of data from 

11 nearshore and coastal prehistoric sites may have occurred, and will continue to occur, from the 

12 effects of tropical storms and hurricanes. It is assumed that some of the data lost have been 

13 significant and/or unique, resulting in a moderate to major level of impact.

14

15 Most channel dredging occurs at the entrances to bays, harbors, and ports. These areas 

16 have a high probability for prehistoric archaeological sites, as they are associated with drowned 

17 river valleys, which are known to have a high probability for prehistoric sites. It is assumed that 

18 some of the archaeological data that have been lost as a result of dredging have been significant

19 and unique; therefore, the impact to prehistoric archaeological sites as a result of past channel 

20 dredging activities has probably been moderate to major. In many areas, the USACE now 

21 requires remote-sensing surveys prior to dredging activities to minimize such impacts (Espey, 

22 Huston & Associates 1990).

23

24 An accidental oil spill could affect coastal prehistoric archaeological sites, but the direct 

25 impact of oil on most sites is uncertain. Protection of such sites during an oil spill event requires

26 specific knowledge of its location, condition, nature, and extent prior to impact; however, the 

27 GOM coastline has not been systematically surveyed for archaeological sites. Existing 

28 information indicates that, in coastal areas of the GOM, prehistoric sites occur frequently along 

29 the barrier islands and mainland coast and along the margins of bays and bayous. Thus, any spill 

30 that contacts land would involve potential impacts on prehistoric sites. 

31

32 Heavy oiling of a coastal area could conceal intertidal sites that may not be recognized 

33 until they are inadvertently damaged during cleanup (Whitney 1994). Crude oil may also 

contaminate organic material used in 34 14C dating, and, although there are methods for cleaning 

contaminated 35 14C samples, greater expense is incurred (Dekin et al. 1993). The major source of 

36 potential impacts from oil spills is the harm that could result from unmonitored shoreline cleanup 

37 activities. Unauthorized collecting of artifacts by cleanup crew members is also a concern, albeit 

38 one that can be mitigated with effective training and supervision. Damage or loss of significant 

39 archaeological information could result from the contact between an oil spill and a prehistoric 

40 archaeological site; therefore, cumulatively the level of impacts from oil spills (past, present, and 

41 future) to prehistoric archaeological sites ranges from moderate to high.

42

43 Historic Resources. Direct physical contact between a routine activity and a shipwreck 

44 site could destroy fragile ship remains, such as the hull and wooden or ceramic artifacts, and 

45 could disturb the site context. The result would be the loss of archaeological data on ship 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-668

1 construction, cargo, and the social organization of the vessel‘s crew, and the concomitant loss of

2 information on maritime culture for the time period from which the ship dates.

3

4 Since 1973, BOEM has required archaeological (historical) surveys be conducted prior to 

5 development of mineral leases determined to have potential for historic-period shipwrecks. The 

6 high-probability areas for the occurrence of historic-period shipwrecks in the GOM consist of 

7 nearshore areas, port vicinities, and ship-specific polygons. Based on experience from the last 

8 10 years (as reported by Church and Warren [2008]; Ford et al. [2008]; Atauz et al. [2006]), 

9 archaeological surveys are now also being requested for the APE that includes any potential 

10 bottom-disturbing activities in deepwater areas that could be affected by a project. Although an 

11 archaeological survey would identify most of the cultural resources in the APE for the project 

12 and routine operations related to OCS program activities would avoid all known cultural 

13 resources, it is likely that impacts on historic-period shipwrecks may have already occurred as a 

14 result of OCS program and non-program activities that took place before implementation of the 

15 archaeological survey requirement in 1973. 

16

17 Onshore development could result in direct physical contact between the construction of 

18 new onshore facilities or pipeline trenches and previously unidentified historic sites. Federal and 

19 State laws and regulations initiated in the 1960s began requiring archaeological surveys prior to 

20 permitting any activity that might disturb a significant archaeological site. Therefore, it can be 

21 assumed that, since the introduction of the archaeological resource protection laws, most coastal 

22 archaeological sites have been located, evaluated, and mitigated prior to construction. However, 

23 impacts to coastal historic sites may have already occurred as a result of various onshore 

24 construction activities prior to enactment of the archaeological resource protection laws. 

25

26 Trawling activities in the GOM only affect the uppermost portion of the sediment column 

27 (Garrison et al. 1989). On many wrecks, this zone would already have been disturbed by natural 

28 factors and would contain only artifacts of low specific gravity (e.g., ceramics and glass) which 

29 have lost all original contexts. Therefore, the effect of future trawling on most historic 

30 shipwreck sites would be minor.

31

32 Sport diving and commercial treasure hunting are significant factors in the loss of historic 

33 data from shipwreck sites. While commercial treasure hunters generally affect wrecks having 

34 intrinsic monetary value, sport divers may collect souvenirs from all types of shipwrecks. It is 

35 assumed that some of the data lost have been significant and/or unique. The known extent of 

36 these activities suggests that they have resulted in a major impact to historic-period shipwrecks.

37

38 Tropical storms and hurricanes are yearly occurrences in the GOM and may be increasing 

39 as a result of global climate change (Section 3.3.1). Past storms have affected all areas of the 

40 GOM, from west Texas to south Florida, and broad areas are affected by each storm 

41 (DeWald 1980). Shipwrecks in shallow waters and coastal historic sites are exposed to greatly 

42 intensified longshore currents and high-energy waves during tropical storms (Clausen and 

43 Arnold 1975). Under such conditions, it is highly likely that artifacts of low specific gravity 

44 would be dispersed. Some of the original information contained in the site would be lost in this 

45 process, but a significant amount of information may also remain. BOEM-sponsored studies 

46 conducted specifically to examine the effect of hurricanes on shipwrecks in the GOM found that 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-669

1 storm effects on wrecks varied, with some wrecks being damaged, some unaffected, and others 

2 protected because the storm caused sediment to be deposited on the wreck (Gearhart et al. 2011). 

3 Overall, a significant loss of data from historic sites has probably occurred, and will continue to 

4 occur, from the effects of tropical storms and hurricanes. It is assumed that some of the data lost 

5 has been significant and/or unique, resulting in a moderate to major level of impact.

6

7 Most channel dredging occurs at the entrances to bays, harbors, and ports. These areas 

8 have a high probability for historic shipwrecks, and the greatest concentrations of historic wrecks 

9 are likely to be associated with these features (Garrison et al. 1989). Assuming that some of the 

10 data lost have been unique, the impact to historic sites as a result of past channel dredging 

11 activities has probably been moderate to major. In many areas, the USACE requires remote12 sensing surveys prior to dredging activities, to minimize such impacts (Espey, Huston & 

13 Associates 1990).

14

15 Past, present, and future oil and gas exploration and development on the OCS will result 

16 in the deposition of tons of ferromagnetic debris on the seafloor. This modern marine debris will 

17 tend to mask the magnetic signatures of historic shipwrecks, particularly in areas that were 

18 developed prior to requiring archaeological surveys. Such masking of the signatures 

19 characteristic of historic shipwrecks increases the potential that significant or unique historic 

20 information may be lost. However, BOEM requires avoidance or investigation of any 

21 unidentified magnetic anomaly that could be related to a shipwreck site prior to permitting 

22 bottom-disturbing activities. The increase in impacts to historic shipwrecks from magnetic 

23 masking could range from minor to moderate. 

24

25 An accidental oil spill could affect a coastal historic site, but the direct impact of oil on 

26 most historic sites is uncertain. The primary source of potential impacts from oil spills is 

27 unmonitored shoreline cleanup activities (Bittner 1996; see Section 4.4.15.1.2). Unauthorized 

28 collecting of artifacts by cleanup crew members is also a concern, albeit one that can be 

29 mitigated with effective training and supervision. Damage or loss of significant historic 

30 information could result from oil spill cleanup activities; therefore, the cumulative impact from 

31 oil spills (past, present, and future) on historic sites could range from moderate to major.

32

33 Conclusion. The cumulative impacts of ongoing and future OCS and non-OCS program 

34 activities on prehistoric and historic archaeological sites in the GOM are currently unknown, but 

35 could range from minor to moderate, mainly because activities occurring on the OCS prior to 

36 BOEM‘s survey requirement (in effect since 1973) may already have affected significant 

37 archaeological sites. Other important impact-producing factors that likely have had, and will 

38 continue to have, an impact on both prehistoric and historic archaeological sites are channel 

39 dredging, tropical storms, and hurricanes. Commercial treasure hunting and sport diving may 

40 also result in a loss of artifacts at historic-period shipwreck sites. The incremental contribution 

41 of routine Program activities is expected to be small because required archaeological surveys 

42 would identify significant cultural resources to be avoided (see Section 4.4.15.1).

43

44 Cumulative impacts on prehistoric and historic sites due to accidental oil spills would 

45 result mainly from cleanup activities (direct impacts to the sites are uncertain) and could range 

46 from moderate to major. The incremental impacts of oil spills associated with the proposed 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-670

1 action would be small to medium relative to those associated with ongoing and future OCS and 

2 non-OCS program activities.

3

4

5 4.6.5.2 Alaska – Cook Inlet

6

7

8 4.6.5.2.1 Population, Employment, and Income. Section 4.4.9 discusses the potential 

9 impacts from the proposed action (OCS program activities from 2012 to 2017) on population, 

10 employment, and income in the south-central Alaska region. Cumulative impacts on these 

11 resources result from the incremental impacts of the proposed action when added to impacts 

12 from reasonably foreseeable future OCS program activities (there are no existing OCS program 

13 activities) and other non-OCS program activities. Specific types of impact-producing factors 

14 related to OCS program activities considered in this analysis include total employment and 

15 regional income for the south Alaska region, which corresponds to the Cook Inlet Planning Area 

16 (described in Section 3.10). Non-OCS program activities affecting the region include 

17 employment and earnings related to various other industrial sectors (e.g., construction, 

18 manufacturing, services, and State and local government).

19

20 The population in the Cook Inlet Planning Area increased at an average annual rate of 

21 3.2% between 1980 and 1990, 1.3% between 1990 and 2000, and 1.2% between 2000 and 2009. 

22 During each of these periods, the greatest increases consistently occurred on the Kenai Peninsula 

23 (with an average annual increase of 1.1% between 2000 and 2009) and in Anchorage (also with 

24 an average annual increase of 1.1% between 2000 and 2009). The components of population 

25 increase include the natural increase due to births and net positive domestic and international 

26 migration; these trends will likely continue in south central Alaska over the next 40 to 50 yr.

27

28 Although the proposed action would add an average of 83 to 113 jobs annually between 

29 2012 and 2017, this increase is considered minor (though positive) since it would amount to less 

30 than 5% of total Alaska employment (additional jobs created in the rest of Alaska during the 

31 same period would range from 1,400 to 1,890). Likewise, income produced in the region would 

32 range from $2.8 million to $3.8 million annually in south central Alaska, which constitutes about 

33 13% of income in Alaska overall.

34

35 Employment impacts of oil spills reaching landfall can vary considerably depending upon 

36 the total volume of oil reaching land, the land area affected, and the sensitivity of local 

37 environmental conditions to oil impacts. The primary impacts of oil spills would most likely fall 

38 on such activities as beach recreation, commercial fishing, recreational fishing, and sightseeing. 

39 Oil spills reaching land can have both short- and long-term effects on these recreational coastal 

40 activities. Past studies (Sorenson 1990) have shown that there could be a one-time seasonal 

41 decline in tourist visits of 5% to 15% associated with a major oil spill. Since tourist movement 

42 to other coastal areas in the region often offsets a reduction in the number of visits to one area, 

43 the associated loss of business tends to be localized. Although an oil spill could occur anywhere 

44 in the lease sale area, cleanup-related employment would likely occur in the area directly 

45 affected, generally in locations remote from communities. Oil spills will generate only 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-671

1 temporary employment (and population) increases during cleanup operations, because such 

2 operations are expected to be of short duration. 

3

4 Conclusion. The cumulative impacts of future OCS program and ongoing and future 

5 non-OCS program activities would be considered beneficial because these activities would 

6 increase employment and earnings in the region over the next 40 to 50 yr. The proposed action 

7 would add to these beneficial impacts, especially on the Kenai Peninsula and in Anchorage. The 

8 incremental impact of the proposed action is expected to be small, however, because the added 

9 employment demands are less than 5% of total Alaska employment (see Section 4.4.9.2).

10

11 In areas with a large proportion of impact-sensitive industry (such as commercial and 

12 recreational fishing), the cumulative impacts of accidental oils spills could be moderate to major, 

13 depending on the total volume of oil reaching land, the land area affected, and the sensitivity of 

14 local environmental conditions to oil impacts. The incremental impacts of oil spills associated 

15 with the proposed action would be small to medium relative to those associated with future OCS 

16 program and ongoing and future non-OCS program activities.

17

18

19 4.6.5.2.2 Land Use and Infrastructure. Localized and site-dependent impacts to land 

20 use and existing infrastructure are anticipated as a result of the construction of new OCS 

21 program oil and gas facilities in Cook Inlet over the next 40 to 50 yr. Impact-producing factors 

22 from OCS program activities would include increased vehicular traffic (e.g., helicopter trips);

23 modifications to current land use designations to incorporate new facilities, if they are needed;

24 and some infrastructure expansion. Ongoing non-OCS program activities affecting land use and 

25 onshore infrastructure are expected to continue into the foreseeable future. These include 

26 offshore construction, onshore construction, and vessel traffic. Where land is largely 

27 undeveloped and no established oil and gas infrastructure is present, development could result in 

28 land use and infrastructure impacts, such as the conversion of existing land use 

29 (e.g., undeveloped, residential, or commercial) to industrial land use to accommodate oil and gas 

30 production (MMS 2007e). 

31

32 Accidental oil releases may occur as a result of both OCS and non-OCS activities, and oil 

33 is also released from naturally occurring seeps. The extent of the impacts would depend on the 

34 location and size of the releases, but could include stresses of spill response on the community 

35 infrastructure, increased traffic to respond to cleanup, and restricted access to particular lands 

36 while cleanup is conducted. In general, these releases would be expected to have a temporary 

37 impact on land use and infrastructure (MMS 2007c).

38

39 Conclusion. Localized and site-dependent impacts to land use and existing infrastructure 

40 are anticipated as a result of future OCS and ongoing and future non-OCS program activities in 

41 Cook Inlet. These impacts could range from minor to major depending on the nature (extent and 

42 duration) of the land use change. Ongoing non-OCS program activities that could affect land use 

43 and onshore infrastructure are expected to continue into the foreseeable future (see 

44 Section 4.4.10.2). Potential cumulative impacts to land use and infrastructure resulting from 

45 accidental oil spills include stresses of spill response on the community infrastructure, increased 

46 traffic to respond to cleanup, and restricted access to particular lands while cleanup is conducted.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-672

1 The extent of land use-related impacts resulting from accidental oil spills and naturally 

2 occurring seeps could be minor to major, depending on the location and size of the releases.

3

4

5 4.6.5.2.3 Commercial Fisheries and Recreational Fisheries. Some OCS exploration, 

6 development, and production activities have a potential to result in space-use conflicts with 

7 fishing activities over the next 40 to 50 yr. In some cases, fishing vessels could be excluded 

8 from normal fishing grounds for safety reasons during construction periods or after facilities are 

9 in place. In other instances, fishery crews or anglers could decide to avoid certain areas to 

10 reduce the potential for gear loss. Such conflicts can sometimes be avoided by conducting 

11 construction activities or seismic surveys during closed fishing periods or seasons. A potential 

12 also exists for loss of gear or loss of access to fishing areas when floating drill rigs used for 

13 exploration are being moved and during other vessel operations.

14

15 Offshore construction of platforms or artificial islands could infringe on commercial 

16 fishing activities by excluding commercial fishing from adjacent areas due to safety 

17 considerations. Drilling discharges associated with exploration activities would likely affect 

18 only a small area near drilling platforms or islands, and are not expected to interfere with 

19 commercial fishing. During development and production phases, potential effects of such 

20 discharges would cease because all muds, cuttings, and produced waters would be discharged 

21 into wells instead of being released to open waters. Potential effects of platform construction 

22 and operation are expected to be highly localized. Because only a very small area of the 

23 individual planning areas would be affected, interference with commercial fisheries is expected 

24 to be small.

25

26 The impacts of oil and gas development on commercial fishing costs would vary 

27 considerably by placement depth. In the Kodiak area, the largest cost increases would occur 

28 with structures located in water between 300 and 1,500 m (984 and 4,921 ft) deep, with an 

29 annual increase of $43 in costs from a single structure; a single structure in each depth range 

30 would increase annual costs by $44. In the Cook Inlet area, the largest increase would come 

31 with a single structure placed in water between 150 and 300 m (492 and 984 ft), with an overall 

32 increase in costs of $57 per year. Cost impacts in the Gulf of Alaska area would be the largest, at 

33 $93 per year with a structure in each depth range, the largest cost increases occurring with a 

34 structure placed at between 300 to 1,500 m (984 and 4,921 ft). In each of the areas, single 

35 structures would have relatively insignificant impacts compared to fishery revenues in each 

36 depth range.

37

38 Various non-OCS activities, including State oil and gas programs, dredging and disposal 

39 of dredging spoils in OCS waters, logging operations, and commercial or sport fishing activities, 

40 could also contribute to cumulative effects on fisheries. Drilling of wells under State oil and gas 

41 programs would also require construction of pipelines and artificial islands or platforms in 

42 Alaskan waters. Potential effects on fishery resources and on space-use conflicts from State oil 

43 and gas activities would be similar to those described above for OCS program oil and gas 

44 activities. Dredging and marine disposal activities would involve excavation of nearshore 

45 sediments and subsequent disposal in offshore or nearshore areas, thereby disturbing seafloor 

46 habitats in some areas and burying benthic organisms that help to support fishery resources. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-673

1 Logging operations have a potential to contribute to cumulative effects on fishery resources by 

2 degrading riverine habitats that are important for salmon reproduction and the rearing of 

3 juveniles.

4

5 Non-OCS activities, such as State oil and gas development, domestic transportation of oil 

6 or refined petroleum products, and commercial shipping, may also result in accidental spills that 

7 could affect fisheries within the waters of the south central Alaska region. Fisheries resources 

8 could become exposed to oil as a consequence of accidental oil spills, which could cause 

9 declines in subpopulations of some species inhabiting the affected planning areas. It is 

10 anticipated that there would be no long-term effects on overall fish populations in Alaskan 

11 waters as a result of such spills. However, even localized decreases in stocks of fish could have 

12 effects on some fisheries by reducing catches or increasing the amount of effort or the distances 

13 that must be traveled to obtain adequate catches.

14

15 Even if fish stocks are not reduced as a consequence of a spill, specific fisheries could be 

16 closed due to actual or perceived contamination of fish or shellfish. It is anticipated that most 

17 small to medium spills would have limited effects on fisheries because of the relatively small 

18 areas likely to be exposed to high concentrations of hydrocarbons and the short period of time 

19 during which oil slicks would persist. In the event of a large spill, commercial, recreational, or 

20 subsistence fisheries for shellfish in nearshore subtidal and intertidal areas that become oiled are 

21 likely to be affected. Fisheries for shellfish that occur in deeper waters, where oil concentrations 

22 would likely be too low to cause direct effects on biota, are less likely to be affected. 

23 Regardless, even shellfish from deeper areas could become commercially unacceptable for 

24 market due to actual or perceived contamination and tainting.

25

26 Oil spills that enter nearshore waters could also damage setnet fisheries, as evidenced by 

27 the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989. While only a relatively small volume of weathered oil 

28 entered the lower Cook Inlet region as a result of that spill, the commercial salmon fishery was 

29 closed to protect both gear and harvest from possible contamination. Within the Cook Inlet 

30 Planning Areas, a spill the size of the assumed largest OCS spill could result in temporary 

31 closures to commercial and subsistence setnet fishing until cleanup operations or natural 

32 processes reduced oil concentrations to levels considered safe.

33

34 Although pelagic fishes would be less likely to be affected than fishes in shallow subtidal 

35 or intertidal areas, spilled oil could contaminate gear used for pelagic fishing, such as purse 

36 seines and drift nets. A large oil spill before or during the season when such fishing gears are in 

37 use could result in closures of some short-period, high-value commercial fisheries in order to 

38 protect gear or harvests from potential contamination. Lines from longline fisheries for halibut, 

39 Pacific cod, black cod, and other fish species in the Cook Inlet Planning Area could also be 

40 affected by oil. Some lines and buoys fouled with small amounts of oil could be unfit for future 

41 use. Although it is unlikely that a trawler would be operating in an oiled area, the trawl catches 

42 could be contaminated by oil and rendered unfit for consumption and unprofitable if passed 

43 through such an area.

44

45 Conclusion. The proposed action would represent a small increment to the potential for 

46 overall cumulative effects on fisheries in Cook Inlet. Routine OCS program activities would be 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-674

1 unlikely to have cumulative population- or community-level effects on fishery resources because 

2 of the limited time frame over which most individual activities would occur; because a small 

3 proportion of habitat, relative to similar available habitat, could be affected during a given 

4 period; and because of existing stipulations that are in place to avoid impacts to sensitive habitats 

5 such as hard bottom areas and topographic features. Non-OCS activities, including State oil and 

6 gas development, commercial fishing, and sportfishing, could also contribute to cumulative 

7 effects on fisheries. Depending on specific conditions during a large spill, there could be 

8 substantial economic losses for commercial fisheries as a consequence of reduced catch, loss of 

9 gear, or loss of fishing opportunities during cleanup and recovery periods. Non-OCS sources of 

10 spills, including State oil and gas production, have a potential to cause similar effects. The 

11 occurrence of a very large spill, such as could occur from a tanker accident in southern Alaskan 

12 waters, could have substantially greater effects on fisheries.

13

14

15 4.6.5.2.4 Tourism and Recreation. Platform, pipeline, causeway, and facility 

16 construction and vessel traffic could interfere with water-based recreational activities (fishing, 

17 boating, sightseeing, cruise ships) and could result in some disruption to land-based activities 

18 (hiking, picnicking, hunting, visiting Native communities, camping, wildlife viewing, and 

19 sightseeing), depending on the location of recreational activities relative to proposed 

20 development; increases in amounts of trash and debris from OCS activities; and possible 

21 competition between workers and tourists for local services, such as air transport, hotel 

22 accommodations, and other visitor services. Non-OCS activities that could have an impact on 

23 tourism and recreation include offshore construction (e.g., State oil and gas development, 

24 domestic transportation of oil and gas), onshore construction (e.g., coastal and community 

25 development), and vessel traffic (e.g., commercial shipping, recreational boating, military 

26 training and testing). 

27

28 Non-OCS activities and proposed and future OCS activities represent a continuation of 

29 existing onshore and offshore oil and gas construction trends close to the Cook Inlet Planning 

30 Area. Substantial infrastructure for related oil and gas development already exists in this area, 

31 including platforms, exploration and production wells, pipelines to transport oil from offshore 

32 platforms to common-carrier pipeline systems onshore, and processing facilities. Therefore, 

33 there should not be additional visual disruption for the tourists in these areas. Pipeline 

34 construction would present a temporary disruption to tourism and recreation due to workers 

35 competing with tourists for short-term housing (hotels) and air transport; aesthetic impacts 

36 (visual and auditory) associated with construction sites; and possible temporary prevention of 

37 access to some recreational or wilderness areas. In addition, the new pipeline in the Arctic 

38 region could create road access into previously undeveloped lands used primarily for 

39 subsistence, creating a potential conflict between subsistence practices and recreational hunting 

40 or other possible tourist activities.

41

42 Oil spills associated with OCS and non-OCS activities, as well as oil from naturally 

43 occurring seeps, could also affect recreation and tourism, and could result in both short-term and 

44 long-term effects, depending on public perception and reaction. Potential cumulative impacts 

45 include direct land impacts (e.g., oil contamination of a national wildlife refuge or recreational 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-675

1 port); aesthetic impacts of the spill and associated cleanup; increased traffic to respond to 

2 cleanup operations; and restricted access to particular lands while cleanup is being conducted. 

3

4 Conclusion. Cumulative impacts on recreation and tourism from future OCS program 

5 and ongoing and future non-OCS program activities in Cook Inlet would be minor for most 

6 routine activities, with the exception of impacts associated with large oil spills during the peak 

7 tourist season, which could be moderate to major (but short-term). The incremental contribution 

8 of routine Program activities to cumulative impacts would be small, resulting from small 

9 incremental increases in construction and transportation noise and related visual intrusions, 

10 potential increases in trash and debris related to these activities, and the potential for a relatively 

11 small number of accidental releases (see Section 4.4.12.1).

12

13 Oil spills could affect recreation and tourism temporarily in all areas, but would not likely 

14 result in long-term effects, depending on public perception and reaction. The magnitude of 

15 impacts from an oil spill could range from minor to major, depending on the size, location, and 

16 timing of the spill. The greatest impacts would be expected to occur in popular tourist areas 

17 during the main tourist season. 

18

19

20 4.6.5.2.5 Sociocultural Systems. The area surrounding the Cook Inlet Planning Area is

21 demographically diverse and includes relatively remote Native villages that rely on subsistence 

22 harvesting, towns that rely on commercial fishing, and ethnically diverse cities 

23 (Section 3.14.1.2). Future non-OCS activities include oil and gas development on State 

24 submerged lands, changes in commercial fishing patterns and maritime shipping, and limited 

25 industrialization.

26

27 The Cook Inlet Planning Area is already the location of offshore oil and gas 

28 development. Supporting infrastructure and a trained workforce are already available in relative 

29 proximity. As part of this industrial mix, development of the OCS is likely to have minor 

30 cumulative impacts relative to development on the Arctic coast. No new shore bases are planned 

31 and only one new pipeline is projected under the Program. 

32

33 Oil spills can cause damage to resources important to subsistence harvesters, affect fish 

34 populations important to commercial fishers, and have sociological impacts in affected 

35 communities. Most spills projected to result from exploration and development of the OCS 

36 would be a relatively minor component of the existing mix of oil and gas development and 

37 commercial shipping. However, as the Exxon Valdez event has shown, coastal communities are 

38 susceptible to sociocultural disruption as the result of large-scale spills that disrupt commercial 

39 fishing and subsistence harvesting.

40

41 OCS program development could temporarily displace fish and sea mammal populations 

42 harvested by subsistence hunters and fishers. Helicopter flights associated with development 

43 could disturb nesting and roosting sites of birds that are harvested, and temporarily and locally 

44 disturb terrestrial game animals.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-676

1 Conclusion. Cumulative impacts on sociocultural systems as a result of future OCS and 

2 ongoing and future non-OCS activities would be minor to moderate. Important impacting factors 

3 include the displacement of fish and sea mammal populations and the disturbance of nesting and 

4 roosting sites and terrestrial game animals (e.g., by noise). The contribution of the proposed 

5 action to cumulative impacts on sociocultural systems in the Cook Inlet Planning Area would be 

6 small because no significant changes are anticipated (see Section 4.4.13.2). 

7

8

9 4.6.5.2.6 Environmental Justice. Although no new pipe yards, pipeline landfalls, or 

10 gas processing facilities would be built as a result of the proposed 5-yr OCS program, additional 

11 offshore construction could include increased noise and traffic, air and water pollution, impacts 

12 to residential property values, and land use changes. Much of the Alaska Native population 

13 resides in the coastal areas of Alaska. New offshore infrastructure resulting from this program 

14 could be located near areas where subsistence hunting occurs. The OCS program would result in 

15 levels of infrastructure use and construction similar to what is occurring in south central Alaska. 

16 These activities are not expected to expose residents to notably higher risks than currently occur. 

17

18 Any adverse environmental impacts to fish and mammal subsistence resources from 

19 installation of infrastructure and routine operations of these facilities could have 

20 disproportionately higher health or environmental impacts to Alaska Native populations. OCS 

21 activities could potentially disrupt marine mammal harvests (primarily walrus, seals, and beluga 

22 whales) by diverting marine migrations or by causing other behavioral changes such as increased 

23 wariness. 

24

25 Air emissions from onshore facilities and helicopter and vessel traffic traversing coastal 

26 areas will be highest in areas containing the greatest amounts of infrastructure. It is assumed that 

27 the majority of the activity from the proposed action would occur in deep waters, with offshore 

28 air emissions greatest in the coastal areas with the greatest amounts of oil and gas activity, with 

29 lesser amounts occurring elsewhere. The effects of the OCS program on air quality have been 

30 analyzed in Section 4.4.4.2. This analysis concluded that routine operations associated with the 

31 proposed 5-yr program would result in NO2, SO2, PM10, and CO levels that are well within the 

32 NAAQS. Disproportionate impacts on low-income or minority populations of the inlet would be 

33 minor, because coastal effects from offshore activities are expected to be small, based on the 

34 established and increasing trend toward movement of oil and gas activities into deeper waters of 

35 the inlet.

36

37 Oil spill events in the region and related cleanup activities pose the greatest potential for 

38 cumulative effects on low-income and minority population groups. It is reasonable to expect that 

39 most of these spills will occur in deepwater areas located away from the coast, based on the 

40 established trend for oil and gas activity to move into deep waters located for the most part at a 

41 substantial distance from the coast. The magnitude of impacts from such spills cannot be 

42 predicted, should they contact the coast, and depends on their location, size, and timing. While 

43 the location of possible oil spills cannot be determined and while low-income and minority 

44 populations are resident in some areas of the coast, in general, the coasts are home to more 

45 affluent groups. Low-income and minority groups are not more likely to bear more negative 

46 impacts than are other groups. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-677

1 Conclusion. In the Cook Inlet Planning Area, future OCS program and ongoing and 

2 future non-OCS program activities in combination with the effects of onshore and offshore 

3 construction, increased marine vessel and helicopter traffic, and land use changes would result in 

4 disproportional moderate to major adverse cumulative impacts on low-income and minority 

5 populations (especially those dependent on subsistence harvesting and fishing). The incremental 

6 contribution of routine Program activities to these impacts would be small (see Section 4.4.14.2).

7

8 The incremental impacts of accidental oil spills associated with the proposed action 

9 would be small to large, depending on the size, location, and timing of the spill (see 

10 Section 4.4.14.2).

11

12

13 4.6.5.2.7 Archeological and Historic Resources. Section 4.4.15.2 discusses the 

14 potential impacts from the proposed action (OCS program activities from 2012 to 2017) on 

15 archeological and historic resources in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. Cumulative impacts on 

16 archeological and historic resources result from the incremental impacts of the proposed action 

17 when added to impacts from existing and reasonably foreseeable future OCS program activities 

18 (that are not part of the proposed action) and other non-OCS program activities. Table 4.6.1-2 

19 presents the exploration and development scenario for the Cook Inlet cumulative case 

20 (encompassing the proposed action and future OCS program activities). Specific types of 

21 impact-producing factors related to OCS program activities considered in this analysis include 

22 drilling rig and platform emplacement, pipeline emplacement, new onshore facilities, and oil 

23 spills. Non OCS-program activities (e.g., oil and gas industry in State waters) and natural 

24 geologic processes such as ice gouging and erosion due to high-energy waves/currents and 

25 thermokarst collapse are also considered.

26

27 Archeological Resources. Offshore development could result in an interaction between 

28 a drilling rig, platform, pipeline, or anchors and an inundated prehistoric site. This direct 

29 physical contact with a site could destroy artifacts or site features and could disturb the 

30 stratigraphic context of the site. The result would be the loss of archaeological data on 

31 prehistoric migrations, settlement patterns, subsistence strategies, and archaeological contacts 

32 between northeast Asia and the Americas.

33

34 Since 1973, BOEM has required that an archaeological survey be conducted prior to 

35 development of mineral leases determined to have potential for cultural resources, including 

36 prehistoric archaeological sites. Relative sea-level data, which are used to define the portion of 

37 the continental shelf having potential for prehistoric sites, suggest that the portion of the 

38 continental shelf shoreward of about the 60-m (200-ft) isobath would have potential for 

39 prehistoric sites. Although an archaeological survey would identify most of the cultural 

40 resources in the APE for the project and routine operations related to OCS program activities 

41 would avoid all known cultural resources, it is likely that impacts to prehistoric resources may 

42 have already occurred as a result of non-OCS program activities prior to the implementation of 

43 the 1973 archaeological survey requirement. 

44

45 Onshore development could result in direct physical contact between the construction of 

46 new onshore facilities or pipeline trenches and previously unidentified prehistoric sites. This 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-678

1 direct physical contact with a prehistoric site could cause physical damage to or complete 

2 destruction of information on the prehistory of the region and North America. Federal and State 

3 laws and regulations initiated in the 1960s began requiring archaeological surveys prior to 

4 permitting any activity that might disturb a significant archaeological site. Therefore, it can be 

5 assumed that, since the introduction of the archaeological resource protection laws, most coastal 

6 archaeological sites have been located, evaluated, avoided, or mitigated prior to construction. 

7 However, impacts to coastal prehistoric resources may have already occurred as a result of 

8 various onshore construction activities prior to enactment of the archaeological resource 

9 protection laws. 

10

11 Trawling activity in Cook Inlet only affects the uppermost portion of the sediment 

12 column (Krost et al. 1990). This zone would already be disturbed by natural factors relating to 

13 the destructive effects wave and current action (Cook Inlet is a high-energy wave environment; 

14 see Section 4.2.3.2.2). Therefore, the effect of trawling on most prehistoric archaeological sites 

15 would be minor.

16

17 Most channel dredging occurs at the entrances to bays, harbors, and ports. These areas 

18 have a high probability for prehistoric archaeological sites, as they are often associated with 

19 drowned river valleys, which are known to have a high probability for prehistoric sites. It is 

20 assumed that some of the archaeological data that have been lost as a result of dredging have 

21 been significant and unique; therefore, the impact to prehistoric archaeological sites as a result of 

22 past channel dredging activities has probably been moderate to major. In many areas, the 

23 USACE now requires remote-sensing surveys prior to dredging activities to minimize such 

24 impacts (Espey, Huston & Associates 1990).

25

26 Natural geologic processes such as ice gouging and thermokarst erosion may affect 

27 prehistoric archaeological sites associated with Cook Inlet. No specific studies examining the 

28 effects of geological processes on archaeological sites have been conducted in Cook Inlet. 

29 However, coastal prehistoric sites are exposed to the erosional effects of high-energy waves and 

30 thermokarst erosion. These natural processes could cause artifacts to be dispersed and the site 

31 context to be disturbed or even completely destroyed, resulting in the loss of archaeological 

32 information. Cook Inlet is a high-energy area affected by strong tidal movements. The seafloor 

33 of lower Cook Inlet contains characteristics such as lag gravels, sand ribbons, and sand wave 

34 fields (MMS 2003a). These features are formed only in areas of high energy. High-energy 

35 water movement may have removed the potential for archaeological resources to be present. 

36 Additional research is needed to determine the extent of the disturbance. Studies conducted in 

37 the Beaufort Sea indicate that seafloor sediments have been affected by ice gouging and by 

38 increased river flows resulting from glaciation (Darigo et al. 2007). It is likely that similar 

39 processes have operated in Cook Inlet and that they have affected the integrity of archaeological 

40 sites. Overall, some loss of data from submerged and coastal prehistoric sites has probably 

41 occurred, and will continue to occur, from the effects of natural geologic processes. It is 

42 assumed that some of the data lost have been significant and/or unique, resulting in a major level 

43 of impact. Additional studies specifically addressing these topics are required.

44

45 An accidental oil spill could affect coastal prehistoric archaeological sites, but the direct 

46 impact of oil on most sites is uncertain. Protection of such sites during an oil spill requires 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-679

1 specific knowledge of their location, condition, nature, and extent prior to impact; however, the 

2 Cook Inlet coastline has not been systematically surveyed for archaeological sites.

3

4 Heavy oiling of a coastal area could conceal intertidal sites that may not be recognized 

5 until they are inadvertently damaged during cleanup (Whitney 1994). Crude oil may also 

contaminate organic material used in 6 14C dating, and although there are methods for cleaning 

contaminated 7 14C samples, greater expense is incurred (Dekin et al. 1993). The major source of 

8 potential impact from oil spills is the harm that could result from unmonitored shoreline cleanup 

9 activities. Unauthorized collecting of artifacts by cleanup crew members is also a concern, albeit 

10 one that can be mitigated with effective training and supervision. Damage or loss of significant 

11 archaeological information could result from the contact between an oil spill and a prehistoric 

12 archaeological site; therefore, cumulatively the level of impacts from oil spills (past, present, and 

13 future) to prehistoric archaeological sites ranges from moderate to high.

14

15 Historic Resources. Direct physical contact between a routine activity and a shipwreck 

16 site could destroy fragile ship remains, such as the hull and wooden or ceramic artifacts, and 

17 could disturb the site context. The result would be the loss of archaeological data on ship 

18 construction, cargo, and the social organization of the vessel‘s crew, and the concomitant loss of 

19 information on maritime culture for the time period from which the ship dates.

20

21 Since 1973, BOEM has required archaeological (historical) surveys be conducted prior to 

22 development of mineral leases when a historic-period shipwreck is reported to lie within or 

23 adjacent to the lease area. Although an archeological survey would identify most of the cultural 

24 resources in the APE for the project and routine operations related to OCS activities would avoid 

25 all known cultural resources, it is likely that impacts on historic-period shipwrecks may have

26 already occurred as a result of non-OCS program activities that took place before 

27 implementation of the 1973 archaeological survey requirement. 

28

29 Onshore development could result in direct physical contact between the construction of 

30 new onshore facilities or pipeline trenches and previously unidentified historic sites. Federal and 

31 State laws and regulations initiated in the 1960s began requiring archaeological surveys prior to 

32 permitting any activity that might disturb a significant archaeological site. Therefore, it can be 

33 assumed that, since the introduction of the archaeological resource protection laws, most coastal 

34 archaeological sites that would have been impacted have been located, evaluated, avoided, or

35 mitigated prior to construction. However, impacts to coastal historic sites may have resulted 

36 from onshore construction activities prior to enactment of the archaeological resource protection 

37 laws, but the magnitude of this possible impact is impossible to quantify. 

38

39 Trawling activity in south central Alaska affects only the uppermost portion of the 

40 sediment column (Krost et al. 1990). On many wrecks, this zone would already be disturbed by 

41 natural factors and would contain only artifacts of low specific gravity which have lost all 

42 original context. Therefore, the effect of trawling on most historic shipwreck sites would be 

43 minor.

44

45 Most channel dredging occurs at the entrances to bays, harbors, and ports. These areas 

46 have a high probability for historic shipwrecks. Assuming that some of the data lost have been 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-680

1 unique, the impact on historic sites as a result of past channel dredging activities has probably 

2 been moderate to major. In many areas, the USACE now requires remote-sensing surveys prior 

3 to dredging activities to minimize such impacts (Espey, Huston & Associates 1990).

4

5 Natural geologic processes such as ice gouging and erosion due to high-energy 

6 waves/currents and thermokarst collapse affect historic sites in Cook Inlet. No specific studies 

7 addressing this topic have been undertaken. Coastal historic sites are exposed to the erosional 

8 effects of wave energy and thermokarst erosion, which can cause artifacts to be dispersed and the 

9 site context to be disturbed or even completely destroyed. Cook Inlet is a high-energy area 

10 affected by strong tidal movements. The seafloor of lower Cook Inlet contains seafloor 

11 characteristics such as lag gravels, sand ribbons, and sand wave fields (MMS 2003a). These 

12 features are only formed in areas of high energy. High-energy water movement may have 

13 removed the potential for historic resources to be present. Additional research is needed to 

14 determine the extent of the disturbance. Overall, a significant loss of data from submerged and 

15 coastal historic sites may have already occurred from the effects of natural geologic processes. It 

16 is assumed that some of the data lost have been significant and/or unique, resulting in a major 

17 level of impact. Additional studies specifically addressing these topics are required.

18

19 An accidental oil spill could affect a coastal historic site, but the direct impact of oil on 

20 most historic sites is uncertain. The primary source of potential impacts from oil spills is 

21 unmonitored shoreline cleanup activities (Bittner 1996; see Section 4.4.14.2.2). Unauthorized 

22 collecting of artifacts by cleanup crew members is also a concern, albeit one that can be 

23 mitigated with effective training and supervision. Damage or loss of significant historic 

24 information could result from oil spill cleanup activities; therefore, the cumulative impact of oil 

25 spills (past, present, and future) on historic sites could range from moderate to major.

26

27 Conclusion. The cumulative impacts of future OCS program and ongoing and future 

28 non-OCS program activities on prehistoric and historic archaeological sites in Cook Inlet are 

29 currently unknown, but could range from minor to moderate, mainly because activities occurring 

30 on the OCS prior to BOEM‘s survey requirement (in effect since 1973) may already have 

31 affected significant archaeological sites. Other important impacting factors that have had, and 

32 will continue to have, an impact on both prehistoric and historic archaeological sites are channel 

33 dredging and geologic processes, such as ice gouging and erosion due to high-energy 

34 waves/currents and thermokarst collapse. Commercial treasure hunting and sport diving may 

35 also result in a loss of artifacts at historic-period shipwreck sites. The incremental contribution 

36 of routine Program activities is expected to be minor because required archaeological surveys 

37 would identify significant cultural resources to be avoided (see Section 4.4.15.2).

38

39 Cumulative impacts on prehistoric and historic sites due to accidental oil spills would 

40 result mainly from cleanup activities (direct impacts to the sites are uncertain) and could range 

41 from moderate to major. The incremental impacts of oil spills associated with the proposed 

42 action would be small to medium relative to those associated with future OCS program and 

43 ongoing and future non-OCS program activities.

44

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-681

1 4.6.5.3 Alaska Region – Arctic

2

3

4 4.6.5.3.1 Population, Employment, and Income. Section 4.4.9 discusses the potential 

5 impacts from the proposed action (OCS program activities from 2012 to 2017) on population, 

6 employment, and income in the Arctic region. Cumulative impacts on these resources result 

7 from the incremental impacts of the proposed action when added to impacts from reasonably 

8 foreseeable future OCS program activities (there are no existing OCS program activities) and 

9 other non-OCS program activities. Specific types of impact-producing factors related to OCS 

10 program activities considered in this analysis include total employment and regional income for 

11 the North Slope Borough, which corresponds to the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning 

12 Areas (described in Section 3.10). Non-OCS program activities affecting the region include 

13 employment and earnings related to various other industrial sectors (e.g., construction, 

14 manufacturing, services, and State and local government).

15

16 The population in the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas is concentrated in 

17 Barrow. It increased at an average annual rate of 3.6% between 1980 and 1990, and 2.1% 

18 between 1990 and 2000; it decreased by 1.0% between 2000 and 2009. The components of 

19 population increase include the natural increase due to births and net positive domestic 

20 migration; the population trend is uncertain over the next 50 yr and will likely depend on the 

21 availability of jobs. Most communities in the borough have a high percentage of American 

22 Indian or Alaska Natives.

23

24 Although the proposed action would add an average of 167 to 225 jobs annually between 

25 2012 and 2017, this increase is considered minor (though positive) since it would amount to less 

26 than 1% of total Alaska employment (additional jobs created in the rest of Alaska during the 

27 same period would range from 2,644 to 3,570). Likewise, income produced in the region would 

28 range from $5.6 million to $7.6 million annually in the Arctic region, which constitutes about 

29 50% of income in Alaska overall. Most of the workers directly associated with OCS oil and gas 

30 activities would work offshore or onshore in worker enclaves separated from local communities, 

31 and most workers will likely commute to work sites from Alaska‘s larger population centers or 

32 from outside the immediate area. While OCS jobs would be available to the local populations in 

33 all areas, rural Alaskan employment in the petroleum industry, especially among Alaska Natives, 

34 would likely remain relatively low. However, a contingent of Alaska Natives from the Fairbanks 

35 area and members of the Doyon Corporation do work in the oil fields of the North Slope, and 

36 these jobs are important to them.

37

38 Employment impacts of oil spills reaching landfall can vary considerably depending upon 

39 the total volume of oil reaching land, the land area affected, and the sensitivity of local 

40 environmental conditions to oil impacts. The primary impacts of oil spills would most likely fall 

41 on such activities as beach recreation, commercial fishing, recreational fishing, and sightseeing. 

42 Oil spills reaching land can have both short- and long-term effects on these recreational coastal 

43 activities. Although an oil spill could occur anywhere in the lease sale area, cleanup-related 

44 employment would likely occur in the area directly affected, generally in locations remote from 

45 communities. The hiring of cleanup workers would have a regional and State of Alaska 

46 emphasis. Oil spills will generate only temporary employment (and population) increases during 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-682

1 cleanup operations, because such operations are expected to be of short duration. Employment 

2 generated by spills will be a function of the size and frequency of spills. 

3

4 Conclusion. The cumulative impacts of future OCS program and ongoing and future 

5 non-OCS program activities would be considered beneficial because these activities would 

6 increase employment and earnings in the region over the next 40 to 50 yr (although rural Alaskan 

7 employment in the petroleum industry, especially among Alaska Natives, would likely remain 

8 relatively low). The proposed action would add to these beneficial impacts. The incremental 

9 impact of the proposed action is expected to be small, however, because the added employment 

10 demands are less than 1% of total Alaska employment (see Section 4.4.9.3).

11

12 The cumulative impacts of accidental oil spills could be minor to major, depending on the 

13 total volume of oil reaching land, the land area affected, and the sensitivity of local 

14 environmental conditions to oil impacts. The incremental impacts of oil spills associated with 

15 the proposed action would be small to medium relative to those associated with ongoing and 

16 future non-OCS program activities.

17

18

19 4.6.5.3.2 Land Use and Infrastructure. Localized and site-dependent impacts to land 

20 use and existing infrastructure are anticipated as a result of the construction of new oil and gas 

21 facilities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. Impact-producing factors from OCS 

22 program activities would include increased vehicular traffic (e.g., helicopter trips); modifications 

23 to current land use designations to incorporate new facilities, if they are needed; and some 

24 infrastructure expansion. 

25

26 Ongoing non-OCS program activities that could affect land use and onshore 

27 infrastructure are expected to continue into the foreseeable future. These include offshore 

28 construction, onshore construction, and vessel traffic. Where land is largely undeveloped and no 

29 established oil and gas infrastructure is present, development could result in land use and 

30 infrastructure impacts, such as the conversion of existing land use (e.g., undeveloped, residential, 

31 or commercial) to industrial land use to accommodate oil and gas production (MMS 2007e). 

32

33 Accidental oil releases may occur as a result of both OCS and non-OCS activities. The 

34 extent of impacts would depend on the location and size of the releases, but could include 

35 stresses of spill response on the community infrastructure, increased traffic to respond to 

36 cleanup, and restricted access to particular lands while cleanup is conducted. In general, these 

37 releases would be expected to have a temporary impact on land use and infrastructure 

38 (MMS 2007c).

39

40 Conclusion. Localized and site-dependent impacts to land use and existing infrastructure 

41 are anticipated as a result of future OCS program and ongoing and future non-OCS program 

42 activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Impacts from Program activities could range from 

43 minor to moderate depending on the nature (extent and duration) of the land use change. 

44 Ongoing non-OCS program activities that could affect land use and onshore infrastructure are 

45 expected to continue into the foreseeable future. 

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-683

1 The extent of land use-related impacts resulting from accidental oil spills could be minor 

2 to major, depending on the location and size of the releases.

3

4

5 4.6.5.3.3 Recreational Fisheries. Given the importance of this fishing to local villages

6 in the Arctic region, any impacts from the proposed action may directly affect the local economy 

7 by causing declines in salmon availability for harvest. Greater declines in the harvest would lead 

8 to greater impacts on local communities. However, it is anticipated that impacts from routine 

9 OCS operations would be minor as a result of adherence to mitigation measures and compliance 

10 with Federal, State, and local requirements.

11

12 The proposed action would represent a small increment to the potential for overall 

13 cumulative effects on fishing by local villages in the Arctic region. Routine OCS program 

14 activities would be unlikely to have cumulative population- or community-level effects on local 

15 fishery resources because of the limited time frame over which most individual activities would 

16 occur; because a small proportion of habitat, relative to similar available habitat, could be 

17 affected during a given period; and because of existing stipulations that are in place to avoid 

18 impacts to sensitive habitats such as hard bottom areas and topographic features. Non-OCS 

19 activities, including State oil and gas development, commercial fishing, and sportfishing, could 

20 also contribute to cumulative effects on local fisheries. 

21

22 Depending on specific conditions during a large oil spill, there could be substantial 

23 economic losses for commercial fisheries as a consequence of reduced catch, loss of gear, or loss 

24 of fishing opportunities during cleanup and recovery periods. Non-OCS sources of spills, 

25 including State oil and gas production, have a potential to cause similar effects. The occurrence 

26 of a catastrophic spill, such as could occur from a tanker accident, could have substantially 

27 greater effects on fisheries.

28

29 Conclusion. The future OCS program in combination with ongoing and future non-OCS 

30 program activities could result in moderate to major impacts on recreational fisheries in the 

31 Arctic region. The incremental contribution of routine Program activities would be small (see 

32 Section 4.4.11.3).

33

34 The incremental impacts of accidental oil spills associated with the proposed action 

35 would be small to large, depending on the size, location, and timing of the spill (see 

36 Section 4.4.11.3).

37

38

39 4.6.5.3.4 Tourism and Recreation. Platform, pipeline, causeway, and facility 

40 construction and vessel traffic could interfere with water-based recreational activities (fishing, 

41 boating, sightseeing, cruise ships); cause some disruption to land-based activities (hiking,

42 picnicking, hunting, visiting Native communities, camping, wildlife viewing, and sightseeing), 

43 depending on the location of recreational activities relative to proposed development; increase 

44 amounts of trash and debris from OCS activities; and cause possible competition between 

45 workers and tourists for local services, such as air transport, hotel accommodations, and other 

46 visitor services. Non-OCS activities that could have an impact on tourism and recreation include 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-684

1 offshore construction (e.g., State oil and gas development, domestic transportation of oil and 

2 gas), onshore construction (e.g., coastal and community development), and vessel traffic 

3 (e.g., commercial shipping, recreational boating, military training and testing). 

4

5 Non-OCS activities and proposed and future OCS activities represent a continuation of 

6 existing onshore and offshore oil and gas construction trends in the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi 

7 Sea Planning Areas. Substantial infrastructure for related oil and gas development already exists 

8 in both of these areas, including platforms, exploration and production wells, pipelines to 

9 transport oil from offshore platforms to common-carrier pipeline systems onshore, and 

10 processing facilities; therefore, there should not be additional visual disruption for the tourists in 

11 these areas. Pipeline construction would present a temporary disruption to tourism and 

12 recreation due to workers competing with tourists for short-term housing (hotels) and air 

13 transport; aesthetic impacts (visual and auditory) associated with construction sites; and possible 

14 temporary prevention of access to some recreational or wilderness areas. In addition, the new 

15 pipeline in the Arctic region could create road access into previously undeveloped lands used 

16 primarily for subsistence, creating a potential conflict between subsistence practices and 

17 recreational hunting or other possible tourist activities.

18

19 Oil spills associated with OCS and non-OCS activities, as well as oil releases from 

20 naturally occurring seeps, could also affect recreation and tourism, and could result in both short21 term and long-term effects, depending on public perception and reaction. Potential cumulative 

22 impacts include direct land impacts (e.g., oil contamination of a National Wildlife Refuge); 

23 aesthetic impacts of the spill and associated cleanup; increased traffic to respond to cleanup 

24 operations; and restricted access to particular lands while cleanup is being conducted. 

25

26 Conclusion. Infrastructure changes in the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas

27 would result in moderate to major impacts because they would be noticeable to the recreation 

28 and tourism community, as no similar infrastructure yet exists in that region, and competition for 

29 accommodations and air transport may slow tourism for a time. The incremental contribution of 

30 routine Program activities to cumulative impacts would be relatively large, resulting from large 

31 incremental increases in construction and transportation noise and related visual intrusions, 

32 potential increases in trash and debris related to these activities, and the potential for a relatively 

33 large number of accidental releases (see Section 4.4.12.1).

34

35 Oil spills could affect recreation and tourism temporarily in all areas, but would not likely 

36 result in long-term effects, depending on public perception and reaction. The magnitude of 

37 impacts would depend on the size, location, and timing of the spill. The greatest impacts would 

38 be expected to occur in popular tourist areas during the main tourist season (in the summer). 

39

40

41 4.6.5.3.5 Sociocultural Systems. Small, primarily Alaska Native communities along the 

42 Arctic coast are heavily dependent on subsistence harvesting of sea mammals, fish, and 

43 terrestrial fauna. Enclaves of workers at Prudhoe Bay and nearby oil fields are employed by the 

44 oil and gas industry. They commute from mostly south-central Alaska, Fairbanks, and States 

45 outside of Alaska. For the most part, these two communities (Alaska Native communities and 

46 worker enclaves) have had little interaction because of the physical distance that separates them. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-685

1 The exception is Nuiqsuit. Further development of the oil and gas industry, increases in marine 

2 shipping as a result of the diminishing polar ice caps, and the effects of climate change coupled 

3 with development of oil and gas resources on the OCS could have cumulative effects on the 

4 subsistence harvesting and sociocultural structure of the region.

5

6 A primary concern of Alaska Natives is the health and accessibility of sea mammals 

7 including whales, walrus, and seals. Warming climatic conditions have resulted in the early 

8 retreat of the polar ice pack. Ice flow haulouts used by seals and walrus are thus farther from 

9 shore, increasing the effort required for subsistence hunters to harvest them. More ice-free lanes 

10 along the coast have resulted in an increase in shipping in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, a 

11 pattern that is likely to continue. Increased shipping is likely to disturb bowhead and beluga 

12 whale migration patterns, already affected by the noise of seismic survey vessels during oil and 

13 gas exploration, and to a lesser extent during drilling and operation of wells. The whale harvest 

14 is central to Alaska Native culture, both in terms of the food it provides and its association with 

15 Native cultural identity and spirituality. Oil and gas exploration and development combined with 

16 increased shipping and the effects of climate change would have an adverse cumulative effect on 

17 subsistence harvesting.

18

19 The construction and operation of linear features such as oil and gas pipelines and roads 

20 can deflect migration patterns of terrestrial mammals such as caribou that are an important part 

21 of the subsistence harvest. As onshore oil and gas development expands from Prudhoe Bay, 

22 Native communities such as Nuiqsut feel increasingly cut off from traditional subsistence 

23 resource harvesting areas. To the extent that offshore oil development requires onshore support 

24 infrastructure, it contributes to a cumulative negative impact on onshore access to subsistence 

25 resources. As the distance between Native communities and oil and gas worker enclaves 

26 decreases, the interaction between these two groups is likely to increase, raising the potential for 

27 cross-cultural conflicts and changes in traditional culture.

28

29 Conclusion. Cumulative impacts on sociocultural systems as a result of future OCS and 

30 ongoing and future non-OCS activities would be moderate to major. Important impacting factors 

31 include early retreat of the polar ice pack (due to warming climate conditions), increased marine 

32 shipping (due to more ice-free lanes along the coast), and increased noise (due to seismic surveys 

33 and other oil and gas activities) — all of which disturb sea mammals and their migration 

34 patterns. Onshore linear features (e.g., pipelines and roads) affect the migration patterns of 

35 terrestrial mammals. Because of the high level of dependence on subsistence harvesting, the 

36 incremental contribution of the proposed action to cumulative impacts on sociocultural systems 

37 in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas would be medium to large (see Section 4.4.13.3).

38

39

40 4.6.5.3.6 Environmental Justice. Additional offshore construction under the proposed 

41 action could include increased noise and traffic, air and water pollution, impacts on residential 

42 property values, and land use changes. Much of the Alaska Native population resides in the 

43 coastal areas of Alaska. New offshore infrastructure resulting from this program could be 

44 located near areas where subsistence hunting occurs. The proposed 5-year program will result in 

45 levels of infrastructure use and construction similar to what has occurred in the south Alaska 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-686

1 region during previous programs. These activities are not expected to expose residents to 

2 notably higher risks than currently occur. 

3

4 Any adverse environmental impacts on fish and mammal subsistence resources could 

5 have disproportionately higher health or environmental impacts on Alaska Native populations. 

6 OCS activities could potentially disrupt marine mammal harvests (primarily walrus, seals, and 

7 beluga whales) by diverting marine migrations or by causing other behavioral changes, such as 

8 increased wariness or having to go further from shore because of the diminishing polar ice cap,

9 and whales migrating further from shore or the synergistic effects of all these factors combined. 

10

11 Air emissions from onshore facilities and helicopter and vessel traffic traversing coastal 

12 areas will be highest in areas containing the greatest amounts of infrastructure. It is assumed that 

13 the majority of the activity from the proposed 5-yr program will occur in waters no more than 

14 100 m (30 ft) deep, with the most offshore air emissions occurring in the coastal areas with the 

15 greatest amounts of oil and gas activity and with fewer emissions occurring elsewhere. The 

16 effects of the OCS program on air quality have been analyzed in Section 4.4.4. This analysis 

17 concluded that routine operations associated with the proposed 5-year program would result in 

18 NO2, SO2, PM10, and CO levels that are well within the NAAQS. Coastal effects from offshore 

19 activities are expected to be small, based on the established and increasing trend toward 

20 movement of oil and gas activities into deeper waters.

21

22 Oil spill events in the region, and related cleanup activities, pose the greatest potential for 

23 impacts on low-income and minority population groups. It is reasonable to expect that most of 

24 these spills would occur in deepwater areas located away from the coast, based on the established 

25 trend for oil and gas activities to move into deep waters located for the most part at a substantial 

26 distance from the coast. The magnitude of impacts from such spills cannot be predicted, should 

27 they contact the coast, and depends on their location, size, and timing. However, according to 

28 MMS (2002), the probability that an offshore oil spill occurring and impacting coastal 

29 populations is low. While the location of possible oil spills cannot be determined, low-income 

30 and minority populations are resident in some areas of the coast. Low-income and minority 

31 groups could bear more negative impacts than other population groups. 

32

33 Conclusion. In the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas, OCS and non-OCS 

34 program activities in combination with increased marine traffic and climate change could result 

35 in major adverse cumulative impacts on human health and the environment, especially if a large 

36 oil spill were to occur, because oil spill contamination of subsistence foods is the main concern 

37 regarding potential effects on Native health. Impacts on marine and terrestrial ecosystems in the 

38 region (described in Section 4.6.4) could affect subsistence resources, traditional culture, and 

39 community infrastructure; indigenous communities that are subsistence-based would likely 

40 experience disproportionate, highly adverse environmental and health effects. However, the 

41 incremental change due to impacts from Program activities is expected to be negligible to minor.

42

43 The incremental impacts of accidental oil spills associated with the proposed action 

44 would be small to large, depending on the size, location, and timing of the spill (see 

45 Section 4.4.14.3).

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-687

1 4.6.5.3.7 Archeological and Historic Resources. Section 4.4.15.3 discusses the 

2 potential impacts from the proposed action (OCS program activities from 2012 to 2017) on 

3 onshore and offshore environments in the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas. 

4 Cumulative impacts on archeological and historic resources result from the incremental impacts 

5 of the proposed action when added to impacts from existing and reasonably foreseeable future 

6 OCS program activities (that are not part of the proposed action) and other non-OCS program 

7 activities. Table 4.6.1-2 presents the exploration and development scenario for the Arctic region

8 cumulative case (encompassing the proposed action and future OCS program activities). 

9 Specific types of impact-producing factors related to OCS program activities considered in this 

10 analysis include drilling rig and platform emplacement, pipeline emplacement, new onshore 

11 facilities, and oil spills. Non-OCS program activities (e.g., oil and gas industry in State waters) 

12 and natural geologic processes such as ice gouging and thermokarst erosion are also considered 

13 (see also Section 4.2.2.2).

14

15 Archeological Resources. Offshore development could result in an interaction between 

16 a drilling rig, platform, pipeline, or anchors and an inundated prehistoric site. This direct 

17 physical contact with a site could destroy artifacts or site features and could disturb the 

18 stratigraphic context of the site. The result would be the loss of archaeological data on 

19 prehistoric migrations, settlement patterns, subsistence strategies, and archaeological contacts 

20 between northeast Asia and the Americas.

21

22 Since 1973, BOEM has required that an archaeological survey be conducted prior to 

23 development of mineral leases determined to have potential for cultural resources, including 

24 prehistoric archaeological sites. Relative sea-level data, which are used to define the portion of 

25 the continental shelf having potential for prehistoric sites, suggest that the portion of the 

26 continental shelf shoreward of about the 60-m (200-ft) isobath would have potential for 

27 prehistoric sites. Although an archaeological survey would identify all cultural resources in the 

28 APE for the project and routine operations related to OCS program activities would avoid all 

29 known cultural resources, it is likely that impacts to prehistoric resources may have already 

30 occurred as a result of non-OCS program activities prior to the implementation of the 

31 archaeological survey requirement. 

32

33 Onshore development could result in direct physical contact between the construction of 

34 new onshore facilities or pipeline trenches and previously unidentified prehistoric sites. This 

35 direct physical contact with a prehistoric site could cause physical damage to or complete 

36 destruction of information on the prehistory of the region and North America. Federal and State 

37 laws and regulations initiated in the 1960s began requiring archaeological surveys prior to 

38 permitting any activity that might disturb a significant archaeological site. Therefore, it can be 

39 assumed that, since the introduction of the archaeological resource protection laws, most coastal 

40 archaeological sites have been located, evaluated, avoided, or mitigated prior to construction. 

41 However, impacts to coastal prehistoric resources may have already occurred as a result of 

42 various onshore construction activities prior to enactment of the archaeological resource 

43 protection laws. 

44

45 Trawling activity in the Arctic region affects only the uppermost portion of the sediment 

46 column (Krost et al. 1990). This zone would already be disturbed by natural factors relating to 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-688

1 the destructive effects of ice gouging and scouring (see Section 4.2.2). Therefore, the effect of 

2 trawling on most prehistoric archaeological sites would be minor.

3

4 Most channel dredging occurs at the entrances to bays, harbors, and ports. These areas 

5 have a high probability for prehistoric archaeological sites, as they are often associated with 

6 drowned river valleys, which are known to have a high probability for prehistoric sites. It is 

7 assumed that some of the archaeological data that have been lost as a result of dredging have 

8 been significant and unique; therefore, the impact to prehistoric archaeological sites as a result of 

9 past channel dredging activities has probably been moderate to major. In many areas, the 

10 USACE now requires remote-sensing surveys prior to dredging activities to minimize such 

11 impacts (Espey, Huston & Associates 1990).

