De Soto Canyon Block 178March 2013Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration PlanPage 2Figure 1. Location of De Soto Canyon Block 178.

# Coastal Zone Management Consistency Statements for the States of Louisiana, Florida & Alabama

Attachment Q (Public Information)

# Coastal Zone Management Consistency Enforceable
Policies for the States of Florida & Alabama

Attachment R (Public Information)De Soto Canyon Block 178 – Initial Exploration Plan Page 1 Murphy Exploration & Production Company - USA 

# COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

STATE OF FLORIDA ENFORCEABLE POLICIES

Murphy Exploration & Production Company - USA

Initial Exploration Plan

Lease OCS-G 25850 De Soto Canyon Block 178

“Titan Prospect”De Soto Canyon Block 178 – Initial Exploration Plan Page 2 Murphy Exploration & Production Company - USA 

### STATE OF FLORIDA
COASTAL ZONE CONSISTENCY POLICIES

Chapter 161 – Beach and Shore Preservation

The coastal waters of the State of Florida are considered among the most valuable natural, aesthetic, and economic resources and that they protect and provide habitat for a variety of plant and animal life.

The State is required to protect beach and dune systems from imprudent activities that could weaken, damage, or destroy the integrity of the system. The coastal sediments must also be managed to reduce erosion; and the critically eroding beaches must be maintained and/or restored. The State also designates coastal area s used, or likely to be used, by sea turtles for nesting, and prohibits the removal of vegetable cover that binds sand.

The offshore activities to be conducted in De Soto Canyon Block 178 are located approximately 107 miles from the nearest Sta te of Florida coastal shoreline; whereas the onshore support operations will be conducted from an existing infrastructure located in Fourchon, Louisiana. Murphy Explorati on & Production Company - USA (Murphy) does not anticipate the need for expansion of this existing infrastructure since the proposed activities are temporary in nature. If produ ctive results are obtained, a Development and Production Plan would be prepared, and suc h a need for new and/or expansion of an
onshore infrastructure will be reviewed.

The onshore support and offshore activities should not have an impact on the coastal areas of the State of Florida. The transporta tion modes from the onshore support base in Fourchon, Louisiana to De Soto Canyon Block 17 8 will be in excess of 145 miles from the
coastal shoreline in Louisiana and 107 miles from the coastal shoreline in Florida. In the event of an unanticipated blowou t resulting in an oil spill, it is unlikely to have an impact based on the industry wide standards for usi ng proven equipment and technology for such responses, implementation of our Sub-Regi onal Oil Spill Response Plan which address available equipment and personnel, techniques for containment and recovery, and removal of the oil spill.

The precautions addressed in Murphy’s stan dard safety and environmental operating procedures and our Sub-Regional Oil Spill Res ponse Plan are considered consistent with the State of Florida policies for protecting beach and shore preservation.

Chapter 252 – Emergency Management

The State is directed to reduce the vulnerabili ty of its people and property to natural and manmade disasters; prepare for, respond to, and reduce the impacts of natural and manmade disasters; and decrease the time and resour ces needed to recover from disasters.

Disaster mitigation is necessary to ensure th e common defense of Floridians’ lives and to protect the public peace, health and safety. Th e policies in this chapter provide the means toDe Soto Canyon Block 178 – Initial Exploration Plan Page 3 Murphy Exploration & Production Company - USA 

### assist in the prevention or mitigation of emerge ncies that may be caused or aggravated by the inadequate planning or regulation of facilities an d land uses. State agencies are directed to keep land uses and facility construction under continuing study and identify areas that are particularly susceptible to natural or manmade catastrophic occurrences.

The proposed activities do not involve any n ew construction or operations of any facilities
within the State of Florida.

In the event of an unanticipated blowout resulting in an oil spill, it is unlikely to have an impact based on the industry wide standards for using proven equipment and technology for such responses, implementation of our Sub-Regi onal Oil Spill Response Plan which address available equipment and personnel, techniques for containment and recovery, and removal of the oil spill.

The precautions addressed in Murphy’s stan dard safety and environmental operating procedures and our Sub-Regional Oil Spill Res ponse Plan are considered consistent with the State of Florida policies on preparing for and responding to emergency management for the people and resources of the state.

Chapter 253 – State Lands

This chapter defines the state-owned and st ate-managed lands and grants authority to acquire and lease lands, and to grant rights-of-ways and easements. The enforceable policies guide the management of state-owned and so vereign submerged lands and property by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Trustees). Lands acquired for preservation, conservation, and recreation serve the public interest by contributing to the public health, welfare, and economy. In carry ing out the requirements of this statue, the Trustees are directed to take necessary action to fully conserve and protect state lands, maintain natural conditions, protect and enhance natural areas and ecosystems, prevent damage and depredation, and preserve arch aeological and historical resources. All submerged lands are considered single-use lands to be maintained in natural condition for the propagation of fish and wildlife and public recreation. Where multiple uses are permitted, ecosystem integrity, recreational bene fits, and wildlife values are conserved and protected.

In order to conduct the proposed offshore a ctivities in De Soto Canyon Block 178 and onshore support activities in Fourchon, Louisian a; Murphy does not an ticipate the need to acquire any rights-of-way and/or easements across Florida state-owned lands. The support
related activities will take the most direct rou te from Fourchon, Louisiana; thereby avoiding any usage of the state-owned lands.

In the event of an unanticipated blowout resulting in an oil spill, it is unlikely to have an impact based on the industry wide standards for using proven equipment and technology for such responses, implementation of our Sub-Regi onal Oil Spill Response Plan which address available equipment and personnel, techniques for containment and recovery, and removal of the oil spill.De Soto Canyon Block 178 – Initial Exploration Plan Page 4 Murphy Exploration & Production Company - USA 

### The precautions addressed in Murphy’s stan dard safety and environmental operating procedures and our Sub-Regional Oil Spill Res ponse Plan are considered consistent with the State of Florida policies on protection of state-owned lands.

Chapter 258 – State Pa rks and Preserves

State parks and preserves are acquired to exemp lify the state’s natural values and to ensure
that these values are conserved for all time . Parks and preserves are managed for the nondepleting use, enjoyment, and benefit of Florid ians and visitors, and to contribute to the State’s tourist appeal. Aquatic preserves are recognized as having exceptions biological, aesthetic, and scientific value and are set as ide for the benefit of future generations. Disruptive physical activities and polluting discharges are highly restricted in aquatic preserves. State managed wildlife, and scenic rivers possess exceptionally remarkable and unique ecological, fish and wildlife, and recreational values, and are designated for permanent preservation and enhancement for both the present and future.

This chapter specifies limitations on dred ge-and-fill operations, overboard discharges, erection of structures, and drilling activities for oil and gas within aquatic preserves.

The proposed activities will take place in wa ter depths in excess of 6500 feet, and will not involve any dredge-and-fill operations. Only authorized effluents will be discharged overboard, as regulated by Region IV of the EP A; subject to certain limitations, prohibitions and recordkeeping. Such discharges will occur at a distance in excess of 107 miles from the coastal inland area and should not impact th e state parks, preserves and/or recreational areas. In the event of an unanticipated blowout resulting in an oil spill, it is unlikely to have an impact based on the industry wide standard s for using proven equipment and technology for such responses, implementation of our Sub-Regional Oil Spill Response Plan which address available equipment and personnel, techniques for containment and recovery, and removal of the oil spill.

The precautions addressed in Murphy’s stan dard safety and environmental operating procedures and our Sub-Regional Oil Spill Res ponse Plan are considered consistent with the State of Florida policies on preserving an d protecting state parks and preserves.

Chapter 259 – Land Acquisitions for Conservation or Recreation

This chapter discusses the “Land Conservation A ct” and the acquisition of lands or water areas for preservation, conservation, and recrea tional purposes. The chapter also indicates an area is of special importance to the State if it involves an endangered or natural resource in imminent danger of development, is of uni que value to the State, will result in irreparable loss to the State, or will impair the State’s ability to manage or protect other state-owned lands. The policies guide the acquisition and management of lands to conserve and maintain the State’s unique natural resources, protect en vironmental quality, and provide recreation opportunities for the benefit of future generation s. Florida’s legislature and citizens have made a tremendous financial commitment to long -term land acquisitions that will preserve and restore unique ecosystems, habitats, water resources, and recreational lands.De Soto Canyon Block 178 – Initial Exploration Plan Page 5 Murphy Exploration & Production Company - USA 

### Murphy will be using the existing onshore su pport infrastructure located in Fourchon, Louisiana; and as such does not anticipate a need for new development, construction, dredging or filling activities on Florida’s lands or waters. All discharges associated with the proposed activities will be regulated by both the Bureau of Ocean Energy Managements/Bureau of Safety and Envi ronmental Enforcement and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for projected air emissions and overboard discharges associated with the proposed activities. Such releases and discharges will occur in excess of 94 miles from the nearest Florida shoreline, and will not have any impact on Florida lands being acquired or managed for preservation, conservation, or recreational purposes.

In the event of an unanticipated blowout resulting in an oil spill, it is unlikely to have an impact based on the industry wide standards for using proven equipment and technology for such responses, implementation of our Sub-Regi onal Oil Spill Response Plan which address available equipment and personnel, techniques for containment and recovery, and removal of the oil spill.

The precautions addressed in Murphy’s stan dard safety and environmental operating procedures and our Sub-Regional Oil Spill Res ponse Plan are considered consistent with the state’s enforceable policies of lands to conser ve and maintain the State’s unique natural resources, protection of environmental quality, and providing recreational opportunities.

Chapter 260 – Recreational Trails System

This chapter discusses the “Florida Greenways and Trails Act” and the State policies to conserve, develop and use its natural resources for healthful and recreational purposes by the establishment of a “Florida Greenways and Trails System”. This System serves to provide recreational opportunities, including canoeing, jogging, and historical and archaeological interpretation, by acquiring designated lands and waterways for open space to benefit environmentally sensitive lands and wildlife.

Murphy will be using the existing onshore su pport infrastructure located in Fourchon, Louisiana; and as such does not anticipate a need for new development, construction, dredging or filling activities on Florida’s lands or waters. All travel routes to and from the onshore support base and the offshore locations in De Soto Canyon Block 178 will avoid any recreational trail systems established by the State of Florida.

Therefore, the activities proposed in the Joint Initial Explorati on Plan are consistent with the enforceable policies of this chapter.

Chapter 267 – Archives, History, and Records Management

This chapter discusses the “Florida Historical Resources Act,” the State policy to locate, inventory, and evaluate historical propertie s, and the preservation by the Division of Historical Resources of all historical proper ty, including sunken or abandoned ships with intrinsic, historical, or archaeological value. The enforceable policies recognize the State’s rich and unique heritage of historic resources and direct the State to locate, acquire, protect, preserve, operate, and interpret historic and ar chaeological resources for the benefit ofDe Soto Canyon Block 178 – Initial Exploration Plan Page 6 Murphy Exploration & Production Company - USA 

### current and future generations of Floridians. Ob jects or artifacts with intrinsic historic or archaeological value located on, or aband oned on, state-owned lands or state-owned submerged lands belong to the citizens of th e State. The Act operates in conjunction with
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 to require State and Federal agencies to
consider the effect of their direct or indirect a ctions on historic and archaeological resources. These resources cannot be destroyed or altered unless no prudent alternative exists. Unavoidable impacts must be mitigated.

Murphy contracted Geoscience Earth and Marine Services, Inc. to evaluate 3-D data for the purpose of identifying potential shallow ha zards associated with the proposed surface locations provided in the Initial Exploration Plan.

De Soto Canyon Block 178 is not located within an area identified by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Managements/Bureau of Safety and Envi ronmental Enforcement as having potential for historic and/or prehistoric cultural resources.

The wellsite location clearance assessments, includ ed in the Initial Exploration Plan, confirm
there are no manmade facilities and seafloor obstructions within the surveyed areas. Therefore, the proposed activities should not impact any objects or artifacts with intrinsic historic or pre-historic value. However, in the event such objects or artifacts are uncovered as a result of the proposed activities, Murphy will cease operations and provide immediate
notification to the Bureau of Ocean En ergy Managements/Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement.

Therefore, the activities proposed in the Init ial Exploration Plan are consistent with the enforceable policies of this chapter.

Chapter 288 – Commercial Developm ent and Capital Improvements

This chapter discusses the enforceable policies to promote and develop the general business, trade, and tourism components of the State economy. The policies include requirements to protect and promote the natural, coastal, historic al, and cultural tourism assets of the State; foster the development of nature-based tourism and recreation; and upgrade the image of Florida as a quality destination. Natural reso urce-based tourism and recreational activities are critical sectors of Florida’s economy. Th e needs of the environment must be balance with the need for growth and economic development.

As Murphy will be using the existing onshore support infrastructure in Fourchon, Louisiana; we do not anticipate the need for activities to be conducted in Florida which would affect the general business, trade, or tourism compone nts of the State economy . The most direct traffic routes for support vessels from Louisian a to De Soto Canyon Bl ock 178. Therefore,
no Florida water routes will be utilized.

The authorized overboard discharges attrib utable to the proposed activities will be temporary in nature, and will be localized in the vicinity of the surface location for each proposed well; which should not impact Florida lands or waters. Disposal of trash and debris into the receiving waters is strictl y prohibited by the Bureau of Ocean EnergyDe Soto Canyon Block 178 – Initial Exploration Plan Page 7 Murphy Exploration & Production Company - USA 

### Managements/Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, US Environmental Protection Agency and the US Coast Guard. In the event of an unanticipated blowout resulting in an oil spill, it is unlikely to have an impact based on the industry wide standardsfor using proven equipment and technology for such responses, implementation of our SubRegional Oil Spill Response Plan which address available equipment and personnel, techniques for containment and recovery , and removal of the oil spill.

The precautions addressed in Murphy’s stan dard safety and environmental operating procedures and our Sub-Regional Oil Spill Res ponse Plan are considered consistent with the state’s enforceable policies to promote and develop the general business, trade, and tourism components of the State’s economy.

Chapter 370 – Saltwater Fisheries

This chapter addresses the enforceable policies directed by the State to conserve and manage its renewable marine fishery resources throug h the protection and management of marine habitat and saltwater fisheries. The paramo unt conservation and management objective is the continuing health and abundance of the re source. Best available information must be used to manage and protect the State’s marine cr ustacean, shell, and finfish resources and to regulate the commercial and recreational use of the State’s saltwater fisheries to ensure optimum sustained benefits to the people of the State.

The authorized effluents to be discharged during the proposed drilling operations may temporarily affect water quality in the immediate vicinity of each discharge point associated with each well location. Water quality is exp ected to return to normal in the area following the cessation of operations.

Discharges of water-based drilling muds and cuttings will produce te mporary, localized increases in suspended solids and barium in the water column around the drilling rig. In general, turbid water can be expected to extend between a few hundred meters and several kilometers down current from the discharge point.

During well intervals when synthetic-based mud (SBM) is used, it will not be discharged. However, cuttings would be discharged, and they would include some adhering SBM. The SBM retention on cuttings will comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. After di scharges, synthetic mud retained on cuttings would be expected to tightly adhere to the cu ttings particles and consequently would not produce much turbidity as the cuttings sink through the water column. Minimal impacts on water quality are anticipated.

Other minor authorized effluents discharged overboard may include sanitary and domestic waste, deck drainage from the dynamically positioned semi-submersible, uncontaminated seawater for cooling machinery, and desalination brine. Such discharges may case localized, short-term impacts on water quality near the disc harge points for each well location. There is a very low probability that a diesel spill ma y occur while conducting transfer operations from the supply vessel to the MODU. Murphy’s Sub-Regional Oil Spill Response Plan discusses any potential impacts fr om these types of spills on Florida’s coastal zone. ThisDe Soto Canyon Block 178 – Initial Exploration Plan Page 8 Murphy Exploration & Production Company - USA 

### Plan also describes response actions for speci fic hypothetical spill events, provisions and approvals required for the use of dispersants by boat or aerial application, provisions for inspection and maintenance of response equi pment, required spill management team tabletop exercises, procedures for spill notific ation to government agencies, inventories of locally and nationally available response equi pment, waste disposal methods and site, and procedures for monitoring and predicting spill movement.

As discussed in the Initial Exploration Plan , Murphy will be utilizing a dynamically positioned drillship for the proposed activities. This vessel will be equipped with equipment and technology for well control and blowout prev ention as a preventative measure for the safety of personnel and protection of the environm ent. If a blowout should occur, which results in an oil spill, Murphy’s Sub-Regional Oil Spill Response Plan addresses the processed for containment, recovery, and removal of the spill liquid hydrocarbons.

The precautions addressed in Murphy’s standard safety and environmental operating procedures and our Sub-Regional Oil Spill Res ponse Plan are considered consistent with the state’s enforceable policies to conserve and pr otect marine habitat and saltwater fisheries.

Chapter 372 - Wildlife

This chapter addresses the “Florida Endang ered and Threatened Species Act” and its implementation by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to conserve and protect the fish and wildlife resources of the State, pa rticularly those species defined as endangered
or threatened. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has established a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Program and a Conservation and Recreation Lands Program Trust Fund for acquiring and managing lands for the conserva tion of fish and wildlife. The enforceable policies direct the State of conserve its divers e fish and wildlife resources. Florida has more endangered or threatened species than any othe r continental State; therefore, the protection of species defined as endangered or threaten ed is emphasized. State lands that provide habitat needed by these species shall be maintained and enhanced for their value as fish and wildlife habitat. Substances thrown, spilled, dr ained, or discharged into fresh waters that injure or kill fish are expressly prohibited.

As Murphy will be using the existing onshore support infrastructure in Fourchon, Louisiana; we do not anticipate any impact on Florida’s la nds or waters to affect wildlife habitats or
recreational lands. The most direct traffic ro utes for support vessels from Louisiana to De Soto Canyon Block 178. The authorized over board discharges attributable to the proposed activities will be temporary in nature, and will be localized in the vicinity of the surface location for each proposed well; which should no t impact Florida lands, waters or wildlife. Disposal of trash and debris into the receiving waters is strictly prohibited by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Managements/Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, US Environmental Protection Agency and the US Coast Guard.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Managements/Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement recently issued Notice to Lessees (NTL) No s. 2012-G01 and 2012-G01 which address measures for preventing disposal of tr ash and debris overboard and subsequently endangering wildlife, as well as outline the requi rements for posting of signs and training ofDe Soto Canyon Block 178 – Initial Exploration Plan Page 9 Murphy Exploration & Production Company - USA 

### personnel on such unauthorized disposals, as we ll as accident reporting related to marine species.

In the event of an unanticipated blowout resulting in an oil spill, it is unlikely to have an impact based on the industry wide standards for using proven equipment and technology for such responses, implementation of our Sub-Regi onal Oil Spill Response Plan which address available equipment and personnel, techniques for containment and recovery, and removal of the oil spill.

The precautions addressed in Murphy’s stan dard safety and environmental operating procedures and our Sub-Regional Oil Spill Res ponse Plan are considered consistent with the state’s enforceable policies to conserve Flor ida’s fish and wildlife resources, including endangered and/or threatened species.

Chapter 373– Water Resources

This chapter establishes enforceable policies that guide the management and protection of water resources, water quality and environm ental quality. The policies address the conservation of surface and ground water s for full beneficial use; sustainable water management; preservation of natural resources, fi sh, and wildlife; protecting public land; and promoting the health and general welfare of Floridians. The State manages and conserves water and related natural resources by determining whether activities will unreasonable consume water, degrade water quality, or adversely affect environmental values such as protected species habitat, recreational pursuits, and marine productivity.

As Murphy will be using the existing onshore support infrastructure in Fourchon, Louisiana; we do not anticipate usage of any Florida water resource, nor any new construction, dredging, or filling on Florida’s lands or wa ters to affect water quality. The authorized overboard discharges attributable to the proposed activities will be te mporary in nature, and will be localized in the vicinity of the surface location for each proposed well; which should not impact Florida lands or waters.

In the event of an unanticipated blowout resulting in an oil spill, it is unlikely to have an impact based on the industry wide standards for using proven equipment and technology for such responses, implementation of our Sub-Regi onal Oil Spill Response Plan which address available equipment and personnel, techniques for containment and recovery, and removal of the oil spill.

The precautions addressed in Murphy’s stan dard safety and environmental operating procedures and our Sub-Regional Oil Spill Res ponse Plan are considered consistent with the state’s enforceable policies to conserve surface and ground waters of the State.

Chapter 375 – Outdoor Recreation and Conservation

This chapter discusses the “Outdoor Recrea tion and Conservation Act of 1963” and the responsibility charged to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to implement a comprehensive outdoor recreation plan in cooperation with the Fish and WildlifeDe Soto Canyon Block 178 – Initial Exploration Plan Page 10 Murphy Exploration & Production Company - USA 

### Conservation Commission and the water management districts. The DEP participates in the land and water conservation fund program to acquire lands and water areas for outdoor recreation, natural resource conservation, w ildlife and forestry management, and water conservation and control. This chapter also empowers the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to regulate motor vehicle access and traffic control on public lands.

As Murphy will be using the existing onshore support infrastructure in Fourchon, Louisiana; we do not anticipate usage of any Florida’s la nds or waters, and no new vehicle traffic on public lands. In the event of an unanticipated blowout resulting in an oil spill, it is unlikely to have an impact based on the industry wide standards for using proven equipment and technology for such responses, implementation of our Sub-Regional Oil Spill Response Plan which address available equipment and personne l, techniques for containment and recovery, and removal of the oil spill.

The precautions addressed in Murphy’s stan dard safety and environmental operating procedures and our Sub-Regional Oil Spill Res ponse Plan are considered consistent with the state’s enforceable policies to protect and ma intain Florida’s lands and water areas for outdoor recreation, conservation, and wildlife management.

Chapter 376– Pollution Discharg e Prevention and Removal

This chapter declares that the preservation of the seacoast as a source of public and private recreation and the preservation of water and cer tain lands are matters of the highest urgency and priority and shall be accomplished by maintaining surface and ground water, coastal waters, estuaries, tidal flats, beaches, and public lands adjoining the seacoast in as close to a pristine condition as possible. The discharge of pollutants into or upon any coastal waters, estuaries, tidal flats, beaches, and lands adjoinin g the seacoast of the State is declared to be inimical to the paramount interests of the Sta te and is prohibited. The statute provides for hazards and threats of danger and damages re sulting from any pollutant discharge to be evaluated; requires the prompt containment an d removal of pollutions; provides penalties for violations; and ensures the prompt payment of reasonable damages from a discharge.

Murphy has prepared a Sub-Regional Oil Spill Response Plan for the Eastern Planning Area, which is consistent with the requirements of the National Contingency Plan and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA).

As Murphy will be using the existing onshore support infrastructure in Fourchon, Louisiana; we do not anticipate any transfers between vess els and Florida onshore facilities. As to
transfers between offshore facilities and vessels , the Sub-Regional Oil Spill Response Plan outlines response actions, inspection and mainten ance of response equipment, required spill management team response drill, governmental notification procedures, inventories of response equipment, response team organizati on, and spill movement monitoring and contingency plans for oil spill contai nment, recovery and removal.

The precautions addressed in Murphy’s stan dard safety and environmental operating procedures and our Sub-Regional Oil Spill Res ponse Plan are considered consistent with theDe Soto Canyon Block 178 – Initial Exploration Plan Page 11 Murphy Exploration & Production Company - USA 

### state’s enforceable policies to protect and ma intain Florida’s lands and water areas for outdoor recreation, conservation, and wildlife management.

Chapter 377 – Energy Resources

The State’s policy is to conserve and control the oil and gas resources in the State, including products made therefrom; and to safeguard the health, property, and wel fare of Floridians. To accomplish this, the energy resources chap ter addresses the regulation, planning, and development of the energy resources of the Stat e. The DEP is authorized to regulate all phases of exploration, drilling, and production of oil, gas, and other petroleum products in the State. This chapter also describes the perm itting requirements and criteria necessary to drill and develop for oil and gas. DEP rules ensure that all precautions are taken to prevent the spillage of oil or any other pollutant in all phases of extraction and transportation.

The State explicitly prohibits pollution resulti ng from drilling and production activities. No person drilling for or producing oil, gas, or other petroleum products may pollute land or water; damage aquatic or marine life, wildlife, bi rds, or public and private property; or allow any extraneous matter to enter or damage an y mineral or freshwater bearing formation. Penalties for violations of any provisi ons of this chapter are also detailed.

The proposed activities addressed in the De So to Canyon Block 178 Initial Exploration Plan do not provide for any drilling or production activities in Florida that are regulated by the
Florida DEP. All authorized effluents discha rged overboard will be in accordance with the US Environmental Protection Agency’s NP DES General Permit GMG460000, and will not pollute Florida land or waters, damage wildlife or public or private property, or contaminate any mineral or freshwater bearing formation. Di sposal of trash and debris into the receiving waters is strictly prohibited by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Managements/Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, US Environmental Protection Agency and the US Coast
Guard.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Managements/Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement recently issued Notice to Lessees (NTL) No s. 2012-G01 and 2012-G01 which address measures for preventing disposal of tr ash and debris overboard and subsequently endangering wildlife, as well as outline the requi rements for posting of signs and training of personnel on such unauthorized disposals, as we ll as accident reporting related to marine species.

In the event of an unanticipated blowout resulting in an oil spill, it is unlikely to have an impact based on the industry wide standards for using proven equipment and technology for such responses, implementation of our Sub-Regi onal Oil Spill Response Plan which address available equipment and personnel, techniques for containment and recovery, and removal of the oil spill.

The precautions addressed in Murphy’s stan dard safety and environmental operating procedures and our Sub-Regional Oil Spill Res ponse Plan are considered consistent with the state’s enforceable policies to safeguard the he alth, property, and welfare of Floridians and preventing pollution during drilling activities.De Soto Canyon Block 178 – Initial Exploration Plan Page 12 Murphy Exploration & Production Company - USA 

### Chapter 403 – Environmental Control

Water Quality

The State’s policy is to conserve the waters of the State and to protect, maintain, and improve the quality thereof for public water sup plies, propagation of wildlife and fish and other aquatic life, and other beneficial uses and to provide that no wastes be discharged into any waters of the State without first being give n the degree of treatment necessary to protect
the beneficial uses of such water.

As Murphy will be using the existing onshore support infrastructure in Fourchon, Louisiana; we do not anticipate usage of any Florida water resource, nor any new construction, dredging, or filling on Florida’s lands or wa ters to affect water quality. The authorized overboard discharges attributable to the proposed activities will be te mporary in nature, and will be localized in the vicinity of the surface location for each proposed well; which should not impact Florida lands or waters.

