U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

OCS EIS/EA 

BOEM 2013-0118 

Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2013-2014 

Western Planning Area Lease Sale 233 

Central Planning Area Lease Sale 231 

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

OCS EIS/EA 

BOEM 2013-0118 

Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2013-2014 

Western Planning Area Lease Sale 233 

Central Planning Area Lease Sale 231 

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

Author 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

Published by 

New Orleans

April 2013 



v 

COVER SHEET 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

for 

Proposed Western Planning Area OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale 233 

and 

Proposed Central Planning Area OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale 231 

Draft ( ) Final (x) 

Type of Action: Administrative (x) Legislative ( ) 

Area of Potential Impact: Offshore Marine Environment and Coastal Counties/Parishes of Texas, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and northwestern Florida 

Agency Headquarters Contact Region Contact 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

(GM 623E) 

1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard 

New Orleans, LA 70123-2394 

Poojan Tripathi (HM 3107) 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

381 Elden Street 

Herndon, VA 20170-4817 

(703) 787-1738 

Casey Rowe 

(504) 736-2781 

Gary D. Goeke 

(504) 736-3233 

ABSTRACT

This Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addresses two proposed Gulf of Mexico 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas lease sales: Western Planning Area (WPA) Lease Sale 233 

and Central Planning Area (CPA) Lease Sale 231, as scheduled in the Proposed Final Outer Continental 

Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017 (Five-Year Program) (USDOI, BOEM, 2012a). 

This Supplemental EIS updates the baseline conditions and potential environmental effects of oil and 

natural gas leasing, exploration, development, and production in the WPA and CPA since publication of 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2012-2017; Western Planning Area Lease Sales 229, 233, 

238, 246, and 248; Central Planning Area Lease Sales 227, 231, 235, 241, and 247, Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS) (USDOI, BOEM, 2012b). This Supplemental 

EIS analyzes the potential impacts of the WPA and CPA proposed actions on sensitive coastal 

environments, offshore marine resources, and socioeconomic resources both onshore and offshore. It is 

important to note that this Supplemental EIS was prepared using the best information that was publicly 

available at the time the document was prepared. Where relevant information on reasonably foreseeable 

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

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

in the event it was impossible or exorbitant to acquire the information, accepted scientific methodologies 

were applied in its place. 

The proposed actions are considered to be major Federal actions requiring an EIS. This document 

provides the following information in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and its 

implementing regulations, and it will be used in making decisions on the proposals. This document 

includes the purpose and background of the proposed actions, identification of the alternatives, 

description of the affected environment, and an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the 

proposed actions, alternatives, and associated activities, including proposed mitigating measures and their 

potential effects. Potential contributions to cumulative impacts resulting from activities associated with 

the proposed actions are also analyzed. 
vi

Hypothetical scenarios were developed on the levels of activities, accidental events (such as oil 

spills), and potential impacts that might result if the proposed actions are adopted. Activities and 

disturbances associated with the proposed actions on biological, physical, and socioeconomic resources 

are considered in the analyses. 

Additional copies of this Supplemental EIS, the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, and the other 

referenced publications may be obtained from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Region, Public Information Office (GM 217G), 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, 

Louisiana 70123-2394, by telephone at 504-736-2519 or 1-800-200-GULF, or on the Internet at http://

boem.gov/Environmental-Stewardship/Environmental-Assessment/NEPA/nepaprocess.aspx. 
Summary vii

SUMMARY

This Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addresses two proposed Federal actions: 

one oil and gas lease sale in the Western Planning Area (WPA) and one oil and gas lease sale in the 

Central Planning Area (CPA) of the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), as scheduled in the

Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017 (Five-Year Program) 

(USDOI, BOEM, 2012a).

This Supplemental EIS updates the baseline conditions and potential environmental effects of oil and 

natural gas leasing, exploration, development, and production in the WPA and CPA since publication of 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2012-2017; Western Planning Area Lease Sales 229, 233, 

238, 246, and 248; Central Planning Area Lease Sales 227, 231, 235, 241, and 247, Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS) (USDOI, BOEM, 2012b). This Supplemental 

EIS analyzes the potential impacts of the WPA and CPA proposed actions on sensitive coastal 

environments, offshore marine resources, and socioeconomic resources both onshore and offshore. It is 

important to note that this Supplemental EIS was prepared using the best information that was publicly 

available at the time the document was prepared. Where relevant information on reasonably foreseeable 

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

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

in the event it was impossible or exorbitant to acquire the information, accepted scientific methodologies 

were applied in its place.

The two proposed lease sales include WPA Lease Sale 233 and CPA Lease Sale 231. Federal 

regulations allow for several related or similar proposals or actions to be analyzed in one EIS or 

Supplemental EIS (40 CFR 1502.4). Since each lease sale proposal and projected activities are very 

similar for each proposed lease sale area, a single Supplemental EIS is being prepared for both proposed

lease sales.

This summary section is only a brief overview of the proposed lease sales, alternatives, significant 

issues, potential environmental and socioeconomic effects, and proposed mitigating measures contained 

in this Supplemental EIS. To obtain the full perspective and context of the potential environmental and 

socioeconomic impacts discussed, it is necessary to read the entire analyses. Relevant discussions can be 

found in the chapters of this Supplemental EIS as described below.

• Chapter 1, The Proposed Actions, describes the purpose of and need for the 

proposed lease sales, the prelease process, postlease activities, and other OCS-related 

activities.

• Chapter 2, Alternatives Including the Proposed Actions, describes the environmental 

and socioeconomic effects of the proposed lease sales and alternatives. Also 

discussed are potential mitigating measures to avoid or minimize impacts.

• Chapter 3, Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario, describes activities associated 

with the proposed lease sales and the OCS Program, and other foreseeable activities 

that could potentially affect the biological, physical, and socioeconomic resources of 

the Gulf of Mexico.

Chapter 3.1, Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario—Routine Operations, 

describes offshore infrastructure and activities (impact-producing factors) 

associated with the proposed lease sales that could potentially affect the 

biological, physical, and socioeconomic resources of the Gulf of Mexico.

Chapter 3.2, Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario—Accidental Events,

discusses potential accidental events (i.e., oil spills, losses of well control, 

vessel collisions, and spills of chemicals or drilling fluids) that may occur as 

a result of activities associated with the proposed lease sales.

Chapter 3.3, Cumulative Activities Scenario, describes past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future human activities, including non-OCS activities, 
viii Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

as well as all OCS activities, that may affect the biological, physical, and 

socioeconomic resources of the Gulf of Mexico.

• Chapter 4, Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis, describes the 

affected environment and provides analysis of the routine, accidental, and cumulative 

impacts of the proposed actions and the alternatives on environmental and 

socioeconomic resources of the Gulf of Mexico.

Chapter 4.1, Proposed Western Planning Area Lease Sale 233, describes the 

impacts of the proposed action and two alternatives to the WPA proposed 

action on the biological, physical, and socioeconomic resources of the Gulf 

of Mexico.

Chapter 4.2, Proposed Central Planning Area Lease Sale 231, describes the 

impacts of the proposed action and two alternatives to the CPA proposed 

action on the biological, physical, and socioeconomic resources of the Gulf 

of Mexico.

Chapter 4 also includes Chapter 4.3, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts of the 

Proposed Actions; Chapter 4.4, Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment 

of Resources; and Chapter 4.5, Relationship Between the Short-term Use of 

Man’s Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term 

Productivity.

• Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination, describes the consultation and 

coordination activities with Federal, State, and local agencies and other interested 

parties that occurred during the development of this Supplemental EIS.

• Chapter 6, References Cited, is a list of literature cited throughout this Supplemental 

EIS.

• Chapter 7, Preparers, is a list of names of persons who were primarily responsible 

for preparing and reviewing this Supplemental EIS.

• Appendix A, Air Quality Offshore Modeling Analysis, presents a detailed analysis of 

the Offshore Coastal Dispersion Model for air quality purposes.

Proposed Action and Alternatives

The following alternatives were included for analysis in this Supplemental EIS.

Alternatives for Proposed Western Planning Area Lease Sale 233 

Alternative A—The Proposed Action: This is the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (BOEM’s) 

preferred alternative. This alternative would offer for lease all unleased blocks within the proposed WPA 

lease sale area (Figure 2-1), with the following exception:

(1) whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National 

Marine Sanctuary (i.e., the boundary as of the publication of this Supplemental EIS).

Alternative A of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS also included an exclusion of whole and 

partial blocks that lie within the 1.4-nautical mile (nmi) buffer zone north of the maritime boundary 

between the United States and Mexico. The U.S. and Mexico have been pursuing an Agreement to

govern the development of reservoirs of petroleum and natural gas straddling the U.S.-Mexico maritime 

and continental shelf boundary in the Gulf of Mexico. On February 20, 2012, the Agreement was signed 

by representatives of each Government, but it has not yet been enacted. Upon its enactment, the blocks 

and acreage in this buffer zone that were not offered in past lease sales will become available and will no 

longer need to be excluded.
Summary ix

Although the leasing of portions of the WPA and CPA (subareas or blocks) can be deferred during a 

Five-Year Program, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) is conservative throughout the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and includes the total area within the Gulf of Mexico planning 

areas for environmental evaluation.

The proposed WPA lease sale area encompasses about 28.58 million ac. As of March 2013, 

approximately 20.7 million ac of the proposed WPA lease sale area are currently unleased. The estimated 

amount of resources projected to be developed as a result of proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 is 

0.116-0.200 billion barrels of oil (BBO) and 0.538-0.938 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas (Table 3-1 of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS).

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

Topographic Features: This alternative would offer for lease all unleased blocks within the proposed 

WPA lease sale area, as described for the proposed action (Alternative A), with the exception of any 

unleased blocks subject to the Topographic Features Stipulation.

Alternative C—No Action: This alternative is the cancellation of proposed WPA Lease Sale 233. If 

this alternative is chosen, the opportunity for development of the estimated 0.116-0.200 BBO and 

0.538-0.938 Tcf of gas that could have resulted from proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 would be precluded 

or postponed to a future WPA lease sale. Any potential environmental impacts resulting from proposed 

WPA Lease Sale 233 would not occur or would be postponed to a future lease sale decision. This is also 

analyzed in the EIS for the Five-Year Program on a nationwide programmatic level.

Alternatives for Proposed Central Planning Area Lease Sale 231 

Alternative A—The Proposed Action: This is BOEM’s preferred alternative. This alternative would 

offer for lease all unleased blocks within the proposed CPA lease sale area (Figure 2-1), with the 

following exceptions:

(1) whole and portions of blocks deferred by the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 

2006; and

(2) blocks that are adjacent to or beyond the United States Exclusive Economic Zone in 

the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap.

Alternative A of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS also included an exclusion of whole and 

partial blocks that lie within the 1.4-nmi buffer zone north of the maritime boundary between the United 

States and Mexico. The U.S. and Mexico have been pursuing an Agreement to govern the development 

of reservoirs of petroleum and natural gas straddling the U.S.-Mexico maritime and continental shelf 

boundary in the Gulf of Mexico. On February 20, 2012, the Agreement was signed by representatives of 

each Government, but it has not yet been enacted. Upon its enactment, the blocks and acreage in this 

buffer zone that were not offered in past lease sales will become available and will no longer need to be 

excluded.

Although the leasing of portions of the CPA and WPA (subareas or blocks) can be deferred during a 

Five-Year Program, DOI is conservative throughout the NEPA process and includes the total area within 

the Gulf of Mexico planning areas for environmental evaluation.

The proposed CPA lease sale area encompasses about 63 million ac of the CPA’s 66.45 million ac. 

As of March 2013, approximately 43.0 million ac of the proposed CPA lease sale area are currently 

unleased. The estimated amount of resources projected to be developed as a result of proposed CPA 

Lease Sale 231 is 0.460-0.894 BBO and 1.939-3.903 Tcf of gas (Table 3-1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS).

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

Features: This alternative would offer for lease all unleased blocks within the proposed CPA lease sale 

area, as described for the proposed action (Alternative A), with the exception of any unleased blocks 

subject to the Topographic Features Stipulation.

Alternative C—No Action: This alternative is the cancellation of proposed CPA Lease Sale 231. If 

this alternative is chosen, the opportunity for development of the estimated 0.460-0.894 BBO and 

1.939-3.903 Tcf of gas that could have resulted from proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 would be precluded 

or postponed to a future WPA lease sale. Any potential environmental impacts resulting from proposed 
x Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

CPA Lease Sale 231 would not occur or would be postponed to a future lease sale decision. This is also 

analyzed in the EIS for the Five-Year Program on a nationwide programmatic level.

Mitigating Measures

Proposed lease stipulations and other mitigating measures designed to reduce or eliminate 

environmental risks and/or potential multiple-use conflicts between OCS operations and U.S. Department 

of Defense activities may be applied to the chosen alternative. Five lease stipulations are proposed for 

proposed WPA Lease Sale 233—the Topographic Features Stipulation, the Military Areas Stipulation, the 

Protected Species Stipulation, the Law of the Sea Convention Royalty Payment Stipulation, and the 

Transboundary Stipulation. Ten lease stipulations are proposed for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231—the

Topographic Features Stipulation; the Live Bottom Stipulation; the Military Areas Stipulation; the 

Evacuation Stipulation; the Coordination Stipulation; the Blocks South of Baldwin County, Alabama, 

Stipulation; the Protected Species Stipulation; the Law of the Sea Convention Royalty Payment 

Stipulation; the Below Seabed Operations Stipulation; and the Transboundary Stipulation. The Law of 

the Sea Convention Royalty Payment Stipulation is applicable to proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 and 

proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 even though it is not an environmental or military stipulation.

Application of lease stipulations will be considered by the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land 

and Minerals (ASLM). The inclusion of the stipulations as part of the analysis of the proposed action 

does not ensure that the ASLM will make a decision to apply the stipulations to leases that may result 

from the proposed lease sales, nor does it preclude minor modifications in wording during subsequent 

steps in the prelease process if comments indicate changes are necessary or if conditions warrant. Any 

stipulations or mitigation requirements to be included in a lease sale will be described in the Final Notice 

of Sale. Mitigation measures in the form of lease stipulations are added to the lease terms and are 

therefore enforceable as part of the lease. 

Scenarios Analyzed

Offshore activities are described in the context of scenarios for a proposed action (Chapter 3.1) and 

for the OCS Program (Chapter 3.3). BOEM’s Gulf of Mexico OCS Region developed these scenarios to 

provide a framework for detailed analyses of potential impacts of a proposed lease sale. The scenarios are 

presented as ranges of the amounts of undiscovered, unleased hydrocarbon resources estimated to be 

leased and discovered as a result of a proposed action. The analyses are based on a traditionally 

employed range of activities (e.g., the installation of platforms, wells, and pipelines, and the number of 

helicopter operations and service-vessel trips) that would be needed to develop and produce the amount of 

resources estimated to be leased.

The cumulative analysis (Chapter 4) considers environmental and socioeconomic impacts that may 

result from the incremental impact of the proposed actions when added to all past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future activities, including non-OCS activities such as import tankering and commercial 

fishing, as well as all OCS activities (OCS Program). The OCS Program scenario includes all activities 

that are projected to occur from past, proposed, and future lease sales during the 40-year analysis period 

(2012-2051). This includes projected activity from lease sales that have been held, but for which 

exploration or development has not yet begun or is continuing. In addition to human activities, impacts 

from natural occurrences, such as hurricanes, are analyzed.

Significant Issues

The major issues that frame the environmental analyses in this Supplemental EIS and the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS are the result of concerns raised during years of scoping for the Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Program. Issues related to OCS exploration, development, production, and transportation activities 

include the potential for oil spills, wetlands loss, air emissions, discharges, water quality degradation, 

trash and debris, structure and pipeline emplacement activities, platform removal, vessel and helicopter 

traffic, multiple-use conflicts, support services, population fluctuations, demands on public services, landuse planning, impacts to tourism, aesthetic interference, cultural impacts, environmental justice, and 

conflicts with State coastal zone management programs. Environmental resources and activities 

identified during the scoping process that warrant environmental analyses include air quality, water 

quality, coastal barrier beaches and associated dunes, wetlands, seagrass communities, topographic 
Summary xi

features, Sargassum communities, deepwater benthic communities, soft bottom benthic communities, 

marine mammals, sea turtles, diamondback terrapins, coastal and marine birds, fish resources and 

essential fish habitat, commercial fisheries, recreational fishing, recreational resources, archaeological 

resources, socioeconomic conditions, and within the CPA only, beach mice, live bottoms, and Gulf 

sturgeon. 

Other relevant issues include impacts from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup;

from past and future hurricanes on environmental and socioeconomic resources; and on coastal and 

offshore infrastructure. During the past few years, the Gulf Coast States and Gulf of Mexico oil and gas 

activities have been impacted by major hurricanes. The description of the affected environment 

(Chapters 4.1 and 4.2) includes impacts from these storms on the physical environment, biological 

environment, and socioeconomic activities and OCS-related infrastructure. Baseline data are considered 

in the assessment of impacts from the proposed actions to the resources and the environment (Chapters 

4.1 and 4.2). 

Impact Conclusions

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the WPA and CPA proposed actions and the proposed actions’ incremental contribution to the cumulative 

impacts are described in Chapters 4.1 and 4.2. A summary of the potential impacts from the WPA and 

CPA proposed actions on each environmental and socioeconomic resource and the conclusions of the 

analyses can be found below.

Air Quality: Emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere from the routine activities associated with 

the WPA and CPA proposed actions are projected to have minimal impacts to onshore air quality because 

of the prevailing atmospheric conditions, emission heights, emission rates, and the distance of these 

emissions from the coastline, and are expected to be well within the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. While regulations are in place to reduce the risk of impacts from hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and 

while no H2S-related deaths have occurred on the OCS, accidents involving high concentrations of H2S 

could result in deaths as well as environmental damage. These emissions from routine activities and 

accidental events associated with the WPA and CPA proposed actions are not expected to occur at 

concentrations that would change onshore air quality classifications.

Water Quality (Coastal and Offshore Waters): Impacts from routine activities associated with the

WPA and CPA proposed actions would be minimal if all existing regulatory requirements are met. 

Coastal water impacts associated with routine activities include increases in turbidity resulting from 

pipeline installation and navigation canal maintenance, discharges of bilge and ballast water from support 

vessels, and run-off from shore-based facilities. Offshore water impacts associated with routine activities 

result from the discharge of drilling muds and cuttings, produced water, residual chemicals used during 

workovers, structure installation and removal, and pipeline placement. The discharge of drilling muds 

and cuttings causes temporary increased turbidity and changes in sediment composition. The discharge of 

produced water results in increased concentrations of some metals, hydrocarbons, and dissolved solids 

within an area of about 100 meters (m) (328 feet [ft]) adjacent to the point of discharge. Structure 

installation and removal and pipeline placement disturb the sediments and cause increased turbidity. In 

addition, offshore water impacts result from supply and service-vessel bilge and ballast water discharges.

Coastal Barrier Beaches and Associated Dunes: Routine activities associated with the WPA or CPA 

proposed action, such as increased vessel traffic, maintenance dredging of navigation canals, and pipeline 

installation, would cause negligible impacts. Such impacts would be expected to be restricted to 

temporary and localized disturbances and not deleteriously affect barrier beaches and associated dunes. 

Indirect impacts from routine activities are negligible and indistinguishable from direct impacts of 

onshore activities. The potential impacts from accidental events (primarily oil spills), associated with the

WPA or CPA proposed action are anticipated to be minimal. Should a spill (other than a catastrophic 

spill) contact a barrier beach, oiling is expected to be light and sand removal during cleanup activities 

minimized. No significant long-term impacts to the physical shape and structure of barrier beaches and 

associated dunes are expected to occur as a result of the WPA or CPA proposed action. The incremental 

contribution of the WPA or CPA proposed action to the cumulative impacts of coastal barriers and their 

associated dunes is expected to be small and localized. Compared with the historic and ongoing threats to 

coastal barrier beaches and dunes, such as development threats, natural factors such as hurricanes, and 
xii Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

channelization, any remaining effects of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup on 

coastal barrier beaches and dunes are expected to be small in comparison.

Wetlands: Routine activities associated with the WPA or CPA proposed action are expected to be 

small, localized, and temporary due to the small length of projected onshore pipelines, the minimal 

contribution to the need for maintenance dredging, the disposal of OCS wastes, and the mitigation 

measures that would be used to further reduce these impacts. Indirect impacts from wake erosion and 

saltwater intrusion are expected to result in low impacts that are indistinguishable from direct impacts 

from inshore activities. The potential impacts from accidental events (primarily oil spills, excepting 

catastrophic spills) are anticipated to be minimal. Overall, impacts to wetland habitats from an oil spill 

associated with activities related to the WPA or CPA proposed action would be expected to be small and 

temporary because of the nature of the system, regulations, and specific cleanup techniques. The 

cumulative effects of human and natural activities in the coastal area have severely degraded the deltaic 

processes and have shifted the coastal area from a condition of net land building to one of net landloss, 

particularly in Louisiana. The incremental contribution of the WPA or CPA proposed action to the 

cumulative impacts on coastal wetlands is expected to be small.

Seagrass Communities: Turbidity impacts from pipeline installation and maintenance dredging 

associated with the WPA and CPA proposed actions would be temporary and localized. The incremental 

impacts from service-vessel transit associated with the WPA and CPA proposed actions would be 

minimal. Should an oil spill occur near a seagrass community, impacts from the spill and cleanup would 

be considered short term in duration and minor in scope. Close monitoring and restrictions on the use of 

bottom-disturbing equipment to clean up the spill would be needed to avoid or minimize those impacts.

Live Bottoms (Pinnacle Trend and Low Relief): The combination of its depth (200-400 ft; 60-120 m), 

separation from sources of impacts as mandated by the Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend and Low Relief) 

Stipulation and through site-specific seafloor reviews of proposed activity, and a community adapted to 

sedimentation makes damage to the ecosystem unlikely from routine activities associated with the CPA 

proposed action. In the unlikely event that oil from a subsurface spill would reach the biota of these 

communities, the effects would be primarily sublethal for adult sessile biota, and there would be limited 

incidences of mortality.

Topographic Features: The routine activities associated with the WPA and CPA proposed actions 

that would impact topographic feature communities include anchoring, infrastructure and pipeline 

emplacement, infrastructure removal, drilling discharges, and produced-water discharges. However, 

adherence to the proposed Topographic Features Stipulation would make damage to the ecosystem 

unlikely. Contact with accidentally spilled oil would cause lethal and sublethal effects in benthic 

organisms, but the oiling of benthic organisms is not likely because of the small area of the banks, the 

scattered occurrence of spills, the depth of the features, and because the proposed Topographic Features 

Stipulation, if applied, would keep subsurface sources of spills away from the immediate vicinity of 

topographic features.

Sargassum Communities: The impacts to Sargassum that are associated with the WPA and CPA 

proposed actions are expected to have only minor effects to a small portion of the Sargassum community 

as a whole. Limited portions of the Sargassum community could suffer mortality if it contacts spilled oil 

or cleanup activities. The Sargassum community lives in pelagic waters with generally high water quality

and would be resilient to the minor effects predicted. It has a yearly cycle that promotes quick recovery 

from impacts. No measurable impacts are expected to the overall population of the Sargassum

community from the WPA and CPA proposed actions.

Chemosynthetic and Nonchemosynthetic Deepwater Benthic Communities: Chemosynthetic and 

nonchemosynthetic communities are susceptible to physical impacts from structure placement, anchoring, 

and pipeline installation associated with the WPA and CPA proposed actions. However, the policy 

requirements described in Notice to Lessees and Operators (NTL) 2009-G40 greatly reduce the risk of 

these physical impacts by clarifying the measures that must be taken to ensure avoidance of potential 

chemosynthetic communities and, by consequence, avoidance of other hard-bottom communities. Even 

in situations where substantial burial of typical benthic infaunal communities occurred, recolonization by 

populations from widespread, neighboring, soft bottom substrate would be expected over a relatively 

short period of time for all size ranges of organisms. Potential accidental events associated with the WPA 

and CPA proposed actions are expected to cause little damage to the ecological function or biological 

productivity of the widespread, low-density chemosynthetic communities and the widespread, typical, 

deep-sea benthic communities.
Summary xiii

Soft Bottom Benthic Communities: The routine activities associated with the WPA or CPA proposed 

action that would impact soft bottoms generally occur within a few hundred meters of platforms, and the 

greatest impacts are seen close to the platform communities. Although localized impacts to 

comparatively small areas of the soft bottom benthic communities would occur, the impacts would be on 

a relatively small area of the seafloor compared with the overall area of the seafloor of the WPA 

(115,645 square kilometers [km2

]; 44,651 square miles [mi2]) or the CPA (268,922 km2; 103,831 mi2). 

The WPA or CPA proposed action is expected to have a negligible impact on soft bottom environments 

because the local impacted areas are extremely small compared with the entire seafloor of the Gulf of 

Mexico and because the soft bottom benthic communities are ubiquitous throughout the Gulf of Mexico.

Marine Mammals: Routine events related to the WPA or CPA proposed action are not expected to 

have adverse effects on the size and productivity of any marine mammal species or population in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico. Characteristics of impacts from accidental events depend on chronic or acute 

exposure from accidental events resulting in harassment, harm, or mortality to marine mammals, while 

exposure to dispersed hydrocarbons is likely to result in sublethal impacts.

Sea Turtles: Routine activities resulting from the WPA or CPA proposed action have the potential to 

harm sea turtles, although this potential is unlikely to rise to a level of significance due to the activity 

already present in the Gulf of Mexico and mitigations that are in place. Accidental events associated with 

the WPA and CPA proposed action have the potential to impact small to large numbers of sea turtles. 

Populations of sea turtles in the northern Gulf of Mexico may be exposed to residuals of oils spilled as a 

result of the WPA or CPA proposed action during their lifetimes. While chronic or acute exposure from 

accidental events may result in the harassment, harm, or mortality to sea turtles, in the most likely 

scenarios, exposure to hydrocarbons persisting in the sea following the dispersal of an oil slick are 

expected to most often result in sublethal impacts (e.g., decreased health and/or reproductive fitness and 

increased vulnerability to disease) to sea turtles. The incremental contribution of the WPA or CPA 

proposed action would not be likely to result in a significant incremental impact on sea turtles within the 

WPA and CPA; in comparison, non-OCS energy-related activities, such as overexploitation, commercial 

fishing, and pollution, have historically proved to be of greater threat to the sea turtle species.

Diamondback Terrapins: The routine activities of the WPA or CPA proposed action are unlikely to 

have significant adverse effects on the size and recovery of terrapin species or populations in the Gulf of 

Mexico. Impacts on diamondback terrapins from smaller accidental events are likely to affect individual 

diamondback terrapins in the spill area, but they are unlikely to rise to the level of population effects (or 

significance) given the probable size and scope of such spills. Due to the distance of most terrapin habitat 

from offshore OCS energy-related activities, impacts associated with activities occurring as a result of the

WPA or CPA proposed action are not expected to impact terrapins or their habitat. The incremental 

effect of the WPA or CPA proposed action on diamondback terrapin populations is not expected to be 

significant when compared with historic and current non-OCS energy-related activities, such as habitat 

loss, overharvesting, crabbing, and fishing.

Alabama, Choctawhatchee, St. Andrew, and Perdido Key Beach Mice: An impact from the 

consumption of beach trash and debris associated with the CPA proposed action on the Alabama, 

Choctawhatchee, St. Andrew, and Perdido Key beach mice is possible but unlikely. While potential spills 

that could result from the CPA proposed action are not expected to contact beach mice or their habitats, 

large-scale oiling of beach mice could result in extinction, and, if all personnel are not thoroughly trained, 

oil-spill response and cleanup activities could have a significant impact to the beach mice and their 

habitat.

Coastal and Marine Birds: The majority of impacts resulting from routine activities associated with 

the WPA or CPA proposed action on threatened and endangered and nonthreatened and nonendangered 

avian species are expected to be adverse, but not significant. These impacts include behavioral effects, 

exposure to or intake of OCS-related contaminants and discarded debris, disturbance-related impacts, and 

displacement of birds from habitats that are destroyed, altered, or fragmented, making these areas 

otherwise unavailable. Impacts from potential oil spills associated with the WPA or CPA proposed action 

and the effects related to oil-spill cleanup are expected to be adverse, but not significant. Oil spills, 

irrespective of size, can result in some mortality as well as sublethal, chronic short- and long-term effects, 

in addition to potential impacts to food resources. The effect of cumulative activities on coastal and 

marine birds is expected to result in discernible changes to avian species composition, distribution, and 

abundance. The incremental contribution of the WPA or CPA proposed action to cumulative impacts is 

expected to be adverse, but not significant, because it may seriously alter avian species composition and
xiv Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

abundance due to reductions in the overall carrying capacity of disturbed habitats, and possibly to the 

availability, abundance, and distribution of preferred food resources.

Gulf Sturgeon: Routine activities associated with the CPA proposed action, such as the installation of 

pipelines, maintenance dredging, potential vessel strikes, and nonpoint-source runoff from onshore 

facilities, would cause negligible impacts and would not deleteriously affect Gulf sturgeon. Indirect 

impacts from routine activities to inshore habitats are negligible and indistinguishable from direct impacts 

of inshore activities and are further reduced through mitigations and regulations. The potential impacts 

from accidental events, mainly oil spills associated with the CPA proposed action, are anticipated to be 

minimal. Because of the floating nature of oil, reduced toxicity through weathering (offshore dispersant

treatment) and the small tidal range of the Gulf of Mexico, oil spills alone would typically have very little 

impact on benthic feeders such as the Gulf sturgeon. The incremental contribution of the CPA proposed 

action to the cumulative impact is negligible.

Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat: Fish resources and essential fish habitat could be 

impacted by coastal environmental degradation potentially caused by canal dredging, increases in 

infrastructure, and inshore spills and marine environmental degradation possibly caused by pipeline 

trenching, offshore discharges, and offshore spills. Impacts of routine dredging and discharges are 

localized in time and space and are regulated by Federal and State agencies through permitting processes; 

therefore, there would be minimal impact to fish resources and essential fish habitat from these routine 

activities associated with the WPA or CPA proposed action. Accidental events that could impact fish 

resources and essential fish habitat include blowouts and oil or chemical spills. If a spill were to occur as 

a result of the WPA or CPA proposed action, the impacts of the spill on fish and essential fish habitats 

would depend on multiple factors, including the amount spilled, the areal extent of the spill, the distance 

of the spill from especially sensitive fish and shellfish habitats (e.g., nursery habitats), the time of year, 

and the type and toxicity of oil spilled. Much of the sensitive essential fish habitat would have decreased 

effects from oil spills because of the depths that many are found and because of the distance that these 

low-probability spills would occur from many of the biologically sensitive fish habitats (due to 

stipulations, NTL’s, and other mitigation measures). If there is an effect of an oil spill on fish resources 

in the Gulf of Mexico, it is expected to cause a minimal decrease in standing stocks of any population. 

This is because most spill events would be localized, therefore affecting a small portion of fish 

populations.

Commercial Fisheries: Routine activities in the WPA and CPA, such as seismic surveys and pipeline 

trenching, would cause negligible impacts and would not deleteriously affect commercial fishing

activities. Indirect impacts from routine activities to inshore habitats are negligible and indistinguishable 

from direct impacts of inshore activities on commercial fisheries. The potential impacts from accidental 

events, such as a well blowout or an oil spill, associated with the WPA and CPA proposed actions are 

anticipated to be minimal. Commercial fishermen are anticipated to avoid the area of a well blowout or 

an oil spill. Large spills may impact commercial fisheries by area closures. The extent of impact depends 

on the areal extent and length of the closure. The impact of spills on catch or value of catch would 

depend on the volume and location (i.e., distance from shore) of the spill, as well as the physical 

properties of the oil spilled.

Recreational Fishing: There could be minor and short-term, space-use conflicts with recreational 

fishermen during the initial phases of the WPA or CPA proposed action. The WPA or CPA proposed 

action could also lead to low-level environmental degradation of fish habitat, which would also negatively 

impact recreational fishing activity. However, these minor negative effects would be offset by the 

beneficial role that oil platforms serve as artificial reefs for fish populations. An oil spill would likely 

lead to recreational fishing closures in the vicinity of the oil spill. Except for a catastrophic spill such as 

the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, oil spills should not affect recreational fishing to a large degree due to 

the likely availability of substitute fishing sites in neighboring regions.

Recreational Resources: Routine OCS actions can cause minor disturbances to recreational 

resources, particularly beaches, through increased levels of noise, debris, and rig visibility. The oil spills

most likely to result from the WPA or CPA proposed action would be small, of short duration, and not 

likely to impact Gulf Coast recreational resources. Should an oil spill occur and contact a beach area or 

other recreational resource, it would cause some disruption during the impact and cleanup phases of the 

spill. However, except for a catastrophic spill such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, these effects are 

likely to be small in scale and of short duration.
Summary xv

Archaeological Resources (Historic and Prehistoric): The greatest potential impact to an 

archaeological resource as a result of routine activities associated with the WPA or CPA proposed action 

would result from direct contact between an offshore activity (e.g., platform installation, drilling rig 

emplacement, structure removal or site clearance operation, and dredging or pipeline project) and a 

historic or prehistoric site. The archaeological survey and archaeological clearance of sites, where 

required prior to an operator beginning oil and gas activities on a lease, are expected to be highly effective 

at identifying possible offshore archaeological sites; however, should such contact occur, there would be 

localized damage to or loss of significant and/or unique archaeological information. It is expected that 

coastal archaeological resources would be protected through the review and approval processes of the 

various Federal, State, and local agencies involved in permitting onshore activities.

It is not very likely that a large oil spill would occur and contact coastal prehistoric or historic 

archaeological sites from accidental events associated with the WPA or CPA proposed action. Should a 

spill contact a prehistoric archaeological site, damage might include loss of radiocarbon-dating potential, 

direct impact from oil-spill cleanup equipment, and/or looting resulting in the irreversible loss of unique 

or significant archaeological information. The major effect from an oil-spill impact on coastal historic 

archaeological sites would be visual contamination, which, while reversible, could result in additional 

impacts to fragile cultural materials from the cleaning process.

Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure: The WPA or CPA proposed action would not require 

additional coastal infrastructure, with the exception of possibly one new gas processing facility and one 

new pipeline landfall, and it would not alter the current land use of the analysis area. The existing oil and 

gas infrastructure is expected to be sufficient to handle development associated with the WPA or CPA 

proposed action. There may be some expansion at current facilities, but the land in the analysis area is 

sufficient to handle such development. There is also sufficient land to construct a new gas processing 

plant in the analysis area, should it be needed. Accidental events such as oil or chemical spills, blowouts, 

and vessel collisions would have no effects on land use. Coastal or nearshore spills, as well as vessel 

collisions, could have short-term adverse effects on coastal infrastructure, requiring cleanup of any oil or 

chemicals spilled.

Demographics: The WPA or CPA proposed action is projected to minimally affect the demography 

of the analysis area. Population impacts from the WPA or CPA proposed action are projected to be 

minimal (<1% of total population) for any economic impact area in the Gulf of Mexico region. The 

baseline population patterns and distributions, as projected and described in Chapters 4.1.1.20 and 

4.2.1.23, are expected to remain unchanged as a result of the WPA or CPA proposed action. The increase 

in employment is expected to be met primarily with the existing population and available labor force, 

with the exception of some in-migration (from elsewhere within or outside the U.S.), which is projected 

to move into focal areas such as Port Fourchon. Accidental events associated with the WPA or CPA 

proposed action, such as oil or chemical spills, blowouts, and vessel collisions, would likely have no 

effects on the demographic characteristics of the Gulf coastal communities.

Economic Factors: The WPA or CPA proposed action is expected to generate a <1 percent increase 

in employment in any of the coastal subareas, even when the net employment impacts from accidental 

events are included. Most of the employment related to the WPA or CPA proposed action is expected to 

occur in Louisiana and Texas. The demand would be met primarily with the existing population and 

labor force.

Environmental Justice: Environmental justice implications arise indirectly from onshore activities 

conducted in support of OCS exploration, development, and production. Because the onshore 

infrastructure support system for OCS-related industry (and its associated labor force) is highly 

developed, widespread, and has operated for decades within a heterogeneous Gulf of Mexico population, 

the WPA and CPA proposed actions are not expected to have disproportionately high or adverse 

environmental or health effects on minority or low-income people. The WPA and CPA proposed actions 

would help to maintain ongoing levels of activity, which may or may not result in the expansion of 

existing infrastructure. For a detailed discussion of scenario projections and the potential for expansion at 

existing facilities and/or construction of new facilities, refer to Chapter 3.1.2. 

Table of Contents xvii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

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

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

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... xxv

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS.........................................................................................xxvii

CONVERSION CHART.................................................................................................................xxxi

1. THE PROPOSED ACTIONS .....................................................................................................1-3

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

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

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

1.3.1. Rule Changes for the Reorganization of Title 30 for the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement ...............1-6

1.3.2. Recent BOEM/BSEE Rule Changes....................................................................1-7

1.3.2.1. Recent Rule Changes .........................................................................1-7

1.3.2.2. Recent and Ongoing Regulatory Reform and Government-Sponsored 

Research ...........................................................................................1-8

1.3.2.3. Recent and Ongoing Industry Reform and Research.............................1-8

1.4. Prelease Process..............................................................................................................1-9

1.5. Postlease Activities ....................................................................................................... 1-11

1.6. Other OCS-Related Activities........................................................................................ 1-20

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

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

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

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

2.2.1.1. Alternatives for Proposed Western Planning Area Lease Sale 233 .........2-4

2.2.1.2. Alternatives for Proposed Central Planning Area Lease Sale 231 ..........2-4

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

2.2.2.1. Proposed Mitigating Measures Analyzed.............................................2-6

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

2.2.3. Issues................................................................................................................2-8

2.2.3.1. Issues to be Analyzed.........................................................................2-8

2.2.3.2. Issues Considered but Not Analyzed ...................................................2-8

2.3. Proposed Western Planning Area Lease Sale 233 ..............................................................2-9

2.3.1. Alternative A—The Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) ...............................2-9

2.3.1.1. Description........................................................................................2-9

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

2.3.1.3. Mitigating Measures ........................................................................ 2-11

2.3.1.3.1. Topographic Features Stipulation .................................... 2-11

2.3.1.3.2. Military Areas Stipulation ............................................... 2-11

2.3.1.3.3. Protected Species Stipulation .......................................... 2-11
xviii Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

2.3.1.3.4. Law of the Sea Convention Royalty Payment Stipulation .. 2-12

2.3.1.3.5. Transboundary Stipulation .............................................. 2-12

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

Biologically Sensitive Topographic Features ..................................................... 2-12

2.3.2.1. Description...................................................................................... 2-12

2.3.2.2. Summary of Impacts........................................................................ 2-12

2.3.3. Alternative C—No Action................................................................................ 2-12

2.3.3.1. Description...................................................................................... 2-12

2.3.3.2. Summary of Impacts........................................................................ 2-13

2.4. Proposed Central Planning Area Lease Sale 231.............................................................. 2-13

2.4.1. Alternative A—The Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) ............................. 2-13

2.4.1.1. Description...................................................................................... 2-13

2.4.1.2. Summary of Impacts........................................................................ 2-14

2.4.1.3. Mitigating Measures ........................................................................ 2-15

2.4.1.3.1. Topographic Features Stipulation .................................... 2-15

2.4.1.3.2. Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation ........................ 2-15

2.4.1.3.3. Military Areas Stipulation ............................................... 2-16

2.4.1.3.4. Evacuation Stipulation .................................................... 2-16

2.4.1.3.5. Coordination Stipulation ................................................. 2-16

2.4.1.3.6. Blocks South of Baldwin County, Alabama, Stipulation.... 2-16

2.4.1.3.7. Protected Species Stipulation .......................................... 2-16

2.4.1.3.8. Law of the Sea Convention Royalty Payment Stipulation .. 2-16

2.4.1.3.9. Below Seabed Operations Stipulation .............................. 2-16

2.4.1.3.10. Transboundary Stipulation .............................................. 2-16

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

Biologically Sensitive Topographic Features ..................................................... 2-17

2.4.2.1. Description...................................................................................... 2-17

2.4.2.2. Summary of Impacts........................................................................ 2-17

2.4.3. Alternative C—No Action................................................................................ 2-17

2.4.3.1. Description...................................................................................... 2-17

2.4.3.2. Summary of Impacts........................................................................ 2-17

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

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

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

3.1.1.1. Resource Estimates and Timetables.....................................................3-4

3.1.1.1.1. Proposed Actions .............................................................3-4

3.1.1.1.2. OCS Program...................................................................3-5

3.1.1.2. Exploration and Delineation ...............................................................3-5

3.1.1.2.1. Seismic Surveying Operations...........................................3-5

3.1.1.2.2. Exploration and Delineation Plans and Drilling ..................3-6

3.1.1.3. Development and Production..............................................................3-7

3.1.1.4. Operational Waste Discharged Offshore ..............................................3-9

3.1.1.5. Air Emissions.................................................................................. 3-10

3.1.1.6. Noise .............................................................................................. 3-10

3.1.1.7. Major Sources of Oil Inputs in the Gulf of Mexico............................. 3-11

3.1.1.8. Offshore Transport........................................................................... 3-11

3.1.1.9. Safety Issues.................................................................................... 3-11

3.1.1.10. Decommissioning and Removal Operations....................................... 3-12
Table of Contents xix

3.1.2. Coastal Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario................................................. 3-12

3.1.2.1. Coastal Infrastructure ....................................................................... 3-12

3.1.2.2. Discharges and Wastes..................................................................... 3-13

3.2. Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario—Accidental Events ........................................... 3-13

3.2.1. Oil Spills......................................................................................................... 3-13

3.2.1.1. Spill Prevention ............................................................................... 3-13

3.2.1.2. Past OCS Spills ............................................................................... 3-13

3.2.1.3. Characteristics of OCS Oil ............................................................... 3-14

3.2.1.4. Overview of Spill Risk Analysis ....................................................... 3-14

3.2.1.5. Risk Analysis for Offshore Spills ≥1,000 bbl ..................................... 3-15

3.2.1.6. Risk Analysis for Offshore Spills <1,000 bbl ..................................... 3-15

3.2.1.7. Risk Analysis for Coastal Spills........................................................ 3-16

3.2.1.8. Risk Analysis by Resource ............................................................... 3-16

3.2.1.9. Spill Response ................................................................................. 3-16

3.2.2. Losses of Well Control .................................................................................... 3-17

3.2.3. Pipeline Failures.............................................................................................. 3-18

3.2.4. Vessel Collisions............................................................................................. 3-19

3.2.5. Chemical and Drilling-Fluid Spills.................................................................... 3-19

3.3. Cumulative Activities Scenario ...................................................................................... 3-19

3.3.1. OCS Program .................................................................................................. 3-19

3.3.2. State Oil and Gas Activity ................................................................................ 3-19

3.3.3. Other Major Factors Influencing Offshore Environments ................................... 3-20

3.3.4. Other Major Factors Influencing Coastal Environments ..................................... 3-20

3.3.5. Natural Events and Processes ........................................................................... 3-20

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

4.1. Proposed Western Planning Area Lease Sale 233 ..............................................................4-3

4.1.1. Alternative A—The Proposed Action..................................................................4-8

4.1.1.1. Air Quality ........................................................................................4-8

4.1.1.2. Water Quality .................................................................................. 4-14

4.1.1.2.1. Coastal Waters ............................................................... 4-14

4.1.1.2.2. Offshore Waters............................................................. 4-16

4.1.1.3. Coastal Barrier Beaches and Associated Dunes.................................. 4-18

4.1.1.4. Wetlands......................................................................................... 4-21

4.1.1.5. Seagrass Communities ..................................................................... 4-24

4.1.1.6. Topographic Features....................................................................... 4-25

4.1.1.7. Sargassum Communities .................................................................. 4-28

4.1.1.8. Chemosynthetic Deepwater Benthic Communities ............................. 4-30

4.1.1.9. Nonchemosynthetic Deepwater Benthic Communities........................ 4-33

4.1.1.10. Soft Bottom Benthic Communities.................................................... 4-36

4.1.1.11. Marine Mammals............................................................................. 4-39

4.1.1.12. Sea Turtles ...................................................................................... 4-42

4.1.1.13. Diamondback Terrapins ................................................................... 4-44

4.1.1.14. Coastal and Marine Birds ................................................................. 4-46

4.1.1.15. Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat ......................................... 4-52

4.1.1.16. Commercial Fisheries....................................................................... 4-55

4.1.1.17. Recreational Fishing ........................................................................ 4-60

4.1.1.18. Recreational Resources .................................................................... 4-62
xx Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

4.1.1.19. Archaeological Resources ................................................................ 4-63

4.1.1.19.1. Historic.......................................................................... 4-63

4.1.1.19.2. Prehistoric...................................................................... 4-66

4.1.1.20. Human Resources and Land Use ....................................................... 4-69

4.1.1.20.1. Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure ................................ 4-69

4.1.1.20.2. Demographics ................................................................ 4-72

4.1.1.20.3. Economic Factors........................................................... 4-74

4.1.1.20.4. Environmental Justice ..................................................... 4-76

4.1.1.21. Species Considered due to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Concerns ... 4-79

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

Biologically Sensitive Topographic Features ..................................................... 4-81

4.1.3. Alternative C—No Action................................................................................ 4-82

4.2. Proposed Central Planning Area Lease Sale 231.............................................................. 4-84

4.2.1. Alternative A—The Proposed Action................................................................ 4-88

4.2.1.1. Air Quality ...................................................................................... 4-88

4.2.1.2. Water Quality .................................................................................. 4-93

4.2.1.2.1. Coastal Waters ............................................................... 4-93

4.2.1.2.2. Offshore Waters............................................................. 4-96

4.2.1.3. Coastal Barrier Beaches and Associated Dunes.................................. 4-99

4.2.1.4. Wetlands....................................................................................... 4-102

4.2.1.5. Seagrass Communities ................................................................... 4-106

4.2.1.6. Live Bottoms................................................................................. 4-108

4.2.1.6.1. Live Bottoms (Pinnacle Trend)...................................... 4-108

4.2.1.6.2. Live Bottoms (Low Relief) ........................................... 4-111

4.2.1.7. Topographic Features..................................................................... 4-115

4.2.1.8. Sargassum Communities ................................................................ 4-117

4.2.1.9. Chemosynthetic Deepwater Benthic Communities ........................... 4-119

4.2.1.10. Nonchemosynthetic Deepwater Benthic Communities...................... 4-122

4.2.1.11. Soft Bottom Benthic Communities.................................................. 4-126

4.2.1.12. Marine Mammals........................................................................... 4-129

4.2.1.13. Sea Turtles .................................................................................... 4-131

4.2.1.14. Diamondback Terrapins ................................................................. 4-134

4.2.1.15. Alabama, Choctawhatchee, St. Andrew, and Perdido Key 

Beach Mice ................................................................................... 4-137

4.2.1.16. Coastal and Marine Birds ............................................................... 4-139

4.2.1.17. Gulf Sturgeon ................................................................................ 4-145

4.2.1.18. Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat ....................................... 4-148

4.2.1.19. Commercial Fisheries..................................................................... 4-152

4.2.1.20. Recreational Fishing ...................................................................... 4-156

4.2.1.21. Recreational Resources .................................................................. 4-158

4.2.1.22. Archaeological Resources .............................................................. 4-160

4.2.1.22.1. Historic........................................................................ 4-160

4.2.1.22.2. Prehistoric.................................................................... 4-163

4.2.1.23. Human Resources and Land Use ..................................................... 4-166

4.2.1.23.1. Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure .............................. 4-166

4.2.1.23.2. Demographics .............................................................. 4-169

4.2.1.23.3. Economic Factors......................................................... 4-171

4.2.1.23.4. Environmental Justice ................................................... 4-173

4.2.1.24. Species Considered due to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Concerns . 4-176
Table of Contents xxi

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

Biologically Sensitive Topographic Features ................................................... 4-178

4.2.3. Alternative C—No Action.............................................................................. 4-180

4.3. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts of the Proposed Actions ................................................. 4-181

4.4. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources................................................ 4-183

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

and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity ................................................................ 4-184

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

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

5.2. Notice of Intent to Prepare a Supplemental EIS and Call for Information ............................5-3

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

5.3.1. Summary of Scoping Comments.........................................................................5-3

5.3.2. Summary of Comments Received in Response to the Call for Information ............5-5

5.3.3. Additional Scoping Opportunities.......................................................................5-5

5.3.4. Cooperating Agency ..........................................................................................5-6

5.4. Distribution of the Draft Supplemental EIS for Review and Comment ................................5-6

5.5. Public Meetings..............................................................................................................5-9

5.6. Coastal Zone Management Act ...................................................................................... 5-11

5.7. Endangered Species Act ................................................................................................ 5-11

5.8. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ....................................... 5-12

5.9. National Historic Preservation Act ................................................................................. 5-12

5.10. Major Differences Between the Draft and Final Supplemental EIS’s ................................ 5-13

5.11. Comments Received on the Draft Supplemental EIS and BOEM’s Responses................... 5-13

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

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

FIGURES ..............................................................................................................................Figures-3 

TABLES ................................................................................................................................. Tables-3 

APPENDIX A. AIR QUALITY OFFSHORE MODELING ANALYSIS ........................................... A-3 

KEYWORD INDEX...........................................................................................................Keywords-3 

List of Figures xxiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

0BFigure 2-1. Location of Proposed Stipulations and Deferrals...................................................Figures-3

1BFigure 3-1. Offshore Subareas in the Gulf of Mexico. ............................................................Figures-4

2BFigure 4-1. Relative Migratory Paths or Corridors for Trans-Gulf Migratory Birds 

in the Gulf of Mexico..........................................................................................Figures-5

List of Tables xxv

LIST OF TABLES

Page

0BTable 3-1. Projected Oil and Gas in the Gulf of Mexico OCS .................................................Tables-3

1BTable 3-2. Offshore Scenario Information Related to a Typical Lease Sale in the Western 

Planning Area .....................................................................................................Tables-4

2BTable 3-3. Offshore Scenario Information Related to a Typical Lease Sale in the Central 

Planning Area .....................................................................................................Tables-5

3BTable 3-4. Offshore Scenario Information Related to OCS Program Activities in the Gulf of 

Mexico (WPA, CPA, and EPA) for 2012-2051 ......................................................Tables-6

4BTable 3-5. Offshore Scenario Information Related to OCS Program Activities in the Western 

Planning Area for 2012-2051 ...............................................................................Tables-7

5BTable 3-6. Offshore Scenario Information Related to OCS Program Activities in the Central 

Planning Area for 2012-2051 ...............................................................................Tables-8

6BTable 3-7. Properties and Persistence by Oil Component Group .............................................Tables-9

7BTable 4-1. Federally Listed Avian Species Considered by State and Associated Planning 

Area in the Gulf of Mexico ................................................................................Tables-10

8BTable 4-2. Birds Collected and Summarized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: PostDeepwater Horizon Explosion, Oil Spill, and Cleanup in the Gulf of Mexico ........Tables-11

9BTable 4-3. Angler Effort in 2009, 2010, and 2011 ................................................................Tables-17

10BTable 4-4. Top Species Landed by Recreational Fishermen ..................................................Tables-18

1BTable 4-5. Recreational Employment: Employment in the Leisure/Hospitality Industry in 

Selected Geographic Regions.............................................................................Tables-19

12BTable 4-6. Baseline Population Projections (in thousands) by Economic Impact Area ............Tables-20

13BTable 4-7. Baseline Employment Projections (in thousands) by Economic Impact Area .........Tables-22

14BTable 4-8. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area 

TX-1 ................................................................................................................Tables-24

15BTable 4-9. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area 

TX-2 ................................................................................................................Tables-27

16BTable 4-10. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area 

TX-3 ................................................................................................................Tables-30

17BTable 4-11. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area 

LA-1 ................................................................................................................Tables-33

18BTable 4-12. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area 

LA-2 ................................................................................................................Tables-36

19BTable 4-13. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area 

LA-3 ................................................................................................................Tables-39

20BTable 4-14. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area 

LA-4 ................................................................................................................Tables-42

21BTable 4-15. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area 

MS-1 ................................................................................................................Tables-45

2BTable 4-16. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area 

AL-1 ................................................................................................................Tables-48
xxvi Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

23BTable 4-17. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area 

FL-1 .................................................................................................................Tables-51

24BTable 4-18. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area 

FL-2 .................................................................................................................Tables-54

25BTable 4-19. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area 

FL-3 .................................................................................................................Tables-57

26BTable 4-20. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area 

FL-4 .................................................................................................................Tables-60

27BTable 4-21. Peak Population Projections from the WPA Proposed Action as a Percent of Total 

Population.........................................................................................................Tables-63

28BTable 4-22. Peak Population Projections from the Cumulative OCS Program as a Percent of 

Total Employment.............................................................................................Tables-64

29BTable 4-23. High-Case Employment Projections for the WPA Proposed Action by Economic 

Impact Area ......................................................................................................Tables-65

30BTable 4-24. Low-Case Employment Projections for the WPA Proposed Action by Economic 

Impact Area ......................................................................................................Tables-66

31BTable 4-25. Peak Employment Projections from the WPA Proposed Action as a Percent of 

Total Employment.............................................................................................Tables-67

32BTable 4-26. High-Case Cumulative Employment Projections by Economic Impact Area ..........Tables-68

3BTable 4-27. Low-Case Cumulative Employment Projections by Economic Impact Area...........Tables-69

34BTable 4-28. Low- and High-Case Cumulative Employment Projections as a Percent of Total 

Employment .....................................................................................................Tables-70

35BTable 4-29. Angler Trips in the Gulf of Mexico by Location and Mode in 2009, 2010, and 

2011 .................................................................................................................Tables-71

36BTable 4-30. Fish Species Caught by Recreational Anglers from 2007 through 2011 .................Tables-72

37BTable 4-31. Peak Population Projections from the CPA Proposed Action as a Percent of Total 

Population.........................................................................................................Tables-73

38BTable 4-32. High-Case Employment Projections for the CPA Proposed Action by Economic 

Impact Area ......................................................................................................Tables-74

39BTable 4-33. Low-Case Employment Projections for the CPA Proposed Action by Economic 

Impact Area ......................................................................................................Tables-75

40BTable 4-34. Peak Employment Projections from the CPA Proposed Action as a Percent of 

Total Employment.............................................................................................Tables-76
Abbreviations and Acronyms xxvii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

°C degree Celsius

°F degree Fahrenheit

ac acre

AEDP area evaluation and decision process

Agreement Agreement between the United States of America and the United 

Mexican States Concerning Transboundary Hydrocarbon Reservoirs 

in the Gulf of Mexico

AL Alabama 

API American Petroleum Institute

ASLM Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals

BAST best available and safest technology

bbl barrel 

BBO billion barrels of oil

BCR Bird Conservation Region

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

BOEMRE Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement

BOP blowout preventer

BP British Petroleum 

BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

CAA Clean Air Act of 1970

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

CAMx Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions

CD Consistency Determination

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CG Coast Guard (also: USCG)

CMP Coastal Management Plans

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

COE Corps of Engineers (U.S. Army)

CPA Central Planning Area

CSA Continental Shelf Associates

CZM Coastal Zone Management

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

DOCD development operations coordination document 

DOD Department of Defense (U.S.) (also: USDOD)

DOI Department of the Interior (U.S.) (also: USDOI)

DPP development and production plan

EA environmental assessment

EFH essential fish habitat 

e.g. for example

EIA Economic Impact Area

EIS environmental impact statement

EP exploration plan

EPA Eastern Planning Area

ERMA Environmental Response Management Application

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973

ESP Environmental Studies Program 

ESPIS Environmental Studies Program Information System

et al. and others

et seq. and the following

Five-Year Program Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 

 2012-2017
xxviii Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Five-Year Program EIS Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017, 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

FL Florida 

FPSO floating production, storage, and offloading system

FR Federal Register

ft feet

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service

G&G geological and geophysical

g gram

gal gallon

GMFMC Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council 

GOM Gulf of Mexico

GS Geological Survey (also: USGS)

GWEI Gulfwide Emissions Inventory

H2S hydrogen sulfide

ha hectare 

i.e. specifically

in inch

JITF Joint Industry Task Force 

kg kilogram

kg/d kilogram/day 

km kilometer 

L liter

LA Louisiana 

LNG liquefied natural gas

m meter 

MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships

mi mile

MMbbl million barrels

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

MMS Minerals Management Service

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MODU mobile offshore drilling unit

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MS Mississippi 

2007-2012 WPA/CPA Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2007-2012; 

Multisale EIS Western Planning Area Lease Sales 229, 233, 238, 246, and 248; 

 Central Planning Area Lease Sales 227, 231, 235, 241, and 247; 

Final Environmental Impact Statement; Volumes I-III 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

nmi nautical-mile 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOx nitrogen oxides

NOA Notice of Availability

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOI Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS

NOS National Ocean Service

NPDES National Pollutant and Discharge Elimination System

NRC National Research Council

NRDA Natural Resource Damage Assessment

NTL Notice to Lessees and Operators

O3 ozone 

OCD Offshore Coastal Dispersion
Abbreviations and Acronyms xxix

OCS Outer Continental Shelf

OCSLA Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

OSAT Operational Science Advisory Team

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

OSRA Oil Spill Risk Analysis

P.L. Public Law

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

PM2.5 particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 μm 

PM10 particulate matter less than or equal to 10 μm 

ppm parts per million

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

ROD Record of Decision

ROTAC Regional Operations Technology Assessment Committee

ROV remotely operated vehicle

RP Recommended Practice

RTR Rigs-to-Reefs 

SCAT Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Team

Secretary Secretary of the Interior

SOx sulphur oxides

Stat. Statute 

STOF-THPO Seminole Tribe of Florida-Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

sVGP Small Vessel General Permit

TA&R Technology Assessment & Research Program

Tcf trillion cubic feet

TX Texas

U.S. United States

U.S.C. United States Code

UME unusual mortality event

USCG U.S. Coast Guard (also: CG)

USDHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security

USDOC U.S. Department of Commerce

USDOD U.S. Department of Defense (also: DOD)

USDOE U.S. Department of the Energy

USDOI U.S. Department of the Interior (also: DOI)

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USGS U.S. Geological Survey (also: GS)

VGP Vessel General Permit 

VOC volatile organic compound

VSP vertical seismic profiling

W. west 

WPA Western Planning Area

Conversion Chart xxxi

CONVERSION CHART

To convert from To Multiply by

millimeter (mm) inch (in) 0.03937

centimeter (cm) inch (in) 0.3937

meter (m) foot (ft) 3.281

kilometer (km) mile (mi) 0.6214

meter2 (m2) foot2 (ft2) 10.76

yard2 (yd2) 1.196

acre (ac) 0.0002471

hectare (ha) acre (ac) 2.47

kilometer2 (km2) mile2 (mi2) 0.3861

meter3 (m3) foot3 (ft3) 35.31

yard3 (yd3) 1.308

liter (L) gallons (gal) 0.2642

degree Celsius (°C) degree Fahrenheit (°F) °F = (1.8 x °C) + 32

1 barrel (bbl) = 42 gal = 158.9 L = approximately 0.1428 metric tons

tonnes = 1 long ton or 2,200 lb

1 nautical mile (nmi) = 6,076 ft or 1.15 mi

CHAPTER 1 

THE PROPOSED ACTIONS

The Proposed Actions 1-3 

1. THE PROPOSED ACTIONS

1.1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTIONS

The proposed Federal actions addressed in this Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

are to offer for lease certain Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) blocks located in the Western Planning Area 

(WPA) and Central Planning Area (CPA) in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) that may contain economically 

recoverable oil and gas resources. This Supplemental EIS addresses two proposed Federal actions: one 

oil and gas lease sale in the WPA and one oil and gas lease sale in the CPA of the Gulf of Mexico OCS, 

as scheduled in the Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017

(Five-Year Program) (USDOI, BOEM, 2012a). This Supplemental EIS incorporates by reference all of 

the relevant material in the EIS from which it tiers: Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 

2012-2017; Western Planning Area Lease Sales 229, 233, 238, 246, and 248; Central Planning Area 

Lease Sales 227, 231, 235, 241, and 247, Final Environmental Impact Statement (2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS) (USDOI, BOEM, 2012b). The 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS notes that two sales 

may be held each year during the Five-Year Program—one in the WPA and one in the CPA. The two 

proposed sales that are evaluated in this Supplemental EIS, proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 and proposed

CPA Lease Sale 231, are tentatively scheduled to be held in August 2013 and in early 2014, respectively. 

The purpose of the proposed Federal actions is to offer for lease those areas that may contain 

economically recoverable oil and gas resources in accordance with the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

(OCSLA) of 1953 (67 Stat. 462), as amended (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq. [1988]). The proposed lease sales 

will provide qualified bidders the opportunity to bid upon and lease acreage in the Gulf of Mexico OCS in 

order to explore, develop, and produce oil and natural gas.

This Supplemental EIS focuses on updating the baseline conditions and potential environmental 

effects of oil and natural gas leasing, exploration, development, and production in the WPA and CPA 

since publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. This Supplemental EIS analyzes the 

potential impacts of proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 and proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on the marine, 

coastal, and human environments. This Supplemental EIS will also assist decisionmakers in making 

informed, future decisions regarding the approval of operations, as well as leasing.

The need for the proposed actions is to further the orderly development of OCS resources. Oil serves 

as the feedstock for liquid hydrocarbon products; among them are gasoline, aviation and diesel fuel, and 

various petrochemicals. Oil from the WPA and CPA would help reduce the Nation’s need for oil imports 

and lessen a growing dependence on foreign oil. The United States (U.S.) consumed 18.8 million barrels 

(MMbbl) of oil per day in 2011 (USDOE, Energy Information Administration, 2012a). The Energy 

Information Administration projects the total U.S. consumption of liquid fuels, including both fossil fuels 

and biofuels, to grow from 19.2 MMbbl per day in 2012 to 19.9 MMbbl per day in 2035 (USDOE, 

Energy Information Administration, 2012b). Altogether, net imports of crude oil and petroleum products 

(imports minus exports) accounted for 45 percent of our total petroleum consumption in 2011. The U.S. 

crude oil imports stood at 8.4 MMbbl per day in 2011. Petroleum product imports were 2.4 MMbbl per 

day in 2011. Exports totaled 2.9 MMbbl per day in 2011, mainly in the form of distillate fuel oil, 

petroleum coke, and residual fuel oil. Our biggest supplier of crude oil and petroleum-product imports 

was Canada (29%), with countries in the Persian Gulf being the second largest source (22%) in 2011 

(USDOE, Energy Information Administration, 2012c). Oil produced from the WPA and CPA would also 

reduce the environmental risks associated with transoceanic oil tankering from sources overseas.

This Supplemental EIS’s analyses also focus on the potential environmental effects of oil and natural 

gas leasing, exploration, development, and production in the areas identified through the Area 

Identification procedure as the proposed lease sale areas. In addition to the No Action alternative (i.e., 

cancel the sale), other alternatives may be considered for each proposed lease sale, such as deferring 

certain areas from the proposed lease sales.

The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) has designated the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

(BOEM) as the administrative agency responsible for the mineral leasing of submerged OCS lands and 

for the supervision of most offshore operations after lease issuance. Effective October 1, 2011, the 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) was reorganized and 

separated into two separate bureaus, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau 

of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). BOEM is responsible for managing development of 
1-4 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

the Nation’s offshore resources in an environmentally and economically responsible way. The functions 

of BOEM include leasing, exploration and development, plan administration, environmental studies, 

NEPA analysis, resource evaluation, economic analysis, and the renewable energy program. The BSEE is 

responsible for enforcing safety and environmental regulations. The functions of BSEE include all field 

operations, including permitting and research, inspections, offshore regulatory programs, oil-spill 

response, and training and environmental compliance functions.

The WPA and CPA of the Gulf of Mexico constitute one of the world’s major oil and gas producing 

areas, and have proved a steady and reliable source of crude oil and natural gas for more than 50 years. 

Oil and gas from the Gulf of Mexico can help reduce the Nation’s need for imports and reduce the 

environmental risks associated with oil and gas tankering.

1.2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS

The proposed actions are the next two oil and gas lease sales scheduled in the Five-Year Program, 

one each in the WPA and CPA. Federal regulations allow for several related or similar proposals to be 

analyzed in one EIS (40 CFR 1502.4); therefore, BOEM has decided to prepare a single Supplemental 

EIS for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 and proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

Proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 

Proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 is tentatively scheduled to be held in August 2013. The proposed 

WPA lease sale area encompasses virtually all of the WPA’s 28.58 million acres (ac). This area begins 

3 marine leagues (9 nautical miles [nmi]; 10.36 miles [mi]; 16.67 kilometers [km]) offshore Texas and 

extends seaward to the limits of the United States’ jurisdiction over the continental shelf (often the 

Exclusive Economic Zone) in water depths up to approximately 3,346 meters (m) (10,978 feet [ft]) 

(Figure 1-1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). As of March 2013, approximately 

20.7 million ac of the proposed WPA lease sale area are currently unleased. Proposed WPA Lease 

Sale 233 would offer for lease all unleased blocks in the WPA for oil and gas operations (Figure 1-1 of 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS), with the following exception: 

(1) whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National 

Marine Sanctuary (i.e., the boundary as of the publication of this Supplemental EIS).

Although the leasing of portions of the WPA and CPA (subareas or blocks) can be deferred during a 

Five-Year Program, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) is conservative throughout the NEPA

process and includes the total area within the Gulf of Mexico planning areas for analysis.

The estimated amount of resources projected to be developed as a result of proposed WPA Lease Sale 

233 is 0.116-0.200 billion barrels of oil (BBO) and 0.538-0.938 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas. Proposed 

WPA Lease Sale 233 includes proposed lease stipulations designed to reduce environmental risks; these 

stipulations are discussed in Chapter 2.3.1.3 of this Supplemental EIS and in Chapter 2.3.1.3 of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

Proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 

Proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 is tentatively scheduled to be held in early 2014. The proposed CPA 

lease sale area encompasses about 63 million ac of the total CPA area of 66.45 million ac. This area 

begins 3 nmi (3.5 mi; 5.6 km) offshore Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, and extends seaward to the 

limits of the United States’ jurisdiction over the continental shelf (often the Exclusive Economic Zone) in 

water depths up to approximately 3,346 m (10,978 ft) (Figure 1-1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS). As of March 2013, approximately 43.0 million ac of the proposed CPA lease sale area are currently 

unleased. Proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 would offer for lease all unleased blocks in the CPA for oil and 

gas operations (Figure 1-1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS), with the following exceptions:

(1) whole and portions of blocks deferred by the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 

2006; and
The Proposed Actions 1-5 

(2) blocks that are adjacent to or beyond the United States Exclusive Economic Zone in 

the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap. 

Although the leasing of portions of the CPA and WPA (subareas or blocks) can be deferred during a 

Five-Year Program, DOI is conservative throughout the NEPA process and includes the total area within 

the Gulf of Mexico for analysis.

The estimated amount of resources projected to be developed as a result of proposed CPA Lease 

Sale 231 is 0.460-0.894 BBO and 1.939-3.903 Tcf of gas. Proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 includes 

proposed lease stipulations designed to reduce environmental risks; these stipulations are discussed in 

Chapter 2.4.1.3 of this Supplemental EIS and in Chapter 2.4.1.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS.

1.3. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Federal laws mandate the OCS leasing program (e.g., Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act) and the 

environmental review process (e.g., NEPA). Several Federal regulations establish specific consultation 

and coordination processes with Federal, State, and local agencies (e.g., Coastal Zone Management Act, 

Endangered Species Act, the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act). In addition, the OCS leasing process and all activities and operations on the 

OCS must comply with other applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. A detailed list of 

the major, applicable Federal laws, regulations, and Executive Orders are listed below.

Regulation, Law, and Executive Order Citation

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347

40 CFR 1500-1508

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.

15 CFR 930.76

Endangered Species Act of 1973 16 U.S.C. 1631 et seq.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 16 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

Essential Fish Habitat Consultation (in 1996 reauthorization of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act) 

P.L. 94-265

16 U.S.C. 1801-1891

50 CFR 600 Subpart K

Marine Mammal Protection Act 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

Clean Air Act 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

40 CFR 55

Clean Water Act 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act P.L. 105-383

Oil Pollution Act of 1990 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.

Executive Order 12777

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.

Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act 33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.

National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984 33 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. 

Fishermen’s Contingency Fund 43 U.S.C. 1841-1846

Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 33 U.S.C. 1223 et seq. 

Marine and Estuarine Protection Acts 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. 

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 P.L. 92-532

National Estuarine Research Reserves 16 U.S.C. 1461, Section 315
1-6 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

National Estuary Program P.L. 100-4

Coastal Barrier Resources Act 16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

National Historic Preservation Act 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 33 U.S.C. 401 et seq. 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.

Energy Policy Act of 2005 P.L. 109-58

Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 P.L. 109-432

Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act P.L. 109-449

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 P.L. 95-341

42 U.S.C. 1996 and 1996a

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq. 

Submerged Lands Act of 1953 43 U.S.C. 1301 et seq. 

49 U.S.C. 44718: Structures Interfering with Air Commerce 49 U.S.C. 44718

Marking of Obstructions 14 U.S.C. 86

Wilderness Act of 1964

P.L. 88-577

16 U.S.C. 1131-1136

78 Stat. 890

Toxic Substances Control Act

P.L. 94-469

15 U.S.C. 2601-2697

Stat. 2003

Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940 P.L. 86-70

16 U.S.C. 668-668d

Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management 42 FR 26951 (1977); Amended by 

Executive Order 12148 (7/20/79)

Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands 42 FR 26961 (1977); Amended by 

Executive Order 12608 (9/9/87)

Executive Order 12114: Environmental Effects Abroad 44 FR 1957 (1979)

Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice 59 FR 5517 (1994)

Executive Order 13007: Indian Sacred Sites 61 FR 26771-26772 (1996)

Executive Order 13089: Coral Reef Protection 63 FR 32701-32703 (1998)

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian 

Tribal Governments 65 FR 67249-67252 (2000)

Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to 

Protect Migratory Birds 66 FR 3853 (2001)

1.3.1. Rule Changes for the Reorganization of Title 30 for the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement

All regulatory citations identified in this Supplemental EIS are concordant with the regulation 

changes made following the creation of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of 

Safety and Environmental Enforcement; the effective date of this reorganization of the regulations is 

October 1, 2011 (Federal Register, 2011a). 

On May 19, 2010, U.S. Dept. of the Interior Secretary Salazar announced in Secretarial Order 3299 

(USDOI, 2010b) that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement would be 

reorganized into two new bureaus within DOI and that each bureau would be reporting to the Assistant 

Secretary Land and Minerals Management. These bureaus are now known as the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). The 

mission of these new bureaus was announced by the Secretary (USDOI, 2010b). BOEM is responsible 

for managing development of the Nation’s offshore resources in an environmentally and economically 
The Proposed Actions 1-7 

responsible way. The functions of BOEM include leasing, exploration and development, plan 

administration, environmental studies, NEPA analysis, resource evaluation, economic analysis, and the 

renewable energy program. The BSEE is responsible for enforcing safety and environmental regulations. 

The functions of BSEE include all field operations, including permitting and research, inspections, 

offshore regulatory programs, oil-spill response, and training and environmental compliance functions.

The primary OCS oil and gas operations’ regulations that are administered by BSEE remain in

30 CFR 250, and the primary OCS oil and gas operations’ regulations that are administered by BOEM are 

in 30 CFR 550. A summary breakdown of responsibility for the regulations under Title 30 is provided in 

Table 1-3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

1.3.2. Recent BOEM/BSEE Rule Changes

In light of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, the Federal Government, along 

with industry, increased their rules and safety measures related to oil-spill prevention, containment, and 

response. Additionally, the Federal Government and industry have increased their research and reform in 

response to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup through government-funded research, 

industry-funded research, and joint partnerships. These joint partnerships are often between government 

agencies, industry, and nongovernmental organizations. For more information about the recent 

BOEM/BSEE rule changes, refer to the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

1.3.2.1. Recent Rule Changes

Following the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, this Agency published a number 

of regulations and guidance documents (e.g., Notices to Lessees and Operators [NTL’s]), which are 

described more fully in Chapters 1.3.1.1 and 1.5 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

This Agency determined that issuance of an interim rule on drilling safety was needed after the 

Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. This rule implements the recommendations from 

the report entitled, Increased Safety Measures for Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf 

(“30-Day Report” or “Safety Measures Report”) (USDOI, 2010a) considered by the Secretary to be the 

most important for safe resumption of offshore drilling operations. On October 14, 2010, the interim final 

rule (IFR) was published in the Federal Register (2010b), together with a discussion of the comments that 

had been received by the Secretary in the period leading up to promulgation of the rule. The interim 

rulemaking revises selected sections of 30 CFR 250 Subparts D, E, F, O, and Q. Only a portion of the 

proposed changes in Subpart D add material capital or operating costs (some of which may be 

significant). For example, identical costly new requirements for subsea function testing of remotely 

operated vehicle (ROV) intervention during drill operations (Subpart D) apply to well completion 

(Subpart E) and workover (Subpart F) operations.

On August 22, 2012, the final rule was published in the Federal Register (2012a). The final rule

became effective on October 22, 2012, implementing certain safety measures recommended in the Safety 

Measures Rule (USDOI, 2010a). The BSEE has implemented the appropriate recommendations in the 

Safety Measures Report and in the Deepwater Horizon Joint Investigation Team report by amending 

drilling, well-completion, well-workover, and decommissioning regulations related to well control, 

including subsea and surface blowout preventers, well casing and cementing, secondary intervention, 

unplanned disconnects, recordkeeping, and well plugging. This rulemaking

• establishes new casing installation requirements;

• establishes new cementing requirements; 

• requires independent third-party verification of blind-shear ram capability;

• requires new casing and cementing integrity tests;

• establishes new requirements for subsea secondary blowout preventer (BOP) 

intervention;

• requires function testing for subsea secondary BOP intervention;

• requires documentation for BOP inspections and maintenance;
1-8 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

• requires a registered professional engineer to certify casing and cementing 

requirements; and

• establishes new requirements for specific well-control training to include deepwater

operations.

After reviewing the comments, BSEE retained many of the provisions adopted in the IFR without 

change. However, the final rule did change the IFR in the following ways:

• Updated the incorporation by reference to the second edition of API Standard 65—

Part 2, which was issued in December 2010. This standard outlines the process for 

isolating potential flow zones during well construction. The new Standard 65—Part 

2 enhances the description and classification of well-control barriers, and it defines 

testing requirements for cement to be considered a barrier.

• Revised requirements from the IFR on the installation of dual mechanical barriers in 

addition to cement for the final casing string (or liner if it is the final string) to 

prevent flow in the event of a failure in the cement. The final rule provides that, for 

the final casing string (or liner if it is the final string), an operator must install one 

mechanical barrier in addition to cement to prevent flow in the event of a failure in 

the cement. The final rule also clarifies that float valves are not mechanical barriers.

• Revised 30 CFR 250.423(c) to require the operator to perform a negative pressure 

test only on wells that use a subsea BOP stack or wells with a mudline suspension 

system instead of on all wells, as was provided in the IFR.

• Added new 30 CFR 250.451(j), stating that an operator must have two barriers in 

place before removing the BOP and that the BSEE District Manager may require 

additional barriers.

• Extended the requirements for BOP’s and well-control fluids to well-completion, 

well-workover, and decommissioning operations under 30 CFR 250 Subpart E—“Oil 

and Gas Well-Completion Operation,” 30 CFR 250 Subpart F—“Oil and Gas WellWorkover Operations,” and 30 CFR 250 Subpart Q—“Decommissioning Activities” 

to promote consistency in the regulations.

1.3.2.2. Recent and Ongoing Regulatory Reform and Government-Sponsored 

Research

BOEM and BSEE have already instituted regulatory reforms responsive to many of the 

recommendations expressed in the various reports prepared following the Deepwater Horizon explosion, 

oil spill, and cleanup. To date, regulatory reform has occurred through both prescriptive and 

performance-based regulation and guidance, as well as OCS safety and environmental protection 

requirements, as described above and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The reforms 

strengthen the requirements for all aspects of OCS operations. Ongoing reform and research endeavors to 

improve workplace safety and to strengthen oil-spill prevention planning, containment, and response are 

described in detail in Chapter 1.3.1.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

1.3.2.3. Recent and Ongoing Industry Reform and Research

Shortly after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, various industry trade 

associations formed four Joint Industry Task Forces (JITF’s) to learn from the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup and to advance industry practices. The JITF’s are comprised of member 

companies and affiliates of API, the International Association of Drilling Contractors, Independent 

Petroleum Association of America, National Ocean Industries Association, and U.S. Oil and Gas 

Association. The ultimate objectives of the JITF’s are to reduce risk and to improve the industry’s 

capabilities in safety, environmental performance, and spill prevention and response. Chapter 1.3.1.3 of 
The Proposed Actions 1-9 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS describes in detail the recommendations from the JITF’s that 

have led to the reform of industry standards, recommended practices, and guidelines.

1.4. PRELEASE PROCESS

Scoping for this Supplemental EIS was conducted in accordance with Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA. Scoping provides those with an interest in the OCS 

Program an opportunity to provide comments on the proposed actions. In addition, scoping provides 

BOEM an opportunity to update the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region’s environmental and socioeconomic 

information base. The scoping process officially commenced on July 9, 2012, with the publication of the 

Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS (NOI) in the Federal Register. Additional public notices were 

distributed via local newspapers, the U.S. Postal Service, and the Internet. A 30-day comment period was 

provided; it closed on August 8, 2012. The public scoping period was reopened on August 24, 2012, due 

to a typographical error in the original NOI, and the reopened scoping period closed on September 10, 

2012. Federal, State, and local governments, along with other interested parties, were invited to send 

written comments to the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region on the scope of the Supplemental EIS. Comments 

were received in response to the NOI from Federal, State, and local government agencies; interest groups; 

industry; businesses; and the general public on the scope of the Supplemental EIS, significant issues that 

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

comments received were considered in the preparation of the Draft Supplemental EIS. The comments 

have been summarized in Chapter 5.3, “Development of the Draft Supplemental EIS.”

BOEM conducted early coordination with appropriate Federal and State agencies and other concerned 

parties to discuss and coordinate the prelease process for the proposed lease sales and this Supplemental 

EIS. Key agencies and organizations included the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), State governors’ offices, and industry groups.

Although the scoping process was formally initiated on July 9, 2012, with the publication of the NOI 

in the Federal Register, and reopened on August 24, 2012, scoping efforts and other coordination 

meetings have proceeded and will continue to proceed throughout this NEPA process. Scoping and 

coordination opportunities are available during BOEM’s requests for information, comments, input, and 

review on other Bureau of Ocean Energy Management NEPA documents.

On October 4, 2012, BOEM released its Area Identification (Area ID) decision. One Area ID was 

prepared for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 and proposed CPA Lease Sale 231. The Area ID is an 

administrative prelease step that describes the geographical area of the proposed actions (proposed lease

sale areas) and identifies the alternatives, mitigating measures, and issues to be analyzed in the 

appropriate NEPA document. As mandated by NEPA, this Supplemental EIS analyzes the potential 

impacts of the proposed actions on the marine, coastal, and human environments.

BOEM sent copies of the Draft Supplemental EIS for review and comment to Federal, State, and 

local government agencies; interest groups; and local libraries. To initiate the public review and comment 

period on the Draft Supplemental EIS, BOEM published a Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal 

Register. In addition, public notices were mailed with the Draft Supplemental EIS and were placed on 

BOEM’s Internet website (http://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Stewardship/EnvironmentalAssessment/NEPA/nepaprocess.aspx). Consistent with 40 CFR 1502.9 regarding preparation of a 

supplemental EIS, no scoping meetings were required for the Draft Supplemental EIS.

A consistency review will be performed and a Consistency Determination (CD) will be prepared for 

each affected State prior to each proposed lease sale. To prepare the CD’s, BOEM reviews each State’s 

Coastal Management Program (CMP) and analyzes the potential impacts as outlined in this Supplemental 

EIS, new information, and applicable studies as they pertain to the enforceable policies of each CMP. 

Based on the analyses, BOEM’s Director makes an assessment of consistency, which is then sent to each 

State with the Proposed Notice of Sale (NOS). If a State disagrees with BOEM’s CD, the State is 

required to do the following under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA): (1) indicate how 

BOEM’s presale proposal is inconsistent with its CMP; (2) suggest alternative measures to bring 

BOEM’s proposal into consistency with their CMP; or (3) describe the need for additional information 

that would allow a determination of consistency. Unlike the consistency process for specific OCS plans 

and permits, there is not a procedure for administrative appeal to the Secretary of Commerce for a Federal 

CD for presale activities. In the event of a disagreement between a Federal agency and the State CMP 
1-10 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

regarding consistency of the proposed lease sale, either BOEM or the State may request mediation. The 

regulations provide for an opportunity to resolve any differences with the State, but CZMA allows BOEM 

to proceed with the lease sale despite any unresolved disagreements if the Federal agency clearly 

describes, in writing, to the State CMP how the activity is consistent to the maximum extent practicable.

This Final Supplemental EIS will be published for public review at least 30 days prior to a decision 

on whether to hold proposed WPA Lease Sale 233, which is tentatively scheduled to be held in August 

2013. To initiate the public review, BOEM will publish an NOA in the Federal Register. BOEM will 

send copies of this Final Supplemental EIS for review to Federal, State, and local agencies; interest 

groups; and local libraries. In addition, public notices will be mailed with this Final Supplemental EIS 

and will be placed on BOEM’s Internet website (http://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Stewardship/

Environmental-Assessment/NEPA/nepaprocess.aspx). After the end of the comment period, DOI will 

review this Final Supplemental EIS and any comments received before making a decision on the 

proposed lease sale.

This Final Supplemental EIS is not a decision document. A Record of Decision (ROD) will be 

prepared for the decision on whether to hold each lease sale, i.e., one for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 

and one for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231. The ROD’s will identify BOEM’s preferred alternative for 

each lease sale, as well as the environmentally preferable alternative, if different. The ROD’s will 

summarize the proposed actions and the alternatives evaluated in this Supplemental EIS, the conclusions 

of the impact analyses, and other information considered in reaching the decision. All relevant comments 

received on this Final Supplemental EIS will be addressed in the ROD’s.

A Proposed NOS will become available to the public 4-5 months prior to each proposed lease sale. A 

notice announcing the availability of the Proposed NOS appears in the Federal Register, initiating a 

60-day comment period. Comments received will be analyzed during preparation of the decision 

documents that are the basis for the Final NOS, including lease sale configuration and terms and 

conditions.

If the decision by the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management (ASLM) 

is to hold a proposed lease sale, a Final NOS will be published in its entirety in the Federal Register at 

least 30 days prior to the sale date, as required by the OCSLA. 

Measures to Enhance Transparency and Effectiveness in the Leasing and Tiering Process

The following discussion is from the Five-Year Program EIS (USDOI, BOEM, 2012c) and has been 

incorporated into this Supplemental EIS for information purposes.

BOEM realizes that each region is different in terms of mineral resources and dependent economies, 

the relative state of infrastructure and support industries, and the sensitivity of ecosystems, environmental 

resources, and communities; and that a leasing strategy needs to be sensitive to those differences, but also 

that it must be consistent with OCSLA principles. BOEM envisions a phased OCSLA process that 

minimizes multiple-use and environmental conflicts to the extent possible during the Five-Year Program 

implementation, that makes lease sale decisions in the context of the best available information, and that 

discloses clear reasons for those decisions, even in the face of uncertainty. This vision is consistent with 

the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan and related Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning 

initiatives, all of which provide a complementary framework for space-use conflict considerations.

BOEM is committing to several process enhancements to ensure transparency during the phased 

OCSLA and tiered NEPA processes of this Five-Year Program. Although specific approaches to 

implementation may be tailored to the different needs of the Regions and their stakeholders, BOEM is 

determined to improve the effectiveness of the tiering process through the following:

• Alternative and Mitigation Tracking Table. BOEM has established an alternative 

and mitigation tracking table to provide increased visibility into the consideration of 

recommendations for deferrals, mitigations, and alternatives at different stages of the 

leasing process. Beginning with the Five-Year Program EIS, the table tracks the 

lineage and treatment of suggestions for spatial exclusions, temporal deferrals, and/or 

mitigation from the Five-Year Program, to the lease sale phase, and on to the plan 

phase. This table allows commenters to see how and at what stage of the process 

their concerns are being considered. BOEM will maintain a table that will be 

updated as deferral requests are considered at the lease sale and plan stages and as 
The Proposed Actions 1-11

new requests are made. The alternative and mitigation tracking table has been placed 

on BOEM’s website at http://www.boem.gov/5-year/2012-2017/Tracking-Table/. A 

link to the table will be provided in the lease sale documents and in the annual report, 

which is discussed below.

• Strengthening the Prelease Sale Process. BOEM is taking a number of steps to 

enhance opportunities for members of the public to comment and provide new 

information in the prelease sale planning process. Historically, the Call for 

Information (Call), which is the first step in the Prelease Sale Process, has generally 

asked for industry to nominate specific blocks or descriptions of areas within the 

Five-Year Program area for which they have the most interest, while the NOI 

requests comments on issues that should be addressed and alternatives that should be 

considered in the NEPA documents that will be prepared for the action.

• Annual Progress Report. BOEM will publish an annual progress report on the 

approved Five-Year Program that includes an opportunity for stakeholders and the 

public to comment on the Five-Year Program’s implementation. Under Section 18(e) 

of the OCSLA, the Secretary must review annually the approved Five-Year Program. 

Historically, this has been an internal review process that reported to the Secretary 

any information or events that might result in a revision to the Five-Year Program. If 

the revision is considered significant under the OCSLA, the Five-Year Program can 

only be revised and reapproved by following the same Section 18 steps used to 

originally develop the Program. However, once the Section 18 process has been 

initiated for the next Five-Year Program, the annual review is subsumed in that 

process, as the same substantive and procedural requirements are being addressed.

The findings of this progress report may lead the Secretary to revise the Five-Year 

Program by reducing the size of, delaying, or canceling scheduled lease sales. If the 

desired revisions are considered significant, such as including new areas for 

consideration or more lease sales in areas already included, the entire Section 18 

process must be followed, in essence resulting in the preparation of a new Program.

• Systematic Planning. BOEM is committed to engaging in systematic planning 

opportunities that foster improved governmental coordination, communication, and 

information exchange. As the only agency authorized to grant renewable energy, 

marine mineral, and oil and gas leases on the OCS, BOEM has been assigned as the 

Federal co-lead, along with the U.S. Coast Guard for systematic regional planning 

efforts in the Mid-Atlantic. Additionally, BOEM will participate on Regional 

Planning Bodies in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and West Coast as the USDOI lead. 

In the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, BOEM representatives will assist FWS, the DOI 

regional lead, with various working group activities. This will facilitate data and 

information availability, provide research of new technologies, and identify conflict 

resolution and avoidance strategies. BOEM anticipates that its CMSP engagement 

will enhance regulatory efficiency through improved coordination and collaboration, 

and, in the long term, enhance the stewardship of ocean and coastal resources.

These strategies will allow BOEM to not only address the activities that take place under the 2012-

2017 Five-Year Program but also to lay the groundwork for decisions that will be faced in subsequent 

Five-Year Programs. BOEM will improve efforts to gather information while enhancing opportunities 

for stakeholders and other interested parties to participate in and be engaged in the decisionmaking

process. The initiation of studies and long-term planning will now facilitate future decisions by ensuring 

that the best information is available when making leasing decisions on the approved program and before 

the development of future OCS Programs.

1.5. POSTLEASE ACTIVITIES

BOEM and BSEE are responsible for managing, regulating, and monitoring oil and natural gas 

exploration, development, and production operations on the Federal OCS to promote orderly development 
1-12 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

of mineral resources and to prevent harm or damage to, or waste of, any natural resource, any life or 

property, or the marine, coastal, or human environment. Regulations for oil, gas, and sulphur lease 

operations are specified in 30 CFR 550, 551 (except those aspects that pertain to drilling), and 554.

Measures to minimize potential impacts are an integral part of the OCS Program. These measures are 

implemented through lease stipulations, operating regulations, NTL’s, and project-specific requirements 

or approval conditions. Mitigating measures address concerns such as endangered and threatened species, 

geologic and manmade hazards, military warning and ordnance disposal areas, archaeological sites, air 

quality, oil-spill response planning, chemosynthetic communities, artificial reefs, operations in hydrogen 

sulfide (H2S) prone areas, and shunting of drill effluents in the vicinity of biologically sensitive features. 

Standard mitigation measures in the Gulf of Mexico OCS include the following:

• limiting the size of explosive charges used for structure removals (NTL 2010-G05); 

• requiring placement of explosive charges at least 15 ft (5 m) below the mudline;

• requiring site-clearance procedures to eliminate potential snags to commercial fishing

nets upon abandonment; 

• establishment of No Activity and Modified Activity Zones around high-relief live 

bottoms; 

• requiring remote-sensing surveys to detect and avoid potential archaeological sites 

and biologically sensitive areas such as low-relief live bottoms, pinnacles, and 

chemosynthetic communities; and

• requiring coordination with the military to prevent multiuse conflicts between OCS 

and military activities.

BOEM issues NTL’s to provide clarification, description, or interpretation of a regulation; to provide 

guidelines on the implementation of a special lease stipulation or regional requirement; or to convey 

administrative information. A detailed listing of current Gulf of Mexico OCS Region NTL’s is available 

through BOEM’s Gulf of Mexico OCS Region’s Internet website at http://boem.gov/Regulations/NoticesLetters-and-Information-to-Lessees-and-Operators.aspx or through the Region’s Public Information 

Office at (504) 736-2519 or 1-800-200-GULF.

Formal plans must be submitted to BOEM for review and approval before any project-specific 

activities, except for ancillary activities (such as geological and geophysical activities or studies that 

model potential oil and hazardous substance spills), can begin on a lease. Conditions of approval are 

mechanisms to control or mitigate potential safety or environmental problems associated with proposed 

operations. Conditions of approval are based on BOEM’s technical and environmental evaluations of the 

proposed operations. Comments from Federal and State agencies (as applicable) are also considered in 

establishing conditions. Conditions may be applied to any OCS plan, permit, right-of-use of easement, or 

pipeline right-of-way grant.

Some BOEM-identified mitigation measures are implemented through cooperative agreements or 

coordination with the oil and gas industry and Federal and State agencies. These measures include 

NMFS’s Observer Program to protect marine mammals and sea turtles when OCS structures are removed 

using explosives, labeling of operational supplies to track sources of accidental debris loss, development 

of methods of pipeline landfall to eliminate impacts to barrier beaches, and semiannual beach cleanup 

events.

The following postlease activity descriptions apply to the proposed WPA and CPA lease sale areas. 

Geological and Geophysical Activities

A geological and geophysical (G&G) permit must be obtained from BOEM prior to conducting offlease geological or geophysical exploration or scientific research on unleased OCS lands or on lands 

under lease to a third party (30 CFR 551.4 (a) and (b)). Geological investigations include various seafloor 

sampling techniques to determine the geochemical, geotechnical, or engineering properties of the 

sediments.
The Proposed Actions 1-13

A detailed description of postlease geological and geophysical activities, including ancillary activities 

and NTL’s, are described in Chapter 1.5 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Exploration and Development Plans

To ensure conformance with the OCSLA, other laws, applicable regulations, and lease provisions, 

and to enable BOEM to carry out its functions and responsibilities, formal plans (30 CFR 550.211 and 

550.241) with supporting information must be submitted for review and approval by BOEM before an 

operator may begin exploration, development, or production activities on any lease. Supporting 

environmental information, archaeological reports, biological reports (monitoring and/or live-bottom

survey), and other environmental data determined necessary must be submitted with an OCS plan. This 

information provides the basis for an analysis of both offshore and onshore impacts that may occur as a 

result of the activities. BOEM may require additional specific supporting information to aid in the 

evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed activities. BOEM can require 

amendment of an OCS plan based on inadequate or inaccurate supporting information. The latest 30 CFR 

550 Subpart B regulations became effective on October 1, 2011 (Federal Register, 2011a).

The OCS plans are reviewed as appropriate by geologists, geophysicists, engineers, biologists, 

archaeologists, air quality specialists, oil-spill specialists, NEPA coordinators, and/or environmental 

scientists. The plans and accompanying information are evaluated to determine whether any seafloor or 

drilling hazards are present; that air and water quality issues are addressed; that plans for hydrocarbon 

resource conservation, development, and drainage are adequate; that environmental issues and potential 

impacts are properly evaluated and mitigated; and that a proposed action is in compliance with NEPA, 

CZMA, BOEM operating regulations, and other requirements. Federal agencies, including FWS, NMFS, 

USEPA, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Air Force, and USCG, may be consulted if the proposal has the potential 

to impact areas under their jurisdiction. Each Gulf Coast State has a designated CZM agency that takes 

part in the review process. The OCS plans are also made available to the general public for comment 

through BOEM’s Gulf of Mexico OCS Region’s Public Information Office.

In response to deepwater activities in the Gulf of Mexico, this Agency developed a comprehensive 

strategy to address NEPA compliance and environmental issues in the deepwater areas. A key component 

of that strategy was the completion of a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the 

potential effects of the deepwater technologies and operations (USDOI, MMS, 2000). As a supplement to 

the Programmatic EA, this Agency prepared a series of technical papers that provide a summary 

description of the different types of structures that may be employed in the development and production 

of hydrocarbon resources in the deepwater areas of the GOM (Regg et al., 2000). Information in the 

Programmatic EA and technical papers were used in the preparation of this Supplemental EIS.

On the basis of BOEM’s reviews of the OCS plan, the findings of the proposal-specific categorical 

exclusion review, EA, or EIS, and other applicable BOEM studies and NEPA documents, the OCS plan is 

approved or disapproved by BOEM, or modified and resubmitted for further analyses and decision. 

Although few OCS plans are ultimately disapproved, many must be amended prior to approval to fully 

comply with BOEM’s operating regulations and requirements, or other Federal laws, to address reviewing 

agencies’ concerns, or to avoid potential hazards or impacts to environmental resources.

The following types of exploration and development plans are described in detail in Chapter 1.5 of 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS:

• exploration plans;

• deepwater operations plans;

• conservation reviews;

• development operations and coordination documents;

• new or unusual technologies; and

• emergency plans.
1-14 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Permits and Applications

After exploration plan (EP) or development operations and coordination document (DOCD) approval, 

the operator submits applications for specific activities to BOEM for approval. These applications 

include those for drilling wells; well-test flaring; temporary well abandonment; installing a well 

protection structure, production platforms, satellite structures, subsea wellheads and manifolds, and 

pipelines; installation of production facilities; commencing production operations; platform removal and 

lease abandonment; and pipeline decommissioning. A detailed description of permits and applications for 

wells, platforms and structures, and pipelines can be found in Chapter 1.5 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

Inspection and Enforcement

The OCSLA authorizes and requires BSEE to provide for an annual scheduled inspection and a 

periodic unscheduled (unannounced) inspection of all oil and gas operations on the OCS. The inspections 

are to assure compliance with all regulatory constraints that allowed commencement of the operation.

The primary objective of an initial inspection is to assure proper installation of mobile drilling units 

and fixed structures, and proper functionality of their safety and pollution prevention equipment. After 

operations begin, additional announced and unannounced inspections are conducted. Unannounced 

inspections are conducted to foster a climate of safe operations, to maintain a BSEE presence, and to 

focus on operators with a poor performance record. These inspections are also conducted after a critical 

safety feature has previously been found defective. Poor performance generally means that more 

frequent, unannounced inspections may be conducted on a violator’s operation.

The annual inspection examines all safety equipment designed to prevent blowouts, fires, spills, or 

other major accidents. These annual inspections involve the inspection for installation and performance 

of all facilities’ safety-system components.

The inspectors follow the guidelines as established by the regulations, API Recommended Practice 

(RP) 14C, and the specific BSEE-approved plan. The BSEE inspectors perform these inspections using a 

national checklist called the Potential Incident of Noncompliance list. This list is a compilation of yes/no 

questions derived from all regulated safety and environmental requirements.

The BSEE administers an active civil penalties program (30 CFR 250 Subpart N). A civil penalty in 

the form of substantial monetary fines may be issued against any operator that commits a violation that 

may constitute a threat of serious, irreparable, or immediate harm or damage to life, property, or the 

environment. The BSEE may make recommendations for criminal penalties if a willful violation occurs. 

In addition, the regulation at 30 CFR 250.173(a) authorizes suspension of any operation in the Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region if the lessee has failed to comply with a provision of any applicable law, regulation, 

or order or provision of a lease or permit. Furthermore, the Secretary may invoke his authority under 

43 U.S.C. 1334(c) and 30 CFR 550.185(c) to cancel a nonproductive lease with no compensation. 

Exploration and development activities may be canceled under 30 CFR 550.182 and 550.183.

Pollution Prevention, Oil-Spill Response Plans, and Financial Responsibility

Pollution prevention is addressed through proper design and requirements for safety devices. The 

BSEE regulations at 30 CFR 250.400 require that the operator take all necessary precautions to keep its 

wells under control at all times. The lessee is required to use the best available and safest drilling 

technology in order to enhance the evaluation of conditions of abnormal pressure and to minimize the 

potential for the well to flow or kick. Redundancy is required for critical safety devices that will shut off 

flow from the well if loss of control is encountered. A complete description of rule changes implemented 

as a result of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup is detailed in Chapter 1.3.2. 

A detailed description of pollution prevention measures, blowout preventers, oil-spill response plans, 

and financial responsibility are described in detail in Chapter 1.5 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS.

Air Emissions

The OCSLA (43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(8)) requires the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate and 

administer regulations that comply with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), pursuant 
The Proposed Actions 1-15

to the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), to the extent that authorized activities significantly 

affect the air quality of any State. Under provisions of the CAA Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, 

USEPA’s Administrator has jurisdiction and, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and the 

Commandant of the Coast Guard, established the requirements to control air pollution in OCS areas of the 

Pacific, Atlantic, Arctic, and eastward of 87.5o W. longitude in the Gulf of Mexico. Air quality in the 

OCS area westward of 87.5o W. longitude in the Gulf is under BOEM jurisdiction.

For OCS air emission sources located east of 87.5o W. longitude and within 25 mi (40 km) of the 

States’ seaward boundaries, the requirements are the same as would be applicable if the source were 

located in the corresponding onshore area. The USEPA requirements for these OCS areas are at 

40 CFR 55, Appendix A. For air emission sources located east of 87.5o W. longitude and more than 

25 mi (40 km) from the States’ seaward boundaries, sources are subject to Federal requirements as 

specified in 40 CFR 52.13. The USEPA regulations also establish procedures that allow the USEPA 

Administrator to exempt any OCS source from an emissions control requirement if it is technically 

infeasible or poses unreasonable threat to health or safety.

This Agency issued NTL 2009-N11 to clarify that its regulatory authority and the implementing 

regulations in 30 CFR 250 Subpart C and 30 CFR 550 apply only to those air emission sources in the 

Gulf of Mexico westward of 87.5o W. longitude. The regulated pollutants include carbon monoxide, 

suspended particulates, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, total hydrocarbons, and volatile organic 

compounds. All new or supplemental EP’s and DOCD’s must include air emissions information 

sufficient to determine whether an air quality review is required (30 CFR 550.218 and 550.249). 

BOEM’s regulations require a review of air quality emissions to determine if the projected emissions 

from a facility result in onshore ambient air concentrations above BOEM significance levels and to 

identify appropriate emissions controls to mitigate potential onshore air quality degradation.

Emissions data for new or modified onshore facilities directly associated with proposed OCS 

activities are required to be included in development plans submitted to BOEM so that affected States can 

determine potential air quality impacts on their air quality.

BOEM uses a two-level hierarchy of evaluation criteria to evaluate potential impacts of offshore 

emission sources to onshore areas. The evaluation criteria are the exemption level and the significance 

level. If the proposed activities exceed the criteria at the first (exemption) level, the evaluation moves to 

the significance level criteria. The initial evaluation compares the worst-case emissions to BOEM’s

exemption criteria. This corresponds to the USEPA screening step, where the proposed activity 

emissions are checked against the screening thresholds or “exemption levels.” If the proposed activity 

emissions are below the exemption levels, then the proposed action is exempt from further air quality

review.

If exemption levels are exceeded, then the second step requires refined modeling using the Offshore 

and Coastal Dispersion (OCD) Model. The results from the OCD Model, the modeled potential onshore 

impacts, are compared with BOEM significance levels. If the significance levels are exceeded in an 

attainment area, an area that meets the NAAQS, the operator would be required to apply best available 

control technology to the emissions source. If the affected area is classified as nonattainment, further 

emission reductions or offsets may be required. Projected contributions to onshore pollutant 

concentrations are also subject to the same increments as USEPA applies to the onshore areas under their 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration program.

Flaring/Venting

Flaring is the controlled burning of natural gas, and venting is releasing gas directly into the 

atmosphere without burning. Flaring/venting may be necessary to remove potentially damaging 

completion fluids from the wellbore and to provide sufficient reservoir data for the operator to evaluate 

reservoir development options during unloading/testing operations and/or in emergency situations. The 

BSEE regulates flaring/venting to minimize the loss of revenue producing natural gas resources. The 

BSEE regulations (30 CFR 250) allow, without prior BSEE approval, flaring or venting of natural gas on 

a limited basis under certain specified conditions. Regulations permit more extensive flaring/venting with 

prior approval from BSEE. Records must always be prepared by the operator for all flaring/venting, and 

justification must be provided for flaring/venting not expressly authorized by BSEE regulations. The 

NTL 2012-BSEE-N04 provides guidance for requesting approval to flare or vent natural gas and 

clarification on the discretionary authority of BSEE for approving such requests.
1-16 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Hydrogen Sulfide Contingency Plans

The operator of a lease must request a BSEE area classification for the presence of hydrogen sulfide 

(H2S) gas. The BSEE classifies areas for proposed operations as (1) H2S absent, (2) H2S present, or 

(3) H2S unknown.

All OCS operators must provide information about potential contact with sour hydrocarbons (contains 

H2S) that could result in atmospheric H2S concentrations above 20 parts per million in their exploration or 

development plan. If an area is known to contain H2S or is in an area where H2S potential is unknown, 

operators are required to file an H2S contingency plan with BSEE. This plan must include the 

30 CFR 250 requirements that are intended to ensure workers’ safety at the production facility and 

provide contingencies for simultaneous drilling, well-completion, well-workovers, and production 

operations. The NTL 2009-G31, “Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Requirements,” provides clarification, 

guidance, and information regarding BSEE’s H2S regulations at 30 CFR 250.

Archaeological Resources Regulation 

Bottom-disturbing operations such as well placement, anchoring, and pipelaying activities can lead to 

damage to resources located on and below the seabed, including archaeological resources such as historic 

shipwrecks. The archaeological resources regulations at 30 CFR 250.194 and 550.194 grant authority in 

certain cases to each BOEM and BSEE Regional Director to require that archaeological reports be 

submitted with the EP, DOCD, or development and production plan (DPP) where deemed necessary. The 

technical requirements of the archaeological resource reports are detailed in NTL 2005-G07, 

“Archaeological Resource Surveys and Reports.” If the evidence from the operator’s geophysical survey 

and/or archaeological report suggests that an archaeological resource may be present, the lessee must 

either locate the site of any operation so as not to adversely affect the area where the archaeological 

resource may be, demonstrate that an archaeological resource does not exist, or demonstrate that 

archaeological resources will not be adversely affected by operations. If the lessee discovers any 

archaeological resource while conducting approved operations, operations must be immediately stopped 

and the discovery reported to BOEM’s Regional Supervisor, Office of Environment, within 48 hours of 

its discovery.

High-resolution surveys, where required, provide an effective tool that analysts use to identify and 

help protect archaeological resources; however, such survey coverage is often not available for all areas 

of the GOM, particularly in deeper water, where oil and gas activities are increasing and where more 

shipwrecks are being identified. As part of the environmental reviews conducted for postlease activities, 

available information will be evaluated regarding the potential presence of archaeological resources 

within a proposed action area to determine if mitigation is warranted.

Coastal Zone Management Consistency Review and Appeals for Plans

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) places requirements on any applicant for an OCS plan 

that describes in detail Federal license or permit activities affecting any coastal use or resource, in or 

outside of a State’s coastal zone. The applicant must provide in the OCS plan submitted to BOEM a 

consistency certification and necessary data and information for the State to determine that the proposed 

activities comply with the enforceable policies of the State’s coastal management program (CMP), 

approved by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and that such activities will 

be fully consistent with those enforceable policies (16 U.S.C. 1456(c)(3)(A) and 15 CFR 930.76).

Except as provided in 15 CFR 930.60(a), State agency consistency review begins when the State 

receives the OCS plan, consistency certification, and necessary data and information pursuant to 15 CFR 

930.76(a) and (b). Only missing information can be used to delay the commencement of State agency 

review, and a request for information and data that are not required by 15 CFR 930.76 will not extend the 

date of commencement of review (15 CFR 930.58). The information requirements for CZM purposes are 

found at 30 CFR 550.226 and 250.260 and are discussed in NTL 2007- G20, “Coastal Zone Management

Program Requirements for OCS Right-of-Way Pipeline Applications”; NTL 2008-G04, “Information 

Requirements for Exploration Plans and Development Operations Coordination Documents”; NTL 

2009- G27, “Submitting Exploration Plans and Development Operations Coordination Documents”; NTL 

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

Development Operations Coordination Documents on the OCS”; NTL 2010-N10, “Statement of 
The Proposed Actions 1-17

Compliance with Applicable Regulations and Evaluation of Information Demonstrating Adequate Spill 

Response and Well Containment Resources”; and NTL 2012-BSEE-N06, “Guidance to Owners and 

Operators of Offshore Facilities Seaward of the Coast Line Concerning Regional Oil Spill Response 

Plans.”

All of the Gulf States have approved CMP’s. Requirements for the CZM consistency information for 

Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida are given in NTL’s 2007-G20, 2008-G04, 

2009-G27, 2010-N06, and NTL 2012-BSEE-N06. In accordance with the requirements of 15 CFR 

930.76, BOEM’s Gulf of Mexico OCS Region sends copies of an OCS plan, including the consistency 

certification and other necessary data and information, to the designated State CMP agency. If no Stateagency objection is submitted by the end of the consistency review period, BOEM shall presume 

consistency concurrence by the State (15 CFR 930.78(b)). BOEM can require modification of an 

operator’s or lessee’s plan in order to promote consistency.

If BOEM receives a written consistency objection from the State, BOEM will not approve any 

activity described in the OCS plan unless (1) the operator amends the OCS plan to accommodate the 

objection, concurrence is subsequently received or conclusively presumed; (2) upon appeal, the Secretary 

of Commerce, in accordance with 15 CFR 930 Subpart H, finds that the OCS plan is consistent with the 

objectives or purposes of the CZMA or is necessary in the interest of national security; or (3) the original 

objection is declared invalid by the courts.

Best Available and Safest Technologies

To assure that oil and gas exploration, development, and production activities on the OCS are 

conducted in a safe and environmentally sensitive manner, 43 U.S.C. § 1347(b) of the OCSLA, as 

amended, requires that all OCS technologies and operations use the best available and safest technology 

(BAST) whenever practical. The Director may require additional technological measures to protect 

safety, health, and the environment, if it is economically feasible and the benefits outweigh the costs. 

Conformance to the standards, codes, and practices referenced in or required under the authority of 

30 CFR 250 is considered the application of BAST. These standards, codes, and practices include 

requirements for state-of-the-art drilling technology, production safety systems, oil and gas well 

completions, oil-spill response plans, pollution-control equipment, and specifications for 

platform/structure designs. The BSEE conducts periodic offshore inspections and continuously and 

systematically reviews OCS technologies to ensure that the best available and safest technologies are 

applied to OCS operations. The BAST is not required when BSEE determines that the incremental 

benefits are clearly insufficient to justify increased costs; however, it is the responsibility of an operator 

of an existing operation to demonstrate why application of a new technology would not be feasible. The 

BAST requirement is applicable to equipment and procedures that, upon failure, would have a significant 

effect on safety, health, or the environment, unless in BSEE’s determination the benefits clearly do not 

justify the cost (30 CFR 250.107(c) and (d)).

The BAST concept is addressed in BSEE’s Gulf of Mexico OCS Region by a continuous effort to 

locate and evaluate the latest technologies and to report on these advances at periodic Regional 

Operations Technology Assessment Committee (ROTAC) meetings. A part of BSEE’s staff has an 

ongoing function to evaluate various vendors and industry representatives’ innovations and improvements 

in techniques, tools, equipment, procedures, and technologies applicable to oil and gas operations 

(drilling, producing, completion, and workover operations). This information is provided to BSEE 

district personnel at ROTAC meetings. The requirement for the use of BAST has been, for the most part, 

an evolutionary process whereby advances in equipment, technologies, and procedures have been 

integrated into OCS operations over a period of time. The OCS operators have implemented the most 

advanced equipment and technologies into their day-to-day operations, and BSEE’s inspectors have kept 

up with these advances. An example of such an equipment change that evolved over a period of time is 

the upgrading of diverter systems on drilling rigs from the smaller diameter systems of the past to the 

large-diameter, high-capacity systems found on drilling rigs operating on the OCS today.

Production Facilities

The BSEE regulations governing oil and gas production safety systems are found in 30 CFR 250 

Subpart H. Production safety equipment used on the OCS must be designed, installed, used, maintained, 
1-18 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

and tested in a manner to assure the safety and protection of the human, marine, and coastal 

environments. All tubing installations open to hydrocarbon-bearing zones below the surface must be 

equipped with safety devices that will shut off the flow from the well in the event of an emergency, unless 

the well is incapable of flowing. Surface- and subsurface-controlled safety valves and locks must 

conform to the requirements of 30 CFR 250.801. All surface production facilities, including separator 

and treatment tanks, compressors, headers, and flowlines must be designed, installed, and maintained in a 

manner that provides for efficiency, safety of operations, and protection of the environment. Production 

facilities also have stringent requirements concerning electrical systems, flowlines, engines, and 

firefighting systems. The safety-system devices are tested by the lessee at specified intervals and must be 

in accordance with API RP 14 C Appendix D and other measures.

Personnel Training and Education

An important factor in ensuring that offshore oil and gas operations are carried out in a manner that 

emphasizes operational safety and minimizes the risk of environmental damage is the proper training of 

personnel. Under 30 CFR 250.1500 Subpart O, BSEE has outlined well control and production safety 

training program requirements for lessees operating on the OCS. The goal of the regulation (30 CFR 

250.1501) is safe and clean OCS operations. Lessees must ensure that their employees and contract 

personnel engaged in well control or production safety operations understand and can properly perform 

their duties. To accomplish this, the lessee must establish and implement a training program so that all of 

its employees are trained to competently perform their assigned well control and production safety duties. 

The lessee must also verify that its employees understand and can perform the assigned duties.

The mandatory Drilling Well-Control Training Program was instituted by this Agency in 1979. In 

1983, the mandatory Safety Device Training Program was established to ensure that personnel involved 

in installing, inspecting, testing, and maintaining safety devices are qualified. As a preventive measure, 

all offshore personnel must be trained to operate oil-spill cleanup equipment, or the lessee must retain a 

trained contractor(s) to operate the equipment for them. In addition, BSEE offers numerous technical 

seminars to ensure that personnel are capable of performing their duties and are incorporating the most 

up-to-date safety procedures and technology in the petroleum industry. In 1994, the Office of Safety 

Management created this Agency’s Offshore Training Institute to develop and implement an inspector 

training program. The Institute introduced state-of-the-art multimedia training to the inspector work force 

and has produced a series of interactive computer training modules.

Structure Removal and Site Clearance

During exploration, development, and production operations, temporary and permanent equipment 

and structures are often required to be embedded into or placed onto the seafloor around activity areas. In 

compliance with Section 22 of BOEM’s Oil and Gas Lease Form (BOEM-2005) and OCSLA regulations 

(30 CFR 250.1710—Permanently Plugging Wells and 30 CFR 250.1725—Removing Platforms and 

Other Facilities), operators need to remove seafloor obstructions from their leases within 1 year of lease 

termination or after a structure has been deemed obsolete or unusable. These regulations also require the 

operator to sever bottom-founded objects and their related components at least 5 m (15 ft) below the 

mudline (30 CFR 250.1716(a)—Wellheads/Casings and 30 CFR 250.1728(a)—Removing Platforms and 

Other Facilities). The severance operations are generally categorized as explosive or nonexplosive.

Chapter 3.1.1.10 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS describes in detail the regulations, 

reporting guidelines, and specific mitigation measures developed through consultation, pursuant to

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, concerning 

potential impacts on endangered and threatened species associated with explosive severance activities 

conducted during the structure-removal operations. All of the current terms and conditions of structure 

and well removal activities are outlined in NTL 2010-G05, “Decommissioning Guidance for Wells and 

Platforms.”

Marine Protected Species NTL’s

Three NTL’s advise operators of measures designed to reduce impacts to Marine Protected Species: 

NTL 2012-JOINT-G02, “Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species 

Observer Program”; NTL 2012-BSEE-G01, “Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination”; and
The Proposed Actions 1-19

NTL 2012-JOINT-G01, “Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting.” The 

provisions outlined in these NTL’s apply to all existing and future oil and gas operations in the Gulf of 

Mexico OCS.

The NTL 2012-JOINT-G02, “Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected 

Species Observer Program,” provides guidance to protect marine mammals and sea turtles during seismic 

operations. This NTL clarifies how operators should implement seismic survey mitigation measures, 

including ramp-up procedures, the use of a minimum sound source, airgun testing, and protected species 

observation and reporting. The measures contained in this NTL apply to all on-lease surveys conducted 

under 30 CFR 550 and to all off-lease surveys conducted under 30 CFR 551.

The NTL 2012-BSEE-G01, “Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination,” provides 

guidance to prevent intentional and/or accidental introduction of debris into the marine environment. 

Operators are prohibited from deliberately discharging containers and other similar materials (i.e., trash 

and debris) into the marine environment (30 CFR 250.300(a) and (b)(6)) and are also required to make 

durable identification markings on equipment, tools, containers (especially drums), and other material 

(30 CFR 250.300(c)). The intentional jettisoning of trash has been the subject of strict laws such as the 

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Annex V and the Marine 

Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, and regulations imposed by various agencies including 

USCG and USEPA. These USCG and USEPA regulations require that operators become more proactive 

in avoiding accidental loss of solid-waste items by developing waste management plans, posting 

informational placards, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering 

outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste. The NTL 2012-BSEE-G01 states marine 

debris placards must be posted in prominent places on all fixed and floating production facilities that have 

sleeping or food preparation capabilities and on mobile drilling units. Operators must also ensure that all 

of their offshore employees and those contractors actively engaged in their offshore operations complete 

annual training that includes (1) viewing a training video or slide show (specific options are outlined in 

the NTL) and (2) receiving an explanation from the lessee company’s management that emphasizes their 

commitment to the NTL’s provisions. An annual report that describes the marine trash and debris 

awareness training process and certifies that the training process has been followed for the previous 

calendar year is to be provided to BSEE by January 31 of each year.

The NTL 2012-JOINT-G01, “Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species 

Reporting,” explains how operators must implement measures to minimize the risk of vessel strikes to 

protected species and report observations of injured or dead protected species. Vessel operators and 

crews must maintain a vigilant watch for marine protected species and slow down or stop their vessel to 

avoid striking protected species. Crews must report sightings of any injured or dead protected species 

(marine mammals and sea turtles) immediately, regardless of whether the injury or death is caused by 

their vessel, to the Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Stranding Hotline or the Marine Mammal Stranding 

Network. In addition, if it was the operator’s vessel that collided with a protected species, BSEE must be 

notified within 24 hours of the strike.

Rigs-to-Reefs

Rigs-to-Reefs (RTR) is a term for converting obsolete, nonproductive offshore oil and gas platforms 

to designated artificial reefs (Dauterive, 2000). Disposal of obsolete offshore oil and gas platforms is not 

only a financial liability for the oil and gas industry but it can be a loss of productive marine habitat. The 

use of obsolete oil and gas platforms for reefs has proven to be highly successful. Their availability, 

design profile, durability, and stability provide a number of advantages over the use of traditional 

artificial reef materials. To capture this valuable fish habitat, the States of Florida, Louisiana, Alabama, 

Texas, and Mississippi in 1982, 1986, 1987, 1989, and 1999, respectively, passed enabling legislation and 

signed into law a RTR program to coincide with their respective States’ Artificial Reef Plan. (Alabama 

and Florida have no RTR legislation.) The State laws set up a mechanism to transfer ownership and 

liability of the platform from oil and gas companies to the State when the platform ceases production and 

the lease is terminated. The company (donor) saves money by donating a platform to the State (recipient) 

for a reef rather than scrapping the platform onshore. The industry then donates 50 percent of the savings 

to the State, which is put toward the State’s artificial reef program. Since the inception of the RTR 

program, more than 400 retired platforms have been donated and used as reefs in the Gulf of Mexico. 
1-20 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

1.6. OTHER OCS-RELATED ACTIVITIES

BOEM and BSEE have programs and activities that are OCS-related but not specific to the oil and 

gas leasing process or to the management of exploration, development, and production activities. These 

programs include both environmental and technical studies, and cooperative agreements with other 

Federal and State agencies for NEPA work, joint jurisdiction over cooperative efforts, inspection 

activities, and regulatory enforcement. BOEM also participates in industry research efforts and forums.

Environmental Studies Program

The Environmental Studies Program (ESP) was established in 1973 in accordance with Section 20 of 

the OCSLA. The goals of the ESP are to obtain environmental and socioeconomic information that can 

be used to assess the potential and real effects of the Gulf of Mexico OCS natural gas and oil program, 

renewable or alternative energy programs, and sand program. As a part of the ESP, the Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Region has funded more than 875 completed or ongoing environmental studies. The types of 

studies funded include the following:

• literature reviews and baseline studies of the physical, chemical, and biological 

environment of the shelf;

• literature review and studies of the physical, chemical, and biological environment of 

deep water >300 m (1,000 ft);

• studies of the socioeconomic impacts along the Gulf Coast; and

• studies of the effects of oil and gas activities, renewable or alternative energy

activities, and sand activities on the marine environment.

A list of the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region’s studies published from 2006 to the present is presented in 

Appendix H of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Studies completed since 1974 are available on 

BOEM’s Gulf of Mexico OCS Region’s Internet website under “Environmental Stewardship, 

Environmental Studies.” BOEM’s Environmental Studies Program Information System (ESPIS) provides 

immediate access to all completed BOEM studies. The ESPIS is a searchable, web-based, full-text 

retrieval system allowing users to view online or to download the complete text of any completed ESP 

report. A complete list of all ongoing Gulf of Mexico OCS Region studies is available on BOEM’s

Internet website. Each listing not only describes the research being conducted but also shows the 

institution performing the work, the cost of the effort, timeframe, and any associated publications, 

presentations, or affiliated websites.

The ESP funds studies to obtain information needed for NEPA assessment and the management of 

environmental and socioeconomic impacts on the human, marine, and coastal environments that may be 

affected by OCS oil and gas activities, renewable or alternative energy activities, and sand activities. The 

ESP studies were used by BOEM’s Gulf of Mexico OCS Region analysts to prepare this document. 

While not all of the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region’s studies are specifically referenced in this document, 

they were used by analysts as input into their analyses. The information in ESP studies is also used by 

decisionmakers to manage and regulate exploration, development, and production activities on the OCS.

Technology Assessment & Research Program

The Technology Assessment & Research (TA&R) Program supports research associated with 

operational safety and pollution prevention as well as oil-spill response and cleanup capabilities. The 

TA&R Program is comprised of two functional research activities: (1) operational safety and engineering 

research (topics such as air quality, decommissioning, and mooring and anchoring); and (2) oil-spill 

research (topics such as behavior of oil, chemical treating agents, and in situ burning of oil). The TA&R 

Program has four primary objectives: 
The Proposed Actions 1-21

• Technical Support—Providing engineering support in evaluating industry operational 

proposals and related technical issues and in ensuring that these proposals comply 

with applicable regulations, rules, and operational guidelines and standards.

• Technology Assessment—Investigating and assessing industry applications of 

technological innovations and ensuring that governing BSEE regulations, rules, and 

operational guidelines ensure the use of BAST (Chapter 1.5 [“New and Unusual 

Technology”] and Chapter 3.1.1.9.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). 

• Research Catalyst—Promoting and participating in industry research initiatives in the 

fields of operational safety, engineering research, and oil-spill response and cleanup 

research.

• International Regulations—Supporting international cooperative efforts for research 

and development initiatives to enhance the safety of offshore oil and natural gas 

activities and the development of appropriate regulatory program elements 

worldwide.

Interagency Agreements

Memoranda of Understanding under NEPA 

Section 1500.5(b) of the CEQ implementing regulations (40 CFR 1500.5(b)) encourages agency 

cooperation early in the NEPA process. A Federal agency can be a lead, joint lead, or cooperating 

agency. A lead agency manages the NEPA process and is responsible for the preparation of an EIS; a 

joint lead agency shares these responsibilities; and a cooperating agency that has jurisdiction by law and 

has special expertise with respect to any environmental issue shall participate in the NEPA process upon 

the request of the lead agency.

When an agency becomes a Cooperating Agency, the cooperating and lead agencies usually enter into 

a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), previously called a Cooperating Agency Agreement. The 

MOU details the responsibilities of each participating agency. BOEM, as lead agency, has requested 

other Federal agencies to become cooperating agencies while other agencies have requested BOEM to 

become a cooperating agency (e.g., the Ocean Express Pipeline project). Some projects, such as major 

gas pipelines across Federal waters and projects under the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, can require 

cooperative efforts by multiple Federal and State agencies.

The NOI included an invitation to other Federal agencies and State, tribal, and local governments to 

consider becoming cooperating agencies in the preparation of this Supplemental EIS. Consultation and 

coordination activities for this Supplemental EIS are described in Chapter 5. 

Memorandum of Understanding and Memoranda of Agreements between BOEM/BSEE

and USCG

Since BSEE and USCG have closely related jurisdiction over different aspects of safety and 

operations on the OCS, the agencies have established a formal MOU that delineates lead responsibilities 

for managing OCS activities in accordance with the OCSLA, as amended, and the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990. The latest MOU, dated September 30, 2004, supersedes the August 1989 and December 1998 

versions of the interagency agreement. The MOU is designed to minimize duplication and promote 

consistent regulation of facilities under the jurisdiction of both agencies. A Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA), OCS No. 1—Agency Responsibilities, between BSEE and USCG, dated September 30, 2004, 

further clarifies the technical and process section of the BSEE/USCG Memorandum of Understanding. 

The MOA requires the participating agencies to review their internal procedures and, where appropriate, 

revise them to accommodate the provisions of the September 2004 MOA. To facilitate coordination with 

USCG, BSEE has established a full-time position within the Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs to 

provide liaison between the agencies.

Generally, the MOU identifies BSEE as the lead agency for matters concerning the equipment and 

operations directly involved in the production of oil and gas. These include, among others, design and 

operation of risers, permanent mooring foundations of the facility, drilling and well production and 

services, inspection and testing of all drilling-related equipment, and platform decommissioning. Issues 
1-22 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

regarding certain aspects of safe operation of the facility, its systems, and equipment generally fall under 

the jurisdiction of USCG. These include, among others, design of vessels, their sea-keeping 

characteristics, propulsion and dynamic positioning systems, supply and lightering procedures and 

equipment, utility systems, safety equipment and procedures, and pollution prevention and response 

procedures. In 2002, this Agency was authorized to inspect USCG-related safety items on fixed facilities 

on the OCS.

Generally, the MOA identifies agency responsibilities (i.e., agency representatives for the purpose of 

keeping each other informed of issues, relevant applications, routine policy determinations and to 

coordinate joint activities), civil penalties (i.e., USCG refers civil penalty cases to BSEE), oil-spill 

financial responsibility (i.e., BSEE determines and provides oil-spill financial responsibility-related 

information to USCG upon request), oil-spill preparedness and response planning (i.e., BSEE requires 

responsible parties to maintain approved oil-spill-response plans consistent with Area Contingency Plans 

and the National Contingency Plan), oil-spill response (i.e., reporting all spills to the National Response 

Center and direct measures to abate sources of pollution from an OCS facility), accident investigations 

(i.e., BSEE and USCG responsible for investigating and preparing report of fires, spillage, injury, fatality 

and blowouts and collisions and allisions), and offshore facility system/subsystem responsibility matrix 

(identifies lead agency responsible for mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU), fixed, and floating systems 

and subsystems, and coordinates with other agencies as appropriate).

On April 18, 2005, this Agency and USCG met to identify MOA’s that needed to be developed and to 

prioritize work. The following subject areas were selected: (a) civil penalties; (b) incident investigations; 

(c) offshore security; (d) oil-spill planning, preparedness, and response; (e) deepwater ports; (f) digital 

databases; (g) MODU’s; (h) fixed platforms; (i) floating platforms; (j) floating, production, storage, and 

offloading units (FPSO’s); and (k) incident reporting. Joint agency teams have been established to 

develop the MOA’s for the first five subject areas. In addition, an MOA is also being pursued to address 

renewable energy and alternate uses for existing oil and gas platforms on the OCS. The Civil Penalties 

MOA-OCS-02 was approved on September 12, 2006. The Floating Offshore Facilities MOA OCS-04 

was signed on February 28, 2008. The Oil Discharge Planning, Preparedness, and Response MOA-OCS03 became effective on April 3, 2012, and the Incident Investigation MOA-OCS-03 became effective on 

April 3, 2012.
CHAPTER 2 

ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTIONS

Alternatives Including the Proposed Actions 2-3 

2. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTIONS

This Supplemental EIS addresses one oil and gas lease sale in the WPA and one oil and gas lease sale 

in the CPA of the Gulf of Mexico OCS (Figure 1-1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS), as 

scheduled in the current Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 

2012-2017 (Five-Year Program; USDOI, BOEM, 2012a). The two proposed actions that are evaluated in 

this Supplemental EIS are proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 and proposed CPA Lease Sale 231. The 

proposed actions (proposed lease sales) include compliance with applicable regulations in place at the 

time a ROD is made for each proposed action and lease stipulations.

2.1. SUPPLEMENTAL EIS NEPA ANALYSIS

Proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 and proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 were analyzed in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. This Supplemental EIS tiers from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, 

and it summarizes and hereby incorporates the material by reference. Each of the proposed lease sales is 

expected to be within the scenario ranges summarized in Chapter 3 of this Supplemental EIS and as 

discussed in Chapter 3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The WPA and CPA proposed actions 

include existing regulations and lease stipulations.

This Supplemental EIS is the final NEPA review conducted for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 and 

proposed CPA Lease Sale 231. The analysis is focused on addressing the new issue(s) and/or concern(s) 

that have been identified since publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis of 

new impacts and new information identified since publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS, along with an updated discussion of associated BOEM coordination and consultations, is addressed.

The purpose of this Supplemental EIS is to determine if new information is available, if it would alter 

the conclusions stated in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and, if so, to disclose those changes. 

BOEM utilized the best information available derived from ongoing and past research to determine if the 

baseline condition for resources had changed since publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS. This Supplemental EIS presents an impartial analysis of new information that is available through 

sources open to BOEM experts.

This Supplemental EIS analyzes the potential impacts of the WPA and CPA proposed actions on 

sensitive coastal environments, offshore marine resources, and socioeconomic resources both onshore and 

offshore. 

2.2. ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATING MEASURES, AND ISSUES

2.2.1. Alternatives

The alternatives to be considered for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 and proposed CPA Lease 

Sale 231 are detailed below. These suggested alternatives have been derived from both the historical 

comments submitted to BOEM and the EIS-specific scoping performed for this analysis.

Through our scoping efforts for this and previous EIS’s, numerous issues and topics were identified 

for consideration. During the scoping period for the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, a number of 

alternatives or deferral options were suggested and examined for inclusion in that EIS (Chapter 2.2.3.2 of 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). Those alternative and deferral options were also reexamined 

during the preparation of this Supplemental EIS. These suggestions included additional deferrals, policy 

changes, and suggestions beyond the scope of this Supplemental EIS. BOEM has not identified any new 

significant information that changes its conclusions in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS that these

alternatives or deferral options are not appropriate for further in-depth analysis. The justifications for not 

carrying those suggestions through detailed analyses in this Supplemental EIS are the same as those used 

in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.
2-4 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

2.2.1.1. Alternatives for Proposed Western Planning Area Lease Sale 233

Alternative A—The Proposed Action: This is BOEM’s preferred alternative. This alternative would 

offer for lease all unleased blocks within the proposed WPA lease sale area (Figure 2-1), with the 

following exception: 

(1) whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National 

Marine Sanctuary (i.e., the boundary as of the publication of this Supplemental EIS).

Alternative A of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS also included an exclusion of whole and 

partial blocks that lie within the 1.4-nmi buffer zone north of the maritime boundary between the United 

States and Mexico. The U.S. and Mexico have been pursuing an Agreement to govern the development 

of reservoirs of petroleum and natural gas straddling the U.S.-Mexico maritime and continental shelf 

boundary in the Gulf of Mexico. On February 20, 2012, the “Agreement between the United States of 

America and the United Mexican States Concerning Transboundary Hydrocarbon Reservoirs in the Gulf 

of Mexico” (Agreement) was signed by representatives of each Government, but it has not yet entered 

into force. Upon its entry into force, the blocks and acreage in this buffer zone that were not offered in 

past lease sales will become available for leasing. As the Agreement may enter into force prior to the 

tentative date scheduled to hold proposed WPA Lease Sale 233, BOEM has considered this 1.4-nmi 

buffer area as being potentially available for lease under Alternative A.

Although the leasing of portions of the WPA and CPA (subareas or blocks) can be deferred during a 

Five-Year Program, DOI is conservative throughout the NEPA process and includes the total area within 

the Gulf of Mexico planning areas for environmental evaluation.

The proposed WPA lease sale area encompasses about 28.58 million ac. As of March 2013, 

approximately 20.7 million ac of the proposed WPA lease sale area are currently unleased. The estimated 

amount of resources projected to be developed as a result of the proposed WPA lease sale is 0.116-0.200 

BBO and 0.538-0.938 Tcf of gas (Table 3-1). 

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

Topographic Features: This alternative would offer for lease all unleased blocks within the proposed 

WPA lease sale area, as described for the proposed action (Alternative A), with the exception of any 

unleased blocks subject to the Topographic Features Stipulation. The estimated amount of resources 

projected to be developed is 0.116-0.200 BBO and 0.538-0.938 Tcf of gas (refer to Chapter 2.3.2 for 

further details).

Alternative C—No Action: This alternative is the cancellation of proposed WPA Lease Sale 233. If 

this alternative is chosen, the opportunity for development of the estimated 0.116-0.200 BBO and 

0.538-0.938 Tcf of gas that could have resulted from proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 would be precluded 

or postponed to a future WPA lease sale. Any potential environmental impacts resulting from proposed 

WPA Lease Sale 233 would not occur or would be postponed to a future lease sale decision. This is also 

analyzed in the EIS for the Five-Year Program on a nationwide programmatic level.

Alternatives and Deferrals Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail

Chapter 2.2.1.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS includes a detailed description of 

alternatives considered, but not analyzed in this EIS, including the following: exclude deep water and 

limit leasing to shallow waters; delay leasing until drilling safety is improved; do not allow drilling in 

areas with strong ocean currents such as the Loop Current; delay leasing until the state of the Gulf of 

Mexico environmental baseline is known; and identify and protect sensitive ecosystems. The 

justifications for not carrying these alternatives and deferrals through detailed analyses in this 

Supplemental EIS are the same as those used in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, and BOEM has 

identified no new information that changes these conclusions.

2.2.1.2. Alternatives for Proposed Central Planning Area Lease Sale 231

Alternative A—The Proposed Action: This is BOEM’s preferred alternative. This alternative would 

offer for lease all unleased blocks within the proposed CPA lease sale area (Figure 2-1), with the 

following exceptions:
Alternatives Including the Proposed Actions 2-5 

(1) whole and portions of blocks deferred by the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 

2006; and

(2) blocks that are adjacent to or beyond the United States Exclusive Economic Zone in 

the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap. 

Alternative A of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS also included an exclusion of whole and 

partial blocks that lie within the 1.4-nmi buffer zone north of the maritime boundary between the United 

States and Mexico. The U.S. and Mexico have been pursuing an agreement to govern the development of 

reservoirs of petroleum and natural gas straddling the U.S.-Mexico maritime and continental shelf 

boundary in the Gulf of Mexico. On February 20, 2012, the Agreement was signed by representatives of 

each Government, but it has not yet entered into force. Upon its entry into force, the blocks and acreage 

in this buffer zone that were not offered in past lease sales will become available for lease. As the 

Agreement may enter into force prior to the tentative date scheduled to hold proposed CPA Lease 

Sale 231, BOEM has considered this 1.4-nmi buffer area as being potentially available for lease under 

Alternative A.

Although the leasing of portions of the CPA (subareas or blocks) can be deferred during a Five-Year 

Program, DOI is conservative throughout the NEPA process and includes the total area within the Gulf of 

Mexico planning areas for environmental evaluation.

The proposed CPA lease sale area encompasses about 63 million ac of the total CPA area of 

66.45 million ac. As of March 2013, approximately 43.0 million ac of the proposed CPA lease sale area 

are currently unleased. The estimated amount of resources projected to be developed as a result of 

proposed CPA Lease Sale 233 is 0.460-0.894 BBO and 1.939-3.903 Tcf of gas (Table 3-1). 

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

Features: This alternative would offer for lease all unleased blocks within the proposed CPA lease sale 

area, as described for the proposed action (Alternative A), with the exception of any unleased blocks 

subject to the Topographic Features Stipulation. The estimated amount of resources projected to be 

developed is 0.116-0.200 BBO and 0.538-0.938 Tcf of gas (refer to Chapter 2.4.2 for further details).

Alternative C—No Action: This alternative is the cancellation of proposed CPA Lease Sale 231. If 

this alternative is chosen, the opportunity for development of the estimated 0.460-0.894 BBO and 

1.939-3.903 Tcf of gas that could have resulted from proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 would be precluded 

or postponed to a future WPA lease sale. Any potential environmental impacts resulting from proposed 

CPA Lease Sale 233 would not occur or would be postponed to a future lease sale decision. This is also 

analyzed in the EIS for the Five-Year Program on a nationwide programmatic level.

Alternatives and Deferrals Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail

Chapter 2.2.1.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS includes a description of alternatives 

considered, but not analyzed in this EIS, including the following: exclude deep water and limit leasing to 

shallow waters; delay leasing until drilling safety is improved; do not allow drilling in areas with strong 

ocean currents such as the Loop Current; delay leasing until the state of the Gulf of Mexico 

environmental baseline is known; and identify and protect sensitive ecosystems. The justifications for not 

carrying these alternatives and deferrals through detailed analyses in this Supplemental EIS are the same 

as those used in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and BOEM has identified no new information 

that changes these conclusions.

2.2.2. Mitigating Measures

The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions that are based on an 

understanding of environmental consequences and to take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the 

environment. Agencies are required to identify and include in the alternative chosen relevant and 

reasonable mitigation measures that could improve the action. The CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.20) 

define mitigation as

• Avoidance—Avoiding an impact altogether by not taking a certain action or part 

of an action.
2-6 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

• Minimization—Minimizing impacts by limiting the intensity or magnitude of the 

action and its implementation.

• Restoration—Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the 

affected environment.

• Maintenance—Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and 

maintenance operations during the life of the action.

• Compensation—Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing 

substitute resources or environments.

2.2.2.1. Proposed Mitigating Measures Analyzed

The potential mitigating measures included for analysis in this Supplemental EIS were developed as a 

result of numerous scoping efforts for the continuing OCS Program in the Gulf of Mexico. Five lease 

stipulations (described in Chapter 2.3.1.3 of this Supplemental EIS and in Chapter 2.3.1.3 of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS) are proposed for WPA Lease Sale 233—the Topographic Features

Stipulation, the Military Areas Stipulation, the Protected Species Stipulation, the Law of the Sea 

Convention Royalty Payment Stipulation, and the Transboundary Stipulation. Ten lease stipulations 

(described in Chapter 2.4.1.3 of this Supplemental EIS and in Chapter 2.4.1.3 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS) are proposed for CPA Lease Sale 231—the Topographic Features Stipulation; 

the Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation; the Military Areas Stipulation; the Evacuation Stipulation; 

the Coordination Stipulation; the Blocks South of Baldwin County, Alabama, Stipulation; the Protected 

Species Stipulation; the Law of the Sea Convention Royalty Payment Stipulation; the Below Seabed 

Operations Stipulation; and the Transboundary Stipulation. The Law of the Sea Convention Royalty 

Payment Stipulation is applicable to the proposed WPA and CPA lease sales even though it is not an 

environmental or military stipulation.

These measures will be considered for adoption by the ASLM, under authority delegated by the 

Secretary of the Interior. The analysis of any stipulations for Alternative A does not ensure that the 

ASLM will make a decision to apply the stipulations to leases that may result from the proposed lease 

sales nor does it preclude minor modifications in wording during subsequent steps in the prelease process 

if comments indicate changes are necessary or if conditions change.

Any stipulations or mitigation requirements to be included in the proposed WPA and CPA lease sales 

will be described in the ROD for that lease sale. Mitigating measures in the form of lease stipulations are 

added to the lease terms and are therefore enforceable as part of the lease. In addition, each exploration

and development plan, as well as any pipeline applications that result from the lease sales, will undergo a 

NEPA review, and additional project-specific mitigations applied as conditions of plan approval. The 

BSEE has the authority to monitor and enforce these conditions, and under 30 CFR 250 Subpart N, may 

seek remedies and penalties from any operator that fails to comply with those conditions, stipulations, and 

mitigating measures.

2.2.2.2. Existing Mitigating Measures

This section discusses mitigating measures that may be applied to the proposed actions. Mitigating 

measures have been proposed, identified, evaluated, or developed through previous BOEM lease sale 

NEPA review and analysis. Many of these mitigating measures have been adopted and incorporated into 

regulations and/or guidelines governing OCS exploration, development, and production activities. All 

plans for OCS activities (e.g., exploration and development plans, pipeline applications, and structureremoval applications) go through rigorous BOEM review and approval to ensure compliance with 

established laws and regulations. Existing mitigating measures must be incorporated and documented in 

plans submitted to BOEM. Operational compliance of the mitigating measures is enforced through 

BSEE’s onsite inspection program.

Mitigating measures are a standard part of BOEM’s program to ensure that the operations are always 

conducted in an environmentally sound manner (with an emphasis on minimizing any adverse impact of 

routine operations on the environment). For example, certain measures ensure site clearance, and survey 

procedures are carried out to determine potential snags to commercial fishing and avoidance of 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Actions 2-7 

archaeological sites and biologically sensitive areas such as pinnacles, topographic features, and 

chemosynthetic communities. 

Some BOEM-identified mitigating measures are incorporated into OCS operations through 

cooperative agreements or efforts with industry and State and Federal agencies. These mitigating 

measures include NMFS’s Observer Program to protect marine mammals and sea turtles during explosive 

removals, labeling operational supplies to track possible sources of debris or equipment loss, development 

of methods of pipeline landfall to eliminate impacts to beaches or wetlands, and beach cleanup events.

Site-specific mitigating measures are also applied by BOEM during plan and permit reviews. BOEM 

realized that many of these site-specific mitigations were recurring and developed a list of “standard” 

mitigations. There are currently over 120 standard mitigations. The wording of a standard mitigation is 

developed by BOEM in advance and may be applied whenever conditions warrant. Standard mitigation 

text is revised as often as is necessary (e.g., to reflect changes in regulatory citations, agency/personnel 

contact numbers, and internal policy). Site-specific mitigation “categories” include the following:

• air quality; 

• archaeological resources; 

• artificial reef material;

• chemosynthetic communities; 

• Flower Garden Banks; 

• topographic features; 

• hard bottoms/pinnacles;

• military warning areas and Eglin Water Test Areas;

• hydrogen sulfide;

• drilling hazards;

• remotely operated vehicle surveys;

• geophysical survey reviews; and

• general safety concerns. 

Site-specific mitigation “types” include the following:

• advisories;

• conditions of approval;

• hazard survey reviews;

• inspection requirements;

• notifications;

• post-approval submittals;

• and safety precautions.

In addition to standard mitigations, BOEM may also apply nonrecurring mitigating measures that are 

developed on a case-by-case basis.

BOEM is continually revising applicable mitigations to allow the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region to 

more easily and routinely track mitigation compliance and effectiveness. A primary focus of this effort is 

requiring post-approval submittal of information within a specified timeframe or after a triggering event 

(e.g., end of operations reports for plans, construction reports for pipelines, and removal reports for 

structure removals).
2-8 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

2.2.3. Issues

Issues are defined by CEQ to represent those principal “effects” that an EIS should evaluate in-depth. 

Scoping identifies specific environmental resources and/or activities rather than “causes” as significant 

issues (CEQ Guidance on Scoping, April 30, 1981). The analysis in the EIS can then show the degree of 

change from the present conditions for each issue to the actions related to a proposed action.

Selection of environmental and socioeconomic issues to be analyzed was based on the following 

criteria:

• the issue as identified in CEQ regulations is subject to evaluation;

• the relevant resource/activity was identified through agency expertise, through the 

scoping process, or from comments on past EIS’s;

• the resource/activity may be vulnerable to one or more of the impact-producing 

factors associated with the OCS Program; a reasonable probability of an interaction 

between the resource/activity and impact-producing factor should exist; or

• the information that indicates a need to evaluate the potential impacts to a 

resource/activity has become available.

2.2.3.1. Issues to be Analyzed

Chapter 2.2.3.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS addresses the issues related to potential 

impact-producing factors and the environmental and socioeconomic resources and activities that could be 

affected by OCS exploration, development, production, and transportation activities (i.e. accidental 

events, drilling fluids and cuttings, visual and aesthetic interference, air emissions, water quality

degradation and other wastes, structure and pipeline emplacement, platform removals, OCS-related 

support services, activities, and infrastructure, socio-cultural and socioeconomic, and OCS oil and gas 

infrastructure). Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 of this Supplemental EIS describe the resources and activities that 

could be affected by the impact-producing factors listed above and include the following resource topics:

— Air Quality

— Alabama, Choctawhatchee, St. Andrew, 

and Perdido Key Beach Mice

— Archaeological Resources (Historic and 

Prehistoric)

— Coastal Barrier Beaches and Associated 

Dunes

— Coastal and Marine Birds

— Commercial Fisheries

— Deepwater Benthic Communities 

(Chemosynthetic and 

Nonchemosynthetic)

— Diamondback Terrapins

— Fish Resources and Essential Fish 

Habitat

— Gulf Sturgeon

— Human Resources and Land Use

(Land Use and Coastal 

Infrastructure, Demographics, 

Economic Factors, and 

Environmental Justice) 

— Live Bottoms (Pinnacle Trend and 

Low Relief) 

— Marine Mammals

— Recreational Fishing

— Recreational Resources

— Sargassum Communities

— Sea Turtles

— Seagrass Communities

— Soft Bottom Benthic Communities

— Topographic Features

— Water Quality (Coastal and Offshore)

— Wetlands

2.2.3.2. Issues Considered but Not Analyzed

As previously noted, the CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA instruct agencies to adopt an early 

process (termed “scoping”) for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying 

significant issues related to a proposed action. As part of this scoping process, agencies shall identify and 

eliminate from detailed study the issues that are not significant to the proposed action or have been 

covered by prior environmental review. No additional issues were identified during scoping that are not 

addressed in this Supplemental EIS. Comments received during scoping are summarized in Chapter 5.3. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Actions 2-9 

2.3. PROPOSED WESTERN PLANNING AREA LEASE SALE 233

2.3.1. Alternative A—The Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative)

2.3.1.1. Description

Alternative A would offer for lease all unleased blocks within the proposed WPA lease sale area for 

oil and gas operations (Figure 2-1), with the following exception: 

(1) whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National 

Marine Sanctuary (i.e., the boundary as of the publication of this Supplemental EIS). 

Alternative A of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS also included an exclusion of whole and 

partial blocks that lie within the 1.4-nmi buffer zone north of the maritime boundary between the United 

States and Mexico. The U.S. and Mexico have been pursuing an Agreement to govern the development 

of reservoirs of petroleum and natural gas straddling the U.S.-Mexico maritime and continental shelf 

boundary in the Gulf of Mexico. On February 20, 2012, the Agreement was signed by representatives of 

each Government, but it has not yet entered into force. Upon its entry into force, the blocks and acreage 

in this buffer zone that were not offered in past lease sales will become available for lease. As the 

Agreement may enter into force prior to the tentative date scheduled to hold proposed WPA Lease 

Sale 233, BOEM has considered this 1.4-nmi buffer area as being potentially available for lease under 

Alternative A.

Although the leasing of portions of the WPA (subareas or blocks) can be deferred during a Five-Year 

Program, DOI is conservative throughout the NEPA process and includes the total area within the Gulf of 

Mexico for environmental evaluation.

The proposed WPA lease sale area encompasses about 28.58 million ac. As of March 2013, 

approximately 20.7 million ac of the proposed WPA lease sale area are currently unleased. The estimated 

amount of resources projected to be developed as a result of proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 is 

0.116-0.200 BBO and 0.538-0.938 Tcf of gas.

The analyses of impacts summarized below and described in detail in Chapter 4.1.1 are based on the 

development scenario, which is a set of assumptions and estimates on the amounts, locations, and timing 

for OCS exploration, development, and production operations and facilities, both offshore and onshore. 

A detailed discussion of the development scenario and major related impact-producing factors is included 

in Chapter 3. 

Alternative A has been identified as BOEM’s preferred alternative; however, this does not mean that 

another alternative may not be selected in the Record of Decision.

2.3.1.2. Summary of Impacts

A search by subject-matter experts was conducted for each resource to consider new information 

made available since publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and to consider new 

information on the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. Any new information discovered 

was analyzed by subject-matter experts to determine if the impact conclusions presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS were altered as a result of the new information.

For the following resources, the subject-matter experts determined that there was no new information 

made available since publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS that was relevant to potential 

impacts from the WPA proposed action; therefore, the impact conclusions for these resources remain the 

same as those that were presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. These impact conclusions 

are presented in Chapter 4.1.1 of this Supplemental EIS. For ease of review, the individual chapter 

numbers for each resource are provided in the following list.

• Coastal Barrier Beaches and Associated Dunes (Chapter 4.1.1.3) 

• Wetlands (Chapter 4.1.1.4) 

• Seagrass Communities (Chapter 4.1.1.5) 

• Topographic Features (Chapter 4.1.1.6) 
2-10 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

• Sargassum Communities (Chapter 4.1.1.7) 

• Chemosynthetic Deepwater Benthic Communities (Chapter 4.1.1.8) 

• Nonchemosynthetic Deepwater Benthic Communities (Chapter 4.1.1.9) 

• Soft Bottom Benthic Communities (Chapter 4.1.1.10) 

• Diamondback Terrapins (Chapter 4.1.1.13) 

• Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat (Chapter 4.1.1.15) 

• Species Considered due to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Concerns (Chapter 

4.1.1.21) 

For the following resources, the subject-matter experts determined that there was new information 

made available since publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS that was relevant to potential 

impacts from the WPA proposed action. BOEM’s subject-matter experts have reexamined the analyses 

for these resources based on new information made available; however, none of the new information was 

deemed significant enough to alter any of the impact conclusions presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS. These impact conclusions are presented in Chapter 4.1.1 of this Supplemental EIS. For 

ease of review, the individual chapter numbers for each resource are provided in the following list.

• Air Quality (Chapter 4.1.1.1) 

• Water Quality (Coastal and Offshore Waters) (Chapters 4.1.1.2.1 and 4.1.1.2.2, 

respectively) 

• Marine Mammals (Chapter 4.1.1.11) 

• Sea Turtles (Chapter 4.1.1.12) 

• Coastal and Marine Birds (Chapter 4.1.1.14) 

• Commercial Fisheries (Chapter 4.1.1.16) 

• Recreational Fishing (Chapter 4.1.1.17) 

• Recreational Resources (Chapter 4.1.1.18) 

• Archaeological Resources (Historic and Prehistoric) (Chapters 4.1.1.19.1 and 

4.1.1.19.2, respectively) 

• Human Resources and Land Use (Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure, 

Demographics, Economic Factors, and Environmental Justice) (Chapters 

4.1.1.20.1, 4.1.1.20.2, 4.1.1.20.3, and 4.1.1.20.4, respectively) 

In summary, no new significant information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusions 

for any of the resources analyzed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analyses and potential 

impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease 

Sale 233. BOEM also evaluated whether the potential addition of the 1.4-nmi buffer area that may 

become available for leasing if the Agreement enters into force would alter the impact conclusions for any 

of the resources analyzed. Due to the small number of lease blocks in the area, the distance of this area 

from many resources, and the fact that the buffer area is similar to and adjacent to blocks that were 

already considered in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, BOEM has determined that the potential 

addition of this area does not affect the impact conclusions in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The potential impacts of a low-probability, catastrophic oil spill, such as the one that resulted from 

the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill, to the environmental and cultural resources and the

socioeconomic conditions analyzed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS are addressed in the 

“Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis” (Appendix B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). The 

reader is referred to Appendix B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS for the analysis of the 

potential effects of a catastrophic event for each resource. BOEM reviewed relevant information 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Actions 2-11

available since publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and, where relevant, summarized 

this information in Chapter 4.1.1 of this Supplemental EIS. BOEM’s subject-matter experts determined 

that none of the newly available information was of a relevance to necessitate revisions to Appendix B of 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Therefore, none of the newly available information 

significantly changed the analyses or conclusions regarding catastrophic events. BOEM’s analyses and 

conclusions of catastrophic events in Appendix B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS remain 

unchanged; therefore, BOEM refers the reader to Appendix B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS

for the analysis of the potential effects of a catastrophic event for each resource.

2.3.1.3. Mitigating Measures

2.3.1.3.1. Topographic Features Stipulation

The topographic features located in the WPA and CPA provide habitat for coral-reef-community 

organisms (Chapters 4.1.1.6 and 4.2.1.7, respectively). These communities could be severely and 

adversely impacted by oil and gas activities resulting from the proposed action if such activities took 

place on or near these communities without the Topographic Features Stipulation and if such activities 

were not mitigated. The DOI has recognized this problem for some years, and since 1973 stipulations 

have been made a part of leases on or near these biotic communities so that impacts from nearby oil and 

gas activities were mitigated to the greatest extent possible. This stipulation would not prevent the 

recovery of oil and gas resources but would serve to protect valuable and sensitive biological resources.

The Topographic Features Stipulation was formulated based on consultation with various Federal 

agencies and comments solicited from the States, industry, environmental organizations, and academic 

representatives. The stipulation has been updated over time, using years of scientific information 

collected since the stipulation was first proposed. This information includes numerous Agency-funded 

studies of topographic highs in the GOM; numerous stipulation-imposed, industry-funded monitoring 

reports; and the National Research Council (NRC) report entitled Drilling Discharges in the Marine 

Environment (1983). The stipulation protects the biota of the banks from routine oil and gas activities 

resulting from the proposed action, while allowing the development of nearby oil and gas resources. The 

stipulation would not prevent adverse effects of an accident such as a large blowout on a nearby oil or gas 

operation from impacting the banks. The location of the blocks affected by the Topographic Features 

Stipulation is shown on Figure 2-1. A more detailed discussion and definition of this stipulation and its 

effectiveness are found in Chapter 2.3.1.3.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

2.3.1.3.2. Military Areas Stipulation

The Military Areas Stipulation has been applied to all blocks leased in military areas since 1977 and 

reduces potential impacts, particularly in regards to safety; but, it does not reduce or eliminate the actual 

physical presence of oil and gas operations in areas where military operations are conducted. The 

stipulation contains a “hold harmless” clause (holding the U.S. Government harmless in case of an 

accident involving military operations) and requires lessees to coordinate their activities with appropriate 

local military contacts. Figure 2-2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS shows the military 

warning areas in the Gulf of Mexico. A more detailed discussion and definition of this stipulation and its 

effectiveness are found in Chapter 2.3.1.3.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

2.3.1.3.3. Protected Species Stipulation

The Protected Species Stipulation has been applied to all blocks leased in the GOM since December 

2001. This stipulation was developed in consultation with the Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NMFS and the Department of the Interior, FWS in accordance 

with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and it is designed to minimize or avoid potential adverse 

impacts to federally protected species. A more detailed discussion and definition of this stipulation and 

its effectiveness are found in Chapter 2.3.1.3.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.
2-12 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

2.3.1.3.4. Law of the Sea Convention Royalty Payment Stipulation

The Law of the Sea Convention Royalty Payment Stipulation applies to blocks or portions of blocks 

beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (generally greater than 200 nmi [230 mi; 370 km] from the 

U.S. coastline). Leases on these blocks may be subject to special royalty payments under the provisions 

of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention (consistent with Article 82), if the U.S. becomes a party to the 

Convention prior to or during the life of the lease. A more detailed discussion and definition of this 

stipulation and its effectiveness are found in Chapter 2.3.1.3.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS.

2.3.1.3.5. Transboundary Stipulation

The Agreement, once it enters into force, will make it possible for U.S. lessees to enter into voluntary 

agreements with a licensee of the United Mexican States to develop transboundary reservoirs. The 

stipulation applies to blocks or portions of blocks located wholly or partially within the 3 statute miles 

(4.8 km) of the maritime or continental shelf boundary with Mexico. A more detailed discussion and 

definition of this stipulation and its effectiveness are found in Chapter 2.3.1.3.5 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

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

the Biologically Sensitive Topographic Features

2.3.2.1. Description

Alternative B differs from Alternative A by not offering the blocks that are potentially subject to the 

proposed Topographic Features Stipulation (Chapter 2.3.1.3.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS

and Figure 2-1 of this Supplemental EIS). All of the assumptions (including the 4 other potential 

mitigating measures and the 1 stipulation) and estimates are the same as for Alternative A. A description 

of Alternative A is presented in Chapter 2.3.1.1. 

2.3.2.2. Summary of Impacts

The analyses of impacts summarized in Chapter 2.3.1.2 and described in detail in Chapter 4.1.1 are 

based on the development scenario, which is a set of assumptions and estimates on the amounts, 

locations, and timing for OCS exploration, development, and production operations and facilities, both 

offshore and onshore. A detailed discussion of the development scenario and major related impactproducing factors is included in Chapter 3. 

The difference between the potential impacts described for Alternative A and those under 

Alternative B is that under Alternative B no oil and gas activity would take place in the blocks subject to 

the Topographic Features Stipulation (Figure 2-1). The number of blocks that would not be offered 

under Alternative B represents only a small percentage of the total number of blocks to be offered under 

Alternative A; therefore, it is assumed that the levels of activity for Alternative B would be essentially the 

same as those projected for the proposed action. As a result, the impacts expected to result from 

Alternative B would be very similar to those described under the WPA proposed action (Chapter 4.1.1). 

Therefore, the regional impact levels for all resources, except for the topographic features, would be 

similar to those described under the proposed action. This alternative, if adopted, would prevent any oil 

and gas activity whatsoever in the affected blocks; thus, it would eliminate any potential direct impacts to 

the biota of those blocks from oil and gas activities, which otherwise would be conducted within the 

blocks.

2.3.3. Alternative C—No Action

2.3.3.1. Description

Alternative C is the cancellation of proposed WPA Lease Sale 233. If this alternative is chosen, the 

opportunity for development of the estimated 0.116-0.200 BBO and 0.538-0.938 Tcf of gas that could 

have resulted from the proposed lease sale would be precluded or postponed to a future WPA lease sale. 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Actions 2-13

The No Action alternative encompasses the same potential impacts as a decision to delay the proposed 

lease sale to a later scheduled lease sale under the Five-Year Program, when another decision on whether 

to hold that future lease sale is made. As the potential impacts are the same, namely that most impacts 

related to Alternative A would not occur as described below, delay of the proposed lease sale was not 

considered as a separate alternative from Alternative C. Any potential environmental impacts resulting 

from proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 would not occur or would be postponed to a future lease sale 

decision.

2.3.3.2. Summary of Impacts

Canceling proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 would eliminate the effects described for Alternative A 

(Chapter 4.1.3). The incremental contribution of the proposed lease sale to the cumulative effects would 

also be foregone, but the effects from other activities, including other OCS lease sales, would remain.

If proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 would be canceled, the resulting development of oil and gas would 

most likely be postponed to a future sale; therefore, the overall level of OCS activity in the WPA would 

only be reduced by a small percentage, if any. Therefore, the cancellation of the proposed lease sale 

would not significantly change the environmental impacts of overall OCS activity. However, the 

cancellation of the proposed lease sale may result in direct economic impacts to the individual companies. 

Revenues collected by the Federal Government (and thus revenue disbursements to the States) would be 

adversely affected also.

Other sources of energy may substitute for the lost production. Principal substitutes would be 

additional imports, conservation, additional domestic production, and switching to other fuels. These 

alternatives, except conservation, have significant negative environmental impacts of their own. For 

example, tankering of fuels from alternate sources over longer distances would also have significant 

potential negative impacts, including through the increased risk of spills.

2.4. PROPOSED CENTRAL PLANNING AREA LEASE SALE 231

2.4.1. Alternative A—The Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative)

2.4.1.1. Description

Alternative A would offer for lease all unleased blocks within the proposed CPA lease sale area for 

oil and gas operations (Figure 1-1), with the following exceptions:

(1) whole and portions of blocks deferred by the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 

2006; and

(2) blocks that are adjacent to or beyond the United States Exclusive Economic Zone in 

the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap. 

Alternative A of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS also included an exclusion of whole and 

partial blocks that lie within the 1.4-nmi buffer zone north of the maritime boundary between the United 

States and Mexico. The U.S. and Mexico have been pursuing an Agreement to govern the development 

of reservoirs of petroleum and natural gas straddling the U.S.-Mexico maritime and continental shelf 

boundary in the Gulf of Mexico. On February 20, 2012, the Agreement was signed by representatives of 

each Government, but it has not yet entered into force. Upon its entry into force, the blocks and acreage 

in this buffer zone that were not offered in past lease sales will become available for lease. As the 

Agreement may enter into force prior to the tentative date scheduled to hold proposed CPA Lease 

Sale 231, BOEM has considered this 1.4-nmi buffer area as being potentially available for lease under 

Alternative A.

Although the leasing of portions of the CPA and WPA (subareas or blocks) can be deferred during a 

Five-Year Program, DOI is conservative throughout the NEPA process and includes the total area within 

the Gulf of Mexico for environmental evaluation.

The proposed CPA lease sale area encompasses about 63 million ac of the CPA’s 66.45 million ac. 

As of March 2013, approximately 43.0 million ac of the proposed CPA lease sale area are currently 
2-14 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

unleased. The estimated amount of resources projected to be developed as a result of proposed CPA 

Lease Sale 231 is 0.460-0.894 BBO and 1.939-3.903 Tcf of gas (Table 3-1). 

The analyses of impacts summarized below and described in detail in Chapter 4.2.1 are based on the 

development scenario, which is a set of assumptions and estimates on the amounts, locations, and timing 

for OCS exploration, development, and production operations and facilities, both offshore and onshore. 

A detailed discussion of the development scenario and related impact-producing factors is included in 

Chapter 3. 

Alternative A has been identified as BOEM’s preferred alternative; however, this does not mean that 

another alternative may not be selected in the Record of Decision.

2.4.1.2. Summary of Impacts

A search by subject-matter experts was conducted for each resource to consider new information 

made available since publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and to consider new 

information on the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. Any new information discovered 

was analyzed by subject-matter experts to determine if the impact conclusions presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS were altered as a result of the new information.

