SECTION 18: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

INITIAL DEVELOPMENT OPERATIONS COORDINATION DOCUMENT for Mississippi Canyon Block 762 (OCS

- G 07957) Mississippi Canyon Block 807 (OCS

- G 07963)

Offshore Louisiana

January 2012

Prepared for:

Shell Offshore Inc.
P.O. Box 61933 New Orleans, Louisiana 70161 Telephone: (504) 728

- 6021

Prepared by:

CSA International, Inc.
8502 SW Kansas Avenue Stuart, Florida 34997 Telephone: (772) 219

- 3000Introduction

Project Summary

Shell Offshore Inc. (Shell) is submitting an Initial Development Operations Coordination Document (DOCD) for Mississippi Canyon Blocks 762 and 807 (MC 762 and 807) that includes the installation and operation of a tension leg platform (TLP) in MC 807, dril ling and completion of 24 development wells in MC 807, and installation of subsea infrastructure to tie back 6 wells in MC 762 to the new TLP in MC 807. The 24 wells in MC 807 will be direct vertical access (DVA) wells to be drilled from the proposed TLP. Flowlines and sleds will be installed in MC 762 along with the associated umbilicals, production manifold, and jumpers. Production from MC 762 will commence to the TLP in MC 807.

Shell submitted a Supplemental Exploration Plan (SEP) for locations in Mis sissippi Canyon 762 on April 12, 2011, which was approved by the former Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) on July 11, 2011 (Plan Control No. N

- 9570). Shell also submitted an SEP for locations in Mississippi Canyon 807 on August 10, 2011 (Plan Control
No. S

- 07499), which was approved on November 22, 2011.

The lease area is 53 miles (85 km) from the nearest shoreline, 91 miles (146 km) from the onshore support base at Port Fourchon, Louisiana, and 82 miles (132 km) from the helicopter base at Boothville, Louisiana. All miles in this Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) are statute miles. Water depths at the proposed TLP site and wellsites in MC 807 are approximately 3,028 ft (923 m) and 3,150 ft (960 m) at the wellsites in MC 762.

The i nstallation of subsea facilities will commence during the last quarter of 2012 followed by installation of the TLP in the second quarter of 2013. A platform rig located on the TLP will be used for drilling of the DVA wells in MC 807. Dri lling & completion of DVA wells will commence during the last quarter of 2013 and be completed by the second quarter of 2024. First production is anticipated during the last quarter of 2013.

Purpose of the EIA

This EIA was prepared pursuant to the require ments of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. §§ 1331

- 1356, and other regulations, including 30 CFR 550.212(o) and 550.227. The EIA is a project

- and site

- specific analysis of Shell‟s planned activities under this Initial DOCD. On Oct ober 1, 2011, the BOEMRE reorganized into two separate agencies: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). Shell understands that the BOEM will review this EIA and prepare a
Site

- Specific Environme ntal Assessment (SEA) for the project. This EIA complies with guidance provided in existing Notice to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) issued by the former Minerals Management Service (MMS) and BOEMRE, including NTL 2008

- G04. Throughout this EIA, when
existi ng guidance and general agency activities are referred to, “BOEM” is meant to subsume the former agencies and to represent the continuous regulatory entity now called BOEM. The former agency names (MMS and BOEMRE) are used when referring to particular his torical documents published under those names. In addition, until NTLs are reissued by BOEM and/or BSEE, the EIA will refer to the former BOEMRE as BOEM when addressing NTLs.

The EIA presents data, analyses, and conclusions to support BOEM reviews as requ ired by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal laws, including the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). It also identifies some of the mitigation measures Shell will implement in connection with the planned activities.As specified in NTL 2008

- G04, an EIA is a project

- specific analysis that focuses on the impacts of a specific plan. This EIA addresses the impact

- producing factors (IPFs), resources, and impacts associated with the activities proposed in this Initial DOCD. The EIA also incorporates the revised blowout scenario and worst case discharge (WCD) information required by
NTL 2010

- N06.

The BOEM has performed numerous environmental evaluations of oil and gas activities on the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Potential impacts were analyzed at a broader level in the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program (MMS, 2007a) and in multi

- lease

- sale EISs for the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas (MMS, 2007b, 2008b), as well as the Environmental Assessment (EA) for Gulf of Mexico deepwater operations and activities (MMS, 2000) and a Grid EA for the Marco Polo Project in Green Canyon Block 608 (Grid 13) (MMS, 2003)

.

Th ese studies generated critical data and advanced the large body of existing knowledge on the Gulf of Mexico OCS. They analyze potential impacts on the natural environment, the socioeconomic effects of exploration and development activities, and other regi onal resources. Numerous technical studies address the likely trajectory of spilled oil, the effects of underwater noise on threatened and endangered species, and other IPFs. The studies inform agency decision

- making on lease offerings, mitigation measur es and lease stipulations, operational requirements, and permit restrictions. This substantial body of work, which in part forms the basis for the evaluation presented here, will allow the BOEM and other regulatory agencies to evaluate Shell‟s Initial DOC D and ensure that oil and gas exploration and development activities are performed in an environmentally sound manner, with minimal impacts on the environment. Shell has incorporated these comprehensive environmental analyses by reference and built on the m with project

- and site

- specific analyses.

OCS Regulatory Framework

The regulatory framework for OCS activities in the Gulf of Mexico has been summarized by
MMS (2010). Under the OCSLA, the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI) is responsible for the a dministration of mineral exploration and development of the OCS. Within the USDOI, the BOEM and BSEE are charged with the responsibility of managing and regulating the development of OCS oil and gas resources in accordance with the provisions of the OCSLA . The BSEE offshore regulations are in 30 CFR Parts 250, 251, 252, 254, 256, 270, 282 and the BOEM offshore regulations are in 30 CFR Parts 550, 551, 552, 556, 559, 560, 570, 580, 581, 582, and 585.

In implementing its responsibilities under the OCSLA and NEPA, the BOEM must consult numerous Federal departments and agencies that have authority to govern and maintain ocean resources pursuant to other Federal laws. Among these are the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Federal regulations establish consultation and coordination processes with Federal, State, and local agencies (e.g., the ESA, MMPA, Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, and the Magnuson

- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act).

NTLs are formal documents issued by the BOEM that provide clarification, description, or interpretation of a regulation or standard; provide guidelines on implementing a special lease stipulation or regional requirement; provide a better understanding of t he scope and meaning of a regulation by explaining the BOEM interpretation of a requirement; or transmit administrative information such as current telephone listings or changes in BOE personnel or office address. Table 1 lists and summarizes the NTLs app licable to this EIA.Table 1. Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) applicable to this Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA).

NTL Title Summary

2012

- JOINT

- G01 Vessel Strike Avoidance and

Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting Recommends protected species identification training,
recommends that vessel operators and crews maintain a vigilant watch for marine mammals and slow down or stop their vessel to avoid striking protected species, and requires operators to report sightings of any injured or dead protected species.

2012

- BSEE

- G01 Marine Trash and Debris

Awareness and Elimination Instructs operators to exercise caution in the handling and disposal of small items and packaging materials; requires the posting of placards at pro minent locations on offshore vessels and structures; and mandates a yearly marine trash and debris awareness training and certification process.

2010

- N10 Statement of Compliance with

Applicable Regulations and
Evaluation of Information Demonstrating Adequ ate Spill Response and Well Containment

Resources Informs operators using subsea blowout preventers (BOPs) or surface BOPs on floating facilities that applications for well permits must include a statement signed by an authorized company official stating t hat the operator will conduct all activities in compliance with all applicable regulations, including the increased safety measures regulations (75 FR 63346). Informs operators that the BOEM will be evaluating whether each operator has submitted adequate information demonstrating that it has access to and can deploy containment resources to promptly respond to a blowout or
other loss of well control.

2010

- N06 Information Requirements for

Exploration Plans, Development and Production Plans, and Development Operations
Coordination Documents on the

OCS Rescinds the limitations set forth in NTL 2008

- G04 regarding a blowout scenario and worst case discharge (WCD) scenario, and provides guidance regarding the information required in
blowout scenario and WCD scen ario descriptions.

2009

- G40 Deepwater Benthic Communities Guidance for avoiding and protecting high

- density deepwater benthic communities (including chemosynthetic and deepwater coral communities) from damage caused by OCS oil and gas activities in water depths greater than 984 ft (300 m). Prescribes separation distances of 2,000 ft (610 m) from each mud and cuttings discharge location and 250 ft (76 m) from all
other seafloor disturbances.

2009

- G39 Biologically Sensitive Underwater

Features and Areas Gu idance for avoiding and protecting biologically sensitive features and areas (i.e., topographic features, pinnacles,
low

- relief live bottom areas, and other potentially sensitive biological features) when conducting OCS operations in water depths less than 984 ft (300 m) in the Gulf of Mexico.

2009

- G06 Military Warning and Water Test

Areas Provides contact links to individual command headquarters for the military warning and water test areas in the Gulf of Mexico. Lease stipulations require lessees or des ignated operators to enter into an agreement with the appropriate individual military command headquarters concerning the control of electromagnetic emissions and use of boats and aircraft in the applicable warning area or water test area before commencing such traffic.

2008

- G04 Information Requirements for

Exploration Plans and Development Operations
Coordination Documents Guidance on the information requirements for OCS plans, including EIA requirements and information regarding compliance with the provi sions of the Endangered Species Act
and Marine Mammal Protection Act.

### Table 1. (Continued).

NTL Title Summary

2005

- G07 Archaeological Resource Surveys

and Reports Provides guidance on regulations regarding archaeological discoveries, specifies requirements for archaeological resource

surveys and reports, and outlines options for protecting archaeological resources.

Oil Spill Prevention and Contingency Planning

Shell submitted an update to the Gulf of Mexico Regional Oil Spill Response Plan (OSRP) to the BOEM as a fundamental component of the planned drilling program that certifies Shell‟s capability to respond to the maximum extent practicable to a WCD (30 CFR §254.2) (see DOCD Section 9 ). The OSRP demonstrates Shell‟s capabilities to rapidly and effectively manage oil spills that may result from drilling operations. Despite the extremely low likelihood of a large oil spill occurring during the project, Shell has designed its response program based upon a regional capability of respond ing to a range of spill volumes that increase from small operational spills to a WCD from a well blowout. Shell‟s program meets the response planning requirements of the relevant coastal states and Federal oil spill planning regulations. The OSRP include s information regarding Shell‟s regional oil spill organization and dedicated response assets, potential spill risks, and local environmental sensitivities. The OSRP presents specific information on the response program that includes a description of pers onnel and equipment mobilization, the incident management team organization, and the strategies and tactics used to implement effective and sustained spill containment and recovery operations.

EIA Organization

The EIA is organized into Sections A through I corresponding to the information required by
NTL 2008

- G04, which provides guidance regarding information required by 30 CFR §550 for DOCDs. The main impact

- related discussions are in Section A (Impact

- Producing Factors) and Section C (Impact Analysis).A. Impact

- Producing Factors

Table 2 is a matrix of IPFs and potentially affected environmental resources adapted from
Form BOEM

- 142. An “X” indicates that an IPF could reasonably be expected to affect a certain resource, and a dash (

- - ) indicates no impact or negligible impact. Where there may be an effect, an analysis is provided in Section C . Potential IPFs for the proposed activity are listed below and briefly discussed in the following subsections:

 TLP and drilling rig presence ( including noise and lights);

 Physical disturbance to the seafloor;

 Air pollutant emissions;

 Effluent discharges;

 Water intake;

 Onshore waste disposal;

 Marine debris;

 Support vessel and helicopter traffic; and

 Accidents.

A.1 Tension Leg Platform and Drilli ng Rig Presence (including noise and lights)

The MC 807 DVA wells will be drilled with a platform rig located on the proposed TLP. Offshore support vessels will be in the vicinity to provide assistance as necessary.

Drilling operations produce noise that includes strong tonal components at low frequencies, including infrasonic frequencies in at least some cases (MMS, 2000). The installation and operation of the TLP will also generate noise of variable duration and intensity from machinery. Underwater noi se from deepwater floating facilities such as the TLP is generally weak due to positioning of machinery above the water and the relatively small surface area that comes into contact with the water (MMS, 2000). Platforms, including TLPs and drilling rigs, also maintain exterior lighting for navigational and aviation safety in accordance with Federal regulations.

A.2 Physical Disturbance to the Seafloor

The installation of the TLP includes the use of non

- anchored vessels for the placement of
16 tendon piles into the seafloor. Shell estimates that the area of disturbance for the 16 tendon piles is approximately 0.02 ac (0.01 ha).

The platform drilling r ig is located on the TLP and will not directly disturb the seafloor. There will be minimal disturbance to soft bottom communities on the seafloor during positioning of the wellbore and blowout preventers (BOP). Physical disturbance of the seafloor will b e limited to the proximal area where the wellbore penetrates the substrate.Table 2. Matrix of impact

- producing factors and affected environmental resources. X = potential impact; dash (

-- ) = no impact or negligible impact.

Environmental Resources Impact

- producing Factors

Platform and Drilling Rig Presence (incl. noise & lights) Physical

Disturbance to Seafloor Air

Pollutant
Emissions Effluent

Discharges Water

Intake Onshore

Waste Disposal Marine

Debris Support

Vessel/Helo Traffic Accidents

Small Fuel Spill Large Oil

Spill
Physical/Chemical Environment Air quality

-- -- X

-- -- -- -- -- X (6) X (6) Water quality

-- -- -- X

-- -- -- -- X (6) X (6) Seafloor Habitats and Biota Soft bottom benthic communities

-- X

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- X (6) High

- density deepwater benthic communities

-- -- (4)

-- -- (4)

-- -- -- -- -- X (6) Designated topographic features

-- -- (1)

-- -- (1)

-- -- -- -- -- -- Pinnacle trend area live bottoms

-- -- (2)

-- -- (2)

-- -- -- -- -- -- Eastern Gulf live bottoms

-- -- (3)

-- -- (3)

-- -- -- -- -- -- Threatened, Endangered, and Protected Species and Critical Habitat Sperm whale (endangered) X (8)

-- -- -- -- -- -- X (8) X (6,8) X (6,8) Florida manatee (endangered)

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- X (8)

-- X (6,8) Endangered mysticete whales

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Non

- endangered marine mammals (protected) X

-- -- -- -- -- -- X X (6) X (6) Sea turtles (endangered/threatened) X (8)

-- -- -- -- -- -- X (8) X (6,8) X (6,8) Piping Plover (threatened)

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X (6) Whooping Crane (endangered)

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X (6) Gulf sturgeon (threatened)

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X (6) Beach mice (endangered)

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X (6) Coastal and Marine Birds Marine and pelagic birds X

-- -- -- -- -- -- X X (6) X (6) Shorebirds and coastal nesting birds

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- X

-- X (6) Fisheries Resources Pelagic communities and ichthyoplankton X

-- -- X X

-- -- -- X (6) X (6) Essential Fish Habitat X

-- -- X X

-- -- -- X (6) X (6) Archaeological Resources Shipwreck sites

-- -- (7)

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- X (6) Prehistoric archaeological sites

-- -- (7)

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- X (6) Coastal Habitats and Protected Areas Beaches

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X (6) Wetlands and seagrass beds

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- X

-- X (6) Coastal wildlife refuges and wilderness areas

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X (6) Socioeconomic and Other Resources Recreational and commercial fishing X

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- X (6) X (6) Public health and safety

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X (6) Employment and infrastructure

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X (6) Recreation and tourism

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X (6) Land use

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X (6) Other marine uses

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X (6)

### Table 2 Footnotes and Applicability:

(1) Activities that may affect a marine sanctuary or topographic feature. Specifically, if the well, platform site, or any anchors will be on the seafloor within the following: (a) 4

- mi zone of the Flower Garden Banks, or the 3

- mi zone of S tetson Bank; (b) 1,000

- m, 1

- mi, or 3

- mi zone of any topographic feature (submarine bank) protected by the Topographic Features Stipulation attached to an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lease; (c) Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) criteria of 500 ft from any no

- a ctivity zone; or (d) Proximity of any submarine bank (500

- ft buffer zone) with relief greater than 2 m that is not protected by the Topographic Features Stipulation attached to an OCS lease.

 Not applicable. The lease is not within or near any marine sanct uary, topographic feature, or

no

- activity zone. There are no submarine banks in the block.

(2) Activities with any bottom disturbance within an OCS lease block protected through the Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation attached to an OCS lease.

 The Li ve Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation is not applicable to the lease area.

(3) Activities within any Eastern Gulf OCS block where seafloor habitats are protected by the Live Bottom (Low

- Relief) Stipulation attached to an OCS lease.

 The Live Bottom (Low

- R elief) Stipulation is not applicable to the lease area.

(4) Activities on blocks designated by the BOEM as being in water depths 300 m or greater.

 No impacts on high

- density deepwater benthic communities are anticipated. There is minor, shallow
buried sea floor faulting in the vicinity of the proposed tension leg platform (TLP) and well locations in

MC 807; however, no high

- density chemosynthetic communities or coral communities will be disturbed by drilling mud or cuttings discharges or the TLP tendon pile s.
(5) Exploration or production activities where H 2 S concentrations greater than 500 ppm might be encountered.

 DOCD Section 4 contains Shell’s request for classification as an area absent of H 2 S.
(6) All activities that could result in an accidental sp ill of produced liquid hydrocarbons or diesel fuel that you determine would impact these environmental resources. If the proposed action is located a sufficient distance from a resource that no impact would occur, the EIA can note that in a sentence or tw o.

 Accidental hydrocarbon spills could affect the resources marked (X) in the matrix, and impacts are analyzed in Section C

. (7) All activities that involve seafloor disturbances, including anchor emplacements, in any OCS block designated by the BOEM as ha ving high

- probability for the occurrence of shipwrecks or prehistoric sites, including such blocks that will be affected that are adjacent to the lease block in which your planned activity will occur. If the proposed activities are located a sufficient di stance from a shipwreck or prehistoric site that no impact would occur, the EIA can note that in a sentence or two.

 No impacts on archaeological resources are expected. The lease is not on the list of high

- probability blocks for historic shipwrecks (MMS, 2008a). The archaeological survey detected 5,637 unidentified sonar contacts within the survey area. The distribution patterns and acoustic characteristics of these sonar targets indicate that they are modern debris primarily associated with prior indust rial waste dumping or field development activities. The lease is beyond the 60

- m depth contour and therefore prehistoric archaeological sites are not likely; further, no landforms or features were identified that might be high probability prehistoric site s.
(8) All activities that you determine might have an adverse effect on endangered or threatened marine
mammals or sea turtles or their critical habitats.

 IPFs that may affect marine mammals, sea turtles, or their critical habitats include TLP and drilling rig presence and emissions, support vessel and helicopter traffic, and accidents. See Section C

. (9) Production activities that involve transportation of produced fluids to shore using shuttle tankers or barges.

 Not applicable.Non

- anchored vessels will be used for flowline, jumper, and subsea hardware installation. There will be no anchoring impacts, but placement of the subsea equipment on the seafloo r will directly disturb a small area of seafloor estimated to be less than 1 ac (0.4 ha). Flowlines and umbilicals will be installed from multiple locations in MC 762 and MC 807. The total length of flowlines is approximately 35,200 ft (10,700 m) and the length of the umbilical is approximately 17,700 ft (5,400 m). The MMS (2007b) estimated an area of seafloor disturbance area between 1.2 ac (0.5 ha) and 2.5 ac (1.0 ha) per kilometer of pipeline or flowline installation. Using the upper range value of 2 .5 ac (1.0 ha) per kilometer of pipeline or flowline installation, the total area disturbed during flowline or pipeline installation is therefore approximately 40 ac (16 ha).

By summing this value with the TLP tendon pile impact and the subsea equipment im pact, the total footprint and seafloor disturbance from these permanent structures is estimated to be approximately 40 ac (16 ha).

A.3 Air Pollutant Emissions

Estimates of air pollutant emissions are provided in DOCD Section 8

. Offshore air pollutant
emis sions will result from installation activities for the proposed TLP in MC 807 and subsea installations in MC 762, production operation activities on the TLP, and operations of the drilling rig, service vessels and helicopters. These emissions occur mainly from combustion of diesel fuel and/or fuel gas. Primary air pollutants typically associated with OCS activities are suspended particulate matter (PM), sulfur oxides (SO x ), nitrogen oxides (NO x ), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and carbon monoxide (CO).

The Air Quality Emissions Report (see DOCD Section 8 ) prepared in accordance with BOEM requirements shows that the projected emissions from emission sources associated with the proposed activities meet the BOEM exemption criteria for PM, SO x , VOCs, a nd CO. The proposed activities are therefore exempt from further air quality review pursuant to 30 CFR § 550.303(d). Projected emissions from emission sources associated with the proposed activities in the TLP and related construction activity years do not meet the BOEM exemption criteria for NO x. Once construction activities are completed, annual NO x emissions are predicted to be below the BOEM exemption criteria. Air quality dispersion modeling was necessary to determine the impact of NO x on onshore ambi ent air in the years in which projected emissions exceed the BOEM exemption criteria.

Note that whereas the exemption criteria are based on NO x emissions, the modeled significance level and the NAAQS are dependent on emissions of nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) [30 CFR §550.303(e)]. Using a conservative approach, emissions of NO x were assumed to be
NO 2 equivalent for modeling purposes. As demonstrated in the air dispersion modeling report (see DOCD Section 8 ), the proposed activities do not exceed the significa nt impact level for the annual averaging period for NO 2 . Since modeled NO 2 concentrations are less than the significant impact level for the NO 2 annual NAAQS, no further action is required. Additionally, when combined with an appropriate background monit ored value, modeled NO 2 concentrations are below the NO 2 1

- hour NAAQS; therefore, no further action is required.

A.4 Effluent Discharges

Effluent discharges are summarized in DOCD Section 7 . Offshore discharges will be in accordance with the National Poll utant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit
No. GMG290000 issued by the USEPA. Discharges will be in compliance with and monitored as required by the permit.

A synthetic

- based mud (SBM) system will be used for drilling activities. Unused or residual SBM will be collected and transported to Port Fourchon, Louisiana, for recycling. SBM cuttings willbe discharged overboard via a downpipe below the water surface, after treatment that complies with NPDES permit limitations for SBM fluid retaine d on cuttings. The estimated volume of SBM cuttings to be discharged is provided in DOCD Section 7

.
Produced water and process effluents, including well treatment fluids, completion fluids, and workover fluids, will be discharged overboard via a downpipe below the water surface, after treatment that complies with NPDES permit limitations for these fluids. Other effluent discharges may include excess cement, non

- contact cooling water, treated sanitary and domestic wastes, deck drainage, desalination unit br ine, uncontaminated fire water, and ballast water. All effluents will comply with monitoring and limitations of the NPDES permit.

A.5 Water Intake

Seawater will be drawn from several meters below the ocean surface for various services, including firewate r, utility water, and once

- through non

- contact cooling of machinery on the TLP ( DOCD Table 7a ).

Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires NPDES permits to ensure that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures (CWIS) reflect the best technology available to minimize adverse environmental impact from impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms. The current general NPDES Permit No. GMG290000 specifies requirements for new facilities for which construction co mmenced after July 17, 2006 with a cooling water intake structure having a design intake capacity of greater than 2 million gallons of water per day, of which at least 25% is used for cooling purposes. The drilling rig and new TLP, however, do not trigger the cooling water intake permit requirements of the NPDES permit because the design intake capacity will be less than the 2 million gallons per day or 25% cooling water thresholds.

.
The drilling rig and new TLP will be located in the deepwater environm ent and the seawater intakes are located approximately 45 ft below the water surface. Based on Gulf of Mexico data from the Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP), larval fish densities decrease with water depth, and are lower in the de epwater environment than in shallower water. High flow intakes associated with activation of firewater pumps are infrequent and of short duration and the l arger fish species that inhabit the deepwater environment have little potential for impingement due to their breakaway speed from a challenging intake velocity. As noted in this section, cooling water demand is below regulatory thresholds. The operational features of the platform combined with the geographical area characteristics suggest that no signi ficant impact from intake impingement and entrainment is expected.

A.6 Onshore Waste Disposal

Wastes generated during production activities as well as drilling and completion activities are tabulated in DOCD Section 7

. Non

- hazardous trash and debris and n on

- recyclable waste will be transported to the Jefferson Parish Landfill, Louisiana. Recyclable trash and debris will be recycled at Omega Waste Management, Patterson, Louisiana, or ARC

, New Iberia, Louisiana

. Hazar dous waste such as paints, solvents, and unused chemicals will be disposed of at Safety Kleen Systems, Inc., Denton, Texas, or Lamp Environmental, Hammond, Louisiana. Used oil and glycol will be sent to Omega Waste Management for recycling. Exploration a nd production waste, such as sands and sludges will be transported to Newpark Environmental, Fourchon, Louisiana. At the onshore facilities, wastes will be recycled or disposed of according to applicable regulations.A.7 Marine Debris

Trash and debris rel eased into the marine environment can harm marine mammals, turtles, and birds through entanglement and ingestion. Shell will adhere to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78) Annex V requirements, USEPA and
U SCG regulations, and BOEM regulations and NTLs regarding solid wastes. BOEM regulations
at 30 CFR § 250.300(a) and (b)(6) prohibit operators from deliberately discharging containers and other similar materials (e.g., trash and debris) into the marine envir onment, and
30 CFR § 250.300(c) requires durable identification markings on equipment, tools and containers (especially drums), and other material. USCG and USEPA regulations require operators to become 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. Shell complies with NTL 2012

- BSEE

- G01 , which instructs operators to exercise caution in the handling and disposal of small items and packaging materials, requires the posting of placards at prominent locations on offshore vessels and structures, and mandates a yearly marine trash and debris a wareness training and certification process. Shell‟s compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and NTL 2012

- BSEE

- G01 will avoid significant impacts on the environment.

A.8 Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

Shell will use existing shorebased facili ties at Port Fourchon and Boothville, Louisiana, for onshore support for water and air transportation, respectively. No terminal expansion or construction is planned at either location.

Marine support for the drilling operation will be from Edison Chouest, Inc. located at Port Fourchon, Louisiana. During installation, drilling, and completion activities the project will be supported by crew boats, offshore supply vessels, a frac boat, tug boats, installation vessels, utility vessels, and helicopter s ( see DOCD Section 14 ). Operations will be supported by supply vessels and helicopters. There will likely be at least one vessel in the field at all times. The supply vessels will normally move to the project area via the most direct route from the sho rebase. Helicopters will be used to transport personnel and small supplies and will normally take the most direct route of travel between the helicopter base and the lease area when air traffic and weather conditions permit. Helicopters typically maintai n a minimum altitude of
700 ft (213 m) while in transit offshore, 1,000 ft (305 m) over unpopulated areas or across coastlines, and 2,000 ft (610 m) over populated areas and sensitive habitats such as wildlife refuges and park properties.