In the event of an unanticipated blowout resulting in an oil spill, it is unlikely to have an impact based on the industry wide standards for using proven equipment and technology for such responses, implementation of our Sub-Regi onal Oil Spill Response Plan which address available equipment and personnel, techniques for containment and recovery, and removal of the oil spill.

The precautions addressed in Murphy’s stan dard safety and environmental operating procedures and our Sub-Regional Oil Spill Res ponse Plan are considered consistent with the state’s enforceable policies to conserve surface and ground waters of the State.

Air Quality

Additionally, it is the policy of the State to ac hieve and maintain such levels of air quality as will protect human health and safety and, to the gr eatest degree practicable, prevent injury to plant and animal life and property.

Routine offshore air pollutant emissions will result from both drilling rig operations, and helicopters and service vessels. These emissions occur mainly from combustion or burning of diesel fuel and from venting or evaporati on of hydrocarbons. Du e to the distance from the Florida shoreline (approximately 107 mile s), routine operations in De Soto Canyon Block 178 will have no impact on air quality conditions along the coastline.

Therefore, the activities proposed in the Init ial Exploration Plan are consistent with the enforceable policies of this chapter.

Chapter 582 – Soil and Water Conservation

The farm, forest and grazing lands of the Sta te are among the basic assets of the State and the preservation of these lands is necessary to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of its people. It is the policy of the State to provide for control andDe Soto Canyon Block 178 – Initial Exploration Plan Page 13 Murphy Exploration & Production Company - USA 

### prevention of soil erosion, and for the preven tion of floodwater and se diment damages, and for furthering the conservation, development, and utilization of soil and water resources, and thereby to preserve natural resources.

As Murphy will be using the existing onshore support infrastructure in Fourchon, Louisiana; we do not anticipate usage of any Florida’s lands or waters. In the event of an unanticipated blowout resulting in an oil spill, it is unlikely to have an impact based on the industry wide standards for using proven equipment and t echnology for such responses, implementation of our Sub-Regional Oil Spill Response Plan which address available equipment and personnel, techniques for containment and r ecovery, and removal of the oil spill.

The precautions addressed in Murphy’s stan dard safety and environmental operating procedures and our Sub-Regional Oil Spill Res ponse Plan are considered consistent with the state’s enforceable policies to conserve and preserve the land and water resources of the
State.Murphy Exploration & Production Company – USA Attachment R Alabama Coastal Management Program Page 1 

### COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

STATE OF ALABAMA ENFORCEABLE POLICIESMurphy Exploration & Production Company – USA Attachment R Alabama Coastal Management Program Page 2 

### STATE OF ALABAMA

COASTAL ZONE CONSISTENCY ENFORCEABLE POLICIES

Coastal Resource Use Policies

1. Coastal Development

Coastal regions are likely sites for port, industrial, urban/suburban and energy development facilities. It is the policy of the Alabama Coasta l Area Management Program to provide assistance within it s means to facilitate a productive and environmental responsible port, industrial, urban/suburban and energy development
facilities.

The proposed activities are located in OCS Federal Waters, Gulf of Mexico, approximately 100 miles from the nearest Alabama shoreline and 145 miles to the existing onshore support base located in Fourchon, Louisiana.

The proposed activities are not anticipa ted to have an impact on the Alabama coastline. The drilling and construction activities will be short in duration, and the minimal well protector structure and associated production operations will require minimal support activity.

2. Mineral Resource Exploration and Extraction

Clay, sand, and gravel are mined in limited quantities from Alabama’s coastal river
bottoms and stream cuts. This resource extr action is vital to certain sections of the Alabama economy, and the associated land processes produce short and long term adverse impacts to the coastal area and resources. This activity contributes to the overall suspended sediment load in coastal area water bodies, destroys wildlife habitat, changes the visual quality of the landscapes and, irretrievably, consumes the depleted mineral resources. It is the po licy of the Alabama Coastal Management Plan to encourage mining operations, and directly related development, engaged in the extraction and/or processing of constr uction sand, industrial sand, gravel, and other minerals to avoid hydrological sensitive areas, including oyster reefs, submerged grassbeds, and other productive shallow water areas, with the exception
of those activities related to beach nourishment and shoreline stabilization.

The proposed activities do not provide for the extraction of solid minerals from the State of Alabama. These activities pr ovide for the exploration of oil and gas hydrocarbons located in OCS Federal Water s, Gulf of Mexico, approximately 100
miles from the nearest Alabama shoreline.Murphy Exploration & Production Company – USA Attachment R Alabama Coastal Management Program Page 3 

### 3. Commercial Fishing

Alabama’s fishing industry is one of the most important uses of Alabama’s natural coastal assets and the major economic factor in several Mobile and Baldwin County communities. The abundance of commercial species, especially shrimp, is heavily dependent upon the presence of extensive wetland areas for nursery grounds and good. Physical alterations of the estuarine environment that affects certain species of marine organisms are dredge spoil disposal, bacterial pollutions, heavy metals and toxic chemicals discarded by industries.

It is the policy of the Alabama Coastal Area Management Program to encourage the protection and enhancement of the water quality and wetland resources of the coastal area of Alabama in order to protect and enhance the aquatic resources; and to identify, expand and enhance existing esse ntial habitat in an effort to extend the productivity of the ecosystem.

The proposed activities at De Soto Cany on Block 178 will be located approximately
100 miles from the nearest Alabama shore line. Murphy Exploration & Production Company - USA does not propose any dredging and/or spoil deposition as a result of the proposed activities. The authorized effluents to be discharged during the proposed drilling operations may temporarily affect water quality in the immediate vicinity of each discharge point associated with each well location. Water quality is expected to return to normal in the area following the cessation of operations. Due to the low toxicity and rapid dispersion of these discharges, little or no impact on water column biota is likely, including fish larvae that recruit to near shore nursery

areas.

The overboard authorized effluents of dr illing fluids and associated cuttings may
increase sedimentation rate around the we ll location, possibly causing burying or smothering of some benthic organisms. Results of previous monitoring programs and modeling studies suggest that burial woul d most likely occur within an area of a few hectares around each well location. Recovery from these temporary impacts is expected over a period of months to years.

Other minor authorized effluents discharg ed overboard may include sanitary and domestic waste, deck drainage from the drilling unit, uncontaminated seawater for cooling machinery, and desalination brine. Such discharges may case localized, short-term impacts on water quality near the discharge points for each well location. There is a very low probability that a diesel spill may occur while conducting transfer operations from the supply vessel to the MODU. Murphy Exploration & Production Company - USA’s Regional Oil Spill Response Plan discusses any potential impacts from these types of spills on Alabama’s coastal zone. This Plan also describes response actions for specific hypothetical spill events, provisions and approvals required for the use of a dispersants by boat or aerial application, provisions for inspection and maintenance of response equipment, required spill management team tabletop exercises, procedur es for spill notification to governmentMurphy Exploration & Production Company – USA Attachment R Alabama Coastal Management Program Page 4 

### agencies, inventories of locally and nati onally available response equipment, waste disposal methods and site, and procedures for monitoring and predicting spill

movement.

As discussed in the Initial Exploration Plan, Murphy Exploration & Production Company - USA will be utilizing a drillin g unit equipped with equipment and technology for well control and blowout prevention as a preventative measure for the safety of personnel and protection of the environment. If a blowout should occur, which results in an oil spill, Mu rphy’s Regional Oil Spill Response Plan addresses the processed for containment, recovery, and removal of the spill liquid hydrocarbons.

The precautions addressed in Murphy’s standard safety and environmental operating procedures and our Regional Oil Spill Response Plan are considered consistent with the state’s enforceable policies to conserve and protect marine habitat and saltwater
fisheries.

4. Hazard Management

Natural hazards such as storms and hurri canes can change the natural beach and dune systems. Human activities such as construction on dune systems and construction of seawalls, bulkheads or j etties can have an adverse effect on adjacent properties and property forward of vertical structures. The Alabama Coastal Area Management Program recognizes that dyna mic, unpredictable and damaging natural events such as floods, hurricanes and erosi on, occurring within the coastal area are part of the necessary cyclical functions need ed to maintain the natural environment. However, the effects of these natural hazard events must be managed, by means of mitigating as a strategy that necessitates proper planning. It is the policy of the Alabama Coastal Area Management Program to encourage land-use planning that avoids or eliminates development in hazardous coastal areas prone to loss due to flood, hurricane surge and/or erosion.

The proposed activities in De Soto Cany on Block 178 should not impact Alabama’s measures to protect the coastal area from natural hazards. Furthermore, since the proposed operations are temporary in nature , Murphy does not propose or anticipate the need to develop any coastal/onshore si tes which could have an adverse effect.

Murphy has adopted industry standards for conducting the proposed exploration operations. Such standards are adopted to prevent unanticipated occurrences such as a well blowout or oil spill release, whic h could potentially cause adverse water/air environmental consequences. Such anti cipated occurrences will be handled as quickly as possible by Murphy implementing their Regional Oil Spill Response Plan and/or well control standards and procedures.Murphy Exploration & Production Company – USA Attachment R Alabama Coastal Management Program Page 5 

### 5. Shoreline Erosion

Shorelines are the transitional areas between wa ter and land because of their location. These shorelines represent the most dynamic interface in the coastal area and are very productive. Their continuous change from wet to dry conditions result in diverse habitats and ecosystems. The shorelines of the Alabama coastal area provide
the State and its citizens with many direct and indirect benefi ts of great value. At the same time, they are highly vulnerable to the pressures of development and to a variety of natural hazards, most notably er osion. Construction and development are primary activities affecting the Alabama s horeline. As development intensifies, the natural topography diminishes critical ha bitat and creates hazards or intensifies existing hazards. Therefore, it is the policy of the Alabama Coastal Area Management Program to encourage the maintenance and stability of Alabama’s
natural shoreline and shoreline resources and to minimize erosion by assuring compatibility of shoreline uses.

Murphy will be using the existing ons hore support infrastructure located in Fourchon, Louisiana; and as such does not anticipate a need for new development, construction, dredging or filling activities on Alabama’s lands or waters. All travel routes to and from the onshore support base and the offshore locations in De Soto Canyon Block 178 will avoid any recreational tr ail systems established by the State of Alabama. Therefore, the proposed activi ties are consistent with the enforceable policies of this chapter.

6. Recreation

Alabama’s recreational opportu nities are centered around the water resources and include, but are not limited to, sport fishing, boating, swimming and sightseeing. There is an increasing demand for r ecreational opportunities, both public and private, in Alabama’s coastal area; as ev idenced by the increased number of boater registrations, waterfront developments and demand for permit requests for private docks, harbors and marinas. It is the policy of the Alabama Coastal Area Management Program to safeguard public access to and use of coastal lands and waters such as beaches and shorelines, boat landings, and fishing grounds.

Murphy will be using the existing ons hore support infrastructure located in Fourchon, Louisiana, and will utilize the mo st direct travel routes to and from the onshore support base and the offshore loca tion in De Soto Canyon Block 178, and will take measures to avoid any recreati onal systems recognized by the State of Alabama, and do not antici pate usage of any Alabama la nds or waters, and no new vehicle traffic on public lands.

In the event of an unanticipated blowout resulting in an oil spill, it is unlikely to have an impact based on the industry wide standards for using proven equipment and technology for such responses, implementation of our Regional Oil Spill Response Plan which address available equipment and personnel, techniques for containment and recovery, and removal of the oil spill.Murphy Exploration & Production Company – USA Attachment R Alabama Coastal Management Program Page 6 

### The precautions addressed in our standard safety and environmental operating procedures and our Regional Oil Spill Response Plan are considered consistent with the state’s enforceable policies to protect and maintain Alabama’s lands and water areas for outdoor recreation, conservation, and wildlife management.

7. Transportation

The State of Alabama is responsible for approving plans for the location, construction and maintenance of the state highway system and public roads and the location, construction, and maintenance of in dividual state highway system projects. Rules and project approvals governing transportation projects within the coastal zone must comply with the policies in this category. Standard specifications includemeasures for erosion and sedimentation control, waste disposal, earthwork, and revegetation during construction.

The major operations proposed in this Plan at De Soto Canyon Block 178 are temporary in nature. Additionally, Murphy will be using an existing infrastructure in Fourchon, Louisiana for its onshore suppor t operations. Therefore, we do not anticipate any impact on the State of Alabama’s transportation system.

Natural Resource Protection Policies

1. Biological Productivity

Biologically, more than 90% of all Alab ama’s commercial and recreational fishing dollars are dependent on estuaries like Mobile Bay, Weeks Bay and Perdido Bay, which provide habitat for one or more critical life stages for species of fish and
shellfish. Protective functions if the coastal area and coastal resources are instrumental in ecosystem preservation and enhancement.

The proposed surface disturbances in De Soto Canyon Block 178 will be located approximately 100 miles from the nearest Alabama shoreline and 145 miles to the existing onshore support base to be located in Fourchon, Louisiana. These proposed major activities (drilling) are tempor ary in nature, and we do not anticipate an adverse impact on the biological produ ctivity of the coastal area and/or coastal

resources.

2. Water Quality

The policies address the conservation of sur face and ground waters for full beneficial use; sustainable water management; preser vation of natural resources, fish, and wildlife; protecting public land; and promot ing the health and general welfare of the general public in Alabama. The State manages and conserves water and related natural resources by determining whether activities will unreasonable consume water,Murphy Exploration & Production Company – USA Attachment R Alabama Coastal Management Program Page 7 

### degrade water quality, or adversely aff ect environmental values such as protected species habitat, recreational pursuits, and marine productivity.

As Murphy will be using the existing onshore support infrastructure in Fourchon, Louisiana we do not anticipate usage of any Alabama water resource, nor any new construction, dredging, or filling on Alabama’ s lands or waters to affect water quality. The authorized overboard discharges attribut able to the proposed activities will be temporary in nature, and will be localized in the vicinity of the surface location of the proposed well and associated pipeline route; which should not impact Alabama lands

or waters.

In the event of an unanticipated blowout resulting in an oil spill, it is unlikely to have an impact based on the industry wide standards for using proven equipment and technology for such responses, implementation of our Regional Oil Spill Response Plan which address available equipment and personnel, techniques for containment and recovery, and removal of the oil spill.

The precautions addressed in our standard safety and environmental operating procedures and our Regional Oil Spill Response Plan are considered consistent with the state’s enforceable policies to conserve surface and ground waters of the State.

Overboard discharges (i.e., drilling fluids an d associated cuttings) associated with the proposed activities must be tested first for toxicity limitations as mandated by EPA’s Region IV NPDES General Perm it. Other solid waste such as ground food will first pass through a 25-millimeter type mesh screen before being discharged overboard, as regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard’s Marine Pollution Research and Control Act (MARPOL) of 1987. Solid wastes will be collected and stored on the facility, and then transported by an offshore support vessel to an authorized onshore disposal site with the State of Louisiana. These wastes will be manifested and disposed as per the State of Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality’s regulations.

3. Water Resources

In the coastal area, two important reasons for managing water resources and protecting water quality are the availability of adequate supplies of clean, safe waters for private, public and industrial consum ers, and to protect the water quality for managing most of the other coastal area resources. The key to protecting the quality of the water resources is to manage the impacts to Alabama’s bays, tidal streams, estuaries, wetlands and near shore waters.

The proposed surface disturbances in De Soto Canyon Block 178 will be located approximately 100 miles from the neares t Alabama shoreline and the existing onshore support base to be located in Four chon, Louisiana. These proposed major activities (drilling and pipeline installati on) are temporary in nature, and do not include any permanent installations which may have an impact on area runoff in
coastal waters.Murphy Exploration & Production Company – USA Attachment R Alabama Coastal Management Program Page 8 

### 4. Air Quality

The quality of air in the Alabama coasta l area affects many aspects of the environment that directly relate to the quality of life on the coastal area. The coastal area of Alabama is rapidly expanding, and the increased coastal urbanization and industrial development and increased mo tor vehicle traffic have increased the amount and complexity of air pollution. Th erefore, it is the policy of the Coastal Area Management Program to encourage all sources of air pollution in Alabama’s coastal area meet or exceed all applicable emission standards.

Air emissions associated with the proposed activities in De Soto Canyon Block 178 have been projected using a matrix and formula supplied by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management/Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement who has primacy from the Environmental Protection Agency for regulating such emissions.
The resultant emissions are below the exemption levels for Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter, Sulphur Oxides, Nitrogen Oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds.

5. Wetlands and Submerged Grassbeds

The State of Alabama has dominion and cont rol of submerged lands extending three miles seaward from its coast. Proper mana gement ensures the continued viability of this resource and prevents obstructions to navigation, reductions in water quality, biological diversity and production, and restriction of public access. It is the policy of the Alabama Coastal Area Management Program to encourage the protection of wetlands and submerged grassbeds to maintain or increase the vital role they play in the coastal ecosystem and the coastal quality of life.

The proposed activities addressed in this Plan will be located 100 miles from the nearest Alabama shoreline, with an ex isting onshore support infrastructure in Fourchon, Louisiana. Therefore, Mu rphy does not anticipate an impact on associated wetlands and submerged grassbed s as a result of the proposed activities.

6. Beach and Dune Protection

Beach and dune systems are dynamic and respond to the many forces of the sea.
Their characteristics serve to buffer and cush ion against wave attach and, therefore, are the first line of defense against the dest ructive and erosive forces of the sea, Beach and dune systems also re-supply the land-water interface before, during and after periods of high energy conditions (wave actions). Beach and dune systems cover approximately 10,000 acres along Alabama’s shoreline and are highly productive and protective to the coastal area. Protection and preservation of these systems in a natural state it vital. Loss of beaches and dunes eliminates wildlife, habitat, reduces buffers protecting inland areas from the forces of storms, and significantly impacts the Alabama economy. Therefore, it is the policy of the Alabama Coastal Zone Management Program to encourage the maintenance of theMurphy Exploration & Production Company – USA Attachment R Alabama Coastal Management Program Page 9 

### natural attributes of beach and dune sys tems in the Alabama coastal area and to assure adequate public access.

The offshore activities to be conducted in De Soto Canyon Block 178 will be located approximately 100 miles from the nearest Alabama coastline; whereas the onshore support operations will be conducted from an existing infrastructure located in Fourchon, Louisiana. The onshore support an d offshore activities should not have an impact on the coastal areas of the Sta te of Alabama. The transportation modes from the onshore support base in Fourchon, Louisiana to De Soto Canyon Block
178 will be in excess of 100 miles from the coastal shoreline to the offshore
activities.

In the event of an unanticipated blowout resulting in an oil spill, it is unlikely to have an impact based on the industry wide standards for using proven equipment and technology for such responses, implementation of our Regional Oil Spill Response Plan which address available equipment and personnel, techniques for containment and recovery, and removal of the oil spill.

The precautions addressed in our standard safety and environmental operating procedures and our Regional Oil Spill Response Plan are considered consistent with the policies for protecting beach and shore preservation.

7. Wildlife Habitat Protection

The enforceable policies direct the State of conserve its diverse fish and wildlife resources, with emphasis on the protection of species defined as endangered or threatened. State lands that provide habitat needed by these species shall be
maintained and enhanced for their value wild life habitat. Substances thrown, spilled, drained, or discharged into fresh waters that injure or kill fish are expressly prohibited.

As Murphy will be using the existing onshore support infrastructure in Fourchon, Louisiana; we do not anticipate any impa ct on Alabama lands or waters to affect wildlife habitats. The most direct traffic routes will be for used for support vessels to and from De Soto Canyon Block 178. The authorized overboard discharges attributable to the proposed activities will be temporary in nature, and will be localized in the vicinity of the surface lo cation for the proposed well; which should not impact Alabama lands, waters or wildlife. Disposal of trash and debris into the receiving waters is strictly prohibited by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management/Bureau of Safety and Environm ental Enforcement, US Environmental Protection Agency and the US Coast Guard. Implementation of a stipulation attached to the oil and gas leases address the measures for preventing disposal of trash and debris overboard and subsequently endangering wildlife. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management/Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement recently issued Notice to Lessees No. 2012-G01 and 2012-JOINT-G01 outlining the requirements for posting of signs and tr aining of personnel on such unauthorized disposals, as well as accident reporting related to marine species.Murphy Exploration & Production Company – USA Attachment R Alabama Coastal Management Program Page 10 

### The precautions addressed in our standard safety and environmental operating procedures and our Regional Oil Spill Response Plan are considered consistent with the state’s enforceable policies to conserve Alabama’s wildlife resources, including endangered and/or threatened species.

8. Endangered Species

Coastal area habitats are important in the life-cycles for many endangered and threatened species, migratory birds, waterfowl s, and terrestrial species and, of course, finfish and shellfish. Therefore, it is th e policy of the State of Alabama Coastal Area Management Program to promote the pres ervation of these habitats which are important to the endangered species.

The proposed activities addressed in this Plan are temporary in nature and will be located approximately 100 miles from the nearest Alabama shoreline; therefore, Murphy does not anticipate an impact on these areas and species.

9. Cultural Resources Protection

The cultural resources of the Alabama co astal area include historical resources, architectural resources, archaeological resources and heritage resources. The importance of cultural resources is that they allow insight into the past inhabitants of the coastal area and provide valuable information and clues to understanding the conditions of the past natural environment. Therefore, it is the policy of the State of Alabama Coastal Area Management Program to promote the preservation of cultural resources and to insure that the knowledge of Alabama’s history and pre-history is
not lost.

The proposed activities are located in De Soto Canyon Block 178, and are within a high probability area for potential pre-histor ic archaeological resources. Results of the archaeological survey do not indicate the presence of any potential cultural resources within the vicinity of the proposed surface disturbance.

# Florida’s Cross Reference Documentation

Attachment S (Public Information)

### State of Florida
Cross Reference Data

Initial Exploration Plan (IEP) De Soto Canyon Block 178 (Lease OCS-G 25850)

A. Plan Contents

a. Pollution Prevention Measures – discussion of measures take n to prevent the discharge of oils and greases from drilling rigs or plat forms during rainfall and routine operations.
i. IEP – Bullet E.
b. Additional Measures – discussion of the safety, pollution prevention, and early spill detection measures to be taken beyond those required by 30 CFR part 550.
i. IEP – Bullet F.

B. General Information

a. Drilling Fluids – table of information on the types an d amounts of drilling fluids to be used while drilling the proposed wells.
i. IEP – Bullet B.
b. Blowout Scenario – scenario for a potential blowout of the well from which Murphy expects to have the highest volume of liquid hydrocarbons.
i. IEP – Bullet G.

C. Biological, Physical, and Socioeconomic Information

a. Threatened and Endangered Species Information – discussion on the presence of threatened and endangered species in the area of the proposed activities.
i. IEP – Bullet H.
ii. Attachment T – EIA, Section C.3
b. Archaeological Report – not applicable to the proposed activities.
i. IEP – Bullet I.
ii. Attachment T – EIA, Section C.6

c. Air and Water Quality Information – discussion of air and water quality in and adjacent to the area of the proposed activities.
i. IEP – Bullet J.
ii. Attachment T – EIA, Section C.1
d. Socioeconomic Information – not applicable to the proposed activities.
i. IEP – Bullet K.
ii. Attachment T - EIA – Section C.8

D. Waste and Discharge Information

a. Projected Generated Wastes – table of projected solid and liquid wastes likely to be generated by the proposed activities.
i. IEP – Bullet A.
ii. Attachment L
b. Projected Ocean Discharges – table on solid or liquid wastes to be discharged overboard.
i. IEP – Bullet B.
ii. Attachment L

### E. Oil Spill Information

a. Oil Spill Response Planning – information on type of Sub-Regional Oil Spill Response Plan being submitted to address the proposed activities.
i. IEP – Bullet A.
b. Oil Spill Response Discussion – discussion of the response to an oil spill which could result from the activities proposed in the Plan.
i. IEP – Bullet E.
ii. Attachment N

c. Modeling Report – information on the modeling of a potential oil or hazardous substance spill.
i. IEP – Bullet F and G.
ii. Attachment O

F. Environmental Mitigation Measures Information – measures to be taken to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to marine and coastal environments and habitats, biota, and threatened and endangered species.

a. IEP – Section I b. Attachment T – EIA, Section C.2, C.3, C.4, C.6

G. Support Vessels and Aircraft Information

a. Diesel Oil Supply Vessels – information on vessels to be used to supply diesel fuel.
i. IEP – Bullet B.
b. Drilling Fluids Transportation – information on projected drilling fluids to be transported from onshore support facilities to proposed drilling operations.
i. IEP – Bullet C.

c. Solid and Liquid Wastes Transportation – information on transport of any solid or liquid wastes from the site of the proposed activi ties to other offshore structures or to temporary or permanent onshore facilities for storage or disposal.
i. IEP – Bullet D.
ii. Attachment L

H. Onshore Support Facilities Information

a. Support Base Constr uction or Expansion – not applicable to the proposed activities.
i. IEP – Bullet B
ii. Attachment T – EIA, Page 59
b. Support Base Construction or Expansion Timetable – not applicable to the proposed
activities.
i. IEP – Bullet C.
ii. Attachment T – EIS, Page 60

# Environmental Impact Analysis

Attachment T (Public Information)

# Environmental Impact Analysis

INITIAL EXPLORATION PLAN

De Soto Canyon Block 178 (OCS

- G 25850 )
Offshore Alabama and Florida

March 201 3



### Prepared for:

Robert Lanza Murphy Exploration & Production Company , USA 16290 Katy Freeway, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77094 Telephone: (281) 675

- 9135



### Prepared by:

CSA Ocean Sciences Inc.