12

13 Natural geologic processes such as ice gouging and thermokarst erosion have caused and 

14 will continue to cause a significant loss of prehistoric archaeological data in the Alaska region. 

15 For example, ice gouges on the Beaufort Sea shelf can create a furrow up to 67 m (220 ft) wide 

16 and 4 m (13 ft) deep; however, the average ice gouge is about 8 m (26 ft) wide and 0.5 m (1.6 ft) 

17 deep (Barnes 1984). Coastal prehistoric sites are exposed to the destructive effects of 

18 thermokarst erosion. These natural processes would cause artifacts to be dispersed and the site 

19 context to be disturbed or even completely destroyed, resulting in the loss of archaeological 

20 information. Overall, a significant loss of data from submerged and coastal prehistoric sites has 

21 probably occurred, and will continue to occur, from the effects of natural geologic processes. It 

22 is assumed that some of the data lost have been significant and/or unique, resulting in a major 

23 level of impact.

24

25 An accidental oil spill could affect coastal prehistoric archaeological sites, but the direct 

26 impact of oil on most sites is uncertain. Protection of such sites during an oil spill requires 

27 specific knowledge of their location, condition, nature, and extent prior to impact; however, the 

28 Beaufort and Chukchi Sea coastlines have not been systematically surveyed for archaeological 

29 sites.

30

31 Heavy oiling of a coastal area could conceal intertidal sites that may not be recognized 

32 until they are inadvertently damaged during cleanup (Whitney 1994). Crude oil may also 

contaminate organic material used in 33 14C dating, and, although there are methods for cleaning 

contaminated 34 14C samples, greater expense is incurred (Dekin et al. 1993). The major source of 

35 potential impact from oil spills is the harm that could result from unmonitored shoreline cleanup 

36 activities. Unauthorized collecting of artifacts by cleanup crew members is also a concern, albeit 

37 one that can be mitigated with effective training and supervision. Damage or loss of significant 

38 archaeological information could result from the contact between an oil spill and a prehistoric 

39 archaeological site; therefore, the cumulative impact from oil spills to prehistoric archaeological 

40 sites could range from moderate to major.

41

42 Historic Resources. Direct physical contact between a routine activity and a shipwreck 

43 site could destroy fragile ship remains, such as the hull and wooden or ceramic artifacts, and 

44 could disturb the site context. The result would be the loss of archaeological data on ship 

45 construction, cargo, and the social organization of the vessel‘s crew, and the concomitant loss of 

46 information on maritime culture for the time period from which the ship dates.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-689

1 Since 1973, BOEM has required archaeological (historical) surveys be conducted prior to 

2 development of mineral leases when a historic-period shipwreck is reported to lie within or 

3 adjacent to the lease area. Although an archeological survey would identify all cultural resources 

4 in the APE for the project and routine operations related to OCS activities would avoid all known 

5 cultural resources, it is likely that impacts to historic-period shipwrecks may have already 

6 occurred as a result of non-OCS program activities that took place before implementation of the 

7 1973 archaeological survey requirement. 

8

9 Onshore development could result in direct physical contact between the construction of 

10 new onshore facilities or pipeline trenches and previously unidentified historic sites. Federal and 

11 State laws and regulations initiated in the 1960s began requiring archaeological surveys prior to 

12 permitting any activity that might disturb a significant archaeological site. Therefore, it can be 

13 assumed that, since the introduction of the archaeological resource protection laws, most coastal 

14 archaeological sites that would have been impacted have been located, evaluated, avoided, or

15 mitigated prior to construction. However, impacts to coastal historic sites may have resulted 

16 from onshore construction activities prior to enactment of the archaeological resource protection 

17 laws. 

18

19 Trawling activity in the Alaska subregion only affects the uppermost portion of the

20 sediment column (Krost et al. 1990). On many wrecks, this zone would already be disturbed by 

21 natural factors and would contain only artifacts of low specific gravity which have lost all 

22 original context. Therefore, the effect of trawling on most historic shipwreck sites would be 

23 minor.

24

25 Most channel dredging occurs at the entrances to bays, harbors, and ports. These areas 

26 have a high probability for historic shipwrecks. Assuming that some of the data lost have been 

27 unique, the impact to historic sites as a result of past channel-dredging activities has probably 

28 been moderate to major. In many areas, the USACE now requires remote-sensing surveys prior 

29 to dredging activities to minimize such impacts (Espey, Huston & Associates 1990).

30

31 Natural geologic processes such as ice gouging and thermokarst erosion may cause a loss 

32 of historic data in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas (see study conducted in the Beaufort Sea by 

33 Darigo et al. [2007]). For example, ice gouges on the Beaufort Sea shelf can create furrows up 

34 to 67 m (220 ft) wide and 4 m (13 ft) deep; however, the average ice gouge is about 8 m (26 ft) 

35 wide and 0.5 m (1.6 ft) deep (Barnes 1984). Darigo et al. (2007) suggest that areas close to 

36 islands and the shore may be protected from the effects of ice gouging. Coastal historic sites are 

37 exposed to the erosional effects of wave energy and thermokarst erosion, which would cause 

38 artifacts to be dispersed and the site context to be disturbed or even completely destroyed. No 

39 specific studies have examined the effect of geological processes on site integrity. Overall, a 

40 significant loss of data from submerged and coastal historic sites may have already occurred

41 from the effects of natural geologic processes. It is possible that some of the data lost may have 

42 been significant and/or unique, resulting in a major level of impact. Additional studies are 

43 needed to assess the effect of geological processes on cultural resources.

44

45 An accidental oil spill could affect a coastal historic site, but the direct impact of oil on 

46 most historic sites is uncertain. The primary source of potential impact from oil spills is 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-690

1 unmonitored shoreline cleanup activities (Bittner 1996; see Section 4.4.15.3.2). Unauthorized 

2 collecting of artifacts by cleanup crew members is also a concern, albeit one that can be 

3 mitigated with effective training and supervision. Damage or loss of significant historic 

4 information could result from oil spill cleanup activities; therefore, the cumulative impact from 

5 oil spills (past, present, and future) on historic sites could range from moderate to major.

6

7 Conclusion. The cumulative impacts of future OCS program and ongoing and future 

8 non-OCS program activities on prehistoric and historic archaeological sites in the Beaufort and 

9 Chukchi Seas are currently unknown, but could range from minor to moderate, mainly because 

10 activities occurring on the OCS prior to BOEM‘s survey requirement (in effect since 1973) may 

11 already have affected significant archaeological sites. Other important impact-producing factors 

12 that likely have had, and will continue to have, an impact on both prehistoric and historic 

13 archaeological sites are channel dredging and geologic processes, such as ice gouging and 

14 thermokarst erosion. Commercial treasure hunting and sport diving may also result in a loss of 

15 artifacts at historic-period shipwreck sites. The incremental contribution of routine Program 

16 activities is expected to be small because required archaeological surveys would identify 

17 significant cultural resources to be avoided (see Section 4.4.15.3).

18

19 Cumulative impacts on prehistoric and historic sites due to accidental oil spills would 

20 result mainly from cleanup activities (direct impacts to the sites are uncertain) and could range 

21 from moderate to major. The incremental impacts of oil spills associated with the proposed 

22 action would be small to medium relative to those associated with future OCS program and 

23 ongoing and future non-OCS program activities.

24

25

26 4.6.6 Cumulative Impacts Summary Tables

27

28 The cumulative impacts are incremental contributions of routine Program activities for 

29 resources in the GOM, Cook Inlet Planning Area, and Arctic region are summarized in 

30 Tables 4.6.6-1, 4.6.6-2, and 4.6.6-3.

31
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-691

1 TABLE 4.6.6-1 Summary of Cumulative Impacts and Incremental Contributions of the Proposed Action, GOM

Cumulative Impact Incremental Contribution

Resource Negligible Minor Moderate Major Small Medium Large Comments

Water Quality X X

Air Quality X X X

Acoustic Environment X X X X X X Magnitude of cumulative impacts depends on 

the ambient acoustic conditions and the nature 

and combination of OCS and non-OCS program 

activities taking place. 

Coastal and Estuarine Habitat X X X

Marine Benthic Habitat X X

Essential Fish Habitat X X Magnitude of cumulative impacts depends on 

size of affected EFH. Impacts from OCS 

activities would be limited by specific lease 

stipulations.

Marine Mammals X X X

Terrestrial Mammals X X X

Marine and Coastal Birds X X

Fish X X X

Reptiles X X X

Invertebrates and Lower 

Trophic Levels

X X
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-692

TABLE 4.6.6-1 (Cont.)

Cumulative Impact Incremental Contribution

Resource Negligible Minor Moderate Major Small Medium Large Comments

Areas of Special Concern X X

Population, Employment, and

Income

X X Cumulative impacts would be considered 

beneficial because past, present, and foreseeable 

future activities would generally increase 

employment and earnings in the region over the 

next 40 to 50 yr. The proposed action would 

add to these beneficial impacts.

Land Use and Infrastructure X X X X The magnitude of cumulative impacts depends 

on the extent and duration of land use change.

Tourism and Recreation X X X Cumulative impacts minor for most routine 

activities except for large oil spills occurring 

during the peak tourist season (which could 

result in major impacts).

Commercial and Recreational

Fishing

X X X

Sociocultural Systems X X

Environmental Justice X X X

Archeological and Historic

Resources

X X X Incremental contribution from routine Program 

activities expected to be small because required 

archaeological surveys would identify 

significant resources to be avoided.

1

2
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-693

1 TABLE 4.6.6-2 Summary of Cumulative Impacts and Incremental Contributions of Proposed Action, Cook Inlet Planning Area

Cumulative Impact Incremental Contribution

Resource Negligible Minor Moderate Major Small Medium Large Comments

Water Quality X X X Cumulative impacts may lessen with time since 

oil and gas production is currently on the 

decline.

Air Quality X X X

Acoustic Environment X X X X X X Magnitude of cumulative impacts depends on 

the ambient acoustic conditions and the nature 

and combination of OCS and non-OCS program 

activities taking place.

Coastal and Estuarine Habitat X X X

Marine Benthic Habitat X X

Essential Fish Habitat X X X Magnitude of cumulative impacts depends on 

size of affected EFH. Impacts from OCS 

activities would be limited by specific lease 

stipulations.

Marine Mammals X X X

Terrestrial Mammals X X X

Marine and Coastal Birds X X X Magnitude of cumulative impacts depends on 

nature and duration of activities that could 

reduce bird survival and productivity.

Fish X X
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-694

TABLE 4.6.6-2 (Cont.)

Cumulative Impact Incremental Contribution

Resource Negligible Minor Moderate Major Small Medium Large Comments

Invertebrates and Lower 

Trophic Levels

X X

Areas of Special Concern X X

Population, Employment, and

Income

X X Cumulative impacts would be considered 

beneficial because past, present, and foreseeable 

future activities would generally increase 

employment and earnings in the region over the 

next 40 to 50 yr. The proposed action would 

add to these beneficial impacts.

Land Use and Infrastructure X X X X The magnitude of cumulative impacts depends 

on the extent and duration of land use change.

Tourism and Recreation X X

Commercial and Recreational

Fishing

X X X

Sociocultural Systems X X X

Environmental Justice X X X

Archeological and Historic

Resources

X X X Incremental contribution from routine Program 

activities expected to be small because required 

archaeological surveys would identify 

significant resources to be avoided.

1
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-695

1 TABLE 4.6.6-3 Summary of Cumulative Impacts and Incremental Contributions of Proposed Action, Arctic Region

Cumulative Impact Incremental Contribution

Resource Negligible Minor Moderate Major Small Medium Large Comments

Water Quality X X X

Air Quality X X X

Acoustic Environment X X X X X X Magnitude of cumulative impacts depends on 

the ambient acoustic conditions and the nature 

and combination of OCS and non-OCS program 

activities taking place.

Coastal and Estuarine Habitat X X X

Marine Benthic Habitat X X

Essential Fish Habitat X X X Magnitude of cumulative impacts depends on 

size of affected EFH. Impacts from OCS 

activities would be limited by specific lease 

stipulations.

Marine Mammals X X X

Terrestrial Mammals X X X

Marine and Coastal Birds X X X Magnitude of cumulative impacts depends on 

nature and duration of activities that could 

reduce bird survival and productivity. 

Population-level effects could result from the 

tendency of large numbers of individuals of 

some bird species to concentrate in certain 

coastal arctic locations.

Fish X X X
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEMEnvironmental Consequences

4-696

TABLE 4.6.6-3 (Cont.)

Cumulative Impact Incremental Contribution

Resource Negligible Minor Moderate Major Small Medium Large Comments

Invertebrates and Lower 

Trophic

 Levels

X X X

Areas of Special Concern X X Lease stipulations applied at the lease sale stage 

could minimize the potential for cumulative 

impacts.

Population, Employment, and 

Income

X X Cumulative impacts would be considered 

beneficial because past, present, and foreseeable 

future activities would generally increase 

employment and earnings in the region over the 

next 40 to 50 yr. The proposed action would 

add to these beneficial impacts.

Land Use and Infrastructure X X X X The magnitude of cumulative impacts depends 

on the extent and duration of land use change.

Commercial and Recreational 

Fishing

X X X

Tourism and Recreation X X

Sociocultural Systems X X X X

Environmental Justice X X X X

Archeological and Historic 

Resources

X X X Incremental contribution from routine Program 

activities expected to be small because required 

archaeological surveys would identify 

significant resources to be avoided.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-697

1 4.7 REFERENCES

2

3 Abraham, K.S., 2005, ―Battering of US GOM Structures Brings Discussion of Standards,‖ World 

4 Oil 226(11):51–60. 

5

6 Adcroft, A., R. Hallberg, J.P. Dunne, B.L. Samuels, J.A. Galt, C.H. Barker, and D. Payton, 2010,

7 ―Simulations of Underwater Plumes of Dissolved Oil in the Gulf of Mexico,‖ Geophysical 

8 Research Letters 37:L18605.

9

10 Addison, R., J. Dower, J. Hall, and I. Jordan, 2004, Report of the Expert Panel on Science Issues 

11 Related to Oil and Gas Activities, Offshore British Columbia, the Royal Society of Canada, 

12 Ottawa, Feb. Available at http://www.rsc.ca/documents/fullreportEN.pdf. Accessed 

13 July 15, 2011.

14

15 ADEC (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation), 2007a, Summary of Oil and 

16 Hazardous Substance Spills by Subarea (July 1, 1995 to June 30, 2005), Oct.

17

18 ADEC, 2007b, Alaska’s Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Strategy, Feb. 15.

19

20 ADEC (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation), 2010, Alaska’s Final 2010 

21 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, July 15.

22

23 ADFG (Alaska Department of Fish and Game), 2011, ―Cook Inlet Area,‖ Alaska Department of 

24 Fish and Game. Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=ByAreaSubsistence

25 CookInlet.main. Accessed August 31, 2011.

26

27 ADN (Anchorage Daily News), 2009, Redoubt Ash Dusts Anchorage, Airport Closed, March 29.

28

29 ADNR (Alaska Department of Natural Resources), 1999, Beaufort Sea Areawide 1999 Oil and 

30 Gas Lease Sale, Finding of the Director, State of Alaska, Division of Oil and Gas, Department of 

31 Natural Resources, Anchorage, Alaska, July 15.

32

33 ADNR, 2009a, Cook Inlet Areawide Oil and Gas Lease Sale, Final Finding of the Director, 

34 January 20, 2009, Division of Oil and Gas.

35

36 ADNR, 2009b, Final Best Interest Finding: 2009 Cook Inlet Areawide Oil and Gas Lease Sale. 

37 Available at http://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/products/publications/cookinlet/ciaw_2009_

38 final_finding/ciaw09-ff_toc.html. Accessed April 26, 2011.

39

40 ADNR, 2009c, Alaska Oil and Gas Report, Annual Report of the Division of Oil and Gas, Nov.

41

42 ADNR, 2011, Red Dog Mine, Division of Mining, Land, and Water, April 25. Available at

43 http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/mining/largemine/reddog/index.htm. Accessed July 12, 2011.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-698

1 Alexander-Bloch, B., 2010, ―Vietnamese-American Fishers Fight for Oil Spill Claim Approval,‖ 

2 nola.com. Available at http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/12/vietnamese3 american_fishermen.html. Accessed December 15, 2010.

4

5 Allen, B.N., and R.P. Angliss, 2010, Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2009, NOAA 

6 Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-206, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries 

7 Science Center, Seattle, Washington, Feb.

8

9 Allen, B.N., and R.P. Angliss, 2011, Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2010, NOAA, 

10 Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-223, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

11 National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Wash., May. 

12 REPLACES ALLEN AND ANGLISS 2010.

13

14 AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme), 1997, ―Acidification and Arctic Haze,‖ 

15 in Arctic Pollution Issues: A State of the Arctic Environment Report. Available at 

16 http://iwlearn.net/iw-projects/Msp_112799491731/reports/arctic-pollution-issues-a-state-of-the17 arctic-environment-report-1997. Accessed September 5, 2011.

18

19 AMAP, 2007, Arctic Oil and Gas 2007. Available at http://www.amap.no/oga/. Accessed May 

20 10, 2011.

21

22 AMAP, 2010, Asssessment 2007: Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic – Effects and Potential 

23 Effects, Vol. 2. Available at http://www.amap.no/oga/. Accessed May 10, 2011.

24

25 Amstrup, S.C., 1993, ―Human Disturbances of Denning Polar Bears in Alaska,‖

26 Arctic 46:246–250.

27

28 Anchorage Daily News, 2010, ―Shell, Native Corporations Team Up for Offshore Operations,‖ 

29 adn.com, Jan. 13.

30

31 Anderson, C.M., and R.P. LaBelle, 2000, ―Update of Comparative Occurrence Rates for 

32 Offshore Oil Spill,‖ Spill Science and Technology 65(6):303–321.

33

34 Anderson, D.E., O.J. Rongstead, and W.R. Mytton, 1986, ―The Behavioral Response of a Red35 Tailed Hawk to Military Training Activity,‖ Raptor Research 20: 65–68.

36

37 Anderson, D.E., O.J. Rongstead, and W.R. Mytton, 1989, ―Response of Nesting Red-Tailed 

38 Hawks to Helicopter Overflights,‖ The Condor 91: 296–299.

39

40 Anderson, J., 2010, Corps of Engineers Alaska District 2011 Dredging Projects, Alaska District 

41 Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, Oct. 27.

42

43 Andre, M., M. Terada, and Y. Watanabe, 1997, Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus) 

44 Behavioral Response after the Playback of Artificial Sounds, Reports of the International 

45 Whaling Commission 47, SC/48/NA 13:499–504.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-699

1 Antoine, J.W., 1972, ―Structure of the Gulf of Mexico,‖ in Contributions on the Geological and 

2 Geophysical Oceanography of the Gulf of Mexico, Vol. 3, Texas A&M University 

3 Oceanographic Studies, R. Resak and V.J. Henry (eds.), Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, 

4 Texas.

5

6 API (American Petroleum Institute), 1989, Effects of Offshore Petroleum Operations on Cold 

7 Water Marine Mammals: A Literature Review, Washington, D.C.

8

9 APTA (American Public Transportation Association), 2010, 2010 Public Transportation Fact 

10 Book. Available at http://www.apta.com/RESOURCES/STATISTICS/Pages/transitstats.aspx. 

11 Accessed April 2010.

12

13 Archer, A.W., and M.S. Hubbard, 2003, ―Highest Tides of the World,‖ Special Paper –

14 Geological Society of America 370:151–173. 

15

16 Arctic Council and IASC (International Arctic Science Committee), 2005, Arctic Climate Impact 

17 Assessment, Cambridge University Press, New York, N.Y.

18

19 Asplin, M.G., J.V. Lukovich, and D.G. Barber, 2009, ―Atmospheric Forcing of the Beaufort Sea 

20 Ice Gyre: Surface Pressure Climatology and Sea Ice Motion,‖ Journal of Geophysical Research

21 114:C00A06. 

22

23 Astakhov, A.S., A.A. Bosin, A.N. Kolesnik, D.A. Korshunov, K. Crane, and E.A. Logvina, 

24 2010, ―Geological Investigations in the Chukchi Sea and the Adjacent Areas of the Arctic Ocean 

25 during the RUSALCA-2009 Expedition,‖ Russian Journal of Pacific Geology 4(6):532–537.

26

27 Atauz, A.D., W. Bryant, T. Jones, and B. Phaneuf, 2006, Mica Shipwreck Project: Deepwater 

28 Archaeological Investigation of a 19th Century Shipwreck in the Gulf of Mexico, OCS Study 

29 MMS 2006-072, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La. 

30

31 Atchinson, A.D., P.W. Sammarco, and D.A. Brazeau, 2008, ―Genetic Connectivity in Corals on 

32 the Flower Garden Banks and Surrounding Oil/Gas Platforms, Gulf of Mexico.‖ Journal of 

33 Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 365: 1–12.

34

35 Auerbach, N.A., M.D. Walker, and D.A. Walker. 1997. Effects of Roadside Disturbance on 

36 Substrate and Vegetation Properties in Arctic Tundra. Ecol. Appl. 7(1):218-235.

37

38 Aurell, J., and B.K. Gullett, 2010, ―Aerostat Sampling of PCDD/PCDF Emissions from the Gulf 

39 Oil Spill In Situ Burns,‖ Environ. Sci. Tech. 44(24):9431–9437.

40

41 Austin, D., et al., 2002, Social and Economic Impacts of Outer Continental Shelf Activities on 

42 Individuals and Families, OCS Study MMS 2002-022, prepared by University of Arizona, 

43 Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology.

44

45 Avens, L., J. Braun-McNeill, S. Epperly, and K.J. Lohmann, 2003, ―Site Fidelity and Homing 

46 Behavior in Juvenile Loggerhead Sea Turtles (Caretta caretta),‖ Marine Biology 143:211–220.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-700

1 Bak, R.P.M., 1987, ―Effects of Chronic Oil Pollution on a Caribbean Coral Reef,‖ Marine 

2 Pollution Bulletin 18:534–539.

3

4 Baker, J.D., C.L. Littnan, and D.W. Johnston, 2006, ―Potential Effects of Sea Level Rise on the 

5 Terrestrial Habitats of Endangered and Endemic Megafauna in the Northwestern Hawaiian 

6 Islands,‖ Endangered Species Research 4:1–10.

7

8 Barber, D.G., R. Galley, M.G. Asplin, R. De Abreu, K.-A. Warner, M. Puc ́ko, M. Gupta, 

9 S. Prinsenberg, and S. Julien, 2009, ―Perennial Pack Ice in the Southern Beaufort Sea Was Not 

10 as It Appeared in the Summer of 2009,‖ Geophysical Research Letters 36:L24501, 

11 doi:10.1029/2009GL041434.

12

13 Barnes, P.W., 1984, ―Ice Gouging Characteristics and Processes,‖ pp. 185–212 in The Beaufort 

14 Sea: Ecosystems and Environments, P.W. Barnes, D.M. Schell, and E. Reimnitz (eds.), 

15 Academic Press, New York, N.Y.

16

17 Barnes, P.W., and E. Reimnitz, 1979, Ice Gouge Obliteration and Sediment Redistribution Event, 

18 1977-1978, Beaufort Sea, Alaska, Open File Report 79-848, U.S. Geological Survey.

19

20 Bartol, S.M., J. Musick, and M. Lenhardt, 1999, ―Auditory Evoked Potentials of the Loggerhead 

21 Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta),‖ Copeia 99(3):836–840.

22

23 Bartol, S.M., and D.R. Ketten, 2006, ―Turtle and Tuna Hearing,‖ pp. 98–103 in Sea Turtle and 

24 Pelagic Fish Sensory Biology: Developing Techniques to Reduce Sea Turtle Bycatch in 

25 Longline Fisheries, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-7, December.

26

27 Bartsch-Winkler, S., 1982, Physiography, Texture, and Bedforms in Knik Arm, Upper Cook 

28 Inlet, Alaska during June and July, 1980, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 82-464. 

29

30 Battelle, 2001, An Initial Survey of Aquatic Invasive Species Issues in the Gulf of Mexico Region, 

31 Version 4.0, EPA 855-R-00-003, submitted by Battelle, Coastal Resources and Ecosystems 

32 Management, New Orleans, La., to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf of Mexico 

33 Program, Stennis Space Center, Mississippi, August 31. Available at http://nis.gsmfc.org/pubs/

34 Initial%20Survey%20of%20Invasive%20Species.pdf. Accessed September 6, 2011.

35

36 Baust, J.G., A.H. Benton, and G.D. Aumann, 1981, ―The Influence of Off-shore Platforms on 

37 Insect Dispersal and Migration,‖ Journal of Economic Entomology 27: 23–25.

38

39 Bean, D., 2005, Past and Present Deepwater Contour-Current Bedforms at the Base of the 

40 Sigsbee Escarpment, Northern Gulf of Mexico, dissertation, Texas A&M University, College 

41 Station, Texas, Aug.

42

43 Becker, E.L., E.E. Cordes, S.A. Macko, and C.R. Fisher, 2009, ―Importance of Seep Primary 

44 Production to Lophelia pertusa and Associated Fauna in the Gulf of Mexico,‖ Deep Sea 

45 Research Part I 56:786–800.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-701

1 Behrenfeld, M.J., R.T. O‘Malley, D.A. Siegel, C.R. McClain, J.L. Sarmiento, G.C. Feldman, 

2 A.J. Milligan, P.G. Falkowski, R.M. Letelier, and E.S. Boss, 2006, ―Climate-Driven Trends in 

3 Contemporary Ocean Productivity,‖ Nature 444:752–755.

4

5 Berner, J., 2011, Integrating Health Impact Assessments into the Federal Environmental Impact 

6 Process with a Focus on Alaska Native Communities. Prepared by the Alaska Inter-Tribal 

7 Council for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Available at http://www.rwjf.org/files/

8 research/63350.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2011.

9

10 Bhatia, R., 2007, ―Protecting Health Using an Environmental Impact Assessment: A Case Study 

11 of San Francisco Land Use Decisionmaking,‖ American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 97, 

12 No. 3, March.

13

14 Bierman, V.J., Jr., S.C. Hinz, D. Justić, D. Scavia, J.A. Veil, K. Satterlee, III, M.E. Parker, and 

15 S. Wilson, 2007, ―Predicted Impacts from Offshore Produced Water Discharges on Hypoxia in 

16 the Gulf of Mexico,‖ prepared for 2007 SPE E&P Environmental and Safety Conference, 

17 Galveston, Texas, March 5–7.

18

19 Billings, R., and D. Wilson, 2004, Data Quality Control and Emissions Inventories of OCS Oil 

20 and Gas Production Activities in the Breton Area of the Gulf of Mexico, Final Report, OCS 

21 Study MMS 2004-071.

22

23 Bittner, J.E., 1996, ―Cultural Resources and the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: An Overview,‖

24 American Fisheries Society Symposium 18:814–818.

25

26 Black, B.B., M.W. Collopy, H.F. Percival, A.A. Tiller, and P.G. Bohall, 1984, Effect of Low27 Level Military Training Flights on Wading Bird Colonies in Florida. Tech. Rep. 7, Florida 

28 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Florida, Gainesville.

29

30 Blackwell, S.B., J.W. Lawson, and M.T. Williams, 2004, ―Tolerance of Ringed Seals (Phoca

31 hispida) to Impact Pipe-Driving and Construction Sounds at an Oil Production Island,‖ The 

32 Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 115(5):2346–2357.

33

34 Blake, E.S., E.N. Rappaport, and C.W. Landsea, 2007, The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most 

35 Intense United States Tropical Cyclones from 1851 to 2006, Technical Memorandum NWS 

36 TPC-5, National Weather Service, National Hurricane Center, Miami, Fla. 

37

38 BLM (Bureau of Land Management), 2002, Renewal of the Federal Grant for the 

39 Trans-Alaska Pipeline System Right-of-Way, Final Environmental Impact Statement,

40 BLM/AK/PT-03/005+2880+990, BLM, Anchorage, Alaska.

41

42 BLM, 2007, Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) Draft Supplemental 

43 Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska

44 State Office, Anchorage. Available at http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/planning/

45 npra_general/ne_npra.html.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-702

1 Blum, M.D., and H.H. Roberts, 2009, ―Drowning of the Mississippi Delta due to Insufficient 

2 Sediment Supply and Global Sea-level Rise,‖ Nature Geoscience, Vol. 2, July.

3

4 Blumer, M., H.L. Sanders, J.F. Grassie, and G.R. Hampson, 1971, ―A Small Oil Spill,‖ 

5 Environment 13:2–12.

6

7 Boatman, M.C., and J. Peterson, 2000, Oceanic Gas Hydrate Research and Activities Review, 

8 MMS Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, OCS Report MMS 2000-017, Feb.

9

10 Bodkin, J.L., B.E. Ballachey, T.A. Dean, A.K. Fukuyama, S.C. Jewett, L. McDonald, 

11 D.H. Monson, C.E. O‘Clair, and G.R. VanBlaricom, 2002, ―Sea Otter Population Status and the 

12 Process of Recovery from the 1989  ̳Exxon Valdez‘ Oil Spill,‖ Marine Ecology Progress 

13 Series 241:237–253.

14

15 Boehm, P.D., J.M. Neff, and D.S. Page, 2007, ―Assessment of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon 

16 Exposure in the Waters of Prince William Sound after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: 1989-2005,‖ 

17 Marine Pollution Bulletin 54:339–356.

18

19 BOEM, unpublished, Draft Programmatic EIS for the Geological and Geophysical Exploration 

20 of Mineral and Energy Resources in the Gulf of Mexico, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

21 Gulf of Mexico Region, New Orleans, La.

22

23 BOEMRE (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement), 2008, 

24 Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sales 209, 212, 217 and 221, 

25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2008-0055.

26

27 BOEMRE, 2010a, Chukchi Sea Planning Area, Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 in the Chukchi Sea, 

28 Alaska, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA, BOEMRE 2010-

29 034, September. 

30

31 BOEMRE, 2010b, Installations and Removals – Offshore Production Facilities in Federal 

32 Water, BOEMRE TIMS GOM and Pacific databases. Available at http://www.boemre.gov/

33 stats/PDFs/OCSPlatformActivity.pdf. Accessed April 21, 2011.

34

35 BOEMRE, 2010c, Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Geological and 

36 Geophysical Exploration of Mineral Resources in the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf. 

37

38 BOEMRE, 2010d, Revised Offshore Environmental Cost Model (OECM): Guide to Cost Benefit 

39 Calculations, prepared by Industrial Economics, Dec.

40

41 BOEMRE, 2010e, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Chukchi Sea Planning Area Statoil USA E&P 

42 Inc. Geological & Geophysical Permit 2010 3D/2D Seismic Acquisition Chukchi Sea, Alaska 

43 Environmental Assessment, OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2010-020, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

44 Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Alaska OCS Region, Office of Leasing and 

45 Environment, June.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-703

1 BOEMRE, 2011a, Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale: 2011, Western Planning Area 

2 Lease Sale 218, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA, BOEMRE 

3 2011-018. Available at http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PDFs/2011/2011-018.pdf. Accessed 

4 April 22, 2011.

5

6 BOEMRE, 2011b, ―Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis: High-Volume, Extended-Duration Oil 

7 Spill Resultilng from Loss of Well Control on the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf,‖ 

8 Appendix B in Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale: 2011, Western Planning Area 

9 Lease Sale 218, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 

10 2011-018, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico 

11 Region, New Orleans, La.

12

13 BOEMRE, 2011c, 2012-2017 Five-Year Scoping Meeting for Programmatic Environmental 

14 Impact Statement Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, 

15 U.S. Department of the Interior, Kaktovik, Alaska, transcript reported by Mary A. Vavrik, 

16 Midnight Sun Court Reporters, February 23.

17

18 BOEMRE, 2011d, 2012-2017 Five-Year Scoping Meeting for Programmatic Environmental 

19 Impact Statement Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, 

20 U.S. Department of the Interior, Nuiqsut, Alaska, transcript reported by Mary A. Vavrik, 

21 Midnight Sun Court Reporters, February 22.

22

23 BOEMRE, 2011e, 2012-2017 Five-Year Scoping Meeting for Programmatic Environmental 

24 Impact Statement Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, 

25 U.S. Department of the Interior, Wainwright, Alaska, transcript reported by Mary A. Vavrik, 

26 Midnight Sun Court Reporters, February 15.

27

28 BOEMRE, 2011f, 2012-2017 Five-Year Scoping Meeting for Programmatic Environmental 

29 Impact Statement Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, 

30 U.S. Department of the Interior, Barrow, Alaska, transcript reported by Mary A. Vavrik, 

31 Midnight Sun Court Reporters, February 21.

32

33 BOEMRE, 2011g, Fact Sheet: Renewable Energy on the Outer Continental Shelf. 

34 Available at http://www.boemre.gov/offshore/RenewableEnergy/PDFs/

35 BOEMREAlternativeEnergyfactsheet.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2011.

36

37 BOEMRE, 2011h, Initial Interim Policy Proposed Projects. Available at 

38 http://www.boemre.gov/offshore/RenewableEnergy/InitialInterimPolicyProposedProject.htm. 

39 Accessed July 20, 2011.

40

41 BOEMRE, 2011i, Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale 216/222 Draft Supplemental 

42 Environmental Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2011-027, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

43 Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-704

1 BOEMRE, 2011j, Gulf of Mexico Region: Offshore Statistics by Water Depth. Available at

2 www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/fastfacts/WaterDepth/WaterDepth.html. Accessed July 18, 

3 2011.

4

5 BOEMRE, 2011k, Chukchi Sea Planning Area, Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 in the Chukchi Sea, 

6 Alaska, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA, BOEMRE 2011-

7 041, August.

8

9 BOEMRE, 2011l, Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale: 2011, Western Planning Area 

10 Lease Sale 218, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA 

11 BOEMRE 2011-034, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Gulf 

12 of Mexico OCS Region.

13

14 BOEMRE, 2011m, Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP). Available at 

15 http://www.boemre.gov/offshore/CIAPmain.html. Accessed August 31, 2011.

16

17 BOEMRE, 2011n, Seismic Water Bottom Anomalies Map Gallery (and Figure 4). Available at 

18 http://www.boemre.gov/offshore/mapping/SeismicWaterBottomAnomolies.htm. Accessed 

19 September 4, 2011.

20

21 Boehm, P.D., 2001, ANIMIDA Phase I: Arctic Nearshore Characterization and Monitoring of 

22 the Physical Environment in the Northstar and Liberty Development Areas, Final Report, OCS 

23 Study MMS 2001-104, prepared by Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, Mass., for Minerals 

24 Management Service, Alaska Region, Anchorage, Alaska.

25

26 Bohnsack, J.A., 1989, ―Are High Densities of Fishes at Artificial Reefs the Result of Habitat 

27 Limitation or Behavioral Preference?‖ Bulletin of Marine Science 44:631–645.

28

29 Bolam, S.G., and H.L. Rees, 2003, ―Minimizing Impacts of Maintenance Dredged Material 

30 Disposal in the Coastal Environment: A Habitat Approach,‖ Environmental Management

31 32(2):171–188.

32

33 Bonsal, B.R., and B. Kochtubajda, 2009, ―An Assessment of Present and Future Climate in the 

34 Mackenzie Delta and the Near-Shore Beaufort Sea Region of Canada,‖ International Journal of 

35 Climatology 29(12):1780–1795. 

36

37 Boston Consulting Group, 2010, Batteries for Electric Cars: Challenges, Opportunities, and the 

38 Outlook to 2020. Available at http://www.bcg.com/documents/file36615.pdf. Accessed January 

39 2010.

40

41 Born, E.W., F.F. Riget, R. Dietz, and D. Andriashek, 1999, ―Escape Responses of Hauled Out

42 Ringed Seals (Phoca hispida) to Aircraft Disturbance,‖ Polar Biology 21:171–178.

43

44 Bouma, A.H., 1981, Submarine Topography and Physiography of Lower Cook Inlet, 

45 U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 81-1335.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-705

1 Bouma, A.H., and M.A. Hampton, 1986, ―Environmental Geology,‖ in Geologic Studies of the 

2 Lower Cook Inlet Cost No. 1 Well, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf, L.B. Magoon (ed.), 

3 U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1596.

4

5 Bouma, A.H., and H.H. Roberts, 1990, ―Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Slope,‖ Geo6 Marine Letters 10:177–181. 

7

8 Bouma, A.H., M.A. Hampton, J.W. Whitney, and W.G. Noonan, 1978a, Physiography of Lower 

9 Cook Inlet, Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 78-728, Aug.

10

11 Bouma, A.H., M.A. Hampton, T.P. Frost, M.E. Torreson, R.C. Orlando, and J.W. Whitney, 

12 1978b, Bottom Characteristics of Lower Cook Inlet, Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey Open File 

13 Report 78-236.

14

15 Bowles, A.E., B. Smultea, B. Würsig, D.P. DeMaster, and D. Palka, 1994, ―Relative Abundance 

16 and Behavior of Marine Mammals Exposed to Transmissions from the Heard Island Feasibility 

17 Test,‖ Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 96(4):2469–2484.

18

19 Bowman, T.D., R.A. Stein, and K.T. Scribner, 2000, ―Glaucous Gull Predation of Goslings on 

20 the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska,‖ Condor 106: 288–298.

21

22 BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc., 1998a, Part 55 Permit Application for the BP Exploration 

23 (Alaska) Inc. Liberty Development Project, Anchorage, Alaska, Jan.

24

25 BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc., 1998b, Part 55 Permit Application for the BP Exploration 

26 (Alaska) Inc. Northstar Development Project, Anchorage, Alaska, Jan.

27

28 Brabets, T.P., G.L. Nelson, J.M. Dorova, and A.M. Milner, 1999, Water Quality Assessment of 

29 the Cook Inlet Basin, Alaska — Environmental Setting, Water Resources Investigation 

30 Report 99-4025, U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage, Alaska.

31

32 Braddock, J.F., J.E. Lindstrom, and R.C. Price, 2003, ―Weathering of a Subarctic Oil Spill over 

33 25 years: the Caribou-Poker Creeks Research Watershed Experiment,‖ Cold Regions Science 

34 and Technology 36(1-3):11–23.

35

36 Braddock, J., K. Gannon, and B. Rasley, 2004, Petroleum Hydrocarbon-Degrading Microbial 

37 Communities in Beaufort-Chukchi Sea Sediments, OCS Study MMS 2004-061, University of 

38 Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska.

39

40 Bradner, T., 2011, LNG Plant Closure Heightens Concern about Gas, Alaska Journal of 

41 Commerce, Feb. 18. Available at http://www.alaskajournal.com/stories/021811/

42 oil_lpchcag.shtml. Accessed July 18, 2011.

43

44 Brannon, E.L., T.P. Quinn, R.P. Whitman, A.E. Nevissi, R.E. Nakatani, and C.D. McAuliffe, 

45 1986, ―Homing of Adult Chinook Salmon after Brief Exposure to Whole and Dispersed Crude 

46 Oil,‖ Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115:823–827.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-706

1 Brooke, S., and C.M. Young, 2009, ―In Situ Measurement of Survival and Growth of Lophelia 

2 pertusa in the Northern Gulf of Mexico,‖ Marine Ecology Progress Series 397:153–161.

3

4 Brooke, S.D., M.W. Holmes, and C.M. Young, 2009, ―Sediment Tolerance of Two Different 

5 Morphotypes of the Deep-Sea Coral Lophelia pertusa from the Gulf of Mexico,‖ Marine 

6 Ecology Progress Series 390:137–144.

7

8 Brooks, D.A., 1983, ―The Wake of Hurricane Allen in the Western Gulf of Mexico,‖ Journal of 

9 Physical Oceanography 13:117–129. 

10

11 Brooks, D.A., 1984, ―Current and Hydrographic Variability in the Northwestern Gulf of 

12 Mexico,‖ Journal of Geophysical Research 89(C5):8022–8032. 

13

14 Brooks, J.M., and C.P. Giammona, 1991, Mississippi-Alabama Continental Shelf Ecosystem 

15 Study Data Summary and Synthesis, Volume II: Technical Narrative, OCS Study 91-0063, 

16 MMS, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La. 

17

18 Brown, B.T., G.S. Mills, C. Powels, W.A. Russell, G.D. Therres, and J.J. Pottie, 1999, ―The 

19 Influence of Weapons-Testing Noise on Bald Eagle Behavior,‖ Journal of Raptor Research, 33:

20 227–232.

21

22 Brown, J., 2005, ANIMIDA Task 2: Hydrocarbon and Metal Characterization of Sediments, 

23 Bivalves and Amphipods in the ANIMIDA Study Area, Final Report, OCS Study MMS 2004-024, 

24 submitted by Exponent, Inc., Maynard, Mass., to Minerals Management Service, Alaska Outer 

25 Continental Shelf Region, Anchorage, Alaska. Available at http://www.alaska.boemre.gov/

26 reports/2004Reports/2004_024/ANIMIDA%20Task%202%20Final%20Report.pdf. Accessed 

27 June 24, 2011.

28

29 Brown, E.D., B.L. Norcross, and J.W. Short, 1996, ―An Introduction to Studies on the Effects of 

30 the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill on Early Life History Stages of Pacific Herring, Clupea Pallasi, in 

31 Prince William Sound, Alaska,‖ Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

32 53:2337–2342. 

33

34 Bryant, W.R., and J.Y. Liu, 2000, ―Chapter 3: Geology,‖ in Deepwater Gulf of Mexico 

35 Environmental and Socioeconomic Data Search and Literature Synthesis, Volume I: Narrative 

36 Report, OCS Study MMS 2000-049, prepared by Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. for Minerals 

37 Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La.

38

39 Bryant, W.R., J. Lugo, C. Cordova, and A. Salvador, 1991, ―Physiography and Bathymetry,‖ in 

40 The Gulf of Mexico Basin, A. Salvador (ed.), Geological Society of America, The Geology of 

41 North America Vol. J, pp. 13–30.

42

43 Buckstaff, K.C., 2004, ―Effects of Watercraft Noise on the Acoustic Behavior of Bottlenose 

44 Dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in Sarasota Bay, Florida,‖ Marine Mammal Science 20:709–725.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-707

1 Bue, B.G., S. Sharr, and J.E. Seeb, 1998, ―Evidence of Damage to Pink Salmon Populations 

2 Inhabiting Prince William Sound, Alaska, Two Generations after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill,‖ 

3 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:35–43. 

4

5 Buist, I., R. Belore, D. Dickins, D. Hackenberg, A. Guarino and Z. Wang, 2008, Empirical 

6 Weathering Properties of Oil in Ice and Snow, OCS study, MMS 2008-033, Anchorage, Alaska.

7

8 Burgess, R.M., 2000, ―Arctic Fox,‖ The Natural History of an Arctic Oil Field, pp. 159–178, 

9 J.C. Truett and S.R. Johnson (eds). Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

10

11 Burns, J.J., and K.J. Frost, 1979, Natural History and Ecology of the Bearded Seal, Erignathus 

12 barbatus, Environ. Assess. Alaskan Cont. Shelf, Final Rep. Princ. Invest., NTIS PB 85-200939,

13 NOAA, Juneau, Alaska.

14

15 Burwell, M., 2011, e-mail from Burwell (BOEMRE, Anchorage, Alaska) to B.T. Verhaaren 

16 (Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill.).

17

18 California Energy Commission, undated a, Consumer Energy Center: Choices at Home. 

19 Available at http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/home/. Accessed August 20, 2011.

20

21 California Energy Commission, undated b, Consumer Energy Center: Water Heaters. Available 

22 at http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/home/appliances/waterheaters.html. Accessed 

23 August 20, 2011.

24

25 California Energy Commission, undated c, Consumer Energy Center: Stoves, Ranges and 

26 Ovens. Available at http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/home/appliances/ranges.html. 

27 Accessed August 20, 2011.

28

29 Calkins, D.G., E. Becker, T.R. Spraker, and T.R. Loughlin, 1994, ―Impacts on Steller Sea 

30 Lions,‖ pp. 119–139.in Marine Mammals and the Exxon Valdez, Academic Press, San Diego, 

31 Calif.

32

33 Calleson, C.S., and R.K. Frohlich, 2007, ―Slower Boat Speeds Reduce Risks to Manatees,‖ 

34 Endangered Species Research 3:295–304.

35

36 Cameron, M., and P. Boveng, 2009, Habitat Use and Seasonal Movements of Adult and Sub37 adult Bearded Seals, Alaska Fisheries Science Center Quarterly Report October November 

38 December 2009. Available at http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Quarterly/ond2009/OND09feature.pdf. 

39 Accessed March 17, 2011.

40

41 Cameron, R.D., W.T. Smith, R.G. White, and B. Griffith, 2002, ―Section 4: The Central Arctic 

42 Caribou Herd,‖ pp. 38–45 in Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain Terrestrial Wildlife Research 

43 Summaries, D.C. Douglas, P.E. Reynolds, and E.B. Rhodes (eds.), Biological Science Report 

44 USGS/BRD/BSR-2002-0001, U.S. Geologic Survey, Biological Resources Division.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-708

1 Camilli R., C.M. Reddy, D.R. Yoerger, B.A. S. Van Mooy, M.V. Jakuba, J.C. Kinsey, 

2 C.P. McIntyre, S.P. Sylva and J.V. Maloney, 2010, ―Tracking Hydrocarbon Plume Transport and 

3 Biodegradation at Deepwater Horizon,‖ Science 330:201–204.

4

5 Carmack, E., R. Macdonald, R. Perkin, F. McLaughlin, and R. Pearson, 1995, ―Evidence for 

6 Warming of Atlantic Water in the Southern Canadian Basin of the Arctic Ocean: Results from 

7 the Larsen-93 Expedition,‖ Geophysical Research Letters 22(9):1061–1064. 

8

9 Carney, R.S., 1997, Workshop on Environmental Issues Surrounding Deepwater Oil and Gas 

10 Development, Final Report, OCS Study MMS 98-0022, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

11 Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region, New Orleans, La. 

12

13 Carretta, J.V., K.A. Forney, E. Leson, K. Martien, M.M. Muto, M.S. Lowry, J. Barlow, J. Baker, 

14 B. Hanson, D. Lynch, L. Carswell, R.L. Brownell, Jr., J. Robbins, D.K. Matilla, K. Ralls, and 

15 M.C. Hill, 2011, U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2010, NOAA-TM-NMFS16 SWFSC-476, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

17 Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center. Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/

18 sars/po2010.pdf. Accessed August 1, 2011.

19

20 Casale, P., D. Freggi, D. Basso, C. Vallini, and R. Argano, 2007, ―A Model of Area Fidelity, 

21 Nomadism, and Distribution Patterns of Loggerhead Sea Turtles (Caretta caretta) in the 

22 Mediterranean Sea,‖ Marine Biology 152(5):1039–1049.

23

24 Ceresana Research, 2009, Market Study: Bioplastics, June. Available at http://www.ceresana.

25 com/en/market-studies/plastics/bioplastics/. Accessed August 21, 2011.

26

27 Chang, Y.L., and L.Y. Oey, 2010, ―Why Can Wind Delay the Shedding of Loop Current 

28 Eddies?‖ Journal of Physical Oceanography 40(11):2481–2495. 

29

30 Church, R.A., and D.J. Warren, 2008, Viosca Knoll Wreck: Discovery and Investigation of an 

31 Early Nineteenth Century Sailing Ship in 2,000 feet of Water, OCS Study MMS 2008-018, 

32 Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La.

33

34 Church, J., J.M. Gregory, P. Huybrechts, M. Kuhn, K. Lambeck, M.T. Nhuan, D. Qin, and 

35 P.L. Woodworth, 2001, Changes in Sea Level, in Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, 

36 Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

37 on Climate Change, J.T. Houghton et al. (eds.), pp. 639–693, Cambridge University Press, 

38 New York, N.Y.

39

40 CIBSE (Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers), undated, ―Indicative Life 

41 Expectancy for Building Services Plant, Equipment and Systems.‖ Available at 

42 http://www.cibse.org/pdfs/newOOMtable1.pdf. Accessed August 21, 2011.

43
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-709

1 Clark, C.E., and J.A. Veil, 2009, Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices in the 

2 United States, ANL/EVS/R-09/1, prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil 

3 Energy, National Environmental Technology Laboratory, Environmental Science Division, 

4 Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill., September.

5

6 Clausen, C.J., and J.B. Arnold III, 1975, ―Magnetic Delineation of Individual Shipwreck Sites; A 

7 New Control Technique,‖ Bull. of the Texas Archaeological Soc. 46:69-86.

8

9 Claypool, G.E., et al., 1980, ―Biogenic and Thermogenic Origins of Natural Gas in Cook Inlet 

10 Basin, Alaska,‖ American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bull. 64(6), Aug.

11

12 Clean Edge, Inc. and Co-op America, 2008, Utility Solar Assessment (USA) Study: Reaching 

13 Ten% Solar by 2025, June. Available at http://www.cleanedge.com/reports/reports14 solarUSA2008.php.

15

16 Clough, C., 2011, Fault Data for the Cook Inlet, GIS data transmittal from C. Clough, Senior 

17 GIS tech, Kenai Peninsula Borough, GIS Division, Soldotna, Alaska, to E. Zvolanek, Argonne 

18 National Laboratory.

19

20 Coastal Response Research Center, 2010, Deepwater Horizon Dispersant Use Meeting Report,

21 University of New Hampshire, Durham, N.H.

22

23 Cochrane, J.D., and F.J. Kelly, 1986, ―Low-Frequency Circulation on the Texas-Louisiana 

24 Continental Shelf,‖ Journal of Geophysical Research 91(C9):10645–10659. 

25

26 Coleman, J.M., and D.B. Prior, 1988, ―Mass Wasting on Continental Margins,‖ Ann. Rev. Earth 

27 Planet. Sci. 16:101–119.

28

29 Coleman, J.M., H.H. Roberts, and W.R. Bryant, 1991, ―Late Quaternary Sedimentation,‖ in The 

30 Gulf of Mexico Basin, A. Salvador (ed.), Geological Society of America, The Geology of North 

31 America Vol. J, pp. 325–352.

32

33 Collier, T.K., C.A. Krone, M.M. Krahn, J.E. Stein, S. Chan, and U. Varanasi, 1996, ―Petroleum 

34 Exposure and Associated Biochemical Effects in Subtidal Fish after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill,‖ 

35 American Fishery Society Symposium 18:671–683. 

36

37 Combellick, R., and W.E. Long, 1983, Geologic Hazards in Southeastern Alaska, an Overview: 

38 State of Alaska, Alaska Report of Investigations 83-17, Division of Geological and Geophysical 

39 Surveys.

40

41 Combellick, R.A., R.D. Reger, and C.J. Nye, 1995, Geologic Hazards in and near Proposed 

42 State of Alaska Oil and Gas Lease Sale 85A (Cook Inlet), Public Data File 95-36, Alaska 

43 Department of Natural Resources, Nov.

44

45 Comiso, J.C., 2002, ―A Rapidly Declining Perennial Sea Ice Cover in the Arctic,‖ Geophysical 

46 Research Letters 29(20):1956. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-710

1 Comiso, J.C., 2003, ―Warming Trends in the Arctic from Clear Sky Satellite Observations,‖ 

2 Journal of Climate 16(21):3498–3510. 

3

4 Comiso, J., J. Yang, S. Honjo, and R.A. Krishfield, 2003, ―Detection of Change in the Arctic 

5 Using Satellite and In Situ Sata,‖ Journal of Geophysical Research 108(C12). 

6

7 Conlan, K., and R.G. Kvitek, 2005, ―Recolonization of Soft-Sediment ice Scours on an Exposed 

8 Arctic Coast,‖ Marine Ecology Progress Series 286:21–42.

9

10 Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 1992, Analysis of Potential Effects of Oil Spilled from 

11 Texaco’s Proposed Pipeline on the Biota of the East Flower Garden, West Flower Garden, 

12 Rankin, and MacNeil Banks, prepared for Texaco, New Orleans, La. 

13

14 Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 1994, Analysis of Potential Effects of Oil Spilled from 

15 Proposed Structures Associated with Oryx’s High Island Block 384 Unit on the Biota of the East 

16 Flower Garden Bank and on the Biota of Coffee Lump Bank, prepared for Oryx Energy 

17 Company, Dallas, Texas. 

18

19 Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 1997, Gulf of Mexico Produced Water Bioaccumulation 

20 Study, Definitive Component, prepared for the Offshore Operators Committee, New Orleans, La.

21

22 Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2004a, Final Report: Gulf of Mexico Comprehensive 

23 Synthetic Based Muds Monitoring Program, Volume 1: Technical. 

24

25 Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2004b, Explosive Removal of Offshore Structures —

26 Information Synthesis Report, OCS Study MMS 2003-070, Minerals Management Service, Gulf 

27 of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region, New Orleans, La. 

28

29 Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2004c, Gulf of Mexico Comprehensive Synthetic Based Muds 

30 Monitoring Program, Technical Report, Vol. 1, prepared for the Synthetic Based Muds Research 

31 Group. 

32

33 Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2004d, Geological and Geophysical Exploration for Mineral 

34 Resources on the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Final Programmatic Environmental 

35 Assessment, OCS EIS/EA MMS 2004-054, prepared for Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

36 Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans. La., July.

37

38 Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2006, Effects of Oil and Gas Exploration and Development at 

39 Selected Continental Slope Sites in the Gulf of Mexico, Volume I: Executive Summary, OCS 

40 Study MMS 2006-044, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf 

41 Region, New Orleans, La. 

42
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-711

1 Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., and Texas A&M University, Geochemical and Environmental 

2 Research Group, 2001, Mississippi/Alabama Pinnacle Trend Ecosystem Monitoring, Final 

3 Synthesis Report, USGS/BR 2001-0007 prepared for U.S. Geological Survey, Biological 

4 Resources Division, and OCS Study MMS 2001-080 prepared for Minerals Management 

5 Service, Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region, New Orleans, La. 

6

7 Cooper, C., G.Z. Forristall, and T.M. Joyce, 1990, ―Velocity and Hydrographic Structure of Two 

8 Gulf of Mexico Warm-Core Rings,‖ Journal of Geophysical Research 95(C2):1663–1679. 

9

10 Cooke, S.J., and I.G. Cowx, 2006, ―Contrasting Recreational and Commercial Fishing: 

11 Searching for Common Issues to Promote Unified Conservation of Fisheries Resources and 

12 Aquatic Environments,‖ Biological Conservation 128:93–108.

13

14 Costello, J.A., 1985, Tsunamis: Hazard Definition and Effects on Facilities, U.S. Geological 

15 Survey Open File Report 85-533.

16

17 Cox, T.M., T.J. Ragen, A.J. Read, E. Vos, R.W. Baird, K. Balcomb, J. Barlow, J. Caldwell, 

18 T. Cranford, L. Crum, A. D‘Amico, G.D. Spain, A. Fernandez, J. Finneran, R. Gentry, W. Gerth, 

19 F. Gulland, J. Hildebrand, D. Houser, T, Hullar, P.D. Jepson, D. Ketten, C.D. MacLeod, 

20 P. Miller, S. Moore, D.C. Mountain, D. Palka, P. Ponganis, S. Rommel, T. Rowles, B. Taylor, 

21 P. Tyack, D. Wartzok, R. Gisiner, J. Mead, and L. Benner, 2006, ―Understanding the Impacts of 

22 Anthropogenic Sound on Beaked Whales,‖ Journal of Cetacean Research and Management

23 7(3):177–187.

24

25 Coyne, J.M., and J.J. Dollar, 2005, ―Shell Pipeline‘s Response and Repairs after Hurricane 

26 Ivan,‖ Proc. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, OTC Paper No. 17734.

27

28 Crane, N.L., and K. Lashkari, 1996, ―Sound Production of Gray Whales Along Their Migration 

29 Route, a New Approach to Signal Analysis,‖ Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

30 100(3):1878–1886.

31

32 Craig et al., 1985, Geologic Report for the Beaufort Sea Planning Area, Alaska: Regional 

33 Geology, Petroleum Geology, Environmental Geology, OCS Report MMS 85-0111, Dec.

34

35 Crouse, D.T., L.B. Crowder, and H. Caswell, 1987, ―A Stage-Based Population Model for 

36 Loggerhead Sea Turtles and Implications for Conservation,‖ Ecology 68:1412–1423.

37

38 Crout, R.L., 2009, ―Oil and Gas Platform Ocean Current Profile Data from the Northern Gulf of 

39 Mexico,‖ Marine Technology Society Journal 43(2):13–20.

40

41 Cruz, A.M., and E. Krausmann, 2008, ―Damage to Offshore Oil and Gas Facilities Following 

42 Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: An Overview,‖ Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process

43 Industries 21(6):620–626. 

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-712

1 Cudahy, E., and W.T. Ellison, 2002, A Review of the Potential for In Vivo Tissue Damage by 

2 Exposure to Underwater Sound, white paper report for the Department of Navy, Washington, 

3 D.C. Available at http://www.dymedso.ca/pdf/Lung%20resonant%20frequency.pdf. Accessed 

4 July 12, 2011.

5

6 Culbertson, J.B., I. Valiela, M. Pickart, E.E. Peacock, and C.M. Reddy, 2008, ―Long-Term 

7 Consequences of Residual Petroleum on Salt Marsh Grass,‖ Journal of Applied Ecology

8 45(4):1284–1292.

9

10 Curry, T., and E. Murphy, 1995, ―Impacts of Aircraft Disturbance on Reproductive Success of 

11 Thick-Billed Murres: Major Threat or Minor Stressor,‖ Pacific Seabirds 22(1): 28.

12

13 Daggett et al., 2006, Alternative Fuels and Their Potential Impact on Aviation, NASA Technical 

14 Memorandum 2006-214365, October. Available at http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2006/

15 TM-2006-214365.pdf. Accessed August 20, 2011.

16

17 Dalen, J., and G.M. Knutse, 1986, Scaring Effects in Fish and Harmful Effects on Eggs, Larvae 

18 and Fry by Offshore Seismic Explorations. Symposium on Underwater Acoustics, Halifax.

19

20 Dahlheim, M.E., 1987, Bio-Acoustics of the Gray Whale (Eschrichtius robustus), Ph.D. Thesis. 

21 Vancouver, B.C.: University of British Columbia 315 pp.

22

23 Dahlin, J., et al., 1994, Recovery of Mangrove Habitats at the Vesta Bella Spill Site, Hazmat 

24 Report 95-3, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, Hazardous Materials Response and 

25 Assessment Division.

26

27 Darigo, N., O. Mason, and P. Bowers, 2007, Review of Geological/Geophysical Data and Core 

28 Analysis to Determine Archaeological Potential of Buried Landforms, Beaufort Sea Shelf, 

29 Alaska, OCS Study MMS 2007-004, prepared by Northern Land Use Research, Inc., 

30 URS Corporation, and GeoArch Alaska for MMS, Alaska OCS Region.

31

32 Dau, J.R., and R.D. Cameron, 1986, ―Effects of a Road System on Caribou Distribution and 

33 Calving,‖ Rangifer Special Edition 1:95–101.

34

35 Davis, R.A., D.H. Thompson, and C.I. Malme, 1998, Environmental Assessment of Seismic 

36 Exploration on the Scotian Shelf, Canada/Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, Halifax, Nova 

37 Scotia.

38

39 Davis, R.W., W.E. Evans, and B. Würsig (eds.), 2000, Cetaceans, Sea Turtles and Seabirds in 

40 the Northern Gulf of Mexico: Distribution, Abundance and Habitat Associations, Volume II: 

41 Technical Report, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, USGS/BRD/CR42 1999-0006 and OCS Study MMS 2000-002, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

43 OCS Region, New Orleans, La. 

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-713

1 Day, J., N. Psuty, and B. Perez, 2000, ―The Role of Pulsing Events in the Functioning of Coastal 

2 Barriers and Wetlands: Implications for Human Impact, Management and the Response to Sea 

3 Level Rise,‖ in Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology, M. Weinstein and 

4 D. Kreeger (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

5

6 Day, R.H., 1998, Predator Populations and Predation Intensity on Tundra-Nesting Birds in 

7 Relation to Human Development. Prepared by ABR, Inc., Fairbanks, AK, for Northern Alaska 

8 Ecological Services, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks, AK.

9

10 Day, R.H., and D.A. Nigro, 1999, Status and Ecology of Kittlitz’s Murrelet in Prince William 

11 Sound, 1996–1998. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project 98142, Final Report No. 435.

12

13 Day, R.H., S.M. Murphey, J.A. Wiens, G.D. Hayward, E.J. Harner, and B.E. Lawhead, 1997a, 

14 ―Effects of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill on Habitat Use by Birds Along the Kenai Peninsula, 

15 Alaska,‖ The Condor 99: 728–742.

16

17 Day, R.H., S.M. Murphy, J.A. Wiens, G.D. Hayward, E.J. Harner, and L.N. Smith, 1997b, 

18 ―Effects of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill on Habitat Use by Birds in Prince William Sound, 

19 Alaska.‖ Ecological Applications 7: 593–613.

20

21 Day, R.H., D.A. Nigro, and A.K. Prichard, 2000b, ―At-Sea Habitat Use by the Kittlitz‘s Murrelet 

22 Brachyramphus brevirostris in Nearshore Waters of Prince William Sound, Alaska,‖ Marine 

23 Ornithology 28: 105–114.

24

25 de Gouw, J.A., et al., 2011, ―Organic Aerosol Formation Downwind from the Deepwater 

26 Horizon Oil Spill,‖ Science 331:1295–1299.

27

28 Dean, T.A., and S.C. Jewett, 2001, ―Habitat-Specific Recovery of Shallow Subtidal 

29 Communities following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill,‖ Ecological Applications 11:1456–1471.

30

31 Dekin, A.A., Jr., M.S. Cassell, J.I. Ebert, E. Camilli, J.M. Kerley, M.R. Yarborough, P.A. Stahl, 

32 and B.L. Turcy, 1993, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Archaeological Damage Final Report, Contract

33 No. 53-0109-1-00325, U.S. Forest Service.

34

35 Delany, D.K., T.G. Grubb, P. Beier, L.L. Pater, and M.H. Reiser, 1999, ―Effects of Helicopter 

36 Noise on Mexican Spotted Owls,‖ Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 60–76.

37

38 Derksen, D.V., K.S. Bollinger, D. Esler, K.C. Jensen, E.J. Taylor, M.W. Miller, and 

39 M.W. Weller, 1992, Effects of Aircraft on Behavior and Ecology of Molting Black Brant Near 

40 Teshekpuk Lake, Alaska. Final Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S Fish and Wildlife 

41 Service, Anchorage, AK.

42

43 Derraik, J.G.B., 2002, ―The Pollution of the Marine Environment by Plastic Debris: a Review,‖ 

44 Marine Pollution Bulletin 44: 842–852.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-714

1 Det Norske Veritas, 2007, Pipeline Damage Assessment from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the 

2 Gulf of Mexico, Report No. 44814183, MMS.

3

4 DeWald, O., 1980, ―Severe Storm and Hurricane Impacts along the Gulf and Lower Atlantic 

5 Coasts,‖ in Environmental Information on Hurricanes, Deepwater Technology, and Mississippi 

6 Delta Mudslides in the Gulf of Mexico, Section III, Bureau of Land Management Open File 

7 Report 80-02, New Orleans, La.

8

9 DF Dickens Associates, Ltd., 2004, Advancing Oil Spill Response in Ice-Covered Waters, 

10 prepared for Prince William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute, Cordova, Alaska, and 

11 U.S. Arctic Research Commission, Arlington, Virginia, and Anchorage Alaska, March.

12

13 DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans), 2004, Review of Scientific Information on Impacts 

14 of Seismic Sound on Fish, Invertebrates, Marine Turtles and Marine Mammals, Department of 

15 Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Science Advisory Secretary Habitat Status Report 2004/002.