For the following resources, the subject-matter experts determined that there was no new information 

made available since publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS that was relevant to potential 

impacts from the CPA proposed action; therefore, the impact conclusions for these resources remain the 

same as those that were presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. These impact conclusions 

are presented in Chapter 4.2.1 of this Supplemental EIS. For ease of review, the individual chapter 

numbers for each resource are provided in the following list:

• Seagrass Communities (Chapter 4.2.1.5) 

• Live Bottoms (Pinnacle Trend and Low Relief) (Chapters 4.2.1.6.1 and 

4.2.1.6.2, respectively)

• Topographic Features (Chapter 4.2.1.7) 

• Sargassum Communities (Chapter 4.2.1.8) 

• Chemosynthetic Deepwater Benthic Communities (Chapter 4.2.1.9) 

• Nonchemosynthetic Deepwater Benthic Communities (Chapter 4.2.1.10) 

• Soft Bottom Benthic Communities (Chapter 4.1.1.11) 

• Gulf Sturgeon (Chapter 4.2.1.17) 

For the following resources, the subject-matter experts determined that there was new information 

made available since publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS that was relevant to potential 

impacts from the CPA proposed action. BOEM’s subject-matter experts have reexamined the analyses 

for these resources based on new information made available; however, none of the new information was 

deemed significant enough to alter any of the impact conclusions presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS. These impact conclusions are presented in Chapter 4.2.1 of this Supplemental EIS. For 

ease of review, the individual chapter numbers for each resource are provided in the following list.

• Air Quality (Chapter 4.2.1.1) 

• Water Quality (Coastal and Offshore Waters) (Chapters 4.2.1.2.1 and 4.2.1.2.1, 

respectively) 

• Coastal Barrier Beaches and Associated Dunes (Chapter 4.2.1.3) 

• Wetlands (Chapter 4.2.1.4) 

• Marine Mammals (Chapter 4.2.1.12) 

• Sea Turtles (Chapter 4.2.1.13) 
Alternatives Including the Proposed Actions 2-15

• Diamondback Terrapins (Chapter 4.2.1.14) 

• Alabama, Choctawhatchee, St. Andrew, and Perdido Key Beach Mice (Chapter 

4.2.1.15) 

• Coastal and Marine Birds (Chapter 4.2.1.16) 

• Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat (Chapter 4.2.1.1.18) 

• Commercial Fisheries (Chapter 4.2.1.19) 

• Recreational Fishing (Chapter 4.2.1.20) 

• Recreational Resources (Chapter 4.2.1.21) 

• Archaeological Resources (Historic and Prehistoric) (Chapters 4.2.1.22.1 and 

4.2.1.22.2, respectively) 

• Human Resources and Land Use (Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure, 

Demographics, Economic Factors, and Environmental Justice) (Chapters 

4.2.1.23.1, 4.2.1.23.2, 4.2.1.23.3, and 4.2.1.23.4, respectively) 

• Species Considered due to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Concerns (Chapter 

4.2.1.24) 

In summary, no new significant information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusions 

for any of the resources analyzed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analyses and potential 

impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231. 

BOEM also evaluated whether the potential addition of the 1.4-nmi buffer area that may become available 

for leasing if the Agreement enters into force would alter the impact conclusions for any of the resources

analyzed. Due to the small number of lease blocks in the area, the distance of this area from many 

resources, and the fact that the buffer area is similar to and adjacent to blocks that were already 

considered in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, BOEM has determined that the potential addition 

of this area does not affect the impact conclusions in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The potential impacts of a low-probability, catastrophic oil spill, such as the one that resulted from 

the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill, to the environmental and cultural resources and the 

socioeconomic conditions analyzed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS are addressed in the 

“Catastrophic Spill Event Analysis” (Appendix B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). The 

reader is referred to Appendix B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS for the analysis of the 

potential effects of a catastrophic event for each resource. BOEM reviewed relevant information 

available since publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and, where relevant, summarized 

this information in Chapter 4.2.1 of this Supplemental EIS. BOEM’s subject-matter experts determined 

that none of the newly available information was of a relevance to necessitate revisions to Appendix B of 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Therefore, none of the newly available information 

significantly changed the analyses or conclusions regarding catastrophic events. BOEM’s analyses and 

conclusions of catastrophic events in Appendix B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS remain 

unchanged; therefore, BOEM refers the reader to Appendix B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS

for the analysis of the potential effects of a catastrophic event for each resource.

2.4.1.3. Mitigating Measures

2.4.1.3.1. Topographic Features Stipulation

Refer to Chapter 2.3.1.3.1 of this Supplemental EIS and to Chapter 2.4.1.3.1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS for a complete description of this stipulation.

2.4.1.3.2. Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation

The Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation covers the pinnacle trend area of the CPA 

(Figure 2-1). A small portion of the northeastern proposed CPA lease sale area is characterized by a 
2-16 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

pinnacle trend, which is classified as a live bottom under the stipulation. The pinnacles are a series of 

topographic irregularities with variable biotal coverage, which provide structural habitat for a variety of 

pelagic fish. The pinnacles in the region could be impacted from physical damage of unrestricted oil and 

gas activities, as noted in Chapter 4.2.1.6. The Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation is intended to 

protect the pinnacle trend and the associated hard-bottom communities from damage and, at the same 

time, provide for recovery of potential oil and gas resources. A more detailed discussion and definition of 

this stipulation and its effectiveness are found in Chapter 2.4.1.3.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS.

2.4.1.3.3. Military Areas Stipulation

Refer to Chapter 2.3.1.3.2 of this Supplemental EIS and to Chapter 2.3.1.3.2 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS for a complete description of this stipulation.

2.4.1.3.4. Evacuation Stipulation

The Evacuation Stipulation would be a part of any lease in the easternmost portion of the proposed 

CPA lease sale area resulting from proposed CPA Lease Sale 231. An evacuation stipulation has been 

applied to all blocks leased in this area since 2001. A more detailed discussion and definition of this 

stipulation and its effectiveness are found in Chapter 2.4.1.3.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS.

2.4.1.3.5. Coordination Stipulation

The Coordination Stipulation would be a part of any lease in the easternmost portion of the proposed 

CPA lease sale area resulting from proposed CPA Lease Sale 231. A coordination stipulation has been 

applied to all blocks leased in this area since 2001. A more detailed discussion and definition of this 

stipulation and its effectiveness are found in Chapter 2.4.1.3.5 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS.

2.4.1.3.6. Blocks South of Baldwin County, Alabama, Stipulation

The Blocks South of Baldwin County, Alabama, Stipulation will be included only on leases on blocks 

south of and within 15 mi (24 km) of Baldwin County, Alabama. A more detailed discussion and 

definition of this stipulation and its effectiveness are found in Chapter 2.4.1.3.6 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

2.4.1.3.7. Protected Species Stipulation

Refer to Chapter 2.3.1.3.3 of this Supplemental EIS and to Chapter 2.3.1.3.3 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS for a complete description of this stipulation. 

2.4.1.3.8. Law of the Sea Convention Royalty Payment Stipulation

Refer to Chapter 2.3.1.3.4 of this Supplemental EIS and to Chapter 2.3.1.3.4 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS for a complete description of this stipulation.

2.4.1.3.9. Below Seabed Operations Stipulation

The Below Seabed Operations Stipulation language is intended to be sale-specific language and 

would incorporate maps of the blocks that may be affected. This stipulation can be found in Chapter 

2.4.1.3.9 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

2.4.1.3.10. Transboundary Stipulation

Refer to Chapter 2.3.1.3.5 of this Supplemental EIS and to Chapter 2.3.1.3.5 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS for a complete description of this stipulation.
Alternatives Including the Proposed Actions 2-17

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

the Biologically Sensitive Topographic Features

2.4.2.1. Description

Alternative B differs from Alternative A by not offering the blocks that are potentially subject to the 

proposed Topographic Features Stipulation (Chapter 2.4.1.3.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS

and Figure 2-1 of this Supplemental EIS). All of the assumptions (including the 9 other potential 

mitigating measures and the 1 stipulation) and estimates are the same as for Alternative A. A description 

of Alternative A is presented in Chapter 2.4.1.1. 

2.4.2.2. Summary of Impacts

The analyses of impacts summarized in Chapter 2.4.1.2 and described in detail in Chapter 4.2.1 are 

based on the development scenario, which is a set of assumptions and estimates on the amounts, 

locations, and timing for OCS exploration, development, and production operations and facilities, both 

offshore and onshore. A detailed discussion of the development scenario and major related impactproducing factors is included in Chapter 3. 

The difference between the potential impacts described for Alternative A and those under 

Alternative B is that under Alternative B no oil and gas activity would take place in the blocks subject to 

the Topographic Features Stipulation (Figure 2-1). The number of blocks that would not be offered 

under Alternative B represents only a small percentage of the total number of blocks to be offered under 

Alternative A; therefore, it is assumed that the levels of activity for Alternative B would be essentially the 

same as those projected for the CPA proposed action. As a result, the impacts expected to result from 

Alternative B would be very similar to those described under the CPA proposed action (Chapter 4.2.1). 

Therefore, the regional impact levels for all resources, except for the topographic features, would be 

similar to those described under the CPA proposed action. This alternative, if adopted, would prevent any 

oil and gas activity in the affected blocks; thus, it would eliminate any potential direct impacts to the biota 

of those blocks.

2.4.3. Alternative C—No Action

2.4.3.1. Description

Alternative C is the cancellation of proposed CPA Lease Sale 231. If this alternative is chosen, the 

opportunity for development of the estimated 0.460-0.894 BBO and 1.939-3.903 Tcf of gas that could 

have resulted from the proposed lease sale would be precluded or postponed to a future CPA lease sale. 

The No Action alternative encompasses the same potential impacts as a decision to delay the proposed

lease sale to a later scheduled lease sale under the Five-Year Program, when another decision on whether 

to hold that future lease sale is made. As the potential impacts are the same, namely that most impacts 

related to Alternative A would not occur as described below, delay of the proposed lease sale was not 

considered as a separate alternative from Alternative C. Any potential environmental impacts resulting 

from proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 would not occur or would be postponed to a future lease sale 

decision.

2.4.3.2. Summary of Impacts

Canceling proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 would eliminate the effects described for Alternative A 

(Chapter 4.2.3). The incremental contribution of the proposed lease sale to the cumulative effects would 

also be avoided, but the effects from other activities, including other OCS lease sales, would remain.

If proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 would be canceled, the resulting development of oil and gas would 

most likely be postponed to a future sale; therefore, the overall level of OCS activity in the CPA would 

only be reduced by a small percentage. Therefore, the cancellation of the proposed lease sale would not 

significantly change the environmental impacts of overall OCS activity. However, the cancellation of the 

proposed lease sale may result in direct economic impacts to the individual companies. Revenues 

collected by the Federal Government (and thus revenue disbursements to the States) would be adversely 

affected as well.
2-18 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Other sources of energy may substitute for the lost production. Principal substitutes would be 

additional imports, conservation, additional domestic production, and switching to other fuels. These 

alternatives, except conservation, have negative environmental impacts of their own. For example, 

tankering of fuels from alternate sources over longer distances would also have significant potential 

negative impacts, including through the increased risk of spills.
CHAPTER 3 

IMPACT-PRODUCING FACTORS AND SCENARIO

Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario 3-3 

3. IMPACT-PRODUCING FACTORS AND SCENARIO

3.1. IMPACT-PRODUCING FACTORS AND SCENARIO—ROUTINE OPERATIONS

3.1.1. Offshore Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario

Chapter 3.1.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS describes in detail the offshore 

infrastructure and activities (impact-producing factors) associated with the WPA and CPA proposed 

actions (i.e., a typical lease sale that would result from the proposed actions) within the WPA and CPA 

that could potentially affect the biological, physical, and socioeconomic resources of the Gulf of Mexico. 

In addition, Chapter 3.1.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS also describes the OCS Program’s

cumulative activity scenario resulting from past and future lease sales in the WPA, CPA, and EPA that 

could potentially affect the biological, physical, and socioeconomic resources of the GOM within the 

WPA and CPA. Note that offshore and onshore impact-producing factors and scenarios associated with 

an Eastern Planning Area (EPA) proposed action, i.e., a typical lease sale that would result from the 

proposed actions within the EPA, as well as OCS Program activity resulting from past and future lease 

sales in the EPA will be disclosed in a subsequent Eastern Planning Area EIS within this Five-Year 

Program. 

Offshore is defined, for the purposes of this Supplemental EIS, as the OCS portion of the GOM that 

begins 10 mi (16 km) offshore Florida; 3 nmi (3.5 mi; 5.6 km) offshore Louisiana, Mississippi, and 

Alabama; and 3 marine leagues (9 nmi; 10.36 mi; 16.67 km) offshore Texas; and it extends seaward to the 

limits of the United States’ jurisdiction over the continental shelf in water depths up to approximately 

3,346 m (10,978 ft), the Exclusive Economic Zone (Figure 1-1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS). Coastal infrastructure and activities associated with the WPA and CPA proposed actions are 

described in Chapter 3.1.2. 

BOEM projects that the overwhelming majority of the oil and natural gas fields discovered as a result 

of the WPA or CPA proposed action will reach the end of their economic life within a time span of 

40 years following the lease sale. Therefore, activity levels are not projected beyond 40 years for this 

document. Although unusual cases exist where activity on a lease may continue beyond 40 years, our 

forecasts indicate that the significant activities associated with exploration, development, production, and 

abandonment of leases in the GOM occur well within the 40-year analysis period. For the cumulative 

case analysis, total OCS Program exploration and development activities are also forecast over a 40-year 

period. For modeling purposes and quantitative OCS Program activity analyses, a 40-year analysis period 

is also used. Exploration and development activity forecasts become increasingly more uncertain as the 

length of time of the forecast increases and the number of influencing factors increases. The forecasts 

used to develop the proposed actions and OCS Program scenarios are based on resource estimates

developed by this Agency in 2011, published data and information, and historical activity and discovery 

trends in the GOM.

The WPA and CPA proposed actions and the Gulfwide OCS Program scenarios are based on the 

following factors:

• recent trends in the amount and location of leasing, exploration, and development 

activity;

• estimates of undiscovered, unleased, economically recoverable oil and gas resources 

in each water-depth category and each planning area;

• existing offshore and onshore oil and/or gas infrastructure; 

• published data and information;

• industry information; and

• oil and gas technologies, and the economic considerations and environmental 

constraints of these technologies.
3-4 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

The WPA proposed lease sale represents 4-5 percent of the OCS Program in the WPA based on 

barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) resource estimates and 1 percent of the total OCS Program. The proposed 

CPA lease sale represents 3-4 percent of the OCS Program in the CPA (3% of the total OCS Program). 

Activities associated with the proposed actions are assumed to represent those same percentages of OCS 

Program activities unless otherwise indicated.

Specific projections for activities associated with the WPA and CPA proposed actions are discussed 

in the following scenario sections. The potential impacts of the activities associated with a proposed 

“typical” lease sale are considered in the environmental analysis sections (Chapters 4.1.1 and 4.2.1). 

The OCS Program scenario includes all activities that are projected to occur from past, proposed, and 

future lease sales during the analysis period. This includes projected activity from lease sales that have 

been held but for which exploration or development has either not yet begun or is continuing. Activities 

that take place beyond the analysis timeframe as a result of future lease sales are not included in this 

analysis. The impacts of activities associated with the OCS Program on biological, physical, and 

socioeconomic resources are analyzed in the cumulative environmental analysis sections (Chapters 4.1.1

and 4.2.1). 

3.1.1.1. Resource Estimates and Timetables

The proposed action and cumulative cases have not changed since last analyzed for the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. BOEM has not identified any new information or change in circumstances 

since publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS that would change the estimates and 

timetables.

3.1.1.1.1. Proposed Actions

The proposed actions scenarios are used to assess the potential impacts of a proposed “typical” lease 

sale. The resource estimates for a proposed action are based on two factors: (1) the conditional estimates 

of undiscovered, unleased, conventionally recoverable oil and gas resources in the proposed lease sale 

areas; and (2) estimates of the portion or percentage of these resources assumed to be leased, discovered, 

developed, and produced as a result of a proposed action. Due to the inherent uncertainties associated 

with an assessment of undiscovered resources, probabilistic techniques were employed and the results 

were reported as a range of values corresponding to different probabilities of occurrence. The estimates 

of the portion of the resources assumed to be leased, discovered, developed, and produced as a result of a 

proposed action are based upon logical sequences of events that incorporate past experience, current 

conditions, and foreseeable development strategies. Historical databases and information derived from oil 

and gas exploration and development activities are available to BOEM and were used extensively. The 

undiscovered, unleased, conventionally recoverable resource estimates for a proposed action are 

expressed as ranges, from low to high. This range provides a reasonable expectation of oil and gas 

production anticipated from typical lease sales held as a result of a proposed action based on an actual 

range of historic observations.

Table 3-1 presents the projected oil and gas production for the proposed actions and for the OCS 

Program. Tables 3-2 and 3-3 provide a summary of the major scenario elements of the proposed actions 

and some of the related impact-producing factors. To analyze impact-producing factors for the proposed 

actions and the OCS Program, the proposed lease sale areas were divided into offshore subareas based 

upon ranges in water depth. Figure 3-1 depicts the location of the offshore subareas. The water-depth 

ranges reflect the technological requirements and related physical and economic impacts as a 

consequence of the oil and gas potential, exploration and development activities, and lease terms unique 

to each water-depth range. Estimates of resources and facilities are distributed into each of the subareas.

Proposed Action Scenarios (WPA and CPA Typical Sales): The estimated amounts of resources 

projected to be leased, discovered, developed, and produced as a result of a typical proposed WPA lease 

sale are 0.116-0.200 BBO and 0.538-0.938 Tcf of gas. The estimated amounts of resources projected to 

be leased, discovered, developed, and produced as a result of a typical proposed CPA lease sale are 

0.460-0.894 BBO and 1.939-3.903 Tcf of gas. The impact-producing factors, affected environment, and 

environmental consequences related to proposed lease sales in the EPA will be disclosed and addressed in 

a subsequent Eastern Planning Area EIS within this Five-Year Program.
Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario 3-5 

The number of exploration and delineation wells, production platforms, and development wells 

projected to develop and produce the estimated resources for a WPA and CPA proposed action are given 

in Tables 3-2 and 3-3, respectively. The tables show the distribution of these factors by offshore 

subareas in the proposed lease sale areas. Tables 3-2 and 3-3 include estimates of the major impactproducing factors related to the projected levels of exploration, development, and production activity.

Exploratory drilling activity takes place over an 8-year period, beginning within 1 year after the lease 

sale. Development activity takes place over a 39-year period, beginning with the installation of the first 

production platform and ending with the drilling of the last development wells. Production of oil and gas 

begins by the third year after the lease sale and continues beyond the 40th year.

3.1.1.1.2. OCS Program

OCS Program Cumulative Scenario (WPA, CPA, and EPA): Projected reserve/resource production 

for the OCS Program is 18.335-25.64 BBO and 75.886-111.627 Tcf of gas and represents anticipated 

production from lands currently under lease plus anticipated production from future lease sales over the 

40-year analysis period. The OCS Program cumulative scenario includes WPA, CPA, and EPA 

production estimates. Table 3-4 presents all anticipated production from lands currently under lease in 

the WPA, CPA, and EPA plus all anticipated production from future total OCS Program (WPA, CPA, 

and EPA) lease sales over the 40-year analysis period.

WPA Cumulative Scenario: Projected reserve/resource production for the OCS Program in the WPA 

(2.510-3.696 BBO and 12.539-18.434 Tcf of gas) represents anticipated production from lands currently 

under lease in the WPA plus anticipated production from future WPA lease sales over the 40-year 

analysis period. Projected production represents approximately 14 percent of the oil and 17 percent of the 

gas of the total Gulfwide OCS Program. Table 3-5 presents all anticipated production from lands 

currently under lease in the WPA plus all anticipated production from future WPA lease sales over the 

40-year analysis period.

CPA Cumulative Scenario: Projected reserve/resource production for the OCS Program in the CPA 

(15.825-21.733 BBO and 63.347-92.691 Tcf of gas) represents anticipated production from lands 

currently under lease in the CPA plus anticipated production from future CPA lease sales over the 40-year 

analysis period. Projected production represents approximately 85-86 percent of the oil and 83 percent of 

the gas of the total Gulfwide OCS Program. Table 3-6 presents all anticipated production from lands 

currently under lease in the CPA plus all anticipated production from future CPA lease sales over the 

40-year analysis period.

EPA Cumulative Scenario: Projected reserve/resource production for the OCS Program in the EPA 

(0-0.211 BBO and 0-0.502 Tcf of gas) represents all anticipated production from lands currently under 

lease in the EPA plus all anticipated production from future EPA lease sales over the 40-year analysis 

period. Projected production represents approximately 1 percent of the oil and >1 percent of the gas of 

the total Gulfwide OCS Program. The impact-producing factors, affected environment, and 

environmental consequences related to proposed lease sales within the EPA will be disclosed and 

addressed in a subsequent Eastern Planning Area EIS within this Five-Year Program.

3.1.1.2. Exploration and Delineation

3.1.1.2.1. Seismic Surveying Operations

Chapter 3.1.1.2.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS describes in detail seismic survey 

operations including ocean-bottom surveys.

Prelease surveys are comprised of seismic work performed on or off leased areas, focused most 

commonly (but not always) on deeper targets and collectively authorized under BOEM’s geological and 

geophysical permitting process. Postlease, high-resolution seismic surveys collect data on surficial or 

near-surface geology used to identify potential shallow geologic hazards for engineering and site planning 

for bottom-founded structures. Noise associated with OCS oil and gas development results from seismic 

surveys, the operation of fixed structures such as offshore platforms and drilling rigs, and helicopter and 

service-vessel traffic. These noise sources are discussed in Chapter 3.1.1.6. 

Proposed Action Scenario (WPA, CPA, and EPA Typical Sales): Because of the cyclic nature in the 

acquisition of seismic surveys, a prelease seismic survey would be attributable to lease sales held up to 

7-9 years after the survey. Based on historical trends in geological and geophysical (G&G) permitting 
3-6 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

and industry input for the Gulf of Mexico, BOEM projects that the proposed actions, i.e., the proposed 

lease sales, would result in 29,197 OCS blocks surveyed by deep seismic operations for the years 

2012-2017. For postlease seismic surveys, information obtained from high-resolution seismic contractors 

operating in the GOM project the proposed actions would result in about 50 vertical seismic profiling 

(VSP) operations and 629 high-resolution surveys covering approximately 226,400 line miles 

(364,420 km) of near-surface and shallow penetration seismic during the life of the proposed actions. The 

impact-producing factors, affected environment, and environmental consequences related to proposed 

lease sales in the EPA will be disclosed and addressed in a subsequent Eastern Planning Area EIS within 

this Five-Year Program.

OCS Program Cumulative Scenario: Seismic surveys are projected to follow the same trend as 

exploration activities, which peaked in 2008-2010, steadily decline until 2027, and remain relatively 

steady throughout the second half of the 40-year analysis period. It is important to note that the cycling of 

G&G data acquisition is not driven by the 40-year life cycle of productive leasing, but instead will trend 

to respond to new production or potential new production driven by new technology. Consequently, 

some areas will be resurveyed in 2-year cycles, while other areas, considered nonproductive, may not be 

surveyed for 20 years or more.

During the first 5 years of the analysis period, BOEM projects annually there would be 50 VSP 

operations, 226,400 lines miles (364,420 km) surveyed by high-resolution seismic, and 29,197 blocks 

surveyed by deep seismic, including some areas that will be resurveyed. During the second half of the 

40-year analysis period, it is projected annually there would be 5-10 VSP operations, 40,000 mi 

(64,374 km) surveyed by high-resolution seismic, and 4,000-5,000 blocks surveyed by deep seismic.

3.1.1.2.2. Exploration and Delineation Plans and Drilling

Chapter 3.1.1.2.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS describes in detail exploration and 

delineation plans and drilling.

Oil and gas operators use drilling terms that represent stages in the discovery and exploitation of 

hydrocarbon resources. An exploration well generally refers to the first well drilled on a prospective 

geologic structure to confirm that a resource exists and to validate how much resource can be expected. If 

a resource is discovered in quantities appearing to be economically viable, one or more follow-up 

delineation wells help define the amount of resource or the extent of the reservoir. Following a discovery, 

an operator will often temporarily plug and abandon a discovery to allow time for a development scenario 

to be generated and for equipment to be built or procured.

In the GOM, exploration and delineation wells are typically drilled with MODU’s; e.g., jack-up rigs, 

semisubmersible rigs, submersible, platform rigs, or drill ships. Non-MODU drilling units, such as inland 

barges, are also used. The type of rig chosen to drill a prospect depends primarily on water depth. 

Because the water-depth ranges for each type of drilling rig overlap to a degree, other factors such as 

availability and daily rates play a large role when an operator decides upon the type of rig to contract. 

The depth ranges for exploration rigs used in this analysis for Gulf of Mexico MODU’s are indicated 

below.

MODU or Drilling Rig Type Water-Depth Range

Jack-up, submersible, and inland barges ≤100 m (328 ft)

Semisubmersible and platform rig 100-3,000 m (328-9,843 ft)

Drillship ≥600 m (1,969 ft)

Historically, drilling rig availability has been a limiting factor for activity in the Gulf and is assumed 

to be a limiting factor for activity projected as a result of a proposed lease sale. Drilling activities may 

also be constrained by the availability of rig crews, shore-based facilities, risers, and other equipment.

The scenarios for the proposed actions assume that an average exploration well will require 30-45 

days to drill. The actual time required for each well depends on a variety of factors, including the depth 

of the prospect’s potential target zone, the complexity of the well design, and the directional offset of the 

wellbore needed to reach a particular zone. This scenario assumes that the average exploration or 

delineation well depth will be approximately 3,674 m (12,055 ft) below mudline.
Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario 3-7 

Subpart D of BSEE’s regulations (30 CFR 250) specifies requirements for drilling activities. Refer to

Chapter 1.3.1 and Table 1-2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, which provide a summary of 

new safety requirements.

Tables 3-2 through 3-6 show the estimated range of exploration and delineation wells by waterdepth range for the WPA and CPA typical sale cases; WPA, CPA, and EPA total OCS Program case; and 

WPA and CPA cumulative cases, respectively.

WPA Proposed Action Scenario (Typical Sale): BOEM estimates that 53-89 exploration and 

delineation wells would be drilled as a result of the WPA proposed action. Table 3-2 shows the 

estimated range of exploration and delineation wells by water-depth range. Approximately 55 percent of 

the projected wells are expected to be on the continental shelf (0-200 m [0-656 ft] water depth), and a 

little less than 45 percent are expected in the intermediate water-depth ranges and deeper (>200 m; 

656 ft). 

CPA Proposed Action Scenario (Typical Sale): BOEM estimates that 168-329 exploration and 

delineation wells would be drilled as a result of the CPA proposed action. Table 3-3 shows the estimated 

range of exploration and delineation wells by water-depth range. A little more than 50 percent of the 

projected wells for the CPA proposed action are expected to be on the continental shelf (0-200 m 

[0-656 ft] water depth), and slightly less than 50 percent are expected in intermediate water-depth ranges 

and deeper (>200 m; 656 ft).

OCS Program Cumulative Scenario (WPA, CPA, and EPA): BOEM estimates that 6,910-9,827 

exploration and delineation wells would be drilled in the WPA, CPA, and EPA as a result of all past OCS 

lease sales and projected activity for future lease sales associated with this Five-Year Program. Tables 

3-4, 3-5, and 3-6 show the estimated range of exploration and delineation wells by water-depth range. Of 

these wells, approximately 55 percent are expected to be on the continental shelf (0-200 m [0-656 ft] 

water depth) and approximately 45 percent are expected in intermediate water-depth ranges and deeper 

(>200 m; 656 ft). The impact-producing factors, affected environment, and environmental consequences 

related to lease sales within the EPA will be disclosed and addressed in a subsequent Eastern Planning 

Area EIS within this Five-Year Program.

Note that offshore and onshore impact-producing factors and scenarios associated with an EPA 

proposed action, i.e., a typical sale that would result from the proposed lease sales within the EPA, as well 

as OCS Program activity resulting from past and future lease sales in the EPA, will be disclosed in a 

subsequent Eastern Planning Area EIS within this Five-Year Program.

3.1.1.3. Development and Production

Chapter 3.1.1.3.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS describes in detail development and 

production drilling and development operations and coordination documents.

Delineation and production wells are sometimes collectively termed development wells. A 

development well is designed to extract resource from a known hydrocarbon reservoir. After a discovery, 

the operator must decide whether or not to complete the well without delay, to delay completion with the 

rig on station so that additional tests may be conducted, or to temporarily abandon the well site and move 

the rig off station to a new location and drill another well. Sometimes an operator will decide to drill a 

series of development wells, move off location, and then return with a rig to complete all the wells at one 

time. If an exploration well results in a dry hole, the operator permanently abandons the well without 

delay.

When the decision is made to complete the well, a new stage of activity begins. Completing a well 

involves preparing the well for production. BOEM estimates that approximately 90 percent of 

development wells will become producing wells. The typical process includes setting and cementing the 

production casing, installing some downhole production equipment, perforating the casing and 

surrounding cement, treating the formation, setting a gravel pack (if needed), and installing production 

tubing. One form of formation treatment is known as “fracking.” Fracking involves pressurizing the well 

to force chemicals or mechanical agents into the formation. Mechanical agents, such as sand or small 

microspheres (tiny glass beads), can be used to prop open the created factures that act as conduits to

deliver hydrocarbons to the wellbore. Well treatment chemicals are commonly used to improve well 

productivity. For example, acidizing a reservoir to dissolve cementing agents and improve fluid flow is 

the most common well treatment in the GOM. After a production test determines the desired production 

rate to avoid damaging the reservoir, the well is ready to go online and produce.
3-8 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

The chief planning document that lays out an operator’s specific intentions for development is the 

DOCD. The range of postlease development plans is discussed in Chapter 1.5. Table 3-2 shows the 

estimated range of development wells and production structures by water depth subarea for the WPA 

proposed action.

WPA Proposed Action Scenario (Typical Sale): BOEM estimates that 77-121 development and 

production wells would be drilled as a result of the WPA proposed action. Table 3-2 shows the estimated 

range of development and production wells by water-depth subarea. Approximately 55 percent of the 

projected wells are expected to be on the continental shelf (0-200 m [656 ft] water depth) and 45-47 

percent are expected in intermediate water-depth ranges and deeper (>200 m; 656 ft). Trends between the 

oil and gas development wells are markedly different. For oil wells (27-40), the intermediate water-depth 

ranges and deeper (200 m; 1,600 m) has the largest portion of projected oil wells, 55-60 percent. The 

percent of oil wells in the other water-depth categories ranges from around 7 to 15 percent. For gas wells 

(36-62), the continental shelf (0-200 m [0-656 ft] water depth) has the largest portion of projected gas 

wells, about 80 percent. The percent of gas wells in the other water-depth categories is much less and 

ranges from 3 to 6 percent.

CPA Proposed Action Scenario (Typical Sale): It is estimated that 215-417 development and 

production wells will be drilled as a result of the CPA proposed action. Table 3-3 shows the estimated 

range of development and production wells by water-depth subarea. The percentage of projected oil wells 

within the CPA is more evenly distributed throughout the water-depth ranges, with the greatest number of 

wells being forecasted for water depths >2,400 m (7,874 ft), whereas 66-75 percent of the gas wells are 

projected to be drilled on the continental shelf (0-200 m [0-656 ft] water depth).

OCS Program Cumulative Scenario (WPA, CPA, and EPA): It is estimated that 8,530-12,180 

development and production wells will be drilled in the WPA, CPA, and EPA as a result of the proposed 

lease sales and all OCS activity associated with previous lease sales. Tables 3-4, 3-5, and 3-6 show the 

estimated range of development wells by water depth.

Note that offshore and onshore impact-producing factors and scenarios associated with an EPA 

proposed action, i.e., a typical sale that would result from the proposed lease sales within the EPA, as well 

as OCS Program activity resulting from past and future lease sales in the EPA, will be disclosed in a 

subsequent Eastern Planning Area EIS within this Five-Year Program. 

Chapter 3.1.1.3.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS describes in detail infrastructure

emplacement/structure installation and commissioning activities.

Bottom-founded or floating structures may be placed over development wells to facilitate production 

from a prospect. These structures provide the means to access and control the wells. They serve as a 

staging area to process and treat produced hydrocarbons from the wells, initiate export of the produced 

hydrocarbons, conduct additional drilling or reservoir stimulation, conduct workover activities, and carry 

out eventual abandonment procedures. There is a range of offshore infrastructure installed for 

hydrocarbon production. Among these are pipelines, fixed and floating platforms, caissons, well 

protectors, casing, wellheads, and conductors.

WPA Proposed Action Scenario (Typical Sale): It is estimated that 15-23 production structures will 

be installed as a result of the WPA proposed action. Table 3-2 shows the projected number of structure 

installations for the WPA proposed action by water-depth range. About 67-74 percent of the production 

structures installed for the WPA proposed action are projected to be on the continental shelf (0-60 m; 

0-197 ft).

CPA Proposed Action Scenario (Typical Sale): It is estimated that 35-67 production structures will 

be installed as a result of the CPA proposed action. Table 3-3 shows the projected number of structure 

installations for the CPA proposed action by water-depth range. About 80 percent of all the production 

structures installed for the CPA proposed action are projected to be on the continental shelf (0-60 m; 

0-197 ft).

OCS Program Cumulative Scenario (WPA, CPA, and EPA): It is estimated that 1,435-2,026 

production structures would be installed in the WPA, CPA, and EPA as a result of the proposed lease 

sales and all OCS activity associated with previous lease sales. More than 90 percent of all the 

production structures installed for the CPA proposed action in are projected to be on the continental shelf 

(0-200 m; 0-656 ft). Tables 3-4, 3-5, and 3-6 show the projected number of structure installations by 

water-depth range for the OCS Program.

Note that offshore and onshore impact-producing factors and scenarios associated with an EPA 

proposed action, i.e., a typical sale that would result from the proposed lease sales within the EPA, as well 
Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario 3-9 

as OCS Program activity resulting from past and future lease sales in the EPA, will be disclosed in a 

subsequent Eastern Planning Area EIS within this Five-Year Program. 

Chapter 3.1.1.3.2.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS describes in detail bottom area 

disturbances. Structures emplaced or anchored on the OCS to facilitate oil and gas exploration and 

production include drilling rigs or MODU’s (jack-ups, semisubmersibles, and drillships), pipelines, and 

fixed surface, floating, and subsea production systems are described in Chapters 3.1.1.3.1 and 3.1.1.3.2 of 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The emplacement or removal of these structures disturbs small 

areas of the sea bottom beneath or adjacent to the structure. If mooring lines of steel, chain, or synthetic 

polymer are anchored to the sea bottom, areas around the structure can also be directly affected by their 

emplacement. This disturbance includes physical compaction or crushing beneath the structure or 

mooring lines and the resuspension and settlement of sediment caused by the activities of emplacement. 

Movement of floating types of facilities will also cause the movement of the mooring lines in its array. 

Small areas of the sea bottom will be affected by this kind of movement. Impacts from bottom 

disturbance are of concern near sensitive areas such as topographic features, pinnacles, low-relief live

bottom features, chemosynthetic communities, high-density biological communities in water depths 

≥400 m (1,312 ft), and archaeological sites.

Chapter 3.1.1.3.2.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS describes in detail sediment 

displacement. Displaced sediments are those that have been physically moved “in bulk.” Displaced 

sediments will cover or bury an area of the seafloor, while resuspended sediments will cause an increase 

in turbidity of the adjacent water column. Resuspended sediments eventually settle, covering the 

surrounding seafloor. Resuspended sediments may include entrained heavy metals or hydrocarbons.

Chapter 3.1.1.3.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS describes in detail impact-producing 

factors due to infrastructure presence. Impacts due to installation and maintenance of infrastructure 

include the following: 

• anchoring;

• offshore production systems;

• space-use requirements (deployment of survey equipment or bottom-founded 

production equipment);

• aesthetic quality (presence and visibility of equipment, vessels, and air traffic); and

• workovers and abandonments.

3.1.1.4. Operational Waste Discharged Offshore

Chapter 3.1.1.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS describes impacting factors due to 

operational wastes discharged offshore. Operational wastes discharged offshore include the following:

• drilling muds and cuttings;

• produced waters; 

• well treatment, workover, and completion fluids;

• production solids and equipment;

• bilge, ballast, and fire water;

• cooling water;

• deck drainage;

• treated domestic and sanitary wastes; 

• minor discharges; 

• vessel operational discharges; and
3-10 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

• distillation and reverse osmosis brine.

However, it should be noted that regulations regarding discharges from vessels are becoming 

increasingly stringent. The USCG Ballast Water Management Program became mandatory for some 

vessels in 2004 (33 CFR 151 Subparts C and D) (USDHS, CG, 2012). The goal of the program was 

designed to prevent the introduction of nonindigenous (invasive) species that would affect local water 

quality. The USCG amended its regulations on ballast water management by establishing a standard for

the allowable concentration of living organisms in ballast water discharged from ships in waters of the 

U.S. and by establishing an approval process for ballast water management systems. The final rule was 

published on March 23, 2012, in the Federal Register and became effective on June 21, 2012 (USDHS, 

CG, 2012). The final Vessel General Permit (VGP), issued by USEPA, became effective on 

December 19, 2008, and was an addition to already existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permit requirements. The permit increased the NPDES regulations so that discharges 

incidental to the normal operation of vessels operating as a means of transportation were no longer 

excluded unless exempted by Congressional legislation. The 2013 draft VGP would continue to regulate 

26 specific discharge categories that were contained in the 2008 VGP, and it is more stringent because the 

permit contains numeric ballast water discharge limits for most vessels and more stringent effluent limits 

for oil-to-sea interfaces and exhaust gas scrubber washwater (USEPA, 2011). The draft Small Vessel 

General Permit (sVGP), if finalized, would authorize discharges incidental to the normal operation of 

nonmilitary and nonrecreational vessels less than 79 ft (24 m) in length (USEPA, 2011). At this time, a 

Congressional moratorium exempts all incidental discharges, with the exception of ballast water, from 

commercial fishing vessels and nonrecreational, nonmilitary vessels less than 79 ft (24 m) in length. 

However, the Congressional moratorium expires on December 18, 2013, at which time the sVGP would 

provide coverage for those vessels (USEPA, 2011).

3.1.1.5. Air Emissions

In 1990, pursuant to Section 328 of the Clean Air Act Amendments and following consultation with 

the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard and the Secretary of the Interior, USEPA assumed air quality

responsibility for the OCS waters east of 87.5o W. longitude, and this Agency retained NAAQS air quality 

jurisdiction for OCS operations west of 87.5o W. longitude in the GOM.

Air pollutants are emitted from the OCS emission sources that include any equipment that combusts a 

fuel, transports and/or transfers hydrocarbons, or results in accidental releases of petroleum hydrocarbons 

or chemicals, causing air emissions of pollutants. Some of these pollutants are precursors to ozone, which 

is formed by complex photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Air pollutants are generated during 

exploration and production activities when fuels are combusted to run drilling equipment, power 

generators, and run engines. During production, fugitive emissions, including volatile organic 

compounds, escape from valves and flanges. The NAAQS criteria pollutants are generated along routes 

from shore bases to OCS leases by vessels transporting supplies and workers.

The NAAQS air pollutants are also released during both venting and flaring. A combustion flare or 

cold vent is a specially designed boom or stack used to dispose of hydrocarbon vapors or natural gas. 

Unlike cold vents, the hydrocarbons are ignited during flaring. Flares can be used routinely to control 

emissions as part of unloading/testing operations that are necessary to remove potentially damaging 

completion fluids from the wellbore and to provide sufficient reservoir data for the operator to evaluate a 

reservoir and development options; they can also be used during emergency process upsets. The BSEE 

regulations provide for some limited volume, short duration (2-14 days, typically) flaring or venting of oil 

and natural gas upon approval by BSEE. Through 30 CFR 250.1105, BSEE may allow operators to burn 

liquid hydrocarbons if they can demonstrate that transporting them to market or re-injecting them into the 

formation is not technically feasible or poses a significant risk of harm to the environment.

3.1.1.6. Noise

Noise associated with OCS oil and gas development results from seismic surveys, the operation of 

fixed structures such as offshore platforms and drilling rigs, and helicopter and service-vessel traffic. 

Noise generated from these activities can be transmitted through both air and water, and may be extended 

or transient. Offshore drilling and production involves various activities that produce a composite 
Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario 3-11

underwater noise field. The intensity level and frequency of the noise emissions are highly variable, both

between and among the various industry sources. Noise from proposed OCS activities may affect 

resources near the activities. Whether a sound is or is not detected by marine organisms would depend 

both on the acoustic properties of the source (spectral characteristics, intensity, and transmission patterns) 

and the sensitivity of the hearing system in the marine organism. Extreme levels of noise can cause 

physical damage or death to an exposed animal; intense levels can damage hearing; and loud or novel 

sounds may induce disruptive behavior or other responses of lesser importance. Chapter 3.1.1.6 of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS describes in detail noise impact-producing factors associated with 

OCS oil and gas development.

3.1.1.7. Major Sources of Oil Inputs in the Gulf of Mexico

Petroleum hydrocarbons can enter the GOM from a wide variety of sources. The major sources of oil 

inputs in the GOM are natural seepage, permitted produced-water discharges, land-based discharges, and 

accidental spills. Numerical estimates of the contributions for these sources to the GOM coastal and 

offshore waters are shown in Tables 3-8 and 3-9 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale. Chapter 3.1.1.7 

of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS describes in detail major sources of oil inputs in the Gulf of 

Mexico, including natural seepage, produced water, land-based discharges, and spills.

Chapter 3.1.1.7.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS also describes in detail the following 

information related to oil spills: 

• trends in reported spill volumes and numbers;

• projections of future spill events;

• OCS-related offshore oil spills; 

• non-OCS-related offshore spills;

• OCS-related coastal spills;

• non-OCS-related coastal spills; and 

• other sources of oil.

3.1.1.8. Offshore Transport

Offshore transport includes both movements of oil and gas products, as well as transportation of 

equipment and personnel. Chapter 3.1.1.8 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS describes in detail 

sources of offshore transport and proposed action scenarios, including the following:

• pipelines (installation and maintenance; landfalls);

• barges;

• oil tankers;

• service vessels; and

• helicopters.

3.1.1.9. Safety Issues

Safety issues related to OCS oil and gas development include the presence of hydrogen sulfide and 

sulfurous petroleum and shallow hazards. These safety issues are described in detail in Chapters 3.1.1.9.1 

and 3.1.1.9.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Technologies continue to evolve to meet the 

technical, environmental, and economic challenges of deepwater development. These new and unusual 

technologies are described in Chapter 3.1.1.9.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.
3-12 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

3.1.1.10.Decommissioning and Removal Operations

During exploration, development, and production operations, the seafloor around activity sites within 

a proposed lease sale area becomes the repository of temporary and permanent equipment and structures. 

In compliance with Section 22 of BOEM’s Oil and Gas Lease Form (BOEM-2005) and BSEE regulations 

(30 CFR 250.1710 et seq.—Permanently Plugging Wells and 30 CFR 250.1725 et seq.—Removing 

Platforms and Other Facilities), lessees are required to remove all seafloor obstructions from their leases 

within 1 year of lease termination or relinquishment. These regulations require lessees to sever bottomfounded structures and their related components at least 5 m (15 ft) below the mudline to ensure that 

nothing would be exposed that could interfere with future lessees and other activities in the area. The 

structures are generally grouped into two main categories depending upon their relationship to the 

platform/facilities (piles, jackets, caissons, templates, mooring devises, etc.) or the well (i.e., wellheads, 

casings, casing stubs, etc.). Decommissioning and removal operations, including WPA and CPA 

proposed action scenarios and OCS program scenarios, are described in detail in Chapter 3.1.1.10 of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

3.1.2. Coastal Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario

3.1.2.1. Coastal Infrastructure

Chapter 3.1.2.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS discusses coastal impact-producing 

factors and provides scenario projections for onshore coastal infrastructure that may potentially result 

from a single WPA or CPA proposed action in the 2012-2017 Five-Year Program. This discussion 

describes the potential need for new facility construction and expansions of existing ones. Detailed 

descriptions of the baseline affected environment for land use and coastal infrastructure in the WPA and 

CPA are provided in Chapters 4.1.1.1.20.1.1 and 4.2.1.1.23.1.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS.

Oil and gas exploration, production, and development activities on the OCS are supported by an 

expansive onshore infrastructure industry that includes large and small companies providing a wealth of 

services from construction facilities, service bases, and waste disposal facilities to crew, supply, and 

product transportation, as well as processing facilities. The oil and gas industry supports thousands of 

jobs; its direct and indirect economic impacts ripple through the Gulf Coast economy. The OCS-related 

infrastructure is a longstanding feature of these regional economies. This infrastructure has been 

developed over many decades, and it is an extensive and mature system that provides support for offshore 

activities.

The extensive presence of this coastal infrastructure is the result of long-term industry trends. Its 

presence is not subject to rapid fluctuations. In this context, the potential for new facilities and expansion 

at existing facilities depends foremost on the OCS activity levels, which have been somewhat depressed 

since the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill and the subsequent drilling suspensions. The 

scenario projections outlined below reflect the already well-established industrial infrastructure in the 

GOM regions and reduced OCS activity levels. Chapter 3.1.2.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS describes in detail coastal impact-producing factors from the following coastal infrastructure:

• service bases; 

• helicopter hubs;

• construction facilities;

• processing facilities;

• terminals;

• coastal pipelines; 

• coastal barging; and

• navigation channels.
Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario 3-13

3.1.2.2. Discharges and Wastes

Chapter 3.1.2.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS describes in detail coastal discharges and 

wastes. These coastal discharges and wastes include the following: 

• disposal and storage for offshore operational wastes; 

• onshore facility discharges; 

• coastal service-vessel discharges; 

• offshore wastes disposed onshore; and

• beach trash and debris.

3.2. IMPACT-PRODUCING FACTORS AND SCENARIO—ACCIDENTAL EVENTS

3.2.1. Oil Spills

Oil spills are unplanned; accidental events and their frequency and volume can only be estimated 

from past occurrences. The following sections discuss spill prevention and spill response, and analyze the 

risk of spills that could occur as a result of activities associated with the WPA or CPA proposed action. 

Public input through scoping meetings and Federal and State agencies’ input through consultation and 

coordination indicate that oil spills are perceived to be a major issue, especially in the wake of the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The following section analyzes the risk of spills that could occur as a result 

of a typical WPA or CPA proposed action, as well as information on the number and sizes of spills from 

non-OCS sources. Refer to Appendix B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS for the “Catastrophic 

Spill Event Analysis.” 

3.2.1.1. Spill Prevention

Beginning in the 1980’s, this Agency established comprehensive pollution-prevention requirements 

that include redundant safety systems, as well as inspection and testing requirements to confirm that these 

devices are working properly (Chapter 1.5). Until the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, an overall reduction 

in spill volume had occurred during the previous 40 years, while oil production had generally increased. 

A characterization of spill rates, average and median volumes from 1995 to 2009 compared with 1996-

2010 (latest analysis available), which includes the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, is provided in Update of 

Occurrence Rates for Offshore Oil Spills (Anderson et al., 2012). BOEM attributes this improvement to 

its operational requirements, ongoing efforts by the oil and gas industry to enhance safety and pollution 

prevention, and the evolution and improvement of offshore technology. No spills >50 barrels (bbl) were 

recorded for 2011, and no data are currently available for 2012 (USDOI, BSEE, 2012a); therefore, 

Anderson et al. (2012), which was utilized in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and in this 

Supplemental EIS, is still the latest analysis available for the characterization of spill rates and for average 

and median volumes.

3.2.1.2. Past OCS Spills

BOEM’s spill-event database includes records of past spills from activities that BOEM regulates. 

These data include oil spills >1 bbl that occurred in Federal waters from OCS facilities and pipeline 

operations. Spills from facilities include spills from drilling rigs, drillships, and storage, processing, or 

production platforms that occurred during OCS drilling, development, and production operations. Spills 

from pipeline operations are those that have occurred on the OCS and are directly attributable to the 

transportation of OCS oil. No spills >50 bbl were recorded for 2011, and no data are currently available 

for 2012 (USDOI, BSEE, 2012a); therefore, Anderson et al. (2012), which was utilized in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and in this Supplemental EIS, is still the latest analysis available for the 

characterization of spill rates and for average and median volumes.
3-14 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Spills occur in coastal waters at shoreline storage, processing, and transport facilities supporting the 

OCS oil and gas industry. Coastal spills occur in State offshore waters and in navigation channels, rivers, 

and bays from barges and pipelines carrying OCS-produced oil.

Chapter 3.2.1.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS describes in detail past OCS spills, 

including coastal and offshore spills.

3.2.1.3. Characteristics of OCS Oil

The physical and chemical properties of oil greatly affect its transport and fate. These physical and 

chemical properties determine the following: how oil will behave on the water surface (surface spills) or 

in the water column and sediments (subsea spills); the persistence of the slick on the water; the type and 

speed of weathering processes; the degree and mechanisms of toxicity; the effectiveness of containment 

and recovery equipment; and the ultimate fate of the spill residues. Crude oils are a natural mixture of 

hundreds of different compounds, with liquid hydrocarbons accounting for up to 98 percent of the total 

composition. The chemical composition of crude oil can vary significantly from different producing 

areas; thus, the exact composition of oil being produced in OCS waters varies throughout the Gulf.

Table 3-7 summaries the properties and persistence of different types of oils. The American 

Petroleum Industry (API) gravity is a measurement of the density of the oil. The density of oil determines 

whether it will sink or float, or whether it will collect sediment (heavier oils tend to collect sediment) and 

sink. As well, the density of oil is one of the key factors in predicting whether spilled oil will entrain 

water and form emulsions.

Extensive laboratory testing has been performed on various oils from the GOM to determine their 

physical and chemical characteristics. There are currently 39 different oils collected from the Gulf of 

Mexico (U.S. waters) in Environment Canada’s (2011) oil properties database. For each of these oils, the 

details of their chemical composition include hydrocarbon groups (i.e., saturates, aromatics, resins, 

asphaltenes), volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) (such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene), 

sulfur content, biomarkers, and metals. Light sweet crude oil (such as from the Deepwater Horizon oil 

spill) is preferred by refineries and is referred to as “sweet” because of its low sulfur content. The 

composition of oil will change substantially following release during an oil spill, due to weathering 

processes such as evaporation. The API gravities for the oils identified in the Environment Canada 

(2011) database range from 16.4° to 50.2°. This is similar to the range identified in an Agency-funded 

study of 22.8o to 58.6o API for data from 67 plays (Trudel et al., 2001).

3.2.1.4. Overview of Spill Risk Analysis

There are many factors that BOEM evaluates to determine the risk of impact occurring from an oil 

spill. Estimated information includes likely spill sources, likely spill locations, likely spill sizes, the 

likelihood and frequency of occurrence for different size spills, timeframes for the persistence of spilled 

oil, volumes of oil removed due to weathering and cleanup, and the likelihood of transport by wind and 

waves resulting in contact to specified environmental features. This section of the EIS addresses the 

likelihood of spill occurrence, the transportation of oil slicks by winds and waves, and the probability of 

an oil spill contacting sensitive environmental resources. Sensitivity of the environmental resources and 

potential effects are addressed in the analyses for the specific resources of concern (Chapters 4.1 

and 4.2).

BOEM uses data on past OCS production and spills, along with estimates of future production, to 

evaluate the risk of future spills. Data on the numbers, types, sizes, and other information on past spills 

were reviewed to develop the spill scenario for analysis in this Supplemental EIS. The spill scenario 

provides (1) the set of assumptions for and estimates of future spills, (2) the rationale for the scenario 

assumptions and estimates, and (3) the type, frequency, quantity, and fate of the spilled oil for specific 

scenarios. The spill scenario accounts for spill response and cleanup activities and the estimated time that 

the spill remains floating on the water.

BOEM uses a numerical model to calculate the likely trajectory of spills and analyzes the historical 

database to make other oil-spill projections. Estimates are based on historical spills and do not consider 

the effect of the recent retirement of older platforms and pipelines in preventing spills. A description of 

the trajectory model, called the OSRA (oil-spill risk analysis) model, and its results are published as a 

separate report (Ji et al., 2012). The OSRA model results as presented and discussed in the 2012-2017 
Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario 3-15

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS are still applicable for this Supplemental EIS because the latest analysis 

available for the characterization of spill rates and for average and median volumes (Anderson et al., 

2012) inputted into the model is still valid. For a complete description of the OSRA model, refer to 

Chapter 3.2.1.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The OSRA model simulates thousands of 

spills launched throughout the Gulf of Mexico OCS and calculates the probability of these spills being 

transported and contacting specified environmental resources. The OSRA modeling results in a 

numerical expression of risk based on spill rates, projected oil production, and trajectory modeling. The 

OSRA modeling does not include the effects of weathering and thus provides a conservative estimate of 

risk assessment. A discussion of weathering based on past analyses will be included in the following 

sections.

The following discussion provides separate risk information for offshore spills ≥1,000 bbl, offshore 

spills <1,000 bbl, and coastal spills that may result from the WPA or CPA proposed action. Only spills 

≥1,000 bbl are addressed using OSRA because smaller spills may not persist long enough to be simulated 

by trajectory modeling. Another consideration is that these large spills are likely to be identified and 

reported; therefore, these records are more comprehensive than those of smaller spills.

3.2.1.5. Risk Analysis for Offshore Spills ≥1,000 bbl

Chapter 3.2.1.5 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS addresses the risk of spills ≥1,000 bbl that 

could occur from accidents associated with activities resulting from the WPA or CPA proposed action. 

The risk analyses addressed include the following: 

• estimated number of offshore spills ≥1,000 bbl and probability of occurrence;

• most likely source of offshore spills ≥1,000 bbl;

• most likely size of an offshore spill ≥1,000 bbl;

• fate of offshore spills ≥1,000 bbl;

• transport of spills ≥1,000 bbl by winds and currents;

• length of coastline affected by offshore spills ≥1,000 bbl; and

• likelihood of an offshore spill ≥1,000 bbl occurring and contacting modeled locations 

of environmental resources.

3.2.1.6. Risk Analysis for Offshore Spills <1,000 bbl

Chapter 3.2.1.6 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS addresses the risk of spills <1,000 bbl 

resulting from the WPA or CPA proposed action. Analysis of historical data shows that most offshore 

OCS oil spills have been ≤1 bbl (Anderson et al., 2012). Although spills of ≤1 bbl have made up 

96 percent of all OCS-related spill occurrences, spills of this size have contributed very little (2%) to the 

total volume of OCS oil that has been spilled. Most of the total volume of OCS oil spilled (95%) has 

been from spills ≥10 bbl. The risk analyses addressed in Chapter 3.2.1.6 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS include the following: 

• estimated number of offshore spills <1,000 bbl and total volume of oil spilled;

• most likely source and type of offshore spills <1,000 bbl;

• most likely size of offshore spills <1,000 bbl;

• persistence, spreading, and weathering of offshore oil spills <1,000 bbl;

• transport of spills <1,000 bbl by winds and currents; and

• likelihood of an offshore spill <1,000 bbl occurring and contacting modeled locations 

of environmental resources.
3-16 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

3.2.1.7. Risk Analysis for Coastal Spills

Spills in coastal waters could occur at storage or processing facilities supporting the OCS oil and gas 

industry or from the transportation of OCS-produced oil through State offshore waters and along 

navigation channels, rivers, and through coastal bays. BOEM projects that almost all (>99%) oil 

produced as a result of a proposed action will be brought ashore via pipelines to oil pipeline shore bases, 

stored at these facilities, and eventually transferred via pipeline or barge to Gulf coastal refineries. 

Because oil is commingled at shore bases and cannot be directly attributed to a particular lease sale, this 

analysis of coastal spills addresses spills that could occur prior to the oil arriving at the initial shoreline 

facility. It is also possible that non-OCS oil may be commingled with OCS oil at these facilities or during 

subsequent secondary transport. Chapter 3.2.1.7 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS describes in 

detail the estimated number and most likely sizes of coastal spills and the likelihood of coastal spill 

contact.

3.2.1.8. Risk Analysis by Resource

BOEM analyzed risk to resources from oil spills and oil slicks that could occur as a result of the WPA 

or CPA proposed action. The risk results are based on BOEM’s estimates of likely spill locations, 

sources, sizes, frequency of occurrence, physical fates of different types of oil slicks, and probable 

transport that are described in more detail in the preceding spill scenarios. For offshore spills, combined 

probabilities were calculated using the OSRA model, which includes both the likelihood of a spill from a 

proposed action occurring and the likelihood of the oil slick reaching areas where known environmental 

resources exist. The analysis of the likelihood of direct exposure and interaction of a resource with an oil 

slick and the sensitivity of a resource to the oil is provided under each resource category in Chapters 

4.1.1 and 4.2.1 of this Supplemental EIS and in Figures 3-8 through 3-28 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS. Coastal spills are estimated from historic counts; the estimate is not a rate tied to an 

anticipated production volume or a probability. Chapter 3.2.1.8 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS provides a detailed discussion of the risk analysis by resource from offshore oil spills.

3.2.1.9. Spill Response

Chapter 3.2.1.9 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS describes in detail offshore spill response. 

Issues discussed related to spill response include the following: 

• BOEM’s spill-response requirements and initiatives; 

• offshore response, containment, and cleanup technology;

• oil-spill-response assumptions used in the analysis of a most likely spill ≥1,000 bbl

incident related to a proposed action; and

• onshore response and cleanup.

As a result of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, BSEE was tasked with a number of oil-spill-response 

duties and planning requirements. These requirements are implemented according to BSEE’s regulations 

at 30 CFR 250 and 254:

• requires immediate notification for spills >1 bbl—all spills require notification to 

USCG, and BOEM receives notification from the USCG of all spills ≤1 bbl;

• conducts investigations to determine the cause of a spill;

• assesses civil and criminal penalties, if needed;

• oversee spill source control and abatement operations by industry;

• sets requirements and reviews and approves oil-spill-response plans for offshore 

facilities;
Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario 3-17

• conducts unannounced drills to ensure compliance with oil-spill-response plans;

• requires operators to ensure that their spill-response operating and management 

teams receive appropriate spill-response training;

• conducts inspections of oil-spill-response equipment;

• requires industry to show financial responsibility to respond to possible spills; and

• provides research leadership to improve the capabilities for detecting and responding 

to an oil spill in the marine environment.

This Agency also issued NTL’s and guidance documents that clarify additional oil-spill requirements 

after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup occurred. The spill-response-related NTL’s 

and guidance documents issued by this Agency and BSEE are described in detail in Chapter 3.2.1.9 of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

One spill-response-related NTL has been issued since the publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, and it is described below.

NTL 2012-BSEE-N06, “Guidance to Owners and Operators of Offshore Facilities Seaward 

of the Coast Line Concerning Regional Oil Spill Response Plans”

This NTL, effective August 10, 2012, provides clarification, guidance, and information concerning 

the preparation and submittal of a regional OSRP for owners and operators of oil handling, storage, or 

transportation facilities, including pipelines, located seaward of the coastline. This NTL also informs the 

lessees, designated operators, or pipeline right-of-way holders, as appropriate, that they are responsible 

for preparing and submitting the OSRP. The BSEE’s Oil Spill Response Division will review and 

approve OSRP’s that are in compliance with 30 CFR 254. Some of the clarifications and encouraged 

practices in this NTL are based on lessons learned from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and 

cleanup. Adherence to the encouraged practices will facilitate BSEE’s review of the OSRP’s, but it is not 

required to obtain approval. During BSEE’s review of regional OSRP’s, the Oil Spill Response Division 

will analyze the content to ensure that the lessees demonstrate the ability to respond quickly and 

effectively whenever oil is discharged from a covered facility as required by 30 CFR 254. The NTL 

encourages the lessees to specifically describe the planned response strategy for each worst-case 

discharge scenario included in the regional OSRP. The following factors should be considered when 

developing a response strategy:

• location of the potential worst-case discharge; 

• proximity to sensitive resources;

• nature of the event;

• estimated discharge volume;

• oil characteristics;

• appropriate source control;

• containment methods;

• weathering (including natural dispersion); and

• other resources at risk.

3.2.2. Losses of Well Control

All losses of well control must be reported to BSEE. The BSEE clarified its procedure for loss of 

well control incident reporting in NTL 2010-N05, “Increased Safety Measures for Energy Development 

on the OCS,” effective June 8, 2010. The Drilling Safety Rule (Federal Register, 2012a), effective 

October 22, 2012, implements certain additional safety measures recommended in NTL 2010-N05 by 
3-18 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

incorporating the recommendations in the Safety Measures Report and Deepwater Horizon Joint 

Investigation Team report. The BSEE amended the drilling, well-completion, well-workover, and 

decommissioning regulations related to well-control, including subsea and surface blowout preventers, 

well casing and cementing, secondary intervention, unplanned disconnects, recordkeeping, and well 

plugging. Operators are required to document any loss of well control event, even if temporary, and the 

cause of the event by mail or email to the addressee indicated in the NTL. The operator does not have to 

include kicks that were controlled but should include the release of fluids through a flow diverter (a 

conduit used to direct fluid flowing from a well away from the drilling rig).

The current definition for loss of well control is as follows:

• uncontrolled flow of formation or other fluids (the flow may be to an exposed 

formation [an underground blowout] or at the surface [a surface blowout]);

• uncontrolled flow through a diverter; and/or

• uncontrolled flow resulting from a failure of surface equipment or procedures.

Not all loss of well control events result in blowouts, which are defined as any of the three loss of 

well control events above but which are most commonly thought of as a release to the human 

environment. A loss of well control can occur during any phase of development, i.e., exploratory drilling, 

development drilling, well completion, production, or workover operations. A loss of well control can 

occur when improperly balanced well pressure results in sudden, uncontrolled releases of fluids from a 

wellhead or wellbore (PCCI Marine and Environmental Engineering, 1999; Neal Adams Firefighters, 

Inc., 1991). From 2006 to 2010, of the 27 loss of well control events reported in the GOM, 7 (22%) 

resulted in loss of fluids at the surface or underground (USDOI, BSEE, 2012b). In addition to spills, the 

loss of well control can resuspend and disperse bottom sediments. Historically, since 1971, most OCS 

blowouts have resulted in the release of gas; blowouts resulting in the release of oil have been rare.

A blowout preventer (BOP) is a device with a complex of choke lines and hydraulic rams mounted 

atop a wellhead designed to close the wellbore with a sharp horizontal motion that may cut through or 

pinch shut casing and sever tool strings. Depending on how it is configured, a BOP could weigh 250 tons 

and cost from $25 to $35 million, and higher. The BOP’s were invented in the early 1920’s and have 

been instrumental in ending dangerous, costly, and environmentally damaging oil gushers on land and in 

water. The BOP’s have been required for OCS oil and gas operations from the time offshore drilling 

began in the late 1940’s.

The BOP’s are actuated as a last resort upon imminent threat to the integrity of the well or the surface 

rig. For cased wells, which is the normal situation, the hydraulic ram may be closed if oil or gas from an 

underground zone enters the wellbore to destabilize the well. By closing a BOP, usually by redundant 

surface-operated and hydraulic actuators, the drilling crew can prevent explosive pressure release and 

allow control of the well to be regained by balancing the pressure exerted by a column of drilling mud 

with formation fluids or gases from below. Chapter 3.2.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

describes in detail the following blowout preventers and their effectiveness:

• pipe ram; 

• annular preventer; 

• blind ram and blind shear ram;

• subsea isolation device; and

• choke valves.

3.2.3. Pipeline Failures

Significant sources of damages to OCS pipeline infrastructure are mass sediment movements and 

mudslides that can exhume or push the pipelines into another location, impacts from anchor drops or boat 

collisions, and accidental excavation or breaching because the exact whereabouts of a pipeline are 
Impact-Producing Factors and Scenario 3-19

uncertain. Chapter 3.2.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS describes previous incidents of 

OCS-related pipeline failures.

An OCS-related spill ≥1,000 bbl would likely be from a pipeline accident; the median spill size is 

estimated to be 2,200 bbl for rig/platform and pipeline activities supporting a proposed action (Table 3-12 

of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). For both the WPA and CPA proposed actions, up to one 

spill of this size is estimated to occur.”

3.2.4. Vessel Collisions

The BSEE revised operator incident reporting requirements in a final rule effective July 17, 2006 

(Federal Register, 2006). The new incident reporting rule more clearly defines what incidents must be 

reported, broadens the scope to include incidents that have the potential to be serious, and requires the 

reporting of standard information for both oral and written reports. As part of the incident reporting rule, 

BSEE’s regulations at 30 CFR 250.188(a)(6) requires an operator to report all collisions that result in 

property or equipment damage greater than $25,000. “Collision” is defined as the act of a moving vessel 

(including an aircraft) striking another vessel, or striking a stationary vessel or object (e.g., a boat striking 

a drilling rig or platform). Chapter 3.2.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS provides data related 

to vessel collisions and discusses methods of prevention and avoidance of vessel collisions.

3.2.5. Chemical and Drilling-Fluid Spills

BOEM and USCG categorize spill volumes using different units. BOEM works in barrels while 

USCG works in gallons.

Minor Medium Major

<238 bbl (<10,000 gal) 238-2,380 bbl (10,000-99,999 gal) ≥2,381 bbl (100,000 gal)

1 bbl = 42 U.S. gallons.

Chapter 3.2.5 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS describes OCS-related chemical and 

synthetic-based fluid spills. Table 3-26 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS provides information 

related to the number and volume of chemical and synthetic-based fluid spills in the Gulf of Mexico 

between 2001 and 2009.

3.3. CUMULATIVE ACTIVITIES SCENARIO

3.3.1. OCS Program

The OCS Program scenario includes all activities that are projected to occur from past, proposed, and 

future lease sales during the 40-year activity period. Projected reserve/resource production for the OCS 

Program (Table 3-1; WPA, CPA, and EPA) is 18.34-25.64 Bbbl of oil and 75.886-111.627 Tcf of gas. 

Tables 3-4 through 3-6 present projections of the major activities and impact-producing factors related to 

future Gulfwide OCS Program activities

The level of OCS activity is connected to oil prices, resource potential, cost of development, and rig 

availability rather than just, or even primarily to, the amount of acreage leased. The impacts of activities 

associated with the OCS Program on biological, physical, and socioeconomic resources are analyzed in 

the cumulative impacts analysis sections of Chapters 4.1.1 and 4.2.1. 

Note that offshore and onshore impact-producing factors and scenarios associated with an EPA 

proposed action, i.e., a typical sale that would result from a proposed lease sale within the EPA, as well as 

OCS Program activity resulting from past and future lease sales in the EPA will be disclosed in a 

subsequent Eastern Planning Area EIS within this Five-Year Program. 

3.3.2. State Oil and Gas Activity

All of the five Gulf Coast States have had some historical oil and gas exploration activity, and with 

the exception of Florida and Mississippi, all currently produce oil and gas in State waters. The coastal 

infrastructure that supports the OCS Program also supports State oil and gas activities.
3-20 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

State oil and gas infrastructure consists of the wells that extract hydrocarbon resources, facilities that 

produce and treat the raw product, pipelines that transport the product to refineries and gas facilities for 

further processing, and additional pipelines that transport finished product to points of storage and final 

consumption. The type and size of infrastructure that supports production depends upon the size, type, 

and location of the producing field, the time of development, and the life cycle stage of operations. 

Chapter 3.3.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS describes oil and gas activities, including 

pipeline infrastructure, within the State waters of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.

3.3.3. Other Major Factors Influencing Offshore Environments

Other influencing factors occur in the offshore areas of Gulf Coast States while OCS activity takes 

place at the same time. Some of these factors are dredged material disposal, OCS sand borrowing, marine 

transportation, military activities, artificial reefs and rigs-to-reefs development, offshore liquefied natural 

gas (LNG) projects, development of gas hydrates, renewable energy and alternative use, and recreational 

and commercial fishing. Chapter 3.3.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS provides a detailed 

description of these influencing factors.

3.3.4. Other Major Factors Influencing Coastal Environments

Natural and man-caused factors influence the coastal areas of the Gulf States while OCS activity 

takes place at the same time. Some of these factors are sea-level rise and subsidence; Mississippi Delta 

hydromodifications; maintenance dredging activities; Coastal Impact Assistance Program activities; and 

coastal restoration programs. Chapter 3.3.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS provides a 

detailed description of these influencing factors. No significant new information was discovered since 

publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS related to factors influencing coastal 

environments that would change the conclusions presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

3.3.5. Natural Events and Processes

Chapter 3.3.5 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS describes in detail natural events and 

processes in the Gulf of Mexico, including physical oceanography and hurricanes. 

On August 28, 2012, Hurricane Isaac made landfall in southeastern Louisiana as a Category 1 

hurricane. No moderate or extensive damage was reported to offshore oil or gas infrastructure in the Gulf 

of Mexico; however, Hurricane Isaac did result in the suspension of small amounts of tarballs and some 

oil from sediments. This is in line with predictions in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS analysis

and is discussed more fully in Chapter 4.2.1.2.1 of this Supplemental EIS. 
CHAPTER 4 

DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT

AND IMPACT ANALYSIS

Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-3 

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND IMPACT ANALYSIS

The impacts of 10 WPA and CPA lease sales were analyzed in the Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas 

Lease Sales: 2012-2017; Western Planning Area Lease Sales 229, 233, 238, 246, and 248; Central 

Planning Area Lease Sales 227, 231, 235, 241, and 247, Final Environmental Impact Statement (2012-

2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS) (USDOI, BOEM, 2012b). An analysis of the routine, accidental, and 

cumulative impacts of a WPA or CPA proposed action on the environmental, socioeconomic, and cultural 

resources of the Gulf of Mexico can be found in Chapters 4.1.1 and 4.2.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, respectively. The 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS is hereby incorporated by 

reference.

The purpose of this Supplemental EIS is to determine if there are significant new circumstances or 

information bearing on the proposed actions or their impacts, as stated in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, and, if so, to disclose those changes and conclusions. This includes all relevant new 

information available since the publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. This 

Supplemental EIS analyzes the potential impacts of the WPA and CPA proposed actions on sensitive 

coastal environments, offshore marine resources, onshore and offshore socioeconomic resources, and 

cultural resources.

It must be understood that this Supplemental EIS analyzes the proposed action and alternatives for the 

proposed WPA and CPA lease sales. This is not an EIS on the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, 

and cleanup, although information on this is being analyzed as it applies to resources in the WPA and 

CPA.

4.1. PROPOSED WESTERN PLANNING AREA LEASE SALE 233

Proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 is tentatively scheduled to be held in August 2013. The proposed 

WPA lease sale area encompasses virtually all of the WPA’s 28.58 million ac. This area begins 3 marine 

leagues (9 nmi; 10.35 mi; 16.67 km) offshore Texas and extends seaward to the limits of the United 

States’ jurisdiction over the continental shelf (often the Exclusive Economic Zone) in water depths up to 

approximately 3,346 m (10,978 ft) (Figure 1-1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). As of March 

2013, approximately 20.7 million ac of the proposed WPA lease sale area are currently unleased. The 

WPA proposed action would offer for lease all unleased blocks within the proposed WPA lease sale area

for oil and gas operations (Figure 2-1), with the following exception: 

(1) whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National 

Marine Sanctuary (i.e., the boundary as of the publication of this Supplemental EIS). 

Alternative A (The Proposed Action) of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS also included an 

exclusion of whole and partial blocks that lie within the 1.4-nmi buffer zone north of the maritime 

boundary between the United States and Mexico. The U.S. and Mexico have been pursuing an 

Agreement to govern the development of reservoirs of petroleum and natural gas straddling the 

U.S.-Mexico maritime and continental shelf boundary in the Gulf of Mexico. On February 20, 2012, the 

Agreement was signed by representatives of each Government, but it has not yet entered into force. Upon 

its entry into force, the blocks and acreage in this buffer zone that were not offered in past lease sales will 

become available for leasing. As the Agreement may enter into force prior to the tentative date scheduled 

to hold proposed WPA Lease Sale 233, BOEM has considered this 1.4-nmi buffer area as being 

potentially available for lease under Alternative A. There are no known features of the buffer zone that 

would distinguish these blocks from those adjacent blocks that were considered in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS (e.g., no known topographic features, no identified critical habitat) or that 

would alter the conclusions on impacts that may be expected to result if the proposed action is chosen. 

However, all resources in the buffer area would be considered in postlease activities and plan approval 

reviews. Further, there are no known features in this area that would suggest resources would react to 

potential impact-producing factors differently than those areas and resources already identified.

Although the leasing of portions of the WPA (subareas or blocks) can be deferred during a Five-Year 

Program, DOI is conservative throughout the NEPA process and includes the total area within the Gulf of 

Mexico planning areas for analysis.
4-4 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Chapter 4.1.1 presents a brief summary of the baseline data for the physical, biological, and 

socioeconomic resources that would potentially be affected by the WPA proposed action or the 

alternatives, and it presents analyses of the potential impacts of routine events, accidental events, and 

cumulative activities on these resources. Baseline data are considered in the assessment of impacts from 

proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on these resources. For additional information on the baseline data for the 

physical, biological, and socioeconomic resources that would potentially be affected by the WPA 

proposed action or the alternatives, refer to Chapter 4.1.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The Deepwater Horizon explosion off the Louisiana coast resulted in the largest oil spill in U.S. 

history. An event such as this has the potential to adversely affect multiple resources over a large area. 

The level of adverse effect depends on many factors, including the sensitivity of the resource as well as 

the sensitivity of the environment in which the resource is located. All effects may not initially be seen 

and some could take years to fully develop. The analyses of impacts from the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup on the physical, biological, and socioeconomic resources below are based 

on post-Deepwater Horizon credible scientific information that was publicly available at the time this 

document was prepared and were applied using accepted methodologies. BOEM will continue to monitor 

these resources for effects caused by the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. 

Chapter 3.2.1 provides a brief summary of the information on accidental spills that could result from 

all operations conducted under the OCS Program, as well as information on the number and sizes of spills 

from non-OCS sources. The number of spills ≥1,000 bbl and <1,000 bbl estimated to occur as a result of 

the WPA proposed action is provided in Table 3-12 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The 

mean number of spills ≥1,000 bbl estimated for the WPA proposed action is <1 spill. Spill rates for 

several spill-size categories are provided in Table 3-12 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The 

probabilities of a spill ≥1,000 bbl occurring and contacting modeled environmental resources are 

described in Chapter 3.2.1.8 and Figures 3-8 through 3-28 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

For additional information on accidental spills that could result from all operations conducted under the 

OCS Program, as well as information on the number and sizes of spills from non-OCS sources, refer to

Chapter 3.2.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The potential impacts of a low-probability, catastrophic oil spill, such as the one that resulted from 

the Deepwater Horizon explosion, to the environmental and cultural resources and the socioeconomic 

conditions analyzed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS are addressed in the “Catastrophic Spill 

Event Analysis” (Appendix B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). The reader is referred to 

Appendix B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS for the analysis of potential effects of a 

catastrophic event for each resource. BOEM reviewed relevant information available since the 2012-

2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and, where relevant, summarized this information in the individual 

resource analyses below; however, BOEM’s subject-matter experts determined that none of this newly 

available information significantly changed the analyses or conclusions regarding catastrophic events in 

Appendix B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. BOEM’s analyses and conclusions of 

catastrophic events in Appendix B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS remain unchanged and, 

therefore, BOEM refers the reader to Appendix B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS for the 

analysis of the potential effects of a catastrophic event for each resource.

The cumulative analyses below consider impacts to physical, biological, and socioeconomic resources 

that may result from the incremental impact of proposed WPA Lease Sale 231when added to all past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future human activities, including non-OCS activities, as well as all 

OCS activities (OCS Program). A summary of the environmental impacts of the cumulative case for the 

Gulf of Mexico resources are found in the individual resource analyses in Chapters 4.1.1 and 4.2.2. For 

additional information on environmental impacts of the cumulative case for the Gulf of Mexico resources, 

refer to Chapters 4.1.1 and 4.2.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Non-OCS activities include, but are not limited to, import tankering; State oil and gas activity; 

recreational, commercial, and military vessel traffic; offshore LNG activity; recreational and commercial 

fishing; onshore development; and natural processes. The OCS Program scenario includes all activities 

that are projected to occur from past, proposed, and future lease sales during the 40-year analysis period 

(2012-2051). This includes projected activity from lease sales that have been held, but for which 

exploration or development has not yet begun or is continuing.
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-5 

Analytical Approach

The analyses of potential effects to the wide variety of physical, environmental, and socioeconomic 

resources in the vast area of the GOM and adjacent coastal areas is complex. Specialized education, 

experience, and technical knowledge are required, as well as familiarity with the numerous impact- producing factors associated with oil and gas activities and other activities that can cause cumulative 

impacts in the area. Knowledge and practical working experience of major environmental laws and 

regulations such as NEPA, the Clean Water Act, CAA, CZMA, ESA, Marine Mammal Protection Act, 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and others are also required. 

In order to accomplish this task, BOEM has assembled a multidisciplinary staff with hundreds of 

years of collective experience. The vast majority of this staff has advanced degrees with a high level of 

knowledge related to the particular resources discussed in this chapter. This staff prepares the input to 

BOEM’s lease sale EIS’s, a variety of subsequent postlease NEPA reviews, and are also involved with 

ESA, essential fish habitat, and CZMA consultations. In addition, this same staff is also directly involved 

with the development of studies conducted by BOEM’s Environmental Studies Program. The results of 

these studies feed directly into our NEPA analyses.

For this Supplemental EIS, a set of assumptions and a scenario are developed, and impact-producing 

factors that could occur from routine oil and gas activities, as well as accidental events, are described. 

This information is summarized in Chapter 3 of this Supplemental EIS and is discussed in detail in 

Chapter 3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Using this information, the multidisciplinary staff 

described above applies their knowledge and experience to conduct their analyses of the potential effects 

of proposed WPA Lease Sale 233. 

The conclusions developed by the subject-matter experts regarding the potential effects of proposed 

WPA Lease Sale 233 for most resources are necessarily qualitative in nature; however, they are based on 

the expert opinion and judgment of highly trained subject-matter experts. This staff approaches this effort 

in good faith utilizing credible scientific information including, but not limited to, information available 

since the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, and applied using accepted methodologies. 

Where relevant information on reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts is incomplete or 

unavailable, the need for the information was evaluated to determine if it was essential to a reasoned 

choice among the alternatives, and if so, was either acquired or in the event it was impossible or 

exorbitant to acquire the information, accepted scientific methodologies were applied in its place. This 

approach is described in the next subsection on “Incomplete or Unavailable Information.”

Over the years, a suite of lease stipulations and mitigation measures has been developed to eliminate 

or ameliorate potential environmental effects, where implemented. In many instances, these were 

developed in coordination with other natural resource agencies such as NMFS and FWS. It must also be 

emphasized that, in arriving at the overall conclusions for certain environmental resources (e.g., coastal 

and marine birds, fisheries, and wetlands), the conclusions are not based on impacts to individuals, small 

groups of animals, or small areas of habitat, but on impacts to the resources/populations as a whole.

BOEM has made conscientious efforts to comply with the spirit and intent of NEPA, to avoid being 

arbitrary and capricious in its analyses of potential environmental effects, and to use adaptive 

management to respond to new developments related to the OCS Program.

Incomplete or Unavailable Information

In the following analyses of physical, environmental, and socioeconomic resources, there are 

references to incomplete or unavailable information, particularly in relation to the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. The subject-matter experts for each resource used what scientifically 

credible information was publicly available at the time this Supplemental EIS was written. This 

information is summarized in Chapter 4.1.1 of this Supplemental EIS and is discussed in detail for each 

resource in Chapter 4.1.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Where necessary, BOEM’s 

subject-matter experts extrapolated from existing or new information, using accepted methodologies, to 

make reasoned estimates and developed conclusions regarding the current WPA baseline for resource 

categories and expected impacts from the WPA proposed action given any baseline changes. There are 

no changes to the conclusions presented in the 2012-2017 WPA\CPA Multisale EIS.

As with the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, the most notable incomplete or unavailable 

information relates to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup in the CPA. Credible 
4-6 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

scientific data regarding the potential short-term and long-term impacts from the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup on both CPA or WPA resources is becoming available but remains 

incomplete at this time, and it could be many years before this information becomes available via the 

NRDA process, BOEM’s Environmental Studies Program, and numerous studies by academia. 

Nonetheless, the subject-matter experts acquired and used newly available, scientifically credible 

information, determined that other additional information was not available absent exorbitant 

expenditures or could not be obtained regardless of cost in a timely manner, and where gaps remained, 

exercised their best professional judgment to extrapolate baseline conditions and impact analyses using 

accepted methodologies based on credible information.

It is important to note that, barring another catastrophic oil spill, which is a low-probability accidental 

event, the adverse impacts associated with the proposed WPA lease sale are small, even in light of the 

Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. This is because of BOEM’s lease sale stipulations

and mitigations, site-specific mitigations that become conditions of plan or permit approval at the 

postlease stage, and mitigations required by other State and Federal agencies.

The incomplete or unavailable information identified by the subject-matter experts were grouped into 

categories that were evaluated to determine whether that information was essential to a reasoned choice 

among alternatives:

• Physical Resources in the WPA: Physical resources (i.e., water quality and air 

quality) within the WPA were likely not affected to any discernible degree by the 

Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, based on the best available 

information and the WPA’s distance from the Macondo well. BOEM has determined 

that the information is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives. In any 

event, much of the information related to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, 

and cleanup may not be available for some time, regardless of the costs necessary to 

obtain this information, as there are numerous task forces and interagency groups 

involved in the production of the information. It is not expected that this data would 

become publicly available in the near term, and certainly not within the timeframe 

contemplated by this NEPA analysis. 

• Nonmobile Biological Resources within the WPA: Coastal and offshore biological 

and benthic habitats (i.e., barrier beaches, wetlands, seagrasses, soft bottom benthic 

communities, topographic features, and chemosynthetic and nonchemosynthetic 

communities) and nonmobile benthic species that would be expected to spend their 

entire life cycle in the WPA were likely not affected to any discernible degree by the 

Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, based on the WPA’s distance 

from the Macondo well and currently available data indicating that the spill did not 

reach WPA waters or sediments. Similarly to the analysis of physical resources in 

the WPA described in the preceding paragraph, BOEM has determined that the 

incomplete or unavailable information regarding nonmobile resources is not essential 

to a reasoned choice among alternatives.

• Mobile Biological Resources within or Migrating through the WPA: Certain mobile 

biological resources (i.e., birds, fish, marine mammals, and sea turtles) having ranges 

and/or habitats that may include different areas in the Gulf of Mexico may have 

individually been affected by exposure to oil and/or spill-response activities, 

provided they were in the vicinity of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and 

cleanup during spill conditions. BOEM has concluded that this incomplete or 

unavailable information is not essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives 

since the adverse impacts from routine activities associated with the WPA proposed 

action are expected to be small, even in light of how baseline conditions may have 

been changed by the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. It is not 

essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives because the subject-matter 

experts for this Supplemental EIS have already evaluated the probability and severity 

of these potential impacts and it is not essential to understand every particular 

mechanism by which these significant impacts could occur, in light of the 

scientifically credible information that was available and applied. In any event, it is 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-7 

not expected that this data would become publicly available within the timeframe

contemplated by this NEPA analysis. However, any incomplete or unavailable 

information regarding the nature of a very large spill would not be essential to a 

reasoned choice among the alternatives. A catastrophic spill and its impacts are not 

“expected” as a result of the WPA proposed action since it remains a low-probability 

event, particularly in light of improved safety and oil-spill-response requirements that 

have been put in place since the spill.

• Endangered and Threatened Species: BOEM reinitiated consultation with NMFS and 

FWS in light of new information that may become available on these species and in 

light of effects from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. 

Pending the completion of the reinitiated ESA Section 7 Consultation, BOEM has 

prepared an ESA Section 7(d) determination (50 CFR 402.09). Section 7(d) of the 

ESA requires that, after initiation (or reinitiation in this case) of consultation under 

Section 7(a)(2), the Federal agency “shall not make any irreversible or irretrievable 

commitment of resources with respect to the agency action which has the effect of 

foreclosing the formulation or implementation of any reasonable and prudent 

alternative measures which would not violate” (Section 7(a)(2)). BOEM has 

determined that the WPA proposed action during the reinitiated Section 7 

consultation is consistent with the requirements of ESA Section 7(d) because 

(1) approving and/or conducting these activities will not foreclose the formulation or 

implementation of any Reasonable and Prudent Alternative measures that may be 

necessary to avoid jeopardy (or the likely destruction or adverse modification of

critical habitat) and (2) the Secretary of the Interior retains the discretion under 

OCSLA to deny, suspend, or rescind these plans and permits at any time, as 

necessary to avoid jeopardy. Lease sales alone do not constitute an irreversible and 

irretrievable commitment of resources. In addition, the results of consultation and 

any additional relevant information on these species can be employed during 

postlease activities to ensure that Reasonable and Prudent Alternative measures are 

not foreclosed. BOEM and BSEE have developed an interim coordination program 

with NMFS and FWS for individual consultations on postlease activities requiring 

permits or plan approvals while formal consultation and development of a new 

Biological Opinion are ongoing.

• Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) Data: In response to the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, a major NRDA is underway to assess 

impacts to all natural resources in the Gulf of Mexico that may have been impacted 

by the resulting spill from the Macondo well, as well as impacts from the spillresponse operations. The NRDA is mandated by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The 

U.S. Department of the Interior is a co-Trustee in the NRDA process, and BOEM is a 

cooperating agency on a Programmatic EIS being prepared as part of the NEPA

analysis for NRDA. However, the NRDA process is being led by the NRDA 

Trustees, which include NOAA and DOI (FWS and NPS), but not BOEM. BOEM is 

listed as an affected party for NRDA purposes. At this time, limited data compiled in 

the NRDA process have been made publicly available. Because limited data have 

been made publicly available, most NRDA datasets are not available for BOEM to 

use in its NEPA analyses. BOEM acknowledges that the ability to obtain and use the 

NRDA data in its NEPA analyses could be relevant to reasonably foreseeable 

significant adverse impacts; however, the NRDA data are not essential to a reasoned 

choice among the alternatives. Impacts identified through the NRDA process would 

likely be the same under any alternative and obtaining this data would not help 

inform the decisionmaker on a reasoned choice among those alternatives. This is 

because, as discussed above, the adverse impacts associated with the proposed WPA 

lease sale are small, even in light of how baseline conditions in the WPA may have 

been changed by the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. The 

impacts are expected to be small because of BOEM’s lease sale stipulations and 

mitigations, site-specific mitigations that become conditions of plan or permit 
4-8 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

approval at the postlease stage, and mitigations required by other State and Federal 

agencies. Even if the NRDA data were essential to a reasoned choice among the 

alternatives, it is not publicly available and much of the data may not become 

available for many years. The NEPA allows for decisions to be made based on 

available scientifically credible information applied using accepted methodologies 

where the incomplete information cannot be obtained or the cost of obtaining is 

exorbitant. The NRDA process is ongoing and there is no timeline on when this 

information will be released. It is not within BOEM’s authority to obtain this 

information. Cost is not an issue in obtaining the information, regardless of whether 

the cost would be exorbitant or not. The limitations on the NRDA process, including 

statutory requirements under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, are the determining 

factors on the availability of this information, not the cost of obtaining it. In light of

the fact that the NRDA data may not be available for years, BOEM has used accepted 

scientific methodologies to evaluate each resource, as described in this chapter. 

Since the spill, the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region’s Environmental Studies Program 

has continually modified its Studies Plan to reflect this Agency’s current information 

needs for studies that address impacts and recovery from the oil spill. BOEM’s 

proposed studies attempt to avoid duplication of study efforts yet fill information 

gaps where NRDA studies may not address particular resources and their impacts 

from the oil spill. The NEPA allows for decisions to be made based on available 

scientifically credible information applied using accepted methodologies where the 

incomplete information cannot be obtained or the cost of obtaining is exorbitant. As 

such, BOEM has applied the scientifically credible information that is available using 

accepted methodologies, in light of this unavailable NRDA data.

• Socioeconomic and Cultural Resources: Incomplete or unavailable information 

related to socioeconomic and cultural impacts (i.e., commercial and recreational 

fishing, recreational resources, archaeological resources, land use and coastal 

infrastructure, demographics, economic factors, and environmental justice) may be 

relevant to reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts on these resources. With regard 

to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, BOEM has determined 

that the incomplete or unavailable information would not be essential to a reasoned 

choice among alternatives.

This chapter has thoroughly examined the existing credible scientific evidence that is relevant to 

evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts of the WPA proposed lease sale on the 

human environment. The subject-matter experts that prepared this Supplemental EIS conducted a diligent 

search for pertinent information, and BOEM’s evaluation of such impacts is based upon theoretical 

approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community. All reasonably 

foreseeable impacts were considered, including impacts that could have catastrophic consequences, even 

if their probability of occurrence is low. Throughout this chapter, where information was incomplete or 

unavailable, BOEM complied with its obligations under NEPA to determine if the information was 

relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts; if so, whether it was essential to a 

reasoned choice among alternatives; and, if it is essential, whether it can be obtained and whether the cost 

of obtaining the information is exorbitant, as well as whether generally accepted scientific methodologies 

can be applied in its place (40 CFR 1502.22).

4.1.1. Alternative A—The Proposed Action

4.1.1.1. Air Quality

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for air quality presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for air quality presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-9 

Further, a search was conducted for information published on air quality, and various Internet and 

publicly available sources were examined to determine any recent information regarding air quality. 

Sources investigated included, but were not limited to, journals and scientific articles, Google, Google 

Scholar, and several USEPA websites. All relevant new information is included below; however, no new 

significant information was discovered since publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS that 

would impact the conclusions herein. 

As BOEM has previously noted in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and despite the new 

information identified and provided below, there is incomplete or unavailable information regarding air 

quality and potential air impacts. Although final summary information and reports on air quality impacts 

from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup may be forthcoming, USEPA, NOAA, and 

other agencies obtained and released to the public a large number of air quality measurements indicating 

that air impacts tended to be minor and below USEPA’s health-based standards. As there are no 

continuing sources of air pollution related to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, 

BOEM would not expect any additional measurements or information to alter the conclusions from 

currently existing data. In addition, as noted below and in Appendix A, there are a number of competing 

methods and available models for estimating and tracking potential air emissions and impacts. Each of 

these methods and models has inherent limitations, particularly with regard to the offshore environment in 

which the WPA proposed action would take place. In acknowledgement of these limitations, BOEM’s 

subject-matter experts, using their best professional judgment and experience, have developed 

conservative assumptions and modeling parameters so as to ensure that the impact conclusions herein are 

reasonable and not underestimated. As such, although there is incomplete or unavailable information on 

air quality impacts at this time that may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts, this 

information is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and are presented in Chapter 4.1.1.1.1 

of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the resource 

description incorporated by reference from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new 

information that has become available since that document was prepared. A brief summary of potential 

impacts follows. Emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere from the routine activities associated with 

the WPA proposed action are projected to have minimal impacts to onshore air quality because of the 

prevailing atmospheric conditions, emission heights, emission rates, and the distance of these emissions 

from the coastline. The impacts of the OCS emissions on the onshore air quality are below USEPA’s 

Significance Impact Levels (SIL’s) and BOEM’s Significance Levels, and they are well below the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). While regulations are in place to reduce the risk of 

impacts from hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and while no H2S-related deaths have occurred on the OCS, 

accidents involving high concentrations of H2S could result in deaths as well as environmental damage. 

These emissions from routine activities and accidental events associated with the WPA proposed action 

are not expected to have concentrations that would change onshore air quality classifications.

Air Quality Modeling

There are many factors that BOEM evaluates to determine the potential impact occurring from 

offshore air emissions. These include estimates for likely emission sources, likely emission locations, 

emission rates, timeframes, and the likelihood of transport by wind resulting in contact to specified 

environmental features. Sensitivity of the environmental resources and potential effects are addressed in 

the analyses for the specific resources of concern (Chapters 4.1.1 and 4.2.1). BOEM uses data gathered 

during recent OCS emission inventories, along with a scenario or estimates of future production, to 

evaluate the potential effects of emissions. The scenario provides (1) the set of assumptions for and 

estimates of future activities, (2) the rationale for the scenario assumptions and estimates, and (3) the 

type, frequency, and quantity of emissions from offshore sources associated with the WPA proposed 

action. 

BOEM determined projected emissions resulting from the activities on the lease based on known 

emissions from various equipment, such as diesel engines and generators, and the level of offshore 

activity projected in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. BOEM then uses a numerical model to 

calculate the concentration of five pollutants (nitrogen oxides [NOx], sulphur oxides [SOx], particulate 

matter less than or equal to 2.5 μm [PM2.5], particulate matter less than or equal to 10 μm [PM10], and 

carbon monoxide [CO]) at the receptor. Inputs to the model include the location of the emission source 

and the receptors, the aforementioned emissions, source parameters such as source height and source 
4-10 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

stack gas temperature, and a 5-year history of meteorological conditions. The latter two parameters 

influence the dispersion of the pollutant as it is carried from the source to the receptor. The model output 

is the concentration of the pollutant at the onshore receptor location at specified time intervals. A 

description of the numerical model, called the Offshore Coastal Dispersion (OCD) Model, and its results 

are summarized in Appendix A. One of the limitations of the OCD Model is that it is unable to directly 

model contributions to ambient ozone. To address this limitation, BOEM examined available studies on 

OCS oil and gas activities’ contribution to onshore ozone levels, as described below and in Appendix A. 

These studies confirm that OCS oil and gas activities are likely to only have a minimal impact on onshore 

ozone. 

The Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions (CAMx) was used to model contribution 

during an August 2000 ozone episode (Yarwood et al., 2004). The OCS contributions to ozone 

exceedances were minor. Yarwood et al. (2004) used a photochemical model to analyze the Year 2000 

Gulfwide Emissions Inventory (GWEI) and selected the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria nonattainment area 

since it has the most severe ozone problem in the Gulf of Mexico region (System Applications 

International et al., 1995). One of the main relevant findings in Yarwood et al. (2004) is as follows: “The 

average impact of the Year 2000 GWEI emissions on 8-hour ozone levels above 85 ppb in Houston area 

is 0.2 ppb; although larger impacts may occur over the Gulf of Mexico.” Haney et al. (2008) performed a 

modeling investigation using the Year 2000 and Year 2005 GWEI’s in the WPA and CPA to evaluate the 

impact of offshore emissions on offshore and onshore ozone air quality, in which they proposed an 

emission-reduction scenario. They found a particular ozone episode where the onshore impact from all 

offshore oil-and-gas-related sources was small but generally larger than those estimates using the Year 

2000 GWEI. They noticed higher simulated ozone concentrations from 2005 emissions due to increases 

in NOx and VOC concentrations.

The OCD modeling was performed for the WPA Class II Areas, with the hypothetical WPA source 

located at East Breaks Block 446, which is approximately 80 mi (129 km) from shore. Meteorological 

data used were from the period 2000 through 2004. The meteorological data were from Corpus Christi, 

Texas, for both surface and upper air, as well as Buoy 42019. These meteorological data points are the 

closest, physically, to the proposed lease sale areas available to BOEM and, therefore, are the best 

approximation available. BOEM calculated scenario-specific emissions based on the Year 2008 Gulfwide 

Emission Inventory Study (Wilson et al., 2010) and Rigzone (2009). A spreadsheet was developed based 

on the findings of this study (Billings et al., official communication, 2012). To provide a conservative 

estimate, BOEM assumed a high-range of activity emissions during the year with the greatest amount of 

activity (e.g., drilling and platform and pipeline installation) out of the 40-year analysis period for the 

WPA proposed action. All of the scenario-predicted emissions were then modeled at one location in the 

WPA. Even with all the emissions being attributed to a single point (which would not be the case in 

reality and thus provide a conservative estimate of impacts), the WPA emissions are projected to have 

minimal impacts to onshore air quality. The WPA emissions are within BOEM’s maximum allowable 

increase for the scenario. Methodology, emissions, and modeling results are discussed further in 

Appendix A. As shown in Appendix A, emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere from the activities 

associated with the OCS Program are estimated to have minimal effects on onshore air quality because of 

the prevailing atmospheric conditions, emission rates and mixing heights, and the resulting pollutant 

concentrations. Given that these very conservative estimates of emissions were modeled and still below 

both agencies’ regulatory thresholds, BOEM believes that the potential onshore impacts related to 

emissions from OCS oil and gas activities that may result from the WPA proposed action will not be 

significant. 

BOEM is in the process of a comprehensive assessment of numerical methods (including a variety of 

sensitivity analysis, comparison of emission inventories and evaluation of emission scenarios) using 

USEPA-approved models, which will help us to support our scientific statements in future EIS’s. This 

modeling assessment will be helpful when considering that modern air quality models are still in 

development and need to be evaluated before they are widely used for realistic estimations of pollutant 

concentrations over offshore and coastal environments. However, this assessment will take time, 

potentially years, and there will always be some limitations in the application of models. For this reason, 

BOEM is using the OCD Model as it is appropriate for the offshore environment. BOEM’s subjectmatter experts also used their professional judgment in developing and modeling parameters to ensure 

that the results were conservative.
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-11

In response to the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, USEPA issued 40 CFR 98, which 

requires the reporting of greenhouse gas emissions. Subpart W of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule 

requires petroleum and natural gas facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of carbon dioxide (CO2) 

equivalents per year to report emissions from equipment leaks and venting. On average, the amount of 

CO2 emissions from a typical well site is about 237-439 tons per year. Subpart C of the Green House Gas 

Reporting Rule requires operators to report greenhouse gas emissions from general stationary fuel 

combustion sources to USEPA. At this point this is just a reporting requirement; there are no specific 

NAAQS or emission limitations for greenhouse gases.

BOEM has included in Appendix A modeled estimates for certain greenhouse gases that may be 

directly emitted during OCS oil and gas activities. At this time, the greenhouse gas emissions related to 

OCS oil and gas activities are a very small percentage of national emissions, and it would be impossible 

to tease out the impacts from this small incremental addition from global climate change impacts 

attributable to all other global sources. As such, BOEM does not believe that the potential greenhouse 

gas emissions directly attributable to oil and gas activities on the OCS as a result of the WPA proposed 

action are significant to global greenhouse gas levels.

On the basis of OCD modeling for NOx, SOx, PM2.5, PM10, and CO, and the Gulf of Mexico Air 

Quality Study for O3 (Science Applications International et al., 1995), BOEM is confident that offshore 

OCS oil and gas activities associated with the WPA proposed action will not contribute to exceedances of 

the NAAQS at the shoreline. The inference of conclusions from this study remains appropriate given 

both the decrease in the number of wells drilled and wells producing from wells in water depths <1,000 ft

(305 m) and the industrial expansions into the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. During the past 5 years, 2008-

2012, the number of wells drilled in shallow water (<1,000-m [305-m] water depth) decreased by 

45 percent from 468 wells in 2008 to 256 wells in 2012. The number of wells producing decreased by 

23 percent from 5,648 to 4,355 wells during the same 5-year timeframe. Simultaneously, production 

expansion into deep water was documented in Deepwater Gulf of Mexico 2006: America’s Expanding 

Frontier (USDOI, MMS, 2006) and in the biennial reports that preceded the 2006 version. According to 

the report, over the last 14 years, there has been an overall expansion in all phases of deepwater activity. 

There are approximately 8,221 existing leases in the Gulf of Mexico OCS, 54 percent of which are in 

deep water (USDOI, MMS, 2006). (Note that lease status may change daily; therefore, the current 

number of existing leases is an approximation.) Contrast this to the approximately 5,600 existing leases 

in the Gulf of Mexico in 1992, only 27 percent of which were in deep water. On average, there were 

30 rigs drilling in deep water in 2005, compared with only 3 rigs in 1992. Likewise, deepwater oil 

production rose over 840 percent and deepwater gas production increased about 1,600 percent from 1992 

to 2002 (USDOI, MMS, 2006). This trend is observable in seismic activity, leasing, exploratory drilling, 

field discoveries, and production.

The quantity of air pollutants emitted is the direct result of the level of offshore activity. The 

concentrations of the emissions at the shoreline are influenced by the distance between the source of the 

emissions and the receptors. With the simultaneous decrease in both the number of wells drilled and the 

number of wells producing in water depths < 1,000 m (305 m) (shallow waters closest to shore), and the 

increase is leases, drilling, and production in water depths >1,000 m (305 m) (deeper waters farther from 

shore), it can be assumed that the emissions related to exploration and production activity have also 

moved farther offshore. As a result of these trends for fewer wells and wells that are farther offshore, the 

OCD modeling results obtained from Systems Applications International et al. in 1995, which 

demonstrate no NAAQS exceedances, remain conservative and are still applicable to the discussion of 

shoreline impacts from leases and associated activity projected to result from proposed WPA Lease Sale 

233 and proposed CPA Lease Sale 231. BOEM, however, supplemented this knowledge with additional 

data available since that time and by running the OCS model accompanying this Supplemental EIS. As 

shown in Appendix A, scenario-specific emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere from the routine 

activities associated with the WPA proposed action are projected to have minimal impacts to onshore air 

quality because of the prevailing atmospheric conditions, emission heights, emission rates, and the 

distance of these emissions from the coastline. Emissions from proposed-action activities as modeled in 

Appendix A will not contribute to any onshore exceedances of the NAAQS.
4-12 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Impact Analysis

The following routine activities associated with the WPA proposed action would potentially affect air 

quality: platform construction and emplacement; platform operations; drilling activities; flaring; seismicsurvey and support-vessel operations; pipeline laying and burial operations; evaporation of volatile 

petroleum hydrocarbons during transfers; and fugitive emissions. The impact analysis is based on four 

parameters—emission rates, surface winds, atmospheric stability, and the mixing height. A detailed 

impact analysis of the routine impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 

on air quality can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.1.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Emissions of 

pollutants into the atmosphere from the activities associated with the WPA proposed action are projected 

to have minimal effects on onshore air quality because of the prevailing atmospheric conditions, emission 

rates and mixing heights, and the resulting pollutant concentrations.

The accidental release of hydrocarbons related to the WPA proposed action would result in the 

emission of air pollutants. The OCS oil- and gas-related accidents could include the release of oil, 

condensate, or natural gas or chemicals used offshore or pollutants from the burning of these products. 

The air pollutants include criteria NAAQS pollutants, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, H2S, 

and methane. If a fire was associated with the accidental event, it would produce a broad array of 

pollutants, including all NAAQS-regulated primary pollutants, including nitrogen dioxide (NO2), CO, 

SOx, VOC, PM10, and PM2.5. Response activities that could impact air quality include in-situ burning, the 

use of flares to burn gas and oil, and the use of dispersants applied from aircraft. Measurements taken 

during an in-situ burning show that a major portion of compounds was consumed in the burn; therefore, 

pollutant concentrations would be expected to be within the NAAQS. These response activities are 

temporary in nature and occur offshore; therefore, there are little expected impacts from these actions to 

onshore air quality. Accidents involving high concentrations of H2S could result in deaths as well as 

environmental damage. Regulations and NTL’s mandate safeguards and protective measures, which are 

in place, to protect workers from H2S releases. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that 

may be associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on air quality can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.1.3 of 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Other emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere from 

accidental events as a result of the WPA proposed action are not projected to have significant impacts on 

onshore air quality because of the prevailing atmospheric conditions, emissions height, emission rates, 

and the distance of these emissions from the coastline.

Overall, since loss of well-control events, blowouts, and fires are rare events and are of short 

duration, potential impacts to air quality are not expected to be significant except in the rare case of a 

catastrophic event, and in such cases, are anticipated to be temporary. To date, air monitoring conducted 

following the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup has not found any pollutants at levels 

expected to cause long-term harm (USEPA, 2010), and this is addressed in Chapter 4.1.1.23.4 and 

Appendix B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

The activities in the cumulative scenario that could potentially impact onshore air quality considered 

here are the WPA proposed action, the OCS Program, State oil and gas programs, other major factors 

influencing offshore environments, onshore non-OCS activities, accidental releases from oil spills, 

accidental releases of H2S, natural events (e.g., hurricanes), and a catastrophic oil spill. Because the OCS 

Program includes both new drilling and production as well as production ending on older wells and 

platform removal, the level of impacts determined in earlier studies are assumed to adequately represent 

current conditions as well.

Emissions contributing to air quality degradation come from many sources. The NAAQS list is made 

up of the most common air pollutants, including ozone, particulate matter, NOx, and SOx. Air pollutants 

on the NAAQS are commonly referred to as criteria pollutants because they are ubiquitous. Although 

these pollutants can all occur naturally, elevated levels are the result of human activities.

Ozone pollution is mainly a daytime problem during the summer months. Strong sunlight and hot 

weather cause ground-level ozone to form in harmful concentrations in the air. Ozone is not emitted 

directly into the air. Ozone is a secondary pollutant formed in the presence of sunlight from the reaction 

of VOC’s and NOx. These pollutants are found in emissions from the following: vehicles such as 

automobiles, trucks, buses, aircraft, and locomotives; construction equipment; lawn and garden 

equipment; sources that combust fuel, such as large industries and utilities; small industries such as gas 

stations and print shops; and consumer products, including some paints and cleaners. In addition, 

biogenic, or natural emissions from trees and plants, are a major source of VOC’s. 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-13

The concentration of ozone in the air is determined not only by the amounts of ozone precursor 

chemicals but also by weather and climate factors. Intense sunlight, warm temperatures, stagnant highpressure weather systems, and low wind speeds cause ozone to accumulate in harmful amounts. Ozone 

precursors, NOx and VOC’s, are shown to have more ozone-emitting sources present onshore. According 

to USEPA, automobiles and other mobile sources contribute about one-half of the NOx that is emitted. 

According to NOAA, power plants emit about one-quarter of the total U.S. human-made contribution of 

NOx to the atmosphere. All other sources of NOx emissions account for one-quarter of the United States’ 

totals. 

Shore-based sources of PM2.5 include all types of combustion activities related to both human 

activities and naturally occurring sources. Sources range from large and highly regulated industrial 

sources down to sources related to activities of an individual such as trash burning. Some of the most 

cited additional sources include fuel burning associated with motor vehicles, power plants, wood burning, 

and certain industrial processes.

Fine particulate matter can also form when gases from burning fuels react with sunlight and water 

vapor. These can result from fuel combustion in motor vehicles, at power plants, and in other industrial 

processes. Sources of coarse particles, PM10, include crushing or grinding operations and dust from 

paved or unpaved roads.

Sources of SOx include all types of activities ranging from large, highly regulated industrial sources, 

down to sources related to individual human activities such as outdoor grilling. Fossil fuels contain 

varying amounts of sulfur. Over 65 percent of the SOx released to the air comes from electric utilities that 

burn coal. Some additional commonly cited sources of SOx include pulp and paper mills, petroleum 

refining, and nonferrous smelters. Fuel burning associated with motor vehicle usage in is another source.

Sources of NOx includes all types of activities ranging from large, highly regulated industrial sources 

down to sources related to the activities of individual people, for example, the use of personal watercraft 

(jet ski). Some of the most commonly city sources of NOx include motor vehicles, electric utilities, and 

other industrial commercial and residential sources that burn fuels. Because NOx is a highly reactive 

chemical, it can contribute to ozone formation in the presence of VOC’s in the presence of heat and 

sunlight. 

Emission trends from Gulfwide platform sources from 2000, 2005, 2008, and 2011 show that 

emissions offshore are consistent. A detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of proposed 

WPA Lease Sale 233 on air quality can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.1.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

Other major factors influencing coastal environments, such as sand borrowing and transportation in 

State territorial waters, also generate emissions that can affect air quality. These emissions are regulated 

by State agencies and/or USEPA. Reductions have been achieved through the use of low sulfur fuels, 

catalytic reduction, and other efforts, and as a result, constitute minor impacts to onshore air quality.

The incremental contribution of the WPA proposed action (as analyzed in Chapter 4.1.1.1.2 of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS) to the cumulative impacts would be minimal. Portions of the Gulf 

Coast onshore areas have ozone levels that exceed the Federal air quality standard, but the incremental 

contribution from the WPA proposed action would be very small. The cumulative contribution to 

visibility impairment from the WPA proposed action is also expected to be very small. Area visibility is 

expected to improve somewhat as a result of regional and national programs to reduce emissions. The 

WPA proposed action would have an insignificant effect on ozone levels in ozone nonattainment areas 

and would not interfere with the States’ schedule for compliance with the NAAQS.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

A search of State and Federal databases, including updates to regulations, was conducted to determine 

the availability of recent information. No new significant information was discovered from these 

resources since the publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS that would impact the 

conclusion herein. However, BOEM calculated scenario-specific emissions based on the Year 2008 

Gulfwide Emission Inventory Study (Wilson et al., 2010) and Rigzone (2009). Likewise, BOEM 

conducted OCD modeling on activity that will result from a lease sale using the scenarios for OCS 

activities in the WPA. These results are presented in Table A-6 (Appendix A). The modeled impacts 

are below BOEM’s maximum allowable increases, NAAQS, and the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s SIL’s for all the criteria pollutants except for the annual NOx and the 24-hour PM2.5 for PSD 
4-14 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Class I areas. Although the SIL’s were exceeded, BOEM expects in practice, if the emissions were 

distributed more realistically across the WPA, that emissions would not exceed the SIL; and thus, actual 

emissions likely to result from the WPA proposed action would likely not be significant. The modeling 

that was conducted was overly conservative. All the emissions during 1 year for the entire WPA, which 

would actually be dispersed throughout the WPA, were modeled as if they originated in Mississippi 

Canyon Block 856.

Although final summary information and reports on air quality impacts from the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup may be forthcoming, USEPA, NOAA, and other agencies obtained and 

released to the public a large number of air quality measurements indicating that air impacts tended to be 

minor and below USEPA’s health-based standards. As there are no continuing sources of air pollution 

related to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, BOEM would not expect any 

additional measurements or information to alter the conclusions from currently existing data. As such, 

although there is incomplete or unavailable information on air quality impacts at this time that may be 

relevant to reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts, this information is not essential to a reasoned choice 

among alternatives for the reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for air quality presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for air quality presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS. The OCD modeling results (included in Appendix A) confirms BOEM’s conclusions in 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS that offshore activities would not result in exceedances of the 

NAAQS at the shoreline. The only potential exception is for ozone, where there may be some minimal 

contribution to ozone at the shoreline. Ozone levels are on a declining trend because of air-pollution 

control measures that have been implemented by the States. This downward trend is expected to continue 

as a result of local as well as nationwide air-pollution control efforts. 

The Gulf Coast has significant visibility impairment from anthropogenic emission sources. Area 

visibility is expected to improve somewhat as a result of regional and national programs to reduce 

emissions. However, the incremental contribution from the WPA proposed action would be very small 

and would have an insignificant effect on ozone levels in onshore ozone nonattainment areas. This 

minimal impact would not be a contributing factor to the States’ schedule for attainment. The analysis 

and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA 

Lease Sale 233.

4.1.1.2. Water Quality

4.1.1.2.1. Coastal Waters

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for coastal water quality presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for coastal water quality presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the WPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of coastal waters can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.2.1.1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The following routine activities associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 that would impact 

water quality include the following: discharges during drilling of exploration and development wells;

structure installation and removal; discharges during production; installation of pipelines; workovers of 

wells; maintenance dredging of existing navigational canals; service-vessel discharges; and nonpointsource runoff from platforms and OCS Program-related vessels. 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-15

A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed WPA 

Lease Sale 233 on coastal waters can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.2.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

The primary impacting sources to water quality in coastal waters are point-source and storm-water 

discharges from support facilities, vessel discharges, and nonpoint-source runoff. The impacts to coastal 

water quality from routine activities associated with the WPA proposed action should be minimal because 

of the distance to shore of most routine activities, USEPA regulations that restrict discharges, and the few, 

if any, new pipeline landfalls or onshore facilities that would be constructed.

Accidental events associated with the WPA proposed action that could impact coastal water quality

include spills of oil and refined hydrocarbons, releases of natural gas, usage of chemical dispersants in oil 

spill response, spills of chemicals or drilling fluids, loss of well control, collisions, or other malfunctions 

that would result in such spills. A detailed impact analysis of accidental impacts that may be associated 

with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on coastal waters can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.2.3 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Accidental events associated with the WPA proposed action that could impact coastal water quality

include spills of oil and refined hydrocarbons, releases of natural gas and condensate, usage of chemical 

dispersants in oil-spill response, spills of chemicals or drilling fluids, loss of well control, pipeline 

failures, collisions, or other malfunctions that would result in such spills. Although response efforts may 

decrease the amount of oil in the environment, the response efforts may also impact the environment 

through, for example, increased vessel traffic, hydromodification, and application of dispersants. Natural 

degradation processes will also decrease the amount of spilled oil over time. For coastal spills, two 

additional factors that must be considered are the shallowness of the area the spill is in and the proximity 

of the spill to shore. Chemicals used in the oil and gas industry are not a significant risk for a spill 

because they are either nontoxic, are used in minor quantities, or are only used on a noncontinuous basis. 

Spills from collisions are not expected to be significant because collisions occur infrequently.

Activities in the cumulative scenario that could impact coastal water quality generally include the 

broad categories of the WPA proposed action and the OCS Program, State oil and gas activity, the 

activities of other Federal agencies (including the military), natural events or processes, and activities 

related to the direct or indirect use of land and waterways by the human population (e.g., urbanization, 

agricultural practices, coastal industry, and municipal wastes). Many of these categories will have some 

of the same specific impacts (e.g., vessel traffic will occur for all of these categories except natural 

processes). A detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on 

coastal waters can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.2.1.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Water quality in coastal waters would be impacted by sediment disturbance and suspension (i.e., 

turbidity), vessel discharges, erosion, runoff from nonpoint-source pollutants (including river inflows), 

seasonal influences, and accidental events. These impacts may be a result of the WPA proposed action 

and the OCS Program, State oil and gas activity, the activities of other Federal agencies (including the 

military), natural events or processes, or activities related to the direct or indirect use of land and 

waterways by the human population (e.g., urbanization, agricultural practices, coastal industry, and 

municipal wastes). The impacts resulting from the WPA proposed action are a small addition to the 

cumulative impacts on the coastal waters of the Gulf because non-OCS activities, including vessel traffic, 

erosion, and nonpoint source runoff are cumulatively responsible for a majority of coastal water impacts. 

Since a catastrophic OCS Program-related accident would be both rare and not expected to occur in 

coastal waters, the impact of accidental spills is expected to be small. The effect on coastal water quality 

from smaller accidental spills is expected to be minimal relative to the cumulative inputs of hydrocarbons 

from other sources. The incremental contribution of the routine activities associated with the WPA

proposed action to the cumulative impacts on coastal water quality is not expected to be significant.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

Various Internet sources were examined and literature searches conducted in order to assess recent 

information regarding the water quality and sediment quality in coastal waters that may be pertinent to the 

WPA. The searches included, but were not limited to, Google, Google Scholar, several USEPA websites, 

the Gulf of Mexico Sea Grant Programs website, the Coastal Response Research at the University of New 

Hampshire website, and the NOAA Central Library Deepwater Horizon: A Preliminary Bibliography of 

Published Research and Expert Commentary website. The searches revealed that a recent study 
4-16 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

independently analyzed chemical data from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup and 

derived an average environmental release rate for hydrocarbons of (10.1 ± 2.0) x 106 kilograms per day 

(kg/d) during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which confirmed the official average leak rate of 

(10.2 ± 1.0) x 106 kg/d (Ryerson et al., 2011). Another study found that water-soluble petroleum 

compounds were found to dissolve into the water column to a greater degree than what is typically 

observed for surface spills (Reddy et al., 2011). Furthermore, the study indicated that the oil contained 

approximately 3.9 percent polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s) by weight, which results in an 

estimated release of 2.1 x 1010 grams of PAH’s (Reddy et al., 2011; Reddy, official communication, 

2012). This research confirms information that was extrapolated in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS from then existing data on the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill, namely that oil from a 

catastrophic event under pressure and with more soluble components may become entrained in the water 

column. As such, this new information has not altered the conclusions from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS. Coastal water quality within the WPA was likely not affected to any discernible degree by 

the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, based on the best available information and the 

WPA’s distance from the Macondo well.

Additionally, the NPDES general permit for new and existing sources and new discharges in the 

offshore subcatergory of the oil and gas extraction point source category for the western portion of the 

Gulf of Mexico OCS (GMG290000; USEPA Region 6) was reissued on October 1, 2012, and will expire 

on September 30, 2017. As identified in the resource analyses in this Supplemental EIS and in the 2012-

2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, incomplete or unavailable information regarding coastal water quality in 

the WPA may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects. BOEM has determined 

that the information is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for coastal water quality presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for coastal water quality presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, as these newly available studies confirmed earlier estimates of hydrocarbon 

releases and noted the overall return to pre-spill PAH concentrations thus far. The analysis and potential 

impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease 

Sale 233. 

4.1.1.2.2. Offshore Waters

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for offshore quality presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for offshore water quality presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the WPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of offshore waters can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.2.2.1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The following routine activities associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 that would impact 

water quality include the following: discharges during drilling of exploration and development wells;

structure installation and removal; discharges during production; installation of pipelines; workovers of 

wells; maintenance dredging of existing navigational canals; service-vessel discharges; and nonpointsource runoff.

A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed WPA 

Lease Sale 233 on offshore waters can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.2.2.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-17

During exploratory activities, the primary impacting sources to offshore water quality are discharges

of drilling fluids and cuttings. During platform installation and removal activities, the primary impacting 

sources to water quality are sediment disturbance and temporarily increased turbidity. Impacting 

discharges during production activities are produced water and supply-vessel discharges. Regulations are 

in place to limit the toxicity of the discharge components, the levels of incidental contaminants in these 

discharges, and in some cases, the discharge rates and discharge locations. Pipeline installation can also 

affect water quality by sediment disturbance and increased turbidity. Service-vessel discharges might 

include water with oil concentration of approximately 15 parts per million (ppm). Impacts to offshore 

waters from routine activities associated with the WPA proposed action should be minimal.

Accidental events associated with the WPA proposed action that could impact offshore water quality

include spills of oil and refined hydrocarbons, releases of natural gas, usage of chemical dispersants in 

oil-spill response, spills of chemicals or drilling fluids, and loss of well control, collisions, or other 

malfunctions that would result in such spills. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that 

may be associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on offshore waters can be found in Chapter 

4.1.1.2.2.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Accidental events associated with the WPA proposed action that could impact offshore water quality

include spills of oil and refined hydrocarbons, releases of natural gas and condensate, usage of chemical 

dispersants in oil-spill response, spills of chemicals or drilling fluids, loss of well control, pipeline 

failures, collisions, or other malfunctions that would result in such spills. Spills from collisions are not 

expected to be significant. Overall, since major losses of well control and blowouts are rare events, 

potential impacts to offshore water quality are not expected to be significant except in the rare case of a 

catastrophic event. Although response efforts may decrease the amount of oil in the environment, the 

response efforts may also impact the environment through, for example, increased vessel traffic and the 

application of dispersants. Natural degradation processes will also decrease the amount of spilled oil over 

time. Chemicals used in the oil and gas industry are not a significant risk for a spill because they are 

either nontoxic, are used in minor quantities, or are only used on a noncontinuous basis.

Activities in the cumulative scenario that could impact offshore water quality generally include the 

broad categories of the WPA proposed action and the OCS Program, the activities of other Federal 

agencies (including the military), natural events or processes, State oil and gas activity, and activities 

related to the direct or indirect use of land and waterways by the human population (e.g., urbanization, 

agricultural practices, coastal industry, and municipal wastes). Although some of these impacts are likely 

to affect coastal areas to a greater degree than offshore waters, coastal pollutants that are transported away 

from shore will also affect offshore environments. Many of these categories will have some of the same 

specific impacts (e.g., vessel traffic will occur for all of these categories except natural processes). A 

detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed WPA 

Lease Sale 233 on offshore waters can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.2.2.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

Water quality in offshore waters may be impacted by sediment disturbance and suspension (i.e., 

turbidity), vessel discharges, erosion and runoff of nonpoint-source pollutants (including river inflows), 

natural seeps, discharges from exploration and production activities, and accidental events. These 

impacts may be a result of the WPA proposed action and the OCS Program, the activities of other Federal 

agencies (including the military), and natural events or processes. To a lesser degree, these impacts may 

also be a result of State oil and gas activity or activities or related to the direct or indirect use of land and 

waterways by the human population (e.g., urbanization, agricultural practices, coastal industry, and 

municipal wastes). The impacts resulting from the WPA proposed action are a small addition to the 

cumulative impacts on the offshore waters of the Gulf when compared with inputs from natural 

hydrocarbon inputs (seeps), coastal factors (such as erosion and runoff), and other non-OCS industrial 

discharges. Since a catastrophic accident is rare, the impact of such accidents is expected to be small. 

The incremental contribution of the routine activities associated with the WPA proposed action to the 

cumulative impacts on coastal water quality is not expected to be significant.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS

Various Internet sources were examined and literature searches conducted in order to assess recent 

information regarding the water quality and sediment quality in offshore waters that may be pertinent to 

the WPA. The searches included, but were not limited to, Google, Google Scholar, several USEPA 
4-18 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

websites, the Gulf of Mexico Sea Grant Programs website, the Coastal Response Research at the 

University of New Hampshire website, and the NOAA Central Library Deepwater Horizon: A 

Preliminary Bibliography of Published Research and Expert Commentary website. The searches revealed 

that a recent study independently analyzed chemical data from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, 

and cleanup and derived an average environmental release rate for hydrocarbons of (10.1± 2.0) x 106

 kg/d 

during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which confirmed the official average leak rate of (10.2 ± 1.0) x 

106 kg/d (Ryerson et al., 2011). Another study found that water-soluble petroleum compounds were 

found to dissolve into the water column to a greater degree than what is typically observed for surface 

spills (Reddy et al., 2011). Furthermore, the study indicated that the oil contained approximately 

3.9 percent PAH’s by weight, which results in an estimated release of 2.1 x 1010 grams of PAH’s (Reddy 

et al., 2011; Reddy, official communication, 2012). This research confirms information that was 

extrapolated in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS from then existing data on the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion, namely that oil from a catastrophic event under pressure and with more soluble 

components may become entrained in the water column. As such, this new information has not altered 

the conclusions from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Offshore water quality within the WPA 

was likely not affected to any discernible degree by the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and 

cleanup, based on the best available information and the WPA’s distance from the Macondo well.

Additionally, the NPDES general permit for new and existing sources and new discharges in the

offshore subcatergory of the oil and gas extraction point source category for the western portion of the 

Gulf of Mexico OCS (GMG290000; USEPA Region 6) was reissued on October 1, 2012, and will expire

on September 30, 2017. As identified in the resource analyses in this Supplemental EIS and in the 2012-

2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, incomplete or unavailable information regarding offshore water quality in 

the WPA may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects. BOEM has determined 

that the information is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for offshore water quality presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for offshore water quality presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, as these newly available studies confirmed earlier estimates of hydrocarbon 

releases and noted the overall return to pre-spill PAH concentrations thus far. Furthermore, efforts to 

better understand and prevent hypoxia are ongoing. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

4.1.1.3. Coastal Barrier Beaches and Associated Dunes

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for coastal barrier beaches and associated dunes presented in the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new 

significant information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for coastal barrier beaches 

and associated dunes presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential 

impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease 

Sale 233. 

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the WPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts 

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared. 

A detailed description of coastal barrier beaches and associated dunes can be found in Chapter 

4.1.1.3.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The major routine impact-producing factors associated with the WPA proposed action that could 

affect these environments include navigational traffic, maintenance dredging of navigational canals, and 

construction and expansions of navigational canals and port facilities. A detailed impact analysis of the 

routine impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on coastal barrier 

beaches and associated dunes can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.3.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS. 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-19

Effects to coastal barrier beaches and associated dunes from pipeline emplacements, navigation 

channel use and dredging, and construction or continued use of infrastructure in support of the WPA 

proposed action are expected to be restricted to temporary and localized disturbances. The 0-1 pipeline 

landfalls projected in support of the WPA proposed action are not expected to cause significant impacts to 

barrier beaches because of the use of nonintrusive installation methods and regulations. Impacts could be 

reduced or eliminated through modern techniques, such as horizontal, directional (trenchless) drilling, to

avoid damages to these sensitive wetland habitats. Any new gas processing facilities would not be 

expected to be constructed on barrier beaches. The WPA proposed action may contribute to the 

continued use of such facilities that already exist.

Maintenance dredging of barrier inlets and bar channels is expected to occur, which combined with 

channel jetties, generally causes minor and localized impacts on adjacent barrier beaches downdrift of the 

channel. These dredging activities are permitted, regulated, and coordinated by the U.S. Army, Corps of 

Engineers (COE) with the appropriate State and Federal resource agencies. Impacts from these 

operations are minimal due to requirements for the beneficial use of the dredged material for wetland and 

beach construction and restoration. Permit requirements further mitigate dredged material placement in 

approved disposal areas by requiring the dredged material to be placed in such a manner that it neither 

disrupts hydrology nor changes elevation in the surrounding marsh. Because these impacts occur whether 

the WPA proposed action is implemented or not, the proposed action would account for a small 

percentage of these impacts.

The WPA proposed action is not expected to adversely alter barrier beach configurations much 

beyond existing, ongoing impacts in localized areas downdrift of artificially jettied and maintained 

channels. The WPA proposed action may extend the life and presence of facilities in eroding areas 

through modifications to channel training structures (jetties) and the utilization of beach restoration and 

nourishment techniques combined with dune restoration. Strategic placement of dredged material from 

channel maintenance, channel deepening, and related actions can mitigate adverse impacts upon those

localized areas. It is also highly unlikely that oil from the Deepwater Horizon explosion would be 

introduced by vessel traffic or channel maintenance due to the distance of the Deepwater Horizon

explosion and oil spill from the Texas coast and decontamination procedures in place for boats that were 

inside of the containment booms. In addition, if encountered, the remnant oil is expected to be nontoxic 

due to natural weathering, microbial breakdown, and post-spill dispersant treatment. 

Potential impacts from oil spills to barrier islands seaward of the barrier-dune system are discussed 

below, while potential impacts to barrier islands landward of the barrier-dune system are considered in the 

wetlands analysis. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be associated with

proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on coastal barrier beaches and associated dunes can be found in Chapter 

4.1.1.3.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Due to the proximity of inshore spills to barrier islands and beaches, inshore spills pose the greatest 

threat because of the concentration and lack of weathering of the oil by the time it hits the shore and 

because dispersants are not an effective means of spill response. Such spills may result from either vessel 

collisions that release fuel and lubricants or from pipelines that rupture. Impacts of a nearshore spill 

would be considered short term in duration and minor in scope because the size of such a spill is projected 

to be small (coastal spills are assumed to be 77 bbl; Chapter 3.2.1.7.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS). Offshore-based crude oil would be lessened in toxicity when it reaches the coastal 

environments. This is due to the distance from shore, weathering, the time oil remains offshore, and the 

dispersant used. Equipment and personnel used in cleanup efforts can generate the greatest direct impacts 

to the area. Close monitoring and restrictions on the use of bottom-disturbing equipment would be 

needed to avoid or minimize those impacts.

Therefore, the currently available information suggests that impacts on barrier islands and beaches 

from accidental impacts associated with the WPA proposed action would be minimal. Should a spill 

other than a catastrophic spill contact a barrier beach, oiling is expected to be light and sand removal 

during cleanup activities minimized. No significant long-term impacts to the physical shape and structure 

of barrier beaches and associated dunes are expected to occur as a result of the WPA proposed action. 

The WPA proposed action would not pose a significant increase in risk to barrier island or beach 

resources. 

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

proposed action, prior and future OCS sales in the Gulf of Mexico, State oil and gas activities, other 

governmental and private projects and activities, and pertinent natural processes that may affect barrier 
4-20 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

beaches and dunes. Specific impact-producing factors considered in this cumulative analysis include 

channelization of the Mississippi River, beach protection and stabilization projects, natural processes, 

navigation channels, development and urbanization, oil spills, oil-spill-response and cleanup activities, 

pipeline landfalls, potential for nearshore salinity modifications (preparation of salt domes for oil 

storage), tourism, and recreational activities. A detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of 

OCS activities associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on coastal barrier beaches and associated 

dunes can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.3.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

River channelization, sediment deprivation, tropical and extra-tropical storm activity, sea-level rise, 

and rapid submergence have resulted in severe, rapid erosion of most of the barrier and shoreline 

landforms along the Louisiana coast. The Texas coast has experienced landloss because of a decrease in 

the volume of sediment delivered to the coast because of channelization and damming of coastal rivers, a 

natural decrease in sediment supply as a result of climatic changes during the past several thousand years, 

and subsidence along the coast. Storm-induced changes in hydrology have, in some cases, changed the 

current regime responsible for stabilizing the barrier islands. Beach stabilization projects are considered 

by coastal geomorphologists and engineers to accelerate coastal erosion. Beneficial use of maintenance 

dredged materials and other restoration techniques could be required to mitigate some of these impacts.

The impacts of oil spills from both OCS and non-OCS sources to the Texas coast should not result in 

long-term alteration of landforms if the beaches are cleaned using techniques that do not significantly 

remove sand from the beach or dunes. Barrier beaches in the region around Galveston have the greatest 

risks of sustaining impacts from oil-spill landfalls because of the high concentrations of oil production 

near that coast. However, the majority of inshore spills are assumed to be small in scale (historical data 

indicate they average 77 bbl; Chapter 3.2.1.7.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS) and short in 

duration; therefore, impacts would be minor. Oil from most offshore spills is expected to be weathered 

and dissipated by the time it would contact coastal beaches. The cleanup impacts of these spills could 

result in short-term (up to 2 years) adjustment in beach profiles and configurations as a result of sand 

removal and disturbance during the cleanup operations. Some contact to lower areas of sand dunes is 

expected. These contacts would not result in significant destabilization of the dunes. All cleanup efforts 

would be monitored to ensure the least amount of disturbance to the areas. The long-term stressors to 

barrier beach communities caused by the physical effects and chemical toxicity of an oil spill may lead to 

decreased primary production, plant dieback, and further erosion, particularly if oil is carried onto dunes 

by hurricanes. 

Under the cumulative scenario, 0-1 OCS-related pipeline landfalls are projected. These pipelines are 

expected to be installed using modern techniques, which cause little to no impacts to the barrier islands 

and beaches. Existing pipelines, in particular those that are parallel and landward of beaches and that had 

been placed on barrier islands using older techniques that left canals or shore protection structures, have 

caused and would continue to cause barrier beaches to narrow and breach.

Recreational use of many barrier beaches in the WPA is intense due to their accessibility by road. 

These activities can cause changes to the beach landscapes. There are ongoing restoration efforts to 

minimize damages to beaches from both natural and human impacts.

Coastal barrier beaches have experienced severe adverse cumulative impacts from natural processes 

and human activities. Natural processes are generally considered the major contributor to these impacts, 

whereas human activities cause severe local impacts and accelerate the natural processes that deteriorate 

coastal barriers. Human activities that have caused the greatest adverse impacts are river channelization 

and damming, pipeline canals, navigation channel stabilization and maintenance, and beach stabilization 

structures. Deterioration of Gulf barrier beaches is expected to continue in the future. Federal, State 

(Texas), and county governments have made efforts through the Texas Coastal Erosion Planning and 

Response Act program and Coastal Management Plan programs to restore or protect the sensitive and 

vulnerable barrier islands and mainland beaches.

The WPA proposed action is not expected to adversely alter barrier beach configurations significantly 

beyond existing, ongoing impacts in localized areas downdrift of artificially jettied and maintained 

channels. The WPA proposed action may extend the life and presence of facilities in eroding areas, 

which would accelerate erosion in those areas. The WPA proposed action is not expected to increase the 

probabilities of oil spills beyond the current estimates. Strategic placement of dredged material from 

channel maintenance, channel deepening, and related actions can mitigate adverse impacts upon those 

localized areas. Thus, the incremental contribution of the WPA proposed action to the cumulative 

impacts on coastal barrier beaches and associated dunes is expected to be small.
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-21

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

A search was conducted for information published on barrier beaches and dunes, and various Internet 

sources were examined to determine any recent information regarding barrier beaches and dunes. 

Sources investigated include BOEM; the U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USGS); 

National Wetlands Research Center; the USGS Gulf of Mexico Integrated Science Data Information 

Management System; Gulf of Mexico Alliance; State environmental agencies; USEPA; and coastal 

universities. Other websites from scientific publication databases (including Science Direct, Elsevier, 

CSA Illumina, and JSTOR) were checked for new information using general Internet searches based on 

major themes. No new significant information was discovered since publication of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Coastal barrier beaches and associated dunes within the WPA were not affected to any discernible 

degree by the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, based on the best available 

information and the WPA’s distance from the Macondo well. As identified in the resource analyses in 

this Supplemental EIS and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, incomplete or unavailable 

information regarding coastal barrier beaches and associated dunes in the WPA may be relevant to 

reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects. BOEM has determined that the information is not 

essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for coastal barrier beaches and associated dunes presented in the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new 

significant information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for beaches and dunes 

presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

4.1.1.4. Wetlands

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for wetlands presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for wetlands presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the WPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of wetlands can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.4.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

The primary impact-producing activities associated with the WPA proposed action that could affect 

wetlands and marshes include 0-1 pipeline emplacements, possible channel maintenance and 

construction, disposal of OCS-related wastes, increased vessel traffic, the use and construction of support 

infrastructure in these coastal areas. Other potential impacts that are indirectly associated with OCS oil 

and gas activities are wake erosion resulting from navigation traffic and additional onshore development 

encouraged by increased capacities of navigation channels. A detailed impact analysis of the routine 

impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on wetlands can be found in 

Chapter 4.1.1.4.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The WPA proposed action is projected to contribute to the construction of 0-1 new onshore pipelines. 

Modern pipelaying techniques and mitigations would be used for such a project. These modern 

pipelaying techniques use selective placement and directional drilling to avoid wetlands and to reduce the 

reliance on trenching and for required restoration; thus, the projected impact to wetlands from pipeline 

emplacement is expected to be negligible. Because of permit requirements, modern techniques, and 

mitigation, activities associated with the WPA proposed action are expected to cause negligible to low 

impacts to wetlands. Secondary impacts to wetlands caused by existing pipeline and vessel traffic 
4-22 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

corridors will continue to cause landloss. Any potential impacts from the WPA proposed action would be 

reduced through the continued use of armored channels and modern erosion-control techniques.

The main accidental impact-producing factor that would affect wetlands is oil spills. A detailed 

impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on 

wetlands can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.4.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Offshore oil spills resulting from the WPA proposed action are not expected to extensively damage 

any wetlands along the Gulf Coast. Wetland impacts from offshore spills would be minimized due to the 

distance of wells and production facilities to the coastal wetlands. In addition, the wetlands are provided 

protection by the barrier islands, peninsulas, sand spits, and currents. These factors, combined with the 

potential for only highly weathered or treated oil reaching the shoreline, greatly minimize or eliminate the 

impacts of offshore spills. However, if an inland oil spill related to the WPA proposed action occurs, 

some impact to wetland habitat would be expected. The effects from a spill have the highest probability 

of occurring in Galveston County and Matagorda County, Texas. These are the primary areas where oil 

produced in the WPA is transported and distributed, and they are west of Plaquemines and St. Bernard 

Parishes, Louisiana, where oil produced in the CPA is handled. Although the probability of occurrence is 

low, the greatest threat of an oil spill to wetland habitat is from an inland spill as a result of a vessel 

accident or pipeline rupture. Wetlands in the northern Gulf of Mexico are in moderate- to high-energy 

environments. Sediment transport and tidal stirring should reduce the chances of oil persisting in the 

event these areas are oiled. While a resulting slick may cause minor impacts to wetland habitat, the 

equipment and personnel used to clean up the spill can generate the greatest impacts to the area. 

Associated foot traffic can work oil farther into the sediment than would otherwise occur. Close 

monitoring and restrictions on the use of bottom-disturbing equipment would be needed to avoid or 

minimize those impacts. Overall, impacts to wetland habitats from an oil spill associated with activities 

related to the WPA proposed action would be expected to be low and temporary.

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

proposed action, State oil and gas activities, other governmental and private projects and activities, 

pertinent natural processes and events, and prior and future OCS activities that may adversely affect 

wetlands during the life of the WPA proposed action. Impacts from residential, commercial, agricultural, 

and silvicultural (forest expansion) developments are expected to continue in coastal regions around the 

Gulf. A detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of non-OCS and OCS activities associated 

with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on wetlands can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.4.4 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

Impacts from State onshore oil and gas activities are expected to occur as a result of dredging for new 

canals, maintenance, and usage of existing rig access canals and drill slips, and preparation of new well 

sites. Insignificant adverse impacts upon wetlands from maintenance dredging are expected because the 

large majority of the material would be placed in existing disposal areas or used beneficially for marsh 

restoration or creation.

Development pressures in the coastal regions of Texas have been primarily the result of tourism and 

residential beachside development in the Galveston and Bolivar Peninsula areas. In Galveston, recreation 

and tourist developments have been particularly destructive. These trends are expected to continue, but 

since Hurricane Ike, redevelopment is being coordinated with the natural resource agencies in an effort to 

assure compatibility of the new construction with the coastal environment to minimize impacts. 

Groundwater extraction, drainage of wetland soils, and construction of buildings, roads, and levees have 

also caused the loss of wetlands. 

Wetlands are most vulnerable to inshore or nearshore oil spills primarily localized in nature. Many 

such spills are from non-OCS sources, which can include vessel collisions, pipeline breaks, and shorebased transfer, refining, and production facilities. The wetlands associated with the WPA proposed action 

have a minimal probability for offshore oil-spill contact, as noted above. If any inshore spills occur, they 

will likely be small and at service bases or other support facilities, and these small-scale local spills would 

not be expected to severely affect wetlands.

As a result of Hurricane Ike, some of the State and national wildlife refuges along the eastern Texas 

coast will continue to experience some landloss through storm-induced saltwater intrusion. However, 

coastal restoration projects are either ongoing or planned to restore the natural protection to the marshes 

in these refuges and management areas. Landloss will continue from vessel traffic; however, because of 

the minimal increase in traffic caused by the WPA proposed action, this loss would be minimal. The 

WPA proposed action will not require any additional channel maintenance; therefore, no additional 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-23

wetland loss would result from dredged material disposal. If dredged material disposal is required, it may 

be beneficially used for marsh creation. Disposal of OCS wastes and drilling by-products will be 

delivered to existing facilities. Because of existing capacity, no additional expansion into wetland areas is 

expected.

If pipelines are needed, the modern construction techniques and mitigation measures would result in 

zero to negligible impacts on wetland habitats because modern techniques avoid wetlands through 

selective emplacement in existing corridors, directional drilling to avoid additional trenching, and 

required restoration and revegetation techniques. The WPA proposed action represents a small (<5%) 

portion of the OCS impacts that will occur over the 40-year analysis period. Impacts associated with the 

WPA proposed action are a minimal part of the overall OCS impacts. The cumulative effects of human 

and natural activities in the coastal area have severely degraded the deltaic processes and have shifted the 

coastal area from a condition of net land building to one of net landloss. Wetland loss is also expected to 

continue in coastal Texas. The incremental contribution of the WPA proposed action to the cumulative 

impacts to coastal wetlands is expected to be small. The primary impacting factors attributable to the 

WPA proposed action are pipeline landfalls, canal widening, and maintenance dredging of navigation 

canals. However, activities associated with the WPA proposed action require no additional navigation 

canals; at most, it would require one new pipeline landfall and no increase in channel maintenance of 

existing channels. The use of existing onshore processing and transfer facilities and existing pipelines in 

established transportation corridors eliminates the need for dredging or construction activities that would 

cause additional wetland losses as a result of the WPA proposed action. The WPA proposed action would 

use existing disposal sites approved for receiving OCS related wastes; therefore, no additional wetlands 

would be needed for this purpose.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

A search was conducted for information published on northern Gulf of Mexico wetland communities, 

and various Internet sources were examined to determine any recent information regarding these 

communities. Sources investigated include BOEM, the USGS National Wetlands Research Center, the 

USGS Gulf of Mexico Integrated Science Data Information Management System, Gulf of Mexico 

Alliance, State environmental agencies, USEPA, and coastal universities. Other websites from scientific 

publication databases (including Science Direct, Elsevier, CSA Illumina, and JSTOR) were checked for 

new information using general Internet searches based on major themes. No new significant information 

was discovered since publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

However, some recent research offered relevant insights. Silliman et al. (2012) found that after the 

Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil coverage of Louisiana salt marshes was primarily concentrated on their 

seaward edges. On these oiled marsh edges, erosion rates more than doubled. Eighteen months later 

erosion rates had returned to that of non-oiled areas. This new information does not change the 

conclusions of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS because such a catastrophic event is unlikely to 

occur and because BOEM has already considered the potential irreversible effects to marshes, such as 

erosion and permanent loss, in Appendix B (Section 5.2.2.6) of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Wetlands within the WPA were likely not affected to any discernible degree by the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, based on the best available information and the WPA’s distance 

from the Macondo well. As identified in the resource analyses in this Supplemental EIS and in the 2012-

2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, incomplete or unavailable information regarding wetlands in the WPA 

may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects. BOEM has determined that the 

information is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for wetlands presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for wetlands presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.
4-24 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

4.1.1.5. Seagrass Communities

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for seagrass communities presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for seagrass communities presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the WPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of seagrass communities can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.5.1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The routine events associated with OCS activities in the WPA that could adversely affect submerged 

vegetation communities include construction of pipelines, canals, navigation channels, and onshore 

facilities; maintenance dredging; and vessel traffic (e.g., propeller scars). Many of these activities would 

result in an increase of water turbidity that is detrimental to submerged vegetation health. Through 

avoidance and mitigation policies, these effects are generally localized, short term, and minor in nature. 

A detailed impact analysis of the routine of OCS activities associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 

on seagrass communities can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.5.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Routine OCS activities in the WPA that may impact seagrasses are not predicted to significantly 

increase in occurrence and range in the near future, with minimal associated nearshore activities and 

infrastructure, such as the projected one new pipeline landfall expected as a result of the WPA proposed 

action. Requirements of other Federal and State programs, such as avoidance of the seagrass and 

vegetation communities or the use of turbidity curtains, reduce undesirable effects on submerged 

vegetation beds from dredging activities. These Federal and State permit requirements should ensure 

pipeline routes avoid high-salinity beds and should maintain water clarity and quality. Local programs 

decrease the occurrence of prop scarring in grass beds, and generally, channels used by OCS vessels are 

away from exposed submerged vegetation beds. Because of these requirements, implemented programs, 

along with the beneficial effects of natural flushing (e.g., from winds and currents), any potential effects 

from routine activities on seagrasses and submerged aquatic vegetation in the WPA are expected to be 

short term, localized, and not significantly adverse.

Impacts to submerged vegetation from routine activities of the WPA proposed action are expected to 

be minimal because of the distance of most activities from the submerged vegetation beds, because the 

0-1 pipeline landfalls and maintenance dredging would be heavily regulated and permitted, and because 

mitigations (such as turbidity curtains and siting away from beds) would likely be required.

Accidental events possible with the WPA proposed action that could adversely affect submerged 

vegetation beds include nearshore and inshore spills connected with the transport and storage of oil. 

Offshore oil spills that occur in the WPA proposed action area are less likely to contact seagrass 

communities than are inshore spills because the seagrass beds are generally protected by barrier islands, 

peninsulas, sand spits, and currents. However, if the temporal and spatial duration of the spill is big 

enough, an offshore spill could affect submerged vegetation communities. A detailed impact analysis of 

the accidental impacts that may be associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on seagrass 

communities can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.5.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Although the size would be small and the duration would be short term, the greatest threat to inland, 

submerged vegetation communities would be from an inland spill resulting from a vessel accident or 

pipeline rupture. The resulting slick may cause short-term and localized impacts to the bed. There is also 

the remote possibility of an offshore spill to such an extent that it could affect submerged vegetation beds, 

and this would have similar effects to an inshore spill. Because prevention and cleanup measures can 

have negative effects on submerged vegetation, close monitoring and restrictions on the use of bottomdisturbing equipment would be needed to avoid or minimize those impacts. The floating nature of 

nondispersed crude oil, the regional microtidal range, the dynamic climate with mild temperatures, and 

the amount of microorganisms that consume oil would alleviate prolonged effects on submerged 

vegetation communities. Also, safety and spill-prevention technologies are expected to continue to 

improve and will decrease detrimental effects to submerged vegetation from the WPA proposed action.
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-25

There remains uncertainty regarding the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and 

cleanup on submerged vegetation in Louisiana, which is in the CPA. The Macondo well, however, was 

located more than 300 mi (483 km) from the eastern boundary of the WPA, and NOAA has estimated that 

the most western extent of visible sheens related to oil from the Deepwater Horizon explosion extended 

no farther than Cameron Parish, Louisiana, to the east of the WPA boundary (Figure 1-2 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). Data collected by the Operational Science Advisory Team (OSAT) indicate 

that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill did not reach WPA waters or sediments (OSAT, 2010). As such, 

seagrass and submerged aquatic vegetation communities in the WPA are not believed to have been 

impacted by the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup; therefore, even though there is 

incomplete or unavailable information regarding the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil 

spill, and cleanup on seagrasses in Louisiana, this information is not essential to a reasoned choice among 

alternatives for the WPA proposed lease sale.

Impacts to submerged vegetation from an accidental event related to the WPA proposed action are 

expected to be minimal due to the distance of most activities from the submerged vegetation beds and 

because the likelihood of an accidental event of size, location, and duration reaching submerged 

vegetation beds remains small.

The cumulative activities that present the greatest threat of impacts to submerged vegetation

communities are dredging, oil spills/pipelines, hydrological changes, and storm events. A detailed impact 

analysis of the cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on 

seagrass communities can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.5.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

In general, the WPA proposed action would cause a minor incremental contribution to impacts on 

submerged vegetation from dredging, pipeline installations, potential oil spills, and boat scarring. 

Dredging generates the greatest overall risk to submerged vegetation, while naturally occurring hurricanes

cause direct damage to beds. The implementation of proposed lease stipulations and mitigation policies 

currently in place, the small probability of an oil spill, and because flow regimes are expected to change 

further reduce the incremental contribution of stress from the WPA proposed action to submerged 

vegetation. 

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

A search was conducted for information published on submerged vegetation, and various Internet 

sources were examined to determine any recent information regarding seagrasses. Sources investigated 

include BOEM, USDOC/NOAA, the USGS National Wetlands Research Center, the USGS Gulf of 

Mexico Integrated Science Data Information Management System, Seagrass Watch, Gulf of Mexico 

Alliance, State environmental agencies, USEPA, and coastal universities. Other websites from scientific 

publication databases (including Science Direct, Elsevier, CSA Illumina, and JSTOR) were checked for 

new information using general Internet searches based on major themes. No new significant information 

was discovered since publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Seagrass communities within the WPA were likely not affected to any discernible degree by the 

Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, based on the best available information and the 

WPA’s distance from the Macondo well. As identified in the resource analyses in this Supplemental EIS 

and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, incomplete or unavailable information regarding seagrass 

communities in the WPA may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects. BOEM 

has determined that the information is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives. 

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for seagrass communities presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for seagrass communities presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

4.1.1.6. Topographic Features 

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for topographic features presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 
4-26 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for topographic features presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the WPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of topographic features in the WPA can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.6.1 of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The potential routine impact-producing factors on topographic features of the WPA are anchoring, 

infrastructure emplacement, drilling-effluent and produced-water discharges, and infrastructure removal. 

A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed WPA Lease 

Sale 233 on topographic features can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.6.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

The proposed Topographic Features Stipulation, if applied, would prevent most of the potential 

impacts on topographic features from bottom-disturbing activities (structure removal and emplacement) 

and operational discharges associated with the WPA proposed action through avoidance, by requiring 

individual activities to be located at specified distances from a topographic feature or protective zone 

surrounding that feature. Because of the No Activity Zone, a buffer that surrounds topographic features 

in which no bottom disturbing activity is permitted, additional protective zones in which bottom shunting 

is required, permit restrictions (including the USEPA discharge regulations and permits), and the highenergy environment and prevailing water currents associated with topographic features, if any 

contaminants reach topographic features, they would be diluted from their original concentration, and 

impacts that do occur would be minimal.

Accidental disturbances resulting from the WPA proposed action, including oil spills and blowouts, 

have the potential to disrupt and alter the environmental, commercial, recreational, and aesthetic values of 

topographic features of the WPA. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be 

associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on topographic features can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.6.3 

of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The proposed Topographic Features Stipulation would assist in preventing most of the potential 

impacts on topographic feature communities from blowouts, surface, and subsurface oil spills and the 

associated effects by increasing the distance of such events from the topographic features. It would be 

expected that the majority of subsurface released oil would rise to the surface and that the most heavily 

oiled sediments in the water column would likely be deposited on the seafloor before reaching the 

topographic features. Any contact with spilled oil would likely cause sublethal effects to benthic 

organisms because the distance of activity would prevent contact with concentrated oil. In the unlikely 

event that diluted oil from a subsurface spill would reach the biota of a topographic feature, the effects 

would be primarily sublethal and impacts would be at the community level. Any turbidity, sedimentation, 

and oil adsorbed to sediment particles would also be at low concentrations by the time the topographic 

features were reached, also likely resulting in primarily sublethal impacts. Impacts from a surface oil spill 

on topographic features are also lessened by the distance of the spill to the features, the depth of the 

features, and the prevailing water currents that sweep around the banks. The farther the oil source is from 

the bank, the more dilute and degraded the oil would be when it reaches the vicinity of the topographic 

features. In the event that oil from a subsurface spill reached an area containing hermatypic coral cover 

(e.g., the Flower Garden Banks, Stetson Bank, and McGrail Bank) in lethal concentrations, the recovery 

could take in excess of 10 years (Fucik et al., 1984). In addition, in the unlikely event a freighter, tanker, 

or other oceangoing vessel related to OCS Program activities or non-OCS-related activities sank and 

proceeded to collide with the topographic features or associated habitat releasing its cargo, recovery could 

take years to decades, depending on the extent of the damage. Because these events are rare in 

occurrence, the potential of impacts from these events is considered low.

The cumulative impact from routine oil and gas operations includes effects resulting from the WPA 

proposed action, as well as those resulting from past and future OCS leasing. These operations include 

anchoring, structure emplacement, muds and cuttings discharge, effluent discharge, blowouts, oil spills, 

and structure removal. Potential non-OCS-related factors include vessel anchoring, treasure-hunting 

activities, import tankering, heavy storms and hurricanes, the collapse of the tops of the topographic 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-27

features due to dissolution of the underlying salt structure, commercial fishing, and recreational scuba 

diving. A detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed 

WPA Lease Sale 233 on topographic features can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.6.4 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Activities causing mechanical disturbance represent the greatest threat to the topographic features. 

This would, however, be prevented by the continued application of the proposed Topographic Features 

Stipulation. Potential OCS-related impacts include anchoring of vessels and structure emplacement, 

operational discharges (drilling muds and cuttings, and produced waters), blowouts, oil spills, and 

structure removal.

The proposed Topographic Features Stipulation would preclude mechanical damage caused by oil 

and gas leaseholders from impacting the benthic communities of the topographic features and would 

protect them from operational discharges by establishing a buffer around the features. As such, little 

impact would be incurred by the biota of the topographic features. The USEPA discharge regulations and 

permits would further reduce discharge-related impacts.

Blowouts could potentially cause damage to benthic biota; however, due to the application of the 

proposed Topographic Features Stipulation, blowouts would not reach the No Activity Zone surrounding

the topographic features and associated biota, resulting in little impact on the features. If a subsea oil 

plume is formed, it could contact the habitats of a topographic feature; this contact may be restricted to 

the lower, less sensitive levels of the banks and/or may be swept around the banks with the prevailing 

water currents. The farther the oil source is from the bank, the more dilute and degraded the oil would be 

when it reaches the vicinity of the topographic features.

Oil spills can cause damage to benthic organisms if the oil contacts the organisms. The proposed 

Topographic Features Stipulation would keep sources of OCS spills at least 152 m (500 ft) away from the 

immediate biota of the topographic features. In the unlikely event that oil from a subsurface spill would 

reach the biota of a topographic feature, the effects would be primarily sublethal for corals and much of 

the other fully developed biota. In the event that oil from a subsurface spill reached an area containing 

hermatypic coral cover (e.g., the Flower Garden Banks and Stetson Bank) in lethal concentrations, the 

recovery could take in excess of 10 years (Fucik et al., 1984). Finally, in the unlikely event a freighter, 

tanker, or other oceangoing vessel related to OCS Program activities or non-OCS oil- and gas-related 

activities sank and proceeded to collide with the topographic features or associated habitat releasing its 

cargo, recovery could take years to decades, depending on the extent of the damage. Because these 

events are rare in occurrence, the potential of impacts from these events is considered low.

Non-oil and gas OCS activities could mechanically disrupt the bottom (such as anchoring and 

treasure-hunting activities, as previously described). Natural events such as hurricanes or the collapse of 

the tops of the topographic features (through dissolution of the underlying salt structure) could cause 

severe impacts. The collapsing of topographic features is unlikely and would impact a single feature. 

Impacts from scuba diving, fishing, ocean dumping, and discharges or spills from tankering of imported 

oil could have detrimental effects on topographic features.

Overall, the incremental contribution of the WPA proposed action to the cumulative impact is 

negligible when compared with non-OCS oil and gas impacts. Where the proposed Topographic Features

Stipulation is applied, mechanical impacts (anchoring and structure emplacement) and impacts from 

operational discharges (produced waters, drilling fluids, cuttings) or accidental discharges (oil spills, 

blowouts) would be removed from the immediate area surrounding the topographic features. However, if 

the stipulation is not applied, acute long-term injury to topographic features may occur as a result of the 

WPA proposed action.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

A search of Internet information sources (the NOAA Gulf Spill Restoration Publications website, the 

Environmental Response Management Application [ERMA] Gulf Response website; NOAA’s Deepwater 

Horizon Archive Publications and Factsheets; the Gulf of Mexico Sea Grant Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

Research and Monitoring Activities Database; RestoreTheGulf.gov website, and the Deepwater Horizon

Oil Spill Portal), as well as recently published journal articles and Federal documents was conducted to 

determine the availability of recent information on topographic features. The search revealed new 

information on the proposed threatened/endangered listing of coral species in the GOM; information that 

is pertinent to this Supplemental EIS. 
4-28 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

In 2009, a petition was submitted to NOAA Fisheries by the Center for Biological Diversity to list 

82 additional species of coral under the ESA (USDOC, NOAA, 2012a). Those 82 “candidate species” 

were reviewed by NOAA Fisheries. In April 2012, NOAA Fisheries completed a Status Review Report 

and a Draft Management Report of the candidate species of corals, and on December 7, 2012, the 

Proposed Listing Determinations for 82 Reef-Building Coral Species and Proposed Reclassification of 

Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis from threatened to endangered was published in the Federal 

Register (2012b). The species that are proposed for listing as endangered and that are found on 

topographic features in the WPA (the Flower Garden Banks) include Montastraea annularis, 

Montastraea faveolata, and Montastraea franksi. Another coral that is found on the Flower Garden 

Banks that is proposed for listing as threatened is Dichocoenia stokesii. In addition, Acropora palmata is 

proposed to be upgraded from threatened to endangered. If these proposed species are listed, BOEM 

would consult with NOAA Fisheries under Section 7 of the ESA if an action may affect the listed species 

or designated critical habitat, as it currently does for other listed species.

Topographic features within the WPA were likely not affected to any discernible degree by the 

Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, based on the best available information and the 

WPA’s distance from the Macondo well. As identified in the resource analyses in this Supplemental EIS 

and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, incomplete or unavailable information regarding 

topographic features in the WPA may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects. 

BOEM has determined that the information is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for topographic features presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, with the understanding that no new information on topographic features has been 

published since the release of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Therefore, no new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for topographic features presented in 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

4.1.1.7. Sargassum Communities

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for Sargassum communities presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for Sargassum communities presented 

in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the WPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of Sargassum communities can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.7.1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Impact-producing factors associated with routine events for the WPA proposed action that could 

affect Sargassum may include the following: drilling discharges (muds and cuttings); produced water and 

well treatment chemicals; operational discharges (deck drainage, sanitary and domestic water, bilge and 

ballast water); and physical disturbance from vessel traffic and the presence of exploration and production 

structures (i.e., rigs, platforms, and MODU’s). A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts of OCS 

activities associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on Sargassum communities can be found in 

Chapter 4.1.1.7.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Sargassum, as pelagic algae, is a widely distributed resource that is found throughout the Gulf of 

Mexico and northwest Atlantic. Considering its ubiquitous distribution and occurrence in the upper water 

column near the sea surface, it may be contacted by routine discharges from oil and gas operations. All 

routine discharges, including produced water, and operational discharges (e.g., deck runoff, bilge water, 

sanitary effluent, etc.) could potentially contact Sargassum algae. However, the quantity and volume of 

these discharges is relatively small compared with the pelagic waters of the WPA (115,645 km2

; 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-29

44,651 mi2). Therefore, although discharges would contact Sargassum, they would only contact a very 

small portion of the Sargassum population. Because these discharges are highly regulated to control 

toxicity and because they would continue to be diluted in the Gulf water, concentrations of any toxic 

components would be reduced; therefore, produced-water impacts on Sargassum would be minimum.

The impingement effects of discharges by service vessels and working platforms and drillships would 

contact only a very small portion of the Sargassum population. The impacts to Sargassum that are 

associated with the WPA proposed action are expected to have only minor effects to a small portion of the 

Sargassum community as a whole and would be resilient to the minor effects predicted. Sargassum has a 

yearly cycle that promotes quick recovery from impacts. No measurable impacts are expected to the 

overall population of the Sargassum community. 

Impact-producing factors associated with accidental events that may be associated with the WPA 

proposed action that could affect Sargassum and its associated communities include surface oil and fuel 

spills and underwater well blowouts, spill-response activities, and chemical spills. These impacting 

factors would have varied effects depending on the intensity of the spill and the presence of Sargassum in 

the area of the spill. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be associated with

proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on Sargassum communities can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.7.3 of the 2012-

2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

All types of spills, including surface oil and fuel spills, underwater well blowouts, and chemical 

spills, could potentially contact Sargassum algae. The quantity and volume of most of these spills would 

be relatively small compared with the pelagic waters of the WPA (115,645 km2

; 44,651 mi2). Therefore, 

most spills would only contact a very small portion of the Sargassum population. Accidental spills would 

likely be diluted by the Gulf water and, therefore, concentrations of toxic components would also be 

reduced in this scenario. The impacts to Sargassum that are associated with the WPA proposed action are 

expected to have only minor effects to a small portion of the Sargassum community unless a catastrophic 

spill occurs. In the case of a very large spill, the Sargassum algae community could suffer severe impacts 

to a sizable portion of the population in the northern Gulf. The Sargassum community lives in pelagic 

waters with generally high water quality and is expected to show good resilience to the predicted effects 

of spills. It has a yearly cycle that promotes quick recovery from impacts. No measurable impacts are 

expected to the overall population of the Sargassum community unless a catastrophic spill occurs. 