8502 SW Kansas Avenue

Stuart, Florida 34997 Telephone: (772) 219

- 3000De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page ii 

## Contents

Page



### Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 1

A. Impact

- Producing Factors

................................ ................................ ....................... 5

A.1 Drilling Rig Presence (including noise and lights)

................................ ................................ .......................... 5

A.2 Physical Disturbance to the Seafloor

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 5

A.3 Air Pollutant Emissions

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 8

A.4 Effluent Discharges

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 8

A.5 Water Intake

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 8

A.6 Onshore Waste Disposal

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 9

A.7 Marine Debris

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 9

A.8 Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 9

A.9 Accidents

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 10

A.9.1 Types of Accidents Evaluated

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 10

A.9.2 Small Fuel Spill

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 10

A.9.3 Crude Oil Spill (Worst Case Discharge)

................................ ................................ ............................ 11

A.9.4 Other Accidents Not Analyzed in Detail

................................ ................................ .......................... 15



### B. Affected Environment

................................ ................................ ........................... 16

C. Impact Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 18

C.1 Physical/Chemical Environment

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 18

C.1.1 Air Quality

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 18

C.1.2 Water Quality

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 21

C.2 Seafloor Habitats and Biota

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 23

C.2.1 Soft Bottom Benthic Communities

................................ ................................ ................................ . 23

C.2.2 High

- Density Deepwater Benthic Communities

................................ ................................ .............. 26

C.2.3 Designated Topographic Features

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 28

C.2.4 Pinnacle Trend Area Live Bottoms

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 28

C.2.5 Eastern Gulf Live Bottoms

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 29

C.3 Threatened, Endangered, and Protected Species and Critical Habitat

................................ ........................ 29

C.3.1 Sperm Whale (Endangered)

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 31

C.3.2 West Indian Manat ee (Endangered)

................................ ................................ ............................... 34

C.3.3 Endangered Mysticete Whales

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 35

C.3.4 Non

- Endangered Marine Mammals (Protected)

................................ ................................ ............ 36

C.3.5 Sea Turtles (Endangered/Threatened)

................................ ................................ ............................ 39

C.3.6 Piping Plover (Threatened)

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 42

C.3.7 Whooping Crane (Endangered)

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 44

C.3.8 Gulf Sturgeon (Threatened)

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 44

C.3.9 Smalltooth Sawfish (Endangered)

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 45

C.3.10 Beach Mice (Endangered)

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 46

C.3.11 Elkhorn Coral (Endangered)

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 46

C.4 Coastal and Marine Birds

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 47

C.4.1 Marine Birds

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 47

C.4.2 Shorebirds and Coastal Nesting Birds

................................ ................................ ............................. 49

C.5 Fisheries Resources

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 52

C.5.1 Pelagic Communities and Ichthyoplankton

................................ ................................ ..................... 52

## Contents
( C ontinued)

Page

De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page iii C.5.2 Essential Fish Habitat

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 54

C.6 Archaeological Resources

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 57

C.6.1 Shipwreck Sites

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 57

C.6.2 Prehistoric Archaeological Sites

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 58

C.7 Coastal Habitats and Protected Areas

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 59

C.8 Socioeconomic and Other Resources

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 62

C.8.1 Recreational and Commercial Fishing

................................ ................................ ............................. 62

C.8.2 Public Health and Safety

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 63

C.8.3 Employment and Infrastructure

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 64

C.8.4 Recreation and Tourism

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 65

C.8.5 Land Use

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 66

C.8.6 Other Marine Uses

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 66



### D. Environmental Hazards

................................ ................................ ......................... 67

D.1 Geologic Hazards

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 67

D.2 Severe Weather

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 67

D.3 Currents and Waves

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 67



### E. Alternatives

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 68

F. Mitigation Measures

................................ ................................ ............................. 68

G. Consultation

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 68

H. Preparers

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 68

I. References

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 69De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page iv 

## List of Tables

Table Page

1 Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) applicable to this Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA)

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 3

2 Matrix of impact

- producing factors and affected environmental resources

........................ 6

3 Conditional probabi lities expressed as percent chance that an oil spill starting at Launch Point 2 will contact a certain parish, county, or coastline within 120 days (Modified from: BOEM, 2012c, Appendix C)

................................ ................................ ....... 13

4 Benthic community data from stations near the lease area and in greater water depths and more distant stations in more similar depths sampled during the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Slope Habitats and Benthic Ecology S tudy (Adapted from: Wei, 2006; Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009)

................................ ..................... 23

5 Federally listed endangered and threatened species potentially occurring in the lease area and along the northern Gulf Coast

................................ ................................ .... 29



## List of Figures

Figure Page

1 Location of De Soto Canyon Block 178

................................ ................................ .................. 2

2 Bathymetric map of the lease area showing the surface hole locations of Wells "A", "B," and "C" in De Soto Canyon Block 178

................................ ................................ ... 17

3 Location of selected environmental features in relation to the lease area

........................ 43De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page v 

## Acronyms and Abbreviations

ADIOS 2 Automated Data Inquiry for Oil Spills 2
bbl barrel

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

BOEMRE Bureau of Ocean Energy Managem ent, Regulation and Enforcement

BOP blowout preventer

BOPD barrels of oil per day

B.P. Before Present

BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement

CEI Coastal Environments, Inc.

CH 4 methane

CO carbon monoxide

CO 2 carbon dioxide

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DC De Soto Canyon

DP dynamically positioned

EP Exploration Plan

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EIA Environmental Impact Analysis

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ESA Endangered Species Act

FAD fish

- attracting device

FR Federal Register

GEMS Geoscience Earth & Marine Services,

Inc.

GHG greenhouse g as GPS global positioning system

GMFMC Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council

H 2 S hydrogen sulfide

HAPC Habitat Area of Particular Concern

IPF impact

- producing factor

MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships

MMBO million barrels of oil

MMC Marine Mammal Commission MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act

MMS Minerals Management Service Murphy Murphy Exploration & Production Company , USA
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality
Standards

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

NO x nitrogen oxides

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPS National Park Service

NRDA Natural Resource Damage Assessment

NTL Notice to Lessee s and Operators

NWR Na tional Wildlife Refuge

OBM oil

- based mud

OCS Outer Continental Shelf

OSAT Operational Scientific Advisory Team

OSRA Oil Spill Risk Analysis

OSRP Oil Spill Response Plan

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PEA Programmatic Environmental

Assessment

PM particulate matter

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

ROV remotely operated vehicle

SBM synthetic

- based mud

SHL surface hole location

SO x sulfur oxides

SWSS Sperm Whale Seismic Study

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VOC volatile organic compound

WCD worst case dischargeDe Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 1 

## Introduction

This Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) was prepared on behalf of Murphy Exploration and Production Company, USA (Murphy) for submittal to the Bu reau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM )

. The EIA evaluates the impacts of drilling activities proposed by Murphy in its Initial Exploration Plan (EP ) for De Soto Canyon Block 178 (DC 178)

.
Murphy is submitting this Initial EP for the drilling and temporary abandonment of three well
locations

, A, B and C

, in DC 1 78 . All surface hole locations (SHLs) and bottom hole locations for
the wells will be in DC 178. This EIA provides information on the exploratory wells based on the

SHLs. The Initial EP also addresses Notice to Lessees and Operat ors (NTL)

2010

- N06 requirements

.

The lease area is approximately 75 statute miles (121 km) from the nearest shoreline (Louisiana)

, 107 statute miles (172 km) from the nearest Florida shoreline , 145 statute miles (233 km) from the onshore support base at Port Fourchon , Louisiana, and 155 statute miles (250 km) from the helicopter base at Galliano , Louisiana ( Figure 1 ). Water depth s at the
wellsites range from approximately 6,567 to 6,5 80 ft ( 2,002 to 2,006 m )

. The drilling rig will be the dynamically positioned (DP) drillship Transocean Discoverer Deep Seas or an equivalent rig.

This EIA was prepared for submittal to the BOEM in accorda nce with applicable regulations and

is a project

- and site

- specific analysis of Murphy ’s planned activities

. A n EIA is a project

- specific analysis that focuses on the impacts of a specific plan to the extent feasible. The lease area is in
Grid 18 in the Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area

, and a Progr ammatic E nvironmental

A ssessment (PEA) was prepared ( Minerals Management Service [ MMS ] , 2003) to address exploration activities in th e P E A lease sale area

, which includes DC 178

. Potential impacts have been analyzed at a broader level in the Final Program matic Environmental Impact Statement s (EIS s ) for the Outer Continental Shelf ( OCS ) Oil and Gas Leasing Program (MMS, 2007a ; BOEM,

2012a ) and in lease sale EISs for the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas (MMS, 2007b ; BOEM, 2012b ,c ) . The analyses from these documents are incorporated here by
reference. Updated environmental baseline information relative to the Macondo incident presented in the Final Supplemental EIS for Central Planning Lease Sale 216/222 (BOEM, 2012c )
has also bee n incorporated.

Statistics from offshore drilling in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico provide a reasonable basis for evaluating oil spill risk during exploratory drilling . According to Holand (1997), the average frequency of a loss of well control incident or " blo wout " during exploratory drilling in the

U.S. Gulf of Mexico is 0.00593 blowouts per well drilled, or one blowout per 169 exploration wells drilled. Similarly, the MMS Safety and Environmental Management Program blowout
incident rate for 1996 to 1999 was approximately five blowouts per 1,000 well starts, or one blowout per 200 well starts ( MMS, 2000 ). BOEM (2012a) recently assessed the risk of low probability discharge events from loss of well control events from 1964 to 2010 and found that
of the 278 los s of well control events in the G ulf of M exico , 59 (21%) resulted in oil pollution

events. I n its Final Supplemental EIS for the Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area, BOEM
confirmed that " significant changes to the spill rates for the entire OCS are not a nticipated " (BOEM, 2012c ).De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013
Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 2

Figure 1. Location of De Soto Canyon Block 178

.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 3 Historically, most blowouts have not resulted in oil spills . O f 1 51 well blowouts in the
Gulf of Mexico from 1971 to 1995, only 18 (12%) resulted in oil spills , with a to tal combined
volume of 1,000 barrels ( bbl ) of crude oil and condensate released (MMS, 200 0 ). Between 1964 and 1999, almost all offshore spills (94%) from drilling and production

- related operations on the

OCS were < 1 bbl in size ( Anderson and LaBelle, 2000 ). According to the Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcemen t ( BSEE ) Final Drilling Safety Rule (75 Federal Register [ FR ] 63365 ) issued following the Macondo incident, the baseline risk of a catastrophic blowout is estimated to be about once every 26 years

.
Oil spill response

- related activities for facilities included in the Initial EP will affect the

State of Florida; therefore, Murphy has a Sub

- Regional Oil Spill Response Plan approved in August 2011 with subsequent and ongoing modifications to meet regulatory and operational requirements. The latest update of July 2012 submitted to BSEE due to NTL 2012

- N06 is awaiting approval. Murphy will demonstrate oil spill financial responsibilit y for the facilities proposed in this Initial EP according to 30 CFR Part 254 and NTL 2008

- N05, “Guidelines for Oil Spill Financial Responsibility for Covered Facilities.”

Th is EIA is organized into Sections A through I corresponding to the info rmation required by

NTL 2008

- G04. The main impact

- related discussions are in Section A (Impact

- Producing Factors)
and Section C (Impact Analysis). Table 1 lists and summarizes the NTLs applicable to this EIA.

Table 1. Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) applicable to this Environmental Impact Analysis ( EIA )

.

NTL Title Summary

2012

- N06 Guidance to Owners and Operators
of Offshore Facilities Seaward of the Coast Line Concerning Regional Oil Spill Response Plans Provides clarification, guidance, and information for preparation of regional Oil Spill Response Plans. Recommends description of response strategy for worst case discharge (WCD) scenarios to ensure capability to respond to oil discharges is both efficient and effective.

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 prominent locations

on offshore vessels and structures; and mandates a yearly marine trash and debris awareness training and certification process.

2012

- JOINT

- G01 Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting Recommends protected species identification gu ides be carried on all Gulf of Mexico petroleum vessels and that vessel operators and crews maintain a vigilant watch for
marine mammals . Vessels are to slow down or stop to avoid striking protected species, and operators are required to report sightings of any injured or dead protected species.

2011

- JOINT

- G01 Revisions to the List of OCS Blocks Requiring Arch a eological Resource Surveys and Reports Provides new information of which Outer Continental
Shelf ( OCS ) blocks require arch a eological surveys and reports and required survey line spacing in each block.
This NTL augments NTL 2005

- G07.Table 1. (Continued).

De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 4 NTL Title Summary

2010

- N10 Statement of Compliance with Applicable Regulations and
Evaluation of Information Demonstrating Adequate 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 that the operator will conduct all activities in co mpliance with all applicable regulations, including the increased safety measures regulations (75 FR 63346). Informs operators
that BOEM will be evaluating whether each operator has submitted adequate information demonstrating that it
has access to and ca n 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 scenario, and provides guidance regarding the information required in blowout scenario and worst case discharge scenario descriptions.

2009

- G40 Deepwater Bent hic 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 300 m (984 ft). Prescr ibes 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 Guidance for avoiding and protecting biologic ally 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 300 m (984 ft)
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 designated operators to enter into an

agree ment 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 Req uirements 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 provisions of the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act.

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 prot ecting archaeological resources.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 5 

## A. Impact

- Producing Factors

Table 2 is a matrix of impact

- producing factors (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 sections.

• Drilling rig presence (including noise and lights)

• Physical disturbance to the seaf loor

• Air pollutant emissions

• Effluent discharges • Water intake

• Onshore waste disposal

• Marine debris

• Support vessel and helicopter traffic

• Accidents



## A.1 Drilling Rig Presence (including noise and lights)

The DP drillship Transocean Discoverer Deep Seas or an equivalent rig will be used for this project

. The rig will be on site for approximately 120 days per well for drilling and temporary abandonment. Two supply boats and one crew vessel will be used during the drilling campaign.
One offshore su pport vessel will be in the vicinity of the drilling rig at all times to provide assistance as necessary. The drillship has dimensions of 835 ft x 125 ft x 62 ft ( 255 m x 38 m x 1 9 m ) and a n operating draft of 40 ft ( 1 2 m ). The physical presence of a floating structure in the ocean can attract pelagic fishes and other marine life, as discussed in

Section C.5.1

.
DP drillships use a global positioning system (GPS) , specific computer software, and sensors in conjunction with the ir own propellers and thrusters to maintain position. Essentially, through satellite navigation

, the location of the vessel is precisely monitored and thrusters positioned at various locations about the vessel’s hull are activated to provide any required station

- keeping adjustment. This allows operations at sea where mooring or anchoring is not feasible.

Drilling operations produce noise that includes strong tonal components at low frequencies, and

in some cases infrasonic frequencies (MMS, 2000). Drilling noise from DP drillships is not particularly intense and is strongest at low frequencies, averaging 10 to 500 Hz (Richardson et al., 1995). From a drilling rig , sound and vibration paths to the water flow eith er through the air or through the risers (MMS, 2000). Drilling rigs also maintain exterior lighting for navigational and aviation safety in accordance with applicable Federal safety regulations.



## A.2 Physical Disturbance to the Seafloor

In water depths of 600 m (1,969 ft) or greater, DP drillships disturb only a very small area of the seafloor around the wellbore (SHL) where the bottom template and blowout preventer (BOP) are located. Depending on the specific well configuration, this area is generally abo ut 0.62 ac ( 0.25 ha) (MMS, 2007a).De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 6 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 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 Oil Spill (WCD) Physical/Chemic al Environment Air quality and greenhouse gases

-- -- -- X ( 9 )

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

-- -- -- X

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

-- X

-- 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) West Indian manatee (endangered)

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

-- X (6,8) Endangered mysticete whale s

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 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) Smalltooth sawfish (endangered)

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

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X (6) Elkhorn coral (endangered)

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

Marine birds X

-- -- -- -- -- -- X X (6) X (6) Shorebird s 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 (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)

WCD = worst case discharge.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 7 Table 2 Footnotes and Applicability: (1) Activities that may affect a marine sanctuary or topographic feature. Specifically, if the well, rig 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 Stetson 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

- activity zone; or (d) Pro ximity 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 sanctuary, topographic featur e, or

no

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

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

• The Live Bottom (Pinnacle Tre nd) 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

- Relief) Stipulation appl ies to Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area leases in water depths of 100 m (328 ft) or less; therefore, the lease is not covered by this stipulation. (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 are no features indicative of high

- density chemosynthetic communities or coral communities within 2,000 ft ( 610 m) of any drilling mud/cuttings discharge location. Because a dynamically positioned drillship will be used for drilling and completion, there will be no seafloor disturbances from the use of anchors.

(5) Exploration or production activities where H 2 S concentrations greater than 500 ppm might be encountered.

• Not applicable. Ba sed on data from nearby prospects in the De Soto Canyon Area , Murphy is requesting
that BOEM classify the block as “H 2 S present .” An estimated H 2 S concentration of 0 to 40 ppm may be encountered while conducting proposed operations. Murphy will submit an H 2 S Contingency Plan to the appropriate BSEE G ulf of M exico R egion district office.

(6) All activities that could result in an accidental spill 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 two.

• Accidental hydrocarbon spills could affect the resources marked (X) in the matrix, and impacts are analyzed in S ection C

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

- probability for the occurrence of shipwrecks or prehistoric sites, including such blocks that will be aff ected that are adjacent to the lease block in which your planned activity will occur. If the proposed activities are located a sufficient distance 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 area is not on the list of archaeology survey blocks ( BOEM, 2012d ) and is well beyond the 60

- m (197

- ft) depth contour used by the BOEM as the seaward extent for prehistoric archaeological sit e potential in the Gulf of Mexico. Murphy commissioned an Archaeological Assessment of the block and no evidence of any shipwrecks or historically significant artifacts was observed. Because a dynamically positioned drillship will be used for drilling, there will be no seafloor disturbances from the use of anchors.

(8) All activities that you determine might have an adv erse effect on endangered or threatened marine mammals
or sea turtles or their critical ha bitats.

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

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

• Not applicable.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 8 

## A.3 Air Pollutant Emissions

Air pollutant emissions are calculated in EP Attachment O and are estimated to be insignificant. Offshore air pollutant emissions will result from drilling rig operations , as well as service vessels and helicopt ers. These emissions occur mainly from combustion of diesel fuel. The combustion
of fuels occurs on diesel

- powered generators, pumps, or motors and from lighter fuel motors. Primary air pollutants typically associated with OCS activities are suspended p articulate matter (PM), sulfur oxides (SO
x ), nitrogen oxides (NO
x ), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and carbon monoxide (CO).

The Air Quality Emissions Report prepared in accordance with BOEM requirements
demonstrates that the projected emissions are below exemption levels set by the applicable regulations in 30 CFR 5 50.30 2

- 304

. Therefore, no control measures are required and no significan t onshore impacts are expected.



## A.4 Effluent Discharges

Effluent discharges are summarized in EP Attachment N

. All offshore discharges will be in
accordance with requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
General Permit No. G E G 46 0000 issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA )

. D ischar ges will be in compliance with the permit terms and monitored as required by the permit.

For each well, an estimated 12 ,000 bbl of wa ter

- based drilling muds and 2,43 0 bbl of cuttings
coated with water

- based drilling muds will be released at the seafloor du ring the initial well intervals before the marine riser is set that allows returns to the surface. Excess cement slurry will also be released at the seafloor during casing installation for the riserless portion of the drilling operations.

A synthetic

- base d mud (SBM) system will be used after the riser is installed. The SBM will not be discharged but will be recovered and transported to the shorebase for recycling by the mud company. Treated SBM cuttings will be discharged overboard after treatment with a cuttings dryer, which is expected to reduce retention on cuttings in accordance with the NPDES permit requirement

. The volume of treated SBM cuttings to be discharged per well is estimated to be 3,7 00 bbl.

Other effluent discharges in accordance with the NPDES permit will include excess cement,

n on

- contact cooling water, treated sanitary and domestic wastes, deck drainage, desalination unit brine, unco ntaminated freshwater and sea water, and ballast water.



## A.5 Water Intake

Seawater will be drawn from the ocean for once

- through, non

- contact cooling of machinery on the drilling rig. The estimated intake and discharge of cooling water is 2,969.4 million gallons ( 70.7 million b bl ) per well.

Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires NPDES permits to ensu re that the location, design, construction, and 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 NPDES General P er mit No. GEG460000 does not specifyDe Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 9 requirements for existing facilities (those that started construction before 16 July 2006) , which
includes the Transocean Discoverer Deep Seas

. The DP drilling vessel ultimately selected for this project will be in compl iance with all coolin g water intake structure requirements.



## A.6 Onshore Waste Disposal

Solid and liquid wastes generated during drilling are tabulated in EP Attachment N . An
estimated total of 1,000 ft 3 ( 28 m 3 ) of trash and debris will be transported to the shorebase for dispo sal at Newpark Environmental in Port Fourchon , Louisiana. An estimated 5,000 bbl/well of spent SBM drilling fluids and cuttings will be transported in cuttings boxes on supply boats to
the shorebase and trucked to Newpark Environmental for disposal.



## A.7 Marine Debris

Murphy will comply with all regulations relating to solid wastes handling and disposal, including
the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPO L 73/78)

Annex V requirements and USEPA and U.S. Coast Guard ( USCG ) regulations, as well as those of
the BOEM

. For example, BOEM regulations at 30 CFR 250.300(a) and (b)(6) prohibit operators from deliberately discharging containers and other similar mate rials (i.e., trash and debris) into the marine environment, and 30 CFR 250.300(c) requires durable identification markings on equipment, tools

, and containers (especially drums), and other material. USEPA and USCG regulations require operators to become p roactive 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. In addition to the regulations in 30 CFR 250

, BSEE issued

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 awareness training and certification process.



## A.8 Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

Murphy will use existing shorebase facilities at Port Fourchon , Louisiana

, f or onshore support for vessel activities. Air transportation (helicopters) will be based at facilities in Galliano , Louisiana.

N o terminal expansion or construction is planned at either location

.
The project will be supported by one crew boat and two sup ply vessels traveling between the drilling rig and the onshore support base. The crew boat will make one round trip per week

, and the supply vessels will make two round trips per week. Typically, the boats will move to the project area via the most direc t route from the shorebase.

A helicopter will make round

- trips per week between the drilling rig and the heliport as

necessary. The helicopter will be used to transport personnel and small supplies and will normally take the most direct route of travel between the shorebase and the lease area when air traffic and weather conditions permit. Helicopters typically 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. Additional guidelines and re gulations specify that helicopters
maintain an altitude of 1,000 ft ( 305 m ) within 300 ft ( 91 m ) of marine mammals ( BOEM, 2012a ).De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 10 

## A.9 Accidents

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 exploration activities; and

• t he worst case discharge ( WCD ) for this Initial EP, which is an oil spill resulting from an
uncontrolled blowout.

The following subsections summarize assumptio ns about the size s and fate s of these spills, as
well as Murphy ’s spill response plans. Impacts are analyzed in Section C

.

MMS ( 2007b) and BOEM (2012 b ) analyze d other types of accidents including : chemical spills, vessel collisions, and loss of well control. These types of accidents

, along with a n SBM spill from
a riser disconnect and a hydrogen sulfide ( H 2 S ) release

, are discussed briefly in Section A.9.4

.



### A.9.2 Small Fuel Spill

Spill Size . According to the analys e s in MMS (2007b ) and BOEM ( 2012b ), the most likely type of small spill (<1,000 bbl) as a result of OCS activities is a minor diesel fuel spill. Historically, most diesel spills have been ≤ 1 bbl, and this size is predicted to be the most c ommon in ongoing and
future OCS activities in the W estern and Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas . As the spill size increases, the incident rate declines dramatically (MMS, 2007b ; BOEM, 2012c ). The median size for spills ≤ 1 bbl is 0.0 24 bbl, and the median size for spills of 1 to 10 bbl is 3 bbl ( BOEM , 2012b ). 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 of the contents of a fuel transfer hose, which is less th an 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 activities. However, g iven the open ocean location of the lease area and response actions, it is expected
that impacts from a small spill would be minimal ( BOEM, 2012c )

.

The water

- soluble fractions of diesel are dominated by two

- and three

- ringed polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH s ), which are moderately volatile (National Research Council, 2003). The constituents of these oils are light to intermediate in molecular weight and can be readily degraded by aerobic microbial oxidation. Due to its light density, diesel 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 (National Research Council, 2003) and would not be expected 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 ( National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [ NOAA ] , 2006).

For purposes of this EIA, t he fate of a small diesel fuel spill was estimated using NOA A’s Automated Data Inquiry for Oil Spills 2 (ADIOS2) model. 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. I t is estimated that over 90% of a small diesel spill would be evaporated or dispersed within 24 hours. The area ofDe Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 11 the sea surface with diesel fuel on it during this 24

- hour period 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 trajectory information discussed below for a large spill,
indicate that a small fuel spill would not have any impacts on coastal or shoreline resources.

T he lease area is approximately 75 miles ( 121 km) from the nearest shoreline (Louisiana)

. Modeling results discussed below indicate that a spill in the lease area will contact shorelines
from Texas to Florida within 120 days with various probabilities duri ng different seasons (see

Section A.9.3 ). Shorter time periods result in lower probabilities of contact. By those time s , essentially 100% of a small fuel spill would have been dispersed or evaporated by natural processes, without taking into account Murphy ’s response measures. 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 (2 007b) noted that this conclusion is supported by a previous analysis of three

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

Spill Response . In the unlikely event the shipboard prevention procedures fai l to prevent a fuel spill, response equipment and trained personnel would be activated so that any spill effects
would be localized and would result only in short

- term environmental consequences.

EP Attachment Q provides a detailed discussion of Murphy ’s response to a spill.



### A.9.3 Crude Oil Spill (Worst Case Discharge)

Spill Size . In accordance with requirements of NTL 2010

- N06, Murphy has estimated a WCD for
this EP as 394,475 barrels of oil per day (BOPD). The maximum total volume during a blowout
coul d potentially be 6.496 million barrels of oil (MMBO)

, assuming no source control/contain ment intervention and reduction

. The detailed analysis of this calculation can be
found in EP Attachment P

.
Historically, blowouts are rare events and most do not result in oil spills. Holand (1997) estimated a probability of 0.0021 for a deep drilling blowout during exploration drilling based on U.S. Gulf of Mexico data. An updated analysis using the SINTEF d atabase estimates a blowout frequency of 0.0017 per exploratory well for non

- North Sea locations (International Association of Oil & Gas Producers, 2010). As noted by MMS (2007b), from 1992 to 2005, half of blowouts lasted less than half a day, and fewer than 10% of blowouts resulted in spilled oil. BOEM is in the process of updating these spill frequency estimates to include the recent Macondo event; however, significant changes to the spill rates for the entire OCS are not anticipated ( BOEM,

2012a ). As noted in the Introduction , the baseline risk of a catastrophic blowout is estimated to be once every 26 years ( BSEE Final Drilling Safety Rule, 75 FR 63365).