16

17 Di Iorio, L., and C.W. Clark, 2010, ―Exposure to Seismic Survey Alters Blue Whale Acoustic 

18 Communication,‖ Biology Letters 6:51–54.

19

20 Dickerman, R.W., and R.G. Goelet, 1987, ―Northern Gannet Starvation After Swallowing 

21 Styrofoam,‖ Marine Pollution Bulletin 13: 18–20.

22

23 Dickerson, D.D., 1990, ―Workgroup 1 Summary,‖ pp. 74–75 in Proceedings of the National 

24 Workshop on Methods to Minimize Dredging Impacts on Sea Turtles, May 11 and 12, 1988, 

25 Jacksonville, Fla., Dickerson, D.D., and D.A. Nelson (comp.), Miscellaneous Paper EL-90-5,

26 U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.

27

28 Dickerson, D.D., D.A. Nelson, M. Wolff, and L. Manners, 1992, ―Summary of Dredging 

29 Impacts on Sea Turtles: King‘s Bay, Georgia, and Cape Canaveral, Florida,‖ pp. 148–151 in

30 Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation,

31 February 26–March 2, 1991, Jekyll Island, Ga., M. Salmon, and J. Wyneken (comp.), NOAA 

32 Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-302.

33

34 Dimarco, S.F., M.K. Howard, W.D. Nowlin, Jr., and R.O. Reid, 2004, Subsurface, High-Speed 

35 Current Jets in the Deepwater Region of the Gulf of Mexico, Final Report, OCS Study 2004-022, 

36 MMS, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La.

37

38 Ditty, J.G., 1986, ―Ichthyoplankton in Neretic Waters of the Northern Gulf of Mexico off 

39 Louisiana: Composition, Relative Abundance, and Seasonality,‖ Fishery Bulletin 84:935–946.

40

41 Ditty, J.G., G.G. Zieske, and R.F. Shaw, 1988, ―Seasonality and Depth Distribution of Larval 

42 Fishes in the Northern Gulf of Mexico above 26°00' N,‖ Fishery Bulletin 86:811–823. 

43

44 Dixon, E.J., G. Sharma, and S. Stoker, 1986, Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf Cultural Resource 

45 Compendium, Technical Report No. 119, OCS Study MMS 86-0018, MMS, Alaska Outer 

46 Continental Shelf Office, Anchorage, Alaska.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-715

1 Dodge, R.E., B.J. Baca, A.H. Knap, S.C. Snedaker, and T.D. Sleeter, 1995, The Effects of Oil 

2 and Chemically Dispersed Oil in Tropical Ecosystems: 10 Years of Monitoring Experimental 

3 Sites, MSRC Tech Rep Ser 95-014, Marine Spill Response Corporation, Washington, D.C.

4

5 Dolman, S., V. Williams-Grey, R. Asmutis-Silvia, and S. Issac, 2006, Vessel Collisions and 

6 Cetaceans: What Happens When They Don’t Miss the Boat?, a Whale and Dolphin 

7 Conservation Society report. Available at http://www.wdcs.org/submissions_bin/shipstrikes.pdf. 

8 Accessed July 15, 2011.

9

10 Donohue, K., P. Hamilton, R. Leben, R. Watts, and E. Waddell, 2008, Survey of Deepwater 

11 Currents in the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico, OCS Study, MMS 2008-031, MMS, Gulf of 

12 Mexico OCS Region, Raleigh, N.C. 

13

14 Dow, W.E., D.A. Mann, T.T. Jones, S.A. Eckert, and C.A. Harms, 2008, ―In-Water and In-Air 

15 Hearing Sensitivity of the Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas),‖ abstract, Acoustic 

16 Communication by Animals, 2nd International Conference, August 12–15, 2008, Corvallis, Ore.

17

18 Doyle, L.R., B. McCowan, S.F. Hanser, C. Chyba, T. Bucci, and J.E. Blue, 2008, ―Applicability 

19 of Information Theory to the Quantification of Response to Anthropogenic Noise by Southeast 

20 Alaskan Humpback Whales‖ Entropy 10:33–46.

21

22 Draggan, S., 2010, ―Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Marine Mammals,‖ in The Encyclopedia of 

23 Earth, C.J. Cleveland (topic ed.), Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for 

24 Science and the Environment, Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.eoearth.org/article/

25 Deepwater_Horizon_Oil_Spill_and_Marine_Mammals?topic=50359. Accessed March 16, 2011.

26

27 Dunn, E.H., 1993, ―Bird Mortality from Striking Residential Windows in Winter,‖ Journal of 

28 Field Ornithology 64: 302–309.

29

30 Dunton, K., K. Iken, S. Shonberg, and D.W. Funk, 2009, Long-Term Monitoring of the Kelp 

31 Community in the Stefansson Sound Boulder Patch: Detection of Change Related to Oil and 

32 Gas Development, OCS Study MMS 2009-040, continuation of Arctic Near shore Impact 

33 Monitoring in the Development Area (cANIMIDA) Task 006, final report to the Minerals 

34 Management Service.

35

36 Dunton, K.H., 1984, ―An Annual Carbon Budget for an Arctic Kelp Community,‖ pp. 1–65 in 

37 The Alaskan Beaufort Sea Ecosystems and Environments, P.W. Barners, D.M. Schell, and 

38 E. Reimnitz (eds.), Academic Press, New York, N.Y. 

39

40 Duronslet, M.J., C.W. Caillouet, S. Manzella, K.W. Indelicato, C.T. Fontaine, D.B. Revera, 

41 T. Williams, and D. Boss, 1986, The Effects of Underwater Explosion on the Sea Turtles 

42 Lepidochelys kempi and Caretta caretta with Observations of Effects on Other Marine 

43 Organisms, report submitted to National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Laboratory, 

44 Galveston, Texas.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-716

1 EERE (U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy) 2008, 

2 Natural Gas Reforming. 

3

4 EERE, 2010, Energy Cost Calculator for Electric and Gas Water Heaters, Federal Energy 

5 Management Program, November 3. Available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/

6 technologies/eep_waterheaters_calc.html#output. Accessed August 2011.

7

8 EERE, 2011a, ―Table 2.1.20: Residential Buildings Share of U.S. Petroleum Consumption 

9 (Percent),‖ and ―Table 3.1.15: Commercial Buildings Share of U.S. Petroleum Consumption 

10 (Percent)Buildings,‖ Energy Data Book 2010, March. Available at http://buildingsdatabook.

11 eren.doe.gov/. Accessed August 2011.

12

13 EERE, 2011b, ―Table 2.1.19: Residential Buildings Share of U.S. Natural Gas Consumption 

14 (Percent),‖ and ―Table 3.1.14: Commercial Buildings Share of U.S. Natural Gas Consumption 

15 (Percent),‖ Buildings Energy Data Book 2010, March. Available at http://buildingsdatabook.

16 eren.doe.gov/. Accessed August 2011.

17

18 EERE, 2011c, ―Table 3.1.4: 2008 Commercial Energy End-Use Splits, by Fuel Type 

19 (Quadrillion Btu),‖ in Buildings Energy Data Book 2010, March. Available at 

20 http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/. Accessed August 20, 2011.

21

22 EERE, 2011d, Energy Savers: Furnaces and Boilers, February 9. Available at 

23 http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/space_heating_cooling/index.cfm/mytopic=12530. 

24 Accessed August 20, 2011.

25

26 EIA, (U.S. Energy Information Administration), 2000, Petroleum Supply Annual, 1999, 

27 U.S. Department of Energy. Available at http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/

28 data_publications/petroleum_supply_annual/psa_volume1/historical/1999/psa_volume1_

29 1999.html. Accessed July 21, 2011.

30

31 EIA, 2003, The Global Liquefied Natural Gas Market: Status and Outlook, U.S. Department of 

32 Energy DOE/EIA-0637, Dec.

33

34 EIA, 2007a, Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 2007, DOE/EIA-0585(2007). 

35

36 EIA, 2007b, Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 2007, DOE/EIA-0585(2007).

37

38 EIA, 2007c, Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 2007, DOE/EIA-0585(2007).

39

40 EIA, 2008a, Annual Energy Review 2008, DOE/EIA-0384(2008). Available at 

41 http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/. Accessed June 26, 2009.

42

43 EIA, 2008b, ―Table 2.8: Motor Vehicle Mileage, Fuel Consumption, and Fuel Rates, 

44 1949-2007,‖ in Annual Energy Review 2008, DOE/EIA-0384(2008). Available at 

45 http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/. Accessed June 26, 2009. 

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-717

1 EIA, 2008c, ―Table ES1: Summary Statistics for the United States,‖ in Electric Power Annual 

2 with Data for 2006, July 7. 

3

4 EIA, 2009a, Energy Perspectives Overview, U. S. Energy Information Administration Annual 

5 Energy Review 2009, DOE/EIS-0384 (2009), Available at http://www.eia.gov/emeu/aer/

6 contents.html. Accessed August 19, 2010.

7

8 EIA, 2009b, ―Table 5.14c: Heat Content of Petroleum Consumption: Transportation and 

9 Electric Power Sectors, 1949-2009,‖ in Annual Energy Review 2009, DOE/EIA-0384(2009). 

10 Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/. August 19, 2010. 

11

12 EIA, 2009c, Table 5.14c: Heat Content of Petroleum Consumption: Transportation and Electric

13 Power Sectors, 1949-2008,‖ in Annual Energy Review 2008, DOE/EIA-0384(2008). Available 

14 at http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/. Accessed August 20, 2011.

15

16 EIA, 2009d, Annual Energy Outlook Early Release Overview December 14. Available at 

17 http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview.html. Accessed August 20, 2011.

18

19 EIA, 2009e, ―Table 5.14b: Heat Content of Petroleum Consumption: Industrial Sector,

20 1949-2008,‖ in Annual Energy Review 2008, DOE/EIA-0384(2008), June 26. Available at 

21 http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/. Accessed August 20, 2011. 

22

23 EIA, 2009f, ―Table 2.1d: Industrial Sector Energy Consumption, 1949-2008,‖ in Annual Energy 

24 Review 2008, DOE/EIA-0384(2008), June 26, 2009 Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/. 

25 Accessed August 20, 2011.

26

27 EIA, 2009g, ―Table 5.13b: Estimated Petroleum Consumption: Industrial Sector, 1949-2008,‖ 

28 Annual Energy Review 2008, DOE/EIA-0384(2008), June 26. Available at http://www.eia.doe.

29 gov/aer/. Accessed August 20, 2011.

30

31 EIA, 2009h, ―Table 5.2: End Use of Fuel Consumption, 2006,‖ in Manufacturing Energy 

32 Consumption Survey 2006, June. Available at http://www.eia.gov/emeu/mecs/mecs2006/

33 2006tables.html. Accessed August 20, 2011.

34

35 EIA, 2009i, ―Table 2.2: Nonfuel (Feedstock) Use of Combustible Energy, 2006,‖ in 

36 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey 2006, June. Available at http://www.eia.gov/

37 emeu/mecs/mecs2006/2006tables.html. Accessed August 20, 2011.

38

39 EIA, 2009j, ―Table 5.2: End Use of Fuel Consumption, 2006,‖ in Manufacturing Energy 

40 Consumption Survey 2006, June. Available at http://www.eia.gov/emeu/mecs/mecs2006/

41 2006tables.html. Accessed August 2011.

42

43 EIA, 2009k, ―Table 2.2: Nonfuel (Feedstock) Use of Combustible Energy, 2006,‖ in

44 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey 2006, June. Available at http://www.eia.gov/emeu/

45 mecs/mecs2006/2006tables.html. Accessed August 2011. 

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-718

1 EIA, 2009l, ―Table 2.1b: Residential Sector Energy Consumption, 1949-2008,‖ and ―Table 2.1c:

2 Commercial Sector Energy Consumption, 1949-2008,‖ in Annual Energy Review 2008,

3 DOE/EIA-0384(2008), June 26. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/. Accessed 

4 August 21, 2011.

5

6 EIA, 2009m, ―Table 5.13a: Estimated Petroleum Consumption: Residential and Commercial 

7 Sectors, 1949-2008,‖ in Annual Energy Review 2008, DOE/EIA-0384(2008), June 26. Available 

8 at http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/. Accessed August 21, 2011.

9

10 EIA, 2009n, ―Table 2.5: Household Energy Consumption and Expenditures by End Use and 

11 Energy Source, Selected Years, 1978-2005,‖ in Annual Energy Review 2008, DOE/EIA12 0384(2008), June 26. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/. Accessed August 20, 2011.

13

14 EIA, 2009o, ―Table 5.14a: Heat Content of Petroleum Consumption: Residential and 

15 Commercial Sectors, 1949-2008,‖ in Annual Energy Review 2008, DOE/EIA-0384(2008), 

16 June 26. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/. Accessed August 20, 2011.

17

18 EIA, 2009p, ―Table 2.6: Household End Uses: Fuel Types and Appliances, Selected Years, 

19 1978-2005,‖ in Annual Energy Review 2008, DOE/EIA-0384(2008), June 26. Available at 

20 http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/. Accessed August 20, 2011.

21

22 EIA, 2009q, Bringing Alaska North Slope Natural Gas to Market, Annual Energy Outlook 

23 Analyses papers, U.S. Department of Energy. Available at http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/

24 otheranalysis/aeo_2009analysispapers/aeo_analyses.html. Accessed July 18, 2011.

25

26 EIA, 2010a, Petroleum Supply Annual, 2009 (released July 29), U.S. Department of Energy. 

27 Available at http://www.eia.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_supply_

28 annual/psa_volume1/psa_volume1.html. Accessed July 20, 2011.

29

30 EIA, 2010b, Natural Gas Annual Supply and Disposition by State, 2009, U.S. Department of 

31 Energy. Available at http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_sum_snd_a_EPG0_FPD_Mmcf_a.htm. 

32 Accessed July 20, 2011.

33

34 EIA, 2010c, ―Table ES1: Summary Statistics for the United States,‖ in Electric Power Annual 

35 with Data for 2008, January 21. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/

36 epa_sum.html. Accessed August 20, 2011.

37

38 EIA, 2010d, ―Table ES1: Summary Statistics for the United States,‖ Electric Power Annual with 

39 Data for 2008. Available at January 21, 2010. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/

40 electricity/epa/epa_sum.html. Accessed August 20, 2011.

41

42 EIA, 2011a, Petroleum and Other Liquids: U.S. Imports of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products 

43 (released June 29), U.S. Department of Energy. Available at http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/

44 LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTIMUS1&f=M. Accessed July 20, 2011.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-719

1 EIA, 2011b, Annual Energy Outlook 2011 with Projections to 2035, U.S. Department of Energy 

2 DOE/EIA-0383 (2011), April.

3

4 EIA, 2011c, Special Report – EIA Report on Alaska Prudhoe Bay Crude Oil Shut-In: Facts 

5 and Impacts on the U.S. Oil Markets. Available at http://205.254.135.24/oog/special/

6 eia_sr_alaska.html. Accessed August 19, 2011.

7

8 EIC and NCSE (Environmental Information Coalition and National Council for Science and the 

9 Environment), 2010, ―Surface Washing Agents,‖ in The Encyclopedia of Earth, C.J. Cleveland 

10 (ed.), Washington, D.C., last revised Oct. 7, 2010. Available at http://www.eoearth.org/article/

11 Surface_washing_agents. Accessed January 5, 2011.

12

13 Ejechi, B.O., 2003, ―Biodegradation of Wood in Crude Oil-Polluted Soil,‖ World Journal of 

14 Microbiology & Biotechnology 19(8):799–804. 

15

16 Eley, W.D., 2006, Cook Inlet Vessel Traffic Study: A Report to Cook Inlet Regional Citizens 

17 Advisory Council, Cape International, Inc., Dec.

18

19 Ellis, D.H., C.H. Ellis, and D.P. Mindell, 1991, ―Raptor Responses to Low-Level Jet Aircraft and 

20 Sonic Boom,‖ Environmental Pollution 74: 53–83.

21

22 Encyclopedia of Life, 2011, ―North Pacific Right Whale,‖ in Encyclopedia of Life,

23 C.J. Cleveland (ed.), , Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and 

24 the Environment, Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.eoearth.org/article/North_Pacific_

25 Right_Whale?topic=49540. Accessed September 6, 2011.

26

27 Engelhardt, F.R., 1981, ―Oil Pollution in Polar Bears. Exposure and Clinical Effects,‖ pp. 139–

28 179 in Proceedings of the Fourth Arctic Marine Oil Spill Program Technical Seminar, 

29 16–18 June 1981, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

30

31 EnerNex Corporation, 2010, Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study: Executive 

32 Summary and Project Overview, prepared for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory,

33 January. Available at http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/pdfs/2010/ewits_

34 executive_summary.pdf. Accessed August 20, 2011.

35

36 Epstein, N., R.P.M. Bak, and B. Rinkevich, 2000, ―Toxicity and Third Generation Dispersants 

37 and Dispersed Egyptian Crude Oil on Red Sea Coral Larvae,‖ Marine Pollution Bulletin

38 40:497–503.

39

40 Erbe, C., 2002, ―Underwater Noise of Whale-Watching Boats and Potential Effects on Killer 

41 Whales (Orcinus orca), Based on an Acoustic Impact Model,‖ Marine Mammal Science

42 18(2):394–418.

43

44 Erbe, C., A.R. King, M. Yedlin, and D.M. Farmer, 1999, ―Computer Models for Masked Hearing 

45 Experiments with Beluga Whales (Delphinapterus leucas),‖ Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

46 America 105(5):2967–2978.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-720

1 ERCO (Energy Resources Co., Inc.), 1982, Ixtock Oil Spill Assessment Final Report. Prepared 

2 for Bureau of Land Management, Contract No. AA851-CTO-71.

3

4 Esler, D., J.A. Schmutz, R.L. Jarvis, and D.M. Mulcahy, 2000, ―Winter Survival of Adult 

5 Harlequin Ducks in Relation to History of Contamination by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill,‖ 

6 Journal of Wildlife Management 64: 839–847.

7

8 Esler, D., T.D. Bowman, K.A. Trust, B.E. Ballachey, T.A. Dean, S.C. Jewett, and C.E. O‘Clair, 

9 2002, ―Harlequin Duck Population Recovery Following the  ̳Exxon Valdez‘ Oil Spill: Progress, 

10 Process and Constraints,‖ Marine Ecology Progress Series 241: 271–286.

11

12 Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc., 1990, California, Oregon, and Washington Archaeological 

13 Resource Study, OCS Study MMS 90-0087 to 90-0092, prepared for Pacific OCS Region, 

14 Austin, Texas.

15

16 Eurobserv‘er 2011, Solar Thermal and Concentrated Solar Power Barometer, May. Available 

17 at http://www.eurobserv-er.org/pdf/solar_thermal_barometer_2011.pdf. Accessed 

18 August 21, 2011.

19

20 Evans, D.D., 1988, ―Combustion of Oil Spills on Water,‖ in Technology Assessment and 

21 Research Program for Offshore Minerals Operations, OCS Study MMS 86-0057, MMS, 

22 Washington, D.C.

23

24 Everett, K.R. 1980. Distribution and Properties of Road Dust Along the Northern Portions of the 

25 Haul Road. In: Environmental Engineering and Ecological Baseline Investigations Along the 

26 Yukon River- Prudhoe Bay Haul Road, J. Brown, and R.L. Berg, eds. CRREL Rep. 80-19. 

27 Hanover NH: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research and Engineering 

28 Laboratory. pp. 101-128.

29

30 Ewing, R., et al., 2008, Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate 

31 Change, Urban Land Institute.

32

33 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustees, 1992, ―Summary of Injury,‖ Alaska’s Marine Resources

34 VII(3):2–11.

35

36 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, 2003, Update on Injured Resources and Services, 

37 August 2002, with June 2003 additions.

38

39 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, 2009a, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2009 

40 Status Report, Anchorage, Alaska. Available at http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/universal/

41 documents/publications/20th%20Anniversay%20Report/2009%20Status%20Report%20(Low42 Res).pdf. Accessed June 24, 2011.

43

44 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, 2009b, Legacy of an Oil Spill 20 Years after EXXON 

45 VALDEZ, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2009 Status Report.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-721

1 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, 2010a, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Plan, 

2 2010 Update on Injured Resources and Services, May 14.

3

4 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, 2010b, Lingering Oil Report, January.

5

6 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, 2010c, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Plan, 

7 2010 Update, Injured Resources and Services, Anchorage, Alaska. May 14. Available at 

8 http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/universal/documents/publications/2010IRSUpdate.pdf. 

9 Accessed June 24, 2011.

10

11 FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), 2004, ―Chapter 9: Helicopter Oceanic Operations. 

12 1. Gulf of Mexico,‖ in Advisory Circular 91-70: Oceanic Operations, an Authoritative Guide to 

13 Oceanic Operations (09-06-94), updated July 9, 2004, Federal Aviation Administration, 

14 Washington, D.C.

15

16 FAA, 2008, 2009-2013 FAA Flight Plan. Available at http://www.faa.gov/about/plans_reports/

17 media/flight_plan_2009-2013.pdf Accessed August 20, 2011.

18

19 FAA, 2010, Advisory Circular AC No: 91-70A, Oceanic and International Operations, 

20 U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. Available at http://rgl.faa.gov/

21 Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet. 

22 Accessed September 11, 2011.

23

24 Fabricius, K.E., 2005, ―Effects of Terrestrial Runoff on the Ecology of Corals and Coral Reefs: 

25 Review and Synthesis,‖ Marine Pollution Bulletin 50:125–146.

26

27 Fair, P.A., and P.R. Becker, 2000, ―Review of Stress in Marine Mammals,‖ Journal of Aquatic 

28 Ecosystem Stress and Recovery 7:335–354.

29

30 Fall, J.A., 2009, ―Long-Term Consequences of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill for Subsistence Uses 

31 of Fish and Wildlife,‖ pp. 245–277 in Synthesis: Three Decades of Research on Socioeconomic 

32 Effects Related to Offshore Petroleum Development in Coastal Alaska, S.R. Braund and J. Kruse 

33 (eds.), MMS OCS Study No. 2009-006, Stephen R. Braund and Associates, Anchorage, Alaska.

34

35 Fall, J.A., and C.J. Utermohle, 1999, Subsistence Harvests and Uses in Eight Communities Ten 

36 Years After the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, Technical Paper No. 252, State of Alaska, Department of 

37 Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska.

38

39 Fall, J.A., L.J. Field, T.S. Nighswander, N. Peacock, and U. Varansi (eds.), 1999, ―Overview of 

40 Lessons Learned from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: A 10-Year Retrospective,‖ in Evaluating and 

41 Communicating Subsistence Seafood Safety in a Cross-Cultural Context, SETAC Press,

42 Pensacola, Fla.

43
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-722

1 Fall, J.A., C. Brown, M.F. Turek, N.Braem, J.J. Simon, W.E. Simeone, D.L. Holen, L. Naves, 

2 L. Hutchinson-Scarbrough, T. Lemons, V. Ciccone, T.M. Kreig, and D. Koster, 2009, Alaska 

3 Subsistence Salmon Fisheries 2007 Annual Report, Technical Paper No. 346, Alaska Department 

4 of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage.

5

6 Fan, S., G. Jeans, C. Yetsko, and L. Oey, 2007, ―Submerged Jet Currents in the Gulf of Mexico,‖

7 Proceedings of Oceans 2007. Available at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=

8 &arnumber=4449299&isnumber=4449115. Accessed May 18, 2011.

9

10 Fay, F.H., B.P. Kelly, P.H. Gehnrich, J.L. Sease, and A.A. Hoover, 1984, Modern Populations, 

11 Migrations, Demography, Trophics, and Historical Status of the Pacific Walrus, 

12 USDOC/NOAA, OCSEAP Final Rep. 37 (1986):231-376, prepared for MMS, OCS Study 

13 MMS 86-0021.

14

15 FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission), 2003, Florida’s Breeding Bird 

16 Atlas: A Collaborative Study of Florida's Birdlife. Available at http://www.wildflorida.org/bba.

17 Accessed May 5, 2005.

18

19 Field, C.B., L.D. Mortsch,, M. Brklacich, D.L. Forbes, P. Kovacs, J.A. Patz, S.W. Running,

20 and M.J. Scott, 2007, North America, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and 

21 Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

22 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, 

23 P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 

24 pp. 617–652.

25

26 Field, L.J., J.A. Fall, T.J. Nighswander, N. Peacock, and U. Varanasi (eds.), 1999, Evaluating 

27 and Communicating Subsistence Seafood Safety in a Cross-Cultural Context, SETAC Press,

28 Pensacola, Fla.

29

30 Fingas, M., 2008, A Review of Literature Related to Oil Spill Dispersants 1997-2008, prepared 

31 for Prince William Sound Regional Citizens‘ Advisory Council, Anchorage, Alaska, Sept. 

32 Available at http://www.pwsrcac.org/docs/d0053000.pdf. Accessed July 3, 2011.

33

34 Fingas, M., F. Ackerman, P. Lambert, K. Li, Z. Wang, J. Mullin, L. Hannon, D. Wang, A. 

35 Steenkammer, R. Hiltabrand, R. Turpin, and P. Campagna, 1995, ―The Newfoundland Offshore 

36 Burn Experiment: Further Results of Emissions Measurement,‖ in Proceedings of the 

37 Eighteenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Vol. 2, June 14–16, 

38 1995, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

39

40 Fischer, A., 1968, ―History and Current Status of the Houma Indians,‖ pp. 133–147 in The 

41 American Indian Today, S. Levine and S. Oestreich Lurie (eds.), Everett Edwards, Deland, Fla. 

42

43 Fissel, D.B., J.R. Marko, and M.M. de Saavedra Alvarez, 2009, ―The Changing Met-Ocean and 

44 Ice Conditions in the Beaufort Sea: Implications for Offshore Oil and Gas,‖ in Proceedings of 

45 the International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Osaka, Japan, June 21–26.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-723

1 Fodrie, F.F., and K.L. Heck, Jr., 2011, ―Response of Coastal Fishes to the Gulf of Mexico Oil 

2 Disaster,‖ PLoS ONE 6(7):e21609. doi10.1371/journal.pone.0021609.

3

4 Folger, P., 2010, Gas Hydrates: Resource and Hazard, Congressional Research Service, 

5 May 25.

6

7 Follmann, E.H., and J.L. Hechtel, 1990, ―Bears and Pipeline Construction in Alaska,‖

8 Arctic 43:103–109.

9

10 Foote, R.Q., and R.G. Martin, 1981 ―Potential Geologic Hazards in the Gulf of Mexico Maritime 

11 Boundary Region,‖ in Geologic Framework, Petroleum Potential, Petroleum-Resource 

12 Estimates, Mineral and Geothermal Resources, Geologic Hazards, and Deep-Water Drilling 

13 Technology of the Maritime Boundary Region in the Gulf of Mexico, R.B. Powers (ed.), 

14 U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 81-265.

15

16 Ford, B., A. Borgens, W. Bryant, D. Marshall, P. Hitchcock, C. Arias, and D. Hamilton, 2008,

17 Archaeological Excavation of the Mardi Gras Shipwreck (16GM01), Gulf of Mexico Continental 

18 Slope, OCS Report MMS 2008-037, prepared by Texas A&M University, Minerals Management 

19 Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La.

20

21 Fox, D.A., J.E. Hightower, and F.M. Paruka, 2000, ―Gulf Sturgeon Spawning Migration and 

22 Habitat in the Choctawhatchee River System, Alabama-Florida,‖ Transactions of the American 

23 Fisheries Society 129:811–826.

24

25 Frankel, A.S., and W.T. Ellison, 2005, Explosive Removal Scenario Simulation Results: Final 

26 Report, OCS Study MMS 2004-064, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

27 Region, New Orleans, La.

28

29 Fried, N., and B. Windisch-Cole, 2004, ―The Kenai Peninsula Borough: An Economy that 

30 Benefits from Diversity,‖ Alaska Economic Trends, J. Erskine (ed.), November. Available at 

31 http://www.cookinletoilandgas.org/State/Economic%20Data/DLWD%20Trends%20November

32 %202004.pdf. Accessed April 25, 2011.

33

34 Fritts, T.H., and M.A. McGehee, 1982, Effects of Petroleum on the Development and Survival of 

35 Marine Turtle Embryos, FWS-OBS-82/37, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological 

36 Services, Washington, D.C. 

37

38 Frost, K.J., and L.F. Lowry, 1994, Assessment of Injury to Harbor Seals in Prince William 

39 Sou8nd, Alaska, and Adjacent Areas following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, Final Report, Marine 

40 Mammals Study Number 5, State-Federal Natural Resource Damage Assessment for 1 April

41 1989 through 31 September 1991.

42

43 Frost, K.J., L.F. Lowry, and G. Carroll, 1993, ―Beluga Whale and Spotted Seal Use of a Coastal 

44 Lagoon System in the Northeastern Chukchi Sea,‖ Arctic 46:8–16.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-724

1 Fry, D.M., and L.J. Lowenstine, 1985, ―Pathology of Common Murres and Cassin‘s Auklets 

2 Exposed to Oil,‖ Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 14: 725–737.

3

4 Fry, D.M., R. Boekelheide, J. Swensen, A. Kang, J. Young, and C.R. Grau, 1985, ―Long-Term 

5 Responses of Breeding Seabirds to Oil Exposure,‖ Pacific Seabird Group Bulletin 10: 48–49.

6

7 Frye, M. (compiler), 2008, Preliminary Evaluation of In-Place Gas Hydrate Resources: Gulf of 

8 Mexico Outer Continental Shelf, MMS Resource Evaluation Division, OCS Report MMS 2008-

9 004, Feb. 1.

10

11 Garrison, E.G., C.P. Giammona, F.J. Kelly, A.R. Tripp, and G.A. Wolff, 1989, Historic 

12 Shipwrecks and Magnetic Anomalies of the Northern Gulf of Mexico: Reevaluation of 

13 Archaeological Resource Management Zone, OCS Study MMS 89-0023, 89-0024, and 89-0025, 

14 Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La.

15

16 Garrott, R.A., L.E. Eberhardt, and W.C. Hanson, 1983, ―Summer Food Habits of Juvenile Arctic 

17 Foxes in Northern Alaska,‖ Journal of Wildlife Management 47(2): 540–545.

18

19 Gass, S.E., and J.M. Roberts, 2006, ―The Occurrence of the Cold-Water Coral Lophelia pertusa 

20 (Scleractinia) on Oil and Gas Platforms in the North Sea: Colony Growth, Recruitment, and 

21 Environmental Controls on Distribution,‖ Marine Pollution Bulletin 52:549–559.

22

23 Gatto, L.W., 1975, Baseline Data on the Oceanography of Cook Inlet, Alaska, Technical Report 

24 76-25, USACE, CRREL (Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory), Hanover, N.H.

25

26 GCCF (Gulf Coast Claims Facility), 2011, Overall Program Statistics, as of May 05, 2011.

27 Available at http://www.GulfCoastClaimsFacility.com. Accessed June 15, 2011.

28

29 GE Energy, 2010, Western Wind and Solar Integration Study: Executive Summary, prepared for 

30 the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, May. Available at http://www.nrel.gov/wind/

31 systemsintegration/pdfs/2010/wwsis_executive_summary.pdf. Accessed August 20, 2011.

32

33 Geoplatform, 2011a, Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Team (SCAT), Latest Ground 

34 Observations, 01-12-11, Louisiana Sector, Environmental Response Management Application 

35 (ERMA) Dataset Results. Available at www.geoplatform.gov\gulfresponse. Accessed 

36 January 13, 2011.

37

38 Geoplatform, 2011b, Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Team (SCAT), Latest Ground 

39 Observations, 01-12-11, Mobile Sector, Environmental Response Management Application 

40 (ERMA) Dataset Results. Available at www.geoplatform.gov\gulfresponse. Accessed 

41 January 13, 2011.

42

43 Geraci, J.R., 1990, ―Physiologic and Toxic Effects on Cetaceans,‖ pp. 167–197 in Sea Mammals 

44 and Oil: Confronting the Risks, J.R. Geraci and D.J. St. Aubin (eds.), Academic Press,

45 San Diego, Calif.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-725

1 Geraci, J.R., and D.J. St. Aubin, 1982, Study of the Effects of Oil on Cetaceans, Final Report, 

2 Bureau of Land Management, New York OCS Office, July 20.

3

4 Geraci, J.R., and D.J. St. Aubin, 1985, Expanded Studies of the Effects of Oil on Cetaceans, 

5 Part I, Final Report, Minerals Management Service, Washington, DC.

6

7 Geraci, J.R., and D.J. St. Aubin, 1987, ―Effects of Offshore Oil and Gas Development on Marine 

8 Mammals and Turtles,‖ pp. 587–617. in Long Term Environmental Effects of Offshore Oil and 

9 Gas Development, D.F. Boesch and N.N. Rabalais (eds.), Elsevier Applied Science Publ. Ltd., 

10 London and New York.

11

12 GESAMP (Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental 

13 Protection), 1995, The Sea-Surface Microlayer and Its Role in Global Change, GESAMP 

14 Reports and Studies 59, Joint Group of Experts (IMO/FAO/Unesco-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/

15 UN/UNEP) on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection.

16

17 Gitschlag, G., 2000, Fisheries Impacts of Underwater Explosives Used in Platform Salvage in 

18 the Gulf of Mexico 1993–1998, pp. 53–59 in Proceedings: Eighteenth Annual Gulf of Mexico 

19 Information Transfer Meeting, December 1998, M. McKay and J. Nides (eds.), OCS Study 

20 MMS 2000-030, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf 

21 Region, New Orleans, La.

22

23 Gitschlag, G.R., and B.A. Herczeg, 1994, ―Sea Turtle Observations at Explosive Removals of 

24 Energy Structures,‖ Mar. Fish. Rev. 56(2):1–8.

25

26 Gittings, S.R., 1998, ―Monitoring at the Flower Gardens: History and Status,‖ pp. 623–630 in 

27 Proceedings of the 17th Information Transfer Meeting, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

28 Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region, New Orleans, La. 

29

30 Gladwin, D.N., K.M. Manci, and R. Villella, 1988, Effects of Aircraft Noise and Sonic Booms on 

31 Domestic Animals and Wildlife: Bibliographic Abstracts. NERC-88/32, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

32 Service, National Ecology Research Center, Ft. Collins, CO.

33

34 Glass, A., T.V.N. Cole, M. Garron, R.L. Merrick, and R.M. Pace, 2008, Mortality and Serious 

35 Injury Determinations for Baleen Whale Stocks Along the United States Eastern Seaboard and 

36 Adjacent Canadian Maritimes, 2002-2006, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

37 Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 08-04.

38

39 Goldstein, B.D., H.J. Osofsky, and M.Y. Lichtveld, 2011, ―The Gulf Oil Spill,‖ New England 

40 Journal of Medicine 364:1344–1348.

41

42 Golet, G.H., P.E. Seiser, A.D. McGuire, D.D. Roby, J.B. Fischer, K.J. Kuletz, D.B. Irons, 

43 T.A. Dean, S.J. Jewett, and S.H. Newman, 2002, ―Long-Term Direct and Indirect Effects of the 

44  ̳Exxon Valdez‘ Oil spill on Pigeon Guillemots in Prince William Sound, Alaska,‖ Marine 

45 Ecology Progress Series 241: 287–304.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-726

1 Goold, J.C., and S.E. Jones, 1995, ―Time and Frequency Domain Characteristics of Sperm 

2 Whale Clicks,‖ Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 98(3):1279–1281.

3

4 Gordon, J.C.D., D. Gillespie, J. Potter, A. Frantzis, M. Simmonds, and R. Swift, 1998, ―The 

5 Effects of Seismic Surveys on Marine Mammals,‖ in M.L. Tasker and C. Weir (eds.), 

6 Proceedings of the Seismic and Marine Mammals Workshop, London, June 23–25, 1998.

7

8 Gordon, J., D. Gillespie, J. Potter, A. Frantzis, M.P. Simmonds, R. Swift, and D. Thompson,

9 2003/2004, ―A Review of the Effects of Seismic Surveys on Marine Mammals,‖ Marine 

10 Technology Society Journal 37:16–34.

11

12 Gow, A.J., and W.B. Tucker III, 1991, Physical and Dynamic Properties of Sea Ice in the Polar 

13 Oceans, monograph 91-1, USACE, CRREL (Cold Regions Research and Engineering 

14 Laboratory), Hanover, N.H. 

15

16 Graedel, T.E., and J.A. Howard-Grenville, 2005, Greening the Industrial Facility: Perspectives, 

17 Approaches, and Tools, Springer, New York.

18

19 Grantz, A., et al., 1994, ―Geology of the Arctic Continental Margin of Alaska,‖ in The Geology 

20 of North America, Vol. G-1, The Geology of Alaska, G. Plafker and H.C. Berg (eds.), The 

21 Geological Society of America.

22

23 Grantz, A., D.A., Dinter, E.R. Hill, R.E. Hunter, S.D. May, R.H. McMullin, and R.L. Phillips, 

24 1982a, Geologic Framework, Hydrocarbon Potential, and Environmental Conditions for 

25 Exploration and Development of Proposed Oil and Gas Lease Sale 85 in the Central and 

26 Northern Chukchi Sea – A Summary Report, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 82-1053.

27

28 Grantz, A., D.A. Dinter, E.R. Hill, S.D. May, R.H. McMullin, R.L. Phillips, and E. Reimnitz, 

29 1982b, Geologic Framework, Hydrocarbon Potential, and Environmental Conditions for 

30 Exploration and Development of Proposed Oil and Gas Lease Sale 87 in the Beaufort and 

31 Northeast Chukchi Sea – A Summary Report, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 82-482.

32

33 Grantz, A., and D.A. Dinter, 1980, ―Constraints of Geologic Processes on Western Beaufort Sea 

34 Oil Developments,‖ Oil and Gas Journal 78(18):304–319.

35

36 Greb, S.F., and A.W. Archer, 2007, ―Soft-Sediment Deformation Produced by Tides in a 

37 Meizoseismic Area, Turnagain Arm, Alaska,‖ Geology 35:435–438.

38

39 Grieb, T.M., T.E. Donn, J. Collins, J. Radde, C. Perez, J.B. Smith, G. Rowe, S. Scott, and 

40 G.T. Ririe, 2008, Effects of Subsea Processing on Deepwater Environments in the Gulf of 

41 Mexico, OCS Study MMS 2008-022, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Outer 

42 Continental Shelf Region, New Orleans, La. 

43

44 Greene, C.R., Jr., N.S. Alman, and W.J. Richardson, 1999, ―The Influence of Seismic Survey 

45 Sounds on Bowhead Whale Calling Rates,‖ Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

46 106(4):2280.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-727

1 Griffith, B., D.C. Douglas, N.E. Walsh, D.D. Young, T.R. McCabe, D.E. Russell, R.G. White, 

2 R.D. Cameron, and K.R. Whitten, 2002, ―Section 3: The Porcupine Caribou Herd,‖ pp. 8–37 in

3 D.C. Douglas, Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain Terrestrial Wildlife Research Summaries, P.E. 

4 Reynolds and E.B. Rhodes (eds.), U.S. Geologic Survey, Biological Resources Division, 

5 Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR-2002-0001.

6

7 Grotefendt, K., K. Logermann, D. Quadfasel, and S. Ronski, 1998, ―Is the Arctic Ocean 

8 Warming?‖ Journal of Geophysical Research 103C(12):679–687.

9

10 GulfBase, 2011, General Facts about the Gulf of Mexico. Available at http://www.gulfbase.org/

11 facts.php. Accessed February 4, 2011.

12

13 Gunn, J., and R. Muench, 2001, ―Observed Changes in Arctic Ocean Temperature Structure over 

14 the Past Half Decade,‖ Geophysical Research Letters 28(6):1035–1038. 

15

16 Guzman, H.M., J.B.C. Jackson, and E. Weil, 1991, ―Short-Term Ecological Consequences of a 

17 Major Oil Spill on Panamanian Subtidal Reef Corals,‖ Coral Reefs 10:1–12.

18

19 Haapkylai, J., F. Ramade, and B. Salvat, 2007, ―Oil Pollution on Coral Reefs: A Review of the 

20 State of Knowledge and Management Needs,‖ Vie Milieu 57:95–111.

21

22 Haddad, R., and S. Murawski, 2010, Analysis of Hydrocarbons in Samples Provided from the 

23 Cruise of the R/V WEATHERBIRD II, May 23–26, 2010, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

24 Administration, Silver Spring, Md. Available at http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/

25 PDFs/noaa_weatherbird_analysis.pdf. Accessed June 24, 2011.

26

27 Haeussler, P.J., and R.W. Saltus, 2004, ―26 km Offset on the Lake Clark Fault since Late Eocene 

28 Time,‖ Professional Paper 1709-A in Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska. 

29

30 Haeussler, P.J., R.L. Bruhn, and T.L. Pratt, 2000, ―Potential Seismic Hazards and Tectonics of 

31 the Upper Cook Inlet Basin, Alaska, Based on Analysis of Pliocene and Younger Deformation,‖ 

32 GSA Bulletin 112(9):1414–1429.

33

34 Haley, B., G. Tomlins, O. Smith, W. Wilson, and M. Link, 2000, Mapping Cook Inlet Rip Tides 

35 Using Local Knowledge and Remote Sensing, OCS study, MMS 2000-025, MMS, Anchorage, 

36 Alaska. 

37

38 Hamilton, P., 1990, ―Deep Currents in the Gulf of Mexico,‖ Journal of Physical Oceanography

39 20(7):1087–1104.

40

41 Hamilton, P., 2007, ―Deep-Current Variability near the Sigsbee Escarpment in the Gulf of 

42 Mexico,‖ Journal of Physical Oceanography 37(3):708–726. 

43

44 Hamilton, P., 2009, ―Topographic Rossby Waves in the Gulf of Mexico,‖ Progress in 

45 Oceanography 82:1–31.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-728

1 Hamilton, P., and A. Badan, 2009, ―Subsurface Jets in the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico,‖ 

2 Journal of Physical Oceanography 39(11):2875–2891.

3

4 Hamilton, C.I., S.J. Starr, and L.L. Trasky, 1979, Recommendations for Minimizing the Impacts 

5 of Hydrocarbon Development on Fish, Wildlife and Aquatic Plant Resources of Lower Cook 

6 Inlet, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Marine and Coastal Habitat Management, 

7 Anchorage, Alaska. 

8

9 Hamilton, P., T.J. Berger, J. Singer, B. Waddell, J. Churchill, R. Leben, T. Lee, and W. Sturges,

10 2000, Desoto Canyon Eddy Intrusion Study, Final Report, Volume II: Technical Report, OCS 

11 Study 2000-080, MMS, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La. 

12

13 Hampton, M.A., 1982a, Synthesis Report: Environmental Geology of Lower Cook Inlet Alaska, 

14 U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 82-197.

15

16 Hampton, M.A., 1982b, Synthesis Report: Environmental Geology of Kodiak Shelf, Alaska, 

17 U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 82-59.

18

19 Hampton, M.A., A.H. Bouma, M.E. Torresan, and I.P. Colburn, 1978, ―Analysis of 

20 Microtextures on Quartz Sand Grains from Lower Cook Inlet, Alaska,‖ Geology, 6:105–110.

21

22 Hampton, M.A., K.H. Johnson, M.E. Torresan, and W.J. Winters, 1981, Description of Seafloor 

23 Sediment and Preliminary Geo-Environmental Report, Shelikof Strait, Alaska, U.S. Geological 

24 Survey Open File Report 81-1133.

25

26 Hance, J.J., 2003, Development of a Database and Assessment of Seafloor Stability Based on 

27 Published Literature, Offshore Technology Research Center, Texas A&M University, College 

28 Station, Texas.

29

30 Haney, J.L., Y. Wei, and S.G. Douglas, 2004, A Preliminary Assessment of On-shore Air Quality 

31 Impacts for the Eastern Gulf Coast (Louisiana to Florida) Using the 2000 Gulf-wide Emissions 

32 Inventory, Draft Report, May 28.

33

34 Haney, J.L., Y. Wei, and S.G. Douglas, 2004, A Preliminary Assessment of On-shore Air Quality 

35 Impacts for the Eastern Gulf Coast (Louisiana to Florida) Using the 2000 Gulfwide Emissions 

36 Inventory, Draft Report, prepared by ICF Consulting, San Rafael, Calif., for MMS, 

37 New Orleans, La., May 28.

38

39 Hanna, S.R., and P.J. Drivas, 1993, ―Modeling VOC Emissions and Air Concentrations from the 

40 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill,‖ J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 43:298–309.

41

42 Hansen, D.J., 1981, The Relative Sensitivity of Seabird Populations in Alaska to Oil Pollution. 

43 BLMYK-ES-006-1792. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

44 Anchorage, AK.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-729

1 Harbinson, D., and R. Knight, 2002, ―Floating Production Growth Continues into 2003,‖

2 Offshore Magazine 62:12.

3

4 Hardage, B., 2011, Multicomponent and Multifrequency Seismic for Assessment of Fluid-Gas 

5 Expulsion Geology and Gas Hydrate Deposits: Gulf of Mexico, Bureau of Economic Geology 

6 Research. Available at http://www.beg.utexas.edu/resprog/geophysics/fluid-gasexpulsion.htm. 

7 Accessed January 28, 2011.

8

9 Harting, A.L., 1987, ―Road, Highway, Aircraft, and Garbage Impacts,‖ pp. 69−74 in Grizzly 

10 Bear Compendium, M.N. LeFranc et al. (eds.), sponsored by the Interagency Grizzly Bear 

11 Committee, produced by the National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C.

12

13 Hartung, R., 1995, ―Assessment of the Potential for Long-Term Toxicological Effects of the 

14 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill on Birds and Mammals,‖ Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Fate and Effects in 

15 Alaskan Waters, ASTM STP 1219, pp. 693–725, P.G. Wells et al. (eds.), American Society for 

16 Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.

17

18 Harvey, J.T., and M.E. Dahlheim, 1994, ―Cetaceans in Oil,‖ pp. 257–264 in Marine Mammals 

19 and the Exxon Valdez, T.R. Loughlin, (ed.), Academic Press, San Diego.

20

21 Hayes, M., et al., 1992, An Introduction to Coastal Habitats and Biological Resources for Oil 

22 Spill Response, Report No. HMRAD 92-4, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

23 Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division. 

24

25 Hayes, M.O., R. Hoff, J. Michel, D. Scholz, and G. Shigenaka, 1992, An Introduction to Coastal 

26 Habits and Biological Resources for Oil Spill Response, Report No. HNRAD 92-4, Hazardous 

27 Materials Response and Assessment Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

28 Administration, Seattle, Wash. 

29

30 Hawkes, L.A., A.C. Broderick, M.H. Godfrey, and B.J. Godley, 2009, ―Climate Change and 

31 Marine Turtles,‖ Endangered Species Research 7:137–154.

32

33 Hazel, J., I.V. Lawler, H. Marsh, and S. Robson, 2007, ―Vessel Speed Increases Collision Risk 

34 for the Green Turtle Chelonia mydas,‖ Endangered Species Research 3:105–113.

35

36 Hearon, G., D. Dickins, K. Ambrosius, and K. Morris, 2009, Mapping Sea Ice Overflood Using 

37 Remote Sensing: Smith Bay to Camden Bay, OCS study, MMS 2009-017, MMS, Anchorage, 

38 Alaska.

39

40 Heathershaw, A.D., P.D. Ward, and A.M. David, 2002, ―The Environmental Impact of 

41 Underwater Sound,‖ Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics 23(4):1–13.

42

43 Hemmer, M.J., M.G. Barron, and R.M. Greene, 2010a, Comparative Toxicity of Eight Oil 

44 Dispersant Products on Two Gulf of Mexico Aquatic Test Species, U.S. Environmental 

45 Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Available at http://www.epa.gov/

46 bpspill/reports/ComparativeToxTest.Final.6.30.10.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2011.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-730

1 Hemmer, M.J., M.G. Barron, and R.M. Greene, 2010b, Comparative Toxicity of Louisiana 

2 Crude Oil (LSC) and Chemically Dispersed LSC of Two Gulf of Mexico Aquatic Test Species,

3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Available at 

4 http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/reports/phase2dispersant-toxtest.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2011.

5

6 Hemmerling, S.A., and C.E. Colton, 2004, Environmental Justice Considerations in Lafourche 

7 Parish, Louisiana, OCS Study MMS 2003-038, prepared by Louisiana State University Coastal 

8 Studies Institute, Baton Rouge, La., for Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

9 Region, New Orleans, La., Jan.

10

11 Heneman, B., and the Center for Environmental Education, 1988, Persistent Marine Debris in 

12 the North Sea, Northwest Atlantic Ocean, Wider Caribbean Area, and the West Coast of Baja 

13 California. Final Report, Contract MM3309598-5, Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, 

14 D.C.

15

16 Hensel, P., et al., 2002, Oil Spills in Mangroves, Planning and Response Considerations, 

17 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Response and Restoration. 

18

19 Hepler, K.R., P.A. Hansen, and D.R. Bernard, 1993, Impact of Oil Spilled from the Exxon 

20 Valdez on Survival and Growth of Dolly Varden and Cutthroat Trout in Prince William Sound, 

21 Alaska, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill State/Federal Natural Resource Damage Assessment Final 

22 Report, Fish/Shellfish Study Number 5, Restoration Study Number 90, Alaska Department of 

23 Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Anchorage, Alaska.

24

25 Herkhof, D., 2011, Air Emissions Table for Five-Year DEIS, personal communication from 

26 D. Herkhof (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Herndon, Va.) 

27 to Y.-S. Chang (Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill.), Sept. 2.

28

29 Hess, G., 2011, ―Congress Stalls on Oil-Spill Response,‖ Chemical and Engineering 

30 News 89(34):31–33.

31

32 Hiett, R.L., and J.W. Milon, 2002, Economic Impact of Recreational Fishing and Diving 

33 Associated with Offshore Oil and Gas Structures in the Gulf of Mexico, final report, OCS Study 

34 MMS 2002-010, prepared by QuanTech, Inc. for the MMS, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

35 New Orleans, La. Available at http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/2/3058.pdf. 

36 Accessed June 22, 2011.

37

38 Highsmith, R.C., S.M. Saupe, and A.L. Blanchard, 2001, Kachemak Bay Experimental and 

39 Monitoring Studies: Recruitment, Succession, and Recovery in Seasonally Disturbed Rocky40 Intertidal Habitat, OCS Study MMS 2001-053, MMS, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, Alaska.

41

42 Hildebrand, J., 2004, Sources of Anthropogenic Sound in the Marine Environment, International 

43 Policy Workshop on Sound and Marine Mammals, London, September 28–30.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-731

1 Hildebrand, J.A., 2005, ―Impacts of Anthropogenic Sound,‖ pp. 101–124in Marine Mammal 

2 Research: Conservation beyond Crisis, J.E. Reynolds, W.F. Perrin, R.R. Reeve, 

3 S. Montgomery, and T.J. Ragen (eds.), The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md. 

4 Available at http://www.awionline.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/10158. Accessed July 11, 

5 2011.

6

7 Hill, P.S., and D.P. DeMaster, 1998, Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments 1998, National 

8 Marine Mammal Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Wash.

9

10 Hitchcock, C., et al., 2010, ―GIS-Based Assessment of Submarine Mudflow Hazard Offshore of 

11 the Mississippi Delta,‖ in Submarine Mass Movements and Their Consequences, Advances in 

12 Natural and Technological Hazards Research, D. Mosher et al. (eds.), Springer 

13 Science+Business Media.

14

15 Hoff, R., 1995, Responding to Oil Spills in Coastal Marshes: The Fine Line between Help and 

16 Hindrance, HAZMAT Report 96-1, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

17 Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division. 

18

19 Hoffecker, J.F., and S.A. Elias, 2003, ―Environment and Archaeology in Beringia,‖ Evolutionary 

20 Anthropology 12:34–49.

21

22 Holland-Bartels, L., and J.J. Kolak, 2011, ―Oil-spill, Risk, Reponse, and Impact,‖ in An 

23 Evaluation of the Science Needs to Inform Decisions on Outer Continental Shelf Energy 

24 Development in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Chapter 5. Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey 

25 Circular 1370, p. 13–40.

26

27 Holliday, D.V., R.E. Pieper, M.E. Clarke, and C.F. Greenlaw, 1987, The Effects of Airgun 

28 Energy Releases on the Eggs, Larvae, and Adults of the Northern Anchovy (Engraulis mordax), 

29 API Publication 4453. Report by Tracor Applied Sciences for American Petroleum Institute, 

30 Washington, D.C.

31

32 Hom, W., et al., 1999, ―Measuring the Exposure of Subsistence Fish and Marine Mammal 

33 Species to Aromatic Compounds following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill,‖ in Evaluating and 

34 Communicating Subsistence Seafood Safety in a Cross-Cultural Context, L.J. Field, J.A. Fall, 

35 T.S. Nighswander, N. Peacock, and U. Varanasi (eds), SETAC Press, Pensacola, Fla.

36

37 Hooker, S.K., T.L. Metcalfe, C.D. Metcalfe, C.M. Angell, J.Y. Wilson, M.J. Moore, and 

38 H. Whitehead, 2008, ―Changes in Persistent Contaminant Concentration CYP1A1 

39 Protein Expression in Biopsy Samples from Northern Bottlenose Whales, Hyperoodon 

40 ampullatus, Following the Onset of Nearby Oil and Gas Development,‖ Environmental 

41 Pollution 151:205–216.

42

43 Hoose, P.J., and J. Whitney, 1980, Map Showing Selected Geologic Features of Outer 

44 Continental Shelf, Shelikof Strait, Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 80-2035.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-732

1 Hopkins, D.M., and R.W. Hartz, 1978, Coastal Morphology, Coastal Erosion, and Barrier 

2 Islands of the Beaufort Sea Coast, Alaska, Open File Report 78-1063, U.S. Geological Survey.

3

4 Hopkinson, C., 2010, Outcome/Guidance from Georgia Sea Grant Program: Current Status of 

5 BP Oil Spill, Georgia Sea Grant Oil Spill Update, August 17.

6

7 Howarth, R.W., 1991, ―Assessing the Ecological Effects of Oil Pollution from Outer Continental 

8 Shelf Oil Production,‖ American Fisheries Society Symposium 11:1–8. 

9

10 Hsiao, S.I., D.W. Kittle, and M.G. Foy, 1978, ―Effects of Crude Oils and the Oil Dispersant

11 Corexit on Primary Production of Arctic Marine Phytoplankton and Seaweed,‖ Environmental 

12 Pollution 15:209–221.

13

14 Hsu, S.A., and B.W. Blanchard, 2005, Visibility and Atmospheric Dispersion Capability over the 

15 Northern Gulf of Mexico: Estimations and Observations of Boundary Layer Parameters, OCS 

16 Study MMS 2005-008, prepared by Coastal Marine Institute, Louisiana State University, Baton 

17 Rouge, La., for MMS, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La., March.

18

19 Huffman, A.R., and J.P. Castagna, 2001, ―The Petrophysical Basis for Shallow-Water Flow 

20 Prediction Using Multicomponent Seismic Data,‖ The Leading Edge 20(9):1030–1035.

21

22 Hunter, J.A., and G.O. Hobson, 1974, ―Seismic Refraction Method of Detecting Subsea Bottom 

23 Permafrost, the Coast and Shelf of the Beaufort Sea,‖ Proceedings of a Symposium on Beaufort 

24 Sea Coast and Shelf Research, J.C. Reed and J.E. Sater (Eds.), Arctic Institute of North America, 

25 Arlington Va.

26

27 IACMST (Inter-Agency Committee on Marine Science and Technology), 2006, Underwater 

28 Sound and Marine Life, Report No. 6, report of the Inter-Agency Committee on Marine Science 

29 and Technology Working Group, Southampton, U.K.

30

31 IATA (International Air Transport Association), 2011, Fuel Efficiency. Available at 

32 http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/environment/Pages/fuel_efficiency.aspx. Accessed 

33 August 20, 2011.

34

35 IMG Golder Corp., 2004, Review of Potential Effects of Dredging in the Beaufort Sea, prepared 

36 for the Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Inuvik, Northwest Territories, June.

37

38 Impact Assessment, Inc., 1990, Northern Institutional Profile Analysis: Beaufort Sea, OCS 

39 Study MMS 90-0023, MMS, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, Alaska.

40

41 Impact Assessment, Inc., 2001, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, Cleanup and Litigation: A Collection of 

42 Social-Impact Information and Analysis, OCS Study MMS 2001-058, MMS, Alaska OCS 

43 Region, Anchorage, Alaska. 

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-733

1 Invasive Species Advisory Committee, 2010, Invasive Species and Climate Change, White 

2 Paper. U.S. Department of the Interior, Invasive Species Advisory Committee, Washington, 

3 D.C. Available at http://www.invasivespecies.gov/ISAC/White%20Papers/Climate_Change_

4 White_Paper_FINAL_VERSION.pdf.

5

6 IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change), 2007, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, 

7 Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

8 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, R.K. Pachauri and A. Reisinger, (eds.), Geneva, 

9 Switzerland. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf. 

10 Accessed April 22, 2011.

11

12 Irvine, G., 2000, ―Persistence of Spilled Oil on Shores and Its Effects on Biota,‖ in Seas at the 

13 Millennium: An Environmental Evaluation, Volume III: Global Issues and Processes, Elsevier 

14 Science Ltd., Oxford.

15

16 Jay, C.V., and A.S. Fischbach, 2008, Pacific Walrus Response to Arctic Sea Ice Losses, fact 

17 sheet, USGS, Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, Alaska, May. Available at 

18 http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3041/pdf/fs20083041.pdf. Accessed May 26, 2011.

19

20 Jensen, A.S., and G.K. Silber, 2004, Large Whale Ship Strike Database, NOAA Technical 

21 Memorandum NMFS-OPR-January 2004, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 

22 Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Md.

23

24 Jeong, C., and V.G. Panchang, 2008, ―Measurement-Based Estimates of Extreme Wave 

25 Conditions for the Gulf of Mexico,‖ Proceedings of Oceans 2008. Available at 

26 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5151997&isnumber=5151799. 

27 Accessed May 18, 2011.

28

29 Jernelöv, A., 2010, ―The Threats from Oil Spills: Now, Then, and in the Future,‖ Ambio

30 39:353–366.

31

32 Ji, Z.-G., 2004, ―Use of Physical Sciences in Support of Environmental Management,‖ 

33 Environmental Management 34(2):159–169 

34

35 Jochens, A.E., and S.F. DiMarco, 2008, ―Physical Oceanographic Conditions in the Deepwater 

36 Gulf of Mexico in Summer 2000-2000,‖ Deep-Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in 

37 Oceanography 55(24-26):2541–2554. 

38

39 Jochens, A.E., S.F. DiMarco, W.D. Nowlin, Jr., R.O. Reid, and M.C. Kennicutt II, 2002,

40 Northeastern Gulf of Mexico Chemical Oceanography and Hydrography Study, OCS Study 

41 MMS 2002-055, MMS, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La. 

42

43 Johannesen, O., M. Miles, and E. Bjørgo, 1995, ―The Arctic‘s Shrinking Ice,‖ 

44 Nature 376:126–127.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-734

1 Johnson, S.R., 1994, The Status of Lesser Snow Geese in the Sagavanirktok River Delta Area, 

2 Alaska: 1980–1993. Prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., for BP Exploration 

3 (Alaska), Inc., Anchorage, AK.

4

5 Johnson, S.R., 2000, ―Pacific Eider,‖ Natural History of An Arctic Oil Field: Development and 

6 the Biota. J.C. Truett and S.R. Johnson (eds), Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

7

8 Johnson, S.R., R.J. Rodrigues, and R.H. Pollard, 1993a, Video Analysis of Predators and Nesting 

9 Snow Geese on Howe Island, Sagavanirktok River Delta, Alaska, 1992. Report to BP 

10 Exploration (Alaska) Inc., by LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc.

11

12 Johnson, S.R., D. Wiggins, and R.J. Rodrigues, 1993b, Use of Gravel Causeways by Nesting 

13 Common Eiders, Beaufort Sea, Alaska, 1992. Report to BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., by 

14 LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc.

15

16 Jones, K.F., and E.L. Andreas, 2009, Sea Spray Icing of Drilling and Production Platforms,

17 ERDC/CRREL TR-09-3, USACE, CRREL (Cold Regions Research and Engineering 

18 Laboratory), Hanover, N.H. 

19

20 Jorgenson, M.T., and J. Brown, 2005, ―Classification of the Alaskan Beaufort Sea Coast and 

21 Estimation of Carbon and Sediment Inputs from Coastal Erosion,‖ Geo-Mar Lett 25:69–80.

22

23 Judd, A.G., and M. Hovland, 2007, Seabed Fluid Flow: The Impact of Geology, Biology and the 

24 Marine Environment, Cambridge University Press.

25

26 Kaiser, M.J., and A.G. Pulsipher, 2007, ―The Impact of Weather and Ocean Forecasting on 

27 Hydrocarbon Production and Pollution Management in the Gulf of Mexico,‖ Energy Policy

28 35:966–983. 