Cumulative impacting factors that can affect Sargassum include impingement by structures and 

marine vessels, oil and gas drilling discharges, operational discharges, accidental spills, hurricanes, and 

coastal water quality. A detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated 

with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on Sargassum communities can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.7.4 of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Because of the ephemeral (temporary) nature of Sargassum communities, many activities associated 

with the WPA proposed action would have a localized and short-term effect. Sargassum occurs 

seasonally in almost every part of the northern Gulf, resulting in a wide distribution over a very large 

area. However, its occurrence is patchy, drifting in floating mats that are occasionally impinged on ships 

and on oil and gas structures. The large, scattered, patchy distribution results in only a small portion of 

the total population contacting ships, structures, or drilling discharges. There is also a low probability of 

a catastrophic spill to occur with the WPA proposed action. If such a spill did occur, Sargassum in that 

area is expected to suffer mortality. Offshore activities other than oil and gas activities also have the 

potential to affect Sargassum algae. Shipping traffic would be the largest non-oil and gas activity to 

impact Sargassum. Impingement, routine discharges, and accidental spills could all affect Sargassum. 

However, because of the wide, patchy distribution of Sargassum, these activities would have only 

localized effects. The incremental contribution of the WPA proposed action to the overall cumulative 

impacts on Sargassum communities that would result from the OCS Program, environmental factors, and 

non-OCS-related user group activities is expected to be minimal.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

A broad Internet search for relevant new information and scientific journal articles published since 

the publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS was conducted using a publicly available 

search engine. The websites for Federal and State agencies, as well as other organizations were reviewed 

for newly released information. Sources investigated include the South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council, the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, USEPA, USGS, and coastal universities. Ongoing research 
4-30 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

projects funded by NOAA and the National Science Foundation are investigating Sargassum

communities and impacts from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. No new 

analyses have been published since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

Sargassum communities within the WPA were likely not affected to any discernible degree by the 

Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, based on the best available information and the 

WPA’s distance from the Macondo well. As identified in the resource analyses in this Supplemental EIS 

and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, there remains incomplete or unavailable information on 

the effects of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup on Sargassum that may be relevant 

to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts. BOEM has determined that the information is not 

essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives because Sargassum is widely distributed throughout the 

Gulf and because the yearly cycle of replenishment for Sargassum indicates that impacts from the 

Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup would be significantly reduced or eliminated within 

a year or two. Available scientifically credible information has been applied by BOEM’s subject-matter 

experts using accepted scientific methodologies.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for Sargassum communities presented in the Multisale 2012-

2017 EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for Sargassum communities presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

4.1.1.8. Chemosynthetic Deepwater Benthic Communities

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for chemosynthetic communities presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for chemosynthetic communities 

presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the WPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of chemosynthetic communities can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.8.1 of the 2012-

2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Considerable mechanical damage could be inflicted upon deepwater chemosynthetic communities by 

routine OCS drilling activities associated with the WPA proposed action if mitigations are not applied. 

Bottom-disturbing activities associated with anchoring, structure emplacement, pipelaying, and structure 

removal cause localized bottom disturbances and disruption of benthic communities in the immediate 

area. Routine discharge of drill cuttings with associated muds can also affect the seafloor. Discharges of 

produced waters on the sea surface, chemical spills, and deck runoff would be diluted in surface waters, 

having no effect on seafloor habitats. Impacts from bottom-disturbing activities directly on 

chemosynthetic communities are expected to be extremely rare because of the application of required 

protective measures described by NTL 2009-G40. A detailed description of the possible impacts on 

chemosynthetic communities from routine activities associated with the WPA proposed action is 

presented below. A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts of OCS activities associated with 

proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on chemosynthetic communities can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.8.2 of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Chemosynthetic communities are susceptible to physical impacts from anchoring, structure 

emplacement, pipeline installation, structure removal, and drilling discharges. The policies described in 

NTL 2009-G40 greatly reduce the risk of these physical impacts by requiring the avoidance of potential 

chemosynthetic communities. If a high-density community is subjected to direct impacts by bottomdisturbing activities, potentially severe or catastrophic impacts could occur due to raking of the sea 

bottom by anchors and anchor chains and partial or complete burial by muds and cuttings. The severity 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-31

of such an impact is such that there would be incremental losses of productivity, reproduction, community 

relationships, and overall ecological functions of the local community, and incremental damage to 

ecological relationships with the surrounding benthos.

Studies indicate that periods as long as hundreds of years are required to reestablish a seep 

community once it has disappeared (depending on the community type), although it may reappear 

relatively quickly once the process begins, as in the case of a mussel community (Powell, 1995; Fisher, 

1995). Tube-worm communities may be the most sensitive of all communities because of the combined 

requirements of hard substrate and active hydrocarbon seepage.

Routine activities of the WPA proposed action are expected to cause little damage to the ecological 

function or biological productivity of chemosynthetic communities. Widely scattered, high-density 

chemosynthetic communities would not be expected to experience impacts from oil and gas activities in 

deep water because the impacts would be limited by standard BOEM protections as described in NTL 

2009-G40. Impacts on chemosynthetic communities from routine activities associated with the WPA 

proposed action would be minimal to none.

Accidental events that could impact chemosynthetic communities are primarily limited to seafloor 

blowouts. A blowout at the seafloor could create a crater and could resuspend and disperse large 

quantities of bottom sediments within a 300-m (984-ft) radius from the blowout site. This could bury 

organisms located within that distance to some degree. The application of avoidance criteria for 

chemosynthetic communities described in NTL 2009-G40 precludes the placement of a well within 610 m 

(2,000 ft) of any suspected site of a chemosynthetic community, therefore distancing the chemosynthetic 

community from sedimentation resulting from a possible blowout. A detailed impact analysis of the 

accidental impacts that may be associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on chemosynthetic 

communities can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.8.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Chemosynthetic communities could be susceptible to physical impacts from a blowout depending on 

bottom-current conditions. The guidance provided in NTL 2009-G40 greatly reduces the risk of these 

physical impacts by requiring a buffer of 610 m (2,000 ft) from wells. It requires avoidance of potential 

chemosynthetic communities identified on the required geophysical survey records prior to approval of 

the structure emplacement. The 610-m (2,000-ft) avoidance required would protect sensitive 

communities from heavy sedimentation, with only light sediment components able to reach the 

communities in small quantities.

Studies indicate that periods as long as hundreds of years are required to reestablish a seep 

community once it has disappeared (depending on the community type) (Powell, 1995; Fisher, 1995). 

There is evidence that substantial impacts on these communities could permanently prevent 

reestablishment, particularly if hard substrate required for recolonization is buried by resuspended 

sediments from a blowout. 

Potential accidental impacts from the WPA proposed action are expected to cause little damage to the 

ecological function or biological productivity of chemosynthetic communities located at more than 610 m 

(2,000 ft) away from a blowout. Chemosynthetic communities could experience minor impacts from 

resuspended sediments that travel with currents, although the sediment concentration would be diluted 

with distance from the well. If dispersants are applied to an oil spill, or if oil is ejected under high 

pressure, oil would mix into the water column, be carried by underwater currents, and eventually contact 

the seafloor in some form, either concentrated (near the source) or decayed (farther from the source), 

where it may impact patches of chemosynthetic community habitat in its path. As with sediments, the 

farther the dispersed oil travels, the more diluted it will become as it mixes with surrounding water.

Accidental impacts associated with the WPA proposed action would likely result in only minimal 

impacts to chemosynthetic communities with adherence to the proposed biological stipulation and the 

guidelines described in NTL 2009-G40. One exception would be in the case of a catastrophic spill 

combined with the application of dispersant or high-pressure ejection of oil, producing the potential to 

cause devastating effects on local patches of habitat in the path of subsea plumes where they physically 

contact the seafloor. The possible impacts, however, will be localized due to the directional movement of 

oil plumes by the water currents and because the sensitive habitats have a scattered, patchy distribution. 

Oil plumes that remain in the water column for longer periods would disperse and decay, having only 

minimal effect.

Cumulative factors considered to impact the deepwater benthic communities (>300 m; 984 ft) of the 

Gulf of Mexico include both oil- and gas-related and non-oil- and non-gas-related activities. The latter 

type of impacting factors include activities such as fishing and trawling at a relatively small scale, and 
4-32 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

large-scale factors such as storm impacts and climate change. A detailed impact analysis of the 

cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on chemosynthetic 

communities can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.8.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Cumulative impacts to deepwater communities in the Gulf of Mexico are considered negligible 

because of their remoteness from most impacts and because of the application of BOEM’s avoidance 

criteria as described in NTL 2009-G40. The most serious, impact-producing factor threatening 

chemosynthetic communities is physical disturbance of the seafloor, which could destroy the organisms 

of these communities. Such disturbance would most likely come from those OCS-related activities 

associated with pipelaying, anchoring, structure emplacement, and seafloor blowouts. Drilling discharges

and resuspended sediments have a potential to cause minor, mostly sublethal impacts to chemosynthetic 

communities, but substantial accumulations could result in more serious impacts. Possible catastrophic 

oil spills due to seafloor blowouts have the potential to devastate localized deepwater benthic habitats. 

However, these events are rare and would only affect a small portion of the sensitive benthic habitat in the 

Gulf of Mexico. Recent analyses reveal over 21,000 possible hard-bottom locations across the deepwater 

GOM (Shedd et al., 2011). Guidance provided in NTL 2009-G40 describes required surveys and 

avoidance prior to drilling or pipeline installation and would greatly reduce risk. Recent studies have 

refined predictive information and confirmed the effectiveness of these provisions throughout all depth 

ranges of the Gulf of Mexico (Brooks et al., 2009). With the dramatic success of this project, confidence 

is increasing regarding the use of geophysical signatures for the prediction of chemosynthetic 

communities. 

Activities unrelated to the OCS Program include fishing and trawling. Because of the water depths in 

these areas (>300 m; 984 ft) and the low density of potentially commercially valuable fishery species, 

these activities are not expected to impact deepwater benthic communities. Regionwide and even global 

impacts from CO2 build-up and proposed methods to sequester carbon in the deep sea (e.g., ocean 

fertilization) are not expected to have major impacts to deepwater habitats in the near future. More 

distant scenarios could include severe impacts.

The proposed activities in the WPA considered under the cumulative scenario are expected to cause 

little damage to the ecological function or biological productivity of widely scattered, high-density 

chemosynthetic communities. They could experience isolated minor impacts from drilling discharges or 

resuspended sediments, with recovery expected within several years, but even minor impacts are not 

expected. Major impacts to localized benthic habitat are possible in the event of a catastrophic blowout

on the seafloor, particularly when chemical dispersants are applied to oil releases at depth or if oil is 

ejected under high pressure. If physical disturbance (such as anchor damage) or extensive burial by muds 

and cuttings were to occur to high-density communities, impacts could be severe, with recovery time as 

long as 200 years for mature tube-worm communities. There is evidence that substantial impacts on these 

communities could permanently prevent reestablishment. Other sublethal impacts include possible 

incremental losses of productivity, reproduction, community relationships, overall ecological functions of 

the community, and incremental damage to ecological relationships with the surrounding benthos.

The incremental contribution of the WPA proposed action to cumulative impacts is expected to be 

slight and to result from the effects of the possible impacts caused by physical disturbance of the seafloor 

and minor impacts from sediment resuspension or drill cutting discharges. Adverse impacts will be 

limited but not completely eliminated by adherence to the guidelines described in NTL 2009-G40. 

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

A broad Internet search for relevant new information and scientific journal articles published since 

the publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS was conducted using a publicly available 

search engine. The websites for Federal and State agencies, as well as other organizations were reviewed 

for newly released information. Sources investigated include the NOAA Ocean Exploration website, the 

Gulf of Mexico Alliance, USEPA, USGS, and coastal universities. Ongoing research projects funded by 

NOAA and the National Science Foundation are investigating chemosynthetic communities and impacts 

from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. No new analyses that are relevant to 

deepwater chemosynthetic communities and that would impact those analyses or conclusions have been 

published since publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

Deepwater chemosynthetic communities within the WPA were likely not affected to any discernible 

degree by the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, based on the best available 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-33

information and the WPA’s distance from the Macondo well. As identified in the resource analyses in 

this Supplemental EIS and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, there remains incomplete or 

unavailable information on the effects of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup on 

chemosynthetic communities that may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts. 

BOEM has determined that the information is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives 

because chemosynthetic communities are found throughout the Gulf and are in patchy distributions, 

minimizing the number that would be likely to be impacted by any single event. Available scientifically 

credible information has been applied by BOEM’s subject-matter experts using accepted scientific 

methodologies. 

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for chemosynthetic communities presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for chemosynthetic communities 

presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

4.1.1.9. Nonchemosynthetic Deepwater Benthic Communities

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for nonchemosynthetic communities presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for nonchemosynthetic communities 

presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the WPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of nonchemosynthetic communities can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.9.1 of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Considerable mechanical damage could be inflicted upon sensitive nonchemosynthetic deepwater 

benthic communities by routine OCS drilling activities associated with the WPA proposed action if 

mitigations are not applied. Deepwater live bottom communities, primarily structured by the coral 

Lophelia pertusa, are the nonchemosynthetic deepwater benthic communities that would be sensitive to 

impacts from oil and gas activities. Bottom-disturbing activities associated with anchoring, structure 

emplacement, pipelaying, and structure removal cause localized bottom disturbances and disruption of 

benthic communities in the localized areas. Routine discharge of drill cuttings with associated muds can 

also affect the seafloor. Discharges of produced waters on the sea surface, chemical spills, and deck 

runoff would be diluted in surface waters, having no effect on seafloor habitats. Impacts from bottomdisturbing activities directly on deepwater coral communities are expected to be extremely rare because of 

the application of required protective measures described by NTL 2009-G40. A detailed description of 

the possible impacts on deepwater coral communities from routine activities associated with the WPA 

proposed action is presented below. A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts of OCS activities 

associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on nonchemosynthetic communities can be found in 

Chapter 4.1.1.9.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Deepwater nonchemosynthetic communities are susceptible to physical impacts from anchoring, 

structure emplacement, pipeline installation, structure removal, and drilling discharges. The policies 

described in NTL 2009-G40 greatly reduce the risk of these physical impacts by requiring the avoidance 

of potential sensitive benthic communities.

Some impact to soft bottom benthic communities from drilling and production activities would occur 

as a result of physical impacts and drilling discharges regardless of their locations. However, even in 

situations where the substantial burial of typical, soft bottom benthic infaunal communities occurred, 

recolonization of populations from widespread neighboring soft bottom substrate would be expected over 

a relatively short period of time for all size ranges of organisms.
4-34 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

If a sensitive community is subjected to direct impacts by bottom-disturbing activities, potentially 

severe or catastrophic impacts could occur due to raking of the sea bottom by anchors and anchor chains 

and partial or complete burial by muds and cuttings. The severity of such an impact is such that there 

would be incremental losses of productivity, reproduction, community relationships, and overall 

ecological functions of the local community, and incremental damage to ecological relationships with the 

surrounding benthos. Should this occur, it could result in recovery times in the order of decades or more 

with the possibility of the community never recovering (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations, 2008; Jones, 1992; Probert et al., 1997).

Routine activities associated with the WPA proposed action are expected to cause no damage to the 

ecological function or biological productivity of deepwater live bottom communities (deep coral reefs) 

due to the consistent application of BOEM protection policies as described in NTL 2009-G40. 

Information included in required hazards surveys for oil and gas activities depicts areas that could 

potentially harbor nonchemosynthetic communities. This allows BOEM to require avoidance of any 

areas that are conducive to the growth of sensitive hard-bottom communities. The same geophysical 

conditions associated with the potential presence of chemosynthetic communities also results in the 

potential occurrence of hard carbonate substrate and other associated deepwater live bottom communities. 

Because of the NTL 2009-G40 guidelines, these communities are generally avoided in exploration and 

development planning and bottom-disturbing activities. Impacts on sensitive deepwater communities 

from routine activities associated with the WPA proposed action would be minimal to none.

Accidental events that could impact nonchemosynthetic deepwater benthic communities are primarily 

limited to seafloor blowouts. A blowout at the seafloor could create a crater and could resuspend and 

disperse large quantities of bottom sediments within a 300-m (984-ft) radius from the blowout site. This 

would destroy any organisms located within that distance by burial or modification of narrow habitat

quality requirements. Physical disturbance or destruction of a limited area of benthos or to a limited 

number of megafauna organisms (e.g., brittle stars, sea pens, and crabs) would not result in a major 

impact to the deepwater benthos ecosystem as a whole or even in relation to a small area of the seabed 

within a lease block. The application of avoidance criteria for deepwater coral communities described in 

NTL 2009-G40 precludes the placement of a well within 610 m (2,000 ft) of any suspected site of a

deepwater coral community, therefore distancing the deepwater coral community from sedimentation 

resulting from a possible blowout. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be 

associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on nonchemosynthetic communities can be found in 

Chapter 4.1.1.9.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Deepwater live bottom communities could be susceptible to physical impacts from a blowout

depending on bottom-current conditions. The guidance provided in NTL 2009-G40 and proposed 

stipulations included in lease sales greatly reduce the risk of these physical impacts. The NTL 2009-G40 

clarifies the requirement to avoid potential, deepwater live bottom communities identified on the required 

geophysical survey records prior to approval of the structure emplacement. Substantial impacts on these 

communities could permanently prevent reestablishment, particularly if hard substrate required for 

recolonization is buried by resuspended sediments from a blowout.

Accidental events resulting from the WPA proposed action are likely to cause localized damage to the 

ecological function or biological productivity of widespread, typical, soft bottom benthic communities, 

with no measurable effect on the wider ecosystem. Some localized impact to benthic communities would 

likely occur as a result of impact from an accidental blowout. Megafauna and infauna communities at or 

below the sediment/water interface would be impacted by the physical disturbance of a blowout or by 

burial from resuspended sediments. Even in situations where the substantial burial of typical soft benthic 

communities occurred, recolonization by populations from neighboring substrate would be expected over 

a relatively short period for all size ranges of organisms; this can be in a matter of hours to days for 

bacteria and about 1-2 years for macrofauna species.

Impacts to deepwater coral habitats and other potential hard-bottom communities will likely be 

avoided as a consequence of the application of the policies described in NTL 2009-G40. The rare, widely 

scattered, high-density, deepwater live bottom communities located at more than 610 m (2,000 ft) away 

from a blowout could experience minor impacts from resuspended sediments that travel with currents, 

although the sediment concentration would be diluted with distance from the well. If dispersants are 

applied to an oil spill, or if oil is ejected under high pressure, oil could mix into the water column, be 

carried by underwater currents, and eventually contact the seafloor where it may impact patches of 

sensitive deepwater community habitat in its path. As with sediments, the farther the dispersed oil 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-35

travels, the more diluted it will become as it mixes with the surrounding water. These potential impacts 

would be localized due to the directional movement of oil plumes by the water currents because the 

sensitive habitats have a scattered and patchy distribution, because the sediments and oil disperse with 

distance, and because bacteria degrade the oil over time (and distance).

Accidental impacts associated with the WPA proposed action would likely result in only minimal 

impacts to nonchemosynthetic communities with adherence to the guidelines described in NTL 

2009-G40. One exception would be in the case of a catastrophic spill combined with the application of 

dispersant, or if oil is ejected under high pressure, producing the potential to cause devastating effects on 

local patches of habitat in the path of subsea plumes where they physically contact the seafloor. If such 

an event were to occur, it could take hundreds of years to reestablish the chemosynthetic community in 

that location. The possible impacts, however, will be localized due to the directional movement of oil 

plumes by the water currents and because the sensitive habitats have a scattered, patchy distribution. Oil 

plumes that remain in the water column for longer periods would disperse and decay, having only 

minimal effect.

Cumulative factors considered to impact the deepwater benthic communities (>300 m; 984 ft) of the 

Gulf of Mexico include both oil- and gas-related and non-oil- and non-gas-related activities. The latter 

type of impacting factors includes activities such as fishing and trawling at a relatively small scale, and 

large-scale factors such as storm impacts and climate change. A detailed impact analysis of the 

cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on 

nonchemosynthetic communities can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.9.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

Cumulative impacts to deepwater communities in the Gulf of Mexico are considered negligible 

because of the application of the avoidance criteria described in NTL 2009-G40. The most serious, 

impact-producing factor threatening nonchemosynthetic communities is physical disturbance of the 

seafloor, which could destroy the organisms of these communities. Such disturbance would most likely 

come from those OCS-related activities associated with pipelaying, anchoring, structure emplacement, 

and seafloor blowouts. Drilling discharges and resuspended sediments have a potential to cause minor, 

mostly sublethal impacts to nonchemosynthetic communities, but substantial accumulations could result 

in more serious impacts. Seafloor disturbance is considered to be a threat only to the high-density 

communities; widely distributed low-density communities would not be at risk because drilling 

discharges rapidly settle out of the water column and do not travel far distances, reducing the probability 

of contact with widely distributed low-density patches. Possible catastrophic oil spills due to seafloor 

blowouts have the potential to devastate localized deepwater benthic habitats. However, these events are 

rare and would only affect a small portion of the sensitive benthic habitat in the Gulf of Mexico. Recent 

analyses reveal over 21,000 possible hard-bottom locations across the deepwater GOM (Shedd et al., 

2011). Guidance provided in NTL 2009-G40 describes required surveys and avoidance prior to drilling 

or pipeline installation and will greatly reduce risk. Recent studies have refined predictive information 

and confirmed the effectiveness of these provisions throughout all depth ranges of the Gulf of Mexico 

(Brooks et al., 2009). With the dramatic success of this project, confidence is increasing regarding the 

use of geophysical signatures for the prediction of nonchemosynthetic communities.

Activities unrelated to the OCS Program include fishing and trawling. Because of the water depths in 

these areas (>300 m; 984 ft) and the low density of potentially commercially valuable fishery species, 

these activities are not expected to impact deepwater benthic comminutes. Regionwide and even global 

impacts from CO2 build-up and proposed methods to sequester carbon in the deep sea (e.g., ocean 

fertilization) are not expected to have major impacts to deepwater habitats in the near future. More 

distant scenarios could include severe impacts.

The proposed activities in the WPA considered under the cumulative scenario are expected to cause 

no damage to the ecological function or biological productivity of widespread, low-density deepwater

communities. The rarer, widely scattered, high-density communities could experience isolated minor 

impacts from drilling discharges or resuspended sediments, with recovery expected within several years, 

but even minor impacts are not expected. Major impacts to localized benthic habitat are possible in the 

event of a catastrophic blowout on the seafloor, particularly when chemical dispersants are applied to oil 

releases at depth or when oil is ejected under high pressure, forming subsea oil plumes. If physical 

disturbance (such as anchor damage) or extensive burial by muds and cuttings were to occur to highdensity communities, impacts could be severe, with recovery time as long as 200 years for mature 

communities. There is evidence that substantial impacts on these communities could permanently prevent 
4-36 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

reestablishment. Other sublethal impacts include possible incremental losses of productivity, 

reproduction, community relationships, overall ecological functions of the community, and incremental 

damage to ecological relationships with the surrounding benthos.

The cumulative impacts on nonchemosynthetic benthic communities are expected to cause little 

damage to the ecological function or biological productivity of the expected typical communities existing 

on sand/silt/clay bottoms of the deep Gulf of Mexico. Large motile animals would tend to move, and 

recolonization of populations from neighboring substrates would be expected in any areas impacted by 

burial. The cumulative impacts on deepwater coral or other high-density, hard-bottom communities are 

expected to be negligible and to cause little damage to the overall ecological function or biological 

productivity. 

The possible impacts to these communities are decreased through BOEM’s biological review process 

and the policies described in NTL 2009-G40, which physically distances petroleum-producing activities 

from sensitive deepwater benthic communities. The incremental contribution of the WPA proposed 

action to cumulative impacts is expected to be slight and to result from the effects of the possible impacts 

caused by physical disturbance of the seafloor and minor impacts from sediment resuspension or drill 

cutting discharges. Adverse impacts will be limited but not completely eliminated by adherence to the 

guidelines described in NTL 2009-G40. 

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

A broad Internet search for relevant new information and scientific journal articles published since 

the publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS was conducted using a publicly available 

search engine. The websites for Federal and State agencies, as well as other organizations were reviewed 

for newly released information. Sources investigated include the NOAA Ocean Exploration website, the 

Gulf of Mexico Alliance, USEPA, USGS, and coastal universities. Ongoing research projects funded by 

NOAA and the National Science Foundation are investigating nonchemosynthetic communities and 

impacts from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. No new analyses that are relevant 

to the above analysis have been published since the publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS. 

Nonchemosynthetic communities within the WPA were likely not affected to any discernible degree 

by the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, based on the best available information and 

the WPA’s distance from the Macondo well. As identified in the resource analyses in this Supplemental 

EIS and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, there remains incomplete or unavailable information 

on the effects of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup on deepwater live bottom 

communities that may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts. BOEM has 

determined that the information is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives because 

deepwater live bottom communities are found throughout the Gulf and are in patchy distributions, 

minimizing the number that would be likely to be impacted by any single event. Available scientifically 

credible information has been applied by BOEM’s subject-matter experts using accepted scientific 

methodologies. 

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for nonchemosynthetic communities presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for nonchemosynthetic communities 

presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

4.1.1.10.Soft Bottom Benthic Communities

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for soft bottom benthic communities presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for soft bottom benthic communities 

presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-37

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the WPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of soft bottom benthic communities in the WPA can be found in Chapter 

4.1.1.10.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Impacts from routine oil and gas activities to the soft bottom benthic communities are discussed in 

this section, as a majority of the oil and gas exploration would be conducted in soft seafloor sediments. 

Impacts to these communities include infrastructure emplacement, turbidity and smothering, drillingeffluent and produced-water discharges, and infrastructure removal. Disturbances of soft bottom benthic 

communities may cause localized disruptions to food sources for some large invertebrate and finfish 

species. A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed 

WPA Lease Sale 233 on soft bottom benthic communities can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.10.2 of the 2012-

2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Impacts from routine activities of OCS oil and gas operations include anchoring, structure 

emplacement and removal, pipeline emplacement, drilling discharges, and discharges of produced waters. 

Although localized impacts to comparatively small areas of the soft bottom benthic communities would 

occur as a result of routine oil and gas activity on the OCS, the impacts would be on a relatively small 

area of the seafloor compared with the overall area of the seafloor of the WPA (115,645 km2

; 44,651 mi2) 

and the WPA and CPA combined (384,567 km2

; 148,482 mi2). The estimated footprint of platforms on 

the continental shelf in the GOM is approximately 20,170,839 ft2 (1.874 km2

; 0.724mi2) (LGL Ecological 

Research Associates, Inc. and Science Applications International Corporation, 1998), which is 

0.0005 percent of the estimated area of seafloor in the WPA and CPA combined. Based on these values, 

the impacts that may occur to the seafloor around platforms would be a fraction of the entire soft bottom 

community of the GOM. The greatest impact is the alteration of benthic communities as a result of 

smothering, chemical toxicity, and substrate change. Communities that are smothered by cuttings would 

be taken over by more tolerant species. The community alterations are not so much the introduction of a 

new benthic community as a shift in species dominance (Montagna and Harper, 1996). These localized 

impacts generally occur within a few hundred meters of platforms, and the greatest impacts are seen close 

to the platform. These patchy habitats within the Gulf of Mexico are probably not very different from the 

early successional communities that predominate throughout areas of the Gulf of Mexico that are 

frequently disturbed (Rabalais et al., 2002a; Gaston et al., 1998; Diaz and Solow, 1999). 

Any activity that may affect the soft bottom communities would only impact a small portion of the 

overall area of the seafloor of the Gulf of Mexico. Because the soft bottom substrate is ubiquitous 

throughout the Gulf of Mexico, there are no lease stipulations to avoid these communities. However, 

other routine practices restrict detrimental activities that could cause undue harm to benthic habitats (e.g., 

discharge restrictions, debris regulations, NPDES permits). A detailed impact analysis of the accidental 

impacts that may be associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on soft bottom benthic communities 

can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.10.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Accidental subsea oil spills or blowouts associated with OCS activities can cause damage to infaunal 

communities. Because of the small amount of proportional space that OCS activities occupy on the 

seafloor, only a very small portion of the seafloor of the Gulf of Mexico would experience lethal impacts 

as a result of blowouts, surface, and subsurface oil spills and the associated affects. The greatest impacts 

would be closest to the spill, and impacts would decrease with distance from the spill. Contact with 

spilled oil at a distance from the spill would likely cause sublethal to immeasurable effects to benthic 

organisms because the distance of activity would prevent contact with concentrated oil. Oil from a 

subsurface spill that eventually reaches benthic communities would be primarily sublethal, and impacts 

would be at the local community level. Any sedimentation and deposition of oil adhered to sediment 

would also be at low concentrations and widely dispersed by the time it reaches the seafloor, also

resulting in sublethal impacts. Also, any local communities that are lost would be repopulated fairly 

rapidly (Neff, 2005). Although an oil spill may have some detrimental impacts, especially closest to the 

occurrence of the spill, the impacts may be no greater than natural biological fluctuations (Clark, 1982), 

and impacts would be to an extremely small portion of the overall Gulf of Mexico.

This cumulative analysis considers the effects of impact-producing factors related to soft bottoms of 

the Gulf of Mexico continental shelf. The WPA proposed action plus those activities related to prior and 
4-38 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

future OCS lease sales are considered; in this discussion, these are referred to as “OCS-related” factors. 

Other impacting factors that may occur and adversely affect soft bottom benthic communities include 

shipping operations, cable and pipeline laying, bottom trawling, hypoxia (low oxygen levels ≤2 ppm), and 

storm events. A detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with

proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on soft bottom benthic communities can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.10.4 of 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Non-OCS oil and gas activities that may occur on soft bottom benthic substrate include recreational 

boating and fishing, commercial fishing, import tankering, and natural events such as extreme weather 

conditions, and extreme fluctuations of environmental conditions. These activities could cause temporary 

damage to soft bottom communities. Ships and fishermen anchoring on soft bottoms could crush and 

smother underlying organisms. Activities of the commercial shrimp fishery regularly disturb large areas 

of the continental shelf and is a substantial disturbance in the Gulf of Mexico. During severe storms, such 

as hurricanes, large waves may stir bottom sediments, which cause scouring, remobilization of 

contaminants in the sediment, abrasion and clogging of gills as a result of turbidity, uprooting benthic 

organisms from the sediment, and an overall result in decreased species diversity (Engle et al., 2008; 

Dobbs and Vozarik, 1983). Yearly hypoxic events may eliminate many species from benthic populations 

over a wide area covering most of the CPA and part of the WPA continental shelf (Rabalais et al., 2002b).

Long-term OCS oil and gas activities are not expected to adversely impact the entire soft bottom 

environment of the GOM because the local impacted areas are extremely small compared with the entire 

seafloor of the GOM, and because impacted communities are repopulated relatively quickly. Impacts 

from blowouts, pipeline emplacement, muds and cuttings discharges, other operational discharges, and 

structure removals may have local devastating impacts, but the cumulative effect on the overall seafloor 

and infaunal communities on the GOM would be very small. Soft bottom benthic communities are 

ubiquitous throughout and often remain in an early successional stage due to natural fluctuation, and 

therefore, the activities of OCS production of oil and gas would not cause additional severe cumulative 

impacts. 

The incremental contribution of the WPA proposed action to the cumulative impact is expected to be 

slight, with possible impacts from physical disturbance of the bottom, discharges of drilling muds and 

cuttings, other OCS oil and gas discharges, structure removals, and oil spills. Negative impacts, however, 

are small compared with the overall size and ubiquitous composition of the soft bottom benthic 

communities in the Gulf of Mexico. Non-oil and gas factors, such as storms, trawling, non-OCS oil- and 

gas-related spills, and hypoxia, are likely to impact the soft bottom communities on a more frequent basis. 

Impacts from OCS oil and gas activities are also somewhat minimized by the fact that these communities 

are ubiquitous throughout the WPA and can recruit quickly from neighboring areas.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

A search of Internet information sources (the NOAA Gulf Spill Restoration Publications website; the 

ERMA Gulf Response website; the NOAA Deepwater Horizon Archive Publications and Factsheets; the 

Gulf of Mexico Sea Grant Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Research and Monitoring Activities Database; 

RestoreTheGulf.gov website; and the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Portal), as well as recently published 

journal articles was conducted to determine the availability of recent information on soft bottom benthic 

communities. The search revealed no new information pertinent to this analysis. 

Soft bottom benthic communities within the WPA were likely not affected to any discernible degree 

by the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, based on the best available information and 

the WPA’s distance from the Macondo well. As identified in the resource analyses in this Supplemental 

EIS and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, incomplete or unavailable information regarding soft

bottom benthic communities in the WPA may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse 

effects. BOEM has determined that the information is not essential to a reasoned choice among 

alternatives for the reasons stated therein. 

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for soft bottom benthic communities presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, with the understanding that no new information on these habitats has been 

published since the release of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Therefore, no new significant 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-39

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for soft bottom benthic communities 

presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

4.1.1.11.Marine Mammals

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for marine mammals presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for marine mammals presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the WPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of marine mammals can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.11.1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The potential effects on marine mammal species may occur from routine activities associated with the 

WPA proposed action. The major impact-producing factors affecting marine mammals as a result of 

routine OCS activities include the degradation of water quality from operational discharges; noise

generated by aircraft, vessels, operating platforms, and drillships; vessel traffic; explosive structure 

removals; seismic surveys; and marine debris from service vessels and OCS structures. A detailed impact 

analysis of the routine impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on 

marine mammals can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.11.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Some routine activities related to the WPA proposed action have the potential to have adverse, but not 

significant, impacts to marine mammal populations in the GOM. Impacts from vessel traffic, structure 

removals, and seismic activity could negatively impact marine mammals; however, when mitigated as 

required by BOEM and NMFS, these activities are not expected to have long-term impacts on the size and 

productivity of any marine mammal species or population. Most other routine activities are expected to 

have negligible effects.

Accidental, unexpected events associated with the WPA proposed action could negatively impact 

marine mammals. Such impacts would primarily be the result of blowouts, oil spills, and spill-response 

activities. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be associated with proposed 

WPA Lease Sale 233 on marine mammals can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.11.3 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Accidental events related to the WPA proposed action have the potential to have adverse, but not 

significant, impacts to marine mammal populations in the Gulf of Mexico. Accidental blowouts, oil 

spills, and spill-response activities may impact marine mammals in the Gulf of Mexico. Characteristics 

of impacts (i.e., acute vs. chronic impacts) depend on the magnitude, frequency, location, and date of 

accidents; characteristics of spilled oil; spill-response capabilities and timing; and various meteorological 

and hydrological factors.

Oil spills may cause chronic (long-term lethal or sublethal oil-related injuries) and acute (spill-related 

deaths occurring during a spill) effects on mammals. Long-term effects include decreases in prey 

availability and abundance because of increased mortality rates, change in age-class population structure 

because certain year-classes were impacted more by oil, decreased reproductive rate, and increased rate of 

disease or neurological problems from exposure to oil (Harvey and Dahlheim, 1994). The effects of 

cleanup activities are unknown, but increased human presence (e.g., vessels) could add to changes in 

marine mammal behavior and/or distribution, thereby additionally stressing animals and perhaps making 

them more vulnerable to various physiologic and toxic effects.

Even after the spill is stopped, oilings or deaths of marine mammals would still occur due to oil and 

dispersants persisting in the water, past marine mammal/oil or dispersant interactions, and ingestion of 

contaminated prey. The animals’ exposure to hydrocarbons persisting in the sea may result in sublethal 

impacts (e.g., decreased health, reproductive fitness, and longevity; and increased vulnerability to disease) 

and some soft tissue irritation, respiratory stress from inhalation of toxic fumes, food reduction or 

contamination, direct ingestion of oil and/or tar, and temporary displacement from preferred habitats. 
4-40 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

The cumulative analysis considers past, ongoing, and foreseeable future human and natural activities 

that may occur and adversely affect marine mammals in the same general area that may be affected by the 

WPA proposed action. The major potential impact-producing factors affecting protected marine 

mammals in the GOM as a result of cumulative OCS energy-related activities include marine debris, 

contaminant spills and spill-response activities, vessel traffic, noise, seismic surveys, and explosive 

structure removals. Non-OCS energy-related activities that may affect marine mammal populations 

include vessel traffic and related noise (including from commercial shipping, research vessels), military 

operations, commercial fishing, pollution, scientific research, and natural phenomena. Specific types of 

impact-producing factors considered in the cumulative analysis include noise from numerous sources, 

pollution, habitat degradation, vessel strikes, and ingestion and entanglement in marine debris. A detailed 

impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed WPA Lease 

Sale 233 on marine mammals can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.11.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS. 

Cumulative impacts on marine mammals are expected to result in a number of chronic and sporadic 

sublethal effects (i.e., behavioral effects and nonfatal exposure to or intake of OCS-related contaminants 

or discarded debris) that may stress and/or weaken individuals of a local group or population and 

predispose them to infection from natural or anthropogenic sources (Harvey and Dahlheim, 1994). 

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

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

them more vulnerable to parasites and diseases that normally would not be fatal (Harvey and Dahlheim, 

1994). The net result of any disturbance will depend upon the size and percentage of the population 

likely to be affected, the ecological importance of the disturbed area, the environmental and biological 

parameters that influence an animal’s sensitivity to disturbance and stress, or the accommodation time in 

response to prolonged disturbance (Geraci and St. Aubin, 1980). As discussed in Appendix B of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, a low-probability catastrophic event could have population-level 

effects on marine mammals. 

The effects of the WPA proposed action, when viewed in light of the effects associated with other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities, may result in greater impacts to marine 

mammals than before the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup; however, the magnitude of 

those effects cannot yet be determined. Nonetheless, operators are required to follow all applicable lease 

stipulations and regulations, as clarified by NTL’s, to minimize these potential interactions and impacts. 

The operator’s reaffirmed compliance with NTL 2012-JOINT-G01 (“Vessel Strike Avoidance and 

Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting”) and NTL 2012-BSEE-G01 (“Marine Trash and Debris 

Awareness and Elimination”), as well as the limited scope, timing, and geographic location of the WPA 

proposed action, would result in negligible effects from the proposed drilling activities on marine 

mammals. In addition, NTL 2012-JOINT-G02, “Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures 

and Protected Species Observer Program,” minimizes the potential of harm from seismic operations to 

marine mammals. These mitigations include onboard observers, airgun shut-downs for whales in the 

exclusion zone, ramp-up procedures, and the use of a minimum sound source. Therefore, no significant 

cumulative impacts to marine mammals would be expected as a result of the proposed exploration 

activities when added to the impacts of past, present, or reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development 

in the area, as well as other ongoing activities in the area.

Within the WPA, there is a long-standing and well-developed OCS Program (more than 50 years); 

there are no data to suggest that activities from the preexisting OCS Program are significantly impacting 

marine mammal populations. Therefore, the incremental effect of the WPA proposed action on marine 

mammal populations is not expected to be significant when compared with non-OCS energy-related 

activities. 

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

Various Internet sources were examined to assess recent information regarding this resource that may 

be pertinent to the WPA. On December 13, 2010, NMFS declared an unusual mortality event (UME) for 

cetaceans (whales and dolphins) in the Gulf of Mexico. An UME is defined under the Marine Mammal

Protect Act as a “stranding that is unexpected, involves a significant die-off of any marine mammal 

population, and demands immediate response.” Evidence of the UME was first noted by NMFS as early 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-41

as February 1, 2010, before the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup (USDOC, NMFS, 

2012a). 

On May 9, 2012, NOAA declared an UME for bottlenose dolphins in five Texas counties. The UME 

lasted from November 2011 through March 2012, when 123 bottlenose dolphins stranded in Aransas, 

Calhoun, Kleberg, Galveston, and Brazoria Counties in Texas. The investigation is ongoing (USDOC, 

NMFS, 2012b). 

As of August 19, 2012, a total of 764 cetaceans (5% stranded alive and 95% stranded dead) have 

stranded since the start of the UME, with a vast majority of these strandings between Franklin County, 

Florida, and the Louisiana/Texas border. The 764 cetaceans include 6 dolphins killed during a fishrelated scientific study and 1 dolphin killed incidental to trawl relocation for a dredging project. More 

detail on the UME can be found on NMFS’s website (USDOC, NMFS, 2012a). In addition to 

investigating all other potential causes, scientists are investigating what role Brucella may have played in 

the UME and this continues today. The total deaths for just one of the cetaceans, the bottlenose dolphin, 

currently well exceed the Potential Biological Removal (PBR) (Waring et al., 2011). The PBR level is 

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.

Relevant data on the status of marine mammal populations after the UME and Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup may take years to acquire and analyze, and impacts from the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion, may be difficult or impossible to discern from other factors. Therefore, it is not 

possible for BOEM to obtain this information within the timeline contemplated in this Supplemental EIS, 

regardless of the cost or resources needed. In light of the incomplete or unavailable information, 

BOEM’s subject-matter experts have used available scientifically credible evidence in this analysis and 

have applied it using accepted scientific methods and approaches. Nevertheless, a complete 

understanding of the missing information is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives for this 

Supplemental EIS (including the No Action and Action alternatives) for the three main reasons listed 

below. 

(1) The WPA is an active oil and gas region with ongoing (or the potential for) 

exploration, drilling and production activities. In addition, non-OCS energy-related 

activities will continue to occur in the WPA irrespective of the WPA proposed action 

(i.e., fishing, military activities, and scientific research). The potential for effects 

from changes to the affected environment (post-Deepwater Horizon), routine 

activities, accidental spills (including low-probability catastrophic spills), and 

cumulative effects remains whether or not the No Action or an Action alternative is 

chosen under this Supplemental EIS. Impacts on marine mammals from either 

smaller accidental events or low-probability catastrophic events will remain the same.

(2) Some marine mammal populations in the WPA do not generally travel throughout 

areas affected by spilled oil from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, and they would 

not be subject to a changed baseline or cumulative effects from the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup (e.g., coastal bottlenose dolphins that are 

resident in the WPA). Other marine mammals, such as Bryde’s whales and 

manatees, although potentially affected by the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil 

spill, and cleanup do not typically occur in the WPA.

(3) Other wide-ranging populations of marine mammals (e.g., sperm whales and killer 

whales) that may occur in the WPA and within areas affected by the spill are unlikely 

to have experienced population-level effects from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, 

oil spill, and cleanup given their wide-ranging distribution and behaviors.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for marine mammals presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information provided above. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for marine mammals presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, although information remains incomplete or unavailable. The analysis and 
4-42 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease 

Sale 233. 

4.1.1.12.Sea Turtles

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for sea turtles presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for sea turtles presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the WPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of sea turtles can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.12.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

Routine activities resulting from the WPA proposed action have the potential to harm sea turtles, 

although this potential is unlikely to rise to a level of significance. The major impact-producing factors 

resulting from the routine activities associated with the WPA proposed action that may affect loggerhead, 

Kemp’s ridley, hawksbill, green, and leatherback turtles include the degradation of water quality resulting 

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

seismic exploration; vessel collisions; and marine debris generated by service vessels and OCS facilities. 

A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed WPA Lease 

Sale 233 on sea turtles can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.12.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Because of the mitigations (e.g., BOEM and BSEE proposed compliance with NTL’s) in the 2012-

2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, routine activities (e.g., operational discharges, noise, vessel traffic, and 

marine debris) related to the WPA proposed action are not expected to have long-term adverse effects on 

the size and productivity of any sea turtle species or populations in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Lethal 

effects could occur from chance collisions with OCS service vessels or ingestion of accidentally released 

plastic materials from OCS vessels and facilities. However, there have been no reports to date on such 

incidences. Most routine OCS energy-related activities are then expected to have sublethal effects that 

are not expected to rise to the level of significance.

Accidental, unexpected events associated with the WPA proposed action could negatively impact sea 

turtles. Such impacts would primarily be the result of blowouts, oil spills, and spill-response activities. A 

detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 

233 on sea turtles can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.12.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

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

have the potential to impact small to large numbers of sea turtles in the GOM, depending on the 

magnitude and frequency of accidents, the ability to respond to accidents, the location and date of 

accidents, and various meteorological and hydrological factors. Impacts on sea turtles from smaller 

accidental events are likely to affect individual sea turtles in the area, but they are unlikely to rise to the 

level of population effects (or significance) given the size and scope of such spills. Further, the potential 

remains for smaller accidental spills to occur in the WPA proposed action area, regardless of any 

alternative selected under this Supplemental EIS, given that it is an active oil and gas region with either 

ongoing or the potential for exploration, drilling, and production activities.

For low-probability catastrophic spills, the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS concludes that there 

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

affected sea turtle species. BOEM continues to concur with the conclusions from these analyses.

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

proposed action along with impacts of other commercial, military, recreational, offshore, and coastal 

activities that may occur and adversely affect populations of sea turtles in the same general area of the 

WPA proposed action. A detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated 

with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on sea turtles can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.12.4 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-43

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

Various scientific and Internet sources were examined to assess recent information regarding this 

resource that may be pertinent to the WPA. Since January 1, 2011, a notable increase in sea turtle 

strandings has occurred in the northern GOM, primarily in Mississippi. While turtle strandings in this 

region typically increase in the spring, the recent increase is a cause for concern. The Sea Turtle 

Stranding and Salvage Network is monitoring and investigating this increase. The Network encompasses 

the coastal areas of the 18 states from Maine through Texas and includes portions of the U.S. Caribbean. 

There are many possible reasons for the increase in strandings in the northern GOM, both natural and 

human caused (USDOC, NMFS, 2012c). The sea turtle species identified in the strandings include 

loggerhead, green, Kemp’s ridley, leatherback, hawksbill, and unidentified. As of August 19, 2012, 

NMFS has identified 147 strandings in Alabama, 266 strandings in Louisiana, and 435 strandings in 

Mississippi. The NMFS has identified 81 strandings in Texas (upper Texas coast—Zone 18).

Over the last 2 years, NOAA has documented necropsy results from many of the stranded turtles 

indicating mortality due to forced submergence, which is commonly associated with fishery interactions, 

and acute toxicosis. In June 2011, NMFS announced that it will begin scoping for the preparation of a 

draft EIS to reduce incidental bycatch and mortality of sea turtles in the southeastern U.S. shrimp fishery 

(76 FR 37050). On February 8, 2012, NMFS and BOEM finalized an interim ESA process for projectspecific consultation procedures that will remain in place until a new biological opinion is completed. 

These stranding issues, which are constantly updated, are being taken into account in the consultations 

with NMFS to develop the biological opinion.

Unavailable information on the effects to sea turtles, including from the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup (and thus changes to the sea turtle baseline in the affected environment), 

makes an understanding of the cumulative effects less clear. Here, BOEM concludes that the unavailable 

information from these events may be relevant to foreseeable significant adverse impacts to sea turtles. 

Relevant data on the status of sea turtle populations after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and 

cleanup and increased sea turtle GOM strandings may take years to acquire and analyze, and impacts 

from the Deepwater Horizon explosion may be difficult or impossible to discern from other factors. 

Therefore, it is not possible for BOEM to obtain this information within the timeline contemplated in this 

Supplemental EIS, regardless of the cost or resources needed. In light of the incomplete or unavailable 

information, BOEM’s subject-matter experts have used available scientifically credible evidence in this 

analysis based upon accepted scientific methods and approaches. Nevertheless, a complete understanding 

of the missing information is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives for this Supplemental 

EIS (including the No Action and Action alternatives) for two main reasons listed below:

(1) The WPA is an active oil and gas region with ongoing (or the potential for) 

exploration, drilling, and production activities. In addition, non-OCS energy-related 

activities will continue to occur in the WPA irrespective of the WPA proposed action 

(i.e., fishing, military activities, scientific research, and shoreline development). The 

potential for effects from changes to the affected environment (post-Deepwater 

Horizon), routine activities, accidental spills (including low-probability catastrophic 

spills), and cumulative effects remains whether or not the No Action or an Action 

alternative is chosen under this Supplemental EIS. Impacts on sea turtles from either 

smaller accidental events or low-probability catastrophic events will remain the same.

(2) All wide-ranging populations of sea turtles that may occur in the WPA and within 

areas affected by the spill are unlikely to have experienced population-level effects 

from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup given their wideranging distribution and behaviors.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for sea turtles presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS, based on the additional information provided above. No new significant information was discovered 

that would alter the impact conclusion for sea turtles presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 
4-44 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

EIS, although information remains incomplete or unavailable. The analysis and potential impacts detailed 

in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

4.1.1.13.Diamondback Terrapins

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for diamondback terrapins presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for diamondback terrapins presented 

in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the WPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of Texas diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin littoralis) can be found 

in Chapter 4.1.1.13.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The major impact-producing factors resulting from the routine activities associated with the WPA 

proposed action that may affect the Texas diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin littoralis) include 

beach trash and debris generated by service vessels and OCS facilities, efforts undertaken for the removal 

of marine debris or for beach restoration, and vessel traffic with associated habitat erosion. A detailed 

impact analysis of the routine impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 

on Texas diamondback terrapins can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.13.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

Adverse impacts due to routine activities resulting from the WPA proposed action are possible but 

unlikely. Because of the greatly improved handling of waste and trash by industry and because of the 

annual awareness training required by the marine debris mitigations, the plastics in the ocean are 

decreasing and the devastating effects on offshore and coastal marine life are minimizing. The routine 

activities of the WPA proposed action are unlikely to have significant adverse effects on the size and 

recovery of any terrapin species or population in the GOM. Most routine, OCS energy-related activities 

are expected to have sublethal effects, such as behavioral effects, that are not expected to rise to the level 

of significance to the populations.

The major impact-producing factors resulting from the accidental events associated with the WPA 

proposed action that may affect Texas diamondback terrapins (Malaclemys terrapin littoralis) include 

offshore and coastal oil spills and spill-response activities. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental 

impacts that may be associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on Texas diamondback terrapins can 

be found in Chapter 4.1.1.13.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Impacts on diamondback terrapins from smaller accidental events are likely to affect individual 

diamondback terrapins in the spill area, but they are unlikely to rise to the level of population effects (or a 

level of significance) given the probable size and scope of such spills. Further, the potential remains for 

smaller accidental spills to occur in the WPA proposed action area, regardless of any alternative selected 

under this Supplemental EIS, given that it is an active oil and gas region with either ongoing or the 

potential for exploration, drilling, and production activities.

The analyses in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, including Appendix B of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, conclude that there is a low probability for catastrophic spills, and Appendix B 

of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS concludes that there is a potential for a low-probability 

catastrophic event to result in significant, population-level effects on affected diamondback terrapin

species. BOEM continues to concur with the conclusions from these analyses.

The major impact-producing factors that may affect Texas diamondback terrapins (Malaclemys 

terrapin littoralis) include oil spills and spill-response activities, alteration and reduction of habitat, and 

consumption of trash and debris. A detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of OCS activities 

associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on Texas diamondback terrapins can be found in Chapter 

4.1.1.13.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Texas diamondback terrapins have experienced impacting pressures from habitat destruction, road 

construction, drowning in crab traps, and past overharvesting resulting in historical reductions in their 

habitat range and declines in populations. Inshore oil spills from non-OCS energy-related sources are 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-45

potential threats to terrapins in their brackish coastal marshes. Pipelines from offshore oil and gas and 

other shoreline crossings have contributed to marsh erosion. However, the WPA proposed action 

includes only limited shoreline crossings and modern regulations require mitigation of wetland impacts. 

Low-probability catastrophic offshore oil spills could affect the coastal marsh environment but such 

events are rare occurrences and may not reach the shore, even if they do occur. Therefore, the 

incremental contribution of the WPA proposed action is expected to be minimal, compared with non-OCS 

activities. The major impact-producing factors resulting from the cumulative activities associated with 

the WPA proposed action that may affect the diamondback terrapin include oil spills and spill-response 

activities, alteration and reduction of habitat, and consumption of trash and debris. Due to the extended 

distance from shore, impacts associated with activities occurring in the OCS Program are not expected to 

impact terrapins or their habitat. No substantial information was found at this time that would alter the 

overall conclusion that cumulative impacts on diamondback terrapins associated with the WPA proposed 

action is expected to be minimal.

BOEM has considered this assessment and has reexamined the cumulative analysis for diamondback 

terrapins. Based on this evaluation, the conclusions in these analyses on effects to diamondback terrapins 

remain unchanged in regards to routine activities (no potential for significant adverse effects) and 

accidental spills (potential for significant adverse effects).

Overall, within the WPA, there is a long-standing and well-developed OCS Program (more than 

50 years); there are no data to suggest that activities from the preexisting OCS Program are significantly 

impacting diamondback terrapin populations. Non-OCS energy-related activities will continue to occur 

in the WPA irrespective of the WPA proposed action (i.e., crabbing, fishing, military activities, scientific 

research, and shoreline development). Therefore, the incremental effect of the WPA proposed action on 

diamondback terrapins populations is not expected to be significant when compared with historic and 

current non-OCS energy-related activities, such as habitat loss, overharvesting, crabbing, and fishing.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

Various Internet sources were examined and literature searches conducted in order to assess recent 

information regarding diamondback terrapins that may be pertinent to the WPA. No new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for Texas diamondback terrapins 

presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Unavailable information on the effects to diamondback terrapins from the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup (and thus changes to the diamondback terrapin baseline in the affected 

environment) makes an understanding of the cumulative effects less clear, although current data continue 

to indicate that the Macondo spill never reached terrapins and their brackish habitats in the WPA. As 

noted in the 2012-2107 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, BOEM concludes that the unavailable information 

from these events may be relevant to foreseeable significant adverse impacts to diamondback terrapins,

although a complete understanding of the missing information is not essential to a reasoned choice among 

alternatives for this Supplemental EIS (including the No Action and Action alternatives) because 

diamondback terrapins and their habitats in the WPA were unlikely to have been directly impacted by the 

Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, given that the lateral extent of the spill remained 

east of the WPA boundary. Relevant data on the status of diamondback terrapin populations in Texas and 

Louisiana after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup may take years to acquire and 

analyze, and impacts from the Deepwater Horizon explosion may be difficult or impossible to discern 

from other factors. Currently, no known studies are being conducted in Texas since the Macondo spill 

never reached brackish habitats in the WPA. Therefore, it is not possible for BOEM to obtain this 

information within the timeline contemplated in this Supplemental EIS, regardless of the cost or resources 

needed. In light of the incomplete or unavailable information, BOEM subject-matter experts have 

nonetheless used available scientifically credible evidence in this analysis and based upon accepted 

scientific methods and approaches. No new information was identified in this Supplemental EIS that 

would change these conclusions.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for Texas diamondback terrapins presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information provided above. Various Internet sources 
4-46 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

were examined to assess recent information regarding this resource that may be pertinent to the WPA. No 

new significant information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for these terrapins 

presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, although information remains incomplete or 

unavailable. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still 

apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

4.1.1.14.Coastal and Marine Birds

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for coastal and marine birds presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for coastal and marine birds presented 

in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events that may be

associated with the WPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the 

cumulative impacts are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information 

is a summary of the resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and 

any new information that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of coastal and marine birds can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.4.14 of the 2012-

2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Major potential impact-producing factors for marine birds in the offshore environment include the 

following: 

• habitat loss and fragmentation (Fahrig, 1997 and 1998);

• behavioral effects primarily due to disturbance from OCS helicopter and servicevessel traffic and associated noise (Habib et al., 2007; Bayne et al., 2008);

• mortality due to exposure and intake of OCS-related contaminants, e.g., produced 

waters (Wiese et al., 2001; Fraser et al., 2006) and discarded debris (Robards et al., 

1995); 

• sublethal, chronic effects from air emissions (Newman, 1979; Newman and 

Schreiber, 1988); and

• mortality and energetic costs associated with structure presence and associated light 

(Russell, 2005; Montevecchi, 2006).

A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed WPA 

Lease Sale 233 on coastal and marine birds can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.14.2 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The majority of the effects resulting from routine activities of the WPA proposed action (Tables 3-2, 

3-4, and 3-5) on threatened or endangered (Table 4-1) and nonthreatened and nonendangered coastal and 

marine birds are expected to be sublethal, e.g., primarily disturbance-related effects (Chapter 4.1.1.12.1 of 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). However, as has been documented by Russell (2005), 

collision-related mortality of trans-Gulf migrant landbirds does occur (Figure 4-1 of this Supplemental 

EIS and Figures 3-5 through 3-7 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS); approximately 

50 birds/platform or roughly 200,000 birds/year across the archipelago (~4,000 platforms). Therefore, 

mortality estimates for migrant birds from collisions with platforms over a 40-year period (estimated 

lifespan of a platform) may be on the order of approximately 8-13 million birds (Table 4-7 of the 2012-

2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). The collision death estimates should also be considered biased low 

given that (1) the platform-specific estimates associated with number of anticipated installed platforms 

only include deaths due to collisions and (2) these estimates and the long-term estimates do not account 

for issues related to detection bias (Piatt et al., 1990a; Piatt and Ford, 1996; Flint et al., 1999) or lost bird 

years (Zafonte and Hampton, 2005). Taking this bias into account, BOEM has determined that these 

collision mortality estimates still represent an adverse, but not significant, impact to migrant birds. This 

is because it has been estimated from theoretical analyses of 1998 and 1999 radar data that there could be 

147 (1999) to 316 (1998) million trans-Gulf migrants in the spring season for a given year (Russell, 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-47

2005). Although there will always be some level of incomplete information on the effects from routine 

activities under the WPA proposed action on birds, there is credible scientific information, applied using 

acceptable scientific methodologies, to support the conclusion that any realized impacts would be 

generally sublethal in nature and not in themselves rise to the level of reasonably foreseeable significant 

adverse (population-level) effects. Also, routine activities will be ongoing in the WPA proposed action 

area as a result of existing leases and related activities. 

Within the WPA, there is a long-standing and well-developed OCS Program (more than 50 years); 

there are no data to suggest that routine activities from the preexisting OCS Program are significantly 

impacting coastal and marine bird populations. Therefore, a full understanding of any incomplete or 

unavailable information on the effects of routine activities is not essential to make a reasoned choice 

among the alternatives. Particularly when compared with other causes of bird mortality, the routine 

events associated with the OCS Program are unlikely to result in population-level impacts to avian 

species. 

Overall, impacts to avian species from routine activities are expected to be adverse but not significant. 

The impacts include the following:

• temporary behavioral changes, temporary or permanent changes in habitat use, 

temporary changes in foraging behavior, temporary changes to preferred foods or 

prey switching, temporary or permanent emigration, temporary or permanent 

reductions in nesting, hatching, and fledging success;

• sublethal, chronic effects due to exposure to or intake of OCS-related contaminants 

via spilled oil, pollutants in the water from service vessels, produced water, or 

discarded debris;

• nocturnal circulation around platforms may create acute sublethal stress from energy 

loss and the addition of platforms will increase collision risk; 

• minimal habitat impacts (based on actual acres of footprint) are expected (onshore or 

within State waters) to occur directly from routine activities resulting from the WPA 

proposed action (but refer to Johnston et al., 2009); and

• secondary impacts from pipeline and navigation canals to coastal habitats will occur 

over the long term and may ultimately displace species to other habitats, if available.

Presently, there are no mitigations (or stipulations) in place specific for the protection and 

conservation of migratory birds in the Gulf (USDOI, FWS and USDOI, MMS, 2009; Alexander, 2010). 

However, avoidance measures and conditions are routinely placed on permitted activities to protect 

habitat (Table 4-3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS; but also refer to Johnston et al., 2009; 

Bayne and Dale, 2011; Johnson and St-Laurent, 2011). 

The major impact-producing factors resulting from the accidental events associated with the WPA 

proposed action that may affect the coastal and marine birds include oil spills regardless of size and 

oil-spill cleanup activities, including the release of rehabilitated birds. A detailed impact analysis of the 

accidental events that may be associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on coastal and marine birds 

can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.14.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Overall, impacts to coastal and marine birds associated with accidental events (oil spills regardless of 

size) in the WPA should be less than in the CPA due to the following factors: fewer platforms; lower 

oil-spill probabilities; and much lower numbers of predicted oil spills, particularly pipeline spills over the 

life of the WPA proposed action (Tables 3-2, 3-4, and 3-5 of this Supplemental EIS and Tables 3-12 and 

3-21 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). Oil spills (and disturbance impacts associated with 

cleanup activities) have the greatest impact on coastal and marine birds. Depending on the timing and 

location of the spill, even small spills can result in major avian mortality events (Piatt et al., 1990a and 

1990b; Castège et al., 2007; Wilhelm et al., 2007). Small amounts of oil can affect birds, and mortality 

from oil spills is often related to numerous symptoms of toxicity (Burger and Gochfeld, 2001; Albers, 

2006). Data from actual spills strongly suggest that impacts to a bird species’ food supply are typically 

delayed after initial impacts from direct oiling (e.g., Esler et al., 2002; Velando et al., 2005; Zabala et al., 
4-48 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

2010). Sublethal, long-term effects of oil on birds have previously been documented (Esler et al., 2000a; 

Alonso-Alvarez et al., 2007a), including changes to sexual signaling (Pérez et al., 2010).

Oil-spill impacts on birds from the WPA proposed action are expected to be adverse but not 

significant given the number and relatively small size of spills expected over the 40 year life of the WPA 

proposed action (Table 3-12 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). Impacts of oil-spill cleanup 

from the WPA proposed action are also expected to be adverse, but not significant, but may be negligible 

depending on the scope and scale of efforts. Significant impacts to coastal and marine birds could result 

in the event of a catastrophic spill, depending on the timing, location, and size of the spill. For additional 

information on a catastrophic spill, refer to Appendix B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

Cumulative impacts to coastal and marine birds include both OCS and non-OCS activities. The OCS 

activities include the following: 

• the WPA proposed action; and

• prior and future OCS sales.

The non-OCS activities include the following:

• State oil and gas activity;

• crude oil imports by tankers; and

• other commercial, military, and recreational offshore and coastal activities.

The OCS-related, impact-producing factors include the following:

• air pollution;

• pollution of coastal and offshore waters resulting from OCS-related activities 

including platform and pipeline oil spills, produced waters, and any spill-response 

activities; 

• structure presence and lighting;

• aircraft and vessel traffic and associated noise and disturbance impacts, including 

OCS helicopter and service-vessels; 

• habitat loss, alteration, and fragmentation resulting from coastal facility construction 

and development;

• OCS pipeline landfalls; and

• trash and debris.

The non-OCS, impact-producing factors include the following:

• air pollution;

• pollution of coastal waters resulting from municipal, industrial, and agricultural 

runoff and discharge;

• tanker oil spills and spills related to oil and gas activities in State coastal waters and 

any spill-response activities;

• aircraft and military activities, including jet training overflights and sonic booms;

• nonconsumptive recreation, including bird-watching activities, all-terrain vehicle use, 

walking and jogging with pets, and other beach use;

• maintenance and use of navigation waterways;
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-49

• habitat loss, alteration, and fragmentation associated with commercial and residential 

development; 

• collisions of coastal and marine birds with various anthropogenic structures (e.g., 

buildings, power lines, cell phone towers, etc.);

• diseases; 

• climate change and related impacts;

• storms and floods;

• coastal development; and

• fisheries interactions. 

A detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed 

WPA Lease Sale 233 on coastal and marine birds can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.14.4 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Human-induced disturbance effects often tend to get overlooked or underestimated as a potential

population-limiting factor for birds (Hockin et al., 1992; Newton, 1998, pages 365-369). The cumulative 

effect on coastal and marine birds from all sources is expected to result in changes in species composition 

and distribution, and a discernible (i.e., low thousands; Table 4-7 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS) decline in the number of birds that form localized groups or populations. Some of these changes are 

expected to be permanent and to stem from a net decrease in preferred habitat for all birds, and possibly 

impacts to and declines in the amount or quality of critical habitat for some endangered species 

(Table 4-1 of this Supplemental EIS; also refer to Table 4-14 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS). However, the incremental contribution of the WPA proposed action to the cumulative impact is 

considered adverse but not significant because the effects of the most probable impacts, such as salerelated operational discharges and helicopters and service-vessel noise and traffic, are expected to be 

sublethal; and some displacement of local individuals or flocks may occur to other habitat, if available.

In general, the net effect of habitat loss from oil spills, OCS pipeline landfalls, and maintenance and 

use of navigation waterways, as well as habitat loss and modification resulting from coastal facility 

construction and development, will probably reduce the overall carrying capacity of the disturbed 

habitat(s). That is, impacted habitats may result in reductions to both species composition (fewer species) 

and abundance (lower numbers) as compared with what the area supported historically. These would be 

the most serious cumulative impacts on birds.

Nocturnal circulation events at platforms are assumed to have mostly sublethal impacts (e.g., 

energetic losses due to time spent circling) on migrating bird populations. However, oil and gas platforms 

in the GOM (and associated lighting) result in collision-related mortality of 200,000-321,000 birds/year 

(Table 4-7 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS); these numbers will increase as a result of the 

WPA proposed action. Similarly, some unknown number of birds that stopover on platforms is preyed 

upon by migrating raptors (Russell, 2005). Overall, offshore oil and gas platform-related avian mortality, 

though representing an additional source of human-induced mortality, represents a small fraction 

compared with other sources of human-induced mortality. The mortality estimates related to offshore oil 

and gas activities are well below that for vehicles, buildings and windows, power lines, and 

communication towers (Table 4-7 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). 

The Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill, which made it into the nearshore and coastal 

environment, resulted in the loss of ~7,250 birds across all Gulf of Mexico planning areas (Table 4-2 of 

this Supplemental EIS; also refer to Table 4-8 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). A small but 

unknown fraction of the total dead and live birds was collected in the WPA (USDOI, FWS, 2010a and 

2010b). It is likely that birds were not oiled in the WPA, but additional information from the SCAT data 

and more detailed geospatial information for each bird recovered and its oiling state (oiled vs. unoiled) 

would be required to state that conclusively. In addition, spill-response activities likely exacerbated 

impacts, particularly for breeding birds nesting on the beaches, barrier islands, and other habitats that 

were intensively monitored. It is probable that impacts to the avian community in the WPA were far less 

than impacts to the avian community in the CPA. The total number of birds killed by the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup was likely biased low. In addition, it will be years before a 
4-50 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

reliable, model-based estimate of mortality that accounts for detection-related issues is provided (e.g., 

Flint et al., 1999; also refer to Byrd et al., 2009).

Presently, the best available information (e.g., Henkel et al., 2012) does not provide a complete 

understanding of the effects of the spilled oil or the recovery potential for the most impacted species 

(Table 4-2 of this Supplemental EIS; also refer to Tables 4-8, 4-12, and 4-13 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). Unavailable information on the effects to birds, including from the

Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup (and thus changes to the birds baseline in the affected 

environment), makes an understanding of the cumulative effects less clear, although most species in the 

WPA were likely unaffected based on the lateral extent of the plume, residency periods, and migration 

patterns. Here, BOEM concludes that the unavailable information from this event may be relevant to 

foreseeable significant adverse impacts to birds. Relevant data on the status of coastal and marine bird 

populations after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup may take years to acquire and 

analyze, and impacts from the Deepwater Horizon explosion may be difficult or impossible to discern 

from other factors. Therefore, it is not possible for BOEM to obtain this information within the timeline 

contemplated in this Supplemental EIS, regardless of the cost or resources needed. In light of the 

incomplete or unavailable information, BOEM’s subject-matter experts have used available scientifically 

credible evidence in this analysis based upon accepted methods and approaches. Nevertheless, a 

complete understanding of the missing information is not essential to a reasoned choice among 

alternatives for this Supplemental EIS (including the No Action and Action alternatives) for the following 

reasons. 

The WPA is an active oil and gas region with ongoing (or the potential for) exploration, drilling, and 

production activities. In addition, non-OCS energy-related activities will continue to occur in the WPA 

irrespective of the WPA proposed action (i.e., fishing, military activities, and scientific research). The 

potential for effects from changes to the affected environment (post-Deepwater Horizon), routine 

activities, accidental spills (including low-probability catastrophic spills), and cumulative effects remains 

whether or not the No Action or an Action alternative is chosen under this Supplemental EIS. Impacts on 

birds from either smaller accidental events or low-probability catastrophic events will remain the same. 

The oil plume from the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill remained east of the WPA boundary, 

and impacts to birds in the WPA were likely negligible (Figure 4-15 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS). 

Disease is often lethal and may take millions of birds annually, but it should be considered a 

“naturally” occurring avian mortality factor unless the pathogen is introduced by humans (refer to 

Newton, 1998). Storms and floods represent natural, often major disturbances to which exposed 

organisms are generally adapted. An exception would be hurricane-related storm surges, which are 

exacerbated by coastal wetland loss in Louisiana and throughout the northern GOM (Costanza et al., 

2008; Engle, 2011). Effects from sea-level rise may be particularly severe for many species of breeding 

marsh- and shorebirds (e.g., brown pelican, sandwich tern, black skimmer, Forster’s tern, laughing gull, 

gull-billed tern, royal tern, snowy plover, least tern, and Wilson’s plover; USDOI, FWS, 2010c), as well 

as several species of wintering shorebirds that rely on beaches, flats, dunes, sandbars, shorelines, islands, 

estuaries, and other low-lying, tidally influenced habitats in the Gulf of Mexico (Galbraith et al., 2002; 

North American Bird Conservation Initiative, 2010). Even a nominal rise in sea level (USDOC, NOAA, 

2011a, pages 36-37) would inundate much of this habitat, making it unsuitable for many, if not most, of 

these species.

In conclusion, the incremental contribution of the WPA proposed action to the cumulative impact is 

considered adverse but not significant when compared with the impacts of non-OCS Program-related 

factors. 

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

For the WPA, only Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 37 was considered, as the other two BCR’s 

(27 and 31) encompass areas outside the WPA. Bird Conservation Region 37 includes 44 Birds of 

Conservation Concern, of which 30 (68.2%) are considered as having a potential to be impacted by 

offshore oil and gas development, with 20 (45.4%) representing species with a high probability of oiling 

in the event of a spill (Table 4-11 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). National Wildlife 

Refuges with a marine component are located in Louisiana (n = 7; 250,070 ac [101,200 ha]) and Texas 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-51

(n = 10; 493,968 ac [199,902 ha]) and are managed primarily for the protection and conservation of 

migratory birds (Figure 4-12 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). 

A detailed treatment of the potential effects of impact-producing factors on coastal and marine birds

associated with the WPA proposed action can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.14.2 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. A list of potentially impacted avian species considered herein can be found in 

Table 4-2 of this Supplemental EIS and in Chapter 4.1.1.14.1 and Tables 4-9 through 4-11 of the 2012-

2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The new information with regards to bird data are found in Tables 4-1 

and 4-2. Table 4-1 was updated with more recent data from FWS. The data and estimates reported in 

Table 4-2 are corrected from Table 4-8 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. These were 

corrected with regards to an update for the dead birds collected from FWS. The end date for dead birds 

collected is now May 2011.

The majority of the effects resulting from routine activities of the WPA proposed action (Tables 3-2, 

3-4, and 3-5 of this Supplemental EIS and Tables 3-13 through 3-16 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS) on threatened or endangered (Table 4-1) and nonthreatened and nonendangered coastal 

and marine birds are expected to be sublethal, e.g., primarily disturbance-related effects (Chapters 

4.1.1.14.1 and 4.1.1.14.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). 

Although there will always be some level of incomplete information on the effects from routine 

activities under the WPA proposed action on birds, there is credible scientific information, applied using 

acceptable scientific methodologies, to support the conclusion that any realized impacts would be 

generally sublethal in nature and not in themselves rise to the level of reasonably foreseeable significant 

adverse (population-level) effects. Also, routine activities will be ongoing in the WPA proposed action 

area as a result of existing leases and related activities. Within the WPA, there is a long-standing and 

well-developed OCS Program (more than 50 years). Therefore, a full understanding of any incomplete or 

unavailable information on the effects of routine activities is not essential to make a reasoned choice 

among the alternatives for the reasons described herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

Particularly when compared with other causes of bird mortality, the routine events associated with the 

OCS Program are unlikely to result in population-level impacts to avian species.

Overall, impacts to avian species from routine activities are expected to be adverse, but not 

significant. The impacts include the following:

• temporary behavioral changes, temporary or permanent changes in habitat use, 

temporary changes in foraging behavior, temporary changes to preferred foods or 

prey switching, temporary or permanent emigration, temporary or permanent 

reductions in nesting, hatching, and fledging success;

• sublethal, chronic effects due to exposure to or intake of OCS-related contaminants 

via spilled oil (Table 4-2), pollutants in the water from service vessels, produced 

water, or discarded debris;

• nocturnal circulation around platforms, which may create acute sublethal stress from 

energy loss (and the addition of platforms will increase collision risk); 

• minimal habitat impacts (based on actual acres of footprint), which are expected 

(onshore or within State waters) to occur directly from routine activities resulting 

from the WPA proposed action (but refer to Johnston et al., 2009); and

• secondary impacts from pipeline and navigation canals to coastal habitats, which will 

occur over the long term and may ultimately displace species to other habitats, 

assuming comparable (quality) habitats are available.

Presently, there are no mitigations (or stipulations) in place specific for the protection and 

conservation of migratory birds in the Gulf (USDOI, FWS and USDOI, MMS, 2009; Alexander, 2010). 

However, avoidance measures and conditions are routinely placed on permitted activities to protect 

habitat (but refer to Fox et al., 2006; Bayne and Dale, 2011; Johnson and St-Laurent, 2011).

Unavailable information on the effects to birds, including from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil 

spill, and cleanup (and thus changes to the birds baseline in the affected environment), makes an 

understanding of the cumulative effects less clear; most species in the WPA were likely unaffected based 
4-52 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

on the lateral extent of the plume, residency periods, and migration patterns. BOEM concludes that the 

unavailable information from this event may be relevant to foreseeable significant adverse impacts to 

birds. Relevant data on the status of coastal and marine bird populations after the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup may take years to acquire and analyze, and impacts from the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion may be difficult or impossible to discern from other factors. Therefore, it is not 

possible for BOEM to obtain this information within the timeline contemplated in this Supplemental EIS, 

regardless of the cost or resources needed. In light of the incomplete or unavailable information, 

BOEM’s subject-matter experts have used available scientifically credible evidence in this analysis based 

upon accepted methods and approaches. Nevertheless, a complete understanding of the missing 

information is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives for this Supplemental EIS (including 

the No Action and an Action alternative) because the missing information is not thought to be critical.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for coastal and marine birds presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information provided above. At the present time, there 

is no way to discern if the additional levels of annual (>200,000) or long-term mortality (over the life of 

newly installed platforms) for any of the affected trans-Gulf migrant species considered herein results in 

population-level impacts (Russell 2005, Chapters 17 and 18). Given what we know about the life-history 

characteristics of many of these species (e.g., age at first reproduction, clutch size, nest success, etc.), the 

potential for major population-level impacts seems relatively low (Arnold and Zink, 2011, page 2). No 

new significant information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for coastal and marine 

birds presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed 

in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

4.1.1.15.Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for fish resources and essential fish habitat (EFH) presented in 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new 

significant information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for fish resources and EFH

presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the WPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of fish resources and EFH can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.15 and Appendix D of 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Also, EFH are discussed in various chapters of this document, 

including water quality (Chapters 4.1.1.2 and 4.2.1.2), wetlands (Chapters 4.1.1.4 and 4.2.1.4), 

seagrass communities (Chapters 4.1.1.5 and 4.2.1.5), live bottoms (Chapter 4.2.1.6), topographic 

features (Chapters 4.1.1.6 and 4.2.1.7), Sargassum communities (Chapters 4.1.1.7 and 4.2.1.8), 

chemosynthetic deepwater benthic communities (Chapters 4.1.1.8 and 4.2.1.9), nonchemosynthetic 

deepwater benthic communities (Chapters 4.1.1.9 and 4.2.1.10), and soft bottom benthic communities 

(Chapters 4.1.1.10 and 4.2.1.11). 

Effects on fish resources and EFH from routine activities associated with the WPA proposed action 

could result from coastal environmental degradation, marine environmental degradation, pipeline 

trenching, and offshore discharges of drilling muds and produced waters. A detailed impact analysis of 

the routine impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on fish resources 

and EFH can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.15.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Without the mitigations in place, there could be negative impacts to fish resources and EFH. 

However, because of the mitigations, the WPA proposed action is expected to result in a minimal 

decrease in fish resources and/or standing stocks or in EFH. It would require a short time for fish 

resources to recover from most of the routine activities because impacts to the habitat would generally be 

temporary. Also, fish tend to avoid areas of impact (thus reducing mortality effects) and most fish 

species are prolific reproducers. Recovery from the loss of wetlands habitat would probably not occur, 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-53

but it would likely result in conversion of the lost wetland habitats into open water or mudflats, which 

may qualify as other forms of EFH.

It is expected that any possible coastal and marine environmental degradation from routine activities 

associated with the WPA proposed action would have little effect on fish resources or EFH. The impact 

of coastal and marine environmental degradation is expected to cause a nondetectable decrease in fish 

resources or in EFH. Routine activities such as pipeline trenching and OCS discharge of drilling muds 

and produced water would cause negligible impacts that would not deleteriously affect fish resources or 

EFH. This is because of regulations, mitigations, and practices that reduce the undesirable effects on 

coastal habitats from dredging and other construction activities. Permit requirements should ensure that 

pipeline routes either avoid different coastal habitat types or that certain techniques are used to decrease 

impacts. At the expected level of impact, the resultant influence on fish resources would cause minimal 

changes in fish populations or EFH. That is, if there are impacts, they would be short term and localized; 

therefore, they would only affect small portions of fish populations and selected areas of EFH. As a 

result, there would be little disturbance to fish resources or EFH. In deepwater areas, many of the EFH’s 

are protected under stipulations and regulations currently set in place.

Additional hard-substrate habitat provided by structure installation in areas where natural hard bottom 

is rare would tend to increase fish populations. The removal of these structures would eliminate that 

habitat, except when decommissioned platforms are used as artificial reef material. This practice is 

expected to increase over time.

Accidental events associated with the WPA proposed action that could impact fish resources and EFH

include blowouts and oil or chemical spills. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may 

be associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on fish resources and EFH can be found in Chapter 

4.1.1.15.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

Accidental events that could impact fish resources and EFH include blowouts and oil or chemical 

spills. Because subsurface blowouts, although a highly unlikely occurrence, suspend large amounts of 

sediment, they have the potential to adversely affect fish resources in the immediate area of the blowout.

If oil spills due to the WPA proposed action were to occur in open waters of the OCS proximate to 

mobile adult finfish, the effects would likely be nonfatal and the extent of damage would be reduced 

because adult fish have the ability to move away from a spill, to metabolize hydrocarbons, and to excrete 

both metabolites and parent compounds. Fish and shellfish eggs and larvae would be unable to avoid 

spills, and early development stages may be at greater risk. Fish populations may be impacted by an oil 

spill, but they will be primarily affected if the oil reaches the shelf and estuarine areas because these are 

the most productive areas and because many species reside in estuaries for at least part of their life cycle 

or are dependent on the nutrients exported from the estuaries to the shelf region. The extent of the 

impacts of the oil would depend on the properties of the oil and the time of year of the event. Also, much 

of the coastal areas of the northern GOM are moderate- to high-energy environment; therefore, sediment 

transport and tidal stirring should reduce the chances for oil persisting in these habitats if they are oiled. 

Weathered crude oil has been shown in laboratory experiments and field research to cause a range of 

sublethal effects, including malformation, genetic damage, and physiological impairment in different life 

history stages of different fish species (Carls et al., 1999; Whitehead et al., 2011). Oil can be lethal to 

fish, especially in larval and egg stages, depending on the time of the year that the event happened. The 

extent of the impacts of the oil would depend on the properties of the oil and the time of year of the event.

The effect of oil spills that may be associated with the WPA proposed action on fish resources is 

expected to cause a minimal decrease in standing stocks of any population because the most common spill 

events would be small in scale and localized; therefore, they would affect generally only a small portion 

of fish populations. Historically, there have been no oil spills of any size in the GOM that have had a 

long-term impact on fishery populations. Although many potential effects of the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup on fish populations of the GOM have been alleged, the actual effects are 

at this time unknown and the total impacts are likely to be unknown for several years. 

BOEM has determined that it cannot obtain this information, regardless of cost, within the timeframe 

contemplated by this NEPA analysis, and it may be years before the information is available. In the 

meantime, where this incomplete information is relevant to reasonably foreseeable impacts, it was 

determined if it was essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and if not, scientifically credible 

information that is available was used in its stead and applied using accepted methodology.

Although there is incomplete or unavailable information on the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup on fish resources and EFH, BOEM has determined that it is impossible 
4-54 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

for this Agency to obtain this information, regardless of cost, within the timeframe contemplated by this 

NEPA analysis, and it may be years before the information is available. This information is being 

developed through the NRDA process, data is still incoming and has not been made publicly available, 

and it is expected to be years before the information is available. In addition, where this incomplete 

information is relevant to reasonably foreseeable impacts, what scientifically credible information is 

available was used in its stead and applied using accepted scientific methodologies. Nevertheless, BOEM 

believes that this information is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives. The likely size of 

an accidental event resulting from the WPA proposed action would be small and unlikely to impact 

coastal and estuarine habitats where juvenile and larval stages of fish resources are predominant, and 

adult fish tend to avoid adverse water conditions.

The cumulative analysis includes effects on fish resources and EFH’s of the OCS Program (the WPA 

proposed action and past and future OCS lease sales), State oil and gas activity, coastal development, 

crude oil imports by tanker, commercial and recreational fishing, and natural phenomena. An example of 

impact-producing factors considered in this cumulative analysis include cumulative onshore impacts on 

EFH’s, such as wetland loss as a result of human population expansion, environmental degradation, 

relative sea-level rise, and natural factors (e.g., hurricane loss of wetlands). A detailed impact analysis of 

the cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on fish resources 

and EFH can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.15.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

There are widespread anthropogenic and natural factors that impact EFH and fish populations in the 

GOM. These include OCS and non-OCS related factors. Different OCS-related construction can range 

from onshore facilities to well-site construction activities, including board roads, ring levees, and 

impoundments. With the number of pipelines estimated for the WPA proposed action, sediment would 

potentially be resuspended in the localized areas. The explosive removal of structures does have a 

negative effect on those fish in close proximity. The OCS activities such as the emplacement of 

structures and of artificial reefs also have a positive effect by providing habitat and/or food for reef fishes, 

but their removals can be detrimental. Discharges from OCS activities, such as drill mud and produced 

water, have an incremental effect on offshore water quality. All discharges are regulated by USEPA or 

State agencies. Oil spills, although considered rare events, can affect waters. Fish are known to avoid 

any area of adverse water quality (Wannamaker and Rice, 2000), so they would be less likely to remain in 

the immediate vicinity of a spill. The OCS-related activities that could physically destroy live bottoms

(e.g., anchoring and using anchor chains) are mitigated by BOEM. The OCS factors potentially 

impacting fish resources in the Gulf of Mexico are federally regulated or mitigated and are small. There 

are many anthropogenic factors that are regulated by Federal and State agencies, and there are natural 

factors that cannot be regulated. Also to be considered is the variability in GOM fish populations due to 

natural factors such as spawning success and juvenile survival. Overall, the incremental contribution of 

OCS effects to finfish populations is small.

Inshore inputs of pollutants to estuaries from runoff and industry are also contributors to wetland loss. 

Canal dredging primarily accommodates commercial, residential, and recreational development. 

Increased population and commercial pressures on the WPA coast are also causing the expansion of ports 

and marinas there. The coastal waters of Texas are expected to continue to experience nutrient 

enrichment, low-dissolved oxygen, and toxin and pesticide contamination, resulting in the loss of both 

commercial and recreational uses of the affected waters. The degradation of water quality is expected to 

continue due to contamination by point- and nonpoint-source discharges due to eutrophication of 

waterbodies, primarily due to runoff and hydrologic modifications. Resource management agencies, both 

State and Federal, set restrictions and permits in an effort to mitigate both the effects of development 

projects and industry activities. The Federal and State governments are also funding research and coastal 

restoration projects; however, it may take decades of monitoring to ascertain the long-term feasibility of 

these coastal restoration efforts.

Overfishing (including bycatch) has contributed in a large way to some populations of GOM fish. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and its amendments address 

sustainable fisheries and set guidelines for protecting marine resources and habitat from fishing- and 

nonfishing-related activities. Limits on catch and fishing seasons are set by the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries 

Management Council. State agencies regulate inshore fishing seasons and limits.

Naturally occurring tropical cyclones can cause damage to various EFH’s. These can be onshore as 

with wetland loss and offshore as with damaged topographic features. These storms are a continual part 

of the Gulf of Mexico climate. 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-55

All of these events and activities cause some sort of effect on the different EFH’s and fish resources. 

Many anthropogenic inputs, including the WPA proposed action, are now monitored, regulated, and 

mitigated by the permitting agency or State. These efforts will continue in the future, and the restoration 

of habitats could increase with better technologies. While EFH and fish resources are impacted by these 

many factors, the WPA proposed action would add a minimal amount to the overall cumulative effects. 

As noted in Chapter 4.1.1.15.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, most of the Gulf of 

Mexico is designated as EFH and encompasses many different types of habitats and resources, which are 

described in this Supplemental EIS. The extent of impacts from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil 

spill, and cleanup to EFH and fish resources remains unclear at this time. This information is being 

developed through the NRDA process, data is still incoming and has not been made publicly available, 

and it is expected to be years before the information is available. No evidence of significant impacts to 

fisheries populations in the Gulf of Mexico have been shown to date.

In addition, where this incomplete information is relevant to reasonably foreseeable impacts, what 

scientifically credible information is available was used in its stead and applied using accepted scientific 

methodologies in this section and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Although it may be 

relevant to reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts, this incomplete or unavailable information is not 

essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives. Compared with other impacting factors on EFH and 

fish resources, including those related to coastal and marine degradation, wetland loss, vessel traffic, and 

coastal development, the WPA proposed action is not likely to result in an incremental increase in 

impacts to EFH and fish resources, regardless of any lingering impacts from Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. 

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

An ongoing search of Internet information sources as well as an ongoing search of scientific journals 

was conducted to determine the availability of recent information (including Science Direct, Elsevier, 

CSA Illumina, and JSTOR). No new significant scientific information has been identified as relevant to 

this analysis since publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Although there is incomplete or unavailable information on the impacts of Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup on fish resources and EFH, BOEM has determined that it is impossible 

for this Agency to obtain this information, regardless of cost, within the timeframe contemplated by this 

NEPA analysis, and it may be years before the information is available. This information is being 

developed through the NRDA process, data is still incoming and has not been made publicly available, 

and it is expected to be years before the information is available. In addition, where this incomplete 

information is relevant to reasonably foreseeable impacts, what scientifically credible information is 

available was used in its stead and applied using accepted scientific methodologies. Nevertheless, BOEM 

believes that this information is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives as discussed in this 

section and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for fish resources and EFH presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information provided above. No new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for fish resources and EFH presented 

in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

4.1.1.16.Commercial Fisheries

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for commercial fisheries presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for commercial fisheries presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events that may be 

associated with the WPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the 

cumulative impacts are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information 
4-56 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

is a summary of the resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and 

any new information that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of commercial fisheries can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.16.1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Healthy fishery stocks depend on EFH waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, 

feeding, and growing to maturity. Since the majority of the commercial species harvested within the 

WPA are estuary dependent, coastal environmental degradation resulting from the WPA proposed action, 

although indirect, has the potential to adversely affect EFH and commercial fisheries. Wetlands and 

estuaries in the WPA may be affected by activities resulting from the WPA proposed action. These 

activities include construction of new onshore facilities in wetland areas, pipeline emplacement in 

wetland areas, vessel usage of navigation channel and access canals, maintenance of navigation channels, 

inshore disposal of OCS-generated petroleum field wastes, and spills from both coastal and offshore 

OCS-support activities. Most of the wetlands loss in the WPA, however, is a result of OCS activities 

associated with residential and industrial development in wetlands. A detailed impact analysis of the 

routine impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on commercial fisheries

can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.16.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Some of the impact-causing actions to commercial fish habitat are mitigated by BOEM through the 

Topographic Features Stipulation that is applied to each lease sale that establishes a No Activity Zone

around important topographic features, such as the Flower Garden Banks. Also, NTL 2009-G39 advises 

operators to avoid hard-bottom habitats that support fish populations, and USEPA’s discharge permit 

system mitigates potential impacts from produced water.

Estuarine water quality degradation is largely a result of urban runoff. Offshore water quality is 

affected temporarily and is in a limited area by the produced-water discharge and the overboard discharge 

of drilling muds. Pipeline trenching, maintenance dredging, and canal widening in inshore areas would 

cause only temporary suspension of sediments. Negative impacts from most of these routine operations 

would require a short time for fish resources to recover. Recovery from the loss of wetlands habitat 

would probably not occur.

Space-use conflicts will continue in the offshore area, although the area off limits to fishing 

(especially longlining) is small. Some gear loss will continue to occur as will down time from seismic 

surveys. The Fishermen’s Compensation Fund compensates U.S. commercial fishermen and other 

eligible citizens and entities for property and economic loss caused by obstructions related to oil and gas 

development activities on the OCS. The NMFS administers and processes Fishermen’s Contingency 

Fund claims, and BOEM coordinates communications with OCS leaseholders and maintains the database 

for reported obstructions. The level of impact of the WPA proposed action on the commercial fisheries in 

the WPA is expected to be small.

Additional hard-substrate habitat provided by structure installation in areas where natural hard bottom 

is rare will tend to increase or attract fish populations. The removal of these structures will eliminate that 

habitat, except when decommissioned platforms are used as artificial reef material. This practice is 

expected to increase over time.

Negative impacts from most of these routine operations would require a short time for fish resources

to recover. Recovery from the loss of wetlands habitat would probably not occur. For these reasons, as 

well as the fact that Gulf of Mexico fish stocks have retained both diversity and biomass throughout the 

years of offshore development, the WPA proposed action is expected to result in a minimal decrease in 

fish resources. 

Accidental events that could impact commercial fisheries include subsurface offshore blowouts and 

oil spills, both inshore and offshore. There is a small risk of spills occurring during shore-based support 

activities. The great majority of these shore-based spills would be very small, limited to the storage 

capacity, and would require shorter response time. Most of these incidents would occur at or near 

pipeline terminals or shore bases, and they are expected to affect a highly localized area with low-level 

impacts. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be associated with proposed WPA 

Lease Sale 233 on commercial fisheries can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.4.16.3 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

BOEM has examined the available data for impacts of the WPA proposed action to commercial 

fisheries in the WPA. Accidental events that could impact commercial fisheries include blowouts and oil 

or chemical spills. Because subsurface blowouts, although a highly unlikely occurrence, suspend large 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-57

amounts of sediment, they have the potential to adversely affect fisheries resources in the immediate area 

of the blowout.

Oil spills on the OCS due to the WPA proposed action are highly unlikely. If oil spills due to the 

WPA proposed action were to occur in open waters of the OCS proximate to mobile adult finfish, the 

effects would likely be nonfatal, and the extent of damage would be reduced because adult fish have the 

ability to avoid a spill. This behavioral mechanism allows them to move away from the source of the 

hydrocarbons, therefore minimizing the likelihood of fish kills.

The most damaging oil spills to commercial fisheries populations would be those reaching the 

productive shelf or estuaries. Negative impacts would be greatest on those populations that are short 

lived and harvested annually, such as crabs and shrimp, or those populations that are sessile, such as 

oysters. Spills of this magnitude from the Exclusive Economic Zone have, however, a very low 

probability of occurrence historically. 

Most closures from oil spills are small and short lived. Fishermen are generally able to avoid the 

area, causing only localized economic impacts. Large-scale closures are rare but can temporarily inflict a 

negative impact on commercial fishermen and the sale of local fish products. Closures may also relieve 

fishing pressure and allow fisheries populations to increase the following year.

The potential impacts of the WPA proposed action from accidental events (i.e., a well blowout or an 

oil spill) are anticipated to be minimal because the potential for oil spills is very low, the most typical 

events are small and of short duration, and the effects are so localized that fish are typically able to avoid 

the area adversely impacted.

The cumulative analysis considers activities that have occurred, are currently occurring, and could 

occur and adversely affect commercial fisheries for the years 2012-2051. These activities include the 

effects of the OCS Program (proposed action and prior and future OCS sales), State oil and gas activity, 

the status of commercial fishery stocks, oil transport by tankers, natural phenomena, and commercial and 

recreational fishing. 

Specific types of impact-producing factors considered in the cumulative analysis include the 

following: (1) commercial fishing techniques or practices; (2) hurricanes; (3) installation of production 

platforms and underwater OCS obstructions; (4) production platform removals; (5) seismic surveys; 

(6) petroleum spills; (7) subsurface blowouts; (8) pipeline trenching; and (9) offshore discharges of 

drilling mud and produced waters. A detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of OCS 

activities associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on commercial fisheries can be found in Chapter 

4.1.1.16.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Activities resulting from the OCS Program and non-OCS events have the potential to cause limited 

detrimental effects to commercial fisheries, landings, and the value of those landings. The impactproducing factors of the cumulative scenario that are expected to substantially affect commercial fisheries

include commercial and fishing techniques or practices (overfishing), hurricanes, installation of 

production platforms and underwater OCS obstructions, production platform removals, seismic surveys, 

petroleum spills, subsurface blowouts, pipeline trenching, and offshore discharges of drilling mud and 

produced waters. 

Because the area of the installation of production platforms is small as compared with the area 

available in the WPA for fishing and because the impacts from platform removals are so localized, the 

cumulative impact of these activities with the WPA proposed action to the commercial fisheries is 

anticipated to be minor. The effects of seismic surveys have been determined to be limited in time and 

space. The effects of seismic surveys are, therefore, expected to be minimal overall.

Subsurface blowouts, such as the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill, that include both oil and 

natural gas have the potential to affect fish populations, particularly eggs and larvae. The full effects of 

this type of spill on individual fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico are currently unknown, but spills of this 

type are a low-probability event. The potential impacts are discussed in Appendix B of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Because spills of this magnitude are low-probability events, their contribution 

to the cumulative impact on commercial fisheries populations is not expected to be large as a result of the 

WPA proposed action. Also, fish are known to actively avoid areas of oil spills as they avoid any area of 

adverse water quality. 

The OCS factors can physically destroy live bottoms with anchors and anchor chains. These actions 

are mitigated by BOEM. The explosive removal of structures does have a negative effect on those fish in 

close proximity to the explosion at the time of removal. The OCS activities such as the emplacement of 

structures and artificial reefs also have a positive effect by providing habitat and/or food for reef fishes.
4-58 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Significant contributions to cumulative impacts from oil and gas activities are not anticipated as a 

result of pipeline trenching because sandy sediments are quickly redeposited within 400 m (1,312 ft) of a 

trench, and finer sediments are widely dispersed and redeposited over a period of hours to days within a 

few thousand meters of the event. These are small areas as compared with the rest of the Gulf of Mexico, 

and they are temporary disturbances.

Offshore discharges of drilling mud have been shown to dilute to near background levels within 

1,000 m (3,281 ft) of the discharge point. Because offshore discharges of produced water disperse and 

dilute to near background levels within 1,000 m (3,281 ft) of the discharge point and because of mercury

in sediments near drilling platforms is not in a bioavailable form, the contribution of produced-water 

discharges to the cumulative impacts of the WPA proposed action is not anticipated to be significant.

Wetland loss as a result commercial and residential development is one of the major factors in this 

trend, although this is regulated and mitigated by COE. The loss of marsh and seagrass habitats that 

provides shelter for larvae and juveniles of many species is a major problem, particularly in the WPA. 

The loss of wetlands also contributes to the intrusion of saltwater into oyster-producing waters. This 

increases oyster mortality by increasing disease and predators in the oyster beds.

The OCS activities that may affect fish populations include a small contribution to wetland loss as a 

result of offshore traffic traversing inland canals. There is also a contribution of pollution from oil-related 

activities to inland waters and estuaries. Discharges from OCS activities such as drill mud and produced 

water have an incremental effect on offshore water quality. All discharges are regulated by USEPA or 

State agencies.

Inshore inputs of pollutants to estuaries from runoff and industry are also contributors to wetland loss. 

Resource management agencies, both State and Federal, set restrictions and permits in an effort to 

mitigate the effects of development projects and industry activities. The Federal and State governments 

are also funding research and coastal restoration projects; however, it may take decades of monitoring to 

ascertain the long-term feasibility of these coastal restoration efforts.

Overfishing (including bycatch) has contributed in a large way to the decline of some populations of 

Gulf of Mexico of commercial fish species. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act and its amendments address sustainable fisheries and set guidelines for protecting 

marine resources and habitat from fishing- and nonfishing-related activities. The limits on catch and 

fishing seasons are set by the Gulf Coast Fisheries Management Council. State agencies regulate inshore 

fishing seasons and limits. The OCS factors potentially impacting fish resources in the Gulf of Mexico 

are federally regulated or mitigated and are small. There are many anthropogenic factors that are 

regulated by Federal and State agencies, and there are natural factors that cannot be regulated. Also to be 

considered is the variability in Gulf of Mexico fish populations that vary in numbers from year to year 

due to natural factors such as spawning success and juvenile survival.

Overall, the commercial fish and shellfish populations have remained healthy in the Gulf of Mexico 

in spite of the OCS activities. In recent years, since 2005, the major contributors to the lower fisheries

catches in the Gulf of Mexico have been hurricanes (Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike), fisheries closures 

due to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, and freshwater diversions initiated by the 

State of Louisiana due to the oil spill associated with the Deepwater Horizon explosion in 2010 and the 

Mississippi River flooding in 2011, as well as possibly overfishing and bycatch.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

Since the publication of the Multisale EIS, new commercial fisheries values for the year 2011 became 

available. These numbers are included here. All commercial fisheries data referenced in this section 

were obtained from NMFS (USDOC, NMFS, 2012d). 

The Gulf of Mexico provided 40 percent, 33 percent, and 42 percent of the number of pounds of 

seafood landed in the United States (with the exception of Alaska) in the years 2009, 2010, and 2011 

respectively. This amounted to approximately 25 percent, 22 percent, and 24 percent of the dollar value 

of the total catch for each of these respective years in the United States, again excluding Alaska.

In the WPA (Texas), for the years 2010 and 2011 the two most important finfish species landed were, 

in order of pounds landed, black drum (Pogonias cromis) and red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus). In 

2010, the catch of black drum was approximately 1.7 million pounds worth nearly $1.6 million. In 2011, 

the black drum catch was nearly 1.8 million pounds worth nearly $1.5 million. Red snapper landings in 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-59

Texas in 2010 were 1.0 million pounds valued at approximately $3 million. The 2011 landings were 

950 thousand pounds valued approximately $3.3 million.

In 2010, brown shrimp (Farfantepenaeus aztecus) production in Texas was 48.3 million pounds and 

the catch value was $99 million. There were, however, extensive fisheries closures in 2010 during and 

after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. In 2011, the brown shrimp production was 

59.4 million pounds worth approximately $133 million. White shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus) production 

in Texas in 2010 was 27.3 million pounds with a catch value of $70.9 million, and in 2011 it was nearly 

27 million pounds worth $78 million. Texas blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) catch in 2010 was 

3.4 million pounds worth approximately $3.1 million, and it dropped in 2011 to 2.9 million pounds worth 

approximately $2.9 million.

The Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) is also harvested in Texas estuaries from Galveston Bay 

west to East Matagorda Bay. Historically, the largest oyster harvest in Texas comes from Galveston Bay 

because of its favorable salinity regime. Oyster harvest in Texas in 2010 was approximately 5.3 million 

pounds valued at $19.1 million. The harvest in 2011 dropped to 3.9 million pounds valued at 

$12.8 million.

Stock Status

The NMFS reports each year to the Congress and Fishery Management Councils on the status of all 

fish stocks in the Nation. As of the 2011 status report (USDOC, NMFS, 2012e), overfished species in the 

Gulf of Mexico are red snapper, greater amberjack, gag grouper, and gray triggerfish. Although the 

report has been updated, there have been no changes in the species considered overfished in the Gulf of 

Mexico. 

A search of the referenced literature revealed a study of blue fin tuna larvae (Muhling et al., 2012), 

also a species of concern during the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. The Atlantic 

stocks of blue fin tuna, a highly prized commercial species, spawn in the Gulf of Mexico in early summer. 

This study, however, found using satellite-derived estimates of oil coverage and spawning habitat models 

that less than 10 percent of blue fin tuna spawning habitat was predicted to have been covered by surface 

oil and that less than 12 percent of larval blue fin tuna were predicted to have been located within 

contaminated waters in the northern GOM, on a weekly basis. This study model is preliminary evidence 

that the larval mortality as a result of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup was not a 

catastrophic event for the 2010 year class of the population of Atlantic blue fin tuna. 

The effects of a catastrophic event, such as the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, 

on commercial fisheries are preliminary and mostly speculative at this point. Data are unavailable, and it 

may take several years to acquire the necessary data and analyze it regarding long-term effects of the 

Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup on all Gulf of Mexico commercial fisheries 

populations. The NRDA action will spearhead these efforts, but it has not published relevant data. 

Regardless of the costs of acquiring these data, given the realities of the NRDA process, these data will 

not be available within the timeframe contemplated by this NEPA analysis. In any event, this information 

is not essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives because catastrophic events remain extremely 

low-probability events.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for commercial fisheries presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for commercial fisheries presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. While there was an increase to the percentage of pounds of commercial 

seafood landed in the GOM in 2011, as compared with 2010, there is still uncertainty as to what degree 

the fisheries closures in 2010 affected stocks. The new study found that the overlap between the blue fin 

tuna spawning habitat and surface oil coverage in the Gulf of Mexico from the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup was approximately 10 percent and that less than 12 percent of the larval 

blue fin tuna BFT were predicted to have been located in contaminated waters on a weekly basis. This 

study is preliminary evidence that the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup was not a 

catastrophic event for the 2010 year class of blue fin tuna. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, therefore, still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.
4-60 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

4.1.1.17.Recreational Fishing

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for recreational fishing presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for recreational fishing presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the WPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of recreational fishing can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.17.1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Healthy fishery stocks depend on EFH waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, 

feeding, and growing to maturity. Since the majority of the recreational species harvested within the 

WPA are estuary dependent, coastal environmental degradation resulting from the WPA proposed action, 

although indirect, has the potential to adversely affect EFH and recreational fisheries. Wetlands and 

estuaries in the WPA may be affected by activities resulting from the WPA proposed action. These 

activities include construction of new onshore facilities in wetland areas, pipeline emplacement in 

wetland areas, vessel usage of navigation channel and access canals, maintenance of navigation channels, 

inshore disposal of OCS-generated petroleum field wastes, and spills from both coastal and offshore 

OCS-support activities. Most of the wetlands loss in the WPA, however, is a result of residential and 

industrial development in wetlands. A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts of OCS activities 

associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on recreational fishing can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.17.2 

of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

There may be minor space-use conflicts with recreational fishermen during the initial phases of the 

WPA proposed action. The WPA proposed action may also lead to low-level environmental degradation 

of fish habitat, which would negatively impact recreational fishing activity. However, these minor 

negative effects would likely be outweighed by the beneficial role that oil rigs serve as artificial reefs for 

fish populations. The degree to which oil platforms will become a part of a particular State’s Rigs-toReefs program will be an important determinant of the degree to which the WPA proposed action will 

impact recreational fishing activity in the long term.

The most direct manner in which oil spills and other accidental events could impact recreational 

fishing activity would be through their effects on fish and their habitats in the affected areas. A spill 

could either contaminate fish in the immediate area or cause fish to move during the duration of the spill. 

A spill would likely cause more direct harm to larvae and eggs than adults, which could possibly affect 

recreational species in the longer term. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be 

associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on recreational fishing can be found in Chapters 

4.1.1.17.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

An oil spill would likely lead to recreational fishing closures in the vicinity of the oil spill. Smallscale spills should not affect recreational fishing to a large degree due to the likely availability of 

substitute fishing sites in neighboring regions. A large spill such as the one associated with the 

Deepwater Horizon explosion can have more substantial effects due to the larger potential closure regions 

and due to the wider economic implications such closures can have. Public perceptions of fish 

contamination would also play a more important role subsequent to a large oil spill. However, the longerterm implications of a large oil spill would primarily depend on the extent to which fish ecosystems 

recover after the spill has been cleaned.

The cumulative impacts to recreational fishing activity will arise from the WPA proposed action, the 

existing OCS Program, and the expected progression of the recreational fishing industry in the Gulf of 

Mexico. These impacts will arise from the cumulative effects on fish resources in the Gulf of Mexico. 

The cumulative impacts to fish resources in the Gulf of Mexico include wetland loss, marine/estuary 

water quality degradation, damage to live bottoms, structure removals, petroleum spills, subsurface 

blowouts, pipeline trenching, and discharges of drilling mud and processed waters on fish resources. 

Because many of the recreationally sought fishes are also harvested commercially, a number of the 

cumulative impacts to the recreational fishing industry are similar to those of the commercial fishing
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-61

industry. This is true even though recreational fishing is primarily confined to smaller, closer inshore 

areas of the Gulf of Mexico than commercial fishing. The cumulative impacts to the commercial fishing 

industry include commercial fishing practices, hurricanes, installation of production and underwater 

obstructions, platform removals, seismic surveys, petroleum spills, subsurface blowouts, pipeline 

trenching, and the offshore discharge of drilling mud and produced waters. The cumulative impacts 

unique to recreational fishing activity will arise from State and Federal fisheries management plans, the 

role of oil platforms as artificial reefs, and the lingering impacts of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil 

spill, and cleanup. A detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with

proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on recreational fishing can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.17.4 of the 2012-

2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The WPA proposed action and the broader OCS Program have varied effects on recreational fishing

activity. The OCS Program has generally enhanced recreational fishing opportunities due to the role of 

oil platforms as artificial reefs. This effect depends importantly on the extent to which rigs are removed 

at decommissioning or are maintained through Rigs-to-Reefs programs. However, oil spills can have 

important negative consequences on recreational fishing activity due to the resultant fishing closures and 

longer-term effects oil spills can have on fish populations. This was evident during the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, the effects of which are not yet certain. However, this type of 

catastrophic spill event is rare. The contribution of the WPA proposed action to these positive and 

negative cumulative effects would be minimal because of the relatively small amount of activity expected 

with the WPA proposed action. In addition, it is likely that Fisheries Management Plans of the Federal 

and State governments would serve to keep overall recreational fishing activity reasonably stable through 

time. 

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS

BOEM examined a variety of Internet sources, as well as known data providers, for new information 

regarding the impacts of the WPA proposed action on recreational fishing. The primary new data source 

is an annual update to recreational fishing data in Texas (Fisher, official communication, 2012). This 

update provides data on both the species caught and the amount of angler effort in 2011 (the data for prior 

years is unchanged). Table 4-3 provides data on the number of recreational fishing trips during each 

season of 2009, 2010, and 2011. Texas has historically divided its data into two fishing seasons: 

Season A (November 21-May 14) and Season B (May 15-November 20). Table 4-3 shows that there 

were 1,041,027 angler trips in 2009; 987,537 angler trips in 2010; and 1,125,400 angler trips in 2011. 

Therefore, while recreational fishing activity fell slightly in 2010, it recovered to a level in 2011 that was 

higher than in 2009. This pattern was evident for both bay fishing and fishing in Texas Territorial State 

waters; this pattern was also evident during each of the two fishing seasons. Fishing in the Exclusive 

Economic Zone (which is the area farthest from shore) was still somewhat lower in 2011 than in 2009; 

however, fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone comprises a small portion of total recreational fishing 

activity in Texas.

Table 4-4 provides data regarding the individual species caught by anglers in Texas during 2008, 

2009, 2010, and 2011. For most species, the number of fish landed in 2011 was quite high compared with 

previous years. Indeed, in 2011, catch of Atlantic croaker, red drum, sand seatrout, sheepshead, southern 

flounder, and spotted seatrout was higher than was exhibited during each of the prior 3 years. These high 

catch levels were particularly evident for bay fishing, while fishing in State waters and in the Exclusive 

Economic Zone were roughly comparable to catch levels in prior years.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for recreational fishing presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for recreational fishing presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. This is because the updated recreational fishing data for Texas was roughly in 

line with prior expectations. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.
4-62 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

4.1.1.18.Recreational Resources

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for recreational resources presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for recreational resources presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the WPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of recreational resources can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.18.1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Routine OCS oil and gas activities can affect recreation and tourism in diverse ways. The OCS 

activities can have direct negative impacts on beach and coastal recreational resources through discharges

of marine debris, noise, and visual impairments. There are also possible indirect impacts on local 

recreational resources from space-use conflicts and from increased economic activity from OCS 

operations. The unique role that oil platforms can play as artificial reefs should also be accounted for 

when considering policy actions. Finally, the possible effects of public perceptions on tourism, 

particularly in light of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, should be considered. 

However, while impacts on recreational resources from routine OCS activities can occur from a number 

of sources, in total they are likely to be reasonably small in scale. A detailed impact analysis of the 

routine impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on recreational 

resources can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.18.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Routine OCS actions in the WPA can cause minor disturbances to recreational resources, particularly 

beaches, through increased levels of noise, debris, and rig visibility. The OCS activities can also change 

the composition of local economies through changes in employment, land use, and recreation demand. 

The WPA proposed action has the potential to directly and indirectly impact recreational resources along 

the coast of Texas. However, the small scale of the WPA proposed action relative to the scale of the 

existing oil and gas industry suggests that these potential impacts on recreational resources are likely to be 

minimal.

The recreational resources most vulnerable to an oil spill are the beaches and nature parks along the 

Gulf Coast. The effects of an oil spill on a particular beach region will depend on the success of the 

containment and cleanup operations following an oil spill. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental 

impacts that may be associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on recreational resources can be 

found in Chapter 4.1.1.18.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Spills most likely to result from the WPA proposed action will be small, of short duration, and not 

likely to impact Gulf Coast recreational resources. Should an oil spill occur and contact a beach area or 

other recreational resource, it will cause some disruption during the impact and cleanup phases of the 

spill. However, these effects are also likely to be small in scale and of short duration. In the unlikely 

event that a spill occurs that is sufficiently large to affect large areas of the coast and, through public 

perception, has effects that reach beyond the damaged area, the effects to recreation and tourism could be 

substantial, at least in the short term.

The cumulative impacts to recreational resources would be attributed to the WPA proposed action, 

the existing OCS Program, and the expected impacts of external events and actions to recreational 

resources and tourism activity. The WPA proposed action could contribute to a number of aesthetic and 

space-use issues arising from existing oil and gas programs. The OCS activities can also impact the 

recreational uses of beaches and wetland areas, which are already being impacted through coastal erosion. 

Finally, lingering impacts of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup could contribute to 

the incremental impacts of an oil spill, should one arise from the WPA proposed action. A detailed 

impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed WPA Lease 

Sale 233 on recreational resources can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.18.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

The WPA proposed action could contribute to the aesthetic impacts and space-use conflicts that arise 

due to the broader OCS Program. Oil spills could also contribute to the overall degradation of beach and 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-63

wetland-based recreational resources. The dynamics of any future oil spill will also be influenced by the 

damage done and lessons learned from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. 

However, the cumulative impacts of the WPA proposed action on recreational resources are small since 

the incremental increase in the probability of a large spill is also low. The incremental contribution of the 

WPA proposed action is expected to be minimal in light of all non-OCS-related activities such as 

aesthetic impacts (including from other industrial sources), wetland loss, and space-use conflicts.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

A search of information sources (such as Internet articles and known economic data providers) was 

conducted to determine the availability of recent information related to recreational resources. The 

primary new information source is updated data from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2012) regarding the levels of employment in recreational industries in geographic areas along 

the Gulf Coast. Table 4-5 presents annual data on the level of employees in recreational industries from 

2008 through 2011. As can be seen, recreational employment was higher in December 2011 than in 

December 2009 in all 13 economic impact areas (EIA’s) along the Gulf Coast. These data provide further 

confirmation that, in aggregate, the recreational industries along the Gulf Coast have mostly recovered 

from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. However, the impacts of the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup are difficult to disentangle from the impacts of overall economic 

conditions. The high unemployment that persists nationwide has likely had a particular impact on 

tourism activity since people are more likely to cut back on recreation than other more basic necessities.

Incomplete or unavailable information related to recreational resources may be relevant to reasonably 

foreseeable adverse impacts on these resources, as described in this section and in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. With regard to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, 

BOEM has determined that the incomplete or unavailable information would not be essential to a 

reasoned choice among alternatives for the reasons described herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS. 

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for recreational resources presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for recreational resources presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. This is because the new data on recreational employment was roughly in line 

with prior expectations. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

4.1.1.19.Archaeological Resources

4.1.1.19.1. Historic

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for historic archaeological resources presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for historic archaeological resources 

presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the WPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of historic archaeological resources can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.19.1.1 of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Routine impact-producing factors associated with the WPA proposed action that could affect 

historical archaeological resources include direct physical contact with a shipwreck site; the placement of 

drilling rigs and production systems on the seafloor; pile driving associated with platform emplacement; 

pipeline placement; dredging of new channels, as well as maintenance dredging of existing channels; 
4-64 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

anchoring activities; pipeline installation; post-decommissioning trawling clearance; and the masking of 

archaeological resources from industry-related debris. A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts 

from OCS activities associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on historic archaeological resources 

can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.19.1.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The greatest potential impact to an archaeological resource as a result of the WPA proposed action 

would result from direct contact between an offshore activity (i.e., platform installation, drilling rig 

emplacement, and dredging or pipeline project) and a historic site. Archaeological surveys, where 

required prior to an operator beginning oil and gas activities on a lease, are expected to be effective at 

identifying possible archaeological sites. The technical requirements of the archaeological resource 

reports are detailed in NTL 2005-G07, “Archaeological Resource Surveys and Reports.” Under 30 CFR 

550.194(c) lessees are required to immediately notify BOEM’s Regional Director of the discovery of any 

potential archaeological resources. Under 30 CFR 250.194(c) and 30 CFR 250.1010(c), lessees are also 

required to immediately notify BSEE’s Regional Director of the discovery of any potential archaeological 

resources. 

Offshore oil and gas activities resulting from the WPA proposed action could impact an 

archaeological resource because of incomplete knowledge on the location of these sites in the Gulf. The 

risk of contact to archaeological resources is greater in instances where archaeological survey data are 

unavailable. Such an event could result in the disturbance or destruction of important archaeological 

information. Archaeological surveys would provide the necessary information to develop avoidance 

strategies that would reduce the potential for impacts on archaeological resources.

Except for the projected 0-1 new gas processing facilities and 0-1 new pipeline landfalls, the WPA 

proposed action would require no new oil and gas coastal infrastructure. It is expected that archaeological 

resources would be protected through the review and approval processes of the various Federal, State, and 

local agencies involved in permitting onshore activities.

Impacts on historic archaeological resources could occur as a result of an accidental oil spill. A major 

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

lighthouse. Although such effects may be temporary and reversible, cleaning oil from historic structures 

is by no means a simple or inexpensive process (e.g., Chin and Church, 2010). The use of dispersants, 

however, could result in chemical contamination of submerged cultural heritage sites. A detailed impact 

analysis of the accidental impacts that may be associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on historic 

archaeological resources can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.19.1.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS. 

Accidental events producing oil spills may threaten archaeological resources along the Gulf Coast. 

Should a spill contact a historic archaeological site (including submerged sites), damage might include 

direct impact from oil-spill cleanup equipment, contamination of materials, and/or looting. Previously 

unrecorded sites could be impacted by oil-spill cleanup operations on beaches and offshore. The major 

effect from an oil-spill impact would be visual contamination of a historic coastal site, such as a historic 

fort or lighthouse. It is expected that any spill cleanup operations would be considered a Federal action 

for the purposes of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and would be conducted in such 

a way as to cause little or no impacts to historic archaeological resources. Recent research suggests the 

impact of direct contact of oil on historic properties may be long term and not easily reversible without 

risking damage to fragile historic materials (Chin and Church, 2010). Detailed risk analyses of offshore 

oil spills ranging from ≥1,000 bbl, ≤1,000 bbl, and coastal spills associated with the WPA proposed 

action are provided in Chapters 3.2.1.5, 3.2.1.6, and 3.2.1.7 of this Supplemental EIS and in Chapters 

3.2.1.5, 3.2.1.6, and 3.2.1.7 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, respectively. When oil is spilled 

in offshore areas, much of the oil volatilizes or is dispersed by currents, so it has a low probability of 

contacting coastal areas.

The potential for spills is low, the effects would generally be localized, and the cleanup efforts would 

be regulated. The WPA proposed action, therefore, is not expected to result in impacts to historic 

archaeological sites; however, should such an impact occur, unique or significant archaeological 

information could be lost and this impact could be irreversible. 

Of the cumulative scenario activities, those that could potentially impact historic archaeological 

resources include the following: (1) the OCS Program; (2) State oil and gas activity; (3) maintenance 

dredging; (4) OCS sand borrowing; (5) artificial rigs-to-reefs development; (6) offshore LNG projects; 

(7) renewable energy and alternative use conversions; (8) commercial fishing; (9) sport diving and 

commercial treasure hunting, and (10) hurricanes. A detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-65

of OCS activities associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on historic archaeological resources can 

be found in Chapter 4.1.1.19.1.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Several impact-producing factors may threaten historic archaeological resources, all related to 

bottom-disturbing activities. An impact could result from contact between historic shipwreck located on 

the OCS and OCS Program or State oil and gas activities (i.e., pipeline and platform installations, drilling 

rig emplacement and operation, dredging, and anchoring activities). Bottom-disturbing activities on the 

OCS also include maintenance dredging, sand borrowing, transported artificial reef emplacement, LNG 

facility construction, and renewable energy facility construction. With the exception of maintenance 

dredging, preconstruction surveys may be required by BOEM or the permitting agency. Impacts resulting 

from the imperfect knowledge of the location of historic resources may still occur in areas where a highresolution survey is only required at 300-m (98-ft) survey intervals or not at all. The OCS development 

prior to requiring archaeological surveys has been documented to have impacted wrecks containing 

significant or unique historic information. This was amply demonstrated when a pipeline was laid across 

a previously unknown early 19th-century shipwreck and when an MODU mooring anchor chain cut a 

shipwreck in half (Atauz et al., 2006; Church and Warren, 2008). The archaeological resources 

regulation at 30 CFR 250.194 grants authority in certain cases to the BSEE and BOEM Regional 

Directors to require archaeological reports to be submitted with the EP, DOCD, or DPP where deemed 

necessary. As part of the environmental reviews conducted for postlease activities, available information 

will be evaluated regarding the potential presence of archaeological resources within the WPA proposed 

action area to determine if additional archaeological resource surveys and mitigation are warranted.

The loss or discard of steel debris associated with oil and gas exploration and development and 

trawling activities could result in the masking of historic shipwrecks or the identification of false 

negatives on archaeological surveys (an anomaly that does not appear to be of historical significance, but 

actually is).

Damage to or loss of significant or unique historic archaeological information from commercial 

fisheries (trawling) is highly likely in water depths <660 ft (200 m) (Foley, 2010). It is expected that 

maintenance dredging, commercial bottom trawling, sport diving and commercial treasure hunting, and 

hurricanes and tropical storms have impacted and will continue to impact historic period shipwrecks.

Development onshore as a result of the WPA proposed action could result in the direct physical 

contact between a historic site and pipeline trenching. It is assumed that archaeological investigations 

prior to construction will serve to mitigate these potential impacts. The expected effects of oil spills on 

historic coastal resources are temporary and reversible.

The effects of the various impact-producing factors discussed in this analysis have likely resulted in 

the localized loss of significant or unique historic archaeological information. In the case of factors 

related to OCS Program activities of the past within the cumulative activity area, it is reasonable to 

assume that most impacts would have occurred prior to 1973 (the date of initial archaeological survey and 

site clearance requirements). The incremental contribution of the WPA proposed action is expected to be 

very small due to the efficacy of the required remote-sensing survey and archaeological report where 

required. Future OCS Program activities and the bottom-disturbing activities permitted by BOEM and 

other agencies may require preconstruction archaeological surveys that, when completed, are highly 

effective in identifying bottom anomalies that could be avoided or investigated before bottom-disturbing 

activities begin. When surveys are not required, it is impossible to anticipate what might be imbedded in 

or lying directly on the seafloor, and impacts to these sites are likely to be major in scale. Despite 

diligence in site-clearance survey reviews, there is still the possibility of an unanticipated interaction 

between bottom-disturbing activity (i.e., rig emplacement, pipeline trenching, anchoring, and other 

ancillary activities) and a historic shipwreck. The incremental contribution of the WPA proposed action 

is expected to be very small due to the efficacy of the remote-sensing surveys and archaeological reports, 

where required.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

A search of Internet information sources, as well as interviews with Larry Murphy, Historic 

Properties Specialist Officer for the Section 106 response to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, 

and cleanup, and Dan Odess, DOI consulting archaeologist, were conducted to determine the availability 

of recent information. Various Internet sources were examined to assess recent information regarding 

impacts to archaeological resources or potential new threats to archaeological resources that may be 
4-66 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

pertinent to the WPA. These Internet sources included various online indexes to periodical literature, 

such as EBSCO Online (http://web.ebscohost.com), JSTOR (http://www.jstor.org/), the National 

Technical Information Service’s National Technical Reports Library (https://ntrlr3.ntis.gov), and 

ScienceDirect (http://www.sciencedirect.com/). The search revealed a recent interim report describing 

activities to support response activities related to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup 

and to evaluate the impact or potential impact of the event and subsequent cleanup operations to 

previously recorded and unidentified cultural resources. This cultural resources undertaking involves 

both Federal and State undertakings within the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. 

The cultural resources investigation for the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup was 

managed as a component of the Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Techniques (SCAT) process, and 

archaeologists have been involved throughout the SCAT process. Cultural resources investigations 

utilized a combination of pedestrian surveys, shovel testing, auger test sampling, and trench sampling. In 

addition, archaeological and Tribal monitors have been embedded with all cleanup operations. This 

report summarizes the findings of the pre-field investigations, field surveys, and cleanup monitoring 

associated with the response to the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill up until March 31, 2011 

(HDR, 2011). Although this study provides information on the potential impacts from an oil spill and 

associated cleanup operations, it was confined to examining coastal areas most likely to have been 

affected by the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, which do not include any known or 

potential cultural resources within the WPA.

In April 2012, BOEM, working with NOAA’s Office of Ocean Exploration and Research from the 

research vessel Okeanos Explorer investigated a sonar target reported by Shell Oil in over 1,200 m 

(4,000 ft) of water in an area of the CPA almost 200 mi (320 km) offshore where an archaeological 

survey had previously not been required. The target proved to be the intact remains of an armed sailing 

ship dating from around 1800 to 1840. This important discovery highlights situations where site-specific 

surveys prior to bottom-disturbing activities may help to mitigate potential impacts.

Although information on the impacts of a potential spill to archaeological resources is incomplete or 

unavailable at this time, as described in this section and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, and 

may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts on these resources, the information is not 

essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for historic archaeological resources presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for historic archaeological resources 

presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS because the only new relevant document described 

the survey procedures undertaken by SCAT teams and a summation of site discoveries. The analysis and 

potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease 

Sale 233.

4.1.1.19.2. Prehistoric

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for prehistoric archaeological resources presented in the 2012-

2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for prehistoric archaeological 

resources presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts 

detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the WPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of prehistoric archaeological resources can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.19.2.1 of 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Offshore development as a result of the WPA proposed action could result in an interaction between a 

drilling rig, platform, pipeline, dredging activity, or anchors and an inundated prehistoric site. This direct 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-67

physical contact with a site could destroy fragile artifacts or site features and could disturb artifact 

provenance and site stratigraphy. The result would be the loss of archaeological data on prehistoric 

migrations, settlement patterns, subsistence strategies, and archaeological contacts for North America, 

Central America, South America, and the Caribbean. A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts of 

OCS activities associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on prehistoric archaeological resources can 

be found in Chapter 4.1.1.19.2.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The greatest potential impact to an archaeological resource as a result of the WPA proposed action 

would result from direct contact between an offshore activity (i.e., platform installation, drilling rig 

emplacement, and dredging or pipeline project) and a prehistoric site. Prehistoric archaeological sites are 

thought potentially to be preserved shoreward of the 45-m (148-ft) bathymetric contour, where the Gulf of 

Mexico continental shelf was subaerially exposed during the Late Pleistocene. The archaeological 

surveys, where required prior to an operator beginning oil and gas activities on a lease, are expected to be 

somewhat effective at identifying submerged landforms that could support possible archaeological sites. 

The NTL 2005-G07 suggests a 300-m (984-ft) linespacing for remote-sensing surveys of leases within 

areas having a high potential for prehistoric sites. While surveys provide a reduction in the potential for a 

damaging interaction between an impact-producing factor and a prehistoric archaeological site, there is a 

possibility of an OCS activity contacting an archaeological site because of an insufficiently dense survey 

grid. Should such contact occur, there would be damage to or loss of significant and/or unique 

archaeological information.

Oil spills resulting from a well blowout in the WPA and related spill-response activities have the 

potential to impact cultural resources near the spill site and landfall areas. A detailed impact analysis of 

the accidental impacts that may be associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on prehistoric 

archaeological resources can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.19.2.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS. 

Accidental events producing oil spills may threaten archaeological resources along the Gulf Coast. 

Should a spill contact a prehistoric archaeological site, damage might include loss of radiocarbon-dating 

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

could be impacted by oil-spill cleanup operations on beaches. Detailed risk analyses of offshore oil spills 

ranging from ≥1,000 bbl, <1,000 bbl, and coastal spills that may be associated with the WPA proposed 

action are provided in Chapters 3.2.1.5, 3.2.1.6, and 3.2.1.7 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, 

respectively. When oil is spilled in offshore areas, much of the oil volatilizes or is dispersed by currents, 

so it has a low probability of contacting coastal and barrier island prehistoric sites as a result of the WPA 

proposed action. The WPA proposed action, therefore, is not expected to result in impacts to prehistoric 

archaeological sites.

Several impact-producing factors may threaten prehistoric archaeological resources of the Gulf of 

Mexico. An impact could result from contact between proposed oil and gas activities (including pipeline 

construction, platform installation, drilling rig emplacement and operation, dredging, and anchoring 

activities) and an oil spill and subsequent cleanup efforts. Each of these activities or events could damage 

and destroy a prehistoric archaeological site located on the continental shelf. A detailed impact analysis 

of the cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on prehistoric 

archaeological resources can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.19.2.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS. 

Archaeological surveys, where required, and the resulting archaeological analyses completed prior to 

an operator beginning oil and gas activities on a lease are expected to be highly effective at identifying 

possible prehistoric sites. The OCS development prior to the first required archaeological survey in 1973 

has possibly impacted sites containing significant or unique prehistoric information, and it is possible 

that, even with current survey methods, prehistoric archaeological sites may be missed. No significant 

new information was found at this time that would alter the overall conclusion that cumulative impacts on 

prehistoric archaeological sites associated with the WPA proposed action is expected to be minimal. 

Because of continued regulations and surveys, where required, potential impact from the WPA proposed 

action to prehistoric archeological resources would be decreased.

Should an oil spill occur and contact a coastal prehistoric site, loss of significant or unique 

information could result. Oil spills have the potential to impact coastal prehistoric sites directly or 

indirectly by physical impacts caused by oil-spill cleanup operations.

The initial dredging of ports and navigation channels and tropical storms are assumed to have caused 

the localized loss of significant or unique archaeological information.
4-68 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Onshore development as a result of the OCS Program could result in the direct physical contact 

between a prehistoric site and new facility construction and pipeline trenching. It is assumed that 

archaeological investigations prior to construction would serve to mitigate these potential impacts.

The shallow depth of sediment disturbance caused by commercial fisheries activities (trawling) is not 

expected to exceed that portion of the sediments that have been disturbed by wave-generated forces. 

The effects of the various impact-producing factors discussed in this analysis have likely resulted in 

localized losses of significant or unique prehistoric archaeological information. In the case of factors 

related to OCS Program activities in the cumulative activity area, it is reasonable to assume that most 

impacts would have occurred prior to 1973 (the date of initial archaeological survey and clearance 

requirements). The incremental contribution of the WPA proposed action is expected to be very small 

due to the efficacy of the required remote-sensing survey and concomitant archaeological report and 

clearance.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

A search of Internet information sources, as well as interviews with Larry Murphy, Historic 

Properties Specialist Officer for the Section 106 response to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, 

and cleanup, and Dan Odess, DOI consulting archaeologist, were conducted to determine the availability 

of recent information. Various Internet sources were examined to assess recent information regarding 

impacts to archaeological resources or potential new threats to archaeological resources that may be 

pertinent to the WPA. These Internet sources included various online indexes to periodical literature such 

as EBSCO Online (http://web.ebscohost.com), JSTOR (http://www.jstor.org/), the National Technical 

Information Service’s National Technical Reports Library (https://ntrlr3.ntis.gov), and ScienceDirect 

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/). The search revealed a recent interim report describing activities to 

support response activities related to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup and to 

evaluate the impact or potential impact of the event and subsequent cleanup operations to previously 

recorded and unidentified cultural resources. This cultural resources undertaking involves both Federal 

and State undertakings within the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. The cultural 

resources investigation for the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup was managed as a 

component of the SCAT process, and archaeologists have been involved throughout the SCAT process. 

Cultural resources investigations utilized a combination of pedestrian surveys, shovel testing, auger test 

sampling, and trench sampling. In addition, archaeological and Tribal monitors have been embedded 

with all cleanup operations. This report summarizes the findings of the pre-field investigations, field 

surveys, and cleanup monitoring associated with the response to the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil 

spill up until March 31, 2011 (HDR, 2011). Although this study provides information on the potential 

impacts from an oil spill and associated cleanup operations, it was confined to examining coastal areas 

most likely to have been affected by the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, which do 

not include any known or potential cultural resources within the WPA.

Although information on the impacts of a potential spill to archaeological resources is incomplete or 

unavailable at this time, as described in this section and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, and

although it may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts on these resources, the information 

is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives. An oil spill occurring and contacting an 

archaeological resource is unlikely, given that oil released tends to rise quickly to the surface and that the 

average size of any spill would be small.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for prehistoric archaeological resources presented in the 2012-

2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for prehistoric archaeological 

resources presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS because the only new relevant document 

described the survey procedures undertaken by SCAT teams and a summation of site discoveries. The 

analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for 

proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-69

4.1.1.20.Human Resources and Land Use

4.1.1.20.1. Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for land use and coastal infrastructure presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for land use and coastal infrastructure 

presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the WPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of land use and coastal infrastructure can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.20.1.1 of 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Impact-producing factors associated with the WPA proposed action that could affect land use and 

coastal infrastructure include gas processing facilities, pipeline landfalls, service bases, navigation 

channels, and waste disposal facilities. A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts of OCS 

activities associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on land use and coastal infrastructure can be 

found in Chapter 4.1.1.20.1.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The impacts of routine events associated with the WPA proposed action are uncertain due to the 

post-Deepwater Horizon environment, the effects of the drilling suspension, the changes in Federal 

requirements for drilling safety, and the current pace of permit approvals. BOEM projects 0-1 new gas 

processing facilities and 0-1 new pipeline landfalls for the WPA proposed action. However, based on the 

most current information available, there is only a very slim chance that either would result from the 

WPA proposed action, and if a new gas processing facility or pipeline landfall were to result, it would 

likely occur toward the end of the 40-year analysis period. The likelihood of a new gas processing 

facility or pipeline landfall is much closer to zero than to one (Dismukes, official communication, 2011). 

BOEM anticipates that there would be maintenance dredging of navigation channels and an increase in 

activity at services bases as a result of the WPA proposed action. If drilling activity recovers postDeepwater Horizon and increases, there may be new increased demand for a waste disposal services as a 

result of the WPA proposed action. Because of the current near zero estimates for a pipeline landfall and 

gas processing facility construction, the routine activities associated with the WPA proposed action would 

have little effect on land use. 

As a result of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, it is too early to determine 

substantial, long-term changes in routine event impacts to land use and infrastructure. BOEM anticipates 

these changes will become apparent over time. Therefore, BOEM recognizes the need to continue 

monitoring all resources for changes that are applicable for land use and infrastructure. In regard to land 

use and infrastructure, it does not appear that there would be adverse impacts from routine events 

associated with the WPA proposed action.

Accidental events (impact-producing factors) associated with the WPA proposed action that could 

affect land use and coastal infrastructure include oil spills, vessel collisions, and chemical/drilling-fluid 

spills. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be associated with proposed WPA 

Lease Sale 233 on land use and coastal infrastructure can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.20.1.3 of the 2012- 2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Accidental events associated with the WPA proposed action could occur at different levels of 

severity, based in part on the location and size of the event. The typical types of accidental events that 

could affect land use and coastal infrastructure include oil spills, vessel collisions, and chemical/drillingfluid spills. These may occur anywhere across the spectrum of severity. Typically, accidental events 

related to OCS activities are generally smaller in scale based on historic experience, and they must be 

distinguished from low-probability catastrophic events such as the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil 

spill, and cleanup. Typically, the impact of small-scale oil spills, vessel collisions, and chemical/drilling 

fluid spills are not likely to last long enough to adversely affect overall land use or coastal infrastructure 

in the analysis area.
4-70 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Many of the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup to land use and 

infrastructure have been temporary and short-term, such as the ship decontamination sites and the waste 

staging areas established in the immediate aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon explosion (USDOT, 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2010). The indirect effects on infrastructure use are still rippling 

through the industry, but this should resolve as issues with the suspensions, rate of permitting, and other 

matters are resolved. With regards to land use and infrastructure, the post-Deepwater Horizon

environment remains somewhat dynamic, and BOEM will continue to monitor these resources over time 

and to document short- and long-term Deepwater Horizon explosion-related impacts. In the future, the 

long-term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup will be clearer as time 

allows the production of peer-reviewed research and targeted studies that determine those impacts. The 

Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup was a low-probability catastrophic event. The kinds 

of accidental events that are likely to result from the WPA proposed action are not likely to significantly 

affect land use and coastal infrastructure. This is because accidental events offshore would have a small 

probability of impacting onshore resources. Also, if an accident occurs nearshore, it would most probably 

be near a facility; therefore, the impacts would be temporary and localized because of the decrease in 

response time.

The cumulative analysis considers both existing land-use patterns and the effects of impact-producing 

factors from OCS and State oil and gas activities. The OCS- and State-related factors consist of prior, 

current, and future OCS and State lease sales. The vast majority of this infrastructure also supports oil 

and gas production in State waters as well as in coastal areas onshore. A detailed impact analysis of the 

cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on land use and 

coastal infrastructure can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.20.1.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

For the WPA proposed action, the primary region of geographic influence is coastal Texas, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, and Alabama. Land-use patterns vary greatly by region, reflecting differences in soils, 

climate, topography, and patterns of population settlement. Mississippi and Louisiana are located in what 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service calls the Delta farm production region, 

while Alabama is located in the Southeast farm production region and Texas is located in the Southern 

Plain region (Lubowski et al., 2006). The Economic Research Service conducts land-use inventories 

based on available land-use data obtained from surveys conducted both by the Economic Research 

Service and predecessor agencies.

This analysis focuses only on those Gulf Coast States that could be impacted by the WPA proposed 

action, i.e., Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Of the over 400,000 mi2

 (1,035,995 km2) 

comprising these coastal states, 18 percent of the total land area is covered in cropland, which includes 

cropland harvested, crop failure, cultivated summer fallow, cropland used only for pasture, and idle 

cropland. Texas and Mississippi have the highest percentages of cropland, with 20 percent and 19 percent 

of each respective State’s total land being used for cropland. For all four coastal states, 42 percent of the 

total land area is used for grassland pasture and range, with Texas devoting 61 percent of close to

262,000 mi2 (679,095 km2

) for grassland pasture and range. Forest land, which the U.S. Forest Service 

defines as land at least 10 percent stocked by trees of any size, including land that formerly had such tree 

cover and that will be naturally or artificially regenerated, makes up 28 percent of the total land area in 

these four coastal states. Alabama has the most forest use land, with 70 percent of the State’s 53,868 mi2

(139,517 km2) covered in forest, followed by Mississippi with 65 percent of its total land area covered in 

forest. Forest use land includes timberland, reserved forest land, but it excludes forest land in parks, 

wildlife areas, and similar special purpose uses. Special use areas, which include areas in highway, road, 

and railroad rights-of-way and airports; Federal and State parks, wilderness areas, and wildlife refuges; 

and national defense and industrial areas, make up 4 percent of the total land area for these four coastal 

states. Louisiana has the highest percentage of special use area, with 7 percent of the land used for 

special-use purposes (Lubowski, et al., 2006). 

Census urban areas include densely populated areas with at least 50,000 people (“urbanized areas”) 

and densely populated areas with 2,500-50,000 people (“urban clusters”). Included in the Census urban 

area definition are residential areas and concentrations of nonresidential urban areas such as commercial, 

industrial, and institutional land; office areas; urban streets and roads; major airports; urban parks and 

recreational areas; and other land within urban defined areas. The total urban land area for all four states 

is just 3 percent of the total land area, with Louisiana and Alabama tied for the highest percentage of 

urban areas with 4 percent of each state being utilized for high population areas. The final land use

category, “Miscellaneous,” includes industrial and commercial sites in rural areas, cemeteries, golf 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-71

courses, mining areas, quarry sites, marshes, swamps, sand dunes, bare rocks, deserts, tundra, rural 

residential, and other unclassified land. For Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas, 4 percent of land use is 

classified as miscellaneous; however, in Louisiana, 16 percent of land use is classified as miscellaneous. 

Louisiana contains 40-45 percent of the wetlands found in the lower states within its 195,000-mi2

(505,048-km2

) footprint (USDOI, GS, 2012a). Louisiana also has the greatest rate of landloss in the 

Nation. For a more detailed discussion on deltaic landloss, refer to Chapter 4.1.1.4. 

The OCS-related demands upon coastal infrastructure and land use tend to be geographically 

concentrated as compared with historic residential settlement within the region. For instance, Port 

Fourchon is the service base for over 90 percent of OCS deepwater production and serves as a conduit for 

15-18 percent of the Nation’s entire oil supply (The Greater Lafourche Port Commission, 2011). As one 

of the most significant footprints within the OCS-related infrastructure corridor, Port Fourchon comprises 

only 2.7 developed square miles (7 km2

) within a close to 44,000-mi2 (113,959-km2) state. In Louisiana, 

there are 105 persons per square mile, and in Lafourche Parish (where Port Fourchon is located), there are 

90 persons per square mile, both above the national average of 87 persons per square mile (USDOC, 

Census Bureau, 2010). The future of non-OCS-related land use and infrastructure will largely be 

determined by economic drivers that influence where people settle or relocate.

Activities relating to the OCS Program and State oil and gas production are expected to minimally 

affect the current land use of the analysis area because most subareas have strong industrial bases and 

designated industrial parks to accommodate future growth in oil and gas businesses. BOEM projects 

0-1 new gas processing facilities and 0-1 new pipeline landfalls for the WPA proposed action, although 

this is a conservative estimate and the number is much closer to zero than to one. If a new gas processing 

facility or pipeline landfall were to occur, it would likely be toward the end of the 40-year analysis period 

(Dismukes, official communication 2011). There may be a new increased demand for waste disposal

services as a result of the WPA proposed action. Any service base expansion in the cumulative case 

would be limited, would occur on lands designated for such purposes, and would have minimal effects on 

land use and infrastructure. However, in the cumulative case, it is possible that Port Fourchon expansions 

may eventually be constrained by surrounding wetlands. Based on the available information and current 

BOEM scenario projections, the cumulative impacts on land use and coastal infrastructure from OCSrelated activities are expected to be minor. Therefore, the incremental contribution of the WPA proposed 

action to the cumulative impacts on land use and coastal infrastructure are also expected to be minor.

The coastal infrastructure supporting the WPA proposed action represents only a tiny portion of the 

coastal land and infrastructure throughout the WPA and Gulf of Mexico, and little change is expected to 

occur due to changing agricultural and extractive (e.g., lumbering and petroleum) uses of onshore land. 

Many non-OCS-related factors contribute substantially to the cumulative impacts to land use and coastal 

infrastructure, including housing and other residential developments; the development of private and 

publicly owned recreational facilities; the construction and maintenance of industrial facilities and 

transportation systems; urbanization; city planning and zoning; changes to public facilities such as water, 

sewer, educational, and health facilities; changes to military bases and reserves; changes in population 

density; changes in State and Federal land-use regulations; and changes in non-OCS-related demands for 

water transportation systems and ports. Given the overwhelming contribution of these non-OCS-related 

factors to the cumulative impacts on land use and coastal infrastructure and the small incremental 

contribution of the WPA proposed action, the cumulative impacts on land use and coastal infrastructure 

are also expected to be minor.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

Additional research was conducted to investigate the availability of recent information affecting land 

use and coastal infrastructure since publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Various 

Internet sources were examined, including the websites of numerous Federal and State agencies

(U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency; U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Bureau of the Census; USDOC, NOAA; U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration; U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration; USDOI, FWS; 

RestoreTheGulf.gov website; Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Portal; USEPA; Louisiana Department of 

Environmental Quality; Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; Louisiana Recovery Authority; 

and Louisiana Office of Community Development). Further information was sought from other 

organizations, recently published journal articles, and trade publications such as The Greater Lafourche 
4-72 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Port Commission, LA1 Coalition, The Oil Drum, Rigzone, Oil and Gas Journal, Offshore Magazine, 

TOLLROAD News, and The Energy Journal. This research revealed Sasol, Inc.’s plan to build a gas-toliquids processing facility in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. This would be the first gas-to-liquids facility

constructed in the United States. Plans call for an 18-month feasibility study to consider two 

development options, specifically, whether it will produce 2 million tons per year or 4 million tons per 

year (Troy, 2011). At present, BOEM believes that most of this gas will be sourced from onshore 

unconventional reserves rather than from OCS supplies. BOEM will continue to monitor future 

development of this new coastal infrastructure category (gas-to-liquids facilities), but this one proposed 

plan would not be expected to, on its own, represent a significant development or change in land use.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for land use and coastal infrastructure presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. BOEM has determined 

that the additional information does not alter the impact conclusion for land use and coastal infrastructure 

because the plans to build the new gas-to-liquids facility are very preliminary and are dependent upon not 

only the outcome of the 18-month feasibility study but also future fluctuations in the natural gas market. 

Therefore, the analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still 

apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

4.1.1.20.2. Demographics

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for demographics presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for demographics presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the WPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of demographics can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.20.2.1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The addition of any new human activity, such as oil and gas development resulting from the WPA 

proposed action, can affect local communities in a variety of ways. Typically, these effects are in the 

form of people and money, which can translate into changes in the local social and economic institutions. 

Minor demographic changes, primarily in focus areas, are projected as a result of the WPA proposed 

action. A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed 

WPA Lease Sale 233 on demographics can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.20.2.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

The WPA proposed action is projected to minimally affect the demography of the analysis area. 

Population impacts from the WPA proposed action are projected to be minimal (<1% of the total 

population) for any EIA in the Gulf of Mexico region. The baseline population patterns and distributions, 

as projected and described in Chapter 4.1.1.20.2.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, are 

expected to remain unchanged as a result of the WPA proposed action. The increase in employment is

expected to be met primarily with the existing population and available labor force, with the exception of 

some in-migration projected to occur in focal areas, such as Port Fourchon. 

The addition of human activity associated with an oil-spill response can affect local communities in a 

variety of ways. Typically, these effects are short term and in the form of a temporary influx of people 

and money, which can translate into changes in the local social and economic institutions. Minor to no 

demographic changes, primarily in projected shoreline contact areas, are projected as a result of the WPA 

proposed action. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be associated with

proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on demographics can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.20.2.3 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-73

Accidental events associated with the WPA proposed action, such as oil or chemical spills, blowouts, 

and vessel collisions, would likely have no effects on the demographic characteristics of the Gulf coastal 

communities because accidental events typically cause only short-term population movements as 

individuals seek employment related to the event or have their existing employment displaced during the 

event and because net employment impacts from a spill are not expected to exceed 1 percent of baseline 

employment for any EIA in any given year.

The cumulative analysis considers the effects of OCS-related, impact-producing factors as well as 

non-OCS-related factors on demographics. The OCS-related factors consist of population and 

employment from prior, current, and future OCS lease sales. Non-OCS factors include fluctuations in 

workforce, net migration, relative income, oil and gas activity in State waters, and offshore LNG activity. 

Not considered in this analysis are the unexpected events that may influence oil and gas activity within 

the analysis area that cannot be predicted with reasonable accuracy. Examples of unexpected events 

include oil embargos and acts or war or terrorism. A detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts

of OCS activities associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on demographics can be found in 

Chapter 4.1.1.20.2.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The cumulative activities are projected to minimally affect the analysis area’s demography. Baseline 

patterns and distributions of these factors, as described in Chapter 4.1.1.20.2.1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, are not expected to change for the analysis area as a whole. Lafourche Parish 

(EIA LA-3), including Port Fourchon, and Lafayette Parish (EIA LA-2) in Louisiana are projected to 

experience noteworthy impacts to population as a result of an increase in demand for OCS labor from the 

OCS Program. The WPA proposed action is projected to have an incremental contribution of less than 

1 percent to the population level in any of the EIA’s, in comparison to other factors influencing 

population growth, such as the status of the overall economy, fluctuations in workforce, net migration, 

and changes in income. Given both the low levels of population growth and industrial expansion 

associated with the WPA proposed action, it is expected that the baseline age and racial distribution 

pattern will continue through the analysis period.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

BOEM conducted a search of Internet resources and also known data sources related to 

demographics. The primary source of new information related to demographics is Woods & Poole 

Economics, Inc. (2011), which is an annual update to the data that were used in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. (2011) provides projections of economic and 

demographic variables at the county level. Table 4-6 provides projections of the evolution of the total

population in all EIA’s in future years, while Table 4-7 provides projections of the evolution of total 

employment in the same areas. These projections assume the continuation of existing social, economic, 

and technological trends at the time of the forecast. In 2011, the total Gulf Coast population was 

24.85 million. In 2011, the EIA’s with the largest populations were TX-3 (6.32 million), FL-4 

(6.26 million), and FL-3 (3.69 million). The EIA’s with the smallest populations were LA-1 (349,090), 

MS-1 (484,980), and LA-2 (591,720). For all EIA’s combined, it is expected that the total population 

will grow at a 1.2 percent rate between 2011 and 2051. The fastest population growth is expected in 

TX-3 (1.5%) and TX-1 (1.5%); the slowest population growth is expected in LA-4 (0.5%) and MS-1 

(0.6%). Tables 4-8 through 4-20 provide projections of employment, income, wealth, business patterns, 

and racial composition for individual EIA’s. In general, the projections of these variables have not 

changed noticeably from the projections in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

As discussed in Chapter 4.1.1.20.3, BOEM has incorporated a new version of MAG-PLAN into its 

decisionmaking process. The MAG-PLAN is an input-output model that BOEM uses to estimate the 

employment and economic demand generated by OCS lease sales and to allocate this demand to onshore 

EIA’s along the Gulf Coast. Table 4-21 presents the expected impacts to population from the WPA 

proposed action based on MAG-PLAN’s employment estimates, while Table 4-22 presents the expected 

impacts to population for the cumulative scenario. The changes in these estimates correspond closely to 

the changes in the employment estimates discussed in Chapter 4.1.1.20.3. However, the changes to these 

estimates from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale are modest and thus do not change the associated 

impact conclusions.
4-74 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for demographics presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for demographics presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. This is because the updated MAG-PLAN output still suggests that the impacts 

of the WPA proposed action on demographics would be relatively small. In addition, the new Woods & 

Poole Economics, Inc.’s data were roughly in line with prior expectations. The analysis and potential 

impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease 

Sale 233. 

4.1.1.20.3. Economic Factors

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for economic factors presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for economic factors presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233. 

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the WPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of economic factors can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.20.3.1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The WPA proposed action would have economic impacts on a variety of firms along the OCS 

industry’s supply chain. For example, the WPA proposed action would directly affect firms that are 

responsible for well drilling, equipment manufacturing, pipeline construction, and servicing OCS 

activities. The OCS activities would also impact the suppliers to those firms, as well as firms that depend 

on consumer spending of oil and gas industry workers. A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts 

of OCS activities associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on economic factors can be found in 

Chapter 4.1.1.20.3.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Should the WPA proposed action occur, there would be only minor economic changes in the Texas, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida EIA’s. This is because the demand would be met primarily 

with the existing population and labor force. Most of the employment related to the WPA proposed 

action is expected to occur in Texas (primarily in the EIA TX-3) and in the coastal areas of Louisiana. 

The WPA proposed action, irrespective of whether one analyzes the high-case or low-case production 

scenario, would not cause employment effects >0.1 percent in any EIA along the Gulf Coast.

An oil spill can have a number of effects on local economies. The most direct effects are felt in 

industries that depend on resources that are damaged or rendered unusable for a period of time due to a 

spill. For example, beach recreation, recreational fishing, and commercial fishing would be vulnerable if 

beach or fish resources were damaged due to an oil spill. However, for small to medium oil spills, the 

impacts to these activities would likely be localized and small in scale. An oil spill could also have 

noticeable economic impacts if it were to impact important transportation routes or affect the operations 

of certain port facilities. However, the likelihood of a single oil spill shutting down an entire waterway or 

port facility is quite low. The other economic effects of an oil spill are primarily determined by indirect 

actions or events that occur along with an oil spill. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts 

that may be associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 on economic factors can be found in Chapters 

4.1.1.20.3.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

An oil spill can cause a number of disruptions to local economies. A number of these effects are due 

to industries that depend on damaged resources. However, the impacts of an oil spill can be somewhat 

broader if firms further along industry supply chains are affected. These effects depend on issues such as 

the effects of cleanup operations and the responses of policymakers to a spill. However, the impacts of 

small-to medium-sized spills should be localized and temporary. A catastrophic spill along the lines of 

the one resulting from the Deepwater Horizon explosion would have more noticeable impacts to the 

economy. However, the likelihood of another spill of this scale is low. 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-75

The WPA proposed action would contribute to the economic effects of the broader OCS Program. 

The OCS Program directly affects firms that are responsible for well drilling, equipment manufacturing, 

pipeline construction, and servicing OCS activities. The OCS activities also impact the suppliers to those 

firms, as well as firms that depend on consumer spending of oil and gas industry workers. A detailed 

impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 

233 on economic factors can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.20.3.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS. 

The cumulative impacts of the WPA proposed action would be determined by the expected path of 

the economy and by the expected progression of the OCS industry in upcoming years. The expected path 

of the overall economy is projected using the data provided by Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. (2010). 

The expected economic impacts of the OCS industry in upcoming years are estimated using the 

mathematical model MAG-PLAN. The cumulative impacts of the WPA proposed action to the 

economies along the Gulf Coast are expected to be relatively small.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

BOEM conducted a search of Internet resources and also known data sources related to economic 

factors. The primary new information source that has become available is a revised version of 

MAG-PLAN. The MAG-PLAN is an input-output model that BOEM uses to estimate the employment

and economic demand generated by OCS lease sales and to allocate this demand to onshore EIA’s along 

the Gulf Coast. The updated version of MAG-PLAN incorporates an improved method for estimating the 

economic impacts of the spending of workers in the OCS industry. BOEM has also incorporated a 

methodology in which the employment impacts of lease sales are distributed to onshore areas more 

similarly for WPA and CPA lease sales. BOEM is continuing to review methods for distributing the 

impacts of lease sales among EIA’s and for differentiating the impacts of WPA and CPA lease sales. 

Tables 4-23 through 4-25 present the revised MAG-PLAN estimates of the employment impacts of 

the WPA proposed action, while Tables 4-26 through 4-28 present the revised estimates of the 

cumulative impacts of all OCS activities. As shown in Table 4-25, the estimated peak employment 

impacts of the WPA proposed action will primarily occur in the following EIA’s (the number of jobs in 

the low and high scenarios, respectively, are presented in parenthesis): TX-3 (1,225; 2028); LA-3 (333; 

561); LA-2 (249; 410); and TX-1 (212; 419). These updated employment estimates reflect a modest 

decrease from the estimates of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS for Texas EIA’s and a modest 

increase for Louisiana EIA’s. These updated estimates also bring BOEM’s results more in line with the 

findings of Quest Offshore (2011), which incorporates proprietary OCS supply chain data into its inputoutput model to create various measures of the economic impacts of the Gulf OCS Program. 

Recent information shows that permitting and exploration activities in the Gulf increased in pace in 

2012 (compared with 2010 and 2011). Eighty-nine deepwater permits were issued in 2012 (by October 

2012); this compares with 76 permits in 2009, 32 permits in 2010, and 38 permits in 2011 (Klimasinska, 

2012). As of December 2012, 16 of 18 drillships and 17 of 31 semisubmersibles were actively drilling in 

the Gulf (Rigzone, 2012). IHS Petrodata’s Jackup Day Rate Index for the Gulf of Mexico increased from 

296 in November 2011 to 388 in November 2012, while jackup utilization increased from 52 percent to 

63 percent over the same time period (IHS.com, 2012). Other anecdotal evidence suggests that Gulf 

exploration and development activity picked up noticeably in 2012 (Greenberg, 2012).

Information regarding the number of blocks leased and the bids received in previous lease sales is 

presented in “Outer Continental Shelf Lease Sale Statistics” (USDOI, BOEM, 2012d). A discussion of 

the procedures that BOEM uses to ensure that the Federal Government receives proper returns from lease 

sales can be found in “Summary of Procedures for Determining Bid Adequacy at Offshore Oil and Gas 

Lease Sales: Effective July 1999, with Sale 174” (USDOI, MMS, 1999). Agalliu (2011) presents a 

comparative analysis of the GOM’s fiscal system relative to fiscal systems in other countries. This study 

creates a composite measure of government return and shows that the fiscal systems for the shelf and 

deepwater areas of the Gulf of Mexico rank favorably relative to fiscal systems in other countries. An 

economic analysis of the costs and benefits of leasing in the Gulf of Mexico is presented in Section 2.12 

of the 2012-2017 Programmatic EIS (USDOI, BOEM, 2012c). This analysis found that the benefits of 

leasing in both the WPA and CPA continued to exceed the costs. More information regarding BOEM’s 

economic analyses can be found in the economic analysis methodology for the Five-Year Program 

(USDOI, BOEM, 2012e). 
4-76 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Incomplete or unavailable information, identified in this section and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, related to economics may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts on these 

resources. With regard to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, BOEM has 

determined that the incomplete or unavailable information would not be essential to a reasoned choice 

among alternatives for the reasons stated in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for economic factors presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for economic factors presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. This is because the updated MAG-PLAN output still suggests that the impacts 

of the WPA proposed action on employment would be relatively small. The analysis and potential 

impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease 

Sale 233. 

4.1.1.20.4. Environmental Justice

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for environmental justice presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for environmental justice presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the WPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts 

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared. 

A detailed description of environmental justice can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.20.4.1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Impact-producing factors that may result from routine events associated with the WPA proposed 

action that could affect environmental justice include the following: (1) potential infrastructure

changes/expansions including fabrication yards, support bases, and onshore disposal sites for offshore 

waste; (2) increased commuter and truck traffic; and (3) employment changes and immigration. A 

detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed WPA Lease 

Sale 233 on environmental justice can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.20.4.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

Because of the existing extensive and widespread support system for OCS-related industry and 

associated labor force, the effects of routine events related to the WPA proposed action are expected to be 

widely distributed and to have little impact. Where such change might occur is impossible to predict but, 

in any case, it would be very limited. Impacts related to the WPA proposed action on minority and lowincome populations are expected to be primarily economic in nature and to have a limited but positive 

effect on low-income and minority populations because the WPA proposed action would contribute to the 

sustainability of current industry and related support services. The OCS-related infrastructure is widely 

distributed within the impact area, and concentrations of minority and low-income populations are not 

adjacent to or associated with this infrastructure (Chapter 4.1.1.20.4.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS). Therefore, the WPA proposed action is not expected to have a disproportionate effect on 

these populations within the WPA.

Impact-producing factors associated with accidents as a result of the WPA proposed action that could 

affect environmental justice include oil spills, vessel collisions, and chemical/drilling-fluid spills. These 

factors could affect environmental justice through (1) direct exposure to oil, dispersants, degreasers, and 

other chemicals that can affect human health; (2) decreased access to natural resources due to 

environmental damages, fisheries closures, or wildlife contamination; and (3) proximity to onshore 

disposal sites used in support of oil and chemical spill cleanup efforts. A detailed impact analysis of the 

accidental impacts that may be associated OCS activities associated with proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-77

on environmental justice can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.20.4.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS. 

Chemical and drilling-fluid spills may be associated with exploration, production, or transportation 

activities that result from the WPA proposed action. Low-income and minority populations might be 

more sensitive to oil spills in coastal waters than is the general population because of their dietary reliance 

on wild coastal resources, their reliance on these resources for other subsistence purposes such as sharing 

and bartering, their limited flexibility in substituting wild resources with purchased ones, and their 

likelihood of participating in cleanup efforts and other mitigating activities. Little is known about 

subsistence along the Gulf Coast, and BOEM is currently funding a study to better document subsistence 

in the region. BOEM’s subject-matter experts have utilized available, credible information for this 

analysis. Although most criteria related to environmental justice may not be essential to a reasoned 

choice among alternatives, subsistence impacts may be essential. Nevertheless, subsistence research is 

pending and outcomes will not be available before publication of this Supplemental EIS. What credible 

information is available was applied using accepted methodologies. BOEM will continue to seek 

additional information as it becomes available and bases this analysis on the best information currently 

available. With the exception of a catastrophic accidental event, such as the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, the impacts of oil spills, vessel collisions, and chemical/drilling fluid spills are not likely to be 

of sufficient duration to have adverse and disproportionate long-term effects for low-income and minority 

communities in the analysis area.

An event like the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup could have adverse and 

disproportionate effects for low-income and minority populations in the analysis area. To date, there is 

little concrete evidence that such effects may have occurred (Brown et al., 2011; Dickey, 2012; King and 

Gibbons, 2011; Middlebrook et al., 2011; U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, 2010a and 2010b), although there 

is some dispute in the scientific community about proper risk assessment standards in seafood 

contamination research (Rotkin-Ellman et al., 2012; Rotkin-Ellman and Soloman, 2012). Whether or not 

long-term impacts to low-income and minority populations will occur is unknown. While economic 

impacts were partially mitigated by employers retaining employees for delayed maintenance or through 

the Gulf Coast Claims Facility Program’s emergency funds, the physical and mental health effects to both 

children and adults within these populations could potentially unfold for many years. As studies of past 

oil spills have highlighted, different cultural groups can possess varying capacities to cope with these 

types of events (Palinkas et al., 1992). Likewise, some low-income and/or minority groups may be more 

reliant on natural resources and/or less equipped to substitute contaminated or inaccessible natural 

resources with private market offerings. Because lower-income and/or minority populations may live 

near and may be directly involved with spill cleanup efforts, the vectors of exposure can be higher for 

them than for the general population, increasing the potential risks of long-term health effects. The postDeepwater Horizon’s human environment remains dynamic, and BOEM will continue to monitor these 

populations over time and to document short- and long-term impacts. The long-term impacts of the 

Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup will become clearer as time allows the production of 

peer-reviewed research and targeted studies that determine those impacts.

The Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill was a low-probability catastrophic event. The kinds 

of accidental events (smaller, shorter time scale) that are likely to result from the WPA proposed action

may affect low-income and/or minority populations more than the general population, at least in the 

shorter term. These higher risk groups may lack financial or social resources and may be more sensitive 

and less equipped to cope with the disruption these events pose. These smaller events, however, are not 

likely to significantly affect minority and low-income populations in the long term. 