Additional vessel s of varying sizes will be used to install and commission the TLP. The duration of the main TLP installation and commissioning activities is limited (several months); therefore, impacts from this additional traffic is expected to be minimal.

A.9 Accident s

A.9.1 Types of Accidents Evaluated

The analysis in this EIA focuses on two potential accidents:

 a small fuel spill, which is the most likely type of spill during OCS development activities; and

 an oil spill resulting from an uncontrolled blowout. A blow out resulting in a large oil spill is an extremely rare event, and the probability of such an event will be minimized by Shell‟s well control and blowout prevention measures as detailed in DOCD Section 2j

.

The following subsections summarize assumptions ab out the sizes and fates of these spills, as well as Shell‟s spill response plans. Impacts are analyzed in Section C

.The lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b) analyzes three other types of accidents: chemical spills, vessel collisions, and loss of well control. Th ese accidents are discussed briefly in Section A.9.4

.

A.9.2 Small Fuel Spill

Spill Size . According to the analysis in MMS (2007b), the most likely type of small spill (<1,000 barrels [bbl]) as a result of OCS activities is a minor diesel fuel spill. Hist orically, most diesel spills have been <1 bbl, and this size is predicted to be the most common in ongoing and future OCS activities in the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas (MMS, 2007b). The average size for spills <1 bbl is 0.07 bbl, and the median size for spills of 1 to 10 bbl is
3 bbl (MMS, 2007b). For this analysis, a small diesel fuel spill of 3 bbl is assumed. Operational experience suggests that the most likely cause of such a spill would be a hose rupture resulting in the loss o f the contents of a fuel transfer hose, which is less than 3 bbl.

Spill Fate

. The fate of a small fuel spill in the lease area would depend on meteorological and oceanographic conditions at the time, as well as the effectiveness of spill response activiti es. However, g iven the open ocean location of the lease area, the duration of a small spill and the opportunity for impacts to occur would be very brief.

The water

- soluble fractions of diesel are dominated by two

- and three

- ringed polycyclic aromatic hydr ocarbons (PAHs), which are moderately volatile (National Research Council [NRC], 2003). The constituents of these oils are light to intermediate in molecular weight and can be readily degraded by aerobic microbial oxidation. Diesel‟s density is such that it will not sink to the seafloor. Diesel dispersed in the water column can adhere to suspended sediments, but this generally occurs only in coastal areas with high

- suspended solids loads (NRC, 2003) and would not be expected to occur to any appreciable d egree in offshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Diesel oil is readily and completely degraded by naturally occurring microbes (NOAA, 2006).

The fate of a small diesel fuel spill was estimated using NOAA‟s Automated Data Inquiry for Oil Spills 2 (ADIOS2) m odel. This model uses the physical properties of oils in its database to predict the rate of evaporation and dispersion over time, as well as changes in the density, viscosity, and water content of the product spilled. It is estimated that over 90% of a small diesel spill would be evaporated or dispersed within 24 hours. The area of the sea surface with diesel fuel on it would range from 1.2 to 12 ac (0.5 to 5 ha) depending on sea state and weather conditions.

The ADIOS2 results, coupled with spill traje ctory information discussed below for a large spill, indicate that a small fuel spill would not affect coastal or shoreline resources. The lease area (MC 762 and 807) is approximately 53 miles (85 km) from the nearest coastline (Louisiana). Modeling resu lts discussed below indicate that a spill in the lease area would have no shoreline contact within 3 days and a 4% probability of contacting the nearest Louisiana shoreline (Plaquemines Parish) within 10 days after a spill. After 3 days, essentially 100% of a small fuel spill would have dispersed or evaporated by natural processes, even if no response measures were implemented. MMS (2007b) similarly concluded that spills <1,000 bbl are not expected to persist as a slick on the surface of the water beyond a few days and are unlikely to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up. MMS (2007b) noted that this conclusion is supported by a previous analysis of 3

- day trajectory model runs, previous weathering analyses, and historical records of s pill incidents.

Spill Response . In the unlikely event of a fuel spill, response equipment and trained personnel would be available to ensure that spill effects are localized and would result only in short

- term localized environmental consequences. DOCD S ection 9b provides a detailed discussion of Shell‟s response to a spill.A.9.3 Large Oil Spill

A blowout resulting in a large oil spill is an extremely rare event, and the probability of such an event will be minimized by Shell‟s well control and blowout p revention measures detailed in DOCD Section 2j . Blowouts are rare events and most do not result in oil spills. Holand (1997) estimated a probability of 0.00142 for a blowout during deep development drilling based
on U.S. Gulf of Mexico data. An updated analysis using the SINTEF database estimates a blowout frequency of 0.00035 per development well for non

- North Sea locations (International Association of Oil & Gas Producers, 2010). As noted by MMS (2007b), from 1992 to 2005, half the blowouts in the Gul f of Mexico lasted less than half a day, and fewer than 10% of blowouts resulted in spilled oil.

The risk of a blowout during this project is lower than indicated by these statistics because the well design and drilling program were developed using informa tion gathered during drilling of the previous wells in MC 807. During drilling of the previous wells, the reservoirs were logged and evaluated. Substantial data associated with the reservoirs were gathered including core, pressure, and fluid data. Data gained during these earlier operations provide substantial information that was used in preparing for the proposed operation.

Spill Size . Shell has calculated a WCD for this Initial DOCD, using the requirements prescribed by NTL 2010

- N06. The WCD is 446, 000 bbl for the first day with a 30

- day average of 359,500 barrels of oil per day (BOPD). The detailed analysis of this calculation can be found in
DOCD Section 2j . The WCD scenario for this Initial DOCD, in terms of both initial and the sustained rates, has a low probability of being realized. Some of the factors that are likely to reduce rates and volumes, which are not included in the WCD calculation, include, but are not limited to, obstructions or equipment in the wellbore, well bridging, and early intervention such
as containment.

Shell has a robust system in place to prevent blowouts. Included in DOCD Sections 2j and 9b is Shell‟s response to NTL 2010

- N06, which includes descriptions of measures to prevent a blowout, reduce the likelihood of a blo wout, and conduct effective and early intervention in the event of a blowout. Shell will also comply with NTL 2010

- N10 and the Interim Final Drilling Safety Rule, which specify additional safety measures for OCS activities.

Spill Trajectory

. The fate of a large oil spill in the lease area would depend on meteorological and oceanographic conditions at the time. The Oil Spill Risk Analysis (OSRA) model is a computer simulation of oil spill transport that uses realistic data for winds and currents to predic t spill fate. The OSRA report by Ji et al. (2004) provides conditional contact probabilities for shoreline segments. The results for Launch Area 58, the launch area nearest to the lease area) are presented in Table 3 . The model predicts no shoreline con tact within 3 days. After
10 days, three Louisiana parishes may be contacted. After 30 days, 11 counties and parishes, including 2 Texas counties, 8 Louisiana parishes and 1 Florida county may be contacted. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, has the greates t probability of shoreline contact, with a 4% and 8% chance within 10 and 30 days, respectively.

Table 3. Conditional probabilities of a spill in the lease area contacting shoreline segments

(From: Ji et al., 2004). Values are conditional probabilities th at a hypothetical spill in the lease area (represented by OSRA Launch Area 58) could contact shoreline segments within 3, 10, or 30 days.

Shoreline Segment County or Parish, State Conditional Probability of Contact a (%) 3 Days 10 Days 30 Days
C10 Galveston, Texas

-- -- 1
C12 Jefferson, Texas

-- -- 1
C13 Cameron, Louisiana

-- -- 3
C14 Vermilion, Louisiana

-- -- 2C15 Iberia, Louisiana

-- -- 1
C17 Terrebonne, Louisiana

-- 1 3
C18 Lafourche, Louisiana

-- 2 3
C19 Jefferson, Louisiana

-- -- 1
C20 Plaquemines, Louisiana

-- 4 8
C21 St. Bernard, Louisiana

-- -- 1
C28 Okaloosa, Florida

-- -- 1

a Conditional probability refers to the probability of contact within the stated time period, assuming that a spill has occurred (

-- indicates less than 0.5%).

The OSRA model does not evaluate the fate of a spill over time periods longer than 30 days, nor does it predict the fate of a release that continues over a period of weeks or months. Also as noted by Ji et al. (2004), the OSRA model does not take i nto account the chemical composition or biological weathering of oil spills, the spreading and splitting of oil spills, or spill response activities. The model does not assume a particular spill size but has generally been used by BOEM to evaluate contact probabilities for spills greater than 1,000 bbl.

Weathering . Following an oil spill, several physical, chemical, and biological processes, collectively called weathering, interact to change the physical and chemical properties of the oil, and thereby inf luence its harmful effects on marine organisms and ecosystems. The most important weathering processes include spreading, evaporation, dissolution, dispersion into the water column, formation of water

- in

- oil emulsions, photochemical oxidation, microbial d egradation, adsorption to suspended PM, and stranding on shore or sedimentation to the seafloor (NRC, 2003).

Weathering decreases the concentration of oil and produces changes in its chemical composition, physical properties, and toxicity. The more toxic, light aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbons are lost rapidly by evaporation and dissolution from the slick on the water surface. Evaporated hydrocarbons are degraded rapidly by sunlight. Biodegradation of oil on the water surface and in the water column b y marine bacteria removes first the n

- alkanes and then the light aromatics from the oil. Other petroleum components are biodegraded more slowly. Photooxidation attacks mainly the medium and high molecular weight PAHs in the oil on the water surface.

Spil l Response . Shell is a founding member of the Marine Well Containment Company (MWCC) and has access to an integrated subsea well control and containment system that can be rapidly deployed through the MWCC. The MWCC is a non

- profit organization that assi sts with the subsea containment system during a response. The near

- term containment response capability will be specifically addressed in Shell‟s NTL 2010

- N10 submission at the time an Application for Permit to Drill is submitted and will include equipmen t and services available to Shell through MWCC‟s development of near

- term capability and other industry sources. Shell is a member of Clean Caribbean & Americas, Marine Spill Response Corporation, Clean Gulf Associates, and Oil Spill Response Limited, org anizations that are committed to providing the resources necessary to respond to a spill as outlined in Shell‟s OSRP.

The experience of gaining control over the Macondo well has resulted in a better understanding of the necessary equipment and systems for well containment. As a result, industry and government are better equipped and prepared today to contain an oil well blowout in deepwater (see page 17 of the Decision Memorandum dated October 1, 2010 [Bromwich, 2010]). Shell is further analyzing these ad vances and incorporating them into a comprehensive approach to help prevent and, if needed, control another deepwater well control incident. Shell is also investing in research and development to improve containment systems.Mechanical recovery capabiliti es are addressed in the OSRP. The primary mechanical recovery response equipment that could be mobilized to the spill location for spills in normal and adverse weather conditions is included in the Offshore On

- Water Recovery Activation List in the OSRP.

C hemical dispersion capabilities are also readily available from resources identified in the
OSRP. Available equipment for surface and subsea application of dispersants, response times, and support resources are identified in the OSRP.

Open

- water in situ b urning may also be used as a response strategy, depending on the circumstances of the release. If appropriate conditions exist and approval from the Unified Command is received, one or multiple in situ burning task forces could be deployed offshore.

See D OCD Sections 2j and 9b for a detailed description of Shell‟s site

- specific response to a large spill for this plan. These sections, along with Shell‟s OSRP, also include a description of surface and subsea containment capabilities that could be implemente d in the event of a large spill at this site.

A.9.4 Other Accidents Not Analyzed in Detail

The lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b) discusses three other types of accidents: chemical spills, vessel collisions, and loss of well control. These accidents are discusse d briefly below. No hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S) is expected at this site, and no other site

- specific issues have been identified for this Initial DOCD. The analysis in the lease sale EIS for these topics is incorporated by reference.

Chemical Spill . Chemical s are used in drilling and producing operations to achieve technical goals in the drilling process, improve the efficiency and safety of drilling, and protect associated equipment. Chemicals used during drilling include surfactants, bentonite clays, olefi ns, inorganic salts, glycols, polymers, barite, and calcium carbonate. Supplies are renewed on a regular basis by transfer in containers from supply boats (Boehm et al., 2001). In addition to chemicals used in drilling fluids, the following chemicals are likely to be used on the rig: ethylene glycol (blowout prevention control fluid, used in closed cooling loops for crane and main engines and brake coolers), cement (used to cement casing in place), solvents (used in painting operations), hydraulic fluids (used in cranes and other hydraulic rig equipment), lubricating oil and grease (used in reciprocating and electrical equipment), and sodium hypochlorite (dilute, used as laundry bleach and disinfectant).

A study of environmental risks of chemical products used in OCS activities determined that only two chemicals could potentially affect the marine environment: zinc bromide and ammonium chloride (Boehm et al., 2001). The project addressed by this Initial DOCD does not anticipate the use of ammonium chloride but will use zinc bromide during well completion. Most other chemicals are either nontoxic or used in small quantities. Spill response capabilities are addressed in the OSRP. No significant impacts are expected from chemical spills.

Vessel Collisions

. As summarized in MMS (2007b), vessel collisions occasionally occur during routine operations. Most collision mishaps are the result of service vessels colliding with platforms or vessel collisions with pipeline risers. Some of these collisions have cau sed spills of diesel fuel or chemicals. Shell will comply with USCG and BOEM

- mandated safety requirements to minimize the potential for vessel collisions.

Loss of Well Control . A loss of well control is the uncontrolled flow of a reservoir fluid that may result in the release of gas, condensate, oil, drilling fluids, sand, or water. Loss of well control is a broad term that includes minor to serious well control incidents, while blowouts are considered to be a subset of more serious incidents with greate r risk of oil spill or human injury (MMS, 2007b). Loss of well control may result in the release of oil. Shell has a robust systemin place to prevent loss of well control. Included in this Initial DOCD is Shell‟s response to
NTL 2010

- N06, which includes descriptions of measures to prevent a blowout, reduce the likelihood of a blowout, and conduct effective and early intervention in the event of a blowout. Shell will also comply with NTL 2010

- N10 and the Interim Final Drilling Safety Rule, which specify additional safety measures for OCS activities. See DOCD Sections 2j and 9b for further information.

H 2 S Release

. DOCD Section 4 contains Shell‟s request for classification as an area absent of
H 2 S.

B. Affected Environment

The lease area is on t he continental slope in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico, 53 miles (85 km) from the nearest shoreline, 91 miles (146 km) from the onshore support base at Port Fourchon, Louisiana, and 82 miles (132 km) from the helicopter base at Boothville, Louisiana.

The wellsites in MC 807 are at a water depth of approximately 3,028 ft (923 m) ( DOCD Figure 1b ). There are minor, shallow seafloor and buried landslide features within the vicinity of the wellsite locations and the proposed TLP in MC 807; however, no high

- den sity areas of chemosynthetic communities will be disturbed. The installations in MC 762 (UTA, EDM, manifold, and PLETs) are at a water depth of approximately 3, 150 ft (960 m). These subsea facilities will be located near the center of a near

- surface anc ient slump valley, but no high

- density areas of chemosynthetic communities will be disturbed.

The archaeological assessment confirmed the existence of modern debris primarily associated with prior industrial waste dumping or field development activities. A historical industrial waste dump site has been identified west of MC 807 and south of MC 762, in MC 806. This dump site received containerized wastes until the site was closed. Shell‟s procedure “Waste Barrel Avoidance and Release Response in the Mis sissippi Canyon Area,” which has been previously approved by MMS and BOEM 1 , is included in DOCD Section 6a and applies to operations that could cause a disturbance of a seafloor barrel. Shell‟s over

‐ arching policy is to avoid barrel contact. The plan specifies a safe stand

‐ off distance from the waste barrels of 10 m (33 ft) and requires that potential impact locations be surveyed with an ROV to maximize barrel avoidance. In the unlikely case that contact is suspected or has been made with any wastes f rom a barrel, the plan specifies actions to be taken for the topside safety of personnel handling the equipment. The plan also outlines barrel impact reporting procedures.

T he high

- resolution geophysical survey included frequency enhanced three

- dimensiona l seismic, enhanced surface renderings (ESRs), ESRs with amplitudes applied, and an autonomous underwater vehicle survey. According to the results of this survey, the proposed wellsite locations and proposed TLP in MC 807 as well as locations for the subs ea facilities in MC 762 appear suitable for the planned activity (C&C Technologies, 2009).

A detailed description of the regional affected environment is provided in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008b), including meteorology, oceanography, geology, air and wat er quality, benthic communities, threatened and endangered species, biologically sensitive resources, archaeological resources, socioeconomic conditions, and other marine uses. These regional descriptions are based on extensive literature reviews and are incorporated by reference.

1 MMS approval of West Boreas Supplemental Exploration Plan, MS 5231 December 16, 2008, Control No. S

- 07273, Mississippi Canyon Area Block 762

, Lease OCS

- G 07957 ; Mississippi Canyon Area Bloc k 806, Lease OCS

- G 07962 and BOEM approval of the Supplement to the Conceptual D eepwater Operations Plan for Mars B project, August 12, 2010 , MS 5220

.General background information is presented below, and brief descriptions of each potentially affected resource are presented in Section C , including site

- specific and/or new information if available.

Other than the aforemention ed seafloor features, the local environment in the lease area is not known to be unique with respect to physical/chemical, biological, or socioeconomic conditions. Baseline environmental conditions in the lease area are expected to be consistent with the regional description of continental slope locations evaluated in recent lease sale EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008b).

The lease area is approximately 65 miles (104 km) southwest of the Macondo spill site. Based on an analysis of satellite imagery (ESRI, 2010), the surface slick extended over the lease area prior to capping of the well; therefore, water quality in the lease area could have been temporarily affected. Macondo spill impacts are addressed in Section C.9 (Cumulative Impacts) where available and applicab le.

C. Impact Analysis

This section analyzes the potential direct and indirect impacts of routine activities and accidents. Cumulative impacts are discussed in Section C.9

.
Impacts have been analyzed extensively in recent multi

- lease

- sale EISs for the W estern and Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas (MMS, 2007b, 2008b) as well as the EA for Gulf of Mexico deepwater operations and activities (MMS, 2000) and a Grid EA for the Marco Polo Development in Green Canyon Block 608 (MMS, 2003) . Site

- specific iss ues are addressed in this section as appropriate.

C.1 Physical/Chemical Environment

C.1.1 Air Quality

There are no site

- specific air quality data for the project area. Due to the distance from shorebased pollution sources, offshore air quality is expected to be good. The attainment status of Federal OCS waters is unclassified because there is no provision in the Clean Air Act for classification of areas outside State waters (MMS, 2007b).

As of August 30, 2011, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida coastal counties and parishes are in attainment of the NAAQS for all criteria pollutants (USEPA, 2011). One coastal metropolitan area in Texas (Houston

- Galveston

- Brazoria) is a nonattainment area for 8

- hour

ozone.

Winds in the region are driven by the clo ckwise circulation around the Bermuda High (MMS, 2007b). The Gulf of Mexico is located to the southwest of this center of circulation, resulting in a prevailing southeasterly to southerly flow, which is conducive to transporting emissions toward shore. H owever, circulation is also affected by tropical cyclones (hurricanes) during summer and fall and by extratropical cyclones (cold fronts) during winter.

IPFs potentially affecting air quality are air pollutant emissions and two types of accidents:

a small fuel spill and a large oil spill.

Impacts of Air Pollutant Emissions

Air pollutant emissions are the only routine IPF likely to affect air quality. Offshore air pollutant emissions will result from the installation activities for the proposed TLP in MC 807 and subseainstallations in MC 762, production operation activities on the TLP, and operation of the drilling rig, helicopters and service vessels. These emissions occur mainly from combustion or burning of diesel fuel and/or fuel gas. Primary air pollutants typically associated with OCS activities are suspended PM, SO x , NO x , VOCs, and CO.

Due to the distance from shore, routine operations in the project a rea are not expected to impact air quality along the coast. As noted in the lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b), emissions of air pollutants from routine activities in the Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area are projected to have minimal impacts on onshore air q uality because of the prevailing atmospheric conditions, emission heights, emission rates, and the distance of these emissions from the coastline.

The Air Quality Emissions Report (see DOCD Section 8 ) prepared in accordance with BOEM requirements shows tha t the projected emissions from emission sources associated with the proposed activities meet the BOEM exemption criteria for PM, SO x , VOCs, and CO. The proposed activities are therefore exempt from further air quality review pursuant to 30 CFR § 550.303(d) . Projected emissions from emission sources associated with the proposed activities in the TLP and related construction activity years do not meet the BOEM exemption criteria for NO x. Once construction activities are completed, annual NO x emissions are pr edicted to be below the BOEM exemption criteria. Air quality dispersion modeling was necessary to determine impact of NO x on onshore ambient air in the years in which projected emissions exceed the BOEM exemption criteria.

Note that whereas the exemptio n criteria are based on NO x emissions, the modeled significance level and the NAAQS are dependent on emissions of nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) [30 CFR § 550.303(e)]. Using a conservative approach, emissions of NO x were assumed to be NO 2 equivalent for modeling purposes. As demonstrated in the air dispersion modeling report ( see DOCD Section 8 ), the proposed activities do not exceed the significant impact level for the annual averaging period for NO 2 . Since modeled NO 2 concentrations ar e less than the significant impact level for the NO 2 annual NAAQS, no further action is required. Additionally, when combined with an appropriate background monitored value, modeled NO 2 concentrations are below the NO 2 1

- hour NAAQS; therefore, no further action is required.

The Breton Wilderness Area, which is part of the Breton National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), is designated under the Clean Air Act as a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class I air quality area. The BOEM coordinates with the Na tional Park Service (NPS) and the USFWS if emissions from proposed projects may affect the Breton Class I area. Additional review and mitigation measures may be required for sources within 186 miles (300 km) of the Breton Class I area that exceed emission limits agreed upon by the administering agencies (NPS, 2010). The lease area is approximately 87 miles (140 km) from the Breton Wilderness Area. As demonstrated in the air dispersion modeling report ( see DOCD Section 8 ), Shell does not anticipate impact on the Class I area, but will comply with requirements as directed by the
BOEM.

Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

Potential impacts of a small spill on air quality are expected to be consistent with those analyzed and discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 200 8b). The probability of a small spill would be minimized by Shell‟s preventative measures during routine operations, including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the impacts. DOCD Sec tions 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Given the open ocean location of the lease area, the extent and duration of air quality impacts from a small spill would not be significant.

A small fuel spill would likely affect air quality near the spill site by introducing VOCs through evaporation. The ADIOS2 model (see Section A.9.2 ) indicates that more than 90% of a smalldiesel spill would be evaporated or dispersed within 24 hours. The area of the sea surface with diesel fuel on it would range from 1.2 to 12 ac (0.5 to 5 ha) depending on sea state and weather conditions.

A small fuel spill would not affect coastal air quality because the spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up (see Section A.9.2 ).

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill

Potential impacts of a large oil spill on air quality are expected to be consistent with those analyzed and discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008b).

A large oil spill would likely affect air quality by introducing VOCs through evaporation from the slick. The extent and persistence of impacts would depend on the meteorological and oceanographic conditions at the time and the effectiveness of spill response measures. Additional air quality impacts could occur if res ponse measures included in situ burning of the floating oil. Burning would generate a plume of black smoke and result in emissions of NO x , SO x , CO, and PM, as well as greenhouse gases.

Due to the lease area location (53 miles [85 km] from the nearest shor eline), most air quality impacts would occur in offshore waters. Depending on the spill trajectory and the effectiveness of spill response measures, coastal air quality could also be affected. Based on the OSRA modeling predictions ( Table 3 ), Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, is the coastal area most likely to be affected.

A blowout resulting in a large oil spill is an extremely rare event, and the probability of such an event will be minimized by Shell‟s well control and blowout prevention measures as detai led in
DOCD Section 2j . In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the impacts. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Therefore, no significant spill impacts on air quality are expected.

C.1.2 Water Quality

There are no site

- specific water quality data for the lease area. As noted in the lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b), deepwater areas in the northern Gulf of Mexico are relatively homogeneous with respect to temperature, salinity, a nd oxygen. Kennicutt (2000) noted that the deepwater region has little evidence of contaminants in the dissolved or particulate phases of the water column. There are localized occurrences of natural seepage of oil, gas, and brines in

near

- surface sedimen ts that may move up into the water column.

The lease area is approximately 65 miles (104 km) southwest of the Macondo spill site. Based on satellite imagery (ESRI, 2010), the surface slick extended over the lease area during the spill, and therefore water quality in the lease area could have been temporarily affected. The Operational Science Advisory Team (OSAT, 2010) reported that after August 2010, waters and sediments in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico beyond 1.8 miles (3 km) from the Macondo wellsite

wer e below USEPA acute and chronic benchmarks for PAHs and were not hypoxic. These observations indicate that baseline environmental conditions in the lease area are unlikely to have been significantly altered by the spill.

IPFs potentially affecting water q uality are effluent discharges and two types of accidents:

a small fuel spill and a large oil spill.

Impacts of Effluent Discharges

Discharges of treated SBM cuttings will produce temporary, localized increases in suspended solids in the water column aroun d the TLP and drilling rig. In general, turbid water can beexpected to extend between a few hundred meters and several kilometers down current from the discharge point (NRC, 1983; Neff, 1987). NPDES permit limitations and requirements will be met. Afte r discharge, SBM retained on cuttings would be expected to adhere tightly to the cuttings particles and, consequently, would not produce much turbidity as the cuttings sink through the water column (Neff et al., 2000). There will be no persistent impacts on water quality in the lease area.

Treated sanitary and domestic wastes may have a slight transient effect on water quality in the immediate vicinity of these discharges. NPDES permit limitations and requirements will be met and little or no impact on wa ter quality is anticipated.

Potential constituents in produced water, including salts, petroleum hydrocarbons, some metals, and naturally occurring radioactive material, may degrade water quality in the immediate vicinity of the discharge point. Compliance with NPDES permit requirements would result in only short

- term localized impacts to receiving waters (MMS 2007b).

Deck drainage includes effluents resulting from rain, deck washings, and runoff from curbs, gutters, and drains, including drip pans in work areas. Rainwater that falls on uncontaminated areas of the TLP and drilling rig will flow overboard without treatment. However, rainwater that falls on the drilling rig and TLP decks and other areas such as chemical storage areas and places where equipme nt is exposed will be collected and oil and water separated to meet NPDES permit requirements. Little or no impact on water quality is anticipated.