29

30 Karl, K.J., 2007, Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Production Forecast: 2007-2016, MMS 

31 Report 2007-020, Gulf of Mexico Region, May.

32

33 Karl, K.J., R.D. Baud, A.G. Boice, R. Bongiovanni, T.M. DeCort, R.P. Desselles, and 

34 E.G. Kazanis, 2007, Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Production Forecast: 2007–2016, MMS 

35 Report 2007-020, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, May.

36

37 Kastak, D., and R.J. Schusterman, 1998, ―Low-Frequency Amphibious Hearing in Pinnipeds: 

38 Methods, Measurements, Noise and Ecology,‖ Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

39 103:2216–2228.

40

41 Kay, J.E., M.M. Holland, and A. Jahn, 2011, ―Inter-annual to Multi-decadal Arctic Sea Ice 

42 Extent Trends in a Warming World,‖ Geophysical Research Letters 38:L15708.

43

44 Keenan, S.F., M.C. Benfield, and J.K. Blackburn, 2007, ―Importance of the Artificial Light Field 

45 around Offshore Petroleum Platforms for the Associated Fish Community,‖ Marine Ecology 

46 Progress Series 331:219–231.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-735

1 Keller, B.D., and J.B.C. Jackson, 1993, Long-Term Assessment of the Oil Spill at Bahia 

2 Las Minas, Panama, Synthesis Report, Volume I: Executive Summary OCS Study 

3 MMS93-0047, U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulk of Mexico, 

4 OCS Region, New Orleans, La.

5

6 Keller, J.M., J.R. Kucklick, C.A. Harms, and P.D. McClellan-Green, 2004, ―Organochlorine 

7 Contaminants in Sea Turtles: Correlations between Whole Blood and Fat,‖ Environmental 

8 Toxicology and Chemistry 23:726–738.

9

10 Kelly, B.P., J.J. Burns, and L.T. Quakenbush, 1988, ―Response of Ringed Seals (Phoca hispida) 

11 to Noise Disturbance,‖ pp. 27–38 in Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic Conditions, 

12 Vol. 2, W.M. Sackinger and M.O. Jeffires (eds.), Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, 

13 Fairbanks, Alaska.

14

15 Kenai Peninsula Borough, 2005, Comprehensive Plan. Available at http://www.borough.

16 kenai.ak.us/planningdept/plan/2005/plan.htm. Accessed April 26, 2011.

17

18 Kenai Peninsula Borough, 2008. Coastal Management Plan, June. Available at 

19 http://www.kenairivercenter.org/Agencies/coastal/2008CMP/CZM_content_full.pdf. Accessed 

20 April 26, 2010.

21

22 Kennicutt, M.C. (ed.), 1995, Gulf of Mexico Offshore Operations Monitoring Experiment, 

23 Phase I: Sublethal Responses to Contaminant Exposure, Final Report, OCS Study MMS 95-

24 0045, MMS, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region New Orleans, La.

25

26 Kennicutt II, M.C., and J.M. Brooks, 1990, ―Recognition of Areas Effected [Affected – sic] by 

27 Petroleum Seepage: Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Slope,‖ Geo-Marine Letters

28 10:221–224.

29

30 Ketten, D.R., 1998, Marine Mammal Auditory Systems: A Summary of Audiometric and 

31 Anatomical Data and Its Implications for Underwater Acoustic Impacts, NOAA Technical 

32 Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-256.

33

34 Kienle, J., Z. Kowalik, and T.S. Murty, 1986, ―Tsunamis Generated by Eruptions from Mount 

35 St. Augustine Volcano, Alaska,‖ Science 236:1442–1447. 

36

37 King, J.A., and G.A. Sanger, 1979, ―Oil Vulnerability Index for Marine Oriented Birds. 

38 Conservation of Marine Birds in Northern North America,‖ Wildlife Research Report II, 

39 J.C. Bartonek and D.N. Nettleship (eds.), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of 

40 the Interior, Washington, D.C.

41

42 Kingsford, M.J., 1996, ―Influence of Pollutants and Oceanography on Abundance and 

43 Deformities of Wild Fish Larvae,‖ pp. 235–256 in Detecting Ecological Impacts, Concepts and 

44 Applications in Coastal Habitats, R.J. Schmitt and C.W. Osenberg (eds.), Academic Press, 

45 San Diego, Calif.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-736

1 Kinkhart, E., K. Pitcher, and G. Blundell, 2008, Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series: Harbor Seal, 

2 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/

3 static/education/wns/harbor_seal.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2011.

4

5 Klem, D., Jr., 1989, ―Bird–Window Collisions,‖ Wilson Bulletin 101: 606–620.

6

7 Klem, D., Jr., 1990, ―Collisions between Birds and Windows: Mortality and Prevention,‖ 

8 Journal of Field Ornithology 61: 120–128.

9

10 Klima, E.F., G.R. Gitschlag, and M.L. Renaud, 1988, ―Impacts of the Explosive Removal of 

11 Offshore Petroleum Platforms on Sea Turtles and Dolphins,‖ Mar. Fish. Rev. 50(3):33–42.

12

13 Kovacs, A., and D.S. Sodhi, 1980, ―Shore Ice Pile-up and Ride-up: Field Observations, Models, 

14 Theoretical Analyses,‖ Cold Regions Science and Technology 2:210–288. 

15

16 Kowalik, Z., 1984, ―Storm Surges in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas,‖ Journal of Geophysical 

17 Research 89(C10):10,570–10,578.

18

19 Kowalik, Z., and A. Proshutinsky, 2010, ―Tsunami-Tide Interactions: A Cook Inlet Case Study,‖ 

20 Continental Shelf Research 30:633–642. 

21

22 KPB (Kenai Peninsula Borough), 2011, ―Tsunamis and Seiches,‖ Chapter 6 in KPB All-Hazard 

23 Mitigation Plan. Available at http://www.borough.kenai.ak.us/emergency/hazmit/plan.htm.

24 Accessed May 25, 2011.

25

26 Krost, P., M. Bernhard, F. Werner, and W. Hukriede, 1990, ―Otter Trawl Tracks in Kiel Bay 

27 (Western Baltic) Mapped by Side-Scan Sonar,‖ Meereforschung 32:344–353.

28

29 Kryter, K.D., 1985, The Effects of Noise on Man, 2nd Ed. Academic Press, Orlando.

30

31 Kujawinski, E.B., M.C. Kido Soule, D.L. Valentine, A.K. Boysen, K. Longnecker, and 

32 M.C. Redmond, 2011, ―Fate of Dispersants Associated with the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill,‖ 

33 Environmental Science and Technology 45:1298–1306.

34

35 Kvenvolden, K.A., and C.K. Cooper, 2003, ―Natural Seepage of Crude Oil into the Marine 

36 Environment,‖ Geo-Marine Letters 23:140–146.

37

38 Kyle, R.E., and T.P. Brabets, 2001, Water Temperature of Streams in the Cook Inlet Basin, 

39 Alaska, and Implications of Climate Change, Water Resources Investigations Report 01-4109, 

40 U.S. Geological Survey.

41

42 Kyle, R.J., 2002, ―A Century of Fire and Brimstone: the Rise and Fall of the Frasch Sulphur 

43 Industry of the Gulf of Mexico Basin, ‖ in Industrial Minerals and Extractive Industry Geology, 

44 P.W. Scott and C.M. Bristow (editors), Geological Society of London.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-737

1 Labay, K., and P.J. Haeussler, 2001, GIS Coverages of the Castle Mountain Fault, South Central 

2 Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 01-504.

3

4 Laist, D.W., A.R. Knowlton, J.G. Mead, A.S. Collet, and M. Podesta, 2001, ―Collisions between 

5 Ships and Whales,‖ Marine Mammal Science 17(1): 35–75.

6

7 Lance, B.K., D.B. Irons, S.J. Kendall, and L.L. McDonald, 2001, ―An Evaluation of Marine Bird 

8 Population Trends Following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, Prince William Sound, Alaska,‖ 

9 Marine Pollution Bulletin 42: 298–309.

10

11 Lange, J.L., D.A. Schwartz, B.N. Doebbeling, J.M. Heller, and P.S. Thorne, 2002, ―Exposures to 

12 the Kuwait Oil Fires and Their Association with Asthma and Bronchitis among Gulf War 

13 Veterans,‖ Environ. Health Perspect. 110(11):1141–1146.

14

15 Larkin, R.P., 1996, Effects of Military Noise on Wildlife: a Literature Review, Technical Report 

16 96/21, U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, Ill.

17

18 Laws, E.A., 1993, ―Oil Pollution.‖ Chapter 13 in Aquatic Pollution, An Introductory Text. 

19 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

20

21 LCWCRTF (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force), 1998, 

22 Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana, Report of the Louisiana Coastal 

23 Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands Conservation and 

24 Restoration Authority, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, La.

25

26 LCWCRTF, 2001, The 2000 Evaluation Report to the U.S. Congress on the Effectiveness of 

27 Louisiana Coastal Wetland Restoration Projects, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, 

28 Baton Rouge, La.

29

30 LCWCRTF, 2003, The 2003 Evaluation Report to the U.S. Congress on the Effectiveness of 

31 Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act Projects, Louisiana Department of 

32 Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, La. 

33

34 Leber, J., 2010, ―Economics Improve for First Commercial Cellulose Ethanol Plants,‖ 

35 ClimateWire. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/02/16/16climatewire36 economics-improve-for-first-commercial-cellu-93478.html. Accessed February 16, 2010.

37

38 Lee, D.S., and M. Socci, 1989, Potential Impact of Oil Spills on Seabirds and Selected Other 

39 Oceanic Vertebrates Off the North Carolina Coast. NCSM Biological Survey Report No. 90-1. 

40 North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh, NC.

41

42 Lee, R.F., and D.S. Page, 1997, ―Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Their Effects in Subtidal Regions 

43 after Major Oil Spills,‖ Marine Pollution Bulletin 34:928–940.

44

45 Leighton, F.A., 1990, The Toxicity of Petroleum Oils to Birds: An Overview. Oil Symposium, 

46 Herndon, VA.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-738

1 Lemke, P., J. Ren, R.B. Alley, I. Allison, J. Carrasco, G. Flato, Y. Fujii, G. Kaser, P. Mote, 

2 R.H. Thomas, and T. Zhang, 2007, ―Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground,‖

3 in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the 

4 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, S. Solomon, 

5 D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.),

6 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., and New York, N.Y.

7

8 Lesage, V., C. Barrette, M.C.S. Kingsley, and B. Sjare, 1999, ―The Effects of Vessel Noise on 

9 the Vocal Behavior of Belugas in the St. Lawrence River Estuary, Canada,‖ Marine Mammal 

10 Science 15:65–84.

11

12 Lewis, J.P., R. Sellers, S. Miller, D. McAllister, and D. Calkins, 1991, Assessment of the Exxon 

13 Valdez Oil Spill on Brown Bears on the Alaska Peninsula, Terrestrial Mammal Study Number 

14 Four, Final Report.

15

16 Lessard-Pilon, S., M.D. Porter, E.E. Cordes, I.R. MacDonald, and C.R. Fisher, 2010, 

17 ―Community Composition and Temporal Change at Deep Gulf of Mexico Cold Seeps,‖ Deep18 Sea Research II 57:1891–1903.

19

20 Lincoln, F.C., S.R. Peterson, and J.L. Zimmerman, 1998, Migration of Birds. Circular 16, 

21 U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

22

23 Linnell, J.D.C., J.E. Swenson, R. Andersen, and B. Barnes, 2000, ―How Vulnerable Are Denning 

24 Bears to Disturbance?‖ Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:400–413.

25

26 Liu, J., 2011, personal communication via e-mail from J. Liu (Louisiana Department of 

27 Environmental Quality, Baton Rouge, La.) to Y.-S. Chang (Argonne National Laboratory, 

28 Argonne, Ill.), July 22.

29

30 Ljungblad, D.K., B. Würsig, S.L. Swartz, and J.M. Keene, 1988, ―Observations on the 

31 Behavioral Responses of Bowhead Whales (Balaena mysticetus) to Active Geophysical Vessels 

32 in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea,‖ Arctic 41(3):183–194.

33

34 Lloyd, J.M. et al., 1991, Part I: 1988 and 1989 Florida Petroleum Production and Exploration 

35 Including Florida Petroleum Reserve Estimates and Part II: Petroleum Exploration and 

36 Development Policies in Florida – Response to Public Concern for Sensitive Environments, 

37 Information Circular No. 107, Florida Department of Natural Resources, published for the 

38 Florida Geological Survey, June.

39

40 Loehefener, R.R., W. Hoggard, C.L. Roden, K.D. Mullin, and C.M. Rogers, 1989, ―Petroleum 

41 Structures and the Distribution of Sea Turtles,‖ in Proceedings Spring Ternary Gulf of Mexico 

42 Studies Meeting, Minerals Management Service.

43

44 Lohoefener, R., W. Hoggard, K. Mullin, C. Roden, and C. Rogers, 1990, Association of Sea 

45 Turtles with Petroleum Platforms in the North-Central Gulf of Mexico, OCS Study/MMS 90-

46 00025, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Regional Office, New Orleans, La.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-739

1 Longwell, A.C., 1977, ―A Genetic Look at Fish Eggs and Oil,‖ Oceanus 20(4):46–58.

2

3 Lorne, J.K., and M. Salmon, 2007, ―Effects of Exposure to Artificial Lighting on Orientation of 

4 Hatchling Sea Turtles on the Beach and in the Ocean,‖ Endangered Species Research 3:23–30.

5

6 Loughlin, T.R., B.E. Ballachey, and B.A. Wright, 1996, ―Overview of Studies to Determine 

7 Injury Caused by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill to Marine Mammals,‖ pp. 798–808 in Proceedings 

8 of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Symposium, S.D. Rice, R.B. Spies, D.A. Wolfe, and B.A. Wright 

9 (eds.), American Fisheries Society Symposium 18, Bethesda, Md.

10

11 Loya, Y., and B. Rinkevitch, 1980, ―Effects of Oil Pollution on Coral Reef Communities,‖

12 Marine Ecology Progress Series 3:167–180.

13

14 Lu, S., G.A. McMechan, and A. Liaw, 2005, ―Identification of Shallow-Water-Flow Sands by Vp

15 Inversion of Conventional 3D Seismic Data,‖ Geophysics 70(5):29–37.

16

17 Lubchenco, J., M. McNutt, B. Lehr, M. Sogge, M. Miller, S. Hammond, and W. Conner, 2010, 

18 ―BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget: What Happened To the Oil?.‖ Available at 

19 http://www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/imported_pdfs/posted/2931/

20 Oil_Budget_description_8_3_FINAL.844091.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2011.

21

22 Lugo-Fernandez, A., 2007, ―Is the Loop Current a Chaotic Oscillator?‖ Journal of Physical 

23 Oceanography 37(6):1455–1469.

24

25 Lugo-Fernandez, A., and R.E. Green, 2011, ―Mapping the Intricacies of the Gulf of Mexico‘s 

26 Circulation,‖ EOS 92(3):21–22.

27

28 Lugo-Fernandez, A., and R.R. Leben, 2010, ―On the Linear Relationship between Loop Current 

29 Retreat Latitude and Eddy Separation Period,‖ Journal of Physical Oceanography

30 40(12):2778–2784.

31

32 Lukina, L., S. Matisheva, and V. Shapunov, 1996, ―Ecological Monitoring of the Captivity Sites 

33 as a Means of Studying the Influence of Contaminated Environment on Cetaceans,‖ pp. 52–54 

34 in Proceedings, First International Symposium on the Marine Mammals of the Black Sea, 

35 B. Öztürk (ed.), June 27–30, 1994, Istanbul, Turkey.

36

37 Lutcavage, M.E., P.L. Lutz, G.D. Bossart, and D.M. Hudson, 1995, ―Physiologic and 

38 Clinicopathologic Effects of Crude Oil on Loggerhead Sea Turtles,‖ Archives of Environmental 

39 Contamination and Toxicology 28:417–422.

40

41 Lutcavage, M.E., P. Plotkin, B. Witherington, and P.L. Lutz, 1997, ―Human Impacts on Sea 

42 Turtle Survival,‖ pp. 387–410 in The Biology of Sea Turtles, P.L. Lutz and J.A. Musick (eds.),

43 CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla. 

44

45 Luton, H., and R. Cluck, 2003, Social Impact Assessment of Offshore Oil and Gas in the Gulf of 

46 Mexico, draft, Mineral Management Service.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-740

1 Lutz, P.L., and M. Lutcavage, 1989, ―The Effects of Petroleum on Sea Turtles: Applicability to 

2 Kemp‘s Ridley,‖ in Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Kemp’s Ridley Sea 

3 Turtle Biology, Conservation, and Management, C.W. Caillouet and A.M. Landry (eds.),

4 TAMU-SG-89-105.

5

6 Lynch, A.H., L.R. Lestak, P. Uotila, E.N. Cassano, and L. Xie, 2008, ―A Factorial Analysis of 

7 Storm Surge Flooding in Barrow, Alaska,‖ Monthly Weather Review 136(3):898–912. 

8

9 Macdonald, K.B., 1977, ―Plant and Animal Communities of Pacific North American Salt 

10 Marshes,‖ pp. 167–192 in Wet Coastal Ecosystems. Ecosystems of the World, V.J. Chapman 

11 (ed.), Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

12

13 Macreadie, P., A. Fowler, and D. Booth, 2011, ―Rigs-to-Reefs: Will the Deep Sea Benefit from 

14 Artificial Habitat?,‖ Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 110324084539019. Available at 

15 http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/100112. Accessed June 21, 2011.

16

17 Madsen, P.T., B. Mohl, B.K. Nielsen, and M. Wahlberg, 2002, ―Male Sperm Whale Behaviour 

18 During Exposures to Distant Seismic Survey Pulses,‖ Aquatic Mammals 28(3):231–240.

19

20 Maffione, R.A., 2000, ―Deep Problems in Optically Shallow Waters,‖ Backscatter 11:28–31. 

21

22 Mahoney, A., H. Eicken, A.G. Gaylord, and L. Shapiro, 2007, ―Alaska Landfast Sea Ice: Links 

23 with Bathymetry and Atmospheric Circulation,‖ Journal of Geophysical Research 112:C02001.

24

25 Maier, J.A.K., S.M. Murphy, and M.D. Smith, 1998, ―Response of Caribou to Overflights by 

26 Low-altitude Jet Aircraft,‖ Journal of Wildlife Management 62:752–766.

27

28 Malins, D.C. (ed.), 1977, Effects of Petroleum on Arctic and Subarctic Marine Environments and 

29 Organisms, Vol. II, Biological Effects, Academic Press, New York, N.Y.

30

31 Malm, W.C., 1999, Introduction to Visibility, Cooperative Institute for Research in the

32 Atmosphere (CIRA), NPS Visibility Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo., 

33 May.

34

35 Malm, W.C., 2000, Spatial and Seasonal Patterns and Temporal Variability of Haze and Its 

36 Constituents in the United States, Report III, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, May.

37

38 Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, C.W. Clark, P. Tyack, and J.E. Bird, 1984, Investigations of the 

39 Potential Effects of Underwater Noise from Petroleum Industry Activities on Migrating Gray 

40 Whale Behavior, Phase II: January 1984 Migration, BBN Rep. 5586, report for MMS, 

41 Anchorage, Alaska, NTIS PB86-218377.

42

43 Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, G.W. Miller, W.J. Richardson, D.G. Roseneau, D.H. Thomson, and 

44 C.R. Greene, Jr., 1989, Analysis and Ranking of the Acoustic Disturbance Potential of Petroleum 

45 Industry Activities and Other Sources of Noise in the Environment of Marine Mammals in 

46 Alaska, OCS Study MMS 89-0006, Minerals Management Service, Anchorage, Alaska.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-741

1 Marine Mammal Commission, 2003, Annual Report to Congress 2002, Bethesda, Md.

2

3 Marine Mammal Commission, 2004, Annual Report to Congress 2003, Bethesda, Md.

4

5 Markus, T., J.C. Stroeve, and J. Miller, 2009, ―Recent Changes in Arctic Sea Ice Melt Onset, 

6 Freeze Up, and Melt Season Length,‖ Journal of Geophysical Research 114(C12). 

7

8 Mars, J., and D. Houseknecht, 2007, ―Quantitative Remote Sensing Study Indicates Doubling of 

9 Coastal Erosion Rate in Past 50 yr along a Segment of the Arctic Coast of Alaska,‖ Geology

10 35:583–586.

11

12 Mason, W.T., Jr., and J.P. Claxton, 1993, ―Foods of the Gulf Sturgeon in the Suwanee River, 

13 Florida,‖ Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122:378–385.

14

15 Matkin, C.O., E.L. Saulitis, G.M. Ellis, P. Olesiuk, and S.D. Rice, 2008, ―Ongoing Population16 level Impacts on Killer Whales Orcinus orca following the  ̳Exxon Valdez‘ Oil Spill in Prince 

17 William Sound, Alaska,‖ Marine Ecology Progress Series 356:269–281.

18

19 McCammon, M., P. Mundy, and B. Spies, 2002, The Gulf of Alaska Ecosystem Monitoring and 

20 Research (GEM) Program Document, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, July 9.

21

22 McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M-N. Jenner, J.D. Penrose, R.I.T. Prince, 

23 A. Adhitya, J. Murdoch, and K. McCabe, 2000, ―Marine Seismic Surveys – A Study of 

24 Environmental Implications,‖ APPEA Journal 40:692–708.

25

26 McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M-N. Jenner, J.D. Penrose, R.I.T. Prince, 

27 A. Adhitya, J. Murdoch, and K. McCabe, 2000, ―Marine Seismic Surveys: A Study of 

28 Environmental Implications,‖ Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association 

29 Journal 2000:692–708.

30

31 McClory, J., and T. Gotthardt, 2008, Non-native and Invasive Animals of Alaska: A 

32 Comprehensive List and Select Species Status Reports – Final Report, Alaska Natural Heritage 

33 Program, Anchorage, Alaska, January. Available at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/

34 species/nonnative/invasive/pdfs/invasivespp-report.pdf. Accessed September 6, 2011.

35

36 McColluch, D.S., 1966, Slide-Induced Waves, Seiching and Ground Fracturing Caused by the 

37 Earthquake of March 27, 1964 at Kenai Lake, Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

38 Paper 543-A.

39

40 McDonald, M.A., J.A. Hildebrand, and S.C. Webb, 1995, ―Blue and Fin Whales Observed on a 

41 Seafloor Array in the Northeast Pacific,‖ Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

42 98(2):712–721.

43

44 McGrattan, K.B., et al., 1995, ―Smoke Plume Trajectory from In Situ Burning of Crude Oil in 

45 Alaska – Field Experiments,‖ in Proceedings of the Eighteenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill 

46 Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Vol. 2, June 14–16, 1995, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-742

1 McGurk, M.D., and E.D. Brown, 1996, ―Egg–Larval Mortality of Pacific Herring in Prince 

2 William Sound, Alaska, after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill,‖ Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

3 Aquatic Sciences 53:2343–2354. 

4

5 McKechnie, A.M., and D.N. Gladwin, 1993, Aircraft Overflight Effects on Wildlife Resources,

6 Report NPOA-93-8, HMMH-290940.22 (NTIS Number: PB94-149994), November 1993.

7

8 McKone, K.P., N.D. Walker, and E. Weeks, 2007, Full-Water Column Currents Near the 

9 Sigsbee Escarpment (91-92° W. longitude) and Relationships with the Loop Current and 

10 Associated Warm-and Cold-Core Eddies, OCS Study, MMS 2007-058, MMS, Gulf of Mexico 

11 OCS Region, Baton Rouge, La. 

12

13 McNutt, M., R. Camilli, G. Guthrie, H. Hsieh, V. Labson, B. Lehr, D. Maclay, A. Ratzel, and 

14 M. Sogge, 2011, Assessment of Flow Rate Estimates for the Deepwater Horizon/Macondo Well 

15 Oil Spill, Flow Rate Technical Group, report to the National Incident Command, Interagency 

16 Solutions Group, U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. Available at 

17 http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=237763. 

18 Accessed September 20, 2011.

19

20 Mendelssohn, I., and Q. Lin (eds.), 2003, Coastal Marine Institute, Development of 

21 Bioremediation for Oil Spill Cleanup in Coastal Wetlands, prepared by Louisiana State 

22 University, Wetland Biogeochemistry Institute, Center for Coastal, Energy, and Environmental 

23 Resources, for Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La.

24

25 Miksis-Olds, J.L., P.L. Donaghay, J.H. Miller, P.L. Tyack, and J.A. Nystuen, 2007, ―Noise Level 

26 Correlates with Manatee Use of Foraging Habitats,‖ Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

27 121:3011–3020.

28

29 Miller, F.L., and A. Gunn, 1979, Responses of Peary Caribou and Muskoxen to Helicopter 

30 Harassment, Prince of Wales Island, Northwest Territories, July−August 1976, Canadian 

31 Wildlife Service Progress Notes, No. 79.

32

33 Miller, F.L., and A. Gunn, 1980, ―Behavioral Responses of Muskox Herds to Simulation of 

34 Cargo Slinging by Helicopter, Northwest Territories,‖ Canadian Field Naturalist 94:52–60.

35

36 Miller, M.W., K.C. Jensen, W.E. Grant, and M.W. Weller, 1994, ―A Simulation Model of 

37 Helicopter Disturbance of Molting Pacific Black Brant,‖ Ecological Modelling 73 (3/4): 

38 293–309.

39

40 Miller, W.W., 1994, ―Route Selection to Minimize Helicopter Disturbance of Molting Pacific 

41 Black Brant: A Simulation,‖ Arctic 47(4): 341–349.

42

43 Milton, S.L., A.A. Schulman, and P.L. Lutz, 1997, ―The Effect of Beach Nourishment with 

44 Aragonite Versus Silicate Sand on Beach Temperature and Loggerhead Sea Turtle Nesting 

45 Success,‖ Journal of Coastal Research 13:904–915.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-743

1 MMS (Minerals Management Service), undated, Leasing Oil and Natural Gas Resources, Outer 

2 Continental Shelf, U.S. Department of the Interior. Available at http://www.boemre.gov/ld/

3 PDFs/GreenBook-LeasingDocument.pdf. Accessed September 15, 2011.

4

5 MMS, 1985, Geologic Report for the Beaufort Sea Planning Area, Alaska, OCS Report,

6 MMS 85-0111, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, Alaska.

7

8 MMS, 1987, Geologic Report for the Chukchi Sea Planning Area, Alaska, OCS Report 87-0046, 

9 Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage.

10

11 MMS, 1991, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Chukchi Sea Oil & Gas Lease Sale 126, Final 

12 Environmental Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA MMS 90-0095, Minerals Management Service, 

13 Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, Alaska, Jan.

14

15 MMS, 1992, Geologic Report for the Gulf of Alaska Planning Area, Report 92-0065, R.F. Turner 

16 (ed.), U.S. Department of the Interior, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region. 

17

18 MMS, 1995a, Cook Inlet Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 149, Vol. 1, Report 95-0066, 

19 U.S. Department of the Interior, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region.

20

21 MMS, 1995b, Gulf of Mexico Air Quality Study, Final Report, Volume I: Summary of Data 

22 Analysis and Modeling, OCS Study MMS 95-0038, MMS, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

23 New Orleans, La., Aug.

24

25 MMS, 1996, Beaufort Sea Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 144, Final Environmental 

26 Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA MMS 96-0012, USDOI/MMS, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, 

27 Alaska.

28

29 MMS, 1996a, Cook Inlet Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 149, Final Environmental 

30 Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA MMS 95-0066, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region, 

31 Anchorage, Alaska, Jan. 

32

33 MMS, 1996b, Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 1997-2002, Final 

34 Environmental Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA, MMS 96-0043, MMS, Environmental Projects 

35 Coordination Branch, Herndon, Va.

36

37 MMS, 1997a, Beaufort Sea Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 170, Draft Environmental 

38 Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA MMS 97-0011, MMS, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, Alaska, 

39 May.

40

41 MMS, 1997b, Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales 169, 172, 175, 178, and 182, 

42 Central Planning Area, Final Environmental Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA 97-0033, MMS, 

43 Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La., Nov.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-744

1 MMS, 1998, Beaufort Sea Planning Area, Oil and Gas Lease Sale 170, Final Environmental 

2 Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA, MMS 98-0002, Minerals Management Service, Alaska Outer 

3 Continental Shelf Region, Anchorage, Alaska.

4

5 MMS, 2001a, Sediment Quality in Depositional Areas of Shelikof Strait and Outermost Cook 

6 Inlet, OCS Study MMS 2000-024, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region, Anchorage, Alaska. 

7

8 MMS, 2001b, Brief Overview of Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Pipelines: Installation, 

9 Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, OCS Report, MMS 2001-067, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

10 Region, New Orleans, La.

11

12 MMS, 2001c, Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale 181, Eastern Planning Area, Final 

13 Environmental Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA MMS 2001-051, MMS, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

14 Region, New Orleans, La, June.

15

16 MMS, 2001d, Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Grid 10 Site-Specific Evaluation of 

17 BP Exploration and Production Inc.’s Joint Initial Development Operations Coordination 

18 Document, N-7216 Holstein Project Green Canyon Blocks 644 and 645. Available at

19 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:

20 ai_wARiqbbYJ:mms.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/nepa/grid10ea.pdf+link:IuAQ9j0cEg4J:schol

21 ar.google.com/#25. Accessed Oct. 2005.

22

23 MMS, 2002a, Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 2002-2007, Final 

24 Environmental Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA MMS 2002-006, Minerals Management Service,

25 Herndon, Va., April. 2 vols.

26

27 MMS, 2002b, Oil Spill Risk Analysis: Cook Inlet Planning Area, OCS Lease Sales 191 and 199,

28 OCS Report MMS 2002-074, MMS, Environmental Division, Herndon, Va.

29

30 MMS, 2002c, Liberty Development and Production Plan, Final Environmental Impact 

31 Statement, OCS Report 2002-019, Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region, 

32 Anchorage, Alaska, May.

33

34 MMS, 2002d, Environmental Sensitivity Index Shoreline Classification of the Alaskan Beaufort 

35 Sea and Chukchi Sea, OCS Study MMS 2003-006, prepared for MMS, Alaska OCS Region, by 

36 Research Planning, Inc.

37

38 MMS, 2003a, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf, Cook Inlet Planning Area, Oil and Gas Lease 

39 Sales 191 and 199, Final Environmental Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA MMS 2003-055, 

40 Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage.

41

42 MMS, 2003b, Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting: Notice to 

43 Lessees and Operators of Federal Oil, Gas, and Sulphur Leases in the Outer Continental Shelf, 

44 Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. June 19. Available at http://www.ocsbbs.com/ntls/ntl04-g01.asp. 

45 Accessed April 15, 2011.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-745

1 MMS 2003c, Official Trnscript – Public Hearing Homer, Minerals Management Office, 

2 January 23, 2003, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Cook Inlet Planning Area Oil and 

3 Gas Lease Sales 191 and 199, transcribed by S. Hile, Computer Matrix Court Reporters, LLC, 

4 Anchorage, Alaska.

5

6 MMS, 2003d, Final Environmental Impact Statement for Lease Sales 189 and 197, Volumes I & 

7 II, OCS Study OCS EIS/EA MMS 2003-020, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

8 OCS Region, New Orleans, La. 

9

10 MMS, 2003e, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Beaufort Sea Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease 

11 Sales 186, 195, and 202 Final Environmental Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA MMS 2003-001,

12 Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, Alaska, Feb.

13

14 MMS, 2004a, Geological and Geophysical Exploration for Mineral Resources on the Gulf of 

15 Mexico Outer Continental Shelf, Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment, OCS EIS/EA 

16 MMS 2004-054, Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region, New Orleans, La. 

17

18 MMS, 2004b, Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species 

19 Observer Program: Notice to Lessees and Operators of Federal Oil, Gas, and Sulphur Leases in

20 the Outer Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, March 1. Available at 

21 http://www.ocsbbs.com/ntls/ntl04-g01.asp. Accessed April 15, 2011.

22

23 MMS, 2004c, Environmental Assessment Proposed Oil and Gas Lease Sale 195 Beaufort Sea 

24 Planning Area, OCS EIS/EA MMS 2004-028, Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS 

25 Region, Anchorage, Alaska, July.

26

27 MMS, 2005a, ―A Hurricane on the OCS: Planning for Worst,‖ MMS Ocean Science 2(6):4.

28

29 MMS, 2005b, ―Powerful New Lessons: Hurricanes on the OCS,‖ MMS Ocean Science

30 2(6):10–11.

31

32 MMS, 2005c, ―Taking Another Look: Ivan the Terrible,‖ MMS Ocean Science 2(6):6. 

33

34 MMS, 2005d, Programmatic Environmental Assessment: Structure-Removal Operations on the 

35 Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf, OCS EIS/EA 2005-013, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

36 New Orleans, La.

37

38 MMS, 2005e, Proposed Geophysical Survey, Cosmopolitan Unit, Cook Inlet. Environmental 

39 Assessment, OCS EIS/EA, MMS 2005-045. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals 

40 Management Service, Alaska OCS Region.

41

42 MMS, 2006a, Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2007-2012, Western Planning 

43 Area Sales 204, 207, 210, 215, and 218 and Central Planning Area Sales 205, 206, 208, 213, 

44 216, and 222, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, MMS 2006-062, Minerals Management 

45 Service Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, Nov. Available at http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PDFs/

46 2006/2006-062-Vol1.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2011.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-746

1 MMS, 2006b, Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2007-2012, Draft 

2 Environmental Impact Statement, July.

3

4 MMS, 2006c, Programmatic Environmental Assessment on Arctic Ocean Outer Continental 

5 Shelf Seismic Surveys – 2006, OCS EIS/EA MMS 2006-019, MMS, Alaska OCS Region, 

6 Anchorage, Alaska.

7

8 MMS, 2007a, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Chukchi Sea Planning Area, Oil and Gas Lease 

9 Sale Area 193 and Seismic Surveying Activities in the Chukchi Sea Final Environmental Impact 

10 Statement, OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-026, Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region, 

11 Anchorage, Alaska.

12

13 MMS, 2007b, Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2007-2012 Final Environmental 

14 Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-018, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

15 OCS Region, New Orleans.

16

17 MMS, 2007c, Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2007-2012, Final 

18 Environmental Impact Statement, Volume I, OCS EIS/EA, MMS 2007-003, April. 

19

20 MMS, 2007d, Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Alternative Energy 

21 Development and Production and Alternate Use of Facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf 

22 (Final), OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-046, Oct.

23

24 MMS, 2007e, Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2007-2012, Final 

25 Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. II, OCS EIS/EA, MMS 2007-003, April.

26

27 MMS, 2008a, Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2009-2012, Central Planning Area 

28 Sales 208, 213, 216, and 222, Western Planning Area Sales 210, 215, and 218, Final 

29 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA, MMS 2008-41, Minerals 

30 Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La., Sept. Available at 

31 http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PDFs/2008/2008-041.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2011.

32

33 MMS, 2008b, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Planning Areas Oil and 

34 Gas Lease Sales 209, 212, 217, and 221, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA 

35 MMS 2008-055, Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region, Nov.

36

37 MMS, 2008c, Design Options for Offshore Pipelines in the U.S. Beaufort and Chukchi Seas,

38 Report R-07-078-519, April.

39

40 MMS, 2009a, Possible Effects of OCS Gas and Oil Activities on the California Gray Whale,

41 Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region.

42

43 MMS, 2009b, Arctic Oil Spill Response Research and Development Program – A Decade of 

44 Achievement.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-747

1 MMS, 2010, Chukchi Sea Planning Area – Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 in the Chukchi Sea, 

2 Alaska, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2010-

3 034, Alaska OCS Region Office of Leasing and Environment.

4

5 Mitchell, D.A., W.J. Teague, E. Jarosz, and D.W. Wang, 2005, ―Observed Currents over the 

6 Outer Continental Shelf during Hurricane Ivan,‖ Geophysical Research Letters 32:L11610. 

7

8 Mobley, C.M., J.C. Haggarty, C.J. Utermohle, M. Eldridge, R.E. Reanier, A. Crowell, 

9 B.A. Ream, D.R. Yesner, J.M. Erlandson, and P.E. Buck, 1990, The 1989 Exxon Valdez

10 Cultural Resource Program, Exxon Shipping Company and Exxon Company, USA (a Division 

11 of Exxon Corporation), Anchorage, Alaska.

12

13 Moein, S.E., J.A. Musick, J.A. Keinath, D.E. Barnard, M.L. Lenhardt, and R. George, 1995,

14 ―Evaluation of Seismic Sources for Repelling Sea Turtles from Hopper Dredges,‖ pp. 90–93 in

15 Sea Turtle Research Program: Summary Report, L.Z. Hales (comp.), Technical Report CERC16 95, prepared for U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Atlanta, Ga., and U.S. Naval 

17 Submarine Base, Kings Bay, Ga.

18

19 Moles, A., and B.L. Norcross, 1998, ―Effects of Oil-Laden Sediments on Growth and Health of 

20 Juvenile Flatfishes,‖ Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55:605–610. 

21

22 Molnia, B.F., et al., 1979, ―Gas-Charged Sediment Areas in the Northern Gulf of Alaska,‖ in 

23 Geological Survey Research 1979, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1150.

24

25 Montagna, P.A., and P.E. Harper, Jr., 1996, ―Benthic Infaunal Longterm Response to Offshore 

26 Production Platforms in the Gulf of Mexico,‖ Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53:2567–2588.

27

28 Morison, J., K. Aagaard, and M. Steele, 2000, ―Recent Environmental Changes in the Arctic: A 

29 Review,‖ Arctic 53(4):359–371. 

30

31 Morreale, S.J., and E.A. Standora, 1998, Early Life Stage Ecology of Sea Turtles in Northeastern 

32 U.S. Waters, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-413.

33

34 Morreale, S.J., E.A. Standora, J.R. Spotila, and F.V. Paladino, 1996, ―Migration Corridor for Sea 

35 Turtles,‖ Nature 384:319–320.

36

37 Motavalli, J., 2010, Cellulosic Ethanol‘s Time May Finally Have Come. BNET. Available at 

38 http://www.bnet.com/blog/electric-cars/cellulosic-ethanol-8217s-time-may-finally-have39 come/1475. Accessed August 20, 2011.

40

41 Moulton, V.D., W.J. Richardson, and M.T. Williams, 2003, ―Ringed Seal Densities and Noise 

42 near an Icebound Artificial Island with Construction and Drilling,‖ Acoustics Research Letters 

43 Online 4(4):112–117.

44

45 Mrosovksy, N., 1972, ―Spectrographs of the Sounds of Leatherback Turtles,‖ 

46 Herpetologica 28:256–258.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-748

1 Muench, R., and J. Schumacher, 1980, Physical Oceanographic and Meteorologic Conditions in 

2 the Northwest Gulf of Alaska, NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL PMEL-22 USDOC/NOAA, 

3 PMEL, NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Seattle, Wash. 

4

5 Mulherin, N.D., W.B. Tucker III, O. Smith, and W. Lee, 2001, Marine Ice Atlas for Cook Inlet, 

6 Alaska, ERDC/CRREL Technical Report 01-10, USACE, CRREL (Cold Regions Research and 

7 Engineering Laboratory), Hanover, N.H. 

8

9 Municipality of Anchorage, 2011, Port of Anchorage. Available at http://www.muni.org/

10 departments/port/pages/default.aspx. Accessed on July 18, 2011.

11

12 Muller-Karger, F.E., F. Vukovich, R. Leben, B. Nababan, C. Hu, and D. Myhre, 2001, Surface

13 Circulation and the Transport of the Loop Current into the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico, OCS 

14 Study, MMS 2001-102, MMS, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La. 

15

16 Murphy, S.M., R.H. Day, J.A. Wiens, and K.R. Parker, 1997, ―Effects of the Exxon Valdez Oil 

17 Spill on Birds: Comparison of Pre- and Post-Spill Surveys in Prince William Sound, Alaska,‖ 

18 The Condor 99: 299–313.

19

20 Murton, J.B., 2008 ―Global Warming and Thermokarst,‖ in Soil Biology: Permafrost Soils, 

21 R. Margesin (ed.), Springer, 185–204.

22

23 Nakatani, R.E., and A.E. Nevissi, 1991, ―Effect of Prudhoe Bay Crude Oil on the 

24 Homing of Coho Salmon in Marine Waters,‖ North American Journal of Fisheries 

25 Management 11:160–166. 

26

27 National Academy of Sciences, 1983, Drilling Discharges in the Marine Environment, Coastal 

28 Zone Information Center. Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CZIC-td195-p4-n36-

29 1983/html/CZIC-td195-p4-n36-1983.htm. Accessed July 11, 2011.

30

31 National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2011. 2010 Local Climatological Data, Annual 

32 Summary with Comparative Data, Barrow, Alaska (PABR). National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

33 Administration. Available at http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/lcd/lcd.html. Accessed May 27, 

34 2011.

35

36 National Commission (National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and 

37 Offshore Drilling), 2011, Deep Water, The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling, 

38 Report to the President, Jan.

39

40 National Science Foundation and USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 2010, Draft Programmatic 

41 Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for Marine Seismic 

42 Research Funded by the National Science Foundation or Conducted by the U.S. Geological 

43 Survey, Oct. Available at http://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/envcomp/peis_marine_seismic_research/

44 nsf-usgs_draft_prog_eis-oies_oct_2010.pdf. Accessed June 24, 2011.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-749

1 N.C. Solar Center and Interstate Renewable Energy Council, undated, Database of State 

2 Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency. Available at http://www.dsireusa.org/. Accessed

3 August 21, 2011.

4

5 NCDC (National Climatic Data Center), 2011a, 2010 Local Climatological Data, Annual 

6 Summary with Comparative Data, Kodiak, Alaska (PADQ), National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

7 Administration. Available at http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/lcd/lcd.html. Accessed May 27, 

8 2011.

9

10 Neal, C.A., T.L. Murray, J.A. Power, J.N. Adleman, P.M. Whitmore, and J.M. Osiensky, 2011, 

11 ―Hazard Information Management, Interagency Coordination, and Impacts of the 2005–2006 

12 Eruption of Augustine Volcano,‖ Chapter 28 in The 2006 Eruption of Augustine Volcano, 

13 Alaska, J.A. Powers et al. (eds.), U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1769.

14

15 Neff, J.M., N.N. Rabalais, and D.F. Boesch, 1987, ―Offshore Oil and Gas Development 

16 Activities Potentially Causing Long-Term Environmental Effects,‖ pp. 149–174 in Long Term 

17 Effects of Offshore Oil and Gas Development, D.F. Boesch and N.N. Rabalais, (eds.), Elsevier 

18 Applied Science Publishers, London.

19

20 Neff, J.M., 1997a, ―Metals and Organic Chemicals Associated with Oil and Gas Well Produced 

21 Water: Bioaccumulation, Fates, and Effects in the Marine Environment,‖ in Gulf of Mexico 

22 Produced Water Bioaccumulation Study, report prepared by Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 

23 Jupiter, Fla., for the Offshore Operators Committee. 

24

25 Neff, J.M., 1997b, ―Ecotoxicology of Arsenic in the Marine Environment,‖ Environmental 

26 Toxicology and Chemistry 16:917–927.

27

28 Neff, J.M., 2002, Bioaccumulation in Marine Organisms, Effects of Contaminants from Oil Well 

29 Produced Water, Elsevier Science Ltd., United Kingdom.

30

31 Neff, J.M., 2005, Composition, Environmental Fates, and Biological Effects of Water-Based 

32 Drilling Muds and Cuttings Discharged to the Marine Environment: A Synthesis and Annotated 

33 Bibliography, prepared for Petroleum Environmental Research Forum (PERF) and American 

34 Petroleum Institute.

35

36 Neff, J.M., and W.A. Stubblefield, 1995, ―Chemical and Toxicological Evaluation of Water 

37 Quality Following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill,‖ in Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Fate and Effects in 

38 Alaskan Waters, P.G. Wells, J.M. Butler, and J.S. Hughes (eds.), ASTM STP 1219, American 

39 Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pa. 

40

41 Neff & Associates, 2010, Continuation of the Arctic Nearshore Impact Monitoring in the 

42 Development Area (cANIMIDA): Synthesis, 1999–2007: Final Report, prepared for Bureau of 

43 Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf 

44 Region, Anchorage, Alaska.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-750

1 Neff, J.M., S. McKelvie, and R.C. Ayers, 2000, Environmental Impacts of Synthetic Based 

2 Drilling Fluids, OCS Study MMS 2000-064, prepared by Robert C. Ayers and Associates, Inc., 

3 for Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region, 

4 New Orleans, La., August. 

5

6 Neff, J.M., A.D. Hart, J.P. Ray, J.M. Limia, and T.W. Purcell, 2005, An Assessment of Seabed 

7 Impacts of Synthetic-Based Drilling-Mud Cuttings in the Gulf of Mexico, SPE 94086, paper 

8 presented at the 2005 SPE/EPA/DOE Exploration and Production Environmental Conference, 

9 Galveston, Texas, March 7–9.

10

11 Nelson, R.H., 1991, ―Salt Tectonics and Listric-Normal Faulting,‖ in The Gulf of Mexico Basin, 

12 A. Salvador (ed.), Geological Society of America, The Geology of North America Vol. J, 

13 pp. 73–89.

14

15 Neurauter T.W., and W.R. Bryant, 1990, ―Seismic Expression of Sedimentary Volcanism on the 

16 Continental Slope, Northern Gulf of Mexico,‖ Geo-Marine Letters 10:225–231.

17

18 Nicholls, R.J., P.P. Wong, V.R. Burkett, J.O. Codignotto, J.E. Hay, R.F. McLean, 

19 S. Ragoonaden, and C.D. Woodroffe, 2007, ―Coastal Systems and Low-Lying Areas,‖ 

20 pp. 315–356 in Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of 

21 Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

22 Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.), 

23 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

24

25 Nieukirk, S.L., K.M. Stafford, D.K. Mellinger, R.P. Dziak, and C.G. Fox, 2004, ―Low Frequency 

26 Whale and Seismic Airgun Sounds Recorded in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean,‖ Journal of the 

27 Acoustical Society of America 115(4):1832–1843.

28

29 Nighswander, T.S., and N. Peacock, 1999, ―The Communication of Health Risk from 

30 Subsistence Food in a Cross Cultural Setting: Lessons Learned from the Exxon Valdez Oil 

31 Spill,‖ in Evaluating and Communicating Subsistence Seafood Safety in a Cross-Cultural 

32 Context, L.J. Field, J.A. Fall, T.S. Nighswander, N. Peacock, and U. Varanasi (eds.), SETAC 

33 Press, Pensacola, Fla.

34

35 Nightingale, B., and C.A. Simenstad, 2001, White Paper: Dredging Activities: Marine Issues 

36 (Executive Summary), Research Project T1803, Task 35, University of Washington, prepared for 

37 the Washington State Transportation Commission in cooperation with the U.S. Department of 

38 Transportation, July. 

39

40 Nikolopoulos, A., R.S. Pickart, P.S. Fratantoni, K. Shimada, D.J. Torres, and and E.P. Jones, 

41 2009, ―The Western Arctic Boundary Current at 152°W: Structure, Variability, and Transport,‖ 

42 Deep Sea Rersearch II 56:1164–1181.

43

44 Niven, K., and R. McLeod, 2009, ―Offshore Industry: Management of Health Hazards in the 

45 Upstream Petroleum Industry,‖ Occupational Medicine 59 (5):304–309.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-751

1 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), 1988, Consultation for Removal of Certain Outer 

2 Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Structures in the Gulf of Mexico. Biological Opinion. National 

3 Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

4 Administration, Washington, D.C. Issued July 25, 1988.

5

6 NMFS, 2001, Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion on the 

7 Construction and Operation of the Liberty Oil Production Island, Alaska Regional Office, Office 

8 of Protected Resources, Anchorage, Alaska.

9

10 NMFS, 2005, Recovery Plan for the North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis), National 

11 Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Md.

12

13 NMFS, 2006, National Marine Fisheries Service’s Biological Opinion for Federal Oil and Gas 

14 Leasing and Exploration by the Minerals Management Service within the Alaskan Beaufort and 

15 Chukchi Seas, National Marine Fisheries Service Juneau, Alaska, June 16.

16

17 NMFS, 2008a, ―Endangered and Threatened Species; Endangered Status for the Cook Inlet 

18 Beluga Whale,‖ Federal Register 73(205):62919–62930.

19

20 NMFS, 2008b, ―Taking of the Cook Inlet, Alaska Beluga Whale Stock by Alaska Natives,‖ 

21 Federal Register 73(200):60976–60986.

22

23 NMFS, 2008c, Conservation Plan for the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas), 

24 National Marine Fisheries Service, Juneau, Alaska, October. Available at http://www.fakr.

25 noaa.gov/protectedresources/whales/beluga/mmpa/final/cp2008.pdf. Accessed on March 17, 

26 2011.

27

28 NMFS, 2011a, Dolphins and Whales and the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill, National Marine Fisheries 

29 Service, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, Md. Available at http://www.nmfs.

30 noaa.gov/pr/health/oilspill/mammals.htm. Accessed July 1, 2011.

31

32 NMFS, 2011b, Marine Mammals Unusual Mortality Events, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

33 Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, Md. Available at http://www.nmfs.

34 noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume. Accessed September 7, 2011.

35

36 NMFS and USFWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 

37 2008, Recovery Plan for the Northwest Atlantic Population of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle 

38 (Caretta caretta), Second Revision, December 8.

39

40 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 1994, Shoreline Countermeasures 

41 Manual, Alaska, NOAA Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division.

42

43 NOAA, 1995, Gulf of Mexico Land-Based Pollution Sources Inventory — Point Sources and 

44 Non-Point Sources of Pollution.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-752

1 NOAA, 1997, Integrating Physical and Biological Studies of Recovery from the Exxon Valdez

2 Oil Spill, Case Studies of Four Sites in Prince Wiliam Sound, 1989-1994, NOAA Technical 

3 Memorandum NOS ORCA 114.

4

5 NOAA, 1998, Oil Spill Impacts and the Biological Basis for Response Guidance: An Applied 

6 Synthesis of Research on Three Subarctic Intertidal Communities, Technical Memorandum 

7 NOS ORCA 125.

8

9 NOAA, 2000, Characteristic Coastal Habitats, Choosing Spill Response Alternatives, National 

10 Ocean Service, Office of Response and Restoration, Hazardous Materials Response Division. 

11

12 NOAA, 2002, Trajectory Analysis Handbook, technical report, NOAA Ocean Service, Office of 

13 Response and Restoration, Hazardous Materials Response Division, Seattle, Wash. 

14

15 NOAA, 2003, Oil and Sea Turtles, G. Shigenaka (ed.), NOAA National Ocean Service, Office of 

16 Response and Restoration, Washington, D.C.

17

18 NOAA, 2005, Trajectory Analysis Handbook, Office of Response and Restoration, Hazardous 

19 Materials Response Division, Seattle, Wash. Available at http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/. 

20 Accessed February 2005. (will need to update the above with data from DWH) 

21

22 NOAA, 2010a, Sea Turtle Strandings and the Deepwater Oil Spill. Available at 

23 http://www.noaa.gov/factsheets/new%20version/sea_turtles.pdf. Accessed April 15, 2011.

24

25 NOAA, 2010b, Deepwater BP Oil Spill, Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA), NRDA 

26 By the Numbers – November 1, 2010. Available at http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/wp27 content/uploads/2010/11/FINAL-NRDA_by_the_Numbers_11.03.pdf.pdf. Accessed 

28 November 10, 2010.

29

30 NOAA, 2010c, Sea Turtles, Dolphins, and Whales and the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill. Turtles 

31 Documented by Species. Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/oilspill/turtles.htm. 

32 Accessed November 23, 2010.

33

34 NOAA, 2010d, ―Intent to Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the Exxon 

35 Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council's Restoration Efforts,‖ Federal Register 75:3706–3709.

36

37 NOAA, 2010e, NOAA’s Oil Spill Response Effects of Oil on Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles. 

38 Available at http://www.noaa.gov/factsheets/new%20version/marinemammals_seaturtles.pdf. 

39 Accessed January 24, 2011.

40

41 NOAA, 2011a, Ice Breakup Reconnaissance in Alaska, National Weather Service, Alaska42 Pacific River Forecast Center. Available at http://aprfc.arh.noaa.gov/resources/docs/brkup.php. 

43 Accessed June 2, 2011.

44

45 NOAA, 2011b, Storm Surge Overview, National Weather Service, National Hurricane Center. 

46 Available at http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ssurge/ssurge_overview.shtml. Accessed May 18, 2011.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-753

1 NOAA, 2011c, The Gulf Region’s Contribution to U.S. Energy Production. Available at

2 http://stateofthecoast.noaa.gov/energy/gulfenergy.html. Accessed July 18, 2011.

3

4 NOAA, 2011d, Responding to Oil Spills – In Situ Burning – Questions about Environmental 

5 Impacts – What Are the Potential Ecological Effects of In-Situ Burning (ISB), NOAA Office of 

6 Response and Restoration website. Available at http://response.restoration.noaa.gov. Accessed 

7 September 7, 2011.

8

9 Nodine, M.C., et al., 2006, Mudslides during Hurricane Ivan and an Assessment of the Potential 

10 for Future Mudslides in the Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Technology Research Center, Texas A&M 

11 University, College Station, Texas.

12

13 Northern Economics, 1993, Commercial Fishing Industry of the Gulf of Alaska, Technical 

14 Report No. 159, prepared for the MMS, Alaska OCS Office, Alaska OCS Socioeconomic 

15 Studies Program, Anchorage, Alaska. 

16

17 Nomack, M., 2010, ―Effects of Oil on Wildlife and Habitat,‖ in The Encyclopedia of Earth, 

18 C.J. Cleveland (topic ed.), Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science 

19 and the Environment, Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.eoearth.org/articles/view/

20 158446/?topic=50359. Accessed March 15, 2011.

21

22 Nova Institute, 2009, Bioplastics Market Worldwide 2007-2025. Available at http://innovation23 bioplastique.com/2009/02/13/bioplastics-market-worldwide-2007-2025/. Accessed 

24 August 2011.

25

26 Novozymes Bioenergy, 2011, The POET/Novozymes Collaboration. Available at 

27 http://www.bioenergy.novozymes.com/cellulosic-ethanol/partner-case-studies/poet/the-poet28 novozymes-collaboration/. Accessed August 20, 2011. 

29

30 Nowacek, S.M., and R.S Wells, 2001, ―Short-Term Effects of Boat Traffic on Bottlenose 

31 Dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in Sarasota Bay, Florida,‖ Marine Mammal Science 17:673–688.

32

33 Nowacek, S.M., R.S. Wells, E.C.G. Owen, T.R. Speakman, R.O. Flamm, and D.P. Nowacek, 

34 2004, ―Florida Manatees, Trichechus manatus latirostris, Respond to Approaching Vessels,‖ 

35 Biological Conservation 119:517–523.

36

37 Nowlin, W.D. Jr., A.E. Jochens, R.O. Reid, and S.F. DiMarco, 1998, Texas-Louisiana Shelf 

38 Circulation and Transport Processes Study: Synthesis Report, Volume I: Technical Report,

39 OCS Study MMS 98-0035, MMS, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La.

40

41 Nowlin, W.D., Jr., A.F. Jochens, S.F. DiMarco, and R.O. Reid, 2000, ―Chapter 4: Physical 

42 Oceanography, in Deepwater Gulf of Mexico Environmental and Socioeconomic Data Search 

43 and Literature Synthesis, Volume I: Narrative Report, Continental Shelf Associates (eds.), OCS 

44 Study MMS 2000-049, MMS, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La. 

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-754

1 NRC (National Research Council), 1983, Drilling Discharges in the Marine Environment. Panel 

2 on Assessment of Fates and Effects of Drilling Fluids and Cuttings in the Marine Environment. 

3 Marine Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council, 

4 National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

5

6 NRC, 1990, Decline of Sea Turtles: Causes and Prevention, National Academy Press, 

7 Washington, D.C.

8

9 NRC, 1992, Rethinking the Ozone Problem in Urban and Regional Air Pollution, National 

10 Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

11

12 NRC, 2003a, Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska’s North 

13 Slope, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

14

15 NRC, 2003b, Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects, Committee on Oil in the Sea: Inputs, 

16 Fates, and Effects, Ocean Studies Board and Marine Board, Divisions of Earth and Life Studies 

17 and Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academies Press, 

18 Washington, D.C. 

19

20 NRC, 2003c, Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

21

22 NRC, 2005a, Marine Mammal Populations and Ocean Noise: Determining When Noise Causes 

23 Biologically Significant Effects, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

24

25 NRC, 2005b, Oil Spill Dispersants – Efficacy and Effects, National Academies Press, 

26 Washington, D.C.

27

28 NRC, 2010, Transitions to Alternative Transportation Technologies—Plug-in Hybrid Electric 

29 Vehicles. Available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12826. Accessed August 20, 

30 2011.

31

32 NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory), 2007, Validation of Hydrogen Fuel Cell 

33 Vehicle and Infrastructure Technology, October. Available at http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/

34 pdfs/42284.pdf. Accessed August 20, 2011.

35

36 NREL, 2010, Large-Scale Offshore Wind in the United States: Assessment of Opportunities and 

37 Barriers, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colo. Available at 

38 http://www.nrel.gov/wind/pdfs/40745.pdf. Accessed September 12, 2011.

39

40 NSF and USFGS (National Science Foundation and U.S. Geological Survey), 2010, Draft 

41 Programmatic EIS for Marine Seismic Research Funded by the National Science Foundation or 

42 Conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey, draft, October. 

43

44 Nugues, M.M., and C.M. Roberts, 2003, ―Partial Mortality in Massive Reef Corals as an 

45 Indicator of Sediment Stress on Coral Reefs,‖ Marine Pollution Bulletin 46:314–323.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-755

1 Nuka Research and Planning Group, 2007, Oil Spill Response Challenges in Arctic Waters,

2 report commissioned and published by WWF International Arctic Programme, Oslo, Norway,

3 Oct. Available at http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/publications/

4 ?122240/Oil_Spill_Response_Challenges_in_Arctic_waters. Accessed July 11, 2011.

5

6 Nuka Research and Planning Group, LLC and Pearson Consulting, LLC, 2010, Oil Spill 

7 Prevention and Response in the U.S. Arctic Ocean: Unexamined Risks, Unacceptable 

8 Consequences, Commissioned by U.S. Arctic Program, Pew Environment Group. 

9

10 Oey, L.Y., 2008, ―Loop Current and Deep Eddies,‖ Journal of Physical Oceanography

11 38(7):1426–1449.

12

13 Oey, L.Y., P. Hamilton, and H.C. Lee, 2004, Modeling and Data Analyses of Circulation 

14 Processes in the Gulf of Mexico, OCS Study, MMS 2003-074, MMS, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

15 Region, New Orleans, La. 

16

17 Oey, L.Y., T. Ezer, and H.C. Lee, 2005, ―Loop Current, Rings and Related Circulation in the 

18 Gulf of Mexico: A Review of Numerical Models and Future Challenges,‖ in Circulation in the 

19 Gulf of Mexico: Observations and Models, Volume 161 of Geophysical Monograph Series, 

20 W. Sturges and A. Lugo-Fernandez (eds.), American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C. 

21

22 Oey, L.-Y., T. Ezer, C. Hu, and F.E. Muller-Karger, 2007, ―Baroclinic Tidal Flows and 

23 Inundation Processes in Cook Inlet, Alaska: Numerical Modeling and Satellite Observations‖ 

24 Ocean Dynamics 57(3):205–221. 

25

26 O‘Hara, J., and J.R. Wilcox, 1990, ―Avoidance Responses of Loggerhead Turtles, Caretta 

27 caretta, to Low Frequency Sound,‖ Copeia 1990(2):564–567.

28

29 Ohnsman, A., 2010, ―Toyota Targets $50,000 Price for First Hydrogen Car,‖ Bloomberg 

30 Businessweek, May 6, 2010. 

31

32 Okkonen, S., S. Pegau, and S. Saupe, 2009, Seasonality of Boundary Conditions for Cook Inlet, 

33 OCS study, MMS 2009-041, Alaska Coastal Marine Institute, University of Alaska.

34

35 Okkonen, S.R., C.J. Ashjian, R.G. Campbell, W. Maslowski, J.L. Clement-Kinney, and 

36 R. Potter, 2009, ―Intrusion of Warm Bering/Chukchi Waters onto the Shelf in the Western 

37 Beaufort Sea,‖ Journal of Geophysical Research 114:C00A11.

38

39 Online Code Environment & Advocacy Network, undated, Code Status. Available at 

40 http://www.bcap-energy.org/node/5. Accessed August 20, 2011.

41

42 OSAT (Operational Science and Advisory Team of the Unified Area Command), 2010,

43 Summary Report for Sub-Sea and Sub-Surface Oil and Dispersant Detection: Sampling and 

44 Monitoring, Dec. 17.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-756

1 OSAT, 2011, Summary Report for Fate and Effects of Remnant Oil in the Beach Environment,

2 prepared for L.D. Stroh, Capt., U.S. Coast Guard, Federal On-Scene Coordinator, Deepwater 

3 Horizon MC252, Feb. 10. Available at http://www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/

4 files/u316/OSAT-2%20Report%20no%20ltr.pdf. Accessed March 17, 2011.

5

6 OSAT-2 (Operational Science and Advisory Team-2 of the Unified Area Command), 2011,

7 Summary Report for Fate and Effects of Remnant Oil in the Beach Environment, Gulf Coast 

8 Incident Management Team, Feb. 10.

9

10 Osborn, S.G., A. Vengosh, N.R. Warner, and R.B. Jackson, 2011, ―Methane Contamination of 

11 Drinking Water Accompanying Gas-Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing,‖ PNAS, Vol. 108, 

12 No. 20, May.

13

14 Ostermeier, R.M., et al., 2002, ―Dealing with Shallow-Water Flow in the Deepwater Gulf of 

15 Mexico,‖ The Leading Edge 21(7):660–668.

16

17 Owens, E., and J. Michel. 2003, ―Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) Classification for the 

18 Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Coasts, Alaska OCS Region,‖ in Ninth Information Transfer 

19 Meeting and Barrow Information Update Meeting, Final Proceedings, March 10, 11, and 12, 

20 2003, Anchorage, Alaska; March 14, 2003, Barrow, Alaska, OCS Study MMS 2003-042, MMS, 

21 Alaska OCS Region.

22

23 Page, H.M., J.E. Dugan, C.S. Culver, and J.C. Hoestery, 2006, ―Exotic Invertebrate Species on 

24 Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms,‖ Marine Ecology Progress Series 325:101–107.