Of all activities in the cumulative scenario, those that could potentially impact environmental justice

in the WPA include (1) the WPA proposed action and the OCS Program, (2) State oil and gas activity, 

(3) existing infrastructure associated with petrochemical processing including refineries and polyvinyl 

facilities, (4) existing waste facilities including landfills, (5) coastal erosion/subsidence, (6) hurricanes, 

and (7) the lingering impacts of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. The context in 

which people may find themselves, and how that context affects their ability to respond to an additional 

change in the socioeconomic or physical environment, is the heart of an environmental justice analysis. A 

detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed WPA 

Lease Sale 233 on environmental justice can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.20.4.4 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.
4-78 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

The onshore support system for OCS activities is extensive and widespread across the impact area. 

The labor force associated with OCS activities is also extensive and widespread across the impact area. 

Therefore, in the cumulative case, effects are also expected to be widely distributed and, except in the 

case of Louisiana, virtually nondetectable. In general, the cumulative effects of the OCS Program are 

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

populations. In Louisiana, these positive economic effects are expected to be greater. In general, who 

will be hired and where new infrastructure might be located is impossible to predict. As stated above,

OCS-related infrastructure is widely distributed within the impact area, and concentrations of minority 

and low-income populations are not adjacent to or associated with this infrastructure. Therefore, the 

cumulative OCS Program will not have a disproportionate effect on these populations. Lafourche Parish 

will experience the most concentrated effects of cumulative impacts. These groups are not expected to be 

differentially affected because the parish is not heavily low income or minority and because the effects of 

road traffic and port expansion would not occur in areas of low-income or minority concentration.

The WPA proposed action is not expected to have disproportionate high/adverse environmental or 

health effects on minority or low-income people. In the Gulf of Mexico coastal area, the contribution of 

the WPA proposed action and the OCS Program for cumulative effects of all activities and trends 

affecting environmental justice issues over the next 40 years is expected to be negligible to minor. The 

cumulative effects will be concentrated in coastal areas and along waterways like Houston’s Ship Canal. 

Most OCS Program effects are expected to be in the areas of job creation and the stimulation of the 

economy, and they are expected to make a positive contribution to environmental justice. The 

contribution of the cumulative OCS Program to the cumulative impacts of all factors affecting 

environmental justice is expected to be minor; therefore, the incremental contribution of the WPA 

proposed action to the cumulative impacts would also be minor. State offshore leasing programs in 

Alabama and Louisiana have similar, although more limited, effects due to their smaller scale. 

Cumulative effects from onshore infrastructure, including waste facilities, is also expected to be minor 

because existing infrastructure is regulated, because little new infrastructure is expected to result in the 

cumulative case, and because any new infrastructure will be subject to relevant permitting requirements. 

Coastal landloss/subsidence, hurricanes, and global warming all raise environmental justice issues, as do 

the lingering effects of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. The cumulative 

consequences to environmental justice cannot be determined at this time. Nevertheless, a single OCS 

lease sale added to existing State and Federal leasing programs and the associated onshore infrastructure 

will make only minor contributions to these cumulative effects. Refer to Chapter 4.1.1.20.4.4 of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS for the complete cumulative analysis.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

Additional research was conducted to investigate the availability of recent information affecting 

environmental justice since publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Various sources 

were examined, including the websites of numerous Federal and State agencies, including the following: 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health; USEPA; USDOC, Bureau 

of the Census and Bureau of Labor Statistics; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency; RestoreTheGulf.gov website; Deepwater Horizon Claims Center; Deepwater 

Horizon Oil Spill Portal; Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality; Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality; Louisiana Recovery Authority; and Louisiana Office of Community 

Development. Further information was sought from other organizations, recently published journal 

articles, and trade publications such as The Greater Lafourche Port Commission, LA1 Coalition, The Oil 

Drum, Rigzone, Oil and Gas Journal, and The Energy Journal. With regard to oil-spill claims related to 

the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, the Gulf Coast Claims Facility Transition 

Process is closed and the Court Supervised Settlement Program has been in operation since June 4, 2012 

(Gulf Coast Claims Facility, 2012). An Economic and Property Damages Settlement was reached in early 

2012 and includes the following types of claims: seafood compensation; business economic loss; 

individual economic loss; loss of subsistence; vessel physical damage; Vessel-of-Opportunity charter 

payment; coastal real property damage; wetlands real property damage; and real property sales loss. A 

Medical Benefits Settlement was also reached in early 2012 and offers benefits to qualifying people who 

resided in the United States as of April 16, 2012, who were either “Clean-Up Workers” or who were 

residents in certain defined beachfront areas and wetlands (“Zones”) during certain time periods in 2010. 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-79

On May 2, 2012, the Court granted preliminary approval for the settlement and ordered that the Courtsupervised settlement program begin accepting claims on June 4, 2012. For economic and property 

damages, valid claims will be paid as they are approved. For medical claims, payments and other benefits 

will be distributed after the final approval of the settlement and any appeals are resolved. The new 

official court-authorized claims administration website is located at http://

www.deepwaterhorizoneconomicsettlement.com. Persons who filed a claim with the Gulf Coast Claims 

Facility for losses, such as subsistence, whose claims were rejected or who have not already accepted a 

final settlement from British Petroleum (BP), may file a new claim with the Deepwater Horizon Claims 

Center (Deepwater Horizon Claims Center, 2012). The National Institute of Environmental Health 

Sciences announced in November 2012 that over 29,000 cleanup workers and volunteers were enrolled in 

the Gulf Long-Term Follow-Up (GuLF) STUDY, which is a national effort to determine if the Gulf oil 

spill led to physical or mental health problems. Enrollment was extended through March 1, 2013, to 

reach the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences’ target goal of 55,000 participants 

(National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences, 2012; Mackar, 2012; National Institutes of Health, 

2013). 

Information regarding the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup remains 

incomplete. Studies regarding environmental justice concerns in light of the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup are still ongoing, and it may be years before data are available and 

certainly not within the timeframe contemplated by this NEPA analysis. The NRDA process, which is 

ongoing, may help to inform issues relating to subsistence and other indigenous reliance on natural 

resources. However, information related to NRDA is unavailable and unobtainable at this time, 

regardless of costs. In its place, BOEM’s subject-matter experts have used credible information that is 

available and applied it using accepted socioeconomic methodologies. Although most criteria related to 

environmental justice may not be essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives, health impacts may 

be essential. Nevertheless, long-term health studies are pending and may not be available for use for 

several years or longer. What credible information is available was applied using accepted 

methodologies. BOEM will continue to seek additional information as it becomes available and bases the 

previous analysis on the best information currently available.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for environmental justice presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. BOEM has determined that the 

additional information does not alter the impact conclusion for environmental justice because the 

information is currently inconclusive with regard to environmental justice issues and will remain so for an 

indefinite period of time. Therefore, the analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed Lease Sale 233.

4.1.1.21.Species Considered due to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Concerns 

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for species considered due to FWS concerns presented in the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new 

significant information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for species considered due 

to FWS concerns presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential 

impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease 

Sale 233. 

Species considered due to FWS concerns can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.21 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. A detailed explanation of the routine and accidental impact-producing factors 

can be found in Chapters 3.1 and 3.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, respectively. The 

cumulative analysis in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS considers the effects of impact-producing 

factors related to past WPA lease sales, proposed WPA Lease Sale 233, and reasonably foreseeable lease 

sale programs in the WPA. Cumulative impacts attributed to OCS activity co-occur with State oil and gas 

activities, other governmental and private projects and activities, and pertinent natural processes and 

events that may occur that adversely affect wetlands. As a result of these activities and processes, several 

impact-producing factors discussed in Chapter 3.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS would 
4-80 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

contribute to impacts on species considered due to FWS concerns and associated habitat during the life of 

proposed WPA Lease Sale 233.

Because of the mitigations that may be implemented (Chapter 2.3.1.3), routine activities (e.g., 

operational discharges, noise, and marine debris) related to the WPA proposed action are not expected to 

have long-term adverse effects on the size and productivity of any of these species or populations in the 

Gulf of Mexico. Lethal effects could occur from ingestion of accidentally released plastic materials from 

OCS vessels and facilities. However, there have been no reports to date on such incidences. BOEM 

employs several measures (e.g., marine debris mitigations) to reduce the potential impacts to any animal 

from routine activities associated with the WPA proposed action. Accidental blowouts, oil spills, and 

spill-response activities resulting from the WPA proposed action have the potential to impact small to 

large areas in the Gulf of Mexico, depending on the magnitude and frequency of accidents, the ability to 

respond to accidents, the location and date of accidents, and various meteorological and hydrological

factors (including tropical storms). The incremental contribution of the WPA proposed action would not 

be likely to result in a significant incremental impact on the mammal and plant species within the WPA; 

in comparison, non-OCS-related activities, such as habitat loss and competition, have historically proved 

to be of greater threat to the species of concern. 

The WPA proposed action would be expected to have little or no effect on the species of concern. 

The conclusions for the following species can be found in their respective chapters: West Indian manatee 

(Chapter 4.1.1.11 of this Supplemental EIS and Chapter 4.1.1.11 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS); green, hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, leatherback, and loggerhead sea turtles (Chapter 4.1.1.12 of this 

Supplemental EIS and Chapter 4.1.1.12 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS); and Attwater’s 

greater prairie-chicken, northern, piping plover, whooping crane, and mountain plover (Chapter 4.1.1.14

of this Supplemental EIS and Chapter 4.1.1.14 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). 

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

Various Internet sources were examined and literature searches conducted in order to assess recent 

information regarding these species that may be pertinent to the WPA. BOEM has only focused on 

species within coastal counties because those are the species that could be potentially impacted by oil and 

gas development activities, including a potential OCS spill. No new information was discovered.

Given that the boundary of the WPA is more than 300 mi (483 km) from the Macondo well and that 

the westernmost extent of the plume and sheen did not reach the WPA, it appears that the above mammal 

and plant species would not have been directly impacted by the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, 

and cleanup. As data continue to be gathered and impact assessments completed, a better characterization 

of the full scope of impacts to populations in the GOM from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, 

and cleanup will be available. Relevant data on the status of populations after the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup may take years to acquire and analyze, and impacts from the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion may be difficult or impossible to discern from other factors. Therefore, it is not 

possible for BOEM to obtain this information within the timeline contemplated in this Supplemental EIS, 

regardless of the cost or resources needed. In light of the incomplete or unavailable information, 

BOEM’s subject-matter experts have used available scientifically credible evidence in this analysis based 

upon accepted methods and approaches. Nevertheless, a complete understanding of the missing 

information is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives for this Supplemental EIS (including 

the No Action and Action alternatives) for the reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS. 

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for species considered due to FWS concerns presented in the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information provided above. No new 

significant information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for species considered due 

to FWS concerns presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential 

impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed WPA Lease 

Sale 233. 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-81

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

Biologically Sensitive Topographic Features

Description of the Alternative

Alternative B differs from Alternative A (the proposed action) by not offering blocks that are possibly 

affected by the proposed Topographic Features Stipulation (Chapter 2.3.1.3.1 and Figure 2-1 of this 

Supplemental EIS and Chapter 2.3.1.3.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). All of the 

assumptions (including the three other potential mitigating measures) and estimates are the same as for 

the proposed action (Alternative A). A description of Alternative A is presented in Chapter 2.3.1.1. 

Effects of the Alternative

The following analyses are based on the scenario for the WPA proposed action (Alternative A). The 

scenario provides assumptions and estimates on the amounts, locations, and timing for OCS exploration, 

development, and production operations and facilities, both offshore and onshore. These are estimates 

only and not predictions of what would happen as a result of holding proposed WPA Lease Sale 233. A 

detailed discussion of the scenario and related impact-producing factors is presented in Chapter 3.1 of 

this Supplemental EIS and in Chapter 3.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The analyses of impacts to the various resources under Alternative B are very similar to those for 

Alternative A. The reader should refer to the appropriate discussions under Alternative A for additional 

and more detailed information regarding impact-producing factors and their expected effects on the 

various resources. Impacts under Alternative B are expected to be the same as those under the WPA 

proposed action (Chapter 4.1.1) for the following resources:

— Air Quality

— Water Quality

— Coastal Barrier Beaches and Associated

Dunes 

— Wetlands 

— Seagrass Communities

— Sargassum Communities 

— Chemosynthetic and Nonchemosynthetic 

Deepwater Benthic Communities

— Soft Bottom Benthic Communities

— Marine Mammals

— Sea Turtles

— Diamondback Terrapins

— Coastal and Marine Birds

— Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat

— Commercial Fisheries 

— Recreational Fishing

— Recreational Resources

— Archaeological Resources

— Human Resources and Land Use

The impacts to some Gulf of Mexico resources under Alternative B would be slightly different from 

the impacts expected under the WPA proposed action. These impacts are described below. 

Impacts on Topographic Features

The sources and severity of impacts associated with this alternative are those sale-related activities 

discussed for the WPA proposed action. The potential impact-producing factors to the topographic 

features of the WPA are anchoring and structure emplacement, drilling-effluent and produced-water 

discharges, blowouts, oil spills, and structure removal. A more detailed discussion of these potential 

impact-producing factors and the appropriate mitigating measures is presented in Chapter 2.3.1.3.1 of 

this Supplemental EIS and in Chapter 2.3.1.3.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Impacts of Routine and Accidental Events 

All 21 topographic features of the WPA are located within water depths less than 200 m (656 ft). 

These features occupy a very small portion of the entire area. Of the potential impact-producing factors 

that may affect the topographic features, anchoring, structure emplacement, and structure removal would 

be eliminated by the adoption of this alternative. Effluent discharge and blowouts would not be a threat 

to the topographic features because blocks near enough to the banks for these events to have an impact on 

the biota of the banks would have been excluded from leasing under this alternative. Thus, the only 
4-82 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

impact-producing factor remaining from operations in blocks included in this alternative (i.e., those 

blocks not excluded by this alternative) is an oil spill. The potential impacts from oil spills are 

summarized below and are discussed further in Chapter 3.2.1 of this Supplemental EIS and in Chapter 

3.2.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

A subsurface spill would have no effect on a biologically sensitive feature unless the oil or its 

dissolved components comes into direct contact with the habitat. Oil from a subsurface spill is expected 

to rise to the sea surface, based on the specific gravity of GOM oil. An exception to this could occur if oil 

is released at the seafloor under high pressure, having the effect of atomizing the oil into micro-droplets 

that have very little buoyancy. Under these conditions, a subsea oil plume could form and travel laterally 

with the prevailing currents. This can also happen if chemical dispersants are used underwater, forming a 

plume. If a subsea oil plume does form, the oil is expected to be swept clear of the banks because 

prevailing currents travel around the banks rather than over them (Rezak et al., 1983). As the oil travels 

in the water column, it will become diluted from its original concentration. Transient concentrations of 

oil below 20 ppm are not expected to result in lasting harm to a coral reef (Shigenaka, 2001). The fact 

that the topographic features are widely dispersed in the WPA, combined with the random nature of spill 

events, would serve to limit the likelihood of a spill occurring near a topographic feature. In addition, the 

exclusion of blocks adjacent to topographic features from this lease sale would further distance potential 

spills from the habitat. Chapter 4.1.1.6.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS discusses the risk of 

spills interacting with topographic features, especially the Flower Garden Banks, in more detail. The 

currents that move around the banks would likely steer any spilled oil around the banks rather than 

directly upon them, lessening impact severity. In the unlikely event that oil from a subsurface spill would 

reach the biota of a topographic feature, the effects would be primarily sublethal for most of the adult 

sessile biota. Lethal effects would probably be limited to a few coral colonies (CSA, 1992a and 1994). If 

oil from a subsurface spill contacted a coral-covered area, the areal extent of coral mortality would be 

limited, but long-lasting sublethal effects may be incurred by organisms surviving the initial effects of a 

spill (Jackson et al., 1989). Stress resulting from the oiling of reef coral colonies could affect their 

resilience to natural disturbances (e.g., elevated water temperature, diseases) and may hamper their ability 

to reproduce. A complete recovery of such an affected area could take in excess of 10 years.

Cumulative Impacts

With the exception of the topographic features, the cumulative impacts of Alternative B on the 

environmental and socioeconomic resources of the WPA would be identical to Alternative A. The 

incremental contribution of the WPA proposed action to the cumulative impacts on topographic features 

is expected to be slight, and negative impacts should be restricted by the implementation of the 

Topographic Features Stipulation and site-specific mitigations, the depths of the features, and water 

currents in the topographic feature area.

Summary and Conclusion

Alternative B, if adopted, would prevent any oil and gas activity whatsoever in the blocks containing 

topographic features and their surrounding protective zones; thus, it would eliminate any potential direct 

impacts to the biota of those blocks from routine oil and gas activities, which otherwise would be 

conducted within the blocks according to lease stipulations. In the unlikely event that oil from a 

subsurface spill contacts the biota of a topographic feature, the effects would be localized and primarily 

sublethal for most of the adult sessile biota. Some lethal effects would probably occur upon oil contact to 

coral colonies; recovery from such an event is anticipated to occur within a period of 10 years.

Environmental impacts of Alternative B would be almost indistinguishable from Alternative A with 

the Topographic Features Stipulation in place. There would be an economic impact to the extent that 

economic returns from the excluded lease blocks would not be realized.

4.1.3. Alternative C—No Action

Description of the Alternative

Alternative C is the cancellation of proposed WPA Lease Sale 233. If this alternative is chosen, the 

opportunity for development of the estimated 0.116-0.200 BBO and 0.538-0.938 Tcf of gas that could 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-83

have resulted from the proposed lease sale would be precluded postponed to a future WPA lease sale. 

The No Action alternative encompasses the same potential impacts as a decision to delay the proposed 

lease sale to a later scheduled lease sale under the Five-Year Program, when another decision on whether 

to hold that future lease sale is made. As the potential impacts are the same, namely that most impacts 

related to Alternative A would not occur as described below, delay of the proposed lease sale was not 

considered as a separate alternative from Alternative C. Any potential environmental impacts resulting 

from proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 would not occur or would be postponed to a future lease sale 

decision. 

Effects of the Alternative

This Agency published a report that examined previous exploration and development activity 

scenarios (USDOI, MMS, 2007a). This Agency compared forecasted activity with the actual activity 

from 14 WPA and 14 CPA lease sales. The report shows that many lease sales contribute to the present 

level of OCS activity, and any single lease sale accounts for only a small percentage of the total OCS 

activities. In 2006, leases from 92 different lease sales contributed to Gulf of Mexico production, while 

an average WPA lease sale contributed to 3 percent of oil production and 3 percent of gas production in 

the WPA. In 2006, leases from 15 different lease sales contributed to the installation of production 

structures in the Gulf of Mexico, while an average WPA lease sale contributed to 6 percent of the 

installation of production structures in the WPA. In 2006, leases from 70 different lease sales contributed 

to wells drilled in the Gulf of Mexico, while an average WPA lease sale contributed to 6 percent of the 

wells drilled in the WPA.

As in the past, the WPA proposed lease sale would contribute to maintaining the present level of OCS 

activity in the Gulf of Mexico. Exploration and development activity, including service-vessel trips, 

helicopter trips, and construction, that would result from the WPA proposed lease sale would replace 

activity resulting from existing leases that have reached, or are near the end of, their economic life.

Environmental Impacts

If proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 were cancelled, the resulting development of oil and gas would 

most likely be postponed to a future sale; therefore, the overall level of OCS activity in the WPA would 

only be reduced by a small percentage, if any. Therefore, the cancellation of proposed WPA Lease 

Sale 233 would not significantly change the environmental impacts of overall OCS activity in the long 

term. The environmental impacts expected to result from the WPA proposed action, which are described 

above, would not occur in the short term, but they would likely be postponed to any future lease sale

decision. 

Economic Impacts 

Although environmental impacts may be reduced or postponed by cancelling a lease sale, the 

economic impacts of cancelling a scheduled lease sale should be given consideration. Chapter 4.1.1.20.3

of this Supplemental EIS and Chapter 4.1.1.20.3.2 of the 2012-2017 Multisale EIS discuss the potential 

economic impacts of the WPA proposed action. In the event that proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 is 

cancelled or postponed, there may be impacts to employment along the Gulf Coast, but these are not 

expected to be significant (e.g., less than 1% of total employment) or long term given the existing OCS 

infrastructure. 

Federal, State, and local governments would have to forgo the revenue that would have been received 

from proposed WPA Lease Sale 233. There could be minor impacts on global energy prices from 

cancelling the proposed WPA lease sale, along with minor changes in energy consumption patterns that 

would result from these price changes.

Other factors may minimize or exacerbate the economic impacts of cancelling proposed WPA Lease 

Sale 233. For example, the longer-term economic impacts of cancelling the WPA proposed lease sale 

could be minimized if they were offset by a larger lease sale at a later date. The economic impacts may 

be exacerbated if additional lease sales are cancelled. The OCS industry is dependent on high capital 

investment costs and there may be long lags between the lease sale and the majority of production 

activities. Therefore, firms’ investment and spending decisions are dependent on their confidence that the 

OCS Program will be maintained in the future. In addition, while firms in the OCS industry are generally 
4-84 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

likely to be able to weather the cancellation of a single lease sale, the cancellation of multiple lease sales 

could lead to broader damage to firms and workers in the industry or decisions to operate in areas other 

than the Gulf. These economic impacts would be particularly damaging to the coastal counties/parishes 

in Texas and Louisiana for which the OCS industry as a whole is an important component of their 

economies. 

From a programmatic perspective, cancellation of a Five-Year Program of lease sales in the Gulf of 

Mexico would have much greater effects in terms of economic impacts, energy strategy, and 

environmental impacts. For a more detailed discussion of the effects of the cancellation of a Five-Year 

Program of lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico, refer to Appendix G.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

Summary and Conclusion

Canceling a lease sale would eliminate the effects described for Alternative A (Chapter 4.1.1). Other 

sources of energy would substitute for the lost production. Principal substitutes would be additional 

imports, conservation, additional domestic production, and switching to other fuels. These alternatives, 

except conservation, have significant negative environmental impacts of their own. For example, 

tankering of fuels from alternate sources over longer distances would also have significant potential 

negative impacts, including through the increased risk of spills.

4.2. PROPOSED CENTRAL PLANNING AREA LEASE SALE 231

Proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 is tentatively scheduled to be held in early 2014. The proposed CPA 

lease sale area encompasses about 63 million ac of the total CPA area of 66.45 million ac. This area 

begins 3 nmi (3.5 mi; 5.6 km) offshore Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, and extends seaward to the 

limits of the United States’ jurisdiction (often the Exclusive Economic Zone) in water depths up to 

approximately 3,346 m (10,978 ft) (Figure 1-1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). As of March 

2013, approximately 43.0 million ac of the proposed CPA lease sale area are currently unleased. The 

CPA proposed action would offer for lease all unleased blocks within the proposed CPA lease sale area 

for oil and gas operations (Figure 2-1), with the following exceptions:

(1) whole and portions of blocks deferred by the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 

2006; and

(2) blocks that are adjacent to or beyond the United States Exclusive Economic Zone in 

the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap.

Alternative A (The Proposed Action) of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS also included an 

exclusion of whole and partial blocks that lie within the 1.4-nmi buffer zone north of the maritime 

boundary between the United States and Mexico. The U.S. and Mexico have been pursuing an 

Agreement to govern the development of reservoirs of petroleum and natural gas straddling the 

U.S.-Mexico maritime and continental shelf boundary in the Gulf of Mexico. On February 20, 2012, the 

Agreement was signed by representatives of each Government, but it has not yet entered into force. Upon 

its entry into force, the blocks and acreage in this buffer zone that were not offered in past lease sales will 

become available for leasing. As the Agreement may enter into force prior to the tentative date scheduled 

to hold proposed CPA Lease Sale 231, BOEM has considered this 1.4-nmi buffer area as being 

potentially available for lease under Alternative A. There are no known features of the buffer zone that 

would distinguish these blocks from those adjacent blocks that were considered in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS (e.g., no known topographic features, no identified critical habitat) or that 

would alter the conclusions on impacts that may be expected to result if the proposed action is chosen. 

However, all resources in the buffer area would be considered in postlease activities and plan approval 

reviews. Further, there are no known features in this area that would suggest resources would react to 

potential impact-producing factors differently than those areas and resources already identified.

Although the leasing of portions of the CPA and WPA (subareas or blocks) can be deferred during a 

Five-Year Program, DOI is conservative throughout the NEPA process and includes the total area within 

the Gulf of Mexico planning areas for analysis.
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-85

Chapter 4.2.1 presents a brief summary of the baseline data for the physical, biological, and 

socioeconomic resources that would potentially be affected by the CPA proposed action or the 

alternatives, and it presents analyses of the potential impacts of routine events, accidental events, and 

cumulative activities on these resources. Baseline data are considered in the assessment of impacts from 

proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on these resources. For additional information on the baseline data for the 

physical, biological, and socioeconomic resources that would potentially be affected by the CPA 

proposed action or the alternatives, refer to Chapter 4.2.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The Deepwater Horizon explosion off the Louisiana coast resulted in the largest oil spill in U.S. 

history. An event such as this has the potential to adversely affect multiple resources over a large area. 

The level of adverse effect depends on many factors, including the sensitivity of the resource as well as 

the sensitivity of the environment in which the resource is located. All effects may not initially be seen 

and some could take years to fully develop. The analyses of impacts from the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup on the physical, biological, and socioeconomic resources below are based 

on post-Deepwater Horizon credible scientific information that was publicly available at the time this 

document was prepared and were applied using accepted methodologies. BOEM will continue to monitor 

these resources for effects caused by the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. 

Chapter 3.2.1 provides a brief summary of the information on accidental spills that could result from 

all operations conducted under the OCS Program, as well as information on the number and sizes of spills 

from non-OCS sources. The number of spills ≥1,000 bbl and <1,000 bbl estimated to occur as a result of 

the CPA proposed action is provided in Table 3-12 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The 

mean number of spills ≥1,000 bbl estimated for the CPA proposed action is <1 spill. Spill rates for 

several spill-size categories are provided in Table 3-12 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The 

probabilities of a spill ≥1,000 bbl occurring and contacting modeled environmental resources are 

described in Chapter 3.2.1.8 and Figures 3-8 through 3-28 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

For additional information on accidental spills that could result from all operations conducted under the 

OCS Program, as well as information on the number and sizes of spills from non-OCS sources, refer to 

Chapter 3.2.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The potential impacts of a low-probability, catastrophic oil spill, such as the one that resulted from 

the Deepwater Horizon explosion, to the environmental and cultural resources and the socioeconomic 

conditions analyzed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS are addressed in the “Catastrophic Spill 

Event Analysis” (Appendix B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). The reader is referred to 

Appendix B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS for the analysis of potential effects of a 

catastrophic spill event for each resource. BOEM reviewed relevant information available since the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and summarized this information in the individual resource analyses 

below; however, BOEM’s subject-matter experts determined that none of this newly available 

information significantly changed the analyses or conclusions regarding catastrophic events in Appendix 

B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. BOEM’s analyses and conclusions of catastrophic events 

in Appendix B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS remain unchanged and, therefore, BOEM 

refers the reader to Appendix B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS for the analysis of the 

potential effects of a catastrophic event for each resource.

The cumulative analyses below consider impacts to physical, biological, and socioeconomic resources 

that may result from the incremental impact of proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 when added to all past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future human activities, including non-OCS activities, as well as all 

OCS activities (OCS Program). A summary of the environmental impacts of the cumulative case for the 

Gulf of Mexico resources are found in the individual resource analyses in Chapters 4.1.1 and 4.2.1. For 

additional information on the environmental impacts of the cumulative case for Gulf of Mexico resources, 

refer to Chapters 4.1.1 and 4.2.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Non-OCS activities include, but are not limited to, import tankering; State oil and gas activity; 

recreational, commercial, and military vessel traffic; offshore liquefied natural gas activity; recreational 

and commercial fishing; onshore development; and natural processes. The OCS Program scenario 

includes all activities that are projected to occur from past, proposed, and future lease sales during the 40-

year analysis period (2012-2051). This includes projected activity from lease sales that have been held, 

but for which exploration or development has not yet begun or is continuing.
4-86 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Analytical Approach

The analyses of potential effects to the wide variety of physical, environmental, and socioeconomic 

resources in the vast area of the GOM and adjacent coastal areas is very complex. Specialized education, 

experience, and technical knowledge are required, as well as familiarity with the numerous impact- producing factors associated with oil and gas activities and other activities that can cause cumulative 

impacts in the area. Knowledge and practical working experience of major environmental laws and 

regulations such as NEPA, the Clean Water Act, CAA, CZMA, ESA, Marine Mammal Protection Act, 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and others are also required.

In order to accomplish this task, BOEM has assembled a multidisciplinary staff with hundreds of 

years of collective experience. The vast majority of this staff has advanced degrees with a high level of 

knowledge related to the particular resources discussed in this chapter. This staff prepares the input to 

BOEM’s lease sale EIS’s, a variety of subsequent postlease NEPA reviews, and are also involved with 

ESA, EFH, and CZMA consultations. In addition, this same staff is also directly involved with the 

development of studies conducted by BOEM’s Environmental Studies Program. The results of these 

studies feed directly into our NEPA analyses.

For this Supplemental EIS, a set of assumptions and a scenario are developed, and impact-producing 

factors that could occur from routine oil and gas activities, as well as accidental events, are described. 

This information is summarized in Chapter 3 of this Supplemental EIS and is discussed in detail in 

Chapter 3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Using this information, the multidisciplinary staff 

described above applies their knowledge and experience to conduct their analyses of the potential effects 

of proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

The conclusions developed by the subject-matter experts regarding the potential effects of proposed 

CPA Lease Sale 231 for most resources are necessarily qualitative in nature; however, they are based on 

the expert opinion and judgment of highly trained subject-matter experts. This staff approaches this effort 

in good faith utilizing credible scientific information including, but not limited to, information available 

since the Macondo spill and applied using accepted methodologies. Where relevant information on 

reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts is incomplete or unavailable, the need for the 

information was evaluated to determine if it was essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives, 

and if so, was either acquired or in the event it was impossible or exorbitant to acquire the information, 

accepted scientific methodologies were applied in its place. This approach is described in the next 

subsection on “Incomplete or Unavailable Information.”

Over the years, a suite of lease stipulations and mitigation measures has been developed to eliminate 

or ameliorate potential environmental effects, where implemented. In many instances, these were 

developed in coordination with other natural resource agencies such as NMFS and FWS. It must also be 

emphasized that, in arriving at the overall conclusions for certain environmental resources (e.g., coastal 

and marine birds, fisheries, and wetlands), the conclusions are not based on impacts to individuals, small 

groups of animals, or small areas of habitat, but on impacts to the resources/populations as a whole.

BOEM has made conscientious efforts to comply with the spirit and intent of NEPA, to avoid being 

arbitrary and capricious in its analyses of potential environmental effects, and to use adaptive 

management to respond to new developments related to the OCS Program.

Incomplete or Unavailable Information

In the following analyses of physical, environmental, and socioeconomic resources, there are 

references to incomplete or unavailable information, particularly in relation to the Deepwater Horizon

explosion and oil spill. The subject-matter experts for each resource used what scientifically credible 

information was publicly available at the time this Supplemental EIS was prepared. Where available, 

new information is summarized in Chapter 4.2.1 of this Supplemental EIS and is discussed in detail for 

each resource in Chapter 4.2.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Where necessary, the subjectmatter experts extrapolated from existing and new information published since the publication of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. BOEM’s subject-matter experts completed their analysis, using 

accepted methodologies, to make reasoned estimates and developed conclusions regarding the current 

CPA baseline for resource categories and expected impacts from the CPA proposed action given any 

baseline changes. There are no changes to the conclusions presented in the 2012-2017 WPA\CPA 

Multisale EIS.
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-87

As with the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, the most notable incomplete or unavailable 

information relates to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup in the CPA. Credible 

scientific data regarding the potential short-term and long-term impacts from the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup on both CPA or WPA resources is becoming available but remains 

incomplete at this time, and it could be many years before this information becomes available via the 

NRDA process, BOEM’s Environmental Studies Program, and numerous studies by academia. 

Nonetheless, the subject-matter experts acquired and used newly available, scientifically credible 

information, determined that other additional information was not available absent exorbitant 

expenditures or could not be obtained regardless of cost in a timely manner, and where gaps remained, 

exercised their best professional judgment to extrapolate baseline conditions and impact analyses using 

accepted methodologies based on credible information.

It is important to note that, barring another catastrophic oil spill, which is a low-probability accidental 

event, the adverse impacts associated with the proposed CPA lease sale are small, even in light of the 

Deepwater Horizon explosion. This is because of BOEM’s lease sale stipulations and mitigations, sitespecific mitigations that become conditions of plan or permit approval at the postlease stage, and 

mitigations required by other State and Federal agencies.

For the following resources, as with the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, the subject-matter 

experts determined that there is incomplete or unavailable information that is relevant to reasonably 

foreseeable significant adverse impacts; however, it is not essential to a reasoned choice among 

alternatives. 

• Air Quality (Chapter 4.2.1.1) 

• Water Quality (Coastal and Offshore) (Chapters 4.2.1.2.1 and 4.2.1.2.2, 

respectively) 

• Coastal Barrier Beaches and Associated Dunes (Chapter 4.2.1.3) 

• Wetlands (Chapter 4.2.1.4) 

• Sargassum Communities (Chapter 4.2.1.8) 

• Chemosynthetic and Nonchemosynthetic Deepwater Benthic Communities

(Chapters 4.2.1.9 and 4.2.1.10, respectively) 

• Soft Bottom Benthic Communities (Chapter 4.2.1.11) 

• Alabama, Choctawhatchee, St. Andrew, and Perdido Key Beach Mice (Chapter 

4.2.1.15) 

• Commercial Fisheries (Chapter 4.2.1.19)

• Recreational Resources (Chapter 4.2.1.21) 

• Archaeological Resources (Historic and Prehistoric) (Chapters 4.2.1.22.1 and 

4.2.1.22.2, respectively)

• Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure (Chapter 4.2.1.23.1) 

• Economic Factors (Chapter 4.2.1.23.3) 

This chapter has thoroughly examined the existing credible scientific evidence that is relevant to 

evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts of the CPA proposed lease sale on the 

human environment. The subject-matter experts that prepared this Supplemental EIS conducted a diligent 

search for pertinent new information, and BOEM’s evaluation of such impacts is based upon theoretical 

approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community. All reasonably 

foreseeable impacts were considered, including impacts that could have catastrophic consequences, even 

if their probability of occurrence is low. Throughout this chapter, where information was incomplete or 

unavailable, BOEM complied with its obligations under NEPA to determine if the information was 

relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts; if so, whether it was essential to a 

reasoned choice among alternatives; and, if it is essential, whether it can be obtained and whether the cost 
4-88 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

of obtaining the information is exorbitant, as well as whether generally accepted scientific methodologies 

can be applied in its place (40 CFR 1502.22).

4.2.1. Alternative A—The Proposed Action

4.2.1.1. Air Quality

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for air quality presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for air quality presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS

still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

Further, a search was conducted for information published on air quality, and various Internet and 

publicly available sources were examined to determine any recent information regarding air quality. 

Sources investigated included, but were not limited to, journals and scientific articles, Google, Google 

Scholar, and several USEPA websites. All relevant new information is included below; however, no new 

significant information was discovered since publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS that 

would impact the conclusions herein. 

As BOEM has previously noted in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and despite the new 

information identified and provided below, there is incomplete or unavailable information regarding air 

quality and potential air impacts. Although final summary information and reports on air quality impacts 

from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup may be forthcoming, USEPA, NOAA, and 

other agencies obtained and released to the public a large number of air quality measurements indicating 

that air impacts tended to be minor and below USEPA’s health-based standards. As there are no 

continuing sources of air pollution related to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, 

BOEM would not expect any additional measurements or information to alter the conclusions from 

currently existing data. In addition, as noted below and in Appendix A, there are a number of competing 

methods and available models for estimating and tracking potential air emissions and impacts. Each of 

these methods and models has inherent limitations, particularly with regard to the offshore environment in 

which the CPA proposed action would take place. In acknowledgement of these limitations, BOEM’s 

subject-matter experts, using their best professional judgment and experience, have developed 

conservative assumptions and modeling parameters so as to ensure that the impact conclusions herein are 

reasonable and not underestimated. As such, although there is incomplete or unavailable information on 

air quality impacts at this time that may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts, this 

information is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives. The full analyses of the potential 

impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with the CPA proposed action and the 

proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts are presented in Chapter 4.2.1.1.1 

of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the resource 

description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information that has 

become available since that document was prepared. A brief summary of the potential impacts follows. 

The emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere from the routine activities associated with the CPA 

proposed action are projected to have minimal impacts to onshore air quality because of the prevailing 

atmospheric conditions, emission heights, emission rates, and the distance of these emissions from the 

coastline. While regulations are in place to reduce the risk of impacts from H2S and while no H2S-related 

deaths have occurred on the OCS, accidents involving high concentrations of H2S could result in deaths 

as well as environmental damage. These emissions from routine activities and accidental events 

associated with the CPA proposed action are not expected to have concentrations that would change 

onshore air quality classifications.

The impacts of the OCS emissions on the onshore air quality are below BOEM’s Significance Levels 

and the NAAQS. The USEPA commented that BOEM should compare model results to U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s SIL’s. Therefore, the modeled results were compared with the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s SIL’s. The modeled concentrations for annual NOx (0.4 μg/m3

) and 

24-hour PM2.5 (0.3 μg/m3

) in the Class I area exceeds the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s SIL’s 

for annual NOx (0.1 μg/m3

) and 24-hour PM2.5 (0.07 μg/m3) in the Class I area.

Although the SIL’s were exceeded, BOEM expects in practice, if the emissions were distributed more 

realistically across the CPA, that emissions would not exceed the SIL. The modeling that was conducted 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-89

was overly conservative. All of the emissions during 1 year for the entire CPA, which would actually be 

dispersed throughout the CPA, were modeled as if they originated in Mississippi Canyon Block 856. 

Air Quality Modeling

There are many factors that BOEM evaluates to determine the potential impact occurring from 

offshore air emissions. These include estimates for likely emission sources, likely emission locations, 

emission rates, timeframes, and the likelihood of transport by wind resulting in contact to specified 

environmental features. Sensitivity of the environmental resources and potential effects are addressed in 

the analyses for the specific resources of concern (Chapters 4.1 and 4.2). BOEM uses data gathered 

during recent OCS emission inventories, along with a scenario or estimates of future production, to 

evaluate the potential effects of emissions. The scenario provides (1) the set of assumptions for and 

estimates of future activities, (2) the rationale for the scenario assumptions and estimates, and (3) the 

type, frequency, and quantity of emissions from offshore sources associated with the CPA proposed 

action. 

BOEM determined projected emissions resulting from the activities on the lease based on known 

emissions from various equipment, such as diesel engines and generators, and the level of offshore 

activity projected in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. BOEM then uses a numerical model to 

calculate the concentration of five pollutants (NOx, SOx, PM2.5, PM10, and CO) at the receptor. Inputs to 

the model include the location of the emission source and the receptors, the aforementioned emissions, 

source parameters such as source height and source stack gas temperature, and a 5-year history of 

meteorological conditions. The latter two parameters influence the dispersion of the pollutant as it is 

carried from the source to the receptor. The model output is the concentration of the pollutant at the 

onshore receptor location at specified time intervals. A description of the numerical model, called the 

Offshore Coastal Dispersion (OCD) Model, and its results are summarized in Appendix A. One of the 

limitations of the OCD Model is that it is unable to directly model contributions to ambient ozone. To 

address this limitation, BOEM examined available studies on OCS oil and gas activities’ contribution to 

onshore ozone levels, as described below and in Appendix A. These studies confirm that OCS oil and 

gas activities are likely to only have a minimal impact on onshore ozone.

The Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions (CAMx) was used to model contribution 

during an August 2000 ozone episode (Yarwood et al., 2004). The OCS contributions to ozone 

exceedances were minor. Yarwood et al. (2004) used a photochemical model to analyze the Year 2000 

Gulfwide Emissions Inventory (GWEI) and selected the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria nonattainment area 

since it has the most severe ozone problem in the Gulf of Mexico region (System Applications 

International et al., 1995). One of the main relevant findings in Yarwood et al. (2004) is as follows: “The 

average impact of the Year 2000 GWEI emissions on 8-hour ozone levels above 85 ppb in Houston area 

is 0.2 ppb; although larger impacts may occur over the Gulf of Mexico.” Haney et al. (2008) performed a 

modeling investigation using the Year 2000 and Year 2005 GWEI’s in the WPA and CPA to evaluate the 

impact of offshore emissions on offshore and onshore ozone air quality, in which they proposed an 

emission-reduction scenario. They found a particular ozone episode where the onshore impact from all 

offshore oil-and-gas-related sources was small but generally larger than those estimates using the Year 

2000 GWEI. They noticed higher simulated ozone concentrations from 2005 emissions due to increases 

in NOx and VOC concentrations.

The OCD modeling was performed for the CPA Class I and Class II Areas, with the hypothetical 

CPA source located at Mississippi Canyon Block 856, which is approximately 56 mi (90 km) from shore. 

Meteorological data used were from the period 2000 through 2004. The surface data come from 

Patterson, Louisiana, and upper air data come from Slidell, Louisiana. Buoy data for Mississippi Canyon 

Block 856 come from Buoy 42040. These meteorological data points are the closest, physically, to the 

proposed lease sale area available to BOEM and, therefore the best approximation available. BOEM 

calculated scenario-specific emissions based on the Year 2008 Gulfwide Emission Inventory Study

(Wilson et al., 2010) and Rigzone (2009). A spreadsheet was developed based on the findings of this 

study (Billings et al., official communication, 2012). To provide a conservative estimate, BOEM 

assumed a high-range of activity emissions during the year with the greatest amount of activity (e.g., 

drilling and platform and pipeline installation) out of the 40-year analysis period for the CPA proposed 

action. All of the scenario-predicted emissions were then modeled at one location in the CPA. Even with 

all the emissions being attributed to a single point (which would not be the case in reality and thus 
4-90 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

provides a conservative estimate of impacts), the CPA emissions are projected to have minimal impacts to 

onshore air quality. The CPA emissions are within BOEM’s maximum allowable increase for the 

scenario. Methodology, emissions, and modeling results are discussed further in Appendix A. As shown 

in Appendix A, emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere from the activities associated with the OCS 

Program are estimated to have minimal effects on onshore air quality because of the prevailing 

atmospheric conditions, emission rates and mixing heights, and the resulting pollutant concentrations. 

Given that these very conservative estimates of emissions were modeled and still below both agencies’ 

regulatory thresholds, BOEM believes that the potential onshore impacts related to emissions from OCS 

oil and gas activities that may result from the CPA proposed action will not be significant.

BOEM is in the process of a comprehensive assessment of numerical methods (including variety of 

sensitivity analysis, comparison of emission inventories and evaluation of emission scenarios) using 

USEPA-approved models, which will help us to support our scientific statements in future EIS’s. This 

modeling assessment will be helpful when considering that modern air quality models are still in 

development and need to be evaluated before they are widely used for realistic estimations of pollutant 

concentrations over offshore and coastal environments. However, this assessment will take time, 

potentially years, and there will always be some limitations in the application of models. For this reason, 

BOEM is using the OCD Model as it is appropriate for the offshore environment. BOEM’s subjectmatter experts also used their professional judgment in developing and modeling parameters to ensure 

that the results were conservative.

In response to the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, USEPA issued 40 CFR 98, which 

requires reporting of greenhouse gas emissions. Subpart W of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule 

requires petroleum and natural gas facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 equivalents per 

year to report emissions from equipment leaks and venting. On average, the amount of CO2 emissions 

from a typical well site is about 237-439 tons per year. Subpart C of the Green House Gas Reporting 

Rule requires operators to report greenhouse gas emissions from general stationary fuel combustion 

sources to USEPA. At this point, this is just a reporting requirement; there are no specific NAAQS or 

emission limitations for greenhouse gases.

BOEM has included in Appendix A modeled estimates for certain greenhouse gases that may be 

directly emitted during OCS oil and gas activities. At this time, the greenhouse gas emissions related to 

OCS oil and gas activities are a very small percentage of national emissions, and it would be impossible 

to tease out the impacts from this small incremental addition from global climate change impacts 

attributable to all other global sources. As such, BOEM does not believe that the potential greenhouse 

gas emissions directly attributable to oil and gas activities on the OCS as a result of the CPA proposed 

action are significant to global greenhouse gas levels.

On the basis of OCD modeling for NOx, SOx, PM2.5, PM10, and CO, and the Gulf of Mexico Air 

Quality Study for O3 (Science Applications International et al., 1995), BOEM is confident that offshore 

OCS oil and gas activities associated with the CPA proposed action will not contribute to exceedances of 

the NAAQS at the shoreline. The inference of conclusions from this study remains appropriate given 

both the decrease in the number of wells drilled and wells producing from wells in water depths <1,000 ft 

(305 m) and the industrial expansions into the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. During the past 5 years (2008-

2012), the number of wells drilled in shallow water (<1,000-m [305-m] water depth) decreased by 

45 percent from 468 wells in 2008 to 256 wells in 2012. The number of wells producing decreased by 

23 percent from 5,648 to 4,355 wells during the same 5-year timeframe. Simultaneously, production 

expansion into deep water is documented in Deepwater Gulf of Mexico 2006: America’s Expanding 

Frontier (USDOI, MMS, 2006) and in the biennial reports that preceded the 2006 version. According to 

the report, over the last 14 years, there has been an overall expansion in all phases of deepwater activity. 

There are approximately 8,221 existing leases in the Gulf of Mexico OCS, 54 percent of which are in 

deep water (USDOI, MMS, 2006). (Note that lease status may change daily; therefore, the current 

number of existing leases is an approximation.) Contrast this to the approximately 5,600 existing Gulf of 

Mexico leases in 1992, only 27 percent of which were in deep water. On average, there were 30 rigs 

drilling in deep water in 2005, compared with only 3 rigs in 1992. Likewise, deepwater oil production 

rose over 840 percent and deepwater gas production increased about 1,600 percent from 1992 to 2002 

(USDOI, MMS, 2006). This trend is observable in seismic activity, leasing, exploratory drilling, field 

discoveries, and production.

The quantity of air pollutants emitted is the direct result of the level of offshore activity. The 

concentrations of the emissions at the shoreline are influenced by the distance between the source of the 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-91

emissions and the receptors. With the simultaneous decrease in both the number of wells drilled and the 

number of wells producing in water depths <1,000 m (305 m) (shallow waters closest to shore) and the 

increase is leases, drilling, and production in water depths >1,000 m (305 m) (deeper waters farther from 

shore), it can be assumed that the emissions related to exploration and production activity have also 

moved farther offshore. As a result of these trends for fewer wells and wells that are farther offshore, the 

OCD modeling results obtained from Systems Applications International et al. in 1995, which 

demonstrate no NAAQS exceedances, remain conservative and are still applicable to the discussion of 

shoreline impacts from leases and associated activity projected to result from proposed WPA Lease 

Sale 233 and proposed CPA Lease Sale 231. BOEM, however, supplemented this knowledge with 

additional data available since that time and by running the OCD model accompanying this Supplemental 

EIS. As shown in Appendix A, scenario-specific emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere from the 

routine activities associated with the CPA proposed action are projected to have minimal impacts to 

onshore air quality because of the prevailing atmospheric conditions, emission heights, emission rates, 

and the distance of these emissions from the coastline. Emissions from proposed-action activities as 

modeled in Appendix A will not contribute to any onshore exceedances of the NAAQS.

Impact Analysis

The following routine activities associated with the CPA proposed action would potentially affect air 

quality: platform construction and emplacement; platform operations; drilling activities; flaring; seismicsurvey and support-vessel operations; pipeline laying and burial operations; evaporation of volatile 

petroleum hydrocarbons during transfers; and fugitive emissions. The impact analysis is based on four 

parameters—emission rates, surface winds, atmospheric stability, and the mixing height. A detailed 

impact analysis of the routine impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on 

air quality can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.1.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Emissions of 

pollutants into the atmosphere from the activities associated with the proposed action are projected to 

have minimal effects on onshore air quality because of the prevailing atmospheric conditions, emission 

rates and mixing heights, and the resulting pollutant concentrations.

The accidental release of hydrocarbons related to the CPA proposed action would result in the 

emission of air pollutants. The OCS oil- and gas-related accidents could include the release of oil, 

condensate, or natural gas or chemicals used offshore or pollutants from the burning of these products. 

The air pollutants include criteria NAAQS pollutants, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, H2S, 

and methane. If a fire was associated with the accidental event, it would produce a broad array of 

pollutants, including all NAAQS-regulated primary pollutants, including NO2, CO, SOx, VOC, PM10, and 

PM2.5. Response activities that could impact air quality include in-situ burning, the use of flares to burn 

gas and oil, and the use of dispersants applied from aircraft. Measurements taken during an in-situ 

burning show that a major portion of compounds was consumed in the burn; therefore, pollutant 

concentrations would be expected to be within the NAAQS. These response activities are temporary in 

nature and occur offshore; therefore, there are little expected impacts from these actions to onshore air 

quality. Accidents involving high concentrations of H2S could result in deaths as well as environmental 

damage. Regulations and NTL’s mandate safeguards and protective measures, which are in place, to 

protect workers from H2S releases. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be 

associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on air quality can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.1.3 of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Other emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere from accidental 

events as a result of the CPA proposed action are not projected to have significant impacts on onshore air 

quality because of the prevailing atmospheric conditions, emissions height, emission rates, and the 

distance of these emissions from the coastline.

Overall, since loss of well-control events, blowouts, and fires are rare events and are of short 

duration, potential impacts to air quality are not expected to be significant except in the rare case of a 

catastrophic event, and in such cases, are anticipated to be temporary. To date, air monitoring conducted 

following the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup has not found any pollutants at levels 

expected to cause long-term harm (USEPA, 2010), and this is addressed in Chapter 4.2.1.23.4 and 

Appendix B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

The activities in the cumulative scenario that could potentially impact onshore air quality considered 

here are the CPA proposed action, the OCS Program, State oil and gas programs, other major factors 

influencing offshore environments, onshore non-OCS activities, accidental releases from oil spills, 
4-92 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

accidental releases of H2S, natural events (e.g., hurricanes), and a catastrophic oil spill. Because the OCS 

Program includes both new drilling and production as well as production ending on older wells and 

platform removal, the level of impacts determined in earlier studies are assumed to adequately represent 

current conditions as well.

Emissions contributing to air quality degradation come from many sources. The NAAQS list is made 

up of the most common air pollutants, including ozone, particulate matter, NOx, and SOx. Air pollutants 

on the NAAQS are commonly referred to as criteria pollutants because they are ubiquitous. Although 

these pollutants can all occur naturally, elevated levels are the result of human activities.

Ozone pollution is mainly a daytime problem during the summer months. Strong sunlight and hot 

weather cause ground-level ozone to form in harmful concentrations in the air. Ozone is not emitted 

directly into the air. Ozone is a secondary pollutant formed in the presence of sunlight from the reaction 

of VOC’s and NOx. These pollutants are found in emissions from the following: vehicles such as 

automobiles, trucks, buses, aircraft, and locomotives; construction equipment; lawn and garden 

equipment; sources that combust fuel, such as large industries and utilities; small industries such as gas 

stations and print shops; and consumer products, including some paints and cleaners. In addition, 

biogenic, or natural emissions from trees and plants, are a major source of VOC’s. 

The concentration of ozone in the air is determined not only by the amounts of ozone precursor 

chemicals but also by weather and climate factors. Intense sunlight, warm temperatures, stagnant highpressure weather systems, and low wind speeds cause ozone to accumulate in harmful amounts. Ozone 

precursors, NOx and VOC’s, are shown to have more ozone-emitting sources present onshore. According 

to USEPA, automobiles and other mobile sources contribute about one-half of the NOx that is emitted. 

According to NOAA, power plants emit about one-quarter of the total U.S. human-made contribution of 

NOx to the atmosphere. All other sources of NOx emissions account for one-quarter of the United States’ 

totals. 

Shore-based sources of PM2.5 include all types of combustion activities related to both human 

activities and naturally occurring sources. Sources range from large and highly regulated industrial 

sources down to sources related to activities of an individual such as trash burning. Some of the most 

cited additional sources include fuel burning associated with motor vehicles, power plants, wood burning, 

and certain industrial processes.

Fine particulate matter can also form when gases from burning fuels react with sunlight and water 

vapor. These can result from fuel combustion in motor vehicles, at power plants, and in other industrial 

processes. Sources of coarse particles, PM10, include crushing or grinding operations and dust from 

paved or unpaved roads.

Sources of SOx include all types of activities ranging from large, highly regulated industrial sources, 

down to sources related to individual human activities such as outdoor grilling. Fossil fuels contain 

varying amounts of sulfur. Over 65 percent of the SOx released to the air comes from electric utilities that 

burn coal. Some additional commonly cited sources of SOx include pulp and paper mills, petroleum

refining, and nonferrous smelters. Fuel burning associated with motor vehicle usage in is another source.

Sources of NOx includes all types of activities ranging from large, highly regulated industrial sources 

down to sources related to the activities of individual people, for example, the use of personal watercraft 

(jet ski). Some of the most commonly city sources of NOx include motor vehicles, electric utilities, and 

other industrial commercial and residential sources that burn fuels. Because NOx is a highly reactive 

chemical, it can contribute to ozone formation in the presence of VOC’s in the presence of heat and 

sunlight. 

Emission trends from Gulfwide platform sources from years 2000, 2005, 2008, and 2011 show that 

emissions offshore are consistent. A detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of proposed CPA 

Lease Sale 231 on air quality can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.1.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS. 

Other major factors influencing coastal environments, such as sand borrowing and transportation in 

State territorial waters, also generate emissions that can affect air quality. These emissions are regulated 

by State agencies and/or USEPA. Reductions have been achieved through the use of low sulfur fuels, 

catalytic reduction, and other efforts, and as a result, constitute minor impacts to onshore air quality.

The incremental contribution of the CPA proposed action (as analyzed in Chapter 4.2.1.1.2 of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS) to the cumulative impacts would be minimal. Portions of the Gulf 

Coast onshore areas have ozone levels that exceed the Federal air quality standard, but the incremental 

contribution from the CPA proposed action would be very small. The cumulative contribution to 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-93 

visibility impairment from the CPA proposed action is also expected to be very small. Area visibility is 

expected to improve somewhat as a result of regional and national programs to reduce emissions. The 

CPA proposed action would have an insignificant effect on ozone levels in ozone nonattainment areas and 

would not interfere with the States’ schedule for compliance with the NAAQS. 

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

A search of State and Federal databases, including updates to regulations, was conducted to determine 

the availability of recent information. No new significant information was discovered from these 

resources since the publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS that would impact the 

conclusions herein. However, BOEM calculated scenario-specific emissions based on the Year 2008 

Gulfwide Emission Inventory Study (Wilson et al., 2010) and Rigzone (2009). Likewise, BOEM 

conducted OCD modeling on activity that will result from a lease sale using the scenarios for OCS 

activities in the CPA. These results are presented in Table A-6 (Appendix A). The modeled impacts are 

below BOEM’s maximum allowable increases, NAAQS, and the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s SIL’s for all the criteria pollutants except for the annual NOx and the 24-hour PM2.5 for PSD 

Class I areas. Although the SIL’s were exceeded, BOEM expects in practice, if the emissions were 

distributed more realistically across the CPA, that emissions would not exceed the SIL; and thus, actual 

emissions likely to result from the CPA proposed action would likely not be significant. The modeling 

that was conducted was overly conservative. All the emissions during 1 year for the entire CPA, which 

would actually be dispersed throughout the CPA, were modeled as if they originated in Mississippi 

Canyon Block 856. 

Although final summary information and reports on air quality impacts from the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup may be forthcoming, USEPA, NOAA, and other agencies obtained and 

released to the public a large number of air quality measurements indicating that air impacts tended to be 

minor and below USEPA’s health-based standards. As there are no continuing sources of air pollution 

related to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, BOEM would not expect any 

additional measurements or information to alter the conclusions from currently existing data. As such, 

although there is incomplete or unavailable information on air quality impacts at this time that may be 

relevant to reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts, this information is not essential to a reasoned choice 

among alternatives for the reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

Summary and Conclusion 

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for air quality presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for air quality presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS. The OCD modeling results (included in Appendix A) confirms BOEM’s conclusions in 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS that offshore activities would not result in exceedances of the 

NAAQS at the shoreline. The only potential exception is for ozone, where there may be some minimal 

contribution to ozone at the shoreline. Ozone levels are on a declining trend because of air-pollution 

control measures that have been implemented by the States. This downward trend is expected to continue 

as a result of local as well as nationwide air-pollution control efforts. 

The Gulf Coast has significant visibility impairment from anthropogenic emission sources. Area 

visibility is expected to improve somewhat as a result of regional and national programs to reduce 

emissions. However, the incremental contribution from the CPA proposed action would be very small 

and would have an insignificant effect on ozone levels in onshore ozone nonattainment areas. This 

minimal impact would not be a contributing factor to the States’ schedule for attainment. The analysis 

and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA 

Lease Sale 231. 

4.2.1.2. Water Quality 

4.2.1.2.1. Coastal Waters 

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for coastal water quality presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 
4-94 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for coastal water quality presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the CPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of coastal waters can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.2.1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, and new information available since the description was written is discussed 

below. 

The routine activities associated with the CPA proposed action that would impact water quality

include the following: discharges during drilling of exploration and development wells; structure 

installation and removal; discharges during production; installation of pipelines; workovers of wells; 

maintenance dredging of existing navigational canals; service vessel discharges; and nonpoint-source 

runoff from platforms and OCS Program-related vessels.

A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA 

Lease Sale 231 on coastal waters can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.2.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

The primary impacting sources to water quality in coastal waters are point-source and storm-water 

discharges from support facilities, vessel discharges, and nonpoint-source runoff. These activities are not 

only highly regulated but also localized and temporary in nature. The impacts to coastal water quality 

from routine activities associated with the CPA proposed action should be minimal because of the 

distance to shore of most routine activities, USEPA regulations that restrict discharges, and few, if any, 

new pipeline landfalls or onshore facilities would be constructed.

Accidental events associated with the CPA proposed action that could impact coastal water quality

include spills of oil and refined hydrocarbons, releases of natural gas, usage of chemical dispersants in oil 

spill response, spills of chemicals or drilling fluids, loss of well control, collisions, or other malfunctions 

that would result in such spills. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be 

associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on coastal waters can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.2.3 of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Accidental events associated with the CPA proposed action that could impact coastal water quality

include spills of oil and refined hydrocarbons, releases of natural gas and condensate, usage of chemical 

dispersants in oil-spill response, and spills of chemicals or drilling fluids. The loss of well control, 

pipeline failures, collisions, or other malfunctions could also result in such spills. Although response 

efforts may decrease the amount of oil in the environment, the response efforts may also impact the 

environment through, for example, increased vessel traffic, hydromodification, and application of 

dispersants. Natural degradation processes would also decrease the amount of spilled oil over time. For 

coastal spills, two additional factors that must be considered are the shallowness of the area and the 

proximity of the spill to shore. Over time, natural processes can physically, chemically, and biologically 

degrade oil. Chemicals used in the oil and gas industry are not a significant risk in the event of a spill 

because they are either nontoxic, are used in minor quantities, or are only used on a noncontinuous basis. 

Spills from collisions are not expected to be significant because collisions occur infrequently.

Activities in the cumulative scenario that could impact coastal water quality generally include the 

broad categories of the CPA proposed action and the OCS Program, State oil and gas activity, the 

activities of other Federal agencies (including the military), natural events or processes, and activities 

related to the direct or indirect use of land and waterways by the human population (e.g., urbanization, 

agricultural practices, coastal industry, and municipal wastes). Many of these categories would cause 

some of the same specific impacts (e.g., vessel traffic would occur for all of those categories except 

natural processes). A detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated 

with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on coastal waters can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.2.4 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Water quality in coastal waters would be impacted by sediment disturbance and suspension (i.e., 

turbidity), vessel discharges, erosion, runoff from nonpoint-source pollutants (including river inflows), 

seasonal influences, and accidental events. These impacts may be a result of the CPA proposed action 

and the OCS Program, State oil and gas activity, the activities of other Federal agencies (including the 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-95

military), natural events or processes, or activities related to the direct or indirect use of land and 

waterways by the human population (e.g., urbanization, agricultural practices, coastal industry, and 

municipal wastes). The impacts resulting from the CPA proposed action are a small addition to the 

cumulative impacts on the coastal waters of the Gulf because non-OCS activities, including vessel traffic, 

erosion, and nonpoint source runoff, are cumulatively responsible for a majority of coastal water impacts. 

Increased turbidity and discharge from the CPA proposed action would be temporary in nature and 

minimized by regulations and mitigation. Since a catastrophic OCS Program-related accident would be 

rare and not expected to occur in coastal waters, the impact of accidental spills is expected to be small. 

The incremental contribution of the routine activities and accidental events associated with the CPA 

proposed action to the cumulative impacts on coastal water quality is not expected to be significant.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS

Various Internet sources were examined and literature searches conducted to assess recent 

information regarding the water quality and sediment quality in coastal waters that may be pertinent to the 

CPA. The searches included, but were not limited to, Google, Google Scholar, several USEPA websites, 

the Gulf of Mexico Sea Grant Programs website, the Coastal Response Research at the University of New 

Hampshire website, and the NOAA Central Library Deepwater Horizon: A Preliminary Bibliography of 

Published Research and Expert Commentary website. The searches revealed that a recent study 

independently analyzed chemical data from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup and 

derived an average environmental release rate for hydrocarbons of (10.1 ± 2.0) x 106 kg/d during the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which confirmed the official average leak rate of (10.2 ± 1.0) x 106

 kg/d 

(Ryerson et al., 2011). Another study found that water-soluble petroleum compounds were found to 

dissolve into the water column to a greater degree than what is typically observed for surface spills 

(Reddy et al., 2011). Furthermore, the study indicated that the oil contained approximately 3.9 percent 

PAH’s by weight, which results in an estimated release of 2.1 x 1010 grams of PAH’s (Reddy et al., 2011; 

Reddy, official communication 2012). A study of coastal waters sampled for bioavailable PAH’s in 

Grand Isle, Louisiana; Gulfport, Mississippi; Gulf Shores, Alabama; and Gulf Breeze, Florida, was made 

using passive sampling devices. The study began sampling prior to any shoreline oiling on May 10, 

2010, and continued for more than a year. After the oil spill, bioavailable PAH levels were statistically 

significantly higher than pre-spill levels; however, the PAH levels at all locations had returned to pre-spill 

levels by March 2011 (Allan et al., 2012). Elevated PAH concentrations were observed again at the 

Alabama sampling location in summer 2011. The authors of this study suggested that this increase may 

be due to resuspension of contaminated sediments or continued nearshore cleanup activities. Increased 

inputs from other sources and/or climatic factors could not be ruled out (Allan et al., 2012). This research 

confirms information that was extrapolated in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS from then existing 

data on the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill, namely that oil from a catastrophic event under 

pressure and with more soluble components may become entrained in the water column. As such, this 

new information has not altered the conclusions from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

It is currently impossible to estimate precisely the long-term impacts that the spill from the 

Deepwater Horizon explosion will have on coastal water quality. Various monitoring efforts and 

environmental studies are underway. More time is needed to fully assess the impacts of the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. Although response efforts decreased the fraction of oil 

remaining in Gulf waters and reduced the amount of oil contacting the coastline, oil still remains in the 

environment (USDOC, NOAA, 2011b and 2011c; OSAT-2, 2011). Oil from the Deepwater Horizon

explosion and resulting oil spill that appears to have been buried along the coast was unearthed by 

Hurricane Isaac and was reported to be discovered mostly as tarballs in several locations, including 

Elmer’s Island and Grand Isle, Louisiana, as well as possible locations along the Mississippi and Alabama 

coasts (Burdeau and Reaves, 2012). Testing at Louisiana State University also confirmed a match to oil 

resulting from the Deepwater Horizon explosion with samples collected from Barataria Bay and the Bay 

Jimmy area, as well as from the Fort Morgan area in Alabama (Overton, official communication, 2012). 

Nevertheless, this possibility of resuspended oils or remnants due to natural or anthropogenic causes was 

identified and discussed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and remains an ongoing concern.

There remains some incomplete or unavailable information that may be relevant to reasonably 

foreseeable impacts on coastal water quality. Much of this information relates to the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup and is continuing to be collected and developed through the NRDA 
4-96 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

process. These data collection and research projects may be years from completion. Few data or 

conclusions have been released to the public to date. Regardless of the costs involved, it is not within 

BOEM’s ability to obtain this information from the NRDA process within the timeline of this 

Supplemental EIS.

In light of this incomplete and unavailable information, BOEM’s subject-matter experts have used 

credible scientific information that is available and applied it using scientifically accepted methodology. 

Given the available data on sediments and water quality that have been released, as described above, 

BOEM believes that this incomplete or unavailable information is not essential to a reasoned choice 

among alternatives for the reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Additionally, the NPDES general permit for new and existing sources and new discharges in the 

offshore subcatergory of the oil and gas extraction point source category for the western portion of the 

Gulf of Mexico OCS (GMG290000; USEPA Region 6) was reissued on October 1, 2012, and will expire 

on September 30, 2017.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for coastal water quality presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for coastal water quality presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, as these newly available studies confirmed earlier estimates of hydrocarbon 

releases and noted the overall return of pre-spill PAH concentrations thus far. The analysis and potential 

impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

4.2.1.2.2. Offshore Waters

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for offshore water quality presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for offshore water quality presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the CPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of offshore waters can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.2.2.1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The routine activities associated with the CPA proposed action that would impact water quality

include the following: discharges during drilling of exploration and development wells; structure 

installation and removal; discharges during production; installation of pipelines; workovers of wells; 

maintenance dredging of existing navigational canals; service vessel discharges; and nonpoint-source 

runoff. 

A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA 

Lease Sale 231 on offshore waters can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.2.2.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

During exploratory activities, the primary impacting sources to offshore water quality are discharges

of drilling fluids and cuttings. During platform installation and removal activities, the primary impacting 

sources to water quality are sediment disturbance and temporarily increased turbidity. Impacting 

discharges during production activities are produced water and supply-vessel discharges. Regulations are 

in place to limit the toxicity of the discharge components, the levels of incidental contaminants in these 

discharges, and, in some cases, the discharge rates and discharge locations. Pipeline installation can also 

affect water quality by sediment disturbance and increased turbidity. Service-vessel discharges might 

include water with oil concentration of approximately 15 ppm as established by regulatory standards. 

Any disturbance of the seafloor would increase turbidity in the surrounding water, but the increased 

turbidity should be temporary and restricted to the area near the disturbance. There are multiple Federal 

regulations and permit requirements that would decrease the magnitude of these activities. Impacts to 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-97

offshore waters from routine activities associated with the CPA proposed action should be minimal as 

long as regulatory requirements are followed.

Accidental events associated with the CPA proposed action that could impact offshore water quality

include spills of oil and refined hydrocarbons, releases of natural gas, usage of chemical dispersants in oil 

spill response, spills of chemicals or drilling fluids, and loss of well control, collisions, or other 

malfunctions that would result in such spills. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that 

may be associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on offshore waters can be found in Chapter 

4.2.1.2.2.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Accidental events associated with the CPA proposed action that could impact offshore water quality

include spills of oil and refined hydrocarbons, releases of natural gas and condensate, usage of chemical 

dispersants in oil-spill response, spills of chemicals or drilling fluids, loss of well control, pipeline 

failures, collisions, or other malfunctions that would result in such spills. Spills from collisions are not 

expected to be significant because collisions occur infrequently. Overall, loss of well control events and 

blowouts are rare events and of short duration, so potential impacts to offshore water quality are not 

expected to be significant except in the rare case of a catastrophic event. Although response efforts may 

decrease the amount of oil in the environment, the response efforts may also impact the environment 

through, for example, increased vessel traffic and the application of dispersants. Natural physical, 

chemical, and biological processes would decrease the amount of spilled oil over time through dilution, 

weathering, and degradation of the oil (NRC, 2003). Chemicals used in the oil and gas industry are not a 

significant risk for a spill because they are either nontoxic, are used in minor quantities, or are only used 

on a noncontinuous basis. Although there is the potential for accidental events, the CPA proposed action 

would not significantly change the water quality of the Gulf of Mexico over a large spatial or temporal 

scale.

Activities in the cumulative scenario that could impact offshore water quality generally include the 

broad categories of the CPA proposed action and the OCS Program, the activities of other Federal 

agencies (including the military), natural events or processes, State oil and gas activity, and activities 

related to the direct or indirect use of land and waterways by the human population (e.g., urbanization, 

agricultural practices, coastal industry, and municipal wastes). Although some of these impacts are likely 

to affect coastal areas to a greater degree than offshore waters, coastal pollutants that are transported away 

from shore would also affect offshore environments. Many of these categories noted above would have 

some of the same specific impacts (e.g., vessel traffic would occur for all of these categories listed above 

except natural processes). A detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of OCS activities 

associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on offshore waters can be found in Chapter and 4.2.1.2.2.4 

of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Water quality in offshore waters may be impacted by sediment disturbance and suspension (i.e., 

turbidity), vessel discharges, erosion and runoff of nonpoint-source pollutants (including river inflows), 

natural seeps, discharges from exploration and production activities, and accidental events. These 

impacts may be a result of the CPA proposed action and the OCS Program, the activities of other Federal 

agencies (including the military), private vessels, and natural events or processes. To a lesser degree, 

these impacts may also be a result of State oil and gas activity or activities or related to the direct or 

indirect use of land and waterways by the human population (e.g., urbanization, agricultural practices, 

coastal industry, and municipal wastes). Routine activities that increase turbidity and discharges are 

temporary in nature and are regulated; therefore, these activities would not have a lasting adverse impact 

on water quality. In the case of a large-scale spill event, degradation processes in both surface and 

subsurface waters would decrease the amount of spilled oil over time through natural processes that can 

physically, chemically, and biologically degrade oil (NRC, 2003). The impacts resulting from the CPA 

proposed action are a small addition to the cumulative impacts on the offshore waters of the Gulf when 

compared with inputs from natural hydrocarbon inputs (seeps), coastal factors (such as erosion and 

runoff), and other non-OCS industrial discharges. The incremental contribution of the routine activities 

and accidental discharges associated with the CPA proposed action to the cumulative impacts on offshore 

water quality is not expected to be significant.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

Various Internet sources were examined and literature searches conducted in order to assess recent 

information regarding the water quality and sediment quality in offshore waters that may be pertinent to 
4-98 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

the CPA. The searches included, but were not limited to, Google, Google Scholar, several USEPA 

websites, the Gulf of Mexico Sea Grant Programs website, the Coastal Response Research at the 

University of New Hampshire website, and the NOAA Central Library Deepwater Horizon: A 

Preliminary Bibliography of Published Research and Expert Commentary website. The searches revealed 

that a recent study independently analyzed chemical data from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, 

and cleanup and derived an average environmental release rate for hydrocarbons of (10.1± 2.0) x 106

 kg/d 

during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which confirmed the official average leak rate of (10.2 ± 1.0) x 

106 kg/d (Ryerson et al., 2011). Another study found that water-soluble petroleum compounds were 

found to dissolve into the water column to a greater degree than what is typically observed for surface 

spills (Reddy et al., 2011). Furthermore, the study indicated that the oil contained approximately 

3.9 percent PAH’s by weight, which results in an estimated release of 2.1 x 1010 grams of PAH’s (Reddy 

et al., 2011; Reddy, official communication 2012). This research confirms information that was 

extrapolated in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS from then existing data on the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, namely that oil from a catastrophic event under pressure and 

with more soluble components may become entrained in the water column. As such, this new 

information has not altered the conclusions from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The zone of hypoxia in the GOM on the Louisiana-Texas shelf was reported to be 2,889 mi2

(7,482 km2

) in 2012, which is the fourth smallest on record since scientists began mapping the area in 

1985 (USDOC, NOAA, 2012b); the decrease in size of the dead zone is suspected to be due to drought 

conditions decreasing the amount of runoff to the Mississippi River watershed. There have also been 

reports of hypoxic zones in addition to the one on the Louisiana-Texas shelf. Separate zones of hypoxia 

were discovered in other shelf regions, such as a recent dead zone that stretched from Chandeleur Sound 

off Louisiana’s coast to Alabama’s Dauphin Island and possibly beyond (McConnaughey, 2012). This 

area is wider than what was found in 2010; however, the study area was also larger than what was studied 

in 2010. More stagnant water (i.e., a lack of ocean currents) is suspected to be the more dominant factor 

in the development of this hypoxic zone as compared with the more widely known area on the LouisianaTexas shelf, which has been attributed to excess nutrients coming from the Mississippi River.

It is currently impossible to estimate precisely whether there will be long-term impacts from the 

Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup on offshore water quality. The Deepwater Horizon

explosion and oil spill occurred in offshore waters and was of considerable magnitude. Various 

monitoring efforts and environmental studies are underway. Although response efforts decreased the 

fraction of oil remaining in Gulf waters and reduced the amount of oil contacting the coastline, oil still 

remains in the offshore environment, albeit at levels that were considered not actionable by USCG 

(OSAT, 2010). As such, there is incomplete or unavailable information that may be relevant to 

reasonably foreseeable impacts on offshore water quality. This information includes data and analyses 

that may be forthcoming after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup and is continuing 

to be collected and developed through the NRDA process. These data collection and research projects 

may be years from completion. Few data or conclusions have been released to the public to date. 

Regardless of the costs involved, it is not within BOEM’s ability to obtain this information from the 

NRDA process within the timeline of this Supplemental EIS. In light of this incomplete and unavailable 

information, BOEM’s subject-matter experts have used credible scientific information that is available 

and applied it using scientifically accepted methodology. Given the data samples that are available 

regarding water quality and sediments after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, as 

described above, BOEM believes that this incomplete or unavailable information is not essential to a 

reasoned choice among alternatives for the reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS. 

The NPDES general permit for new and existing sources and new discharges in the offshore 

subcatergory of the oil and gas extraction point source category for the western portion of the Gulf of 

Mexico OCS (GMG290000; USEPA Region 6) was reissued October 1, 2012, and will expire on 

September 30, 2017.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for offshore waters presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for offshore waters presented in the 2012-2017 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-99

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, as these newly available studies confirmed earlier estimates of hydrocarbon 

releases and noted the overall return to pre-spill PAH concentrations thus far. Furthermore, efforts to 

better understand and prevent hypoxia are ongoing. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

4.2.1.3. Coastal Barrier Beaches and Associated Dunes

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for coastal barrier beaches and associated dunes presented in the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new 

significant information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for coastal barrier beaches 

and associated dunes presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential 

impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the CPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of coastal barrier beaches and associated dunes can be found in Chapter 

4.2.1.3.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The primary impact-producing routine activities associated with the CPA proposed action that could 

affect these environments include pipeline emplacements, navigation channel use (vessel traffic) and 

dredging, and the use and construction of support infrastructure. A detailed discussion of impacts of OCS 

activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on coastal barrier beaches and associated dunes

can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.3.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Effects to coastal barrier beaches and associated dunes from pipeline emplacements, navigation 

channel use and dredging, and construction or continued use of infrastructure in support of the CPA 

proposed action are expected to be restricted to temporary and localized disturbances. The 0-1 pipeline 

landfalls projected in support of the CPA proposed action are not expected to cause significant impacts to 

barrier beaches because of the use of nonintrusive installation methods and regulations. Impacts could be 

reduced or eliminated through modern techniques, such as horizontal, directional (trenchless) drilling, to

avoid damages to these sensitive wetland habitats. Any new processing facilities would not be expected 

to be constructed on barrier beaches.

Maintenance dredging of barrier inlets and bar channels is expected to occur, which, combined with 

channel jetties, causes minor and localized impacts on adjacent barrier beaches. Mitigating adverse 

impacts should be addressed in accordance with requirements set forth by the appropriate Federal and 

State permitting agencies. Because these impacts occur regardless of the CPA proposed action, the CPA 

proposed action would account for a small percentage of these impacts from routine events. There could 

be a slight chance of disturbing or resuspending buried, remnant oil from the Deepwater Horizon

explosion and oil spill through channel maintenance or trenching associated with pipeline placement. 

However, based on sediment analyses in the OSAT report (2010), there were no exceedances of USEPA’s 

aquatic life benchmarks for PAH’s in sediment beyond 3 km (~2 mi) from the wellhead that were linked 

to the oil from the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. Since dredging, vessel traffic, and pipeline 

emplacement activities would be far removed from most affected areas, the chance of resuspension of 

toxic sediment would be improbable.

The CPA proposed action is not expected to adversely alter barrier beach configurations much 

beyond existing, ongoing impacts in localized areas or to result in remobilizing toxic remnant oil. 

Strategic placement of dredged material from channel maintenance, channel deepening, and related 

actions can mitigate adverse impacts upon those localized areas.

The main accidental impact-producing factors that would affect coastal barrier beaches and associated 

dunes are oil spills and cleanup activities. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may 

be associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on coastal barrier beaches and associated dunes can be 

found in Chapter 4.2.1.3.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Due to the proximity of inshore spills to barrier islands and beaches, inshore spills pose the greatest 

threat because of their concentration and lack of weathering by the time they hit the shore and because 

dispersants are not utilized in inshore waters due to the negative effects on the shallow-water coastal 

habitats. Such spills may result from either vessel collisions that release fuel and lubricants or from 
4-100 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

pipelines that rupture. Impacts of a nearshore spill would likely be considered short term in duration and 

minor in scope because the size of such a spill is projected to be small (most coastal spills are expected to 

be around 77 bbl; refer to Chapter 3.2.1.7.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). Offshore-based 

crude oil would likely be lessened in toxicity when it reaches the coastal environments. This is due to the 

distance from shore, the weather, the time oil remains offshore, and the dispersant used. Equipment and 

personnel used in cleanup efforts can generate the greatest direct impacts to the area, such as the 

disturbance of sands through foot traffic and mechanized cleanup equipment (e.g., sifters), dispersal of oil 

deeper into sands and sediments, and foot traffic in marshes impacting the distribution of oils and marsh 

vegetation. Close monitoring and restrictions on the use of bottom-disturbing equipment would be 

needed to avoid or minimize those impacts.

Although monitoring is still ongoing, the current data show that the toxic components of remnant oil 

are expected to continue to decline (OSAT-2, 2011). Therefore, the currently available information 

suggests that impacts on barrier islands and beaches from accidental impacts associated with the CPA 

proposed action would be minimal. However, the long-term effects of the berm construction on 

Chandeleur Island cannot be evaluated at this time due to the lack of long-term monitoring data 

concerning the change in hydrological conditions created by the construction. Should a spill other than a 

catastrophic spill contact a barrier beach, oiling is expected to be light and sand removal during cleanup 

activities minimized. No significant long-term impacts to the physical shape and structure of barrier 

beaches and associated dunes are expected to occur as a result of the CPA proposed action. The CPA 

proposed action would not pose a significant increase in risk to barrier island or beach resources.

This cumulative analysis considers the effects of impact-producing factors related to the CPA 

proposed action, prior and future OCS sales in the Gulf of Mexico, State oil and gas activities, other 

governmental and private projects and activities, and pertinent natural processes that may affect barrier 

beaches and dunes. Specific impact-producing factors considered in this cumulative analysis include 

channelization of the Mississippi River, beach protection and stabilization projects, natural processes, 

navigation channels, development and urbanization, oil spills, oil-spill response and cleanup activities, 

pipeline landfalls, potential for nearshore salinity modifications (preparation of salt domes for oil 

storage), tourism, and recreational activities. A detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of 

OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on coastal barrier beaches and associated 

dunes can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.3.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

River channelization, sediment deprivation, tropical and extra-tropical storm activity, sea-level rise, 

and rapid submergence have resulted in severe and rapid erosion of most of the barrier and shoreline 

landforms along the Louisiana coast. The barrier system of coastal Mississippi and Alabama is also 

supported on a coastal barrier platform of sand. Beach stabilization projects, such as groins and jetties, 

are considered by coastal geomorphologists and engineers to accelerate coastal erosion. Beneficial use of 

maintenance dredged materials and other restoration techniques could be required to mitigate some of 

these impacts.

The impacts of oil spills from both OCS and non-OCS sources to the sediment-deficient Louisiana 

coast would likely not result in long-term alteration of landforms, provided the beaches are cleaned using 

techniques that do not significantly remove sand from the beach or dunes. The barrier beaches of deltaic 

Louisiana and the Chenier Plain have the greatest risks of sustaining impacts from oil-spill landfalls 

because of the high concentrations of oil production near those coasts. However, the majority of inshore 

spills are assumed to be small in scale (most coastal spills are expected to be around 77 bbl ; Chapter 

3.2.1.7.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS) and short in duration; therefore, impacts would tend 

to be minor. Oil from most offshore spills is assumed to be weathered and normally treated offshore; 

therefore, most of the toxic components have dissipated by the time it would contact coastal beaches. The 

cleanup impacts of these spills could result in short-term (up to 2 years) adjustment in beach profiles and 

configurations as a result of sand removal and disturbance during the cleanup operations. Some contact 

to lower areas of sand dunes is expected. These contacts would not result in significant destabilization of 

the dunes. All cleanup efforts would be monitored to ensure the least amount of disturbance to the areas. 

The long-term stressors to barrier beach communities caused by the physical effects and chemical toxicity 

of an oil spill may lead to decreased primary production, plant dieback, and further erosion. As found in 

the OSAT-2 report (2011), the level of toxics found in buried or weathered oil on the beach or dune face 

should be evaluated prior to cleanup operations. The report noted that, in some cases, the toxic level was 

sufficiently low and would continue to decline; therefore, there was more risk of damaging habitat and 

biota from cleanup than leaving the weathered oil in place.
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-101

Under the cumulative scenario, one new OCS-related and non-OCS pipeline landfalls are projected. 

These pipelines are expected to be installed using modern techniques, which cause little to no impacts to 

the barrier islands and beaches. Some existing pipelines that were placed on barrier islands using older 

techniques left canals or shore protection structures along their path. These canals and structures have 

caused and can continue to cause barrier beaches to narrow and breach.

The CPA proposed action projects 0-1 pipeline landfalls, and in the event that a pipeline landfall 

occurs, there would likely be no effect to barrier islands due to permitting and siting requirements and 

current construction techniques. Aging pipelines and infrastructure continue to be problematic, and the 

potential for spills could exist until they are replaced. Improperly abandoned wells can also have a 

potential to create spills, especially in the shallow State waters.

Recreational use of many barrier beaches in the WPA is intense due to their accessibility by road; 

however, because of the inaccessibility of most of the CPA barrier coast to humans, recreational use is not 

expected to result in significant impacts to most beaches.

Coastal barrier beaches have experienced severe adverse cumulative impacts from natural processes 

and human activities. Natural processes are generally considered the major contributor to these impacts, 

whereas human activities cause both severe local impacts and the acceleration of natural processes that 

deteriorate coastal barriers. Human activities that have caused the greatest adverse impacts are river 

channelization and damming, pipeline canals, navigation channel stabilization and maintenance, and 

beach stabilization structures. Deterioration of Gulf barrier beaches is expected to continue in the future. 

Federal, State (Louisiana), and parish governments have made efforts over the last 10 years to slow the 

landward retreat of Louisiana’s Gulf shorelines.

BOEM acknowledges that there remains incomplete and unavailable information that may be relevant 

to reasonably foreseeable significant impacts on barrier beaches and associated dunes. This incomplete or 

unavailable information includes potential data on the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and 

cleanup that may be forthcoming. As there is substantial information available since the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, which is included in this Supplemental EIS and in the 2012-

2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, BOEM believes that the incomplete or unavailable information regarding 

effects of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup on coastal barrier beaches and dunes 

would likely not be essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives for the reasons stated herein and in 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The bulk of this information is expected to be developed 

through the ongoing NRDA process. To date, relatively little raw data have been released publicly by the 

NRDA process, and it may be years before studies are completed and results are released. This 

information will certainly not be available within the timeframe contemplated by this NEPA analysis. 

Regardless of the costs involved, it is not within BOEM’s ability to obtain this information from the 

NRDA process within the timeline of this Supplemental EIS. BOEM’s subject-matter experts have used 

what scientifically credible information is available in their analyses and applied it using accepted 

scientific methodology. Compared with the historic and ongoing threats to coastal barrier beaches and 

dunes, such as development threats, natural factors such as hurricanes, and channelization, any remaining 

effects of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup on coastal barrier beaches and dunes is 

expected to be small.

The CPA proposed action is not expected to adversely alter barrier beach configurations significantly 

beyond existing, ongoing impacts in localized areas downdrift of artificially jettied and maintained 

channels. The CPA proposed action may extend the life and presence of facilities in eroding areas, which 

would accelerate erosion in those areas. Strategic placement of dredged material from channel 

maintenance, channel deepening, and related actions could mitigate adverse impacts upon those localized 

areas. The CPA proposed action is not expected to increase the probabilities of oil spills beyond the 

current estimates. Thus, the incremental contribution of the CPA proposed action to the cumulative 

impacts on coastal barrier beaches and associated dunes is expected to be small.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

A search was conducted for information published on barrier beaches and dunes, and various Internet 

sources were examined to determine any recent information regarding barrier beaches and dunes. 

Sources investigated include BOEM, the USGS National Wetlands Research Center, the USGS Gulf of 

Mexico Integrated Science Data Information Management System, Gulf of Mexico Alliance, State 

environmental agencies, USEPA, and coastal universities. Other websites from scientific publication 
4-102 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

databases (including Science Direct, Elsevier, CSA Illumina, and JSTOR) were checked for new 

information using general Internet searches based on themes. No new significant information was 

discovered since the publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Hurricane Isaac made landfall on the Louisiana coast on August 28, 2012. Storm surge and 

superimposed waves inundated and overwashed the barrier islands that lie to the east of the Mississippi 

River, e.g. the Chandeleur Islands, Louisiana, and Dauphin Island, Alabama, both of which were severely 

impacted during Hurricane Katrina in 2005. During Hurricane Isaac, these islands suffered considerable 

changes, including the apparent destruction of remnants of the oil-protection berm built on the 

Chandeleur Islands after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup (USDOI, GS, 2012b). 

The SCAT maps and new data available since the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and 

cleanup that are incorporated into this Supplemental EIS provide valuable information on the status of 

coastal barrier beaches and dunes that may have been impacted by the event. After Hurricane Isaac made 

landfall, oil that matched the fingerprint of the oil from the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill 

was found on Elmer’s Island and Grand Isle, Louisiana (Overton, official communication, 2012). 

Tarballs collected on the Alabama coast after Hurricane Isaac appeared “remarkably similar” in 

composition and consistency to tar found on State beaches during and immediately after the BP spill 

(Hayworth, official communication, 2012). These observations suggest that oil and tar from the 

Deepwater Horizon explosion remain in the nearshore Gulf where they can be resuspended and deposited 

on barrier beaches by storms.

BOEM acknowledges that there remains incomplete and unavailable information, particularly related 

to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, that may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable 

significant impacts on these resources. As there is substantial information available since the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, which is included in this Supplemental EIS, BOEM believes 

that the incomplete or unavailable information regarding effects of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil 

spill, and cleanup on coastal barrier beaches and dunes would likely not be essential to a reasoned choice 

among alternatives for the reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The 

bulk of this information is expected to be developed through the ongoing NRDA process. To date, 

relatively little raw data have been released publicly by the NRDA process, and it may be years before 

studies are completed and results are released. This information will certainly not be available within the 

timeframe contemplated by this NEPA analysis. Regardless of the costs involved, it is not within 

BOEM’s ability to obtain this information from the NRDA process within the timeline of this 

Supplemental EIS. BOEM’s subject-matter experts have used what scientifically credible information is 

available in their analyses and applied it using accepted scientific methodology. The likelihood of any 

accidental event reaching coastal barrier beaches remains remote due to the fact that most routine 

activities are far removed from coastal barrier beaches and dunes. Most activities that could result in 

inshore spills (e.g., vessel traffic) would also likely be in navigational channels at some distance from 

most barrier beaches and dunes. 

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for barrier beaches and dunes presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for barrier beaches and dunes 

presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

4.2.1.4. Wetlands

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for wetlands presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for wetlands presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231. 

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the CPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-103

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of wetlands can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.4.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

The primary impact-producing activities associated with the CPA proposed action that could affect 

wetlands and marshes include pipeline emplacement, construction, and maintenance; navigation channel 

use (vessel traffic) and maintenance dredging; disposal of OCS-related wastes; and use and construction 

of support infrastructure in these coastal areas. Other potential impacts that are indirectly associated with 

OCS oil and gas activities are wake erosion resulting from navigational traffic, levee construction that 

prevents necessary sedimentary processes, saltwater intrusion that changes the hydrology leading to 

unfavorable conditions for wetland vegetation, and vulnerability to storm damage from eroded wetlands. 

A detailed impact analysis of the impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 

on wetlands can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.4.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

It is expected that impacts would be reduced or eliminated through mitigation, such as horizontal, 

directional (trenchless) drilling techniques to avoid damages to these sensitive wetland habitats. Although 

maintenance dredging of navigation channels and canals in the CPA is expected to occur, the CPA

proposed action is expected to contribute minimally to the need for this dredging. Alternative dredgedmaterial disposal methods can be used to enhance and create wetlands. Secondary impacts to wetlands 

from the CPA proposed action would result from OCS-related vessel traffic, contributing to the erosion 

and widening of navigation channels and canals. This would cause approximately 1 ha (3 ac) of landloss 

per year. Overall, the impacts to wetlands from routine activities associated with the CPA proposed 

action are expected to be low due to the small length of projected onshore pipelines, the minimal 

contribution to the need for maintenance dredging, and the mitigation measures that would be used to 

further reduce these impacts.

The main impact-producing factors that would affect wetlands are oil spills. With the reduced 

protection of the barrier islands lost due to hurricanes and anthropogenic factors, there is a greater 

potential for the oiling of coastal wetlands during an accidental event. Both coastal and offshore oil spills 

can be caused by large tropical cyclone events such as Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike. A 

detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be associated with proposed CPA Lease 

Sale 231 on wetlands can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.4.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Offshore oil spills resulting from the CPA proposed action would have a low probability of 

contacting and damaging any wetlands along the Gulf Coast, except in the case of a catastrophic event 

(Appendix B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). This is because of the distance of the spill to 

the coast, the likely weathered condition of oil (through evaporation, dilution, and biodegradation) should 

it reach the coast, and because wetlands are generally protected by barrier islands, peninsulas, sand spits, 

and currents. Although the probability of occurrence is low, the greatest threat from an oil spill to 

wetland habitat is from an inland spill as a result of a nearshore vessel accident or pipeline rupture. 

Wetlands in the northern Gulf of Mexico are in moderate- to high-energy environments; therefore, 

sediment transport and tidal stirring should reduce the chances for oil persisting in the event that these 

areas are oiled. While a resulting slick may cause minor impacts to wetland habitat and surrounding 

seagrass communities, the equipment, chemical treatments, and personnel used for cleanup can generate 

the greatest impacts to the area. Associated foot traffic may work oil farther into the sediment than would 

otherwise occur. Close monitoring and restrictions on the use of bottom-disturbing equipment would be 

needed to avoid or minimize those impacts. In addition, an assessment of the area covered, oil type, and 

plant composition of the wetland oiled should be made prior to choosing remediation treatment. These 

treatments could include mechanical and chemical techniques with onsite technicians. Overall, impacts to 

wetland habitats from an oil spill associated with activities related to the CPA proposed action would be 

expected to be low and temporary because of the nature of the system, regulations, and specific cleanup 

techniques. 

The main factors that cumulatively affect wetlands are dredging, navigation channels and canals, 

pipelines, oil spills, flood control modifications, and development of wetlands. The contribution of the 

OCS Program and proposed action activities to these cumulative impacts remains small. A detailed 

impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease 

Sale 231 on wetlands can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.4.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Wetlands are most vulnerable to inshore or nearshore oil spills but these tend to be localized events. 

Spill sources include vessel collisions, pipeline breaks, and shore-based transfer, refining, and production 
4-104 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

facilities. The wetlands associated with the CPA proposed action have a minimal probability for oil-spill 

contact. This reduced risk is due to the distance of the offshore facility to wetland sites, beach and barrier 

island topography (although locally reduced post-Hurricanes Katrina and Rita), and product transportation 

through existing pipelines or pipeline corridors. Wetlands can also be at risk for offshore spills, but the 

risks are minimized by distance, time, sea conditions, weather conditions, and the implementation of a 

timely and appropriate spill-response effort.

If spills do reach shore, only light localized impacts to inland wetlands would occur. The wetland 

areas affected by the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, with the possible exception of 

extremely heavily oiled areas (Bay Jimmy), have already shown signs of recovery through new shoot 

production and plant growth (White, official communication2010). Silliman et al. (2012) found that, after 

the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil coverage of Louisiana salt marshes was primarily concentrated on 

their seaward edges. Oil-driven plant death on the edges of these marshes more than doubled the rates of 

shoreline erosion, further driving marsh platform loss that is likely to be permanent. Eighteen months 

after the spill, in previously oiled, noneroded areas, marsh grasses had largely recovered and the elevated 

shoreline retreat rates observed at oiled sites had decreased to levels at reference marsh sites. Initial 

sampling and analysis in both offshore and nearshore areas affected by the Deepwater Horizon explosion, 

oil spill, and cleanup have been completed by NOAA and OSAT. These preliminary analyses support 

that the offshore spills become weathered and are reduced in toxicity in most cases. Three types of oil 

residue (supratidal buried oil, small surface residue balls, and submerged oil mats) were examined and 

evaluated in a report prepared by OSAT-2 (2011) and submitted to the Gulf Coast Incident Management 

Team. Their findings indicated that the oil residues were well weathered and showed an 86- to 98-percent 

depletion of total PAH’s. The OSAT report also noted that, due to the effects of weathering, 

biodegradation, and the location of the buried oil, there would be a minimal risk of leaching from 

supratidal buried oil. However, if resuspension of oils by storm action occurs, marshes could be exposed 

to reoiling. The frequency of repetitive oiling of vegetation is an important determinant of the ultimate 

injury (Mendelssohn et al., 2012). Based on modeling information, PAH concentration of supratidal 

buried oil in most locations will decrease by 20 percent within 5 years. In some isolated conditions, the 

PAH’s could persist longer (OSAT-2, 2011). If any inland spills occur, they would likely be small and at 

inland service bases or other support facilities and generally located away from wetlands; therefore, the 

spills would not be expected to affect wetlands.

While landloss will continue from subsidence and saltwater intrusion, the State of Louisiana and COE 

have implemented freshwater diversion projects to minimize the effect of this saltwater-induced landloss. 

Landloss would continue from vessel traffic; however, because of the small increase in traffic caused by 

the CPA proposed action, this loss would also be minimal. The CPA proposed action would not require 

any channel maintenance; therefore, no additional wetland loss would result from dredged material 

disposal. If dredged-material disposal is required, it would likely be beneficially used for marsh creation. 

The OCS wastes and drilling by-products would be delivered to existing disposal facilities approved by 

USEPA for handling these materials. Because of existing capacity, no additional expansion into wetland 

areas is expected.

Development pressures in the coastal regions of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida have 

caused the destruction of large areas of wetlands. In coastal Louisiana, the most destructive 

developments have been the inland oil and gas industry projects, which have resulted in the dredging of 

huge numbers of access channels. Agricultural, residential, and commercial developments have caused 

the most destruction of wetlands in Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. In Florida, recreational and tourist 

developments have been particularly destructive. These trends are expected to continue. During the 

period from 2001 to 2040, between 248,830 and 346,590 ha (614,872 and 856,443 ac) of wetlands would 

be lost from the Louisiana coastal zone and 1,600-2,000 ha (647-809 ac) would be lost from the 

Mississippi coastal zone. Wetland losses in the coastal zones of Alabama and Florida are assumed to be 

comparable with those in Mississippi. New and existing pipeline channels would continue eroding, 

largely at the expense of wetlands; however, channel armor may be added at a later date through a State’s 

Coastal Management Program, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Dept. of the Transportation 

(refer to Chapter 3.1.1.8 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). However, these estimates do not 

take into account the current regulatory programs, modern construction techniques and mitigations, or any 

new techniques that might be developed in the future. Because of modern construction techniques and 

mitigation measures, there would be zero to negligible impacts on wetland habitats as a result of a 

pipeline emplacement. The CPA proposed action represents a small percentage (3-4%) of total OCS 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-105

activity (USDOI, MMS, 2007b). Impacts associated with the CPA proposed action are a minimal part of 

the overall OCS impacts. The cumulative effects of human and natural activities in the coastal area have 

severely degraded the deltaic processes and have shifted the coastal area from a condition of net land 

building to one of net landloss. Deltaic Louisiana is expected to continue to experience the greatest loss 

of wetland habitat. Wetland loss is also expected to continue in coastal Mississippi, Alabama, and 

Florida, but at slower rates. The incremental contribution of the CPA proposed action to the cumulative 

impacts on coastal wetlands is expected to be small.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

A search was conducted for information published on northern Gulf of Mexico wetland communities, 

and various Internet sources were examined to determine any recent information regarding these 

communities. Sources investigated include BOEM, the USGS National Wetlands Research Center, the 

USGS Gulf of Mexico Integrated Science Data Information Management System, Gulf of Mexico 

Alliance, State environmental agencies, USEPA, and coastal universities. Other websites from scientific 

publication databases (including Science Direct, Elsevier, CSA Illumina, and JSTOR) were checked for 

new information using general Internet searches based on major themes. No new significant information 

was discovered since publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Recent information regarding the impacts to wetlands from Hurricane Isaac, which made landfall in 

Louisiana on August 28, 2012, has become available. Preliminary assessments suggest that Hurricane 

Isaac damaged coastal wetlands in a manner that is substantial, but not unprecedented. Damage to coastal 

wetland areas was evident throughout much of southeast Louisiana. The intensity of hurricane effects 

was most abundant in areas of upper Breton Sound. Evidence of vegetation stress, such as widespread 

discoloration, was observed in areas that were directly impacted by hurricane storm surge. The browning 

and destruction in the marshes east of the Mississippi River in coastal Louisiana appear to be recent, 

indicating a link to salinity and flooding stress associated with Hurricane Isaac’s storm surge (USDOI, 

GS, 2012c). This new information is consistent with BOEM’s analysis in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, noting that wetlands could continue to be threatened from ongoing natural factors, 

including hurricanes and storms, including potentially through the resuspension of sediments and oils 

after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. 

BOEM concludes that the unavailable or incomplete information identified in this section and in the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS may be relevant to foreseeable significant adverse impacts to 

wetlands. Relevant data on the status of wetlands and marshes after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, 

oil spill, and cleanup may take years to acquire and analyze, and impacts from the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup may be difficult or impossible to discern from other factors. The NRDA 

process is ongoing, and to date, much of the information collected as part of the process has not been fully 

analyzed, and conclusions have not been released to the public. It may be years before NRDA data and 

conclusions are available. Therefore, it is not possible for BOEM to obtain this information within the 

timeframe contemplated by this NEPA analysis, regardless of the cost or resources needed. In light of the 

incomplete or unavailable information, BOEM’s subject-matter experts have used available scientifically 

credible evidence in this analysis and applied it using accepted methods and approaches. Nevertheless, 

BOEM believes that incomplete or unavailable information regarding unknown effects of the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives for the 

reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Although there may still be 

incoming information, there is significant available data on shoreline oiling and the current status of 

wetlands and marshes from the SCAT and ERMA databases that have assisted BOEM’s subject-matter 

experts in their analyses. Future incoming data are not expected to significantly alter these conclusions, 

and future impacts from these past events are not expected.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for wetlands presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for wetlands presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.
4-106 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

4.2.1.5. Seagrass Communities

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for seagrass communities presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for seagrass communities presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events that may be 

associated with the CPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the 

cumulative impacts are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information 

is a summary of the resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and 

any new information that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of seagrass communities can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.5.1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The routine events associated with OCS activities in the CPA that could adversely affect submerged 

vegetation communities include construction of pipelines, canals, navigation channels, and onshore 

facilities; maintenance dredging; and vessel traffic (e.g., propeller scars). Many of these activities would 

result in an increase of water turbidity that is detrimental to submerged vegetation health. Through 

avoidance and mitigation policies, these effects are generally localized, short term, and minor in nature. 

A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease

Sale 231 on seagrass communities can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.5.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

Routine OCS activities in the CPA that may impact seagrasses are not expected to significantly 

increase in occurrence and range in the near future, with minimal associated nearshore activities and 

infrastructure, such as the projected one new pipeline landfall. Requirements of other Federal and State 

programs, such as avoidance of the seagrass and vegetation communities or the use of turbidity curtains, 

reduce the undesirable effects on submerged vegetation beds from dredging activities. Federal and State 

permit requirements should ensure pipeline routes avoid high-salinity beds and maintain water clarity and 

quality. Local programs decrease the occurrence of prop scarring in grass beds, and channels utilized by 

OCS vessels are generally away from exposed submerged vegetation beds. Because of these 

requirements and implemented programs, along with the beneficial effects of natural flushing (e.g., from 

winds and currents), any potential effects from routine activities on submerged vegetation in the CPA are 

expected to be localized and not significantly adverse.

There remains uncertainty regarding the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and 

cleanup on submerged vegetation. At least for submerged vegetation in Louisiana, Mississippi, and 

Alabama, BOEM cannot definitively determine that the incomplete or unavailable information being 

developed through the NRDA process may be essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives for the 

reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Nevertheless, the ongoing research 

on submerged vegetation after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup is being conducted 

through the NRDA process. These research projects may be years from completion, and data and 

conclusions have not been released to the public. Regardless of the costs involved, it is not within 

BOEM’s ability to obtain this information from the NRDA process within the timeline of this 

Supplemental EIS. In light of this incomplete and unavailable information, BOEM’s subject-matter 

experts have used credible scientific information that is available and applied it using scientifically 

accepted methodology. Nevertheless, impacts to submerged vegetation from routine activities of the CPA 

proposed action are expected to be minimal due to the distance of most activities from the submerged 

vegetation beds, because the 0-1 pipeline landfalls and maintenance dredging are heavily regulated and 

permitted, and because mitigations (such as turbidity curtains and siting away from beds) would likely be 

required. Accidental events possible with the CPA proposed action that could significantly adversely 

affect submerged vegetation beds include nearshore and inshore spills connected with the transport and 

storage of oil. Offshore oil spills that occur in the proposed action area are less likely to contact seagrass 

communities than are inshore spills because the seagrass beds are generally protected by barrier islands, 

peninsulas, sand spits, and currents. However, if the temporal and spatial duration of the spill is 

sufficiently large, then an offshore spill could affect submerged vegetation communities. A detailed 

impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on 

seagrass communities can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.5.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-107

The greatest threat to inland, submerged vegetation communities would be from an inland spill 

resulting from a vessel accident or pipeline rupture, although such a spill’s size tends to be small and the 

duration short. The resulting slick may cause short-term and localized impacts to the submerged 

vegetation bed. There is also the remote possibility of an offshore spill to such an extent that it could also 

affect submerged vegetation beds, and this would have similar effects to an inshore spill. Because 

prevention and cleanup measures can have negative effects on submerged vegetation, close monitoring 

and restrictions on the use of bottom-disturbing equipment would be needed to avoid or minimize those 

impacts. The floating nature of nondispersed crude oil, the regional microtidal range, the dynamic 

climate with mild temperatures, and the amount of microorganisms that consume oil would alleviate 

prolonged effects on submerged vegetation communities. Also, safety and spill-prevention technologies 

are expected to continue to improve and would decrease the detrimental effects to submerged vegetation 

from the CPA proposed action.

Although as noted above, there remains uncertainty regarding the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup on submerged vegetation. At least for submerged vegetation in 

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, BOEM cannot definitively determine that the incomplete or 

unavailable information being developed through the NRDA process may be essential to a reasoned 

choice among alternatives for the reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

Nevertheless, the ongoing research on submerged vegetation after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil 

spill, and cleanup is being conducted through the NRDA process. These research projects may be years 

from completion, and data and conclusions have not been released to the public. Regardless of the costs 

involved, it is not within BOEM’s ability to obtain this information from the NRDA process within the 

timeline of this Supplemental EIS. In light of this incomplete and unavailable information, BOEM’s 

subject-matter experts have used credible scientific information that is available and applied it using 

scientifically accepted methodology. Nevertheless, an impact to submerged vegetation from an accidental 

event related to the CPA proposed action are expected to be minimal due to the distance of most activities 

from the submerged vegetation beds and because the likelihood of an accidental event of size, location, 

and duration reaching submerged vegetation spills remains small.

The cumulative events associated with OCS activities in the CPA that could adversely affect 

submerged vegetation communities include dredging, oil spills/pipelines, hydrological changes, and storm 

events. A detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed 

CPA Lease Sale 231 on seagrass communities can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.5.4 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

In general, the CPA proposed action would cause a minor incremental contribution to impacts on 

submerged vegetation from dredging, pipeline installations, possibly oil spills, and boat scarring. 

Dredging generates the greatest overall risk to submerged vegetation, while naturally occurring hurricanes

cause direct damage to beds. The implementation of proposed lease stipulations and mitigation policies 

currently in place, the small probability of an oil spill, and that flow regimes are expected to change, 

further reduces the incremental contribution of stress from the CPA proposed action to submerged 

vegetation. 

Unavailable information on the effects to submerged vegetation from the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup (and thus changes to the submerged vegetation baseline in the affected 

environment) makes an understanding of the cumulative effects less clear. BOEM concludes that the 

unavailable information from these events may be relevant to foreseeable significant adverse impacts to 

submerged vegetation. Relevant data on the status of submerged vegetation beds after the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup may take years to acquire and analyze, and impacts from the 

Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup may be difficult or impossible to discern from other 

factors. Therefore, it is not possible for BOEM to obtain this information within the timeframe 

contemplated by this NEPA analysis, regardless of the cost or resources needed. In light of the 

incomplete or unavailable information, BOEM’s subject-matter experts have used available scientifically 

credible evidence in this analysis and applied it using accepted methods and approaches. Nevertheless, 

BOEM believes that incomplete or unavailable information regarding the effects of the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup on submerged vegetation is not essential to a reasoned choice 

among alternatives in the cumulative effects analysis for the reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. In light of this, the incremental contribution of the CPA proposed action 

remains minor compared with the cumulative effects of other factors, including dredging, hurricanes, and 

vessel traffic.
4-108 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

A search was conducted for information published on submerged vegetation, and various Internet 

sources were examined to determine any recent information regarding seagrasses. Sources investigated 

include BOEM, USDOC/NOAA, the USGS National Wetlands Research Center, the USGS Gulf of 

Mexico Integrated Science Data Information Management System, Seagrass Watch, Gulf of Mexico 

Alliance, State environmental agencies, USEPA, and coastal universities. Other websites from scientific 

publication databases (including Science Direct, Elsevier, CSA Illumina, and JSTOR) were checked for 

new information using general Internet searches based on major themes. No new significant information 

was discovered since publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for seagrass communities presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for seagrass communities presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

4.2.1.6. Live Bottoms

4.2.1.6.1. Live Bottoms (Pinnacle Trend) 

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for live bottoms (pinnacle trend) presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for live bottoms (pinnacle trend) 

presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the CPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of the Pinnacle Trend can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.6.1.1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The routine activities associated with the CPA proposed action that would impact Pinnacle Trend

communities in the CPA include anchoring, infrastructure and pipeline emplacement, infrastructure 

removal, drilling discharges, and produced-water discharges. A detailed impact analysis of the routine 

impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on the Pinnacle Trend can be 

found in Chapter 4.2.1.6.1.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The routine activities associated with the CPA proposed action that would impact Pinnacle Trend

communities in the CPA include anchoring, infrastructure and pipeline emplacement, infrastructure 

removal, drilling discharges, and produced-water discharges. Seventy-four blocks are within the region 

defined as the Pinnacle Trend, which contain live bottoms that may be sensitive to oil and gas activities. 

These blocks are located in the northeastern portion of the CPA and are located in water depths between 

60 and 120 m (197 and 394 ft) in the Main Pass, Viosca Knoll, and Destin Dome lease areas. Relevant 

leases in past sales have contained a Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation to protect such areas. The 

proposed stipulation establishes that no bottom-disturbing activities may occur within 30 m (100 ft) of 

any hard bottoms/Pinnacles that have a vertical relief of 8 ft (2 m) or more, which distances these features 

from possible accidental impacts that could occur. The stipulation is designed to prevent drilling 

activities and anchor emplacement (the major potential impacting factors on these live bottoms resulting 

from offshore oil and gas activities) from damaging the pinnacle features. Under the stipulation, both 

exploration and development plans would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a 

proposed operation could impact a pinnacle feature. If it is determined from site-specific information 

derived from BOEM studies, published information from other research programs, geohazards survey 

information, or another source, that the operation would impact a pinnacle feature, the operator may be 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-109

required to relocate the proposed operation. Clarification on how the proposed Live Bottom (Pinnacle 

Trend) Stipulation applies to operators is detailed in this Agency’s NTL 2009-G39. 

Oil and gas operations discharge drilling muds and cuttings that generate turbidity, potentially 

smothering benthos near the drill sites. Deposition of drilling muds and cuttings in the Pinnacle Trend

area would not greatly impact the biota of the live bottoms because oil and gas operations will be 

distanced from the Pinnacle features as required in lease stipulations, eliminating direct sedimentation as 

a result of well discharge. In addition, the biota surrounding the pinnacle features are adapted to turbid 

(nepheloid) conditions and high sedimentation rates associated with the outflow of the Mississippi River 

(Gittings et al., 1992), and the Pinnacles themselves are coated with a veneer of sediment, which would 

allow them to tolerate the sedimentation that may result from the surface release of cuttings when drilling 

a nearby well. Regional surface currents and water depth would largely dilute any effluent from nearby 

wells. Additional deposition and turbidity caused by a nearby well are not expected to adversely affect 

the pinnacle environment because such drilling muds and cuttings would be dispersed upon discharge. 

Mud contaminants measured in the Pinnacle Trend region reached background levels within 1,500 m 

(4,921 ft) of the discharge point (Shinn et al., 1993). Toxic impacts on benthos are limited to within 

100-200 m (328-656 ft) of a well (Montagna and Harper, 1996; Kennicutt et al., 1996), and NPDES 

permit requirements limit discharge. The drilling of a well from the CPA proposed action, therefore, 

could have localized impacts on the benthos nearby the well; however, impacts would be reduced with 

distance from the well.

The toxicity of the produced waters has the potential to adversely impact the live bottom organisms of 

the Pinnacle Trend; however, as previously stated, the proposed Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation 

would prevent the placement of oil and gas facilities upon (and consequently would prevent the discharge 

of produced water directly over) the Pinnacle Trend live bottom areas. Because produced waters rapidly 

disperse and remain in the surface layers of the water column, far above the peaks of Pinnacles, and 

because the NPDES permit limits discharge, produced waters should not impact these features.

Platform removals have the potential to impact nearby habitats. The platforms are unlikely to be 

constructed directly on the pinnacles or low-relief areas because of the restraints of the Live Bottom

(Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation, if applied, which distances blasts from sensitive habitats. Benthic 

organisms on live bottoms should also experience limited impact because they are resistant to blasts, 

tolerant of turbidity, can physically remove some suspended sediment, and may be located above or be 

tall enough to withstand limited sediment deposition. Live bottoms, however, may be impacted by heavy 

sediment deposition layers. Implementation of the Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation would help 

to prevent such a smothering event. The proposed Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation could 

prevent most of the potential impacts on live bottoms from bottom-disturbing activities (structure 

emplacement and removal) and operational discharges associated with the CPA proposed action. Any 

contaminants that reach live bottom features would be diluted from their original concentration, so 

impacts that do occur should be sublethal.

Accidental disturbances resulting from the CPA proposed action, including oil spills and blowouts, 

have the potential to disrupt and alter the environmental, commercial, recreational, and aesthetic values of 

live bottom features of the CPA. A catastrophic events analysis is provided in Appendix B of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS; nevertheless, the type and kind of expected impacts to Pinnacle 

Trend features from a catastrophic event would be similar to those described below as impacts from 

accidental events. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental of that may be associated with proposed 

CPA Lease Sale 231 on the Pinnacle Trend can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.6.1.3 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Live bottom (Pinnacle Trend) features represent a small fraction of the continental shelf area in the 

CPA. The small portion of the seafloor covered by these features, combined with the probable random 

nature of oil-spill locations, serves to limit the extent of damage from any given oil spill to the Pinnacle 

Trend features.

The proposed Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation (Chapter 2.4.1.3.2 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and Chapter 2.4.1.3.2 of this Supplemental EIS), if applied, would prevent 

most of the potential impacts from oil and gas operations, including accidental oil spills and blowouts, on 

the biota of Pinnacle Trend features by increasing the distance of such events from the features. It would 

be expected that the majority of oil would rapidly rise to the surface and that the most heavily oiled 

sediments would likely be deposited on the seafloor before reaching the Pinnacle features. However, 
4-110 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

operations outside the proposed buffer zones around sensitive habitats (including blowouts and oil spills) 

may affect live bottom features.

The depth below the sea surface to which many live bottom features rise helps to protect them from 

surface oil spills. Some Pinnacles may rise to within 40 m (130 ft) of the sea surface; however, many 

features have much less relief or are in deeper water depths. Any oil that might mix into the water 

column and contact pinnacle features would probably be at low concentrations because the depth to which 

surface oil can mix down into the water column is much higher in the water column than the peak of the 

tallest pinnacles, and this would result in little effect to these features.

A subsurface spill or plume may impact sessile biota of live bottom features. Oil or dispersed oil may 

cause sublethal impacts to benthic organisms if a plume reaches these features. Impacts may include loss 

of habitat, biodiversity, and live coverage; change in community structure; and failed reproductive 

success. The Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation would limit the potential impact of such 

occurrences by keeping the sources of such adverse events geographically removed from the sensitive 

biological resources of live bottom features. The physical distance between oil and gas activities and a 

Pinnacle feature would allow for dispersion of the oil at it travels in the water column.

Sedimented oil or sedimentation as a result of a blowout may impact benthic organisms. However, 

because the Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation places petroleum-producing activity at a distance 

from live bottom features, this would result in reduced turbidity and sedimentation near the sensitive 

features. Furthermore, any sedimented oil should be well dispersed, resulting in a light layer of 

deposition that would be easily removed by the organism and have low toxicity.

The proposed Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation would assist in preventing most of the 

potential impacts on live bottom communities from blowouts, surface, and subsurface oil spills and the 

associated effects. Any contact with spilled oil would likely cause sublethal effects to benthic organisms 

because the distance of activity would prevent contact with concentrated oil. In the unlikely event that oil 

from a subsurface spill would reach the biota of a live bottom feature, the effects would be primarily 

sublethal and impacts would be at the community level due to the oil dispersing with distance traveled. 

Any turbidity, sedimentation, and sedimented oil would also be at low concentrations by the time the live 

bottom features were reached, resulting in sublethal impacts.

This cumulative analysis considers the effects of impact-producing factors related to the CPA 

proposed action plus those related to prior and future OCS lease sales, and to tanker and other shipping 

operations that may occur and adversely affect live bottoms of the Pinnacle Trend area. Specific OCSrelated, impact-producing factors considered in the analysis are structure emplacement and removal, 

anchoring, discharges from well drilling, produced waters, pipeline emplacement, oil spills, blowouts, and 

operational discharges. Non-OCS-related impacts including commercial fisheries, natural disturbances, 

anchoring by recreational boats, and other non-OCS commercial vessels, as well as spillage from import 

tankering, all have the potential to alter live bottoms, and they are addressed as well. A detailed impact 

analysis of the cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on the 

Pinnacle Trend can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.6.1.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Non-oil and gas activities that may occur in the vicinity of the Pinnacle communities include 

recreational boating and fishing, import tankering, fishing and trawling, and natural events such as 

extreme weather conditions and extreme fluctuations of environmental conditions. These activities could 

cause damage to the Pinnacle communities. Ships using fairways in the vicinity of Pinnacles anchor in 

the general area of Pinnacles on occasion, and numerous fishermen take advantage of the resources of 

regional bottoms. These activities could lead to instances of severe and permanent physical damage to 

individual formations. During severe storms, such as hurricanes, large waves may reach deep enough to 

stir bottom sediments (Brooks, 1991; CSA, 1992b). Because of the depth of the Pinnacle Trend area, 

these forces are not expected to be strong enough to cause direct physical damage to organisms living on 

the reefs.

Possible impacts from routine activities of OCS oil and gas operations include anchoring, structure 

emplacement and removal, pipeline emplacement, drilling discharges, and discharges of produced waters. 

In addition, accidental subsea oil spills, or blowouts associated with OCS oil and gas activities can cause 

damage to Pinnacle communities. Long-term OCS oil and gas activities are not expected to adversely 

impact the live bottom environment because these impact-producing factors are restrained by the 

continued implementation of the lease stipulation and site-specific mitigations. The inclusion of the Live 

Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation would preclude the occurrence of physical damage, the most 

potentially damaging of these activities. The impacts to the live bottoms are judged to be infrequent 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-111

because of the small number of operations in the vicinity of Pinnacles and the distance from the habitat. 

The impact to the live/hard-bottom resource as a whole is expected to be minimal because of primarily 

localized impacts.

Impacts from blowouts, pipeline emplacement, muds and cuttings discharges, other operational 

discharges, and structure removals should be minimized because of the proposed Live Bottom (Pinnacle 

Trend) Stipulation and the dilution of discharges and resuspended sediments in the area. Potential 

impacts from discharges would be further reduced by USEPA’s discharge regulations and permit 

restrictions. 

The incremental contribution of the CPA proposed action to the cumulative impact is expected to be 

slight, with possible impacts from physical disturbance of the bottom, discharges of drilling muds and 

cuttings, other OCS discharges, structure removals, and oil spills. Negative impacts should be restricted 

by the implementation of the Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation, site-specific stipulations, the 

depths of the features, the currents in the live bottom area, and the distance of Pinnacle habitats from the 

source of impact.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

A search of Internet information sources (the NOAA Gulf Spill Restoration Publications website, the 

ERMA Gulf Response website, the NOAA Deepwater Horizon Archive Publications and Factsheets, the 

Gulf of Mexico Sea Grant Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Research and Monitoring Activities Database, 

RestoreTheGulf.gov website, and the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Portal), as well as recently published 

journal articles was conducted to determine the availability of recent information on the Pinnacle Trend. 

The search revealed no new information pertinent to this Supplemental EIS.

Limited data are currently available on potential impacts of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil 

spill, and cleanup on Pinnacle Trend features in the CPA. This incomplete or unavailable information 

may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant impacts to Pinnacle Trend features. BOEM has 

determined that this incomplete or unavailable information may be essential to a reasoned choice among 

alternatives for the reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Relevant data 

on the status of Pinnacle Trend features after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, 

however, may take years to acquire and analyze. Much of this data is being developed through the 

NRDA process, which is expected to take years to complete. Little data from the NRDA process has been 

made available to date. Therefore, it is not possible for BOEM to obtain this information within the 

timeframe contemplated by this NEPA analysis, regardless of the cost or resources needed. In the place 

of this incomplete or unavailable information, as noted above, BOEM’s subject-matter experts have used 

available scientifically credible evidence in this analysis and applied it using accepted scientific methods 

and approaches.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for live bottoms (Pinnacle Trend features) presented in the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, with the understanding that no new information on these features 

has been published since the publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Therefore, no new 

significant information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for the Pinnacle Trend 

features presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts 

detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

4.2.1.6.2. Live Bottoms (Low Relief) 

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for live bottoms (low relief) presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for live bottoms (low relief) presented 

in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the CPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 
4-112 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of low-relief live bottoms can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.6.2.1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

A number of routine OCS-related factors may cause adverse impacts on the live bottom communities 

and features. Damage caused by anchoring, infrastructure and pipeline emplacement, infrastructure 

removal, blowouts, drilling discharges, and produced-water discharges can cause mortality of live bottom 

organisms or the alteration of sediments to the point that recolonization of the affected areas may be 

delayed or impossible. A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts of OCS activities associated 

with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on low-relief live bottoms can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.6.2.2 of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The Live Bottom (Low Relief) Stipulation (described in NTL 2009-G39) protection covers lease 

blocks that include water depths <100 m (328 ft) in the EPA and a portion of the northeastern CPA that 

was previously part of the EPA. Blocks subject to the Live Bottom (Low Relief) Stipulation, including 

those in the CPA, are not included in the area to be offered in the CPA proposed action; therefore, the 

stipulation would not apply to the CPA proposed action. No CPA lease sales since the 1980’s have 

included blocks in areas where this stipulation applies. However, CPA blocks adjacent to this area are 

included in the CPA proposed action and activities in adjacent blocks may impact features in Live Bottom 

Stipulation blocks.

Although the Live Bottom (Low Relief) Stipulation would not be applied to proposed CPA Lease 

Sale 231 (because live bottom [low-relief] blocks are not included in the CPA lease sale), BOEM will still 

be conducting reviews of proposed OCS oil and gas activities so that any live bottoms that could be 

impacted by proposed activity are protected. The case-by-case reviews are designed to prevent drilling 

activities and anchor emplacement (the major potential impacting factors on these live bottoms resulting 

from offshore oil and gas activities) from damaging the low-relief features. Both exploration and 

development plans will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a proposed operation 

could impact a low-relief area. If it is determined from site-specific information derived from BOEM’s 

studies, published information from other research programs, geohazards survey information, or another 

source that the operation would impact a low-relief area, the operator may be required to relocate the 

proposed operation.

Oil and gas operations discharge drilling muds and cuttings that generate turbidity, potentially 

smothering benthos near the drill sites. Deposition of drilling muds and cuttings in surface waters near 

low-relief areas would not greatly impact the biota of the live bottoms because the biota surrounding the 

low-relief features in or near the CPA are adapted to turbid (nepheloid) conditions and high sedimentation 

rates associated with the outflow of the Mississippi River (Gittings et al., 1992). Surface released cuttings 

would be diluted by regional surface currents, and water depth would largely dilute any effluent before it 

reached live bottom features. Additional deposition and turbidity caused by the drilling of a well are not 

expected to adversely affect the low-relief environment because such drilling muds and cuttings would be 

dispersed upon discharge and be diluted before they reached a live bottom feature. Toxic impacts on 

benthos are limited to within 100-200 m (328-656 ft) of a well (Montagna and Harper, 1996; Kennicutt 

et al., 1996), and NPDES permit requirements limit discharge. The drilling of a well, therefore, could 

have localized impacts on the benthos near the well, but because the well would be located away from 

live bottom features because live bottom blocks are not being leased as part of this proposed lease sale, 

impacts would be reduced by dilution with distance from the well.

The toxicity of produced waters has the potential to adversely impact the live bottom organisms; 

however, as previously stated, many of the low-relief areas are not in the area to be offered in the CPA 

proposed action and BOEM’s site-specific seafloor review prior to any bottom-disturbing activity would 

prevent the placement of oil and gas facilities upon (and consequently would prevent the discharge of 

produced water directly over) low-relief, live bottom habitats. Produced waters also rapidly disperse and 

remain in the surface layers of the water column, far above the live bottom features.

Platform removals have the potential to impact nearby habitats, but the platforms would not be

constructed directly on low-relief areas because these areas are not included in the area to be offered in 

the CPA proposed action and are protected by BOEM policy, distancing blasts from sensitive low-relief 

habitats. Benthic organisms on live bottoms should also have limited impact because they are resistant to 

blasts, tolerant of turbidity, can physically remove some suspended sediment, and may be located above 

or be tall enough to withstand limited sediment deposition. BOEM’s site-specific seafloor review and 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-113

required distancing of seafloor disturbance from live bottom features would help to prevent smothering 

events. Since the live bottom areas are either not included in the area to be offered in the CPA proposed 

action or are protected by BOEM policy, most of the potential impacts on live bottoms from bottomdisturbing activities (structure emplacement and removal) and operational discharges associated with the 

CPA proposed action would be prevented. Any contaminants that reach live bottom features would be 

diluted from their original concentration; therefore, impacts that do occur should be sublethal.

Disturbances resulting from the CPA proposed action, including oil spills and blowouts, have the 

potential to disrupt and alter the environmental, commercial, recreational, and aesthetic values of live

bottom features of the CPA. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be associated 

with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on low-relief live bottoms can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.6.2.3 of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Live bottom (low-relief) features represent a small fraction of the continental shelf area in the CPA. 

The fact that the live bottom features are widely dispersed, combined with the probable random nature of 

oil-spill locations, serves to limit the extent of damage from any given oil spill to the live bottom features.

BOEM’s case-by-case review of the seafloor in areas where bottom-disturbing activities are planned 

would prevent most of the potential impacts from oil and gas operations, including accidental oil spills

and blowouts, on the biota of live bottom features by increasing the distance of such events from the 

features. Also, note that none of the blocks with live bottoms are included in the area to be offered in the 

CPA proposed action. However, operations that occur in blocks adjacent to live bottom habitat may 

affect live bottom features. It would be expected though that the majority of oil would rapidly rise to the 

surface and that the most heavily oiled sediments would likely be deposited on the seafloor before 

reaching the live bottom features.

The limited relief of many live bottom features helps to protect them from surface oil spills. Because 

the concentration of oil becomes diluted as it physically mixes with the surrounding water and as it moves 

into the water column, any oil that might be driven to 10 m (33 ft) or deeper would probably be at 

concentrations low enough to reduce impact to these features. Any features in water shallower than 10 m 

(33 ft) would be located far from the source of activities in the CPA proposed action, allowing for dilution 

of oil as it travels in the water column.

A subsurface spill or plume may impact sessile biota of live bottom features. Oil or dispersed oil may 

cause sublethal impacts to benthic organisms if a plume reaches these features. Impacts may include loss 

of habitat, biodiversity, and live coverage; change in community structure; and failed reproductive 

success. The distance of proposed activities from low-relief live bottoms provides considerable 

protection for the habitats. BOEM’s site-specific review of seafloor habitats during the review of project 

plans would limit the potential impact of any activities that may approach low-relief habitats (such as 

pipeline right-of-ways) because BOEM policy keeps the sources of such adverse events geographically 

removed from the sensitive biological resources of live bottom features. The distance would serve to 

reduce turbidity and sedimentation, and any sedimented oil should be well dispersed, resulting in a light 

layer of deposition that would have low toxicity and be easily removed by the organism. Many of these 

organisms are located within the influence of the Mississippi River plume and are more tolerant of 

turbidity and sedimentation, allowing them to withstand a degree of these impacts.

BOEM’s site review would assist in preventing most of the potential impacts on live bottom 

communities from blowouts, surface, and subsurface oil spills and the associated effects because BOEM 

policy requires that bottom-disturbing activity be distanced from live bottom features. In addition, 

because no live bottom (low-relief) blocks are included in the CPA proposed action, the live bottom 

features are distanced from oil-producing activity. Any contact with spilled oil would likely cause 

sublethal effects to benthic organisms because the distance of activity would prevent contact with 

concentrated oil. In the unlikely event that oil from a subsurface spill would reach the biota of a live

bottom feature, the effects would be primarily sublethal and impacts would be at the community level. 

Any turbidity, sedimentation, and sedimented oil would also be at low concentrations by the time the live

bottom features were reached, resulting in sublethal impacts.

This cumulative analysis considers the effects of impact-producing factors related to the CPA 

proposed action plus those related to prior and future OCS lease sales, and to tanker and other shipping 

operations that may occur and adversely affect live bottoms of low-relief, hard-bottom areas. Specific 

OCS-related, impact-producing factors considered in the analysis are structure emplacement and removal, 

anchoring, discharges from well drilling, produced waters, pipeline emplacement, oil spills, blowouts, and 

operational discharges. Non-OCS-related impacts, including commercial fisheries, natural disturbances, 
4-114 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

anchoring by recreational boats, and other non-OCS commercial vessels, as well as spillage from import 

tankering, all have the potential to alter live bottoms, and they are discussed here as well. A detailed 

impact analysis of the cumulative accidental impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA 

Lease Sale 231 on low-relief live bottoms can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.6.2.4 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Non-oil and gas activities that may occur in the vicinity of the low-relief, hard-bottom communities 

include boating and fishing, import tankering, fishing and trawling, and natural events such as extreme 

weather conditions and extreme fluctuations of environmental conditions. These activities could cause 

damage to the low-relief, hard-bottom communities. Occasionally, ships using fairways in the vicinity of 

communities anchor in the general area of live bottoms, and commercial and recreational fishermen take 

advantage of the relatively shallow and easily accessible resources of regional hard bottoms. These 

activities could lead to instances of severe and permanent physical damage. During severe storms, such 

as hurricanes, large waves may reach deep enough to stir bottom sediments, which could cause severe 

mechanical damage to organisms, including abrasion from suspended sand, bruising and crushing from 

tumbling rocks, and complete removal of organisms (Brooks, 1991; CSA, 1992b). Yearly hypoxic events 

may affect portions of live bottom benthic populations in the northeastern part of the CPA (Rabalais et al., 

2002a). 

Possible impacts from routine activities of OCS oil and gas operations include anchoring, structure 

emplacement and removal, pipeline emplacement, drilling discharges, and discharges of produced waters. 

In addition, accidental subsea oil spills or blowouts associated with OCS oil and gas activities can cause 

damage to low-relief, hard-bottom communities. Impacts from these factors should be minimized based 

on BOEM’s policy and case-by-case review of proposed OCS oil and gas activity and the fact that live

bottom (low-relief) blocks are not currently offered for lease. The physical distance between any routine 

OCS oil and gas activity and accidental spill would minimize any possible impacts from the activity. The 

impact to the live bottom resource as a whole is expected to be minimal because of the distance of any 

OCS oil and gas related activity from these habitats.

The incremental contribution of the CPA proposed action to the cumulative impact is expected to be 

minimal, with possible impacts from physical disturbance of the bottom, discharges of drilling muds and 

cuttings, other OCS discharges, structure removals, and oil spills. Negative impacts should be restricted 

by site-specific BOEM seafloor review, the fact BOEM is not currently offering the low-relief habitats for 

lease, and the distance of live bottom habitats from the source of most OCS-related impacts.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

A search of Internet information sources (the NOAA Gulf Spill Restoration Publications website, the 

ERMA Gulf Response website, the NOAA Deepwater Horizon Archive Publications and Factsheets, the 

Gulf of Mexico Sea Grant Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Research and Monitoring Activities Database, 

RestoreTheGulf.gov website, and the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Portal), as well as recently published 

journal articles and Federal documents was conducted to determine the availability of recent information 

on the low-relief, live bottom habitats. The search revealed new information on the proposed 

threatened/endangered listing of coral species in the GOM; information that is pertinent to this 

Supplemental EIS. 

In 2009, a petition was submitted to NOAA Fisheries by the Center for Biological Diversity to list 

82 additional species of coral under the ESA (USDOC, NOAA, 2012a). Those 82 “candidate species” 

were reviewed by NOAA Fisheries. In April 2012, NOAA Fisheries completed a Status Review Report 

and a Draft Management Report of the candidate species of corals, and on December 7, 2012, the 

Proposed Listing Determinations for 82 Reef-Building Coral Species and Proposed Reclassification of 

Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis from threatened to endangered was published in the Federal 

Register (2012b). The species proposed for listing as endangered that are found on live bottoms, 

particularly in the adjacent EPA, include Montastraea annularis, Montastraea faveolata, Montastraea 

franksi, and Dendrogyra cylindrus. Two other species that are found on live bottoms in the EPA that are 

proposed for listing as threatened are Agaricia lamarcki and Dichocoenia stokesii. In addition, Acropora 

palmata and Acropora cervicornis are proposed to be upgraded from threatened to endangered. These 

species are listed here because a major oil spill may impact them. If these proposed species are listed, 

then BOEM would consult with NOAA Fisheries under Section 7 of the ESA if an action may affect the 

listed species or designated critical habitat, as it currently does for other listed species.
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-115

Limited data are currently available on potential impacts of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil 

spill, and cleanup on live bottom (low-relief) features in the CPA. This incomplete or unavailable 

information may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant impacts to live bottom (low-relief) 

features. BOEM has determined that this incomplete or unavailable information may be essential to a 

reasoned choice among alternatives for the reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS. Relevant data on the status of live bottom (low-relief) features after the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, however, may take years to acquire and analyze. Much of this 

data is being developed through the NRDA process, which is expected to take years to complete. Little 

data from the NRDA process have been made available to date. Therefore, it is not possible for BOEM to 

obtain this information within the timeframe contemplated by this NEPA analysis, regardless of the cost 

or resources needed. In the place of this incomplete or unavailable information, as noted above, BOEM’s 

subject-matter experts have used available scientifically credible evidence in this analysis and applied it 

using accepted scientific methods and approaches.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for live bottoms (low-relief features) presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, with the understanding that no new information on these features has been 

published since the publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Therefore, no new 

significant information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for the live bottom, lowrelief features presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts 

detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

4.2.1.7. Topographic Features

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for topographic features presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for topographic features presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the CPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of topographic features in the CPA can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.7.1 of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The potential impact-producing factors on topographic features of the CPA are anchoring, 

infrastructure emplacement, drilling-effluent and produced-water discharges, and infrastructure removal. 

These disturbances have the potential to disrupt and alter the environmental, commercial, recreational, 

and aesthetic values of topographic features in the CPA. A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts 

of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on topographic features can be found in 

Chapter 4.2.1.7.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The Topographic Features Stipulation, if applied, would prevent most of the potential impacts on 

topographic features from bottom-disturbing activities (structure removal and emplacement) and 

operational discharges associated with the CPA proposed action through avoidance, by requiring 

individual activities to be located at specified distances from the feature or zone. Because of the No 

Activity Zone, a buffer that surrounds topographic features in which no bottom-disturbing activity is 

permitted, additional protective zones in which bottom shunting is required, permit restrictions (including 

the USEPA discharge regulations and permits), and the high-energy environment and prevailing water 

currents associated with topographic features, if any contaminants reach topographic features, they would 

be diluted from their original concentration, and impacts that do occur would be minimal.

Disturbances resulting from the CPA proposed action, including oil spills and blowouts, have the 

potential to disrupt and alter the environmental, commercial, recreational, and aesthetic values of 

topographic features of the CPA. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be 
4-116 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on topographic features can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.7.3 

of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The proposed Topographic Features Stipulation, if applied, would assist in preventing most of the 

potential impacts on topographic feature communities from blowouts, surface, and subsurface oil spills

and the associated effects by increasing the distance of such events from the topographic features. It 

would be expected that the majority of oil would rapidly rise to the surface and that the most heavily oiled 

sediments would likely be deposited on the seafloor before reaching the topographic features. Any 

contact with spilled oil would likely cause sublethal effects to benthic organisms because the distance of 

activity would prevent contact with concentrated oil. In the unlikely event that oil from a subsurface spill 

would reach the biota of a topographic feature, the effects would be primarily sublethal and impacts 

would be at the community level. Any turbidity, sedimentation, and oil adsorbed to sediments would also 

be at low concentrations by the time the topographic features were reached, also resulting in sublethal 

impacts. Impacts from an oil spill on topographic features are also lessened by the distance of the spill to 

the features, the depth of the features, and the currents that surround the features.

The cumulative impact from routine oil and gas operations includes effects resulting from the CPA 

proposed action, as well as those resulting from past and future OCS leasing. These operations include 

anchoring, structure emplacement, muds and cuttings discharge, effluent discharge, blowouts, oil spills, 

and structure removal. Potential non-OCS-related factors include vessel anchoring, treasure-hunting 

activities, import tankering, heavy storms and hurricanes, the collapse of the tops of the topographic 

features due to dissolution of the underlying salt structure, commercial fishing, and recreational scuba 

diving. A detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed 

CPA Lease Sale 231 on topographic features can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.7.4 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Activities causing mechanical disturbance represent the greatest threat to the topographic features. 

With respect to OCS leasing-related activities, this would, however, be prevented by the continued 

application of the proposed Topographic Features Stipulation. Potential OCS oil- and gas-related impacts 

include anchoring of vessels and structure emplacement, operational discharges (drilling muds and 

cuttings, and produced waters), blowouts, oil spills, and structure removal.

The proposed Topographic Features Stipulation would preclude mechanical damage caused by oil 

and gas leaseholders from impacting the benthic communities of the topographic features and would 

protect them from operational discharges by establishing a buffer around the feature. As such, little 

impact would be incurred by the biota of the topographic features. The USEPA discharge regulations and 

permits would further reduce discharge-related impacts.

Blowouts could potentially cause damage to benthic biota; however, due to the application of the 

proposed Topographic Features Stipulation, blowouts would not reach the No Activity Zone surrounding 

the topographic features and associated biota, resulting in little impact on the features. If a subsea oil 

plume is formed, it could contact the habitats of a topographic feature; this contact may be restricted to 

the lower, less sensitive levels of the banks and/or may be swept around the banks with the prevailing 

water currents. The farther the oil source is from the bank, the more dilute and degraded the oil would be 

when it reaches the vicinity of the topographic features.

Oil spills can cause damage to benthic organisms when the oil contacts the organisms. The proposed 

Topographic Features Stipulation would keep sources of OCS oil and gas spills at least 152 m (500 ft) 

away from the immediate biota of the topographic features. The majority of oil released below the sea 

surface rises and should not physically contact organisms on topographic features inside a No Activity 

Zone. In the unlikely event that oil from a subsurface spill would reach the biota of a topographic feature, 

it would be physically or chemically dispersed to low concentrations by the time it reached the feature, 

and the effects would be primarily sublethal. In the very unlikely event that oil from a subsurface spill 

reached an area containing hermatypic coral cover in lethal concentrations, the recovery could take in 

excess of 10 years (Fucik et al., 1984). Finally, in the unlikely event a freighter, tanker, or other 

oceangoing vessel related to OCS Program activities or non-oil- and gas-related activities sank and 

proceeded to collide with the topographic features or associated habitat releasing its cargo, recovery could 

take years to decades, depending on the extent of the damage. Because these events are rare in 

occurrence, the potential of impacts from these events is considered low.

Non-oil and gas activities could mechanically disrupt the bottom (such as anchoring and treasurehunting activities, as previously described). Natural events such as hurricanes or the collapse of the tops 

of the topographic features (through dissolution of the underlying salt structure) could cause severe 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-117

impacts. The collapsing of topographic features is unlikely and would impact a single feature. Impacts 

from scuba diving, fishing, ocean dumping, and discharges or spills from tankering of imported oil could 

have detrimental effects on topographic features.

Overall, the incremental contribution of the CPA proposed action to the cumulative impact is 

negligible when compared with non-oil and gas impacts. Where the proposed Topographic Features

Stipulation is applied, mechanical impacts (anchoring and structure emplacement) and impacts from 

operational discharges (produced waters, drilling fluids, cuttings) or accidental discharges (oil spills, 

blowouts) would be removed from the immediate area surrounding the topographic features. However, if 

the stipulation is not applied, acute long-term injury to topographic features may occur as a result of the 

CPA proposed action.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS

A search of Internet information sources (the NOAA Gulf Spill Restoration Publications website, the 

ERMA Gulf Response website, the NOAA Deepwater Horizon Archive Publications and Factsheets, the 

Gulf of Mexico Sea Grant Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Research and Monitoring Activities Database, 

RestoreTheGulf.gov website; and the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Portal), as well as recently published 

journal articles and Federal documents was conducted to determine the availability of recent information 

on topographic features. The search revealed new information on the proposed threatened/endangered 

listing of coral species in the GOM, information that is pertinent to this Supplemental EIS. 

In 2009, a petition was submitted to NOAA Fisheries by the Center for Biological Diversity to list 

82 additional species of coral under the ESA (USDOC, NOAA, 2012a). Those 82 “candidate species” 

were reviewed by NOAA Fisheries. In April 2012, NOAA Fisheries completed a Status Review Report 

and a Draft Management Report of the candidate species of corals, and on December 7, 2012, the 

Proposed Listing Determinations for 82 Reef-Building Coral Species and Proposed Reclassification of 

Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis from threatened to endangered was published in the Federal 

Register (2012b). The coral found in the CPA (on McGrail Bank) proposed for listing as threatened is 

Agaricia lamarcki. If these proposed species are listed, then BOEM would consult with NOAA Fisheries 

under Section 7 of the ESA if an action may affect the listed species or designated critical habitat, as 

BOEM currently does for other listed species.

Limited data are currently available on potential impacts of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil 

spill, and cleanup on the topographic features in the CPA. This incomplete or unavailable information 

may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant impacts to topographic features. Relevant data on 

the status of topographic features after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup may take 

years to acquire and analyze. Much of this data is being developed through the NRDA process, which 

may take years to complete. Little data from the NRDA process have been made available to date. 

Therefore, it is not possible for BOEM to obtain this information within the timeframe contemplated by 

this NEPA analysis, regardless of the cost or resources needed. BOEM has determined that this 

incomplete or unavailable information may be essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives for the 

reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. In the place of this incomplete or 

unavailable information, BOEM’s subject-matter experts have used available scientifically credible 

evidence in this analysis and applied it using accepted scientific methods and approaches.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for topographic features presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, with the understanding that no new information on topographic features has been 

published since the release of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Therefore, no new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for topographic features presented in 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

4.2.1.8. Sargassum Communities

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for Sargassum communities presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for Sargassum communities presented 
4-118 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the CPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of Sargassum communities can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.8.1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Impact-producing factors associated with routine events for the CPA proposed action that could affect 

Sargassum may include the following: (1) drilling discharges (muds and cuttings); (2) produced water 

and well treatment chemicals; (3) operational discharges (deck drainage, sanitary and domestic water, 

bilge and ballast water); and (4) physical disturbance from vessel traffic and the presence of exploration 

and production structures (i.e., rigs, platforms, and MODU’s). A detailed impact analysis of the routine 

impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on Sargassum communities can 

be found in Chapter 4.2.1.8.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Sargassum, as pelagic algae, is a widely distributed resource that is ubiquitous throughout the 

northern Gulf of Mexico and northwest Atlantic. Considering its ubiquitous distribution and occurrence 

in the upper water column near the sea surface, it may be contacted by routine discharges from oil and gas 

operations. All routine discharges, including produced water, and operational discharges (e.g., deck 

runoff, bilge water, sanitary effluent, etc.) could potentially contact Sargassum algae. However, the 

quantity and volume of these discharges is relatively small compared with the pelagic waters of the CPA 

(268,922 km2

; 103,831 mi2). Therefore, although discharges would contact Sargassum, they would only 

contact a very small portion of the Sargassum population. Because these discharges are highly regulated 

to control toxicity and because they would continue to be diluted in the Gulf water, reducing 

concentrations of any toxic component, produced-water impacts on Sargassum would be minimal.

The impingement effects of discharges by service vessels and working platforms and drillships would 

contact only a very small portion of the Sargassum population. Likewise, impingement effects by service 

vessels and working platforms and drillships would contact only a very small portion of the Sargassum

population. The impacts to Sargassum that are associated with the CPA proposed action are expected to 

have only minor effects to a small portion of the Sargassum community as a whole and would be resilient 

to the minor effects predicted. Sargassum has a yearly cycle that promotes quick recovery from impacts. 

No measurable impacts are expected to the overall population of the Sargassum community. 

Impact-producing factors associated with accidental events for the CPA proposed action that could 

affect Sargassum and its associated communities include (1) surface oil and fuel spills and underwater 

well blowouts, (2) spill-response activities, and (3) chemical spills. These impacting factors would have 

varied effects depending on the intensity of the spill and the presence of Sargassum in the area of the 

spill. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be associated with proposed CPA 

Lease Sale 231 on Sargassum communities can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.8.3 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

All types of spills including surface oil and fuel spills, underwater well blowouts, and chemical spills 

could potentially contact Sargassum algae. The quantity and volume of most of these spills would be 

relatively small compared with the pelagic waters of the CPA (268,922 km2

; 103,831 mi2). Therefore, 

most spills would only contact a very small portion of the Sargassum population. Accidental spills would 

be diluted by the Gulf water and, therefore, concentrations of toxic components would also be reduced in 

this scenario. The impacts to Sargassum that are associated with the CPA proposed action are expected to 

have only minor effects to a small portion of the Sargassum community unless a catastrophic spill occurs. 

In the case of a very large spill, the Sargassum algae community could suffer severe impacts to a sizable 

portion of the population in the northern Gulf of Mexico. The Sargassum community lives in pelagic 

waters with generally high water quality and is expected to show good resilience to the predicted effects 

of spills. It has a yearly growth cycle that promotes quick recovery from impacts and that would be 

expected to restore typical population levels in 1-2 growing seasons.

Several impacting factors can affect Sargassum, including impingement by structures and marine 

vessels, oil and gas drilling discharges, operational discharges, accidental spills, hurricanes, and coastal 

water quality. A detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-119

proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on Sargassum communities can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.8.4 of the 2012-

2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Because of the ephemeral (temporary) nature of Sargassum communities, many activities associated 

with the CPA proposed action would have a localized and short-term effect. Sargassum occurs seasonally 

in almost every part of the northern Gulf of Mexico, resulting in a wide distribution over a very large 

area. However, its occurrence is patchy, drifting in floating mats that are occasionally impinged on ships 

and on oil and gas structures. The large, scattered, patchy distribution results in only a small portion of 

the total population contacting ships, structures, or drilling discharges. There is also a low probability of 

a catastrophic spill to occur with the CPA proposed action. If such a spill did occur, Sargassum in that 

area is expected to suffer mortality. Offshore activities other than oil and gas activities also have the 

potential to affect Sargassum algae. Shipping traffic would be the largest non-oil and gas activity to 

impact Sargassum. Impingement, routine discharges, and accidental spills could all affect Sargassum. 

However, because of the wide, patchy distribution of Sargassum, these activities would have only 

localized effects. The incremental contribution of the CPA proposed action to the overall cumulative 

impacts on Sargassum communities that would result from the OCS Program, environmental factors, and 

non-OCS-related user group activities is expected to be minimal.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

A search was conducted for new information published since the publication of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. A search of Internet information sources, including scientific journals, 

published information from universities and research institutes, and governmental resource agencies, was 

conducted to determine the availability of new information. No new analyses have been published.

There remains incomplete or unavailable information on the effects of the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup on Sargassum that may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant 

adverse impacts. What scientifically credible information is available has been applied by BOEM’s 

subject-matter experts using accepted scientific methodologies. Samples and results developed as part of 

the NRDA process have not been released and there is no timeline for this information becoming 

available. Nevertheless, BOEM has determined that this incomplete or unavailable information is not 

essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives for the reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, including because Sargassum is widely distributed throughout the Gulf and the 

yearly cycle of replenishment for Sargassum indicates that impacts from the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup would be significantly reduced or eliminated within a year or two.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for Sargassum communities presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for Sargassum communities presented 

in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

4.2.1.9. Chemosynthetic Deepwater Benthic Communities

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for chemosynthetic deepwater benthic communities presented in 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new 

significant information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for chemosynthetic 

deepwater benthic communities presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and 

potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease 

Sale 231.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the CPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of chemosynthetic communities can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.9.1 of the 2012-

2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.
4-120 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Considerable mechanical damage could be inflicted upon deepwater chemosynthetic communities by 

routine OCS drilling activities associated with the CPA proposed action if mitigations are not applied. 

Bottom-disturbing activities associated with anchoring, structure emplacement, pipelaying, and structure 

removal cause localized bottom disturbances and disruption of benthic communities in the immediate 

area. Routine discharge of drill cuttings with associated muds can also affect the seafloor. Discharges of 

produced waters on the sea surface, chemical spills, and deck runoff would be diluted in surface waters, 

having no effect on seafloor habitats. Impacts from bottom-disturbing activities directly on 

chemosynthetic communities are expected to be extremely rare because of the application of required 

protective measures described by NTL 2009-G40. A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts of 

OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on chemosynthetic communities can be 

found in Chapter 4.2.1.9.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Chemosynthetic communities are susceptible to physical impacts from anchoring, structure 

emplacement, pipeline installation, structure removal, and drilling discharges. Without mitigation 

measures, these activities could result in smothering by the suspension of sediments or the crushing of 

organisms residing in these communities. Because of the avoidance policies described in NTL 2009-G40, 

the risk of these physical impacts are greatly reduced by requiring the avoidance of potential 

chemosynthetic communities. Information included in required hazards surveys for oil and gas activities 

depicts areas that could potentially harbor chemosynthetic communities. This allows BOEM to require 

avoidance of any areas that are conducive to chemosynthetic growth. If a high-density community is 

subjected to direct impacts by bottom-disturbing activities, potentially severe or catastrophic impacts 

could occur due to raking of the sea bottom by anchors and anchor chains and partial or complete burial 

by muds and cuttings. The severity of such an impact is such that there would be incremental losses of 

productivity, reproduction, community relationships, and overall ecological functions of the local 

community, and incremental damage to ecological relationships with the surrounding benthos.

Studies indicate that periods as long as hundreds of years are required to reestablish a seep 

community once it has disappeared (depending on the community type), although it may reappear 

relatively quickly once the process begins, as in the case of a mussel community (Powell, 1995; Fisher, 

1995). Tube-worm communities may be the most sensitive of all communities because of the combined 

requirements of hard substrate and active hydrocarbon seepage.

Routine activities of the CPA proposed action are expected to cause no damage to the ecological 

function or biological productivity of chemosynthetic communities. Widely scattered, high-density 

chemosynthetic communities would not be expected to experience impacts from oil and gas activities in 

deep water because the impacts would be limited by protections, as described in NTL 2009-G40. Impacts 

on chemosynthetic communities from routine activities associated with the CPA proposed action would 

be minimal to none.

Accidental events that could impact chemosynthetic communities are primarily limited to seafloor 

blowouts. A blowout at the seafloor could create a crater and could resuspend and disperse large 

quantities of bottom sediments within a 300-m (984-ft) radius from the blowout site. This could bury 

organisms located within that distance to some degree. The application of avoidance criteria for 

chemosynthetic communities described in NTL 2009-G40 precludes the placement of a well within 610 m 

(2,000 ft) of any suspected site of a chemosynthetic community, therefore distancing the chemosynthetic 

community from sedimentation resulting from a possible blowout. A detailed impact analysis of the 

accidental impacts that may be associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on chemosynthetic 

communities can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.9.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Chemosynthetic communities could be susceptible to physical impacts from a blowout depending on 

bottom-current conditions. The guidance provided in NTL 2009-G40 greatly reduces the risk of these 

physical impacts by requiring a buffer of 610 m (2,000 ft) from wells. It clarifies the requirement to 

avoid potential chemosynthetic communities identified on the required geophysical survey records prior 

to approval of the structure emplacement. The 610-m (2,000-ft) avoidance required would protect 

sensitive communities from heavy sedimentation, with only light sediment components able to reach the 

communities in small quantities.

Studies indicate that periods as long as hundreds of years are required to reestablish a seep 

community once it has disappeared (depending on the community type) (Powell, 1995; Fisher, 1995). 

There is evidence that substantial impacts on these communities could permanently prevent 

reestablishment, particularly if hard substrate required for recolonization is buried by resuspended 

sediments from a blowout. 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-121

Potential accidental impacts from the CPA proposed action are expected to cause little damage to the 

ecological function or biological productivity of widely scattered, high-density chemosynthetic 

communities located at more than 610 m (2,000 ft) away from a blowout. Chemosynthetic communities 

could experience minor impacts from resuspended sediments that travel with currents, although the 

sediment concentration would be diluted with distance from the well. If dispersants are applied to an oil 

spill, or if oil is ejected under high pressure, oil would mix into the water column, be carried by 

underwater currents, and eventually contact the seafloor in some form, either concentrated (near the 

source) or decayed (farther from the source), where it may impact patches of chemosynthetic community 

habitat in its path. As with sediments, the farther the dispersed oil travels, the more diluted it will become 

as it mixes with surrounding water.

Accidental impacts associated with the CPA proposed action would likely result in only minimal 

impacts to chemosynthetic communities with adherence to the proposed biological stipulation and the 

guidelines described in NTL 2009-G40. One exception would be in the case of a catastrophic spill 

combined with the application of dispersant or high-pressure ejection of oil, producing the potential to 

cause devastating effects on local patches of habitat in the path of subsea plumes where they physically 

contact the seafloor. The possible impacts, however, will be localized due to the directional movement of 

oil plumes by the water currents and because the sensitive habitats have a scattered, patchy distribution. 

Oil plumes that remain in the water column for longer periods would disperse and decay, having only 

minimal effect.

Cumulative factors considered to impact the deepwater benthic communities (>300 m; 984 ft) of the 

Gulf of Mexico include both oil- and gas-related and non-oil- and non-gas-related activities. The latter 

type of impacting factors include activities such as fishing and trawling at a relatively small scale, and 

large-scale factors such as storm impacts and climate change. A detailed impact analysis of the 

cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on chemosynthetic 

communities can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.9.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Cumulative impacts to deepwater communities in the Gulf of Mexico are considered negligible 

because of their remoteness from most impacts and because of the application of BOEM’s avoidance 

criteria as described in NTL 2009-G40. The most serious, impact-producing factor threatening 

chemosynthetic communities is physical disturbance of the seafloor, which could destroy the organisms 

of these communities. Such disturbance would most likely come from those OCS-related activities 

associated with pipelaying, anchoring, structure emplacement, and seafloor blowouts. Drilling discharges

and resuspended sediments have a potential to cause minor, mostly sublethal impacts to chemosynthetic 

communities, but substantial accumulations could result in more serious impacts. Possible catastrophic 

oil spills due to seafloor blowouts have the potential to devastate localized deepwater benthic habitats. 

However, these events are rare and would only affect a small portion of the sensitive benthic habitat in the 

Gulf of Mexico. Recent analyses reveal over 21,000 possible hard-bottom locations across the deepwater 

GOM (Shedd et al., 2011). Guidance provided in NTL 2009-G40 describes required surveys and 

avoidance prior to drilling or pipeline installation and would greatly reduce risk. New studies have 

refined predictive information and confirmed the effectiveness of these provisions throughout all depth 

ranges of the Gulf of Mexico (Brooks et al., 2009). With the dramatic success of this project, confidence 

is increasing regarding the use of geophysical signatures for the prediction of chemosynthetic 

communities. 

Activities unrelated to the OCS Program include fishing and trawling. Because of the water depths in 

these areas (>300 m; 984 ft) and the low density of potentially commercially valuable fishery species, 

these activities are not expected to impact deepwater benthic comminutes. Regionwide and even global 

impacts from CO2 build-up and proposed methods to sequester carbon in the deep sea (e.g., ocean 

fertilization) are not expected to have major impacts to deepwater habitats in the near future. More 

distant scenarios could include severe impacts.

The proposed activities in the CPA considered under the cumulative scenario are not expected to 

cause damage to the ecological function or biological productivity of widely scattered, high-density 

chemosynthetic communities. They could experience isolated minor impacts from drilling discharges or 

resuspended sediments, with recovery expected within several years, but even minor impacts are not 

expected. Major impacts to localized benthic habitat are possible in the event of a catastrophic blowout

on the seafloor, particularly when chemical dispersants are applied to oil releases at depth or if oil is 

ejected under high pressure. If physical disturbance (such as anchor damage) or extensive burial by muds 

and cuttings were to occur to high-density communities, impacts could be severe, with recovery time as 
4-122 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

long as 200 years for mature tube-worm communities. There is evidence that substantial impacts on these 

communities could permanently prevent reestablishment. Other sublethal impacts include possible 

incremental losses of productivity, reproduction, community relationships, overall ecological functions of 

the community, and incremental damage to ecological relationships with the surrounding benthos.

Although OCS activities are the primary impact-producing factors for these communities, the 

incremental contribution of the CPA proposed action to cumulative impacts is expected to be minimal. 

BOEM’s protective measures would minimize the possible impacts caused by physical disturbance of the 

seafloor and minor impacts from sediment resuspension or drill cutting discharges through avoidance. 

Adverse impacts would be limited but not completely eliminated by adherence to guidelines in NTL 

2009-G40. 

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

A broad Internet search for relevant new information and scientific journal articles published since 

the publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS was conducted using a publicly available 

search engine. The websites for Federal and State agencies, as well as other organizations, were reviewed 

for newly released information. Sources investigated include the NOAA Ocean Exploration website, the 

Gulf of Mexico Alliance, USEPA, USGS, and coastal universities. Ongoing NOAA- and National 

Science Foundation-funded research projects are investigating chemosynthetic communities and impacts 

from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. No new analyses have been published 

since the publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Studies and data are continuing to be developed in response to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil 

spill, and cleanup. This information will likely be developed through the NRDA process. Unavailable 

information on the effects to chemosynthetic communities from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil 

spill, and cleanup may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant impacts on chemosynthetic 

communities. The NRDA process is investigating impacts to chemosynthetic communities; the limited 

available information has been considered in this analysis. It may be years before relevant information 

becomes available, and certainly not within the timeframe contemplated by this NEPA analysis. It is not 

within BOEM’s ability to obtain this information, regardless of the costs involved. Nevertheless, BOEM 

believes that this incomplete or unavailable information would not be essential to a reasoned choice 

among alternatives for the reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, 

including because chemosynthetic communities are found throughout the Gulf and are in patchy 

distributions, minimizing the number that would be likely to be impacted by any single event. BOEM’s 

subject-matter experts have included what credible scientific information is available and applied it using 

accepted scientific methodologies.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for chemosynthetic deepwater benthic communities presented in 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new 

significant information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for chemosynthetic 

communities presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts 

detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

4.2.1.10.Nonchemosynthetic Deepwater Benthic Communities

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for nonchemosynthetic deepwater benthic communities presented 

in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No 

new significant information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for nonchemosynthetic 

deepwater benthic communities presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and 

potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease 

Sale 231.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the CPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts 

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-123

A detailed description of nonchemosynthetic communities can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.10.1 of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Considerable mechanical damage could be inflicted upon sensitive nonchemosynthetic deepwater 

benthic communities by routine OCS drilling activities associated with the CPA proposed action if 

mitigations are not applied. Deepwater live bottom communities, primarily structured by the coral 

Lophelia pertusa, are the nonchemosynthetic deepwater benthic communities that would be sensitive to 

impacts from oil and gas activities. Bottom-disturbing activities associated with anchoring, structure 

emplacement, pipelaying, and structure removal cause localized bottom disturbances and disruption of 

benthic communities in the localized areas. Routine discharge of drill cuttings with associated muds can 

also affect the seafloor. Discharges of produced waters on the sea surface, chemical spills, and deck 

runoff would be diluted in surface waters, having no effect on seafloor habitats. Impacts from bottomdisturbing activities directly on deepwater coral communities are expected to be extremely rare because of 

the application of required protective measures described by NTL 2009-G40. A detailed impact analysis 

of the routine impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on 

nonchemosynthetic communities can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.10.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

Deepwater nonchemosynthetic communities are susceptible to physical impacts from anchoring, 

structure emplacement, pipeline installation, structure removal, and drilling discharges. Some impact to 

soft bottom benthic communities from drilling and production activities would occur as a result of 

physical impacts and drilling discharges regardless of their locations. However, even in situations where 

the substantial burial of typical, soft bottom benthic infaunal communities occurred, recolonization of 

populations from widespread neighboring soft bottom substrate would be expected over a relatively short 

period of time for all size ranges of organisms.