Murphy will drill to the objective sands outlined in the EP utilizing a typical structural,
condu ctor, surface, and production casing program. If mandated by wellbore conditions, an intermediate casing string will be set prior to drilling through the objective sand. In the event of a blowout during the course of drilling an open hole in the objectiv e sands, Murphy would immediately activate its Sub

- Regional Oil Spill Response Plan and Spill Management Team to initiate recovery of liquid hydrocarbons on the receiving water and review potential well intervention options as detailed in their Well Contai nment Plan which will be approved separately prior to initiating operations under this EP. Murphy will comply with NTL 2010

- N 10
and the Final Drilling Safety Rule, which specif ies additional safety measures for OCS activities.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 12 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

pre dict spill fate. Although this model has received some criticism recently (Earthjustice, 2011), it is still the most widely scientifically accepted model for estimating the fate of small fuel spills.
The primary criticism of the OSRA model results as provided in Ji et al. (2004) was that the
model did not evaluate the fate of a spill over time periods longer than 30 days, nor d id it predict the fate of a release that continues over a period of weeks or months, as in the Macondo
incident. Al so as noted by Ji et al. (2004), the OSRA model does not take into 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 spi ll size but has generally been used by the BOEM to evaluate contact probabilities for spills greater than 1,000 bbl.

To address this criticism

, a special OSRA run was conducted for the recent BOEM Western and
Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area Supplement al EIS s ( BOEM, 2012c ) in order to estimate the impacts of a possible future catastrophic long

- duration oil spill. In this OSRA model run a hypothetical high volume, long

- duration oil spill was assumed to have occurred, and the analysis emphasized modeling a spill that continued for 90 consecutive days, with each traject ory tracked for up to 120 days.

The OSRA model run for this revised analysis was conducted for five hypothetical launch points
in the Central a nd Western Gulf o f Mexico Planning Areas

. Thes e launch point s were deliberately located in area s identified as having a high possibility of containing large oil

reserves.

The five launch point areas were as follows:

1. Central Gulf of Mexico shelf are a west of the Mississip pi River (28.98660° N latitude, 92.17851 ° W longitude);

2. Central Gulf of Mexico shelf area east of the Mississippi River ( 29.91388 ° N latitude, 88.15338 ° W longitude);

3. Central Gulf of Mexico slope area ( 27.31998 ° N latitude, 90.22203 ° W longitude);

4. Western Gulf of Mexico shelf area ( 27.5 5423 ° N latitude, 96.76627 ° W longitude); and

5. We stern Gulf of Mexico slope area ( 27.51367 ° N latitude, 94.51836 ° W longitude).

The results for Launch Point 2 , the launch point nearest to the project area, are presented in
Table 3

.
OSRA is a preliminary risk assessment model. In the event of an actual oil spill, real

- time monitoring and trajectory modeling would be conducted using current and wind data available from the rigs and permanent production structures in the area

. Satellite and aerial monitori ng of the plume and real

- time trajectory modeling using wind and current data would continue on a daily basis to help position equipment and human resources throughout the duration of any major spill or uncontrolled release

.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 13 Table 3. Conditional probabilit ies expressed as percent chance that an oil spill starting at Launch Point 2 will contact a certain parish, county, or coastline within 120 d ays (Modified from: BOEM, 2012c , Appendix C).

Season Winter Spring Summer Fall

Day 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120 3 10 30 120 County or Parish Percent Chance

Cameron, Texas

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1

-- -- -- -- Willa cy, Texas

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1

-- -- -- -- Kened y, Texas

-- -- -- 1

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1
Klebe rg, Texas

-- -- -- 1

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Calhoun, Texas

-- -- -- 1

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 Matag orda, Texas

-- -- -- 2

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1

-- -- -- 2

Brazo ria, Texas

-- -- -- 1

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1
Galve ston, Texas

-- -- -- 1

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1

-- -- -- -- Jefferson, Texas

-- -- -- 1

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Camer on, Louisiana

-- -- -- 1

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Vermi lion, Louisiana

-- -- -- 2

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Terrebonne, Louisiana

-- -- 3 4

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1

-- -- -- 1
Lafou rche, Louisiana

-- -- -- 1

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 1
Jeffe rson, Louisiana

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1

-- -- 1 1 Plaqu emines, Louisiana 1 14 21 23

-- 3 4 6 1 8 20 25 2 21 27 28 St. Bernard, Louisiana

-- 4 5 5

-- 1 2 3 1 7 14 16

-- 8 9 10

H ancock, Mississippi

-- 1 2 4

-- 2 2 2

-- 2 3 3 1 3 5 5

H arrison, Mississippi 2 3 4 5

-- 4 4 4 1 3 4 4 1 2 3 3

J ackson, Mississippi 7 11 11 13 5 11 12 12 1 3 4 4 6 12 13 14
Mobil e, Alabama 11 14 14 15 11 16 17 17 4 8 9 10 8 11 12 13
Baldw in, Alabama 4 7 7 9 6 14 16 17 1 8 10 10 1 2 2 3

Escam bia, Florida

-- 1 1 2 1 5 11 13 1 3 5 6

-- -- 1 1
Okalo osa, Florida

-- -- -- 1

-- 1 2 3

-- -- 1 1

-- -- -- -- Walton, Florida

-- -- -- -- -- 1 1 1

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 Bay, Florida

-- -- -- 1

-- 2 3 5

-- -- 1 2

-- -- -- -- Gulf, Florida

-- -- -- -- -- 1 3 5

-- -- 1 1

-- -- -- -- Franklin, Florida

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3

-- -- 1 2

-- -- -- -- Wakul la, Florida

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Taylo r, Florida

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Levy, Florida

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Monroe, Florida

-- -- -- 1

-- -- -- 1

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Dade, Florida

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

"

-- " = V alues < 1.0 % . A reas where there is <0.5% chance of contact within 120 days are not shown.

Weathering . Following an oil spill, several physical, chemical, and biological processes, collectively called weathering, interact to change the physical and chem ical properties of the oil, influencing potential effects to marine organisms and ecosystems. The most important weathering processes include spreading, evaporation, dissolution, dispersion into the water column, formation of water

- in

- oil emulsions, photo chemical oxidation, microbial degradation, adsorption to suspended PM , and stranding on shore or sedimentation to the seafloor (National Research Council, 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 a slick on the water surface. Evaporated hydrocarbons are degraded rapidly by sunlight. Biodegradation of oil on the water surface and in the water column by marine bacteria removes first the n

- alkanes and then theDe Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 14 light aromatics from the oil. Other petroleum components are biodegraded more slowly.
Photo

- oxidation attacks mainly the medium and high molecul ar weight PAHs i n the oil on the
water surface.

Spill Response

. BOEM has issued re c ent NTLs following the Macondo spill that clarify additional
oil

- spill prevention and response planning requirements. These NTL s are summarized in Table 2

, and additional BOEM (2012 b ) guidance is provided below.

NTL 2012

- N06

– Guidance to Owners and Operators of Offshore Facilities Seaward of the Coast Line Concerning Regional Oil Spill Response Plans: This NTL, effective 10 August 2012, provides clarification, guidance, an d information on the preparation and submittal of regional OSRPs for owners and operators of oil handling, storage, or transportation facilities, inclusive of pipelines, located seaward of the coastline. It states that lessees, designated operators, and pi peline right

- of

- way holders are responsible for preparation and submission of these plans. Some of the clarifications and recommended practices in the NTL are based on lessons learned from the Macondo oil spill response.

NTL 2010

- N10

– Statement of Compli ance with Applicable Regulations and Evaluation of Information Demonstrating Adequate Spill Response and Well Containment Resources : This NTL, effective 8 November 2010, applies only to operators conducting operations using
subsea or surface BOPs on float ing facilities. It requires that lessees and operators must submit a statement signed by an authorized company official with each well permit application indicating that they will conduct all of their authorized activities in compliance with all applicabl e regulations, including the Increased Safety Measures Regulations at

75 FR 63346. The NTL also informs lessees that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement ( BOEMRE ) will evaluat e whether the operator has submitted adequate information demonstrating that it has access to and can deploy surface and subsea containment resources that would be adequate to promptly respond to a blowout or other loss of well control. The NTL notifies the operator that BOEMRE intends to evaluate
th e adequacy of each operator to comply in the operator’s current OSRP; therefore, there is an incentive for voluntary compliance.

NTL 2010

- N06

– Information Requirements for Exploration Plans, Development and Production Plans, and Development Operations Coo rdination Documents on the OCS : This NTL, effective 18 June 2010, explains the procedures for the lessee or operator to submit supplemental information for new or previously submitted EPs, Development and
Production Plans , or D evelopment O perations C oordin ation D ocument s. The required supplemental information includes the following: ( 1) a description of the blowout scenario as required by 30 CFR 25 0.213(g) or 30 CFR 250.243(h) ; ( 2) a description of their assumptions and calculations used in determining the volume of the WCD required by

30 CFR 2 50.219 or 30 CFR 250.250 ; and ( 3) a description of the measures proposed that would enhance the ability to prevent a blowout, to reduce the likelihood of a blowout, and to conduct effective and early intervention in t he event of a blowout, including the arrangements for drilling relief wells and any other measures proposed. The early intervention methods of the third requirement could actually include the surface and subsea

containment resourc es that BOEM announced in NTL 2010

- N10, which states that BOEM
will review to ensure that the measures are adequate to promptly respond to a blowout or
other loss of well control.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 15 EP Attachment Q provides a detailed description of Murphy’s site

- specific response to the worst case spill for this plan. These sections, along with Murphy ’s Oil Spill Response Plan ( OSRP ) , also include a description of surface and subsea containment capabilities that could be implemented
in the event of the worst case spill for this plan.

Oil spill response

- related activities for facilities included in th e EP will incorporate the s tate of Florida; Murphy has a Sub

- Regional OSRP that was approved in August 2011 with a more recent
modification of July 2012 awaiting appro val. Murphy will be demonstrating oil spill financial responsibility for the facilities proposed in this EP according to 30 CFR Part 25 4 and

NTL 2008

- N05, “Guidelines for Oil Spill Financial Responsibility for Covered Facilities.”



### A.9.4 Other Accidents Not Analyzed in Detail

MMS ( 2007b) and BOEM (2012b) discuss other types of accidents including : chemical spills, vessel collisions, and loss of well control. The information from the EIS on these topics remains valid and is incorporated by reference into this document. These accidents are discussed briefly below along with a SBM spill from a riser disconnect and a H 2 S release . T here are no other

site

- specifi c issues for the drilling of the well s proposed in this EP.

Chemical Spills

. Chemicals are stored and used to condition drill muds and during production and in well completions, stimulation, and workover procedures. The relative quantity of their

use is reflected in the largest volumes spilled. Completion fluids are the largest quantity used
and comprise the largest releases. Between 5 and 15 chemical spills are anticipated each year, with the majority being <50 bbl in size. The most common chemicals s pilled are methanol, ethylene glycol, and zinc bromide. Additional production chemicals are needed in deepwater operations where gas hydrates tend to form. Spill volumes are anticipated to remain about the same, but spill frequency can be expected to dec rease because of advances in subsea processing ( BOEM, 2012c )

.
Riser Disconnect SBM Spills

. In deepwater drilling, SBMs a re preferred over petroleum oil

- based muds (OBMs) due to the superior environmental properties of SBMs

. The synthetic base fluid s used in SBMs are less toxic to the marine environment and have the potential to biodegrade.
SBMs have been used in the Gulf of Mexico since the mid

- 1990 s , and between 5 and 20 SBM releases are anticipated each year as a result of offshore drilling programs. The majority of these releases are <50 bbl in size, but accidental riser disconnects may result in the release of medium (238 to 2,380 bbl) to large (>2,381 bbl) quantities of dril ling fluids. Riser disconnect accidents are of particular concern when SBM s are in use ( BOEM , 201 3a ).

Vessel Collisions

. BOEM data show that from 1996 to 2009 there were 226 OCS

- related
collisions. Most collision mishaps are the result of service vessels colliding with platforms or vessel collisions with pipeline risers. Appro ximately 10 % of vessel collisions with platforms in
the OCS resulted in diesel spills , and in several collision incidents

, f ires resulted from hydrocarbon releases. To date, the largest diesel spill associated with a collision occurred in
1979 when an anc hor

- handling boat collided with a drilling platform in the Main Pass leas e area, spilling 1,500 bbl. Diesel fuel is the product most frequently spilled

, but oil, natural gas, corrosion inhibitor, hydraulic fluid, and lube oil have also been released as th e result of vessel
collision s

. Human error account ed for approximately half of all reported vessel collisions from

2006 to 2009. As summarized in MMS (2007b ) and BOEM (201 2 b ), vessel collisions occasionally occur during routine operations. Some of these collisions have caused spills of diesel fuel orDe Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 16 chemicals. Murphy will comply with all 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 very minor up to the most serious well control incidents, while
blowouts are considered to be a s ubset of more serious incidents with greater risk of oil spill or human injury (MMS, 2007b). Loss of well control may result in the release of synthetic drilling
fluid or loss of oil. Murphy has a robust system in place to prevent loss of well control.

M easures to prevent a blowout

, reduce the likelihood of a blowout, and conduct effective and early intervention in the event of a blowout are described in the NTL 2010

- 06 package submitted with the exploration plan, as required

. The potential for a loss

- o f

- well

- control event will be minimized by adhering to the requirements of applicable regulations such as the
Final Drilling Safety Rule and NTL 2010

- N10 , which specify additional safe ty measures for

OCS activities.

H 2 S Release

. Based on data from nearby prospects in the De Soto Canyon Area, an estimated

H 2 S concentration of 0 to 40 ppm may be encountered while conducting the proposed operations. Murphy does not anticipate encountering H 2 S concentrations greater than
500 ppm, therefore a Modeling Plan is not required per NTL 2008

- 04. In accordance with
Title 30 CFR 250.490( f ), Murphy will submit an H 2 S Contingency Plan to the appropriate BSEE

G ulf of M exico R egion district office. Murphy will request that D C 178 be classified by the BOEM
as an area where the presence of H 2 S has been confirmed

. Based on this, no further discussion
of H 2 S is warranted.



## B. Affected Environment

The lease area is on the continental slope in the central Gulf of Mexico, 75 miles (121 km) from
the nearest shoreline (Louisiana) , and 145 miles (233 km) from the onshore support base at Port
Fourchon , Louisiana ( Figure 1 ). The lease area, located west of the Florida Escarpment, is approximately 50 mi les (80 km) southeast of the continental shelf edge within a region punctuated by numerous submarine canyon features ( Geoscience Earth & Marine Services, Inc. [ GEMS ] , 2013). Figure 2 shows the b athymetry and location of DC 178 in the Central Gulf of

Mexico Planning Area.

W ater depth s at the wellsite s range from approximately 6,567 to 6,580 ft ( 2,002 to 2,006 m). There is no evidence of significant seafloor or subsurface faulting, fluid expulsion featu res, or high

- density deepwater benthic communities near the wellsites and the potentials for shallow water flow and shallow gas vary fro m negligible to low ( GEMS , 201 3 )

.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 17

Figure 2. Bathymetric map of the lease area showing the surf ace hole locations of W ells "A " , "B

, " and
"C" in De Soto Canyon Block 178

.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 18 A detailed description of the regional affected environment, including meteorology, oceanography, geology, air and water quality, benthic communities, threatened and endangered species, biologically sensitive resources, archaeological resources, socioeconomic conditions, and other marine uses i s provided in recent lease sale EISs (MMS, 2007b, 200 3;

BOE M, 2012b ). These regional descriptions remain valid and are incorporated by reference. General background information is presented below, and brief descriptions of each potentially affected resource, including site

- specific and/or new information if available

, are presented in
Section C

.
The Macondo spill resulted in impacts to water quality in the area of the spill. In addition to the
oil slick on the sea surface, plumes of submerged oil droplets were produced when subsea dispersants we re applied at the wellhead (Camilli et al., 2010; Hazen et al., 2010; Joint Analysis Group, 2010a,b,c)

. Despite limited information on the water quality of deep water, it is clear
that condition s in the offshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico w ere altered by the Macondo event

. Various monitoring efforts and environmental studies are in progress, but it is not currently possible to precisely estimate the long

- term impacts the spill will have on offshore water quality ( BOEM, 2012b ).

The lease area is located approximately 33 miles (53 km) east of the Macondo spill site. Based on an analysis of satellit e imagery, the surface slick extend ed over the lease area and there is the possibility that water quality in the lease area was briefly affected. P rior to the Macondo incident, water quality in deep, offshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico wa s expected to be good

, with low levels of contaminants (Kennicutt, 2000)

. Based on the information currently available,
there is no reason to expect any long

- term change in water qua lity conditions in the lease area
from those predicted in the recent lease sale EISs (MMS, 2007b, 2003; BOEM, 2012b,c).



## C. Impact Analysis

This section analy z es the potential direct and indirect impacts of routine activities and accidents. Impacts have been analyzed extensively in recent lease sale EISs for the Eastern, Central

, and
Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas (MMS, 2007b ; BOEM, 2012 b, c ) as well as the

E nvironmental A ssessment for Gulf of Mexico deepwater operations and activities (MMS, 2000)

a nd the EIS for deepwater Grid 18 where the lease area is located (MMS, 2003)

. The information in these documents is incorporated by reference. Potential s ite

- specific issues are
addressed in this section.



## C.1 Physical/Chemical Environment

C.1.1 Air Quali ty

There are no site

- specific air quality data for the project area

. Because of the distance from
shore

- based pollution sources and the lack of sources offshore

, air quality at the wellsite s 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)

.
In general, ambient air quality on coastal counties along the Gulf of Mexico is relatively good (BOEM, 2012a). As of December 14, 2012, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida coastalDe Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 19 counties and parishes are in attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for all criteria pollutants ( USEPA, 2012). One coastal metropolitan area in Texas (Houston

- Galveston

- Brazoria) is a nonattainment area for 8

- hour ozone.

As noted earlier, based on calculations made pursuant to applicable regulations, emissions from drilling activities are not expecte d to be significant as they are below exemption levels. Therefore, the only potential effects to air quality would be from routine air pollutant emissions,

a small fuel spill , and a large oil spill (WCD).

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for air quality p resented in MMS (2007b) based on
additional information and in consideration of the Macondo oil spill event

. No substantial new
information was found that would alter the potential impact s on air quality presented in previous lease sale EIS s ( BOEM, 2012c )

.


### 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 drilling rig operations and helicopters and service vessels. These

emissions occur m ainly from combustion or burning of diesel fuel. The combustion of fuels occurs primarily on diesel

- powered generators, pumps, or motors and from lighter fuel motors. Primary air pollutants typically associated with OCS activities are suspended PM, SO
x , NO
x , VOCs,
and CO. Emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere from these 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 described in previous
lease sale EISs, the incremental contribution to cumulative impacts from activities similar to Murphy ’s proposed activities is not significant and will not cause or contribute to a violation of

any NAAQS (MMS, 2007b ; BOEM, 2012b ). Since the BOEM completed the lease sale EISs, the USEPA has adopted a new short

- term NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) . The standard has not yet been implemented in the Gulf Coast states, but given the levels of expected emissions and the distance of the project from shore, emissions from the activities described in Murphy ’s

propose d EP are not likely to contribute to violations of any NAAQS onshore.

Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and methane ( CH 4 ) emissions from the project would constitute a s mall incremental contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from all OCS activities. According
to the Final Programmatic EIS ( BOEM, 2012a ), estimated CO 2 emissions from all OCS activities in the 2012 leasing program are about 0. 0 25 % to 0. 0 49 % of the g lobal CO 2 emissions from fossil
fuel combustion and GHG emissions are about 0.0046% to 0.0078% of the total global GHG

emissions

. GHG emissions may contribute to climate change, with important effects on temperature, rainfall, frequency of severe weather, ocean acidification, and sea level rise (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007). GHG emissions from this proposed project represent a negligible contribution to the total GHG emissions from reasonably foreseeable
activities in the Gulf of Mexic o area and would not significantly alter any of the climate change impacts evaluated in the lease sale EIS (MMS

, 2007b) or Final Programmatic EIS ( BOEM, 2012a ).

Because of the distance from shore, routine operations in the project area are not expected to have any impact on air quality conditions along the coast, including nonattainment areas.

As noted in the Final Programmatic EIS ( BOEM, 2012a )

, emissions of air pollutant s from routine
activities in the Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area are projected to have minimal impacts to onshore air quality because of the prevailing atmospheric conditions, emission heights, emissionDe Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 20 rates, and the distance of these emissions from the coastline

. The Air Quality Emissions Report (see EP Attachment O ) prepared in accordance with BOEM requirements shows that the projected emissions are below exemption levels; therefore, according to 30 CFR 5 50 .303

, the emissions will not significantly affect the air quality of the onshore area for any of the criteria pollutants. No further analysis or control measures are 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 is required to notify the National Park Service (NPS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS ) if emissions from proposed projects may affect the Breton Class I a rea. 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 90 miles (145 km ) from the

Breton Wilderness Area

, therefore additional modeling may be necessary

. Murphy will comply
with all BOEM r equirements regarding air emissions including consultation with the Federal Land Manager, if necessary

.


### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spi ll

Potential impacts o f a small spill on air quality are expected to be consistent with th os e analyzed
and discussed in EISs prepared for previous lease sales (MMS, 2003, 2007b ; BOEM, 2012c ). The probability of a small spill would be minimized by Murphy ’s preventative measures during routine operations, including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Murphy ’s OSRP will reduce the potential impacts. 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 affect air quality near the spill site by introducing VOCs through evaporation. The ADIOS2 model ( see Section A.9.2 ) indicates 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.

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 (WCD)

Potential impacts of a large oil spill on air quality are expected to be consistent with th os e analyzed a nd discussed in previous lease sale EISs (MMS, 2003, 2007b ; BOEM, 2012c ).

A large oil spill (WCD) could potentially 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. Real

- time wind and current data from the project area would be available at the time of a spill and would be used to assess the fate and effects of VOCs released. Additional air quality impacts could occur if response measures included in situ burning of the floating o il. Burning would generate a plume of black smoke and result in emissions of NO x , SO
x , CO, and PM, as well as GHGs

. However, in situ burning would occur only after authorization from the

USEPA.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 21 Because of the lease area location ( 75 miles [ 121 km ] from t he nearest shoreline )

, most air quality impacts would occur in offshore waters

. Depending on the spill trajectory and the effectiveness of spill response measures, coa stal air quality could also be affected. Based on the OSRA ( BOEM, 2012c ) modeling predictions ( T able 3 ), Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes, Louisiana; Jackson , Harrison, and Hancock Count ies , Mississippi ; Baldwin and Mobile Counties, Alabama; and Escambia County, Florida , are the coastal areas most likely to be affected.



### C.1.2 Water Quality

There are no site

- specific water quality data for the lease area. Because of the lease location in deep, offshore waters, water quality is expected to be good, with low levels of contaminants.

As noted in a recent lease sale EIS ( BOEM, 2012c ), de epwate r areas in the northern
Gulf of Mexico are relatively homogeneous with respect to temperature, salinity, and oxygen. Kennicutt (2000) noted that the deepwater region has little evidence of contaminants in the dissolved or particulate phases of the w ater column. However, there are localized occurrences of natural seepage of oil, gas, and brines in near

- surface sediments and up through the water
column.

The lease area is located approximately 33 miles (53 km) f r om the Macondo spill site

. Based on the general circulation pattern seen in the Gulf of Mexico and satellite imagery, the surface slick from that discharge extend ed over the lease area during the spill

, and the existing water quality
in the lease area could have been temporarily affected.

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

a small fuel spill and a large oil spill (WCD).



### Impacts of Effluent Discharges

In general, turbid water can be expected to extend between a few hundred meters and several
kilometers down c urrent from the discharge point for water

- based drilling muds and cuttings

. SBMs will be collected on the rig and either reused by the vendor, or transported to

Port Fourchon for recycling and/or disposal in an approved facility. Cuttings wetted with SBMs will be discharged to the seafloor in accordance with the NPDES permit. A ll NPDES permit limitations and requirements will be met. There will be no persistent impacts on water quality
in the lease area ( National Research Counc il , 1983; Neff, 1987 ; Neff et al., 2000 ).

Treated sanitary and domestic wastes , including those from support vessels, may have a slight transient effect on water quality in the immediate vicinity of these discharges. All NPDES permit limitations and requi rements and USCG regulations (as applicable) will be met , therefore, l ittle or no impact on water quality is anticipated.

Deck drainage includes all effluents resulting from rain, deck washings, and runoff from curbs, gutters, and drains, including drip pa ns in work areas. Rainwater that falls on uncontaminated areas of the drilling rig will flow overboard without treatment. However, rainwater that falls on the drilling rig deck and other areas such as chemical storage areas and places where equipment

is exposed will be collected and oil and water separated to meet NPDES permit requirements. Based on adherence to permit limits and applicable regulations, l ittle or no impact on water quality is anticipated.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 22 Other discharges in accordance with the NPDES per mit, such as desalination unit brine and uncontaminated cooling water, fire water, and ballast water are expected to be diluted rapidly

, resulting in little or no impact on water quality.



### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

Potential impacts of a small spill on wate r quality are expected to be consistent with th os e analyzed and discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b ; BOEM, 2012c ). The probability of a small spill would be minimized by Murphy ’s preventative measures during routine operations

, including fuel transfe r. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Murphy ’s OSRP will potentially help mitigate and reduce the impacts. Given the 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 meteorologica l and oceanographic conditions at the time and the effectiveness of spill response measures. However, i t is estimated that over 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 PAH s , which are moderately volatile (National Research Council, 2 003). The constituents of these oils are light to intermediate in molecular weight and can be readily degraded by aerobic microbial oxidation. Because the density of diesel is less than the density of seawater, diesel will not sink and pool on
the seaflo or. Diesel dispersed in the water column can adhere to suspended sediments, but this generally occurs only in coastal areas with high suspended solid loads (National Research Council, 2003) and would not be expected to occur to any appreciable degree in o ffshore 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 would not be expected

to make landfall or reach c oastal waters due to both response efforts that would be undertaken
as well as natural attenuation (see Section A.9.2 ).



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

Potential impacts of a large oil spill on wate r quality are expected to be consistent with th os e analyzed and discussed in previous lease sale EISs (MMS, 2003, 2007b ; BOEM, 2012b,c ). A large spill w ould affect water quality by producing a slick on the water surface and increasing the concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and their degradation prod ucts. 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 new infor mation from the Macondo spill indicates 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). However, dispersants would be ap plied only after approval from the USEPA. Small droplets in the water may adhere to suspended sediment s and be removed from the water column (Operational Scientific Advisory Team [ OSAT ], 2010).De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 23 Because of the lease area location ( 75 miles [ 121 km ] from th e nearest shoreline)

, it is expected
that most water quality impacts would occur in offshore waters

. Depending on the spill trajectory and the effectiveness of spill response measures, coa stal water quality could be affected. Based on the OSRA ( BOEM, 201 2c ) modeling predictions ( T able 3 ), Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes, Louisiana; Jackson , Harrison, and Hancock Count ies , Mississippi ; Baldwin and Mobile Counties, Alabama; and Escambia County, Florida , are the coastal areas most likely
to be affected.