25

26 Palinkas, L., J. Russell, M. Downs, and J. Petterson, 1992, ―Ethnic Differences in Stress, 

27 Coping, and Depressive Symptoms after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill,‖ J. Nerv. Mental 

28 Disease 180:287–295.

29

30 Pamplin, W.L., 1979, Construction-Related Impacts of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System on 

31 Terrestrial Wildlife Habitats, Special Report Number 24, Joint State/Federal Fish and Wildlife 

32 Advisory Team.

33

34 Parfomak, P.W., and A. Vann, 2009, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Import Terminals: Siting, 

35 Safety, and Regulation, Congressional Research Service 7-5700, Dec. 14.

36

37 Parkinson, C., D. Cavalieri, P. Gloersen, H. Zwally, and J. Cosimo, 1999, ―Arctic Sea Ice 

38 Extents, Areas, and Trends, 1978-1996,‖ Journal of Geophysical Research 104C(9):20,837–

39 20,856. 

40

41 Parkinson, C.L., 2000, ―Variability of Arctic Sea Ice: The View from Space, an 18-Year 

42 Record,‖ Arctic 53(4):341–358. 

43

44 Parks, S.E., C.W. Clark, and P.L. Tyack, 2007, ―Short- and Long-term Changes in Right Whale 

45 Calling Behavior: The Potential Effects of Noise on Acoustic Communication,‖ Journal of the 

46 Acoustical Society of America 122:3725–3731.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-757

1 Payne, J.R., D. McNabb, Jr., and J.R. Clayton, Jr., 1991, ―Oil-Weathering Behavior in Arctic 

2 Environments,‖ Polar Research 10(2):631–662. 

3

4 Payne, J.R., G.D. McNabb. Jr., L.E. Hachmeister, B.E. Kirstein, J.R. Clayton Jr., C.R. Phillips, 

5 R.T. Redding, C.L. Clary, G.S. Smith, and G.H. Farmer, 1987, Development of a Predictive 

6 Model for the Weathering of Oil in the Presence of Sea Ice, Outer Continental Shelf 

7 Environmental Assessment Program, Research Unit 664, MMS.

8

9 Payne, J., S. Guyer, and B. Keating, 2003, ―The Impact of Ice Roads on Tundra Ecosystems, 

10 National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska (NPRA) (Abstract),‖ in Draft Proceedings of a Workshop 

11 on the Impacts of Winter Exploration Activities on Tundra Soils and Vegetation of Alaska’s 

12 North Slope, D. Yokel (ed.), BLM, Fairbanks, Alaska.

13

14 Perovich, D.K., J.A. Richeter-Menge, K.F. Jones, and B. Light, 2008, ―Sunlight, Water, and Ice:

15 Extreme Arctic Sea Ice Melt during the Summer of 2007,‖ Geophysical Research Letters

16 35(11):L11501.

17

18 Perovich, D., W. Meier, J. Maslanik, and J. Richter-Menge, 2010, ―Sea Ice Cover: Arctic Report 

19 Card: Update for 2010.‖ Available at http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html. 

20 Accessed September 2, 2011.

21

22 Peterson, C.H., M.C. Kennicutt II, R.H. Green, P. Montagna, D.E. Harper, Jr., E.N. Powell, and 

23 P.F Roscigno, 1996, ―Ecological Consequences of Environmental Perturbations Associated with 

24 Offshore Hydrocarbon Production: A Perspective on Long-Term Exposures in the Gulf of 

25 Mexico,‖ Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53:2637–2654.

26

27 Peterson, C.H., 2000, ―The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill in Alaska: Acute, Indirect, and Chronic 

28 Effects on the Ecosystem,‖ Adv. Mar. Biol. 39:3–84.

29

30 Peterson, C.H., S.D. Rice, J.W. Short, D. Esler, J.L. Bodkin, B.E. Ballachey, and D.B. Irons, 

31 2003, ―Long-Term Ecosystem Responses to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill,‖ Science 302:2082–

32 2086.

33

34 Petrae, G. (ed.), 1995, Barge Morris J. Berman Spill, NOAA; Scientific Response, Hazmat 

35 Report No. 95-10, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Hazardous Materials 

36 Response and Assessment Division, Seattle, Wash.

37

38 Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2010, What is Black Carbon?, April. Available at 

39 http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/blackcarbon-factsheet. Accessed 

40 September 5, 2011. 

41

42 Pezeshki, S.R., M.W. Hester, Q. Lin, and J.A. Nyman, 2000, ―The Effects of Oil Spill and 

43 Clean-up on Dominant U.S. Gulf Coast Marsh Macrophytes: A Review,‖ Environmental 

44 Pollution 108:129–139.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-758

1 Phillips, R.L., et al., 1988, Geologic Investigations in the Chukchi Sea, 1984, NOAA Ship 

2 SURVEYOR Cruise, Open File Report 88-25, U.S. Geological Survey.

3

4 Piatt, J.F., and P. Anderson,1996, ―Response of Common Murres to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 

5 and Long-Term Changes in the Gulf of Alaska Marine Ecosystem,‖ Proceedings of the Exxon 

6 Valdez Oil Spill Symposium, pp. 720–737, S.D. Rice et al. (eds.), American Fisheries Society 

7 Symposium 18, Bethesda, MD.

8

9 Piatt, J.F., and R.G. Ford, 1996, ―How Many Seabirds Were Killed by the Exxon Valdez Oil 

10 Spill?,‖ Proceedings of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Symposium, pp. 712–719. S.D. Rice et al.

11 (eds.), American Fisheries Society Symposium 18, Bethesda, MD.

12

13 Pickart, R.S., 2004, ―Shelfbreak Circulation in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea: Mean Structure and 

14 Variability,‖ Journal of Geophysical Research 109(C4):C04024.

15

16 Pickart, R.S., L.J. Pratt, D.J. Torres, T.E. Whitledge, A.Y. Proshutinsky, K. Aagaard, 

17 T.A. Agnew, G. Moore, and H.J. Dail, 20110, ―Evolution and Dynamics of the Flow through 

18 Herald Canyon in the Western Chukchi Sea,‖ Deep-Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in 

19 Oceanography 57(1-2)5–26.

20

21 Picou, S., 2010, Helping Others: A Community Peer Listener Training Program, training 

22 session presented at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, La., July 28. Available at

23 http://gulfseagrant.tamu.edu/oilspill/index.htm. Accessed June 15, 2011.

24

25 Picou, J.S., and C. Arata, 1997, ―Chronic Psychological Impacts of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: 

26 Resource Loss and Commercial Fishers,‖ Appendix J in Coping with Technological Disasters: 

27 A User Friendly Guidebook, Prince William Sound Regional Citizens‘ Advisory Council, 

28 Anchorage, Alaska.

29

30 Picou, J.S., and D.A. Gill, 1996, ―The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill and Chronic Psychological Stress,‖

31 pp. 879–893 in Proceedings of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Symposium, Anchorage, Alaska, 

32 Feb. 2–5, 1993, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Md.

33

34 Picou, J.S., G.D. Johnson, and D.A. Gill, 1999, ―Mitigating the Chronic Community Impacts of 

35 Localized Environmental Degradation: A Case Study of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill,‖ 

36 Appendix K in Coping with Technological Disasters: A User Friendly Guidebook, Prince 

37 William Sound Regional Citizens‘ Advisory Council, Anchorage, Alaska.

38

39 Picou, J.S., C. Formichella, B.K. Marshall, and C. Arata, 2009 ―Community Impacts of the 

40 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: A Synthesis and Elaboration of Social Science Research,‖ pp. 279–310 

41 in Synthesis: Three Decades of Research on Socioeconomic Effects Related to Offshore 

42 Petroleum Development in Coastal Alaska, S.R. Braud and J. Kruse (eds.), MMS OCS Study 

43 No. 2009-006, Stephen R. Braud & Associates, Anchorage, Alaska.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-759

1 Pike Research, 2009, Electric Vehicle Batteries — Lithium Ion batteries for Plug-in Hybrid and 

2 Battery Electric Vehicles: Market Analysis and Forecast. Available at http://www.pikeresearch.

3 com/research/electric-vehicle-batteries. Accessed August 20, 2011. 

4

5 Pimentel, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2000. ―Environmental and Economic Costs 

6 of Non-Indigenous Species in the United States.‖ Bioscience 50(1): 53–65.

7

8 Pimentel, D., R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2005. ―Update on the Environmental and Economic 

9 Costs Associated with Alien-Invasive Species in the United States.‖ Ecological Economics

10 52(3):273–288.

11

12 Ping, C.-L., G.J. Michaelson, L. Guo, M.T. Jorgenson, M. Kanevskiy, Y. Shur, F. Dou, and 

13 J. Liang, 2011, ―Soil Carbon and Material Fluxes across the Eroding Alaska Beaufort Sea 

14 Coastline,‖ Journal of Geophysical Research 116:G0200.

15

16 Pira International, 2010, The Future of Bioplastics for Packaging to 2020, December 13. 

17 Available at http://www.pira-international.com/pha-and-bio-derived-pe-to-drive-bioplastic18 packaging-market-to-2020.aspx. Accessed August 21, 2011.

19

20 PlasticsEurope, EuPC, EuPR, and EPRO, 2010, Plastics – the Facts 2010. Available at 

21 http://www.plasticseurope.org/documents/document/20101006091310-final_plasticsthefacts_

22 28092010_lr.pdf. Accessed August 21, 2011.

23

24 Popper, A.N., and M.C. Hastings, 2009, ―The Effects of Anthropogenic Sources of Sound on 

25 Fishes,‖ Journal of Fish Biology 75:455–489.

26

27 Potter, R.A., and T.J. Weingartner, 2010, Surface Circulation Radar Mapping in Alaskan 

28 Coastal Waters: Beaufort Sea and Cook Inlet, OCS Study MMS 2009-049, School of Fisheries 

29 and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska. 

30

31 Prince, P.K., 1990, ―Current Drilling Practice and the Occurrence of Shallow Gas,‖ in Safety in 

32 Offshore Engineering: Proceedings of an International Conference, April 25–26, London. 

33

34 Prince, R.C., E.H. Owens, and G.A. Sergy, 2002, ―Weathering of an Arctic Oil Spill over 

35 20 Years: The BIOS Experiment Revisited, Baffin Island Oil Spill,‖ Marine Pollution 

36 Bulletin 44(11):1236–1242.

37

38 Proffitt, C.E. (ed.), 1998, Effects and Management of Oil Spills in Marsh Ecosystems: A Review 

39 Produced from a Workshop Convened July 1996 at McNeese State University, OCS Study 

40 MMS 98-0018, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La. 

41

42 Proshutinsky, A., M.A. Johnson, T.O. Proshutinsky, and J.A. Maslanik, 2003, Beaufort and 

43 Chukchi Sea Seasonal Variability for Two Arctic Climate States, OCS Study MMS 20030-024, 

44 MMS, Fairbanks, Alaska. 

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-760

1 Proshutinsky, A., V. Pavlov, and R.H. Bourke, 2001, ―Sea Level Rise in the Arctic Ocean,‖ 

2 Geophysical Research Letters 28(11):2237–2240. 

3

4 Pugh, R.S., and P.R. Becker, 2001, Sea Turtle Contaminants: A Review with Annotated 

5 Bibliography, NISTIR 6700, Charleston, S.C.

6

7 Pullman, E.R., M.T. Jorgenson, T.C. Cater, W.A. Davis, and J.E. Roth, 2003, Assessment of 

8 Ecological Effects of the 2002-2003 Ice Road Demonstration Project, unpublished report,

9 ConocoPhilips Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska.

10

11 Quigley, D.C., J.S. Hornafius, B.P. Luyendyk, R.D. Francis, J. Clark, and L. Washburn, 1999, 

12 ―Decrease in Natural Marine Hydrocarbon Seepage near Coal Oil Point, California, Associated 

13 with Offshore Oil Production,‖ Geology 27:1047–1050.

14

15 Quigley, R., L. den Broeder, P. Furu, A. Bond, B. Cave, and R. Bos, 2006, Health Impact 

16 Assessment International Best Practice Principles, Special Publication Series No. 5, 

17 International Association for Impact Assessment, Fargo.

18

19 Rabalais, N.N., 2005, Relative Contribution of Produced Water Discharge in the Development of 

20 Hypoxia, OCS Study MMS 2005-044, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Outer 

21 Continental Shelf Region, New Orleans, La. 

22

23 Rabalais, N.N., L.E. Smith, C.B. Henry, Jr., P.O. Roberts, and E.B. Overton, 1998, Long-Term 

24 Effects of Contaminants from OCS-Produced Water Disharges at Pelican Island Facility, 

25 Louisiana, OCS Study MMS 98-0039. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management 

26 Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA.

27

28 Rabalais, N.N., B.A. McKee, D.J. Reed, and J.C. Means, 1991, Fate and Effects of Nearshore 

29 Discharges of OCS Produced Waters, Volume II: Technical Report, OCS Study MMS 91-0005, 

30 Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region, New Orleans, 

31 La.

32

33 Rahn, K.A. 1982. ―On the Causes, Characteristics and Potential Environmental Effects of 

34 Aerosol in the Arctic Atmosphere,‖ In: The Arctic Ocean: The Hydrographic Environment and 

35 the Fate of Pollutants, L. Ray (editor), John Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y., pp.163–195.

36

37 Rappeport, M.L., 1982, An Analysis of Oceanographic and Meteorological Conditions for 

38 Central Lower Cook Inlet, Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 82-128.

39

40 Ray, G.L., 2005, Invasive Animal Species in Marine and Estuarine Environments: Biology and 

41 Ecology, ERDC/EL TR-05-2, Aquatic Nuisance Species Research Program, January. Available 

42 at http://dodreports.com/pdf/ada430308.pdf. Accessed September 6, 2011.

43

44 RDC (Resource Development Council), 2011, Alaska’s Oil and Gas Industry – Background. 

45 Available at http://www.akrdc.org/issues/oilgas/overview.html. Accessed July 19, 2011.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-761

1 Reger, D.R., J.D. McMahan, and C.E. Holmes, 1992, Effect of Crude Oil Contamination on 

2 Some Archaeological Sites in the Gulf of Alaska, 1991 Investigations, Office of History and

3 Archaeology Report No. 30, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and 

4 Outdoor Recreation, Anchorage, Alaska.

5

6 Regulations for Implementing NEPA. 40 CFR 1508.8; 1978.

7

8 Reimnitz, E., and E.W. Kempema, 1982, High Rates of Bedload Transport Measured from 

9 Infilling Rate of Large Strudel-Scour Craters in the Beaufort sea Alaska, U.S. Geological 

10 Survey, Open-File Report 82-588. 

11

12 Reimnitz, E., and P.W. Barnes, 1974, ―Sea Ice as a Geologic Agent on the Beaufort Sea Shelf of 

13 Alaska,‖ pp. 301–351in The Coast and Shelf of the Beaufort Sea, Arctic Institute of North 

14 America, Arlington, Va.

15

16 Research Development Council, 2007, Alaska’s Mining Industry – Background. Available at 

17 http://www.akrdc.org/issues/mining/overview.html. Accessed September 25, 2011.

18

19 Restore the Gulf, 2010a, Deepwater Horizon Response Consolidated Fish and Wildlife 

20 Collection Report, November 2. Available at http://www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/

21 documents/pdf/Consolidated%20Wildlife%20Table%20110210.pdf. Accessed November 10, 

22 2010.

23

24 Restore the Gulf, 2010b. America’s Gulf Coast: A Long Term Recovery Plan after the 

25 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Available at http://www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/

26 documents/pdf/gulf-recovery-sep-2010.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2011.

27

28 Reynolds, P.E., K.J. Wilson, and D.R. Klein, 2002, ―Section 7: Muskoxen,‖ pp. 54–64 in Arctic 

29 Refuge Coastal Plain Terrestrial Wildlife Research Summaries, D.C. Douglas, P.E. Reynolds,

30 and E.B. Rhodes (eds.), U.S. Geologic Survey, Biological Resources Division, Biological 

31 Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR-2002-0001.

32

33 Rhea, S., et al., 2010, Seismicity of the Earth 1900–2007, Aleutian Arc and Vicinity, 

34 U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1083-B (map sheet 1:5,000,000).

35

36 Richards, W.J., and T. Potthoff, 1980, ―Distribution and Seasonal Occurrence of Larval Pelagic 

37 Stages of Spiny Lobsters (Palinuridae, Panulirus) in the Western Tropical Atlantic,‖

38 Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fishery Institute 33:244–252.

39

40 Richards, W.J., M.F. McGowan, T. Leming, J.T. Lampkin, and S. Kelley, 1993, ―Larval Fish 

41 Assemblages at the Loop Current Boundary in the Gulf of Mexico,‖ Bulletin of Marine Science

42 53:475–537. 

43

44 Richardson, W.J., and B. Würsig, 1997, ―Influences of Man-made Noise and Other 

45 Human Actions on Cetacean Behaviour,‖ Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and 

46 Physiology 29:183–209.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-762

1 Richardson, W.J., B. Würsig, and C.R. Greene, Jr., 1986, ―Reactions of Bowhead Whales, 

2 Balaena mysticetus, to Seismic Exploration in the Canadian Beaufort Sea,‖ Journal of the 

3 Acoustical Society of America 79(4):1117–1128.

4

5 Richardson, W.J., B. Würsig, and C.R. Greene, Jr., 1990, ―Reactions of Bowhead Whales, 

6 Balaena mysticetus, to Drilling and Dredging Noise in the Canadian Beaufort Sea,‖ Marine 

7 Environmental Research 29:135–160.

8

9 Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., W.R. Koski and M.A. Smultea, with G. Cameron, C. 

10 Holdsworth, G. Miller, T. Woodley, and B. Würsig, 1991, Acoustic Effects of Oil Production 

11 Activities on Bowhead and White Whales Visible During Spring Migration Near Pt. Barrow, 

12 Alaska – 1990 Phase, OCS Study MMS 91-0037, report prepared for Minerals Management 

13 Service, Herndon, Va. Available at http://www.alaska.boemre.gov/reports/1990rpts/91_0037/

14 91_0037_1.pdf. Accessed May 22, 2011.

15

16 Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson, 1995, Marine Mammals and 

17 Noise, Academic Press, San Diego.

18

19 Richardson, W.R., G.W. Miller, and C.R. Greene, Jr., 1999, ―Displacement of Migrating 

20 Bowhead Whales by Sounds from Seismic Surveys in Shallow Waters of the Beaufort Sea,‖

21 Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106(4):2281.

22

23 Richter-Menge and M. Jeffries (eds.), 2010, The Arctic in ―State of the Climate in 2010,‖ Bull. 

24 Amer. Meteor. Soc. 92(6):S143–S160.

25

26 Ridgway, S.H., E.G. Wever, J.G. McCormick, J. Palin, and J.H. Anderson, 1969, ―Hearing in the 

27 Giant Sea Turtle, Chelonia mydas,‖ Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 64(3):884–890.

28

29 Riedman, M.L., 1983, Studies of the Effects of Experimentally Produced Noise Associated with 

30 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development on Sea Otters in California, NTIS No. PB86-21-

31 8575. University of California, Santa Cruz, Calif.

32

33 Roberts, H.H., 2001a, ―Fluid and Gas Expulsion on the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental 

34 Slope: Mud-Prone to Mineral-Prone Responses,‖ Geophysical Monograph 124:145–161.

35

36 Roberts, H.H., 2001b, Improved Geohazards and Benthic Habitat Evaluations: Digital Acoustic 

37 Data with Ground Truth Calibrations, Final Report, OCS Study MMS 2001-050, Coastal 

38 Marine Institute, MMS Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, July.

39

40 Roberts, H.H., and P. Aharon, 1994, ―Hydrocarbon-Derived Carbonate Buildups of the Northern 

41 Gulf of Mexico Continental Slope: A Review of Submersible Investigations,‖ Geo-Marine 

42 Letters 14:135–148.

43
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-763

1 Roberts, H.H., J.M. Coleman, and R.H. Peele, 2005, Mapping Areas of Hard Bottom and Other 

2 Important Bottom Types: Outer Continental Shelf and Upper Continental Slope, OCS Study 

3 MMS 2005-067, prepared by Coastal Studies Institute, Louisiana State University, for Minerals 

4 Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La., Dec.

5

6 Roth, A.-M.F., and D.M. Baltz, 2009, ―Short-Term Effects of an Oil Spill on Marsh-Edge Fishes 

7 and Decapod Crustaceans.‖ Estuaries and Coasts 32:565–572.

8

9 Rothrock, D., Y. Yu, and G. Maykut, 1999, ―Thinning of the Arctic Sea-Ice Cover,‖ Geophysical 

10 Research Letters 26(23):3469–3472. 

11

12 Rothrock, D.A., and J. Zhang, 2005, ―Arctic Ocean Sea Ice Volume: What Explains Its Recent 

13 Depletion?‖ Journal of Geophysical Research 110(C1):C01002.

14

15 Rovegno, P.S., C.A. Edwards, and K.W. Bruland, 2009, ―Observations of a Kenai Eddy and a 

16 Sitka Eddy in the Northern Gulf of Alaska,‖ Journal of Geophysical Research 

17 114(C11):C11012. 

18

19 Royal Society of Canada, 2004, Report of the Expert Panel on Science Issues Related to Oil and 

20 Gas Activities, Offshore Brittish Columbia, Ottawa, Ontario, February.

21

22 Rozas, L.P., T.J. Minello, and C.B. Henry, 2000, ―An Assessment of Potential Oil Spill Damage 

23 to Salt Marsh Habitats and Fishery Resources in Galveston Bay, Texas,‖ Marine Pollution 

24 Bulletin 40:1148–1160.

25

26 Rumbold, D.G., P.W. Davis, and C. Perretta, 2001, ―Estimating the Effect of Beach Nourishment 

27 on Caretta caretta (Loggerhead Sea Turtle) Nesting,‖ Restoration Ecology 9:304–310.

28

29 Russell, R.W., 2005, Interactions between Migrating Birds and Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms 

30 in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: Final Report, OCS Study MMS 2005-009. U.S. Department of 

31 the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA.

32

33 Ryan, P.G., 1987, ―The Incidence and Characteristics of Plastic Particles Ingested by Sea Birds,‖ 

34 Marine and Environmental Research 23: 175–206.

35

36 Ryan, P.G., 1988, ―Effects of Ingested Plastic on Seabird Feeding: Evidence from Chickens,‖ 

37 Marine Pollution Bulletin 19: 174–176.

38

39 Ryan, P.G., 1990, ―The Effects of Ingested Plastic and Other Marine Debris on Seabirds,‖ 

40 Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, April 2–7, 1989, 

41 Honolulu, HI, pp. 623–634, R.S. Shomura and M.L. Godfrey (eds.), NOAA Technical 

42 Memorandum NMFS-NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

43 Washington, D.C.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-764

1 Sammarco, P.W., A.D. Atchison, and G.S. Boland, 2004, ―Expansion of Coral Communities 

2 within the Northern Gulf of Mexico via Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms,‖ Marine Ecology 

3 Progress Series 280:129–143. 

4

5 SCADA (South Central Alaska Dipnetters Association), 2011, ―Home Page South Central 

6 Alaska Dipnetters Association,‖ Wasilla, Alaska. Available at http://www.donbowers.com/

7 DipNet/menu1.htm. Accessed September 19, 2011.

8

9 Schaum, J., M. Cohen, S. Perry, R. Artz, R. Draxler, J.B. Frithsen, D. Heist, M. Lorber, and 

10 L. Phillips, 2010, ―Screening Level Assessment of Risks Due to Dioxin Emissions from 

11 Burning Oil from the BP Deepwater Horizon Gulf of Mexico Spill,‖ Environ. Sci. 

12 Tech. 44(24):9483–9389.

13

14 Schick, R.S., and D.L. Urban, 2000, ―Spatial Components of Bowhead Whale (Balaena 

15 mysticetes) Distribution in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

16 Sciences 57:2193–2200.

17

18 Schmahl, G.P., E.L. Hickerson, D.C. Weaver, and J.V. Gardner, 2011, High-Resolution 

19 Multibeam Mapping and Habitat Characterization of Topographic Features in the Northwestern 

20 Gulf of Mexico, GulfBase.org — Resource Database for Gulf of Mexico Research. Available at

21 http://www.thsoa.org/hy03/2_2.pdf. Accessed January 20, 2011.

22

23 Serreze, M., J. Maslanik, T. Scambos, F. Fetterer, J. Stroeve, K. Knowles, C. Fowler, S. Drobot, 

24 R. Barry, and T. Haran, 2003, ―A Record Minimum Arctic Sea Ice Extent and Area in 2002,‖ 

25 Geophysical Research Letters 30(3):1110.

26

27 Shapiro, L.H., and P.W. Barnes, 1991, ―Correlation of Nearshore Ice Movement with Seabed Ice 

28 Gouges near Barrow, Alaska,‖ Journal of Geophysical Research 96(C9):16,979–16,9889. 

29

30 Sharma, G.D., and D.C. Burrell, 1970, ―Sedimentary Environment and Sediments of Cook Inlet, 

31 Alaska,‖ The American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 54(4):647–654.

32

33 Shelden, K.E.W., and D.J. Rugh, 1995, ―The Bowhead Whale, Balaena mysticetus: Its Historic 

34 and Current Status,‖ Marine Fisheries Review 57 (3-4):1–20.

35

36 Shell, 2009a, Exploration Plan, 2010 Exploration Drilling Program, Posey Blocks 6713, 6714, 

37 6763, 6764, and 6912; Karo Blocks 6864 and 7007; Burger Crackerjack, and SW Shoebill 

38 Prospects, OCS Lease Sale 193, Chukchi Sea, Alaska, Public Information Copy submitted to

39 Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region by Shell Gulf of Mexico, Anchorage, July. 

40

41 Shell 2009b, Environmental Impact Analysis, 2010 Exploration Drilling Program, Posey 

42 Blocks 6713, 6714, 6763, 6764, and 6912; Karo Blocks 6864 and 7007; Burger Crackerjack, 

43 and SW Shoebill Prospects, OCS Lease Sale 193, Chukchi Sea, Alaska, Shell Gulf of Mexico, 

44 Anchorage, July. 

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-765

1 Shen, H.T., and P.D. Yapa, 1988, ―Oil Slick Transport in Rivers,‖ Journal of Hydraulic 

2 Engineering 114(5):529–533.

3

4 Sherwood, K.W., and J.D. Craig, 2001, Prospects for Development of Alaska Natural Gas: A 

5 Review (as of January 2001), U.S. Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service, 

6 Resource Evaluation Office. 

7

8 Shideler, G.L., 1985, ―Regional Geologic Framework of Eastern Gulf of Mexico OCS Region,‖ 

9 in Summary Report on the Regional Geology, Petroleum Geology, and Estimates of 

10 Undiscovered Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources in the Planning Area of the Proposed Outer 

11 Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease No. 94, Eastern Gulf of Mexico, U.S. Geological Survey 

12 Open File Report 85-669, R.Q. Foote (ed.).

13

14 Shideler, D., 1993, ―Chapter 5 Deterrent Methods,‖ pp. 35–50 in Guidelines for Oil and Gas 

15 Operations in Polar Bear Habitats, Truett, J.C. (ed.),. OCS Study MMS 93-0008, report for 

16 Minerals Management Service, Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.alaska.boemre.gov/

17 reports/1990rpts/93_0008.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2011.

18

19 Shiels, W.E., J.J. Goering, and D.W. Hood, 1973, ―Crude Oil Phytotoxicity Studies,‖ pp. 143–

20 446 in Environmental Studies of Port Valdez, D.W. Hood, W.E. Shiels, and E.J. Kelley (eds.), 

21 Occasional Publication 3, University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Sciences. 

22

23 Shinn, E.A., B.H. Lidz, and C.D. Reich, 1993, Habitat Impacts of Offshore Drilling: Eastern 

24 Gulf of Mexico, OCS Study MMS 93-0021, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

25 Outer Contintental Shelf Region, New Orleans, La.

26

27 Short, J.W., G.V. Irvine, D.H. Mann, J.M. Maselko, J.J. Pella, M.R. Lindeberg, J. R. Payne, 

28 W.B. Driskell, and S.D. Rice, 2007, ―Slightly Weathered Exxon Valdez Oil Persists in Gulf of 

29 Alaska Beach Sediments after 16 Years,‖ Environmental Science and Technology 41:1245–1250.

30

31 Short, J.W., M.R. Lindberg, P.M. Harris, J.M. Maselko, J.J. Pella, and S.D. Rice, 2004, 

32 ―Estimate of Oil Persisting on the Beaches of Prince William Sound 12 Years after the Exxon 

33 Valdez Oil Spill,‖ Environmental Science and Technology 38(1)19–25.

34

35 Sis, R.F., A.M. Landry, and G.R. Bratton, 1993, ―Toxicology of Stranded Sea Turtles,‖ in 

36 Proceedings, 24th Annual International Association of Aquatic Animal Medicine Conference, 

37 Chicago, Ill.

38

39 Skolnik, J. and C.D. Holleyman, 2005, Modeling the Economic Impacts of Offshore Activities in 

40 the Alaska Arctic. Available at http://www.mms.gov/ld/OCS_EIM_Upgrade/Arctic%

41 20IMPAK%20Journal%20Article.pdf. Accessed January 26, 2011.

42

43 Smith, M.E., A.S. Kane, and A.N. Popper, 2004, ―Noise-Induced Stress Response and Hearing 

44 Loss in Goldfish (Carassius auratus),‖ Journal of Experimental Biology 207:427–435.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-766

1 Smith, T.S., S.T. Partridge, S.C. Amstrup, and S. Schliebe, 2007, ―Post-Den Emergence 

2 Behavior of Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus) in Northern Alaska,‖ Arctic 60:187–194.

3

4 Solar Rating and Certification Corporation, undated, Solar Facts – System Ratings: OG-300 

5 Certification of Solar Water Heating Systems. Available at http://www.solar-rating.org/facts/

6 system_ratings.html. Accessed August 20, 2011.

7

8 Southall, B.L., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J.J. Finneran, R.L. Gentry, C.R. Greene, Jr., 

9 D. Kastak, D.R. Ketten, J.H. Miller, P.E. Nachtigall, W.J. Richardson, J.A. Thomas, and 

10 P.L. Tyack, 2007, ―Marine Mammal Noise Exposure Criteria: Initial Scientific 

11 Recommendations‖ Aquatic Mammals 33:411–522.

12

13 Spall, M.A., R.S. Pickart, P.S. Fratantoni, and A.J. Plueddemann, 2008, ―Western Arctic 

14 Shelfbreak Eddies: Formation and Transport,‖ Journal of Physical Oceanography 38(8):1644–

15 1668. 

16

17 Stabeno, P., N. Bond, A. Hermann, N. Kachel, C. Mordy, and J. Overland, 2004,

18 ―Meteorology and Oceanography of the Northern Gulf of Alaska,‖ Continental Shelf 

19 Research 24(7-8):859–897.

20

21 Stafford, K.M., C.G. Fox, and D.S. Clark, 1998, ―Long Range Acoustic Detection and 

22 Localization of Blue Whale Calls in the Northeast Pacific Ocean,‖ Journal of the Acoustical 

23 Society of America 104(6): 3616–3625.

24

25 Starr, S.J., M.N. Kuwada, and L.L. Trasky, 1981, Recommendations for Minimizing the Impacts 

26 of Hydrocarbon Development on Fish, Wildlife and Aquatic Plant Resources of the Northern 

27 Bering Sea and Norton Sound, State of Alaska, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat 

28 Division, Anchorage, Alaska. 

29

30 State of Alaska, 2011, Major Oil Spills to Coastal Waters, Division of Spill Prevention and 

31 Response – Prevention and Emergency Response. Available at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/

32 spar/perp/bigspills.htm. Accessed Aug. 19, 2011.

33

34 Stevens, D.S.P., and P.A. Craw, 2004, Geologic Hazards on and near the Northern Coast of the 

35 Alaska Peninsula, Miscellaneous Publication 134, Alaska Division of Geological and 

36 Geophysical Surveys, May.

37

38 Stevens, M.A., and D.J. Boness, 2003, ―Influences of Habitat Features and Human Disturbance 

39 on the Use of Breeding Sites by a Declining Population of Southern Fur Seals (Arctocephalus 

40 australis),‖ Journal of Zoology 260:145–152.

41

42 Stewart, E.J., S.E.L. Howell, D. Draper, J. Yackel, and A. Tivy, 2007, ―Sea Ice in Canada‘s 

43 Arctic: Implications for Cruise Tourism,‖ Arctic 60(4):370–380.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-767

1 Stickney, A., 1991, ―Seasonal Patterns of Prey Availability and the Foraging Behavior of Arctic 

2 Foxes (Alopex lagopus) in a Waterfowl Nesting Area,‖ Canadian Journal of Zoology 69(11): 

3 2853–2859.

4

5 Stone, G.W., N.D. Walker, S.A. Hsu, A. Babin, B. Liu, B.D. Keim, W. Teague, D. Mitchell, and 

6 R. Leben, 2005, ―Hurricane Ivan‘s Impact along the Northern Gulf of Mexico,‖ EOS 86(48):497.

7

8 Stover, C.W., and J.L. Coffman, 1993, Seismicity of the United States 1568-1989 (Revised),

9 U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1527.

10

11 Stringer, W.J., 1980, The Role of Sea Ice as a Physical Hazard and a Pollutant Transport 

12 Mechanism in the Bering Sea, A Special Report to Outer Continental Shelf Environmental 

13 Assessment Program, Arctic Research Unit 267, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska.

14

15 Stringer, W.J., and W.M. Sackinger, 1976, ―Ice Hazards to Offshore Oil Operations in Arctic 

16 Alaskan Waters,‖ in 31st Annual Petroleum Mechanical Engineering Conference, Mexico City, 

17 Mexico, September 16–19. 

18

19 Stroeve, J., M. Serreze, F. Fetterer, T. Arbetter, W. Meier, J. Maslanik, and K. Knowles, 2005, 

20 ―Tracking the Arctic‘s Shrinking Ice Cover: Another Extreme September Minimum in 2004,‖ 

21 Geophysical Research Letters 32(4):1–4.

22

23 Sturges, W., 1993, ―The Annual Cycle of the Western Boundary Current in the Gulf of Mexico,‖ 

24 Journal of Geophysical Research 98(C10):18053–18068. 

25

26 Sturges, W., and J. Blaha, 1975, ―A Western Boundary Current in the Gulf of Mexico,‖ Science

27 192:367–369. 

28

29 Sturges, W., and K.E. Kenyos, 2008, ―Mean Flow in the Gulf of Mexico,‖ Journal of Physical 

30 Oceanography 38(7):1501–1514. 

31

32 Sturges, W., E. Chassignet, and T. Ezer, 2004, Strong Mid-depth Currents and a Deep Cyclonic 

33 Gyre in the Gulf of Mexico: Final Report, OCS Study MMS 2004-040, MMS, Gulf of Mexico 

34 OCS Region, New Orleans, La.

35

36 Sturges, W., N.G. Hoffmann, and R.R. Leben, 2010, ―A Trigger Mechanism for Loop Current 

37 Ring Separations,‖ Journal of Physical Oceanography 40(5):900–913. 

38

39 Suleimani, E.N., et al., 2002, Tsunami Hazard Maps of the Kodiak Area, Alaska, Report of 

40 Investigations 2002-01, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological and 

41 Geophysical Surveys. Available (with 1:12,500 maps) at http://www.dggs.alaska.gov/webpubs/

42 dggs/ri/text/ri2002_001.PDF. Accessed June 23, 2011.

43

44 Suydam, R.S., and J.C. George, 1992, ―Recent Sightings of Harbour Porpoises, Phocoena

45 phocoena, near Point Barrow, Alaska,‖ Canadian Field-Naturalist 106(4):489–492.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-768

1 Suleimani, E.N., et al., 2005, Tsunami Hazard Maps of the Homer and Seldovia Areas, Alaska, 

2 Report of Investigations 2005-2, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of 

3 Geological and Geophysical Surveys. Available (with 1:12,500 maps) at http://www.dggs.dnr.

4 state.ak.us/pubs/pubs?reqtype=citation&ID=14474. Accessed June 15, 2011.

5

6 Taylor, E., and D. Reimer, 2008, ―Oil Persistence on Beaches in Prince William Sound – A 

7 Review of SCAT Surveys Conducted from 1989 to 2002,‖ Marine Pollution Bulletin 56:458–

8 474. 

9

10 Teague, W., E. Jarosz, D. Wang, and D. Mitchell, 2007, ―Observed Oceanic Response over the 

11 Upper Continental Slope and Outer Shelf during Hurricane Ivan,‖ Journal of Physical 

12 Oceanography 37(9):2181–2206. 

13

14 Teague, W.J., E. Jarosz, M. Carnes, D. Mitchell, and P. Hogan, 2006a, ―Low-Frequency Current 

15 Variability Observed at the Shelfbreak in the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico: May-October, 

16 2003,‖ Continental Shelf Research 26:2559–2582.

17

18 Teague, W.J., E. Jarosz, T.R. Keen, D.W. Wang, and M.S. Hulbert, 2006b, ―Bottom Scour 

19 Observed under Hurricane Ivan,‖ Geophysical Research Letters 33:L07607. 

20

21 Tech Environmental, Inc., 2006, Final EIR Underwater Noise Analysis, Report No. 5.3.2-2,

22 Appendix 3.13-B, Cape Wind Energy Project, Nantucket Sound, Waltham, Mass.

23

24 Teo, S.L.H., AM. Boustany, and B.A. Block, 2007, ―Oceanographic Preferences of Atlantic 

25 Bluefin Tuna, Thunnus thynnus, on Their Gulf of Mexico Breeding Grounds,‖ Marine 

26 Biology 152:1105–1119.

27

28 TEWG (Turtle Expert Working Group), 2007, An Assessment of the Leatherback Turtle 

29 Population in the Atlantic Ocean, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-555.

30

31 Thomas, D.R., 1983, ―Interaction of Oil with Arctic Sea Ice,‖ in The Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 

32 P. Barnes, E. Reimnitz, and D. Schell (eds.), Academic Press, New York, N.Y.

33

34 Thompson, J.J., E.A. Shinn, and T.J. Bright, 1980, Effects of Drilling Mud on Seven Species of 

35 Reef-Building Corals as Measured in the Field and Laboratory, Elsevier Scientific Publishing 

36 Company, Amsterdam.

37

38 Thompson, J., et al., 2005, ―Sonar Surveys for Pipeline Inspection Show Extent of Pipeline 

39 Displacement and Seafloor Instability Following Hurricane Ivan,‖ Proc. Offshore Technology 

40 Conference, Houston, Texas, OTC Paper No. 17738.

41

42 Thurston, D.K., and L.A. Theiss, 1987, Geologic Report for the Chukchi Sea Planning Area, 

43 Alaska – Regional Geology, Petroleum Geology, and Environmental Geology, OCS 

44 Report MMS 87-0046, March.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-769

1 Till, A.B., et al., 1990, Redoubt Volcano, Cook Inlet, Alaska: A Hazard Assessment Based on 

2 Eruptive Activity through 1968, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 90-246.

3

4 Todd, S., P. Stevick, J. Lien, F. Marques, and D. Ketten, 1996, ―Behavioral Effects of Exposure 

5 to Underwater Explosions in Humpback Whales (Megaptera novaeangliae),‖ Canadian Journal 

6 of Zoology 74:1661–1672.

7

8 Toimil, L.J., 1978, Ice-Gouged Microrelief on the Floor of the Eastern Chukchi Sea, Alaska: 

9 A Reconnaissance Survey, Open File Report 78-693, U.S. Geological Survey.

10

11 Tornfelt, E.E., and M. Burwell, 1992, Shipwrecks of the Alaskan Shelf and Shore: The April 1, 

12 1999 Database, OCS Study MMS 92-0002, MMS, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, Alaska.

13

14 Trefry, J.H., K.L. Naito, R.P. Trocine, and S. Metz, 1995, ―Distribution and Bioaccumulation of 

15 Heavy Metals from Produced Water Discharges to the Gulf of Mexico,‖ Water Science and 

16 Technology 32: 31–36.

17

18 Trefry, J.H., R.D. Rember, R.P. Trocine, and M. Savoie, 2004, Sources, Concentrations and 

19 Dispersion Pathways for Suspended Sediment in the Coastal Beaufort Sea, OCS Study MMS 

20 2004-032, Minerals Management Service, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region, Anchorage, 

21 Alaska.

22

23 Troutman, S.M., and R.G. Stanley, 2003, Maps Showing Sedimentary Basins, Surface Thermal 

24 Maturity, and Indications of Petroleum in the Central Alaska Province, U.S. Geological Survey 

25 Miscellaneous Field Studies Map, MF-2428.

26

27 Truett, J.C., M.E. Miller, and K. Kertell, 1997, ―Effects of Arctic Alaska Oil Development on 

28 Brant and Snow Geese,‖ Arctic 50(2): 138–146.

29

30 Tucker and Associates, 1990, ―Sea Turtles and Marine Mammals of the Gulf of Mexico,‖ in

31 Proceedings of a Workshop Held in New Orleans, August 1–3, 1989, OCS Study MMS 90-009. 

32

33 Tucker & Associates, Inc., 1990, Sea Turtles and Marine Mammals of the Gulf of Mexico, 

34 Proceedings of a Workshop Held in New Orleans, August 1-3, 1989, OCS Study MMS 90-0009,

35 Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. Available at 

36 http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3661.pdf. Accessed April 16, 2011.

37

38 Turner, C., and M. Frankel, 2008, Energy Performance of LEED for New Construction 

39 Buildings, New Buildings Institute, March 4. Available at http://www.usgbc.org/

40 ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=3930. Accessed August 21, 2011.

41

42 Turner, R.E., J.M. Lee, and C. Neill, 1994, ―Backfilling Canals to Restore Wetlands: Empirical 

43 Results in Coastal Louisiana,‖ Wetlands Ecology and Management 3(1):63–78.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-770

1 Tunez, J.I., H.L. Cappozzo, and M.H. Cassini, 2008, ―Natural and Anthropogenic Factors 

2 Associated with the Distribution of South American Sea Lion along the Atlantic Coast,‖

3 Hydrobiologia 598:191–202.

4

5 Tyack, P.L., 2009, ―Human-Generated Sound and Marine Mammals,‖ Physics 

6 Today 62(11):39–44.

7

8 U.K. National Nonfood Crop Centre, 2010, Renewable Polymers Factsheet: Bioplastics, 

9 February 19. Available at http://www.nnfcc.co.uk/publications/nnfcc-renewable-polymers10 factsheet-bioplastics. Accessed August 21, 2011.

11

12 United Health Foundation, 2009, America’s Health Rankings 2009: Louisiana. Available at 

13 http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/offices/publications/pubs-81/American_Health_Rankings_

14 Louisiana.pdf. Accessed September 26, 2011.

15

16 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization – Intergovernmental 

17 Oceanographic Commission (UNESCO-IOC). 2010. Marine Spatial Planning Initiative. 

18 Available at http://www.unesco-ioc-marinesp.be.

19

20 URS Corporation, 2005, North Slope Borough Comprehensive Plan, prepared for The North 

21 Slope Borough, October. Available at http://www.north-slope.org/information/comp_plan/

22 MasterTOC_%20Mayors%20Forward06.pdf. Accessed April 27, 2011.

23

24 U.S. Green Building Council, 2011a, About LEED, March. Available at http://www.usgbc.

25 org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1720 Accessed August 21, 2011.

26

27 U.S. Green Building Council, 2011b, LEED for Homes, May. Available at 

28 http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1720. Accessed August 21, 2011.

29

30 USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 1999, Final Environmental Impact Statement:

31 Beaufort Sea Oil and Gas Development/Northstar Project, U.S. Army Engineer District, 

32 Anchorage, Alaska. 

33

34 USACE, 2010, Navigation Data Center: U.S. Waterborne Container Traffic by Port/Waterway 

35 in 2009. Accessed at http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil/wcsc/by_porttons09.html. Accessed 

36 July 27, 2011.

37

38 USACE, 2011, Ocean Disposal Database — Alaska District (Pacific Ocean Division), Galveston 

39 District (Southwestern Division), New Orleans District (Mississippi Valley Division), and Mobile 

40 and Jacksonville Districts (South Atlantic Division). Available at http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/

41 odd/. Accessed July 12, 2011.

42

43 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau), 2009a, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for the 

44 United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009, 

45 NST-EST2009-01. Available at http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html. 

46 Accessed December 2009. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-771

1 USCB, 2009b, Annual Estimates of the Population of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical 

2 Areas: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009. Available at http://www.census.gov/popest/metro/

3 CBSA-est2009-annual.html. Accessed March 2010.

4

5 USCG (U.S. Coast Guard), 2011, 2008 – 2010 Arctic Activity (2010 Arctic Traffic Slide). 

6 Available at http://www.institutenorth.org/calendar/events/bering-strait-access-workshop. 

7 Accessed September 8, 2011.

8

9 USDOE and USDA (U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of Agriculture), 2005, 

10 Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical feasibility of a 

11 Billion-Ton Annual Supply, April. 

12

13 USDOE and USEPA (U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 

14 undated a, Energy Star Solar Water Heaters. Available at http://www.energystar.gov/

15 index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product.showProductGroup&pgw_code=WSE. Accessed 

16 August 20, 2011.

17

18 USDOE and USEPA, undated b, Energy Star Certified Buildings and Plants. Available at 

19 http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=labeled_buildings.locator. Accessed 

20 August 20, 2011.

21

22 USDOE and USEPA, undated c, Energy Star Qualified New Homes. Available at 

23 http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=new_homes.hm_index. Accessed August 21, 2011.

24

25 USDOI (U.S. Department of the Interior), 2001, Department of the Interior-Alaska Policy on 

26 Government-to-Government Relations with Alaska Native Tribes, January 18.

27

28 USDOT (U.S. Department of Transportation), 2008, Vessel Calls at U.S. Ports, Snapshot, 2007,

29 Office of Policy and Plans, Maritime Administration, Washington, D.C.

30

31 USDOT, 2009a, ―Table 1-11. Number of U.S. Aircraft, Vehicles, Vessels, and Other 

32 Conveyances,‖ in National Transportation Statistics 2009. 

33 http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/. Accessed June 2009. 

34

35 USDOT, 2009b, ―Table 4-23. Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Passenger Cars and Light 

36 Trucks,‖ in National Transportation Statistics 2009. Available at http://www.bts.gov/

37 publications/national_transportation_statistics/. Accessed January 2010.

38

39 USDOT, 2009c, Table 4-21: Energy Intensity of Certificated Air Carriers, All Services,‖ in 

40 National Transportation Statistics 2009. Available at http://www.bts.gov/publications/

41 national_transportation_statistics/. Accessed January 2010.

42

43 USDOT, 2009d, ―Table 1-11: Number of U.S. Aircraft, Vehicles, Vessels, and Other 

44 Conveyances,‖ in National Transportation Statistics 2009. Available at http://www.bts.gov/

45 publications/national_transportation_statistics/. Accessed June 2009. 

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-772

1 USDOT, 2010, ―Table 4-6: Energy Consumption by Mode of Transportation (Trillion Btu),‖ in 

2 National Transportation Statistics 2010. Available at http://www.bts.gov/publications/

3 national_transportation_statistics/. Accessed April 2010.

4

5 USDOT, 2011a, Maritime Administration – Deepwater Port Licensing Program: Pending 

6 Applications. Available at http://www.marad.dot.gov/ports_landing_page/deepwater_port_

7 licensing/dwp_planned_ports/dwp_planned_ports.htm. Accessed July 18, 2011.

8

9 USDOT, 2011b, Vessel Calls Snapshot, 2010, Maritime Administration, Office of Policy and 

10 Plans, May.

11

12 USDOT, 2011c, Maritime Administration — Deepwater Port Licensing Program: Pending 

13 Applications. Available at http://www.marad.dot.gov/ports_landing_page/deepwater_

14 port_licensing/dwp_planned_ports/dwp_planned_ports.htm. Accessed July 18, 2011.

15

16 USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1992, Workbook for Plume Visual Impact 

17 Screening and Analysis (Revised), EPA-454/R-92-023, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

18 Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C., Oct.

19

20 USEPA, 1993, Preliminary Determination Document, Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

21 Outer Continental Shelf, Proposed Exploratory Drilling for ARCO Alaska, Inc. in the Beaufort 

22 Sea, Alaska, EPA Region 10, Seattle, Wash., June.

23

24 USEPA, 2001, Visibility in Mandatory Federal Class I Areas (1994-1998) – A Report to 

25 Congress, EPA-452/R01-008, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Nov.

26

27 USEPA, 2008a, Red Dog Mine Extension – Aqqaluk Project, Draft Supplemental Environmental 

28 Impact Statement, Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

29 Seattle, Washington.

30

31 USEPA, 2008b, National Coastal Condition Report III, EPA/842-R-08-002, Office of Research 

32 and Development/Office of Water, Washington D.C., Dec.

33

34 USEPA, 2008c, Latest Findings on National Air Quality: Status and Trends Through 2006, 

35 EPA-454/R-07-007, Jan.

36

37 USEPA, 2009, Red Dog Mine Extension – Aqqaluk Project Final Supplemental Environmental 

38 Impact Statement, prepared by Tetra Tech, Anchorage, Alaska, for the U.S. EPA Region 10, Oct. 

39 Available at http://www.reddogseis.com/Final_SEIS.asp. Accessed July 12, 2011.

40

41 USEPA, 2010a, EPA Finalizes Regulations for the National Renewable Fuel Standard Program 

42 for 2010 and Beyond, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, February. Available at 

43 http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420f10007.pdf. Accessed August 20, 2011. 

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-773

1 USEPA, 2010b, ―Table 2: Recovery of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 to 2009,‖ in Municipal 

2 Solid Waste in the United States: 2009 Facts and Figures, December. Available at 

3 http://www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2009rpt.pdf. Accessed August 2011.

4

5 USEPA, 2010c, Region 10: The Pacific Northwest – Current NPDES Permits in Alaska. 

6 Available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/NPDES+Permits/CurrentAK822. Accessed 

7 August 20, 2011.

8

9 USEPA, 2011a, What Are the Six Common Air Pollutants?. Available at http://www.epa.gov/

10 oaqps001/urbanair/. Accessed July 18, 2011.

11

12 USEPA, 2011b, Acid Rain. Available at http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/. Accessed July 18, 2011.

13

14 USEPA, 2011c, Ocean Dumping and Dredging Material Management. Available at 

15 http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/oceandumping/dredgedmaterial/dumpdredged.cfm. Accessed 

16 July 12, 2011.

17

18 USEPA, 2011d, Region 6: Ocean Dumping Sites for Dredged Material. Available at

19 http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/oceandumping/dredgedmaterial/regionsix.cfm. Accessed July 12, 

20 2011.

21

22 USEPA, 2011e, Region 4: Ocean Dumping Sites for Dredged Material. Available at 

23 http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/oceandumping/dredgedmaterial/regionfour.cfm. Accessed 

24 July 12, 2011.

25

26 USEPA, 2011f, Hypoxia in the News — 2011 Forecast: Summer Hypoxic Zone Size, Northern 

27 Gulf of Mexico. Available at http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/named/msbasin/

28 gulfnews.cfm#2011forecast. Accessed July 28, 2011.

29

30 USEPA 2011g, Beyond the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). 

31 Available at http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/mprsa_beyond.cfm. Accessed July 12, 2011.

32

33 USEPA, 2011h, Air Data: Emissions by Category Report – Criteria Air Pollutants. Searchable 

34 database (by geographic area, pollutant emitted, and year of data). Available at

35 http://www.epa.gov/oar/data/emcatrep.html. Accessed August 16, 2011.

36

37 USEPA, 2011i, 2008 Highlights: Overview of the Acid Rain Program. Available at

38 http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ARP_4.html. Accessed August 17, 2011.

39

40 USEPA, 2011j, Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). Available at

41 http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/. Accessed on August 17, 2011.

42

43 USEPA, 2011k, Regional Planning Organizations. Available at

44 http://www.epa.gov/visibility/regional.html. Accessed on August 17, 2011.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-774

1 USEPA, 2011l, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2009, 

2 EPA 430-R-11-005, April 15. Available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/

3 downloads11/US-GHG-Inventory-2011-Complete_Report.pdf. Accessed August 31, 2011.

4

5 USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service), 1999, South Florida Multi-Species Recovery 

6 Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA.

7

8 USFWS, 2004, Effects of Oil Spills on Wildlife and Habitat, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

9 Alaska Region, Dec. Available at http://alaska.fws.gov/media/unalaska/Oil%20Spill

10 %20Fact%20Sheet.pdf. Accessed March 12, 2011.

11

12 USFWS, 2008, ―Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened 

13 Status for the Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) Throughout Its Range,‖ Federal Register

14 73(95):28212–28303.

15

16 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), undated, North Pacific Pelagic Seabird Database (NPPSD). 

17 Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, AK.

18

19 USGS, 1970, Earthquake Information Bulletin (Alaska), Vol.2 (2): March–April.

20

21 USGS, 1999, Alaska Seismic Hazard Maps — 1999, Peak Horizontal Acceleration (%g) with 

22 10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years, interactive map. Available at 

23 http://gldims.cr.usgs.gov/akshmp/viewer.htm. Accessed June 6, 2011.

24

25 USGS, 2010, Glossary of Terms on EQ Maps, Magnitude. Available at http://earthquake.usgs.

26 gov/earthquakes/glossary.php#magnitude. Accessed August 8, 2010.

27

28 USGS, 2011a, National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) — Earthquake Hazards 

29 Program, Circular Area Earthquake Search, Geographic Grid Search (Latitude 58.811N to 

30 56.507N; Longitude 150.957W to 156.832W). Available at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/

31 earthquakes/eqarchives/epic/epic_circ.php. Accessed June 6, 2011.

32

33 USGS, 2011b, Alaska Volcano History, volcano information, interactive map, Alaska Volcano 

34 Observatory, Anchorage, Alaska. Available at http://avo.alaska.edu/map/. Accessed 

35 March 3, 2011.

36

37 USGS, 2011c, The Gulf of Mexico Hypoxic Zone. Available at http://toxics.usgs.gov/hypoxia/

38 hypoxic_zone.html. Accessed Aug. 4, 2011.

39

40 USGS, 2011d, Alaska Earthquake History. Available at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/

41 states/alaska/history.php. Accessed on August 31, 2011.

42

43 Valkenburg, P., and J.L. Davis, 1984, ―The Reaction of Caribou to Aircraft: A Comparison of 

44 Two Herds,‖ pp. 7−9 in Caribou and Human Activity, Proceedings of the 1st North American 

45 Caribou Workshop, Whitehorse, Yukon Territories, A.M. Martell and D.E. Russell (eds.), 

46 Sept. 28−29, 1983, Canadian Wildlife Service, Special Publication, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-775

1 Van Pelt, T.I., and J.F. Piatt, 2003, Population Status of Kittlitz’s and Marbled Murrelets and 

2 Surveys for Other Marine Bird and Mammals Species in the Kenai Fjords Area, Alaska. USGS 

3 Science Support Project, Species at Risk Annual Report for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

4 USGS Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, AK.

5

6 Vanderlaan, A.S.M., and C.T. Taggart, 2007, ―Vessel Collisions with Whales: The Probability 

7 of Lethal Injury Based on Vessel Speed,‖ Marine Mammal Science 23(1):144–156.

8

9 Vargo, S., P. Lutz, D. Odell, E. Van Vleet, and G. Bossart, 1986, Study of the Effects of Oil on 

10 Marine Turtles, Final Report, OCS Study MMS 86-0070, MMS, Atlantic OCS Region. 

11

12 Vasconcelos, R.O., M.C.P. Amorim, and F. Ladich, 2007, ―Effects of Ship Noise on the 

13 Detectability of Communication Signals in the Lusitanian Toadfish,‖ Journal of Experimental 

14 Biology 210:2104–2112.

15

16 Veil, J.A., T.A. Kimmell, and A.C. Rechner, 2005, Characteristics of Produced Water 

17 Discharged to the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxic Zone, ANL/EAD/05-3, Argonne National Laboratory, 

18 Argonne, Ill., Aug. Available at http://www.osti.gov/bridge. Accessed September 2005.

19

20 VesselTrax, 2007, Crude Oil Imports into U.S. Gulf Coast Ports. Available at

21 http://vesseltrax.com/crude_oil_imports.html. Accessed July 19, 2011.

22

23 Viereck, L.A., C.T. Dyrness, A.R. Batten, and K.J. Wenzlick, 1992, The Alaska Vegetation 

24 Classification, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-286, USDOA, Pacific Northwest Research 

25 Station.

26

27 Vukovich, F.M., 2007, ―Climatology of Ocean Features in the Gulf of Mexico Using Satellite 

28 Remote Sensing Data,‖ Journal of Physical Oceanography 37(3):689–707.

29

30 Wald, D.J., B.C. Worden, V. Quitoriano, and K.L. Pankow, 2005, Shake Map Manual —

31 Technical Manual, Users Guide, and Software Guide, Version 1.0, June 19.

32

33 Wald, M.L., 2010, ―Offshore Wind Power Line Wins Backing,‖ New York Times October 12. 

34 Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/science/earth/12wind.html?ref=business. 

35 Accessed August 20, 2011.

36

37 Walker, D.A., and K.R. Everett, 1987, ―Road Dust and Its Environmental Impact on Alaskan 

38 Taiga and Tundra,‖ Arc. Alpine Res. 19:479–489.

39

40 Walker, D.A., D. Cate, J. Brown, and C. Racine, 1987a, Disturbance and Recovery of Arctic 

41 Alaskan Tundra Terrain: A Review of Recent Investigations, CRREL Report 87-11, U.S. Army 

42 Corps of Engineers, CRREL, Hanover, N.H.

43

44 Walker, D.A., P.J. Webber, E.F. Binnian, K.R. Everett, N.D. Lederer, E.A. Nordstrand, and

45 M.D. Walker, 1987b, ―Cumulative Impacts of Oil Fields on Northern Alaska Landscapes,‖ 

46 Science 238: 757–761.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-776

1 Walther, G., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, T.J.C. Beebee, J. Fromentin, 

2 O. Hoegh-Guldberg, and F. Bairlein, 2002, ―Ecological Responses to Recent Climate Change,‖ 

3 Nature 416:389–395.

4

5 Wang, G., and P.T. Pedersen, 2007, ―A Literature Review of Risk Assessment of Ship-FPSO 

6 Collisions,‖ OMAE 2007-29760, Proceedings of OMAE2007, The 26th Offshore Mechanics and 

7 Arctic Engineering Conference, Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, San Diego, Calif., 

8 June 10–15, 2007.

9

10 Wang, J., R. Kwok, F.J. Saucier, J. Hutchings, M. Ikeda, I.W. Hibler, J. Haapala, M.D. Coon, 

11 H.E.M. Meir, H. Eicken, N. Tanaka, R.T. Prentki, and W. Johnson, 2003, ―Working Toward 

12 Improved Small-Scale Sea Ice-Ocean Modeling in the Arctic Seas,‖ EOS 84(34), 325, 329–330.

13

14 Wang, J.L., V. Vivatrat , and J.R. Rusher, 1982, ―Geotechnical Properties of Alaska OCS Silts,‖

15 Proceedings of 14th Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, Vol. 4, OTC Paper 4412.

16

17 Ward, D.H., and R.A. Stein, 1989, Response of Brant and Other Geese to Aircraft Disturbance 

18 at Izembek Lagoon, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Anchorage, AK.

19

20 Ward, D.H., R.A. Stein, and D.V. Derksen, 1994, ―Response of Staging Brant to Disturbance at 

21 the Izembek Lagoon, Alaska,‖ Wildlife Society Bulletin 22: 220–228.

22

23 Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, and P.E. Rosel (eds.), 2010, U.S. Atlantic and Gulf 

24 of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments — 2010, NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-NE 213, 

25 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast 

26 Fisheries Science Center, Dec. Available at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm219. 

27 Accessed July 29, 2011.

28

29 Watkins, W.A., and W.E. Schevill, 1975, ―Sperm Whales React to Pingers,‖ Deep Sea Research

30 22:123-129.

31

32 Waythomas, C.F., and R.B. Waitt, 1998, Preliminary Volcano-Hazard Assessment for Augustine 

33 Volcano, Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 98-0106.

34

35 Waythomas, C.F., J.M. Dorava, T.P. Miller, C.A. Neal, and R.G. McGimsey, 1997, Preliminary 

36 Volcano-Hazard Assessment for Redoubt Volcano, Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey Open File 

37 Report 97-0857.

38

39 Weber, D.D., D.J. Maynard, W.D. Gronlund, and V. Konchin, 1981, ―Avoidance Reactions of 

40 Migrating Adult Salmon to Petroleum Hydrocarbons,‖ Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

41 Aquatic Sciences 38:779–781.

42

43 Weeks, W.F., and G. Weller, 1984, ―Offshore Oil in the Alaskan Arctic,‖ Science 

44 225(4660):371–378. 

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-777

1 Weilgart, L.S., 2007, ―A Brief Review of Known Effects of Noise on Marine Mammals,‖

2 International Journal of Comparative Psychology 20:159–168.

3

4 Weingartner, T., 2003, ―Physical Oceanography of the Beaufort Sea: An Overview,‖ in Physical 

5 Oceanography of the Beaufort Sea-Workshop Proceedings, T. Weingartner (ed.), OCS Study 

6 MMS 2003-045, Anchorage, Alaska.

7

8 Weingartner, T., K. Aagaard, R. Woodgate, S. Danielson, Y. Sasaki, and D. Cavalieri, 2005, 

9 ―Circulation on the North Central Chukchi Sea Shelf,‖ Deep-Sea Research Part II: Topical 

10 Studies in Oceanography 52(24-26):3150–3174.

11

12 Weingartner, T.J., and S.R. Okkonen, 2001, Beaufort Sea Nearshore Under-Ice Currents: 

13 Science, Analysis, and Logistics, OCS Study MMS 2001-068, Institute of Marine Science, 

14 University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska. 

15

16 Weingartner, T.J., D.J. Cavalieri, K. Aagaard, and Y. Sasaki, 1998, ―Circulation, Dense Water 

17 Formation, and Outflow on the Northeast Chukchi Shelf,‖ Journal of Geophysical Research

18 103(C4):7647–7661. 