If a sensitive live bottom community is subjected to direct impacts by bottom-disturbing activities, 

potentially severe or catastrophic impacts could occur due to raking of the sea bottom by anchors and 

anchor chains and partial or complete burial by muds and cuttings. The severity of such an impact is such 

that there would be incremental losses of productivity, reproduction, community relationships, and overall 

ecological functions of the local community, and incremental damage to ecological relationships with the 

surrounding benthos. Should this occur, it could result in recovery times in the order of decades or more, 

with the possibility of the community never recovering (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations, 2008; Jones, 1992; Probert et al., 1997).

Routine activities associated with the CPA proposed action are not expected to cause damage to the 

ecological function or biological productivity of sensitive deepwater live bottom communities (deep coral 

reefs) due to the consistent application of BOEM’s protection policies as described in NTL 2009-G40. 

Information included in required hazards surveys for oil and gas activities depicts areas that could 

potentially harbor nonchemosynthetic communities. This allows BOEM to require avoidance of any 

areas that are conducive to the growth of sensitive hard-bottom communities. The same geophysical 

conditions associated with the potential presence of chemosynthetic communities also results in the 

potential occurrence of hard carbonate substrate and other associated, deepwater live bottom 

communities. Because of the NTL 2009-G40 guidelines, these communities are generally avoided in 

exploration and development planning and in bottom-disturbing activities. Impacts on sensitive 

deepwater communities from routine activities associated with the CPA proposed action would be 

minimal to none.

Impacts on sensitive deepwater communities from routine activities associated with the CPA 

proposed action would be minimal to none.

Accidental events that could impact nonchemosynthetic deepwater benthic communities are primarily 

limited to seafloor blowouts. A blowout at the seafloor could create a crater and could resuspend and 

disperse large quantities of bottom sediments within a 300-m (984-ft) radius from the blowout site. This 

would destroy any organisms located within that distance by burial or modification of narrow habitat 

quality requirements. Physical disturbance or destruction of a limited area of benthos or to a limited 

number of megafauna organisms (e.g., brittle stars, sea pens, and crabs) would not result in a major 

impact to the deepwater benthos ecosystem as a whole or even in relation to a small area of the seabed 

within a lease block. The application of avoidance criteria for deepwater coral communities described in 

NTL 2009-G40 precludes the placement of a well within 610 m (2,000 ft) of any suspected site of a 

deepwater coral community, therefore distancing the community from sedimentation resulting from a 

possible blowout. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be associated with 
4-124 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on nonchemosynthetic communities can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.10.3 of 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Deepwater live bottom communities could be susceptible to physical impacts from a blowout

depending on bottom-current conditions. The guidance provided in NTL 2009-G40 and proposed 

stipulations included in lease sales greatly reduce the risk of these physical impacts. The guidance 

provided in NTL 2009-G40 and the proposed stipulations clarifies the requirement to avoid potential 

deepwater live bottom communities identified on the required geophysical survey records prior to 

approval of the structure emplacement. Substantial impacts on these communities could permanently 

prevent reestablishment, particularly if hard substrate required for recolonization is buried by resuspended 

sediments from a blowout.

Accidental events resulting from the CPA proposed action are expected to cause localized damage to 

the ecological function or biological productivity of widespread, typical, soft bottom benthic 

communities, with no measurable effect on the wider ecosystem. Some localized impact to benthic 

communities would occur as a result of impact from an accidental blowout. Megafauna and infauna 

communities at or below the sediment/water interface would be impacted by the physical disturbance of a 

blowout or by burial from resuspended sediments. However, even in situations where the substantial 

burial of typical soft benthic communities occurred, recolonization by populations from neighboring 

substrate would be expected over a relatively short period for all size ranges of organisms; this can be in a 

matter of hours to days for bacteria and about 1-2 years for macrofauna species.

Impacts to deepwater coral habitats and other potential hard-bottom communities would likely be 

avoided as a consequence of the application of the policies described in NTL 2009-G40. The rare, widely 

scattered, high-density, deepwater live bottom communities located at more than 610 m (2,000 ft) away 

from a blowout could experience minor impacts from resuspended sediments that travel with currents, 

although the sediment concentration would be diluted with distance from the well. If dispersants are 

applied to an oil spill or if oil is ejected into deep water under high pressure (resulting in vigorous 

turbulence and the formation of micro-droplets), oil could mix into the water column, be carried by 

underwater currents, and eventually contact the seafloor where it may impact patches of sensitive 

deepwater community habitat in its path. As with sediments, the farther the dispersed oil travels, the 

more diluted it will become as it mixes with surrounding water. These potential impacts would be 

localized because of the directional movement of oil plumes by the water currents, because the sensitive 

habitats have a scattered and patchy distribution, because the sediments and oil disperse with distance, 

and because bacteria degrade the oil over time (and distance).

Accidental impacts associated with the CPA proposed action would typically result in only minimal 

impacts to nonchemosynthetic communities with adherence to the guidelines described in NTL 

2009-G40. One exception would be in the case of a catastrophic spill combined with the application of 

dispersant, or if oil is ejected under high pressure, producing the potential to cause devastating effects on 

local patches of habitat in the path of subsea plumes where they physically contact the seafloor 

(Appendix B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). If such an event were to occur, it could take 

hundreds of years to reestablish the chemosynthetic community in that location. The possible impacts, 

however, would be localized due to the directional movement of oil plumes by the water currents and 

because the sensitive habitats have a scattered, patchy distribution. Oil plumes that remain in the water 

column for longer periods would disperse and decay, having only minimal effect. Periods as long as 

hundreds of years are required to reestablish a chemosynthetic seep community once it has disappeared 

(depending on the community type), although it may reappear relatively quickly once the process begins.

Cumulative factors considered to impact the deepwater benthic communities (>300 m; 984 ft) of the 

Gulf of Mexico include both oil- and gas-related and non-oil- and non-gas-related activities. The latter 

type of impacting factors includes activities such as fishing and trawling at a relatively small scale, and 

large-scale factors such as storm impacts and climate change. A detailed impact analysis of the 

cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on 

nonchemosynthetic communities can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.10.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

Cumulative impacts to deepwater communities in the Gulf of Mexico are considered negligible 

because of the application of the avoidance criteria described in NTL 2009-G40. The most serious, 

impact-producing factor threatening nonchemosynthetic communities is physical disturbance of the 

seafloor, which could destroy the organisms of these communities. Such disturbance would most likely 

come from those OCS-related activities associated with pipelaying, anchoring, structure emplacement, 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-125

and seafloor blowouts. Drilling discharges and resuspended sediments have a potential to cause minor, 

mostly sublethal impacts to nonchemosynthetic communities, but substantial accumulations could result 

in more serious impacts. Seafloor disturbance is considered to be a threat only to the high-density 

communities; widely distributed low-density communities would not be at risk. Possible catastrophic oil 

spills due to seafloor blowouts have the potential to devastate localized deepwater benthic habitats. 

However, these events are rare and would only affect a small portion of the sensitive benthic habitat in the 

Gulf of Mexico. Recent analyses reveal over 15,000 possible hard-bottom locations across the deepwater 

Gulf of Mexico. However, because the guidance provided in NTL 2009-G40 describes required surveys 

and avoidance prior to drilling or pipeline installation, the risk would be greatly reduced. New studies 

have refined predictive information and confirmed the effectiveness of these provisions throughout all 

depth ranges of the Gulf of Mexico (Brooks et al., 2009). With the dramatic success of this project, 

confidence is increasing regarding the use of geophysical signatures for the prediction of 

nonchemosynthetic communities.

Activities unrelated to the OCS Program include fishing and trawling. Because of the water depths in 

these areas (>300 m; 984 ft) and the low density of potentially commercially valuable fishery species, 

these activities are not expected to impact deepwater benthic comminutes. Regionwide and even global 

impacts from CO2 build-up and proposed methods to sequester carbon in the deep sea (e.g., ocean 

fertilization) are not expected to have major impacts to deepwater habitats in the near future. More 

distant scenarios could include severe impacts.

The proposed activities in the CPA considered under the cumulative scenario are not expected to 

cause damage to the ecological function or biological productivity of widespread, low-density deepwater

communities. The rarer, widely scattered, high-density communities could experience isolated minor 

impacts from drilling discharges or resuspended sediments, with recovery expected within several years, 

but even minor impacts are not expected. Major impacts to localized benthic habitat are possible in the 

event of a catastrophic blowout on the seafloor, particularly when chemical dispersants are applied to oil 

releases at depth or when oil is ejected under high pressure, forming subsea oil plumes. If physical 

disturbance (such as anchor damage) or extensive burial by muds and cuttings were to occur to highdensity communities, impacts could be severe, with recovery time as long as 200 years for mature 

communities. There is evidence that substantial impacts on these communities could permanently prevent 

reestablishment. Other sublethal impacts include possible incremental losses of productivity, 

reproduction, community relationships, overall ecological functions of the community, and incremental 

damage to ecological relationships with the surrounding benthos.

The cumulative impacts on nonchemosynthetic benthic communities are expected to cause little 

damage to the ecological function or biological productivity of the expected typical communities existing 

on sand/silt/clay bottoms of the deep Gulf of Mexico. Large motile animals would tend to move, and 

recolonization of populations from neighboring substrates would be expected in any areas impacted by 

burial. The cumulative impacts on deepwater coral or other high-density, hard-bottom communities are 

expected to be negligible and to cause little damage to the overall ecological function or biological 

productivity. 

Although OCS activities are the primary impact-producing factors for these communities, the 

incremental contribution of the CPA proposed action to cumulative impacts is expected to be minimal. 

The possible impacts to these communities are decreased through BOEM’s biological review process and 

the policies described in NTL 2009-G40, which physically distances petroleum-producing activities from 

sensitive deepwater benthic communities. The incremental contribution of the CPA proposed action to 

cumulative impacts is expected to be slight and to result from the effects of the possible impacts caused 

by physical disturbance of the seafloor and minor impacts from sediment resuspension or drill cutting 

discharges. Adverse impacts would be limited but not completely eliminated by adherence to guidelines 

in NTL 2009-G40. 

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

A broad Internet search for relevant new information and scientific journal articles published since 

the publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS was conducted using a publicly available 

search engine. The websites for Federal and State agencies, as well as other organizations were reviewed 

for newly released information. Sources investigated include the NOAA Ocean Exploration website, the 

Gulf of Mexico Alliance, USEPA, USGS, and coastal universities. Ongoing research projects funded by 
4-126 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

NOAA and the National Science Foundation are investigating nonchemosynthetic communities and 

impacts from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. No new analyses that are relevant 

to the above analysis have been published since the publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS. 

Studies and data are continuing to be developed in response to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil 

spill, and cleanup. This information will likely be developed through the NRDA process. Unavailable 

information on the effects to nonchemosynthetic communities from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil 

spill, and cleanup may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant impacts. The NRDA process is 

investigating impacts to nonchemosynthetic communities, but information collected to date has not been 

made available to the public. It may be years before this information becomes available, and certainly not 

within the timeframe contemplated by this NEPA analysis. It is not within BOEM’s ability to obtain this 

information, regardless of the costs involved. Nevertheless, BOEM believes that this incomplete or 

unavailable information would not be essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives for the reasons 

stated herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, including because nonchemosynthetic 

communities are found throughout the Gulf and are in patchy distributions, minimizing the number that 

would be likely to be impacted by any single event. In addition, available data indicate significant 

impacts to one coral community; these impacts were only identified in one location 7 mi (11 km) 

downcurrent from the Macondo well site. BOEM’s subject-matter experts have included what credible 

scientific information is available and applied it using accepted scientific methodologies.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for nonchemosynthetic deepwater benthic communities presented 

in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No 

new significant information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for nonchemosynthetic 

communities presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts 

detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

4.2.1.11.Soft Bottom Benthic Communities

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for soft bottom benthic communities presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for soft bottom benthic communities 

presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the CPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of soft bottom benthic communities in the CPA can be found in Chapter 

4.2.1.11.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Impacts from routine oil and gas activities to the soft bottom benthic communities are discussed in 

this section, as a majority of the oil and gas exploration would be conducted in soft seafloor sediments. 

Potential impact-producing factors to these communities include infrastructure emplacement, turbidity 

and smothering, drilling-effluent and produced-water discharges, and infrastructure removal. 

Disturbances of soft bottom communities may cause localized alterations to infaunal communities and 

disruptions to food sources for some large invertebrate and finfish species. A detailed impact analysis of 

the routine impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on soft bottom 

benthic communities can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.11.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Impacts from routine activities of OCS oil and gas operations include anchoring, structure 

emplacement and removal, pipeline emplacement, drilling discharges, and discharges of produced waters. 

Although localized impacts to comparatively small areas of the soft bottom benthic communities would 

occur, the impacts would be on a relatively small area of the seafloor compared with the overall area of 

the seafloor of the CPA (268,922 km2

; 103,831 mi2) and the CPA and WPA combined (384,567 km2; 

148,482 mi2

). The estimated footprint of platforms on the continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico is 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-127

approximately 20,170,839 ft2 (1.874 km2; 0.724mi2) (LGL Ecological Research Associates, Inc. and 

Science Applications International Corporation, 1998), which is 0.0005 percent of the estimated area of 

seafloor in the CPA and WPA combined. Based on these values, the impacts that may occur to the 

seafloor around platforms would be a fraction of the entire soft bottom community of the GOM. The 

greatest impact is the alteration of benthic communities as a result of smothering, chemical toxicity, and 

substrate change. Communities that are smothered by cuttings repopulate, and populations that are 

eliminated as a result of sediment toxicity or organic enrichment would be taken over by more tolerant 

species. The community alterations are not so much the introduction of a new benthic community as a 

shift in species dominance (Montagna and Harper, 1996). These localized impacts generally occur within 

a few hundred meters of platforms, and the greatest impacts are seen close to the platform. These patchy 

habitats within the Gulf of Mexico are probably not very different from the early successional 

communities that predominate throughout areas of the Gulf of Mexico that are frequently disturbed 

(Rabalais et al., 2002a; Gaston et al., 1998; Diaz and Solow, 1999).

Any accidental activity that may affect the soft bottom communities would only impact a small 

portion of the overall area of the seafloor of the Gulf of Mexico. The soft bottom substrate is ubiquitous 

throughout the Gulf of Mexico. Although the likelihood of a low-probability, large-volume catastrophic 

spill remains remote (Appendix B of 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS), the types or kinds of impacts 

to soft bottom communities would likely be the same for a smaller scale accidental event. As such, the 

analysis below addresses both types of spills. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that 

may be associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on soft bottom benthic communities can be found 

in Chapter 4.2.1.11.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Because of the small amount of proportional space that OCS activities occupy on the seafloor, only a 

very small portion of the seafloor of the Gulf of Mexico would be expected to experience lethal impacts 

in an accidental event, as a result of blowouts, surface and subsurface oil spills, and their associated 

effects. The greatest impacts would be closest to the spill, and impacts would decrease with distance 

from the spill. Contact with spilled oil at a distance from the spill would likely cause sublethal to 

immeasurable effects to benthic organisms because the distance of activity would prevent contact with 

concentrated oil. Oil from a subsurface spill that reaches benthic communities would be primarily 

sublethal and impacts would be at the local community level. Any sedimentation and sedimented oil 

would also be at low concentrations by the time it reaches benthic communities far from the location of 

the spill, also resulting in sublethal impacts. Also, any local communities that are lost would be 

repopulated fairly rapidly (Neff, 2005). Although an oil spill may have some detrimental impacts, 

especially closest to the occurrence of the spill, the impacts may be no greater than natural biological 

fluctuations (Clark, 1982), and impacts would be to an extremely small portion of the overall Gulf of 

Mexico.

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

the Gulf of Mexico continental shelf. The CPA proposed action plus those actions related to prior and 

future OCS lease sales are considered; in this discussion, these are referred to as “OCS-related” factors. 

The vast majority of the Gulf of Mexico seabed is comprised of soft sediments and drilling is focused on 

these sediments, so the greatest number of OCS-related impacts occurs on soft bottom benthic 

environments. Specific OCS-related, impact-producing factors considered in the analysis are structure 

emplacement and removal, anchoring, discharges from well drilling, produced waters, pipeline 

emplacement, oil spills, blowouts, and operational discharges. Other non-OCS-related impacts that may 

occur and adversely affect soft bottom benthic communities include commercial fisheries, natural 

disturbances, anchoring by recreational boats and other non-OCS commercial vessels, spillage from 

import tankering, cable laying, bottom trawling, hypoxia (low oxygen levels [2 ppm]), and storm events; 

all have the potential to damage soft bottom benthic communities. A detailed impact analysis of the 

cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on soft bottom 

benthic communities can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.11.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Non-oil and gas activities that may occur on soft bottom benthic substrate include recreational 

boating and fishing, import tankering, and natural events such as extreme weather conditions and extreme 

fluctuations of environmental conditions. These activities could cause temporary damage to soft bottom 

communities. Ships and fishermen anchoring on soft bottoms may crush and smother underlying 

organisms. Oil spills from non-OCS import tankering or other activity may result in oiled benthic 

communities that would only repopulate once the concentration of oil in the sediment has decreased. 

During severe storms, such as hurricanes, large waves may stir bottom sediments, which cause scouring, 
4-128 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

remobilization of contaminants in the sediment, abrasion and clogging of gills as a result of turbidity, 

uprooting benthic organisms from the sediment, and an overall result in decreased species diversity 

(Engle et al., 2008; Dobbs and Vozarik, 1983). Yearly hypoxic events may eliminate many species from 

benthic populations over a wide area covering most of the CPA and part of the WPA continental shelf 

(Rabalais et al., 2002a).

Impacts from routine activities of OCS oil and gas operations include anchoring, structure 

emplacement and removal, pipeline emplacement, drilling discharges, and discharges of produced waters. 

In addition, accidental subsea oil spills or blowouts associated with oil and gas activities can cause 

damage to infaunal communities. Long-term oil and gas activities are not expected to adversely impact 

the entire soft bottom environment because the local impacted areas are extremely small compared with 

the entire seafloor of the Gulf of Mexico and because impacted communities are repopulated relatively 

quickly. Also, USEPA’s general NPDES permit restrictions on the discharge of produced water, which 

require the effluent concentration 100 m (328 ft) from the outfall to be less than the 7-day no observable 

effect concentration based on laboratory exposures, would help to limit the impacts on benthic 

communities (Smith et al., 1994). 

Impacts from blowouts, pipeline emplacement, muds and cuttings discharges, other operational 

discharges, and structure removals may have local devastating impacts, but the cumulative effect on the 

overall seafloor and infaunal communities on the Gulf of Mexico would be very small. Soft bottom

benthic communities are ubiquitous throughout and often remain in an early successional stage due to 

natural fluctuation, and therefore, the activities of OCS production of oil and gas would not cause 

additional severe cumulative impacts. 

The incremental contribution of the CPA proposed action to the cumulative impact is expected to be 

slight, with possible impacts from physical disturbance of the bottom, discharges of drilling muds and 

cuttings, other OCS discharges, structure removals, and oil spills. Non-oil and gas factors, such as 

storms, trawling, non-oil and gas-related spills, and hypoxia, are likely to impact the soft bottom

communities on a more frequent basis. Impacts from oil and gas activities are also somewhat minimized 

by the fact that these communities are ubiquitous through the CPA and can recruit quickly from 

neighboring areas.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

A search of Internet information sources (the NOAA Gulf Spill Restoration Publications website, the 

ERMA Gulf Response website, the NOAA Deepwater Horizon Archive Publications and Factsheets, the 

Gulf of Mexico Sea Grant Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Research and Monitoring Activities Database, 

RestoreTheGulf.gov website, and the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Portal), as well as recently published 

journal articles was conducted to determine the availability of recent information on soft bottom benthic 

communities. The search revealed no new information available since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS pertinent to this analysis.

Limited data are currently available on potential impacts of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil 

spill, and cleanup on soft bottoms in the CPA. This incomplete or unavailable information may be 

relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant impacts to soft bottom benthic communities. Relevant data 

on the status of soft bottom benthic communities after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and 

cleanup, however, may take years to acquire and analyze. Much of this data is being developed through 

the NRDA process, which may take years to complete. Little data from the NRDA process have been 

made available to date. Therefore, it is not possible for BOEM to obtain this information within the 

timeframe contemplated by this NEPA analysis, regardless of the cost or resources needed. In the place 

of this incomplete or unavailable information, BOEM’s subject-matter experts have used available 

scientifically credible evidence in this analysis and applied it using accepted scientific methods and 

approaches. BOEM believes, however, that this incomplete or unavailable information is not essential to 

a reasoned choice among alternatives for the reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS. Because soft bottoms are ubiquitous in the Gulf of Mexico, are not considered essential 

fish habitat, and are repopulated relatively quickly from neighboring communities when they are 

impacted, this incomplete or unavailable information is not likely to be essential to a reasoned choice 

among alternatives for the reasons stated therein.
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-129

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for soft bottom benthic communities presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, with the understanding that no new information on these communities has been 

published since the publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Therefore, no new 

significant information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for soft bottom benthic 

communities presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts 

detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

4.2.1.12.Marine Mammals

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for marine mammals presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for marine mammals presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the CPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the publication of that EIS. 

A detailed description of marine mammals can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.12.1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The potential effects on marine mammal species may occur from routine activities associated with the 

CPA proposed action. The major impact-producing factors affecting marine mammals as a result of 

routine OCS activities include the degradation of water quality from operational discharges; noise

generated by aircraft, vessels, operating platforms, and drillships; vessel traffic; explosive structure 

removals; seismic surveys; and marine debris from service vessels and OCS structures. A detailed impact 

analysis of the routine impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on marine 

mammals can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.12.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Some routine activities related to the CPA proposed action have the potential to have adverse, but not 

significant impacts, to marine mammal populations in the Gulf of Mexico. Impacts from vessel traffic, 

structure removals, and seismic activity could negatively impact marine mammals; however, when 

mitigated as required by BOEM and NMFS, these activities are not expected to have long-term impacts 

on the size and productivity of any marine mammal species or population. Most other routine activities 

are expected to have negligible effects.

Accidental, unexpected events associated with the CPA proposed action could negatively impact 

marine mammals. Such impacts would primarily be the result of blowouts, oil spills, and oil-spillresponse activities. Low-probability catastrophic events, similar to the Deepwater Horizon explosion and 

oil spill, and cleanup, are analyzed in Appendix B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. A detailed 

impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on 

marine mammals can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.12.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Accidental events related to the CPA proposed action have the potential to have adverse, but not 

significant impacts, to marine mammal populations in the Gulf of Mexico. Accidental blowouts, oil 

spills, and spill-response activities may impact marine mammals in the Gulf of Mexico. Characteristics 

of impacts (i.e., acute vs. chronic impacts) depend on the magnitude, frequency, location, and date of 

accidents; characteristics of spilled oil; spill-response capabilities and timing; and various meteorological

and hydrological factors.

Oil spills may cause chronic (long-term lethal or sublethal oil-related injuries) and acute (spill-related 

deaths occurring during a spill) effects on mammals. Long-term effects include (1) decreases in prey 

availability and abundance because of increased mortality rates, (2) change in age-class population 

structure because certain year-classes were impacted more by oil, (3) decreased reproductive rate, and 

(4) increased rate of disease or neurological problems from exposure to oil (Harvey and Dahlheim, 1994). 

The effects of cleanup activities are unknown, but increased human presence (e.g., vessels) could add to 

changes in marine mammal behavior and/or distribution, thereby additionally stressing animals, and 

perhaps making them more vulnerable to various physiologic and toxic effects.
4-130 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Even after the spill is stopped, oilings or deaths of marine mammals would still occur due to oil and 

dispersants persisting in the water, past marine mammal/oil or dispersant interactions, and ingestion of 

contaminated prey. The animals’ exposure to hydrocarbons persisting in the sea may result in sublethal 

impacts (e.g., decreased health, reproductive fitness, and longevity; and increased vulnerability to disease) 

and some soft tissue irritation, respiratory stress from inhalation of toxic fumes, food reduction or 

contamination, direct ingestion of oil and/or tar, and temporary displacement from preferred habitats.

The cumulative analysis considers past, ongoing, and foreseeable future human and natural activities 

that may occur and adversely affect marine mammals in the same general area that may be affected by the 

CPA proposed action. The major potential impact-producing factors affecting protected marine mammals 

in the GOM as a result of cumulative OCS energy-related activities include marine debris, contaminant 

spills and spill-response activities, vessel traffic, noise, seismic surveys, and explosive structure removals. 

Non-OCS energy-related activities that may affect marine mammal populations include vessel traffic and 

related noise (including from commercial shipping, research vessels), military operations, commercial 

fishing, pollution, scientific research and natural phenomena. Specific types of impact-producing factors 

considered in this cumulative analysis include noise from numerous sources, pollution, habitat 

degradation, vessel strikes, and ingestion and entanglement in marine debris. A detailed impact analysis 

of the cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on marine 

mammals can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.12.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Cumulative impacts on marine mammals are expected to result in a number of chronic and sporadic 

sublethal effects (i.e., behavioral effects and nonfatal exposure to or intake of OCS-related contaminants 

or discarded debris) that may stress and/or weaken individuals of a local group or population and 

predispose them to infection from natural or anthropogenic sources (Harvey and Dahlheim, 1994). 

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

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

them more vulnerable to parasites and diseases that normally would not be fatal (Harvey and Dahlheim, 

1994). The net result of any disturbance will depend upon the size and percentage of the population 

likely to be affected, the ecological importance of the disturbed area, the environmental and biological 

parameters that influence an animal’s sensitivity to disturbance and stress, or the accommodation time in 

response to prolonged disturbance (Geraci and St. Aubin, 1980). As discussed in Appendix B of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, a low-probability catastrophic event could have population-level 

effects on marine mammals.

The effects of the CPA proposed action, when viewed in light of the effects associated with other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities, may result in greater impacts to marine 

mammals than before the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup; however, the magnitude of 

those effects cannot yet be determined. Nonetheless, operators are required to follow all applicable lease 

stipulations and regulations, as clarified by NTL’s, to minimize these potential interactions and impacts. 

The operator’s reaffirmed compliance with NTL 2012-JOINT-G01 (“Vessel Strike Avoidance and 

Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting”) and NTL 2012-BSEE-G01 (“Marine Trash and Debris 

Awareness and Elimination”), as well as the limited scope, timing, and geographic location of the CPA 

proposed action, would result in negligible effects from the proposed drilling activities on marine 

mammals. In addition, NTL 2012-JOINT-G02, “Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures 

and Protected Species Observer Program,” minimizes the potential of harm from seismic operations to 

marine mammals. These mitigations include onboard observers, airgun shut-downs for whales in the 

exclusion zone, ramp-up procedures, and the use of a minimum sound source. Therefore, no significant 

cumulative impacts to marine mammals would be expected as a result of the proposed exploration 

activities when added to the impacts of past, present, or reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development 

in the area, as well as other ongoing activities in the area.

Within the CPA, there is a long-standing and well-developed OCS Program (more than 50 years); 

there are no data to suggest that activities from the preexisting OCS Program are significantly impacting 

marine mammal populations. Therefore, the incremental effect of the CPA proposed action on marine 

mammal populations is not expected to be significant when compared with non-OCS energy-related 

activities. 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-131

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

Various Internet sources were examined to assess recent information regarding this resource that may 

be pertinent to the CPA. On December 13, 2010, NMFS declared an unusual mortality event (UME) for 

cetaceans (whales and dolphins) in the Gulf of Mexico. An UME is defined under the Marine Mammal

Protection Act as a “stranding that is unexpected, involves a significant die-off of any marine mammal 

population, and demands immediate response.” Evidence of the UME was first noted by NMFS as early 

as February 1, 2010, before the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup (USDOC, NMFS, 

2012a). As of August 19, 2012, a total of 764 cetaceans (5% stranded alive and 95% stranded dead) have 

stranded since the start of the UME, with a vast majority of these strandings between Franklin County, 

Florida, and the Louisiana/Texas border. The 764 cetaceans include 6 dolphins killed during a fishrelated scientific study and 1 dolphin killed incidental to trawl relocation for a dredging project. More 

detail on the UME can be found on NMFS’s website (USDOC, NMFS, 2012a). In addition to 

investigating all other potential causes, scientists are investigating what role Brucella may have played in 

the UME and this continues today. The total deaths for just one of the cetaceans, the bottlenose dolphin, 

currently well exceed the Potential Biological Removal (PBR) (Waring et al., 2011). The PBR level is 

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.

On May 9, 2012, NOAA declared an UME for bottlenose dolphins in five Texas counties. The UME 

lasted from November 2011 through March 2012, when 123 bottlenose dolphins stranded in Aransas, 

Calhoun, Kleberg, Galveston, and Brazoria Counties in Texas. The investigation is ongoing (USDOC, 

NMFS, 2012b). 

BOEM concludes that the unavailable information resulting from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, 

oil spill, and cleanup and UME, and impacts to marine mammals could be relevant to reasonably 

foreseeable significant adverse effects. Although activities will be ongoing under existing leases whether 

or not the CPA proposed action takes place, BOEM at this point cannot determine if potential data and 

information incoming from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup and UME would be 

essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives for the reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Data are being developed through the NRDA process and at the direction of 

NMFS (which has jurisdiction over marine mammal strandings). It will be years before the studies 

currently underway produce available data. Little data, beyond raw numbers of strandings, have been 

made public through the NRDA process. For example, new data are still being investigated and 

developed 20 years after the Exxon Valdez event (Matkin et al., 2008). This information will not be 

available within the timeframe contemplated by this NEPA analysis. In its place, the scientifically 

credible information that is available has been incorporated using accepted scientific methodologies.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for marine mammals presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information provided above. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for marine mammals presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, although information remains incomplete or unavailable. The analysis and 

potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease 

Sale 231.

4.2.1.13.Sea Turtles

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for sea turtles presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for sea turtles presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the CPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.
4-132 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

A detailed description of sea turtles can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.13.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

Routine activities resulting from the CPA proposed action have the potential to harm sea turtles, 

although this potential is unlikely to rise to a level of significance due to the activity already present in the 

Gulf of Mexico and mitigations that are in place and discussed below. The major impact-producing 

factors resulting from the routine activities associated with the CPA proposed action that may affect 

loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley, hawksbill, green, and leatherback turtles include the degradation of water 

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

drillships, and seismic exploration; vessel collisions; and marine debris generated by service vessels and 

OCS facilities. A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts of OCS activities associated with 

proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on sea turtles can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.13.2 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Because of the mitigations (e.g., BOEM and BSEE proposed compliance with NTL’s) described in 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, routine activities (e.g., operational discharges, noise, vessel 

traffic, and marine debris) related to the CPA proposed action are not expected to have long-term adverse 

effects on the size and productivity of any sea turtle species or populations in the northern Gulf of 

Mexico. Lethal effects could occur from chance collisions with OCS service vessels or ingestion of 

accidentally released plastic materials from OCS vessels and facilities. However, there have been no 

reports to date on such incidences. Most routine, OCS energy-related activities are then expected to have 

sublethal effects that are not expected to rise to the level of significance.

Accidental, unexpected events associated with the CPA proposed action could negatively impact sea 

turtles. Such impacts would primarily be the result of blowouts, oil spills, and spill-response activities. A 

detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be associated with proposed CPA Lease 

Sale 231 on sea turtles can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.13.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

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

have the potential to impact small to large numbers of sea turtles in the Gulf of Mexico, depending on the 

magnitude and frequency of accidents, the ability to respond to accidents, the location and date of 

accidents, and various meteorological and hydrological factors. Impacts on sea turtles from smaller 

accidental events are likely to affect individual sea turtles in the spill area, but they are unlikely to rise to 

the level of population effects (or significance) given the size and scope of such spills. Further, the 

potential remains for smaller accidental spills to occur in the CPA proposed action area, regardless of any 

alternative selected under this Supplemental EIS, given that it is an active oil and gas region with either 

ongoing or the potential for exploration, drilling, and production activities.

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

proposed action along with impacts of other commercial, military, recreational, offshore, and coastal 

activities that may occur and adversely affect populations of sea turtles in the same general area of the 

CPA proposed action. A detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated 

with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on sea turtles can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.13.4 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Few deaths are expected from chance collisions with OCS service vessels, ingestion of plastic 

material, commercial fishing, and pathogens. Disturbance (noise from vessel traffic and drilling 

operations) and/or exposure to sublethal levels of toxins and anthropogenic contaminants may stress 

animals, weaken their immune systems, and make them more vulnerable to parasites and diseases that 

normally would not be fatal during their life cycle. The net result of any disturbance depends upon the 

size and percentage of the population likely to be affected, the ecological importance of the disturbed 

area, the environmental and biological parameters that influence an animal’s sensitivity to disturbance and 

stress, or the accommodation time in response to prolonged disturbance (Geraci and St. Aubin, 1980). 

Lease stipulations and regulations are in place to reduce vessel strike mortalities. As discussed in 

Appendix B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, a low-probability, large-scale catastrophic event 

could have population-level effects on sea turtles. 

The effects of the CPA proposed action, when viewed in light of the effects associated with other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities, may result in greater impacts to sea turtles than 

before the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup; however, the magnitude of those effects 

cannot yet be determined. Nonetheless, operators are required to follow all applicable lease stipulations 

and regulations, as clarified by NTL’s, to minimize these potential interactions and impacts. The 

operator’s reaffirmed compliance with NTL 2012-JOINT-G01 (“Vessel-Strike Avoidance and 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-133

Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting”) and NTL 2012-BSEE-G01 (“Marine Trash and Debris 

Awareness Elimination”), as well as the limited scope, timing, and geographic location of the CPA 

proposed action, would result in negligible effects from the proposed drilling activities on sea turtles. In 

addition, NTL 2012-JOINT-G02, “Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected 

Species Observer Program,” minimizes the potential of harm from seismic operations to sea turtles and 

marine mammals; these mitigations include onboard observers, airgun shut-downs for whales in the 

exclusion zone, ramp-up procedures, and the use of a minimum sound source. Therefore, no significant 

cumulative impacts to sea turtles would be expected as a result of the proposed exploration activities 

when added to the impacts of past, present, or reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development in the area, 

as well as other ongoing activities in the area.

Adverse effects may result from the incremental contribution of the CPA proposed action combined 

with non-OCS energy-related activities. The biological significance of any mortality or adverse impact 

would depend, in part, on the size and reproductive rates of the affected populations, as well as the 

number, age, and size of animals affected. However, the potential for impacts is mainly focused on the 

individual, and population-level impacts are not anticipated based on the best available information.

Incremental injury effects from the CPA proposed action on sea turtles are expected to be negligible 

for drilling and vessel noise and minor for vessel collisions, but it would not rise to the level of 

significance because of the limited scope, duration, and geographic area of the proposed drilling and 

vessel activities and the relevant regulatory requirements.

The effects of the CPA proposed action, when viewed in light of the effects associated with other 

relevant activities, may affect sea turtles occurring in the Gulf of Mexico. With the enforcement of 

regulatory requirements for drilling and vessel operations and the scope of the CPA proposed action, 

incremental effects from the proposed drilling activities on sea turtles would be negligible (drilling and 

vessel noise) to minor (vessel strikes). The best available scientific information indicates that sea turtles 

do not rely on acoustics; therefore, vessel noise and related activities would have limited effect. 

Consequently, no significant cumulative impacts would be expected from the CPA proposed action’s 

activities or as the result of past, present, or reasonably foreseeable oil and gas leasing, exploration, 

development, and production in the Gulf of Mexico. Even taking into account additional effects resulting 

from non-OCS energy-related activities, the potential for impacts from the CPA proposed action is mainly 

focused on the individual. Population-level impacts are not anticipated based on the best available 

information. 

In any event, the incremental contribution of the CPA proposed action would not be likely to result in 

a significant incremental impact on sea turtles within the CPA; in comparison, non-OCS-related activities, 

such as overexploitation, commercial fishing, and pollution, have historically proved to be a greater threat 

to sea turtles.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

Various Internet sources were examined to assess recent information regarding this resource that may 

be pertinent to the CPA. Since January 1, 2011, a notable increase in sea turtle strandings has occurred in 

the northern Gulf of Mexico, primarily in Mississippi. While turtle strandings in this region typically 

increase in the spring, the recent increase is a cause for concern. The Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage 

Network is monitoring and investigating this increase. The network encompasses the coastal areas of the 

18 states from Maine through Texas and includes portions of the U.S. Caribbean. There are many 

possible reasons for the increase in strandings in the northern Gulf—both natural and human causes 

(USDOC, NMFS, 2012c). The sea turtle species identified in the strandings include loggerhead, green, 

Kemp’s ridley, leatherback, hawksbill, and unidentified. The CPA proposed action also covers these 

same areas. As of August 19, 2012, NMFS has identified 147 strandings in Alabama, 266 strandings in 

Louisiana, and 435 strandings in Mississippi. The NMFS has identified 81 strandings in Texas (upper 

Texas coast—Zone 18).

Over the last 2 years, NOAA has documented necropsy results from many of the stranded turtles 

indicating mortality due to forced submergence, which is commonly associated with fishery interactions, 

and acute toxicosis. In June 2011, NMFS announced that it will begin scoping for the preparation of a 

draft EIS to reduce incidental bycatch and mortality of sea turtles in the southeastern U.S. shrimp fishery 

(76 FR 37050). On February 8, 2012, NMFS finalized an interim ESA process for project-specific 

consultation procedures that will remain in place until a new biological opinion is completed. These 
4-134 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

stranding issues, which are constantly updated, are being taken into account in the consultations with 

NMFS to develop the biological opinion. In 2011, loggerhead sea turtle nest counts on Florida’s west 

coast beaches were close to the average of the previous 5 years (68,587 nests). Green sea turtle nest 

counts have increased approximately tenfold from 1989 to 2011 on Florida index beaches. The green sea 

turtle west coast nest count in 2011 was the highest for that period (15,352 nests). A near-record number 

of leatherback nests in 2011 were recorded on west coast beaches in Florida (1,652 nests). Similar to the 

nest counts for green turtles, leatherback nest counts have been increasing exponentially on Florida index 

beaches (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 2012). A total of 84 nests in 2011 along 

the Alabama Gulf Coast were discovered. Tropical Storm Lee, however, inundated several nests. In 

2010, Alabama had reported 41 loggerhead nests and 2 Kemp’s ridley nests (Share the Beach, 2012).

BOEM concludes that there remains incomplete or unavailable information that may be relevant to 

reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts to sea turtles, including those from noncatastrophic 

spills/accidental events. Since March 15, 2011, a notable increase in sea turtle strandings has occurred in 

the northern Gulf of Mexico, primarily in Mississippi. While turtle strandings in this region typically 

increase in the spring, the recent increase is a cause for concern. The Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage 

Network is monitoring and investigating this increase. Many of the stranded turtles were reported from 

Mississippi and Alabama waters, and very few showed signs of external oiling from the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion. Necropsy results from many of the stranded turtles indicate mortality due to forced 

submergence, which is commonly associated with fishery interactions. There is incomplete information 

on the impacts to sea turtle populations from the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill and whether

the individuals or populations may be susceptible to greater impacts in light of the increased stranding 

event or the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. Relevant data on the status of and 

impacts to sea turtle populations from the increased stranding event and Deepwater Horizon explosion, 

oil spill, and cleanup may take years to acquire and analyze, and impacts from the Deepwater Horizon

explosion and oil spill may be difficult or impossible to discern from other factors. The NMFS to date 

has only released raw data on the number of strandings, and BOEM does not have the ability to 

investigate these strandings independently. Therefore, it is not possible for BOEM to obtain this 

information within the timeline contemplated in this Supplemental EIS, regardless of the cost or resources 

needed. In the absence of this information, BOEM’s subject-matter experts have used what scientifically 

credible information that is available and applied it using accepted scientific methodologies. BOEM 

cannot rule out that unavailable or incomplete information on accidental impacts may be essential to a 

reasoned choice among the alternatives for the reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, including in light of the increased stranding event and Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil 

spill, and cleanup. Activities that could result in an accidental spill in the CPA would be ongoing whether 

or not or not the CPA proposed action occurred.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for sea turtles presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS, based on the additional information provided above. No new significant information was discovered 

that would alter the impact conclusion for sea turtles presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS, although information remains incomplete or unavailable. The analysis and potential impacts detailed 

in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

4.2.1.14.Diamondback Terrapins

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for diamondback terrapins presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for diamondback terrapins presented 

in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the CPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-135

A detailed description of the Mississippi diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin pileata) and the 

Texas diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin littoralis) can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.14.1 of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The major impact-producing factors resulting from the routine activities associated with the CPA 

proposed action that may affect the Mississippi diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin pileata) 

include beach trash and debris generated by service vessels and OCS facilities, efforts undertaken for the 

removal of marine debris or for beach restoration, and vessel traffic with associated habitat erosion. A 

detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease 

Sale 231 on these terrapins can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.14.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS. 

Adverse impacts due to routine activities resulting from the CPA proposed action are possible but 

unlikely. Because of the greatly improved handling of waste and trash by industry and because of the 

annual awareness training required by the marine debris mitigations, the plastics in the ocean are 

decreasing and the devastating effects on offshore and coastal marine life are minimizing. The routine 

activities of the CPA proposed action are unlikely to have significant adverse effects on the size and 

recovery of any terrapin species or population in the Gulf of Mexico. Most routine OCS energy-related 

activities are expected to have sublethal effects, such as behavioral effects, that are not expected to rise to 

the level of significance to the populations.

The major impact-producing factors resulting from the accidental events associated with the CPA 

proposed action that may affect the Mississippi diamondback terrapins (Malaclemys terrapin pileata) 

include offshore and coastal oil spills and spill-response activities. Potential impacts from a lowprobability catastrophic spill are addressed in Appendix B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. A 

detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 

231 on these terrapins can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.14.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Impacts on diamondback terrapins from smaller accidental events are likely to affect individual 

diamondback terrapins in the spill area, but the impacts are unlikely to rise to the level of population 

effects (or significance) given the probable size and scope of such spills. Further, the potential remains 

for smaller accidental spills to occur in the CPA proposed action area, regardless of any alternative 

selected under this Supplemental EIS, given that it is an active oil and gas region with ongoing or the 

potential for exploration, drilling, and production activities.

The analyses in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, including Appendix B of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, conclude that there is a low probability for catastrophic spills; also, Appendix 

B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS concludes that there is a potential for a low-probability 

catastrophic event to result in significant, population-level effects on affected diamondback terrapin

species. BOEM continues to concur with the conclusions from these analyses.

For those terrapin populations that may not have been impacted by the Deepwater Horizon explosion, 

oil spill, and cleanup, it is unlikely that a future accidental event related to the CPA proposed action 

would result in significant impacts due to the distance of most terrapin habitat from offshore OCS energyrelated activities. A low-probability catastrophic event of the size and type that could reach these habitats 

is discussed in Appendix B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

The major cumulative impact-producing factors that may affect the Mississippi diamondback terrapin 

(Malaclemys terrapin pileata) include oil spills and spill-response activities, alteration and reduction of 

habitat, and consumption of trash and debris. A detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of 

OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on these terrapins can be found in Chapter 

4.2.1.14.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Diamondback terrapins have experienced impacting pressures from habitat destruction, road 

construction, drowning in crab traps, and past overharvesting resulting in historical reductions in their 

habitat range and declines in populations. Inshore oil spills from non-OCS energy-related sources are 

potential threats to terrapins in their brackish coastal marshes. Pipelines from offshore oil and gas and 

other shoreline crossings have contributed to marsh erosion. However, the CPA proposed action includes 

only limited shoreline crossings, and modern regulations require mitigation of wetland impacts. Lowprobability catastrophic offshore oil spills could affect the coastal marsh environment but such events are 

rare occurrences and may not reach the shore, even if they do occur. Therefore, the incremental 

contribution of the CPA proposed action is expected to be minimal compared with non-OCS activities. 

The major impact-producing factors resulting from the cumulative activities associated with the CPA 

proposed action that may affect the diamondback terrapin include oil spills and spill-response activities, 
4-136 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

alteration and reduction of habitat, and consumption of trash and debris. Due to the extended distance 

from shore, impacts associated with activities occurring in the OCS Program are not expected to impact 

terrapins or their habitat. No substantial information was found at this time that would alter the overall 

conclusion that cumulative impacts on diamondback terrapins associated with the CPA proposed action is 

expected to be minimal.

BOEM has considered this assessment and has reexamined the cumulative analysis for diamondback 

terrapins. Based on this evaluation, conclusions in these analyses on the effects to diamondback terrapins 

remain unchanged in regards to routine activities (no potential for significant adverse effects) and 

accidental spills (potential for significant adverse effects). 

In addition, non-OCS energy-related activities (i.e., crabbing, fishing, military activities, scientific 

research, and shoreline development) will continue to occur in the CPA irrespective of the CPA proposed 

action. The potential for effects from changes to the affected environment (post-Deepwater Horizon), 

routine activities, accidental spills (including low-probability catastrophic spills), and cumulative effects 

remains whether or not the No Action or an Action alternative is chosen under this Supplemental EIS. 

Impacts on diamondback terrapins from either smaller accidental events or low-probability catastrophic 

events will remain the same.

Overall, within the CPA, there is a long-standing and well-developed OCS Program (more than 

50 years); there are no data to suggest that activities from the preexisting OCS Program are significantly 

impacting diamondback terrapin populations. Non-OCS energy-related activities will continue to occur 

in the CPA irrespective of proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 (i.e., crabbing, fishing, military activities, 

scientific research, and shoreline development). Therefore, the incremental effect of the CPA proposed 

action on diamondback terrapins populations is not expected to be significant when compared with 

historic and current non-OCS energy-related activities, such as habitat loss, overharvesting, crabbing, and 

fishing. 

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

Various Internet sources were examined and literature searches conducted in order to assess recent 

information regarding diamondback terrapins that may be pertinent to the CPA. There is photographic 

evidence of one terrapin found oiled on Grand Terre Isle, Louisiana, on June 8, 2010 (State of Louisiana, 

Coastal Protection and Restoration, 2012). It is not clear whether this terrapin was included with the two 

reptiles collected in the CPA, which is described on RestoreTheGulf.gov (2011). As data continue to be 

gathered and impact assessments completed, a better characterization of the full scope of impacts to the 

terrapin populations in the Gulf of Mexico from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup

will be available.

BOEM concludes that there remains incomplete or unavailable information regarding diamondback 

terrapins that could be relevant to reasonable foreseeable significant adverse effects. This includes 

information that may be forthcoming regarding impacts from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, 

and cleanup. The OCS activities will be ongoing under existing leases, whether or not the CPA proposed 

action or any other alternative is selected. However, BOEM believes that the unavailable information 

may be essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives, particularly to the extent that diamondback 

terrapins were affected by the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup for the reasons stated 

herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The FWS has jurisdiction for investigating 

terrapin impacts from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup through the NRDA 

process. To date, there are no data available on impacts to terrapins from the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. BOEM is therefore unable to determine, at this point and time, what 

effect (if any) the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill had on terrapins. The NRDA process may 

take years to complete. Impacts from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup may be 

difficult or impossible to discern from other factors. Therefore, it is not possible for BOEM to obtain this 

information within the timeline contemplated in this Supplemental EIS, regardless of the cost or resources 

needed. In light of the incomplete or unavailable information, BOEM’s subject-matter experts have used 

available scientifically credible evidence in this analysis and applied it using accepted scientific methods 

and approaches.
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-137

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for these terrapins presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information provided above. Various Internet sources were 

examined to assess recent information regarding this resource that may be pertinent to the CPA. No new 

significant information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for these terrapins 

presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, although information remains incomplete or 

unavailable. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still 

apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

4.2.1.15.Alabama, Choctawhatchee, St. Andrew, and Perdido Key Beach Mice

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for beach mice presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for beach mice presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the CPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of beach mice can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.15.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

The major impact-producing factors associated with routine activities of the CPA proposed action that 

may affect beach mice include beach trash and debris, and efforts undertaken for the removal of marine 

debris or for beach restoration. A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts of OCS activities 

associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on beach mice can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.15.2 of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

An impact from the routine activities associated with the CPA proposed action on the Alabama, 

Choctawhatchee, St. Andrew, and Perdido Key beach mice is possible but unlikely. Impact may result 

from consumption of or entanglement in beach trash and debris. Because the CPA proposed action would 

deposit only a small portion of the total debris that would reach the habitat, the impacts would be 

minimal. The BSEE prohibits the disposal of equipment, containers, and other materials into offshore 

waters by lessees (30 CFR 250.300; also refer to NTL 2012-BSEE-G01 “Marine Trash and Debris 

Awareness and Elimination”). In addition, MARPOL, Annex V, Public Law 100-220 (101 Statute 1458) 

prohibits the disposal of any plastics at sea or in coastal waters. Unless all personnel are adequately 

trained, efforts undertaken for the removal of marine debris may temporarily scare away beach mice or 

destroy their food resources, such as sea oats. However, their burrows are about 1-3 m (3-10 ft) long and 

involve a plugged escape tunnel, which would function after the main burrow entrance was trampled by 

foot traffic of insufficiently trained debris cleanup personnel.

The major impact-producing factors resulting from accidental events associated with the CPA 

proposed action that may affect beach mice include offshore and coastal oil spills, and spill-response 

activities. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be associated with proposed 

CPA Lease Sale 231 on beach mice can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.15.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

The oiling of beach mice could result in local extinction. Oil-spill-response and cleanup activities 

could also have a substantial impact to the beach mice and their habitat if all cleanup personnel are not 

adequately trained. However, potential spills that could result from the CPA proposed action are not 

expected to contact beach mice or their habitats. The probability of contact with the shoreline next to 

beach mouse habitat is unlikely (mostly <0.5% probability; Figure 3-11 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS), and the probability of oil washing over the foredunes to beach mouse habitat is even less. 

Also, inshore facilities related to the CPA proposed action are unlikely to be located on beach mouse 

habitat. 

Within the last 20-30 years, the combination of habitat loss due to beachfront development, the 

isolation of remaining beach mouse habitat areas and populations, and the destruction of remaining 
4-138 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

habitat by tropical storms and hurricanes has increased the threat of extinction of several subspecies of 

beach mice. Destruction of the remaining habitat due to a catastrophic spill and cleanup activities would 

increase the threat of extinction, but the potential for a catastrophic spill that would substantially affect 

beach mice habitat is low. 

A review of the available information shows that impacts on beach mice from accidental impacts 

associated with the CPA proposed action would be minimal.

Cumulative effects have a potential to harm or reduce the numbers of beach mice. The major impactproducing factors that affect beach mice include oil spills, alteration and reduction of habitat, predation 

(especially from domestic cats) and competition, consumption of and entanglement in beach trash and 

debris, beach development, coastal spills, and natural catastrophes (i.e., hurricanes and tropical storms). 

Most proposed action-related spills, as well as oil spills stemming from import tankering and prior and 

future lease sales, are not expected to contact beach mice or their habitats. Cumulative impacts could 

potentially deplete some beach mice populations to unsustainable levels. A detailed impact analysis of 

the cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on beach mice 

can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.15.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Cumulative activities have the potential to harm or reduce the numbers of Alabama, Choctawhatchee, 

St. Andrew, and Perdido Key beach mice. Those activities include oil spills, alteration and reduction of 

habitat, predation and competition, consumption of and entanglement in beach trash and debris, beach 

development, and natural catastrophes (hurricanes and tropical storms). Most spills related to the CPA 

proposed action and prior and future lease sales are not expected to contact beach mice or their habitats 

because the species live above the intertidal zone where contact is less likely. Cumulative impacts could 

potentially deplete some beach mice populations to unsustainable levels. Impacts from OCS activities 

could come from trash and debris and the effort to remove them, as well as oil spills and cleanup 

operations. If personnel are properly trained (on short notice if under emergency conditions) and 

supervised, these impacts could be reduced. The expected incremental contribution of the CPA proposed 

action to the cumulative impacts is negligible.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

As part of the search for new information available since the publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, Google Advanced Scholar Search and Google Advanced Book Search using keywords 

“beach mouse” and “dunes” revealed no pertinent new journal articles on beach mice and their dune 

habitats. 

Within the historic ranges of the four Gulf Coast beach mouse subspecies, between 1851 and 2006, 

58 hurricanes have made landfall in northwest Florida and 21 hurricanes have made landfall in Alabama

(McAdie et al., 2009; USDOC, NOAA, National Hurricane Center, 2012). The Internet was searched for 

any new information. Other than the information on hurricane frequencies, no new relevant data were 

identified since the publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

BOEM acknowledges that there remains incomplete or unavailable information regarding beach 

mice, including information regarding the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup and 

impacts from that spill to beach mice. Nevertheless, there is scientifically credible information regarding 

the likelihood that beach mice were minimally impacted by oil and related tarballs from the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion. There is a pending study investigating the effects of Deepwater Horizon explosion, 

oil spill, and cleanup activities on beach mice and their habitat. The ongoing research on the potential 

impacts from the cleanup activities to beach mice is being conducted through the NRDA process. The 

NRDA research projects may be years from completion, and data and conclusions have not been released 

to the public. Regardless of the costs involved, it is not within BOEM’s ability to obtain this information 

from the NRDA process within the timeline of this Supplemental EIS. In its place, BOEM has included 

what scientifically credible information is available and applied it using accepted scientific 

methodologies. Although information resulting from this study may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable 

adverse impacts on beach mice and their habitat, BOEM’s subject-matter experts have determined that it 

is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives for the reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. BOEM has conservatively considered the potential for impacts from cleanup 

activities. 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-139

Summary and Conclusion

New information does not indicate a change in the conclusions identified in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. An impact from the routine activities associated with the CPA proposed action 

on Alabama, Choctawhatchee, St. Andrew, and Perdido Key beach mice is possible but unlikely. Impacts 

on beach mice from accidental impacts that may be associated with the CPA proposed action would be 

minimal. The expected incremental contribution of the CPA proposed action to the cumulative impacts

remains small.

No new significant information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for these beach 

mice presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed 

in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

4.2.1.16.Coastal and Marine Birds

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for coastal and marine birds presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for coastal and marine birds presented 

in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the CPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of coastal and marine birds can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.16.1 of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Major potential impact-producing factors for marine birds in the offshore environment include the 

following: 

• habitat loss and fragmentation (Fahrig, 1997 and 1998);

• behavioral effects primarily due to disturbance from OCS helicopter and servicevessel traffic and associated noise (Habib et al., 2007; Bayne et al., 2008);

• mortality due to exposure and intake of OCS-related contaminants, e.g., produced 

waters (Wiese et al., 2001; Fraser et al., 2006) and discarded debris (Robards et al., 

1995; Pierce et al., 2004);

• sublethal, chronic effects from air emissions (Newman, 1979; Newman and 

Schreiber, 1988); and

• mortality and energetic costs associated with structure presence and associated light 

(Russell, 2005; Montevecchi, 2006).

A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts that may be associated with OCS activities 

associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on coastal and marine birds can be found in Chapter 

4.2.1.16.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

In general, the effects from routine activities in the CPA (Tables 3-3, 3-4, and 3-6 of this 

Supplemental EIS and Tables 3-13 through 3-16 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS) are 

expected to exceed those in the WPA due to differences in the number of proposed (and current) 

platforms, onshore infrastructure and pipeline landfalls, and the number of service support vessel and 

helicopter trips (Chapters 4.1.1.14.2 and 4.2.1.16.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS for a 

comparison). The majority of the effects resulting from routine activities of the CPA proposed action on 

threatened or endangered (Table 4-1) and nonthreatened and nonendangered coastal and marine birds are 

expected to be sublethal, e.g., primarily disturbance-related effects. However, as has been documented by 

Russell (2005), collision-related mortality of trans-Gulf migrant landbirds (Lincoln et al., 1998, 

Figure 18; Faaborg et al., 2010, Figure 3) does occur (Figure 4-1 of this Supplemental EIS and Figures 

3-5 through 3-7 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS); approximately 50 birds/platform or roughly 
4-140 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

200,000 birds/year across the archipelago. Conservatively, the addition of 35-67 installed platforms 

would probably result in the collision death of an additional 1,750-3,350 birds/year or 70,000-134,000 

over the life of newly installed platforms (Table 4-7 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). Over 

the life of the Gulf of Mexico platform archipelago (~4,000 platforms over a 40-year period), mortality 

estimates may be on the order of approximately 8-13 million birds. The collision death estimates should 

also be considered biased low given that (1) the platform-specific estimates associated with number of 

anticipated installed platforms only include deaths due to collisions and (2) these estimates and the longterm estimates do not account for issues related to detection bias (Piatt et al., 1990a; Piatt and Ford, 1996; 

Flint et al., 1999) or lost bird years (Zafonte and Hampton, 2005). Taking this bias into account, BOEM 

has determined that these collision mortality estimates still represent an adverse, but not significant, 

impact to migrant birds. This is because it has been estimated from theoretical analyses of 1998 and 1999 

radar data that there could be 147 (1999) to 316 (1998) million trans-Gulf migrants in the spring season 

for a given year (Russell, 2005). Although there will always be some level of incomplete information on 

the effects from routine activities under the CPA proposed action on birds, there is credible scientific 

information, applied using acceptable scientific methodologies, to support the conclusion that any realized 

impacts would be generally sublethal in nature and not in themselves rise to the level of reasonably 

foreseeable significant adverse (population-level) effects. Also, routine activities will be ongoing in the 

CPA proposed action area as a result of existing leases and related activities. Within the CPA, there is a 

long-standing and well-developed OCS Program (more than 50 years); there are no data to suggest that 

routine activities from the preexisting OCS Program are significantly impacting bird populations. 

Therefore, a full understanding of any incomplete or unavailable information on the effects of routine 

activities is not essential to make a reasoned choice among the alternatives. Particularly when compared 

with other causes of bird mortality, the routine events associated with the OCS Program are unlikely to 

result in population-level impacts to avian species.

Overall, impacts to avian species from routine activities are expected to be adverse but not significant. 

The impacts include the following:

• temporary behavioral changes, temporary or permanent changes in habitat use, 

temporary changes in foraging behavior, temporary changes to preferred foods or 

prey switching, temporary or permanent emigration, temporary or permanent 

reductions in nesting, hatching, and fledging success;

• sublethal, chronic effects due to exposure to or intake of OCS-related contaminants 

via spilled oil, pollutants in the water from service vessels, produced water, or 

discarded debris;

• nocturnal circulation around platforms, which may create acute sublethal stress from 

energy loss (and the addition of platforms will increase collision risk); 

• minimal habitat impacts (based on actual acres of footprint), which are expected 

(onshore or within State waters) to occur directly from routine activities resulting 

from the CPA proposed action (but refer to Johnston et al., 2009); and

• secondary impacts from pipeline and navigation canals to coastal habitats, which will 

occur over the long term and may ultimately displace species to other habitats, 

assuming comparable (quality) habitats are available.

Presently, there are no mitigations (or stipulations) in place specific for the protection and 

conservation of migratory birds in the Gulf (USDOI, FWS and USDOI, MMS, 2009; Alexander, 2010). 

However, avoidance measures and conditions are routinely placed on permitted activities to protect 

habitat (Table 4-3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS; but also refer to Johnston et al., 2009; 

Johnson and St.-Laurent, 2011). 

Impact-producing factors from accidents include oil spills regardless of size and oil-spill cleanup 

activities, including the release of rehabilitated birds. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts 

of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on coastal and marine birds can be found 

in Chapter 4.2.1.16.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-141

Overall, impacts to coastal and marine birds associated with accidental events (oil spills regardless of 

size) in the CPA should be greater compared with the WPA due to the following factors: greater number 

of platforms; higher oil-spill probabilities; and greater numbers of predicted oil spills, particularly 

pipeline spills, over the life of the CPA proposed action (Tables 3-3, 3-4, and 3-6 of this Supplemental 

EIS and Tables 3-11, 3-12, and 3-22 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). In addition, avian 

species’ diversity, abundance, and density for numerous species of beach-nesting waterbirds and coastal 

marshbirds appear to be greater in the CPA than in the WPA (Chapter 4.2.1.16.1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS; Hunter et al., 2002 and 2006; USDOI, FWS, 2010c).

Oil spills (and disturbance impacts associated with cleanup activities) have the greatest impact on 

coastal and marine birds. Depending on the timing and location of the spill, even small spills can result in 

major avian mortality events (refer to Piatt et al., 1990a and 1990b; Castège et al., 2007; Wilhelm et al., 

2007). Small amounts of oil can affect birds, and mortality from oil spills is often related to numerous 

symptoms of toxicity (Burger and Gochfeld, 2001; Albers, 2006). Data from actual spills strongly 

suggest that impacts to a bird species’ food supply are typically delayed after initial impacts from direct 

oiling (e.g., Esler et al., 2002; Velando et al., 2005; Zabala et al., 2010). Sublethal, long-term effects of 

oil on birds have previously been documented (Esler et al., 2000b; Alonso-Alvarez et al., 2007a), 

including changes to sexual signaling (Pérez et al., 2010).

Oil-spill impacts on birds from the CPA proposed action are expected to be adverse, but not 

significant, given the number and relatively small size of spills expected over the 40-year life of the CPA 

proposed action (Table 3-12 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). Impacts of oil-spill cleanup 

from the CPA proposed action are also expected to be adverse, but not significant, but may be negligible 

depending on the scope and scale of efforts. Significant impacts to coastal and marine birds could result 

in the event of a catastrophic spill, depending on the timing, location, and size of the spill. For additional 

information on a catastrophic spill, refer to Appendix B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

Cumulative impacts to coastal and marine birds include both OCS and non-OCS activities. The OCS 

activities include the following:

• the CPA proposed action; and

• prior and future OCS sales.

The non-OCS activities include the following:

• State oil and gas activity;

• crude oil imports by tankers; and

• other commercial, military, and recreational offshore and coastal activities.

The OCS-related, impact-producing factors include the following:

• air pollution;

• pollution of coastal and offshore waters resulting from OCS-related activities 

including platform and pipeline oil spills, produced waters, and any spill-response 

activities; 

• structure presence and lighting;

• aircraft and vessel traffic and associated noise and disturbance impacts, including 

OCS helicopter and service-vessels; 

• habitat loss, alteration, and fragmentation resulting from coastal facility construction 

and development;

• OCS pipeline landfalls; and

• trash and debris.
4-142 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

The non-OCS, impact-producing factors include the following:

• air pollution; 

• pollution of coastal waters resulting from municipal, industrial, and agricultural 

runoff and discharge;

• tanker oil spills and spills related to oil and gas activities in State coastal waters and 

any spill-response activities;

• aircraft and military activities, including jet training overflights and sonic booms;

• nonconsumptive recreation, including bird-watching activities, all-terrain vehicle use, 

walking and jogging with pets, and other beach use;

• maintenance and use of navigation waterways;

• habitat loss, alteration, and fragmentation associated with commercial and residential 

development; 

• collisions of coastal and marine birds with various anthropogenic structures (e.g., 

buildings, power lines, cell phone towers, etc.);

• diseases; 

• climate change and related impacts;

• storms and floods;

• coastal development; and

• fisheries interactions. 

A detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts that may be associated with proposed CPA 

Lease Sale 231 on coastal and marine birds can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.16.4 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Human-induced disturbance effects often tend to get overlooked or underestimated as a potential 

population-limiting factor for birds (Hockin et al., 1992; Newton, 1998, pages 365-369). The cumulative 

effect on coastal and marine birds from all sources is expected to result in changes in species composition 

and distribution and in a discernible (i.e., low thousands; Table 4-7 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS) decline in the number of birds that form localized groups or populations. Some of these 

changes are expected to be permanent and to stem from a net decrease in preferred habitat for all birds, 

and possibly impacts to and declines in the amount or quality of critical habitat for some endangered 

species (Table 4-1 of this Supplemental EIS and Table 4-14 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). 

However, the incremental contribution of the CPA proposed action to the cumulative impact is considered 

adverse, but not significant, because the effects of the most probable impacts, such as sale-related 

operational discharges and helicopters and service-vessel noise and traffic, are expected to be sublethal; 

and some displacement of local individuals or flocks may occur, and displaced birds may move to other 

habitats, if available.

In general, the net effect of habitat loss from oil spills, OCS pipeline landfalls, and maintenance and 

use of navigation waterways, as well as habitat loss and modification resulting from coastal facility 

construction and development, will probably reduce the overall carrying capacity of the disturbed 

habitat(s). That is, impacted habitats may result in reductions to both species composition (fewer species) 

and abundance (lower numbers) as compared with what the area supported historically. These would be 

the most serious cumulative impacts on birds.

Nocturnal circulation events at platforms are assumed to have mostly sublethal impacts (e.g., 

energetic losses due to time spent circling) on migrating bird populations. However, oil and gas 

platforms in the Gulf of Mexico (and associated lighting) results in collision-related mortality of 

200,000-321,000 birds/year (Table 4-7 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS); these numbers will 

increase as a result of the CPA proposed action. Similarly, some unknown number of birds that stopover 

on platforms is preyed upon by migrating raptors (Russell, 2005). Overall, offshore oil and gas platform-
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-143

related avian mortality, though representing an additional source of mortality, represents a small fraction 

compared with other sources of anthropogenic mortality (Table 4-7 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS; also refer to Arnold and Zink, 2011). The mortality estimates related to offshore oil and 

gas activities are well below that for vehicles, buildings and windows, power lines, and communication 

towers (Table 4-7 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). 

The Deepwater Horizon explosion and associated spilled oil that made it into the nearshore and 

coastal environment resulted in the loss of ~7,250 birds across all Gulf of Mexico planning areas 

(Table 4-2; also refer to Table 4-8 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). A small, but unknown 

fraction of the total dead and live birds were collected in the WPA (USDOI, FWS, 2010a and 2010b). It 

is likely that birds were not oiled in the WPA, but additional information from the SCAT data and more 

detailed geospatial information for each bird recovered and its oiling state (oiled vs. unoiled) would be 

required to state that conclusively. In addition, spill-response activities likely exacerbated impacts, 

particularly for breeding birds nesting on the beaches, barrier islands, and other habitats that were 

intensively monitored. It is probable that impacts to the avian community in the CPA were far greater 

than impacts to the avian community in the WPA. The total number of birds killed by the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup was likely biased low (Table 4-2). In addition, it will be years 

before a reliable, model-based estimate of mortality that accounts for detection-related issues is provided 

(e.g., Flint et al., 1999; also refer to Byrd et al., 2009). Presently, the best available information (e.g., 

Henkel et al., 2012) does not provide a complete understanding of the effects of the spilled oil or the 

recovery potential for the most impacted species (Table 4-2 of this Supplemental EIS and Tables 4-8, 

4-12, and 4-13 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). 

Unavailable information on the cumulative effects to coastal and marine birds, including after the 

Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup (and thus related changes to the avian baseline in the 

affected environment), makes an understanding of the potential impacts from the CPA proposed action 

less clear. BOEM concludes that the unavailable information from these events may be relevant to 

foreseeable significant adverse impacts to coastal and marine birds. Nevertheless, relevant data on the 

status of bird populations after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup may take years to 

acquire and analyze through the NRDA process, and impacts from the Deepwater Horizon explosion and 

resulting oil spill may be difficult or impossible to discern from other factors. The CPA is an active oil 

and gas region with ongoing (or the potential for) exploration, drilling, and production activities. 

Therefore, it is not possible for BOEM to obtain this information within the timeframe contemplated by 

this NEPA analysis, regardless of the cost or resources needed. In light of the incomplete or unavailable 

information, BOEM’s subject-matter experts have used available scientifically credible evidence in this 

analysis based upon accepted methods and approaches. However, BOEM believes that this incomplete or 

unavailable information regarding effects of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup on 

birds (refer to Table 4-2) would not likely be essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives for the 

reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Compared with non-OCS Program 

factors, such as habitat loss, collisions with non-OCS-related structures, disease and other anthropogenic 

factors, which may result in billions of bird deaths per year, the incremental effect of the CPA proposed 

action is particularly small. Any information obtained from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, 

and cleanup is unlikely to be so significant as to change the relative importance of non-OCS factors to 

bird populations (Table 4-2 of this Supplemental EIS and Table 4-7 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS).

Disease is often lethal and may take millions of birds annually, but it should be considered a 

“naturally” occurring avian mortality factor unless the pathogen is introduced by humans (refer to 

Newton, 1998). Storms and floods represent natural, often major disturbances to which exposed 

organisms are generally adapted. An exception would be hurricane-related storm surges, which are 

exacerbated by coastal wetland loss in Louisiana and throughout the northern Gulf of Mexico (Costanza 

et al., 2008; Engle, 2011). Effects from sea-level rise may be particularly severe for many species of 

breeding marsh birds and shorebirds (e.g., brown pelican, sandwich tern, black skimmer, Forster’s tern, 

laughing gull, gull-billed tern, royal tern, snowy plover, least tern, and Wilson’s plover; USDOI, FWS, 

2010c), as well as several species of wintering shorebirds that rely on beaches, flats, dunes, sandbars, 

shorelines, islands, estuaries, and other low-lying, tidally-influenced habitats in the Gulf of Mexico 

(Galbraith et al., 2002; North American Bird Conservation Initiative, 2010). Even a nominal rise in sea 

level (USDOC, NOAA, 2011a,) would inundate much of this habitat, making it unsuitable for many, if 

not most, of these species.
4-144 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

In conclusion, the incremental contribution of the CPA proposed action to the cumulative impact is 

considered adverse, but not significant, when compared with the impacts of non-OCS Program-related 

factors. 

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS

For a detailed treatment of the potential effects of impact-producing factors on coastal and marine 

birds associated with the CPA proposed action, refer to Chapter 4.1.1.16.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS. A list of potentially impacted avian species considered herein can be found in Table 4-2

of this Supplemental EIS and in Chapter 4.1.1.16.1 and Tables 4-9 through 4-11 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The new information with regards to bird data are found in Tables 4-1 

and 4-2. Table 4-1 was updated with more recent data from FWS. The data and estimates reported in 

Table 4-2 are corrected from Table 4-8 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. These were 

corrected with regards to an update for the dead birds collected from FWS. The end date for dead birds 

collected is now May 2011.

The majority of the effects resulting from routine activities of the CPA proposed action (Tables 3-2, 

3-4, and 3-5 of this Supplemental EIS and Tables 3-13 through 3-16 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS) on threatened or endangered (Table 4-1) and nonthreatened and nonendangered coastal 

and marine birds are expected to be sublethal, e.g., primarily disturbance-related effects (Chapters 

4.2.1.16.1 and 4.2.1.16.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). 

Although there will always be some level of incomplete information on the effects from routine 

activities under the CPA proposed action on birds, there is credible scientific information, applied using 

acceptable scientific methodologies, to support the conclusion that any realized impacts would be 

generally sublethal in nature and not in themselves rise to the level of reasonably foreseeable significant 

adverse (population-level) effects. Also, routine activities will be ongoing in the CPA proposed action 

area as a result of existing leases and related activities. Within the CPA, there is a long-standing and 

well-developed OCS Program (more than 50 years). Therefore, a full understanding of any incomplete or 

unavailable information on the effects of routine activities is not essential to make a reasoned choice 

among the alternatives. Particularly when compared with other causes of bird mortality, the routine 

events associated with the OCS Program are unlikely to result in population-level impacts to avian 

species. 

Presently, there are no mitigations (or stipulations) in place specific for the protection and 

conservation of migratory birds in the Gulf (USDOI, FWS and USDOI, MMS, 2009; Alexander, 2010). 

However, avoidance measures and conditions are routinely placed on permitted activities to protect 

habitat (but refer to Copeland et al., 2009; Bayne and Dale, 2011).

Unavailable information on the effects to coastal and marine birds from the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup (and thus changes to the avian baseline in the affected environment) 

makes an understanding of the potential impacts from the CPA proposed action less clear. BOEM 

concludes that the unavailable information from these events may be relevant to foreseeable significant 

adverse impacts to coastal and marine birds. BOEM believes that this incomplete or unavailable 

information regarding effects of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup on birds may be 

essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives, particularly for species listed as endangered or 

threatened, for the reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Relevant data 

on the status of coastal and marine bird populations after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and 

cleanup may take years to acquire and analyze through the NRDA process, and impacts from the

Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill may be difficult or impossible to discern from other factors 

(refer to the review by Henkel et al., 2012). Therefore, it is not possible for BOEM to obtain this 

information within the timeframe contemplated by this NEPA analysis, regardless of the cost or resources 

needed. In light of the incomplete or unavailable information, BOEM’s subject-matter experts have used 

available scientifically credible evidence in this analysis based upon accepted methods and approaches.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for coastal and marine birds presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information provided above. At the present time, there 

is no way to discern if the additional levels of annual (>200,000) or long-term mortality (over the life of 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-145

newly installed platforms) for any of the affected trans-Gulf migrant species considered herein results in 

population-level impacts Russell (2005, Chapters 17 and 18). Given what we know about the life-history 

characteristics of many of these species (e.g., age at first reproduction, clutch size, nest success, etc.), the 

potential for major population-level impacts seems relatively low (Arnold and Zink, 2011, page 2). 

Various Internet sources were examined to assess recent information regarding this resource that may be 

pertinent to the CPA. No new significant information was discovered that would alter the impact 

conclusion for these coastal and marine birds presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The 

analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for 

proposed CPA Lease Sale 231. 

4.2.1.17.Gulf Sturgeon

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for Gulf sturgeon presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for Gulf sturgeon presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the CPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of Gulf sturgeon can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.17.1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Potential impacts to the threatened Gulf sturgeon and their designated critical habitat from routine 

activities associated with the CPA proposed action may occur from drilling and produced-water 

discharges, degradation of estuarine and marine water quality from infrastructure, dredging activities, 

vessel traffic, pipeline installation, and explosive platform removal. Designated Gulf sturgeon critical 

habitat occurs in estuarine and riverine locations along the Gulf Coast east of the Mississippi River in 

Louisiana to Florida. Designated Gulf sturgeon critical habitat is confined to State waters, and navigation 

channels are exempt from the critical habitat status. Most activities related to the CPA proposed action 

would occur in Federal waters (i.e., structure placement, drilling, removal, etc.). Though critical habitat 

may be impacted directly or indirectly, such impacts are expected to be negligible due to the distance of 

Gulf sturgeon habitat and life cycles from most activities related to the CPA proposed action. A detailed 

impact analysis of the routine impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on 

Gulf sturgeon can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.17.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Potential routine impacts on Gulf sturgeon and the designated critical habitat may occur from drilling 

and produced-water discharges, bottom degradation of estuarine and marine water quality by nonpoint 

runoff from estuarine OCS-related facilities, vessel traffic, pipeline installation, and explosive removal of 

structures. Because of the permitted discharge limits mandated and enforced in the Federal and State 

regulatory process, the dilution and low toxicity of this pollution is expected to result in a negligible 

impact of the CPA proposed action on Gulf sturgeon. Vessel traffic would generally only pose a risk to 

Gulf sturgeon when the vessels are leaving and returning to port. Major navigation channels are excluded 

from critical habitat. Also, the Gulf sturgeon’s characteristics of bottom-feeding and general avoidance of 

disturbance make the probability of vessel strike extremely remote. If any pipeline is installed nearshore 

as a result of the CPA proposed action, regulatory permit requirements governing pipeline placement and 

dredging, as well as recent noninvasive techniques for locating pipelines, would result in a very minimal 

impact to the Gulf sturgeon’s critical habitat. Explosive removal of structures as a result of the CPA 

proposed action would occur well offshore of the Gulf sturgeon’s critical habitat and the riverine, 

estuarine, and shallow Gulf habitats where sturgeon are generally located. There is no data indicating that 

sturgeons are using the deeper Gulf waters where most of the OCS activities occur. In general, the mud 

substrates found in the Gulf waters do not support the appropriate benthic food source for Gulf sturgeon. 

Due to regulations, mitigations, and the distance of routine activities from known Gulf sturgeon habitats, 

impacts from routine activities of the CPA proposed action would be expected to have negligible effects 

on Gulf sturgeon and their designated critical habitat.
4-146 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Potential accidental impacts on Gulf sturgeon and the designated critical habitat may occur primarily 

from oil spills. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be associated with proposed 

CPA Lease Sale 231 on Gulf sturgeon can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.17.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

Unusually low tidal events, increased wave energy, or the use of oil dispersants increases the risk of 

impact with bottom-feeding and bottom-dwelling fauna. For this reason, dispersants are not expected to 

be used with coastal spills. Winds and currents would also diminish the volume of a slick. For the 

Louisiana waters and beaches with a higher probability of oil-spill occurrence than the surrounding areas, 

the Mississippi River outflow would also serve to help break up a slick that might otherwise contact the 

area. Spreading of the slick would reduce the oil concentrations that might impact the coastal Gulf 

sturgeon critical habitat.

The potential risk to sturgeon would result from either direct contact with oil spills (or the potential 

PAH’s introduced through the spill) or, in some cases, long-term exposure to produced water. The PAH’s 

could also reach the Gulf sturgeon through its diet of benthic invertebrates; PAH’s can accumulate in 

invertebrates (USDOI, GS, 2012d). The likelihood of Gulf sturgeon impacts in coastal waters as a result 

of OCS activity is reduced by both the distance from a potential spill or production area and the 

concentration of contaminants that actually reach the area of sturgeon activity. Except for direct pipeline 

spills in the nearshore environment, the Gulf sturgeon would be at greater risk of a PAH encounter during 

the inland river migrations due to the industrial and farm waste introduced into these coastal rivers from 

the adjacent agricultural and urban land uses compared with an accidental event resulting from the CPA 

proposed action.

The Gulf sturgeon could be impacted by any oil spills that may result from the CPA proposed action. 

If there is contact with spilled oil, it could have detrimental physiological effects. In the rare event 

contact with oil occurs, this could cause nonlethal effects, including causing the fish to temporarily 

migrate from the affected area, irritation of gill epithelium, an increase of liver function in a few adults, 

and possibly interference with reproductive activity. The juvenile and subadult Gulf sturgeon, at a 

minimum, seasonally use the nearshore coastal waters and could potentially be at risk from both coastal 

and offshore spills. Due to the distance of the activity from shore and Gulf sturgeon critical habitat, there 

is a minimal risk of any oil coming in contact with Gulf sturgeon from an offshore spill. For a 

catastrophic spill, the proximity, type of oil, weather conditions, as well as the amount and location 

(distance offshore and water depth) of the dispersant treatment, may contribute to the severity of the 

spill’s impact to the sturgeon and its habitat.

This cumulative analysis summary considers the impacts of all past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future activities plus the contribution of the CPA proposed action that may adversely affect 

Gulf sturgeon within its range and critical habitat in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Specific types of 

impact-producing factors considered in this cumulative analysis include oil spills, dredge/channelization 

activities, natural catastrophes, fishing, and other factors that can result in changes to habitats. A detailed 

impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 

231 on Gulf sturgeon can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.17.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The Gulf sturgeon and its critical habitat can be cumulatively impacted by activities such as oil spills, 

dredging, natural catastrophes, commercial fishing, and other factors that can result in changes to habitats. 

The effects from contact with spilled oil would be sublethal and last for less than 1 month (Berg, 2006). 

Currently, there is little public data to ascertain the short-term and long-term effects of the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup on the Gulf sturgeon or its critical habitat. It can be said that the 

critical habitat was exposed to oil and could possibly have been repeatedly exposed to oil in some cases. 

Until information is available on the quantity, type, and toxicity of the oil and where its spatial subsurface 

location is, no assessment can be made to the benthic forage base of the Gulf sturgeon. In addition, the 

oil underwent evaporation and was quickly emulsified and diluted at the wellhead by dispersants, which 

made it readily available for biodegradation. Because of the low probability of an offshore oil spill from 

the CPA proposed action occurring and contacting Gulf sturgeon critical habitat (≤4%; Figure 3-22 of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS), Gulf sturgeon contact with oil is expected to be minimal. The 

amount of oil projected to spill with a coastal spill is small, and it would have localized effects. The CPA 

proposed action would not require dredging near natal rivers used as migratory routes to upstream 

spawning areas. While there could be a need for maintenance dredging in the nearshore waters, juvenile 

or adult sturgeon using these areas have the ability to avoid the regulated dredging activity. Deaths of 

adult sturgeon are expected to occur from commercial fishing. Substantial damage to Gulf sturgeon 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-147

critical habitat is expected from inshore alteration activities and natural catastrophes. As a result, it is 

expected that the Gulf sturgeon would experience a decline in population sizes and a displacement from 

their current distribution that would last more than one generation.

BOEM acknowledges that there remains incomplete or unavailable information on Gulf sturgeon, 

including potential impacts from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup (and thus 

changes to the Gulf sturgeon baseline in the affected environment). This makes an understanding of the 

affected environment and cumulative impacts less clear. Here, BOEM concludes that the unavailable 

information from these events may be relevant to foreseeable significant adverse impacts to the Gulf 

sturgeon. Relevant data on the status of Gulf sturgeon populations after the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup may take years to acquire and analyze, and impacts from the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion and oil spill may be difficult or impossible to discern from other factors. Therefore, it 

is not possible for BOEM to obtain this information within the timeframe contemplated by this NEPA

analysis, regardless of the cost or resources needed. In light of the incomplete or unavailable information, 

BOEM’s subject-matter experts have used available scientifically credible evidence in this analysis 

(including data on related fish species such as the Caspian Sea sturgeon) and applied this information 

based upon accepted scientific methods and approaches. Nevertheless, BOEM believes that this 

incomplete or unavailable information regarding the effects of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, 

and cleanup on Gulf sturgeon is likely not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives when 

considering cumulative impacts for the reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS. Non-OCS Program-related impacts are seen as the primary cumulative impacts on this resource, 

compared with the CPA proposed action, even in light of incomplete or unavailable information.

The incremental contribution of the CPA proposed action to the cumulative impacts on Gulf sturgeon

is negligible. This is because the effect of contact between sale-specific oil spills and Gulf sturgeon is 

expected to be sublethal and usually last less than 1 month, and regulations and mitigations decrease 

impacts from routine events. Other non-OCS Program-related activities, including storms and 

anthropogenic factors on habitat, are expected to result in more cumulative impacts to this species.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

A search was conducted for information published on Gulf sturgeon, and various Internet sources 

were examined to determine any recent information regarding this species. Sources investigated include 

BOEM, NMFS, FWS, USGS, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, American Fisheries

Society, State environmental agencies, and coastal universities. Other websites from scientific 

publication databases were checked for new information using general Internet searches based on major 

themes. No new significant information relevant to the above analysis was discovered since publication 

of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

BOEM acknowledges that there remains incomplete or unavailable information on Gulf sturgeon, 

including potential impacts from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup (and thus 

changes to the Gulf sturgeon baseline in the affected environment). This makes an understanding of the 

affected environment and impacts from the CPA proposed action less clear. Here, BOEM concludes that 

the unavailable information from these events may be relevant to foreseeable significant adverse impacts 

to Gulf sturgeon. Nevertheless, BOEM believes that this incomplete or unavailable information regarding 

the effects of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup on Gulf sturgeon may be essential 

to a reasoned choice among alternatives for the reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS. Relevant data on the status of Gulf sturgeon populations after the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup may take years to acquire and analyze, and impacts from the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion and oil spill may be difficult or impossible to discern from other factors. Therefore, it 

is not possible for BOEM to obtain this information within the timeframe contemplated by this NEPA

analysis, regardless of the cost or resources needed. In light of the incomplete or unavailable information, 

BOEM’s subject-matter experts have used available scientifically credible evidence in this analysis 

(including data on related fish species such as the Caspian Sea sturgeon) and applied this information 

based upon accepted scientific methods and approaches.
4-148 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for Gulf sturgeon presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information provided above. Various Internet sources were 

examined to assess recent information regarding this resource that may be pertinent to the CPA. No new 

significant information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for these Gulf sturgeon 

presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

4.2.1.18.Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for fish resources and essential fish habitat (EFH) presented in 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new 

significant information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for fish resources and EFH 

presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the CPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of fish resources and EFH can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.18 and Appendix D of 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Also, EFH are discussed in various sections of this document, 

including water quality (Chapters 4.1.1.2 and 4.2.1.2), wetlands (Chapters 4.1.1.4 and 4.2.1.4), 

seagrass communities (Chapters 4.1.1.5 and 4.2.1.5), live bottoms (Chapter 4.2.1.6), topographic 

features (Chapters 4.1.1.6 and 4.2.1.7), Sargassum communities (Chapters 4.1.1.7 and 4.2.1.8), 

chemosynthetic deepwater benthic communities (Chapters 4.1.1.8 and 4.2.1.9), nonchemosynthetic 

deepwater benthic communities (Chapters 4.1.1.9 and 4.2.1.10), and soft bottom benthic communities 

(Chapters 4.1.1.10 and 4.2.1.11). 

Effects on fish resources and EFH from routine activities associated with the CPA proposed action 

could result from coastal environmental degradation, marine environmental degradation, pipeline 

trenching, and offshore discharges of drilling muds and produced waters. The effects from these routine 

activities on the different EFH’s that are discussed in this Supplemental EIS are summarized in 

Appendix D of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Since the majority of fish species within the 

CPA are estuary dependent, coastal environmental degradation resulting from the CPA proposed action 

has the potential to adversely affect EFH and fish resources. The environmental deterioration and effects 

on EFH and fish resources result from the loss of nursery habitat and from the functional impairment of 

existing habitat through decreased water quality (Chambers, 1992; Stroud, 1992). A detailed impact 

analysis of the routine impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on fish 

resources and EFH can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.18.2 and Appendix D of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

It is expected that any possible coastal and marine environmental degradation from the CPA proposed 

action would have little effect on fish resources or EFH. The impact of coastal and marine environmental 

degradation is expected to cause a nondetectable decrease in fish resources or EFH. Routine activities 

such as pipeline trenching and OCS discharge of drilling muds and produced water would cause 

negligible impacts that would not deleteriously affect fish resources or EFH. This is because of 

regulations, mitigations, and practices that reduce the undesirable effects on coastal habitats from 

dredging and other construction activities. Permit requirements should ensure that pipeline routes either 

avoid different coastal habitat types or that certain techniques are used to decrease impacts. At the 

expected level of impact, the resultant influence on fish resources would cause minimal changes in fish 

populations or EFH. That is, if there are impacts, they would be short term and localized; therefore, the 

impacts would only affect small portions of fish populations and selected areas of EFH. As a result, there 

would be little disturbance to fish resources or EFH. In deepwater areas, many of the EFH’s are protected 

under stipulations and regulations currently set in place.

Without the mitigations in place, there could be major negative impacts to topographic features and 

live bottoms. However, some of the routine impact-producing factors are mitigated by BOEM through 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-149

the Topographic Feature Stipulation and the Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend and Low Relief) Stipulations. 

These stipulations establish a No Activity Zone around important topographic features such as the Flower 

Gardens Banks reef and low-relief live bottoms, and NTL 2009-G39 and NTL 2009-G40 advise operators 

to avoid hard-bottom habitats that support fish populations. Much of coastal wetland loss that supports 

estuarine habitat and nursery grounds, on which fish stocks are dependent, is a result of inshore oil and 

gas extraction and not the result of offshore oil and gas leasing. Estuarine water quality degradation is 

largely a result of urban runoff. Offshore water quality is affected temporarily and in a limited area by the 

discharge of produced water and the overboard discharge of drill muds. Pipeline trenching, maintenance 

dredging, and canal widening in inshore areas causes only the temporary suspension of sediments. 

Negative impacts from most of these routine operations would require a short time for fish resources to 

recover. This is because of multiple life history and environmental factors such as fecundity or year-class 

recruitment through oceanographic circulation.

Additional hard-substrate habitat provided by structure installation in areas where natural hard bottom 

is rare will tend to increase fish populations or attract fish populations. The removal of these structures 

will eliminate that habitat, except when decommissioned platforms are used as artificial reef material. 

This practice is expected to increase over time.

For these reasons, as well as the fact that Gulf of Mexico fish stocks have retained both diversity and 

biomass throughout the years of offshore development, the CPA proposed action is expected to result in a 

minimal decrease in fish resources and/or standing stocks or in EFH. 

Accidental events associated with the CPA proposed action that could impact fish resources and EFH

include blowouts and oil or chemical spills. Because subsurface blowouts, although a highly unlikely 

occurrence, suspend large amounts of sediment, they have the potential to adversely affect fish resources 

in the immediate area of the blowout.

A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be associated with proposed CPA Lease 

Sale 231 on fish resources and EFH can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.18.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

If oil spills due to the CPA proposed action were to occur in open waters of the OCS proximate to 

mobile adult finfish, the effects would likely be nonfatal and the extent of damage would be reduced 

because adult fish have the ability to move away from a spill, to metabolize hydrocarbons, and to excrete 

both metabolites and parent compounds. Benthic EFH’s would have decreased effects from oil spills 

because of the depths many occupy and because of the distance these low-probability spills would occur 

from benthic habitats (due to stipulations, NTL’s, etc.). Fish populations may be impacted by an oil spill 

but they would be primarily affected if the oil reaches the shelf and estuarine areas because these are the 

most productive areas. Many species reside in estuaries for at least part of their life cycle or are 

dependent on the nutrients exported from the estuaries to the shelf region, but the probability of a spill in 

these areas is low. Also, much of the coastal northern Gulf of Mexico is a moderate- to high-energy 

environment; therefore, sediment transport and tidal stratification should reduce the chances for oil 

persisting in these habitats if they are oiled. Early life stages of animals are usually more sensitive to 

environmental stress than adults (Moore and Dwyer, 1974). Weathered crude oil has been shown in 

laboratory experiments and field research to cause a range of sublethal effects including malformation, 

genetic damage, and physiological impairment in different life history stages of different fish species 

(Carls et al., 1999; Whitehead et al., 2011). Oil can be lethal to fish, especially in larval and egg stages, 

depending on the time of the year that the event happened. The extent of the impacts of the oil would 

depend on the properties of the oil and the time of year of the event.

The effect of oil spills that may be associated with the CPA proposed action on fish resources is 

expected to cause a minimal decrease in standing stocks of any population because most spill events 

would be small in scale and localized; therefore, they would affect generally only a small portion of fish 

populations. Historically, there have been no oil spills of any size in the Gulf of Mexico that have had a 

long-term impact on fishery populations. Although many potential effects of the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup on the CPA have been alleged, the actual effects are, at this time, largely 

speculative, and the total impacts are likely to be unknown for several years. Recent analysis of early 

stage survival of fish species inhabiting seagrass nursery habitat from Chandeleur Islands, Louisiana, to 

St. Joseph Bay, Florida, pre- and post-Deepwater Horizon show that immediate catastrophic losses of 

2010 cohorts were largely avoided and that no shifts in species composition occurred following the spill

(Fodrie and Heck , 2011). The fish populations of the Gulf of Mexico have repeatedly proven to be 
4-150 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

resilient to large, annually occurring areas of anoxia, major hurricanes, and oil spills. The CPA proposed 

action is not expected to significantly affect fish populations or EFH in the Gulf of Mexico.

Although there is incomplete or unavailable information on the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup on fish resources and EFH, BOEM has determined that it is impossible to 

obtain this information, regardless of cost, within the timeframe contemplated by this NEPA analysis, and 

it may be years before the information is available. This information is being developed through the 

NRDA process, data are still incoming and have not been made publicly available, and it is expected to be 

years before the information is available. In addition, where this incomplete information is relevant to 

reasonably foreseeable impacts, what scientifically credible information is available was used in its stead 

and applied using accepted scientific methodologies. Nevertheless, BOEM believes that this information 

is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives. The likely size of an accidental event resulting 

from the CPA proposed action would be small and unlikely to impact coastal and estuarine habitats where 

juvenile and larval stages of fish resources are predominant, and adult fish tend to avoid adverse water 

conditions. 

This cumulative analysis summary includes effects on fish resources and EFH’s of the OCS Program 

(the CPA proposed action and past and future OCS lease sales), State oil and gas activity, coastal 

development, crude oil imports by tanker, commercial and recreational fishing, and natural phenomena. 

An example of impact-producing factors considered in this cumulative analysis includes cumulative 

onshore impacts on EFH’s, including wetland loss as a result of human population expansion, 

environmental degradation, relative sea-level rise, and natural factors (e.g., hurricane loss of wetlands). A 

detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease 

Sale 231 on fish resources and EFH can be found in Chapter 4.1.2.18.4 and Appendix D of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

In summary, along with the CPA proposed action, there are widespread anthropogenic and natural 

factors that impact EFH and fish populations in the Gulf of Mexico. Different OCS-related construction 

can range from onshore facilities to well-site construction activities including board roads, ring levees, 

and impoundments. With the number of pipelines estimated for the CPA proposed action, sediment 

would potentially be resuspended in localized areas. The explosive removal of structures does have a 

negative effect on those fish in close proximity. The OCS activities such as the emplacement of 

structures and of artificial reefs also have a positive effect by providing habitat and/or food for reef fishes, 

but their removals can be detrimental. Discharges from OCS activities such as drill mud and produced 

water have an incremental effect on offshore water quality. All discharges are regulated by USEPA or 

State agencies. Oil spills, although considered rare events, can affect offshore waters. Fish are known to 

actively avoid areas of oil spills as they avoid any area of adverse water quality, such as hypoxic waters 

(Wannamaker and Rice, 2000). The OCS-related activities that could physically destroy live bottoms

(e.g., anchoring and using anchor chains) are mitigated by BOEM. The OCS factors potentially 

impacting fish resources in the Gulf of Mexico are federally regulated or mitigated and are small. There 

are many anthropogenic factors that are regulated by Federal and State agencies, and there are natural 

factors that cannot be regulated. Also to be considered is the variability in Gulf of Mexico fish 

populations due to natural factors such as spawning success and juvenile survival. Overall, the 

incremental contribution of the OCS effects to fish populations is small.

Inshore inputs of pollutants to estuaries from runoff and industry are also contributors to wetland loss. 

Canal dredging primarily accommodates commercial, residential, and recreational development. 

Increased population and commercial pressures on the CPA coast are also causing the expansion of ports 

and marinas there. The coastal waters of the CPA are expected to continue to experience nutrient 

enrichment, low-dissolved oxygen, and toxin and pesticide contamination, resulting in the loss of both 

commercial and recreational uses of the affected waters. The degradation of water quality is expected to 

continue due to contamination by point- and nonpoint-source discharges due to eutrophication of 

waterbodies, primarily due to runoff and hydrologic modifications. Resource management agencies, both 

State and Federal, set restrictions and permits in an effort to mitigate both the effects of development 

projects and industry activities. The Federal and State governments are also funding research and coastal 

restoration projects; however, it may take decades of monitoring to ascertain the long-term effectiveness 

of these coastal restoration efforts.

Overfishing (including bycatch) has impacted some populations of Gulf of Mexico fish. The 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and its amendments address sustainable 

fisheries and set guidelines for protecting marine resources and habitat from fishing- and nonfishing-
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-151

related activities. Limits on catch and fishing seasons are set by the GMFMC. State agencies regulate 

inshore fishing seasons and limits.

Naturally occurring tropical cyclones can cause damage to various EFH’s. Their impacts can be 

onshore as with wetland loss and offshore with damaged topographic features. These storms are a 

continual part of the Gulf of Mexico climate.

All of these events and activities affect EFH’s and fishery resources. Many anthropogenic inputs, 

including the CPA proposed action, are now monitored, regulated, and mitigated by the permitting agency 

or State. These efforts will continue in the future, and restoration of habitats could increase with better 

technologies. While EFH and fish resources are impacted by these many factors, the CPA proposed 

action would add a minimal amount to the overall cumulative effects.

Most of the Gulf of Mexico is designated as EFH and encompasses many different types of habitats 

and resources described in this Supplemental EIS. The extent of impacts from the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup to EFH and fish resources remains unclear at this time. This information 

is being developed through the NRDA process, data are still incoming and have not been made publicly 

available, and it is expected to be years before the information is available. In addition, where this 

incomplete information is relevant to reasonably foreseeable impacts, what scientifically credible 

information is available was used in its stead and applied using accepted scientific methodologies. 

Although incomplete or unavailable information may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable adverse 

impacts, this incomplete or unavailable information is not essential to a reasoned choice among 

alternatives. Compared with other impacting factors on EFH and fish resources, including those related 

to coastal and marine degradation, wetland loss, vessel traffic, and coastal development, the CPA

proposed action is likely to result in a negligible increase in impacts to EFH and fish resources, regardless 

of any lingering impacts from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. 

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

An ongoing search of Internet information sources as well as an ongoing search of scientific journals 

was conducted to determine the availability of recent information (including NMFS databases, GMFMC 

website, Science Direct, Elsevier, CSA Illumina, and JSTOR). No new significant scientific information 

has been identified as relevant to this analysis since the publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS. 

The severity and the duration of the effects of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup

on the fish assemblages and fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico are largely speculative at this time. No 

evidence of significant impacts to fisheries populations in the Gulf of Mexico have been shown to date. It 

is unlikely that this information will be available within the timeframe contemplated by this NEPA

analysis, even if the resources were available to undertake these studies. It is also difficult to gather 

reliable population information on all species, including highly migratory species, and it is difficult to 

distinguish between population variabilities due to the spill as opposed to population variabilities due to 

other naturally occurring environmental factors. Therefore, credible scientific information that is 

available on the impacts to the species has been applied using accepted methodologies. In any event, 

although this information is currently unavailable, it is not essential to a reasoned choice among 

alternatives for the reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, including 

because the fish in the area of the CPA affected by the spill are mobile and most would likely have moved 

away from the area immediately affected by the spill.

Nevertheless, information on the effects of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup

on fish resources and EFH is incomplete at this time and may take years to obtain and analyze. This 

information will be developed through the NRDA process, is not expected to be complete or released to 

the public for years, and will certainly not be available during the timeline of this Supplemental EIS. 

Regardless of cost, it is not within BOEM’s ability to obtain this information from the ongoing NRDA 

process. This information may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant impacts, and BOEM 

cannot definitively state at the present time whether this information may be essential to a reasoned 

choice among alternatives. BOEM’s subject-matter experts, however, have used the scientifically 

credible information that is available and applied it using accepted scientific methodologies.
4-152 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for fish resources and EFH presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information provided above. Various printed and 

Internet sources (including NMFS databases, GMGFMC website, Science Direct, Elsevier, CSA Illumina, 

and JSTOR) were examined to assess recent information regarding this resource that may be pertinent to 

the CPA. No new significant information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for the 

fish resources and EFH presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential 

impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

4.2.1.19.Commercial Fisheries

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for commercial fisheries presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for commercial fisheries presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the CPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of commercial fisheries can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.19.1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Direct effects on commercial fisheries from routine offshore activities could result from the 

installation of production platforms, underwater OCS obstructions including pipelines, production 

platform removals, seismic surveys, and the discharge of offshore waste. Offshore structures can cause 

space-use conflicts with commercial fishing, especially with longline fishing. Exploratory drilling rigs 

cause temporary interference to commercial fishing, lasting approximately 30-150 days. Major 

production platforms present a permanent area unavailable for fishing that includes structures and safety 

zones. Underwater OCS obstructions such as pipelines can cause loss of trawls and catch, as well as 

fishing downtime and vessel damage. A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts of OCS activities 

associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on commercial fisheries can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.19.2 

of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Routine activities such as seismic surveys and pipeline trenching in the CPA would cause negligible 

impacts and would not deleteriously affect commercial fishing activities. Because seismic surveys are 

temporary events, they are not expected to cause significant impacts to commercial fisheries. Operations 

such as production platform emplacement, underwater OCS impediments, and explosive platform 

removal would cause displacement of commercial fishing while operations are ongoing. These effects are 

localized to a small percentage of the area fished and they are temporary in nature.

Studies of drill mud and produced-water discharges from platforms show that the plume disperses 

rapidly in both cases and does not pose a threat to commercial fisheries. Routine activities are therefore 

not considered a threat to the commercial fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico.

Accidental events that would impact commercial fisheries include subsurface offshore blowouts and 

oil spills, both inshore and offshore. There is a small risk of spills occurring during shore-based support 

activities. The great majority of these would be very small. Most of these incidents would occur at or 

near pipeline terminals or shore bases, and they are expected to affect a highly localized area with lowlevel impacts. The effects of accidental events that may be associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 

on fish populations are described in Chapter 4.2.1.18 of this Supplemental EIS and in Chapter 4.2.1.18.3 

of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Accidental events may have economic impacts on commercial fishermen if the event was large scale 

or long lasting, resulting in extensive closures such as for the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and 

cleanup. These events are, however, rare. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may 

be associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on commercial fisheries can be found in Chapter 

4.2.1.19.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-153

Fish populations may be impacted by an oil-spill event should it occur, but they would be primarily 

affected if the oil reaches the productive shelf and estuarine areas. The probability of an offshore spill 

impacting these nearshore environments is also low, and oil would generally be volatilized or dispersed 

by currents in the offshore environment. The extent of the impacts of the oil would depend on the 

properties of the oil and the time of year of the event. Commercial fishermen are anticipated to avoid the 

area of a well blowout or an oil spill. Fisheries closures may result from a large spill event. These 

closures may have a negative effect on short-term fisheries catch and/or marketability. They may have a 

positive impact on annually harvested species in the longer term because there was a decrease in fishing 

pressure on the stocks.

The impacts of the CPA proposed action from accidental events (i.e., a well blowout or an oil spill) 

are anticipated to be minimal for most fish and shellfish populations because the potential for oil spills is 

very low, the most typical events are small and of short duration, and the effects are so localized that fish 

are typically able to avoid the area adversely impacted.

Specific types of impact-producing factors considered in the cumulative analysis include the 

following: (1) commercial fishing techniques or practices; (2) wetland loss; (3) hurricanes; 

(4) installation of production platforms and underwater OCS obstructions; (5) production platform 

removals; (6) seismic surveys; (7) petroleum spills; (8) subsurface blowouts; (9) pipeline trenching; and 

(10) offshore discharges of drilling mud and produced waters. A detailed impact analysis of the 

cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on commercial 

fisheries can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.19.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

There are widespread anthropogenic and natural factors that impact fish populations in the Gulf of 

Mexico. Wetland loss as a result commercial and residential development is one of the major factors in 

this trend, although this is regulated and mitigated by COE. The loss of wetland nutrient inputs into 

estuaries that form nurseries for many species and the loss of marsh and seagrass habitats that provides 

shelter for larvae and juveniles of many species is a major problem, particularly in the CPA. The loss of 

wetlands also contributes to the intrusion of saltwater into oyster-producing waters. This increases oyster 

mortality by increasing disease and predators in the oyster beds.

Inshore inputs of pollutants to estuaries from runoff and industry are also contributors to wetland loss. 

Resource management agencies, both State and Federal, set restrictions and permits in an effort to 

mitigate the effects of development projects, i.e., industry activities. The Federal and State governments 

are also funding research and coastal restoration projects; however, it may take decades of monitoring to 

ascertain the long-term feasibility of these coastal restoration efforts.

Overfishing (including bycatch) has contributed in a large way to the decline of some populations of 

Gulf of Mexico fish. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and its 

amendments address sustainable fisheries and set guidelines for protecting marine resources and habitat 

from fishing- and nonfishing-related activities. Limits on catch and fishing seasons are set by the Gulf 

Coast Fisheries Management Council. State agencies regulate inshore fishing seasons and limits.

The OCS activities that may affect fish populations include a small contribution to wetland loss as a 

result of offshore traffic traversing inland canals. There is also a contribution from oil-related activities to 

inland waters and estuaries. Discharges from OCS activities such as drill mud and produced water have 

an incremental effect on offshore water quality. All discharges are regulated by USEPA or State 

agencies.

Oil spills, although considered a rare event, can affect offshore waters. Adult fish are known to 

actively avoid areas of oil spills as they avoid any area of adverse water quality. The OCS factors can 

physically destroy live bottoms with anchors and anchor chains. These actions are mitigated by BOEM. 

The explosive removal of structures does have a negative effect on those fish in close proximity. The 

OCS activities such as the emplacement of structures and artificial reefs also have a positive effect by 

providing habitat and/or food for reef fishes.

The impacts of a catastrophic oil spill, such as the Deepwater Horizon explosion recently experienced 

in the Gulf of Mexico, based on limited data now available, are discussed in Appendix B of the 2012-

2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Unavailable information on the effects to commercial fisheries from the 

Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup (and thus changes to the commercial fisheries 

baseline in the affected environment section) makes an understanding of the cumulative effects less clear. 

Here, BOEM concludes that the unavailable information from these events may be relevant to foreseeable 

significant adverse impacts to the commercial fishing industry and commercially important fish resources. 

Relevant data on the status of commercially important fish populations and the commercial fishing 
4-154 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

industry after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup may take years to acquire and 

analyze, and impacts from the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill may be difficult or impossible 

to discern from other factors. Therefore, it is not possible for BOEM to obtain this information within the 

timeframe contemplated by this NEPA analysis, regardless of the cost or resources needed. In light of the 

incomplete or unavailable information, BOEM’s subject-matter experts have used available scientifically 

credible evidence in this analysis and applied it using accepted methods and approaches. Nevertheless, 

BOEM believes that incomplete or unavailable information regarding the effects of the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup on the commercial fishing industry is not essential to a reasoned 

choice among alternatives in the cumulative effects analysis for the reasons stated herein and in the 2012-

2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The expected incremental effect of the CPA proposed action remains 

small when viewed in light of other historic, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable future factors impacting 

commercial fisheries, such as fishing pressures, habitat loss, and hurricanes. 

The OCS factors potentially impacting fish resources in the Gulf of Mexico are federally regulated or 

mitigated and are small. There are many anthropogenic factors that are regulated by Federal and State 

agencies, and there are natural factors that cannot be regulated. Also to be considered is the variability in 

Gulf of Mexico fish populations due to natural factors such as spawning success and juvenile survival.

Overall, the commercial fish and shellfish populations have remained healthy in the Gulf of Mexico 

in spite of the OCS activities. In recent years, since 2005, the major contributors to the lower fisheries

catches in the Gulf of Mexico have been hurricanes (Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike), fisheries closures 

and freshwater diversions due to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup in 2010 and the 

Mississippi River flooding in 2011. Compared with non-OCS activities (such as commercial fishing

practices, wetland loss, and hurricanes), the incremental effect of the CPA proposed action is not expected 

to be significant. 

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

A search of Internet information sources resulted in the NOAA news release regarding the 2011 

menhaden catch (USDOC, NMFS, 2012f). Menhaden was a species of concern during the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup because they are a very large cash crop in the Gulf of Mexico 

and they are surface feeders, as noted in Chapter 4.2.1.19 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. It 

was also noted in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, however, that the dispersant was added to the 

oil release at the seafloor to prevent large surface slicks.

Since the publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, new commercial fisheries values 

for the year 2011 became available. These numbers are included here. All commercial fisheries data 

referenced in this section were obtained from NMFS (USDOC, NMFS, 2012d).

The Gulf of Mexico provided 40 percent, 33 percent, and 42 percent of the number of pounds of 

seafood landed in the United States (with the exception of Alaska) in the years 2009, 2010, and 2011, 

respectively. This amounted to approximately 25 percent, 22 percent, and 24 percent of the dollar value 

of the total catch for each of these respective years in the United States, again excluding Alaska.

Menhaden (Brevoortia patronus), with landings of over 1.6 billion pounds and valued at over 

$110 million, was the most important Gulf species in terms of quantity landed during 2011. The catch 

was up approximately 65 percent from 2010, when the catch was approximately 967 thousand pounds 

valued at $66 million. Menhaden are harvested extensively for their oil, which is included in animal food 

and human supplements as Omega-3 fatty acid. This species is harvested primarily in Louisiana and 

Mississippi. 

Commercial shellfish of most importance to the central Gulf Coast include shrimp (primarily brown 

and white, Farfantepenaeus aztecus and Litopenaeus setiferus), blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus), and 

Eastern oyster (Crassostera virginica). The 2010 harvest of white shrimp from the central and eastern 

Gulf Coast States was 89 million pounds (85% of the U.S. harvest). The 2011 harvest of white shrimp for 

the central and eastern Gulf Coast States was nearly 63 million pounds (~62% of the U.S. harvest). The 

2010 and 2011 harvests of brown shrimp for the same area were approximately 25 million pounds and 

58 million pounds (31% and 46% of the U.S. harvest), respectively. Blue crab harvest in the three central 

Gulf Coast States was approximately 37.7 million pounds in 2010, which is 20 percent of the total U.S. 

harvest for that year. In 2011, blue crab harvest in these states was nearly 53 million pounds, which is 

approximately 27 percent of the entire harvest of the U.S. Eastern oyster harvest in 2010 from the central 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-155

and eastern Gulf Coast States totaled 10.6 million pounds. The 2011 harvest for the central and eastern 

Gulf States was approximately 14 million pounds or approximately 67 percent of the entire U.S harvest.

The 2010 total fisheries landings in Louisiana were approximately 1 billion pounds valued at 

approximately $248 million. Total Louisiana fisheries landings in 2011 were over 1.5 billion pounds 

valued at slightly over $340 million. Louisiana landings in 2010 and 2011 were dominated by menhaden. 

Shellfish catch was dominated by white shrimp, blue crab, and brown shrimp.

Total Mississippi fisheries catch in 2010 decreased to 111 million pounds ($21.9 million), a 

52 percent decrease over the 2009 catch. Total Mississippi fisheries catch in 2011 was approximately 

278 million pounds, approximately 2.5 times the amount caught in 2010, worth approximately 

$30.3 million. Total fisheries landings in Mississippi in 2010 and 2011 were dominated by the menhaden 

fishery. Shellfish harvest was dominated by brown shrimp and white shrimp in 2009, 2010, and 2011.

The 2010 total catch in Alabama was 14.6 million pounds valued at approximately $27.7 million. 

Catch values from 2011 show a total of slightly over 26 million pounds valued at approximately 

$51 million. Finfish catch in Alabama has been dominated by striped mullet (Mugil cephalus) in recent 

years. In 2010 the striped mullet catch was 1.1 million pounds valued at $560 thousand. In 2011, the 

striped mullet catch was 1.2 million pounds valued at approximately $675 thousand. Shellfish harvested 

in Alabama, in decreasing order of pounds harvested in 2010 and 2011, were brown shrimp, white 

shrimp, and blue crabs.

Total fisheries harvest from the west coast of Florida from 2010 was approximately 62 million 

pounds value at about $137.6 million. Values from 2011 were 77.6 million pounds valued at nearly 

$164 million. Striped mullet constituted the largest catch in pounds, with 7.1 million pounds in 2010 and 

11.3 million pounds in 2011; however, red grouper (Epinephelus morio) was the most valuable finfish 

catch at $9 million in 2010 and $15.1 million in 2011. Shellfish harvested from the west coast of Florida 

in 2010 and 2011 included Caribbean spiny lobster (Panulirus argus), blue crabs, pink shrimp 

(Farfantepenaeus duorarum), and the Eastern oyster.

Hurricane Isaac passed over southeastern Louisiana in August 2012. The effects of the hurricane on 

fisheries are, at present, unknown. Hurricane Isaac did, however, result in an official Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries’ commercial fisheries closure stretching from Caminada Pass to 

Belle Pass and a mile offshore (Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 2012) due to a tar mat 

associated with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which washed up on the beach of Elmer’s Island. As of 

November 1, 2012, this area remains closed.

Stock Status

The NMFS reports each year to Congress and the Fishery Management Councils on the status of all 

fish stocks in the Nation. As of the 2011 status report (USDOC, NMFS, 2012e), overfished species in the 

Gulf of Mexico are red snapper, greater amberjack, gag grouper, and gray triggerfish. Although the 

report has been updated, there have been no changes in the species considered overfished in the Gulf of 

Mexico.

A search of the referenced literature revealed a study of blue fin tuna larvae (Muhling et al., 2012), 

also a species of concern during the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. The Atlantic 

stock of blue fin tuna, a highly prized commercial species, spawn in the Gulf of Mexico in early summer. 

This study found, however, by using satellite-derived estimates of oil coverage and spawning habitat 

models, that less than 10 percent of the blue fin tuna spawning habitat was predicted to have been covered 

by surface oil and that less than 12 percent of larval blue fin tuna were predicted to have been located 

within contaminated waters in the northern Gulf on a weekly basis. This study model is preliminary 

evidence that the larval mortality as a result of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup

was not a catastrophic event for the 2010 year class of the population of Atlantic blue fin tuna.

The impacts of a catastrophic oil spill, such as the Deepwater Horizon explosion recently experienced 

in the Gulf of Mexico, based on limited data now available, are discussed in Appendix B of the 2012-

2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Unavailable information on the effects to commercial fisheries from the 

Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup (and thus changes to the commercial fisheries 

baseline) makes an understanding of the cumulative effects less clear. BOEM concludes that the 

unavailable information from these events may be relevant to foreseeable significant adverse impacts to 

the commercial fishing industry and commercially important fish resources. Relevant data on the status 

of commercially important fish populations and the commercial fishing industry after the Deepwater 
4-156 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup may take years to acquire and analyze, and impacts from the 

Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill may be difficult or impossible to discern from other factors. 

Therefore, it is not possible for BOEM to obtain this information within the timeframe contemplated by 

this NEPA analysis, regardless of the cost or resources needed. In light of the incomplete or unavailable 

information, BOEM’s subject-matter experts have used available scientifically credible evidence in this 

analysis and applied it using accepted methods and approaches. Nevertheless, BOEM believes that 

incomplete or unavailable information regarding the effects of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, 

and cleanup on the commercial fishing industry is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives in 

the effects analysis for the reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for commercial fisheries presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for commercial fisheries presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. While there were increases to commercial fisheries catches in 2011 as 

compared with 2010, there is still uncertainty to what degree the fisheries closures in 2010 affected 

stocks. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply 

for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

4.2.1.20.Recreational Fishing

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for recreational fishing presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for recreational fishing presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the CPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of recreational fishing can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.20.1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Routine OCS actions can affect recreational fishing activity in a number of ways. The most direct 

impacts of OCS actions occur through their impacts on the fish populations that support recreational 

fishing activity. Many of the species fished by recreational anglers are the same as those caught by 

commercial fishermen. The main exception is menhaden, which is primarily a commercially fished 

species. The OCS activities can cause coastal environmental degradation either through effects on water 

quality or on wetland habitats. Construction operations and vessel traffic could also cause some degree of 

space-use conflict with recreational fishing vessels. Since the majority of recreational fishing activity in 

the Gulf of Mexico occurs fairly close to shore, space-use conflicts would primarily arise near onshore 

ports (primarily during the construction phase). However, even if a space-use conflict was to arise in a 

particular instance, it is likely that a number of substitute recreational fishing sites would be available. A 

detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease 

Sale 231 on recreational fishing can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.20.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

There could be minor and short-term, space-use conflicts with recreational fishermen during the 

initial phases of the CPA proposed action. The CPA proposed action could also lead to low-level 

environmental degradation of fish habitat (Chapter 4.2.1.18.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS), which would also negatively impact recreational fishing activity. However, these minor negative 

effects would likely be offset by the beneficial role that oil rigs serve as artificial reefs for fish 

populations. The degree to which oil platforms would become a part of a particular State’s Rigs-to-Reefs 

program would be an important determinant of the degree to which the CPA proposed action would 

impact recreational fishing activity in the long term.
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-157

The most direct manner in which oil spills and other accidental events would impact recreational 

fishing activity would be through their effects on fish and their habitats in the affected areas. A spill 

could either contaminate fish in the immediate area or cause fish to move during the duration of the spill. 

A spill would likely cause more direct harm to larvae and eggs than adults, which could possibly affect 

recreational species in the longer term. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be 

associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on recreational fishing can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.20.3 

of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

An oil spill would likely lead to recreational fishing closures in the vicinity of the oil spill. Smallscale spills should not affect recreational fishing to a large degree due to the likely availability of 

substitute fishing sites in neighboring regions. A large spill such as the one associated with the 

Deepwater Horizon explosion can have more substantial effects due to the larger potential closure regions 

and due to the wider economic implications such closures can have. Public perceptions of fish 

contamination would also play a more important role subsequent to a large oil spill. However, the longerterm implications of a large oil spill would primarily depend on the extent to which fish ecosystems 

recover after the spill has been cleaned.

There remains incomplete or unavailable information that may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable 

impacts on recreational fishing. Much of this information relates to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil 

spill, and cleanup and is continuing to be collected and developed through the NRDA process. These data 

collection and research projects may be years from completion. Few data or conclusions have been 

released to the public to date. Regardless of the costs involved, it is not within BOEM’s ability to obtain 

this information from the NRDA process within the timeline of this Supplemental EIS. In light of this 

incomplete and unavailable information, BOEM’s subject-matter experts have used credible scientific 

information that is available and applied it using scientifically accepted methodology. Given the 

available data that have been released, as described in this section, BOEM believes that this incomplete or 

unavailable information is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives in the effects analysis, for 

the reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The cumulative impacts to recreational fishing activity will arise from the CPA proposed action, the 

existing OCS Program, and the expected progression of the recreational fishing industry in the Gulf of 

Mexico. These impacts would arise from the cumulative effects on fish resources in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Cumulative impacts include wetland loss, marine/estuary water quality degradation, damage to live 

bottoms, structure removals, petroleum spills, subsurface blowouts, pipeline trenching, and discharges of 

drilling mud and processed waters on fish resources. Because many of the recreationally sought fishes 

are also harvested commercially, a number of the cumulative impacts to the recreational fishing industry 

are similar to those of the commercial fishing industry. This is true even though recreational fishing is 

primarily confined to smaller, closer inshore areas of the Gulf of Mexico than commercial fishing. The 

cumulative impacts unique to recreational fishing activity would arise from State and Federal fisheries

management plans, the role of oil platforms as artificial reefs, and the lingering impacts of the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. A detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of OCS 

activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on recreational fishing can be found in Chapter 

4.2.1.20.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The CPA proposed action and the broader OCS Program have varied effects on recreational fishing

activity. The OCS Program has generally enhanced recreational fishing opportunities due to the role of 

oil platforms as artificial reefs. This effect depends importantly on the extent to which rigs are removed 

at decommissioning or are maintained through Rigs-to-Reefs programs. However, oil spills can have 

negative consequences on recreational fishing activity due to the resultant fishing closures, the public 

perception that fish and shellfish are contaminated, and the longer-term effects that oil spills can have on 

fish populations. This was evident during the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, the 

effects of which are not yet certain. However, this type of catastrophic spill event is rare. The 

contribution of the CPA proposed action to these positive and negative cumulative effects would be 

minimal because of the relatively small amount of activity expected with the CPA proposed action. In 

addition, it is likely that Fisheries Management Plans of the Federal and State governments would serve 

to keep overall recreational fishing activity reasonably stable through time.
4-158 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

BOEM examined a variety of Internet sources, as well as known data providers, for new information 

regarding the impacts of the CPA proposed action on recreational fishing. The primary new data source 

is an annual update to recreational fishing data for the Gulf of Mexico (USDOC, NMFS, 2012g). This 

update provides updates to the preliminary 2011 data that were used in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. In 2012, NMFS also updated its data for previous years. This data 

source provides data on both the species caught and the amount of angler effort in any particular year. 

Table 4-29 presents data on the number of angler trips taken in each state in the Gulf of Mexico in 2009, 

2010, and 2011. In the Gulf as a whole, there were 22.6 million angler trips in 2009, 21.0 million angler 

trips in 2010, and 22.6 million angler trips in 2011. Thus, while there was a decrease in recreational 

fishing activity in 2010, overall recreational fishing activity in 2011 returned to the same level as that 

which occurred in 2009. Table 4-29 also breaks down these trips by location and mode. The three 

geographic locations for each state are inland, State ocean waters, and Federal ocean waters. The three 

modes of fishing are shore fishing, charter fishing, and private/rental fishing. Ocean-based recreational 

fishing activity was still lower in 2011 than in 2009; however, this was offset by an increase in 

recreational fishing activity closer to shore. Recreational fishing activity was higher in 2011 than in 2009 

in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, while recreational fishing activity in West Florida was lower in 

2011 than in 2009. Table 4-30 presents data on the most commonly landed species by recreational 

fishermen in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida during each year from 2007 through 2011. In 

general, the catch data for 2011 seem consistent with the effort data for 2011. Namely, there was an

increase in catch levels for a number of inland-based species such as Atlantic croaker, sand seatrout, and 

sheepshead. However, there were somewhat lower catch levels for some ocean-based species (such as 

red snapper and king mackerel) during 2010 and 2011. 

There remains incomplete or unavailable information that may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable 

impacts on recreational fishing. Much of this information relates to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil 

spill, and cleanup and is continuing to be collected and developed through the NRDA process. These data 

collection and research projects may be years from completion. Few data or conclusions have been 

released to the public to date. Regardless of the costs involved, it is not within BOEM’s ability to obtain 

this information from the NRDA process within the timeline of this Supplemental EIS. In light of this 

incomplete and unavailable information, BOEM’s subject-matter experts have used credible scientific 

information that is available and applied it using scientifically accepted methodology. Given the 

available data that have been released, as described in this section, BOEM believes that this incomplete or 

unavailable information is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives in the effects analysis for 

the reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for recreational fishing presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for recreational fishing presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. This is because the updated recreational fishing data for Louisiana, 

Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida were roughly in line with prior expectations. The analysis and 

potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease 

Sale 231.

4.2.1.21.Recreational Resources

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for recreational resources presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for recreational resources presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the CPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-159

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of recreational resources can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.21.1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Routine OCS oil and gas activities can affect recreation and tourism in diverse ways. The OCS 

activities can have direct negative impacts on beach and coastal recreational resources through discharges

of marine debris, noise, and visual impairments. There are also possible indirect impacts on local 

recreational resources from space-use conflicts and from increased economic activity from OCS 

operations. The unique role that oil platforms can play as artificial reefs should also be accounted for 

when considering policy actions. Finally, the possible effects of public perceptions on tourism, 

particularly in light of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, should be considered. 

However, while impacts on recreational resources from routine OCS activities can occur from a number 

of sources, in total they are likely to be reasonably small in scale. A detailed impact analysis of the 

routine impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on recreational resources 

can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.21.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The recreational resources most vulnerable to an oil spill are the beaches and nature parks along the 

Gulf Coast. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be associated with proposed 

CPA Lease Sale 231 on recreational resources can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.21.3 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Spills most likely to result from the CPA proposed action would be small, of short duration, and not 

likely to impact Gulf Coast recreational resources. Should an oil spill occur and contact a beach area or 

other recreational resource, it would cause some disruption during the impact and cleanup phases of the 

spill. However, these effects are also likely to be small in scale and of short duration. In the unlikely 

event that a spill occurs that is sufficiently large enough to affect large areas of the coast and, through 

public perception, has effects that reach beyond the damaged area, the effects to recreation and tourism

could be substantial, at least in the short term.

The cumulative impacts to recreational resources would occur through the CPA proposed action, the 

existing OCS Program, and from the expected impacts of external events and actions to recreational 

resources and tourism activity. The CPA proposed action would contribute to a number of aesthetic and 

space-use issues arising from existing oil and gas programs. The OCS activities can also impact the 

recreational uses of beaches and wetland areas, which are already being impacted through coastal erosion. 

Finally, lingering impacts of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup would contribute to 

the incremental impacts of an oil spill, should one arise from the CPA proposed action. A detailed impact 

analysis of the cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on 

recreational resources can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.21.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The CPA proposed action would contribute to the aesthetic impacts and the space-use conflicts that 

arise due to the broader OCS Program. Oil spills could also contribute to the overall degradation of beach 

and wetland-based recreational resources. The dynamics of any future oil spill will also be influenced by 

the damage done and lessons learned from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. 

However, the cumulative impacts of the CPA proposed action on recreational resources are small since 

the incremental increase in the probability of a large spill is also low. The incremental contribution of the 

CPA proposed action is expected to be minimal, in light of all non-OCS-related activities such as 

aesthetic impacts (including from other industrial sources), wetland loss, and space-use conflicts.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

A search of information sources (such as Internet articles and known economic data providers) was 

conducted to determine the availability of recent information related to recreational resources. The 

primary new information source is updated data from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2012) regarding the levels of employment in recreational industries in geographic areas along 

the Gulf Coast. Table 4-5 presents annual data on the level of employees in recreational industries from 

2008 through 2011. As can be seen, recreational employment was higher in December 2011 than in 

December 2009 in all 13 EIA’s along the Gulf Coast. These data provide further confirmation that, in 

aggregate, the recreational industries along the Gulf Coast have mostly recovered from the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. However, the impacts of the oil spill resulting from the 

Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup are difficult to disentangle from the impacts of 
4-160 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

overall economic conditions. The high unemployment that persists nationwide has likely had a particular 

impact on tourism activity since people are more likely to cut back on recreation than other more basic 

necessities. 

The Draft General Management Plan for the Gulf Islands National Seashore (USDOI, National Park 

Service, 2011) provides information to consider with respect to the impacts of the OCS Program on the 

Gulf Islands National Seashore. For example, Horn and Petit Bois Islands were designated as having 

wilderness status in 1978 through the establishment of the Gulf Islands Wilderness Area. This status 

reflects the pristine, undeveloped nature of the area, which is highly valued by recreational visitors to the 

area. This also implies that recreational visitors to this area may be particularly sensitive to disruptions to 

recreational experiences arising from the visibility of OCS platforms, to any marine debris that could arise 

from OCS activities, to noise arising from helicopters or other vessels, and to the damage and disruptions 

that would arise from an oil spill. In January 2013, BOEM convened a meeting with the National Park 

Service to continue ongoing coordination efforts and to determine if any mitigation measures can and 

should be implemented for lease sales in the area adjacent to the Gulf Islands National Seashore. During 

the discussions, the National Park Service did not provide any documentation that would change the 

conclusions in the analyses in this Supplemental EIS.

As shown in Table 4-5, there were 27,719 jobs in the leisure/hospitality industry in EIA MS-1, which 

comprises seven counties in coastal Mississippi. While the Gulf Islands National Seashore is an 

important driver of coastal Mississippi’s economy, it is difficult to quantify the extent to which these 

various jobs are dependent on the Gulf Islands National Seashore. 

Bounds (2012) provides additional information to consider regarding the impacts of oil and gas 

activities on tourism. First, this study provides additional information regarding the impact of elevation 

on the visibility of oil and gas infrastructure. For example, this study estimates that, from an elevation of 

13 ft (4 m), which would be representative of some important tourism destinations in Mississippi, a 

typical drilling rig would be visible 13.9 mi (22.4 km) away. This study also points out some of the 

negative impacts drilling in Alabama State waters had on tourism on Dauphin Island.

Summary and Conclusion 

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for recreational resources presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for recreational resources presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. This is because the new data on recreational employment was roughly in line 

with prior expectations. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

4.2.1.22.Archaeological Resources

4.2.1.22.1. Historic

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for historic archaeological resources presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for historic archaeological resources 

presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the CPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of historic archaeological resources can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.22.1.1 of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Routine impact-producing factors associated with the CPA proposed action that could affect historic 

archaeological resources include direct physical contact with a shipwreck site, the placement of drilling 

rigs and production systems on the seafloor, pile driving associated with platform emplacement, pipeline 

emplacement, dredging of new channels, maintenance dredging of existing channels, anchoring activities, 

pipeline installation, structure removals and site clearance, and the masking of archaeological resources 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-161

from industry-related debris. A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts from OCS activities 

associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on historic archaeological resources can be found in 

Chapter 4.2.1.22.1.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The greatest potential impact to an archaeological resource as a result of the CPA proposed action 

would result from direct contact between an offshore activity (i.e., platform installation, drilling rig 

emplacement, dredging, and pipeline emplacement) and a historic site. Archaeological surveys, where 

required prior to an operator beginning oil and gas activities on a lease, are expected to be effective at 

identifying possible archaeological sites. The technical requirements of the archaeological resource 

reports are detailed in NTL 2005-G07, “Archaeological Resource Surveys and Reports.” Under 30 CFR 

550.194(c), lessees are required to immediately notify BOEM’s Regional Director of the discovery of any 

potential archaeological resources. Under 30 CFR 250.194(c) and 30 CFR 250.1010(c), lessees are also 

required to immediately notify BSEE’s Regional Director of the discovery of any potential archaeological 

resources. 

Offshore oil and gas activities resulting from the CPA proposed action could impact an 

archaeological resource because of incomplete knowledge on the location of these sites in the Gulf. The 

risk of contact to archaeological resources is greater in instances where archaeological survey data are 

unavailable. Such an event could result in the disturbance or destruction of important archaeological 

information. Archaeological surveys, where required, would provide the necessary information to 

develop avoidance strategies that would reduce the potential for impacts on archaeological resources.

Except for the projected 0-1 new gas processing facilities and 0-1 new pipeline landfalls, the CPA 

proposed action would require no new oil and gas coastal infrastructure. It is expected that archaeological 

resources would be protected through the review and approval processes of the various Federal, State, and 

local agencies involved in permitting onshore activities.

Impacts to a historic archaeological resource could occur as a result of an accidental spill. A major 

effect from an oil-spill impact would be visual contamination of a historic coastal site, such as a historic 

fort or lighthouse. Although such effects may be temporary and reversible, cleaning oil from historic 

structures is by no means a simple or inexpensive process (e.g., Chin and Church, 2010). A detailed 

impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on 

historic archaeological resources can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.22.1.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

Accidental events producing oil spills may threaten archaeological resources along the Gulf Coast. 

Should a spill contact a historic archaeological site, damage might include direct impact from oil-spill 

cleanup equipment, contamination of materials, and/or looting. Previously unrecorded sites could be 

impacted by oil-spill cleanup operations on beaches and offshore. It is not very likely for an oil spill to 

occur and contact submerged, coastal or barrier island historic sites as a result of the CPA proposed 

action. 

The major effect from an oil-spill impact would be visual contamination of a historic coastal site,

such as a historic fort or lighthouse. When oil is spilled in offshore areas, much of the oil volatilizes or is 

dispersed by currents, so it has a low probability of contacting coastal areas. It is expected that any spill 

cleanup operations would be considered a Federal action for the purposes of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act and would be conducted in such a way as to cause little or no impacts to historic 

archaeological resources. Recent research suggests that the impact of direct contact of oil on historic 

properties may be long term and not easily reversible without risking damage to fragile historic materials 

(Chin and Church, 2010).

The potential for spills is low, the effects would generally be localized, and the cleanup efforts would 

be regulated. The CPA proposed action, therefore, is not expected to result in impacts to historic 

archaeological sites; however, should such an impact occur, unique or significant archaeological 

information could be lost and this impact could be irreversible.

Of the cumulative scenario activities, those that could potentially impact historic archaeological 

resources include the following: (1) the OCS Program; (2) State oil and gas activity; (3) maintenance 

dredging; (4) OCS sand borrowing; (5) artificial rigs-to-reef development; (6) offshore LNG projects; 

(7) renewable energy and alternative use conversions; (8) commercial fishing; (9) sport diving and 

commercial treasure hunting; and (10) hurricanes. A detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts

of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on historic archaeological resources can 

be found in Chapter 4.2.1.22.1.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.
4-162 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Several impact-producing factors may threaten historic archaeological resources, all related to 

bottom-disturbing activities. An impact could result from contact between a historic shipwreck located 

on the OCS and OCS Program or State oil and gas activities (i.e., pipeline and platform installations, 

drilling rig emplacement and operation, dredging, anchoring activities, structure removal, and site 

clearance). Bottom-disturbing activities on the OCS also include maintenance dredging, sand borrowing, 

transported artificial reef emplacement, liquefied natural gas facility construction, and renewable energy 

facility construction. With the exception of maintenance dredging, preconstruction surveys may be 

required by BOEM or the permitting agency. Impacts resulting from the imperfect knowledge of the 

location of historic resources may still occur in areas where a high-resolution survey is only required at 

984-ft (300-m) survey intervals or not at all. The OCS development prior to requiring archaeological 

surveys has been documented to have impacted wrecks containing significant or unique historic 

information. This was amply demonstrated when a pipeline was laid across a previously unknown early 

19th-century shipwreck and when an MODU mooring anchor chain cut a shipwreck in half (Atauz et al., 

2006; Church and Warren, 2008). The archaeological resources regulation at 30 CFR 250.194(c) and 

30 CFR 550.194 grants authority in certain cases to each BOEM and BSEE Regional Director to require 

archaeological reports to be submitted with the EP, DOCD, or DPP where deemed necessary. As part of 

the environmental reviews conducted for postlease activities, available information will be evaluated 

regarding the potential presence of archaeological resources within the CPA proposed action area to 

determine if additional archaeological resource surveys and mitigation are warranted.

The loss or discard of steel debris associated with oil and gas exploration and development and 

trawling activities could result in the masking of historic shipwrecks or the identification of false 

negatives on archaeological surveys (an anomaly that does not appear to be of historical significance, but 

actually is).

Damage to or loss of significant or unique historic archaeological information from commercial 

fisheries (trawling) is highly likely in water depths <600 ft (183 m) (Foley, 2010). It is expected that 

maintenance dredging, commercial bottom trawling, sport-diving and commercial treasure hunting, and 

hurricanes and tropical storms have impacted and would continue to impact historic period shipwrecks on 

the shelf where such activities occur.

Development onshore as a result of the CPA proposed action could result in the direct physical 

contact between a historic site and pipeline trenching. It is assumed that archaeological investigations 

prior to construction would serve to mitigate these potential impacts. The expected effects of oil spills on 

historic coastal resources are temporary and reversible.

The effects of the various impact-producing factors discussed in this analysis have likely resulted in 

the localized loss of significant or unique historic archaeological information. In the case of factors 

related to OCS Program activities of the past within the cumulative activity area, it is reasonable to 

assume that most impacts would have occurred prior to 1973 (the date of initial archaeological survey and 

site-clearance requirements). The incremental contribution of the CPA proposed action is expected to be 

very small due to the efficacy of remote-sensing surveys and archaeological report, where required. 

Future OCS Program activities and the bottom-disturbing activities permitted by BOEM and other 

agencies may require preconstruction archaeological surveys that, when completed, are highly effective in 

identifying bottom anomalies that could be avoided or investigated before bottom-disturbing activities 

begin. When surveys are not required, it is impossible to anticipate what might be imbedded in or lying 

directly on the seafloor, and impacts to these sites are likely to be major in scale. Despite diligence in 

site-clearance survey reviews, there is still the possibility of an unanticipated interaction between bottomdisturbing activity (i.e., rig emplacement, pipeline trenching, anchoring, and other ancillary activities) and 

a historic shipwreck. The incremental contribution of the CPA proposed action is expected to be very 

small due to the efficacy of the remote-sensing surveys and archaeological reports, where required.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

A search of Internet information sources, as well as interviews with Larry Murphy, Historic 

Properties Specialist Officer for the Section 106 response to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, 

and cleanup, and Dan Odess, DOI Consulting Archaeologist, were conducted to determine the availability 

of recent information. Various Internet sources were examined to assess recent information regarding 

impacts to archaeological resources or potential new threats to archaeological resources that may be 

pertinent to the CPA. These Internet sources included various online indexes to periodical literature, such 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-163

as EBSCO Online (http://web.ebscohost.com), JSTOR (http://www.jstor.org/), the National Technical 

Information Service’s National Technical Reports Library (https://ntrlr3.ntis.gov), and ScienceDirect 

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/). The search revealed a recent interim report describing activities to 

support response activities related to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup and to 

evaluate the impact or potential impact of the event and subsequent cleanup operations to previously 

recorded and unidentified cultural resources. This cultural resources undertaking involves both Federal 

and State undertakings within the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. The cultural 

resources investigation for the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup was managed as a 

component of the SCAT process, and archaeologists have been involved throughout the SCAT process. 

Cultural resources investigations utilized a combination of pedestrian surveys, shovel testing, auger test 

sampling, and trench sampling. In addition, archaeological and Tribal monitors have been embedded 

with all cleanup operations. This report summarizes the findings of the pre-field investigations, field 

surveys, and cleanup monitoring associated with the response to the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil 

spill up until March 31, 2011 (HDR, 2011).

In April 2012, BOEM, working with NOAA’s Office of Ocean Exploration and Research from the 

research vessel Okeanos Explorer, investigated a sonar target reported by Shell Oil in over 4,000 ft 

(1,200 m) of water in an area of the CPA almost 200 miles (320 km) offshore where archaeological 

survey had previously not been required. The target proved to be the intact remains of an armed sailing 

ship dating from around 1800 to 1840. This discovery highlights situations where site-specific surveys 

prior to bottom-disturbing activities may mitigate potential impacts.

This important discovery lends credence to BOEM’s efforts to acquire survey of bottom-disturbing 

activities throughout the CPA.

Although there is incomplete or unavailable information on reasonably foreseeable impacts to historic 

archaeological resources, BOEM feels that this information is not essential to a reasoned choice among 

alternatives for the reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The locations 

of many archaeological resources remain unknown, some resources are heavily sedimented or buried and 

therefore protected from many impacts, and archaeological surveys, where required, are expected to be 

highly effective in identifying resources to allow for protection of the resource during oil and gas 

activities. Nevertheless, this incomplete or unavailable information is not likely to be available within the 

timeframe contemplated by this NEPA analysis. Hundreds of known historic archaeological resources are 

scattered throughout the Gulf of Mexico and thousands more may exist, but their locations are unknown 

to date. The costs of a Gulfwide study would be exorbitant, and it could take years before data 

confirming the presence of additional historic archaeological resources and the status of each could be 

compiled and analyzed. In place of this incomplete or unavailable information, BOEM’s subject-matter 

experts have included what credible scientific information is available and applied it using accepted 

scientific methodologies as noted herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for historic archaeological resources presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for historic archaeological resources 

presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS because the only new relevant documentation 

describes the survey procedures undertaken by SCAT teams and a summation of site discoveries. The 

analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for 

proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

4.2.1.22.2. Prehistoric

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for prehistoric archaeological resources presented in the 2012-

2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for prehistoric archaeological 

resources presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts 

detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the CPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts
4-164 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of prehistoric archaeological resources can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.22.2.1 of 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Offshore development as a result of the CPA proposed action could result in an interaction between a 

drilling rig, platform, pipeline, dredging activity, or anchors and an inundated prehistoric site. This direct 

physical contact with a site could destroy fragile artifacts or site features and could disturb artifact 

provenance and site stratigraphy. The result would be the loss of archaeological data on prehistoric 

migrations, settlement patterns, subsistence strategies, and archaeological contacts for North America, 

Central America, South America, and the Caribbean. A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts of 

OCS activities that may be associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on prehistoric archaeological 

resources can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.22.2.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The greatest potential impact to an archaeological resource as a result of the CPA proposed action 

would result from direct contact between an offshore activity (i.e., platform installation, drilling rig 

emplacement, dredging, pipeline emplacement) and a prehistoric site. Prehistoric archaeological sites are 

thought potentially to be preserved shoreward of the 45-m (148-ft) bathymetric contour, where the Gulf of 

Mexico continental shelf was subaerially exposed during the Late Pleistocene. The archaeological survey 

and archaeological clearance of sites, where required prior to an operator beginning oil and gas activities 

on a lease, are expected to be somewhat effective at identifying submerged landforms that could support 

possible archaeological sites. The NTL 2005-G07 suggests a 300-m (984-ft) linespacing for remotesensing surveys of leases within areas having a high potential for prehistoric sites. While surveys, where 

required, provide a reduction in the potential for a damaging interaction between an impact-producing 

factor and a prehistoric archaeological site, there is a possibility of an OCS activity contacting an 

archaeological site because of an insufficiently dense survey grid. Should such contact occur, there 

would be damage to or loss of significant and/unique archaeological information.

Oil spills resulting from a well blowout in the CPA and related spill-response activities have the 

potential to impact cultural resources near the spill site and landfall areas. A detailed impact analysis of 

the accidental impacts OCS activities that may be associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on 

prehistoric archaeological resources can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.22.2.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

Accidental events producing oil spills may threaten archaeological resources along the Gulf Coast. 

Should a spill contact a prehistoric archaeological site, damage might include loss of radiocarbon-dating 

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

could be impacted by oil-spill cleanup operations on beaches. Detailed risk analyses of offshore oil spills 

ranging from ≥1,000 bbl, <1,000 bbl, and coastal spills that may be associated with the CPA proposed 

action is provided in Chapters 3.2.1.1, 3.2.1.2, and 3.2.1.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, 

respectively. When oil is spilled in offshore areas, much of the oil volatilizes or is dispersed by currents, 

so it has a low probability of contacting coastal and barrier island prehistoric sites as a result of the CPA 

proposed action. The CPA proposed action, therefore, is not expected to result in impacts to prehistoric 

archaeological sites.

Several impact-producing factors may threaten prehistoric archaeological resources of the Gulf of 

Mexico. An impact could result from contact between proposed oil and gas activities (including pipeline 

construction, platform installation, drilling rig emplacement and operation, dredging, and anchoring 

activities) and an oil spill and subsequent cleanup efforts. Each of these activities or events could damage 

and destroy a prehistoric archaeological site located on the continental shelf. A detailed impact analysis 

of the cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on prehistoric 

archaeological resources can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.22.2.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS. 

Archaeological surveys, where required, and the resulting archaeological analyses completed prior to 

an operator beginning oil and gas activities on a lease are expected to be highly effective at identifying 

possible prehistoric sites. The OCS development prior to the first required archaeological survey in 1973 

has possibly impacted sites containing significant or unique prehistoric information, and it is possible 

that, even with current survey methods, prehistoric archaeological sites may be missed. No significant 

new information was found at this time that would alter the overall conclusion that cumulative impacts on 

prehistoric archaeological sites associated with the CPA proposed action is expected to be minimal. 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-165

Because of continued regulations and surveys, where required, the potential impact from the CPA 

proposed action to prehistoric archeological resources would be decreased.

Should an oil spill occur and contact a coastal prehistoric site, loss of significant or unique 

information could result. Oil spills have the potential to impact coastal prehistoric sites directly or 

indirectly by physical impacts caused by oil-spill cleanup operations.

The initial dredging of ports and navigation channels and tropical storms are assumed to have caused 

the localized loss of significant or unique archaeological information.

Onshore development as a result of the OCS Program could result in the direct physical contact 

between a prehistoric site and new facility construction and pipeline trenching. It is assumed that 

archaeological investigations prior to construction would serve to mitigate these potential impacts.

The shallow depth of sediment disturbance caused by commercial fisheries activities (trawling) is not 

expected to exceed that portion of the sediments that have been disturbed by wave-generated forces.

The effects of the various impact-producing factors discussed in this analysis have likely resulted in 

localized losses of significant or unique prehistoric archaeological information. In the case of factors 

related to OCS Program activities in the cumulative activity area, it is reasonable to assume that most 

impacts would have occurred prior to 1973 (the date of initial archaeological survey and clearance 

requirements). The incremental contribution of the CPA proposed action is expected to be very small due 

to the efficacy of the required remote-sensing survey and concomitant archaeological report and 

clearance.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS

A search of Internet information sources, as well as interviews with Larry Murphy, Historic 

Properties Specialist Officer for the Section 106 response to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, 

and cleanup, and Dan Odess, DOI Consulting Archaeologist, were conducted to determine the availability 

of recent information. Various Internet sources were examined to assess recent information regarding 

impacts to archaeological resources or potential new threats to archaeological resources that may be 

pertinent to the CPA. These internet sources included various online indexes to periodical literature such 

as EBSCO Online (http://web.ebscohost.com), JSTOR (http://www.jstor.org/), the National Technical 

Information Service’s National Technical Reports Library (https://ntrlr3.ntis.gov), and ScienceDirect 

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/). The search revealed a recent interim report describing activities to 

support response activities related to the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill and to evaluate the 

impact or potential impact of the event and subsequent cleanup operations to previously recorded and 

unidentified cultural resources. This cultural resources undertaking involves both Federal and State 

undertakings within the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. The cultural resources 

investigation for the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup was managed as a component of 

the SCAT process, and archaeologists have been involved throughout the SCAT process. Cultural 

resources investigations utilized a combination of pedestrian surveys, shovel testing, auger test sampling, 

and trench sampling. In addition, archaeological and Tribal monitors have been embedded with all 

cleanup operations. This report summarizes the findings of the pre-field investigations, field surveys, and 

cleanup monitoring associated with the response to the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill, up 

until March 31, 2011 (HDR, 2011).

Although there is incomplete or unavailable information on reasonably foreseeable impacts to 

prehistoric archaeological resources, BOEM feels that this information is not essential to a reasoned 

choice among alternatives for the reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

The location of many prehistoric archaeological resources remain unknown, and those that have been 

identified are subject to Federal and State protections. Nevertheless, this incomplete or unavailable 

information is not likely to be available within the timeframe contemplated by this NEPA analysis. There 

are numerous prehistoric archaeological resources scattered throughout the Gulf Coast and more may 

exist, but their locations and conditions are unknown to date. The costs of a Gulfwide study would be 

exorbitant and it could take years before data confirming the presence of additional prehistoric 

archaeological resources and the status of each could be compiled and analyzed. In place of this 

incomplete or unavailable information, BOEM’s subject-matter experts have included what credibly 

scientific information is available and applied it using accepted scientific methodologies.
4-166 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for prehistoric archaeological resources presented in the 2012-

2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for prehistoric archaeological 

resources presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS because the only new relevant document 

describes the survey procedures undertaken by SCAT teams and a summation of site discoveries. The 

analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for 

proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

4.2.1.23.Human Resources and Land Use

4.2.1.23.1. Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for land use and coastal infrastructure presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant 

information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for land use and coastal infrastructure 

presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the CPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of land use and coastal infrastructure can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.23.1.1 of 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Impact-producing factors associated with the CPA proposed action that could affect land use and 

coastal infrastructure include gas processing facilities, pipeline landfalls, service bases, navigation 

channels, and waste disposal facilities. A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts of OCS 

activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on land use and coastal infrastructure can be 

found in Chapter 4.2.1.23.1.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The impacts of routine events associated with the CPA proposed action are uncertain due to the postDeepwater Horizon environment, the effects of the drilling suspension, the changes in Federal 

requirements for drilling safety, and the current pace of permit approvals. BOEM projects 0-1 new gas 

processing facilities and 0-1 new pipeline landfalls for the CPA proposed action. However, based on the 

most current information available, there is only a very slim chance that either would result from the CPA 

proposed action, and if a new gas processing facility or pipeline landfall were to result, it would likely 

occur toward the end of the 40-year analysis period. The likelihood of a new gas processing facility or 

pipeline landfall is much closer to zero than to one (Dismukes, official communication, 2011). BOEM 

anticipates that there would be maintenance dredging of navigation channels and an increase in activity at 

services bases as a result of the CPA proposed action. If drilling activity recovers post-Deepwater 

Horizon and increases, there could be new increased demand for a waste disposal services as a result of 

the CPA proposed action. Because of the current near zero estimates for a pipeline landfall and gas 

processing facility construction, the routine activities associated with the CPA proposed action would 

have little effect on land use. 

As a result of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, it is too early to determine 

substantial, long-term changes in routine event impacts to land use and infrastructure. BOEM anticipates 

these changes would become apparent over time. Therefore, BOEM recognizes the need to continue 

monitoring all resources for changes that are applicable for land use and infrastructure. In regard to land 

use and infrastructure, it does not appear that there would be adverse impacts from routine events 

associated with the CPA proposed action.

Accidental events (impact-producing factors) associated with the CPA proposed action that could 

affect land use and coastal infrastructure include oil spills, vessel collisions, and chemical/drilling-fluid 

spills. The Deepwater Horizon explosion was an accidental event of historic and catastrophic proportion, 

the largest blowout in U.S. history, and the first to occur on the OCS in over 30 years. Such events 

should be distinguished from accidental events that are smaller in scale and that occur more frequently. A 

detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-167

231 on land use and coastal infrastructure can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.23.1.3 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Accidental events associated with the CPA proposed action would occur at different levels of 

severity, based in part on the location and size of event. The typical types of accidental events that could 

affect land use and coastal infrastructure include oil spills, vessel collisions, and chemical/drilling-fluid 

spills. These may occur anywhere across the spectrum of severity. Typically, accidental events related to 

OCS activities are generally smaller in scale based on historic experience, and they must be distinguished 

from low-probability catastrophic events such as the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. 

Typically, the impact of small-scale oil spills, vessel collisions, and chemical/drilling fluid spills are not 

likely to last long enough to adversely affect overall land use or coastal infrastructure in the analysis area.

Many of the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup to land use and 

infrastructure have been temporary and short term, such as the ship decontamination sites and the waste 

staging areas established in the immediate aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and 

cleanup (USDOT, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2010). The indirect effects on infrastructure use 

are still rippling through the industry, but this should resolve as issues with the suspensions, rate of 

permitting, and other matters are resolved. With regards to land use and infrastructure, the postDeepwater Horizon environment remains somewhat dynamic, and BOEM will continue to monitor these 

resources over time and to document short- and long-term Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and 

cleanup impacts. In the future, the long-term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and 

cleanup will be clearer as time allows the production of peer-reviewed research and targeted studies that 

determine those impacts. The Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill was a low-probability 

catastrophic event. The kinds of accidental events that are likely to result from the CPA proposed action 

are not likely to significantly affect land use and coastal infrastructure. This is because accidental events 

offshore would have a small probability of impacting onshore resources. Also, if an accident occurs 

nearshore, it would most probably be near a facility; therefore, the impacts would be temporary and 

localized because of the decrease in response time.

The cumulative analysis considers both existing land-use patterns and the effects of impact-producing 

factors from OCS and State oil and gas activities. A detailed impact analysis of cumulative impacts of 

OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on land use and coastal infrastructure can 

be found in Chapter 4.2.1.23.1.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

For the CPA proposed action, the primary region of geographic influence is coastal Texas, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, and Alabama. Land-use patterns vary greatly by region, reflecting differences in soils, 

climate, topography, and patterns of population settlement. Mississippi and Louisiana are located in what 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service calls the Delta farm production region, 

while Alabama is located in the Southeast farm production region and Texas is located in the Southern 

Plain region (Lubowski, 2006). The Economic Research Service conducts land-use inventories based on 

available land-use data obtained from surveys conducted both by the ERS and its predecessor agencies.

This analysis focuses only on those Gulf Coast States that could be impacted by the CPA proposed 

action, i.e., Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Of the over 400,000 mi2 (1,035,995 km2

) 

comprising these coastal states, 18 percent of the total land area is covered in cropland, which includes 

cropland harvested, crop failure, cultivated summer fallow, cropland used only for pasture, and idle 

cropland. Texas and Mississippi have the highest percentages of cropland, with 20 percent and 19 percent 

of each respective State’s total land being used for cropland. For all four coastal states, 42 percent of the 

total land area is used for grassland pasture and range, with Texas devoting 61 percent of close to 

262,000 mi2 (679,095 km2

) for grassland pasture and range. Forest land, which the U.S. Forest Service 

defines as land at least 10 percent stocked by trees of any size, including land that formerly had such tree 

cover and that will be naturally or artificially regenerated, makes up 28 percent of the total land area in 

these four coastal states. Alabama has the most forest use land with 70 percent of the State’s 53,868 mi2

(139,517 km2

) covered in forest, followed by Mississippi with 65 percent of its total land area covered in 

forest. Forest use land includes timberland, reserved forest land, but it excludes forest land in parks, 

wildlife areas, and similar special purpose uses. Special use areas, which include areas in highway, road, 

and railroad rights-of-way and airports; Federal and State parks, wilderness areas, and wildlife refuges; 

and national defense and industrial areas, make up 4 percent of the total land area for these four coastal 

states. Louisiana has the highest percentage of special use area with 7 percent of the land used for 

special-use purposes (Lubowski, 2006). 
4-168 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Census urban areas include densely populated areas with at least 50,000 people (“urbanized areas”) 

and densely populated areas with 2,500-50,000 people (“urban clusters”). Included in the Census urban 

area definition are residential areas and concentrations of nonresidential urban areas such as commercial, 

industrial, and institutional land; office areas; urban streets and roads; major airports; urban parks and 

recreational areas; and other land within urban defined areas. The total urban land area for all four states 

is just 3 percent of the total land area, with Louisiana and Alabama tied for the highest percentage of 

urban areas with 4 percent of each state being utilized for high population areas. The final land use

category, “Miscellaneous,” includes industrial and commercial sites in rural areas, cemeteries, golf 

courses, mining areas, quarry sites, marshes, swamps, sand dunes, bare rocks, deserts, tundra, rural 

residential, and other unclassified land. For Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas, 4 percent of land use is 

classified as miscellaneous, but in Louisiana, 16 percent of land use is classified as miscellaneous. 

Louisiana contains 40-45 percent of the wetlands found in the lower states within its 195,000-mi2

(505,048-km2

) footprint (USDOI, GS, 2012a). Louisiana also has the greatest rate of landloss in the 

Nation. For a more detailed discussion on deltaic landloss, refer to Chapter 4.1.1.4. 

The OCS-related demands upon coastal infrastructure and land use tend to be geographically 

concentrated as compared with historic residential settlement within the region. For instance, Port 

Fourchon is the service base for over 90 percent of OCS deepwater production and serves as a conduit for 

15-18 percent of the Nation’s entire oil supply (The Greater Lafourche Port Commission, 2011). As one 

of the most significant footprints within the OCS-related infrastructure corridor, Port Fourchon comprises 

only 2.7 developed square miles (7 km2

)within a close to 44,000-mi2 (113,959-km2) state. In Louisiana, 

there are 105 persons per square mile, and in Lafourche Parish (where Port Fourchon is located), there are 

90 persons per square mile, both above the national average of 87 persons per square mile (USDOC, 

Census Bureau, 2010). The future of non-OCS-related land use and infrastructure will largely be 

determined by economic drivers that influence where people settle or relocate.

Activities relating to the OCS Program and State oil and gas production are expected to minimally 

affect the current land use of the analysis area because most subareas have strong industrial bases and 

designated industrial parks to accommodate future growth in oil and gas businesses. BOEM projects 

0-1 new gas processing facilities and 0-1 new pipeline landfalls for the CPA proposed action, although 

this is a conservative estimate and the number is much closer to zero than to one. If a new gas processing 

facility or pipeline landfall were to occur, it would likely be toward the end of the 40-year analysis period 

(Dismukes, official communication 2011). There may be a new increased demand for waste disposal

services as a result of the CPA proposed action. Any service base expansion in the cumulative case 

would be limited, would occur on lands designated for such purposes, and would have minimal effects on 

land use and infrastructure. However, in the cumulative case it is possible that Port Fourchon expansions 

may eventually be constrained by surrounding wetlands. Based on the available information and current 

BOEM scenario projections, the cumulative impacts on land use and coastal infrastructure from OCSrelated activities are expected to be minor. Therefore, the incremental contribution of the CPA proposed 

action to the cumulative impacts on land use and coastal infrastructure are also expected to be minor.

The coastal infrastructure supporting the CPA proposed action represents only a tiny portion of the 

coastal land and infrastructure throughout the CPA and Gulf of Mexico, and little change is expected to 

occur due to changing agricultural and extractive (e.g., lumbering, petroleum) uses of onshore land. 

Many non-OCS-related factors contribute substantially to the cumulative impacts to land use and coastal 

infrastructure, including housing and other residential developments; the development of private and 

publically owned recreational facilities; the construction and maintenance of industrial facilities and 

transportation systems; urbanization; city planning and zoning; changes to public facilities such as water, 

sewer, educational, and health facilities; changes to military bases and reserves; changes in population 

density; changes in State and Federal land-use regulations; and changes in non-OCS-related demands for 

water transportation systems and ports. Given the overwhelming contribution of these non-OCS-related 

factors to the cumulative impacts on land use and coastal infrastructure and the small incremental 

contribution of the CPA proposed action, the cumulative impacts on land use and coastal infrastructure 

are also expected to be minor.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

Additional research was conducted to investigate the availability of recent information affecting land 

use and coastal infrastructure since publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Various 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-169

Internet sources were examined, including the websites of numerous Federal and State agencies (U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency; U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Bureau of the Census; USDOC, NOAA; U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration; U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration; USDOI, FWS; 

RestoreTheGulf.gov website; Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Portal; USEPA; Louisiana Department of 

Environmental Quality; Louisiana Recovery Authority; Louisiana Office of Community Development; 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality; Alabama Department of Environmental Management; 

and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection). Further information was sought from other 

organizations, recently published journal articles, and trade publications such as The Greater Lafourche 

Port Commission, LA1 Coalition, The Oil Drum, Rigzone, Oil and Gas Journal, Offshore Magazine, 

TOLLROADS News, and The Energy Journal. This research revealed Sasol, Inc.’s plan to build a 

gas-to-liquids processing facility in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. This would be the first gas-to-liquids 

facility constructed in the United States. Plans call for an 18-month feasibility study to consider two 

development options, specifically, whether it will produce 2 million tons per year or 4 million tons per 

year (Troy, 2011). At present, BOEM believes that most of this gas will be sourced from onshore 

unconventional reserves rather than from OCS supplies. BOEM will continue to monitor future 

development of this new coastal infrastructure category (gas-to-liquids facilities), but this one proposed 

plan would not be expected to on its own represent a significant development or change in land use.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for land use and coastal infrastructure presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. BOEM has determined 

that the additional information does not alter the impact conclusion for land use and coastal infrastructure 

because the plans to build the new gas-to-liquids facility are very preliminary and are dependent upon not 

only the outcome of the 18-month feasibility study but also future fluctuations in the natural gas supply 

market. Therefore, the analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

4.2.1.23.2. Demographics

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for demographics presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for demographics presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the CPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of demographics can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.23.2.1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The addition of any new human activity, such as oil and gas development resulting from the CPA 

proposed action, can affect local communities in a variety of ways. Typically, these effects are in the 

form of people and money, which can translate into changes in the local social and economic institutions. 

Minor demographic changes, primarily in focus areas, are projected as a result of the CPA proposed 

action. A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA 

Lease Sale 231 on demographics can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.23.2.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

The CPA proposed action is projected to minimally affect the demography of the analysis area. 

Population impacts from the CPA proposed action are projected to be minimal (<1% of the total 

population) for any EIA in the Gulf of Mexico region. The baseline population patterns and distributions, 

as projected and described in Chapter 4.2.1.23.2.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, are 

expected to remain unchanged as a result of the CPA proposed action. The increase in employment is 
4-170 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

expected to be met primarily with the existing population and available labor force, with the exception of 

some in-migration projected to occur in focal areas, such as Port Fourchon. 

The addition of human activity associated with an oil-spill response can affect local communities in a 

variety of ways. Typically, these effects are short term and in the form of a temporary influx of people 

and money, which can translate into changes in the local social and economic institutions. Minor to no 

demographic changes, primarily in projected shoreline contact areas, are projected as a result of the CPA 

proposed action. Detailed impact analyses of the routine, accidental, and cumulative impacts of OCS 

activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on demographics can be found in Chapter 

4.2.1.23.2.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Accidental events associated with the CPA proposed action, such as oil or chemical spills, blowouts, 

and vessel collisions, would likely have no effects on the demographic characteristics of the Gulf coastal 

communities because accidental events typically cause only short-term population movements as 

individuals seek employment related to the event or have their existing employment displaced during the 

event and because net employment impacts from a spill are not expected to exceed 1 percent of baseline 

employment for any EIA in any given year.

The cumulative analysis considers the effects of OCS-related, impact-producing factors as well as 

non-OCS-related factors on demographics. The OCS-related factors consist of population and 

employment from prior, current, and future OCS lease sales. Non-OCS factors include fluctuations in 

workforce, net migration, relative income, oil and gas activity in State waters, and offshore LNG activity. 