Other discharges in accordance with the NPDES permit, such as desalination unit brine and uncontaminated co oling water, fire water, and ballast water, are expected to be diluted rapidly and have little or no impact on water quality.

Support and construction vessels will discharge rain water and treated sanitary and domestic wastes. These will have a slight eff ect on water quality in the immediate vicinity of the discharges. Support vessel discharges will be in accordance with USCG regulations and, as applicable, the NPDES Vessel General Permit, and therefore are not expected to cause significant impacts on wat er quality.

Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

Potential impacts of a small spill on water quality are expected to be consistent with those analyzed and discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008b). The probability of a small spill would be minimized by Shell‟ s preventative measures during routine operations, including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the impacts. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures.
Given t he open ocean location of the lease area, the extent and duration of water quality impacts from a small spill would not be significant.

A small fuel spill in offshore waters would produce a slick on the water surface and increase the concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and their degradation products. The extent and persistence of impacts would depend on the meteorological and oceanographic conditions at the time and the effectiveness of spill response measures. However, i t is estimated that more than 90% of a small diesel spill would be evaporated or dispersed within 24 hours (see Section A.9.2 ). The area of the sea surface with diesel fuel on it would range from
1.2 to 12 ac (0.5 to 5 ha) depending on sea state and weather conditions.

The water

- soluble fractions of diesel are dominated by two

- and three

- ringed PAHs, which are moderately volatile (NRC, 2003). The constituents of these oils are light to intermediate in molecular weight and can be readily degraded by aerobic microbial oxidation. D iesel‟s density is such that it will not sink and pool on the seafloor. Diesel dispersed in the water column canadhere to suspended sediments, but this generally occurs only in coastal areas with high

- suspended solid loads (NRC, 2003) and would not be ex pected to occur to any appreciable degree in offshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Diesel oil is readily and completely degraded by naturally occurring microbes (NOAA, 2006).

A small fuel spill would not affect coastal water quality because the spill wou ld not be expected
to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up (see Section A.9.2 ).

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill

Potential impacts of a large oil spill on water quality are expected to be consistent with those analyzed and discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008b). A large spill would likely affect water quality by producing a slick on the water surface and increasing the concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and their degradation products. The extent and persistence of impacts would depend on the meteorological and oceanographic conditions at the time and the effectiveness of spill response measures. Most of the oil would be expected to form a slick at the surface, although observations following the Macondo spill i ndicate that plumes of submerged oil droplets can be produced when subsea dispersants are applied at the wellhead (Camilli et al., 2010; Hazen et al., 2010; Joint Analysis Group, 2010a,b,c). A report by Kujawinski et al. (2011) indicates that chemical com ponents of subsea dispersants used during the Macondo spill persisted for up to two months and were detectable up to 186 miles (300 km) from the wellsite at a water depth of 3,280 to 3,937 ft (1,000 to 1,200 m).

Once oil enters the ocean, a variety of phys ical, chemical, and biological processes act to disperse the oil slick. These processes include spreading, evaporation of the more volatile constituents, dissolution into the water column, emulsification of small droplets, agglomeration sinking, microbial modification, photochemical modification, and biological ingestion and excretion (NRC, 2003). Marine water quality would be temporarily affected by the dissolved components and small oil droplets that do not rise to the surface or are mixed down by surfa ce turbulence. Dispersion by currents and microbial degradation removes the oil from the water column or dilutes the constituents to background levels.

A large oil spill could result in a release of gaseous hydrocarbons that could affect water quality.
D uring the Macondo spill, large volumes of methane (CH 4 ) were released, causing localized oxygen depletion as methanotrophic bacteria rapidly metabolized the hydrocarbons (Joye et al., 2011; Kessler et al., 2011). However, a broader study of the deepwater Gulf of Mexico found that although some stations showed slight depression of dissolved oxygen concentrations relative to climatological background values, the findings were not indicative of hypoxia (<2.0 mg/L) (OSAT, 2010). Stations revisited around the Macondo wellhead in October 2010 showed no measurable oxygen depressions (OSAT, 2010).

Due to the lease area location (53 miles [85 km] from the nearest shoreline), most water quality impacts would occur in offshore waters. Depending on the spill trajecto ry and the effectiveness of spill response measures, coastal water quality could be affected. Based on the OSRA modeling predictions ( Table 3 ), nearshore waters and embayments of Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, are the most likely coastal areas to be affec ted.

A blowout resulting in a large oil spill is an extremely rare event, and the probability of such an event will be minimized by Shell‟s well control and blowout prevention measures detailed in
DOCD Section 2j . In the unlikely event of a spill, impleme ntation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the impacts. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Therefore, no significant spill impacts on water quality are expected.C.2 Seafloor Habitats and Biota

W ater depths at the pr oposed well surface locations in MC 762 and 807 are approximately 3,150 ft (960 m) and 3,028 ft (923 m) respectively. See DOCD Section 6a for further information.

According to the BOEM (2011a), existing information for the deepwater Gulf of Mexico indicat es that the seafloor is composed primarily of soft sediments; hard bottom communities are rare.
MC 762 and 807 are within deepwater Grids 12 and 13, respectively, where remotely operated vehicle (ROV) coverage of the seafloor is considered adequate to cha racterize the area (BOEM, 2011b).

C.2.1 Soft Bottom Benthic Communities

Data from the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Slope Habitats and Benthic Ecology study (Wei, 2006; Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009) can be used to describe typical benthic communities in the area. Table 4 summarizes data from two nearby stations in similar water depths. Sediments at these two stations were predominantly clay (46% to 54%) and silt (43% to 45%).

Table 4. Benthic community data from stations near the lease area and in simil ar water depths

sampled during the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Slope Habitats and Benthic Ecology Study (From: Wei, 2006; Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009).

Station Location

Relative to

Lease Area Water Depth

(m) Abundance

Meiofauna (individuals/m 2 ) Macroinfauna

(individuals/m 2 ) Megafauna

(individuals/ha)

MT

- 3 14 mi (23 km)

W 990 885,995 4,924 1,034

MT

- 4 26 mi (42 km)

SSW 1,401 246,058 3,262 1,548

Meiofaunal and megafaunal abundance from Rowe and Kennicutt (2009); macroinfaunal abundance from Wei (2006).

Meiofauna (animals passing through a 0.5

- mm sieve but retained on a 0.062

- mm sieve) densities in water depths representative of the lease area typically range from about 220,000 to 890,000 individuals/m 2 (Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009). Nematodes, naup lii, and harpacticoid copepods were the three dominant groups in the meiofauna, accounting for about 90% of total abundance.

The benthic macroinfauna is characterized by small mean individual sizes and low densities, both of which are a reflection of the m eager primary production in Gulf of Mexico surface waters (Wei, 2006). Densities decrease exponentially with water depth. Based on an equation presented by Wei (2006), macroinfaunal densities in the water depth of the wellsites are expected to be about 3 ,400 individuals/m 2 , lower than the values in station MT

- 3 and similar to
station MT

- 4 in Table 4

.
Polychaetes are typically the most abundant macroinfaunal group on the northern Gulf of Mexico continental slope, followed by amphipods, tanaids, bivalves, a nd isopods. Wei (2006) recognized four depth

- dependent faunal zones (1 through 4), two of which are divided horizontally. The lease area is in Zone 2E, which consists of stations on the mid
Texas

- Louisiana Slope ranging in depth from 2,050 to 5,997 ft (6 25 to 1,828 m). The five most abundant species in Zone 2E are the polychaetes Litocorsa antennata

, Aricidea suecica

, Tharyx
marioni , and Paralacydonia paradoxa and the bivalve Heterodonta sp. Megafaunal density from nearby stations MT

- 3 and MT

- 4 was 1,03 4 and 1,548 individuals/ha, respectively ( Table 4 ).Densities of 200 to 3,000 individuals/ha were reported from other stations in a similar depth range. Common megafauna included motile groups such as decapods, ophiuroids, holothurians, and demersal fish es, as well as sessile groups such as sponges and anemones.

Bacteria are also an important component in terms of biomass and cycling of organic carbon (Cruz

- Kaegi, 1998). Bacterial biomass at the depth range of the lease area typically is about
1 to 2 gra ms of carbon per square meter (g C m

− 2 ) in the top 6 in. (15 cm) of sediments (Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009).

IPFs potentially affecting benthic communities are physical disturbance to the seafloor, effluent discharges (drilling mud and cuttings), and a large oil spill resulting from a well blowout at the seafloor. A small fuel spill would not affect benthic communities because the diesel fuel would float and dissipate on the sea surface.

Impacts of Physical Disturbance to the Seafloor

There will be minimal disturbance to soft bottom communities on the seafloor from the activities proposed in this Initial DOCD. T he total seafloor disturbance area is estimated to be approximately 40 ac (16 ha) for the subsea facilities in MC 762 and TLP in MC 807. The seafloor in the project area is expected to consist of soft bottom benthic habitat.

Soft bottom communities are ubiquitous along the northern Gulf of Mexico continental slope (Gallaway et al., 2003; Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009). Physical dist urbance to the seafloor during this project will have no significant impact on soft bottom benthic communities on a regional basis.

Impacts of Effluent Discharges

Discharges of treated SBM cuttings from the rig may affect benthic communities, primarily
wit hin several hundred meters of the wellsites. The fate and effects of SBM cuttings have been reviewed by Neff et al. (2000), and monitoring studies have been conducted in the Gulf of Mexico by Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (2004, 2006). In general, c uttings with adhering SBM tend to clump together and form thick cuttings piles close to the drillsite. Areas of
SBM cuttings deposition may develop elevated organic carbon concentrations and anoxic conditions (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2006). W here SBM cuttings accumulate and concentrations exceed approximately 1,000 mg/kg, benthic infaunal communities may be adversely affected due to both the toxicity of the base fluid and organic enrichment (with resulting anoxia) (Neff et al., 2000). Infauna l numbers may increase and diversity may decrease as opportunistic species that tolerate low oxygen and high H 2 S predominate (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2006). As the base synthetic fluid is decomposed by microbes, the area will gradually return to pre

- drilling conditions. Disturbed sediments will be recolonized through larval settlement and migration from adjacent areas.

The areal extent of impacts from drilling discharges will be small; the typical effect radius is 1,640 ft (500 m) around each wellsite. The 23 surface locations in this development drilling program and 1 well that will be completed are DVA wells from the new TLP, therefore, the total impact area would be approximately equivalent to that of one well, which is 195 ac (79 ha). Sof t bottom communities are ubiquitous along the northern Gulf of Mexico continental slope (Gallaway, 1988; Gallaway et al., 2003; Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009). Impacts from drilling discharges during this project will have no significant impact on soft bottom benthic communities on a regional basis.

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill

The most likely effects of a subsea blowout on benthic communities would be within a few hundred meters of the wellsites. The MMS (2007b) estimates that a severe subsurface blowoutcould resuspend and disperse sediments within a 984

- ft (300

- m) radius. While coarse sediments (sands) would probably settle at a rapid rate within 1,312 ft (400 m) from the blowout site, fine sediments (silts and clays) could be resuspended for more than 30 days and dispersed over a much wider area. Previous studies characterized surface sediments in the vicinity of the site as about 50% clay and 45% silt (Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009).

Previous analyses (MMS, 2007a, 2008) concluded that oil spills would be u nlikely to affect benthic communities beyond the immediate vicinity of the wellhead (i.e., due to physical impacts of a blowout) because the oil would rise quickly to the sea surface directly over the spill location. However, during the Macondo spill, sub surface plumes were reported at a water depth of about 3,600 ft (1,100 m), extending at least 22 miles (35 km) from the wellsite and persisting for more than a month (Camilli et al., 2010). The subsurface plumes apparently resulted from the use of dispers ants at the wellhead (Joint Analysis Group, 2010c). Chemical components of subsea dispersants used during the Macondo spill persisted for up to two months and were detected up to 186 miles (300 km) from the wellsite at a water depth of 3,280 to 3,937 ft ( 1,000 to 1,200 m) (Kujawinski et al. 2011). However, estimated dispersant concentrations in the subsea plume were below levels known to be toxic to marine life. While the behavior and impacts of subsurface plumes are not well known, a subsurface plume co uld contact the seafloor and affect benthic communities beyond the 984

- ft (300

- m) radius estimated by MMS (2007a, 2008), depending on its extent, trajectory, and persistence. This contact could result in smothering and/or toxicity to benthic organisms. T he affected area would be recolonized by benthic organisms over a period of months to years (NRC, 2003).

A blowout resulting in a large oil spill is an extremely rare event, and the probability of such an event will be minimized by Shell‟s well control and blowout prevention measures as detailed in DOCD Section 2j . In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the impacts. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Therefore, no signific ant spill impacts on soft bottom communities are expected.

C.2.2 High

- Density Deepwater Benthic Communities

As defined by NTL 2009

- G40, high

- density deepwater benthic communities are f eatures or areas that could support high

- density chemosynthetic communit ies, high

- density deepwater corals, or other associated high

- density hard bottom communities. Chemosynthetic communities were discovered in the central Gulf of Mexico in 1984 and have been studied extensively (MacDonald, 2002). Deepwater coral communitie s are also known from numerous locations in the Gulf of Mexico (Brooke and Schroeder, 2007; CSA International, Inc., 2007). These communities occur almost exclusively on authigenic carbonates created by chemosynthetic communities, and on shipwrecks. The nearest known chemosynthetic community site is located approximately 43 miles (68 km) from MC 762 (Brooks et al., 2009).

None of the known high

- density deepwater benthic community locations listed in
NTL 2009

- G40 are in MC 762 and 807 or adjacent blocks. The chemosynthetic community assessment by C&C Technologies (2009) did not identify features that could support high

density deepwater benthic communities within 2,000 ft (610 m) of the proposed drilling mud and cuttings discharge locations (see DOCD Secti on 6a for additional information).

IPFs potentially affecting high

- density deepwater benthic communities are physical disturbance to the seafloor, effluent discharges (drilling mud and cuttings), and a large oil spill from a well blowout at the seafloor. A small fuel spill would not affect benthic communities because the diesel fuel would float and dissipate on the sea surface.Impacts of Physical Disturbance to the Seafloor

The chemosynthetic community assessment by C&C Technologies (2009) did not identif y features that could support high

- density deepwater benthic communities within 2,000 ft (610 m) of the proposed drilling mud and cuttings discharge locations (see DOCD Section 6a for additional information).

Impacts of Effluent Discharges

The chemosynthet ic community assessment included in this Initial DOCD did not identify features that could support high

- density deepwater benthic communities within 2,000 ft (610 m) of the proposed drilling mud and cuttings discharge locations (C&C Technologies, 2009)

. Monitoring programs on the Gulf of Mexico continental slope have shown that benthic impacts from drilling discharges typically are concentrated within about 1,640 ft (500 m) of the wellsites, although detectable deposits may extend beyond this distance (Co ntinental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2004, 2006; Neff et al., 2005). If high

- density deepwater communities are associated with any distant expulsion features identified in the hazards survey, significant impacts on these communities will be avoided because o f the distance from the discharge location.

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill

Previous analyses (MMS, 2007a, 2008b) concluded that oil spills would be unlikely to affect benthic communities beyond the immediate vicinity of the wellhead (i.e., due to physical
i mpacts of a blowout) because the oil would rise quickly to the sea surface directly over the spill location. However, during the Macondo spill, subsurface plumes were reported at a water depth of about 3,600 ft (1,100 m), extending at least 22 miles (35 k m) from the wellsite and persisting for more than a month (Camilli et al., 2010). The subsurface plumes apparently resulted from the use of dispersants at the wellhead (Joint Analysis Group, 2010c). Chemical components of subsea dispersants used during t he Macondo spill persisted for up to two months and were detectable up to 186 miles (300 km) from the wellsite at a water depth of 3,280 to 3,937 ft (1,000 to 1,200 m) (Kujawinski et al. 2011). However, estimated dispersant concentrations in the subsea pl ume were below levels known to be toxic to marine life. While the behavior and impacts of subsurface plumes are not well known, a subsurface plume could have the potential to contact high

- density deepwater benthic communities beyond the 984

- ft (300

- m) rad ius estimated by MMS (2007a, 2008), depending on its extent, trajectory, and persistence. Potential impacts on sensitive resources would be an integral part of the decision and approval process for the use of dispersants. The chemosynthetic community ass essment by C&C Technologies (2009) did not identify high

- density deepwater benthic communities that would be affected by this development activity within 2,000 ft (610 m) of the proposed drilling mud and cuttings discharge locations. Potential impacts of oil on high

- density deepwater benthic communities are discussed by MMS (2007b).

Although chemosynthetic communities live among hydrocarbon seeps, natural seepage occurs at a relatively constant rate compared to the potential rates of oil release from a blo wout. In addition, seep organisms require unrestricted access to oxygenated water at the same time as exposure to hydrocarbon energy sources (MacDonald, 2002). Oil droplets or oiled sediment particles could come into contact with chemosynthetic organisms or deepwater corals. As discussed by MMS (2007b), impacts could include loss of habitat, biodiversity, and live coral coverage; destruction of hard substrate; change in sediment characteristics; and reduction or loss of one or more commercial and recreat ional fishery habitats. Sublethal effects could be long lasting and affect the resilience of coral colonies to natural disturbances (e.g., elevated water temperature and diseases).The potential for a spill to affect deepwater corals is indicated by preli minary findings from an October 2010 survey of deepwater coral habitats near the Macondo spill site (BOEMRE, 2010). Government and academic researchers working at a site 4,600 ft (1,400 m) deep and approximately 7 miles (11 km) southwest of the Macondo we llhead observed dead and dying corals with sloughing tissue and discoloration. The study location was about 61 miles (98 km) from the lease area. Much of the soft coral observed in an area measuring about 50 by 130 ft (15 by 40 m) was covered by what app eared to be a brown substance. Ninety percent of
40 large corals were heavily affected and showed dead and dying parts and discoloration. Another site 1,312 ft (400 m) away had a colony of stony corals similarly affected and partially covered with a simi lar brown substance. Until laboratory analyses are conducted, scientists cannot be certain what caused the impacts. Sediment and coral samples were collected with an ROV and brought to the surface for analyses. Further testing will also determine if the substance is oil, and if so, whether it is consistent with the release from the Macondo spill.

A blowout resulting in a large oil spill is an extremely rare event, and the probability of such an event will be minimized by Shell‟s well control and blowout prevention measures as detailed in DOCD Section 2j . In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the impacts. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Therefore, no significant spill impacts on deepwater benthic communities are expected.

C.2.3 Designated Topographic Features

The blocks are not within or near a designated topographic feature or a no

- activity zone as identified in NTL 2009

- G39. The nearest designated topographic featur e is Sackett Bank, located 32 miles (51 km) north

- northwest of the lease area.

There are no IPFs associated with either routine operations or accidents that could cause impacts to designated topographic features due to the distance from the lease area.

C .2.4 Pinnacle Trend Area Live Bottoms

The lease area is not covered by the Live Bottom (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation. As defined by
NTL 2009

- G39, the nearest pinnacle trend blocks are about 85 miles (137 km) north

- northeast of the lease area, along the she lf edge south of Alabama.

There are no IPFs associated with either routine operations or accidents that could cause impacts to pinnacle trend area live bottoms due to the distance from the lease area.

C.2.5 Eastern Gulf Live Bottoms

The lease area is not covered by the Live Bottom (Low

- Relief) Stipulation, which applies to Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area leases in water depths of 328 ft (100 m) or less. The nearest blocks covered by the live bottom stipulation, as defined by NTL 2009

- G39, are about
122 miles (196 km) from the project area.

There are no IPFs associated with either routine operations or accidents that could cause impacts to eastern Gulf live bottom areas due to the distance from the lease area.

C.3 Threatened, Endangered, and Protect ed Species and Critical Habitat

This section discusses species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. In addition, it includes all marine mammal species in the region, which are protected under the MMPA.

Endangered or threatened species that may occur in the project area and/or along the northern Gulf Coast are listed in Table 5 . The table also indicates the location of designated critical habitat in the Gulf of Mexico. Critical habitat is defined as (1) specific areas within thegeographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, if they contain physical or biological features essential to conservation, and those features may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species if the agency determines that the area itself is essential for conservation. The NMFS has jurisdiction over ESA

- listed cetaceans and fishes in the Gulf of Mexico. The USFWS has jurisdic tion over ESA

- listed birds and the Florida manatee. These two agencies share federal jurisdiction over sea turtles, with NMFS having lead responsibility at sea and USFWS on nesting beaches.

Table 5. Federally listed endangered and threatened species in th e lease area and along the

northern Gulf Coast.

Species Scientific Name Status Potential Presence Critical Habitat Designated in
Gulf of Mexico Lease

Area Coastal

Marine Mammals Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus E X

-- None

Florida manatee Trichechus manatus latirostris E

-- X Florida (Peninsular)

Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus E X a

-- None
Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus E X a

-- None Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae E X a

-- None North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis E X a

-- None
Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis E X a

-- None
Sea Turtles Loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta T, E b X X None
Green turtle Chelonia mydas T, E c X X None
Leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea E X X None
Hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata E X X None Kemp’s ridley turtle Lepidochelys kempii E X X None
Birds

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus T

-- X Coastal Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida (Panhandle)

Whooping Crane Grus americana E

-- X Coastal Texas (Aransas National Wildlife Refuge)

Fishes

Gulf sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi T

-- X Coastal Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida (Panhandle)

Terrestrial Mammals Beach mouse (Alabama, Choctawhatchee,
Perdido Key, St. Andrew) Peromyscus polionotus E

-- X Alabama and Florida (Panhandle) beaches

Abbreviations: E = Endangered; T = Threatened.

a The blue, fin, humpback, North Atlantic right, and sei whales are rare or extralimital in the Gulf of Mexico and are unlikely to be present in the lease area.
b The loggerhead turtle is composed of nine distinct population segments (DPS) that are considered “species.” The only DPS that may occur in the project area (Northwest Atlantic DPS) is listed as threatened ( 76 FR 58868; September 22, 2011).

c The green sea turtle is threatened, except for the Florida breeding population, which is listed as endangered.

The sperm whale and five species of sea turtles are the only endangered or threatened species likely to occur at or near the lease area. No critical habitat has been designated for these species in the Gulf of Mexico.Five endangered mysticete whales (blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, North Atlantic right whale, and sei whale) also ha ve been reported from the Gulf of Mexico but are considered rare or extralimital there (Würsig et al., 2000). No critical habitat has been designated for these species in the Gulf of Mexico.

Coastal endangered or threatened species include the Florida man atee, Piping Plover, Whooping Crane, Gulf sturgeon, and four subspecies of beach mouse. Critical habitat has been designated for all of these species as indicated in Table 5 and discussed in individual sections.

Two other coastal species (Bald Eagle and B rown Pelican) discussed by MMS (2007b) are no longer listed as endangered or threatened; these species are discussed in Section C.4.2

, Shorebirds and Coastal Nesting Birds

.
There are no other endangered animals or plants in the Gulf of Mexico that are reas onably likely to be affected by either routine or accidental events. Other species occurring at certain locations in the Gulf of Mexico such as the smalltooth sawfish ( Pristis pectinata ), elkhorn coral ( Acropora palmata

), staghorn coral (

Acropora cervicor

nis ), and Florida salt marsh vole ( Microtus pennsylvanicus dukecampbelli ) are remote from the lease area and highly unlikely to be affected.

C.3.1 Sperm Whale (Endangered)

The only endangered marine mammal likely to be present at or near the project area i s the sperm whale ( Physeter macrocephalus ). Resident populations of sperm whales occur within the Gulf of Mexico. A species description is presented in a recent lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b). Gulf of Mexico sperm whales are classified as an endangered spe cies and a “strategic stock” (defined as a stock that may have unsustainable human

- caused impacts) by NMFS (Waring
et al., 2009). No critical habitat for the sperm whale has been designated in the Gulf of Mexico.

The distribution of sperm whales in the Gu lf of Mexico is correlated with mesoscale physical features such as eddies associated with the Loop Current (Jochens et al., 2008). Sperm whale populations in the north

- central Gulf of Mexico are present there throughout the year (Davis et al., 2000). Re sults of a multi

- year tracking study show female sperm whales typically concentrated along the upper continental slope between the 656

- and 3,280

- ft (200

- and 1,000

- m) depth contours (Jochens et al., 2008). Male sperm whales were more variable in their mo vements and were documented in water depths greater than 9,843 ft (3,000 m). Generally, groups of sperm whales sighted in the Gulf of Mexico during the MMS

- funded Sperm Whale Seismic Study (SWSS) consisted of mixed

- sex groups comprising adult females and immatures, and groups of bachelor males. Typical group size for mixed groups was
10 individuals (Jochens et al., 2008). SWSS results show that sperm whales transit through the vicinity of the lease area. Movements of satellite

- tracked individuals sugges t that this area of the Gulf continental slope is within the home range of the Gulf of Mexico population (within the 95% utilization distribution) (Jochens et al., 2008).

IPFs potentially affecting sperm whales include TLP and drilling rig presence, noise, and lights; support vessel and helicopter traffic; and two types of accidents

– a small fuel spill and a large oil spill. Effluent discharges are likely to have negligible impacts on sperm whales due to rapid dispersion, the small area of ocean affected, the intermittent nature of the discharges, and the mobility of these marine mammals. Compliance with NTL 2012

- BSEE

- G01 will minimize the potential for marine debris

- related impacts on sperm whales.

Impacts of Platform and Drilling Rig Presence, Noise, an d Lights

Noise from routine drilling activities as well as installation and operation of the TLP has the potential to disturb sperm whales. Sperm whales appear to have good low

- frequency hearing,but the available data do not indicate a consistent response to anthropogenic noise (Jochens et al., 2008). Noise associated with drilling is relatively weak in intensity, and an individual animal‟s noise exposure would be transient. There are other OCS facilities and activities near the lease area, and the region as a whole has a large number of similar noise sources. Due to limited scope, timing, and geographic extent, drilling and installation activities would represent a small temporary contribution to the overall noise regime. The operation of the TLP would represent an incremental contribution of noise to the ambient levels in MC 807. The type of noise produced by the TLP would be similar to other existing sources of noise in the region.

The NMFS (2007) analyzed the potential for impacts of drilling

- related noise on sperm whales in its Biological Opinion for the Five

- Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program in the Central and Western Planning Areas of the Gulf of Mexico. The analysis noted that drilling rigs show low sound source levels and concluded that drilling is not expected to produce amplitudes sufficient to cause hearing or behavioral effects in sperm whales; therefore, these effects are insignificant (NMFS, 2007). Any impacts from noise emitted during platform operations are not expected to be biologically significant to marine mammal populations (MMS 2007b).