19

20 Weingartner, T.J., R.S. Pickart, and M.A. Johnson, 2010, Recommended Physical 

21 Oceanographic Studies in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, OCS Study MMS-2010-018, Anchorage, 

22 Alaska.

23

24 Weingartner, T.J., S.L. Danielson, J.L. Kasper, and S.R. Okkonen, 2009, Circulation and Water 

25 Property Variations in the Nearshore Alaskan Beaufort Sea (1999-2007), OCS Study 

26 MMS 2009-035, MMS, Fairbanks, Alaska.

27

28 Wells, P.G., 1989, Using Oil Spill Dispersants on the Sea – Issues and Answers, Workshop on 

29 Technical Specifications for Oil and Dispersants Toxicity, January 17-19, 1989, New Orleans, 

30 La., Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La.

31

32 Wells, P.G., 1989, ―Using Oil Spill Dispersants on the Sea – Issues and Answers,‖ in Oil and 

33 Dispersant Toxicity Testing, Proceedings of a Workshop on Technical Specifications, T.W. Duke 

34 and G. Petrazzuolo (eds.), held in New Orleans, January 17–19, 1989.

35

36 Wesson, R.L., O.S. Boyd, C.S. Mueller, C.G. Bufe, A.D.Frankel, and M.D. Peterson, 2007, 

37 Revision of Time-Dependent Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps for Alaska, U.S Geological 

38 Survey Open File Report 2007-1043.

39

40 Wheeler, N.J.M., S.B. Reid, K.J. Craig, J.R. Zielonka, D.R. Stauffer, and S.R Hanna, 2008, 

41 Cumulative Increment Analysis for the Breton National Wilderness Area, OCS Study MMS 

42 2008-058, prepared by Sonoma Technology, Inc., Petaluma, Calif., for MMS, Gulf of Mexico 

43 OCS Region, New Orleans, La., Dec.

44

45 Whitmeyer, S.J., and D.M. FitzGerald, 2008, ―Episodic Dynamics of a Sand Wave Field,‖ 

46 Marine Geology 252:24–37.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-778

1 Whitney, J., 1994, Shoreline Countermeasures Manual, NOAA, Hazardous Materials Response 

2 & Assessment Division, March.

3

4 Whitney, J., 2000, ―What Actual Movement of Oil in Cook Inlet Tells Us about the Circulation 

5 in Cook Inlet,‖ in Cook Inlet Oceanography Workshop, S.R. Johnson, M.A. Okkonen (eds.), 

6 November 9, Kenai, Alaska, pp. 25–47, Institute of Marine Science, University of Alaska,

7 Fairbanks, Alaska.

8

9 Whitney, J.H., et al., 1979, Lower Cook Inlet, Alaska: Do Those Large Sand Waves Migrate?, 

10 presented at Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, April 30–May 7.

11

12 Whitney, J.W., and D.K. Thurston, 1977, ―Geologic Constraints for Petroleum Development of 

13 the Lower Cook Inlet, Alaska, Outer Continental Shelf Lease Area,‖ in The U.S. Geological 

14 Survey in Alaska: Accomplishments during 1979, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 823-B, 

15 N.R.D. Albert and T. Hudson (eds).

16

17 Whitney, J.W., and D.K. Thurston, 1981, ―Geologic Constraints for Petroleum Development of 

18 the Lower Cook Inlet, Alaska, Outer Continental Shelf Lease Area,‖ in The United States 

19 Geological Survey in Alaska: Accomplishments during 1979, N.R.D. Albert and T. Hudson 

20 (eds.), U.S. Geological Survey Circular 823-B.

21

22 Whitney, J., 1994, Shoreline Countermeasures Manual, U.S. Department of Commerce/National 

23 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Hazardous Materials Response & Assessment 

24 Division, March.

25

26 Wicker, K.M., R.E. Emmer, D. Roberts, and J. van Beek, 1989, Pipelines, Navigation Channels, 

27 and Facilities in Sensitive Coastal Habitats, An Analysis of Outer Continental Shelf Impacts, 

28 Coastal Gulf of Mexico, Volume I: Technical Narrative, OCS Report MMS 89-0051, MMS, 

29 Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La.

30

31 Wiedmer, M., M.J. Fink, J.J. Stegeman, R. Smolowitz, G.D. Marty, and D.E. Hinton, 1996, 

32 ―Cytochrome P-450 Induction and Histopathology in Preemergent Pink Salmon from Oiled 

33 Spawning Sites in Prince William Sound,‖ American Fisheries Society Symposium 18:509–517.

34

35 Wijesekera, H.W., D.W. Wang, W.J. Teague, and E. Jarosz, 2010, ―High Sea-Floor Stress 

36 Induced by Extreme Hurricane Waves,‖ Geophysical Research Letters 37:L11604.

37

38 Wilhelm, O., and M. Ewing, 1972, ―Geology and History of the Gulf of Mexico,‖ Geological 

39 Society of American Bulletin 83:575–600.

40

41 Wilkinson, T., E. Wiken, J.B. Creel, T.F. Hourigan, T. Agardy, H. Herrmann, L. Janishevski, 

42 C. Madden, L. Morgan, and M. Padilla, 2009, Marine Ecoregions of North America, 

43 Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Montreal, Canada.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-779

1 Wilson, D., R. Billings, R. Oommen, B. Lange, J. Marik, S. McClutchey, and H. Perez, 2010,

2 Year 2008 Gulfwide Emission Inventory Study, OCS Study BOEMRE 2010-045, BOEMRE, 

3 Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La., Dec.

4

5 Wilson, D.L., J.N. Fanjoy, and R.S. Billings, 2004, Gulfwide Emission Inventory Study for the 

6 Regional Haze and Ozone Modeling Efforts, Final Report, OCS Study MMS 2004-072, prepared 

7 by Eastern Research Group, Inc., Morrisville, N.C., for the MMS, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

8 New Orleans, La., Oct.

9

10 Wilson, S., 2007, ―USEPA‘s Produced Water Permitting Requirements,‖ pp. 32–33 in 

11 Exploration & Production: The Oil and Gas Review 2007, Offshore Technology Conference 

12 (OTC) Edition, April.

13

14 Wilson, C.A., A. Pierce, and M.W. Miller, 2003, Rigs and Reefs: A Comparison of the Fish 

15 Communities at Two Artificial Reefs, a Production Platform, and a Natural Reef in the Northern 

16 Gulf of Mexico, OCS Study MMS 2003-009, prepared by the Coastal Fisheries Institute, School 

17 of the Coast and Environment, Louisiana State University, for MMS, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

18 Region, New Orleans, La.

19

20 Witherington B.E., 1994, ―Some  ̳Lost-Year‘ Turtles Found,‖ in Proceedings of theThirteenth 

21 Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, B.A. Schroeder and 

22 B.E. Witherington (comps), NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-SEFSC-341.

23

24 Witherington, B.E., and R.E. Martin, 1996, Understanding, Assessing, and Resolving Light25 Pollution on Sea Turtle Nesting Beaches, FMRI Technical Report TR-2, Florida Department of 

26 Environmental Protection.

27

28 Woodgate, R.A., K. Aagaard, and T.J. Weingartner, 2005, ―A Year in the Physical 

29 Oceanography of the Chukchi Sea: Moored Measurements from Autumn 1990-1991,‖ Deep Sea 

30 Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 52(24-26):3116–3149. 

31

32 Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1996, The 1995 Northstar Unit Sampling Program, Final Report,

33 prepared for BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Anchorage, Alaska.

34

35 Wooley, C., S. Hillman, and D. O‘Brien, 1997, ―Mapping Cultural Resource Sites for the 

36 Prince William Sound Graphical Resource Database,‖ Proceedings of the 20th Arctic and 

37 Marine Pollution (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Vancouver, B.C.

38

39 Word, J., M. Pinza, and W. Gardiner, 2008, Literature Review of the Effects of Dispersed Oil 

40 with Emphasis on Cold Water Environments of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, prepared for 

41 Shell Global Solutions, Houston, Texas, and American Petroleum Institute, Washington D.C.

42
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Environmental Consequences 4-780

1 Wright, A.J., N.A. Soto, A.L. Baldwin, M. Bateson, C.M. Beale, C. Clark, T. Deak, 

2 E.F. Edwards, A. Fernandez, A. Godinho, L.T. Hatch, A. Kakuschke, D. Lusseau, D. Martineau, 

3 L.M. Romero, L.S. Weilgart, B.A. Wintle, G. Notarbartolo-di-Sciara, and V. Martin, 2007, ―Do 

4 Marine Mammals Experience Stress Related to Anthropogenic Noise?‖ International Journal of 

5 Comparative Psychology 20:274–316.

6

7 Würsig, B., 1990, ―Cetaceans and Oil: Ecologic Perspectives,‖ pp. 129–165 in Sea Mammals 

8 and Oil: Confronting the Risks, J.R. Geraci and D.J. St. Aubin (eds.), Academic Press, San 

9 Diego, Calif.

10

11 Würsig, B., T.A. Jefferson, and D.J. Schmidly, 2000, The Marine Mammals of the Gulf of 

12 Mexico, Texas A&M University Press, College Station, Texas. 

13

14 Yamamoto-Kawai, M., F.A. McLaughlin, E.C. Carmack, S. Nishino, K. Shimada, and N. Kurita,

15 2009, ―Surface Freshening of the Canada Basin, 2003-2007: River Runoff versus Sea Ice 

16 Meltwater,‖ Journal of Geophysical Research 114:C00A05. 

17

18 Yanez-Arancibia, S., and J. Day, 2004, ―Environmental Sub-regions in the Gulf of Mexico 

19 Coastal Zone: The Ecosystem Approach as an Integrated Management Tool,‖ Ocean and 

20 Coastal Management 47(11-12): 727–757.

21

22 Yarwood, G., G. Mansell, M. Jimenez, and S. Lau, 2004, 2000 Gulf-Wide Emissions Inventory –

23 OCS On-Shore Impacts Modeling (Texas), A Preliminary Look, prepared by ENVIRON 

24 International Corporation, Novato, Calif., for MMS, New Orleans, La. Sept. 1.

25

26 Zavala-Hidalgo, J., S.L. Morey, and J.J. O‘Brien, 2003, ―Seasonal Circulation on the Western 

27 Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico Using a High-Resolution Numerical Model,‖ Journal of 

28 Geophysical Research 108(C12):3389.

29
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects 5-1

1 5 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

2

3

4 5.1 IMPACTS ON PHYSICAL RESOURCES

5

6 Some unavoidable adverse effects on water and sediment quality would be expected to 

7 occur as a result of the proposed action. Operational discharges of drilling muds and cuttings, 

8 produced water, and small amounts of hydrocarbons into the water column during routine 

9 offshore oil and gas operations would lower local water and sediment quality. These discharges 

10 could temporarily raise the levels of some water quality and sediment parameters above normal 

11 within 100 to 2,000 m (328 to 6,562 ft) of the discharge point during drilling, and 

12 intermittently/continuously during the production period. 

13

14 An increase in emissions of air pollutants would be expected to occur, particularly in 

15 areas that do not already have extensive oil and gas activities. Emissions of nitrogen oxides and 

16 reactive hydrocarbons would increase ozone concentrations in the immediate vicinity of the 

17 offshore operations for intermittent periods during the term of the proposal.

18

19 Seismic surveys, infrastructure construction and removal, and support vehicle traffic 

20 would result in unavoidable but short-term increases in ambient noise levels in the survey areas, 

21 project locations, and vessel and helicopter routes. More long-term increases in ambient noise 

22 levels would occur during normal operations; the duration of increased ambient noise levels 

23 would correspond directly to the duration of production operations.

24

25

26 5.2 IMPACTS ON ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES

27

28 Marine mammals would be adversely affected by noise and disturbances associated with 

29 routine offshore activities (seismic surveys, vessels, aircraft, drilling, and dredging) during 

30 relatively brief periods of time. Some marine mammals would exhibit short-term responses to 

31 noises and disturbance, such as confusion or avoidance. Bowhead whales, for example, will 

32 exhibit avoidance behavior to noise-producing activities. Should an oil spill contact marine 

33 mammals, some individuals would experience short-term effects, while a small number could 

34 die. An oil spill would also adversely affect local marine mammal prey resources in small areas 

35 affected by a spill.

36

37 Disturbances of terrestrial mammals by offshore related aircraft, vehicles, facilities, 

38 human presence, and habitat alteration from construction activities are unavoidable. Disturbance 

39 of caribou, bears, and other animals in Alaska would be temporary and would not affect their 

40 overall distribution and abundance.

41

42 Marine and coastal birds would be adversely affected by noise and disturbances 

43 associated with routine offshore and onshore activities. Habitat alteration from the construction 

44 of onshore facilities would affect a small portion of the available habitat. Should an oil spill 

45 contact marine and coastal bird habitat, some birds would experience short-term effects, while 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects 5-2

1 some birds that feed in or rest on the water could be coated with oil and die. An oil spill could 

2 also adversely affect local marine and coastal bird prey resources.

3

4 Wetland and estuarine habitat alteration resulting from pipeline and other related coastal 

5 construction could have an unavoidable adverse impact on fish nursery areas and terrestrial 

6 mammals; however, regulations are in place to minimize these impacts. An oil spill contacting 

7 fish habitat would have an adverse effect on local fishery stocks and food webs.

8

9 Although individual sea turtles may be injured or killed by support vessel collisions, 

10 population-level effects would be minimal. The most likely impacts from noise would be short11 term behavioral changes such as diving and evasive swimming. If an oil spill were to contact sea 

12 turtles, some individuals might not recover from exposure, but sea turtle populations as a whole 

13 would not be threatened.

14

15 Unavoidable adverse effects on seafloor habitats and associated organisms could occur 

16 from anchoring, drilling discharges, structure emplacement and removal, and pipeline 

17 emplacement.

18

19

20 5.3 IMPACTS ON SOCIAL, CULTURAL, AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES

21

22 Commercial and, to a lesser extent, recreational fisheries will be adversely affected by 

23 loss of fishing areas occupied by offshore vessels, platforms, and exposed pipelines, particularly 

24 in areas where oil and gas activities have not previously occurred. Oil spills could contaminate, 

25 injure, or kill shellfish, finfish, eggs, and larvae in the vicinity.

26

27 Unavoidable adverse effects could be expected to occur to tourism and recreation areas 

28 from floating debris and oil spills that contact beach areas. Effects on scenic quality could also 

29 be expected to occur.

30

31 The proposed action with its ancillary activities will place increased demands on coastal 

32 communities, particularly in areas where oil and gas activities are not currently occurring. A 

33 large oil spill could disrupt their economies. Some unavoidable adverse effects on subsistence 

34 harvests in the Alaska region may result from routine offshore oil and gas activities. These 

35 offshore and onshore activities could cause localized displacement or loss of small numbers of 

36 subsistence resources. If oil spills were to contact bowhead and beluga whales and walruses, 

37 there could be a reduction of total annual harvests of these species. In such a case, short-term 

38 loss of some subsistence resources and potential repercussions on the culturally significant 

39 sharing system would be unavoidable.

40

41 Unavoidable adverse effects to archaeological resources could occur as a result of the 

42 proposed action. Construction and siting of offshore and onshore oil and natural gas facilities 

43 such as platforms, pipelines, or processing facilities could displace, damage, or destroy 

44 archaeological resources.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Relationship Between Short-Term Uses of Man’s Environment and 

the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 6-1

1 6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES 

2 OF MAN’S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE 

3 AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

4

5

6 The short-term uses of man’s environment in relation to the 2012-2017 Outer Continental 

7 Shelf (OCS) Leasing Program are the offshore and onshore activities needed to develop oil and 

8 gas resources to meet the energy needs of the United States. The Bureau of Ocean Energy 

9 Management (BOEM) makes every attempt to minimize the environmental effects from these 

10 uses. By adopting mitigating measures for OCS operations, BOEM attempts to minimize long11 term impacts and maintain or enhance the long-term productivity of areas in which oil and gas 

12 have been exploited. With proper removal of offshore oil and gas facilities, or their disposal in 

13 areas designed to enhance recreational fishing, offshore areas will continue to maintain fish 

14 resources and provide habitat for marine mammals, birds, and reptiles long after oil and gas 

15 operations have ceased. The onshore effects of the OCS program and the proposed action will 

16 contribute to the continuing alteration of nearby coastal areas from natural environments to 

17 urbanized and industrialized environments.

18

19 Short-term use of the environment in the vicinity of OCS activities includes the 

20 exploration and development of OCS oil and gas resources during the period of activity needed 

21 for the completion of the proposed action. The overall life of the proposed action is estimated to 

22 be about 40-50 years, with about 10-15 years of oil and gas exploration and delineation activity 

23 and about 30-35 years of resource development and production activity. Many of the effects 

24 discussed in Chapter 4 are the result of short-term uses and are greatest during the exploration, 

25 development, and early production phases. These effects may be reduced by mitigation 

26 measures required by BOEM.

27

28 Extraction and consumption of offshore oil and natural gas would be a long-term 

29 depletion of nonrenewable resources. Economic, political, and social benefits would accrue 

30 from the availability of these natural resources. Most benefits would be short-term and would 

31 delay the increase in the dependency of the United States on oil imports. The production of 

32 offshore oil and natural gas from the proposed action would provide short-term energy sources 

33 and perhaps additional time for the development of long-term alternative energy sources or 

34 substitutes for these nonrenewable resources.

35

36 Onshore facility construction (e.g., pipelines, processing facilities, service bases, etc.) 

37 causes definite short- and long-term changes, with localized long-term effects on coastal habitats 

38 along onshore pipeline corridors. Some biological resources, such as nesting birds, may have 

39 difficulty repopulating altered habitats and could be permanently displaced from the local 

40 construction area. Short-term biological productivity would be reduced or lost in the immediate 

41 onshore areas where construction takes place; however, the long-term productivity in some of 

42 these areas could be mitigated with habitat reclamation.

43

44 After the completion of oil and gas production, the marine environment is generally 

45 expected to remain at or return to its normal long-term productivity levels. To date, there has 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Relationship Between Short-Term Uses of Man’s Environment and 

the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 6-2

1 been no discernible decrease in productivity in U.S. offshore areas where oil and gas have been 

2 produced for many years (MMS 2002, 2007).

3

4 In the Alaska region, habitat disturbance could cause local impacts to subsistence 

5 resources, which could threaten subsistence as a way of life. Road construction resulting from 

6 the proposed action would improve accessibility to primitive areas in the region. The wilderness 

7 values of the coast and along pipeline routes and associated access roads would decrease with 

8 increased human activity in these areas, particularly in areas that do not already have extensive 

9 oil and gas activities. Land use changes would be noticeable at onshore facility sites and along 

10 pipeline routes. Short-term changes include a shift in land use from subsistence-based activities 

11 to industrial activities during the life of the proposed action. Areas adjacent to onshore facilities 

12 and pipeline corridors would probably be subject to hunting regulations. Land use in some 

13 localized areas would change from conservation to resource development. Long-term effects on 

14 land use may result if the infrastructure or facilities continued to be used after the lifetime of the 

15 proposed action.

16

17 Increased population, minor gains in revenues, and the consequences of oil spills all 

18 contain the potential for disrupting coastal communities in the short term. In Alaska, an added 

19 incentive to shift from a subsistence-based economy to a cash-based economy, a reduction in 

20 subsistence resources, a decrease in subsistence activities, and other changes brought about by 

21 the proposed action could be factors in long-term consequences for Native social and cultural 

22 systems.

23

24 Archaeological and historic finds discovered during development would enhance long25 term knowledge. Overall, finds may help to locate other sites, but destruction of artifacts or 

26 damage to sites would represent long-term losses.

27

28

29 REFERENCES

30

31 MMS (Minerals Management Service), 2002, Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing 

32 Program: 2002-2007, Final Environmental Impact Statement, OCS EIS/EA MMS 2002-006, 

33 Minerals Management Service, Herndon, Va., April. 

34

35 MMS, 2007, Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2007-2012, Final 

36 Environmental Impact Statement, Volume I, OCS EIS/EA, MMS 2007-003, April.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 7-1

1 7 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

2

3 Section 102(2)(c)(ii) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that an 

4 environmental impact statement (EIS) include information on any adverse environmental effects 

5 that cannot be avoided, should the proposed action be implemented. A commitment of a 

6 resource is considered irreversible when the primary or secondary impacts from its use limit the 

7 future options for its use. An irretrievable commitment refers to the use or consumption of a 

8 resource that is neither renewable nor recoverable for use by future generations.

9

10

11 7.1 MINERAL RESOURCES

12

13 The offshore oil and natural gas resources recovered as a result of the proposed action 

14 would be irretrievable once they are consumed.

15

16

17 7.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

18

19 Offshore and onshore oil and gas activities, such as aircraft, vessel, and vehicle traffic; 

20 facility construction; and platform removal, could permanently displace some fauna and flora 

21 species from favorable habitats to unfavorable habitats. Displacement and habitat loss may 

22 result in the reduction of some local populations and become irretrievable if alterations to the 

23 environment were permanently maintained. However, the degree of displacement and amount 

24 of irretrievable habitat loss should represent a transitory and negligible effect on the overall 

25 populations of species.

26

27 An irreversible and irretrievable commitment of biological resources may occur where 

28 wetlands are impacted by dredging, construction activities, or oil spills. Dredging and 

29 construction activities can destroy wetland vegetation, which results in soil erosion and wetland 

30 loss. This loss would be greatest in areas where oil and gas activities are currently not occurring.

31

32

33 7.3 LAND USE AND SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES

34

35 Land used for support of oil and gas development and processing would not revert to its 

36 predevelopment characteristics; however, the land may become favorable to other urban or 

37 industrial uses.

38

39

40 7.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

41

42 Irretrievable prehistoric archaeological sites and cultural materials may be lost through 

43 indiscriminate or accidental activity on known and unknown sites such as placement of a 

44 pipeline across a shipwreck. Loss of ground context in which artifacts are located is a very 

45 important factor in dating and relating an artifact to other artifacts. The archaeological 

46 protection requirements should mitigate some losses.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 7-2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 This page intentionally left blank.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Consultation and Coordination 8-1

1 8 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

2

3

4 8.1 PROCESS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE 2012-2017 OCS OIL AND GAS 

5 LEASING PROGRAMMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

6

7

8 8.1.1 Draft Proposed Program and Draft PEIS

9

10 Preparation and review of the draft programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS)

11 closely parallels that of the 2012-2017 Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing 

12 Program (the Program) decision documents. Comments received on the program decision 

13 documents are also reviewed for consideration in the preparation of the PEIS.

14

15 In January 2009, the previous Administration published a Draft Proposed Program (DPP) 

16 and a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a PEIS that requested comments from States, local

17 governments, Native groups, tribes, the oil and gas industry, Federal agencies, and other 

18 interested individuals and groups and set out a schedule for scoping meetings in the areas of the 

19 DPP. In February 2009, the Secretary of the Interior extended the comment period on the DPP 

20 and postponed the scoping meetings to allow time to consider further public comment before 

21 determining which areas in the DPP should be scoped and analyzed for consideration in 

22 subsequent program proposals. A preliminary revised Program was proposed on March 31, 

23 2010.

24

25

26 8.1.2 Scoping for the Draft PEIS

27

28 An NOI to prepare and scope the Program PEIS was published in the Federal Register

29 (75 FR 16828) on April 2, 2010. That NOI invited the public to provide comments on the scope 

30 and content of the PEIS and identified as many as 14 locations where public scoping meetings 

31 could be held to obtain comments. 

32

33 On June 30, 2010, Secretary of the Interior Salazar announced that the public scoping 

34 meetings would be postponed in response to the Deepwater Horizon incident. The additional 

35 time would be used to evaluate safety and environmental requirements of offshore drilling. On 

36 December 1, 2010, Secretary Salazar announced an updated oil and gas strategy for the OCS. 

37 The new strategy continued a moratorium for areas in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and 

38 eliminated the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning Areas from consideration for potential 

39 sales and development through the 2017 planning horizon. The Western GOM, Central GOM, 

40 Cook Inlet, Chukchi Sea, and Beaufort Sea OCS Planning Areas would continue to be 

41 considered in the PEIS. Subsequently, on January 4, 2011, a Notice of Scoping Meetings for the 

42 proposed 2012-2017 OCS oil and gas leasing program PEIS was published in the Federal

43 Register (76 FR 376) and a second scoping period was conducted from January 6, 2011, through 

44 March 31, 2011. During this scoping period, public scoping meetings were scheduled for 

45 12 locations in the GOM, Alaska, and Washington, D.C. These meetings were held to garner 

46 significant issues and public concerns for inclusion in the PEIS. In addition, the Bureau of
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Consultation and Coordination 8-2

1 Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) received comments through the mail and maintained a 

2 public website to accept electronic scoping comments.

3

4 BOEM established cooperating agency status with the U.S. Department of Commerce 

5 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the State of Alaska, and the Alaska 

6 North Slope Borough (NSB). They reviewed preliminary sections of the PEIS.

7

8

9 8.1.3 Commenting on the Proposed Program and Draft PEIS

10

11 Comments will be requested during a 90-day period on the proposed Program and a 

12 60-day period on the associated draft PEIS. Based on the consideration and analysis of

13 comments, a Proposed Final Program and a Final PEIS will be prepared. The Proposed Final 

14 Program will be submitted to the President and to the Congress, along with an explanation from 

15 the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI) concerning the reasons for the decision.

16

17

18 8.2 DISTRIBUTION OF THE DRAFT PEIS

19

20 Copies of the draft PEIS will be distributed prior to publication in the Federal Register to 

21 Federal, State, and local agencies; to interested groups and individuals who have been involved 

22 in the preparation of the Program and the PEIS process; and to coastal libraries.

23

24 FEDERAL AGENCIES: Copies of the PEIS will be provided to the following Federal 

25 agencies:

26

27 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) U.S. Department of Commerce

28 U.S. Department of Defense U.S. Department of Energy

29 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Transportation

30 U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Department of State 

31 U.S. Department of Justice Marine Mammal Commission

32 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Federal Energy Regulatory 

33 U.S. Geological Survey Commission

34

35 CONGRESS: Copies of the draft PEIS will be provided to the following Congressional offices:

36

37 House of Representatives Committee on Resources

38 United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

39

40 USEPA REGIONAL OFFICES:

41 Region 1, Boston, MA

42 Region 2, New York, NY

43 Region 3, Philadelphia, PA

44 Region 4, Atlanta, GA

45 Region 6, Dallas, TX

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Consultation and Coordination 8-3

1 Region 9, San Francisco, CA

2 Region 10, Seattle, WA

3

4 FEDERAL AGENCIES (STATE OFFICES): Copies of the draft EIS were also distributed to 

5 Federal offices in various States, as shown below:

6

7 ALABAMA

8 Readiness Support Center, U.S. Army Corps of

9 Engineers (USACE)

10 Mobile Bay National Estuary Program

11 U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Strike Team

12 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), Bon 

13 Secour National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Gulf 

14 Shores

15

16 ALASKA 

17 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Alaska 

18 Regional Office, Juneau

19 NMFS, Anchorage

20 Marine Mammal Commission, Kotzebue

21 USFWS, Juneau Ecological Services, Juneau 

22 USFWS, Region 7, Anchorage

23 USFWS, Anchorage Field Office, Anchorage

24 EPA, Alaska Operations Office, Anchorage

25 U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Anchorage

26 National Park Service (NPS), Anchorage

27 Bureau of Indian Affairs, West Central Alaska 

28 Field Office, Anchorage

29 USCG, Anchorage

30 NOAA, North Pacific Fishery Management 

31 Council

32

33 CALIFORNIA

34 USACE, Regulatory Branch

35 Naval Air Weapons Station, Point Mugu

36 NMFS, Habitat Conservation Division

37 11th USCG District, Marine Safety Office/Aids to 

38 Navigation

39 NMFS, Southwest Region

40

41 COLORADO

42 U.S. Bureau of Mines, Denver

43 NPS, Denver

44

45 FLORIDA

46 Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve

47 NMFS, Panama City Laboratory

48 NMFS, Recreation Fisheries Development

49 U.S. Navy, Pensacola

50 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

51 (NOAA), Panama City

52 U.S. Air Force, Pensacola

USFWS, Cedar Keys and Lower Suwannee NWRs, 

Chiefland

USFWS, St. Vincent NWR, Apalachicola

USFWS, Panama City Field Office

USFWS, J.N. ‘Ding’ Darling, Caloosahatchee, 

Island Bay, Matlacha Pass, Pine Island NWRs, 

Sanibel

NOAA, Miami

U.S. Air Force, Elgin Air Force Base, Elgin

NPS, Homestead

NPS, Key West

EPA, Gulf Ecology Division, Sabine Island

GEORGIA

USDOI, Office of Environmental Policy & 

Compliance

NPS, Atlanta

DOI

USFWS, Atlanta

LOUISIANA

USACE, Eastern Evaluation Section

USCG, Marine Environmental Response & Safety 

Branch

USACE, New Orleans District

U.S. Department of Energy, Strategic Petroleum 

Reserve PMD

USFWS, Cameron Prairie NWR, Bell City

USFWS, Lacassine & Shell Keys NWR, Bell City

USFWS, Lacombe

USFWS, Bell City

USFWS, Sabine NWR, Bell City 

NMFS, Baton Rouge

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Baton Rouge

U.S. Department of Energy, New Orleans

USFWS, Lafayette

BOEM, Bourg

BOEM, Layfette

BOEM, St. Charles

MISSISSIPPI

USEPA Gulf of Mexico Program

NMFS, Pascagoula

USACE, Planning Division, Vicksburg, MS

USFWS, Gulf Islands National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR)
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Consultation and Coordination 8-4

1 U.S. National Park Service, Gulf Islands National 

2 Seashore

3 NASA, Stennis Space Center

4 USFWS, Mississippi Sandhill Crane & Grand Bay 

5 NWRs, Gautier

6

7 OREGON

8 NOAA, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, 

9 Newport

10

11 TEXAS

12 USFWS, Houston

13 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District

14 (CESWG-PL-R)

15 U.S. Department of Commerce-NOAA/NMFS

16 USFWS, Corpus Christi

17 USFWS, Aransas & Matagorda Island NWR, 

18 Austwell

USFWS, Laguna Atascosa NWR, Los Fresnos

USFWS, McFaddin & Texas Point NWR, Sabine 

Pass

USFWS, San Bernard NWR, Brazoria

BOEM, Clute 

USFWS, Moody & Anahuac NWRs, Anahuac

USCG, Marine Safety Office, Corpus Christi

NPS, Padre Island National Seashore

NOAA, Galveston Laboratory

NPS, Corpus Christi

U.S. Navy, Corpus Christi

NOAA, Flower Garden Banks National Marine 

Sanctuary

WASHINGTON

NOAA, Seattle

NMFS, Marine Mammal Laboratory, Seattle

19

20 TRIBES/TRIBAL ORGANIZATIONS: Copies of the draft EIS were provided to the 

21 following tribes and tribal organizations:

22

23 ALASKA

24 Inũpiat Community of the Arctic Slope

25 Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Anchorage

26 Alaska Area Native Health Service, Anchorage

27 Alaska Federation of Natives, Anchorage

28 Kenaitze Indian Tribe, Kenai

29 Koniag Incorporated, Anchorage

30 English Bay Native Corp, Anchorage

31 Aleut Corporation, Anchorage

32 Chugach Alaska Corporation, Anchorage

33 Calista Corporation, Anchorage

34 Bristol Bay Native Corporation, Anchorage

35 Native Village of Belkofski, King Cove

36 Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove, King Cove

37 Port Graham Corporation. Port Graham

38 King Salmon Village Council, King Salmon

39 Tyonek Native Corporation, Anchorage

40 Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, Anchorage

41 Native Village of Kanatak, Anchorage

42 Chignik Lake Village Council, Chignik Lake

43 Native Village of Ekuk, Dillingham

44 Emmonak Native Corporation, Emmonak

45 Chuloonawick Native Village, Chuloonawick

46 Native Village of False Pass, False Pass

47 Nelson Lagoon Tribal Council, Nelson Lagoon

48 Native Village of Chignik, Chignik

49 Newtok Corporation, Newtok

50 Orutsararmuit Native Council, Bethel

51 Qenritalek Coast Corporation, Kongiganak

52 Newtok Traditional Council, Newtok

53 Native Village of Akutan, Akutan

Cook Inlet Regional Corporation, Anchorage

Northwest Arctic Borough Planning Department

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, Barrow

Nanwalek Traditional Council, Nanwalek

Nanwalek IRA Council, Nanwalek

Alaska Intertribal Council

Chenega IRA Council, Chenega Bay

Ivanoff Bay Tribal Council, Anchorage

Saguyak Incorporated, Clark’s Point

Paimiut Corporation, Hooper Bay

Karluk IRA Council, Karluk

Alaska Native Harbor Seal Commission, 

Anchorage

Native Village of Port Heiden, Port Heiden

Kanatak Tribal Council, Wasilla

Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation, Barrow

Arctic Slope Native Association, Barrow

Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional 

Government, Barrow

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, Barrow

Kawerak Incorporated, Nome

Native Village of Barrow, Barrow

Council Native Corporation, Nome

White Mountain Native Corporation, White 

Mountain

Knik Tribe, Wasilla

Solomon Native Corporation, Nome

Valdez Native Tribe, Valdez

Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska, Unalaska

Kotzebue IRA, Kotzebue

Unalakleet Native Corporation, Unalakleet
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Consultation and Coordination 8-5

1 Elim Native Corporation, Elim

2 Native Village of South Naknek, South Naknek

3 Swan Lake Corporation, Nuama Iqua

4 Brevig Mission Native Corporation, Brevig 

5 Mission

6 Eskimo Walrus Commission, Nome

7 Bering Straits Native Corporation, Nome

8 Maniilaq Association, Kotzebue

9 Nana Regional Corporation, Kotzebue

10 Kikiktagruk Inupiat Corporation, Kotzebue

11 Native Village of Kivalina, Kivalina

12 Koyuk Native Corporation, Koyuk

13 Native Village of Point Lay, Point Lay

14 Native Village of Kaktovik, Kaktovik

15 Afognak Native Corporation, Kodiak

16 Central Council of The Tlingit & Haida Indian 

17 Tribes of Alaska, Juneau

18 Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation, Kaktovik

19 Chinik Eskimo Community, Golovin

20 Sitnasauk Native Corporation, Nome

21 Inalik Native Corporation, Diomede

22 Sivuqaq Incorporated, Gambell

23 Kawerak Incorporated, Nome

24 Native Village of Nuiqsut, Nuiqsut

25 Chickaloon Village Traditional Council, 

26 Chickaloon

27 King Island Native Corporation, Nome

28 Ninilchik Traditional Council, Ninilchik

29 St Michael Native Corporation, St. Michael

30 Qanirtuuq Corporation, Quinhagak

31 Native Village of Kwinhagak, Quinhagak

32 Bering Straits Native Corporation, Unalakeet

Platinum Traditional Village Council, Platinum

Pilot Point Tribal Council, Pilot Point

Native Village of Perryville, Perryville

Ouzinkie Native Corp, Ouzinkie

Shishmaref Native Corporation, Shishmaref

Ouzinkie Tribal Media Center, Ouzinkie

Shaktoolik Native Corporation, Shaktoolik

Old Harbor Native Corporation, Old Harbor

Native Village of Shaktoolik, Shaktoolik

Nunakauiak Yupik Corporation, Toksook Bay

Naknek Native Village Council, Naknek

Nima Corporation, Mekoryuk

Larsen Bay Tribal Council, Larsen Bay

Native Village of Kwigillingok, Kwigillingok

Kotlik Yupik Corporation, Kotlik

Kongnikilnomuit Yuita Corporation, Kotlik

Native Village of Kotlik, Kotlik

Kodiak Area Native Association, Kodiak

Teller Native Corporation, Teller

Ouzinkie Tribal Council, Ouzinkie

Quetekcak Native Tribe, Seward

Qagan Tayagungin Tribe, Sand Point

Unga Corporation, Sand Point

Unga Tribal Council, Sand Point

Native Village of Point Hope, Point Hope

Pauloff Harbor Tribe, Sand Point

Village of Wales, Wales

Shumagin Corporation, Sand Point

Seldovia Native Association Inc., Seldovia

Wales Native Corporation, Wales

Savoonga Native Corporation, Savoonga

Seldovia Village Tribe, Seldovia

33

34 STATE AGENCIES: Copies of the draft EIS were provided to the governors and 

35 clearinghouses of the following States:

36

37 GOVERNORS

38 The Honorable Robert Bentley, Governor of

39 Alabama

40 The Honorable Sean Parnell, Governor of Alabama

41 The Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Governor of

42 California

43 The Honorable Dannel P. Malloy, Governor of

44 Connecticut

45 The Honorable Jack Markell, Governor of

46 Delaware

47 The Honorable Rick Scott, Governor of Florida

48 The Honorable Nathan Deal, Governor of Georgia

49 The Honorable Bobby Jindal, Governor of

50 Louisiana

51 The Honorable Paul LePage, Governor of Maine

52 The Honorable Martin O’Malley, Governor of

53 Maryland

The Honorable Deval Patrick, Governor of

Massachusetts

The Honorable Haley Barbour, Governor of

Mississippi

The Honorable John Lynch, Governor of New 

Hampshire

The Honorable Chris Christie, Governor of New 

Jersey

The Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of

New York

The Honorable Bev Perdue, Governor of North 

Carolina

The Honorable John Kitzhaber, Governor of

Oregon

The Honorable Tom Corbett, Governor of

Pennsylvania
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Consultation and Coordination 8-6

1 The Honorable Lincoln D. Chafee, Governor of

2 Rhode Island

3 The Honorable Nikki Haley, Governor of South 

4 Carolina

5 The Honorable Robert F. McDonnell, Governor of

6 Virginia

7 The Honorable Chris Gregoire, Governor of

8 Washington

9

10 ALABAMA

11 Alabama Geological Survey, Tuscaloosa 

12 Alabama House District 99, Montgomery

13 Alabama Department of Conservation & Natural 

14 Resources, Montgomery

15 Alabama State Docks

16 Chair, Natural Resources Committee, Alabama 

17 State Legislature

18 Coastal Section, Fairhope

19 Alabama State Lands Division, Montgomery 

20 Alabama Department of Environmental 

21 Management, Montgomery

22 Alabama Highway Department

23 Alabama Historical Commission

24 State Oil & Gas Board of Alabama

25 Alabama Public Service Commission

26 Chair, Oil and Gas Committee, Alabama State 

27 Legislature

28 City of Dauphin Island

29 City of Mobile

30 Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce

31 Port of Mobile Al

32 Perdido Key Chamber of Commerce

33 Florida Chamber of Commerce

34

35 ALASKA

36 Department of Wildlife Management, North Slope 

37 Borough (NSB)

38 Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR), 

39 Anchorage

40 Alaska DNR, Juneau

41 Alaska DNR, Fairbanks

42 Alaska DNR, Bering Straits Coastal Resource 

43 Service Area (BSCRSA), Teller

44 Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 

45 Anchorage

46 Alaska Department of Environmental 

47 Conservation, Juneau

48 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau

49 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of

50 Fisheries Rehabilitation, Enhancement, and 

51 Development, Douglas

52 Alaska Department of Transportation & Public 

53 Facilities, Juneau

Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, 

and Economic Development, Juneau

Alaska Department of Labor

Manokotak Village

North Slope Borough

Northwest Arctic Borough

Lake and Peninsula Borough

Village of Salamatoff

City of Anchorage

City of North Pole

Village of Clarks Point

City of Emmonak

Aleutians East Borough

Egegik Village

Village of Goodnews Bay

Chignik Lagoon

Chugachmiut, Forestry and Fire Management

City of Chignik

City & Borough of Yakutat

Village of Tyonek 

Village of Sheldon Point

City of Nuiqsut

Kenai Peninsula Borough

Nightmute

City of White Mountain

City of Kenai

City of Tenakee Springs

City of Stebbins

City of Wales

City of Wainwright

Village of Wainwright

City of Teller

Aleutians East Borough

City of Savoonga

City of Point Hope

Lake and Peninsula Borough

City of Seward

City of Selawik

City of Seldovia

City of St George Island

City of Emmonak

Nunam Iqua

City of Sand Point

City of Goodnews Bay

City of Dillingham

City of Cold Bay

City of Soldotna

City of Angoon

Aleutians East Borough

City of St Michael

City of Pilot Point

Metlakatla Indian Community

Matanuska-Susitna Borough

City of St Paul
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Consultation and Coordination 8-7

1 City of Haines

2 City of Ouzinkie

3 City of Kachemak

4 City of Kaktovik

5 City of Kotzebue

6 City of Kivalina

7 City of Kotlik

8 City of Port Lions

9 City of Chefornak

10 City of Unalakleet

11 City of Nome

12 City of Old Harbor

13 City & Borough of Yakutat

14 City of Larsen Bay

15 City of Barrow

16 City of Chignik

17 Kenai Chamber of Commerce

18 U.S. Senate, State of Alaska

19 U.S. Senate, State of Alaska

20 U.S. House of Representatives, State of Alaska

21

22 CALIFORNIA

23 California State Lands Commission

24 Joint Oil/Fisheries Liaison Office

25 California Energy Commission, Forecasting & 

26 Planning

27 National Marine Sanctuary, Monterey

28 California Coastal Commission, Energy & Ocean 

29 Resources Unit

30 Office of Oil Spill Prevention and Response

31 California Department of Conservation

32 Resources Agency of California

33 Department of Land Conservation & Development

34 Department of Fish & Game

35 California Coastal Commission

36 Attorney General, State of California

37 Port of Hueneme

38 Santa Barbara County Department of Planning & 

39 Development

40 San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control 

41 District

42 San Luis Obispo Council of Governments

43 Santa Barbara County Association of Governments

44 Santa Barbara

45

46 DELAWARE

47 Delaware Department of Natural Resources and 

48 Environmental Control, Dover

49

50 FLORIDA

51 Department of Community Affairs, Tallahassee

52 Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 

53 Tallahassee

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 

Tallahassee

Dept. of Environment, Coastal and Aquatic 

Managed Areas, Tallahassee

Department of Transportation, Tallahassee

Department of State, Tallahassee

Department of Mining and Minerals Regulation, 

Tallahassee

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation, 

Tallahassee

Tampa Port Authority International Headquarters, 

Tampa

Florida Chamber of Commerce, Tallahassee

Florida Office of the Attorney General, Tallahassee

Florida Coastal Management Program

Growth Management Administrator

Department of State, Division of Historic 

Resources, Tallahassee

Florida Energy Office

Florida Sea Grant College, University of Florida, 

Gainsville

Northwest Department of Environmental 

Protection District Office, Pensacola

Office of Tourism, Trade and Economic 

Development

Department of Environmental Protection, Marine 

Research Institute

Chair, Natural Resources Committee, Florida 

House of Representatives

Chair, Natural Resources and Conservation, 

Florida Senate

Santa Rosa County

Walton County

Okaloosa County

Lee County

Citrus County

City of Fort Walton Beach

Franklin County

City of Pensacola

City of Destin

Florida Regional Councils Association

Hillsborough County

Gulf County Planning & Building Department

Panama City

City of Wilton Manors

Pasco County Government Center

Hernando County Planning Department

Bay County

Escambia County

District Representative, Pensacola

Sarasota County Coastal Resources

Sarasota County Government

Escumbia County

Gulf County
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Consultation and Coordination 8-8

1 Perdido Key Chamber of Commerce

2 City of Naples

3 City of Gulf Breeze

4 Monroe County Industrial

5 Levy County

6 USFWS, Panama City Field Office

7 GOM Fishery Management Council

8

9 LOUISIANA

10 Louisiana Geological Survey, Baton Rouge

11 Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, 

12 Baton Rouge

13 Louisiana Department of Transportation & 

14 Development, Baton Rouge

15 Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries, 

16 Baton Rouge

17 Louisiana Department of

18 Culture/Recreation/Tourism, Baton Rouge

19 Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton 

20 Rouge

21 State of Louisiana, Representative, House District 

22 44, Lafayette

23 Abbeville Harbor and Terminal District, Baton 

24 Rouge

25 Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Office 

26 of Coastal Management

27 Economic Development and Tourism Office

28 Chair, Natural Resources Committee, Louisiana 

29 Legislature

30 Chair, Natural Resources Committee, Louisiana 

31 House of Representatives

32 State of Louisiana, Representative, House District 

33 84, Lafayette

34 Saint Bernard Planning Commission

35 Jefferson Parish

36 Mayor, City of Grand Isle

37 Jefferson Parish Port District

38 City of Lafayette

39 Greater Lafourche Port Commission

40 Grand Isle Port Commission

41 West Cameron Port Commission

42 Morgan City

43 City of New Orleans

44 Terrebonne Parish

45 City of Lake Charles

46 Twin Parish Port Commission

47 Lafource Parish 

48 Plaquemines Parish Port, Harbor and Terminal 

49 District

50 Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission

51 Port of Iberia

52 St. Bernard Port, Harbor and Terminal District

53 Calcasieu Regulatory Planning Commission

54 St. Charles Parish

South Lafourche Levee District

City of Grand Isle

Houma-Terrebonne Chamber of Commerce

Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission

Louisiana Artificial Reef Program, Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife & Fisheries

MISSISSIPPI

Mississippi Department of Natural Resources, 

Jackson

Mississippi Department of Archives and History, 

Jackson

Mississippi Department of Wildlife Conservation, 

Jackson

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, 

Jackson

Mississippi State Port Authority

Chair, Oil, Gas, and Other Minerals Commission, 

Mississippi Legislature

Jackson County

City of Pascagoula

Greenville Port Commission

City of Bay Saint Louis

City of Gulfport

Southern Mississippi Planning and Development 

District

Mississippi Sea Grant Advisory Service, Biloxi

Mississippi Department of Marine Resources

NORTH CAROLINA

North Carolina Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources

North Carolina General Assembly

TEXAS

Texas Department of Water Resources

Texas General Land Office, Corpus Christi 

Texas Commission on Natural Resources, Dallas

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, Habitat 

Assessment Branch

Texas Historical Commission, Texas Antiquities 

Committee, Austin

Texas Legislation Council, Capital Station

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 

Austin

Railroad Commission of Texas, Austin

Tracs Coordinator, Austin

Chair, Senate Natural Resources Committee, 

Austin

Chair, Natural Resources Committee, Texas 

Legislature, Austin

Texas Attorney General, Austin

Port of Beaumont
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Consultation and Coordination 8-9

1 Port of Brownsville

2 City of Corpus Christi

3 Port of Corpus Christi Authority

4 Port of Galveston

5 City of Houston

6 City of Lake Jackson

7 Port of Houston

8 Port of Isabel, San Benito Navigation District

9 Port of Port Arthur

10 Port of Port Aransas Municipal Harbor

11 Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District

12 Port Mansfield/Willacy County Navigation District

13

VIRGINIA

Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of

Environmental Quality, Richmond

Virginia Department of Historic Resources

Virginia Department of Game and Fisheries

Virginia Department of Conservation and 

Recreation

Virginia Department of Natural Resources

Virginia Institute of Marine Science

WASHINGTON

Mr. Duane Phinney, Washington Department of

Fisheries

14

17 LIBRARIES: Copies of the draft EIS were provided to the following libraries:

18

19 ALABAMA

20 Auburn University at Montgomery

21 Dauphin Island Sea Lab Library

22 Gulf Shores Public Library

23 Mobile Public Library

24 Montgomery Public Library

25 Thomas B. Norton Public Library

26 University of Alabama

27 University of Alabama Libraries, Tuscalossa

28 Documents Division Library, University of

29 Southern Alabama

30 Alabama Public Library Service

31 Juliette Hampton Morgan Memorial Library

32

33 ALASKA

34 Kaveolook School Library, Kaktovik

35 Ilisaavik Library, Shishmaref

36 Kwigilingok Public Library

37 Koyuk City Library

38 King Cove Community/School Library

39 Golovin Community Library

40 Metlakatla Jr/Sr High School Library

41 Kuskokwim Consortium Library, Bethel

42 Tuzzy Consortium Library, Barrow

43 Kettleson Memorial Library, Sitka

44 Palmer Public Library

45 Pelican Public Library

46 Kasaan City Library

47 Juneau Public Library 

48 Library, Information Services, Anchorage

49 Kegoyah Kozga Public Library, Nome

50 Kasilof Public Library

51 Kake City Community/School Library

52 Irene Ingle Public Library, Wrangell

53 Hydaburg School Library

54 Hooper Bay Public Library

55 Haines Borough Public Library

Tenakee Springs Public Library

University of Alaska, Fairbanks Institute of Arctic 

Biology

Kodiak College, Kodiak

Halibut Cove Public Library

Kenai Community Library

University of Alaska Southeast Library, Juneau

Noel Wien Library, Fairbanks

Kenai Peninsula College, Homer

Kenai Peninsula College, Soldotna

University of Alaska, Anchorage

North Slope Borough School, Barrow

Kiana Elementary School Library

Alaska State Library, Juneau

Tikigaq Library, Point Hope

Thorne Bay Community Library

Stebbins Community Library

Savoonga Public Library

Soldotna Public Library

Seward Community Library

Seldovia Public Library

Quinhagak Public Library

Petersburg Public Library

Katie Tokienna Memorial Library, Wales

Sand Point School Library

Pribolof Island School District Library, St. Paul 

Island

Ticasuk Library, Unalakleet

Ninilchik Community Library

Ouzinkie Community School Library

Alakanuk Public Library

A Holmes Johnson Memorial Library, Kodiak

Chenega Bay Community School Library

Gambell Community Library

Perryville Community School

Prince William Sound Community College, 

Cordova
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Consultation and Coordination 8-10

1 Anchor Point Public Library

2 Alaska Fish and Game Library, Douglas

3 Larsen Bay Community School Library

4 Karluk Community School Library

5 Akhiok Community School Library

6 Skagway Public Library

7 Buckland Public Library

8 Cordova Public Library 

9 Davis Menadelook Memorial High School Library, 

10 Diomede

11 Valdez Consortium Library

12 Tatitlek Community School Library

13 Kachemak Bay Campus Library, Homer

14 Dillingham Public Library

15 Craig Public Library

16 Nanwalek Elem/high School Library

17 Amakigchick & Chaputnguak School Library, 

18 Chefornak

19 University of Alaska, Fairbanks Wildlife Library

20 Homer Public Library

21 Esther Greenwald Library, Hoonah

22 Brevig Mission Community Library

23 Old Harbor Library

24 Northwest College Learning Resource Center, 

25 Nome

26 Trapper School Community Library, Nuiqsut

27 Elmer E Rasmuson Library, Fairbanks

28 Alaska Pacific University, Academic Support 

29 Center Library, Anchorage

30 BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Records 

31 Management, Anchorage

32 University of Alaska IMS, Seward Marine Center 

33 Library

34 Z J Loussac Public Library, Anchorage

35 Chiniak Public Library

36 Alaska Resources Library & Information Services 

37 Acquisitions, Anchorage

38 State of Alaska Dec Library, Juneau

39 Library Geophysical Institute, Fairbanks

40 Jessie Wakefield Memorial Library, Port Lions 

41 Ernest Nylin Memorial Library

42

43 CALIFORNIA

44 University of California, Davis Shields Library, 

45 Davis

46 Humboldt State University Library, Arcata

47 University of California, Ethnic Studies Library, 

48 Berkley

49 Point Reyes Bird Observatory Library, Stinson 

50 Beach

51 California Academy of Sciences Library, San 

52 Francisco

53 Robert E. Kennedy Library, San Luis Obispo

54 California State Library, Sacramento

Cambria Library

Carpinteria Public Library

Corte Madera Library

Eureka Humboldt Co. Library

Goleta Public Library

Healdsburg Library

Salinas Public Library

Library-Business & Economics Department, Los 

Angeles

Long Beach Library

Mendocino County Library, Ft. Bragg

Mendocino County Library, Ukiah

Mill Valley Public Library

Monterey Public Library

Morro Bay Library

Novato Branch Library 

Pacific Grove Library

Pacifica Public Library

Peninsula Conservation Foundation Library, Palo 

Alto

Petaluma Regional Library

Point Reyes Library

Redwood City Library

Sacramento Public Library

San Diego County Library

San Francisco Public Library

San Luis Obispo College District Library

Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History Library

Santa Barbara Public Library

Santa Cruz Public Library

Santa Monica Public Library

Santa Rosa Sonoma County Library

Sebastopol Public Library

Stinson Library, Stinson Beach

University of California, Santa Barbara

Channel Islands National Park Library, Ventura

Ventura College Library

Ventura Library SVC Agency

Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History Library

COLORADO

Information Center Ensr, Fort Collins

Science Library, University of Colorado, Boulder

Colorado State University Library

Colorado School of Mines

FLORIDA

Bay County Public Library, Panama City

Florida A&M University, Coleman Memorial 

Library, Tallahassee

Florida State University, Strozier Library, 

Tallahassee

Fort Walton Beach Public Library

Marathon Public Library
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Consultation and Coordination 8-11

1 Port Charlotte Public Library

2 Northwest Regional Library System, Panama City

3 Selby Public Library, Sarasota

4 St. Petersburg Public Library

5 University of Florida Libraries, Gainesville

6 Tampa-Hillsborough County Library System

7 West Florida Regional Library, Pensacola

8 S.E. Wimberly Library

9 Pensacola State College Library

10 University of Miami Library

11 Collier County Public Library

12 Ann Marbut Environmental Library 

13 Monroe County Public Library

14 Leon County Public Library

15 Ft. Meyers/Lee County Library

16 University of Florida, Levin College of Law

17 U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic 

18 and Atmospheric Administration, Miami

19

20 LOUISIANA

21 Calcasieu Parish Library, Lake Charles

22 Cameron Parish Library

23 Grand Isle Branch Library

24 Iberville Parish Library, Plaquemines

25 Jefferson Parish Lobby Library, Metairie

26 Lafayette Public Library

27 Lafitte Branch Library

28 LaFourche Parish Library, Thibodaux 

29 Leon County Public Library, Baton Rouge

30 Loyola University Library, New Orleans

31 Lumcon Library, Chauvin

32 McNeese State University, Lake Charles

33 New Orleans Public Library, New Orleans

34 Nichols State University Library, Thibodaux

35 Plaquemines Parish Library, Buras

36 St. Bernard Parish Library, Chalmette

37 St. Charles Parish Library, Luling

38 St. John the Baptist Parish Library, LaPlace

39 St. Mary Parish Library, Franklin

40 St. Tammany Parish Library, Covington

41 Slidell Branch Library, Slidell

42 Terrebonne Parish Library, Houma

43 Tulane University, Howard Tilton Memorial 

44 Library, New Orleans

45 University of New Orleans Library

46 University of South West Louisiana, Dupre 

47 Library, Lafayette

48 Vermilion Parish Library, Abbeville

49 Jefferson Parish Regional Branch

50 Jefferson Parish West Bank Outreach

51 Middleton Library, Baton Rouge

52 Louisiana Tech University Library, Ruston

53 State Library of Louisiana, Baton Rouge

54 Louisiana State Library, Baton Rouge

Frazar Memorial Library, Lake Charles

West Regional Library, Luling

Martha Sowell Utley Memorial Library, Thibodaux

MISSISSIPPI

Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, Gunter Library, 

Ocean Springs

Hancock County Library System, Bay St. Louis

Harrison County Library, Gulfport

Jackson George Regional Library System, 

Pascagoula

H.T. Sampson Library, Jackson

Eudora Welty Library, Jackson

Southern Mississippi Planning and Development 

District

NEW HAMPSHIRE

US Army CRREL (Cold Regions Research &

Engineering Lab) Library, Hanover

Dartmouth College Library, Hanover

OHIO

Ohio State University Libraries Monographs 

Department, Columbus

OKLAHOMA

University of Tulsa Library, Tulsa

OREGON

Oregon State Library, Salem

Oregon State University Library/Hatfield Marine 

Science Center, Newport

Oregon Institute of Marine Biology, Charleston

TEXAS

Margaret and Herman Brown Library, Abilene

Alma M. Carpenter Public Library, Sourlake

Aransas Pass Public Library

Austin Public Library

Bay City Public Library

Brazoria County Library, Freeport

Calhoun County Library, Port Lavaca

Chambers County Library System, Anahuac

Comfort Public Library

Corpus Christi Central Library

Corpus Christi Library Documents, Texas A&M 

University, Corpus Christi 

Dallas Public Library

East Texas State University Library, Commerce

Evans Library, Texas A&M University, College 

Station

Fondren Library Government Publication Division, 

Houston

Houston Public Library
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Consultation and Coordination 8-12

1 Jackson County Library, Edna

2 Lamar University, Lamar Station

3 Laratama Library, Corpus Christi

4 LBJ School of Public Affairs, Library University 

5 of Texas, Austin

6 Liberty Municipal Library

7 Orange Public Library

8 Port Arthur Public Library

9 Port Isabel Public Library

10 Reber Memorial Library, Raymondville

11 Refugio County Public Library

12 R.J. Kleberg Public Library, Kingsville

13 Rosenberg Library, Galveston

14 Sam Houston Regional Library & Research Center, 

15 Liberty

16 Stephen F. Austin State University, Steen Library, 

17 Nacogdoches

18 Texas Southmost College Library, Brownsville

19 Texas State Library, Austin

20 Texas Tech University Library, Lubbock

21 University of Houston Library

22 University of Texas at Arlington Library

23 University of Texas Library, Austin

24 University of Texas, Arnulfo Oliveria Memorial 

25 Library, Brownsville

26 University of Texas at Dallas Library, Richardson

27 University of Texas at El Paso Library

28 University of Texas at San Antonio Library

29 Victoria Public Library

30 Amoco Production Company Library, Houston

31 Fugro Inc. Corporate Library, Houston

32 Bay City Public Library, Bay City

33 Austin State University, Ralph W. Steen Library, 

34 Nacogdoches

35 University of Texas Libraries, Austin

36 Robert .J. Kleberg Public Library, Kingsville

37

38 VIRGINIA

39 National Technical Information Service, 

40 Springfield

U.S. Geological Survey Library, Reston

WASHINGTON

USEPA Region 10 Library, Seattle

NMFS Marine Mammal Lab Library, Seattle

Seattle Public Library

NMFS NW & Alaska Fisheries Center Library, 

Seattle

Parametrix Inc. Library, Bellevue

WASHINGTON, DC

USDOI Natural Resources Library

American Petroleum Institute Library

FOREIGN COUNTRIES

University of Alberta, Cameron Library, Edmonton 

Alberta 

Pacific National Defense, Defense Research 

Library, Victoria British Columbia

Bibliotheque Institut, Maurice-Lamontagne, 

Montjoli, Quebec

Mackimmie Library, University of Calgary, 

Calgary, Alberta

Joint Secretariat, Inuvikon NT Canada

M. McLaren Library, McGill University, Montreal, 

Quebec

Danish Polar Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark

Scott Polar Research Institute Library, Cambridge, 

England

University of Oulu Biology Library, Linnanmaa, 

Finland

University of Oulu Geoscience Library, Yliopisto, 

Finland

Marine Research Institute Library, Reykjavik, 

Iceland

Lulea University Library, Lulea, Sweden

Swedish Institute of Space Physics Library, 

Kiruna, Sweden 

41

42 OTHER AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS: Copies were also 

43 distributed to the following agencies and individuals:

44

45 REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL

46 South Alabama Regional Planning Commission

47 Apalachee Regional Planning Council

48 East Central Florida Regional Planning Council

49 North Central Florida Regional Planning Council

50 Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council

51 South Florida Regional Planning Council

52 Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council

53 Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council

Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council

West Florida Regional Planning Council

Withlacoochee Florida Regional Planning Council

Regional Planning Commission, New Orleans

Southern Mississippi Planning and Development 

District

Southeast Texas Regional Planning Commission

Golden Crescent Regional Planning Commission, 

Victoria
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Consultation and Coordination 8-13

1 PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS/ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS:

2

3 ALABAMA

4 Perdido Watershed Alliance, Lillian

5 Portersuille Revival Group, Coden

6 Mobile Baykeeper, Mobile

7 Mobile Bay National Estuary Program, Mobile

8 Alabama Petroleum Council, Montgomery

9 Alabama Wildlife Federation, Millbrook

10 General Insulation, Theodore

11 WildLaw

12 Audubon Society-Mobile Bay

13 Alabama Wildlife Society

14 University of Alabama

15 Alabama Nature Conservancy, Birmingham

16 Total Minatome Corporation, Birmingham

17 Midstream Fuel Service, Mobile

18 Horizon Shipbuilding, Inc., Coden

19 Adem, Mobile

20 Nbc 15 – WPMI, Mobile

21 University of South Alabama, Dauphin Island Sea 

22 Laboratory

23 University of Alabama

24

25 ALASKA

26 Alaska Marine Conservation Council, Anchorage

27 Point Hope Whaling Captains Association, 

28 Anchorage

29 Alaska Operations, LGL Alaska Research 

30 Associates, Inc., Anchorage

31 Northern Alaska Environmental Center, Anchorage

32 Cascadia Wildlands Project, Anchorage

33 Petro Star Inc, Anchorage

34 Cook Inlet Region Inc, Anchorage

35 Alaska Public Interest Research Group, Anchorage

36 Conocophillips Alaska Inc, Anchorage

37 Bio Economic Research and Analysis, Anchorage

38 Alaska Public Radio Network, Anchorage

39 Resource Development Council, Anchorage

40 Earthjustice, Anchorage

41 Oceana, Juneau

42 Trustees for Alaska, Anchorage

43 The Nature Conservancy, Anchorage

44 Sierra Club Alaska Field Office, Anchorage

45 Southwest Alaska Municipal Conference, 

46 Anchorage

47 Anadarko Petroleum Corp, Anchorage

48 Petro Marine Services, Anchorage

49 Shell Exploration and Production Company, 

50 Anchorage

51 Alaska Oil and Gas Association, Anchorage

52 Western Geco, Anchorage

53 National Biological Survey, Anchorage

National Wildlife Federation, Anchorage

National Audubon Society, Anchorage

Bering Sea Fishermen's Association, Anchorage

Alaska Support Industry Alliance, Anchorage

The Wilderness Society, Anchorage

Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation, 

Anchorage

The Alaska Sea Otter and Steller Sea Lion 

Commission, Old Harbor

Barrow Whaling Captains Association, Barrow

Northwest Setnetters, Kodiak

Cook Inlet Regional Citizens Advisory Council 

(RCAC), Kodiak

Alaska Clean Seas, Prudhoe Bay

Cook Inlet Spill Prevention & Response Co, 

Nikiski

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, Barrow

Kwik Incorporated, Kwigillingok

Alaska Survival, Talkeetna

Bering Straits Coastal Resources Service Area, 

Unalakleet

Yak-Tat-Kwaan, Yakutat

Alaska Marine Conservation Council

Whittier Small Boat Harbor, Whittier

Northern Alaska Environmental Center, Fairbanks

NGTA Incorporated, Nightmute

Cook Inlet RCAC, Seldovia

Cook Inlet RCAC, Soldotna

Choggiung Ltd, Dillingham

Alaska Nanuuq Commission, Anchorage

LGL Alaska Research Associates Inc, Anchorage

Chevron USA Inc, Anchorage

Bp Exploration (Alaska) Inc, Anchorage

Chignik River Ltd, Chignik Lake

Cook Inlet RCAC, Kenai

Sea Lion Corporation, Hooper Bay

Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Company, Kenai

Earthjustice, Juneau

Peninsula Clarion, Kenai

Kachemak Bay Institute, Homer

Kugkaktlik Limited

Alaska Coastal Community Alliance

Cook Inlet Keeper

Center for Alaska Coastal Studies

Kachemak Bay Conservation Society

Tikigaq Corp

Alaska Trollers Association

Alaska Miners Association

Kodiak Daily Mirror, Kodiak

KDLG Public Radio, Dillingham

KBBI Public Radio, Homer
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Consultation and Coordination 8-14

1 Homer News, Homer

2 Alaska Newspapers Inc, Anchorage

3 Arctic Sounder, Anchorage

4

5 CALIFORNIA

6 Surfrider Foundation, San Clemente

7 Turtle Island Restoration Network, Forest Knolls

8 Center for Biological Diversity, San Francisco

9 Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco

10 Testa Environmental Corporation, Mokelvmne Hill

11 ECOSLO Board of Trustees

12 League of Women Voters of San Luis Obispo

13 League of Women Voters

14 Get Oil Out, Inc. & GOO Education & Legal Fund

15 California Sport Fishing Association

16 Environmental Coalition, Ventura

17 Ventura County Commercial Fishermen's 

18 Association

19 Environmental Defense 

20 Citizens Planning Association

21 Continental Shelf Associates, Inc.

22 Sierra Club

23 Central Coast Hook & Line, Fishermen’s 

24 Association

25 Get Oil Out, Inc.

26 LA Commercial Fisherman's Association

27 Western States Petroleum Association

28 Environmental Defense Center

29 Trans-Pacific Seafood

30 Sierra Club Marine Committee

31 Southern California Trawler's Association

32 American Cetacean Society, San Pedro 

33 Area Energy LLC, Bakersfield

34 Chevron Energy Research & Technology 

35 Company, Richmond

36 PacSEIS, Inc., Bakersfield

37

38 COLORADO

39 Armstrong Oil and Gas Inc., Denver

40 Aspen Exploration Corp., Denver

41 Forest Oil Corporation, Denver

42

43 FLORIDA

44 Manasota-88, Nokomis

45 Organized Fishermen of Florida, Cocoa

46 Gulf Coast Environmental Defense, Gulf Breeze

47 Escambia Co. Marine Resources, Gulf Breeze

48 Santa Rosa Sound Coalition, Gulf Breeze

49 Save the Manatee Club, Maitland

50 Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, 

51 Gainesville

52 Chuck’s Dive World, Ft. Walton Beach

53 The Nature Conservancy

Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve, 

Eastpoint

Florida Audubon Society, Miami

Izaak Walton League of America, Inc., Key Largo

Gulf and S. Atlantic Fisheries, Development 

Foundation

Florida Chapter Sierra Club

Gulf Coast Environmental Defense

1000 Friends of Florida

Center for Ecotoxicology

Florida Institute of Oceanography

Florida Public Interest Research

Southeastern Fisheries Association

Florida Wildlife Federation

Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission

Florida Conservation Association

Perdido Key Association

Citizens Association of Bonita Beach

Florida Petroleum Council

AAC/XPP

Florida Defenders of the Environment

Magnum Steel Services Corp., Tampa

Florida Natural Areas Inventory

Roffers Ocean Fishing Forecast Service, West 

Melbourne

League of Woman Voters, Pensacola

Earthjustice

Santa Rosa Sound Coalition

GOM Fishery Management Council

Florida Marine Research Institute

Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development 

Foundation, Tampa

Pensacola Archaeological Society

FNGA, FPGA and AGDF, Tallahassee

Florida Petroleum Council, Tallahassee

James Madison Institute, Tallahassee

Development Foundation, Gulf and South Atlantic 

Fisheries

West Florida and Power 93, Tampa

Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee

Apalachicola Riverkeeper, Apalachicola

Field Conserv Service Inc., Altamonte Springs

The Ocean Conservancy, St. Petersburg

Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota

Marine Science Center, St. Petersburg

Environmental Resources, Marathon

R. B. Falcon Drilling, Pensacola

Alton Strategic Environmental Group, New Port 

Richey

URS, Tallahassee

Ecology and Environment, Inc., Tallahassee

Han & Associates, Inc., Key Biscayne

SAIC, Shalimar

Lampl Herbert Consultants, Tallahassee
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Consultation and Coordination 8-15

1 Csa International, Stuart

2 Florida Power and Light

3 NWF Daily News, Pensacola

4 St. Petersburg Times, St. Petersburg

5 Venice Herald Tribune, Venice

6 Florida State University, Tallahassee

7 Florida Sea Grant College, University of Florida, 

8 Gainsville

9 University of Miami, Miami

10 Pensacola Junior College, Pensacola

11 Florida Institute of Oceanography, St. Petersburg

12 Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne

13 Bay County Audubon Society, Gulf Coast 

14 Environmental Defense

15 Executive Director, Southeastern Fisheries 

16 Association

17 Director, Florida Natural Areas Inventory

18

19 GEORGIA

20 Greenpeace

21 Associated Press, Atlanta

22

23 ILLINOIS

24 Chicago Zoological Society, Brookfield

25 Northwestern University, Environmental Policy 

26 and Culture Program, Evanston

27 Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville

28

29 INDIANA

30 Purdue University, Fort Wayne

31

32 KANSAS

33 Koch Exploration, Wichita

34 Gordon Energy Solutions, LLC, Overland

35

36 LOUISIANA

37 South Central Industrial Association, Houma

38 Sierra Club, Delta Chapter, New Orleans

39 Clean Gulf Associates, New Orleans

40 Lynder Oil Company, Gretna

41 Global Industries, Ltd., Carlyss

42 Audubon Louisiana Nature Center, New Orleans

43 Gulf Coast Fisherman’s Coalition, New Orleans

44 Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana

45 Gulf Restoration Network, New Orleans

46 Stone Energy Corporation, Lafayette

47 Sierra Club, Lafayette

48 Concerned Shrimpers of America, Marrero

49 Ocean Conservancy, New Orleans

50 L &M Botruc Rental, Inc, Galliano

51 Offshore Operators Committee, Metairie

52 LA 1 Coalition, Inc., Thibodaux

53 National Estuary Program, Thibodaux

54 Louisiana Wildlife Federation, Inc.

Restore or Retreat, Thibodaux

Louisiana Wildlife Federation, Inc. State Office –

Louisiana State University

Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association, Baton 

Rouge

Louisiana Oil and Gas Association, Baton Rouge

C-K Associates, LLC, Baton Rouge

The Nature Conservancy, Baton Rouge

LSU Sea Grant College, Program Center for 

Wetland Resources

Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund

Louisiana Land & Exploration Company

Louisiana State University, Center for Wetland 

Resources, Baton Rouge

Louisiana Gulf Coast Conservation Association

Chet Morrison Contractors, Houma

Coastal Environments, Inc., Baton Rouge

Applied Technology Research Corporation, Baton 

Rouge

T. Baker Smith, Inc., Houma

Petroleum Helicopters, Harahan

Bepco, L.P., Metairie

Project Consulting Services, Metairie

Century Exploration N.O., Inc., Metairie

The Daspit Companies, Poydras

John E. Chance & Associates, Inc.