Not considered in this analysis are the unexpected events that may influence oil and gas activity within 

the analysis area that cannot be predicted with reasonable accuracy. Examples of unexpected events 

include oil embargos and acts or war or terrorism. A detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts

that may be associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on demographics can be found in Chapter 

4.2.1.23.2.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The cumulative activities are projected to minimally affect the analysis area’s demography. Baseline 

patterns and distributions of these factors, as described in Chapter 4.2.1.23.2.1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, are not expected to change for the analysis area as a whole. Lafourche Parish 

(EIA LA-3), including Port Fourchon, and Lafayette Parish (EIA LA-2) in Louisiana are projected to 

experience noteworthy impacts to population as a result of an increase in demand for OCS labor from the 

OCS Program. The CPA proposed action is projected to have an incremental contribution of less than 

1 percent to the population level in any of the EIA’s, in comparison to other factors influencing 

population growth, such as the status of the overall economy, fluctuations in workforce, net migration, 

and changes in income. Given both the low levels of population growth and industrial expansion 

associated with the CPA proposed action, it is expected that the baseline age and racial distribution 

pattern would continue through the analysis period.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

BOEM conducted a search of Internet resources and known data sources related to demographics. 

The primary source of new information related to demographics is Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 

(2011), which is an annual update to the data that were used in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. (2011) provides projections of economic and demographic variables at 

the county level. Table 4-6 provides projections of the evolution of the total population in all EIA’s in 

future years, while Table 4-7 provides projections of the evolution of total employment in the same areas. 

These projections assume the continuation of existing social, economic, and technological trends at the 

time of the forecast. In 2011, the total Gulf Coast population was 24.85 million. In 2011, the EIA’s with 

the largest populations were TX-3 (6.32 million), FL-4 (6.26 million), and FL-3 (3.69 million). The 

EIA’s with the smallest populations were LA-1 (349,090), MS-1 (484,980), and LA-2 (591,720). For all 

EIA’s combined, it is expected that the total population will grow at a 1.2 percent rate between 2011 and 

2051. The fastest population growth is expected in TX-3 (1.5%) and TX-1 (1.5%); the slowest population 

growth is expected in LA-4 (0.5%) and MS-1 (0.6%). Tables 4-8 through 4-20 provide projections of 

employment, income, wealth, business patterns, and racial composition for individual EIA’s. In general, 

the projections of these variables have not changed noticeably from the projections in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

As discussed in Chapter 4.2.1.23.3, BOEM has incorporated a new version of MAG-PLAN into its 

decisionmaking process. The MAG-PLAN is an input-output model that BOEM uses to estimate the 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-171

employment and economic demand generated by OCS lease sales and to allocate this demand to onshore 

EIA’s along the Gulf Coast. Table 4-31 presents the expected impacts to population from the CPA 

proposed based on MAG-PLAN’s employment estimates, while Table 4-22 presents the expected 

impacts to population for the cumulative scenario. The changes in these estimates correspond closely to 

the changes in the employment estimates discussed in Chapter 4.2.1.23.3. However, the changes to these 

estimates from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS are modest and thus do not change the associated 

impact conclusions.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for demographics presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for demographics presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. This is because the updated MAG-PLAN output still suggests that the impacts 

of the CPA proposed action on demographics would be relatively small. In addition, the new 

Woods & Poole Economic, Inc.’s (2011) data were roughly in line with prior expectations. The analysis 

and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA 

Lease Sale 231.

4.2.1.23.3. Economic Factors

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for economic factors presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for economic factors presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the CPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of economic factors can be found in Chapter 4.1.1.23.3 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The CPA proposed action would have economic impacts on a variety of firms along the OCS 

industry’s supply chain. For example, the CPA proposed action would directly affect firms that are 

responsible for well drilling, equipment manufacturing, pipeline construction, and servicing OCS 

activities. The OCS activities would also impact the suppliers to those firms, as well as firms that depend 

on consumer spending of oil and gas industry workers. A detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts 

of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on economic factors can be found in 

Chapter 4.1.1.23.3.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Should the CPA proposed action occur, there would be only minor economic changes in the Texas, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida EIA’s. This is because the demand would be met primarily 

with the existing population and labor force. Most of the employment related to the CPA proposed action 

is expected to occur in Texas (primarily in the EIA TX-3) and in the coastal areas of Louisiana. The CPA 

proposed action, irrespective of whether one analyzes the high-case or low-case production scenario, 

would not cause employment effects >0.5 percent in any EIA along the Gulf Coast.

An oil spill can have a number of effects on local economies. The most direct effects are felt in 

industries that depend on resources that are damaged or rendered unusable for a period of time due to a 

spill. For example, beach recreation, recreational fishing, and commercial fishing would be vulnerable if 

beach or fish resources were damaged due to an oil spill. However, for small to medium oil spills, the 

impacts to these activities would likely be localized and small in scale. An oil spill could also have 

noticeable economic impacts if it were to impact important transportation routes or affect the operations 

of certain port facilities. However, the likelihood of a single oil spill shutting down an entire waterway or 

port facility is quite low. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be associated with 

proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on economic factors can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.23.3.3 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.
4-172 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

An oil spill can cause a number of disruptions to local economies. A number of these effects are due 

to industries that depend on damaged resources. However, the impacts of an oil spill can be somewhat 

broader if firms further along industry supply chains are affected. These effects depend on issues such as 

the effects of cleanup operations and the responses of policymakers to a spill. However, the impacts of 

small- to medium-sized spills should be localized and temporary. A catastrophic spill along the lines of 

the one resulting from the Deepwater Horizon explosion would have more noticeable impacts to the 

economy. However, the likelihood of another spill of this scale is quite low. 

The CPA proposed action would contribute to the economic effects of the broader OCS Program. 

The OCS Program directly affects firms that are responsible for well drilling, equipment manufacturing, 

pipeline construction, and servicing OCS activities. The OCS activities also impact the suppliers to those 

firms, as well as firms that depend on consumer spending of oil and gas industry workers. A detailed 

impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease 

Sale 231 on economic factors can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.23.3.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

The cumulative impacts of the CPA proposed action would be determined by the expected path of the 

economy and by the expected progression of the OCS industry in upcoming years. The expected path of 

the overall economy is projected using the data provided by Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. (2010). The 

expected economic impacts of the OCS industry in upcoming years are estimated using the mathematical 

model MAG-PLAN. The cumulative impacts of the CPA proposed action to the economies along the 

Gulf Coast are expected to be relatively small. A detailed impact analysis of the cumulative impacts of 

proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on economic factors can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.23.3.4 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

BOEM conducted a search of Internet resources and known data sources related to economic factors. 

The primary new information source that has become available is a revised version of MAG-PLAN. The 

MAG-PLAN is an input-output model that BOEM uses to estimate the employment and economic 

demand generated by OCS lease sales and to allocate this demand to onshore EIA’s along the Gulf Coast. 

The updated version of MAG-PLAN incorporates an improved method for estimating the economic 

impacts of the spending of workers in the OCS industry. BOEM has also incorporated a methodology in 

which the employment impacts of lease sales are distributed to onshore areas more similarly for CPA and 

WPA lease sales. BOEM is continuing to review methods for distributing the impacts of lease sales 

among EIA’s and for differentiating the impacts of CPA and WPA lease sales.

Tables 4-32 through 4-34 present the revised MAG-PLAN estimates of the employment impacts of 

the CPA proposed action, while Tables 4-23 through 4-25 present the revised estimates of the 

cumulative impacts of all OCS activities. Table 4-34 shows that the estimated peak employment impacts 

of the CPA proposed action will primarily occur in the following EIA’s (the number of jobs in the low 

and high scenarios, respectively, are presented in parenthesis): TX-3 (3,710; 6,824); LA-3 (848; 1,862); 

LA-2 (644; 1,428); and TX-1 (551; 1,577). These updated employment estimates reflect a modest 

increase from the estimates of the 2012-2017 Multisale EIS for Texas EIA’s and a modest decrease for 

Louisiana EIA’s. These updated estimates also bring BOEM’s results more in line with the findings of 

Quest Offshore (2011), which incorporates proprietary OCS supply chain data into its input-output model 

to create various measures of the economic impacts of the Gulf OCS Program. 

Recent information shows that permitting and exploration activities in the Gulf increased in pace in 

2012 (compared with 2010 and 2011). Eighty-nine deepwater permits were issued in 2012 (by October 

2012); this compares with 76 permits in 2009, 32 permits in 2010, and 38 permits in 2011 (Klimasinska, 

2012). As of December 2012, 16 of 18 drillships and 17 of 31 semisubmersibles were actively drilling in 

the Gulf (Rigzone, 2012). IHS Petrodata’s Jackup Day Rate Index for the Gulf of Mexico increased from 

296 in November 2011 to 388 in November 2012, while jackup utilization increased from 52 percent to 

63 percent over the same time period (IHS.com, 2012). Other anecdotal evidence suggests that Gulf 

exploration and development activity picked up noticeably in 2012 (Greenberg, 2012).

Information regarding the number of blocks leased and the bids received in previous lease sales is 

presented in “Outer Continental Shelf Lease Sale Statistics” (USDOI, BOEM, 2012d). A discussion of 

the procedures that BOEM uses to ensure the Federal Government receives proper returns from lease 

sales can be found in “Summary of Procedures for Determining Bid Adequacy at Offshore Oil and Gas 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-173

Lease Sales: Effective July 1999, with Sale 174” (USDOI, MM,S 1999). Agalliu (2011) presents a 

comparative analysis of the GOM fiscal system relative to fiscal systems in other countries. This study 

creates a composite measure of government return and shows that the fiscal systems for the shelf and 

deepwater areas of the Gulf of Mexico rank favorably relative to fiscal systems in other countries. An 

economic analysis of the costs and benefits of leasing in the Gulf of Mexico is presented in Section 2.12 

of the 2012-2017 Programmatic EIS (USDOI, BOEM, 2012c). This analysis found that the benefits of 

leasing in both the WPA and CPA continued to exceed the costs. More information regarding BOEM’s 

economic analyses can be found in the economic analysis methodology for the Five-Year Program 

(USDOI, BOEM, 2012e). 

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for economic factors presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for economic factors presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. This is because the updated MAG-PLAN output still suggests that the impacts 

of the CPA proposed action on employment would be relatively small. The analysis and potential 

impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

4.2.1.23.4. Environmental Justice

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for environmental justice presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new significant information was 

discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for environmental justice presented in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the CPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of environmental justice can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.23.4.1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Impact-producing factors potentially resulting from routine events associated with the CPA proposed 

action that could affect environmental justice include the following: (1) potential infrastructure

changes/expansions including fabrication yards, support bases, and onshore disposal sites for offshore 

waste; (2) increased commuter and truck traffic; and (3) employment changes and immigration. A 

detailed impact analysis of the routine impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease 

Sale 231 on environmental justice can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.23.4.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

Because of the existing extensive and widespread support system for OCS-related industry and the 

associated labor force, the effects of routine events related to the CPA proposed action are expected to be 

widely distributed and to have little impact. This is because the CPA proposed action is not expected to 

significantly change most of the existing conditions, such as traffic or the amount of infrastructure. 

Where such change might occur is impossible to predict but, in any case, it would be very limited. 

Because of Louisiana’s extensive oil-related support system, that State is likely to experience more 

employment effects related to the CPA proposed action than are the other coastal states, and because of 

the concentration of this system in Lafourche Parish, that parish is likely to experience the greatest 

benefits from employment benefits and burdens from traffic and infrastructure demand. Impacts related 

to the CPA proposed action on minority and low-income populations are expected to be primarily 

economic in nature and to have a limited but positive effect on low-income and minority populations 

because the CPA proposed action would contribute to the sustainability of current industry and related 

support services. Given the existing distribution of the industry and the limited concentrations of 

minority and low-income peoples adjacent to the OCS infrastructure (Chapter 4.2.1.23.4 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS), the CPA proposed action is not expected to have a disproportionate effect on 

these populations, even in Lafourche Parish.
4-174 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

The CPA proposed action is not expected to have disproportionate high/adverse environmental or 

health effects on minority or low-income people. 

Impact-producing factors associated with the CPA proposed action that could affect environmental 

justice include oil spills, vessel collisions, and chemical/drilling-fluid spills. These factors could affect 

environmental justice through (1) direct exposure to oil, dispersants, degreasers, and other chemicals that 

can affect human health; (2) decreased access to natural resources due to environmental damages, 

fisheries closures, or wildlife contamination; and (3) proximity to onshore disposal sites used in support 

of oil and chemical spill cleanup efforts. A detailed impact analysis of the accidental impacts that may be 

associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on environmental justice can be found in Chapter 

4.2.1.23.4.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Chemical and drilling-fluid spills may be associated with exploration, production, or transportation 

activities that result from the CPA proposed action. Low-income and minority populations might be 

more sensitive to oil spills in coastal waters than is the general population because of their dietary reliance 

on wild coastal resources, their reliance on these resources for other subsistence purposes such as sharing 

and bartering, their limited flexibility in substituting wild resources with purchased ones, and their 

likelihood of participating in cleanup efforts and other mitigating activities. Little is known about 

subsistence along the Gulf Coast, and BOEM is currently funding a study to better document subsistence 

in the region. BOEM’s subject-matter experts have utilized available, credible information for this 

analysis. Although most criteria related to environmental justice may not be essential to a reasoned 

choice among alternatives, subsistence impacts may be essential. Nevertheless, subsistence research is 

pending and outcomes will not be available before publication of this Supplemental EIS. What credible 

information is available was applied using accepted methodologies. BOEM will continue to seek 

additional information as it becomes available and bases this analysis on the best information currently 

available. With the exception of a catastrophic accidental event, such as the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, the impacts of oil spills, vessel collisions, and chemical/drilling fluid spills are not likely to be 

of sufficient duration to have adverse and disproportionate long-term effects for low-income and minority 

communities in the analysis area.

An event like the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill could have adverse and disproportionate 

effects for low-income and minority populations in the analysis area. To date, there is little concrete 

evidence that such effects may have occurred (Brown et al., 2011; Dickey, 2012; King and Gibbons, 

2011; Middlebrook et al., 2011; U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, 2010a and 2010b), although there is some 

dispute in the scientific community about proper risk assessment standards in seafood contamination 

research (Rotkin-Ellman et al., 2012; Rotkin-Ellman and Soloman, 2012). Whether or not long-term 

impacts to low-income and minority populations will occur is unknown. While economic impacts have 

been partially mitigated by employers retaining employees for delayed maintenance or through the Gulf 

Coast Claims Facility Program’s emergency funds, the physical and mental health effects to both children 

and adults within these populations could potentially unfold for many years. As studies of past oil spills 

have highlighted, different cultural groups can possess varying capacities to cope with these types of 

events (Palinkas et al., 1992). Likewise, some low-income and/or minority groups may be more reliant 

on natural resources and/or less equipped to substitute contaminated or inaccessible natural resources with 

private market offerings. Because lower-income and/or minority populations may live near and may be 

directly involved with spill cleanup efforts, the vectors of exposure can be higher for them than for the 

general population, increasing the potential risks of long-term health effects. The post-Deepwater 

Horizon’s human environment remains dynamic, and BOEM will continue to monitor these populations 

over time and to document short- and long-term impacts. The long-term impacts of the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup will be clearer as time allows the production of peer-reviewed 

research and targeted studies that determine those impacts.

The Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill was a low-probability catastrophic event. The kinds 

of accidental events (smaller, shorter time scale) that are likely to result from the CPA proposed action 

may affect low-income and/or minority populations more than the general population, at least in the 

shorter term. These higher risk groups may lack the financial or social resources and may be more 

sensitive and less equipped to cope with the disruption these events pose. These smaller events, however, 

are not likely to significantly affect minority and low-income populations in the long term.

Of all activities in the cumulative scenario, those that could potentially impact environmental justice

in the CPA include (1) proposed actions and the OCS Program, (2) State oil and gas activity, (3) existing 

infrastructure associated with petrochemical processing including refineries and polyvinyl facilities, 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-175

(4) existing waste facilities including landfills, (5) coastal erosion/subsidence, (6) hurricanes, and (7) the 

lingering impacts of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. A detailed impact analysis 

of the cumulative impacts of OCS activities associated with proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 on 

environmental justice can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.23.4.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Because of the presence of an extensive and widespread support system for the OCS and associated 

labor force, the effects of the cumulative case are expected to be widely distributed and, except in 

Louisiana, little felt. In general, the cumulative effects of the OCS Program are expected to be economic 

and to have a limited but positive effect on low-income and minority populations. In Louisiana, these 

positive economic effects are expected to be greater. In general, who would be hired and where new 

infrastructure might be located is impossible to predict. Given the existing distribution of the OCSrelated industry and the limited concentrations of minority and low-income peoples, the cumulative OCS 

Program would not have a disproportionate effect on these populations. Lafourche Parish would 

experience the most concentrated effects of cumulative impacts. These groups are not expected to be 

differentially affected because the parish is not heavily low income or minority and because the effects of 

road traffic and port expansion would not occur in areas of low-income or minority concentration.

The CPA proposed action is not expected to have disproportionate high/adverse environmental or

health effects on minority or low-income people, and in the Gulf of Mexico coastal area, the contribution 

of the CPA proposed action and the OCS Program to the cumulative effects of all activities and trends 

affecting environmental justice issues over the next 40 years is expected to be negligible to minor. The 

cumulative effects would be concentrated in coastal areas, and particularly in Louisiana. Most OCS 

Program effects are expected to be in the areas of job creation and the stimulation of the economy, and 

they are expected to make a positive contribution to environmental justice. The contribution of the 

cumulative OCS Program to the cumulative impacts of all factors affecting environmental justice is 

expected to be minor; therefore, the incremental contribution of the CPA proposed action to the 

cumulative impacts would also be minor. State offshore leasing programs in Alabama and Louisiana 

have similar, although more limited effects, due to their smaller scale. Cumulative effects from onshore 

infrastructure, including waste facilities, is also expected to be minor because existing infrastructure is 

regulated, because little new infrastructure is expected to result in the cumulative case, and because any 

new infrastructure would be subject to relevant permitting requirements. Coastal landloss/subsidence, 

hurricanes, and global warming all raise environmental justice issues, as do the potential long-term effects 

of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. The cumulative consequences to 

environmental justice cannot be determined at this time. Nevertheless, a single OCS lease sale added to 

existing State and Federal leasing programs and the associated onshore infrastructure would make only 

minor contributions to these cumulative effects. 

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

Additional research was conducted to investigate the availability of recent information affecting 

environmental justice since publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Various Internet 

sources were examined, including the websites of numerous Federal and State agencies, including the 

following: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health; USEPA; 

USDOC, Bureau of the Census and Bureau of Labor Statistics; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 

Federal Emergency Management Agency; RestoreTheGulf.gov website; Deepwater Horizon Claims 

Center; Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Portal; Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality; Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality; Louisiana Recovery Authority; and Louisiana Office of 

Community Development. Further information was sought from other organizations, recently published 

journal articles, and trade publications such as The Greater Lafourche Port Commission, LA1 Coalition, 

The Oil Drum, Rigzone, Oil and Gas Journal, and The Energy Journal. With regard to oil-spill claims 

related to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, the Gulf Coast Claims Facility 

Transition Process is closed and the Court Supervised Settlement Program has been in operation since 

June 4, 2012 (Gulf Coast Claims Facility, 2012). An Economic and Property Damages Settlement was 

reached in early 2012 and includes the following types of claims: seafood compensation; business 

economic loss; individual economic loss; loss of subsistence; vessel physical damage; Vessel-ofOpportunity charter payment; coastal real property damage; wetlands real property damage; and real 

property sales loss. A Medical Benefits Settlement was also reached in early 2012 and offers benefits to 

qualifying people who resided in the United States as of April 16, 2012, who were either “Clean-Up 
4-176 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Workers” or who were residents in certain defined beachfront areas and wetlands (“Zones”) during 

certain time periods in 2010. On May 2, 2012, the Court granted preliminary approval for the settlement 

and ordered that the Court-supervised settlement program begin accepting claims on June 4, 2012. For 

economic and property damages, valid claims will be paid as they are approved. For medical claims, 

payments and other benefits will be distributed after the final approval of the settlement and any appeals 

are resolved. The new official court-authorized claims administration website is located at http://

www.deepwaterhorizoneconomicsettlement.com. Persons who filed a claim with the Gulf Coast Claims 

Facility for losses, such as subsistence, who’s claims were rejected, or who have not already accepted a 

final settlement from BP may file a new claim with the Deepwater Horizon Claims Center (Deepwater 

Horizon Claims Center, 2012). The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences announced in 

November 2012 that over 29,000 cleanup workers and volunteers were enrolled in the Gulf Long-Term 

Follow-Up (GuLF) STUDY, which is a national effort to determine if the Gulf oil spill led to physical or 

mental health problems. Enrollment was extended through March 1, 2013, to reach the National Institute 

of Environmental Health Sciences’ target goal of 55,000 participants (National Institute of Environmental 

Health Sciences, 2012; Mackar, 2012; National Institutes of Health, 2013). 

Information regarding the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup remains 

incomplete. Studies regarding environmental justice concerns in light of the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup are still ongoing, and it may be years before data are available and 

certainly not within the timeframe contemplated by this NEPA analysis. The NRDA process, which is 

ongoing, may help to inform issues relating to subsistence and other indigenous reliance on natural 

resources. However, information related to NRDA is unavailable and unobtainable at this time, 

regardless of costs. In its place, BOEM’s subject-matter experts have used credible information that is 

available and applied it using accepted socioeconomic methodologies. Although most criteria related to 

environmental justice may not be essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives, health impacts may 

be essential. Nevertheless, long-term health studies are pending and may not be available for use for 

several years or longer. What credible information is available was applied using accepted 

methodologies. BOEM will continue to seek additional information as it becomes available and bases the 

previous analysis on the best information currently available.

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for environmental justice presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented above. BOEM has determined that the 

additional information does not alter the impact conclusion for environmental justice because the 

information is currently inconclusive with regard to environmental justice issues and will remain so for an 

indefinite period of time. Therefore, the analysis and potential impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

4.2.1.24.Species Considered due to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Concerns

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for species considered due to FWS concerns presented in the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information presented below. No new 

significant information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for species considered due 

to FWS concerns presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential 

impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine activities and accidental events associated with 

the CPA proposed action and the proposed action’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts

are presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The following information is a summary of the 

resource description incorporated from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and any new information 

that has become available since the document was prepared.

A detailed description of species considered due to FWS concerns can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.24 of 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. A detailed explanation of the routine and accidental impactproducing factors can be found in Chapters 3.1 and 3.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, 

respectively. The cumulative analysis in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS considers the effects of 

impact-producing factors related to past CPA lease sales, proposed CPA Lease Sale 231, and reasonably 

foreseeable lease sale programs in the CPA. Cumulative impacts attributed to OCS activity co-occur with 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-177

State oil and gas activities, other governmental and private projects and activities, and pertinent natural 

processes and events that may occur that adversely affect wetlands. As a result of these activities and 

processes, several impact-producing factors discussed in Chapter 3.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS would contribute to impacts on species considered due to FWS concerns and associated 

habitat during the life of proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

Because of the mitigations that may be implemented (Chapter 2.4.1.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS), routine activities (e.g., operational discharges, noise, and marine debris) related to the 

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

any of these species or populations in the Gulf of Mexico. Lethal effects could occur from ingestion of 

accidentally released plastic materials from OCS vessels and facilities. However, there have been no 

reports to date on such incidences. BOEM employs several measures (e.g., marine debris mitigations) to 

reduce the potential impacts to any animal from routine activities associated with the CPA proposed 

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

action have the potential to impact small to large areas in the Gulf of Mexico, depending on the 

magnitude and frequency of accidents, the ability to respond to accidents, the location and date of 

accidents, and various meteorological and hydrological factors (including tropical storms). The 

incremental contribution of the CPA proposed action would not be likely to result in a significant 

incremental impact on the species of concern within the CPA (Table 4-82 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS); in comparison, non-OCS-related activities, such as habitat loss and competition, have 

historically proved to be of greater threat to the species of concern.

Within the CPA, there is a long-standing and well-developed OCS Program (more than 50 years); 

there are no data to suggest that activities from the preexisting OCS Program are significantly impacting 

the species populations (Table 4-82 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS); therefore, the CPA 

proposed action would be expected to have little or no effect on the species of concern. The conclusions 

for the following species can be found in their respective chapters of this Supplemental EIS: West Indian 

manatee (Chapter 4.2.1.12 of this Supplemental EIS and Chapter 4.2.1.12 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS); green, hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, leatherback, and loggerhead sea turtles (Chapter 

4.2.1.13 of this Supplemental EIS and Chapter 4.2.1.13 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS); 

Alabama, Perdido Key, and Choctawhatchee beach mice (Chapter 4.2.1.15 of this Supplemental EIS and 

Chapter 4.2.1.15 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS); red-cockaded woodpecker, Mississippi 

sandhill crane, piping plover, whooping crane, least tern, and wood stork (Chapter 4.2.1.16 of this 

Supplemental EIS and Chapter 4.2.1.16 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS); and Gulf sturgeon

(Chapter 4.2.1.17 of this Supplemental EIS and Chapter 4.2.1.17 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS). 

New Information Available Since the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS

Various Internet sources were examined and literature searches were conducted in order to assess 

recent information regarding the species that may be pertinent to the CPA. BOEM has only focused on 

species within coastal parishes and counties because those are the species that could be potentially 

impacted by oil and gas development activities, including a potential OCS spill. No new information was 

discovered relevant to these analyses since the publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, 

except as already described in the resource analysis above (e.g., marine mammals and sea turtles). 

As data collected from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup continue to be 

gathered and impact assessments completed, a better characterization of the full scope of impacts to 

populations in the Gulf of Mexico from the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill will be available. 

Relevant data on the status of populations after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup

may take years to acquire and analyze, and impacts from the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill

may be difficult or impossible to discern from other factors. Therefore, it is not possible for BOEM to 

obtain this information within the timeline contemplated in this Supplemental EIS, regardless of the cost 

or resources needed. In light of the incomplete or unavailable information, BOEM’s subject-matter 

experts have used available scientifically credible evidence in this analysis and applied it using accepted 

methods and approaches. Nevertheless, a complete understanding of the missing information is not 

essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives for the reasons stated herein and in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The CPA is an active oil and gas region with ongoing (or the potential for) 

exploration, drilling, and production activities. In addition, non-OCS energy-related activities will 
4-178 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

continue to occur in the CPA irrespective of the CPA proposed action (i.e., habitat loss and competition). 

The potential for effects from changes to the affected environment (post-Deepwater Horizon), routine 

activities, accidental spills (including low-probability catastrophic spills), and cumulative effects remains 

whether or not the No Action or an Action alternative is chosen under this Supplemental EIS. 

Summary and Conclusion

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for species considered due to FWS concerns presented in the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, based on the additional information provided above. No new 

significant information was discovered that would alter the impact conclusion for species considered due 

to FWS concerns presented in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The analysis and potential 

impacts detailed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS still apply for proposed CPA Lease Sale 231.

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

Biologically Sensitive Topographic Features

Description of the Alternative

Alternative B differs from Alternative A (the proposed action) by not offering blocks that are possibly 

affected by the proposed Topographic Features Stipulation (Chapter 2.4.1.3.1 and Figure 2-1 of this 

Supplemental EIS and Chapter 2.4.1.3.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS). All of the 

assumptions (including the seven other potential mitigating measures) and estimates are the same as for 

the proposed action (Alternative A). A description of Alternative A is presented in Chapter 2.4.1.1. 

Effects of the Alternative

The following analyses are based on the scenario for the CPA proposed action (Alternative A). The 

scenario provides assumptions and estimates on the amounts, locations, and timing for OCS exploration, 

development, and production operations and facilities, both offshore and onshore. These are estimates 

only and not predictions of what would happen as a result of holding the CPA proposed lease sale. A 

detailed discussion of the scenario and related impact-producing factors is presented in Chapter 3.1 of 

this Supplemental EIS and in Chapter 3.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

The analyses of impacts to the various resources under Alternative B are very similar to those for 

Alternative A. The reader should refer to the appropriate discussions under Alternative A for additional 

and more detailed information regarding impact-producing factors and their expected effects on the 

various resources. Impacts under Alternative B are expected to be the same as the CPA proposed action 

(Chapter 4.2) for the following resources:

— Air Quality

— Water Quality

— Coastal Barrier Beaches and Associated 

Dunes 

— Wetlands 

— Seagrass Communities

— Live Bottoms (Pinnacle Trend and 

Low Relief) 

— Sargassum Communities 

— Chemosynthetic and Nonchemosynthetic 

Deepwater Benthic Communities

— Soft Bottom Benthic Communities

— Marine Mammals

— Sea Turtles

— Diamondback Terrapins

— Alabama, Choctawhatchee, St. Andrew 

and Perdido Key Beach Mice

— Coastal and Marine Birds

— Gulf Sturgeon

— Fish Resources and Essential Fish 

Habitat 

— Commercial Fisheries

— Recreational Fishing 

— Recreational Resources

— Archaeological Resources

— Human Resources and Land Use

The impacts to some Gulf of Mexico resources under Alternative B would be slightly different from 

the impacts expected under the CPA proposed action. These impacts are described below.
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-179

Impacts on Topographic Features

The sources and severity in impacts associated with this alternative are those sale-related activities 

discussed for the CPA proposed action. The potential impact-producing factors to the topographic 

features of the CPA are anchoring and structure emplacement, effluent discharge, blowouts, oil spills, and 

structure removal. A more detailed discussion of these potential impact-producing factors and the 

appropriate mitigating measures is presented in Chapters 2.4.1.3.1 of this Supplemental EIS and in 

Chapter 2.4.1.3.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Impacts of Routine and Accidental Events 

Of the 16 topographic features in the CPA, 15 are located within water depths less than 200 m 

(656 ft). Geyer Bank is located in water depths of 190-210 m (623-689 ft). These features occupy a very 

small portion of the entire area. Of the potential impact-producing factors that may affect the topographic 

features, anchoring, structure emplacement, and structure removal would be eliminated by the adoption of 

this alternative. Effluent discharge and blowouts would not be a threat to the topographic features 

because blocks near enough to the banks for these events to have an impact on the biota of the banks 

would have been excluded from leasing under this alternative. Thus, the only impact-producing factor 

remaining from operations in blocks included in this alternative (i.e., those blocks not excluded by this 

alternative) is an oil spill. The potential impacts from oil spills are summarized below and are discussed 

further in Chapter 3.2.1 of this Supplemental EIS and in Chapter 3.2.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS.

A subsurface spill would have no effect on a biologically sensitive feature unless the oil or its 

dissolved components comes into direct contact with the habitat. Oil from a subsurface spill is expected 

to rise to the sea surface, based on the specific gravity of Gulf of Mexico oil. An exception to this could 

occur if oil is released at the seafloor under high pressure, having the effect of atomizing the oil into 

micro-droplets that have very little buoyancy. Under these conditions, a subsea oil plume could form and 

travel laterally with the prevailing currents. This can also happen if chemical dispersants are used 

underwater, forming a plume. If a subsea oil plume does form, the oil is expected to be swept clear of the 

banks because prevailing currents travel around the banks rather than over them (Rezak et al., 1983). As 

the oil travels in the water column, it will become diluted from its original concentration. Transient 

concentrations of oil below 20 ppm are not expected to result in lasting harm to a coral reef (Shigenaka, 

2001). The fact that the topographic features are widely dispersed in the CPA, combined with the random 

nature of spill events, would serve to limit the likelihood of a spill occurring near a topographic feature. 

In addition, the exclusion of blocks adjacent to topographic features from this proposed CPA lease sale 

would further distance potential spills from the habitat. Chapter 4.2.1.7 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS discusses the risk of spills interacting with topographic features in more detail. The 

currents that move around the banks would likely steer any spilled oil around the banks rather than 

directly upon them, lessening impact severity. In the unlikely event that oil from a subsurface spill would 

reach the biota of a topographic feature, the effects would be primarily sublethal for most of the adult 

sessile biota. Lethal effects would probably be limited to a few coral colonies (CSA, 1992b and 1994). If 

oil from a subsurface spill contacted a coral-covered area, the areal extent of coral mortality would be 

limited, but long-lasting sublethal effects may be incurred by organisms surviving the initial effects of a 

spill (Jackson et al., 1989). Stress resulting from the oiling of reef coral colonies could affect their 

resilience to natural disturbances (e.g., elevated water temperature and diseases) and may hamper their 

ability to reproduce. A complete recovery of such an affected area could take in excess of 10 years.

Cumulative Impacts

With the exception of the topographic features, the cumulative impacts of Alternative B on the 

environmental and socioeconomic resources of the CPA would be identical to Alternative A. The 

incremental contribution of the CPA proposed action to the cumulative impacts on topographic features is 

expected to be slight, and negative impacts should be restricted by the implementation of the Topographic 

Features Stipulation and site-specific mitigations, the depths of the features, and water currents in the 

topographic feature area.
4-180 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Summary and Conclusion

Alternative B, if adopted, would prevent any oil and gas activity whatsoever in the blocks containing 

topographic features and their surrounding protective zones ; thus, it would eliminate any potential direct 

impacts to the biota of those blocks from routine oil and gas activities within the blocks. In the unlikely 

event that oil from a subsurface spill contacts the biota of a topographic feature, the effects would be 

localized and primarily sublethal for most of the adult sessile biota. Some lethal effects would probably 

occur upon oil contact to coral colonies.

Environmental impacts of Alternative B would be almost indistinguishable from Alternative A with 

the Topographic Features Stipulation in place. There would be an economic impact to the extent that 

economic returns from the excluded lease blocks would not be realized. 

4.2.3. Alternative C—No Action

Description of the Alternative

Alternative C is the cancellation of proposed CPA Lease Sale 231. If this alternative is chosen, the 

opportunity for development of the estimated 0.460-0.894 BBO and 1.939-3.903 Tcf of gas that could 

have resulted from the proposed lease sale would be precluded or postponed to a future CPA lease sale. 

The No Action alternative encompasses the same potential impacts as a decision to delay the proposed 

lease sale to a later scheduled lease sale under the Five-Year Program, when another decision on whether 

to hold that future lease sale is made. As the potential impacts are the same, namely that most impacts 

related to Alternative A would not occur as described below, delay of the proposed lease sale was not 

considered as a separate alternative from Alternative C. Any potential environmental impacts resulting 

from proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 would not occur or would be postponed to a future lease sale 

decision. 

Effects of the Alternative

This Agency published a report that examined previous exploration and development activity 

scenarios (USDOI, MMS, 2007a). This Agency compared forecasted activity with the actual activity 

from 14 WPA and 14 CPA lease sales. The report shows that many lease sales contribute to the present 

level of OCS activity, and any single lease sale accounts for only a small percentage of the total OCS 

activities. In 2006, leases from 92 different sales contributed to Gulf of Mexico production, while an 

average CPA lease sales contributed to 2 percent of oil production and 2 percent of gas production in the 

CPA. In 2006, leases from 15 different sales contributed to the installation of production structures in the 

Gulf of Mexico, while an average CPA lease sale, for example, contributed to 6 percent of the installation 

of production structures in the CPA. In 2006, leases from 70 different sales contributed to wells drilled in 

the Gulf of Mexico, while an average CPA lease sale contributed to 4 percent of the wells drilled in the 

CPA.

As in the past, the proposed CPA lease sale would contribute to maintaining the present level of OCS 

activity in the Gulf of Mexico. Exploration and development activity, including service-vessel trips, 

helicopter trips, and construction that would result from the proposed CPA lease sale would replace 

activity resulting from existing leases that have reached, or are near the end of, their economic life.

Environmental Impacts

If proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 were canceled, the resulting development of oil and gas would most 

likely be postponed to a future sale; therefore, the overall level of OCS activity in the CPA would only be 

reduced by a small percentage, if any. Therefore, the cancellation of proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 

would not significantly change the environmental impacts of overall OCS activity in the long term. The 

environmental impacts expected to result from the CPA proposed action, which are described above, 

would not occur in the short term, but they would likely be postponed to any future lease sale.
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-181

Economic Impacts 

Although environmental impacts may be reduced or postponed by cancelling proposed CPA Lease 

Sale 231, the economic impacts of cancelling the scheduled lease sale should be given consideration. 

Chapter 4.2.1.23.3.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS discusses the potential economic impacts 

of the CPA proposed action. In the event that proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 is cancelled or postponed, 

there may be impacts to employment along the Gulf Coast, but these are not expected to be significant 

(e.g., less than 1% of total employment) or long term given the existing OCS infrastructure. 

Federal, State, and local governments would also have to forgo the revenue that would have been 

received from proposed CPA Lease Sale 231. There could be minor impacts on global energy prices from 

cancelling the proposed CPA lease sale, along with minor changes in energy consumption patterns that 

would result from these price changes.

Other factors may minimize or exacerbate the economic impacts of cancelling proposed CPA Lease 

Sale 231. For example, the longer-term economic impacts of cancelling the CPA proposed lease sale 

could be minimized if they were offset by a larger lease sale at a later date. The economic impacts may 

be exacerbated if additional lease sales are cancelled. The OCS industry is dependent on high capital 

investment costs and there may be long lags between the lease sale and the majority of production 

activities. Therefore, firms’ investment and spending decisions are dependent on their confidence that the 

OCS Program will be maintained in the future. In addition, while firms in the OCS industry are generally 

likely to be able to weather the cancellation of a single lease sale, the cancellation of multiple lease sales 

could lead to broader damage to firms and workers in the industry or decisions to operate in areas other 

than the Gulf. These economic impacts would be particularly damaging to the coastal counties in Texas 

and Louisiana for which the OCS industry as a whole is an important component of their economies.

From a programmatic perspective, cancellation of a Five-Year Program of lease sales in the Gulf of 

Mexico would have much greater effects in terms of economic impacts, energy strategy, and 

environmental impacts. For a more detailed discussion of the effects of the cancellation of a Five-Year 

Program of lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico, refer to Appendix G of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS. 

Summary and Conclusion

Canceling a lease sale would eliminate the effects described for Alternative A (Chapter 4.2.1). Other 

sources of energy would substitute for the lost production. Principal substitutes would be additional 

imports, conservation, additional domestic production, and switching to other fuels. These alternatives, 

except conservation, have significant negative environmental impacts of their own. For example, 

tankering of fuels from alternate sources over longer distances would also have significant potential 

negative impacts, including through the increased risk of spills.

4.3. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS

Unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the WPA or CPA proposed action are expected to be 

primarily short term and localized in nature and are summarized below. Adverse impacts from 

catastrophic events could be of longer duration and extend beyond the local area. All OCS activities 

involve temporary and exclusive use of relatively small areas of the OCS over the lifetimes of specific 

projects. Lifetimes for these activities can be days, as in the case of seismic surveys; or decades, as in the 

case of a production structure or platform. No activities in the OCS Program involve the permanent or 

temporary use or “taking” of large areas of the OCS on a semicontinuous basis. Cumulatively, however, 

a multitude of individual projects results in a major use of OCS space.

Sensitive Coastal Habitats: If an oil spill contacts beaches or barrier islands, the removal of beach 

sand during cleanup activities could result in adverse impacts if the sand is not replaced, and a beach 

could experience several years of tarballs washing ashore over time, causing an aesthetic impact. Sand 

borrowing on the OCS for coastal restorations involves the taking of a quantity of sand from the OCS and

depositing it onshore, essentially moving small products of the deltaic system to another location. If sand 

is left where it is, it would eventually be lost to the deltaic system by redeposition or burial by younger 

sediments; if transported onshore, it would be lost to burial and submergence caused by subsidence and 

sea-level rise.
4-182 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

If an oil spill contacts coastal wetlands, adverse impacts could be high in localized areas. In more 

heavily oiled areas, wetland vegetation could experience suppressed productivity for several years; in 

more lightly oiled areas, wetland vegetation could experience die-back for one season. Epibionts on 

wetland vegetation and grasses in the tidal zone could be killed, and the productivity of tidal marshes for 

the vertebrates and invertebrates that use them to spawn and develop could be impaired. Much of the 

wetland vegetation would recover over time, but some wetland areas could be converted to open water. 

Some unavoidable impacts could occur during pipeline and other related coastal construction, but 

regulations are in place to avoid and minimize these impacts to the maximum extent practicable. 

Unavoidable impacts resulting from dredging, wake erosion, and other secondary impacts related to 

channel use and maintenance would occur as a result of the WPA or CPA proposed action.

Sensitive Coastal and Offshore Biological Habitats: Unavoidable adverse impacts would take place 

if an oil spill occurred and contacted sensitive coastal and offshore biological habitats, such as Sargassum 

at the surface; fish, turtles, and marine mammals in the water column; or benthic habitats on the bottom. 

There could be some adverse impacts on organisms contacted by oil, dispersant chemicals, or emulsions 

of dispersed oil droplets and dispersant chemicals that, at this time, are not completely understood, 

particularly in subsurface environments.

Water Quality: Routine offshore operations would cause some unavoidable adverse impacts to 

varying degrees on the quality of the surrounding water. Drilling, construction, overboard discharges of 

drilling mud and cuttings, and pipelaying activities would cause an increase in the turbidity of the affected 

waters for the duration of the activity periods. This, however, would only affect water in the immediate 

vicinity of the construction activity or in the vicinity of offshore structures, rigs, and platforms. The 

discharge of treated sewage from manned rigs and platforms would increase the levels of suspended 

solids, nutrients, chlorine, and biochemical oxygen demand in a small area near the discharge point for a 

short period of time. Accidental spills from platforms and the discharge of produced waters could result 

in increases of hydrocarbon levels and trace metal concentrations in the water column in the vicinity of 

the platforms. Spilled oil from a tanker collision would affect the water surface in combination with 

dispersant chemicals used during spill response. A subsurface blowout would subject the surface, water 

column, and near-bottom environment to spilled oil and gas released from solution, dispersant chemicals, 

or emulsions of dispersed oil droplets and dispersant chemicals.

Unavoidable impacts to onshore water quality would occur as a result of chronic point- and nonpointsource discharges such as runoff and effluent discharges from existing onshore infrastructure used in 

support of lease sale activities. Vessel traffic contributes to the degradation of water quality by chronic 

low-quantity oil leakage, treated sanitary and domestic waste, bilge water, and contaminants known to 

exist in ship paints. Regulatory requirements of the State and Federal water authorities and some local 

jurisdictions would be applicable to point-source discharges from support facilities such as refineries and 

marine terminals. 

Air Quality: Unavoidable short-term impacts on air quality could occur after large oil spills and 

blowouts because of evaporation and volatilization of the lighter components of crude oil, combustion 

from surface burning, and aerial spraying of dispersant chemicals. Mitigation of long-term effects from 

offshore engine combustion during routine operations would be accomplished through existing 

regulations and development of new control emission technology. Short-term effects from spill events 

are uncontrollable and are likely to be aggravated or mitigated by the time of year the spills take place.

Threatened and Endangered Species: Because the proposed WPA or CPA lease sale does not in and 

of itself make any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that would foreclose the 

development or implementation of any reasonable and prudent measures to comply with the Endangered 

Species Act, BOEM may proceed with publication of the Supplemental EIS and finalize a decision among 

these alternatives even if consultation is not complete, consistent with Section 7(d) of the ESA (also refer 

to Chapter 5.6). Irreversible loss of individuals that are ESA-listed species may occur after a large oil 

spill from the acute impact of being oiled or the chronic impact of oil having eliminated, reduced, or 

rendered suboptimal the food species upon which they were dependent.

Nonendangered and Nonthreatened Marine Mammals: Unavoidable adverse impacts to 

nonendangered and nonthreatened marine mammals would be those that also affect endangered and 

threatened marine mammal species. Routine operation impacts (such as seismic surveys, water quality

and habitat degradation, helicopter disturbance, vessel collision, and discarded trash and debris) would be 

negligible or minor to a population, but they could be lethal to individuals as in the case of a vessel 

collision. A large oil spill would temporarily degrade habitat if spilled oil, dispersant chemicals, or 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-183

emulsions of dispersed oil droplets and dispersant chemicals contact free-ranging pods or spawning 

grounds. 

Coastal and Marine Birds: Unavoidable adverse impacts from routine operations on coastal birds 

could result from helicopter and OCS service-vessel traffic, facility lighting, and floating trash and debris. 

Marine birds could be affected by noise, platform lighting, aircraft disturbances, and trash and debris 

associated with offshore activities. Cross-Gulf migrating species could be affected by lighted platforms, 

helicopter and vessel traffic, and floating trash and debris. If a large oil spill occurs and contacts coastal 

or marine bird habitats, some birds could experience lethal and sublethal impacts from oiling, and birds 

feeding or resting in the water could be oiled and die. Coastal birds coming into contact with oil may 

migrate more deeply into marsh habitats, out of reach from spill responders seeking to count them or 

collect them for rehabilitation. Oil spills and oil-spill cleanup activities could also affect the food species 

for coastal, marine, and migratory bird species. Depending on the time of year, large oil spills could 

decrease the nesting success of species that concentrate nests in coastal environments due to direct effects 

of the spill and also disruption from oil-spill cleanup activities. 

Fish Resources and Commercial Fisheries: Unavoidable adverse impacts from routine operations are 

loss of open ocean or bottom areas desired for fishing by the presence or construction of OCS facilities 

and pipelines. Loss of gear could occur from bottom obstructions around platforms and subsea 

production systems. Routine discharges from vessels and platforms are minor given the available area for 

fish habitat. If a large oil spill occurs, the oil, dispersant chemicals, or emulsions of oil droplets and 

dispersant chemicals could temporarily displace mobile fish species on a population or local scale. There 

could also be impacts on prey and sublethal effects on fish. It is unlikely that fishermen would want, or 

be permitted, to harvest fish in the area of an oil spill, as spilled oil could coat or contaminate commercial 

fish species, rendering them unmarketable.

Recreational Beaches: Unavoidable adverse impacts from routine operations may result in the 

accidental loss overboard of some floatable debris that may eventually come ashore on frequented 

recreational beaches. A large oil spill could make landfall on recreational beaches, leading to local or 

regional economic losses and stigma effects, causing potential users to avoid the area after acute impacts 

have been removed. Some recreational beaches become temporarily soiled by weathered crude oil, and 

tarballs may come ashore long after stranded oil has been cleaned from shoreline areas.

Economic Activity: Net economic, political, and social benefits accrue from the production of 

hydrocarbon resources. Once these benefits become routine, unavoidable adverse impacts from routine 

operations follow trends in supply and demand based on the commodity prices for oil, gas, and refined 

hydrocarbon products. Declines in oil and gas prices can lead to activity ramp downs by operators until 

prices rise. A large oil spill would cause temporary increases in economic activity associated with spillresponse activity. An increase in economic activity from the response to a large spill could be offset by 

temporary work stoppages that are associated with spill-cause investigations and would involve a transfer 

or displacement of demand to different skill sets. Routine operations affected by new regulations that are

incremental would not have much effect on the baseline of economic activity; however, temporary work 

stoppages or the introduction of several new requirements at one time, which are costly to implement, 

could cause a drop-off of activity as operators adjust to new expectations or use the opportunity to move 

resources to other basins where they have interests.

Archaeological Resources: Unavoidable adverse impacts from routine operations could lead to the 

loss of unique or significant archaeological information if unrecognized at the time an area is disturbed. 

Required archaeological surveys significantly reduce the potential for this loss by identifying potential 

archaeological sites prior to an interaction occurring, thereby making avoidance or mitigation of impacts 

possible. A large oil spill could make landfall on or near protected archaeological landmarks to cause 

temporary aesthetic or cosmetic impacts until the oil is cleaned or degrades.

4.4. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

Irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources refers to impacts or losses to resources that 

cannot be reversed or recovered. Examples are when a species becomes extinct or when wetlands are 

permanently converted to open water. In either case, the loss is permanent.

Wetlands: An irreversible or irretrievable loss of wetlands and associated biological resources could 

occur if wetlands are permanently lost because of impacts caused by dredging and construction activities 

that displace existing wetlands or from oil spills severe enough to cause permanent die-back of vegetation 
4-184 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

and conversion to open water. Construction and emplacement of onshore pipelines in coastal wetlands 

displace coastal wetlands in disturbed areas that are then subject to indirect impacts like saltwater 

intrusion or erosion of the marsh soils along navigation channels and canals. Ongoing natural and 

anthropogenic processes in the coastal zone, only one of which is OCS-related activity, can result in direct 

and indirect loss of wetlands. Natural losses as a consequence of the coastal area becoming 

hydrologically isolated from the Mississippi River that built it, sea-level rise, and subsidence of the delta 

platform in absence of new sediment added to the delta plain appear to be much more dominant processes 

impacting coastal wetlands.

Sensitive Nearshore and Offshore Biological Resources: An irreversible loss or degradation of 

ecological habitat caused by cumulative activity tends to be incremental over the short term. Irretrievable 

loss may not occur unless or until a critical threshold is reached. It can be difficult or impossible to 

identify when that threshold is, or would be, reached. Oil spills and chronic low-level pollution can injure 

and kill organisms at virtually all trophic levels. Mortality of individual organisms can be expected to 

occur, and possibly a reduction or even elimination of a few small or isolated populations. The proposed 

biological stipulations, however, are expected to eliminate most of these risks.

Threatened and Endangered Species: Irreversible loss of individuals that are protected species may 

occur after a large oil spill from the acute impact of being oiled or the chronic impact of oil having 

eliminated, reduced, or rendered suboptimal the food species upon which they were dependent.

Fish Resources and Commercial Fisheries: Irreversible loss of fish and coral resources, including 

commercial and recreational species, are caused by structural removal using explosives. Fish in 

proximity to an underwater explosion can be killed. Without the structure to serve as habitat area, sessile, 

attached invertebrates and the fish that live among them are absent. Removing structures eliminates these 

special and local habitats and the organisms living there, including such valuable species as red snapper. 

Continued structure removal, regardless of the technique used, would reduce the net benefits to 

commercial fishing due to the presence of these structures.

Recreational Beaches: Impacts on recreational beaches from a large oil spill may, at the time, seem 

irreversible, but the impacts are generally temporary. Beaches fouled by a large oil spill would be 

temporarily unavailable to the people who would otherwise frequent them, but only during the period 

between landfall and cleanup of the oil, followed by an indefinite lag period during which stigma effects 

recede from public consciousness.

Archaeological Resources: Irreversible loss of a prehistoric or historic archaeological resource can 

occur if bottom-disturbing activity takes place without the surveys, where required, to demonstrate its 

absence before work proceeds. A resource can be completely destroyed, severely damaged, or the 

scientific context badly impaired by well drilling, subsea completions, and platform and pipeline 

installation, or sand borrowing.

Oil and Gas Development: Leasing and subsequent development and extraction of hydrocarbons as a 

result of the WPA or CPA proposed action represents an irreversible and irretrievable commitment by the 

removal and consumption of nonrenewable oil and gas resources. The estimated amount of resources to 

be recovered as a result of the WPA or CPA proposed action is presented in Table 3-1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Loss of Human and Animal Life: The OCS oil and gas exploration, development, production, and 

transportation are carried out under comprehensive, state-of-the-art, enforced regulatory procedures 

designed to ensure public and work place safety and environmental protection. Nevertheless, some loss 

of human and animal life may be inevitable from unpredictable and unexpected acts of man and nature 

(i.e., unavoidable accidents, accidents caused by human negligence or misinterpretation, human error, 

willful noncompliance, and adverse weather conditions). Some normal and required operations, such as 

structure removal, can kill sea life in proximity to explosive charges or by removal of the structure that 

served as the framework for invertebrates living on it and the fish that lived with it.

4.5. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SHORT-TERM USE OF MAN’S ENVIRONMENT 

AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

The short-term effects on various components of the environment in the vicinity of the WPA or CPA 

proposed action are related to long-term effects and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

productivity. 
Description of the Environment and Impact Analysis 4-185

Short-Term Use

Short-term refers to the total duration of oil and gas exploration and production activities. Extraction 

and consumption of offshore oil and natural gas is a short-term benefit. Discovering and producing 

domestic oil and gas now delays the increase in the Nation’s dependency on foreign imports. Depleting a 

nonrenewable resource now removes these domestic resources from being available for future use. The 

production of offshore oil and natural gas from the WPA or CPA proposed action would provide shortterm energy, and as it delays the increase in the Nation’s dependency on foreign imports, it can also allow 

additional time for ramp-up and development of long-term renewable energy sources or substitutes for 

nonrenewable oil and gas. Economic, political, and social benefits would accrue from the availability of 

these natural resources. 

The principle short-term use of the leased areas in the Gulf of Mexico would be for the production of 

0.116-0.200 BBO and 0.538-0.938 Tcf of gas from a typical WPA proposed action and 0.460-0.894 BBO 

and 1.939-3.903 Tcf of gas from a typical CPA proposed action. The cumulative impacts scenario in this 

Supplemental EIS extends approximately from 2012 to 2051. The 40-year time period is used because it 

is the approximate longest life span of activities conducted on an individual lease. The 40 years following 

the proposed WPA or CPA lease sale is the period of time during which the activities and impacting 

factors that follow as a consequence of the proposed WPA or CPA lease sale would be influencing the 

environment. 

The specific impacts of the WPA or CPA proposed action vary in kind, intensity, and duration 

according to the activities occurring at any given time (Chapter 3). Initial activities, such as seismic 

surveying and exploration drilling, result in short-term, localized impacts. Development drilling and well 

workovers occur sporadically throughout the life of a proposed action but also result in short-term, 

localized impacts. Activities during the production life of a platform may result in chronic impacts over a 

longer period of time (over 25 years), potentially punctuated by more severe impacts as a result of 

accidental events or a spill. Platform removal is also a short-term activity with localized impacts, 

including removal of the habitat for encrusting invertebrates and fish living among them. Many of the 

effects on physical, biological, and socioeconomic resources discussed in Chapter 4 are considered to be 

short term (being greatest during the construction, exploration, and early production phases). These 

impacts would be further reduced by the mitigating measures discussed in Chapter 2. 

The OCS development off Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama has enhanced recreational and 

commercial fishing activities, which in turn has stimulated the manufacture and sale of larger private 

fishing vessels and specialized recreational fishing equipment. Commercial enterprises such as charter 

boats have become heavily dependent on offshore structures for satisfying recreational customers. The 

WPA or CPA proposed action could increase these incidental benefits of offshore development. Offshore 

fishing and diving has gradually increased in the past three decades, with offshore structures and 

platforms becoming the focus of much of that activity. As mineral resources become depleted, platform 

removals would occur and may result in a decline in these activities.

The short-term exploitation of hydrocarbons for the OCS Program in the Gulf of Mexico may have 

long-term impacts on biologically sensitive coastal and offshore resources and areas if a large oil spill

occurs. A spill and spill-response activity could temporarily interfere with commercial and recreational 

fishing, beach use, and tourism in the area where the spill makes landfall and in a wider area based on 

stigma effects. The proposed leasing may also result in onshore development and population increases 

that could cause very short-term adverse impacts to local community infrastructure, particularly in areas 

of low population and minimal existing industrial infrastructure (Chapters 4.2.1.23.1 and 4.2.1.23.2 of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS).

Relationship to Long-Term Productivity

Long-term refers to an indefinite period beyond the termination of oil and gas production. Over a 

period of time after peak oil production has occurred in the Gulf of Mexico, a gradual easing of the 

specific impacts caused by oil and gas exploration and production would occur as the productive 

reservoirs in the Gulf have been discovered and produced, and have become depleted. The Oil Drum 

(2009) showed a graphic demonstrating that peak oil production in the Gulf occurred in June 2002 at 

1.73 MMbbl/day. Whether or not this date is correct can only be known in hindsight and only after a 

period of years while production continues. At this time, however, the trend is fairly convincing (The Oil 
4-186 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Drum, 2009). There is disagreement on what future production trends may be in the Gulf of Mexico after 

several operators, BP among them, announced discoveries over the last 5 years (Oil and Gas Journal, 

2009) in the Lower Tertiary in ultra-deepwater (>5,000 ft; 1,524 m) with large projected reserves. These 

claims are as yet unproven and there are questions as to the difficulties that may be encountered 

producing these prospects because of their geologic age; burial depth and high-temperature, high-pressure 

in-situ conditions; lateral continuity of reservoirs; and the challenges of producing from ultra-deepwater 

water depths.

The Gulf of Mexico’s large marine ecosystem is considered a Class II, moderately productive 

ecosystem (mean phytoplankton primary production 150-300 gChlorophyll a/m2

-yr [The Encyclopedia of 

Earth, 2008]), based on Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS) global primary productivity 

estimates (USDOC, NASA, 2003). After the completion of oil and gas production, a gradual ramp-down 

to economic conditions without oil and gas activity would be experienced, while the marine environment 

is generally expected to remain at or return to its normal long-term productivity levels that, in recent 

years, has been described as stressed (The Encyclopedia of Earth, 2008). The Gulf of Mexico’s large 

marine ecosystem shows signs of ecosystem stress in bays, estuaries, and coastal regions (Birkett and 

Rapport, 1999). There is shoreline alteration, pollutant discharge, oil and gas development, and nutrient 

loading. The overall condition for the U.S. section of this large marine ecosystem, according to USEPA’s 

seven primary indicators (Jackson et al., 2000), is good dissolved oxygen, fair water quality, poor coastal 

wetlands, poor eutrophic condition, and poor sediment, benthos, and fish tissue (The Encyclopedia of 

Earth, 2008).

To help sustain the long-term productivity of the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem, the OCS Program 

provides structures to use as site-specific artificial reefs and fish-attracting devices for the benefit of 

commercial and recreational fishermen and to sport divers and spear fishers. Additionally, the OCS 

Program continues to improve the knowledge and mitigation practices used in offshore development. 

Approximately 10 percent of the oil and gas structures removed from the OCS are eventually used for 

State artificial reef programs.
CHAPTER 5 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Consultation and Coordination 5-3 

5. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

5.1. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS

This Supplemental EIS addresses two proposed Federal actions: one oil and gas lease sale in the 

WPA and one oil and gas lease sale in the CPA of the Gulf of Mexico OCS, as scheduled in the 

Five-Year Program (USDOI, BOEM, 2012a). The two proposed lease sales that are evaluated in this 

Supplemental EIS are proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 and proposed CPA Lease Sale 231. BOEM

conducted early coordination with appropriate Federal and State agencies and other concerned parties to 

discuss and coordinate the prelease process for the proposed lease sales and Supplemental EIS. Key 

agencies and organizations included the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. Coast 

Guard (USCG), U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 

State Governors’ offices, and industry groups.

5.2. NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE A SUPPLEMENTAL EIS AND CALL FOR 

INFORMATION

On July 9, 2012, the Notice of Intent to Prepare a Supplemental EIS (NOI) for the proposed WPA and 

CPA lease sales was published in the Federal Register. Additional public notices were distributed via the 

U.S. Postal Service, and the Internet. A 30-day comment period was provided; it closed on August 8, 

2012. Due to a typographical error on the original NOI, the public scoping period was reopened on 

August 24, 2012, and closed on September 10, 2012. Federal, State, and local governments, along with 

other interested parties, were invited to send written comments to the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region on the 

scope of the Supplemental EIS. Consistent with 40 CFR 1502.9, no formal scoping meetings were 

required for the Draft Supplemental EIS. BOEM received seven comment letters in response to the NOI. 

These comments are summarized below in Chapter 5.3.1. 

On July 9, 2012, the Call for Information (Call) for the proposed WPA and CPA lease sales was 

published in the Federal Register. The comment period closed on August 8, 2012. This Agency received 

two comment letters in response to the Call. These comments are summarized below in Chapter 5.3.2. 

5.3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS

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

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

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

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

5.3.1. Summary of Scoping Comments

Comments were received in response to the NOI from State and local government agencies, interested

groups, industry, and the general public on the scope of the Supplemental EIS, significant issues that 

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

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

preparation of the Draft Supplemental EIS. Comments received included the following:

• it is prudent to update the baseline conditions and potential environmental effects of 

oil and natural leasing and to study additional areas that may become available for 

lease in the future;

• the Supplemental EIS should focus specifically on “new information” that is readily 

available during the drafting of the Supplemental EIS;

• BOEM should not speculate on future results of ongoing studies;
5-4 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

• if the baseline has changed, this assumption should be verified through supporting 

scientific data;

• BOEM must consider the extensive safety improvements implemented by the 

industry and the new requirements imposed on offshore operations since the 

Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup; 

• the possibility of a catastrophic spill remains a very low probability;

• the formation of well containment companies and their ability to assist in the 

response to any future incidents must be considered;

• the Supplemental EIS should be designed to serve as a document for future 

environmental reviews;

• the environmental and safety record of the offshore industry should be analyzed as 

part of the Supplemental EIS;

• impacts to Louisiana’s coastal resources are currently not entirely taken into account 

during the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s NEPA evaluation;

• damage to Louisiana’s coastline is not always a direct result of one identifiable 

incident, but multiple secondary and cumulative impacts from activities enabled by 

OCS lease sales;

• a careful accounting of cumulative and indirect impacts is needed;

• oil and gas seismic should not be a major issue in the Supplemental EIS;

• marine environments and the Gulf waters could suffer serious, perhaps catastrophic, 

and long-lasting harm if an accident were to occur off the coast of Florida; 

• any stipulations allowing the public to adequately evaluate the proposed action and 

the proposed mitigation for that action should be included in the proposed alternative; 

• BOEM should provide additional information describing the process by which the 

ASLM adopts mitigation stipulations for the proposed lease sales and how and when 

the public would be able to provide comments on those stipulations added to the 

lease;

• BOEM should perform air quality impact analyses for all pollutants and standards 

that are specific to the proposed lease sales and should include this information in an 

appendix for public review and should verify that the exemption threshold formula, 

which BOEM relies upon to require air quality monitoring, is adequate to ensure 

compliance with NAAQS;

• BOEM should identify monitoring requirements, potential mitigation measures, and 

emerging technologies and discuss how these will ensure NAAQS compliance;

• the Supplemental EIS should not discuss Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites in 

combination with other types of disposal sites;

• in the event that aquatic losses are due to onshore or nearshore development in 

support of OCS oil and gas activities, the Supplemental EIS should contain a 

sufficient level of detailed information on these aquatic ecosystems, such as the 

locations, types, values, functions, and amount of aquatic sites in the potential 

development areas that could be directly and/or indirectly impacted; 

• oil companies should be denied leases until they show they can operate in a clean, 

safe, decent way;

• any exploratory or production operations in close proximity to the Gulf Islands 

National Seashore may cause drilling-induced subsidence and impacts to wildlife, 
Consultation and Coordination 5-5 

and could potentially impact visitation to the barrier islands and to greater Gulfport 

and Biloxi, Mississippi, which could affect the region’s heavily dependent tourism

economy; 

• seismic testing may disrupt natural processes, which could affect natural resources 

that the National Park Service is charged to preserve and protect;

• oil and gas drilling has a history of discharges emanating from these sources that may 

have cumulative effects to marine biota;

• storm-related debris from platforms as well as accidents in close proximity to the 

Gulf Islands National Seashore increases the risk that the Seashore or its inhabitants 

would be directly impacted;

• large and artificially lit oil and/or gas drilling platforms in view from the Gulf Islands 

National Seashore would result in significant impact to the scenery;

• the net increase in the amount of service or transport carriers would impose an 

intrusion to visitors who are attracted to the islands;

• should oil and/or gas rigs and drilling platforms be constructed within sight of the 

Mississippi barrier islands, the wilderness character of the Congressionally 

designated Horn and Petit Bois Islands as wilderness islands/areas would be 

significantly compromised; and

• the National Park Service encourages BOEM to further develop measures to locate, 

avoid, and protect archaeological resources in and around the leasing areas.

5.3.2. Summary of Comments Received in Response to the Call for Information

In response to the Call, BOEM received two comment letters: one letter from the Louisiana 

Department of Natural Resources and one letter from the American Petroleum Institute. The Louisiana 

Department of Natural Resources hopes that BOEM will be more attentive to the State of Louisiana’s 

comments during the prelease planning phase, believes that a better appraisal of coastal effects is 

necessary, and believes that BOEM must more efficiently revisit reviews of earlier OCS lease sales to 

determine whether the models and predictive techniques used were accurate. The American Petroleum 

Institute states that annual, predictable lease sales in these planning areas are needed to help ensure 

continued offshore exploration and production in the future because production from lease sales will take 

many years to develop. The American Petroleum Institute further encourages BOEM to pursue 

legislation that will allow the entry into force of the Agreement between the United States and Mexico; 

this Agreement will govern the development of reservoirs of petroleum and natural gas straddling the 

U.S.-Mexico maritime and continental shelf boundary in the Gulf of Mexico. Upon its entry into force, 

the whole and partial blocks that lie within the 1.4-nmi buffer zone north of the maritime boundary 

between the United States and Mexico, which were not offered in past lease sales, will become available 

for leasing and will no longer need to be excluded. 

5.3.3. Additional Scoping Opportunities

Although the scoping process is formally initiated by the publication of the NOI and Call, scoping 

efforts and other coordination meetings have proceeded and will continue to proceed throughout this

NEPA process. The Gulf of Mexico OCS Region’s Information Transfer Meetings provide an 

opportunity for BOEM analysts to attend technical presentations related to OCS Program activities and to 

meet with representatives from Federal, State, and local agencies; industry; BOEM contractors; and 

academia. Scoping and coordination opportunities were also available during BOEM’s requests for 

information, comments, input, and review of its other NEPA documents, included the following: 

• scoping and comments on the Five-Year Program’s EIS; and

• requests for comments on the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.
5-6 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

5.3.4. Cooperating Agency

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

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

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

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

either accept or deny such requests.

The NOI, which was published on July 9, 2012, included an invitation to other Federal agencies and 

State, Tribal, and local governments to consider becoming cooperating agencies in the preparation of this 

EIS. With one exception, no Federal agencies or State, Tribal, or local governments requested to 

participate as a cooperating agency. The National Park Service initially requested cooperating agency 

status. Following consultation with the office and discussion of their concerns, the National Park Service 

verbally withdrew their request.

5.4. DISTRIBUTION OF THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS FOR REVIEW AND 

COMMENT

BOEM sent copies of the Draft Supplemental EIS to the government, public, and private agencies and 

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

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

Federal Agencies

Congress

Congressional Budget Office

House Resources Subcommittee on Energy 

and Mineral Resources

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources

Department of Commerce

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

Department of Defense

Corps of Engineers

Department of the Air Force

Department of the Army

Department of the Navy

Naval Mine and Anti-Submarine 

Warfare Command

Department of Energy

Strategic Petroleum Reserve PMD

Department of Homeland Security

Coast Guard

Department of State

Bureau of Oceans and International 

Environmental and Scientific Affairs

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Fish and Wildlife Service

Geological Survey

National Park Service

Office of Environmental Policy and 

Compliance

Office of the Solicitor

Department of Transportation

Office of Pipeline Safety

Environmental Protection Agency

Region 4

Region 6

Marine Mammal Commission

State and Local Agencies

Alabama

Governor’s Office

Alabama Highway Department

Alabama Historical Commission and State

Historic Preservation Officer

Alabama Public Service Commission

Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources

Department of Environmental Management

South Alabama Regional Planning 

Commission

State Docks Department

State Legislature Natural Resources 

Committee

State Legislature Oil and Gas Committee

Florida

Governor’s Office

Bureau of Archaeological Research

City of Gulf Breeze

City of Panama City

City of Pensacola

Department of Community Affairs

Department of Environmental Protection
Consultation and Coordination 5-7 

Department of State Archives, History and 

Records Management

Escambia County

Florida Coastal Zone Management Office 

Sarasota County Coastal Resources

State Legislature Natural Resources and 

Conservation Committee

State Legislature Natural Resources 

Committee

West Florida Regional Planning Council

Louisiana

Governor’s Office

City of Grand Isle

City of Morgan City

City of New Orleans

Department of Culture, Recreation, and 

Tourism

Department of Environmental Quality

Department of Natural Resources

Department of Transportation and 

Development

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

Houma-Terrebonne Chamber of Commerce

Jefferson Parish Director

Jefferson Parish President

Lafourche Parish CZM 

Lafourche Parish Water District #1

Louisiana Geological Survey

South Lafourche Levee District

St. Bernard Planning Commission

State House of Representatives, Natural 

Resources Committee

State Legislature, Natural Resources 

Committee

Mississippi

Governor’s Office

City of Gulfport

Department of Archives and History

Department of Natural Resources

Department of Wildlife Conservation

Mississippi Development Authority

State Legislature Oil, Gas, and Other 

Minerals Committee

Texas

Governor’s Office

Attorney General of Texas

Aransas Pass Public Library

Chambers County Library System

City of Lake Jackson

General Land Office

Southeast Texas Regional Planning 

Commission

State Legislature Natural Resources 

Committee

State Senate Natural Resources Committee

Texas Historical Commission

Texas Legislation Council

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Texas Sea Grant

Texas State Library and Archives

Texas Water Development Board

Industry

Air Armament Center

Alabama Petroleum Council

American Petroleum Institute

Area Energy LLC

Baker Atlas

Bellwether Group

B-J Services Co

BP Amoco

Chevron U.S.A. Inc.

Coastal Conservation Association

Coastal Environments, Inc.

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc.

Dominion Exploration & Production, Inc.

Ecological Associates, Inc.

Ecology and Environment

Energy Partners, Ltd.

EOG Resources, Inc.

Escambia County Marine Resources

Exxon Mobil Production Company

Florida Petroleum Council

Florida Propane Gas Association

Freeport-McMoRan, Inc.

Fugro Geo Services, Inc.

Gulf Environmental Associates 

Gulf of Mexico Newsletter

Horizon Marine, Inc.

Industrial Vehicles International, Inc.

International Association of Geophysical 

Contractors 

J. Connor Consultants

John Chance Land Surveys, Inc.

Marine Safety Office

Midstream Fuel Service

Mote Marine Laboratory

Murphy Exploration & Production

Newfield Exploration Company

Northwest Florida Daily News

Petrobras America, Inc.

PPG Industries, Inc.

Propane Market Strategy Newsletter

Science Applications International 

Corporation

Seneca Resources Corporation

Shell Exploration & Production Company

Stone Energy Corporation
5-8 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Strategic Management Services-USA

T. Baker Smith, Inc.

Texas Geophysical Company, Inc.

The Houston Exploration Company

The Washington Post

Triton Engineering Services Co.

W & T Offshore, Inc.

WEAR-TV

Special Interest Groups

1000 Friends of Florida

Alabama Oil & Gas Board

Alabama Wildlife Federation

American Cetacean Society

Apalachee Regional Planning Council

Apalachicola Bay and Riverkeepers

Associated Gas Distributors of Florida

Audubon of Florida

Audubon Louisiana Nature Center

Bay County Audubon Society

Capital Region Planning Commission

Center for Marine Conservation

Citizens Assoc. of Bonita Beach

Clean Gulf Associates

Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana

Coastal Conservation Association

Concerned Shrimpers of America

Conservancy of Southwest Florida

Earthjustice

Florida Chamber of Commerce

Florida Natural Area Inventory

Florida Natural Gas Association

Florida Propane Gas Association

Florida Public Interest Research Group

Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries

Foundation, Inc.

Gulf Coast Environmental Defense

Gulf Restoration Network

Houma-Terrebonne Chamber of Commerce

Izaak Walton League of America, Inc.

JOC Venture

LA 1 Coalition, Inc.

League of Women Voters of the Pensacola

Bay Area

Louisiana Wildlife Federation

Manasota-88

Marine Mammal Commission

Mission Enhancement Office

Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce

Mobile Bay National Estuary Program

Natural Resources Defense Council

Nature Conservancy

Offshore Operators Committee

Organized Fishermen of Florida

Pensacola Archaeological Society

Perdido Key Association

Perdido Key Chamber of Commerce

Population Connection

Portersville Revival Group

Restore or Retreat

Roffers Ocean Fishing Forecast Service

Santa Rosa Sound Coalition

Save the Manatee Club

Ports/Docks

Alabama

Alabama State Port Authority

Port of Mobile

Florida

Manatee County Port Authority

Panama City Port Authority

Port of Pensacola

Port St. Joe Port Authority

Louisiana

Abbeville Harbor and Terminal District

Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission

Greater Lafourche Port Commission

Grand Isle Port Commission

Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District

Plaquemines Port, Harbor and Terminal 

District

Port of Baton Rouge

Port of Iberia District

Port of New Orleans

Twin Parish Port Commission

St. Bernard Port, Harbor and Terminal 

District

West Cameron Port Commission

Mississippi

Greenville Port Commission

Mississippi State Port Authority

Port of Gulfport

Texas

Brownsville Navigation District—Port of

Brownsville

Port Freeport

Port Mansfield/Willacy County Navigation 

District

Port of Beaumont

Port of Corpus Christi Authority

Port of Galveston

Port of Houston Authority

Port of Isabel—San Benito Navigation 

District

Port of Port Arthur Navigation District
Consultation and Coordination 5-9 

Educational Institutions/Research Laboratories

Abilene Christian University

Dauphin Island Sea Laboratory

Florida A&M University

Florida Atlantic University

Florida Institute of Oceanography

Florida Institute of Technology

Florida Sea Grant College

Florida State University

Foley Elementary School

Gulf Coast Research Laboratory

Harbor Branch Oceanography

Jackson State University

Louisiana Sea Grant College Program

Louisiana State University

Louisiana Tech University

Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium

Loyola University

McNeese State University

Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium

Mississippi State University

Mote Marine Laboratory

Nicholls State University

Pensacola Junior College

Tulane University

University of Alabama

University of Florida

University of Miami

University of New Orleans

University of South Alabama

University of South Florida

University of Southern Mississippi

University of Texas at Arlington

University of Texas at Austin

University of Texas Law School

University of Texas Libraries

University of West Florida

5.5. PUBLIC MEETINGS

In accordance with 30 CFR 556.26, BOEM scheduled public meetings soliciting comments on the 

Draft Supplemental EIS. The meetings provided the Secretary of the Interior with information from 

interested parties to help in the evaluation of the potential effects of the proposed WPA and CPA lease 

sales. An announcement of the dates, times, and locations of the public meetings was included in the 

Notice of Availability for the Draft Supplemental EIS. A copy of the public meeting notices was included 

with the Draft Supplemental EIS that was mailed to the parties indicated above, was published in local 

newspapers, and was posted on BOEM’s Internet website at http://www.boem.gov/EnvironmentalStewardship/Environmental-Assessment/NEPA/nepaprocess.aspx. 

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

Monday, December 3, 2012

1:00 p.m. CST 

Houston Airport Marriott

 at George Bush Intercontinental

18700 John F. Kennedy Boulevard

Houston, Texas 77032

4 registered attendees

0 speakers

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

1:00 p.m. CST

Courtyard by Marriott

 Gulfport Beachfront MS Hotel

1600 East Beach Boulevard

Gulfport, Mississippi 39501

27 registered attendees

13 speakers

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

1:00 p.m. CST 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region

1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard

New Orleans, Louisiana 70123

1 registered attendee

0 speakers 

Thursday, December 6, 2012

1:00 p.m. CST 

Five Rivers—Alabama’s Delta

 Resource Center

30945 Five Rivers Boulevard

Spanish Fort, Alabama 36527

2 registered attendees

0 speakers

Houston, Texas, December 3, 2012 

There were no speakers at the public meeting held in Houston, Texas, on December 3, 2012.
5-10 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

New Orleans, Louisiana, December 4, 2012 

There were no speakers at the public meeting held in New Orleans, Louisiana, on December 4, 2012.

Gulfport, Mississippi, December 5, 2012

Thirteen speakers provided testimony at the public meeting held in Gulfport, Mississippi, on 

December 5, 2012. Julia O’Neal of the Mississippi Chapter of the Sierra Club; Linda St. Martin, a 

resident of Harrison County, Mississippi; Henry Laird, a representative for 12 Miles South Coalition; 

Terese Collins, a representative of the Gulf Islands Conservancy; Steve Shepard, the Gulf Coast group 

chair of the Sierra Club; Reilly Hoche, a Mississippi organizer with the Gulf Restoration Network; Louis 

Skrmetta, operations manager for Ship Island Excursions; Connie Robert, a Supervisor with the Harrison 

County Board of Supervisors; and local residents/concerned citizens, Maxine Ramsey, Amanda Kennerly, 

John Anderson, Rene Chapman, and Betty Jo Miller provided testimony.

Ms. O’Neal reminded everyone that the consequences of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil 

spill will be long term and questioned the process for changing the stipulations as new information from 

the explosion and oil spill arises. She also expressed concern about natural gas exploration and drilling in 

Mississippi Sound and requested that certain areas of Mississippi Sound, including the Gulf Islands 

National Seashore and the Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, be excluded in the 

stipulation. She stressed that routine seismic testing is harassment to cetaceans and urged BOEM to 

mandate a change in the required lighting on both existing and newly developed rigs. Lastly, she 

advocated support for Alternative B (The Proposed Action Excluding the Blocks Near Biologically 

Sensitive Topographic Features). 

Ms. Maxine Ramsey stated that the tourism industry will be affected by oil produced offshore of 

Mississippi and will erase any potential gain in revenue from the drilling. She reminded everyone that the 

extent and long-range effects from the BP oil disaster are not complete.

Ms. Kennerly requested that BOEM exclude all the drilling near the biologically sensitive recreation 

areas and that drilling be suspended for 12 mi (19 km) offshore. She emphasized that the area needed 

time to recover from the BP oil spill and expressed concern over the effects that drilling and seismic 

activities have on the dolphin population.

Ms. Martin asked for a 12-mi (19-km) moratorium from barrier islands and reminded everyone of the 

gas exposure incident on Dauphin Island.

Mr. Laird opposed all exploration, development, and production of oil and gas within 12 nmi (14 mi; 

22 km) of the barrier islands to the Alabama border and the Louisiana border. He reminded everyone of 

the historical and ecological importance of the coastal areas of Mississippi.

Mr. Anderson reminded everyone of the biological and aesthetic sensitivity of the wilderness areas 

off the coast of the Mississippi and stated that drilling oil wells within 12 mi (19 km) of their shoreline is 

not consistent with maintaining wilderness off the coast of Mississippi.

Ms. Collins expressed concern for lease sales in areas of the Gulf that have sustained damage due to 

BP and the continuous leaking of other rigs, including the Taylor energy site; called for an independent 

monitoring program paid for by the energy industry to perform surveys of the Gulf and report to USCG; 

requested a whole or partial block exclusion extending 12 mi (19 km) south of the barrier islands of 

Mississippi; expressed concern for the safety of wildlife during the routine operations of oil drilling; 

called for drilling muds to be removed from the drilling site and not be allowed to deteriorate on the 

seafloor; called for a ban on chemical dispersants and expressed concern over their effects on wildlife; 

expressed concern over military activities that occur over oil rigs; requested that a wildlife rehabilitation 

center be placed close to Mississippi; and commented that old and aging pipelines are not addressed in 

this Supplemental EIS.

Mr. Shepard asked for a moratorium on the area from the park (Gulf Islands National Seashore) 

boundary to 12 mi (19 km) and noted that the economy is severely impacted and that tourism is reduced 

to such an extent that the loss could not be made up by the gas industry.

Mr. Hoche asked BOEM to consider and ultimately choose an alternative that excludes leasing areas 

of Federal waters 12 mi (19 km) south of Mississippi’s barrier islands due to the ecological and cultural 

significance of the islands. He reminded everyone of the impact that drilling will have on global warming 

and called for the inclusion of cumulative onshore impacts, including pollution and impacts from 

infrastructure associated with the extraction of fossil fuels, in this Supplemental EIS.
Consultation and Coordination 5-11

Mr. Chapman emphasized the loss of residents and culture along the Gulf Coast due to three natural 

disasters in the area and due to the impact that BOEM’s activities have on the Nation, future generations, 

and natural resources.

Ms. Miller called for the oil wells to be located well away from the barrier islands and national parks 

where they will not pose a safety risk and do not affect the aesthetics of the tourism industry. She also 

requested that activities be delayed until a cause for the recent dolphin deaths can be determined.

Mr. Skrmetta respectfully requested that BOEM establish a 12-mi (19-km) buffer between 

Mississippi’s barrier islands and any future drilling and that BOEM remove all Federal blocks within this 

zone. He acknowledged the importance of the oil and gas industry to the Nation’s economy, but 

reminded us that local tourism also provides a significant economic benefit for the region.

Ms. Robert expressed concern about the health of the environment and the economic health of the 

Gulf Coast due to its reliance on its connection with the Gulf. She noted that drilling is jeopardizing the 

economic benefit that the State receives from the tourism industry surrounding the Gulf. 

Mobile (Spanish Fort), Alabama, December 6, 2012 

There were no speakers at the public meeting held in Mobile, Alabama, on December 6, 2012.

5.6. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT

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

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

Consistency Determination (CD). A consistency review will be performed pursuant to the Coastal Zone 

Management Act (CZMA) and CD’s will be prepared for the affected States prior to proposed WPA 

Lease Sale 233 and proposed CPA Lease Sale 231. To prepare the CD’s, BOEM reviews each State’s 

Coastal Management Plan (CMP) and analyzes the potential impacts as outlined in this Supplemental 

EIS, new information, and applicable studies as they pertain to the enforceable policies of each CMP. 

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires that Federal actions that are reasonably likely to 

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

practicable” with relevant enforceable policies of the State’s federally approved coastal management 

program (15 CFR 930 Subpart C).

Based on these and other analyses, BOEM’s Director makes an assessment of consistency, which is 

then sent to each State with the Proposed Notice of Sale. If a State concurs, BOEM can hold the lease 

sale. A State’s concurrence may be presumed when a State does not provide a response within the 60-day 

review period. If a State objects, it must do the following under the CZMA: (1) indicate how BOEM’s 

prelease proposal is inconsistent with their CMP and suggest alternative measures to bring BOEM’s 

proposal into consistency with their CMP; or (2) describe the need for additional information that would 

allow a determination of consistency. Unlike the consistency process for specific OCS plans and permits, 

there is no procedure for administrative appeal to the Secretary of Commerce for a Federal CD for 

prelease activities. Either BOEM or a State may request mediation. Mediation is voluntary, and the 

Department of Commerce would serve as the mediator. Whether there is mediation or not, the final CD is 

made by DOI, and it is the final administrative action for the prelease consistency process. Each Gulf 

State’s CMP is described in Appendix F of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

5.7. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

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

et seq.), establishes a national policy designed to protect and conserve threatened and endangered species 

and the ecosystems upon which they depend. BOEM is currently in consultation with NMFS and FWS 

regarding the OCS oil and gas program in the Gulf of Mexico, including as it relates to the WPA and 

CPA proposed actions. BOEM is acting as the lead agency in the ongoing consultation, with BSEE’s

assistance and involvement. The programmatic consultation was expanded in scope after the reinitiation 

of consultation by BOEM following the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill, and it will include 

both existing and future OCS oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico over a 10-year period. The 

programmatic consultation will also include postlease activities associated with OCS oil and gas activities 

in the Gulf of Mexico, including G&G and decommissioning activities.
5-12 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

With consultation ongoing, BOEM and BSEE will continue to comply with all Reasonable and 

Prudent Measures and the Terms and Conditions under these existing consultations, along with 

implementing the current BOEM- and BSEE-required mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements. 

Based on the most recent and best available information at the time, BOEM and BSEE will also continue 

to closely evaluate and assess risks to listed species and designated critical habitat in upcoming 

environmental compliance documentation under NEPA and other statutes.

5.8. MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT

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

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

EFH. The NMFS published the final rule implementing the EFH provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (50 CFR 600) on January 17, 2002. Certain OCS activities 

authorized by BOEM may result in adverse effects to EFH, and therefore, require EFH consultation.

Following the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, NMFS requested a 

comprehensive review of the existing EFH consultation in a response letter dated September 24, 2010. In 

light of this request, Regional staff of BOEM and NMFS agreed on procedures that would incorporate a 

new programmatic EFH consultation into each prepared Five-Year Program EIS and that will begin with 

the 2012-2017 Five-Year Program. BOEM has an EFH Assessment (Appendix D of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS) that describes the OCS proposed activities, analyzes the effects of the proposed 

activities on EFH, and identifies proposed mitigation measures. The programmatic EFH consultation, 

which covers proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 and proposed CPA Lease Sale 231, was initiated with the 

distribution and review of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and with the subsequent written 

communications between BOEM and NMFS. These documents formalized the conservation 

recommendations put forth by NMFS and by BOEM’s acceptance and response to these 

recommendations. While the necessary components of the EFH consultation are complete (as per 

BOEM’s June 8, 2012, response letter to NMFS), there is ongoing coordination among NMFS, BOEM, 

and BSEE. This coordination includes annual reports from BOEM to NMFS, meetings with Regional 

staff, and discussions of mitigation and relevant topics. All agencies will continue to communicate for the 

duration of the Five-Year Program.

5.9. NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT

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

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

for Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f), issued by the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation (16 CFR 800), specify the required review process. The BOEMRE 

initiated a request for consultation on the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS on November 12, 2010, 

via a formal letter. That letter was addressed to each of the affected Gulf Coast States and Tribal Nations, 

including the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas, Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana, Choctaw Nation of 

Oklahoma, Coushatta Indian Tribe, Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, Miccosukee Indian Tribe of Florida, 

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Poarch Band of Creek Indians, Seminole Tribe of Florida, and 

Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe of Louisiana. A response timeline of 30 days was provided and three 

responses were received.

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

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

actions is not necessary. The State of Alabama, in a letter to BOEM referencing proposed WPA Lease 

Sale 233 and proposed CPA Lease Sale 231 dated July 18, 2012, requested that a “Maritime Cultural 

Resource Assessment which meets the AHC [Alabama Historical Commission] standards should be 

conducted for any action within these sale blocks” and that the resulting report should be forwarded to 

their office for review and approval. Additional correspondence with the State of Alabama explained that 

cultural resource assessments are completed as part of BOEM’s postlease requirements and that they are 

site specific and are completed prior to authorization or approval of all proposed oil and gas activities. 

When necessary, cultural resource reports are also forwarded to the appropriate State agency as part of the 

Section 106 consultation process. A subsequent letter from the State of Alabama, dated August 16, 2012, 
Consultation and Coordination 5-13

agreed with the proposed lease actions, provided that submerged cultural resources are addressed prior to 

disturbance, as outlined above.

The Seminole Tribe of Florida-Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (STOF-THPO) responded to 

BOEMRE’s request for consultation on December 6, 2010. The STOF-THPO indicated that there was no 

objection to the proposed undertakings at this time. The STOF-THPO requested to review the impending 

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

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

ancestral or historically relevant to the Seminole Tribe of Florida are inadvertently discovered at any 

point during this process.

None of the above-referenced responses requested consultation. No further responses were received 

beyond the 30-day timeline and no requests for consultation were received. BOEM will continue to 

impose mitigating measures and monitoring and reporting requirements to ensure that historic properties 

are not affected by the proposed undertakings. BOEM will reinitiate the consultation process with the 

affected parties should such circumstances warrant further consultation.

5.10. MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE DRAFT AND FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL

EIS’S

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

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

made between the Draft and Final Supplemental EIS’s. Where appropriate, the text in this Final 

Supplemental EIS has been revised or expanded to provide clarification on specific issues, as well as to 

provide updated information. None of the revisions between the Draft and Final Supplemental EIS’s 

changed the impact conclusions for the physical, environmental, and socioeconomic resources analyzed in 

this Supplemental EIS.

5.11. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS AND BOEM’S 

RESPONSES

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

Register on November 9, 2012, were posted on BOEM’s Internet website, and were mailed to interested 

parties. The comment period ended on December 24, 2012. BOEM received 10 emails in response to the 

Draft Supplemental EIS. Six of the emails contained comments similar to those in the email from 

Jonathon Giuffria. BOEM also received 15 comment letters from Federal, State, and local agencies; 

industry; special interest groups; and the general public. These letters and emails are listed below:

Federal Agencies

Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine 

Fisheries Service

Department of the Army

Corps of Engineers

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

National Park Service

Environmental Protection Agency

State Agencies and Representatives

Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management

Florida Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources

Local Agencies

ManaSota-88

Organizations and Associations

American Petroleum Institute

Industry

ConocoPhillips

General Public

Sara Barnes

Augustine Brotherton

Carroll Campbell

Jonathon Giuffria

Jean Public (2) 

Lori Massey

Willena R. Matta
5-14 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Copies of these letters and emails are presented on the subsequent pages. Each letter and email’s 

comments have been marked for identification purposes. BOEM’s responses immediately follow each 

letter and email. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-15 COE-1 
5-16 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-17 

COE-1 Comment noted. BOEM and BSEE routinely conduct meetings with industry and other 

Federal agencies to inform operators of other regulatory requirements, including but not 

limited to, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act 

of 1899. In addition, BOEM includes in its sale documents a document entitled “Information 

to Lessees (ITL)” designed to inform potential lease sale bidders of select applicable Federal 

requirements and other information that may be of benefit to bidders participating in a lease 

sale. A notice on “Navigation Safety” is provided in the ITL to advise bidders that operations 

on certain blocks may be restricted by the designation of fairways, precautionary zones, 

anchorages, safety zones, or traffic separation schemes established by the U.S. Coast Guard. 

It also makes bidders aware of COE permits required for construction of any artificial islands, 

installations, and other devices permanently or temporarily attached to the seabed located on 

the OCS in accordance with Section 4(e) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. 

 
5-18 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS NMFS-1 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-19 

 
5-20 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

NMFS-1 Comment noted. Coordination has occurred with NMFS. Additional information has been 

added to Chapter 5.7 to discuss the status of ESA consultation activities with NMFS. 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-21 

 
5-22 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS NPS-1 NPS-2 NPS-3 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-23 

 
5-24 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

NPS-1 Comment noted. The text of this Final Supplemental EIS has been revised to address the 

comments on the impacts of the OCS Program on the Gulf Islands National Seashore. 

Information was added regarding the visibility of OCS structures from the Mississippi 

coastline. Additional information regarding routine impacts of the OCS Program on 

recreational resources in the CPA can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.21.2 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. BOEM will consider the National Park Service’s suggestions 

when developing future research projects. 

 BOEM has continued ongoing coordination efforts with the National Park Service to better 

understand its concerns and to explain BOEM’s leasing program process to determine if any 

mitigation measures can be and should be implemented for lease sales in the area adjacent to 

Gulf Islands National Seashore. During the discussions, the National Park Service has not 

provided any documentation that would change the conclusions in the analyses in this 

Supplemental EIS nor have they recommended to stall, delay, or cancel a proposed lease sale. 

NPS-2 Comment noted. As the comment response related to the degradation of aesthetics and the 

wilderness character of Horn and Petit Bois wilderness islands/areas equally applies to the 

Gulf Islands National Seashore, please refer to the response to Comment NPS-1. 

NPS-3 Refer to the response to comment NPS-1. 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-25 

 
5-26 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-27 

 
5-28 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-29 USEPA-1 

 
5-30 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS USEPA-2 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-31 USEPA-2 USEPA-3 USEPA-4 

 
5-32 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS USEPA-4 USEPA-5 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-33 USEPA-6 USEPA-7 USEPA-8 

 
5-34 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS USEPA-9 USEPA-10 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-35 USEPA-11 USEPA-12 USEPA-13-16 USEPA-17 

 
5-36 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS USEPA-18-24 USEPA-25-26 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-37 USEPA-27-28 USEPA-29-31 USEPA-33-34 USEPA -32 

 
5-38 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS USEPA-35 USEPA-36 USEPA-37-38 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-39 USEPA-39 USEPA-40 USEPA-41 

 
5-40 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS USEPA-42 USEPA-43 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-41 USEPA-44 USEPA-45 USEPA-46-47 USEPA-48 

 
5-42 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS USEPA-49-50 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-43 

USEPA-1 Information regarding resource estimates that could be developed under Alternative B were 

previously provided in Chapters 2.3.2 and 2.4.2. The numerical range of resource estimates 

was added to Chapters 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.1.2 for clarity. 

USEPA-2 We appreciate USEPA’s comments on onshore ozone impacts from OCS oil and gas 

activities. Those unpublished references are listed at the end of Appendix A, which explains 

from emissions inventory data analyses and modeling methods that “OCS activities 

contribute only slightly to onshore ozone exceedances.” For instance, Yarwood et al. (2004) 

used a photochemical model to analyze the 2000 GWEI and selected the Houston-GalvestonBrazoria nonattainment area since it has the most severe ozone problem in the Gulf of 

Mexico region (System Applications International et al., 1995). One of the main relevant 

findings in Yarwood et al. (2004) is as follows: “The average impact of the 2000 GWEI 

emissions on 8-hour ozone levels above 85 ppb in Houston area is 0.2 ppb; although larger 

impacts may occur over the Gulf of Mexico.” On the other hand, Haney et al. (2008) 

performed a modeling investigation using the 2000 and 2005 GWEI’s in the WPA and CPA 

to evaluate the impact of offshore emissions on offshore and onshore ozone air quality. 

Haney et al. proposed an emission-reduction scenario and found for a particular ozone 

episode that the onshore impact from all offshore oil-and-gas-related sources is small, but 

generally larger than those estimates using the 2000 inventory. They noticed higher 

simulated ozone concentrations from 2005 emission due to increases in NOx and VOC 

concentrations. Clarifying language has been added, where appropriate, to this Supplemental 

EIS in response to USEPA’s comment. 

USEPA-3 BOEM is in the process of a comprehensive assessment of numerical methods (including a 

variety of sensitivity analyses, a comparison of emission inventories, and an evaluation of 

emission scenarios) using USEPA-approved models, which will support our scientific 

analyses in future EIS’s. This modeling assessment is important considering that modern air 

quality models are still in development and need to be evaluated before they are widely used 

for realistic estimations of pollutant concentrations over offshore and coastal environments. 

Particular attention will be provided to resolve the issues in sensitive Class I and II areas. 

USEPA-4 Comment noted. Chapter 2.2.2 describes the mitigation measures applied to avoid or 

minimize environmental and socioeconomic impacts related to OCS activities. Mitigating 

measures are an integral part of BOEM’s program to ensure that the operations are always 

conducted in an environmentally sound manner (with an emphasis on minimizing any 

adverse impact of routine operations on the environment). As part of the staged 

decisionmaking under OCSLA, air quality mitigations are typically applied at post-lease 

stages, where additional site-specific information is provided. Examples of air quality 

mitigations applied to specific permits and approvals can be found on BOEM’s website at 

http://www.data.boem.gov/homepg/data_center/plans/plans/master.asp. 

USEPA-5 This Supplemental EIS updates the baseline conditions and potential environmental effects 

since the publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS for a single proposed lease 

sale (in each of the WPA and CPA). BOEM has included modeled estimates for certain 

greenhouse gases that maybe directly emitted during OCS oil and gas activities in Chapters 

4.1.1.1 and 4.2.1.1 and in Appendix A. At this time, the greenhouse gas emissions related 

to OCS oil and gas activities are a very small percentage of national emissions, and it would 

be impossible to tease out the impacts from this small incremental addition from global 

climate change impacts attributable to all other global sources. 

USEPA-6 As the USEPA’s comment acknowledges, NEPA does not require a worst-case analysis. 

Nevertheless, BOEM’s subject-matter experts have provided an overly conservative approach 

to modeling reasonably foreseeable impacts (including, but not limited to, aggregating all 

emissions sources to one location, which would not be expected in a real-world scenario). 

BOEM continues to believe this is the most appropriate approach to meet the Agency’s 

NEPA obligations. 
5-44 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

USEPA-7 Billings et. al. (official communication, 2012) prepared emissions estimates (criteria and 

greenhouse emissions) for BOEM’s propsed EPA Lease Sales 225 and 226 based upon low 

and high scenarios provided by BOEM for a “typical” lease in the EPA. Billings et al. 

(official communication, 2012) adjusted a spreadsheet provided by BOEM to reflect the 

“level of effort” for each year’s activity over a 40-year period. Because the calculations used 

for emissions estimates is nonspecific (generic) among the planning areas, the methodology 

used by Billings et al. (official communication, 2012) to calculate emissions in the EPA was 

also used to calculate emissions estimates for the WPA and CPA. The low and high 

scenarios for a typical WPA and typical CPA lease sale were inserted into the spreadsheets 

updated by Billings et al. (official communication, 2012). 

USEPA-8 As noted in the response to comment USEPA-6, NEPA does not require a worst-case 

analysis. The data in the Supplemental EIS spreadsheets were based on an average drillship 

as reported by the Year 2008 Gulfwide Emission Inventory Study (Wilson et al., 2010) and 

Rigzone (2009) for the Gulf of Mexico. Drilling days and average kilowatts were used to 

calculate reasonably foreseeable emissions. Specific drillships can be significantly larger or 

smaller than the average value used in the spreadsheet, and greater total emissions could be 

generated if the drillship stays on location longer. Nevertheless, BOEM’s subject-matter 

experts believe that the analysis remains conservative with regards to reasonably foreseeable 

emissions expected to result from the WPA and CPA proposed actions. Therefore, BOEM 

determined that no revisions to the document are necessary with regard to the emission 

estimates used. 

USEPA-9 As recommended by USEPA, BOEM will remove the analogy comparing the screening 

thresholds of the two agencies. 

 According to BOEM’s regulations (30 CFR 550), if the projected emissions are less than or 

equal to the emission exemption amount for the air pollutant, the facility is exempt from 

further air quality review. Likewise, if the facility is not exempt , the lessee shall use an 

approved air quality model to determine whether the projected emissions for those air 

pollutants from the facility result in an onshore ambient air concentration above the 

significance levels (30 CFR 550.218(e)). 

 Although both agencies conduct air quality reviews on activities on the OCS, BOEM has its 

own regulations in place to review OCS activities west of longitude 87o30′′. Additionally, in 

1980, BOEM adopted the PSD significance levels and included them into BOEM’s 

regulations. 

USEPA-10 Comment noted. However, USEPA’s thoughts on the appropriateness of BOEM’s emission 

exemption levels are outside the scope of this NEPA document and the proposed action 

evaluated herein. 

USEPA-11 Comment noted. The text of this Final Supplemental EIS has been revised to address the 

comment. 

 Please note, however, that DOI does not “implement” the Clean Air Act on the OCS. The 

DOI implements OCSLA on the OCS and the air quality requirements found therein. 

USEPA-12 Comment noted. Although NEPA does not require a regulatory proxy for the determination 

of the significance of an impact, for the sake of comparison, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s SIL’s were added to the comparison tables. BOEM’s subject-matter 

experts determined that the modeled impacts were below the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s SIL’s. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-45 

USEPA-13 BOEM’s regulations do not include NO2 levels in the Maximum Allowable Increase tables; 

only TSP or SO2. As indicated on each table with an asterisk, USEPA has an SIL for NO2 as 

part of the robust analysis before the decisionmaker. 

 Additionally, USEPA indicates that BOEM’s Maximum Allowable Increases are much larger 

than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s SIL’s. Regardless, the modeled 

concentrations shown on the tables in Appendix A are much less than the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s SIL’s, which are now included on the tables. 

USEPA-14 As indicated in Appendix A of the Draft Supplemental EIS, the original USEPA particulate 

standard was for total suspended particulates (TSP), which BOEM adopted. Although the 

USEPA’s standard has been replaced with the PM10 and PM2.5, BOEM’s regulations continue 

to include TSP. For modeling purposes, BOEM modeled PM2.5 and PM10. and compared 

modeled impacts with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s SIL’s shown in 

Table A-6. 

USEPA-15 Comment noted. BOEM’s regulations do not necessarily equate its Maximum Allowable 

Increases with USEPA’s increments or SIL’s. However, BOEM’s modeled results have been 

compared with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s SIL’s shown in Table A-6, and 

the results have been further discussed in Chapter 4 and Appendix A.

USEPA-16 Comment noted. As mentioned in the air quality analysis, BOEM’s regulations do not 

include NO2 concentration values in the Maximum Allowable Increases. However, the TSP 

annual and 24-hour concentrations values and the SO2 annual, 24-hour, and 3-hour 

concentrations values are included in the Maximum Allowable Increases. BOEM’s 

regulations do not include a 1-hour SO2 Maximum Allowable Increase. 

 BOEM’s modeled impacts include averaging times for NO2, SO2, PM2.5 and PM10, and 

CO. In Table A-6, BOEM’s modeled impacts have been compared with BOEM’s 

Significance Levels, BOEM’s Maximum Allowable Concentration Increases, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s SIL’s, and the NAAQS. 

USEPA-17 BOEM appreciates USEPA’s comments. However, NEPA does not mandate a specific 

regulatory proxy for evaluating whether a proposed action may result in significant impacts, 

and BOEM believes it would be confusing to the decisionmaker and the public to ignore 

BOEM’s regulations when evaluating onshore impacts. 

 BOEM compared the modeled impacts with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 

SIL’s and discussed the results in Chapter 4 and Appendix A. Therefore, as discussed in this 

Supplemental EIS, BOEM stands by the conclusion that the WPA and CPA emissions that 

may actually result from the proposed actions would be expected to minimally impact 

onshore air quality. 

USEPA-18 BOEM acknowledges that every available air quality model has benefits and limitations. As 

noted in Chapter 4 and Appendix A, BOEM’s subject-matter experts determined that the 

OCD model was one of the few to be viable for use in offshore environments and that it 

would produce more conservative results (i.e., tend to overestimate impacts) than other 

available models. Nevertheless, while it is true that the OCD model has a 50-km (31-mi) 

applicability limitation, this Supplemental EIS has demonstrated that the receptors within 

50 km (31 mi) of the proposed lease sale are within acceptable limits, even accounting for the 

OCD’s conservative nature. 

USEPA-19 Meteorological data used were from the period 2000 through 2004. Different meteorological 

data were applied to each site. For East Breaks Block 446, the meteorological data were from 

Corpus Christi, Texas, for both surface and upper air, as well as from Buoy 42019. For 

Mississippi Canyon Block 856, surface data come from Patterson, Louisiana, and upper air 
5-46 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

data come from Slidell, Louisiana. Buoy data for Mississippi Canyon Block 856 come from 

Buoy 42040. These meteorological data points are the closest, physically, to the proposed 

lease sale areas available to BOEM and, therefore, are the best approximation available.

USEPA-20 As noted above, NEPA does not mandate a specific regulatory proxy for the nature and scope 

of significant impacts that may result from a proposed action. Although the NAAQS extend 

to the State seaward boundary, BOEM’s regulations at 30 CFR 550.303 state that the 

proposed activities should be reviewed for their potential to affect the air quality of an 

onshore area; therefore, onshore receptors rather than receptors at the State’s seaward 

boundary were selected. In any event, there is no evidence to suggest the impacts at the 

seaward boundary, only approximately 3 mi (5 km) from the coast, would have impacts 

significantly different than the onshore receptors used by BOEM for modeling. BOEM’s 

subject-matter experts believe that the onshore receptors used are the most appropriate for 

evaluating potential impacts under NEPA. 

USEPA-21 BOEM has included the location of the modeled lease block activities and the location of 

meteorological data and buoy data in Chapter 4 and Appendix A. 

USEPA-22 Refer to the response to comment USEPA-7. 

USEPA-23 Due to limitations in the model, and in the very nature of estimating potential impacts for a 

proposed lease sale, BOEM acknowledges that the values may not be ideal for short-term 

modeling. Nevertheless, BOEM’s subject-matter experts used conservative assumptions 

throughout the determination of emissions rates, thereby considering the rates to be an 

adequate surrogate for short-term emission rates for purposes of this NEPA analysis. These 

conservative assumptions include the use of the highest estimated level of activity, using the 

year with the most activity out of the 40-year life of the lease, and the placement of total 

emissions throughout the planning area into a single block (rather than being scattered 

through the planning area as would be expected in real-world scenarios). 

USEPA-24 As noted in this Supplemental EIS, the referenced ozone modeling studies are applicable to 

these proposed lease sales because the amount of emissions generating activity utilized in the 

studies remains roughly consistent with the various activities proposed during the 40-year life 

of expected leases resulting from proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 and proposed CPA Lease 

Sale 231. Drilling is a temporary activity and as drilling concludes at older leases, new 

drilling starts up on other existing or recently obtained leases. However, in the past several 

years, there has been a downward trend in drilling activity and that trend is expected to 

continue as industry uses more focused drilling and fewer wells to produce equivalent or 

greater amounts of product. As production slows down at older platforms, new production 

platforms go online. As activity moves into deeper water, all this activity moves farther away 

from the shore, lessening shoreline impacts. This information on activity levels is provided 

in Chapter 3. 

USEPA-25 Comment noted and BOEM has added the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s SIL’s to 

the table. As shown in Table A-6, BOEM’s modeled impacts are much less than the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’ SIL’s. Therefore, BOEM stands by the conclusion that 

the emissions reasonably foreseeable as a result of the proposed CPA lease sale would 

minimally impact onshore air quality. 

USEPA-26 Refer to the response to comment USEPA-17. The impacts of the OCS emissions on the 

onshore air quality are below BOEM’s Significance Levels and the NAAQS. The USEPA 

commented that BOEM should compare model results with the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s SIL’s. Therefore, the modeled results have been compared with the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s SIL’s. The modeled impact in the Class I area for annual 

NOx equals 0.4 μg/m3 and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s SIL for annual NOx

equals 0.1 μg/m3. The modeled impact in the Class I area for 24-hour PM2.5 equals 0.3 μg/m3 
Consultation and Coordination 5-47 

and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s SIL for PM2.5 equals 0.07 μg/m3. Although 

the SIL’s were exceeded, BOEM expects, in practice if the emissions were distributed more 

realistically across the CPA, that emissions would not exceed the SIL. The modeling that 

was conducted was overly conservative. All of the emissions during 1 year for the entire 

CPA, which would actually be dispersed throughout the CPA, were modeled as if they 

originated in Mississippi Canyon Block 856.

USEPA-27 Refer to the response to comment USEPA-17. BOEM’s subject-matter experts determined 

the modeled impacts by adding the modeled concentration to Kenner, Louisiana, 1-hour NO2

monitor background (94.07 μg/m3

) and compared with the NAAQS. The subject-matter 

experts believe that this approach remains conservative in evaluating the potential impacts 

under NEPA.

USEPA-28 BOEM contacted FWS’s National Wildlife Refuge System, Branch of Air Quality. The FWS 

confirmed that they do not have this data. The USEPA was contacted for assistance in 

obtaining the background data, but the data were not received as of publication of this Final 

Supplemental EIS. Although this information may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable 

significant impacts, the information is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives. 

Even if it were, as FWS does not have the data despite it maintaining the monitors at the 

Breton National Wilderness, and USEPA has been unable to provide it; it is believed it is not 

possible to obtain the information at this time. Regardless, the robust analysis of air quality 

impacts in Chapter 4, coupled with the modeling analysis summarized in Appendix A, 

provide ample information on the potential for reasonably foreseeable impacts that may result 

from the proposed action for the decisionmaker and the public in evaluating the potential 

environmental consequences. 

USEPA-29 Refer to the response to comment USEPA-17. Although the SIL’s were exceeded, BOEM 

expects in practice if the emissions were distributed more realistically across the CPA that 

emissions would not exceed the SIL. The modeling that was conducted was overly 

conservative. All of the emissions during 1 year for the entire CPA, which would actually be 

dispersed throughout the CPA, were modeled as if they originated in Mississippi Canyon 

Block 856.

USEPA-30 Refer to the response to comment USEPA-24. Yearly emissions from all of the following 

activities and sources were summed together and modeled: exploration and delineation 

drilling; development and production drilling; platform installation and removal; pipeline 

installation; production platform operations; tanker loading; tanker in transit; tanker 

unloading; and helicopters and support vessels. Many of the more pollutant-emitting 

activities (such as drilling) remain relatively constant from year to year due to the limited 

availability of equipment to perform this work in the Gulf of Mexico. Other factors are 

currently leading to a downward trend in activities (e.g., the number of wells drilled) over the 

last few years, and this trend may continue. BOEM believes that the approach used in this 

Supplemental EIS was reasonably conservative and was appropriate for the evaluation of the 

proposed action under NEPA. 

USEPA-31 Since the Kenner, Louisiana, monitor is located within the CPA, BOEM believes it is an 

appropriate monitor to use to evaluate potential impacts on the NAAQS within the CPA. 

BOEM reviewed the Houston, Texas, 1-hour NOx monitoring data and, because it was similar 

to the Kenner data, decided to use the Kenner, Louisiana, data throughout for the sake of 

consistency 

USEPA-32 Comment noted. The text of this Final Supplemental EIS has been revised to address the 

comment. 

USEPA-33 Refer to the response to comment USEPA-17. As shown in Table A-8, BOEM’s modeled 

impacts are less than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s SIL’s. Therefore, BOEM 
5-48 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

stands by the conclusion that the WPA emissions would be expected to only minimally 

impact onshore air quality.

USEPA-34 Refer to the response to comment USEPA-30. 

USEPA-35 The summary of the impact conclusions are included in this Supplemental EIS for each 

resource within Chapters 4.1 and 4.2. Impact conclusions for the WPA and CPA proposed 

actions are also summarized in Chapters 2.3.1.2 and 2.4.1.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS. Full impact descriptions are also provided in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS. The referenced 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS will be included on the 

CD with the Final Supplemental EIS. 

USEPA-36 Refer to the response to comment USEPA-35. This Supplemental EIS tiers off of the 

referenced 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and is therefore focused on any changes that 

may have occurred to the resources that could be impacted or any new information that has 

become available since the publication of that document. Quantified data are used to support 

the conclusions for resource analyses in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. For 

example, refer to the wetlands analyses in Chapter 4.2.1.4.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS. 

 BOEM offers the following two examples of quantifiable data included in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS: 

 “The use of modern technologies, such as directional boring, greatly reduces and possibly 

eliminates most impacts to coastal wetlands and marshes. About 5-8 ha (12-20 ac) of 

landloss for the projected 2 km (1.2 mi) of pipeline (based on historic loss rates) are expected 

from a CPA proposed action. This represents approximately 0.25 percent of the total landloss 

estimated to occur along the Louisiana coast in 1 year (~2,590 ha or 10 mi2) (Barras et al., 

2003).” 

 “All estimated navigational use is expected to contribute approximately 1.5 m/yr (4.9 ft/yr) to 

the widening to the roughly 2,000 km (1,243 mi) of unarmored navigation channels used by 

OCS Program-related vessels, or about 300 ha/yr (741 ac/yr) of landloss per year (Johnson 

and Gosselink, 1982).” 

USEPA-37 The OCS wells and production facilities off the Texas coast are at least 9 nmi (10.35 mi; 

16.66 km) from land and are as far as over 200 mi (322 km) from land. Spills could take 

place at any of these facilities, and impacts to wetlands would vary based on a number of 

factors, including distance and the quantity of oil spilled. Specific data, including historical 

rates of spills by volume ranges, risk analysis for offshore spills, and modeled probabilities of 

oil spills reaching shorelines, are provided in Chapters 3.1.1.7.4 and 3.2.1 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, which are hereby incorporated by reference. 

USEPA-38 The example of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup was used in Chapter 

4.2.1.4.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS to describe the impacts to wetlands of 

that particular spill. Chapter 4.1.1.4.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS discusses 

the probabilities of a hypothetical spill 1,000 bbl reaching shore in Texas (under the OSRA 

model) and reviews recent scientific literature regarding primary and secondary impacts of oil 

on wetlands. Impacts of future spills cannot be precisely quantified without knowledge of the 

volume, type of oil, distance from impacted wetlands, spill-response actions, and other 

factors. 

USEPA-39 Chapter 4.1.1.4.4 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS identifies dredging, navigation 

channels and canals, pipelines, oil spills, and development of wetlands as the “main factors 

that continually effect wetlands.” As noted above, the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

is hereby incorporated by reference. The reason the proposed action is expected to have a 
Consultation and Coordination 5-49 

small incremental contribution to cumulative impacts to wetlands is that the WPA proposed 

action represents only a small (<5%) portion of the OCS oil and gas program’s impacts on 

wetlands, and wetlands are also impacted by non-OCS impacts such as State oil and gas 

activity, development, natural processes, navigation, and and sea-level rise, among others. 

The existing and potential onshore activities related to OCS oil and gas program and the 

WPA proposed action were included by BOEM in this analysis of the cumulative impacts. 

USEPA-40 Comment noted. The text of this Final Supplemental EIS has been revised to address the 

comment. 

USEPA-41 Additional detail regarding the methodology and the source of data used in estimating the 

number and size of potential future coastal spills is provided in Chapter 3.2.1.7.1 of the 2012-

2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Offshore spill risk related to the proposed action is 

addressed in Chapter 3.2.1.8 of this Supplemental EIS. Spills occurring as a result of the 

proposed action are anticipated to occur in offshore waters where most of the activities 

related to these proposed actions will take place. The referenced 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS will be included on the CD with this Final Supplemental EIS. 

USEPA-42 The USEPA’s suggestion to provide community outreach or to include within its 

environmental impact documents “a plan to supplement local subsistence hunting and fishing 

in the event of an accidental release” is outside of the scope of this Supplemental EIS and this 

Agency’s mandate under NEPA, although BOEM notes that such activities were considered 

and undertaken by various agencies and industry after the Deepwater Horizon explosion and 

oil spill. The 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, from which this Supplemental EIS tiers, 

states that BOEM is currently funding a subsistence study to better document subsistence in 

the region. In previous years, prior to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and 

cleanup, subsistence living along the Gulf Coast was not a major consideration. The 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill, however, brought the issue to the forefront, and BOEM funded a 

subsistence study after the oil spill to explore this new focal area. This information was part 

of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. However, information has been added to 

Chapters 4.1.1.20.4 and 4.2.1.23.4 of this Supplemental EIS to reinforce the information. 

For environmental justice evaluations under NEPA, the issue is whether minority and lowincome groups suffer disproportionate environmental effects. Not only is there no evidence 

to suggest that these persons were disproportionately affected, there is no evidence yet that 

revealed that minority and low-income populations are greater subsistence consumers than 

any other people in the region. That is, their rate of subsistence consumption has not been 

shown to be higher than persons who are not minority or low income. 

 There are no clearly discrete, identifiable, or recognized “environmental justice communities” 

in the impact area. The Deepwater Horizon Economic and Property Damages Settlement 

includes subsistence claims and is therefore relevant to this Supplement EIS document and it 

is also informative for any people who read this Final Supplemental EIS. Information has 

been added to Chapters 4.1.1.20.4 and 4.2.1.23.4 to highlight the relevance of the Settlement 

to any potential minority and low-income persons who wish to file a claim or who already 

filed a claim under the Gulf Coast Claims Facility and who need to re-file under the new 

Settlement program. 

USEPA-43 It is important to point out that BOEM only permits infrastructure emplaced on the OCS, and 

infrastructure constructed in onshore coastal areas are permitted by the States pursuant to 

their Coastal Use Programs and by Federal agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers pursuant to the Clean Water Act. For many of these agencies, mitigation can be 

and frequently is required for approvals or permits under their authority. 

 BOEM has incorporated into this Supplemental EIS relevant discussions on mitigations, and 

any Record of Decision issued as part of the NEPA process for this proposed action shall 

include CEQ’s requirements for mitigation under 40 CFR 1505.2. Nevertheless, USEPA’s 
5-50 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

request for a broad policy statement requiring extensive and complete mitigation of coastal 

resources is outside of the scope of this NEPA process. Please note as well that BOEM’s 

authority to require mitigation is limited and that the Agency has no or limited authority to 

provide or mandate compensatory mitigation for activities regulated by other State and 

Federal agencies. 

USEPA-44 Chapter 5.8 has been updated to elaborate on the National Historic Preservation Act’s 

consultation efforts undertaken to date. In November 2010, BOEM (then BOEMRE) 

initiated a request for consultation via a formal letter sent to the affected Gulf Coast States 

and Tribal Nations. Letters were sent to each of the following federally recognized Tribal 

Nations: Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas; Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana; Choctaw 

Nation of Oklahoma; Coushatta Indian Tribe; Jena Band of Choctaw Indians; Miccosukee 

Indian Tribe of Florida; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; Poarch Band of Creek Indians; 

Seminole Tribe of Florida; and Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe of Louisiana. The Seminole Tribe 

of Florida was the only Tribal Nation to respond, requesting the ability to review any remotesensing survey reports that are conducted over the high-probability zones within the project 

area and to be notified if cultural resources that are potentially ancestral or historically 

relevant to the Seminole Tribe of Florida are inadvertently discovered at any point during this 

process. Neither the Seminole Tribe of Florida nor any other Tribal Nation requested further 

consultation. 

 Nonfederally-recognized tribes were welcomed to provide comments on the Draft 

Supplemental EIS during the public comment period. Announcements for the public 

meetings held in each of the Gulf Coast States further indicated that these meetings would 

provide the opportunity for any affected members of the public, including State-recognized 

tribes, to engage specifically in the Section 106 consultation process. No State-recognized 

tribes voiced concerns or requested additional consultation regarding either cultural or natural 

resources potentially impacted by the proposed alternatives. 

 Although none of the affected Tribal Nations have previously requested additional 

consultation regarding this Supplemental EIS, BOEM has taken the opportunity to begin the 

process of reinitiating programmatic Tribal consultation in light of our Agency’s 

reorganization from BOEMRE to BOEM in October 2011 and the subsequently released 

Department of the Interior Policy on Consultation with Indian Tribes (December 2011). It 

warrants mentioning that this Supplemental EIS is a planning document only, and its 

finalization will not in and of itself impact any Tribal properties or areas otherwise utilized 

for cultural identity, livelihood, or subsistence. Should any such concerns be identified in the 

future, Tribal Nations will have the opportunity to reengage in consultations. 

USEPA-45 Refer to the response to comment USEPA-44. 

USEPA-46 Refer to the response to comment USEPA-44. In addition, Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 of this 

Supplemental EIS and Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

describe potential impacts to environmental resources as a result of routine and accidental 

activities, including oil spills. These environmental resources described include, but are not 

limited to, wetlands, commercial and recreational fishing, and fish resources and essential 

fish habitat. Though certain plants have historically been used by tribes for medicinal 

purposes or other traditional practices, consultations have not identified any indication that 

these resources are currently utilized by Tribal Nations or that they would be 

disproportionally affected, relative to other coastal vegetation, by the proposed activities. 

USEPA-47 Refer to the response to comment USEPA-44. 

USEPA-48 Comment noted. Chapter 5 describes in detail the consultation and coordination procedures 

for the prelease planning process. For each proposed lease sale, notices are placed in the 

Federal Register requesting that interested parties provide comments on the proposed actions 
Consultation and Coordination 5-51 

as part of the scoping process. Environmental impact statements and environmental 

documents for proposed lease sales are also made available for public review and comment. 

USEPA-49 Comment noted. BOEM believes that creating an additional analysis of comments by 

resource area is unnecessary, as relevant comments are incorporated directly into the 

individual resource analyses in Chapter 4 as well as being addressed in Chapter 5. Because 

BOEM does not normally receive an exorbitant number of comments on prelease NEPA 

documents, comments received can be easily reviewed to ascertain comments for each 

resource in a reasonable amount of time. Nevertheless, BOEM takes your comment under 

advisement should, in the future, there be a need to change the formatting on responses to 

comments. 

USEPA-50 Comment noted. Refer to the response to comment USEPA-48. 

 
5-52 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS FWS-1 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-53 

 
5-54 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

FWS-1 Comment noted. 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-55 ADEM-1 

 
5-56 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

ADEM-1 As noted in ADEM’s letter, the Governors of Alabama have historically indicated opposition 

to new leasing south and within 15 mi (24 km) of Baldwin County; however, they have 

requested that, if the area is offered for lease, a lease stipulation to reduce the potential for 

visual impacts should be applied to all new leases in this area. Prior to issuance of the Final 

Notice of Sale for Sale 172 in 1999, this Agency’s Gulf of Mexico OCS Regional Director, in 

consultation with the Geological Survey of Alabama/State Oil and Gas Board, developed a 

lease stipulation to be applied to any new leases within the 15-mi (24-km) area to mitigate 

potential visual impacts. The stipulation specifies requirements for consultation that lessees 

must follow when developing plans for fixed structures. The stipulation has been continually 

adopted in annual CPA lease sales since 1999. It has been adopted in each of the CPA lease 

sales in the 2002-2007 and 2007-2012 Five-Year Programs, and it will be considered for 

adoption as part of the proposed CPA lease sales in the 2012-2017 Five Year Program, 

including proposed CPA Lease Sale 231, which is tentatively scheduled to be held in August 

2013. 

 BOEM may apply a number of lease sale mitigations and stipulations to minimize the 

impacts of oil and gas exploration and development. Chapter 2.2.2 of this Supplemental EIS 

and Chapter 2.2.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS discuss these mitigations and 

stipulations, including the Topographic Features Stipulation. Additionally, a number of sitespecific mitigations for environmental protection and safety are routinely applied by BOEM 

and BSEE at the post-lease stages. All exploration plans, development plans, and pipeline 

applications are thoroughly reviewed to determine what protective measures should be 

included as a condition of plan or permit approval. Mitigations and stipulations are 

developed as conditions warrant and are subject to a review and approval process. 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-57 

 
5-58 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS FDACS-1 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-59 

FDACS-1 Comment noted. The commenter’s contact information was forwarded to BSEE to be 

included in the oil-spill response contact list. 

 
5-60 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS LADNR-1 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-61 LADNR-2 LADNR-3 

 
5-62 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS
Consultation and Coordination 5-63 

LADNR-1 Chapters 4.1.1.4 and 4.2.1.4 of this Supplemental EIS and Chapters 4.1.1.4 and 4.2.1.4 of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS describe the environmental impacts of proposed lease 

sales on coastal wetland resources. Cumulative analyses are also included in order to put the 

incremental contribution of these proposed WPA and CPA lease sales in context considering 

all of the other types of activities (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable) that have the 

potential to cause impacts, including impacts from other lease sales that are part of the overall 

OCS Program. 

LADNR-2 Refer to the response to comment LADNR-1. BOEM has included in this Supplemental EIS 

the relevant information related to its cumulative effects analysis, including both the proposed 

action and all OCS oil and gas program activities in its consideration. As noted in Chapter 4, 

the incremental contribution of an individual lease sale to these impacts is very small. Many 

of the impacts to environmental and socioeconomic resources that are identified in the 

cumulative analysis have occurred over many years, much of it prior to the enactment of 

important laws to protect the environment and prior to the bulk of OCS activities. BOEM 

includes a robust consideration of potential mitigation in its analysis. Please note, however, 

that BOEM’s authority to require certain types of mitigation is limited and that the Agency 

has no or limited authority to provide or mandate compensatory mitigation for activities 

regulated by other Federal and State agencies, such as the Louisiana Coastal Use permit 

program. 

LADNR-3 Comment noted. The distribution of royalties is outside the scope of these proposed actions 

and NEPA analyses. Nevertheless, BOEM acknowledges that in recent years Louisiana has 

received over $1 billion in OCSLA 8(g) revenues, over half a billion dollars in Coastal 

Impact Assistance Program funds, and stands to receive additional offshore revenue shares in 

the coming years as provided for in the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006. 

 
5-64 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-65 

 
5-66 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS API-1 API-2 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-67 API - 3 

 
5-68 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

API-1 Comment noted. If the ASLM’s decision is to hold a proposed lease sale under Alternative 

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

API-2 Comments noted. If the ASLM’s decision is to hold a proposed lease sale under Alternatives 

A or B, it will be announced in the Final Notice of Sale. If the ASLM’s decision is to cancel 

a proposed lease sale under Alternative C, a Notice of Cancellation will be published in the 

Federal Register. 

API-3 API’s statement that the currently unavailable information is not essential to a reasoned 

choice among alternatives is not accurate. There are several resources in which the 

incomplete or unavailable information is relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant 

adverse impacts and may be essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives. The 

introductions to Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 contain detailed discussions of incomplete or 

unavailable information and list those specific resources in which the incomplete and 

unavailable information may be essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-69 API ENCLOSURE 1 (API 1) COMMENTS 1-8 

 
5-70 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS API 1 COMMENTS 9-17 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-71 API 1 COMMENTS 18-28 

 
5-72 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS API 1 COMMENTS 29-39 
Consultation and Coordination 5-73 API 1 COMMENTS 40-46 

 
5-74 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS API 1 COMMENTS 46-47 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-75 

API 1-1 Comment noted. 

API 1-2 The cumulative impact analyses in this Supplemental EIS are summaries of the cumulative 

impact analyses carried over from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and includes 

relevant new information since the publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

The cumulative impact analysis for each resource in this Supplemental EIS provides not only 

a summary of the cumulative impact analysis from the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS 

but also references the chapter of the cumulative analysis in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS. For detailed descriptions of the cumulative impact analyses, reference the 

appropriate chapters in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

API 1-3 Comment noted. 

API 1-4 BOEM does not intend to merely discount PAH’s but rather to evaluate the affected 

environment for our proposed action, including the waters and sediments of the Gulf of 

Mexico. Unfortunately, evaluating every PAH concentration independently over time in the 

waters and sediments of the Gulf of Mexico to all biota is beyond the scope of this 

Supplemental EIS. The effects of PAH’s are additive across all of the PAH compounds in 

petroleum, and USEPA does not list a value for total PAH’s in its National Recommended 

Water Quality Criteria listings in the Aquatic Life Criteria table or in the Human Health 

Criteria table, although some individual PAH’s are listed in the Human Health Criteria table 

for the consumption of water and organisms. The USEPA and NOAA have benchmarks 

values or screening quick reference tables (Squirts) for some potential contaminants; 

however, these are meant for initial screening purposes only. For PAH’s, USEPA 

recommends more detailed benchmark calculations, not a simple number, due to the additive 

nature of PAH’s. Some Squirts values are reported for total PAH’s in marine sediments only. 

 For further information, please refer to the references below: 

Buchman, M.F. 2008. NOAA: Screening quick reference tables. NOAA OR&R Report 

08-1. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

Office of Response and Restoration Division, Seattle, WA. 34pp. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Water quality benchmarks for aquatic life. 

Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/water-benchmarks.html. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Sediment benchmarks for aquatic life. 

Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/sediment-benchmarks.html. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. National recommended water quality criteria. 

Internet website: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/

index.cfm. 

API 1-5 Comment noted. 

API 1-6 Comment noted. The text of the Final Supplemental EIS has been revised to address the 

comment. 

API 1-7 Comment noted. The text of the Final Supplemental EIS has been revised to address the 

comment. 

API 1-8 Comment noted. Chapter 1.5 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS describes postlease activities, including exploration and development plans, and pipeline applications that 

result from lease sales. The NEPA review requirements and procedures for each category of 

post-lease activity are also described in Chapter 1.5 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS. Information requests are issued as necessary to solicit public involvement in the 

preparation of post-lease NEPA documents. 
5-76 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

API 1-9 Comment noted. The text of the Final Supplemental EIS has been revised to address the 

comment. 

API 1-10 Table 2-1 was deleted from this Final Supplemental EIS. The alternative and mitigation 

tracking table has been placed on BOEM’s website at http://www.boem.gov/5-year/2012-

2017/Tracking-Table/. 

API 1-11 BOEM is currently evaluating options for making the more common environmental 

mitigations available in a single combined format on BOEM’s website. In the meantime, the 

mitigations that have been applied to site-specific environmental assessments and the 

associated approval letters for plans and permit applications are available at http://

www.data.boem.gov/homepg/data_center/plans/plans/master.asp. 

API 1-12 Comment noted. The text of the Final Supplemental EIS has been revised to address the 

comment. 

API 1-13 As described in Chapter 2.2.2.1, mitigation measures will be considered for adoption by the 

ASLM, under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior. The analysis of any 

stipulations for Alternative A does not ensure that the ASLM will make a decision to apply 

the stipulations to leases that may result from the proposed lease sales nor does it preclude 

minor modifications in wording during subsequent steps in the prelease process if comments 

indicate changes are necessary or if conditions change. If the Topographic Features 

Stipulation is applied to WPA Lease Sale 233 or CPA Lease Sale 231 by the ASLM, it will 

be announced in the Final Notice of Sale. In recognition of the ASLM’s authority to apply 

specific mitigations, the term “proposed” has been retained in the final text of this 

Supplemental EIS as it relates to the Topographic Features Stipulation. 

API 1-14 Chapter 3.1.1.1.1 provides production estimates for typical WPA and CPA lease sales. 

Chapter 3.1.1.1.2 provides cumulative production estimates for the OCS Program, which 

represents production from lands currently under lease plus anticipated production from 

future lease sales over the 40-year analysis period. BOEM believes that the order of the two 

sections under Chapter 3.1.1.1 remains appropriate and that no revisions are necessary. 

API 1-15 Comment noted. 

API 1-16 Comment noted. 

API 1-17 Comment noted. The text of the Final Supplemental EIS has been revised to state that all 

losses of well control must be reported to BSEE. 

API 1-18 Climate change is a global phenomenon influenced by many activities worldwide. BOEM’s 

general policy is to address programmatic issues such as global climate change at the FiveYear Program level rather than at the individual lease sale level. Thus, the effects of climate 

change are thoroughly considered and discussed in the Five-Year Program EIS (USDOI, 

BOEM, 2012c). Chapter 3.3 of the Five-Year Program EIS addresses consideration of 

climate change and the baseline environment, while Chapter 3.4.1.3 of the Five-Year 

Program EIS discusses specific climate change effects on water quality in the Gulf of 

Mexico. Refer to Chapters 4.1.1.1 and 4.2.1.1 of this Supplemental EIS. 

API 1-19 Chapter 2 describes the environmental and socioeconomic effects of the proposed lease sales 

and alternatives, and it also discusses the potential mitigating measures to avoid or minimize 

impacts. Chapter 4 describes the affected environment and provides an analysis of the 

routine, accidental, and cumulative impacts of the proposed actions and the alternatives on 

environmental and socioeconomic resources of the Gulf of Mexico. As these chapters serve 

different purposes and offer different analyses, BOEM feels a reorganization of the 

Supplemental EIS is not required, even if there are some redundancies. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-77 

API 1-20 Comment noted. The text of the Final Supplemental EIS has been revised to address the 

comment. 

API 1-21 Comment noted. The text was changed in Chapters 4.1.1.1 and 4.2.1.1 to address the 

comment. 

API 1-22 Comment noted. Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, which are 

incorporated by reference in this Supplemental EIS, contain information describing the 

effects of PAH’s and their potential effects on various marine resources, where applicable. 

API 1-23 Comment noted. The text of the Final Supplemental EIS has been revised to address the 

comment. 

API 1-24 Comment noted. The text of the Final Supplemental EIS has been revised to address the 

comment. 

API 1-25 Comment noted. The text was changed in Chapter 4.1.1.5 from “quick” to “short term.” 

API 1-26 Comment noted. The text of the Final Supplemental EIS has been revised to address the 

comment. 

API 1-27 Comment noted. 

API 1-28 Comment noted. The stranded turtle investigations are conducted by NMFS and are ongoing. 

As described in Chapter 4.1.1.12, relevant data on the status of sea turtle populations after 

the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup and on the increased sea turtle 

strandings may take years to acquire and analyze, and impacts from the Deepwater Horizon

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup may be difficult or impossible to discern from other factors. 

As such, BOEM’s subject0matter experts believe that the statements remain accurate as 

written. 

API 1-29 Comment noted. 

API 1-30 Comment noted. The text of the Final Supplemental EIS has been revised to address the 

comment. 

API 1-31 Comment noted. The text of the Final Supplemental EIS has been revised to address the 

comment. 

API 1-32 Comment noted. The text was changed in Chapter 4.2.1.1 to address the comment. 

API 1-33 Refer to the response to comment API 1-22. 

API 1-34 Comment noted. The text of the Final Supplemental EIS has been revised to address the 

comment. 

API 1-35 The comment from API includes some factual observations that are accurate. However, they 

do not contradict what has been written in the Draft Supplemental EIS, which is also accurate 

and which BOEM’s subject-matter experts believe are the most pertinent to informing the 

decisionmaker. With regard to the comment on health risks, please note that this section 

discusses impacts to coastal barrier beaches and dunes but not impacts to humans. Health 

impacts to humans are discussed in the environmental justice analysis (Chapter 4.2.1.23.4 of 

this Supplemental EIS), which tiers from the more extensive analysis of short- and long-term 

exposures to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in Chapter 4.2.1.23.4.3 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 
5-78 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

API 1-36 Channel armor is shoreline protection such as rip rap, rocks, or other breakwaters designed to 

reduce shoreline erosion in a channel. Any such armor added to existing pipeline channels 

would be done through a State’s Coastal Management Program, the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, or the U.S. Dept. of Transportation; it would not originate with BOEM. Refer to 

Chapter 4.2.1.4 of this Supplemental EIS and to Chapter 3.1.1.8 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

API 1-37 Comment noted. 

API 1-38 Comment noted. 

API 1-39 Comment noted. 

API 1-40 Comment noted. 

API 1-41 Comment noted. 

API 1-42 Comment noted. 

API 1-43 The NOAA’s Marine Recreational Information Program data consist of effort data, catch 

data, and data regarding the economic impacts of the recreational fishing industry. Updated 

effort and catch data are already included in this Supplemental EIS. Data regarding the 

economic impacts of the recreational fishing industry were also included in the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS; there are no updates to this data at this time. 

API 1-44 Comment noted. The text of the Final Supplemental EIS has been revised to address the 

comment. 

API 1-45 Comment noted. 

API 1-46 Table 2-1 was deleted from this Supplemental EIS. The alternative and mitigation tracking 

table has been placed on BOEM’s website at http://www.boem.gov/5-year/2012-2017/

Tracking-Table/. 

API 1-47 The statement regarding the number of birds collected has support from currently available 

data. However, this statement has not been subject to peer review and relies on data from 

Gulf of Mexico studies addressing the statement that have not yet been published. The raw 

data have been made publicly available through FWS’s website. The NRDA studies on this 

issue are to be published sometime in the future, although a timeline is not yet available for 

when these studies will be made publicly available. Therefore, this statement is preliminary 

but supported by the raw data that are available. 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-79 

 
5-80 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS CONOCO-2 CONOCO-1 CONOCO-3 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-81 

Conoco-1 Comments noted. 

Conoco-2 Comment noted. If the ASLM’s decision is to hold a proposed lease sale in the WPA under 

Alternative A, it will be announced in the Final Notice of Sale. 

Conoco-3 If the ASLM’s decision is to hold a proposed lease sale in the CPA under Alternative A, it 

will be announced in the Final Notice of Sale. 

Conoco-4 Refer to the responses to comments Conoco-2 and Conoco-3. 

 
5-82 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS MS-1 MS-2 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-83 MS-3 MS-4 MS-5 MS-6 MS- 7 MS-8 MS-9 MS-10 

 
5-84 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS MS-11 MS-12 MS-13 MS-14 MS-15 MS-16 MS-17 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-85 MS-17 MS-18 MS-19 MS-20 MS-21 

 
5-86 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS MS-22 MS-23 MS-24 MS-25 MS-26 MS-27 MS-21 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-87 MS-28 MS-29 MS-30 MS-31 MS-32 MS-33 MS-34 

 
5-88 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-89 

MS-1 Comment noted. If the ASLM’s decision is to cancel a proposed lease sale under Alternative 

C, a Notice of Cancellation will be published in the Federal Register. 

MS-2 Chapter 1.6 of this Supplemental EIS and Chapter 1.6 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS contain information regarding BOEM’s Environmental Studies Program, which has 

funded more than 875 completed or ongoing environmental studies since its establishment in 

1973. 

 This Supplemental EIS and the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS identify and incorporate 

information relevant to the potential significant impacts that may result from the WPA and 

CPA proposed actions, including information available since the Deepwater Horizon 

explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. Nevertheless, as acknowledged in this Supplemental EIS 

and the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, credible scientific data regarding the potential 

short-term and long-term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup 

are incomplete. In accordance with Section 1502.22 of the CEQ regulations implementing 

NEPA, when an agency is evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects on 

the human environment in an EIS and when there is incomplete or unavailable information, 

the agency shall always make clear that such information is lacking. However, NEPA does 

not require that all informational gaps be addressed before an EIS is completed and a decision 

is made. As discussed in Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 of this Supplemental EIS and in Chapters 4.1 

and 4.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, in light of the absence of this 

information, BOEM considered what incomplete or unavailable information was relevant to 

the assessment of impacts and essential to its analysis of alternatives based upon the resource 

analyzed. If essential to a reasoned choice among the alternatives, BOEM considered 

whether it was possible to obtain the information, if the cost of obtaining it is exorbitant, and 

if it cannot be obtained, applied acceptable scientific methodologies to inform the analysis in 

light of this incomplete or unavailable information. For example, conclusive information on 

many impacts of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, particularly as part 

of the NRDA process, may not be available for years, and certainly not within the 

contemplated timeframe of this NEPA process. In its place, subject-matter experts have used 

the scientifically credible information available and the accepted scientific methodologies to 

evaluate impacts to the resources while this information is unavailable. BOEM’s subjectmatter experts in the individual resource analyses have identified for the decisionmaker and 

the public where there is incomplete or unavailable information and explained whether it was 

relevant to impact analyses; whether it was essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives, 

where appropriate; whether the information could be obtained; and what scientific 

information was available and applied in its stead. 

MS-3 Drilling safety is of the highest priority to the missions of BOEM and BSEE, and significant 

enhancements to drilling safety have been implemented in the years since the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. Chapter 1.3.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, which is incorporated by reference herein, provides detailed descriptions of 

the administrative and regulatory changes made by this Agency following the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, all of which are designed to minimize the risk of 

future blowouts and oil spills. Chapter 1.3.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS also 

describes the regulatory framework related to drilling safety on the OCS. Refer also to the 

response to comment MS-2. 

MS-4 Chapter 2.2.2 describes mitigation measures applied to avoid or minimize environmental and 

socioeconomic impacts related to OCS activities. Mitigating measures are a standard part of 

BOEM’s program to ensure that the operations are always conducted in an environmentally 

sound manner (with an emphasis on minimizing any adverse impact of routine operations on 

the environment). 

 Refer also to the response to comment MS-3. 
5-90 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

MS-5 Chapter 3.1 of this Supplemental EIS and Chapter 3.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS provide detailed descriptions of the impact-producing factors and scenario for routine 

operations, including refineries, exploration and delineation plans and drilling, development 

and production drilling, and offshore transport (Chapters 3.1.2.1.4.1, 3.1.1.2.2, 3.1.1.3.1, and 

3.1.1.8 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, respectively). These impact factors are 

used in the cumulative impacts analyses for environmental and socioeconomic resources 

described in detail in Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

MS-6 Refer to Chapter 4.2.1.6 (Live Bottoms) of this Supplemental EIS and to Chapter 4.2.1.6 

(Live Bottoms) of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS for a detailed discussion of live 

bottoms in the GOM and for BOEM’s stipulations and case-by-case reviews of plan and 

pipeline applications used to protect these features from impacts of routine offshore oil and 

gas activity. Refer also to the response to comment MS-2. 

MS-7 Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 of this Supplemental EIS and Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 and Appendix B of 

the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS describe the impacts of oil spills on marine and 

coastal resources. In addition, both the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and this 

Supplemental EIS note the potential changes to the environmental baseline from spills, 

particularly from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. 

MS-8 BOEM has developed robust analyses on the potential impacts from the WPA and CPA 

proposed actions, both in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and in this Supplemental 

EIS. With both of these NEPA analyses, BOEM has complied with the letter and spirit of 

NEPA, in that they provide full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts that 

may result from the proposed actions and inform the decisionmakers and the public. Refer 

also to the response to comment MS-2. 

MS-9 Chapters 4.1.1.2.1 and 4.2.1.2.1 state that “[t]he primary impacting sources to water quality in 

coastal waters are point-source and storm-water discharges from support facilities, vessel 

discharges, and nonpoint-source runoff.” The full analyses of the potential impacts of routine 

activities associated with the WPA and CPA proposed actions and the proposed actions’ 

incremental contribution to the cumulative impacts from point-source and nonpoint-source 

runoff are presented in Chapters 4.1.1.2.1.2, 4.1.1.2.1.4, 4.2.1.2.1.2, and 4.2.1.2.1.4 of the 

2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, respectively, which are incorporated by reference 

herein. 

MS-10 As described in Chapter 4 of this Supplemental EIS and in Chapter 4 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, BOEM acknowledges that there may be impacts from pipeline 

laying, though this is expected to be temporary and minimized by the economic incentives to 

tie into the existing pipeline network, rather than run new pipelines onshore. 

MS-11 In keeping with its obligations under NEPA, BOEM considers the potential impacts of the 

WPA and CPA proposed actions and the OCS oil and gas program to all relevant resources, 

including those under State jurisdiction (see, for example, the chapters on coastal waters, 

coastal barrier beaches and associated dunes, wetlands, diamondback terrapins, and human 

resources and land use in this Supplemental EIS and in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS). In addition, there are State and Federal laws and regulations (e.g., those implementing 

the Clean Water Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and 

the Coastal Zone Management Act) and permit restrictions carried out by other agencies that 

minimize or avoid reasonably foreseeable effects of oil and gas activities in sensitive marine 

and coastal habitats. 

MS-12 Comment noted. BOEM, through its National Resource Assessment Program, independently 

develops estimates of the remaining undiscovered oil and natural gas resources on the OCS. 

Resource estimates are developed independently by the BOEM Resource Evaluation Office 

in the Gulf of Mexico Region. The Resource Evaluation Office employs highly trained and 
Consultation and Coordination 5-91 

experienced staff of geologists, geophysicists, engineers, economist, statisticians and 

computer programmers using state-of-the-art geoscientific data interpretation tools and 

sophisticated probabilistic computer simulation modeling software developed and maintained 

by BOEM and proprietary to the U.S Government. Assuring receipt of Fair Market Value for 

every OCS tract leased to private industry is mandated by the OCS Lands Act and its 

amendments. The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is 

the U.S. Government agency that is charged with the responsibility to fulfill this mandate. 

 To ensure that the government receives fair market value for the blocks receiving bids at OCS 

lease sales, BOEM exercises the bid adequacy procedures of its Lease Sale Fair Market Value 

Program. The Resource Evaluation Office in the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region performs an 

independent and comprehensive block-specific appraisal of the oil and gas potential and 

independent economic analyses of the potential resource volumes to determine the risked net 

present value of the blocks that receive bids at Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas lease sales. 

MS-13 Comment noted. The BSEE, in coordination with BOEM’s Office of Environment, oversees 

various research efforts and assists in the field monitoring of potential environmental 

degradation that could result from the OCS Program. In the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

BSEE’s Environmental Enforcement Branch participates in real-time observation efforts 

during various OCS operations to monitor for the potential impacts on protected species, 

fish/fisheries, and benthic ecosystems. The Environmental Enforcement Branch’s 

Environmental Enforcement Officers also conduct routine inspections on OCS facilities and 

MODU’s to monitor emissions and discharge levels to determine their effect on air quality 

and coastal/marine waters. Additionally, the Environmental Enforcement Branch’s field 

leads conduct environmental compliance research targeted at specific OCS activities and also 

participate as Contract Inspectors/field leads on BOEM’s offshore/environmental resource 

studies. Ultimately, BOEM/BSEE’s coordination ensures a continual pre- and post-activity 

feedback process that provides for adaptive management of the site-specific NEPA program 

and allows for value-added hind casting for the oversight of future programs. 

 Chapter 2.2.2 describes the mitigation measures applied to avoid or minimize environmental 

and socioeconomic impacts related to OCS activities. Mitigating measures are an integral 

part of BOEM’s program to ensure that the operations are always conducted in an 

environmentally sound manner (with an emphasis on minimizing any adverse impact of 

routine operations on the environment). 

 Chapter 1.6 of this Supplemental EIS and Chapter 1.6 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS contain information regarding BOEM’s Environmental Studies Program, which has 

funded more than 875 completed or ongoing environmental studies since its establishment in 

1973. These completed and ongoing studies are used to assess the potential and real effects 

of the Gulf of Mexico OCS Program. The BOEM-funded environmental studies, along with 

new information from other peer-reviewed resources, are used in the NEPA analyses. 

MS-14 Comment noted. BOEM has added a paragraph that discusses the extent to which the Federal 

Government is receiving economic returns from lease sales to Chapters 4.1.1.20.3 and 

4.2.1.23.3. 

MS-15 Refer to the response to comment MS-13. 

MS-16 Refer to the response to comment MS-14. 

MS-17 Comment noted. BOEM has added paragraphs that discuss the extent to which BOEM is 

receiving proper returns from lease sales to Chapters 4.1.1.20.3 and 4.2.1.23.3. This 

information references BOEM’s methodology for quantifying the economic costs of OCS 

lease sales, which entails quantifying some of the economic costs mentioned in this comment. 
5-92 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

MS-18 Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 of this Supplemental EIS and Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS include “Accidental Impacts” subheadings for each of the resources 

analyzed, including but not limited to wetlands, coastal waters, and fauna. In addition, since 

the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, BOEM has included impacts of 

catastrophic oil spills in its EIS’s. For example, a low-probability catastrophic oil spill’s 

potential impacts on wetlands are described in Chapters 4.1.1.4.3 and 4.2.1.4.3 of this 

Supplemental EIS and in Chapters 4.1.1.4.3 and 4.2.1.4.3 and Appendix B of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

MS-19 Comment noted. Refer to the response to comment MS-18. 

MS-20 The properties and persistence of different types of oils are described in Table 3-7. Chapters 

4.1 and 4.2 of this Supplemental EIS and Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS contain information describing the effects of oil spills and petroleum 

hydrocarbons on various marine resources. 

 Impacts of oil spills to wetlands are more specifically described in detail in Chapter 4.2.1.4.3 

of this Supplemental EIS and in Chapter 4.2.1.4.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS. For a detailed discussion of oil impacts to benthic organisms, refer to Chapters 4.1.1.6, 

4.1.1.10, 4.2.1.6, 4.2.1.7, and 4.2.1.11 of this Supplemental EIS and to Chapters 4.1.1.6, 

4.1.1.10, 4.2.1.6, 4.2.1.7, and 4.2.1.11 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

MS-21 Comment noted. Chapter 3.1.1.7.4.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS discusses 

the cause of spills and volume from a 10-year period (1998 through 2007). It acknowledges 

the association between hurricanes and platform spills and between hurricanes and pipeline 

spills. Chapters 1.3.1.1 and 1.5 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS also provide 

information related to NTL 2011-G01, “Hurricane and Tropical Storm Effects Reports,” and 

the emergency plans and facility shut-ins as a result of severe weather events. 

MS-22 BOEM does not believe that the statement “Oil spills occurring near a seagrass community 

will require long term cleanup and the impacts would be permanent in nature” is a valid 

assessment. Chapters 4.1.1.5.3 and 4.2.1.5.3 of this Supplemental EIS and Chapters 4.1.1.5.3 

and 4.2.1.5.3 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS provide detailed descriptions of 

accidental events on seagrass communities, including cleanup activities and recovery 

following oil spills. 

MS-23 Comment noted. Chapters 4.1.1.5.2 and 4.2.1.5.2 of this Supplemental EIS and Chapters 

4.1.1.5.2 and 4.2.1.5.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS describe impacts of these 

types of activities on seagrass communities. 

MS-24 While knowledge about deep-sea benthic communities is evolving, there have been two 

BOEM-funded studies that provide extensive background information on deepwater Gulf of 

Mexico habitat and biological communities (Gallaway et al., 1988; Rowe and Kennicutt, 

2009). In addition, BOEM maintains a large database of chemosynthetic communities, 

nonchemosynthetic communities, and seafloor features, which are often associated with such 

communities. This database is being continually updated as bottom surveys, whether from 

scientific studies or associated with oil and gas activity, become available. 

 The application of avoidance criteria for chemosynthetic communities described in NTL 

2009-G40 precludes the placement of a well within 610 m (2,000 ft) of any suspected site of 

a chemosynthetic community or deepwater coral community. This NTL further describes the 

required distances of at least 250 ft (76 m) from the location of all other proposed seafloor 

disturbances (including those caused by anchors, anchor chains, wire ropes, seafloor template 

installation, and pipeline construction). These requirements would limit the impacts of oil 

and gas activity to chemosynthetic and nonchemosynthetic communities. Refer also to 

Chapters 4.1.1.8, 4.1.1.9, 4.2.1.9 and 4.2.1.10 of this Supplemental EIS and to Chapters 
Consultation and Coordination 5-93 

4.1.1.8, 4.1.1.9, 4.2.1.9 and 4.2.1.10 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS regarding the 

potential impacts to chemosynthetic and nonchemosynthetic communities. 

Gallaway, B.J., L.R. Martin, and R.L. Howard, eds. 1988. Northern Gulf of Mexico continental slope 

study, annual report: Year 3. Volume II: Technical narrative. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study 

MMS 87-0060. 586 pp. 

Rowe, G.T. and M.C. Kennicutt II, eds. 2009. Northern Gulf of Mexico continental slope habitats and 

benthic ecology study: Final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2009-039. 456 

pp. 

MS-25 Comment noted. Chapters 4.1.1.12 and 4.2.1.13 of this Supplemental EIS and Chapters 

4.1.1.12 and 4.2.1.13 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS describe impacts of these 

types of activities on sea turtles. 

MS-26 BOEM projects 0-1 new gas processing facilities and 0-1 new pipeline landfalls for the CPA 

proposed action, although this is a conservative estimate and the number is much closer to 

zero than to one. The same estimate holds for the WPA proposed action. It is important to 

point out that BOEM only permits infrastructure emplaced on the OCS, and infrastructure 

constructed in onshore coastal areas are regulated and permitted by the States pursuant to 

their Coastal Zone Management Programs and by Federal agencies such as the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers pursuant to the Clean Water Act or USEPA (or its State counterpart) 

under the Clean Air Act; and under their control and jurisdiction, mitigation can be and is 

frequently required. Nevertheless, the potential impacts of onshore infrastructure related to 

the WPA and CPA proposed actions are considered in Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 of this 

Supplemental EIS and in Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

MS-27 Comment noted. Refer to the response to comment MS-26, as well as the air quality analyses 

provided in Chapters 4.1.1.1 and 4.2.1.1 of this Supplemental and in Chapters 4.1.1.1 and 

4.2.1.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

MS-28 Comment noted. Refer to the response to comment MS-26. Although no new gas processing 

plants are anticipated to be constructed as a result of the WPA and CPA proposed actions, 

should a processing plant be constructed, it would unlikely be constructed in Florida due to 

its distance from other existing oil and gas infrastructure. 

MS-29 Comment noted. Refer to the response to comment MS-23. BOEM does consider the 

construction of infrastructure in the resource analyses in Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 of this 

Supplemental EIS and in Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

 No new refineries are expected to be constructed as a result of the WPA and CPA proposed 

actions. Although the CPA scenario states that 0-1 new gas processing facilities may be 

constructed as a result of a CPA or WPA proposed action, the likelihood has moved closer to 

zero and farther from one. Existing plants have either been underutilized and have excess 

capacity or existing facilities would be expanded well before building new facilities. 

MS-30 The comment mentions several impacts from routine and accidental events (though the 

comment referred to them together as “routine oil and gas operations”). Regardless, both 

routine and accidental impacts from the proposed WPA and CPA lease sales are described in 

Chapters 4.1.1.14 and 4.2.1.16 of this Supplemental EIS and in Chapters 4.1.1.14 and 

4.2.1.16 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The comment addresses only species 

listed as endangered or threatened, but incorrectly states that the brown pelican is listed (it 

was delisted in 2009). The descriptions of routine impacts on coastal and marine birds 

provides analyses for both threatened and endangered species and nonlisted species as 
5-94 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

impact-producing factors are similar. Therefore, those impacts analyzed for listed and 

unlisted species are treated together as one group (coastal and marine birds), with additional 

information on impacts that may be specific to listed species. 

 As a note of clarification, the comment’s mention of “permanent [routine] impacts on . . . 

food supply” are addressed (but using different terminology) in this Supplemental EIS. This 

Supplemental EIS states, “The impacts include the following . . . secondary impacts from 

pipeline and navigation canals to coastal habitats, which will occur over the long term and 

may ultimately displace species to other habitats, assuming comparable (quality) habitats are 

available.” Here, habitats include foraging habitats (food supply). 

MS-31 Comment noted. The baselines for these resources are described under the headings 

“Affected Environment” in Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 of this Supplemental EIS and in Chapters 

4.1 and 4.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

MS-32 Comment noted. Impacts from these types of activities are analyzed and discussed in 

Chapters 4.1.1.15.2 and 4.2.1.18.2 of this Supplemental EIS and in Chapters 4.1.1.15.2 and 

4.2.1.18.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

MS-33 Comment noted. Impacts from these types of activities are analyzed and discussed in 

Chapters 4.1.1.15.2 and 4.2.1.18.2 of this Supplemental EIS and in Chapters 4.1.1.15.2 and 

4.2.1.18.2 2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

MS-34 Comment noted. Prior EIS’s issued by BOEM are outside of the scope of this Supplemental 

EIS with the exception of the Five-Year Program EIS and the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, from which this Supplemental EIS tiers. Nevertheless, BOEM notes that it 

continually endeavors to improve in the execution of its duties under NEPA and to provide 

the most robust and informative NEPA analyses as possible for the decisionmaker and public. 

BOEM believes that this Supplemental EIS meets the Agency’s obligations under NEPA and 

continues to evidence BOEM’s emphasis on improvement with each EIS. 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-95 BARNES-1 BARNES-2 BARNES-3 

 
5-96 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Barnes-1 Comment noted. 

Barnes-2 Comment noted. 

Barnes-3 Comment noted. BOEM has added a statement to Chapter 4.2.1.21 regarding the scale of 

the tourism industry along the Mississippi coastline. BOEM also added a statement to 

Chapter 4.2.1.21 regarding the difficulty of quantifying the dependence of Mississippi’s 

tourism industry on the Gulf Islands National Seashore. 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-97 BROTHERTON-1 
5-98 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Brotherton-1 Comment noted. 
Consultation and Coordination 5-99 CAMP-2 CAMP-3 CAMP-1 
5-100 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS CAMP-4 CAMP-5 CAMP-6 CAMP-7 CAMP-8 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-101 CAMP-9 CAMP-10 CAMP-11 CAMP-12 CAMP-13 CAMP-14 CAMP-15 

 
5-102 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS CAMP-16 CAMP-17 CAMP-18 CAMP-19 CAMP-20 CAMP-21 CAMP-22 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-103 

Camp-1 Comment noted. Chapters 2.3.3 and 2.4.3 addresses the summary of impacts related to 

“Alternative C—No Action” for proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 and proposed CPA Lease 

Sale 231. These chapters acknowledges that, if proposed WPA Lease Sale 233 and proposed 

CPA Lease Sale 231 were to be cancelled, the resulting development of oil and gas would 

most likely be postponed to a future lease sale; therefore, the overall level of OCS activity in 

the WPA and CPA would be only reduced by a small percentage, if any. However, the 

cancellation of the proposed WPA and CPA lease sales may result in direct economic impacts 

to the individual companies, and the revenues collected by the Federal Government (and thus 

revenue disbursements to the States) would also be adversely affected. 

Camp-2 Comment noted. BOEM has added information that discusses the extent to which the Federal 

Government is receiving economic returns from lease sales to Chapters 4.1.1.20.3 and 

4.2.1.23.3. In Chapter 4.2.1.21, BOEM has also added information related to a study to that 

outlines some of the commenter’s concerns, although the study relates to leasing offshore of 

Mississippi specifically. 

Camp-3 Comment noted. Refer to the response to comment Camp-2. Most of the alternatives that the 

commenter cites are outside of the scope of this NEPA analysis or would fall within the same 

category of impacts expected to result from Alternative C, which as noted in Chapter 4

would still result in some negative environmental impacts through the necessity to develop or 

import alternative supplies. If the ASLM’s decision is to cancel a proposed lease sale under 

Alternative C, a Notice of Cancellation will be published in the Federal Register. 

Camp-4 Refer to the response to comment Camp-2. In addition, the potential impacts to tourism are 

described in Chapters 4.1.1.18 and 4.2.1.21 of this Supplemental EIS and in Chapters 

4.1.1.18 and 4.2.1.21 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

Camp-5 Refer to the response to comment Camp-2. 

Camp-6 Refer to the responses to comments Camp-1 and Camp-2. The potential impacts to resources 

identified by the commenter are fully described in Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 of this Supplemental 

EIS and in Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. If the ASLM’s 

decision is to cancel a proposed lease sale under Alternative C, a Notice of Cancellation will 

be published in the Federal Register. 

Camp-7 Comments noted. If the ASLM’s decision is to hold a proposed lease sale under Alternative 

B, it will be announced in the Final Notice of Sale. If the ASLM’s decision is to cancel a 

proposed lease sale under Alternative C, a Notice of Cancellation will be published in the 

Federal Register. Nevertheless, as noted in the discussion of the potential air quality impacts 

of the WPA and CPA proposed actions in Chapters 4.1.1.1 and 4.2.1.1 of this Supplemental 

EIS and in Chapters 4.1.1.1 and 4.2.1.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, before 

operations can begin, an operator must submit an H2S contingency plan to BSEE’s District 

Manager for approval. 

Camp-8 BOEM has added additional information to Chapter 4.1.2.21 regarding the impacts of the 

OCS Program on the Gulf Islands National Seashore. BOEM has also added a reference that 

discusses the impacts of oil and gas activities in Baldwin County, Alabama. Additional 

detailed information regarding the routine impacts of the OCS Program on recreational 

resources in the CPA can be found in Chapter 4.2.1.21.2 of this Supplemental EIS and in 

Chapter 4.2.1.21.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. The potential impacts to 

habitat, species, and fisheries are described in Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 of this Supplemental EIS 

and in Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS and this 

Supplemental EIS. If the ASLM’s decision is to cancel a proposed lease sale under 

Alternative C, a Notice of Cancellation will be published in the Federal Register. 
5-104 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Camp-9 A spill of the magnitude of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is not a reasonably foreseeable 

occurrence. Indeed, the likelihood of another spill on this scale is exceedingly low, made 

even more so by BSEE’s promulgation of new drilling and safety regulations and the ongoing 

endeavors to advance containment strategies. Chapter 1.3.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, as updated in this Supplemental EIS, provides detailed descriptions of the 

administrative and regulatory changes made by this Agency following the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, all of which are designed to minimize the risk of 

future blowouts and oil spills. Nevertheless, as part of its NEPA analysis, BOEM has 

included an evaluation of the potential impacts in the event a low-probability, catastrophic 

spill event does occur; refer to Appendix B of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 

Camp-10 Comments noted. If the ASLM’s decision is to hold a proposed lease sale under 

Alternative B or with a buffer or other modification, it will be announced in the Final Notice 

of Sale. If the ASLM’s decision is to cancel a proposed lease sale under Alternative C, a 

Notice of Cancellation will be published in the Federal Register. 

Camp-11 The Evacuation Stipulation does not apply to hydrogen sulfide leaks but rather the potential 

interference of tactical military operations (refer to Chapter 2.4.1.3.4 of the 2012-2017 

WPA/CPA Multisale EIS for a description of the Evacuation Stipulation). This stipulation 

would provide for evacuation of personnel and shut-in of operations during any events 

conducted by the military that could pose a danger to ongoing oil and gas operations. 

 Refer to the response to comment Camp-7. 

Camp-12 Comment noted. The potential impacts to marine mammals and the current information on 

the continuing UME are described in Chapters 4.1.1.11 and 4.2.1.12 of this Supplemental 

EIS and in Chapters 4.1.1.11 and 4.2.1.12 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. If the 

ASLM’s decision is to cancel a proposed lease sale under Alternative C, a Notice of 

Cancellation will be published in the Federal Register. 

Camp-13 Comment noted. Refer to the response to comment Camp-12. BOEM’s subject-matter 

experts have included the scientifically credible information that is relevant to their analyses 

and that is of use to the decisionmaker and the public in evaluating the proposed actions and 

alternatives. If the ASLM’s decision is to hold a proposed lease sale under Alternative B 

and/or to apply the Protected Species Stipulation, it will be announced in the Final Notice of 

Sale. 