Although platform and drilling rig lighting and presence were considered potential factors affecting sperm whales, NMFS‟s 2007 Biological O pinion and recent lease sale EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008b) did not identify these as IPFs for sperm whales.

Impacts of Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

Vessel traffic supporting routine operations and temporary TLP installation and commissioning
activities has the potential to disturb sperm whales, and there is also a risk of vessel strikes, which are identified as a threat in the recovery plan for this species (NMFS, 2010a). Data concerning the frequency of vessel strikes are presented in the lease sale E IS (MMS, 2007b). To reduce the potential for vessel strikes, the BOEM has issued NTL 2012

- JOINT

- G01, which recommends protected species identification training and that vessel operators and crews maintain a vigilant watch for marine mammals and slow down or stop their vessel to avoid striking protected species, and requires operators to report sightings of any injured or dead protected species. When whales are sighted, vessel operators and crews are required to attempt to maintain a distance of 300 ft (91 m) or greater whenever possible. Vessel operators are required to reduce vessel speed to 10 knots or less, when safety permits, when mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are observed near an underway vessel. Compliance with this NT L will minimize the likelihood of vessel strikes as well as reduce the chance for disturbing sperm whales.

The NMFS (2007) analyzed the potential for vessel strikes and harassment of sperm whales in its Biological Opinion for the Five

- Year Oil and Gas Leas ing Program in the Central and Western Planning Areas of the Gulf of Mexico. With implementation of the mitigation measures in
NTL 2012

- JOINT

- G01 , NMFS concluded that the likelihood of collisions between vessels and sperm whales would be reduced to insign ificant levels. The NMFS concluded that the observed avoidance of passing vessels by sperm whales is an advantageous response to avoid a potential threat and is not expected to result in any significant effect on migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, f

eeding, or sheltering to individuals, or have any consequences at the level of the population. With implementation of the vessel strike avoidance measures requirement to maintain a distance of 295 ft (90 m) from sperm whales, the NMFS concluded that the p otential for harassment of sperm whales would be reduced to discountable levels.

Helicopter traffic also has the potential to disturb sperm whales. Smultea et al. (2008) documented responses of sperm whales offshore Hawaii to fixed wing aircraft flying at an altitude of 800 ft (245 m). A reaction to the initial pass of the aircraft was observed during three (12%) of 24 sightings. All three reactions consisted of a hasty dive and occurred at less than 1,180 ft (360 m) lateral distance from the aircraft. Additional reactions were seen whenaircraft circled certain whales to make further observations. Based on other studies of cetacean responses to sound, the authors concluded that the observed reactions to brief overflights by the aircraft were short

- term and probably of no long

- term biological significance.

While flying offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, helicopters maintain altitudes above 700 ft (213 m) during transit to and from the working area. In the event that a whale is seen during transit, the heli copter will not approach or circle the animals. Although responses are possible based on the Smultea et al. (2008) study, the NMFS (2007) concluded that this altitude would minimize the potential for disturbing sperm whales. Therefore, no significant imp acts are expected.

Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

Potential spill impacts on marine mammals including sperm whales are discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008b) and by the NMFS (2007) in its Biological Opinion for the Five

- Year Oil and Gas Leasing Progra m in the Central and Western Planning Areas of the Gulf of Mexico. Oil impacts on marine mammals are discussed by Geraci and St. Aubin (1990). For this Initial DOCD there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to spill impacts on these animals.

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Shell‟s preventative measures during routine operations including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the potential for impacts on sp erm whales.
DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Given the open ocean location of the lease area, the duration of a small spill and opportunity for impacts to occur would be very brief.

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

Direct physical and physiological effects of exposure to diesel fuel could include skin irritation, inflammation, or necrosis; chemical burns of skin, eyes, and mucous membran es; inhalation of toxic fumes; ingestion of oil directly or via contaminated prey; and stress from the activities and noise of response vessels and aircraft (Marine Mammal Commission [MMC], 2011). However, due to the limited areal extent and short duratio n of water quality impacts from a small fuel spill, as well as the mobility of sperm whales, no significant impacts would be expected.

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill

Potential spill impacts on marine mammals including sperm whales are discussed in recent EIS s (MMS, 2007b, 2008b) and by the NMFS (2007) in its Biological Opinion for the Five

- Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program in the Central and Western Planning Areas of the Gulf of Mexico. Oil impacts on marine mammals are discussed by Geraci and St. Aubin (1990 ). For this Initial DOCD, there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to spill impacts on these animals.

Impacts of oil spills on sperm whales can include direct impacts from oil exposure, as well as indirect impacts due to response activities a nd materials (e.g., vessel traffic, noise, and dispersants) (MMC, 2011). Direct physical and physiological effects can include skin irritation, inflammation, or necrosis; chemical burns of skin, eyes, and mucous membranes; inhalation of toxic fumes; inges tion of oil (and dispersants) directly or via contaminated prey; and stress from the activities and noise of response vessels and aircraft. Complications of the above maylead to dysfunction of immune and reproductive systems, physiological stress, declin ing physical condition, and death. Behavioral responses can include displacement of animals from prime habitat, disruption of social structure, changing prey availability and foraging distribution and/or patterns, changing reproductive behavior/productivi ty, and changing movement patterns or migration (MMC, 2011).

Studies have shown that the cetacean epidermis functions as an effective barrier to noxious substances found in petroleum (Geraci and St. Aubin, 1985). Unlike other mammals, penetration of such substances in cetacean skin is impeded by tight intercellular bridges, the vitality of the superficial cells, the thickness of the epidermis, and the lack of sweat glands and hair follicles. In addition, cetacean skin is free from hair or fur, which in ot her marine mammals not found in the Gulf of Mexico (e.g., pinnipeds and otters) tend to collect oil and/or tar.

In the event of a large spill, the level of vessel and aircraft activity associated with spill response could disturb sperm whales and potential ly result in vessel strikes, entanglement, or other injury or stress. Response vessels would operate in accordance with NTL 2012

- JOINT

G01 to reduce the potential for striking or disturbing these animals. The Macondo spill provides information about pote ntial impacts of a large oil spill that supplements the analysis presented in the lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b). According to NMFS (2010b), however, all stranding and mortality data will be considered preliminary until all necropsies have been completed.

A blowout resulting in a large oil spill is an extremely rare event, and the probability of such an event will be minimized by Shell‟s well control and blowout prevention measures as detailed in
DOCD Section 2j . In the unlikely event of a spill, implementa tion of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the impacts. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Therefore, no significant spill impacts on sperm whales are expected.

C.3.2 Florida Manatee (Endangered)

Most of the Gulf of Mex ico manatee population is located in peninsular Florida (USFWS, 2001). Manatees regularly migrate farther west of Florida in the warmer months (Wilson, 2003) into Alabama and Louisiana coastal environs, with some individuals traveling as far west as Texas (Fertl et al., 2005). A species description is presented in a recent lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b) and in the recovery plan for this species (USFWS, 2001).

IPFs potentially affecting manatees include support vessel and helicopter traffic and a large oil

sp ill. A small fuel spill and effluent discharge in the lease area would be unlikely to affect manatees, as the lease area is approximately 53 miles (85 km) from the nearest shoreline (Louisiana). As explained in Section A.9.2 , a small fuel spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up . Compliance with NTL 2012

- BSEE

- G01 will minimize the potential for marine debris

- related impacts on manatees.

Impacts of Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

Support vessel traffi c supporting routine operations and TLP installation and commissioning activities has the potential to disturb manatees, and there is also a risk of vessel strikes, which are identified as a threat in the recovery plan for this species (USFWS, 2001). To r educe the potential for vessel strikes, the BOEM has issued NTL 2012

- JOINT

- G01, which recommends protected species identification training and that vessel operators and crews maintain a vigilant watch for marine mammals and slow down or stop their vessel t o avoid striking protected species, and requires operators to report sightings of any injured or dead protected species. Compliance with NTL 2007

- G04 will minimize the likelihood of vessel strikes, and no significant impacts on manatees are expected.Heli copter traffic, if present, also has the potential to disturb manatees. Rathbun (1988) reported that manatees were disturbed more by helicopters than by fixed

- wing aircraft; however, the helicopter was flown at relatively low altitudes of 66 to 525 ft (20 to 160 m). Helicopters used in support operations maintain a minimum altitude of 700 ft (213 m) while in transit offshore, 1,000 ft (305 m) over unpopulated areas or across coastlines, and 2,000 ft (610 m) over populated areas and sensitive habitats such as wildlife refuges and park properties. This mitigation measure will minimize the potential for disturbing manatees, and no significant impacts are expected.

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill

The OSRA results summarized in Table 3 predict that some Texas, Louisiana, and Florida shorelines could be contacted by a spill within 10 to 30 days. There is no critical habitat designated in these areas, and the number of manatees potentially present is a small fraction of the population in peninsular Florida.

In the event that manatees were exposed to oil, effects could include direct impacts from oil exposure, as well as indirect impacts due to response activities and materials (e.g., vessel traffic, noise, and dispersants) (MMC, 2011). D irect physical and physiological effects can include skin irritation, inflammation, or necrosis; chemical burns of skin, eyes, and mucous membranes; inhalation of toxic fumes; ingestion of oil (and dispersants) directly or via contaminated prey (or contami nated vegetation, in the case of manatees); and stress from the activities and noise of response vessels and aircraft. Complications of the above may lead to dysfunction of immune and reproductive systems, physiological stress, declining physical conditio n, and death. Behavioral responses can include displacement of animals from prime habitat, disruption of social structure, changing prey availability and foraging distribution and/or patterns, changing reproductive behavior/productivity, and changing move ment patterns or migration (MMC, 2011).

In the event that a large spill reached coastal waters where manatees were present, the level of vessel and aircraft activity associated with spill response could disturb manatees and potentially result in vessel str ikes, entanglement, or other injury or stress. Response vessels would operate in accordance with NTL 2012

- JOINT

- G01 to reduce the potential for striking or disturbing these animals, and therefore no significant impacts are expected.

A blowout resulting in a large oil spill is an extremely rare event, and the probability of such an event will be minimized by Shell‟s well control and blowout prevention measures as detailed in
DOCD Section 2j . In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the impacts. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Therefore, no significant spill impacts on manatees are expected.

C.3.3 Endangered Mysticete Whales

Five endangered mysticete whales (blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, North Atlantic right whale, and sei whale) also have been reported from the Gulf of Mexico but are considered rare or extralimital there (Würsig et al., 2000). No critical habitat has been designated for these species in the Gulf o f Mexico.

Due to the rare occurrence of these whales in the Gulf of Mexico, it is unlikely that any endangered mysticete would come into contact with any project activities, either routine operations or accidents.

The NMFS (2007) did not include any of t hese mysticete whales as affected species in its Biological Opinion for the Five

- Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program in the Central and Western Planning Areas of the Gulf of Mexico. Potential impacts are analyzed in recent lease sale EISs(MMS, 2007b, 2008b) , and those analyses are incorporated by reference. If any of these whales were present in the area, potential impacts would be the same as those discussed below in Section C.3.4

.

C.3.4 Non

- Endangered Marine Mammals (Protected)

In addition to the seven en dangered species that have been cited previously, 22 additional species of marine mammals may be found in the Gulf of Mexico, including two mysticete whales, the dwarf and pygmy sperm whales, 4 species of beaked whales, and 14 species of delphinids (see DO CD Section 6h ). All marine mammals are protected species under the MMPA. The most common non

- endangered cetaceans in the deepwater environment are odontocetes such as the pantropical spotted dolphin, spinner dolphin, and Clymene dolphin.
A brief summary is presented below, and additional information on these groups is presented in a recent lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b).

Mysticete whales . Two species of non

- endangered mysticete whales are known from the Gulf of Mexico: the Bryde‟s whale ( Balaenoptera edeni ) and minke whale ( Balaenoptera
acutorostrata

). The Bryde‟s whale ( Balaenoptera edeni ) has been sighted most frequently along the 328

- ft (100

- m) isobath (Davis and Fargion, 1996; Davis et al., 2000). Most sightings have been made in the DeSoto Canyon reg ion and off western Florida, although there have been some in the west

- central portion of the northeastern Gulf. The minke whale is considered rare in the Gulf of Mexico, with the only confirmed records coming from strandings (Würsig
et al., 2000). Based on the available data, it is possible that Bryde‟s whales could occur in the lease area.

Dwarf and pygmy sperm whales. At sea, it is difficult to differentiate dwarf sperm whales ( Kogia sima

) from pygmy sperm whales ( Kogia breviceps ), and sightings are often grouped together as “ Kogia spp.” Both species have a worldwide distribution in temperate to tropical waters. In the Gulf of Mexico, both species occur primarily along the continental shelf edge and in deeper waters off the continental shelf (Mullin et al., 1991; Mullin, 2007). Either species could occur in the lease area.

Beaked whales. Four species of beaked whales are known from the Gulf of Mexico. They are Blainville‟s beaked whale ( Mesoplodon densirostris ), Cuvier‟s beaked whale ( Ziphius cavi rostris ), Sowerby‟s beaked whale ( Mesoplodon bidens ), and Gervais‟ beaked whale ( Mesoplodon

europaeus

). Stranding records in the Gulf of Mexico suggest that Gervais‟ beaked whale is the most common and Sowerby‟s beaked whale is extralimital. Due to the d ifficulties of at

- sea identification, beaked whales in the Gulf of Mexico are identified either as Cuvier‟s beaked whales or are grouped into an undifferentiated complex ( Mesoplodon spp. and Ziphius spp.).
In the northern Gulf of Mexico, they are broadly distributed in waters greater than 3,281 ft (1,000 m) over lower slope and abyssal landscapes (Davis et al., 2000). Any of these species could occur in the lease area.

Delphinids. Fourteen species of delphinids are known from the Gulf of Mexico, includin g Atlantic spotted dolphin ( Stenella frontalis ), bottlenose dolphin ( Tursiops truncatus

), Clymene dolphin ( Stenella clymene ), false killer whale ( Pseudorca crassidens ), Fraser‟s dolphin ( Lagenodelphis hosei

), killer whale ( Orcinus orca ), melon

- headed whale ( Peponocephala electra ), pantropical spotted dolphin ( Stenella attenuata ), pygmy killer whale ( Feresa
attenuata

), short

- finned pilot whale ( Globicephala macrorhynchus ), Risso‟s dolphin ( Grampus griseus ), rough

- toothed dolphin ( Steno bredanensis ), spinner dolphin ( Stenella longirostris ), and striped dolphin ( Stenella coeruleoalba ). The most common non

- endangered cetaceans in the deepwater environment are the pantropical spotted dolphin, spinner dolphin, and Clymene dolphin. However, any of these species c ould occur in the lease area.IPFs potentially affecting non

- endangered marine mammals include TLP and drilling rig presence, noise, and lights; support vessel and helicopter traffic; and two types of accidents (a small fuel spill and a large oil spill). Effluent discharges are likely to have negligible impacts on marine mammals due to rapid dispersion, the small area of ocean affected, the intermittent nature of the discharges, and the mobility of marine mammals. Compliance with NTL 2012

- BSEE

- G01 will mi nimize the potential for marine debris

- related impacts on marine mammals.

Impacts of Platform and Drilling Rig Presence, Noise, and Lights

Noise from routine drilling and installation activities as well as operation of the TLP has the potential to disturb marine mammals. Most odontocetes (toothed whales and dolphins) use higher frequency sounds than those produced by OCS drilling activities (Richardson et al., 1995). Noise intensity associated with drilling is relatively weak, and the noise exposure of an individual animal would be transient. There are other OCS facilities and activities in the lease area, and the region as a whole has a large number of similar sources. Due to limited scope, timing, and geographic extent, drilling and installation activi ties would represent a small temporary contribution to the overall noise regime. The operation of the TLP would represent an incremental contribution of noise to the ambient levels in MC 807. The type of noise produced by the TLP would be similar to othe r existing sources of noise in the lease area. Impacts are not expected to be biologically significant to marine mammal populations.

Platform and drilling rig lighting and presence are not identified as IPFs for marine mammals in recent lease sale EISs (M MS, 2007b, 2008b).

Impacts of Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

Vessel traffic supporting routine operations and TLP installation and commissioning activities has the potential to disturb marine mammals, and there is also a risk of vessel strikes. Dat a concerning the frequency of vessel strikes are presented in the lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b). To reduce the potential for vessel strikes, the BOEM has issued NTL 2012

- JOINT

- G01, which recommends protected species identification training and that vessel o perators and crews maintain a vigilant watch for marine mammals and slow down or stop their vessel to avoid striking protected species, and requires operators to report sightings of any injured or dead protected species. Vessel operators and crews are req uired to attempt to maintain a distance of 300 ft (91 m) or greater when whales are sighted and 150 ft (45 m) when small cetaceans are sighted. When cetaceans are sighted while a vessel is underway, vessels must attempt to remain parallel to the animal‟s course and avoid excessive speed or abrupt changes in direction until the cetacean has left the area. Vessel operators are required to reduce vessel speed to
10 knots or less when mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are observed

nea r an underway vessel, when safety permits. Compliance with this NTL will minimize the likelihood of vessel strikes as well as reduce the chance for disturbing marine mammals, and therefore no significant impacts are expected.

Aircraft traffic also has the potential to disturb marine mammals (W ü rsig et al., 1998). However, while flying offshore, helicopters maintain altitudes above 700 ft (213 m) during transit to and from the working area. This altitude will minimize the potential for disturbing
marine m ammals, and no significant impacts are expected (MMS, 2007b).

Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

Potential spill impacts on marine mammals are discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008b), and oil impacts on marine mammals in general are discussed by Geraci and St. Aubin (1990). For this Initial DOCD, there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to spill impacts on these animals.The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Shell‟s preventative measures during fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP is expected to mitigate and reduce the potential for impacts on marine mammals. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Given the open ocean location of the lease area, the duration of a small spill and opportunity for impacts to occur would be very brief.

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

Direct physical and physiological effects of exposure to diesel fuel could include skin irritation, inflammation, or necrosis; chemical burns of skin, eyes, and mucous membranes; inhalation of toxic fumes; ingestion of oil directly or via contaminated prey; and stress from the activities and noise of response vessels and aircraft (MMC, 2011). However, due to the limited areal extent and short duration of water quality impacts from a small fuel spill, as well as the mobility of marine mammals, no significant impacts would be expected.

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill

Potential spill impacts on marine mammals are discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008b) and by Geraci and St. Aubin (1990). For th is Initial DOCD, there are no unique site

- specific
issues.

Impacts of oil spills on marine mammals can include direct impacts from oil exposure, as well as indirect impacts due to response activities and materials (e.g., vessel traffic, noise, and dispersa nts) (MMC, 2011). Direct physical and physiological effects can include skin irritation, inflammation, or necrosis; chemical burns of skin, eyes, and mucous membranes; inhalation of toxic fumes; ingestion of oil (and dispersants) directly or via contamina ted prey (or contaminated vegetation, in the case of manatees); and stress from the activities and noise of response vessels and aircraft. Complications of the above may lead to dysfunction of immune and reproductive systems, physiological stress, declini ng physical condition, and death. Behavioral responses can include displacement of animals from prime habitat, disruption of social structure, changing prey availability and foraging distribution and/or patterns, changing reproductive behavior/productivit y, and changing movement patterns or migration (MMC, 2011).

In the event of a large spill, the level of vessel and aircraft activity associated with spill response could disturb marine mammals and potentially result in vessel strikes, entanglement, or othe r injury or stress. Response vessels would operate in accordance with NTL 2012

- JOINT

G01 to reduce the potential for striking or disturbing these animals, and therefore no significant impacts are expected. The Macondo spill provides information about pot ential impacts of a large oil spill that supplements the analysis presented in the lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b). According to NMFS (2010b), however, all stranding and mortality data will be considered preliminary until all necropsies have been completed.

A blowout resulting in a large oil spill is an extremely rare event, and the probability of such an event will be minimized by Shell‟s well control and blowout prevention measures as detailed in
DOCD Section 2j . In the unlikely event of a spill, implementa tion of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the impacts. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Therefore, no significant spill impacts on marine mammals are expected.C.3.5 Sea Turtles (Endangered/Threatened)

As listed in D OCD Section 6h , five species of endangered or threatened sea turtles may be found near the lease area. Endangered species are the leatherback ( Dermochelys coriacea ), Kemp's ridley ( Lepidochelys kempii ), and hawksbill ( Eretmochelys imbricata ) turtles. The distinct population segment (DPS) of loggerhead turtle ( Caretta caretta ) that occurs in the Gulf of Mexico is listed as threatened, although other DPSs are endangered. The green turtle ( Chelonia mydas

) is listed as threatened, except for the Florida bree ding population, which is listed as endangered. Species descriptions are presented in a recent lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b).

Leatherbacks and loggerheads are the most likely species to be present near the lease area as adults. Green, hawksbill, and Kemp‟s ridley turtles are typically inner shelf and nearshore species, unlikely to occur near the lease area as adults. Hatchlings or juveniles of any of the sea turtles may be present in deepwater areas, including the lease area, where they may be associated w ith Sargassum and other flotsam.

All five sea turtle species in the Gulf of Mexico are migratory and use different marine habitats according to their life stage. These habitats include high

- energy beaches for nesting females and emerging hatchlings and pe lagic convergence zones for hatchling and juvenile turtles. As adults, green, hawksbill, and loggerhead turtles forage primarily in shallow, benthic habitats. Leatherbacks are the most pelagic of the sea turtles, feeding primarily on jellyfish.

Sea turtl e nesting in the northern Gulf of Mexico can be summarized by species as follows:

 Loggerhead turtles

– Loggerheads nest in significant numbers along the Florida Panhandle and, to a lesser extent, from Texas through Alabama (MMS, 2007b). The nearest signif icant nesting area of loggerhead turtles is found in Louisiana, on beaches within the Breton NWR;

 Green and leatherback turtles

– Green and leatherback turtles infrequently nest on Florida Panhandle beaches (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 2011);

 Kemp‟s ridley turtles

– The main Kemp‟s ridley nesting site is Rancho Nuevo beach, Tamaulipas, Mexico (NMFS et al., 2011). Approximately 200 Kemp‟s ridley turtles nested on Texas beaches in 2009 (Sea Turtle Restoration Project, 2011). Kemp‟s ridley turtles typically do not nest anywhere near the project area, although there have been occasional reports of Kemp‟s ridleys nesting in Alabama (Share the Beach, 2010); and

 Hawksbill turtles

– Hawksbills typically do not nest anywhere near the project area.

IPFs potentially affecting sea turtles include TLP and drilling rig presence, noise, and lights; support vessel and helicopter traffic; and two types of accidents

– a small fuel spill and a large oil spill. Effluent discharges are likely to have negligible impacts on sea turtles due to rapid dispersion, the small area of ocean affected, and the intermittent nature of the discharges. Compliance with NTL 2012

- BSEE

- G01 will minimize the potential for marine debris

- related impacts on sea turtle s.

Impacts of Platform and Drilling Rig Presence, Noise, and Lights

Offshore drilling activities produce a broad array of sounds at frequencies and intensities that may be detected by sea turtles (Geraci and St. Aubin, 1987). Potential impacts may include behavioral disruption and temporary or permanent displacement from the area near the sound source. Certain sea turtles, especially loggerheads, may be attracted to offshore structures (Lohoefener et al., 1990) and, thus, may be more susceptible to impact s from sounds produced during routine operations. Helicopters and service vessels may also affect sea turtles due to machinery noise and/or visual disturbances. The most likely impacts would be short

- term behavioral changes such as diving and evasive swi mming, disruption of activities, or departure from the area. Due to the limited scope, timing, and geographic extent of drilling andinstallation activities, these short

- term impacts are not expected to be biologically significant to sea turtle population s. The operation of the TLP would represent an incremental contribution of noise to the ambient levels in MC 807. This noise would be of variable duration and intensity, depending on the type of machinery used on the TLP and would be similar to other
exi sting sources of noise in the ease area. Any impacts caused by the presence of the TLP are not likely to have significant long

- term effects on sea turtle species (MMS, 2007b).

Artificial lighting can disrupt the nocturnal orientation of sea turtle hatchl ings (Witherington, 1997; Tuxbury and Salmon, 2005). However, hatchlings may rely less on light cues when they are offshore than when they are emerging on the beach (Salmon and Wyneken, 1990). The NMFS (2007) concluded that the effects of lighting from o ffshore structures on sea turtles are insignificant.

Impacts of Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

Support vessel traffic supporting routine operations and temporary TLP installation and commissioning activities has the potential to disturb sea turtles, and there is also a risk of vessel strikes. Data show that vessel traffic is one cause of sea turtle mortality in the Gulf of Mexico (Lutcavage et al., 1997). While adult sea turtles are visible at the surface during the day and in clear weather, they can be difficult to spot from a moving vessel when resting below the water surface, during nighttime, o r during periods of inclement weather. To reduce the potential for vessel strikes, the BOEM has issued NTL 2012

- JOINT

- G01, which recommends protected species identification training and that vessel operators and crews maintain a vigilant watch for sea tur tles and slow down or stop their vessel to avoid striking protected species, and requires operators to report sightings of any injured or dead protected species. When sea turtles are sighted, vessel operators and crews are required to attempt to maintain a distance of 150 ft (45 m) or greater whenever possible. Compliance with this NTL will minimize the likelihood of vessel strikes as well as reduce the chance for disturbing sea turtles (NMFS, 2007).

Helicopter traffic also has the potential to disturb se a turtles. However, while flying offshore, helicopters maintain altitudes above 700 ft (213 m) during transit to and from the working area. This altitude will minimize the potential for disturbing sea turtles, and no significant impacts are expected.

Imp acts of a Small Fuel Spill

Potential spill impacts on sea turtles are discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008b) and by the NMFS (2007) in its Biological Opinion for the Five

- Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program in the Central and Western Planning Areas of t he Gulf of Mexico . For this Initial DOCD, there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to spill impacts on these animals.

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Shell‟s preventative measures during fuel transfer. In the unlikely ev ent of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP is expected to mitigate and reduce the potential for impacts on sea turtles. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Given the open ocean location of the lease area, the duration o f a small spill and opportunity for impacts to occur would be very brief.

A small fuel spill in offshore waters would produce a slick on the water surface and increase the concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and their degradation products. The extent and persistence of impacts would depend on the meteorological and oceanographic conditions at the time and the effectiveness of spill response measures. Section A.9.2 discusses the likely fate of a small fuel spill and indicates that over 90% would be ev aporated or dispersed naturally within 24 hours. The area of the sea surface with diesel fuel on it would range from 1.2 to
12 ac (0.5 to 5 ha), depending on sea state and weather conditions.Direct physical and physiological effects of exposure to diesel fuel could include skin irritation, inflammation, or necrosis; chemical burns of skin, eyes, and mucous membranes; inhalation of toxic fumes; ingestion of oil directly or via contaminated prey; and stress from the activities and noise of response vessels and aircraft (MMS, 2007b; NMFS, 2010e). However, due to the limited areal extent and short duration of water quality impacts from a small fuel spill, no significant impacts would be expected.