## C.2 Seafloor Habitats and Biota

W ater depth s at the proposed well surface locations range from approximately 6,567 to 6,580 ft ( 2,002 to 2,006 m )

. The seafloor around the proposed wellsites is relatively smooth and stable. The immediate regions around t he proposed well locations show no evidence of seafloor instability within 2,000 ft ( 610 m) of the wellsites. No areas of possible hard bottom or microseepages were seen within 2,000 ft ( 610 m) of any of the wellsites (GEMS , 201 3 )

.

The site clearance survey did not identify any features that could support high

- density deepwater benthic communities within 2,000 ft ( 610 m) of the wellsites. No areas of gaseous sediments or possible hydrocarbon seepage were defined in the study area, and the presence of chemosynthetic communities is considered negligible (GEMS , 201 3 ).

The BOEM uses a biologically based grid system to ensure broad and systematic analysis of the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, including remotely operated vehicle (ROV) coverage. The BOEM
website indicates that ROV survey coverage for Grid 18, where the lease area is located, is adequate to characterize the area (BOEM, 2013 b )

.



### C.2.1 Soft Bottom Benthic Communities

There are no site

- specific benthic community data from the lease area. However, 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 collected at stations in water depths similar to the proposed drilling

area. Sediments at these stat ions were predominantly clay (51 % to 57%) and silt (35 % to 45%).

Table 4

. Benthic community data from stations near the lease area and in greater water depths and more distant stations in more similar depths sampled during the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Slope Habitats and Benthic Ecology Study ( Adapted f rom: 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)

S36 13 mi NE 1,826 799,963 4,481 359

S37 20 mi S 2,387 291,179 2,192 1,451

S38 50 mi SE 2,627 157,164 1,445 1,577

Meiofaunal and megafaunal abundances from Rowe and Kennicutt (2009); macroinfaunal abundance from

Wei (2006).De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 24 F aunal densities in the De Soto C anyon were high and were accompanied by high diversity. This variation from other sample sites may be due to the movement of riverine discharge from the Mississippi River into deeper water by cyclo nes (Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009).

Densities of meiofaun a (animals passing through a 0.3

- mm sieve but retained on a 0 .062

- mm sieve) in water depths representative of the lease area typically range from approximately

165 ,000 to 80 0 ,000 individuals/m 2 (Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009). Nematodes, nauplii, and harpacticoid copepods were the three dominant meiofaunal g roups, accou nting for about

90% of total abundance.

The benthic macroinfauna is characterized by small mean individual sizes and low densities, both of which reflect the meager 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 depths of the lease area are expected to be about 1,6 00 individuals/m 2

.
Polychaetes are typically the most abunda nt macroinfauna l group on the northern
Gulf of Mexico continental slope, followed by amphipods, tanaids, bivalves, and isopods. Wei (2006) recognized four depth

- dependent faunal zones (1 through 4), two of which are divided
ho r izontally. Zone 2E, where t he lease area is located, consists of stations in water depths ranging from 2,051 to 5,998 ft ( 625 to 1,828 m); the most abundant species in this zone were the polychaetes Aricidea suecica

, Litocorsa attenata

, Paralacydonia paradoxa, and Tharyx marioni

, fo llowed by the bivalve Heterodonta sp. D.

Megafaunal densities from nearby s tations ranged from 359 to 1,577 individuals/ha

. Common megafauna included motile groups such as decapods, ophiuroids, holothurians, and demersal fishes as well as sessile groups s uch as sponges and anemones.

Bacteria also are 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 g C/m 2 in the top 15 cm of sediments (Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009).

IPFs potentially affecting benthic communities are physical disturbance to the seafloor, effluent discharges (drilling muds and cuttings), and a large oil spill (WCD) resulting from a well blowout
at the seafloor. Because a DP semisubmersible will be used, there will be no seafloor
disturbances from the use of anchors. A small fuel spill would not affect benthic communities because the diesel fuel would float and dissipate on the sea surface.



### Impa cts of Physical Disturbance to the Seafloor

In water depths such as are encountered in the lease area, DP drillships disturb the seafloor only around the wellbore (SHL) where the bottom template and BOP are located. Depending upon the specific well config uration, this area is gene rally about 0.62 ac ( 0.25 ha).

T he areal extent of these impacts from the DP rig will be small compared to the lease area itself, and these type s oft bottom communities are ubiquitous along the northern Gulf of Mexico
continental slope (Gallaway, 1988; Gallaway et al., 2003; Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009). Impacts
from the physical disturbance of the seafloor during this project will have no significant impact on soft bottom benthic communities in the region

.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 25 

### Impacts of Effluent Discha rges

Drilling muds and cuttings are the only effluents that are likely to affect benthic communities. During initial well interval(s) before the marine riser is set, cuttings and seawater

- based " spud
mud " will be released at the seafloor. Excess cement slurry will also be released at the seafloor during casing installation for the riserless portion of the drilling operations. Cement slurry components typically include cement mix and some of the same chemicals used in water

- based drilling m uds (Boehm et al., 2001). The main impacts will be burial and smothering of benthic organisms within several meters to tens of meters around the wellbore. Soft bottom sediments disturbed by cuttings, drilling muds, and cement slurry will eventually be re colonized through larval settlement and migration from adjacent areas. Because some deep

- sea biota grow and reproduce slowly, recovery may require several years.

Discharges of washed SBM cuttings from the rig may affect benthic communities, primarily
with in several hundred meters of the wellsite. The fate and effects of SBM cuttings have been reviewed by Neff et al. (2000), and monitoring studies hav e been conducted in the
Gulf of Mexico by Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (2004, 2006). In general, was hed cuttings with adhering SBMs 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., 200 6). Where SBM cuttings accumulate in concentrations of approximately 1,000 mg/kg or higher, 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 ). Infaunal 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 gradua lly return to pre

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

T he areal extent of impacts from drilling discharges will be small. Assuming a typical effect
radius of 1,640 ft ( 500 m), the affected area around the wellsite would represent about 3% of
the seafloor within a lease block.

Soft bottom communities are ubiquitous along the northern Gulf of Mexico continental slope (Gallaway, 1988; Gallaway et al., 2003; Rowe and Kenni cutt, 2009). Impacts from drilling discharges during this project will have no significant impact on soft bottom benthic communities in the region.



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

The most likely effects of a subsea blowout on benthic communities would be within a few
hundred meters of the wellsite. The MMS (2007b) estimat ed that a severe subsurface blowout could resuspend and disperse sediments within a 300

- m (984

- ft) 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. Based on previous studies, surface sediments at the project area are assumed to largely be silt and clay ( Rowe and Kennicutt, 2009 ).De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 26 Recent lease sale EIS ( BOEM, 2012b ) i n dicat ed 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 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 s ubsurface plume could contact the seafloor and affect benthic communities beyond the 300

- m (984

- ft) radius estimated by MMS (2007a)

, depending on its extent, trajectory, and persistence. This contact could result in smothering and/or toxicity
to benthic o rganisms. The affected area would be recolonized by benthic organisms over a period of months to years (National Research Council, 2003).



### C.2.2 High

- Density Deepwater Benthic Communities

As defined by NTL 2009

- G40, high

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

- density chemosynthetic communities, or features or areas that could support high

- density deepwater corals and other associated high

- density hard

- bottom

communities. Chemosynthetic communities were discovere d in the central Gulf of Mexico in 1984 and have been studied extensively (MacDonald, 2002). Deepwater coral communities are also known from numerous locations in the Gulf of Mexico (Brooke and Schroeder, 2007;

CSA International, Inc., 2007). These commu nities occur almost exclusively on authigenic carbonates created by chemosynthetic communities.

The nearest known chemosynthetic community site is approximately 29 miles (47 km)
north

- north thwest of the lease area in Viosca Knoll Block 826 . The nearest id entified deepwater
coral communities are also in Viosca Knoll Block 826

.

The geohazards assessment of the lease area did not identify any features that could support high

- density deepwater benthic communities within 2,000 ft ( 610 m) of the proposed drillin g mud/cut tings discharge locations (GEMS , 201 3 ).

IPFs potentially affecting high

- density deepwater benthic communities include physical disturbance of the seafloor, effluent discharges (drilling muds and cuttings), and a large oil spill (WCD) 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

In water depths such as are encountered in the lease area, DP drillships disturb the seafloor only around the wellbore (SHL) where the bottom template and BOP are located. Depending upon the specific well configuration, this area is gene rally about 0.62 a c ( 0.25 ha).

T he areal extent of these impacts from the DP rig will be small , and NTL 2009

- G40 requires that high

- density deepwater benthic communities and f eatures o r areas that could support high

- density chemosynthetic communities, or deepwater corals co mmunities be avoided

. Based
on the GEMS (201 3 ) report, there will be no impacts on chemosynthetic or deepwater coral communities from this project.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 27 

### Impacts of Effluent Discharges

The s ite c learance s urvey ( GEMS , 201 3 ) did not identify any features that could support high

- density deepwater benthic communities within 2,000 ft ( 610 m) of the proposed drilling locations, and the presence of chemosynthetic communities in the lease area is considered

remote. Mo nitoring programs on the Gulf of Mexico continent al slope have shown that benthic impacts from drilling discharges typically are concentrated within about 1,640 ft ( 500 m) of the
wellsite , although detectable deposits may extend beyond this distance (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2004, 2006; Neff e t al., 2005). Because of the water depth of the lease area, drilling discharges would be expected to result in thinner, more diffuse accumulations on the seafloor than those documented in the literature. Although small amounts of cuttings particles

may r each areas inhabited by high

- density deepwater benthic communities, the discharges are not expected to result in significant impacts to these communities.



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

Previous analyses (MMS, 2007a) 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 direct ly 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 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 high

- dens ity deepwater benthic communities beyond the 300

- m (984

- ft) radius estimated by MMS (2007a)

, depending on its extent, trajectory, and persistence. Oil plumes that contact sensitive benthic communities before degrading could potenti ally impact the resource (BOEM, 2012b). Potential impacts on sensitive resources would be an integral part of the decision and approval process for the use of dispersants , and such approval would be obtained from the USEPA prior to the use of dispersants

.
The biological effects and expected fate of the oil remaining in the Gulf of Mexico from the blowout are still unknown due to the depth and the magnitude of this event. Hazen et al. (2010) reported changes in plume hydrocarbon composition with distance from the source . I ncubat ion experiments with environmental isolates demonstrated faster than expected hydrocarbon biodegradation rates at 5°C. Based on these results, Hazen et al. (2010) suggested the potential exists for intrinsic bioremediation of the oil plume in the deep wat er column without substantial oxygen drawdown.

Potential impacts of oil on high

- density deepwater benthic communities are discussed in

MMS (2007b). Although chemosynthetic communities live among hydrocarbon seeps, natural seepage is very constant and occu rs at low rates compared to the potential rates of oil release from a blowout. In addition, seep organisms also 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 sedimen t characteristics; and reduction or loss of one or more commercial and recreational fisheryDe Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 28 habitats. Sublethal effects could be long

- lasting and affect the resilience of coral colonies to natural disturbances (e.g., elevated water temperature and disease s).

The potential for a spill to affect deepwater corals is indicated by preliminary findings from a recent (October 2010) survey of deepwater coral habitats near the Macondo spill site (BOEMRE, 2010). Government and academic researchers were working at a site 4,600 ft ( 1,400 m) deep and approximately 7 miles (11 km) southwest of the Macondo wellhead when they observed dead and dying corals with sloughing tissue and discoloration. Much of the soft coral observed in an area measuring about 50 ft x 130 ft ( 15 m x 40 m) was covered by what appeared to be a brown flocculent substance (floc). Out of 40 large corals, 90% were heavily affected and showed dead and dying parts and discoloration. Another site 1,312 ft ( 400 m) farther away had a colony of stony cor als similarly affected and partially covered with a similar brown substance. Based on hopanoid petroleum biomarkers from the floc, researchers concluded that it contained oil from the Macondo spill. The injured and dead corals were in an
area where a sub sea plume of oil had been documented during the spill in June, 2010; corals elsewhere in the Gulf of Mexico outside the area affected by the plume did not appear to be experiencing higher mortality. The research team concluded that the observed coral inju ries likely resulted from exposure to the subsurface o il plume (White et al., 2012).



### C.2.3 Designated Topographic Features

The block is not within or near a designated topographic feature or a no

- activity zone as
identified in NTL 2009

- G39 . The nearest designated topographic feature is Sackett Bank in West Delta Area, South Addition Block 147

, 102 miles (164 km) west of the lease area.

There are no IPFs associated with either routine operations or accidents that could cause impacts to desi gnated topographic features due to the distance from the lease area. A small fuel spill would float and dissipate on the surface and would not reach these seafloor features.

In the event of an oil spill from a well blowout, a surface slick would not conta ct these seafloor features. If a subsurface plume were to occur, impacts on these features would be unlikely due to the distance and the difference in water depth

. Near

- bottom currents in the region are predicted to flow along the isobaths (Nowlin et al. , 2001) and typically would not carry a plume

up onto the continental shelf edge

.



### C.2.4 Pinnacle Trend Area Live Bottoms

The lease area is not covered by the Live Botto m (Pinnacle Trend) Stipulation. As defined by

NTL 2009

- G39, the nearest pinnacle trend area is in Viosca Knoll Block 697

, 35 miles (57 km)
north of the lease area.

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. A s mall fuel spill would float on the surface and would not reach these seafloor features.

In the event of an oil spill from a well blowout, a surface slick would not contact these seafloor features. If a subsurface plume were to occur, impacts on these feat ures would be unlikely due to the distance and the difference in water depth

. Near

- bottom currents in the region are predicted to flow along the isobaths (Nowlin et al., 2001) and typically would not carry a plume

up onto the continental shelf edge

.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 29 

### C.2.5 Eastern Gulf Live Bottoms

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

- Relief) Stipulation, which pertains to seagrass communities and low

- relief hard

- bottom reef within the Gulf of Mexico Eastern Planning Area blocks in water depths of 100 m (32 8 ft) or less and portions of Pensacola and Destin Dome area blocks in the Central Planning Area . The nearest block covered by the live bottom stipulation, as defined by NTL 2009

- G39, is Destin Dome Block 57 3 , approximately

43 miles (68 km) north of the l ease 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. A small fuel spill would float and dissipate on the surface and would n ot reach these seafloor features.

In the event of an oil spill from a well blowout, a surface slick would not contact these seafloor features. If a subsurface plume were to occur, impacts on these features would be unlikely due
to the distance and the dif ference in water depth

. Near

- bottom currents in the region are predicted to flow along the isobaths (Nowlin et al., 2001) and typically would not carry a plume

up onto the continental shelf

.



## C.3 Threatened, Endangered, and Protected Species and Critical H abitat

This section discusses species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act ( ESA ) . In addition, it includes all marine mammal species in the region, which are protected
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act ( MMPA ) , and all m arine species listed on the State of Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species List maintained by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)

.
Endangered or threatened species that may occur in the project area and/or along the northern
Gulf C oast are listed in Table 5 . The table also indicates the location of critical habitat (if designated in the Gulf of Mexico). Criti cal habitat is defined as (1) specific areas within the geographical 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 considera tions 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 National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS ) has jurisdiction for ESA

- listed

cet aceans, sea turtles, and fishes in the Gulf of Mexico. The USFWS has jurisdiction for

ESA

- listed birds and the West Indian m anatee.

Table 5

. Federally listed endangered and threatened species potentially occurring in the lease area and along the northern Gulf C oast.

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

West Indian 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

-- NoneTable 5. (Continued).

De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 30 Species Scientific Name Status Potential Presence Critical Habitat Designated
in Gulf of Mexico Lease
Area Coastal

Sea Turtles

Loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta T X X None

Green turtle Chelonia mydas T, E b 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)

Smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata E

-- X Southwest Florida and the Florida Keys
Invertebrates

Elkhorn coral Acropora palmata E

-- X Flower Garden Banks

Terrestrial Mammals

Beach mice (A labama, Choctawhatchee, Perdido Key,
St. Andrew) Peromyscus polionotus E

-- X Alabama and Florida (Panhandle) beaches

Abbreviations: E = e ndangered; T = t hreatened.

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

As mandated by the ESA, BOEMRE consulted NMFS and the USFWS on possible and potential impacts from the proposed leasing in the Gulf of Mexico on endangered/threatened species and their designated critical habitat (MMS

, 2007a

, b)

. A B iological A ssessment was prepared for each
consultation. The formal ESA consultat ion with NMFS was concluded with receipt of the Biological Opinion on 3 July 2007 (NMFS, 2007). The Biological Opinion concludes that the proposed lease sales and associated activities in the Five

- Year Leasing Plan for Western and Central Planning Areas 2 007

- 2012 are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened and endangered species under NMFS jurisdiction or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. The informal ESA consultation with USFWS was concluded with a
letter dat ed 14 September 2007. The USFWS concurred with MMS’s determination that proposed actions of the current Five

- Year Leasing Plan were not likely to adversely affect threatened/endangered species or designated critical habitat under USFWS jurisdiction.
Foll owing the Macondo spill

, BOEMRE requested to reinitiat e an ESA consultation with both
NMFS and USFWS on 30 July 2010. The NMFS responded with a letter to BOEMRE on

24 September 2010 , and t he USFWS responded with a letter to BOEMRE on 27 September 2010. At present, the NMFS and US FWS have placed th e consultation process on hold because they
feel the environmental baseline information needs to be updated for the post

- Macondo spill
environment based on the results of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment ( NRDA ) process. The NRDA data have yet to be released , and the existing consultation remain s in effect ( BOEM,De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 31 2012c )

. The existing consultation recognizes that BOEM

- required mitigations and other reasonable and prudent measures should reduce the likelihoo d of impacts from all

BOEM

- authorized activities in the Gulf of Mexico.

Coastal endangered or threatened species that may occur along the northern Gulf Coast include
the West Indian manatee, Piping Plover, Whooping Crane, Gulf sturgeon, and four subspecies of
beach m ouse . 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 Brown Pelican) are discussed in the MMS (2007b)
lease sale EIS are no lo nger listed as endangered or threatened . T hese are discussed in
Section C.4.2

, Shorebirds and Coastal Nesting Birds

.
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 have been reported from the Gulf of Mexico but are con sidered rare or extralimital there (Würsig et al., 2000). No critical habitat has been designated for these species in the Gulf of Mexico.



### C.3.1 Sperm Whale (Endangered)

The only endangered marine mammal likely to be present at or near the project area is the sperm whale ( Physeter macrocephalus )

. Resident populations of s perm whales occur within the
Gulf of Mexico ; a species description is presented in the Final Programmatic EIS ( BOEM, 2012 a ).
Gulf of Mexico sperm whales are classified as an endangered s pecies and a " strategic stock " (defined as a stock that may have unsustainable human

- caused impacts) by NOAA Fisheries (Waring et al., 20 12 ). No critical habitat for the sperm whale has been designate d in the
Gulf of Mexico.

The distribution of sperm whal es in the Gulf 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 e t al., 2000). Results 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 varia ble in their movements 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 adu lt females and immatures, and groups of bachelor males. Typical group size for mixed gro ups 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 ind ividuals suggest that this area of the Gulf continental slope is within the home range of the Gulf of Me xico population (within the

95% utilization distribution) (Jochens et al., 2008).

IPFs potentially affecting sperm whales include 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 (WCD). Effluent discharges are likely to have negligible impacts on sperm whales due to rapidDe Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 32 dispersion, the small area of oc ean 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

.

C urrent threats to sperm whale populations worldwide are discussed in a final recovery plan for the sperm whale r ecently published by NOAA (NMFS, 2010 a ). Threats are defined as " any factor that could represent an impediment to recovery

, " and include fisheries interactions, anthropogenic noise, ves sel interactions, contaminants and pollutants, disease, injury from marine debris, research, predation and natural mortality, direct harvest, competition for resources, loss of prey base due to climate change and ecosystem change, and cable laying.

In the Gulf of Mexico , the impacts from many of these threats are identified as either low or
unknown ( BOEM, 2012 a, c )

.


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

Noise from routine drilling activities has the potential to disturb sperm whales. Sperm wh ales 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 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 near the lease area

, and the region as a whole has a large
number of similar noise sources. Due to the limited scope and short duration of d rilling activities, this proje ct would represent a small temporary contribution to the overall noise regime.

NMFS analyzed the potential for impacts of drilling

- related noise on sperm whales in its Biological Opinion for the Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Activities: Five

- Year Leasing Plan for Western and Central Planning Areas 2007

- 2012 (NMFS, 2007)

. The analysis noted that
semisubmersible drilling rigs emit 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).

Drilling rig lighting and rig presence are not identified as IPF s for sperm whales in previous lease sale EISs (MMS, 2007b ; BOEM, 2012 b ,c ) or the NMFS (2007) Biological Opini on.



### Impacts of Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

Support vessel traffic 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

c oncerning the frequency of vessel strikes are presented in a previous lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b). To reduce the potential for vessel strikes, the BSEE and BOEM issued

NTL 20 12

- JOINT

- G0 1 , 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 sight ed, 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 la rge assemblages of cetaceans are observed near an underway vessel. Compliance with this NTL will minimize the likelihood of vessel strikes as well as reduce the chance for disturbing sperm whales.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 33 NMFS (2007) analyzed the potential for vessel strikes and harassment of sperm whales . With implementation of the mitigation measures in NTL 20 12

- JOINT

- G01 , NMFS concluded that the likelihood of collisions between vessels and sperm whales would be reduced to insignificant
levels. 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, feeding, or sheltering to individuals, or have any con sequences at the population level

. With implementation of the vessel strike avoidance measures requirement to maintain a distance of 300 ft ( 9 1 m ) from sperm whales, the NMFS concluded that the potential 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 p ass of the aircraft was observed during

3 (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 when aircraft
circled certain wha les 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.

W hile fly ing 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 helicopter will not approach or circle the animals. Although responses are possible (Smultea

et al., 2008), the NMFS (2007) and BOEM (2012 d ) concluded that t his altitude would minimize the potential for disturbing sperm whales. Therefore, no significant impacts are expected

.


### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

Potential spill impacts on marine mammals including sperm whales are discussed in recent lease
sale EISs (MMS, 2007b ; BOEM, 2012 b ,c ) and by NMFS (2007) . Oil impacts on marine mammals are discussed by Geraci and St. Aubin (1990). For this EP , there are no unique si te

- specific issues with respect to spill impacts on these animals that were not analyzed in the previous
documents

.
The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Murphy ’s preventative measures during routine operations including fuel transfer. In t he unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Murphy ’s OSRP will mitigate and lessen the potential for impacts on sperm whales. 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 membranes; inhalation ofDe Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 34 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 duration 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 (WCD)

Potential spill impacts on marine mammals including sperm whales are discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b ; BOEM, 2012 a,b, c ) and by NMFS (2007)

. For this EP , 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 and materials (e.g., vessel traffic, no ise, 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; ingestion 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 may lead to dysfunction of immune and reproductive systems, physiological stress, declining 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/productivity, 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 re sponse could disturb sperm whales 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.



### C.3 .2 West Indian Manatee (Endangered)

M ost of the Gulf of Mexico manatee population is located in peninsular Florida (USFWS, 2001). Manatee sightings in Louisiana have increased as the species extends its presence farther west
of Florida in the warmer month s (Wilson, 2003). A species description is presented in a recent lease sale EIS ( BOEM, 2012a ) and in the recovery plan for this species (USFWS, 2001).

IPFs potentially affecting manatees include support vessel and helicopter traffic and a large oil spill (WCD). A small fuel spill in the lease area would be unlikely to affect manatees, as the lease

area is approximately 75 miles (121 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 traffic 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 reduce the potential for vessel strikes, BSEE and BOEM issued NTL 20 12

- JOINT

- G0 1 , which recommends pr otected 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 de adDe Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 35 protected species. Compliance with this NTL will minimize the likelihood of vessel strikes, and no significant impacts on manatees are expected.

Helicopter traffic 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 altitude s 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 o ffshore, 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. In addition, guidelines and regulations specify that helicopters maintain an altitude of 1,000 ft ( 305 m )
within 300 ft ( 91 m ) of marine mammals (BOEM, 2012a, b ). This mitigation measure will minimize the potential for disturbing manatees, and no significant impacts are expected.



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

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,

no ise, and dispersants) (MMC, 2011 ). Direct physical and physiological e ffects 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 contaminated vegetation, in the case of m anatees); 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 condition, and death. Behavioral response s 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 movement patterns or migration (MMC, 2 01 1 ).

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 strikes, entanglement, or other injur y 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

.



### C.3.3 Endangered Mysticete Whales

Five endangered mystic ete 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 of Mexico.

Because of the rare occurrence of these whales in the Gulf of Mexico and the limited sco pe and duration of the project, it is highly unlikely that any endangered mysticete whales would come into contact with any project activities , either routine operations or accidents . NMFS did not include any of these mysticete whales as affected species in its Biological Opinion (NMFS, 2007)

. Potential impacts are analyzed in previous lease sale EISs (MMS, 2007b ; BOEM, 2012a,b, c )

, 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

.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 36 

### C.3.4 Non

- Endangered Marine Mammals (Protected)

Excluding the seven endangered species that have been cited previously, there are 22 additional species of marine mammals that may be found in the Gulf of Mexico

, includ ing 2 species of mysticete whales, 2 species of sperm whales, 4 species of beaked whales, and 1 4 species of delphinids . 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 a dditional information on these groups is presented in a recent lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b).

Mysticete whale s . Two species of non endangered mysticete wh ales are known from the
Gulf of Mexico. The Bryde’s whale ( Balaenoptera edeni ) h as 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 De Soto Canyon region and off western Florida, although there have been
some in the west

- central portion of the northeastern Gulf. The minke whale ( Balaenoptera acutorostrata ) 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). Either species could occur in the
l ease 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 cavirostris ), 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 is extralimital. Due to the difficulties of at

- sea identification, beaked whales in the Gulf of Mexico are i dentified 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 water depths greater than 3,281 ft ( 1,000 m) over lower slope an d abyssal landscapes (Davis et al., 2000). Any of these species
could occur in the lease area.