Camp-14 Decisions regarding the study and use of dispersants are outside of the scope of the WPA and 

CPA proposed actions and this NEPA analysis. Subpart J of the National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) stipulates the criteria for listing and managing 

the use of dispersants and other chemical and biological agents used to mitigate oil spills and 

was in effect prior to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. The USEPA 

prepares and maintains the NCP’s Product Schedule (For copies of the regulation and the 

product schedule, visit USEPA’s Subpart J—NCP Product Schedule website at 

http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/ncp/index.htm. During a spill event, unless the use of 

dispersant is preauthorized, it is the responsibility of the Federal On-Scene Coordinator, with 

concurrence as appropriate of USEPA and the Regional Response Team, to determine if 

dispersants can be applied, which dispersants may be used, under what circumstances, and for 

how long (refer to 40 CFR 300.910). The On-Scene Coordinator is the Federal official 

predesignated by USEPA or USCG to coordinate and direct responses in the event of a 

qualifying spill. Nevertheless, the use and potential impacts from dispersants are discussed in 

Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 of this Supplemental EIS and in Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 and Appendix B 

of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS.

Camp-15 Refer to the response to comment Camp-14. Chapter 4.2.1.2.2 of this Supplemental EIS and 

Chapter 4.2.1.2.2.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS provide detailed discussions 
Consultation and Coordination 5-105 

on the use of dispersants during the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup and 

the formation of plumes. 

Camp-16 Refer to the response to comment Camp-14. Subsea containment requirements and 

capabilities, which best represent the requested superior mechanical requirements, are 

discussed in Chapter 3.2.1.9 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, which is 

incorporated by reference.

Camp-17 Refer to the response to comment Camp-14.

Camp-18 Refer to the response to comment Camp-9. 

Camp-19 Comment noted. Refer to the response to comment Camp-9. The BSEE is tasked with the 

enforcement of safety and environmental regulations of OCS oil and gas structures and 

activities. The BSEE has developed a robust inspections program to monitor and enforce 

requirements on the OCS. Nevertheless, a proposal to include full-time inspectors on each of 

the thousands of fixed and mobile structures used in OCS oil and gas activities is outside of 

the scope of this Supplemental EIS and is outside the jurisdiction of BOEM.

Camp-20 A discussion of oil-spill containment and cleanup options, constraints, and capabilities, as 

well as emerging technologies, is included in Chapter 3.2.1.9 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA 

Multisale EIS, as updated by this Supplemental EIS. In addition, BSEE has recently 

published NTL 2012-BSEE-N06, “Guidance to Owners and Operators of Offshore Facilities 

Seaward of the Coast Line Concerning Regional Oil Spill Response Plans,” which became 

effective on August 10, 2012. This NTL provides clarifications of and encourages practices 

that are based on lessons learned from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and 

cleanup. During BSEE’s review of regional OSRP’s, the Oil Spill Response Division will 

analyze the content of the submitted OSRP’s to ensure that the lessees demonstrate the ability 

to respond quickly and effectively whenever oil is discharged from a covered facility, as 

required by 30 CFR 254. 

Camp-21 The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 placed a deferral on blocks that were 

previously included within the Eastern Planning Area and that are within 100 mi (161 km) of 

the Florida Coast. There are no currently identified buffers or lease block deferrals off the 

coast of Alabama, although the Blocks South of Baldwin County, Alabama, Stipulation does 

encourage lessees to minimize the visual impacts near shore. Chapter 4.2.1.21 describes 

information related to the potential recreational and economic impacts of OCS activities on 

the Gulf Islands National Seashore and Gulf Islands Wilderness Area. Refer also to the 

responses to comments ADEM-1 and NPS-1 through NPS-3. 

 If the ASLM’s decision is to hold a proposed lease sale with a buffer or other modification to 

the proposed action alternatives, it will be announced in the Final Notice of Sale. 

Camp-22 Comments noted. Refer to the response to comment Camp-21. 

 If the ASLM’s decision is to hold a proposed lease sale under Alternatives A or B, it will be 

announced in the Final Notice of Sale. If the ASLM’s decision is to cancel a proposed lease 

sale under Alternative C, a Notice of Cancellation will be published in the Federal Register. 

 
5-106 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS GIUFFRIA-1 GIUFFRIA-2 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-107 

Giuffria-1 Comment noted. If the ASLM’s decision is to cancel a proposed lease sale under 

Alternative C, a Notice of Cancellation will be published in the Federal Register. 

Giuffria-2 Comment noted. BOEM has added information to Chapter 4.2.1.21 related to a study that 

outlines some of the commenter’s concerns related to leasing offshore Mississippi. Please 

also refer to the responses to comments NPS-1 through NPS-3. If the ASLM’s decision is to 

cancel a proposed lease sale under Alternative C, a Notice of Cancellation will be published 

in the Federal Register. 

 
5-108 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS JP-1 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-109 

 
5-110 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-111 

JP1-1 Comment noted. Chapter 1.3.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, as updated by 

this Supplemental EIS, provides detailed descriptions of the administrative and regulatory 

changes made by this Agency following the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and 

cleanup, all of which are designed to minimize the risk of future blowouts and oil spills. 

 
5-112 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS JP2-1 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-113 

 
5-114 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-115 

JP2-1 Comment noted. If the ASLM’s decision is to hold a proposed lease sale, it will be 

announced in the Final Notice of Sale. If the ASLM’s decision is to cancel a proposed lease 

sale under Alternative C, a Notice of Cancellation will be published in the Federal Register. 

 
5-116 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS MASSEY-1 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-117 

Massey-1 Comments noted. BOEM has no jurisdiction over lease sales in Mississippi State waters, 

including Mississippi Sound. Refer also to the responses to comments Camp-13, Camp-14, 

and NPS-1. 

 
5-118 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS MATTA -1 MATTA -2 

 
Consultation and Coordination 5-119 

Matta-1 Comment noted. BOEM has no jurisdiction over lease sales in Mississippi State waters, 

including Mississippi Sound. Refer also to the responses to comments Camp-13, Camp-14, 

and NPS-1. 

Matta-2 Comment noted. Chapter 1.3.1 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS provides detailed 

descriptions of the administrative and regulatory changes made by this Agency following the 

Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup, all of which are designed to minimize 

the risk of future blowouts and oil spills. The potential impacts to tourism are fully evaluated 

in Chapter 4.2.1.21 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, as updated by this 

Supplemental EIS.

 A discussion of oil-spill containment and cleanup options, constraints, and capabilities is 

included in Chapter 3.2.1.9 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, as updated by this 

Supplemental EIS. In addition, BSEE has recently published NTL 2012-BSEE-N06, 

“Guidance to Owners and Operators of Offshore Facilities Seaward of the Coast Line 

Concerning Regional Oil Spill Response Plans,” which became effective on August 10, 2012. 

This NTL provides clarifications of and encourages practices that are based on lessons 

learned from the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill, and cleanup. During BSEE’s 

review of regional OSRP’s, the Oil Spill Response Division will analyze the content of the 

submitted OSRP’s to ensure that the lessees demonstrate the ability to respond quickly and 

effectively whenever oil is discharged from a covered facility, as required by 30 CFR 254. 

 

CHAPTER 6 

REFERENCES CITED

References Cited 6-3 

6. REFERENCES CITED

Agalliu, I. 2011. Comparative assessment of the federal oil and gas fiscal systems. Prepared under 

BOEM Contract No. M10PC00090. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Herndon, VA. xviii + 300 pp.

Albers, P.H. 2006. Birds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Avian and Poultry Biology Reviews 

17:125-140.

Alexander, K. 2010. The 2010 oil spill: Criminal liability under wildlife laws. Congressional Research 

Report to Congress, Report Number 7-5700 (R41308), Washington, DC. 13 pp. Internet website: 

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41308.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2010.

Allan S.E., B.W. Smith, and K.A. Anderson. 2012. Impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on 

bioavailable polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Gulf of Mexico coastal waters. Environmental 

Science & Technology 46(4):2033-9.

Alonso-Alvarez, C., I. Munilla, M. Lopez-Alonso, and A. Velando. 2007a. Sublethal toxicity of the 

Prestige oil spill on yellow-legged gulls. Environment International 33:773-781.

Anderson, C.M, M. Mayes, and R. LaBelle. 2012. Oil-spill occurrence rates for oil-spill risk analysis 

(OSRA). Internet website: http://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Stewardship/EnvironmentalAssessment/Oil-Spill-Modeling/Oil-Spill-Occurence-Rate-for-Oil-Spill-Risk-Analysis-(OSRA).aspx. 

Accessed August 6, 2012.

Arnold, T.W. and R.M. Zink. 2011. Collision mortality has no discernable effect on population trends of 

North American birds. PLoS ONE 6(9), 6 pp. Internet website: http://www.plosone.org/article/info

%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0024708;jsessionid=

2750268D5AD6D804B0653274AFF32D60.ambra02. Accessed September 12, 2011.

Atauz, A.D., W. Bryant, T. Jones, and B. Phaneuf. 2006. Mica shipwreck project: Deepwater 

archaeological investigation of a 19th century shipwreck in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study 

MMS 2006-072. 116 pp.

Bayne, E.M. and B.C. Dale. 2011. Effects of energy development on songbirds. In: Naugle, D.E., ed. 

Energy development and wildlife conservation in western North America. Washington, DC: Island 

Press. Pp. 95-114.

Bayne, E.M., L. Habib, and S. Boutin. 2008. Impacts of chronic anthropogenic noise from energy-sector 

activity on abundance of songbirds in the boreal forest. Conservation Biology 22:1186-1193.

Berg, J. 2006. A review of contaminant impacts on Gulf of Mexico sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus 

desotoi. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City, FL.

Billings, R., B. Lange, and D. Wilson. 2012. Official communication. Emission estimates for Eastern 

Planning Area Sales 225-226. Memorandum to Holli Ensz, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. Eastern Research 

Group, Inc., September 7, 2012. 9 pp.

Birkett, S.H. and D.J. Rapport. 1999. A stress-response assessment of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico 

ecosystem. In: Kumpf, H., K. Steidinger, and K. Sherman, eds. The Gulf of Mexico large marine 

ecosystem: Assessment, sustainability, and management. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science, Inc. 

Pp. 438-458.

Bounds, J. 2012. Drilling by the numbers, again: The economic impact of gas exploration offshore of 

Mississippi. Internet website: http://healthygulf.org/our-work/healthy-waters/drilling-onmississippis-horizon. Accessed January 3, 2013.

Brooks, J.M., ed. 1991. Mississippi-Alabama continental shelf ecosystem study: Data summary and 

synthesis. Volume I: Executive summary and Volume II: Technical summary. U.S. Dept. of the 
6-4 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study 

MMS 91-0062 and 91-0063. 43 and 368 pp., respectively. 

Brooks, J.M., C. Fisher, H. Roberts, B. Bernard, I. McDonald, R. Carney, S. Joye, E. Cordes, G. Wolff, 

and E. Goehring. 2009. Investigations of chemosynthetic communities on the lower continental 

slope of the Gulf of Mexico: Interim report 2. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2009-046. 360 pp.

Brown, A., K. Xia, K. Armbrust, G. Hagood, J. Jewell, D. Diaz, N. Gatian, and H. Folmer. 2011. 

Monitoring polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in seafood in Mississippi in response to the 

Gulf oil spill. Gulf Oil Spill SETAC Focused Topic Meeting, Pensacola, FL, April 26-28, 2011. 

Internet website: http://gulfoilspill.setac.org/sites/default/files/abstract-book-1.pdf. Accessed 

March 13, 2012.

Burdeau, C. and J. Reeves. 2012. APNewsBreak: Tests confirm oil came from BP. Internet website: 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/apnewsbreak-tests-confirm-oil-came-bp-spill. Accessed September 24, 

2012.

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 2001. Effects of chemicals and pollution on seabirds. In: Schreiber, E.A. 

and J. Burger, eds. Biology of marine birds. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Pp. 254-263.

Byrd, G.V., J.H. Reynolds, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Persistence rates and detection probabilities of bird 

carcasses on beaches of Unalaska Island, Alaska, following the wreck of the M/V Selendang Ayu. 

Marine Ornithology 37:197-204.

Caffey, R.H. and M. Schexnayder, eds. 2003. Coastal Louisiana and south Florida: A comparative

wetland inventory; interpretive topic series on coastal wetland restoration in Louisiana, Coastal 

Wetland Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act. National Sea Grant Library. 8 pp.

Carls, M.G., S.D. Ricem, and J. Hose. 1999. Sensitivity of fish embryos to weathered crude oil: Part I. 

Low-level exposure during incubations causes malformations, genetic damage, and mortality in larval 

Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18 (3):481-493.

Chambers, J.R. 1992. Coastal degradation and fish population losses. In: Proceedings of the National 

Symposium of Fish Habitat Conservation, March 7-9, 1991, Baltimore, MD. 38 pp. 

Chin, C.S. and J. Church. 2010. Field report: Fort Livingston, Grand Terre Island (September 9-10, 

2010). National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, Natchitoches, LA. Internet 

website: http://www.ncptt.nps.gov/2011/field-report-fort-livingston-grand-terre-island/. Accessed 

March 18, 2011.

Church, R.A. and D.J. Warren. 2008. Viosca Knoll wreck: Discovery and investigation of an early 

nineteenth-century sailing ship in 2,000 feet of water. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2008-018. 

41 pp. 

Clark, R.B. 1982. The impact of oil pollution on marine populations, communities, and ecosystems: A 

summing up. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 297:433-443.

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). 1992a. Preliminary report of potential effects of oil spilled 

from Texaco’s proposed pipeline from Platform A in Garden Banks Block 189 to the subsea tie-in 

with High Island Pipeline System’s (HIPS) existing pipeline in High Island Area Block A-377 

(modified route). Prepared for Texaco Pipeline, Inc., Jupiter, FL.

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). 1992b. Mississippi-Alabama shelf pinnacle trend habitat 

mapping study. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 92-0026. 114 pp. + 2 plates. 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). 1994. Analysis of potential effects of oil spilled from 

proposed structures associated with Oryx’s High Island Block 384 unit on the biota of the East 

Flower Garden Bank and on the biota of Coffee Lump Bank. Prepared for Oryx Energy Company, 

Jupiter, FL.
References Cited 6-5 

Copeland, H.E., K.E. Doherty, D.E. Naugle, A. Pocewicz, and J.M. Kiesecker. 2009. Mapping oil and 

gas development potential in the US Intermountain West and estimating impacts to species. PLoS 

ONE 4(10), 7 pp. Internet website: http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObjectAttachment.action;

jsessionid=C4B6BAB5790BF3AD7E92948693EB8BB2?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%

2Fjournal.pone.0007400&representation=PDF. Accessed July 14, 2010.

Costanza, R., O. Pérez-Maqueo, M.L. Martinez, P. Sutton, S.J. Anderson, and K. Mulder. 2008. The 

value of coastal wetlands for hurricane protection. Ambio 37:241-248.

Dauterive, L.D. 2000. Rigs-to-Reefs policy, progress, and perspective. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 

2000-073. 8 pp.

Deepwater Horizon Claims Center. 2012. Frequently asked questions. Internet website: http://

www.deepwaterhorizoneconomicsettlement.com/faq.php. Accessed August 10, 2012.

Diaz, R.J. and A. Solow. 1999. Ecological and economic consequences of hypoxia. Topic 2 report for 

the Integrated Assessment on Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Ocean Program, Silver Spring, MD. NOAA 

Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 16. 45 pp.

Dickey, R.W. 2012. FDA risk assessment of seafood contamination after the BP oil spill. 

Environmental Health Perspectives 120(2). February 2012. Internet website: http://

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3279456/pdf/ehp.1104539.pdf. Accessed March 13, 2012.

Dismukes, D. 2011. Official communication. Email regarding scenario projections. Associate Director, 

LSU Center for Energy Studies, Baton Rouge, LA. June 29, 2011.

Dobbs, C.D. and J.M. Vozarik. 1983. Immediate effects of a storm on coastal infauna. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series 11:273-279.

Engle, V.D. 2011. Estimating the provision of ecosystem services by Gulf of Mexico coastal wetlands. 

Wetlands 31:179-193.

Engle, V.D., J.L. Hyland, and C. Cooksey. 2008. Effects of Hurricane Katrina on benthic 

macroinvertebrate communities along the northern Gulf of Mexico coast. Environmental Monitoring 

Assessment 150:193-209.

Environment Canada. 2011. Environmental Technology Centre. Oil properties database. Internet 

website: http://www.etc-cte.ec.gc.ca/databases/OilProperties/oil_prop_e.html. Accessed June 21, 

2011.

Esler, D., J.A. Schmutz, R.L. Jarvis, and D.M. Mulcahy. 2000a. Winter survival of adult female 

harlequin ducks in relation to history of contamination by the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 64:839-847.

Esler, D., T.D. Bowman, T.A. Dean, C.E. O’Clair, S.C. Jewett, and L.L. McDonald. 2000b. Correlates 

of harlequin duck densities during winter in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Condor 102:920-926.

Esler, D., T.D. Bowman, K.A. Trust, B.E. Ballachey, T.A. Dean, S.C. Jewett, and C.E. O’Clair. 2002. 

Harlequin duck population recovery following the Exxon Valdez oil spill: Progress, process and 

constraints. Marine Ecology Progress Series 241:271-286.

Faaborg, J., R.T. Holmes, A.D. Anders, K.L. Bildstein, K.M. Dugger, S.A. Gauthreaux, Jr., P. Heglund, 

K.A. Hobson, A.E. Jahn, D.H. Johnson, S.C. Latta, D.J. Levey, P.P. Marra, C.L. Merkord, E. Nol, 

S.I. Rothstein, T.W. Sherry, T.S. Sillett, F.R. Thompson III, and N. Warnock. 2010. Conserving 

migratory land birds in the New World: Do we know enough? Ecological Applications 20:398-418.

Fahrig, L. 1997. Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population extinction. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 61:603-610.

Fahrig, L. 1998. When does fragmentation of breeding habitat affect population survival? Ecological 

Modelling 105:273-292.
6-6 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Federal Register. 2006. Oil and gas and sulphur operations in the outer continental shelf—Incident 

reporting requirements. Final rule. 71 FR 73, pp. 19640-19646. April 17, 2006. Internet website: 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2006-04-17/pdf/06-3611.pdf. 

Federal Register. 2011a. Reorganization of Title 30: Bureaus of Safety and Environmental Enforcement 

and Ocean Energy Management. 30 CFR Chapters II and V. Direct final rule. 76 FR 201, 

pp. 64432-64780. October 18, 2011. Internet website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-10-

18/pdf/2011-22675.pdf. 

Federal Register. 2011b. Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for sea turtle conservation 

and recovery actions and to conduct public scoping meetings. Notice of Intent. 76 FR 37050, 

pp. 37050-37052. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/fr/fr76-37050.pdf. 

Federal Register. 2012a. Oil and gas and sulphur operations on the outer continental shelf—Increased 

safety measures for energy development on the outer continental shelf. Final rule. 77 FR 163, 

pp. 50856-50901.

Federal Register. 2012b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Proposed listing 

determinations for 82 reef-building coral species; proposed reclassification of Acropora palmata and 

Acropora cervicornis from threatened to endangered. Proposed rule. 77 FR 236, pp. 73220-73262. 

December 7, 2012.

Fisher, C.R. 1995. Characterization of habitats and determination of growth rate and approximate ages 

of the chemosynthetic symbiont-containing fauna. In: MacDonald, I.R., W.W. Schroeder, and 

J.M. Brooks, eds. 1995. Chemosynthetic ecosystems study: Final report. Volume 2: Technical 

report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 95-0022. Pp. 5.1-5.47.

Fisher, M. 2012. Official communication. Email regarding the effort and catch data from Texas Parks 

and Wildlife Department data. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

Flint, P.L., A.C. Fowler, and R.F. Rockwell. 1999. Modeling bird mortality associated with the 

M/V Citrus oil spill off St. Paul Island, Alaska. Ecological Modelling 117:261-267.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2012. Index nesting beach survey totals (1989-

2011). Internet website: http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea-turtles/nesting/beach-survey-totals/. 

Accessed April 4, 2012.

Fodrie, F.J. and K.L. Heck, Jr. 2011. Response of coastal fishes to the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster. PLoS 

ONE 6(7):e21609. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021609.

Foley, B. 2010. Impact of fishing on shipwrecks: In: Archaeology in deep water. Woods Hole 

Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA. Internet website: http://www.whoi.edu/sbl/liteSite.do?

litesiteid=2740&articleId=4965. Accessed August 31, 2010.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2008. Report of the FAO Workshop 

on Vulnerable Ecosystems and Destructive Fishing in Deep-sea Fisheries. Rome, 26-29 June 2007. 

FAO Fisheries Report No. 829. Rome: FAO. 18 pp. Internet website: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/

010/i0150e/i0150e00.pdf. 

Fox, A.D., M. Desholm, J. Kahlert, T.K. Christensen, and I.B.K. Petersen. 2006. Information needs to 

support environmental impact assessment of the effects of European marine offshore wind farms on 

birds. Ibis 148:129-144.

Fraser, G.S., J. Russell, and W.M. von Zharen. 2006. Produced water from offshore oil and gas 

installations on the Grand Banks, Newfoundland and Labrador: Are the potential effects to seabirds 

sufficiently known? Marine Ornithology 34:147-156.

Fucik, K.W., T.J. Bright, and K.S. Goodman. 1984. Measurements of damage, recovery, and 

rehabilitation of coral reefs exposed to oil. In: Cairns, J. and A.L. Buikema, Jr., eds. Restoration of 

habitats impacted by oil spills. Boston, MA: Butterworth Publishers. Pp. 115-133.
References Cited 6-7 

Galbraith, H., R. Jones, R. Park, J. Clough, S. Herrod-Julius, B. Harrington, and G. Page. 2002. Global 

climate change and sea level rise: Potential losses of intertidal habitat for shorebirds. Waterbirds 

25:173-183.

Gaston, G.R., C.F. Rakocinski, S.S. Brown, and C.M. Cleveland. 1998. Trophic function in estuaries: 

Response of macrobenthos to natural and contaminant gradients. Marine and Freshwater Research 

49:833-846.

Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1980. Offshore petroleum resource development and marine mammals: 

A review and research recommendations. Marine Fisheries Review 42:1-12.

Gittings, S.R., T.J. Bright, W.W. Schroeder, W.W. Sager, J.S. Laswell, and R. Rezak. 1992. Invertebrate 

assemblages and ecological controls on topographic features in the northeast Gulf of Mexico. 

Bulletin of Marine Science 50(3):435-455.

Greenberg, J. 2012. Gulf of Mexico activity continues to escalate. Internet website: http://

www.workboat.com/blogpost.aspx?id=16938. Accessed December 5, 2012.

Gulf Coast Claims Facility. 2012. GCCF overall status report. Internet website: http://

gulfcoastclaimsfacility.com/GCCF_Overall_Status_Report.pdf. Accessed April 24, 2012. 

Habib, L.E., M. Bayne, and S. Boutin. 2007. Chronic industrial noise affects pairing success and age 

structure of ovenbirds Seiurus aurocapilla. Journal of Animal Ecology 44:176-184.

Haney, J.L., Y. Wei, T. Myers, and S. Douglas. 2008 (unpublished). An assessment of onshore air 

quality impacts for the eastern Gulf Coast (Louisiana to Florida) using the 2005 Gulfwide emissions 

inventory. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA.

Harvey, J.T. and M.E. Dahlheim. 1994. Cetaceans in oil. In: Loughlin, T.R., ed. Marine mammals and 

the Exxon Valdez. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pp. 257-264.

Hayworth, J. 2012. Official communication. Email confirming telephone conversation regarding 

matching of tarballs observed on Alabama beaches to Deepwater Horizon oil. Auburn University, 

Harbert Engineering Center, Auburn, AL. 

HDR. 2011. The cultural resources response to the MC 252 incident along the Gulf Coasts of Louisiana, 

Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida: Interim report, April 2010-March 2011. Prepared for BP Gulf 

Coast Restoration Organization, Metairie, LA. 

Henkel, J.R., B.J. Sigel, and C.M. Taylor. 2012. Large-scale impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill: 

Can local disturbance affect distant ecosystems through migratory shorebirds? BioScience 

62:676-685.

Hockin, D., M. Ounsted, M. Gorman, D. Hill, V. Keller, and M.A. Barker. 1992. Examination of the 

effects of disturbance on birds with reference to its importance in ecological assessments. Journal of 

Environmental Management 36:253-286.

Hunter, W.C., J. Collazo, B. Noffsinger, B. Winn, D. Allen, B. Harrington, M. Epstein, and J. Saliva. 

2002. Southeatern coastal plains-Carribean region report: U.S. shorebird conservation plan. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 

Atlanta, GA. 46 pp. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/regionalshorebird/

downloads/SECPCRRev02.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2011.

Hunter, W.C., W. Golder, S. Melvin, and J. Wheeler. 2006. Southeast United States regional waterbird 

conservation plan. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, Atlanta, GA. 134 pp. Internet website: http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/nacwcp/pdfs/

regional/seusplanfinal906.pdf. Accessed January 20, 2011.

IHS.com. 2012. Day rate index. Internet website: http://www.ihs.com/products/oil-gas-information/

drilling-data/day-rate-index.aspx?pu=1&rd=ods-petrodata_com. Accessed December 5, 2012.
6-8 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Jackson, J.B.C., J.D. Cubit, B.D. Keller, V. Batista, K. Burns, H.M. Caffey, R.L. Caldwell, S.D. Garrity, 

C.D. Getter, C. Gonzalez, H.M. Guzman, K.W. Kaufmann, A.H. Knap, S.C. Levings, M.J. Marshall, 

R. Steger, R.C. Thompson, and E. Weil. 1989. Ecological effects of a major oil spill on Panamanian 

coastal marine communities. Science 243:37-44.

Jackson, L.E., J.C. Kurtz, and W.S. Fisher. 2000. Evaluation guidelines for ecological indicators. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/620/R-99/005. 109 pp. 

Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/pubs/docs/resdocs/ecol_ind.pdf. 

Ji, Z.-G., W.R. Johnson, Z. Li, R.E. Green, S.E. O’Reilly, and M.P. Gravois. 2012. Oil spill risk 

analysis: Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lease sales, Central and Western Planning 

Areas, 2012-2017, and Gulfwide OCS Program, 2012-2051. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Environmental Division, Herndon, VA. 

OCS Report BOEM 2012-066. 77 pp. Internet website: http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/

BOEM/Environmental_Stewardship/Environmental_Assessment/Oil_Spill_Modeling/2012-066-

BOEM-OCS-Report.pdf. 

Johnson, C.J. and M.-H. St-Laurent. 2011. Unifying framework for understanding impacts of human 

developments on wildlife. In: Naugle, D.E., ed. Energy development and wildlife conservation in 

western North America. Washington, DC: Island Press. Pp. 27-54.

Johnston, J.B., D.R. Cahoon, and M.K. La Peyre. 2009. Outer continental shelf (OCS)-related pipelines 

and navigation canals in the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico: Relative impacts on wetland 

habitats and effectiveness of mitigation. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2009-048. 200 pp.

Jones, J.B. 1992. Environmental impact of trawling on the seabed: A review. New Zealand Journal of 

Marine and Freshwater Research 26:59-67, 0028-8330/2601-0059. Internet website: http://

www.eurocbc.org/envimpact_trawlseabed_review.pdf. 

Kennicutt II, M.C., P.N. Boothe, T.L. Wade, S.T. Sweet, R. Rezak, F.J. Kelly, J.M. Brooks, B.J. Presley, 

and D.A. Wiesenburg. 1996. Geochemical patterns in sediments near offshore production platforms. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 53:2554-2566.

King, B.S. and J.D. Gibbons. 2011. Health hazard evaluation of Deepwater Horizon response workers. 

Health hazard evaluation report HETA 2010-0115 & 2010-0129-3138. National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). August 2011. Internet website: http://www.cdc.gov/

niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2010-0115-0129-3138.pdf. Accessed March 12, 2012.

Klimasinska, K. 2012. Deepwater permits in the U.S. Gulf exceed pre-BP spill level. Internet website: 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-17/deepwater-permits-in-u-s-gulf-exceed-pre-bp-spilllevel.html. Posted October 16, 2012. Accessed December 5, 2012.

LGL Ecological Research Associates, Inc. and Science Applications International Corporation. 1998. 

Cumulative ecological significance of oil and gas structures in the Gulf of Mexico: Information 

search, synthesis, and ecological modeling; Phase I, final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, USGS/BRD/CR-1997-0006 and Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA, OCS Study MMS 97-0036. 

130 pp.

Lincoln, F.C., S.R. Peterson, and J.L. Zimmerman. 1998. Migration of birds. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Circular 16. 119 pp. Internet website: http://

library.fws.gov/Circulars/Mig_of_Birds_16_98.pdf. 

Long, P.H., R.A. Herbert, J.C. Peckham, S.L. Grumbein, C.C. Shackelford, and K. Abdo. 2003. 

Morphology of nasal lesions in F344/N rats following chronic inhalation exposure to naphthalene 

vapors. Toxicologic Pathology 31:655-664.

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. 2012. News Release: LDWF closes a portion of coastal 

waters due to the emergence of oil on adjacent beaches. September 4, 2012. Internet website: http://

www.wlf.louisiana.gov/news/35907. Accessed September 5, 2012.
References Cited 6-9 

Lubowski, R.N., M. Vesterby, S. Bucholtz, A. Baez, and M. Roberts. 2006. Major uses of land in the 

United States, 2002. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Economic Information 

Bulletin No. (EIB-14). 54 pp. Internet website: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib-economicinformation-bulletin/eib14.aspx. Accessed January 16, 2013.

Mackar, R. 2012. GuLF STUDY makes final call for study participants. National Institute of 

Environmental Health Sciences. Environmental Factor, November 2012. Internet website: http://

www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsletter/2012/11/spotlight-gulf/index.htm. Accessed December 18, 

2012.

Matkin, C.O., E.L. Saulitis, G.M. Ellis, P. Olesiuk, and S.D. Rice. 2008. Ongoing population-level 

impacts on killer whales Orcinus orca following the “Exxon Valdez” oil spill in Prince William 

Sound, Alaska. Marine Ecology Progress Series 356:269-281.

McConnaughey, J. 2012. Louisiana’s 2nd dead zone could stretch past Ala. Associated Press. 

February 8, 2012. Internet website: http://www.gulfhypoxia.net/news/default.asp?XMLFilename=

201202081436.xml. Accessed April 2, 2012.

Mendelssohn, I.A., G.L. Andersen, D.M. Baltz, R.H. Caffey, K.R. Carman, J.W. Fleeger, S.B. Joye, 

Q. Lin, E. Maltby, E.B. Overton, and L.P. Rozas. 2012. Oil impacts on coastal wetlands: 

Implications for the Mississippi River Delta ecosystem after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 

BioScience 62:562-574.

Middlebrook, A.M., D.M. Murphy, R. Ahmadov, E.L. Atlas, R. Bahreini, D.R. Blake, J. Frioud, 

J.A. deGouw, F.C. Fehsenfeld, G.J. Frost, J.S. Holloway, D.A. Lack, J.M. Langridge, R.A. Lueb, 

S.A. McKeen, J.F. Meagher, S. Meinardi, J.A. Neuman, J.G.Nowak, D.D. Parrish, J. Peischl, 

A.E. Perring, I.B. Pollack, J.M. Roberts, T.B. Ryerson, J.P. Schwarz, J.R. Spackman, C. Warneke, 

and A.R. Ravishankara. 2011. Air quality implications of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. Early edition, December 2011. Internet website: 

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/12/23/1110052108.full.pdf. Accessed March 14, 2012.

Montagna, P.A. and D.E. Harper, Jr. 1996. Benthic infaunal long-term response to offshore production 

platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 53:2567-2588.

Montevecchi, W.A. 2006. Influences of artificial light on marine birds. In: Rich, C. and T. Longcore, 

eds. Ecological consequences of ecological night lighting. Washington, DC: Island Press. 

Pp. 94-11.

Moore, S.F. and R.L. Dwyer. 1974. Effects of oil on marine organisms: A critical assessment of 

published data. Water Research 8:819-827.

Muhling, B.A.,.M.A. Roffer, J.T. Lamkin, G.W. Ingram, Jr., M.A. Upton, G. Gawlikowski, F. MullerKarger, S. Habtes, and W.J. Richards. 2012. Overlap between Atlantic bluefin tuna spawning 

grounds and observed Deepwater Horizon surface oil in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Marine

Pollution Bulletin 64(4):679-687, doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.01.034. 

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. 2012. GuLF STUDY marks recruitment milestone. 

Internet website: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsletter/2012/4/spotlight-gulfstudy/index.htm. 

Accessed January 9, 2013. 

National Institutes of Health. 2013. Gulf long-term follow-up study for oil spill clean-up workers and 

volunteers. Internet website: https://gulfstudy.nih.gov/en/index.html. Accessed February 20, 2013.

National Research Council (NRC). 1983. Drilling discharges in the marine environment. Panel on 

Assessment of Fates and Effects of Drilling Fluids and Cuttings in the Marine Environment. Marine 

Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council. 

Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Pp. 18-21.

National Research Council (NRC). 2003. Oil in the sea III: Inputs, fates, and effects (Committee on Oil 

in the Sea: J.N. Coleman, J. Baker, C. Cooper, M. Fingas, G. Hunt, K. Kvenvolden, J. McDowell, 

J. Michel, K. Michel, J. Phinney, N. Rabalais, L. Roesner, and R.B. Spies). Washington, DC: 
6-10 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

National Academy Press. 265 pp. Internet website: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id10388. Accessed January 8, 2011.

Neal Adams Firefighters Inc. 1991. Joint industry program for floating vessel blowout control. Prepared 

for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. TA&R Project 150. Internet 

website: http://www.bsee.gov/Research-and-Training/Technology-Assessment-and-Research/

Project-150.aspx. 

Neff, J.M. 2005. Composition, environmental fates, and biological effects of water based drilling muds 

and cuttings discharged to the marine environment: A synthesis and annotated bibliography. 

Prepared for the Petroleum Environmental Research Forum and American Petroleum Institute. 

Duxbury, MA: Battelle. 83 pp. Internet website: http://www.perf.org/pdf/APIPERFreport.pdf. 

Newman, J.R. 1979. Effects of industrial air pollution on wildlife. Biological Conservation 15:181-190.

Newman, J.R. and R.K. Schreiber. 1988. Air pollution and wildlife toxicology: an overlooked problem. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 7:381-390.

Newton, I. 1998. Population limitation in birds. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 597 pp.

North American Bird Conservation Initiative. 2010. The state of the birds: 2010 report on climate 

change—United States of America. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washington, DC. 32 pp. Internet website: http://www.stateofthebirds.org/2010/pdf_files/State%20

of%20the%20Birds_FINAL.pdf. Accessed January 13, 2011.

Oil and Gas Journal. 2009. BP finds oil in multiple Lower Tertiary reservoirs. Internet website: http://

www.ogfj.com/index/article-display/5015598529/articles/oil-gas-financial-journal/volume-6/

Issue_10/Upstream_News/BP_finds_oil_in_multiple_Lower_Tertiary_reservoirs.html. Posted 

October 1, 2009. Accessed January 11, 2011.

Operational Science Advisory Team (OSAT). 2010. Summary report for sub-sea and sub-surface oil and 

dispersant detection: Sampling and monitoring. Unified Area Command, New Orleans, LA. 

Released December 17, 2010. Internet website: http://www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/

documents/pdf/OSAT_Report_FINAL_17DEC.pdf. Accessed March 14, 2011.

Operational Science Advisory Team (OSAT-2). 2011. Summary report for fate and effects of remnant 

oil in the beach environment. Operational Science Team (OSAT-2), Gulf Coast Incident 

Management Team. Prepared for Lincoln H. Stroh, Capt., U.S. Coast Guard, Federal On-Scene 

Coordinator, Deepwater Horizon MC 252. February 10, 2011. 35 pp. Internet website: http://

www.dep.state.fl.us/deepwaterhorizon/files2/osat_2_report__10feb.pdf. 

Overton, E. 2012. Official communication. Email confirming telephone conversation regarding 

matching of tarballs observed on Louisiana beaches to Deepwater Horizon oil. Louisiana State 

University, School of the Coast and Environment, Baton Rouge, LA. 

Palinkas, L.A., A.J. Russell, M.A. Downs, and J.S. Petterson. 1992. Ethnic-differences in stress, coping, 

and depressive symptoms after the Exxon Valdez oil-spill. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 

180:287-295.

PCCI Marine and Environmental Engineering. 1999. Oil spill containment, remote sensing and tracking 

for deepwater blowouts: Status of existing and emerging technologies. Report prepared for the U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. TA&R Project 311. 66 pp. + apps. Internet 

website: http://www.bsee.gov/Research-and-Training/Technology-Assessment-and-Research/

Project-311.aspx. 

Perez, C., I. Munilla, M. Lopez-Alonso, and A. Velando. 2010. Sublethal effects on seabirds after the 

Prestige oil-spill are mirrored in sexual signals. Biological Letters 6:33-35.

Piatt, J.F. and R.G. Ford. 1996. How many seabirds were killed by the Exxon Valdez oil spill? American 

Fisheries Society Symposium 18:712-719.

Piatt, J.F., H.R. Carter, and D.N. Nettleship. 1990a. Effects of oil pollution in marine bird populations. 

In: White, J., ed. The effects of oil on wildlife: Research, rehabilitation and general concerns. 
References Cited 6-11

Proceedings of the Oil Symposium, Herndon, VA, October 16-18, 1990. Hanover, PA: Sheridan 

Press. Pp. 125-141.

Piatt, J.F., C.J. Lensink, W. Butler, M. Kendziorek, and D.R. Nysewander. 1990b. Immediate impact of 

the ‘Exxon Valdez’ oil spill on seabirds. Auk 107:387-397.

Pierce, K.E., R.J. Harris, L.S. Larned, and M.A. Pokras. 2004. Obstruction and starvation associated 

with plastic ingestion in a northern gannet Morus bassanus and a greater shearwater Puffinus gravis. 

Marine Ornithology 32:187-189.

Powell, E.N. 1995. Evidence for temporal change at seeps. In: MacDonald, I.R., W.W. Schroeder, and 

J.M. Brooks, eds. Chemosynthetic ecosystems study: Final report. Volume 2: Technical report. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, 

LA. OCS Study MMS 95-0022. Pp. 8.1-8.65.

Probert P.K., D.G. McKnight, and S.L. Grove. 1997. Benthic invertebrate bycatch from a deep-water 

trawl fishery, Chatham Rise, New Zealand. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater 

Ecosystems 7:27-40. Internet website: http://www.mcbi.org/what/what_pdfs/

Probert_et_al_1997.pdf. 

Quest Offshore. 2011. United States Gulf of Mexico oil and natural gas industry economic impact 

analysis. Internet website: http://www.noia.org/website/staticdownload.asp?id=45798. 

Rabalais, N.N., R.E. Turner, and D. Scavia. 2002a. Beyond science into policy: Gulf of Mexico hypoxia 

and the Mississippi River. BioScience 52:129-142.

Rabalais, N.N., R.E. Turner, and W.J. Wiseman, Jr. 2002b. Gulf of Mexico hypoxia, A.K.A. The Dead 

Zone. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 33:235-263.

Reddy, C.M. 2012. Official communication. Email discussing a clarification of the percent of PAH by 

weight reported in the contact’s paper. Woods Hole, MA. April 4, 2012.

Reddy, C.M., J.S. Arey, J.S. Seewald, S.P. Sylva, K.L. Lemkau, R.K. Nelson, C.A. Carmichael, 

C.P. McIntyre, J. Fenwick, G.T. Ventura, B.A.S. Van Mooy, and R. Camilli. 2011. Composition and 

fate of gas and oil released to the water column during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Proceedings 

of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 10.1073/pnas.1101242108.

Regg, J.B., S. Atkins, B. Hauser, J. Hennessey, B. Kruse, J. Lowenhaupt, B. Smith, and A. White. 2000. 

Deepwater development: A reference document for the deepwater environmental assessment, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS (1998 through 2007). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 2000-015. 94 pp.

RestoreTheGulf.gov. 2011. Fish and wildlife. Internet website: http://www.restorethegulf.gov/fishwildlife. Accessed June 28, 2011.

Rezak, R., T.J. Bright, and D.W. McGrail. 1983. Reefs and banks of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico: 

Their geological, biological, and physical dynamics. Final Technical Report No. 83-1-T.

Rigzone. 2009. Offshore rig search. Internet website: http://www.rigzone.com. Accessed February 26, 

2013.

Rigzone. 2012. Rig data: Worldwide offshore rig fleet information. Internet website: http://

www.rigzone.com/data/. Accessed December 5, 2012.

Robards, M.D., J.F. Piatt, and K.D. Wohl. 1995. Increasing frequency of plastic particles ingested by 

seabirds in the subarctic North Pacific. Marine Ecology Progress Series 30:151-157.

Rotkin-Ellman, M. and G. Soloman. 2012. FDA risk assessment of seafood contamination after the BP 

oil spill: Rotkin-Ellman and Soloman respond. Environmental Health Perspectives 120(2), February 

2012. Internet website: http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action;jsessionid=

DC38892D6D62B962BC4A8C42BEBDA24A?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%

2Fehp.1104539R. Accessed March 14, 2012.
6-12 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Rotkin-Ellman, M., K.M. Navarro, and G.M. Solomon. 2010. Gulf oil spill air quality monitoring: 

Lessons learned to improve emergency response. Environmental Science & Technology

44(22):8365-8366.

Rotkin-Ellman, M., K. Wong, and G. Soloman. 2012. Seafood contamination after the BP Gulf oil spill 

and risks to vulnerable populations: A critique of the FDA risk assessment. Environmental Health 

Perspectives 120(2), February 2012. Internet website: http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi

%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1103695. Accessed March 14, 2012.

Russell, R.W. 2005. Interactions between migrating birds and offshore oil and gas platforms in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico: Final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2005-009. 327 pp.

Ryerson T.B., R. Camilli, J.D. Kessler, E.B. Kujawinski, C.M. Reddy, D.L. Valentine, E. Atlas, 

D.R. Blake, J. de Gouw, S. Meinardi, D. Parrish, J. Peischl, J.S. Seewald, and C. Warneke. 2011. 

Chemical data quantify Deepwater Horizon hydrocarbon flow rate and environmental distribution. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Internet website: http://www.pnas.org/content/

early/2012/01/04/1110564109. 

Share the Beach. 2012. Nesting season statistics. Internet website: http://www.alabamaseaturtles.com/

nesting-season-statistics/. Accessed August 27, 2012.

Shedd, W., P. Godfriaux, K. Kramer, and J. Hunt. 2011. Seismic water bottom anomalies. U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, Office of Resource 

Evaluation, Regional Analysis Unit, New Orleans, LA. Internet website: http://www.boem.gov/Oiland-Gas-Energy-Program/Mapping-and-Data/Map-Gallery/Seismic-Water-Bottom-Anomalies-MapGallery.aspx. Accessed March 15, 2012.

Shigenaka, G. 2001. Toxicity of oil to reef-building corals: A spill response perspective. U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NOS OR&R 8. 95 pp. Internet website: http://archive.orr.noaa.gov/book_shelf/

1_coral_tox.pdf. 

Shinn, E.A., B.H. Lidz, and C.D. Reich. 1993. Habitat impacts of offshore drilling: Eastern Gulf of 

Mexico. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 

New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 93-0021. 73 pp.

Silliman, B.R., J. van de Koppel, M.W. McCoy, J. Diller, G.N. Kasozi, K. Earl, P.N. Adams, and 

A.R. Zimmerman. 2012. Degradation and resilience in Louisiana salt marshes after the BP—

Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 

109(28):11234-11239.

Smith, J.P., H.L. Mairs, M.G. Brandsma, R.P. Meek, and R.C. Ayers, Jr. 1994. Field validation of the 

Offshore Operators Committee (OCC) produced water discharge model. Presented at the Society of 

Petroleum Engineers 69th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, 

September 25-28, 1994. SPE 28350.

Smith, S. 2005. Florida’s population growth: Past, present and future. University of Florida, Bureau of 

Economic and Business Research, Gainesville, FL. 40 pp. Internet website: http://

www.bebr.ufl.edu/files/FloridaPop2005_0.pdf. 

State of Louisiana. Coastal Protection & Restoration. 2012. Natural Resource Damage Assessment. 

Internet website: http://coastal.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=pagebuilder&tmp=home&pid=157. 

Accessed April 4, 2012.

Stroud, R.H. 1992. Stemming the tide of coastal fish habitat loss. In: Proceedings of a Symposium on 

Coastal Fish Habitat, March 7-9, 1991, Baltimore, MD. National Coalition for Marine Conservation, 

Inc., Savannah, GA. Pp. 73-79.

Systems Applications International, Sonoma Technology, Inc., Earth Tech, Alpine Geophysics, and 

A.T. Kearney. 1995. Gulf of Mexico air quality study: Final report. Volumes I-III. U.S. Dept. of 
References Cited 6-13

the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

Study MMS 95-0038, 95-0039, and 95-0040. 650, 214, and 190 pp., respectively.

The Encyclopedia of Earth. 2008. Gulf of Mexico large marine ecosystem. Internet website: http://

www.eoearth.org/article/Gulf_of_Mexico_large_marine_ecosystem?topic=49522. Updated 

December 28, 2010. Accessed January 11, 2011.

The Oil Drum. 2009. USA Gulf of Mexico oil production forecast update. Internet website: http://

www.theoildrum.com/node/5081. Posted February 9, 2009. Accessed January 4, 2011.

Troy, D.M. 2011. Sasol to build the first gas-to-liquids plant in the US. Internet website: http://

www.pennenergy.com/index/articles/pe-article-toolstemplate.articles.pennenergy.petroleum.refining.2011.09.sasol-to_build_the.html. Accessed April 25, 

2012.

Trudel, K., S.L. Ross, R. Belore, G.B. Rainey, and S. Buffington. 2001. Technology assessment of the 

use of dispersants on spills from drilling and production facilities in the Gulf of Mexico outer 

continental shelf. In: Proceedings; Twenty-Third Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Conference, June 

2001, Edmonton, Canada.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Census Bureau. 2012. Louisiana state and county quickfacts. Internet 

website: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/22000.html. Accessed December 10, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2003. SeaWiFS Project—

detailed description. Internet website: http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaWiFS/BACKGROUND/

SEAWIFS_970_BROCHURE.html. Updated July 30, 2003. Accessed January 11, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012a. 2010-2012 cetacean unusual 

mortality event in northern Gulf of Mexico. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/

mmume/cetacean_gulfofmexico2010.htm. Accessed August 27, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012b. NOAA declares 2011-2012 

bottlenose dolphin unusual mortality event in Texas. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/

health/mmume/bottlenosedolphins_texas.htm. Accessed August 27, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012c. Sea turtle strandings in the Gulf of 

Mexico. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/gulfofmexico.htm. Accessed 

April 30, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012d. Commercial fishery landings. 

Internet website: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/. Accessed September 21, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012e. Status of stocks: 2011 report on 

the status of U.S. fisheries. Annual report to Congress on the status of U.S. fisheries. 21 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2011/07/docs/report.pdf. Accessed September 21, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012f. Forecast for the 2012 Gulf Atlantic 

menhaden purse-seine fisheries and review of the 2011 fishing season, March 2012. Internet website: 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/market_news/menhaden_forecast_2012.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012g. Recreational fishing online 

database. Internet website: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/recreational/queries/index.html. 

Accessed April 24, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2011a. The Gulf of 

Mexico at a glance: The second glance. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Washington, DC. Internet website: http://

stateofthecoast.noaa.gov/NOAAs_Gulf_of_Mexico_at_a_Glance_report.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2011b. Shoreline

Clean-up and Assessment Technique (SCAT) shoreline oiling. Louisiana, March 7, 2011, SCAT 

oiling ground observations.
6-14 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2011c. Shoreline 

Clean-up and Assessment Technique (SCAT) shoreline oiling. Mobile Sector, March 7, 2011, SCAT 

oiling ground observations.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2012a. Corals that are 

candidates for listing under the ESA. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Fisheries, Office of Protected 

Resources. Internet website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/invertebrates/corals.htm. 

Accessed December 7, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2012b. NOAA scientists: 

Midwest drought brings fourth smallest Gulf of Mexico ‘Dead Zone’ since 1985. July 27, 2012. 

Internet website: http://www.gulfhypoxia.net/News/default.asp?XMLFilename=201207301325.xml. 

Accessed September 26, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Hurricane 

Center. 2012. Archive of Atlantic hurricane seasons, 1995-2011. Internet website: http://

www.nhc.noaa.gov/2011atlan.shtml. 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2012a. Oil and crude petroleum products 

explained; use of oil. Internet website: http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=

oil_use. Accessed November 15, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2012b. Total consumption of petroleum and 

other liquids by sector, 1990-2035 (million barrels per day). Internet website: http://www.eia.gov/

forecasts/aeo/excel/fig110_data.xls. Accessed November 15, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2012c. Oil: Crude and petroleum products 

explained; oil imports and exports. Internet website: http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/

index.cfm?page=oil_imports. Accessed November 15, 2012. 

U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security. Coast Guard. 2012. Ballast water management. Internet website: 

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg522/cg5224/bwm.asp. Accessed May 3, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2012. Quarterly census of employment and wages for 

2008-2011. Internet website: http://www.bls.gov/cew. Accessed August 1, 2, 6, and 10, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 2010a. OSHA statement on 

2-butoxyethanol & worker exposure. July 9, 2010. Internet website: https://www.osha.gov/oilspills/

oilspill-statement.html. Accessed March 14, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 2010b. General health and safety 

information for the Gulf oil spill. August 19, 2010. Internet website: https://www.osha.gov/oilspills/

deepwater-oil-spill-factsheet-ppe.pdf. Accessed March 14, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 2010a. Increased safety measures for energy development on the outer 

continental shelf, May 27, 2010. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington, DC. 44 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=

33598. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 2010b. Salazar divides MMS’s three conflicting missions. Press Release, 

May 19, 2010. Internet website: http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Salazar-Divides-MMSsThree-Conflicting-Missions.cfm. Accessed October 4, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012a. Proposed final Outer 

Continental Shelf oil & gas leasing program: 2012-2017. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management, Herndon, VA. OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2012-030.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012b. Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and 

gas lease sales: 2012-2017; Western Planning Area Lease Sales 229, 233, 238, 246, and 248; Central 

Planning Area Lease Sales 227, 231, 235, 241, and 247—final environmental impact statement. 

3 vols. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2012-019. 
References Cited 6-15

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012c. Outer Continental Shelf oil 

and gas leasing program: 2012-2017—final environmental impact statement. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Herndon, VA. OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2012-030.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012d. Outer continental shelf lease 

sale statistics. Internet website: http://boem.gov/Oil-and-Gas-Energy-Program/Leasing/RegionalLeasing/Outer-Continental-Shelf-Lease-Sale-Statistics.aspx. Accessed January 9, 2013.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012e. Economic analysis 

methodology for the Five-Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2012-2017. Internet website: 

http://boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Oil_and_Gas_Energy_Program/Leasing/Five_Year_Program/

2012-2017_Five_Year_Program/PFP%20EconMethodology.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. 2012a. OCS spill 

incidents 1996-2011. Internet website: http://www.bsee.gov/Inspection-and-Enforcement/Accidentsand-Incidents/Spills----Statistics-and-Summaries-1996-2011.aspx. Accessed September 25, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. 2012b. Loss of well 

control—statistics and summaries 2006-2012 ytd. Internet website: http://www.bsee.gov/Inspectionand-Enforcement/Accidents-and-Incidents/Loss-of-Well-Control----Statistics-and-Summaries-2006-

2010.aspx. Accessed September 25, 2012. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010a. Dead bird recovery locations. U.S. Dept.

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 1 p. Internet website: http://

www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/DeadDensity20101214.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010b. Live bird recovery locations. U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 1 p. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/

home/dhoilspill/pdfs/LiveDensity20101214.pdf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010c. Beach-nesting birds of the Gulf. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, Atlanta, GA. 1 p. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/

DHBirdsOfTheGulf.pdf. Accessed January 5, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service. 2009. Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Minerals Management Service and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding implementation of Executive Order 13186, “Responsibilities 

of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds.” U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington, DC. 17 pp. 

Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/Partnerships/MMS-FWS_MBTA_MOU_6-4-

09.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2011.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Geological Survey. 2012a. National water summary on wetland resources. 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2425. Internet website: http://water.usgs.gov/nwsum/

WSP2425/. Accessed January 11, 2013.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Geological Survey. 2012b. Coastal change hazards: Hurricanes and extreme 

storms; Hurricane Isaac—Pre- and post-storm photo comparisons—Chandeleur Islands, Louisiana 

and Dauphin Island, Alabama. Internet website: http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/hurricanes/isaac/photocomparisons/index.php. Last updated September 7, 2012. Accessed September 11, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Geological Survey. 2012c. USGS flyover shows storm damage and marsh 

dieback. Internet website: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3398. Last updated 

September 11, 2012. Accessed September 17, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Geological Survey. 2012d. Reconnaissance of contaminants in selected 

wastewater-treatment-plant effluent and stormwater runoff entering the Columbia River, Columbia 

River Basin, Washington and Oregon, 2008-2010. Scientific Investigations Report 2012-5068. 

Internet website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5068/section4.html. Accessed February 4, 2013.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 1999. Summary of procedures for 

determining bid adequacy at offshore oil and gas lease sales: Effective July 1999 with Sale 174.
6-16 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2000. Gulf of Mexico deepwater operations 

and activities: Environmental assessment. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2000-001. 264 pp.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2006. Deepwater Gulf of Mexico 2006: 

America’s expanding frontier. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 2006-022. 144 pp.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2007a. Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas 

scenario examination: Exploration and development activity. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Report MMS 2007-052. 

14 pp.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2007b. Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas lease 

sales: 2007-2012; Western Planning Area Sales 204, 207, 210, 215, and 218; Central Planning Area 

Sales 205, 206, 208, 213, 216, and 222—final environmental impact statement. 2 vols. U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

EIS/EA MMS 2007-018.

U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2010. Gulf Coast ports surrounding 

the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. June 2010. Research and Innovative Technology Administration. 

Internet website: http://www.bts.gov/publications/bts_fact_sheets/2010_001/pdf/entire.pdf. 

Accessed August 31, 2010.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Air monitoring on Gulf coastline (monitoring air quality 

along the Gulf Coast, 2011). Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/BPSpill/air.html. Accessed 

June 29, 2010.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Overview of draft 2013 vessel general permit and small 

vessel general permit. EPA-800-F-11-002. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/

vgp_brieffactsheet2011.pdf. Accessed May 3, 2012.

Velando, A., I. Munilla, and P.M. Leyenda. 2005. Short-term indirect effects of the Prestige oil spill on 

European shags: Changes in availability of prey. Marine Ecology Progress Series 302:263-274.

Wannamaker, C.M. and J.A. Rice. 2000. Effects of hypoxia on movements and behavior of selected 

estuarine organisms from the southeastern United States. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology 

and Ecology 249:145-163.

Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, and P.E. Rosel, eds. 2011. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico marine mammal stock assessments—2010. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-219. 598 pp. Internet 

website: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm219/. 

Wheeler, N.M., S.B. Reid, K.J. Craig, J.R. Zielonka, D.R. Stauffer, and S.R. Hanna. 2008. Cumulative 

increment analysis for the Breton National Wilderness Area. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2008-058. 

334 pp.

Whitehead, A., B. Dubansky, C. Bodinier, T.I. Garcia, S. Miles, C. Pilley, V. Raghunathan, J.L. Roach, 

N. Walker, R.B. Walter, C.D. Rice, and F. Galvez. 2011. Genomic and physiological footprint of the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill on resident marsh fishes. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences 108(15):6193-6198.

Wiese, F.K., W.A. Montevecchi, G.K. Davoren, F. Huettmann, A.W. Diamond, and J. Linke. 2001. 

Seabirds at risk around offshore oil platforms in the north-west Atlantic. Marine Pollution Bulletin 

42:1285-1290.

Wilhelm, S.I., G.J. Robertson, P.C. Ryan, and D.C. Schneider. 2007. Comparing an estimate of seabirds 

at risk to a mortality estimate from the November 2004 Terra Nova FPSO oil spill. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin 54:537-544.
References Cited 6-17

Wilson, D., R. Billings, R. Oommen, B. Lange, J. Marik, S. McClutchey, and H. Perez. 2010. Year 

2008: Gulfwide emission inventory study. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

Study BOEMRE 2010-045. 186 pp.

Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2010. The 2011 complete economic and demographic data source 

(CEDDS) on CD-ROM.

Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2011. CEDDS 2012: The complete economic and demographic data 

source on CD-ROM.

Yarwood, G., G. Mansell, M. Jimenez, and S. Lau. 2004 (unpublished). 2000 Gulf-wide emissions 

inventory—OCS on-shore impacts modeling (Texas), a preliminary look. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. 

of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 

Prepared by ENVIRON International Corporation, Novato, CA. September 1, 2004.

Zabala, J., I. Zuberogoitia, J.A. Martinez-Climent, and J. Etxezarreta. 2010. Do long lived seabirds 

reduce the negative effects of acute pollution on adult survival by skipping breeding? A study with 

European storm petrels (Hydrobates pelagicus) during the “Prestige” oil-spill. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin 62:109-115.

Zafonte, M. and S. Hampton. 2005. Lost bird-years: Quantifying bird injuries in natural resource 

damage assessments for oil spills. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Oil Spill Conference, 

Miami Beach, FL. American Petroleum Institute. Pp. 1-5. Internet website: http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/

FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=22092&inline=true. 

CHAPTER 7 

PREPARERS

Preparers 7-3 

7. PREPARERS

Gary D. Goeke, Chief, Regional Assessment Section

Lissa Lyncker, Unit Supervisor, Environmental Scientist

Tershara Matthews, Unit Supervisor, Environmental Scientist

Casey J. Rowe, NEPA Coordinator, Senior Environmental Scientist

Kenneth A. Ashworth, NEPA Co-Coordinator, Environmental Scientist

Brian Cameron, NEPA Co-Coordinator, Environmental Scientist

Poojan Tripathi, Headquarters’ Coordinator, Environmental Protection Specialist

Pat Adkins, Information Management Specialist

Bruce Baird, Biologist

Sindey Chaky, Environmental Protection Specialist

Deborah Epperson, Protected Species Biologist

Jeff S. Gleason, Biologist

Donald (Tre) W. Glenn III, Protected Species Biologist

Rebecca Green, Oceanographer

Chin Hua Huang, Meteorologist

Mark Jensen, Economist

Jack Irion, Unit Supervisor, Marine Archaeologist

Agatha-Marie Kaller, Unit Supervisor, Marine Biologist

Carla Langley, Geographer

Stacie Merritt, Physical Scientist

Margaret Metcalf, Unit Supervisor, Physical Scientist

Deborah H. Miller, Technical Editor

David P. Moran, Biologist

Maureen M. Mulino, Marine Biologist

Michelle Nannen, Marine Biologist

S. Erin O’Reilly, Physical Scientist

Catherine A. Rosa, Environmental Assessment Program Specialist

James Sinclair, Marine Biologist

FIGURES

Figures Figures-3

Figure 2-1. Location of Proposed Stipulations and Deferrals.
Figures-4 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Figure 3-1. Offshore Subareas in the Gulf of Mexico.
Figures Figures-5

Figure 4-1. Relative Migratory Paths or Corridors for Trans-Gulf Migratory Birds in the Gulf of Mexico (Spring migration is indicated by northerly 

facing arrows; fall migration is indicated by south-southwest facing arrows. Trans-Gulf migrations are represented by dashed lines; 

circum-Gulf migrations are represented by gray unbroken arrows.) (adapted from Rappole and Ramos, 1994). 
Figures-6 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

REFERENCES

Rappole, J.H. and M.A. Ramos. 1994. Factors affecting migratory bird routes over the Gulf of Mexico. 

Bird Conservation International 4:251-262, doi:10.1017/S095927090000280X. Internet website: 

http://si-pddr.si.edu/jspui/bitstream/10088/500/1/Rappole1994a.pdf. 
TABLES

Tables Tables-3 

Table 3-1

Projected Oil and Gas in the Gulf of Mexico OCS

Typical Lease Sale OCS Cumulative 

(2012-2051)

Western Planning Area

 Reserve/Resource Production

 Oil (BBO) 0.116-0.200 2.510-3.696

 Gas (Tcf) 0.538-0.938 12.539-18.434

Central Planning Area

 Reserve/Resource Production

 Oil (BBO) 0.460-0.894 15.825-21.733

 Gas (Tcf) 1.939-3.903 63.347-92.691

Eastern Planning Area

 Reserve/Resource Production

 Oil (BBO) 0-0.071 0-0.211

 Gas (Tcf) 0-0.162 0.0502

BBO = billion barrels of oil.

Tcf = trillion cubic feet. 
Tables-4 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 3-2

Offshore Scenario Information Related to a Typical Lease Sale in the Western Planning Area

Offshore Subareas1

0-60 m 60-200 m 200-800 m 800-1,600 m 1,600-2,400 m >2,400 m Total WPA2

Wells Drilled

 Exploration and Delineation Wells 23-38 7-12 9-16 8-13 3-5 3-5 53-89

 Development and Production Wells 30-49 11-17 13-21 11-18 6-8 6-8 77-121

 Producing Oil Wells 4-6 2 8-13 7-11 3-4 3-4 27-40

 Producing Gas Wells 22-37 7-12 3-5 2-4 1-2 1-2 36-62

Production Structures

 Installed 10-17 1-2 1 1 1 1 15-23

 Removed Using Explosives 7-12 1 0 0 0 0 7-13

 Total Removed 9-16 1-2 1 1 1 1 14-22

Method of Transportation3

 Percent Piped >99% >99% >99% >99% 83->99% 94->99%

 Percent Barged <1% 0% 0% 0% 0% <1%

 Percent Tankered4 0% 0% 0% 0% 0-17% 0-5%

Length of Installed Pipelines (km)5 71-182 NA NA NA NA NA 237-554

Service-Vessel Trips (1,000’s round trips) 21-33 2-3 2-3 17 16-17 16-17 64-75

Helicopter Operations (1,000’s operations) 194-448 19-54 19-24 19-24 19-24 19-24 290-605

1 Refer to Figure 3-1. 2 Subareas totals may not add up to the planning area total because of rounding.

3 100% of gas is assumed to be piped.

4 Tankering is forecasted to occur only in water depths >1,600 m (5,249 ft).

5 Projected length of pipelines does not include length in State waters.

NA = not available.
Tables Tables-5

Table 3-3

Offshore Scenario Information Related to a Typical Lease Sale in the Central Planning Area

 

Offshore Subareas1

0-60 m 60-200 m 200-800 m 800-1,600 m 1,600-2,400 m >2,400 m Total CPA2

Wells Drilled

 Exploration and Delineation Wells 62-121 24-46 21-42 15-29 18-36 28-55 168-329

 Development and Production Wells 78-152 32-58 26-53 20-38 24-46 35-70 215-417

 Producing Oil Wells 11-21 5-8 16-32 12-23 15-29 22-43 81-156

 Producing Gas Wells 58-115 23-44 7-15 5-10 6-11 9-19 108-241

Production Structures

 Installed 28-54 3-6 1-2 1 1-2 1-2 35-67

 Removed Using Explosives 18-36 2-4 0 0 0 0 20-40

 Total Removed 25-49 3-5 1-2 1 1-2 1-2 32-61

Method of Transportation3

 Percent Piped >99% >99% >99% >99% 90->99% 93->99%

 Percent Barged <1% 0% 0% 0% 0% <1%

 Percent Tankered4 0% 0% 0% 0% 0-10% 0-6%

Length of Installed Pipelines (km)5 216-586 NA NA NA NA NA 628-1,870

Service-Vessel Trips (1,000’s round trips) 32-61 5-10 3-6 17-19 18-35 19-37 94-168

Helicopter Operations (1,000’s operations) 557-1,470 63-163 21-54 14-36 21-54 21-54 696-1,815

1 Refer to Figure 3-1. 2 Subareas totals may not add up to the planning area total because of rounding.

3 100% of gas is assumed to be piped.

4 Tankering is forecasted to occur only in water depths >1,600 m (5,249 ft). 5 Projected length of pipelines does not include length in State waters.

NA = not available.
Tables-6 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 3-4

Offshore Scenario Information Related to OCS Program Activities

in the Gulf of Mexico (WPA, CPA, and EPA) for 2012-2051

 

Offshore Subareas1

0-60 m 60-200 m 200-800 m 800-1,600 m 1,600-2,400 m >2,400 m Total OCS2

Wells Drilled

 Exploration and Delineation Wells 2,730-3,900 990-1,390 920-1,350 700-960 770-1,030 790-1,170 6,910-9,827

 Development and Production Wells 3,380-4,820 1240-1,730 1130-1670 860-1,190 950-1,280 970-1,450 8,530-12,180

 Producing Oil Wells 520-701 215-278 704-1030 574-783 663-873 620-915 3,296-4,605

 Producing Gas Wells 2,510-3,629 885-1272 306-470 196-287 187-267 250-385 4,334-6,320

Production Structures

 Installed 1,210-1,720 110-160 26-40 25-30 32-33 32-38 1,435-2,026

 Removed Using Explosives 796-1,139 69-104 3-4 0 0 0 868-1,247

 Total Removed 1,090-1,560 100-150 24-34 20-28 23-30 22-33 1,279-1,837

Method of Transportation3

 Percent Piped >99% >99% >99% >99% 87->99% 92->99%

 Percent Barged <1% 0% 0% 0% 0% <1%

 Percent Tankered4 0% 0% 0% 0% 0-13% 0-7%

Length of Installed Pipelines (km)5 10,482-21,121 NA NA NA NA NA 30,428-69,749

Service-Vessel Trips (1,000’s round trips) 1,366-1,942 196-280 111-162 466-619 584-626 587-719 3,310-4,382

Helicopter Operations (1,000’s operations) 24,221-47,322 2,297-4,444 595-1,174 574-1,111 676-1,287 888-1,738 28,710-55,605

1 Refer to Figure 3-1. 2 Subareas totals may not add up to the planning area total because of rounding.

3 100% of gas is assumed to be piped.

4 Tankering is forecasted to occur only in water depths >1,600 m (5,249 ft).

5 Projected length of pipelines does not include length in State waters.

NA = not available.
Tables Tables-7

Table 3-5

Offshore Scenario Information Related to OCS Program Activities

in the Western Planning Area for 2012-2051

 

Offshore Subareas1

0-60 m 60-200 m 200-800 m 800-1,600 m 1,600-2,400 m >2,400 m Total WPA2

Wells Drilled

 Exploration and Delineation Wells 500-740 170-230 220-320 160-230 70-90 60-80 1,180-1,690

 Development and Production Wells 620-920 220-290 270-400 190-290 80-120 70-100 1,450-2,120

 Producing Oil Wells 74-109 27-38 170-255 125-191 54-77 45-67 495-737

 Producing Gas Wells 476-711 163-222 70-105 45-69 16-23 15-23 785-1,153

Production Structures

 Installed 220-330 20-30 6-10 5-8 2-3 2-3 255-384

 Removed Using Explosives 146-219 14-21 1 0 0 0 160-240

 Total Removed 200-300 20-30 6-8 4-7 2-3 1-2 233-350

Method of Transportation3

 Percent Piped >99% >99% >99% >99% 50->99% 84->99%

 Percent Barged <1% 0% 0% 0% 0% <1%

 Percent Tankered4 0% 0% 0% 0% 0-50% 0-15%

Length of Installed Pipelines (km)5 1,967-4,128 NA NA NA NA NA 5,224-12,339

Service-Vessel Trips (1,000’s round trips) 249-372 35-50 26-36 95-150 38-57 38-56 481-720

Helicopter Operations (1,000’s operations) 4,489-8,987 418-836 125-272 104-209 42-84 42-84 5,220-10,450

1 Refer to Figure 3-1. 2 Subareas totals may not add up to the planning area total because of rounding.

3 100% of gas is assumed to be piped.

4 Tankering is forecasted to occur only in water depths >1,600 m (5,249 ft). 5 Projected length of pipelines does not include length in State waters.

NA = not available.
Tables-8 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 3-6

Offshore Scenario Information Related to OCS Program Activities

in the Central Planning Area for 2012-2051

 

Offshore Subareas1

0-60 m 60-200 m 200-800 m 800-1,600 m 1,600-2,400 m >2,400 m Total CPA2

Wells Drilled

 Exploration and Delineation Wells 2,230-3,160 820-1,160 700-1,030 540-730 700-940 730-1,090 5,720-8,110

 Development and Production Wells 2,760-3,900 1,020-1,440 860-1,270 670-900 870-1,160 900-1,350 7,080-10,020

 Producing Oil Wells 446-592 188-240 534-775 449-592 609-796 575-848 2,801-3,843

 Producing Gas Wells 2,034-2,918 722-1,050 236-365 151-218 171-244 235-362 3,549-5,157

Production Structures

 Installed 990-1,390 90-130 20-30 20-25 30 30-35 1,180-1,640

 Removed Using Explosives 650-920 55-83 2-3 0 0 0 707-1,006

 Total Removed 890-1,260 80-120 18-26 16-21 21-27 21-31 1,046-1,485

Method of Transportation3

 Percent Piped >99% >99% >99% >99% 90->99% 93->99%

 Percent Barged <1% 0% 0% 0% 0% >1%

 Percent Tankered4 0% 0% 0% 0% 0-10% 0-6%

Length of Installed Pipelines (km)5 8,515-16,993 NA NA NA NA NA 25,204-57,177

Service-Vessel Trips (1,000’s round trips) 1,117-1,570 161-230 85-126 371-469 546-569 549-663 2,829-3,627

Helicopter Operations (1,000’s operations) 19,975-37,825 1,902-3,560 404-801 404-668 595-801 595-890 23,780-44,500

1 Refer to Figure 3-1. 2 Subareas totals may not add up to the planning area total because of rounding.

3 100% of gas is assumed to be piped.

4 Tankering is forecasted to occur only in water depths >1,600 m (5,249 ft).

5 Projected length of pipelines does not include length in State waters.

NA = not available.
Tables Tables-9

Table 3-7

Properties and Persistence by Oil Component Group

Properties and Persistence Light Weight Medium Weight Heavy Weight

Hydrocarbon Compounds Up to 10 carbon atoms 10-22 carbon atoms >20 carbon atoms

API o >31.1o 31.1o-22.3o <22.3o

Evaporation Rate Rapid (within 1 day) and complete Up to several days; not complete at 

ambient temperatures

Negligible

Solubility in Water High Low (at most a few mg/L) Negligible

Acute Toxicity High due to monoaromatic

hydrocarbons (BTEX) 

Moderate due to diaromatic hydrocarbons 

(naphthalenes – 2 ring PAH’s) 

Low, except due to smothering (i.e., 

heavier oils may sink)

Chronic Toxicity None, does not persist due to 

evaporation

PAH components components (e.g., 

naphthalenes – 2 ring PAH’s)

PAH components (e.g., phenanthrene, 

anthracene – 3 ring PAH’s)

Bioaccumulation Potential None, does not persist due to 

evaporation

Moderate Low, may bioaccumulate through 

sediment sorption

Compositional Majority Alkanes and cycloalkanes Alkanes that are readily degraded Waxes, asphaltenes, and polar 

compounds (not significantly 

bioavailable or toxic)

Persistence Low due to evaporation Alkanes readily degrade, but the 

diaromatic hydrocarbons are more 

persistent

High; very low degradation rates and 

can persist in sediments as tarballs or 

asphalt pavements

API = American Petroleum Institute

BTEX = benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene

mg/L = milligram per liter

PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

Sources: Michel, 1992; Canadian Center for Energy Information, 2010.
Tables-10 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-1

Federally Listed Avian Species Considered by State and Associated Planning Area in the Gulf of Mexico1 

Species Status Critical Habitat IUCN Red List

Status2 States Planning Area

Red-cockaded Woodpecker Endangered No rules published Vulnerable AL, FL, LA, MS, TX WPA, CPA, EPA

Least Tern3 Endangered No rules published Least concern AL, LA, TX ,FL, MS WPA, CPA, EPA

Piping Plover Threatened Designated Near threatened AL, FL, LA, MS, TX WPA, CPA, EPA

Roseate Tern Endangered No rules published Least concern FL only EPA

Wood Stork Endangered No rules published Least concern AL, FL, MS CPA, EPA

Whooping Crane Endangered Designated Endangered TX, LA4, FL4 WPA, CPA, EPA

Mississippi Sandhill Crane Endangered Designated Not yet assessed MS only CPA

Attwater’s Prairie Chicken Endangered No rules published Not yet assessed TX only WPA

N. Aplomado Falcon Endangered No rules published Not yet assessed TX only WPA

Mountain Plover Threatened NA; proposed threatened Near threatened TX only WPA

Everglades Snail Kite Endangered Designated Not yet assessed FL only EPA

Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Endangered Designated Not yet assessed FL only EPA

Audubon’s Crested Caracara Threatened No rules published Not yet assessed FL only EPA

Sprague’s Pipit Candidate NA – Priority 2 Vulnerable LA, TX WPA, CPA

Bald Eagle Delisted No rules published Least concern AL, FL, LA, MS, TX WPA, CPA, EPA

Peregrine Falcon Delisted Designated Least concern AL, FL, LA, MS, TX WPA, CPA, EPA

Eastern Brown Pelican Delisted No rules published Least concern AL, FL, LA, MS, TX WPA, CPA, EPA

Red Knot Candidate NA – Priority 3 Least concern FL, LA, TX WPA, CPA, EPA 1 Information contained in this table was obtained via an email attachment sent from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on April 6, 2012 (USDOI, FWS, 2012a), and 

from FWS’s endangered species webpage and associated queries for “species” available from FWS’s website (USDOI, FWS, 2012b). Additional information for each 

species can be found at . Note: All species listed in this table are considered, but only the piping plover, roseate tern, whooping crane, wood stork, Mississippi sandhill

crane, bald eagle, eastern brown pelican, and red knot will be analyzed. 2 International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) – The Red List classifies species as imperiled (Critically Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable), not imperiled 

(Near Threatened or Least Concern), extinct (Extinct, Extinct in the Wild), or Data Deficient (Butchart et al., 2004, 2005; Harris et al., 2012). If species meet quantitative 

thresholds of any of these criteria, they will be added to the Red List: (1) decline in population size; (2) small geographic range; (3) small population size plus decline;

(4) very small population size; or (5) quantitative analysis. 3 The Interior population of least tern was listed as endangered on May 28, 1985 (50 FR 21784 21792) throughout much of its breeding range in the Midwest. This 

designation does not provide or extend Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection to the breeding population of the Gulf Coast “population” of least terns. Similarly, ESA 

protection for breeding least terns only applies to certain segments or areas (inland rivers and lakes ~50 mi [80 km] inland) of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. 4 The whooping crane is considered endangered throughout its range in the U.S. except where nonessential, experimental flocks have been established. More recently, a 

release site (White Lake Wetlands Conservation Area, Vermilion Parish) was added in Louisiana (Table 4-14 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS), with a release of 

10 birds on February 22, 2011. To date, only 3 of the original 10 released cranes remain; an additional release of 16 cranes occurred on December 1, 2011. The Gulf Coast 

States that have these nonessential, experimental flocks include Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida; as well, wild whooping cranes may rarely occur as transients 

in Mississippi and Alabama, but they are not known to breed in either state.
Tables Tables-11

Table 4-2 

Birds Collected and Summarized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Post-Deepwater Horizon Explosion, Oil Spill, and Cleanup in the Gulf of Mexico1, 2

Common Name Species Group3 Grand 

Total

Visibly Oiled Not Visibly Oiled Unknown Oiling Oiling 

Rate4 Dead Alive Total Dead Alive Total Dead Alive Total

Amer. Coot Marsh/Wading 3 2 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.67

Amer. Oystercatcher Shorebird 13 7 3 7 3 0 3 1 3 3 0.54

Amer. Redstart Passerine 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Amer. White Pelican Seabird 19 5 3 8 4 0 4 4 8 7 0.42

Audubon’s Shearwater Seabird 36 1 1 1 35 0 35 0 2 0 0.03

Barn Owl Raptor 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Barn Swallow Passerine 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00

Belted Kingfisher Passerine 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0.00

Bl.-crown. Night Heron Marsh/Wading 18 6 3 8 7 0 7 1 4 3 0.44

Black Skimmer Seabird 253 51 16 55 153 0 153 40 14 45 0.22

Black Tern Seabird 9 1 0 1 7 0 7 1 3 1 0.11

Bl.-bell. Whistl. Duck Waterfowl 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.00

Black-necked Stilt Shorebird 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0.00

Blue-winged Teal Waterfowl 6 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0.00

Boat-tailed Grackle Passerine 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0.00

Broad-winged Hawk Raptor 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0.00

Brown Pelican Seabird 826 152 227 339 248 0 248 177 149 239 0.41

Br.-headed Cowbird Passerine 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.00

Bufflehead Waterfowl 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00

Canada Goose Waterfowl 4 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 2 0.25

Caspian Tern Seabird 17 7 3 8 4 0 4 2 6 5 0.47

Cattle Egret Marsh/Wading 36 4 4 7 25 0 25 3 4 4 0.19

Clapper Rail Marsh/Wading 120 27 5 29 64 0 64 20 14 27 0.24

Common Loon Diving 75 33 27 39 24 0 24 4 20 12 0.52

Common Moorhen Marsh/Wading 4 1 0 1 3 0 3 0 0 0 0.25

Common Nighthawk Passerine 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.00

Common Tern Seabird 25 15 12 16 9 0 9 0 0 0 0.64

Common Yellowthroat Passerine 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0.00

Cooper’s Hawk Raptor 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0.00

Cory’s Shearwater Seabird 4 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 1 1 0.00

Dbl-crest. Cormorant Diving 23 2 1 2 17 0 17 2 7 4 0.09

Eastern Kingbird Passerine 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.50

Eastern Meadowlark Passerine 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00
Tables-12 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-2. Birds Collected and Summarized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Post-Deepwater Horizon Explosion, Oil Spill, and Cleanup in the Gulf 

of Mexico1, 2 (continued).

Common Name Species Group3 Grand Total Visibly Oiled Not Visibly Oiled Unknown Oiling Oiling 

Rate4 Dead Alive Total Dead Alive Total Dead Alive Total

Eur. Collared-Dove Passerine 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Eur. Starling Passerine 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.50

Forster’s Tern Seabird 40 17 8 20 12 0 12 6 7 8 0.50

Fulvous Whistl. Duck Waterfowl 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.00

Glossy Ibis Marsh/Wading 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.50

Great Blue Heron Marsh/Wading 42 5 3 6 26 0 26 4 16 10 0.14

Great Cormorant Diving 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Great Egret Marsh/Wading 31 6 6 7 15 0 15 8 3 9 0.23

Great-horned Owl Raptor 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Greater Shearwater Seabird 89 7 4 7 55 0 55 27 4 27 0.08

Green Heron Marsh/Wading 16 2 0 2 8 0 8 1 6 6 0.13

Gull-billed Tern Seabird 4 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 4 2 0.00

Herring Gull Seabird 31 10 11 13 10 0 10 2 13 8 0.42

House Sparrow Passerine 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 0.00

Killdeer Shorebird 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0.00

King Rail Marsh/Wading 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.00

Laughing Gull Seabird 2,981 1,025 355 1,182 1,390 0 1,390 304 371 409 0.40

Leach’s Storm-Petrel Seabird 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1.00

Least Bittern Marsh/Wading 4 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 2 0 0.00

Least Tern Seabird 106 46 7 49 43 0 43 12 3 14 0.46

Less. Bl.-backed Gull Seabird 4 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 2 0.25

Less. Scaup Waterfowl 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.00

Little Blue Heron Marsh/Wading 5 0 0 0 4 0 4 1 1 1 0.00

Long-bill. Dowitcher Shorebird 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.00

Magnif. Frigatebird Seabird 8 3 3 4 2 0 2 1 2 2 0.50

Mallard Waterfowl 26 5 4 6 16 0 16 0 7 4 0.23

Manx Shearwater Seabird 6 1 0 1 5 0 5 0 0 0 0.17

Masked Booby Seabird 9 4 3 4 1 0 1 0 4 4 0.44

Mottled Duck Waterfowl 6 0 0 0 5 0 5 1 1 1 0.00

Mourning Dove Passerine 15 3 1 3 8 0 8 0 6 4 0.20

Muscovy Duck Waterfowl 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0.00

Neotropic Cormorant Diving 5 0 0 0 2 0 2 3 0 3 0.00

Northern Cardinal Passerine 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0.00
Tables Tables-13

Table 4-2. Birds Collected and Summarized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Post-Deepwater Horizon Explosion, Oil Spill, and Cleanup in the Gulf 

of Mexico1, 2 (continued).

Common Name Species Group3 Grand Total Visibly Oiled Not Visibly Oiled Unknown Oiling Oiling 

Rate4 Dead Alive Total Dead Alive Total Dead Alive Total

Northern Gannet Seabird 475 225 189 297 99 0 99 30 107 79 0.63

Northern Mockingbird Passerine 5 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 2 1 0.00

Osprey Raptor 11 2 1 3 6 0 6 0 3 2 0.27

Pied-billed Grebe Diving 32 18 24 24 7 0 7 1 3 1 0.75

Piping Plover Shorebird 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Purple Gallinule Marsh/Wading 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0.00

Purple Martin Passerine 5 1 0 1 3 0 3 0 1 1 0.20

Red-breasted Merg. Waterfowl 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0.50

Reddish Egret Marsh/Wading 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0.50

Red-shouldered Hawk Raptor 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.00

Red-tailed Hawk Raptor 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Red-winged Blackbird Passerine 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Ring-billed Gull Seabird 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.50

Rock Dove (pigeon) Passerine 16 2 2 3 4 0 4 2 10 9 0.19

Roseate Spoonbill Marsh/Wading 15 7 3 7 3 0 3 5 1 5 0.47

Royal Tern Seabird 289 116 66 149 104 0 104 19 47 36 0.52

Ruddy Duck Waterfowl 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00

Ruddy Turnstone Shorebird 13 1 3 3 8 0 8 1 5 2 0.23

Sanderling Shorebird 26 4 2 4 20 0 20 1 6 2 0.15

Sandwich Tern Seabird 70 28 20 34 25 0 25 8 14 11 0.49

Seaside Sparrow Passerine 9 4 0 4 5 0 5 0 0 0 0.44

Semipalm. Sandpiper Shorebird 3 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00

Short-bill. Dowitcher Shorebird 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Snowy Egret Marsh/Wading 22 12 9 14 6 0 6 2 3 2 0.64

Sooty Shearwater Seabird 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.00

Sooty Tern Seabird 3 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 0.33

Sora Marsh/Wading 5 2 1 2 1 0 1 2 0 2 0.40

Spotted Sandpiper Shorebird 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Surf Scoter Waterfowl 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00

Tri-colored Heron Marsh/Wading 31 9 5 11 7 0 7 11 2 13 0.35

Virginia Rail Marsh/Wading 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 1 0 0.00

White Ibis Marsh/Wading 7 1 1 1 4 0 4 2 3 2 0.14

White-tail. Tropicbird Seabird 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

White-wing. Dove Passerine 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00
Tables-14 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-2. Birds Collected and Summarized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Post-Deepwater Horizon Explosion, Oil Spill, and Cleanup in the Gulf 

of Mexico1, 2 (continued).

Common Name Species Group3 Grand Total Visibly Oiled Not Visibly Oiled Unknown Oiling Oiling 

Rate4 Dead Alive Total Dead Alive Total Dead Alive Total

Willet Shorebird 13 2 1 3 8 0 8 1 3 2 0.23

Wilson’s Plover Shorebird 3 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0.00

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Passerine 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00

Yel.-cr. Night Heron Marsh/Wading 9 1 0 1 7 0 7 0 3 1 0.11

Unid. Blackbird Passerine 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.00

Unid. Booby Seabird 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0.00

Unid. Cormorant Diving 14 3 0 3 10 0 10 1 0 1 0.21

Unid. Dowitcher Shorebird 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0.50

Unid. Duck Waterfowl 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0.00

Unid. Egret Marsh/Wading 15 2 0 2 11 0 11 2 1 2 0.13

Unid. Flycatcher Passerine 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00

Unid. Grebe Diving 4 2 1 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0.50

Unid. Gull Seabird 248 79 1 80 134 0 134 33 4 34 0.32

Unid. Hawk Raptor 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0.00

Unid. Heron Marsh/Wading 15 5 0 5 8 0 8 1 1 2 0.33

Unid. Loon Diving 7 2 2 4 3 0 3 0 1 0 0.57

Unid. Mockingbird Passerine 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Unid. Owl Raptor 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Unid. Passerine Passerine 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Unid. Pelican Seabird 25 5 1 5 15 0 15 4 1 5 0.20

Unid. Pigeon Passerine 14 2 1 3 6 0 6 1 6 5 0.21

Unid. Rail Marsh/Wading 4 1 0 1 3 0 3 0 0 0 0.25

Unid. Raptor Raptor 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Unid. Sandpiper Shorebird 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0.00

Unid. Shearwater Seabird 6 0 0 0 5 0 5 1 0 1 0.00

Unid. Shorebird Shorebird 3 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.67

Unid. Skimmer Seabird 6 0 0 0 5 0 5 1 0 1 0.00

Unid. Sparrow Passerine 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 0.00

Unid. Swallow Passerine 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Unid. Tern Seabird 132 38 1 39 79 0 79 13 2 14 0.30

Unid. Warbler Passerine 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.00

Unknown spp. 593 51 2 53 451 0 451 88 1 89 0.09

Other 106 31 3 34 52 0 52 7 14 20 0.32

Column Totals 7,258 2,121 2,642 3,387 3,387 873 1,229 0.24
Tables Tables-15

Table 4-2. Birds Collected and Summarized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Post-Deepwater Horizon Explosion, Oil Spill, and Cleanup in the Gulf 

of Mexico1, 2 (continued).

1 Data obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as part of the Deepwater Horizon post-spill monitoring and collection process are 

summarized for May 12, 2011 (USDOI, FWS, 2011). The data used in this table are verified as per FWS’s QA/QC processes. Disclaimer: All data should 

be considered provisional, incomplete, and subject to change (USDOI, FWS, 2011). For more information, refer to the Weekly Bird Impact Data and 

Consolidated Wildlife Reports. Numbers in this table have been verified against the original data from FWS’s website (USDOI, FWS, 2011). 2 As of May 12, 2011, 104 avian species had been collected and identified through the Deepwater Horizon post-spill monitoring and collection process

(USDOI, FWS, 2011). Note: Though the process was triggered by the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill, not all birds recovered were oiled 

(36% = oiled, 47% = unoiled, 17% = unknown), suggesting that “search effort” alone accounted for a large proportion of the total (n = 7,258) birds 

collected (refer to Piatt et al., 1990a, page 127). Some of the live birds collected may have been incapable of flight due to age or molt, and some of the 

dead birds collected may have died due to natural mortality, predation, or other anthropogenic sources of mortality. Overall oiling rate across species 

including “others” and “unknowns” was 0.24 versus 0.25 for individuals identified to species. Oiling rate for the Top 5 (see bold rows in table) mostimpacted avian species was 0.43 and included representatives only from the seabird group. These are listed in descending order based on the number 

collected: laughing gull (2,981 collected, 0.40 oiling rate); brown pelican (826 collected, 0.41 oiling rate); northern gannet (475 collected, 0.63 oiling rate);

royal tern (289 collected, 0.52 oiling rate); and black skimmer (253 collected, 0.22 oiling rate). Note: There is a difference between the table structure 

here compared with the original table on FWS’s website. Herein, columns for live birds that later died were not included. Totals associated with each 

larger grouping are correct and sum to those column totals for the May 12, 2011, Collection Report values. Six new species or rows were added and 

3 species were removed between the December 14, 2010, Collection Report (USDOI, FWS, 2010) and the May 12, 2011, Collection Report (USDOI, 

FWS, 2011). The major difference in number (-807) between the more recent and older versions was due to an ~10% overestimate in the previous report 

representing live birds that later died, as these individuals were counted twice in the December 14, 2010, Collection Report (USDOI, FWS, 2010). 3 Species Group: As noted in Chapters 4.1.1.14 and 4.2.1.16 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. 4 Oiling Rate: For each species, an oiling rate was calculated by dividing the “total” number of oiled individuals (∑ alive + dead)/∑ of total individuals 

collected for a given species/row. In general, it has been well documented that the number of birds collected after a spill event represents a small fraction 

of the total oiled population (direct mortality) due to various factors; species-specific differences in vulnerability to spilled oil, species-specific differences 

in distribution, habitat use, and behavior; species-specific differences in abundance; species-specific differences in carcass deposition rates, persistence 

rates, and detection probabilities; overall search effort and temporal and spatial variation in search effort; and carcass loss due to predation, habitat, 

weather, tides, and currents (Piatt et al., 1990a and 1990b; Ford et al., 1996; Piatt and Ford, 1996; Fowler and Flint, 1997; Flint and Fowler, 1998; Flint 

et al., 1999; Hampton and Zafonte, 2005; Ford, 2006; Castege et al., 2007; Ford and Zafonte, 2009; Byrd et al., 2009; Flint et al., 2010). For example, Piatt 

and Ford (1996, Table 1) estimated a mean carcass recovery rate of only 17% for a number of previous oil-bird impact studies. Burger (1993) and Weise 

and Jones (2001) estimated recovery rates of 20%, with the latter study based on a drift-block design to estimate carcass recovery rate from beached-bird 

surveys. Due to the fact that the coastline directly inshore of the well blowout location is primarily marsh and not sandy beaches, due to the distance from 

the blowout location to the coast, and due to predominant currents and wind directions during the event, the number of birds collected will likely represent 

a recovery estimate in the lower ranges of those provided in the literature to date (<10%). A range of mortality estimates given the total number of dead 

birds collected through May 12, 2011, of 7,258 birds x recovery rates from the literature (0-59% in Piatt and Ford, 1996, Table 1) suggests a lower range of 

12,302 birds* (59% recovery rate), an upper range of 725,800 birds* (0% recovery rate), and 42,694 birds based on the 17% mean recovery rate from Piatt 

and Ford (1996). The lower range of estimates (i.e., high carcass recovery rates) is likely biased low because it assumes no search effort after May 2011 

(i.e., no more birds were collected after that date) and does not account for any of the detection probability parameters that are currently unknown. The 

actual avian mortality estimate will likely not be available until the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process has been completed, which 
Tables-16 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-2. Birds Collected and Summarized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Post-Deepwater Horizon Explosion, Oil Spill, and Cleanup in the Gulf 

of Mexico1, 2 (continued).

should include a combination of carcass drift experiments, drift-block experiments, corrections for carcass deposition and persistence rates, scavenger 

rates, and detection probability with additional modeling to more precisely derive an estimate. For additional information on oiling rates by Species Group 

and for additional statistics, refer to Table 4-12 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. Note: Spill volume tends to be a poor predictor of bird 

mortality associated with an oil spill (Burger, 1993), though it should be considered for inclusion in any models to estimate total bird mortality, preferably 

with some metric of species composition and abundance (preferably density) pre-spill (Wilhelm et al., 2007).

* Corrected values are based on revisiting the original calculations after publication of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS. An additional estimate for 

total mortality based on Piatt and Ford (1996) is also provided.
Tables Tables-17

Table 4-3

Angler Effort in 2009, 2010, and 2011

2009

Season A Season B Annual Total

Area Private Charter Total Area Private Charter Total Private Charter Total

Bay 291,400 33,256 324,655 Bay 573,978 82,242 656,220 865,377 115,498 980,875

TTS 3,804 431 4,235 TTS 29,060 2,394 31,454 32,864 2,825 35,689

EEZ 252 0 252 EEZ 20,874 3,336 24,211 21,127 3,336 24,463

Total 295,456 33,687 329,143 Total 623,912 87,972 711,885 919,368 121,659 1,041,027

2010

Season A Season B Annual Total

Area Private Charter Total Area Private Charter Total Private Charter Total

Bay 255,995 23,570 279,565 Bay 567,522 93,650 661,171 823,517 117,220 940,737

TTS 3,250 2,187 5,437 TTS 22,837 2,052 24,888 26,087 4,239 30,326

EEZ 744 0 744 EEZ 14,129 1,602 15,731 14,873 1,602 16,475

Total 259,989 25,758 285,747 Total 604,487 97,303 701,791 864,476 123,061 987,537

2011

Season A Season B Annual Total

Area Private Charter Total Area Private Charter Total Private Charter Total

Bay 330,461 29,842 360,303 Bay 576,735 122,855 699,590 907,196 152,697 1,059,893

TTS 14,830 4,779 19,609 TTS 24,372 2,988 27,360 39,202 7,767 46,969

EEZ 1,424 850 2,274 EEZ 15,138 1,126 16,264 16,562 1,976 18,538

Total 346,715 35,471 382,186 Total 616,245 126,969 743,214 962,960 162,440 1,125,400

Notes: Season A is November 21 - May 14 and Season B is May 15 - November 20.

EEZ = Exclusive Economic Zone.

TTS = Texas (Territorial) State Waters.

Source: Fisher, official communication, 2012.
Tables-18 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-4

Top Species Landed by Recreational Fishermen 

Panel A: Total Landings Panel B: Landings in Bays

Species 2008 2009 2010 2011 Species 2008 2009 2010 2011

Atlantic Croaker 64 117 124 156 Atlantic Croaker 64 117 124 154

Black Drum 82 98 165 129 Black Drum 80 97 164 127

King Mackerel 8 16 6 9 King Mackerel -- -- -- --

Red Drum 267 285 264 347 Red Drum 262 277 261 344

Red Snapper 39 31 33 36 Red Snapper -- -- -- --

Sand Seatrout 152 111 127 226 Sand Seatrout 137 108 126 220

Sheepshead 46 34 49 57 Sheepshead 46 34 49 57

Southern Flounder 64 47 30 92 Southern Flounder 64 47 30 92

Spotted Seatrout 920 810 732 1,137 Spotted Seatrout 895 789 721 1,119

Panel C: Landings in State Waters Panel D: Landings in EEZ

Species 2008 2009 2010 2011 Species 2008 2009 2010 2011

Atlantic Croaker -- -- -- 2 Atlantic Croaker -- -- -- --

Black Drum 2 1 -- 2 Black Drum -- -- 1 --

King Mackerel 5 7 5 5 King Mackerel 4 9 1 4

Red Drum 4 8 -- 3 Red Drum 0 1 3 --

Red Snapper 28 13 12 22 Red Snapper 13 19 21 14

Sand Seatrout 13 2 1 5 Sand Seatrout 1 1 1 1

Sheepshead -- -- -- -- Sheepshead -- -- -- --

Southern Flounder -- -- -- -- Southern Flounder -- -- -- --

Spotted Seatrout 18 14 -- 18 Spotted Seatrout 5 8 10 --

Notes: Fish landings are measured in thousands of fish.

EEZ = Exclusive Economic Zone.

Source: Fisher, official communication, 2012.
Tables Tables-19

Table 4-5

Recreational Employment: Employment in the Leisure/Hospitality Industry 

in Selected Geographic Regions

Region 2008 2009 2010 2011

Panel A: Economic Impact Area

TX-1 55,069 54,548 55,589 57,624

TX-2 16,883 16,718 16,934 18,190

TX-3 240,231 240,425 244,821 252,952

LA-1 14,295 14,214 13,979 14,496

LA-2 21,364 20,675 20,618 21,312

LA-3 46,037 44,414 44,796 47,031

LA-4 68,605 68,161 72,757 75,588

MS-1 27,702 26,904 26,981 27,719

AL-1 26,516 25,872 26,925 27,340

FL-1 40,001 41,002 42,550 45,246

FL-2 22,502 21,689 22,111 22,462

FL-3 146,368 142,302 145,324 148,021

FL-4 283,359 279,839 289,247 303,345

TX EIA Total 312,183 311,691 317,344 328,766

LA EIA Total 150,301 147,464 152,150 158,427

MS EIA Total 27,702 26,904 26,981 27,719

AL EIA Total 26,516 25,872 26,925 27,340

FL EIA Total 492,230 484,832 499,232 519,074

EIA Total 1,008,932 996,763 1,022,632 1,061,326

Panel B: Coastal

TX 67,605 68,594 69,099 71,821

LA 77,580 76,617 81,431 84,139

MS 25,575 25,055 25,186 25,791

AL 24,319 23,825 24,816 25,172

FL 445,164 440,590 454,585 473,758

Coastal Total 640,243 634,681 655,117 680,681

Panel C: Statewide

TX 995,445 982,840 1,006,277 1,040,091

LA 194,905 190,589 194,387 201,599

MS 121,033 115,868 116,204 117,644

AL 168,413 165,953 165,230 166,909

FL 922,534 896,383 929,448 961,764

State Total 2,402,330 2,351,633 2,411,546 2,488,007

Notes:

(1) The economic impact areas (EIA’s) are shown in Figure 4-20 of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale 

EIS. 

(2) The “Coastal” category refers to counties within EIA’s that are directly along the coast of the U.S.

(3) The “Statewide” category refers to the number of employees within the borders of the entire state.

(4) The leisure/hospitality industry is defined according to the North American Industrial Classification 

System. 

(5) The employment figure for any given year corresponds to the total number of employees in 

December of that year.

Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012.
Tables-20 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-6

Baseline Population Projections (in thousands) by Economic Impact Area

Calendar 

Year TX-1 TX-2 TX-3 LA-1 LA-2 LA-3 LA-4 MS-1 AL-1 FL-1 FL-2 FL-3 FL-4 Total

2010 1,799.51 626.81 6,202.46 345.97 584.86 1,142.20 1,242.45 482.25 725.94 882.64 660.01 3,627.12 6,173.13 24,495.33

2011 1,832.65 635.42 6,318.61 349.09 591.72 1,152.19 1,248.17 484.98 731.91 894.95 667.83 3,688.14 6,255.79 24,851.43

2012 1,866.48 644.27 6,437.11 352.34 598.82 1,162.61 1,254.39 487.89 738.17 907.59 675.90 3,750.54 6,340.82 25,216.93

2013 1,900.59 653.22 6,556.53 355.65 606.02 1,173.21 1,260.81 490.88 744.54 920.37 684.08 3,813.50 6,426.81 25,586.21

2014 1,934.86 662.24 6,676.47 358.98 613.28 1,183.90 1,267.35 493.92 750.98 933.24 692.32 3,876.76 6,513.36 25,957.66

2015 1,969.24 671.29 6,796.74 362.34 620.58 1,194.65 1,273.97 496.99 757.47 946.15 700.61 3,940.23 6,600.26 26,330.52

2016 2,003.72 680.38 6,917.33 365.73 627.93 1,205.45 1,280.66 500.08 763.99 959.10 708.92 4,003.87 6,687.49 26,704.68

2017 2,038.47 689.56 7,038.82 369.15 635.36 1,216.41 1,287.53 503.24 770.62 972.19 717.34 4,068.05 6,775.61 27,082.36

2018 2,073.33 698.78 7,160.61 372.60 642.83 1,227.41 1,294.46 506.43 777.28 985.32 725.79 4,132.40 6,864.04 27,461.28

2019 2,108.26 708.03 7,282.65 376.06 650.33 1,238.45 1,301.43 509.64 783.98 998.49 734.26 4,196.90 6,952.71 27,841.18

2020 2,143.31 717.32 7,405.08 379.54 657.88 1,249.55 1,308.49 512.87 790.71 1,011.71 742.78 4,261.62 7,041.77 28,222.62

2021 2,177.37 726.41 7,523.94 382.97 665.31 1,260.48 1,315.52 516.08 797.37 1,024.64 751.15 4,324.64 7,128.94 28,594.80

2022 2,211.98 735.62 7,644.70 386.43 672.82 1,271.51 1,322.59 519.31 804.08 1,037.74 759.60 4,388.58 7,217.19 28,972.14

2023 2,247.13 744.95 7,767.41 389.92 680.41 1,282.63 1,329.69 522.57 810.84 1,051.00 768.15 4,453.47 7,306.53 29,354.71

2024 2,282.84 754.39 7,892.08 393.45 688.09 1,293.85 1,336.84 525.84 817.67 1,064.43 776.80 4,519.32 7,396.98 29,742.59

2025 2,319.13 763.95 8,018.76 397.01 695.86 1,305.17 1,344.02 529.13 824.55 1,078.03 785.55 4,586.14 7,488.55 30,135.85

2026 2,353.18 773.03 8,137.46 400.42 703.29 1,316.01 1,350.99 532.32 831.16 1,090.93 793.88 4,649.03 7,575.46 30,507.14

2027 2,387.73 782.22 8,257.91 403.87 710.80 1,326.93 1,357.99 535.52 837.83 1,103.98 802.31 4,712.78 7,663.36 30,883.21

2028 2,422.79 791.51 8,380.15 407.34 718.39 1,337.94 1,365.03 538.75 844.54 1,117.18 810.82 4,777.41 7,752.29 31,264.14

2029 2,458.36 800.91 8,504.20 410.84 726.06 1,349.05 1,372.10 541.99 851.32 1,130.54 819.43 4,842.92 7,842.26 31,649.98

2030 2,494.45 810.43 8,630.09 414.37 733.82 1,360.25 1,379.21 545.25 858.15 1,144.07 828.12 4,909.33 7,933.26 32,040.79

2031 2,528.35 819.45 8,748.17 417.75 741.21 1,370.93 1,386.05 548.38 864.68 1,156.87 836.39 4,971.85 8,019.51 32,409.59

2032 2,562.71 828.57 8,867.88 421.15 748.69 1,381.69 1,392.92 551.54 871.27 1,169.81 844.74 5,035.16 8,106.69 32,782.81

2033 2,597.53 837.79 8,989.21 424.58 756.24 1,392.54 1,399.83 554.71 877.90 1,182.90 853.18 5,099.28 8,194.83 33,160.51

2034 2,632.83 847.11 9,112.21 428.04 763.86 1,403.47 1,406.77 557.89 884.59 1,196.14 861.69 5,164.21 8,283.92 33,542.74

2035 2,668.61 856.54 9,236.90 431.53 771.56 1,414.49 1,413.75 561.10 891.32 1,209.52 870.30 5,229.98 8,373.98 33,929.57

2036 2,702.72 865.62 9,355.65 434.93 779.04 1,425.22 1,420.68 564.27 897.91 1,222.41 878.63 5,292.86 8,460.77 34,300.70

2037 2,737.27 874.80 9,475.93 438.36 786.59 1,436.04 1,427.64 567.45 904.55 1,235.43 887.04 5,356.49 8,548.47 34,676.05

2038 2,772.27 884.07 9,597.75 441.82 794.21 1,446.94 1,434.64 570.65 911.24 1,248.59 895.53 5,420.89 8,637.07 35,055.67

2039 2,807.71 893.45 9,721.14 445.30 801.91 1,457.92 1,441.67 573.88 917.97 1,261.89 904.10 5,486.07 8,726.60 35,439.59

2040 2,843.60 902.92 9,846.12 448.81 809.68 1,468.98 1,448.74 577.12 924.76 1,275.33 912.75 5,552.03 8,817.05 35,827.88
Tables Tables-21

Table 4-6. Baseline Population Projections (in thousands) by Economic Impact Area (continued).

Calendar 

Year TX-1 TX-2 TX-3 LA-1 LA-2 LA-3 LA-4 MS-1 AL-1 FL-1 FL-2 FL-3 FL-4 Total

2041 2,879.95 912.49 9,972.71 452.35 817.52 1,480.13 1,455.84 580.37 931.59 1,288.91 921.48 5,618.78 8,908.43 36,220.57

2042 2,916.76 922.17 10,100.92 455.92 825.45 1,491.37 1,462.98 583.65 938.48 1,302.64 930.30 5,686.34 9,000.77 36,617.74

2043 2,954.05 931.94 10,230.78 459.51 833.44 1,502.68 1,470.15 586.94 945.42 1,316.52 939.21 5,754.71 9,094.06 37,019.41

2044 2,991.81 941.83 10,362.31 463.13 841.52 1,514.09 1,477.36 590.26 952.41 1,330.54 948.19 5,823.89 9,188.32 37,425.66

2045 3,030.06 951.81 10,495.53 466.78 849.68 1,525.58 1,484.60 593.59 959.45 1,344.71 957.27 5,893.92 9,283.56 37,836.53

2046 3,068.80 961.90 10,630.46 470.46 857.91 1,537.16 1,491.87 596.94 966.54 1,359.04 966.43 5,964.78 9,379.78 38,252.07

2047 3,108.03 972.10 10,767.13 474.17 866.22 1,548.83 1,499.19 600.31 973.68 1,373.51 975.68 6,036.49 9,477.00 38,672.35

2048 3,147.76 982.41 10,905.56 477.91 874.62 1,560.58 1,506.54 603.70 980.88 1,388.14 985.02 6,109.07 9,575.23 39,097.41

2049 3,188.00 992.82 11,045.76 481.68 883.09 1,572.42 1,513.92 607.10 988.13 1,402.93 994.44 6,182.52 9,674.48 39,527.31

2050 3,228.75 1,003.35 11,187.77 485.48 891.65 1,584.36 1,521.34 610.53 995.44 1,417.87 1,003.96 6,256.85 9,774.75 39,962.11

2051 3,270.02 1,013.99 11,331.61 489.31 900.29 1,596.38 1,528.80 613.98 1,002.79 1,432.98 1,013.57 6,332.08 9,876.07 40,401.86

2052 3,311.83 1,024.74 11,477.29 493.16 909.02 1,608.50 1,536.29 617.44 1,010.21 1,448.24 1,023.27 6,408.21 9,978.43 40,846.63

2053 3,354.16 1,035.61 11,624.84 497.05 917.82 1,620.71 1,543.82 620.93 1,017.67 1,463.67 1,033.06 6,485.26 10,081.86 41,296.47

2054 3,397.04 1,046.59 11,774.30 500.97 926.72 1,633.01 1,551.39 624.43 1,025.20 1,479.26 1,042.95 6,563.23 10,186.36 41,751.43

2055 3,440.47 1,057.68 11,925.67 504.92 935.70 1,645.40 1,559.00 627.96 1,032.77 1,495.01 1,052.93 6,642.14 10,291.94 42,211.59

Notes: Actual Woods & Poole data for 2010 through 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, and 2040.

Missing estimates through 2040 calculated using average annual growth rate for the 5-year period; projections after 2040 calculated using the 

average annual growth rate from 2035 to 2040.

Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2011.
Tables-22 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-7

Baseline Employment Projections (in thousands) by Economic Impact Area

Calendar 

Year TX-1 TX-2 TX-3 LA-1 LA-2 LA-3 LA-4 MS-1 AL-1 FL-1 FL-2 FL-3 FL-4 

2010 799.36 303.96 3,604.75 178.79 326.06 667.39 739.02 247.21 369.87 475.97 317.69 1,836.01 3,306.18

2011 793.09 303.60 3,648.80 176.78 323.47 662.76 736.37 251.36 373.47 478.36 314.73 1,837.13 3,330.93

2012 806.49 307.79 3,709.48 178.85 328.23 671.33 741.28 253.67 378.59 484.81 318.31 1,865.09 3,382.52

2013 821.31 312.42 3,776.39 181.19 333.53 680.95 747.23 256.30 384.36 491.97 322.52 1,897.15 3,439.80

2014 836.42 317.11 3,844.28 183.55 338.91 690.70 753.21 258.98 390.18 499.21 326.77 1,929.67 3,497.84

2015 851.79 321.84 3,913.17 185.95 344.32 700.56 759.21 261.68 396.12 506.56 331.07 1,962.67 3,556.64

2016 867.44 326.63 3,983.09 188.39 349.80 710.53 765.25 264.40 402.12 513.99 335.44 1,996.15 3,616.23

2017 883.38 331.48 4,054.02 190.85 355.35 720.63 771.30 267.13 408.23 521.51 339.84 2,030.11 3,676.61

2018 899.59 336.38 4,126.01 193.34 360.94 730.84 777.39 269.90 414.43 529.13 344.33 2,064.57 3,737.78

2019 916.13 341.33 4,199.04 195.88 366.60 741.18 783.50 272.70 420.72 536.85 348.86 2,099.53 3,799.78

2020 932.96 346.34 4,273.13 198.43 372.32 751.62 789.65 275.53 427.11 544.67 353.43 2,134.99 3,862.56

2021 950.10 351.36 4,347.87 201.03 378.05 762.16 795.79 278.37 433.58 552.56 358.07 2,170.81 3,925.76

2022 967.55 356.45 4,423.91 203.66 383.86 772.84 801.98 281.25 440.16 560.55 362.78 2,207.23 3,990.00

2023 985.33 361.62 4,501.28 206.33 389.76 783.68 808.21 284.15 446.84 568.67 367.55 2,244.26 4,055.28

2024 1,003.43 366.86 4,580.00 209.03 395.76 794.66 814.50 287.09 453.62 576.90 372.38 2,281.91 4,121.64

2025 1,021.87 372.17 4,660.10 211.77 401.84 805.80 820.83 290.05 460.50 585.25 377.27 2,320.20 4,189.08

2026 1,040.67 377.46 4,740.42 214.54 407.88 816.99 827.15 293.04 467.49 593.65 382.23 2,358.71 4,256.53

2027 1,059.82 382.81 4,822.12 217.35 414.01 828.32 833.52 296.06 474.59 602.16 387.26 2,397.86 4,325.06

2028 1,079.32 388.25 4,905.23 220.20 420.22 839.82 839.94 299.12 481.80 610.80 392.36 2,437.66 4,394.70

2029 1,099.19 393.76 4,989.77 223.08 426.54 851.47 846.41 302.20 489.11 619.56 397.52 2,478.12 4,465.46

2030 1,119.42 399.35 5,075.77 226.00 432.94 863.29 852.92 305.32 496.54 628.44 402.75 2,519.25 4,537.36

2031 1,140.07 404.89 5,162.03 228.97 439.30 875.16 859.45 308.46 504.08 637.38 408.08 2,560.65 4,609.30

2032 1,161.11 410.51 5,249.75 231.97 445.75 887.20 866.02 311.64 511.74 646.44 413.47 2,602.72 4,682.39

2033 1,182.53 416.21 5,338.97 235.02 452.29 899.40 872.65 314.84 519.52 655.64 418.93 2,645.49 4,756.64

2034 1,204.35 421.99 5,429.70 238.10 458.93 911.77 879.33 318.09 527.42 664.96 424.47 2,688.96 4,832.06

2035 1,226.57 427.85 5,521.98 241.23 465.66 924.32 886.06 321.36 535.43 674.42 430.08 2,733.14 4,908.68

2036 1,249.29 433.65 5,614.56 244.40 472.35 936.93 892.82 324.67 543.59 683.92 435.80 2,777.64 4,985.38

2037 1,272.43 439.52 5,708.69 247.61 479.14 949.71 899.63 328.02 551.86 693.56 441.60 2,822.86 5,063.27

2038 1,296.00 445.48 5,804.41 250.86 486.02 962.67 906.50 331.40 560.27 703.34 447.48 2,868.82 5,142.39

2039 1,320.00 451.52 5,901.73 254.15 493.00 975.80 913.42 334.81 568.80 713.25 453.43 2,915.52 5,222.74

2040 1,344.45 457.64 6,000.68 257.49 500.08 989.11 920.39 338.26 577.46 723.31 459.46 2,962.99 5,304.35
Tables Tables-23

Table 4-7. Baseline Employment Projections (in thousands) by Economic Impact Area (continued).

Calendar 

Year TX-1 TX-2 TX-3 LA-1 LA-2 LA-3 LA-4 MS-1 AL-1 FL-1 FL-2 FL-3 FL-4 

2041 1,369.35 463.84 6,101.29 260.87 507.26 1,002.61 927.41 341.75 586.25 733.50 465.58 3,011.23 5,387.23

2042 1,394.71 470.13 6,203.59 264.30 514.54 1,016.28 934.49 345.27 595.18 743.84 471.77 3,060.25 5,471.40

2043 1,420.54 476.50 6,307.60 267.77 521.93 1,030.15 941.62 348.83 604.24 754.32 478.05 3,110.07 5,556.89

2044 1,446.85 482.96 6,413.35 271.28 529.43 1,044.20 948.81 352.42 613.44 764.96 484.41 3,160.70 5,643.72

2045 1,473.65 489.50 6,520.88 274.85 537.03 1,058.45 956.05 356.05 622.78 775.74 490.86 3,212.16 5,731.91

2046 1,500.94 496.14 6,630.21 278.46 544.75 1,072.89 963.34 359.72 632.26 786.67 497.39 3,264.45 5,821.47

2047 1,528.74 502.86 6,741.38 282.11 552.57 1,087.53 970.70 363.43 641.89 797.76 504.01 3,317.60 5,912.43

2048 1,557.05 509.67 6,854.41 285.82 560.51 1,102.37 978.10 367.17 651.66 809.01 510.71 3,371.61 6,004.81

2049 1,585.89 516.58 6,969.33 289.57 568.55 1,117.40 985.57 370.95 661.59 820.41 517.51 3,426.50 6,098.64

2050 1,615.26 523.58 7,086.18 293.37 576.72 1,132.65 993.09 374.78 671.66 831.97 524.40 3,482.29 6,193.93

2051 1,645.18 530.68 7,204.99 297.22 585.00 1,148.10 1,000.67 378.64 681.89 843.70 531.37 3,538.98 6,290.71

2052 1,675.65 537.87 7,325.79 301.13 593.40 1,163.77 1,008.31 382.54 692.27 855.59 538.44 3,596.59 6,389.01

2053 1,706.69 545.16 7,448.62 305.08 601.93 1,179.64 1,016.00 386.48 702.81 867.65 545.61 3,655.15 6,488.84

2054 1,738.30 552.55 7,573.51 309.09 610.57 1,195.74 1,023.76 390.46 713.51 879.88 552.87 3,714.65 6,590.22

2055 1,770.49 560.04 7,700.49 313.15 619.34 1,212.05 1,031.57 394.49 724.37 892.28 560.23 3,775.13 6,693.20

Notes: Actual Woods & Poole data for 2010 through 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, and 2040.

Missing estimates through 2040 calculated using average annual growth rate for the 5-year period; projections after 2040 calculated using the 

average annual growth rate from 2035 to 2040.

Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2011.
Tables-24 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-8

Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area TX-1 

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Total Population (in thousands) 1,644 1,800 1,833 1,866 1,901 1,935 1,969 2,108 2,319 2,494 2,844

Age Under 19 Years 36.0% 35.0% 34.8% 34.6% 34.4% 34.3% 34.2% 33.7% 32.5% 32.2% 31.3%

Age 20 to 34 21.1% 20.5% 20.4% 20.3% 20.2% 20.2% 20.1% 19.8% 20.3% 19.9% 19.8%

Age 35 to 49 18.9% 18.7% 18.7% 18.6% 18.5% 18.4% 18.3% 18.1% 17.2% 16.9% 17.2%

Age 50 to 64 13.6% 15.0% 15.2% 15.3% 15.4% 15.4% 15.4% 15.3% 15.4% 15.2% 14.6%

Age 65 and over 10.3% 10.8% 11.0% 11.2% 11.5% 11.7% 12.0% 13.0% 14.6% 15.7% 17.2%

Median Age of Population (years) 33.6 35.6 35.8 35.9 36.0 36.0 36.1 36.4 36.9 37.1 37.2

White Population (in thousands) 18.4% 16.2% 15.9% 15.6% 15.3% 15.0% 14.7% 13.7% 12.3% 11.2% 9.3%

Black Population (in thousands) 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9%

Native American Population (in thousands) 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0%

Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 79.4% 81.5% 81.9% 82.2% 82.5% 82.8% 83.1% 84.1% 85.6% 86.7% 88.7%

Male Population (in thousands) 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.7% 48.6% 48.5%

Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 728.92 799.36 793.09 806.49 821.31 836.42 851.79 916.13 1,021.87 1,119.42 1,344.45

Farm Employment 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.2% 1.0% 0.8%

Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 1.2% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8%

Mining 1.8% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.3% 2.3% 2.2% 2.1% 1.9% 1.7% 1.4%

Utilities 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%

Construction 7.2% 6.5% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.2% 6.2% 6.1% 6.0%

Manufacturing 4.0% 3.2% 3.3% 3.2% 3.2% 3.1% 3.1% 2.9% 2.6% 2.4% 1.9%

Wholesale Trade 2.8% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.4% 2.3% 2.2% 2.0%

Retail Trade 12.0% 11.4% 11.3% 11.2% 11.2% 11.1% 11.1% 10.9% 10.6% 10.3% 9.7%

Transportation and Warehousing 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4%

Information Employment 1.2% 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%

Finance and Insurance 3.1% 3.7% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.5% 3.4%

Real Estate/Rental and Lease 3.0% 3.1% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.2% 3.2% 3.1%

Professional and Technical Services 3.4% 3.5% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.7% 3.8% 3.9% 4.0% 4.2%

Management 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5%

Administrative and Waste Services 5.4% 5.5% 5.7% 5.8% 5.8% 5.9% 5.9% 6.2% 6.5% 6.7% 7.3%

Educational Services 0.9% 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 1.2% 1.3% 1.5%

Health Care and Social Assistance 15.6% 17.3% 17.5% 17.8% 18.0% 18.2% 18.5% 19.4% 20.9% 22.1% 24.6%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.1% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9%

Accommodation and Food Services 7.2% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.9% 8.0% 8.0%
Tables Tables-25

Table 4-8. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area TX-1 (continued).

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Other Services, Except Public Administration 6.5% 6.1% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0%

Federal Civilian Government 1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3%

Federal Military 1.3% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6%

State and Local Government 15.1% 14.7% 14.3% 14.2% 14.1% 14.0% 13.9% 13.5% 12.9% 12.4% 11.3%

Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 24,168 27,085 28,227 28,852 29,670 30,511 31,377 35,100 41,562 47,889 63,768

Farm 1.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3%

Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5%

Mining 3.6% 4.7% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.7% 4.6% 4.4% 4.0% 3.6% 3.0%

Utilities 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%

Construction 7.5% 6.3% 6.1% 6.0% 5.9% 5.9% 5.8% 5.5% 5.1% 4.8% 4.2%

Manufacturing 5.9% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.1% 5.0% 4.8% 4.5% 4.2% 3.7%

Wholesale Trade 4.2% 3.7% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.7% 3.7% 3.6% 3.5% 3.4% 3.2%

Retail Trade 8.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.7% 7.6% 7.5% 7.4% 7.0% 6.4% 5.9% 5.0%

Transportation and Warehousing 3.6% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.7% 3.6% 3.4%

Information 1.5% 1.3% 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.5% 1.5% 1.7%

Finance and Insurance 3.4% 3.1% 3.1% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%

Real Estate/Rental and Lease 1.4% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0%

Professional and Technical Services 4.6% 4.4% 4.5% 4.6% 4.6% 4.7% 4.7% 5.0% 5.3% 5.5% 6.0%

Management 0.1% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.8%

Administrative and Waste Services 3.0% 3.3% 3.5% 3.6% 3.6% 3.7% 3.7% 3.9% 4.2% 4.4% 4.9%

Educational Services 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% 0.9% 1.0% 1.2%

Health Care and Social Assistance 14.9% 17.6% 17.7% 18.1% 18.4% 18.7% 19.0% 20.1% 21.9% 23.5% 26.7%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

Accommodation and Food Services 3.4% 3.6% 3.7% 3.7% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9%

Other Services, Except Public Administration 4.5% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.0% 4.0% 3.9%

Federal Civilian Government 4.9% 5.6% 5.4% 5.5% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4% 5.3% 5.1% 5.0% 4.7%

Federal Military 2.8% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.3% 2.3% 2.2% 2.1% 2.0%

State and Local Government 17.8% 18.6% 17.9% 18.0% 17.9% 17.9% 17.8% 17.6% 17.3% 16.9% 16.2%

Total Personal Income Per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 20,907 23,257 23,914 23,887 24,058 24,302 24,593 26,031 28,749 31,518 38,559

Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 67.9 78.0 79.0 78.9 79.2 79.4 79.6 80.3 81.2 81.9 83.0

Persons per Household (in number of people) 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.3

Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 67,317 75,702 77,591 77,212 77,464 77,910 78,531 82,496 91,564 101,445 126,955

Number of Households (in thousands) 510.57 552.84 564.82 577.44 590.27 603.52 616.71 665.25 728.15 775.02 863.66

Income <$10,000 (thousands of households, 2000$) 15.7% 13.7% 13.3% 13.1% 12.9% 12.7% 12.5% 11.3% 9.4% 8.0% 5.8%

Income $10,000 to $19,999 17.7% 15.5% 15.0% 14.8% 14.6% 14.4% 14.1% 12.8% 10.6% 9.1% 6.6%

Income $20,000 to $29,999 15.0% 13.4% 13.0% 12.8% 12.6% 12.4% 12.2% 11.0% 9.1% 7.8% 5.7%
Tables-26 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-8. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area TX-1 (continued).

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Income $30,000 to $44,999 18.8% 19.9% 20.0% 20.0% 20.1% 20.2% 20.2% 20.0% 17.9% 15.4% 11.3%

Income $45,000 to $59,999 12.4% 14.2% 14.7% 14.8% 15.0% 15.2% 15.5% 16.7% 19.1% 20.2% 17.8%

Income $60,000 to $74,999 7.7% 8.8% 9.1% 9.2% 9.3% 9.5% 9.6% 10.6% 12.8% 14.8% 18.8%

Income $75,000 to $99,999 6.6% 7.5% 7.8% 7.9% 8.0% 8.1% 8.2% 9.0% 10.9% 12.7% 17.5%

Income $100,000 or more 6.1% 7.0% 7.2% 7.3% 7.4% 7.5% 7.7% 8.5% 10.2% 11.9% 16.5%

Notes: Median Age and The Wealth Index are defined using averages of the original Woods & Poole values for the counties in the EIA; income per capita 

calculated using personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for 

the EIA.

Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2011.
Tables Tables-27

Table 4-9

Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area TX-2 

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Total Population (in thousands) 581.75 626.81 635.42 644.27 653.22 662.24 671.29 708.03 763.95 810.43 902.92

Age Under 19 Years 29.5% 29.2% 29.4% 29.4% 29.3% 29.3% 29.3% 29.5% 29.4% 29.3% 29.1%

Age 20 to 34 18.7% 18.2% 18.1% 18.1% 18.2% 18.3% 18.3% 18.1% 18.9% 19.2% 19.9%

Age 35 to 49 22.5% 20.7% 20.3% 19.9% 19.5% 19.2% 19.0% 18.6% 17.4% 17.2% 17.7%

Age 50 to 64 17.1% 19.1% 19.4% 19.5% 19.6% 19.6% 19.5% 18.8% 17.2% 16.0% 14.9%

Age 65 and over 12.2% 12.8% 12.9% 13.1% 13.4% 13.6% 13.9% 15.0% 17.1% 18.2% 18.4%

Median Age of Population (years) 39.1 40.5 40.5 40.5 40.4 40.3 40.2 39.9 38.9 37.9 36.3

White Population (in thousands) 58.8% 54.4% 53.7% 53.1% 52.5% 52.0% 51.4% 49.0% 45.5% 42.5% 36.7%

Black Population (in thousands) 9.2% 10.1% 10.2% 10.3% 10.4% 10.4% 10.5% 10.8% 11.4% 12.0% 13.2%

Native American Population (in thousands) 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%

Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 2.3% 3.3% 3.4% 3.4% 3.5% 3.6% 3.7% 3.9% 4.3% 4.5% 4.9%

Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 29.5% 31.9% 32.4% 32.9% 33.3% 33.7% 34.2% 35.9% 38.6% 40.8% 45.0%

Male Population (in thousands) 50.2% 50.2% 50.2% 50.1% 50.1% 50.1% 50.1% 50.1% 49.9% 49.8% 49.6%

Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 287.62 303.96 303.60 307.79 312.42 317.11 321.84 341.33 372.17 399.35 457.64

Farm Employment 7.4% 6.9% 6.7% 6.6% 6.6% 6.5% 6.5% 6.3% 6.0% 5.7% 5.3%

Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0%

Mining 2.4% 3.1% 3.1% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.3% 3.4% 3.5% 3.5%

Utilities 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7%

Construction 9.6% 8.3% 7.9% 7.9% 7.9% 8.0% 8.0% 8.1% 8.2% 8.4% 8.6%

Manufacturing 9.7% 9.1% 9.4% 9.4% 9.3% 9.3% 9.2% 9.0% 8.7% 8.4% 7.8%

Wholesale Trade 2.7% 2.7% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.7% 2.6% 2.5% 2.2%

Retail Trade 11.3% 11.1% 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.3% 11.3% 11.4% 11.4%

Transportation and Warehousing 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%

Information Employment 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8%

Finance and Insurance 3.4% 4.3% 4.4% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.4%

Real Estate/Rental and Lease 3.4% 3.7% 4.1% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.4% 4.6% 4.8% 5.2%

Professional and Technical Services 3.9% 4.3% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.5% 4.5%

Management 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

Administrative and Waste Services 4.6% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.5% 4.6% 4.7% 4.8%

Educational Services 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.4% 1.5% 1.8%

Health Care and Social Assistance 7.7% 8.1% 7.9% 7.9% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.2% 8.5% 8.7% 9.1%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.2% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6%

Accommodation and Food Services 5.6% 6.3% 6.3% 6.4% 6.5% 6.5% 6.6% 6.8% 7.2% 7.6% 8.4%
Tables-28 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-9. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area TX-2 (continued).

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Other Services, Except Public Administration 6.5% 6.0% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.1% 6.1%

Federal Civilian Government 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3%

Federal Military 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3%

State and Local Government 12.9% 12.8% 12.4% 12.3% 12.2% 12.0% 11.9% 11.4% 10.7% 10.1% 9.0%

Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 10,282 10,582 10,999 11,119 11,391 11,669 11,952 13,148 15,135 16,981 21,240

Farm 3.5% 0.8% 0.8% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0%

Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5%

Mining 4.3% 4.9% 4.9% 5.1% 5.1% 5.2% 5.2% 5.5% 5.8% 6.1% 6.6%

Utilities 1.6% 1.8% 1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.8% 1.9% 2.1% 2.2% 2.6%

Construction 11.7% 10.2% 9.6% 9.8% 9.8% 9.7% 9.7% 9.5% 9.3% 9.1% 8.7%

Manufacturing 20.2% 18.9% 19.0% 19.3% 19.3% 19.3% 19.3% 19.2% 19.0% 18.8% 18.3%

Wholesale Trade 3.5% 4.0% 4.2% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.8% 3.7% 3.6% 3.4%

Retail Trade 8.1% 7.8% 7.9% 7.9% 7.9% 7.8% 7.7% 7.5% 7.2% 6.9% 6.3%

Transportation and Warehousing 3.5% 3.9% 4.0% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.4%

Information 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0%

Finance and Insurance 3.0% 3.4% 3.6% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.8% 3.8% 3.9% 4.0%

Real Estate / Rental and Lease 1.5% 1.4% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 2.0%

Professional and Technical Services 3.9% 4.4% 4.4% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.3% 4.4% 4.5% 4.7% 4.9%

Management 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4%

Administrative and Waste Services 2.5% 2.4% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.6% 2.7% 2.8% 2.9%

Educational Services 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% 1.0%

Health Care and Social Assistance 7.5% 9.2% 9.2% 8.9% 9.0% 9.0% 9.1% 9.4% 9.8% 10.1% 10.8%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6%

Accommodation and Food Services 2.2% 2.7% 2.8% 2.7% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.9% 3.1% 3.3% 3.7%

Other Services, Except Public Administration 5.2% 4.8% 4.7% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8%

Federal Civilian Government 0.9% 1.0% 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9%

Federal Military 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%

State and Local Government 13.9% 15.2% 14.6% 14.7% 14.5% 14.4% 14.3% 13.8% 13.2% 12.6% 11.6%

Total Personal Income per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 29,554 33,231 34,468 34,221 34,427 34,739 35,117 36,968 40,349 43,692 51,861

Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 78.4 86.6 87.4 87.4 87.6 87.8 88.1 89.0 90.4 91.5 93.6

Persons per Household (in number of people) 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.8

Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 81,195 92,621 95,720 94,639 94,810 95,225 95,851 100,031 109,574 119,784 145,184

Number of Households (in thousands) 211.75 224.89 228.81 232.96 237.20 241.59 245.94 261.66 281.32 295.61 322.53

Income <$10,000 (thousands of households, 2000$) 9.6% 8.2% 7.9% 7.9% 7.7% 7.6% 7.5% 6.8% 5.7% 4.9% 3.6%

Income $10,000 to $19,999 12.9% 11.1% 10.7% 10.6% 10.5% 10.3% 10.1% 9.2% 7.9% 6.8% 5.0%
Tables Tables-29

Table 4-9. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area TX-2 (continued).

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Income $20,000 to $29,999 12.9% 11.2% 10.8% 10.7% 10.5% 10.4% 10.2% 9.4% 8.0% 6.9% 5.2%

Income $30,000 to $44,999 17.5% 16.1% 15.7% 15.6% 15.4% 15.2% 15.0% 13.8% 11.8% 10.2% 7.6%

Income $45,000 to $59,999 14.3% 15.2% 15.3% 15.4% 15.4% 15.4% 15.5% 15.6% 14.5% 12.9% 9.3%

Income $60,000 to $74,999 11.2% 13.0% 13.5% 13.6% 13.8% 14.0% 14.2% 15.3% 16.8% 17.3% 15.4%

Income $75,000 to $99,999 10.9% 12.8% 13.3% 13.3% 13.5% 13.8% 14.0% 15.2% 17.9% 20.8% 26.8%

Income $100,000 or more 10.5% 12.3% 12.8% 12.9% 13.1% 13.3% 13.6% 14.7% 17.4% 20.2% 27.2%

Notes: Median Age and The Wealth Index are defined using averages of the original Woods & Poole values for the counties in the EIA; income per capita 

calculated using personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for 

the EIA.

Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2011.
Tables-30 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-10

Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area TX-3 

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Total Population (in thousands) 5,518 6,202 6,319 6,437 6,557 6,676 6,797 7,283 8,019 8,630 9,846

Age Under 19 Years 31.0% 30.4% 30.5% 30.5% 30.4% 30.4% 30.3% 30.3% 29.9% 29.6% 29.2%

Age 20 to 34 22.1% 21.8% 21.6% 21.5% 21.5% 21.5% 21.3% 20.9% 21.2% 21.3% 21.4%

Age 35 to 49 22.7% 21.3% 21.1% 20.8% 20.6% 20.4% 20.3% 20.1% 19.0% 18.6% 18.6%

Age 50 to 64 15.6% 17.4% 17.6% 17.7% 17.7% 17.7% 17.7% 17.2% 16.4% 15.9% 15.3%

Age 65 and over 8.5% 9.1% 9.2% 9.5% 9.7% 10.0% 10.3% 11.5% 13.5% 14.5% 15.5%

Median Age of Population (years) 37.3 38.2 38.3 38.4 38.4 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.6 38.3

White Population (in thousands) 46.0% 41.9% 41.2% 40.6% 39.9% 39.3% 38.7% 36.2% 32.7% 30.0% 25.2%

Black Population (in thousands) 17.6% 17.9% 17.8% 17.7% 17.6% 17.6% 17.5% 17.1% 16.6% 16.1% 15.1%

Native American Population (in thousands) 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

Asian and Pacific Islander Population 

(in thousands) 5.6% 6.3% 6.5% 6.6% 6.7% 6.8% 7.0% 7.5% 8.2% 8.8% 9.9%

Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 30.5% 33.6% 34.3% 34.9% 35.5% 36.1% 36.6% 38.9% 42.2% 44.8% 49.6%

Male Population (in thousands) 49.8% 49.8% 49.8% 49.8% 49.8% 49.7% 49.7% 49.7% 49.7% 49.6% 49.4%

Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 3,219 3,605 3,649 3,709 3,776 3,844 3,913 4,199 4,660 5,076 6,001

Farm Employment 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4%

Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

Mining 2.8% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.8% 3.7%

Utilities 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%

Construction 8.0% 7.5% 7.1% 7.2% 7.2% 7.2% 7.3% 7.4% 7.6% 7.7% 8.0%

Manufacturing 7.4% 7.1% 7.3% 7.2% 7.1% 7.0% 7.0% 6.6% 6.1% 5.7% 5.0%

Wholesale Trade 4.5% 4.4% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.4% 4.4% 4.3% 4.1% 4.0% 3.7%

Retail Trade 10.2% 9.6% 9.7% 9.6% 9.6% 9.6% 9.6% 9.5% 9.4% 9.2% 9.0%

Transportation and Warehousing 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.5% 4.7% 4.8% 5.0%

Information Employment 1.5% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9%

Finance and Insurance 4.5% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 4.9% 4.9% 4.8% 4.6% 4.5% 4.2%

Real Estate/Rental and Lease 4.1% 4.3% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.6% 4.6% 4.5%

Professional and Technical Services 7.8% 7.9% 7.9% 7.9% 7.9% 7.9% 7.9% 8.0% 8.0% 8.1% 8.1%

Management 0.6% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0%

Administrative and Waste Services 7.4% 7.1% 7.2% 7.3% 7.3% 7.4% 7.4% 7.6% 7.8% 8.0% 8.4%

Educational Services 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 1.8% 1.9% 2.1%

Health Care and Social Assistance 8.2% 8.9% 8.9% 8.9% 9.0% 9.1% 9.2% 9.6% 10.1% 10.6% 11.5%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3%

Accommodation and Food Services 6.5% 7.0% 7.0% 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 7.2% 7.4% 7.5% 7.7%
Tables Tables-31

Table 4-10. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area TX-3 (continued).

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Other Services, Except Public Administration 6.0% 5.7% 5.6% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.9% 6.1% 6.2% 6.5%

Federal Civilian Government 1.0% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.5%

Federal Military 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

State and Local Government 10.3% 9.7% 9.4% 9.3% 9.2% 9.2% 9.1% 8.8% 8.4% 8.1% 7.5%

Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 186,536 220,484 232,312 238,826 245,613 252,572 259,707 290,089 341,626 390,638 507,723

Farm 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Mining 12.3% 15.2% 15.4% 15.5% 15.6% 15.7% 15.7% 16.1% 16.5% 16.8% 17.3%

Utilities 1.6% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.2% 2.2% 2.3% 2.4% 2.5% 2.7%

Construction 8.2% 6.8% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.2% 6.1% 6.0% 5.9% 5.6%

Manufacturing 11.7% 11.3% 11.6% 11.5% 11.4% 11.3% 11.2% 10.8% 10.2% 9.7% 8.8%

Wholesale Trade 6.2% 6.1% 6.2% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 5.9% 5.7% 5.6% 5.3%

Retail Trade 5.2% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.4% 4.4% 4.3% 4.1% 3.8% 3.6% 3.2%

Transportation and Warehousing 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7%

Information 1.7% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1%

Finance and Insurance 5.5% 4.8% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.5% 4.5% 4.4% 4.3% 4.1% 3.9%

Real Estate/Rental and Lease 2.4% 1.7% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.8% 1.7%

Professional and Technical Services 10.8% 11.3% 11.4% 11.5% 11.5% 11.6% 11.7% 11.9% 12.2% 12.5% 13.0%

Management 0.6% 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.4% 1.5% 1.7%

Administrative and Waste Services 4.4% 4.1% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.4% 4.5% 4.7% 4.8% 5.2%

Educational Services 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% 1.4%

Health Care and Social Assistance 6.5% 7.1% 7.0% 7.1% 7.2% 7.2% 7.3% 7.6% 8.0% 8.4% 9.2%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

Accommodation and Food Services 2.3% 2.2% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.4% 2.4%

Other Services, Except Public Administration 3.1% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 3.0% 3.0% 3.1% 3.1%

Federal Civilian Government 1.7% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2%

Federal Military 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3%

State and Local Government 8.3% 8.3% 7.9% 7.9% 7.8% 7.8% 7.7% 7.6% 7.3% 7.1% 6.7%

Total Personal Income per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 39,184 42,898 44,457 44,442 44,669 45,041 45,509 47,897 52,489 57,178 69,012

Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index 

(U.S. = 100) 84.6 92.8 93.5 93.4 93.5 93.6 93.7 93.9 94.3 94.9 96.4

Persons per Household (in number of people) 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9
Tables-32 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-10. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area TX-3 (continued).

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Mean Household Total Personal Income 

(in 2005 dollars) 107,917 122,164 126,117 125,537 125,633 126,076 126,822 132,266 145,382 159,816 196,851

Number of Households (in thousands) 2,004 2,178 2,227 2,279 2,331 2,385 2,439 2,637 2,895 3,088 3,452

Income <$10,000 (thousands of households, 

2000$) 8.7% 7.6% 7.4% 7.3% 7.2% 7.1% 7.0% 6.4% 5.6% 5.0% 3.9%

Income $10,000 to $19,999 10.9% 9.7% 9.4% 9.3% 9.2% 9.0% 8.9% 8.2% 7.2% 6.4% 4.9%

Income $20,000 to $29,999 11.9% 10.6% 10.3% 10.2% 10.0% 9.9% 9.8% 9.0% 7.9% 7.0% 5.5%

Income $30,000 to $44,999 16.7% 15.1% 14.6% 14.5% 14.3% 14.2% 14.0% 12.9% 11.3% 10.1% 7.9%

Income $45,000 to $59,999 14.0% 14.5% 14.5% 14.4% 14.4% 14.4% 14.3% 13.7% 12.3% 10.9% 8.5%

Income $60,000 to $74,999 10.9% 12.1% 12.4% 12.5% 12.6% 12.8% 12.9% 13.8% 14.7% 14.7% 12.2%

Income $75,000 to $99,999 11.4% 12.9% 13.3% 13.5% 13.6% 13.8% 14.0% 15.1% 17.2% 19.1% 21.8%

Income $100,000 or more 15.5% 17.5% 18.1% 18.4% 18.6% 18.8% 19.1% 20.7% 23.8% 26.9% 35.3%

Notes: Median Age and The Wealth Index are defined using averages of the original Woods & Poole values for the counties in the EIA; income per capita 

calculated using personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for 

the EIA.

Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2011.
Tables Tables-33

Table 4-11

Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area LA-1 

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Total Population (in thousands) 338.48 345.97 349.09 352.34 355.65 358.98 362.34 376.06 397.01 414.37 448.81

Age Under 19 Years 29.2% 28.6% 28.6% 28.6% 28.6% 28.5% 28.6% 28.9% 28.9% 28.4% 27.3%

Age 20 to 34 21.8% 21.3% 21.1% 21.0% 20.8% 20.6% 20.3% 18.9% 18.1% 18.3% 19.5%

Age 35 to 49 21.1% 19.4% 19.1% 18.8% 18.7% 18.5% 18.5% 18.9% 19.0% 18.4% 16.9%

Age 50 to 64 16.3% 18.4% 18.7% 18.9% 19.0% 19.2% 19.2% 18.7% 17.2% 16.7% 17.6%

Age 65 and over 11.7% 12.4% 12.5% 12.8% 13.0% 13.2% 13.4% 14.6% 16.8% 18.1% 18.6%

Median Age of Population (years) 34.9 36.2 36.3 36.4 36.5 36.6 36.7 37.3 38.0 38.1 38.5

White Population (in thousands) 74.7% 74.0% 73.9% 73.9% 73.8% 73.7% 73.6% 73.2% 72.6% 72.0% 70.8%

Black Population (in thousands) 20.9% 21.0% 21.0% 21.0% 21.0% 21.0% 21.0% 21.0% 21.0% 21.1% 21.1%

Native American Population (in thousands) 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8%

Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.4% 1.6% 1.8%

Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 2.7% 3.1% 3.2% 3.2% 3.3% 3.4% 3.4% 3.7% 4.2% 4.6% 5.6%

Male Population (in thousands) 49.9% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.1% 50.1% 50.1% 50.2% 50.2%

Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 171.65 178.79 176.78 178.85 181.19 183.55 185.95 195.88 211.77 226.00 257.49

Farm Employment 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.8% 1.7% 1.6% 1.4%

Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9%

Mining 1.1% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2%

Utilities 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2%

Construction 8.7% 8.3% 8.1% 8.1% 8.1% 8.1% 8.1% 8.1% 8.1% 8.1% 8.0%

Manufacturing 6.7% 6.4% 6.6% 6.5% 6.3% 6.2% 6.0% 5.5% 4.8% 4.2% 3.3%

Wholesale Trade 2.2% 2.1% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.1% 2.1% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9%

Retail Trade 11.0% 10.5% 10.5% 10.6% 10.6% 10.6% 10.7% 10.8% 11.0% 11.1% 11.3%

Transportation and Warehousing 3.2% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9%

Information Employment 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8%

Finance and Insurance 2.5% 3.1% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.1% 3.0% 3.0% 2.8%

Real Estate/Rental and Lease 2.4% 2.8% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.0%

Professional and Technical Services 4.7% 4.3% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% 4.4% 4.6% 4.8% 5.1%

Management 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%

Administrative and Waste Services 3.8% 4.3% 4.4% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.6% 4.8% 5.0% 5.2% 5.6%

Educational Services 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1%

Health Care and Social Assistance 9.5% 10.1% 10.0% 10.2% 10.3% 10.4% 10.6% 11.1% 12.0% 12.7% 14.2%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 2.3% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1%

Accommodation and Food Services 7.9% 8.4% 8.6% 8.7% 8.8% 8.8% 8.9% 9.3% 9.9% 10.3% 11.3%
Tables-34 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-11. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area LA-1 (continued).

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Other Services, Except Public Administration 6.2% 6.3% 6.3% 6.4% 6.4% 6.5% 6.5% 6.7% 7.0% 7.2% 7.7%

Federal Civilian Government 2.1% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.7% 1.6% 1.4% 1.2%

Federal Military 5.7% 5.6% 5.5% 5.5% 5.4% 5.3% 5.3% 5.0% 4.7% 4.4% 3.9%

State and Local Government 14.0% 14.0% 13.6% 13.5% 13.4% 13.3% 13.2% 12.8% 12.2% 11.6% 10.6%

Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 6,873 7,632 7,785 7,971 8,140 8,313 8,490 9,233 10,471 11,627 14,333

Farm 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3%

Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%

Mining 1.7% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.1%

Utilities 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6%

Construction 7.6% 8.9% 8.5% 8.5% 8.4% 8.4% 8.3% 8.1% 7.8% 7.6% 7.0%

Manufacturing 14.6% 13.1% 13.6% 13.3% 13.1% 12.9% 12.6% 11.8% 10.6% 9.6% 7.8%

Wholesale Trade 2.7% 2.6% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.6%

Retail Trade 6.3% 5.6% 5.7% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.5% 5.4% 5.3% 5.1% 4.8%

Transportation and Warehousing 3.6% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.9% 2.9% 2.8% 2.7%

Information 2.6% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2%

Finance and Insurance 2.3% 2.6% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.8%

Real Estate/Rental and Lease 1.2% 1.2% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4%

Professional and Technical Services 5.4% 5.1% 5.0% 5.0% 5.1% 5.2% 5.2% 5.5% 6.0% 6.4% 7.3%

Management 1.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 1.0%

Administrative and Waste Services 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.5% 2.6% 2.8% 2.9% 3.3%

Educational Services 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%

Health Care and Social Assistance 8.7% 9.5% 9.5% 9.6% 9.8% 10.0% 10.1% 10.7% 11.7% 12.6% 14.3%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

Accommodation and Food Services 3.7% 4.0% 4.1% 4.1% 4.2% 4.2% 4.3% 4.5% 4.8% 5.1% 5.7%

Other Services, Except Public Administration 3.7% 3.5% 3.4% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.7% 3.8% 3.9% 4.2%

Federal Civilian Government 3.8% 3.5% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.2% 3.2% 3.1% 2.9% 2.8% 2.5%

Federal Military 10.6% 13.0% 13.1% 13.3% 13.3% 13.4% 13.4% 13.6% 13.8% 14.0% 14.3%

State and Local Government 13.8% 13.9% 13.1% 13.0% 12.9% 12.9% 12.8% 12.6% 12.3% 12.0% 11.4%

Total Personal Income per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 27,227 30,983 31,400 31,443 31,728 32,115 32,568 34,726 38,608 42,397 51,597

Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 69.2 81.2 80.1 80.2 80.6 81.0 81.4 82.6 84.4 85.8 88.6

Persons per Household (in number of people) 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7

Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 71,904 82,728 83,519 83,273 83,662 84,276 85,084 89,884 100,192 110,989 137,730

Number of Households (in thousands) 128.17 129.57 131.24 133.04 134.87 136.80 138.70 145.29 152.99 158.29 168.14

Income <$10,000 (thousands of households, 2000$) 12.2% 10.6% 10.4% 10.2% 10.1% 9.9% 9.8% 8.8% 7.4% 6.3% 4.6%

Income $10,000 to $19,999 15.0% 12.9% 12.7% 12.5% 12.3% 12.1% 11.9% 10.8% 9.0% 7.7% 5.6%

Income $20,000 to $29,999 13.2% 11.3% 11.1% 10.9% 10.8% 10.6% 10.4% 9.4% 7.8% 6.7% 4.8%
Tables Tables-35

Table 4-11. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area LA-1 (continued).

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Income $30,000 to $44,999 19.6% 18.4% 18.1% 17.9% 17.7% 17.4% 17.1% 15.6% 13.0% 11.1% 8.0%

Income $45,000 to $59,999 14.9% 17.6% 17.9% 18.2% 18.4% 18.6% 18.9% 20.1% 20.1% 18.0% 13.1%

Income $60,000 to $74,999 9.5% 11.1% 11.3% 11.5% 11.7% 11.9% 12.1% 13.5% 16.3% 19.1% 19.8%

Income $75,000 to $99,999 8.7% 10.2% 10.4% 10.6% 10.7% 10.9% 11.1% 12.3% 14.9% 17.6% 25.1%

Income $100,000 or more 6.8% 8.0% 8.1% 8.2% 8.4% 8.5% 8.6% 9.6% 11.5% 13.6% 19.1%

Notes: Median Age and The Wealth Index are defined using averages of the original Woods & Poole values for the parishes in the EIA; income per capita 

calculated using personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for 

the EIA.

Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2011.
Tables-36 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-12

Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area LA-2 

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Total Population (in thousands) 558.42 584.86 591.72 598.82 606.02 613.28 620.58 650.33 695.86 733.82 809.68

Age Under 19 Years 30.2% 29.1% 28.9% 28.8% 28.8% 28.7% 28.8% 28.9% 28.9% 28.4% 27.3%

Age 20 to 34 20.5% 21.0% 21.1% 21.1% 21.0% 20.9% 20.6% 19.4% 18.0% 17.9% 19.0%

Age 35 to 49 21.9% 19.6% 19.2% 18.8% 18.5% 18.4% 18.3% 18.6% 19.8% 19.6% 17.7%

Age 50 to 64 16.1% 18.5% 18.9% 19.1% 19.3% 19.4% 19.4% 19.0% 16.9% 16.2% 18.0%

Age 65 and over 11.4% 11.8% 11.9% 12.2% 12.4% 12.6% 12.9% 14.0% 16.4% 17.9% 18.1%

Median Age of Population (years) 35.1 35.7 35.8 35.8 35.9 36.0 36.2 36.9 37.8 38.5 38.7

White Population (in thousands) 69.1% 68.0% 67.8% 67.6% 67.5% 67.3% 67.2% 66.5% 65.4% 64.5% 62.6%

Black Population (in thousands) 27.5% 27.7% 27.7% 27.8% 27.8% 27.9% 27.9% 28.1% 28.5% 28.7% 29.3%

Native American Population (in thousands) 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.4% 1.5% 1.6% 1.8%

Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 2.0% 2.8% 2.9% 3.0% 3.1% 3.2% 3.3% 3.6% 4.2% 4.8% 6.1%

Male Population (in thousands) 48.7% 48.8% 48.8% 48.9% 48.9% 48.9% 49.0% 49.1% 49.3% 49.3% 49.5%

Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 297.51 326.06 323.47 328.23 333.53 338.91 344.32 366.60 401.84 432.94 500.08

Farm Employment 1.9% 1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.4% 1.3% 1.2%

Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

Mining 6.9% 8.3% 8.2% 8.2% 8.1% 8.0% 7.9% 7.6% 7.1% 6.6% 5.7%

Utilities 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2%

Construction 6.7% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.2% 6.1% 6.0% 5.9%

Manufacturing 6.1% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.5% 5.5% 5.4% 5.2% 4.9% 4.6% 4.2%

Wholesale Trade 3.7% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.5% 3.5%

Retail Trade 11.5% 10.8% 10.9% 10.9% 10.9% 11.0% 11.0% 11.1% 11.2% 11.3% 11.5%

Transportation and Warehousing 3.5% 3.0% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 3.0% 3.0% 3.1%

Information Employment 1.5% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1%

Finance and Insurance 3.4% 3.6% 3.7% 3.7% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.5% 3.3% 3.1% 2.9%

Real Estate/Rental and Lease 4.0% 4.5% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 4.8%

Professional and Technical Services 4.7% 5.3% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.6% 5.6%

Management 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2%

Administrative and Waste Services 4.6% 4.5% 4.4% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.6% 4.7% 4.9% 5.1% 5.4%

Educational Services 1.2% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.4% 1.5% 1.6%

Health Care and Social Assistance 11.2% 11.7% 11.7% 11.8% 11.9% 12.0% 12.1% 12.5% 13.2% 13.8% 14.9%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.5% 1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.9% 1.9% 2.0%

Accommodation and Food Services 6.4% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5%
Tables Tables-37

Table 4-12. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area LA-2 (continued).

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Other Services, Except Public Administration 7.0% 6.9% 6.7% 6.8% 6.9% 6.9% 7.0% 7.2% 7.6% 7.9% 8.6%

Federal Civilian Government 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4%

Federal Military 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5%

State and Local Government 10.8% 10.3% 9.9% 9.9% 9.8% 9.8% 9.8% 9.6% 9.3% 9.1% 8.7%

Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 11,484 13,312 13,615 13,889 14,240 14,598 14,964 16,506 19,069 21,453 26,985

Farm 0.8% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.8%

Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

Mining 13.7% 16.0% 16.3% 16.2% 16.1% 16.0% 15.8% 15.3% 14.5% 13.7% 12.2%

Utilities 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4%

Construction 7.1% 6.7% 6.8% 6.6% 6.6% 6.5% 6.5% 6.2% 5.9% 5.6% 5.1%

Manufacturing 7.5% 7.4% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.2% 7.2% 7.1% 7.0% 6.7%

Wholesale Trade 4.7% 4.5% 4.4% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.7%

Retail Trade 7.9% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 6.9% 6.9% 6.7% 6.4% 6.2% 5.8%

Transportation and Warehousing 4.6% 3.8% 3.7% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5%

Information 1.7% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.4% 1.4%

Finance and Insurance 4.1% 3.0% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.1% 2.9% 2.8% 2.6%

Real Estate/Rental and Lease 3.5% 3.2% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.4%

Professional and Technical Services 6.0% 6.5% 6.7% 6.7% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 7.0% 7.2% 7.4% 7.8%

Management 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.8% 1.9% 2.0% 2.2% 2.4%

Administrative and Waste Services 3.1% 3.2% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.4% 3.4% 3.6% 3.9% 4.1% 4.6%

Educational Services 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0% 1.1%

Health Care and Social Assistance 11.3% 11.6% 11.4% 11.6% 11.8% 11.9% 12.0% 12.5% 13.2% 13.8% 15.1%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7%

Accommodation and Food Services 2.5% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7%

Other Services, Except Public Administration 4.5% 4.4% 4.3% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.5% 4.6% 4.9% 5.1% 5.5%

Federal Civilian Government 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%

Federal Military 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%

State and Local Government 11.3% 11.9% 11.5% 11.5% 11.5% 11.5% 11.5% 11.5% 11.5% 11.5% 11.5%

Total Personal Income per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 28,507 33,562 34,279 34,171 34,409 34,764 35,193 37,276 41,041 44,716 53,577

Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 72.9 84.6 84.0 83.8 83.9 84.0 84.1 84.2 84.3 84.2 84.1

Persons per Household (in number of people) 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.6

Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 74,766 88,125 89,674 89,017 89,252 89,749 90,459 94,958 104,880 115,331 141,051

Number of Households (in thousands) 212.92 222.74 226.19 229.87 233.64 237.56 241.44 255.29 272.30 284.51 307.55

Income <$10,000 (thousands of households, 2000$) 15.8% 13.4% 13.1% 13.0% 12.8% 12.6% 12.4% 11.2% 9.3% 7.9% 5.7%

Income $10,000 to $19,999 15.2% 13.0% 12.7% 12.6% 12.4% 12.2% 12.0% 10.9% 9.1% 7.8% 5.7%
Tables-38 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-12. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area LA-2 (continued).

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Income $20,000 to $29,999 13.0% 11.3% 11.0% 10.9% 10.7% 10.6% 10.4% 9.4% 7.9% 6.8% 4.9%

Income $30,000 to $44,999 18.3% 18.3% 18.1% 18.0% 17.9% 17.8% 17.7% 16.6% 14.1% 12.1% 8.7%

Income $45,000 to $59,999 14.0% 16.4% 16.7% 16.9% 17.1% 17.3% 17.5% 18.7% 19.8% 19.1% 14.8%

Income $60,000 to $74,999 9.1% 10.6% 10.9% 11.0% 11.2% 11.4% 11.5% 12.7% 15.3% 17.7% 20.5%

Income $75,000 to $99,999 7.4% 8.7% 8.9% 9.1% 9.2% 9.3% 9.5% 10.4% 12.6% 14.7% 20.5%

Income $100,000 or more 7.1% 8.3% 8.5% 8.6% 8.7% 8.8% 9.0% 9.9% 11.9% 13.9% 19.3%

Notes: Median Age and The Wealth Index are defined using averages of the original Woods & Poole values for the parishes in the EIA; income per capita 

calculated using personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for 

the EIA.

Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2011.
Tables Tables-39

Table 4-13

Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area LA-3 

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Total Population (in thousands) 1,051.06 1,142.20 1,152.19 1,162.61 1,173.21 1,183.90 1,194.65 1,238.45 1,305.17 1,360.25 1,468.98

Age Under 19 Years 29.1% 28.5% 28.2% 28.2% 28.1% 28.1% 28.1% 28.2% 28.3% 27.9% 27.2%

Age 20 to 34 22.6% 22.6% 22.7% 22.6% 22.5% 22.3% 22.1% 20.5% 19.2% 19.2% 20.3%

Age 35 to 49 21.7% 19.7% 19.4% 19.1% 18.9% 18.7% 18.6% 19.2% 20.0% 19.7% 17.5%

Age 50 to 64 16.4% 18.3% 18.6% 18.6% 18.7% 18.8% 18.8% 18.3% 16.7% 16.0% 17.8%

Age 65 and over 10.2% 11.0% 11.2% 11.5% 11.8% 12.1% 12.4% 13.7% 15.8% 17.1% 17.3%

Median Age of Population (years) 34.8 35.7 35.8 35.9 36.0 36.1 36.3 37.1 38.3 39.0 39.2

White Population (in thousands) 65.2% 62.6% 62.3% 62.0% 61.7% 61.4% 61.1% 59.8% 58.0% 56.3% 53.0%

Black Population (in thousands) 29.7% 31.0% 31.2% 31.3% 31.5% 31.6% 31.8% 32.3% 33.1% 33.7% 34.7%

Native American Population (in thousands) 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2%

Asian and Pacific Islander Population 

(in thousands) 1.4% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.8% 1.9% 2.1% 2.3% 2.7%

Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 2.6% 3.7% 3.8% 3.9% 4.1% 4.2% 4.3% 4.8% 5.7% 6.5% 8.4%

Male Population (in thousands) 48.7% 48.8% 48.9% 48.9% 48.9% 48.9% 48.9% 49.0% 49.1% 49.2% 49.3%

Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 606.81 667.39 662.76 671.33 680.95 690.70 700.56 741.18 805.80 863.29 989.11

Farm Employment 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4%

Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%

Mining 1.5% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.6% 1.4% 1.1%

Utilities 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%

Construction 9.8% 9.2% 9.3% 9.3% 9.2% 9.2% 9.2% 9.0% 8.7% 8.4% 7.9%

Manufacturing 6.8% 6.4% 6.7% 6.6% 6.5% 6.4% 6.3% 5.9% 5.4% 4.9% 4.1%

Wholesale Trade 3.2% 2.9% 2.9% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.7% 2.6% 2.5%

Retail Trade 10.9% 10.3% 10.5% 10.5% 10.4% 10.4% 10.3% 10.1% 9.8% 9.5% 8.9%

Transportation and Warehousing 4.4% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.6%

Information Employment 1.4% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9%

Finance and Insurance 3.5% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.7% 3.6% 3.5% 3.3%

Real Estate/Rental and Lease 3.6% 4.3% 4.6% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.8% 5.0% 5.1% 5.3%

Professional and Technical Services 4.8% 5.2% 5.1% 5.1% 5.1% 5.1% 5.1% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2%

Management 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9%

Administrative and Waste Services 5.8% 5.9% 6.0% 6.1% 6.2% 6.3% 6.4% 6.8% 7.5% 8.0% 9.2%

Educational Services 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.4% 1.5% 1.7% 1.9%

Health Care and Social Assistance 8.8% 9.6% 9.6% 9.7% 9.8% 9.9% 10.0% 10.4% 10.9% 11.4% 12.4%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.3% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7%
Tables-40 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-13. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area LA-3 (continued).

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Accommodation and Food Services 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.9% 7.1% 7.3% 7.7%

Other Services, Except Public Administration 6.7% 6.7% 6.5% 6.6% 6.6% 6.7% 6.8% 7.0% 7.5% 7.8% 8.6%

Federal Civilian Government 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%

Federal Military 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5%

State and Local Government 15.6% 14.4% 13.8% 13.7% 13.6% 13.5% 13.4% 13.1% 12.6% 12.2% 11.3%

Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 24,056 28,491 29,000 29,611 30,272 30,947 31,635 34,526 39,312 43,749 54,019

Farm 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

Mining 2.6% 3.4% 3.5% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.5% 3.4% 3.2% 3.0% 2.6%

Utilities 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5%

Construction 10.3% 11.2% 11.6% 11.5% 11.4% 11.3% 11.2% 10.7% 10.0% 9.4% 8.4%

Manufacturing 12.4% 11.7% 12.1% 12.1% 12.0% 11.9% 11.8% 11.4% 10.7% 10.1% 9.0%

Wholesale Trade 4.4% 3.9% 3.9% 3.8% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.8%

Retail Trade 7.2% 6.3% 6.5% 6.4% 6.3% 6.2% 6.2% 5.9% 5.4% 5.1% 4.4%

Transportation and Warehousing 6.0% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.7% 6.5%

Information 1.7% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.3%

Finance and Insurance 4.3% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.6%

Real Estate/Rental and Lease 2.1% 1.9% 2.1% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.3% 2.3%

Professional and Technical Services 6.0% 6.6% 6.5% 6.5% 6.6% 6.6% 6.7% 6.9% 7.2% 7.4% 7.8%

Management 1.4% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 1.9%

Administrative and Waste Services 3.5% 4.0% 4.3% 4.3% 4.4% 4.5% 4.5% 4.9% 5.6% 6.1% 7.3%

Educational Services 0.6% 0.7% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% 0.9% 1.0% 1.2%

Health Care and Social Assistance 9.2% 9.5% 9.3% 9.4% 9.6% 9.7% 9.8% 10.3% 11.0% 11.6% 12.9%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%

Accommodation and Food Services 2.7% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.6% 2.7% 2.8% 3.0%

Other Services, Except Public Administration 4.1% 3.9% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.9% 3.9% 4.1% 4.3% 4.5% 5.0%

Federal Civilian Government 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3%

Federal Military 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9%

State and Local Government 17.5% 17.0% 16.1% 16.1% 16.1% 16.1% 16.1% 16.0% 15.8% 15.7% 15.4%

Total Personal Income per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 30,406 34,392 35,095 34,955 35,161 35,491 35,898 37,912 41,589 45,186 53,839

Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index 

(U.S. = 100) 78.2 88.8 88.3 88.2 88.4 88.6 88.8 89.3 89.8 90.0 89.7

Persons per Household (in number of people) 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7
Tables Tables-41

Table 4-13. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area LA-3 (continued).