A small fuel spill in the lease area would be unlikely to affec t sea turtle nesting beaches, as the lease area is 53 miles (85 km) from the nearest shoreline (Louisiana). As explained in Section A.9.2 , a small fuel spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up

.
Impacts of a Large Oil Spill

Impacts of oil spills on sea turtles can include direct impacts from oil exposure, as well as indirect impacts due to response activities and materials (e.g., vessel traffic, noise, and dispersants). Direct physical and physiological effe cts can include skin irritation, inflammation, or necrosis; chemical burns of skin, eyes, and mucous membranes; inhalation of toxic fumes and smoke (e.g., from in situ burning of oil); ingestion of oil (and dispersants) directly or via contaminated food; a nd stress from the activities and noise of response vessels and aircraft. Complications of the above may lead to dysfunction of immune and reproductive systems, physiological stress, declining physical condition, and death. Behavioral responses can inclu de displacement of animals from prime habitat, disruption of social structure, changing food availability and foraging distribution and/or patterns, changing reproductive behavior/productivity, and changing movement patterns or migration (MMS, 2007b; NMFS, 2010e). In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP is expected to mitigate and reduce the potential for these types of impacts on sea turtles. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures.

Studies of oil effect s on loggerheads in a controlled setting (Lutcavage et al., 1995) suggest that sea turtles show no avoidance behavior when they encounter an oil slick, and any sea turtle in an affected area would be expected to be exposed. Sea turtles‟ diving behaviors a lso put them at risk. Sea turtles rapidly inhale a large volume of air before diving and continually resurface over time, which may result in repeated exposure to volatile vapors and oiling (NMFS, 2007).

The OSRA results summarized in Table 3 predict that some shorelines that support sea turtle nesting could be contacted within 10 to 30 days. The nearest nesting area of loggerhead
turtles is found in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, on beaches within the Breton NWR. Loggerhead turtles also nes t to a lesser extent in Okaloosa County, Florida. Both these areas have contact probabilities of 1% after 30 days. Spilled oil reaching sea turtle nesting beaches could have effects on nesting sea turtles and egg development (NMFS, 2007). An oiled beach could affect nest site selection or result in no nesting at all (e.g., false crawls). Upon hatching and successfully reaching the water, hatchlings are subject to the same types of oil spill exposure hazards as adults. Hatchlings that contact oil residu es while crossing a beach can exhibit a range of effects, from acute toxicity to impaired movement and normal bodily functions (NMFS, 2007).

In the event of a large spill, the level of vessel and aircraft activity associated with spill response could distu rb sea turtles and potentially result in vessel strikes, entanglement, or other injury or stress. Response vessels would operate in accordance with NTL 2012

- JOINT

G01 to reduce the potential for striking or disturbing these animals, and therefore no signi ficant impacts are expected. The Macondo spill provides information about potential impacts of alarge oil spill that supplements the analysis presented in the lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b). According to NMFS (2010b), however, all data on sea turtle strand ings will be considered preliminary until all necropsies have been completed.

A blowout resulting in a large oil spill is an extremely rare event, and the probability of such an event will be minimized by Shell‟s well control and blowout prevention measure s as detailed in
DOCD Section 2j . In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the impacts. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Therefore, no significant spill impacts on sea tu rtles are expected.

C.3.6 Piping Plover (Threatened)

The Piping Plover ( Charadrius melodus ) is a migratory shorebird that overwinters along the southeastern U.S. and Gulf of Mexico coasts. This threatened species is in decline as a result of hunting, habi tat loss and modification, predation, and disease (USFWS, 2003). Critical overwintering habitat has been designated, including beaches in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida ( Figure 1 ). Piping Plovers inhabit coastal sandy beaches and mud flats, feeding by probing for invertebrates at or just below the surface. They use beaches adjacent to foraging areas for roosting and preening (USFWS, 2010a). A species description is presented in a recent lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b).

A large oil spill is the only IPF potentially affecting Piping Plovers. There are no IPFs associated with routine project activities that could affect these birds. A small fuel spill in the lease area would be unlikely to affect Piping Plovers because a small fuel spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up (see explanation in Section A.9.2 ).

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill

The lease area is 55 miles (89 km) from the nearest shoreline inhabited by Piping Plovers. The
OSRA results summarized in Table 3 predict that Texas and Louisiana shorelines designated as critical habitat for the wintering Piping Plover could be contacted by a spill within 10 to 30 days. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, which has the highest probability of contact for the 10

- and
30

- day intervals (4% and 8%, respectively), includes Piping Plover critical habitat.

Plovers could become externally oiled while foraging on oiled shores or be exposed internally through ingestion of oiled intertidal sediments and prey (MMS, 2007b). Plovers congregate and feed along tidally exposed banks and shorelines, following the tide out and foraging at the water‟s edge. It is possible that some deaths of Piping Plovers could occur, especially if spills
occur du ring winter months when plovers are most common along the coastal Gulf or if spills
contacted critical habitat. Impacts could also occur from vehicular traffic on beaches and other activities associated with spill cleanup. Shell has extensive resources a vailable to protect and rehabilitate wildlife in the event of a spill reaching the shoreline, as detailed in the OSRP.

A blowout resulting in a large oil spill is an extremely rare event, and the probability of such an event will be minimized by Shell‟s we ll control and blowout prevention measures as detailed in DOCD Section 2j . In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the impacts. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Therefor e, no significant spill impacts on Piping Plovers are expected.

### Figure 1. Location of selected environmental features in relation to the lease area.C.3.7 Whooping Crane (Endangered)

The Whooping Crane ( Grus americana ) is an omn ivorous wading bird and an endangered species. There are three wild populations in North America (Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership [WCEP], 2010). One population winters along the Texas coast at Aransas NWR and summers at Wood Buffalo National Park in C anada. This population represents the majority of the world‟s population of free

- ranging Whooping Cranes and reached a record population of 270 at Aransas NWR in December 2008 (WCEP, 2010). A non

- migrating population has been reintroduced in central Flor ida, and another reintroduced population summers in Wisconsin and migrates to the southeastern United States for the winter. Whooping Cranes breed, migrate, winter, and forage in a variety of habitats, including coastal marshes and estuaries, inland marsh es, lakes, ponds, wet meadows and rivers, and agricultural fields (USFWS, 2007). About 22,240 ac (9,000 ha) of salt flats on Aransas NWR and adjacent islands comprise the principal wintering grounds of the Whooping Crane. Aransas NWR is designated as cri tical habitat for the species ( Figure 1 ). A species description is presented in a recent lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b).

A large oil spill is the only IPF potentially affecting Whooping Cranes due to the distance from
Aransas NWR.

Impacts of a Large Oil Sp ill

A large oil spill is has a low probability of affecting Whooping Cranes because t he lease area is approximately 435 miles (700 km) from its critical habitat (Aransas NWR , Texas ). OSRA modeling predicts no contact with shorelines of the Aransas NWR within 30 days.

In the event of oil exposure, Whooping Cranes could become externally oiled while foraging in oiled areas or internally exposed to oil through ingestion of contaminated shellfish, frogs, and fishes . It is possible that some death of Whoopi ng Cranes could occur. Shell has extensive resources available to protect and rehabilitate wildlife in the event of a spill reaching the shoreline, as detailed in the OSRP.

A blowout resulting in a large oil spill is an extremely rare event, and the proba bility of such an event will be minimized by Shell‟s well control and blowout prevention measures as detailed in
DOCD Section 2j . In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the impacts. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Therefore, no significant spill impacts on Whooping Cranes are expected.

C.3.8 Gulf Sturgeon (Threatened)

The Gulf sturgeon (

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi ) is a threatened fish species that inhabits major river s and inner shelf waters from the Mississippi River to the Suwannee River, Florida (Barkuloo, 1988; Wakeford, 2001). An anadromous fish that migrates from the sea upstream into coastal rivers to spawn in freshwater, it historically ranged from the Mississ ippi River to Charlotte Harbor, Florida (Wakeford, 2001). Today, this range has contracted to encompass major rivers and inner shelf waters from the Mississippi River to the Suwannee River, Florida. Populations have been depleted or even extirpated throu ghout this range by fishing, shoreline development, dam construction, water quality changes, and other factors (Barkuloo, 1988; Wakeford, 2001). These declines prompted the listing of the Gulf sturgeon as a threatened species in 1991. The best known popu lations occur in the Apalachicola and Suwannee Rivers in Florida (Carr, 1996; Sulak and Clugston, 1998), the Choctawhatchee River in Alabama (Fox et al., 2000), and the Pearl River in Mississippi/Louisiana (Morrow et al., 1998). Critical habitat in the Gu lf extends from Lake Borgne, Louisiana (St. Bernard Parish), to Suwannee Sound, Florida (Levy County) (NMFS, 2010c) ( Figure 1 ). A species description is presented in a recent leasesale EIS (MMS, 2007b) and in the recovery plan for this species (USFWS and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, 1995).

A large oil spill is the only IPF potentially affecting Gulf sturgeon. There are no IPFs associated with routine project activities that could affect this species. A small fuel spill in the lease area woul d be unlikely to affect Gulf sturgeon because a small fuel spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up (see explanation in Section A.9.2 )

.
Impacts of a Large Oil Spill

Potential spill impacts on Gulf sturgeon are discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008b) and by the NMFS (2007) in its Biological Opinion for the Five

- Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program in the Central and Western Planning Areas of the Gulf of Mexico. For t his Initial DOCD, there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to this species.

The lease area is about 117 miles (188 km) from the nearest Gulf sturgeon critical habitat. The OSRA modeling ( Table 3 ) predicts that a spill in the lease area has a 1% probability of contacting the coastal areas inhabited by Gulf sturgeon within 30 days.

In the event of oil reaching Gulf sturgeon habitat, the fish could be affected by direct ingestion, ingestion of oiled prey, or the absorption of dissolved petroleum products through the gills. Based on the life history of this species, subadult and adult Gulf sturgeon would be most vulnerable to a marine oil spill, and would be vulnerable only during winter months (from September 1 through April 30) when this species is foraging in estuarine and marine habitats (NMFS, 2007).

A blowout resulting in a large oil spill is an extremely rare event, and the probability of such an event will be minimized by Shell‟s well control and blowout prevention measures as detailed in
D OCD Section 2j . In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the impacts. Shell has extensive resources available to protect coastal and estuarine wildlife and habitats in the event of a spill reaching the sho reline, as detailed in the
OSRP. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Therefore, no significant spill impacts on Gulf sturgeon are expected.

C.3.9 Beach Mice (Endangered)

Four subspecies of endangered beach mouse ( Peromyscus polionotus ) occur on the barrier islands of Alabama and the Florida Panhandle: the Alabama, Choctawhatchee, Perdido Key, and
St. Andrew beach mice. Critical habitat has been designated for all four subspecies; Figure 1 shows the critical habitat combined for all four subspecies. Species descriptions are provided in a recent lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b).

A large oil spill is the only IPF potentially affecting subspecies of beach mouse. There are no IPFs associated with routine project activities that coul d affect these animals due to the distance from shore and the lack of onshore support activities near their habitat.

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill

Potential spill impacts on beach mice are discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008b). For this Initial D OCD, there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to these species.

The lease area is about 158 miles (254 km) from the nearest beach mouse critical habitat. The OSRA modeling predicts that a spill in the lease area would not contact beach mouse critical habitat within 30 days. In the event of oil contacting these beaches, beach mice could experience several types of direct and indirect impacts. Contact with spilled oil could cause skin and eye irritation and subsequent infection; matting of fur ; irritation of sweat glands, eartissues, and throat tissues; disruption of sight and hearing; asphyxiation from inhalation of fumes; and toxicity from ingestion of oil and contaminated food. Indirect impacts could include reduction of food supply, destr uction of habitat, and fouling of nests. Impacts could also occur from vehicular traffic and other activities associated with spill cleanup.

A blowout resulting in a large oil spill is an extremely rare event, and the probability of such an event will be minimized by Shell‟s well control and blowout prevention measures as detailed in
DOCD Section 2j . In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the impacts. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Therefore, no significant spill impacts on beach mice are expected.

C.4 Coastal and Marine Birds

C.4.1 Marine and Pelagic Birds

A variety of seabirds may occur in the pelagic environment of the project areas (Cl app et al., 1982a,b, 1983; Peake, 1996; Hess and Ribic, 2000). Seabirds spend much of their lives offshore over the open ocean, except during breeding season when they nest along the coast. In addition, other birds such as waterfowl, marsh birds, and sho rebirds may occasionally be present over open ocean areas. No endangered or threatened bird species are likely to occur at the project area due to the distance from shore. For a discussion of shorebirds and coastal nesting birds, see Section C.4.2

.

Seabi rds of the northern Gulf of Mexico were surveyed from ships during the GulfCet II program. Hess and Ribic (2000) reported that terns, storm

- petrels, shearwaters, and jaegers were the most frequently sighted seabirds in the deepwater area. From these surv eys, f our ecological categories of seabirds were documented in the deepwater areas of the Gulf: summer migrants (e.g., shearwaters, storm petrels, and boobies); summer residents that breed in the Gulf (e.g., Sooty Tern, Least Tern, Sandwich Tern, and Magni ficent Frigatebird); winter residents (e.g., gannets, gulls, and jaegers); and permanent resident species (e.g., Laughing Gull, Royal Tern, and Bridled Tern) (Hess and Ribic, 2000).

Common seabird species include Wilson‟s Storm

- Petrel ( Oceanites oceanicus ) , Magnificent Frigatebird ( Fregata magnificens ), Northern Gannet ( Morus bassanus ), Masked Booby ( Sula dactylatra

), Brown Booby ( Sula leucogaster ), Cory‟s Shearwater ( Calonectris diomedea ), Greater Shearwater ( Puffinus gravis ), and Audubon Shearwater ( Puffi nus lherminieri

). Seabirds are distributed Gulf

- wide and are not specifically associated with the lease area.

Relationships with hydrographic features were found for several seabird species, possibly due to effects of hydrography on nutrient levels and pr oductivity of surface waters where birds forage. GulfCet II did not estimate bird densities; however, Powers (1987) indicates that seabird densities over the open ocean typically are <10 birds/km 2

.

Trans

- Gulf migrant birds including shorebirds, wading bir ds, and terrestrial birds may also be present in the lease area. Migrant birds may use offshore structures and platforms for resting, feeding, or as temporary shelter from inclement weather (Russell, 2005). Some birds may be attracted to offshore structu res because of the lights and the fish populations that aggregate around these structures.

IPFs potentially affecting marine and pelagic birds include TLP and drilling rig presence, noise, and lights; support vessel and helicopter traffic; and two types of accidents

- a small fuel spill and a large oil spill. Effluent discharges are likely to have negligible impacts on the birds due to rapid dispersion, the small area of ocean affected, the intermittent nature of the discharges, and the mobility of these a nimals. Compliance with NTL 2012

- BSEE

- G01 will minimize the potential for marine debris

- related impacts on birds.Impacts of Platform and Drilling Rig Presence, Noise, and Lights

Birds that frequent platforms may be exposed to contaminants including air p ollutants and routine discharges, but significant impacts are unlikely due to rapid dispersion of effluents and air pollutants. Birds migrating over water have been known to strike offshore structures, resulting in death or injury (Wiese et al., 2001; Rus sell, 2005). Mortality of migrant birds at tall towers and other land

- based structures has been reviewed extensively, and the mechanisms involved in platform collisions appear to be similar. In some cases, migrants simply do not see a part of the platfor m until it is too late. In other cases, navigation may be disrupted by noise (Russell, 2005). On the other hand, offshore structures are suitable stopover habitats for most
trans

- Gulf migrant species, and most of the migrants that stop over on platforms probably benefit from their stay, particularly in spring (Russell, 2005). The presence of the proposed TLP is not expected to have an adverse effect on seabirds or migrant birds.

A study in the North Sea indicated that platform lighting causes circling behavior in various birds, especially on cloudy nights; a pparently the birds‟ geomagnetic compass is upset by the red part of the spectrum from the lights currently in use (Poot et al., 2008). The numbers varied greatly, from none at all to some tens of t housands of birds per night per platform, with an apparent effe ct radius of up to 3 miles (5 km). A study in the Gulf of Mexico also noted the phenomenon, but did not recommend mitigation (Russell, 2005). Factors to consider in evaluating this impact in the Gulf of Mexico would include the lower incidence of cloudy and foggy days in the Gulf of Mexico versus the North Sea. Due to the limited scope and short duration of installation, drilling and completion activities proposed in this Initial DOCD, lighti ng impacts, collisions, or other adverse effects are unlikely, and no significant impacts are expected during the drilling and completion phase of this project. The presence of the new TLP would result in permanent additional lighting as well as potential for impacts and collisions by birds. Any impacts on populations of either seabirds or trans

- Gulf migrant birds are not expected to be significant.

Impacts of Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

Vessels and helicopters supporting routine operations and temporary TLP installation and commissioning activities are unlikely to significantly disturb pelagic birds in open, offshore waters. It is likely that individual birds would experience, at most, only short

- term behavioral disruption, and the impact would not be significant.

Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

Potential spill impacts on marine birds are discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008b). For this Initial DOCD, there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to spill impacts on these animals.

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Shell‟s preventative measures during routine operations including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the potential for impacts on ma rine and pelagic birds.
DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Given the open ocean location of the lease area, the duration of a small spill and opportunity for impacts to occur would be very brief.

A small fuel spill in offs hore waters would produce a slick on the water surface and increase the concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and their degradation products. The extent and persistence of impacts would depend on the meteorological and oceanographic conditions at the t ime and the effectiveness of spill response measures. Section A.9.2 discusses the likely fate of a small fuel spill and indicates that over 90% would be evaporated or dispersed naturally within 24 hours. The area of the sea surface with diesel fuel on it would range from 1.2 to
12 ac (0.5 to 5 ha), depending on sea state and weather conditions.Birds exposed to oil on the sea surface could experience direct physical and physiological effects including skin irritation; chemical burns of skin, eyes, and muc ous membranes; and inhalation of toxic fumes. Due to the limited areal extent and short duration of water quality impacts from a small fuel spill, secondary impacts due to ingestion of oil via contaminated prey or reductions in prey abundance are unlikely . Due to the low densities of birds in open ocean areas, the small area affected, and the brief duration of the surface slick, no significant impacts on pelagic birds would be expected.

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill

Potential spill impacts on marine and pe lagic birds are discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008b). For this Initial DOCD, there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to spill impacts on these animals.

Pelagic seabirds could be exposed to oil from a spill at the project area. Hess and Ribic (2000) reported that terns, storm

- petrels, shearwaters, and jaegers were the most frequently sighted seabirds in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico (>656 ft [>200 m]). Powers (1987) indicates that seabird densities over the open ocean typically are <1 0 birds/km 2 . The number of pelagic birds that could be affected in open, offshore waters would depend on the extent and persistence of the oil slick.

The Macondo spill provides relevant information about the species of pelagic birds that may be affected i n the event of a large oil spill. Birds that have been treated for oiling include several pelagic species such as the Northern Gannet, Magnificent Frigatebird, and Masked Booby (USFWS, 2011). The Northern Gannet is among the species with the largest numb ers of birds affected by the spill.

A blowout resulting in a large oil spill is an extremely rare event, and the probability of such an event will be minimized by Shell‟s well control and blowout prevention measures as detailed in
DOCD Section 2j . In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the impacts. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Therefore, no significant spill impacts on marine and pelagic birds are expected.

C.4.2 Sho rebirds and Coastal Nesting Birds

Threatened and endangered bird species (Piping Plover and Whooping Crane) have been discussed previously in Section C.3 . Various species of non

- endangered birds are also found along the northern Gulf Coast, including divi ng birds, shorebirds, marsh birds, wading birds, and waterfowl. Gulf Coast marshes and beaches also provide important feeding grounds and nesting habitats. Species that breed on beaches, flats, dunes, bars, barrier islands, and similar habitats include t he Sandwich Tern, Wilson‟s Plover, Black Skimmer, Forster‟s Tern, Gull

- Billed Tern, Laughing Gull, Least Tern, and Royal Tern (USFWS, 2010b). Additional information is presented in recent lease sale EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008b).

The Brown Pelican ( Pelecanus o ccidentalis

) was delisted from Federal endangered status in 2009 (USFWS, 2010c). However, this species is listed as a species of greatest conservation need by the State of Mississippi (Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, 2011) and as a species of special concern by the State of Florida (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 2011). Brown Pelicans inhabit coastal habitats and forage within both coastal waters and waters of the inner continental shelf. Aerial and shipboard surveys, including GulfCet and GulfCet II, indicate that Brown Pelicans do not occur over deep offshore waters (Fritts and Reynolds, 1981; Peake, 1996; Hess and Ribic, 2000). Nearly half the southeastern population of Brown Pelicans lives in the northern Gulf Coast, generally nesting on protected islands (USFWS, 2010b).IPFs potentially affecting shorebirds and coastal nesting birds include support vessel and helicopter traffic and a large oil spill, as the lease area is 53 miles (85 km) from the nearest shoreline. Compliance with NTL 2012

- BSEE

- G01 will minimize the potential for marine debris

related impacts on shorebirds.

Impacts of Suppo

rt Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

Vessels and helicopters supporting routine operations and temporary TLP installation and commissioning activities will transit coastal areas near Port Fourchon and Boothville, Louisiana, where shorebirds and coastal nesting birds may be found. These activities could periodically disturb individuals or groups of birds within sensitive coastal habitats (e.g., wetlands that may support feeding, resting, or breeding birds).

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

- powered boats (Rodgers and Schwikert, 2002). Flushing distances may be similar or less for the support vessels to be used for Shell‟s project, and some species such as gulls are attracted to boats. Support vessels will

no t approach nesting or breeding areas on the shoreline, so nesting birds, eggs, and chicks will not be disturbed. Vessel operators will use designated navigation channels and comply with posted speed and wake restrictions while transiting sensitive inland waterways. Due to the limited scope, timing, and geographic extent of drilling and TLP installation activities, any short

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

Aircraft traffic can cause some disturbance to birds onshore and offshore. Responses are highly dependent on the type of aircraft, the bird species, the activities that animals were previously engaged in, and previous exposures to overflights (Efroymson et al., 2000). Helicopters seem to cause th e most intense responses over other human disturbances for some species (Bélanger and Bédard, 1989). However, Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular No. 91

- 36D recommends that pilots maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000 ft (610 m) when flying o ver noise

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

term behavioral disruption.

Impacts of Large Oil Spill

The OSRA results summarized in Table 3 predict that shorelines of Texas and Louisiana that include habitat for shorebirds and coastal nesting birds could be affected within 30 days.

Data from the Macondo spill provides additional information about the species of coastal birds that may be affected in the event that a l arge oil spill reached coastal habitats; this information supplements the analysis presented in the lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b). According to USFWS (2010d) and based on the latest reports, about 5,000 dead birds had been collected since the spill began, a nd about 1,900 of the dead animals were visibly oiled. In addition, more than 2,000 oiled birds have been collected alive and about 1,200 released (NMFS, 2010b). According to the USFWS (2011), bird species that were visibly oiled following the Macondo sp ill include the following:

 Brown Pelican

 Masked Booby

 Magnificent Frigatebird

 Laughing Gull  Herring Gull

 Northern Gannet

 Black Crowned Night Heron

 Tri

- colored Heron Green Heron

 Cattle Egret

 Snowy Egret

 Reddish Egret

 Common Tern

 Royal Tern

 Caspian Tern

 Sandwich Tern

 Forster's Tern  Least Tern

 Black Skimmer

 White Ibis

 Roseate Spoonbill

 Willet

 Sanderling

 Semipalmated Sandpiper

 Clapper Rail

According to the USFWS (2011), species with the largest numbers of dead, oiled birds were Laughing Gull , Northern Gannet, Brown Pelican, Royal Tern, Black Skimmer, Least Tern, unidentified Gull, and unidentified Tern.

Coastal birds can be exposed to oil as they float on the water‟s surface, dive during foraging, or wade in oiled coastal waters. Oiled birds can lose the ability to fly, dive for food, or float on the water, which could lead to drowning (USFWS, 2010e). Oil interferes with the water repellency of feathers and can cause hypothermia under certain conditions. As birds groom themselves, they can ingest and inhale the oil on their bodies. Scavengers such as Bald Eagles and gulls can be exposed to oil by feeding on carcasses of contaminated fish and wildlife. While ingestion can kill animals immediately, more often it results in lung, liver, and k idney damage, which can lead to death. Bird eggs may be damaged if an oiled adult sits on the nest or if oil covers the eggs.

As noted above, the Brown Pelican was recently removed from the endangered species list. More than 300 dead Brown Pelicans were collected in the Gulf following the Macondo spill, (USFWS, 2010d). These data indicate that the Brown Pelican may be particularly at risk of oiling in the event of a large spill reaching coastal waters. Threats to the Brown Pelican include direct contact with oil, disturbance by cleanup activities, and long

- term habitat contamination.

A blowout resulting in a large oil spill is an extremely rare event, and the probability of such an event will be minimized by Shell‟s well control and blowout prevention me asures as detailed in
DOCD Section 2j . In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the impacts. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Therefore, no significant spill impacts on s horebirds and coastal nesting birds are expected.

C.5 Fisheries Resources

C.5.1 Pelagic Communities and Ichthyoplankton

Biggs and Ressler (2000) reviewed the biology of pelagic communities in the deepwater environment of the northern Gulf of Mexico. The b iological oceanography of the region is dominated by the influence of the Loop Current, whose surface waters are among the most oligotrophic in the world‟s oceans. Superimposed on this low

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

- rich Mississippi River water and mesoscale oceanographic features. Anticyclonic and cyclonic hydrographic features play an important role in determining biogeographic patterns and controlling primary productivity in the northern Gu lf of Mexico (Biggs and Ressler, 2000).

Most fishes inhabiting shelf or oceanic waters of the Gulf of Mexico have planktonic eggs and larvae (Ditty, 1986; Ditty et al., 1988; Richards et al., 1989, 1993). Pelagic eggs and larvae become part of the plankto nic community for various lengths of time (10 to 100 days, depending on the species) (MMS, 2007b).IPFs potentially affecting pelagic communities and ichthyoplankton include TLP and drilling rig presence, noise, and lights; effluent discharges; water intak es; and two types of accidents

-
a small fuel spill and a large oil spill.