D elphinids . Fourteen species of delphinids are known from the Gulf of Mexico, including Atlantic spotted dolphin ( Stenella frontalis ), bottlenose dolphin ( Tursiops truncatus ), Clymene dolphin ( Stenella clymene ), f alse killer whale ( Pseudorca crassidens )

, Fraser’s dolphin ( Lagenodelphis hosei ) , k iller whale ( Orcinus orca ) , m elon

- headed whale ( Peponocephala electra )

, p antropical spotted dolphin ( Stenella atten uata )

, p ygmy killer whale ( Feresa attenuata )

, short

- finned pilot whale ( Globicephala macrorhynchus ) , R isso’s dolphin ( Grampus griseus )

,
r ough

- toothed dolphin ( Steno bredanensis ) , s pinner dolphin ( Stenella longirostris ) , and

s triped dolphin ( Stenella coeruleoalba )

. Any of these species could occur in the lease area. The

most common non endangered cetaceans in the deepwater environment are the pantropical spotted dolphin, spinner dolphin, and Clymene dolphin.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 37 Bottlenose dolphins

. Bottlenose dolphin po pulations in the northern Gulf of Mexico are separated by the NMFS into 37 geographically distinct population units, or stocks, for management purposes (Waring et al., 2012). NMFS (2013) has p roposed to classify the
Gulf of Mexico Northern Coastal Stock, Western Coastal Stock, and all 32 of the Bay, Sound, and Estuarine Stocks as strategic stocks, based primarily on the occurrence of an " unusual mortality

event " of unprecedented size and duration (which began in February 2010 and is ongoing) that
has affec ted these stock areas. Carmichael et al. (2012) hypothesized that the unusual number of bottlenose dolphin strandings in the northern Gulf of Mexico during this time may have been associated with environmental perturbations including sustained cold weathe r and the Macondo spill in 2010 as well as large volumes of cold freshwater discharge in the early months
of 2011.

IPFs potentially affecting non

- endangered marine mammals include drilling rig presence, noise, and lights; support vessel and helicopter traf fic; and two types of accidents

– a small fuel spill and a large oil spill ( WCD ) . 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 dischar ges, and the mobility of marine mammals. Compliance with NTL 2012

- BSEE

- G01 will minimize the potential for marine debris

- related impacts on marine mammals.



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

Noise from routine drilling activities 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 assoc iated with drilling is relatively weak, and the noise exposure of an individual animal 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 sources. Due to the limi ted scope and short duration of drilling activities , this project would represent a small temporary contribution to the overall noise regime

, and any
short

- term impacts are not expected to be biologically significant to marine mammal populations.

Drilling rig lighting and rig presence are not identified as IPF s for marine mammals in previous lease sale EISs (MMS, 2007b ; BOEM, 2012a,b, c ).



### Impacts of Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

Support vessel traffic has the potential to disturb marine mammals

, and there is also a risk of
vessel strikes. Data concerning the frequency of vessel strikes are presented in a previous lease sale EIS (MMS, 2007b). To reduce the potential for vessel strikes, BSEE and BOEM issued

NTL 20 12

- JOINT

- G0 1 , which recommends pr otected 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. Vessel operators and crews are required 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 s ighted. 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 near an underway vessel

, when safety permits. Compliance withDe Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 38 NTL 2012

- JOINT

- G01 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 ab ove 700 ft ( 213 m) during transit to and from the working area. In addition, guidelines and regulations specify that helicopters maintain
an altitude of 1,000 ft ( 305 m ) within 300 ft ( 91 m ) of marine mammals (BOEM, 2012a, b ). Maintaining t his altitude wi ll minimize the potential for disturbing marine mammals , and no significant impacts are expected ( BOEM, 2012a, b ).



### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

Potential spill impacts on marine mammals are discussed in recent EISs ( BOEM, 2012b ,c )

, and oil impacts on marin e mammals in general are discussed by Geraci and St. Aubin (1990). For this

EP , 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 Murphy ’s preventative measures during fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Murphy ’s OSRP is expected to lessen the potential for impacts on marine mammals. Given the open ocean location of the lease area,
the limited duration of a small spill and response efforts, it is expected that any impacts would
be brief and minimal

.
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 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 (WCD)

Potential spill impacts on marine mammals are discussed in MMS (2000, 2007b ) and BOEM ( 2012a,b )

. For this EP , there are no unique site

- specific issues

. Impacts of oil spills on marine mammals can include direct impacts from oil expo sure, as well as indirect impacts due to response activities and materials (e.g., vessel traffic , noise, and dispersants) (MMC, 201 1 ). 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 contaminated 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, declining physical condition, and death. Behavioral responses can include displacement of animals from prime habitat

, disruption of social struct ure , changing preyDe Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 39 availability and foraging distribution and/or patterns

, changing reproductive behavior/productivity, and changing movement patterns or migration (MMC, 201 1 ).

In the event of a large spill, the level of vessel and aircraft activity associ ated with spill response could disturb marine mammals 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 disturbin g these animals , and therefore no significant impacts are expected

.



### C.3. 5 Sea Turtles (Endangered/Threatened)

F ive species of endangered or threatened sea turtles may be found near the lease area.
L eatherback ( Dermochelys coriacea ), Kemp's ridley ( Lepidochelys kempii ), and hawksbill ( Eretmochelys imbricata ) turtles are endangered . The loggerhead turtle ( Caretta caretta ) is currently a threatened species ; however, in March 20 10 , NMFS and USFWS proposed to list the Northwest Atlantic Ocean population of loggerhead turtles as endangered (75 FR 12598) . The green turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) is listed as threatened, except for the Florida and Pacific c oast of

Mexico breeding population s , which are listed as endangered. Species descriptions are presented in BOEM ( 2012a ).

The extent and scope of the Macondo spill represents new information not assessed in the existing ESA Section 7 consultation under the current Five

- Year Program. As a result of this new information, BOEMRE reinitiated ESA Section 7 consultat ion on the existing Gulf of Mexico lease
sale EIS with NMFS and the US FWS on 30 July 2010. The NMFS responded with a letter to

BOEMRE on 24 September 2010 , and the US FWS responded with a letter to BOEMRE on

27 September 2010. However, the NMFS and the US FWS have placed the consultation process on hold pending the results of the NRDA post

- Macondo spill data review, which has yet to be
released. The existing consultation currently remain s in effect ( BOEM, 2012c )

.

BOEM (201 2 b ) reexamined the impacts analys e s presented in MMS (2007b) for the five sea turtle species that inhabit the Gulf of Mexico based on additional information and in consideration of the Macondo spill. No new information was found that would alter the potential impact s on sea turtles descri bed in previous EISs . In most foreseeable cases, exposure to hydrocarbons persisting in the sea following the dispersal of an oil slick will result in sublethal impacts (e.g., decreased health, reproductive fitness, and longevity; and increased vulnerabil ity to disease) to sea turtles.

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 near shore species, unlikely to occur near the l ease area as adults. Hatchlings or juveniles of any of the sea
turtle species may be present in deepwater areas, including the lease area, where they may be
associated with Sargassum and other flotsam.

Sea turtle 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, 2007 b ) . The nearest significant 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, 201 2 );De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 40 • Kemp’s ridley turtles

– The main K emp’s ridley nesting site is Rancho Nuevo beach,

Tamau lipas, Mexico (NMFS et al., 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 th e Beach, 2010); and

• Hawksbill turtles

– Hawksbills typica lly do not nest anywhere near the project area.

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

– a small fuel spill and a large oil spill ( WCD ) . 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 2 012

- BSEE

- G01 will minimize the potential for marine debris

- related impacts on sea turtles.



### Impacts of 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 struct ures (Lohoefener et al., 1990) and, thus, may be more susceptible to impacts 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 im pacts would be short

- term behavioral changes such as diving and evasive swimming, disruption of activities, or departure from the area. Due to the limited scope and short duration of drilling activities , these
short

- term impacts are not expected to be bio logically significant to sea turtle populations.

Artificial lighting can disrupt the nocturnal orientation of sea turtle hatchlings (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 offshore structures on sea turtles are insignificant.



### Impacts of Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

Support vessel traffic 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 Gul f 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, or during periods of i nclement weather. To reduce the potential for vessel strikes, BSEE and BOEM issued NTL 20 12

- JOINT

- G0 1 , which recommends protected species identification training and that vessel operators and crews maintain a vigilant watch for sea turtles 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

si ghted, 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 sea 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 fo r disturbing sea turtles, and no significant impacts are expected.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 41 

### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

Potential spill impacts on sea turtles are discussed in previous EISs ( BOEM, 2012b ,c ) and the

NMFS Biological Opinion (NMFS, 2007)

. For this EP , 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 Murphy ’s preventative measures during fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Murphy ’s OSRP is expe cted to

minimize potential impacts on sea turtles

. 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 respon se 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 membranes; inhalation of
toxic fum es; ingestion of oil directly or via contaminated prey; and stress from the activities and noise of response vessels and aircraft. 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 affect sea turtle nesting beaches, as the
lease area is 75 miles (121 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 (WCD)

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 effects can include skin irritation, inflammation, or necrosis; chemical burns of skin, eyes, and mucous membranes; inhalation of toxic fumes and smoke (e.g., fro m in situ burning of oil) ; ingestion of oil (and dispersants) directly or via contaminated food; and stress from the activities and noise of response vessels and aircraft. Complications of the above may lead to dysfunction of immune and reproductive syste ms, physiological stress, declining physical condition, and death. Behavioral responses can include 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. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Murphy ’s OSRP is expected to minimize the potential for these types of impacts on sea turtles. EP Attachments P and Q pro vide detail on spill response measures.

Studies of oil effects 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 also put themDe Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 42 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).

Spilled oil reaching sea turtle nesting beaches could have e ffects on nesting sea turtles and egg development (NMFS, 2007). An oiled beach could affect nest site selection or result in no nesting at al l (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 residues 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 disturb sea turtles and potentially result in vessel strikes, entang lement, 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

.



### C.3. 6 Piping Plover (Threatened)

T he 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, habitat loss and modification, predation, and disease (USF WS, 2003). Critical overwintering habitat has been designated, including beaches in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida ( Figure 3 ) . Piping Plovers inhabit coastal sandy beaches and mudflats, 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 ( BOEM, 2012a ).

A large oil spill (WCD) is the only IPF potentially affecting Piping Pl overs. 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 (WCD)

Th e lease area is 80 miles (128 km) from the nearest shoreline s inhabited by Piping Plovers ( Figure 3 ). The revised OSRA results (BOEM, 2012c) summarized in Section A.9.3 ( Table 3 ) predict contact with shorelines of Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida within 30 days
and shorelines of Texas within 120 days. Louisiana shorelines designated as critical habitat for the wintering Piping Plov er could be contacted by a spill within 120 days including Plaquemines Parish which has the hig hest probability of contact ( 23% in winter, 25% in summer

, and 28% in fall). Plovers could physically oil themselves while foraging on oiled shores or
secondari ly contaminate themselves 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 poss ible that some dea ths of Piping Plovers could occur, especially if spills occur during 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. Murphy has extensive resources available to protect and rehabilitate wildlife in the event of a spill reaching the shoreline, as detailed in the OSRP.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 43

Figure 3. Location of selected environmental features in relation to the lease area.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 44 

### C.3.7 Whooping Crane (Endangered)

The Whooping Crane ( Grus americana ) is an omnivorous wading bird and an endangered species. There are three wild populations in North America (Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership, 2010). One population winters along the Texas coast at Aransas NWR and
summers at Wood Buffalo National Park in Canada ; t his population represen ts 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 (Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership, 2010).

A non migrating population has been reintroduced in central Florid a, and another reintroduced population summers in Wisconsin and migrates to the southeastern U.S. for the winter. Whooping Cranes breed, migrate, winter, and forage in a variety of habitats, including coastal marshes and estuaries, inland marshes, 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 critical habitat for the species

. A species description is presented in a recent lease sale EIS ( BOEM, 2012a ). A large oil spill (WCD) is the only IPF potentially affecting Whooping Cranes. A small fuel spill in the lease area would also be unlikely to affect
Wh ooping Cranes, due to the distance from Aransas NWR. 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 (WCD)

A large oil spill is unlikely to affect Whooping Cranes as t he lease area is approximately

524 miles ( 843 km) from its critical habitat designated in the Aransas NWR

. T he OSRA modeling predicts no contacts with shorelines of the Aransas NWR wi thin 30 days and minimal probability
of contact with nearby Texas coastlines within 120 days ( BOEM, 2012c )

.
In the event of oil exposure, Whooping Cranes could physically oil themselves while foraging in oiled areas or secondarily contaminate themselves through ingestion of contaminated shellfis h, frogs, and fishes . It is possible that some Whooping Crane deaths could occur. In the event of a spill, Murphy would work with the applicable State and Federal agencies to prevent impacts from a spill

.



### C.3. 8 Gulf Sturgeon (Threatened)

The Gulf sturgeo n ( Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi ) is a threatened fish species that inhabits major rivers 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 upstr eam into coastal rivers to spawn in freshwater, it historically ranged from the Mississippi River to Charlotte Harbor, Florida (Wakeford, 2001). Today, this range has contracted to encompass major rivers and inner shelf waters from the Mississippi River t o the Suwannee River, Florida. Populations have been depleted or even extirpated throughout 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 populations 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 Gulf extends from Lake Borgne, Louisiana (St. Bernard Parish) t o Suwannee Sound, Florida (Levy County) (NMFS, 2010 b ) ( Figure 3 )

. A species description is presented in a lease sale EISDe Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 45 ( BOEM, 2012a ) and in the recovery plan for this species (USFWS and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, 1995)

.
A large oil spill (WCD) is the only IPF potentially affecting Gulf sturgeon. There are no IPFs associated with routine projec t activities that could affect these fish. A small fuel spill in the lease area would 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

Se ction A.9.2 )

.


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

Potential spill impacts on Gulf sturgeon are discussed in previous lease sale EISs ( MMS, 2007b ; BOEM, 2012c ) and by NMFS (2007)

. For this EP , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to this sp ecies.

The lease area is approximately 102 miles ( 16 4 km) from the nearest Gulf sturgeon critical
habitat. The revised OSRA modeling ( BOEM, 2012c ) predicts contact with coastal areas inhabited by Gulf sturgeon within 120 days. Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes, Louisiana ; Baldwin and Mobile Counties, Alabama ; and Jackson County, Mississippi , coastal areas are the most likely to be affected

. Florida and Texas coastlines can be contacted

, but to a lesser extent.

In the event of oil reaching Gulf sturgeo n 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 t o an estuarine or marine oil spill, and would be vulnerable only from

1 September through 30 April when this species is foraging in estuarine and shallow marine habitats (NMFS, 2007).



### C.3.9 S malltooth S awfish (Endangered)

Smalltooth sawfish ( Pristis pectinata ) are found in the tropical and subtropical Atlantic Ocean.
In the W estern Atlantic they have historically ranged from New York to Brazil, including the
Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. This sawfish primarily occurs in estuarine and coastal
hab itats such as bays, lagoons, and rivers. The smalltooth sawfish was listed as endangered
under the ESA on 1 April 2003. Its critical habitat consists of two units: the Charlotte Harbor Estuary Unit, which comprises approximately 221,459 ac ( 89,621 ha) of coastal habitat; and the Ten Thousand Islands/Everglades Unit, which comprises approximately 619,013 ac ( 250,506 ha)
of coastal habitat. The two units are located along the southwestern coast of Florida between Charlotte Harbor and Florida Bay. A specie s description is presented in a lease sale EIS ( BOEM, 2012a )

.
A large oil spill (WCD) is the only IPF potentially affecting smalltooth sawfish

. There are no IPFs associated with routine project activities that could affect these fish. A small fuel spill in the lease area would be unlikely to affect smalltooth sawfish because a small fuel spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up (see Section A.9.2 )

.


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

Potential spill impacts on smalltooth sawfish are similar to those discussed for other coastal and estuarine species in recent lease sale EISs ( MMS, 2007b ; BOEM, 2012 b ) and by the NMFS (2007)De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 46 in its Biological Opinion. For this EP , there are no unique sit e

- specific issues with respect to
smalltooth sawfish

.
In the event of oil reaching smalltooth sawfish habitat, the fish could be affected by direct ingestion, ingestion of oiled prey, or the absorption of dissolved petrole um products through the gills.



### C.3

. 10 Beach Mice (Endangered)

Four subspecies of endangered beach m ouse ( Peromyscus polionotus ) occur on the barrier islands of Alabama and the Florida Panhandle. They are the Alabama, Choctaw h atchee,
Perdido Key, and St. Andrew beach mice. Critical habitat has been designated for all four subspecies ; Figure 3 shows the critical habitat combined for all four subspecies . Species descriptions are provided in a rece nt lease sale EIS ( BOEM, 2012a ).

A large oil spill (WCD) is the only IPF potentially affe cting beach mice. There are no IPFs associated with routine project activities that could affect these animals due to the distance from shore and the lack of any onshore support activities near their habitat. A small fuel spill in
the lease area would no t affect beach mice because a small fuel spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up (see Section A.9.2 )

.


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

Potential spill impacts on beach mice are discussed in recent lease s ale EISs (MMS, 2003, 2007b ; BOEM, 2012b ). For this EP , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to these species that were not analyzed in these documents

.

The lease area is about 100 miles (160 km) south from the nearest beach mouse critical habitat

. The revised OSRA modeling summarized in Section A.9.3 predicts that during different seasons

, there is a 1 % to 17% chance of oil contacting Alabama or Florida panhandle shorelines inhabited by Choctawatchee and St. Andrew beach mice within 120 days. It is expected that the entire spill volume would be removed due to natural weathering and response measures within that period.

In the event of oil contacting these beaches, beach mice could experience several types of direct and indirect impa cts. Contact with spilled oil could cause skin and eye irritation and subsequent infection; matting of fur; irritation of sweat glands, ear tissues, and throat tissues; disruption of sight and hearing; asphyxiation from inhalation of fumes; and toxicity f rom ingestion of oil and contaminated food. Indirect impacts could include reduction of food supply, destruction of habitat, and fouling of nests. Impacts could also occur from vehicular traffic and other activities associated with spill cleanup. Howeve r, any such impacts are unlikely due to the distance from shore and response actions that would occur in the event of a spill.



### C.3.11 Elkhorn Coral (Endangered)

Elkhorn coral ( Acropora palmata ) is found primarily in shallow waters with temperatures ranging
between 26°C and 30°C (79 °F and 86°F) and significant water movement. Elkhorn coral was

once one of the most abundant coral species in waters ranging from 3.3 to 16 ft ( 1 to 5 m) deep in tropical and subtropical waters. In the northern Gulf of Mexico

, e lkhorn coral has been found within the coral cap region of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary ( Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary , 2011).De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 47 There are no IPFs associated with routine project activities that could affect this species in the
northern Gulf of Mexico

. A small fuel spill would not affect elkhorn coral colonies because the oil would float and dissipate on the sea surface. A WCD would be unlikely to affect the coral cap region of the Flower Garden Banks because of the wate r depth of the area. A lthough subsurface plumes were reported following the Macondo spill, these plumes resulted from the
use of subsea dispersant s at the seafloor.



## C.4 Coastal and Marine Birds

C.4.1 Marine Birds

Marine birds include seabirds and other sp ecies that may occur in the pelagic environment of the project area (Clapp 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 c oast. In addition, other birds such as waterfowl, marsh birds, and shorebird s 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 discu ssion of shorebird s and coastal nesting birds, see Section C.4.2

.
Seabirds 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

m ost frequently sighted seabirds in the deepwater area. From these surveys, f our ecological categories of seabirds were documented in the deepwater areas of the Gulf: summer migrants (shearwaters, storm petrels, boobies); summer residents that breed in the Gulf (Sooty Tern, Least Tern, Sandwich Tern, Magnificent Frigatebird); winter residents (gannets, gulls, jaegers); and permanent resident species (Laughing Gulls, Royal Terns, Bridled Terns) (Hess and Ribic, 2000).

Common seabird species include Wilson’s S torm

- P etrel ( 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’s Shearwater ( Puffinus 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 productivity of surface waters where birds forage.
The GulfCet II study 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 birds, and terrestrial birds may also be present in the lease area. Migrant birds may use offshore structures and rigs for resting, feeding, or as temporary shelter from inclement weather (Russell, 2005). S ome birds may be attracted to offshore structures because of the lights and the fish populations that aggregate
around these structures.

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

- a small fuel spill and a large oil spill ( WCD ) . 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 theDe Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 48 mobility of these animals. Compliance with NTL 2012

- BSEE

- G01 will minimize the potential for
marine debris

- related impacts on birds.



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

Birds that frequent rig s may be exposed to co ntaminants including air pollutants and routine discharges, but significant impacts are unlikely due to rapid dispersion. Birds migrating over water have been known to strike offshore structures, resulti ng in death or injury (Wiese et al., 2001; Russell, 2005). Mortality of migrant birds at tall towers and other land

- based structures has been reviewed extensively, and the mechanisms involved in rig collisions appear to be similar. In some cases, migrants simply do not see a part of the rig until it is to o 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 rigs probably benefit from their stay, particularly in spring (Russell, 2005). Due to the limited scope and short duration of drilling activities described in this EP, any impacts on populations of either seabirds or trans

- Gulf migrant birds are not expected to be significant.

A s tudy in the North Sea indicated that rig 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 ( Nederlandse Aardo lie Maatschappij, 2007 ). The numbers varied greatly, from none at all to some tens of thousands of birds per night per rig, with an apparent effe ct radius of up to 3 miles (5 km). The OSPAR workshop (OSPAR Commission, 2012) noted that this circling incre ases the risk of collisions leading to traumas and deaths and may interrupt their migration. 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 Gu lf of Mexico would include the lower incidence of cloudy and foggy days in the Gulf of Mexico v ersus the North Sea. In laboratory experiments, Poot et al. (2008) found the magnetic compass of migratory birds to be wavelength dependent. Migratory
birds re quire light from the blue

- green part of the spectrum for magnetic compass orientation, whereas red light (visible long

- wavelength) disrupts their magnetic orientation. They designed a field study to test if and how changing light color influenced migrating birds under field
conditions. During field studies they found that nocturnally migrating birds were disoriented and attracted by red and white light (containing visible l ong

- wavelength radiation), whereas they were clearly less disoriented by blue and green light (containing less or no visible long

- wavelength radiation) ( Poot et al., 2008 ). Due to the limited scope and short duration of drilling activities proposed in thi s EP

, lighting impacts, collisions

, or other adverse effects are unlikely, and no significant impacts are expected.



### Impacts of Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

Support vessels and helicopters 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 pre vious EISs (MMS, 2007b ; BOEM, 2012 a,b )

. F or this EP , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to spill impacts on these
animals.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 49 The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Murphy ’s preventative measures during routine operations in cluding fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Murphy ’s OSRP will reduce the potential for impacts on marine and pelagic birds. 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 d epend 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

wit hin 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 mucous 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 v ia 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.



### Impa cts of a Large Oil Spill (WCD)

Potential spill impacts on marine and pelagic birds are discussed in previous EISs (MMS, 2003,
2007b ; BOEM, 2012 a,b )

. For this EP , there are no unique site

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

BOEM has reexamined the analys e s for coastal and marine birds presented in MMS (2007b ) and
determined that no new information was found that would alter the potential impact s on marine and pelagic birds ( BOEM, 2012c ).

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

- petrels, shearwaters, and jaegers were the most frequently sighted seabirds in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico (>200 m). Powers (1987) indicates that seabird
densities ove r the open ocean typically are <10 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 recent Macondo spill provides relevant information about the species of pelagic birds that may be affected in the event of a large oil spill. Birds that have been treated for oiling 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 numbers of birds affected by the spill.



### C.4.2 Shorebirds 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 C oast, including diving birds, shorebird s, marsh birds, wading birds, andDe Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 50 waterfowl. Gulf Coast marshes and beaches also provide important feeding grounds and nesting habitat s. Species that breed on beaches, flats, dunes, bars, barrier islands, and similar habitats include the Sandwich Tern, Wilson’s Plover, Black Skimmer, Forster’s Tern,
Gul l

- Billed Tern, Laughing Gull, Least Tern, and Royal Tern (USFWS, 2010b). Additional information is presented in recent lease sale EISs (MMS, 2007b ; BOEM, 2012b ).

The Brown Pelican ( Pelecanus occidentalis ) was delisted from Federal endangered status in 2009 (USFWS, 2010c). However, this species remains endangered on the Louisiana list of endangered species ( State of Louisiana, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries , 2013), is listed as a species of greatest conservation need by the State of Mississippi (Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, 2011)

, and i s a species of speci al concern in Florida (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 201 2 )

. Brown Pelicans inhabit coastal habitats and forage within both coastal waters and waters of the inner continental shelf. Aerial and shipboard surveys, including GulfCet and GulfCet II, indicate that Brown Pelicans do not occur in deep offshore waters (Fritts and Reynolds, 1981; Peake, 1996; Hess and Ribic, 2000). Nearly half the southeastern population of Brown Pelicans live s in the northern Gulf Coast, generally nesting on protected islands (USFWS, 2010 b ).

The Southern Bald Eagle ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus ) was delisted from its threatened status in
the lower 48 states on 28 June 2007. The Bald Eagle is a terrestrial raptor widely distributed across the southern U.S., including coastal habitats along the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf C oast is inhabited by both wintering migrant and resident Bald Eagles (Johnsgard, 1990; Ehrlich et al.

, 1992).

IPFs potentially affecting shorebird s and coastal nesting birds include support vessel and helicopter traffic and a large oil spill (WCD). A small fuel spill in the lease area would be unlikely
to affect shorebird s or coastal nesting birds, as th e lease area is 75 miles ( 121 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. Compliance with NTL 2012

- BSEE

- G01 will minimize the poten tial for marine debris

- related impacts on shorebirds.



### Impacts of Support Vessel and Helicopter Traffic

Support vessels and helicopters will transit coastal areas n ear Port Fourchon and Gallian o , Louisiana, where shorebird s 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 birds. Flushin g distances vary between species and between individuals (Rodgers and Schwikert, 2002). The disturbances will be limited to flushing birds away from vessel pathways; known distances are from 65 to 160 ft ( 20 to 49 m) for personal watercraft and 75 to 190 ft ( 23 to 58 m) for an outboard

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

- term impacts are not expected to be biologically significant to coastal bird populations.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 51 Aircraft traffic can cause some disturbance to birds ons hore 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 the most intens e 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 over
noise

- sen sitive 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 studied (Efroyms on et al., 2000). With these guidelines in effect, it is likely that individual birds would experience, at most, only short

- term behavioral disruption.