Shell E&P Company, New Orleans

Deleon & Associates, LLC, Lafayette

Raintree Resources, Inc., Lake Charles

The Sji, LLC, Larose

Acadian Integrated Solutions, Maurice

Ensco75, Robeline

Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, Inc.

Flash Gas and Oil Southwest, Inc., Mandeville

Offshore Process Services, Mandeville

Larose Intercoastal Lands Inc., Larose

Waring & Assoc, New Orleans

Energy Partners, Ltd., New Orleans

Freeport-Mcmoran, Inc., New Orleans

Shell Offshore Inc., New Orleans

Walk, Haydel & Associates, New Orleans

Taylor Energy Co., New Orleans

Strategic Management Services, New Orleans

Aries Marine Corporation, Lafayette

Amoco Production Company

Seot, Inc., Lafayette

Phoenix International, Inc., Morgan City

Petroleum Information Corporation, New Orleans

Chevron USA

Asco USA, LLC, Lafayette

Adams and Reese, New Orleans

C.H. Fenstermaker & Associates, Lafayette

B-J Services Co., Lafayette

Ecosystem Management, Lafayette
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Consultation and Coordination 8-16

1 Marathon Oil Co., Lafayette

2 ChevronTexaco, Kaplan

3 Cochrance Technology, Lafayette

4 Oil and Gas Property Management, Lafayette

5 John Chance Land Surveys, Inc., Lafayette

6 Vastar Resources, Lafayette

7 Baker Energy, Kaplan

8 Columbia Gulf Transmission, Kaplan

9 Times Picayune, New Orleans

10 The Times-Picayune, Lafayette

11 University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette

12 University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette

13 Nicholls State University, Thibodaux

14 University of New Orleans, New Orleans

15 Lumcon, Chuavin

16 Tulane University, New Orleans

17

18 MARYLAND

19 Izaak Walton League of America, Inc., 

20 Gaithersburg

21 Reefkeeper International, Middletown

22

23 MASSACHUSETTS

24 Conservation Law Foundation, Boston

25 IOMA, N. Falmouth

26 Horizon Marine, Inc., Marion

27

28 MISSISSIPPI

29 Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Ocean 

30 Springs

31 Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium, 

32 Ocean Springs

33 Mississippi Development Authority, Jackson

34 Mississippi Nature Conservancy

35 Mississippi Wildlife Federation, Ridgeland

36 Gulf Coast Research Laboratory

37 Mississippi Mineral Resources Institute

38 University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg

39 Mississippi State University

40 University of Mississippi

41

42 NORTH CAROLINA

43 Surfrider Outer Banks Chapter, Kill Devil Hills

44 Science Applications International Corp., Raleigh

45 University of North Carolina, Morehead City

46

47 NEBRASKA

48 Northern Natural Gas Company, Omaha

49

50 NEW JERSEY

51 N.J. Marine Sciences Consortium, Fort Hancock

52 Environment New Jersey, Trenton

53 Exxonmobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc, Annandale

54

NEW MEXICO

Acoustic Ecology Institute, Santa Fe

NEW YORK

Natural Resources Defense Council, New York

Waterkeeper Alliance, New York

Occidental Oil and Gas, Middlesex

NORTH DAKOTA

Dakota State University, Fargo

OKLAHOMA

Industrial Vehicles International Inc, Tulsa 

American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 

Tulsa

University of Tulsa, Tulsa

RHODE ISLAND

University of Rhode Island, Narragansett

SOUTH CAROLINA

South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources

University of South Carolina, Conway

TEXAS

Texas Nature Conservancy, Corpus Christi

Walter Oil & Gas Corporation, Houston

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Houston

Seneca Resources Corporation, Houston

EOG Resources, Inc., Corpus Christi

Amerada Hess Corporation, Houston

Coastal Conservation Association, Houston

LGL-Ecological Research Associates, Inc, Bryan

Exxonmobil Corporation

Box Energy Corporation, Dallas

James K. Dodson Company, Grapevine

International Association of Geophysical 

Contractors, Houston

Hunt Oil Co., Dallas

Consumer Energy Alliance, Houston

Patton Boggs LLP, Dallas

Texas City Terminal Railway Company, Texas 

City

British Petroleum, Houston

Offshore Energy Center, Houston

Texas Conservation Foundation

Texas Water Conversation Association, Austin

Sierra Club-Lone Star Chapter, Austin

Texas Shrimp Association

Center Point Energy, Tivoli

Texas A&M University, Sea Grant Program

Coastal Coordination Council, Austin

Coastal Conservation Association

Shell Oil Co., Houston
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Consultation and Coordination 8-17

1 Tatham Offshore, Inc., Houston

2 LCT Inc., Houston

3 Offshore Data Services, Inc., Houston

4 Mosbacher Energy Co., Houston

5 Green Canyon Pipeline Co., Houston

6 El Paso Production, Houston

7 Athens Group, Inc., Austin

8 PPI Technology Services, Houston

9 Brigham Oil and Gas, L.P., Austin

10 BP Amoco, Houston

11 Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Houston

12 Union Pacific Resources Company, Houston

13 Columbia Gas Development Corp., Houston

14 Geo-Marine, Inc., Plano

15 Clayton W. Williams, Jr., Inc., Midland

16 Drilling Rig Masters, Magnolia

17 ConocoPhillips Company, Houston

18 Enterprise Products Operating LP, Sabine Pass

19 PPG Industries, Inc., Laporte

20 Seacor Marine

21 Texas Geophysical Company, Inc., New Waverly

22 BW Offshore, Houston

23 J. Connor Consultants, Houston

24 Murphy Exploration & Production, Houston

25 Theom and Associates, Katy

26 Shell Exploration & Production Company, 

27 Houston

28 Veritas, Houston

29 W & T Offshore, Inc., Houston

30 BP America Inc., Houston

31 Exxonmobil Upstream Research Company, 

32 Houston

33 Shell Global Solutions (U.S.) Inc., Houston

34 Newfield Exploration Company, Houston

35 Halliburton, Houston

36 Shell Energy Resources Company, Houston

37 Exxonmobil Exploration Co., Houston

38 Agip Petroleum Company, Inc., Houston

39 Cairn Energy USA, Inc., Houston

40 W & T Offshore, Inc., Houston

41 Houston Exploration Company, Houston

42 American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 

43 Houston

44 Devon Energy Corp., Houston

45 Petrobas America, Inc., Houston

46 Chevrontexaco Upstream, Houston

47 Transco Exploration & Production Co., Houston

48 Pennzoil Exploration, Houston

Wil Rig (U.S.A.), Houston

B. T. Operating Company, Houston

JK Enterprises

Wayman W. Buchanan, Inc., San Antonio

Statoil U.S.A. E&P Inc., Houston

Baker Atlas, Spring

Propane Market Strategy Newsletter, Houston

Offshore Magazine, Houston

Gulf of Mexico Newsletter, Houston

Rice University, Houston

University of Houston, Houston

Audubon Society-Austin, Southwest Region

Texas A&M University, Department of

Oceanography

University of Texas, Bureau of Economic Geology

University of Houston at Clear Lake, Houston

Texas A&M University at Galveston, Galveston

University of Texas at El Paso, El Pas

University of North Texas, Denton

University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington

Abilene Christian University, Abilene

University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio

University of Texas at Austin, Austin

University of Texas Law School, Austin

East Texas State University, Commerce

Lamar University, Beaumont

UTAH

Utah State University, Logan

VIRGINIA

Mangi Environmental Group, Inc.

60 Plus Association, Alexandria

Southern Environmental Law Center, 

Charlottesville 

Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Richmond

Applied Statistical Associates, Inc., Oakton

International Window Film Association, 

Martinsville

WASHINGTON, DC

Coastal States Organization, Washington D.C.

Washington Post

WISCONSIN

University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point

49

50

51
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Consultation and Coordination 8-18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 This page intentionally left blank.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

List of Preparers 9-1

1 9 LIST OF PREPARERS

2

3

Name Education/Expertise Contribution

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

 Tamara Arzt J.D./M.PA., NEPA, Environmental Law 

and Policy; 12 years of experience 

working on a variety of national, State,

and local environmental policy and legal 

issues.

NEPA compliance reviewer

 Gene Augustine M.S., Biology, aquatic ecology 

concentration; B.S. Biology, 

environmental biology; 34 years of impact 

assessment and natural resource planning 

and management, including 30 years of 

experience in Alaska ecosystems.

NEPA coordinator for the Alaska 

region and technical review

 Melissa Batum M.S., Geology; 14 years of experience in 

the field of geology.

Reviewer; physical environmental, 

geological hazards

 Gregory Boland M.S., Biological Oceanography; 37 years 

of experience in offshore environmental 

research, primarily benthic biology 

including coral reef and deep-sea ecology.

Reviewer; benthic habitat

 Perry Boudreaux M.S., Marine and Environmental Biology; 

6 years of experience in wetland impact 

analysis and environmental assessment.

NEPA coordinator for the Gulf of 

Mexico region

 Jerry Brian M.S., Applied Economics and 

Management with a focus on 

environmental and resource economics; 

9 years of experience in socioeconomic 

research and environmental analysis.

Reviewer; socioeconomics

 Megan Butterworth M.S., Marine Science; B.S., Marine 

Science; B.S., Biology; 4 years experience 

in biological oceanography and marine 

science.

Reviewer; human health impacts;

marine mammals, reptiles, 

invertebrates, fish, EFH, Areas of 

Special Concern, water quality 

 Chris Campbell M.A., Anthropology Cultural Resources;

40 years of experience in Alaskan 

anthropological research and field work; 

33 years of NEPA experience.

Reviewer; socioeconomic, 

sociocultural, subsistence, 

environmental justice, archaeology

 Bob Cameron M.S., Meteorology; 30+ years experience 

in meteorology and climate issues.

Reviewer; climate change

 Sidney F. Chaky M.A., Sociology; 19 years experience. Reviewer; land use and 

infrastructure, scenario
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

List of Preparers 9-2

Name Education/Expertise Contribution

 Douglas Choromanski B.S., Geology; 30 years experience in site 

clearance shallow hazards surveys.

Reviewer; site clearance surveys

 Catherine Coon M.S., Fishery Biology; 20 years of 

fisheries, habitat ecology, and spatial 

statistics of Alaska marine resources.

Reviewer; EFH, fish, lower 

trophics

 James Craig Ph.D., Geology; 29 years experience in 

Alaska geology, E&D scenarios, costs, 

and fair market value evaluations.

Reviewer; provided exploration & 

development scenarios and 

schedules, inputs for both the 

MAG_PLAN and OECM models

 Deborah Cranswick 32 years with OCS Program; 20 years 

NEPA; 9 years AK Region; 7 years EAS 

chief

NEPA compliance and OCS 

program reviewer

 Christopher Crews B.S., Wildlife Biology, minor Natural 

Resources; B.S. Biological Sciences; 

6 years analytical experience (NEPA), 

4 years landscape/grazing management

Reviewer; terrestrial mammals, 

pinnipeds

 Jennifer Culbertson Ph.D., Biology; 11 years of experience in 

coastal biology/chemistry and applied 

ecology

Reviewer; marine and coastal 

habitats; water quality; ecoregions

 Jeffrey Denton M.S., Wildlife Management; 38 years 

experience in wildlife and wildlife habitat 

management, research, and environmental 

assessment.

Reviewer of biological resources

 Nancy Deschu B.A., Zoology/M.S., Civil Engineering 

(water resources).

Reviewer; water quality, fish, EFH

 Norman Froomer Ph.D., Geography and Environmental 

Engineering; 35 years of experience in 

coastal research and environmental 

assessment.

Project manager; purpose and 

need, alternatives, scenarios, 

marine spatial planning

 Jeffrey Gleason Ph.D., Zoology (avian ecology); 7 years of 

experience in analysis.

Reviewer; birds

 Donald (Tre) W. Glenn, III Ph.D., Environmental Engineering;

10 years of experience in impact analysis.

Reviewer; reptiles and marine 

mammals

 Kelly Hammerle MPA, Environmental Policy emphasis; 

7 years of experience in environmental 

assessment.

Project coordinator, NEPA 

compliance reviewer
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

List of Preparers 9-3

Name Education/Expertise Contribution

 Larry Hartzog M.S., Fisheries Limnology; 34 years

experience as environmental scientist 

preparing environmental impact analysis, 

endangered species coordination/

consultation and mitigation planning.

Reviewer; coastal and marine 

habitats and fish

 Dirk Herkhof M.S., Meteorology; 36 years experience in 

air quality impact analysis, meteorological 

and air quality studies, and NEPA.

Reviewer; air quality and climate;

air emissions estimates 

 Tim Holder Master of Urban Planning; 12 years 

experience in urban planning, 19 years 

working for MMS in Alaska, 2 years for 

MMS in the GOM as a socioeconomic 

specialist, and 2 years in MMS/BOEMRE 

HQ as Arctic Liaison.

Coordinating with Alaska 

cooperating agencies; 

reviewer; sociocultural

 Dan Holiday Ph.D., Physical Sciences and Biological 

Oceanography; 8 years experience in 

environmental modeling of primary 

productivity, and the biology and ecology 

of oceanographic and estuarine trophic 

systems.

Reviewer; lower trophics, 

vegetation and wetlands, 

oceanography, climate, and 

cumulative effects

 Mark Jensen M.S. Economics; 10 years experience in 

economic analysis, research, and 

document preparation.

Reviewer; sociocultural, 

tourism/recreation, 

commercial/recreational fishing, 

Areas of Special Concern

 Walter Johnson Ph.D., Marine Science, Physical 

Oceanography; 30 years of experience in 

coastal oceanography and numerical ocean 

modeling; 22 years of oil spill modeling.

Reviewer; oil spill-related 

information

 Brian Jordan Ph.D., Natural Resource Science and 

Management; M.S., Forestry with 

specialization in wood science; B.A.

Anthropology with a minor in classical 

studies; 18 years of experience in 

underwater archaeology, submerged 

cultural resource management, historic 

preservation, and marine policy.

Reviewer; sociocultural 

 Arie R. Kaller Ph.D., Oceanography and Coastal 

Sciences; 11 years of experience in coastal 

vegetation and nekton research, and 

2 years of NEPA document preparation.

Reviewer; coastal and marine 

habitats, EFH, and fish

 Jill Lewandowski M.S. Environmental Science and Policy;

Ph.D. in progress; 15 years experience in 

protected species assessment.

Reviewer; marine mammals, sea 

turtles, and acoustic environment
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

List of Preparers 9-4

Name Education/Expertise Contribution

 James Lima Ph.D., Political Science; Socioeconomic 

Specialist; 25 years experience in marinerelated social science research, ocean and 

coastal management, and environmental 

assessment.

Reviewer; socioeconomic

 Matthew Lux B.S., Geography. Reviewer; GIS data/maps

 Robert Martinson M.S., Zoology; B.S., Biological Science; 

32 years NEPA and environmental 

compliance experience with particular 

emphasis on wetlands and aquatic and 

coastal ecology.

Reviewer and comment resolution 

for purpose and need; alternatives 

 Tershara Matthews Ph.D. candidate, Coastal Sciences; 16 

years of experience and research in coastal 

research.

Reviewer

 Lori Monroe J.D.; 26 years of legal experience, 

including preparing and reviewing legal 

documents, both environmental and nonenvironmental in nature.

Reviewer; legal review

 Dave Moran M.S., Zoology; 27 years professional 

experience in applied environmental 

science.

Reviewer; invertebrates and lower 

trophic levels

 Constance Murphy B.S., Soil Science; 16 years in 

environmental science, consulting, 

assessment, and remediation; 3 years in 

editing.

Coordinator for printing and 

production

 Michelle K. Nannen M.S., Marine Environmental Science; 

10 years of experience in benthic and 

fisheries ecological studies and 

environmental assessment.

Reviewer; marine benthic habitats 

and marine pelagic habitats

 S.E. O’Reilly Ph.D., Environmental Geochemistry;

9 years experience in mineralogy/

(bio)geochemistry as related to water 

quality.

Reviewer; water quality

 Robert Peterson M.S., Geology; 32 years offshore oil and 

gas experience; Chief Resource and 

Economic Analysis Section, AKOCS.

Reviewer; isonomic impacts

 Richard Prentki Ph.D., Chemical Oceanography; 30 years 

in Agency as OSRA Coordinator and 

COR.

Reviewer; geohazards
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

List of Preparers 9-5

Name Education/Expertise Contribution

 John Primo Ph.D., MA Ecological and Applied 

Anthropology; marine, aquatic and coastal 

social science; experience with community 

and regional profiling (i.e., fishing 

communities, lakeside communities); 

experienced researcher; research portfolio 

and project management background.

Reviewer; sociocultural systems, 

environmental justice, and 

archaeological and historic 

resources

 Virginia Raps M.S., Aeronautical Science; B.S.,

Mathematics and Meteorology; 16 years of 

NEPA planning experience focusing on air 

quality impact analysis; 17 years 

experience National Weather Service and 

Naval Weather Service surface and upper 

air analysis.

Reviewer; meteorology, climate 

change, and air quality impacts

 Rick Raymond M.S., Environmental Sciences; 23 years 

fish and wildlife analysis, wetlands, NEPA 

and environmental assessment.

Reviewer; avian sections for 

Alaska

 Michael Routhier J.D., M.S.E.L.; 3 years experience in 

environmental planning and regulatory 

compliance.

NEPA reviewer

 Mark Schroeder M.S., Wildlife Biology; 25 years of 

government experience.

Reviewer

 Lois Simenson M.S., Environmental Science; 13 years of 

experience in coastal research and 

environmental assessment.

Coastal Zone Management 

Coordinator, BOEM Alaska

 James Sinclair M.S., Biological Sciences; 17 years of 

experience with coastal and offshore 

organisms and ecosystems research.

Reviewer; ecoregional settings

 David Sire B.S. Forest management; 23 years of 

experience in preparing and reviewing 

NEPA compliance documents.

NEPA compliance reviewer

 Kimberly Skrupky B.S., Environmental Science, Wildlife 

Conservation; 13 years experience in 

environmental policy and marine biology.

Writer/editor for marine mammals, 

sea turtles, and acoustic 

environment

 Caryn Smith M.S., Oceanography; 23 years of 

experience oil spill risk analysis and 

environmental assessment.

Reviewer; Alaska OCS region 

oceanography and sea ice, oil spill 

analysis

 Bill Swears M.A., English; 20 years experience in 

reading, writing, and editing Federal 

technical documents and regulations.

Accuracy checking; language 

consistency: purpose and need,

alternatives
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

List of Preparers 9-6

Name Education/Expertise Contribution

 Lisa Treichel M.S., Technology Management, 

Environmental and Waste Management 

Option/B.S., Forestry and Wildlife; 

24 years environmental experience.

NEPA compliance reviewer

 Poojan Tripathi M.S., Plant and Soil Science; 7 years of 

experience as an interdisciplinary 

environmental science with 

expertise hydrology, water quality, 

wetlands, and NEPA.

Reviewer; water quality, purpose 

and need, alternatives 

 Sally Valdes Ph.D., aquatic ecology; 25 years of 

science/science policy experience.

Reviewer; biological resources, 

commercial fisheries

 Jeffrey Walker B.S., Geological Engineering; 35 years 

experience managing oil and gas projects 

on the Alaska OCS.

Reviewer

 Sharon Warren Program Analysis Officer; 10+ years 

experience in review of environmental 

analyses related to land management and 

oil and gas activities in Alaska.

Reviewer

 Kate Wedemeyer M.S., Fisheries; M.S., Natural Resource 

Management; 24+ years in Alaskan fish 

and habitat management and related 

environmental assessments.

Reviewer; fisheries

 Geoffrey Wikel M.S., Marine Science; MPP; 11 years 

experience in coastal geomorphology and 

oceanography.

Project facilitator and reviewer

 James Woehr Ph.D., Ecology, avian ecologist; 30+ years 

in avian research and management.

Reviewer; birds

 Eric Wolvovsky M.S., Geographic Information Systems;

B.S., Meteorology; 1.5 years of air quality 

experience

Reviewer; air quality

Argonne National Laboratory

 Timothy Allison M.S., Mineral and Energy Resource 

Economics; M.A., Geography; 20 years of 

experience in regional analysis and 

economic impact analysis.

Population, employment and 

income; environmental justice; 

tourism and recreation; 

commercial and recreational 

fisheries

 Bruce Biwer Ph.D., Chemistry; 20 years of experience 

in environmental assessment.

Document manager 

 Brian Cantwell B.S., Forestry; 28 years of experience in 

mapping and geographic information 

systems.

Technical lead for maps and 

spatial analysis
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

List of Preparers 9-7

Name Education/Expertise Contribution

 Adrianne Carr Ph.D., Geological and Environmental 

Sciences; 5 years of experience in 

hydrological studies and impact analysis.

Water quality

 Young-Soo Chang Ph.D., Chemical Engineering; 24 years of 

experience in air quality and noise impact 

analysis.

Meteorology and air quality; 

acoustic environment

 Vic Comello M.S., Physics; 34 years of experience in 

technical writing and editing.

Lead technical editor

 Deborah Elcock M.B.A.; 30 years of experience in energy 

and environmental assessment.

Public scoping

 John Gasper M.S., M.P.H.; Environmental Health 

Science; 37 years of experience in energy 

and environmental research and 

assessment.

Project management, public 

scoping

 Linda Graf Desktop publishing specialist; 40 years of 

experience in creating, revising, 

formatting, and printing documents. 

Document assembly and 

production

 Fontaine Grant B.A., 20 years of experience in program 

management.

Public scoping

 Mark Grippo Ph.D., Biology; 5 years of experience in 

aquatic resource studies and impact 

analysis.

Marine benthic and pelagic 

habitats; essential fish habitat; 

invertebrates and lower trophic 

levels; areas of special concern; 

commercial and recreational 

fisheries

 John Hayse Ph.D., Zoology; 24 years of experience in 

marine and freshwater ecology research;

24 years of experience in environmental 

assessment.

Fish resources and essential fish 

habitat; seafloor habitats; areas of 

special concern; fisheries

 Ihor Hlohowskyj Ph.D., Zoology; 31 years of experience in 

ecological research; 27 years in 

environmental assessment.

Argonne project manager; purpose 

and need; marine and coastal 

ecoregions; exploration and 

development scenarios; accidental 

oil spill scenarios; marine and 

coastal birds

 Elizabeth Hocking J.D.; 25 years of experience in 

environmental and regulatory analysis.

Public scoping

 Leslie Kirchler Ph.D., Urban, Technological, and 

Environmental Planning; Ph.D., 

Landscape Architecture; 8 years of 

experience in land use planning and 

environmental assessment.

Land use and infrastructure
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

List of Preparers 9-8

Name Education/Expertise Contribution

 Louis Martino M.S., Environmental Toxicology; 35 years 

of experience in environmental 

remediation and assessment.

Public scoping

 Robert N. McWhorter B.S., MFR (Forest Resources); 25 years of 

experience in environmental assessment; 

15 years of experience in public outreach.

Scoping meeting support

 Ellen Moret M.P.P., Public Policy; B.A., 

Environmental Studies; 7 years of 

experience in environmental assessment.

Public scoping comments

 Michele Nelson Graphic designer; 32 years of experience 

in graphical design and technical 

illustration.

Graphics

 Ben O’Connor Ph.D., Civil Engineering; 5 years of 

experience in hydrological studies and 

impact analysis.

Climate change; oceanography

 Daniel O’Rourke M.S., Industrial Archaeology; B.A. 

History and Anthropology; 17 years of 

experience in archaeology.

Archaeological and historic 

resources

 Jana Padovano B.A., Communications and Marketing; 

20 years of experience in administrative 

support

Project administrative support 

lead; public scoping meeting 

support

 Terri Patton M.S., Geology; 22 years of experience in 

environmental research and assessment.

Geologic hazards; cumulative 

impacts

 Pamela Richmond M.S., Computer Information Systems; 

16 years of experience in Web site 

development and related technology.

Public web site development

 Lorenza Salinas Desktop publishing specialist; 28 years of 

experience in creating, revising, 

formatting, and printing documents. 

Document assembly and 

production

 Kerri Schroeder Desktop publishing specialist; 30 years of 

experience in creating, revising, 

formatting, and printing documents. 

Document assembly and 

production

 Albert E. Smith Ph.D., Physics; 37 years of experience in 

policy analysis, air and noise impact 

assessment, and regulatory analysis.

Air quality impacts; acoustic 

impacts

 Carolyn M. Steele B.A., English; B.A., Rhetoric; 5 years of 

experience in technical writing and 

editing.

Editor
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

List of Preparers 9-9

Name Education/Expertise Contribution

 Robert Sullivan M.L.A., Landscape Architecture; 24 years 

of experience in visual impact assessment 

and simulation.

Infrastructure and land use; public 

web site development

 Robert Van Lonkhuyzen B.A., Biology; 21 years of experience in 

ecological research and environmental 

assessment.

Coastal and estuarine habitats

 Bruce Verhaaren Ph.D., Archaeology; 21 years of 

experience in archaeological analysis; 17 

years of experience in environmental 

assessments and records management.

Sociocultural systems; records 

management

 William Vinikour M.S., Biology with environmental 

emphasis; 34 years of experience in 

ecological research and environmental 

assessment.

Mammals

 Leroy Walston, Jr. M.S., Biology; 6 years of experience in 

ecological research and environmental 

assessment.

Reptiles

 Emily Zvolanek B.A., Environmental Science; 3 years of 

experience in GIS mapping.

GIS mapping

1

2
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

List of Preparers 9-10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 This page intentionally left blank.

14
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Glossary A-1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 APPENDIX A

14

15 GLOSSARY

16

17
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Glossary A-2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 This page intentionally left blank.

14
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Glossary A-3

1 APPENDIX A

2

3 GLOSSARY

4

5

6 anadromous fish – fish that migrate up river from the sea to breed in fresh water.

7

8 anthropogenic – coming from human sources, relating to the effect of man on nature.

9

10 aphotic zone – zone where the levels of light entering through the surface are not sufficient for 

11 photosynthesis or for animal response.

12

13 archaeological interest – capable of providing scientific or humanistic understanding of past 

14 human behavior, cultural adaptation, and related topics through the application of scientific or 

15 scholarly techniques, such as controlled observation, contextual measurement, controlled 

16 collection, analysis, interpretation, and explanation.

17

18 archaeological resource – any material remains of human life or activities that are at least 

19 50 years of age and that are of archaeological interest.

20

21 aromatic – applied to a class of organic compounds containing benzene rings or benzenoid 

22 structures.

23

24 attainment area – an area that is classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

25 (USEPA) as meeting the primary or secondary ambient air quality standards for a particular air 

26 pollutant based on monitored data.

27

28 barrel – equal to 42 U.S. gallons or 158.99 liters.

29

30 benthic – bottom dwelling, associated with (in or on) the seafloor.

31

32 benthos – organisms that dwell in or on the seafloor, the organisms living in or associated with 

33 the benthic (or bottom) environment.

34

35 biological opinion – an appraisal from either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the 

36 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) evaluating the impact of a proposed Federal action, if 

37 it is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or 

38 adverse modification of critical habitat, as required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

39

40 bivalves – general term for two-shelled mollusks (clams, oysters, scallops, mussels).

41

42 carrying capacity – the maximum number or weight of individuals that can exist in a given 

43 habitat; an appraisal from either USFWS or NMFS evaluating the impact of a proposed activity 

44 on endangered and threatened species.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Glossary A-4

1 cetacean – any of an order (Cetacea) of aquatic mostly marine mammals including the whales, 

2 dolphins, porpoises, and related forms with a large head, fusiform nearly hairless body, 

3 paddle-shaped forelimbs, vestigial concealed hind limbs, and horizontal flukes (tails).

4

5 chemosynthetic – organisms that obtain their energy from the oxidation of various inorganic 

6 compounds rather than from light (photosynthesis).

7

8 coastal wetlands – forested and nonforested habitats, mangroves, and all marsh islands that are 

9 exposed to coastal waters. Included in forested wetlands are hardwood hammocks, 

10 cypress-tupelogum swamps, and fluvial vegetation/bottomland hardwoods. Nonforested 

11 wetlands include fresh, brackish, and salt marshes. These areas directly contribute to the high 

12 biological productivity of coastal water by input of detritus and nutrients, by providing nursery 

13 and feeding areas for shellfish and finfish, by serving as habitat for many birds and other 

14 animals, and by providing waterfowl hunting and fur trapping.

15

16 coastal zone – the coastal waters (including the lands therein and thereunder) and the adjacent 

17 shore lands (including the waters therein and thereunder) strongly influenced by each other and 

18 in proximity to the shorelines of the several coastal States; and including islands, transitional and 

19 intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands, and beaches. The zone extends seaward to the outer limit 

20 of the United States territorial sea. The zone extends inland from the shorelines only the extent 

21 necessary to control shore lands, the uses of which have a direct and significant impact on the 

22 coastal waters. Excluded from the coastal zone are lands the use of which are by law subject to 

23 the discretion of or which are held in trust by the Federal Government, its officers, or agents. 

24 (The State land and water area officially designated by the State as “coastal zone” in its State 

25 coastal zone program as approved by the U.S. Department of Commerce under the Coastal Zone 

26 Management Act [CZMA].)

27

28 coastal zone consistency review – State review of direct Federal activities or private individual 

29 activities requiring Federal licenses or permits, and outer continental shelf (OCS) plans pursuant 

30 to the CZMA to determine if the activity is consistent with the enforceable policies of the State’s 

31 federally approved Coastal Zone Management (CZM) program.

32

33 continental shelf – a broad, gently sloping, shallow feature extending from the shore to the 

34 continental slope, generally considered to exist to the depth of 200 m (656 ft); that part of the 

35 continental margin between the continental shelf and the continental rise (or oceanic trench).

36

37 continental slope – a relatively steep, narrow feature paralleling the continental shelf; the region 

38 in which the steepest descent to the ocean bottom occurs.

39

40 contingency plan – a plan for possible offshore emergencies prepared and submitted by the oil 

41 or gas operator as part of the plan of development and production, and which may be required for 

42 part of the plan of exploration.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Glossary A-5

1 critical habitat – a designated area that is essential to the conservation of an endangered or 

2 threatened species that may require special management considerations or protection.

3

4 crude oil – petroleum in its natural state as it emerges from a well, or after it passes through a 

5 gas-oil separator but before refining or distillation.

6

7 crustaceans – any aquatic invertebrate with jointed legs, such as crabs, shrimp, lobster, 

8 barnacles, amphipods, isopods, etc.; primarily an aquatic group.

9

10 deferral – action taken by the Secretary of the Interior at the time of the area identification to 

11 remove certain areas/blocks from a lease offering.

12

13 delineation well – an exploratory well drilled to define the areal extent of a field. Also referred 

14 to as an “expendable well.”

15

16 development – activities that take place following discovery of minerals in paying quantities, 

17 including geophysical activity, drilling, platform construction, and operation of all onshore 

18 support facilities, and that are for the purpose of ultimately producing the minerals discovered.

19

20 development and production plan (DPP) – a plan describing the specific work to be performed 

21 on an offshore lease, including all development and production activities that the lessee proposes 

22 to undertake during the time period covered by the plan and all actions to be undertaken up to 

23 and including the commencement of sustained production. The plan also includes descriptions 

24 of facilities and operations to be used, well locations, current geological and geophysical 

25 information, environmental safeguards, safety standards and features, time schedules, and other 

26 relevant information. All lease operators are required to formulate and obtain approval of such 

27 plans by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) 

28 before development and production activities may begin; requirements for submittal of DPP are 

29 wholly identified in 30 CFR 250.34.

30

31 development well – a well drilled into a known producing formation in a previously discovered 

32 field, to be distinguished from a wildcat, exploratory, or offset well.

33

34 dilution – the reduction in the concentration of dissolved or suspended substances by mixing 

35 with water.

36

37 discharge – something that is emitted; flow rate of a fluid at a given instant expressed as volume 

38 per unit of time.

39

40 dispersion – a distribution of finely divided particles in a medium.

41

42 drillship – a self-propelled, self-contained vessel equipped with a derrick amidships for drilling 

43 wells in deep water.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Glossary A-6

1 drilling mud – a special mixture of clay, water, or refined oil, and chemical additives pumped 

2 downhole through the drill pipe and drill bit. The mud cools the rapidly rotating bit, lubricates 

3 the drill pipe as it turns in the wellbore, carries rock cuttings to the surface, serves to keep the 

4 hole from crumbling or collapsing, and provides the weight or hydrostatic head to prevent 

5 extraneous fluids from entering the wellbore and to control downhole pressures that may be

6 encountered (drilling fluid).

7

8 effluent – the liquid waste of sewage and industrial processing.

9

10 emission offset – emission reductions obtained from facilities, either onshore or offshore, other 

11 than the facility or facilities covered by the proposed exploration plan or development and 

12 production plan. The emission reductions achieved must be sufficient so that there will be no net 

13 increase in emissions for the area.

14

15 endangered and threatened species (endangered species) – any species that is in danger of 

16 extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and has been officially listed by the 

17 appropriate Federal or State agency; a species is determined to be endangered (or threatened) 

18 because of any of the following factors: (1) the present or threatened destruction, modification, 

19 or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) over utilization for commercial, sporting, scientific, or 

20 educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

21 mechanisms; or (5) other natural or man-made factors affecting its continued existence.

22

23 environmental assessment – a concise public document required by the National Environmental 

24 Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In the document, a Federal agency proposing (or reviewing) an 

25 action provides evidence and analysis for determining whether it must prepare an environmental 

26 impact statement (EIS) or whether it finds there is no significant impact (i.e., Finding of No 

27 Significant Impact [FONSI]).

28

29 environmental effect – a measurable alteration or change in environmental conditions.

30

31 environmental impact statement (EIS) – a statement required by the NEPA or similar State 

32 law in relation to any major action significantly affecting the environment; a NEPA document.

33

34 essential habitat – specific areas crucial to the conservation of a species that may necessitate 

35 special considerations.

36

37 essential fish habitat (EFH) – those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, 

38 breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. This includes areas that are currently or historically 

39 used by fish, or that have substrate such as sediment, hard bottom, bottom structures, or 

40 associated biological communities required to support a sustainable fishery.

41

42 estuary – semi-enclosed coastal body of water that has a free connection with the open sea and 

43 within which seawater is measurably diluted with freshwater.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Glossary A-7

1 Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) – the maritime region adjacent to the territorial sea, extending 

2 200 nautical miles from the baseline of the territorial sea, in which the United States has 

3 exclusive rights and jurisdiction over living and nonliving natural resources.

4

5 exploration – the process of searching for minerals. Exploration activities include: 

6 (1) geophysical surveys where magnetic, gravity, seismic, or other systems are used to detect or 

7 infer the presence of such minerals; and (2) any drilling, except development drilling, whether on 

8 or off known geological structures. Exploration also includes the drilling of a well in which a 

9 discovery of oil or natural gas in paying quantities is made, and the drilling, after such a 

10 discovery, of any additional well that is needed to delineate a reservoir and to enable the lessee to 

11 determine whether to proceed with development and production.

12

13 exploration plan (EP) – a plan submitted by a lessee (30 CFR 250.33) that identifies all the 

14 potential hydrocarbon accumulations and wells that the lessee proposes to drill to evaluate the 

15 accumulations within the lease or unit area covered by the plan. All lease operators are required 

16 to obtain approval of such a plan by a BOEMRE Regional Supervisor before exploration 

17 activities may commence.

18

19 exploratory well – a well drilled in unproven or semi-proven territory for the purpose of 

20 ascertaining the presence underground of a commercially producible deposit of petroleum or 

21 natural gas.

22

23 fault – a fracture in the earth’s crust accompanied by a displacement of one side of the fracture 

24 with respect to the other.

25

26 fauna – the animals of a particular region or time.

27

28 fixed or bottom founded – permanently or temporarily attached to the seafloor.

29

30 flyway – an established air route of migratory birds.

31

32 formation – a bed or deposit sufficiently homogeneous to be distinctive as a unit. Each different 

33 formation is given a name, frequently as a result of the study of the formation outcrop at the 

34 surface and sometimes based on fossils found in the formation.

35

36 fugitive emissions – emission into the atmosphere that could not reasonably pass through a 

37 stack, chimney, vent or other functionally equivalent opening.

38

39 geochemical – of or relating to the science dealing with the chemical composition of and the 

40 actual or possible chemical changes in the crust of the earth.

41

42 geologic hazard – a feature or condition that, if unmitigated, may seriously jeopardize offshore 

43 oil and gas exploration and development activities. Mitigation may necessitate special 

44 engineering procedures or relocation of a well.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Glossary A-8

1 geophysical – of or relating to the physics of the earth, especially the measurement and 

2 interpretation of geophysical properties of the rocks in an area.

3

4 geophysical data – facts, statistics, or samples that have not been analyzed or processed, 

5 pertaining to gravity, magnetic, seismic, or other surveys/systems.

6

7 geophysical survey – the exploration of an area during which geophysical properties and 

8 relationships unique to the area are measured by one or more geophysical methods.

9

10 habitat – a specific type of place that is occupied by an organism, a population, or a community; 

11 a specific type of place defined by its physical or biological environment that is occupied by an 

12 organism, a population, or a community.

13

14 harassment – an intentional or negligent act or omission that creates the likelihood of injury to 

15 wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns 

16 that include, but are not limited to, feeding or sheltering.

17

18 haulout area – specific locations where pinnipeds come ashore and concentrate in numbers to 

19 rest, breed, and/or bear young.

20

21 herbivores – animals whose diet consists of plant material.

22

23 hydrocarbon – any of a large class of organic compounds containing primarily carbon and 

24 hydrogen; comprising paraffins, olefins, members of the acetylene series, alicyclic hydrocarbons, 

25 and aromatic hydrocarbons; and occurring, in many cases, in petroleum, natural gas, coal, and 

26 bitumens.

27

28 hypothermia – subnormal temperature of the body, usually due to excessive heat loss.

29

30 hypoxia – depressed levels of dissolved oxygen in water, usually resulting in decreased 

31 metabolism.

32

33 incidental take – take of a threatened or endangered fish or wildlife species that results from, 

34 but is not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by a Federal 

35 agency or applicant (see take).

36

37 indirect effects – effects caused by activities that are stimulated by an action but not directly 

38 related to it.

39

40 industry infrastructure – the facilities associated with oil and gas development (e.g., refineries, 

41 gas processing plants, etc.).

42

43 information to lessees – information included in the Notice of Sale to alert lessees and operators 

44 of special concerns in or near a sale area of regulatory provisions enforceable by Federal or State 

45 agencies.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Glossary A-9

1 jack-up rig – a barge-like floating platform with legs at each corner that can be lowered to the

2 sea bottom to raise the platform above the water; a drilling platform with retractable legs that can 

3 be lowered to the sea bottom to raise the platform above the water.

4

5 landfall – the site at which a marine pipeline comes to shore.

6

7 lay barge – a shallow-draft, barge-like vessel used in the construction and laying of underwater 

8 pipelines.

9

10 lighter – a barge or small tanker used to move cargo from a large ship to port; also, to transport 

11 by lighter.

12

13 macroinvertebrate – animals such as worms, clams, or crabs that are large enough to be seen 

14 without the aid of a microscope.

15

16 mariculture – the breeding or growth of marine animals and plants to increase their stocks.

17

18 marine sanctuary – area protected under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act 

19 of 1972.

20

21 marshes – persistent, emergent nonforested wetlands characterized by vegetation consisting 

22 predominantly of cordgrasses, rushes, and cattails.

23

24 microcrustacean – any relatively small crustacean (may range from microscopic to slightly over 

25 one centimeter in size) including organisms such as beach hoppers (amphipods), copepods, 

26 ostracods, isopods, and mysids.

27

28 military warning area – an area established by the U.S. Department of Defense within which 

29 the public is warned that military activities take place.

30

31 minerals – as used in this document, minerals include oil, gas, sulfur, and associated resources, 

32 and all other minerals authorized by an Act of Congress to be produced from public lands, as 

33 defined in Section 103 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.

34

35 mollusks – animal phylum characterized by soft body parts including clams, mussels, snails, 

36 squid, and octopus.

37

38 mud – the liquid circulated through the wellbore during rotary drilling operations. In addition to 

39 its function of bringing cuttings to the surface, drilling mud cools and lubricates the bit and drill 

40 stem, protects against blowouts by holding back subsurface pressures, and deposits a mud cake 

41 on the wall of the borehole to prevent loss of fluids to the formations; also called drilling mud or 

42 drilling fluid; also a sediment designation composed of silt and clay-sized particles.

43

44 mysids – small shrimp-like organisms, also known as opossum shrimp due to their method of 

45 egg incubation.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Glossary A-10

1 natural gas – hydrocarbons that are in a gaseous phase under atmospheric conditions of 

2 temperature and pressure.

3

4 nearshore waters – offshore open waters that extend from the shoreline out to the limit of the 

5 territorial seas (12 nautical miles).

6

7 nonattainment area – an area that is shown by monitoring data or air quality modeling 

8 calculations to exceed primary or secondary ambient air quality standards established by the 

9 USEPA.

10

11 offloading – another name for unloading; offloading refers more specifically to liquid cargo, 

12 crude oil, and refined products.

13

14 oil spill contingency plan – a plan submitted by the lease or unit operator along with or prior to 

15 a submission of a plan of exploration or a development/production plan that details provisions 

16 for fully defined specific actions to be taken following discovery and notification of an oil spill 

17 occurrence.

18

19 operational discharge – a release of oil that is part of the routine operation of a function.

20

21 operator – the person or company engaged in the business of drilling for, producing, or 

22 processing oil, gas, or other minerals and recognized by BOEMRE as the official contact and 

23 responsible for the lease activities or operations.

24

25 organic matter – material derived from living plant or animal organisms.

26

27 outer continental shelf (OCS) – all submerged lands that comprise the continental margin 

28 adjacent to the United States and seaward of State offshore lands.

29

30 petroleum – an oily, flammable, bituminous liquid that occurs in many places in the upper strata 

31 of the earth, either in seepages or in reservoirs; essentially a complex mixture of hydrocarbons of 

32 different types with small amounts of other substances; any of various substances (as natural gas 

33 or shale oil) similar in composition to petroleum.

34

35 phytoplankton – plant (photosynthetic) plankton; microscopic, freefloating, photosynthetic 

36 organisms that drift passively in the water.

37

38 pinniped – any of a suborder (Pinnipedia) of aquatic carnivorous mammals (e.g., seals, sea lions, 

39 sea otters, walruses) with all four limbs modified into flippers.

40

41 plankton – passively floating or weakly motile aquatic plants and animals.

42

43 planning area – a subdivision of an offshore area used as the initial basis for considering blocks 

44 to be offered for lease in the U.S. Department of the Interior’s areawide offshore oil and gas 

45 leasing program.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Glossary A-11

1 platform – a steel, concrete, or gravel structure from which offshore development wells are 

2 drilled.

3

4 postlease – any activity on a block or blocks after the issuance of a lease on said block or blocks.

5

6 potential impact (effect) – the range of alterations or changes to environmental conditions that 

7 could be caused by an action.

8

9 primary production – production of carbon by a plant through photosynthesis over a given 

10 period of time; oil and gas production that occurs from the reservoir energy inherent in the 

11 formation.

12

13 produced water – total water produced from the oil and gas extraction process; the water may 

14 be discharged after treatment or reinjected; production water or production brine.

15

16 production – activities that take place after the successful completion, by any means, of the 

17 removal of minerals, including such removal, field operations, transfer of minerals to shore, 

18 operation monitoring, maintenance, and workover drilling.

19

20 production well – a well that is drilled for the purpose of producing oil or gas reserves; it is 

21 sometimes termed a development well.

22

23 prospect – an untested geologic feature having the potential for trapping and accumulating 

24 hydrocarbons.

25

26 recoverable reserves – portion of the identified oil or gas resources that can be economically 

27 extracted under current technological constraints.

28

29 recoverable resource estimate – an assessment of oil and gas resources that takes into account 

30 the fact that physical and technological constraints dictate that only a portion of resources or 

31 reserves can be brought to the surface.

32

33 refining – fractional distillation, usually followed by other processing (e.g., cracking).

34

35 reserves – portion of the identified oil or gas resource that can be economically extracted.

36

37 reservoir – a subsurface, porous, permeable rock body in which hydrocarbons have 

38 accumulated.

39

40 resources – concentrations of naturally occurring solid, liquid, or gaseous materials in or on the 

41 earth’s crust some part of which is currently or potentially extractable. These include both 

42 identified and undiscovered resources.

43

44 rig – a structure used for drilling an oil or gas well.

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Glossary A-12

1 right-of-way – a legal right of passage, an easement; the specific area or route for which 

2 permission has been granted to place a pipeline, (and) ancillary facilities, and for normal 

3 maintenance thereafter.

4

5 rookery – the nesting or breeding grounds of gregarious (i.e., social) birds or mammals; also a 

6 colony of such birds or mammals.

7

8 sale area – the geographical area of the OCS being offered for lease for the exploration, 

9 development, and production of mineral resources.

10

11 scoping – the process prior to EIS preparation to determine the range and significance of issues 

12 to be addressed in the EIS for each proposed major Federal action.

13

14 seagrass beds – more or less continuous mats of submerged, rooted marine flowering vascular 

15 plants occurring in shallow tropical and temperate waters. Seagrass beds provide habitat, 

16 including breeding and feeding grounds, for adults and/or juveniles of many of the economically 

17 important shellfish and finfish.

18

19 sediment – material that has been transported and deposited by water, wind, glacier, 

20 precipitation, or gravity; a mass of deposited material.

21

22 seeps (hydrocarbon) – gas or oil that reaches the surface along bedding planes, fractures, 

23 unconformities, or fault planes through connected porous rocks.

24

25 seismic – pertaining to, characteristic of, or produced by earthquakes or earth vibration; having 

26 to do with elastic waves in the earth; also geophysical when applied to surveys.

27

28 semisubmersible – a floating offshore drilling structure that has hulls submerged in the water 

29 but not resting on the seafloor.

30

31 shunting – a method used in offshore oil and gas drilling activities where expended drill cuttings 

32 and fluids are discharged near the ocean seafloor rather than at the surface, as in the case of 

33 normal offshore drilling operations.

34

35 significant archaeological resource – those archaeological resources that meet the criteria of 

36 significance for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places as defined in 36 CFR 60.4 

37 or its successor.

38

39 stipulations – specific measures imposed upon a lessee that apply to a lease. Stipulations are 

40 attached as a provision of a lease; they may apply to some or all tracts in a sale. For example, a 

41 stipulation might limit drilling to a certain time period of the year or certain areas.

42
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Glossary A-13

1 subsistence uses – the customary and traditional uses by rural residents of wild, renewable 

2 resources for direct personal or family consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or 

3 transportation; for making and selling of handcraft articles out of nonedible byproducts of fish 

4 and wildlife resources taken for personal or family consumption; for barter, or sharing for 

5 personal or family consumption; and for customary trade.

6

7 supply boat – a vessel that ferries food, water, fuel, and drilling supplies and equipment to a rig 

8 and returns to land with refuse that cannot be disposed of at sea.

9

10 take – to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, capture, or collect a threatened or 

11 endangered fish or wildlife species, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. (Harm includes 

12 habitat modification that impairs behavioral patterns, and harass includes actions that create the 

13 likelihood of injury to an extent that normal behavior patterns are disrupted.)

14

15 threatened species – any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the 

16 foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and which has been 

17 officially listed by the appropriate Federal agency. Criteria for determination of threatened status 

18 can be found under “endangered species.”

19

20 trawl – a large, tapered fishing net of flattened, conical shape that is typically towed along the 

21 sea bottom.

22

23 trophic – trophic levels refer to the hierarchy of organisms from photosynthetic plants to 

24 carnivores, such as man; feeding trophic levels refer to the hierarchy of organisms from 

25 photosynthetic plants to carnivores in which organisms at one level are fed upon by those at the 

26 next higher level (e.g., phytoplankton eaten by zooplankton eaten by fish).

27

28 turbidity – reduced water clarity resulting from the presence of suspended matter.

29

30 vascular plants – plants containing food and water conducting structures; higher plants that 

31 reproduce by seeds.

32

33 volatile organic compound (VOC) – any reactive organic compound that is emitted to the 

34 atmosphere as a vapor. The definition does not include methane.

35

36 vulnerability – the likelihood of being damaged by external influences. Vulnerability implies 

37 sensitivity of a system plus the risk of a damaging influence occurring.

38

39 weathering – the aging of oil due to its exposure to the atmosphere and environment causing 

40 marked alterations in its physical and chemical makeup.

41

42 wetlands – areas periodically inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater and 

43 predominantly supporting vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.

44
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Glossary A-14

1 zooplankton – animal plankton, mostly dependent on phytoplankton for its food source; small, 

2 free-floating animals, may be passive drifters or motile, dependent on phytoplankton as a food 

3 source.

4
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Assumed Mitigation Measures B-1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 APPENDIX B

14

15 ASSUMED MITIGATION MEASURES

16

17
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Assumed Mitigation Measures B-2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 This page intentionally left blank.

14
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Assumed Mitigation Measures B-3

1 APPENDIX B

2

3 ASSUMED MITIGATION MEASURES

4

5

6 All Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) sale proposals include rules and 

7 regulations prescribing environmental controls to be imposed on lease operators. Lease 

8 stipulations, outer continental shelf (OCS) regulations, and other measures provide a regulatory 

9 base for implementing environmental protection on leases issued as a result of a sale. The 

10 BOEM Environmental Studies Program and the analyses and monitoring of activities in a sale 

11 area provide information used in formulating the agency’s regulatory control over the activities 

12 that occur during the life of the leases.

13

14 The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) has broad permitting and 

15 monitoring authority to ensure safe operations and environmental protection. Use of the best 

16 available and safest technologies during exploration, development, and production, as well as the 

17 adopted stipulations, are just a few of the measures designed to prevent environmental damage. 

18 The BSEE also monitors operations after drilling has begun and carries out periodic inspections 

19 of facilities (in certain instances, in conjunction with other Federal agencies such as the 

20 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) to ensure safe and clean operations over the life of the 

21 leases.

22

23 The analyses in the environmental impact statement assume the implementation of all 

24 mitigation measures required by statute or regulation. In addition, the impact analysis assumes 

25 that sale-specific stipulations that were commonly adopted in past lease sales are in effect. The 

26 following is a brief description of the sale-specific stipulations or other mitigations assumed in 

27 the analysis of potential effects of the proposed action. Because over 100 individual mitigations 

28 can be applied to exploration and development activities in the Gulf of Mexico region, only lease 

29 stipulations are described individually. Both the lease stipulations and other protective 

30 environmental measures issued through Information to Lessees (ITL) in Alaska are described.

31

32

33 B.1 GULF OF MEXICO REGION

34

35

36 B.1.1 Lease Stipulations

37

38

39 B.1.1.1 Topographic Features

40

41 This stipulation designates a “No Activity Zone” around several underwater topographic 

42 features commonly called “banks” whose crests may contain biological communities including 

43 corals. The No Activity Zone is designed to protect the biota of these features from adverse 

44 effects of routine offshore oil and gas activities by preventing the emplacement of platforms, or 

45 the anchoring of service vessels or mobile drilling units, directly on the banks and requiring that 

46 drilling discharges be shunted in such a manner that they do not settle on the biota.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Assumed Mitigation Measures B-4

1 B.1.1.2 Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend)

2

3 This stipulation is intended to protect the pinnacle trend area and the associated 

4 hard-bottom communities from damage from oil and gas activities. If the required live bottom 

5 survey report determines that the live bottom may be adversely impacted by the proposed 

6 activity, certain measures, such as relocation or monitoring, may be required.

7

8

9 B.1.1.3 Live Bottom (Low Relief)

10

11 This stipulation is intended to protect hard-bottom communities not associated with 

12 bathymetric features on the sea bottom. Biological communities such as seagrass beds, sponges, 

13 and corals may occur on smooth topography. If the required live bottom survey report 

14 determines that the live bottom may be adversely impacted by the proposed activity, certain 

15 measures, such as relocation or monitoring, may be required.

16

17

18 B.1.1.4 Oil-Spill Response (Eastern Gulf of Mexico)

19

20 This stipulation is intended to minimize the risk of oil spills reaching Florida State waters 

21 by requiring the staging of state-of-the-art mechanical oil-spill response equipment within 

22 specified timeframes and by requiring that oil dispersant chemicals and equipment be maintained 

23 in a state of readiness.

24

25

26 B.1.1.5 Military Areas

27

28 This stipulation has three sections: hold harmless, electromagnetic emissions, and 

29 operational. The hold harmless section serves to protect the U.S. Government from liability in 

30 the event of an accident involving a lessee and military activities. The electromagnetic 

31 emissions section requires the lessee and its agents to reduce and curtail the use of equipment 

32 emitting electromagnetic energy in certain areas. This reduces the impact of offshore oil and gas 

33 activities on military communications and missile testing. The operational section requires prior 

34 notification of the military when offshore oil and gas activities are scheduled within a military 

35 use area to assist in scheduling activities and to prevent potential conflicts.

36

37 A second stipulation requires the evacuation, upon the receipt of a directive from the 

38 BSEE Regional Director, of all personnel from all structures on the lease and the shutting in and 

39 securing of all wells and other equipment, including pipelines, on the lease.

40

41 Two additional stipulations are applied to leases in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning 

42 Area only. In cooperation with the U.S. Air Force, “drilling windows” are established for 

43 6-month periods during which exploratory operations or workover operations may be conducted 

44 on leases. This time-sharing arrangement allows military operations to proceed in areas 

45 containing leases without being disrupted by oil and gas activities, and without undue 

46 disturbance to the exploratory activity and workover operations.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Assumed Mitigation Measures B-5

1 An additional stipulation has been included for the Western Gulf of Mexico Planning 

2 Area only. The Naval Mine Warfare Stipulation is intended to eliminate potential impacts from 

3 multiple-use conflicts in the Western Planning Area, Mustang Island Area East Addition, 

4 Blocks 732, 733, and 734. The U.S. Department of the Navy has identified these blocks as 

5 needed for testing equipment and for training mine warfare personnel.