Impacts of Platform and Drilling Rig Presence, Noise, and Lights

The proposed TLP

- mounted drilling rig, as a floating structure in the deepwater environment, will act as a fish

- attracting device (FAD). In oceanic waters, the FAD effect would be most pronounced for epipelagic fishes such as tunas, dolphin, billfishes, and jacks, which are commonly attracted to fixed and drifting surface structures (Holland et al., 1990; Higashi, 1994; Relini et al., 1994). This FAD effect could possibly enhance the feeding of epipelagic predators by attracting and concentrating smaller fish species. Because the TLP is a single structure, impacts on fish populations, whether beneficial or adverse , are considered minor.

Impacts of Effluent Discharges

Discharges of treated SBM cuttings will produce temporary, localized increases in suspended solids in the water column around the TLP and drilling rig. In general, turbid water can be expected to exte nd between a few hundred meters and several kilometers down current from the discharge point (NRC, 1983; Neff, 1987). NPDES permit limitations and requirements will be met.

Treated sanitary and domestic wastes may have a slight effect on the pelagic env ironment in the immediate vicinity of these discharges. These wastes may have elevated levels of nutrients, organic matter, and chlorine, but will be diluted rapidly to undetectable levels within tens to hundreds of meters from the source. Minimal impact s on water quality, plankton, and nekton are anticipated.

Deck drainage may have a slight effect on the pelagic environment in the immediate vicinity of these discharges. Deck drainage from contaminated areas will be passed through an oil and water separa tor prior to release, and discharges will be monitored for visible sheen. The discharges may have slightly elevated levels of hydrocarbons but will be diluted rapidly to undetectable levels within tens to hundreds of meters from the source. Minimal impac ts on water quality, plankton, and nekton are anticipated.

Produced water and process effluents, including well treatment fluids, completion fluids, and workover fluids, will be discharged overboard via a downpipe below the water surface, after
treatment t hat complies with the 29 mg/l NPDES permit requirements for oil and grease. Potential constituents such as salts, petroleum hydrocarbons, some metals, and naturally occurring radioactive material in produced water may degrade water quality in the immediat e vicinity of the discharge point. Compliance with NPDES permit requirements would result in only short

- term localized impacts to receiving waters (MMS 2007b).

Other discharges in accordance with the NPDES permit, such as desalination unit brine and

unco ntaminated cooling water, fire water, and ballast water, are expected to be diluted rapidly and have little or no impact on water column biota.

Impacts of Water Intakes

Seawater will be drawn from several meters below the ocean surface for various services including firewater, utility water, and once

- through non

- contact cooling of machinery on the platform drilling rig and TLP ( DOCD Table 7a ). Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires NPDES permits to ensure that the location, design, construction, an d capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available to minimize adverse environmental impact from impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms. The current general NPDES Permit No. GMG290000 specifies requirements for n ew facilities for which constructioncommenced after July 17, 2006, with a cooling water intake structure having a design intake capacity of greater than 2 million gallons of water per day, of which at least 25% is used for cooling purposes. The drilling rig and new TLP , however , do not trigger the cooling water intake permit requirements of the NPDES permit because the design intake capacity will be less than the 2 million gallons per day or 25% cooling water thresholds.

The drilling rig and new TLP wil l be located in the deepwater environment and the seawater intakes are located approximately 45 ft below the water surface. Based on Gulf of Mexico data from the SEAMAP, larval fish densities decrease with water depth, and are lower in the deepwater envir onment than in shallower water. High flow intakes associated with activation of firewater pumps are infrequent and of short duration and the l arger fish species that inhabit the deepwater environment have little potential for impingement due to their brea kaway speed from a challenging intake velocity. As noted in this section, cooling water demand is below regulatory thresholds. The operational features of the platform combined with the geographical area characteristics suggest that no significant impact from intake impingement and entrainment is expected

.
Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

Potential spill impacts on fisheries resources are discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008b). For this Initial DOCD, there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to spill impacts.

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Shell‟s preventative measures during routine operations including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the p otential for impacts on pelagic communities, including ichthyoplankton. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response

measures. Given the open ocean location of the lease area, the duration of a small spill and opportunity for impacts to occur would be very brief.

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

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

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill

A large oil spill could affect water column biota including phyto plankton, zooplankton, ichthyoplankton, and nekton. A large spill that persisted for weeks or months would be more likely to affect these communities. While adult and juvenile fishes may actively avoid a large spill, planktonic eggs and larvae would be u nable to avoid contact. Eggs and larvae of fishes in the upper layers of the water column are especially vulnerable to oiling; certain toxic fractions of spilled oil may be lethal to these life stages. Impacts would be potentially greater if local scale currents retained planktonic larval assemblages (and the floating oil slick) within the same
water mass.

A blowout resulting in a large oil spill is an extremely rare event, and the probability of such an event will be minimized by Shell‟s well control and blowout prevention measures as detailed in
DOCD Section 2j . In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigateand reduce the impacts. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Therefore, no signific ant spill impacts on pelagic communities and ichthyoplankton are expected.

C.5.2 Essential Fish Habitat

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

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

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

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

- edge topographic features on the Texas

- Louisiana OCS, the nearest of which is Sackett Bank, located 32 miles (51 km) north

- northwest of the le ase area.

EFH has been identified in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico for highly migratory pelagic fishes, which occur as transients in the lease area. Species in this group, including tunas, swordfishes, billfishes, and sharks, are managed by NMFS. Highly m igratory species with EFH at or near the lease area include the following (NMFS, 2009):

 Atlantic bluefin tuna (spawning, eggs, larvae, adults)

 Atlantic skipjack tuna (spawning, adults)

 Atlantic yellowfin tuna (spawning, juveniles, adults)

 Bigeye tu na (juveniles)

 Atlantic swordfish (larvae, juveniles, adults)

 Blue marlin (juveniles, adults)  White marlin (juveniles, adults)

 Longbill spearfish (juveniles, adults)

 Oceanic whitetip shark (all)

 Sailfish (juveniles)

 Silky shark (all)

 Shortfin mako shark (a ll)

 Longfin mako shark (all)

 Bigeye tresher shark (all)

 Whale shark (all)

Research indicates the central and western Gulf of Mexico may be important spawning habitat for Atlantic bluefin tuna, and NMFS (2009) has designated a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) for this species. The HAPC covers much of the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, including the lease area ( Figure 1 ). The areal extent of the HAPC is approximately 15,000 mi 2 (300,000 km 2 ). The prevailing assumption is that Atlantic bluefin tuna follow an annual cycle of foraging in June through March off the eastern United States and Canadian coasts, followed by migration to the Gulf of Mexico to spawn in April, May, and June (NMFS, 2009).

O ther HAPCs have been identified in the Gulf of Mexico by the GMFMC (2005). These include the Florida Middle Grounds, Madison

- Swanson Marine Reserve, Tortugas North and South Ecological Reserves, Pulley Ridge, and several individual reefs and banks of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico ( Figure 1 ). The nearest of these is Jakkula Bank, located 141 miles (226 km) west of the lease area.

Routine IPFs potentially affecting EFH and fisheries resources include TLP and drilling rig presence, noise, and lights; efflu ent discharges; and water intakes. In addition, two types ofaccidents

– a small fuel spill and a large oil spill

– may potentially affect EFH and fisheries

resources.

Impacts of Platform and Drilling Rig Presence, Noise, and Lights

The TLP, as a floating str ucture in the deepwater environment, will act as an FAD. In oceanic waters, the FAD effect would be most pronounced for epipelagic fishes such as tunas, dolphin, billfishes, and jacks, which are commonly attracted to fixed and drifting surface structures (Holland et al., 1990; Higashi, 1994; Relini et al., 1994). This FAD effect would possibly enhance feeding of epipelagic predators by attracting and concentrating smaller fish species. Because the drilling rig and TLP are a single structure, any impacts on EFH for highly migratory pelagic fishes are considered minor.

Impacts of Effluent Discharges

Other effluent discharges potentially affecting EFH by diminishing ambient water quality include produced water and process effluents, drilling mud and cuttings , treated sanitary and domestic wastes, deck drainage, and miscellaneous discharges such as desalination unit brine and uncontaminated cooling water, fire water, and ballast water. Impacts on water quality have been discussed previously. No significant i mpacts on EFH for highly migratory pelagic fishes are expected from these discharges.

Impacts of Water Intakes

As noted previously, cooling water intake will cause entrainment and impingement of plankton, including fish eggs and larvae (ichthyoplankton). Due to the limited scope, timing, and geographic extent of drilling and installation activities, any short

- term impacts on EFH for highly migratory pelagic fishes are not expected to be biologically significant. The drilling rig and new TLP will be located in the deepwater environment and the seawater intakes are located approximately 45 ft below the water surface . Based on Gulf of Mexico data from the SEAMAP, larval fish densities decrease with water depth, and are lower in the deepwater environment than in shallower water. High flow intakes associated with activation of firewater pumps are infrequent and of sho rt duration and the l arger fish species that inhabit the deepwater environment have little potential for impingement due to their breakaway speed from a challenging intake velocity. As noted in this section, cooling water demand is below regulatory thresh olds. The operational features of the platform combined with the geographical area characteristics suggest that no significant impact from intake impingement and entrainment is expected

.
Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

The probability of a fuel spill will b e minimized by Shell‟s preventative measures during routine operations including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the potential for impacts on EFH. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide de tail on spill response measures. Given the open ocean location of the lease area, the duration of a small spill and opportunity for impacts to occur would be very brief.

Potential spill impacts on EFH are discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008b). For this Initial DOCD, there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to spill impacts.

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

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

- term impact on water quality in the HAPC for spawning Atlantic blue fin tuna, which covers much of the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. The affected area would represent a negligible portion of the HAPC, which covers 114,793 mi 2 ( 297,312 km 2 ) of the Gulf of Mexico.

A small fuel spill would not affect EFH for corals and coral ree fs; the nearest coral EFH is Sackett Bank, located 32 miles (51 km) north

- northwest of the lease area. A small fuel spill would float and dissipate on the sea surface and would not contact these features.

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill

Potential spill impacts on EFH are discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008b). For this Initial DOCD , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to EFH.

An oil spill in offshore waters would temporarily increase hydrocarbon concentrations on the water surface and potentially the subsurface as well. Given the extent of EFH designations in the Gulf of Mexico (GMFMC, 2005; NMFS, 2009), some impact on EFH would be unavoidable.

A large spill could affect the EFH for many managed species including shrimps, stone crab, spiny lobster, corals and coral reefs, reef fishes, coastal migratory pelagic fishes, red drum, and highly migratory pelagic fishes. It would result in adverse impacts on water quality and water column biota including phytoplankton, z ooplankton, ichthyoplankton, and nekton. In coastal waters, sediments could be contaminated and result in persistent degradation of the seafloor habitat for managed demersal fish and invertebrates.

T he lease area is within the HAPC for spawning Atlantic b luefin tuna (NMFS, 2009). A large spill could temporarily degrade the HAPC due to increased hydrocarbon concentrations in the water column, with the potential for lethal or sublethal impacts on spawning tuna and their offspring. Potential impacts would d epend in part on the timing of a spill, as this species migrates to the Gulf of Mexico to spawn in April, May, and June (NMFS, 2009).

Sackett Bank, located 32 miles (51 km) north

- northwest of the lease area, is designated as EFH under the corals and coral reefs management plan. An accidental spill would be unlikely to reach or affect this feature. Although there are reports of subsurface plumes resulting from the use of subsea dispersants during the Macondo spill, the distance and difference in water dept h are factors that would make an impact unlikely. Near

- bottom currents in the region are expected to flow along the isobaths (Nowlin et al., 2001) and typically would not carry a plume up onto the continental shelf edge.

A blowout resulting in a large oil spill is an extremely rare event, and the probability of such an event will be minimized by Shell‟s well control and blowout prevention measures as detailed in
DOCD Section 2j . In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigat e and reduce the impacts. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Therefore, no significant spill impacts on EFH are expected.

C.6 Archaeological Resources

C.6.1 Shipwreck Sites

MC 762 and 807 are not on the list of leases with high potential for historic shipwrecks (MMS, 2008a). The archaeological survey conducted by C&C Technologies (2009) detected5,637 unidentified sonar targets within the lease area that were classified as modern debris associated with prior industrial was te dumping or field development activities.

Because there are no historic shipwreck sites in the lease area (see DOCD Section 6 ), there are no routine IPFs that are likely to affect these resources. A small fuel spill would not affect shipwrecks in adjoining blocks because the oil would float and dissipate on the sea surface. The impact of a large oil spill that could contact shipwrecks in other areas is considered below a level of concern.

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill

The MMS (2007b) estimated that a severe subsurface blowout could resuspend and disperse sediments within a 984

- ft (300

- m) radius. Because there are no known historic shipwrecks in the lease area, a large oil spill would not result in any impact on archaeological resources.

A spill ent ering shallow coastal waters could conceivably contaminate an undiscovered historic shipwreck site. The OSRA modeling summarized in Table 3 predicts that Texas, Louisiana, and Florida shorelines could be contacted by a spill within 10 to 30 days. Also as noted by
MMS (2007b), should an oil spill contact a coastal historic site, such as a fort or a lighthouse, the major impact would be a temporary, reversible visual impact from oil contact and contamination of the site and its environment.

Previous analyse s (MMS, 2007a, 2008) concluded that oil spills would be unlikely to affect archaeological sites beyond the immediate vicinity of the wellhead (i.e., due to physical impacts of a blowout) because the oil would rise quickly to the sea surface directly over t he spill location. However, during the Macondo spill, subsurface plumes were reported at a water depth of about 3,600 ft (1,100 m), extending at least 22 miles (35 km) from the wellsite and persisting for more than a month (Camilli et al., 2010). The sub surface plumes apparently resulted from the use of dispersants at the wellhead (Joint Analysis Group, 2010c). While the behavior and impacts of subsurface plumes are not well known, a subsurface plume could have the potential to contact shipwreck sites be yond the 984

- ft (300

- m) radius estimated by
MMS (2007a, 2008), depending on its extent, trajectory, and persistence. If oil from a subsea spill should come into contact with wooden shipwrecks on the seafloor it could adversely affect their condition or pr eservation.

A blowout resulting in a large oil spill is an extremely rare event, and the probability of such an event will be minimized by Shell‟s well control and blowout prevention measures as detailed in
DOCD Section 2j . In the unlikely event of a spil l, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the impacts. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Therefore, no significant spill impacts on historic shipwrecks are expected.

C.6.2 Prehistoric Archaeological Sites

With water depths ranging from approximately 3,028 to 3,150 ft (923 to 960 m), the proposed well surface locations and subsea installations in MC 807 and 762 are well beyond the 197 ft (60 m) depth contour used by the BOEM as the seaward extent for prehis toric archaeological site potential in the Gulf of Mexico. Because prehistoric archaeological sites are not found in the lease area, the only relevant IPF is a large oil spill that would reach coastal waters within the 197 ft (60 m) depth contour.

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill

Because prehistoric archaeological sites are not found in the lease area, they would not be affected by the physical effects of a subsea blowout. The MMS (2007b) estimates that a severe subsurface blowout could resuspend and dispers e sediments within a 984

- ft (300

- m) radius.Along the northern Gulf Coast, prehistoric sites occur frequently along the barrier islands and mainland coast and along the margins of bays and bayous (MMS, 2007b). The OSRA modeling summarized in Table 3 predi cts that Texas, Louisiana, and Florida shorelines could be contacted by a spill within 10 to 30 days. A spill reaching a prehistoric site along these shorelines could coat fragile artifacts or site features and compromise the potential for radiocarbon dat ing organic materials in a site (although other dating methods are available and it is possible to decontaminate an oiled sample for radiocarbon dating). Coastal prehistoric sites could also be damaged by spill cleanup operations (e.g., by destroying frag ile artifacts and disturbing the provenance of artifacts and site features).

A blowout resulting in a large oil spill is an extremely rare event, and the probability of such an event will be minimized by Shell‟s well control and blowout prevention measures as detailed in
DOCD Section 2j . In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the impacts. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide details on spill response measures. Therefore, no significant spill impacts on archaeological resources are expected.

C.7 Coastal Habitats and Protected Areas

Coastal habitats in the northern Gulf of Mexico that may be affected by oil and gas act ivities are described in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008b) and in a literature review by Collard and Way (1997). Sensitive coastal habitats are also tabulated in the OSRP. Coastal habitats inshore of the project area include barrier beaches and dunes, wetl ands, and submerged seagrass beds. Generally, most of the northern Gulf is fringed by barrier beaches, with wetlands and/or submerged seagrass beds occurring in sheltered areas behind the barrier islands and in
estuaries.

Due to the distance from shore, t here are no IPFs associated with routine activities that are likely to affect beaches and dunes, wetlands, seagrass beds, coastal wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, or any other managed or protected coastal area. The support bases at Port Fourchon and Bo othville are not located in a wildlife refuge or a wilderness area. Potential impacts of support vessel traffic are briefly addressed below.

A small fuel spill in the lease area would be unlikely to affect coastal habitats, as the lease area is 53 miles ( 85 km) from the nearest shoreline. As explained in Section A.9.2 , a small fuel spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up.

Impacts of Support Vessel Traffic

For OCS activities in general, support operations, including the crew boat and supply boats, and vessels supporting temporary TLP installation and commissioning activities may have a minor incremental impact on coastal habitats. Over time with a large number of vessel trips, vessel wakes can erode shoreli nes along inlets, channels, and harbors. Support operations, including the crew boat and supply boats and installation support vessels as detailed in DOCD Section 14 , and may have a minor incremental impact on coastal habitats or protected areas. Impacts will be minimized by following the speed and wake restrictions in harbors and channels.

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill

Potential spill impacts on coastal habitats are discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008b). Coastal habitats inshore of the project are a include barrier beaches and dunes, wetlands, and submerged seagrass beds. For this Initial DOCD , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to coastal habitats.

The OSRA results summarized in Table 3 predict that shorelines of Texas, Louisian a, and Florida could be affected within 30 days. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, has the highestprobability of contact for the 10

- and 30

- day intervals (4% and 8%, respectively). After 30 days, 11 counties or parishes may be contacted from Galveston, Tex as, to Okaloosa, Florida.

The shorelines within the geographic range predicted by the OSRA modeling include extensive barrier beaches and wetlands, with submerged seagrass beds occurring in sheltered areas behind the barrier islands and in estuaries. NWRs and other protected areas along the coast are discussed in the lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b) and Shell‟s OSRP. Coastal wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, and state and national parks within the geographic range of the potential shoreline contacts after 30 days include the following:

 Brazoria NWR

 McFaddin NWR

 Sabine NWR

 Rockefeller Wildlife Management Area (WMA)

 Marsh Island WMA

 Atchafalaya Delta WMA

 Pointe Au Chien WMA

 Grand Isle State Park (SP)

 Salvador WMA

 Breton NWR

 Gulf Islands National Seashore

 Galveston Island SP

 Sea Rim SP

 Cameron Prairie NWR

 Paul J. Rainey WMA

 Cypremort Point SP

 Mandalay NWR

 Wisner WMA

 Jean Lafitte National Historical Park
and Preserve

 St. Bernard SP

 Pensacola Bay Service Water
and Impoundment Monitoring (SWIM) Area

 A pffel Park

 Murphree WMA

 Lacassine NWR

 Shell Keys NWR

 Isles Dernieres Barrier Islands Refuge

 Delta NWR

 Biloxi WMA

 Choctawhatchee Bay SWIM Area

 Seawolf Park

 Texas Point NWR

 Little Pecan Island Natural Area (NA)

 Lafitte Woods NA

 Pass A Loutre WMA

 Bayou Sauvage NWR  Old Fort Travis Park

 Peveto Woods NA

 Atkinson Island WMA

 Lower Neches WMA

 Anahuac NWR

 St. Andrew Bay Watershed SWIM Area

 Fort Anahuac Park

 Candy Abshier WMAThe OSRA results in Table 3 include only shoreline segments with contact p robabilities greater than 0.5% within 30 days; other coastal areas could be affected at lower contact probabilities within 30 days, or from a spill persisting for more than 30 days. Additional NWRs and managed wildlife areas occur along the Gulf Coast. T hese areas include habitats such as barrier beach and dune systems, wetlands, and submerged seagrass beds that support diverse wildlife, including endangered or threatened species.

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

- and

- water mousse, or tarballs (MMS, 2007b). Oil is generally deposited on beaches in lines defined by wave action at the time of landfall. Oil that remains on the beach will thicken as its volatile components are lost. Thickened oil may form tarballs or aggregations that incorporat e sand, shell, and other materials into its mass. Tar may be buried to varying depths under the sand. On warm days, both exposed and buried tarballs may liquefy and ooze. Oozing may also serve to expand the size of a mass as it incorporates beach materi als. Oil on beaches may be cleaned up manually, mechanically, or both. Some oil can remain on the beach at varying depths and may persist for several years as it slowly biodegrades and volatilizes.

Wetlands are highly sensitive to oiling. The MMS (2007b) predicted that for every 50 bbl of oil contacting wetlands, approximately 6.7 ac (2.7 ha) of wetland vegetation will experience dieback. Thirty percent of these damaged wetlands are assumed to recover within 4 years, and 85% within 10 years. Abou t 15% of the contacted wetlands are expected to be converted permanently to open

- water habitat. The critical concentration of oil is that concentration above which impacts to wetlands will be long

- term and recovery will take longer than two growing

season s, and which causes plant mortality and some permanent wetland loss. Critical concentrations of various oils are expected to vary broadly for wetland types and wetland plant species. Louisiana wetlands are assumed to be more sensitive to oil contact than elsewhere in the Gulf because of high cumulative stress (MMS, 2007b). In addition to the direct impacts of oil, cleanup activities in marshes may accelerate rates of erosion and retard recovery rates (MMS, 2007b).

A blowout resulting in a large oil spill is an extremely rare event, and the probability of such an event will be minimized by Shell‟s well control and blowout prevention measures as detailed in
DOCD Section 2j . In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the impacts. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Therefore, no significant spill impacts on coastal habitats are expected.

C.8 Socioeconomic and Other Resources

C.8.1 Recreational and Commercial Fishing

The main comm ercial fishing activity in deep waters of the northern Gulf of Mexico is pelagic longlining for tunas, swordfishes, and other billfishes (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2002). Pelagic longlining has occurred historically in the project area, primaril y during spring and summer. In August 2000, the Federal government closed two areas in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico to longline fishing (65 FR 47214, August 1, 2000). The lease is outside of the closure

areas.

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

on

- board temperature sensors, depth finders, and positioning equipment. Vessels are 10 to
30 m long, and their trips last from about 1 to 3 weeks. The main homeports for longliningvessels are in Louisiana (Dulac and Venice) and Florida (Destin, Madeira Beach, and Panama City).

It is unlikely that any commercial fishing activity other than longlining occurs at or near the project area. Benthic species targeted by commercial fishers occur on the upper continental slope, well inshore of the project area. Royal red shrimp ( Pleoticus robustus ) are caught by trawlers in water depths of about 820 to 1,804 ft (250 to 550 m). Tilefishes (primarily Lophalotilus chamaeleonticeps ) are caught by bottom longlining in water depths from about
540 to 1,476 ft (165 to 450 m) (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2002). The proposed project is in 3,028 to 3,150 ft (923 to 960 m) of water. No conflict with commercial fishing activity is expected to occur.

Most recreational fishing activity in the region occurs in water depths less than 656 ft (200 m) (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 1997, 2002). In deeper water, the main attraction to recreational fishers would be petroleum platforms in offshore waters of Texas and Louisiana.

The only routine IPF potentially affecting fisheries is TLP and drilling rig presence (incl uding noise and lights). Two potential types of accidents are also addressed below

– a small fuel spill and a large oil spill.

Impacts of Platform and Drilling Rig Presence

There is a slight possibility of pelagic longlines becoming entangled in the TLP For example, in January 1999 a portion of a pelagic longline snagged on the acoustic Doppler current profiler of a drillship working in the Gulf of Mexico (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2002). The line was removed without incident. Generally, longl ine fishers use radar and are aware of offshore structures and ships when placing their sets. Therefore, little or no impact on pelagic longlining is expected.

No adverse impacts on fishing activities are anticipated. The presence of the TLP would result in a limited area being unavailable for fishing activity, but this effect is considered inconsequential (MMS, 2007b). Other factors such as effluent discharges are likely to have negligible impacts on commercial or recreational fisheries due to rapid dis persion, the small area of ocean affected, and the intermittent nature of the discharges.

Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Shell‟s preventative measures during routine operations including fuel transfer. I n the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the potential for impacts. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Given the open ocean location of the lease area, the duration of a smal l spill and opportunity for impacts to occur would be very brief.

Pelagic longlining activities in the lease area, if any, could be interrupted in the event of a small fuel spill. The area of the sea surface with diesel fuel on it would range from 1.2 to 12 ac (0.5 to 5 ha), depending on sea state and weather conditions. Fishing activities could be interrupted due to the activities of response vessels operating in the lease area. A small fuel spill would not affect coastal water quality because the spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up (see Section A.9.2 ).

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill

Potential spill impacts on fishing activities are discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008b). For this Initial DOCD

, there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to this activity.

Pelagic longlining activities in the lease area and other fishing activities in the northern Gulf of Mexico could be interrupted in the event of a large oil spill. A spill may or may not result in fishery closures, depending on the duration of the spill, the oceanographic and meteorological conditions at the time, and the effectiveness of spill response measures. The Macondo spill provides information about the potential extent of fis hery closures in the event of a large oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico (NMFS, 2010d). At its peak on July 12, 2010, closures encompassed 84,101 mi 2 (217,821 km 2 ), or 34.8% of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the Gulf of
Mexico.

A blowout resulting in a large oil spill is an extremely rare event, and the probability of such an event will be minimized by Shell‟s well control and blowout prevention measures as detailed in
DOCD Section 2j . In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OS RP will mitigate and reduce the impacts. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Therefore, no significant spill impacts on fishing activities are expected.

C.8.2 Public Health and Safety

There are no IPFs associated with routi ne operations that are expected to affect public health and safety. Impacts of a small fuel spill and a large oil spill are addressed below.

Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Shell‟s preventative measures d uring routine operations including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the potential for impacts. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures.

A small fuel spill w ould not have impacts on public health and safety because it would likely affect only a small area of the open ocean 53 miles (85 km) from the nearest shoreline and nearly all of the diesel fuel would evaporate or disperse naturally within 24 hours. Respo nse crews would be equipped with appropriate safety equipment to avoid injury and health effects.
A small fuel spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up (see Section A.9.2 ).