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Mean Household Total Personal Income 

(in 2005 dollars) 81,039 92,128 93,644 92,854 92,978 93,385 94,022 98,318 108,048 118,351 143,639

Number of Households (in thousands) 394.36 426.39 431.80 437.66 443.66 449.93 456.12 477.56 502.38 519.34 550.61

Income <$10,000 (thousands of households, 

2000$) 12.5% 10.9% 10.7% 10.6% 10.4% 10.3% 10.1% 9.2% 7.7% 6.7% 4.7%

Income $10,000 to $19,999 13.3% 11.7% 11.4% 11.3% 11.1% 11.0% 10.8% 9.9% 8.3% 7.2% 5.1%

Income $20,000 to $29,999 12.2% 10.7% 10.5% 10.4% 10.2% 10.1% 9.9% 9.1% 7.7% 6.7% 4.7%

Income $30,000 to $44,999 17.6% 16.1% 15.9% 15.7% 15.6% 15.4% 15.2% 14.0% 11.8% 10.3% 7.2%

Income $45,000 to $59,999 14.6% 16.4% 16.7% 16.8% 16.9% 17.1% 17.2% 17.6% 16.8% 15.1% 10.7%

Income $60,000 to $74,999 11.0% 12.7% 13.0% 13.1% 13.3% 13.5% 13.8% 15.2% 17.9% 19.7% 18.7%

Income $75,000 to $99,999 9.9% 11.3% 11.6% 11.7% 11.9% 12.0% 12.2% 13.4% 16.0% 18.6% 26.6%

Income $100,000 or more 9.0% 10.1% 10.3% 10.4% 10.5% 10.7% 10.8% 11.7% 13.7% 15.7% 22.3%

Notes: Median Age and The Wealth Index are defined using averages of the original Woods & Poole values for the parishes in the EIA; income per capita 

calculated using personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for 

the EIA.

Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2011.
Tables-42 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-14

Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area LA-4 

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Total Population (in thousands) 1,431 1,242 1,248 1,254 1,261 1,267 1,274 1,301 1,344 1,379 1,449

Age Under 19 Years 28.5% 26.2% 26.0% 26.0% 26.0% 25.9% 26.0% 26.3% 26.4% 26.0% 25.4%

Age 20 to 34 20.8% 21.3% 21.3% 21.3% 21.1% 20.9% 20.6% 19.0% 17.2% 17.3% 18.6%

Age 35 to 49 21.9% 20.2% 19.8% 19.4% 19.2% 19.1% 19.0% 19.6% 20.7% 20.3% 17.6%

Age 50 to 64 17.3% 20.2% 20.5% 20.6% 20.6% 20.7% 20.7% 19.9% 17.9% 17.2% 19.2%

Age 65 and over 11.5% 12.3% 12.4% 12.7% 13.1% 13.4% 13.7% 15.3% 17.8% 19.2% 19.4%

Median Age of Population (years) 35.8 36.7 36.8 36.9 37.0 37.1 37.2 37.9 39.2 39.9 39.7

White Population (in thousands) 53.6% 55.0% 54.8% 54.6% 54.5% 54.3% 54.1% 53.3% 52.0% 50.9% 48.4%

Black Population (in thousands) 38.1% 34.5% 34.4% 34.3% 34.3% 34.2% 34.2% 34.0% 33.6% 33.3% 32.6%

Native American Population (in thousands) 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%

Asian and Pacific Islander Population 

(in thousands) 2.4% 2.6% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.8% 2.8% 2.9% 3.1% 3.3% 3.4%

Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 5.5% 7.5% 7.7% 7.9% 8.2% 8.4% 8.6% 9.4% 10.8% 12.2% 15.2%

Male Population (in thousands) 48.2% 48.7% 48.8% 48.8% 48.8% 48.9% 48.9% 49.1% 49.3% 49.3% 49.5%

Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 740.50 739.02 736.37 741.28 747.23 753.21 759.21 783.50 820.83 852.92 920.39

Farm Employment 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

Mining 1.3% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1%

Utilities 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2%

Construction 6.2% 6.4% 6.3% 6.3% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.1% 6.0% 5.8%

Manufacturing 5.6% 5.3% 5.4% 5.3% 5.1% 5.0% 4.9% 4.5% 3.9% 3.5% 2.7%

Wholesale Trade 3.6% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3%

Retail Trade 10.0% 9.6% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.3% 9.3% 9.1%

Transportation and Warehousing 4.1% 4.1% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2%

Information Employment 1.6% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9%

Finance and Insurance 3.9% 4.1% 4.2% 4.2% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.0% 3.8% 3.7% 3.4%

Real Estate/Rental and Lease 4.0% 4.6% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.1% 5.1% 5.2% 5.4%

Professional and Technical Services 5.7% 6.7% 6.9% 6.9% 6.9% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.1% 7.2% 7.3%

Management 1.1% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0%

Administrative and Waste Services 6.4% 6.3% 6.4% 6.4% 6.5% 6.6% 6.7% 7.0% 7.5% 7.9% 8.9%

Educational Services 3.1% 3.2% 3.1% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.3% 3.5% 3.6% 3.9%

Health Care and Social Assistance 8.8% 9.2% 9.3% 9.3% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.5% 9.6% 9.7% 9.8%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 2.5% 2.4% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2%

Accommodation and Food Services 8.8% 9.4% 9.6% 9.6% 9.7% 9.7% 9.8% 10.0% 10.2% 10.5% 10.9%
Tables Tables-43

Table 4-14. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area LA-4 (continued).

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Other Services, Except Public Administration 6.5% 6.4% 6.3% 6.3% 6.4% 6.5% 6.5% 6.8% 7.2% 7.5% 8.1%

Federal Civilian Government 2.1% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.5%

Federal Military 1.4% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9%

State and Local Government 11.9% 11.1% 10.7% 10.6% 10.6% 10.5% 10.5% 10.2% 9.8% 9.5% 8.8%

Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 33,666 35,386 36,299 36,886 37,499 38,120 38,749 41,359 45,564 49,364 57,886

Farm 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Mining 4.4% 5.3% 5.4% 5.3% 5.2% 5.2% 5.1% 4.9% 4.6% 4.3% 3.8%

Utilities 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.7%

Construction 6.5% 5.9% 5.6% 5.6% 5.5% 5.5% 5.4% 5.2% 5.0% 4.7% 4.3%

Manufacturing 8.6% 8.8% 8.9% 8.7% 8.6% 8.4% 8.3% 7.8% 7.0% 6.4% 5.3%

Wholesale Trade 5.3% 5.0% 4.9% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.1% 5.1% 5.2% 5.3% 5.5%

Retail Trade 6.2% 5.5% 5.4% 5.4% 5.3% 5.3% 5.2% 5.0% 4.8% 4.5% 4.1%

Transportation and Warehousing 5.1% 5.5% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.5% 5.5% 5.4% 5.3% 5.2% 5.0%

Information 1.7% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4%

Finance and Insurance 5.1% 4.6% 4.8% 4.9% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.7% 4.6% 4.4% 4.2%

Real Estate/Rental and Lease 2.6% 1.5% 1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.8%

Professional and Technical Services 8.0% 9.7% 10.1% 10.2% 10.3% 10.4% 10.5% 10.8% 11.3% 11.6% 12.4%

Management 1.8% 1.8% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.1% 2.1% 2.2%

Administrative and Waste Services 4.0% 3.9% 3.8% 4.0% 4.0% 4.1% 4.2% 4.5% 4.9% 5.3% 6.3%

Educational Services 2.2% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.7% 2.9% 3.0% 3.4%

Health Care and Social Assistance 8.7% 9.8% 10.0% 10.0% 10.1% 10.1% 10.2% 10.4% 10.7% 10.9% 11.2%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 2.1% 1.8% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6%

Accommodation and Food Services 4.4% 4.8% 4.9% 4.9% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.2% 5.4% 5.5% 5.8%

Other Services, Except Public Administration 3.7% 3.8% 3.7% 3.8% 3.8% 3.9% 3.9% 4.1% 4.3% 4.5% 4.8%

Federal Civilian Government 4.2% 3.6% 3.4% 3.4% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.6% 3.7% 3.8% 3.9%

Federal Military 1.8% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.8% 1.9% 2.0%

State and Local Government 12.1% 12.0% 11.3% 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.1% 11.0% 10.7% 10.5% 10.0%

Total Personal Income per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 31,461 39,542 40,370 40,549 40,793 41,194 41,690 44,148 48,623 52,995 63,504

Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index

(U.S. = 100) 77.3 94.4 93.4 93.2 93.3 93.3 93.3 93.2 92.9 92.4 90.8

Persons per Household (in number of people) 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6
Tables-44 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-14. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area LA-4 (continued).

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Mean Household Total Personal Income 

(in 2005 dollars) 84,130 101,676 103,420 103,452 103,642 104,176 104,983 110,217 121,818 134,024 163,930

Number of Households (in thousands) 535.25 483.19 487.22 491.67 496.25 501.14 505.92 521.30 536.46 545.36 561.22

Income <$10,000 (thousands of households, 

2000$) 12.9% 10.4% 10.2% 10.1% 9.9% 9.8% 9.6% 8.8% 7.4% 6.4% 4.7%

Income $10,000 to $19,999 13.7% 11.3% 11.1% 10.9% 10.8% 10.6% 10.5% 9.7% 8.2% 7.1% 5.3%

Income $20,000 to $29,999 13.0% 10.8% 10.6% 10.5% 10.4% 10.2% 10.1% 9.3% 8.0% 7.0% 5.2%

Income $30,000 to $44,999 17.6% 14.8% 14.7% 14.5% 14.4% 14.3% 14.2% 13.2% 11.4% 9.9% 7.4%

Income $45,000 to $59,999 13.6% 15.4% 15.5% 15.5% 15.5% 15.5% 15.5% 15.2% 14.3% 12.9% 9.8%

Income $60,000 to $74,999 10.0% 12.2% 12.4% 12.6% 12.8% 12.9% 13.1% 14.1% 15.8% 16.0% 14.1%

Income $75,000 to $99,999 9.2% 11.7% 11.9% 12.1% 12.3% 12.4% 12.6% 13.8% 16.3% 19.0% 23.5%

Income $100,000 or more 10.1% 13.3% 13.6% 13.8% 14.0% 14.2% 14.4% 15.8% 18.6% 21.7% 29.9%

Notes: Median Age and The Wealth Index are defined using averages of the original Woods & Poole values for the parishes in the EIA; income per capita 

calculated using personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for 

the EIA.

Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2011.
Tables Tables-45

Table 4-15

Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area MS-1 

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Total Population (in thousands) 483.49 482.25 484.98 487.89 490.88 493.92 496.99 509.64 529.13 545.25 577.12

Age Under 19 Years 28.3% 27.7% 27.5% 27.4% 27.4% 27.4% 27.4% 27.7% 27.7% 27.3% 26.6%

Age 20 to 34 20.3% 19.9% 20.0% 20.0% 19.9% 19.7% 19.5% 18.5% 17.8% 17.7% 18.8%

Age 35 to 49 22.0% 20.4% 20.1% 19.8% 19.5% 19.3% 19.1% 19.2% 19.3% 19.1% 17.7%

Age 50 to 64 17.4% 19.3% 19.6% 19.6% 19.7% 19.9% 19.9% 19.5% 18.2% 17.4% 18.0%

Age 65 and over 11.9% 12.6% 12.8% 13.2% 13.5% 13.8% 14.1% 15.1% 17.1% 18.5% 19.0%

Median Age of Population (years) 36.1 37.3 37.4 37.6 37.7 37.8 37.9 38.3 38.8 39.5 39.5

White Population (in thousands) 75.8% 74.4% 74.2% 74.0% 73.8% 73.6% 73.4% 72.6% 71.4% 70.4% 68.4%

Black Population (in thousands) 18.8% 19.0% 19.1% 19.2% 19.3% 19.4% 19.4% 19.8% 20.4% 20.8% 21.5%

Native American Population (in thousands) 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3%

Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.1% 2.1% 2.2% 2.2%

Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 3.0% 4.2% 4.3% 4.4% 4.5% 4.6% 4.7% 5.1% 5.7% 6.3% 7.6%

Male Population (in thousands) 49.7% 49.9% 49.9% 49.9% 49.9% 49.9% 49.9% 49.8% 49.8% 49.8% 49.7%

Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 238.83 247.21 251.36 253.67 256.30 258.98 261.68 272.70 290.05 305.32 338.26

Farm Employment 1.4% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0%

Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%

Mining 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

Utilities 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%

Construction 7.5% 8.5% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.3% 8.1% 8.0% 7.7%

Manufacturing 9.5% 9.7% 10.2% 10.0% 9.8% 9.6% 9.4% 8.6% 7.6% 6.8% 5.4%

Wholesale Trade 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2%

Retail Trade 10.9% 10.2% 10.1% 10.1% 10.1% 10.1% 10.1% 10.1% 10.1% 10.1% 10.0%

Transportation and Warehousing 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%

Information Employment 1.4% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9%

Finance and Insurance 2.5% 3.0% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.8%

Real Estate/Rental and Lease 3.1% 3.5% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.9% 3.9% 4.1% 4.1% 4.3%

Professional and Technical Services 3.8% 4.2% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.5% 4.5% 4.7% 4.9% 5.1% 5.5%

Management 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3%

Administrative and Waste Services 5.4% 6.4% 6.7% 6.8% 6.9% 7.0% 7.1% 7.5% 8.2% 8.7% 9.9%

Educational Services 0.5% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 1.9%

Health Care and Social Assistance 6.2% 6.4% 6.3% 6.4% 6.5% 6.5% 6.6% 6.9% 7.4% 7.7% 8.5%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 2.2% 2.1% 1.8% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 2.0% 2.0% 2.1%

Accommodation and Food Services 12.1% 10.2% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 9.9% 9.9% 9.7% 9.5% 9.2% 8.8%
Tables-46 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-15. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area MS-1 (continued).

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Other Services, Except Public Administration 5.5% 5.1% 5.0% 5.0% 5.1% 5.1% 5.2% 5.4% 5.8% 6.1% 6.7%

Federal Civilian Government 3.9% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.7% 3.7% 3.6% 3.4% 3.3% 3.0%

Federal Military 5.7% 5.2% 5.1% 5.0% 5.0% 4.9% 4.9% 4.7% 4.5% 4.3% 3.9%

State and Local Government 12.3% 12.9% 12.8% 12.8% 12.8% 12.8% 12.7% 12.7% 12.6% 12.6% 12.3%

Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 9,320 10,054 10,011 10,262 10,463 10,667 10,874 11,742 13,163 14,469 17,460

Farm 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1%

Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

Mining 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3%

Utilities 2.1% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%

Construction 6.0% 6.6% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.4% 6.3% 6.1% 5.7% 5.5% 4.9%

Manufacturing 15.4% 17.2% 18.0% 17.6% 17.4% 17.2% 17.0% 16.1% 14.9% 13.9% 12.0%

Wholesale Trade 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6%

Retail Trade 7.0% 6.1% 6.0% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.8% 5.6% 5.3% 5.1% 4.6%

Transportation and Warehousing 2.3% 2.2% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2%

Information 1.4% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%

Finance and Insurance 2.2% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%

Real Estate/Rental and Lease 1.0% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0%

Professional and Technical Services 4.6% 5.7% 6.0% 6.0% 6.1% 6.2% 6.3% 6.6% 7.1% 7.6% 8.6%

Management 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8%

Administrative and Waste Services 3.1% 3.5% 3.6% 3.6% 3.7% 3.8% 3.8% 4.1% 4.5% 4.9% 5.7%

Educational Services 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 1.1%

Health Care and Social Assistance 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.8% 6.8% 6.9% 7.0% 7.4% 7.9% 8.4% 9.4%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.5% 1.0% 0.8% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1%

Accommodation and Food Services 8.0% 5.8% 5.7% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.5% 5.4% 5.2% 5.0%

Other Services, Except Public Administration 3.3% 3.0% 2.9% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.1% 3.2% 3.4% 3.5% 3.8%

Federal Civilian Government 8.4% 8.4% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 7.9% 7.8% 7.7% 7.6%

Federal Military 10.2% 9.6% 9.5% 9.6% 9.6% 9.6% 9.6% 9.7% 9.7% 9.7% 9.8%

State and Local Government 13.2% 14.7% 14.5% 14.4% 14.5% 14.5% 14.5% 14.7% 14.8% 15.0% 15.1%

Total Personal Income per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 27,439 30,299 30,763 30,916 31,102 31,401 31,771 33,599 36,930 40,183 47,993

Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 67.8 74.3 73.8 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 73.9 73.7 73.4 72.8

Persons per Household (in number of people) 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7

Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 72,261 80,860 81,772 81,818 81,940 82,321 82,911 86,829 95,620 104,891 127,583

Number of Households (in thousands) 183.59 180.70 182.45 184.36 186.32 188.40 190.44 197.21 204.36 208.88 217.10

Income <$10,000 (thousands of households, 2000$) 10.9% 9.6% 9.3% 9.2% 9.1% 8.9% 8.8% 8.0% 6.7% 5.7% 4.1%

Income $10,000 to $19,999 13.3% 11.7% 11.4% 11.2% 11.1% 10.9% 10.8% 9.8% 8.2% 7.0% 5.1%

Income $20,000 to $29,999 13.9% 12.1% 11.8% 11.6% 11.4% 11.3% 11.1% 10.1% 8.4% 7.2% 5.2%
Tables Tables-47

Table 4-15. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area MS-1 (continued).

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Income $30,000 to $44,999 20.5% 18.9% 18.6% 18.4% 18.2% 17.9% 17.7% 16.2% 13.5% 11.5% 8.3%

Income $45,000 to $59,999 15.7% 18.0% 18.3% 18.6% 18.8% 19.0% 19.2% 20.2% 20.1% 18.4% 13.5%

Income $60,000 to $74,999 10.2% 11.9% 12.2% 12.4% 12.6% 12.8% 12.9% 14.3% 17.2% 19.9% 21.2%

Income $75,000 to $99,999 8.5% 9.9% 10.1% 10.3% 10.4% 10.6% 10.7% 11.8% 14.3% 16.8% 23.6%

Income $100,000 or more 6.9% 8.0% 8.2% 8.3% 8.5% 8.6% 8.7% 9.6% 11.5% 13.6% 19.0%

Notes: Median Age and The Wealth Index are defined using averages of the original Woods & Poole values for the counties in the EIA; income per capita 

calculated using personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for 

the EIA.

Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2011.
Tables-48 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-16

Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area AL-1 

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Total Population (in thousands) 692.65 725.94 731.91 738.17 744.54 750.98 757.47 783.98 824.55 858.15 924.76

Age Under 19 Years 28.1% 27.2% 27.0% 26.8% 26.7% 26.6% 26.5% 26.4% 26.1% 25.7% 24.8%

Age 20 to 34 18.9% 18.6% 18.6% 18.7% 18.6% 18.5% 18.4% 17.6% 16.9% 16.5% 17.0%

Age 35 to 49 21.4% 19.8% 19.5% 19.2% 19.0% 18.8% 18.6% 18.6% 18.6% 18.6% 17.6%

Age 50 to 64 18.2% 20.0% 20.3% 20.3% 20.4% 20.4% 20.4% 19.8% 18.4% 17.6% 18.2%

Age 65 and over 13.4% 14.4% 14.6% 15.0% 15.4% 15.7% 16.1% 17.5% 20.0% 21.5% 22.4%

Median Age of Population (years) 38.0 39.8 40.1 40.3 40.5 40.6 40.8 41.4 42.5 43.2 44.3

White Population (in thousands) 66.3% 65.4% 65.3% 65.2% 65.1% 65.0% 64.9% 64.4% 63.6% 62.9% 61.7%

Black Population (in thousands) 29.7% 29.5% 29.5% 29.5% 29.6% 29.6% 29.6% 29.7% 29.9% 30.1% 30.2%

Native American Population (in thousands) 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2%

Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 1.2% 1.3% 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.5% 1.6% 1.7% 2.0%

Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 1.8% 2.7% 2.8% 2.8% 2.9% 2.9% 3.0% 3.2% 3.7% 4.1% 5.0%

Male Population (in thousands) 48.3% 48.5% 48.5% 48.5% 48.5% 48.5% 48.5% 48.6% 48.7% 48.7% 48.7%

Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 363.84 369.87 373.47 378.59 384.36 390.18 396.12 420.72 460.50 496.54 577.46

Farm Employment 1.4% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 0.9%

Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7%

Mining 0.3% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4%

Utilities 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3%

Construction 8.5% 7.8% 7.2% 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 7.0% 6.8% 6.6% 6.3%

Manufacturing 8.7% 7.1% 7.0% 6.9% 6.8% 6.6% 6.5% 5.9% 5.2% 4.6% 3.7%

Wholesale Trade 3.5% 3.3% 3.4% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.1% 3.0% 2.8% 2.5%

Retail Trade 12.4% 11.8% 11.9% 11.9% 11.8% 11.7% 11.7% 11.4% 11.1% 10.7% 10.0%

Transportation and Warehousing 3.7% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.4% 3.2% 3.1% 2.8%

Information Employment 1.3% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8%

Finance and Insurance 3.4% 4.2% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.5% 4.6% 4.7% 4.8% 4.9%

Real Estate/Rental and Lease 4.4% 4.7% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.7% 4.6%

Professional and Technical Services 4.4% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.8% 4.9% 5.0% 5.1%

Management 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%

Administrative and Waste Services 6.4% 6.9% 7.2% 7.3% 7.4% 7.5% 7.6% 8.1% 8.8% 9.5% 10.8%

Educational Services 1.4% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 1.9% 2.0% 2.1% 2.4%

Health Care and Social Assistance 8.5% 9.2% 9.2% 9.3% 9.4% 9.5% 9.6% 10.0% 10.6% 11.1% 12.1%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2%

Accommodation and Food Services 6.8% 7.6% 7.8% 7.9% 8.0% 8.0% 8.1% 8.4% 8.8% 9.1% 9.8%
Tables Tables-49

Table 4-16. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area AL-1 (continued).

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Other Services, Except Public Administration 7.7% 8.0% 8.0% 8.1% 8.1% 8.2% 8.3% 8.5% 8.9% 9.1% 9.7%

Federal Civilian Government 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6%

Federal Military 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.8%

State and Local Government 12.0% 11.5% 11.3% 11.2% 11.1% 11.0% 11.0% 10.7% 10.2% 9.8% 9.1%

Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 12,929 13,356 13,406 13,645 13,958 14,279 14,606 15,991 18,316 20,507 25,712

Farm 0.8% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4%

Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7%

Mining 0.4% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5%

Utilities 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7%

Construction 8.9% 7.8% 7.0% 7.0% 6.9% 6.9% 6.8% 6.6% 6.2% 5.9% 5.2%

Manufacturing 13.6% 12.1% 12.3% 12.1% 12.0% 11.8% 11.7% 11.1% 10.2% 9.5% 8.1%

Wholesale Trade 5.1% 5.0% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.1% 5.1% 5.0% 4.8% 4.6% 4.3%

Retail Trade 8.9% 8.1% 8.1% 8.0% 7.9% 7.9% 7.8% 7.4% 6.8% 6.4% 5.5%

Transportation and Warehousing 4.8% 5.0% 5.0% 4.9% 4.9% 4.8% 4.8% 4.6% 4.3% 4.1% 3.6%

Information 1.6% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2%

Finance and Insurance 4.9% 5.7% 6.4% 6.5% 6.5% 6.6% 6.7% 6.9% 7.2% 7.5% 8.0%

Real Estate/Rental and Lease 2.3% 1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7%

Professional and Technical Services 5.5% 6.1% 6.0% 6.1% 6.1% 6.2% 6.3% 6.5% 6.9% 7.2% 7.8%

Management 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 0.8%

Administrative and Waste Services 3.7% 3.9% 4.0% 4.1% 4.2% 4.2% 4.3% 4.6% 5.2% 5.6% 6.6%

Educational Services 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% 1.3% 1.4% 1.6%

Health Care and Social Assistance 9.9% 11.0% 10.9% 11.0% 11.2% 11.3% 11.5% 12.1% 13.0% 13.7% 15.3%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

Accommodation and Food Services 3.2% 3.4% 3.5% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.7% 3.8% 4.0% 4.2% 4.6%

Other Services, Except Public Administration 4.8% 4.9% 4.9% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.1% 5.2% 5.5% 5.6% 6.0%

Federal Civilian Government 2.2% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.3% 2.3% 2.2%

Federal Military 1.8% 1.9% 1.9% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6%

State and Local Government 13.8% 14.9% 14.6% 14.6% 14.6% 14.5% 14.5% 14.4% 14.1% 13.9% 13.3%

Total Personal Income per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 26,923 28,692 29,258 29,222 29,448 29,779 30,177 32,106 35,612 39,054 47,421

Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 68.7 70.9 71.0 70.8 71.0 71.1 71.3 71.7 72.2 72.6 73.1

Persons per Household (in number of people) 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6

Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 68,479 73,703 74,889 74,479 74,731 75,212 75,880 79,999 88,990 98,466 121,943

Number of Households (in thousands) 272.33 282.60 285.94 289.62 293.39 297.34 301.24 314.63 329.97 340.36 359.62

Income <$10,000 (thousands of households, 2000$) 13.4% 11.8% 11.5% 11.3% 11.2% 11.0% 10.8% 9.7% 8.0% 6.8% 4.8%

Income $10,000 to $19,999 14.6% 13.1% 12.8% 12.6% 12.4% 12.2% 12.1% 10.9% 9.1% 7.8% 5.6%

Income $20,000 to $29,999 13.1% 11.8% 11.6% 11.4% 11.3% 11.1% 11.0% 9.9% 8.4% 7.2% 5.1%
Tables-50 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-16. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area AL-1 (continued).

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Income $30,000 to $44,999 18.8% 18.4% 18.2% 18.0% 17.9% 17.7% 17.5% 16.1% 13.7% 11.8% 8.4%

Income $45,000 to $59,999 14.8% 16.5% 16.9% 17.1% 17.3% 17.5% 17.8% 19.0% 19.6% 18.1% 13.4%

Income $60,000 to $74,999 9.5% 10.6% 10.9% 11.1% 11.2% 11.4% 11.6% 12.8% 15.4% 17.9% 19.1%

Income $75,000 to $99,999 8.3% 9.3% 9.5% 9.7% 9.8% 10.0% 10.1% 11.3% 13.5% 15.9% 22.6%

Income $100,000 or more 7.5% 8.4% 8.6% 8.7% 8.9% 9.0% 9.2% 10.2% 12.3% 14.5% 21.0%

Notes: Median Age and The Wealth Index are defined using averages of the original Woods & Poole values for the counties in the EIA; income per capita 

calculated using personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for 

the EIA.

Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2011.
Tables Tables-51

Table 4-17

Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area FL-1 

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Total Population (in thousands) 861.80 882.64 894.95 907.59 920.37 933.24 946.15 998.49 1,078.03 1,144.07 1,275.33

Age Under 19 Years 26.2% 25.0% 24.7% 24.5% 24.4% 24.4% 24.4% 24.7% 24.9% 24.7% 24.0%

Age 20 to 34 20.2% 20.4% 20.8% 21.0% 21.0% 20.9% 20.7% 19.7% 17.8% 17.4% 18.6%

Age 35 to 49 22.5% 20.2% 19.6% 19.1% 18.6% 18.2% 18.0% 18.2% 19.3% 19.8% 17.3%

Age 50 to 64 18.0% 20.0% 20.4% 20.6% 20.6% 20.8% 20.8% 20.2% 18.0% 16.2% 17.7%

Age 65 and over 13.1% 14.3% 14.5% 14.9% 15.4% 15.7% 16.1% 17.3% 19.9% 21.9% 22.2%

Median Age of Population (years) 39.4 40.3 40.4 40.5 40.6 40.6 40.6 40.8 41.5 42.2 42.2

White Population (in thousands) 79.4% 78.0% 77.8% 77.6% 77.4% 77.2% 77.0% 76.2% 74.9% 73.7% 71.3%

Black Population (in thousands) 13.5% 13.8% 13.8% 13.8% 13.9% 13.9% 14.0% 14.2% 14.4% 14.6% 15.0%

Native American Population (in thousands) 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5%

Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.4% 2.2%

Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 3.9% 5.1% 5.3% 5.4% 5.6% 5.7% 5.9% 6.5% 7.6% 8.7% 11.0%

Male Population (in thousands) 49.9% 50.2% 50.2% 50.3% 50.3% 50.4% 50.4% 50.5% 50.8% 50.9% 51.3%

Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 487.45 475.97 478.36 484.81 491.97 499.21 506.56 536.85 585.25 628.44 723.31

Farm Employment 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4%

Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

Mining 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2%

Utilities 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2%

Construction 9.0% 6.1% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.6% 5.6% 5.4% 5.3% 5.1%

Manufacturing 3.4% 2.9% 2.8% 2.8% 2.7% 2.6% 2.6% 2.4% 2.0% 1.8% 1.4%

Wholesale Trade 2.6% 2.3% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.1% 2.0% 2.0% 1.8%

Retail Trade 12.0% 11.9% 12.1% 12.1% 12.1% 12.1% 12.0% 12.0% 11.8% 11.7% 11.3%

Transportation and Warehousing 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 2.0% 2.0%

Information Employment 1.9% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4%

Finance and Insurance 3.6% 4.3% 4.3% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.5% 4.7% 4.8% 5.1%

Real Estate/Rental and Lease 5.5% 5.0% 5.1% 5.1% 5.1% 5.1% 5.1% 5.1% 5.2% 5.2% 5.3%

Professional and Technical Services 5.2% 5.8% 5.9% 5.9% 6.0% 6.1% 6.1% 6.4% 6.8% 7.2% 8.0%

Management 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

Administrative and Waste Services 7.0% 6.7% 6.8% 6.9% 7.0% 7.0% 7.1% 7.3% 7.7% 8.0% 8.6%

Educational Services 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3%

Health Care and Social Assistance 8.9% 10.0% 9.9% 9.9% 10.0% 10.0% 10.1% 10.3% 10.5% 10.8% 11.2%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.7% 2.0% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.2% 2.2% 2.3% 2.4% 2.6%

Accommodation and Food Services 8.8% 10.1% 10.6% 10.6% 10.7% 10.7% 10.8% 10.9% 11.2% 11.3% 11.7%
Tables-52 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-17. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area FL-1 (continued).

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Other Services, Except Public Administration 6.2% 6.3% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.3% 6.3% 6.4% 6.5% 6.6% 6.8%

Federal Civilian Government 3.5% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.3% 3.1% 3.0% 2.6%

Federal Military 6.9% 7.0% 6.9% 6.8% 6.7% 6.6% 6.5% 6.2% 5.7% 5.3% 4.6%

State and Local Government 9.1% 9.3% 8.9% 8.9% 8.8% 8.8% 8.7% 8.5% 8.2% 7.9% 7.4%

Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 19,145 18,966 19,160 19,669 20,150 20,642 21,146 23,280 26,873 30,269 38,353

Farm 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

Mining 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Utilities 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5%

Construction 8.1% 5.0% 4.6% 4.6% 4.5% 4.5% 4.4% 4.2% 3.9% 3.7% 3.3%

Manufacturing 4.8% 4.4% 4.4% 4.3% 4.2% 4.2% 4.1% 3.8% 3.5% 3.2% 2.6%

Wholesale Trade 3.0% 2.7% 2.7% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.5% 2.5% 2.4% 2.3%

Retail Trade 7.9% 7.2% 7.5% 7.3% 7.3% 7.2% 7.1% 6.8% 6.3% 6.0% 5.2%

Transportation and Warehousing 1.8% 2.0% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.0% 2.0%

Information 2.4% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.1% 2.1%

Finance and Insurance 3.9% 3.9% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.2% 4.3% 4.5% 4.6% 4.9%

Real Estate/Rental and Lease 3.1% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9%

Professional and Technical Services 6.6% 7.9% 8.6% 8.7% 8.8% 9.0% 9.1% 9.7% 10.7% 11.5% 13.3%

Management 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2%

Administrative and Waste Services 4.5% 4.3% 4.6% 4.7% 4.7% 4.8% 4.9% 5.1% 5.4% 5.7% 6.3%

Educational Services 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7%

Health Care and Social Assistance 10.0% 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.3% 11.3% 11.4% 11.6% 12.0% 12.3% 12.8%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8%

Accommodation and Food Services 4.6% 4.9% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.4% 5.5% 5.6%

Other Services, Except Public Administration 4.4% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.3% 4.3%

Federal Civilian Government 6.8% 7.7% 7.2% 7.2% 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 6.9% 6.7% 6.5% 6.1%

Federal Military 14.5% 16.8% 16.5% 16.6% 16.5% 16.5% 16.4% 16.1% 15.7% 15.4% 14.7%

State and Local Government 10.5% 10.8% 10.2% 10.2% 10.1% 10.1% 10.1% 9.9% 9.7% 9.5% 9.0%

Total Personal Income per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 31,073 32,887 33,322 33,192 33,305 33,561 33,905 35,709 39,118 42,516 50,840

Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 85.9 87.7 87.1 86.7 86.5 86.4 86.4 86.3 86.3 86.4 86.7

Persons per Household (in number of people) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6

Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 78,593 83,780 84,588 83,933 83,877 84,141 84,654 88,455 97,347 106,910 130,791

Number of Households (in thousands) 340.73 346.48 352.55 358.91 365.45 372.23 378.94 403.09 433.20 454.98 495.74

Income <$10,000 (thousands of households, 2000$) 8.6% 7.7% 7.5% 7.4% 7.3% 7.2% 7.1% 6.4% 5.4% 4.6% 3.3%

Income $10,000 to $19,999 12.3% 11.0% 10.7% 10.6% 10.5% 10.3% 10.2% 9.2% 7.7% 6.7% 4.8%

Income $20,000 to $29,999 13.7% 12.2% 11.9% 11.8% 11.7% 11.5% 11.3% 10.3% 8.6% 7.4% 5.3%
Tables Tables-53

Table 4-17. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area FL-1 (continued).

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Income $30,000 to $44,999 19.6% 18.1% 17.7% 17.6% 17.3% 17.1% 16.9% 15.3% 12.9% 11.1% 7.9%

Income $45,000 to $59,999 16.6% 18.3% 18.6% 18.8% 18.9% 19.1% 19.2% 19.7% 18.6% 16.4% 11.8%

Income $60,000 to $74,999 11.3% 12.7% 13.0% 13.1% 13.3% 13.5% 13.7% 15.1% 18.1% 20.4% 19.8%

Income $75,000 to $99,999 9.3% 10.3% 10.6% 10.7% 10.8% 11.0% 11.1% 12.3% 14.8% 17.2% 24.1%

Income $100,000 or more 8.7% 9.7% 10.0% 10.1% 10.2% 10.4% 10.5% 11.6% 14.0% 16.3% 23.0%

Notes: Median Age and The Wealth Index are defined using averages of the original Woods & Poole values for the counties in the EIA; income per capita 

calculated using personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for 

the EIA.

Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2011.
Tables-54 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-18

Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area FL-2 

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Total Population (in thousands) 619.13 660.01 667.83 675.90 684.08 692.32 700.61 734.26 785.55 828.12 912.75

Age Under 19 Years 25.5% 25.1% 24.3% 23.9% 23.8% 23.8% 23.9% 24.2% 24.1% 23.9% 23.3%

Age 20 to 34 24.4% 23.9% 24.6% 24.8% 24.6% 24.3% 23.9% 22.1% 19.7% 19.1% 19.8%

Age 35 to 49 21.0% 19.1% 18.8% 18.5% 18.3% 18.2% 18.1% 18.9% 20.7% 21.2% 17.8%

Age 50 to 64 17.5% 19.2% 19.4% 19.3% 19.3% 19.3% 19.3% 18.4% 16.8% 16.1% 19.0%

Age 65 and over 11.7% 12.7% 13.0% 13.5% 13.9% 14.4% 14.8% 16.4% 18.5% 19.7% 20.1%

Median Age of Population (years) 37.9 39.2 39.4 39.7 39.8 40.0 40.2 40.7 41.7 42.6 43.0

White Population (in thousands) 66.7% 65.5% 65.2% 65.0% 64.7% 64.5% 64.2% 63.2% 61.5% 60.1% 57.5%

Black Population (in thousands) 26.8% 26.9% 27.0% 27.2% 27.3% 27.5% 27.6% 28.2% 29.1% 29.9% 31.4%

Native American Population (in thousands) 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3%

Asian and Pacific Islander Population (in thousands) 1.4% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.8% 1.9% 1.9% 2.0%

Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 4.6% 5.6% 5.7% 5.8% 5.9% 6.0% 6.1% 6.5% 7.1% 7.7% 8.7%

Male Population (in thousands) 50.4% 50.9% 51.0% 51.0% 51.1% 51.2% 51.2% 51.4% 51.6% 51.7% 51.9%

Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 322.62 317.69 314.73 318.31 322.52 326.77 331.07 348.86 377.27 402.75 459.46

Farm Employment 2.6% 2.8% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.6% 2.5% 2.3% 2.1% 1.9%

Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4%

Mining 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

Utilities 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

Construction 6.5% 4.7% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.3% 4.3% 4.2%

Manufacturing 4.6% 3.7% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.3% 3.0% 2.8% 2.4%

Wholesale Trade 2.1% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.7% 1.6%

Retail Trade 11.0% 10.3% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.2%

Transportation and Warehousing 1.6% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4%

Information Employment 1.8% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3%

Finance and Insurance 3.2% 3.8% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.8% 3.8% 3.7% 3.6%

Real Estate/Rental and Lease 3.1% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.8% 2.8% 2.6%

Professional and Technical Services 5.8% 6.4% 6.7% 6.8% 6.9% 6.9% 7.0% 7.4% 7.9% 8.3% 9.1%

Management 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4%

Administrative and Waste Services 4.8% 5.0% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.3% 5.3% 5.4% 5.6% 5.8% 6.2%

Educational Services 1.1% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 1.9% 2.3% 2.6% 3.5%

Health Care and Social Assistance 8.6% 9.8% 9.8% 9.8% 9.9% 10.0% 10.0% 10.3% 10.6% 10.9% 11.4%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.2% 1.4% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 1.8% 1.9%

Accommodation and Food Services 6.6% 7.4% 7.6% 7.6% 7.7% 7.8% 7.8% 8.1% 8.4% 8.7% 9.3%
Tables Tables-55

Table 4-18. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area FL-2 (continued).

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Other Services, Except Public Administration 6.2% 6.1% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 5.9% 5.9% 5.8%

Federal Civilian Government 1.2% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% 0.9%

Federal Military 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3%

State and Local Government 25.3% 25.3% 24.7% 24.6% 24.4% 24.3% 24.1% 23.5% 22.6% 21.8% 20.2%

Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 11,928 11,797 11,847 12,084 12,357 12,636 12,921 14,122 16,124 17,997 22,405

Farm 1.3% 0.8% 0.8% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7%

Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3%

Mining 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%

Utilities 0.8% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

Construction 6.4% 4.4% 4.1% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 3.9% 3.8% 3.6% 3.4% 3.1%

Manufacturing 5.9% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.1% 5.1% 5.1% 5.0% 4.8% 4.6% 4.3%

Wholesale Trade 2.7% 2.3% 2.3% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.3% 2.3% 2.2% 2.1% 2.0%

Retail Trade 7.2% 6.7% 6.9% 6.9% 6.8% 6.8% 6.7% 6.5% 6.1% 5.8% 5.2%

Transportation and Warehousing 1.5% 1.4% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2%

Information 2.4% 2.2% 2.2% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.4% 2.4%

Finance and Insurance 4.2% 4.5% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6%

Real Estate/Rental and Lease 1.1% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7%

Professional and Technical Services 7.9% 8.5% 8.8% 8.9% 9.0% 9.1% 9.3% 9.8% 10.7% 11.4% 13.0%

Management 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.8%

Administrative and Waste Services 2.8% 2.7% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.9% 3.0% 3.1% 3.3% 3.6%

Educational Services 0.5% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 1.1% 1.3% 1.8%

Health Care and Social Assistance 9.5% 11.2% 11.3% 11.4% 11.5% 11.5% 11.6% 11.9% 12.3% 12.7% 13.3%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

Accommodation and Food Services 2.7% 3.0% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.3% 3.4% 3.5% 3.6% 3.9%

Other Services, Except Public Administration 5.2% 5.0% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 4.8% 4.8% 4.7% 4.6%

Federal Civilian Government 2.7% 3.1% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.8% 2.7%

Federal Military 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

State and Local Government 32.3% 33.9% 33.2% 33.1% 33.0% 32.9% 32.8% 32.3% 31.5% 30.8% 29.3%

Total Personal Income per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 26,967 27,328 27,699 27,633 27,735 27,943 28,216 29,624 32,258 34,871 41,243

Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index (U.S. = 100) 66.4 66.7 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.6 66.5 66.2 65.8 65.4 64.7

Persons per Household (in number of people) 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7

Mean Household Total Personal Income (in 2005 dollars) 70,426 72,591 73,342 72,882 72,869 73,092 73,512 76,590 83,807 91,537 110,692

Number of Households (in thousands) 237.07 248.47 252.22 256.26 260.38 264.68 268.91 284.00 302.36 315.47 340.09

Income <$10,000 (thousands of households, 2000$) 13.7% 12.5% 12.2% 12.1% 11.9% 11.7% 11.6% 10.8% 9.1% 7.9% 5.9%

Income $10,000 to $19,999 14.3% 13.1% 12.8% 12.7% 12.5% 12.3% 12.1% 11.3% 9.5% 8.2% 6.1%

Income $20,000 to $29,999 13.9% 12.7% 12.5% 12.3% 12.2% 12.0% 11.8% 11.0% 9.3% 8.0% 6.0%
Tables-56 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-18. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area FL-2 (continued).

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Income $30,000 to $44,999 18.7% 18.6% 18.5% 18.4% 18.3% 18.2% 18.1% 17.4% 14.9% 12.8% 9.4%

Income $45,000 to $59,999 14.1% 15.5% 15.8% 16.0% 16.2% 16.5% 16.7% 17.7% 19.4% 19.2% 15.4%

Income $60,000 to $74,999 9.3% 10.2% 10.4% 10.6% 10.7% 10.9% 11.0% 11.8% 14.1% 16.4% 20.2%

Income $75,000 to $99,999 8.1% 8.9% 9.1% 9.2% 9.3% 9.4% 9.6% 10.3% 12.2% 14.2% 19.2%

Income $100,000 or more 7.7% 8.4% 8.6% 8.7% 8.8% 9.0% 9.1% 9.7% 11.5% 13.3% 17.8%

Notes: Median Age and The Wealth Index are defined using averages of the original Woods & Poole values for the counties in the EIA; income per capita 

calculated using personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for 

the EIA.

Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2011.
Tables Tables-57

Table 4-19

Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area FL-3 

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Total Population (in thousands) 3,435.22 3,627.12 3,688.14 3,750.54 3,813.50 3,876.76 3,940.23 4,196.90 4,586.14 4,909.33 5,552.03

Age Under 19 Years 24.1% 23.3% 23.1% 23.0% 22.9% 22.9% 22.9% 23.0% 23.1% 23.2% 23.4%

Age 20 to 34 18.5% 18.5% 18.8% 19.0% 19.1% 19.2% 19.1% 18.9% 18.3% 18.0% 18.5%

Age 35 to 49 21.4% 19.9% 19.5% 19.0% 18.7% 18.4% 18.1% 17.8% 18.1% 18.6% 18.0%

Age 50 to 64 18.5% 20.1% 20.4% 20.4% 20.4% 20.4% 20.5% 19.9% 18.3% 16.7% 16.7%

Age 65 and over 17.5% 18.1% 18.2% 18.6% 18.9% 19.2% 19.4% 20.4% 22.3% 23.5% 23.4%

Median Age of Population (years) 41.5 42.9 43.0 43.2 43.3 43.5 43.6 43.9 43.9 44.0 43.7

White Population (in thousands) 74.3% 70.6% 70.0% 69.4% 68.9% 68.3% 67.8% 65.5% 62.2% 59.3% 53.4%

Black Population (in thousands) 11.3% 11.9% 12.0% 12.1% 12.1% 12.2% 12.3% 12.6% 13.0% 13.3% 13.9%

Native American Population (in thousands) 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

Asian and Pacific Islander Population 

(in thousands) 2.4% 2.9% 3.0% 3.0% 3.1% 3.2% 3.2% 3.5% 3.9% 4.3% 5.0%

Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 11.7% 14.4% 14.8% 15.2% 15.6% 16.1% 16.5% 18.1% 20.7% 22.9% 27.5%

Male Population (in thousands) 48.6% 48.6% 48.6% 48.6% 48.7% 48.7% 48.8% 48.9% 49.1% 49.1% 49.2%

Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 1,944.15 1,836.01 1,837.13 1,865.09 1,897.15 1,929.67 1,962.67 2,099.53 2,320.20 2,519.25 2,962.99

Farm Employment 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.8%

Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

Mining 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

Utilities 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

Construction 7.3% 5.0% 4.7% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 5.0% 5.1% 5.2% 5.5%

Manufacturing 5.0% 4.2% 4.2% 4.1% 4.1% 4.0% 3.9% 3.7% 3.4% 3.1% 2.7%

Wholesale Trade 3.4% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.2% 3.2% 3.1%

Retail Trade 11.4% 11.2% 11.3% 11.3% 11.3% 11.3% 11.4% 11.5% 11.6% 11.7% 11.8%

Transportation and Warehousing 2.3% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2%

Information Employment 2.2% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.7% 1.6%

Finance and Insurance 5.8% 6.9% 6.9% 6.9% 6.9% 6.8% 6.8% 6.7% 6.5% 6.4% 6.0%

Real Estate/Rental and Lease 4.5% 4.3% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.3% 4.3% 4.2% 4.1% 3.9% 3.7%

Professional and Technical Services 6.4% 7.4% 7.6% 7.6% 7.6% 7.6% 7.7% 7.7% 7.8% 7.8% 7.9%

Management 0.8% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.3% 1.4% 1.5%

Administrative and Waste Services 10.8% 7.8% 7.7% 7.8% 7.9% 8.0% 8.1% 8.6% 9.2% 9.9% 11.2%

Educational Services 1.3% 1.7% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.8% 1.9% 2.0% 2.2%

Health Care and Social Assistance 10.3% 12.1% 12.1% 12.1% 12.2% 12.2% 12.2% 12.4% 12.6% 12.7% 12.9%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 2.0% 2.5% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.9% 3.0% 3.2%
Tables-58 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-19. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area FL-3 (continued).

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Accommodation and Food Services 6.8% 7.5% 7.6% 7.6% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.4% 7.2% 7.1% 6.8%

Other Services, Except Public Administration 5.9% 5.9% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.8% 5.9% 5.9% 6.0%

Federal Civilian Government 1.3% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.2%

Federal Military 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5%

State and Local Government 9.9% 10.5% 10.3% 10.2% 10.1% 10.1% 10.0% 9.7% 9.3% 9.0% 8.3%

Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 79,115 75,732 76,230 78,164 80,283 82,456 84,684 94,161 110,241 125,561 162,390

Farm 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3%

Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

Mining 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7%

Utilities 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8%

Construction 7.5% 5.0% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.5% 4.4% 4.4% 4.2%

Manufacturing 6.8% 6.1% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.8% 5.8% 5.6% 5.3% 5.0% 4.5%

Wholesale Trade 4.9% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7%

Retail Trade 8.3% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.4% 7.4% 7.3% 7.1% 6.8% 6.5% 6.0%

Transportation and Warehousing 2.3% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.8% 1.7%

Information 3.3% 3.1% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.1%

Finance and Insurance 8.0% 7.8% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 7.9% 7.8% 7.6% 7.4% 7.1%

Real Estate/Rental and Lease 2.3% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3%

Professional and Technical Services 8.1% 9.7% 10.1% 10.2% 10.2% 10.3% 10.3% 10.5% 10.8% 11.0% 11.4%

Management 1.6% 2.3% 2.5% 2.6% 2.6% 2.7% 2.7% 2.9% 3.3% 3.6% 4.3%

Administrative and Waste Services 7.1% 5.0% 5.0% 5.1% 5.2% 5.2% 5.3% 5.7% 6.2% 6.7% 7.8%

Educational Services 0.8% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.4% 1.6%

Health Care and Social Assistance 12.1% 14.4% 14.4% 14.4% 14.5% 14.5% 14.6% 14.8% 15.0% 15.2% 15.5%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.5% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.9% 1.9%

Accommodation and Food Services 3.9% 4.1% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.1% 4.0% 3.9% 3.7%

Other Services, Except Public Administration 4.0% 3.8% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7%

Federal Civilian Government 2.7% 3.5% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.2%

Federal Military 1.2% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3%

State and Local Government 11.8% 13.0% 12.6% 12.6% 12.5% 12.4% 12.4% 12.1% 11.8% 11.5% 10.8%

Total Personal Income per Capita (in 2005 

dollars) 33,038 33,094 33,458 33,277 33,361 33,603 33,943 35,779 39,308 42,864 51,665

Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index 

(U.S. = 100) 78.9 78.5 77.9 78.0 77.9 77.9 77.8 77.8 77.8 78.0 78.4

Persons per Household (in number of people) 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4
Tables Tables-59

Table 4-19. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area FL-3 (continued).

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Mean Household Total Personal Income 

(in 2005 dollars) 78,298 80,154 80,736 79,958 79,810 80,006 80,459 84,037 92,602 101,904 125,355

Number of Households (in thousands) 1,450 1,498 1,528 1,561 1,594 1,628 1,662 1,787 1,947 2,065 2,288

Income <$10,000 (thousands of households, 

2000$) 9.0% 8.2% 8.1% 8.0% 7.9% 7.8% 7.6% 7.0% 5.9% 5.1% 3.7%

Income $10,000 to $19,999 13.6% 12.4% 12.2% 12.1% 11.9% 11.8% 11.6% 10.6% 8.9% 7.7% 5.6%

Income $20,000 to $29,999 14.5% 13.3% 13.0% 12.9% 12.7% 12.5% 12.4% 11.3% 9.5% 8.2% 6.0%

Income $30,000 to $44,999 19.6% 18.8% 18.6% 18.5% 18.3% 18.1% 17.9% 16.5% 14.0% 12.1% 8.8%

Income $45,000 to $59,999 15.3% 16.7% 17.0% 17.2% 17.4% 17.6% 17.8% 18.8% 19.3% 18.1% 13.5%

Income $60,000 to $74,999 9.9% 10.8% 11.0% 11.1% 11.3% 11.5% 11.6% 12.8% 15.2% 17.4% 19.2%

Income $75,000 to $99,999 8.5% 9.3% 9.5% 9.6% 9.7% 9.8% 10.0% 10.9% 13.0% 14.9% 20.7%

Income $100,000 or more 9.6% 10.4% 10.6% 10.7% 10.8% 10.9% 11.1% 12.1% 14.3% 16.4% 22.6%

Notes: Median Age and The Wealth Index are defined using averages of the original Woods & Poole values for the counties in the EIA; income per capita 

calculated using personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for 

the EIA.

Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2011.
Tables-60 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-20

Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area FL-4 

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Total Population (in thousands) 5,934.95 6,173.13 6,255.79 6,340.82 6,426.81 6,513.36 6,600.26 6,952.71 7,488.55 7,933.26 8,817.05

Age Under 19 Years 24.9% 23.4% 23.3% 23.1% 22.9% 22.8% 22.8% 22.5% 22.3% 22.3% 22.1%

Age 20 to 34 18.3% 18.3% 18.4% 18.5% 18.6% 18.7% 18.7% 18.6% 18.0% 17.5% 17.2%

Age 35 to 49 22.2% 21.1% 20.8% 20.4% 20.0% 19.6% 19.2% 18.5% 18.3% 18.6% 17.9%

Age 50 to 64 17.8% 19.3% 19.5% 19.6% 19.8% 19.9% 20.1% 19.9% 19.0% 17.4% 16.7%

Age 65 and over 16.8% 17.8% 18.0% 18.4% 18.7% 19.0% 19.2% 20.4% 22.4% 24.2% 26.0%

Median Age of Population (years) 43.8 45.4 45.6 45.8 45.9 46.0 46.1 46.4 46.4 46.2 45.8

White Population (in thousands) 46.3% 42.5% 41.9% 41.4% 40.9% 40.3% 39.8% 37.9% 35.1% 32.7% 28.5%

Black Population (in thousands) 16.7% 16.8% 16.9% 16.9% 16.9% 17.0% 17.0% 17.2% 17.4% 17.6% 17.9%

Native American Population (in thousands) 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Asian and Pacific Islander Population 

(in thousands) 1.8% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.2% 2.4% 2.5% 2.7%

Hispanic or Latino Population (in thousands) 35.1% 38.5% 39.0% 39.5% 40.0% 40.4% 40.9% 42.5% 45.0% 47.0% 50.7%

Male Population (in thousands) 48.6% 48.6% 48.6% 48.6% 48.6% 48.6% 48.6% 48.5% 48.5% 48.4% 48.1%

Total Employment (in thousands of jobs) 3,395.35 3,306.18 3,330.93 3,382.52 3,439.80 3,497.84 3,556.64 3,799.78 4,189.08 4,537.36 5,304.35

Farm Employment 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4%

Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%

Mining 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4%

Utilities 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1%

Construction 8.0% 5.2% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 5.0% 5.0% 5.1% 5.2%

Manufacturing 3.6% 2.9% 2.8% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.6% 2.4% 2.1% 1.9% 1.5%

Wholesale Trade 4.5% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.3%

Retail Trade 11.2% 10.9% 10.9% 10.9% 10.9% 10.9% 10.9% 10.9% 10.8% 10.8% 10.6%

Transportation and Warehousing 3.8% 3.7% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.7% 3.7% 3.6%

Information Employment 2.0% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.5% 1.4%

Finance and Insurance 5.0% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.8% 5.7% 5.6% 5.5% 5.2%

Real Estate/Rental and Lease 6.0% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.5% 5.4% 5.3% 5.1%

Professional and Technical Services 6.5% 6.8% 6.9% 6.9% 6.9% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.7% 6.7% 6.6%

Management 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9%

Administrative and Waste Services 9.0% 7.8% 7.7% 7.8% 7.8% 7.9% 8.0% 8.2% 8.6% 9.0% 9.7%

Educational Services 1.8% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.7% 2.9% 3.1% 3.6%

Health Care and Social Assistance 9.1% 10.9% 11.0% 11.1% 11.1% 11.2% 11.3% 11.5% 11.9% 12.2% 12.7%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 2.2% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.3%
Tables Tables-61

Table 4-20. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area FL-4 (continued).

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Accommodation and Food Services 7.2% 8.3% 8.6% 8.6% 8.6% 8.5% 8.5% 8.4% 8.3% 8.2% 7.9%

Other Services, Except Public Administration 7.7% 8.4% 8.3% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.5% 8.6% 8.9% 9.0% 9.4%

Federal Civilian Government 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8%

Federal Military 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3%

State and Local Government 9.0% 9.1% 8.7% 8.6% 8.6% 8.6% 8.5% 8.3% 8.1% 7.9% 7.5%

Total Earnings (in millions of 2005 dollars) 146,349 137,031 138,715 142,258 146,050 149,935 153,914 170,817 199,395 226,516 291,324

Farm 0.5% 0.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3%

Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

Mining 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2%

Utilities 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4%

Construction 9.4% 5.7% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.2% 5.2% 5.1% 4.9% 4.8% 4.5%

Manufacturing 4.4% 3.8% 3.6% 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.4% 3.3% 3.0% 2.8% 2.4%

Wholesale Trade 6.8% 7.0% 7.1% 7.2% 7.2% 7.2% 7.2% 7.3% 7.4% 7.4% 7.5%

Retail Trade 8.5% 8.0% 8.1% 8.0% 7.9% 7.8% 7.8% 7.5% 7.0% 6.7% 6.0%

Transportation and Warehousing 4.0% 4.0% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.0% 3.8% 3.7% 3.5%

Information 3.6% 3.4% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.6% 3.6% 3.7%

Finance and Insurance 6.9% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.1% 6.0% 5.8% 5.6%

Real Estate/Rental and Lease 3.7% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.2% 2.2% 2.1% 2.0%

Professional and Technical Services 8.3% 9.5% 9.7% 9.7% 9.7% 9.7% 9.8% 9.9% 10.0% 10.2% 10.4%

Management 1.3% 1.8% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.1% 2.1% 2.2% 2.4% 2.6% 3.0%

Administrative and Waste Services 6.2% 4.9% 4.8% 4.8% 4.9% 4.9% 5.0% 5.2% 5.5% 5.8% 6.4%

Educational Services 1.5% 2.1% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.3% 2.3% 2.5% 2.7% 3.0% 3.5%

Health Care and Social Assistance 9.5% 12.0% 12.2% 12.2% 12.3% 12.4% 12.5% 12.8% 13.3% 13.7% 14.5%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.6% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.8% 1.7%

Accommodation and Food Services 4.3% 4.9% 5.2% 5.2% 5.1% 5.1% 5.1% 5.1% 5.0% 4.9% 4.8%

Other Services, Except Public Administration 4.2% 4.5% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.6% 4.7% 4.8%

Federal Civilian Government 2.2% 2.6% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.3% 2.3% 2.1%

Federal Military 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%

State and Local Government 11.8% 13.3% 12.7% 12.6% 12.6% 12.6% 12.6% 12.5% 12.3% 12.2% 11.8%

Total Personal Income per Capita (in 2005 dollars) 37,492 37,959 38,681 38,357 38,468 38,798 39,260 41,739 46,458 51,194 62,955

Woods & Poole Economics Wealth Index 

(U.S. = 100) 118.7 116.5 115.5 114.8 114.5 114.4 114.5 115.3 117.0 118.6 122.2

Persons per Household (in number of people) 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6
Tables-62 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-20. Demographic and Employment Baseline Projections for Economic Impact Area FL-4 (continued).

2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040

Mean Household Total Personal Income 

(in 2005 dollars) 94,609 98,360 99,844 98,565 98,405 98,756 99,473 104,717 116,781 129,752 162,573

Number of Households (in thousands) 2,352 2,382 2,424 2,468 2,512 2,559 2,605 2,771 2,979 3,130 3,414

Income <$10,000 (thousands of households, 

2000$) 9.1% 8.4% 8.2% 8.2% 8.1% 8.0% 7.8% 7.1% 6.1% 5.4% 4.0%

Income $10,000 to $19,999 12.1% 11.1% 10.9% 10.9% 10.7% 10.6% 10.5% 9.6% 8.2% 7.2% 5.3%

Income $20,000 to $29,999 12.6% 11.6% 11.4% 11.4% 11.3% 11.1% 11.0% 10.0% 8.6% 7.6% 5.6%

Income $30,000 to $44,999 17.3% 16.2% 15.9% 15.8% 15.7% 15.5% 15.3% 14.0% 12.0% 10.5% 7.8%

Income $45,000 to $59,999 15.0% 16.0% 16.2% 16.2% 16.3% 16.4% 16.4% 16.5% 15.4% 13.6% 10.1%

Income $60,000 to $74,999 10.7% 11.6% 11.8% 11.8% 12.0% 12.1% 12.3% 13.5% 15.5% 16.6% 14.7%

Income $75,000 to $99,999 10.1% 10.9% 11.1% 11.2% 11.3% 11.4% 11.6% 12.7% 14.8% 17.0% 22.2%

Income $100,000 or more 13.2% 14.3% 14.5% 14.6% 14.7% 14.9% 15.1% 16.6% 19.3% 22.2% 30.3%

Notes: Median Age and The Wealth Index are defined using averages of the original Woods & Poole values for the counties in the EIA; income per capita 

calculated using personal income/total population for the EIA; persons per household calculated using total population/number of households for 

the EIA.

Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2011.
Tables Tables-63

Table 4-21

Peak Population Projections from the WPA Proposed Action as a Percent of Total Population

EIA 

Low Case High Case

Peak Annual Peak Year Baseline 

in Peak Year Percent Peak Annual Peak Year Baseline in Peak Year Percent

Texas (TX)

TX-1 549 2028 2,422,790 0.02% 1,085 2028 2,422,790 0.04%

TX-2 171 2019 708,030 0.02% 287 2016 680,380 0.04%

TX-3 3,173 2016 6,917,330 0.05% 5,253 2018 7,160,610 0.07%

Louisiana (LA)

LA-1 228 2019 376,060 0.06% 386 2016 365,730 0.11%

LA-2 645 2016 627,930 0.10% 1,062 2016 627,930 0.17%

LA-3 862 2016 1,205,450 0.07% 1,453 2016 1,205,450 0.12%

LA-4 425 2016 1,280,660 0.03% 715 2016 1,280,660 0.06%

Florida (FL)

FL-1 130 2019 998,490 0.01% 218 2016 959,100 0.02%

FL-2 256 2019 734,260 0.03% 427 2016 708,920 0.06%

FL-3 225 2019 4,196,900 0.01% 376 2016 4,003,870 0.01%

FL-4 158 2019 6,952,710 0.00% 267 2016 6,687,490 0.00%

Alabama (AL)

AL-1 293 2019 783,980 0.04% 508 2016 763,990 0.07%

Mississippi (MS)

MS-1 220 2028 538,750 0.04% 389 2016 500,080 0.08%

EIA = Economic Impact Area.

Source: Baseline employment projections based on Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. (2011).
Tables-64 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-22

Peak Population Projections from the Cumulative OCS Program as a Percent of Total Employment

EIA 

Low Case High Case

Peak 

Annual Peak Year Baseline in Peak Year Percent Peak Annual Peak Year Baseline in Peak Year Percent

Texas (TX)

TX-1 16,250 2030 2,494,450 0.65% 25,369 2031 2,528,350 1.00%

TX-2 6,620 2031 819,450 0.81% 10,759 2031 819,450 1.31%

TX-3 137,573 2030 8,630,090 1.59% 203,022 2031 8,748,170 2.32%

Louisiana (LA)

LA-1 8,959 2030 414,370 2.16% 14,763 2031 417,750 3.53%

LA-2 25,960 2030 733,820 3.54% 40,748 2031 741,210 5.50%

LA-3 33,867 2030 1,360,250 2.49% 54,048 2031 1,370,930 3.94%

LA-4 17,490 2030 1,379,210 1.27% 27,980 2031 1,386,050 2.02%

Florida (FL)

FL-1 4,773 2031 1,156,870 0.41% 7,726 2031 1,156,870 0.67%

FL-2 9,402 2031 836,390 1.12% 15,307 2031 836,390 1.83%

FL-3 8,265 2031 4,971,850 0.17% 13,509 2031 4,971,850 0.27%

FL-4 5,916 2031 8,019,510 0.07% 9,658 2031 8,019,510 0.12%

Alabama (AL)

AL-1 11,251 2030 858,150 1.31% 18,405 2031 864,680 2.13%

Mississippi (MS)

MS-1 8,726 2030 545,250 1.60% 14,116 2031 548,380 2.57%

EIA = Economic Impact Area.

Source: Baseline employment projections based on Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. (2011).
Tables Tables-65

Table 4-23

High-Case Employment Projections for the WPA Proposed Action by Economic Impact Area

Onshore Area

Employment (jobs)

Total (40-year total) Direct Indirect Induced Total

Direct Indirect Induced All Average 

Annual

Peak 

Annual

Average 

Annual

Peak 

Annual

Average 

Annual

Peak 

Annual

Average 

Annual

Peak 

Annual Peak Year

Industry Expenditure Effects

Texas (TX)

TX-1 1,058 513 1,732 3,302 27 122 13 58 44 240 85 419 2028

TX-2 599 230 465 1,294 15 51 6 20 12 40 33 111 2016

TX-3 6,780 3,116 12,778 22,675 174 617 80 271 328 1,140 581 2,028 2018

All TX EIA’s 8,437 3,859 14,975 27,271 216 732 99 322 384 1,288 699 2,342 2018

The Rest of Texas 1,032 576 2,802 4,410 26 93 15 52 72 253 113 398 2016

Texas Total 9,468 4,436 17,777 31,681 243 821 114 371 456 1,523 812 2,714 2018

Louisiana (LA)

LA-1 644 355 753 1,752 17 55 9 30 19 64 45 149 2016

LA-2 1,193 527 3,187 4,907 31 92 14 40 82 278 126 410 2016

LA-3 1,353 804 4,410 6,567 35 108 21 64 113 389 168 561 2016

LA-4 925 459 1,951 3,335 24 73 12 37 50 166 86 276 2016

All LA EIA’s 4,115 2,146 10,300 16,560 106 328 55 170 264 898 425 1,396 2016

The Rest of Louisiana 511 187 982 1,680 13 46 5 17 25 91 43 154 2016

Louisiana Total 4,626 2,333 11,282 18,240 119 374 60 187 289 989 468 1,550 2016

Florida (FL)

FL-1 364 139 423 926 9 33 4 13 11 38 24 84 2016

FL-2 776 309 748 1,834 20 70 8 28 19 67 47 165 2016

FL-3 611 279 732 1,622 16 55 7 25 19 65 42 145 2016

FL-4 429 199 537 1,165 11 39 5 18 14 47 30 103 2016

All FL EIA’s 2,180 926 2,441 5,546 56 196 24 84 63 217 142 497 2016

The Rest of Florida 685 339 880 1,904 18 60 9 30 23 76 49 166 2016

Florida Total 2,864 1,265 3,321 7,450 73 257 32 114 85 292 191 663 2016

Alabama (AL)

AL-1 719 281 1,219 2,219 18 63 7 25 31 108 57 196 2016

The Rest of Alabama 1,163 505 1,339 3,007 30 105 13 46 34 119 77 271 2016

Alabama-Total 1,882 786 2,558 5,226 48 169 20 71 66 227 134 467 2016

Mississippi (MS)

MS-1 669 185 904 1,758 17 56 5 16 23 78 45 150 2016

The Rest of Mississippi 1,054 345 1,022 2,420 27 93 9 31 26 88 62 212 2016

Mississippi Total 1,723 530 1,926 4,178 44 150 14 46 49 165 107 361 2016

All EIA’s, Regardless of State 16,119 7,397 29,839 53,355 413 1,343 190 605 765 2,571 1,368 4,503 2016

All States Above 20,563 9,350 36,863 66,776 527 1,726 240 781 945 3,197 1,712 5,703 2016

EIA = Economic Impact Area.

Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2011.
Tables-66 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-24

Low-Case Employment Projections for the WPA Proposed Action by Economic Impact Area

Onshore Area

Employment (jobs)

Total (40-year total) Direct Indirect Induced Total

Direct Indirect Induced All Average 

Annual

Peak 

Annual

Average 

Annual

Peak 

Annual

Average 

Annual

Peak 

Annual

Average 

Annual

Peak 

Annual Peak Year

Industry Expenditure Effects

Texas (TX)

TX-1 487 238 919 1,644 12 51 6 25 24 136 42 212 2028

TX-2 320 123 249 692 8 31 3 12 6 23 18 66 2019

TX-3 3,959 1,807 7,507 13,274 102 412 46 164 192 704 340 1,225 2016

All TX EIA’s 4,765 2,169 8,676 15,610 122 452 56 193 222 789 400 1,411 2016

The Rest of Texas 572 320 1,486 2,379 15 55 8 30 38 145 61 230 2016

Texas Total 5,338 2,489 10,162 17,989 137 483 64 223 261 935 461 1,641 2016

Louisiana (LA)

LA-1 343 187 396 925 9 33 5 18 10 38 24 88 2019

LA-2 622 275 1,759 2,656 16 55 7 24 45 171 68 249 2016

LA-3 695 412 2,388 3,495 18 63 11 37 61 235 90 333 2016

LA-4 485 243 1,058 1,787 12 43 6 21 27 100 46 164 2016

All LA EIA’s 2,145 1,117 5,601 8,863 55 191 29 99 144 543 227 831 2016

The Rest of Louisiana 279 103 531 913 7 28 3 10 14 54 23 92 2019

Louisiana Total 2,424 1,220 6,132 9,776 62 219 31 109 157 596 251 921 2016

Florida (FL)

FL-1 196 76 226 497 5 20 2 8 6 22 13 50 2019

FL-2 416 167 394 978 11 43 4 17 10 38 25 99 2019

FL-3 327 151 385 862 8 34 4 15 10 37 22 87 2019

FL-4 231 108 285 623 6 24 3 11 7 27 16 61 2019

All FL EIA’s 1,170 501 1,289 2,961 30 121 13 51 33 125 76 297 2019

The Rest of Florida 364 182 447 994 9 37 5 18 11 42 25 97 2019

Florida Total 1,534 684 1,737 3,954 39 158 18 69 45 167 101 393 2019

Alabama (AL)

AL-1 386 152 636 1,174 10 38 4 15 16 61 30 113 2019

The Rest of Alabama 633 280 703 1,616 16 62 7 27 18 66 41 154 2019

Alabama-Total 1,020 432 1,338 2,790 26 100 11 41 34 126 72 267 2019

Mississippi (MS)

MS-1 347 95 474 916 9 33 2 9 12 48 23 85 2028

The Rest of Mississippi 569 187 536 1,291 15 55 5 18 14 53 33 119 2019

Mississippi Total 915 282 1,010 2,208 23 88 7 27 26 101 57 203 2016

All EIA’s, Regardless of State 8,813 4,035 16,676 29,524 226 796 103 359 428 1,556 757 2,712 2016

All States Above 11,231 5,107 20,379 36,717 288 1,024 131 460 523 1,907 941 3,392 2016

EIA = Economic Impact Area.

Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2011.
Tables Tables-67

Table 4-25

Peak Employment Projections from the WPA Proposed Action as a Percent of Total Employment

EIA 

Low Case High Case

Peak Annual Peak Year Baseline 

in Peak Year Percent Peak Annual Peak Year Baseline in Peak Year Percent

Texas (TX)

TX-1 212 2028 1,079,320 0.02% 419 2028 1,079,320 0.04%

TX-2 66 2019 341,330 0.02% 111 2016 326,630 0.03%

TX-3 1,225 2016 3,983,090 0.03% 2,028 2018 4,126,010 0.05%

Louisiana (LA)

LA-1 88 2019 195,880 0.04% 149 2016 188,390 0.08%

LA-2 249 2016 349,800 0.07% 410 2016 349,800 0.12%

LA-3 333 2016 710,530 0.05% 561 2016 710,530 0.08%

LA-4 164 2016 765,250 0.02% 276 2016 765,250 0.04%

Florida (FL)

FL-1 50 2019 536,850 0.01% 84 2016 513,990 0.02%

FL-2 99 2019 348,860 0.03% 165 2016 335,440 0.05%

FL-3 87 2019 2,099,530 0.00% 145 2016 1,996,150 0.01%

FL-4 61 2019 3,799,780 0.00% 103 2016 3,616,230 0.00%

Alabama (AL)

AL-1 113 2019 420,720 0.03% 196 2016 402,120 0.05%

Mississippi (MS)

MS-1 85 2028 299,120 0.03% 150 2016 264,400 0.06%

EIA = Economic Impact Area.

Source: Baseline employment projections based on Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. (2011).
Tables-68 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-26

High-Case Cumulative Employment Projections by Economic Impact Area

Onshore Area

Employment (jobs)

Total (40-year total) Direct Indirect Induced Total

Direct Indirect Induced All Average 

Annual

Peak 

Annual

Average 

Annual

Peak 

Annual

Average 

Annual

Peak 

Annual

Average 

Annual

Peak 

Annual

Peak 

Year

Industry Expenditure Effects

Texas (TX)

TX-1 101,204 49,345 160,029 310,578 2,530 3,169 1,234 1,538 4,001 5,132 7,764 9,795 2031

TX-2 68,931 26,484 52,935 148,351 1,723 1,926 662 743 1,323 1,485 3,709 4,154 2031

TX-3 875,258 394,078 1,613,370 2,882,706 21,881 23,691 9,852 10,820 40,334 43,901 72,068 78,387 2031

All TX EIA’s 1,045,394 469,908 1,826,334 3,341,635 26,135 28,682 11,748 13,062 45,658 50,343 83,541 92,029 2031

The Rest of Texas 119,442 66,568 325,260 511,270 2,986 3,295 1,664 1,837 8,131 8,996 12,782 14,127 2031

Texas Total 1,164,836 536,475 2,151,593 3,852,905 29,121 31,922 13,412 14,880 53,790 59,212 96,323 105,995 2031

Louisiana (LA)

LA-1 74,190 40,500 86,487 201,176 1,855 2,093 1,012 1,158 2,162 2,448 5,029 5,700 2031

LA-2 134,404 59,112 364,216 557,732 3,360 3,826 1,478 1,702 9,105 10,205 13,943 15,733 2031

LA-3 148,680 88,820 501,129 738,629 3,717 4,258 2,220 2,559 12,528 14,059 18,466 20,868 2031

LA-4 106,734 52,897 226,187 385,818 2,668 2,991 1,322 1,493 5,655 6,320 9,645 10,803 2031

All LA EIA’s 464,007 241,328 1,178,020 1,883,355 11,600 13,143 6,033 6,898 29,450 32,993 47,084 53,012 2031

The Rest of Louisiana 59,634 22,022 115,192 196,849 1,491 1,650 551 608 2,880 3,191 4,921 5,449 2031

Louisiana Total 523,641 263,350 1,293,212 2,080,203 13,091 14,774 6,584 7,501 32,330 36,184 52,005 58,400 2031

Florida (FL)

FL-1 42,424 16,210 49,130 107,763 1,061 1,175 405 449 1,228 1,359 2,694 2,983 2031

FL-2 90,765 36,136 86,636 213,537 2,269 2,516 903 1,000 2,166 2,394 5,338 5,910 2031

FL-3 71,201 32,456 84,760 188,417 1,780 1,976 811 899 2,119 2,340 4,710 5,216 2031

FL-4 49,938 23,096 61,586 134,619 1,248 1,385 577 639 1,540 1,705 3,365 3,729 2031

All FL EIA’s 254,328 107,897 282,111 644,336 6,358 7,052 2,697 2,987 7,053 7,799 16,108 17,838 2031

The Rest of Florida 79,235 39,159 100,834 219,227 1,981 2,202 979 1,086 2,521 2,787 5,481 6,075 2031

Florida Total 333,563 147,056 382,945 863,563 8,339 9,254 3,676 4,074 9,574 10,586 21,589 23,913 2031

Alabama (AL)

AL-1 83,091 32,364 140,712 256,167 2,077 2,305 809 899 3,518 3,902 6,404 7,106 2031

The Rest of Alabama 135,095 58,236 154,218 347,549 3,377 3,726 1,456 1,604 3,855 4,249 8,689 9,579 2031

Alabama-Total 218,186 90,600 294,930 603,716 5,455 6,031 2,265 2,502 7,373 8,149 15,093 16,680 2031

Mississippi (MS)

MS-1 73,295 20,167 98,561 192,023 1,832 2,068 504 572 2,464 2,810 4,801 5,450 2031

The Rest of Mississippi 120,036 39,068 112,509 271,613 3,001 3,309 977 1,081 2,813 3,163 6,790 7,552 2031

Mississippi Total 193,331 59,235 211,070 463,636 4,833 5,377 1,481 1,653 5,277 5,973 11,591 13,002 2031

All EIA’s, Regardless 

of State 1,920,114 871,664 3,525,738 6,317,516 48,003 53,114 21,792 24,375 88,143 97,647 157,938 175,136 2031

All States Above 2,433,557 1,096,717 4,333,750 7,864,024 60,839 67,172 27,418 30,534 108,344 119,800 196,601 217,506 2031

EIA = Economic Impact Area.

Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2011.
Tables Tables-69

Table 4-27

Low-Case Cumulative Employment Projections by Economic Impact Area

Onshore Area

Employment (jobs)

Total (40-year total) Direct Indirect Induced Total

Direct Indirect Induced All Average 

Annual

Peak 

Annual

Average 

Annual

Peak 

Annual

Average 

Annual

Peak 

Annual

Average 

Annual

Peak 

Annual

Peak 

Year

Industry Expenditure Effects

Texas (TX)

TX-1 62,348 30,507 105,629 198,484 1,559 1,842 763 904 2,641 3,532 4,962 6,274 2030

TX-2 43,108 16,643 32,932 92,683 1,078 1,187 416 460 823 910 2,317 2,556 2031

TX-3 593,169 265,323 1,093,580 1,952,072 14,829 16,067 6,633 7,280 27,340 29,770 48,802 53,117 2030

All TX EIA’s 698,624 312,473 1,232,141 2,243,238 17,466 19,048 7,812 8,620 30,804 33,938 56,081 61,606 2030

The Rest of Texas 75,930 42,414 201,073 319,417 1,898 2,085 1,060 1,172 5,027 5,513 7,985 8,766 2031

Texas Total 774,555 354,887 1,433,214 2,562,655 19,364 21,132 8,872 9,792 35,830 39,447 64,066 70,371 2030

Louisiana (LA)

LA-1 46,222 25,062 53,602 124,886 1,156 1,277 627 699 1,340 1,484 3,122 3,459 2030

LA-2 85,002 37,337 237,488 359,828 2,125 2,367 933 1,054 5,937 6,605 8,996 10,023 2030

LA-3 92,305 54,818 322,207 469,331 2,308 2,581 1,370 1,544 8,055 8,951 11,733 13,076 2030

LA-4 66,637 33,179 144,285 244,102 1,666 1,843 829 924 3,607 3,986 6,103 6,753 2030

All LA EIA’s 290,167 150,397 757,583 1,198,146 7,254 8,067 3,760 4,219 18,940 21,025 29,954 33,310 2030

The Rest of Louisiana 37,629 13,977 72,759 124,365 941 1,030 349 383 1,819 1,990 3,109 3,403 2031

Louisiana Total 327,796 164,374 830,342 1,322,512 8,195 9,097 4,109 4,602 20,759 23,013 33,063 36,710 2030

Florida (FL)

FL-1 26,601 10,222 30,494 67,318 665 728 256 280 762 835 1,683 1,843 2031

FL-2 56,780 22,736 53,004 132,520 1,419 1,554 568 623 1,325 1,453 3,313 3,630 2031

FL-3 44,463 20,375 51,557 116,394 1,112 1,218 509 559 1,289 1,414 2,910 3,191 2031

FL-4 31,246 14,529 37,473 83,247 781 856 363 398 937 1,030 2,081 2,284 2031

All FL EIA’s 159,090 67,861 172,529 399,480 3,977 4,357 1,697 1,860 4,313 4,732 9,987 10,948 2031

The Rest of Florida 49,197 24,473 59,684 133,353 1,230 1,350 612 673 1,492 1,641 3,334 3,664 2031

Florida Total 208,286 92,334 232,212 532,832 5,207 5,707 2,308 2,532 5,805 6,372 13,321 14,612 2031

Alabama (AL)

AL-1 51,839 20,281 85,875 157,995 1,296 1,423 507 559 2,147 2,363 3,950 4,344 2030

The Rest of Alabama 84,739 36,868 93,167 214,773 2,118 2,324 922 1,020 2,329 2,566 5,369 5,910 2030

Alabama-Total 136,579 57,148 179,042 372,768 3,414 3,746 1,429 1,579 4,476 4,930 9,319 10,254 2030

Mississippi (MS)

MS-1 45,687 12,545 61,736 119,967 1,142 1,261 314 347 1,543 1,766 2,999 3,369 2030

The Rest of Mississippi 75,647 24,751 69,033 169,432 1,891 2,075 619 681 1,726 1,953 4,236 4,694 2030

Mississippi Total 121,334 37,296 130,769 289,399 3,033 3,335 932 1,028 3,269 3,719 7,235 8,048 2030

All EIA’s, Regardless of 

State 1,245,407 563,556 2,309,863 4,118,827 31,135 34,146 14,089 15,602 57,747 63,795 102,971 113,543 2030

All States Above 1,568,550 706,039 2,805,579 5,080,167 39,214 43,006 17,651 19,530 70,139 77,438 127,004 139,974 2030

EIA = Economic Impact Area

Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2011.
Tables-70 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-28

Low- and High-Case Cumulative Employment Projections as a Percent of Total Employment

EIA 

Low Case High Case

Peak Annual Peak Year

Baseline 

in Peak

Year

Percent Peak Annual Peak Year

Baseline 

in Peak 

Year

Percent

Texas (TX)

TX-1 6,274 2030 1,119,420 0.56% 9,795 2031 1,140,070 0.86%

TX-2 2,556 2031 404,890 0.63% 4,154 2031 404,890 1.03%

TX-3 53,117 2030 5,075,770 1.05% 78,387 2031 5,162,030 1.52%

Louisiana (LA)

LA-1 3,459 2030 226,000 1.53% 5,700 2031 228,970 2.49%

LA-2 10,023 2030 432,940 2.32% 15,733 2031 439,300 3.58%

LA-3 13,076 2030 863,290 1.51% 20,868 2031 875,160 2.38%

LA-4 6,753 2030 852,920 0.79% 10,803 2031 859,450 1.26%

Florida (FL)

FL-1 1,843 2031 637,380 0.29% 2,983 2031 637,380 0.47%

FL-2 3,630 2031 408,080 0.89% 5,910 2031 408,080 1.45%

FL-3 3,191 2031 2,560,650 0.12% 5,216 2031 2,560,650 0.20%

FL-4 2,284 2031 4,609,300 0.05% 3,729 2031 4,609,300 0.08%

Alabama (AL)

AL-1 4,344 2030 496,540 0.87% 7,106 2031 504,080 1.41%

Mississippi (MS)

MS-1 3,369 2030 305,320 1.10% 5,450 2031 308,460 1.77%

EIA = Economic Impact Area.

Source: Baseline employment projections based on Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. (2011).
Tables Tables-71

Table 4-29

Angler Trips in the Gulf of Mexico by Location and Mode in 2009, 2010, and 2011

State Area 2009 2010 2011 % State Total 

in 2011

Alabama Shore Ocean (<3 nmi) 322,126 447,041 603,546 24.3

Shore Inland 449,470 365,234 598,700 24.1

Charter Ocean (<3 nmi) 9,166 8,860 19,874 0.8

Charter Ocean (>3 nmi) 36,259 17,424 48,616 2.0

Charter Inland 10,656 7,221 6,351 0.3

Private/Rental Ocean (<3 nmi) 131,997 114,816 191,563 7.7

Private/Rental Ocean (>3 nmi) 134,411 69,335 188,994 7.6

Private/Rental Inland 618,502 656,226 825,821 33.3

Total 1,712,587 1,686,157 2,483,465 100.0

West Florida Shore Ocean (<9 nmi) 2,688,011 1,610,807 1,982,194 14.3

Shore Inland 3,793,756 4,034,208 3,862,665 27.8

Charter Ocean (<9 nmi) 196,753 159,317 179,880 1.3

Charter Ocean (>9 nmi) 262,005 203,201 236,088 1.7

Charter Inland 113,842 98,440 119,826 0.9

Private/Rental Ocean (<9 nmi) 2,605,196 2,257,349 1,901,217 13.7

Private/Rental Ocean (>9 nmi) 751,869 681,551 500,067 3.6

Private/Rental Inland 5,265,888 5,221,323 5,118,740 36.8

Total 15,677,320 14,266,196 13,900,677 100.0

Louisiana Shore Ocean (<3 nmi) 38,930 11,664 48,893 1.1

Shore Inland 730,053 717,006 1,073,035 23.4

Charter Ocean (<3 nmi) 3,931 2,762 6,937 0.2

Charter Ocean (>3 nmi) 21,173 8,106 15,742 0.3

Charter Inland 157,692 68,018 90,057 2.0

Private/Rental Ocean (<3 nmi) 81,008 59,347 77,986 1.7

Private/Rental Ocean (>3 nmi) 99,352 11,568 80,952 1.8

Private/Rental Inland 2,995,875 2,984,016 3,182,645 69.5

Total 4,128,014 3,862,487 4,576,247 100.0

Mississippi Shore Ocean (<3 nmi) 143 0 0 0.0

Shore Inland 309,612 596,544 760,788 47.1

Charter Ocean (<3 nmi) 2,803 904 3,123 0.2

Charter Ocean (>3 nmi) 330 949 221 0.0

Charter Inland 7,656 4,989 7,891 0.5

Private/Rental Ocean (<3 nmi) 16,962 12,419 18,682 1.2

Private/Rental Ocean (>3 nmi) 26,316 4,626 12,974 0.8

Private/Rental Inland 715,505 612,162 811,711 50.2

Total 1,079,327 1,232,593 1,615,390 100.0

Gulf Total Shore Ocean (<3 nmi) 3,049,210 2,069,512 2,634,633 11.7

Shore Inland 5,282,891 5,712,992 6,295,188 27.9

Charter Ocean (<3 nmi) 212,653 171,843 209,814 0.9

Charter Ocean (>3 nmi) 319,767 229,680 300,667 1.3

Charter Inland 289,846 178,668 224,125 1.0

Private/Rental Ocean (<3 nmi) 2,835,163 2,443,931 2,189,448 9.7

Private/Rental Ocean (>3 nmi) 1,011,948 767,080 782,987 3.5

Private/Rental Inland 9,595,770 9,473,727 9,938,917 44.0

Total 22,597,248 21,047,433 22,575,779 100.0

Notes: This table presents the total of fishing data from Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and West Florida.

State waters in Florida extend 9 nmi (10.4 mi; 16.67 km) from the coast rather than the typical 3 nmi (3.5 mi; 5.6 km).

Source: USDOC, NMFS, 2012.
Tables-72 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-30

Fish Species Caught by Recreational Anglers from 2007 through 2011

Species/Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Panel A: Number of Fish

Atlantic Croaker 3,928,295 5,020,732 5,029,701 5,337,312 7,950,146

Black Drum 1,310,832 1,975,432 1,770,479 1,763,633 1,884,447

Blackfin Tuna 85,579 137,887 84,978 32,147 53,829

Cobia 118,789 160,155 86,106 62,400 109,388

Dolphins 518,324 640,488 401,891 270,119 456,829

Gag 3,003,086 4,556,734 2,969,559 2,260,741 1,269,038

Gray Snapper 5,632,849 7,316,720 4,446,255 2,451,867 2,800,767

Great Amberjack 243,007 248,910 212,229 382,672 250,954

King Mackerel 456,714 374,338 673,530 291,065 244,812

Little Tuny 376,257 203,560 168,356 140,474 201,761

Pinfishes 10,929,444 16,112,529 9,876,807 10,415,589 8,851,759

Red Drum 9,068,231 10,310,311 8,132,874 9,718,538 9,992,160

Red Grouper 1,054,261 3,105,159 3,172,238 2,242,746 2,009,532

Red Snapper 4,481,634 2,789,675 2,941,448 1,769,536 2,041,512

Sand Seatrout 4,770,124 5,335,003 6,632,448 6,329,040 8,268,113

Sheepshead 2,420,502 3,055,781 2,911,901 2,884,114 3,849,215

Southern Flounder 891,087 594,926 837,108 991,760 987,796

Southern Kingfish 1,604,741 1,590,202 1,417,523 1,450,408 1,163,302

Spanish Mackerel 3,435,418 3,938,013 3,138,754 4,040,757 3,475,966

Spotted Seatrout 30,037,637 35,141,138 30,700,217 24,703,470 32,700,839

Striped Mullet 1,307,575 1,405,717 967,398 1,791,862 2,214,375

White Grunt 2,183,714 3,721,050 2,285,007 2,494,075 2,852,807

Panel B: Pounds

Atlantic Croaker 627,525 746,737 417,298 529,427 816,562

Black Drum 2,650,910 3,329,225 2,720,006 2,433,846 2,487,203

Blackfin Tuna 371,117 854,254 1,225,530 276,947 415,204

Cobia 1,019,190 797,585 510,151 483,465 1,132,455

Dolphins 2,005,505 1,758,506 2,114,876 685,194 1,295,453

Gag 2,521,392 3,250,623 1,485,256 1,630,999 665,580

Gray Snapper 1,639,212 2,016,456 1,525,684 882,715 1,250,520

Great Amberjack 1,029,530 1,407,076 1,523,734 1,483,609 946,467

King Mackerel 2,552,044 1,804,192 3,677,465 1,808,493 1,679,476

Little Tuny 582,894 439,608 517,938 418,973 455,612

Pinfishes 1,394,218 2,029,509 801,445 2,028,069 1,574,080

Red Drum 13,202,268 14,496,283 11,773,528 13,509,248 15,340,878

Red Grouper 1,111,020 879,028 981,966 762,208 640,002

Red Snapper 4,077,886 2,806,925 3,648,516 1,655,857 3,486,486

Sand Seatrout 1,624,380 1,880,159 2,308,490 2,579,227 3,412,201

Sheepshead 3,522,023 4,415,722 3,904,616 3,296,696 6,990,784

Southern Flounder 966,768 687,368 910,196 1,104,725 1,120,655

Southern Kingfish 542,043 553,205 638,419 568,799 390,627

Spanish Mackerel 2,021,013 2,943,974 2,072,995 2,546,029 2,132,604

Spotted Seatrout 13,332,324 16,156,781 15,393,934 12,259,023 17,924,543

Striped Mullet 1,566,017 1,614,209 899,038 2,674,277 2,055,630

White Grunt 568,247 1,131,685 1,030,272 930,723 1,266,126

Source: USDOC, NMFS, 2012. 
Tables Tables-73

Table 4-31

Peak Population Projections from the CPA Proposed Action as a Percent of Total Population

EIA 

Low Case High Case

Peak Annual Peak Year Baseline 

in Peak Year Percent Peak Annual Peak Year Baseline in Peak Year Percent

Texas (TX)

TX-1 1,427 2030 2,494,450 0.06% 4,084 2030 2,494,450 0.16%

TX-2 435 2017 689,560 0.06% 852 2020 717,320 0.12%

TX-3 9,609 2017 7,038,820 0.14% 17,674 2017 7,038,820 0.25%

Louisiana (LA)

LA-1 588 2017 369,150 0.16% 1,114 2020 379,540 0.29%

LA-2 1,668 2017 635,360 0.26% 3,699 2030 733,820 0.50%

LA-3 2,196 2017 1,216,410 0.18% 4,823 2030 1,360,250 0.35%

LA-4 1,145 2017 1,287,530 0.09% 2,170 2020 1,308,490 0.17%

Florida (FL)

FL-1 329 2017 972,190 0.03% 650 2020 1,011,710 0.06%

FL-2 648 2017 717,340 0.09% 1,292 2020 742,780 0.17%

FL-3 567 2017 4,068,050 0.01% 1,140 2020 4,261,620 0.03%

FL-4 404 2017 6,775,610 0.01% 811 2020 7,041,770 0.01%

Alabama (AL)

AL-1 756 2017 770,620 0.10% 1,502 2020 790,710 0.19%

Mississippi (MS)

MS-1 567 2030 545,250 0.10% 1,412 2030 545,250 0.26%

EIA = Economic Impact Area.

Source: Baseline employment projections based on Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. (2011).
Tables-74 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-32

High-Case Employment Projections for the CPA Proposed Action by Economic Impact Area

Onshore Area

Employment (jobs)

Total (40-year total) Direct Indirect Induced Total

Direct Indirect Induced All Average 

Annual

Peak 

Annual

Average 

Annual

Peak 

Annual

Average 

Annual

Peak 

Annual

Average 

Annual

Peak 

Annual Peak Year

Industry Expenditure Effects

Texas (TX)

TX-1 4,279 2,082 6,662 13,023 110 462 53 223 171 892 334 1,577 2030

TX-2 2,604 1,013 2,001 5,618 67 154 26 59 51 116 144 329 2020

TX-3 33,942 15,265 62,791 111,997 870 2,133 391 906 1,610 3,785 2,872 6,824 2017

All TX EIA’s 40,825 18,360 71,453 130,639 1,047 2,440 471 1,059 1,832 4,237 3,350 7,716 2020

The Rest of Texas 4,390 2,439 11,918 18,747 113 281 63 156 306 735 481 1,171 2020

Texas Total 45,215 20,799 83,371 149,386 1,159 2,701 533 1,215 2,138 4,971 3,830 8,887 2020

Louisiana (LA)

LA-1 2,868 1,607 3,364 7,838 74 161 41 88 86 185 201 430 2020

LA-2 5,287 2,337 14,276 21,899 136 344 60 166 366 919 562 1,428 2030

LA-3 5,897 3,572 19,734 29,203 151 396 92 231 506 1,235 749 1,862 2030

LA-4 4,122 2,064 8,749 14,935 106 229 53 119 224 498 383 838 2020

All LA EIA’s 18,174 9,580 46,122 73,876 466 1,118 246 604 1,183 2,831 1,894 4,553 2030

The Rest of Louisiana 2,209 814 4,317 7,341 57 140 21 52 111 264 188 457 2020

Louisiana Total 20,383 10,394 50,440 81,217 523 1,235 267 648 1,293 3,065 2,082 4,948 2030

Florida (FL)

FL-1 1,588 605 1,810 4,003 41 100 16 39 46 113 103 251 2020

FL-2 3,402 1,352 3,148 7,902 87 215 35 86 81 199 203 499 2020

FL-3 2,675 1,214 3,053 6,942 69 168 31 77 78 195 178 440 2020

FL-4 1,867 861 2,227 4,954 48 118 22 55 57 141 127 313 2020

All FL EIA’s 9,531 4,033 10,237 23,801 244 601 103 256 262 647 610 1,504 2020

The Rest of Florida 2,960 1,457 3,566 7,983 76 184 37 91 91 225 205 500 2020

Florida Total 12,491 5,489 13,803 31,783 320 785 141 347 354 871 815 2,004 2020

Alabama (AL)

AL-1 3,089 1,205 5,149 9,443 79 192 31 74 132 313 242 580 2020

The Rest of Alabama 4,949 2,107 5,465 12,521 127 318 54 137 140 352 321 807 2020

Alabama-Total 8,037 3,312 10,615 21,964 206 510 85 211 272 665 563 1,386 2020

Mississippi (MS)

MS-1 2,776 766 3,728 7,271 71 196 20 56 96 293 186 545 2030

The Rest of Mississippi 4,464 1,455 4,095 10,014 114 283 37 93 105 302 257 660 2030

Mississippi Total 7,241 2,221 7,824 17,285 186 462 57 147 201 596 443 1,205 2030

All EIA’s, Regardless of 

State 74,394 33,944 136,690 245,029 1,908 4,378 870 1,938 3,505 8,018 6,283 14,335 2020

All States Above 93,367 42,216 166,052 301,635 2,394 5,585 1,082 2,468 4,258 9,849 7,734 17,902 2020

EIA = Economic Impact Area.

Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2011.
Tables Tables-75

Table 4-33

Low-Case Employment Projections for the CPA Proposed Action by Economic Impact Area

Onshore Area

Employment (jobs)

Total (40-year total) Direct Indirect Induced Total

Direct Indirect Induced All Average 

Annual

Peak 

Annual

Average 

Annual

Peak 

Annual

Average 

Annual

Peak 

Annual

Average 

Annual

Peak 

Annual Peak Year

Industry Expenditure Effects

Texas (TX)

TX-1 1,711 839 2,877 5,426 44 136 22 68 74 347 139 551 2030

TX-2 1,180 460 905 2,545 30 78 12 30 23 60 65 168 2017

TX-3 16,645 7,432 30,787 54,864 427 1,132 191 491 789 2,087 1,407 3,710 2017

All TX EIA’s 19,536 8,731 34,569 62,835 501 1,311 224 570 886 2,283 1,611 4,164 2017

The Rest of Texas 2,047 1,141 5,410 8,598 52 140 29 77 139 376 220 593 2017

Texas Total 21,583 9,871 39,979 71,433 553 1,451 253 647 1,025 2,659 1,832 4,757 2017

Louisiana (LA)

LA-1 1,286 710 1,499 3,495 33 84 18 45 38 98 90 227 2017

LA-2 2,357 1,040 6,639 10,036 60 149 27 70 170 431 257 644 2017

LA-3 2,572 1,549 9,033 13,155 66 165 40 102 232 590 337 848 2017

LA-4 1,843 926 4,016 6,785 47 119 24 59 103 264 174 442 2017

All LA EIA’s 8,059 4,224 21,187 33,470 207 515 108 270 543 1,383 858 2,160 2017

The Rest of Louisiana 1,020 379 1,991 3,389 26 71 10 26 51 139 87 236 2017

Louisiana Total 9,078 4,603 23,178 36,859 233 586 118 292 594 1,522 945 2,396 2017

Florida (FL)

FL-1 727 279 824 1,830 19 50 7 19 21 57 47 127 2017

FL-2 1,553 622 1,417 3,592 40 108 16 43 36 99 92 250 2017

FL-3 1,219 557 1,370 3,146 31 84 14 38 35 96 81 219 2017

FL-4 853 396 1,000 2,249 22 59 10 27 26 69 58 156 2017

All FL EIA’s 4,353 1,854 4,610 10,817 112 302 48 128 118 321 277 751 2017

The Rest of Florida 1,342 665 1,560 3,567 34 92 17 45 40 108 91 246 2017

Florida Total 5,695 2,519 6,170 14,384 146 393 65 173 158 430 369 996 2017

Alabama (AL)

AL-1 1,404 550 2,301 4,255 36 96 14 37 59 158 109 292 2017

The Rest of Alabama 2,277 983 2,445 5,705 58 158 25 68 63 171 146 396 2017

Alabama-Total 3,682 1,532 4,746 9,960 94 254 39 105 122 329 255 688 2017

Mississippi (MS)

MS-1 1,224 336 1,658 3,218 31 85 9 24 43 124 83 219 2030

The Rest of Mississippi 2,035 665 1,813 4,513 52 141 17 46 46 131 116 311 2020

Mississippi Total 3,259 1,001 3,471 7,731 84 225 26 70 89 255 198 530 2020

All EIA’s, Regardless of 

State 34,576 15,695 64,326 114,596 887 2,308 402 1,020 1,649 4,254 2,938 7,582 2017

All States Above 43,297 19,527 77,544 140,368 1,110 2,910 501 1,283 1,988 5,168 3,599 9,360 2017

EIA = Economic Impact Area.

Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2011.
Tables-76 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table 4-34

Peak Employment Projections from the CPA Proposed Action as a Percent of Total Employment

EIA 

Low Case High Case

Peak Annual Peak Year Baseline 

in Peak Year Percent Peak Annual Peak Year Baseline in Peak Year Percent

Texas (TX)

TX-1 551 2030 1,119,420 0.05% 1,577 2030 1,119,420 0.14%

TX-2 168 2017 331,480 0.05% 329 2020 346,340 0.09%

TX-3 3,710 2017 4,054,020 0.09% 6,824 2017 4,054,020 0.17%

Louisiana (LA)

LA-1 227 2017 190,850 0.12% 430 2020 198,430 0.22%

LA-2 644 2017 355,350 0.18% 1,428 2030 432,940 0.33%

LA-3 848 2017 720,630 0.12% 1,862 2030 863,290 0.22%

LA-4 442 2017 771,300 0.06% 838 2020 789,650 0.11%

Florida (FL)

FL-1 127 2017 521,510 0.02% 251 2020 544,670 0.05%

FL-2 250 2017 339,840 0.07% 499 2020 353,430 0.14%

FL-3 219 2017 2,030,110 0.01% 440 2020 2,134,990 0.02%

FL-4 156 2017 3,676,610 0.00% 313 2020 3,862,560 0.01%

Alabama (AL)

AL-1 292 2017 408,230 0.07% 580 2020 427,110 0.14%

MS-1 219 2030 496,540 0.04% 545 2030 496,540 0.11%

EIA = Economic Impact Area.

Source: Baseline employment projections based on Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. (2011).
Tables Tables-77

REFERENCES

Butchart, S.H.M., A.J. Stattersfield, L.A. Bennun, S.M. Shutes, H.R. Akçakaya, J.E.M. Baillie, 

S.N. Stuart, C. Hilton-Taylor, and G.M. Mace. 2004. Measuring global trends in the status of 

biodiversity: Red List indices for birds. PLoS Biology 2(12): 11 pp. Internet website: http://

www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020383. 

Butchart, S.H.M., A.J. Stattersfield, J.E.M. Baillie, L.A. Bennun, S.N. Stuart, H.R. Akçakaya, C. HiltonTaylor, and G.M. Mace. 2005. Using Red List indices to measure progress towards the 2010 target 

and beyond. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 360:255-268.

Burger, A.E. 1993. Estimating the mortality of seabirds following oil spills: Effects of spill volume. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin 26(3):140-143.

Byrd, G.V., J.H. Reynolds, and P.L. Flint. 2009. Persistence rates and detection probabilities of bird 

carcasses on beaches of Unalaska Island, Alaska, following the wreck of the M/V Selendang Ayu. 

Marine Ornithology 37:197-204.

Canadian Center for Energy Information. 2010. What are oil sands and heavy oil? Internet website: 

http://www.centreforenergy.com/AboutEnergy/ONG/OilsandsHeavyOil/Overview.asp?page=1. 

Accessed November 10, 2011.

Castege, I., Y. Lalanne, V. Gouriou, G. Hemery, M. Girin, F. D’Amico, C. Mouches, J. D’Elbe, 

L. Soulier, J. Pensu, D. Lafitte, and F. Pautrizel. 2007. Estimating actual seabirds mortality at sea 

and relationship with oil spills: lesson from the Prestige oil spill in Aquitaine (France). Ardeola 

54:289-307.

Fisher, M. 2012. Official communication. Effort and catch data. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

Flint, P.L. and A.C. Fowler. 1998. A drift experiment to assess the influence of wind on recovery of 

oiled seabird on St. Paul Island, Alaska. Marine Pollution Bulletin 36:165-166.

Flint, P.L., A.C. Fowler, and R.F. Rockwell. 1999. Modeling bird mortality associated with the M/V 

Citrus oil spill off St. Paul Island, Alaska. Ecological Modelling 117:261-267.

Flint, P.L., E.W. Lance, K.M. Sowl, and T.F. Donnelly. 2010. Estimating carcass persistence and 

scavenging bias in a human-influenced landscape in western Alaska. Journal of Field Ornithology 

81:206-214.

Ford, R.G. 2006. Using beached bird monitoring data for seabird damage assessment: The importance 

of search interval. Marine Ornithology 34:91-98.

Ford, R.G., M.L. Bonnell, D.H. Varoujean, G.W. Page, H.R. Carter, B.E. Sharp, D. Heinemann, and 

J.L. Casey. 1996. Total direct mortality of seabirds from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. American 

Fisheries Society Symposium 18:684-711.

Ford, R.G. and M.A. Zafonte. 2009. Scavenging of seabird carcasses at oil spill sites in California and 

Oregon. Marine Ornithology 37:205-211.

Fowler, A.C. and P.L. Flint. 1997. Persistence rates and detection probabilities of oiled king eider 

carcasses on St. Paul Island, Alaska. Marine Pollution Bulletin 34:522-526.

Hampton, S. and M. Zafonte. 2005. Factors influencing beached bird collection during the Luckenbach

2001/02 oil spill. Marine Ornithology 34:109-113.

Harris, J.B.C., J.L. Reid, B.R. Scheffers, T.C. Wanger, N.S. Sodhi, D.A. Fordham, and B.W. Brook. 

2012. Conserving imperiled species: A comparison of the IUCN Red List and U.S. Endangered 

Species Act. Conservation Letters 5:64-72.

Michel, J. 1992. Chapter 2. Oil behavior and toxicity. In: Hayes, M.O., R. Hoff, J. Michel, D. Scholz, 

and G. Shigenaka. An introduction to coastal habitats and biological resources for oil spill response. 
Tables-78 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Response and 

Restoration. NOAA Report No. HMRAD 92-4. Pp. 2-1 through 2-9.

NatureServe Explorer. 2012. Endangered species. Internet website: http://www.natureserve.org/

explorer/. 

Piatt, J.F. and R.G. Ford. 1996. How many seabirds were killed by the Exxon Valdez oil spill? American 

Fisheries Society Symposium 18:712-719.

Piatt, J.F., H.R. Carter, and D.N. Nettleship. 1990a. Effects of oil pollution in marine bird populations. 

In: White, J., ed. The effects of oil on wildlife: Research, rehabilitation and general concerns. 

Proceedings of the Oil Symposium, Herndon, VA, October 16-18, 1990. Hanover, PA: Sheridan 

Press. Pp. 125-141.

Piatt, J.F., C.J. Lensink, W. Butler, M. Kendziorek, and D.R. Nysewander. 1990b. Immediate impact of 

the ‘Exxon Valdez’ oil spill on seabirds. Auk 107:387-397.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012. Recreational fishing online 

database. Internet website: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/recreational/queries/index.html. 

Accessed March 6, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2012. Quarterly census of employment and wages for 

2008-2011. Internet website: http://www.bls.gov/cew/. Accessed August 1, 2, 6, and 10, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Deepwater Horizon bird impact data from 

the DOI‐ERDC NRDA database 12 May 2011. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/

home/dhoilspill/pdfs/Bird%20Data%20Species%20Spreadsheet%2005122011.pdf.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012a. Official communication. Email regarding 

Federally listed avian species to be considered in the NEPA analyses. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Region 4, Ecological Services Field Office, Lafayette, LA. April 6, 2012.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012b. Endangered species program. Internet 

website: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/. Accessed April 6, 2012.

Wiese, F.K. and I.L. Jones. 2001. Experimental support for a new drift block design to assess seabird 

mortality from oil pollution. Auk 118:1062-1068.

Wilhelm, S.I., G.J. Robertson, P.C. Ryan, and D.C. Schneider. 2007. Comparing an estimate of seabirds 

at risk to a mortality estimate from the November 2004 Terra Nova FPSO oil spill. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin 54:537-544.

Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2011. CEDDS 2012: The complete economic and demographic data 

source on CD-ROM.
APPENDIX A 

AIR QUALITY OFFSHORE MODELING ANALYSIS

Air Quality Offshore Modeling Analysis A-3 

APPENDIX A. AIR QUALITY OFFSHORE MODELING ANALYSIS

Introduction

This Appendix discusses the coastal dispersion modeling analysis and the potential impacts of 

offshore emission from the WPA and CPA proposed actions to onshore air quality. The latest version of 

the Offshore and Coastal Dispersion Model (Version 5.0, dated May 16, 2005) was used to calculate 

impacts. The objective of the analysis was to determine if the impacts from the proposed actions would 

significantly affect the environment, particularly public health and public welfare.

Background 

The Clean Air Act, which was last amended in 1990, requires the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS, [40 CFR 50]) for pollutants 

considered harmful to public health and the environment. The USEPA has set NAAQS for six principal 

pollutants, which are called “criteria” pollutants. These pollutants are carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen 

dioxide, ozone, particle pollution (listed as PM2.5 and PM10), and sulfur dioxide.

The NAAQS were developed to protect the public health and welfare while allowing for an adequate 

margin of safety. Primary NAAQS protect the public health including sensitive subpopulations such as 

infants and the elderly. Secondary NAAQS standards protect public welfare such as the prevention of 

aquatic acidification, plant leaf damage, or visibility impairment. Thus, for NEPA evaluation purposes, it 

is reasonable to presume that concentrations of emissions from offshore activities that, following transport 

to shore, which do not cause exceedances of the NAAQS and are below BOEM’s maximum allowable 

increases, will have minimal impacts to onshore air quality. 

The Clean Air Act also established additional protection for pristine national parks and wilderness 

areas, referred to as Class I areas. In the Gulf of Mexico, the Breton National Wilderness Area is the 

Class I area most likely to be impacted by OCS activity. When these same emissions from offshore 

activities are modeled to determine that concentrations at the Breton Class I area are also below BOEM’s 

Class I Significance Levels, it is reasonable to presume for NEPA evaluation purposes that the 

concentrations of emissions from offshore activities have negligible impacts to the air quality of this 

pristine Federal area.

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate and 

administer regulations for compliance with the NAAQS to the extent that the authorized activities 

significantly affect the air quality of any state. These regulations apply in the area of the proposed actions 

and alternatives.

BOEM-regulated pollutants include carbon monoxide (CO), suspended particulates, sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and volatile organic compounds (VOC’s). The original NAAQS particulate 

standard was for total suspended particulates (TSP’s), which BOEM adopted. This standard has been 

replaced by USEPA in their regulations with the PM10 and PM2.5 (particulate matter equal to or below 

10 μm and equal to or below 2.5μm in size) because these specific size classifications better define the 

size range that has the greatest environmental impact. BOEM’s regulations use the TSP designation, but 

for purposes of this NEPA analysis, BOEM determined levels of PM10 and PM2.5 so that our data are 

compatible with USEPA’s data. This is just one example of where the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s NAAQS and BOEM’s regulations may be somewhat different. As another example, BOEM’s 

regulations employ 3-hour, 24-hour, and annual standards while USEPA has set 1-hour standards to limit 

pollutant spikes that are not detectable when concentrations are averaged over a longer time period. Both 

types of particulate designations are included in this Appendix. 

BOEM uses a two-level hierarchy of evaluation criteria to evaluate potential impacts of offshore 

emission sources to onshore areas. The evaluation criteria are the exemption level and the significance 

level. If the proposed activities exceed the criteria at the first level (exemption level), the evaluation 

moves to the significance level criteria. The initial evaluation compares the worst-case emissions to the 

BOEM exemption criteria. If the proposed activity emissions are below the exemption levels, then the 

proposed activity is exempt from further air quality review.

If the exemption levels are exceeded, then the second step requires refined modeling using coastal 

dispersion modeling; in this case, the Offshore and Coastal Dispersion Model Version 5. The results of 
A-4 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

the model, i.e., the modeled potential onshore impacts, are compared with BOEM’s significance levels. If 

the significance levels are exceeded in an attainment area (i.e., an area that meets the NAAQS), the 

operator would be required to apply best available control technology to the emissions source. If the 

affected area is classified as nonattainment, further emission reductions or offsets may be required. 

Contributions to onshore pollutant concentrations are also subject to the same increments as USEPA 

applies to onshore areas under their Prevention of Significant Deterioration program.

According to the Clean Air Act Amendments, the air quality in national parks, national wilderness 

areas, national monuments, and national seashores (42 U.S.C. 7470) must be preserved. The Clean Air 

Act Amendments establish Class I and II areas, where emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide 

are to be restricted. The restrictions are most severe in Class I areas and are progressively less restrictive 

in Class II areas.

Offshore Coastal Dispersion Model

The Offshore and Coastal Dispersion Model Version 5 (OCD 5 model) was developed by USEPA in 

conjunction with BOEM’s predecessor agency, the Minerals Management Service, in the late 1980’s, and 

the model was formally approved for use in January 1988. The OCD 5 model is a coastal dispersion 

model that was formulated to estimate shoreline concentrations resulting from releases taking place from 

offshore petroleum drilling platforms. The developers suggest that direct turbulence measurements be 

used to estimate the dispersion parameters over water. As the plume comes ashore, dispersion is 

estimated for the effect of transport over land using traditional techniques (Turner and Schulze, 2007).

The OCD 5 model input data comprises source-specific data as well as meteorological data. The 

source-specific data includes location of activities, emission rate information for all sources associated 

with activities at the given location, and stack parameters for each source. The model requires both overland and over-water meteorological data to determine the potential onshore impacts of the offshore 

operations. These data include overland surface characteristics such as surface roughness and over-water 

data such as water temperature, over-water air temperature, over-water dew point, over-water wind speed, 

and over-water wind direction. These data are usually obtained from the offshore buoy closest to the 

source at three different mixing heights—300 meters, 600 meters, and 900 meters (984 feet, 1,969 feet, 

and 2,953 feet).

The model parameters are populated by choosing onshore locations (receptors) at which the OCD 5 

model will predict the pollutant concentrations of the modeled emission sources. Receptors are identified 

on the shoreline and at nearby Class I areas. Although the OCD 5 model does not include algorithms for 

parameters such as regional haze and acid deposition, its relatively simpler data processing makes it an 

efficient model for use in predicting pollutant impacts from offshore sources.

The OCD 5 model was chosen to analyze the proposed impacts because it performs best when 

meteorological data is collected over the water. The OCD 5 model was approved for use by the Director 

of the Minerals Management Service (currently BOEM), and it is listed as an approved air quality model 

in Appendix W of 40 CFR 51. More recently, BOEM’s Director approved the use of the CaliforniaPUFF model (CALPUFF), another approved dispersion model listed in Appendix W of 40 CFR 51. 

However, the OCD 5 model was chosen because BOEM continues to believe it is the more conservative 

of the two models.

The OCD model does not include a simulation of onshore ozone levels. Several prior studies have 

demonstrated that OCS activities have only a small contribution to onshore ozone formation. Because the 

offshore activities’ contribution to onshore ozone have been shown to be very small, BOEM chose to run 

the OCD model. The studies that support this decision include the Gulf of Mexico Air Quality Study

(Systems Applications International et al., 1995), in which this Agency used the Urban Airshed Model 

(UAM-V) to assess the potential impacts of OCS activity in the WPA/CPA on USEPA -designated ozone 

nonattainment areas in urban onshore Texas and Louisiana. Relative to onshore contributors, OCS 

contributors to onshore ozone formation were low. The Gulf of Mexico Air Quality Study was followed 

by a study in 2000 that used the year 2000 Gulfwide emissions to assess the OCS contribution to onshore 

ozone in the Houston/Brazoria/Galveston region of Texas. The Comprehensive Air Quality Model with 

extensions (CAMx) was used to model contribution during an August 2000 ozone episode (Yarwood

et al., 2004). The OCS contributions to ozone exceedances were minor. Yarwood et al. (2004) used a 

photochemical model to analyze the Year 2000 Gulfwide Emissions Inventory (GWEI) and selected the 

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria nonattainment area since it has the most severe ozone problem in the Gulf of 
Air Quality Offshore Modeling Analysis A-5 

Mexico region (System Applications International et al., 1995). One of the main relevant findings in 

Yarwood et al. (2004) is as follow: “The average impact of the year 2000 GWEI emissions on 8-hour 

ozone levels above 85 ppb in Houston area is 0.2 ppb; although larger impacts may occur over the Gulf of 

Mexico.” Haney et al. (2008) performed a modeling investigation using the year 2000 and year 2005 

GWEI’s in the WPA and CPA to evaluate the impact of offshore emissions on offshore and onshore 

ozone air quality, in which they proposed an emission-reduction scenario. They found a particular ozone 

episode that the onshore impact from all offshore oil-and-gas-related sources was small but generally 

larger than those estimates using the year 2000 inventory. They noticed higher simulated ozone 

concentrations from the year 2005 emissions due to increases in NOx and VOC concentrations.

A second follow-up study was conducted in 2008 using the updated year 2005 Gulfwide Emission 

Inventory Study to model ozone formation in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida based on an 

August 1999 ozone episode (Haney et al., 2008). In this study, OCS oil and gas activity contributed only 

slightly to the simulated onshore ozone exceedances.

OCD Model Protocol

The OCD 5 model was used to analyze the WPA and CPA proposed actions’ impacts on the onshore 

community. BOEM’s regulations at 30 CFR 550.303 cite that an approved model should be used to 

assess impacts. The USEPA lists approved models in 40 CFR Chapter 1, Part 51, Appendix W 7.2.4., 

“Modeling Guidance for Other Governmental Programs.” The model was used to compute 

concentrations of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic carbon compounds 

(VOC’s), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter below 10 micrometers (PM10) and below 

2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) in size.

BOEM’s regulations do not include ozone as it is not directly emitted into the air from OCS oil and 

gas activities. BOEM does regulate the pollutants, VOC and NO2, which are precursors to ozone. Ozone 

formation from VOC’s and NO2 is dependent upon a photochemical reaction in the ambient air that 

includes heat and sunlight. Ozone formation is a problem in onshore urban areas with many sources of 

pollutants. The OCD model cannot simulate ozone generation. Several studies that BOEM has 

conducted and that are discussed above have shown that OCS activities are only a small contributor to 

onshore ozone exceedance so there was no need to perform ozone modeling. Estimates of the amount of 

activity that will result from the proposed WPA or CPA lease sale were made using the scenarios for both 

individual typical lease sales and all cumulative OCS activities in the WPA and CPA (Tables 3-2, 3-3, 

3-5, and 3-6 of this Supplemental EIS). BOEM can attribute an amount of emissions generated by each 

activity through information collected in the Year 2008 Gulfwide Emission Inventory Study (Wilson et al., 

2010) and Rigzone (2009). A spreadsheet was developed based on the findings of this study (Billings 

et al., official communication, 2012). Using the level of activity and the activity’s known emissions, total 

emissions were determined for each type of activity for each of the 40 years of the analysis period for the 

WPA and CPA proposed actions.

Yearly emissions from all of these activities and sources were summed together and modeled: 

exploration and delineation drilling; development and production drilling; platform installation and 

removal; pipeline installation; production platform operations; tanker loading; tanker in transit; tanker 

unloading; and helicopters and support vessels. Drilling comprises approximately 60-75 percent of the 

total emissions. Emissions for the year with the highest annual emissions during the 40-year analysis 

period (tons/year) and the cumulative sum of all emissions from all OCS-related activities in the WPA 

and CPA during the 40-year analysis period (tons) are shown in Tables A-1 through A-4. The data in 

the EIS spreadsheets were based on an average drillship as reported in the Year 2008 Gulfwide Emission 

Inventory Study (Wilson et al., 2010) and Rigzone (2009) for the Gulf of Mexico. Drilling days and 

average kilowatts were used to calculate reasonably foreseeable emissions. Specific drillships can be 

significantly larger or smaller than the average value used in the spreadsheet and greater total emissions 

could be generated if the drillship stays on location longer. These averages may not, in every situation, 

directly translate to the short-term (as opposed to annual) NAAQS; nevertheless, BOEM’s subject-matter 

experts believe that the analysis remains conservative with regards to reasonably foreseeable emissions 

expected to result from WPA and CPA proposed actions. 

In response to the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, USEPA issued 40 CFR 98, which 

requires reporting of greenhouse gas emissions. Subpart W of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule 

requires petroleum and natural gas facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 equivalents per 
A-6 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

year to report emissions from equipment leaks and venting. On average, the amount of CO2 emissions 

from a typical well site is about 237-439 tons per year. Subpart C of the Green House Gas Reporting 

Rule requires operators to report greenhouse gas emissions from general stationary fuel combustion 

sources to USEPA. At this point this is just a reporting requirement; there are no specific NAAQS or 

emission limitations for greenhouse gases.

BOEM has included modeled estimates for certain greenhouse gases that may be directly emitted 

during OCS oil and gas activities in this Appendix. At this time, the greenhouse gas emissions related to 

OCS oil and gas activities are a very small percentage of the national emissions, and it would be 

impossible to tease out the impacts from this small incremental addition from global climate change 

impacts attributable to all other global sources. As such, BOEM does not believe that the potential 

greenhouse gas emissions directly attributable to oil and gas activities on the OCS as a result of the WPA 

or CPA proposed action are significant to global greenhouse gas levels.

The single sale projected emissions were then assigned to a block within the WPA or CPA for OCD 5 

modeling. Modeling emissions from cumulative sales was not performed because although the 

cumulative emissions are greater than the lease sale emissions, the emissions would be widely distributed 

across the planning areas and would be the result of activities based on all stages of the life of the lease. 

Since drilling is the activity with the greatest emissions and is most concentrated in a new lease, modeling 

for a single lease sale was considered sufficient. At the time of the WPA or CPA lease sale, BOEM can 

only generally predict where or when the activities that generate air pollutants will occur during the 

40-year analysis period within the planning areas. Of the various types of drilling rigs, the drillship was 

chosen because it generates the greatest amount of emissions since it is not anchored to the seafloor. 

Instead, the drillship depends on engines to stay on location. Thus, the drillship’s emissions result from 

both drilling and the thrusters used to maintain location. A drillship generates 773 tons of NOx per well 

whereas a jack-up rig generates 47 tons of NOx per well. The selected CPA source (Mississippi Canyon 

Block 856 [MC 856]) is about 56 miles (90 kilometers) from the closest shoreline and 95 miles 

(153 kilometers) from the Breton Class I area, while the selected WPA source (East Breaks Block 446 

[EB 446]) is about 80 miles (129 kilometers) from the closest shoreline. No Class I area is within 300 

kilometers (186 miles) of EB 446, so no EB 446 Class I modeling was performed. All of the emissions 

from the year with the highest activity were placed in one location rather than distributed across the 

proposed WPA and CPA lease sale areas. The modeling scenarios are presented in Table A-5. 

The meteorological data used are described in BOEM’s Five-Year Meteorological Datasets for 

CALMET/CALPUFF and OCD5 Modeling of the Gulf of Mexico Region (Douglas and Hudischewskyj, 

2008). The meteorological files to use in the OCD 5 model were prepared using onshore surface and 

upper-air data from the National Weather Service, mixing height estimates obtained from the National 

Climatic Data Center, and offshore buoy data from the National Data Buoy Center (Douglas and 

Hudischewskyj, 2008). The meteorological data used were from the period 2000 through 2004. Different 

meteorological data were applied to each site. For EB 446, the meteorological data were from Corpus 

Christi, Texas, for both surface and upper air, as well as Buoy 42019. For MC 856, surface data come 

from Patterson, Louisiana, and upper air data come from Slidell, Louisiana. Buoy data for MC 856 come 

from Buoy 42040. These meteorological data points are the closest, physically, to the proposed lease sale 

areas available to BOEM and, therefore, are the best approximation available.

The modeling domain was selected to include the closest shoreline area potentially impacted by 

emissions. Receptors were set at the Breton Class I area and the shoreline for the CPA and at the 

shoreline for the WPA. State’s shorelines and the Breton Class I area were included. For the EB 446 

source, 20 Texas onshore receptors were used. For the MC 856 source, 2 Florida, 3 Alabama, 

3 Mississippi, 17 Louisiana, and 10 Breton Class I receptors were used.

Limitations

There are limitations associated with this modeling effort. Other models could have been used 

instead of the OCD 5 model. These other models would possibly include determination of ozone 

formation that the OCD 5 model does not include. Vessel emissions were represented as a stationary 

source when, in reality, they would be moving between the shore base and the proposed lease sale areas. 

Furthermore, a more realistic estimation of shoreline impacts could have been obtained by distributing the 

sources of emissions across the OCS rather than using the assumption that all emissions occur at a single 

location in the CPA (MC856) and WPA (EB446). Results are not available for every point on the coast. 
Air Quality Offshore Modeling Analysis A-7 

The inclusion of more receptor locations would provide greater detail to the results. Modeling did not 

include every type of exploration and production activity or accidental event. Modeling did not include 

drilling at a location closer to shore with emissions representative of a more appropriate bottom-founded 

rig. 

Nevertheless, by using a reasonable conservative approach, which includes the overestimation of 

reasonable emissions, and attribution of the source of these emissions to a single point in each of the 

proposed lease sale areas rather than at more dispersed source points throughout the proposed lease sale 

areas, and by using the conservative OCD 5 model, which is specifically designed to represent the 

offshore and coastal environment, the results of this modeling effort adequately represent a demonstration 

of the impacts of offshore emissions to the shoreline and to the Class I area. 

OCD Model Results 

The OCS emissions for the criteria pollutants as a result of the WPA and CPA proposed actions are 

based on the Year 2008 Gulfwide Emission Inventory Study (Wilson et al., 2010) and Billings et al. 

(official communication, 2012). The major pollutant emitted is NOx, while PM10 is the least emitted 

pollutant. Platform operations are contributors of VOC emissions. Commercial marine vessels are 

contributors of SO2 and PM emissions. Support activities for OCS activities including crew and supply 

boats, helicopters, and pipeline vessels consist mainly of NOx and CO emissions. Combustion-intensive 

operations such as platform operations, well drilling, and service-vessel activities contribute mostly to 

NOx. 

Since NOx has the highest potential emissions for OCS activities, annual NO2 and 1-hour NO2 were 

analyzed and compared with the NAAQS. To be conservative, all emissions of NOx were assumed to be 

equal to NO2 for modeling purposes. Results are provided in Table A-6 for the CPA Class I and Class II 

areas and for the WPA Class II area. 

CPA 

The results for the Class I Breton National Wilderness Area also demonstrate that the CPA proposed 

action modeled impacts are below BOEM’s Significance Levels and Maximum Allowable Increases, 

NAAQS, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s SIL’s for all the criteria pollutants except for 

the annual NOx and the 24-hour PM2.5. Although the SIL’s were exceeded, BOEM expects in practice, if 

the emissions were distributed more realistically across the CPA, that emissions would not exceed the 

SIL; and thus, actual emissions likely to result from the CPA proposed action would likely not be 

significant. The modeling that was conducted was overly conservative. All the emissions during 1 year 

for the entire CPA, which would actually be dispersed throughout the CPA, were modeled as if they 

originated in Mississippi Canyon Block 856. BOEM is confident that the modeled impacts from OCS 

activity continue to support its conclusion that the proposed action will only minimally impact onshore air 

quality. 

The results for the Class II area also demonstrate that the CPA proposed action modeled impacts are 

below BOEM’s Significance Levels and Maximum Allowable Increases, NAAQS, and the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s SIL’s for all the criteria pollutants except for the annual NOx and the 

24-hour PM2.5. Although the SIL’s were exceeded, BOEM expects in practice, if the emissions were 

distributed more realistically across the CPA, that emissions would not exceed the SIL; and thus, actual 

emissions likely to result from the CPA proposed action would likely not be significant. The modeling 

that was conducted was overly conservative. All the emissions during 1 year for the entire CPA, which 

would actually be dispersed throughout the CPA, were modeled as if they originated in Mississippi 

Canyon Block 856. BOEM is confident that the modeled impacts from OCS activity continue to support 

its conclusion that the proposed action will only minimally impact onshore air quality. 

The results also indicate that the maximum modeled concentrations for the 1-hour averaging period 

for the NO2 combined with the nearest representative onshore NO2 monitored concentrations do not 

exceed the NO2 1-hour NAAQS for the Breton National Wilderness Area as well as for the entire CPA 

(Table A-6). Although BOEM’s regulations do not include a 1-hour NO2 standard, BOEM modeled 

1-hour NO2 impacts from the CPA proposed action because the 1-hour standard is harder to meet than 

BOEM’s annual NOx maximum allowable increase. The results of the modeled impacts support the 

conclusion that there will be minimal impacts to onshore air quality. 
A-8 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

WPA 

The OCD 5 modeling results indicate that the WPA proposed action’s operations will not cause an 

exceedance of the NAAQS for any pollutant in any onshore area. Since the modeled impacts are lower 

than the NAAQS and studies have shown only a slight contribution to onshore ozone at study locations 

adjacent to the CPA and WPA, BOEM is confident that the proposed activities for the CPA and WPA 

will only minimally impact onshore air quality. 

The results for the Class II area also demonstrate that the WPA proposed action does not exceed 

BOEM’s Significance Levels and Maximum Allowable Increases, NAAQS, and the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s SIL’s for annual, 24-hour, and 3-hour SO2; annual and 24-hour PM10 and PM2.5; and 

annual and 1-hour NO2 (Table A-6). BOEM feels confident that the modeled impacts from OCS activity 

will minimally impact onshore air quality. 

The results also indicate that the maximum modeled concentrations for the 1-hour averaging period 

for the NO2 combined with the nearest representative onshore NO2 monitored concentrations do not 

exceed the NO2 1-hour NAAQS the entire WPA (Table A-6). The results of the modeled impacts support 

the conclusion that there will be minimal impacts to onshore air quality. 

Conclusion 

Based on studies conducted in 1995, 2000, and 2008, BOEM has determined that OCS activities 

contributed only slightly to onshore ozone exceedances in the Houston/Brazoria/Galveston areas of 

Texas, and the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. Consequently, ozone modeling 

was not performed for this analysis. The OCD model was selected to model for the pollutants CO, NOx, 

SOx, PM2.5, and PM10. BOEM used a conservative approach in choosing and populating the OCD model 

for this analysis, which includes the overestimation of reasonable emissions and the attribution of the 

source of these emissions to a single point in each of the proposed lease sale areas rather than at more 

realistic source points throughout the proposed lease sale areas. The conservative OCD 5 model is 

specifically designed to represent the offshore and coastal environments. The results of this modeling 

effort adequately represent a demonstration of the impacts of offshore emissions to the shoreline and to 

the Class I area.

The OCD 5 modeling was performed for the CPA Class I area and the CPA and WPA Class II areas. 

The CPA hypothetical source location was chosen approximately 56 miles (90 kilometers) from shore, 

while the WPA hypothetical source location was chosen approximately 80 miles (129 kilometers) from 

shore. Even with all the emissions being attributed to a single point, which would not be the case in 

reality, both CPA and WPA emissions would minimally impact onshore air quality. Significant impacts 

to air quality are not expected to result from the WPA and CPA proposed actions. 

Preparers 

Margaret Metcalf, Supervisor, Physical Sciences Unit 

Stacie Merritt, Physical Scientist 

Chester Huang, Meteorologist 

Eric Wolvovsky, Physical Scientist 
Air Quality Offshore Modeling Analysis A-9 

References

Billings, R., B. Lange, and D. Wilson. 2012. Official communication. Emission estimates for Eastern 

Planning Area Sales 225-226. Memorandum to Holli Ensz, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. Eastern Research 

Group, Inc., September 7, 2012. 9 pp.

Douglas, S.G. and A.B. Hudischewskyj. 2008. Five-year meteorological datasets for 

CALMET/CALPUFF and OCD5 modeling of the Gulf of Mexico Region. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 

2008-029. 53 pp.

Haney, J.L., Y. Wei, T. Myers, and S. Douglas. 2008 (unpublished). An assessment of onshore air 

quality impacts for the eastern Gulf Coast (Louisiana to Florida) using the 2005 Gulfwide emissions 

inventory. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA.

Rigzone. 2009. Offshore rig search. Internet website: http://www.rigzone.com. Accessed February 26, 

2013.

Systems Applications International, Sonoma Technology, Inc., Earth Tech, Alpine Geophysics, and 

A.T. Kearney. 1995. Gulf of Mexico air quality study: Final report. Volumes I-III. U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS 

Study MMS 95-0038, 95-0039, and 95-0040. 650, 214, and 190 pp., respectively.

Turner, D.B. and R.H. Schulze. 2007. Practical guide to atmospheric dispersion modeling. Dallas, TX: 

Trinity Consultants.

Wilson, D.L., R, Billing, R. Oommen, and B. Lange. 2010. Year 2008 Gulfwide emission inventory 

study. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and 

Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEMRE 2010-045. 

185 pp.

Yarwood, G., G. Mansell, M. Jimenez, and S. Lau. 2004 (unpublished). 2000 Gulf-wide emissions 

inventory – OCS on-shore impacts modeling (Texas), a preliminary look. Prepared for the U.S. Dept. 

of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 

Prepared by ENVIRON International Corporation, Novato, CA. September 1, 2004. 
A-10 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table A-1

Central Planning Area – Estimate of High-Case Emissions for Cumulative Sales: Total Emissions during the 40-Year Period of Activity (tons)

NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 VOC CO CO2 CH4 N2O

Exploration/Delineation Well Drilling 1,418,906.52 3,797.42 47,632.79 46,203.81 28,854.46 347,702.69 126,296,548.05 1,058.08 3,799.01

Development/Production Well Drilling 1,73,8078.63 2,390.40 58,097.52 56,354.60 35,394.37 428,711.63 156,091,192.49 1,307.67 4,694.93

Platform Installation and Removal 59,513.87 126.70 2,053.02 1,991.43 869.36 15,726.68 4,698,377.58 27.67 214.46

Pipeline Installation 60,497.90 177.59 1,728.99 1,677.12 1,770.85 12,456.98 6,432,426.19 75.80 293.74

Production Platforms 2,192,552.79 30,138.08 23,021.72 22,697.05 1,788,929.87 2,424,540.85 248,432,794.68 12,457,138.92 3,694.40

Tankers Loading 7.71 0.11 0.19 0.17 1,774.84 0.76 336.78 0.00 0.01

Tankers in Transit 285.97 4.01 7.02 6.43 32.81 28.31 12,484.17 0.06 0.50

Tankers Unloading 7.71 0.08 1.89E-01 1.73E-01 545.14 0.76 336.78 0.0035 0.0134

Helicopters 22,772.43 5,616.57 4.49E+03 4.49E+03 55,426.98 277,657.75 28,085,285.00 0.0000 0.00

Support Vessels 1,233,296.32 1,059.64 4.23E+04 4.10E+04 18,047.48 328,241.63 98,199,575.43 597.3796 4,482.4038

Total 6,725,919.86 43,310.60 179,321.24 174,442.00 1,931,646.16 3,835,068.04 668,249,357.14 12,460,205.60 17,179.46

Table A-2

Western Planning Area – Estimate of High-Case Emissions for Cumulative Sales: Total Emissions during the 40-Year Period of Activity (tons)

NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 VOC CO CO2 CH4 N2O

Exploration/Delineation Well Drilling 212,627.91 588.41 6,898.71 6,691.75 4,751.91 50,226.01 19,750,173.14 182.79 471.18

Development/Production Well Drilling 267,289.55 384.51 8,642.95 8,383.66 5,957.54 63,605.21 25,011,716.80 230.74 602.75

Platform Installation and Removal 13,556.96 31.04 468.03 453.99 197.99 3,579.21 1,069,106.32 6.30 48.80

Pipeline Installation 13,064.57 39.80 373.55 362.34 382.46 2,689.21 1,388,128.00 16.36 63.39

Production Platforms 521,898.09 7,173.83 5,479.91 5,402.63 425,822.85 577,118.71 59,134,996.35 2,965,199.77 879.38

Tankers Loading 1.55 0.03 0.04 0.03 357.07 0.15 67.75 0.00 0.00

Tankers in Transit 57.53 1.00 1.41 1.29 6.60 5.70 2,511.61 0.01 0.10

Tankers Unloading 1.55 0.02 0.04 0.03 109.67 0.15 67.75 0.00 0.00

Helicopters 5,347.68 1,318.95 1,055.24 1,055.24 13,016.00 65,202.78 6,595,308.50 - -

Support Vessels 244,823.09 210.35 8,394.28 8,142.45 3,582.63 65,159.63 19,493,712.24 118.59 889.81

Total 1,278,668.48 9,747.95 31,314.15 30,493.42 454,184.72 827,586.75 132,445,788.48 2,965,754.55 2,955.42
Air Quality Offshore Modeling Analysis

A-11

Table A-3

Central Planning Area – Estimate of High-Case Emissions for a Single Sale: Highest Year of Emissions during the 40-Year Period of Activity (tons/year)

NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 VOC CO CO2 CH4 N2O

Exploration/Delineation Well Drilling 10,568.34 246.01 380.32 368.91 207.04 2,327.83 802,296.17 6.63 24.85

Development/Production Well Drilling 4,561.63 5.02 152.84 148.26 91.83 1,133.34 408,984.93 3.38 12.67

Platform Installation and Removal 216.56 2.73 7.42 7.20 3.17 57.68 17,257.87 0.10 0.79

Pipeline Installation 133.88 1.85 3.79 3.68 3.91 27.73 14,406.80 0.17 0.66

Production Platforms 3,157.65 43.40 33.16 32.69 2,576.37 3,491.76 357,786.08 17,940.43 5.32

Tankers Loading 0.14 0.02 0.0034 0.0031 31.51 0.0136 5.98 6.16E-05 0.0002

Tankers in Transit 5.08 0.60 0.12 0.11 0.58 0.50 221.61 0.0011 0.01

Tankers Unloading 0.14 0.01 0.0034 0.0031 9.68 0.0136 5.98 6.16E-05 0.0002

Helicopters 33.5310 8.2700 6.6166 6.6166 81.6128 408.83 41,353.82 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

Support Vessels 2,038.47 2.49 69.85 67.76 29.84 542.92 162,447.60 0.99 7.42

Total 20,715.42 310.41 654.13 635.23 3,035.54 7,990.61 1,804,766.85 17,951.70 51.71

Table A-4

Western Planning Area – Estimate of High-Case Emissions for a Single Sale: Highest Year of Emissions during the 40-Year Period of Activity (tons/year)

NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 VOC CO CO2 CH4 N2O

Exploration/Delineation Well Drilling 2,325.06 56.25 81.48 79.03 50.66 497.66 183,442.18 1.67 4.61

Development/Production Well Drilling 803.88 0.69 26.11 25.33 17.62 193.15 74,920.80 0.68 1.91

Platform Installation and Removal 178.29 1.86 6.11 5.93 2.61 47.48 14,207.85 0.08 0.65

Pipeline Installation 58.14 1.61 1.83 1.78 1.74 11.10 5,233.78 0.06 0.24

Production Platforms 1,038.41 14.27 10.90 10.75 847.25 1,148.28 117,659.30 5,899.78 1.75

Tankers Loading 0.05 0.01 0.0011 0.0010 10.50 0.0045 1.99 2.05E-05 0.0001

Tankers in Transit 1.69 0.20 0.04 0.04 0.19 0.17 73.87 0.0004 0.00

Tankers Unloading 0.05 0.01 0.0011 0.0010 3.23 0.0045 1.99 2.05E-05 0.0001

Helicopters 11.1770 2.7567 2.2055 2.2055 27.2043 136.28 13,784.61 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

Support Vessels 910.03 1.11 31.18 30.25 13.32 242.38 72,521.25 0.44 3.31

TOTAL 5,326.77 78.76 159.87 155.31 974.33 2,276.50 481,847.63 5,902.72 12.48
A-12 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Table A-5 

Modeling Scenarios

Modeling

Scenarios

Source Location

Activity Represented NO

x

(g/sec)

SOx 

(g/sec)

PM10 

(g/sec)

PM2.5 

(g/sec)

VOC

(g/sec)

CO

Area Area/ Block (g/sec)

1 CPA MC 856

All activity during the year 

with the highest lease sale 

emissions

595.9 8.9 18.8 18.3 87.3 229.9

2 WPA EB 446

All activity during the year 

with the highest lease sale 

emissions

153.2 2.2 4.6 4.5 28.0 65.5

CO – carbon monoxide

CPA – Central Planning Area

EB – East Breaks

g/sec – grams per second

MC – Mississippi Canyon

NO

x – nitrogen oxides

PM10 – particulate material less than 10μm in size

PM2.5 – particulate material less than 2.5μm in size

SO

x – sulfur oxides

WPA – Western Planning Area

VOC – volatile organic compound
Air Quality Offshore Modeling Analysis

A-13

Table A-6 

OCD Modeling Results for the WPA and CPA Proposed Actions Compared with USEPA’s Significance Impact Levels and the NAAQS

Pollutant Averaging 

Times

BOEM 

Significance 

Levels 

(μg/m3

) 

BOEM

Maximum Allowable 

Increases

(μg/m3)

NAAQS

(μg/m3

) 

USEPA 

PSD Significance 

Impact Levels 

(μg/m3)

BOEM

Modeled Impacts

CPA

(μg/m3)

BOEM

Modeled Impacts

WPA 

(μg/m3)

Class I Class II Class I Class II Class I Class II Class II

CO 8-hour 500 None None 10,000 None 500 None None None

1-hour 2,000 None None 40,000 None 2,000 None None None

NO2 Annual 1 None None 100 0.1 1 0.4 0.6 0.3

1-hour None None None 188 TBD 7.5a 55.4b 177.67c 120.67c

SO2 Annual 1 2 20 80d 0.1 1 0.01 0.0 0.0

24-hour 5 5 91 365d 0.2 5 0.1 0.2 0.0

3-hour 25 2 512 1,300 1 25 0.5 0.5 0.2

1-hour None None None 196 TBD 7.86a 0.8 1.3 0.4

PM2.5e Annual 1 5 19 12 0.06 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

24-hour 5 10 37 35 0.07 1.2 0.3 0.4 0.1

PM10e Annual 0.2 1 0.0 0.0 0.0

24-hour 0.3 5 0.3 0.4 0.1

Note: All units have been converted to μg/m3. a Interim Significant Impact Level. b No background NO2 concentration available for the Breton National Wilderness Area. c Determined by adding modeled concentration to Kenner, Louisiana, 1-hour NOx monitor background (94.07μg/m3

) and compared with the 

NAAQS. d To be revoked 1 year after designations for the 1-hour standard. e BOEM’s total suspended particulate regulatory value has been inserted as a substitute for PM2.5 and PM10. 

CO—carbon monoxide

NAAQS—National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NO2—nitrogen dioxide

PM10—particulate material less than 10 μm in size

PM2.5—particulate material less than 2.5 μm in size

PSD—Prevention of Significant Deterioration

SO2—sulfur dioxide

TBD—to be determined

KEYWORD INDEX

Keyword Index Keywords-3 

KEYWORD INDEX

Air Quality, viii, x, xi, 1-12, 1-13, 1-14, 1-15, 1-20, 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 2-14, 3-10, 4-6, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 

4-12, 4-13, 4-14, 4-81, 4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-93, 4-178, 4-182, 5-4 

Alternative Energy, 1-20 

Annular Preventer, 3-18 

Archaeological Resources, xi, xv, 1-16, 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 2-15, 4-8, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-81, 

4-87, 4-160, 4-161, 4-162, 4-163, 4-164, 4-165, 4-166, 4-178, 4-183, 4-184, 5-5 

Artificial Reefs, xiv, 1-12, 1-19, 2-7, 3-20, 4-53, 4-54, 4-56, 4-57, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-65, 4-149, 4-150, 

4-153, 4-156, 4-157, 4-159, 4-162, 4-186 

Beach Mice, xi, xiii, 2-8, 2-15, 4-87, 4-137, 4-138, 4-139, 4-177, 4-178 

Blowout Preventer, 1-7, 1-8, 1-14, 3-18, 5-10 

Blowouts, vii, xiv, xv, 1-7, 1-14, 1-22, 2-11, 3-17, 3-18, 4-12, 4-15, 4-17, 4-26, 4-27, 4-29, 4-31, 4-32, 

4-34, 4-35, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-42, 4-53, 4-56, 4-57, 4-60, 4-67, 4-73, 4-80, 4-81, 4-91, 4-94, 4-97, 

4-109, 4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 4-114, 4-115, 4-116, 4-117, 4-118, 4-120, 4-121, 4-123, 4-124, 

4-125, 4-127, 4-128, 4-129, 4-132, 4-149, 4-152, 4-153, 4-157, 4-164, 4-166, 4-170, 4-177, 4-179, 

4-182 

Chemosynthetic Communities, xii, 1-12, 2-7, 3-9, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-119, 4-120, 4-121, 

4-122, 4-123 

Chemosynthetic Deepwater Benthic Communities, 2-10, 2-14, 4-30, 4-52, 4-119, 4-122, 4-148 

Coastal And Marine Birds, xi, xiii, 2-8, 2-10, 2-15, 4-5, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-51, 4-52, 4-81, 4-86, 

4-139, 4-140, 4-141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-144, 4-178, 4-183 

Coastal Barrier Beaches, x, xi, 2-8, 2-9, 2-14, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-81, 4-87, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 

4-102, 4-178 

Coastal Zone Management, x, 1-5, 1-9, 1-16, 5-7, 5-11 

Collisions, vii, xv, 1-22, 3-18, 3-19, 4-15, 4-17, 4-19, 4-22, 4-42, 4-46, 4-47, 4-49, 4-51, 4-69, 4-73, 4-76, 

4-77, 4-94, 4-97, 4-99, 4-103, 4-132, 4-133, 4-139, 4-140, 4-142, 4-143, 4-166, 4-167, 4-170, 4-174, 

4-182 

Commercial Fishing, x, xiii, xiv, 1-12, 2-6, 3-10, 3-20, 4-4, 4-27, 4-38, 4-40, 4-57, 4-60, 4-64, 4-74, 4-85, 

4-116, 4-130, 4-132, 4-133, 4-146, 4-152, 4-153, 4-154, 4-155, 4-157, 4-161, 4-171, 4-184, 4-185 

Consultation and Coordination, viii, 1-5, 1-6, 1-21, 3-13 

Cumulative Activities, vii, xiii, 3-19, 4-4, 4-25, 4-45, 4-73, 4-85, 4-135, 4-138, 4-170 

Cumulative Impacts, viii, xi, xii, xiii, 3-19, 4-3, 4-5, 4-13, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 

4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 4-32, 4-33, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-42, 

4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-48, 4-49, 4-52, 4-54, 4-55, 4-57, 4-58, 4-60, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-66, 4-67, 4-69, 

4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-82, 4-86, 4-88, 4-92, 4-94, 4-95, 4-96, 

4-97, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 4-102, 4-103, 4-105, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108, 4-110, 4-111, 4-115, 4-116, 4-118, 

4-119, 4-121, 4-122, 4-124, 4-125, 4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-129, 4-130, 4-131, 4-132, 4-133, 4-134, 

4-135, 4-136, 4-137, 4-138, 4-139, 4-141, 4-142, 4-145, 4-146, 4-147, 4-148, 4-150, 4-152, 4-153, 

4-156, 4-157, 4-158, 4-159, 4-160, 4-161, 4-163, 4-164, 4-166, 4-167, 4-168, 4-169, 4-170, 4-171, 

4-172, 4-173, 4-175, 4-176, 4-179, 4-185, 5-4 

Deepwater, xi, xii, xiv, 1-7, 1-8, 1-13, 1-14, 1-21, 1-22, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-14, 2-15, 3-11, 3-12, 3-13, 3-14, 

3-17, 3-18, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-11, 4-12, 4-14, 4-15, 4-18, 4-19, 4-21, 4-23, 4-25, 4-27, 

4-28, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-38, 4-40, 4-41, 4-43, 4-45, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-53, 

4-55, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-65, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 
Keywords-4 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 4-81, 4-85, 4-86, 4-87, 4-88, 4-90, 4-91, 4-93, 4-95, 4-98, 4-99, 4-101, 4-102, 4-104, 

4-105, 4-106, 4-107, 4-111, 4-114, 4-115, 4-117, 4-119, 4-120, 4-121, 4-122, 4-123, 4-124, 4-125, 

4-126, 4-128, 4-129, 4-130, 4-131, 4-132, 4-134, 4-135, 4-136, 4-138, 4-143, 4-144, 4-146, 4-147, 

4-148, 4-149, 4-150, 4-151, 4-152, 4-153, 4-154, 4-155, 4-157, 4-158, 4-159, 4-162, 4-165, 4-166, 

4-167, 4-168, 4-169, 4-172, 4-173, 4-174, 4-175, 4-176, 4-177, 4-186, 5-4, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12 

Demographics, xv, 2-8, 2-10, 2-15, 4-8, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-169, 4-170, 4-171 

Diamondback Terrapins, xi, xiii, 4-44, 4-45, 4-134, 4-135, 4-136 

Discharges, x, xi, xii, xiv, 2-11, 3-9, 3-10, 3-11, 3-13, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 

4-30, 4-32, 4-33, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-42, 4-49, 4-52, 4-54, 4-57, 4-58, 4-60, 4-62, 4-80, 

4-81, 4-94, 4-96, 4-97, 4-98, 4-108, 4-109, 4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 4-114, 4-115, 4-116, 4-117, 

4-118, 4-119, 4-120, 4-121, 4-122, 4-123, 4-125, 4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-129, 4-132, 4-142, 4-145, 

4-148, 4-150, 4-152, 4-153, 4-157, 4-159, 4-177, 4-182, 4-183, 5-5 

Dispersants, xiv, 4-12, 4-15, 4-17, 4-19, 4-31, 4-32, 4-34, 4-35, 4-39, 4-64, 4-76, 4-82, 4-91, 4-94, 4-97, 

4-99, 4-121, 4-124, 4-125, 4-130, 4-146, 4-154, 4-174, 4-179, 4-182, 4-183, 5-10 

Dunes, x, xi, 2-8, 2-9, 2-14, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-50, 4-71, 4-81, 4-87, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 4-102, 

4-138, 4-143, 4-168, 4-178 

Economic Factors, xv, 2-8, 2-10, 2-15, 4-8, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-87, 4-171, 4-172, 4-173 

Employment, xv, 4-62, 4-63, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-83, 4-159, 4-160, 4-169, 4-170, 4-171, 

4-172, 4-173, 4-181 

Environmental Justice, x, xv, 1-6, 2-8, 2-10, 2-15, 4-8, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-173, 4-174, 4-175, 4-176 

Essential Fish Habitats, xi, xiv, 1-5, 2-8, 2-10, 2-15, 4-5, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-60, 4-81, 4-86, 

4-128, 4-148, 4-149, 4-150, 4-151, 4-152, 4-178, 5-12 

Explosive Removals, 2-7, 4-54, 4-57, 4-145, 4-150, 4-153 

Fish Resources, xi, xiv, 2-8, 2-10, 2-15, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-58, 4-60, 4-74, 4-81, 4-148, 

4-149, 4-150, 4-151, 4-152, 4-153, 4-154, 4-155, 4-157, 4-171, 4-178, 4-183, 4-184 

Fisheries, xi, xiv, 1-9, 2-8, 2-10, 2-15, 4-5, 4-28, 4-49, 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 

4-65, 4-68, 4-76, 4-81, 4-86, 4-87, 4-110, 4-113, 4-114, 4-117, 4-127, 4-142, 4-147, 4-150, 4-151, 

4-152, 4-153, 4-154, 4-155, 4-156, 4-157, 4-162, 4-165, 4-174, 4-178, 4-183, 4-184, 5-3, 5-6, 5-7, 5-8, 

5-12, 5-13 

Flaring, 1-14, 1-15, 3-10, 4-12, 4-91 

Flower Garden Banks, viii, 1-4, 2-4, 2-7, 2-9, 4-3, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-56, 4-82 

Gulf Sturgeon, xi, xiv, 2-8, 2-14, 4-145, 4-146, 4-147, 4-148, 4-177, 4-178 

Human Resources, 2-8, 2-10, 2-15, 4-69, 4-81, 4-166, 4-178 

Hurricanes, x, xi, 3-20, 4-12, 4-20, 4-22, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-29, 4-38, 4-50, 4-54, 4-57, 4-58, 4-61, 4-64, 

4-65, 4-77, 4-78, 4-92, 4-95, 4-101, 4-102, 4-103, 4-104, 4-105, 4-107, 4-110, 4-114, 4-116, 4-118, 

4-127, 4-138, 4-143, 4-150, 4-153, 4-154, 4-155, 4-161, 4-162, 4-175 

Income, xv, 4-73, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-170, 4-173, 4-174, 4-175 

Infrastructure, vii, xi, xii, xiv, xv, 1-10, 2-8, 2-10, 2-15, 3-3, 3-8, 3-9, 3-12, 3-18, 3-19, 3-20, 4-8, 4-19, 

4-21, 4-24, 4-26, 4-37, 4-64, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-83, 4-87, 4-99, 4-101, 4-103, 

4-106, 4-108, 4-112, 4-115, 4-126, 4-139, 4-145, 4-160, 4-161, 4-166, 4-167, 4-168, 4-169, 4-173, 

4-174, 4-175, 4-181, 4-182, 4-185, 5-10 

Kick, 1-14 

Land Use, x, xv, 2-8, 2-10, 2-15, 3-12, 4-8, 4-62, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-81, 4-87, 4-146, 4-166, 4-167, 

4-168, 4-169, 4-178 
Keyword Index Keywords-5 

Live Bottoms, x, xi, xii, 1-12, 1-13, 2-6, 2-8, 2-14, 2-15, 3-9, 4-33, 4-34, 4-36, 4-52, 4-54, 4-57, 4-60, 

4-108, 4-109, 4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 4-114, 4-115, 4-123, 4-124, 4-148, 4-150, 4-153, 4-157, 

4-178 

Low Relief, xii, 1-12, 2-8, 2-14, 3-9, 4-109, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 4-114, 4-115, 4-149, 4-178 

Macondo, 4-6, 4-7, 4-16, 4-18, 4-21, 4-23, 4-25, 4-28, 4-30, 4-33, 4-36, 4-38, 4-45, 4-80, 4-86, 4-126 

Marine Mammals, xi, xiii, 1-5, 1-12, 1-18, 1-19, 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 2-14, 4-5, 4-6, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-81, 

4-86, 4-129, 4-130, 4-131, 4-133, 4-177, 4-178, 4-182, 5-6, 5-8 

Mercury, 4-58 

Meteorological Conditions, 4-10, 4-89 

Mitigating Measures, vii, x, 1-9, 1-12, 2-3, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-11, 2-12, 2-15, 2-17, 4-81, 4-178, 4-179, 

4-185, 5-3, 5-13 

NEPA, ix, 1-4, 1-5, 1-7, 1-9, 1-10, 1-11, 1-13, 1-20, 1-21, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-8, 2-9, 2-13, 4-3, 4-5, 4-6, 

4-7, 4-8, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-59, 4-79, 4-84, 4-86, 4-87, 4-101, 4-102, 4-105, 4-107, 4-111, 4-115, 

4-117, 4-122, 4-126, 4-128, 4-131, 4-143, 4-144, 4-147, 4-150, 4-151, 4-154, 4-156, 4-163, 4-165, 

4-176, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-9, 5-12 

Noise, xiv, 3-5, 3-10, 4-39, 4-40, 4-42, 4-46, 4-48, 4-49, 4-62, 4-80, 4-129, 4-130, 4-132, 4-133, 4-139, 

4-141, 4-142, 4-159, 4-160, 4-177, 4-183 

Nonchemosynthetic Deepwater Benthic Communities, xii, 2-10, 2-14, 4-33, 4-34, 4-52, 4-87, 4-122, 

4-123, 4-126, 4-148, 4-178 

Oil Spills, vii, x, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, 1-7, 1-8, 1-14, 1-17, 2-9, 2-10, 2-14, 2-15, 3-11, 3-12, 3-13, 3-14, 

3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-12, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 

4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 

4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 

4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-74, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 4-81, 

4-82, 4-85, 4-86, 4-87, 4-88, 4-91, 4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-97, 4-98, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 4-102, 4-103, 

4-104, 4-105, 4-106, 4-107, 4-109, 4-110, 4-111, 4-113, 4-114, 4-115, 4-116, 4-117, 4-119, 4-121, 

4-122, 4-124, 4-125, 4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-129, 4-130, 4-131, 4-132, 4-134, 4-135, 4-136, 4-137, 

4-138, 4-140, 4-141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-144, 4-146, 4-147, 4-149, 4-150, 4-151, 4-152, 4-153, 4-154, 

4-155, 4-157, 4-158, 4-159, 4-160, 4-161, 4-162, 4-164, 4-165, 4-166, 4-167, 4-169, 4-171, 4-172, 

4-174, 4-175, 4-176, 4-177, 4-179, 4-181, 4-182, 4-183, 4-184, 4-185, 5-4, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12 

OSRA, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16 

Physical Oceanography, 3-20 

Pinnacle Trend, xii, 2-6, 2-8, 2-14, 2-15, 4-108, 4-109, 4-110, 4-111, 4-149, 4-178 

Pipelines, x, xii, xiv, 1-14, 1-21, 2-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-11, 3-12, 3-14, 3-16, 3-17, 3-18, 3-20, 4-14, 4-16, 4-19, 

4-20, 4-21, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-45, 4-54, 4-94, 4-96, 4-100, 4-101, 4-103, 4-104, 4-106, 4-107, 4-135, 

4-145, 4-150, 4-152, 4-183, 4-184, 5-10 

Port Fourchon, xv, 4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-168, 4-170 

Produced Waters, 3-9, 4-27, 4-30, 4-33, 4-37, 4-46, 4-48, 4-52, 4-57, 4-61, 4-109, 4-110, 4-112, 4-113, 

4-114, 4-116, 4-117, 4-120, 4-123, 4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-139, 4-141, 4-148, 4-153, 4-182 

Public Services, x

Recreational Fishing, xi, xiv, 2-8, 2-10, 2-15, 4-8, 4-54, 4-57, 4-60, 4-61, 4-74, 4-81, 4-150, 4-156, 4-157, 

4-158, 4-171, 4-178, 4-185 

Recreational Resources, xi, xiv, 2-8, 2-10, 2-15, 4-8, 4-62, 4-63, 4-81, 4-87, 4-158, 4-159, 4-160, 4-178 

Resource Estimates, 3-3, 3-4 
Keywords-6 Western and Central Planning Areas Supplemental EIS

Sargassum, xi, xii, 2-8, 2-10, 2-14, 4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 4-52, 4-81, 4-87, 4-117, 4-118, 4-119, 4-148, 4-178, 

4-182 

Sea Turtles, xi, xiii, 1-12, 1-19, 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 2-14, 4-6, 4-42, 4-43, 4-80, 4-81, 4-131, 4-132, 4-133, 

4-134, 4-177, 4-178 

Seagrass Communities, x, xii, 2-8, 2-9, 2-14, 4-24, 4-25, 4-52, 4-81, 4-103, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108, 4-148, 

4-178 

Service base, 3-12, 4-22, 4-69, 4-71, 4-104, 4-166, 4-168 

Site Clearance, xv, 1-18, 2-6, 4-65, 4-160, 4-162 

Soft Bottoms, xi, xii, xiii, 2-8, 2-10, 2-14, 4-6, 4-33, 4-34, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-52, 4-81, 4-87, 4-123, 

4-124, 4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-129, 4-148, 4-178 

Submerged Vegetation, 4-24, 4-25, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108 

Topographic Features, ix, x, xi, xii, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-11, 2-12, 2-14, 2-15, 2-17, 3-9, 4-3, 4-6, 

4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-52, 4-54, 4-56, 4-81, 4-82, 4-84, 4-115, 4-116, 4-117, 4-148, 4-151, 4-178, 

4-179, 4-180, 5-10 

Tourism, x, 4-20, 4-22, 4-62, 4-63, 4-100, 4-159, 4-160, 4-185, 5-5, 5-7, 5-10, 5-11 

Trash, x, xiii, 1-18, 1-19, 3-13, 4-13, 4-40, 4-44, 4-45, 4-48, 4-92, 4-130, 4-133, 4-135, 4-136, 4-137, 

4-138, 4-141, 4-182, 4-183 

Waste Disposal, 3-12, 4-69, 4-71, 4-166, 4-168 

Wastes, xii, 2-8, 3-9, 3-13, 4-15, 4-17, 4-21, 4-23, 4-56, 4-60, 4-94, 4-95, 4-97, 4-103, 4-104 

Water Quality, x, xi, xii, 1-13, 2-8, 2-10, 2-14, 3-10, 4-6, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-29, 4-39, 4-42, 

4-52, 4-54, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-60, 4-81, 4-87, 4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-96, 4-97, 4-98, 4-118, 4-129, 4-132, 

4-145, 4-148, 4-149, 4-150, 4-153, 4-156, 4-157, 4-178, 4-182, 4-186 

Wetlands, x, xii, 1-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-14, 4-5, 4-6, 4-19, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-25, 4-52, 4-54, 4-56, 4-58, 

4-60, 4-71, 4-78, 4-79, 4-81, 4-86, 4-87, 4-101, 4-102, 4-103, 4-104, 4-105, 4-108, 4-148, 4-150, 4-153, 

4-168, 4-175, 4-177, 4-178, 4-182, 4-183, 4-186 
The Department of the Interior Mission

As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has 

responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural 

resources. This includes fostering the sound use of our land and water 

resources, protecting our fish, wildlife and biological diversity; preserving the 

environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and 

providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department 

assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their 

development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship 

and citizen participation in their care. The Department also has a major 

responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who 

live in island communities. 

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) works to manage the 

exploration and development of the nation's offshore resources in a way that 

appropriately balances economic development, energy independence, and 

environmental protection through oil and gas leases, renewable energy 

development and environmental reviews and studies.