### Impacts of Large Oil Spill (WCD)

Data from the Macondo spill provide additional information about the s pecies of coastal birds that may be affected in the event of a catastrophic spill of a similar nature and duration. 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 have been collected since the spill began, and about 1,900 of the dead animals were visibly oiled. In addition, over

3 ,000 oiled birds have been collected alive and about 1,200 released ( USFWS , 201 1 ). According

to USFWS ( 2011)

, bird species that have been treated for oiling include the following:

• Brown Pelican

• White 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

• Least Bittern

• Common Tern

• Royal Tern

• Caspian Tern

• Sandwich Tern

• Forster ’ s Tern

• Black Tern

• Gull

- billed Tern

• Least Tern

• Black Skimmer

• Black Oystercatcher • White Ibis

• Roseate Spoonbill

• Willet

• Sanderling

• Dunlin

• Semipalmated Sandpiper

• Killdeer

• King Rail

• Clapper Rail

• Virginia Rail

According to the USFWS (2010d), 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. There are no reports of Bald Eagle oiling.

While the Macondo spill had direct and indirect impacts to coastal and marine birds, it is premature to conclude impacts over a long period ( BOEM, 2012c ). M odeling of Macondo spill related bird impacts is underway by NRDA

, but results have not yet been released.

Antonio et al. (2011) modeled bird

- mortality from the Macondo spill showing cumulative carcass numbers and mortality rate increasing exponentially from the start of the Macondo spill until the mortality rate began to decline after the 97th day of the spill . Note that the collected
animals would be a small su bset of the total number of impacted birds and therefore, the collected animals would represent an underestimated measure of the overall impact of the
Macondo event ( BOEM, 2012c ).De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 52 Coastal birds can be exposed to oil as they float on the water surface, dive during foraging, or wade in oiled coastal waters. Oiled birds can lose the ability to fly, dive for food, or float on the water, which could lead to drowning (USFWS, 2010e). Oil interferes with the water repellency of feathers and can cause hypothermia in the right 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

an imals immediately, more often it results in lung, liver, and kidney damage, which can lead to death. Bird eggs may be damaged if an oiled adult sits on the nest.

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

- term habitat contamination.



## C.5 Fisheries Resources

C.5.1 Pelagic Communities and Ichthyoplankton

Biggs and Ressler (2000) reviewed the biology of pelagic commun ities in the deepwater environment of the northern Gulf of Mexico. The biological oceanography of the region is dominated by the influence of the Loop Current, whose surface waters are among the most oligotrophic in the world’s oceans. Superimposed on th is 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 bioge ographic patterns and controlling primary productivity in the northern Gulf of Mexico (Biggs and Ressler, 2000).

Most fishes inhabiting shelf or oceanic waters of the Gulf of 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 planktonic community for various lengths of time (10 to 100 days, depending on the species) (MMS, 2007b).

IPFs potentially affecting pelagic communities and ichthyoplankton include drilling rig presence, noise, and lights; effluent discharges; water intakes; and two types of accidents

- a small fuel spill and a large oil spill ( WCD).



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

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

- attracting device (FAD). In oceanic waters, the FAD effect would be most pronounced for epipelagic fishes such as tunas, dolphin, billfishes, and jacks, which are commonly attracted to fixed and drifting
surface structures (Holland et al., 1990; Higashi, 1994; Relini et al., 1994 ; MMS, 2000, 2007b ). This FAD effect could possibly enhance the feeding of epipelagic predators by attracting and concentrating smaller fish species. Because the drilling rig is a single, temporary structure, impacts on fish populations, whether beneficial or adverse, are considered minor.



### Impacts of Effluent Discharges

Treated sanitary and domestic wastes may have a slight effect on the pelagic environment in the immediate vicinity of these dischar ges. These wastes may have elevated levels of nutrients,De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 53 organic matter, and chlorine, but should be diluted rapidly to undetectable levels within tens to hundreds of meters from the source. Minimal impacts on water quality, plankton, and nekton

are anti cipated.

Deck drainage may have a slight effect on the pelagic environment in the immediate vicinity of these discharges. Deck drainage from contaminated areas will be passed through an
oil

- and

- water separator prior to release, and discharges will be moni tored for visible sheen. The discharges may have slightly elevated levels of hydrocarbons but should be diluted rapidly to undetectable levels within tens to hundreds of meters from the source. Minimal impacts on water quality, plankton, and nekton are a nticipated.

Other discharges in accordance with the NPDES permit, such as desalination unit brine and uncontaminated cooling water, fire water, and ballast water

, are expected to be diluted rapidly and have little or no impact on water column biota.



### Impacts of Water Intakes

Seawater will be drawn from the ocean for once

- through, non contact cooling of machinery

on the drilling rig. R ig s considered for use for activities described in this EP are not " new "
facilit ies as defined by the NPDES permit and therefore are not subject to the cooling water intake regulations for Phase III facilities under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act

.
The intake of seawater for cooling water will entrain plankton. The low intake velo city should allow most strong

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

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

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



### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

Potential spill impacts on fisheries resource s are discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b ; BOEM, 2012a, b )

. F or this EP , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to spill impacts.

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Murphy ’s preventative measures during routine operations inclu ding fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Murphy ’s OSRP will mitigate the potential for impacts on pelagic communities

, including ichthyoplankton. Given the open ocean location of the lease area, the duration of a small spil l 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 persisten ce 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 naturallyDe Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 54 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 could have localized impacts on phytoplankton , zooplankton, and nekton.

Due to the limited areal extent and short duration of water quality impacts, a small fuel spill would be unlikely to produce detectable imp acts on pelagic communities.



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

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

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



### C.5.2 E ssential 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 BOEM (201 2 b ) has reexamined the analysis for fish resources and EFH presented in previous
lease sale EISs (MMS, 2007a,b) , in consideration of the Macondo event. No substantial new information was found that would alter the impact conclusions for fish resources and EFH presented in the previous MMS lease sale EISs ( MMS

, 2007a,b).

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

- managed species is on the continental shelf in waters shallower than

600 ft ( 183 m). The shelf edge is the outer boundary for coastal migratory pelagic fishes, reef fishes, and shrimps. EFH for corals and coral reefs includes some shelf

- edge topographic
features on the Texas

- Louisiana OCS, the nearest of which are in GB 127, located approximately

119 miles ( 191 km) north of the lease area along the shelf edge south of Louisiana.

Highly migratory pelagic fishes, which occur as transients in the lease area, are the only remaining group for which EFH has been identified in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Species in this g roup, including tunas, swordfishes, billfishes, and sharks, are managed by NMFS. Highly migratory species with EFH at or near the lease area include the following species and life stages (NMFS, 2009):De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 55 • Atlantic bluefin tuna (spawn, eggs, larvae)

• Bigeye thr esher shark (all)

• Blue marlin (juveniles, adults)

• Longfin mako shark (all)

• Oceanic whitetip shark (all)

• Scalloped hammerhead shark (adult) • Silky shark (all)

• Skipjack tuna (adults and spawn)

• Swordfish (larvae, juveniles)

• Whale shark (all)

• White marlin (juveniles, adults)

• Yellowfin tuna (spawn, juveniles, adults)

Recent research indicates the central and western Gulf of Mexico may be important spawning habitat for Atlantic bluefin tuna, and NMFS (2009) has designated a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) for this species. The HAPC covers much of the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, including the lease area ( Figure 3 ). The areal extent of the HAPC is approximately 116,000 mi 2 ( 300,000 km 2 )

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

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

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

.

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

Economic Zone ( EEZ )

. The Highly Migratory Species Fisheries Management Plan was amended

in 2009 to update EFH and HAPC to include the bluefin tuna spawning area ( NMFS , 2009).

There are current NTLs (2009

- G39 and 2009

- G40) that provide guidance and clarification of the regulati ons with respect to biologically sensitive underwater features and areas and benthic

communities that are considered EFH (MMS, 2009 a,b ). A new EFH consultation has been initiated between BOEM’s Gulf of Mexico Region and NOAA’s Southeastern Region. Some

E FH requirements may change with the new agreement. Until the new agreement is in place, the 1999 Programmatic Consultation with the elements described a bove will be followed ( BOEM, 2012c ).

Other HAPCs have been identified by the GMFMC (2005). These inclu de 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 3 ). The nearest HAPC is Jakkula Bank

, located appr oximately 232 miles (373 km) to the

west

- southwest of the lease area

.
IPFs potentially affecting EFH include drilling rig presence, noise, and lights; effluent discharges; water intakes; and two types of accidents

– a small fuel spill and a large oil spill (WCD).De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 56 

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

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



### Impacts of Effluent Discharges

Other effluent discharges affecting EFH by di minishing ambient water quality include drilling muds 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 impacts

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 impingemen t of plankton, including fish eggs and larvae (ichthyoplankton). Due to the limited scope and short duration of drilling activities , any short

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



### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Murphy ’s preventative measures during routine operations including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Murphy ’s OSRP will help diminish the potentia l for impacts on EFH. 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 previous EISs (MMS, 2007b ; BOEM, 2012a, b )

. F or this EP , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to spill impacts.

A small fuel spill in offshore waters would produce a slick on the water surface and increase the concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and their degradation products. The extent and persistence of impacts would depend on the 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% woul d 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.

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

- term impact on water quality in the HAPC for spawning bluefin tuna, which cov ers much of the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. The areal extent of the affected area would represent a negligible portion of the HAPC.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 57 A small fuel spill would not affect EFH for corals and coral reefs, the nearest EFH being the topographic feature s located ap proximately 35 miles (56 km) northwest of the lease area along the shelf edge south of Louisiana. A small fuel spill would float and dissipate on the sea surface
and would not contact these features.



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

Potential spill impacts on EFH are discussed in previous EISs (MMS, 2007b ; BOEM, 2012a, b ). For
this EP , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to EFH.

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

A large spill could affect the EFH for many managed species includi ng shrimp s , stone crab, spiny lobster, reef fishes, coastal migratory pelagic fishes, and red drum. It would result in adverse impacts on water quality and water column biota including phytoplankton, zooplankton, and nekton. In coastal waters, sediments could be contaminated and result in persistent degradation of the seafloor habitat for managed demersal fish and shellfish species.

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

The distance to the boundary of the designated EFH area under the corals and coral reefs

managem ent plan is approximately 35 miles (56 km) from the lease area. An accidental spill would be unlikely to affect this area, since a surface slick would not reach these features due to their depth

.



## C.6 Archaeological Resources

C.6.1 Shipwreck Sites

The BOEM (201 2 b ) reexamined the analys e s for archaeological resources presented in

MMS (2007b) b ased on additional information available since its publication and in
consideration of the Macondo oil spill

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

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

- resolution surveys. Since significant historic shipwrecks have recently been discovered outside the previously designa ted high

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

The lease area is not on the list of OCS blocks with a high potential for historic shipwrecks ( BOEM, 2012d )

. Ten sonar contacts interpreted as unidentified debris on the seafloor were detected in DC 178. One of these contacts lie within 2,000 ft ( 610 m) of proposed W ell A and isDe Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 58 believed to be man

- made debris; a 100’ geoh azard avoidance zone will be applied

. There were no indications of wrecks or other archaeological resources detected during the site clearance

survey (GEMS , 201 3 )

. Murphy will abide by the appl icable requirements of NTL 2005

- G07, which stipulate s that work be stopped at the project site if any previously undetected archaeological resource is discovered after work has begun until appropriate surveys and evaluations have been completed.

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



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

MMS (2007b) estimate d that a severe subsurface blowout could resuspend and disperse
sediments within a 300

- m (984

- ft) radius. Because there are no historic shipwrecks in the lease area, this impact would not be relevant.

Previous analyses (MMS , 2007a) 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 the spill loc ation. 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 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 co ntact shipwreck sites beyond the 300

- m (984

- ft) radius estimated by MMS (2007a)

, 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 th eir condition or preservation. Should there be any indication that potential shipwreck sites could be affected, in accordance
with NTL 2005

- G07 Murphy will immediately halt operations, take steps to ensure that the site is not disturbed in any way

, and co ntact the BOEM Regional Supervisor, Leasing and Environment, within 48 hours of its discovery. Murphy would cease all operations within 1,000 ft ( 305 m) of the site until the Regional Supervisor provides instructions on steps to take
to assess the site’s potential historic significance and protect it.

A spill entering shallow coastal waters could conceivably contaminate an undiscovered shipwreck site. A s noted by MMS (2007b), should an oil spill contact a coastal historic site, such as a fort or a lightho use, the major impact would be a temporary, reversible visual impact from
oil contact and contamination of the site and its environment. However, more recent studies suggest that the impacts could be longer term and not easily reversible (BOEM, 2012b).



### C. 6.2 Prehistoric Archaeological Sites

Available evidence suggests that sea level in the northern Gulf of Mexico was at least 300 ft ( 9 1 m), and possibly as much as 427 ft ( 130 m), lower than present sea level during the period 20,000 to 17,000 years Before Present (B.P.) (Nelson and Bray, 1970). Sea level in the northern Gulf reached its present stand around 3,500 years B.P. (Pearson et al., 1986).

During periods that the continental shelf was exposed above sea level, the area was open to habitation by preh istoric peoples. The advent of early man into the Gulf of Mexico region isDe Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 59 currently accepted to be around 12,000 years B.P. (Aten, 1983). The sea

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

- day sea level (CEI, 1977

, 1982). On this basis, the contine ntal shelf shoreward of the

45

- to 60

- m (148

- to 197

- ft) bathymetric contours has potential fo r prehistoric sites dating after 12,000 years B.P. Because of inherent uncertainties in both the depth of sea level and the entry date of prehistoric man into North America, the MMS adopted the 60

- m (197

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

.

With a water depth between 6,567 to 6,580 ft ( 2,002 to 2,006 m)

, the lease area is well beyond
the 60

- m (197

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



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

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

- m (984

- ft) radius.

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



## C.7 Coastal Habit ats and Protected Areas

Coastal habitats in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico that may be affected by oil and gas activities are described in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b ; BOEM, 2012a,b, c ) and in a literature review by Collard and Way (1997). Coastal habitats inshore of the project area include barrier beaches and dunes, wetlands, and submerged seagrass beds. Generally, most of the northeastern Gulf is fringed by barrier beaches, with we tlands and/or submerged seagrass beds occurring in
sheltered areas behind the barrier islands and in estuaries.

Due to the distance from shore, the only IPF associated with routine activities in the lease area
that potentially may affect beaches and dunes, wetlands, seagrass beds, coastal wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, or any other managed or protected coastal area relate to support vessel
traffic . The support bases at Port Fourchon and Houma, Louisiana

, are not in wildlife refuge s or wilderness area s . Potential impacts of support vessel traffic are addressed briefly below.

A small fuel spill in the lease area would be unlikely to affect coastal habitats, as the lease area is

75 miles ( 1 2 1 km) from the nearest shoreline (Louisiana) . As explained in S ection A.9.2 , a small fuel spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up.
Potential i mpacts of a large oil spill (WCD) are discussed below.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 60 

### Impacts of Support Vessel Traffic

For OCS activities in general, support operations, including crew boats and supply boats, may have a minor incremental impact on coastal habitats. Over time with a large number of vessel trips, vessel wakes can erode shorelines along inlets, channels, and harbors. Support operations, including crew boats and supply boats

, 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 (WCD)

Potential spill impacts on coastal habitats are discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b ; BOEM, 2012a,b, c ). Coastal habitats inshore of the project area include barrier beaches and dunes, wetlands, and submerged seagrass beds. For this EP , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to coastal habitats.

The revised OSRA modeling summarized in Table 3 predicts that coastal areas of Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes, Louisiana; Jackson County, Mississippi

, Baldwin and Mobile C ounties, Alabama; and Escambia County, Florida

, are the most likely to be affected within 120 days during various seasons. Plaquemines Parish has the greatest probability of contact in winter (23%), summer (25%), and fall (28%). In spring both Mobile and Baldwin Counties, Alabama, have the highest probability (17%) of contact.

The shorelines within the geographic range predicted by the OSRA modeling ( Table 3 ) include extensive barrier beaches and wetlands, with submerged seagrass beds occurring in sheltered
areas behind the barrier islands and in estuaries. NWRs and other protected areas along the
coast are discussed in a recent lease sale EIS (MMS, 2003, 2007b) and Murphy ’s OSRP. Coastal
and near coastal wildlife refuges, wilde rness areas , and s tate and n ational parks within the geographic range of the potential shoreline contacts after 120 days include the following:

• Pointe Au Chien Wildlife Management Area (WMA)

• Wisner WMA

• Salvador WMA

• Jean Lafitte National Histori cal Park
and Preserve

• Delta NWR

• Pass a Loutre WMA

• Breton NWR

• St. Bernard State Park

• Biloxi WMA

• Bayou Savage NWR

• Hancock County Marsh Coastal

Reserve

• Buccaneer State Park

• Jourdan River Coastal Reserve

• Biloxi River Coastal Reserve

• Gulf Islands National Seash ore

• Bayou Sauvage NWR • Big Branch Marsh NWR

• Pearl River WMA

• Wolf River Coastal Reserve

• Grand Bayou Coastal Preserve

• Bayou Portage Coastal Reserve

• Biloxi Marshes State Coastal Preserve

• Deer Island State Coastal Preserve

• Gulf Islands National Seashore

• Davis Bayou Coastal Preserve

• Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR

• Pascagoula River Coastal Reserve

• Grand Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve

• Grand Bay NWR

• Grand Bay Savannah Coastal Preserve

• Deer Island State Coastal Preserve

• Old Fort Bayou Coastal Reserve

• Bellefo ntaine Point Coastal Reserve

• Graveline Bay Coastal ReserveDe Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 61 • The Grand Bay Savanna Tract

• Penalver State Park

• Bon Secour NWR

• W.L. Holland WMA

• Meaher State Park

• Weeks Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve

• Gulf State Park

• Lillian Swamp Mitigation Area

• Tarkiln Bayou State Preserve

• Perdido Key State Recreation Area

• Big Lagoon State Recreation Area

• Fort Pickens State Park Aquatic

Preserve

• Pensacola Bay SWIM Area

• Yellow River WMA

• Choctawatchee Bay SWIM Area

• Henderson State Park

• Point Washington Outstanding Florida

Water • Deer Lake State Park

• Grayton Beach State Park Outstanding
Florida Water

• St. Andrew Bay Watershed SWIM Area

• St. Andrews State Park Aquatic

Preserve

• St Andrews State Park

• St Joseph Peninsula State Park

• St. Joseph Bay State Buffer Preserve

• St. Vincent NWR

• Apalachicola National Estuarine
Research Reserve

• Apalachicola Bay Aquatic Preserve Outstanding Florida Water

• Apalachicola River and Bay SWIM Area

• Apalachicola River Wildlife and
Environmental Area

• St

. George Island State Park

The level of im pacts from oil spills on coastal habitats depends on many factors, including the oil characteristics, the geographic location of the landfall, and the weather and oceanographic conditions at the time (MMS, 2007b). Oil that makes it to beaches may be eithe r 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. Thi ckened oil may form tarballs or aggregations that incorporate 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 materials. Oil on beaches may be cleaned up manually, mechanically, or both. Some oil can remain on the beach at varying depths and may persist for several years as it slowly biodegrades and volatiliz es.

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. About 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 seasons, and which causes plant mortality and some permanent wetland loss. Critical concentrations of various oils are expected to vary broadly for wetland types and wetland plant species. Louisiana wet lands 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 ra tes, which have been reported to require from years to decades following a spill (MMS, 2007b ; BOEM, 2012c ).De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 62 

## C.8 Socioeconomic and Other Resources

C.8.1 Recreational and Commercial Fishing

BOEM has reexamined the analysis for recreational and commercial fis hing presented in

MMS (2007b) based on additional information and in consideration of the Macondo spill. N o new information was found that would alter the potential impact s on commercial fishing ( BOEM, 2012c )

.
The main commercial fishing activity in deep waters of the northern Gulf of Mexico is pelagic longlining for tunas, swordfishes, and other billfishes (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2002). Pelagic longlining has occurred historically in the project area, primarily during spring and

summer. I n August 2000, the Federal government closed two ar eas in the northeastern
Gulf of Mexico to longline fishing (65 FR 47214, 1 August 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 intervals. It takes 8 to 10 hours to deploy a longline and about the same tim e to retrieve it. Longlines are often set near oceanographic features such as fronts or downwellings, w ith the aid of sophisticated on

- board temperature sensors, depth finders, and positioning equipment. Vessels typically are 33 to 98 ft ( 10 to 30 m ) lon g, and their trips last from about 1 to 3 weeks. The main Gulf of Mexico homeports for longlining vessels are in Louisiana (Dulac and Venice) and Florida (Destin, Madeira Beach, and Panama City).

It is unlikely that any commercial fishing activity other than longlining occurs at or near the project area. Benthic species targeted by commercial fishers occur on the upper continental slope, well inshore of the project area. Royal red shrimp ( Pleoticus robustus ) are caught by trawlers in water depths of about 820 to 1,804 ft ( 250 to 550 m). Tilefish es (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).

Most recreational fishing activity in the region occurs in water depths less than 200 m ( 656 ft ) (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 1997, 2002). In deeper water, the main attraction to recreational fishers would be petrol eum rig s offshore Texas and Louisiana. Due to the distance from shore, it is unlikely that recreational fishing activity is occurring in the lease area.

The only routine IPF potentially affecting fisheries is drilling rig presence (including noise and lig hts)

. T wo types of potential accidents are also addressed below

– a small fuel spill and a large oil spill (WCD).



### Impacts of Drilling Rig Presence

There is a slight possibility of pelagic longlines becoming entangled in the drilling rig. For example, in January 1999 a portion of a pelagic longline snagged on the acoustic Doppler current profiler of a drillship working in the Gulf of Mexico (Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., 2002). The line was removed without incident. Generally, longline fishers use radar and are aware of offshore structures and ships when placing their sets. Therefore, little or no impact on pelagic longlining is expected.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 63 Because it is unlikely that any recreational fishing activity is occurring in the project area, no adverse impa cts are anticipated. Other factors such as effluent discharges are likely to have negligible impacts on commercial or recreational fisheries due to rapid dispersion, 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 Murphy ’s preventative measures during routine operations including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Murphy ’s OSRP will potentially mitigate and re duce the potential for impacts. Given the open ocean location of the lease area, the duration of a small spill and opportunity for impacts to occur would be very brief.

Pelagic longlining activities in the lease area, if any, could be interrupted in the e vent 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 expect ed to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up (see Section A.9.2 ).



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

Potential spill impacts on fishing activities are discussed in previous EISs (MMS, 2007b ; BOEM, 2012b,c ). For this EP , there are no un ique site

- specific issues with respect to this activity.

Pelagic longlining activities in the lease area and other fishing act ivities 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 f ishery closures, depending on the duration of the spill, the oceanographic and meteorological conditions at the time, and the effectiveness of spill response measures. The

recent Macondo spill provides information about the maximum potential extent of fis hery closures in the event of a large oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico (NMFS, 2010 c ). At its peak on

12 July 2010, closures encompassed 84,101 mi 2 ( 217,821 km 2 ), or 34.8% of the

U.S. Gulf of Mexico EEZ.



### C.8.2 Public Health and Safety

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



### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Murp hy ’s preventative measures during routine operations including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Murphy ’s OSRP will potentially alleviate the potential for impacts. EP Attachment Q provide s detail on spill response measur es.

A small fuel spill would not have any impacts on public health and safety because it would affect only a small area of the open ocean 75 miles (121 km) from the nearest shoreline (Louisiana) and nearly all of the diesel fuel would evaporate or disperse naturally within 24 hours. Response crews would be equipped with appropriate safety equipment to avoid injury andDe Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 64 health effects. A small fuel spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up (see Section A.9.2 ).



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

In the event of a large spill from a blowout, the main safety and health concerns are those of the offshore personnel involved in the incident and those responding to the spill. The drilling rig maintains a Shipboard Oi l Pollution Emergency Plan as required under MARPOL 73/78.

Depending on the spill rate and duration, the physical/chemical characteristics of the oil, meteorological and oceanographic conditions at the time, and the effectiveness of spill response

measures , the public could be exposed to oil on the water and along the shoreline, including skin contact or breathing VOCs . Crude oil is a highly flammable material

, and any smoke or vapors from a crude oil fire can cause irritation, and in large quantities may pose a health
hazard.

Data from the recent Macondo spill provide relevant information about the types of health issues that may occur in the event of a large o il spill (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010a). Wildlife cleaning and rehabilitation workers have 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 w as also reported by some wildlife

- cleaning workers. Personnel working on offshore vessels or providing direct oversight to o ffshore vessels, including

USCG personnel, civilian contractors, and other responders who were exposed to oil and dispersants

, had a 7 to 12 times higher prevalence of upper respiratory symptoms and cough than those not exposed (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010b). Another potential occupational hazard for spill response workers in general was heat stress from work in a hot and humid environment. Initial symptoms from cleanup workers who sought medical care in Louisiana were typical of acute exposure to hydrocarbons or H 2 S , e.g., headaches, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, cough, respiratory distre ss, and chest pain (Solomon and Janssen, 2010).



### C.8.3 Employment and Infrastructure

There are no IPFs associated with routine operations that are expected to affect employment and infrastructure. The project involves drilling with support from existing sh orebase 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, exist ing 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 (WCD) are addressed below.



### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Murphy ’s preventative measures during routine operations including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Murphy ’s OSRP will potentially mitigate and reduce the potential for impacts. Given the open ocean location of the lease area, the duration of a small spill and opportunity for impacts to occur would be very brief.

A small fuel spill that is dissipated within a few days would have little or no economic impact, as the spil l response would use existing facilities, resources, and personnel.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 65 

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

Potential socioeconomic impacts of an oil spill are discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b ; BOEM,
2012b ,c ). For this EP , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to employment and coastal infrastructure. A large spill could cause economic impacts in several ways: it could result in extensive fishery closures that put fishermen out of work; it could result in temporary employment as part of the response effort; it could result in adverse publicity that affects employment in coastal recreation and tourism industries; and it could result in another suspension of OCS drilling activities, including service and support operations that are an importan t part of local economies.

In addition to the analys e s presented by MMS (2007b ) and BOEM (201 2 b ), a recent study explored the economic impacts of the Macondo spill on oil and gas industry employment due to suspension of deepwater drilling (Inter

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

over a six

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

- Agency Economic Report, 2010)

.



### C.8.4 Recreation and Touris m

BOEM has reexamined the analys e s for recreation and tourism presented in MMS (2007b) based

on additional information and in consideration of the Macondo oil spill event. N o new information was found that would alter the potential impact s on recreation a nd tourism ( BOEM, 2012c ).