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill

In the event of a large spill from a blowout, the main safety and health concerns are those of the offshore personnel involved in the incident and those responding to the spill. The proposed activities will be covered by the OSRP, and, in addition, the TLP a nd drilling rig maintain a Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan as required under MARPOL 73/78.

Depending on the spill rate and duration, the physical/chemical characteristics of the oil, the meteorological and oceanographic conditions at the time, and t he effectiveness of spill response measures, the public could be exposed to oil on the water and along the shoreline, through skin contact or inhalation of VOCs. Crude oil is a highly flammable material, and any smoke or vapors from a crude oil fire can c ause irritation. Exposure to large quantities of crude oil may pose a health hazard.

Data from the Macondo spill provide relevant information about the types of health issues that may occur in the event of a large oil spill (Centers for Disease Control an d Prevention, 2010a). Wildlife cleaning and rehabilitation workers reported concerns including scrapes and cuts, itchy or red skin or rash, and symptoms of headache or feeling faint, dizzy, or fatigued. Hand, shoulder, or back pain was also reported by s ome wildlife

- cleaning workers. Personnel working on offshore vessels or providing direct oversight to offshore vessels, including USCG personnel, civilian contractors, and other responders who were exposed to oil and dispersants, had
7 to 12 times higher prevalence of upper respiratory symptoms and cough than those not exposed (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010b). Another potential occupational hazard for spill response workers is exposure to seasonal temperature extremes resulting in heat stress in the summer and hypothermia in the winter. Initial symptoms from cleanup workers who sought medical care in Louisiana were typical of acute exposure to hydrocarbons
or H 2 S such as headaches, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, cough, respiratory distres s, and chest pain (Solomon and Janssen, 2010). Health effects reported from previous oil spills, such as the Exxon Valdez in 1989, were primarily acute injuries consisting of headaches, throat irritation,and sore or itchy eyes, but respiratory problems and dermatitis along with chronic airway disease have also been reported (Solomon and Janssen, 2010).

A blowout resulting in a large oil spill is an extremely rare event, and the probability of such an event will be minimized by Shell‟s well control and bl owout prevention measures as detailed in
DOCD Section 2j . In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the impacts. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Therefore, no significant spill impacts on public health and safety are expected.

C.8.3 Employment and Infrastructure

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

Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Shell‟s preventative measures during routine operations including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the potential for impacts. DOC D Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Given the open ocean location of the lease area, the duration of a small spill and opportunity for impacts to occur would be very brief.

A small fuel spill that is dissipated within a few day s would have little or no economic impact, as the spill response would use existing facilities, resources, and personnel.

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill

Potential socioeconomic impacts of an oil spill are discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008b). For th is Initial DOCD, there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to employment and coastal infrastructure. A large spill could cause several types of economic impacts: extensive fishery closures could put fishermen out of work; temporary employment could increase as part of the response effort; adverse publicity that could reduce employment in coastal recreation and tourism industries; and OCS drilling activities, including service and support operations that are an important part of local economies, could be suspended.

The lease area is 53 miles (85 km) from the nearest shoreline. Based on the OSRA modeling predictions ( Table 3 ), Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, is the coastal area most likely to be affected.

A blowout resulting in a large oil spill i s an extremely rare event, and the probability of such an event will be minimized by Shell‟s well control and blowout prevention measures as detailed in
DOCD Section 2j . In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and re duce the impacts. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Therefore, no significant spill impacts on employment and infrastructure are expected.

C.8.4 Recreation and Tourism

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

- BSEE

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

Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Shell‟s preventative measures during routine operations including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementat ion ofShell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the potential for impacts. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Given the open ocean location of the lease area, the duration of a small spill and opportunity for impacts to occur would be very brief.

A small fuel spill in the lease area would be unlikely to affect recreation and tourism. There are no known recreational or tourism activities occurring in the lease area, and as explained in Section A.9.2 , a small fuel spill would n ot be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up.

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill

Potential impacts of an oil spill on recreation and tourism are discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2008b). For this Initial DOCD , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to these impacts.

Impacts on recreation and tourism would vary depending on the duration of the spill and its fate including the effectiveness of response measures. A large spill that reached coastal waters and sho relines could adversely affect recreation and tourism by contaminating beaches and wetlands, resulting in negative publicity that encourages people to stay away. Based on OSRA modeling as summarized in Table 3 , Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, is the area m ost likely to be contacted by a spill. However, shorelines from Galveston, Texas, to Okaloosa, Florida, could be contacted. These areas include popular beaches and recreational sites along the coast.

In addition to the analysis presented by MMS (2007b, 2 008), recent and ongoing studies have explored the economic impacts of the Macondo spill including tourism and “brand” damage (IEM, 2010; Oxford Economics, 2010). The U.S. Travel Association has estimated the economic impact of the Macondo spill on touris m across the Gulf Coast over a 3

- year period at $22.7 billion (Oxford Economics, 2010). According to Myers (2011) tourism has rebounded in the Gulf Coast states with general increases in hotel occupancy rates and tourism. There are ongoing efforts to acc elerate recovery by influencing public perceptions; creating travel incentives; and providing access to capital, low interest loans, and tax incentives for affected businesses (U.S. Travel Association, 2010).

In a recent site

- specific environmental assessm ent for a project that is similar to this Initial DOCD, BOEM evaluated the impacts to socioeconomic factors such as recreation and tourism and concluded that those impacts were negligible (BOEM, 2011a).

A blowout resulting in a large oil spill is an extrem ely rare event, and the probability of such an event will be minimized by Shell‟s well control and blowout prevention measures as detailed in
DOCD Section 2j . In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the im pacts. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Therefore, no significant spill impacts on recreation and tourism are expected.

C.8.5 Land Use

Land use along the northern Gulf Coast is discussed in recent lease sale EISs (MMS, 2 007b, 2008b). There are no routine IPFs potentially affecting land use. The project will use existing onshore support facilities in Louisiana. The land use at the existing shorebase sites is industrial. The project will not involve new construction or changes to existing land use and, therefore, will not have any impacts. Levels of boat and helicopter traffic, as well as demand for goods and services including scarce coastal resources, will represent a small fraction of the level of activity occurring at the shorebases.

A large oil spill is the only relevant accident IPF. A small fuel spill would not have impacts on land use, as the response would be staged out of existing shorebases and facilities.

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill

The initial response for a large oil spill would be staged out of existing facilities, with no effect on land use. A large spill could have limited temporary impacts on land use along the coast ifadditional staging areas were needed. For example, d uring the Macondo spill, temp orary staging areas were established in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida for spill response and cleanup efforts. In the event of a large spill in the lease area, similar temporary staging areas could be needed. These areas would eventually re turn to their original use as the response is demobilized.

A blowout resulting in a large oil spill is an extremely rare event, and the probability of such an event will be minimized by Shell‟s well control and blowout prevention measures as detailed in
DO CD Section 2j . In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the impacts. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Therefore, no significant spill impacts on land use are expected.

C. 8.6 Other Marine Uses

The lease area is not located within any USCG

- designated fairway or shipping lane. MC 762 and 807 are not in a designated Military Warning Area. Shell will comply with BOEM requirements and lease stipulations to avoid impacts on use s of the area by military vessels and aircraft.

A historical industrial waste dump site was identified in MC 806 (C&C Technologies, Inc., 2009). Shell‟s procedure “Waste Barrel Avoidance and Release Response in the Mississippi Canyon Area”, which has been previously approved by MMS and BOEM, is included in DOCD Section
6a and applies to operations that could cause a disturbance of a seafloor barrel. Shell‟s

over

- arching policy is to avoid barrel contact. The plan specifies a safe stand

- off distance from the waste barrels of at least 33 ft (10 m) and requires that potential impact locations be surveyed with an ROV to maximize barrel avoidance. In the unlikely case that contact is suspected or has been made with any wastes from a barrel, the plan specifies actions to be taken for the topside safety of personnel handling the equipment. The plan also outlines barrel impact reporting procedures.

There are no IPFs from routine project activities that are likely to affect shipping or other marine uses. A large oil spill is the only relevant accident IPF. A small fuel spill would not have impacts on other marine uses, as the spill and response activities would be mainly within the lease area and the duration would be brief.

Impacts of a Large Oil Spill

An accidental spill would be unlikely to significantly affect shipping or other marine uses. The blocks are not located within any USCG

- designated fairway or shipping lane. In the event of a large spill requiring numerous response vessels, coordination w ould be required to manage the vessel traffic for safe operations. Shell will comply with BOEM requirements and lease stipulations to avoid impacts on uses of the area by military vessels and aircraft.

A blowout resulting in a large oil spill is an extrem ely rare event, and the probability of such an event will be minimized by Shell‟s well control and blowout prevention measures as detailed in
DOCD Section 2j . In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Shell‟s OSRP will mitigate and reduce the im pacts. DOCD Sections 2j and 9b provide detail on spill response measures. Therefore, no significant spill impacts on other marine uses are expected.

C.9 Cumulative Impacts

For purposes of NEPA, cumulative impact is defined as “the impact on the environme nt which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non

- Federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR § 1508.7). Any singl e activity or action may have a negligible impact(s) by itself, but when combined with impacts from other activities in the same area and/or time period, substantial impacts may result.Prior Studies . MC 762 and 807 were acquired in Lease Sale #98 in July 1985. Prior to the lease sales, MMS prepared a multisale EIS in which it analyzed the environmental impact of activities that might occur in the multi

- lease

- sale area. The MMS also recently analyzed the cumulative impacts of OCS development activities s imilar to those planned in this Initial DOCD in several documents. The level and types of activities planned in Shell's Initial DOCD are within the range of activities described and evaluated in the Final EIS for Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales 2007

- 2012: Western Planning Area Sales 204, 207, 210, 215, and 218, and Central Planning Area Sales 205, 206, 208, 213, 216, and 222 (MMS, 2007b), as updated by a 2008 Final Supplemental EIS for Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales 2009

- 2012: Centra l Planning Area Sales 208, 213, 216, and 222 and Western Planning Area Sales 210, 215, and 218 (MMS, 2008b). Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities were identified in the cumulative effects scenario of these documents, which are incorporated by reference. The proposed action will not result in any additional impacts beyond those evaluated in the Multisale and Supplemental EIS (MMS, 2008b).

Description of Activities Reasonably Expected to Occur in the Vicinity of Project Area . Other explora tion and development activities may occur in the vicinity of lease blocks MC 762 and 807. Shell‟s existing Mars A TLP is located in MC 807 in proximity to the proposed new TLP. Shell does not anticipate other projects in the vicinity of the project area beyond the types of projects analyzed in the Multisale and Supplemental EIS (MMS, 2008b).

Cumulative Impacts of Activities in the Initial DOCD . The MMS (2007b) multi

- lease

- sale EIS included a lengthy discussion of cumulative impacts, which analyzed the en vironmental and socioeconomic impacts from the incremental impact of the 11 proposed lease sales, in addition to impacts projected to result from past, proposed, and future lease sales during the 40

- year period of 2007 to 2046 (see MMS, 2007b). The EIS co nsidered exploration, delineation, and development wells; platform installation; service

- vessel trips; and oil spills. The EIS examined the potential cumulative effects on each specific resource for the entire Gulf of Mexico.

The level and type of activit y proposed in Shell‟s Initial DOCD are within the range of activities described and evaluated in the recent multi

- lease

- sale EISs. This EIA incorporates and builds on these analyses by examining the potential impacts on physical, biological, and
socioecon omic resources from the work planned in this Initial DOCD, in conjunction with the other reasonably foreseeable activities expected to occur and currently occurring in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as the known impacts from the Macondo spill in MC 252. Whil e another large oil spill could have significant impacts, the numerous new safety measures implemented by the BOEM and further mitigation and safety measures proposed by Shell in its Initial DOCD result in a drilling program that reduces the likelihood of another large spill and improves the effectiveness of any response in the extremely unlikely event that another large spill occurs. Thus, for all impacts, the incremental contribution of Shell‟s proposed actions to the cumulative impacts analysis in these prior analyses is not significant.

C.9.1 Cumulative Impacts to Physical/Chemical Resources

The work planned in this Initial DOCD is limited in geographic scope, and the impacts on the physical/chemical environment will be correspondingly limited.

Air Qual ity

. Emissions from pollutants into the atmosphere from activities are not projected to have significant effects on onshore air quality because of the prevailing atmospheric conditions, emission rates and heights, and resulting pollutant concentrations. As the BOEM found in the multi

- lease

- sale EISs, the incremental contribution of activities similar to Shell‟s proposed activities to the cumulative impacts is not significant and will not cause or contribute to a violation of national ambient air quality s tandard (MMS, 2007b, 2008b). In addition, the cumulative contribution to visibility impairment is also very small (MMS, 2007b, 2008b). Since the BOEM completed the multi

- lease

- sale EISs, the USEPA has adopted a new short

- term NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide ( NO 2 ) and sulfur dioxide. The standard has not yet been implemented in the Gulf of Mexico, but given the levels of expected emissions and the distanceof the project from shore, emissions from Shell's Initial DOCD are not likely to contribute to violations of any NAAQS onshore.

Climate Change . Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and CH 4 emissions from the project would constitute a small incremental contribution to greenhouse gas emissions from all OCS activities. According to the EIS (MMS, 2007a), estimated CO 2 emissio ns from all OCS activities in the
2007

- 2012 leasing program are about 0.08% to 0.016% of the global CO 2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion. Greenhouse gas emissions may contribute to climate change, with important effects on temperature, rainfall, freq uency of severe weather, ocean acidification, and sea level rise (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007). In the Gulf of Mexico, sea level rise is an important issue due to the ongoing losses in coastal wetlands, particularly in coastal
Louisian a. Greenhouse gas emissions from the Initial DOCD represent a negligible contribution to the total greenhouse gas emissions from reasonably foreseeable activities in the Gulf of Mexico area and would not significantly alter any of the climate change impac ts evaluated in the previous EISs. Globally, Shell is working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by increasing the efficiency of its operations, establishing a substantial capability in CO 2 capture and storage, and continuing to research and develop techn ologies that increase efficiency and reduce emissions in hydrocarbon production. In 2010, Shell met a voluntary target set in 1998 for direct greenhouse gas emissions from its facilities to be at least 5% lower than the comparable 1990 level (Shell, 2011) . Shell‟s ongoing efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should offset any incremental contribution from the Initial DOCD.

Water Quality . Shell‟s project will have some minor water quality impacts due to the
NPDES

- permitted discharge of SBM cuttings, produced water and process effluents, treated sanitary and domestic wastes, excess cement, non

- contact cooling water, deck drainage, desalination unit brine, uncontaminated fire water, and ballast water. These effects are expected to be minor (localized to the area within a few hundred meters of the TLP and drilling rig), and temporary (lasting only hours longer than the disturbance or discharge). Any cumulative effects to water quality are expected to be negligible.

New Information . The only new, potentially significant information available since preparation of the multi

- lease

- sale EISs arises from the Macondo spill. The Macondo spill caused short

- term, localized air quality impacts, e.g., from evapor ation of volatile hydrocarbons and in
situ burning of floating oil . Monitoring by the USEPA (2010) has found levels of ozone and particulates ranging from “good” to “unhealthy for sensitive groups” on USEPA‟s Air Quality Index; these are at levels well be low those that would cause short

- term health problems. The air monitoring conducted to date has not found any pollutants at levels expected to cause long

- term harm (USEPA, 2010). Satellite imagery indicates that the surface slick from the Macondo spill d id reach the lease area (ESRI, 2010). However, based on the information currently available, there is no reason to expect any change in air quality conditions or cumulative impacts from those predicted in the multi

- lease

- sale EISs.

The Macondo spill also resulted in water quality impacts. In addition to the oil slick on the sea surface, plumes of submerged oil droplets were produced when subsea dispersants were applied at the wellhead (Camilli et al., 2010; Hazen et al., 2010; Joint Analysis Group, 2010a, b,c). Satellite imagery indicates that the surface slick from the Macondo spill extended over the lease area prior to capping of the well (ESRI, 2010) ; therefore, water quality in or near the lease area could have been temporarily affected. OSAT (2010) r eported that, after August 2010, waters and sediments in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico beyond 1.8 miles (3 km) from the Macondo wellsite were below USEPA acute and chronic benchmarks for PAHs and were not hypoxic. These observations indicate that baseline environmental conditions in the lease area are unlikely to have been significantly altered by the spill. Prior to the incident, water quality in deep, offshore waters was expected to be good, with low levels of contaminants (Kennicutt, 2000). Based on th e information currently available, there is no reason to expect any change in water quality conditions or cumulative impacts from those predicted in the multi

- lease

- sale EISs.C.9.2 Cumulative Impacts to Biological Resources

The work planned in this Initia l DOCD is limited in geographic scope, and the impacts on biological resources will be correspondingly limited.

Seafloor Habitats and Biota

. Effects on seafloor habitats and biota from discharges of drilling mud and cuttings are expected to be minor and l imited to a small area. Areas that may support high

- density deepwater benthic communities will be avoided as required by NTL 2009

- G40. Soft bottom communities are ubiquitous along the northern Gulf of Mexico continental slope, and the extent of benthic i mpacts during this project is insignificant regionally. As noted in the multi

- lease

- sale EISs, the incremental contributions of activities similar to Shell‟s proposed activities to the cumulative impacts is not significant (MMS, 2007b).

Threatened, Endang ered, and Protected Species . Threatened and endangered species reasonably likely to occur in the lease area include the sperm whale and five species of sea turtles. Potential impact sources include TLP and drilling rig presence including noise and lights ; marine debris; and support vessel and aircraft traffic. Potential effects for these species would be limited, and would be reduced by Shell‟s compliance with BOEM

- required mitigation measures including NTLs 2012

- BSEE

- G01 and 2012

- JOINT

- G01. No signific ant cumulative impacts are expected.

Coastal and Marine Birds

. Some birds may be attracted to offshore structures because of the lights and the fish populations that aggregate around these structures. Birds that frequent platforms may be exposed to conta minants including air pollutants and routine discharges, but significant impacts are unlikely due to rapid dispersion. Shell‟s c ompliance with
NTL 2012

- BSEE

- G01 will minimize the likelihood of debris

- related impacts on birds. Support vessel and helicopte r traffic may disturb some foraging and resting birds; however, it is likely that individual birds would experience, at most, only short

- term behavioral disruption. Collisions or other adverse effects are unlikely, and no significant cumulative impacts ar e expected.

Fisheries Resources . Platforms and rigs function as FADs for some species of epipelagic fishes and the aggregations of prey fishes may potentially attract predators. These effects are expected to be small given the isolated nature of the TLP and drilling rig and would not be considered a significant impact on pelagic communities, fishery resources, or EFH. Exploration and production structures occur in the MC lease blocks proposed for the development activities. The additional effect of the proposed drilling activity would be negligible.

Coastal Habitats

. Due to the distance of the wellsites from shore, routine activities are not expected to have any impacts on beaches and dunes, wetlands, seagrass beds, coastal wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, or any other managed or protected coastal area. The support bases
at Port Fourchon and Boothville are not in wildlife refuge or wilderness areas. Support operations, including the crew boat and supply boats, may have a minor incremental impact on coastal habitats. Over time with a large number of vessel trips, vessel wakes can erode shorelines along inlets, channels, and harbors. Impacts will be minimized by following the speed and wake restrictions in harbors and channels.

New Information . The only new, potentially significant information available since preparation of the multi

- lease

- sale EISs arises from the Macondo spill. The spill has resulted in impacts on biological resources, including visibly oiled and/or dead birds, marine mammals, and sea turtles, as well as oiling of coastal habitats from approximately the Texas/Louisiana border to the Florida Panhandle. Another large spill could result in significant cumulative impacts to these resources. However, for the reasons discussed in the I nitial DOCD, Shell‟s NTL 2010

- N06 response, the OSRP, and herein, the likelihood of a catastrophic well control event resulting in significant amounts of oil in the water is extremely remote. Therefore, Shell‟s proposed activities are not expected to resu lt in any cumulative impacts to biological resources affected by the Macondo spill, nor should they have any impact on the previously conducted cumulative impact analyses.Regarding deepwater benthic communities, the multi

- lease

- sale EISs (MMS, 2007a, 2008 b) concluded that oil spills would be unlikely to affect benthic communities beyond the immediate vicinity of the wellhead (i.e., due to physical impacts of a blowout) because the oil would rise quickly to the sea surface directly over the spill location. However, during the Macondo spill, subsurface plumes were reported at a water depth of about 3,600 ft (1,100 m), extending at least 22 miles (35 km) from the wellsite and persisting for more than a month (Camilli et al., 2010). The subsurface plumes appa rently resulted from the use of dispersants at the wellhead (Joint Analysis Group, 2010c). Chemical components of subsea dispersants used during the Macondo spill persisted for up to two months and were detected up to 186 miles (300 km) from the wellsite at a water depth of 3,280 to 3,937 ft (1,000 to 1,200 m) (Kujawinski et al. 2011). However, estimated dispersant concentrations in the subsea plume were below levels known to be toxic to marine life. While the behavior and impacts of subsurface plumes ar e not well known, a subsurface plume could contact the seafloor and affect benthic communities beyond the 984

- ft (300

- m) radius estimated by MMS (2007a, 2008b), depending on its extent, trajectory, and persistence. This contact could result in smothering and/or toxicity to benthic organisms. The affected area would be recolonized by benthic organisms over a period of months to years (NRC, 2003).

C.9.3 Cumulative Impacts to Socioeconomic Resources

The work planned in this Initial DOCD is limited in geographic scope, and the impacts on socioeconomic resources will be correspondingly limited.

Archaeological Resources

. MC 762 and 807 are not on the list of leases with a high potential for historic shipwrecks (MMS, 2008a). The archaeological survey con ducted by C&C Technologies (2009) detected 5,637 unidentified sonar targets within the lease area that were identified as modern debris associated with prior industrial waste dumping or field development activities. Also, t he lease area is well beyond th e 197

- ft (60

- m) depth contour used by the BOEM as the seaward extent for prehistoric archaeological site potential in the Gulf of Mexico. Therefore, Shell‟s operations will have no cumulative impacts on historic shipwrecks or prehistoric archaeological re sources.

Socioeconomic Resources . The multi

- lease

- sale EISs analyzed the cumulative impacts of oil and gas exploration and development in the lease area, in combination with other impact

- producing activities, on commercial fishing, recreational fishing, r ecreational resources, historical and archaeological resources, land use and coastal infrastructure, demographics, and environmental justice (MMS, 2007b). The BOEM also analyzed the economic impact of oil and gas activities on the Gulf States, finding onl y minor impacts in most of Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, more significant impacts in parts of Texas, and substantial impacts on Louisiana.

Shell‟s proposed activities will have negligible cumulative impacts on socioeconomic resources. There ar e no IPFs associated with routine operations that are expected to affect public health and safety, employment and infrastructure, recreation and tourism, land use, or other marine uses. Due to the distance from shore, it is unlikely that any recreational fishing activity is occurring in the project area, and it is unlikely that any commercial fishing activity other than longlining occurs at or near the project area. The project will have negligible impacts on fishing
activities.

New Information . The only new, potentially significant information available since preparation of the multi

- lease

- sale EISs arises from the Macondo spill. The spill has resulted in impacts on commercial and recreational fishing, recreation and tourism, employment, and public heal th and safety. The Macondo spill resulted in extensive fishery closures in the Gulf of Mexico, peaking at 34.8% of the EEZ in the Gulf of Mexico (NMFS, 2010d). The U.S. Travel Association has estimated the economic impact of the Macondo spill on tourism across the Gulf Coast over a 3

- year period at $22.7 billion (Oxford Economics, 2010). There is some indication that tourism is recovering in a number of Gulf Coast states (Myers, 2011).Reported health impacts (e.g., among spill response and wildlife reha bilitation workers) ranged from cuts and scrapes, to upper respiratory symptoms and heat stress, to acute exposure to hydrocarbons or H 2 S (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010a,b; Solomon and Janssen, 2010). Most of these impacts were temporary in nature, although health exposure of clean

- up workers could have longer lasting impacts.

However, for the reasons discussed in the Initial DOCD, Shell‟s NTL 2010

- N06 response, the OSRP, and herein, the likelihood of a catastrophic well control event resulting in significant amounts of oil in the water is extremely remote. Therefore, Shell‟s proposed activities are not expected to result in any cumulative impacts to socioeconomic resources affected by the Macondo spill, nor should they have any impact on the previously conducted cumulative impact analyses.

D. Environmental Hazards

D.1 Geologic Hazards

The shallow hazards assessment was conducted by C&C Technologies, Inc. (2009) and is included in the Initial DOCD. T he high

- resolution geophysic al survey consisted of frequency enhanced three

- dimensional seismic, enhanced surface renderings (ESRs), ESRs with amplitudes applied, and an autonomous underwater vehicle survey. According to the results of this survey, the wellsites are free of major ge ological hazards and are suitable for the proposed activities. Proposed wellsites in MC 762 and 807 will not interfere with the existing flowlines and umbilicals in the area. See DOCD Section 6a for supporting geological and geophysical information.

D.2 Severe Weather

Under most circumstances, weather is not expected to have any effect on the proposed activities. Extreme weather, including high winds, strong currents, and large waves, was considered in the design criteria for the drilling rig. High wind s and limited visibility during a severe storm could disrupt communication and support activities (vessel and helicopter traffic) and make it necessary to suspend some activities on the TLP and drilling rig for safety reasons until the storm or weather eve nt passes. In the event of a hurricane, procedures in Shell‟s Hurricane Evacuation Plan would be followed.

D.3 Currents and Waves

A rig

- based acoustic Doppler current profiler will be used to continuously monitor the current beneath the rig. Metocean con ditions such as sea states, wind speed, ocean currents, etc. will also be continuously monitored. Under most circumstances, physical oceanographic conditions are not expected to have any effect on the proposed activities. Strong currents (e.g., caused by Loop Current eddies and intrusions) and large waves were considered in the design criteria for the TLP and drilling rig. High waves during a severe storm could disrupt support activities (i.e., vessel and helicopter traffic) and make it necessary to susp end some activities on the TLP and drilling rig for safety reasons until the storm or weather event passes.

E. Alternatives

No formal alternatives were evaluated in this EIA. However, various technical and operational options, including the location of the wellsites and the selection of a drilling unit, were considered by Shell in developing the proposed action. There are no other reasonable alternatives to accomplish the goals of this project.F. Mitigation Measures

The proposed action includes numer ous mitigation measures required by laws, regulations, and BOEM lease stipulations and NTLs. The project will comply with applicable Federal, State, and local requirements concerning air pollutant emissions, discharges to water, and solid waste disposal. Project activities will be conducted under Shell‟s OSRP and will include the measures described in DOCD Section 2f . As specified previously, Shell‟s procedure “Waste Barrel Avoidance and Release Response in the Mississippi Canyon Area” is included in DOC D Section 6a. Finally, cooling water intake has been minimized by use of air cooling technologies on the platform.