6

7

8 B.1.2 Other Mitigations Categories

9

10

11 B.1.2.1 Air Quality

12

13 This category includes eight mitigations that apply to offshore exploration, development, 

14 and pipeline activities.

15

16

17 B.1.2.2 Archaeology

18

19 There are 18 mitigations describing procedures for conducting archaeological surveys 

20 before bottom-disturbing activities can occur on a lease; the procedures operators must follow 

21 these to avoid impacts on potential prehistoric and shipwreck sites.

22

23

24 B.1.2.3 Artificial Reefs

25

26 Five mitigations exist to avoid impacts on artificial reef sites and permit areas.

27

28

29 B.1.2.4 Chemosynthetic Communities

30

31 There are five mitigations to avoid impacts on chemosynthetic communities in deepwater 

32 areas of the Gulf of Mexico.

33

34

35 B.1.2.5 Coastal Zone Management

36

37 Five mitigations describe the conditions of approval in each of the Gulf Coast States.

38

39

40 B.1.2.6 Topographic Features, Live Bottoms, and the Flower Garden Banks

41

42 There are 13 mitigations to protect the health and stability of these benthic features.

43

44

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Assumed Mitigation Measures B-6

1 B.1.2.7 Miscellaneous Mitigations

2

3 These apply to space-use conflicts, oil spill preparedness, remote operating vehicle 

4 surveys in deep water, essential fish habitat, hydrogen sulfide, and other issues.

5

6

7 B.2 ALASKA REGION

8

9

10 B.2.1 Lease Stipulations

11

12

13 B.2.1.1 Orientation Program

14

15 This stipulation is designed to provide an increased understanding of, and appreciation 

16 for, local community values, customs, and lifestyles of Alaska Native communities. The 

17 required orientation program must be designed in sufficient detail to inform individuals working 

18 on OCS projects of specific types of environmental, social, and cultural concerns in the area. 

19 The orientation program must provide information to industry employees on protected species, 

20 biological resources used for commercial and subsistence purposes, archaeological resources of 

21 the area and appropriate ways to protect them, and reducing industrial noise and disturbance 

22 effects on marine mammals and marine and coastal birds. The program must also include 

23 information about avoiding conflicts with subsistence activities.

24

25

26 B.2.1.2 Protection of Biological Resources

27

28 This stipulation provides for identifying and protecting previously unknown important or 

29 unique biological populations or habitats that may occur in a lease area. If previously unknown 

30 sensitive biological resources are identified during the conduct of lease activities under an 

31 approved Plan of Exploration or Development and Production Plan, the lessee will be required to 

32 modify operations, if necessary, to minimize adverse impacts on those biological populations or 

33 habitats.

34

35

36 B.2.1.3 Protection of Fisheries (Cook Inlet Planning Area)

37

38 This stipulation is designed to minimize spatial conflicts between OCS activities and 

39 commercial, sport, and subsistence fishing activities. Lease-related uses will be restricted, if 

40 determined necessary by the BOEM Alaska Regional Supervisor for Field Operations, to prevent 

41 unreasonable conflicts with fishing operations. The stipulation requires the lessee to review 

42 planned exploration and development activities (including plans for seismic surveys, drilling rig 

43 transportation, or other vessel traffic) with potentially affected fishing organizations, subsistence 

44 communities, and port authorities to prevent unreasonable fishing gear conflicts.

45

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Assumed Mitigation Measures B-7

1 B.2.1.4 Transportation of Hydrocarbons

2

3 This stipulation informs lessees that (1) BOEM reserves the right to require the 

4 placement of pipelines in certain designated management areas, (2) pipelines must be designed 

5 and constructed to withstand the hazardous conditions that may be encountered in the sale area, 

6 and (3) pipeline construction and associated activities must comply with regulations. This 

7 stipulation requires the use of pipelines if (1) pipeline rights-of-way can be determined and 

8 obtained; (2) laying such pipelines is technologically feasible and environmentally preferable; 

9 and (3) in the opinion of the lessor, pipelines can be laid without net social loss, taking into 

10 account any incremental costs of pipelines over alternative methods of transportation and any 

11 incremental benefits in the form of increased environmental protection or reduced multiple-use 

12 conflicts.

13

14

15 B.2.1.5 Industry Site-Specific Monitoring Program for Marine Mammal 

16 Subsistence Resources (Arctic Planning Areas)

17

18 This stipulation requires industry to conduct a site-specific monitoring program to 

19 determine when marine mammals are present in the vicinity of exploration operations, including 

20 ancillary seismic surveys, during periods of subsistence use. The monitoring program and 

21 review process required for Marine Mammal Protection Act authorization will satisfy the 

22 requirements of this stipulation. The monitoring plan must provide for reports on marine 

23 mammal sightings and the extent of observed behavioral effects because of lease activities. It 

24 also provides a formal mechanism for the oil and gas industry to coordinate logistics activities 

25 with the BOEM Bowhead Whale Aerial Survey Program. The stipulation provides for an 

26 opportunity for recognized co-management organizations to review and comment on the 

27 proposed monitoring plan before BOEM approval. The stipulation requires the lessee to fund an 

28 independent peer review of the proposed monitoring plan and the draft reports on the results of 

29 the monitoring program. No monitoring program will be required if the BOEM Alaska Regional 

30 Supervisor for Field Operations, in consultation with the appropriate agencies and 

31 co-management organizations, determines that a monitoring program is not necessary based on 

32 the size, timing, duration, and scope of the proposed operations.

33

34

35 B.2.1.6 Conflict Avoidance Mechanisms to Protect Subsistence Whaling and Other

36 Marine Mammal Subsistence Activities (Arctic Planning Areas)

37

38 This stipulation is designed to reduce disturbance effects on Alaska Native subsistence 

39 practices from OCS oil and gas industry activities by requiring industry to make reasonable 

40 efforts to conduct all aspects of their operations in a manner that recognizes Alaska Native 

41 subsistence requirements and avoids conflict with local subsistence harvest activities. The 

42 stipulation applies to both on-lease operations and to support activities, such as vessel and 

43 aircraft traffic. The stipulation also requires industry to consult with directly affected subsistence 

44 communities, the North Slope Borough, and the recognized co-management organizations to 

45 discuss possible siting and timing conflicts and to assure that exploration, development, and 

46 production activities do not result in unreasonable conflicts with subsistence whaling and other 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Assumed Mitigation Measures B-8

1 subsistence harvests. The stipulation also provides a mechanism to address unresolved conflicts 

2 between the oil and gas industry and subsistence activities.

3

4

5 B.2.1.7 Measures to Minimize Effects on Spectacled and Steller’s Eiders During 

6 Exploration Activities (Arctic Planning Areas)

7

8 This stipulation is designed to minimize the likelihood that spectacled or Steller’s eiders 

9 will strike drilling structures or vessels. The stipulation requires specific lighting protocols for 

10 structures and vessels, a plan for recording and reporting bird strikes, and avoidance of specified 

11 blocks by OCS-related vessels.

12

13

14 B.3 INFORMATION TO LESSEE

15

16 Several ITLs have been developed to notify lessees and operators about environmental, 

17 social, and cultural concerns.

18

19 Past ITLs have provided lessees information or advisories on the following:

20

21 • Community participation in operations planning;

22

23 • Bird and marine mammal protection laws;

24

25 • Endangered, threatened, and candidate species and designated critical habitat 

26 under the Endangered Species Act;

27

28 • Consideration in Oil Spill Response Plans of river deltas of the Beaufort Sea 

29 coastal plain that have been identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as 

30 special habitats for bird nesting, fish overwintering, or for other species’ use;

31

32 • Possible prohibition of shore-based facilities in river deltas that have been 

33 identified as special habitats;

34

35 • Potential effects of seismic surveys on marine mammals and subsistence 

36 activities;

37

38 • Requirements on the availability of bowhead whales for subsistence whaling;

39

40 • The BOEM bowhead whale aerial monitoring program;

41

42 • The possibility that BOEM may limit or modify operations if they could result 

43 in significant effects on the availability of bowhead whales for subsistence 

44 use;

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Assumed Mitigation Measures B-9

1 • Requirements for protection of polar bears and to limit potential encounters 

2 and interactions between lease operations and polar bears;

3

4 • Requirements for archaeological and shallow geologic hazards reports in 

5 support of exploration and development plans;

6

7 • Navigational safety;

8

9 • Requirements for air quality permits;

10

11 • Designated Class I air quality areas;

12

13 • Requirements for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits 

14 for discharge of produced water, drilling fluids, and cuttings;

15

16 • Sensitive areas to be considered when developing oil-spill contingency plans;

17

18 • Requirements for BSEE approval of Oil Spill Reponses Plans;

19

20 • Requirements for establishing and maintaining oil-spill financial 

21 responsibility;

22

23 • BOEM encouragement of the use of existing pads and islands wherever 

24 feasible;

25

26 • The importance of the area around Cross Island for Nuiqsut subsistence 

27 whaling activities;

28

29 • Requirements for mitigation of unreasonable conflicts with subsistence 

30 activities; and

31

32 • BOEM encouragement of industry to establish of a Good Neighbor Policy to 

33 provide an immediate compensation system to minimize disruption to 

34 subsistence activities and provide resources to relocate subsistence hunters to 

35 alternate hunting areas or provide temporary food supplies in the event an 

36 accidental oil spill adversely affects the harvest of marine subsistence 

37 resources.

38
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Assumed Mitigation Measures B-10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 This page intentionally left blank.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Federal Laws and Executive Orders C-1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 APPENDIX C

14

15 FEDERAL LAWS AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS

16

17
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Federal Laws and Executive Orders C-2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 This page intentionally left blank.

14
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Federal Laws and Executive Orders C-3

1 APPENDIX C

2

3 FEDERAL LAWS AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS

4

5

6 C.1 FEDERAL LAWS

7

8

9 C.1.1 The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA)

10

11 The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (OCSLA) authorized the Secretary of the 

12 Interior to grant mineral leases and to prescribe regulations governing oil and gas activities on 

13 Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lands. The OCSLA defines the OCS as:

14

15 . . . all submerged lands lying seaward and outside of the areas lands beneath 

16 navigable waters as defined in section 2 of the Submerged Lands Act and of which 

17 the subsoil and seabed appertain to the United States and are subject to its 

18 jurisdiction and control.

19

20 The pertinent provision of the Submerged Lands Act defines “navigable waters” as:

21

22 . . . all lands permanently or periodically covered by tidal waters up to but not 

23 above the line of mean high tide and seaward to a line three geographical miles 

24 distant from the coast line of each such State and to the boundary line of each 

25 such State where in any case such boundary as it existed at the time such State 

26 became a member of the Union, or as heretofore approved by Congress, extends 

27 seaward (or into the Gulf of Mexico) beyond three geographical miles . . . .

28

29 Under the OCSLA, the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI) is required to:

30

31 • Manage the orderly leasing, exploration, development, and production of oil 

32 and gas resources on the Federal OCS;

33

34 • Ensure the protection of the human, marine, and coastal environments;

35

36 • Ensure that the public receives a fair and equitable return for these resources; 

37 and

38

39 • Ensure that free-market competition is maintained.

40

41 Within the USDOI, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and 

42 Enforcement (BOEMRE) is charged with the responsibility of managing and regulating the 

43 development of OCS oil and gas resources in accordance with the provisions of the OCSLA. 

44 The BOEMRE operating regulations are presented in Chapter 30, Code of Federal Regulations 

45 (CFR), Part 250.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Federal Laws and Executive Orders C-4

1 C.1.2 The National Environment Policy Act (NEPA)

2

3 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is the foundation of 

4 environmental policymaking in the United States. The NEPA process is intended to help public 

5 officials make decisions based on an understanding of environmental consequences and take 

6 actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment. The NEPA established two primary 

7 mechanisms for this purpose:

8

9 • The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was established to advise 

10 Agencies on the environmental decision making process and to oversee and 

11 coordinate the development of Federal environmental policy.

12

13 • Agencies must include an environmental review process early in the planning 

14 for proposed actions.

15

16 The CEQ issued regulations in 1978 implementing NEPA. The regulations include 

17 procedures to be used by Federal Agencies for the environmental review process. These 

18 regulations provide for the use of the NEPA process to identify and assess reasonable 

19 alternatives to proposed actions that avoid or minimize adverse effects of these actions upon the 

20 quality of the human environment. Scoping is used to identify the scope and significance of 

21 important environmental issues associated with a proposed Federal action through coordination 

22 with Federal, State, and local agencies; the general public; and any interested individual or 

23 organization prior to the development of an impact statement. The process also identifies and 

24 eliminates from further detailed study issues that are not significant or that have been covered by 

25 prior environmental review.

26

27 The NEPA requires all Federal Agencies to use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach 

28 to protect the human environment. Such an approach ensures the integrated use of natural and 

29 social sciences in any planning and decision making that may have an impact on the 

30 environment. The NEPA also requires the preparation of a detailed environmental impact 

31 statement (EIS) on any major Federal action that may have a significant impact on the 

32 environment. The EIS must address any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or 

33 mitigated, alternatives to the proposed action, the relationship between short-term resources and 

34 long-term productivity, and irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. 

35 Environmental assessments (EAs) are prepared to determine whether significant impacts may 

36 occur. If an EA finds that significant impacts may occur, NEPA requires preparation of an EIS. 

37 The briefest form of NEPA review is the categorical exclusion review (CER). The purpose of a 

38 CER is to verify that neither an EA nor an EIS is needed prior to making a decision on the 

39 activity being considered for approval.

40

41

42 C.1.3 The Energy Policy Act of 2005

43

44 This law, enacted in 2005, gives the BOEMRE new responsibilities over Federal offshore 

45 renewable energy and related uses of the OCS. Section 388 of the Act gives the Secretary of the 

46 Interior the authority to grant leases, easements, or rights-of-way for renewable energy-related 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Federal Laws and Executive Orders C-5

1 uses on the Federal OCS, and to monitor and regulate the facilities used for energy production 

2 and energy support services.

3

4

5 C.1.4 The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)

6

7 In 1980, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) created over 

8 40 million ha (100 million ac) of new national parks, refuges, monuments, conservation areas, 

9 recreation areas, forests, and wild and scenic rivers in the State of Alaska for the preservation of 

10 “nationally significant” natural resources. To address special issues and needs arising from the 

11 new land designations, ANILCA contains numerous provisions and special rules for managing 

12 Alaska’s public lands and nationally important resource development potential. ANILCA 

13 requires Federal land managers to balance the national interest in Alaska’s scenic and wildlife 

14 resources with recognition of Alaska’s economy and infrastructure, and its distinctive rural way 

15 of life. Title VIII of ANILCA requires that subsistence uses by “rural” Alaska residents be given 

16 a priority over all other (sport and commercial) uses of fish and game on Federal public lands in 

17 Alaska. As a compromise, Congress allowed the State to continue managing fish and game uses 

18 on Federal public lands, but only on the condition that the State of Alaska adopt a statute that 

19 made the new Title VIII “rural” subsistence priority applicable on State, as well as on Federal 

20 lands. If the State ever fell out of compliance with Title VIII, Congress required the Secretary of 

21 the Interior to reassume management of fish and game on the Federal public lands. Section 810 

22 of ANILCA creates special steps a Federal agency must take before it decides to “withdraw, 

23 reserve, lease, or otherwise permit the use, occupancy, or disposition of public land.”

24

25 Specifically, the Federal agency must first evaluate three factors: the effect of its action 

26 on subsistence uses and needs; the availability of other lands for the purposes sought to be 

27 achieved; and alternatives that would “reduce or eliminate the use, occupancy, or disposition of 

28 public lands needed for subsistence purposes.” If the Federal agency concludes that its action 

29 “would significantly restrict subsistence uses,” it must notify the appropriate State agency, 

30 regional council, and local committee. It then must hold a hearing in the vicinity of the area 

31 involved, and must make the following findings:

32

33 • Such significant restriction of subsistence uses is necessary and consistent 

34 with sound management principles for the utilization of public lands.

35

36 • The proposed activity will involve the minimal amount of public lands 

37 necessary to accomplish the purpose of such use, occupancy, or other 

38 disposition.

39

40 • Reasonable steps will be taken to minimize adverse impacts upon subsistence 

41 uses and resources resulting from such actions (16 USC 3120(a)(3)).

42

43 In People of the Village of Gambell vs. Clark, 746 F.2d 572 (9th Cir. 1984) (Gambell I), 

44 the court ruled that the “lands and waters” of the OCS were “public lands” for the purpose of this 

45 section. The court later ruled that the provisions of Section 810 should not be applied in a staged 

46 manner, despite the staged decision making approach set out in the OCS Lands Act and relied 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Federal Laws and Executive Orders C-6

1 upon by the Supreme Court in Secretary of the Interior vs. California (People of the Village of 

2 Gambell vs. Hodel, Civ. No. 85-3877 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 1985)). As a result of these rulings, the 

3 USDOI prepares an analysis under section 810 of ANILCA for OCS lease sales and plans of 

4 exploration and development/production for activities offshore Alaska. The provisions of 

5 ANILCA do not apply to the 5-Year Leasing Program because the USDOI does not make any of 

6 the above-described decisions.

7

8

9 C.1.5 The Clean Air Act (CAA)

10

11 The Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended, delineates jurisdiction of air quality between the 

12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the BOEMRE. For OCS operations in the 

13 Gulf of Mexico, those west of 87.5°W longitude are subject to BOEMRE air quality regulations; 

14 operations east of 87.5°W longitude are subject to USEPA air quality regulations.

15

16 Under the CAA, the Secretary of the Interior is required to consult with the USEPA 

17 Administrator “to assure coordination of air pollution control regulations for OCS emissions and 

18 emissions in adjacent onshore areas.” The MMS established 30 CFR 250.302, 250.303, and 

19 250.304 to comply with the CAA. The regulated pollutants include carbon monoxide, 

20 particulates, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds (as a precursor to 

21 ozone). In areas where hydrogen sulfide may be present, operations are regulated by 

22 30 CFR 250.417. The MMS regulations allow for the collection of information about potential 

23 sources of pollution for the purpose of determining whether the projected emissions of air 

24 pollutants from a facility could result in ambient onshore air pollutant concentrations above 

25 maximum levels provided in the regulations. These regulations also stipulate appropriate 

26 emissions controls deemed necessary to prevent accidents and air quality deterioration.

27

28

29 C.1.6 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) and Clean Water Act (CWA)

30

31 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) establishes water pollution control 

32 activities to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's 

33 waters. The Clean Water Act of 1977 (CWA) amended the FWPCA. Title III of the CWA 

34 requires the USEPA to establish national effluent limitation standards for existing point sources 

35 of wastewater discharges that reflect the application of the best practical control technology 

36 currently available. These standards apply to existing OCS exploratory drillships, 

37 semisubmersible vessels, and jackup rigs used in exploration activities. The CWA also requires 

38 the USEPA to establish regulations for effluent limitations for categories and classes of point 

39 sources that require the application of “best available control technology economically 

40 achievable.”

41

42 Section 311 of the CWA, as amended, prohibits the discharge of oil or hazardous 

43 substances into the navigable waters of the United States that may affect natural resources, 

44 except under limited circumstances, and establishes civil penalty liability and enforcement 

45 procedures to be administered by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). The CWA Title IV establishes 

46 requirements for Federal permits and licenses to conduct an activity (including construction or 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Federal Laws and Executive Orders C-7

1 operation of facilities) that may result in any discharges into navigable waters. Section 402 of 

2 the CWA gives the USEPA the authority to issue National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

3 System (NPDES) permits for the discharge of pollutants. The NPDES permits apply to all 

4 sources of wastewater discharges from exploratory vessels and production platforms operating 

5 on the OCS.

6

7

8 C.1.7 The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and the Coastal Zone Reauthorization

9 Amendments of 1990

10

11 Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and created the Coastal 

12 Zone Management Program to improve the management of our Nation’s coastal areas. The 

13 program, a voluntary partnership between the Federal Government and the coastal States and 

14 territories, is administered at the Federal level by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

15 Administration (NOAA) within the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC). The program’s 

16 goal is to reduce potential conflicts between environmental and economic interests in the coastal 

17 area through the use of federally approved coastal management programs (CMPs).

18

19 The CZMA allows a coastal State or territory, with a federally approved CMP, to review 

20 Federal activities for Federal consistency. Federal consistency is the CZMA requirement that all 

21 Federal actions that are reasonably likely to affect any land or water use or natural resource of 

22 the coastal zone be consistent with the enforceable policies of a State’s/territory’s CMP. 

23 Section 307 of the CZMA contains the Federal consistency provisions that impose certain 

24 requirements on Federal agencies to comply with enforceable policies detailed in the federally

25 approved CMPs:

26

27 • Section 307(c)(1) requires that any direct Federal agency activities affecting 

28 any land or water use or natural resources of the coastal zone be consistent, to 

29 the maximum extent practicable, with enforceable policies of the State’s 

30 CMP. This section applies to OCS lease sales.

31

32 • Section 307(c)(3)(A) requires that any Federal licenses/permit affecting any 

33 land or water use or natural resources of the coastal zone be consistent with 

34 enforceable policies of the State’s CMP. This section applies to geological 

35 and geophysical permits. In addition, this section prohibits the Federal agency 

36 from issuing the license/permit until the affected State(s) has concurred with 

37 or presumed to concur with the applicant’s consistency certification or until 

38 the Secretary of Commerce has overridden the State’s consistency objection to 

39 the licensed/permitted activity.

40

41 • Section 307(c)(3)(B) requires that activities affecting any land or water use or 

42 natural resources of the coastal zone, described in detail in OCS exploration or 

43 development and production plans, be consistent with enforceable policies of 

44 the State’s CMP. The MMS is prohibited from approving an OCS plan until 

45 the affected State(s) has concurred with, or is presumed to concur with, the 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Federal Laws and Executive Orders C-8

1 applicant’s consistency certification or until the Secretary of Commerce has 

2 overridden the State’s consistency objection.

3

4

5 C.1.8 The Endangered Species Act (ESA)

6

7 The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) establishes policy to protect and conserve 

8 threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ESA is 

9 administered by the USDOI, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the USDOC, 

10 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Section 7 of the ESA mandates that all Federal 

11 agencies consult with the USFWS or NMFS to ensure that any agency action is not likely to do 

12 the following:

13

14 • Jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, 

15 and/or 

16

17 • Destroy or adversely modify an endangered or threatened species’ critical 

18 habitat.

19

20 The ESA requires Federal agencies to formally consult when there is reason to believe 

21 that a listed (or proposed to be listed) species may be affected by a proposed action. Formal 

22 endangered species consultations provide a threshold examination and a biological opinion on 

23 the likelihood that the proposed activity will or will not jeopardize the continued existence of the 

24 resource, and on the effect of the proposed activity on the endangered species. The biological 

25 opinion may include recommendations for modification of the proposed activity. The USFWS 

26 or NMFS notifies the Federal agency in writing when insufficient information is available to 

27 conclude that the proposed activity is not likely to jeopardize the species or its habitat. In such 

28 cases, the Federal agency must obtain additional information, and, if recommended by the 

29 USFWS or NMFS, conduct appropriate biological surveys or studies to determine how the 

30 proposed activity may affect the endangered species or its critical habitat. After such additional 

31 information is received, USFWS or NMFS would conclude the consultation process by issuing a 

32 formal biological opinion.

33

34 For OCS activities in the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas, the 

35 BOEMRE consults with the USFWS and/or NMFS at the multisale stage. This consultation 

36 covers OCS activities from lease sale through the exploration, development, production, and 

37 decommission stages. For other OCS areas, the BOEMRE consults with USFWS and/or NMFS 

38 at the lease sale stage; however, this consultation only covers leasing and exploration activities. 

39 A separate consultation is conducted for development, production, and decommissioning stages.

40

41

42 C.1.9 The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA)

43

44 The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (FCMA) 

45 established and delineated an area from the States’ seaward boundary to approximately 

46 200 nautical miles out as a fisheries conservation zone for the United States and its possessions. 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Federal Laws and Executive Orders C-9

1 The FCMA created eight regional fishery management councils (FMCs) and mandated a 

2 continuing planning program for marine fisheries management by the FMCs. In addition, the 

3 FCMA requires the FMC to prepare a fishery management plan (FMP), based upon the best 

4 available scientific and economic data, for each commercial species (or related group of species) 

5 of fish in need of conservation and management within each respective region.

6

7 When the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 reauthorized the FCMA, Congress required 

8 the NMFS to designate and conserve essential fish habitat (EFH) for those species managed 

9 under an existing FMP. By designating EFH, Congress hoped to minimize any adverse effects 

10 on habitat caused by fishing or nonfishing activities and to identify other actions to encourage 

11 the conservation and enhancement of such habitat. The phrase “essential fish habitat” 

12 encompasses “those waters and substrate necessary to fishes for spawning, breeding, feeding, or 

13 growth to maturity.” As a result of this change, Federal agencies must consult with the NMFS 

14 on those activities that may have direct (e.g., physical disruption) or indirect (e.g., loss of prey 

15 species) effects on EFH. For OCS activities in the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico Planning 

16 Areas, the BOEMRE consults with the NMFS at the multisale stage. This consultation covers 

17 OCS activities from lease sale through the exploration, development, production, and 

18 decommission stages. For other OCS areas, the BOEMRE consults with the NMFS at each OCS 

19 project stage individually (e.g., the lease sale, exploration plan, and development and production 

20 plan).

21

22

23 C.1.10 The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)

24

25 The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was enacted in 1972 to ensure that marine 

26 mammals are maintained at, or in some cases restored to, healthy population levels. Jurisdiction 

27 over marine mammals under the MMPA is split between two Federal Agencies, the USFWS and 

28 NMFS. The USFWS has jurisdiction over sea otters, polar bears, manatees, dugongs, and 

29 walrus, while the NMFS has jurisdiction over all other marine mammals.

30

31 The MMPA established a moratorium on the taking or importing of marine mammals 

32 except during certain activities that are regulated and permitted. Such activities include scientific 

33 research, public display, commercial and educational photography, import and export of marine 

34 mammal parts, commercial fishing authorizations, and take incidental to non-fishing commercial 

35 activities. Taking is defined as “to harass, hunt, capture, or kill or attempt to harass, hunt, 

36 capture, or kill any marine mammal.” Harass is defined as any act of pursuit, torment, or 

37 annoyance that has the potential to do the following:

38

39 • Injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild, or

40

41 • Disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by disrupting 

42 behavioral patterns (e.g., breathing, nursing, breeding).

43

44 Upon request, the Secretary (of either the USDOI or the USDOC, depending on 

45 jurisdiction) can authorize the unintentional taking of small numbers of marine mammals 

46 incidental to activities other than commercial fishing (e.g., offshore oil and gas exploration and 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Federal Laws and Executive Orders C-10

1 development) for a period of 1–5 yr, depending on the level of anticipated take. To authorize the 

2 taking, the Secretary must find that the total of the taking during the 5-yr period (or less) would 

3 have a negligible impact on the affected species. In addition, the Secretary shall withdraw or 

4 suspend permission to take marine mammals incidental to oil and gas production, and other 

5 activities when the following take place:

6

7 • The applicable regulations concerning the methods of taking, monitoring, or 

8 reporting are not being complied with; or

9

10 • The taking is having, or may be having, more than a negligible impact on the 

11 affected species or stock.

12

13 The BOEMRE coordinates with the USFWS and NMFS to ensure that MMS and 

14 offshore operators comply with the MMPA, and to identify mitigation and monitoring 

15 requirements for permits or approvals for activities like seismic surveys and platform removals.

16

17

18 C.1.11 The International Convention of the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 

19 (MARPOL) and Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act (MPPRCA)

20

21 In 1978, the International Convention of the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 

22 (MARPOL) was updated to include five annexes on ocean dumping. By signing onto MARPOL, 

23 countries agree to enforce Annexes I and II (oil and noxious liquid substances) of the treaty. 

24 Annexes III (hazardous substances), IV (sewage), and V (plastics) are optional. The 

25 United States is signatory to two of the optional MARPOL Annexes, III and V. Annex V is of 

26 particular importance to the maritime community (e.g., shippers, oil platform personnel, fishers, 

27 recreational boaters) because it prohibits the disposal of plastic at sea and regulates the disposal 

28 of other types of garbage at sea. The USCG is the enforcement agency for MARPOL Annex V 

29 within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (within 322 km [200 mi] of the U.S. shoreline).

30

31 The Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act (MPPRCA) is the Federal law 

32 implementing MARPOL Annex V in all U.S. waters. Under the MPPRCA, it is illegal to throw 

33 plastic trash off any vessel within the EEZ. It is also illegal to throw any other garbage 

34 (e.g., orange peels, paper plates, glass jars, and monofilament fishing line) overboard while 

35 navigating in inland waters or within 5 km (3 mi) offshore. The greater the distance from shore, 

36 the fewer restrictions apply to nonplastic garbage. However, dumping plastics overboard in any 

37 waters anywhere is illegal at anytime. Fixed and floating platforms, drilling rigs, manned 

38 production platforms, and support vessels operating under a Federal oil and gas lease are 

39 required to develop waste management plans and to post placards reflecting discharge limitations 

40 and restrictions. Garbage must be brought ashore and properly disposed of in a trash can, 

41 dumpster, or recycling container. Docks and marinas are required to provide facilities to handle 

42 normal amounts of garbage from their paying customers. Violations of MARPOL or MPPRCA 

43 may result in a fine of up to $50,000 for each incident. If criminal intent can be proven, an 

44 individual may be fined up to $250,000 and/or imprisoned up to 6 yr. If an organization is 

45 responsible, it may be fined up to $500,000 and/or be subject to 6 yr of imprisonment.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Federal Laws and Executive Orders C-11

1 C.1.12 The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA)

2

3 The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA) regulates the 

4 ocean dumping of waste, provides for a research program on ocean dumping, and provides for 

5 the designation and regulation of marine sanctuaries. Also known as the Ocean Dumping Act, it 

6 regulates the ocean dumping of all material beyond the territorial limit (5 km [3 mi] from shore) 

7 and prevents or strictly limits dumping material that “would adversely affect human health, 

8 welfare, or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems, or economic 

9 potentialities.” Material includes, but is not limited to, dredged material; solid waste; incinerator 

10 residue; garbage; sewage; sewage sludge; munitions; chemical and biological warfare agents; 

11 radioactive materials; chemicals; biological and laboratory waste; wrecked or discarded 

12 equipment; rocks; sand; excavation debris; and industrial, municipal, agricultural, and other 

13 waste. The term does not include sewage from vessels or oil, unless the oil is transported via a 

14 vessel or aircraft for the purpose of dumping. Disposal by means of a pipe, regardless of how far 

15 at sea the discharge occurs, is regulated by the CWA through the NPDES permit process.

16

17 Title III of the MPRSA, later called the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, charged the 

18 Secretary of the Department of Commerce to identify, designate, and manage marine sites based 

19 on conservational, ecological, recreational, historical, aesthetic, scientific, or educational value 

20 within significant national ocean and Great Lake waters. The NOAA administers the National 

21 Marine Sanctuary Program. Twelve national marine sanctuaries, representing a wide variety of 

22 ocean environments, have been designated.

23

24

25 C.1.13 The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (Jones Act)

26

27 The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (Jones Act) regulates coastal shipping between 

28 U.S. ports and inland waterways. The Jones Act provides that “no merchandise shall be 

29 transported by water, or by land and water . . . between points in the United States . . . in any 

30 other vessel than a vessel built in and documented under the laws of the United States and owned 

31 by persons who are citizens of the United States . . . .” Therefore, the Jones Act requires that all 

32 goods shipped between different ports in the United States or its territories must be:

33

34 • Carried on vessels built and documented (flagged) in the United States,

35

36 • Crewed by U.S. citizens or legal aliens licensed by the USCG, and

37

38 • Owned and operated by U.S. citizens.

39

40 The rationale behind the Jones Act and earlier sabotage laws was that the United States 

41 needed a merchant marine fleet to ensure that its domestic waterborne commerce remains under 

42 Government jurisdiction for regulatory, safety, and national defense considerations. The same 

43 general principles of safety regulations are applied to other modes of transportation in the 

44 United States. While other modes of transportation can operate foreign-built equipment, these 

45 units must comply with U.S. standards. However, many foreign-built ships do not meet the 

46 standards required of U.S.-built ships and, thus, are excluded from domestic shipping.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Federal Laws and Executive Orders C-12

1 The U.S. Customs Service has determined that facilities fixed or attached to the OCS 

2 used for the purpose of oil exploration are considered points within the United States. The OCS 

3 oil facilities are considered U.S. sovereign territory and fall under the requirements of the Jones 

4 Act; so all shipping to and from these facilities related to OCS oil exploration can only be 

5 conducted by vessels meeting the requirements of the Jones Act. Shuttle tankering of oil that is 

6 produced at OCS facilities can only be legally provided by U.S.-registered vessels and aircraft 

7 that are properly endorsed for coastwise trade under the laws of the United States.

8

9

10 C.1.14 The National Fishing Enhancement Act

11

12 The National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984, also known as the Artificial Reef Act, 

13 established broad artificial-reef development standards and a national policy to encourage the 

14 development of artificial reefs that will enhance fishery resources and commercial and 

15 recreational fishing. The national plan identifies oil and gas structures as acceptable material of 

16 opportunity for artificial-reef development. The BOEMRE adopted a rigs-to-reefs policy in 1985 

17 in response to this Act and to broaden interest in the use of petroleum platforms as artificial 

18 reefs.

19

20

21 C.1.15 The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

22

23 The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires the head of any Federal 

24 agency possessing licensing authority or having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed 

25 Federal or federally assisted activity to consider the proposed activity’s effect on any district, 

26 site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National

27 Register of Historic Places. The historic properties (i.e., archaeological resources) on the OCS 

28 include historic shipwrecks, sunken aircraft, lighthouses, and prehistoric archaeological sites that 

29 have become inundated due to the 120-m (394-ft) rise in global sea level since the height of the 

30 last ice age (ca. 19,000 yr ago).

31

32 Because the OCS is not federally owned land and the Federal Government has not 

33 claimed direct ownership of historic properties on the OCS, the BOEMRE only has the authority 

34 to ensure that any agency-funded and permitted actions do not adversely affect significant 

35 historic properties. Beyond avoidance of adverse impacts, BOEMRE does not possess the legal 

36 authority to manage the historic properties on the OCS. The BOEMRE has conducted 

37 archaeological baseline studies of the OCS to determine where known historic properties may be 

38 located and to outline areas where presently unknown historic properties may be located. These 

39 baseline studies are used to identify “archaeologically sensitive” areas that may contain 

40 significant historic properties.

41

42 Prior to approving any OCS exploration or development activities within an 

43 archaeologically sensitive area, BOEMRE requires the lessee to conduct a marine remote sensing 

44 survey and to prepare an archaeological report. If the marine remote sensing survey indicates 

45 any evidence of a potential historic property, the lessee must do one of the following:

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Federal Laws and Executive Orders C-13

1 • Move the site of the proposed lease operations a sufficient distance to avoid 

2 the potential historic property, or

3

4 • Conduct further investigations to determine the nature and significance of the 

5 potential historic property.

6

7 If further investigation determines that there is a significant historic property within the 

8 area of proposed OCS operations, NHPA consultation procedures are followed.

9

10

11 C.1.16 The Oil Pollution Act (OPA 90)

12

13 The Oil Pollution Act (OPA 90) establishes a single uniform Federal system of liability 

14 and compensation for damages caused by oil spills in U.S. navigable waters. The OPA 90 

15 requires removal of spilled oil and establishes a national system of planning for and responding 

16 to oil-spill incidents. In addition, OPA 90 includes provisions to do the following:

17

18 • Improve oil-spill prevention, preparedness, and response capability;

19

20 • Establish limitations on liability for damages resulting from oil pollution;

21

22 • Promote funding for natural resource damage assessment;

23

24 • Implement a fund for the payment of compensation for such damages; and

25

26 • Establish an oil pollution research and development program.

27

28 The USCG is responsible for enforcing vessel compliance with the OPA 90. The 

29 Secretary of the Interior is given authority over offshore facilities and associated pipelines 

30 (except deepwater ports) for all Federal and State waters, including responsibility for spill 

31 prevention, oil-spill contingency plans, oil-spill containment and cleanup equipment, financial 

32 responsibility certification, and civil penalties. The Secretary of the Interior delegated this 

33 authority to BOEMRE.

34

35 The BOEMRE regulations governing oil-spill financial responsibility (OSFR) for 

36 offshore facilities and related requirements for certain crude oil wells, production platforms, and 

37 pipelines located in the OCS and certain State waters became effective in October 1998. The 

38 regulations implement the OPA requirement for responsible parties to demonstrate they can pay 

39 for cleanup and damages caused by facility oil spills. Responsible parties can be required to 

40 demonstrate as much as $150 million in OSFR if BOEMRE determines that it is justified by the 

41 risks from potential oil spills from the covered offshore facilities. The minimum amount of 

42 OSFR that must be demonstrated is $35 million for covered offshore facilities located in the 

43 OCS, and $10 million for covered offshore facilities located in State waters. The regulation 

44 exempts persons responsible for facilities having a potential worst-case, oil-spill discharge of 

45 1,000 bbl or less, unless the risks posed by a facility justify a lower threshold.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Federal Laws and Executive Orders C-14

1 C.1.17 The Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act

2

3 The Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act of 1995 authorizes the 

4 Secretary of the Interior to offer OCS blocks for lease with suspension of royalties for a 

5 volume, value, or period of production. Deepwater royalty relief applies to blocks offered for 

6 lease in the western and central Gulf of Mexico in water depths exceeding 200 m (656 ft) 

7 through November 28, 2000. The MMS has developed procedures for suspension of royalty 

8 payment on production from eligible leases.

9

10

11 C.1.18 The Ports and Waterways Safety Act

12

13 The Ports and Waterways Safety Act authorizes the USCG to designate safety fairways, 

14 fairway anchorages, and traffic separation schemes to provide unobstructed approaches through 

15 oil fields for vessels using ports. The USCG regulations provide listings of these designated 

16 areas along with special conditions related to oil and gas production. In general, no fixed 

17 structures such as platforms are allowed in fairways. Temporary underwater obstacles such as 

18 anchors and attendant cables or chains attached to floating or semisubmersible drilling rigs may 

19 be placed in a fairway under certain conditions. Fixed structures may be placed in anchorages, 

20 but the number of structures is limited.

21

22

23 C.1.19 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

24

25 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) provides a framework for the safe 

26 disposal and management of hazardous and solid wastes. Most oil-field wastes have been 

27 exempted from coverage under RCRA hazardous waste regulations. Any hazardous wastes 

28 generated on the OCS that are not exempt must be transported to shore for disposal at a 

29 hazardous waste facility.

30

31

32 C.2 EXECUTIVE ORDERS (EO)

33

34

35 C.2.1 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

36 Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (February 1994)

37

38 In the memorandum to heads of departments and agencies that accompanied the 

39 Executive Order (EO), the President specifically recognized the importance of procedures under 

40 the NEPA for identifying and addressing environmental justice concerns. The memorandum 

41 states that “each Federal agency shall analyze the environmental effects, including human health, 

42 economic and social effects, of Federal actions, including effects on minority communities and 

43 low-income communities, when such analysis is required by [NEPA].” In August 1994, the 

44 Secretary of the Interior directed its bureaus to include environmental justice (EJ) in NEPA

45 documentation, and in February 1998, the CEQ issued guidance to assist Federal Agencies in 

46 addressing EJ.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Federal Laws and Executive Orders C-15

1 The issue of disproportionate, OCS-related impacts on minority and low-income 

2 populations is addressed in all OCS regions when such analysis is required by the NEPA. This 

3 issue is a primary focus in Alaska OCS Region environmental assessments where Native 

4 Alaskan subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering activities occur in coastal areas.

5

6 Executive Order No. 12898 provides the following:

7

8 Section 1-1. IMPLEMENTATION.

9

10 1-101. Agency Responsibilities. To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, 

11 and consistent with the principles set forth in the report on the National Performance 

12 Review, each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its 

13 mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and 

14 adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on 

15 minority populations and low-income populations in the United States and its territories 

16 and possessions, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the 

17 Commonwealth of the Marianas Islands.

18

19 1-102. Creation of an Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice.

20

21 (a) Within 3 months of the date of this order, the Administrator of the Environmental 

22 Protection Agency (“Administrator”) or the Administrator’s designee shall convene 

23 an interagency Federal Working Group on Environmental Justice (“Working 

24 Group”). The Working Group shall comprise the heads of the following executive 

25 agencies and offices, or their designees: (a) Department of Defense; (b) Department 

26 of Health and Human Services; (c) Department of Housing and Urban Development; 

27 (d) Department of Labor; (e) Department of Agriculture; (f) Department of

28 Transportation; (g) Department of Justice; (h) Department of the Interior; 

29 (i) Department of Commerce; (j) Department of Energy; (k) Environmental 

30 Protection Agency; (l) Office of Management and Budget; (m) Office of Science 

31 and Technology Policy; (n) Office of the Deputy Assistant to the President for 

32 Environmental Policy; (o) Office of the Assistant to the President for Domestic 

33 Policy; (p) National Economic Council; (q) Council of Economic Advisers; and 

34 (r) such other Government officials as the President may designate. The Working 

35 Group shall report to the President through the Deputy Assistant to the President for 

36 Environmental Policy and the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy.

37

38 (b) The Working Group shall:

39

40 (1) provide guidance to Federal agencies on criteria for identifying disproportionately 

41 high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations 

42 and low-income populations;

43

44 (2) coordinate with, provide guidance to, and serve as a clearinghouse for, each 

45 Federal agency as it develops an environmental justice strategy as required by 

46 section 1-103 of this order, in order to ensure that the administration, 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Federal Laws and Executive Orders C-16

1 interpretation and enforcement of programs, activities and policies are undertaken 

2 in a consistent manner;

3

4 (3) assist in coordinating research by, and stimulating cooperation among, the 

5 Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health and Human 

6 Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and other agencies 

7 conducting research or other activities in accordance with section 3-3 of this 

8 order;

9

10 (4) assist in coordinating data collection, required by this order;

11

12 (5) examine existing data and studies on environmental justice;

13

14 (6) hold public meetings as required in section 5-502(d) of this order; and

15

16 (7) develop interagency model projects on environmental justice that evidence 

17 cooperation among Federal agencies.

18

19 1-103. Development of Agency Strategies.

20

21 (a) Except as provided in section 6-605 of this order, each Federal agency shall develop 

22 an agency-wide environmental justice strategy, as set forth in subsections (b)–(e) of 

23 this section that identifies and addresses disproportionately high and adverse human 

24 health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority 

25 populations and low-income populations. The environmental justice strategy shall 

26 list programs, policies, planning and public participation processes, enforcement, 

27 and/or rulemakings related to human health or the environment that should be revised 

28 to, at a minimum: (1) promote enforcement of all health and environmental statutes 

29 in areas with minority populations and low-income populations; (2) ensure greater 

30 public participation; (3) improve research and data collection relating to the health of 

31 and environment of minority populations and low-income populations; and 

32 (4) identify differential patterns of consumption of natural resources among minority 

33 populations and low-income populations. In addition, the environmental justice 

34 strategy shall include, where appropriate, a timetable for undertaking identified 

35 revisions and consideration of economic and social implications of the revisions.

36

37 (b) Within 4 months of the date of this order, each Federal agency shall identify an 

38 internal administrative process for developing its environmental justice strategy, and 

39 shall inform this Working Group of the process.

40

41 (c) Within 6 months of the date of this order, each Federal agency shall provide the 

42 Working Group with an outline of its proposed environmental justice strategy.

43

44 (d) Within 10 months of the date of this order, each Federal agency shall provide the 

45 Working Group with its proposed environmental justice strategy.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Federal Laws and Executive Orders C-17

1 (e) Within 12 months of the date of this order, each Federal agency shall finalize its 

2 environmental justice strategy and provide a copy and written description of its 

3 strategy to the Working Group. During the 12 month period from the date of this 

4 order, each Federal agency, as part of its environmental justice strategy, shall identify

5 several specific projects that can be promptly undertaken to address particular 

6 concerns identified during the development of the proposed environmental justice 

7 strategy, and a schedule for implementing those projects.

8

9 (f) Within 24 months of the date of this order, each Federal agency shall report to the 

10 Working Group on its progress in implementing its agency-wide environmental 

11 justice strategy.

12

13 (g) Federal agencies shall provide additional periodic reports to the Working Group as 

14 requested by the Working Group.

15

16 1-104. Reports to the President. Within 14 months of the date of this order, the Working 

17 Group shall submit to the President, through the Office of the Deputy Assistant to the 

18 President for Environmental Policy and the Office of the Assistant to the President for 

19 Domestic Policy, a report that describes the implementation of this order, and includes 

20 the final environmental justice strategies described in section 1-103(e) of this order.

21

22 Sec. 2-2. FEDERAL AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES FOR FEDERAL PROGRAMS.

23

24 Each Federal agency shall conduct its programs, policies, and activities that substantially 

25 affect human health or the environment, in a manner that ensures that such programs, 

26 policies, and activities do not have the effect of excluding persons (including 

27 populations) from participation in, denying persons (including populations) the benefits 

28 of, or subjecting persons (including populations) to discrimination under, such programs, 

29 policies, and activities, because of their race, color, or national origin.

30

31 Sec. 3-3. RESEARCH, DATA COLLECTION, AND ANALYSIS.

32

33 3-301. Human Health and Environmental Research and Analysis.

34

35 (a) Environmental human health research, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall 

36 include diverse segments of the population in epidemiological and clinical studies, 

37 including segments at high risk from environmental hazards, such as minority 

38 populations, low-income populations and workers who may be exposed to substantial 

39 environmental hazards.

40

41 (b) Environmental human health analyses, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall 

42 identify multiple and cumulative exposures.

43

44 (c) Federal agencies shall provide minority populations and low-income populations the 

45 opportunity to comment on the development and design of research strategies 

46 undertaken pursuant to this order.
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Federal Laws and Executive Orders C-18

1 3-302. Human Health and Environmental Data Collection and Analysis. To the extent 

2 permitted by existing law, including the Privacy Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. § 552a):

3

4 (a) Each Federal agency, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall collect, maintain, 

5 and analyze information assessing and comparing environmental and human health 

6 risks borne by populations identified by race, national origin, or income. To the 

7 extent practical and appropriate, Federal agencies shall use this information to 

8 determine whether their programs, policies, and activities have disproportionately 

9 high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and 

10 low-income populations;

11

12 (b) In connection with the development and implementation of agency strategies in 

13 section 1-103 of this order, each Federal agency, whenever practicable and 

14 appropriate, shall collect, maintain and analyze information on the race, national 

15 origin, income level, and other readily accessible and appropriate information for 

16 areas surrounding facilities or sites expected to have a substantial environmental, 

17 human health, or economic effect on the surrounding populations, when such 

18 facilities or sites become the subject of a substantial Federal environmental 

19 administrative of judicial action. Such information shall be made available to the 

20 public unless prohibited by law; and

21

22 (c) Each Federal agency, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall collect, maintain, 

23 and analyze information on the race, national origin, income level, and other readily 

24 accessible and appropriate information for areas surrounding Federal facilities that 

25 are: (1) subject to the reporting requirements under the Emergency Planning and 

26 Community Right-to-Know Act, 42 U.S.C. section 11001-11050 as mandated in 

27 Executive Order No. 12856; and (2) expected to have a substantial environmental, 

28 human health, or economic effect on surrounding populations. Such information 

29 shall be made available to the public, unless prohibited by law.

30

31 (d) In carrying out the responsibilities in this section, each Federal agency, whenever 

32 practicable and appropriate, shall share information and eliminate unnecessary 

33 duplication of efforts through the use of existing data systems and cooperative 

34 agreements among Federal agencies and with State, local, and tribal governments.

35

36 Sec. 4-4. SUBSISTENCE CONSUMPTION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE.

37

38 4-401. Consumption Patterns. In order to assist in identifying the need for ensuring 

39 protection of populations with differential patterns of subsistence consumption of fish 

40 and wildlife, Federal agencies, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall collect, 

41 maintain, and analyze information on the consumption patterns of populations who 

42 principally rely on fish and/or wildlife for subsistence. Federal agencies shall 

43 communicate to the public the risks of those consumption patterns.

44

45 4-402. Guidance. Federal agencies, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall work in 

46 a coordinated manner to publish guidance reflecting the latest scientific information 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Federal Laws and Executive Orders C-19

1 available concerning methods for evaluating the human health risks associated with the 

2 consumption of pollutant-bearing fish or wildlife. Agencies shall consider such guidance 

3 in developing their policies and rules.

4

5 Sec. 5-5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION.

6

7 (a) The public may submit recommendations to Federal agencies relating to the 

8 incorporation of environmental justice principles into Federal agency programs or 

9 policies. Each Federal agency shall convey such recommendations to the Working 

10 Group.

11

12 (b) Each Federal agency may, whenever practicable and appropriate, translate crucial 

13 public documents, notices, and hearings relating to human health or the environment 

14 for limited English speaking populations.

15

16 (c) Each Federal agency shall work to ensure that public documents, notices, and 

17 hearings relating to human health or the environment are concise, understandable, and 

18 readily accessible to the public.

19

20 (d) The Working Group shall hold public meetings, as appropriate, for the purpose of 

21 fact-finding, receiving public comments, and conducting inquiries concerning 

22 environmental justice. The Working Group shall prepare for public review a 

23 summary of the comments and recommendations discussed at the public meetings.

24

25 Sec. 6-6. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

26

27 6-601. Responsibility for Agency Implementation. The head of each Federal agency shall 

28 be responsible for ensuring compliance with this order. Each Federal agency shall 

29 conduct internal reviews and take such other steps as may be necessary to monitor 

30 compliance with this order.

31

32 6-602. Executive Order No. 12250. This Executive order is intended to supplement but 

33 not supersede Executive Order No. 12250, which requires consistent and effective 

34 implementation of various laws prohibiting discriminatory practices in programs 

35 receiving Federal financial assistance. Nothing herein shall limit the effect or mandate of 

36 Executive Order No. 12250.

37

38 6-603. Executive Order No. 12875. This Executive order is not intended to limit the 

39 effect or mandate of Executive Order No. 12875.

40

41 6-604. Scope. For purposes of this order, Federal agency means any agency on the 

42 Working Group, and such other agencies as may be designated by the President, that 

43 conducts any Federal program or activity that substantially affects human health or the 

44 environment. Independent agencies are requested to comply with the provisions of this 

45 order.

46
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Federal Laws and Executive Orders C-20

1 6-605. Petitions for Exemptions. The head of a Federal agency may petition the 

2 President for an exemption from the requirements of this order on the grounds that all or 

3 some of the petitioning agency’s programs or activities should not be subject to the 

4 requirements of this order.

5

6 6-606. Native American Programs. Each Federal agency responsibility set forth under 

7 this order shall apply equally to Native American programs. In addition, the Department 

8 of the Interior, in coordination with the Working Group, and, after consultation with 

9 tribal leaders, shall coordinate steps to be taken pursuant to this order that address 

10 Federally-recognized Indian Tribes.

11

12 6-607. Costs. Unless otherwise provided by law, Federal agencies shall assume the 

13 financial costs of complying with this order.

14

15 6-608. General. Federal agencies shall implement this order consistent with, and to the 

16 extent permitted by, existing law.

17

18 6-609. Judicial Review. This order is intended only to improve the internal management 

19 of the executive branch and is not intended to, nor does it create any right, benefit, or 

20 trust responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party 

21 against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person. This order shall not be 

22 construed to create any right to judicial review involving the compliance or 

23 noncompliance of the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any other person with 

24 this order.

25

26

27 C.2.2 Executive Order 13007: Indian Sacred Sites (May 1996)

28

29 The Indian Sacred Sites EO directs Federal land managing Agencies to accommodate 

30 access to, and ceremonial use of, Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, and to 

31 avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites. It is BOMRE’s policy to 

32 consider the potential effects of all aspects of plans, projects, programs, and activities on Indian 

33 sacred sites, and to consult, to the greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted by law, 

34 with tribal governments before taking actions that may affect Indian sacred sites located on 

35 Federal lands.

36

37

38 C.2.3 Executive Order 13089: Coral Reef Protection (June 1998)

39

40 This EO directs the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, co-chaired by the Secretaries of Interior 

41 and Commerce, to develop and implement a comprehensive program of research and mapping to 

42 inventory, monitor, and “identify the major causes and consequences of degradation of coral reef 

43 ecosystems.” In addition, the EO directs Federal agencies to protect coral reef ecosystems and, 

44 to the extent permitted by law, prohibits them from authorizing funding or carrying out any 

45 actions that will degrade these ecosystems. Relatedly, the USDOI works with domestic and 

46 international partners through the Coral Reef Initiative. This initiative focuses efforts to protect 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Federal Laws and Executive Orders C-21

1 and monitor coral reefs around the world by building and sustaining partnerships, programs, and 

2 institutional capacities at the local, national, regional, and international levels.

3

4

5 C.2.4 Executive Order 12114: Environmental Effects Abroad (January 1979)

6

7 This EO requires that Federal officials be informed of environmental considerations, and 

8 take those considerations into account when making decisions on major Federal actions that 

9 could have environmental impacts anywhere beyond the borders of the United States, including 

10 Antarctica. Such Federal actions include the following:

11

12 • All major Federal actions significantly affecting the environment outside the 

13 jurisdiction of any nation (the oceans or Antarctica). This would apply to 

14 proposals that result in actions within the United States, which because of 

15 ocean currents, winds, stream flow, or other natural processes, may affect 

16 parts of the oceans not claimed by any nation (high seas). Included in this 

17 category would be an OCS project that, because of ocean currents, could 

18 result in effluents or spilled oil reaching fishing grounds or areas not claimed 

19 by another nation.

20

21 • All major Federal actions significantly affecting the environment of a foreign 

22 nation not involved in the action. This would apply to proposals that result in 

23 actions within U.S. territory or within the EEZ that, because of ocean currents, 

24 winds, stream flow, or other natural processes, may affect parts of another 

25 nation, or seas or oceans within the jurisdiction of other nations. This 

26 category would include an OCS project located up-current from the Mexican 

27 coastline that could affect Mexico’s territory in the event of an oil spill. Also 

28 in this category are all major Federal actions in which a foreign nation is a 

29 participant and that would normally be covered by the EIS addressing the 

30 U.S. part of the proposal. An example would be an OCS right-of-way 

31 pipeline bringing Canadian energy resources to the northeast United States.

32

33 • All major Federal actions providing a foreign nation with a product, or 

34 involving a project that produces an emission or effluent prohibited or 

35 regulated by U.S. Federal law because of its effects on the environment or the 

36 creation of a serious public health risk.

37

38 Federal actions causing significant impacts on environments outside the United States are 

39 to be addressed in the following:

40

41 • EISs (generic), program (5-Year OCS Leasing Program) EISs, and project42 specific (OCS lease sale) EISs;

43

44 • Documents prepared for decision makers containing reviews of environmental 

45 issues involved in Federal actions, or summaries of environmental analyses 

46 (e.g., OCS lease sale decision documents, Records of Decision); and
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Federal Laws and Executive Orders C-22

1 • Environmental studies or research prepared by the United States and one or 

2 more foreign nations, or by an international body in which the United States is 

3 a member or participant.

4

5 The United States, Canada, and Mexico are negotiating a Transboundary Environmental 

6 Impact Assessments (TEIA) Agreement through the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement 

7 (NAFTA) Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC). The CEC deals with a wide range 

8 of environmental and natural resource protection issues common to Canada, the United States, 

9 and Mexico. Developing a TEIA process is one of the requirements of the 199l North American 

10 Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. Under this agreement, a transboundary 

11 environmental impact is any impact on the environment within the area under the jurisdiction of 

12 Canada, the United States, or Mexico caused by a proposed project, the physical origin of which 

13 is situated wholly or in part within the area under the jurisdiction of one of the three countries. 

14 For example, a proposed project on the United States OCS that, because of ocean currents, 

15 winds, or proximity to the Mexican coastline, could affect Mexican waters (fishing industry, fish 

16 resources, etc.) or the Mexican coastline (oil spill contacts, etc.) would be a project considered to 

17 have the potential to cause transboundary environmental impacts. The agreement recognizes that 

18 there is a significant bilateral nature to many transboundary issues and calls upon the three 

19 countries to develop an agreement to do the following:

20

21 • Assess the environmental impacts of proposed projects in any of the three 

22 countries party to the agreement (NAFTA) that would be likely to cause 

23 significant adverse transboundary impacts within the jurisdiction of any of the 

24 other parties;

25

26 • Develop a system of notification, consultation, and sharing of relevant 

27 information between countries with respect to such projects; and

28

29 • Give consideration to mitigating measures to address the potential adverse 

30 effects of such projects.

31

32 Negotiations are currently underway between the three parties to the agreement, but the 

33 final language has yet to be worked out. Because the requirements of the assessment portion of 

34 the agreement are somewhat similar to the requirements imposed by EO 12114 (i.e., impacts on

35 foreign territory must be addressed in NEPA documents), the BOEMRE requires that EISs 

36 prepared on major Federal OCS actions contain an assessment of potential significant impacts on

37 foreign territory.

38

39

40 C.2.5 Executive Order 13158: Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) (May 2000)

41

42 The EO defines an MPA as “any area of the marine environment that has been reserved 

43 by Federal, State, territorial, tribal, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for 

44 part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein.” The EO directs Federal agencies to 

45 work closely with State, local, and nongovernmental partners to create a comprehensive system 

46 of MPAs “representing diverse U.S. marine ecosystems, and the Nation’s natural and cultural 
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Federal Laws and Executive Orders C-23

1 resources.” Ultimately, the MPA system will include new sites, as well as enhancements to the 

2 conservation of existing sites. Five principal components of the EO are the following:

3

4 • National MPA List: The USDOC and the USDOI will develop and maintain 

5 a national list of MPAs in U.S. waters. Candidate sites for the list are drawn 

6 from existing programs for Federal, tribal, State and local protected areas. 

7 When completed, the list and the companion data on each site will serve 

8 several purposes, such as ensuring that agencies “avoid harm” to MPAs, 

9 providing a foundation for the analysis of gaps in the existing system of 

10 protections, and helping improve the effectiveness of existing MPAs.

11

12 • The MPA Web Site: The USDOC and USDOI will develop and maintain a 

13 publicly accessible Web site to provide information on MPAs and Federal 

14 agency reports required by the EO. In addition, the Web site will be used to 

15 publish and maintain the National MPA List and other useful information, 

16 such as maps of MPAs; a virtual library of MPA reference materials, 

17 including links to other web sites; information on the MPA Advisory 

18 Committee; activities of the national MPA Center; MPA program summaries; 

19 and background materials such as MPA definitions, benefits, management 

20 challenges, and management tools.

21

22 • The MPA Federal Advisory Committee: Created to provide expert advice 

23 on, and recommendations for, a national system of MPAs, this advisory 

24 committee will include nonfederal representatives from science, resource 

25 management, environmental organizations, and industry.

26

27 • The Mandate to Avoid Harmful Federal Actions: This mandate directs 

28 Federal Agencies to avoid harm to MPAs or their resources through activities 

29 that they undertake, fund, or approve.

30

31 • The Marine Protected Areas Center: The EO directs NOAA to create a 

32 Marine Protected Areas Center (MPA Center). In cooperation with the 

33 USDOI and working closely with other organizations, the MPA Center will 

34 coordinate the effort to implement the EO and will do the following:

35 develop the framework for a national system of MPAs;

36 coordinate the development of information, tools, and strategies;

37 provide guidance that will encourage efforts to enhance and expand the 

38 protection of existing MPAs and to establish or recommend new ones;

39 coordinate the MPA Web site;

40 partner with Federal and nonfederal organizations to conduct research, 

41 analysis, and exploration;

42 help maintain the National MPA List; and

43 support the MPA Advisory Committee.

44

45
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Federal Laws and Executive Orders C-24

1 C.2.6 Executive Order 13112: Invasive Species (February 1999)

2

3 The EO defines an “invasive species” as a species that is nonnative (or alien) to the 

4 ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause, economic or 

5 environmental harm or harm to human health. This EO requires all Federal agencies to do as 

6 follows:

7

8 • Identify any actions affecting the status of invasive species;

9

10 • Prevent invasive species introduction;

11

12 • Detect and respond to and control populations of invasive species in a cost13 effective and environmentally sound manner;

14

15 • Monitor invasive species populations accurately and reliably;

16

17 • Provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in invaded 

18 ecosystems;

19

20 • Conduct research on invasive species and develop technologies to prevent 

21 introduction and provide for environmentally sound control of invasive 

22 species;

23

24 • Promote public education on invasive species and the means to address them; 

25 and

26

27 • Refrain from authorizing, funding, or carrying out actions that are likely to 

28 cause or promote invasive species introduction or spread, unless the agency 

29 has determined that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential 

30 harm caused by invasive species and that all feasible and prudent measures to 

31 minimize risk of harm will be taken.

32

33 In addition, the EO established the National Invasive Species Council (Council), 

34 co-chaired by the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce and the Interior, and comprised of the 

35 Secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, and Transportation, and the Administrator of the 

36 USEPA. The Council does the following:

37

38 • Provides national leadership on invasive species;

39

40 • Sees that Federal efforts are coordinated and effective;

41

42 • Promotes action at local, State, tribal and ecosystem levels;

43

44 • Identifies recommendations for international cooperation;

45

46 • Facilitates a coordinated network to document and monitor invasive species;
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Federal Laws and Executive Orders C-25

1 • Develops a web-based information network;

2

3 • Provides guidance on invasive species for Federal Agencies to use in 

4 implementing the NEPA; and

5

6 • Prepares an Invasive Species Management Plan to serve as the blueprint for 

7 Federal action to prevent introduction; provide control; and minimize 

8 economic, environmental, and human health impacts of invasive species.

9

10 The BOEMRE requires that EISs prepared on major Federal OCS actions (e.g., 5-Year 

11 OCS Leasing Program and OCS lease sales) contain an assessment of the proposed action’s 

12 contribution to the invasive species problem.

13
2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program Draft Programmatic EIS USDOI

November 2011 BOEM

Federal Laws and Executive Orders C-26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 This page intentionally left blank.