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

- BSEE

- G01 will m inimize the chance of trash or debris being lost overboard from the drilling rig and subsequently washing up on beaches. Potential i mpacts of a small fuel spill and a large oil spill (WCD) are addressed below.



### Impacts of a Small Fuel Spill

The probability of a fuel spill will be minimized by Murphy ’s preventative measures during routine operations including fuel transfer. In the unlikely event of a spill, implementation of Murphy ’s OSRP will potentially help mitigate and red uce the potential for impacts. 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 recreatio nal or tourism activities occurring in the lease area, and as explained in
Section A.9.2 , a small fuel spill would not be expected to make landfall or reach coastal waters prior to breaking up.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 6 6 

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

Potential impacts of an oil spill on recreation and tourism are discussed in recent EISs (MMS, 2007b ; BOEM, 2012b ). For this EP , there are no unique site

- specific issues with respect to these impacts.

Impacts on recreation and tourism would vary depending on the duration of the spi ll and its fate including the effectiveness of response measures. A large spill that reached coastal waters and shorelines could adversely affect recreation and tourism by contaminating beaches and wetlands, resulting in negative publicity that encourages people to stay away. Based on the
revised OSRA modeling ( BOEM, 2012c ) as summarized in Section A.9.3 ( Table 3 )

, Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes, Louisiana ; Mobile and Baldwin Counties, Alabama ; and Jackson, Mississippi

, are the areas most likely to be contacted by a spill. However, other shorelines from Cameron, Texas to Dade, Florida could also be contacted to a lesser extent . These areas include popular beaches and recreational sites along the coast. It is not known whether other, more
distant c oastal areas could be affected if an oil spill persisted for more than 120 days.

In addition to the analysis presented by MMS (2007b), 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 tourism across the Gulf Coast over a three

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

.



### C.8.5 Land Use

Land use along the n orthern Gulf C oast is discussed in recent lease sale EISs (MMS, 2007b ; BOEM, 2012b ,c ). There are no routine IPFs potential ly affecting land use. The project will use existing onshore support facilities in Louisiana . The land use at the existing shorebas e sites is industrial. The project will not involve any new construction or changes to existing land use and, therefore, will not have any impacts. Levels of boat and helicopter traffic, as well as demand for goods and services including scarce coastal r esources, will represent a small fraction of the level of activity occurring at the shorebase s

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



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

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



### C.8.6 Other Marine Uses

The lease area is not located within any USCG

- designated fairway or shipping lane. The proposed surface disturbances in D C 178 are located within Military Warning Area s W

- 155C (Wells A and B) and EWTA

- 1 (Well C)

. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements of theDe Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 67 Military Areas stipulation, Murphy will contact the Fleet Area Control and Surveillance in order to coordinate and control the electromagnetic emissions during the proposed operations. The electromagnetic emissions section of the stipulation requires the operator and its agents to reduce and curtail the use of radio or other eq uipment emitting electromagnetic energy within

some areas. This serves to reduce the impact of oil and gas activity on the communications of military missions and reduces the possible effects of electromagnetic energy transmissions on missile testing, tra cking, and detonation.

Additionally, the location of the proposed activities are outside of the 100

- mile (160

- km) buffer
line for the drilling window area s and approximately 50 miles ( 8 0 km) east of the military
mission line. There are no other known marine uses of the lease area.

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



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

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

- designated fairway or shipping lane

. In the event of a large spill requiring numerous response vessels, coordination would be required to manage the vessel traffic for safe operations. Murphy will comply with BOEM requi rements and lease stipulations to avoid impacts on uses of the area by military vessels and aircraft.



## D. Environmental Hazards

D.1 Geologic Hazards

The site clearance survey s conducted by GEMS (201 3 ) conclude d that the wellsite s are free of any significant geological hazards a nd are suitable for the proposed activities. See Attachment H
of the EP 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 s under consideration for this project . High winds and limited visibility during a sever e storm could disrupt support activities (vessel and helicopter traffic) and make it necessary to suspend some activities on the drilling rig for safety reasons until the storm or weather event passes. In the event of a hurricane, procedures as
outlined i n the Hurricane Evacuation Plan would be adhered to.



## D.3 Currents and Waves

Metocean conditions such as sea states, wind speed, ocean currents, etc. will be continuously
monitored. Under most circumstances, physical oceanographic conditions are not expect ed to have any effect on the proposed activities. Strong currents (e.g., caused by Loop Current eddiesDe Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 68 and intrusions) and large waves were considered in the design criteria for the drilling rig s under consideration for this project . High waves during a severe storm could disrupt support activities (i.e., vessel and helicopter traffic) and make it necessary to suspend some activities on the drilling rig for safety reasons until the storm or weather event passes.



## E. Alternatives

N o formal alternatives we re evaluated in this EIA for an EP . However, various technical and operational options

, including the location of the wellsite s and the selection of a drilling unit, were considered by Murphy in developing the proposed action.



## F. Mitigation Measures

The proposed action includes numerous mitigation measures required by laws, regulations, and

BOEM lease stipulations and NTLs. The project will comply with all applicable F ederal, S tate, and local requirements concerning air pollutant emissions, discharges t o water, and solid waste disposal. All project activities will be conducted under guidance by Murphy ’s OSRP and will
include the measures described in EP Section H

.



## G. Consultation

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



## H. Preparers

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

• Carlyle Kalloo (Senior Scientist);

• Deborah Fawcett, M.S. (Project Scientist 2);

• Neal Phillips, Ph.D. (Senior Scientist);

• Keith VanGraafeiland (GIS/Remote Sensing Spe cialist);

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

• Pamela Jones (Technical Editor).De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 69 

## I. References

Anderson, C.M. and R.P. LaBelle. 2000. Update of comparative occurrence rates for offshore oil spills. In: Spill
Science & Technology Bulletin, Vol. 6, No. 5/6, pp. 303

- 321. Elsevier Sc ience Ltd.,

PII: S1353

- 2561(01) 00049

- 4. U.S. Minerals Management Service, Herndon, VA. Antonio, F.J., R.S. Mendes, and S.M. Thomaz. 2011. Identifying and modeling patterns of tetrapod verte brate mortality rates in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Aquatic Toxicology 105(1

- 2):177

- 179. Aten, L.E. 1983. Indians of the upper Texas coast. New York, NY: Academic Press. 370 pp. Barkuloo, J.M. 1988. Report on the conservation status of the Gulf o f Mexico sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish Wildlif e 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: Narra tive 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. Brooke, S., and W.W. Schroeder. 2007. State of deep coral ecosystems in the Gulf of Mexico region: Texas to the Florida Straits, pp. 271

- 306. In: S.E. Lumsden, T.F. Hourigan, A.W. Bruckner, and G. Dorr (eds.)

, The State of Deep Coral Ecosystems of the United States. NOAA Tech. Memo. CRCP

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

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

- 030. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012b

. Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2012

- 2017. Western Planning Area Lease Sales 229, 233, 238 , 246

, and 248. Central Planning Area Lease Sales 227, 231, 235, 241

, and 247. Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2012

- 019. 3 vol ume s.
Bu reau of Ocean Energy Management

. 2012 c

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

- 058. Accessed 19 January 2012. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012 d

. Archaeology Survey Blocks. Website accessed on 22 January 2013

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

- Stewardship/Archaeology/surveyblocks

- pdf.aspx Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 201 3a

. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Spills Statistics and

Summaries 1996

- 20 11

. W ebsite accessed 7 March 2013. http://www.boem.gov/Environmental

Stewardship/Environmental

- Assessment/Oil

- Spill

- Modeling/spills

- 1996

- 2011.aspx Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2013 b

. Grid EA and ROV survey status report. Status of deepwater grids as of February 12, 2010. Website accessed on 20 February 2013. http://www.data.boem.gov/homepg/data_center/other/ea_grid/ea_grid.asp Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 2010. Federal & Academic Scientists Return from Deep

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

- sea Corals. Online news
dated 4 November 2010. Website accessed 4 February 201 3

. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20101104_coralcruise.html Camilli, R., C.M. Reddy, D.R. Yoerger, B.A.S. Van Mooy, M.V. Jakuba, J.C. Kinsey, C.P. Mc Intyre, S.P. Sylva, a nd

J.V. Maloney. 2010. Tracking hydrocarbon plume transport and biodegradation at Deepwater Horizon

. Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1195223.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 70 Carmichael, R.H., W.M. Graham, A. Aven, G.Worthy, and S. Howden. 2012. Were multiple s tress ors a ‘perfect storm’ for northern Gulf of Mexico bottlenose dolphins ( Tursiops truncatus ) in 2011? PLoS ONE 7(7):

e41155. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041155. http:// www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041155 Carr, A. 1996. Suwannee River sturgeon, pp. 73

- 83. In: M.H. Carr (ed.), A Naturalist in Florida. Yale University
Press, New Haven, CT.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2010 a . Deepwater Horizon response: NIOSH ongoing health hazard
evaluation. Website accessed 22 January 2013 , updated 24 August 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/oilspillres ponse/gulfspillhhe.html Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2010b. Health Hazard Evaluation of Deepwater Horizon Response Workers, HETA 2010

- 0115. Interim Report #6A. 11 pp. Website accessed 4 September 2012. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/pdfs/interim_report_6.pdf Clapp, R.B., R.C. Banks, D. Morgan

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

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

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

- 83/30. 853 pp. Coastal Environments, Inc. 1977. Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continent al Shelf. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Interagency Archaeological Services, Baton Rouge, LA. 4 vol umes

. Coastal Environments, Inc. 1982. Sedimentary Studies of Prehistoric Archaeological Sites. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Division of State Plans and Grants, Baton Rouge, LA. Collard, S.B. and C. Way. 1997. Chapter 5

– The biological environment. In: Science Applica tions International Corporation (ed.), Northeastern Gulf of Mexico C oastal and M arine E cosystem P rogram: Data S earch and

S ynthesis; Synthesis R eport. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division and Minerals Manag ement Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. USGS/BRD/CR

- 1997

- 0005. OCS Study MMS 96

- 0014. 313 pp. Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1997. Characterization and trends of recreational and commercial fishing from the Florida panhandle. U .S. Department of Interior, Minerals Managem ent Service, Gulf of Mexico

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. USGS/BRD/CR

- 1997

- 0001 and OCS Study MMS 97

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

MMS 2002

- 078. Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2004. Final Report: Gulf of Mexico C omprehensive S ynthetic B ased M uds

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

- 045.

Cruz

- Kaegi, M.E. 1998. Latitudinal variations in biomass and metabolism of benth ic infaunal communities.
Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. CSA International, Inc. 2007. Characterization of northern Gulf of Mexic o deepwater hard

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

- 044. 169 pp. + app.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 71 Davis, R.W. and G.S. Fargion. 1996. Distribution and abundance of cetaceans in the north

- central and western Gulf of Mexico: Final report. U.S. Dep artmen t of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. Website accessed 4 February 201 3

. Vo l I. http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3296.pdf
Vol. II. http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3 297.pdf
Vol. III. http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3301.pdf Davis, R.W., J.G. Ortega

- Ortiz, C.A. Ribic, W.E. Evans, D.C. Biggs, P.H. Ressler, J.H. Wormuth, R.R. Leben, K.D. Mullin, and B. Würsig. 2000. Cetacean habitat in the northern Gulf of Mexico, pp. 217

- 2 53. In: R.W. Davis,

W.E. Evans, and B. Würsig (eds.), Cetaceans, sea turtles, and seabirds in the northern Gulf of Mexico: Distribution, abundance and habitat associa tions. 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 p p. Webs ite accessed 4 September 2012. http://www.tamug.edu/marb/davisdocs/Deep

- Sea%20Res%202001%20Davis%20etal.pdf Ditty, J.G. 1986. Ichthyoplankton in neretic wa ters 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 Me xico above 26°00’N. Fish. Bull. 86:811

- 823. Earthjustice. 2011. Comments on Shell Exploration Plan S

- 7445 , Document ID: BOEM

- 2011

- 0006

- 0001,
Docket ID: BOEM

- 2011

- 0006, 6 February 2011 . 18 pp. Efroymson, R.A., W.H. Rose, S. Nemeth, and G.W. Suter II. 2 000. E cological risk assessment framework for low altitude overflights by fixed

- wing and rotary

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

- 2000/289: ES

- 5048. Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1992. Birds in Jeopardy: The Imperiled and Extinct Birds of the
United States and Canada, including Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA. 261 pp.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 201 2 . Florida's endangered species and threatened species

. Webs ite accessed 22 January 201 3

. http://myfwc.com/media/1515251/Threatened_Endangered_Species.pdf
Flower Garden Banks National Mari ne Sanctuary. 2011. Cnidarian species. Website a ccessed 4 September 2012, updated 22 August 2012

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

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

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

- 81/36. Gallaway, B. (ed.). 1988. Northern Gulf of Mexico continental slope study, final report: Year 4. Volume II: Synthesis r eport. Final report submitted to the Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, LA.

Contract No. 14

- 12

- 0001

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

- 1988

. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OC S Region, New Orleans, LA.

OCS Study MMS 2003

- 072. Geoscience Earth & Marine Services, Inc. 2013. Geologic, stratigraphic and archaeological assessment. Block178 (OCS

- G

- 25850) De Soto Canyon area, Gulf of Mexico. Project No. 1212

- 2181b. Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1987. Effects of offshore oil and gas development on marine mammals and t urtles, pp. 587

- 617. In: D.F. Boesch and N.N. Rabalais (eds.), Long Term Environmental Effects of Offshore Oil and Gas Development. Elsevier Applied Science Publ. Ltd., London and New York. Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1990. Sea M ammals and O il: C o nfronting the R isks. Academic Press, San Diego.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 72 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 2005. Generic A mendment N umber 3 for a ddressing E ssential F ish

H abitat R equirements, H abitat A reas of P articular C oncern, and a dverse e ffects of f ishing in the f o llowing

F ishery M anagement P lans of the Gulf of Mexico: S hrimp fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States waters red drum fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, reef fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico coastal migratory pelagic resources (mackerels) in the Gulf o f Mexico and South Atlantic, stone crab fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, spiny lobster in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, coral and coral reefs of the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, FL. Hazen, T.C., E.A. Dubinsky, T .Z. DeSantis, G.L. Andersen, Y.M. Piceno, N. Singh, J.K. Jansson, A. Probst, S.E. Borglin, J.L. Fortney, W.T. Stringfellow, M. Bill, M.S. Conrad, L.M. Tom, K.L. Chavarria, T.R. Alus i, R. Lamendella,

D.C. Joyner, C. Spier, J. Baelum, M. Auer, M.L. Zemla, R. Chakraborty, E.L. S onnenthal, P. D’haeseleer,

H.N. Holman, S. Osman, Z. Lu, J.D. Van Nostrand, Y. Deng, J. Zhou, and O.U. Mason. 2010. Deep

- sea oil plume enriches indigenous oil

- degrading bacteria. Science DOI: 10.1126/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 turtles, and seabirds in the northern Gulf of Mexico: Distribution, abundance and habitat associations. Volume II: Technical report. U.S. G eological 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 a ggregating device (FAD) design and developm ent in Hawaii. Bull. Mar.

Sci. 55(2

- 3):651

- 666. Holand, P. 1997. Offshore Blowouts: Causes and Control. Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, TX. ISBN 0884155145. Holland, K.R., R.W. Brill, and R.K.C. Chang. 1990. Horizontal and vertical movements of yellowfin and bigeye tuna associated with fish aggregating devices. Fish. Bull. 88:493

- 507.

IEM. 2010. A Study of the Economic Impact of the Deepwater Horizon Oil S pill. Prepared for Greater

New Orleans, In c. October 2010. Website accessed 4 February 201 3

. http://gnoinc.org/wp

- content/uploads/Economic_Impact_Study_Part_I_

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

- content/uploads/Economic_Impact_Study_Part_II_

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

- content/uploads/Economic_Impact_Study_Part_III_

- _Public_Perception_FINAL.pdf

Inter

- Agency Economic Report. 2010. Estimating the effects of the deepwater drilling moratorium on the Gulf coast economy. Septe mber 2010. Website accessed 4 September 2012. http://www.esa.doc.gov/Reports/estimating

- economic

- effects

- deepwater

- drilling

- moratori um

- gulf

- coast

economy 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, Switzer land. 104 pp. International Association of Oil & Gas Producers. 2010. Risk assessment data directory: Blowout frequencies. IAGP Report No. 434

- 2. March 2010. Website accessed 4 September 2012

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

- 02.pdf Ji, Z

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

- Spill Risk Analysis: Contingency Planning Statistics for Gulf of Mexico OCS Activities. U.S. Department of the Interior, Miner als Management Service,

G ulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS Report MMS 2004

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

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

P. Miller, J. Ortega

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

- 006. 341 pp. Johnsgard , P.A. 1990. Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons of North America; Biology and Natural History. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington. 403 pp. Joint Analysis Group. 2010a. Joint Analysis Group (JAG) r eview of p reliminary d ata to e xamine s ubsurface oil in
th e vicinity of MC252#1 May 19 to June 19, 2010. Website accessed 4 September 2012

. http://gomex.erma.noaa.gov/layerfiles/7229/files/JAG_Data_Report _2_Subsurface%20Oil_Final.pdf Joint Analysis Group. 2010b. Joint Analysis Group (JAG) r eview of R/V Brooks McCall d ata to e xamine s ubsurface

o il. Website accessed 4 February 201 3

. http://www.noaa.gov/sciencemissions/PDFs/JAG_Report_1_BrooksMcCall_Final_June20.pdfDe Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 73 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 4 September 2012

. http://www.noaa.gov/sciencemissions/PDFs/JAG_Oxygen_Report%20%28FINAL%20090410%29.pdf
Kennicutt, M.C. I I. 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, M inerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000

- 049. 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 clinicopathologic effects of cru de 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,

pp. 387

- 409. In: Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick (eds.), The Biology of Se a 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, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2002

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

. Assessing the long

- term effects of the BP Deepwater Horizon o il s pill on

m arine m ammals in the Gulf of Mexico: A statement of research needs

. Website accessed 22 January 2013

. http://www.mmc.gov/reports/workshop/pdf/longterm_effects_bp_oilspil.pdf Minerals Management Service. 2000. Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Operations and Act ivities: 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. 2003. Exploration Activities in the Eastern Sale Area: Ea stern Planning Area, Gulf
of Mexico OCS. Programmatic Environmental Assessment. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2003

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

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

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

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

Mex ico OCS Region. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007

- 018. April 2007. Minerals Management Service. 2009a. NTL No. 2009

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

- G40: Deepw ater Benthic Communities. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexi co OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks. 2011. Mississippi’s species of greatest conservation need by ecoregion. Website accessed 4 February 201 3; begins on p. 375

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

- Mississippi. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 18:798

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

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

– Biological Opinion.
Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Activities: Five

- Year Leasing Plan for Western and Central Planning Areas

2007

- 2012. 29 J une 2007. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009. Final Amendment 1 to the Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan Essential Fish Habitat. Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Sil ver Spring, MD. June 2009. Website accessed 4 September 2012

. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/EFH/Final/FEIS_Amendment_Total.pdfDe Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 74 National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010 a

. Final Recovery Plan for the Sperm Whale ( Physeter macrocephalus ).
Website accessed 4 September 2012

. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/final_sper m_whale_recovery_plan_21dec.pdf
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010 b . Gulf sturgeon ( Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi ). Website accessed

4 September 2012, updated 14 March 2012

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

. Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill: size and percent coverage of fishing area closures due to BP oil spill. Website accessed 4 February 201 3. http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/deepwater_horizon/size_percent_closure/index.html National Marine Fisheries Service. 2013. Draft marine mammal stock assessment reports (SARs). Updated January 23, 2013. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/draft.htm National Marine Fisheries Service , U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

, and SEMARNAT. 201 1 . Bi

- National Recovery Plan for the Kemp‘s Ridle y Sea Turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii ), Second Revision. National Marine Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, Maryland. Website accessed 4 February 201 3

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

- 5,000 gallons). NOAA Scientific Support Team, Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Seattle, Washington. 2 pp. National Park Service . 2010. Breton Wilderness 300 km Radius. Website accessed 4 February 201 3

. http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/Permits/ARIS/docs/bretMap300.pdf
National Research Council. 1983. Drilling Discharges in the Marine Environment. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 180 pp.
National Research Counci l . 2003. Oil in the Sea III: Input s, Fates, and Effects. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 182 pp. + app. Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij . 2007. Green light to birds: Investigation into the effect of bird

- friendly lighting. Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij, Assen, The Nethe rlands. Neff, J.M. 1987. Biological effects of drilling fluids, drill cuttings and produced waters, pp. 469

- 538.

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

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

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

- based drilling

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

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

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

- 064.

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

- sea and sub

- surface oil and dispersion detection: Sampling and m onitoring. Operational Science Advisory Team (OSAT) Unified Area Command.

131 pp. OSPAR Commission. 2012. Report of the OSPAR Workshop on research into possible effects of regular platform lighting on specific bird populations.
Oxford Economics. 2010. Potential impact of the Gulf oil spill on tourism. Report prepared for the U.S. Travel

Association. Website accessed 4 September 2012. http://www.ustravel.org/sites/default/files/page/2009/11/Gulf_Oil_Spill_Analysis_Oxford_Economics_710.pdfDe Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 75 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 nor th

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

MMS 96

- 0027. 357 pp. Pearson, C.E., D.B. Kelley, R.A. Weinstein, and S.W. Gagliano. 1986. Archaeological investigations on the Outer Continental Shelf: A study within the Sabine River valley, offshore Louisian a and Texas

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

- 0119. 314 pp. Poot, 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 22 January 2013

. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art47/ Powers, K. 1987. Seabirds, pp. 194

- 201. In: J.D. Milliman and W.R. Wr ight (eds.), The Marine Environment of the U.S. Atlantic Continental Slope and Rise. Jones and Bartlett Publ., I nc. Boston/Woods Hole, MA. 275 pp. Rathbun, G.B. 1988. Fixed

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

- 7 5. 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
relatio n to hydrographic features of the Loop Current boundary in the Gulf of Mexico. Rapp. P.

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

- 176. Richards, W.J., M.F. McGowan, T. Leming, J.T. Lamkin, and S. Kelley. 1993. Larv al 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 Protect 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 Be nthic Ecology Study. Final Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Managem ent Service, Gulf of Mexico

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2009

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

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2005

- 009. 348 pp. Salmon, M. and J. Wyneken. 1990. Do swimming loggerh ead sea turtles ( Caretta caretta ) use light cues for offshore orientation? Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology 17(4):233

- 246.
Share the Beach. 2010. Nesting season statistics. Website accessed 4 September 2012. http://www.alabamaseaturtles.com/nesting

- season

- statistics/ Smultea, M.A., J.R. Mobley, Jr., D. Fertl, and G.L. Fulling. 2008. An unusual reaction and other observations of sperm whales near fixed wing aircraf t. 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 4 September 2012. http://www.asquifyde.es/uploads/documentos/Health

- Effects

- of

- the

- Gulf

- Oil

- Spill.pdf State of Louisiana, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. 2013. Species by parish list. http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/wildlife/species

- parish

list?order=field_com_name_value&sort=asc&tid=All&type_1=All Accessed February 25, 2013. Sulak, K.J. and J.P. Clugston. 1998. Early life history stages of G ulf sturgeon in the S uwannee River, Florida.

Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 127:758

- 771. Tuxbury, S.M. and M. Salmon. 2005. Competitive interactions between artificial lighting and n atural cues during seafinding by hatchling marine turtles. Biol. Conserv. 121: 311

- 316. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 201 2 . The green book nonattainment areas for criteria pollutants. http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Florida manatee recovery plan ( Trichechus manatus latirostris ), Third Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 20 03. Recovery plan for the Great Lakes Piping Plover ( Charadrius melodus ). Fort Snelling, Minnesota. September 2003.De Soto Canyon Block 178 March 2013 Environmental Impact Analysis for Initial Exploration Plan Page 76 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. International Recovery Plan: Whooping Crane ( Grus americana ), Third Revision. Albuquerque, New M exico. March 2007. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010a. All about piping plovers. Website accessed 4 February 201 3

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

. Beac h Nesting Birds of the Gulf

. Website accessed 4 February 201 3

. http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/DHBirdsOfTheGulf.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010 c . Species inform ation, threatened and endangered animals and plants.
Website accessed 4 February 2013

. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010d. Weekly bird impact data and consolidated wildlife reports. Website
accessed 4 February 2013

. http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/collectionreports.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010 e . Effects of oil on wildlife and habitat. Website accessed 4 February 2013

. http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/DHJICFWSOilImpactsWildlifeFactSheet.pdf

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 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 4 February 2013

. http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/Bird%20Data%20Species%20Spreadsheet%2005122011.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Co mmission. 1995. Gulf Sturgeon Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 170 pp. Website accessed 4 September 2012. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/sturgeon_gulf.pdf Wakeford, A. 2001. State of Florida conservation plan for Gulf sturgeon ( Acipencer oxyrinchus desotoi ).
Florida Marine Research Institute Technical Report TR

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

- Foley, and P.E. Rosel (eds.). 2012. U.S. At lantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine
Mammal Stock Assessments

- 2011. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS NE 221. 330 pp. http://nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm221/tm221.pdf 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 4 September 2012. http://r epository.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/4927 White, H.K., P. Hsing, W. Cho, T.M. Shank, E.E. Cordes, A.M. Quattrini, R.K. Nelson, R. Camilli, A.W.J. Demopoulous, C.R. German, J.M. Brooks, H.H. Roberts, W. Shedd, C.M. Reddy, and C.R. Fisher. 2012. Impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on a deep

- water coral community in the Gulf of Mexico

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

. Website acces sed

2 2 January 2013

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

2830

- 43f8

- 9d08

- 8eca0efd27e2 Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership . 2010. About whooping cr anes and their recovery. Website accessed

4 February 2013. http://www.bringbackthecranes.org/technicaldatabase/index.html#RecoveryReports Wiese, F.K., W.A. Montevecchi, G.K. Davoren, F. Huettmann, A.W. Diamond, and J. Linke. 2001. Seabirds at risk around offshore oil platforms in the north

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

- 1,290. Wilson, J. 2003. Manatees in Louisiana. Louisiana Marine Education Resources

. July/August 2003. 7 pp. Website
accessed 4 September 2012

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

- 328.
In: J.R. Clemmons and R. Buchholz (eds.), Behavioral Approaches to Conservation in the Wild. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. Würsig, B., S.K. Lynn, T.A. Jefferso n, 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.