G. Consultation

No persons or agencies were consulted regarding potential impacts associated with the proposed activities during the prepa ration of this EIA.

H. Preparers

The EIA was prepared at the direction of Shell Offshore Inc. by its contractor, CSA International, Inc. Contributors included the following:

 Sylvia Bellone (Regulatory Specialist, Shell Exploration & Production Co.);

 Tracy Albert (Regulatory Specialist, Offshore Technical Compliance, LLC);

 Lori Downs (Environmental Team Leader, Shell Exploration & Production Co.);

 Jeffrey McMenis (Environmental Engineer, Shell Exploration & Production Co.);

 Rob Kuehn (Staff Environment al Engineer, Shell Exploration & Production Co.);

 June Mire, Ph.D. (Senior Ecologist and Project Manager, Tetra Tech EM, Inc.);

 Derek Newberry (Mars B Business Opportunity Manager, Shell Exploration & Production Co .);

 Robert Sloan ( Mars B/West Boreas Subsurface Coordinator, Shell Exploration & Production Co .);

 Dougal Grant (Mars Geologist, Shell Exploration & Production Co.);

 Dubby Denham (Well Engineer, Shell Exploration & Production Co.);

 Kenyatta Miles (Project Engineer, Shell Int ernational Exploration and Production, Inc.);

 Cindy Chandool, Ph. D. (Senior Scientist, CSA International, Inc.);

 Carlyle Kalloo (Senior Scientist, CSA International, Inc.);

 John Thompson (Senior Scientist, CSA International, Inc.);

 Neal Phillips, Ph.D. (S enior Scientist, CSA International, Inc.);

 Deborah Fawcett (Project Scientist II, CSA International, Inc.);

 Stephen Viada (Senior Scientist, CSA International, Inc.);

 Keith VanGraafeiland (GIS/Remote Sensing Specialist, CSA International, Inc.); and

 Kim D unleavy (Technical Editor, CSA International, Inc.).

# I. References

Barkuloo, J.M. 1988. Report on the conservation status of the Gulf of Mexico sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish Wildlife Service, Panama City, FL. 33 pp. Bélanger, L. and J. Bédard. 1989. Responses of Staging Greater Snow Geese to Human Disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:713

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

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

- 049. Boehm, P., D. Turton, A. Raval, D. Caudle, D. French, N. Rabalais, R. Spies, and J. Johnson. 2001. Deepwater program: Literature review, environmental risks of chemical products used in Gulf
of Mexico deepwater oil and gas operations. Volume I: Technical report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA.

OCS Study MMS 2001

- 011. 326 pp.
Bromwich, M.R. 2010. Decision memorandum for the Secretary: Report regarding the current suspension of certain offshore permitting and drilling activities on the outer continental shelf. October 1, 2010. Bureau of Ocean Energy Regulation, Management and Enforcement, Washington, DC. Website accessed D ecember 2, 2011. http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=6470

3
Brooke, S., and W.W. Schroeder. 2007. State o f deep coral ecosystems in the Gulf of Mexico region: Texas to the Florida Straits, pp. 271

- 306. In: S.E. Lumsden, T.F. Hourigan, A.W. Bruckner, and

G. Dorr (eds.), The State of Deep Coral Ecosystems of the United States. NOAA Tech. Memo.

CRCP

- 3. Silve r Spring, MD. 365 pp. Brooks, J.M., C. Fisher, H. Roberts, B. Bernard, I. McDonald, R. Carney, S. Joye, E. Cordes, G. Wolff, and

E. Goehring. 2009. Investigations of chemosynthetic communities on the lower continental slope of the Gulf of Mexico: Interi m Report 2. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2009

- 046. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE). 2010. Federal &
Academic Scientists Re turn from Deep

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

- sea Corals. Press release dated 4 November 2010. Website accessed
December 2, 2011. http://www.boem re.gov/ooc/press/2010/press1104a.htm
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). 2011a. Site

- specific Environmental Assessment of Exploration Plan No. S

- 7445 for Shell Offshore Inc. Website accessed October 14, 2011. http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PI/PDFImages/PLANS/30/31453.pdf
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). 2011b. Grid EA and ROV survey status report. Website
accessed October 14, 2011. http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/ea_grid/ea_grid.asp
Camilli, R., C.M. Reddy, D.R. Yoerger, B.A.S. Van Mooy, M.V. Jakuba, J.C. Kinsey, C.P. McIntyre, S.P. Sylva,
and J.V. Maloney. 2 010. Tracking hydrocarbon plume transport and biodegradation at Deepwater Horizon . Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1195223.
C&C Technologies, Inc. 2009. Archaeological and Hazard Report, Blocks 762

- 763, 806

- 807, and Vicinity, Mississippi Canyon Area. Pro ject No. 083985

- 084126.
Carr, A. 1996. Suwannee River sturgeon, pp. 73

- 83. In: M.H. Carr (ed.), A Naturalist in Florida. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2010a. Deepwater Horizon response: NIOSH ongoi ng health hazard evaluation. Website accessed December 2, 2011; updated August 24 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/oilspillresponse/gulfspillhhe.html

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

- 0115. Interim Report #6A. 11 pp. Website accessed
December 2, 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/pdfs/interim_report_6.pdfClapp, R.B., R.C. Banks, D. Morgan

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

- 82/01. 637 pp.
Clapp, R.B., D. Morgan

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

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

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

- 83/30. 853 pp.
Collard, S.B. and C. Way. 1997. Chapter 5

– The biological environment. In: Science Applications International Corporation (ed.), Northeastern Gulf of Mexico Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Program: Data Search and Synthesis; Synthesis Report. U.S. Department of the Interior,

U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division and Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. USGS/BRD/CR

- 1997

- 0 005. OCS Study MMS 96

- 0014.

313 pp. Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1997. Characterization and trends of recreational and commercial fishing from the Florida Panhandle. U.S. Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Re gion, New Orleans, LA. USGS/BRD/CR

- 1997

- 0001 and OCS Study

MMS 97

- 0020. 333 pp. Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2002. Deepwater Program: Bluewater fishing and OCS activity, interactions between the fishing and petroleum industries in deepwaters of t he Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region,

New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2002

- 078. Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2006. Effects of oil and gas exploration and development at selected continental slope sites in the Gulf of Mexico. Volume II: Technical report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA.

OCS Study MMS 2006

- 045.

Cruz

- Kaegi, M.E. 1998. Latitudinal variation s in biomass and metabolism of benthic infaunal
communities. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
CSA International, Inc. 2007. Characterization of northern Gulf of Mexico deepwater hard

- bottom communities with emphasis on Lop helia coral. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2007

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

- cent ral and western Gulf of Mexico: Final report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service,
Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. Website accessed December 2, 2011. http://www.getcited .org/pub/100201353
Davis, R.W., J.G. Ortega

- Ortiz, C.A. Ribic, W.E. Evans, D.C. Biggs, P.H. Ressler, J.H. Wormuth, R.R. Leben, K.D. Mullin, and B. Würsig. 2000. Cetacean habitat in the northern Gulf of Mexico, pp.

217

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

- 1999

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

- 003. 346 pp. Website
accessed December 2, 2011. http://www.tamug.edu/marb/davisdocs/Deep

Sea%20Res%202001%20Davis%20etal.pdf
Ditty, J.G. 1986. Ichthyoplankton in neretic waters of the northern Gulf of Mexico off Louisiana: Composition, relative abundance, and seasonality. Fish. Bull. 84(4):935

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

- 823. Efroymson, R.A., W.H. Rose, S. Nemeth, and G.W. Suter II. 2000. E cological risk assessment framework for low altitude overflights by fixed

- wing and rotary

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

- 2000/289: ES

- 5048.ESRI. 2010. Gulf of Mexico oil spill: Timeline map. ESR I. 2010. Gulf of Mexico oil spill: Timeline map. Website accessed December 2, 2011. http://demos4.esri.com/GulfOilSpillViewer/index.html
Fertl, D., A. Schiro, G. Regan, C. Beck, N. Adim ey, L. Price

- May, A. Amos, G. Wother, and R. Crossland.
2005. Manatee occurrence in the Northern Gulf of Mexico west of Florida. Gulf and Caribbean
Research 17: 69

- 94. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2011. Florida's endangered speci es, threatened species, and species of special concern. Website accessed December 2, 2011. http://myfwc.com/media/1515251/Threatened_Endangered_Species.pdf

Fox, D.A., J.E. H ightower, and F.M. Paruka. 2000. Gulf sturgeon spawning migration and habitat in the Choctawhatchee River system, Alabama

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

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

- 81/36.
Gallaway, B.J., J.G. Cole, and R.G. Fechhelm. 2003. Selected Aspects of the Ecology of the Continental
Sl ope Fauna of the Gulf of Mexico: A Synopsis of the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Slope Study, 1983

- 1988 . U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2003

- 072.
Geraci, J. R. , and D.J. St. Aubin. 1985. Expanded Study of the Effects of Oil on Cetaceans, Final Report, Part I. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC by the University of Guelph, Ontario. Contract No. 14

- 12

- 00 01

- 29169. Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1987. Effects of offshore oil and gas development on marine mammals and turtles, pp. 587

- 617. In: D.F. Boesch and N.N. Rabalais (eds.), Long Term Environmental Effects of Offshore Oil and Gas Development. Else vier Applied Science Publ. Ltd., London and
New York.
Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1990. Sea Mammals and Oil: Confronting the Risks. Academic Press,

San Diego, CA. 239 pp. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 2005. Generic Amendment Number 3 for addressing Essential Fish Habitat Requirements, Habitat Areas of Particular Concern, and adverse effects of fishing in the following Fishery Management Plans of the Gulf of Mexico: Shrimp fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States waters re d drum fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, reef fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico coastal migratory pelagic resources (mackerels) in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, stone crab fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, spiny lobster
in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, coral and coral reefs of the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, FL.
Hazen, T.C., E.A. Dubinsky, T.Z. DeSantis, G.L. Andersen, Y.M. Piceno, N. Singh, J.K. Jansson, A. Probst,

S.E. Borglin, J.L. Fortney, W.T. Stringf ellow, M. Bill, M.S. Conrad, L.M. Tom, K.L. Chavarria,

T.R. Alusi, R. Lamendella, D.C. Joyner, C. Spier, J. Baelum, M. Auer, M.L. Zemla, R. Chakraborty, E.L. Sonnenthal, P. D’haeseleer, H.N. Holman, S. Osman, Z. Lu, J.D. Van Nostrand, Y. Deng,

J. Zhou, and O.U. Mason. 2010. Deep

- sea oil plume enriches indigenous oil

- degrading bacteria.

Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1195979.
Hess, N.A. and C.A. Ribic. 2000. Seabird ecology, pp. 275

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

- 1999

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

MMS 2000

- 003. 346 pp. Higashi, G.R. 1994. Ten years of fish aggregating device (FAD) design and development in Hawaii. Bull.

Mar. Sci. 55(2

- 3):651

- 666.
Holand, P. 1997. Offsho re Blowouts: Causes and Control. Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, TX.

ISBN 0884155145. Holland, K.R., R.W. Brill, and R.K.C. Chang. 1990. Horizontal and vertical movements of yellowfin and bigeye tuna associated with fish aggregating devices. Fish. Bull. 88:493

- 507.IEM. 2010. A Study of the Economic Impact of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Prepared for Greater

New Orleans, Inc. October 2010. Website accessed December 2, 2011. http://gnoinc.org/file_download/141/Economic%20Impact%20Study,%20Part%20I%20

- %20Full%20Report.pdf
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007 . Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland. 104 pp.

International Association of Oil & Gas Producers. 2010 . Risk assessment data directory: Blowout frequencies. IAGP Report No. 434

- 2. March 2010. Website accessed December 2, 2011. http://www.ogp.org.uk/pubs/434

- 02.pdf

Ji, Z

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

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

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

- Bird, D. Engelhaupt, J. Gordon, C. Hu, N. Jaquet, M. Johnson, R. Leben,

B. Mate, P. Miller, J. Ortega

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

- 006.

341 pp. Joint Analysis Group. 2010a. Joint Analysis Group (JAG) review of preliminary data to examine subsurface oil in the vicinity of MC252#1 May 19 to June 19, 2010. Website accessed
December 2, 2011. http://gomex.erma.noaa.gov/layerfiles/7229/files/JAG_Data_Report_2_Subsurface%20Oil_Fin
al .pdf Joint Analysis Group. 2010b. Joint Analysis Group (JAG) review of R/V Brooks McCall data to examine
subsurface oil. Website accessed December 2, 2011. http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/JAG/files/JAG%20Report%20Brooks%20McCall%20final.pdf
Joint Analysis Group. 2010c. Joint Analysis Group (JAG) review of preliminary data to examine oxygen levels in the vicinity of MC252#1 May 8 to August 9, 2010. Website accessed
December 2, 2011. http://www.noaa.gov/sciencemissions/PDFs/JAG_Oxygen_Report%20%28FINAL%20090410%2 9.pdf
Joye, S.B., I.R. MacDonald, I. Leifer, and V. Asper. 2011. Magnitude and oxidation potential of hydrocarbon gases released from the BP oil well blowout. Nature Geoscience 4: 160

- 164.
Website accessed December 2, 2011.
ht tp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n3/full/ngeo1067.html

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

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

- 049.
Kessler, J.D., D.L. Valentine, M.C. Redmond, M. Du, E.W. Chan, S.D. Mendes, E.W. Qui roz, C.J. Villanueva,

S.S. Shusta, L.M. Werra, S.A. Yvon

- Lewis, and T.C. Weber. 2011. A persistent oxygen anomaly reveals the fate of spilled methane in the deep Gulf of Mexico. Science 331: 312

- 315

. Kujawinski, E.B., M.C. Kido Soule, D.L. Valentine, A.K. Boysen, K. Longnecker, and M.C. Redmond. 2011. Fate of dispersants associated with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45(4): 1298

- 1306

. Lohoefener, R., W. Hoggard, K. Mullin, C. Roden, and C. Rogers. 1990. Association of sea turtles with petroleum platforms in the north

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

MMS 90

- 0025. 90 pp. Lutcavage, M.E., P.L. Lutz, G.D. Bossart, and D.M. Hudson. 1995. Physiologic and clinicopat hologic effects of crude oil on loggerhead sea turtles. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 28:417

- 422. Lutcavage, M.E., P. Plotkin, B. Witherington, and P.L. Lutz. 1997. Human impacts on sea turtle survival,

pps. 387

- 409. In: Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick (e ds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press,

Boca Raton, FL.MacDonald, I.R. (ed.). 2002. Stability and Change in Gulf of Mexico Chemosynthetic Communities.
Volume II: Technical Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service,
Gul f of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2002

- 036. 456 pp. Marine Mammal Commission (MMC). 2011. Assessing the long

- term effects of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill on marine mammals in the Gulf of Mexico: A statement of research needs.
Website accessed December 2, 2011. http://www.mmc.gov/reports/workshop/pdf/longterm_effects_bp_oilspil.pdf
Minerals Management Service (MMS). 2000. Gulf of Mexico De epwater Operations and Activities: Environmental Assessment. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service,
Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2000

- 001. Minerals Management Service (MMS). 2003. Programmatic Enviro nmental Assessment for Grid 13.

Site

- Specific Evaluation of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation’s Initial Development Operations
Coordination Document N

- 7753 . Marco Polo Project, Green Canyon Block 608.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Se rvice, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2003

- 067. Minerals Management Service (MMS). 2007a. Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program:

2007

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

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

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

- 018. April 2007. Minerals Management Service (MMS). 2008a. Archaeo logy Survey Blocks. Website accessed December 2, 2011. http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/archaeological/surveyblocks.pdf
Minerals Managemen t Service (MMS). 2008b. Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2009

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

2008

- 041. September 2008. Minerals Management Service (MMS). 2010. OCS Regulatory Framework for the Gulf of Mexico Region.

U.S. Department of the Interio r, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region,

New Orleans, LA. OCS Report 2010

- 019. May 2010. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks. 2011. Mississippi’s species of greatest conservation need by ecoregion. Website accesse d December 2, 2011. http://www.mdwfp.com/homelinks/more/Final/Appendix%208.pdf
Morrow, J.V., Jr., J.P. Kirk, K.J. Killgore, H. Rugillio, and C. Knight. 1998. Status and recovery of Gulf sturgeon in the Pearl River system, Louisiana

- Mississippi. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 18:798

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

- central Gulf of Mexico. OCS Study/MMS 910027.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Regional Office, New Orleans, LA. 108 pp.
Mullin, K.D. 2007. Abundance of cetaceans in the oceanic Gulf of Mexico bas ed on 2003

- 2004 ship surveys. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Pascagoula, MS. 26 pp. Myers, G.N. 2011. A year after BP oil spill, Gulf Coast reporting tourism rebound. Travel Weekly. The
National Newspaper of the Travel Industry. Posted on July 5, 2011.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2007. Endangered Species Act, Section 7 Consultation

– Biological Opinion. Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Activities: Five

- Year Leasing Plan for Western and Central Planning Areas 2007

- 2012. 29 June 2007.National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009. Final Amendment 1 to the Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan Essential Fish Habitat. Highly Migratory Species Managem ent Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Silver Spring, MD. June 2009.
Website accessed December 2, 2011. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/EFH/Final/FEIS_Amendment_T otal.pdf
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010a. Final recovery plan for the sperm whale ( Physeter macrocephalus ). Silver Spring, MD. 165 pp. Website accessed December 2, 2011. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/final_sperm_whale_recovery_plan_21dec.pdf
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010b. Sea turtles, dolphins, and whales and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Website accessed D ecember 2, 2011; updated September 12, 2011. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/oilspill.htm
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010c. Gulf sturgeon ( Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi ).

We bsite accessed December 2, 2011. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/gulfsturgeon.htm National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010d. Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill: size and percent coverage of fishing area closures due to BP oil spill. Website accessed December 2, 2011; updated April 29, 2011 http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/ClosureSizeandPercentCoverage.htm
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010e. Impacts of oil on marine mammals and sea turtles.
Website accessed December 13, 2011. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/health/oil_impa cts.pdf
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and SEMARNAT.

2011. Bi

- National Recovery Plan for the Kemp‘s Ridley Sea Turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii ), Second
Revision. National Marine Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, MD. Website accessed
December 2, 2011. http://www.fws.gov/kempsridley/Finals/kempsridley_revision2.pdf
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2006. Fact Sheet: Small Diesel Spills (500

- 5,000 gallons). NOAA Scientific Support Team, Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA. 2 pp. National Park Service (NPS). 2010. Bret on Wilderness 300 km Radius. Website accessed
December 2, 2011. http://www.fws.gov/refuges/AirQuality/docs/Breton_WA300km.pdf
National Research Council (NRC). 2003. Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 182 pp. + app.
Nowlin, W.D., Jr., A.E. Jochens, S.F. DiMarco, R.O. Reid, and M.K. Howard. 2001. Deepwater Physical Oceanography Reanalysis and Synthesis of Historical Data: Synthesis Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2001

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

- surf ace and sub

- sea oil and dispersant detection: Sampling and monitoring. Prepared for Paul F. Zukunft, U.S. Coast Guard
Federal On

- Scene Coordinator, Deepwater Horizon MC252. December 17, 2010. Website
accessed December 2, 2011. http://www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/OSAT_Report_FINAL_17DEC .pdf
Oxford Economics. 2010. Potential impact of the Gulf oil spill on tourism. Repor t prepared for the

U.S. Travel Association. Website accessed December 2, 2011. http://www.ustravel.org/sites/default/files/page/2009/1 1/Gulf_Oil_Spill_Analysis_Oxford_Economi cs_710.pdf
Peake, D.E. 1996. Bird surveys, pp. 271

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

- central and western Gulf of Mexico, Final report. Volume

II: Te chnical report. Prepared by the Texas Institute of Oceanography and the National Marine Fisheries Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region Office, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 96

- 0027. 357 pp.

P oot, H., B.J. Ens, H. de Vries, M.A.H. Donners, M.R. Wernand, and J.M. Marquenie. 2008. Green light for nocturnally migrating birds. Ecology and Society 13 (2):47. Website accessed
December 2, 2011. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art47/Powers, K. 1987. Seabirds, pp. 194

- 201. In: J.D. Milliman and W.R. Wright (eds.), The Marine Environment of the U.S. Atlantic Continental Slope and Rise. Jones and Bartlett Publ., Inc. Boston/Woods Hole, MA. 275 pp.
Rathbun, G.B. 1988. Fixed

- wing airplane versus helicopter surveys of manatees. Mar. Mamm.

Sci. 4(1):71

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

Sci. 55(2

- 3):1,099

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

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

- v. Reun. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer. 191:169

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

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

- Powered Boats. Conservation Biology 16:216

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

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

- 009. 348 pp. Salmon, M., and J. Wyneken. 1990. Do swimming loggerhead sea turtles ( Care tta caretta ) use light cues for offshore orientation? Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology 17(4): 233

- 246. Sea Turtle Restoration Project. 2011. Kemp’s ridley protection campaign. Website accessed October 14,

2011. http://www.seaturtles.org/article.php?list=type&type=41

Share the Beach. 2010. Nesting season statistics. Website accessed October 14, 2011. http://www.alabamaseaturtles.com/nesting

- season

- statistics/

Shell. 2011. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Website accessed December 2, 2011. http://www.shell.com/home/content/environment_society/environment/climate_change/greenhouse_gas_e missions/
Smultea, M.A., J.R. Mobley, Jr., D. Fertl, and G.L. Fulling. 2008. An unusual reaction and other observations of sperm whales near fixed w ing aircraft. Gulf and Caribbean Research 20:75

- 80.
Solomon, G.M. and S. Janssen. 2010. Health Effects of the Gulf Oil Spill. Journal of the American
Medical Association. Website accessed December 2, 2011. http://www.asquifyde.es/uploads/documentos/Health

- Effects

- of

- the

- Gulf

- Oil

- Spill.pdf
Sulak, K.J. and J.P. Clugston. 1998. Early life history stages of Gulf sturgeon in the Suwannee River,
Florida. Tra ns. Am. Fish. Soc. 127:758

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

- 316. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2010. EPA response to BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Website accessed December 2, 2011. http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011. The green book nonattainment areas for criteria pollutants. Website accessed November 22, 2011. http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Florida man atee recovery plan ( Trichechus manatus
latirostris ), Third Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Recovery plan for the Great Lakes Piping Plover ( Charadrius melodus ). Fort Snelling, Minnesota. September 2003. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. International Recovery Plan: Whooping Crane ( Grus americana ), Third Revision. Albuquerque, New Mexico. March 2007.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010a. All about Piping Plovers. Website accessed October 14,

2011. http://www.fws.gov/plover/facts.htmlU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010b. FWS Deepwater Horizon oil spill response. Website
accessed December 2, 2011. http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/DHBirdsOfTheGulf.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010c. Species information, threatened and endangered

anim als and plants. Website accessed December 2, 2011; updated December 1, 2011. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010d. Weekly bird impact data and consolidated wildlife

re ports. Website accessed December 2, 2011; updated June 2, 2011. http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/collectionreports.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010e. Effects of oil on wildlife and habitat. Website accessed
December 2, 2011. http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/DHJICFWSOilImpactsWildlifeFactSheet.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wi ldlife Service (USFWS). 2011. FWS Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Response. Bird Impact Data and Consolidated Wildlife Reports. Deepwater Horizon Bird Impact Data from the
DOI‐ERDC NRDA Database 12 May 2011

. Website accessed 10 October 2011. Website

acce ssed December 2, 2011. http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/Bird%20Data%20Species%20Spreadsheet%2005122 011.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1995. Gulf Sturgeon Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 170 pp. Website accessed December 2, 2011. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recove ry/sturgeon_gulf.pdf
U.S. Travel Association. 2010. Roadmap to Recovery: A Plan to Accelerate Economic Recovery in the Gulf Coast and Future Disaster Areas. Washington, DC. Website accessed December 2, 2011. http://www.ustravel.org/sites/default/files/page/2009/11/Oil_Recovery_Roadmap_710.PDF
Wakeford, A. 2001. State of Florida conservation plan for Gulf sturgeon ( Acipencer oxyrinchus desotoi ).
Florid a Marine Research Institute Technical Report TR

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

- Foley, and P.E. Rosel (eds.). 2009. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
marine mammal stock assessments

– 2009. NOAA Technical Memo. NMFS NE 213. 528 pp. Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership (WCEP). 2010. About Whooping Cranes and their recovery.
Website accessed December 2, 2011; updated October 13, 2010. http://www.bringbackthec ranes.org/recovery/index.html

Wei, C

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

- sea macrobenthos in the northern Gulf of Mexico. M.S. thesis, Texas A&M University. Website accessed
December 2, 2011. http://repository.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/4927
Wiese, F.K., W.A. Montevecchi, G.K. Davoren, F. Huettmann, A.W. Diamond, and J. Linke. 2001. Seabirds at risk around offshore oil platforms in the north

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

- 1,290. Wilson, J. 2003. Manatees in Louisiana. Louisiana Conservationist. July/August 2003, pp. 4

- 7. Website
accessed December 2, 2011. http://www.lamer.l su.edu/pdfs/Manatees_LaConservArticle.pdf
Witherington, B.E. 1997. The problem of photopollution for sea turtles and other nocturnal animals,

pp. 303

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

- 50. Würsig, B., T.A. Jefferson, and D.J. Schmidly. 2000. The Marine Mammals of the Gulf of Mexico. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX. 232 pp.SECTION 19: ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

A. Exempted Information Description (Public Information Copies Only)

The following attachments were excluded from the public information copies of this plan:

1b. OCS Plan Information form

– Bottom hole locations & proposed total depth 2c. Production Information 2j. Worst Case Discharge Information
4b. H 2 S Classification Information
5. Mineral Resource Conservation information

– proposed formation information

B. Bibliography

Fugro

- McClelland H azards R eport #1188

- 1062 dated April 26, 1988. Fugro

- McClelland S hallow H azards report #0201

- 1387 dated April 20. GEMS, Report #0403

- 643 dated August 26, 2003, “ Geologic and Stratigraphic Assessment Block 762

, OCS

- G 7957 Mississippi Canyon Area, Gulf of Mex ico. ” Seafloor investigation is based on the C&C report number 083985

- 084126

, Archaeological and Hazard Report, Blocks 762

- 763, 806

- 807,and Vicinity, Mississippi Canyon Area, dated June 2009.